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: 811-3618

METROPOLITAN SERIES FUND

(Exact name of registrant as specified in charter)

One Financial Center

Boston, MA 02111

(Address of principal executive offices)(Zip code)

(Name and Address of Agent for Service)	Copy to:
Michael P. Lawlor c/o MetLife Advisers, LLC One Financial Center Boston, MA 02111	Brian McCabe, Esq. Ropes & Gray LLP Prudential Tower 800 Boylston Street Boston MA, 02199

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: 617-578-2000

Date of fiscal year end: December 31

Date of reporting period: January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016

Item 1: Report to Shareholders.

The following is a copy of the report transmitted to stockholders pursuant to Rule 30e-1 under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”):

2

Metropolitan Series Fund

Baillie Gifford International Stock Portfolio

Managed by Baillie Gifford Overseas Limited

Portfolio Manager Commentary*

PERFORMANCE

For the 12 months ended December 31, 2016, the Class A, B, and E shares of the Baillie Gifford International Stock Portfolio returned 5.38%, 5.05%, and 5.24%, respectively. The Portfolio’s benchmark, the MSCI All Country World ex-U.S. Index¹, returned 4.50%.

MARKET ENVIRONMENT / CONDITIONS

International equity markets were in positive territory over 2016 but were surpassed by North American markets, notably Canada which narrowly outstripped the U.S. to be the strongest of the larger equity markets over 2016. Emerging Markets were particularly strong though country returns were mixed. Stronger markets included those of Latin America, for example Brazil, which rebounded significantly over the year. The Russian market also fared better as commodity markets recovered and steps to lower oil production were agreed upon. The negative Emerging Markets over the year included Mexico, Turkey, and China’s Shanghai composite. Mexico finds itself in the unenviable position of being the main target of President-Elect Trump’s intentions to reduce the extent of off-shoring. News of his election weakened the peso considerably relative to an already strong U.S. dollar. In Turkey, political turmoil is making investors cautious. The Erdogan regime continues to exert pressure on its opposition, is embroiled in the Syrian War, and the country has fallen prey to several vicious terror attacks.

China is a significant market for the Portfolio. The weak Chinese market largely reflects concerns about the strength of that economy, most notably its financial system where signs of stress have been apparent. To some extent, this pattern reflects the normal maturation of a growing economy but the continuing transition to a freer capital market will not be painless (the Renminbi joined the International Monetary Fund’s Special Drawing Rights regime during the year) and questionable lending practices abound. The stocks that the Portfolio holds in China are largely focused on technology and individual consumption with none under significant state control or directly exposed to the Financials sector.

Developed markets beyond North America were weaker (though mainly positive) than those of the Emerging regions, though it is perhaps surprising that the main U.K. reference index, the Financial Times Stock Exchange 100 (the “FTSE 100”), was not weaker, given the vote to leave the European Union (“Brexit”). The worst performing market was Italy where a collapsing bank and a failed referendum to amend the constitution weighed on sentiment. European growth remains muted overall and Italy, along with the other ‘periphery’ countries, is struggling to generate growth and jobs. With regard to the U.K. Brexit vote, the most significant effect to date has been on the value of sterling which has depreciated significantly relative to the U.S. dollar. As the U.K. market is significantly exposed to overseas earnings and within that, dollar earners, the strength of the FTSE 100 in the wake of the vote cannot be interpreted as unalloyed market approval of the vote outcome, which was unexpected. Leaving the European Union is not a quick divorce and the terms that the U.K. will leave on, particularly with regard to remaining a member of the unified trade zone, the European Single Market, remain unknown.

PORTFOLIO REVIEW / PERIOD END POSITIONING

The Portfolio is constructed by means of selecting individual stocks rather than making decisions based on economic factors and the results of that stock selection dominated returns through the year, with asset allocation and currency impacts a residual effect. The Portfolio outperformed its benchmark index over the year, perhaps a pleasant surprise given that the backdrop included such unexpected (at least according to bookmakers and pollsters) events as the U.K. Brexit vote and a Trump victory in the U.S. election.

Expectations, politics and markets rarely marry to produce the ‘predictable’ outcome and the extent to which markets rallied strongly in the immediate wake of Donald Trump’s election was a surprise which extended beyond the U.S to an extent. In anticipation of U.S. fiscal stimulus and less harsh regulation, the rally favored cyclical and financial stocks, a ‘value’ rally, and it is worth bearing in mind that the Portfolio favors growth stocks and will tend to underperform such rallies. Consequently, the last quarter of 2016 was particularly challenging for the Portfolio’s performance, though the overall result for the year outperformed the benchmark.

Emerging market stock selection was the standout regional contributor, with U.K. and European stock selection also contributing strongly. Whilst stock selection within Developed Asia detracted from performance, there were no individual stocks in the region that detracted significantly. At the sector level, Technology Hardware & Equipment and Semiconductors dominated the positive stock contributors, with Energy and Materials reducing the positive outperformance number. It is worth noting that the Energy and Materials stock selection contribution was minimal, but the oil price doubling between the middle of February and year end, from a $26 low to finish above $53, had an ‘allocation’ impact on performance, given the Portfolio’s underweight position to Energy. As bottom up stockpickers, we invest in stocks on their specific merits and this can lead us to have significant under-and over-weights relative to the benchmark which periodically have a significant effect on performance. Over the long run, we anticipate that returns from stock picking will outweigh these factors. Indeed, the small negative allocation impact of being underweight in the largely cyclical Materials sector was outweighed by mining company Rio Tinto (U.K.), being one of the top stock contributors over the year.

The largest individual stock contribution came from ARM Holdings (U.K.), which was sold during the period. ARM Holdings contributed significantly to performance following a successful bid by Softbank (Japan) to acquire the company. Whilst helpful to 2016 performance, and on the face of it a healthy premium, we voted against the bid offer. ARM, bought in 2012, was a relatively new holding given our investment time horizon (many stocks in the Portfolio have been held for over a decade) and we were disappointed

MSF-1

Metropolitan Series Fund

Baillie Gifford International Stock Portfolio

Managed by Baillie Gifford Overseas Limited

Portfolio Manager Commentary*—(Continued)

that the premium for the deal did not seem to fully reflect our longer term expectations for the company’s growth. The proceeds of the bid were re-invested in Square Enix (Japan), a gaming company, and Ctrip.com International (China), the dominant Chinese online travel agent. TSMC (Taiwan) and Samsung Electronics (South Korea) also contributed strongly to performance. Both are long term holdings and at period end remained significant positions within the Portfolio.

Despite U.K. stock selection being an overall contributor, one holding that did detract from performance was Capita plc (U.K). Capita has been a Portfolio holding since inception and has contributed strongly in the past. We have kept up regular meetings with management to understand the challenges currently troubling the business, and we are aware that turning the ship around may take some time. As of year-end, the bottom up fundamentals pointed us to continue holding the stock.

A number of new holdings were added to the Portfolio during the course of 2016. These included Just Eat (U.K.), an online food ordering platform, AIA (Hong Kong), a major Asian diversified insurance company and Pandora (Denmark), a branded jewellery retailer. These new holdings were funded by sales made for fundamental reasons such as that of Treasury Wine Estates (Australia), a wine producer, and Embraer (Brazil), the short range jet manufacturer, but also by the proceeds of sales made due to acquisition activity such as oil and gas company BG Group (U.K.) and technology company ARM Holdings.

The regional, sector, and industry positioning of the Portfolio are the product of the stock decisions made by the Portfolio managers rather than expressed views on international markets. At period end, the Portfolio was relatively balanced at a regional level in comparison to the Index, with an underweight to Japan being the most marked position at the close of the year in country terms, though the overweight to the U.K. did decrease over the year, largely thanks to the effects of holdings falling prey to acquisition.

In sector terms, deviations from the benchmark are more marked but did not change significantly over the year. As at the start of 2016, at year end the Portfolio remained underweight in Health Care, Financials, Telecommunication Services, and Energy. However, the degree of underweight to the Energy sector expanded following the acquisition of holding BG Group by Shell (U.K.). At year end, Energy remained the most underweight sector for the Portfolio. The most significant overweights were the Industrials, Information Technology, and Consumer Discretionary sectors.

At period end, in industry terms, the most significant overweights for the Portfolio relative to the benchmark were in Internet, Software & Services, Machinery, and Capital Markets while we retained a significant underweight in Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels, Banks, and Pharmaceuticals.

Angus Franklin

Jonathan Bates

Gerald Smith

Portfolio Managers

Baillie Gifford Overseas Limited

* 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 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.

MSF-2

Metropolitan Series Fund

Baillie Gifford International Stock Portfolio

A $10,000 INVESTMENT COMPARED TO THE MSCI ALL COUNTRY WORLD EX-U.S. INDEX

AVERAGE ANNUAL RETURNS (%) (FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2016)

	1 Year		5 Year		10 Year
Baillie Gifford International Stock Portfolio
Class A		5.38		6.69		-1.11
Class B		5.05		6.42		-1.36
Class E		5.24		6.54		-1.25
MSCI All Country World ex-U.S. Index		4.50		5.00		0.96

¹ The MSCI All Country World 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.

Portfolio performance is calculated including reinvestment of all income and capital gain distributions. Performance numbers are net of all Portfolio expenses but do not include any insurance, sales, separate account or administrative charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts or any additional expenses that participants may bear relating to the operations of their plans. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower. The performance of any index referenced above has not been adjusted for ongoing management, distribution and operating expenses, and sales charges applicable to mutual fund investments. Direct investment in any index is not possible. The performance of Class A shares, as set forth in the line graph above, will differ from that of other classes because of the difference in expenses paid by policyholders investing in the different share classes.

This information represents past performance and is not indicative of future results. Investment return and principal value may fluctuate so that shares, upon redemption, may be worth more or less than the original cost.

PORTFOLIO COMPOSITION AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2016

Top Holdings

	% of Net Assets
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., Ltd.		4.2
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.		3.7
Naspers, Ltd.- N Shares		2.9
Nestle S.A.		2.6
Ryanair Holdings plc(ADR)		2.3
Svenska Handelsbanken AB- A Shares		2.1
Atlas Copco AB- B Shares		2.1
Japan Exchange Group, Inc.		2.0
MercadoLibre, Inc.		1.9
Industria de Diseno Textil S.A.		1.8

Top Countries

	% of Net Assets
Japan		13.6
United Kingdom		13.4
Ireland		6.8
Germany		5.7
Switzerland		5.1
Taiwan		5.1
Sweden		4.9
Canada		4.8
South Korea		4.8
Denmark		3.7

MSF-3

Metropolitan Series Fund

Baillie Gifford International Stock 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, 2016 through December 31, 2016.

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.

Baillie Gifford International Stock Portfolio		Annualized Expense Ratio			Beginning Account Value July 1, 2016		Ending Account Value December 31, 2016		Expenses Paid During Period** July 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016
Class A(a)	Actual		0.72	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,051.20	$	3.71
	Hypothetical*		0.72	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,021.52	$	3.66
Class B(a)	Actual		0.97	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,049.80	$	5.00
	Hypothetical*		0.97	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,020.26	$	4.93
Class E(a)	Actual		0.87	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,050.60	$	4.48
	Hypothetical*		0.87	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,020.76	$	4.42

* 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 366 (to reflect the one-half year period).

^(a) The annualized expense ratio shown reflects the impact of the management fee waiver as described in Note 5 of the Notes to Financial Statements.

MSF-4

Metropolitan Series Fund

Baillie Gifford International Stock Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—98.4% of Net Assets

Security Description	Shares		Value
Argentina—1.9%
MercadoLibre, Inc.		198,915	$	31,058,588
Australia—2.5%
Brambles, Ltd.		2,033,222		18,136,625
Cochlear, Ltd.		202,136		17,844,318
Seek, Ltd.		530,960		5,685,816
				41,666,759
Brazil—0.8%
Itau Unibanco Holding S.A. (ADR)		1,354,813		13,927,478
Canada—4.8%
Constellation Software, Inc.		48,139		21,875,073
Fairfax Financial Holdings, Ltd.		58,827		28,413,443
Restaurant Brands International, Inc.		336,536		16,029,105
Ritchie Bros. Auctioneers, Inc.		399,424		13,580,416
				79,898,037
China—3.2%
Alibaba Group Holding, Ltd. (ADR) (a)		167,401		14,699,482
Baidu, Inc. (ADR) (a)		138,005		22,689,402
Ctrip.com International, Ltd. (ADR) (a)		376,514		15,060,560
				52,449,444
Denmark—3.7%
DSV A/S		435,546		19,376,786
Novo Nordisk A/S - Class B		509,394		18,297,177
Novozymes A/S - B Shares		380,479		13,094,771
Pandora A/S		78,842		10,297,716
				61,066,450
Finland—2.1%
Kone Oyj - Class B		410,585		18,394,443
Sampo Oyj - A Shares		345,104		15,432,102
				33,826,545
France—3.1%
Bureau Veritas S.A.		338,709		6,562,530
Edenred S.A.		481,370		9,539,660
Essilor International S.A.		132,777		15,000,528
Legrand S.A.		354,259		20,062,512
				51,165,230
Germany—5.7%
Brenntag AG		266,377		14,761,010
Continental AG		72,769		14,165,532
Deutsche Boerse AG (a)		338,807		27,601,984
MTU Aero Engines AG		112,440		12,972,251
SAP SE		285,601		24,960,140
				94,460,917
Hong Kong—3.5%
AIA Group, Ltd.		2,498,800		13,983,947
Hang Seng Bank, Ltd.		1,024,300		18,984,037
Hong Kong—(Continued)
Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing, Ltd.		1,058,800		24,915,611
				57,883,595
Ireland—6.8%
CRH plc		757,157		26,294,989
Experian plc		1,232,795		23,862,214
James Hardie Industries plc		1,487,219		23,548,735
Ryanair Holdings plc (ADR) (a)		457,846		38,120,258
				111,826,196
Japan—13.6%
Denso Corp.		461,300		19,927,664
FANUC Corp.		96,200		16,267,483
Japan Exchange Group, Inc.		2,328,000		33,344,523
MS&AD Insurance Group Holdings, Inc.		584,400		18,055,957
Nidec Corp.		214,700		18,464,210
Rakuten, Inc.		1,990,100		19,474,193
Shimano, Inc.		140,100		21,928,885
SMC Corp.		86,300		20,536,895
Square Enix Holdings Co., Ltd.		521,800		13,373,390
Sumitomo Mitsui Trust Holdings, Inc.		625,400		22,220,574
Toyota Tsusho Corp.		816,100		21,205,004
				224,798,778
Netherlands—1.4%
Heineken Holding NV		334,621		23,268,241
Panama—1.1%
Copa Holdings S.A. - Class A		194,557		17,671,612
Peru—0.9%
Credicorp, Ltd.		88,859		14,027,282
Russia—2.1%
Magnit PJSC (GDR)		463,363		20,418,382
Yandex NV - Class A (a)		730,656		14,708,105
				35,126,487
Singapore—1.4%
United Overseas Bank, Ltd.		1,654,257		23,215,539
South Africa—2.9%
Naspers, Ltd. - N Shares		332,641		48,467,528
South Korea—4.8%
NAVER Corp.		27,276		17,469,521
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.		41,809		61,775,220
				79,244,741
Spain—2.9%
Bankinter S.A.		2,306,268		17,861,071
Industria de Diseno Textil S.A.		877,705		29,952,126
				47,813,197

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-5

Metropolitan Series Fund

Baillie Gifford International Stock Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares/ Principal Amount*		Value
Sweden—4.9%
Atlas Copco AB - B Shares		1,257,795	$	34,234,009
Svenska Handelsbanken AB - A Shares		2,551,159		35,446,294
Volvo AB - B Shares		1,007,379		11,738,139
				81,418,442
Switzerland—5.1%
Cie Financiere Richemont S.A.		252,632		16,727,224
LafargeHolcim, Ltd. (a)		288,841		15,130,934
Nestle S.A.		598,166		42,904,108
SGS S.A.		4,872		9,893,939
				84,656,205
Taiwan—5.1%
Hon Hai Precision Industry Co., Ltd.		5,782,584		14,979,776
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., Ltd.		12,402,000		69,451,662
				84,431,438
United Kingdom—13.4%
ASOS plc (a)		193,858		11,798,621
British American Tobacco plc		365,935		20,777,390
Burberry Group plc		607,159		11,191,567
Capita plc		1,638,453		10,726,704
Hargreaves Lansdown plc		888,687		13,265,740
Howden Joinery Group plc		2,255,033		10,610,887
Just Eat plc (a)		1,745,179		12,536,170
Prudential plc		1,187,170		23,679,468
Rio Tinto plc		748,060		28,486,594
Rolls-Royce Holdings plc (a)		897,310		7,379,345
St. James’s Place plc		1,197,638		14,896,626
Tullow Oil plc (a) (b)		2,138,589		8,196,545
Unilever NV		539,183		22,160,209
Wolseley plc		410,652		25,088,453
				220,794,319
United States—0.7%
Pricesmart, Inc.		147,487		12,315,164
Total Common Stocks (Cost $1,396,670,572)				1,626,478,212
Short-Term Investment—1.5%
Repurchase Agreement—1.5%
Fixed Income Clearing Corp. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/16 at 0.030% to be repurchased at $24,165,160 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $24,755,000 U.S. Treasury Note at 1.625% due 11/30/20 with a value of $24,652,762.		24,165,080		24,165,080
Total Short-Term Investments (Cost $24,165,080)				24,165,080
Securities Lending Reinvestments (c)—0.4%
Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Repurchase Agreements—0.4%
Citigroup Global Markets, Ltd. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/29/16 at 0.710% to be repurchased at $700,069 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $706,116 U.S. Treasury and Foreign Obligations with rates ranging from 1.750% - 2.750%, maturity dates ranging from 10/15/19 - 11/15/23, with a value of $714,000.		700,000		700,000
Deutsche Bank AG, London Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/16 at 0.950% to be repurchased at $400,042 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $408,360 Foreign Obligations with rates ranging from 1.750% - 2.500%, maturity dates ranging from 09/05/19 - 11/20/24, with a value of $408,002.		400,000		400,000
Repurchase Agreement dated 12/15/16 - 12/30/16 at 1.050% to be repurchased at $650,251 on 01/03/17, collateralized by various Common Stock with a value of $722,511.		650,000		650,000
Goldman Sachs & Co. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/16 at 0.460% to be repurchased at $414,121 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $2,131,040 U.S. Government Agency Obligations with rates ranging from 2.000% - 10.500%, maturity dates ranging from 03/15/17 - 09/20/65, with a value of $422,382.		414,100		414,100
Macquarie Bank, Ltd. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/27/16 at 0.580% to be repurchased at $800,090 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $791,484 U.S. Treasury Obligations with rates ranging from 0.000% - 8.750%, maturity dates ranging from 01/05/17 - 05/15/46, with a value of $816,413.		800,000		800,000
Repurchase Agreement dated 12/15/16 at 0.600% to be repurchased at $600,220 on 01/06/17, collateralized by $593,613 U.S. Treasury Obligations with rates ranging from 0.000% - 8.750%, maturity dates ranging from 01/05/17 - 05/15/46, with a value of $612,310.		600,000		600,000
Natixis Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/16 at 0.600% to be repurchased at $1,200,080 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $2,154,917 U.S. Government Agency and Treasury Obligations with rates ranging from 0.996% - 7.000%, maturity dates ranging from 01/15/20 - 12/01/46, with a value of $1,224,082.		1,200,000		1,200,000

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-6

Metropolitan Series Fund

Baillie Gifford International Stock Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Securities Lending Reinvestments (c)—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Repurchase Agreements—(Continued)
Pershing LLC Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/16 at 0.680% to be repurchased at $1,400,106 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $2,054,310 U.S. Government Agency Obligations with rates ranging from 0.625% - 11.018%, maturity dates ranging from 01/17/17 - 08/20/66, with a value of $1,428,000.		1,400,000	$	1,400,000
Societe Generale New York Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/16 at 0.500% to be repurchased at $712,840 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $661,435 U.S. Treasury Obligations with rates ranging from 0.000% - 3.500%, maturity dates ranging from 01/15/17 - 02/15/39, with a value of $727,056.		712,800		712,800
				6,876,900
Total Securities Lending Reinvestments (Cost $6,876,900)				6,876,900
Total Investments—100.3% (Cost $1,427,712,552) (d)				1,657,520,192
Other assets and liabilities (net)—(0.3)%				(5,191,306	)
Net Assets—100.0%			$	1,652,328,886

* Principal amount stated in U.S. dollars unless otherwise noted.

(a) Non-income producing security.

(b) All or a portion of the security was held on loan. As of December 31, 2016, the market value of securities loaned was $6,507,904 and the collateral received consisted of cash in the amount of $6,876,900. The cash collateral investments are disclosed in the Schedule of Investments and categorized as Securities Lending Reinvestments.

(c) Represents investment of cash collateral received from securities on loan as of December 31, 2016.

(d) As of December 31, 2016, the aggregate cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was $1,429,291,164. The aggregate unrealized appreciation and depreciation of investments were $331,573,563 and $(103,344,535), respectively, resulting in net unrealized appreciation of $228,229,028 for federal income tax purposes.

(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.

Ten Largest Industries as of December 31, 2016 (Unaudited)	% of Net Assets
Banks		8.8
Insurance		6.9
Internet Software & Services		6.9
Machinery		6.1
Capital Markets		6.0
Trading Companies & Distributors		4.3
Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment		4.2
Construction Materials		3.9
Technology Hardware, Storage & Peripherals		3.8
Software		3.7

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-7

Metropolitan Series Fund

Baillie Gifford International Stock Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Fair Value Hierarchy

Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) define 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, separately for each major category of assets and liabilities, 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, quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities 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, or other market corroborated inputs)

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 used in determining the fair value of investments and derivative financial instruments)

The inputs or methodologies used for valuing investments are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in them. Changes to the inputs or methodologies used may result in transfers between levels, which 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, 2016:

Description	Level 1		Level 2			Level 3		Total
Common Stocks
Argentina	$	31,058,588	$	—		$	—	$	31,058,588
Australia		—		41,666,759			—		41,666,759
Brazil		13,927,478		—			—		13,927,478
Canada		79,898,037		—			—		79,898,037
China		52,449,444		—			—		52,449,444
Denmark		—		61,066,450			—		61,066,450
Finland		—		33,826,545			—		33,826,545
France		—		51,165,230			—		51,165,230
Germany		—		94,460,917			—		94,460,917
Hong Kong		—		57,883,595			—		57,883,595
Ireland		38,120,258		73,705,938			—		111,826,196
Japan		—		224,798,778			—		224,798,778
Netherlands		—		23,268,241			—		23,268,241
Panama		17,671,612		—			—		17,671,612
Peru		14,027,282		—			—		14,027,282
Russia		14,708,105		20,418,382			—		35,126,487
Singapore		—		23,215,539			—		23,215,539
South Africa		—		48,467,528			—		48,467,528
South Korea		—		79,244,741			—		79,244,741
Spain		—		47,813,197			—		47,813,197
Sweden		—		81,418,442			—		81,418,442
Switzerland		—		84,656,205			—		84,656,205
Taiwan		—		84,431,438			—		84,431,438
United Kingdom		—		220,794,319			—		220,794,319
United States		12,315,164		—			—		12,315,164
Total Common Stocks		274,175,968		1,352,302,244			—		1,626,478,212
Total Short-Term Investment*		—		24,165,080			—		24,165,080
Total Securities Lending Reinvestments*		—		6,876,900			—		6,876,900
Total Investments	$	274,175,968	$	1,383,344,224		$	—	$	1,657,520,192
Collateral for Securities Loaned (Liability)	$	—	$	(6,876,900	)	$	—	$	(6,876,900	)

* See Schedule of Investments for additional detailed categorizations.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-8

Metropolitan Series Fund

Baillie Gifford International Stock Portfolio

Statement of Assets and Liabilities

December 31, 2016

Assets
Investments at value (a) (b)	$	1,657,520,192
Cash denominated in foreign currencies (c)		36
Receivable for:
Investments sold		50,869
Fund shares sold		839,013
Dividends and interest		2,491,594
Prepaid expenses		4,810
Total Assets		1,660,906,514
Liabilities
Collateral for securities loaned		6,876,900
Payables for:
Fund shares redeemed		65,912
Accrued Expenses:
Management fees		950,108
Distribution and service fees		69,713
Deferred trustees’ fees		122,614
Other expenses		492,381
Total Liabilities		8,577,628
Net Assets	$	1,652,328,886
Net Assets Consist of:
Paid in surplus	$	1,572,565,892
Undistributed net investment income		21,001,178
Accumulated net realized loss		(170,910,886	)
Unrealized appreciation on investments and foreign currency transactions		229,672,702
Net Assets	$	1,652,328,886
Net Assets
Class A	$	1,315,171,709
Class B		318,598,927
Class E		18,558,250
Capital Shares Outstanding*
Class A		130,705,413
Class B		32,165,920
Class E		1,863,355
Net Asset Value, Offering Price and Redemption Price Per Share
Class A	$	10.06
Class B		9.90
Class E		9.96

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

(a) Identified cost of investments was $1,427,712,552.

(b) Includes securities loaned at value of $6,507,904.

(c) Identified cost of cash denominated in foreign currencies was $37.

Statement of Operations

Year Ended December 31, 2016

Investment Income
Dividends (a)	$	35,635,271
Interest		4,429
Securities lending income		942,783
Other income (b)		864,354
Total investment income		37,446,837
Expenses
Management fees		13,431,329
Administration fees		54,827
Custodian and accounting fees		459,218
Distribution and service fees—Class B		817,136
Distribution and service fees—Class E		28,437
Audit and tax services		52,117
Legal		33,031
Trustees’ fees and expenses		45,247
Shareholder reporting		99,917
Insurance		11,933
Miscellaneous		114,115
Total expenses		15,147,307
Less management fee waiver		(2,031,266	)
Less broker commission recapture		(10,727	)
Net expenses		13,105,314
Net Investment Income		24,341,523
Net Realized and Unrealized Gain
Net realized gain (loss) on:
Investments		23,623,869
Foreign currency transactions		(3,116,374	)
Net realized gain		20,507,495
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on:
Investments		49,737,075
Foreign currency transactions		(49,686	)
Net change in unrealized appreciation		49,687,389
Net realized and unrealized gain		70,194,884
Net Increase in Net Assets From Operations	$	94,536,407

(a) Net of foreign withholding taxes of $3,998,890.

(b) Other income represents a non-recurring refund for overbilling of prior years’ custodian out-of-pocket fees.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-9

Metropolitan Series Fund

Baillie Gifford International Stock Portfolio

Statements of Changes in Net Assets

	Year Ended December 31, 2016			Year Ended December 31, 2015
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets:
From Operations
Net investment income	$	24,341,523		$	27,899,598
Net realized gain		20,507,495			24,113,055
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation)		49,687,389			(76,932,510	)
Increase (decrease) in net assets from operations		94,536,407			(24,919,857	)
From Distributions to Shareholders
Net investment income
Class A		(22,026,648	)		(24,534,596	)
Class B		(4,502,541	)		(5,302,305	)
Class E		(277,159	)		(338,291	)
Total distributions		(26,806,348	)		(30,175,192	)
Decrease in net assets from capital share transactions		(132,969,753	)		(127,460,178	)
Total decrease in net assets		(65,239,694	)		(182,555,227	)
Net Assets
Beginning of period		1,717,568,580			1,900,123,807
End of period	$	1,652,328,886		$	1,717,568,580
Undistributed net investment income
End of period	$	21,001,178		$	26,447,410

Other Information:

Capital Shares

Transactions in capital shares were as follows:

	Year Ended December 31, 2016						Year Ended December 31, 2015
	Shares			Value			Shares			Value
Class A
Sales		1,776,846		$	16,348,957			1,684,311		$	16,946,244
Reinvestments		2,355,791			22,026,648			2,308,052			24,534,596
Redemptions		(13,671,793	)		(139,027,979	)		(11,712,040	)		(125,786,552	)
Net decrease		(9,539,156	)	$	(100,652,374	)		(7,719,677	)	$	(84,305,712	)
Class B
Sales		1,567,775		$	14,649,867			1,943,249		$	19,197,690
Reinvestments		488,345			4,502,541			505,945			5,302,305
Redemptions		(5,044,780	)		(49,581,962	)		(6,369,573	)		(65,246,092	)
Net decrease		(2,988,660	)	$	(30,429,554	)		(3,920,379	)	$	(40,746,097	)
Class E
Sales		65,039		$	640,436			93,807		$	933,987
Reinvestments		29,899			277,159			32,126			338,291
Redemptions		(287,283	)		(2,805,420	)		(359,665	)		(3,680,647	)
Net decrease		(192,345	)	$	(1,887,825	)		(233,732	)	$	(2,408,369	)
Decrease derived from capital shares transactions				$	(132,969,753	)				$	(127,460,178	)

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-10

Metropolitan Series Fund

Baillie Gifford International Stock Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class A
	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014			2013			2012
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	9.71		$	10.07		$	10.54		$	9.28		$	7.87
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (a)		0.15	(b)		0.16			0.16			0.16			0.16
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		0.36			(0.34	)		(0.48	)		1.26			1.37
Total from investment operations		0.51			(0.18	)		(0.32	)		1.42			1.53
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.16	)		(0.18	)		(0.15	)		(0.16	)		(0.12	)
Total distributions		(0.16	)		(0.18	)		(0.15	)		(0.16	)		(0.12	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	10.06		$	9.71		$	10.07		$	10.54		$	9.28
Total Return (%) (c)		5.38			(1.97	)		(3.10	)		15.54			19.52
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Gross ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.85			0.87			0.87			0.87			0.91
Net ratio of expenses to average net assets (%) (d)		0.73			0.74			0.75			0.77			0.81
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		1.49	(b)		1.56			1.58			1.70			1.83
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		11			12			8			19			62
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	1,315.2		$	1,361.8		$	1,490.0		$	1,680.7		$	1,476.3
	Class B
	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014			2013			2012
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	9.56		$	9.91		$	10.38		$	9.15		$	7.75
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (a)		0.12	(b)		0.13			0.14			0.13	(e)		0.14
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		0.35			(0.33	)		(0.48	)		1.23			1.35
Total from investment operations		0.47			(0.20	)		(0.34	)		1.36			1.49
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.13	)		(0.15	)		(0.13	)		(0.13	)		(0.09	)
Total distributions		(0.13	)		(0.15	)		(0.13	)		(0.13	)		(0.09	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	9.90		$	9.56		$	9.91		$	10.38		$	9.15
Total Return (%) (c)		5.05			(2.17	)		(3.34	)		15.14			19.37
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Gross ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		1.10			1.12			1.12			1.13			1.16
Net ratio of expenses to average net assets (%) (d)		0.98			0.99			1.00			1.03			1.06
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		1.25	(b)		1.31			1.32			1.34	(e)		1.68
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		11			12			8			19			62
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	318.6		$	336.0		$	387.3		$	434.8		$	97.8

Please see following page for Financial Highlights footnote legend.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-11

Metropolitan Series Fund

Baillie Gifford International Stock Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class E
	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014			2013			2012
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	9.61		$	9.97		$	10.43		$	9.19		$	7.79
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (a)		0.13	(b)		0.14			0.15			0.15			0.15
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		0.36			(0.34	)		(0.48	)		1.23			1.35
Total from investment operations		0.49			(0.20	)		(0.33	)		1.38			1.50
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.14	)		(0.16	)		(0.13	)		(0.14	)		(0.10	)
Total distributions		(0.14	)		(0.16	)		(0.13	)		(0.14	)		(0.10	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	9.96		$	9.61		$	9.97		$	10.43		$	9.19
Total Return (%) (c)		5.24			(2.15	)		(3.19	)		15.30			19.39
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Gross ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		1.00			1.02			1.02			1.02			1.06
Net ratio of expenses to average net assets (%) (d)		0.88			0.89			0.90			0.92			0.96
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		1.34	(b)		1.42			1.43			1.56			1.79
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		11			12			8			19			62
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	18.6		$	19.8		$	22.8		$	26.8		$	26.9

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

(b) Net investment income per share and the ratio of net investment income to average net assets include a non-recurring refund for overbilling of prior years’ custodian out-of-pocket fees which amounted to less than $0.01 per share and 0.05% of average net assets, respectively.

(c) Total return does not reflect any insurance, sales, separate account or administrative charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts or any additional expenses that contract owners may bear under their variable contracts. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower.

(d) Includes the effects of management fee waivers (see Note 5 of the Notes to Financial Statements).

(e) Net investment income per share and the ratio of net investment income to average net assets for Class B during 2013 were impacted by the timing of dividends received from the Portfolio’s investments and the assets received through a merger with the Met Investors Series Trust American Funds International Portfolio.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-12

Metropolitan Series Fund

Baillie Gifford International Stock Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016

1. Organization

Metropolitan Series Fund (the “Trust”) is organized as a Delaware statutory trust and registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), as an open-end management investment company. The Trust, which is managed by MetLife Advisers, LLC (“MetLife Advisers” or the “Adviser”), an affiliate of MetLife, Inc., is currently comprised of thirty series, each of which operates as a distinct investment vehicle of the Trust. The portfolio included in this report is Baillie Gifford International Stock 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.

On January 12, 2016, MetLife, Inc. announced its plan to pursue the separation of a substantial portion of its retail segment and is currently evaluating structural alternatives for such separation. It is anticipated that MetLife Advisers would be included in any such separation. Any separation transaction that might occur will be subject to the satisfaction of various conditions and approvals, including approval of any transaction by the MetLife, Inc. Board of Directors, satisfaction of any applicable requirements of the SEC, and receipt of insurance and other regulatory approvals and other anticipated conditions. MetLife, Inc. cannot currently provide a specific potential completion date for a separation transaction or any assurance that a separation will in fact occur. MetLife Advisers’ continued service as investment adviser to the Trusts following a separation transaction is the subject of a proxy statement that was filed with the SEC on December 20, 2016 and mailed to shareholders of the Portfolio on or about December 30, 2016.

The Portfolio has registered and offers three classes of shares: Class A, B and E shares. 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 plan and such distribution expenses are allocated to the corresponding Class of shares.

2. Significant Accounting Policies

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities as of the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of income and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates. In the preparation of these financial statements, management has evaluated events and transactions subsequent to December 31, 2016 through the date the financial statements were issued.

The Portfolio is an investment company and follows the accounting and reporting guidance of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Accounting Standards Codification Topic 946—Financial Services—Investment Companies and Topic 820—Fair Value Measurement. 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 - Domestic and foreign equity securities, such as common stock, exchange-traded funds, rights, warrants, and preferred stock, that are traded on a securities exchange on a valuation date are generally valued at their last quoted sale price or official closing price on the primary exchange for such security, or, if no sales occurred on that day, at the last reported bid price. Equity securities traded over-the-counter (“OTC”) are generally valued at the last reported bid price. In the event of a major exchange closing during the trading day, the Adviser may use other market information obtained from quotation reporting systems, established market makers, or pricing services in valuing the securities. Valuation adjustments may be applied to certain foreign equity securities that are traded solely on foreign exchanges that close before the time as of which the Portfolio determines its NAV to account for the market movement between the close of the foreign exchanges and the time as of which the Portfolio determines its NAV. The Portfolio may use a systematic fair valuation model provided by a pricing service to value securities principally traded in these foreign markets in order to adjust for possible market movements or other changes that may occur between the close of the foreign exchanges and the time as of which the Portfolio determines its NAV. Foreign equity securities valued using these valuation adjustments are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy. Equity securities that are actively traded, and have no valuation adjustments applied, are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other equity securities traded on inactive markets, or valued in reference to similar instruments traded on active markets, 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 on the valuation date and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy.

Debt securities, including corporate, convertible and municipal bonds and notes; obligations of the U.S. Treasury and U.S. government agencies; foreign sovereign issues; and non-U.S. bonds, are generally valued on the basis of evaluated or composite bid quotations

MSF-13

Metropolitan Series Fund

Baillie Gifford International Stock Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

obtained from independent pricing services and/or brokers and dealers selected by the Adviser (each a “pricing service”), pursuant to authorization of and subject to general oversight by the Board of Trustees of the Trust (the “Board” or “Trustees”). Such pricing services may use matrix pricing, which considers observable inputs including, among other things, issuer details, maturity dates, interest rates, yield curves, rates of prepayment, credit risks/spreads, default rates, reported trades, broker dealer quotes and quoted prices for similar assets. Short-term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less may be valued at amortized cost in the absence of market quotes, so long as the amortized cost value of such short-term debt instrument is approximately the same as the fair value of the instrument as determined without the use of amortized cost valuation. Floating rate loans are generally valued on the basis of an evaluated or composite average of aggregate bid and ask quotations supplied by brokers or dealers, as obtained from the pricing service. Securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Foreign currency forward contracts are valued through an independent pricing service by interpolating between forward and spot currency rates in the London foreign exchange markets as of a designated hour on a valuation day. These contracts are generally 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 sale price available as of the close of business on a valuation day or, if there is no such price available, at the last reported bid price. These types of options are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Futures contracts that are traded on commodity exchanges are valued at their settlement prices established by the exchanges on which they are traded as of the close of such exchanges and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy.

Options, including swaptions, and futures contracts that are traded OTC are generally valued on the basis of interdealer bid and asked prices or prices provided by 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, yield curves, credit curves, measures of volatility 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 market value quotations are deemed to be unreliable for an investment, the fair value of the investment will be determined in accordance with procedures approved by, and under the general supervision of, the Board. In such a circumstance, the Board will be assisted in its responsibility to determine the fair value of an investment by the Valuation Committee (“Committee”) of MetLife Advisers. The Committee provides general pricing oversight and fair value pricing determinations related to portfolio securities and meets on a regular basis to review reports relating to the valuation of the securities in the Portfolio. The Board has delegated to State Street Bank and Trust Company, the Trust’s custodian (“custodian”), the responsibility for calculating the net asset values (“NAVs”) of the Trust’s Portfolios. The Committee is responsible for overseeing the calculation of the NAVs of the Portfolios by the custodian. The Committee also periodically reviews pricing services, including the pricing services providing fair value pricing for the Portfolio’s foreign securities, and is responsible for overseeing the correction of pricing errors and addressing other pricing issues that arise in the ordinary course of business, such as making real-time fair value determinations, as necessary.

No single standard for determining the fair value of an investment can be set forth because fair value depends upon the facts and circumstances with respect to each investment. Information relating to any relevant factors may be obtained by the Committee from any appropriate source, including the subadviser of the Portfolio, the custodian, a pricing service, market maker and/or broker for such security or the issuer. Appropriate methodologies for determining fair value under particular circumstances may include: matrix pricing, a discounted cash flow analysis, comparisons of securities with comparable characteristics, value based on multiples of earnings, discount from market price of similar marketable securities or a combination of these and other methods.

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 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. These foreign taxes have been provided for in accordance with the Portfolio’s understanding of the applicable countries’ tax rules and rates.

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 the U.S. dollar 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. Because the values of investment securities are translated at the foreign exchange rates prevailing at the end of the period, that portion of the results of operations arising from changes in exchange rates and that portion of the results of operations reflecting fluctuations arising from changes in market prices of the investment securities are not separated. Such fluctuations are included in the net realized and unrealized gain or loss on investments.

MSF-14

Metropolitan Series Fund

Baillie Gifford International Stock Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(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. 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.

Dividends and Distributions to Shareholders - The Portfolio records dividends and distributions on the ex-dividend date. Net realized gains from securities 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, foreign capital gain tax reclass, broker commission recapture, expired capital loss carryforwards and passive foreign investment companies (PFICs). These adjustments have no impact on net assets or the results 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 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. As of December 31, 2016, the Portfolio had no uncertain tax positions that would require financial statement recognition, or de-recognition or disclosure.

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 net ratio of expenses to average net assets presented in the Financial Highlights for each share class.

Repurchase Agreements - The Portfolio may enter into repurchase agreements, under the terms of a Master Repurchase Agreement (“MRA”), 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, under a tri-party repurchase agreement, receives delivery of the underlying securities collateralizing any repurchase agreements. It is the Portfolio’s policy that the market value of the collateral be equal to at least 100% of the repurchase price in the case of a repurchase agreement of one-day duration and equal to at least 102% of the repurchase price in the case of all other repurchase agreements. In the event of default or failure by a party to perform an obligation in connection with any repurchase transaction, the MRA gives the non-defaulting party the right to set-off claims and to apply property held by it in connection with any repurchase transaction against obligations owed to it.

At December 31, 2016, the Portfolio had direct investments in repurchase agreements with a gross value of $24,165,080. Additionally, the Portfolio invested cash collateral for loans of portfolio securities in repurchase agreements with a gross value of $6,876,900. The combined value of all repurchase agreements is included as part of investments at value on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. The value of the related collateral exceeded the value of the repurchase agreements at December 31, 2016.

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 collateral held from securities on loan. 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.

Effective September 8, 2016, the Trust has entered into a Non-Custodial Securities Lending Agreement with JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (the “lending agent”). Prior to September 8, 2016, the Trust had entered into a Securities Lending Authorization Agreement with the custodian (the “prior lending agent”). Under each agreement, the lending agent is authorized to loan portfolio securities on the Portfolio’s behalf. In exchange, the Portfolio receives either cash or government securities as collateral against the loaned securities. The Portfolio receives collateral equal to at least 102% of the market value for loans secured by government securities or cash in the same currency as the loaned shares and 105% for all other loaned securities at each loan’s inception. Collateral representing at least 100% of the market value of the loaned securities is maintained for the duration of the loan. Any cash collateral received by the Portfolio is generally invested by the lending agent in short-term investments, which may include certificates of deposit, commercial paper, repurchase agreements, time deposits and money market funds. Cash collateral that was received by the prior lending agent had been generally invested in the State Street Navigator Securities Lending MET Portfolio (the “Navigator Portfolio”), a series of the State Street Navigator Securities Lending Trust that was a registered money market fund managed by an affiliate of the custodian. The market value of investments made with cash collateral received are disclosed in the Schedule of Investments and the valuation techniques are described in Note 2. If the market value of the collateral at the close of trading on a business day is less than 100% of

MSF-15

Metropolitan Series Fund

Baillie Gifford International Stock Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

the market value of the loaned securities at the close of trading on that day, the borrower is 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 is equal to at least 100% of the market value of all the loaned securities as of such preceding day. A portion of the income earned on the collateral is rebated to the borrower of the securities and the remainder is split between the lending agent and the Portfolio. On loans collateralized by government securities, a fee is received from the borrower and is allocated between the Portfolio and the lending agent.

Income received by the Portfolio in securities lending transactions during the year ended December 31, 2016 is reflected as securities lending income on the Statement of Operations. The values of any securities loaned by the Portfolio and the related collateral at December 31, 2016 are disclosed in the footnotes to the Schedule of Investments. The value of the related collateral received by the Portfolio exceeded the value of the securities out on loan at December 31, 2016.

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. The lending agent shall indemnify the Portfolio in the case of default of any securities borrower, subject to the terms of the Non-Custodial Securities Lending Agreement.

All securities on loan are classified as Common Stocks in the Portfolio’s Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016, with a contractual maturity of overnight and continuous.

3. Certain Risks

In the normal course of business, the Portfolio invests in securities and enters into transactions where risks exist. Those risks include:

Market 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, interest rate, and price fluctuations.

Credit and Counterparty Risk: 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 and counterparty risk consist principally of cash due from counterparties and investments. The Portfolio manages counterparty risk by entering into agreements only with counterparties that it believes have the financial resources to honor their obligations and by monitoring the financial stability of those counterparties. The Portfolio’s investment adviser attempts to mitigate counterparty risk by (i) periodically assessing the creditworthiness of its trading partners, (ii) monitoring and/or limiting the amount of its net exposure to each individual counterparty based on its assessment, and (iii) requiring collateral from the counterparty for certain transactions. In order to preserve certain safeguards for non-standard settlement trades, the Portfolio restricts its exposure to credit and counterparty losses by entering into master netting agreements (“Master Agreements”) with counterparties (approved brokers) with whom it undertakes a significant volume of transactions. Master Agreements govern the terms of certain transactions, and reduce the counterparty risk associated with relevant transactions by specifying credit protection mechanisms and providing standardization that improves legal certainty. Master Agreements can also help limit counterparty risk by specifying collateral posting arrangements at pre-arranged exposure levels.

Repurchase and reverse repurchase agreements are primarily executed under Global Master Repurchase Agreements (“GMRAs”) or Master Repurchase Agreements (“MRAs”), which provide the rights to set-off. Each repurchase and reverse repurchase agreement is initially collateralized at the transaction level. In the event of default, the total market value exposure will be offset against collateral exchanged to date, which would result in a net receivable/(payable) that would be due from/to the counterparty.

Foreign Investment Risk: The investments by the Portfolio in foreign securities may involve risks not present in domestic investments. Because securities may be denominated in foreign currencies, may require settlement in foreign currencies and may pay interest or dividends in foreign currencies, changes in the relationship of these foreign currencies to the U.S. dollar can significantly affect the value of the investments and earnings of the Portfolio. Foreign investments may also subject the Portfolio to foreign government exchange restrictions, expropriation, taxation or other political, social or economic developments, all of which could affect the market and/or credit risk of the investments. In addition to the risks described above, risks may arise from forward foreign currency contracts with respect to the potential inability of counterparties to meet the terms of their contracts.

Additional risks associated with each type of investment are described above within the respective security type notes. The Portfolio’s prospectus includes a discussion of the principal risks of investing in the Portfolio.

MSF-16

Metropolitan Series Fund

Baillie Gifford International Stock Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(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, 2016 were as follows:

Purchases			Sales
U.S. Government	Non U.S. Government		U.S. Government		Non U.S. Government
$0	$	182,506,072	$	0	$	275,899,744

5. Investment Management Fees and Other Transactions with Affiliates

Investment Management Agreement - MetLife Advisers is the investment adviser to the Portfolio. The Trust has entered into an investment management agreement with MetLife Advisers with respect to the Portfolio. For providing investment management services to the Portfolio, MetLife Advisers receives monthly compensation at the following annual rates:

Management Fees earned by MetLife Advisers for the year ended December 31, 2016	% per annum			Average Daily Net Assets
$13,431,329		0.860	%	Of the first $500 million
		0.800	%	Of the next $500 million
		0.750	%	On amounts in excess of $1 billion

MetLife Advisers has entered into an investment subadvisory agreement with respect to managing the Portfolio. Baillie Gifford Overseas Limited is compensated by MetLife Advisers to provide subadvisory services for the Portfolio.

Management Fee Waivers - Pursuant to an expense agreement, MetLife Advisers has agreed, for the period May 1, 2016 to April 30, 2017, to reduce its advisory fees set out above under “Investment Management Agreement” for each class of the Portfolio as follows:

% per annum reduction	Average Daily Net Assets
0.080%	On amounts over $156.25 million and under $400 million
0.180%	Of the next $100 million
0.120%	Of the next to $400 million
0.150%	On amounts in excess of $900 million

An identical expense agreement was in place for the period May 1, 2015 to April 30, 2016. Amounts waived for the year ended December 31, 2016 are shown as management fee waivers in the Statement of Operations.

Certain officers and trustees of the Trust may also be officers of MetLife Advisers; 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 and Service Fees - The Trust has a distribution agreement with MetLife Investors Distribution Company (“MIDC” or the “Distributor”) in which MIDC serves as the distributor for the Portfolio’s Class A, B and E Shares. MIDC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife Investors Group, LLC, an affiliate of the Adviser. The Trust has also adopted a Distribution and Service Plan under Rule 12b-1 of the 1940 Act for the Portfolio’s Class B and E Shares. Under the Distribution and Service Plan, the Class B and E Shares of the Portfolio pay a fee to compensate the Insurance Companies (or their affiliates) and other broker-dealers and financial intermediaries involved in the offer and sale of Portfolio shares for promoting or selling and servicing the Class B and E Shares. The fees under the Distribution and Service Plan for each class of the Portfolio’s shares are calculated as a percentage of the Portfolio’s average daily net assets that are attributable to that Class. Currently, the fee is 0.25% per year for Class B Shares and 0.15% per year for Class E Shares. Amounts incurred by the Portfolio for the year ended December 31, 2016 are shown as Distribution and service fees in the Statement of Operations.

Deferred Trustee Compensation - Each Trustee 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 Trust. 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 Met Investors Series Trust, an affiliate of the Trust, 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 under the Plan is reflected as Deferred trustees’ fees in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

MSF-17

Metropolitan Series Fund

Baillie Gifford International Stock Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

6. Contractual Obligations

Under the Trust’s organizational documents, its officers and Trustees may be indemnified against certain liabilities and expenses arising out of the performance of their duties to the Trust. Additionally, 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 Trust that have not yet occurred.

7. Income Tax Information

The tax character of distributions paid for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015 were as follows:

Ordinary Income			Long-Term Capital Gain				Total
2016	2015		2016		2015		2016		2015
$26,806,348	$	30,175,192	$	—	$	—	$	26,806,348	$	30,175,192

As of December 31, 2016, 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			Other Accumulated Capital Losses		Total
$21,123,791	$	—	$	228,094,090	$	(169,332,274	)	$	—	$	79,885,607

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 up to 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.

During the year ended December 31, 2016, the Portfolio utilized capital loss carryforwards of $22,663,933, and $168,399,716 in capital loss carryforwards expired.

As of December 31, 2016, the Portfolio had no post-enactment accumulated capital losses. The pre-enactment accumulated capital loss carryforwards and expiration dates were as follows:

Expiring
12/31/17

$169,332,274

8. Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In October 2016, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) adopted new rules and forms, and amendments to certain current rules and forms, to modernize reporting and disclosure of information by registered investment companies. The amendments to Regulation S-X will require standardized, enhanced disclosure about derivatives in investment company financial statements, and will also change the rules governing the form and content of such financial statements. The compliance date for the amendments to Regulation S-X is August 1, 2017. Management is currently evaluating the impact that the adoption of the amendments to Regulation S-X will have on the Portfolio’s financial statements and related disclosures.

MSF-18

Metropolitan Series Fund

Baillie Gifford International Stock Portfolio

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Shareholders of Baillie Gifford International Stock Portfolio and the Board of Trustees of Metropolitan Series Fund:

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities, including the schedule of investments, of Baillie Gifford International Stock Portfolio (one of the portfolios constituting the Metropolitan Series Fund) (the “Portfolio”) as of December 31, 2016, 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 Portfolio’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 Portfolio 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 Portfolio’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, 2016, by correspondence with the custodian and brokers; when 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 Baillie Gifford International Stock Portfolio of the Metropolitan Series Fund as of December 31, 2016, 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.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

February 24, 2017

MSF-19

Metropolitan Series Fund

Trustees and Officers

MANAGEMENT OF THE TRUSTS

The Boards of Trustees (the “Board”) of Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (“MIST” and “MSF”, respectively, and collectively the “Trusts”) supervise the Trusts and are responsible for representing the interests of shareholders. The Trustees, the Chairman of the Board and the Chairmen of each subcommittee are the same for both Trusts. The Trustees of each Trust meet periodically throughout the year to oversee the Portfolios’ activities, reviewing, among other things, each Portfolio’s performance and its contractual arrangements with various service providers. The Trustees of each Trust elect the officers of the Trust, who are responsible for administering the Trust’s day-to-day operations.

Trustees and Officers

The Trustees and executive officers of the Trusts, as well as their ages and their principal occupations during the past five years, are set forth below. Unless otherwise indicated, the business address of each is c/o MetLife Funds, One Financial Center, Boston, Massachusetts 02111. Each Trustee who is deemed an “interested person,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, is referred to as an “Interested Trustee.” Those Trustees who are not “interested persons,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, are referred to as “Independent Trustees.” There is no limit to the term a Trustee may serve. Trustees serve until their death, resignation or removal in accordance with the MIST Trust’s and MSF Trust’s respective organizational documents and policies adopted by the Boards of the respective Trusts from time to time. Officers hold office at the pleasure of each Board and serve until their removal or resignation in accordance with the Trusts’ respective organizational documents and policies adopted by the Board of each Trust from time to time.

Name and Age	Current 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 MetLife Funds Complex(2) Overseen by Trustee	Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Interested Trustee
John Rosenthal* (56)	Trustee	Indefinite; From May 2016 (MIST and MSF) to present	Senior Managing Director and Head of Global Portfolio Management, MetLife, Inc.	75	None
Independent Trustees
Dawn M. Vroegop (50)	Trustee and Chairman of the Board	Indefinite; From December 2000 (MIST)/ May 2009 (MSF) to present as Trustee; From May 2016 (MIST and MSF) until present as Chairman	Private Investor.	75	Trustee, Driehaus Mutual Funds.**
Stephen M. Alderman (57)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 (MIST)/ April 2012 (MSF) to present	Shareholder in the law firm of Garfield and Merel, Ltd.	75	None

MSF-20

Metropolitan Series Fund

Trustees and Officers—(Continued)

Name and Age	Current 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 MetLife Funds Complex(2) Overseen by Trustee	Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Robert J. Boulware (60)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 (MIST)/ April 2012 (MSF) to present	Managing Director, Pilgrim Funds, LLC (private equity fund).	75	Trustee, Vertical Capital Income Fund (closed-end fund);** Director, Gainsco, Inc. (auto insurance);** Trustee, SharesPost 100 Fund (closed-end fund).**
Susan C. Gause (64)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 (MIST)/ April 2012 (MSF) to present	Private Investor.	75	Trustee, HSBC Funds.**
Nancy Hawthorne (65)	Trustee	Indefinite; From May 2003 (MSF)/ April 2012 (MIST) to present	Partner, Hawthorne Financial Advisors, LLC (registered investment advisor); until June 2014, Chief Executive Officer, Clerestory LLC (corporate advisor).	75	Director and Chairman of the Board of Directors, THL Credit, Inc.;** Lead Director, Avid Technology, Inc.;** Director, CRA International, Inc.**
Barbara A. Nugent (60)	Trustee	Indefinite; From January 2014 (MIST and MSF) to present	President, True North Board Governance, LLC (consulting); until December 2013, partner in the law firm of Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young, LLP.	75	None
Linda B. Strumpf (69)	Trustee	Indefinite; From May 2000 (MSF)/ April 2012 (MIST) to present	Chair of the Investment Committee, Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust; until June 2011, Chief Investment Officer, Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust.	75	None

Executive Officers

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Kristi Slavin (43)	President and Chief Executive Officer, of MIST and MSF	From May 2016 (MIST and MSF) to present	President, MetLife Advisers, LLC (May 2016-present); Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Vice President, MetLife, Inc.; Vice President, MIST and MSF (2015-2016).

MSF-21

Metropolitan Series Fund

Trustees and Officers—(Continued)

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Peter H. Duffy (61)	Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, of MIST and MSF	From November 2000 (MSF)/ May 2012 (MIST) to present	Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Andrew L. Gangolf (62)	Secretary, of MIST and MSF	From May 2011 (MIST and MSF) to present	Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; until 2011, Senior Vice President & Assistant General Counsel, AllianceBernstein Investments, Inc.
Steven E. Hartstein (53)	Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”), of MIST and MSF	From February 2014 (MIST and MSF) to present	Vice President, MetLife, Inc. (2013-present); Senior Vice President and CCO, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Executive Director, Morgan Stanley (2009-2013); CCO, Consulting Group Capital Markets Funds (2006-2013).
Alan C. Leland (64)	Vice President, of MIST and MSF	From February 2005 (MSF)/ May 2012 (MIST) to present	Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Vice President, MetLife, Inc.

* Mr. Rosenthal is an “interested person” of the Trusts because of his position with MetLife, Inc., the current parent company of MetLife Advisers, LLC.

** 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 Trusts, MetLife, Inc. or the Manager are omitted if not materially different.

(2) The Fund Complex includes 45 MIST Portfolios and 30 MSF Portfolios.

MSF-22

Metropolitan Series Fund

Baillie Gifford International Stock Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements

At an in-person meeting held on November 15-16, 2016 (the “November Meeting”), the Boards of Trustees (the “Board”) of the Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (“MIST” and “MSF,” respectively, and collectively, the “Trusts”), including a majority of the Trustees who are not “interested persons” of the Trusts (the “Independent Trustees”) under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “1940 Act”), approved the continuation of the Trusts’ advisory agreements (each, an “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 the series of the Trusts (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”).

In reaching that decision, the Board reviewed a variety of materials provided for the specific purpose of the annual contract renewal process. In addition, various materials provided to and discussed with the Board throughout the year also informed the Board’s decision to renew the Agreements. That information for each Portfolio included, but was not limited to, investment performance reports, along with periodic reports on various expenses, shareholder services, legal and compliance matters, asset pricing, brokerage commissions and trade execution. The Board also recognized the pending separation of the Adviser from its parent company, MetLife, Inc., as a consideration in their deliberations with respect to the Agreements.

The Board met in person with personnel of the Adviser on September 27, 2016 for the specific purpose of giving preliminary consideration to the proposed continuation of the Agreements (the “September Meeting”) through the review by the Adviser with the Board of the performance and fees experienced by each Portfolio, as well as other information. In considering the Agreements, the Independent Trustees were advised by independent legal counsel throughout the contract renewal process, and met with independent legal counsel in several executive sessions outside of the presence of management.

Information furnished and reviewed specifically in connection with the renewal process included, but was not limited to, a report for each Portfolio prepared by Broadridge (“Broadridge”), an independent organization, and a Portfolio-by-Portfolio profitability analysis prepared by the Adviser. In addition, the Independent Trustees received and reviewed a report prepared by JDL Consultants, LLC (“JDL”), an independent consultant to the Independent Trustees (“JDL Report”), which examined the comparative fees, expenses and performance of each Portfolio, based upon the Broadridge reports. Also, the Board reviewed the responses to wide-ranging questions relating to the business, operations and performance of the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers that the Adviser and Sub-Advisers had prepared specifically for the renewal process.

At the November Meeting, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, concluded that the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser supported the renewal of the Agreements. The Board also concluded that the investment performance of each Portfolio was such that each Agreement should continue, and that the fees paid by a Portfolio to the Adviser appeared to be reasonable in light of the nature, extent and quality of the services provided by the Adviser and Sub-Adviser. Further, the Board concluded that the Adviser’s profitability in providing services under the Advisory Agreements did not appear unreasonably high in light of the nature, extent and quality of the services provided by the Adviser. Finally, the Board concluded that the investment advisory fees paid by the Portfolios in some measure shared economies of scale with contract holders. In approving the renewal of each of the Agreements, the Board, including the Independent Trustees, gave attention to all of the information that was furnished. The Board evaluated the information available to it on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis, and its decision was made separately with respect to each Portfolio. The following discusses some of the primary factors that generally were relevant to the Board’s decision. The Board did not identify any single factor as controlling, and the Trustees generally attributed different weights to various factors for the various Portfolios.

Nature, extent and quality of services. The Board evaluated the nature, extent and quality of the services that the Adviser, and the Sub-Advisers as relevant, have provided to the Portfolios. The Board considered the Adviser’s services as investment manager to the Portfolios, including its services relating to the oversight of the Sub-Advisers and their investment management activities, trading practices, financial condition, relevant personnel matters and compliance programs, among other things. The Adviser’s services in coordinating and overseeing the activities of the Trusts’ other service providers were also considered. The Board considered information received from the Trusts’ Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) regarding the Portfolios’ compliance policies and procedures that were established pursuant to Rule 38a-l under the 1940 Act. In addition, throughout the year, the Board considered the expertise, experience and performance of the personnel of the Adviser who performed the various services that are mentioned above.

The Board also noted that the Adviser’s investment, compliance and legal staff conduct regular, periodic, telephonic and in-person meetings with the Sub-Advisers to review and assess the services that are provided to the Portfolios, and that personnel of the Adviser prepare and present reports to the Independent Trustees regarding those meetings.

MSF-23

Metropolitan Series Fund

Baillie Gifford International Stock Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

With respect to the services provided by each of the Sub-Advisers, the Board considered a variety of information that the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser provided. The Board considered each Sub-Adviser’s investment process and philosophy, and the investment performance experienced by the Portfolio (as described in more detail below). The Board took into account that each Sub-Adviser’s responsibilities include the development and maintenance of an investment program for the applicable Portfolio that 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. In particular, the Board considered, among other things, the Sub-Adviser’s current level of staffing as well as its compensation program and its overall resources. The Board reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s history and investment experience, as well as information provided 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 regulatory and disciplinary history. In its review, the Board also took into account information regarding any services and/or payments provided to the Adviser by the Sub-Advisers in connection with marketing activities.

Performance. The Board placed emphasis on the performance of the Portfolios in light of, among other things, its importance to contract holders. The Board considered the Adviser’s quarterly reviews with the Board of detailed information about each Portfolio’s investment strategies and performance results and composition, including discussions regarding the relevant effect of current market conditions. The Board reviewed and considered the reports prepared by Broadridge, which provided a statistical analysis comparing the Portfolios’ investment performance to that of comparable funds underlying variable insurance products (the “Performance Universe”). The Independent Trustees also met separately with a representative of JDL during the September Meeting to review the JDL Report. The Board also compared the performance records of certain Portfolios to those of comparable funds that were managed by the relevant Sub-Adviser. At the November Meeting, the Board considered each Portfolio’s performance for periods subsequent to the performance period covered by the Broadridge reports, and the Adviser’s discussion of the same, including the effect of current market conditions on each Portfolio’s more recent performance.

The Board focused particular attention on Portfolios with less favorable performance records. The Board noted the Adviser’s focus on each Sub-Adviser’s performance and that the Adviser has been active in monitoring and responding to any performance issues with respect to the Portfolios.

Fees and Expenses. The Board gave consideration to the level and method of computing the fees payable under the Agreements. The Board considered the Broadridge report for each of the Portfolios, which included comparisons for each Portfolio of its contractual management and sub-adviser fees (at current and various asset levels), and total expenses, with those of its peers, including as those peers were divided into a broad group of peer funds (“Expense Universe”), a narrower group of peer funds (“Expense Group”), a broad group of peer sub-advised funds (“Sub-advised Expense Universe”), and a narrower group of peer sub-advised funds (“Sub-advised Expense Group”). Broadridge selected the peer funds which were similarly situated funds underlying variable insurance products deemed to be comparable to the Portfolios. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of JDL, also examined the JDL Report. The Board compared the fee payable to a Sub-Adviser by the Adviser with respect to the Portfolio to the fee payable to the Sub-Adviser by other comparable funds and accounts, to the extent such information was available.

The Board noted that the sub-advisory fees for the Portfolios are paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fee, and that, in the case of an unaffiliated Sub-Adviser, the Adviser negotiates the fee at arm’s length. The Board also considered that the Adviser had entered into expense limitation or management fee waiver agreements with certain of the Portfolios pursuant to which the Adviser had 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.

Profitability. The Board examined the profitability of the Adviser on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis. The Board also considered that an affiliate of the Adviser, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, serves as distributor for the Trusts, and, as such, receives Rule 12b-1 payments to support the distribution of the Portfolios. The Board considered the profitability to the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates as a result of their relationships with the Portfolios, to the extent available, and the Board considered the ability of the Adviser to negotiate with an unaffiliated Sub-Adviser at arm’s length. In reviewing the profitability analyses, the Board recognized that expense allocation methodologies are inherently subjective and various expense allocation methodologies may be reasonable while producing different results.

Economies of scale. The Board also considered each Portfolio’s fees in light of its size. The Board noted the fee schedules for the Portfolios that 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

MSF-24

Metropolitan Series Fund

Baillie Gifford International Stock Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

schedule for such Portfolios. The Board considered the effective fees under the Advisory Agreement and Sub-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. The Board examined, among other data, the effect of a Portfolio’s growth in size, and reduction in size, on various fee schedules and the Board reviewed the Broadridge and JDL Reports, which compared fees among peers. The Board also generally noted that if a Portfolio’s assets increase over time, the Portfolio may realize other economies of scale if assets increase proportionally more than certain other fixed expenses.

Other factors. The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trusts. Among them, the Board recognized that MetLife Investors Distribution Company, as the distributor for the Trusts, receives payments pursuant to Rule 12b-1 from the Portfolios to compensate for the provision of shareholder services and distribution activities, which could lead to growth in the Trusts’ assets and corresponding benefits from such growth, including economies of scale. The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by each Sub-Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trusts, including the opportunity to provide advisory services to additional portfolios of the Trusts and reputational benefits. In conjunction with these considerations, the Board noted the ongoing commitment of the Adviser to the Portfolios.

The Board considered possible conflicts of interest in the form of material benefits or detriments to the Trusts resulting from the nature of the Trusts’ and the Adviser’s or the Sub-Advisers’ affiliations and the services that are provided to the Trusts, and the manner in which such conflicts were mitigated.

* * *

Baillie Gifford International Stock Portfolio. The Board also considered the following information in relation to the Agreements with the Adviser and Baillie Gifford Overseas Limited regarding the Portfolio:

Among other data relating specifically to the Portfolio’s performance, the Board considered that the Portfolio outperformed the median of its Performance Universe and its Lipper Index for the one-year and three-year periods ended June 30, 2016. The Board also noted that the Portfolio underperformed the median of its Performance Universe and its Lipper Index for the five-year period ended June 30, 2016. The Board further considered that the Portfolio outperformed its benchmark, the MSCI All Country World Index ex-U.S., for the one-, three-, and five-year periods ended October 31, 2016. In addition, the Board noted that the Sub-Adviser did not manage the Portfolio for all of the periods referenced.

The Board also 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 noted that the Portfolio’s contractual management fees were above the asset-weighted average of certain comparable funds at the Portfolio’s current size. The Board also noted that the Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees were below the averages of the Sub-advised Expense Group and Sub-advised Expense Universe at the Portfolio’s current size.

MSF-25

Metropolitan Series Fund

Baillie Gifford International Stock Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Advisory Agreements

The separation (the “Separation”) of MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”), the investment adviser to each of the series (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”) of Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (collectively, the “Trusts”), from its parent company, MetLife, Inc. (“MetLife”), to a separate retail business, Brighthouse Financial, Inc. (“Brighthouse”), is expected to result in a change in control of the Adviser, and therefore an “assignment” of each Portfolio’s current advisory agreement (each a “Current Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “Current Advisory Agreements”). At the November 15-16, 2016 meeting (“November Meeting”) of the Board of Trustees of the Trusts (the “Board”), the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not “interested persons,” as defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940, of any Portfolio (the “Independent Trustees”), approved a new advisory agreement (each a “New Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “New Advisory Agreements”) between the Trusts, on behalf of a Portfolio, and the Adviser, to be effective upon the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements in connection with the Separation, and recommended that the shareholders of the Trusts approve the New Advisory Agreements. The Board took those actions after consideration of and deliberation over information concerning the Separation, including with respect to the degree to which the Separation would affect the provision of investment advisory services to the Trusts. Information about the Board’s considerations and process is set forth below.

In determining whether to approve the New Advisory Agreements and in considering the Separation, the Board considered the nature, quality and extent of the services that are currently provided by the Adviser under the Current Advisory Agreements as well as the services to be provided under the New Advisory Agreements. The Board’s review was conducted as part of, and in conjunction with, the Board’s annual review of the Current Advisory Agreements, which culminated at the November Meeting. In approving the New Advisory Agreements, the Board considered its conclusions with respect to its approvals of the Current Advisory Agreements, including the Board’s general satisfaction with the nature, extent and quality of services being provided by the Adviser to each Portfolio. Appendix A and Appendix B contains a further description of the process followed, information reviewed and the material factors considered by the Board in approving the continuation of the Current Advisory Agreements.

A substantial portion of the Board’s review of the New Advisory Agreements focused on the Separation, including the potential effect of the implementation of the Separation on the operations, personnel, organizational structure, capitalization, and financial and other resources of the Adviser. After being informed by the Adviser in January 2016 of the possibility of the Separation, the Board and its Committees discussed the Separation and its possible effects on the Trusts with personnel of the Adviser and the anticipated senior management at Brighthouse during the course of the Board’s or Committee’s regularly scheduled, in-person, quarterly meetings.

Between August and November 2016, the Board and the Independent Trustees engaged in an extensive review and analysis of the Separation and how the Separation related to the Adviser and the Trusts and how it could affect the services provided to the Trusts. This analysis focused on, among other matters, the assurances from Brighthouse’s anticipated leadership as to its expectations for the continuity and stability of the Adviser’s personnel throughout implementation of the Separation and for the foreseeable future thereafter. The Board considered that the Separation is being implemented as a result of MetLife’s determination to divest itself of a substantial portion of its U.S. retail business (of which the Adviser forms a portion). The Board also considered that it has been satisfied as a general matter with the nature and quality of the services that the Adviser provides to the Portfolios, including investment advisory, administrative, legal, compliance, and support services, and that it would be in the Portfolios’ best interests to maintain continuity and stability in the services that are currently being provided. The Board carefully considered the anticipated future plans of Brighthouse related to capitalization and operational matters for Brighthouse and the Adviser, as well as the importance of the Adviser to the businesses of Brighthouse after the Separation.

Among other steps in its review process, which accelerated on October 5, 2016 when Brighthouse filed its Form 10 with the SEC, the following actions were taken and considered by or on behalf of the Board:

1. The Independent Trustees solicited and received ongoing advice regarding the legal duties of the Independent Trustees from Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young LLP (“Stradley Ronon”), legal counsel for the Independent Trustees, which law firm has extensive experience regarding such matters.

2. Following the August 16-17, 2016 Board and Committee quarterly meetings, the Independent Trustees established an ad hoc group of Independent Trustees (the “Working Group”) to help oversee, coordinate, and conduct due diligence activities with respect to the Separation. The Working Group regularly reported on the due diligence activities to the other Independent Trustees.

3. Since January 2016, the Board posed ongoing inquiries to, and received regular updates from, the Adviser and anticipated senior management at Brighthouse at either in-person meetings dedicated to the status of the Separation or during the course of the Board or Committee’s regular quarterly meetings. The Board considered, among other matters, relevant legal guidance and the processes

MSF-26

Metropolitan Series Fund

Baillie Gifford International Stock Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

followed by certain other investment company boards of directors or trustees when they approved contracts in connection with change in control events, while recognizing the unique circumstances of the Separation.

4. The Board received and reviewed the Form 10 of Brighthouse that contained extensive information relating to, among other matters, Brighthouse’s anticipated business plans and financial structure. The Board also received and reviewed reports from rating agencies with respect to Brighthouse.

5. Stradley Ronon retained Barrington Partners (“Barrington”), an independent consulting firm with a specific focus on the asset management industry and experience relating to business operations such as those to be conducted by Brighthouse, including its proposed subsidiary, the Adviser, in order to help Stradley Ronon evaluate the Separation based on the Form 10 and other materials and related information provided by the Adviser and its affiliates. Barrington conducted a series of in-person and telephonic meetings with anticipated senior management at Brighthouse (i.e., the aforementioned anticipated officers of Brighthouse and others) and with personnel of the Adviser who provide services to the Trusts. Stradley Ronon, with the assistance of Barrington, evaluated the information and advised the Independent Trustees with respect to, among other matters, details of Brighthouse’s anticipated business plan to understand the implications of the Separation to the Adviser and its personnel. The Independent Trustees and the Working Group attended certain in-person and telephonic conference call meetings at which Barrington rendered advice to Stradley Ronon regarding these matters and responded to questions.

6. The Independent Trustees requested and participated in in-person meetings with anticipated senior management personnel at Brighthouse, including its President and Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, Chief Operating Officer, and Chief Investment Officer. The Independent Trustees also met with personnel of the Adviser.

7. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of Stradley Ronon, prepared written inquiries to the Adviser and its affiliates regarding the Separation, and received written assurances from the Adviser and its affiliates that they have no plans to make any material changes affecting the personnel of the Adviser (including those personnel who provide investment, administrative, legal and compliance services) and the Adviser and its affiliates will not initiate such changes without prior notice to and discussion with the Board.

8. The Board considered representations by the Adviser and its affiliates that approval of the New Advisory Agreements would be necessary for the Portfolios to continue receiving investment advisory services from the Adviser following the change in control.

9. The Board considered representations by the Adviser, as well as related supporting documentation, indicating that the New Advisory Agreements, including the fees payable thereunder, are substantially identical to the terms of the corresponding Current Advisory Agreements.

10. The Board considered representations by the Adviser and its affiliates, as well as related supporting documentation, indicating that: (1) the Adviser can be expected to provide services of the same nature, extent, and quality under the New Advisory Agreements and as are provided thereby under the Current Advisory Agreements; and (2) the Separation is not expected to result in any changes to (i) the management of the Portfolios, or (ii) the investment objective of or the principal investment strategies used to manage any of the Portfolios.

11. The Board considered the ability of the Adviser and its affiliates to retain the employment of key personnel, as well as the overall positive indications by many such personnel regarding the opportunities presented by the Separation.

12. The Board considered that the Adviser and its affiliates have agreed to bear all expenses associated with obtaining shareholder approval of the New Advisory Agreements.

13. The Board considered Brighthouse’s preliminary “branding” plans regarding the future name of its operations.

14. The Board considered the advice provided by Ropes & Gray, LLP, legal counsel to the Trusts and the Adviser, with respect to the New Advisory Agreements (including advice relating to the process and timing of seeking shareholder approval of the New Advisory Agreements, and whether shareholder approvals would be required in connection with any future aspects of the Separation) and regarding the Board’s role and responsibilities with respect to the Separation.

15. The Board considered MetLife’s stated intention of divesting its ownership interest in the Adviser through the Separation, including the potential advantages and disadvantages of this divestiture to shareholders of the Portfolios. The Board considered the likelihood that the Adviser would retain its key personnel after the Separation. The Board considered that the garnering of new assets into the Trusts is based on sales of variable annuity and variable life insurance products, which sales have declined in prior years as a result of, among other things, the capital requirements of MetLife. The Board considered the representations of the anticipated senior

MSF-27

Metropolitan Series Fund

Baillie Gifford International Stock Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

management of Brighthouse that the Separation provides the Trusts with an opportunity for the garnering of new assets as Brighthouse will likely sell such products going forward. The Board considered also that the divestiture would result in a change in the manner in which the Trusts access certain services and resources of MetLife (after the Separation those services will be provided through a transition services agreement), the loss of affiliation with the MetLife name brand, and the possible going forward need of the Trusts to hire a transfer agent, as such transfer agency services are currently provided to the Trusts for no fee.

16. The Board considered that, if shareholders approve the New Advisory Agreements, the Board and the Adviser will conduct their annual contract review process in November 2017. Thus, the Board emphasized that it would be able to, and intends to, monitor on a regular basis the ability of the Adviser and its affiliates to comply with their undertakings to the Board and to monitor on an ongoing basis the quality of services to, and expenses of, the Portfolios. In addition, the Board considered that, under the New Advisory Agreements, it will continue to have the authority, should the need arise in its view, to terminate any of the New Advisory Agreements without penalty upon 60 days’ notice.

Based on the foregoing and other relevant considerations, at the November Meeting, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, voted to approve the New Advisory Agreements and to recommend approval of the New Advisory Agreements by shareholders of the Portfolios. In this connection, the Board concluded that, in light of all factors considered, the terms of the New Advisory Agreement, including fee rates, were fair and reasonable, and that it would be in the best interests of shareholders of each Portfolio to approve the New Advisory Agreements.

In the event that approval of the New Advisory Agreements by shareholders of the Portfolios has not been obtained before the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements as a result of the change in control of the Adviser, the Board also approved an interim advisory agreement with the Adviser (the “Interim Advisory Agreement”) on behalf of each Portfolio that will go into effect upon the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements. The Board’s determination to approve each Interim Advisory Agreement was based on the same information and considerations as the Board’s approval of the New Advisory Agreements so as to ensure continuity of advisory services from the Adviser to the Portfolios following the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements.

MSF-28

Metropolitan Series Fund

Baillie Gifford International Stock Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Sub-Advisory Agreements

The separation (the “Separation”) of MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”), the investment adviser to each of the series (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”) of Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (collectively, the “Trusts”), from its parent company, MetLife, Inc. (“MetLife”), to a separate retail business, Brighthouse Financial, Inc. (“Brighthouse”), is expected to result in a change in control of the Adviser, and therefore an “assignment” of each Portfolio’s current advisory agreement and, as a result, the automatic termination of the sub-advisory agreement (each a “Sub-Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisory Agreements”) between the Adviser and the investment sub-advisers (each a “Sub-Adviser” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisers”). At the November 15-16, 2016 meeting (“November Meeting”) of the Board of Trustees of the Trusts (the “Board”), the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not “interested persons,” as defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940, of any Portfolio (the “Independent Trustees”), approved new sub-advisory agreements (each a “New Sub-Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “New Sub-Advisory Agreements”). Information about the Board’s considerations and process is set forth below.

In determining whether to approve the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, the Board considered the nature, quality and extent of the services that are currently provided by the Sub-Advisers under the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements as well as the services to be provided under the New Sub-Advisory Agreements. The Board’s review was conducted as part of, and in conjunction with, the Board’s annual review of the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements, which culminated at the November Meeting. In approving the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, the Board considered its conclusions with respect to its approvals of the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements, including the Board’s general satisfaction with the nature, extent and quality of services being provided by the Sub-Advisers to the Portfolios, as applicable. Appendix A contains a further description of the process followed, information reviewed and the material factors considered by the Board in approving the continuation of the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements.

In addition, the following actions were taken and considered by or on behalf of the Board:

1. The Independent Trustees of the Board solicited and received ongoing advice regarding the legal duties of the Independent Trustees from Stradley Ronon, legal counsel for the Independent Trustees, which law firm has extensive experience regarding such matters.

2. The Board considered representations by the Adviser and its affiliates that approval of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements would be necessary for the Portfolios to continue receiving sub-advisory services from the Sub-Advisers following the change in control of the Adviser.

3. The Board considered representations by the Adviser, as well as related supporting documentation, indicating that the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, including the fees payable thereunder, are the same as the terms of the corresponding Current Sub-Advisory Agreements.

4. The Board considered the advice provided by Ropes & Gray, LLP, legal counsel to the Trusts and the Adviser, with respect to the New Sub-Advisory Agreements and regarding the Board’s role and responsibilities with respect to the Separation.

5. The Board considered that the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers will conduct their annual contract review process in November 2017. Thus, the Board emphasized that it would be able to, and intends to, monitor on an ongoing basis the ability of the Sub-Advisers to comply with its undertakings to the Board and the Adviser and to monitor on an ongoing basis the quality of services to, and expenses of, the Portfolios. In addition, the Board considered that, under the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, it will continue to have the authority, should the need arise in its view, to terminate any of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements without penalty upon no more than 60 days’ notice.

Based on the foregoing and other relevant considerations, at the November Meeting, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, voted to approve the New Sub-Advisory Agreements. In this connection, the Board concluded that, in light of all factors considered, the terms of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, including fee rates, were fair and reasonable.

MSF-29

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Bond Income Portfolio

Managed by BlackRock Advisors, LLC

Portfolio Manager Commentary*

PERFORMANCE

For the 12 months ended December 31, 2016, the Class A, B, and E shares of the BlackRock Bond Income Portfolio returned 3.12%, 2.86%, and 2.98%, respectively. The Portfolio’s benchmark, the Bloomberg Barclays U.S. Aggregate Bond Index¹, returned 2.65%.

MARKET ENVIRONMENT / CONDITIONS

Over the past year, we have seen a range of unexpected events punctuate the stability of markets. Political risk was particularly pronounced with three key events: the U.K. referendum, the U.S. election, and the Italian referendum dominating investor focus at times and raising many questions for the year ahead.

The first quarter saw a sharp underperformance of risk assets on the back of concerns about a Chinese currency devaluation, slowing U.S. and global growth, as well as steep declines in commodity prices in the quarter. Later in first quarter, however, dovish central bank responses, stabilising commodity prices and Chinese stimulus helped a sentiment reversal and many risk-assets, such as U.S. High Yield and Investment Grade credit as well as select emerging markets, tightened past levels seen at the beginning of the year.

The rally in risk assets was interrupted abruptly in second quarter, as U.K. voters on June 23^rd elected to leave the European Union (“Brexit”). However, markets rebounded sharply (with the exception of sterling) following the immediate post-Brexit fall-out, helped by an accommodative central bank.

Later in the summer, we saw reflationary trends emerging with U.S.-led stronger nominal growth, inflation and major central banks moving away from ever-looser monetary policies. Most advanced in this dynamic is the U.S. Federal Reserve (the “Fed”), which increased rates in December of this year, having previously raised rates in December 2015. Elsewhere, the Bank of Japan moved to “Quantitative and Qualitative Easing (QQE) with yield curve control”, marking a shift away from an emphasis on negative rates towards anchoring the yield curve, while the Bank of England communicated a more balanced stance following the easing measures taken in the wake of the U.K.’s Brexit referendum. Meanwhile, the European Central Bank announced an extension of its QE program through 2017 but with reduced monthly purchases.

In the fourth quarter, the theme of global reflation started to pick up interest rates, driven by higher inflation prints, a stronger U.S. dollar, higher commodity prices, and divergence in monetary policy between the U.S. and other global developed central banks.

PORTFOLIO REVIEW / PERIOD END POSITIONING

The Portfolio’s overweight positions to U.S. Securitized Assets, Emerging Markets, underweight U.S. Agency Mortgage-Backed Securities (“MBS”), allocations to U.S. High Yield credit and Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities and security selection within Investment Grade (“IG”) credit have added to performance. The Portfolio’s underweight position early in 2016 within IG credit, our active foreign exchange positioning, and our recent overweight to Municipals have been the key detractors from performance.

Early in 2016, we held a more cautious stance as we believed tail-risks remained elevated. Our view coming into 2016 was that major fault lines (particularly China) prevailed in the system, warranting a cautious stance—we thus proactively reduced risk exposures in the Portfolio. While we meaningfully added to hedges (including duration) to start the year, the rapid deterioration of international conditions (China, oil, and European financials) and its impact on financial markets was beyond expectations. Though our early defensive posture helped to limit the Portfolio’s drawdown versus the benchmark for the first several weeks of 2016, a dramatic QE-driven environment unfolded over the second half of the first quarter. We maintained our cautious view as market conditions could have severely worsened (i.e. Chinese devaluation) if not for the coordinated monetary policy support implemented across China, Europe, and the U.S.

Starting at the end of February, the team began adding exposure to credit sectors. Aggressive global monetary policy starting in February, including China, the U.K., Japan, and the Eurozone, drove interest rates dramatically lower, creating a strong bid for attractive yielding assets. In particular, we added exposure to High Yield Credit, Investment Grade Credit, Structured Products, and select areas of emerging market debt (particularly via local rate expressions and higher carry currencies). In the second half of 2016, we reduced U.S. duration and adjusted our curve view, holding a yield curve steepener. We also increased the Portfolio’s exposure to breakeven inflation rates in the U.S. These positions particularly helped performance after the U.S. presidential election, as the market began to price in factors such as possible fiscal initiatives, alterations to trade agreements, a stricter immigration platform, and tax cuts. We also reduced emerging markets risk, reducing the overall beta exposure of emerging markets positions.

Thematically, in the fourth quarter, after having added to U.S. IG credit, we reduced exposure post the U.S. election outcome and back up in U.S. rates. We maintained exposure to U.S. High yield as we preferred to own exposure further down the capital stack into year-end. Similarly, we reduced exposure to higher quality structured products (Commercial MBS) and reduced Non-Agency MBS exposure alongside the interest-rate back up. We reduced exposure to U.S. Municipals due to greater tax uncertainty post-election. We also reduced the Portfolio’s steepening bias at year-end and maintained an underweight position to U.S. duration relative to the index.

MSF-1

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Bond Income Portfolio

Managed by BlackRock Advisors, LLC

Portfolio Manager Commentary*—(Continued)

During the period, we used various derivatives to actively manage Portfolio exposures. These included futures, forwards, swaps, and options to gain interest rate, credit, and currency exposures.

Rick Rieder

Bob Miller

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 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 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.

MSF-2

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Bond Income Portfolio

A $10,000 INVESTMENT COMPARED TO THE BLOOMBERG BARCLAYS U.S. AGGREGATE BOND INDEX

AVERAGE ANNUAL RETURNS (%) (FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2016)

	1 Year		5 Year		10 Year
BlackRock Bond Income Portfolio
Class A		3.12		3.46		4.40
Class B		2.86		3.20		4.14
Class E		2.98		3.31		4.24
Bloomberg Barclays U.S. Aggregate Bond Index		2.65		2.23		4.34

¹ The Bloomberg Barclays 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.

Portfolio performance is calculated including reinvestment of all income and capital gain distributions. Performance numbers are net of all Portfolio expenses but do not include any insurance, sales, separate account or administrative charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts or any additional expenses that participants may bear relating to the operations of their plans. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower. The performance of any index referenced above has not been adjusted for ongoing management, distribution and operating expenses, and sales charges applicable to mutual fund investments. Direct investment in any index is not possible. The performance of Class A shares, as set forth in the line graph above, will differ from that of other classes because of the difference in expenses paid by policyholders investing in the different share classes.

This information represents past performance and is not indicative of future results. Investment return and principal value may fluctuate so that shares, upon redemption, may be worth more or less than the original cost.

PORTFOLIO COMPOSITION AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2016

Top Sectors

	% of Net Assets
U.S. Treasury & Government Agencies		54.9
Corporate Bonds & Notes		24.3
Asset-Backed Securities		12.3
Mortgage-Backed Securities		6.5
Foreign Government		3.3
Municipals		3.2
Preferred Stocks		0.4

MSF-3

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Bond 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, 2016 through December 31, 2016.

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.

BlackRock Bond Income Portfolio		Annualized Expense Ratio			Beginning Account Value July 1, 2016		Ending Account Value December 31, 2016		Expenses Paid During Period** July 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016
Class A	Actual		0.36	%	$	1,000.00	$	979.90	$	1.79
	Hypothetical*		0.36	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,023.33	$	1.83
Class B	Actual		0.61	%	$	1,000.00	$	978.70	$	3.03
	Hypothetical*		0.61	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,022.07	$	3.10
Class E	Actual		0.51	%	$	1,000.00	$	979.20	$	2.54
	Hypothetical*		0.51	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,022.57	$	2.59

* 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 366 (to reflect the one-half year period).

MSF-4

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Bond Income Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

U.S. Treasury & Government Agencies—54.9% of Net Assets

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Agency Sponsored Mortgage - Backed—34.9%
Fannie Mae 15 Yr. Pool 2.500%, 01/01/30		1,645,322	$	1,650,608
2.500%, 07/01/30		471,772		473,176
2.500%, 08/01/30		3,764,094		3,774,753
2.500%, 09/01/30		2,012,807		2,018,724
2.500%, 11/01/30		4,067,467		4,078,757
2.500%, 06/01/31		1,050,852		1,054,069
2.500%, 07/01/31		3,190,020		3,199,784
2.500%, 10/01/31		7,197,190		7,218,766
2.500%, 11/01/31		5,297,227		5,314,150
3.000%, 11/01/28		4,289,552		4,410,704
3.000%, 12/01/28		1,192,210		1,226,232
3.000%, 01/01/29		463,668		476,223
3.000%, 04/01/29		1,740,040		1,789,261
3.000%, 05/01/29		2,694,321		2,769,150
3.000%, 08/01/29		3,109,055		3,197,303
3.000%, 09/01/29		1,000,449		1,029,163
3.000%, 03/01/30		1,493,891		1,536,816
3.000%, 04/01/30		1,289,641		1,326,174
3.000%, 05/01/30		1,829,677		1,882,069
3.000%, 07/01/30		9,028,592		9,286,328
3.000%, 08/01/30		7,578,538		7,794,196
3.000%, 09/01/30		2,866,241		2,948,229
3.500%, 11/01/25		1,857,118		1,938,914
3.500%, 08/01/26		1,392,900		1,453,921
3.500%, 08/01/28		984,423		1,032,575
3.500%, 10/01/28		4,137,177		4,339,463
3.500%, 11/01/28		5,210,389		5,464,883
3.500%, 02/01/29		10,445,070		10,949,819
3.500%, 04/01/29		2,172,285		2,278,881
3.500%, 05/01/29		5,189,604		5,435,473
3.500%, 06/01/29		3,128,661		3,282,038
3.500%, 07/01/29		11,552,013		12,119,645
3.500%, 09/01/29		310,910		326,236
3.500%, 12/01/29		14,269,676		15,007,810
3.500%, 08/01/30		1,378,104		1,450,064
4.000%, 01/01/25		12,235		12,609
4.000%, 02/01/25		3,842,820		4,059,466
4.000%, 09/01/25		692,857		731,634
4.000%, 10/01/25		2,037,671		2,148,630
4.000%, 01/01/26		627,606		662,919
4.000%, 04/01/26		443,059		468,219
4.000%, 07/01/26		1,669,332		1,756,036
4.000%, 08/01/26		965,611		1,020,319
4.500%, 12/01/20		785,769		815,169
4.500%, 02/01/25		662,914		703,917
4.500%, 04/01/25		127,215		134,098
4.500%, 07/01/25		480,336		507,771
4.500%, 06/01/26		2,988,719		3,166,999
Fannie Mae 20 Yr. Pool 3.000%, 10/01/36		142,445		144,300
3.000%, 11/01/36		1,417,231		1,435,695
3.000%, 12/01/36		7,264,409		7,359,049
5.000%, 05/01/23		3,275		3,566
Fannie Mae 30 Yr. Pool 3.000%, 12/01/42		9,223,848		9,221,215
Agency Sponsored Mortgage - Backed—(Continued)
Fannie Mae 30 Yr. Pool
3.000%, 01/01/43		6,219,809		6,218,038
3.000%, 02/01/43		2,935,395		2,934,557
3.000%, 03/01/43		23,944,790		23,937,962
3.000%, 04/01/43		16,471,979		16,467,285
3.000%, 05/01/43		21,969,329		21,963,066
3.000%, 06/01/43		2,798,952		2,798,152
3.000%, 06/01/46		945,497		942,834
3.000%, 08/01/46		103,274		103,085
3.000%, 09/01/46		5,667,502		5,645,040
3.000%, 10/01/46		7,096,194		7,060,206
3.000%, 11/01/46		5,225,016		5,215,443
3.000%, 12/01/46		4,095,661		4,080,529
3.000%, 01/01/47		471,000		469,552
3.500%, 01/01/42		218,534		225,411
3.500%, 04/01/42		275,333		284,095
3.500%, 05/01/42		425,884		439,033
3.500%, 06/01/42		1,145,240		1,181,391
3.500%, 07/01/42		143,029		147,513
3.500%, 10/01/42		1,869,123		1,927,859
3.500%, 12/01/42		200,239		206,792
3.500%, 01/01/43		1,143,354		1,178,480
3.500%, 02/01/43		1,836,780		1,894,105
3.500%, 03/01/43		4,735,177		4,886,495
3.500%, 04/01/43		85,462		88,275
3.500%, 06/01/43		1,600,624		1,649,098
3.500%, 07/01/43		13,880,085		14,321,051
3.500%, 08/01/43		9,328,372		9,617,444
3.500%, 09/01/43		151,042		155,757
3.500%, 10/01/43		180,198		186,144
3.500%, 11/01/43		1,533,002		1,580,018
3.500%, 01/01/44		2,055,815		2,120,726
3.500%, 06/01/44		13,256,014		13,672,992
3.500%, 07/01/44		66,181		68,015
3.500%, 04/01/46		9,373,384		9,614,629
3.500%, 06/01/46		17,947,981		18,411,490
3.500%, 07/01/46		12,836,582		13,168,836
3.500%, 10/01/46		2,357,413		2,419,643
3.500%, 12/01/46 (a)		20,658,626		21,193,761
3.500%, 01/01/47		20,251,003		20,796,041
4.000%, 08/01/33		1,493,639		1,570,512
4.000%, 06/01/39		1,130,300		1,192,630
4.000%, 12/01/39		111,629		117,360
4.000%, 07/01/40		1,438,843		1,513,858
4.000%, 08/01/40		2,608,517		2,747,618
4.000%, 10/01/40		6,819,358		7,217,987
4.000%, 11/01/40		465,247		489,828
4.000%, 12/01/40		2,414,715		2,547,847
4.000%, 04/01/41		238,622		251,875
4.000%, 09/01/41		6,177,298		6,495,076
4.000%, 10/01/41		390,625		411,226
4.000%, 12/01/41		1,516,787		1,612,130
4.000%, 02/01/42		3,597,876		3,800,285
4.000%, 05/01/42		1,526,433		1,616,173
4.000%, 06/01/42		853,777		901,198
4.000%, 07/01/42		5,692,980		6,043,830

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-5

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Bond Income Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

U.S. Treasury & Government Agencies—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Agency Sponsored Mortgage - Backed—(Continued)
Fannie Mae 30 Yr. Pool
4.000%, 08/01/42		452,430	$	476,091
4.000%, 09/01/42		1,111,311		1,173,127
4.000%, 12/01/42		3,104,216		3,290,147
4.000%, 01/01/43		1,342,369		1,414,257
4.000%, 10/01/43		1,012,990		1,069,496
4.000%, 11/01/43		4,563,211		4,849,985
4.000%, 01/01/44		3,372,009		3,584,246
4.000%, 02/01/44		3,179,533		3,379,682
4.000%, 05/01/44		4,747,640		5,046,494
4.000%, 07/01/44		350,035		369,737
4.000%, 10/01/44		6,085,261		6,416,491
4.000%, 11/01/44		1,868,314		1,964,922
4.000%, 12/01/44		5,463,605		5,796,250
4.000%, 01/01/45		2,506,767		2,661,131
4.000%, 02/01/45		1,463,529		1,550,453
4.000%, 03/01/45		1,302,372		1,378,459
4.000%, 04/01/45		1,167,396		1,236,869
4.000%, 05/01/45		1,150,947		1,212,263
4.000%, 07/01/45		3,888,796		4,090,883
4.000%, 08/01/45		334,630		352,019
4.000%, 09/01/45		1,860,587		1,956,882
4.000%, 10/01/45		18,769,407		19,852,008
4.000%, 11/01/45		5,443,313		5,745,024
4.000%, 12/01/45		7,971,250		8,432,375
4.000%, 01/01/46		7,277,238		7,671,350
4.000%, 02/01/46		2,138,080		2,265,636
4.000%, 03/01/46		14,067,203		14,800,538
4.000%, 04/01/46		1,393,937		1,467,030
4.000%, 05/01/46		1,930,602		2,031,359
4.000%, 08/01/46		27,334		28,763
4.500%, 08/01/39		2,088,668		2,254,044
4.500%, 11/01/39		476,985		523,270
4.500%, 01/01/40		54,642		59,298
4.500%, 04/01/40		128,992		139,446
4.500%, 05/01/40		335,873		363,121
4.500%, 06/01/40		323,257		348,316
4.500%, 07/01/40		604,756		651,806
4.500%, 08/01/40		4,380,597		4,730,055
4.500%, 11/01/40		1,218,103		1,312,457
4.500%, 07/01/41		365,710		394,890
4.500%, 08/01/41		124,619		134,098
4.500%, 09/01/41		1,257,822		1,359,005
4.500%, 01/01/42		257,301		277,513
4.500%, 06/01/42		166,424		179,078
4.500%, 08/01/42		1,442,887		1,557,128
4.500%, 09/01/42		4,080,630		4,394,181
4.500%, 09/01/43		1,169,314		1,258,464
4.500%, 10/01/43		1,910,910		2,058,491
4.500%, 12/01/43		2,689,636		2,899,147
4.500%, 01/01/44		4,289,370		4,650,320
4.500%, 10/01/45		3,496,446		3,797,781
4.500%, 11/01/45		6,421,533		6,996,325
4.500%, 06/01/46		3,978,597		4,326,572
5.000%, 11/01/32		9,097		9,963
5.000%, 06/01/39 (b)		29,598,449		32,468,893
Agency Sponsored Mortgage - Backed—(Continued)
Fannie Mae 30 Yr. Pool
5.000%, 04/01/41		51,393		55,990
5.000%, 07/01/41		618,207		676,473
5.000%, 08/01/41		666,590		729,246
5.000%, 01/01/42		53,800		58,640
5.500%, 11/01/32		1,637,404		1,834,703
5.500%, 12/01/32		263,954		296,058
5.500%, 01/01/33		1,013,212		1,135,626
5.500%, 12/01/33		343,962		385,450
5.500%, 05/01/34		2,752,035		3,086,484
5.500%, 08/01/37		2,851,047		3,198,172
5.500%, 02/01/38		408,225		461,318
5.500%, 03/01/38		305,382		343,518
5.500%, 04/01/38		277,034		307,772
5.500%, 06/01/38		421,575		476,265
5.500%, 12/01/38		518,217		576,109
5.500%, 08/01/39		450,184		503,841
5.500%, 04/01/40		122,021		136,117
5.500%, 04/01/41		476,331		531,318
5.500%, TBA (c)		5,258,000		5,845,006
6.000%, 02/01/34		310,916		357,602
6.000%, 08/01/34		232,954		267,616
6.000%, 04/01/35		3,666,524		4,216,918
6.000%, 06/01/36		544,581		626,515
6.000%, 02/01/38		750,405		861,541
6.000%, 03/01/38		260,735		299,387
6.000%, 05/01/38		846,418		975,485
6.000%, 10/01/38		1,033,742		1,173,767
6.000%, 12/01/38		300,189		342,630
6.000%, 04/01/40		3,299,705		3,736,909
6.000%, 09/01/40		325,574		368,492
6.000%, 06/01/41		743,819		843,588
6.500%, 05/01/40		4,879,052		5,543,114
Fannie Mae ARM Pool 2.810%, 03/01/41 (d)		563,422		598,078
2.945%, 03/01/41 (d)		339,826		358,926
3.022%, 08/01/38 (d)		686,977		728,947
3.144%, 12/01/40 (d)		985,936		1,038,228
3.396%, 06/01/41 (d)		1,908,424		1,999,937
3.525%, 09/01/41 (d)		1,356,357		1,425,470
Fannie Mae Pool 2.500%, 05/01/26		900,000		869,182
2.690%, 04/01/25		480,000		473,835
4.000%, 01/01/41		660,922		701,552
Fannie Mae REMICS (CMO) 5.000%, 04/25/35		112,788		119,344
Fannie Mae-ACES 0.131%, 08/25/24 (d) (e)		115,340,954		1,098,899
Freddie Mac 15 Yr. Gold Pool 2.500%, 08/01/29		1,559,801		1,565,272
2.500%, 12/01/29		444,316		445,774
2.500%, 05/01/30		1,472,363		1,476,720
2.500%, 07/01/30		1,006,371		1,009,524
2.500%, 08/01/30		2,901,094		2,910,534
2.500%, 09/01/30		3,710,629		3,721,786
2.500%, TBA (c)		12,449,000		12,471,370

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-6

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Bond Income Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

U.S. Treasury & Government Agencies—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Agency Sponsored Mortgage - Backed—(Continued)
Freddie Mac 15 Yr. Gold Pool
3.000%, 01/01/30		1,201,839	$	1,235,877
3.000%, 04/01/30		5,674,543		5,837,756
3.000%, 05/01/30		921,039		947,879
3.000%, 06/01/30		38,974		40,092
3.000%, 07/01/30		2,107,520		2,167,619
3.000%, 08/01/30		3,168,473		3,259,302
3.000%, TBA (c)		7,301,000		7,491,551
3.500%, TBA (c)		6,972,000		7,270,911
Freddie Mac 30 Yr. Gold Pool 3.000%, 12/01/42		3,254,367		3,253,041
3.000%, 01/01/43		2,194,600		2,193,706
3.000%, 03/01/43		4,935,356		4,933,345
3.000%, 07/01/43		14,103,417		14,080,290
3.000%, 09/01/46		1,402,828		1,394,862
3.000%, 12/01/46		9,471,228		9,429,430
3.000%, TBA (c)		31,755,000		31,531,902
3.500%, 04/01/42		2,226,721		2,293,929
3.500%, 08/01/42		1,794,349		1,850,688
3.500%, 10/01/42		213,773		219,439
3.500%, 01/01/43		1,469,727		1,513,561
3.500%, 02/01/43		472,902		488,057
3.500%, 06/01/43		390,845		402,404
3.500%, 07/01/43		3,329,520		3,436,229
3.500%, 12/01/43		1,993,236		2,057,000
3.500%, 01/01/44		831,799		857,087
3.500%, 04/01/44		168,488		173,396
3.500%, 05/01/44		702,722		724,033
3.500%, 06/01/44		184,216		189,690
3.500%, 07/01/44		141,774		146,291
3.500%, 08/01/44		605,228		623,242
3.500%, 09/01/44		1,105,813		1,139,041
3.500%, 09/01/45		240,647		248,118
3.500%, 05/01/46		6,272,234		6,427,959
3.500%, 06/01/46		6,397,999		6,557,214
3.500%, 12/01/46		33,416,031		34,249,358
3.500%, TBA (c)		10,228,721		10,473,626
4.000%, 08/01/40		409,002		429,692
4.000%, 10/01/40		196,143		207,614
4.000%, 11/01/40		877,406		927,729
4.000%, 04/01/41		22,575		23,830
4.000%, 10/01/41		816,512		864,493
4.000%, 09/01/43		564,233		597,682
4.000%, 04/01/44		1,130,998		1,197,394
4.000%, 08/01/44		4,324,991		4,581,241
4.000%, 02/01/45		445,829		471,442
4.000%, 08/01/45		6,209,829		6,525,106
4.000%, 09/01/45		1,840,514		1,946,405
4.000%, 10/01/45		6,207,963		6,536,680
4.000%, 12/01/45		17,976,476		18,898,210
4.000%, 01/01/46 (a)		23,573,423		24,772,996
4.000%, 02/01/46		14,257,245		14,982,272
4.000%, 09/01/46		13,335,493		14,034,162
4.000%, 10/01/46		8,113,397		8,535,966
4.000%, TBA (c)		2,002,000		2,102,765
4.500%, 02/01/39		1,789,561		1,922,885
Agency Sponsored Mortgage - Backed—(Continued)
Freddie Mac 30 Yr. Gold Pool
4.500%, 08/01/39		1,509,612		1,626,467
4.500%, 12/01/39		369,193		398,348
4.500%, 07/01/40		108,665		116,645
4.500%, 05/01/41		2,339,352		2,514,245
4.500%, 05/01/42		2,233,272		2,402,569
4.500%, 10/01/43		1,150,640		1,237,694
4.500%, 12/01/43		2,877,858		3,110,978
4.500%, 04/01/44		1,454,201		1,566,586
4.500%, 09/01/44		4,264,565		4,583,418
5.000%, 10/01/41		927,526		1,012,337
5.000%, 11/01/41		8,377,384		9,140,502
5.500%, 09/01/39		245,448		272,189
5.500%, 01/01/40		324,387		359,829
5.500%, 07/01/40		410,551		455,724
5.500%, 06/01/41		3,571,760		3,978,376
Freddie Mac ARM Non-Gold Pool 2.997%, 02/01/41 (d)		869,633		922,042
Freddie Mac Multifamily Structured Pass-Through Certificates 1.369%, 03/25/26 (d) (e)		10,363,274		1,018,405
2.356%, 08/25/22		940,000		932,663
2.770%, 05/25/25		1,110,000		1,092,582
3.205%, 03/25/25		370,000		380,477
3.527%, 10/25/23 (d)		550,000		581,511
3.531%, 07/25/23 (d)		500,000		529,655
Ginnie Mae I 30 Yr. Pool 3.000%, TBA (c)		6,519,000		6,588,009
3.500%, 02/15/42		252,949		265,995
3.500%, 04/15/42		470,923		494,573
3.500%, 05/15/42		434,278		456,682
3.500%, 08/15/42		630,906		660,488
3.500%, 11/15/42		438,488		458,715
3.500%, 12/15/42		1,407,826		1,479,987
3.500%, 01/15/43		613,658		641,866
3.500%, 02/15/43		939,651		985,005
3.500%, 03/15/43		530,186		554,557
3.500%, 04/15/43		1,972,894		2,074,096
3.500%, 05/15/43		3,394,627		3,560,015
3.500%, 06/15/43		823,694		859,922
3.500%, 07/15/43		2,854,612		3,000,730
4.000%, 01/15/41		2,004,980		2,136,155
4.000%, 03/15/41		1,421,645		1,508,640
4.000%, 12/15/41		26,533		28,192
4.000%, 05/15/42		146,959		156,205
4.000%, TBA (c)		4,542,000		4,822,327
4.500%, 02/15/42		15,197,646		16,474,531
5.000%, 12/15/38		429,544		473,877
5.000%, 07/15/39		1,191,544		1,310,248
5.000%, 12/15/40		1,440,057		1,588,744
5.500%, 04/15/33		38,120		42,865
6.500%, 04/15/33		50,478		57,659
8.500%, 05/15/17		38		38
8.500%, 05/15/22		643		651

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-7

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Bond Income Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

U.S. Treasury & Government Agencies—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Agency Sponsored Mortgage - Backed—(Continued)
Ginnie Mae II 30 Yr. Pool 3.000%, TBA (c)		76,888,000	$	77,850,599
3.500%, 12/20/41		5,387,710		5,621,491
3.500%, 10/20/42		552,734		577,232
3.500%, 01/20/43		491,367		513,145
3.500%, 04/20/43		411,914		430,019
3.500%, 10/20/46		2,854,326		2,977,502
3.500%, TBA (c)		90,907,000		94,498,890
4.000%, 09/20/40		143,070		153,448
4.000%, 10/20/40		1,587,959		1,703,153
4.000%, 11/20/40		898,072		963,219
4.000%, 12/20/40		3,876,156		4,157,354
4.000%, 01/20/41		2,934,098		3,146,776
4.000%, 02/20/41		52,299		55,885
4.000%, 07/20/43		270,906		289,100
4.000%, 08/20/44		1,155,478		1,242,102
4.000%, 10/20/46		249,284		265,950
4.000%, TBA (c)		29,217,000		31,027,653
4.500%, 12/20/39		123,446		133,459
4.500%, 01/20/40		151,749		164,145
4.500%, 02/20/40		121,224		130,652
4.500%, 05/20/40		8,365		9,011
4.500%, 08/20/40		296,358		320,692
4.500%, 05/20/41		15,988,761		17,223,382
4.500%, 06/20/41		1,555,405		1,675,515
4.500%, 07/20/41		974,839		1,050,669
4.500%, 11/20/41		146,645		158,316
4.500%, 11/20/44		374,436		400,025
5.000%, 10/20/33		1,256,016		1,400,469
5.000%, 10/20/39		448,903		497,552
Government National Mortgage Association 0.825%, 08/16/41 (e)		4,939,244		92,397
0.836%, 02/16/53 (d) (e)		21,048,997		1,123,204
0.930%, 06/16/58 (d) (e)		2,799,496		218,737
0.990%, 08/15/58 (d) (e)		4,696,503		386,043
1.000%, 02/16/39 (e)		7,102,033		114,406
1.008%, 08/16/58 (d) (e)		3,921,139		307,935
1.041%, 01/16/49 (d) (e)		10,097,117		605,005
1.048%, 05/16/58 (d) (e)		2,674,569		216,261
1.127%, 04/16/58 (d) (e)		7,094,054		599,374
1.148%, 12/16/57 (d) (e)		4,044,772		337,156
1.188%, 01/16/48 (d) (e)		7,990,778		477,236
1.192%, 02/16/58 (d) (e)		6,712,806		615,786
				1,333,000,369
U.S. Treasury—20.0%
U.S. Treasury Bonds 2.250%, 08/15/46 (f)		56,241,000		47,288,558
2.500%, 05/15/46 (f)		53,533,600		47,573,811
2.875%, 11/15/46		36,627,100		35,362,330
U.S. Treasury Inflation Indexed Notes 0.125%, 04/15/20 (g)		135,295,336		136,701,055
U.S. Treasury Notes 0.750%, 09/30/18		13,269,300		13,179,626
0.750%, 10/31/18		22,035,000		21,876,612
U.S. Treasury—(Continued)
U.S. Treasury Notes
1.000%, 11/30/18		58,649,900		58,462,044
1.000%, 10/15/19		34,139,000		33,773,610
1.000%, 11/15/19		34,211,000		33,799,408
1.125%, 09/30/21		50,630,500		48,836,661
1.250%, 10/31/21 (f)		50,412,400		48,884,299
1.375%, 12/15/19		22,304,000		22,250,850
1.375%, 09/30/23		77,300		73,203
1.500%, 08/15/26		36,241,000		33,331,826
1.625%, 10/31/23		75,100		72,252
1.625%, 05/15/26		35,892,000		33,469,290
1.750%, 11/30/21 (h)		23,123,700		22,951,174
2.000%, 11/15/26 (h)		114,946,200		110,595,256
2.125%, 11/30/23		14,541,100		14,444,533
				762,926,398
Total U.S. Treasury & Government Agencies (Cost $2,119,347,899)				2,095,926,767
Corporate Bonds & Notes—24.3%
Advertising—0.1%
ACE03 MH1 B2 Zero Coupon, 08/15/30		835,304		616,799
Interpublic Group of Cos., Inc. (The) 3.750%, 02/15/23		1,191,000		1,200,440
4.000%, 03/15/22		1,468,000		1,518,542
				3,335,781
Aerospace/Defense—0.3%
BAE Systems Holdings, Inc. 2.850%, 12/15/20 (144A)		699,000		700,021
4.750%, 10/07/44 (144A) (a)		132,000		133,576
Harris Corp. 2.700%, 04/27/20 (a)		706,000		705,223
Lockheed Martin Corp. 3.550%, 01/15/26		815,000		832,695
3.600%, 03/01/35 (a)		1,121,000		1,064,950
4.070%, 12/15/42		380,000		375,080
4.500%, 05/15/36		323,000		343,407
4.700%, 05/15/46		527,000		573,232
Northrop Grumman Corp. 3.850%, 04/15/45 (a)		1,295,000		1,228,466
United Technologies Corp. 1.778%, 05/04/18		3,052,000		3,052,665
4.150%, 05/15/45		836,000		844,352
				9,853,667
Agriculture—0.4%
Altria Group, Inc. 2.625%, 01/14/20		1,684,000		1,703,191
3.875%, 09/16/46		2,828,000		2,609,941
4.250%, 08/09/42 (a)		211,000		207,649
5.375%, 01/31/44		1,639,000		1,893,245

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-8

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Bond Income Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Corporate Bonds & Notes—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Agriculture—(Continued)
Philip Morris International, Inc. 1.125%, 08/21/17		3,344,000	$	3,341,047
4.125%, 03/04/43		1,129,000		1,092,517
4.250%, 11/10/44		2,250,000		2,221,673
4.875%, 11/15/43 (a)		1,032,000		1,110,048
Reynolds American, Inc. 2.300%, 06/12/18		1,321,000		1,329,374
3.250%, 06/12/20 (a)		561,000		574,837
				16,083,522
Airlines—0.2%
American Airlines Group, Inc. 4.625%, 03/01/20 (144A) (a)		2,214,000		2,241,675
American Airlines Pass-Through Trust 3.375%, 05/01/27		3,407,475		3,356,363
Turkish Airlines Pass-Through Trust 4.200%, 03/15/27 (144A)		1,239,549		1,213,271
United Airlines Pass-Through Trust 4.750%, 04/11/22		360,699		360,699
				7,172,008
Auto Manufacturers—1.1%
Fiat Chrysler Finance Europe 4.750%, 03/22/21 (EUR)		100,000		115,529
Ford Motor Co. 5.291%, 12/08/46		4,820,000		4,882,612
Ford Motor Credit Co. LLC 1.724%, 12/06/17		6,974,000		6,968,728
2.145%, 01/09/18		2,592,000		2,595,753
3.336%, 03/18/21 (a)		3,783,000		3,809,250
General Motors Co. 6.750%, 04/01/46		2,351,000		2,756,994
General Motors Financial Co., Inc. 2.625%, 07/10/17		2,036,000		2,047,011
3.100%, 01/15/19		814,000		822,639
3.200%, 07/06/21		8,280,000		8,210,920
3.700%, 11/24/20		1,345,000		1,368,201
4.000%, 01/15/25		1,821,000		1,776,642
4.000%, 10/06/26 (a)		4,160,000		3,999,927
4.750%, 08/15/17		3,515,000		3,581,673
				42,935,879
Auto Parts & Equipment—0.1%
Delphi Automotive plc 4.250%, 01/15/26		1,855,000		1,920,531
4.400%, 10/01/46		765,000		702,874
Faurecia 3.625%, 06/15/23 (EUR)		100,000		109,318
IHO Verwaltungs GmbH 2.750% (PIK 3.500%), 09/15/21 (EUR) (i)		100,000		108,297
3.250%, 09/15/23 (EUR) (i)		100,000		108,423
LKQ Italia Bondco S.p.A. 3.875%, 04/01/24 (EUR)		100,000		111,897
				3,061,340
Banks—6.9%
Allied Irish Banks plc 4.125%, 11/26/25 (EUR) (d)		100,000		106,587
Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria S.A. 7.000%, 02/19/19 (EUR) (d)		200,000		201,907
Banco Espirito Santo S.A. 4.000%, 01/21/19 (EUR) (j)		200,000		57,896
Banco Nacional de Comercio Exterior SNC 3.800%, 08/11/26 (144A) (d)		1,368,000		1,280,790
Banco Santander S.A. 6.250%, 03/12/19 (EUR) (d)		100,000		98,423
Bank of America Corp. 2.250%, 04/21/20 (a)		2,535,000		2,520,221
3.300%, 01/11/23		3,383,000		3,394,299
3.500%, 04/19/26 (a)		6,510,000		6,423,235
3.875%, 08/01/25 (a)		5,164,000		5,250,915
4.875%, 04/01/44		494,000		536,025
Bank of Ireland 4.250%, 06/11/24 (EUR) (d)		100,000		108,160
Bank of New York Mellon Corp. (The) 2.050%, 05/03/21		13,331,000		13,084,390
2.100%, 01/15/19		3,085,000		3,098,630
4.625%, 09/20/26 (d)		3,430,000		3,146,408
Bankia S.A. 4.000%, 05/22/24 (EUR) (d)		200,000		213,660
BB&T Corp. 2.450%, 01/15/20		2,395,000		2,413,770
Branch Banking & Trust Co. 2.300%, 10/15/18		2,160,000		2,181,505
Capital One Financial Corp. 3.750%, 07/28/26		1,956,000		1,896,137
4.750%, 07/15/21		80,000		86,526
Capital One N.A. 2.400%, 09/05/19		250,000		250,556
Citigroup, Inc. 1.800%, 02/05/18		2,960,000		2,958,345
2.500%, 09/26/18 (a)		4,057,000		4,095,805
2.500%, 07/29/19		3,634,000		3,658,911
2.900%, 12/08/21		24,490,000		24,423,926
3.500%, 05/15/23		2,381,000		2,373,314
3.875%, 03/26/25		1,530,000		1,519,900
4.125%, 07/25/28		2,767,000		2,733,309
Citizens Bank N.A. 2.300%, 12/03/18		1,395,000		1,402,148
Commerzbank AG 7.750%, 03/16/21 (EUR)		100,000		125,791
Cooperatieve Rabobank UA 6.625%, 06/29/21 (EUR) (d)		200,000		225,029
Credit Agricole S.A. 6.500%, 06/23/21 (EUR) (d)		100,000		108,729
Credit Suisse AG 3.000%, 10/29/21 (a)		2,270,000		2,291,690
Credit Suisse Group Funding Guernsey, Ltd. 2.750%, 03/26/20 (a)		3,269,000		3,240,625
4.875%, 05/15/45		753,000		772,935
Discover Bank 3.450%, 07/27/26 (a)		2,040,000		1,969,846

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-9

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Bond Income Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Corporate Bonds & Notes—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Banks—(Continued)
Fifth Third Bank 2.250%, 06/14/21		3,062,000	$	3,027,191
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (The) 2.000%, 04/25/19		950,000		946,227
2.350%, 11/15/21		6,177,000		6,001,326
2.600%, 04/23/20		2,774,000		2,776,907
2.625%, 01/31/19 (a)		3,624,000		3,662,965
2.625%, 04/25/21 (a)		2,055,000		2,040,079
2.750%, 09/15/20 (a)		1,326,000		1,331,728
3.500%, 01/23/25		1,683,000		1,660,614
3.500%, 11/16/26		6,123,000		5,982,079
3.750%, 05/22/25		2,243,000		2,248,834
4.800%, 07/08/44		994,000		1,043,530
HSBC Holdings plc 2.650%, 01/05/22		9,883,000		9,648,387
HSH Nordbank AG 0.488%, 02/14/17 (EUR) (d)		50,000		51,900
Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A. 7.000%, 01/19/21 (EUR) (d)		200,000		207,741
JPMorgan Chase & Co. 1.350%, 02/15/17		5,265,000		5,265,895
2.200%, 10/22/19 (a)		2,326,000		2,335,341
2.550%, 10/29/20 (a)		3,260,000		3,257,594
2.750%, 06/23/20 (a)		667,000		673,032
2.972%, 01/15/23		13,360,000		13,315,257
3.200%, 06/15/26 (a)		4,172,000		4,083,358
3.875%, 09/10/24		2,931,000		2,965,694
3.900%, 07/15/25		1,343,000		1,380,979
4.250%, 10/01/27 (a)		1,990,000		2,044,582
Morgan Stanley 2.625%, 11/17/21		13,443,000		13,281,173
2.800%, 06/16/20		3,889,000		3,920,828
3.700%, 10/23/24		3,417,000		3,457,703
3.750%, 02/25/23		1,545,000		1,586,938
3.875%, 01/27/26		3,069,000		3,100,015
4.000%, 07/23/25		1,425,000		1,460,649
Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc 3.875%, 09/12/23		8,102,000		7,779,994
Santander UK Group Holdings plc 2.875%, 08/05/21 (a)		16,750,000		16,379,071
Societe Generale S.A. 7.375%, 09/13/21 (144A) (d)		200,000		199,664
State Street Corp. 1.963%, 06/15/37 (d)		500,000		441,875
2.650%, 05/19/26 (a)		4,226,000		4,008,053
U.S. Bancorp 2.950%, 07/15/22 (a)		3,137,000		3,155,593
UBS Group Funding Jersey, Ltd. 2.650%, 02/01/22 (144A)		7,607,000		7,393,205
4.125%, 09/24/25 (144A)		1,338,000		1,363,779
UniCredit S.p.A. 5.750%, 10/28/25 (EUR) (d)		100,000		111,198
Wells Fargo & Co. 2.100%, 07/26/21		8,020,000		7,803,901
2.550%, 12/07/20		1,717,000		1,718,963
2.600%, 07/22/20		1,479,000		1,487,549
Banks—(Continued)
Wells Fargo & Co.
3.000%, 10/23/26		2,919,000		2,780,047
3.550%, 09/29/25 (a)		1,756,000		1,753,090
3.900%, 05/01/45		2,148,000		2,037,393
4.750%, 12/07/46		4,236,000		4,298,930
4.900%, 11/17/45		969,000		995,280
				264,716,474
Beverages—0.9%
Anheuser-Busch InBev Finance, Inc. 2.650%, 02/01/21		3,844,000		3,866,084
3.300%, 02/01/23		3,105,000		3,160,058
3.650%, 02/01/26		21,712,000		22,041,805
4.700%, 02/01/36		1,240,000		1,304,316
4.900%, 02/01/46		474,000		512,332
Anheuser-Busch InBev Worldwide, Inc. 3.750%, 07/15/42		860,000		773,478
Molson Coors Brewing Co. 4.200%, 07/15/46 (a)		971,000		905,288
5.000%, 05/01/42		607,000		634,529
PepsiCo, Inc. 4.450%, 04/14/46		1,757,000		1,871,342
				35,069,232
Biotechnology—0.4%
Amgen, Inc. 2.125%, 05/01/20 (a)		2,559,000		2,535,030
4.400%, 05/01/45		2,540,000		2,434,707
Biogen, Inc. 5.200%, 09/15/45		295,000		315,693
Gilead Sciences, Inc. 2.350%, 02/01/20		589,000		592,060
2.500%, 09/01/23		1,447,000		1,395,373
3.650%, 03/01/26		496,000		502,913
4.150%, 03/01/47		2,172,000		2,062,972
4.500%, 02/01/45		547,000		546,540
4.600%, 09/01/35		564,000		584,975
4.750%, 03/01/46		1,278,000		1,322,310
4.800%, 04/01/44 (a)		2,452,000		2,546,073
				14,838,646
Building Materials—0.1%
LafargeHolcim Finance U.S. LLC 4.750%, 09/22/46 (144A)		3,141,000		3,037,818
Standard Industries, Inc. 6.000%, 10/15/25 (144A) (a)		690,000		726,225
Titan Global Finance plc 3.500%, 06/17/21 (EUR)		100,000		109,423
				3,873,466
Chemicals—0.2%
Agrium, Inc. 4.125%, 03/15/35 (a)		1,155,000		1,059,012

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-10

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Bond Income Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Corporate Bonds & Notes—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Chemicals—(Continued)
Air Liquide Finance S.A. 3.500%, 09/27/46 (144A) (a)		512,000	$	473,889
Dow Chemical Co. (The) 4.375%, 11/15/42		726,000		704,743
4.625%, 10/01/44		982,000		985,370
Eastman Chemical Co. 4.800%, 09/01/42 (a)		1,236,000		1,228,284
Ineos Finance plc 4.000%, 05/01/23 (EUR)		100,000		108,836
Monsanto Co. 3.600%, 07/15/42		1,222,000		1,025,572
PSPC Escrow Corp. 6.000%, 02/01/23 (EUR)		100,000		105,492
Sherwin-Williams Co. (The) 4.000%, 12/15/42		565,000		513,752
Solvay Finance S.A. 5.118%, 06/02/21 (EUR) (d)		100,000		112,695
				6,317,645
Coal—0.0%
CONSOL Energy, Inc. 5.875%, 04/15/22 (a)		1,320,000		1,293,600
Commercial Services—0.2%
Avis Budget Finance plc 4.125%, 11/15/24 (EUR)		100,000		105,318
Loxam SAS 3.500%, 05/03/23 (EUR)		100,000		104,507
Massachusetts Institute of Technology 3.885%, 07/01/2116		638,000		545,849
President and Fellows of Harvard College 3.150%, 07/15/46		484,000		433,035
Total System Services, Inc. 4.800%, 04/01/26 (a)		3,469,000		3,737,924
University of Southern California 3.028%, 10/01/39		2,135,000		1,896,260
Wesleyan University 4.781%, 07/01/2116		1,088,000		1,032,157
				7,855,050
Computers—0.5%
Apple, Inc. 3.450%, 02/09/45		1,028,000		907,362
4.650%, 02/23/46		6,931,000		7,484,433
Diamond 1 Finance Corp. / Diamond 2 Finance Corp. 8.350%, 07/15/46 (144A)		2,780,000		3,422,981
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co. 2.850%, 10/05/18		2,705,000		2,731,160
3.600%, 10/15/20		3,456,000		3,515,837
HP, Inc. 3.750%, 12/01/20		357,000		369,633
				18,431,406
Distribution/Wholesale—0.0%
Rexel S.A. 3.500%, 06/15/23 (EUR)		100,000		109,949
Diversified Financial Services—0.5%
Air Lease Corp. 3.000%, 09/15/23		5,945,000		5,679,770
American Express Credit Corp. 1.125%, 06/05/17		6,272,000		6,271,015
2.250%, 08/15/19		1,959,000		1,969,902
Capital One Bank USA N.A. 2.300%, 06/05/19		500,000		501,208
Jefferies Group LLC 6.500%, 01/20/43 (a)		648,000		666,786
Mercury Bondco plc 8.250%, 05/30/21 (EUR) (i)		100,000		110,864
Synchrony Financial 2.600%, 01/15/19		1,706,000		1,714,629
2.700%, 02/03/20 (a)		1,079,000		1,075,801
4.500%, 07/23/25		1,243,000		1,276,767
Visa, Inc. 4.150%, 12/14/35		411,000		430,310
				19,697,052
Electric—0.9%
AES Panama SRL 6.000%, 06/25/22 (144A)		213,000		220,455
Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. 3.500%, 08/15/46		946,000		851,200
CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric LLC 4.500%, 04/01/44		560,000		608,371
Commonwealth Edison Co. 4.700%, 01/15/44		1,451,000		1,598,321
Consumers Energy Co. 3.950%, 05/15/43		894,000		879,228
DTE Electric Co. 3.950%, 06/15/42		1,109,000		1,101,793
DTE Energy Co. 2.400%, 12/01/19		791,000		794,901
3.500%, 06/01/24		2,352,000		2,370,379
Duke Energy Carolinas LLC 3.750%, 06/01/45		1,109,000		1,055,687
4.250%, 12/15/41		41,000		41,943
Duke Energy Corp. 3.750%, 09/01/46		679,000		611,241
4.800%, 12/15/45		730,000		771,589
Duke Energy Florida LLC 3.850%, 11/15/42		1,109,000		1,063,439
Emera U.S. Finance L.P. 2.150%, 06/15/19 (144A)		2,058,000		2,054,598
2.700%, 06/15/21 (144A)		3,096,000		3,064,554
Enel S.p.A. 5.000%, 01/15/75 (EUR) (d)		100,000		111,434
7.750%, 09/10/75 (GBP) (d)		100,000		134,770
Exelon Corp. 2.450%, 04/15/21		549,000		542,402

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-11

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Bond Income Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Corporate Bonds & Notes—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Electric—(Continued)
Exelon Corp.
2.850%, 06/15/20		3,225,000	$	3,259,427
Florida Power & Light Co. 3.800%, 12/15/42 (a)		627,000		616,578
Generacion Mediterranea S.A. / Generacion Frias S.A. / Central Termica Roca S.A. 9.625%, 07/27/23 (144A)		722,000		743,660
Northern States Power Co. 3.600%, 05/15/46		3,193,000		3,022,650
Pacific Gas & Electric Co. 4.300%, 03/15/45 (a)		839,000		858,089
4.750%, 02/15/44		545,000		598,070
Progress Energy, Inc. 4.875%, 12/01/19 (a)		409,000		439,217
Puget Sound Energy, Inc. 4.300%, 05/20/45 (a)		1,922,000		1,997,879
Southern California Edison Co. 1.250%, 11/01/17		1,080,000		1,080,136
Trans-Allegheny Interstate Line Co. 3.850%, 06/01/25 (144A)		3,395,000		3,439,240
Virginia Electric & Power Co. 4.200%, 05/15/45 (a)		1,419,000		1,443,945
4.450%, 02/15/44		437,000		458,791
				35,833,987
Electronics—0.0%
Trionista Holdco GmbH 5.000%, 04/30/20 (EUR)		306,000		330,647
Entertainment—0.0%
International Game Technology plc 4.750%, 02/15/23 (EUR)		100,000		114,741
PortAventura Entertainment Barcelona B.V. 7.250%, 12/01/20 (EUR)		140,000		153,076
Vue International Bidco plc 7.875%, 07/15/20 (GBP)		150,000		192,051
				459,868
Environmental Control—0.0%
Befesa Zinc SAU Via Zinc Capital S.A. 8.875%, 05/15/18 (EUR)		100,000		107,928
Bilbao Luxembourg S.A. 10.500%, 12/01/18 (EUR) (i)		107,110		115,145
Waste Management, Inc. 3.900%, 03/01/35 (a)		442,000		439,436
				662,509
Food—0.1%
Arcor SAIC 6.000%, 07/06/23 (144A)		341,000		355,492
Casino Guichard Perrachon S.A. 3.248%, 03/07/24 (EUR)		100,000		112,491
3.311%, 01/25/23 (EUR)		100,000		115,203
Kraft Heinz Foods Co. 6.875%, 01/26/39		678,000		851,807
Food—(Continued)
Marfrig Holdings Europe B.V. 8.000%, 06/08/23 (144A)		364,000		376,776
Minerva Luxembourg S.A. 6.500%, 09/20/26 (144A)		217,000		209,134
Sysco Corp. 4.500%, 04/01/46 (a)		676,000		681,538
				2,702,441
Forest Products & Paper—0.1%
Fibria Overseas Finance, Ltd. 5.250%, 05/12/24		141,000		141,705
Georgia-Pacific LLC 7.375%, 12/01/25		1,415,000		1,777,778
Smurfit Kappa Acquisitions 2.750%, 02/01/25 (EUR)		100,000		107,107
Suzano Austria GmbH 5.750%, 07/14/26 (144A) (a)		564,000		543,555
Suzano Trading, Ltd. 5.875%, 01/23/21 (144A) (a)		423,000		437,043
				3,007,188
Healthcare-Products—0.4%
Becton Dickinson & Co. 1.800%, 12/15/17		653,000		654,485
2.675%, 12/15/19		2,345,000		2,379,263
4.685%, 12/15/44		367,000		380,192
Boston Scientific Corp. 2.650%, 10/01/18		1,872,000		1,892,530
Medtronic, Inc. 2.500%, 03/15/20		1,749,000		1,768,573
3.625%, 03/15/24 (a)		2,067,000		2,151,028
4.625%, 03/15/44		1,365,000		1,466,227
4.625%, 03/15/45		1,353,000		1,463,162
St. Jude Medical, Inc. 2.800%, 09/15/20		1,578,000		1,586,851
3.875%, 09/15/25		505,000		508,768
Stryker Corp. 4.625%, 03/15/46		1,016,000		1,035,992
				15,287,071
Healthcare-Services—0.9%
Aetna, Inc. 2.400%, 06/15/21 (a)		3,807,000		3,789,762
3.200%, 06/15/26 (a)		3,350,000		3,314,051
4.125%, 11/15/42		786,000		749,858
4.500%, 05/15/42		881,000		893,526
4.750%, 03/15/44		690,000		725,870
Anthem, Inc. 1.875%, 01/15/18		5,068,000		5,070,230
2.300%, 07/15/18		7,006,000		7,051,798
Baylor Scott & White Holdings 4.185%, 11/15/45		775,000		756,147
Catholic Health Initiatives 4.350%, 11/01/42		550,000		488,538

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-12

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Bond Income Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Corporate Bonds & Notes—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Healthcare-Services—(Continued)
Cigna Corp. 3.250%, 04/15/25 (a)		1,947,000	$	1,896,273
Dignity Health 5.267%, 11/01/64		657,000		640,921
Laboratory Corp. of America Holdings 2.625%, 02/01/20		1,583,000		1,581,447
New York and Presbyterian Hospital (The) 3.563%, 08/01/36		547,000		523,291
Ochsner Clinic Foundation 5.897%, 05/15/45		685,000		792,121
RWJ Barnabas Health, Inc. 3.949%, 07/01/46		1,338,000		1,232,354
Southern Baptist Hospital of Florida, Inc. 4.857%, 07/15/45		650,000		702,380
Synlab Bondco plc 6.250%, 07/01/22 (EUR)		100,000		114,739
UnitedHealth Group, Inc. 2.700%, 07/15/20		944,000		958,202
4.200%, 01/15/47		1,289,000		1,303,820
4.625%, 07/15/35 (a)		377,000		410,945
				32,996,273
Housewares—0.0%
Newell Brands, Inc. 2.875%, 12/01/19		906,000		922,152
Insurance—0.5%
Allstate Corp. (The) 4.200%, 12/15/46		1,564,000		1,597,187
American International Group, Inc. 3.750%, 07/10/25 (a)		1,511,000		1,520,752
3.875%, 01/15/35		673,000		632,172
3.900%, 04/01/26		2,901,000		2,952,005
4.500%, 07/16/44		1,615,000		1,592,511
Aon plc 4.750%, 05/15/45		1,506,000		1,522,239
Lincoln National Corp. 3.625%, 12/12/26 (a)		1,973,000		1,968,407
Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc. 3.750%, 03/14/26		359,000		365,732
Prudential Financial, Inc. 4.600%, 05/15/44 (a)		2,032,000		2,114,747
Travelers Cos., Inc. (The) 4.600%, 08/01/43		1,395,000		1,508,313
XLIT, Ltd. 2.300%, 12/15/18		2,013,000		2,026,256
				17,800,321
Internet—0.1%
Amazon.com, Inc. 4.950%, 12/05/44 (a)		4,130,000		4,710,455
United Group B.V. 7.875%, 11/15/20 (EUR)		100,000		110,181
				4,820,636
Iron/Steel—0.0%
Nucor Corp. 5.200%, 08/01/43		901,000		1,016,733
Leisure Time—0.0%
Cirsa Funding Luxembourg S.A. 5.875%, 05/15/23 (EUR)		100,000		111,581
Thomas Cook Group plc 6.250%, 06/15/22 (EUR)		100,000		110,833
				222,414
Machinery-Construction & Mining—0.0%
NEW Areva Holding S.A. 4.875%, 09/23/24 (EUR)		50,000		54,211
Machinery-Diversified—0.0%
Roper Technologies, Inc. 2.800%, 12/15/21		1,616,000		1,615,228
Media—1.8%
21st Century Fox America, Inc. 4.750%, 09/15/44		791,000		790,664
4.950%, 10/15/45		223,000		229,177
Altice Luxembourg S.A. 7.250%, 05/15/22 (EUR)		100,000		112,515
Cablevision S.A. 6.500%, 06/15/21 (144A)		277,000		281,501
CBS Corp. 2.300%, 08/15/19		2,077,000		2,083,904
Charter Communications Operating LLC / Charter Communications Operating Capital Corp. 3.579%, 07/23/20		2,563,000		2,614,862
4.464%, 07/23/22		1,885,000		1,969,883
4.908%, 07/23/25 (a)		4,289,000		4,520,306
6.384%, 10/23/35		1,407,000		1,606,558
6.484%, 10/23/45		4,668,000		5,396,577
Comcast Corp. 3.375%, 08/15/25		1,578,000		1,587,528
3.400%, 07/15/46		1,775,000		1,550,129
4.250%, 01/15/33		665,000		692,042
4.400%, 08/15/35		2,001,000		2,093,322
4.600%, 08/15/45		1,017,000		1,066,089
4.750%, 03/01/44		1,840,000		1,973,446
Discovery Communications LLC 3.450%, 03/15/25		1,396,000		1,332,545
4.875%, 04/01/43		3,493,000		3,227,860
4.900%, 03/11/26 (a)		3,044,000		3,205,387
NBCUniversal Enterprise, Inc. 5.250%, 03/29/49 (144A)		4,585,000		4,814,250
NBCUniversal Media LLC 4.450%, 01/15/43		1,514,000		1,547,107
SFR Group S.A. 5.375%, 05/15/22 (EUR)		100,000		110,265
Telenet Finance Luxembourg SCA 6.750%, 08/15/24 (EUR)		100,000		116,592

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-13

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Bond Income Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Corporate Bonds & Notes—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Media—(Continued)
Time Warner Cable LLC 4.000%, 09/01/21 (a)		503,000	$	516,547
4.125%, 02/15/21 (a)		3,589,000		3,710,459
4.500%, 09/15/42		161,000		145,811
5.000%, 02/01/20		1,723,000		1,828,670
5.500%, 09/01/41		588,000		597,767
Time Warner, Inc. 2.100%, 06/01/19		3,352,000		3,349,975
3.600%, 07/15/25		820,000		815,408
4.650%, 06/01/44		1,877,000		1,794,686
4.850%, 07/15/45 (a)		1,884,000		1,886,052
Unitymedia Hessen GmbH & Co. KG / Unitymedia NRW GmbH 4.000%, 01/15/25 (EUR)		105,000		114,949
5.625%, 04/15/23 (EUR)		80,000		90,212
UPCB Finance, Ltd. 4.000%, 01/15/27 (EUR)		100,000		105,002
Viacom, Inc. 2.250%, 02/04/22		2,428,000		2,281,698
2.750%, 12/15/19		1,650,000		1,647,844
3.450%, 10/04/26 (a)		873,000		806,826
4.375%, 03/15/43		1,780,000		1,417,868
4.500%, 03/01/21 (a)		1,779,000		1,859,046
5.250%, 04/01/44		957,000		870,622
Virgin Media Secured Finance plc 5.125%, 01/15/25 (GBP)		100,000		125,988
6.000%, 04/15/21 (GBP)		139,636		178,971
				67,066,910
Mining—0.2%
Anglo American Capital plc 1.500%, 04/01/20 (EUR)		100,000		105,121
3.500%, 03/28/22 (EUR)		100,000		111,917
Barrick Gold Corp. 5.250%, 04/01/42 (a)		2,420,000		2,357,075
BHP Billiton Finance USA, Ltd. 5.000%, 09/30/43 (a)		2,230,000		2,490,821
Newmont Mining Corp. 4.875%, 03/15/42		660,000		619,246
Rio Tinto Finance USA plc 4.125%, 08/21/42		1,510,000		1,483,114
				7,167,294
Miscellaneous Manufacturing—0.3%
Eaton Corp. 2.750%, 11/02/22		8,185,000		8,106,702
General Electric Co. 4.500%, 03/11/44		2,960,000		3,177,486
Ingersoll-Rand Luxembourg Finance S.A. 4.650%, 11/01/44		306,000		312,192
				11,596,380
Oil & Gas—1.6%
Anadarko Petroleum Corp. 4.500%, 07/15/44		1,209,000		1,135,917
7.950%, 06/15/39		614,000		794,895
Apache Corp. 4.250%, 01/15/44		4,200,000		4,140,457
BP Capital Markets plc 2.237%, 05/10/19		3,701,000		3,723,424
Continental Resources, Inc. 3.800%, 06/01/24		1,310,000		1,208,475
4.900%, 06/01/44 (a)		1,500,000		1,282,500
Devon Energy Corp. 5.600%, 07/15/41		3,717,000		3,828,495
EOG Resources, Inc. 3.900%, 04/01/35		680,000		643,981
4.150%, 01/15/26 (a)		1,047,000		1,095,680
Exxon Mobil Corp. 1.819%, 03/15/19 (a)		3,300,000		3,305,415
4.114%, 03/01/46 (a)		1,386,000		1,419,644
Gazprom OAO Via Gaz Capital S.A. 4.950%, 07/19/22 (144A)		341,000		350,879
Marathon Petroleum Corp. 4.750%, 09/15/44 (a)		1,016,000		900,691
Nabors Industries, Inc. 5.500%, 01/15/23 (144A)		1,051,000		1,094,354
Noble Energy, Inc. 5.050%, 11/15/44		1,094,000		1,097,225
Petro-Canada 6.800%, 05/15/38		1,110,000		1,439,417
Petrobras Argentina S.A. 7.375%, 07/21/23 (144A)		649,000		632,775
Petrobras Global Finance B.V. 3.000%, 01/15/19		1,535,000		1,496,164
3.020%, 01/15/19 (a) (d)		1,113,000		1,092,944
4.875%, 03/17/20 (a)		864,000		854,237
5.375%, 01/27/21 (a)		3,302,000		3,229,356
5.750%, 01/20/20 (a)		3,229,000		3,269,362
6.250%, 12/14/26 (GBP)		444,000		508,773
7.875%, 03/15/19		2,279,000		2,442,723
8.375%, 05/23/21		2,076,000		2,236,890
8.750%, 05/23/26 (a)		139,000		149,946
Petroleos Mexicanos 4.625%, 09/21/23 (144A)		224,000		217,907
6.500%, 03/13/27 (144A)		4,690,000		4,837,735
Phillips 66 4.875%, 11/15/44		1,027,000		1,084,579
Pioneer Natural Resources Co. 4.450%, 01/15/26 (a)		660,000		699,312
Shell International Finance B.V. 3.625%, 08/21/42 (a)		1,100,000		994,475
4.125%, 05/11/35 (a)		2,748,000		2,805,876
Suncor Energy, Inc. 6.850%, 06/01/39		1,300,000		1,723,368
Transocean, Inc. 6.800%, 03/15/38		582,000		451,050
Valero Energy Corp. 3.650%, 03/15/25 (a)		2,548,000		2,527,127

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-14

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Bond Income Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Corporate Bonds & Notes—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Oil & Gas—(Continued)
Woodside Finance, Ltd. 3.650%, 03/05/25 (144A)		353,000	$	344,840
YPF S.A. 8.500%, 03/23/21 (144A)		139,000		149,091
8.500%, 03/23/21		225,000		241,335
8.500%, 07/28/25 (144A)		781,000		791,934
8.500%, 07/28/25		69,000		69,966
8.750%, 04/04/24 (144A)		339,000		351,374
8.875%, 12/19/18 (144A)		802,000		872,376
				61,536,964
Oil & Gas Services—0.1%
Halliburton Co. 3.800%, 11/15/25 (a)		2,410,000		2,448,312
Schlumberger Holdings Corp. 3.000%, 12/21/20 (144A)		2,972,000		3,034,866
				5,483,178
Packaging & Containers—0.0%
Ardagh Packaging Finance plc / Ardagh Holdings USA, Inc. 4.250%, 01/15/22 (EUR)		100,000		108,818
6.750%, 05/15/24 (EUR)		100,000		112,370
Verallia Packaging SASU 5.125%, 08/01/22 (EUR)		100,000		111,458
				332,646
Pharmaceuticals—1.5%
AbbVie, Inc. 2.500%, 05/14/20		3,448,000		3,448,900
2.900%, 11/06/22		1,946,000		1,922,160
4.400%, 11/06/42		200,000		188,149
4.500%, 05/14/35		674,000		662,223
Actavis Funding SCS 2.350%, 03/12/18		3,614,000		3,634,893
3.000%, 03/12/20		5,509,000		5,585,371
3.800%, 03/15/25 (a)		9,701,000		9,712,428
4.750%, 03/15/45 (a)		4,690,000		4,604,332
AmerisourceBergen Corp. 1.150%, 05/15/17		2,313,000		2,312,156
AstraZeneca plc 4.375%, 11/16/45		768,000		770,883
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. 4.500%, 03/01/44		2,789,000		3,024,696
Eli Lilly & Co. 3.700%, 03/01/45		979,000		928,699
Express Scripts Holding Co. 1.250%, 06/02/17		1,840,000		1,833,157
Mylan NV 5.250%, 06/15/46 (144A)		2,945,000		2,716,153
Mylan, Inc. 3.125%, 01/15/23 (144A)		1,298,000		1,225,591
Novartis Capital Corp. 4.000%, 11/20/45 (a)		3,120,000		3,148,660
4.400%, 05/06/44		1,358,000		1,464,522
Pharmaceuticals—(Continued)
Pfizer, Inc. 4.125%, 12/15/46		3,986,000		4,054,806
4.300%, 06/15/43 (a)		851,000		880,940
4.400%, 05/15/44		969,000		1,023,512
Teva Pharmaceutical Finance Co. B.V. 3.650%, 11/10/21		841,000		851,803
Teva Pharmaceutical Finance Netherlands B.V. 2.800%, 07/21/23		2,844,000		2,692,105
				56,686,139
Pipelines—0.7%
Energy Transfer Partners L.P. 5.150%, 03/15/45		2,476,000		2,374,682
6.125%, 12/15/45 (a)		3,284,000		3,493,976
Enterprise Products Operating LLC 4.450%, 02/15/43		1,371,000		1,299,459
4.900%, 05/15/46 (a)		799,000		820,174
5.100%, 02/15/45		501,000		528,379
GNL Quintero S.A. 4.634%, 07/31/29 (144A)		384,000		378,240
4.634%, 07/31/29		200,000		197,000
Kinder Morgan Energy Partners L.P. 3.500%, 03/01/21 (a)		1,667,000		1,692,405
3.950%, 09/01/22 (a)		1,124,000		1,154,017
4.700%, 11/01/42 (a)		1,879,000		1,750,649
5.625%, 09/01/41		463,000		465,028
Kinder Morgan, Inc. 3.050%, 12/01/19		703,000		713,092
5.050%, 02/15/46 (a)		1,490,000		1,474,959
5.550%, 06/01/45 (a)		1,087,000		1,143,277
Plains All American Pipeline L.P. / PAA Finance Corp. 4.650%, 10/15/25 (a)		1,520,000		1,570,362
Spectra Energy Partners L.P. 3.375%, 10/15/26 (a)		972,000		929,693
Sunoco Logistics Partners Operations L.P. 3.900%, 07/15/26		424,000		410,406
5.350%, 05/15/45		670,000		646,992
TransCanada PipeLines, Ltd. 1.875%, 01/12/18		1,111,000		1,112,744
2.500%, 08/01/22 (a)		1,407,000		1,373,969
4.625%, 03/01/34		1,529,000		1,612,318
Williams Partners L.P. 4.000%, 09/15/25 (a)		3,350,000		3,312,410
				28,454,231
Real Estate Investment Trusts—0.2%
American Tower Corp. 3.300%, 02/15/21		1,342,000		1,357,285
3.450%, 09/15/21 (a)		1,554,000		1,574,106
3.500%, 01/31/23		397,000		398,201
4.400%, 02/15/26		264,000		269,769
5.000%, 02/15/24		391,000		420,975
Crown Castle International Corp. 2.250%, 09/01/21 (a)		2,481,000		2,400,236
3.400%, 02/15/21 (a)		668,000		677,854

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-15

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Bond Income Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Corporate Bonds & Notes—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Real Estate Investment Trusts—(Continued)
Simon Property Group L.P. 4.250%, 10/01/44 (a)		825,000	$	814,049
				7,912,475
Retail—0.4%
CVS Health Corp. 5.300%, 12/05/43		843,000		955,191
Home Depot, Inc. (The) 4.400%, 03/15/45		493,000		525,388
5.400%, 09/15/40		677,000		806,739
Lowe’s Cos., Inc. 4.250%, 09/15/44		524,000		531,452
4.375%, 09/15/45		344,000		354,386
Macy’s Retail Holdings, Inc. 4.500%, 12/15/34		1,439,000		1,286,380
McDonald’s Corp. 4.600%, 05/26/45		135,000		139,395
4.700%, 12/09/35 (a)		433,000		458,078
4.875%, 12/09/45		510,000		546,248
Punch Taverns Finance B, Ltd. 5.267%, 03/30/24 (GBP)		94,864		110,555
QVC, Inc. 3.125%, 04/01/19 (a)		1,103,000		1,114,477
5.125%, 07/02/22 (a)		1,817,000		1,880,920
Unique Pub Finance Co. plc (The) 5.659%, 06/30/27 (GBP)		138,196		178,976
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 4.000%, 04/11/43		708,000		711,238
Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. 4.650%, 06/01/46		114,000		115,684
4.800%, 11/18/44		3,520,000		3,617,888
				13,332,995
Savings & Loans—0.1%
Washington Mutual Bank Zero Coupon, 05/01/09 (j)		3,780,000		803,250
Zero Coupon, 11/06/09 (j)		2,190,000		465,375
Zero Coupon, 06/16/10 (j)		1,310,000		278,375
Zero Coupon, 02/04/11 (j)		1,247,000		264,987
5.550%, 06/16/10		250,000		53,125
				1,865,112
Semiconductors—0.4%
Analog Devices, Inc. 3.900%, 12/15/25		347,000		355,566
5.300%, 12/15/45		353,000		388,171
Intel Corp. 4.100%, 05/19/46 (a)		4,300,000		4,262,061
Lam Research Corp. 2.800%, 06/15/21		1,643,000		1,634,151
QUALCOMM, Inc. 4.800%, 05/20/45		6,481,000		6,925,785
				13,565,734
Software—0.6%
Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. 3.625%, 10/15/20		259,000		268,134
Microsoft Corp. 3.500%, 02/12/35		2,044,000		1,967,513
3.700%, 08/08/46 (a)		10,857,000		10,221,485
3.750%, 02/12/45		1,050,000		984,639
4.450%, 11/03/45		988,000		1,052,634
Oracle Corp. 3.250%, 05/15/30 (a)		2,792,000		2,720,807
4.000%, 07/15/46		5,104,000		4,881,956
4.375%, 05/15/55		939,000		933,948
Veritas U.S., Inc. / Veritas Bermuda, Ltd. 7.500%, 02/01/23 (EUR)		100,000		97,402
				23,128,518
Telecommunications—0.9%
AT&T, Inc. 4.300%, 12/15/42		2,302,000		2,060,693
4.750%, 05/15/46		1,863,000		1,765,042
6.375%, 03/01/41		1,032,000		1,188,467
Cellnex Telecom S.A. 2.375%, 01/16/24 (EUR)		100,000		104,117
Digicel, Ltd. 6.000%, 04/15/21 (144A)		477,000		431,432
eircom Finance DAC 4.500%, 05/31/22 (EUR)		100,000		110,266
Juniper Networks, Inc. 3.300%, 06/15/20		1,478,000		1,509,576
Orange S.A. 4.000%, 10/01/21 (EUR) (d)		150,000		166,595
5.500%, 02/06/44 (a)		1,256,000		1,442,647
OTE plc 3.500%, 07/09/20 (EUR)		100,000		107,318
Rogers Communications, Inc. 5.000%, 03/15/44		394,000		421,462
Sprint Spectrum Co. LLC / Sprint Spectrum Co. II LLC / Sprint Spectrum Co. III LLC 3.360%, 09/20/21 (144A)		8,012,000		8,026,982
Telecom Italia S.p.A. 3.250%, 01/16/23 (EUR)		200,000		221,806
Telefonica Europe B.V. 5.000%, 03/31/20 (EUR) (d)		100,000		109,081
Verizon Communications, Inc. 3.850%, 11/01/42		1,848,000		1,601,358
4.125%, 08/15/46		1,009,000		913,167
4.400%, 11/01/34		3,524,000		3,478,139
4.862%, 08/21/46 (a)		7,403,000		7,501,415
5.050%, 03/15/34		1,201,000		1,264,696
Vodafone Group plc 4.375%, 02/19/43 (a)		2,600,000		2,300,485
Wind Acquisition Finance S.A. 4.000%, 07/15/20 (EUR)		100,000		107,199
				34,831,943

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-16

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Bond Income Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Corporate Bonds & Notes—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Transportation—0.4%
Burlington Northern Santa Fe LLC 4.150%, 04/01/45		758,000	$	768,692
4.700%, 09/01/45		665,000		727,852
CSX Corp. 4.250%, 11/01/66		1,510,000		1,378,002
FedEx Corp. 3.900%, 02/01/35		219,000		210,290
4.100%, 02/01/45		1,295,000		1,212,560
4.550%, 04/01/46		1,393,000		1,403,739
4.750%, 11/15/45 (a)		3,205,000		3,319,332
4.900%, 01/15/34 (a)		190,000		202,532
Norfolk Southern Corp. 4.450%, 06/15/45 (a)		1,195,000		1,238,601
6.000%, 05/23/11		1,322,000		1,546,507
Silk Bidco A/S 7.500%, 02/01/22 (EUR)		100,000		111,297
Union Pacific Corp. 3.375%, 02/01/35		668,000		631,756
3.875%, 02/01/55		1,301,000		1,195,022
4.050%, 11/15/45		196,000		197,263
Union Pacific Railroad Co. Pass-Through Trust 3.227%, 05/14/26		1,716,206		1,692,900
				15,836,345
Trucking & Leasing—0.2%
Aviation Capital Group Corp. 2.875%, 09/17/18 (144A)		3,355,000		3,396,937
GATX Corp. 2.600%, 03/30/20 (a)		1,747,000		1,725,458
Penske Truck Leasing Co. L.P. / PTL Finance Corp. 3.400%, 11/15/26 (144A) (a)		3,274,000		3,132,475
				8,254,870
Total Corporate Bonds & Notes (Cost $937,791,236)				929,428,130
Asset-Backed Securities—12.3%
Asset-Backed - Credit Card—0.1%
CHLUPA Trust 3.326%, 08/15/20 (144A)		700,456		701,283
World Financial Network Credit Card Master Trust 4.550%, 08/15/22		1,600,000		1,624,747
				2,326,030
Asset-Backed - Home Equity—0.7%
ACE Securities Corp. Home Equity Loan Trust 0.886%, 05/25/37 (d)		1,299,983		416,782
Bayview Financial Revolving Asset Trust 1.603%, 12/28/40 (144A) (d)		743,095		603,939
1.756%, 05/28/39 (144A) (d)		8,849,990		6,258,912
Asset-Backed - Home Equity—(Continued)
Bayview Opportunity Master Fund Trust 1.106%, 04/25/37 (d)		2,700,836		1,653,319
Bear Stearns Asset-Backed Securities Trust 0.896%, 11/25/36 (d)		2,334,835		2,010,848
1.784%, 01/25/36 (d)		311,515		296,963
6.250%, 12/25/35		3,101,897		2,706,411
6.250%, 02/25/36		3,677,541		2,792,827
Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust, Inc. 1.006%, 08/25/36 (d)		1,810,000		1,405,293
Countrywide Asset-Backed Certificates 1.076%, 10/25/36 (d)		2,188,649		1,887,506
Countrywide Home Equity Loan Trust 5.842%, 06/25/35		739,709		741,191
6.155%, 06/25/35		472,105		441,999
Home Equity Mortgage Loan Asset-Backed Trust 2.781%, 07/25/34 (d)		342,613		323,056
Home Equity Mortgage Trust 5.867%, 07/25/36		888,694		377,300
Home Loan Mortgage Loan Trust 1.064%, 04/15/36 (d)		1,188,319		1,074,079
JPMorgan Mortgage Acquisition Trust 6.000%, 07/25/36		360,792		197,139
6.410%, 07/25/36		489,241		267,162
MASTR Asset-Backed Securities Trust 1.016%, 06/25/36 (144A) (d)		665,000		437,121
1.036%, 05/25/37 (d)		621,846		372,807
Nationstar Home Equity Loan Trust 0.936%, 06/25/37 (d)		180,000		169,738
				24,434,392
Asset-Backed - Manufactured Housing—0.4%
Bank of America Manufactured Housing Contract Trust 7.930%, 12/10/25 (d)		4,000,000		3,625,108
BCMSC Trust 7.575%, 06/15/30 (d)		1,272,962		591,043
7.830%, 06/15/30 (d)		1,181,324		566,882
8.290%, 06/15/30 (d)		2,023,160		1,027,658
Conseco Finance Securitizations Corp. 7.960%, 05/01/31		1,036,684		745,791
7.970%, 05/01/32		2,347,898		1,332,610
8.200%, 05/01/31		1,894,302		1,396,117
Conseco Financial Corp. 6.280%, 09/01/30		724,221		761,820
7.500%, 03/01/30 (d)		536,277		437,648
7.860%, 03/01/30 (d)		733,440		616,850
Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage Securities Corp. 8.100%, 09/25/31 (d)		720,000		791,410
Greenpoint Manufactured Housing 8.290%, 12/15/29 (d)		440,000		476,993
9.230%, 12/15/29 (d)		626,055		555,401
Lehman ABS Manufactured Housing Contract Trust Zero Coupon, 04/15/40 (d)		2,430,000		2,614,006
Oakwood Mortgage Investors, Inc. 6.930%, 09/15/31 (d)		324,726		294,694

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-17

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Bond Income Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Asset-Backed Securities—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Asset-Backed - Manufactured Housing—(Continued)
Origen Manufactured Housing Contract Trust 7.820%, 03/15/32 (d)		358,724	$	355,700
				16,189,731
Asset-Backed - Other—9.8%
ACAS CLO, Ltd. 3.082%, 10/25/25 (144A) (d)		500,000		500,078
3.317%, 09/20/23 (144A) (d)		2,290,000		2,289,835
Adirondack Park CLO, Ltd. 2.880%, 04/15/24 (144A) (d)		500,000		500,272
Ajax Mortgage Loan Trust 4.000%, 10/25/57 (144A)		986,670		988,763
4.000%, 09/25/65 (144A)		1,375,904		1,373,132
ALM, Ltd. 2.320%, 07/28/26 (144A) (d)		2,690,000		2,689,989
3.032%, 10/18/27 (144A) (d)		900,000		901,754
3.840%, 07/28/26 (144A) (d)		514,000		514,191
4.130%, 04/16/27 (144A) (d)		625,000		626,486
American Homes 4 Rent 1.736%, 06/17/31 (144A) (d)		475,994		474,306
American Money Management Corp. 4.480%, 01/15/22 (144A) (d)		1,060,000		1,063,442
AMMC CLO, Ltd. 2.507%, 05/26/28 (144A) (d)		2,180,000		2,187,235
2.782%, 05/10/25 (144A) (d)		738,000		738,148
3.202%, 11/15/27 (144A) (d)		620,000		621,481
Anchorage Capital CLO, Ltd. 2.068%, 07/13/25 (144A) (d)		835,000		834,176
2.628%, 07/13/25 (144A) (d)		550,000		546,996
2.908%, 04/28/26 (144A) (d)		710,000		709,991
3.508%, 04/28/26 (144A) (d)		250,000		249,996
3.578%, 07/13/25 (144A) (d)		590,000		590,537
Apidos CLO 1.980%, 04/15/25 (144A) (d)		3,204,000		3,189,704
2.241%, 01/16/27 (144A) (d)		750,000		750,000
2.328%, 01/19/25 (144A) (d)		600,000		600,742
2.730%, 07/15/23 (144A) (d)		2,065,000		2,048,589
Arbor Realty Collateralized Loan Obligation, Ltd. 2.454%, 09/15/25 (144A) (d)		940,000		941,175
Arbor Realty Commercial Real Estate Notes, Ltd. 2.238%, 09/15/26 (144A) (d)		1,590,000		1,593,027
Ares CLO, Ltd. 2.630%, 01/17/24 (144A) (d)		2,990,000		2,989,982
3.380%, 01/17/24 (144A) (d)		870,000		868,203
Atlas Senior Loan Fund CLO, Ltd. 2.298%, 07/16/26 (144A) (d)		700,000		699,647
Atlas Senior Loan Fund, Ltd. 2.406%, 02/17/26 (144A) (d)		2,920,000		2,920,873
2.868%, 07/16/26 (144A) (d)		1,010,000		1,009,993
3.406%, 08/15/24 (144A) (d)		410,000		403,148
Atrium XII 3.932%, 10/22/26 (144A) (d)		369,000		370,840
B2R Mortgage Trust 2.524%, 05/15/48 (144A)		616,139		610,293
3.336%, 11/15/48 (144A)		611,287		617,017
Asset-Backed - Other—(Continued)
Babson CLO, Ltd. 2.880%, 04/15/22 (144A) (d)		500,000		500,419
3.380%, 04/15/22 (144A) (d)		500,000		500,136
Battalion CLO, Ltd. 2.282%, 10/22/25 (144A) (d)		5,205,000		5,205,177
Bayview Opportunity Master Fund Trust 3.475%, 07/28/31 (144A)		2,150,600		2,138,010
3.598%, 09/29/31 (144A)		6,116,547		6,093,709
3.623%, 04/28/30 (144A)		395,791		396,639
Benefit Street Partners CLO, Ltd. 2.080%, 07/15/24 (144A) (d)		2,240,000		2,234,931
3.131%, 01/20/28 (144A) (d)		2,010,000		2,017,302
3.132%, 10/15/25 (144A) (d)		3,000,000		2,988,405
Betony CLO, Ltd. 3.756%, 04/15/27 (144A) (d)		520,000		518,700
BlueMountain CLO, Ltd. 1.371%, 07/15/18 (144A) (d)		500,000		496,161
2.380%, 04/15/25 (144A) (d)		3,130,000		3,130,955
3.431%, 07/20/23 (144A) (d)		250,000		250,081
C-BASS Trust 0.754%, 04/25/37 (d)		498,872		365,713
0.866%, 11/25/36 (d)		555,259		318,550
0.916%, 10/25/36 (d)		324,039		217,704
0.986%, 11/25/36 (d)		93,745		54,872
3.869%, 01/25/37		2,716,603		1,150,222
Canyon Capital CLO, Ltd. 1.213%, 12/15/20 (144A) (d)		509,573		503,079
Carlyle Global Market Strategies CLO, Ltd. 2.330%, 01/20/29 (144A) (d)		7,485,000		7,506,063
2.981%, 07/20/23 (144A) (d)		1,230,000		1,230,041
3.530%, 07/15/25 (144A) (d)		270,000		270,111
3.630%, 04/17/25 (144A) (d)		760,000		760,000
Carrington Mortgage Loan Trust 0.816%, 01/25/37 (d)		209,946		167,491
0.876%, 10/25/36 (d)		598,779		366,644
0.906%, 06/25/37 (d)		624,808		578,627
0.916%, 10/25/36 (d)		720,611		495,076
0.976%, 12/25/36 (d)		730,000		423,161
0.996%, 08/25/36 (d)		4,800,000		2,868,033
Catamaran CLO, Ltd. 2.870%, 12/20/23 (144A) (d)		1,170,000		1,170,000
Cedar Funding V CLO, Ltd. 2.243%, 07/17/28 (144A) (d)		770,000		771,802
Chase Funding Trust 6.333%, 04/25/32		563,630		571,356
CIFC Funding, Ltd. 2.091%, 01/22/27 (144A) (d)		610,000		608,658
2.258%, 01/17/27 (144A) (d)		7,295,000		7,294,971
2.410%, 05/24/26 (144A) (d)		4,284,000		4,293,690
2.780%, 04/16/25 (144A) (d)		1,920,000		1,920,021
2.787%, 11/27/24 (144A) (d)		1,270,000		1,269,983
2.882%, 07/22/26 (144A) (d)		290,000		290,019
3.379%, 08/14/24 (144A) (d)		200,000		200,055
3.558%, 01/17/27 (144A) (d)		290,000		289,997
3.582%, 01/29/25 (144A) (d)		570,000		569,990
3.682%, 07/22/26 (144A) (d)		470,000		470,062

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-18

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Bond Income Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Asset-Backed Securities—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Asset-Backed - Other—(Continued)
Colony American Homes 1.936%, 07/17/32 (144A) (d)		1,691,520	$	1,693,507
Countrywide Asset-Backed Certificates 0.916%, 01/25/46 (d)		2,849,940		2,697,334
0.976%, 12/25/25 (d)		126,157		127,667
Countrywide Asset-Backed Certificates Trust 0.744%, 09/25/46 (d)		176,228		164,584
Countrywide Revolving Home Equity Loan Resecuritization Trust 1.004%, 12/15/33 (144A) (d)		909,884		782,462
Countrywide Revolving Home Equity Loan Trust 0.884%, 05/15/35 (d)		702,666		604,763
Credit-Based Asset Servicing & Securitization LLC 3.503%, 12/25/36		271,459		201,514
DCP Rights LLC 5.463%, 10/25/44 (144A)		6,881,180		7,012,590
Dryden Senior Loan Fund 2.006%, 08/15/25 (144A) (d)		1,035,000		1,029,798
2.054%, 01/15/25 (144A) (d)		610,000		609,998
3.354%, 01/15/25 (144A) (d)		330,000		330,278
Finn Square CLO, Ltd. 2.207%, 12/24/23 (144A) (d)		434,000		434,008
2.697%, 12/24/23 (144A) (d)		370,000		369,999
First Franklin Mortgage Loan Trust 0.916%, 04/25/36 (d)		609,564		533,547
0.966%, 12/25/36 (d)		11,627,392		7,111,371
Flatiron CLO, Ltd. 4.253%, 10/25/21 (144A) (d)		790,000		789,990
Fraser Sullivan CLO, Ltd. 3.381%, 04/20/23 (144A) (d)		1,150,000		1,146,671
GE-WMC Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates 1.006%, 12/25/35 (d)		311,744		296,633
GoldenTree Loan Opportunities, Ltd. 1.629%, 08/18/22 (144A) (d)		700,000		693,740
GT Loan Financing, Ltd. 2.160%, 10/28/24 (144A) (d)		5,670,000		5,670,238
Highbridge Loan Management, Ltd. 2.531%, 09/20/22 (144A) (d)		1,720,000		1,721,214
Invitation Homes Trust 1.836%, 09/17/31 (144A) (d)		2,792,157		2,788,571
2.036%, 08/17/32 (144A) (d)		2,076,055		2,081,168
2.936%, 09/17/31 (144A) (d)		670,000		671,969
3.736%, 12/17/31 (144A) (d)		470,000		469,999
KKR Financial CLO, Ltd. 2.030%, 07/15/25 (144A) (d)		4,895,000		4,890,859
Knollwood CDO, Ltd. 4.076%, 01/10/39 (144A) (d) (k)		809,910		8
LCM L.P. 3.028%, 04/19/22 (144A) (d)		940,000		940,102
3.181%, 04/20/27 (144A) (d)		990,000		991,139
4.030%, 08/25/24 (144A) (d)		430,000		430,336
4.031%, 04/20/27 (144A) (d)		250,000		250,474
Lehman ABS Mortgage Loan Trust 0.846%, 06/25/37 (144A) (d)		245,031		150,162
Asset-Backed - Other—(Continued)
Lime Street CLO, Ltd. 1.547%, 06/20/21 (144A) (d)		500,000		486,983
Litigation Fee Residual Funding LLC 3.500%, 10/30/27		3,619,014		3,643,894
Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 0.916%, 11/25/36 (d)		3,133,453		1,406,054
0.946%, 03/25/46 (d)		2,945,709		1,336,374
0.976%, 02/25/36 (d)		2,815,304		2,459,396
0.976%, 11/25/36 (d)		922,027		417,400
1.046%, 03/25/46 (d)		869,678		401,342
Madison Park Funding, Ltd. 2.332%, 10/23/25 (144A) (d)		616,000		606,826
Merrill Lynch First Franklin Mortgage Loan Trust 0.996%, 05/25/37 (d)		12,108,115		7,220,287
Morgan Stanley IXIS Real Estate Capital Trust 0.866%, 11/25/36 (d)		544,124		245,329
Mountain Hawk CLO, Ltd. 3.061%, 01/20/24 (144A) (d)		1,250,000		1,250,031
Muir Woods CLO, Ltd. 4.709%, 09/14/23 (144A) (d)		520,000		520,485
Neuberger Berman CLO, Ltd. 3.050%, 04/15/26 (144A) (d)		775,000		775,801
3.182%, 01/23/24 (144A) (d)		3,945,000		3,945,552
Nomura Asset Acceptance Corp. Alternative Loan Trust 1.156%, 10/25/36 (144A) (d)		518,157		471,673
Northwoods Capital, Ltd. 2.302%, 01/18/24 (144A) (d)		5,070,000		5,070,213
Oaktree EIF, Ltd. 3.206%, 11/15/25 (144A) (d)		1,195,000		1,195,116
OCP CLO, Ltd. 2.410%, 04/17/27 (144A) (d)		1,220,000		1,220,536
2.456%, 10/18/28 (144A) (d)		540,000		541,119
Octagon Investment Partners, Ltd. 2.000%, 07/17/25 (144A) (d)		5,600,000		5,594,630
2.212%, 10/25/25 (144A) (d)		500,000		500,003
2.610%, 10/25/25 (144A) (d)		2,920,000		2,920,499
OHA Credit Partners, Ltd. 2.001%, 04/20/25 (144A) (d)		590,000		589,428
OHA Loan Funding, Ltd. 2.190%, 08/23/24 (144A) (d)		5,670,000		5,670,108
OneMain Financial Issuance Trust 2.430%, 06/18/24 (144A)		1,436,288		1,436,360
3.020%, 09/18/24 (144A)		2,000,000		1,999,191
3.240%, 06/18/24 (144A)		910,000		913,672
4.320%, 07/18/25 (144A)		3,100,000		3,057,369
5.310%, 09/18/24 (144A)		500,000		502,138
OZLM Funding, Ltd. 2.032%, 07/22/25 (144A) (d)		9,625,000		9,613,893
2.308%, 10/30/27 (144A) (d)		12,103,000		12,161,470
3.700%, 01/22/29 (144A) (d)		3,950,000		3,949,980
OZLM, Ltd. 2.406%, 01/20/29 (144A) (d)		1,950,000		1,950,000
2.866%, 01/20/29 (144A) (d)		810,000		810,000
2.930%, 07/17/26 (144A) (d)		1,250,000		1,256,762
3.780%, 04/17/26 (144A) (d)		960,000		960,132

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-19

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Bond Income Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Asset-Backed Securities—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Asset-Backed - Other—(Continued)
Palmer Square CLO, Ltd. 3.930%, 10/17/25 (144A) (d)		360,000	$	360,026
PFS Tax Lien Trust 1.440%, 05/15/29 (144A)		1,605,519		1,594,750
Pretium Mortgage Credit Partners LLC 3.500%, 10/27/31 (144A)		1,690,258		1,682,845
4.375%, 11/27/30 (144A)		1,927,042		1,942,645
4.375%, 05/27/31 (144A)		2,434,126		2,456,873
Progress Residential Trust 2.236%, 09/17/33 (144A) (d)		1,127,351		1,137,183
2.740%, 06/12/32 (144A)		1,118,979		1,111,514
4.090%, 01/17/34 (144A) (d)		650,000		647,128
4.586%, 09/17/33 (144A) (d)		1,190,000		1,211,071
6.643%, 11/12/32 (144A)		250,000		254,701
Race Point CLO, Ltd. 2.161%, 02/20/25 (144A) (d)		1,635,000		1,634,209
2.390%, 04/15/27 (144A) (d)		720,000		721,676
2.650%, 11/08/24 (144A) (d)		1,300,000		1,299,975
3.187%, 12/15/22 (144A) (d)		490,000		490,831
RCO Mortgage LLC 4.256%, 11/25/45 (144A) (d)		624,647		622,405
SG Mortgage Securities Trust 0.966%, 10/25/36 (d)		570,000		361,196
Shackleton CLO, Ltd. 2.704%, 10/20/23 (144A) (d)		830,000		829,994
3.504%, 10/20/23 (144A) (d)		500,000		499,994
Silvermore CLO, Ltd. 2.356%, 05/15/26 (144A) (d)		6,462,680		6,431,498
Sound Point CLO, Ltd. 2.084%, 04/26/25 (144A) (d)		500,000		499,863
2.241%, 10/20/26 (144A) (d)		250,000		249,591
2.251%, 01/21/26 (144A) (d)		2,185,000		2,184,812
2.411%, 01/23/29 (144A) (d)		3,080,000		3,083,625
2.541%, 10/20/28 (144A) (d)		1,240,000		1,244,381
Soundview Home Loan Trust 1.551%, 01/25/35 (d)		86,964		82,351
SpringCastle America Funding LLC 3.050%, 04/25/29 (144A)		4,263,998		4,285,318
Springleaf Funding Trust 3.620%, 11/15/24 (144A)		2,062,000		2,062,609
Stanwich Mortgage Loan Co. LLC 3.721%, 08/16/46 (144A)		1,363,537		1,365,228
Sunset Mortgage Loan Co. LLC 3.721%, 11/16/44 (144A)		731,484		730,570
SWAY Residential Trust 2.036%, 01/17/32 (144A) (d)		6,002,691		6,006,585
Symphony CLO, Ltd. 2.180%, 10/15/25 (144A) (d)		8,810,000		8,803,859
3.080%, 01/17/25 (144A) (d)		360,000		360,058
3.080%, 10/17/26 (144A) (d)		6,170,000		6,170,574
3.630%, 10/15/25 (144A) (d)		1,560,000		1,561,343
TICP CLO, Ltd. 2.421%, 01/20/27 (144A) (d)		1,290,000		1,290,155
3.231%, 01/20/27 (144A) (d)		340,000		340,011
Tricon American Homes Trust 1.986%, 05/17/32 (144A) (d)		727,649		724,069
Asset-Backed - Other—(Continued)
Trimaran CLO, Ltd. 1.633%, 06/15/21 (144A) (d)		230,000		226,696
U.S. Residential Opportunity Fund Trust 3.475%, 07/27/36 (144A)		9,304,241		9,260,454
3.475%, 08/27/36 (144A)		14,713,068		14,643,296
3.598%, 10/27/36 (144A)		8,143,838		8,114,534
Venture CLO, Ltd. 2.333%, 01/15/27 (144A) (d)		890,000		889,555
2.860%, 07/20/22 (144A) (d)		3,200,000		3,199,974
2.880%, 04/15/26 (144A) (d)		450,000		450,187
2.980%, 07/15/26 (144A) (d)		490,000		490,342
Vericrest Opportunity Loan Trust LLC 3.500%, 09/25/46 (144A)		435,247		434,091
3.844%, 06/25/46 (144A)		6,893,533		6,903,355
Vibrant CLO, Ltd. 2.386%, 04/20/26 (144A) (d)		570,000		570,000
2.546%, 01/20/29 (144A) (d)		1,020,000		1,020,000
2.956%, 04/20/26 (144A) (d)		290,000		290,000
Voya CLO, Ltd. 2.032%, 04/25/25 (144A) (d)		1,780,000		1,778,717
2.332%, 01/18/26 (144A) (d)		3,140,000		3,140,597
2.682%, 01/18/26 (144A) (d)		1,285,000		1,282,245
2.830%, 10/15/22 (144A) (d)		1,670,000		1,667,438
Washington Mutural Asset-Backed Certificates Trust 0.911%, 10/25/36 (d)		1,083,239		792,926
0.936%, 09/25/36 (d)		2,554,628		1,160,319
WestVue Mortgage Loan Trust 4.500%, 09/25/20 (144A)		731,383		737,617
Wind River CLO, Ltd. 2.330%, 07/15/26 (144A) (d)		2,080,000		2,077,369
Ziggurat CLO, Ltd. 2.460%, 10/17/26 (144A) (d)		12,105,000		12,105,351
				373,837,975
Asset-Backed - Student Loan—1.3%
Navient Private Education Loan Trust 1.904%, 12/15/28 (144A) (d)		830,000		837,915
2.404%, 11/15/30 (144A) (d)		2,507,000		2,574,345
2.454%, 10/17/44 (144A) (d)		4,595,000		4,361,510
2.650%, 12/15/28 (144A)		880,000		879,644
3.500%, 12/16/58 (144A) (d)		970,000		867,296
Scholar Funding Trust 1.406%, 01/30/45 (144A) (d)		7,422,678		7,090,170
1.790%, 10/28/43 (144A) (d)		1,068,761		1,031,654
SLM Private Credit Student Loan Trust 1.133%, 03/15/23 (d)		279,810		278,763
1.163%, 06/15/21 (d)		382,766		382,191
1.293%, 03/15/24 (d)		4,800,000		4,617,647
SLM Private Education Loan Trust 1.554%, 02/15/22 (144A) (d)		247,925		248,020
2.104%, 10/15/31 (144A) (d)		3,740,000		3,782,865
2.500%, 03/15/47 (144A)		720,000		690,448
2.954%, 06/16/42 (144A) (d)		3,271,000		3,403,260
3.000%, 05/16/44 (144A)		970,000		937,881

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-20

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Bond Income Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Asset-Backed Securities—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Asset-Backed - Student Loan—(Continued)
SMB Private Education Loan Trust 1.904%, 07/15/27 (144A) (d)		930,000	$	943,777
SMB Private Education Loan Trust
2.104%, 07/15/27 (144A) (d)		420,000		427,292
2.154%, 02/17/32 (144A) (d)		2,090,000		2,139,989
2.204%, 05/15/31 (144A) (d)		2,440,000		2,503,555
2.204%, 04/15/32 (144A) (d)		730,000		744,115
2.430%, 02/17/32 (144A)		1,556,000		1,522,464
2.454%, 05/17/32 (144A) (d)		3,490,000		3,616,011
2.490%, 06/15/27 (144A)		1,210,000		1,196,470
2.700%, 05/15/31 (144A)		1,225,000		1,216,190
3.500%, 12/17/40 (144A)		2,090,000		1,874,184
SoFi Professional Loan Program LLC 2.340%, 04/25/33 (144A)		470,000		460,392
2.360%, 12/27/32 (144A)		770,000		758,348
				49,386,396
Total Asset-Backed Securities (Cost $463,028,138)				466,174,524
Mortgage-Backed Securities—6.5%
Collateralized Mortgage Obligations—2.5%
Ajax Mortgage Loan Trust 4.250%, 08/25/64 (144A)		1,858,128		1,858,712
American Home Mortgage Assets Trust 1.487%, 11/25/46 (d)		341,443		176,684
1.507%, 10/25/46 (d)		661,091		524,372
Angel Oak Mortgage Trust LLC 3.500%, 07/25/46 (144A)		1,203,013		1,195,625
4.500%, 11/25/45 (144A)		460,391		463,057
APS Resecuritization Trust 1.993%, 04/27/47 (144A) (d)		1,144,428		1,131,599
2.855%, 09/27/46 (144A) (d)		3,906,494		3,885,563
Banc of America Alternative Loan Trust 5.500%, 10/25/35		1,808,281		1,762,456
COLT Funding LLC 3.756%, 12/26/45 (144A) (d)		797,917		791,880
Countrywide Alternative Loan Trust 0.896%, 04/25/47 (d)		1,061,163		871,557
0.896%, 05/25/47 (d)		3,679,877		3,094,621
0.929%, 03/20/47 (d)		2,317,438		1,596,739
0.939%, 07/20/46 (d)		4,218,724		2,180,131
0.946%, 10/25/46 (d)		1,535,923		1,304,730
0.966%, 07/25/46 (d)		1,866,759		1,559,439
1.056%, 01/25/36 (d)		870,883		745,442
2.297%, 11/25/46 (d)		4,309,244		3,500,706
5.500%, 04/25/37		1,185,376		976,968
6.000%, 05/25/37		4,197,049		3,021,491
Countrywide Home Loan Mortgage Pass-Through Trust 1.527%, 04/25/46 (d)		4,551,547		2,185,339
Credit Suisse Mortgage Capital Certificates 0.764%, 03/27/36 (144A) (d)		2,881,250		1,736,682
Collateralized Mortgage Obligations—(Continued)
Credit Suisse Mortgage Capital Certificates
0.782%, 02/27/36 (144A) (d)		895,000		740,081
3.194%, 08/27/46 (144A) (d)		3,100,141		3,039,197
Deephaven Residential Mortgage Trust 4.000%, 07/25/46 (144A)		1,973,061		1,970,324
Deutsche ALT-A Securities Mortgage Loan Trust 0.906%, 12/25/36 (d)		4,075,788		3,303,407
Deutsche ALT-A Securities, Inc. Alternate Loan Trust 1.256%, 01/27/37 (144A) (d)		431,270		1,163,500
Fannie Mae Connecticut Avenue Securities 5.006%, 04/25/29 (d)		1,620,000		1,672,974
6.006%, 10/25/23 (d)		7,415,000		8,162,545
Freddie Mac Structured Agency Credit Risk Debt Notes 4.556%, 03/25/29 (d)		1,310,000		1,312,486
4.606%, 03/25/29 (d)		1,400,000		1,399,998
GreenPoint Mortgage Funding Trust 2.567%, 03/25/36 (d)		258,862		215,311
GSMPS Mortgage Loan Trust 1.106%, 01/25/35 (144A) (d)		840,151		723,971
1.106%, 03/25/35 (144A) (d)		1,034,722		914,897
1.106%, 01/25/36 (144A) (d)		773,604		646,083
GSR Mortgage Loan Trust 6.000%, 07/25/37		1,202,057		1,084,660
JPMorgan Alternative Loan Trust 0.966%, 03/25/37 (d)		1,798,051		1,300,450
3.225%, 05/25/37 (d)		464,466		385,772
JPMorgan Mortgage Trust 6.500%, 08/25/36		408,597		333,065
LSTAR Securities Investment Trust 2.617%, 03/01/20 (144A) (d)		1,879,983		1,877,527
3.617%, 11/01/21 (144A) (d)		4,851,996		4,798,142
LSTAR Securities Investment, Ltd. 2.533%, 03/01/21 (144A) (d)		5,342,585		5,251,227
2.617%, 11/01/20 (144A) (d)		658,424		653,486
2.617%, 09/01/21 (144A) (d)		6,406,838		6,328,755
4.117%, 11/01/20 (144A) (d)		350,000		347,375
MASTR Resecuritization Trust 0.969%, 08/25/37 (144A) (d)		725,774		534,363
Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors Trust 3.040%, 05/25/36 (d)		2,439,602		2,000,654
Morgan Stanley Resecuritization Trust 1.291%, 06/26/47 (144A) (d)		542,306		494,135
Mortgage Loan Resecuritization Trust 0.957%, 04/16/36 (144A) (d)		4,666,946		3,863,824
Nomura Asset Acceptance Corp. Alternative Loan Trust 6.634%, 05/25/36		298,619		131,218
Nomura Resecuritization Trust 1.112%, 11/26/35 (144A) (d)		710,000		637,314
Residential Accredit Loans, Inc. Trust 0.916%, 02/25/37 (d)		423,418		347,677
0.946%, 07/25/37 (d)		1,106,056		946,087
Structured Adjustable Rate Mortgage Loan Trust 3.043%, 04/25/47 (d)		1,712,347		1,307,096

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-21

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Bond Income Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Mortgage-Backed Securities—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Collateralized Mortgage Obligations—(Continued)
Structured Asset Mortgage Investments Trust 0.946%, 06/25/36 (d)		1,178,613	$	936,012
0.966%, 05/25/46 (d)		360,369		270,187
0.986%, 02/25/36 (d)		2,705,234		2,096,938
Structured Asset Securities Corp. Mortgage Loan Trust 6.000%, 10/25/36 (144A)		717,324		623,347
Wedgewood Real Estate Trust 3.450%, 07/15/46 (144A) (d)		7,644		7,646
Wells Fargo Mortgage-Backed Securities Trust 3.029%, 07/25/36 (d)		304,541		299,429
				96,684,953
Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities—4.0%
BAMLL Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust 1.754%, 09/15/26 (144A) (d)		499,000		499,213
3.304%, 09/15/26 (144A) (d)		260,000		259,552
3.596%, 04/14/33 (144A) (d)		850,000		774,194
3.606%, 08/14/34 (144A) (d)		2,470,000		2,104,934
4.204%, 09/15/26 (144A) (d)		947,000		943,081
Banc of America Commercial Mortgage Trust 5.451%, 01/15/49		18,133		18,123
5.482%, 01/15/49 (d)		630,000		629,129
5.549%, 06/10/49 (d)		2,884,533		2,914,914
5.648%, 04/10/49 (d)		470,000		471,345
5.772%, 02/10/51 (d)		2,590,000		2,637,795
Bayview Commercial Asset Trust 1.056%, 10/25/36 (144A) (d)		340,227		281,627
1.116%, 04/25/36 (144A) (d)		234,015		203,209
1.206%, 09/25/37 (144A) (d)		877,399		734,424
1.756%, 10/25/37 (144A) (d)		244,239		228,002
3.506%, 07/25/38 (144A) (d)		743,401		764,007
BB-UBS Trust 0.596%, 11/05/36 (144A) (d) (e)		85,480,000		3,609,179
4.026%, 11/05/36 (144A) (d)		330,000		319,961
Bear Stearns Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust 1.370%, 06/11/50 (144A) (d)		560,000		551,008
5.317%, 02/11/44		3,351,256		3,355,270
5.711%, 06/11/40 (d)		1,281,000		1,297,763
BHMS Mortgage Trust 2.135%, 07/05/33 (144A) (d)		3,305,000		3,308,102
BWAY Mortgage Trust 3.446%, 03/10/33 (144A)		1,495,000		1,464,183
3.454%, 03/10/33 (144A)		2,120,000		2,154,868
3.633%, 03/10/33 (144A)		600,000		582,809
3.927%, 03/10/33 (144A) (d)		1,210,000		1,131,349
CCRESG Commercial Mortgage Trust 5.488%, 04/10/29 (144A) (d)		230,000		225,604
CD Mortgage Trust 5.648%, 10/15/48		503,114		506,099
6.116%, 11/15/44 (d)		2,530,500		2,610,129
CDGJ Commercial Mortgage Trust 2.104%, 12/15/27 (144A) (d)		3,484,536		3,495,472
Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities—(Continued)
CFCRE Commercial Mortgage Trust 0.731%, 05/10/58 (d) (e)		2,370,000		130,418
1.770%, 05/10/58 (d) (e)		4,260,868		494,065
3.283%, 05/10/58		330,000		326,929
CGGS Commerical Mortgage Trust 4.204%, 02/15/33 (144A) (d)		1,513,001		1,523,793
5.454%, 02/15/33 (144A) (d)		1,862,496		1,872,507
Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Trust 1.234%, 10/10/47 (144A) (d) (e)		1,140,000		82,846
2.788%, 04/10/49 (144A)		560,000		375,565
3.518%, 05/10/35 (144A) (d)		130,000		122,435
3.520%, 09/10/31 (144A)		130,000		125,662
4.509%, 09/10/31 (144A)		250,000		242,877
COBALT CMBS Commercial Mortgage Trust 5.761%, 05/15/46 (d)		2,457,000		2,489,466
Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Mortgage Trust 0.060%, 02/10/35 (144A) (d) (e)		60,958,000		435,850
1.354%, 12/10/49 (144A) (d)		640,000		624,485
1.469%, 03/10/46 (d) (e)		37,687,685		1,447,132
1.683%, 01/10/46 (d) (e)		35,824,543		1,976,211
2.361%, 02/13/32 (144A) (d)		1,280,000		1,280,000
2.930%, 02/13/32 (144A) (d)		550,000		547,294
3.179%, 10/10/36 (144A) (d)		270,000		241,051
3.930%, 02/13/32 (144A) (d)		250,000		248,563
4.312%, 07/10/48 (d)		1,600,000		1,426,232
4.417%, 12/10/47 (d)		420,000		416,989
4.547%, 08/10/48 (d)		2,170,000		2,128,441
4.737%, 07/15/47 (d)		1,280,000		1,306,002
5.543%, 12/11/49 (144A) (d)		2,690,000		2,698,594
Commercial Mortgage Trust 3.611%, 08/10/49 (144A) (d)		1,340,000		1,388,396
3.685%, 05/10/48 (144A) (d)		430,000		401,405
4.353%, 08/10/30 (144A)		375,000		405,812
Core Industrial Trust 3.077%, 02/10/34 (144A)		1,990,000		2,029,145
Cosmopolitan Hotel Trust 2.104%, 11/15/33 (144A) (d)		2,080,000		2,090,426
Countrywide Commercial Mortgage Trust 6.095%, 11/12/43 (144A) (d)		484,495		489,759
Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage Securities Corp. 5.234%, 10/15/39 (144A) (d)		250,000		260,578
Credit Suisse Mortgage Capital Certificates Trust 2.304%, 11/15/33 (144A) (d)		290,000		290,429
3.795%, 12/15/49		690,000		709,535
CSAIL Commercial Mortgage Trust 1.816%, 01/15/49 (d) (e)		4,490,900		516,843
3.800%, 04/15/50 (144A) (d)		130,000		106,228
4.360%, 08/15/48 (d)		340,000		330,920
DBJPM Mortgage Trust 3.495%, 09/10/49 (144A) (d)		1,800,000		1,374,777
DBRR Trust 1.636%, 12/18/49 (144A) (d)		219,353		219,147
5.525%, 06/17/49 (144A) (d)		3,071,386		3,082,685

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-22

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Bond Income Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Mortgage-Backed Securities—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities—(Continued)
Eleven Madison Trust Mortgage Trust 3.555%, 09/10/35 (144A) (d)		390,000	$	401,289
Freddie Mac Multifamily Structured Pass-Through Certificates 2.312%, 12/25/22		540,000		529,547
GAHR Commercial Mortgage Trust 2.004%, 12/15/34 (144A) (d)		1,030,469		1,032,069
3.382%, 12/15/34 (144A) (d)		6,057,000		5,569,338
Greenwich Capital Commercial Mortgage Trust 5.867%, 12/10/49 (d)		520,000		531,434
GS Mortgage Securities Corp. 1.595%, 02/10/46 (d) (e)		46,072,811		3,336,082
3.435%, 12/10/27 (144A) (d)		7,062,358		6,672,180
GS Mortgage Securities Trust 2.850%, 10/10/49		660,000		641,282
4.646%, 06/10/47 (144A) (d)		180,000		143,765
Hilton USA Trust 4.453%, 11/05/30 (144A) (d)		1,472,000		1,474,197
JPMBB Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust 0.946%, 05/15/48 (d) (e)		1,253,824		50,859
0.949%, 09/15/47 (d) (e)		5,419,732		280,056
1.195%, 10/15/48 (d) (e)		5,069,852		304,140
4.560%, 09/15/47 (144A) (d)		420,000		367,398
JPMDB Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust 0.750%, 12/15/49 (144A) (d) (e)		2,067,000		113,346
JPMorgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp. 1.825%, 12/15/47 (d) (e)		9,127,024		569,885
JPMorgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust 0.605%, 04/15/46 (d) (e)		4,900,000		151,299
0.750%, 08/15/49 (144A) (d) (e)		5,300,000		288,881
0.826%, 12/15/49 (d) (e)		1,000,000		50,831
2.104%, 11/15/31 (144A) (d)		2,719,339		2,716,071
2.164%, 02/12/51 (d)		1,211,709		1,158,938
2.404%, 07/15/36 (144A) (d)		2,263,000		2,280,030
2.854%, 10/06/38 (144A) (d)		1,350,000		1,308,280
3.429%, 06/10/27 (144A)		1,140,000		1,165,997
4.243%, 01/15/49 (d)		970,000		830,895
4.554%, 10/15/29 (144A) (d)		270,000		265,977
5.431%, 06/12/47 (d)		3,036,848		3,035,742
5.753%, 06/15/49 (d)		2,183,847		2,197,007
5.855%, 06/12/43 (d)		241,651		242,070
LB-UBS Commercial Mortgage Trust 5.484%, 02/15/40		480,000		480,420
Lehman Brothers Small Balance Commercial Mortgage Trust 1.006%, 03/25/37 (144A) (d)		971,661		870,890
Lone Star Portfolio Trust 2.504%, 09/15/28 (144A) (d)		304,605		306,812
6.304%, 09/15/28 (144A) (d)		409,547		412,990
Merrill Lynch Mortgage Trust 5.826%, 06/12/50 (d)		2,801,032		2,827,050
ML-CFC Commercial Mortgage Trust 5.733%, 06/12/50 (d)		1,359,621		1,368,301
Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities—(Continued)
Morgan Stanley Bank of America Merrill Lynch Trust 0.780%, 12/15/49 (d) (e)		3,000,000		166,320
1.136%, 11/15/46 (d) (e)		17,954,832		975,685
1.147%, 12/15/47 (d) (e)		198,578		11,032
1.191%, 12/15/47 (144A) (d) (e)		1,810,000		115,610
1.292%, 01/15/49 (d) (e)		1,733,804		142,660
1.472%, 11/15/49 (d) (e)		1,119,022		108,708
3.060%, 10/15/48 (144A)		820,000		565,651
3.068%, 10/15/48		1,300,000		910,017
3.071%, 02/15/48 (144A)		100,000		71,513
Morgan Stanley Capital Trust 0.865%, 02/12/44 (d)		666,421		665,478
3.446%, 07/13/29 (144A) (d)		540,000		516,299
3.454%, 08/15/26 (144A) (d)		300,000		299,623
5.406%, 03/15/44		3,090,000		3,087,308
5.775%, 04/12/49 (d)		2,197,334		2,196,944
Morgan Stanley Re-REMIC Trust 2.000%, 07/27/49 (144A)		673,004		669,154
5.793%, 08/15/45 (144A) (d)		1,560,000		1,565,730
RBSCF Trust 5.969%, 02/16/51 (144A) (d)		4,198,639		4,192,216
STRIPs, Ltd. 0.500%, 12/25/44 (144A)		2,370,000		2,362,068
1.500%, 12/25/44 (144A)		195,420		194,835
UBS-Barclays Commercial Mortgage Trust 3.904%, 02/15/28 (144A) (d)		950,000		932,733
Velocity Commercial Capital Loan Trust 2.392%, 10/25/46 (d)		1,356,050		1,356,375
3.022%, 06/25/45 (144A) (d)		1,991,474		2,000,407
3.661%, 10/25/46 (d)		150,000		152,156
4.458%, 10/25/46 (d)		100,000		102,125
5.498%, 10/25/46 (d)		140,000		135,421
7.226%, 10/25/46 (d)		160,000		154,061
VNDO Trust 3.903%, 01/10/35 (144A) (d)		950,000		831,237
Wachovia Bank Commercial Mortgage Trust 5.632%, 10/15/48 (d)		302,450		302,066
Waldorf Astoria Boca Raton Trust 2.054%, 06/15/29 (144A) (d)		1,590,000		1,595,711
Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Trust 0.963%, 12/15/48 (d) (e)		1,330,244		81,091
0.989%, 02/15/48 (d) (e)		8,805,332		512,860
1.099%, 12/15/59 (d) (e)		5,100,000		349,299
1.269%, 08/15/49 (144A) (d) (e)		1,430,000		131,446
1.343%, 08/15/49 (d) (e)		2,800,000		296,128
3.852%, 11/15/48		890,000		647,319
4.495%, 12/15/49 (d)		610,000		592,251
WF-RBS Commercial Mortgage Trust 0.969%, 11/15/47 (d) (e)		25,605,343		1,342,880
1.174%, 05/15/47 (d) (e)		11,914,012		657,560
1.380%, 03/15/48 (144A) (d) (e)		41,390,398		2,271,505
3.766%, 09/15/57 (d)		1,540,000		1,410,652
				152,982,319
Total Mortgage-Backed Securities (Cost $264,135,509)				249,667,272

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-23

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Bond Income Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Foreign Government—3.3%

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Sovereign—3.3%
Argentine Republic Government International Bonds 3.875%, 01/15/22 (EUR)		2,124,000	$	2,139,689
6.250%, 04/22/19 (144A)		11,169,000		11,922,907
6.875%, 04/22/21		242,000		257,730
7.500%, 04/22/26		895,000		939,750
7.625%, 04/22/46 (144A)		704,000		704,000
7.820%, 12/31/33 (EUR) (g)		1,899,710		1,931,544
Brazil Notas do Tesouro Nacional 6.000%, 05/15/21 (BRL) (g)		3,760,000		3,414,225
Brazilian Government International Bonds 5.000%, 01/27/45		426,000		345,571
Colombia Government International Bonds 4.000%, 02/26/24 (a)		9,755,000		9,852,550
Deutsche Bundesrepublik Inflation Linked Bonds 0.100%, 04/15/26 (EUR) (g)		16,342,617		19,283,257
Hungary Government International Bonds 5.375%, 03/25/24 (a)		3,500,000		3,815,000
Indonesia Government International Bonds 3.375%, 04/15/23 (144A)		2,016,000		1,966,566
5.375%, 10/17/23 (144A)		1,350,000		1,462,135
5.875%, 01/15/24 (144A)		3,964,000		4,373,497
Indonesia Treasury Bonds 7.000%, 05/15/22 (IDR)		105,566,000,000		7,598,096
8.250%, 07/15/21 (IDR)		23,835,000,000		1,812,504
Mexican Bonos 4.750%, 06/14/18 (MXN)		75,800,000		3,550,729
Mexican Udibonos 3.500%, 12/14/17 (MXN) (g)		20,215,282		993,668
Mexico Government International Bonds 4.000%, 10/02/23 (a)		27,750,000		27,816,600
Panama Government International Bonds 3.750%, 03/16/25		3,490,000		3,463,825
Peruvian Government International Bonds 7.350%, 07/21/25 (a)		2,900,000		3,723,600
South Africa Government International Bonds 4.875%, 04/14/26 (a)		2,360,000		2,348,200
Turkey Government International Bonds 5.625%, 03/30/21		950,000		974,130
6.750%, 04/03/18		3,212,000		3,351,883
7.000%, 03/11/19		2,513,000		2,670,062
7.500%, 11/07/19		1,750,000		1,903,125
Uruguay Government International Bonds 4.375%, 10/27/27 (g)		3,280,000		3,288,364
Total Foreign Government (Cost $130,507,530)				125,903,207
Municipals—3.2%
Arizona Health Facilities Authority 1.377%, 01/01/37 (d)		1,140,000		992,108
Bay Area Toll Bridge Authority, Build America Bonds Series S1 6.918%, 04/01/40		1,575,000		2,134,424
7.043%, 04/01/50		460,000		651,953
Brooklyn Arena Local Development Corp. 5.000%, 07/15/42		1,770,000		1,889,369
Buckeye Tobacco Settlement Financing Authority 5.875%, 06/01/47		1,790,000		1,563,869
California Health Facilities Financing Authority 5.000%, 08/15/33		495,000		569,973
California State Public Works Board 8.361%, 10/01/34		760,000		1,088,806
Chesapeake Bay Bridge & Tunnel District 5.000%, 07/01/51		275,000		294,294
City of Portland, OR Sewer System Revenue 5.000%, 06/15/23		1,240,000		1,455,673
Clark County School District 5.000%, 06/15/26		675,000		801,164
5.000%, 06/15/27		1,865,000		2,192,475
5.000%, 06/15/28		720,000		839,592
Series A
5.000%, 06/15/23		1,585,000		1,848,205
5.000%, 06/15/24		1,820,000		2,142,176
Clark County, NV 5.000%, 07/01/28		1,870,000		2,265,636
Colorado Health Facilities Authority 5.250%, 02/01/31		655,000		703,798
Commonwealth Financing Authority 4.144%, 06/01/38		1,275,000		1,217,166
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico 8.000%, 07/01/35		14,975,000		10,070,687
Golden State Tobacco Securitization Corp. 5.125%, 06/01/47		1,820,000		1,607,661
5.750%, 06/01/47		360,000		344,538
Grant County Public Utility District No. 2 4.584%, 01/01/40		315,000		311,611
Great Lakes Water Authority Water Supply System Revenue 5.250%, 07/01/33		500,000		563,245
Horry County School District 5.000%, 03/01/22		530,000		608,350
5.000%, 03/01/24		625,000		738,444
5.000%, 03/01/25		355,000		424,438
Los Angeles Community College District 6.600%, 08/01/42		1,150,000		1,608,608
Los Angeles Department of Water & Power Revenue, Build America Bonds 6.603%, 07/01/50		565,000		791,147
Los Angeles, Unified School District, Build America Bonds 6.758%, 07/01/34		640,000		858,880
Massachusetts Educational Financing Authority 5.000%, 01/01/22		740,000		801,679
Massachusetts State Clean Water Trust Revenue 5.000%, 02/01/25		585,000		705,054
5.000%, 02/01/27		555,000		672,005
5.000%, 02/01/28		500,000		602,695

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-24

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Bond Income Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Municipals—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Mecklenburg County, NC 5.000%, 12/01/25		430,000	$	522,613
Metropolitan Transportation Authority Build America Bonds 6.668%, 11/15/39		170,000		225,444
6.687%, 11/15/40		590,000		792,854
6.814%, 11/15/40		1,005,000		1,334,600
Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority Dulles Toll Road Revenue 7.462%, 10/01/46		560,000		785,294
Miami-Dade County Series A 5.000%, 07/01/29		330,000		391,641
5.000%, 07/01/32		330,000		384,150
5.000%, 07/01/35		395,000		453,488
Miami-Dade County, FL Aviation Revenue 5.000%, 10/01/38		1,025,000		1,103,044
Series B
2.504%, 10/01/24		1,000,000		946,810
Miami-Dade County, FL Educational Facilities Authority 5.073%, 04/01/50		655,000		688,353
Missouri State Health & Educational Facilities Authority Revenue 5.000%, 11/15/29		340,000		380,684
Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, Build America Bonds 6.637%, 04/01/57		1,000,000		1,240,210
New Jersey State Turnpike Authority, Build America Bonds 7.414%, 01/01/40		1,451,000		2,095,520
New Jersey Transportation Trust Fund Authority 5.000%, 06/15/29		380,000		403,188
Series C
Zero Coupon, 12/15/27		1,060,000		673,301
Zero Coupon, 12/15/31		1,060,000		549,907
Zero Coupon, 12/15/35		1,060,000		421,318
Zero Coupon, 12/15/36		1,060,000		391,267
New York City Transitional Finance Authority Future Tax Secured Revenue 5.000%, 08/01/31		590,000		693,445
Series A2
2.280%, 05/01/26		1,195,000		1,094,823
New York City Water & Sewer System 5.375%, 06/15/43		2,360,000		2,629,300
5.500%, 06/15/43		2,825,000		3,177,616
5.750%, 06/15/41		675,000		852,019
5.882%, 06/15/44		1,150,000		1,487,628
New York State Dormitory Authority 5.000%, 03/15/20		375,000		415,410
5.000%, 02/15/31		770,000		903,349
Series D
5.000%, 02/15/27		740,000		890,856
5.000%, 02/15/28		740,000		885,987
New York State Dormitory Authority Build America Bonds 5.389%, 03/15/40		1,075,000		1,282,066
New York State Dormitory Authority Revenue 5.000%, 03/15/32		580,000		676,379
New York State Urban Development Corp. 5.000%, 03/15/24		230,000		272,460
5.000%, 03/15/25		850,000		1,016,974
New York Transportation Development Corp.
Series A
5.000%, 07/01/46		1,710,000		1,772,090
5.250%, 01/01/50		1,375,000		1,441,729
North Carolina Department of Transportation 5.000%, 06/30/54		1,000,000		1,037,080
Orange County Local Transportation Authority 6.908%, 02/15/41		1,420,000		1,907,159
Pennsylvania Economic Development Financing Authority 5.000%, 12/31/38		510,000		527,916
Port Authority of New York & New Jersey 4.458%, 10/01/62		1,435,000		1,451,359
4.810%, 10/15/65		720,000		774,878
4.960%, 08/01/46		1,910,000		2,146,305
Port of Morrow, OR 2.987%, 09/01/36		245,000		219,515
Public Power Generation Agency Revenue 5.000%, 01/01/34		5,000		5,550
Regents of the University of California Medical Center Pooled Revenue 6.583%, 05/15/49		1,455,000		1,891,849
San Antonio TX Electric & Gas Systems Revenue 5.808%, 02/01/41		470,000		585,977
San Jose CA, Airport Revenue 5.000%, 03/01/37		860,000		864,068
South Carolina Public Service Authority 2.388%, 12/01/23		1,232,000		1,196,802
State of California General Obligation Unlimited 5.000%, 09/01/27		1,375,000		1,655,142
5.000%, 09/01/32		345,000		403,405
State of California General Obligation Unlimited, Build America Bonds 7.300%, 10/01/39		345,000		488,272
7.350%, 11/01/39		550,000		780,901
7.500%, 04/01/34		1,125,000		1,590,187
7.550%, 04/01/39		1,375,000		2,034,519
7.600%, 11/01/40		3,780,000		5,693,738
State of Georgia Series C-1
5.000%, 07/01/24		935,000		1,121,991
5.000%, 07/01/26		355,000		436,291
Series F
5.000%, 01/01/24		720,000		858,679
5.000%, 01/01/28		720,000		883,951
State of Illinois, Build America Bonds 5.100%, 06/01/33		4,320,000		3,818,102
State of Maryland 5.000%, 06/01/24		680,000		814,586
State of Massachusetts Series B 5.000%, 07/01/26		700,000		849,653
5.000%, 07/01/28		700,000		864,360

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-25

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Bond Income Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Municipals—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares/ Principal/ Notional Amount*		Value
State of Washington General Obligation Unlimited 5.000%, 07/01/28		650,000	$	759,330
Series A
5.000%, 08/01/27		705,000		846,226
Series R
5.000%, 08/01/28		825,000		985,644
5.000%, 08/01/29		825,000		979,506
5.000%, 08/01/30		825,000		974,185
Sumter Landing Community Development District 4.172%, 10/01/47		385,000		377,335
Texas Private Activity Bond Surface Transportation Corp. 5.000%, 12/31/55		680,000		708,478
Tobacco Settlement Financing Corp. 5.000%, 06/01/41		720,000		625,824
University of California CA, Revenue 4.858%, 05/15/2112		980,000		947,180
University of Massachusetts Building Authority 5.000%, 11/01/31		500,000		582,890
Wake County, NC 5.000%, 03/01/25		660,000		800,006
West Virginia Hospital Finance Authority 5.000%, 06/01/19		365,000		394,076
5.000%, 06/01/20		390,000		430,225
5.000%, 06/01/21		390,000		437,697
5.000%, 06/01/22		425,000		485,095
5.000%, 06/01/23		355,000		410,178
5.000%, 06/01/24		375,000		438,289
Total Municipals (Cost $125,366,558)				122,719,939
Preferred Stocks—0.4%
Banks—0.4%
Citigroup Capital, 7.257% (d)		292,339		7,548,193
GMAC Capital Trust, 6.691% (a) (d)		250,000		6,350,000
				13,898,193
Thrifts & Mortgage Finance—0.0%
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. Series Z, 8.375% (d)		70,000		529,200
Federal National Mortgage Association Series S, 8.250% (a) (d)		70,000		560,000
				1,089,200
Total Preferred Stocks (Cost $14,797,285)				14,987,393
Purchased Options—0.0%
Currency Options—0.0%
EUR Call/USD Put, Strike Price USD 1.13, Expires 01/05/17 (Counterparty - Citibank N.A.) (EUR)		61,188,000		0
Currency Options—(Continued)
EUR Put/USD Call, Strike Price USD 1.02, Expires 06/01/17 (Counterparty - BNP Paribas S.A.) (EUR)		55,081,000		832,376
EUR Put/USD Call, Strike Price USD 1.06, Expires 01/13/17 (Counterparty - Citibank N.A.) (EUR)		2,210,000		24,650
USD Call/CAD Put, Strike Price CAD 1.345, Expires 01/09/17 (Counterparty - JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.)		1,830,000		10,021
USD Call/CAD Put, Strike Price CAD 1.355, Expires 02/22/17 (Counterparty - Citibank N.A.)		3,664,000		38,549
USD Call/CNH Put, Strike Price CNH 6.92, Expires 03/10/17 (Counterparty - HSBC Bank plc)		2,210,000		61,297
USD Call/INR Put, Strike Price INR 69.00, Expires 01/23/17 (Counterparty - Goldman Sachs International)		3,250,000		5,460
USD Call/TRY Put, Strike Price TRY 3.45, Expires 01/20/17 (Counterparty - Citibank N.A.)		2,252,550		65,252
USD Call/TWD Put, Strike Price TWD 32.00, Expires 01/23/17 (Counterparty - BNP Paribas S.A.)		3,250,000		49,345
USD Call/TWD Put, Strike Price TWD 32.15, Expires 03/23/17 (Counterparty - JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.)		4,002,000		74,481
USD Put/BRL Call, Strike Price BRL 3.34, Expires 02/14/17 (Counterparty - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC)		2,760,000		85,590
USD Put/BRL Call, Strike Price BRL 3.35, Expires 02/21/17 (Counterparty - Goldman Sachs International)		2,340,000		78,128
USD Put/BRL Call, Strike Price BRL 3.37, Expires 02/17/17 (Counterparty - JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.)		2,340,000		86,585
USD Put/BRL Call, Strike Price BRL 3.45, Expires 01/13/17 (Counterparty - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC)		2,210,000		125,510
USD Put/INR Call, Strike Price INR 67.40, Expires 01/06/17 (Counterparty - Nomura International plc)		1,990,000		860
USD Put/JPY Call, Strike Price JPY 116.5, Expires 01/05/17 (Counterparty - UBS AG)		2,170,000		12,232
USD Put/RUB Call, Strike Price RUB 65.00, Expires 01/17/17 (Counterparty - Deutsche Bank AG)		2,400,000		145,202
Total Purchased Options (Cost $1,396,282)				1,695,538

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-26

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Bond Income Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Short-Term Investments—3.9%

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Certificate of Deposit—2.9%
Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ, Ltd. 1.536%, 08/17/17		10,000,000	$	10,016,000
BNP Paribas S.A. (NY) 1.530%, 08/17/17		5,120,000		5,126,503
Cooperatieve Rabobank UA 1.411%, 08/16/17		10,000,000		10,013,750
Credit Industriel et Commercial (NY) 1.511%, 08/16/17		10,000,000		10,023,250
Credit Suisse AG 1.686%, 08/16/17		4,900,000		4,907,335
1.717%, 08/24/17		4,990,000		4,997,186
Norinchukin Bank (NY) 1.200%, 02/22/17		5,150,000		5,152,857
Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB 1.386%, 08/17/17		10,000,000		10,015,640
Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corp. 1.529%, 08/18/17		5,200,000		5,207,140
Sumitomo Mitsui Trust Bank, Ltd. 1.530%, 08/16/17		10,000,000		10,019,005
Svenska Handelsbanken AB 1.195%, 02/27/17		5,200,000		5,203,966
Swedbank (Sparbank) 1.380%, 08/18/17		5,120,000		5,128,003
Toronto-Dominion Bank 1.406%, 08/15/17		9,860,000		9,877,659
UBS AG (Stamford) 1.530%, 09/01/17		5,230,000		5,239,304
Wells Fargo Bank N.A. 1.478%, 09/22/17		10,000,000		10,012,900
				110,940,498
Commercial Paper—0.7%
BPCE 1.498%, 08/14/17		10,050,000		9,967,174
Mizuho Bank, Ltd. 1.374%, 08/16/17		9,920,000		9,833,613
Nordea Bank AB 1.207%, 03/09/17		5,020,000		5,011,620
				24,812,407
Repurchase Agreement—0.3%
Fixed Income Clearing Corp. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/16 at 0.030% to be repurchased at $12,892,869 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $11,730,000 U.S. Government Agency Obligations with rates ranging from 0.125% - 8.500%, maturity dates ranging from 02/15/20 - 04/15/20, with a value of $13,152,592.		12,892,826		12,892,826
Total Short-Term Investments (Cost $148,464,789)				148,645,731
Securities Lending Reinvestments (l)—5.7%
Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Certificates of Deposit—3.4%
Barclays New York 0.894%, 02/10/17 (m)		5,500,000		5,501,779
Chiba Bank, Ltd., New York 0.870%, 01/10/17		2,000,000		2,000,046
Cooperative Rabobank UA New York 1.278%, 10/13/17 (m)		2,000,000		2,000,450
Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank 1.274%, 04/12/17 (m)		5,000,000		5,003,945
Credit Industriel et Commercial 1.245%, 04/05/17 (m)		1,000,000		1,000,540
Credit Suisse AG New York 1.335%, 04/03/17 (m)		1,000,000		1,000,219
1.364%, 04/11/17 (m)		5,500,000		5,501,199
1.364%, 05/12/17 (m)		4,000,000		4,000,416
DG Bank New York 0.940%, 01/12/17		2,500,000		2,500,133
0.950%, 01/03/17		1,000,000		1,000,007
DNB NOR Bank ASA 1.130%, 07/28/17 (m)		3,600,000		3,599,370
DZ Bank AG New York 1.010%, 02/27/17		3,400,000		3,400,983
DZ Bank London 0.990%, 03/01/17		4,000,000		4,000,840
ING Bank NV 1.265%, 04/18/17 (m)		5,400,000		5,409,899
KBC Bank NV 1.000%, 01/04/17		1,000,000		1,000,000
1.050%, 01/17/17		4,300,000		4,300,516
KBC Brussells 1.050%, 01/27/17		5,400,000		5,401,026
Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen London Zero Coupon, 01/24/17		5,237,953		5,247,742
Mitsubishi UFJ Trust and Banking Corp. 1.364%, 04/11/17 (m)		4,000,000		4,001,892
Mizuho Bank, Ltd., New York 1.395%, 04/11/17 (m)		3,000,000		3,000,903
1.436%, 04/18/17 (m)		5,300,000		5,301,664
National Australia Bank London 1.034%, 05/02/17 (m)		6,500,000		6,506,136
1.182%, 11/09/17 (m)		4,200,000		4,189,584
Natixis New York 1.262%, 04/07/17 (m)		1,500,000		1,500,602
Rabobank London 1.281%, 10/13/17 (m)		2,500,000		2,505,996
Royal Bank of Canada New York 1.145%, 04/04/17 (m)		1,000,000		999,743
1.281%, 10/13/17 (m)		4,500,000		4,503,487
Sumitomo Bank New York 1.215%, 05/05/17 (m)		3,500,000		3,505,830
Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corp. London Zero Coupon, 02/06/17		1,994,624		1,998,560
Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corp. New York 1.352%, 04/07/17 (m)		1,000,000		1,000,510
1.395%, 04/12/17 (m)		3,000,000		3,003,421

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-27

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Bond Income Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Securities Lending Reinvestments (l)—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Certificates of Deposit—(Continued)
Sumitomo Mitsui Trust Bank, Ltd., New York 1.351%, 04/26/17 (m)		8,000,000	$	8,000,944
1.364%, 04/10/17 (m)		3,000,000		3,001,161
Svenska Handelsbanken New York 1.266%, 05/18/17 (m)		6,000,000		6,001,044
UBS, Stamford 1.084%, 05/12/17 (m)		1,500,000		1,499,886
Wells Fargo Bank San Francisco N.A. 1.231%, 04/26/17 (m)		3,600,000		3,601,008
1.264%, 10/26/17 (m)		3,500,000		3,502,391
				129,493,872
Commercial Paper—1.3%
ABN AMRO Funding USA 0.910%, 01/11/17		2,494,313		2,499,222
Atlantic Asset Securitization LLC 0.990%, 01/12/17		1,695,793		1,699,449
1.040%, 02/03/17		1,595,147		1,598,603
Barton Capital Corp. 0.870%, 01/12/17		2,998,478		2,999,253
Commonwealth Bank Australia 1.236%, 10/23/17 (m)		4,000,000		4,002,248
Den Norske ASA 1.206%, 04/27/17 (m)		3,600,000		3,600,191
Erste Abwicklungsanstalt 1.014%, 03/10/17 (m)		3,000,000		3,000,018
HSBC plc 1.216%, 04/25/17 (m)		7,800,000		7,799,664
Kells Funding LLC 1.040%, 01/19/17		99,648		99,961
Macquarie Bank, Ltd. 0.930%, 01/19/17		2,992,870		2,998,149
0.950%, 01/03/17		1,995,356		1,999,786
Ridgefield Funding Co. LLC 1.000%, 01/03/17		997,500		999,943
Sheffield Receivables Co. 1.050%, 01/06/17		997,258		999,870
Starbird Funding Corp. 0.930%, 02/10/17		3,490,958		3,496,643
Toronto Dominion Holding Corp. 0.600%, 01/05/17		3,995,867		3,999,552
Versailles Commercial Paper LLC 1.000%, 01/31/17		2,992,000		2,997,744
1.050%, 01/17/17		598,180		599,732
Victory Receivables Corp. 1.050%, 01/04/17		747,834		749,947
Westpac Banking Corp. 1.232%, 10/20/17 (m)		5,200,000		5,209,080
				51,349,055
Repurchase Agreements—0.7%
Deutsche Bank AG, London Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/16 at 1.050% to be repurchased at $6,600,770 on 01/03/17, collateralized by various Common Stock with a value of $7,336,263.		6,600,000		6,600,000
Repurchase Agreements—(Continued)
Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. Repurchase Agreement dated 10/18/16 at 1.110% to be repurchased at $7,029,353 on 03/03/17, collateralized by various Common Stock with a value of $7,700,000.		7,000,000		7,000,000
Goldman Sachs & Co. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/16 at 0.460% to be repurchased at $33,847 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $174,175 U.S. Government Agency Obligations with rates ranging from 2.000% - 10.500%, maturity dates ranging from 03/15/17 - 09/20/65, with a value of $34,522.		33,845		33,845
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. Repurchase Agreement dated 10/26/16 at 1.160% to be repurchased at $5,327,154 on 04/03/17, collateralized by various Common Stock with a value of $5,830,000.		5,300,000		5,300,000
Natixis Repurchase Agreement dated 12/27/16 at 0.850% to be repurchased at $8,501,405 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $13,643,089 U.S. Government Agency and Treasury Obligations with rates ranging from 0.000% - 4.672%, maturity dates ranging from 01/31/17 - 09/16/58, with a value of $8,671,066.		8,500,000		8,500,000
				27,433,845
Time Deposits—0.3%
OP Corporate Bank plc 1.010%, 01/04/17		3,600,000		3,600,000
1.200%, 01/23/17		1,000,000		1,000,000
Shinkin Central Bank 1.200%, 01/27/17		1,000,000		1,000,000
1.220%, 01/26/17		4,600,000		4,600,000
				10,200,000
Total Securities Lending Reinvestments (Cost $218,418,675)				218,476,772
Total Investments—114.5% (Cost $4,423,253,901) (n)				4,373,625,273
Other assets and liabilities (net)—(14.5)%				(552,761,514	)
Net Assets—100.0%			$	3,820,863,759

* Principal and notional amounts stated in U.S. dollars unless otherwise noted.

(a) All or a portion of the security was held on loan. As of December 31, 2016, the market value of securities loaned was $212,597,740 and the collateral received consisted of cash in the amount of $218,357,623. The cash collateral investments are disclosed in the Schedule of Investments and categorized as Securities Lending Reinvestments.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-28

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Bond Income Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

(b) All or a portion of the security was pledged as collateral against TBA securities. As of December 31, 2016, the value of securities pledged amounted to $283,174.

(c) TBA (To Be Announced) Securities are purchased on a forward commitment basis with an approximate principal amount and no defined maturity date. The actual principal and maturity date will be determined upon settlement date.

(d) Variable or floating rate security. The stated rate represents the rate at December 31, 2016. Maturity date shown for callable securities reflects the earliest possible call date.

(e) Interest only security.

(f) All or a portion of the security was pledged as collateral against open futures contracts. As of December 31, 2016, the market value of securities pledged was $5,243,552.

(g) Principal amount of security is adjusted for inflation.

(h) All or a portion of the security was pledged as collateral against open reverse repurchase agreements. As of December 31, 2016, the value of securities pledged amounted to $80,680,054.

(i) Payment-in-kind security for which part of the income earned may be paid as additional principal.

(j) Non-income producing; security is in default and/or issuer is in bankruptcy.

(k) Restricted securities are not registered under the Securities Act of 1933 and are subject to legal restrictions on resale. These securities generally may be resold in transactions exempt from registration or to the public if the securities are subsequently registered. Disposal of these securities may involve time-consuming negotiations and prompt sale at an acceptable price may be difficult. As of December 31, 2016, the market value of restricted securities was $8, which is 0.0% of net assets. See details shown in the Restricted Securities table that follows.

(l) Represents investment of cash collateral received from securities on loan as of December 31, 2016.

(m) Variable or floating rate security. The stated rate represents the rate at December 31, 2016.

(n) As of December 31, 2016, the aggregate cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was $4,436,847,341. The aggregate unrealized appreciation and depreciation of investments were $43,562,099 and $(106,784,167), respectively, resulting in net unrealized depreciation of $(63,222,068) for federal income tax purposes.

(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, 2016, the market value of 144A securities was $613,826,140, which is 16.1% of net assets.

(ACES)— Alternative Credit Enhancement Securities

(ARM)— Adjustable-Rate Mortgage

(BRL)— Brazilian Real

(CAD)— Canadian Dollar

(CDO)— Collateralized Debt Obligation

(CLO)— Collateralized Loan Obligation

(CMO)— Collateralized Mortgage Obligation

(CNH)— Chinese Renminbi

(EUR)— Euro

(GBP)— British Pound

(IDR)— Indonesian Rupiah

(INR)— Indian Rupee

(JPY)— Japanese Yen

(MXN)— Mexican Peso

(REMIC)— Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit

(RUB)— Russian Ruble

(TRY)— Turkish Lira

(TWD)— Taiwanese Dollar

Restricted Securities	Acquisition Date		Principal Amount		Cost		Value
Knollwood CDO, Ltd., 4.076%, 01/10/39		02/10/04	$	809,910	$	809,910	$	8

Reverse Repurchase Agreements

Counterparty	Interest Rate			Settlement Date		Maturity Date		Principal Amount			Net Closing Amount
Bank of America N.A.		(2.540	%)		12/30/16		01/03/17		USD	22,950,272	$	22,950,272
Bank of America N.A.		(0.690	%)		12/30/16		01/03/17		USD	57,600,000		57,600,000
Total											$	80,550,272

Securities pledged as collateral against open reverse repurchase agreements are noted in the Schedule of Investments.

TBA Forward Sale Commitments

Security Description	Interest Rate			Maturity		Face Amount			Cost			Value
Fannie Mae 15 Yr. Pool		2.500	%		TBA		(7,564,000	)	$	(7,558,386	)	$	(7,575,966	)
Fannie Mae 15 Yr. Pool		3.000	%		TBA		(8,282,000	)		(8,510,428	)		(8,498,755	)
Fannie Mae 15 Yr. Pool		3.500	%		TBA		(48,847,000	)		(50,860,651	)		(50,889,606	)
Fannie Mae 15 Yr. Pool		4.000	%		TBA		(1,822,000	)		(1,869,329	)		(1,875,664	)
Fannie Mae 30 Yr. Pool		3.000	%		TBA		(27,244,500	)		(27,083,661	)		(27,065,062	)
Fannie Mae 30 Yr. Pool		3.500	%		TBA		(24,465,000	)		(24,871,095	)		(25,074,714	)
Fannie Mae 30 Yr. Pool		4.000	%		TBA		(34,409,000	)		(35,840,112	)		(36,126,090	)
Fannie Mae 30 Yr. Pool		4.000	%		TBA		(38,174,000	)		(40,127,268	)		(40,132,655	)

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-29

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Bond Income Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

TBA Forward Sale Commitments—(Continued)

Security Description	Interest Rate			Maturity		Face Amount			Cost			Value
Fannie Mae 30 Yr. Pool		4.500	%		TBA		(4,544,000	)	$	(4,893,630	)	$	(4,887,462	)
Fannie Mae 30 Yr. Pool		4.500	%		TBA		(6,786,000	)		(7,250,181	)		(7,290,576	)
Fannie Mae 30 Yr. Pool		5.000	%		TBA		(8,404,000	)		(9,181,782	)		(9,155,108	)
Fannie Mae 30 Yr. Pool		6.000	%		TBA		(2,002,000	)		(2,268,203	)		(2,266,952	)
Freddie Mac 30 Yr. Gold Pool		4.000	%		TBA		(60,672,274	)		(63,066,564	)		(63,650,191	)
Freddie Mac 30 Yr. Gold Pool		4.500	%		TBA		(228,000	)		(245,884	)		(244,729	)
Ginnie Mae I 30 Yr. Pool		3.500	%		TBA		(9,297,000	)		(9,676,143	)		(9,667,047	)
Ginnie Mae I 30 Yr. Pool		4.500	%		TBA		(3,100,000	)		(3,368,344	)		(3,352,238	)
Ginnie Mae II 30 Yr. Pool		4.500	%		TBA		(8,359,000	)		(8,959,803	)		(8,921,600	)
Totals									$	(305,631,464	)	$	(306,674,415	)

Forward Foreign Currency Exchange Contracts

Contracts to Buy		Counterparty	Settlement Date		In Exchange for			Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation)
BRL	10,139,988	BNP Paribas S.A.		01/04/17		USD	2,962,440	$	153,051
BRL	4,145,810	Goldman Sachs International		01/04/17		USD	1,197,000		76,792
BRL	4,150,598	Goldman Sachs International		01/04/17		USD	1,273,541		1,722
BRL	4,779,904	Goldman Sachs International		01/04/17		USD	1,466,633		1,983
BRL	5,162,762	Goldman Sachs International		01/04/17		USD	1,584,107		2,141
BRL	5,168,947	Goldman Sachs International		01/04/17		USD	1,586,004		2,144
BRL	5,185,751	Goldman Sachs International		01/04/17		USD	1,591,161		2,151
BRL	5,592,400	Goldman Sachs International		01/04/17		USD	1,640,000		78,254
BRL	9,230,949	Goldman Sachs International		01/04/17		USD	2,730,000		106,190
BRL	1,864,800	Morgan Stanley & Co. International plc		01/04/17		USD	572,182		773
BRL	5,156,878	Morgan Stanley & Co. International plc		01/04/17		USD	1,582,301		2,139
BRL	5,170,727	Morgan Stanley & Co. International plc		01/04/17		USD	1,586,551		2,145
BRL	5,185,832	Morgan Stanley & Co. International plc		01/04/17		USD	1,591,185		2,151
BRL	5,142,661	Nomura International plc		01/04/17		USD	1,546,200		33,872
BRL	7,402,190	Royal Bank of Scotland plc		01/04/17		USD	2,180,000		94,308
BRL	2,757,660	Goldman Sachs International		02/01/17		USD	820,000		20,585
BRL	2,771,600	Morgan Stanley & Co. International plc		02/01/17		USD	820,000		24,835
BRL	10,941,822	Goldman Sachs International		02/07/17		USD	3,151,809		177,921
CNY	6,408,814	BNP Paribas S.A.		01/06/17		USD	925,000		(2,881	)
CNY	3,308,224	Citibank N.A.		01/06/17		USD	477,300		(1,303	)
CNY	5,420,444	HSBC Bank plc		01/06/17		USD	782,000		(2,091	)
CNY	2,307,896	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		01/06/17		USD	333,000		(933	)
CNY	795,077	Royal Bank of Scotland plc		01/06/17		USD	114,700		(302	)
EUR	925,000	Goldman Sachs International		01/10/17		USD	992,684		(18,547	)
EUR	662,012	Deutsche Bank AG		01/12/17		USD	722,773		(25,511	)
EUR	1,640,000	Royal Bank of Scotland plc		01/12/17		USD	1,749,060		(21,736	)
EUR	3,225,000	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		01/13/17		USD	3,438,366		(41,500	)
EUR	178,680	BNP Paribas S.A.		02/14/17		USD	195,418		(6,951	)
EUR	53,594	Goldman Sachs International		02/14/17		USD	57,819		(1,289	)
EUR	389,107	Goldman Sachs International		02/14/17		USD	412,826		(2,405	)
EUR	3,952	UBS AG		02/14/17		USD	4,215		(46	)
EUR	207,166	UBS AG		02/14/17		USD	223,096		(4,582	)
EUR	544,406	UBS AG		02/14/17		USD	586,269		(12,042	)
GBP	23,000	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		01/09/17		USD	28,800		(450	)
IDR	19,099,597,816	Bank of America N.A.		01/18/17		USD	1,398,214		16,771
IDR	15,739,248,842	UBS AG		02/16/17		USD	1,139,287		21,654
JPY	82,242,567	Morgan Stanley & Co. International plc		01/27/17		USD	715,000		(10,391	)
KRW	41,577,300	Barclays Bank plc		01/23/17		USD	35,400		(976	)
MXN	18,853,562	Deutsche Bank AG		02/07/17		USD	910,000		(4,826	)
MXN	18,884,320	UBS AG		02/07/17		USD	910,000		(3,349	)

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-30

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Bond Income Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Forward Foreign Currency Exchange Contracts—(Continued)

Contracts to Buy		Counterparty	Settlement Date		In Exchange for			Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation)
RUB	80,292,993	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		01/10/17		USD	1,254,000	$	54,876
RUB	34,469,700	Bank of America N.A.		01/13/17		USD	534,000		27,477
RUB	1,351,140	Deutsche Bank AG		01/13/17		USD	21,000		1,009
RUB	30,835,296	Deutsche Bank AG		01/13/17		USD	480,600		21,677
RUB	172,739,388	Deutsche Bank AG		01/13/17		USD	2,670,000		143,754
RUB	204,113,475	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		01/13/17		USD	3,225,000		99,807
RUB	204,690,750	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		01/18/17		USD	3,225,000		105,200
ZAR	24,887,862	Morgan Stanley & Co. International plc		01/17/17		USD	1,810,000		(2,081	)
Contracts to Deliver
BRL	10,139,988	BNP Paribas S.A.		01/04/17		USD	3,111,285		(4,206	)
BRL	9,230,949	Goldman Sachs International		01/04/17		USD	2,832,361		(3,829	)
BRL	5,592,400	Goldman Sachs International		01/04/17		USD	1,715,934		(2,320	)
BRL	5,185,751	Goldman Sachs International		01/04/17		USD	1,481,220		(112,092	)
BRL	5,168,947	Goldman Sachs International		01/04/17		USD	1,546,200		(41,948	)
BRL	5,162,762	Goldman Sachs International		01/04/17		USD	1,546,200		(40,048	)
BRL	4,779,904	Goldman Sachs International		01/04/17		USD	1,396,000		(72,616	)
BRL	4,150,598	Goldman Sachs International		01/04/17		USD	1,197,000		(78,263	)
BRL	4,145,810	Goldman Sachs International		01/04/17		USD	1,272,072		(1,720	)
BRL	5,185,832	Morgan Stanley & Co. International plc		01/04/17		USD	1,523,900		(69,436	)
BRL	5,170,727	Morgan Stanley & Co. International plc		01/04/17		USD	1,481,220		(107,475	)
BRL	5,156,878	Morgan Stanley & Co. International plc		01/04/17		USD	1,523,900		(60,540	)
BRL	1,864,800	Morgan Stanley & Co. International plc		01/04/17		USD	560,000		(12,956	)
BRL	5,142,661	Nomura International plc		01/04/17		USD	1,577,939		(2,133	)
BRL	7,402,190	Royal Bank of Scotland plc		01/04/17		USD	2,271,237		(3,070	)
BRL	3,434,224	Goldman Sachs International		02/07/17		USD	1,028,673		(16,404	)
BRL	19,374,504	Morgan Stanley & Co. International plc		02/07/17		USD	5,886,223		(9,676	)
CLP	1,049,342,435	Royal Bank of Scotland plc		01/05/17		USD	1,554,236		(12,312	)
CNY	30,315,237	HSBC Bank plc		01/06/17		USD	4,386,012		24,166
CNY	108,057,340	Westpac Banking Corp.		03/15/17		USD	15,329,000		(176,261	)
EUR	20,044,000	Goldman Sachs International		01/05/17		USD	21,316,553		215,654
EUR	164,000	Goldman Sachs International		01/05/17		USD	174,023		1,375
EUR	486,860	HSBC Bank plc		01/05/17		USD	518,753		6,221
EUR	925,000	Bank of America N.A.		01/10/17		USD	982,650		8,512
EUR	120,143	Citibank N.A.		01/12/17		USD	127,253		713
EUR	106,611	Citibank N.A.		01/12/17		USD	112,943		655
EUR	1,640,000	Goldman Sachs International		01/12/17		USD	1,744,780		17,456
EUR	1,508,383	Goldman Sachs International		01/12/17		USD	1,692,316		103,617
EUR	546,667	Goldman Sachs International		01/12/17		USD	577,568		1,793
EUR	546,667	Goldman Sachs International		01/12/17		USD	577,426		1,651
EUR	546,667	Goldman Sachs International		01/12/17		USD	577,535		1,761
EUR	3,225,000	Morgan Stanley & Co. International plc		01/13/17		USD	3,440,198		43,332
EUR	566,429	Morgan Stanley & Co. International plc		02/06/17		USD	631,278		34,041
EUR	3,357,076	Citibank N.A.		02/14/17		USD	3,724,028		183,066
EUR	778,905	Morgan Stanley & Co. International plc		02/14/17		USD	864,396		42,827
GBP	1,111,000	Citibank N.A.		01/09/17		USD	1,390,459		21,001
GBP	451,622	HSBC Bank plc		01/20/17		USD	572,735		15,890
IDR	5,322,457,740	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		01/11/17		USD	401,998		7,289
IDR	6,582,130,965	Standard Chartered Bank		01/11/17		USD	500,542		12,417
IDR	20,883,259,966	UBS AG		01/18/17		USD	1,589,168		42,042
IDR	86,080,679,272	Goldman Sachs International		02/10/17		USD	6,487,841		132,176
IDR	23,325,198,336	Goldman Sachs International		02/10/17		USD	1,758,004		35,816
IDR	9,108,637,977	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		02/16/17		USD	679,496		7,634
IDR	43,897,018,521	Morgan Stanley & Co. International plc		02/16/17		USD	3,315,485		77,602
INR	75,544,047	Royal Bank of Scotland plc		01/18/17		USD	1,115,700		4,079
KRW	1,379,661,632	Royal Bank of Scotland plc		01/23/17		USD	1,174,400		32,107

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-31

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Bond Income Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Forward Foreign Currency Exchange Contracts—(Continued)

Contracts to Deliver		Counterparty	Settlement Date		In Exchange for			Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation)
MXN	97,069,778	Morgan Stanley & Co. International plc		01/23/17		USD	4,748,984	$	78,983
MXN	37,462,880	Goldman Sachs International		02/07/17		USD	1,820,000		21,377
RUB	77,146,080	Morgan Stanley & Co. International plc		01/10/17		USD	1,254,000		(3,577	)
RUB	197,228,100	HSBC Bank plc		01/13/17		USD	3,225,000		12,349
RUB	56,489,782	HSBC Bank plc		01/13/17		USD	923,639		3,477
RUB	56,901,799	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		01/13/17		USD	929,161		2,286
RUB	58,397,581	Bank of America N.A.		01/18/17		USD	953,897		3,802
RUB	62,245,168	Citibank N.A.		01/18/17		USD	1,016,912		4,219
RUB	76,480,576	Deutsche Bank AG		01/18/17		USD	1,254,191		9,897
TWD	53,427,360	Nomura International plc		01/23/17		USD	1,680,000		20,963
Cross Currency Contracts to Buy
RUB	102,583,800	BNP Paribas S.A.		02/22/17		EUR	1,584,000		(14,322	)
Net Unrealized Appreciation								$	1,498,232

Futures Contracts

Futures Contracts—Long	Expiration Date		Number of Contracts			Notional Amount				Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation)
90 Day Eurodollar Futures		12/18/17		69			USD	16,969,781		$	18,019
U.S. Treasury Long Bond Futures		03/22/17		425			USD	63,427,699			601,207
U.S. Treasury Note 10 Year Futures		03/22/17		509			USD	62,861,007			398,149
U.S. Treasury Note 2 Year Futures		03/31/17		491			USD	106,417,587			(24,025	)
U.S. Treasury Note 5 Year Futures		03/31/17		2,156			USD	254,048,514			(364,794	)
Futures Contracts—Short
90 Day Eurodollar Futures		09/17/18		(195	)		USD	(47,911,235	)		75,297
90 Day Eurodollar Futures		12/17/18		(69	)		USD	(16,879,894	)		(25,106	)
Euro-Bobl Futures		03/08/17		(11	)		EUR	(1,456,482	)		(14,156	)
Euro-Bund Futures		03/08/17		(740	)		EUR	(119,875,798	)		(1,679,190	)
U.S. Treasury Ultra Long Bond Futures		03/22/17		(382	)		USD	(60,526,041	)		(689,459	)
United Kingdom Long Gilt Bond Futures		03/29/17		(4	)		GBP	(493,963	)		(11,531	)
Net Unrealized Depreciation										$	(1,715,589	)

Written Options

Foreign Currency Written Options	Strike Price	Counterparty	Expiration Date		Notional Amount			Premiums Received			Market Value			Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation)
EUR Call/USD Put	USD 1.130	BNP Paribas S.A.		01/05/17		(61,188,000	)	$	(396,321	)	$	—		$	396,321
USD Call/BRL Put	BRL 3.500	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		02/17/17		(2,340,000	)		(49,517	)		(16,441	)		33,076
USD Call/CNH Put	CNH 7.025	HSBC Bank plc		03/10/17		(4,002,000	)		(51,226	)		(68,862	)		(17,636	)
USD Call/TRY Put	TRY 3.600	Goldman Sachs International		01/20/17		(2,252,550	)		(30,071	)		(18,780	)		11,291
USD Call/TWD Put	TWD 33.500	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		03/23/17		(4,002,000	)		(21,799	)		(21,775	)		24
USD Put/BRL Call	BRL 3.180	Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC		02/14/17		(4,140,000	)		(27,233	)		(35,070	)		(7,837	)
USD Put/BRL Call	BRL 3.150	Goldman Sachs International		02/21/17		(3,520,000	)		(14,453	)		(24,453	)		(10,000	)
USD Put/INR Call	INR 66.400	Nomura International plc		01/06/17		(2,980,000	)		(7,785	)		(39	)		7,746
USD Put/RUB Call	RUB 62.500	Deutsche Bank AG		01/17/17		(3,600,000	)		(24,696	)		(87,451	)		(62,755	)
Totals								$	(623,101	)	$	(272,871	)	$	350,230

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-32

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Bond Income Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Swap Agreements

OTC Interest Rate Swaps

Pay/Receive Floating Rate	Floating Rate Index	Fixed Rate			Maturity Date	Counterparty	Notional Amount			Market Value			Upfront Premium Paid/(Received)		Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation)
Pay	1-Day CDI		10.980	%	01/02/20	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		BRL	3,987,375	$	(6,747	)	$	—	$	(6,747	)
Pay	1-Day CDI		11.000	%	01/02/20	Bank of America N.A.		BRL	7,973,478		(17,777	)		—		(17,777	)
Pay	1-Day CDI		11.020	%	01/02/20	Citigroup Global Markets Inc.		BRL	4,248,324		(6,088	)		—		(6,088	)
Pay	1-Day CDI		11.030	%	01/02/20	Citigroup Global Markets Inc.		BRL	7,568,301		(14,732	)		—		(14,732	)
Pay	1-Day CDI		11.040	%	01/02/20	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		BRL	7,695,675		(10,033	)		—		(10,033	)
Pay	1-Day CDI		11.095	%	01/02/20	Goldman Sachs International		BRL	14,258,907		(16,273	)		—		(16,273	)
Pay	1-Day CDI		11.097	%	01/02/20	Goldman Sachs International		BRL	3,911,516		(4,413	)		—		(4,413	)
Pay	1-Day CDI		11.375	%	01/02/20	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		BRL	744,258		406			—		406
Pay	1-Day CDI		11.770	%	01/02/20	Citigroup Global Markets Inc.		BRL	5,851,135		21,059			—		21,059
Pay	1-Day CDI		11.800	%	01/02/20	Bank of America N.A.		BRL	4,159,648		23,617			—		23,617
Pay	1-Day CDI		11.810	%	01/02/20	Bank of America N.A.		BRL	4,159,648		24,006			—		24,006
Pay	1-Day CDI		11.875	%	01/02/20	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		BRL	10,908,458		39,190			—		39,190
Pay	1-Day CDI		12.005	%	01/02/20	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		BRL	5,843,972		29,636			—		29,636
Pay	1-Day CDI		12.100	%	01/02/20	Citigroup Global Markets Inc.		BRL	4,511,219		38,382			—		38,382
Pay	1-Day CDI		12.170	%	01/02/20	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		BRL	7,975,758		48,343			—		48,343
Pay	1-Day CDI		12.462	%	01/02/19	Bank of America N.A.		BRL	13,095,515		57,583			—		57,583
Pay	28-Day TIIE		6.270	%	12/05/25	Bank of America N.A.		MXN	2,209,451		(11,457	)		—		(11,457	)
Pay	28-Day TIIE		6.320	%	07/17/25	Morgan Stanley Capital Services, LLC		MXN	40,086,000		(192,788	)		—		(192,788	)
Pay	28-Day TIIE		6.325	%	07/17/25	Citigroup Global Markets Inc.		MXN	19,973,500		(95,745	)		—		(95,745	)
Pay	28-Day TIIE		6.330	%	08/06/25	Citigroup Global Markets Inc.		MXN	59,593,000		(286,823	)		—		(286,823	)
Pay	28-Day TIIE		6.850	%	11/29/18	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		MXN	194,021,859		(63,800	)		—		(63,800	)
Pay	28-Day TIIE		6.890	%	11/30/18	Goldman Sachs International		MXN	102,377,408		(30,143	)		—		(30,143	)
Pay	28-Day TIIE		6.930	%	11/30/18	Bank of America N.A.		MXN	139,622,395		(36,192	)		—		(36,192	)
Pay	28-Day TIIE		6.980	%	11/28/18	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		MXN	92,466,976		(19,769	)		—		(19,769	)
Pay	28-Day TIIE		6.980	%	11/28/18	Citigroup Global Markets Inc.		MXN	163,000,000		(34,849	)		—		(34,849	)
Pay	28-Day TIIE		7.000	%	11/21/18	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		MXN	96,830,612		(18,509	)		—		(18,509	)
Pay	28-Day TIIE		7.000	%	11/28/18	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		MXN	96,216,594		(18,881	)		—		(18,881	)
Pay	28-Day TIIE		7.040	%	11/21/18	Goldman Sachs International		MXN	204,754,815		(32,014	)		—		(32,014	)
Pay	28-Day TIIE		7.060	%	11/21/18	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		MXN	114,610,942		(15,926	)		—		(15,926	)
Pay	28-Day TIIE		7.070	%	11/21/18	Citigroup Global Markets Inc.		MXN	95,509,119		(12,441	)		—		(12,441	)
Pay	28-Day TIIE		7.100	%	11/22/18	Citigroup Global Markets Inc.		MXN	114,610,942		(8,030	)		—		(8,030	)
Pay	3M KWCDC		1.920	%	11/10/17	Deutsche Bank AG		KRW	6,513,071,110		20,440			—		20,440
Receive	1-Day CDI		12.080	%	01/02/18	Bank of America N.A.		BRL	30,550,995		(17,907	)		—		(17,907	)
Receive	1-Day CDI		12.100	%	01/02/18	Bank of America N.A.		BRL	37,998,749		(24,484	)		—		(24,484	)
Receive	1-Day CDI		12.850	%	07/03/17	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		BRL	1,254,878		92			—		92
Receive	1-Day CDI		12.850	%	07/03/17	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		BRL	39,177,404		(4,255	)		—		(4,255	)
Receive	1-Day CDI		12.930	%	07/03/17	Citigroup Global Markets Inc.		BRL	33,769,975		(1,191	)		—		(1,191	)
Receive	1-Day CDI		13.110	%	07/03/17	Citigroup Global Markets Inc.		BRL	20,271,357		(5,295	)		—		(5,295	)
Receive	1-Day CDI		13.130	%	07/03/17	Bank of America N.A.		BRL	16,890,391		(5,108	)		—		(5,108	)
Receive	28-Day TIIE		4.300	%	12/07/17	Bank of America N.A.		MXN	12,027,855		14,231			—		14,231
Receive	28-Day TIIE		4.550	%	03/21/18	Barclays Bank plc		MXN	26,793,819		38,958			—		38,958
Receive	28-Day TIIE		4.700	%	12/06/18	Bank of America N.A.		MXN	8,147,763		18,242			—		18,242
Receive	28-Day TIIE		4.760	%	12/06/18	Citigroup Global Markets Inc.		MXN	8,147,763		17,808			—		17,808
Receive	28-Day TIIE		4.770	%	12/05/18	Citigroup Global Markets Inc.		MXN	8,147,763		17,714			—		17,714
Receive	28-Day TIIE		4.850	%	11/01/18	Bank of America N.A.		MXN	22,482,829		44,898			—		44,898
Receive	28-Day TIIE		6.307	%	08/11/25	Deutsche Bank AG		MXN	74,533,884		364,460			—		364,460
Receive	28-Day TIIE		6.310	%	08/11/25	Bank of America N.A.		MXN	20,079,000		98,005			—		98,005
Receive	28-Day TIIE		6.310	%	08/11/25	Bank of America N.A.		MXN	20,079,000		98,005			—		98,005
Receive	28-Day TIIE		7.690	%	11/18/26	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		MXN	23,916,113		18,642			—		18,642
Receive	28-Day TIIE		7.690	%	11/18/26	Citigroup Global Markets Inc.		MXN	10,345,933		8,065			—		8,065
Receive	28-Day TIIE		7.745	%	11/20/26	Goldman Sachs International		MXN	25,778,954		15,178			—		15,178
Receive	28-Day TIIE		7.770	%	11/20/26	Bank of America N.A.		MXN	36,157,405		18,130			—		18,130
Receive	28-Day TIIE		7.780	%	11/11/26	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		MXN	29,407,961		13,551			—		13,551

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-33

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Bond Income Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

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)
Receive	28-Day TIIE		7.780	%	11/11/26	Citigroup Global Markets Inc.		MXN	24,801,895	$	11,429		$	—	$	11,429
Receive	28-Day TIIE		7.800	%	11/11/26	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		MXN	14,783,178		5,781			—		5,781
Receive	3M JIBAR		8.710	%	11/14/26	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		ZAR	16,105,000		(31,095	)		—		(31,095	)
Receive	3M JIBAR		8.710	%	11/14/26	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		ZAR	19,140,000		(36,955	)		—		(36,955	)
Receive	3M KWCDC		1.690	%	11/10/17	Deutsche Bank AG		KRW	6,513,071,110		(9,678	)		—		(9,678	)
Receive	3M LIBOR		1.758	%	06/25/22	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		USD	18,000,000		251,444			—		251,444
Totals										$	267,897		$	—	$	267,897

Centrally Cleared Interest Rate Swaps

Pay/Receive Floating Rate	Floating Rate Index	Fixed Rate			Maturity Date		Notional Amount			Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation)
Pay	12M UKRPI		3.430	%		10/15/26		GBP	14,941,740	$	(158,384	)
Pay	12M UKRPI		3.447	%		10/15/26		GBP	15,168,130		(121,555	)
Pay	12M UKRPI		3.460	%		10/15/26		GBP	15,168,130		(91,517	)
Pay	3M LIBOR		2.131	%		08/25/25		USD	1,285,000		(15,484	)
Receive	12M UKRPI		3.365	%		10/15/21		GBP	14,941,740		70,898
Receive	12M UKRPI		3.385	%		10/15/21		GBP	15,168,130		51,162
Receive	12M UKRPI		3.390	%		10/15/21		GBP	15,168,130		45,958
Receive	3M LIBOR		1.256	%		01/12/17		USD	223,619,000		(20,468	)
Receive	3M LIBOR		2.272	%		09/11/25		USD	955,000		924
Receive	3M LIBOR		2.383	%		07/10/25		USD	72,000,000		(626,657	)
Net Unrealized Depreciation										$	(865,123	)

Centrally Cleared Credit Default Swaps on Credit Indices—Buy Protection (a)

Reference Obligation	Fixed Deal (Pay) Rate		Maturity Date		Implied Credit Spread at December 31, 2016(b)	Notional Amount(c)			Unrealized Depreciation
CDX.NA.IG.27.V1		(1.000%)		12/20/21	0.677%		USD	24,041,000	$	(117,316)

Centrally Cleared Credit Default Swaps on Credit Indices—Sell Protection (d)

Reference Obligation	Fixed Deal Receive Rate		Maturity Date		Implied Credit Spread at December 31, 2016(b)	Notional Amount(c)			Unrealized Appreciation
CDX.NA.HY.27.V1		5.000%		12/20/21	3.542%		USD	82,542,000	$	2,194,000

OTC Credit Default Swaps on Corporate and Sovereign Issues—Buy Protection (a)

Reference Obligation	Fixed Deal (Pay) Rate		Maturity Date		Counterparty	Implied Credit Spread at December 31, 2016(b)		Notional Amount(c)			Market Value		Upfront Premium Paid/(Received)		Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation)
Federation of Russia 7.500%, due 03/31/30		(1.000%)		12/20/21	Bank of America N.A.		1.795%		USD	1,630,000	$	60,163	$	97,335	$	(37,172)
Federation of Russia 7.500%, due 03/31/30		(1.000%)		12/20/21	Bank of America N.A.		1.795%		USD	1,630,000		60,163		97,335		(37,172)
Federation of Russia 7.500%, due 03/31/30		(1.000%)		12/20/21	Bank of America N.A.		1.795%		USD	1,630,000		60,163		97,335		(37,172)
Federation of Russia 7.500%, due 03/31/30		(1.000%)		12/20/21	Bank of America N.A.		1.795%		USD	1,630,000		60,163		96,624		(36,461)

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-34

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Bond Income Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

OTC Credit Default Swaps on Corporate and Sovereign Issues—Buy Protection (a)—(Continued)

Reference Obligation	Fixed Deal (Pay) Rate		Maturity Date		Counterparty	Implied Credit Spread at December 31, 2016(b)		Notional Amount(c)			Market Value		Upfront Premium Paid/(Received)		Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation)
Federation of Russia 7.500%, due 03/31/30		(1.000%)		12/20/21	Bank of America N.A.		1.795%		USD	1,630,000	$	60,163	$	96,624	$	(36,461)
Federation of Russia 7.500%, due 03/31/30		(1.000%)		12/20/21	Bank of America N.A.		1.795%		USD	980,000		36,171		58,520		(22,349)
Federation of Russia 7.500%, due 03/31/30		(1.000%)		12/20/21	Bank of America N.A.		1.795%		USD	175,000		6,459		10,450		(3,991)
Federation of Russia 7.500%, due 03/31/30		(1.000%)		12/20/21	Bank of America N.A.		1.795%		USD	175,000		6,459		10,450		(3,991)
Federation of Russia 7.500%, due 03/31/30		(1.000%)		12/20/21	Bank of America N.A.		1.795%		USD	175,000		6,459		10,450		(3,991)
Federation of Russia 7.500%, due 03/31/30		(1.000%)		12/20/21	Bank of America N.A.		1.795%		USD	175,000		6,459		10,374		(3,915)
Federation of Russia 7.50%, due 03/31/30		(1.000%)		12/20/21	Bank of America N.A.		1.795%		USD	175,000		6,459		10,374		(3,915)
Federation of Russia 7.50% due 03/31/30		(1.000%)		12/20/21	Bank of America N.A.		1.795%		USD	105,000		3,876		6,270		(2,394)
Federation of Russia 7.500%, due 03/31/30		(1.000%)		12/20/21	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		1.795%		USD	955,000		35,249		59,488		(24,239)
HSBC Bank plc 3.750%, due 11/30/16		(1.000%)		12/20/21	BNP Paribas S.A.		0.690%		EUR	7,490,000		(120,791)		(82,762)		(38,029)
HSBC Bank plc 3.750%, due 11/30/16		(1.000%)		12/20/21	BNP Paribas S.A.		0.690%		EUR	9,381,000		(151,287)		(109,221)		(42,066)
HSBC Bank plc 3.750%, due 11/30/16		(1.000%)		12/20/21	Bank of America N.A.		0.690%		EUR	1,086,000		(17,514)		(17,047)		(467)
HSBC Bank plc 3.750%, due 11/30/16		(1.000%)		12/20/21	Citibank N.A.		0.690%		EUR	3,575,000		(57,654)		(51,486)		(6,168)
HSBC Bank plc 3.750%, due 11/30/16		(1.000%)		12/20/21	Citibank N.A.		0.690%		EUR	7,246,000		(116,856)		(104,355)		(12,501)
HSBC Bank plc 3.750%, due 11/30/16		(1.000%)		12/20/21	Credit Suisse International		0.690%		EUR	7,874,000		(126,983)		(118,489)		(8,494)
Loews Corp. 6.000%, due 02/01/35		(1.000%)		12/20/20	Barclays Bank plc		0.236%		USD	2,145,000		(63,472)		(75,932)		12,460
Mexico Government International Bond 5.950%, due 03/19/19		(1.000%)		06/20/20	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		1.122%		USD	3,824,276		15,651		33,406		(17,755)
Mexico Government International Bond 5.950%, due 03/19/19		(1.000%)		09/20/20	Bank of America N.A.		1.182%		USD	3,824,276		24,881		50,241		(25,360)
Prudential Financial, Inc. 7.375%, due 06/15/19		(1.000%)		12/20/21	Citibank N.A.		0.848%		USD	7,537,000		(54,021)		73,550		(127,571)
Republic of Argentina 7.625%, due 04/22/46		(5.000%)		12/20/21	Bank of America N.A.		4.204%		USD	371,750		(12,917)		(17,895)		4,978
Republic of Argentina 7.625%, due 04/22/46		(5.000%)		12/20/21	Citibank N.A.		4.204%		USD	2,021,350		(70,235)		(44,443)		(25,792)
Republic of Philippines 10.625%, due 03/16/25		(1.000%)		12/20/21	Bank of America N.A.		1.101%		USD	2,207,720		10,414		22,404		(11,990)
Republic of Philippines 10.625%, due 03/16/25		(1.000%)		12/20/21	Bank of America N.A.		1.101%		USD	823,981		3,887		7,245		(3,358)
Republic of Philippines 10.625%, due 03/16/25		(1.000%)		12/20/21	Barclays Bank plc		1.101%		USD	9,549,961		45,050		37,560		7,490
Republic of Philippines 10.625%, due 03/16/25		(1.000%)		12/20/21	Barclays Bank plc		1.101%		USD	2,715,488		12,810		11,940		870
Republic of Philippines 10.625%, due 03/16/25		(1.000%)		12/20/21	Barclays Bank plc		1.101%		USD	1,513,766		7,141		10,905		(3,764)
Republic of Philippines 10.625%, due 03/16/25		(1.000%)		12/20/21	Barclays Bank plc		1.101%		USD	946,103		4,463		3,698		765

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-35

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Bond Income Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

OTC Credit Default Swaps on Corporate and Sovereign Issues—Buy Protection (a)—(Continued)

Reference Obligation	Fixed Deal (Pay) Rate		Maturity Date		Counterparty	Implied Credit Spread at December 31, 2016(b)		Notional Amount(c)			Market Value		Upfront Premium Paid/(Received)		Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation)
Republic of Philippines 10.625%, due 03/16/25		(1.000%)		12/20/21	Barclays Bank plc		1.101%		USD	756,883	$	3,570	$	2,959	$	611
Republic of Philippines 10.625%, due 03/16/25		(1.000%)		12/20/21	Barclays Bank plc		1.101%		USD	378,441		1,785		1,479		306
Republic of Philippines 10.625%, due 03/16/25		(1.000%)		12/20/21	Citibank N.A.		1.101%		USD	2,277,553		10,744		17,816		(7,072)
Republic of Philippines 10.625%, due 03/16/25		(1.000%)		12/20/21	Citibank N.A.		1.101%		USD	1,096,630		5,173		7,631		(2,458)
Republic of Philippines 10.625%, due 03/16/25		(1.000%)		12/20/21	Citibank N.A.		1.101%		USD	536,624		2,531		1,321		1,210
Republic of Philippines 10.625%, due 03/16/25		(1.000%)		12/20/21	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		1.101%		USD	2,135,637		10,074		5,257		4,817
Republic of Philippines 10.625%, due 03/16/25		(1.000%)		12/20/21	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		1.101%		USD	1,005,193		4,742		4,420		322
Republic of Philippines 10.625%, due 03/16/25		(1.000%)		12/20/21	UBS AG		1.101%		USD	934,409		4,408		3,652		756
Republic of South Africa 5.500%, due 03/09/20		(1.000%)		12/20/21	Bank of America N.A.		2.140%		USD	1,965,000		103,036		151,674		(48,638)
Republic of South Africa 5.500%, due 03/09/20		(1.000%)		12/20/21	Barclays Bank plc		2.140%		USD	11,830,000		620,313		907,869		(287,556)
Republic of South Africa 5.500%, due 03/09/20		(1.000%)		12/20/21	Citibank N.A.		2.140%		USD	4,815,000		252,477		371,659		(119,182)
Republic of South Africa 5.500%, due 03/09/20		(1.000%)		12/20/21	Goldman Sachs International		2.140%		USD	1,202,000		63,028		92,245		(29,217)
Republic of South Africa 5.500%, due 03/09/20		(1.000%)		12/20/21	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		2.140%		USD	4,990,000		261,653		385,167		(123,514)
Standard Chartered Bank 0.431%, due 09/04/17		(1.000%)		12/20/21	BNP Paribas S.A.		1.156%		EUR	7,293,000		58,112		70,048		(11,936)
Standard Chartered Bank 0.431%, due 09/04/17		(1.000%)		12/20/21	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		1.156%		EUR	3,568,000		28,430		34,191		(5,761)
Standard Chartered Bank 0.431%, due 09/04/17		(1.000%)		12/20/21	Citibank N.A.		1.156%		EUR	12,383,000		98,670		137,123		(38,453)
Standard Chartered Bank 0.431%, due 09/04/17		(1.000%)		12/20/21	Citibank N.A.		1.156%		EUR	4,122,000		32,845		61,590		(28,745)
Standard Chartered Bank 0.431%, due 09/04/17		(1.000%)		12/20/21	Citibank N.A.		1.156%		EUR	3,748,000		29,865		59,813		(29,948)
Standard Chartered Bank 0.431%, due 09/04/17		(1.000%)		12/20/21	Citibank N.A.		1.156%		EUR	3,000,000		23,904		28,699		(4,795)
Standard Chartered Bank 0.431%, due 09/04/17		(1.000%)		12/20/21	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		1.156%		EUR	3,000,000		23,904		27,200		(3,296)
Valero Energy Corp. 8.750%, due 06/15/30		(1.000%)		12/20/20	Morgan Stanley Capital Services, LLC		0.817%		USD	2,145,000		(15,009)		51,754		(66,763)
Totals											$	1,365,228	$	2,714,515	$	(1,349,287)

OTC Credit Default Swaps on Corporate and Sovereign Issues—Sell Protection (d)

Reference Obligation	Fixed Deal Receive Rate	Maturity Date		Counterparty	Implied Credit Spread at December 31, 2016(b)		Notional Amount(c)			Market Value			Upfront Premium Paid/(Received)			Unrealized Appreciation
Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV 4.500%, due 04/15/17	5.000%		12/20/21	Citibank N.A.		3.169%		EUR	10,000	$	890		$	728		$	162
CNH Industrial Finance 6.250%, due 03/09/18	5.000%		12/20/20	BNP Paribas S.A.		1.647%		EUR	21,277		2,922			2,368			554
Mexico Government International Bond 5.950%, due 03/19/19	1.000%		06/20/20	Bank of America N.A.		1.122%		USD	3,824,276		(15,651	)		(38,756	)		23,105

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-36

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Bond Income Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

OTC Credit Default Swaps on Corporate and Sovereign Issues—Sell Protection (d)

Reference Obligation	Fixed Deal Receive Rate	Maturity Date		Counterparty	Implied Credit Spread at December 31, 2016(b)		Notional Amount(c)			Market Value			Upfront Premium Paid/(Received)			Unrealized Appreciation
Mexico Government International Bond 5.950%, due 03/19/19	1.000%		09/20/20	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		1.182%		USD	3,824,276	$	(24,881	)	$	(43,741	)	$	18,860
Peugeot S.A. 7.375%, due 03/06/18	5.000%		12/20/21	BNP Paribas S.A.		1.921%		EUR	10,000		1,550			1,483			67
UniCredit S.p.A. 1.00%, due 04/10/17	1.000%		12/20/21	BNP Paribas S.A.		1.743%		EUR	5,184		(194	)		(241	)		47
UniCredit S.p.A. 0.629%, due 04/10/2017	1.000%		12/20/21	Barclays Bank plc		1.743%		EUR	10,000		(373	)		(588	)		215
Totals										$	(35,737	)	$	(78,747	)	$	43,010

OTC Credit Default Swaps on Credit Indices—Buy Protection (a)

Reference Obligation	Fixed Deal (Pay) Rate	Maturity Date		Counterparty	Implied Credit Spread at December 31, 2016(b)			Notional Amount(c)			Market Value		Upfront Premium Paid/(Received)			Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation)
CMBX.NA.6.AAA	(0.500%)		05/11/63	Deutsche Bank AG		0.000	%		USD	2,680,000	$	1,102	$	744		$	358
CMBX.NA.6.AAA	(0.500%)		05/11/63	Deutsche Bank AG		0.000	%		USD	2,340,000		962		(883	)		1,845
CMBX.NA.6.AAA	(0.500%)		05/11/63	Deutsche Bank AG		0.000	%		USD	1,670,000		687		242			445
CMBX.NA.8.AAA	(0.500%)		10/17/57	Credit Suisse International		0.000	%		USD	1,340,000		15,423		31,672			(16,249	)
CMBX.NA.8.AAA	(0.500%)		10/17/57	Morgan Stanley Capital Services, LLC		0.000	%		USD	820,000		9,438		19,077			(9,639	)
CMBX.NA.8.AAA	(0.500%)		10/17/57	Morgan Stanley Capital Services, LLC		0.000	%		USD	680,000		7,827		15,273			(7,446	)
CMBX.NA.AAA.V8	(0.500%)		10/17/57	Credit Suisse International		0.000	%		USD	990,000		11,395		44,956			(33,561	)
CMBX.NA.AAA.V9	(0.500%)		09/17/58	Goldman Sachs International		0.000	%		USD	660,000		14,499		21,522			(7,023	)
CMBX.NA.BBB-.V6	(3.000%)		05/11/63	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		0.000	%		USD	340,000		19,334		22,465			(3,131	)
CMBX.NA.BBB-.V6	(3.000%)		05/11/63	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		0.000	%		USD	340,000		19,334		22,465			(3,131	)
CMBX.NA.BBB-.V6	(3.000%)		05/11/63	Morgan Stanley Capital Services, LLC		0.000	%		USD	340,000		19,334		20,627			(1,293	)
Totals											$	119,335	$	198,160		$	(78,825	)

OTC Credit Default Swaps on Credit Indices—Sell Protection (d)

Reference Obligation	Fixed Deal Receive Rate		Maturity Date		Counterparty	Implied Credit Spread at December 31, 2016(b)		Notional Amount(c)			Market Value		Upfront Premium Paid/(Received)		Unrealized Appreciation
CMBX.NA.A.V8		2.000%		10/17/57	Morgan Stanley Capital Services, LLC		0.000%		USD	190,000	$	(9,741)	$	(22,074)	$	12,333
CMBX.NA.AAA.V7		0.500%		01/17/47	Credit Suisse International		0.000%		USD	5,000,000		(28,433)		(156,398)		127,965
CMBX.NA.AM.V4		0.500%		02/17/51	Deutsche Bank AG		0.000%		USD	2,370,000		(59,250)		(359,977)		300,727
CMBX.NA.BBB-.V6		3.000%		05/11/63	Credit Suisse International		0.000%		USD	340,000		(19,334)		(28,925)		9,591
Totals											$	(116,758)	$	(567,374)	$	450,616

(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.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-37

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Bond Income Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

(b) Implied credit spreads, represented in absolute terms, utilized in determining the market value of credit default swap agreements on corporate issues or indices 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 of 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.

(BRL)— Brazilian Real

(CLP)— Chilean Peso

(CNH)— Chinese Renminbi

(CNY)— Chinese Yuan

(EUR)— Euro

(GBP)— British Pound

(IDR)— Indonesian Rupiah

(INR)— Indian Rupee

(JPY)— Japanese Yen

(KRW)— South Korean Won

(MXN)— Mexican Peso

(RUB)— Russian Ruble

(TWD)— Taiwanese Dollar

(USD)— United States Dollar

(ZAR)— South African Rand

(CDI)— Brazil Interbank Deposit Rate

(CMBX)— Commercial Mortgage-Backed Index

(CDS)— Credit Default Swap

(CDX.NA.HY)— Markit North America High Yield CDS Index

(CDX.NA.IG)— Markit North America Investment Grade CDS Index

(CMBX.NA.A)— Markit North America A Rated CMBS Index

CMBX.NA.AAA)— Markit North America AAA Rated CMBS Index

(CMBX.NA.AM)— Markit North America Mezzanine AAA Rated CMBS Index

(CMBX.NA.BBB-)— Markit North America BBB- Rated CMBS Index

(JIBAR)— Johannesburg Interbank Agreed Rate

(KWCDC)— Korean Certificate of Deposit Rate

(LIBOR)— London Interbank Offered Rate

(TIIE)— Mexican Interbank Equilibrium Interest Rate

(UKRPI)— United Kingdom Retail Price Index

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-38

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Bond Income Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Fair Value Hierarchy

Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) define 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, separately for each major category of assets and liabilities, 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, quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities 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, or other market corroborated inputs)

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 used in determining the fair value of investments and derivative financial instruments)

The inputs or methodologies used for valuing investments are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in them. Changes to the inputs or methodologies used may result in transfers between levels, which 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, 2016:

Description	Level 1			Level 2			Level 3		Total
Total U.S. Treasury & Government Agencies*	$	—		$	2,095,926,767		$	—	$	2,095,926,767
Total Corporate Bonds & Notes*		—			929,428,130			—		929,428,130
Total Asset-Backed Securities*		—			466,174,524			—		466,174,524
Total Mortgage-Backed Securities*		—			249,667,272			—		249,667,272
Total Foreign Government*		—			125,903,207			—		125,903,207
Total Municipals		—			122,719,939			—		122,719,939
Total Preferred Stocks*		14,987,393			—			—		14,987,393
Total Purchased Options*		—			1,695,538			—		1,695,538
Short-Term Investments
Certificate of Deposit		—			110,940,498			—		110,940,498
Commercial Paper		—			24,812,407			—		24,812,407
Repurchase Agreement		—			12,892,826			—		12,892,826
Total Short-Term Investments		—			148,645,731			—		148,645,731
Total Securities Lending Reinvestments*		—			218,476,772			—		218,476,772
Total Investments	$	14,987,393		$	4,358,637,880		$	—	$	4,373,625,273
Collateral for Securities Loaned (Liability)	$	—		$	(218,357,623	)	$	—	$	(218,357,623	)
TBA Forward Sales Commitments	$	—		$	(306,674,415	)	$	—	$	(306,674,415	)
Forward Contracts
Forward Foreign Currency Exchange Contracts (Unrealized Appreciation)	$	—		$	2,507,628		$	—	$	2,507,628
Forward Foreign Currency Exchange Contracts (Unrealized Depreciation)		—			(1,009,396	)		—		(1,009,396	)
Total Forward Contracts	$	—		$	1,498,232		$	—	$	1,498,232
Futures Contracts
Futures Contracts (Unrealized Appreciation)	$	1,092,672		$	—		$	—	$	1,092,672
Futures Contracts (Unrealized Depreciation)		(2,808,261	)		—			—		(2,808,261	)
Total Futures Contracts	$	(1,715,589	)	$	—		$	—	$	(1,715,589	)
Written Options at Value	$	—		$	(272,871	)	$	—	$	(272,871	)
Centrally Cleared Swap Contracts
Centrally Cleared Swap Contracts (Unrealized Appreciation)	$	—		$	2,362,942		$	—	$	2,362,942
Centrally Cleared Swap Contracts (Unrealized Depreciation)		—			(1,151,381	)		—		(1,151,381	)
Total Centrally Cleared Swap Contracts	$	—		$	1,211,561		$	—	$	1,211,561

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-39

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Bond Income Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Fair Value Hierarchy—(Continued)

Description	Level 1		Level 2			Level 3		Total
OTC Swap Contracts
OTC Swap Contracts at Value (Assets)	$	—	$	3,653,959		$	—	$	3,653,959
OTC Swap Contracts at Value (Liabilities)		—		(2,053,994	)		—		(2,053,994	)
Total OTC Swap Contracts	$	—	$	1,599,965		$	—	$	1,599,965
Total Reverse Repurchase Agreements (Liability)	$	—	$	(80,550,272	)	$	—	$	(80,550,272	)

* See Schedule of Investments for additional detailed categorizations.

Level 3 investments at the beginning and/or end of the period in relation to net assets were not significant and accordingly, a reconciliation of Level 3 assets for the year ended December 31, 2016 is not presented.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-40

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Bond Income Portfolio

Statement of Assets and Liabilities

December 31, 2016

Assets
Investments at value (a) (b)	$	4,373,625,273
Cash		119,629
Cash denominated in foreign currencies (c)		7,416,369
Cash collateral (d)		10,362,870
OTC swap contracts at market value (e)		3,653,959
Unrealized appreciation on forward foreign currency exchange contracts		2,507,628
Receivable for:
Investments sold		3,909,236
TBA securities sold (f)		505,483,648
Fund shares sold		1,102,145
Principal paydowns		18,935
Interest		19,781,126
Variation margin on futures contracts		774,664
Interest on OTC swap contracts		248,771
Prepaid expenses		10,913
Other assets		59,020
Total Assets		4,929,074,186
Liabilities
Written options at value (g)		272,871
Forward sales commitments, at value		306,674,415
Reverse repurchase agreements		80,550,272
OTC swap contracts at market value (h)		2,053,994
Cash collateral for OTC swap contracts		3,400,000
Unrealized depreciation on forward foreign currency exchange contracts		1,009,396
Collateral for securities loaned		218,357,623
Payables for:
Investments purchased		1,184,712
TBA securities purchased (f)		490,632,155
Fund shares redeemed		829,226
Interest on reverse repurchase agreements		37,880
Foreign taxes		34,005
Variation margin on centrally cleared swap contracts		286,578
Interest on forward sales commitments		513,153
Interest on OTC swap contracts		287,094
Accrued Expenses:
Management fees		1,058,028
Distribution and service fees		123,722
Deferred trustees’ fees		92,016
Other expenses		813,287
Total Liabilities		1,108,210,427
Net Assets	$	3,820,863,759
Net Assets Consist of:
Paid in surplus	$	3,793,359,516
Undistributed net investment income		116,631,555
Accumulated net realized loss		(39,100,433	)
Unrealized depreciation on investments, written options, futures contracts, swap contracts and foreign currency transactions		(50,026,879	)
Net Assets	$	3,820,863,759
Net Assets
Class A	$	3,187,238,743
Class B		516,443,821
Class E		117,181,195
Capital Shares Outstanding*
Class A		30,069,207
Class B		4,960,214
Class E		1,115,701
Net Asset Value, Offering Price and Redemption Price Per Share
Class A	$	106.00
Class B		104.12
Class E		105.03

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

(a) Identified cost of investments was $4,423,253,901.

(b) Includes securities loaned at value of $212,597,740.

(c) Identified cost of cash denominated in foreign currencies was $7,464,153.

(d) Includes collateral of $440,000 for OTC swap contracts and $9,922,870 for centrally cleared swap contracts.

(e) Net premium paid on OTC swap contracts was $1,119,528.

(f) Included within TBA securities sold is $415,618,619 related to TBA forward sale commitments and included within TBA securities purchased is $108,767,249 related to TBA forward sale commitments.

(g) Premiums received on written options were $623,101.

(h) Net premium paid on OTC swap contracts was $1,147,026.

Statement of Operations

Year Ended December 31, 2016

Investment Income
Dividends	$	959,487
Interest (a)		110,262,091
Securities lending income		388,106
Other income (b)		488,771
Total investment income		112,098,455
Expenses
Management fees		12,590,207
Administration fees		125,959
Custodian and accounting fees		749,797
Distribution and service fees—Class B		1,300,545
Distribution and service fees—Class E		183,997
Interest expense		71,499
Audit and tax services		122,424
Legal		33,061
Trustees’ fees and expenses		45,248
Shareholder reporting		249,514
Insurance		26,616
Miscellaneous		48,070
Total expenses		15,546,937
Net Investment Income		96,551,518
Net Realized and Unrealized Gain
Net realized gain (loss) on:
Investments (c)		(25,950,805	)
Futures contracts		15,059,090
Written options		4,204,405
Swap contracts		4,724,229
Foreign currency transactions		3,030,077
Net realized gain		1,066,996
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on:
Investments (d)		10,268,350
Futures contracts		(2,449,932	)
Written options		(551,474	)
Swap contracts		4,881,475
Foreign currency transactions		4,181,185
Net change in unrealized appreciation		16,329,604
Net realized and unrealized gain		17,396,600
Net Increase in Net Assets From Operations	$	113,948,118

(a) Net of foreign withholding taxes of $113,344.

(b) Other income represents a non-recurring refund for overbilling of prior years’ custodian out-of-pocket fees.

(c) Net of foreign capital gains tax of $89,875.

(d) Includes change in foreign capital gains tax of $34,005.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-41

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Bond Income Portfolio

Statements of Changes in Net Assets

	Year Ended December 31, 2016			Year Ended December 31, 2015
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets:
From Operations
Net investment income	$	96,551,518		$	102,501,031
Net realized gain		1,066,996			23,661,490
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation)		16,329,604			(99,056,856	)
Increase in net assets from operations		113,948,118			27,105,665
From Distributions to Shareholders
Net investment income
Class A		(102,987,554	)		(133,507,891	)
Class B		(15,546,181	)		(19,257,211	)
Class E		(3,722,162	)		(5,052,422	)
Net realized capital gains
Class A		0			(39,098,515	)
Class B		0			(6,006,393	)
Class E		0			(1,544,832	)
Total distributions		(122,255,897	)		(204,467,264	)
Increase (decrease) in net assets from capital share transactions		10,844,267			(354,447,512	)
Total increase (decrease) in net assets		2,536,488			(531,809,111	)
Net Assets
Beginning of period		3,818,327,271			4,350,136,382
End of period	$	3,820,863,759		$	3,818,327,271
Undistributed net investment income
End of period	$	116,631,555		$	125,949,993

Other Information:

Capital Shares

Transactions in capital shares were as follows:

	Year Ended December 31, 2016						Year Ended December 31, 2015
	Shares			Value			Shares			Value
Class A
Sales		1,788,011		$	195,109,223			1,013,267		$	112,853,439
Reinvestments		960,257			102,987,554			1,627,901			172,606,406
Redemptions		(2,621,035	)		(281,776,136	)		(5,922,458	)		(646,280,255	)
Net increase (decrease)		127,233		$	16,320,641			(3,281,290	)	$	(360,820,410	)
Class B
Sales		518,377		$	55,117,107			554,079		$	59,688,701
Reinvestments		147,371			15,546,181			242,105			25,263,604
Redemptions		(634,036	)		(67,150,297	)		(626,260	)		(66,816,921	)
Net increase		31,712		$	3,512,991			169,924		$	18,135,384
Class E
Sales		88,968		$	9,549,094			57,831		$	6,284,511
Reinvestments		34,996			3,722,162			62,736			6,597,254
Redemptions		(207,952	)		(22,260,621	)		(228,209	)		(24,644,251	)
Net decrease		(83,988	)	$	(8,989,365	)		(107,642	)	$	(11,762,486	)
Increase (decrease) derived from capital shares transactions				$	10,844,267					$	(354,447,512	)

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-42

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Bond Income Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class A
	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014			2013			2012
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	106.14		$	110.97		$	107.33		$	115.27		$	110.90
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (a)		2.76	(b)		2.73			3.18			3.36			3.21
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		0.61			(2.08	)		4.28			(4.07	)		4.95
Total from investment operations		3.37			0.65			7.46			(0.71	)		8.16
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(3.51	)		(4.24	)		(3.82	)		(4.49	)		(3.05	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		0.00			(1.24	)		0.00			(2.74	)		(0.74	)
Total distributions		(3.51	)		(5.48	)		(3.82	)		(7.23	)		(3.79	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	106.00		$	106.14		$	110.97		$	107.33		$	115.27
Total Return (%) (c)		3.12			0.59			7.08			(0.77	)		7.55
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Gross ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.37			0.36			0.35			0.35			0.36
Net ratio of expenses to average net assets (%) (d)		0.37			0.36			0.35			0.35			0.36
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		2.56	(b)		2.50			2.91			3.07			2.85
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		571	(e)		824	(e)		679	(e)		801	(e)		1,002	(e)
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	3,187.2		$	3,178.0		$	3,686.9		$	3,213.0		$	3,474.3
	Class B
	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014			2013			2012
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	104.31		$	109.16		$	105.64		$	113.56		$	109.31
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (a)		2.45	(b)		2.42			2.87			3.05			2.89
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		0.59			(2.05	)		4.20			(4.01	)		4.88
Total from investment operations		3.04			0.37			7.07			(0.96	)		7.77
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(3.23	)		(3.98	)		(3.55	)		(4.22	)		(2.78	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		0.00			(1.24	)		0.00			(2.74	)		(0.74	)
Total distributions		(3.23	)		(5.22	)		(3.55	)		(6.96	)		(3.52	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	104.12		$	104.31		$	109.16		$	105.64		$	113.56
Total Return (%) (c)		2.86			0.34			6.81			(1.01	)		7.28
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Gross ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.62			0.61			0.60			0.60			0.61
Net ratio of expenses to average net assets (%) (d)		0.62			0.61			0.60			0.60			0.61
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		2.31	(b)		2.26			2.67			2.82			2.60
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		571	(e)		824	(e)		679	(e)		801	(e)		1,002	(e)
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	516.4		$	514.1		$	519.5		$	488.1		$	503.6

Please see following page for Financial Highlights footnote legend.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-43

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Bond Income Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class E
	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014			2013			2012
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	105.18		$	110.00		$	106.41		$	114.32		$	110.02
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (a)		2.57	(b)		2.55			3.00			3.18			3.02
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		0.60			(2.07	)		4.23			(4.04	)		4.91
Total from investment operations		3.17			0.48			7.23			(0.86	)		7.93
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(3.32	)		(4.06	)		(3.64	)		(4.31	)		(2.89	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		0.00			(1.24	)		0.00			(2.74	)		(0.74	)
Total distributions		(3.32	)		(5.30	)		(3.64	)		(7.05	)		(3.63	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	105.03		$	105.18		$	110.00		$	106.41		$	114.32
Total Return (%) (c)		2.98			0.44			6.92			(0.91	)		7.38
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Gross ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.52			0.51			0.50			0.50			0.51
Net ratio of expenses to average net assets (%) (d)		0.52			0.51			0.50			0.50			0.51
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		2.40	(b)		2.35			2.78			2.92			2.70
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		571	(e)		824	(e)		679	(e)		801	(e)		1,002	(e)
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	117.2		$	126.2		$	143.8		$	150.7		$	176.2

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

(b) Net investment income per share and the ratio of net investment income to average net assets include a non-recurring refund for overbilling of prior years’ custodian out-of-pocket fees which amounted to $0.01 per share and 0.01% of average net assets, respectively.

(c) Total return does not reflect any insurance, sales, separate account or administrative charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts or any additional expenses that contract owners may bear under their variable contracts. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower.

(d) Includes the effects of management fee waivers (see Note 6 of the Notes to Financial Statements).

(e) Includes mortgage dollar roll and TBA transactions; excluding these transactions the portfolio turnover rates would have been 178%, 278%, 276%, 267% and 390% for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013 and 2012, respectively.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-44

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Bond Income Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016

1. Organization

Metropolitan Series Fund (the “Trust”) is organized as a Delaware statutory trust and registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), as an open-end management investment company. The Trust, which is managed by MetLife Advisers, LLC (“MetLife Advisers” or the “Adviser”), an affiliate of MetLife, Inc., is currently comprised of thirty series, each of which operates as a distinct investment vehicle of the Trust. The portfolio included in this report is BlackRock Bond 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.

On January 12, 2016, MetLife, Inc. announced its plan to pursue the separation of a substantial portion of its retail segment and is currently evaluating structural alternatives for such separation. It is anticipated that MetLife Advisers would be included in any such separation. Any separation transaction that might occur will be subject to the satisfaction of various conditions and approvals, including approval of any transaction by the MetLife, Inc. Board of Directors, satisfaction of any applicable requirements of the SEC, and receipt of insurance and other regulatory approvals and other anticipated conditions. MetLife, Inc. cannot currently provide a specific potential completion date for a separation transaction or any assurance that a separation will in fact occur. MetLife Advisers’ continued service as investment adviser to the Trusts following a separation transaction is the subject of a proxy statement that was filed with the SEC on December 20, 2016 and mailed to shareholders of the Portfolio on or about December 30, 2016.

The Portfolio has registered and offers three classes of shares: Class A, B and E shares. 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 plan and such distribution expenses are allocated to the corresponding Class of shares.

2. Significant Accounting Policies

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities as of the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of income and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates. In the preparation of these financial statements, management has evaluated events and transactions subsequent to December 31, 2016 through the date the financial statements were issued.

The Portfolio is an investment company and follows the accounting and reporting guidance of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Accounting Standards Codification Topic 946—Financial Services—Investment Companies and Topic 820- Fair Value Measurement. 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, including corporate, convertible and municipal bonds and notes; obligations of the U.S. Treasury and U.S. government agencies; foreign sovereign issues; 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 the Adviser (each a “pricing service”), pursuant to authorization of and subject to general oversight by the Board of Trustees of the Trust (the “Board” or “Trustees”). Such pricing services may use matrix pricing, which considers observable inputs including, among other things, issuer details, maturity dates, interest rates, yield curves, rates of prepayment, credit risks/spreads, default rates, reported trades, broker dealer quotes and quoted prices for similar assets. Short-term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less may be valued at amortized cost in the absence of market quotes, so long as the amortized cost value of such short-term debt instrument is approximately the same as the fair value of the instrument as determined without the use of amortized cost valuation. Floating rate loans are generally valued on the basis of an evaluated or composite average of aggregate bid and ask quotations supplied by brokers or dealers, as obtained from the pricing service. 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 generally valued on the basis of evaluated or composite bid quotations obtained from pricing services selected by the Adviser pursuant to authorization of and subject to general oversight by the Board. These securities are usually issued as separate tranches, or classes, of securities within each deal. The pricing models for these securities usually consider tranche-level attributes, current market data, estimated cash flows and market-based yield spreads for each tranche 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.

Domestic and foreign equity securities, such as common stock, exchange-traded funds, rights, warrants, and preferred stock, that are traded on a securities exchange on a valuation date are generally valued at their last quoted sale price or official closing price on the

MSF-45

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Bond Income Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

primary exchange for such security, or, if no sales occurred on that day, at the last reported bid price. Equity securities traded over-the-counter (“OTC”) are generally valued at the last reported bid price. In the event of a major exchange closing during the trading day, the Adviser may use other market information obtained from quotation reporting systems, established market makers, or pricing services in valuing the securities. Valuation adjustments may be applied to certain foreign equity securities that are traded solely on foreign exchanges that close before the time as of which the Portfolio determines its NAV to account for the market movement between the close of the foreign exchanges and the time as of which the Portfolio determines its NAV. The Portfolio may use a systematic fair valuation model provided by a pricing service to value securities principally traded in these foreign markets in order to adjust for possible market movements or other changes that may occur between the close of the foreign exchanges and the time as of which the Portfolio determines its NAV. Foreign equity securities valued using these valuation adjustments are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy. Equity securities that are actively traded, and have no valuation adjustments applied, are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other equity securities traded on inactive markets, or valued in reference to similar instruments traded on active markets, 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 on the valuation date and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy.

Foreign currency forward contracts are valued through an independent pricing service by interpolating between forward and spot currency rates in the London foreign exchange markets as of a designated hour on a valuation day. These contracts are generally 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 sale price available as of the close of business on a valuation day or, if there is no such price available, at the last reported bid price. These types of options are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Futures contracts that are traded on commodity exchanges are valued at their settlement prices established by the exchanges on which they are traded as of the close of such exchanges and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy.

Options, including swaptions, and futures contracts that are traded OTC are generally valued on the basis of interdealer bid and asked prices or prices provided by 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, yield curves, credit curves, measures of volatility and exchange rates. These contracts are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Swap contracts (other than centrally cleared swaps) are marked-to-market daily based on quotations and prices supplied by market makers, broker-dealers and other pricing services. Such quotations and prices are derived utilizing observable data, including the underlying reference securities or indices, credit spread quotations and expected default recovery rates determined by the pricing service. These contracts are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Centrally cleared swaps listed or traded on a multilateral or trade facility platform, such as a registered exchange, are valued at the daily settlement price determined by the respective exchange or a pricing service when the exchange price is not available. For centrally cleared credit default swaps, the clearing facility requires its members to provide actionable price levels across complete term structures. These levels along with external third party prices are used to produce daily settlement prices. These securities are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy. Centrally cleared interest rate swaps are valued using a pricing model that references the underlying rates, including the overnight index swap rate and London Interbank Offered Rate (“LIBOR”) forward rate to produce the daily settlement price. These securities are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

If no current market value quotation or other observable inputs are readily available or market value quotations are deemed to be unreliable for an investment, the fair value of the investment will be determined in accordance with procedures approved by, and under the general supervision of, the Board. In such a circumstance, the Board will be assisted in its responsibility to determine the fair value of an investment by the Valuation Committee (“Committee”) of MetLife Advisers. The Committee provides general pricing oversight and fair value pricing determinations related to portfolio securities and meets on a regular basis to review reports relating to the valuation of the securities in the Portfolio. The Board has delegated to State Street Bank and Trust Company, the Trust’s custodian (“custodian”), the responsibility for calculating the net asset values (“NAVs”) of the Trust’s Portfolios. The Committee is responsible for overseeing the calculation of the NAVs of the Portfolios by the custodian. The Committee also periodically reviews pricing services, including the pricing services providing fair value pricing for the Portfolio’s foreign securities, and is responsible for overseeing the correction of pricing errors and addressing other pricing issues that arise in the ordinary course of business, such as making real-time fair value determinations, as necessary.

No single standard for determining the fair value of an investment can be set forth because fair value depends upon the facts and circumstances with respect to each investment. Information relating to any relevant factors may be obtained by the Committee from any appropriate source, including the subadviser of the Portfolio, the custodian, a pricing service, market maker and/or broker for such security or the issuer. Appropriate methodologies for determining fair value under particular circumstances may include: matrix

MSF-46

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Bond Income Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

pricing, a discounted cash flow analysis, comparisons of securities with comparable characteristics, value based on multiples of earnings, discount from market price of similar marketable securities or a combination of these and other methods.

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 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. These foreign taxes have been provided for in accordance with the Portfolio’s understanding of the applicable countries’ tax rules and rates.

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 the U.S. dollar 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. Because the values of investment securities are translated at the foreign exchange rates prevailing at the end of the period, that portion of the results of operations arising from changes in exchange rates and that portion of the results of operations reflecting fluctuations arising from changes in market prices of the investment securities are not separated. 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. 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.

Dividends and Distributions to Shareholders - The Portfolio records dividends and distributions on the ex-dividend date. Net realized gains from securities 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, amortization of debt securities, paydown gain/loss reclasses, foreign capital gains taxes, deflationary sell adjustments and swap contract transactions. These adjustments have no impact on net assets or the results 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 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. As of December 31, 2016, the Portfolio had no uncertain tax positions that would require financial statement recognition, or de-recognition or disclosure.

Mortgage Dollar Rolls - The Portfolio may enter into mortgage “dollar rolls” in which a Portfolio sells to-be-announced (“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. For the duration of the transaction, or 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.

Treasury and mortgage dollar roll transactions involve the risk that the market value of the securities that the Portfolio is required to repurchase or reacquire may be less than the agreed-upon repurchase price of those securities and that the investment performance of securities purchased with proceeds from these transactions does not exceed the income, capital appreciation, and gain or loss that would have been realized on the securities transferred or sold, as applicable, as part of the treasury or mortgage dollar roll.

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 mortgage obligations (“CMOs”), commercial mortgage-backed securities, 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.

MSF-47

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Bond Income Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

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). 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 netted against payments received for the IOs and the net amount is 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.

TBA Purchase & Forward 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. TBA forward sale commitments are valued at the current market value of the underlying securities, according to the procedures described under “Investment Valuation and Fair Value Measurements”.

When-Issued and Delayed-Delivery Securities - The Portfolio may purchase securities on a when-issued or delayed-delivery basis. Settlement of such transactions normally occurs within a month or more after the purchase 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 or delayed-delivery basis, the Portfolio will hold liquid assets in a segregated account with the Portfolio’s custodian, or set aside liquid assets in the Portfolio’s records, 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.

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 generally 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.

Floating Rate Loans - 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, 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. The Portfolio may not benefit directly from any collateral supporting the loan in which it has purchased the participation or assignment. The purchase of assignments will typically result in the Portfolio having a direct contractual relationship with the borrower, and the Portfolio may enforce compliance by the borrower with the terms of the loan agreement.

The Portfolio may invest in multiple series or tranches of a loan, which may have varying terms and carry different associated risks. When the Portfolio purchases assignments it acquires direct rights against the borrower of the loan. These loans may include participations in bridge loans, which are loans taken out by borrowers for a short period (typically less than one year) pending arrangement of more permanent financing.

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.

Repurchase Agreements - The Portfolio may enter into repurchase agreements, under the terms of a Master Repurchase Agreement (“MRA”), 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, under a tri-party repurchase agreement, receives delivery of the underlying securities collateralizing any repurchase agreements. It is the Portfolio’s policy that the market value of the collateral be equal to at least 100% of the repurchase price in the case of a repurchase agreement of one-day duration and equal to at least 102% of the repurchase price in the case of all other repurchase agreements. In

MSF-48

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Bond Income Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

the event of default or failure by a party to perform an obligation in connection with any repurchase transaction, the MRA gives the non-defaulting party the right to set-off claims and to apply property held by it in connection with any repurchase transaction against obligations owed to it.

At December 31, 2016, the Portfolio had direct investments in repurchase agreements with a gross value of $12,892,826. Additionally, the Portfolio invested cash collateral for loans of portfolio securities in repurchase agreements with a gross value of $ 27,433,845. The combined value of all repurchase agreements is included as part of investments at value on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. The value of the related collateral exceeded the value of the repurchase agreements at December 31, 2016.

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 collateral held from securities on loan. 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.

Effective September 8, 2016, the Trust has entered into a Non-Custodial Securities Lending Agreement with JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (the “lending agent”). Prior to September 8, 2016, the Trust had entered into a Securities Lending Authorization Agreement with the custodian (the “prior lending agent”). Under each agreement, the lending agent is authorized to loan portfolio securities on the Portfolio’s behalf. In exchange, the Portfolio receives either cash or government securities as collateral against the loaned securities. The Portfolio receives collateral equal to at least 102% of the market value for loans secured by government securities or cash in the same currency as the loaned shares and 105% for all other loaned securities at each loan’s inception. Collateral representing at least 100% of the market value of the loaned securities is maintained for the duration of the loan. Any cash collateral received by the Portfolio is generally invested by the lending agent in short-term investments, which may include certificates of deposit, commercial paper, repurchase agreements, time deposits and money market funds. Cash collateral that was received by the prior lending agent had been generally invested in the State Street Navigator Securities Lending MET Portfolio (the “Navigator Portfolio”), a series of the State Street Navigator Securities Lending Trust that was a registered money market fund managed by an affiliate of the custodian. The market value of investments made with cash collateral received are disclosed in the Schedule of Investments and the valuation techniques are described in Note 2. 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 is 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 is equal to at least 100% of the market value of all the loaned securities as of such preceding day. A portion of the income earned on the collateral is rebated to the borrower of the securities and the remainder is split between the lending agent and the Portfolio. On loans collateralized by government securities, a fee is received from the borrower and is allocated between the Portfolio and the lending agent.

Income received by the Portfolio in securities lending transactions during the year ended December 31, 2016 is reflected as securities lending income on the Statement of Operations. The values of any securities loaned by the Portfolio and the related collateral at December 31, 2016 are disclosed in the footnotes to the Schedule of Investments. The value of the related collateral received by the Portfolio exceeded the value of the securities out on loan at December 31, 2016.

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. The lending agent shall indemnify the Portfolio in the case of default of any securities borrower, subject to the terms of the Non-Custodial Securities Lending Agreement.

Reverse Repurchase Agreements - The Portfolio may enter into reverse repurchase agreements with qualified institutions. In a reverse repurchase agreement, the Portfolio transfers securities in exchange for cash to a financial institution or counterparty, concurrently with an agreement by the Portfolio to re-acquire the same securities at an agreed upon price and date. 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 transferred by the Portfolio may decline below the agreed-upon reacquisition price of the securities. In the event of default or failure by a party to perform an obligation in connection with any reverse repurchase transaction, the MRA entitles the non-defaulting party with a right to set-off claims and apply property held by it in respect of any reverse repurchase transaction against obligations owed to it. Cash received in exchange for securities transferred under reverse repurchase agreements plus accrued interest payments to be made by the Portfolio to counterparties are reflected as Reverse repurchase agreements on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

For the year ended December 31, 2016, the Portfolio had an outstanding reverse repurchase agreement balance for 220 days. The average amount of borrowings was $189,958,009 and the annualized weighted average interest rate was 0.04% during the 220 day period.

MSF-49

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Bond Income Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

The following table summarizes open reverse repurchase agreements by counterparty which are subject to offset under an MRA on a net basis as of December 31, 2016:

Counterparty	Reverse Repurchase Agreements			Collateral Pledged1		Net Amount*
Bank of America N.A.	$	(80,550,272	)	$	80,550,272	$	—
	$	(80,550,272	)	$	80,550,272	$	—

¹  Collateral with a value of $80,680,054 has been pledged in connection with open reverse repurchase agreements. In some instances, the actual collateral pledged may be more than the amount shown here due to overcollateralization.

* Net amount represents the net amount payable due to the counterparty in the event of default.

Secured Borrowing Transactions - The Portfolio may enter into transactions consisting of a transfer of a security by the Portfolio to a financial institution or counterparty, with a simultaneous agreement to reacquire the same, or substantially the same security, at an agreed-upon price and future settlement date. Such transactions are treated as secured borrowings, and not as purchases and sales. The Portfolio receives cash from the transfer of the security to use for other investment purposes. During the term of the borrowing, the Portfolio is not entitled to receive principal and interest payments, if any, made on the security transferred to the counterparty during the term of the agreement. The difference between the transfer price and the reacquisition price, known as the “price drop”, is included in net investment income with the cost of the secured borrowing transaction being recorded as interest expense over the term of the borrowing.

The following table provides a breakdown of transactions accounted for as secured borrowings, the gross obligations by the type of collateral pledged, and the remaining contractual maturities of those transactions, which are accounted for as secured borrowings.

	Remaining Contractual Maturity of the Agreements As of December 31, 2016
	Overnight and Continuous			Up to 30 Days			31 - 90 Days		Greater than 90 days		Total
Securities Lending Transactions
Corporate Bonds & Notes	$	(157,557,150	)	$	—		$	—	$	—	$	(157,557,150	)
Foreign Government		(9,909,584	)		—			—		—		(9,909,584	)
Preferred Stocks		(865,421	)		—			—		—		(865,421	)
U.S. Treasury & Government Agencies		(50,025,468	)		—			—		—		(50,025,468	)
Total	$	(218,357,623	)	$	—		$	—	$	—	$	(218,357,623	)
Reverse Repurchase Agreements
U.S. Treasury		—			(80,550,272	)		—		—		(80,550,272	)
Total Borrowings	$	(218,357,623	)	$	(80,550,272	)	$	—	$	—	$	(298,907,895	)
Gross amount of recognized liabilities for securities lending transactions and reverse repurchase agreements											$	(298,907,895	)

3. 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 valuation 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 losses if the counterparties to the contracts are unable to meet the terms of the contracts. The Portfolio may also experience losses even when such contracts are used for hedging purposes. The Portfolio’s maximum potential loss from such contracts is the aggregate face value in U.S. dollars at the time the contract was opened.

MSF-50

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Bond Income Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

Futures Contracts - The Portfolio may buy and sell futures contracts 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 cash collateral 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 whether unrealized gains or losses are incurred. These amounts are reflected as receivables or payables on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities and as a component of net change in unrealized appreciation/depreciation on the Statement of Operations. When the contract is closed or expires, the Portfolio records 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. 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. If futures contracts are exchange-traded, the exchange’s clearinghouse, as counterparty to all exchange-traded futures, guarantees the futures contracts against default. For OTC futures, the Portfolio’s ability to terminate the positions may be more limited than in the case of exchange-traded positions and may also involve the risk that securities dealers participating in such transactions would fail to meet their obligations to the Portfolio.

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 give 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 investment exposure to a target asset class or to enhance return. Writing puts or buying calls tends to increase the Portfolio’s exposure to the underlying instrument and writing calls or buying puts tends to decrease the Portfolio’s exposure to the underlying instrument, and can be used to hedge other Portfolio investments. For options used 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. The Portfolio also bears the risk of an unfavorable change in the value of the underlying instrument or the risk that the Portfolio may not be able to enter into a closing transaction due to an illiquid market. 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 any unrealized gains.

The main risk associated with purchasing an option is that the option expires without being exercised. In this case, the option is worthless when it expires and the premium paid for the option is considered a realized 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 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 by the Portfolio for a written option is recorded as an asset and an equivalent liability. The liability is subsequently marked to market to reflect the current value of the option written. 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 by the Portfolio is offset against the amount paid for the purchase of the underlying instrument.

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.

MSF-51

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Bond Income Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

Options on swaps (“swaptions”) are similar to options on securities except that instead of selling or purchasing the right to buy or sell a security, the writer or purchaser of the swaptions is granting or buying the right to enter into a previously agreed upon interest rate or credit default swap agreement (interest rate risk and/or credit risk) at any time before the expiration of the option.

Options on Exchange-Traded Futures Contract (“Futures Option”) is an option contract in which the underlying instrument is a single futures contract.

Written Options

The Portfolio transactions in written options during the year ended December 31, 2016:

Call Options	Notional Amount*			Number of Contracts			Premium Received
Options outstanding December 31, 2015		1,206,357,000			—		$	2,512,762
Options written		1,537,912,900			3,348			8,640,974
Options bought back		(377,743,000	)		(2,812	)		(5,602,787	)
Options exercised		(1,753,301,000	)		—			(371,952	)
Options expired		(539,441,350	)		(536	)		(4,630,063	)
Options outstanding December 31, 2016		73,784,550			—		$	548,934
Put Options	Notional Amount*			Number of Contracts			Premium Received
Options outstanding December 31, 2015		79,855,000			—		$	1,834,084
Options written		1,306,401,300			12,762			9,615,944
Options bought back		(1,043,645,000	)		(8,377	)		(5,734,083	)
Options exercised		(96,744,000	)		—			(1,243,551	)
Options expired		(231,627,300	)		(4,385	)		(4,398,227	)
Options outstanding December 31, 2016		14,240,000			—		$	74,167

* Amount shown is in the currency in which the transaction was denominated.

Swap Agreements - The Portfolio may enter into swap agreements in which the Portfolio and a counterparty agree to either make periodic net payments on a specified notional amount or net payment upon termination. Swap agreements are either privately negotiated in the OTC market (“OTC swaps”) or executed in a multilateral or other trade facility platform, such as a registered commodities exchange (“centrally-cleared swaps”). The Portfolio may enter into swap agreements for the purposes of managing exposure to interest rate, credit or market risk, or for other purposes. In connection with these agreements, securities or cash may be paid or received, as applicable, by the Portfolio as collateral or margin in accordance with the terms of the respective swap agreements to provide assets of value and recourse in the event of default or bankruptcy/insolvency. Securities posted by the Portfolio as collateral for swap contracts are identified in the Schedule of Investments and restricted cash, if any, is reflected on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

Centrally Cleared Swaps: Clearinghouses currently offer clearing derivative transactions which include interest rate and 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.

Swap agreements are marked-to-market daily. The fair value of an OTC swap is reflected on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. The changes in value, if any, are reflected as a component of net change in unrealized appreciation/depreciation on the Statement of Operations. Daily changes in valuation of centrally cleared swaps, if any, are recorded as a receivable or payable for variation margin on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities and as a component of unrealized appreciation/depreciation on the Statement of Operations. Upfront payments paid or received upon entering into the swap agreement compensate for differences between the stated terms of the swap agreement and prevailing market conditions (such as credit spreads, currency exchange rates, interest rates, and other relevant factors). Upon termination or maturity of the swap, upfront premiums are recorded as realized gains or losses on the Statement of Operations. A liquidation payment received or made at the termination of the swap is recorded as realized gain or loss on the Statement of Operations. Net periodic payments received or paid by the Portfolio are included as part of realized gains or losses on the Statement of Operations.

Swap transactions involve, to varying degrees, elements of interest rate, credit, and market risk in excess of the amounts recognized in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. Such risks involve the possibility that there will be no liquid market for these agreements, that

MSF-52

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Bond Income Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

the counterparty to the agreements may default on its obligation to perform, or that there may be unfavorable changes in market conditions or interest rates. In addition, entering into swap agreements involves documentation risk resulting from the possibility that the parties to a swap agreement may disagree as to the meaning of contractual terms in the agreement. The Portfolio may enter into swap transactions with counterparties 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. A Portfolio’s maximum risk of loss from counterparty credit risk is the discounted value of the net cash flows to be received from the counterparty over the contract’s remaining life, to the extent that amount is positive, or the fair value of the contract. The risk may be mitigated by having a master netting arrangement between the Portfolio and the counterparty and by the posting of collateral by the counterparty to cover the Portfolio’s exposure to the counterparty. Counterparty risk related to centrally-cleared swaps is mitigated due to the protection against defaults provided by the exchange on which these contracts trade.

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/or sovereign issuers, or to create exposure to corporate and/or sovereign issuers to which they are not otherwise exposed. Credit default swaps involve one party making a stream of payments (referred to as the buyer of protection) to another party (the seller of protection) in exchange for the right to receive a specified return if a credit event occurs for the referenced entity, obligation or index. A credit event is defined under the terms of each swap agreement and may include, but is not limited to, underlying entity default, bankruptcy, write-down, principal shortfall or interest shortfall. As the seller of protection, if an underlying credit event occurs, the Portfolio will either pay the buyer 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 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). In return, the Portfolio would receive from the counterparty an upfront or periodic stream of payments throughout the life of the credit default swap agreement provided that no credit event has occurred. As the seller of protection, the Portfolio will effectively add leverage to its portfolio because, in addition to its total net assets, the Portfolio would be subject to investment exposure on the notional amount of the credit default 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 be worthless when it expires 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, whereby the seller may fail to satisfy its payment obligations to the Portfolio in the event of a default. As the buyer of protection, if an underlying credit event occurs, the Portfolio will either 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 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). If no credit event occurs and the Portfolio is a buyer of protection, the Portfolio will typically recover nothing under the credit default swap agreement, but it will have had to pay the required upfront payment or stream of continuing payments under the credit default swap agreement. Recovery values are at times established through the credit event auction process in which market participants are ensured that a transparent price has been set for the defaulted obligation.

Credit default swap agreements on credit indices involve one party making a stream of payments to another party in exchange for the right to receive a specified return in the event of a write-down, principal shortfall, interest shortfall or default of all or part of the referenced entities comprising the credit index. A credit index is a basket of credit instruments or exposures designed to be representative of some part of the credit market as a whole. An index credit default swap references all the names in the index, and if there is a credit event involving an entity in the index, the credit event is settled based on that entity’s weight in the index. A Portfolio may use credit default swaps on credit indices as a hedge for credit default swaps or bonds held in the portfolio, which is less expensive than it would be to buy many individual credit default swaps to achieve similar effect. Credit default swaps on indices are benchmarks for protecting investors owning bonds against default, and may be used to speculate on changes in credit quality.

Implied credit spreads, represented in absolute terms, utilized in determining the market value of credit default swap agreements on a credit index or corporate or sovereign issuer, serve as some indication of the status of the payment/performance risk and 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 reflect upfront payments required to be made to enter into the agreement. Wider credit spreads generally 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 particular swap agreement. When no implied credit spread is available for a credit default swap, the current unrealized appreciation/depreciation on the position may be used as an indicator of the current status of the payment/performance risk.

The maximum potential amount of future payments (undiscounted) that the 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

MSF-53

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Bond Income Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

all credit default swap agreements outstanding as of December 31, 2016, for which the Portfolio is the seller of protection, are disclosed in the Schedule of Investments. 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 the Portfolio for the same referenced entity or entities.

Interest Rate Swaps: The Portfolio may enter into interest rate swaps to manage its exposure to interest rates or to protect against currency fluctuations, to adjust the interest rate sensitivity (duration), to preserve a return or spread on a particular investment, or otherwise as a substitute for a direct investment in debt securities. The Portfolio is subject to interest rate risk exposure in the normal course of pursuing its investment objectives. Because the Portfolio holds fixed rate bonds, the value of these bonds 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 agreements. Interest rate swaps are agreements in which one party pays a stream of interest payments, either fixed or floating rate, for another party’s stream of interest payments, either fixed or floating, on the same notional amount for a specified period of time. Other forms of interest rate swap agreements may include: (1) interest rate caps, under which, in return for a premium, one party agrees to make payments to the other to the extent that interest rates exceed a specified rate, or “cap”; (2) interest rate floors, under which, in return for a premium, one party agrees to make payments to the other to the extent that interest rates fall below a specified rate, or “floor”; and (3) interest rate collars, under which a party sells a cap and purchases a floor or vice versa in an attempt to protect itself against interest rate movements exceeding given minimum or maximum levels. 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.

The following table summarizes the fair value of derivatives held by the Portfolio at December 31, 2016 by category of risk exposure:

	Asset Derivatives			Liability Derivatives
Risk Exposure	Statement of Assets & Liabilities Location	Fair Value		Statement of Assets & Liabilities Location	Fair Value
Interest Rate	OTC swap contracts at market value (a)	$	1,357,295	OTC swap contracts at market value (a)	$	1,089,398
	Unrealized appreciation on centrally cleared swap contracts (b) (c)		168,942	Unrealized depreciation on centrally cleared swap contracts (b) (c)		1,034,065
	Unrealized appreciation on futures contracts (b) (d)		1,092,672	Unrealized depreciation on futures contracts (b) (d)		2,808,261
Credit	OTC swap contracts at market value (a)		2,296,664	OTC swap contracts at market value (a)		964,596
	Unrealized appreciation on centrally cleared swap contracts (b) (c)		2,194,000	Unrealized depreciation on centrally cleared swap contracts (b) (c)		117,316
Foreign Exchange	Investments at market value (e)		1,695,538
	Unrealized appreciation on forward foreign currency exchange contracts		2,507,628	Unrealized depreciation on forward foreign currency exchange contracts		1,009,396
				Written options at value		272,871
Total		$	11,312,739		$	7,295,903

(a) Excludes OTC swap interest receivable of $248,771 and OTC swap interest payable of $287,094.

(b) Financial instrument not subject to a master netting agreement.

(c) Represents the unrealized appreciation/depreciation of centrally cleared swaps as reported in the Schedule of Investments. Only the variation margin is reported within the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

(d) Includes cumulative appreciation/depreciation of futures contracts as reported in the Schedule of Investments. Only the current day’s variation margin is reported within the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

(e) Represents purchased options which are part of investments at value as shown in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

The Portfolio is required to disclose the impact of offsetting assets and liabilities represented in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities to enable users of the financial statements to evaluate the effect or potential effect of netting arrangements on its financial position for recognized assets and liabilities.

The following table presents the Portfolio’s derivative assets by counterparty net of amounts available for offset under a master netting agreement (“MNA”)(see Note 4), or similar agreement, and net of the related collateral received by the Portfolio as of December 31, 2016.

Counterparty	Derivative Assets subject to an MNA by Counterparty		Financial Instruments available for offset			Collateral Received†			Net Amount*
Bank of America N.A.	$	968,654	$	(159,007	)	$	(740,000	)	$	69,647
Barclays Bank plc		734,090		(64,821	)		(580,000	)		89,269
BNP Paribas S.A.		1,097,356		(300,632	)		—			796,724

MSF-54

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Bond Income Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

Counterparty	Derivative Assets subject to an MNA by Counterparty		Financial Instruments available for offset			Collateral Received†			Net Amount*
Citibank N.A.	$	795,204	$	(300,069	)	$	—		$	495,135
Citigroup Global Markets Inc.		114,457		(114,457	)		—			—
Credit Suisse International		26,818		(26,818	)		—			—
Deutsche Bank AG		709,190		(186,716	)		(522,474	)		—
Goldman Sachs International		1,178,852		(517,557	)		(661,295	)		—
HSBC Bank plc		123,400		(70,953	)		—			52,447
JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		1,273,635		(331,950	)		(550,000	)		391,685
Morgan Stanley & Co. International plc		308,828		(276,132	)		—			32,696
Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC		211,100		(35,070	)		—			176,030
Morgan Stanley Capital Services, LLC		36,599		(36,599	)		—			—
Nomura International plc		55,695		(2,172	)		—			53,523
Royal Bank of Scotland plc		130,494		(37,420	)		—			93,074
Standard Chartered Bank		12,417		—			—			12,417
UBS AG		80,336		(20,019	)		—			60,317
	$	7,857,125	$	(2,480,392	)	$	(3,053,769	)	$	2,322,964

The following table presents the Portfolio’s derivative liabilities by counterparty net of amounts available for offset under an MNA, or similar agreement, and net of the related collateral pledged by the Portfolio as of December 31, 2016.

Counterparty	Derivative Liabilities subject to an MNA by Counterparty		Financial Instruments available for offset			Collateral Pledged†			Net Amount**
Bank of America N.A.	$	159,007	$	(159,007	)	$	—		$	—
Barclays Bank plc		64,821		(64,821	)		—			—
BNP Paribas S.A.		300,632		(300,632	)		—			—
Citibank N.A.		300,069		(300,069	)		—			—
Citigroup Global Markets Inc.		465,194		(114,457	)		—			350,737
Credit Suisse International		174,750		(26,818	)		(147,932	)		—
Deutsche Bank AG		186,716		(186,716	)		—			—
Goldman Sachs International		517,557		(517,557	)		—			—
HSBC Bank plc		70,953		(70,953	)		—			—
JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		331,950		(331,950	)		—			—
Morgan Stanley & Co. International plc		276,132		(276,132	)		—			—
Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC		35,070		(35,070	)		—			—
Morgan Stanley Capital Services, LLC		217,538		(36,599	)		—			180,939
Nomura International plc		2,172		(2,172	)		—			—
Royal Bank of Scotland plc		37,420		(37,420	)		—			—
UBS AG		20,019		(20,019	)		—			—
Westpac Banking Corp.		176,261		—			—			176,261
	$	3,336,261	$	(2,480,392	)	$	(147,932	)	$	707,937

* Net amount represents the net amount receivable from the counterparty in the event of default.

** Net amount represents the net amount payable due to the counterparty in the event of default.

† In some instances, the actual collateral received and/or pledged may be more than the amount shown here due to overcollateralization.

The following tables summarize the effect of derivative instruments on the Statement of Operations, classified by derivative type and category of risk exposure, for the year ended December 31, 2016:

Statement of Operations Location—Net Realized Gain (Loss)	Interest Rate			Credit		Foreign Exchange			Total
Investments (a)	$	6,240,666		$	—	$	(12,077,232	)	$	(5,836,566	)
Forward foreign currency transactions		—			—		1,340,118			1,340,118
Futures contracts		15,059,090			—		—			15,059,090
Swap contracts		3,096,832			1,627,397		—			4,724,229
Written options		(4,728,036	)		—		8,932,441			4,204,405
	$	19,668,552		$	1,627,397	$	(1,804,673	)	$	19,491,276

MSF-55

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Bond Income Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

Statement of Operations Location—Net Change in Unrealized Appreciation (Depreciation)	Interest Rate			Credit		Foreign Exchange			Total
Investments (a)	$	171,580		$	—	$	1,038,446		$	1,210,026
Forward foreign currency transactions		—			—		4,176,062			4,176,062
Futures contracts		(2,449,932	)		—		—			(2,449,932	)
Swap contracts		2,057,672			2,823,803		—			4,881,475
Written options		—			—		(551,474	)		(551,474	)
	$	(220,680	)	$	2,823,803	$	4,663,034		$	7,266,157

For the year ended December 31, 2016, the average notional par or face amount outstanding for each derivative type was as follows:

Derivative Description	Average Notional Par or Face Amount‡
Investments (a)	$	317,226,711
Forward foreign currency transactions		524,915,091
Futures contracts long		444,545,833
Futures contracts short		(193,937,870	)
Swap contracts		1,282,902,538
Written options		(281,869,379	)

‡ Averages are based on activity levels during the year.

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

4. Certain Risks

In the normal course of business, the Portfolio invests in securities and enters into transactions where risks exist. Those risks include:

Market 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, interest rate, and price fluctuations.

Credit and Counterparty Risk: 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 and counterparty risk consist principally of cash due from counterparties and investments. The Portfolio manages counterparty risk by entering into agreements only with counterparties that it believes have the financial resources to honor their obligations and by monitoring the financial stability of those counterparties. The Portfolio’s investment adviser attempts to mitigate counterparty risk by (i) periodically assessing the creditworthiness of its trading partners, (ii) monitoring and/or limiting the amount of its net exposure to each individual counterparty based on its assessment, and (iii) requiring collateral from the counterparty for certain transactions. In order to preserve certain safeguards for non-standard settlement trades, the Portfolio restricts its exposure to credit and counterparty losses by entering into master netting agreements (“Master Agreements”) with counterparties (approved brokers) with whom it undertakes a significant volume of transactions. Master Agreements govern the terms of certain transactions, and reduce the counterparty risk associated with relevant transactions by specifying credit protection mechanisms and providing standardization that improves legal certainty. Master Agreements can also help limit counterparty risk by specifying collateral posting arrangements at pre-arranged exposure levels. Collateral requirements may differ by type of derivative or investment, as applicable. Collateral or margin requirements are set by the broker or exchange clearing house for exchange-traded derivatives (e.g., futures contracts and exchange-traded options), while collateral terms are contract specific for OTC traded derivatives (e.g., forward foreign currency exchange contracts, swap agreements and OTC options).

For derivatives traded under an International Swaps and Derivatives Association, Inc. Master Agreement (“ISDA Master Agreement”) or similar master agreement, the collateral requirements are netted across all transactions traded under such agreement and one amount is posted from one party to the other to collateralize such obligations. The ISDA Master Agreement gives each party to the agreement the right to terminate all transactions traded under such agreement if there is a certain deterioration in the credit quality of the other party. The ISDA Master Agreement gives the Portfolio the right, upon an event of default by the applicable counterparty or a termination of the agreement, to close out all transactions traded under such agreement and to net amounts owed under each transaction to one net amount payable by one party to the other. This right to close out and net payments across all transactions traded under the ISDA Master Agreement could result in a reduction of the Portfolio’s credit risk to such counterparty equal to any amounts payable by the Portfolio under the applicable transactions, if any. However, absent an event of default by the counterparty or a termination of the agreement, the ISDA Master Agreement does not result in an offset of reported amounts of assets and liabilities in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities across transactions between the Portfolio and the applicable counterparty. The enforceability

MSF-56

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Bond Income Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

of the right to offset may vary by jurisdiction. Cash collateral that has been pledged to cover obligations of the Portfolio under derivative contracts, if any, will be reported separately in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. Securities pledged as collateral, if any, for the same purpose are noted in the Schedule of Investments.

Repurchase and reverse repurchase agreements are primarily executed under Global Master Repurchase Agreements (“GMRAs”) or Master Repurchase Agreements (“MRAs”), which provide the rights to set-off. Each repurchase and reverse repurchase agreement is initially collateralized at the transaction level. In the event of default, the total market value exposure will be offset against collateral exchanged to date, which would result in a net receivable/(payable) that would be due from/to the counterparty.

Master Securities Forward Transaction Agreements (“MSFTA”) govern the considerations and factors surrounding the settlement of certain forward settling transactions, such as TBA securities and delayed-delivery or secured borrowings transactions by and between the Portfolio and select counterparties. The MSFTA maintain provisions for, among other things, initiation and confirmation, payment and transfer, events of default, termination, and maintenance of collateral.

Customer Account Agreements and related addenda govern cleared derivatives transactions such as futures, options on futures, and cleared OTC derivatives. Cleared derivative transactions require posting of initial margin as determined by each relevant clearing agency, which is segregated at a broker account registered with the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”), or the applicable regulator. In the U.S., counterparty risk is significantly reduced as creditors of the futures broker do not have claim to Portfolio assets in the segregated account. Additionally, portability of exposure in the event of default further reduces risk to the Portfolio. Variation margin, or changes in market value, are exchanged daily, but may not be netted between futures and cleared OTC derivatives.

Foreign Investment Risk: The investments by the Portfolio in foreign securities may involve risks not present in domestic investments. Because securities may be denominated in foreign currencies, may require settlement in foreign currencies and may pay interest or dividends in foreign currencies, changes in the relationship of these foreign currencies to the U.S. dollar can significantly affect the value of the investments and earnings of the Portfolio. Foreign investments may also subject the Portfolio to foreign government exchange restrictions, expropriation, taxation or other political, social or economic developments, all of which could affect the market and/or credit risk of the investments. In addition to the risks described above, risks may arise from forward foreign currency contracts with respect to the potential inability of counterparties to meet the terms of their contracts.

Additional risks associated with each type of investment are described above within the respective security type notes. The Portfolio’s prospectus includes a discussion of the principal risks of investing in the Portfolio.

5. Investment Transactions

Aggregate cost of purchases and proceeds of sales of investment securities, including mortgage dollar roll and TBA transactions but excluding short-term securities, for the year ended December 31, 2016 were as follows:

Purchases			Sales
U.S. Government	Non U.S. Government		U.S. Government		Non U.S. Government
$20,455,800,779	$	1,081,192,007	$	19,484,628,511	$	1,996,374,031

The Portfolio engaged in security transactions with other accounts managed by BlackRock Advisors, LLC that amounted to $7,493,176 in purchases and $13,321,908 in sales of investments, which are included above, and resulted in realized losses of $58,410.

Purchases and sales of mortgage dollar rolls and TBA transactions for the year ended December 31, 2016 were as follows:

Purchases	Sales
$14,750,825,000	$	14,533,849,105

6. Investment Management Fees and Other Transactions with Affiliates

Investment Management Agreement - MetLife Advisers is the investment adviser to the Portfolio. The Trust has entered into an investment management agreement with MetLife Advisers with respect to the Portfolio. For providing investment management services to the Portfolio, MetLife Advisers receives monthly compensation at the following annual rates:

Management Fees earned by MetLife Advisers for the year ended December 31, 2016	% per annum			Average Daily Net Assets
$12,590,207		0.400	%	Of the first $1 billion
		0.350	%	Of the next $1 billion
		0.300	%	Of the next $1 billion
		0.250	%	On amounts in excess of $3 billion

MSF-57

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Bond Income Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

MetLife Advisers has entered into an investment subadvisory agreement with respect to managing the Portfolio. BlackRock Advisors, LLC is compensated by MetLife Advisers to provide subadvisory services for the Portfolio.

Management Fee Waivers - Pursuant to an expense agreement, MetLife Advisers has agreed, for the period May 1, 2016 to April 30, 2017, to reduce its advisory fees set out above under “Investment Management Agreement” for each class of the Portfolio as follows:

% per annum	Average Daily Net Assets
0.030%	Of the first $	1 billion
0.025%	Of the next $	1 billion

Any reductions in total advisory fees paid by the Portfolio due to these waivers may be reduced or eliminated by changes in the advisory fee structure at higher asset levels. MetLife Advisers will receive advisory fees equal to 0.325% of the Portfolio’s average daily net assets for amounts over $2 billion but less than $3 billion (0.025% over the contractual advisory fee rate) and 0.325% for amounts over $3 billion but less than $3.4 billion (0.075% over the contractual advisory fee rate). As a result, the dollar amount of the waiver will be reduced as assets grow beyond $2 billion up to $3.4 billion, but the advisory fee net of waivers will never exceed the contractual dollar amount that would otherwise be payable under the advisory fee.

An identical agreement was in place for the period May 1, 2015 to April 30, 2016.

Certain officers and trustees of the Trust may also be officers of MetLife Advisers; 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 and Service Fees - The Trust has a distribution agreement with MetLife Investors Distribution Company (“MIDC” or the “Distributor”) in which MIDC serves as the distributor for the Portfolio’s Class A, B and E Shares. MIDC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife Investors Group, LLC, an affiliate of the Adviser. The Trust has also adopted a Distribution and Service Plan under Rule 12b-1 of the 1940 Act for the Portfolio’s Class B and E Shares. Under the Distribution and Service Plan, the Class B and E Shares of the Portfolio pay a fee to compensate the Insurance Companies (or their affiliates) and other broker-dealers and financial intermediaries involved in the offer and sale of Portfolio shares for promoting or selling and servicing the Class B and E Shares. The fees under the Distribution and Service Plan for each class of the Portfolio’s shares are calculated as a percentage of the Portfolio’s average daily net assets that are attributable to that Class. Currently, the fee is 0.25% per year for Class B Shares and 0.15% per year for Class E Shares. Amounts incurred by the Portfolio for the year ended December 31, 2016 are shown as Distribution and service fees in the Statement of Operations.

Deferred Trustee Compensation - Each Trustee 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 Trust. 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 Met Investors Series Trust, an affiliate of the Trust, 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 under the Plan is reflected as Deferred trustees’ fees in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

7. Contractual Obligations

Under the Trust’s organizational documents, its officers and Trustees may be indemnified against certain liabilities and expenses arising out of the performance of their duties to the Trust. Additionally, 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 Trust that have not yet occurred.

8. Income Tax Information

The tax character of distributions paid for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015 were as follows:

Ordinary Income			Long-Term Capital Gain				Total
2016	2015		2016		2015		2016		2015
$122,255,897	$	190,475,439	$	—	$	13,991,825	$	122,255,897	$	204,467,264

MSF-58

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Bond Income Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

As of December 31, 2016, 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			Other Accumulated Capital Losses			Total
$119,161,258	$	—	$	(64,170,665	)	$	(27,394,335	)	$	27,596,258

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 up to 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, 2016, the Portfolio had post-enactment short-term accumulated capital losses of $1,466,695 and accumulated long term capital losses of $25,927,640, and no pre-enactment accumulated capital loss carryforwards.

9. Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In October 2016, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) adopted new rules and forms, and amendments to certain current rules and forms, to modernize reporting and disclosure of information by registered investment companies. The amendments to Regulation S-X will require standardized, enhanced disclosure about derivatives in investment company financial statements, and will also change the rules governing the form and content of such financial statements. The compliance date for the amendments to Regulation S-X is August 1, 2017. Management is currently evaluating the impact that the adoption of the amendments to Regulation S-X will have on the Portfolio’s financial statements and related disclosures.

MSF-59

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Bond Income Portfolio

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Shareholders of BlackRock Bond Income Portfolio and the Board of Trustees of Metropolitan Series Fund:

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities, including the schedule of investments, of BlackRock Bond Income Portfolio (one of the portfolios constituting the Metropolitan Series Fund) (the “Portfolio”) as of December 31, 2016, 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 Portfolio’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 Portfolio 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 Portfolio’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, 2016, by correspondence with the custodian and brokers; when 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 Bond Income Portfolio of the Metropolitan Series Fund as of December 31, 2016, 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.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

February 24, 2017

MSF-60

Metropolitan Series Fund

Trustees and Officers

MANAGEMENT OF THE TRUSTS

The Boards of Trustees (the “Board”) of Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (“MIST” and “MSF”, respectively, and collectively the “Trusts”) supervise the Trusts and are responsible for representing the interests of shareholders. The Trustees, the Chairman of the Board and the Chairmen of each subcommittee are the same for both Trusts. The Trustees of each Trust meet periodically throughout the year to oversee the Portfolios’ activities, reviewing, among other things, each Portfolio’s performance and its contractual arrangements with various service providers. The Trustees of each Trust elect the officers of the Trust, who are responsible for administering the Trust’s day-to-day operations.

Trustees and Officers

The Trustees and executive officers of the Trusts, as well as their ages and their principal occupations during the past five years, are set forth below. Unless otherwise indicated, the business address of each is c/o MetLife Funds, One Financial Center, Boston, Massachusetts 02111. Each Trustee who is deemed an “interested person,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, is referred to as an “Interested Trustee.” Those Trustees who are not “interested persons,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, are referred to as “Independent Trustees.” There is no limit to the term a Trustee may serve. Trustees serve until their death, resignation or removal in accordance with the MIST Trust’s and MSF Trust’s respective organizational documents and policies adopted by the Boards of the respective Trusts from time to time. Officers hold office at the pleasure of each Board and serve until their removal or resignation in accordance with the Trusts’ respective organizational documents and policies adopted by the Board of each Trust from time to time.

Name and Age	Current 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 MetLife Funds Complex(2) Overseen by Trustee	Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Interested Trustee
John Rosenthal* (56)	Trustee	Indefinite; From May 2016 (MIST and MSF) to present	Senior Managing Director and Head of Global Portfolio Management, MetLife, Inc.	75	None
Independent Trustees
Dawn M. Vroegop (50)	Trustee and Chairman of the Board	Indefinite; From December 2000 (MIST)/ May 2009 (MSF) to present as Trustee; From May 2016 (MIST and MSF) until present as Chairman	Private Investor.	75	Trustee, Driehaus Mutual Funds.**
Stephen M. Alderman (57)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 (MIST)/ April 2012 (MSF) to present	Shareholder in the law firm of Garfield and Merel, Ltd.	75	None

MSF-61

Metropolitan Series Fund

Trustees and Officers—(Continued)

Name and Age	Current 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 MetLife Funds Complex(2) Overseen by Trustee	Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Robert J. Boulware (60)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 (MIST)/ April 2012 (MSF) to present	Managing Director, Pilgrim Funds, LLC (private equity fund).	75	Trustee, Vertical Capital Income Fund (closed-end fund);** Director, Gainsco, Inc. (auto insurance);** Trustee, SharesPost 100 Fund (closed-end fund).**
Susan C. Gause (64)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 (MIST)/ April 2012 (MSF) to present	Private Investor.	75	Trustee, HSBC Funds.**
Nancy Hawthorne (65)	Trustee	Indefinite; From May 2003 (MSF)/ April 2012 (MIST) to present	Partner, Hawthorne Financial Advisors, LLC (registered investment advisor); until June 2014, Chief Executive Officer, Clerestory LLC (corporate advisor).	75	Director and Chairman of the Board of Directors, THL Credit, Inc.;** Lead Director, Avid Technology, Inc.;** Director, CRA International, Inc.**
Barbara A. Nugent (60)	Trustee	Indefinite; From January 2014 (MIST and MSF) to present	President, True North Board Governance, LLC (consulting); until December 2013, partner in the law firm of Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young, LLP.	75	None
Linda B. Strumpf (69)	Trustee	Indefinite; From May 2000 (MSF)/ April 2012 (MIST) to present	Chair of the Investment Committee, Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust; until June 2011, Chief Investment Officer, Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust.	75	None

Executive Officers

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Kristi Slavin (43)	President and Chief Executive Officer, of MIST and MSF	From May 2016 (MIST and MSF) to present	President, MetLife Advisers, LLC (May 2016-present); Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Vice President, MetLife, Inc.; Vice President, MIST and MSF (2015-2016).

MSF-62

Metropolitan Series Fund

Trustees and Officers—(Continued)

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Peter H. Duffy (61)	Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, of MIST and MSF	From November 2000 (MSF)/ May 2012 (MIST) to present	Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Andrew L. Gangolf (62)	Secretary, of MIST and MSF	From May 2011 (MIST and MSF) to present	Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; until 2011, Senior Vice President & Assistant General Counsel, AllianceBernstein Investments, Inc.
Steven E. Hartstein (53)	Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”), of MIST and MSF	From February 2014 (MIST and MSF) to present	Vice President, MetLife, Inc. (2013-present); Senior Vice President and CCO, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Executive Director, Morgan Stanley (2009-2013); CCO, Consulting Group Capital Markets Funds (2006-2013).
Alan C. Leland (64)	Vice President, of MIST and MSF	From February 2005 (MSF)/ May 2012 (MIST) to present	Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Vice President, MetLife, Inc.

* Mr. Rosenthal is an “interested person” of the Trusts because of his position with MetLife, Inc., the current parent company of MetLife Advisers, LLC.

** 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 Trusts, MetLife, Inc. or the Manager are omitted if not materially different.

(2) The Fund Complex includes 45 MIST Portfolios and 30 MSF Portfolios.

MSF-63

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Bond Income Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements

At an in-person meeting held on November 15-16, 2016 (the “November Meeting”), the Boards of Trustees (the “Board”) of the Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (“MIST” and “MSF,” respectively, and collectively, the “Trusts”), including a majority of the Trustees who are not “interested persons” of the Trusts (the “Independent Trustees”) under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “1940 Act”), approved the continuation of the Trusts’ advisory agreements (each, an “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 the series of the Trusts (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”).

In reaching that decision, the Board reviewed a variety of materials provided for the specific purpose of the annual contract renewal process. In addition, various materials provided to and discussed with the Board throughout the year also informed the Board’s decision to renew the Agreements. That information for each Portfolio included, but was not limited to, investment performance reports, along with periodic reports on various expenses, shareholder services, legal and compliance matters, asset pricing, brokerage commissions and trade execution. The Board also recognized the pending separation of the Adviser from its parent company, MetLife, Inc., as a consideration in their deliberations with respect to the Agreements.

The Board met in person with personnel of the Adviser on September 27, 2016 for the specific purpose of giving preliminary consideration to the proposed continuation of the Agreements (the “September Meeting”) through the review by the Adviser with the Board of the performance and fees experienced by each Portfolio, as well as other information. In considering the Agreements, the Independent Trustees were advised by independent legal counsel throughout the contract renewal process, and met with independent legal counsel in several executive sessions outside of the presence of management.

Information furnished and reviewed specifically in connection with the renewal process included, but was not limited to, a report for each Portfolio prepared by Broadridge (“Broadridge”), an independent organization, and a Portfolio-by-Portfolio profitability analysis prepared by the Adviser. In addition, the Independent Trustees received and reviewed a report prepared by JDL Consultants, LLC (“JDL”), an independent consultant to the Independent Trustees (“JDL Report”), which examined the comparative fees, expenses and performance of each Portfolio, based upon the Broadridge reports. Also, the Board reviewed the responses to wide-ranging questions relating to the business, operations and performance of the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers that the Adviser and Sub-Advisers had prepared specifically for the renewal process.

At the November Meeting, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, concluded that the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser supported the renewal of the Agreements. The Board also concluded that the investment performance of each Portfolio was such that each Agreement should continue, and that the fees paid by a Portfolio to the Adviser appeared to be reasonable in light of the nature, extent and quality of the services provided by the Adviser and Sub-Adviser. Further, the Board concluded that the Adviser’s profitability in providing services under the Advisory Agreements did not appear unreasonably high in light of the nature, extent and quality of the services provided by the Adviser. Finally, the Board concluded that the investment advisory fees paid by the Portfolios in some measure shared economies of scale with contract holders. In approving the renewal of each of the Agreements, the Board, including the Independent Trustees, gave attention to all of the information that was furnished. The Board evaluated the information available to it on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis, and its decision was made separately with respect to each Portfolio. The following discusses some of the primary factors that generally were relevant to the Board’s decision. The Board did not identify any single factor as controlling, and the Trustees generally attributed different weights to various factors for the various Portfolios.

Nature, extent and quality of services. The Board evaluated the nature, extent and quality of the services that the Adviser, and the Sub-Advisers as relevant, have provided to the Portfolios. The Board considered the Adviser’s services as investment manager to the Portfolios, including its services relating to the oversight of the Sub-Advisers and their investment management activities, trading practices, financial condition, relevant personnel matters and compliance programs, among other things. The Adviser’s services in coordinating and overseeing the activities of the Trusts’ other service providers were also considered. The Board considered information received from the Trusts’ Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) regarding the Portfolios’ compliance policies and procedures that were established pursuant to Rule 38a-l under the 1940 Act. In addition, throughout the year, the Board considered the expertise, experience and performance of the personnel of the Adviser who performed the various services that are mentioned above.

The Board also noted that the Adviser’s investment, compliance and legal staff conduct regular, periodic, telephonic and in-person meetings with the Sub-Advisers to review and assess the services that are provided to the Portfolios, and that personnel of the Adviser prepare and present reports to the Independent Trustees regarding those meetings.

MSF-64

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Bond Income Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

With respect to the services provided by each of the Sub-Advisers, the Board considered a variety of information that the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser provided. The Board considered each Sub-Adviser’s investment process and philosophy, and the investment performance experienced by the Portfolio (as described in more detail below). The Board took into account that each Sub-Adviser’s responsibilities include the development and maintenance of an investment program for the applicable Portfolio that 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. In particular, the Board considered, among other things, the Sub-Adviser’s current level of staffing as well as its compensation program and its overall resources. The Board reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s history and investment experience, as well as information provided 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 regulatory and disciplinary history. In its review, the Board also took into account information regarding any services and/or payments provided to the Adviser by the Sub-Advisers in connection with marketing activities.

Performance. The Board placed emphasis on the performance of the Portfolios in light of, among other things, its importance to contract holders. The Board considered the Adviser’s quarterly reviews with the Board of detailed information about each Portfolio’s investment strategies and performance results and composition, including discussions regarding the relevant effect of current market conditions. The Board reviewed and considered the reports prepared by Broadridge, which provided a statistical analysis comparing the Portfolios’ investment performance to that of comparable funds underlying variable insurance products (the “Performance Universe”). The Independent Trustees also met separately with a representative of JDL during the September Meeting to review the JDL Report. The Board also compared the performance records of certain Portfolios to those of comparable funds that were managed by the relevant Sub-Adviser. At the November Meeting, the Board considered each Portfolio’s performance for periods subsequent to the performance period covered by the Broadridge reports, and the Adviser’s discussion of the same, including the effect of current market conditions on each Portfolio’s more recent performance.

The Board focused particular attention on Portfolios with less favorable performance records. The Board noted the Adviser’s focus on each Sub-Adviser’s performance and that the Adviser has been active in monitoring and responding to any performance issues with respect to the Portfolios.

Fees and Expenses. The Board gave consideration to the level and method of computing the fees payable under the Agreements. The Board considered the Broadridge report for each of the Portfolios, which included comparisons for each Portfolio of its contractual management and sub-adviser fees (at current and various asset levels), and total expenses, with those of its peers, including as those peers were divided into a broad group of peer funds (“Expense Universe”), a narrower group of peer funds (“Expense Group”), a broad group of peer sub-advised funds (“Sub-advised Expense Universe”), and a narrower group of peer sub-advised funds (“Sub-advised Expense Group”). Broadridge selected the peer funds which were similarly situated funds underlying variable insurance products deemed to be comparable to the Portfolios. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of JDL, also examined the JDL Report. The Board compared the fee payable to a Sub-Adviser by the Adviser with respect to the Portfolio to the fee payable to the Sub-Adviser by other comparable funds and accounts, to the extent such information was available.

The Board noted that the sub-advisory fees for the Portfolios are paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fee, and that, in the case of an unaffiliated Sub-Adviser, the Adviser negotiates the fee at arm’s length. The Board also considered that the Adviser had entered into expense limitation or management fee waiver agreements with certain of the Portfolios pursuant to which the Adviser had 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.

Profitability. The Board examined the profitability of the Adviser on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis. The Board also considered that an affiliate of the Adviser, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, serves as distributor for the Trusts, and, as such, receives Rule 12b-1 payments to support the distribution of the Portfolios. The Board considered the profitability to the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates as a result of their relationships with the Portfolios, to the extent available, and the Board considered the ability of the Adviser to negotiate with an unaffiliated Sub-Adviser at arm’s length. In reviewing the profitability analyses, the Board recognized that expense allocation methodologies are inherently subjective and various expense allocation methodologies may be reasonable while producing different results.

Economies of scale. The Board also considered each Portfolio’s fees in light of its size. The Board noted the fee schedules for the Portfolios that 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

MSF-65

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Bond Income Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

schedule for such Portfolios. The Board considered the effective fees under the Advisory Agreement and Sub-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. The Board examined, among other data, the effect of a Portfolio’s growth in size, and reduction in size, on various fee schedules and the Board reviewed the Broadridge and JDL Reports, which compared fees among peers. The Board also generally noted that if a Portfolio’s assets increase over time, the Portfolio may realize other economies of scale if assets increase proportionally more than certain other fixed expenses.

Other factors. The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trusts. Among them, the Board recognized that MetLife Investors Distribution Company, as the distributor for the Trusts, receives payments pursuant to Rule 12b-1 from the Portfolios to compensate for the provision of shareholder services and distribution activities, which could lead to growth in the Trusts’ assets and corresponding benefits from such growth, including economies of scale. The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by each Sub-Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trusts, including the opportunity to provide advisory services to additional portfolios of the Trusts and reputational benefits. In conjunction with these considerations, the Board noted the ongoing commitment of the Adviser to the Portfolios.

The Board considered possible conflicts of interest in the form of material benefits or detriments to the Trusts resulting from the nature of the Trusts’ and the Adviser’s or the Sub-Advisers’ affiliations and the services that are provided to the Trusts, and the manner in which such conflicts were mitigated.

* * *

BlackRock Bond Income Portfolio. The Board also considered the following information in relation to the Agreements with the Adviser and BlackRock Advisors, LLC regarding the Portfolio:

Among other data relating specifically to the 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, 2016. The Board also considered that the Portfolio outperformed its Lipper Index for the three- and five-year periods ended June 30, 2016 and performed equally to its Lipper Index for the one-year period ended June 30, 2016. The Board further considered that the Portfolio outperformed its benchmark, the Barclays U.S. Aggregate Bond Index, for the one-, three-, and five-year periods ended October 31, 2016.

The Board also considered that the Portfolio’s actual management fees and total expenses (exclusive of 12b-l fees) were below the Expense Group median, the Expense Universe median, and the Sub-advised Expense Universe median. The Board noted that the Portfolio’s contractual management fees were below the asset-weighted average of certain comparable funds at the Portfolio’s current size. The Board also noted that the Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees were below the averages of the Sub-advised Expense Group and the Sub-advised Expense Universe at the Portfolio’s current size.

MSF-66

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Bond Income Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Advisory Agreements

The separation (the “Separation”) of MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”), the investment adviser to each of the series (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”) of Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (collectively, the “Trusts”), from its parent company, MetLife, Inc. (“MetLife”), to a separate retail business, Brighthouse Financial, Inc. (“Brighthouse”), is expected to result in a change in control of the Adviser, and therefore an “assignment” of each Portfolio’s current advisory agreement (each a “Current Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “Current Advisory Agreements”). At the November 15-16, 2016 meeting (“November Meeting”) of the Board of Trustees of the Trusts (the “Board”), the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not “interested persons,” as defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940, of any Portfolio (the “Independent Trustees”), approved a new advisory agreement (each a “New Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “New Advisory Agreements”) between the Trusts, on behalf of a Portfolio, and the Adviser, to be effective upon the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements in connection with the Separation, and recommended that the shareholders of the Trusts approve the New Advisory Agreements. The Board took those actions after consideration of and deliberation over information concerning the Separation, including with respect to the degree to which the Separation would affect the provision of investment advisory services to the Trusts. Information about the Board’s considerations and process is set forth below.

In determining whether to approve the New Advisory Agreements and in considering the Separation, the Board considered the nature, quality and extent of the services that are currently provided by the Adviser under the Current Advisory Agreements as well as the services to be provided under the New Advisory Agreements. The Board’s review was conducted as part of, and in conjunction with, the Board’s annual review of the Current Advisory Agreements, which culminated at the November Meeting. In approving the New Advisory Agreements, the Board considered its conclusions with respect to its approvals of the Current Advisory Agreements, including the Board’s general satisfaction with the nature, extent and quality of services being provided by the Adviser to each Portfolio. Appendix A and Appendix B contains a further description of the process followed, information reviewed and the material factors considered by the Board in approving the continuation of the Current Advisory Agreements.

A substantial portion of the Board’s review of the New Advisory Agreements focused on the Separation, including the potential effect of the implementation of the Separation on the operations, personnel, organizational structure, capitalization, and financial and other resources of the Adviser. After being informed by the Adviser in January 2016 of the possibility of the Separation, the Board and its Committees discussed the Separation and its possible effects on the Trusts with personnel of the Adviser and the anticipated senior management at Brighthouse during the course of the Board’s or Committee’s regularly scheduled, in-person, quarterly meetings.

Between August and November 2016, the Board and the Independent Trustees engaged in an extensive review and analysis of the Separation and how the Separation related to the Adviser and the Trusts and how it could affect the services provided to the Trusts. This analysis focused on, among other matters, the assurances from Brighthouse’s anticipated leadership as to its expectations for the continuity and stability of the Adviser’s personnel throughout implementation of the Separation and for the foreseeable future thereafter. The Board considered that the Separation is being implemented as a result of MetLife’s determination to divest itself of a substantial portion of its U.S. retail business (of which the Adviser forms a portion). The Board also considered that it has been satisfied as a general matter with the nature and quality of the services that the Adviser provides to the Portfolios, including investment advisory, administrative, legal, compliance, and support services, and that it would be in the Portfolios’ best interests to maintain continuity and stability in the services that are currently being provided. The Board carefully considered the anticipated future plans of Brighthouse related to capitalization and operational matters for Brighthouse and the Adviser, as well as the importance of the Adviser to the businesses of Brighthouse after the Separation.

Among other steps in its review process, which accelerated on October 5, 2016 when Brighthouse filed its Form 10 with the SEC, the following actions were taken and considered by or on behalf of the Board:

1. The Independent Trustees solicited and received ongoing advice regarding the legal duties of the Independent Trustees from Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young LLP (“Stradley Ronon”), legal counsel for the Independent Trustees, which law firm has extensive experience regarding such matters.

2. Following the August 16-17, 2016 Board and Committee quarterly meetings, the Independent Trustees established an ad hoc group of Independent Trustees (the “Working Group”) to help oversee, coordinate, and conduct due diligence activities with respect to the Separation. The Working Group regularly reported on the due diligence activities to the other Independent Trustees.

3. Since January 2016, the Board posed ongoing inquiries to, and received regular updates from, the Adviser and anticipated senior management at Brighthouse at either in-person meetings dedicated to the status of the Separation or during the course of the Board or Committee’s regular quarterly meetings. The Board considered, among other matters, relevant legal guidance and the processes followed by certain other investment company boards of directors or trustees when they approved contracts in connection with change in control events, while recognizing the unique circumstances of the Separation.

MSF-67

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Bond Income Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

4. The Board received and reviewed the Form 10 of Brighthouse that contained extensive information relating to, among other matters, Brighthouse’s anticipated business plans and financial structure. The Board also received and reviewed reports from rating agencies with respect to Brighthouse.

5. Stradley Ronon retained Barrington Partners (“Barrington”), an independent consulting firm with a specific focus on the asset management industry and experience relating to business operations such as those to be conducted by Brighthouse, including its proposed subsidiary, the Adviser, in order to help Stradley Ronon evaluate the Separation based on the Form 10 and other materials and related information provided by the Adviser and its affiliates. Barrington conducted a series of in-person and telephonic meetings with anticipated senior management at Brighthouse (i.e., the aforementioned anticipated officers of Brighthouse and others) and with personnel of the Adviser who provide services to the Trusts. Stradley Ronon, with the assistance of Barrington, evaluated the information and advised the Independent Trustees with respect to, among other matters, details of Brighthouse’s anticipated business plan to understand the implications of the Separation to the Adviser and its personnel. The Independent Trustees and the Working Group attended certain in-person and telephonic conference call meetings at which Barrington rendered advice to Stradley Ronon regarding these matters and responded to questions.

6. The Independent Trustees requested and participated in in-person meetings with anticipated senior management personnel at Brighthouse, including its President and Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, Chief Operating Officer, and Chief Investment Officer. The Independent Trustees also met with personnel of the Adviser.

7. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of Stradley Ronon, prepared written inquiries to the Adviser and its affiliates regarding the Separation, and received written assurances from the Adviser and its affiliates that they have no plans to make any material changes affecting the personnel of the Adviser (including those personnel who provide investment, administrative, legal and compliance services) and the Adviser and its affiliates will not initiate such changes without prior notice to and discussion with the Board.

8. The Board considered representations by the Adviser and its affiliates that approval of the New Advisory Agreements would be necessary for the Portfolios to continue receiving investment advisory services from the Adviser following the change in control.

9. The Board considered representations by the Adviser, as well as related supporting documentation, indicating that the New Advisory Agreements, including the fees payable thereunder, are substantially identical to the terms of the corresponding Current Advisory Agreements.

10. The Board considered representations by the Adviser and its affiliates, as well as related supporting documentation, indicating that: (1) the Adviser can be expected to provide services of the same nature, extent, and quality under the New Advisory Agreements and as are provided thereby under the Current Advisory Agreements; and (2) the Separation is not expected to result in any changes to (i) the management of the Portfolios, or (ii) the investment objective of or the principal investment strategies used to manage any of the Portfolios.

11. The Board considered the ability of the Adviser and its affiliates to retain the employment of key personnel, as well as the overall positive indications by many such personnel regarding the opportunities presented by the Separation.

12. The Board considered that the Adviser and its affiliates have agreed to bear all expenses associated with obtaining shareholder approval of the New Advisory Agreements.

13. The Board considered Brighthouse’s preliminary “branding” plans regarding the future name of its operations.

14. The Board considered the advice provided by Ropes & Gray, LLP, legal counsel to the Trusts and the Adviser, with respect to the New Advisory Agreements (including advice relating to the process and timing of seeking shareholder approval of the New Advisory Agreements, and whether shareholder approvals would be required in connection with any future aspects of the Separation) and regarding the Board’s role and responsibilities with respect to the Separation.

15. The Board considered MetLife’s stated intention of divesting its ownership interest in the Adviser through the Separation, including the potential advantages and disadvantages of this divestiture to shareholders of the Portfolios. The Board considered the likelihood that the Adviser would retain its key personnel after the Separation. The Board considered that the garnering of new assets into the Trusts is based on sales of variable annuity and variable life insurance products, which sales have declined in prior years as a result of, among other things, the capital requirements of MetLife. The Board considered the representations of the anticipated senior management of Brighthouse that the Separation provides the Trusts with an opportunity for the garnering of new assets as Brighthouse will likely sell such products going forward. The Board considered also that the divestiture would result in a change in the manner in

MSF-68

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Bond Income Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

which the Trusts access certain services and resources of MetLife (after the Separation those services will be provided through a transition services agreement), the loss of affiliation with the MetLife name brand, and the possible going forward need of the Trusts to hire a transfer agent, as such transfer agency services are currently provided to the Trusts for no fee.

16. The Board considered that, if shareholders approve the New Advisory Agreements, the Board and the Adviser will conduct their annual contract review process in November 2017. Thus, the Board emphasized that it would be able to, and intends to, monitor on a regular basis the ability of the Adviser and its affiliates to comply with their undertakings to the Board and to monitor on an ongoing basis the quality of services to, and expenses of, the Portfolios. In addition, the Board considered that, under the New Advisory Agreements, it will continue to have the authority, should the need arise in its view, to terminate any of the New Advisory Agreements without penalty upon 60 days’ notice.

Based on the foregoing and other relevant considerations, at the November Meeting, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, voted to approve the New Advisory Agreements and to recommend approval of the New Advisory Agreements by shareholders of the Portfolios. In this connection, the Board concluded that, in light of all factors considered, the terms of the New Advisory Agreement, including fee rates, were fair and reasonable, and that it would be in the best interests of shareholders of each Portfolio to approve the New Advisory Agreements.

In the event that approval of the New Advisory Agreements by shareholders of the Portfolios has not been obtained before the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements as a result of the change in control of the Adviser, the Board also approved an interim advisory agreement with the Adviser (the “Interim Advisory Agreement”) on behalf of each Portfolio that will go into effect upon the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements. The Board’s determination to approve each Interim Advisory Agreement was based on the same information and considerations as the Board’s approval of the New Advisory Agreements so as to ensure continuity of advisory services from the Adviser to the Portfolios following the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements.

MSF-69

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Bond Income Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Sub-Advisory Agreements

The separation (the “Separation”) of MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”), the investment adviser to each of the series (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”) of Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (collectively, the “Trusts”), from its parent company, MetLife, Inc. (“MetLife”), to a separate retail business, Brighthouse Financial, Inc. (“Brighthouse”), is expected to result in a change in control of the Adviser, and therefore an “assignment” of each Portfolio’s current advisory agreement and, as a result, the automatic termination of the sub-advisory agreement (each a “Sub-Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisory Agreements”) between the Adviser and the investment sub-advisers (each a “Sub-Adviser” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisers”). At the November 15-16, 2016 meeting (“November Meeting”) of the Board of Trustees of the Trusts (the “Board”), the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not “interested persons,” as defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940, of any Portfolio (the “Independent Trustees”), approved new sub-advisory agreements (each a “New Sub-Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “New Sub-Advisory Agreements”). Information about the Board’s considerations and process is set forth below.

In determining whether to approve the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, the Board considered the nature, quality and extent of the services that are currently provided by the Sub-Advisers under the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements as well as the services to be provided under the New Sub-Advisory Agreements. The Board’s review was conducted as part of, and in conjunction with, the Board’s annual review of the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements, which culminated at the November Meeting. In approving the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, the Board considered its conclusions with respect to its approvals of the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements, including the Board’s general satisfaction with the nature, extent and quality of services being provided by the Sub-Advisers to the Portfolios, as applicable. Appendix A contains a further description of the process followed, information reviewed and the material factors considered by the Board in approving the continuation of the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements.

In addition, the following actions were taken and considered by or on behalf of the Board:

1. The Independent Trustees of the Board solicited and received ongoing advice regarding the legal duties of the Independent Trustees from Stradley Ronon, legal counsel for the Independent Trustees, which law firm has extensive experience regarding such matters.

2. The Board considered representations by the Adviser and its affiliates that approval of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements would be necessary for the Portfolios to continue receiving sub-advisory services from the Sub-Advisers following the change in control of the Adviser.

3. The Board considered representations by the Adviser, as well as related supporting documentation, indicating that the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, including the fees payable thereunder, are the same as the terms of the corresponding Current Sub-Advisory Agreements.

4. The Board considered the advice provided by Ropes & Gray, LLP, legal counsel to the Trusts and the Adviser, with respect to the New Sub-Advisory Agreements and regarding the Board’s role and responsibilities with respect to the Separation.

5. The Board considered that the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers will conduct their annual contract review process in November 2017. Thus, the Board emphasized that it would be able to, and intends to, monitor on an ongoing basis the ability of the Sub-Advisers to comply with its undertakings to the Board and the Adviser and to monitor on an ongoing basis the quality of services to, and expenses of, the Portfolios. In addition, the Board considered that, under the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, it will continue to have the authority, should the need arise in its view, to terminate any of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements without penalty upon no more than 60 days’ notice.

Based on the foregoing and other relevant considerations, at the November Meeting, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, voted to approve the New Sub-Advisory Agreements. In this connection, the Board concluded that, in light of all factors considered, the terms of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, including fee rates, were fair and reasonable.

MSF-70

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Capital Appreciation Portfolio

Managed by BlackRock Advisors, LLC

Portfolio Manager Commentary*

PERFORMANCE

For the 12 months ended December 31, 2016, the Class A, B, and E shares of the BlackRock Capital Appreciation Portfolio returned 0.09%, -0.15%, and -0.06%, respectively. The Portfolio’s benchmark, the Russell 1000 Growth Index¹, returned 7.08%.

MARKET ENVIRONMENT / CONDITIONS

Despite one of the worst-ever starts to a year, U.S. stocks registered solid gains in 2016, with most indices near all-time highs. The broad-market S&P 500 Index added 3.82% in the fourth quarter, leaving it up 11.96% for the full year. The double-digit gain obscures the high degree of macroeconomic and political uncertainty in the period, from a fear-induced selloff in the opening weeks amid plummeting oil prices and recession fears, to the U.K.’s surprise vote to leave the European Union (“Brexit”) in June, to the U.S. presidential election result in November. Yet, stocks proved resilient throughout. Most of 2016’s gains came in the second half of the year. Ongoing U.S. economic improvement, a rebound in corporate earnings, and stabilizing oil prices all helped boost sentiment. The rally gathered pace after the November election as investors were hopeful that the Trump administration’s policy agenda, comprising fiscal stimulus, tax reform, and reduced regulations, would generate stronger economic growth. For its part, the Federal Reserve (the “Fed”) was on hold for most of the year before raising its benchmark interest rate by a quarter point in December, a move that was widely expected. The tone was more hawkish than anticipated, however, with the U.S. central bank lifting its forecast for rate increases in 2017 to three from two.

From a sector perspective, 2016 saw a marked shift in leadership. Defensive sectors, namely Telecommunication Services and Utilities, led the market in the first half of the year amid a broad flight to safety and investors’ ongoing search for yield in the lower for longer interest rate environment. This reversed in the second half, especially following the election, when more cyclical areas like Financials, Energy, and Industrials, were the top gainers. The lone sector in negative territory for the year was Health Care.

PORTFOLIO REVIEW / PERIOD END POSITIONING

The Portfolio underperformed the Russell 1000 Growth Index during the 12-month period.

Broadly speaking, performance challenges were isolated in two distinct periods, the first and fourth quarters of the year, marked by significant market rotations out of growth stocks in favor of income-oriented equities and traditional value/cyclical companies.

Investors began the new year favoring dividend stocks amid fears of negative interest rates, and then broadly rotated to more traditional value areas at the expense of growth/momentum names as the first quarter progressed. The rotation exacted the greatest toll on last year’s winners (regardless of sound fundamentals) and higher volatility stocks. In comparison, defensive Telecommunication Services and Utilities were the top performers within the large-cap growth index due to the wider flight to safety in the period, as well as investors’ ongoing search for yield in the lower for longer interest rate environment.

Portfolio performance rebounded in the second and third quarters, as best-in-class growth companies recovered on solid earnings results and healthy underlying fundamentals, but these gains were offset by underperformance following the November election results when we saw another substantial rotation. Expectations for improved growth, lower taxes, less regulation within Financials, and a large move in the U.S. dollar led to a regime change in the market post-election. Cyclical and traditional value sectors like Financials, Industrials, and Materials that, until recently, were most neglected by investors, saw a sharp rally. By contrast, best-in-class growth companies that performed strongly in recent months, particularly within Information Technology (“IT”), suffered as they appeared to be a source of funds for the reallocation.

On a sector basis, IT was the largest detractor in the 12 months, with software and IT services accounting for the majority of the underperformance. Consumer Discretionary was an additional source of weakness, in particular media and specialty retail. Health Care (biotechnology, life sciences tools & services) and Consumer Staples (beverages) were a drag as well. Conversely, Financials exposure and an overweight to Energy were the prime contributors to relative performance in the year. An underweight to Real Estate also benefited.

As noted above, the U.S. election results inspired a dramatic change in market leadership, as expectations of faster U.S. growth prompted investors to rotate out of best-in-class growth companies that performed strongly in recent months in favor of value and cyclically-oriented stocks. This was evident among IT, consumer and internet-related stocks within the Portfolio, many of which reversed second- and third-quarter gains. Importantly, we believe the selloff was a short-term reaction and remain constructive on our holdings longer term given strong underlying fundamentals.

In stock specifics, TripAdvisor and Alliance Data Systems were among the top detractors for the 12-month period. TripAdvisor underperformed amid a business model transition to first party booking that has taken much longer than we expected. As a result, the company’s revenue growth has continued to materially decelerate and its margins continue to contract. In addition, the stock was impacted by worries about the global economy and, specifically, global travel fundamentals post- the terrorist attacks in Europe and fears about the Zika virus in Latin America. Accordingly, we decided to allocate our capital elsewhere. Alliance Data Systems reported an in-line 2015 fourth quarter and reiterated 2016 guidance, but its guidance included slightly higher credit losses than previously forecasted due to 2015 coming in better than expected (the company is using the same end point in 2016). Given Alliance Data’s exposure to credit losses in a potential downturn and the higher increase in losses relative to 2015, the stock sold off primarily on macro worries.

MSF-1

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Capital Appreciation Portfolio

Managed by BlackRock Advisors, LLC

Portfolio Manager Commentary*—(Continued)

Additional detractors included Vertex Pharmaceuticals and United Therapeutics. Both companies underperformed early in the period amid the broader market rotation away from volatility, momentum and growth, which had a particularly negative impact on the biotechnology segment. Vertex shares were further pressured by several near-term downward estimate revisions on the company’s newly-launched drug Orkambi (though peak sales for the drug remain constant).

Conversely, UnitedHealth Group was the top contributor. Early in the period, UnitedHealth outperformed on overall solid execution. The company continues to take share in each of its businesses which suggests that it may have a sustainable differentiated product offering. Later in the period, UnitedHealth outperformed after the company announced 2017 earnings per share (EPS) guidance that was meaningfully above consensus. The stock also rose with the prospects of lower taxes and more favorable regulations under the Trump administration.

Tencent Holdings and Facebook also added value. Tencent reported revenue growth and margins that exceeded expectations. In addition, user additions for the company’s mobile social networking platform Weixin accelerated, and its outlook was bullish. Overall, we remain optimistic about the potential for monetizing Tencent’s massive platform through games, payments, subscriptions, advertising, among others. At period end, we continued to believe these opportunities are far from priced into Tencent’s current valuation. Facebook delivered a string of impressive earnings reports, wherein the company showed accelerating growth in its core platform and material progress with monetizing its emerging growth properties (Instagram, Facebook Messenger, and WhatsApp).

The largest sector overweights in the Portfolio at year-end were Financials, followed by IT and Energy. Consumer Staples and Industrials were the largest Portfolio underweights.

Lawrence Kemp

Portfolio Manager

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 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 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.

MSF-2

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Capital Appreciation Portfolio

A $10,000 INVESTMENT COMPARED TO THE RUSSELL 1000 GROWTH INDEX

AVERAGE ANNUAL RETURNS (%) (FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2016)

	1 Year		5 Year		10 Year
BlackRock Capital Appreciation Portfolio
Class A		0.09		12.20		7.18
Class B		-0.15		11.93		6.91
Class E		-0.06		12.03		7.02
Russell 1000 Growth Index		7.08		14.50		8.33

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.

Portfolio performance is calculated including reinvestment of all income and capital gain distributions. Performance numbers are net of all Portfolio expenses but do not include any insurance, sales, separate account or administrative charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts or any additional expenses that participants may bear relating to the operations of their plans. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower. The performance of any index referenced above has not been adjusted for ongoing management, distribution and operating expenses, and sales charges applicable to mutual fund investments. Direct investment in any index is not possible. The performance of Class A shares, as set forth in the line graph above, will differ from that of other classes because of the difference in expenses paid by policyholders investing in the different share classes.

This information represents past performance and is not indicative of future results. Investment return and principal value may fluctuate so that shares, upon redemption, may be worth more or less than the original cost.

PORTFOLIO COMPOSITION AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2016

Top Holdings

	% of Net Assets
Alphabet, Inc. - Class A		7.1
Amazon.com, Inc.		7.1
Microsoft Corp.		4.7
UnitedHealth Group, Inc.		4.6
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.		3.7
Netflix, Inc.		3.2
Visa, Inc. - Class A		3.1
Priceline Group, Inc. (The)		2.9
Constellation Brands, Inc. - Class A		2.6
Tencent Holdings, Ltd.		2.5

Top Sectors

	% of Net Assets
Information Technology		34.1
Consumer Discretionary		21.3
Health Care		15.4
Financials		9.9
Industrials		8.1
Consumer Staples		3.8
Energy		2.7
Materials		1.7
Telecommunication Services		1.3
Real Estate		1.2

MSF-3

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock 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, 2016 through December 31, 2016.

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.

BlackRock Capital Appreciation Portfolio		Annualized Expense Ratio			Beginning Account Value July 1, 2016		Ending Account Value December 31, 2016		Expenses Paid During Period** July 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016
Class A(a)	Actual		0.66	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,044.30	$	3.39
	Hypothetical*		0.66	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,021.82	$	3.35
Class B(a)	Actual		0.91	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,043.40	$	4.67
	Hypothetical*		0.91	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,020.56	$	4.62
Class E(a)	Actual		0.81	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,043.70	$	4.16
	Hypothetical*		0.81	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,021.06	$	4.12

* 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 366 (to reflect the one-half year period).

^(a) The annualized expense ratio shown reflects the impact of the management fee waiver as described in Note 5 of the Notes to Financial Statements.

MSF-4

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Capital Appreciation Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—98.9% of Net Assets

Security Description	Shares		Value
Aerospace & Defense—1.0%
TransDigm Group, Inc.		71,229	$	17,733,172
Airlines—2.1%
Delta Air Lines, Inc.		731,872		36,000,784
Banks—6.3%
Bank of America Corp.		1,709,592		37,781,983
Citigroup, Inc.		628,963		37,379,271
First Republic Bank (a)		78,668		7,248,469
SunTrust Banks, Inc.		126,761		6,952,841
Wells Fargo & Co.		311,871		17,187,211
				106,549,775
Beverages—3.1%
Anheuser-Busch InBev S.A. (ADR) (a)		94,196		9,932,026
Constellation Brands, Inc. - Class A		284,024		43,543,720
				53,475,746
Biotechnology—6.1%
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a) (b)		510,712		62,485,613
Biogen, Inc. (b)		83,082		23,560,394
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a) (b)		49,998		18,353,766
				104,399,773
Capital Markets—0.7%
Morgan Stanley		263,194		11,119,946
Chemicals—1.7%
Ecolab, Inc.		49,214		5,768,865
Sherwin-Williams Co. (The)		86,850		23,340,069
				29,108,934
Consumer Finance—0.6%
Discover Financial Services		134,016		9,661,213
Diversified Financial Services—2.4%
Berkshire Hathaway, Inc. - Class B (b)		253,332		41,288,049
Diversified Telecommunication Services—1.3%
SBA Communications Corp. - Class A (a) (b)		215,641		22,267,090
Electrical Equipment—1.7%
Acuity Brands, Inc. (a)		121,210		27,982,541
Equity Real Estate Investment Trusts—1.2%
Equinix, Inc. (a)		57,148		20,425,267
Food & Staples Retailing—0.6%
Costco Wholesale Corp.		66,729		10,683,980
Health Care Equipment & Supplies—2.6%
Becton Dickinson & Co.		153,555		25,421,030
Boston Scientific Corp. (b)		852,370		18,436,763
				43,857,793
Health Care Providers & Services—5.7%
Humana, Inc. (a)		92,592		18,891,546
UnitedHealth Group, Inc.		489,696		78,370,948
				97,262,494
Hotels, Restaurants & Leisure—1.5%
Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. (a) (b)		19,896		7,507,159
Domino’s Pizza, Inc.		113,542		18,080,428
				25,587,587
Industrial Conglomerates—1.4%
Roper Technologies, Inc. (a)		132,567		24,270,366
Internet & Direct Marketing Retail—13.2%
Amazon.com, Inc. (b)		160,759		120,548,351
Netflix, Inc. (b)		441,622		54,672,804
Priceline Group, Inc. (The) (b)		33,914		49,719,959
				224,941,114
Internet Software & Services—12.1%
Alphabet, Inc. - Class A (b)		152,233		120,637,041
Facebook, Inc. - Class A (b)		372,292		42,832,195
Tencent Holdings, Ltd.		1,771,700		42,999,470
				206,468,706
IT Services—8.9%
Fiserv, Inc. (b)		133,741		14,213,993
FleetCor Technologies, Inc. (b)		236,165		33,422,071
Global Payments, Inc.		418,748		29,065,299
Vantiv, Inc. - Class A (a) (b)		348,422		20,772,919
Visa, Inc. - Class A		686,683		53,575,008
				151,049,290
Multiline Retail—0.7%
Dollar Tree, Inc. (b)		152,592		11,777,050
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels—2.7%
Concho Resources, Inc. (a) (b)		78,468		10,404,857
EOG Resources, Inc. (a)		122,718		12,406,790
Pioneer Natural Resources Co. (a)		124,922		22,494,704
				45,306,351
Pharmaceuticals—1.0%
Zoetis, Inc.		302,890		16,213,702
Professional Services—1.2%
Equifax, Inc.		168,267		19,894,207
Road & Rail—0.7%
Norfolk Southern Corp.		115,325		12,463,173
Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment—4.3%
ASML Holding NV		354,286		39,750,889
Broadcom, Ltd.		164,976		29,162,808
NVIDIA Corp.		46,918		5,008,027
				73,921,724

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-5

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Capital Appreciation Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares/ Principal Amount*		Value
Software—7.3%
Activision Blizzard, Inc.		919,912	$	33,218,022
Autodesk, Inc. (a) (b)		138,599		10,257,712
Microsoft Corp.		1,284,515		79,819,762
				123,295,496
Specialty Retail—3.4%
Home Depot, Inc. (The)		317,451		42,563,830
Ulta Salon Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc. (a) (b)		58,210		14,840,057
				57,403,887
Technology Hardware, Storage & Peripherals—0.9%
Apple, Inc. (a)		128,663		14,901,749
Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods—2.5%
NIKE, Inc. - Class B		845,773		42,990,642
Total Common Stocks (Cost $1,461,588,485)				1,682,301,601
Preferred Stock—0.6%
Software—0.6%
Palantir Technologies, Inc. - Series I (b) (c) (d) (Cost $15,555,194)		2,537,552		10,277,086
Short-Term Investment—1.4%
Repurchase Agreement—1.4%
Fixed Income Clearing Corp. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/16 at 0.030% to be repurchased at $23,189,837 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $21,960,000 U.S. Treasury Note at 3.625% due 02/15/20 with a value of $23,656,037.		23,189,760		23,189,760
Total Short-Term Investments (Cost $23,189,760)				23,189,760
Securities Lending Reinvestments (e)—4.2%
Certificates of Deposit—1.8%
Banco Del Estado De Chile New York 1.154%, 06/21/17 (f)		1,500,000		1,499,693
Bank of Nova Scotia Houston 1.201%, 11/03/17 (f)		1,500,000		1,501,270
Barclays New York 0.894%, 02/10/17 (f)		1,000,000		1,000,323
Chiba Bank, Ltd., New York 0.870%, 01/10/17		1,100,000		1,100,025
Credit Suisse AG New York 1.364%, 05/12/17 (f)		3,500,000		3,500,364
1.444%, 04/24/17 (f)		1,800,000		1,800,423
Certificates of Deposit—(Continued)
DZ Bank AG New York 1.010%, 02/27/17		2,000,000		2,000,578
KBC Brussells 1.050%, 01/27/17		2,200,000		2,200,418
Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen London Zero Coupon, 01/24/17		1,995,411		1,999,140
Mizuho Bank, Ltd., New York 1.361%, 04/26/17 (f)		2,000,000		1,999,898
National Australia Bank London 1.182%, 11/09/17 (f)		2,000,000		1,995,040
Shizuoka Bank New York 0.840%, 01/03/17		500,000		500,002
Sumitomo Bank New York 1.215%, 05/05/17 (f)		1,250,000		1,252,082
Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corp. 0.900%, 01/12/17		1,600,000		1,600,061
Sumitomo Mitsui Trust Bank, Ltd., New York 1.351%, 04/26/17 (f)		2,000,000		2,000,236
Svenska Handelsbanken New York 1.266%, 05/18/17 (f)		1,500,000		1,500,261
UBS, Stamford 1.084%, 05/12/17 (f)		1,100,000		1,099,916
Wells Fargo Bank San Francisco N.A. 1.231%, 04/26/17 (f)		800,000		800,224
1.264%, 10/26/17 (f)		1,250,000		1,250,854
				30,600,808
Commercial Paper—1.5%
Atlantic Asset Securitization LLC 1.040%, 02/03/17		996,967		999,127
Den Norske ASA 1.206%, 04/27/17 (f)		700,000		700,037
Erste Abwicklungsanstalt 1.014%, 03/10/17 (f)		3,500,000		3,500,021
HSBC plc 1.216%, 04/25/17 (f)		2,500,000		2,499,892
LMA S.A. & LMA Americas 1.000%, 01/13/17		997,583		999,651
Macquarie Bank, Ltd. 0.930%, 01/19/17		1,995,247		1,998,766
Old Line Funding LLC 0.840%, 01/03/17		1,497,305		1,499,882
1.030%, 03/13/17 (f)		1,500,000		1,501,171
Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp., Ltd. 0.890%, 02/21/17		1,995,451		1,997,344
Starbird Funding Corp. 1.240%, 06/13/17 (f)		1,500,000		1,499,879
Suncorp Metway, Ltd. 0.930%, 02/09/17		3,491,682		3,496,125
Toronto Dominion Holding Corp. 0.600%, 01/05/17		1,997,933		1,999,776
Versailles Commercial Paper LLC 1.000%, 01/31/17		1,496,000		1,498,872

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-6

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Capital Appreciation Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Securities Lending Reinvestments (e)—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares/ Principal Amount*		Value
Commercial Paper—(Continued)
Westpac Banking Corp. 1.232%, 10/20/17 (g)		2,000,000	$	2,003,492
				26,194,035
Repurchase Agreements—0.7%
Deutsche Bank AG, London Repurchase Agreement dated 12/15/16 - 12/30/16 at 1.050% to be repurchased at $4,401,388 on 01/03/17, collateralized by various Common Stock with a value of $4,890,842.		4,400,000		4,400,000
Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. Repurchase Agreement dated 10/18/16 at 1.110% to be repurchased at $1,506,290 on 03/03/17, collateralized by various Common Stock with a value of $1,650,000.		1,500,000		1,500,000
Goldman Sachs & Co. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/16 at 0.460% to be repurchased at $3,041,581 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $15,651,771 U.S. Government Agency Obligations with rates ranging from 2.000% - 10.500%, maturity dates ranging from 03/15/17 - 09/20/65, with a value of $3,102,254.		3,041,425		3,041,425
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. Repurchase Agreement dated 10/26/16 at 1.160% to be repurchased at $1,206,148 on 04/03/17, collateralized by various Common Stock with a value of $1,320,000.		1,200,000		1,200,000
Pershing LLC Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/16 at 0.680% to be repurchased at $1,000,076 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $1,467,364 U.S. Government Agency Obligations with rates ranging from 0.625% - 11.018%, maturity dates ranging from 01/17/17 - 08/20/66, with a value of $1,020,000.		1,000,000		1,000,000
				11,141,425
Time Deposits—0.2%
OP Corporate Bank plc 1.010%, 01/04/17		600,000		600,000
1.200%, 01/23/17		2,500,000		2,500,000
Time Deposits—(Continued)
Shinkin Central Bank 1.200%, 01/27/17		100,000		100,000
1.220%, 01/26/17		800,000		800,000
				4,000,000
Total Securities Lending Reinvestments (Cost $71,931,374)				71,936,268
Total Investments—105.1% (Cost $1,572,264,813) (g)				1,787,704,715
Other assets and liabilities (net)—(5.1)%				(86,100,830	)
Net Assets—100.0%			$	1,701,603,885

* Principal amount stated in U.S. dollars unless otherwise noted.

(a) All or a portion of the security was held on loan. As of December 31, 2016, the market value of securities loaned was $69,991,971 and the collateral received consisted of cash in the amount of $71,905,004. The cash collateral investments are disclosed in the Schedule of Investments and categorized as Securities Lending Reinvestments.

(b) Non-income producing security.

(c) Security was valued in good faith under procedures approved by the Board of Trustees. As of December 31, 2016, these securities represent 0.6% of net assets.

(d) Restricted securities are not registered under the Securities Act of 1933 and are subject to legal restrictions on resale. These securities generally may be resold in transactions exempt from registration or to the public if the securities are subsequently registered. Disposal of these securities may involve time-consuming negotiations and prompt sale at an acceptable price may be difficult. As of December 31, 2016, the market value of restricted securities was $10,277,086, which is 0.6% of net assets. See details shown in the Restricted Securities table that follows.

(e) Represents investment of cash collateral received from securities on loan as of December 31, 2016.

(f) Variable or floating rate security. The stated rate represents the rate at December 31, 2016.

(g) As of December 31, 2016, the aggregate cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was $1,573,036,708. The aggregate unrealized appreciation and depreciation of investments were $231,905,178 and $(17,237,171), respectively, resulting in net unrealized appreciation of $214,668,007 for federal income tax purposes.

(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.

Restricted Securities	Acquisition Date		Shares		Cost		Value
Palantir Technologies, Inc. - Series I		02/07/14		2,537,552	$	15,555,194	$	10,277,086

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-7

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Capital Appreciation Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Fair Value Hierarchy

Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) define 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, separately for each major category of assets and liabilities, 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, quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities 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, or other market corroborated inputs)

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 used in determining the fair value of investments and derivative financial instruments)

The inputs or methodologies used for valuing investments are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in them. Changes to the inputs or methodologies used may result in transfers between levels, which 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, 2016:

Description	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
Common Stocks
Aerospace & Defense	$	17,733,172	$	—	$	—	$	17,733,172
Airlines		36,000,784		—		—		36,000,784
Banks		106,549,775		—		—		106,549,775
Beverages		53,475,746		—		—		53,475,746
Biotechnology		104,399,773		—		—		104,399,773
Capital Markets		11,119,946		—		—		11,119,946
Chemicals		29,108,934		—		—		29,108,934
Consumer Finance		9,661,213		—		—		9,661,213
Diversified Financial Services		41,288,049		—		—		41,288,049
Diversified Telecommunication Services		22,267,090		—		—		22,267,090
Electrical Equipment		27,982,541		—		—		27,982,541
Equity Real Estate Investment Trusts		20,425,267		—		—		20,425,267
Food & Staples Retailing		10,683,980		—		—		10,683,980
Health Care Equipment & Supplies		43,857,793		—		—		43,857,793
Health Care Providers & Services		97,262,494		—		—		97,262,494
Hotels, Restaurants & Leisure		25,587,587		—		—		25,587,587
Industrial Conglomerates		24,270,366		—		—		24,270,366
Internet & Direct Marketing Retail		224,941,114		—		—		224,941,114
Internet Software & Services		163,469,236		42,999,470		—		206,468,706
IT Services		151,049,290		—		—		151,049,290
Multiline Retail		11,777,050		—		—		11,777,050
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels		45,306,351		—		—		45,306,351
Pharmaceuticals		16,213,702		—		—		16,213,702
Professional Services		19,894,207		—		—		19,894,207
Road & Rail		12,463,173		—		—		12,463,173
Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment		73,921,724		—		—		73,921,724
Software		123,295,496		—		—		123,295,496
Specialty Retail		57,403,887		—		—		57,403,887
Technology Hardware, Storage & Peripherals		14,901,749		—		—		14,901,749
Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods		42,990,642		—		—		42,990,642
Total Common Stocks		1,639,302,131		42,999,470		—		1,682,301,601
Total Preferred Stock*		—		—		10,277,086		10,277,086
Total Short-Term Investment*		—		23,189,760		—		23,189,760

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-8

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Capital Appreciation Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Fair Value Hierarchy —(Continued)

Description	Level 1		Level 2			Level 3		Total
Total Securities Lending Reinvestments*	$	—	$	71,936,268		$	—	$	71,936,268
Total Investments	$	1,639,302,131	$	138,125,498		$	10,277,086	$	1,787,704,715
Collateral for Securities Loaned (Liability)	$	—	$	(71,905,004	)	$	—	$	(71,905,004	)

* 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, 2015		Change in Unrealized Depreciation			Balance as of December 31, 2016		Change in Unrealized Depreciation from Investments Still Held at December 31, 2016
Preferred Stock
Software	$	19,539,151	$	(9,262,065	)	$	10,277,086	$	(9,262,065	)

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-9

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Capital Appreciation Portfolio

Statement of Assets and Liabilities

December 31, 2016

Assets
Investments at value (a) (b)	$	1,787,704,715
Cash denominated in foreign currencies (c)		39
Receivable for:
Investments sold		3,295,226
Fund shares sold		298,177
Dividends and interest		161,134
Prepaid expenses		5,014
Total Assets		1,791,464,305
Liabilities
Collateral for securities loaned		71,905,004
Payables for:
Investments purchased		16,544,238
Fund shares redeemed		240,290
Accrued Expenses:
Management fees		877,951
Distribution and service fees		39,136
Deferred trustees’ fees		94,505
Other expenses		159,296
Total Liabilities		89,860,420
Net Assets	$	1,701,603,885
Net Assets Consist of:
Paid in surplus	$	1,442,615,822
Undistributed net investment income		1,202,943
Accumulated net realized gain		42,345,218
Unrealized appreciation on investments		215,439,902
Net Assets	$	1,701,603,885
Net Assets
Class A	$	1,505,832,744
Class B		161,627,874
Class E		34,143,267
Capital Shares Outstanding*
Class A		45,310,488
Class B		5,021,718
Class E		1,044,439
Net Asset Value, Offering Price and Redemption Price Per Share
Class A	$	33.23
Class B		32.19
Class E		32.69

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

(a) Identified cost of investments was $1,572,264,813.

(b) Includes securities loaned at value of $69,991,971.

(c) Identified cost of cash denominated in foreign currencies was $39.

Statement of Operations

Year Ended December 31, 2016

Investment Income
Dividends (a)	$	13,323,739
Interest		5,321
Securities lending income		207,210
Other income (b)		195,779
Total investment income		13,732,049
Expenses
Management fees		12,018,041
Administration fees		56,267
Custodian and accounting fees		94,225
Distribution and service fees—Class B		416,702
Distribution and service fees—Class E		54,046
Audit and tax services		42,040
Legal		33,605
Trustees’ fees and expenses		45,247
Shareholder reporting		112,974
Insurance		12,362
Miscellaneous		24,205
Total expenses		12,909,714
Less management fee waiver		(991,846	)
Less broker commission recapture		(9,513	)
Net expenses		11,908,355
Net Investment Income		1,823,694
Net Realized and Unrealized Gain (Loss)
Net realized gain on:
Investments		46,868,289
Foreign currency transactions		1,148
Net realized gain		46,869,437
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on:
Investments		(47,500,771	)
Foreign currency transactions		1,001
Net change in unrealized depreciation		(47,499,770	)
Net realized and unrealized loss		(630,333	)
Net Increase in Net Assets From Operations	$	1,193,361

(a) Net of foreign withholding taxes of $219,750.

(b) Other income represents a non-recurring refund for overbilling of prior years’ custodian out-of-pocket fees.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-10

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Capital Appreciation Portfolio

Statements of Changes in Net Assets

	Year Ended December 31, 2016			Year Ended December 31, 2015
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets:
From Operations
Net investment income	$	1,823,694		$	110,958
Net realized gain		46,869,437			155,560,851
Net change in unrealized depreciation		(47,499,770	)		(30,668,718	)
Increase in net assets from operations		1,193,361			125,003,091
From Distributions to Shareholders
Net realized capital gains
Class A		(138,220,075	)		(293,511,316	)
Class B		(15,502,355	)		(31,968,986	)
Class E		(3,325,155	)		(7,090,520	)
Total distributions		(157,047,585	)		(332,570,822	)
Increase in net assets from capital share transactions		29,022,424			28,561,818
Total decrease in net assets		(126,831,800	)		(179,005,913	)
Net Assets
Beginning of period		1,828,435,685			2,007,441,598
End of period	$	1,701,603,885		$	1,828,435,685
Undistributed net investment income
End of period	$	1,202,943		$	32,534

Other Information:

Capital Shares

Transactions in capital shares were as follows:

	Year Ended December 31, 2016						Year Ended December 31, 2015
	Shares			Value			Shares			Value
Class A
Sales		1,073,842		$	36,365,740			651,800		$	25,300,283
Reinvestments		4,343,811			138,220,075			7,917,759			293,511,316
Redemptions		(4,208,814	)		(142,018,780	)		(7,709,902	)		(308,632,665	)
Net increase		1,208,839		$	32,567,035			859,657		$	10,178,934
Class B
Sales		301,022		$	9,813,381			352,054		$	13,252,400
Reinvestments		502,345			15,502,355			884,587			31,968,986
Redemptions		(787,310	)		(25,750,574	)		(803,053	)		(30,853,539	)
Net increase		16,057		$	(434,838	)		433,588		$	14,367,847
Class E
Sales		127,032		$	4,245,736			212,196		$	8,047,330
Reinvestments		106,167			3,325,155			193,730			7,090,520
Redemptions		(322,793	)		(10,680,664	)		(288,592	)		(11,122,813	)
Net increase (decrease)		(89,594	)	$	(3,109,773	)		117,334		$	4,015,037
Increase derived from capital shares transactions				$	29,022,424					$	28,561,818

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-11

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Capital Appreciation Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class A
	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014			2013			2012
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	36.50		$	41.19		$	37.85		$	28.45		$	24.96
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (a)		0.04	(b)		0.01			0.01			0.03			0.26
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.15	)		2.69			3.35			9.63			3.32
Total from investment operations		(0.11	)		2.70			3.36			9.66			3.58
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		0.00			0.00			(0.02	)		(0.26	)		(0.09	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(3.16	)		(7.39	)		0.00			0.00			0.00
Total distributions		(3.16	)		(7.39	)		(0.02	)		(0.26	)		(0.09	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	33.23		$	36.50		$	41.19		$	37.85		$	28.45
Total Return (%) (c)		0.09			6.28			8.90			34.22	(d)		14.37
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Gross ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.72			0.71			0.71			0.71			0.73
Net ratio of expenses to average net assets (%) (e)		0.66			0.66			0.71			0.70			0.72
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		0.13	(b)		0.03			0.02			0.10			0.93
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		87			70			99			160			59
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	1,505.8		$	1,609.7		$	1,781.3		$	1,917.9		$	1,410.4
	Class B
	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014			2013			2012
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	35.54		$	40.38		$	37.17		$	27.94		$	24.52
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (loss) (a)		(0.04	)(b)		(0.08	)		(0.09	)		(0.05	)		0.18
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.15	)		2.63			3.30			9.47			3.26
Total from investment operations		(0.19	)		2.55			3.21			9.42			3.44
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		0.00			0.00			0.00			(0.19	)		(0.02	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(3.16	)		(7.39	)		0.00			0.00			0.00
Total distributions		(3.16	)		(7.39	)		0.00			(0.19	)		(0.02	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	32.19		$	35.54		$	40.38		$	37.17		$	27.94
Total Return (%) (c)		(0.15	)		6.01			8.64			33.90	(d)		14.07
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Gross ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.97			0.96			0.96			0.96			0.98
Net ratio of expenses to average net assets (%) (e)		0.91			0.91			0.96			0.95			0.97
Ratio of net investment income (loss) to average net assets (%)		(0.12	)(b)		(0.22	)		(0.23	)		(0.16	)		0.68
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		87			70			99			160			59
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	161.6		$	177.9		$	184.6		$	190.5		$	165.0

Please see following page for Financial Highlights footnote legend.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-12

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Capital Appreciation Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class E
	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014			2013			2012
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	36.01		$	40.79		$	37.51		$	28.19		$	24.73
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (loss) (a)		(0.01	)(b)		(0.05	)		(0.05	)		(0.02	)		0.21
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.15	)		2.66			3.33			9.56			3.30
Total from investment operations		(0.16	)		2.61			3.28			9.54			3.51
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		0.00			0.00			0.00			(0.22	)		(0.05	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(3.16	)		(7.39	)		0.00			0.00			0.00
Total distributions		(3.16	)		(7.39	)		0.00			(0.22	)		(0.05	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	32.69		$	36.01		$	40.79		$	37.51		$	28.19
Total Return (%) (c)		(0.06	)		6.11			8.74			34.04	(d)		14.17
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Gross ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.87			0.86			0.86			0.86			0.88
Net ratio of expenses to average net assets (%) (e)		0.81			0.81			0.86			0.85			0.87
Ratio of net investment income (loss) to average net assets (%)		(0.02	)(b)		(0.12	)		(0.13	)		(0.06	)		0.78
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		87			70			99			160			59
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	34.1		$	40.8		$	41.5		$	45.7		$	41.9

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

(b) Net investment income per share and the ratio of net investment income to average net assets include a non-recurring refund for overbilling of prior years’ custodian out-of-pocket fees which amounted to less than $0.01 per share and 0.01% of average net assets, respectively.

(c) Total return does not reflect any insurance, sales, separate account or administrative charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts or any additional expenses that contract owners may bear under their variable contracts. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower.

(d) In 2013, 0.03%, 0.03% and 0.03% of the Portfolio’s total return for Class A, Class B and Class E, respectively, consists of a voluntary reimbursement by the subadvisor. Excluding this item, total return would have been 34.19%, 33.87% and 34.01% for Class A, Class B and Class E, respectively.

(e) Includes the effects of management fee waivers (see Note 5 of the Notes to Financial Statements).

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-13

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Capital Appreciation Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016

1. Organization

Metropolitan Series Fund (the “Trust”) is organized as a Delaware statutory trust and registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), as an open-end management investment company. The Trust, which is managed by MetLife Advisers, LLC (“MetLife Advisers” or the “Adviser”), an affiliate of MetLife, Inc., is currently comprised of thirty series, each of which operates as a distinct investment vehicle of the Trust. The portfolio included in this report is BlackRock 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.

On January 12, 2016, MetLife, Inc. announced its plan to pursue the separation of a substantial portion of its retail segment and is currently evaluating structural alternatives for such separation. It is anticipated that MetLife Advisers would be included in any such separation. Any separation transaction that might occur will be subject to the satisfaction of various conditions and approvals, including approval of any transaction by the MetLife, Inc. Board of Directors, satisfaction of any applicable requirements of the SEC, and receipt of insurance and other regulatory approvals and other anticipated conditions. MetLife, Inc. cannot currently provide a specific potential completion date for a separation transaction or any assurance that a separation will in fact occur. MetLife Advisers’ continued service as investment adviser to the Trusts following a separation transaction is the subject of a proxy statement that was filed with the SEC on December 20, 2016 and mailed to shareholders of the Portfolio on or about December 30, 2016.

The Portfolio has registered and offers three classes of shares: Class A, B and E shares. 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 plan and such distribution expenses are allocated to the corresponding Class of shares.

2. Significant Accounting Policies

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities as of the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of income and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates. In the preparation of these financial statements, management has evaluated events and transactions subsequent to December 31, 2016 through the date the financial statements were issued.

The Portfolio is an investment company and follows the accounting and reporting guidance of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Accounting Standards Codification Topic 946—Financial Services—Investment Companies and Topic 820—Fair Value Measurement. 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 - Domestic and foreign equity securities, such as common stock, exchange-traded funds, rights, warrants, and preferred stock, that are traded on a securities exchange on a valuation date are generally valued at their last quoted sale price or official closing price on the primary exchange for such security, or, if no sales occurred on that day, at the last reported bid price. Equity securities traded over-the-counter (“OTC”) are generally valued at the last reported bid price. In the event of a major exchange closing during the trading day, the Adviser may use other market information obtained from quotation reporting systems, established market makers, or pricing services in valuing the securities. Valuation adjustments may be applied to certain foreign equity securities that are traded solely on foreign exchanges that close before the time as of which the Portfolio determines its NAV to account for the market movement between the close of the foreign exchanges and the time as of which the Portfolio determines its NAV. The Portfolio may use a systematic fair valuation model provided by a pricing service to value securities principally traded in these foreign markets in order to adjust for possible market movements or other changes that may occur between the close of the foreign exchanges and the time as of which the Portfolio determines its NAV. Foreign equity securities valued using these valuation adjustments are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy. Equity securities that are actively traded, and have no valuation adjustments applied, are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other equity securities traded on inactive markets, or valued in reference to similar instruments traded on active markets, 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 on the valuation date and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy.

Debt securities, including corporate, convertible and municipal bonds and notes; obligations of the U.S. Treasury and U.S. government agencies; foreign sovereign issues; and non-U.S. bonds, are generally valued on the basis of evaluated or composite bid quotations

MSF-14

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Capital Appreciation Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

obtained from independent pricing services and/or brokers and dealers selected by the Adviser (each a “pricing service”), pursuant to authorization of and subject to general oversight by the Board of Trustees of the Trust (the “Board” or “Trustees”). Such pricing services may use matrix pricing, which considers observable inputs including, among other things, issuer details, maturity dates, interest rates, yield curves, rates of prepayment, credit risks/spreads, default rates, reported trades, broker dealer quotes and quoted prices for similar assets. Short-term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less may be valued at amortized cost in the absence of market quotes, so long as the amortized cost value of such short-term debt instrument is approximately the same as the fair value of the instrument as determined without the use of amortized cost valuation. Floating rate loans are generally valued on the basis of an evaluated or composite average of aggregate bid and ask quotations supplied by brokers or dealers, as obtained from the pricing service. Securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally 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 sale price available as of the close of business on a valuation day or, if there is no such price available, at the last reported bid price. These types of options are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Futures contracts that are traded on commodity exchanges are valued at their settlement prices established by the exchanges on which they are traded as of the close of such exchanges and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy.

If no current market value quotation or other observable inputs are readily available or market value quotations are deemed to be unreliable for an investment, the fair value of the investment will be determined in accordance with procedures approved by, and under the general supervision of, the Board. In such a circumstance, the Board will be assisted in its responsibility to determine the fair value of an investment by the Valuation Committee (“Committee”) of MetLife Advisers. The Committee provides general pricing oversight and fair value pricing determinations related to portfolio securities and meets on a regular basis to review reports relating to the valuation of the securities in the Portfolio. The Board has delegated to State Street Bank and Trust Company, the Trust’s custodian (“custodian”), the responsibility for calculating the net asset values (“NAVs”) of the Trust’s Portfolios. The Committee is responsible for overseeing the calculation of the NAVs of the Portfolios by the custodian. The Committee also periodically reviews pricing services, including the pricing services providing fair value pricing for the Portfolio’s foreign securities, and is responsible for overseeing the correction of pricing errors and addressing other pricing issues that arise in the ordinary course of business, such as making real-time fair value determinations, as necessary.

No single standard for determining the fair value of an investment can be set forth because fair value depends upon the facts and circumstances with respect to each investment. Information relating to any relevant factors may be obtained by the Committee from any appropriate source, including the subadviser of the Portfolio, the custodian, a pricing service, market maker and/or broker for such security or the issuer. Appropriate methodologies for determining fair value under particular circumstances may include: matrix pricing, a discounted cash flow analysis, comparisons of securities with comparable characteristics, value based on multiples of earnings, discount from market price of similar marketable securities or a combination of these and other methods.

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 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. These foreign taxes have been provided for in accordance with the Portfolio’s understanding of the applicable countries’ tax rules and rates.

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 the U.S. dollar 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. Because the values of investment securities are translated at the foreign exchange rates prevailing at the end of the period, that portion of the results of operations arising from changes in exchange rates and that portion of the results of operations reflecting fluctuations arising from changes in market prices of the investment securities are not separated. 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. 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.

Dividends and Distributions to Shareholders - The Portfolio records dividends and distributions on the ex-dividend date. Net realized gains from securities 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

MSF-15

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Capital Appreciation Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

distributed net investment income, accumulated net realized gains/losses, and paid-in surplus. Book-tax differences are primarily due to broker commission recapture, distribution re-designations, real estate investment trusts (REITs), adjustments to prior period accumulated balances and foreign currency transactions. These adjustments have no impact on net assets or the results 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 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. As of December 31, 2016, the Portfolio had no uncertain tax positions that would require financial statement recognition, or de-recognition or disclosure.

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 net ratio of expenses to average net assets presented in the Financial Highlights for each share class.

Repurchase Agreements - The Portfolio may enter into repurchase agreements, under the terms of a Master Repurchase Agreement (“MRA”), 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, under a tri-party repurchase agreement, receives delivery of the underlying securities collateralizing any repurchase agreements. It is the Portfolio’s policy that the market value of the collateral be equal to at least 100% of the repurchase price in the case of a repurchase agreement of one-day duration and equal to at least 102% of the repurchase price in the case of all other repurchase agreements. In the event of default or failure by a party to perform an obligation in connection with any repurchase transaction, the MRA gives the non-defaulting party the right to set-off claims and to apply property held by it in connection with any repurchase transaction against obligations owed to it.

At December 31, 2016, the Portfolio had direct investments in repurchase agreements with a gross value of $23,189,760. Additionally, the Portfolio invested cash collateral for loans of portfolio securities in repurchase agreements with a gross value of $11,141,425. The combined value of all repurchase agreements is included as part of investments at value on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. The value of the related collateral exceeded the value of the repurchase agreements at December 31, 2016.

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 collateral held from securities on loan. 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.

Effective September 8, 2016, the Trust has entered into a Non-Custodial Securities Lending Agreement with JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (the “lending agent”). Prior to September 8, 2016, the Trust had entered into a Securities Lending Authorization Agreement with the custodian (the “prior lending agent”). Under each agreement, the lending agent is authorized to loan portfolio securities on the Portfolio’s behalf. In exchange, the Portfolio receives either cash or government securities as collateral against the loaned securities. The Portfolio receives collateral equal to at least 102% of the market value for loans secured by government securities or cash in the same currency as the loaned shares and 105% for all other loaned securities at each loan’s inception. Collateral representing at least 100% of the market value of the loaned securities is maintained for the duration of the loan. Any cash collateral received by the Portfolio is generally invested by the lending agent in short-term investments, which may include certificates of deposit, commercial paper, repurchase agreements, time deposits and money market funds. Cash collateral that was received by the prior lending agent had been generally invested in the State Street Navigator Securities Lending MET Portfolio (the “Navigator Portfolio”), a series of the State Street Navigator Securities Lending Trust that was a registered money market fund managed by an affiliate of the custodian. The market value of investments made with cash collateral received are disclosed in the Schedule of Investments and the valuation techniques are described in Note 2. 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 is 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 is equal to at least 100% of the market value of all the loaned securities as of such preceding day. A portion of the income earned on the collateral is rebated to the borrower of the securities and the remainder is split between the lending agent and the Portfolio. On loans collateralized by government securities, a fee is received from the borrower and is allocated between the Portfolio and the lending agent.

Income received by the Portfolio in securities lending transactions during the year ended December 31, 2016 is reflected as securities lending income on the Statement of Operations. The values of any securities loaned by the Portfolio and the related collateral at December 31, 2016 are disclosed in the footnotes to the Schedule of Investments. The value of the related collateral received by the Portfolio exceeded the value of the securities out on loan at December 31, 2016.

MSF-16

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Capital Appreciation Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

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. The lending agent shall indemnify the Portfolio in the case of default of any securities borrower, subject to the terms of the Non-Custodial Securities Lending Agreement.

All securities on loan are classified as Common Stocks in the Portfolio’s Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016, with a contractual maturity of overnight and continuous.

3. Certain Risks

In the normal course of business, the Portfolio invests in securities and enters into transactions where risks exist. Those risks include:

Market 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, interest rate, and price fluctuations.

Credit and Counterparty Risk: 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 and counterparty risk consist principally of cash due from counterparties and investments. The Portfolio manages counterparty risk by entering into agreements only with counterparties that it believes have the financial resources to honor their obligations and by monitoring the financial stability of those counterparties. The Portfolio’s investment adviser attempts to mitigate counterparty risk by (i) periodically assessing the creditworthiness of its trading partners, (ii) monitoring and/or limiting the amount of its net exposure to each individual counterparty based on its assessment, and (iii) requiring collateral from the counterparty for certain transactions. In order to preserve certain safeguards for non-standard settlement trades, the Portfolio restricts its exposure to credit and counterparty losses by entering into master netting agreements (“Master Agreements”) with counterparties (approved brokers) with whom it undertakes a significant volume of transactions. Master Agreements govern the terms of certain transactions, and reduce the counterparty risk associated with relevant transactions by specifying credit protection mechanisms and providing standardization that improves legal certainty. Master Agreements can also help limit counterparty risk by specifying collateral posting arrangements at pre-arranged exposure levels.

Repurchase and reverse repurchase agreements are primarily executed under Global Master Repurchase Agreements (“GMRAs”) or Master Repurchase Agreements (“MRAs”), which provide the rights to set-off. Each repurchase and reverse repurchase agreement is initially collateralized at the transaction level. In the event of default, the total market value exposure will be offset against collateral exchanged to date, which would result in a net receivable/(payable) that would be due from/to the counterparty.

Additional risks associated with each type of investment are described above within the respective security type notes. The Portfolio’s prospectus includes a discussion of the principal risks of investing in the Portfolio.

4. Investment Transactions

Aggregate cost of purchases and proceeds of sales of investment securities, excluding short-term securities, for the year ended December 31, 2016 were as follows:

Purchases			Sales
U.S. Government	Non U.S. Government		U.S. Government		Non U.S. Government
$0	$	1,484,817,714	$	0	$	1,615,540,475

5. Investment Management Fees and Other Transactions with Affiliates

Investment Management Agreement - MetLife Advisers is the investment adviser to the Portfolio. The Trust has entered into an investment management agreement with MetLife Advisers with respect to the Portfolio. For providing investment management services to the Portfolio, MetLife Advisers receives monthly compensation at the following annual rates:

Management Fees earned by MetLife Advisers for the year ended December 31, 2016	% per annum			Average Daily Net Assets
$12,018,041		0.730	%	Of the first $1 billion
		0.650	%	On amounts in excess of $1 billion

MetLife Advisers has entered into an investment subadvisory agreement with respect to managing the Portfolio. BlackRock Advisors, LLC is compensated by MetLife Advisers to provide subadvisory services for the Portfolio.

MSF-17

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Capital Appreciation Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

Management Fee Waivers - Pursuant to an expense agreement, MetLife Advisers has agreed, for the period December 1, 2016 to April 30, 2017, to reduce its advisory fees set out above under “Investment Management Agreement” for each class of the Portfolio as follows:

% per annum	Average Daily Net Assets
0.115%	Of the first $1 billion
0.050%	On the next $500 million
0.090%	On the next $1 billion
0.110%	On amounts in excess of $2.5 billion

For the period May 1, 2016 to November 30, 2016, MetLife Advisers had agreed to reduce its advisory fees set out above under “Investment Management Agreement” for each class of the Portfolio as follows:

% per annum	Average Daily Net Assets
0.020%	Of the first $500 million
0.080%	On the next $500 million
0.060%	On amounts in excess of $1 billion

An identical expense agreement was in place for the period May 1, 2015 to April 30, 2016. Amounts waived for the year ended December 31, 2016 are shown as management fee waivers in the Statement of Operations.

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 and Service Fees - The Trust has a distribution agreement with MetLife Investors Distribution Company (“MIDC” or the “Distributor”) in which MIDC serves as the distributor for the Portfolio’s Class A, B and E Shares. MIDC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife Investors Group, LLC, an affiliate of the Adviser. The Trust has also adopted a Distribution and Service Plan under Rule 12b-1 of the 1940 Act for the Portfolio’s Class B and E Shares. Under the Distribution and Service Plan, the Class B and E Shares of the Portfolio pay a fee to compensate the Insurance Companies (or their affiliates) and other broker-dealers and financial intermediaries involved in the offer and sale of Portfolio shares for promoting or selling and servicing the Class B and E Shares. The fees under the Distribution and Service Plan for each class of the Portfolio’s shares are calculated as a percentage of the Portfolio’s average daily net assets that are attributable to that Class. Currently, the fee is 0.25% per year for Class B Shares and 0.15% per year for Class E Shares. Amounts incurred by the Portfolio for the year ended December 31, 2016 are shown as Distribution and service fees in the Statement of Operations.

Deferred Trustee Compensation - Each Trustee 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 Trust. 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 Met Investors Series Trust, an affiliate of the Trust, 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 under the Plan is reflected as Deferred trustees’ fees in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

MSF-18

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Capital Appreciation Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

6. Contractual Obligations

Under the Trust’s organizational documents, its officers and Trustees may be indemnified against certain liabilities and expenses arising out of the performance of their duties to the Trust. Additionally, 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 Trust that have not yet occurred.

7. Income Tax Information

The tax character of distributions paid for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015 were as follows:

Ordinary Income				Long-Term Capital Gain				Total
2016		2015		2016		2015		2016		2015
$	26,232,560	$	83,570,232	$	130,815,025	$	249,000,590	$	157,047,585	$	332,570,822

As of December 31, 2016, 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		Other Accumulated Capital Losses		Total
$1,297,448	$	43,117,114	$	214,668,007	$	—	$	259,082,569

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 up to 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, 2016, the Portfolio had no post-enactment accumulated capital losses and no pre-enactment accumulated capital loss carryforwards.

8. Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In October 2016, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) adopted new rules and forms, and amendments to certain current rules and forms, to modernize reporting and disclosure of information by registered investment companies. The amendments to Regulation S-X will require standardized, enhanced disclosure about derivatives in investment company financial statements, and will also change the rules governing the form and content of such financial statements. The compliance date for the amendments to Regulation S-X is August 1, 2017. Management is currently evaluating the impact that the adoption of the amendments to Regulation S-X will have on the Portfolio’s financial statements and related disclosures.

MSF-19

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Capital Appreciation Portfolio

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Shareholders of BlackRock Capital Appreciation Portfolio and the Board of Trustees of Metropolitan Series Fund:

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities, including the schedule of investments, of BlackRock Capital Appreciation Portfolio (one of the portfolios constituting the Metropolitan Series Fund) (the “Portfolio”) as of December 31, 2016, 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 Portfolio’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 Portfolio 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 Portfolio’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, 2016, by correspondence with the custodian and brokers; when 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 Capital Appreciation Portfolio of the Metropolitan Series Fund as of December 31, 2016, 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.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

February 24, 2017

MSF-20

Metropolitan Series Fund

Trustees and Officers

MANAGEMENT OF THE TRUSTS

The Boards of Trustees (the “Board”) of Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (“MIST” and “MSF”, respectively, and collectively the “Trusts”) supervise the Trusts and are responsible for representing the interests of shareholders. The Trustees, the Chairman of the Board and the Chairmen of each subcommittee are the same for both Trusts. The Trustees of each Trust meet periodically throughout the year to oversee the Portfolios’ activities, reviewing, among other things, each Portfolio’s performance and its contractual arrangements with various service providers. The Trustees of each Trust elect the officers of the Trust, who are responsible for administering the Trust’s day-to-day operations.

Trustees and Officers

The Trustees and executive officers of the Trusts, as well as their ages and their principal occupations during the past five years, are set forth below. Unless otherwise indicated, the business address of each is c/o MetLife Funds, One Financial Center, Boston, Massachusetts 02111. Each Trustee who is deemed an “interested person,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, is referred to as an “Interested Trustee.” Those Trustees who are not “interested persons,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, are referred to as “Independent Trustees.” There is no limit to the term a Trustee may serve. Trustees serve until their death, resignation or removal in accordance with the MIST Trust’s and MSF Trust’s respective organizational documents and policies adopted by the Boards of the respective Trusts from time to time. Officers hold office at the pleasure of each Board and serve until their removal or resignation in accordance with the Trusts’ respective organizational documents and policies adopted by the Board of each Trust from time to time.

Name and Age	Current 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 MetLife Funds Complex(2) Overseen by Trustee	Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Interested Trustee
John Rosenthal* (56)	Trustee	Indefinite; From May 2016 (MIST and MSF) to present	Senior Managing Director and Head of Global Portfolio Management, MetLife, Inc.	75	None
Independent Trustees
Dawn M. Vroegop (50)	Trustee and Chairman of the Board	Indefinite; From December 2000 (MIST)/ May 2009 (MSF) to present as Trustee; From May 2016 (MIST and MSF) until present as Chairman	Private Investor.	75	Trustee, Driehaus Mutual Funds.**
Stephen M. Alderman (57)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 (MIST)/ April 2012 (MSF) to present	Shareholder in the law firm of Garfield and Merel, Ltd.	75	None

MSF-21

Metropolitan Series Fund

Trustees and Officers—(Continued)

Name and Age	Current 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 MetLife Funds Complex(2) Overseen by Trustee	Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Robert J. Boulware (60)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 (MIST)/ April 2012 (MSF) to present	Managing Director, Pilgrim Funds, LLC (private equity fund).	75	Trustee, Vertical Capital Income Fund (closed-end fund);** Director, Gainsco, Inc. (auto insurance);** Trustee, SharesPost 100 Fund (closed-end fund).**
Susan C. Gause (64)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 (MIST)/ April 2012 (MSF) to present	Private Investor.	75	Trustee, HSBC Funds.**
Nancy Hawthorne (65)	Trustee	Indefinite; From May 2003 (MSF)/ April 2012 (MIST) to present	Partner, Hawthorne Financial Advisors, LLC (registered investment advisor); until June 2014, Chief Executive Officer, Clerestory LLC (corporate advisor).	75	Director and Chairman of the Board of Directors, THL Credit, Inc.;** Lead Director, Avid Technology, Inc.;** Director, CRA International, Inc.**
Barbara A. Nugent (60)	Trustee	Indefinite; From January 2014 (MIST and MSF) to present	President, True North Board Governance, LLC (consulting); until December 2013, partner in the law firm of Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young, LLP.	75	None
Linda B. Strumpf (69)	Trustee	Indefinite; From May 2000 (MSF)/ April 2012 (MIST) to present	Chair of the Investment Committee, Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust; until June 2011, Chief Investment Officer, Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust.	75	None

Executive Officers

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Kristi Slavin (43)	President and Chief Executive Officer, of MIST and MSF	From May 2016 (MIST and MSF) to present	President, MetLife Advisers, LLC (May 2016-present); Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Vice President, MetLife, Inc.; Vice President, MIST and MSF (2015-2016).

MSF-22

Metropolitan Series Fund

Trustees and Officers—(Continued)

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Peter H. Duffy (61)	Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, of MIST and MSF	From November 2000 (MSF)/ May 2012 (MIST) to present	Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Andrew L. Gangolf (62)	Secretary, of MIST and MSF	From May 2011 (MIST and MSF) to present	Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; until 2011, Senior Vice President & Assistant General Counsel, AllianceBernstein Investments, Inc.
Steven E. Hartstein (53)	Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”), of MIST and MSF	From February 2014 (MIST and MSF) to present	Vice President, MetLife, Inc. (2013-present); Senior Vice President and CCO, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Executive Director, Morgan Stanley (2009-2013); CCO, Consulting Group Capital Markets Funds (2006-2013).
Alan C. Leland (64)	Vice President, of MIST and MSF	From February 2005 (MSF)/ May 2012 (MIST) to present	Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Vice President, MetLife, Inc.

* Mr. Rosenthal is an “interested person” of the Trusts because of his position with MetLife, Inc., the current parent company of MetLife Advisers, LLC.

** 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 Trusts, MetLife, Inc. or the Manager are omitted if not materially different.

(2) The Fund Complex includes 45 MIST Portfolios and 30 MSF Portfolios.

MSF-23

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Capital Appreciation Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements

At an in-person meeting held on November 15-16, 2016 (the “November Meeting”), the Boards of Trustees (the “Board”) of the Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (“MIST” and “MSF,” respectively, and collectively, the “Trusts”), including a majority of the Trustees who are not “interested persons” of the Trusts (the “Independent Trustees”) under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “1940 Act”), approved the continuation of the Trusts’ advisory agreements (each, an “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 the series of the Trusts (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”).

In reaching that decision, the Board reviewed a variety of materials provided for the specific purpose of the annual contract renewal process. In addition, various materials provided to and discussed with the Board throughout the year also informed the Board’s decision to renew the Agreements. That information for each Portfolio included, but was not limited to, investment performance reports, along with periodic reports on various expenses, shareholder services, legal and compliance matters, asset pricing, brokerage commissions and trade execution. The Board also recognized the pending separation of the Adviser from its parent company, MetLife, Inc., as a consideration in their deliberations with respect to the Agreements.

The Board met in person with personnel of the Adviser on September 27, 2016 for the specific purpose of giving preliminary consideration to the proposed continuation of the Agreements (the “September Meeting”) through the review by the Adviser with the Board of the performance and fees experienced by each Portfolio, as well as other information. In considering the Agreements, the Independent Trustees were advised by independent legal counsel throughout the contract renewal process, and met with independent legal counsel in several executive sessions outside of the presence of management.

Information furnished and reviewed specifically in connection with the renewal process included, but was not limited to, a report for each Portfolio prepared by Broadridge (“Broadridge”), an independent organization, and a Portfolio-by-Portfolio profitability analysis prepared by the Adviser. In addition, the Independent Trustees received and reviewed a report prepared by JDL Consultants, LLC (“JDL”), an independent consultant to the Independent Trustees (“JDL Report”), which examined the comparative fees, expenses and performance of each Portfolio, based upon the Broadridge reports. Also, the Board reviewed the responses to wide-ranging questions relating to the business, operations and performance of the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers that the Adviser and Sub-Advisers had prepared specifically for the renewal process.

At the November Meeting, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, concluded that the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser supported the renewal of the Agreements. The Board also concluded that the investment performance of each Portfolio was such that each Agreement should continue, and that the fees paid by a Portfolio to the Adviser appeared to be reasonable in light of the nature, extent and quality of the services provided by the Adviser and Sub-Adviser. Further, the Board concluded that the Adviser’s profitability in providing services under the Advisory Agreements did not appear unreasonably high in light of the nature, extent and quality of the services provided by the Adviser. Finally, the Board concluded that the investment advisory fees paid by the Portfolios in some measure shared economies of scale with contract holders. In approving the renewal of each of the Agreements, the Board, including the Independent Trustees, gave attention to all of the information that was furnished. The Board evaluated the information available to it on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis, and its decision was made separately with respect to each Portfolio. The following discusses some of the primary factors that generally were relevant to the Board’s decision. The Board did not identify any single factor as controlling, and the Trustees generally attributed different weights to various factors for the various Portfolios.

Nature, extent and quality of services. The Board evaluated the nature, extent and quality of the services that the Adviser, and the Sub-Advisers as relevant, have provided to the Portfolios. The Board considered the Adviser’s services as investment manager to the Portfolios, including its services relating to the oversight of the Sub-Advisers and their investment management activities, trading practices, financial condition, relevant personnel matters and compliance programs, among other things. The Adviser’s services in coordinating and overseeing the activities of the Trusts’ other service providers were also considered. The Board considered information received from the Trusts’ Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) regarding the Portfolios’ compliance policies and procedures that were established pursuant to Rule 38a-l under the 1940 Act. In addition, throughout the year, the Board considered the expertise, experience and performance of the personnel of the Adviser who performed the various services that are mentioned above.

The Board also noted that the Adviser’s investment, compliance and legal staff conduct regular, periodic, telephonic and in-person meetings with the Sub-Advisers to review and assess the services that are provided to the Portfolios, and that personnel of the Adviser prepare and present reports to the Independent Trustees regarding those meetings.

MSF-24

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Capital Appreciation Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

With respect to the services provided by each of the Sub-Advisers, the Board considered a variety of information that the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser provided. The Board considered each Sub-Adviser’s investment process and philosophy, and the investment performance experienced by the Portfolio (as described in more detail below). The Board took into account that each Sub-Adviser’s responsibilities include the development and maintenance of an investment program for the applicable Portfolio that 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. In particular, the Board considered, among other things, the Sub-Adviser’s current level of staffing as well as its compensation program and its overall resources. The Board reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s history and investment experience, as well as information provided 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 regulatory and disciplinary history. In its review, the Board also took into account information regarding any services and/or payments provided to the Adviser by the Sub-Advisers in connection with marketing activities.

Performance. The Board placed emphasis on the performance of the Portfolios in light of, among other things, its importance to contract holders. The Board considered the Adviser’s quarterly reviews with the Board of detailed information about each Portfolio’s investment strategies and performance results and composition, including discussions regarding the relevant effect of current market conditions. The Board reviewed and considered the reports prepared by Broadridge, which provided a statistical analysis comparing the Portfolios’ investment performance to that of comparable funds underlying variable insurance products (the “Performance Universe”). The Independent Trustees also met separately with a representative of JDL during the September Meeting to review the JDL Report. The Board also compared the performance records of certain Portfolios to those of comparable funds that were managed by the relevant Sub-Adviser. At the November Meeting, the Board considered each Portfolio’s performance for periods subsequent to the performance period covered by the Broadridge reports, and the Adviser’s discussion of the same, including the effect of current market conditions on each Portfolio’s more recent performance.

The Board focused particular attention on Portfolios with less favorable performance records. The Board noted the Adviser’s focus on each Sub-Adviser’s performance and that the Adviser has been active in monitoring and responding to any performance issues with respect to the Portfolios.

Fees and Expenses. The Board gave consideration to the level and method of computing the fees payable under the Agreements. The Board considered the Broadridge report for each of the Portfolios, which included comparisons for each Portfolio of its contractual management and sub-adviser fees (at current and various asset levels), and total expenses, with those of its peers, including as those peers were divided into a broad group of peer funds (“Expense Universe”), a narrower group of peer funds (“Expense Group”), a broad group of peer sub-advised funds (“Sub-advised Expense Universe”), and a narrower group of peer sub-advised funds (“Sub-advised Expense Group”). Broadridge selected the peer funds which were similarly situated funds underlying variable insurance products deemed to be comparable to the Portfolios. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of JDL, also examined the JDL Report. The Board compared the fee payable to a Sub-Adviser by the Adviser with respect to the Portfolio to the fee payable to the Sub-Adviser by other comparable funds and accounts, to the extent such information was available.

The Board noted that the sub-advisory fees for the Portfolios are paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fee, and that, in the case of an unaffiliated Sub-Adviser, the Adviser negotiates the fee at arm’s length. The Board also considered that the Adviser had entered into expense limitation or management fee waiver agreements with certain of the Portfolios pursuant to which the Adviser had 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.

Profitability. The Board examined the profitability of the Adviser on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis. The Board also considered that an affiliate of the Adviser, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, serves as distributor for the Trusts, and, as such, receives Rule 12b-1 payments to support the distribution of the Portfolios. The Board considered the profitability to the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates as a result of their relationships with the Portfolios, to the extent available, and the Board considered the ability of the Adviser to negotiate with an unaffiliated Sub-Adviser at arm’s length. In reviewing the profitability analyses, the Board recognized that expense allocation methodologies are inherently subjective and various expense allocation methodologies may be reasonable while producing different results.

Economies of scale. The Board also considered each Portfolio’s fees in light of its size. The Board noted the fee schedules for the Portfolios that 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

MSF-25

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Capital Appreciation Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

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 and Sub-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. The Board examined, among other data, the effect of a Portfolio’s growth in size, and reduction in size, on various fee schedules and the Board reviewed the Broadridge and JDL Reports, which compared fees among peers. The Board also generally noted that if a Portfolio’s assets increase over time, the Portfolio may realize other economies of scale if assets increase proportionally more than certain other fixed expenses.

Other factors. The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trusts. Among them, the Board recognized that MetLife Investors Distribution Company, as the distributor for the Trusts, receives payments pursuant to Rule 12b-1 from the Portfolios to compensate for the provision of shareholder services and distribution activities, which could lead to growth in the Trusts’ assets and corresponding benefits from such growth, including economies of scale. The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by each Sub-Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trusts, including the opportunity to provide advisory services to additional portfolios of the Trusts and reputational benefits. In conjunction with these considerations, the Board noted the ongoing commitment of the Adviser to the Portfolios.

The Board considered possible conflicts of interest in the form of material benefits or detriments to the Trusts resulting from the nature of the Trusts’ and the Adviser’s or the Sub-Advisers’ affiliations and the services that are provided to the Trusts, and the manner in which such conflicts were mitigated.

*  *  *

BlackRock Capital Appreciation Portfolio. The Board also considered the following information in relation to the Agreements with the Adviser and BlackRock Advisors, LLC regarding the Portfolio:

Among other data relating specifically to the 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, 2016. The Board further considered that the Portfolio underperformed its benchmark, the Russell 1000 Growth Index, for the one-, three-, and five-year periods ended October 31, 2016. The Board took into account management’s discussion of the Portfolio’s performance, including prevailing market conditions.

The Board also 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 noted that the Portfolio’s contractual management fees were above the asset-weighted average of certain comparable funds 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 but below the average of the Sub-advised Expense Universe at the Portfolio’s current size. In addition, the Board considered that the Adviser had negotiated reductions to the Portfolio’s sub-advisory fee schedule and that the Adviser agreed to waive a portion of its advisory fee in order for contract holders to benefit from the lower sub-advisory fee effective December 1, 2016.

MSF-26

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Capital Appreciation Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Advisory Agreements

The separation (the “Separation”) of MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”), the investment adviser to each of the series (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”) of Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (collectively, the “Trusts”), from its parent company, MetLife, Inc. (“MetLife”), to a separate retail business, Brighthouse Financial, Inc. (“Brighthouse”), is expected to result in a change in control of the Adviser, and therefore an “assignment” of each Portfolio’s current advisory agreement (each a “Current Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “Current Advisory Agreements”). At the November 15-16, 2016 meeting (“November Meeting”) of the Board of Trustees of the Trusts (the “Board”), the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not “interested persons,” as defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940, of any Portfolio (the “Independent Trustees”), approved a new advisory agreement (each a “New Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “New Advisory Agreements”) between the Trusts, on behalf of a Portfolio, and the Adviser, to be effective upon the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements in connection with the Separation, and recommended that the shareholders of the Trusts approve the New Advisory Agreements. The Board took those actions after consideration of and deliberation over information concerning the Separation, including with respect to the degree to which the Separation would affect the provision of investment advisory services to the Trusts. Information about the Board’s considerations and process is set forth below.

In determining whether to approve the New Advisory Agreements and in considering the Separation, the Board considered the nature, quality and extent of the services that are currently provided by the Adviser under the Current Advisory Agreements as well as the services to be provided under the New Advisory Agreements. The Board’s review was conducted as part of, and in conjunction with, the Board’s annual review of the Current Advisory Agreements, which culminated at the November Meeting. In approving the New Advisory Agreements, the Board considered its conclusions with respect to its approvals of the Current Advisory Agreements, including the Board’s general satisfaction with the nature, extent and quality of services being provided by the Adviser to each Portfolio. Appendix A and Appendix B contains a further description of the process followed, information reviewed and the material factors considered by the Board in approving the continuation of the Current Advisory Agreements.

A substantial portion of the Board’s review of the New Advisory Agreements focused on the Separation, including the potential effect of the implementation of the Separation on the operations, personnel, organizational structure, capitalization, and financial and other resources of the Adviser. After being informed by the Adviser in January 2016 of the possibility of the Separation, the Board and its Committees discussed the Separation and its possible effects on the Trusts with personnel of the Adviser and the anticipated senior management at Brighthouse during the course of the Board’s or Committee’s regularly scheduled, in-person, quarterly meetings.

Between August and November 2016, the Board and the Independent Trustees engaged in an extensive review and analysis of the Separation and how the Separation related to the Adviser and the Trusts and how it could affect the services provided to the Trusts. This analysis focused on, among other matters, the assurances from Brighthouse’s anticipated leadership as to its expectations for the continuity and stability of the Adviser’s personnel throughout implementation of the Separation and for the foreseeable future thereafter. The Board considered that the Separation is being implemented as a result of MetLife’s determination to divest itself of a substantial portion of its U.S. retail business (of which the Adviser forms a portion). The Board also considered that it has been satisfied as a general matter with the nature and quality of the services that the Adviser provides to the Portfolios, including investment advisory, administrative, legal, compliance, and support services, and that it would be in the Portfolios’ best interests to maintain continuity and stability in the services that are currently being provided. The Board carefully considered the anticipated future plans of Brighthouse related to capitalization and operational matters for Brighthouse and the Adviser, as well as the importance of the Adviser to the businesses of Brighthouse after the Separation.

Among other steps in its review process, which accelerated on October 5, 2016 when Brighthouse filed its Form 10 with the SEC, the following actions were taken and considered by or on behalf of the Board:

1. The Independent Trustees solicited and received ongoing advice regarding the legal duties of the Independent Trustees from Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young LLP (“Stradley Ronon”), legal counsel for the Independent Trustees, which law firm has extensive experience regarding such matters.

2. Following the August 16-17, 2016 Board and Committee quarterly meetings, the Independent Trustees established an ad hoc group of Independent Trustees (the “Working Group”) to help oversee, coordinate, and conduct due diligence activities with respect to the Separation. The Working Group regularly reported on the due diligence activities to the other Independent Trustees.

3. Since January 2016, the Board posed ongoing inquiries to, and received regular updates from, the Adviser and anticipated senior management at Brighthouse at either in-person meetings dedicated to the status of the Separation or during the course of the Board or Committee’s regular quarterly meetings. The Board considered, among other matters, relevant legal guidance and the processes followed by certain other investment company boards of directors or trustees when they approved contracts in connection with change in control events, while recognizing the unique circumstances of the Separation.

MSF-27

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Capital Appreciation Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

4. The Board received and reviewed the Form 10 of Brighthouse that contained extensive information relating to, among other matters, Brighthouse’s anticipated business plans and financial structure. The Board also received and reviewed reports from rating agencies with respect to Brighthouse.

5. Stradley Ronon retained Barrington Partners (“Barrington”), an independent consulting firm with a specific focus on the asset management industry and experience relating to business operations such as those to be conducted by Brighthouse, including its proposed subsidiary, the Adviser, in order to help Stradley Ronon evaluate the Separation based on the Form 10 and other materials and related information provided by the Adviser and its affiliates. Barrington conducted a series of in-person and telephonic meetings with anticipated senior management at Brighthouse (i.e., the aforementioned anticipated officers of Brighthouse and others) and with personnel of the Adviser who provide services to the Trusts. Stradley Ronon, with the assistance of Barrington, evaluated the information and advised the Independent Trustees with respect to, among other matters, details of Brighthouse’s anticipated business plan to understand the implications of the Separation to the Adviser and its personnel. The Independent Trustees and the Working Group attended certain in-person and telephonic conference call meetings at which Barrington rendered advice to Stradley Ronon regarding these matters and responded to questions.

6. The Independent Trustees requested and participated in in-person meetings with anticipated senior management personnel at Brighthouse, including its President and Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, Chief Operating Officer, and Chief Investment Officer. The Independent Trustees also met with personnel of the Adviser.

7. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of Stradley Ronon, prepared written inquiries to the Adviser and its affiliates regarding the Separation, and received written assurances from the Adviser and its affiliates that they have no plans to make any material changes affecting the personnel of the Adviser (including those personnel who provide investment, administrative, legal and compliance services) and the Adviser and its affiliates will not initiate such changes without prior notice to and discussion with the Board.

8. The Board considered representations by the Adviser and its affiliates that approval of the New Advisory Agreements would be necessary for the Portfolios to continue receiving investment advisory services from the Adviser following the change in control.

9. The Board considered representations by the Adviser, as well as related supporting documentation, indicating that the New Advisory Agreements, including the fees payable thereunder, are substantially identical to the terms of the corresponding Current Advisory Agreements.

10. The Board considered representations by the Adviser and its affiliates, as well as related supporting documentation, indicating that: (1) the Adviser can be expected to provide services of the same nature, extent, and quality under the New Advisory Agreements and as are provided thereby under the Current Advisory Agreements; and (2) the Separation is not expected to result in any changes to (i) the management of the Portfolios, or (ii) the investment objective of or the principal investment strategies used to manage any of the Portfolios.

11. The Board considered the ability of the Adviser and its affiliates to retain the employment of key personnel, as well as the overall positive indications by many such personnel regarding the opportunities presented by the Separation.

12. The Board considered that the Adviser and its affiliates have agreed to bear all expenses associated with obtaining shareholder approval of the New Advisory Agreements.

13. The Board considered Brighthouse’s preliminary “branding” plans regarding the future name of its operations.

14. The Board considered the advice provided by Ropes & Gray, LLP, legal counsel to the Trusts and the Adviser, with respect to the New Advisory Agreements (including advice relating to the process and timing of seeking shareholder approval of the New Advisory Agreements, and whether shareholder approvals would be required in connection with any future aspects of the Separation) and regarding the Board’s role and responsibilities with respect to the Separation.

15. The Board considered MetLife’s stated intention of divesting its ownership interest in the Adviser through the Separation, including the potential advantages and disadvantages of this divestiture to shareholders of the Portfolios. The Board considered the likelihood that the Adviser would retain its key personnel after the Separation. The Board considered that the garnering of new assets into the Trusts is based on sales of variable annuity and variable life insurance products, which sales have declined in prior years as a result of, among other things, the capital requirements of MetLife. The Board considered the representations of the anticipated senior management of Brighthouse that the Separation provides the Trusts with an opportunity for the garnering of new assets as Brighthouse will likely sell such products going forward. The Board considered also that the divestiture would result in a change in the manner in

MSF-28

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Capital Appreciation Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

which the Trusts access certain services and resources of MetLife (after the Separation those services will be provided through a transition services agreement), the loss of affiliation with the MetLife name brand, and the possible going forward need of the Trusts to hire a transfer agent, as such transfer agency services are currently provided to the Trusts for no fee.

16. The Board considered that, if shareholders approve the New Advisory Agreements, the Board and the Adviser will conduct their annual contract review process in November 2017. Thus, the Board emphasized that it would be able to, and intends to, monitor on a regular basis the ability of the Adviser and its affiliates to comply with their undertakings to the Board and to monitor on an ongoing basis the quality of services to, and expenses of, the Portfolios. In addition, the Board considered that, under the New Advisory Agreements, it will continue to have the authority, should the need arise in its view, to terminate any of the New Advisory Agreements without penalty upon 60 days’ notice.

Based on the foregoing and other relevant considerations, at the November Meeting, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, voted to approve the New Advisory Agreements and to recommend approval of the New Advisory Agreements by shareholders of the Portfolios. In this connection, the Board concluded that, in light of all factors considered, the terms of the New Advisory Agreement, including fee rates, were fair and reasonable, and that it would be in the best interests of shareholders of each Portfolio to approve the New Advisory Agreements.

In the event that approval of the New Advisory Agreements by shareholders of the Portfolios has not been obtained before the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements as a result of the change in control of the Adviser, the Board also approved an interim advisory agreement with the Adviser (the “Interim Advisory Agreement”) on behalf of each Portfolio that will go into effect upon the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements. The Board’s determination to approve each Interim Advisory Agreement was based on the same information and considerations as the Board’s approval of the New Advisory Agreements so as to ensure continuity of advisory services from the Adviser to the Portfolios following the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements.

MSF-29

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Capital Appreciation Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Sub-Advisory Agreements

The separation (the “Separation”) of MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”), the investment adviser to each of the series (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”) of Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (collectively, the “Trusts”), from its parent company, MetLife, Inc. (“MetLife”), to a separate retail business, Brighthouse Financial, Inc. (“Brighthouse”), is expected to result in a change in control of the Adviser, and therefore an “assignment” of each Portfolio’s current advisory agreement and, as a result, the automatic termination of the sub-advisory agreement (each a “Sub-Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisory Agreements”) between the Adviser and the investment sub-advisers (each a “Sub-Adviser” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisers”). At the November 15-16, 2016 meeting (“November Meeting”) of the Board of Trustees of the Trusts (the “Board”), the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not “interested persons,” as defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940, of any Portfolio (the “Independent Trustees”), approved new sub-advisory agreements (each a “New Sub-Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “New Sub-Advisory Agreements”). Information about the Board’s considerations and process is set forth below.

In determining whether to approve the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, the Board considered the nature, quality and extent of the services that are currently provided by the Sub-Advisers under the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements as well as the services to be provided under the New Sub-Advisory Agreements. The Board’s review was conducted as part of, and in conjunction with, the Board’s annual review of the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements, which culminated at the November Meeting. In approving the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, the Board considered its conclusions with respect to its approvals of the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements, including the Board’s general satisfaction with the nature, extent and quality of services being provided by the Sub-Advisers to the Portfolios, as applicable. Appendix A contains a further description of the process followed, information reviewed and the material factors considered by the Board in approving the continuation of the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements.

In addition, the following actions were taken and considered by or on behalf of the Board:

1. The Independent Trustees of the Board solicited and received ongoing advice regarding the legal duties of the Independent Trustees from Stradley Ronon, legal counsel for the Independent Trustees, which law firm has extensive experience regarding such matters.

2. The Board considered representations by the Adviser and its affiliates that approval of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements would be necessary for the Portfolios to continue receiving sub-advisory services from the Sub-Advisers following the change in control of the Adviser.

3. The Board considered representations by the Adviser, as well as related supporting documentation, indicating that the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, including the fees payable thereunder, are the same as the terms of the corresponding Current Sub-Advisory Agreements.

4. The Board considered the advice provided by Ropes & Gray, LLP, legal counsel to the Trusts and the Adviser, with respect to the New Sub-Advisory Agreements and regarding the Board’s role and responsibilities with respect to the Separation.

5. The Board considered that the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers will conduct their annual contract review process in November 2017. Thus, the Board emphasized that it would be able to, and intends to, monitor on an ongoing basis the ability of the Sub-Advisers to comply with its undertakings to the Board and the Adviser and to monitor on an ongoing basis the quality of services to, and expenses of, the Portfolios. In addition, the Board considered that, under the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, it will continue to have the authority, should the need arise in its view, to terminate any of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements without penalty upon no more than 60 days’ notice.

Based on the foregoing and other relevant considerations, at the November Meeting, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, voted to approve the New Sub-Advisory Agreements. In this connection, the Board concluded that, in light of all factors considered, the terms of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, including fee rates, were fair and reasonable.

MSF-30

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Large Cap Value Portfolio

Managed by BlackRock Advisors, LLC

Portfolio Manager Commentary*

PERFORMANCE

For the 12 months ended December 31, 2016, the Class A, B and E shares of the BlackRock Large Cap Value Portfolio returned 18.51%, 18.10%, and 18.14%, respectively. The Portfolio’s benchmark, the Russell 1000 Value Index¹, returned 17.34%.

MARKET ENVIRONMENT / CONDITIONS

Despite one of the worst starts to the year, the U.S. equity market registered solid gains in 2016. Stocks weathered several shocks in 2016, including fears of a renewed economic downturn, the U.K.’s vote to leave the European Union, and the U.S. presidential election of Donald Trump. The bulk of 2016’s gains came in the second half of the year driven by a rebound in corporate earnings, accelerating U.S. economic growth and stabilizing oil prices. The rally gathered steam after the presidential election in November, as investors focused on the potential for lower taxes, reduced regulation, and increased infrastructure spending in a Trump administration. Within the Russell 1000 Value Index (the “Index”), Materials, Energy, and Financials were among the better performers. Real Estate, Health Care, and Consumer Staples lagged over the year.

PORTFOLIO REVIEW / PERIOD END POSITIONING

The Portfolio outperformed the 17.34% return posted by the Index. The largest contributors to relative performance were an overweight allocation and selection in Financials, as well as stock selection in Energy and Health Care. Conversely, the largest detractors were an underweight exposure and stock selection in Industrials, as well as stock selection in Information Technology and Consumer Staples.

The largest contributor to relative performance over the year was the Portfolio’s overweight allocation and stock selection in Financials. Notably, the Portfolio’s overweight positions in Discover Financial, Bank of America and JPMorgan proved beneficial amid rising interest rates and the prospects for less regulation in a Trump administration. SLM Corp. also benefitted from the potential for privatization in the student-loan industry. Stock selection in the Energy sector also added to relative performance, as the Portfolio’s overweight positions in Devon Energy, Apache and Marathon Oil benefitted from a rebound in crude oil prices following the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries agreement to curb production. Lastly, stock selection in Health Care, notably the Portfolio’s overweight position in St. Jude, contributed as shares of the medical device company rallied 25% immediately following the announcement of a planned acquisition by Abbott Laboratories. The Portfolio’s underweight allocations to Real Estate and Consumer Staples, premised primarily on valuation, also added to relative performance.

The largest detractor during the year was the Portfolio’s underweight allocation and stock selection in Industrials. Notably, the Portfolio’s overweight position in Nielsen Holdings weighed on relative performance after the company reported disappointing third-quarter results. The stock has lagged in recent months due to weaker than expected performance within the company’s “Buy” business, which sells marketing information and analytics on consumer buying behavior. We continued to see value and added to the Portfolio’s position on the weakness during the period. In addition, the Portfolio’s overweight position in Gilead Sciences detracted amid investor concerns related to increasing competition for the company’s hepatitis-C medication and to the strength of the company’s pipeline. We believe these concerns are largely discounted in Gilead’s share price and fail to take into account the better-than-expected growth potential of its leading HIV franchise, its pristine balance sheet and strong cash flows, and recent positive data readouts from its early stage pipeline. Stock selection in Information Technology, in particular the Portfolio’s positions in non-benchmark holdings Ericsson and Nokia, also weighed on relative performance as did the Portfolio’s overweight position in Kroger. We eliminated the Portfolio’s position in Ericsson.

At year end, the Portfolio’s largest absolute exposures remained in Financials, Energy, Information Technology, and Health Care. As of the end of December, the Portfolio was overweight the Financials, Information Technology, Consumer Discretionary, Health Care, and Energy sectors and underweight the Industrials, Real Estate, Consumer Staples, and Materials sectors, relative to the Index.

Bart Geer

Carrie King

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 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 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.

MSF-1

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Large Cap Value Portfolio

A $10,000 INVESTMENT COMPARED TO THE RUSSELL 1000 VALUE INDEX

AVERAGE ANNUAL RETURNS (%) (FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2016)

	1 Year		5 Year		10 Year
BlackRock Large Cap Value Portfolio
Class A		18.51		13.07		4.46
Class B		18.10		12.79		4.19
Class E		18.14		12.90		4.30
Russell 1000 Value Index		17.34		14.80		5.72

¹ The 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.

Portfolio performance is calculated including reinvestment of all income and capital gain distributions. Performance numbers are net of all Portfolio expenses but do not include any insurance, sales, separate account or administrative charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts or any additional expenses that participants may bear relating to the operations of their plans. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower. The performance of any index referenced above has not been adjusted for ongoing management, distribution and operating expenses, and sales charges applicable to mutual fund investments. Direct investment in any index is not possible. The performance of Class A shares, as set forth in the line graph above, will differ from that of other classes because of the difference in expenses paid by policyholders investing in the different share classes.

This information represents past performance and is not indicative of future results. Investment return and principal value may fluctuate so that shares, upon redemption, may be worth more or less than the original cost.

PORTFOLIO COMPOSITION AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2016

Top Holdings

	% of Net Assets
Citigroup, Inc.		5.3
QUALCOMM, Inc.		4.8
JPMorgan Chase & Co.		4.7
Cisco Systems, Inc.		4.7
Discover Financial Services		4.3
Apache Corp.		4.1
Pfizer, Inc.		3.9
Devon Energy Corp.		3.4
Capital One Financial Corp.		3.2
Exelon Corp.		3.0

Top Sectors

	% of Net Assets
Financials		30.7
Energy		14.7
Information Technology		12.3
Health Care		12.0
Utilities		7.0
Consumer Discretionary		5.8
Consumer Staples		5.4
Telecommunication Services		4.4
Industrials		4.0
Materials		2.0

MSF-2

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock 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, 2016 through December 31, 2016.

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.

BlackRock Large Cap Value Portfolio		Annualized Expense Ratio			Beginning Account Value July 1, 2016		Ending Account Value December 31, 2016		Expenses Paid During Period** July 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016
Class A(a)	Actual		0.63	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,125.90	$	3.37
	Hypothetical*		0.63	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,021.97	$	3.20
Class B(a)	Actual		0.88	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,124.70	$	4.70
	Hypothetical*		0.88	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,020.71	$	4.47
Class E(a)	Actual		0.78	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,124.10	$	4.16
	Hypothetical*		0.78	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,021.22	$	3.96

* 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 366 (to reflect the one-half year period).

^(a) The annualized expense ratio shown reflects the impact of the management fee waiver as described in Note 5 of the Notes to Financial Statements.

MSF-3

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Large Cap Value Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—98.2% of Net Assets

Security Description	Shares		Value
Aerospace & Defense—0.6%
Boeing Co. (The)		19,260	$	2,998,397
Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc.		14,700		2,707,593
Northrop Grumman Corp.		5,510		1,281,516
Raytheon Co.		8,605		1,221,910
				8,209,416
Airlines—0.8%
American Airlines Group, Inc. (a)		245,870		11,479,670
Delta Air Lines, Inc.		18,550		912,475
				12,392,145
Auto Components—1.2%
Lear Corp.		118,074		15,629,455
Magna International, Inc.		38,180		1,657,012
				17,286,467
Automobiles—0.1%
Thor Industries, Inc. (a)		12,016		1,202,201
Banks—14.2%
Bank of America Corp.		1,581,000		34,940,100
Citigroup, Inc.		1,321,289		78,524,205
JPMorgan Chase & Co.		816,021		70,414,452
KeyCorp (a)		708,710		12,948,132
Regions Financial Corp.		1,077,221		15,468,894
				212,295,783
Beverages—0.2%
PepsiCo, Inc.		27,700		2,898,251
Biotechnology—2.4%
Gilead Sciences, Inc.		490,890		35,152,633
Capital Markets—2.2%
Ameriprise Financial, Inc.		32,760		3,634,394
Morgan Stanley		270,370		11,423,132
Nasdaq, Inc.		266,105		17,860,968
				32,918,494
Chemicals—0.5%
Akzo Nobel NV (ADR) (a)		387,933		8,030,213
Communications Equipment—5.1%
Cisco Systems, Inc.		2,322,342		70,181,175
Nokia Oyj (ADR) (a)		1,072,850		5,160,409
				75,341,584
Construction & Engineering—0.1%
AECOM (b)		57,240		2,081,246
Consumer Finance—8.4%
Capital One Financial Corp.		555,710		48,480,140
Discover Financial Services		899,130		64,818,282
Consumer Finance—(Continued)
SLM Corp. (b)		1,148,717		12,658,861
				125,957,283
Containers & Packaging—0.9%
Avery Dennison Corp.		35,020		2,459,104
Bemis Co., Inc. (a)		90,710		4,337,752
Crown Holdings, Inc. (b)		60,240		3,166,817
Graphic Packaging Holding Co.		217,620		2,715,898
Sealed Air Corp.		9,850		446,599
				13,126,170
Diversified Telecommunication Services—2.7%
Verizon Communications, Inc.		756,467		40,380,208
Electric Utilities—3.5%
American Electric Power Co., Inc.		60,090		3,783,266
Duke Energy Corp.		40,730		3,161,463
Exelon Corp.		1,281,910		45,494,986
				52,439,715
Energy Equipment & Services—0.7%
Superior Energy Services, Inc. (a)		605,179		10,215,422
Equity Real Estate Investment Trusts—0.3%
Brixmor Property Group, Inc.		160,540		3,920,387
Food & Staples Retailing—4.2%
CVS Health Corp.		58,610		4,624,915
Kroger Co. (The) (a)		926,114		31,960,194
Rite Aid Corp. (a) (b)		253,709		2,090,562
Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc.		290,870		24,072,402
				62,748,073
Food Products—0.3%
Mondelez International, Inc. - Class A		114,680		5,083,764
Health Care Equipment & Supplies—5.3%
Baxter International, Inc.		831,230		36,856,738
Hologic, Inc. (b)		16,004		642,080
Medtronic plc		152,570		10,867,561
Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc.		303,468		31,317,898
				79,684,277
Hotels, Restaurants & Leisure—0.1%
Darden Restaurants, Inc. (a)		14,000		1,018,080
Household Durables—0.9%
Newell Brands, Inc. (a)		261,870		11,692,495
Tupperware Brands Corp. (a)		26,680		1,403,902
				13,096,397
Independent Power and Renewable Electricity Producers—3.3%
AES Corp.		3,409,600		39,619,552
Dynegy, Inc. (a) (b)		1,200,760		10,158,430
				49,777,982

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-4

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Large Cap Value Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Industrial Conglomerates—0.2%
Honeywell International, Inc.		30,230	$	3,502,146
Insurance—4.2%
Athene Holding, Ltd. - Class A (b)		70,426		3,379,744
Genworth Financial, Inc. - Class A (b)		73,630		280,530
Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. (The)		313,800		14,952,570
Lincoln National Corp.		200,380		13,279,183
Prudential Financial, Inc.		193,910		20,178,274
XL Group, Ltd.		281,650		10,494,279
				62,564,580
IT Services—0.4%
Fidelity National Information Services, Inc.		18,180		1,375,135
First Data Corp. - Class A (a) (b)		159,360		2,261,319
Total System Services, Inc.		56,730		2,781,472
				6,417,926
Media—3.1%
Comcast Corp. - Class A		267,060		18,440,493
Interpublic Group of Cos., Inc. (The) (a)		337,820		7,908,366
Omnicom Group, Inc. (a)		63,670		5,418,954
Scripps Networks Interactive, Inc. - Class A (a)		201,413		14,374,846
				46,142,659
Metals & Mining—0.5%
Reliance Steel & Aluminum Co.		100,380		7,984,225
Mortgage Real Estate Investment Trusts—0.9%
Starwood Property Trust, Inc. (a)		588,490		12,917,355
Multi-Utilities—0.1%
Public Service Enterprise Group, Inc.		39,700		1,742,036
Multiline Retail—0.6%
Dollar General Corp.		111,660		8,270,656
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels—14.0%
Apache Corp. (a)		968,470		61,468,791
Devon Energy Corp.		1,121,214		51,205,843
Gulfport Energy Corp. (a) (b)		1,014,970		21,963,951
Marathon Oil Corp. (a)		2,421,913		41,923,314
Marathon Petroleum Corp.		283,112		14,254,689
Parsley Energy, Inc. - Class A (a) (b)		55,240		1,946,658
Valero Energy Corp. (a)		242,620		16,575,798
				209,339,044
Personal Products—0.2%
Unilever NV		56,930		2,337,546
Pharmaceuticals—4.3%
Merck & Co., Inc.		109,360		6,438,023
Pfizer, Inc.		1,784,758		57,968,940
				64,406,963
Professional Services—2.2%
Dun & Bradstreet Corp. (The)		9,260		1,123,423
Nielsen Holdings plc (a)		756,960		31,754,472
				32,877,895
Road & Rail—0.1%
CSX Corp.		26,160		939,929
Norfolk Southern Corp.		1,660		179,396
				1,119,325
Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment—5.1%
QUALCOMM, Inc.		1,090,553		71,104,056
Teradyne, Inc. (a)		193,218		4,907,737
				76,011,793
Software—0.3%
Oracle Corp.		97,480		3,748,106
Specialty Retail—0.0%
Lowe’s Cos., Inc.		4,100		291,592
Technology Hardware, Storage & Peripherals—1.5%
Apple, Inc.		190,640		22,079,925
Thrifts & Mortgage Finance—0.7%
New York Community Bancorp, Inc. (a)		693,980		11,041,222
Tobacco—0.1%
Philip Morris International, Inc.		23,870		2,183,866
Wireless Telecommunication Services—1.7%
Telephone & Data Systems, Inc.		782,496		22,590,659
United States Cellular Corp. (b)		63,840		2,791,085
				25,381,744
Total Common Stocks (Cost $1,261,944,674)				1,465,616,795
Convertible Preferred Stock—0.4%
Food Products—0.4%
Tyson Foods, Inc. 4.750%, 07/15/17 (Cost $4,431,350)		88,627		5,995,617

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-5

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Large Cap Value Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Short-Term Investment—1.1%

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Repurchase Agreement—1.1%
Fixed Income Clearing Corp. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/16 at 0.030% to be repurchased at $16,011,351 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $16,400,000 U.S. Treasury Note at 1.625% due 11/30/20 with a value of $16,332,268.		16,011,297	$	16,011,297
Total Short-Term Investments (Cost $16,011,297)				16,011,297
Securities Lending Reinvestments (c)—10.0%
Certificates of Deposit—5.8%
Banco Del Estado De Chile New York 1.154%, 06/21/17 (d)		3,000,000		2,999,385
Bank of Nova Scotia Houston 1.201%, 11/03/17 (d)		5,000,000		5,004,232
Bank of Tokyo UFJ, Ltd., New York 1.121%, 02/28/17 (d)		2,400,000		2,400,048
Barclays New York 0.894%, 02/10/17 (d)		5,000,000		5,001,617
BNP Paribas New York 1.226%, 08/04/17 (d)		4,500,000		4,501,998
Chiba Bank, Ltd., New York 0.870%, 01/10/17		1,700,000		1,700,039
Credit Suisse AG New York 1.364%, 05/12/17 (d)		4,500,000		4,500,468
1.444%, 04/24/17 (d)		3,200,000		3,200,752
DNB NOR Bank ASA 1.130%, 07/28/17 (d)		1,000,000		999,825
DZ Bank AG New York 1.010%, 02/27/17		2,000,000		2,000,578
KBC Brussells 1.050%, 01/27/17		3,000,000		3,000,570
1.050%, 02/07/17		1,500,000		1,500,375
Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen London Zero Coupon, 01/24/17		3,491,968		3,498,495
Mizuho Bank, Ltd., New York 1.361%, 04/26/17 (d)		2,000,000		1,999,898
National Australia Bank London 1.034%, 05/02/17 (d)		1,500,000		1,501,416
1.182%, 11/09/17 (d)		6,000,000		5,985,120
National Bank of Canada 0.650%, 01/06/17		8,000,000		8,000,320
Shizuoka Bank New York 0.840%, 01/03/17		3,200,000		3,200,013
Standard Chartered Bank New York 1.150%, 03/21/17		8,000,000		8,001,352
Sumitomo Bank New York 1.215%, 05/05/17 (d)		2,500,000		2,504,164
Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corp. 0.900%, 01/12/17		1,800,000		1,800,068
Sumitomo Mitsui Trust Bank, Ltd., London 1.262%, 05/08/17 (d)		4,000,000		4,007,326
Certificates of Deposit—(Continued)
Sumitomo Mitsui Trust Bank, Ltd., New York 1.351%, 04/26/17 (d)		3,000,000		3,000,354
Svenska Handelsbanken New York 1.266%, 05/18/17 (d)		1,500,000		1,500,261
UBS, Stamford 1.084%, 05/12/17 (d)		1,700,000		1,699,871
Wells Fargo Bank San Francisco N.A. 1.231%, 04/26/17 (d)		1,000,000		1,000,280
1.264%, 10/26/17 (d)		1,500,000		1,501,025
				86,009,850
Commercial Paper—2.8%
Atlantic Asset Securitization LLC 1.040%, 02/03/17		3,090,597		3,097,294
Barton Capital Corp. 0.660%, 01/12/17		2,497,113		2,499,377
Den Norske ASA 1.206%, 04/27/17 (d)		1,000,000		1,000,053
Erste Abwicklungsanstalt 1.014%, 03/10/17 (d)		4,500,000		4,500,027
HSBC plc 1.216%, 04/25/17 (d)		3,000,000		2,999,871
LMA Americas LLC 0.710%, 01/06/17		1,098,698		1,099,847
LMA S.A. & LMA Americas 1.000%, 01/13/17		249,396		249,913
Macquarie Bank, Ltd. 0.930%, 01/19/17		2,494,058		2,498,457
Old Line Funding LLC 0.840%, 01/03/17		1,696,946		1,699,866
1.030%, 03/13/17 (d)		4,000,000		4,003,122
Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp., Ltd. 0.890%, 02/21/17		1,496,588		1,498,008
Starbird Funding Corp. 1.240%, 06/13/17 (d)		250,000		249,980
Suncorp Metway, Ltd. 0.930%, 02/09/17		6,983,363		6,992,251
Toronto Dominion Holding Corp. 0.600%, 01/05/17		5,494,317		5,499,384
Versailles Commercial Paper LLC 1.000%, 01/31/17		1,994,667		1,998,496
Westpac Banking Corp. 1.232%, 10/20/17 (d)		2,000,000		2,003,492
				41,889,438
Repurchase Agreements—1.2%
Citigroup Global Markets, Ltd. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/29/16 at 0.710% to be repurchased at $31,287 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $31,557 U.S. Treasury and Foreign Obligations with rates ranging from 1.750% - 2.750%, maturity dates ranging from 10/15/19 - 11/15/23, with a value of $31,910.		31,284		31,284

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-6

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Large Cap Value Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Securities Lending Reinvestments (c)—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Repurchase Agreements—(Continued)
Deutsche Bank AG, London Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/16 at 0.950% to be repurchased at $19,514 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $19,920 Foreign Obligations with rates ranging from 1.750% - 2.500%, maturity dates ranging from 09/05/19 - 11/20/24, with a value of $19,902.		19,512	$	19,512
Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/16 at 1.050% to be repurchased at $5,000,583 on 01/03/17, collateralized by various Common Stock with a value of $5,557,775.		5,000,000		5,000,000
Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. Repurchase Agreement dated 10/18/16 at 1.110% to be repurchased at $1,506,290 on 03/03/17, collateralized by various Common Stock with a value of $1,650,000.		1,500,000		1,500,000
Goldman Sachs & Co. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/16 at 0.460% to be repurchased at $63,899 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $328,822 U.S. Government Agency Obligations with rates ranging from 2.000% - 10.500%, maturity dates ranging from 03/15/17 - 09/20/65, with a value of $65,174.		63,896		63,896
Macquarie Bank, Ltd. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/27/16 at 0.580% to be repurchased at $36,642 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $36,248 U.S. Treasury Obligations with rates ranging from 0.000% - 8.750%, maturity dates ranging from 01/05/17 - 05/15/46, with a value of $37,390.		36,638		36,638
Repurchase Agreement dated 12/15/16 at 0.600% to be repurchased at $10,003,667 on 01/06/17, collateralized by $9,893,551 U.S. Treasury Obligations with rates ranging from 0.000% - 8.750%, maturity dates ranging from 01/05/17 - 05/15/46, with a value of $10,205,168.		10,000,000		10,000,000
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. Repurchase Agreement dated 10/26/16 at 1.160% to be repurchased at $1,608,197 on 04/03/17, collateralized by various Common Stock with a value of $1,760,000.		1,600,000		1,600,000
				18,251,330
Time Deposits—0.2%
OP Corporate Bank plc 1.010%, 01/04/17		1,300,000		1,300,000
Time Deposits—(Continued)
Shinkin Central Bank 1.200%, 01/27/17		300,000		300,000
1.220%, 01/26/17		1,600,000		1,600,000
				3,200,000
Total Securities Lending Reinvestments (Cost $149,334,895)				149,350,618
Total Investments—109.7% (Cost $1,431,722,216) (e)				1,636,974,327
Other assets and liabilities (net)—(9.7)%				(144,272,441	)
Net Assets—100.0%			$	1,492,701,886

* Principal amount stated in U.S. dollars unless otherwise noted.

(a) All or a portion of the security was held on loan. As of December 31, 2016, the market value of securities loaned was $144,833,926 and the collateral received consisted of cash in the amount of $149,289,041. The cash collateral investments are disclosed in the Schedule of Investments and categorized as Securities Lending Reinvestments.

(b) Non-income producing security.

(c) Represents investment of cash collateral received from securities on loan as of December 31, 2016.

(d) Variable or floating rate security. The stated rate represents the rate at December 31, 2016.

(e) As of December 31, 2016, the aggregate cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was $1,439,020,135. The aggregate unrealized appreciation and depreciation of investments were $251,708,666 and $(53,754,474), respectively, resulting in net unrealized appreciation of $197,954,192 for federal income tax purposes.

(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.

MSF-7

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Large Cap Value Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Fair Value Hierarchy

Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) define 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, separately for each major category of assets and liabilities, 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, quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities 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, or other market corroborated inputs)

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 used in determining the fair value of investments and derivative financial instruments)

The inputs or methodologies used for valuing investments are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in them. Changes to the inputs or methodologies used may result in transfers between levels, which 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, 2016:

Description	Level 1		Level 2			Level 3		Total
Total Common Stocks*	$	1,465,616,795	$	—		$	—	$	1,465,616,795
Total Convertible Preferred Stock*		5,995,617		—			—		5,995,617
Total Short-Term Investment*		—		16,011,297			—		16,011,297
Total Securities Lending Reinvestments*		—		149,350,618			—		149,350,618
Total Investments	$	1,471,612,412	$	165,361,915		$	—	$	1,636,974,327
Collateral for Securities Loaned (Liability)	$	—	$	(149,289,041	)	$	—	$	(149,289,041	)

* See Schedule of Investments for additional detailed categorizations.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-8

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Large Cap Value Portfolio

Statement of Assets and Liabilities

December 31, 2016

Assets
Investments at value (a) (b)	$	1,636,974,327
Cash		91,366
Receivable for:
Investments sold		9,180,231
Fund shares sold		165,788
Dividends and interest		984,962
Prepaid expenses		4,205
Total Assets		1,647,400,879
Liabilities
Collateral for securities loaned		149,289,041
Payables for:
Investments purchased		2,578,186
Fund shares redeemed		1,752,496
Accrued Expenses:
Management fees		779,613
Distribution and service fees		63,418
Deferred trustees’ fees		91,376
Other expenses		144,863
Total Liabilities		154,698,993
Net Assets	$	1,492,701,886
Net Assets Consist of:
Paid in surplus	$	1,278,662,781
Undistributed net investment income		25,412,475
Accumulated net realized loss		(16,625,481	)
Unrealized appreciation on investments		205,252,111
Net Assets	$	1,492,701,886
Net Assets
Class A	$	1,174,948,629
Class B		263,040,482
Class E		54,712,775
Capital Shares Outstanding*
Class A		130,185,914
Class B		29,463,032
Class E		6,097,332
Net Asset Value, Offering Price and Redemption Price Per Share
Class A	$	9.03
Class B		8.93
Class E		8.97

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

(a) Identified cost of investments was $1,431,722,216.

(b) Includes securities loaned at value of $144,833,926.

Statement of Operations

Year Ended December 31, 2016

Investment Income
Dividends (a)	$	35,564,426
Interest		3,410
Securities lending income		299,482
Other income (b)		138,701
Total investment income		36,006,019
Expenses
Management fees		9,195,053
Administration fees		47,199
Custodian and accounting fees		93,546
Distribution and service fees—Class B		618,236
Distribution and service fees—Class E		74,709
Audit and tax services		42,040
Legal		33,031
Trustees’ fees and expenses		45,247
Shareholder reporting		66,371
Insurance		10,336
Miscellaneous		20,587
Total expenses		10,246,355
Less management fee waiver		(399,588	)
Net expenses		9,846,767
Net Investment Income		26,159,252
Net Realized and Unrealized Gain (Loss)
Net realized gain (loss) on:
Investments		(11,229,553	)
Foreign currency transactions		64
Net realized loss		(11,229,489	)
Net change in unrealized appreciation on investments		235,342,895
Net realized and unrealized gain		224,113,406
Net Increase in Net Assets From Operations	$	250,272,658

(a) Net of foreign withholding taxes of $133,873.

(b) Other income represents a non-recurring refund for overbilling of prior years’ custodian out-of-pocket fees.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-9

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Large Cap Value Portfolio

Statements of Changes in Net Assets

	Year Ended December 31, 2016			Year Ended December 31, 2015
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets:
From Operations
Net investment income	$	26,159,252		$	24,989,616
Net realized gain (loss)		(11,229,489	)		112,151,185
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation)		235,342,895			(227,214,620	)
Increase (decrease) in net assets from operations		250,272,658			(90,073,819	)
From Distributions to Shareholders
Net investment income
Class A		(19,387,735	)		(22,599,992	)
Class B		(3,535,480	)		(4,230,425	)
Class E		(763,362	)		(923,252	)
Net realized capital gains
Class A		(88,611,057	)		(101,131,805	)
Class B		(19,261,297	)		(22,003,704	)
Class E		(3,879,474	)		(4,536,965	)
Total distributions		(135,438,405	)		(155,426,143	)
Increase (decrease) in net assets from capital share transactions		(82,354,712	)		20,021,122
Total increase (decrease) in net assets		32,479,541			(225,478,840	)
Net Assets
Beginning of period		1,460,222,345			1,685,701,185
End of period	$	1,492,701,886		$	1,460,222,345
Undistributed net investment income
End of period	$	25,412,475		$	24,191,789

Other Information:

Capital Shares

Transactions in capital shares were as follows:

	Year Ended December 31, 2016						Year Ended December 31, 2015
	Shares			Value			Shares			Value
Class A
Sales		1,273,544		$	10,276,489			1,384,828		$	13,378,089
Reinvestments		13,670,734			107,998,792			13,162,957			123,731,797
Redemptions		(23,006,541	)		(199,668,801	)		(12,049,917	)		(120,870,123	)
Net increase (decrease)		(8,062,263	)	$	(81,393,520	)		2,497,868		$	16,239,763
Class B
Sales		1,901,610		$	15,743,752			1,809,435		$	16,514,461
Reinvestments		2,911,466			22,796,777			2,814,821			26,234,129
Redemptions		(4,927,460	)		(41,216,438	)		(3,981,200	)		(37,477,172	)
Net increase (decrease)		(114,384	)	$	(2,675,909	)		643,056		$	5,271,418
Class E
Sales		1,306,764		$	11,096,720			618,235		$	5,756,123
Reinvestments		590,692			4,642,836			583,357			5,460,217
Redemptions		(1,673,687	)		(14,024,839	)		(1,349,828	)		(12,706,399	)
Net increase (decrease)		223,769		$	1,714,717			(148,236	)	$	(1,490,059	)
Increase (decrease) derived from capital shares transactions				$	(82,354,712	)				$	20,021,122

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-10

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Large Cap Value Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class A
	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014			2013			2012
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	8.42		$	9.89		$	12.02		$	9.80		$	10.36
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (a)		0.16	(b)		0.15			0.16			0.15			0.17
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		1.28			(0.64	)		0.75			2.84			1.21
Total from investment operations		1.44			(0.49	)		0.91			2.99			1.38
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.15	)		(0.18	)		(0.16	)		(0.16	)		(0.18	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(0.68	)		(0.80	)		(2.88	)		(0.61	)		(1.76	)
Total distributions		(0.83	)		(0.98	)		(3.04	)		(0.77	)		(1.94	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	9.03		$	8.42		$	9.89		$	12.02		$	9.80
Total Return (%) (c)		18.51			(5.99	)		9.92			32.05	(d)		14.28
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Gross ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.66			0.65			0.65			0.65			0.66
Net ratio of expenses to average net assets (%) (e)		0.63			0.63			0.52	(f)		0.59			0.63
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		1.85	(b)		1.62			1.61			1.35			1.80
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		32			42			40			113			107
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	1,174.9		$	1,164.4		$	1,342.9		$	1,666.1		$	1,414.2
	Class B
	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014			2013			2012
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	8.34		$	9.80		$	11.93		$	9.73		$	10.30
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (a)		0.13	(b)		0.13			0.14			0.12			0.15
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		1.27			(0.64	)		0.74			2.82			1.20
Total from investment operations		1.40			(0.51	)		0.88			2.94			1.35
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.13	)		(0.15	)		(0.13	)		(0.13	)		(0.16	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(0.68	)		(0.80	)		(2.88	)		(0.61	)		(1.76	)
Total distributions		(0.81	)		(0.95	)		(3.01	)		(0.74	)		(1.92	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	8.93		$	8.34		$	9.80		$	11.93		$	9.73
Total Return (%) (c)		18.10			(6.18	)		9.70			31.74	(d)		13.97
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Gross ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.91			0.90			0.90			0.90			0.91
Net ratio of expenses to average net assets (%) (e)		0.88			0.88			0.77	(f)		0.84			0.88
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		1.60	(b)		1.37			1.36			1.10			1.52
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		32			42			40			113			107
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	263.0		$	246.6		$	283.6		$	278.6		$	229.5

Please see following page for Financial Highlights footnote legend.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-11

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Large Cap Value Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class E
	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014			2013			2012
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	8.38		$	9.84		$	11.97		$	9.76		$	10.32
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (a)		0.14	(b)		0.14			0.15			0.13			0.16
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		1.26			(0.64	)		0.74			2.83			1.21
Total from investment operations		1.40			(0.50	)		0.89			2.96			1.37
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.13	)		(0.16	)		(0.14	)		(0.14	)		(0.17	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(0.68	)		(0.80	)		(2.88	)		(0.61	)		(1.76	)
Total distributions		(0.81	)		(0.96	)		(3.02	)		(0.75	)		(1.93	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	8.97		$	8.38		$	9.84		$	11.97		$	9.76
Total Return (%) (c)		18.14			(6.07	)		9.79			31.88	(d)		14.14
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Gross ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.81			0.80			0.80			0.80			0.81
Net ratio of expenses to average net assets (%) (e)		0.78			0.78			0.67	(f)		0.74			0.78
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		1.69	(b)		1.47			1.46			1.20			1.62
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		32			42			40			113			107
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	54.7		$	49.2		$	59.3		$	59.9		$	47.9

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

(b) Net investment income per share and the ratio of net investment income to average net assets include a non-recurring refund for overbilling of prior years’ custodian out-of-pocket fees which amounted to less than $0.01 per share and 0.01% of average net assets, respectively.

(c) Total return does not reflect any insurance, sales, separate account or administrative charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts or any additional expenses that contract owners may bear under their variable contracts. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower.

(d) In 2013, 0.11%, 0.11% and 0.11% of the Portfolio’s total return for Class A, Class B and Class E, respectively, consists of a voluntary reimbursement by the subadvisor. Excluding this item, total return would have been 31.94%, 31.63% and 31.77% for Class A, Class B and Class E, respectively.

(e) Includes the effects of management fee waivers (see Note 5 of the Notes to Financial Statements).

(f) The effect of the voluntary portion of the waivers on average net assets was 0.10% for the year ended December 31, 2014.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-12

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Large Cap Value Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016

1. Organization

Metropolitan Series Fund (the “Trust”) is organized as a Delaware statutory trust and registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), as an open-end management investment company. The Trust, which is managed by MetLife Advisers, LLC (“MetLife Advisers” or the “Adviser”), an affiliate of MetLife, Inc., is currently comprised of thirty series, each of which operates as a distinct investment vehicle of the Trust. The portfolio included in this report is BlackRock Large 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.

On January 12, 2016, MetLife, Inc. announced its plan to pursue the separation of a substantial portion of its retail segment and is currently evaluating structural alternatives for such separation. It is anticipated that MetLife Advisers would be included in any such separation. Any separation transaction that might occur will be subject to the satisfaction of various conditions and approvals, including approval of any transaction by the MetLife, Inc. Board of Directors, satisfaction of any applicable requirements of the SEC, and receipt of insurance and other regulatory approvals and other anticipated conditions. MetLife, Inc. cannot currently provide a specific potential completion date for a separation transaction or any assurance that a separation will in fact occur. MetLife Advisers’ continued service as investment adviser to the Trusts following a separation transaction is the subject of a proxy statement that was filed with the SEC on December 20, 2016 and mailed to shareholders of the Portfolio on or about December 30, 2016.

The Portfolio has registered and offers three classes of shares: Class A, B and E shares. 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 plan and such distribution expenses are allocated to the corresponding Class of shares.

2. Significant Accounting Policies

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities as of the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of income and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates. In the preparation of these financial statements, management has evaluated events and transactions subsequent to December 31, 2016 through the date the financial statements were issued.

The Portfolio is an investment company and follows the accounting and reporting guidance of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Accounting Standards Codification Topic 946—Financial Services—Investment Companies and Topic 820—Fair Value Measurement. 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 - Domestic and foreign equity securities, such as common stock, exchange-traded funds, rights, warrants, and preferred stock, that are traded on a securities exchange on a valuation date are generally valued at their last quoted sale price or official closing price on the primary exchange for such security, or, if no sales occurred on that day, at the last reported bid price. Equity securities traded over-the-counter (“OTC”) are generally valued at the last reported bid price. In the event of a major exchange closing during the trading day, the Adviser may use other market information obtained from quotation reporting systems, established market makers, or pricing services in valuing the securities. Valuation adjustments may be applied to certain foreign equity securities that are traded solely on foreign exchanges that close before the time as of which the Portfolio determines its NAV to account for the market movement between the close of the foreign exchanges and the time as of which the Portfolio determines its NAV. The Portfolio may use a systematic fair valuation model provided by a pricing service to value securities principally traded in these foreign markets in order to adjust for possible market movements or other changes that may occur between the close of the foreign exchanges and the time as of which the Portfolio determines its NAV. Foreign equity securities valued using these valuation adjustments are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy. Equity securities that are actively traded, and have no valuation adjustments applied, are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other equity securities traded on inactive markets, or valued in reference to similar instruments traded on active markets, 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 on the valuation date and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy.

Debt securities, including corporate, convertible and municipal bonds and notes; obligations of the U.S. Treasury and U.S. government agencies; foreign sovereign issues; 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 the Adviser (each a “pricing service”), pursuant to

MSF-13

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Large Cap Value Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

authorization of and subject to general oversight by the Board of Trustees of the Trust (the “Board” or “Trustees”). Such pricing services may use matrix pricing, which considers observable inputs including, among other things, issuer details, maturity dates, interest rates, yield curves, rates of prepayment, credit risks/spreads, default rates, reported trades, broker dealer quotes and quoted prices for similar assets. Short-term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less may be valued at amortized cost in the absence of market quotes, so long as the amortized cost value of such short-term debt instrument is approximately the same as the fair value of the instrument as determined without the use of amortized cost valuation. Floating rate loans are generally valued on the basis of an evaluated or composite average of aggregate bid and ask quotations supplied by brokers or dealers, as obtained from the pricing service. Securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally 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 sale price available as of the close of business on a valuation day or, if there is no such price available, at the last reported bid price. These types of options are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Futures contracts that are traded on commodity exchanges are valued at their settlement prices established by the exchanges on which they are traded as of the close of such exchanges and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy.

If no current market value quotation or other observable inputs are readily available or market value quotations are deemed to be unreliable for an investment, the fair value of the investment will be determined in accordance with procedures approved by, and under the general supervision of, the Board. In such a circumstance, the Board will be assisted in its responsibility to determine the fair value of an investment by the Valuation Committee (“Committee”) of MetLife Advisers. The Committee provides general pricing oversight and fair value pricing determinations related to portfolio securities and meets on a regular basis to review reports relating to the valuation of the securities in the Portfolio. The Board has delegated to State Street Bank and Trust Company, the Trust’s custodian (“custodian”), the responsibility for calculating the net asset values (“NAVs”) of the Trust’s Portfolios. The Committee is responsible for overseeing the calculation of the NAVs of the Portfolios by the custodian. The Committee also periodically reviews pricing services, including the pricing services providing fair value pricing for the Portfolio’s foreign securities, and is responsible for overseeing the correction of pricing errors and addressing other pricing issues that arise in the ordinary course of business, such as making real-time fair value determinations, as necessary.

No single standard for determining the fair value of an investment can be set forth because fair value depends upon the facts and circumstances with respect to each investment. Information relating to any relevant factors may be obtained by the Committee from any appropriate source, including the subadviser of the Portfolio, the custodian, a pricing service, market maker and/or broker for such security or the issuer. Appropriate methodologies for determining fair value under particular circumstances may include: matrix pricing, a discounted cash flow analysis, comparisons of securities with comparable characteristics, value based on multiples of earnings, discount from market price of similar marketable securities or a combination of these and other methods.

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 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. These foreign taxes have been provided for in accordance with the Portfolio’s understanding of the applicable countries’ tax rules and rates.

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 the U.S. dollar 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. Because the values of investment securities are translated at the foreign exchange rates prevailing at the end of the period, that portion of the results of operations arising from changes in exchange rates and that portion of the results of operations reflecting fluctuations arising from changes in market prices of the investment securities are not separated. 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. 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.

Dividends and Distributions to Shareholders - The Portfolio records dividends and distributions on the ex-dividend date. Net realized gains from securities 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

MSF-14

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Large Cap Value Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

to distribution re-designations, adjustments to prior period accumulated balances, real estate investment trust (REIT) adjustments and foreign currency transactions. These adjustments have no impact on net assets or the results 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 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. As of December 31, 2016, the Portfolio had no uncertain tax positions that would require financial statement recognition, or de-recognition or disclosure.

Repurchase Agreements - The Portfolio may enter into repurchase agreements, under the terms of a Master Repurchase Agreement (“MRA”), 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, under a tri-party repurchase agreement, receives delivery of the underlying securities collateralizing any repurchase agreements. It is the Portfolio’s policy that the market value of the collateral be equal to at least 100% of the repurchase price in the case of a repurchase agreement of one-day duration and equal to at least 102% of the repurchase price in the case of all other repurchase agreements. In the event of default or failure by a party to perform an obligation in connection with any repurchase transaction, the MRA gives the non-defaulting party the right to set-off claims and to apply property held by it in connection with any repurchase transaction against obligations owed to it.

At December 31, 2016, the Portfolio had direct investments in repurchase agreements with a gross value of $16,011,297. Additionally, the Portfolio invested cash collateral for loans of portfolio securities in repurchase agreements with a gross value of $18,251,330. The combined value of all repurchase agreements is included as part of investments at value on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. The value of the related collateral exceeded the value of the repurchase agreements at December 31, 2016.

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 collateral held from securities on loan. 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.

Effective September 8, 2016, the Trust has entered into a Non-Custodial Securities Lending Agreement with JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (the “lending agent”). Prior to September 8, 2016, the Trust had entered into a Securities Lending Authorization Agreement with the custodian (the “prior lending agent”). Under each agreement, the lending agent is authorized to loan portfolio securities on the Portfolio’s behalf. In exchange, the Portfolio receives either cash or government securities as collateral against the loaned securities. The Portfolio receives collateral equal to at least 102% of the market value for loans secured by government securities or cash in the same currency as the loaned shares and 105% for all other loaned securities at each loan’s inception. Collateral representing at least 100% of the market value of the loaned securities is maintained for the duration of the loan. Any cash collateral received by the Portfolio is generally invested by the lending agent in short-term investments, which may include certificates of deposit, commercial paper, repurchase agreements, time deposits and money market funds. Cash collateral that was received by the prior lending agent had been generally invested in the State Street Navigator Securities Lending MET Portfolio (the “Navigator Portfolio”), a series of the State Street Navigator Securities Lending Trust that was a registered money market fund managed by an affiliate of the custodian. The market value of investments made with cash collateral received are disclosed in the Schedule of Investments and the valuation techniques are described in Note 2. 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 is 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 is equal to at least 100% of the market value of all the loaned securities as of such preceding day. A portion of the income earned on the collateral is rebated to the borrower of the securities and the remainder is split between the lending agent and the Portfolio. On loans collateralized by government securities, a fee is received from the borrower and is allocated between the Portfolio and the lending agent.

Income received by the Portfolio in securities lending transactions during the year ended December 31, 2016 is reflected as securities lending income on the Statement of Operations. The values of any securities loaned by the Portfolio and the related collateral at December 31, 2016 are disclosed in the footnotes to the Schedule of Investments. The value of the related collateral received by the Portfolio exceeded the value of the securities out on loan at December 31, 2016.

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. The lending agent shall indemnify the Portfolio in the case of default of any securities borrower, subject to the terms of the Non-Custodial Securities Lending Agreement.

MSF-15

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Large Cap Value Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

All securities on loan are classified as Common Stocks in the Portfolio’s Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016, with a contractual maturity of overnight and continuous.

3. Certain Risks

In the normal course of business, the Portfolio invests in securities and enters into transactions where risks exist. Those risks include:

Market 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, interest rate, and price fluctuations.

Credit and Counterparty Risk: 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 and counterparty risk consist principally of cash due from counterparties and investments. The Portfolio manages counterparty risk by entering into agreements only with counterparties that it believes have the financial resources to honor their obligations and by monitoring the financial stability of those counterparties. The Portfolio’s investment adviser attempts to mitigate counterparty risk by (i) periodically assessing the creditworthiness of its trading partners, (ii) monitoring and/or limiting the amount of its net exposure to each individual counterparty based on its assessment, and (iii) requiring collateral from the counterparty for certain transactions. In order to preserve certain safeguards for non-standard settlement trades, the Portfolio restricts its exposure to credit and counterparty losses by entering into master netting agreements (“Master Agreements”) with counterparties (approved brokers) with whom it undertakes a significant volume of transactions. Master Agreements govern the terms of certain transactions, and reduce the counterparty risk associated with relevant transactions by specifying credit protection mechanisms and providing standardization that improves legal certainty. Master Agreements can also help limit counterparty risk by specifying collateral posting arrangements at pre-arranged exposure levels.

Repurchase and reverse repurchase agreements are primarily executed under Global Master Repurchase Agreements (“GMRAs”) or Master Repurchase Agreements (“MRAs”), which provide the rights to set-off. Each repurchase and reverse repurchase agreement is initially collateralized at the transaction level. In the event of default, the total market value exposure will be offset against collateral exchanged to date, which would result in a net receivable/(payable) that would be due from/to the counterparty.

Additional risks associated with each type of investment are described above within the respective security type notes. The Portfolio’s prospectus includes a discussion of the principal risks of investing in the Portfolio.

4. Investment Transactions

Aggregate cost of purchases and proceeds of sales of investment securities, excluding short-term securities, for the year ended December 31, 2016 were as follows:

Purchases			Sales
U.S. Government	Non U.S. Government		U.S. Government		Non U.S. Government
$0	$	460,388,329	$	0	$	646,211,025

5. Investment Management Fees and Other Transactions with Affiliates

Investment Management Agreement - MetLife Advisers is the investment adviser to the Portfolio. The Trust has entered into an investment management agreement with MetLife Advisers with respect to the Portfolio. For providing investment management services to the Portfolio, MetLife Advisers receives monthly compensation at the following annual rates:

Management Fees earned by MetLife Advisers for the year ended December 31, 2016	% per annum			Average Daily Net Assets
$9,195,053		0.700	%	On the first $250 million
		0.650	%	Of the next $500 million
		0.600	%	On amounts in excess of $750 million

MetLife Advisers has entered into an investment subadvisory agreement with respect to managing the Portfolio. BlackRock Advisors, LLC is compensated by MetLife Advisers to provide subadvisory services for the Portfolio.

MSF-16

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Large Cap Value Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

Management Fee Waivers - Pursuant to an expense agreement, MetLife Advisers has agreed, for the period May 1, 2016 to April 30, 2017, to reduce its advisory fees set out above under “Investment Management Agreement” for each class of the Portfolio as follows:

% per annum	Average Daily Net Assets
0.020%	Of the first $250 million
0.025%	On the next $500 million
0.050%	On amounts in excess of $1 billion

An identical expense agreement was in place for the period May 1, 2015 to April 30, 2016. Amounts waived for the year ended December 31, 2016 are shown as a management fee waiver in the Statement of Operations.

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 and Service Fees - The Trust has a distribution agreement with MetLife Investors Distribution Company (“MIDC” or the “Distributor”) in which MIDC serves as the distributor for the Portfolio’s Class A, B and E Shares. MIDC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife Investors Group, LLC, an affiliate of the Adviser. The Trust has also adopted a Distribution and Service Plan under Rule 12b-1 of the 1940 Act for the Portfolio’s Class B and E Shares. Under the Distribution and Service Plan, the Class B and E Shares of the Portfolio pay a fee to compensate the Insurance Companies (or their affiliates) and other broker-dealers and financial intermediaries involved in the offer and sale of Portfolio shares for promoting or selling and servicing the Class B and E Shares. The fees under the Distribution and Service Plan for each class of the Portfolio’s shares are calculated as a percentage of the Portfolio’s average daily net assets that are attributable to that Class. Currently, the fee is 0.25% per year for Class B Shares and 0.15% per year for Class E Shares. Amounts incurred by the Portfolio for the year ended December 31, 2016 are shown as Distribution and service fees in the Statement of Operations.

Deferred Trustee Compensation - Each Trustee 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 Trust. 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 Met Investors Series Trust, an affiliate of the Trust, 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 under the Plan is reflected as Deferred trustees’ fees in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

6. Contractual Obligations

Under the Trust’s organizational documents, its officers and Trustees may be indemnified against certain liabilities and expenses arising out of the performance of their duties to the Trust. Additionally, 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 Trust that have not yet occurred.

7. Income Tax Information

The tax character of distributions paid for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015 were as follows:

Ordinary Income			Long-Term Capital Gain				Total
2016	2015		2016		2015		2016		2015
$45,420,920	$	91,191,427	$	90,017,485	$	64,234,716	$	135,438,405	$	155,426,143

As of December 31, 2016, 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		Other Accumulated Capital Losses			Total
$25,503,850	$	—	$	197,954,193	$	(9,327,563	)	$	214,130,480

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

MSF-17

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Large Cap Value Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

as short-term and/or long-term losses. Previously, net capital losses were carried forward for up to 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, 2016, the Portfolio had long term accumulated capital losses of $9,327,563 and no pre-enactment accumulated capital loss carryforwards.

8. Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In October 2016, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) adopted new rules and forms, and amendments to certain current rules and forms, to modernize reporting and disclosure of information by registered investment companies. The amendments to Regulation S-X will require standardized, enhanced disclosure about derivatives in investment company financial statements, and will also change the rules governing the form and content of such financial statements. The compliance date for the amendments to Regulation S-X is August 1, 2017. Management is currently evaluating the impact that the adoption of the amendments to Regulation S-X will have on the Portfolio’s financial statements and related disclosures.

MSF-18

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Large Cap Value Portfolio

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Shareholders of BlackRock Large Cap Value Portfolio and the Board of Trustees of Metropolitan Series Fund:

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities, including the schedule of investments, of BlackRock Large Cap Value Portfolio (one of the portfolios constituting the Metropolitan Series Fund) (the “Portfolio”) as of December 31, 2016, 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 Portfolio’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 Portfolio 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 Portfolio’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, 2016, by correspondence with the custodian and brokers; when 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 Value Portfolio of the Metropolitan Series Fund as of December 31, 2016, 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.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

February 24, 2017

MSF-19

Metropolitan Series Fund

Trustees and Officers

MANAGEMENT OF THE TRUSTS

The Boards of Trustees (the “Board”) of Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (“MIST” and “MSF”, respectively, and collectively the “Trusts”) supervise the Trusts and are responsible for representing the interests of shareholders. The Trustees, the Chairman of the Board and the Chairmen of each subcommittee are the same for both Trusts. The Trustees of each Trust meet periodically throughout the year to oversee the Portfolios’ activities, reviewing, among other things, each Portfolio’s performance and its contractual arrangements with various service providers. The Trustees of each Trust elect the officers of the Trust, who are responsible for administering the Trust’s day-to-day operations.

Trustees and Officers

The Trustees and executive officers of the Trusts, as well as their ages and their principal occupations during the past five years, are set forth below. Unless otherwise indicated, the business address of each is c/o MetLife Funds, One Financial Center, Boston, Massachusetts 02111. Each Trustee who is deemed an “interested person,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, is referred to as an “Interested Trustee.” Those Trustees who are not “interested persons,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, are referred to as “Independent Trustees.” There is no limit to the term a Trustee may serve. Trustees serve until their death, resignation or removal in accordance with the MIST Trust’s and MSF Trust’s respective organizational documents and policies adopted by the Boards of the respective Trusts from time to time. Officers hold office at the pleasure of each Board and serve until their removal or resignation in accordance with the Trusts’ respective organizational documents and policies adopted by the Board of each Trust from time to time.

Name and Age	Current 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 MetLife Funds Complex(2) Overseen by Trustee	Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Interested Trustee
John Rosenthal* (56)	Trustee	Indefinite; From May 2016 (MIST and MSF) to present	Senior Managing Director and Head of Global Portfolio Management, MetLife, Inc.	75	None
Independent Trustees
Dawn M. Vroegop (50)	Trustee and Chairman of the Board	Indefinite; From December 2000 (MIST)/ May 2009 (MSF) to present as Trustee; From May 2016 (MIST and MSF) until present as Chairman	Private Investor.	75	Trustee, Driehaus Mutual Funds.**
Stephen M. Alderman (57)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 (MIST)/ April 2012 (MSF) to present	Shareholder in the law firm of Garfield and Merel, Ltd.	75	None

MSF-20

Metropolitan Series Fund

Trustees and Officers—(Continued)

Name and Age	Current 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 MetLife Funds Complex(2) Overseen by Trustee	Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Robert J. Boulware (60)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 (MIST)/ April 2012 (MSF) to present	Managing Director, Pilgrim Funds, LLC (private equity fund).	75	Trustee, Vertical Capital Income Fund (closed-end fund);** Director, Gainsco, Inc. (auto insurance);** Trustee, SharesPost 100 Fund (closed-end fund).**
Susan C. Gause (64)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 (MIST)/ April 2012 (MSF) to present	Private Investor.	75	Trustee, HSBC Funds.**
Nancy Hawthorne (65)	Trustee	Indefinite; From May 2003 (MSF)/ April 2012 (MIST) to present	Partner, Hawthorne Financial Advisors, LLC (registered investment advisor); until June 2014, Chief Executive Officer, Clerestory LLC (corporate advisor).	75	Director and Chairman of the Board of Directors, THL Credit, Inc.;** Lead Director, Avid Technology, Inc.;** Director, CRA International, Inc.**
Barbara A. Nugent (60)	Trustee	Indefinite; From January 2014 (MIST and MSF) to present	President, True North Board Governance, LLC (consulting); until December 2013, partner in the law firm of Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young, LLP.	75	None
Linda B. Strumpf (69)	Trustee	Indefinite; From May 2000 (MSF)/ April 2012 (MIST) to present	Chair of the Investment Committee, Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust; until June 2011, Chief Investment Officer, Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust.	75	None

Executive Officers

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Kristi Slavin (43)	President and Chief Executive Officer, of MIST and MSF	From May 2016 (MIST and MSF) to present	President, MetLife Advisers, LLC (May 2016-present); Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Vice President, MetLife, Inc.; Vice President, MIST and MSF (2015-2016).

MSF-21

Metropolitan Series Fund

Trustees and Officers—(Continued)

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Peter H. Duffy (61)	Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, of MIST and MSF	From November 2000 (MSF)/ May 2012 (MIST) to present	Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Andrew L. Gangolf (62)	Secretary, of MIST and MSF	From May 2011 (MIST and MSF) to present	Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; until 2011, Senior Vice President & Assistant General Counsel, AllianceBernstein Investments, Inc.
Steven E. Hartstein (53)	Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”), of MIST and MSF	From February 2014 (MIST and MSF) to present	Vice President, MetLife, Inc. (2013-present); Senior Vice President and CCO, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Executive Director, Morgan Stanley (2009-2013); CCO, Consulting Group Capital Markets Funds (2006-2013).
Alan C. Leland (64)	Vice President, of MIST and MSF	From February 2005 (MSF)/ May 2012 (MIST) to present	Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Vice President, MetLife, Inc.

* Mr. Rosenthal is an “interested person” of the Trusts because of his position with MetLife, Inc., the current parent company of MetLife Advisers, LLC.

** 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 Trusts, MetLife, Inc. or the Manager are omitted if not materially different.

(2) The Fund Complex includes 45 MIST Portfolios and 30 MSF Portfolios.

MSF-22

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Large Cap Value Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements

At an in-person meeting held on November 15-16, 2016 (the “November Meeting”), the Boards of Trustees (the “Board”) of the Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (“MIST” and “MSF,” respectively, and collectively, the “Trusts”), including a majority of the Trustees who are not “interested persons” of the Trusts (the “Independent Trustees”) under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “1940 Act”), approved the continuation of the Trusts’ advisory agreements (each, an “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 the series of the Trusts (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”).

In reaching that decision, the Board reviewed a variety of materials provided for the specific purpose of the annual contract renewal process. In addition, various materials provided to and discussed with the Board throughout the year also informed the Board’s decision to renew the Agreements. That information for each Portfolio included, but was not limited to, investment performance reports, along with periodic reports on various expenses, shareholder services, legal and compliance matters, asset pricing, brokerage commissions and trade execution. The Board also recognized the pending separation of the Adviser from its parent company, MetLife, Inc., as a consideration in their deliberations with respect to the Agreements.

The Board met in person with personnel of the Adviser on September 27, 2016 for the specific purpose of giving preliminary consideration to the proposed continuation of the Agreements (the “September Meeting”) through the review by the Adviser with the Board of the performance and fees experienced by each Portfolio, as well as other information. In considering the Agreements, the Independent Trustees were advised by independent legal counsel throughout the contract renewal process, and met with independent legal counsel in several executive sessions outside of the presence of management.

Information furnished and reviewed specifically in connection with the renewal process included, but was not limited to, a report for each Portfolio prepared by Broadridge (“Broadridge”), an independent organization, and a Portfolio-by-Portfolio profitability analysis prepared by the Adviser. In addition, the Independent Trustees received and reviewed a report prepared by JDL Consultants, LLC (“JDL”), an independent consultant to the Independent Trustees (“JDL Report”), which examined the comparative fees, expenses and performance of each Portfolio, based upon the Broadridge reports. Also, the Board reviewed the responses to wide-ranging questions relating to the business, operations and performance of the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers that the Adviser and Sub-Advisers had prepared specifically for the renewal process.

At the November Meeting, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, concluded that the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser supported the renewal of the Agreements. The Board also concluded that the investment performance of each Portfolio was such that each Agreement should continue, and that the fees paid by a Portfolio to the Adviser appeared to be reasonable in light of the nature, extent and quality of the services provided by the Adviser and Sub-Adviser. Further, the Board concluded that the Adviser’s profitability in providing services under the Advisory Agreements did not appear unreasonably high in light of the nature, extent and quality of the services provided by the Adviser. Finally, the Board concluded that the investment advisory fees paid by the Portfolios in some measure shared economies of scale with contract holders. In approving the renewal of each of the Agreements, the Board, including the Independent Trustees, gave attention to all of the information that was furnished. The Board evaluated the information available to it on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis, and its decision was made separately with respect to each Portfolio. The following discusses some of the primary factors that generally were relevant to the Board’s decision. The Board did not identify any single factor as controlling, and the Trustees generally attributed different weights to various factors for the various Portfolios.

Nature, extent and quality of services. The Board evaluated the nature, extent and quality of the services that the Adviser, and the Sub-Advisers as relevant, have provided to the Portfolios. The Board considered the Adviser’s services as investment manager to the Portfolios, including its services relating to the oversight of the Sub-Advisers and their investment management activities, trading practices, financial condition, relevant personnel matters and compliance programs, among other things. The Adviser’s services in coordinating and overseeing the activities of the Trusts’ other service providers were also considered. The Board considered information received from the Trusts’ Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) regarding the Portfolios’ compliance policies and procedures that were established pursuant to Rule 38a-l under the 1940 Act. In addition, throughout the year, the Board considered the expertise, experience and performance of the personnel of the Adviser who performed the various services that are mentioned above.

The Board also noted that the Adviser’s investment, compliance and legal staff conduct regular, periodic, telephonic and in-person meetings with the Sub-Advisers to review and assess the services that are provided to the Portfolios, and that personnel of the Adviser prepare and present reports to the Independent Trustees regarding those meetings.

MSF-23

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Large Cap Value Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

With respect to the services provided by each of the Sub-Advisers, the Board considered a variety of information that the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser provided. The Board considered each Sub-Adviser’s investment process and philosophy, and the investment performance experienced by the Portfolio (as described in more detail below). The Board took into account that each Sub-Adviser’s responsibilities include the development and maintenance of an investment program for the applicable Portfolio that 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. In particular, the Board considered, among other things, the Sub-Adviser’s current level of staffing as well as its compensation program and its overall resources. The Board reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s history and investment experience, as well as information provided 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 regulatory and disciplinary history. In its review, the Board also took into account information regarding any services and/or payments provided to the Adviser by the Sub-Advisers in connection with marketing activities.

Performance. The Board placed emphasis on the performance of the Portfolios in light of, among other things, its importance to contract holders. The Board considered the Adviser’s quarterly reviews with the Board of detailed information about each Portfolio’s investment strategies and performance results and composition, including discussions regarding the relevant effect of current market conditions. The Board reviewed and considered the reports prepared by Broadridge, which provided a statistical analysis comparing the Portfolios’ investment performance to that of comparable funds underlying variable insurance products (the “Performance Universe”). The Independent Trustees also met separately with a representative of JDL during the September Meeting to review the JDL Report. The Board also compared the performance records of certain Portfolios to those of comparable funds that were managed by the relevant Sub-Adviser. At the November Meeting, the Board considered each Portfolio’s performance for periods subsequent to the performance period covered by the Broadridge reports, and the Adviser’s discussion of the same, including the effect of current market conditions on each Portfolio’s more recent performance.

The Board focused particular attention on Portfolios with less favorable performance records. The Board noted the Adviser’s focus on each Sub-Adviser’s performance and that the Adviser has been active in monitoring and responding to any performance issues with respect to the Portfolios.

Fees and Expenses. The Board gave consideration to the level and method of computing the fees payable under the Agreements. The Board considered the Broadridge report for each of the Portfolios, which included comparisons for each Portfolio of its contractual management and sub-adviser fees (at current and various asset levels), and total expenses, with those of its peers, including as those peers were divided into a broad group of peer funds (“Expense Universe”), a narrower group of peer funds (“Expense Group”), a broad group of peer sub-advised funds (“Sub-advised Expense Universe”), and a narrower group of peer sub-advised funds (“Sub-advised Expense Group”). Broadridge selected the peer funds which were similarly situated funds underlying variable insurance products deemed to be comparable to the Portfolios. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of JDL, also examined the JDL Report. The Board compared the fee payable to a Sub-Adviser by the Adviser with respect to the Portfolio to the fee payable to the Sub-Adviser by other comparable funds and accounts, to the extent such information was available.

The Board noted that the sub-advisory fees for the Portfolios are paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fee, and that, in the case of an unaffiliated Sub-Adviser, the Adviser negotiates the fee at arm’s length. The Board also considered that the Adviser had entered into expense limitation or management fee waiver agreements with certain of the Portfolios pursuant to which the Adviser had 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.

Profitability. The Board examined the profitability of the Adviser on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis. The Board also considered that an affiliate of the Adviser, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, serves as distributor for the Trusts, and, as such, receives Rule 12b-1 payments to support the distribution of the Portfolios. The Board considered the profitability to the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates as a result of their relationships with the Portfolios, to the extent available, and the Board considered the ability of the Adviser to negotiate with an unaffiliated Sub-Adviser at arm’s length. In reviewing the profitability analyses, the Board recognized that expense allocation methodologies are inherently subjective and various expense allocation methodologies may be reasonable while producing different results.

Economies of scale. The Board also considered each Portfolio’s fees in light of its size. The Board noted the fee schedules for the Portfolios that 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

MSF-24

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Large Cap Value Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

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 and Sub-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. The Board examined, among other data, the effect of a Portfolio’s growth in size, and reduction in size, on various fee schedules and the Board reviewed the Broadridge and JDL Reports, which compared fees among peers. The Board also generally noted that if a Portfolio’s assets increase over time, the Portfolio may realize other economies of scale if assets increase proportionally more than certain other fixed expenses.

Other factors. The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trusts. Among them, the Board recognized that MetLife Investors Distribution Company, as the distributor for the Trusts, receives payments pursuant to Rule 12b-1 from the Portfolios to compensate for the provision of shareholder services and distribution activities, which could lead to growth in the Trusts’ assets and corresponding benefits from such growth, including economies of scale. The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by each Sub-Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trusts, including the opportunity to provide advisory services to additional portfolios of the Trusts and reputational benefits. In conjunction with these considerations, the Board noted the ongoing commitment of the Adviser to the Portfolios.

The Board considered possible conflicts of interest in the form of material benefits or detriments to the Trusts resulting from the nature of the Trusts’ and the Adviser’s or the Sub-Advisers’ affiliations and the services that are provided to the Trusts, and the manner in which such conflicts were mitigated.

*  *  *

BlackRock Large Cap Value Portfolio. The Board also considered the following information in relation to the Agreements with the Adviser and BlackRock Advisors, LLC regarding the Portfolio:

Among other data relating specifically to the 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, 2016. The Board further considered that the Portfolio underperformed its benchmark, the Russell 1000 Value Index, for the one-, three-, and five-year periods ended October 31, 2016. The Board took into account management’s discussion of the Portfolio’s performance, including prevailing market conditions.

The Board also 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 noted that the Portfolio’s contractual management fees were above the asset-weighted average of certain comparable funds at the Portfolio’s current size. The Board also noted that the Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees were above the averages of the Sub-advised Expense Group and Sub-advised Expense Universe at the Portfolio’s current size.

MSF-25

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Large Cap Value Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Advisory Agreements

The separation (the “Separation”) of MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”), the investment adviser to each of the series (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”) of Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (collectively, the “Trusts”), from its parent company, MetLife, Inc. (“MetLife”), to a separate retail business, Brighthouse Financial, Inc. (“Brighthouse”), is expected to result in a change in control of the Adviser, and therefore an “assignment” of each Portfolio’s current advisory agreement (each a “Current Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “Current Advisory Agreements”). At the November 15-16, 2016 meeting (“November Meeting”) of the Board of Trustees of the Trusts (the “Board”), the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not “interested persons,” as defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940, of any Portfolio (the “Independent Trustees”), approved a new advisory agreement (each a “New Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “New Advisory Agreements”) between the Trusts, on behalf of a Portfolio, and the Adviser, to be effective upon the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements in connection with the Separation, and recommended that the shareholders of the Trusts approve the New Advisory Agreements. The Board took those actions after consideration of and deliberation over information concerning the Separation, including with respect to the degree to which the Separation would affect the provision of investment advisory services to the Trusts. Information about the Board’s considerations and process is set forth below.

In determining whether to approve the New Advisory Agreements and in considering the Separation, the Board considered the nature, quality and extent of the services that are currently provided by the Adviser under the Current Advisory Agreements as well as the services to be provided under the New Advisory Agreements. The Board’s review was conducted as part of, and in conjunction with, the Board’s annual review of the Current Advisory Agreements, which culminated at the November Meeting. In approving the New Advisory Agreements, the Board considered its conclusions with respect to its approvals of the Current Advisory Agreements, including the Board’s general satisfaction with the nature, extent and quality of services being provided by the Adviser to each Portfolio. Appendix A and Appendix B contains a further description of the process followed, information reviewed and the material factors considered by the Board in approving the continuation of the Current Advisory Agreements.

A substantial portion of the Board’s review of the New Advisory Agreements focused on the Separation, including the potential effect of the implementation of the Separation on the operations, personnel, organizational structure, capitalization, and financial and other resources of the Adviser. After being informed by the Adviser in January 2016 of the possibility of the Separation, the Board and its Committees discussed the Separation and its possible effects on the Trusts with personnel of the Adviser and the anticipated senior management at Brighthouse during the course of the Board’s or Committee’s regularly scheduled, in-person, quarterly meetings.

Between August and November 2016, the Board and the Independent Trustees engaged in an extensive review and analysis of the Separation and how the Separation related to the Adviser and the Trusts and how it could affect the services provided to the Trusts. This analysis focused on, among other matters, the assurances from Brighthouse’s anticipated leadership as to its expectations for the continuity and stability of the Adviser’s personnel throughout implementation of the Separation and for the foreseeable future thereafter. The Board considered that the Separation is being implemented as a result of MetLife’s determination to divest itself of a substantial portion of its U.S. retail business (of which the Adviser forms a portion). The Board also considered that it has been satisfied as a general matter with the nature and quality of the services that the Adviser provides to the Portfolios, including investment advisory, administrative, legal, compliance, and support services, and that it would be in the Portfolios’ best interests to maintain continuity and stability in the services that are currently being provided. The Board carefully considered the anticipated future plans of Brighthouse related to capitalization and operational matters for Brighthouse and the Adviser, as well as the importance of the Adviser to the businesses of Brighthouse after the Separation.

Among other steps in its review process, which accelerated on October 5, 2016 when Brighthouse filed its Form 10 with the SEC, the following actions were taken and considered by or on behalf of the Board:

1. The Independent Trustees solicited and received ongoing advice regarding the legal duties of the Independent Trustees from Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young LLP (“Stradley Ronon”), legal counsel for the Independent Trustees, which law firm has extensive experience regarding such matters.

2. Following the August 16-17, 2016 Board and Committee quarterly meetings, the Independent Trustees established an ad hoc group of Independent Trustees (the “Working Group”) to help oversee, coordinate, and conduct due diligence activities with respect to the Separation. The Working Group regularly reported on the due diligence activities to the other Independent Trustees.

3. Since January 2016, the Board posed ongoing inquiries to, and received regular updates from, the Adviser and anticipated senior management at Brighthouse at either in-person meetings dedicated to the status of the Separation or during the course of the Board or Committee’s regular quarterly meetings. The Board considered, among other matters, relevant legal guidance and the processes followed by certain other investment company boards of directors or trustees when they approved contracts in connection with change in control events, while recognizing the unique circumstances of the Separation.

MSF-26

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Large Cap Value Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

4. The Board received and reviewed the Form 10 of Brighthouse that contained extensive information relating to, among other matters, Brighthouse’s anticipated business plans and financial structure. The Board also received and reviewed reports from rating agencies with respect to Brighthouse.

5. Stradley Ronon retained Barrington Partners (“Barrington”), an independent consulting firm with a specific focus on the asset management industry and experience relating to business operations such as those to be conducted by Brighthouse, including its proposed subsidiary, the Adviser, in order to help Stradley Ronon evaluate the Separation based on the Form 10 and other materials and related information provided by the Adviser and its affiliates. Barrington conducted a series of in-person and telephonic meetings with anticipated senior management at Brighthouse (i.e., the aforementioned anticipated officers of Brighthouse and others) and with personnel of the Adviser who provide services to the Trusts. Stradley Ronon, with the assistance of Barrington, evaluated the information and advised the Independent Trustees with respect to, among other matters, details of Brighthouse’s anticipated business plan to understand the implications of the Separation to the Adviser and its personnel. The Independent Trustees and the Working Group attended certain in-person and telephonic conference call meetings at which Barrington rendered advice to Stradley Ronon regarding these matters and responded to questions.

6. The Independent Trustees requested and participated in in-person meetings with anticipated senior management personnel at Brighthouse, including its President and Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, Chief Operating Officer, and Chief Investment Officer. The Independent Trustees also met with personnel of the Adviser.

7. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of Stradley Ronon, prepared written inquiries to the Adviser and its affiliates regarding the Separation, and received written assurances from the Adviser and its affiliates that they have no plans to make any material changes affecting the personnel of the Adviser (including those personnel who provide investment, administrative, legal and compliance services) and the Adviser and its affiliates will not initiate such changes without prior notice to and discussion with the Board.

8. The Board considered representations by the Adviser and its affiliates that approval of the New Advisory Agreements would be necessary for the Portfolios to continue receiving investment advisory services from the Adviser following the change in control.

9. The Board considered representations by the Adviser, as well as related supporting documentation, indicating that the New Advisory Agreements, including the fees payable thereunder, are substantially identical to the terms of the corresponding Current Advisory Agreements.

10. The Board considered representations by the Adviser and its affiliates, as well as related supporting documentation, indicating that: (1) the Adviser can be expected to provide services of the same nature, extent, and quality under the New Advisory Agreements and as are provided thereby under the Current Advisory Agreements; and (2) the Separation is not expected to result in any changes to (i) the management of the Portfolios, or (ii) the investment objective of or the principal investment strategies used to manage any of the Portfolios.

11. The Board considered the ability of the Adviser and its affiliates to retain the employment of key personnel, as well as the overall positive indications by many such personnel regarding the opportunities presented by the Separation.

12. The Board considered that the Adviser and its affiliates have agreed to bear all expenses associated with obtaining shareholder approval of the New Advisory Agreements.

13. The Board considered Brighthouse’s preliminary “branding” plans regarding the future name of its operations.

14. The Board considered the advice provided by Ropes & Gray, LLP, legal counsel to the Trusts and the Adviser, with respect to the New Advisory Agreements (including advice relating to the process and timing of seeking shareholder approval of the New Advisory Agreements, and whether shareholder approvals would be required in connection with any future aspects of the Separation) and regarding the Board’s role and responsibilities with respect to the Separation.

15. The Board considered MetLife’s stated intention of divesting its ownership interest in the Adviser through the Separation, including the potential advantages and disadvantages of this divestiture to shareholders of the Portfolios. The Board considered the likelihood that the Adviser would retain its key personnel after the Separation. The Board considered that the garnering of new assets into the Trusts is based on sales of variable annuity and variable life insurance products, which sales have declined in prior years as a result of, among other things, the capital requirements of MetLife. The Board considered the representations of the anticipated senior management of Brighthouse that the Separation provides the Trusts with an opportunity for the garnering of new assets as Brighthouse will likely sell such products going forward. The Board considered also that the divestiture would result in a change in the manner in

MSF-27

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Large Cap Value Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

which the Trusts access certain services and resources of MetLife (after the Separation those services will be provided through a transition services agreement), the loss of affiliation with the MetLife name brand, and the possible going forward need of the Trusts to hire a transfer agent, as such transfer agency services are currently provided to the Trusts for no fee.

16. The Board considered that, if shareholders approve the New Advisory Agreements, the Board and the Adviser will conduct their annual contract review process in November 2017. Thus, the Board emphasized that it would be able to, and intends to, monitor on a regular basis the ability of the Adviser and its affiliates to comply with their undertakings to the Board and to monitor on an ongoing basis the quality of services to, and expenses of, the Portfolios. In addition, the Board considered that, under the New Advisory Agreements, it will continue to have the authority, should the need arise in its view, to terminate any of the New Advisory Agreements without penalty upon 60 days’ notice.

Based on the foregoing and other relevant considerations, at the November Meeting, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, voted to approve the New Advisory Agreements and to recommend approval of the New Advisory Agreements by shareholders of the Portfolios. In this connection, the Board concluded that, in light of all factors considered, the terms of the New Advisory Agreement, including fee rates, were fair and reasonable, and that it would be in the best interests of shareholders of each Portfolio to approve the New Advisory Agreements.

In the event that approval of the New Advisory Agreements by shareholders of the Portfolios has not been obtained before the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements as a result of the change in control of the Adviser, the Board also approved an interim advisory agreement with the Adviser (the “Interim Advisory Agreement”) on behalf of each Portfolio that will go into effect upon the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements. The Board’s determination to approve each Interim Advisory Agreement was based on the same information and considerations as the Board’s approval of the New Advisory Agreements so as to ensure continuity of advisory services from the Adviser to the Portfolios following the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements.

MSF-28

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Large Cap Value Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Sub-Advisory Agreements

The separation (the “Separation”) of MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”), the investment adviser to each of the series (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”) of Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (collectively, the “Trusts”), from its parent company, MetLife, Inc. (“MetLife”), to a separate retail business, Brighthouse Financial, Inc. (“Brighthouse”), is expected to result in a change in control of the Adviser, and therefore an “assignment” of each Portfolio’s current advisory agreement and, as a result, the automatic termination of the sub-advisory agreement (each a “Sub-Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisory Agreements”) between the Adviser and the investment sub-advisers (each a “Sub-Adviser” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisers”). At the November 15-16, 2016 meeting (“November Meeting”) of the Board of Trustees of the Trusts (the “Board”), the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not “interested persons,” as defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940, of any Portfolio (the “Independent Trustees”), approved new sub-advisory agreements (each a “New Sub-Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “New Sub-Advisory Agreements”). Information about the Board’s considerations and process is set forth below.

In determining whether to approve the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, the Board considered the nature, quality and extent of the services that are currently provided by the Sub-Advisers under the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements as well as the services to be provided under the New Sub-Advisory Agreements. The Board’s review was conducted as part of, and in conjunction with, the Board’s annual review of the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements, which culminated at the November Meeting. In approving the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, the Board considered its conclusions with respect to its approvals of the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements, including the Board’s general satisfaction with the nature, extent and quality of services being provided by the Sub-Advisers to the Portfolios, as applicable. Appendix A contains a further description of the process followed, information reviewed and the material factors considered by the Board in approving the continuation of the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements.

In addition, the following actions were taken and considered by or on behalf of the Board:

1. The Independent Trustees of the Board solicited and received ongoing advice regarding the legal duties of the Independent Trustees from Stradley Ronon, legal counsel for the Independent Trustees, which law firm has extensive experience regarding such matters.

2. The Board considered representations by the Adviser and its affiliates that approval of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements would be necessary for the Portfolios to continue receiving sub-advisory services from the Sub-Advisers following the change in control of the Adviser.

3. The Board considered representations by the Adviser, as well as related supporting documentation, indicating that the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, including the fees payable thereunder, are the same as the terms of the corresponding Current Sub-Advisory Agreements.

4. The Board considered the advice provided by Ropes & Gray, LLP, legal counsel to the Trusts and the Adviser, with respect to the New Sub-Advisory Agreements and regarding the Board’s role and responsibilities with respect to the Separation.

5. The Board considered that the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers will conduct their annual contract review process in November 2017. Thus, the Board emphasized that it would be able to, and intends to, monitor on an ongoing basis the ability of the Sub-Advisers to comply with its undertakings to the Board and the Adviser and to monitor on an ongoing basis the quality of services to, and expenses of, the Portfolios. In addition, the Board considered that, under the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, it will continue to have the authority, should the need arise in its view, to terminate any of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements without penalty upon no more than 60 days’ notice.

Based on the foregoing and other relevant considerations, at the November Meeting, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, voted to approve the New Sub-Advisory Agreements. In this connection, the Board concluded that, in light of all factors considered, the terms of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, including fee rates, were fair and reasonable.

MSF-29

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Ultra-Short Term Bond Portfolio

Managed by BlackRock Advisors, LLC

Portfolio Manager Commentary*

Effective May 1, 2016, the BlackRock Money Market Portfolio converted from a money market portfolio to an ultra-short term bond portfolio and the Portfolio’s name changed to the BlackRock Ultra- Short Term Bond Portfolio. The Portfolio continued to maintain its investment objective, which seeks to provide a high level of current income consistent with the preservation of capital. Although the Portfolio ceased to be a money market fund subject to the requirements set forth in Rule 2a-7 under the Investment Company Act of 1940, the Portfolio intends to maintain its investment strategy of investing primarily in short-term, high quality securities. Additionally, the Portfolio ceased maintaining a stable net asset value per share and instead has a floating net asset value per share.

PERFORMANCE

For the 12 months ended December 31, 2016, the Class A, B and E shares of the BlackRock Ultra-Short Term Bond Portfolio returned 0.35%, 0.11%, and 0.20%, respectively. The Portfolio’s benchmark, the Bank of America/Merrill Lynch 3-Month T-Bill Index¹, returned 0.33%.

MARKET ENVIRONMENT/ CONDITIONS

2016 was a year of dramatic change in the money market sector. After years in a near-zero interest rate environment, the December 2015 rate hike by the Federal Open Market Committee (“FOMC”) represented a turning point in the exceptionally accommodative environment and returned yield to the ultra-short sector of the interest rate curve. The market entered 2016 facing the possibility of multiple interest rate increases by the FOMC and the two-stage implementation of money market reform (“Reform”). As FOMC rhetoric steered the market to its “measured pace” for rate hikes, probabilities (as demonstrated by the pricing of Federal Funds futures contracts) for multiple hikes diminished leaving the market to focus on the impacts of Reform.

During 2016, the prime institutional money market industry experienced $750 billion in outflows, representing approximately 86% of industry assets as of December 30, 2015. The majority of these assets moved into institutional funds that invest primarily in U.S. government securities that are not subject to some of the mandates of Reform. This dramatic shift in assets caused a significant reduction in U.S. dollar funding for issuers in the short-term wholesale funding market. As a result in a decrease in demand for short-term prime assets by prime money market funds and interest rate expectations, the 3-month London Inter-Bank Offered Rate (“LIBOR”) increased over 0.39% during the year while 1-month LIBOR increased more than 0.34%.

October 14, 2016 represented the final compliance date for money market reform, marking the completion of an effort that began over two years prior. While the shift in assets from prime money market funds to government funds was substantial (at approximately $1 trillion) since these reforms were announced, the process remained manageable. As October progressed into November, market conviction of a December rate increase by the FOMC rose, bolstered by FOMC rhetoric and positive economic data. Potential market reaction to the outcome of the upcoming presidential election gave investors some pause, but concerns quickly dissipated after the election’s conclusion and the preparation of the future path of interest rates re-took center stage for cash investors.

The FOMC, at its December 14, 2016, meeting announced a 0.25% increase in the target range for the federal funds rate to 0.50% to 0.75%. The decision to raise interest rates was unanimous, and widely expected. This further reduction in monetary accommodation, in our view, is demonstrative of the FOMC’s conviction that the economy is on an upward trajectory. The FOMC continues to believe that the risks to the economic outlook in the near term are roughly balanced. Despite the nudging up of interest rates, the FOMC acknowledged that monetary policy remains accommodative. Following the October 14, 2016 money market reform effective date, weekly fund flows in prime funds stabilized before turning slightly positive through the remainder of the year.

PORTFOLIO REVIEW / PERIOD END POSITIONING

Portfolio positioning during the first half of 2016 reflected a conservative posture in the form of relatively short Weighted Average Maturity (“WAM”), Weighted Average Life (“WAL”), and above mandated liquidity levels. As Reform-related outflows accelerated into the summer months, elevated offered levels available in the market provided a relatively attractive entry point to selectively add longer-term investments. Issuers were particularly focused on writing securities with maturities after the October 14^th implementation deadline. The Portfolio added fixed rate securities in this space at yields of 0.80% to 1.41% and floating rate securities at spreads of 0.57% to 0.75% above 1-month LIBOR.

After Reform implementation date, our strategy was focused on the likelihood of a rate increase in December. This is evidenced by the path of the portfolio’s WAM and WAL over the quarter. On September 30^th, the WAM was 29 days and the WAL was 45 days, by October 31^st, we had increased the WAM to 34 days and WAL to 60 days and by November 30^th, we were beginning to allow the WAM to drift lower to 32 days but maintained the WAL in the low 60s. The Portfolio drifted shorter in December, ending the month with a WAM of 30 days and WAL of 51 days. Year-end supply dynamics came into play as we moved into December, as issuers concluded their funding schedule for the year. While most investments during the fourth quarter were made in securities maturing within three months at yields up to 1.17%, a number of extension trades were executed in tenors out to 13-months. In the longer maturities, we focused on floating rate coupons indexed to 1-month LIBOR at spreads of 0.35% to 0.70%, 3-month LIBOR at spreads of 0.26% to 0.40%, and fixed-rate instruments yielding 0.95% to 1.37%. On December 31^st, approximately 25% of the Portfolio was comprised of floating rate securities indexed off of 1-month LIBOR (22%) and 3-month LIBOR (3%). These contributed 0.32% to gross return while

MSF-1

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Ultra-Short Term Bond Portfolio

Managed by BlackRock Advisors, LLC

Portfolio Manager Commentary*—(Continued)

fixed rate investments contributed the balance. At year end, our investment focus remained on the top 2 to 5 systemically important issuers domiciled in each of a select group of countries.

Rich Mejzak

Eric Hiatt

Edward Ingold

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 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 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.

MSF-2

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Ultra-Short Term Bond Portfolio

A $10,000 INVESTMENT COMPARED TO THE BANK OF AMERICA/MERRILL LYNCH 3-MONTH T-BILL INDEX

AVERAGE ANNUAL RETURNS (%) (FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2016)

	1 Year		5 Year		10 Year
BlackRock Ultra-Short Term Bond Portfolio
Class A		0.35		0.07		0.86
Class B		0.11		0.02		0.77
Class E		0.20		0.04		0.80
Bank of America/Merrill Lynch 3-Month T-Bill Index		0.33		0.12		0.80

¹ The Bank of America/Merrill Lynch 3-Month T-Bill Index is composed of a single 90-day Treasury Bill issue, or potentially a seasoned 6-month or 1-year Treasury Bill issue, that is replaced on a monthly basis.

Portfolio performance is calculated including reinvestment of all income and capital gain distributions. Performance numbers are net of all Portfolio expenses but do not include any insurance, sales, separate account or administrative charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts or any additional expenses that participants may bear relating to the operations of their plans. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower. The performance of any index referenced above has not been adjusted for ongoing management, distribution and operating expenses, and sales charges applicable to mutual fund investments. Direct investment in any index is not possible. The performance of Class A shares, as set forth in the line graph above, will differ from that of other classes because of the difference in expenses paid by policyholders investing in the different share classes.

This information represents past performance and is not indicative of future results. Investment return and principal value may fluctuate so that shares, upon redemption, may be worth more or less than the original cost.

PORTFOLIO COMPOSITION AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2016

Top Issuers

	% of Net Assets
JPMorgan Securities, Inc.		10.3
U.S. Treasury Bills		5.7
Macquarie Bank, Ltd.		3.8
Kells Funding LLC		3.6
Sumitomo Mitsui Trust Bank, Ltd.		3.4
Versailles Commercial Paper LLC		3.4
Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corp.		3.4
Erste Abwicklungsanstalt		3.1
Mizuho Bank, Ltd. (NY)		3.1
Antalis S.A.		2.9

MSF-3

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Ultra-Short Term 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, 2016 through December 31, 2016.

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.

BlackRock Ultra-Short Term Bond Portfolio		Annualized Expense Ratio			Beginning Account Value July 1, 2016		Ending Account Value December 31, 2016		Expenses Paid During Period** July 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016
Class A(a)	Actual		0.36	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,002.30	$	1.81
	Hypothetical*		0.36	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,023.33	$	1.83
Class B(a)	Actual		0.61	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,001.00	$	3.07
	Hypothetical*		0.61	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,022.07	$	3.10
Class E(a)	Actual		0.51	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,001.50	$	2.57
	Hypothetical*		0.51	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,022.57	$	2.59

* 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 366 (to reflect the one-half year period).

^(a) The annualized expense ratio shown reflects the impact of the management fee waiver as described in Note 4 of the Notes to Financial Statements.

MSF-4

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Ultra-Short Term Bond Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Short-Term Investments—99.8% of Net Assets

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Certificate of Deposit—31.0%
Bank of Montreal (Chicago) 1.080%, 03/20/17		18,000,000	$	18,002,541
Bank of Nova Scotia (Houston) 1.045%, 01/03/17		10,000,000		10,000,500
1.274%, 04/12/17 (a)		5,000,000		5,006,120
Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi, Ltd. 1.260%, 04/27/17		10,000,000		10,007,995
BNP Paribas S.A. (NY) 1.110%, 02/13/17		18,000,000		18,007,371
Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (NY) 1.167%, 12/01/17 (a)		10,000,000		10,003,310
Citibank N.A. (NY) 1.000%, 03/14/17		10,000,000		10,002,677
Credit Industriel et Commercial (NY) 1.250%, 02/01/17		5,000,000		5,002,613
DG Bank New York 1.040%, 01/20/17		15,000,000		15,002,299
DNB Bank ASA 1.234%, 02/13/17 (a)		15,000,000		14,997,450
Kookmin Bank New York 0.690%, 01/04/17		13,000,000		12,999,982
Mitsubishi UFJ Trust & Banking Corp. (NY) 0.680%, 01/03/17		5,000,000		5,000,059
1.365%, 04/03/17 (a)		8,000,000		8,010,272
Mizuho Bank, Ltd. (NY) 1.330%, 01/13/17 (a)		10,000,000		10,002,740
1.430%, 03/13/17 (a)		8,000,000		8,009,952
1.476%, 03/24/17 (a)		12,000,000		12,014,124
Norinchukin Bank (NY) 1.364%, 04/11/17 (a)		7,250,000		7,260,969
1.464%, 03/21/17 (a)		5,400,000		5,407,668
Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB (NY) 1.264%, 02/10/17 (a)		12,000,000		12,008,736
State Street Bank & Trust Co. 1.233%, 03/10/17 (a)		11,000,000		11,008,943
Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corp. 1.335%, 04/04/17 (a)		10,800,000		10,811,794
Sumitomo Mitsui Trust Bank, Ltd. (NY) 1.237%, 06/01/17 (a)		5,000,000		5,003,105
1.379%, 04/20/17 (a)		12,000,000		12,011,124
1.456%, 02/17/17 (a)		10,000,000		10,009,320
Svenska Handelsbanken AB 1.146%, 08/01/17 (a)		5,000,000		5,002,880
Svenska Handelsbanken New York 1.244%, 05/15/17 (a)		10,000,000		10,011,070
Svenska Handelsbanken, Inc. 1.397%, 06/20/17 (a)		10,000,000		10,001,800
Toronto-Dominion Bank 1.080%, 03/17/17		12,000,000		12,003,422
UBS AG (Stamford) 1.050%, 01/11/17		8,000,000		8,001,647
Wells Fargo Bank N.A. 1.060%, 02/01/17		7,000,000		7,002,802
Westpac Banking Corp. (NY) 1.241%, 02/06/17 (a)		4,000,000		4,002,256
				301,617,541
Commercial Paper—49.0%
Albion Capital LLC 0.548%, 01/03/17 (b)		15,000,000	$	14,999,188
Alpine Securitization, Ltd. 1.084%, 02/03/17 (b)		12,000,000		11,991,868
Antalis S.A. 0.548%, 01/03/17 (b)		12,000,000		11,999,313
0.570%, 01/04/17 (b)		16,000,000		15,998,844
Barton Capital Corp. 0.963%, 02/15/17 (b)		10,000,000		9,989,229
Charta LLC 0.948%, 02/28/17 (b)		10,000,000		9,987,000
Collateralized Commercial Paper Co. LLC 1.153%, 04/06/17 (b)		12,000,000		12,015,348
Commonwealth Bank of Australia 1.075%, 05/17/17 (b)		8,000,000		8,006,608
1.134%, 03/29/17 (144A) (b)		10,000,000		10,012,300
1.136%, 07/18/17 (b)		5,000,000		5,005,485
DBS Bank, Ltd. 0.732%, 01/26/17 (b)		19,000,000		18,991,635
Den Norske ASA 0.954%, 05/02/17 (b)		12,000,000		12,007,932
Erste Abwicklungsanstalt 0.651%, 01/12/17 (b)		16,300,000		16,297,081
1.039%, 02/09/17 (b)		14,000,000		13,990,322
HSBC Bank plc 1.050%, 04/17/17 (b)		15,000,000		15,014,445
Kells Funding LLC 0.568%, 04/28/17 (b)		10,000,000		10,004,490
1.046%, 02/21/17 (b)		10,000,000		9,989,297
1.070%, 02/03/17 (b)		15,000,000		14,990,273
LMA Americas LLC 0.392%, 01/03/17 (b)		10,000,000		9,999,428
Macquarie Bank, Ltd. 0.903%, 02/13/17 (b)		15,000,000		14,983,219
1.163%, 03/17/17 (b)		7,000,000		6,984,189
1.173%, 03/14/17 (b)		15,000,000		14,967,964
Matchpoint Finance plc 1.336%, 02/22/17 (b)		7,000,000		6,991,180
Mont Blanc Capital Corp. 0.771%, 01/05/17 (b)		6,000,000		5,999,475
Nieuw Amsterdam Receivables Corp. 0.586%, 01/04/17 (b)		20,000,000		19,998,556
1.000%, 03/07/17 (b)		7,000,000		6,989,226
Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp., Ltd. 1.090%, 03/16/17 (b)		15,000,000		15,003,399
Sheffield Receivables Corp. 1.012%, 02/13/17 (b)		10,000,000		9,987,750
Starbird Funding Corp. 0.921%, 02/10/17 (b)		17,000,000		16,984,133
1.339%, 03/02/17 (b)		6,000,000		5,990,979
Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corp. (NY) 0.593%, 01/04/17 (b)		22,000,000		21,998,301
Sumitomo Mitsui Trust Bank, Ltd. 1.368%, 01/27/17 (b)		6,000,000		5,997,046

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-5

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Ultra-Short Term Bond Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Short-Term Investments—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Commercial Paper—(Continued)
Suncorp Metway, Ltd. 1.064%, 03/22/17 (b)		10,000,000	$	9,973,350
1.337%, 05/30/17 (b)		12,000,000		11,928,225
United Overseas Bank, Ltd. 1.218%, 04/04/17 (b)		13,000,000		12,964,837
Versailles Commercial Paper LLC 0.795%, 01/05/17 (b)		8,000,000		7,998,967
0.935%, 02/02/17 (b)		15,000,000		14,986,641
0.955%, 01/17/17 (b)		10,000,000		9,995,800
Victory Receivables Corp. 0.372%, 01/03/17 (b)		6,244,000		6,243,643
1.153%, 03/15/17 (b)		13,000,000		12,976,167
Westpac Securities NZ, Ltd. 1.268%, 02/28/17 (b)		5,000,000		4,991,250
				476,224,383
Discount Note—0.8%
Federal Farm Credit Bank 0.296%, 01/06/17 (b)		8,000,000		7,999,744
Repurchase Agreements—13.1%
Bank of America Corp. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/16 at 0.500% to be repurchased at $27,001,500 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $27,269,100 U.S. Treasury Notes with rates ranging from 1.625% - 2.750%, maturity dates ranging from 02/15/19 - 07/31/20, with a value of $27,540,076		27,000,000		27,000,000
JPMorgan Securities, Inc. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/16 at 0.500% to be repurchased at $100,005,556 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $84,080,000 U.S. Treasury Note at 4.250% due 05/15/39, with a value of $102,000,241		100,000,000		100,000,000
				127,000,000
U.S. Treasury—5.9%
U.S. Treasury Bills 0.233%, 01/05/17 (b)		55,000,000		54,998,900
U.S. Treasury Floating Rate Note 0.724%, 10/31/17 (a)		2,371,000		2,374,182
				57,373,082
Total Short-Term Investments (Cost $969,937,760)				970,214,750
Total Investments—99.8% (Cost $969,937,760) (c)				970,214,750
Other assets and liabilities (net)—0.2%				1,960,922
Net Assets—100.0%			$	972,175,672

* Principal amount stated in U.S. dollars unless otherwise noted.

(a) Variable or floating rate security. The stated rate represents the rate at December 31, 2016. Maturity date shown for callable securities reflects the earliest possible call date.

(b) The rate shown represents current yield to maturity.

(c) As of December 31, 2016, the aggregate cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was $969,937,760. The aggregate unrealized appreciation and depreciation of investments were $302,332 and $(25,342), respectively, resulting in net unrealized appreciation of $276,990 for federal income tax purposes.

(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, 2016, the market value of 144A securities was $10,012,300, which is 1.0% of net assets.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-6

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Ultra-Short Term Bond Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Fair Value Hierarchy

Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) define 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, separately for each major category of assets and liabilities, 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, quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities 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, or other market corroborated inputs)

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 used in determining the fair value of investments and derivative financial instruments)

The inputs or methodologies used for valuing investments are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in them. Changes to the inputs or methodologies used may result in transfers between levels, which 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, 2016:

Description	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
Short-Term Investments
Certificate of Deposit	$	—	$	301,617,541	$	—	$	301,617,541
Commercial Paper		—		476,224,383		—		476,224,383
Discount Note		—		7,999,744		—		7,999,744
Repurchase Agreements		—		127,000,000		—		127,000,000
U.S. Treasury		—		57,373,082		—		57,373,082
Total Investments	$	—	$	970,214,750	$	—	$	970,214,750

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-7

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Ultra-Short Term Bond Portfolio

Statement of Assets and Liabilities

December 31, 2016

Assets
Investments at value (a)	$	843,214,750
Repurchase Agreements		127,000,000
Cash		223
Receivable for:
Fund shares sold		3,616,586
Interest		604,583
Prepaid expenses		3,062
Total Assets		974,439,204
Liabilities
Payables for:
Fund shares redeemed		1,627,671
Accrued Expenses:
Management fees		299,181
Distribution and service fees		121,012
Deferred trustees’ fees		92,008
Other expenses		123,660
Total Liabilities		2,263,532
Net Assets	$	972,175,672
Net Assets Consist of:
Paid in surplus	$	970,363,645
Undistributed net investment income		1,531,725
Accumulated net realized gain		3,312
Unrealized appreciation on investments		276,990
Net Assets	$	972,175,672
Net Assets
Class A	$	355,226,218
Class B		479,555,954
Class E		137,393,500
Capital Shares Outstanding*
Class A		3,542,269
Class B		4,790,073
Class E		1,371,448
Net Asset Value, Offering Price and Redemption Price Per Share
Class A	$	100.28
Class B		100.11
Class E		100.18

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

(a) Identified cost of investments, excluding repurchase agreements, was $842,937,760.

Statement of Operations

Year Ended December 31, 2016

Investment Income
Interest	$	7,004,231
Other income (a)		121,296
Total investment income		7,125,527
Expenses
Management fees		3,682,609
Administration fees		46,759
Custodian and accounting fees		65,833
Distribution and service fees—Class B		1,321,100
Distribution and service fees—Class E		221,484
Audit and tax services		31,343
Legal		33,061
Trustees’ fees and expenses		45,247
Shareholder reporting		83,455
Insurance		7,369
Miscellaneous		14,271
Total expenses		5,552,531
Less distribution and service fee waivers		(88,078	)
Less management fee waiver		(249,554	)
Net expenses		5,214,899
Net Investment Income		1,910,628
Net Realized and Unrealized Gain
Net realized gain on investments		12,789
Net change in unrealized appreciation on investments		276,990
Net realized and unrealized gain		289,779
Net Increase in Net Assets From Operations	$	2,200,407

(a) Other income represents a non-recurring refund for overbilling of prior years’ custodian out-of-pocket fees.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-8

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Ultra-Short Term Bond Portfolio

Statements of Changes in Net Assets

	Year Ended December 31, 2016			Year Ended December 31, 2015
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets:
From Operations
Net investment income	$	1,910,628		$	13,344
Net realized gain		12,789			—
Net change in unrealized appreciation		276,990			—
Increase in net assets from operations		2,200,407			13,344
From Distributions to Shareholders
Net investment income
Class A		(274,320	)		(13,344	)
Class B		(735	)		0
Class E		(28,521	)		0
Net realized capital gains
Class A		(7,951	)		0
Class B		(10,396	)		0
Class E		(2,977	)		0
Total distributions		(324,900	)		(13,344	)
Decrease in net assets from capital share transactions		(137,760,693	)		(105,346,240	)
Total decrease in net assets		(135,885,186	)		(105,346,240	)
Net Assets
Beginning of period		1,108,060,858			1,213,407,098
End of period	$	972,175,672		$	1,108,060,858
Undistributed net investment income (accumulated loss)
End of period	$	1,531,725		$	(75,327	)

Other Information:

Capital Shares

Transactions in capital shares were as follows:

	Year Ended December 31, 2016						Year Ended December 31, 2015
	Shares			Value			Shares			Value
Class A
Sales		1,901,381		$	190,260,823			2,154,944		$	215,494,358
Reinvestments		2,822			282,271			134			13,344
Redemptions		(2,430,163	)		(243,175,177	)		(2,923,886	)		(292,389,732	)
Net decrease		(525,960	)	$	(52,632,083	)		(768,808	)	$	(76,882,030	)
Class B
Sales		2,502,925		$	250,344,616			3,068,805		$	306,884,015
Reinvestments		111			11,131			0			0
Redemptions		(3,183,246	)		(318,407,079	)		(3,140,958	)		(314,095,868	)
Net decrease		(680,210	)	$	(68,051,332	)		(72,153	)	$	(7,211,853	)
Class E
Sales		444,619		$	44,475,182			686,634		$	68,664,117
Reinvestments		315			31,498			0			0
Redemptions		(615,587	)		(61,583,958	)		(899,165	)		(89,916,474	)
Net decrease		(170,653	)	$	(17,077,278	)		(212,531	)	$	(21,252,357	)
Decrease derived from capital shares transactions				$	(137,760,693	)				$	(105,346,240	)

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-9

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Ultra-Short Term Bond Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class A
	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014		2013		2012
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	100.00		$	100.00		$	100.00	$	100.00	$	100.00
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (a)		0.32	(b)		0.00	(c)		0.00		0.00		0.00
Net realized and unrealized gain on investments		0.03			0.00			0.00		0.00		0.00
Total from investment operations		0.35			0.00	(c)		0.00		0.00		0.00
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.07	)		(0.00	)(d)		0.00		0.00		0.00
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(0.00	)(e)		0.00			0.00		0.00		0.00
Total distributions		(0.07	)		(0.00	)(d)		0.00		0.00		0.00
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	100.28		$	100.00		$	100.00	$	100.00	$	100.00
Total Return (%) (f)		0.35			0.00			0.00		0.00		0.00
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Gross ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.38			0.37			0.37		0.35		0.35
Net ratio of expenses to average net assets (%) (g)		0.35			0.25			0.20		0.23		0.28
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		0.32	(b)		0.00	(h)		0.00		0.00		0.00
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		0	(i)		N/A			N/A		N/A		N/A
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	355.2		$	406.8		$	483.7	$	536.4	$	551.9
	Class B
	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014		2013		2012
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	100.00		$	100.00		$	100.00	$	100.00	$	100.00
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (a)		0.08	(b)		0.00			0.00		0.00		0.00
Net realized and unrealized gain on investments		0.03			0.00			0.00		0.00		0.00
Total from investment operations		0.11			0.00			0.00		0.00		0.00
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.00	)(d)		0.00			0.00		0.00		0.00
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(0.00	)(e)		0.00			0.00		0.00		0.00
Total distributions		(0.00	)		0.00			0.00		0.00		0.00
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	100.11		$	100.00		$	100.00	$	100.00	$	100.00
Total Return (%) (f)		0.11			0.00			0.00		0.00		0.00
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Gross ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.63			0.62			0.62		0.60		0.60
Net ratio of expenses to average net assets (%) (g)		0.59			0.25			0.20		0.23		0.28
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		0.08	(b)		0.00			0.00		0.00		0.00
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		0	(i)		N/A			N/A		N/A		N/A
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	479.6		$	547.0		$	554.2	$	651.3	$	771.5

Please see following page for Financial Highlights footnote legend.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-10

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Ultra-Short Term Bond Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class E
	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015		2014		2013		2012
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	100.00		$	100.00	$	100.00	$	100.00	$	100.00
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (a)		0.17	(b)		0.00		0.00		0.00		0.00
Net realized and unrealized gain on investments		0.03			0.00		0.00		0.00		0.00
Total from investment operations		0.20			0.00		0.00		0.00		0.00
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.02	)		0.00		0.00		0.00		0.00
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(0.00	)(e)		0.00		0.00		0.00		0.00
Total distributions		(0.02	)		0.00		0.00		0.00		0.00
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	100.18		$	100.00	$	100.00	$	100.00	$	100.00
Total Return (%) (f)		0.20			0.00		0.00		0.00		0.00
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Gross ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.53			0.52		0.52		0.50		0.50
Net ratio of expenses to average net assets (%) (g)		0.50			0.25		0.20		0.23		0.28
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		0.17	(b)		0.00		0.00		0.00		0.00
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		0	(i)		N/A		N/A		N/A		N/A
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	137.4		$	154.2	$	175.5	$	237.1	$	309.5

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

(b) Net investment income per share and the ratio of net investment income to average net assets include a non-recurring refund for overbilling of prior years’ custodian out-of-pocket fees which amounted to $0.01 per share and 0.01% of average net assets, respectively.

(c) Net investment income (loss) was less than $0.01.

(d) Distributions from net investment income were less than $0.01.

(e) Distributions from net realized capital gains were less than $0.01.

(f) Total return does not reflect any insurance, sales, separate account or administrative charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts or any additional expenses that contract owners may bear under their variable contracts. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower.

(g) Includes the effects of the management fee waivers and voluntary distribution & service fee waiver (see Note 4 of the Notes to Financial Statements).

(h) Ratio of net investment income (loss) to average net assets was less than 0.01%.

(i) There were no long term transactions during the year ended December 31, 2016.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-11

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Ultra-Short Term Bond Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016

1. Organization

Metropolitan Series Fund (the “Trust”) is organized as a Delaware statutory trust and registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), as an open-end management investment company. The Trust, which is managed by MetLife Advisers, LLC (“MetLife Advisers” or the “Adviser”), an affiliate of MetLife, Inc., is currently comprised of thirty series, each of which operates as a distinct investment vehicle of the Trust. The portfolio included in this report is BlackRock Ultra-Short Term Bond Portfolio (the “Portfolio”), which is diversified. Prior to May 1, 2016, the Portfolio was operated in accordance with investment restrictions applicable to money market funds and sought to maintain a stable net asset value using the amortized cost method to value its portfolio securities. On November 18, 2015, the Board of Trustees of the Trust approved a conversion of the Portfolio to an ultra-short term bond portfolio with a “floating” net asset value. The Portfolio’s investment strategy of investing primarily in short-term, high quality securities was not changed. As a result of this conversion, which took effect on May 1, 2016, the Portfolio is no longer subject to the investment restrictions that apply to money market funds and no longer seeks to maintain a stable net asset value. 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.

On January 12, 2016, MetLife, Inc. announced its plan to pursue the separation of a substantial portion of its retail segment and is currently evaluating structural alternatives for such separation. It is anticipated that MetLife Advisers would be included in any such separation. Any separation transaction that might occur will be subject to the satisfaction of various conditions and approvals, including approval of any transaction by the MetLife, Inc. Board of Directors, satisfaction of any applicable requirements of the SEC, and receipt of insurance and other regulatory approvals and other anticipated conditions. MetLife, Inc. cannot currently provide a specific potential completion date for a separation transaction or any assurance that a separation will in fact occur. MetLife Advisers’ continued service as investment adviser to the Trusts following a separation transaction is the subject of a proxy statement that was filed with the SEC on December 20, 2016 and mailed to shareholders of the Portfolio on or about December 30, 2016.

The Portfolio has registered and offers three classes of shares: Class A, B and E shares. 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 plan and such distribution expenses are allocated to the corresponding Class of shares.

2. Significant Accounting Policies

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities as of the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of income and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates. In the preparation of these financial statements, management has evaluated events and transactions subsequent to December 31, 2016 through the date the financial statements were issued.

The Portfolio is an investment company and follows the accounting and reporting guidance of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Accounting Standards Codification Topic 946—Financial Services—Investment Companies and Topic 820—Fair Value Measurement. 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, including corporate, convertible and municipal bonds and notes; obligations of the U.S. Treasury and U.S. government agencies; foreign sovereign issues; 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 the Adviser (each as “pricing services”), pursuant to authorization of and subject to general oversight by the Board of Trustees of the Trust (the “Board” or “Trustees”). Such pricing services may use matrix pricing, which considers observable inputs including, among other things, issuer details, maturity dates, interest rates, yield curves, rates of prepayment, credit risks/spreads, default rates, reported trades, broker dealer quotes and quoted prices for similar assets. Short-term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less may be valued at amortized cost in the absence of market quotes, so long as the amortized cost value of such short-term debt instrument is approximately the same as the fair value of the instrument as determined without the use of amortized cost valuation. Floating rate loans are generally valued on the basis of an evaluated or composite average of aggregate bid and ask quotations supplied by brokers or dealers, as obtained from the pricing service. Securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above 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 market value quotations are deemed to be unreliable for an investment, the fair value of the investment will be determined in accordance with procedures approved by, and

MSF-12

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Ultra-Short Term Bond Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

under the general supervision of, the Board. In such a circumstance, the Board will be assisted in its responsibility to determine the fair value of an investment by the Valuation Committee (“Committee”) of MetLife Advisers. The Committee provides general pricing oversight and fair value pricing determinations related to portfolio securities and meets on a regular basis to review reports relating to the valuation of the securities in the Portfolio. The Board has delegated to State Street Bank and Trust Company, the Trust’s custodian (“custodian”), the responsibility for calculating the net asset values (“NAVs”) of the Trust’s Portfolios. The Committee is responsible for overseeing the calculation of the NAVs of the Portfolios by the custodian. The Committee also periodically reviews pricing services, including the pricing services providing fair value pricing for the Portfolio’s foreign securities, and is responsible for overseeing the correction of pricing errors and addressing other pricing issues that arise in the ordinary course of business, such as making real-time fair value determinations, as necessary.

No single standard for determining the fair value of an investment can be set forth because fair value depends upon the facts and circumstances with respect to each investment. Information relating to any relevant factors may be obtained by the Committee from any appropriate source, including the subadviser of the Portfolio, the custodian, a pricing service, market maker and/or broker for such security or the issuer. Appropriate methodologies for determining fair value under particular circumstances may include: matrix pricing, a discounted cash flow analysis, comparisons of securities with comparable characteristics, value based on multiples of earnings, discount from market price of similar marketable securities or a combination of these and other methods.

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 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. These foreign taxes have been provided for in accordance with the Portfolio’s understanding of the applicable countries’ tax rules and rates.

Dividends and Distributions to Shareholders - The Portfolio records dividends and distributions on the ex-dividend date. Net realized gains from securities 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. The Portfolio had no permanent book-tax differences at December 31, 2016.

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 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. As of December 31, 2016, the Portfolio had no uncertain tax positions that would require financial statement recognition, or de-recognition or disclosure.

Repurchase Agreements - The Portfolio may enter into repurchase agreements, under the terms of a Master Repurchase Agreement (“MRA”), 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, under a tri-party repurchase agreement, receives delivery of the underlying securities collateralizing any repurchase agreements. It is the Portfolio’s policy that the market value of the collateral be equal to at least 100% of the repurchase price in the case of a repurchase agreement of one-day duration and equal to at least 102% of the repurchase price in the case of all other repurchase agreements. In the event of default or failure by a party to perform an obligation in connection with any repurchase transaction, the MRA gives the non-defaulting party the right to set-off claims and to apply property held by it in connection with any repurchase transaction against obligations owed to it.

At December 31, 2016, the Portfolio had investments in repurchase agreements with a gross value of $127,000,000, which is reflected as repurchase agreement on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. The value of the related collateral exceeded the value of the repurchase agreements at December 31, 2016.

3. Certain Risks

In the normal course of business, the Portfolio invests in securities and enters into transactions where risks exist. Those risks include:

Market 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, interest rate, and price fluctuations.

MSF-13

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Ultra-Short Term Bond Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

Credit and Counterparty Risk: 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 and counterparty risk consist principally of cash due from counterparties and investments. The Portfolio manages counterparty risk by entering into agreements only with counterparties that it believes have the financial resources to honor their obligations and by monitoring the financial stability of those counterparties. The Portfolio’s investment adviser attempts to mitigate counterparty risk by (i) periodically assessing the creditworthiness of its trading partners, (ii) monitoring and/or limiting the amount of its net exposure to each individual counterparty based on its assessment, and (iii) requiring collateral from the counterparty for certain transactions. In order to preserve certain safeguards for non-standard settlement trades, the Portfolio restricts its exposure to credit and counterparty losses by entering into master netting agreements (“Master Agreements”) with counterparties (approved brokers) with whom it undertakes a significant volume of transactions. Master Agreements govern the terms of certain transactions, and reduce the counterparty risk associated with relevant transactions by specifying credit protection mechanisms and providing standardization that improves legal certainty. Master Agreements can also help limit counterparty risk by specifying collateral posting arrangements at pre-arranged exposure levels.

Repurchase and reverse repurchase agreements are primarily executed under Global Master Repurchase Agreements (“GMRAs”) or Master Repurchase Agreements (“MRAs”), which provide the rights to set-off. Each repurchase and reverse repurchase agreement is initially collateralized at the transaction level. In the event of default, the total market value exposure will be offset against collateral exchanged to date, which would result in a net receivable/(payable) that would be due from/to the counterparty.

Additional risks associated with each type of investment are described above within the respective security type notes. The Portfolio’s prospectus includes a discussion of the principal risks of investing in the Portfolio.

4. Investment Management Fees and Other Transactions with Affiliates

Investment Management Agreement - MetLife Advisers is the investment adviser to the Portfolio. The Trust has entered into an investment management agreement with MetLife Advisers with respect to the Portfolio. For providing investment management services to the Portfolio, MetLife Advisers receives monthly compensation at the following annual rates:

Management Fees earned by MetLife Advisers for the year ended December 31, 2016	% per annum			Average Daily Net Assets
$3,682,609		0.350	%	Of the first $1 billion
		0.300	%	Of amount in excess of $1 billion

MetLife Advisers has entered into an investment subadvisory agreement with respect to managing the Portfolio. BlackRock Advisors, LLC is compensated by MetLife Advisers to provide subadvisory services for the Portfolio.

Management Fee Waivers - Pursuant to an expense agreement, MetLife Advisers has agreed, for the period May 1, 2016 to April 30, 2017, to reduce its advisory fees set out above under “Investment Management Agreement” as follows:

% per annum	Average Daily Net Assets
0.025%	Of the first $1 billion

For the period May 1, 2015 to April 30, 2016, an identical expense agreement was in place. Pursuant to the expense agreement, $249,554 was waived for the year ended December 31, 2016 and is included in the management fee waivers shown in the Statement of Operations.

In addition to the contractual fee waiver, MetLife Advisers and/or its affiliates had voluntarily agreed, if the yield on any share Class of the Portfolio turns negative on a given day, to waive their fees or reimburse certain Portfolio expenses to raise the yield of that share Class to 0.00% for that day. The waiver was first be applied to 12b-1 expenses. If the amount of the waiver exceeded the Class B or Class E 12b-1 expenses on a given day, MetLife Advisers and/or its affiliates would then waive fees or reimburse expenses pro rata across all share Classes. This voluntary waiver/expense reimbursement was discontinued by MetLife Advisers as of May 1, 2016. During the year ended December 31, 2016, $88,078 of 12b-1 expenses were waived as shown on the Statement of Operations. Class B shares waived $86,482 and Class E shares waived $1,596.

Certain officers and trustees of the Trust may also be officers of MetLife Advisers; 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.

MSF-14

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Ultra-Short Term Bond Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

Distribution and Service Fees - The Trust has a distribution agreement with MetLife Investors Distribution Company (“MIDC” or the “Distributor”) in which MIDC serves as the distributor for the Portfolio’s Class A, B and E Shares. MIDC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife Investors Group, LLC, an affiliate of the Adviser. The Trust has also adopted a Distribution and Service Plan under Rule 12b-1 of the 1940 Act for the Portfolio’s Class B and E Shares. Under the Distribution and Service Plan, the Class B and E Shares of the Portfolio pay a fee to compensate the Insurance Companies (or their affiliates) and other broker-dealers and financial intermediaries involved in the offer and sale of Portfolio shares for promoting or selling and servicing the Class B and E Shares. The fees under the Distribution and Service Plan for each class of the Portfolio’s shares are calculated as a percentage of the Portfolio’s average daily net assets that are attributable to that Class. Currently, the fee is 0.25% per year for Class B Shares and 0.15% per year for Class E Shares. Amounts incurred by the Portfolio for the year ended December 31, 2016 are shown as Distribution and service fees in the Statement of Operations.

Deferred Trustee Compensation - Each Trustee 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 Trust. 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 Met Investors Series Trust, an affiliate of the Trust, 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 under the Plan is reflected as Deferred trustees’ fees in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

5. Contractual Obligations

Under the Trust’s organizational documents, its officers and Trustees may be indemnified against certain liabilities and expenses arising out of the performance of their duties to the Trust. Additionally, 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 Trust that have not yet occurred.

6. Income Tax Information

The tax character of distributions paid for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015 were as follows:

Ordinary Income			Long-Term Capital Gain				Total
2016	2015		2016		2015		2016		2015
$324,900	$	13,344	$	—	$	—	$	324,900	$	13,344

As of December 31, 2016, 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		Other Accumulated Capital Losses		Total
$1,627,045	$	—	$	276,990	$	—	$	1,904,035

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 up to 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, 2016, the Portfolio had no post-enactment accumulated capital losses and no pre-enactment accumulated capital loss carryforwards.

7. Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In October 2016, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) adopted new rules and forms, and amendments to certain current rules and forms, to modernize reporting and disclosure of information by registered investment companies. The amendments to Regulation S-X will require standardized, enhanced disclosure about derivatives in investment company financial statements, and will also change the rules governing the form and content of such financial statements. The compliance date for the amendments to Regulation S-X is August 1, 2017. Management is currently evaluating the impact that the adoption of the amendments to Regulation S-X will have on the Portfolio’s financial statements and related disclosures.

MSF-15

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Ultra-Short Term Bond Portfolio

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Shareholders of BlackRock Ultra-Short Term Bond Portfolio (formerly, BlackRock Money Market Portfolio) and the Board of Trustees of Metropolitan Series Fund:

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities, including the schedule of investments, of BlackRock Ultra-Short Term Bond Portfolio (formerly, BlackRock Money Market Portfolio) (one of the portfolios constituting the Metropolitan Series Fund) (the “Portfolio”) as of December 31, 2016, 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 Portfolio’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 Portfolio 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 Portfolio’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, 2016, by correspondence with the custodian and brokers; when 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 Ultra-Short Term Bond Portfolio of the Metropolitan Series Fund as of December 31, 2016, 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.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

February 24, 2017

MSF-16

Metropolitan Series Fund

Trustees and Officers

MANAGEMENT OF THE TRUSTS

The Boards of Trustees (the “Board”) of Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (“MIST” and “MSF”, respectively, and collectively the “Trusts”) supervise the Trusts and are responsible for representing the interests of shareholders. The Trustees, the Chairman of the Board and the Chairmen of each subcommittee are the same for both Trusts. The Trustees of each Trust meet periodically throughout the year to oversee the Portfolios’ activities, reviewing, among other things, each Portfolio’s performance and its contractual arrangements with various service providers. The Trustees of each Trust elect the officers of the Trust, who are responsible for administering the Trust’s day-to-day operations.

Trustees and Officers

The Trustees and executive officers of the Trusts, as well as their ages and their principal occupations during the past five years, are set forth below. Unless otherwise indicated, the business address of each is c/o MetLife Funds, One Financial Center, Boston, Massachusetts 02111. Each Trustee who is deemed an “interested person,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, is referred to as an “Interested Trustee.” Those Trustees who are not “interested persons,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, are referred to as “Independent Trustees.” There is no limit to the term a Trustee may serve. Trustees serve until their death, resignation or removal in accordance with the MIST Trust’s and MSF Trust’s respective organizational documents and policies adopted by the Boards of the respective Trusts from time to time. Officers hold office at the pleasure of each Board and serve until their removal or resignation in accordance with the Trusts’ respective organizational documents and policies adopted by the Board of each Trust from time to time.

Name and Age	Current 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 MetLife Funds Complex(2) Overseen by Trustee	Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Interested Trustee
John Rosenthal* (56)	Trustee	Indefinite; From May 2016 (MIST and MSF) to present	Senior Managing Director and Head of Global Portfolio Management, MetLife, Inc.	75	None
Independent Trustees
Dawn M. Vroegop (50)	Trustee and Chairman of the Board	Indefinite; From December 2000 (MIST)/ May 2009 (MSF) to present as Trustee; From May 2016 (MIST and MSF) until present as Chairman	Private Investor.	75	Trustee, Driehaus Mutual Funds.**
Stephen M. Alderman (57)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 (MIST)/ April 2012 (MSF) to present	Shareholder in the law firm of Garfield and Merel, Ltd.	75	None

MSF-17

Metropolitan Series Fund

Trustees and Officers—(Continued)

Name and Age	Current 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 MetLife Funds Complex(2) Overseen by Trustee	Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Robert J. Boulware (60)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 (MIST)/ April 2012 (MSF) to present	Managing Director, Pilgrim Funds, LLC (private equity fund).	75	Trustee, Vertical Capital Income Fund (closed-end fund);** Director, Gainsco, Inc. (auto insurance);** Trustee, SharesPost 100 Fund (closed-end fund).**
Susan C. Gause (64)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 (MIST)/ April 2012 (MSF) to present	Private Investor.	75	Trustee, HSBC Funds.**
Nancy Hawthorne (65)	Trustee	Indefinite; From May 2003 (MSF)/ April 2012 (MIST) to present	Partner, Hawthorne Financial Advisors, LLC (registered investment advisor); until June 2014, Chief Executive Officer, Clerestory LLC (corporate advisor).	75	Director and Chairman of the Board of Directors, THL Credit, Inc.;** Lead Director, Avid Technology, Inc.;** Director, CRA International, Inc.**
Barbara A. Nugent (60)	Trustee	Indefinite; From January 2014 (MIST and MSF) to present	President, True North Board Governance, LLC (consulting); until December 2013, partner in the law firm of Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young, LLP.	75	None
Linda B. Strumpf (69)	Trustee	Indefinite; From May 2000 (MSF)/ April 2012 (MIST) to present	Chair of the Investment Committee, Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust; until June 2011, Chief Investment Officer, Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust.	75	None

Executive Officers

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Kristi Slavin (43)	President and Chief Executive Officer, of MIST and MSF	From May 2016 (MIST and MSF) to present	President, MetLife Advisers, LLC (May 2016-present); Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Vice President, MetLife, Inc.; Vice President, MIST and MSF (2015-2016).

MSF-18

Metropolitan Series Fund

Trustees and Officers—(Continued)

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Peter H. Duffy (61)	Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, of MIST and MSF	From November 2000 (MSF)/ May 2012 (MIST) to present	Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Andrew L. Gangolf (62)	Secretary, of MIST and MSF	From May 2011 (MIST and MSF) to present	Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; until 2011, Senior Vice President & Assistant General Counsel, AllianceBernstein Investments, Inc.
Steven E. Hartstein (53)	Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”), of MIST and MSF	From February 2014 (MIST and MSF) to present	Vice President, MetLife, Inc. (2013-present); Senior Vice President and CCO, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Executive Director, Morgan Stanley (2009-2013); CCO, Consulting Group Capital Markets Funds (2006-2013).
Alan C. Leland (64)	Vice President, of MIST and MSF	From February 2005 (MSF)/ May 2012 (MIST) to present	Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Vice President, MetLife, Inc.

* Mr. Rosenthal is an “interested person” of the Trusts because of his position with MetLife, Inc., the current parent company of MetLife Advisers, LLC.

** 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 Trusts, MetLife, Inc. or the Manager are omitted if not materially different.

(2) The Fund Complex includes 45 MIST Portfolios and 30 MSF Portfolios.

MSF-19

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Ultra-Short Term Bond Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements

At an in-person meeting held on November 15-16, 2016 (the “November Meeting”), the Boards of Trustees (the “Board”) of the Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (“MIST” and “MSF,” respectively, and collectively, the “Trusts”), including a majority of the Trustees who are not “interested persons” of the Trusts (the “Independent Trustees”) under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “1940 Act”), approved the continuation of the Trusts’ advisory agreements (each, an “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 the series of the Trusts (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”).

In reaching that decision, the Board reviewed a variety of materials provided for the specific purpose of the annual contract renewal process. In addition, various materials provided to and discussed with the Board throughout the year also informed the Board’s decision to renew the Agreements. That information for each Portfolio included, but was not limited to, investment performance reports, along with periodic reports on various expenses, shareholder services, legal and compliance matters, asset pricing, brokerage commissions and trade execution. The Board also recognized the pending separation of the Adviser from its parent company, MetLife, Inc., as a consideration in their deliberations with respect to the Agreements.

The Board met in person with personnel of the Adviser on September 27, 2016 for the specific purpose of giving preliminary consideration to the proposed continuation of the Agreements (the “September Meeting”) through the review by the Adviser with the Board of the performance and fees experienced by each Portfolio, as well as other information. In considering the Agreements, the Independent Trustees were advised by independent legal counsel throughout the contract renewal process, and met with independent legal counsel in several executive sessions outside of the presence of management.

Information furnished and reviewed specifically in connection with the renewal process included, but was not limited to, a report for each Portfolio prepared by Broadridge (“Broadridge”), an independent organization, and a Portfolio-by-Portfolio profitability analysis prepared by the Adviser. In addition, the Independent Trustees received and reviewed a report prepared by JDL Consultants, LLC (“JDL”), an independent consultant to the Independent Trustees (“JDL Report”), which examined the comparative fees, expenses and performance of each Portfolio, based upon the Broadridge reports. Also, the Board reviewed the responses to wide-ranging questions relating to the business, operations and performance of the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers that the Adviser and Sub-Advisers had prepared specifically for the renewal process.

At the November Meeting, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, concluded that the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser supported the renewal of the Agreements. The Board also concluded that the investment performance of each Portfolio was such that each Agreement should continue, and that the fees paid by a Portfolio to the Adviser appeared to be reasonable in light of the nature, extent and quality of the services provided by the Adviser and Sub-Adviser. Further, the Board concluded that the Adviser’s profitability in providing services under the Advisory Agreements did not appear unreasonably high in light of the nature, extent and quality of the services provided by the Adviser. Finally, the Board concluded that the investment advisory fees paid by the Portfolios in some measure shared economies of scale with contract holders. In approving the renewal of each of the Agreements, the Board, including the Independent Trustees, gave attention to all of the information that was furnished. The Board evaluated the information available to it on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis, and its decision was made separately with respect to each Portfolio. The following discusses some of the primary factors that generally were relevant to the Board’s decision. The Board did not identify any single factor as controlling, and the Trustees generally attributed different weights to various factors for the various Portfolios.

Nature, extent and quality of services. The Board evaluated the nature, extent and quality of the services that the Adviser, and the Sub-Advisers as relevant, have provided to the Portfolios. The Board considered the Adviser’s services as investment manager to the Portfolios, including its services relating to the oversight of the Sub-Advisers and their investment management activities, trading practices, financial condition, relevant personnel matters and compliance programs, among other things. The Adviser’s services in coordinating and overseeing the activities of the Trusts’ other service providers were also considered. The Board considered information received from the Trusts’ Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) regarding the Portfolios’ compliance policies and procedures that were established pursuant to Rule 38a-l under the 1940 Act. In addition, throughout the year, the Board considered the expertise, experience and performance of the personnel of the Adviser who performed the various services that are mentioned above.

The Board also noted that the Adviser’s investment, compliance and legal staff conduct regular, periodic, telephonic and in-person meetings with the Sub-Advisers to review and assess the services that are provided to the Portfolios, and that personnel of the Adviser prepare and present reports to the Independent Trustees regarding those meetings.

MSF-20

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Ultra-Short Term Bond Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

With respect to the services provided by each of the Sub-Advisers, the Board considered a variety of information that the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser provided. The Board considered each Sub-Adviser’s investment process and philosophy, and the investment performance experienced by the Portfolio (as described in more detail below). The Board took into account that each Sub-Adviser’s responsibilities include the development and maintenance of an investment program for the applicable Portfolio that 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. In particular, the Board considered, among other things, the Sub-Adviser’s current level of staffing as well as its compensation program and its overall resources. The Board reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s history and investment experience, as well as information provided 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 regulatory and disciplinary history. In its review, the Board also took into account information regarding any services and/or payments provided to the Adviser by the Sub-Advisers in connection with marketing activities.

Performance. The Board placed emphasis on the performance of the Portfolios in light of, among other things, its importance to contract holders. The Board considered the Adviser’s quarterly reviews with the Board of detailed information about each Portfolio’s investment strategies and performance results and composition, including discussions regarding the relevant effect of current market conditions. The Board reviewed and considered the reports prepared by Broadridge, which provided a statistical analysis comparing the Portfolios’ investment performance to that of comparable funds underlying variable insurance products (the “Performance Universe”). The Independent Trustees also met separately with a representative of JDL during the September Meeting to review the JDL Report. The Board also compared the performance records of certain Portfolios to those of comparable funds that were managed by the relevant Sub-Adviser. At the November Meeting, the Board considered each Portfolio’s performance for periods subsequent to the performance period covered by the Broadridge reports, and the Adviser’s discussion of the same, including the effect of current market conditions on each Portfolio’s more recent performance.

The Board focused particular attention on Portfolios with less favorable performance records. The Board noted the Adviser’s focus on each Sub-Adviser’s performance and that the Adviser has been active in monitoring and responding to any performance issues with respect to the Portfolios.

Fees and Expenses. The Board gave consideration to the level and method of computing the fees payable under the Agreements. The Board considered the Broadridge report for each of the Portfolios, which included comparisons for each Portfolio of its contractual management and sub-adviser fees (at current and various asset levels), and total expenses, with those of its peers, including as those peers were divided into a broad group of peer funds (“Expense Universe”), a narrower group of peer funds (“Expense Group”), a broad group of peer sub-advised funds (“Sub-advised Expense Universe”), and a narrower group of peer sub-advised funds (“Sub-advised Expense Group”). Broadridge selected the peer funds which were similarly situated funds underlying variable insurance products deemed to be comparable to the Portfolios. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of JDL, also examined the JDL Report. The Board compared the fee payable to a Sub-Adviser by the Adviser with respect to the Portfolio to the fee payable to the Sub-Adviser by other comparable funds and accounts, to the extent such information was available.

The Board noted that the sub-advisory fees for the Portfolios are paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fee, and that, in the case of an unaffiliated Sub-Adviser, the Adviser negotiates the fee at arm’s length. The Board also considered that the Adviser had entered into expense limitation or management fee waiver agreements with certain of the Portfolios pursuant to which the Adviser had 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.

Profitability. The Board examined the profitability of the Adviser on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis. The Board also considered that an affiliate of the Adviser, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, serves as distributor for the Trusts, and, as such, receives Rule 12b-1 payments to support the distribution of the Portfolios. The Board considered the profitability to the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates as a result of their relationships with the Portfolios, to the extent available, and the Board considered the ability of the Adviser to negotiate with an unaffiliated Sub-Adviser at arm’s length. In reviewing the profitability analyses, the Board recognized that expense allocation methodologies are inherently subjective and various expense allocation methodologies may be reasonable while producing different results.

Economies of scale. The Board also considered each Portfolio’s fees in light of its size. The Board noted the fee schedules for the Portfolios that 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

MSF-21

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Ultra-Short Term Bond Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

schedule for such Portfolios. The Board considered the effective fees under the Advisory Agreement and Sub-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. The Board examined, among other data, the effect of a Portfolio’s growth in size, and reduction in size, on various fee schedules and the Board reviewed the Broadridge and JDL Reports, which compared fees among peers. The Board also generally noted that if a Portfolio’s assets increase over time, the Portfolio may realize other economies of scale if assets increase proportionally more than certain other fixed expenses.

Other factors. The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trusts. Among them, the Board recognized that MetLife Investors Distribution Company, as the distributor for the Trusts, receives payments pursuant to Rule 12b-1 from the Portfolios to compensate for the provision of shareholder services and distribution activities, which could lead to growth in the Trusts’ assets and corresponding benefits from such growth, including economies of scale. The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by each Sub-Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trusts, including the opportunity to provide advisory services to additional portfolios of the Trusts and reputational benefits. In conjunction with these considerations, the Board noted the ongoing commitment of the Adviser to the Portfolios.

The Board considered possible conflicts of interest in the form of material benefits or detriments to the Trusts resulting from the nature of the Trusts’ and the Adviser’s or the Sub-Advisers’ affiliations and the services that are provided to the Trusts, and the manner in which such conflicts were mitigated.

*  *  *

BlackRock Ultra-Short Term Bond Portfolio (formerly, BlackRock Money Market Portfolio). The Board also considered the following information in relation to the Agreements with the Adviser and BlackRock Advisors, LLC regarding the Portfolio:

Among other data relating specifically to the Portfolio’s performance, the Board considered that the Portfolio underperformed the median of its Performance Universe and Lipper Index for the one-, three and five-year periods ended June 30, 2016. The Board further considered that the Portfolio underperformed its benchmark, the Bank of America / Merrill Lynch 3-Month Treasury Bill Index, for the one-, three-, and five-year periods ended October 31, 2016. The Board took into account management’s discussion of the Portfolio’s performance, including prevailing market conditions. The Board further noted that, prior to May 1, 2016, the Portfolio operated as a money market fund subject to the requirements set forth in Rule 2a-7 under the Investment Company Act of 1940 and noted that the Adviser and its affiliates had provided significant subsidizations to the Portfolio by voluntarily waiving a portion of the Adviser’s investment advisory fee and all of the Portfolio’s Rule 12b-1 fees in order to maintain a stable net asset value per share, which contributed positively to the Portfolio’s performance.

The Board also 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 asset-weighted average of certain comparable funds at the Portfolio’s current size. The Board also noted that the Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees were below the averages of the Sub-advised Expense Group and the Sub-advised Expense Universe at the Portfolio’s current size.

MSF-22

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Ultra-Short Term Bond Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Advisory Agreements

The separation (the “Separation”) of MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”), the investment adviser to each of the series (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”) of Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (collectively, the “Trusts”), from its parent company, MetLife, Inc. (“MetLife”), to a separate retail business, Brighthouse Financial, Inc. (“Brighthouse”), is expected to result in a change in control of the Adviser, and therefore an “assignment” of each Portfolio’s current advisory agreement (each a “Current Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “Current Advisory Agreements”). At the November 15-16, 2016 meeting (“November Meeting”) of the Board of Trustees of the Trusts (the “Board”), the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not “interested persons,” as defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940, of any Portfolio (the “Independent Trustees”), approved a new advisory agreement (each a “New Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “New Advisory Agreements”) between the Trusts, on behalf of a Portfolio, and the Adviser, to be effective upon the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements in connection with the Separation, and recommended that the shareholders of the Trusts approve the New Advisory Agreements. The Board took those actions after consideration of and deliberation over information concerning the Separation, including with respect to the degree to which the Separation would affect the provision of investment advisory services to the Trusts. Information about the Board’s considerations and process is set forth below.

In determining whether to approve the New Advisory Agreements and in considering the Separation, the Board considered the nature, quality and extent of the services that are currently provided by the Adviser under the Current Advisory Agreements as well as the services to be provided under the New Advisory Agreements. The Board’s review was conducted as part of, and in conjunction with, the Board’s annual review of the Current Advisory Agreements, which culminated at the November Meeting. In approving the New Advisory Agreements, the Board considered its conclusions with respect to its approvals of the Current Advisory Agreements, including the Board’s general satisfaction with the nature, extent and quality of services being provided by the Adviser to each Portfolio. Appendix A and Appendix B contains a further description of the process followed, information reviewed and the material factors considered by the Board in approving the continuation of the Current Advisory Agreements.

A substantial portion of the Board’s review of the New Advisory Agreements focused on the Separation, including the potential effect of the implementation of the Separation on the operations, personnel, organizational structure, capitalization, and financial and other resources of the Adviser. After being informed by the Adviser in January 2016 of the possibility of the Separation, the Board and its Committees discussed the Separation and its possible effects on the Trusts with personnel of the Adviser and the anticipated senior management at Brighthouse during the course of the Board’s or Committee’s regularly scheduled, in-person, quarterly meetings.

Between August and November 2016, the Board and the Independent Trustees engaged in an extensive review and analysis of the Separation and how the Separation related to the Adviser and the Trusts and how it could affect the services provided to the Trusts. This analysis focused on, among other matters, the assurances from Brighthouse’s anticipated leadership as to its expectations for the continuity and stability of the Adviser’s personnel throughout implementation of the Separation and for the foreseeable future thereafter. The Board considered that the Separation is being implemented as a result of MetLife’s determination to divest itself of a substantial portion of its U.S. retail business (of which the Adviser forms a portion). The Board also considered that it has been satisfied as a general matter with the nature and quality of the services that the Adviser provides to the Portfolios, including investment advisory, administrative, legal, compliance, and support services, and that it would be in the Portfolios’ best interests to maintain continuity and stability in the services that are currently being provided. The Board carefully considered the anticipated future plans of Brighthouse related to capitalization and operational matters for Brighthouse and the Adviser, as well as the importance of the Adviser to the businesses of Brighthouse after the Separation.

Among other steps in its review process, which accelerated on October 5, 2016 when Brighthouse filed its Form 10 with the SEC, the following actions were taken and considered by or on behalf of the Board:

1. The Independent Trustees solicited and received ongoing advice regarding the legal duties of the Independent Trustees from Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young LLP (“Stradley Ronon”), legal counsel for the Independent Trustees, which law firm has extensive experience regarding such matters.

2. Following the August 16-17, 2016 Board and Committee quarterly meetings, the Independent Trustees established an ad hoc group of Independent Trustees (the “Working Group”) to help oversee, coordinate, and conduct due diligence activities with respect to the Separation. The Working Group regularly reported on the due diligence activities to the other Independent Trustees.

3. Since January 2016, the Board posed ongoing inquiries to, and received regular updates from, the Adviser and anticipated senior management at Brighthouse at either in-person meetings dedicated to the status of the Separation or during the course of the Board or Committee’s regular quarterly meetings. The Board considered, among other matters, relevant legal guidance and the processes followed by certain other investment company boards of directors or trustees when they approved contracts in connection with change in control events, while recognizing the unique circumstances of the Separation.

MSF-23

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Ultra-Short Term Bond Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

4. The Board received and reviewed the Form 10 of Brighthouse that contained extensive information relating to, among other matters, Brighthouse’s anticipated business plans and financial structure. The Board also received and reviewed reports from rating agencies with respect to Brighthouse.

5. Stradley Ronon retained Barrington Partners (“Barrington”), an independent consulting firm with a specific focus on the asset management industry and experience relating to business operations such as those to be conducted by Brighthouse, including its proposed subsidiary, the Adviser, in order to help Stradley Ronon evaluate the Separation based on the Form 10 and other materials and related information provided by the Adviser and its affiliates. Barrington conducted a series of in-person and telephonic meetings with anticipated senior management at Brighthouse (i.e., the aforementioned anticipated officers of Brighthouse and others) and with personnel of the Adviser who provide services to the Trusts. Stradley Ronon, with the assistance of Barrington, evaluated the information and advised the Independent Trustees with respect to, among other matters, details of Brighthouse’s anticipated business plan to understand the implications of the Separation to the Adviser and its personnel. The Independent Trustees and the Working Group attended certain in-person and telephonic conference call meetings at which Barrington rendered advice to Stradley Ronon regarding these matters and responded to questions.

6. The Independent Trustees requested and participated in in-person meetings with anticipated senior management personnel at Brighthouse, including its President and Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, Chief Operating Officer, and Chief Investment Officer. The Independent Trustees also met with personnel of the Adviser.

7. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of Stradley Ronon, prepared written inquiries to the Adviser and its affiliates regarding the Separation, and received written assurances from the Adviser and its affiliates that they have no plans to make any material changes affecting the personnel of the Adviser (including those personnel who provide investment, administrative, legal and compliance services) and the Adviser and its affiliates will not initiate such changes without prior notice to and discussion with the Board.

8. The Board considered representations by the Adviser and its affiliates that approval of the New Advisory Agreements would be necessary for the Portfolios to continue receiving investment advisory services from the Adviser following the change in control.

9. The Board considered representations by the Adviser, as well as related supporting documentation, indicating that the New Advisory Agreements, including the fees payable thereunder, are substantially identical to the terms of the corresponding Current Advisory Agreements.

10. The Board considered representations by the Adviser and its affiliates, as well as related supporting documentation, indicating that: (1) the Adviser can be expected to provide services of the same nature, extent, and quality under the New Advisory Agreements and as are provided thereby under the Current Advisory Agreements; and (2) the Separation is not expected to result in any changes to (i) the management of the Portfolios, or (ii) the investment objective of or the principal investment strategies used to manage any of the Portfolios.

11. The Board considered the ability of the Adviser and its affiliates to retain the employment of key personnel, as well as the overall positive indications by many such personnel regarding the opportunities presented by the Separation.

12. The Board considered that the Adviser and its affiliates have agreed to bear all expenses associated with obtaining shareholder approval of the New Advisory Agreements.

13. The Board considered Brighthouse’s preliminary “branding” plans regarding the future name of its operations.

14. The Board considered the advice provided by Ropes & Gray, LLP, legal counsel to the Trusts and the Adviser, with respect to the New Advisory Agreements (including advice relating to the process and timing of seeking shareholder approval of the New Advisory Agreements, and whether shareholder approvals would be required in connection with any future aspects of the Separation) and regarding the Board’s role and responsibilities with respect to the Separation.

15. The Board considered MetLife’s stated intention of divesting its ownership interest in the Adviser through the Separation, including the potential advantages and disadvantages of this divestiture to shareholders of the Portfolios. The Board considered the likelihood that the Adviser would retain its key personnel after the Separation. The Board considered that the garnering of new assets into the Trusts is based on sales of variable annuity and variable life insurance products, which sales have declined in prior years as a result of, among other things, the capital requirements of MetLife. The Board considered the representations of the anticipated senior management of Brighthouse that the Separation provides the Trusts with an opportunity for the garnering of new assets as Brighthouse will likely sell such products going forward. The Board considered also that the divestiture would result in a change in the manner in

MSF-24

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Ultra-Short Term Bond Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

which the Trusts access certain services and resources of MetLife (after the Separation those services will be provided through a transition services agreement), the loss of affiliation with the MetLife name brand, and the possible going forward need of the Trusts to hire a transfer agent, as such transfer agency services are currently provided to the Trusts for no fee.

16. The Board considered that, if shareholders approve the New Advisory Agreements, the Board and the Adviser will conduct their annual contract review process in November 2017. Thus, the Board emphasized that it would be able to, and intends to, monitor on a regular basis the ability of the Adviser and its affiliates to comply with their undertakings to the Board and to monitor on an ongoing basis the quality of services to, and expenses of, the Portfolios. In addition, the Board considered that, under the New Advisory Agreements, it will continue to have the authority, should the need arise in its view, to terminate any of the New Advisory Agreements without penalty upon 60 days’ notice.

Based on the foregoing and other relevant considerations, at the November Meeting, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, voted to approve the New Advisory Agreements and to recommend approval of the New Advisory Agreements by shareholders of the Portfolios. In this connection, the Board concluded that, in light of all factors considered, the terms of the New Advisory Agreement, including fee rates, were fair and reasonable, and that it would be in the best interests of shareholders of each Portfolio to approve the New Advisory Agreements.

In the event that approval of the New Advisory Agreements by shareholders of the Portfolios has not been obtained before the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements as a result of the change in control of the Adviser, the Board also approved an interim advisory agreement with the Adviser (the “Interim Advisory Agreement”) on behalf of each Portfolio that will go into effect upon the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements. The Board’s determination to approve each Interim Advisory Agreement was based on the same information and considerations as the Board’s approval of the New Advisory Agreements so as to ensure continuity of advisory services from the Adviser to the Portfolios following the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements.

MSF-25

Metropolitan Series Fund

BlackRock Ultra-Short Term Bond Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Sub-Advisory Agreements

The separation (the “Separation”) of MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”), the investment adviser to each of the series (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”) of Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (collectively, the “Trusts”), from its parent company, MetLife, Inc. (“MetLife”), to a separate retail business, Brighthouse Financial, Inc. (“Brighthouse”), is expected to result in a change in control of the Adviser, and therefore an “assignment” of each Portfolio’s current advisory agreement and, as a result, the automatic termination of the sub-advisory agreement (each a “Sub-Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisory Agreements”) between the Adviser and the investment sub-advisers (each a “Sub-Adviser” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisers”). At the November 15-16, 2016 meeting (“November Meeting”) of the Board of Trustees of the Trusts (the “Board”), the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not “interested persons,” as defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940, of any Portfolio (the “Independent Trustees”), approved new sub-advisory agreements (each a “New Sub-Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “New Sub-Advisory Agreements”). Information about the Board’s considerations and process is set forth below.

In determining whether to approve the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, the Board considered the nature, quality and extent of the services that are currently provided by the Sub-Advisers under the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements as well as the services to be provided under the New Sub-Advisory Agreements. The Board’s review was conducted as part of, and in conjunction with, the Board’s annual review of the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements, which culminated at the November Meeting. In approving the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, the Board considered its conclusions with respect to its approvals of the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements, including the Board’s general satisfaction with the nature, extent and quality of services being provided by the Sub-Advisers to the Portfolios, as applicable. Appendix A contains a further description of the process followed, information reviewed and the material factors considered by the Board in approving the continuation of the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements.

In addition, the following actions were taken and considered by or on behalf of the Board:

1. The Independent Trustees of the Board solicited and received ongoing advice regarding the legal duties of the Independent Trustees from Stradley Ronon, legal counsel for the Independent Trustees, which law firm has extensive experience regarding such matters.

2. The Board considered representations by the Adviser and its affiliates that approval of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements would be necessary for the Portfolios to continue receiving sub-advisory services from the Sub-Advisers following the change in control of the Adviser.

3. The Board considered representations by the Adviser, as well as related supporting documentation, indicating that the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, including the fees payable thereunder, are the same as the terms of the corresponding Current Sub-Advisory Agreements.

4. The Board considered the advice provided by Ropes & Gray, LLP, legal counsel to the Trusts and the Adviser, with respect to the New Sub-Advisory Agreements and regarding the Board’s role and responsibilities with respect to the Separation.

5. The Board considered that the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers will conduct their annual contract review process in November 2017. Thus, the Board emphasized that it would be able to, and intends to, monitor on an ongoing basis the ability of the Sub-Advisers to comply with its undertakings to the Board and the Adviser and to monitor on an ongoing basis the quality of services to, and expenses of, the Portfolios. In addition, the Board considered that, under the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, it will continue to have the authority, should the need arise in its view, to terminate any of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements without penalty upon no more than 60 days’ notice.

Based on the foregoing and other relevant considerations, at the November Meeting, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, voted to approve the New Sub-Advisory Agreements. In this connection, the Board concluded that, in light of all factors considered, the terms of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, including fee rates, were fair and reasonable.

MSF-26

Metropolitan Series Fund

Frontier Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Managed by Frontier Capital Management Company, LLC

Portfolio Manager Commentary*

PERFORMANCE

For the 12 months ended December 31, 2016, the Class A, B, D, and E shares of the Frontier Mid Cap Growth Portfolio returned 5.40%, 5.16%, 5.29%, and 5.25%, respectively. The Portfolio’s benchmark, the Russell Midcap Growth Index¹, returned 7.33%.

MARKET ENVIRONMENT / CONDITIONS

The year 2016 began with the worst-ever five-day start for the stock market, but ended the period with the strongest post-election gain in history. The first half of the year was marked by volatility over recession fears, slowing growth in China, plummeting oil and other commodity prices, falling corporate profits, and the expectation of further interest rate hikes. In addition, the surprise U.K. referendum to vote to leave the European Union (Brexit) set off a flight to safety, which led global equity markets to decline and U.S. Treasury bond yields to fall to record lows. The sharp appreciation of the stock market in the second half of the year, particularly after the U.S. election, resulted in historically elevated valuations. Investor optimism grew over expectations the new President and Congress will adopt legislation deemed favorable to companies. Mid cap growth equities continued to modestly advance during the fourth quarter rising 0.5% to conclude a year of wild swings. The period was punctuated by substantial transition from gloom to optimism with the Russell Midcap Growth Index down as much as 14% through early part of February before surging nearly 25% to ultimately finish the year up 7.3%.

PORTFOLIO REVIEW/ PERIOD END POSITIONING

The Portfolio underperformed the Russell Midcap Growth Index for the year. Negative stock selection across the Information Technology and Financials sectors were the main detractors to performance, and more than offset the Portfolio’s positive allocation impact.

Within Information Technology, not owning Nvidia was a material driver behind the Portfolio’s relative underperformance in the sector. The stock rose 134% over the period following its addition to the Index in June. We decided to not own the stock based on the Portfolio’s existing exposure to gaming coupled with concern that nearly one-third of the company’s earnings were tied to intellectual royalty payments from Intel Corp., which we feared could potentially cease. The largest detractor the Portfolio owned was Alliance Data Systems. The stock was negatively impacted by an uptick in delinquencies causing the stock to decline 17% for the year, which we believed was overdone as in our view, maturing credit is normal for this point in the earnings cycle. In Financials, ETF provider WisdomTree declined 27% during the period. Two of the company’s products, which accounted for over 40% of the total assets under management, experienced heavy outflows. As a result, profitability declined and adversely affected the stock’s performance over the period. Despite the recent underperformance in Information Technology and Financials, at year end the Portfolio remained overweight these sectors.

In Consumer Staples, Monster Beverage Corp. declined 11% over the period and missed earnings expectations in the second and third quarters of 2016. In our view, these shortfalls were transitory and we continued to believe in the strength of the company’s brands as well as its long term strategy of leveraging Coca Cola’s distribution in most of its international markets.

Stock selection in Materials and Industrials were the largest contributors to overall performance during the period. The election of Donald Trump provided a bounce for many of the Portfolio’s existing infrastructure-related Materials stocks such as Eagle Materials, Martin Marietta, and Vulcan Materials. The Portfolio’s Industrials sector holdings benefitted from a rebound in earnings in both HD Supply as well as United Continental Holdings following some short term disruptions earlier in the year. During the fourth quarter, HD Supply reported solid earnings and a constructive outlook for 2017 that surprised on the upside and showed continued improvement in supply chain issues that hindered its largest segment, Facilities Maintenance, earlier in the year. United Continental Holdings reported solid third quarter results as both revenues and costs surprised on the upside. Further, the company provided a long term outlook that excited the market and instilled confidence the actions taken by both new management and board members were seen as positive steps in the direction of the company.

At year end, we remained optimistic structural changes taking place may allow fiscal policy to pick up the baton from an exhausted monetary policy in a way that sustains or improves growth. In our view, valuations and sentiment appear stretched at a time of uncertainty and risk revolving around interest rates, inflation, currencies, and global trade. We believed sentiment was likely at an extreme low in February and is likewise now approaching elevated levels. We maintained a balanced approach that upholds our discipline of finding good businesses with company specific catalysts for substantial

MSF-1

Metropolitan Series Fund

Frontier Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Managed by Frontier Capital Management Company, LLC

Portfolio Manager Commentary*—(Continued)

earnings power trading at attractive valuations. We continued to favor entities with promising secular growth and stocks with management driven actions to enhance profitability as well as deploy financial resources to reward investors. At period end, we were finding many such attractive opportunities in Information Technology, Health Care, Industrials, and Financials, all areas the Portfolio remained overweight as of December 31, 2016.

Stephen M. Knightly

Christopher J. Scarpa

Portfolio Managers

Frontier Capital 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 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.

MSF-2

Metropolitan Series Fund

Frontier Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

A $10,000 INVESTMENT COMPARED TO THE RUSSELL MIDCAP GROWTH INDEX

AVERAGE ANNUAL RETURNS (%) (FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2016)

	1 Year		5 Year		10 Year
Frontier Mid Cap Growth Portfolio
Class A		5.40		12.17		6.86
Class B		5.16		11.89		6.60
Class D		5.29		12.06		6.75
Class E		5.25		12.00		6.71
Russell Midcap Growth Index		7.33		13.51		7.83

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 forecasted growth values.

Portfolio performance is calculated including reinvestment of all income and capital gain distributions. Performance numbers are net of all Portfolio expenses but do not include any insurance, sales, separate account or administrative charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts or any additional expenses that participants may bear relating to the operations of their plans. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower. The performance of any index referenced above has not been adjusted for ongoing management, distribution and operating expenses, and sales charges applicable to mutual fund investments. Direct investment in any index is not possible. The performance of Class A shares, as set forth in the line graph above, will differ from that of other classes because of the difference in expenses paid by policyholders investing in the different share classes.

This information represents past performance and is not indicative of future results. Investment return and principal value may fluctuate so that shares, upon redemption, may be worth more or less than the original cost.

PORTFOLIO COMPOSITION AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2016

Top Holdings

	% of Net Assets
Ross Stores, Inc.		2.6
Electronic Arts, Inc.		2.6
Equifax, Inc.		2.4
Cooper Cos., Inc. (The)		2.4
Cintas Corp.		2.3
CDK Global, Inc.		2.3
Aramark		2.2
Zoetis, Inc.		2.1
Euronet Worldwide, Inc.		2.1
Global Payments, Inc.		2.0

Top Sectors

	% of Net Assets
Information Technology		25.9
Health Care		17.3
Consumer Discretionary		16.5
Industrials		15.0
Financials		11.0
Materials		8.2
Telecommunication Services		2.0
Energy		1.7
Consumer Staples		1.7

MSF-3

Metropolitan Series Fund

Frontier 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, 2016 through December 31, 2016.

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.

Frontier Mid Cap Growth Portfolio		Annualized Expense Ratio			Beginning Account Value July 1, 2016		Ending Account Value December 31, 2016		Expenses Paid During Period** July 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016
Class A(a)	Actual		0.73	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,041.10	$	3.75
	Hypothetical*		0.73	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,021.47	$	3.71
Class B(a)	Actual		0.98	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,040.00	$	5.03
	Hypothetical*		0.98	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,020.21	$	4.98
Class D(a)	Actual		0.83	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,040.50	$	4.26
	Hypothetical*		0.83	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,020.96	$	4.22
Class E(a)	Actual		0.88	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,040.30	$	4.51
	Hypothetical*		0.88	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,020.71	$	4.47

* 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 366 (to reflect the one-half year period).

^(a) The annualized expense ratio shown reflects the impact of the management fee waiver as described in Note 5 of the Notes to Financial Statements.

MSF-4

Metropolitan Series Fund

Frontier Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—99.3% of Net Assets

Security Description	Shares		Value
Airlines—0.9%
United Continental Holdings, Inc. (a) (b)		138,868	$	10,120,700
Banks—2.4%
Popular, Inc.		24,672		1,081,127
Signature Bank (a)		112,721		16,930,694
Webster Financial Corp. (b)		163,801		8,891,119
				26,902,940
Beverages—1.1%
Brown-Forman Corp. - Class B (b)		142,942		6,420,955
Monster Beverage Corp. (a)		136,700		6,061,278
				12,482,233
Biotechnology—3.8%
Alkermes plc (a) (b)		138,289		7,686,103
BioMarin Pharmaceutical, Inc. (a) (b)		156,633		12,975,478
Incyte Corp. (a)		217,531		21,811,833
				42,473,414
Building Products—1.0%
A.O. Smith Corp. (b)		249,378		11,808,048
Capital Markets—5.6%
E*Trade Financial Corp. (a)		256,395		8,884,087
Moody’s Corp.		77,785		7,332,792
Nasdaq, Inc.		270,829		18,178,042
Raymond James Financial, Inc.		304,255		21,075,744
SEI Investments Co.		54,007		2,665,785
WisdomTree Investments, Inc. (b)		420,228		4,681,340
				62,817,790
Chemicals—2.1%
CF Industries Holdings, Inc.		180,343		5,677,198
FMC Corp. (b)		118,885		6,724,136
Sherwin-Williams Co. (The)		42,925		11,535,664
				23,936,998
Commercial Services & Supplies—5.5%
Cintas Corp. (b)		223,465		25,823,615
KAR Auction Services, Inc.		383,585		16,348,393
Waste Connections, Inc.		253,808		19,946,771
				62,118,779
Construction Materials—4.2%
Eagle Materials, Inc. (b)		160,891		15,852,590
Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. (b)		71,902		15,928,450
Vulcan Materials Co.		119,086		14,903,613
				46,684,653
Containers & Packaging—1.9%
Ball Corp.		96,719		7,260,695
Berry Plastics Group, Inc. (a) (b)		281,383		13,711,794
				20,972,489
Distributors—1.3%
LKQ Corp. (a)		472,784	$	14,490,830
Diversified Consumer Services—0.8%
Bright Horizons Family Solutions, Inc. (a)		133,235		9,329,115
Diversified Telecommunication Services—2.0%
Cogent Communications Holdings, Inc.		222,794		9,212,532
SBA Communications Corp. - Class A (a)		127,416		13,156,976
				22,369,508
Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components—2.5%
Amphenol Corp. - Class A (b)		156,809		10,537,565
Flex, Ltd. (a) (b)		409,654		5,886,728
Universal Display Corp. (a) (b)		208,018		11,711,413
				28,135,706
Food Products—0.6%
Blue Buffalo Pet Products, Inc. (a)		285,750		6,869,430
Health Care Equipment & Supplies—9.0%
Align Technology, Inc. (a) (b)		117,405		11,286,143
C.R. Bard, Inc.		98,129		22,045,661
Cooper Cos., Inc. (The) (b)		151,619		26,522,712
DexCom, Inc. (a) (b)		73,198		4,369,921
Edwards Lifesciences Corp. (a) (b)		110,784		10,380,461
STERIS plc (b)		241,742		16,290,993
Teleflex, Inc. (b)		63,002		10,152,772
				101,048,663
Health Care Providers & Services—0.5%
Universal Health Services, Inc. - Class B		47,916		5,097,304
Hotels, Restaurants & Leisure—4.4%
Aramark (b)		682,542		24,380,400
MGM Resorts International (a)		480,499		13,852,786
Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.		48,221		3,956,051
Texas Roadhouse, Inc. (b)		152,192		7,341,742
				49,530,979
Insurance—3.0%
Aon plc		183,843		20,504,010
Willis Towers Watson plc		104,028		12,720,544
				33,224,554
Internet & Direct Marketing Retail—1.0%
Expedia, Inc.		100,367		11,369,574
IT Services—9.3%
Alliance Data Systems Corp. (b)		49,367		11,280,360
Computer Sciences Corp.		93,205		5,538,241
Euronet Worldwide, Inc. (a) (b)		320,810		23,236,268
Gartner, Inc. (a)		77,864		7,869,714
Genpact, Ltd. (a)		340,059		8,277,036
Global Payments, Inc.		330,800		22,960,828
Jack Henry & Associates, Inc.		100,725		8,942,366

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-5

Metropolitan Series Fund

Frontier Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
IT Services—(Continued)
Vantiv, Inc. - Class A (a)		282,791	$	16,859,999
				104,964,812
Leisure Products—1.8%
Brunswick Corp.		368,530		20,099,626
Life Sciences Tools & Services—2.0%
Illumina, Inc. (a) (b)		59,222		7,582,785
PAREXEL International Corp. (a) (b)		124,117		8,156,969
QIAGEN NV (a) (b)		232,948		6,527,203
				22,266,957
Machinery—1.4%
Wabtec Corp. (b)		64,802		5,379,862
Woodward, Inc. (b)		158,185		10,922,674
				16,302,536
Media—0.7%
IMAX Corp. (a) (b)		246,843		7,750,870
Multiline Retail—2.4%
Dollar General Corp. (b)		223,246		16,535,831
Dollar Tree, Inc. (a)		128,134		9,889,382
				26,425,213
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels—1.7%
Carrizo Oil & Gas, Inc. (a) (b)		322,544		12,047,019
Concho Resources, Inc. (a)		56,657		7,512,718
				19,559,737
Pharmaceuticals—2.1%
Zoetis, Inc.		439,851		23,545,224
Professional Services—2.4%
Equifax, Inc.		228,962		27,070,177
Road & Rail—0.9%
J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc. (b)		104,412		10,135,273
Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment—3.7%
Integrated Device Technology, Inc. (a) (b)		317,914		7,490,054
Lam Research Corp.		175,736		18,580,567
Qorvo, Inc. (a) (b)		295,115		15,561,414
				41,632,035
Software—10.4%
Activision Blizzard, Inc.		381,643		13,781,129
Cadence Design Systems, Inc. (a)		890,732		22,464,261
CDK Global, Inc.		430,467		25,694,575
Electronic Arts, Inc. (a)		365,214		28,764,255
Fortinet, Inc. (a)		191,621		5,771,624
Mobileye NV (a) (b)		205,932		7,850,128
Software—(Continued)
Red Hat, Inc. (a)		175,653		12,243,014
				116,568,986
Specialty Retail—4.1%
O’Reilly Automotive, Inc. (a) (b)		60,925		16,962,129
Ross Stores, Inc.		444,997		29,191,803
				46,153,932
Trading Companies & Distributors—2.8%
Beacon Roofing Supply, Inc. (a)		303,010		13,959,671
HD Supply Holdings, Inc. (a)		401,202		17,055,097
				31,014,768
Total Common Stocks (Cost $952,830,829)				1,115,273,853
Short-Term Investment—0.9%
Repurchase Agreement—0.9%
Fixed Income Clearing Corp. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/16 at 0.030% to be repurchased at $9,660,547 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $9,895,000 U.S. Treasury Note at 1.625% due 11/30/20 with a value of $9,854,134.		9,660,515		9,660,515
Total Short-Term Investments (Cost $9,660,515)				9,660,515
Securities Lending Reinvestments (c)—14.6%
Certificates of Deposit—6.1%
Banco Del Estado De Chile New York 1.154%, 06/21/17 (d)		2,500,000		2,499,487
Bank of Montreal London Zero Coupon, 01/12/17
		2,998,090		2,999,452
Bank of Nova Scotia Houston 1.201%, 11/03/17 (d)		3,000,000		3,002,539
Bank of Tokyo UFJ, Ltd., New York 1.121%, 02/28/17 (d)		2,000,000		2,000,040
Barclays New York 0.894%, 02/10/17 (d)		4,000,000		4,001,294
BNP Paribas New York 1.226%, 08/04/17 (d)		750,000		750,333
Chiba Bank, Ltd., New York 0.870%, 01/10/17		1,200,000		1,200,028
0.950%, 02/02/17		1,000,000		1,000,138
Credit Suisse AG New York 1.364%, 05/12/17 (d)		3,750,000		3,750,390
1.444%, 04/24/17 (d)		1,900,000		1,900,446
DNB NOR Bank ASA 1.130%, 07/28/17 (d)		900,000		899,842
DZ Bank AG New York 1.010%, 02/27/17		2,900,000		2,900,838

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-6

Metropolitan Series Fund

Frontier Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Securities Lending Reinvestments (c)—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Certificates of Deposit—(Continued)
KBC Brussells 1.050%, 01/27/17		2,500,000	$	2,500,475
1.050%, 02/07/17		1,500,000		1,500,375
Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen London Zero Coupon, 01/24/17		1,995,411		1,999,140
Mizuho Bank, Ltd., New York 1.361%, 04/26/17 (d)		2,500,000		2,499,872
National Australia Bank London 1.034%, 05/02/17 (d)		1,750,000		1,751,652
1.182%, 11/09/17 (d)		3,200,000		3,192,064
National Bank of Canada 0.650%, 01/06/17		6,000,000		6,000,240
Shizuoka Bank New York 0.840%, 01/03/17		3,000,000		3,000,012
Standard Chartered Bank New York 1.150%, 03/21/17		5,500,000		5,500,929
Sumitomo Bank New York 1.212%, 06/05/17 (d)		1,000,000		999,980
1.215%, 05/05/17 (d)		1,500,000		1,502,499
1.336%, 06/19/17 (d)		1,500,000		1,499,886
Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corp. 0.900%, 01/12/17		650,000		650,025
Sumitomo Mitsui Trust Bank, Ltd., London 1.262%, 05/08/17 (d)		1,000,000		1,001,831
Sumitomo Mitsui Trust Bank, Ltd., New York 1.194%, 06/02/17 (d)		1,000,000		999,855
1.351%, 04/26/17 (d)		3,000,000		3,000,354
Svenska Handelsbanken New York 1.266%, 05/18/17 (d)		500,000		500,087
UBS, Stamford 1.084%, 05/12/17 (d)		1,400,000		1,399,894
Wells Fargo Bank San Francisco N.A. 1.231%, 04/26/17 (d)		900,000		900,252
1.264%, 10/26/17 (d)		1,250,000		1,250,854
				68,555,103
Commercial Paper—3.2%
Atlantic Asset Securitization LLC 1.040%, 02/03/17		1,993,933		1,998,254
Barton Capital Corp. 1.160%, 03/28/17		2,492,750		2,493,510
Den Norske ASA 1.206%, 04/27/17 (d)		900,000		900,048
Erste Abwicklungsanstalt 1.014%, 03/10/17 (d)		2,500,000		2,500,015
HSBC plc 1.216%, 04/25/17 (d)		2,250,000		2,249,903
Kells Funding LLC 1.040%, 01/19/17		199,295		199,921
LMA S.A. & LMA Americas 1.000%, 01/13/17		249,396		249,913
Macquarie Bank, Ltd. 0.930%, 01/19/17		997,623		999,383
1.160%, 03/20/17		4,985,339		4,987,524
Commercial Paper—(Continued)
Old Line Funding LLC 0.840%, 01/03/17		499,102		499,961
1.030%, 03/13/17 (d)		3,400,000		3,402,653
Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp., Ltd. 0.890%, 02/21/17		1,995,451		1,997,344
Starbird Funding Corp. 1.240%, 06/13/17 (d)		3,250,000		3,249,737
Suncorp Metway, Ltd. 0.930%, 02/09/17		3,491,682		3,496,125
Toronto Dominion Holding Corp. 0.600%, 01/05/17		3,496,383		3,499,608
Versailles Commercial Paper LLC 1.000%, 01/31/17		2,094,400		2,098,421
Westpac Banking Corp. 1.232%, 10/20/17 (d)		1,500,000		1,502,619
				36,324,939
Repurchase Agreements—5.1%
Citigroup Global Markets, Ltd. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/29/16 at 0.710% to be repurchased at $2,000,197 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $2,017,473 U.S. Treasury and Foreign Obligations with rates ranging from 1.750% - 2.750%, maturity dates ranging from 10/15/19 - 11/15/23, with a value of $2,040,000.		2,000,000		2,000,000
Deutsche Bank AG, London Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/16 at 0.950% to be repurchased at $2,000,211 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $2,041,800 Foreign Obligations with rates ranging from 1.750% - 2.500%, maturity dates ranging from 09/05/19 - 11/20/24, with a value of $2,040,011.		2,000,000		2,000,000
Repurchase Agreement dated 12/15/16 - 12/30/16 at 1.050% to be repurchased at $10,805,635 on 01/03/17, collateralized by various Common Stock with a value of $12,004,794.		10,800,000		10,800,000
Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. Repurchase Agreement dated 10/18/16 at 1.110% to be repurchased at $1,004,193 on 03/03/17, collateralized by various Common Stock with a value of $1,100,000.		1,000,000		1,000,000
Goldman Sachs & Co. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/16 at 0.460% to be repurchased at $37,822 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $194,630 U.S. Government Agency Obligations with rates ranging from 2.000% - 10.500%, maturity dates ranging from 03/15/17 - 09/20/65, with a value of $38,577.		37,820		37,820

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-7

Metropolitan Series Fund

Frontier Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Securities Lending Reinvestments (c)—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Repurchase Agreements—(Continued)
Macquarie Bank, Ltd. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/27/16 at 0.580% to be repurchased at $5,700,643 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $5,639,324 U.S. Treasury Obligations with rates ranging from 0.000% - 8.750%, maturity dates ranging from 01/05/17 - 05/15/46, with a value of $5,816,946.		5,700,000	$	5,700,000
Repurchase Agreement dated 12/15/16 at 0.600% to be repurchased at $8,002,933 on 01/06/17, collateralized by $7,914,841 U.S. Treasury Obligations with rates ranging from 0.000% - 8.750%, maturity dates ranging from 01/05/17 - 05/15/46, with a value of $8,164,134.		8,000,000		8,000,000
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. Repurchase Agreement dated 10/26/16 at 1.160% to be repurchased at $1,507,685 on 04/03/17, collateralized by various Common Stock with a value of $1,650,000.		1,500,000		1,500,000
Natixis Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/16 at 0.600% to be repurchased at $20,001,333 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $35,915,287 U.S. Government Agency and Treasury Obligations with rates ranging from 0.996% - 7.000%, maturity dates ranging from 01/15/20 - 12/01/46, with a value of $20,401,360.		20,000,000		20,000,000
Pershing LLC Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/16 at 0.680% to be repurchased at $6,000,453 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $8,804,187 U.S. Government Agency Obligations with rates ranging from 0.625% - 11.018%, maturity dates ranging from 01/17/17 - 08/20/66, with a value of $6,120,000.		6,000,000		6,000,000
				57,037,820
Time Deposits—0.2%
OP Corporate Bank plc 1.010%, 01/04/17		700,000		700,000
Shinkin Central Bank 1.200%, 01/27/17		200,000		200,000
1.220%, 01/26/17		1,300,000		1,300,000
				2,200,000
Total Securities Lending Reinvestments (Cost $164,107,323)				164,117,862
Total Investments—114.8% (Cost $1,126,598,667) (e)				1,289,052,230
Other assets and liabilities (net)—(14.8)%				(166,122,098	)
Net Assets—100.0%			$	1,122,930,132

* Principal amount stated in U.S. dollars unless otherwise noted.

(a) Non-income producing security.

(b) All or a portion of the security was held on loan. As of December 31, 2016, the market value of securities loaned was $158,745,372 and the collateral received consisted of cash in the amount of $164,076,675. The cash collateral investments are disclosed in the Schedule of Investments and categorized as Securities Lending Reinvestments.

(c) Represents investment of cash collateral received from securities on loan as of December 31, 2016.

(d) Variable or floating rate security. The stated rate represents the rate at December 31, 2016.

(e) As of December 31, 2016, the aggregate cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was $1,126,798,404. The aggregate unrealized appreciation and depreciation of investments were $186,332,698 and $(24,078,872), respectively, resulting in net unrealized appreciation of $162,253,826 for federal income tax purposes.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-8

Metropolitan Series Fund

Frontier Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Fair Value Hierarchy

Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) define 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, separately for each major category of assets and liabilities, 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, quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities 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, or other market corroborated inputs)

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 used in determining the fair value of investments and derivative financial instruments)

The inputs or methodologies used for valuing investments are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in them. Changes to the inputs or methodologies used may result in transfers between levels, which 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, 2016:

Description	Level 1		Level 2			Level 3		Total
Total Common Stocks*	$	1,115,273,853	$	—		$	—	$	1,115,273,853
Total Short-Term Investment*		—		9,660,515			—		9,660,515
Total Securities Lending Reinvestments*		—		164,117,862			—		164,117,862
Total Investments	$	1,115,273,853	$	173,778,377		$	—	$	1,289,052,230
Collateral for Securities Loaned (Liability)	$	—	$	(164,076,675	)	$	—	$	(164,076,675	)

* See Schedule of Investments for additional detailed categorizations.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-9

Metropolitan Series Fund

Frontier Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Statement of Assets and Liabilities

December 31, 2016

Assets
Investments at value (a) (b)	$	1,289,052,230
Receivable for:
Investments sold		5,894,530
Fund shares sold		116,932
Dividends and interest		483,208
Prepaid expenses		3,233
Total Assets		1,295,550,133
Liabilities
Collateral for securities loaned		164,076,675
Payables for:
Investments purchased		7,110,514
Fund shares redeemed		461,211
Accrued Expenses:
Management fees		667,539
Distribution and service fees		44,263
Deferred trustees’ fees		122,613
Other expenses		137,186
Total Liabilities		172,620,001
Net Assets	$	1,122,930,132
Net Assets Consist of:
Paid in surplus	$	932,416,830
Accumulated net investment loss		(122,614	)
Accumulated net realized gain		28,182,353
Unrealized appreciation on investments		162,453,563
Net Assets	$	1,122,930,132
Net Assets
Class A	$	863,537,463
Class B		167,673,086
Class D		82,349,264
Class E		9,370,319
Capital Shares Outstanding*
Class A		27,488,237
Class B		5,860,285
Class D		2,669,195
Class E		305,077
Net Asset Value, Offering Price and Redemption Price Per Share
Class A	$	31.41
Class B		28.61
Class D		30.85
Class E		30.71

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

(a) Identified cost of investments was $1,126,598,667.

(b) Includes securities loaned at value of $158,745,372.

Statement of Operations

Year Ended December 31, 2016

Investment Income
Dividends	$	7,666,567
Interest		5,799
Securities lending income		263,747
Other income (a)		130,468
Total investment income		8,066,581
Expenses
Management fees		8,029,498
Administration fees		36,513
Custodian and accounting fees		52,755
Distribution and service fees—Class B		429,720
Distribution and service fees—Class D		84,403
Distribution and service fees—Class E		14,274
Audit and tax services		42,040
Legal		33,032
Trustees’ fees and expenses		45,247
Shareholder reporting		159,074
Insurance		8,106
Miscellaneous		17,877
Total expenses		8,952,539
Less management fee waiver		(257,459	)
Less broker commission recapture		(74,051	)
Net expenses		8,621,029
Net Investment Loss		(554,448	)
Net Realized and Unrealized Gain
Net realized gain on investments		28,284,612
Net change in unrealized appreciation on investments		30,452,768
Net realized and unrealized gain		58,737,380
Net Increase in Net Assets From Operations	$	58,182,932

(a) Other income represents a non-recurring refund for overbilling of prior years’ custodian out-of-pocket fees.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-10

Metropolitan Series Fund

Frontier Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Statements of Changes in Net Assets

	Year Ended December 31, 2016			Year Ended December 31, 2015
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets:
From Operations
Net investment loss	$	(554,448	)	$	(1,783,221	)
Net realized gain		28,284,612			131,984,246
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation)		30,452,768			(96,656,360	)
Increase in net assets from operations		58,182,932			33,544,665
From Distributions to Shareholders
Net realized capital gains
Class A		(99,260,079	)		(120,148,007	)
Class B		(21,703,876	)		(27,320,274	)
Class D		(10,011,075	)		(12,958,013	)
Class E		(1,135,232	)		(1,448,339	)
Total distributions		(132,110,262	)		(161,874,633	)
Increase in net assets from capital share transactions		36,453,154			146,475,892
Total increase (decrease) in net assets		(37,474,176	)		18,145,924
Net Assets
Beginning of period		1,160,404,308			1,142,258,384
End of period	$	1,122,930,132		$	1,160,404,308
Accumulated net investment loss
End of period	$	(122,614	)	$	(107,576	)

Other Information:

Capital Shares

Transactions in capital shares were as follows:

	Year Ended December 31, 2016						Year Ended December 31, 2015
	Shares			Value			Shares			Value
Class A
Sales		354,929		$	11,140,121			2,865,002		$	113,108,885
Reinvestments		3,306,465			99,260,079			3,289,923			120,148,007
Redemptions		(2,241,975	)		(71,084,912	)		(2,380,338	)		(89,072,962	)
Net increase		1,419,419		$	39,315,288			3,774,587		$	144,183,930
Class B
Sales		287,661		$	8,283,291			695,096		$	23,571,724
Reinvestments		792,691			21,703,876			809,249			27,320,274
Redemptions		(1,061,101	)		(30,861,135	)		(1,363,306	)		(47,105,593	)
Net increase		19,251		$	(873,968	)		141,039		$	3,786,405
Class D
Sales		129,785		$	4,014,396			126,941		$	4,666,476
Reinvestments		339,358			10,011,075			360,045			12,958,013
Redemptions		(506,551	)		(15,730,103	)		(530,932	)		(19,358,357	)
Net decrease		(37,408	)	$	(1,704,632	)		(43,946	)	$	(1,733,868	)
Class E
Sales		8,990		$	274,586			28,565		$	1,025,425
Reinvestments		38,639			1,135,232			40,366			1,448,339
Redemptions		(54,814	)		(1,693,352	)		(61,036	)		(2,234,339	)
Net increase (decrease)		(7,185	)	$	(283,534	)		7,895		$	239,425
Increase derived from capital shares transactions				$	36,453,154					$	146,475,892

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-11

Metropolitan Series Fund

Frontier Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class A
	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014			2013			2012
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	33.70		$	37.28		$	36.90		$	28.92		$	26.06
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (loss) (a)		(0.00	)(b)(c)		(0.03	)		(0.05	)		(0.00	)(c)		0.34
Net realized and unrealized gain on investments		1.63			1.51			3.78			9.18			2.52
Total from investment operations		1.63			1.48			3.73			9.18			2.86
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		0.00			0.00			0.00			(0.42	)		0.00
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(3.92	)		(5.06	)		(3.35	)		(0.78	)		0.00
Total distributions		(3.92	)		(5.06	)		(3.35	)		(1.20	)		0.00
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	31.41		$	33.70		$	37.28		$	36.90		$	28.92
Total Return (%) (d)		5.40			2.88			11.14			32.77			10.97
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Gross ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.75			0.74			0.76			0.75			0.78
Net ratio of expenses to average net assets (%) (e)		0.73			0.73			0.75			0.74			0.78
Ratio of net investment income (loss) to average net assets (%)		(0.00	)(b)(f)		(0.09	)		(0.13	)		(0.01	)		1.21
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		40			60			48			120			78
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	863.5		$	878.5		$	831.2		$	982.6		$	571.6
	Class B
	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014			2013			2012
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	31.11		$	34.85		$	34.79		$	27.33		$	24.69
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (loss) (a)		(0.07	)(b)		(0.12	)		(0.13	)		(0.08	)		0.26
Net realized and unrealized gain on investments		1.49			1.44			3.54			8.66			2.38
Total from investment operations		1.42			1.32			3.41			8.58			2.64
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		0.00			0.00			0.00			(0.34	)		0.00
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(3.92	)		(5.06	)		(3.35	)		(0.78	)		0.00
Total distributions		(3.92	)		(5.06	)		(3.35	)		(1.12	)		0.00
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	28.61		$	31.11		$	34.85		$	34.79		$	27.33
Total Return (%) (d)		5.16			2.60			10.88			32.43			10.69
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Gross ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		1.00			0.99			1.01			1.00			1.03
Net ratio of expenses to average net assets (%) (e)		0.98			0.98			1.00			0.99			1.03
Ratio of net investment income (loss) to average net assets (%)		(0.25	)(b)		(0.35	)		(0.37	)		(0.25	)		0.98
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		40			60			48			120			78
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	167.7		$	181.7		$	198.6		$	201.9		$	84.1

Please see following page for Financial Highlights footnote legend.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-12

Metropolitan Series Fund

Frontier Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class D
	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014			2013			2012
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	33.20		$	36.83		$	36.52		$	28.63		$	25.82
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (loss) (a)		(0.03	)(b)		(0.07	)		(0.08	)		(0.04	)		0.30
Net realized and unrealized gain on investments		1.60			1.50			3.74			9.09			2.51
Total from investment operations		1.57			1.43			3.66			9.05			2.81
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		0.00			0.00			0.00			(0.38	)		0.00
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(3.92	)		(5.06	)		(3.35	)		(0.78	)		0.00
Total distributions		(3.92	)		(5.06	)		(3.35	)		(1.16	)		0.00
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	30.85		$	33.20		$	36.83		$	36.52		$	28.63
Total Return (%) (d)		5.29			2.78			11.06			32.63			10.88
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Gross ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.85			0.84			0.86			0.85			0.88
Net ratio of expenses to average net assets (%) (e)		0.83			0.83			0.85			0.84			0.88
Ratio of net investment income (loss) to average net assets (%)		(0.10	)(b)		(0.20	)		(0.22	)		(0.13	)		1.06
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		40			60			48			120			78
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	82.3		$	89.8		$	101.3		$	107.1		$	99.9
	Class E
	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014			2013			2012
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	33.08		$	36.73		$	36.46		$	28.58		$	25.79
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (loss) (a)		(0.05	)(b)		(0.09	)		(0.10	)		(0.06	)		0.29
Net realized and unrealized gain on investments		1.60			1.50			3.72			9.09			2.50
Total from investment operations		1.55			1.41			3.62			9.03			2.79
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		0.00			0.00			0.00			(0.37	)		0.00
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(3.92	)		(5.06	)		(3.35	)		(0.78	)		0.00
Total distributions		(3.92	)		(5.06	)		(3.35	)		(1.15	)		0.00
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	30.71		$	33.08		$	36.73		$	36.46		$	28.58
Total Return (%) (d)		5.25			2.72			10.96			32.59			10.82
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Gross ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.90			0.89			0.91			0.90			0.93
Net ratio of expenses to average net assets (%) (e)		0.88			0.88			0.90			0.89			0.93
Ratio of net investment income (loss) to average net assets (%)		(0.15	)(b)		(0.25	)		(0.28	)		(0.17	)		1.04
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		40			60			48			120			78
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	9.4		$	10.3		$	11.2		$	11.7		$	10.3

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

(b) Net investment income per share and the ratio of net investment income to average net assets include a non-recurring refund for overbilling of prior years’ custodian out-of-pocket fees which amounted to less than $0.01 per share and 0.01% of average net assets, respectively.

(c) Net investment loss was less than $0.01.

(d) Total return does not reflect any insurance, sales, separate account or administrative charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts or any additional expenses that contract owners may bear under their variable contracts. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower.

(e) Includes the effects of management fee waivers (see Note 5 of the Notes to Financial Statements).

(f) Ratio of net investment loss to average net assets was less than 0.01%.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-13

Metropolitan Series Fund

Frontier Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016

1. Organization

Metropolitan Series Fund (the “Trust”) is organized as a Delaware statutory trust and registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), as an open-end management investment company. The Trust, which is managed by MetLife Advisers, LLC (“MetLife Advisers” or the “Adviser”), an affiliate of MetLife, Inc., is currently comprised of thirty series, each of which operates as a distinct investment vehicle of the Trust. The portfolio included in this report is Frontier 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.

On January 12, 2016, MetLife, Inc. announced its plan to pursue the separation of a substantial portion of its retail segment and is currently evaluating structural alternatives for such separation. It is anticipated that MetLife Advisers would be included in any such separation. Any separation transaction that might occur will be subject to the satisfaction of various conditions and approvals, including approval of any transaction by the MetLife, Inc. Board of Directors, satisfaction of any applicable requirements of the SEC, and receipt of insurance and other regulatory approvals and other anticipated conditions. MetLife, Inc. cannot currently provide a specific potential completion date for a separation transaction or any assurance that a separation will in fact occur. MetLife Advisers’ continued service as investment adviser to the Trusts following a separation transaction is the subject of a proxy statement that was filed with the SEC on December 20, 2016 and mailed to shareholders of the Portfolio on or about December 30, 2016.

The Portfolio has registered and offers four classes of shares: Class A, B, D and E shares. 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 plan and such distribution expenses are allocated to the corresponding Class of shares.

2. Significant Accounting Policies

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities as of the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of income and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates. In the preparation of these financial statements, management has evaluated events and transactions subsequent to December 31, 2016 through the date the financial statements were issued.

The Portfolio is an investment company and follows the accounting and reporting guidance of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Accounting Standards Codification Topic 946- Financial Services- Investment Companies and Topic 820- Fair Value Measurement. 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 - Domestic and foreign equity securities, such as common stock, exchange-traded funds, rights, warrants, and preferred stock, that are traded on a securities exchange on a valuation date are generally valued at their last quoted sale price or official closing price on the primary exchange for such security, or, if no sales occurred on that day, at the last reported bid price. Equity securities traded over-the-counter (“OTC”) are generally valued at the last reported bid price. In the event of a major exchange closing during the trading day, the Adviser may use other market information obtained from quotation reporting systems, established market makers, or pricing services in valuing the securities. Valuation adjustments may be applied to certain foreign equity securities that are traded solely on foreign exchanges that close before the time as of which the Portfolio determines its NAV to account for the market movement between the close of the foreign exchanges and the time as of which the Portfolio determines its NAV. The Portfolio may use a systematic fair valuation model provided by a pricing service to value securities principally traded in these foreign markets in order to adjust for possible market movements or other changes that may occur between the close of the foreign exchanges and the time as of which the Portfolio determines its NAV. Foreign equity securities valued using these valuation adjustments are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy. Equity securities that are actively traded, and have no valuation adjustments applied, are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other equity securities traded on inactive markets, or valued in reference to similar instruments traded on active markets, 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 on the valuation date and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy.

Debt securities, including corporate, convertible and municipal bonds and notes; obligations of the U.S. Treasury and U.S. government agencies; foreign sovereign issues; 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 the Adviser (each a “pricing service”), pursuant to

MSF-14

Metropolitan Series Fund

Frontier Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

authorization of and subject to general oversight by the Board of Trustees of the Trust (the “Board” or “Trustees”). Such pricing services may use matrix pricing, which considers observable inputs including, among other things, issuer details, maturity dates, interest rates, yield curves, rates of prepayment, credit risks/spreads, default rates, reported trades, broker dealer quotes and quoted prices for similar assets. Short-term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less may be valued at amortized cost in the absence of market quotes, so long as the amortized cost value of such short-term debt instrument is approximately the same as the fair value of the instrument as determined without the use of amortized cost valuation. Floating rate loans are generally valued on the basis of an evaluated or composite average of aggregate bid and ask quotations supplied by brokers or dealers, as obtained from the pricing service. Securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally 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 sale price available as of the close of business on a valuation day or, if there is no such price available, at the last reported bid price. These types of options are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Futures contracts that are traded on commodity exchanges are valued at their settlement prices established by the exchanges on which they are traded as of the close of such exchanges and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy.

If no current market value quotation or other observable inputs are readily available or market value quotations are deemed to be unreliable for an investment, the fair value of the investment will be determined in accordance with procedures approved by, and under the general supervision of, the Board. In such a circumstance, the Board will be assisted in its responsibility to determine the fair value of an investment by the Valuation Committee (“Committee”) of MetLife Advisers. The Committee provides general pricing oversight and fair value pricing determinations related to portfolio securities and meets on a regular basis to review reports relating to the valuation of the securities in the Portfolio. The Board has delegated to State Street Bank and Trust Company, the Trust’s custodian (“custodian”), the responsibility for calculating the net asset values (“NAVs”) of the Trust’s Portfolios. The Committee is responsible for overseeing the calculation of the NAVs of the Portfolios by the custodian. The Committee also periodically reviews pricing services, including the pricing services providing fair value pricing for the Portfolio’s foreign securities, and is responsible for overseeing the correction of pricing errors and addressing other pricing issues that arise in the ordinary course of business, such as making real-time fair value determinations, as necessary.

No single standard for determining the fair value of an investment can be set forth because fair value depends upon the facts and circumstances with respect to each investment. Information relating to any relevant factors may be obtained by the Committee from any appropriate source, including the subadviser of the Portfolio, the custodian, a pricing service, market maker and/or broker for such security or the issuer. Appropriate methodologies for determining fair value under particular circumstances may include: matrix pricing, a discounted cash flow analysis, comparisons of securities with comparable characteristics, value based on multiples of earnings, discount from market price of similar marketable securities or a combination of these and other methods.

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 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. These foreign taxes have been provided for in accordance with the Portfolio’s understanding of the applicable countries’ tax rules and rates.

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 the U.S. dollar 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. Because the values of investment securities are translated at the foreign exchange rates prevailing at the end of the period, that portion of the results of operations arising from changes in exchange rates and that portion of the results of operations reflecting fluctuations arising from changes in market prices of the investment securities are not separated. 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. 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.

Dividends and Distributions to Shareholders - The Portfolio records dividends and distributions on the ex-dividend date. Net realized gains from securities 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

MSF-15

Metropolitan Series Fund

Frontier Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

distributed net investment income, accumulated net realized gains/losses, and paid-in surplus. Book-tax differences are primarily due to broker commission recapture, adjustments to prior period accumulated balances and net operating losses. These adjustments have no impact on net assets or the results 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 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. As of December 31, 2016, the Portfolio had no uncertain tax positions that would require financial statement recognition, or de-recognition or disclosure.

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 net ratio of expenses to average net assets presented in the Financial Highlights for each share class.

Repurchase Agreements - The Portfolio may enter into repurchase agreements, under the terms of a Master Repurchase Agreement (“MRA”), 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, under a tri-party repurchase agreement, receives delivery of the underlying securities collateralizing any repurchase agreements. It is the Portfolio’s policy that the market value of the collateral be equal to at least 100% of the repurchase price in the case of a repurchase agreement of one-day duration and equal to at least 102% of the repurchase price in the case of all other repurchase agreements. In the event of default or failure by a party to perform an obligation in connection with any repurchase transaction, the MRA gives the non-defaulting party the right to set-off claims and to apply property held by it in connection with any repurchase transaction against obligations owed to it.

At December 31, 2016, the Portfolio had direct investments in repurchase agreements with a gross value of $9,660,515. Additionally, the Portfolio invested cash collateral for loans of portfolio securities in repurchase agreements with a gross value of $57,037,820. The combined value of all repurchase agreements is included as part of investments at value on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. The value of the related collateral exceeded the value of the repurchase agreements at December 31, 2016.

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 collateral held from securities on loan. 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.

Effective September 8, 2016, the Trust has entered into a Non-Custodial Securities Lending Agreement with JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (the “lending agent”). Prior to September 8, 2016, the Trust had entered into a Securities Lending Authorization Agreement with the custodian (the “prior lending agent”). Under each agreement, the lending agent is authorized to loan portfolio securities on the Portfolio’s behalf. In exchange, the Portfolio receives either cash or government securities as collateral against the loaned securities. The Portfolio receives collateral equal to at least 102% of the market value for loans secured by government securities or cash in the same currency as the loaned shares and 105% for all other loaned securities at each loan’s inception. Collateral representing at least 100% of the market value of the loaned securities is maintained for the duration of the loan. Any cash collateral received by the Portfolio is generally invested by the lending agent in short-term investments, which may include certificates of deposit, commercial paper, repurchase agreements, time deposits and money market funds. Cash collateral that was received by the prior lending agent had been generally invested in the State Street Navigator Securities Lending MET Portfolio (the “Navigator Portfolio”), a series of the State Street Navigator Securities Lending Trust that was a registered money market fund managed by an affiliate of the custodian. The market value of investments made with cash collateral received are disclosed in the Schedule of Investments and the valuation techniques are described in Note 2. 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 is 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 is equal to at least 100% of the market value of all the loaned securities as of such preceding day. A portion of the income earned on the collateral is rebated to the borrower of the securities and the remainder is split between the lending agent and the Portfolio. On loans collateralized by government securities, a fee is received from the borrower and is allocated between the Portfolio and the lending agent.

Income received by the Portfolio in securities lending transactions during the year ended December 31, 2016 is reflected as securities lending income on the Statement of Operations. The values of any securities loaned by the Portfolio and the related collateral at December 31, 2016 are disclosed in the footnotes to the Schedule of Investments. The value of the related collateral received by the Portfolio exceeded the value of the securities out on loan at December 31, 2016.

MSF-16

Metropolitan Series Fund

Frontier Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

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. The lending agent shall indemnify the Portfolio in the case of default of any securities borrower, subject to the terms of the Non-Custodial Securities Lending Agreement.

All securities on loan are classified as Common Stocks in the Portfolio’s Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016, with a contractual maturity of overnight and continuous.

3. Certain Risks

In the normal course of business, the Portfolio invests in securities and enters into transactions where risks exist. Those risks include:

Market 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, interest rate, and price fluctuations.

Credit and Counterparty Risk: 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 and counterparty risk consist principally of cash due from counterparties and investments. The Portfolio manages counterparty risk by entering into agreements only with counterparties that it believes have the financial resources to honor their obligations and by monitoring the financial stability of those counterparties. The Portfolio’s investment adviser attempts to mitigate counterparty risk by (i) periodically assessing the creditworthiness of its trading partners, (ii) monitoring and/or limiting the amount of its net exposure to each individual counterparty based on its assessment, and (iii) requiring collateral from the counterparty for certain transactions. In order to preserve certain safeguards for non-standard settlement trades, the Portfolio restricts its exposure to credit and counterparty losses by entering into master netting agreements (“Master Agreements”) with counterparties (approved brokers) with whom it undertakes a significant volume of transactions. Master Agreements govern the terms of certain transactions, and reduce the counterparty risk associated with relevant transactions by specifying credit protection mechanisms and providing standardization that improves legal certainty. Master Agreements can also help limit counterparty risk by specifying collateral posting arrangements at pre-arranged exposure levels.

Repurchase and reverse repurchase agreements are primarily executed under Global Master Repurchase Agreements (“GMRAs”) or Master Repurchase Agreements (“MRAs”), which provide the rights to set-off. Each repurchase and reverse repurchase agreement is initially collateralized at the transaction level. In the event of default, the total market value exposure will be offset against collateral exchanged to date, which would result in a net receivable/(payable) that would be due from/to the counterparty.

Additional risks associated with each type of investment are described above within the respective security type notes. The Portfolio’s prospectus includes a discussion of the principal risks of investing in the Portfolio.

4. Investment Transactions

Aggregate cost of purchases and proceeds of sales of investment securities, excluding short-term securities, for the year ended December 31, 2016 were as follows:

Purchases			Sales
U.S. Government	Non U.S. Government		U.S. Government		Non U.S. Government
$0	$	441,318,948	$	0	$	530,362,925

5. Investment Management Fees and Other Transactions with Affiliates

Investment Management Agreement - MetLife Advisers is the investment adviser to the Portfolio. The Trust has entered into an investment management agreement with MetLife Advisers with respect to the Portfolio. For providing investment management services to the Portfolio, MetLife Advisers receives monthly compensation at the following annual rates:

Management Fees earned by MetLife Advisers for the year ended December 31, 2016	% per annum			Average Daily Net Assets
$8,029,498		0.750	%	Of the first $500 million
		0.700	%	Of the next $500 million
		0.650	%	On amounts in excess of $1 billion

MSF-17

Metropolitan Series Fund

Frontier Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

MetLife Advisers has entered into an investment subadvisory agreement with respect to managing the Portfolio. Frontier Capital Management Company, LLC is compensated by MetLife Advisers to provide subadvisory services for the Portfolio.

Management Fee Waiver - Pursuant to a management fee waiver agreement, the Adviser has agreed, for the period May 1, 2016 to April 30, 2017, to reduce its advisory fees set out above under “Investment Management Agreement” for each class of the Portfolio as follows:

% per annum reduction	Average Daily Net Assets
0.050%	On the first $500 million
0.025%	Over $850 million and less than $1 billion
(0.025)%	On the next $250 million

An identical agreement was in place for the period January 1, 2016 to April 30, 2016. Amounts waived for the year ended December 31, 2016 are shown as a management fee waiver in the Statement of Operations.

Certain officers and trustees of the Trust may also be officers of MetLife Advisers; 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 and Service Fees - The Trust has a distribution agreement with MetLife Investors Distribution Company (“MIDC” or the “Distributor”) in which MIDC serves as the distributor for the Portfolio’s Class A, B, D, and E Shares. MIDC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife Investors Group, LLC, an affiliate of the Adviser. The Trust has also adopted a Distribution and Service Plan under Rule 12b-1 of the 1940 Act for the Portfolio’s Class B, D, and E Shares. Under the Distribution and Service Plan, the Class B, D, and E Shares of the Portfolio pay a fee to compensate the Insurance Companies (or their affiliates) and other broker-dealers and financial intermediaries involved in the offer and sale of Portfolio shares for promoting or selling and servicing the Class B, D, and E Shares. The fees under the Distribution and Service Plan for each class of the Portfolio’s shares are calculated as a percentage of the Portfolio’s average daily net assets that are attributable to that Class. Currently, the fee is 0.25% per year for Class B Shares, 0.10% per year for Class D Shares, and 0.15% per year for Class E Shares. Amounts incurred by the Portfolio for the year ended December 31, 2016 are shown as Distribution and service fees in the Statement of Operations.

Deferred Trustee Compensation - Each Trustee 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 Trust. 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 Met Investors Series Trust, an affiliate of the Trust, 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 under the Plan is reflected as Deferred trustees’ fees in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

6. Contractual Obligations

Under the Trust’s organizational documents, its officers and Trustees may be indemnified against certain liabilities and expenses arising out of the performance of their duties to the Trust. Additionally, 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 Trust that have not yet occurred.

7. Income Tax Information

The tax character of distributions paid for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015 were as follows:

Ordinary Income			Long-Term Capital Gain				Total
2016	2015		2016		2015		2016		2015
$—	$	25,138,144	$	132,110,262	$	136,736,489	$	132,110,262	$	161,874,633

As of December 31, 2016, 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		Other Accumulated Capital Losses		Total
$—	$	28,382,089	$	162,253,825	$	—	$	190,635,914

MSF-18

Metropolitan Series Fund

Frontier Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(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 up to 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, 2016, the Portfolio had no post-enactment accumulated capital losses and no pre-enactment accumulated capital loss carryforwards.

8. Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In October 2016, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) adopted new rules and forms, and amendments to certain current rules and forms, to modernize reporting and disclosure of information by registered investment companies. The amendments to Regulation S-X will require standardized, enhanced disclosure about derivatives in investment company financial statements, and will also change the rules governing the form and content of such financial statements. The compliance date for the amendments to Regulation S-X is August 1, 2017. Management is currently evaluating the impact that the adoption of the amendments to Regulation S-X will have on the Portfolio’s financial statements and related disclosures.

MSF-19

Metropolitan Series Fund

Frontier Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Shareholders of Frontier Mid Cap Growth Portfolio and the Board of Trustees of Metropolitan Series Fund:

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities, including the schedule of investments, of Frontier Mid Cap Growth Portfolio (one of the portfolios constituting the Metropolitan Series Fund) (the “Portfolio”) as of December 31, 2016, 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 Portfolio’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 Portfolio 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 Portfolio’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, 2016, by correspondence with the custodian and brokers; when 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 Frontier Mid Cap Growth Portfolio of the Metropolitan Series Fund as of December 31, 2016, 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.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

February 24, 2017

MSF-20

Metropolitan Series Fund

Trustees and Officers

MANAGEMENT OF THE TRUSTS

The Boards of Trustees (the “Board”) of Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (“MIST” and “MSF”, respectively, and collectively the “Trusts”) supervise the Trusts and are responsible for representing the interests of shareholders. The Trustees, the Chairman of the Board and the Chairmen of each subcommittee are the same for both Trusts. The Trustees of each Trust meet periodically throughout the year to oversee the Portfolios’ activities, reviewing, among other things, each Portfolio’s performance and its contractual arrangements with various service providers. The Trustees of each Trust elect the officers of the Trust, who are responsible for administering the Trust’s day-to-day operations.

Trustees and Officers

The Trustees and executive officers of the Trusts, as well as their ages and their principal occupations during the past five years, are set forth below. Unless otherwise indicated, the business address of each is c/o MetLife Funds, One Financial Center, Boston, Massachusetts 02111. Each Trustee who is deemed an “interested person,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, is referred to as an “Interested Trustee.” Those Trustees who are not “interested persons,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, are referred to as “Independent Trustees.” There is no limit to the term a Trustee may serve. Trustees serve until their death, resignation or removal in accordance with the MIST Trust’s and MSF Trust’s respective organizational documents and policies adopted by the Boards of the respective Trusts from time to time. Officers hold office at the pleasure of each Board and serve until their removal or resignation in accordance with the Trusts’ respective organizational documents and policies adopted by the Board of each Trust from time to time.

Name and Age	Current 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 MetLife Funds Complex(2) Overseen by Trustee	Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Interested Trustee
John Rosenthal* (56)	Trustee	Indefinite; From May 2016 (MIST and MSF) to present	Senior Managing Director and Head of Global Portfolio Management, MetLife, Inc.	75	None
Independent Trustees
Dawn M. Vroegop (50)	Trustee and Chairman of the Board	Indefinite; From December 2000 (MIST)/ May 2009 (MSF) to present as Trustee; From May 2016 (MIST and MSF) until present as Chairman	Private Investor.	75	Trustee, Driehaus Mutual Funds.**
Stephen M. Alderman (57)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 (MIST)/ April 2012 (MSF) to present	Shareholder in the law firm of Garfield and Merel, Ltd.	75	None

MSF-21

Metropolitan Series Fund

Trustees and Officers—(Continued)

Name and Age	Current 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 MetLife Funds Complex(2) Overseen by Trustee	Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Robert J. Boulware (60)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 (MIST)/ April 2012 (MSF) to present	Managing Director, Pilgrim Funds, LLC (private equity fund).	75	Trustee, Vertical Capital Income Fund (closed-end fund);** Director, Gainsco, Inc. (auto insurance);** Trustee, SharesPost 100 Fund (closed-end fund).**
Susan C. Gause (64)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 (MIST)/ April 2012 (MSF) to present	Private Investor.	75	Trustee, HSBC Funds.**
Nancy Hawthorne (65)	Trustee	Indefinite; From May 2003 (MSF)/ April 2012 (MIST) to present	Partner, Hawthorne Financial Advisors, LLC (registered investment advisor); until June 2014, Chief Executive Officer, Clerestory LLC (corporate advisor).	75	Director and Chairman of the Board of Directors, THL Credit, Inc.;** Lead Director, Avid Technology, Inc.;** Director, CRA International, Inc.**
Barbara A. Nugent (60)	Trustee	Indefinite; From January 2014 (MIST and MSF) to present	President, True North Board Governance, LLC (consulting); until December 2013, partner in the law firm of Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young, LLP.	75	None
Linda B. Strumpf (69)	Trustee	Indefinite; From May 2000 (MSF)/ April 2012 (MIST) to present	Chair of the Investment Committee, Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust; until June 2011, Chief Investment Officer, Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust.	75	None

Executive Officers

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Kristi Slavin (43)	President and Chief Executive Officer, of MIST and MSF	From May 2016 (MIST and MSF) to present	President, MetLife Advisers, LLC (May 2016-present); Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Vice President, MetLife, Inc.; Vice President, MIST and MSF (2015-2016).

MSF-22

Metropolitan Series Fund

Trustees and Officers—(Continued)

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Peter H. Duffy (61)	Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, of MIST and MSF	From November 2000 (MSF)/ May 2012 (MIST) to present	Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Andrew L. Gangolf (62)	Secretary, of MIST and MSF	From May 2011 (MIST and MSF) to present	Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; until 2011, Senior Vice President & Assistant General Counsel, AllianceBernstein Investments, Inc.
Steven E. Hartstein (53)	Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”), of MIST and MSF	From February 2014 (MIST and MSF) to present	Vice President, MetLife, Inc. (2013-present); Senior Vice President and CCO, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Executive Director, Morgan Stanley (2009-2013); CCO, Consulting Group Capital Markets Funds (2006-2013).
Alan C. Leland (64)	Vice President, of MIST and MSF	From February 2005 (MSF)/ May 2012 (MIST) to present	Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Vice President, MetLife, Inc.

* Mr. Rosenthal is an “interested person” of the Trusts because of his position with MetLife, Inc., the current parent company of MetLife Advisers, LLC.

** 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 Trusts, MetLife, Inc. or the Manager are omitted if not materially different.

(2) The Fund Complex includes 45 MIST Portfolios and 30 MSF Portfolios.

MSF-23

Metropolitan Series Fund

Frontier Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements

At an in-person meeting held on November 15-16, 2016 (the “November Meeting”), the Boards of Trustees (the “Board”) of the Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (“MIST” and “MSF,” respectively, and collectively, the “Trusts”), including a majority of the Trustees who are not “interested persons” of the Trusts (the “Independent Trustees”) under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “1940 Act”), approved the continuation of the Trusts’ advisory agreements (each, an “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 the series of the Trusts (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”).

In reaching that decision, the Board reviewed a variety of materials provided for the specific purpose of the annual contract renewal process. In addition, various materials provided to and discussed with the Board throughout the year also informed the Board’s decision to renew the Agreements. That information for each Portfolio included, but was not limited to, investment performance reports, along with periodic reports on various expenses, shareholder services, legal and compliance matters, asset pricing, brokerage commissions and trade execution. The Board also recognized the pending separation of the Adviser from its parent company, MetLife, Inc., as a consideration in their deliberations with respect to the Agreements.

The Board met in person with personnel of the Adviser on September 27, 2016 for the specific purpose of giving preliminary consideration to the proposed continuation of the Agreements (the “September Meeting”) through the review by the Adviser with the Board of the performance and fees experienced by each Portfolio, as well as other information. In considering the Agreements, the Independent Trustees were advised by independent legal counsel throughout the contract renewal process, and met with independent legal counsel in several executive sessions outside of the presence of management.

Information furnished and reviewed specifically in connection with the renewal process included, but was not limited to, a report for each Portfolio prepared by Broadridge (“Broadridge”), an independent organization, and a Portfolio-by-Portfolio profitability analysis prepared by the Adviser. In addition, the Independent Trustees received and reviewed a report prepared by JDL Consultants, LLC (“JDL”), an independent consultant to the Independent Trustees (“JDL Report”), which examined the comparative fees, expenses and performance of each Portfolio, based upon the Broadridge reports. Also, the Board reviewed the responses to wide-ranging questions relating to the business, operations and performance of the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers that the Adviser and Sub-Advisers had prepared specifically for the renewal process.

At the November Meeting, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, concluded that the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser supported the renewal of the Agreements. The Board also concluded that the investment performance of each Portfolio was such that each Agreement should continue, and that the fees paid by a Portfolio to the Adviser appeared to be reasonable in light of the nature, extent and quality of the services provided by the Adviser and Sub-Adviser. Further, the Board concluded that the Adviser’s profitability in providing services under the Advisory Agreements did not appear unreasonably high in light of the nature, extent and quality of the services provided by the Adviser. Finally, the Board concluded that the investment advisory fees paid by the Portfolios in some measure shared economies of scale with contract holders. In approving the renewal of each of the Agreements, the Board, including the Independent Trustees, gave attention to all of the information that was furnished. The Board evaluated the information available to it on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis, and its decision was made separately with respect to each Portfolio. The following discusses some of the primary factors that generally were relevant to the Board’s decision. The Board did not identify any single factor as controlling, and the Trustees generally attributed different weights to various factors for the various Portfolios.

Nature, extent and quality of services. The Board evaluated the nature, extent and quality of the services that the Adviser, and the Sub-Advisers as relevant, have provided to the Portfolios. The Board considered the Adviser’s services as investment manager to the Portfolios, including its services relating to the oversight of the Sub-Advisers and their investment management activities, trading practices, financial condition, relevant personnel matters and compliance programs, among other things. The Adviser’s services in coordinating and overseeing the activities of the Trusts’ other service providers were also considered. The Board considered information received from the Trusts’ Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) regarding the Portfolios’ compliance policies and procedures that were established pursuant to Rule 38a-l under the 1940 Act. In addition, throughout the year, the Board considered the expertise, experience and performance of the personnel of the Adviser who performed the various services that are mentioned above.

The Board also noted that the Adviser’s investment, compliance and legal staff conduct regular, periodic, telephonic and in-person meetings with the Sub-Advisers to review and assess the services that are provided to the Portfolios, and that personnel of the Adviser prepare and present reports to the Independent Trustees regarding those meetings.

MSF-24

Metropolitan Series Fund

Frontier Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

With respect to the services provided by each of the Sub-Advisers, the Board considered a variety of information that the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser provided. The Board considered each Sub-Adviser’s investment process and philosophy, and the investment performance experienced by the Portfolio (as described in more detail below). The Board took into account that each Sub-Adviser’s responsibilities include the development and maintenance of an investment program for the applicable Portfolio that 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. In particular, the Board considered, among other things, the Sub-Adviser’s current level of staffing as well as its compensation program and its overall resources. The Board reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s history and investment experience, as well as information provided 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 regulatory and disciplinary history. In its review, the Board also took into account information regarding any services and/or payments provided to the Adviser by the Sub-Advisers in connection with marketing activities.

Performance. The Board placed emphasis on the performance of the Portfolios in light of, among other things, its importance to contract holders. The Board considered the Adviser’s quarterly reviews with the Board of detailed information about each Portfolio’s investment strategies and performance results and composition, including discussions regarding the relevant effect of current market conditions. The Board reviewed and considered the reports prepared by Broadridge, which provided a statistical analysis comparing the Portfolios’ investment performance to that of comparable funds underlying variable insurance products (the “Performance Universe”). The Independent Trustees also met separately with a representative of JDL during the September Meeting to review the JDL Report. The Board also compared the performance records of certain Portfolios to those of comparable funds that were managed by the relevant Sub-Adviser. At the November Meeting, the Board considered each Portfolio’s performance for periods subsequent to the performance period covered by the Broadridge reports, and the Adviser’s discussion of the same, including the effect of current market conditions on each Portfolio’s more recent performance.

The Board focused particular attention on Portfolios with less favorable performance records. The Board noted the Adviser’s focus on each Sub-Adviser’s performance and that the Adviser has been active in monitoring and responding to any performance issues with respect to the Portfolios.

Fees and Expenses. The Board gave consideration to the level and method of computing the fees payable under the Agreements. The Board considered the Broadridge report for each of the Portfolios, which included comparisons for each Portfolio of its contractual management and sub-adviser fees (at current and various asset levels), and total expenses, with those of its peers, including as those peers were divided into a broad group of peer funds (“Expense Universe”), a narrower group of peer funds (“Expense Group”), a broad group of peer sub-advised funds (“Sub-advised Expense Universe”), and a narrower group of peer sub-advised funds (“Sub-advised Expense Group”). Broadridge selected the peer funds which were similarly situated funds underlying variable insurance products deemed to be comparable to the Portfolios. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of JDL, also examined the JDL Report. The Board compared the fee payable to a Sub-Adviser by the Adviser with respect to the Portfolio to the fee payable to the Sub-Adviser by other comparable funds and accounts, to the extent such information was available.

The Board noted that the sub-advisory fees for the Portfolios are paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fee, and that, in the case of an unaffiliated Sub-Adviser, the Adviser negotiates the fee at arm’s length. The Board also considered that the Adviser had entered into expense limitation or management fee waiver agreements with certain of the Portfolios pursuant to which the Adviser had 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.

Profitability. The Board examined the profitability of the Adviser on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis. The Board also considered that an affiliate of the Adviser, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, serves as distributor for the Trusts, and, as such, receives Rule 12b-1 payments to support the distribution of the Portfolios. The Board considered the profitability to the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates as a result of their relationships with the Portfolios, to the extent available, and the Board considered the ability of the Adviser to negotiate with an unaffiliated Sub-Adviser at arm’s length. In reviewing the profitability analyses, the Board recognized that expense allocation methodologies are inherently subjective and various expense allocation methodologies may be reasonable while producing different results.

Economies of scale. The Board also considered each Portfolio’s fees in light of its size. The Board noted the fee schedules for the Portfolios that 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

MSF-25

Metropolitan Series Fund

Frontier Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

schedule for such Portfolios. The Board considered the effective fees under the Advisory Agreement and Sub-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. The Board examined, among other data, the effect of a Portfolio’s growth in size, and reduction in size, on various fee schedules and the Board reviewed the Broadridge and JDL Reports, which compared fees among peers. The Board also generally noted that if a Portfolio’s assets increase over time, the Portfolio may realize other economies of scale if assets increase proportionally more than certain other fixed expenses.

Other factors. The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trusts. Among them, the Board recognized that MetLife Investors Distribution Company, as the distributor for the Trusts, receives payments pursuant to Rule 12b-1 from the Portfolios to compensate for the provision of shareholder services and distribution activities, which could lead to growth in the Trusts’ assets and corresponding benefits from such growth, including economies of scale. The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by each Sub-Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trusts, including the opportunity to provide advisory services to additional portfolios of the Trusts and reputational benefits. In conjunction with these considerations, the Board noted the ongoing commitment of the Adviser to the Portfolios.

The Board considered possible conflicts of interest in the form of material benefits or detriments to the Trusts resulting from the nature of the Trusts’ and the Adviser’s or the Sub-Advisers’ affiliations and the services that are provided to the Trusts, and the manner in which such conflicts were mitigated.

*  *  *

Frontier Mid Cap Growth Portfolio. The Board also considered the following information in relation to the Agreements with the Adviser and Frontier Capital Management Company, LLC regarding the Portfolio:

Among other data relating specifically to the Portfolio’s performance, the Board considered that the Portfolio outperformed the median of its Performance Universe and Lipper Index for the three-year period ended June 30, 2016, and underperformed the median of its Performance Universe and Lipper Index for the one- and five-year periods ended June 30, 2016. The Board further considered that the Portfolio outperformed its benchmark, the Russell Midcap Growth Index, for the three-year period ended October 31, 2016, and underperformed its benchmark for the one- and five-year periods ended October 31, 2016. In addition, the Board noted that the Sub-Adviser did not manage the Portfolio for all of the periods referenced.

The Board also 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 noted that the Portfolio’s contractual management fees were below the asset-weighted average of certain comparable funds 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 and above the average of the Sub-advised Expense Group at the Portfolio’s current size.

MSF-26

Metropolitan Series Fund

Frontier Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Advisory Agreements

The separation (the “Separation”) of MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”), the investment adviser to each of the series (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”) of Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (collectively, the “Trusts”), from its parent company, MetLife, Inc. (“MetLife”), to a separate retail business, Brighthouse Financial, Inc. (“Brighthouse”), is expected to result in a change in control of the Adviser, and therefore an “assignment” of each Portfolio’s current advisory agreement (each a “Current Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “Current Advisory Agreements”). At the November 15-16, 2016 meeting (“November Meeting”) of the Board of Trustees of the Trusts (the “Board”), the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not “interested persons,” as defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940, of any Portfolio (the “Independent Trustees”), approved a new advisory agreement (each a “New Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “New Advisory Agreements”) between the Trusts, on behalf of a Portfolio, and the Adviser, to be effective upon the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements in connection with the Separation, and recommended that the shareholders of the Trusts approve the New Advisory Agreements. The Board took those actions after consideration of and deliberation over information concerning the Separation, including with respect to the degree to which the Separation would affect the provision of investment advisory services to the Trusts. Information about the Board’s considerations and process is set forth below.

In determining whether to approve the New Advisory Agreements and in considering the Separation, the Board considered the nature, quality and extent of the services that are currently provided by the Adviser under the Current Advisory Agreements as well as the services to be provided under the New Advisory Agreements. The Board’s review was conducted as part of, and in conjunction with, the Board’s annual review of the Current Advisory Agreements, which culminated at the November Meeting. In approving the New Advisory Agreements, the Board considered its conclusions with respect to its approvals of the Current Advisory Agreements, including the Board’s general satisfaction with the nature, extent and quality of services being provided by the Adviser to each Portfolio. Appendix A and Appendix B contains a further description of the process followed, information reviewed and the material factors considered by the Board in approving the continuation of the Current Advisory Agreements.

A substantial portion of the Board’s review of the New Advisory Agreements focused on the Separation, including the potential effect of the implementation of the Separation on the operations, personnel, organizational structure, capitalization, and financial and other resources of the Adviser. After being informed by the Adviser in January 2016 of the possibility of the Separation, the Board and its Committees discussed the Separation and its possible effects on the Trusts with personnel of the Adviser and the anticipated senior management at Brighthouse during the course of the Board’s or Committee’s regularly scheduled, in-person, quarterly meetings.

Between August and November 2016, the Board and the Independent Trustees engaged in an extensive review and analysis of the Separation and how the Separation related to the Adviser and the Trusts and how it could affect the services provided to the Trusts. This analysis focused on, among other matters, the assurances from Brighthouse’s anticipated leadership as to its expectations for the continuity and stability of the Adviser’s personnel throughout implementation of the Separation and for the foreseeable future thereafter. The Board considered that the Separation is being implemented as a result of MetLife’s determination to divest itself of a substantial portion of its U.S. retail business (of which the Adviser forms a portion). The Board also considered that it has been satisfied as a general matter with the nature and quality of the services that the Adviser provides to the Portfolios, including investment advisory, administrative, legal, compliance, and support services, and that it would be in the Portfolios’ best interests to maintain continuity and stability in the services that are currently being provided. The Board carefully considered the anticipated future plans of Brighthouse related to capitalization and operational matters for Brighthouse and the Adviser, as well as the importance of the Adviser to the businesses of Brighthouse after the Separation.

Among other steps in its review process, which accelerated on October 5, 2016 when Brighthouse filed its Form 10 with the SEC, the following actions were taken and considered by or on behalf of the Board:

1. The Independent Trustees solicited and received ongoing advice regarding the legal duties of the Independent Trustees from Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young LLP (“Stradley Ronon”), legal counsel for the Independent Trustees, which law firm has extensive experience regarding such matters.

2. Following the August 16-17, 2016 Board and Committee quarterly meetings, the Independent Trustees established an ad hoc group of Independent Trustees (the “Working Group”) to help oversee, coordinate, and conduct due diligence activities with respect to the Separation. The Working Group regularly reported on the due diligence activities to the other Independent Trustees.

3. Since January 2016, the Board posed ongoing inquiries to, and received regular updates from, the Adviser and anticipated senior management at Brighthouse at either in-person meetings dedicated to the status of the Separation or during the course of the Board or Committee’s regular quarterly meetings. The Board considered, among other matters, relevant legal guidance and the processes followed by certain other investment company boards of directors or trustees when they approved contracts in connection with change in control events, while recognizing the unique circumstances of the Separation.

MSF-27

Metropolitan Series Fund

Frontier Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

4. The Board received and reviewed the Form 10 of Brighthouse that contained extensive information relating to, among other matters, Brighthouse’s anticipated business plans and financial structure. The Board also received and reviewed reports from rating agencies with respect to Brighthouse.

5. Stradley Ronon retained Barrington Partners (“Barrington”), an independent consulting firm with a specific focus on the asset management industry and experience relating to business operations such as those to be conducted by Brighthouse, including its proposed subsidiary, the Adviser, in order to help Stradley Ronon evaluate the Separation based on the Form 10 and other materials and related information provided by the Adviser and its affiliates. Barrington conducted a series of in-person and telephonic meetings with anticipated senior management at Brighthouse (i.e., the aforementioned anticipated officers of Brighthouse and others) and with personnel of the Adviser who provide services to the Trusts. Stradley Ronon, with the assistance of Barrington, evaluated the information and advised the Independent Trustees with respect to, among other matters, details of Brighthouse’s anticipated business plan to understand the implications of the Separation to the Adviser and its personnel. The Independent Trustees and the Working Group attended certain in-person and telephonic conference call meetings at which Barrington rendered advice to Stradley Ronon regarding these matters and responded to questions.

6. The Independent Trustees requested and participated in in-person meetings with anticipated senior management personnel at Brighthouse, including its President and Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, Chief Operating Officer, and Chief Investment Officer. The Independent Trustees also met with personnel of the Adviser.

7. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of Stradley Ronon, prepared written inquiries to the Adviser and its affiliates regarding the Separation, and received written assurances from the Adviser and its affiliates that they have no plans to make any material changes affecting the personnel of the Adviser (including those personnel who provide investment, administrative, legal and compliance services) and the Adviser and its affiliates will not initiate such changes without prior notice to and discussion with the Board.

8. The Board considered representations by the Adviser and its affiliates that approval of the New Advisory Agreements would be necessary for the Portfolios to continue receiving investment advisory services from the Adviser following the change in control.

9. The Board considered representations by the Adviser, as well as related supporting documentation, indicating that the New Advisory Agreements, including the fees payable thereunder, are substantially identical to the terms of the corresponding Current Advisory Agreements.

10. The Board considered representations by the Adviser and its affiliates, as well as related supporting documentation, indicating that: (1) the Adviser can be expected to provide services of the same nature, extent, and quality under the New Advisory Agreements and as are provided thereby under the Current Advisory Agreements; and (2) the Separation is not expected to result in any changes to (i) the management of the Portfolios, or (ii) the investment objective of or the principal investment strategies used to manage any of the Portfolios.

11. The Board considered the ability of the Adviser and its affiliates to retain the employment of key personnel, as well as the overall positive indications by many such personnel regarding the opportunities presented by the Separation.

12. The Board considered that the Adviser and its affiliates have agreed to bear all expenses associated with obtaining shareholder approval of the New Advisory Agreements.

13. The Board considered Brighthouse’s preliminary “branding” plans regarding the future name of its operations.

14. The Board considered the advice provided by Ropes & Gray, LLP, legal counsel to the Trusts and the Adviser, with respect to the New Advisory Agreements (including advice relating to the process and timing of seeking shareholder approval of the New Advisory Agreements, and whether shareholder approvals would be required in connection with any future aspects of the Separation) and regarding the Board’s role and responsibilities with respect to the Separation.

15. The Board considered MetLife’s stated intention of divesting its ownership interest in the Adviser through the Separation, including the potential advantages and disadvantages of this divestiture to shareholders of the Portfolios. The Board considered the likelihood that the Adviser would retain its key personnel after the Separation. The Board considered that the garnering of new assets into the Trusts is based on sales of variable annuity and variable life insurance products, which sales have declined in prior years as a result of, among other things, the capital requirements of MetLife. The Board considered the representations of the anticipated senior management of Brighthouse that the Separation provides the Trusts with an opportunity for the garnering of new assets as Brighthouse will likely sell such products going forward. The Board considered also that the divestiture would result in a change in the manner in

MSF-28

Metropolitan Series Fund

Frontier Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

which the Trusts access certain services and resources of MetLife (after the Separation those services will be provided through a transition services agreement), the loss of affiliation with the MetLife name brand, and the possible going forward need of the Trusts to hire a transfer agent, as such transfer agency services are currently provided to the Trusts for no fee.

16. The Board considered that, if shareholders approve the New Advisory Agreements, the Board and the Adviser will conduct their annual contract review process in November 2017. Thus, the Board emphasized that it would be able to, and intends to, monitor on a regular basis the ability of the Adviser and its affiliates to comply with their undertakings to the Board and to monitor on an ongoing basis the quality of services to, and expenses of, the Portfolios. In addition, the Board considered that, under the New Advisory Agreements, it will continue to have the authority, should the need arise in its view, to terminate any of the New Advisory Agreements without penalty upon 60 days’ notice.

Based on the foregoing and other relevant considerations, at the November Meeting, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, voted to approve the New Advisory Agreements and to recommend approval of the New Advisory Agreements by shareholders of the Portfolios. In this connection, the Board concluded that, in light of all factors considered, the terms of the New Advisory Agreement, including fee rates, were fair and reasonable, and that it would be in the best interests of shareholders of each Portfolio to approve the New Advisory Agreements.

In the event that approval of the New Advisory Agreements by shareholders of the Portfolios has not been obtained before the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements as a result of the change in control of the Adviser, the Board also approved an interim advisory agreement with the Adviser (the “Interim Advisory Agreement”) on behalf of each Portfolio that will go into effect upon the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements. The Board’s determination to approve each Interim Advisory Agreement was based on the same information and considerations as the Board’s approval of the New Advisory Agreements so as to ensure continuity of advisory services from the Adviser to the Portfolios following the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements.

MSF-29

Metropolitan Series Fund

Frontier Mid Cap Growth Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Sub-Advisory Agreements

The separation (the “Separation”) of MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”), the investment adviser to each of the series (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”) of Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (collectively, the “Trusts”), from its parent company, MetLife, Inc. (“MetLife”), to a separate retail business, Brighthouse Financial, Inc. (“Brighthouse”), is expected to result in a change in control of the Adviser, and therefore an “assignment” of each Portfolio’s current advisory agreement and, as a result, the automatic termination of the sub-advisory agreement (each a “Sub-Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisory Agreements”) between the Adviser and the investment sub-advisers (each a “Sub-Adviser” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisers”). At the November 15-16, 2016 meeting (“November Meeting”) of the Board of Trustees of the Trusts (the “Board”), the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not “interested persons,” as defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940, of any Portfolio (the “Independent Trustees”), approved new sub-advisory agreements (each a “New Sub-Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “New Sub-Advisory Agreements”). Information about the Board’s considerations and process is set forth below.

In determining whether to approve the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, the Board considered the nature, quality and extent of the services that are currently provided by the Sub-Advisers under the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements as well as the services to be provided under the New Sub-Advisory Agreements. The Board’s review was conducted as part of, and in conjunction with, the Board’s annual review of the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements, which culminated at the November Meeting. In approving the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, the Board considered its conclusions with respect to its approvals of the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements, including the Board’s general satisfaction with the nature, extent and quality of services being provided by the Sub-Advisers to the Portfolios, as applicable. Appendix A contains a further description of the process followed, information reviewed and the material factors considered by the Board in approving the continuation of the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements.

In addition, the following actions were taken and considered by or on behalf of the Board:

1. The Independent Trustees of the Board solicited and received ongoing advice regarding the legal duties of the Independent Trustees from Stradley Ronon, legal counsel for the Independent Trustees, which law firm has extensive experience regarding such matters.

2. The Board considered representations by the Adviser and its affiliates that approval of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements would be necessary for the Portfolios to continue receiving sub-advisory services from the Sub-Advisers following the change in control of the Adviser.

3. The Board considered representations by the Adviser, as well as related supporting documentation, indicating that the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, including the fees payable thereunder, are the same as the terms of the corresponding Current Sub-Advisory Agreements.

4. The Board considered the advice provided by Ropes & Gray, LLP, legal counsel to the Trusts and the Adviser, with respect to the New Sub-Advisory Agreements and regarding the Board’s role and responsibilities with respect to the Separation.

5. The Board considered that the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers will conduct their annual contract review process in November 2017. Thus, the Board emphasized that it would be able to, and intends to, monitor on an ongoing basis the ability of the Sub-Advisers to comply with its undertakings to the Board and the Adviser and to monitor on an ongoing basis the quality of services to, and expenses of, the Portfolios. In addition, the Board considered that, under the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, it will continue to have the authority, should the need arise in its view, to terminate any of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements without penalty upon no more than 60 days’ notice.

Based on the foregoing and other relevant considerations, at the November Meeting, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, voted to approve the New Sub-Advisory Agreements. In this connection, the Board concluded that, in light of all factors considered, the terms of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, including fee rates, were fair and reasonable.

MSF-30

Metropolitan Series Fund

Jennison Growth Portfolio

Managed by Jennison Associates LLC

Portfolio Manager Commentary*

PERFORMANCE

For the 12 months ended December 31, 2016, the Class A, B, and E shares of the Jennison Growth Portfolio returned 0.17%, -0.13%, and -0.01%, respectively. The Portfolio’s benchmark, the Russell 1000 Growth Index¹, returned 7.08%.

MARKET ENVIRONMENT / CONDITIONS

2016 was a year of volatility and surprises. Decelerating economic growth in China; concerns that emerging economies might face balance sheet risks; the negative effect of lower energy prices on industrial sectors; fears of slowing economic growth in the U.S.; uncertainty about the course of future Federal Reserve monetary tightening; Brexit, the United Kingdom’s vote to leave the European Union; and the highly unconventional U.S. presidential election all contributed to volatility. Risk aversion in this global market environment affected how investors valued different securities. Low-volatility/high-dividend-paying stocks were significant drivers of market returns with dividend-paying and other “safety” stocks outperforming, and stocks of higher-growth companies generally underperforming. In the wake of the November U.S. election, speculation about potential policy initiatives of the new administration favored companies—many of them exhibiting little secular growth—expected to benefit from a less onerous regulatory environment, lower corporate tax rates, and infrastructure and defense spending.

PORTFOLIO REVIEW / PERIOD END POSITIONING

Investor risk aversion hurt higher-growth, and therefore higher-valuation, stocks. Health care companies faced the additional headwind of growing concerns about drug pricing. Companies that sell innovative, high-priced drugs sold off, among them Portfolio holdings Alexion Pharmaceuticals (blood and metabolic disorders), Regeneron Pharmaceuticals (eye diseases, high cholesterol), and Vertex Pharmaceuticals (cystic fibrosis). Health care companies where acquired growth plays a greater role, such as Allergan, declined as regulatory changes threatened to remove many of the tax benefits of mergers between U.S. and offshore companies.

Information Technology positions advanced but lagged the benchmark sector, with declines in Portfolio holdings LinkedIn and Salesforce.com having the effect of tempering strong gains in Nvidia and Tencent Holdings. LinkedIn’s decline reflected signs of significant deceleration in recent high growth rates. Salesforce.com faced concerns that its growth rate, too, might slow. Nvidia’s revenue, gross margin, and earnings exceeded forecasts. The company has transformed itself from a personal-computer-centric graphics provider to a company focused on key high-growth markets where we believe it can leverage its graphics expertise to offer high-value-added solutions. Tencent, China’s largest and most visited Internet service portal, continued to perform well fundamentally, driven by its dominant position in China’s online gaming and instant messaging markets and its growing advertising and payment service efforts.

In the Consumer Discretionary sector, NIKE’s decline partially offset solid advances in Amazon, Marriott, and Time Warner. NIKE declined on inventory overhang, declining average selling prices, and increased competition. Amazon benefited from continued strong execution, margin expansion, and development of a meaningfully important business opportunity in cloud infrastructure. The company continues to invest to drive unit growth in its core retail business and through the proliferation of digital commerce via the mobile market. Marriott, which acquired Starwood Hotels, benefitted from increased demand and limited supply growth in the U.S., which led to accelerating revenue and operating income growth. Time Warner rose on news that AT&T was acquiring it at a significant premium to the stock’s closing price on the day before the announcement.

The Financials sector, including Portfolio positions Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, benefited as the market reacted favorably to the new U.S. administration, which is widely thought to favor a less onerous regulatory environment. We believe Goldman Sachs’ strong capital base and leading global positions in investment banking, capital markets, trading, and asset management provide attractive exposure to long-term global economic expansion. Morgan Stanley has what we consider a balanced and diversified business model, and the firm is a formidable competitor in the major businesses in which it competes.

Concho Resources was a strong performer in the Energy sector. It announced a series of deals that consolidate its core acreage and shed non-core positions, improving its balance sheet and efficiency.

MSF-1

Metropolitan Series Fund

Jennison Growth Portfolio

Managed by Jennison Associates LLC

Portfolio Manager Commentary*—(Continued)

The Portfolio is built from the bottom up, with stocks selected one at a time, based on the fundamentals of individual companies. Sector weights were largely stable over the past year; exposure to Information Technology and Financials increased modestly, while exposure to Health Care decreased. As of December 31, 2016, and relative to the Russell 1000 Growth Index, the Portfolio was overweight Information Technology and Consumer Discretionary, and underweight Industrials, Consumer Staples, and Health Care.

Kathleen A. McCarragher

Spiros “Sig” Segalas

Michael A. Del Balso

Portfolio Managers

Jennison Associates 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 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.

MSF-2

Metropolitan Series Fund

Jennison Growth Portfolio

A $10,000 INVESTMENT COMPARED TO THE RUSSELL 1000 GROWTH INDEX

AVERAGE ANNUAL RETURNS (%) (FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2016)

	1 Year		5 Year		10 Year
Jennison Growth Portfolio
Class A		0.17		13.93		7.91
Class B		-0.13		13.66		7.64
Class E		-0.01		13.77		7.74
Russell 1000 Growth Index		7.08		14.50		8.33

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.

Portfolio performance is calculated including reinvestment of all income and capital gain distributions. Performance numbers are net of all Portfolio expenses but do not include any insurance, sales, separate account or administrative charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts or any additional expenses that participants may bear relating to the operations of their plans. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower. The performance of any index referenced above has not been adjusted for ongoing management, distribution and operating expenses, and sales charges applicable to mutual fund investments. Direct investment in any index is not possible. The performance of Class A shares, as set forth in the line graph above, will differ from that of other classes because of the difference in expenses paid by policyholders investing in the different share classes.

This information represents past performance and is not indicative of future results. Investment return and principal value may fluctuate so that shares, upon redemption, may be worth more or less than the original cost.

PORTFOLIO COMPOSITION AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2016

Top Holdings

	% of Net Assets
Amazon.com, Inc.		5.5
Apple, Inc.		5.4
Facebook, Inc. - Class A		3.7
Microsoft Corp.		3.5
Visa, Inc. - Class A		3.3
MasterCard, Inc. - Class A		3.0
Alibaba Group Holding, Ltd. (ADR)		3.0
Alphabet, Inc. - Class A		3.0
Alphabet, Inc. - Class C		3.0
Tencent Holdings, Ltd.		2.8

Top Sectors

	% of Net Assets
Information Technology		45.3
Consumer Discretionary		28.4
Health Care		11.2
Financials		5.1
Consumer Staples		3.1
Industrials		3.1
Energy		2.8
Materials		0.7

MSF-3

Metropolitan Series Fund

Jennison 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, 2016 through December 31, 2016.

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.

Jennison Growth Portfolio		Annualized Expense Ratio			Beginning Account Value July 1, 2016		Ending Account Value December 31, 2016		Expenses Paid During Period** July 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016
Class A(a)	Actual		0.55	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,073.70	$	2.87
	Hypothetical*		0.55	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,022.37	$	2.80
Class B(a)	Actual		0.80	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,072.20	$	4.17
	Hypothetical*		0.80	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,021.12	$	4.06
Class E(a)	Actual		0.70	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,072.50	$	3.65
	Hypothetical*		0.70	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,021.62	$	3.56

* 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 366 (to reflect the one-half year period).

^(a) The annualized expense ratio shown reflects the impact of the management fee waiver as described in Note 5 of the Notes to Financial Statements.

MSF-4

Metropolitan Series Fund

Jennison Growth Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—99.7% of Net Assets

Security Description	Shares		Value
Aerospace & Defense—2.1%
Boeing Co. (The)		343,742	$	53,513,755
Automobiles—1.0%
Tesla Motors, Inc. (a) (b)		121,050		25,867,175
Banks—1.2%
JPMorgan Chase & Co.		363,570		31,372,455
Beverages—1.5%
Constellation Brands, Inc. - Class A		95,227		14,599,251
Monster Beverage Corp. (a)		554,637		24,592,605
				39,191,856
Biotechnology—7.6%
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a)		272,709		33,365,946
BioMarin Pharmaceutical, Inc. (a)		194,693		16,128,368
Celgene Corp. (a)		561,928		65,043,166
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a)		71,591		26,280,340
Shire plc (ADR) (b)		266,355		45,381,565
Vertex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a)		127,233		9,373,255
				195,572,640
Capital Markets—3.9%
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (The)		223,014		53,400,702
Morgan Stanley		504,398		21,310,816
S&P Global, Inc.		242,412		26,068,986
				100,780,504
Chemicals—0.7%
Albemarle Corp.		199,636		17,184,667
Communications Equipment—0.8%
Palo Alto Networks, Inc. (a) (b)		169,299		21,170,840
Energy Equipment & Services—1.1%
Halliburton Co.		240,510		13,009,186
Schlumberger, Ltd.		162,424		13,635,495
				26,644,681
Food & Staples Retailing—1.6%
Costco Wholesale Corp.		262,264		41,991,089
Hotels, Restaurants & Leisure—3.9%
Marriott International, Inc. - Class A		620,902		51,336,177
Starbucks Corp.		887,673		49,283,605
				100,619,782
Internet & Direct Marketing Retail—10.0%
Amazon.com, Inc. (a)		189,277		141,933,144
Expedia, Inc.		111,692		12,652,470
Netflix, Inc. (a)		441,418		54,647,548
Priceline Group, Inc. (The) (a)		32,718		47,966,551
				257,199,713
Internet Software & Services—15.4%
Alibaba Group Holding, Ltd. (ADR) (a) (b)		871,361		76,514,210
Alphabet, Inc. - Class A (a)		96,316		76,325,614
Alphabet, Inc. - Class C (a)		98,662		76,149,305
Facebook, Inc. - Class A (a)		830,464		95,544,883
Tencent Holdings, Ltd.		2,974,550		72,192,851
				396,726,863
IT Services—6.3%
MasterCard, Inc. - Class A		752,476		77,693,147
Visa, Inc. - Class A (b)		1,077,061		84,032,299
				161,725,446
Life Sciences Tools & Services—0.7%
Illumina, Inc. (a)		146,277		18,729,307
Machinery—1.0%
Parker-Hannifin Corp.		181,607		25,424,980
Media—3.1%
Charter Communications, Inc. - Class A (a)		106,526		30,670,966
Time Warner, Inc.		375,529		36,249,815
Walt Disney Co. (The)		131,115		13,664,805
				80,585,586
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels—1.8%
Concho Resources, Inc. (a)		154,474		20,483,252
EOG Resources, Inc.		243,064		24,573,771
				45,057,023
Pharmaceuticals—2.9%
Allergan plc (a)		136,804		28,730,208
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.		771,955		45,113,050
				73,843,258
Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment—6.1%
NVIDIA Corp.		656,296		70,053,035
NXP Semiconductors NV (a)		369,275		36,192,643
QUALCOMM, Inc.		780,105		50,862,846
				157,108,524
Software—11.3%
Adobe Systems, Inc. (a)		567,520		58,426,184
Microsoft Corp.		1,451,754		90,211,994
Mobileye NV (a) (b)		281,116		10,716,142
Red Hat, Inc. (a)		519,889		36,236,263
Salesforce.com, Inc. (a)		679,892		46,545,406
Splunk, Inc. (a) (b)		458,437		23,449,053
Workday, Inc. - Class A (a) (b)		356,281		23,546,611
				289,131,653
Specialty Retail—7.4%
Home Depot, Inc. (The)		300,091		40,236,201
Industria de Diseno Textil S.A.		1,753,965		59,854,940
O’Reilly Automotive, Inc. (a) (b)		174,192		48,496,795

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-5

Metropolitan Series Fund

Jennison Growth Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares/ Principal Amount*		Value
Specialty Retail—(Continued)
TJX Cos., Inc. (The)		418,204	$	31,419,666
Ulta Salon Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc. (a)		43,438		11,074,084
				191,081,686
Technology Hardware, Storage & Peripherals—5.4%
Apple, Inc. (b)		1,205,385		139,607,691
Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods—2.9%
adidas AG		276,139		43,641,218
NIKE, Inc. - Class B (b)		616,995		31,361,856
				75,003,074
Total Common Stocks (Cost $1,898,257,028)				2,565,134,248
Short-Term Investment—0.5%
Repurchase Agreement—0.5%
Fixed Income Clearing Corp. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/16 at 0.030% to be repurchased at $13,251,906 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $12,980,000 U.S. Treasury Inflation Indexed Note at 0.125% due 04/15/20 with a value of $13,521,032.		13,251,861		13,251,861
Total Short-Term Investments (Cost $13,251,861)				13,251,861
Securities Lending Reinvestments (c)—11.9%
Certificates of Deposit—6.4%
Bank of Montreal London Zero Coupon, 01/12/17		4,996,816		4,999,086
Bank of Nova Scotia Houston 1.201%, 11/03/17 (d)		5,000,000		5,004,232
Bank of Tokyo UFJ, Ltd., New York 1.121%, 02/28/17 (d)		7,300,000		7,300,146
Barclays New York 0.894%, 02/10/17 (d)		6,000,000		6,001,941
BNP Paribas New York 1.226%, 08/04/17 (d)		2,500,000		2,501,110
Chiba Bank, Ltd., New York 0.950%, 02/02/17		2,000,000		2,000,276
Credit Suisse AG New York 1.364%, 05/12/17 (d)		2,000,000		2,000,208
1.444%, 04/24/17 (d)		8,500,000		8,501,997
DNB NOR Bank ASA 1.130%, 07/28/17 (d)		2,900,000		2,899,492
DZ Bank AG New York 1.010%, 02/27/17		9,300,000		9,302,688
KBC Brussells 1.050%, 01/27/17		7,300,000		7,301,387
Certificates of Deposit—(Continued)
Landesbank Baden-Wuerttemberg Zero Coupon, 01/09/17		9,991,918		9,998,800
Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen London Zero Coupon, 01/24/17		8,480,495		8,496,345
Mizuho Bank, Ltd., New York 1.336%, 05/17/17		5,000,000		4,999,520
1.361%, 04/26/17 (d)		5,000,000		4,999,745
National Australia Bank London 1.034%, 05/02/17 (d)		6,500,000		6,506,136
National Bank of Canada 0.650%, 01/06/17		10,000,000		10,000,400
Natixis New York 0.900%, 02/17/17		5,000,000		5,000,640
Shizuoka Bank New York 0.840%, 01/03/17		6,500,000		6,500,026
Standard Chartered Bank New York 1.150%, 03/21/17		10,000,000		10,001,690
Sumitomo Bank New York 1.212%, 06/05/17 (d)		3,000,000		2,999,940
1.215%, 05/05/17 (d)		1,000,000		1,001,666
1.336%, 06/19/17 (d)		2,500,000		2,499,810
Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corp. 0.900%, 01/12/17		6,850,000		6,850,260
Sumitomo Mitsui Trust Bank, Ltd., New York 1.194%, 06/02/17 (d)		2,000,000		1,999,710
1.351%, 04/26/17 (d)		10,000,000		10,001,180
Svenska Handelsbanken New York 1.266%, 05/18/17 (d)		6,000,000		6,001,044
UBS, Stamford 1.084%, 05/12/17 (d)		2,900,000		2,899,780
Wells Fargo Bank San Francisco N.A. 1.231%, 04/26/17 (d)		2,900,000		2,900,812
1.264%, 10/26/17 (d)		3,500,000		3,502,390
				164,972,457
Commercial Paper—2.7%
Atlantic Asset Securitization LLC 1.040%, 02/03/17		3,788,473		3,796,683
Den Norske ASA 1.206%, 04/27/17 (d)		2,900,000		2,900,154
HSBC plc 1.216%, 04/25/17 (d)		9,000,000		8,999,613
Kells Funding LLC 1.040%, 01/19/17		1,395,066		1,399,450
LMA S.A. & LMA Americas 1.000%, 01/13/17		5,985,500		5,997,906
Macquarie Bank, Ltd. 0.930%, 01/19/17		7,282,650		7,295,496
1.160%, 03/20/17		5,982,407		5,985,028
National Australia Bank, Ltd. 1.288%, 12/06/17 (d)		2,000,000		2,000,004
Old Line Funding LLC 0.840%, 01/03/17		5,739,669		5,749,546
1.030%, 03/13/17 (d)		1,500,000		1,501,171

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-6

Metropolitan Series Fund

Jennison Growth Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Securities Lending Reinvestments (c)—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Commercial Paper—(Continued)
Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp., Ltd. 0.890%, 02/21/17		1,995,451	$	1,997,344
Toronto Dominion Holding Corp. 0.600%, 01/05/17		9,989,667		9,998,880
Versailles Commercial Paper LLC 1.000%, 01/31/17		6,981,333		6,994,736
Westpac Banking Corp. 1.232%, 10/20/17 (d)		5,300,000		5,309,254
				69,925,265
Repurchase Agreements—2.3%
Citigroup Global Markets, Ltd. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/29/16 at 0.710% to be repurchased at $1,000,099 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $1,008,737 U.S. Treasury and Foreign Obligations with rates ranging from 1.750% - 2.750%, maturity dates ranging from 10/15/19 - 11/15/23, with a value of $1,020,000.		1,000,000		1,000,000
Deutsche Bank AG, London
Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/16 at 0.950% to be repurchased at $1,100,116 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $1,122,990 Foreign Obligations with rates ranging from 1.750% - 2.500%, maturity dates ranging from 09/05/19 - 11/20/24, with a value of $1,122,006.		1,100,000		1,100,000
Repurchase Agreement dated 12/15/16 - 12/30/16 at 1.050% to be repurchased at $20,808,464 on 01/03/17, collateralized by various Common Stock with a value of $23,120,344.		20,800,000		20,800,000
Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. Repurchase Agreement dated 10/18/16 at 1.110% to be repurchased at $4,016,773 on 03/03/17, collateralized by various Common Stock with a value of $4,400,000.		4,000,000		4,000,000
Goldman Sachs & Co. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/16 at 0.460% to be repurchased at $3,125,243 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $16,082,290 U.S. Government Agency Obligations with rates ranging from 2.000% - 10.500%, maturity dates ranging from 03/15/17 - 09/20/65, with a value of $3,187,585.		3,125,083		3,125,083
Macquarie Bank, Ltd. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/15/16 at 0.600% to be repurchased at $10,003,667 on 01/06/17, collateralized by $9,893,551 U.S. Treasury Obligations with rates ranging from 0.000% - 8.750%, maturity dates ranging from 01/05/17 - 05/15/46, with a value of $10,205,168.		10,000,000		10,000,000
Repurchase Agreements—(Continued)
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. Repurchase Agreement dated 10/26/16 at 1.160% to be repurchased at $4,523,055 on 04/03/17, collateralized by various Common Stock with a value of $4,950,000.		4,500,000		4,500,000
Natixis Repurchase Agreement dated 12/27/16 at 0.850% to be repurchased at $10,001,653 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $16,050,693 U.S. Government Agency and Treasury Obligations with rates ranging from 0.000% - 4.672%, maturity dates ranging from 01/31/17 - 09/16/58, with a value of $10,201,254.		10,000,000		10,000,000
Pershing LLC Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/16 at 0.680% to be repurchased at $3,000,227 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $4,402,093 U.S. Government Agency Obligations with rates ranging from 0.625% - 11.018%, maturity dates ranging from 01/17/17 - 08/20/66, with a value of $3,060,000.		3,000,000		3,000,000
				57,525,083
Time Deposits—0.5%
OP Corporate Bank plc 1.010%, 01/04/17		3,400,000		3,400,000
1.200%, 01/23/17		4,800,000		4,800,000
Shinkin Central Bank 1.200%, 01/27/17		900,000		900,000
1.220%, 01/26/17		4,400,000		4,400,000
				13,500,000
Total Securities Lending Reinvestments (Cost $305,886,565)				305,922,805
Total Investments—112.1% (Cost $2,217,395,454) (e)				2,884,308,914
Other assets and liabilities (net)—(12.1)%				(310,897,167	)
Net Assets—100.0%			$	2,573,411,747

* Principal amount stated in U.S. dollars unless otherwise noted.

(a) Non-income producing security.

(b) All or a portion of the security was held on loan. As of December 31, 2016, the market value of securities loaned was $298,282,277 and the collateral received consisted of cash in the amount of $305,784,528. The cash collateral investments are disclosed in the Schedule of Investments and categorized as Securities Lending Reinvestments.

(c) Represents investment of cash collateral received from securities on loan as of December 31, 2016.

(d) Variable or floating rate security. The stated rate represents the rate at December 31, 2016.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-7

Metropolitan Series Fund

Jennison Growth Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

(e) As of December 31, 2016, the aggregate cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was $2,217,881,852. The aggregate unrealized appreciation and depreciation of investments were $721,481,322 and $(55,054,260), respectively, resulting in net unrealized appreciation of $666,427,062 for federal income tax purposes.

(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.

Fair Value Hierarchy

Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) define 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, separately for each major category of assets and liabilities, 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, quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities 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, or other market corroborated inputs)

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 used in determining the fair value of investments and derivative financial instruments)

The inputs or methodologies used for valuing investments are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in them. Changes to the inputs or methodologies used may result in transfers between levels, which 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, 2016:

Description	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
Common Stocks
Aerospace & Defense	$	53,513,755	$	—	$	—	$	53,513,755
Automobiles		25,867,175		—		—		25,867,175
Banks		31,372,455		—		—		31,372,455
Beverages		39,191,856		—		—		39,191,856
Biotechnology		195,572,640		—		—		195,572,640
Capital Markets		100,780,504		—		—		100,780,504
Chemicals		17,184,667		—		—		17,184,667
Communications Equipment		21,170,840		—		—		21,170,840
Energy Equipment & Services		26,644,681		—		—		26,644,681
Food & Staples Retailing		41,991,089		—		—		41,991,089
Hotels, Restaurants & Leisure		100,619,782		—		—		100,619,782
Internet & Direct Marketing Retail		257,199,713		—		—		257,199,713
Internet Software & Services		324,534,012		72,192,851		—		396,726,863
IT Services		161,725,446		—		—		161,725,446
Life Sciences Tools & Services		18,729,307		—		—		18,729,307
Machinery		25,424,980		—		—		25,424,980
Media		80,585,586		—		—		80,585,586
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels		45,057,023		—		—		45,057,023
Pharmaceuticals		73,843,258		—		—		73,843,258
Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment		157,108,524		—		—		157,108,524
Software		289,131,653		—		—		289,131,653
Specialty Retail		131,226,746		59,854,940		—		191,081,686
Technology Hardware, Storage & Peripherals		139,607,691		—		—		139,607,691
Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods		31,361,856		43,641,218		—		75,003,074
Total Common Stocks		2,389,445,239		175,689,009		—		2,565,134,248
Total Short-Term Investment*		—		13,251,861		—		13,251,861

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-8

Metropolitan Series Fund

Jennison Growth Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Fair Value Hierarchy—(Continued)

Description	Level 1		Level 2			Level 3		Total
Total Securities Lending Reinvestments*	$	—	$	305,922,805		$	—	$	305,922,805
Total Investments	$	2,389,445,239	$	494,863,675		$	—	$	2,884,308,914
Collateral for Securities Loaned (Liability)	$	—	$	(305,784,528	)	$	—	$	(305,784,528	)

* See Schedule of Investments for additional detailed categorizations.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-9

Metropolitan Series Fund

Jennison Growth Portfolio

Statement of Assets and Liabilities

December 31, 2016

Assets
Investments at value (a) (b)	$	2,884,308,914
Receivable for:
Fund shares sold		225,449
Dividends and interest		397,945
Prepaid expenses		7,476
Total Assets		2,884,939,784
Liabilities
Collateral for securities loaned		305,784,528
Payables for:
Investments purchased		3,433,544
Fund shares redeemed		611,073
Accrued Expenses:
Management fees		1,159,521
Distribution and service fees		167,571
Deferred trustees’ fees		148,121
Other expenses		223,679
Total Liabilities		311,528,037
Net Assets	$	2,573,411,747
Net Assets Consist of:
Paid in surplus	$	1,703,118,330
Undistributed net investment income		6,328,310
Accumulated net realized gain		197,062,189
Unrealized appreciation on investments and foreign currency transactions		666,902,918
Net Assets	$	2,573,411,747
Net Assets
Class A	$	1,786,230,255
Class B		776,334,252
Class E		10,847,240
Capital Shares Outstanding*
Class A		134,816,696
Class B		59,431,756
Class E		823,498
Net Asset Value, Offering Price and Redemption Price Per Share
Class A	$	13.25
Class B		13.06
Class E		13.17

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

(a) Identified cost of investments was $2,217,395,454.

(b) Includes securities loaned at value of $298,282,277.

Statement of Operations

Year Ended December 31, 2016

Investment Income
Dividends (a)	$	21,162,692
Interest		4,232
Securities lending income		1,885,174
Other income (b)		123,362
Total investment income		23,175,460
Expenses
Management fees		15,628,691
Administration fees		88,113
Custodian and accounting fees		151,402
Distribution and service fees—Class B		1,994,863
Distribution and service fees—Class E		16,818
Audit and tax services		42,040
Legal		33,061
Trustees’ fees and expenses		45,241
Shareholder reporting		140,290
Insurance		18,470
Miscellaneous		52,926
Total expenses		18,211,915
Less management fee waiver		(1,926,900	)
Less broker commission recapture		(107,864	)
Net expenses		16,177,151
Net Investment Income		6,998,309
Net Realized and Unrealized Gain (Loss)
Net realized gain on:
Investments		197,805,792
Foreign currency transactions		13,263
Net realized gain		197,819,055
Net change in unrealized depreciation on:
Investments		(203,963,197	)
Foreign currency transactions		(1,231	)
Net change in unrealized depreciation		(203,964,428	)
Net realized and unrealized loss		(6,145,373	)
Net Increase in Net Assets From Operations	$	852,936

(a) Net of foreign withholding taxes of $295,907.

(b) Other income represents a non-recurring refund for overbilling of prior years’ custodian out-of-pocket fees.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-10

Metropolitan Series Fund

Jennison Growth Portfolio

Statements of Changes in Net Assets

	Year Ended December 31, 2016			Year Ended December 31, 2015
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets:
From Operations
Net investment income	$	6,998,309		$	5,701,355
Net realized gain		197,819,055			342,440,611
Net change in unrealized depreciation		(203,964,428	)		(42,791,930	)
Increase in net assets from operations		852,936			305,350,036
From Distributions to Shareholders
Net investment income
Class A		(5,320,506	)		(5,448,743	)
Class B		(166,514	)		(104,756	)
Class E		(14,444	)		(14,860	)
Net realized capital gains
Class A		(235,463,323	)		(300,608,310	)
Class B		(105,625,369	)		(135,816,086	)
Class E		(1,446,696	)		(1,834,915	)
Total distributions		(348,036,852	)		(443,827,670	)
Increase (decrease) in net assets from capital share transactions		143,300,114			(50,769,618	)
Total decrease in net assets		(203,883,802	)		(189,247,252	)
Net Assets
Beginning of period		2,777,295,549			2,966,542,801
End of period	$	2,573,411,747		$	2,777,295,549
Undistributed net investment income
End of period	$	6,328,310		$	5,257,581

Other Information:

Capital Shares

Transactions in capital shares were as follows:

	Year Ended December 31, 2016						Year Ended December 31, 2015
	Shares			Value			Shares			Value
Class A
Sales		3,073,897		$	42,526,889			2,496,304		$	39,015,071
Reinvestments		19,386,782			240,783,829			20,309,028			306,057,053
Redemptions		(11,647,772	)		(156,455,180	)		(24,963,162	)		(402,493,935	)
Net increase (decrease)		10,812,907		$	126,855,538			(2,157,830	)	$	(57,421,811	)
Class B
Sales		3,234,110		$	43,395,835			3,851,187		$	59,630,822
Reinvestments		8,629,030			105,791,883			9,122,204			135,920,842
Redemptions		(9,868,582	)		(132,583,024	)		(12,052,008	)		(190,034,059	)
Net increase		1,994,558		$	16,604,694			921,383		$	5,517,605
Class E
Sales		110,299		$	1,490,776			190,203		$	2,929,755
Reinvestments		118,216			1,461,140			123,318			1,849,775
Redemptions		(229,835	)		(3,112,034	)		(230,752	)		(3,644,942	)
Net increase (decrease)		(1,320	)	$	(160,118	)		82,769		$	1,134,588
Increase (decrease) derived from capital shares transactions				$	143,300,114					$	(50,769,618	)

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-11

Metropolitan Series Fund

Jennison Growth Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class A
	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014			2013			2012
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	15.30		$	16.23		$	15.82		$	11.73		$	12.14
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (a)		0.05			0.04			0.04			0.04			0.07
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.16	)		1.67			1.26			4.25			1.88
Total from investment operations		(0.11	)		1.71			1.30			4.29			1.95
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.04	)		(0.05	)		(0.04	)		(0.06	)		(0.03	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(1.90	)		(2.59	)		(0.85	)		(0.14	)		(2.33	)
Total distributions		(1.94	)		(2.64	)		(0.89	)		(0.20	)		(2.36	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	13.25		$	15.30		$	16.23		$	15.82		$	11.73
Total Return (%) (b)		0.17			10.78			9.06			37.00			15.78
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Gross ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.62			0.62			0.62			0.62			0.64
Net ratio of expenses to average net assets (%) (c)		0.55			0.54			0.54			0.55			0.57
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		0.35			0.27			0.26			0.31			0.58
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		25			28			25			36			41
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	1,786.2		$	1,897.1		$	2,047.5		$	2,332.0		$	1,744.7
	Class B
	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014			2013			2012
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	15.11		$	16.05		$	15.66		$	11.61		$	12.03
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (a)		0.01			0.00	(d)		0.00	(d)		0.01			0.03
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.16	)		1.65			1.25			4.21			1.88
Total from investment operations		(0.15	)		1.65			1.25			4.22			1.91
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.00	) (e)		(0.00	) (e)		(0.01	)		(0.03	)		(0.00	)(e)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(1.90	)		(2.59	)		(0.85	)		(0.14	)		(2.33	)
Total distributions		(1.90	)		(2.59	)		(0.86	)		(0.17	)		(2.33	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	13.06		$	15.11		$	16.05		$	15.66		$	11.61
Total Return (%) (b)		(0.13	)		10.54			8.74			36.73			15.56
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Gross ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.87			0.87			0.87			0.87			0.89
Net ratio of expenses to average net assets (%) (c)		0.80			0.79			0.79			0.80			0.82
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		0.10			0.02			0.01			0.06			0.30
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		25			28			25			36			41
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	776.3		$	867.6		$	907.1		$	976.7		$	804.2

Please see following page for Financial Highlights footnote legend.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-12

Metropolitan Series Fund

Jennison Growth Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class E
	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014			2013			2012
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	15.22		$	16.15		$	15.75		$	11.67		$	12.09
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (a)		0.03			0.02			0.02			0.02			0.04
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.16	)		1.66			1.25			4.24			1.88
Total from investment operations		(0.13	)		1.68			1.27			4.26			1.92
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.02	)		(0.02	)		(0.02	)		(0.04	)		(0.01	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(1.90	)		(2.59	)		(0.85	)		(0.14	)		(2.33	)
Total distributions		(1.92	)		(2.61	)		(0.87	)		(0.18	)		(2.34	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	13.17		$	15.22		$	16.15		$	15.75		$	11.67
Total Return (%) (b)		(0.01	)		10.66			8.86			36.90			15.58
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Gross ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.77			0.77			0.77			0.77			0.79
Net ratio of expenses to average net assets (%) (c)		0.70			0.69			0.69			0.70			0.72
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		0.20			0.12			0.11			0.16			0.38
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		25			28			25			36			41
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	10.8		$	12.6		$	12.0		$	12.5		$	11.8

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

(b) Total return does not reflect any insurance, sales, separate account or administrative charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts or any additional expenses that contract owners may bear under their variable contracts. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower.

(c) Includes the effects of management fee waivers (see Note 5 of the Notes to Financial Statements).

(d) Net investment income (loss) was less than $0.01.

(e) Distributions from net investment income were less than $0.01.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-13

Metropolitan Series Fund

Jennison Growth Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016

1. Organization

Metropolitan Series Fund (the “Trust”) is organized as a Delaware statutory trust and registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), as an open-end management investment company. The Trust, which is managed by MetLife Advisers, LLC (“MetLife Advisers” or the “Adviser”), an affiliate of MetLife, Inc., is currently comprised of thirty series, each of which operates as a distinct investment vehicle of the Trust. The portfolio included in this report is Jennison 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.

On January 12, 2016, MetLife, Inc. announced its plan to pursue the separation of a substantial portion of its retail segment and is currently evaluating structural alternatives for such separation. It is anticipated that MetLife Advisers would be included in any such separation. Any separation transaction that might occur will be subject to the satisfaction of various conditions and approvals, including approval of any transaction by the MetLife, Inc. Board of Directors, satisfaction of any applicable requirements of the SEC, and receipt of insurance and other regulatory approvals and other anticipated conditions. MetLife, Inc. cannot currently provide a specific potential completion date for a separation transaction or any assurance that a separation will in fact occur. MetLife Advisers’ continued service as investment adviser to the Trusts following a separation transaction is the subject of a proxy statement that was filed with the SEC on December 20, 2016 and mailed to shareholders of the Portfolio on or about December 30, 2016.

The Portfolio has registered and offers three classes of shares: Class A, B and E shares. 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 plan and such distribution expenses are allocated to the corresponding Class of shares.

2. Significant Accounting Policies

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities as of the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of income and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates. In the preparation of these financial statements, management has evaluated events and transactions subsequent to December 31, 2016 through the date the financial statements were issued.

The Portfolio is an investment company and follows the accounting and reporting guidance of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Accounting Standards Codification Topic 946—Financial Services—Investment Companies and Topic 820—Fair Value Measurement. 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 - Domestic and foreign equity securities, such as common stock, exchange-traded funds, rights, warrants, and preferred stock, that are traded on a securities exchange on a valuation date are generally valued at their last quoted sale price or official closing price on the primary exchange for such security, or, if no sales occurred on that day, at the last reported bid price. Equity securities traded over-the-counter (“OTC”) are generally valued at the last reported bid price. In the event of a major exchange closing during the trading day, the Adviser may use other market information obtained from quotation reporting systems, established market makers, or pricing services in valuing the securities. Valuation adjustments may be applied to certain foreign equity securities that are traded solely on foreign exchanges that close before the time as of which the Portfolio determines its NAV to account for the market movement between the close of the foreign exchanges and the time as of which the Portfolio determines its NAV. The Portfolio may use a systematic fair valuation model provided by a pricing service to value securities principally traded in these foreign markets in order to adjust for possible market movements or other changes that may occur between the close of the foreign exchanges and the time as of which the Portfolio determines its NAV. Foreign equity securities valued using these valuation adjustments are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy. Equity securities that are actively traded, and have no valuation adjustments applied, are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other equity securities traded on inactive markets, or valued in reference to similar instruments traded on active markets, 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 on the valuation date and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy.

Debt securities, including corporate, convertible and municipal bonds and notes; obligations of the U.S. Treasury and U.S. government agencies; foreign sovereign issues; and non-U.S. bonds, are generally valued on the basis of evaluated or composite bid quotations

MSF-14

Metropolitan Series Fund

Jennison Growth Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

obtained from independent pricing services and/or brokers and dealers selected by the Adviser (each a “pricing service”), pursuant to authorization of and subject to general oversight by the Board of Trustees of the Trust (the “Board” or “Trustees”). Such pricing services may use matrix pricing, which considers observable inputs including, among other things, issuer details, maturity dates, interest rates, yield curves, rates of prepayment, credit risks/spreads, default rates, reported trades, broker dealer quotes and quoted prices for similar assets. Short-term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less may be valued at amortized cost in the absence of market quotes, so long as the amortized cost value of such short-term debt instrument is approximately the same as the fair value of the instrument as determined without the use of amortized cost valuation. Floating rate loans are generally valued on the basis of an evaluated or composite average of aggregate bid and ask quotations supplied by brokers or dealers, as obtained from the pricing service. Securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally 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 sale price available as of the close of business on a valuation day or, if there is no such price available, at the last reported bid price. These types of options are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Futures contracts that are traded on commodity exchanges are valued at their settlement prices established by the exchanges on which they are traded as of the close of such exchanges and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy.

If no current market value quotation or other observable inputs are readily available or market value quotations are deemed to be unreliable for an investment, the fair value of the investment will be determined in accordance with procedures approved by, and under the general supervision of, the Board. In such a circumstance, the Board will be assisted in its responsibility to determine the fair value of an investment by the Valuation Committee (“Committee”) of MetLife Advisers. The Committee provides general pricing oversight and fair value pricing determinations related to portfolio securities and meets on a regular basis to review reports relating to the valuation of the securities in the Portfolio. The Board has delegated to State Street Bank and Trust Company, the Trust’s custodian (“custodian”), the responsibility for calculating the net asset values (“NAVs”) of the Trust’s Portfolios. The Committee is responsible for overseeing the calculation of the NAVs of the Portfolios by the custodian. The Committee also periodically reviews pricing services, including the pricing services providing fair value pricing for the Portfolio’s foreign securities, and is responsible for overseeing the correction of pricing errors and addressing other pricing issues that arise in the ordinary course of business, such as making real-time fair value determinations, as necessary.

No single standard for determining the fair value of an investment can be set forth because fair value depends upon the facts and circumstances with respect to each investment. Information relating to any relevant factors may be obtained by the Committee from any appropriate source, including the subadviser of the Portfolio, the custodian, a pricing service, market maker and/or broker for such security or the issuer. Appropriate methodologies for determining fair value under particular circumstances may include: matrix pricing, a discounted cash flow analysis, comparisons of securities with comparable characteristics, value based on multiples of earnings, discount from market price of similar marketable securities or a combination of these and other methods.

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 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. These foreign taxes have been provided for in accordance with the Portfolio’s understanding of the applicable countries’ tax rules and rates.

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 the U.S. dollar 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. Because the values of investment securities are translated at the foreign exchange rates prevailing at the end of the period, that portion of the results of operations arising from changes in exchange rates and that portion of the results of operations reflecting fluctuations arising from changes in market prices of the investment securities are not separated. 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. 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.

Dividends and Distributions to Shareholders - The Portfolio records dividends and distributions on the ex-dividend date. Net realized gains from securities 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

MSF-15

Metropolitan Series Fund

Jennison Growth Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

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), adjustments to prior period accumulated balances and broker commission recapture. These adjustments have no impact on net assets or the results 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 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. As of December 31, 2016, the Portfolio had no uncertain tax positions that would require financial statement recognition, or de-recognition or disclosure.

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 net ratio of expenses to average net assets presented in the Financial Highlights for each share class.

Repurchase Agreements - The Portfolio may enter into repurchase agreements, under the terms of a Master Repurchase Agreement (“MRA”), 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, under a tri-party repurchase agreement, receives delivery of the underlying securities collateralizing any repurchase agreements. It is the Portfolio’s policy that the market value of the collateral be equal to at least 100% of the repurchase price in the case of a repurchase agreement of one-day duration and equal to at least 102% of the repurchase price in the case of all other repurchase agreements. In the event of default or failure by a party to perform an obligation in connection with any repurchase transaction, the MRA gives the non-defaulting party the right to set-off claims and to apply property held by it in connection with any repurchase transaction against obligations owed to it.

At December 31, 2016, the Portfolio had direct investments in repurchase agreements with a gross value of $13,251,861. Additionally, the Portfolio invested cash collateral for loans of portfolio securities in repurchase agreements with a gross value of $57,525,083. The combined value of all repurchase agreements is included as part of investments at value on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. The value of the related collateral exceeded the value of the repurchase agreements at December 31, 2016.

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 collateral held from securities on loan. 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.

Effective September 8, 2016, the Trust has entered into a Non-Custodial Securities Lending Agreement with JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (the “lending agent”). Prior to September 8, 2016, the Trust had entered into a Securities Lending Authorization Agreement with the custodian (the “prior lending agent”). Under each agreement, the lending agent is authorized to loan portfolio securities on the Portfolio’s behalf. In exchange, the Portfolio receives either cash or government securities as collateral against the loaned securities. The Portfolio receives collateral equal to at least 102% of the market value for loans secured by government securities or cash in the same currency as the loaned shares and 105% for all other loaned securities at each loan’s inception. Collateral representing at least 100% of the market value of the loaned securities is maintained for the duration of the loan. Any cash collateral received by the Portfolio is generally invested by the lending agent in short-term investments, which may include certificates of deposit, commercial paper, repurchase agreements, time deposits and money market funds. Cash collateral that was received by the prior lending agent had been generally invested in the State Street Navigator Securities Lending MET Portfolio (the “Navigator Portfolio”), a series of the State Street Navigator Securities Lending Trust that was a registered money market fund managed by an affiliate of the custodian. The market value of investments made with cash collateral received are disclosed in the Schedule of Investments and the valuation techniques are described in Note 2. 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 is 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 is equal to at least 100% of the market value of all the loaned securities as of such preceding day. A portion of the income earned on the collateral is rebated to the borrower of the securities and the remainder is split between the lending agent and the Portfolio. On loans collateralized by government securities, a fee is received from the borrower and is allocated between the Portfolio and the lending agent.

Income received by the Portfolio in securities lending transactions during the year ended December 31, 2016 is reflected as securities lending income on the Statement of Operations. The values of any securities loaned by the Portfolio and the related collateral at December 31, 2016 are disclosed in the footnotes to the Schedule of Investments. The value of the related collateral received by the Portfolio exceeded the value of the securities out on loan at December 31, 2016.

MSF-16

Metropolitan Series Fund

Jennison Growth Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

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. The lending agent shall indemnify the Portfolio in the case of default of any securities borrower, subject to the terms of the Non-Custodial Securities Lending Agreement.

All securities on loan are classified as Common Stocks in the Portfolio’s Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016, with a contractual maturity of overnight and continuous.

3. Certain Risks

In the normal course of business, the Portfolio invests in securities and enters into transactions where risks exist. Those risks include:

Market 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, interest rate, and price fluctuations.

Credit and Counterparty Risk: 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 and counterparty risk consist principally of cash due from counterparties and investments. The Portfolio manages counterparty risk by entering into agreements only with counterparties that it believes have the financial resources to honor their obligations and by monitoring the financial stability of those counterparties. The Portfolio’s investment adviser attempts to mitigate counterparty risk by (i) periodically assessing the creditworthiness of its trading partners, (ii) monitoring and/or limiting the amount of its net exposure to each individual counterparty based on its assessment, and (iii) requiring collateral from the counterparty for certain transactions. In order to preserve certain safeguards for non-standard settlement trades, the Portfolio restricts its exposure to credit and counterparty losses by entering into master netting agreements (“Master Agreements”) with counterparties (approved brokers) with whom it undertakes a significant volume of transactions. Master Agreements govern the terms of certain transactions, and reduce the counterparty risk associated with relevant transactions by specifying credit protection mechanisms and providing standardization that improves legal certainty. Master Agreements can also help limit counterparty risk by specifying collateral posting arrangements at pre-arranged exposure levels.

Repurchase and reverse repurchase agreements are primarily executed under Global Master Repurchase Agreements (“GMRAs”) or Master Repurchase Agreements (“MRAs”), which provide the rights to set-off. Each repurchase and reverse repurchase agreement is initially collateralized at the transaction level. In the event of default, the total market value exposure will be offset against collateral exchanged to date, which would result in a net receivable/(payable) that would be due from/to the counterparty.

Additional risks associated with each type of investment are described above within the respective security type notes. The Portfolio’s prospectus includes a discussion of the principal risks of investing in the Portfolio.

4. Investment Transactions

Aggregate cost of purchases and proceeds of sales of investment securities, excluding short-term securities, for the year ended December 31, 2016 were as follows:

Purchases			Sales
U.S. Government	Non U.S. Government		U.S. Government		Non U.S. Government
$0	$	637,411,266	$	0	$	827,763,926

5. Investment Management Fees and Other Transactions with Affiliates

Investment Management Agreement - MetLife Advisers is the investment adviser to the Portfolio. The Trust has entered into an investment management agreement with MetLife Advisers with respect to the Portfolio. For providing investment management services to the Portfolio, MetLife Advisers receives monthly compensation at the following annual rates:

Management Fees earned by MetLife Advisers for the year ended December 31, 2016	% per annum			Average Daily Net Assets
$15,628,691		0.700	%	Of the first $200 million
		0.650	%	Of the next $300 million
		0.600	%	Of the next $1.5 billion
		0.550	%	On amounts in excess of $2 billion

MSF-17

Metropolitan Series Fund

Jennison Growth Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

MetLife Advisers has entered into an investment subadvisory agreement with respect to managing the Portfolio. Jennison Associates LLC is compensated by MetLife Advisers to provide subadvisory services for the Portfolio.

Management Fee Waivers - Pursuant to an expense agreement, MetLife Advisers has agreed, for the period May 1, 2016 to April 30, 2017, to reduce its advisory fees set out above under “Investment Management Agreement” for each class of the Portfolio as follows:

% per annum	Average Daily Net Assets
0.050%	Of the first $200 million
0.050%	Over $300 million and less than $1 billion
0.100%	On the next $1 billion
0.080%	On amounts in excess of $2 billion

An identical expense agreement was in place for the period May 1, 2015 to April 30, 2016. Amounts waived for the year ended December 31, 2016 are shown as a management fee waiver in the Statement of Operations.

Certain officers and trustees of the Trust may also be officers of MetLife Advisers; 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 and Service Fees - The Trust has a distribution agreement with MetLife Investors Distribution Company (“MIDC” or the “Distributor”) in which MIDC serves as the distributor for the Portfolio’s Class A, B and E Shares. MIDC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife Investors Group, LLC, an affiliate of the Adviser. The Trust has also adopted a Distribution and Service Plan under Rule 12b-1 of the 1940 Act for the Portfolio’s Class B and E Shares. Under the Distribution and Service Plan, the Class B and E Shares of the Portfolio pay a fee to compensate the Insurance Companies (or their affiliates) and other broker-dealers and financial intermediaries involved in the offer and sale of Portfolio shares for promoting or selling and servicing the Class B and E Shares. The fees under the Distribution and Service Plan for each class of the Portfolio’s shares are calculated as a percentage of the Portfolio’s average daily net assets that are attributable to that Class. Currently, the fee is 0.25% per year for Class B Shares and 0.15% per year for Class E Shares. Amounts incurred by the Portfolio for the year ended December 31, 2016 are shown as Distribution and service fees in the Statement of Operations.

Deferred Trustee Compensation - Each Trustee 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 Trust. 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 Met Investors Series Trust, an affiliate of the Trust, 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 under the Plan is reflected as Deferred trustees’ fees in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

6. Contractual Obligations

Under the Trust’s organizational documents, its officers and Trustees may be indemnified against certain liabilities and expenses arising out of the performance of their duties to the Trust. Additionally, 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 Trust that have not yet occurred.

7. Income Tax Information

The tax character of distributions paid for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015 were as follows:

Ordinary Income			Long-Term Capital Gain				Total
2016	2015		2016		2015		2016		2015
$5,501,464	$	8,272,620	$	342,535,388	$	435,555,050	$	348,036,852	$	443,827,670

As of December 31, 2016, 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		Other Accumulated Capital Losses		Total
$6,476,431	$	197,548,587	$	666,416,520	$	—	$	870,441,538

MSF-18

Metropolitan Series Fund

Jennison Growth Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(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 up to 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, 2016, the Portfolio had no post-enactment accumulated capital losses and no pre-enactment accumulated capital loss carryforwards.

8. Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In October 2016, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) adopted new rules and forms, and amendments to certain current rules and forms, to modernize reporting and disclosure of information by registered investment companies. The amendments to Regulation S-X will require standardized, enhanced disclosure about derivatives in investment company financial statements, and will also change the rules governing the form and content of such financial statements. The compliance date for the amendments to Regulation S-X is August 1, 2017. Management is currently evaluating the impact that the adoption of the amendments to Regulation S-X will have on the Portfolio’s financial statements and related disclosures.

MSF-19

Metropolitan Series Fund

Jennison Growth Portfolio

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Shareholders of Jennison Growth Portfolio and the Board of Trustees of Metropolitan Series Fund:

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities, including the schedule of investments, of Jennison Growth Portfolio (one of the portfolios constituting the Metropolitan Series Fund) (the “Portfolio”) as of December 31, 2016, 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 Portfolio’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 Portfolio 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 Portfolio’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, 2016, by correspondence with the custodian and brokers; when 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 Jennison Growth Portfolio of the Metropolitan Series Fund as of December 31, 2016, 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.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

February 24, 2017

MSF-20

Metropolitan Series Fund

Trustees and Officers

MANAGEMENT OF THE TRUSTS

The Boards of Trustees (the “Board”) of Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (“MIST” and “MSF”, respectively, and collectively the “Trusts”) supervise the Trusts and are responsible for representing the interests of shareholders. The Trustees, the Chairman of the Board and the Chairmen of each subcommittee are the same for both Trusts. The Trustees of each Trust meet periodically throughout the year to oversee the Portfolios’ activities, reviewing, among other things, each Portfolio’s performance and its contractual arrangements with various service providers. The Trustees of each Trust elect the officers of the Trust, who are responsible for administering the Trust’s day-to-day operations.

Trustees and Officers

The Trustees and executive officers of the Trusts, as well as their ages and their principal occupations during the past five years, are set forth below. Unless otherwise indicated, the business address of each is c/o MetLife Funds, One Financial Center, Boston, Massachusetts 02111. Each Trustee who is deemed an “interested person,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, is referred to as an “Interested Trustee.” Those Trustees who are not “interested persons,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, are referred to as “Independent Trustees.” There is no limit to the term a Trustee may serve. Trustees serve until their death, resignation or removal in accordance with the MIST Trust’s and MSF Trust’s respective organizational documents and policies adopted by the Boards of the respective Trusts from time to time. Officers hold office at the pleasure of each Board and serve until their removal or resignation in accordance with the Trusts’ respective organizational documents and policies adopted by the Board of each Trust from time to time.

Name and Age	Current 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 MetLife Funds Complex(2) Overseen by Trustee	Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Interested Trustee
John Rosenthal* (56)	Trustee	Indefinite; From May 2016 (MIST and MSF) to present	Senior Managing Director and Head of Global Portfolio Management, MetLife, Inc.	75	None
Independent Trustees
Dawn M. Vroegop (50)	Trustee and Chairman of the Board	Indefinite; From December 2000 (MIST)/ May 2009 (MSF) to present as Trustee; From May 2016 (MIST and MSF) until present as Chairman	Private Investor.	75	Trustee, Driehaus Mutual Funds.**
Stephen M. Alderman (57)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 (MIST)/ April 2012 (MSF) to present	Shareholder in the law firm of Garfield and Merel, Ltd.	75	None

MSF-21

Metropolitan Series Fund

Trustees and Officers—(Continued)

Name and Age	Current 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 MetLife Funds Complex(2) Overseen by Trustee	Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Robert J. Boulware (60)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 (MIST)/ April 2012 (MSF) to present	Managing Director, Pilgrim Funds, LLC (private equity fund).	75	Trustee, Vertical Capital Income Fund (closed-end fund);** Director, Gainsco, Inc. (auto insurance);** Trustee, SharesPost 100 Fund (closed-end fund).**
Susan C. Gause (64)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 (MIST)/ April 2012 (MSF) to present	Private Investor.	75	Trustee, HSBC Funds.**
Nancy Hawthorne (65)	Trustee	Indefinite; From May 2003 (MSF)/ April 2012 (MIST) to present	Partner, Hawthorne Financial Advisors, LLC (registered investment advisor); until June 2014, Chief Executive Officer, Clerestory LLC (corporate advisor).	75	Director and Chairman of the Board of Directors, THL Credit, Inc.;** Lead Director, Avid Technology, Inc.;** Director, CRA International, Inc.**
Barbara A. Nugent (60)	Trustee	Indefinite; From January 2014 (MIST and MSF) to present	President, True North Board Governance, LLC (consulting); until December 2013, partner in the law firm of Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young, LLP.	75	None
Linda B. Strumpf (69)	Trustee	Indefinite; From May 2000 (MSF)/ April 2012 (MIST) to present	Chair of the Investment Committee, Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust; until June 2011, Chief Investment Officer, Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust.	75	None

Executive Officers

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Kristi Slavin (43)	President and Chief Executive Officer, of MIST and MSF	From May 2016 (MIST and MSF) to present	President, MetLife Advisers, LLC (May 2016-present); Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Vice President, MetLife, Inc.; Vice President, MIST and MSF (2015-2016).

MSF-22

Metropolitan Series Fund

Trustees and Officers—(Continued)

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Peter H. Duffy (61)	Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, of MIST and MSF	From November 2000 (MSF)/ May 2012 (MIST) to present	Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Andrew L. Gangolf (62)	Secretary, of MIST and MSF	From May 2011 (MIST and MSF) to present	Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; until 2011, Senior Vice President & Assistant General Counsel, AllianceBernstein Investments, Inc.
Steven E. Hartstein (53)	Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”), of MIST and MSF	From February 2014 (MIST and MSF) to present	Vice President, MetLife, Inc. (2013-present); Senior Vice President and CCO, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Executive Director, Morgan Stanley (2009-2013); CCO, Consulting Group Capital Markets Funds (2006-2013).
Alan C. Leland (64)	Vice President, of MIST and MSF	From February 2005 (MSF)/ May 2012 (MIST) to present	Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Vice President, MetLife, Inc.

* Mr. Rosenthal is an “interested person” of the Trusts because of his position with MetLife, Inc., the current parent company of MetLife Advisers, LLC.

** 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 Trusts, MetLife, Inc. or the Manager are omitted if not materially different.

(2) The Fund Complex includes 45 MIST Portfolios and 30 MSF Portfolios.

MSF-23

Metropolitan Series Fund

Jennison Growth Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements

At an in-person meeting held on November 15-16, 2016 (the “November Meeting”), the Boards of Trustees (the “Board”) of the Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (“MIST” and “MSF,” respectively, and collectively, the “Trusts”), including a majority of the Trustees who are not “interested persons” of the Trusts (the “Independent Trustees”) under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “1940 Act”), approved the continuation of the Trusts’ advisory agreements (each, an “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 the series of the Trusts (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”).

In reaching that decision, the Board reviewed a variety of materials provided for the specific purpose of the annual contract renewal process. In addition, various materials provided to and discussed with the Board throughout the year also informed the Board’s decision to renew the Agreements. That information for each Portfolio included, but was not limited to, investment performance reports, along with periodic reports on various expenses, shareholder services, legal and compliance matters, asset pricing, brokerage commissions and trade execution. The Board also recognized the pending separation of the Adviser from its parent company, MetLife, Inc., as a consideration in their deliberations with respect to the Agreements.

The Board met in person with personnel of the Adviser on September 27, 2016 for the specific purpose of giving preliminary consideration to the proposed continuation of the Agreements (the “September Meeting”) through the review by the Adviser with the Board of the performance and fees experienced by each Portfolio, as well as other information. In considering the Agreements, the Independent Trustees were advised by independent legal counsel throughout the contract renewal process, and met with independent legal counsel in several executive sessions outside of the presence of management.

Information furnished and reviewed specifically in connection with the renewal process included, but was not limited to, a report for each Portfolio prepared by Broadridge (“Broadridge”), an independent organization, and a Portfolio-by-Portfolio profitability analysis prepared by the Adviser. In addition, the Independent Trustees received and reviewed a report prepared by JDL Consultants, LLC (“JDL”), an independent consultant to the Independent Trustees (“JDL Report”), which examined the comparative fees, expenses and performance of each Portfolio, based upon the Broadridge reports. Also, the Board reviewed the responses to wide-ranging questions relating to the business, operations and performance of the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers that the Adviser and Sub-Advisers had prepared specifically for the renewal process.

At the November Meeting, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, concluded that the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser supported the renewal of the Agreements. The Board also concluded that the investment performance of each Portfolio was such that each Agreement should continue, and that the fees paid by a Portfolio to the Adviser appeared to be reasonable in light of the nature, extent and quality of the services provided by the Adviser and Sub-Adviser. Further, the Board concluded that the Adviser’s profitability in providing services under the Advisory Agreements did not appear unreasonably high in light of the nature, extent and quality of the services provided by the Adviser. Finally, the Board concluded that the investment advisory fees paid by the Portfolios in some measure shared economies of scale with contract holders. In approving the renewal of each of the Agreements, the Board, including the Independent Trustees, gave attention to all of the information that was furnished. The Board evaluated the information available to it on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis, and its decision was made separately with respect to each Portfolio. The following discusses some of the primary factors that generally were relevant to the Board’s decision. The Board did not identify any single factor as controlling, and the Trustees generally attributed different weights to various factors for the various Portfolios.

Nature, extent and quality of services. The Board evaluated the nature, extent and quality of the services that the Adviser, and the Sub-Advisers as relevant, have provided to the Portfolios. The Board considered the Adviser’s services as investment manager to the Portfolios, including its services relating to the oversight of the Sub-Advisers and their investment management activities, trading practices, financial condition, relevant personnel matters and compliance programs, among other things. The Adviser’s services in coordinating and overseeing the activities of the Trusts’ other service providers were also considered. The Board considered information received from the Trusts’ Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) regarding the Portfolios’ compliance policies and procedures that were established pursuant to Rule 38a-l under the 1940 Act. In addition, throughout the year, the Board considered the expertise, experience and performance of the personnel of the Adviser who performed the various services that are mentioned above.

The Board also noted that the Adviser’s investment, compliance and legal staff conduct regular, periodic, telephonic and in-person meetings with the Sub-Advisers to review and assess the services that are provided to the Portfolios, and that personnel of the Adviser prepare and present reports to the Independent Trustees regarding those meetings.

MSF-24

Metropolitan Series Fund

Jennison Growth Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

With respect to the services provided by each of the Sub-Advisers, the Board considered a variety of information that the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser provided. The Board considered each Sub-Adviser’s investment process and philosophy, and the investment performance experienced by the Portfolio (as described in more detail below). The Board took into account that each Sub-Adviser’s responsibilities include the development and maintenance of an investment program for the applicable Portfolio that 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. In particular, the Board considered, among other things, the Sub-Adviser’s current level of staffing as well as its compensation program and its overall resources. The Board reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s history and investment experience, as well as information provided 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 regulatory and disciplinary history. In its review, the Board also took into account information regarding any services and/or payments provided to the Adviser by the Sub-Advisers in connection with marketing activities.

Performance. The Board placed emphasis on the performance of the Portfolios in light of, among other things, its importance to contract holders. The Board considered the Adviser’s quarterly reviews with the Board of detailed information about each Portfolio’s investment strategies and performance results and composition, including discussions regarding the relevant effect of current market conditions. The Board reviewed and considered the reports prepared by Broadridge, which provided a statistical analysis comparing the Portfolios’ investment performance to that of comparable funds underlying variable insurance products (the “Performance Universe”). The Independent Trustees also met separately with a representative of JDL during the September Meeting to review the JDL Report. The Board also compared the performance records of certain Portfolios to those of comparable funds that were managed by the relevant Sub-Adviser. At the November Meeting, the Board considered each Portfolio’s performance for periods subsequent to the performance period covered by the Broadridge reports, and the Adviser’s discussion of the same, including the effect of current market conditions on each Portfolio’s more recent performance.

The Board focused particular attention on Portfolios with less favorable performance records. The Board noted the Adviser’s focus on each Sub-Adviser’s performance and that the Adviser has been active in monitoring and responding to any performance issues with respect to the Portfolios.

Fees and Expenses. The Board gave consideration to the level and method of computing the fees payable under the Agreements. The Board considered the Broadridge report for each of the Portfolios, which included comparisons for each Portfolio of its contractual management and sub-adviser fees (at current and various asset levels), and total expenses, with those of its peers, including as those peers were divided into a broad group of peer funds (“Expense Universe”), a narrower group of peer funds (“Expense Group”), a broad group of peer sub-advised funds (“Sub-advised Expense Universe”), and a narrower group of peer sub-advised funds (“Sub-advised Expense Group”). Broadridge selected the peer funds which were similarly situated funds underlying variable insurance products deemed to be comparable to the Portfolios. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of JDL, also examined the JDL Report. The Board compared the fee payable to a Sub-Adviser by the Adviser with respect to the Portfolio to the fee payable to the Sub-Adviser by other comparable funds and accounts, to the extent such information was available.

The Board noted that the sub-advisory fees for the Portfolios are paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fee, and that, in the case of an unaffiliated Sub-Adviser, the Adviser negotiates the fee at arm’s length. The Board also considered that the Adviser had entered into expense limitation or management fee waiver agreements with certain of the Portfolios pursuant to which the Adviser had 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.

Profitability. The Board examined the profitability of the Adviser on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis. The Board also considered that an affiliate of the Adviser, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, serves as distributor for the Trusts, and, as such, receives Rule 12b-1 payments to support the distribution of the Portfolios. The Board considered the profitability to the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates as a result of their relationships with the Portfolios, to the extent available, and the Board considered the ability of the Adviser to negotiate with an unaffiliated Sub-Adviser at arm’s length. In reviewing the profitability analyses, the Board recognized that expense allocation methodologies are inherently subjective and various expense allocation methodologies may be reasonable while producing different results.

Economies of scale. The Board also considered each Portfolio’s fees in light of its size. The Board noted the fee schedules for the Portfolios that 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

MSF-25

Metropolitan Series Fund

Jennison Growth Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

schedule for such Portfolios. The Board considered the effective fees under the Advisory Agreement and Sub-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. The Board examined, among other data, the effect of a Portfolio’s growth in size, and reduction in size, on various fee schedules and the Board reviewed the Broadridge and JDL Reports, which compared fees among peers. The Board also generally noted that if a Portfolio’s assets increase over time, the Portfolio may realize other economies of scale if assets increase proportionally more than certain other fixed expenses.

Other factors. The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trusts. Among them, the Board recognized that MetLife Investors Distribution Company, as the distributor for the Trusts, receives payments pursuant to Rule 12b-1 from the Portfolios to compensate for the provision of shareholder services and distribution activities, which could lead to growth in the Trusts’ assets and corresponding benefits from such growth, including economies of scale. The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by each Sub-Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trusts, including the opportunity to provide advisory services to additional portfolios of the Trusts and reputational benefits. In conjunction with these considerations, the Board noted the ongoing commitment of the Adviser to the Portfolios.

The Board considered possible conflicts of interest in the form of material benefits or detriments to the Trusts resulting from the nature of the Trusts’ and the Adviser’s or the Sub-Advisers’ affiliations and the services that are provided to the Trusts, and the manner in which such conflicts were mitigated.

*  *  *

Jennison Growth Portfolio. The Board also considered the following information in relation to the Agreements with the Adviser and Jennison Associates LLC regarding the Portfolio:

Among other data relating specifically to the Portfolio’s performance, the Board considered that the Portfolio outperformed the median of its Performance Universe and its Lipper Index for the three-year period ended June 30, 2016 and underperformed the median of its Performance Universe and its Lipper Index for the one- and five-year periods ended June 30, 2016. The Board further considered that the Portfolio underperformed its benchmark, the Russell 1000 Growth Index, for the one-, three-, and five-year periods ended October 31, 2016. The Board took into account management’s discussion of the Portfolio’s performance, including prevailing market conditions.

The Board also considered that the Portfolio’s actual management fees and total expenses (exclusive of 12b-l 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 asset-weighted average of certain comparable funds 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 and below the average of the Sub-advised Expense Universe at the Portfolio’s current size.

MSF-26

Metropolitan Series Fund

Jennison Growth Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Advisory Agreements

The separation (the “Separation”) of MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”), the investment adviser to each of the series (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”) of Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (collectively, the “Trusts”), from its parent company, MetLife, Inc. (“MetLife”), to a separate retail business, Brighthouse Financial, Inc. (“Brighthouse”), is expected to result in a change in control of the Adviser, and therefore an “assignment” of each Portfolio’s current advisory agreement (each a “Current Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “Current Advisory Agreements”). At the November 15-16, 2016 meeting (“November Meeting”) of the Board of Trustees of the Trusts (the “Board”), the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not “interested persons,” as defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940, of any Portfolio (the “Independent Trustees”), approved a new advisory agreement (each a “New Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “New Advisory Agreements”) between the Trusts, on behalf of a Portfolio, and the Adviser, to be effective upon the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements in connection with the Separation, and recommended that the shareholders of the Trusts approve the New Advisory Agreements. The Board took those actions after consideration of and deliberation over information concerning the Separation, including with respect to the degree to which the Separation would affect the provision of investment advisory services to the Trusts. Information about the Board’s considerations and process is set forth below.

In determining whether to approve the New Advisory Agreements and in considering the Separation, the Board considered the nature, quality and extent of the services that are currently provided by the Adviser under the Current Advisory Agreements as well as the services to be provided under the New Advisory Agreements. The Board’s review was conducted as part of, and in conjunction with, the Board’s annual review of the Current Advisory Agreements, which culminated at the November Meeting. In approving the New Advisory Agreements, the Board considered its conclusions with respect to its approvals of the Current Advisory Agreements, including the Board’s general satisfaction with the nature, extent and quality of services being provided by the Adviser to each Portfolio. Appendix A and Appendix B contains a further description of the process followed, information reviewed and the material factors considered by the Board in approving the continuation of the Current Advisory Agreements.

A substantial portion of the Board’s review of the New Advisory Agreements focused on the Separation, including the potential effect of the implementation of the Separation on the operations, personnel, organizational structure, capitalization, and financial and other resources of the Adviser. After being informed by the Adviser in January 2016 of the possibility of the Separation, the Board and its Committees discussed the Separation and its possible effects on the Trusts with personnel of the Adviser and the anticipated senior management at Brighthouse during the course of the Board’s or Committee’s regularly scheduled, in-person, quarterly meetings.

Between August and November 2016, the Board and the Independent Trustees engaged in an extensive review and analysis of the Separation and how the Separation related to the Adviser and the Trusts and how it could affect the services provided to the Trusts. This analysis focused on, among other matters, the assurances from Brighthouse’s anticipated leadership as to its expectations for the continuity and stability of the Adviser’s personnel throughout implementation of the Separation and for the foreseeable future thereafter. The Board considered that the Separation is being implemented as a result of MetLife’s determination to divest itself of a substantial portion of its U.S. retail business (of which the Adviser forms a portion). The Board also considered that it has been satisfied as a general matter with the nature and quality of the services that the Adviser provides to the Portfolios, including investment advisory, administrative, legal, compliance, and support services, and that it would be in the Portfolios’ best interests to maintain continuity and stability in the services that are currently being provided. The Board carefully considered the anticipated future plans of Brighthouse related to capitalization and operational matters for Brighthouse and the Adviser, as well as the importance of the Adviser to the businesses of Brighthouse after the Separation.

Among other steps in its review process, which accelerated on October 5, 2016 when Brighthouse filed its Form 10 with the SEC, the following actions were taken and considered by or on behalf of the Board:

1. The Independent Trustees solicited and received ongoing advice regarding the legal duties of the Independent Trustees from Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young LLP (“Stradley Ronon”), legal counsel for the Independent Trustees, which law firm has extensive experience regarding such matters.

2. Following the August 16-17, 2016 Board and Committee quarterly meetings, the Independent Trustees established an ad hoc group of Independent Trustees (the “Working Group”) to help oversee, coordinate, and conduct due diligence activities with respect to the Separation. The Working Group regularly reported on the due diligence activities to the other Independent Trustees.

3. Since January 2016, the Board posed ongoing inquiries to, and received regular updates from, the Adviser and anticipated senior management at Brighthouse at either in-person meetings dedicated to the status of the Separation or during the course of the Board or Committee’s regular quarterly meetings. The Board considered, among other matters, relevant legal guidance and the processes followed by certain other investment company boards of directors or trustees when they approved contracts in connection with change in control events, while recognizing the unique circumstances of the Separation.

MSF-27

Metropolitan Series Fund

Jennison Growth Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

4. The Board received and reviewed the Form 10 of Brighthouse that contained extensive information relating to, among other matters, Brighthouse’s anticipated business plans and financial structure. The Board also received and reviewed reports from rating agencies with respect to Brighthouse.

5. Stradley Ronon retained Barrington Partners (“Barrington”), an independent consulting firm with a specific focus on the asset management industry and experience relating to business operations such as those to be conducted by Brighthouse, including its proposed subsidiary, the Adviser, in order to help Stradley Ronon evaluate the Separation based on the Form 10 and other materials and related information provided by the Adviser and its affiliates. Barrington conducted a series of in-person and telephonic meetings with anticipated senior management at Brighthouse (i.e., the aforementioned anticipated officers of Brighthouse and others) and with personnel of the Adviser who provide services to the Trusts. Stradley Ronon, with the assistance of Barrington, evaluated the information and advised the Independent Trustees with respect to, among other matters, details of Brighthouse’s anticipated business plan to understand the implications of the Separation to the Adviser and its personnel. The Independent Trustees and the Working Group attended certain in-person and telephonic conference call meetings at which Barrington rendered advice to Stradley Ronon regarding these matters and responded to questions.

6. The Independent Trustees requested and participated in in-person meetings with anticipated senior management personnel at Brighthouse, including its President and Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, Chief Operating Officer, and Chief Investment Officer. The Independent Trustees also met with personnel of the Adviser.

7. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of Stradley Ronon, prepared written inquiries to the Adviser and its affiliates regarding the Separation, and received written assurances from the Adviser and its affiliates that they have no plans to make any material changes affecting the personnel of the Adviser (including those personnel who provide investment, administrative, legal and compliance services) and the Adviser and its affiliates will not initiate such changes without prior notice to and discussion with the Board.

8. The Board considered representations by the Adviser and its affiliates that approval of the New Advisory Agreements would be necessary for the Portfolios to continue receiving investment advisory services from the Adviser following the change in control.

9. The Board considered representations by the Adviser, as well as related supporting documentation, indicating that the New Advisory Agreements, including the fees payable thereunder, are substantially identical to the terms of the corresponding Current Advisory Agreements.

10. The Board considered representations by the Adviser and its affiliates, as well as related supporting documentation, indicating that: (1) the Adviser can be expected to provide services of the same nature, extent, and quality under the New Advisory Agreements and as are provided thereby under the Current Advisory Agreements; and (2) the Separation is not expected to result in any changes to (i) the management of the Portfolios, or (ii) the investment objective of or the principal investment strategies used to manage any of the Portfolios.

11. The Board considered the ability of the Adviser and its affiliates to retain the employment of key personnel, as well as the overall positive indications by many such personnel regarding the opportunities presented by the Separation.

12. The Board considered that the Adviser and its affiliates have agreed to bear all expenses associated with obtaining shareholder approval of the New Advisory Agreements.

13. The Board considered Brighthouse’s preliminary “branding” plans regarding the future name of its operations.

14. The Board considered the advice provided by Ropes & Gray, LLP, legal counsel to the Trusts and the Adviser, with respect to the New Advisory Agreements (including advice relating to the process and timing of seeking shareholder approval of the New Advisory Agreements, and whether shareholder approvals would be required in connection with any future aspects of the Separation) and regarding the Board’s role and responsibilities with respect to the Separation.

15. The Board considered MetLife’s stated intention of divesting its ownership interest in the Adviser through the Separation, including the potential advantages and disadvantages of this divestiture to shareholders of the Portfolios. The Board considered the likelihood that the Adviser would retain its key personnel after the Separation. The Board considered that the garnering of new assets into the Trusts is based on sales of variable annuity and variable life insurance products, which sales have declined in prior years as a result of, among other things, the capital requirements of MetLife. The Board considered the representations of the anticipated senior management of Brighthouse that the Separation provides the Trusts with an opportunity for the garnering of new assets as Brighthouse will likely sell such products going forward. The Board considered also that the divestiture would result in a change in the manner in

MSF-28

Metropolitan Series Fund

Jennison Growth Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

which the Trusts access certain services and resources of MetLife (after the Separation those services will be provided through a transition services agreement), the loss of affiliation with the MetLife name brand, and the possible going forward need of the Trusts to hire a transfer agent, as such transfer agency services are currently provided to the Trusts for no fee.

16. The Board considered that, if shareholders approve the New Advisory Agreements, the Board and the Adviser will conduct their annual contract review process in November 2017. Thus, the Board emphasized that it would be able to, and intends to, monitor on a regular basis the ability of the Adviser and its affiliates to comply with their undertakings to the Board and to monitor on an ongoing basis the quality of services to, and expenses of, the Portfolios. In addition, the Board considered that, under the New Advisory Agreements, it will continue to have the authority, should the need arise in its view, to terminate any of the New Advisory Agreements without penalty upon 60 days’ notice.

Based on the foregoing and other relevant considerations, at the November Meeting, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, voted to approve the New Advisory Agreements and to recommend approval of the New Advisory Agreements by shareholders of the Portfolios. In this connection, the Board concluded that, in light of all factors considered, the terms of the New Advisory Agreement, including fee rates, were fair and reasonable, and that it would be in the best interests of shareholders of each Portfolio to approve the New Advisory Agreements.

In the event that approval of the New Advisory Agreements by shareholders of the Portfolios has not been obtained before the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements as a result of the change in control of the Adviser, the Board also approved an interim advisory agreement with the Adviser (the “Interim Advisory Agreement”) on behalf of each Portfolio that will go into effect upon the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements. The Board’s determination to approve each Interim Advisory Agreement was based on the same information and considerations as the Board’s approval of the New Advisory Agreements so as to ensure continuity of advisory services from the Adviser to the Portfolios following the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements.

MSF-29

Metropolitan Series Fund

Jennison Growth Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Sub-Advisory Agreements

The separation (the “Separation”) of MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”), the investment adviser to each of the series (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”) of Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (collectively, the “Trusts”), from its parent company, MetLife, Inc. (“MetLife”), to a separate retail business, Brighthouse Financial, Inc. (“Brighthouse”), is expected to result in a change in control of the Adviser, and therefore an “assignment” of each Portfolio’s current advisory agreement and, as a result, the automatic termination of the sub-advisory agreement (each a “Sub-Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisory Agreements”) between the Adviser and the investment sub-advisers (each a “Sub-Adviser” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisers”). At the November 15-16, 2016 meeting (“November Meeting”) of the Board of Trustees of the Trusts (the “Board”), the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not “interested persons,” as defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940, of any Portfolio (the “Independent Trustees”), approved new sub-advisory agreements (each a “New Sub-Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “New Sub-Advisory Agreements”). Information about the Board’s considerations and process is set forth below.

In determining whether to approve the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, the Board considered the nature, quality and extent of the services that are currently provided by the Sub-Advisers under the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements as well as the services to be provided under the New Sub-Advisory Agreements. The Board’s review was conducted as part of, and in conjunction with, the Board’s annual review of the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements, which culminated at the November Meeting. In approving the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, the Board considered its conclusions with respect to its approvals of the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements, including the Board’s general satisfaction with the nature, extent and quality of services being provided by the Sub-Advisers to the Portfolios, as applicable. Appendix A contains a further description of the process followed, information reviewed and the material factors considered by the Board in approving the continuation of the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements.

In addition, the following actions were taken and considered by or on behalf of the Board:

1. The Independent Trustees of the Board solicited and received ongoing advice regarding the legal duties of the Independent Trustees from Stradley Ronon, legal counsel for the Independent Trustees, which law firm has extensive experience regarding such matters.

2. The Board considered representations by the Adviser and its affiliates that approval of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements would be necessary for the Portfolios to continue receiving sub-advisory services from the Sub-Advisers following the change in control of the Adviser.

3. The Board considered representations by the Adviser, as well as related supporting documentation, indicating that the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, including the fees payable thereunder, are the same as the terms of the corresponding Current Sub-Advisory Agreements.

4. The Board considered the advice provided by Ropes & Gray, LLP, legal counsel to the Trusts and the Adviser, with respect to the New Sub-Advisory Agreements and regarding the Board’s role and responsibilities with respect to the Separation.

5. The Board considered that the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers will conduct their annual contract review process in November 2017. Thus, the Board emphasized that it would be able to, and intends to, monitor on an ongoing basis the ability of the Sub-Advisers to comply with its undertakings to the Board and the Adviser and to monitor on an ongoing basis the quality of services to, and expenses of, the Portfolios. In addition, the Board considered that, under the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, it will continue to have the authority, should the need arise in its view, to terminate any of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements without penalty upon no more than 60 days’ notice.

Based on the foregoing and other relevant considerations, at the November Meeting, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, voted to approve the New Sub-Advisory Agreements. In this connection, the Board concluded that, in light of all factors considered, the terms of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, including fee rates, were fair and reasonable.

MSF-30

Metropolitan Series Fund

Loomis Sayles Small Cap Core Portfolio

Managed by Loomis, Sayles & Company, L.P.

Portfolio Manager Commentary*

PERFORMANCE

For the 12 months ended December 31, 2016, the Class A, B, and E shares of the Loomis Sayles Small Cap Core Portfolio returned 19.27%, 18.97%, and 19.09%, respectively. The Portfolio’s benchmark, the Russell 2000 Index¹, returned 21.31%.

MARKET ENVIRONMENT / CONDITIONS

Topped off by the post-election rally, 2016 was a strong performance year in absolute terms, with the small cap segment leading the market in the fourth quarter and for the year as a whole. The 21.3% annual return of the Russell 2000 Index compares to the 12.0% return of the large cap S&P 500 Index for the same period. Also worth noting is the market’s poor start to the year, as weak U.S. economic data points, fears of a premature tightening cycle by the Federal Reserve (the “Fed”), and a collapse in certain commodity prices resulted in a 15.9% decline in the Russell 2000 Index through the first 29 trading days of the year. Bond-like real estate investment trusts (“REITs”) and Utility stocks proved highly resilient during this initial downdraft, contributing to the wide lead value stocks achieved relative to growth stocks. By mid-February, economic data points in the U.S. improved, commentary from the Fed struck a more accommodative note, and deflationary fears subsided as commodity prices recovered. The market resumed a steady march higher through year-end, with only a brief downdraft in late June following the United Kingdom’s referendum vote on European Union membership (“Brexit”) and again in October as the U.S. presidential election approached. From the February 11, 2016 low, the Russell 2000 Index rallied 44.3% through year-end, while the large cap S&P 500 Index increased 24.8%. Market leadership in the initial stages of the rally pivoted away from REITs and Utilities into more economically sensitive sectors such as Energy, Materials, Information Technology, and Industrials. Post-election, small cap stocks extended their gains beyond other market segments, with the Energy and Financials sectors leading the way.

PORTFOLIO REVIEW / PERIOD END POSITIONING

The Loomis Sayles Small Cap Core Portfolio underperformed the Russell 2000 Index during the year; positive sector allocation was more than offset by negative stock selection. Relative to the Portfolio’s benchmark, stock selection in the Information Technology sector detracted from performance, as did the Materials sector. The Materials sector detracted due to the Portfolio’s underweight to, and strong performance in, the metal & mining stocks held in the Index. Underweighting the poor-performing biotechnology industry in the Health Care sector and overweighting the strong-performing Industrials sector helped, as did stock selection in both sectors.

The largest detractors to performance were Impax Laboratories, Demandware, and Acorda Therapies. Impax Labs is a technology based pharmaceutical company specializing in drug delivery and formulation. The company reported disappointing results driven largely by lower generic sales. The decline triggered our stop-loss and was sold during the period. Demandware provides e-commerce solutions by providing clients the ability to design, implement, and manage their own e-commerce sites. While the company reported quarterly earnings that surpassed Street estimates, 2016 guidance was left unchanged. However, given the market’s re-evaluation of growth stocks during the first three months of 2016, the stock’s steep decline triggered our stop-loss limit and was sold during the period. Acorda Therapeutics is a biotechnology company focused on developing therapies that restore function for people with neurological disorders. The stock declined as the company’s lead drug, Ampyra, was facing nine generic filings, as well as a review of its patents on the drug. The decline triggered our stop-loss and was sold during the period.

The Portfolio’s top contributors to performance were U.S. Silica Holdings, John Bean Technologies, and Advanced Energy Industries. U.S. Silica is a producer of industrial silica and sand proppants, used in a variety of oil & gas and industrial markets. The stock was added to the Portfolio in February, just before the market low point and prior to the resurgence in energy-related stocks. John Bean Technologies is a leading provider of food processing equipment and airport-related equipment. John Bean continues to successfully acquire leading companies in the protein and liquid foods processing industry. Advanced Energy Industries develops power and control technologies for the manufacture of semiconductors, flat panel displays, data storage products, solar cells, and architectural glass.

During the 12-month period, changes to the Portfolio were made to add new stocks with attractive investment potential and to eliminate holdings where valuation had exceeded our target levels or where fundamental trends strayed from our investment thesis. New positions included Camping World Holdings, the largest recreational vehicle retailer in the country; Cray, a leading designer and manufacturer of supercomputers primarily used by government and publically funded research institutions; Gulfport Energy Corporation, an owner and operator of oil and gas properties in the U.S., with significant acreage in the Utica Shale natural gas field in Eastern Ohio; and Dorman Products, a manufacturer of non-original equipment auto parts. Eliminations included Diamond Resorts International and Fleetmatics Group (Ireland), which were both acquisition targets. Other sales included Babcock & Wilcox Enterprises and New Media Investment Group on fundamental developments. EnerSys and Tenneco were eliminated into strength as both stocks had performed well and provided a source of funds for new ideas.

While we do not make major adjustments to the Portfolio based on near-term macroeconomic expectations, they are part of the mosaic of inputs and we can adjust position sizes to reflect our fundamental level of conviction and the risk/reward outlook. Sector weight changes during the 12-month period ending December 31, 2016 were modest, resulting in slight changes to the positioning of the Portfolio. As a result of individual stock selection, the Portfolio’s weight in the Consumer Discretionary, Health Care, and Information Technology sectors was reduced and the Portfolio’s weight to the Energy, Industrials, and Materials sectors increased. As always,

MSF-1

Metropolitan Series Fund

Loomis Sayles Small Cap Core Portfolio

Managed by Loomis, Sayles & Company, L.P.

Portfolio Manager Commentary*—(Continued)

our focus will remain on small cap companies where the stock price and valuation do not accurately reflect our assessment of the underlying value of the corporate enterprise, and we believe these kinds of opportunities are available in all market environments.

Mark Burns

John Slavik

Joe Gatz

Jeff Schwartz

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 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.

MSF-2

Metropolitan Series Fund

Loomis Sayles Small Cap Core Portfolio

A $10,000 INVESTMENT COMPARED TO THE RUSSELL 2000 INDEX

AVERAGE ANNUAL RETURNS (%) (FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2016)

	1 Year		5 Year		10 Year
Loomis Sayles Small Cap Core Portfolio
Class A		19.27		14.52		8.97
Class B		18.97		14.23		8.70
Class E		19.09		14.34		8.81
Russell 2000 Index		21.31		14.46		7.07

¹ The Russell 2000 Index is an unmanaged measure of performance of the 2,000 smallest companies in the Russell 3000 Index.

Portfolio performance is calculated including reinvestment of all income and capital gain distributions. Performance numbers are net of all Portfolio expenses but do not include any insurance, sales, separate account or administrative charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts or any additional expenses that participants may bear relating to the operations of their plans. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower. The performance of any index referenced above has not been adjusted for ongoing management, distribution and operating expenses, and sales charges applicable to mutual fund investments. Direct investment in any index is not possible. The performance of Class A shares, as set forth in the line graph above, will differ from that of other classes because of the difference in expenses paid by policyholders investing in the different share classes.

This information represents past performance and is not indicative of future results. Investment return and principal value may fluctuate so that shares, upon redemption, may be worth more or less than the original cost.

PORTFOLIO COMPOSITION AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2016

Top Holdings

	% of Net Assets
Pinnacle Financial Partners, Inc.		1.2
Littelfuse, Inc.		1.1
Chemical Financial Corp.		1.1
RBC Bearings, Inc.		1.1
Euronet Worldwide, Inc.		1.0
Wintrust Financial Corp.		1.0
Employers Holdings, Inc.		0.9
Iberiabank Corp.		0.8
First Financial Bancorp		0.8
Signature Bank		0.8

Top Sectors

	% of Net Assets
Financials		20.8
Information Technology		18.5
Industrials		17.8
Consumer Discretionary		15.1
Health Care		9.5
Real Estate		4.4
Energy		4.1
Materials		2.7
Consumer Staples		2.7
Utilities		1.4

MSF-3

Metropolitan Series Fund

Loomis Sayles Small 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, 2016 through December 31, 2016.

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.

Loomis Sayles Small Cap Core Portfolio		Annualized Expense Ratio			Beginning Account Value July 1, 2016		Ending Account Value December 31, 2016		Expenses Paid During Period** July 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016
Class A(a)	Actual		0.88	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,156.80	$	4.77
	Hypothetical*		0.88	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,020.71	$	4.47
Class B(a)	Actual		1.13	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,155.30	$	6.12
	Hypothetical*		1.13	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,019.46	$	5.74
Class E(a)	Actual		1.03	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,155.90	$	5.58
	Hypothetical*		1.03	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,019.96	$	5.23

* 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 366 (to reflect the one-half year period).

^(a) The annualized expense ratio shown reflects the impact of the management fee waiver as described in Note 5 of the Notes to Financial Statements.

MSF-4

Metropolitan Series Fund

Loomis Sayles Small Cap Core Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—97.6% of Net Assets

Security Description	Shares		Value
Aerospace & Defense—1.8%
Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings, Inc. (a)		81,921	$	1,470,482
BWX Technologies, Inc.		72,196		2,866,181
DigitalGlobe, Inc. (a)		76,205		2,183,273
Hexcel Corp. (b)		32,444		1,668,920
				8,188,856
Air Freight & Logistics—0.2%
Echo Global Logistics, Inc. (a)		37,269		933,588
Auto Components—2.6%
Adient plc (a)		27,753		1,626,326
Cooper Tire & Rubber Co.		38,074		1,479,175
Dorman Products, Inc. (a)		21,763		1,590,005
Fox Factory Holding Corp. (a)		51,365		1,425,378
Horizon Global Corp. (a)		86,870		2,084,880
LCI Industries		34,548		3,722,547
				11,928,311
Banks—14.6%
BancorpSouth, Inc.		89,585		2,781,614
Bank of the Ozarks, Inc.		57,069		3,001,259
Bryn Mawr Bank Corp.		71,718		3,022,914
Cathay General Bancorp		90,289		3,433,691
Chemical Financial Corp.		90,361		4,894,855
CVB Financial Corp.		142,216		3,261,013
First Financial Bancorp		135,728		3,861,462
First Financial Bankshares, Inc. (b)		41,971		1,897,089
Home BancShares, Inc.		109,626		3,044,314
Iberiabank Corp.		46,332		3,880,305
LegacyTexas Financial Group, Inc.		44,495		1,915,955
PacWest Bancorp		65,575		3,569,903
Pinnacle Financial Partners, Inc.		81,436		5,643,515
Popular, Inc.		75,510		3,308,848
PrivateBancorp, Inc.		21,061		1,141,295
Prosperity Bancshares, Inc.		49,310		3,539,472
Renasant Corp.		38,847		1,640,120
Signature Bank (a)		25,553		3,838,061
Texas Capital Bancshares, Inc. (a)		38,371		3,008,286
Triumph Bancorp, Inc. (a)		71,247		1,863,109
Wintrust Financial Corp.		61,820		4,486,277
				67,033,357
Beverages—0.3%
Cott Corp.		123,495		1,399,198
Biotechnology—1.0%
Acceleron Pharma, Inc. (a) (b)		26,860		685,467
Genomic Health, Inc. (a)		38,458		1,130,281
Ironwood Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a)		88,026		1,345,917
Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a) (b)		60,757		840,269
Prothena Corp. plc (a) (b)		14,209		698,941
				4,700,875
Building Products—2.3%
Apogee Enterprises, Inc. (b)		58,938		3,156,719
Building Products—(Continued)
Armstrong World Industries, Inc. (a)		43,018		1,798,152
Gibraltar Industries, Inc. (a)		28,273		1,177,571
Masonite International Corp. (a)		29,564		1,945,311
Patrick Industries, Inc. (a)		12,075		921,323
Trex Co., Inc. (a)		23,887		1,538,323
				10,537,399
Capital Markets—2.0%
Donnelley Financial Solutions, Inc. (a)		50,337		1,156,744
Financial Engines, Inc. (b)		44,666		1,641,475
Hercules Capital, Inc.		122,023		1,721,745
MarketAxess Holdings, Inc.		12,845		1,887,187
Stifel Financial Corp. (a)		53,544		2,674,523
				9,081,674
Chemicals—1.3%
AdvanSix, Inc. (a)		81,841		1,811,960
Cabot Corp.		33,522		1,694,202
Minerals Technologies, Inc.		33,085		2,555,816
				6,061,978
Commercial Services & Supplies—3.8%
Clean Harbors, Inc. (a)		26,285		1,462,760
Healthcare Services Group, Inc.		36,908		1,445,686
KAR Auction Services, Inc.		77,702		3,311,659
Kimball International, Inc. - Class B		81,822		1,436,794
Knoll, Inc.		28,418		793,715
LSC Communications, Inc.		52,572		1,560,337
RR Donnelley & Sons Co.		84,370		1,376,919
Team, Inc. (a)		37,727		1,480,785
Viad Corp.		66,814		2,946,498
West Corp.		65,591		1,624,033
				17,439,186
Communications Equipment—1.2%
ARRIS International plc (a)		64,351		1,938,896
Calix, Inc. (a)		61,432		473,026
Digi International, Inc. (a)		95,393		1,311,654
Viavi Solutions, Inc. (a)		197,588		1,616,270
				5,339,846
Construction & Engineering—1.5%
Argan, Inc.		11,343		800,249
Granite Construction, Inc.		33,760		1,856,800
MYR Group, Inc. (a)		20,652		778,167
Primoris Services Corp.		58,661		1,336,297
Quanta Services, Inc. (a)		61,747		2,151,883
				6,923,396
Construction Materials—0.7%
Summit Materials, Inc. - Class A (a)		62,578		1,488,731
U.S. Concrete, Inc. (a) (b)		26,382		1,728,021
				3,216,752

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-5

Metropolitan Series Fund

Loomis Sayles Small Cap Core Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Consumer Finance—0.3%
PRA Group, Inc. (a) (b)		40,694	$	1,591,135
Distributors—0.9%
Core-Mark Holding Co., Inc.		61,419		2,645,317
Pool Corp.		15,086		1,574,073
				4,219,390
Diversified Consumer Services—1.6%
Bright Horizons Family Solutions, Inc. (a)		27,211		1,905,314
DeVry Education Group, Inc.		35,003		1,092,094
Grand Canyon Education, Inc. (a)		28,770		1,681,606
Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Co. (a)		77,103		836,567
Nord Anglia Education, Inc. (a) (b)		74,352		1,732,402
				7,247,983
Diversified Financial Services—0.5%
FNFV Group (a)		160,467		2,198,398
Diversified Telecommunication Services—0.7%
Cogent Communications Holdings, Inc.		42,317		1,749,808
ORBCOMM, Inc. (a)		153,695		1,271,058
				3,020,866
Electric Utilities—0.8%
ALLETE, Inc.		55,503		3,562,738
Electrical Equipment—0.6%
AZZ, Inc.		15,920		1,017,288
Generac Holdings, Inc. (a)		37,970		1,546,898
				2,564,186
Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components—4.0%
Belden, Inc.		29,998		2,242,950
II-VI, Inc. (a)		63,939		1,895,791
IPG Photonics Corp. (a)		16,266		1,605,617
Kimball Electronics, Inc. (a)		23,162		421,548
Littelfuse, Inc.		34,223		5,194,025
Methode Electronics, Inc.		59,503		2,460,449
Orbotech, Ltd. (a)		39,042		1,304,393
Rogers Corp. (a)		16,434		1,262,296
VeriFone Systems, Inc. (a) (b)		38,737		686,807
Vishay Intertechnology, Inc. (b)		82,858		1,342,300
				18,416,176
Energy Equipment & Services—2.4%
Bristow Group, Inc. (b)		56,725		1,161,728
Dril-Quip, Inc. (a)		22,035		1,323,202
Forum Energy Technologies, Inc. (a)		45,309		996,798
Natural Gas Services Group, Inc. (a)		67,192		2,160,223
RPC, Inc. (b)		91,061		1,803,918
U.S. Silica Holdings, Inc.		67,138		3,805,382
				11,251,251
Equity Real Estate Investment Trusts—4.3%
American Campus Communities, Inc.		50,208		2,498,852
CubeSmart		106,311		2,845,945
CyrusOne, Inc. (b)		37,480		1,676,480
Hersha Hospitality Trust		75,629		1,626,024
Life Storage, Inc.		20,233		1,725,066
Mid-America Apartment Communities, Inc.		32,704		3,202,376
National Retail Properties, Inc.		42,345		1,871,649
Retail Opportunity Investments Corp.		164,831		3,482,879
Sabra Health Care REIT, Inc.		28,303		691,159
				19,620,430
Food & Staples Retailing—0.6%
SpartanNash Co.		69,016		2,728,893
Food Products—1.5%
Darling Ingredients, Inc. (a)		87,244		1,126,320
J&J Snack Foods Corp.		6,991		932,809
Post Holdings, Inc. (a)		39,728		3,193,734
Snyder’s-Lance, Inc.		40,407		1,549,204
				6,802,067
Health Care Equipment & Supplies—3.6%
AtriCure, Inc. (a)		32,242		630,976
Cynosure, Inc. - Class A (a)		56,110		2,558,616
Halyard Health, Inc. (a)		55,540		2,053,869
Inogen, Inc. (a)		27,825		1,869,005
Insulet Corp. (a) (b)		41,771		1,573,931
Integra LifeSciences Holdings Corp. (a) (b)		12,124		1,040,118
Merit Medical Systems, Inc. (a)		51,888		1,375,032
Neogen Corp. (a)		19,862		1,310,892
Nevro Corp. (a)		13,011		945,379
NxStage Medical, Inc. (a)		11,035		289,228
Spectranetics Corp. (The) (a) (b)		52,394		1,283,653
Wright Medical Group NV (a) (b)		71,760		1,649,045
				16,579,744
Health Care Providers & Services—1.6%
AMN Healthcare Services, Inc. (a)		39,861		1,532,655
Ensign Group, Inc. (The)		50,991		1,132,510
HealthEquity, Inc. (a)		49,217		1,994,273
PharMerica Corp. (a)		73,609		1,851,266
WellCare Health Plans, Inc. (a)		4,557		624,674
				7,135,378
Health Care Technology—0.4%
Evolent Health, Inc. - Class A (a) (b)		28,976		428,845
Medidata Solutions, Inc. (a)		31,811		1,580,052
				2,008,897
Hotels, Restaurants & Leisure—3.7%
Carrols Restaurant Group, Inc. (a)		91,367		1,393,347
Churchill Downs, Inc.		21,073		3,170,433
Chuy’s Holdings, Inc. (a)		42,999		1,395,318
Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. (b)		6,635		1,107,912

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-6

Metropolitan Series Fund

Loomis Sayles Small Cap Core Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Hotels, Restaurants & Leisure—(Continued)
Marriott Vacations Worldwide Corp.		34,539	$	2,930,634
Planet Fitness, Inc. - Class A (b)		70,970		1,426,497
Six Flags Entertainment Corp.		33,277		1,995,289
Texas Roadhouse, Inc.		18,293		882,454
Vail Resorts, Inc.		11,529		1,859,743
Wingstop, Inc. (b)		35,105		1,038,757
				17,200,384
Household Durables—1.2%
Helen of Troy, Ltd. (a)		24,675		2,083,804
Installed Building Products, Inc. (a)		29,657		1,224,834
iRobot Corp. (a) (b)		22,698		1,326,698
Universal Electronics, Inc. (a)		12,894		832,308
				5,467,644
Household Products—0.3%
HRG Group, Inc. (a)		82,704		1,286,874
Industrial Conglomerates—0.4%
Raven Industries, Inc.		73,899		1,862,255
Insurance—2.4%
Atlas Financial Holdings, Inc. (a)		34,991		631,588
Employers Holdings, Inc.		103,942		4,116,103
First American Financial Corp.		29,964		1,097,581
ProAssurance Corp.		45,299		2,545,804
Reinsurance Group of America, Inc.		21,990		2,767,002
				11,158,078
Internet & Direct Marketing Retail—1.2%
1-800-Flowers.com, Inc. - Class A (a)		145,517		1,557,032
HSN, Inc.		22,661		777,272
Liberty Expedia Holdings, Inc. - Class A (a)		28,384		1,125,993
Liberty Ventures - Series A (a)		60,890		2,245,015
				5,705,312
Internet Software & Services—2.7%
2U, Inc. (a)		45,075		1,359,011
CommerceHub, Inc. - Series C (a)		49,308		741,099
Criteo S.A. (ADR) (a) (b)		20,496		841,976
Envestnet, Inc. (a)		38,916		1,371,789
IAC/InterActiveCorp (a)		25,996		1,684,281
IntraLinks Holdings, Inc. (a)		59,382		802,844
LogMeIn, Inc.		18,205		1,757,693
Q2 Holdings, Inc. (a)		55,377		1,597,626
Quotient Technology, Inc. (a) (b)		65,113		699,965
Wix.com, Ltd. (a)		38,165		1,700,251
				12,556,535
IT Services—3.9%
Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corp.		80,913		2,918,532
CSG Systems International, Inc.		25,784		1,247,946
DST Systems, Inc.		24,972		2,675,750
EPAM Systems, Inc. (a)		10,593		681,236
Euronet Worldwide, Inc. (a)		66,297		4,801,892
IT Services—(Continued)
ExlService Holdings, Inc. (a)		18,059		910,896
InterXion Holding NV (a)		45,465		1,594,457
Perficient, Inc. (a)		29,345		513,244
WEX, Inc. (a)		22,459		2,506,424
				17,850,377
Life Sciences Tools & Services—1.7%
Accelerate Diagnostics, Inc. (a) (b)		39,315		815,786
Albany Molecular Research, Inc. (a) (b)		94,016		1,763,740
INC Research Holdings, Inc. - Class A (a)		32,220		1,694,772
PRA Health Sciences, Inc. (a)		28,107		1,549,258
VWR Corp. (a)		81,539		2,040,921
				7,864,477
Machinery—3.6%
Alamo Group, Inc.		18,612		1,416,373
Albany International Corp. - Class A		51,129		2,367,273
Altra Industrial Motion Corp.		18,279		674,495
Astec Industries, Inc.		25,183		1,698,845
John Bean Technologies Corp.		30,622		2,631,961
Middleby Corp. (The) (a)		12,114		1,560,405
RBC Bearings, Inc. (a)		52,121		4,837,350
Standex International Corp.		18,099		1,589,997
				16,776,699
Marine—0.3%
Kirby Corp. (a) (b)		21,828		1,451,562
Media—1.4%
EW Scripps Co. (The) - Class A (a) (b)		135,084		2,611,174
John Wiley & Sons, Inc. - Class A		40,041		2,182,234
National CineMedia, Inc.		108,662		1,600,591
				6,393,999
Metals & Mining—0.7%
Ferroglobe plc		141,548		1,532,965
Ferroglobe Representation & Warranty Insurance Trust (a) (d)		141,548		0
Haynes International, Inc.		42,162		1,812,544
				3,345,509
Multi-Utilities—0.6%
NorthWestern Corp.		50,004		2,843,727
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels—1.6%
Gulfport Energy Corp. (a)		69,147		1,496,341
PDC Energy, Inc. (a)		21,480		1,559,018
QEP Resources, Inc. (a)		95,244		1,753,442
Synergy Resources Corp. (a) (b)		308,833		2,751,702
				7,560,503
Pharmaceuticals—1.2%
Akorn, Inc. (a)		38,859		848,292
Catalent, Inc. (a)		58,046		1,564,920

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-7

Metropolitan Series Fund

Loomis Sayles Small Cap Core Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Pharmaceuticals—(Continued)
Dermira, Inc. (a) (b)		31,362	$	951,210
Medicines Co. (The) (a) (b)		26,626		903,686
Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a)		51,196		1,292,699
				5,560,807
Professional Services—1.4%
FTI Consulting, Inc. (a)		31,415		1,416,188
Insperity, Inc.		16,037		1,137,825
Korn/Ferry International		57,250		1,684,868
WageWorks, Inc. (a)		31,772		2,303,470
				6,542,351
Real Estate Management & Development—0.2%
HFF, Inc. - Class A		26,255		794,214
Road & Rail—1.1%
Avis Budget Group, Inc. (a)		27,857		1,021,795
Genesee & Wyoming, Inc. - Class A (a)		24,991		1,734,625
Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc. (a)		28,758		2,467,149
				5,223,569
Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment—3.6%
Advanced Energy Industries, Inc. (a)		42,178		2,309,246
Inphi Corp. (a)		37,191		1,659,462
Intersil Corp. - Class A		32,376		721,985
Mellanox Technologies, Ltd. (a)		39,201		1,603,321
MKS Instruments, Inc.		39,783		2,363,110
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc.		24,267		1,988,195
Semtech Corp. (a)		59,970		1,892,054
Silicon Laboratories, Inc. (a)		26,363		1,713,595
Teradyne, Inc.		98,211		2,494,559
				16,745,527
Software—2.9%
Blackbaud, Inc.		21,470		1,374,080
Callidus Software, Inc. (a)		74,635		1,253,868
CommVault Systems, Inc. (a)		22,094		1,135,632
Guidewire Software, Inc. (a)		36,245		1,787,966
HubSpot, Inc. (a)		12,816		602,352
RingCentral, Inc. - Class A (a)		62,764		1,292,938
Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. (a)		62,794		2,405,010
Ultimate Software Group, Inc. (The) (a)		11,091		2,022,444
Verint Systems, Inc. (a)		43,631		1,537,993
				13,412,283
Specialty Retail—1.7%
Barnes & Noble, Inc.		51,180		570,657
Camping World Holdings, Inc. - Class A (b)		42,697		1,391,495
Genesco, Inc. (a)		38,244		2,374,953
Monro Muffler Brake, Inc.		12,016		687,315
Sally Beauty Holdings, Inc. (a)		50,164		1,325,333
Tile Shop Holdings, Inc. (a)		77,091		1,507,129
				7,856,882
Security Description	Shares/ Principal Amount*		Value
Technology Hardware, Storage & Peripherals—0.2%
Cray, Inc. (a)		38,454		795,998
Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods—0.7%
Columbia Sportswear Co.		22,825		1,330,698
Oxford Industries, Inc.		11,870		713,743
Steven Madden, Ltd. (a)		36,684		1,311,453
				3,355,894
Thrifts & Mortgage Finance—1.0%
Essent Group, Ltd. (a)		43,720		1,415,216
Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corp. - Class C		33,757		1,933,263
OceanFirst Financial Corp.		38,586		1,158,738
				4,507,217
Trading Companies & Distributors—0.6%
Beacon Roofing Supply, Inc. (a)		28,497		1,312,857
SiteOne Landscape Supply, Inc. (a)		41,606		1,444,976
				2,757,833
Transportation Infrastructure—0.2%
Macquarie Infrastructure Corp.		9,411		768,879
Total Common Stocks (Cost $312,473,627)				449,377,337
Short-Term Investment—2.7%
Repurchase Agreement—2.7%
Fixed Income Clearing Corp. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/16 at 0.030% to be repurchased at $12,288,488 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $10,075,000 U.S. Treasury Bond at 8.500% due 02/15/20 with a value of $12,538,640.		12,288,447		12,288,447
Total Short-Term Investments (Cost $12,288,447)				12,288,447
Securities Lending Reinvestments (c)—7.3%
Certificates of Deposit—2.5%
Bank of Tokyo UFJ, Ltd., New York 1.121%, 02/28/17 (e)		600,000		600,012
Barclays New York 0.894%, 02/10/17 (e)		750,000		750,243
Chiba Bank, Ltd., New York 0.920%, 02/03/17		1,000,000		1,000,111
0.950%, 02/02/17		200,000		200,028
Credit Suisse AG New York 1.444%, 04/24/17 (e)		900,000		900,211
DG Bank New York 0.950%, 01/03/17		250,000		250,002
DNB NOR Bank ASA 1.130%, 07/28/17 (e)		300,000		299,947

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-8

Metropolitan Series Fund

Loomis Sayles Small Cap Core Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Securities Lending Reinvestments (c)—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Certificates of Deposit—(Continued)
DZ Bank AG New York 1.010%, 02/27/17		800,000	$	800,231
KBC Bank NV 1.000%, 01/04/17		250,000		250,000
KBC Brussells 1.050%, 01/27/17		400,000		400,076
Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen London Zero Coupon, 01/24/17		997,705		999,570
Mizuho Bank, Ltd., New York 1.336%, 05/17/17		300,000		299,971
1.361%, 04/26/17 (e)		1,000,000		999,949
Shizuoka Bank New York 0.840%, 01/03/17		500,000		500,002
Sumitomo Bank New York 1.212%, 06/05/17 (e)		1,500,000		1,499,970
Sumitomo Mitsui Trust Bank, Ltd., London 1.262%, 05/08/17 (e)		750,000		751,374
Sumitomo Mitsui Trust Bank, Ltd., New York 1.194%, 06/02/17 (e)		400,000		399,942
UBS, Stamford 1.084%, 05/12/17 (e)		300,000		299,977
Wells Fargo Bank San Francisco N.A. 1.231%, 04/26/17 (e)		300,000		300,084
1.264%, 10/26/17 (e)		300,000		300,205
				11,801,905
Commercial Paper—1.7%
Atlantic Asset Securitization LLC
0.720%, 01/03/17		249,715		249,980
1.040%, 02/03/17		697,877		699,389
Den Norske ASA 1.206%, 04/27/17 (e)		300,000		300,016
Erste Abwicklungsanstalt 1.014%, 03/10/17 (e)		500,000		500,003
HSBC plc 1.216%, 04/25/17 (e)		800,000		799,966
Kells Funding LLC 1.040%, 01/19/17		99,648		99,961
Macquarie Bank, Ltd. 0.930%, 01/19/17		997,623		999,383
National Australia Bank Ltd. 1.288%, 12/06/17 (e)		1,500,000		1,500,003
Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp., Ltd. 0.890%, 02/21/17		997,726		998,672
Sheffield Receivables Co. 1.050%, 01/06/17		249,315		249,967
Suncorp Metway, Ltd. 0.930%, 02/09/17		498,812		499,446
Victory Receivables Corp. 1.050%, 01/04/17		299,134		299,979
Westpac Banking Corp. 1.232%, 10/20/17 (e)		500,000		500,873
				7,697,638
Repurchase Agreements—2.8%
Citigroup Global Markets, Ltd. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/29/16 at 0.710% to be repurchased at $1,100,108 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $1,109,610 U.S. Treasury and Foreign Obligations with rates ranging from 1.750% - 2.750%, maturity dates ranging from 10/15/19 - 11/15/23, with a value of $1,122,000.		1,100,000		1,100,000
Deutsche Bank AG, London
Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/16 at 0.950% to be repurchased at $600,063 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $612,540 Foreign Obligations with rates ranging from 1.750% - 2.500%, maturity dates ranging from 09/05/19 - 11/20/24, with a value of $612,003.		600,000		600,000
Repurchase Agreement dated 12/15/16 - 12/30/16 at 1.050% to be repurchased at $2,000,802 on 01/03/17, collateralized by various Common Stock with a value of $2,223,110.		2,000,000		2,000,000
Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. Repurchase Agreement dated 10/18/16 at 1.110% to be repurchased at $1,004,193 on 03/03/17, collateralized by various Common Stock with a value of $1,100,000.		1,000,000		1,000,000
Goldman Sachs & Co. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/16 at 0.460% to be repurchased at $1,761,082 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $9,062,408 U.S. Government Agency Obligations with rates ranging from 2.000% - 10.500%, maturity dates ranging from 03/15/17 - 09/20/65, with a value of $1,796,211.		1,760,992		1,760,992
Macquarie Bank, Ltd. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/27/16 at 0.580% to be repurchased at $1,300,147 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $1,286,162 U.S. Treasury Obligations with rates ranging from 0.000% - 8.750%, maturity dates ranging from 01/05/17 - 05/15/46, with a value of $1,326,672.		1,300,000		1,300,000
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. Repurchase Agreement dated 10/26/16 at 1.160% to be repurchased at $201,025 on 04/03/17, collateralized by various Common Stock with a value of $220,000.		200,000		200,000
Pershing LLC Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/16 at 0.680% to be repurchased at $5,000,378 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $7,336,822 U.S. Government Agency Obligations with rates ranging from 0.625% - 11.018%, maturity dates ranging from 01/17/17 - 08/20/66, with a value of $5,100,000.		5,000,000		5,000,000
				12,960,992

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-9

Metropolitan Series Fund

Loomis Sayles Small Cap Core Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Securities Lending Reinvestments (c)—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Time Deposits—0.3%
OP Corporate Bank plc 1.010%, 01/04/17		400,000	$	400,000
1.200%, 01/23/17		500,000		500,000
Shinkin Central Bank 1.200%, 01/27/17		200,000		200,000
1.220%, 01/26/17		200,000		200,000
				1,300,000
Total Securities Lending Reinvestments (Cost $33,757,662)				33,760,535
Total Investments—107.6% (Cost $358,519,736) (f)				495,426,319
Other assets and liabilities (net)—(7.6)%				(35,161,070	)
Net Assets—100.0%			$	460,265,249

* Principal amount stated in U.S. dollars unless otherwise noted.

(a) Non-income producing security.

(b) All or a portion of the security was held on loan. As of December 31, 2016, the market value of securities loaned was $32,713,662 and the collateral received consisted of cash in the amount of $33,748,545. The cash collateral investments are disclosed in the Schedule of Investments and categorized as Securities Lending Reinvestments.

(c) Represents investment of cash collateral received from securities on loan as of December 31, 2016.

(d) Illiquid security. As of December 31, 2016, these securities represent 0.0% of net assets.

(e) Variable or floating rate security. The stated rate represents the rate at December 31, 2016.

(f) As of December 31, 2016, the aggregate cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was $358,426,527. The aggregate unrealized appreciation and depreciation of investments were $145,563,062 and $(8,563,270), respectively, resulting in net unrealized appreciation of $136,999,792 for federal income tax purposes.

(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.

Fair Value Hierarchy

Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) define 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, separately for each major category of assets and liabilities, 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, quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities 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, or other market corroborated inputs)

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 used in determining the fair value of investments and derivative financial instruments)

The inputs or methodologies used for valuing investments are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in them. Changes to the inputs or methodologies used may result in transfers between levels, which 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, 2016:

Description	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
Common Stocks
Aerospace & Defense	$	8,188,856	$	—	$	—	$	8,188,856
Air Freight & Logistics		933,588		—		—		933,588
Auto Components		11,928,311		—		—		11,928,311
Banks		67,033,357		—		—		67,033,357
Beverages		1,399,198		—		—		1,399,198
Biotechnology		4,700,875		—		—		4,700,875
Building Products		10,537,399		—		—		10,537,399
Capital Markets		9,081,674		—		—		9,081,674
Chemicals		6,061,978		—		—		6,061,978
Commercial Services & Supplies		17,439,186		—		—		17,439,186
Communications Equipment		5,339,846		—		—		5,339,846

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-10

Metropolitan Series Fund

Loomis Sayles Small Cap Core Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Fair Value Hierarchy—(Continued)

Description	Level 1		Level 2			Level 3		Total
Construction & Engineering	$	6,923,396	$	—		$	—	$	6,923,396
Construction Materials		3,216,752		—			—		3,216,752
Consumer Finance		1,591,135		—			—		1,591,135
Distributors		4,219,390		—			—		4,219,390
Diversified Consumer Services		7,247,983		—			—		7,247,983
Diversified Financial Services		2,198,398		—			—		2,198,398
Diversified Telecommunication Services		3,020,866		—			—		3,020,866
Electric Utilities		3,562,738		—			—		3,562,738
Electrical Equipment		2,564,186		—			—		2,564,186
Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components		18,416,176		—			—		18,416,176
Energy Equipment & Services		11,251,251		—			—		11,251,251
Equity Real Estate Investment Trusts		19,620,430		—			—		19,620,430
Food & Staples Retailing		2,728,893		—			—		2,728,893
Food Products		6,802,067		—			—		6,802,067
Health Care Equipment & Supplies		16,579,744		—			—		16,579,744
Health Care Providers & Services		7,135,378		—			—		7,135,378
Health Care Technology		2,008,897		—			—		2,008,897
Hotels, Restaurants & Leisure		17,200,384		—			—		17,200,384
Household Durables		5,467,644		—			—		5,467,644
Household Products		1,286,874		—			—		1,286,874
Industrial Conglomerates		1,862,255		—			—		1,862,255
Insurance		11,158,078		—			—		11,158,078
Internet & Direct Marketing Retail		5,705,312		—			—		5,705,312
Internet Software & Services		12,556,535		—			—		12,556,535
IT Services		17,850,377		—			—		17,850,377
Life Sciences Tools & Services		7,864,477		—			—		7,864,477
Machinery		16,776,699		—			—		16,776,699
Marine		1,451,562		—			—		1,451,562
Media		6,393,999		—			—		6,393,999
Metals & Mining		3,345,509		0			—		3,345,509
Multi-Utilities		2,843,727		—			—		2,843,727
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels		7,560,503		—			—		7,560,503
Pharmaceuticals		5,560,807		—			—		5,560,807
Professional Services		6,542,351		—			—		6,542,351
Real Estate Management & Development		794,214		—			—		794,214
Road & Rail		5,223,569		—			—		5,223,569
Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment		16,745,527		—			—		16,745,527
Software		13,412,283		—			—		13,412,283
Specialty Retail		7,856,882		—			—		7,856,882
Technology Hardware, Storage & Peripherals		795,998		—			—		795,998
Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods		3,355,894		—			—		3,355,894
Thrifts & Mortgage Finance		4,507,217		—			—		4,507,217
Trading Companies & Distributors		2,757,833		—			—		2,757,833
Transportation Infrastructure		768,879		—			—		768,879
Total Common Stocks		449,377,337		0			—		449,377,337
Total Short-Term Investment*		—		12,288,447			—		12,288,447
Total Securities Lending Reinvestments*		—		33,760,535			—		33,760,535
Total Investments	$	449,377,337	$	46,048,982		$	—	$	495,426,319
Collateral for Securities Loaned (Liability)	$	—	$	(33,748,545	)	$	—	$	(33,748,545	)

* See Schedule of Investments for additional detailed categorizations.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-11

Metropolitan Series Fund

Loomis Sayles Small Cap Core Portfolio

Statement of Assets and Liabilities

December 31, 2016

Assets
Investments at value (a) (b)	$	495,426,319
Receivable for:
Investments sold		952,479
Fund shares sold		42,184
Dividends and interest		502,291
Prepaid expenses		1,194
Total Assets		496,924,467
Liabilities
Due to custodian		23,641
Collateral for securities loaned		33,748,545
Payables for:
Investments purchased		1,371,122
Fund shares redeemed		975,551
Accrued Expenses:
Management fees		322,138
Distribution and service fees		39,748
Deferred trustees’ fees		92,010
Other expenses		86,463
Total Liabilities		36,659,218
Net Assets	$	460,265,249
Net Assets Consist of:
Paid in surplus	$	292,037,556
Undistributed net investment income		1,146,544
Accumulated net realized gain		30,174,566
Unrealized appreciation on investments		136,906,583
Net Assets	$	460,265,249
Net Assets
Class A	$	261,903,512
Class B		167,501,933
Class E		30,859,804
Capital Shares Outstanding*
Class A		967,257
Class B		647,174
Class E		116,973
Net Asset Value, Offering Price and Redemption Price Per Share
Class A	$	270.77
Class B		258.82
Class E		263.82

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

(a) Identified cost of investments was $358,519,736.

(b) Includes securities loaned at value of $32,713,662.

Statement of Operations

Year Ended December 31, 2016

Investment Income
Dividends (a)	$	5,158,355
Interest		3,068
Securities lending income		462,684
Other income (b)		49,555
Total investment income		5,673,662
Expenses
Management fees		3,806,996
Administration fees		13,916
Custodian and accounting fees		36,201
Distribution and service fees—Class B		389,825
Distribution and service fees—Class E		42,588
Audit and tax services		42,040
Legal		33,061
Trustees’ fees and expenses		45,248
Shareholder reporting		65,815
Insurance		2,962
Miscellaneous		13,888
Total expenses		4,492,540
Less management fee waiver		(323,000	)
Less broker commission recapture		(31,214	)
Net expenses		4,138,326
Net Investment Income		1,535,336
Net Realized and Unrealized Gain
Net realized gain on investments		29,731,611
Net change in unrealized appreciation on investments		44,701,960
Net realized and unrealized gain		74,433,571
Net Increase in Net Assets From Operations	$	75,968,907

(a) Net of foreign withholding taxes of $10,831.

(b) Other income represents a non-recurring refund for overbilling of prior years’ custodian out-of-pocket fees.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-12

Metropolitan Series Fund

Loomis Sayles Small Cap Core Portfolio

Statements of Changes in Net Assets

	Year Ended December 31, 2016			Year Ended December 31, 2015
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets:
From Operations
Net investment income	$	1,535,336		$	1,527,197
Net realized gain		29,731,611			38,574,497
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation)		44,701,960			(45,754,988	)
Increase (decrease) in net assets from operations		75,968,907			(5,653,294	)
From Distributions to Shareholders
Net investment income
Class A		(785,353	)		(410,528	)
Class B		(107,250	)		0
Class E		(47,516	)		0
Net realized capital gains
Class A		(21,737,937	)		(33,473,512	)
Class B		(14,860,492	)		(22,594,510	)
Class E		(2,652,217	)		(4,206,020	)
Total distributions		(40,190,765	)		(60,684,570	)
Increase (decrease) in net assets from capital share transactions		(3,980,889	)		12,317,502
Total increase (decrease) in net assets		31,797,253			(54,020,362	)
Net Assets
Beginning of period		428,467,996			482,488,358
End of period	$	460,265,249		$	428,467,996
Undistributed net investment income
End of period	$	1,146,544		$	1,142,084

Other Information:

Capital Shares

Transactions in capital shares were as follows:

	Year Ended December 31, 2016						Year Ended December 31, 2015
	Shares			Value			Shares			Value
Class A
Sales		21,038		$	5,240,084			20,619		$	5,635,743
Reinvestments		96,584			22,523,290			123,750			33,884,040
Redemptions		(113,164	)		(27,833,327	)		(109,032	)		(30,222,315	)
Net increase		4,458		$	(69,953	)		35,337		$	9,297,468
Class B
Sales		29,994		$	6,988,544			27,469		$	7,213,722
Reinvestments		67,057			14,967,742			85,871			22,594,510
Redemptions		(105,996	)		(25,281,449	)		(98,258	)		(26,602,537	)
Net increase (decrease)		(8,945	)	$	(3,325,163	)		15,082		$	3,205,695
Class E
Sales		2,454		$	610,403			3,749		$	993,154
Reinvestments		11,872			2,699,733			15,718			4,206,020
Redemptions		(16,210	)		(3,895,909	)		(19,817	)		(5,384,835	)
Net decrease		(1,884	)	$	(585,773	)		(350	)	$	(185,661	)
Increase (decrease) derived from capital shares transactions				$	(3,980,889	)				$	12,317,502

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-13

Metropolitan Series Fund

Loomis Sayles Small Cap Core Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class A
	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014			2013			2012
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	250.78		$	290.12		$	322.61		$	250.37		$	224.06
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (a)		1.15	(b)		1.19			0.91			0.53			1.56
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		43.25			(2.32	)		8.06			94.94			30.73
Total from investment operations		44.40			(1.13	)		8.97			95.47			32.29
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.85	)		(0.46	)		(0.14	)		(1.29	)		0.00
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(23.56	)		(37.75	)		(41.32	)		(21.94	)		(5.98	)
Total distributions		(24.41	)		(38.21	)		(41.46	)		(23.23	)		(5.98	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	270.77		$	250.78		$	290.12		$	322.61		$	250.37
Total Return (%) (c)		19.27			(1.50	)		3.76			41.04			14.55
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Gross ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.96			0.96			0.96			0.95			0.97
Net ratio of expenses to average net assets (%) (d)		0.88			0.88			0.88			0.88			0.89
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		0.47	(b)		0.43			0.31			0.19			0.65
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		34			36			35			36			38
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	261.9		$	241.5		$	269.1		$	286.0		$	222.5
	Class B
	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014			2013			2012
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	240.67		$	280.08		$	313.49		$	243.89		$	218.94
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (loss) (a)		0.51	(b)		0.48			0.18			(0.18	)		0.96
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		41.37			(2.14	)		7.73			92.38			29.97
Total from investment operations		41.88			(1.66	)		7.91			92.20			30.93
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.17	)		0.00			0.00			(0.66	)		0.00
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(23.56	)		(37.75	)		(41.32	)		(21.94	)		(5.98	)
Total distributions		(23.73	)		(37.75	)		(41.32	)		(22.60	)		(5.98	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	258.82		$	240.67		$	280.08		$	313.49		$	243.89
Total Return (%) (c)		18.97			(1.74	)		3.50			40.68			14.27
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Gross ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		1.21			1.21			1.21			1.20			1.22
Net ratio of expenses to average net assets (%) (d)		1.13			1.13			1.13			1.13			1.14
Ratio of net investment income (loss) to average net assets (%)		0.22	(b)		0.18			0.06			(0.07	)		0.41
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		34			36			35			36			38
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	167.5		$	157.9		$	179.5		$	190.1		$	151.2

Please see following page for Financial Highlights footnote legend.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-14

Metropolitan Series Fund

Loomis Sayles Small Cap Core Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class E
	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014			2013			2012
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	244.89		$	284.11		$	317.10		$	246.44		$	220.96
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (a)		0.76	(b)		0.76			0.46			0.09			1.18
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		42.15			(2.23	)		7.87			93.41			30.28
Total from investment operations		42.91			(1.47	)		8.33			93.50			31.46
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.42	)		0.00			0.00			(0.90	)		0.00
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(23.56	)		(37.75	)		(41.32	)		(21.94	)		(5.98	)
Total distributions		(23.98	)		(37.75	)		(41.32	)		(22.84	)		(5.98	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	263.82		$	244.89		$	284.11		$	317.10		$	246.44
Total Return (%) (c)		19.09			(1.64	)		3.60			40.83			14.38
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Gross ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		1.11			1.11			1.11			1.10			1.12
Net ratio of expenses to average net assets (%) (d)		1.03			1.03			1.03			1.03			1.04
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		0.31	(b)		0.28			0.16			0.03			0.50
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		34			36			35			36			38
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	30.9		$	29.1		$	33.9		$	38.3		$	33.1

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

(b) Net investment income per share and the ratio of net investment income to average net assets include a non-recurring refund for overbilling of prior years’ custodian out-of-pocket fees which amounted to $0.03 per share and 0.01% of average net assets, respectively.

(c) Total return does not reflect any insurance, sales, separate account or administrative charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts or any additional expenses that contract owners may bear under their variable contracts. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower.

(d) Includes the effects of management fee waivers (see Note 5 of the Notes to Financial Statements).

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-15

Metropolitan Series Fund

Loomis Sayles Small Cap Core Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016

1. Organization

Metropolitan Series Fund (the “Trust”) is organized as a Delaware statutory trust and registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), as an open-end management investment company. The Trust, which is managed by MetLife Advisers, LLC (“MetLife Advisers” or the “Adviser”), an affiliate of MetLife, Inc., is currently comprised of thirty series, each of which operates as a distinct investment vehicle of the Trust. The portfolio included in this report is Loomis Sayles Small 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 Company (“MetLife”) and other affiliated life insurance companies.

On January 12, 2016, MetLife, Inc. announced its plan to pursue the separation of a substantial portion of its retail segment and is currently evaluating structural alternatives for such separation. It is anticipated that MetLife Advisers would be included in any such separation. Any separation transaction that might occur will be subject to the satisfaction of various conditions and approvals, including approval of any transaction by the MetLife, Inc. Board of Directors, satisfaction of any applicable requirements of the SEC, and receipt of insurance and other regulatory approvals and other anticipated conditions. MetLife, Inc. cannot currently provide a specific potential completion date for a separation transaction or any assurance that a separation will in fact occur. MetLife Advisers’ continued service as investment adviser to the Trusts following a separation transaction is the subject of a proxy statement that was filed with the SEC on December 20, 2016 and mailed to shareholders of the Portfolio on or about December 30, 2016.

The Portfolio has registered and offers three classes of shares: Class A, B and E shares. 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 plan and such distribution expenses are allocated to the corresponding Class of shares.

2. Significant Accounting Policies

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities as of the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of income and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates. In the preparation of these financial statements, management has evaluated events and transactions subsequent to December 31, 2016 through the date the financial statements were issued.

The Portfolio is an investment company and follows the accounting and reporting guidance of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Accounting Standards Codification Topic 946—Financial Services—Investment Companies and Topic 820—Fair Value Measurement. 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 - Domestic and foreign equity securities, such as common stock, exchange-traded funds, rights, warrants, and preferred stock, that are traded on a securities exchange on a valuation date are generally valued at their last quoted sale price or official closing price on the primary exchange for such security, or, if no sales occurred on that day, at the last reported bid price. Equity securities traded over-the-counter (“OTC”) are generally valued at the last reported bid price. In the event of a major exchange closing during the trading day, the Adviser may use other market information obtained from quotation reporting systems, established market makers, or pricing services in valuing the securities. Valuation adjustments may be applied to certain foreign equity securities that are traded solely on foreign exchanges that close before the time as of which the Portfolio determines its NAV to account for the market movement between the close of the foreign exchanges and the time as of which the Portfolio determines its NAV. The Portfolio may use a systematic fair valuation model provided by a pricing service to value securities principally traded in these foreign markets in order to adjust for possible market movements or other changes that may occur between the close of the foreign exchanges and the time as of which the Portfolio determines its NAV. Foreign equity securities valued using these valuation adjustments are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy. Equity securities that are actively traded, and have no valuation adjustments applied, are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other equity securities traded on inactive markets, or valued in reference to similar instruments traded on active markets, 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 on the valuation date and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy.

Debt securities, including corporate, convertible and municipal bonds and notes; obligations of the U.S. Treasury and U.S. government agencies; foreign sovereign issues; and non-U.S. bonds, are generally valued on the basis of evaluated or composite bid quotations

MSF-16

Metropolitan Series Fund

Loomis Sayles Small Cap Core Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

obtained from independent pricing services and/or brokers and dealers selected by the Adviser (each a “pricing service”), pursuant to authorization of and subject to general oversight by the Board of Trustees of the Trust (the “Board” or “Trustees”). Such pricing services may use matrix pricing, which considers observable inputs including, among other things, issuer details, maturity dates, interest rates, yield curves, rates of prepayment, credit risks/spreads, default rates, reported trades, broker dealer quotes and quoted prices for similar assets. Short-term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less may be valued at amortized cost in the absence of market quotes, so long as the amortized cost value of such short-term debt instrument is approximately the same as the fair value of the instrument as determined without the use of amortized cost valuation. Floating rate loans are generally valued on the basis of an evaluated or composite average of aggregate bid and ask quotations supplied by brokers or dealers, as obtained from the pricing service. Securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally 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 sale price available as of the close of business on a valuation day or, if there is no such price available, at the last reported bid price. These types of options are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Futures contracts that are traded on commodity exchanges are valued at their settlement prices established by the exchanges on which they are traded as of the close of such exchanges and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy.

If no current market value quotation or other observable inputs are readily available or market value quotations are deemed to be unreliable for an investment, the fair value of the investment will be determined in accordance with procedures approved by, and under the general supervision of, the Board. In such a circumstance, the Board will be assisted in its responsibility to determine the fair value of an investment by the Valuation Committee (“Committee”) of MetLife Advisers. The Committee provides general pricing oversight and fair value pricing determinations related to portfolio securities and meets on a regular basis to review reports relating to the valuation of the securities in the Portfolio. The Board has delegated to State Street Bank and Trust Company, the Trust’s custodian (“custodian”), the responsibility for calculating the net asset values (“NAVs”) of the Trust’s Portfolios. The Committee is responsible for overseeing the calculation of the NAVs of the Portfolios by the custodian. The Committee also periodically reviews pricing services, including the pricing services providing fair value pricing for the Portfolio’s foreign securities, and is responsible for overseeing the correction of pricing errors and addressing other pricing issues that arise in the ordinary course of business, such as making real-time fair value determinations, as necessary.

No single standard for determining the fair value of an investment can be set forth because fair value depends upon the facts and circumstances with respect to each investment. Information relating to any relevant factors may be obtained by the Committee from any appropriate source, including the subadviser of the Portfolio, the custodian, a pricing service, market maker and/or broker for such security or the issuer. Appropriate methodologies for determining fair value under particular circumstances may include: matrix pricing, a discounted cash flow analysis, comparisons of securities with comparable characteristics, value based on multiples of earnings, discount from market price of similar marketable securities or a combination of these and other methods.

Due to Custodian - Pursuant to the custodian agreement, State Street Bank and Trust Company (SSBT) may, in its discretion, advance funds to the Portfolio to make properly authorized payments. When such payments result in an overdraft, the Portfolio obligated to repay SSBT at the current rate of interest charged by SSBT for secured loans (currently, the Federal Funds rate plus 2%). This obligation is payable on demand to SSBT. SSBT has a lien on a Portfolio’s assets to the extent of any overdraft. At December 31, 2016, the Portfolio had a payment due to SSBT pursuant to the foregoing arrangement of $23,641. Based on the short-term nature of these payments and the variable interest rate, the carrying value of the overdraft advances approximated its fair value at December 31, 2016. If measured at fair value, overdraft advances would have been considered as Level 2 in the fair value hierarchy at December 31, 2016. The Portfolio’s average overdraft advances during the year ended December 31, 2016 were not significant.

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 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. These foreign taxes have been provided for in accordance with the Portfolio’s understanding of the applicable countries’ tax rules and rates.

Dividends and Distributions to Shareholders - The Portfolio records dividends and distributions on the ex-dividend date. Net realized gains from securities 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, adjustments to prior period accumulated balances, distribution re-designations and real estate investment trust (REIT) adjustments. These adjustments have no impact on net assets or the results of operations.

MSF-17

Metropolitan Series Fund

Loomis Sayles Small Cap Core Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

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 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. As of December 31, 2016, the Portfolio had no uncertain tax positions that would require financial statement recognition, or de-recognition or disclosure.

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 net ratio of expenses to average net assets presented in the Financial Highlights for each share class.

Repurchase Agreements - The Portfolio may enter into repurchase agreements, under the terms of a Master Repurchase Agreement (“MRA”), 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, under a tri-party repurchase agreement, receives delivery of the underlying securities collateralizing any repurchase agreements. It is the Portfolio’s policy that the market value of the collateral be equal to at least 100% of the repurchase price in the case of a repurchase agreement of one-day duration and equal to at least 102% of the repurchase price in the case of all other repurchase agreements. In the event of default or failure by a party to perform an obligation in connection with any repurchase transaction, the MRA gives the non-defaulting party the right to set-off claims and to apply property held by it in connection with any repurchase transaction against obligations owed to it.

At December 31, 2016, the Portfolio had direct investments in repurchase agreements with a gross value of $12,288,447. Additionally, the Portfolio invested cash collateral for loans of portfolio securities in repurchase agreements with a gross value of $12,960,992. The combined value of all repurchase agreements is included as part of investments at value on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. The value of the related collateral exceeded the value of the repurchase agreements at December 31, 2016.

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 collateral held from securities on loan. 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.

Effective September 8, 2016, the Trust has entered into a Non-Custodial Securities Lending Agreement with JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (the “lending agent”). Prior to September 8, 2016, the Trust had entered into a Securities Lending Authorization Agreement with the custodian (the “prior lending agent”). Under each agreement, the lending agent is authorized to loan portfolio securities on the Portfolio’s behalf. In exchange, the Portfolio receives either cash or government securities as collateral against the loaned securities. The Portfolio receives collateral equal to at least 102% of the market value for loans secured by government securities or cash in the same currency as the loaned shares and 105% for all other loaned securities at each loan’s inception. Collateral representing at least 100% of the market value of the loaned securities is maintained for the duration of the loan. Any cash collateral received by the Portfolio is generally invested by the lending agent in short-term investments, which may include certificates of deposit, commercial paper, repurchase agreements, time deposits and money market funds. Cash collateral that was received by the prior lending agent had been generally invested in the State Street Navigator Securities Lending MET Portfolio (the “Navigator Portfolio”), a series of the State Street Navigator Securities Lending Trust that was a registered money market fund managed by an affiliate of the custodian. The market value of investments made with cash collateral received are disclosed in the Schedule of Investments and the valuation techniques are described in Note 2. 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 is 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 is equal to at least 100% of the market value of all the loaned securities as of such preceding day. A portion of the income earned on the collateral is rebated to the borrower of the securities and the remainder is split between the lending agent and the Portfolio. On loans collateralized by government securities, a fee is received from the borrower and is allocated between the Portfolio and the lending agent.

Income received by the Portfolio in securities lending transactions during the year ended December 31, 2016 is reflected as securities lending income on the Statement of Operations. The values of any securities loaned by the Portfolio and the related collateral at December 31, 2016 are disclosed in the footnotes to the Schedule of Investments. The value of the related collateral received by the Portfolio exceeded the value of the securities out on loan at December 31, 2016.

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

MSF-18

Metropolitan Series Fund

Loomis Sayles Small Cap Core Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

loss in the value of the collateral or the value of the investments made with the collateral. The lending agent shall indemnify the Portfolio in the case of default of any securities borrower, subject to the terms of the Non-Custodial Securities Lending Agreement.

All securities on loan are classified as Common Stocks in the Portfolio’s Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016, with a contractual maturity of overnight and continuous.

3. Certain Risks

In the normal course of business, the Portfolio invests in securities and enters into transactions where risks exist. Those risks include:

Market 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, interest rate, and price fluctuations.

Credit and Counterparty Risk: 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 and counterparty risk consist principally of cash due from counterparties and investments. The Portfolio manages counterparty risk by entering into agreements only with counterparties that it believes have the financial resources to honor their obligations and by monitoring the financial stability of those counterparties. The Portfolio’s investment adviser attempts to mitigate counterparty risk by (i) periodically assessing the creditworthiness of its trading partners, (ii) monitoring and/or limiting the amount of its net exposure to each individual counterparty based on its assessment, and (iii) requiring collateral from the counterparty for certain transactions. In order to preserve certain safeguards for non-standard settlement trades, the Portfolio restricts its exposure to credit and counterparty losses by entering into master netting agreements (“Master Agreements”) with counterparties (approved brokers) with whom it undertakes a significant volume of transactions. Master Agreements govern the terms of certain transactions, and reduce the counterparty risk associated with relevant transactions by specifying credit protection mechanisms and providing standardization that improves legal certainty. Master Agreements can also help limit counterparty risk by specifying collateral posting arrangements at pre-arranged exposure levels.

Repurchase and reverse repurchase agreements are primarily executed under Global Master Repurchase Agreements (“GMRAs”) or Master Repurchase Agreements (“MRAs”), which provide the rights to set-off. Each repurchase and reverse repurchase agreement is initially collateralized at the transaction level. In the event of default, the total market value exposure will be offset against collateral exchanged to date, which would result in a net receivable/(payable) that would be due from/to the counterparty.

Additional risks associated with each type of investment are described above within the respective security type notes. The Portfolio’s prospectus includes a discussion of the principal risks of investing in the Portfolio.

4. Investment Transactions

Aggregate cost of purchases and proceeds of sales of investment securities, excluding short-term securities, for the year ended December 31, 2016 were as follows:

Purchases			Sales
U.S. Government	Non U.S. Government		U.S. Government		Non U.S. Government
$0	$	143,372,015	$	0	$	189,255,449

5. Investment Management Fees and Other Transactions with Affiliates

Investment Management Agreement - MetLife Advisers is the investment adviser to the Portfolio. The Trust has entered into an investment management agreement with MetLife Advisers with respect to the Portfolio. For providing investment management services to the Portfolio, MetLife Advisers receives monthly compensation at the following annual rates:

Management Fees earned by MetLife Advisers for the year ended December 31, 2016	% per annum			Average Daily Net Assets
$3,806,996		0.900	%	Of the first $500 million
		0.850	%	On amounts in excess of $500 million

MetLife Advisers has entered into an investment subadvisory agreement with respect to managing the Portfolio. Loomis, Sayles & Company, L.P. is compensated by MetLife Advisers to provide subadvisory services for the Portfolio.

MSF-19

Metropolitan Series Fund

Loomis Sayles Small Cap Core Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

Management Fee Waivers - Pursuant to an expense agreement, MetLife Advisers has agreed, for the period May 1, 2016 to April 30, 2017, to reduce its advisory fees set out above under “Investment Management Agreement” for each class of the Portfolio as follows:

% per annum	Average Daily Net Assets
0.050%	Of the first $200 million
0.100%	On the next $300 million
0.050%	On amounts in excess of $500 million

An identical expense agreement was in place for the period May 1, 2015 to April 30, 2016. Amounts waived for the year ended December 31, 2016 are shown as management fee waivers in the Statement of Operations.

Certain officers and trustees of the Trust may also be officers of MetLife Advisers; 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 and Service Fees - The Trust has a distribution agreement with MetLife Investors Distribution Company (“MIDC” or the “Distributor”) in which MIDC serves as the distributor for the Portfolio’s Class A, B and E Shares. MIDC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife Investors Group, LLC, an affiliate of the Adviser. The Trust has also adopted a Distribution and Service Plan under Rule 12b-1 of the 1940 Act for the Portfolio’s Class B and E Shares. Under the Distribution and Service Plan, the Class B and E Shares of the Portfolio pay a fee to compensate the Insurance Companies (or their affiliates) and other broker-dealers and financial intermediaries involved in the offer and sale of Portfolio shares for promoting or selling and servicing the Class B and E Shares. The fees under the Distribution and Service Plan for each class of the Portfolio’s shares are calculated as a percentage of the Portfolio’s average daily net assets that are attributable to that Class. Currently, the fee is 0.25% per year for Class B Shares and 0.15% per year for Class E Shares. Amounts incurred by the Portfolio for the year ended December 31, 2016 are shown as Distribution and service fees in the Statement of Operations.

Deferred Trustee Compensation - Each Trustee 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 Trust. 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 Met Investors Series Trust, an affiliate of the Trust, 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 under the Plan is reflected as Deferred trustees’ fees in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

6. Contractual Obligations

Under the Trust’s organizational documents, its officers and Trustees may be indemnified against certain liabilities and expenses arising out of the performance of their duties to the Trust. Additionally, 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 Trust that have not yet occurred.

7. Income Tax Information

The tax character of distributions paid for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015 were as follows:

Ordinary Income			Long-Term Capital Gain				Total
2016	2015		2016		2015		2016		2015
$1,101,754	$	410,528	$	39,089,011	$	60,274,042	$	40,190,765	$	60,684,570

As of December 31, 2016, 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		Other Accumulated Capital Losses		Total
$1,238,555	$	30,081,353	$	136,999,794	$	—	$	168,319,702

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

MSF-20

Metropolitan Series Fund

Loomis Sayles Small Cap Core Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

(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 up to 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, 2016, the Portfolio had no post-enactment accumulated capital losses and no pre-enactment accumulated capital loss carryforwards.

8. Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In October 2016, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) adopted new rules and forms, and amendments to certain current rules and forms, to modernize reporting and disclosure of information by registered investment companies. The amendments to Regulation S-X will require standardized, enhanced disclosure about derivatives in investment company financial statements, and will also change the rules governing the form and content of such financial statements. The compliance date for the amendments to Regulation S-X is August 1, 2017. Management is currently evaluating the impact that the adoption of the amendments to Regulation S-X will have on the Portfolio’s financial statements and related disclosures.

MSF-21

Metropolitan Series Fund

Loomis Sayles Small Cap Core Portfolio

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Shareholders of Loomis Sayles Small Cap Core Portfolio and the Board of Trustees of Metropolitan Series Fund:

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities, including the schedule of investments, of Loomis Sayles Small Cap Core Portfolio (one of the portfolios constituting the Metropolitan Series Fund) (the “Portfolio”) as of December 31, 2016, 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 Portfolio’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 Portfolio 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 Portfolio’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, 2016, by correspondence with the custodian and brokers; when 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 Small Cap Core Portfolio of the Metropolitan Series Fund as of December 31, 2016, 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.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

February 24, 2017

MSF-22

Metropolitan Series Fund

Trustees and Officers

MANAGEMENT OF THE TRUSTS

The Boards of Trustees (the “Board”) of Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (“MIST” and “MSF”, respectively, and collectively the “Trusts”) supervise the Trusts and are responsible for representing the interests of shareholders. The Trustees, the Chairman of the Board and the Chairmen of each subcommittee are the same for both Trusts. The Trustees of each Trust meet periodically throughout the year to oversee the Portfolios’ activities, reviewing, among other things, each Portfolio’s performance and its contractual arrangements with various service providers. The Trustees of each Trust elect the officers of the Trust, who are responsible for administering the Trust’s day-to-day operations.

Trustees and Officers

The Trustees and executive officers of the Trusts, as well as their ages and their principal occupations during the past five years, are set forth below. Unless otherwise indicated, the business address of each is c/o MetLife Funds, One Financial Center, Boston, Massachusetts 02111. Each Trustee who is deemed an “interested person,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, is referred to as an “Interested Trustee.” Those Trustees who are not “interested persons,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, are referred to as “Independent Trustees.” There is no limit to the term a Trustee may serve. Trustees serve until their death, resignation or removal in accordance with the MIST Trust’s and MSF Trust’s respective organizational documents and policies adopted by the Boards of the respective Trusts from time to time. Officers hold office at the pleasure of each Board and serve until their removal or resignation in accordance with the Trusts’ respective organizational documents and policies adopted by the Board of each Trust from time to time.

Name and Age	Current 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 MetLife Funds Complex(2) Overseen by Trustee	Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Interested Trustee
John Rosenthal* (56)	Trustee	Indefinite; From May 2016 (MIST and MSF) to present	Senior Managing Director and Head of Global Portfolio Management, MetLife, Inc.	75	None
Independent Trustees
Dawn M. Vroegop (50)	Trustee and Chairman of the Board	Indefinite; From December 2000 (MIST)/ May 2009 (MSF) to present as Trustee; From May 2016 (MIST and MSF) until present as Chairman	Private Investor.	75	Trustee, Driehaus Mutual Funds.**
Stephen M. Alderman (57)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 (MIST)/ April 2012 (MSF) to present	Shareholder in the law firm of Garfield and Merel, Ltd.	75	None

MSF-23

Metropolitan Series Fund

Trustees and Officers—(Continued)

Name and Age	Current 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 MetLife Funds Complex(2) Overseen by Trustee	Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Robert J. Boulware (60)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 (MIST)/ April 2012 (MSF) to present	Managing Director, Pilgrim Funds, LLC (private equity fund).	75	Trustee, Vertical Capital Income Fund (closed-end fund);** Director, Gainsco, Inc. (auto insurance);** Trustee, SharesPost 100 Fund (closed-end fund).**
Susan C. Gause (64)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 (MIST)/ April 2012 (MSF) to present	Private Investor.	75	Trustee, HSBC Funds.**
Nancy Hawthorne (65)	Trustee	Indefinite; From May 2003 (MSF)/ April 2012 (MIST) to present	Partner, Hawthorne Financial Advisors, LLC (registered investment advisor); until June 2014, Chief Executive Officer, Clerestory LLC (corporate advisor).	75	Director and Chairman of the Board of Directors, THL Credit, Inc.;** Lead Director, Avid Technology, Inc.;** Director, CRA International, Inc.**
Barbara A. Nugent (60)	Trustee	Indefinite; From January 2014 (MIST and MSF) to present	President, True North Board Governance, LLC (consulting); until December 2013, partner in the law firm of Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young, LLP.	75	None
Linda B. Strumpf (69)	Trustee	Indefinite; From May 2000 (MSF)/ April 2012 (MIST) to present	Chair of the Investment Committee, Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust; until June 2011, Chief Investment Officer, Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust.	75	None

Executive Officers

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Kristi Slavin (43)	President and Chief Executive Officer, of MIST and MSF	From May 2016 (MIST and MSF) to present	President, MetLife Advisers, LLC (May 2016-present); Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Vice President, MetLife, Inc.; Vice President, MIST and MSF (2015-2016).

MSF-24

Metropolitan Series Fund

Trustees and Officers—(Continued)

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Peter H. Duffy (61)	Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, of MIST and MSF	From November 2000 (MSF)/ May 2012 (MIST) to present	Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Andrew L. Gangolf (62)	Secretary, of MIST and MSF	From May 2011 (MIST and MSF) to present	Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; until 2011, Senior Vice President & Assistant General Counsel, AllianceBernstein Investments, Inc.
Steven E. Hartstein (53)	Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”), of MIST and MSF	From February 2014 (MIST and MSF) to present	Vice President, MetLife, Inc. (2013-present); Senior Vice President and CCO, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Executive Director, Morgan Stanley (2009-2013); CCO, Consulting Group Capital Markets Funds (2006-2013).
Alan C. Leland (64)	Vice President, of MIST and MSF	From February 2005 (MSF)/ May 2012 (MIST) to present	Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Vice President, MetLife, Inc.

* Mr. Rosenthal is an “interested person” of the Trusts because of his position with MetLife, Inc., the current parent company of MetLife Advisers, LLC.

** 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 Trusts, MetLife, Inc. or the Manager are omitted if not materially different.

(2) The Fund Complex includes 45 MIST Portfolios and 30 MSF Portfolios.

MSF-25

Metropolitan Series Fund

Loomis Sayles Small Cap Core Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements

At an in-person meeting held on November 15-16, 2016 (the “November Meeting”), the Boards of Trustees (the “Board”) of the Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (“MIST” and “MSF,” respectively, and collectively, the “Trusts”), including a majority of the Trustees who are not “interested persons” of the Trusts (the “Independent Trustees”) under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “1940 Act”), approved the continuation of the Trusts’ advisory agreements (each, an “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 the series of the Trusts (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”).

In reaching that decision, the Board reviewed a variety of materials provided for the specific purpose of the annual contract renewal process. In addition, various materials provided to and discussed with the Board throughout the year also informed the Board’s decision to renew the Agreements. That information for each Portfolio included, but was not limited to, investment performance reports, along with periodic reports on various expenses, shareholder services, legal and compliance matters, asset pricing, brokerage commissions and trade execution. The Board also recognized the pending separation of the Adviser from its parent company, MetLife, Inc., as a consideration in their deliberations with respect to the Agreements.

The Board met in person with personnel of the Adviser on September 27, 2016 for the specific purpose of giving preliminary consideration to the proposed continuation of the Agreements (the “September Meeting”) through the review by the Adviser with the Board of the performance and fees experienced by each Portfolio, as well as other information. In considering the Agreements, the Independent Trustees were advised by independent legal counsel throughout the contract renewal process, and met with independent legal counsel in several executive sessions outside of the presence of management.

Information furnished and reviewed specifically in connection with the renewal process included, but was not limited to, a report for each Portfolio prepared by Broadridge (“Broadridge”), an independent organization, and a Portfolio-by-Portfolio profitability analysis prepared by the Adviser. In addition, the Independent Trustees received and reviewed a report prepared by JDL Consultants, LLC (“JDL”), an independent consultant to the Independent Trustees (“JDL Report”), which examined the comparative fees, expenses and performance of each Portfolio, based upon the Broadridge reports. Also, the Board reviewed the responses to wide-ranging questions relating to the business, operations and performance of the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers that the Adviser and Sub-Advisers had prepared specifically for the renewal process.

At the November Meeting, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, concluded that the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser supported the renewal of the Agreements. The Board also concluded that the investment performance of each Portfolio was such that each Agreement should continue, and that the fees paid by a Portfolio to the Adviser appeared to be reasonable in light of the nature, extent and quality of the services provided by the Adviser and Sub-Adviser. Further, the Board concluded that the Adviser’s profitability in providing services under the Advisory Agreements did not appear unreasonably high in light of the nature, extent and quality of the services provided by the Adviser. Finally, the Board concluded that the investment advisory fees paid by the Portfolios in some measure shared economies of scale with contract holders. In approving the renewal of each of the Agreements, the Board, including the Independent Trustees, gave attention to all of the information that was furnished. The Board evaluated the information available to it on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis, and its decision was made separately with respect to each Portfolio. The following discusses some of the primary factors that generally were relevant to the Board’s decision. The Board did not identify any single factor as controlling, and the Trustees generally attributed different weights to various factors for the various Portfolios.

Nature, extent and quality of services. The Board evaluated the nature, extent and quality of the services that the Adviser, and the Sub-Advisers as relevant, have provided to the Portfolios. The Board considered the Adviser’s services as investment manager to the Portfolios, including its services relating to the oversight of the Sub-Advisers and their investment management activities, trading practices, financial condition, relevant personnel matters and compliance programs, among other things. The Adviser’s services in coordinating and overseeing the activities of the Trusts’ other service providers were also considered. The Board considered information received from the Trusts’ Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) regarding the Portfolios’ compliance policies and procedures that were established pursuant to Rule 38a-l under the 1940 Act. In addition, throughout the year, the Board considered the expertise, experience and performance of the personnel of the Adviser who performed the various services that are mentioned above.

The Board also noted that the Adviser’s investment, compliance and legal staff conduct regular, periodic, telephonic and in-person meetings with the Sub-Advisers to review and assess the services that are provided to the Portfolios, and that personnel of the Adviser prepare and present reports to the Independent Trustees regarding those meetings.

MSF-26

Metropolitan Series Fund

Loomis Sayles Small Cap Core Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

With respect to the services provided by each of the Sub-Advisers, the Board considered a variety of information that the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser provided. The Board considered each Sub-Adviser’s investment process and philosophy, and the investment performance experienced by the Portfolio (as described in more detail below). The Board took into account that each Sub-Adviser’s responsibilities include the development and maintenance of an investment program for the applicable Portfolio that 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. In particular, the Board considered, among other things, the Sub-Adviser’s current level of staffing as well as its compensation program and its overall resources. The Board reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s history and investment experience, as well as information provided 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 regulatory and disciplinary history. In its review, the Board also took into account information regarding any services and/or payments provided to the Adviser by the Sub-Advisers in connection with marketing activities.

Performance. The Board placed emphasis on the performance of the Portfolios in light of, among other things, its importance to contract holders. The Board considered the Adviser’s quarterly reviews with the Board of detailed information about each Portfolio’s investment strategies and performance results and composition, including discussions regarding the relevant effect of current market conditions. The Board reviewed and considered the reports prepared by Broadridge, which provided a statistical analysis comparing the Portfolios’ investment performance to that of comparable funds underlying variable insurance products (the “Performance Universe”). The Independent Trustees also met separately with a representative of JDL during the September Meeting to review the JDL Report. The Board also compared the performance records of certain Portfolios to those of comparable funds that were managed by the relevant Sub-Adviser. At the November Meeting, the Board considered each Portfolio’s performance for periods subsequent to the performance period covered by the Broadridge reports, and the Adviser’s discussion of the same, including the effect of current market conditions on each Portfolio’s more recent performance.

The Board focused particular attention on Portfolios with less favorable performance records. The Board noted the Adviser’s focus on each Sub-Adviser’s performance and that the Adviser has been active in monitoring and responding to any performance issues with respect to the Portfolios.

Fees and Expenses. The Board gave consideration to the level and method of computing the fees payable under the Agreements. The Board considered the Broadridge report for each of the Portfolios, which included comparisons for each Portfolio of its contractual management and sub-adviser fees (at current and various asset levels), and total expenses, with those of its peers, including as those peers were divided into a broad group of peer funds (“Expense Universe”), a narrower group of peer funds (“Expense Group”), a broad group of peer sub-advised funds (“Sub-advised Expense Universe”), and a narrower group of peer sub-advised funds (“Sub-advised Expense Group”). Broadridge selected the peer funds which were similarly situated funds underlying variable insurance products deemed to be comparable to the Portfolios. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of JDL, also examined the JDL Report. The Board compared the fee payable to a Sub-Adviser by the Adviser with respect to the Portfolio to the fee payable to the Sub-Adviser by other comparable funds and accounts, to the extent such information was available.

The Board noted that the sub-advisory fees for the Portfolios are paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fee, and that, in the case of an unaffiliated Sub-Adviser, the Adviser negotiates the fee at arm’s length. The Board also considered that the Adviser had entered into expense limitation or management fee waiver agreements with certain of the Portfolios pursuant to which the Adviser had 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.

Profitability. The Board examined the profitability of the Adviser on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis. The Board also considered that an affiliate of the Adviser, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, serves as distributor for the Trusts, and, as such, receives Rule 12b-1 payments to support the distribution of the Portfolios. The Board considered the profitability to the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates as a result of their relationships with the Portfolios, to the extent available, and the Board considered the ability of the Adviser to negotiate with an unaffiliated Sub-Adviser at arm’s length. In reviewing the profitability analyses, the Board recognized that expense allocation methodologies are inherently subjective and various expense allocation methodologies may be reasonable while producing different results.

Economies of scale. The Board also considered each Portfolio’s fees in light of its size. The Board noted the fee schedules for the Portfolios that 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

MSF-27

Metropolitan Series Fund

Loomis Sayles Small Cap Core Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

schedule for such Portfolios. The Board considered the effective fees under the Advisory Agreement and Sub-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. The Board examined, among other data, the effect of a Portfolio’s growth in size, and reduction in size, on various fee schedules and the Board reviewed the Broadridge and JDL Reports, which compared fees among peers. The Board also generally noted that if a Portfolio’s assets increase over time, the Portfolio may realize other economies of scale if assets increase proportionally more than certain other fixed expenses.

Other factors. The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trusts. Among them, the Board recognized that MetLife Investors Distribution Company, as the distributor for the Trusts, receives payments pursuant to Rule 12b-1 from the Portfolios to compensate for the provision of shareholder services and distribution activities, which could lead to growth in the Trusts’ assets and corresponding benefits from such growth, including economies of scale. The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by each Sub-Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trusts, including the opportunity to provide advisory services to additional portfolios of the Trusts and reputational benefits. In conjunction with these considerations, the Board noted the ongoing commitment of the Adviser to the Portfolios.

The Board considered possible conflicts of interest in the form of material benefits or detriments to the Trusts resulting from the nature of the Trusts’ and the Adviser’s or the Sub-Advisers’ affiliations and the services that are provided to the Trusts, and the manner in which such conflicts were mitigated.

*  *  *

Loomis Sayles Small Cap Core Portfolio. The Board also considered the following information in relation to the Agreements with the Adviser and Loomis, Sayles & Company, L.P. regarding the Portfolio:

Among other data relating specifically to the 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, 2016. The Board also considered that the Portfolio outperformed its Lipper Index for the three- and five-year periods, and underperformed for the one-year period ended June 30, 2016. The Board further considered that the Portfolio outperformed its benchmark, the Russell 2000 Index, for the five-year period ended October 31, 2016, and underperformed its benchmark for the one- and three-year periods ended October 31, 2016.

The Board also considered that the Portfolio’s actual management fees were above the Expense Group median, Expense Universe median and Sub-advised Expense Universe median. The Board also considered that the Portfolio’s total expenses (exclusive of 12b-l fees) were below the Expense Group median and Expense Universe median, and above the Sub-advised Expense Universe median. The Board noted that the Portfolio’s contractual management fees were above the asset-weighted average of certain comparable funds at the Portfolio’s current size. The Board further noted that the Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees were above the averages of the Sub-advised Expense Group and the Sub-advised Expense Universe at the Portfolio’s current size.

MSF-28

Metropolitan Series Fund

Loomis Sayles Small Cap Core Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Advisory Agreements

The separation (the “Separation”) of MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”), the investment adviser to each of the series (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”) of Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (collectively, the “Trusts”), from its parent company, MetLife, Inc. (“MetLife”), to a separate retail business, Brighthouse Financial, Inc. (“Brighthouse”), is expected to result in a change in control of the Adviser, and therefore an “assignment” of each Portfolio’s current advisory agreement (each a “Current Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “Current Advisory Agreements”). At the November 15-16, 2016 meeting (“November Meeting”) of the Board of Trustees of the Trusts (the “Board”), the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not “interested persons,” as defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940, of any Portfolio (the “Independent Trustees”), approved a new advisory agreement (each a “New Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “New Advisory Agreements”) between the Trusts, on behalf of a Portfolio, and the Adviser, to be effective upon the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements in connection with the Separation, and recommended that the shareholders of the Trusts approve the New Advisory Agreements. The Board took those actions after consideration of and deliberation over information concerning the Separation, including with respect to the degree to which the Separation would affect the provision of investment advisory services to the Trusts. Information about the Board’s considerations and process is set forth below.

In determining whether to approve the New Advisory Agreements and in considering the Separation, the Board considered the nature, quality and extent of the services that are currently provided by the Adviser under the Current Advisory Agreements as well as the services to be provided under the New Advisory Agreements. The Board’s review was conducted as part of, and in conjunction with, the Board’s annual review of the Current Advisory Agreements, which culminated at the November Meeting. In approving the New Advisory Agreements, the Board considered its conclusions with respect to its approvals of the Current Advisory Agreements, including the Board’s general satisfaction with the nature, extent and quality of services being provided by the Adviser to each Portfolio. Appendix A and Appendix B contains a further description of the process followed, information reviewed and the material factors considered by the Board in approving the continuation of the Current Advisory Agreements.

A substantial portion of the Board’s review of the New Advisory Agreements focused on the Separation, including the potential effect of the implementation of the Separation on the operations, personnel, organizational structure, capitalization, and financial and other resources of the Adviser. After being informed by the Adviser in January 2016 of the possibility of the Separation, the Board and its Committees discussed the Separation and its possible effects on the Trusts with personnel of the Adviser and the anticipated senior management at Brighthouse during the course of the Board’s or Committee’s regularly scheduled, in-person, quarterly meetings.

Between August and November 2016, the Board and the Independent Trustees engaged in an extensive review and analysis of the Separation and how the Separation related to the Adviser and the Trusts and how it could affect the services provided to the Trusts. This analysis focused on, among other matters, the assurances from Brighthouse’s anticipated leadership as to its expectations for the continuity and stability of the Adviser’s personnel throughout implementation of the Separation and for the foreseeable future thereafter. The Board considered that the Separation is being implemented as a result of MetLife’s determination to divest itself of a substantial portion of its U.S. retail business (of which the Adviser forms a portion). The Board also considered that it has been satisfied as a general matter with the nature and quality of the services that the Adviser provides to the Portfolios, including investment advisory, administrative, legal, compliance, and support services, and that it would be in the Portfolios’ best interests to maintain continuity and stability in the services that are currently being provided. The Board carefully considered the anticipated future plans of Brighthouse related to capitalization and operational matters for Brighthouse and the Adviser, as well as the importance of the Adviser to the businesses of Brighthouse after the Separation.

Among other steps in its review process, which accelerated on October 5, 2016 when Brighthouse filed its Form 10 with the SEC, the following actions were taken and considered by or on behalf of the Board:

1. The Independent Trustees solicited and received ongoing advice regarding the legal duties of the Independent Trustees from Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young LLP (“Stradley Ronon”), legal counsel for the Independent Trustees, which law firm has extensive experience regarding such matters.

2. Following the August 16-17, 2016 Board and Committee quarterly meetings, the Independent Trustees established an ad hoc group of Independent Trustees (the “Working Group”) to help oversee, coordinate, and conduct due diligence activities with respect to the Separation. The Working Group regularly reported on the due diligence activities to the other Independent Trustees.

3. Since January 2016, the Board posed ongoing inquiries to, and received regular updates from, the Adviser and anticipated senior management at Brighthouse at either in-person meetings dedicated to the status of the Separation or during the course of the Board or Committee’s regular quarterly meetings. The Board considered, among other matters, relevant legal guidance and the processes followed by certain other investment company boards of directors or trustees when they approved contracts in connection with change in control events, while recognizing the unique circumstances of the Separation.

MSF-29

Metropolitan Series Fund

Loomis Sayles Small Cap Core Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

4. The Board received and reviewed the Form 10 of Brighthouse that contained extensive information relating to, among other matters, Brighthouse’s anticipated business plans and financial structure. The Board also received and reviewed reports from rating agencies with respect to Brighthouse.

5. Stradley Ronon retained Barrington Partners (“Barrington”), an independent consulting firm with a specific focus on the asset management industry and experience relating to business operations such as those to be conducted by Brighthouse, including its proposed subsidiary, the Adviser, in order to help Stradley Ronon evaluate the Separation based on the Form 10 and other materials and related information provided by the Adviser and its affiliates. Barrington conducted a series of in-person and telephonic meetings with anticipated senior management at Brighthouse (i.e., the aforementioned anticipated officers of Brighthouse and others) and with personnel of the Adviser who provide services to the Trusts. Stradley Ronon, with the assistance of Barrington, evaluated the information and advised the Independent Trustees with respect to, among other matters, details of Brighthouse’s anticipated business plan to understand the implications of the Separation to the Adviser and its personnel. The Independent Trustees and the Working Group attended certain in-person and telephonic conference call meetings at which Barrington rendered advice to Stradley Ronon regarding these matters and responded to questions.

6. The Independent Trustees requested and participated in in-person meetings with anticipated senior management personnel at Brighthouse, including its President and Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, Chief Operating Officer, and Chief Investment Officer. The Independent Trustees also met with personnel of the Adviser.

7. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of Stradley Ronon, prepared written inquiries to the Adviser and its affiliates regarding the Separation, and received written assurances from the Adviser and its affiliates that they have no plans to make any material changes affecting the personnel of the Adviser (including those personnel who provide investment, administrative, legal and compliance services) and the Adviser and its affiliates will not initiate such changes without prior notice to and discussion with the Board.

8. The Board considered representations by the Adviser and its affiliates that approval of the New Advisory Agreements would be necessary for the Portfolios to continue receiving investment advisory services from the Adviser following the change in control.

9. The Board considered representations by the Adviser, as well as related supporting documentation, indicating that the New Advisory Agreements, including the fees payable thereunder, are substantially identical to the terms of the corresponding Current Advisory Agreements.

10. The Board considered representations by the Adviser and its affiliates, as well as related supporting documentation, indicating that: (1) the Adviser can be expected to provide services of the same nature, extent, and quality under the New Advisory Agreements and as are provided thereby under the Current Advisory Agreements; and (2) the Separation is not expected to result in any changes to (i) the management of the Portfolios, or (ii) the investment objective of or the principal investment strategies used to manage any of the Portfolios.

11. The Board considered the ability of the Adviser and its affiliates to retain the employment of key personnel, as well as the overall positive indications by many such personnel regarding the opportunities presented by the Separation.

12. The Board considered that the Adviser and its affiliates have agreed to bear all expenses associated with obtaining shareholder approval of the New Advisory Agreements.

13. The Board considered Brighthouse’s preliminary “branding” plans regarding the future name of its operations.

14. The Board considered the advice provided by Ropes & Gray, LLP, legal counsel to the Trusts and the Adviser, with respect to the New Advisory Agreements (including advice relating to the process and timing of seeking shareholder approval of the New Advisory Agreements, and whether shareholder approvals would be required in connection with any future aspects of the Separation) and regarding the Board’s role and responsibilities with respect to the Separation.

15. The Board considered MetLife’s stated intention of divesting its ownership interest in the Adviser through the Separation, including the potential advantages and disadvantages of this divestiture to shareholders of the Portfolios. The Board considered the likelihood that the Adviser would retain its key personnel after the Separation. The Board considered that the garnering of new assets into the Trusts is based on sales of variable annuity and variable life insurance products, which sales have declined in prior years as a result of, among other things, the capital requirements of MetLife. The Board considered the representations of the anticipated senior management of Brighthouse that the Separation provides the Trusts with an opportunity for the garnering of new assets as Brighthouse will likely sell such products going forward. The Board considered also that the divestiture would result in a change in the manner in

MSF-30

Metropolitan Series Fund

Loomis Sayles Small Cap Core Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

which the Trusts access certain services and resources of MetLife (after the Separation those services will be provided through a transition services agreement), the loss of affiliation with the MetLife name brand, and the possible going forward need of the Trusts to hire a transfer agent, as such transfer agency services are currently provided to the Trusts for no fee.

16. The Board considered that, if shareholders approve the New Advisory Agreements, the Board and the Adviser will conduct their annual contract review process in November 2017. Thus, the Board emphasized that it would be able to, and intends to, monitor on a regular basis the ability of the Adviser and its affiliates to comply with their undertakings to the Board and to monitor on an ongoing basis the quality of services to, and expenses of, the Portfolios. In addition, the Board considered that, under the New Advisory Agreements, it will continue to have the authority, should the need arise in its view, to terminate any of the New Advisory Agreements without penalty upon 60 days’ notice.

Based on the foregoing and other relevant considerations, at the November Meeting, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, voted to approve the New Advisory Agreements and to recommend approval of the New Advisory Agreements by shareholders of the Portfolios. In this connection, the Board concluded that, in light of all factors considered, the terms of the New Advisory Agreement, including fee rates, were fair and reasonable, and that it would be in the best interests of shareholders of each Portfolio to approve the New Advisory Agreements.

In the event that approval of the New Advisory Agreements by shareholders of the Portfolios has not been obtained before the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements as a result of the change in control of the Adviser, the Board also approved an interim advisory agreement with the Adviser (the “Interim Advisory Agreement”) on behalf of each Portfolio that will go into effect upon the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements. The Board’s determination to approve each Interim Advisory Agreement was based on the same information and considerations as the Board’s approval of the New Advisory Agreements so as to ensure continuity of advisory services from the Adviser to the Portfolios following the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements.

MSF-31

Metropolitan Series Fund

Loomis Sayles Small Cap Core Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Sub-Advisory Agreements

The separation (the “Separation”) of MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”), the investment adviser to each of the series (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”) of Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (collectively, the “Trusts”), from its parent company, MetLife, Inc. (“MetLife”), to a separate retail business, Brighthouse Financial, Inc. (“Brighthouse”), is expected to result in a change in control of the Adviser, and therefore an “assignment” of each Portfolio’s current advisory agreement and, as a result, the automatic termination of the sub-advisory agreement (each a “Sub-Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisory Agreements”) between the Adviser and the investment sub-advisers (each a “Sub-Adviser” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisers”). At the November 15-16, 2016 meeting (“November Meeting”) of the Board of Trustees of the Trusts (the “Board”), the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not “interested persons,” as defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940, of any Portfolio (the “Independent Trustees”), approved new sub-advisory agreements (each a “New Sub-Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “New Sub-Advisory Agreements”). Information about the Board’s considerations and process is set forth below.

In determining whether to approve the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, the Board considered the nature, quality and extent of the services that are currently provided by the Sub-Advisers under the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements as well as the services to be provided under the New Sub-Advisory Agreements. The Board’s review was conducted as part of, and in conjunction with, the Board’s annual review of the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements, which culminated at the November Meeting. In approving the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, the Board considered its conclusions with respect to its approvals of the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements, including the Board’s general satisfaction with the nature, extent and quality of services being provided by the Sub-Advisers to the Portfolios, as applicable. Appendix A contains a further description of the process followed, information reviewed and the material factors considered by the Board in approving the continuation of the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements.

In addition, the following actions were taken and considered by or on behalf of the Board:

1. The Independent Trustees of the Board solicited and received ongoing advice regarding the legal duties of the Independent Trustees from Stradley Ronon, legal counsel for the Independent Trustees, which law firm has extensive experience regarding such matters.

2. The Board considered representations by the Adviser and its affiliates that approval of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements would be necessary for the Portfolios to continue receiving sub-advisory services from the Sub-Advisers following the change in control of the Adviser.

3. The Board considered representations by the Adviser, as well as related supporting documentation, indicating that the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, including the fees payable thereunder, are the same as the terms of the corresponding Current Sub-Advisory Agreements.

4. The Board considered the advice provided by Ropes & Gray, LLP, legal counsel to the Trusts and the Adviser, with respect to the New Sub-Advisory Agreements and regarding the Board’s role and responsibilities with respect to the Separation.

5. The Board considered that the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers will conduct their annual contract review process in November 2017. Thus, the Board emphasized that it would be able to, and intends to, monitor on an ongoing basis the ability of the Sub-Advisers to comply with its undertakings to the Board and the Adviser and to monitor on an ongoing basis the quality of services to, and expenses of, the Portfolios. In addition, the Board considered that, under the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, it will continue to have the authority, should the need arise in its view, to terminate any of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements without penalty upon no more than 60 days’ notice.

Based on the foregoing and other relevant considerations, at the November Meeting, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, voted to approve the New Sub-Advisory Agreements. In this connection, the Board concluded that, in light of all factors considered, the terms of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, including fee rates, were fair and reasonable.

MSF-32

Metropolitan Series Fund

Loomis Sayles Small Cap Growth Portfolio

Managed By Loomis, Sayles & Company, L.P.

Portfolio Manager Commentary*

PERFORMANCE

For the 12 months ended December 31, 2016, the Class A, B, and E shares of the Loomis Sayles Small Cap Growth Portfolio returned 6.21%, 6.05%, and 6.16%, respectively. The Portfolio’s benchmark, the Russell 2000 Growth Index¹, returned 11.32%.

MARKET ENVIRONMENT / CONDITIONS

Topped off by the post-election rally, 2016 was a strong performance year in absolute terms, with the small cap segment leading the market in the fourth quarter and for the year as a whole. The 21.3% annual return of the Russell 2000 Index compares to the 12.0% return of the large cap S&P 500 Index for the same period. Also worth noting is the market’s poor start to the year, as weak U.S. economic data points, fears of a premature tightening cycle by the Federal Reserve (the “Fed”), and a collapse in certain commodity prices resulted in a 15.9% decline in the Russell 2000 Index through the first 29 trading days of the year. Bond-like real estate investment trusts (“REITs”) and Utility stocks proved highly resilient during this initial downdraft, contributing to the wide lead value stocks achieved relative to growth stocks.

By mid-February, economic data points in the U.S. improved, commentary from the Fed struck a more accommodative note, and deflationary fears subsided as commodity prices recovered. The market resumed a steady march higher through year-end, with only a brief downdraft in late June following the United Kingdom’s referendum vote on European Union membership (“Brexit”) and again in October as the U.S. presidential election approached. From the February 11, 2016 low, the Russell 2000 Index rallied 44.3% through year-end, while the large cap S&P 500 Index increased 24.8%. Market leadership in the initial stages of the rally pivoted away from REITs and Utilities into more economically sensitive sectors such as Energy, Materials, Information Technology, and Industrials. Post-election, small cap stocks extended their gains beyond other market segments, with the Energy and Financials sectors leading the way.

PORTFOLIO REVIEW / PERIOD END POSITIONING

The Portfolio posted positive returns but fell short of the 11.32% return of the Russell 2000 Growth Index during the period, with stock selection accounting for the majority of the performance differential. Information Technology and Industrials were the largest detracting sectors in terms of stock selection. The Portfolio’s underweight position in the Materials sector also detracted from relative performance. A key driver within the Information Technology sector was the performance of the Portfolio’s software holdings. Stocks such as Guidewire and Demandware sold off dramatically in early February when many software companies declined. Some of their software peers reported challenging results and the entire group suffered. Conversely, when high-beta names rallied during the third quarter, and the slowest growers outperformed after the U.S. presidential election, these software names did not participate. Within Industrials, The Advisory Board Co. was the largest detracting stock. The consulting company reported an unexpected and material slowdown in its health care business, pressuring the stock. It ultimately triggered our stop-loss and was sold from the Portfolio.

Stock selection within the Health Care sector contributed positively to relative return. Stocks that detracted the most from performance during the year included Impax Laboratories and Acorda Therapeutics. Generic drug company Impax Laboratories reported disappointing results, as sales declined and guidance was reduced for the year. The decline in sales was largely attributed to increased competition and delays. Shares of biotechnology company Acorda Therapeutics were under pressure amidst patent concerns.

Top-performing individual holdings were Wix.com, Intersil Corporation, and MKS Instruments. Wix.com operates and develops web platforms for its customers. The company reported strong results over the course of the year as it gained share in the web development market; it is also successfully converting customers to its premium subscription offerings at higher price points. The semiconductor industry within the Information Technology sector was very strong during the year, and Intersil Corporation and MKS both contributed to the group’s strength. Intersil announced it would be acquired at an attractive premium, while MKS Instruments reported a strong quarter driven by robust strong core semiconductor demand and increasing synergies from a recent acquisition.

There were changes to the positioning of the Portfolio over the course of the year as a result of our individual stock decisions. The Portfolio’s Information Technology weight remained the largest absolute weight, however that weight decreased and the Portfolio’s overweight relative to the benchmark decreased. Within Information Technology, the Portfolio’s software weight decreased. Some of this was market action, and some of that decrease was due to sales of stocks after our stop-loss was triggered, or in one case, in advance of a takeout. The Portfolio’s exposure to the Consumer Discretionary sector also decreased over the year. Within that sector, we decreased exposure to the hotels, restaurants & leisure group by reducing and eliminating some of the Portfolio’s restaurants stocks. This was done as the group started to see some material slowdown in traffic and deflationary pressures. We also decreased the Portfolio’s specialty retail exposure; Restoration Hardware triggered our stop-loss, and Asbury Automotive was sold due to concerns around the auto market. The Portfolio’s absolute exposure to the Industrials sector increased over the course of the year. Coming into 2016, cyclical areas of the market like Industrials underperformed as a whole. We initiated positions in Industrials companies with solid secular growth prospects like Team, Inc. Team is a service provider to refinery and chemical companies with a dominant and growing market position. At year end, the Portfolio’s positioning relative to the major sectors in its benchmark was overweight to the Consumer Discretionary, Financials, and

MSF-1

Metropolitan Series Fund

Loomis Sayles Small Cap Growth Portfolio

Managed By Loomis, Sayles & Company, L.P.

Portfolio Manager Commentary*—(Continued)

Health Care sectors, while slightly underweight in Industrials and neutral weight to the Information Technology sector.

Mark Burns

John Slavik

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 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.

MSF-2

Metropolitan Series Fund

Loomis Sayles Small Cap Growth Portfolio

A $10,000 INVESTMENT COMPARED TO THE RUSSELL 2000 GROWTH INDEX

AVERAGE ANNUAL RETURNS (%) (FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2016)

	1 Year		5 Year		10 Year
Loomis Sayles Small Cap Growth Portfolio
Class A		6.21		12.58		6.96
Class B		6.05		12.30		6.71
Class E		6.16		12.41		6.82
Russell 2000 Growth Index		11.32		13.74		7.76

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.

Portfolio performance is calculated including reinvestment of all income and capital gain distributions. Performance numbers are net of all Portfolio expenses but do not include any insurance, sales, separate account or administrative charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts or any additional expenses that participants may bear relating to the operations of their plans. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower. The performance of any index referenced above has not been adjusted for ongoing management, distribution and operating expenses, and sales charges applicable to mutual fund investments. Direct investment in any index is not possible. The performance of Class A shares, as set forth in the line graph above, will differ from that of other classes because of the difference in expenses paid by policyholders investing in the different share classes.

This information represents past performance and is not indicative of future results. Investment return and principal value may fluctuate so that shares, upon redemption, may be worth more or less than the original cost.

PORTFOLIO COMPOSITION AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2016

Top Holdings

	% of Net Assets
MKS Instruments, Inc.		1.7
WageWorks, Inc.		1.6
Ultimate Software Group, Inc. (The)		1.4
Pinnacle Financial Partners, Inc.		1.4
HealthEquity, Inc.		1.4
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc.		1.4
Bright Horizons Family Solutions, Inc.		1.3
MarketAxess Holdings, Inc.		1.3
Inogen, Inc.		1.3
Vail Resorts, Inc.		1.3

Top Sectors

	% of Net Assets
Information Technology		25.0
Health Care		22.5
Consumer Discretionary		17.9
Industrials		16.5
Financials		7.9
Energy		2.7
Telecommunication Services		2.1
Consumer Staples		1.1
Real Estate		0.6

MSF-3

Metropolitan Series Fund

Loomis Sayles 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, 2016 through December 31, 2016.

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.

Loomis Sayles Small Cap Growth Portfolio		Annualized Expense Ratio			Beginning Account Value July 1, 2016		Ending Account Value December 31, 2016		Expenses Paid During Period** July 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016
Class A(a)	Actual		0.87	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,082.30	$	4.55
	Hypothetical*		0.87	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,020.76	$	4.42
Class B(a)	Actual		1.12	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,081.60	$	5.86
	Hypothetical*		1.12	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,019.51	$	5.69
Class E(a)	Actual		1.02	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,082.30	$	5.34
	Hypothetical*		1.02	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,020.01	$	5.18

* 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 366 (to reflect the one-half year period).

^(a) The annualized expense ratio shown reflects the impact of the management fee waiver as described in Note 5 of the Notes to Financial Statements.

MSF-4

Metropolitan Series Fund

Loomis Sayles Small Cap Growth Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—96.3% of Net Assets

Security Description	Shares		Value
Aerospace & Defense—1.2%
Hexcel Corp.		78,633	$	4,044,882
Air Freight & Logistics—0.6%
Echo Global Logistics, Inc. (a)		90,325		2,262,641
Auto Components—2.3%
Dorman Products, Inc. (a)		52,745		3,853,550
LCI Industries		36,919		3,978,022
				7,831,572
Banks—4.5%
Chemical Financial Corp.		71,169		3,855,225
Pinnacle Financial Partners, Inc.		70,177		4,863,266
PrivateBancorp, Inc.		51,044		2,766,074
Renasant Corp.		94,152		3,975,098
				15,459,663
Biotechnology—3.3%
Acceleron Pharma, Inc. (a) (b)		65,098		1,661,301
Genomic Health, Inc. (a)		93,207		2,739,354
Ironwood Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a)		213,342		3,261,999
Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a) (b)		147,251		2,036,481
Prothena Corp. plc (a) (b)		34,438		1,694,005
				11,393,140
Building Products—2.4%
Apogee Enterprises, Inc.		83,239		4,458,281
Trex Co., Inc. (a)		57,894		3,728,373
				8,186,654
Capital Markets—2.5%
Financial Engines, Inc. (b)		108,253		3,978,298
MarketAxess Holdings, Inc.		31,132		4,573,913
				8,552,211
Commercial Services & Supplies—2.0%
Healthcare Services Group, Inc.		89,451		3,503,795
Team, Inc. (a)		91,435		3,588,824
				7,092,619
Construction & Engineering—2.2%
Granite Construction, Inc.		81,822		4,500,210
Primoris Services Corp.		142,173		3,238,701
				7,738,911
Distributors—1.1%
Pool Corp.		36,564		3,815,088
Diversified Consumer Services—3.7%
Bright Horizons Family Solutions, Inc. (a)		65,949		4,617,749
Grand Canyon Education, Inc. (a)		69,728		4,075,602
Nord Anglia Education, Inc. (a) (b)		180,202		4,198,706
				12,892,057
Security Description	Shares		Value
Diversified Telecommunication Services—2.1%
Cogent Communications Holdings, Inc.		102,561	$	4,240,897
ORBCOMM, Inc. (a)		372,498		3,080,559
				7,321,456
Electrical Equipment—1.1%
Generac Holdings, Inc. (a)		92,026		3,749,139
Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components—2.0%
IPG Photonics Corp. (a)		39,422		3,891,345
Orbotech, Ltd. (a)		94,624		3,161,388
				7,052,733
Energy Equipment & Services—1.6%
Dril-Quip, Inc. (a)		53,406		3,207,030
Forum Energy Technologies, Inc. (a)		109,812		2,415,864
				5,622,894
Food Products—1.1%
Snyder’s-Lance, Inc.		97,931		3,754,675
Health Care Equipment & Supplies—9.5%
AtriCure, Inc. (a)		78,143		1,529,258
Cynosure, Inc. - Class A (a)		87,325		3,982,020
Inogen, Inc. (a)		67,437		4,529,743
Insulet Corp. (a)		101,238		3,814,648
Integra LifeSciences Holdings Corp. (a)		29,384		2,520,853
Merit Medical Systems, Inc. (a)		125,756		3,332,534
Neogen Corp. (a)		48,139		3,177,174
Nevro Corp. (a)		31,533		2,291,188
NxStage Medical, Inc. (a)		26,746		701,013
Spectranetics Corp. (The) (a)		126,984		3,111,108
Wright Medical Group NV (a) (b)		173,919		3,996,659
				32,986,198
Health Care Providers & Services—3.3%
AMN Healthcare Services, Inc. (a)		96,608		3,714,578
Ensign Group, Inc. (The)		123,583		2,744,778
HealthEquity, Inc. (a)		119,284		4,833,388
				11,292,744
Health Care Technology—1.4%
Evolent Health, Inc. - Class A (a) (b)		70,675		1,045,990
Medidata Solutions, Inc. (a)		77,097		3,829,408
				4,875,398
Hotels, Restaurants & Leisure—4.6%
Chuy’s Holdings, Inc. (a)		104,214		3,381,744
Planet Fitness, Inc. - Class A (b)		172,005		3,457,301
Texas Roadhouse, Inc.		44,336		2,138,769
Vail Resorts, Inc.		27,943		4,507,485
Wingstop, Inc. (b)		85,081		2,517,547
				16,002,846

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-5

Metropolitan Series Fund

Loomis Sayles Small Cap Growth Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Household Durables—2.4%
Installed Building Products, Inc. (a)		71,877	$	2,968,520
iRobot Corp. (a)		55,012		3,215,451
Universal Electronics, Inc. (a)		31,250		2,017,188
				8,201,159
Internet Software & Services—6.5%
2U, Inc. (a) (b)		109,245		3,293,737
Criteo S.A. (ADR) (a) (b)		49,674		2,040,608
Envestnet, Inc. (a)		94,317		3,324,674
LogMeIn, Inc.		44,123		4,260,075
Q2 Holdings, Inc. (a)		134,212		3,872,016
Quotient Technology, Inc. (a) (b)		157,809		1,696,447
Wix.com, Ltd. (a)		92,498		4,120,786
				22,608,343
IT Services—3.5%
EPAM Systems, Inc. (a)		25,675		1,651,159
Euronet Worldwide, Inc. (a)		59,453		4,306,181
ExlService Holdings, Inc. (a)		43,769		2,207,709
InterXion Holding NV (a)		110,190		3,864,363
				12,029,412
Life Sciences Tools & Services—2.8%
Accelerate Diagnostics, Inc. (a) (b)		95,285		1,977,164
INC Research Holdings, Inc. - Class A (a)		78,090		4,107,534
PRA Health Sciences, Inc. (a)		68,122		3,754,884
				9,839,582
Machinery—3.4%
Astec Industries, Inc.		61,035		4,117,421
Middleby Corp. (The) (a)		29,360		3,781,862
RBC Bearings, Inc. (a)		43,816		4,066,563
				11,965,846
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels—1.1%
PDC Energy, Inc. (a)		52,060		3,778,515
Pharmaceuticals—2.2%
Dermira, Inc. (a)		76,011		2,305,414
Medicines Co. (The) (a) (b)		64,531		2,190,182
Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a)		124,079		3,132,995
				7,628,591
Professional Services—1.6%
WageWorks, Inc. (a)		77,003		5,582,717
Real Estate Management & Development—0.6%
HFF, Inc. - Class A		63,634		1,924,928
Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment—6.4%
Inphi Corp. (a)		90,136		4,021,868
Intersil Corp. - Class A		78,467		1,749,814
Security Description	Shares/ Principal Amount*		Value
Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment—(Continued)
MKS Instruments, Inc.		96,419		5,727,289
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc.		58,815		4,818,713
Semtech Corp. (a)		55,461		1,749,795
Silicon Laboratories, Inc. (a)		63,894		4,153,110
				22,220,589
Software—6.6%
Blackbaud, Inc.		52,036		3,330,304
Callidus Software, Inc. (a)		180,887		3,038,902
CommVault Systems, Inc. (a)		53,548		2,752,367
Guidewire Software, Inc. (a)		87,845		4,333,394
HubSpot, Inc. (a)		31,061		1,459,867
RingCentral, Inc. - Class A (a)		152,117		3,133,610
Ultimate Software Group, Inc. (The) (a)		26,880		4,901,568
				22,950,012
Specialty Retail—1.5%
Monro Muffler Brake, Inc.		29,124		1,665,893
Tile Shop Holdings, Inc. (a)		186,839		3,652,702
				5,318,595
Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods—2.3%
Columbia Sportswear Co.		55,319		3,225,098
Oxford Industries, Inc.		28,770		1,729,940
Steven Madden, Ltd. (a)		88,908		3,178,461
				8,133,499
Thrifts & Mortgage Finance—1.0%
Essent Group, Ltd. (a)		105,962		3,429,990
Trading Companies & Distributors—1.9%
Beacon Roofing Supply, Inc. (a)		69,066		3,181,871
SiteOne Landscape Supply, Inc. (a)		100,836		3,502,034
				6,683,905
Total Common Stocks (Cost $262,601,540)				334,223,204
Short-Term Investment—3.9%
Repurchase Agreement—3.9%
Fixed Income Clearing Corp. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/16 at 0.030% to be repurchased at $13,468,015 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $13,795,000 U.S. Treasury Note at 1.625% due 11/30/20 with a value of $13,738,027.		13,467,970		13,467,970
Total Short-Term Investments (Cost $13,467,970)				13,467,970

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-6

Metropolitan Series Fund

Loomis Sayles Small Cap Growth Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Securities Lending Reinvestments (c)—8.6%

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Certificates of Deposit—4.5%
Bank of Tokyo UFJ, Ltd., New York 1.121%, 02/28/17 (d)		900,000	$	900,018
Barclays New York 0.894%, 02/10/17 (d)		1,000,000		1,000,323
Chiba Bank, Ltd., New York 0.870%, 01/10/17		900,000		900,021
0.950%, 02/02/17		400,000		400,055
Credit Suisse AG New York 1.444%, 04/24/17 (d)		1,200,000		1,200,282
DNB NOR Bank ASA 1.130%, 07/28/17 (d)		400,000		399,930
DZ Bank AG New York 1.010%, 02/27/17		1,400,000		1,400,405
KBC Brussells 1.050%, 01/27/17		800,000		800,152
Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen London Zero Coupon, 01/24/17		1,197,246		1,199,484
Mizuho Bank, Ltd., New York 1.336%, 05/17/17		750,000		749,928
1.361%, 04/26/17 (d)		1,000,000		999,949
National Australia Bank London 1.182%, 11/09/17 (d)		500,000		498,760
Shizuoka Bank New York 0.840%, 01/03/17		700,000		700,003
Sumitomo Bank New York 1.212%, 06/05/17 (d)		1,500,000		1,499,970
Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corp. London Zero Coupon, 02/06/17		299,194		299,784
Sumitomo Mitsui Trust Bank, Ltd., London 1.262%, 05/08/17 (d)		250,000		250,458
Sumitomo Mitsui Trust Bank, Ltd., New York 1.194%, 06/02/17 (d)		100,000		99,985
1.351%, 04/26/17 (d)		1,000,000		1,000,118
UBS, Stamford 1.084%, 05/12/17 (d)		500,000		499,962
Wells Fargo Bank San Francisco N.A. 1.231%, 04/26/17 (d)		400,000		400,112
1.264%, 10/26/17 (d)		400,000		400,273
				15,599,972
Commercial Paper—2.1%
Atlantic Asset Securitization LLC 1.040%, 02/03/17		1,395,753		1,398,778
Den Norske ASA 1.206%, 04/27/17 (d)		400,000		400,021
HSBC plc 1.216%, 04/25/17 (d)		1,100,000		1,099,953
Kells Funding LLC 1.040%, 01/19/17		99,648		99,961
Macquarie Bank, Ltd. 0.930%, 01/19/17		997,623		999,383
National Australia Bank, Ltd. 1.288%, 12/06/17 (d)		1,000,000		1,000,002
Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp., Ltd. 0.890%, 02/21/17		498,863		499,336
Commercial Paper—(Continued)
Sheffield Receivables Co. 1.050%, 01/06/17		249,315		249,968
Suncorp Metway, Ltd. 0.930%, 02/09/17		498,812		499,446
Victory Receivables Corp. 1.050%, 01/04/17		249,278		249,982
Westpac Banking Corp. 1.232%, 10/20/17 (d)		700,000		701,222
				7,198,052
Repurchase Agreements—1.5%
Citigroup Global Markets Ltd. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/29/16 at 0.710% to be repurchased at $400,039 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $403,495 U.S. Treasury and Foreign Obligations with rates ranging from 1.750% - 2.750%, maturity dates ranging from 10/15/19 - 11/15/23, with a value of $408,000.		400,000		400,000
Deutsche Bank AG, London
Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/16 at 0.950% to be repurchased at $200,021 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $204,180 Foreign Obligations with rates ranging from 1.750% - 2.500%, maturity dates ranging from 09/05/19 - 11/20/24, with a value of $204,001.		200,000		200,000
Repurchase Agreement dated 12/15/16 - 12/30/16 at 1.050% to be repurchased at $1,400,382 on 01/03/17, collateralized by various Common Stock with a value of $1,556,177.		1,400,000		1,400,000
Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. Repurchase Agreement dated 10/18/16 at 1.110% to be repurchased at $1,004,193 on 03/03/17, collateralized by various Common Stock with a value of $1,100,000.		1,000,000		1,000,000
Goldman Sachs & Co. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/16 at 0.460% to be repurchased at $310,615 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $1,598,405 U.S. Government Agency Obligations with rates ranging from 2.000% - 10.500%, maturity dates ranging from 03/15/17 - 09/20/65, with a value of $316,811.		310,600		310,600
Macquarie Bank, Ltd. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/27/16 at 0.580% to be repurchased at $500,056 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $494,678 U.S. Treasury Obligations with rates ranging from 0.000% - 8.750%, maturity dates ranging from 01/05/17 - 05/15/46, with a value of $510,258.		500,000		500,000

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-7

Metropolitan Series Fund

Loomis Sayles Small Cap Growth Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Securities Lending Reinvestments (c)—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Repurchase Agreements—(Continued)
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. Repurchase Agreement dated 10/26/16 at 1.160% to be repurchased at $502,562 on 04/03/17, collateralized by various Common Stock with a value of $550,000.		500,000	$	500,000
Pershing LLC Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/16 at 0.680% to be repurchased at $1,000,076 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $1,467,364 U.S. Government Agency Obligations with rates ranging from 0.625% - 11.018%, maturity dates ranging from 01/17/17 - 08/20/66, with a value of $1,020,000.		1,000,000		1,000,000
				5,310,600
Time Deposits—0.5%
OP Corporate Bank plc 1.010%, 01/04/17		500,000		500,000
1.200%, 01/23/17		500,000		500,000
Time Deposits—(Continued)
Shinkin Central Bank 1.200%, 01/27/17		400,000		400,000
1.220%, 01/26/17		400,000		400,000
				1,800,000
Total Securities Lending Reinvestments (Cost $29,906,864)				29,908,624
Total Investments—108.8% (Cost $305,976,374) (e)				377,599,798
Other assets and liabilities (net)—(8.8)%				(30,532,229	)
Net Assets—100.0%			$	347,067,569

* Principal amount stated in U.S. dollars unless otherwise noted.

(a) Non-income producing security.

(b) All or a portion of the security was held on loan. As of December 31, 2016, the market value of securities loaned was $28,999,595 and the collateral received consisted of cash in the amount of $29,896,331. The cash collateral investments are disclosed in the Schedule of Investments and categorized as Securities Lending Reinvestments.

(c) Represents investment of cash collateral received from securities on loan as of December 31, 2016.

(d) Variable or floating rate security. The stated rate represents the rate at December 31, 2016.

(e) As of December 31, 2016, the aggregate cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was $306,100,928. The aggregate unrealized appreciation and depreciation of investments were $77,564,092 and $(6,065,222), respectively, resulting in net unrealized appreciation of $71,498,870 for federal income tax purposes.

(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.

MSF-8

Metropolitan Series Fund

Loomis Sayles Small Cap Growth Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Fair Value Hierarchy

Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) define 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, separately for each major category of assets and liabilities, 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, quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities 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, or other market corroborated inputs)

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 used in determining the fair value of investments and derivative financial instruments)

The inputs or methodologies used for valuing investments are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in them. Changes to the inputs or methodologies used may result in transfers between levels, which 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, 2016:

Description	Level 1		Level 2			Level 3		Total
Total Common Stocks*	$	334,223,204	$	—		$	—	$	334,223,204
Total Short-Term Investment*		—		13,467,970			—		13,467,970
Total Securities Lending Reinvestments*		—		29,908,624			—		29,908,624
Total Investments	$	334,223,204	$	43,376,594		$	—	$	377,599,798
Collateral for Securities Loaned (Liability)	$	—	$	(29,896,331	)	$	—	$	(29,896,331	)

* See Schedule of Investments for additional detailed categorizations.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-9

Metropolitan Series Fund

Loomis Sayles Small Cap Growth Portfolio

Statement of Assets and Liabilities

December 31, 2016

Assets
Investments at value (a) (b)	$	377,599,798
Receivable for:
Investments sold		2,309,156
Fund shares sold		10,630
Dividends and interest		73,623
Prepaid expenses		991
Total Assets		379,994,198
Liabilities
Due to custodian		40,963
Collateral for securities loaned		29,896,331
Payables for:
Investments purchased		2,396,951
Fund shares redeemed		182,238
Accrued Expenses:
Management fees		243,417
Distribution and service fees		13,799
Deferred trustees’ fees		92,334
Other expenses		60,596
Total Liabilities		32,926,629
Net Assets	$	347,067,569
Net Assets Consist of:
Paid in surplus	$	258,912,299
Accumulated net investment loss		(92,334	)
Accumulated net realized gain		16,624,180
Unrealized appreciation on investments		71,623,424
Net Assets	$	347,067,569
Net Assets
Class A	$	280,550,786
Class B		60,124,385
Class E		6,392,398
Capital Shares Outstanding*
Class A		22,693,501
Class B		5,157,993
Class E		534,239
Net Asset Value, Offering Price and Redemption Price Per Share
Class A	$	12.36
Class B		11.66
Class E		11.97

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

(a) Identified cost of investments was $305,976,374.

(b) Includes securities loaned at value of $28,999,595.

Statement of Operations

Year Ended December 31, 2016

Investment Income
Dividends	$	2,178,228
Interest		3,586
Securities lending income		740,089
Other income (a)		71,844
Total investment income		2,993,747
Expenses
Management fees		3,127,503
Administration fees		11,481
Custodian and accounting fees		25,323
Distribution and service fees—Class B		148,409
Distribution and service fees—Class E		9,382
Audit and tax services		42,040
Legal		33,031
Trustees’ fees and expenses		45,247
Shareholder reporting		27,607
Insurance		2,538
Miscellaneous		13,434
Total expenses		3,485,995
Less management fee waiver		(297,500	)
Less broker commission recapture		(30,158	)
Net expenses		3,158,337
Net Investment Loss		(164,590	)
Net Realized and Unrealized Gain
Net realized gain on investments		16,681,440
Net change in unrealized appreciation on investments		3,075,213
Net realized and unrealized gain		19,756,653
Net Increase in Net Assets from Operations	$	19,592,063

(a) Other income represents a non-recurring refund for overbilling of prior years’ custodian out-of-pocket fees.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-10

Metropolitan Series Fund

Loomis Sayles Small Cap Growth Portfolio

Statements of Changes in Net Assets

	Year Ended December 31, 2016			Year Ended December 31, 2015
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets:
From Operations
Net investment loss	$	(164,590	)	$	(1,260,982	)
Net realized gain		16,681,440			37,917,212
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation)		3,075,213			(26,535,612	)
Increase in net assets from operations		19,592,063			10,120,618
From Distributions to Shareholders
Net realized capital gains
Class A		(30,426,236	)		(44,382,310	)
Class B		(6,865,485	)		(9,707,264	)
Class E		(718,244	)		(989,641	)
Total distributions		(38,009,965	)		(55,079,215	)
Decrease in net assets from capital share transactions		(16,090,966	)		(8,519,617	)
Total decrease in net assets		(34,508,868	)		(53,478,214	)
Net Assets
Beginning of period		381,576,437			435,054,651
End of period	$	347,067,569		$	381,576,437
Accumulated net investment loss
End of period	$	(92,334	)	$	(75,670	)

Other Information:

Capital Shares

Transactions in capital shares were as follows:

	Year Ended December 31, 2016						Year Ended December 31, 2015
	Shares			Value			Shares			Value
Class A
Sales		443,531		$	5,365,293			645,881		$	9,161,574
Reinvestments		2,678,366			30,426,236			3,105,830			44,382,310
Redemptions		(4,200,459	)		(51,411,522	)		(4,186,056	)		(62,909,035	)
Net decrease		(1,078,562	)	$	(15,619,993	)		(434,345	)	$	(9,365,151	)
Class B
Sales		305,780		$	3,440,459			404,722		$	5,444,875
Reinvestments		640,437			6,865,485			713,245			9,707,264
Redemptions		(948,429	)		(10,789,006	)		(1,051,110	)		(14,562,399	)
Net increase (decrease)		(2,212	)	$	(483,062	)		66,857		$	589,740
Class E
Sales		27,839		$	333,581			52,679		$	746,067
Reinvestments		65,295			718,244			71,146			989,641
Redemptions		(89,074	)		(1,039,736	)		(106,077	)		(1,479,914	)
Net increase		4,060		$	12,089			17,748		$	255,794
Decrease derived from capital shares transactions				$	(16,090,966	)				$	(8,519,617	)

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-11

Metropolitan Series Fund

Loomis Sayles Small Cap Growth Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class A
	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014			2013			2012
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	13.07		$	14.70		$	16.55		$	11.13		$	10.01
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment loss (a)		(0.00	)(b)(c)		(0.04	)		(0.06	)		(0.07	)		(0.03	)
Net realized and unrealized gain on investments		0.69			0.47			0.11			5.49			1.15
Total from investment operations		0.69			0.43			0.05			5.42			1.12
Less Distributions
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(1.40	)		(2.06	)		(1.90	)		0.00			0.00
Total distributions		(1.40	)		(2.06	)		(1.90	)		0.00			0.00
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	12.36		$	13.07		$	14.70		$	16.55		$	11.13
Total Return (%) (d)		6.21			1.73			1.22			48.70			11.19
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Gross ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.96			0.95			0.95			0.95			0.96
Net ratio of expenses to average net assets (%) (e)		0.87			0.86			0.86			0.86			0.87
Ratio of net investment loss to average net assets (%)		(0.00	)(c)(f)		(0.26	)		(0.40	)		(0.53	)		(0.26	)
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		53			64			56			58			74
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	280.6		$	310.7		$	355.8		$	402.4		$	311.0

	Class B
	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014			2013			2012
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	12.43		$	14.11		$	16.01		$	10.79		$	9.73
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment loss (a)		(0.03	)(c)		(0.07	)		(0.09	)		(0.10	)		(0.05	)
Net realized and unrealized gain on investments		0.66			0.45			0.09			5.32			1.11
Total from investment operations		0.63			0.38			0.00			5.22			1.06
Less Distributions
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(1.40	)		(2.06	)		(1.90	)		0.00			0.00
Total distributions		(1.40	)		(2.06	)		(1.90	)		0.00			0.00
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	11.66		$	12.43		$	14.11		$	16.01		$	10.79
Total Return (%) (d)		6.05			1.43			0.94			48.38			10.89
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Gross ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		1.21			1.20			1.20			1.20			1.21
Net ratio of expenses to average net assets (%) (e)		1.12			1.11			1.11			1.11			1.12
Ratio of net investment loss to average net assets (%)		(0.25	)(c)		(0.51	)		(0.65	)		(0.77	)		(0.51	)
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		53			64			56			58			74
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	60.1		$	64.2		$	71.9		$	80.7		$	60.4

Please see following page for Financial Highlights footnote legend.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-12

Metropolitan Series Fund

Loomis Sayles Small Cap Growth Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class E
	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014			2013			2012
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	12.71		$	14.37		$	16.25		$	10.94		$	9.86
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment loss (a)		(0.02	)(c)		(0.06	)		(0.08	)		(0.09	)		(0.04	)
Net realized and unrealized gain on investments		0.68			0.46			0.10			5.40			1.12
Total from investment operations		0.66			0.40			0.02			5.31			1.08
Less Distributions
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(1.40	)		(2.06	)		(1.90	)		0.00			0.00
Total distributions		(1.40	)		(2.06	)		(1.90	)		0.00			0.00
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	11.97		$	12.71		$	14.37		$	16.25		$	10.94
Total Return (%) (d)		6.16			1.55			1.05			48.54			10.95
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Gross ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		1.11			1.10			1.10			1.10			1.11
Net ratio of expenses to average net assets (%) (e)		1.02			1.01			1.01			1.01			1.02
Ratio of net investment loss to average net assets (%)		(0.15	)(c)		(0.41	)		(0.55	)		(0.67	)		(0.41	)
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		53			64			56			58			74
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	6.4		$	6.7		$	7.4		$	8.7		$	6.3

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

(b) Net investment loss was less than $0.01.

(c) Net investment income per share and the ratio of net investment income to average net assets include a non-recurring refund for overbilling of prior years’ custodian out-of-pocket fees which amounted to less than $0.01 per share and 0.02% of average net assets, respectively.

(d) Total return does not reflect any insurance, sales, separate account or administrative charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts or any additional expenses that contract owners may bear under their variable contracts. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower.

(e) Includes the effects of management fee waivers (see Note 5 of the Notes to Financial Statements).

(f) Ratio of net investment loss to average net assets was less than (0.01)%.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-13

Metropolitan Series Fund

Loomis Sayles Small Cap Growth Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016

1. Organization

Metropolitan Series Fund (the “Trust”) is organized as a Delaware statutory trust and registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), as an open-end management investment company. The Trust, which is managed by MetLife Advisers, LLC (“MetLife Advisers” or the “Adviser”), an affiliate of MetLife, Inc., is currently comprised of thirty series, each of which operates as a distinct investment vehicle of the Trust. The portfolio included in this report is Loomis Sayles 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.

On January 12, 2016, MetLife, Inc. announced its plan to pursue the separation of a substantial portion of its retail segment and is currently evaluating structural alternatives for such separation. It is anticipated that MetLife Advisers would be included in any such separation. Any separation transaction that might occur will be subject to the satisfaction of various conditions and approvals, including approval of any transaction by the MetLife, Inc. Board of Directors, satisfaction of any applicable requirements of the SEC, and receipt of insurance and other regulatory approvals and other anticipated conditions. MetLife, Inc. cannot currently provide a specific potential completion date for a separation transaction or any assurance that a separation will in fact occur. MetLife Advisers’ continued service as investment adviser to the Trusts following a separation transaction is the subject of a proxy statement that was filed with the SEC on December 20, 2016 and mailed to shareholders of the Portfolio on or about December 30, 2016.

The Portfolio has registered and offers three classes of shares: Class A, B and E shares. 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 plan and such distribution expenses are allocated to the corresponding Class of shares.

2. Significant Accounting Policies

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities as of the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of income and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates. In the preparation of these financial statements, management has evaluated events and transactions subsequent to December 31, 2016 through the date the financial statements were issued.

The Portfolio is an investment company and follows the accounting and reporting guidance of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Accounting Standards Codification Topic 946—Financial Services—Investment Companies and Topic 820—Fair Value Measurement. 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 - Domestic and foreign equity securities, such as common stock, exchange-traded funds, rights, warrants, and preferred stock, that are traded on a securities exchange on a valuation date are generally valued at their last quoted sale price or official closing price on the primary exchange for such security, or, if no sales occurred on that day, at the last reported bid price. Equity securities traded over-the-counter (“OTC”) are generally valued at the last reported bid price. In the event of a major exchange closing during the trading day, the Adviser may use other market information obtained from quotation reporting systems, established market makers, or pricing services in valuing the securities. Valuation adjustments may be applied to certain foreign equity securities that are traded solely on foreign exchanges that close before the time as of which the Portfolio determines its NAV to account for the market movement between the close of the foreign exchanges and the time as of which the Portfolio determines its NAV. The Portfolio may use a systematic fair valuation model provided by a pricing service to value securities principally traded in these foreign markets in order to adjust for possible market movements or other changes that may occur between the close of the foreign exchanges and the time as of which the Portfolio determines its NAV. Foreign equity securities valued using these valuation adjustments are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy. Equity securities that are actively traded, and have no valuation adjustments applied, are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other equity securities traded on inactive markets, or valued in reference to similar instruments traded on active markets, 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 on the valuation date and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy.

Debt securities, including corporate, convertible and municipal bonds and notes; obligations of the U.S. Treasury and U.S. government agencies; foreign sovereign issues; 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 the Adviser (each a “pricing service”), pursuant to

MSF-14

Metropolitan Series Fund

Loomis Sayles Small Cap Growth Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

authorization of and subject to general oversight by the Board of Trustees of the Trust (the “Board” or “Trustees”). Such pricing services may use matrix pricing, which considers observable inputs including, among other things, issuer details, maturity dates, interest rates, yield curves, rates of prepayment, credit risks/spreads, default rates, reported trades, broker dealer quotes and quoted prices for similar assets. Short-term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less may be valued at amortized cost in the absence of market quotes, so long as the amortized cost value of such short-term debt instrument is approximately the same as the fair value of the instrument as determined without the use of amortized cost valuation. Floating rate loans are generally valued on the basis of an evaluated or composite average of aggregate bid and ask quotations supplied by brokers or dealers, as obtained from the pricing service. Securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally 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 sale price available as of the close of business on a valuation day or, if there is no such price available, at the last reported bid price. These types of options are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Futures contracts that are traded on commodity exchanges are valued at their settlement prices established by the exchanges on which they are traded as of the close of such exchanges and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy.

If no current market value quotation or other observable inputs are readily available or market value quotations are deemed to be unreliable for an investment, the fair value of the investment will be determined in accordance with procedures approved by, and under the general supervision of, the Board. In such a circumstance, the Board will be assisted in its responsibility to determine the fair value of an investment by the Valuation Committee (“Committee”) of MetLife Advisers. The Committee provides general pricing oversight and fair value pricing determinations related to portfolio securities and meets on a regular basis to review reports relating to the valuation of the securities in the Portfolio. The Board has delegated to State Street Bank and Trust Company, the Trust’s custodian (“custodian”), the responsibility for calculating the net asset values (“NAVs”) of the Trust’s Portfolios. The Committee is responsible for overseeing the calculation of the NAVs of the Portfolios by the custodian. The Committee also periodically reviews pricing services, including the pricing services providing fair value pricing for the Portfolio’s foreign securities, and is responsible for overseeing the correction of pricing errors and addressing other pricing issues that arise in the ordinary course of business, such as making real-time fair value determinations, as necessary.

No single standard for determining the fair value of an investment can be set forth because fair value depends upon the facts and circumstances with respect to each investment. Information relating to any relevant factors may be obtained by the Committee from any appropriate source, including the subadviser of the Portfolio, the custodian, a pricing service, market maker and/or broker for such security or the issuer. Appropriate methodologies for determining fair value under particular circumstances may include: matrix pricing, a discounted cash flow analysis, comparisons of securities with comparable characteristics, value based on multiples of earnings, discount from market price of similar marketable securities or a combination of these and other methods.

Due to Custodian - Pursuant to the custodian agreement, State Street Bank and Trust Company (SSBT) may, in its discretion, advance funds to the Portfolio to make properly authorized payments. When such payments result in an overdraft, the Portfolio is obligated to repay SSBT at the current rate of interest charged by SSBT for secured loans (currently, the Federal Funds rate plus 2%). This obligation is payable on demand to SSBT. SSBT has a lien on a Portfolio’s assets to the extent of any overdraft. At December 31, 2016, the Portfolio had a payment due to SSBT pursuant to the foregoing arrangement of $40,963. Based on the short-term nature of these payments and the variable interest rate, the carrying value of the overdraft advances apporximated its fair value at December 31, 2016. If measured at fair value, overdraft advances would have been considered as Level 2 in the fair value hierarchy at December 31, 2016. The Portfolio’s average overdraft advances during the year ended December 31, 2016 were not significant.

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 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. These foreign taxes have been provided for in accordance with the Portfolio’s understanding of the applicable countries’ tax rules and rates.

Dividends and Distributions to Shareholders - The Portfolio records dividends and distributions on the ex-dividend date. Net realized gains from securities 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 net operating losses, adjustments to prior period accumulated balances and broker commission recapture. These adjustments have no impact on net assets or the results 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

MSF-15

Metropolitan Series Fund

Loomis Sayles Small Cap Growth Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

taxable income to shareholders. Therefore, no federal income tax provision is required. The Portfolio files U.S. federal 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. As of December 31, 2016, the Portfolio had no uncertain tax positions that would require financial statement recognition, or de-recognition or disclosure.

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 net ratio of expenses to average net assets presented in the Financial Highlights for each share class.

Repurchase Agreements - The Portfolio may enter into repurchase agreements, under the terms of a Master Repurchase Agreement (“MRA”), 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, under a tri-party repurchase agreement, receives delivery of the underlying securities collateralizing any repurchase agreements. It is the Portfolio’s policy that the market value of the collateral be equal to at least 100% of the repurchase price in the case of a repurchase agreement of one-day duration and equal to at least 102% of the repurchase price in the case of all other repurchase agreements. In the event of default or failure by a party to perform an obligation in connection with any repurchase transaction, the MRA gives the non-defaulting party the right to set-off claims and to apply property held by it in connection with any repurchase transaction against obligations owed to it.

At December 31, 2016, the Portfolio had direct investments in repurchase agreements with a gross value of $13,467,970. Additionally, the Portfolio invested cash collateral for loans of portfolio securities in repurchase agreements with a gross value of $5,310,600. The combined value of all repurchase agreements is included as part of investments at value on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. The value of the related collateral exceeded the value of the repurchase agreements at December 31, 2016.

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 collateral held from securities on loan. 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.

Effective September 8, 2016, the Trust has entered into a Non-Custodial Securities Lending Agreement with JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (the “lending agent”). Prior to September 8, 2016, the Trust had entered into a Securities Lending Authorization Agreement with the custodian (the “prior lending agent”). Under each agreement, the lending agent is authorized to loan portfolio securities on the Portfolio’s behalf. In exchange, the Portfolio receives either cash or government securities as collateral against the loaned securities. The Portfolio receives collateral equal to at least 102% of the market value for loans secured by government securities or cash in the same currency as the loaned shares and 105% for all other loaned securities at each loan’s inception. Collateral representing at least 100% of the market value of the loaned securities is maintained for the duration of the loan. Any cash collateral received by the Portfolio is generally invested by the lending agent in short-term investments, which may include certificates of deposit, commercial paper, repurchase agreements, time deposits and money market funds. Cash collateral that was received by the prior lending agent had been generally invested in the State Street Navigator Securities Lending MET Portfolio (the “Navigator Portfolio”), a series of the State Street Navigator Securities Lending Trust that was a registered money market fund managed by an affiliate of the custodian. The market value of investments made with cash collateral received are disclosed in the Schedule of Investments and the valuation techniques are described in Note 2. 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 is 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 is equal to at least 100% of the market value of all the loaned securities as of such preceding day. A portion of the income earned on the collateral is rebated to the borrower of the securities and the remainder is split between the lending agent and the Portfolio. On loans collateralized by government securities, a fee is received from the borrower and is allocated between the Portfolio and the lending agent.

Income received by the Portfolio in securities lending transactions during the year ended December 31, 2016 is reflected as securities lending income on the Statement of Operations. The values of any securities loaned by the Portfolio and the related collateral at December 31, 2016 are disclosed in the footnotes to the Schedule of Investments. The value of the related collateral received by the Portfolio exceeded the value of the securities out on loan at December 31, 2016.

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. The lending agent shall indemnify the Portfolio in the case of default of any securities borrower, subject to the terms of the Non-Custodial Securities Lending Agreement.

MSF-16

Metropolitan Series Fund

Loomis Sayles Small Cap Growth Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

All securities on loan are classified as Common Stocks in the Portfolio’s Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016, with a contractual maturity of overnight and continuous.

3. Certain Risks

In the normal course of business, the Underlying Portfolios invest in securities and enter into transactions where risks exist. Those risks include:

Market 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, interest rate, and price fluctuations.

Credit and Counterparty Risk: 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 and counterparty risk consist principally of cash due from counterparties and investments. The Portfolio manages counterparty risk by entering into agreements only with counterparties that it believes have the financial resources to honor their obligations and by monitoring the financial stability of those counterparties. The Portfolio’s investment adviser attempts to mitigate counterparty risk by (i) periodically assessing the creditworthiness of its trading partners, (ii) monitoring and/or limiting the amount of its net exposure to each individual counterparty based on its assessment, and (iii) requiring collateral from the counterparty for certain transactions. In order to preserve certain safeguards for non-standard settlement trades, the Portfolio restricts its exposure to credit and counterparty losses by entering into master netting agreements (“Master Agreements”) with counterparties (approved brokers) with whom it undertakes a significant volume of transactions. Master Agreements govern the terms of certain transactions, and reduce the counterparty risk associated with relevant transactions by specifying credit protection mechanisms and providing standardization that improves legal certainty. Master Agreements can also help limit counterparty risk by specifying collateral posting arrangements at pre-arranged exposure levels.

Repurchase and reverse repurchase agreements are primarily executed under Global Master Repurchase Agreements (“GMRAs”) or Master Repurchase Agreements (“MRAs”), which provide the rights to set-off. Each repurchase and reverse repurchase agreement is initially collateralized at the transaction level. In the event of default, the total market value exposure will be offset against collateral exchanged to date, which would result in a net receivable/(payable) that would be due from/to the counterparty.

Additional risks associated with each type of investment are described above within the respective security type notes. The Portfolio’s prospectus includes a discussion of the principal risks of investing in the Portfolio.

4. Investment Transactions

Aggregate cost of purchases and proceeds of sales of investment securities, excluding short-term securities, for the year ended December 31, 2016 were as follows:

Purchases			Sales
U.S. Government	Non U.S. Government		U.S. Government		Non U.S. Government
$0	$	179,328,621	$	0	$	236,754,945

5. Investment Management Fees and Other Transactions with Affiliates

Investment Management Agreement - MetLife Advisers is the investment adviser to the Portfolio. The Trust has entered into an investment management agreement with MetLife Advisers with respect to the Portfolio. For providing investment management services to the Portfolio, MetLife Advisers receives monthly compensation at the following annual rates:

Management Fees earned by MetLife Advisers for the year ended December 31, 2016	% per annum			Average daily net assets
$3,127,503		0.900	%	Of the first $500 million
		0.850	%	On amounts in excess of $500 million

MetLife Advisers has entered into an investment subadvisory agreement with respect to managing the Portfolio. Loomis, Sayles & Company, L.P. is compensated by MetLife Advisers to provide subadvisory services for the Portfolio.

MSF-17

Metropolitan Series Fund

Loomis Sayles Small Cap Growth Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

Management Fee Waivers - Pursuant to an expense agreement, MetLife Advisers has agreed, for the period May 1, 2016 to April 30, 2017, to reduce its advisory fees set out above under “Investment Management Agreement” for each class of the Portfolio as follows:

% per annum	Average daily net assets
0.050%	On the first $100 million
0.100%	On the next $400 million
0.050%	On amounts in excess of $500 million

An identical expense agreement was in place for the period May 1, 2015 to April 30, 2016. Amounts waived for the year ended December 31, 2016 are shown as management fee waivers in the Statement of Operations.

Certain officers and trustees of the Trust may also be officers of MetLife Advisers; 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 and Service Fees - The Trust has a distribution agreement with MetLife Investors Distribution Company (“MIDC” or the “Distributor”) in which MIDC serves as the distributor for the Portfolio’s Class A, B and E Shares. MIDC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife Investors Group, LLC, an affiliate of the Adviser. The Trust has also adopted a Distribution and Service Plan under Rule 12b-1 of the 1940 Act for the Portfolio’s Class B and E Shares. Under the Distribution and Service Plan, the Class B and E Shares of the Portfolio pay a fee to compensate the Insurance Companies (or their affiliates) and other broker-dealers and financial intermediaries involved in the offer and sale of Portfolio shares for promoting or selling and servicing the Class B and E Shares. The fees under the Distribution and Service Plan for each class of the Portfolio’s shares are calculated as a percentage of the Portfolio’s average daily net assets that are attributable to that Class. Currently, the fee is 0.25% per year for Class B Shares and 0.15% per year for Class E Shares. Amounts incurred by the Portfolio for the year ended December 31, 2016 are shown as Distribution and service fees in the Statement of Operations.

Deferred Trustee Compensation - Each Trustee 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 Trust. 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 Met Investors Series Trust, an affiliate of the Trust, 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 under the Plan is reflected as Deferred trustees’ fees in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

6. Contractual Obligations

Under the Trust’s organizational documents, its officers and Trustees may be indemnified against certain liabilities and expenses arising out of the performance of their duties to the Trust. Additionally, 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 Trust that have not yet occurred.

7. Income Tax Information

The tax character of distributions paid for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015 were as follows:

Ordinary Income			Long-Term Capital Gain				Total
2016	2015		2016		2015		2016		2015
$—	$	—	$	38,009,965	$	55,079,215	$	38,009,965	$	55,079,215

As of December 31, 2016, 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		Other Accumulated Capital Losses		Total
$—	$	16,748,734	$	71,498,870	$	—	$	88,247,604

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

MSF-18

Metropolitan Series Fund

Loomis Sayles Small Cap Growth Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

as short-term and/or long-term losses. Previously, net capital losses were carried forward for up to 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, 2016, the Portfolio had no post-enactment accumulated capital losses and no pre-enactment accumulated capital loss carryforwards.

8. Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In October 2016, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) adopted new rules and forms, and amendments to certain current rules and forms, to modernize reporting and disclosure of information by registered investment companies. The amendments to Regulation S-X will require standardized, enhanced disclosure about derivatives in investment company financial statements, and will also change the rules governing the form and content of such financial statements. The compliance date for the amendments to Regulation S-X is August 1, 2017. Management is currently evaluating the impact that the adoption of the amendments to Regulation S-X will have on the Portfolio’s financial statements and related disclosures.

MSF-19

Metropolitan Series Fund

Loomis Sayles Small Cap Growth Portfolio

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Shareholders of Loomis Sayles Small Cap Growth Portfolio and the Board of Trustees of Metropolitan Series Fund:

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities, including the schedule of investments, of Loomis Sayles Small Cap Growth Portfolio (one of the portfolios constituting the Metropolitan Series Fund) (the “Portfolio”) as of December 31, 2016, 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 Portfolio’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 Portfolio 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 Portfolio’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, 2016, by correspondence with the custodian and brokers; when 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 Small Cap Growth Portfolio of the Metropolitan Series Fund as of December 31, 2016, 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.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

February 24, 2017

MSF-20

Metropolitan Series Fund

Trustees and Officers

MANAGEMENT OF THE TRUSTS

The Boards of Trustees (the “Board”) of Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (“MIST” and “MSF”, respectively, and collectively the “Trusts”) supervise the Trusts and are responsible for representing the interests of shareholders. The Trustees, the Chairman of the Board and the Chairmen of each subcommittee are the same for both Trusts. The Trustees of each Trust meet periodically throughout the year to oversee the Portfolios’ activities, reviewing, among other things, each Portfolio’s performance and its contractual arrangements with various service providers. The Trustees of each Trust elect the officers of the Trust, who are responsible for administering the Trust’s day-to-day operations.

Trustees and Officers

The Trustees and executive officers of the Trusts, as well as their ages and their principal occupations during the past five years, are set forth below. Unless otherwise indicated, the business address of each is c/o MetLife Funds, One Financial Center, Boston, Massachusetts 02111. Each Trustee who is deemed an “interested person,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, is referred to as an “Interested Trustee.” Those Trustees who are not “interested persons,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, are referred to as “Independent Trustees.” There is no limit to the term a Trustee may serve. Trustees serve until their death, resignation or removal in accordance with the MIST Trust’s and MSF Trust’s respective organizational documents and policies adopted by the Boards of the respective Trusts from time to time. Officers hold office at the pleasure of each Board and serve until their removal or resignation in accordance with the Trusts’ respective organizational documents and policies adopted by the Board of each Trust from time to time.

Name and Age	Current 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 MetLife Funds Complex(2) Overseen by Trustee	Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Interested Trustee
John Rosenthal* (56)	Trustee	Indefinite; From May 2016 (MIST and MSF) to present	Senior Managing Director and Head of Global Portfolio Management, MetLife, Inc.	75	None
Independent Trustees
Dawn M. Vroegop (50)	Trustee and Chairman of the Board	Indefinite; From December 2000 (MIST)/ May 2009 (MSF) to present as Trustee; From May 2016 (MIST and MSF) until present as Chairman	Private Investor.	75	Trustee, Driehaus Mutual Funds.**
Stephen M. Alderman (57)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 (MIST)/ April 2012 (MSF) to present	Shareholder in the law firm of Garfield and Merel, Ltd.	75	None

MSF-21

Metropolitan Series Fund

Trustees and Officers—(Continued)

Name and Age	Current 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 MetLife Funds Complex(2) Overseen by Trustee	Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Robert J. Boulware (60)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 (MIST)/ April 2012 (MSF) to present	Managing Director, Pilgrim Funds, LLC (private equity fund).	75	Trustee, Vertical Capital Income Fund (closed-end fund);** Director, Gainsco, Inc. (auto insurance);** Trustee, SharesPost 100 Fund (closed-end fund).**
Susan C. Gause (64)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 (MIST)/ April 2012 (MSF) to present	Private Investor.	75	Trustee, HSBC Funds.**
Nancy Hawthorne (65)	Trustee	Indefinite; From May 2003 (MSF)/ April 2012 (MIST) to present	Partner, Hawthorne Financial Advisors, LLC (registered investment advisor); until June 2014, Chief Executive Officer, Clerestory LLC (corporate advisor).	75	Director and Chairman of the Board of Directors, THL Credit, Inc.;** Lead Director, Avid Technology, Inc.;** Director, CRA International, Inc.**
Barbara A. Nugent (60)	Trustee	Indefinite; From January 2014 (MIST and MSF) to present	President, True North Board Governance, LLC (consulting); until December 2013, partner in the law firm of Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young, LLP.	75	None
Linda B. Strumpf (69)	Trustee	Indefinite; From May 2000 (MSF)/ April 2012 (MIST) to present	Chair of the Investment Committee, Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust; until June 2011, Chief Investment Officer, Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust.	75	None

Executive Officers

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Kristi Slavin (43)	President and Chief Executive Officer, of MIST and MSF	From May 2016 (MIST and MSF) to present	President, MetLife Advisers, LLC (May 2016-present); Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Vice President, MetLife, Inc.; Vice President, MIST and MSF (2015-2016).

MSF-22

Metropolitan Series Fund

Trustees and Officers—(Continued)

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Peter H. Duffy (61)	Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, of MIST and MSF	From November 2000 (MSF)/ May 2012 (MIST) to present	Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Andrew L. Gangolf (62)	Secretary, of MIST and MSF	From May 2011 (MIST and MSF) to present	Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; until 2011, Senior Vice President & Assistant General Counsel, AllianceBernstein Investments, Inc.
Steven E. Hartstein (53)	Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”), of MIST and MSF	From February 2014 (MIST and MSF) to present	Vice President, MetLife, Inc. (2013-present); Senior Vice President and CCO, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Executive Director, Morgan Stanley (2009-2013); CCO, Consulting Group Capital Markets Funds (2006-2013).
Alan C. Leland (64)	Vice President, of MIST and MSF	From February 2005 (MSF)/ May 2012 (MIST) to present	Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Vice President, MetLife, Inc.

* Mr. Rosenthal is an “interested person” of the Trusts because of his position with MetLife, Inc., the current parent company of MetLife Advisers, LLC.

** 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 Trusts, MetLife, Inc. or the Manager are omitted if not materially different.

(2) The Fund Complex includes 45 MIST Portfolios and 30 MSF Portfolios.

MSF-23

Metropolitan Series Fund

Loomis Sayles Small Cap Growth Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements

At an in-person meeting held on November 15-16, 2016 (the “November Meeting”), the Boards of Trustees (the “Board”) of the Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (“MIST” and “MSF,” respectively, and collectively, the “Trusts”), including a majority of the Trustees who are not “interested persons” of the Trusts (the “Independent Trustees”) under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “1940 Act”), approved the continuation of the Trusts’ advisory agreements (each, an “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 the series of the Trusts (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”).

In reaching that decision, the Board reviewed a variety of materials provided for the specific purpose of the annual contract renewal process. In addition, various materials provided to and discussed with the Board throughout the year also informed the Board’s decision to renew the Agreements. That information for each Portfolio included, but was not limited to, investment performance reports, along with periodic reports on various expenses, shareholder services, legal and compliance matters, asset pricing, brokerage commissions and trade execution. The Board also recognized the pending separation of the Adviser from its parent company, MetLife, Inc., as a consideration in their deliberations with respect to the Agreements.

The Board met in person with personnel of the Adviser on September 27, 2016 for the specific purpose of giving preliminary consideration to the proposed continuation of the Agreements (the “September Meeting”) through the review by the Adviser with the Board of the performance and fees experienced by each Portfolio, as well as other information. In considering the Agreements, the Independent Trustees were advised by independent legal counsel throughout the contract renewal process, and met with independent legal counsel in several executive sessions outside of the presence of management.

Information furnished and reviewed specifically in connection with the renewal process included, but was not limited to, a report for each Portfolio prepared by Broadridge (“Broadridge”), an independent organization, and a Portfolio-by-Portfolio profitability analysis prepared by the Adviser. In addition, the Independent Trustees received and reviewed a report prepared by JDL Consultants, LLC (“JDL”), an independent consultant to the Independent Trustees (“JDL Report”), which examined the comparative fees, expenses and performance of each Portfolio, based upon the Broadridge reports. Also, the Board reviewed the responses to wide-ranging questions relating to the business, operations and performance of the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers that the Adviser and Sub-Advisers had prepared specifically for the renewal process.

At the November Meeting, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, concluded that the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser supported the renewal of the Agreements. The Board also concluded that the investment performance of each Portfolio was such that each Agreement should continue, and that the fees paid by a Portfolio to the Adviser appeared to be reasonable in light of the nature, extent and quality of the services provided by the Adviser and Sub-Adviser. Further, the Board concluded that the Adviser’s profitability in providing services under the Advisory Agreements did not appear unreasonably high in light of the nature, extent and quality of the services provided by the Adviser. Finally, the Board concluded that the investment advisory fees paid by the Portfolios in some measure shared economies of scale with contract holders. In approving the renewal of each of the Agreements, the Board, including the Independent Trustees, gave attention to all of the information that was furnished. The Board evaluated the information available to it on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis, and its decision was made separately with respect to each Portfolio. The following discusses some of the primary factors that generally were relevant to the Board’s decision. The Board did not identify any single factor as controlling, and the Trustees generally attributed different weights to various factors for the various Portfolios.

Nature, extent and quality of services. The Board evaluated the nature, extent and quality of the services that the Adviser, and the Sub-Advisers as relevant, have provided to the Portfolios. The Board considered the Adviser’s services as investment manager to the Portfolios, including its services relating to the oversight of the Sub-Advisers and their investment management activities, trading practices, financial condition, relevant personnel matters and compliance programs, among other things. The Adviser’s services in coordinating and overseeing the activities of the Trusts’ other service providers were also considered. The Board considered information received from the Trusts’ Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) regarding the Portfolios’ compliance policies and procedures that were established pursuant to Rule 38a-l under the 1940 Act. In addition, throughout the year, the Board considered the expertise, experience and performance of the personnel of the Adviser who performed the various services that are mentioned above.

The Board also noted that the Adviser’s investment, compliance and legal staff conduct regular, periodic, telephonic and in-person meetings with the Sub-Advisers to review and assess the services that are provided to the Portfolios, and that personnel of the Adviser prepare and present reports to the Independent Trustees regarding those meetings.

MSF-24

Metropolitan Series Fund

Loomis Sayles Small Cap Growth Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

With respect to the services provided by each of the Sub-Advisers, the Board considered a variety of information that the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser provided. The Board considered each Sub-Adviser’s investment process and philosophy, and the investment performance experienced by the Portfolio (as described in more detail below). The Board took into account that each Sub-Adviser’s responsibilities include the development and maintenance of an investment program for the applicable Portfolio that 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. In particular, the Board considered, among other things, the Sub-Adviser’s current level of staffing as well as its compensation program and its overall resources. The Board reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s history and investment experience, as well as information provided 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 regulatory and disciplinary history. In its review, the Board also took into account information regarding any services and/or payments provided to the Adviser by the Sub-Advisers in connection with marketing activities.

Performance. The Board placed emphasis on the performance of the Portfolios in light of, among other things, its importance to contract holders. The Board considered the Adviser’s quarterly reviews with the Board of detailed information about each Portfolio’s investment strategies and performance results and composition, including discussions regarding the relevant effect of current market conditions. The Board reviewed and considered the reports prepared by Broadridge, which provided a statistical analysis comparing the Portfolios’ investment performance to that of comparable funds underlying variable insurance products (the “Performance Universe”). The Independent Trustees also met separately with a representative of JDL during the September Meeting to review the JDL Report. The Board also compared the performance records of certain Portfolios to those of comparable funds that were managed by the relevant Sub-Adviser. At the November Meeting, the Board considered each Portfolio’s performance for periods subsequent to the performance period covered by the Broadridge reports, and the Adviser’s discussion of the same, including the effect of current market conditions on each Portfolio’s more recent performance.

The Board focused particular attention on Portfolios with less favorable performance records. The Board noted the Adviser’s focus on each Sub-Adviser’s performance and that the Adviser has been active in monitoring and responding to any performance issues with respect to the Portfolios.

Fees and Expenses. The Board gave consideration to the level and method of computing the fees payable under the Agreements. The Board considered the Broadridge report for each of the Portfolios, which included comparisons for each Portfolio of its contractual management and sub-adviser fees (at current and various asset levels), and total expenses, with those of its peers, including as those peers were divided into a broad group of peer funds (“Expense Universe”), a narrower group of peer funds (“Expense Group”), a broad group of peer sub-advised funds (“Sub-advised Expense Universe”), and a narrower group of peer sub-advised funds (“Sub-advised Expense Group”). Broadridge selected the peer funds which were similarly situated funds underlying variable insurance products deemed to be comparable to the Portfolios. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of JDL, also examined the JDL Report. The Board compared the fee payable to a Sub-Adviser by the Adviser with respect to the Portfolio to the fee payable to the Sub-Adviser by other comparable funds and accounts, to the extent such information was available.

The Board noted that the sub-advisory fees for the Portfolios are paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fee, and that, in the case of an unaffiliated Sub-Adviser, the Adviser negotiates the fee at arm’s length. The Board also considered that the Adviser had entered into expense limitation or management fee waiver agreements with certain of the Portfolios pursuant to which the Adviser had 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.

Profitability. The Board examined the profitability of the Adviser on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis. The Board also considered that an affiliate of the Adviser, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, serves as distributor for the Trusts, and, as such, receives Rule 12b-1 payments to support the distribution of the Portfolios. The Board considered the profitability to the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates as a result of their relationships with the Portfolios, to the extent available, and the Board considered the ability of the Adviser to negotiate with an unaffiliated Sub-Adviser at arm’s length. In reviewing the profitability analyses, the Board recognized that expense allocation methodologies are inherently subjective and various expense allocation methodologies may be reasonable while producing different results.

Economies of scale. The Board also considered each Portfolio’s fees in light of its size. The Board noted the fee schedules for the Portfolios that 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

MSF-25

Metropolitan Series Fund

Loomis Sayles Small Cap Growth Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

schedule for such Portfolios. The Board considered the effective fees under the Advisory Agreement and Sub-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. The Board examined, among other data, the effect of a Portfolio’s growth in size, and reduction in size, on various fee schedules and the Board reviewed the Broadridge and JDL Reports, which compared fees among peers. The Board also generally noted that if a Portfolio’s assets increase over time, the Portfolio may realize other economies of scale if assets increase proportionally more than certain other fixed expenses.

Other factors. The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trusts. Among them, the Board recognized that MetLife Investors Distribution Company, as the distributor for the Trusts, receives payments pursuant to Rule 12b-1 from the Portfolios to compensate for the provision of shareholder services and distribution activities, which could lead to growth in the Trusts’ assets and corresponding benefits from such growth, including economies of scale. The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by each Sub-Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trusts, including the opportunity to provide advisory services to additional portfolios of the Trusts and reputational benefits. In conjunction with these considerations, the Board noted the ongoing commitment of the Adviser to the Portfolios.

The Board considered possible conflicts of interest in the form of material benefits or detriments to the Trusts resulting from the nature of the Trusts’ and the Adviser’s or the Sub-Advisers’ affiliations and the services that are provided to the Trusts, and the manner in which such conflicts were mitigated.

*  *  *

Loomis Sayles Small Cap Growth Portfolio. The Board also considered the following information in relation to the Agreements with the Adviser and Loomis, Sayles & Company, L.P. regarding the Portfolio:

Among other data relating specifically to the Portfolio’s performance, the Board considered that the Portfolio outperformed the median of its Performance Universe for the five-year period ended June 30, 2016, and underperformed its Performance Universe for the one- and three-year periods ended June 30, 2016. The Board also considered that the Portfolio outperformed its Lipper Index for the one-, three-, and five-year periods. The Board further considered that the Portfolio underperformed its benchmark, the Russell 2000 Growth Index, for the one-, three-, and five-year periods ended October 31, 2016.

The Board also noted that the Portfolio’s actual management fees were below the Expense Group median and Expense Universe median and above the Sub-advised Expense Universe median. The Board considered that the Portfolio’s total expenses (exclusive of 12b-1 fees) were below the Expense Group median and Expense Universe median and equal to the Sub-advised Expense Universe median. The Board further noted that the Portfolio’s contractual management fees were above the asset-weighted average of certain comparable funds at the Portfolio’s current size. The Board also took into account that the Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees were above the averages of the Sub-advised Expense Universe and equal to the Sub-advised Expense Group at the Portfolio’s current size.

MSF-26

Metropolitan Series Fund

Loomis Sayles Small Cap Growth Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Advisory Agreements

The separation (the “Separation”) of MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”), the investment adviser to each of the series (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”) of Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (collectively, the “Trusts”), from its parent company, MetLife, Inc. (“MetLife”), to a separate retail business, Brighthouse Financial, Inc. (“Brighthouse”), is expected to result in a change in control of the Adviser, and therefore an “assignment” of each Portfolio’s current advisory agreement (each a “Current Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “Current Advisory Agreements”). At the November 15-16, 2016 meeting (“November Meeting”) of the Board of Trustees of the Trusts (the “Board”), the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not “interested persons,” as defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940, of any Portfolio (the “Independent Trustees”), approved a new advisory agreement (each a “New Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “New Advisory Agreements”) between the Trusts, on behalf of a Portfolio, and the Adviser, to be effective upon the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements in connection with the Separation, and recommended that the shareholders of the Trusts approve the New Advisory Agreements. The Board took those actions after consideration of and deliberation over information concerning the Separation, including with respect to the degree to which the Separation would affect the provision of investment advisory services to the Trusts. Information about the Board’s considerations and process is set forth below.

In determining whether to approve the New Advisory Agreements and in considering the Separation, the Board considered the nature, quality and extent of the services that are currently provided by the Adviser under the Current Advisory Agreements as well as the services to be provided under the New Advisory Agreements. The Board’s review was conducted as part of, and in conjunction with, the Board’s annual review of the Current Advisory Agreements, which culminated at the November Meeting. In approving the New Advisory Agreements, the Board considered its conclusions with respect to its approvals of the Current Advisory Agreements, including the Board’s general satisfaction with the nature, extent and quality of services being provided by the Adviser to each Portfolio. Appendix A and Appendix B contains a further description of the process followed, information reviewed and the material factors considered by the Board in approving the continuation of the Current Advisory Agreements.

A substantial portion of the Board’s review of the New Advisory Agreements focused on the Separation, including the potential effect of the implementation of the Separation on the operations, personnel, organizational structure, capitalization, and financial and other resources of the Adviser. After being informed by the Adviser in January 2016 of the possibility of the Separation, the Board and its Committees discussed the Separation and its possible effects on the Trusts with personnel of the Adviser and the anticipated senior management at Brighthouse during the course of the Board’s or Committee’s regularly scheduled, in-person, quarterly meetings.

Between August and November 2016, the Board and the Independent Trustees engaged in an extensive review and analysis of the Separation and how the Separation related to the Adviser and the Trusts and how it could affect the services provided to the Trusts. This analysis focused on, among other matters, the assurances from Brighthouse’s anticipated leadership as to its expectations for the continuity and stability of the Adviser’s personnel throughout implementation of the Separation and for the foreseeable future thereafter. The Board considered that the Separation is being implemented as a result of MetLife’s determination to divest itself of a substantial portion of its U.S. retail business (of which the Adviser forms a portion). The Board also considered that it has been satisfied as a general matter with the nature and quality of the services that the Adviser provides to the Portfolios, including investment advisory, administrative, legal, compliance, and support services, and that it would be in the Portfolios’ best interests to maintain continuity and stability in the services that are currently being provided. The Board carefully considered the anticipated future plans of Brighthouse related to capitalization and operational matters for Brighthouse and the Adviser, as well as the importance of the Adviser to the businesses of Brighthouse after the Separation.

Among other steps in its review process, which accelerated on October 5, 2016 when Brighthouse filed its Form 10 with the SEC, the following actions were taken and considered by or on behalf of the Board:

1. The Independent Trustees solicited and received ongoing advice regarding the legal duties of the Independent Trustees from Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young LLP (“Stradley Ronon”), legal counsel for the Independent Trustees, which law firm has extensive experience regarding such matters.

2. Following the August 16-17, 2016 Board and Committee quarterly meetings, the Independent Trustees established an ad hoc group of Independent Trustees (the “Working Group”) to help oversee, coordinate, and conduct due diligence activities with respect to the Separation. The Working Group regularly reported on the due diligence activities to the other Independent Trustees.

3. Since January 2016, the Board posed ongoing inquiries to, and received regular updates from, the Adviser and anticipated senior management at Brighthouse at either in-person meetings dedicated to the status of the Separation or during the course of the Board or Committee’s regular quarterly meetings. The Board considered, among other matters, relevant legal guidance and the processes followed by certain other investment company boards of directors or trustees when they approved contracts in connection with change in control events, while recognizing the unique circumstances of the Separation.

MSF-27

Metropolitan Series Fund

Loomis Sayles Small Cap Growth Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

4. The Board received and reviewed the Form 10 of Brighthouse that contained extensive information relating to, among other matters, Brighthouse’s anticipated business plans and financial structure. The Board also received and reviewed reports from rating agencies with respect to Brighthouse.

5. Stradley Ronon retained Barrington Partners (“Barrington”), an independent consulting firm with a specific focus on the asset management industry and experience relating to business operations such as those to be conducted by Brighthouse, including its proposed subsidiary, the Adviser, in order to help Stradley Ronon evaluate the Separation based on the Form 10 and other materials and related information provided by the Adviser and its affiliates. Barrington conducted a series of in-person and telephonic meetings with anticipated senior management at Brighthouse (i.e., the aforementioned anticipated officers of Brighthouse and others) and with personnel of the Adviser who provide services to the Trusts. Stradley Ronon, with the assistance of Barrington, evaluated the information and advised the Independent Trustees with respect to, among other matters, details of Brighthouse’s anticipated business plan to understand the implications of the Separation to the Adviser and its personnel. The Independent Trustees and the Working Group attended certain in-person and telephonic conference call meetings at which Barrington rendered advice to Stradley Ronon regarding these matters and responded to questions.

6. The Independent Trustees requested and participated in in-person meetings with anticipated senior management personnel at Brighthouse, including its President and Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, Chief Operating Officer, and Chief Investment Officer. The Independent Trustees also met with personnel of the Adviser.

7. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of Stradley Ronon, prepared written inquiries to the Adviser and its affiliates regarding the Separation, and received written assurances from the Adviser and its affiliates that they have no plans to make any material changes affecting the personnel of the Adviser (including those personnel who provide investment, administrative, legal and compliance services) and the Adviser and its affiliates will not initiate such changes without prior notice to and discussion with the Board.

8. The Board considered representations by the Adviser and its affiliates that approval of the New Advisory Agreements would be necessary for the Portfolios to continue receiving investment advisory services from the Adviser following the change in control.

9. The Board considered representations by the Adviser, as well as related supporting documentation, indicating that the New Advisory Agreements, including the fees payable thereunder, are substantially identical to the terms of the corresponding Current Advisory Agreements.

10. The Board considered representations by the Adviser and its affiliates, as well as related supporting documentation, indicating that: (1) the Adviser can be expected to provide services of the same nature, extent, and quality under the New Advisory Agreements and as are provided thereby under the Current Advisory Agreements; and (2) the Separation is not expected to result in any changes to (i) the management of the Portfolios, or (ii) the investment objective of or the principal investment strategies used to manage any of the Portfolios.

11. The Board considered the ability of the Adviser and its affiliates to retain the employment of key personnel, as well as the overall positive indications by many such personnel regarding the opportunities presented by the Separation.

12. The Board considered that the Adviser and its affiliates have agreed to bear all expenses associated with obtaining shareholder approval of the New Advisory Agreements.

13. The Board considered Brighthouse’s preliminary “branding” plans regarding the future name of its operations.

14. The Board considered the advice provided by Ropes & Gray, LLP, legal counsel to the Trusts and the Adviser, with respect to the New Advisory Agreements (including advice relating to the process and timing of seeking shareholder approval of the New Advisory Agreements, and whether shareholder approvals would be required in connection with any future aspects of the Separation) and regarding the Board’s role and responsibilities with respect to the Separation.

15. The Board considered MetLife’s stated intention of divesting its ownership interest in the Adviser through the Separation, including the potential advantages and disadvantages of this divestiture to shareholders of the Portfolios. The Board considered the likelihood that the Adviser would retain its key personnel after the Separation. The Board considered that the garnering of new assets into the Trusts is based on sales of variable annuity and variable life insurance products, which sales have declined in prior years as a result of, among other things, the capital requirements of MetLife. The Board considered the representations of the anticipated senior management of Brighthouse that the Separation provides the Trusts with an opportunity for the garnering of new assets as Brighthouse will likely sell such products going forward. The Board considered also that the divestiture would result in a change in the manner in

MSF-28

Metropolitan Series Fund

Loomis Sayles Small Cap Growth Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

which the Trusts access certain services and resources of MetLife (after the Separation those services will be provided through a transition services agreement), the loss of affiliation with the MetLife name brand, and the possible going forward need of the Trusts to hire a transfer agent, as such transfer agency services are currently provided to the Trusts for no fee.

16. The Board considered that, if shareholders approve the New Advisory Agreements, the Board and the Adviser will conduct their annual contract review process in November 2017. Thus, the Board emphasized that it would be able to, and intends to, monitor on a regular basis the ability of the Adviser and its affiliates to comply with their undertakings to the Board and to monitor on an ongoing basis the quality of services to, and expenses of, the Portfolios. In addition, the Board considered that, under the New Advisory Agreements, it will continue to have the authority, should the need arise in its view, to terminate any of the New Advisory Agreements without penalty upon 60 days’ notice.

Based on the foregoing and other relevant considerations, at the November Meeting, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, voted to approve the New Advisory Agreements and to recommend approval of the New Advisory Agreements by shareholders of the Portfolios. In this connection, the Board concluded that, in light of all factors considered, the terms of the New Advisory Agreement, including fee rates, were fair and reasonable, and that it would be in the best interests of shareholders of each Portfolio to approve the New Advisory Agreements.

In the event that approval of the New Advisory Agreements by shareholders of the Portfolios has not been obtained before the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements as a result of the change in control of the Adviser, the Board also approved an interim advisory agreement with the Adviser (the “Interim Advisory Agreement”) on behalf of each Portfolio that will go into effect upon the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements. The Board’s determination to approve each Interim Advisory Agreement was based on the same information and considerations as the Board’s approval of the New Advisory Agreements so as to ensure continuity of advisory services from the Adviser to the Portfolios following the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements.

MSF-29

Metropolitan Series Fund

Loomis Sayles Small Cap Growth Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Sub-Advisory Agreements

The separation (the “Separation”) of MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”), the investment adviser to each of the series (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”) of Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (collectively, the “Trusts”), from its parent company, MetLife, Inc. (“MetLife”), to a separate retail business, Brighthouse Financial, Inc. (“Brighthouse”), is expected to result in a change in control of the Adviser, and therefore an “assignment” of each Portfolio’s current advisory agreement and, as a result, the automatic termination of the sub-advisory agreement (each a “Sub-Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisory Agreements”) between the Adviser and the investment sub-advisers (each a “Sub-Adviser” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisers”). At the November 15-16, 2016 meeting (“November Meeting”) of the Board of Trustees of the Trusts (the “Board”), the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not “interested persons,” as defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940, of any Portfolio (the “Independent Trustees”), approved new sub-advisory agreements (each a “New Sub-Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “New Sub-Advisory Agreements”). Information about the Board’s considerations and process is set forth below.

In determining whether to approve the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, the Board considered the nature, quality and extent of the services that are currently provided by the Sub-Advisers under the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements as well as the services to be provided under the New Sub-Advisory Agreements. The Board’s review was conducted as part of, and in conjunction with, the Board’s annual review of the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements, which culminated at the November Meeting. In approving the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, the Board considered its conclusions with respect to its approvals of the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements, including the Board’s general satisfaction with the nature, extent and quality of services being provided by the Sub-Advisers to the Portfolios, as applicable. Appendix A contains a further description of the process followed, information reviewed and the material factors considered by the Board in approving the continuation of the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements.

In addition, the following actions were taken and considered by or on behalf of the Board:

1. The Independent Trustees of the Board solicited and received ongoing advice regarding the legal duties of the Independent Trustees from Stradley Ronon, legal counsel for the Independent Trustees, which law firm has extensive experience regarding such matters.

2. The Board considered representations by the Adviser and its affiliates that approval of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements would be necessary for the Portfolios to continue receiving sub-advisory services from the Sub-Advisers following the change in control of the Adviser.

3. The Board considered representations by the Adviser, as well as related supporting documentation, indicating that the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, including the fees payable thereunder, are the same as the terms of the corresponding Current Sub-Advisory Agreements.

4. The Board considered the advice provided by Ropes & Gray, LLP, legal counsel to the Trusts and the Adviser, with respect to the New Sub-Advisory Agreements and regarding the Board’s role and responsibilities with respect to the Separation.

5. The Board considered that the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers will conduct their annual contract review process in November 2017. Thus, the Board emphasized that it would be able to, and intends to, monitor on an ongoing basis the ability of the Sub-Advisers to comply with its undertakings to the Board and the Adviser and to monitor on an ongoing basis the quality of services to, and expenses of, the Portfolios. In addition, the Board considered that, under the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, it will continue to have the authority, should the need arise in its view, to terminate any of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements without penalty upon no more than 60 days’ notice.

Based on the foregoing and other relevant considerations, at the November Meeting, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, voted to approve the New Sub-Advisory Agreements. In this connection, the Board concluded that, in light of all factors considered, the terms of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, including fee rates, were fair and reasonable.

MSF-30

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Artisan Mid Cap Value Portfolio

Managed by Artisan Partners Limited Partnership

Portfolio Manager Commentary*

PERFORMANCE

For the 12 months ended December 31, 2016, the Class A, B, and E shares of the Met/Artisan Mid Cap Value Portfolio returned 22.96%, 22.65%, and 22.78%, respectively. The Portfolio’s benchmark, the Russell Midcap Value Index¹, returned 20.00%.

MARKET ENVIRONMENT / CONDITIONS

U.S. stocks advanced across the market-cap spectrum, finishing 2016 with meaningful gains. In a reversal of 2015, value stocks bested growth stocks in 2016, and small-cap stocks outpaced both mid- and large-cap stocks. The Russell Midcap Value Index finished the year ahead of the Russell 1000 Value Index, though it trailed the Russell 2000 Value Index. On a sector level, Materials, Energy, and Industrials outperformed while Health Care, Consumer Discretionary, and Consumer Staples lagged.

On the back of a strong post-election bounce, U.S. equities led foreign developed equities in 2016, followed closely by emerging markets. While most global economies grew modestly in the year, there were nascent signs economic growth may have broadened out, as more cyclical stocks outperformed over the period, particularly in the second half of the year. Cyclical stocks also benefited from the sharp rebound in oil prices over the year after bottoming in February.

PORTFOLIO REVIEW / PERIOD END POSITIONING

The Portfolio outperformed the Russell Midcap Value Index in 2016. Areas of the market that previously had been unloved for some time seemed to find their footing in 2016, as the strong momentum factors that had been a headwind to good quality but deeply discounted companies over the last few years abated—at least in the near term.

The Portfolio’s below-benchmark positioning to Real Estate, Health Care, Utilities, and Consumer Staples was a positive contributor to relative performance in 2016. Our exposure to these areas has not been driven by any top-down, macro views. Rather, it’s a byproduct of our bottom-up approach that has led us away from these perceived safe areas of the market, as valuations appeared stretched.

Following that same vein, a number of the Portfolio’s more global cyclical holdings in Energy, Industrials, and Materials were standout performers this year. Energy exploration and production companies Devon, Apache, and Hess rebounded following a weak start to the year, finishing 2016 with strong returns. As the stocks dipped with commodity prices earlier in the year, we built on the Portfolio’s positions. We believed these quality companies were positioned well to survive a prolonged downturn. In our view, as the fundamental supply and demand pressures in oil markets showed signs of rebalancing, oil prices rebounded, boosting the Portfolio’s Energy holdings. Shares advanced further on news of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries production cut agreement. Our conviction in these names remained and we believed the equities are still pricing in the lower end of our normalized oil price range.

On the downside, shares of Liberty Interactive, an Internet commerce business that owns QVC^® shopping network, weighed on results as the company cautioned a recent deceleration in demand on the backdrop of a continually difficult U.S. retailing environment. Further, concerns of encroachment by online retailers sparked doubt in investors’ minds about the company’s long-term success. We acknowledged the fears, but believed the company’s business model remained attractive—it’s a solid player in a niche industry, has an extremely loyal customer base, favorable vendor terms and low operating costs. Further, at period end, the company is repurchasing shares, and we have confidence in management’s capital allocation skills.

Our Portfolio positioning is an active decision based on our bottom-up investment approach. We stayed true to our philosophy and process the past few years despite the challenging market environment, building a portfolio that looked significantly different from the Index. We eschewed stocks we believed were too richly priced, such as the less cyclical and momentum driven names. In our view, valuations in these perceived-stable areas of the market had gone too far, and would eventually revert back to historical valuation levels. Instead of chasing momentum, we took an opposing view toward fear and uncertainty and invested in stocks that had lived through a massive bear market while the broader market had hit new highs. It is our belief that valuations, business strength and financial condition ultimately matter much more than any sentiment swings.

As sentiment seemed to reverse in 2016, we began to see pockets of opportunity open up in the market. And while the less cyclical names still didn’t appear cheap at period end, the valuation gap between cyclicals and non-cyclicals had been reduced. However, it’s important to note that stocks were generally positive across the board, with fewer significant areas of pain and suffering in the market. Cyclical names were strong in absolute terms, while weakness in non-cyclical names came largely on a relative basis.

MSF-1

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Artisan Mid Cap Value Portfolio

Managed by Artisan Partners Limited Partnership

Portfolio Manager Commentary*—(Continued)

At year end, we continued to focus on what we can control, and aimed to put the business, balance sheet, and valuation on our side. As of December 31, 2016, the Portfolio was most notably overweight the Consumer Discretionary, Information Technology, Financials, and Materials sectors, and most notably underweight the Real Estate, Utilities, and Consumer Staples sectors.

James C. Kieffer

George O. Sertl

Daniel L. Kane

Portfolio Managers

Artisan Partners Limited Partnership

* 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 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.

MSF-2

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Artisan Mid Cap Value Portfolio

A $10,000 INVESTMENT COMPARED TO THE RUSSELL MIDCAP VALUE INDEX

AVERAGE ANNUAL RETURNS (%) (FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2016)

	1 Year		5 Year		10 Year
Met/Artisan Mid Cap Value Portfolio
Class A		22.96		11.68		4.27
Class B		22.65		11.40		4.01
Class E		22.78		11.52		4.12
Russell Midcap Value Index		20.00		15.70		7.59

¹ The 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 forecasted growth values.

Portfolio performance is calculated including reinvestment of all income and capital gain distributions. Performance numbers are net of all Portfolio expenses but do not include any insurance, sales, separate account or administrative charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts or any additional expenses that participants may bear relating to the operations of their plans. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower. The performance of any index referenced above has not been adjusted for ongoing management, distribution and operating expenses, and sales charges applicable to mutual fund investments. Direct investment in any index is not possible. The performance of Class A shares, as set forth in the line graph above, will differ from that of other classes because of the difference in expenses paid by policyholders investing in the different share classes.

This information represents past performance and is not indicative of future results. Investment return and principal value may fluctuate so that shares, upon redemption, may be worth more or less than the original cost.

PORTFOLIO COMPOSITION AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2016

Top Holdings

	% of Net Assets
Devon Energy Corp.		4.0
Air Lease Corp.		3.5
Alleghany Corp.		3.2
Apache Corp.		3.1
Hess Corp.		2.8
Arrow Electronics, Inc.		2.7
Avnet, Inc.		2.7
Celanese Corp. - Series A		2.7
Fifth Third Bancorp		2.6
Torchmark Corp.		2.4

Top Sectors

	% of Net Assets
Financials		23.3
Consumer Discretionary		17.3
Information Technology		14.1
Industrials		13.2
Energy		11.6
Materials		9.3
Health Care		1.7
Utilities		1.4
Real Estate		0.8

MSF-3

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Artisan 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, 2016 through December 31, 2016.

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.

Met/Artisan Mid Cap Value Portfolio		Annualized Expense Ratio			Beginning Account Value July 1, 2016		Ending Account Value December 31, 2016		Expenses Paid During Period** July 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016
Class A	Actual		0.85	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,119.40	$	4.53
	Hypothetical*		0.85	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,020.86	$	4.32
Class B	Actual		1.10	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,118.00	$	5.86
	Hypothetical*		1.10	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,019.61	$	5.58
Class E	Actual		1.00	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,118.50	$	5.33
	Hypothetical*		1.00	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,020.11	$	5.08

* 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 366 (to reflect the one-half year period).

MSF-4

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Artisan Mid Cap Value Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—92.7% of Net Assets

Security Description	Shares		Value
Aerospace & Defense—1.5%
Rockwell Collins, Inc.		187,231	$	17,367,548
Auto Components—2.0%
Gentex Corp. (a)		1,162,040		22,880,568
Automobiles—1.5%
Harley-Davidson, Inc. (a)		283,828		16,558,525
Banks—4.8%
Fifth Third Bancorp		1,078,696		29,092,431
M&T Bank Corp. (a)		160,135		25,049,918
				54,142,349
Capital Markets—1.3%
Intercontinental Exchange, Inc.		253,492		14,302,019
Chemicals—5.9%
Agrium, Inc. (a)		175,040		17,600,272
Celanese Corp. - Series A		387,312		30,496,947
Mosaic Co. (The)		636,345		18,663,999
				66,761,218
Construction & Engineering—3.9%
Fluor Corp.		459,659		24,141,291
Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. (b)		359,329		20,481,753
				44,623,044
Diversified Consumer Services—1.6%
H&R Block, Inc. (a)		812,109		18,670,386
Electric Utilities—1.5%
OGE Energy Corp. (a)		498,048		16,659,706
Electrical Equipment—0.5%
Hubbell, Inc.		44,753		5,222,675
Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components—8.6%
Arrow Electronics, Inc. (b)		430,130		30,668,269
Avnet, Inc.		643,929		30,657,460
FLIR Systems, Inc.		371,415		13,441,509
Keysight Technologies, Inc. (b)		622,508		22,765,117
				97,532,355
Health Care Providers & Services—1.7%
AmerisourceBergen Corp. (a)		245,967		19,232,160
Insurance—15.8%
Alleghany Corp. (b)		59,592		36,239,087
Allied World Assurance Co. Holdings AG (a)		433,901		23,304,823
Allstate Corp. (The)		285,722		21,177,715
Aon plc		180,450		20,125,588
Arch Capital Group, Ltd. (b)		295,542		25,502,319
Loews Corp.		359,843		16,851,448
Progressive Corp. (The)		276,914		9,830,447
Insurance—(Continued)
Torchmark Corp. (a)		371,171		27,377,573
				180,409,000
Internet & Direct Marketing Retail—4.7%
Liberty Expedia Holdings, Inc. - Class A (b)		226,643		8,990,928
Liberty Interactive Corp. - Class A (b)		1,264,926		25,273,221
Liberty Ventures - Series A (b)		528,649		19,491,289
				53,755,438
Internet Software & Services—1.9%
IAC/InterActiveCorp (b)		330,257		21,397,351
Marine—1.8%
Kirby Corp. (a) (b)		311,395		20,707,767
Media—4.5%
News Corp. - Class A		1,560,723		17,885,886
Omnicom Group, Inc.		283,187		24,102,045
TEGNA, Inc. (a)		445,470		9,528,603
				51,516,534
Metals & Mining—3.4%
Goldcorp, Inc. (a)		1,758,340		23,913,424
Kinross Gold Corp. (b)		4,817,118		14,981,237
				38,894,661
Mortgage Real Estate Investment Trusts—1.4%
AGNC Investment Corp. (a)		896,063		16,245,622
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels—11.6%
Apache Corp. (a)		558,172		35,427,177
Devon Energy Corp.		988,515		45,145,480
Hess Corp.		515,407		32,104,702
Tesoro Corp.		223,645		19,557,755
				132,235,114
Real Estate Management & Development—0.8%
Jones Lang LaSalle, Inc. (a)		90,915		9,186,052
Road & Rail—2.0%
Ryder System, Inc. (a)		306,989		22,852,261
Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment—2.0%
Analog Devices, Inc.		316,346		22,973,046
Software—1.6%
Synopsys, Inc. (b)		312,474		18,392,220
Specialty Retail—2.0%
AutoNation, Inc. (a) (b)		466,997		22,719,404
Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods—0.9%
Coach, Inc.		304,267		10,655,430

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-5

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Artisan Mid Cap Value Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares/ Principal Amount*		Value
Trading Companies & Distributors—3.5%
Air Lease Corp. (a)		1,152,310	$	39,558,802
Total Common Stocks (Cost $778,413,515)				1,055,451,255
Short-Term Investment—7.7%
Repurchase Agreement—7.7%
Fixed Income Clearing Corp. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/16 at 0.030% to be repurchased at $87,658,335 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $90,390,000 U.S. Treasury Note at 1.125% due 03/31/20 with a value of $89,414,330.		87,658,043		87,658,043
Total Short-Term Investments (Cost $87,658,043)				87,658,043
Securities Lending Reinvestments (c)—17.3%
Certificates of Deposit—7.8%
Bank of Montreal London Zero Coupon, 01/12/17		2,998,090		2,999,452
Bank of Nova Scotia Houston 1.201%, 11/03/17 (d)		3,000,000		3,002,539
Bank of Tokyo UFJ, Ltd., New York 1.121%, 02/28/17 (d)		2,500,000		2,500,050
Barclays New York 0.894%, 02/10/17 (d)		4,000,000		4,001,294
BNP Paribas New York 1.226%, 08/04/17 (d)		3,000,000		3,001,332
Chiba Bank, Ltd., New York 0.870%, 01/10/17		1,000,000		1,000,023
0.920%, 02/03/17		5,000,000		5,000,555
0.950%, 02/02/17		2,000,000		2,000,276
Credit Suisse AG New York 1.364%, 05/12/17 (d)		3,250,000		3,250,338
1.444%, 04/24/17 (d)		1,750,000		1,750,411
DNB NOR Bank ASA 1.130%, 07/28/17 (d)		1,000,000		999,825
DZ Bank AG New York 1.010%, 02/27/17		3,000,000		3,000,867
KBC Brussells 1.050%, 01/27/17		1,700,000		1,700,323
1.050%, 02/07/17		1,500,000		1,500,375
Landesbank Baden-Wuerttemberg Zero Coupon, 01/09/17		5,995,151		5,999,280
Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen London Zero Coupon, 01/24/17		1,895,640		1,899,183
Mizuho Bank, Ltd., New York 1.336%, 05/17/17		5,000,000		4,999,520
1.361%, 04/26/17 (d)		2,000,000		1,999,898
Certificates of Deposit—(Continued)
National Australia Bank London 1.034%, 05/02/17 (d)		2,250,000		2,252,124
1.182%, 11/09/17 (d)		3,500,000		3,491,320
National Bank of Canada 0.650%, 01/06/17		3,000,000		3,000,120
Natixis New York 0.900%, 02/17/17		5,000,000		5,000,640
Shizuoka Bank New York 0.840%, 01/03/17		3,250,000		3,250,013
Sumitomo Bank New York 1.212%, 06/05/17 (d)		4,000,000		3,999,920
1.215%, 05/05/17 (d)		2,000,000		2,003,331
1.336%, 06/19/17 (d)		1,000,000		999,924
Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corp. 0.900%, 01/12/17		1,200,000		1,200,046
Sumitomo Mitsui Trust Bank, Ltd., London 1.262%, 05/08/17 (d)		2,500,000		2,504,579
Sumitomo Mitsui Trust Bank, Ltd., New York 1.194%, 06/02/17 (d)		3,600,000		3,599,478
1.351%, 04/26/17 (d)		2,000,000		2,000,236
Svenska Handelsbanken New York 1.266%, 05/18/17 (d)		1,000,000		1,000,174
UBS, Stamford 1.084%, 05/12/17 (d)		1,400,000		1,399,893
Wells Fargo Bank San Francisco N.A. 1.231%, 04/26/17 (d)		1,000,000		1,000,280
1.264%, 10/26/17 (d)		1,250,000		1,250,854
				88,558,473
Commercial Paper—3.2%
Atlantic Asset Securitization LLC 1.040%, 02/03/17		897,270		899,214
Den Norske ASA 1.206%, 04/27/17 (d)		1,000,000		1,000,053
Erste Abwicklungsanstalt 1.014%, 03/10/17 (d)		2,400,000		2,400,014
HSBC plc 1.216%, 04/25/17 (d)		2,000,000		1,999,914
Kells Funding LLC 1.040%, 01/19/17		99,648		99,961
LMA S.A. & LMA Americas 1.000%, 01/13/17		997,583		999,651
Macquarie Bank, Ltd. 0.930%, 01/19/17		1,496,435		1,499,075
1.160%, 03/20/17		4,985,339		4,987,524
National Australia Bank, Ltd. 1.288%, 12/06/17 (d)		2,000,000		2,000,004
Old Line Funding LLC 0.840%, 01/03/17		1,197,844		1,199,905
1.030%, 03/13/17 (d)		3,000,000		3,002,341
Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp., Ltd. 0.890%, 02/21/17		3,990,902		3,994,688
Toronto Dominion Holding Corp. 0.600%, 01/05/17		3,995,867		3,999,552

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-6

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Artisan Mid Cap Value Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Securities Lending Reinvestments (c)—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Commercial Paper—(Continued)
United Overseas Bank, Ltd. 0.900%, 02/22/17		4,988,500	$	4,993,655
Versailles Commercial Paper LLC 1.000%, 01/31/17		2,493,333		2,498,120
Westpac Banking Corp. 1.232%, 10/20/17 (d)		1,300,000		1,302,270
				36,875,941
Repurchase Agreements—4.8%
Citigroup Global Markets, Ltd. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/29/16 at 0.710% to be repurchased at $800,079 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $806,989 U.S. Treasury and Foreign Obligations with rates ranging from 1.750% - 2.750%, maturity dates ranging from 10/15/19 - 11/15/23, with a value of $816,000.		800,000		800,000
Deutsche Bank AG, London Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/16 at 0.950% to be repurchased at $500,053 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $510,450 Foreign Obligations with rates ranging from 1.750% - 2.500%, maturity dates ranging from 09/05/19 - 11/20/24, with a value of $510,003.		500,000		500,000
Repurchase Agreement dated 12/15/16 - 12/30/16 at 1.050% to be repurchased at $16,006,679 on 01/03/17, collateralized by various Common Stock with a value of $17,784,880.		16,000,000		16,000,000
Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. Repurchase Agreement dated 10/18/16 at 1.110% to be repurchased at $1,500,290 on 03/03/17, collateralized by various Common Stock with a value of $1,650,000.		1,500,000		1,500,000
Goldman Sachs & Co. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/16 at 0.460% to be repurchased at $10,614,873 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $54,623,425 U.S. Government Agency Obligations with rates ranging from 2.000% - 10.500%, maturity dates ranging from 03/15/17 - 09/20/65, with a value of $10,826,617.		10,614,331		10,614,331
Macquarie Bank, Ltd. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/27/16 at 0.580% to be repurchased at $2,300,259 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $2,275,517 U.S. Treasury Obligations with rates ranging from 0.000% - 8.750%, maturity dates ranging from 01/05/17 - 05/15/46, with a value of $2,347,189.		2,300,000		2,300,000
Repurchase Agreements—(Continued)
Macquarie Bank, Ltd. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/15/16 at 0.600% to be repurchased at $6,000,200 on 01/06/17, collateralized by $5,936,131 U.S. Treasury Obligations with rates ranging from 0.000% - 8.750%, maturity dates ranging from 01/05/17 - 05/15/46, with a value of $6,123,101.		6,000,000		6,000,000
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. Repurchase Agreement dated 10/26/16 at 1.160% to be repurchased at $1,507,685 on 04/03/17, collateralized by various Common Stock with a value of $1,650,000.		1,500,000		1,500,000
Natixis Repurchase Agreement dated 12/28/16 at 0.750% to be repurchased at $10,001,667 on 01/05/17, collateralized by $16,050,693 U.S. Government Agency and Treasury Obligations with rates ranging from 0.000% - 4.672%, maturity dates ranging from 01/31/17 - 09/16/58, with a value of $10,201,254.		10,000,000		10,000,000
Pershing LLC Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/16 at 0.680% to be repurchased at $5,000,378 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $7,336,822 U.S. Government Agency Obligations with rates ranging from 0.625% - 11.018%, maturity dates ranging from 01/17/17 - 08/20/66, with a value of $5,100,000.		5,000,000		5,000,000
				54,214,331
Time Deposits—1.5%
Canadian Imperial Bank 0.520%, 01/03/17		5,000,000		5,000,000
OP Corporate Bank plc 1.010%, 01/04/17		800,000		800,000
1.200%, 01/23/17		8,000,000		8,000,000
Royal Bank of Canada London 0.700%, 01/04/17		2,000,000		2,000,000
Shinkin Central Bank 1.200%, 01/27/17		300,000		300,000
1.220%, 01/26/17		1,400,000		1,400,000
				17,500,000
Total Securities Lending Reinvestments (Cost $197,134,705)				197,148,745
Total Investments—117.7% (Cost $1,063,206,263) (e)				1,340,258,043
Other assets and liabilities (net)—(17.7)%				(201,632,638	)
Net Assets—100.0%			$	1,138,625,405

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-7

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Artisan Mid Cap Value Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

* Principal amount stated in U.S. dollars unless otherwise noted.

(a) All or a portion of the security was held on loan. As of December 31, 2016, the market value of securities loaned was $191,556,537 and the collateral received consisted of cash in the amount of $197,095,932. The cash collateral investments are disclosed in the Schedule of Investments and categorized as Securities Lending Reinvestments.

(b) Non-income producing security.

(c) Represents investment of cash collateral received from securities on loan as of December 31, 2016.

(d) Variable or floating rate security. The stated rate represents the rate at December 31, 2016.

(e) As of December 31, 2016, the aggregate cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was $1,064,155,731. The aggregate unrealized appreciation and depreciation of investments were $296,463,000 and $(20,360,688), respectively, resulting in net unrealized appreciation of $276,102,312 for federal income tax purposes.

Fair Value Hierarchy

Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) define 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, separately for each major category of assets and liabilities, 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, quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities 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, or other market corroborated inputs)

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 used in determining the fair value of investments and derivative financial instruments)

The inputs or methodologies used for valuing investments are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in them. Changes to the inputs or methodologies used may result in transfers between levels, which 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, 2016:

Description	Level 1		Level 2			Level 3		Total
Total Common Stocks*	$	1,055,451,255	$	—		$	—	$	1,055,451,255
Total Short-Term Investment*		—		87,658,043			—		87,658,043
Total Securities Lending Reinvestments*		—		197,148,745			—		197,148,745
Total Investments	$	1,055,451,255	$	284,806,788		$	—	$	1,340,258,043
Collateral for Securities Loaned (Liability)	$	—	$	(197,095,932	)	$	—	$	(197,095,932	)

* See Schedule of Investments for additional detailed categorizations.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-8

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Artisan Mid Cap Value Portfolio

Statement of Assets and Liabilities

December 31, 2016

Assets
Investments at value (a) (b)	$	1,340,258,043
Receivable for:
Fund shares sold		91,479
Dividends and interest		1,184,337
Prepaid expenses		3,006
Total Assets		1,341,536,865
Liabilities
Collateral for securities loaned		197,095,932
Payables for:
Investments purchased		2,790,659
Fund shares redeemed		1,913,250
Accrued Expenses:
Management fees		797,672
Distribution and service fees		97,316
Deferred trustees’ fees		92,080
Other expenses		124,551
Total Liabilities		202,911,460
Net Assets	$	1,138,625,405
Net Assets Consist of:
Paid in surplus	$	874,895,925
Undistributed net investment income		7,647,593
Accumulated net realized loss		(20,969,893	)
Unrealized appreciation on investments		277,051,780
Net Assets	$	1,138,625,405
Net Assets
Class A	$	651,976,850
Class B		404,294,868
Class E		82,353,687
Capital Shares Outstanding*
Class A		2,819,008
Class B		1,809,685
Class E		362,450
Net Asset Value, Offering Price and Redemption Price Per Share
Class A	$	231.28
Class B		223.41
Class E		227.21

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

(a) Identified cost of investments was $1,063,206,263.

(b) Includes securities loaned at value of $191,556,537.

Statement of Operations

Year Ended December 31, 2016

Investment Income
Dividends (a)	$	17,943,354
Interest		23,478
Securities lending income		431,869
Other income (b)		70,581
Total investment income		18,469,282
Expenses
Management fees		9,149,788
Administration fees		36,613
Custodian and accounting fees		53,165
Distribution and service fees—Class B		937,410
Distribution and service fees—Class E		116,362
Audit and tax services		42,040
Legal		33,061
Trustees’ fees and expenses		45,248
Shareholder reporting		120,499
Insurance		8,076
Miscellaneous		18,808
Total expenses		10,561,070
Less broker commission recapture		(33,685	)
Net expenses		10,527,385
Net Investment Income		7,941,897
Net Realized and Unrealized Gain (Loss)
Net realized gain (loss) on:
Investments		(19,697,551	)
Futures contracts		10,119
Net realized loss		(19,687,432	)
Net change in unrealized appreciation on investments		245,352,793
Net realized and unrealized gain		225,665,361
Net Increase in Net Assets From Operations	$	233,607,258

(a) Net of foreign withholding taxes of $129,810.

(b) Other income represents a non-recurring refund for overbilling of prior years’ custodian out-of-pocket fees.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-9

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Artisan Mid Cap Value Portfolio

Statements of Changes in Net Assets

	Year Ended December 31, 2016			Year Ended December 31, 2015
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets:
From Operations
Net investment income	$	7,941,897		$	10,844,836
Net realized gain (loss)		(19,687,432	)		117,687,418
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation)		245,352,793			(252,078,349	)
Increase (decrease) in net assets from operations		233,607,258			(123,546,095	)
From Distributions to Shareholders
Net investment income
Class A		(6,747,382	)		(9,675,237	)
Class B		(3,238,393	)		(3,803,715	)
Class E		(738,422	)		(883,807	)
Net realized capital gains
Class A		(67,236,609	)		(102,096,957	)
Class B		(42,539,350	)		(52,740,847	)
Class E		(8,652,798	)		(10,950,952	)
Total distributions		(129,152,954	)		(180,151,515	)
Increase (decrease) in net assets from capital share transactions		(139,370,094	)		82,141,327
Total decrease in net assets		(34,915,790	)		(221,556,283	)
Net Assets
Beginning of period		1,173,541,195			1,395,097,478
End of period	$	1,138,625,405		$	1,173,541,195
Undistributed net investment income
End of period	$	7,647,593		$	10,695,717

Other Information:

Capital Shares

Transactions in capital shares were as follows:

	Year Ended December 31, 2016						Year Ended December 31, 2015
	Shares			Value			Shares			Value
Class A
Sales		103,786		$	21,914,681			62,290		$	15,437,823
Reinvestments		360,055			73,983,991			462,136			111,772,194
Redemptions		(1,101,906	)		(249,272,832	)		(208,385	)		(53,210,768	)
Net increase (decrease)		(638,065	)	$	(153,374,160	)		316,041		$	73,999,249
Class B
Sales		145,540		$	31,247,473			68,298		$	16,299,581
Reinvestments		230,328			45,777,743			240,779			56,544,562
Redemptions		(296,294	)		(62,975,991	)		(266,358	)		(65,296,326	)
Net increase		79,574		$	14,049,225			42,719		$	7,547,817
Class E
Sales		10,945		$	2,402,423			11,486		$	2,567,719
Reinvestments		46,484			9,391,220			49,674			11,834,759
Redemptions		(55,229	)		(11,838,802	)		(55,681	)		(13,808,217	)
Net increase (decrease)		2,200		$	(45,159	)		5,479		$	594,261
Increase (decrease) derived from capital shares transactions				$	(139,370,094	)				$	82,141,327

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-10

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Artisan Mid Cap Value Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class A
	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014			2013			2012
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	213.79		$	271.79		$	268.60		$	198.30		$	179.02
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (a)		1.74	(b)		2.26			2.89			1.98			2.22
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		43.82			(23.66	)		2.25			70.60			18.92
Total from investment operations		45.56			(21.40	)		5.14			72.58			21.14
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(2.56	)		(3.17	)		(1.95	)		(2.28	)		(1.86	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(25.51	)		(33.43	)		0.00			0.00			0.00
Total distributions		(28.07	)		(36.60	)		(1.95	)		(2.28	)		(1.86	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	231.28		$	213.79		$	271.79		$	268.60		$	198.30
Total Return (%) (c)		22.96			(9.44	)		1.93			36.85			11.86
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.85			0.84			0.84			0.83			0.85
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		0.80	(b)		0.91			1.07			0.84			1.17
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		31			31			25			22			23
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	652.0		$	739.1		$	853.7		$	970.0		$	769.4
	Class B
	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014			2013			2012
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	207.30		$	264.50		$	261.50		$	193.14		$	174.44
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (a)		1.16	(b)		1.59			2.15			1.36			1.69
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		42.40			(22.95	)		2.21			68.77			18.44
Total from investment operations		43.56			(21.36	)		4.36			70.13			20.13
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(1.94	)		(2.41	)		(1.36	)		(1.77	)		(1.43	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(25.51	)		(33.43	)		0.00			0.00			0.00
Total distributions		(27.45	)		(35.84	)		(1.36	)		(1.77	)		(1.43	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	223.41		$	207.30		$	264.50		$	261.50		$	193.14
Total Return (%) (c)		22.65			(9.66	)		1.67			36.51			11.58
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		1.10			1.09			1.09			1.08			1.10
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		0.55	(b)		0.66			0.82			0.59			0.92
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		31			31			25			22			23
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	404.3		$	358.7		$	446.3		$	505.0		$	389.2

Please see following page for Financial Highlights footnote legend.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-11

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Artisan Mid Cap Value Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class E
	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014			2013			2012
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	210.43		$	267.99		$	264.86		$	195.57		$	176.60
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (a)		1.40	(b)		1.85			2.43			1.60			1.89
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		43.07			(23.28	)		2.25			69.65			18.68
Total from investment operations		44.47			(21.43	)		4.68			71.25			20.57
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(2.18	)		(2.70	)		(1.55	)		(1.96	)		(1.60	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(25.51	)		(33.43	)		0.00			0.00			0.00
Total distributions		(27.69	)		(36.13	)		(1.55	)		(1.96	)		(1.60	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	227.21		$	210.43		$	267.99		$	264.86		$	195.57
Total Return (%) (c)		22.78			(9.58	)		1.78			36.65			11.69
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		1.00			0.99			0.99			0.98			1.00
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		0.65	(b)		0.76			0.91			0.68			1.01
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		31			31			25			22			23
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	82.4		$	75.8		$	95.1		$	110.8		$	98.8

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

(b) Net investment income per share and the ratio of net investment income to average net assets include a non-recurring refund for overbilling of prior years’ custodian out-of-pocket fees which amounted to $0.01 per share and less than 0.01% of average net assets, respectively.

(c) Total return does not reflect any insurance, sales, separate account or administrative charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts or any additional expenses that contract owners may bear under their variable contracts. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-12

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Artisan Mid Cap Value Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016

1. Organization

Metropolitan Series Fund (the “Trust”) is organized as a Delaware statutory trust and registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), as an open-end management investment company. The Trust, which is managed by MetLife Advisers, LLC (“MetLife Advisers” or the “Adviser”), an affiliate of MetLife, Inc., is currently comprised of thirty series, each of which operates as a distinct investment vehicle of the Trust. The portfolio included in this report is Met/Artisan 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.

On January 12, 2016, MetLife, Inc. announced its plan to pursue the separation of a substantial portion of its retail segment and is currently evaluating structural alternatives for such separation. It is anticipated that MetLife Advisers would be included in any such separation. Any separation transaction that might occur will be subject to the satisfaction of various conditions and approvals, including approval of any transaction by the MetLife, Inc. Board of Directors, satisfaction of any applicable requirements of the SEC, and receipt of insurance and other regulatory approvals and other anticipated conditions. MetLife, Inc. cannot currently provide a specific potential completion date for a separation transaction or any assurance that a separation will in fact occur. MetLife Advisers’ continued service as investment adviser to the Trusts following a separation transaction is the subject of a proxy statement that was filed with the SEC on December 20, 2016 and mailed to shareholders of the Portfolio on or about December 30, 2016.

The Portfolio has registered and offers three classes of shares: Class A, B and E shares. 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 plan and such distribution expenses are allocated to the corresponding Class of shares.

2. Significant Accounting Policies

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities as of the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of income and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates. In the preparation of these financial statements, management has evaluated events and transactions subsequent to December 31, 2016 through the date the financial statements were issued.

The Portfolio is an investment company and follows the accounting and reporting guidance of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Accounting Standards Codification Topic 946—Financial Services—Investment Companies and Topic 820—Fair Value Measurement. 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 - Domestic and foreign equity securities, such as common stock, exchange-traded funds, rights, warrants, and preferred stock, that are traded on a securities exchange on a valuation date are generally valued at their last quoted sale price or official closing price on the primary exchange for such security, or, if no sales occurred on that day, at the last reported bid price. Equity securities traded over-the-counter (“OTC”) are generally valued at the last reported bid price. In the event of a major exchange closing during the trading day, the Adviser may use other market information obtained from quotation reporting systems, established market makers, or pricing services in valuing the securities. Valuation adjustments may be applied to certain foreign equity securities that are traded solely on foreign exchanges that close before the time as of which the Portfolio determines its NAV to account for the market movement between the close of the foreign exchanges and the time as of which the Portfolio determines its NAV. The Portfolio may use a systematic fair valuation model provided by a pricing service to value securities principally traded in these foreign markets in order to adjust for possible market movements or other changes that may occur between the close of the foreign exchanges and the time as of which the Portfolio determines its NAV. Foreign equity securities valued using these valuation adjustments are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy. Equity securities that are actively traded, and have no valuation adjustments applied, are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other equity securities traded on inactive markets, or valued in reference to similar instruments traded on active markets, 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 on the valuation date and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy.

Debt securities, including corporate, convertible and municipal bonds and notes; obligations of the U.S. Treasury and U.S. government agencies; foreign sovereign issues; 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 the Adviser (each a “pricing service”), pursuant to

MSF-13

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Artisan Mid Cap Value Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

authorization of and subject to general oversight by the Board of Trustees of the Trust (the “Board” or “Trustees”). Such pricing services may use matrix pricing, which considers observable inputs including, among other things, issuer details, maturity dates, interest rates, yield curves, rates of prepayment, credit risks/spreads, default rates, reported trades, broker dealer quotes and quoted prices for similar assets. Short-term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less may be valued at amortized cost in the absence of market quotes, so long as the amortized cost value of such short-term debt instrument is approximately the same as the fair value of the instrument as determined without the use of amortized cost valuation. Floating rate loans are generally valued on the basis of an evaluated or composite average of aggregate bid and ask quotations supplied by brokers or dealers, as obtained from the pricing service. Securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally 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 sale price available as of the close of business on a valuation day or, if there is no such price available, at the last reported bid price. These types of options are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Futures contracts that are traded on commodity exchanges are valued at their settlement prices established by the exchanges on which they are traded as of the close of such exchanges and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy.

If no current market value quotation or other observable inputs are readily available or market value quotations are deemed to be unreliable for an investment, the fair value of the investment will be determined in accordance with procedures approved by, and under the general supervision of, the Board. In such a circumstance, the Board will be assisted in its responsibility to determine the fair value of an investment by the Valuation Committee (“Committee”) of MetLife Advisers. The Committee provides general pricing oversight and fair value pricing determinations related to portfolio securities and meets on a regular basis to review reports relating to the valuation of the securities in the Portfolio. The Board has delegated to State Street Bank and Trust Company, the Trust’s custodian (“custodian”), the responsibility for calculating the net asset values (“NAVs”) of the Trust’s Portfolios. The Committee is responsible for overseeing the calculation of the NAVs of the Portfolios by the custodian. The Committee also periodically reviews pricing services, including the pricing services providing fair value pricing for the Portfolio’s foreign securities, and is responsible for overseeing the correction of pricing errors and addressing other pricing issues that arise in the ordinary course of business, such as making real-time fair value determinations, as necessary.

No single standard for determining the fair value of an investment can be set forth because fair value depends upon the facts and circumstances with respect to each investment. Information relating to any relevant factors may be obtained by the Committee from any appropriate source, including the subadviser of the Portfolio, the custodian, a pricing service, market maker and/or broker for such security or the issuer. Appropriate methodologies for determining fair value under particular circumstances may include: matrix pricing, a discounted cash flow analysis, comparisons of securities with comparable characteristics, value based on multiples of earnings, discount from market price of similar marketable securities or a combination of these and other methods.

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 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. These foreign taxes have been provided for in accordance with the Portfolio’s understanding of the applicable countries’ tax rules and rates.

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 the U.S. dollar 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. Because the values of investment securities are translated at the foreign exchange rates prevailing at the end of the period, that portion of the results of operations arising from changes in exchange rates and that portion of the results of operations reflecting fluctuations arising from changes in market prices of the investment securities are not separated. 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. 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.

Dividends and Distributions to Shareholders - The Portfolio records dividends and distributions on the ex-dividend date. Net realized gains from securities 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

MSF-14

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Artisan Mid Cap Value Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

to distribution re-designations, adjustments to prior period accumulated balances and broker commission recapture. These adjustments have no impact on net assets or the results 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 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. As of December 31, 2016, the Portfolio had no uncertain tax positions that would require financial statement recognition, or de-recognition or disclosure.

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 net ratio of expenses to average net assets presented in the Financial Highlights for each share class.

Repurchase Agreements - The Portfolio may enter into repurchase agreements, under the terms of a Master Repurchase Agreement (“MRA”), 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, under a tri-party repurchase agreement, receives delivery of the underlying securities collateralizing any repurchase agreements. It is the Portfolio’s policy that the market value of the collateral be equal to at least 100% of the repurchase price in the case of a repurchase agreement of one-day duration and equal to at least 102% of the repurchase price in the case of all other repurchase agreements. In the event of default or failure by a party to perform an obligation in connection with any repurchase transaction, the MRA gives the non-defaulting party the right to set-off claims and to apply property held by it in connection with any repurchase transaction against obligations owed to it.

At December 31, 2016, the Portfolio had direct investments in repurchase agreements with a gross value of $87,658,043. Additionally, the Portfolio invested cash collateral for loans of portfolio securities in repurchase agreements with a gross value of $54,214,331. The combined value of all repurchase agreements is included as part of investments at value on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. The value of the related collateral exceeded the value of the repurchase agreements at December 31, 2016.

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 collateral held from securities on loan. 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.

Effective September 8, 2016, the Trust has entered into a Non-Custodial Securities Lending Agreement with JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (the “lending agent”). Prior to September 8, 2016, the Trust had entered into a Securities Lending Authorization Agreement with the custodian (the “prior lending agent”). Under each agreement, the lending agent is authorized to loan portfolio securities on the Portfolio’s behalf. In exchange, the Portfolio receives either cash or government securities as collateral against the loaned securities. The Portfolio receives collateral equal to at least 102% of the market value for loans secured by government securities or cash in the same currency as the loaned shares and 105% for all other loaned securities at each loan’s inception. Collateral representing at least 100% of the market value of the loaned securities is maintained for the duration of the loan. Any cash collateral received by the Portfolio is generally invested by the lending agent in short-term investments, which may include certificates of deposit, commercial paper, repurchase agreements, time deposits and money market funds. Cash collateral that was received by the prior lending agent had been generally invested in the State Street Navigator Securities Lending MET Portfolio (the “Navigator Portfolio”), a series of the State Street Navigator Securities Lending Trust that was a registered money market fund managed by an affiliate of the custodian. The market value of investments made with cash collateral received are disclosed in the Schedule of Investments and the valuation techniques are described in Note 2. 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 is 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 is equal to at least 100% of the market value of all the loaned securities as of such preceding day. A portion of the income earned on the collateral is rebated to the borrower of the securities and the remainder is split between the lending agent and the Portfolio. On loans collateralized by government securities, a fee is received from the borrower and is allocated between the Portfolio and the lending agent.

Income received by the Portfolio in securities lending transactions during the year ended December 31, 2016 is reflected as securities lending income on the Statement of Operations. The values of any securities loaned by the Portfolio and the related collateral at December 31, 2016 are disclosed in the footnotes to the Schedule of Investments. The value of the related collateral received by the Portfolio exceeded the value of the securities out on loan at December 31, 2016.

MSF-15

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Artisan Mid Cap Value Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

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. The lending agent shall indemnify the Portfolio in the case of default of any securities borrower, subject to the terms of the Non-Custodial Securities Lending Agreement.

All securities on loan are classified as Common Stocks in the Portfolio’s Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016, with a contractual maturity of overnight and continuous.

3. Investments in Derivative Instruments

Futures Contracts - The Portfolio may buy and sell futures contracts 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 cash collateral 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 whether unrealized gains or losses are incurred. These amounts are reflected as receivables or payables on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities and as a component of net change in unrealized appreciation/depreciation on the Statement of Operations. When the contract is closed or expires, the Portfolio records 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. 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. If futures contracts are exchange-traded, the exchange’s clearinghouse, as counterparty to all exchange-traded futures, guarantees the futures contracts against default. For OTC futures, the Portfolio’s ability to terminate the positions may be more limited than in the case of exchange-traded positions and may also involve the risk that securities dealers participating in such transactions would fail to meet their obligations to the Portfolio.

During the year ended December 31, 2016, the Portfolio entered into equity index futures contracts which were subject to equity price risk. During the period May 6, 2016 through May 9, 2016, the Portfolio had bought and sold $8,747,878 in notional cost on equity index futures contracts. At December 31, 2016, the Portfolio did not have any open futures contracts. For the year ended December 31, 2016, the Portfolio had realized gains in the amount of $10,119 which are shown under Net realized gain on futures contracts in the Statement of Operations.

4. Certain Risks

In the normal course of business, the Portfolio invests in securities and enters into transactions where risks exist. Those risks include:

Market 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, interest rate, and price fluctuations.

Credit and Counterparty Risk: 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 and counterparty risk consist principally of cash due from counterparties and investments. The Portfolio manages counterparty risk by entering into agreements only with counterparties that it believes have the financial resources to honor their obligations and by monitoring the financial stability of those counterparties. The Portfolio’s investment adviser attempts to mitigate counterparty risk by (i) periodically assessing the creditworthiness of its trading partners, (ii) monitoring and/or limiting the amount of its net exposure to each individual counterparty based on its assessment, and (iii) requiring collateral from the counterparty for certain transactions. In order to preserve certain safeguards for non-standard settlement trades, the Portfolio restricts its exposure to credit and counterparty losses by entering into master netting agreements (“Master Agreements”) with counterparties (approved brokers) with whom it undertakes a significant volume of transactions. Master Agreements govern the terms of certain transactions, and reduce the counterparty risk associated with relevant transactions by specifying credit protection mechanisms and providing standardization that improves legal certainty. Master Agreements can also help limit counterparty risk by specifying collateral posting arrangements at pre-arranged exposure levels.

Repurchase and reverse repurchase agreements are primarily executed under Global Master Repurchase Agreements (“GMRAs”) or Master Repurchase Agreements (“MRAs”), which provide the rights to set-off. Each repurchase and reverse repurchase agreement is initially collateralized at the transaction level. In the event of default, the total market value exposure will be offset against collateral exchanged to date, which would result in a net receivable/(payable) that would be due from/to the counterparty.

MSF-16

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Artisan Mid Cap Value Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

Additional risks associated with each type of investment are described above within the respective security type notes. The Portfolio’s prospectus includes a discussion of the principal risks of investing in the Portfolio.

5. Investment Transactions

Aggregate cost of purchases and proceeds of sales of investment securities, excluding short-term securities, for the year ended December 31, 2016 were as follows:

Purchases			Sales
U.S. Government	Non U.S. Government		U.S. Government		Non U.S. Government
$0	$	323,189,652	$	0	$	578,816,600

6. Investment Management Fees and Other Transactions with Affiliates

Investment Management Agreement - MetLife Advisers is the investment adviser to the Portfolio. The Trust has entered into an investment management agreement with MetLife Advisers with respect to the Portfolio. For providing investment management services to the Portfolio, MetLife Advisers receives monthly compensation at the following annual rates:

Management Fees earned by MetLife Advisers for the year ended December 31, 2016	% per annum			Average Daily Net Assets
$9,149,788		0.820	%	Of the first $1 billion
		0.780	%	On amounts in excess of $1 billion

MetLife Advisers has entered into an investment subadvisory agreement with respect to managing the Portfolio. Artisan Partners Limited Partnership is compensated by MetLife Advisers to provide subadvisory services for the Portfolio.

Certain officers and trustees of the Trust may also be officers of MetLife Advisers; 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 and Service Fees - The Trust has a distribution agreement with MetLife Investors Distribution Company (“MIDC” or the “Distributor”) in which MIDC serves as the distributor for the Portfolio’s Class A, B and E Shares. MIDC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife Investors Group, LLC, an affiliate of the Adviser. The Trust has also adopted a Distribution and Service Plan under Rule 12b-1 of the 1940 Act for the Portfolio’s Class B and E Shares. Under the Distribution and Service Plan, the Class B and E Shares of the Portfolio pay a fee to compensate the Insurance Companies (or their affiliates) and other broker-dealers and financial intermediaries involved in the offer and sale of Portfolio shares for promoting or selling and servicing the Class B and E Shares. The fees under the Distribution and Service Plan for each class of the Portfolio’s shares are calculated as a percentage of the Portfolio’s average daily net assets that are attributable to that Class. Currently, the fee is 0.25% per year for Class B Shares and 0.15% per year for Class E Shares. Amounts incurred by the Portfolio for the year ended December 31, 2016 are shown as Distribution and service fees in the Statement of Operations.

Deferred Trustee Compensation - Each Trustee 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 Trust. 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 Met Investors Series Trust, an affiliate of the Trust, 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 under the Plan is reflected as Deferred trustees’ fees in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

7. Contractual Obligations

Under the Trust’s organizational documents, its officers and Trustees may be indemnified against certain liabilities and expenses arising out of the performance of their duties to the Trust. Additionally, 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 Trust that have not yet occurred.

MSF-17

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Artisan Mid Cap Value Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

8. Income Tax Information

The tax character of distributions paid for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015 were as follows:

Ordinary Income			Long-Term Capital Gain				Total
2016	2015		2016		2015		2016		2015
$10,818,093	$	14,362,758	$	118,334,861	$	165,788,757	$	129,152,954	$	180,151,515

As of December 31, 2016, 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		Other Accumulated Capital Losses			Total
$7,739,673	$	—	$	276,102,312	$	(20,020,425	)	$	263,821,560

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 up to 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, 2016, the Portfolio had short-term accumulated capital losses of $2,844,097 and long-term accumulated capital losses of $17,176,328 and no pre-enactment accumulated capital loss carryforwards.

9. Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In October 2016, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) adopted new rules and forms, and amendments to certain current rules and forms, to modernize reporting and disclosure of information by registered investment companies. The amendments to Regulation S-X will require standardized, enhanced disclosure about derivatives in investment company financial statements, and will also change the rules governing the form and content of such financial statements. The compliance date for the amendments to Regulation S-X is August 1, 2017. Management is currently evaluating the impact that the adoption of the amendments to Regulation S-X will have on the Portfolio’s financial statements and related disclosures.

MSF-18

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Artisan Mid Cap Value Portfolio

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Shareholders of Met/Artisan Mid Cap Value Portfolio and the Board of Trustees of Metropolitan Series Fund:

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities, including the schedule of investments, of Met/Artisan Mid Cap Value Portfolio (one of the portfolios constituting the Metropolitan Series Fund) (the “Portfolio”) as of December 31, 2016, 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 Portfolio’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 Portfolio 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 Portfolio’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, 2016, by correspondence with the custodian and brokers; when 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/Artisan Mid Cap Value Portfolio of the Metropolitan Series Fund as of December 31, 2016, 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.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

February 24, 2017

MSF-19

Metropolitan Series Fund

Trustees and Officers

MANAGEMENT OF THE TRUSTS

The Boards of Trustees (the “Board”) of Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (“MIST” and “MSF”, respectively, and collectively the “Trusts”) supervise the Trusts and are responsible for representing the interests of shareholders. The Trustees, the Chairman of the Board and the Chairmen of each subcommittee are the same for both Trusts. The Trustees of each Trust meet periodically throughout the year to oversee the Portfolios’ activities, reviewing, among other things, each Portfolio’s performance and its contractual arrangements with various service providers. The Trustees of each Trust elect the officers of the Trust, who are responsible for administering the Trust’s day-to-day operations.

Trustees and Officers

The Trustees and executive officers of the Trusts, as well as their ages and their principal occupations during the past five years, are set forth below. Unless otherwise indicated, the business address of each is c/o MetLife Funds, One Financial Center, Boston, Massachusetts 02111. Each Trustee who is deemed an “interested person,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, is referred to as an “Interested Trustee.” Those Trustees who are not “interested persons,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, are referred to as “Independent Trustees.” There is no limit to the term a Trustee may serve. Trustees serve until their death, resignation or removal in accordance with the MIST Trust’s and MSF Trust’s respective organizational documents and policies adopted by the Boards of the respective Trusts from time to time. Officers hold office at the pleasure of each Board and serve until their removal or resignation in accordance with the Trusts’ respective organizational documents and policies adopted by the Board of each Trust from time to time.

Name and Age	Current 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 MetLife Funds Complex(2) Overseen by Trustee	Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Interested Trustee
John Rosenthal* (56)	Trustee	Indefinite; From May 2016 (MIST and MSF) to present	Senior Managing Director and Head of Global Portfolio Management, MetLife, Inc.	75	None
Independent Trustees
Dawn M. Vroegop (50)	Trustee and Chairman of the Board	Indefinite; From December 2000 (MIST)/ May 2009 (MSF) to present as Trustee; From May 2016 (MIST and MSF) until present as Chairman	Private Investor.	75	Trustee, Driehaus Mutual Funds.**
Stephen M. Alderman (57)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 (MIST)/ April 2012 (MSF) to present	Shareholder in the law firm of Garfield and Merel, Ltd.	75	None

MSF-20

Metropolitan Series Fund

Trustees and Officers—(Continued)

Name and Age	Current 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 MetLife Funds Complex(2) Overseen by Trustee	Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Robert J. Boulware (60)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 (MIST)/ April 2012 (MSF) to present	Managing Director, Pilgrim Funds, LLC (private equity fund).	75	Trustee, Vertical Capital Income Fund (closed-end fund);** Director, Gainsco, Inc. (auto insurance);** Trustee, SharesPost 100 Fund (closed-end fund).**
Susan C. Gause (64)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 (MIST)/ April 2012 (MSF) to present	Private Investor.	75	Trustee, HSBC Funds.**
Nancy Hawthorne (65)	Trustee	Indefinite; From May 2003 (MSF)/ April 2012 (MIST) to present	Partner, Hawthorne Financial Advisors, LLC (registered investment advisor); until June 2014, Chief Executive Officer, Clerestory LLC (corporate advisor).	75	Director and Chairman of the Board of Directors, THL Credit, Inc.;** Lead Director, Avid Technology, Inc.;** Director, CRA International, Inc.**
Barbara A. Nugent (60)	Trustee	Indefinite; From January 2014 (MIST and MSF) to present	President, True North Board Governance, LLC (consulting); until December 2013, partner in the law firm of Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young, LLP.	75	None
Linda B. Strumpf (69)	Trustee	Indefinite; From May 2000 (MSF)/ April 2012 (MIST) to present	Chair of the Investment Committee, Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust; until June 2011, Chief Investment Officer, Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust.	75	None

Executive Officers

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Kristi Slavin (43)	President and Chief Executive Officer, of MIST and MSF	From May 2016 (MIST and MSF) to present	President, MetLife Advisers, LLC (May 2016-present); Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Vice President, MetLife, Inc.; Vice President, MIST and MSF (2015-2016).

MSF-21

Metropolitan Series Fund

Trustees and Officers—(Continued)

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Peter H. Duffy (61)	Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, of MIST and MSF	From November 2000 (MSF)/ May 2012 (MIST) to present	Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Andrew L. Gangolf (62)	Secretary, of MIST and MSF	From May 2011 (MIST and MSF) to present	Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; until 2011, Senior Vice President & Assistant General Counsel, AllianceBernstein Investments, Inc.
Steven E. Hartstein (53)	Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”), of MIST and MSF	From February 2014 (MIST and MSF) to present	Vice President, MetLife, Inc. (2013-present); Senior Vice President and CCO, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Executive Director, Morgan Stanley (2009-2013); CCO, Consulting Group Capital Markets Funds (2006-2013).
Alan C. Leland (64)	Vice President, of MIST and MSF	From February 2005 (MSF)/ May 2012 (MIST) to present	Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Vice President, MetLife, Inc.

* Mr. Rosenthal is an “interested person” of the Trusts because of his position with MetLife, Inc., the current parent company of MetLife Advisers, LLC.

** 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 Trusts, MetLife, Inc. or the Manager are omitted if not materially different.

(2) The Fund Complex includes 45 MIST Portfolios and 30 MSF Portfolios.

MSF-22

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Artisan Mid Cap Value Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements

At an in-person meeting held on November 15-16, 2016 (the “November Meeting”), the Boards of Trustees (the “Board”) of the Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (“MIST” and “MSF,” respectively, and collectively, the “Trusts”), including a majority of the Trustees who are not “interested persons” of the Trusts (the “Independent Trustees”) under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “1940 Act”), approved the continuation of the Trusts’ advisory agreements (each, an “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 the series of the Trusts (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”).

In reaching that decision, the Board reviewed a variety of materials provided for the specific purpose of the annual contract renewal process. In addition, various materials provided to and discussed with the Board throughout the year also informed the Board’s decision to renew the Agreements. That information for each Portfolio included, but was not limited to, investment performance reports, along with periodic reports on various expenses, shareholder services, legal and compliance matters, asset pricing, brokerage commissions and trade execution. The Board also recognized the pending separation of the Adviser from its parent company, MetLife, Inc., as a consideration in their deliberations with respect to the Agreements.

The Board met in person with personnel of the Adviser on September 27, 2016 for the specific purpose of giving preliminary consideration to the proposed continuation of the Agreements (the “September Meeting”) through the review by the Adviser with the Board of the performance and fees experienced by each Portfolio, as well as other information. In considering the Agreements, the Independent Trustees were advised by independent legal counsel throughout the contract renewal process, and met with independent legal counsel in several executive sessions outside of the presence of management.

Information furnished and reviewed specifically in connection with the renewal process included, but was not limited to, a report for each Portfolio prepared by Broadridge (“Broadridge”), an independent organization, and a Portfolio-by-Portfolio profitability analysis prepared by the Adviser. In addition, the Independent Trustees received and reviewed a report prepared by JDL Consultants, LLC (“JDL”), an independent consultant to the Independent Trustees (“JDL Report”), which examined the comparative fees, expenses and performance of each Portfolio, based upon the Broadridge reports. Also, the Board reviewed the responses to wide-ranging questions relating to the business, operations and performance of the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers that the Adviser and Sub-Advisers had prepared specifically for the renewal process.

At the November Meeting, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, concluded that the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser supported the renewal of the Agreements. The Board also concluded that the investment performance of each Portfolio was such that each Agreement should continue, and that the fees paid by a Portfolio to the Adviser appeared to be reasonable in light of the nature, extent and quality of the services provided by the Adviser and Sub-Adviser. Further, the Board concluded that the Adviser’s profitability in providing services under the Advisory Agreements did not appear unreasonably high in light of the nature, extent and quality of the services provided by the Adviser. Finally, the Board concluded that the investment advisory fees paid by the Portfolios in some measure shared economies of scale with contract holders. In approving the renewal of each of the Agreements, the Board, including the Independent Trustees, gave attention to all of the information that was furnished. The Board evaluated the information available to it on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis, and its decision was made separately with respect to each Portfolio. The following discusses some of the primary factors that generally were relevant to the Board’s decision. The Board did not identify any single factor as controlling, and the Trustees generally attributed different weights to various factors for the various Portfolios.

Nature, extent and quality of services. The Board evaluated the nature, extent and quality of the services that the Adviser, and the Sub-Advisers as relevant, have provided to the Portfolios. The Board considered the Adviser’s services as investment manager to the Portfolios, including its services relating to the oversight of the Sub-Advisers and their investment management activities, trading practices, financial condition, relevant personnel matters and compliance programs, among other things. The Adviser’s services in coordinating and overseeing the activities of the Trusts’ other service providers were also considered. The Board considered information received from the Trusts’ Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) regarding the Portfolios’ compliance policies and procedures that were established pursuant to Rule 38a-l under the 1940 Act. In addition, throughout the year, the Board considered the expertise, experience and performance of the personnel of the Adviser who performed the various services that are mentioned above.

The Board also noted that the Adviser’s investment, compliance and legal staff conduct regular, periodic, telephonic and in-person meetings with the Sub-Advisers to review and assess the services that are provided to the Portfolios, and that personnel of the Adviser prepare and present reports to the Independent Trustees regarding those meetings.

MSF-23

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Artisan Mid Cap Value Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

With respect to the services provided by each of the Sub-Advisers, the Board considered a variety of information that the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser provided. The Board considered each Sub-Adviser’s investment process and philosophy, and the investment performance experienced by the Portfolio (as described in more detail below). The Board took into account that each Sub-Adviser’s responsibilities include the development and maintenance of an investment program for the applicable Portfolio that 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. In particular, the Board considered, among other things, the Sub-Adviser’s current level of staffing as well as its compensation program and its overall resources. The Board reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s history and investment experience, as well as information provided 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 regulatory and disciplinary history. In its review, the Board also took into account information regarding any services and/or payments provided to the Adviser by the Sub-Advisers in connection with marketing activities.

Performance. The Board placed emphasis on the performance of the Portfolios in light of, among other things, its importance to contract holders. The Board considered the Adviser’s quarterly reviews with the Board of detailed information about each Portfolio’s investment strategies and performance results and composition, including discussions regarding the relevant effect of current market conditions. The Board reviewed and considered the reports prepared by Broadridge, which provided a statistical analysis comparing the Portfolios’ investment performance to that of comparable funds underlying variable insurance products (the “Performance Universe”). The Independent Trustees also met separately with a representative of JDL during the September Meeting to review the JDL Report. The Board also compared the performance records of certain Portfolios to those of comparable funds that were managed by the relevant Sub-Adviser. At the November Meeting, the Board considered each Portfolio’s performance for periods subsequent to the performance period covered by the Broadridge reports, and the Adviser’s discussion of the same, including the effect of current market conditions on each Portfolio’s more recent performance.

The Board focused particular attention on Portfolios with less favorable performance records. The Board noted the Adviser’s focus on each Sub-Adviser’s performance and that the Adviser has been active in monitoring and responding to any performance issues with respect to the Portfolios.

Fees and Expenses. The Board gave consideration to the level and method of computing the fees payable under the Agreements. The Board considered the Broadridge report for each of the Portfolios, which included comparisons for each Portfolio of its contractual management and sub-adviser fees (at current and various asset levels), and total expenses, with those of its peers, including as those peers were divided into a broad group of peer funds (“Expense Universe”), a narrower group of peer funds (“Expense Group”), a broad group of peer sub-advised funds (“Sub-advised Expense Universe”), and a narrower group of peer sub-advised funds (“Sub-advised Expense Group”). Broadridge selected the peer funds which were similarly situated funds underlying variable insurance products deemed to be comparable to the Portfolios. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of JDL, also examined the JDL Report. The Board compared the fee payable to a Sub-Adviser by the Adviser with respect to the Portfolio to the fee payable to the Sub-Adviser by other comparable funds and accounts, to the extent such information was available.

The Board noted that the sub-advisory fees for the Portfolios are paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fee, and that, in the case of an unaffiliated Sub-Adviser, the Adviser negotiates the fee at arm’s length. The Board also considered that the Adviser had entered into expense limitation or management fee waiver agreements with certain of the Portfolios pursuant to which the Adviser had 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.

Profitability. The Board examined the profitability of the Adviser on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis. The Board also considered that an affiliate of the Adviser, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, serves as distributor for the Trusts, and, as such, receives Rule 12b-1 payments to support the distribution of the Portfolios. The Board considered the profitability to the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates as a result of their relationships with the Portfolios, to the extent available, and the Board considered the ability of the Adviser to negotiate with an unaffiliated Sub-Adviser at arm’s length. In reviewing the profitability analyses, the Board recognized that expense allocation methodologies are inherently subjective and various expense allocation methodologies may be reasonable while producing different results.

Economies of scale. The Board also considered each Portfolio’s fees in light of its size. The Board noted the fee schedules for the Portfolios that 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

MSF-24

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Artisan Mid Cap Value Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

schedule for such Portfolios. The Board considered the effective fees under the Advisory Agreement and Sub-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. The Board examined, among other data, the effect of a Portfolio’s growth in size, and reduction in size, on various fee schedules and the Board reviewed the Broadridge and JDL Reports, which compared fees among peers. The Board also generally noted that if a Portfolio’s assets increase over time, the Portfolio may realize other economies of scale if assets increase proportionally more than certain other fixed expenses.

Other factors. The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trusts. Among them, the Board recognized that MetLife Investors Distribution Company, as the distributor for the Trusts, receives payments pursuant to Rule 12b-1 from the Portfolios to compensate for the provision of shareholder services and distribution activities, which could lead to growth in the Trusts’ assets and corresponding benefits from such growth, including economies of scale. The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by each Sub-Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trusts, including the opportunity to provide advisory services to additional portfolios of the Trusts and reputational benefits. In conjunction with these considerations, the Board noted the ongoing commitment of the Adviser to the Portfolios.

The Board considered possible conflicts of interest in the form of material benefits or detriments to the Trusts resulting from the nature of the Trusts’ and the Adviser’s or the Sub-Advisers’ affiliations and the services that are provided to the Trusts, and the manner in which such conflicts were mitigated.

*  *  *

Met/Artisan Mid Cap Value Portfolio. The Board also considered the following information in relation to the Agreements with the Adviser and Artisan Partners Limited Partnership regarding the Portfolio:

Among other data relating specifically to the Portfolio’s performance, the Board considered that the Portfolio outperformed the median of its Performance Universe for the one-year period ended June 30, 2016, and underperformed its Performance Universe for the three- and five-year periods ended June 30, 2016. The Board also considered that the Portfolio outperformed its Lipper Index for the one-year period ended June 30, 2016, and underperformed its Lipper Index for the three- and five-year periods ended June 30, 2016. In addition, the Board considered that the Portfolio underperformed its benchmark, the Russell Midcap Value Index, for the one-, three-, and five-year periods ended October 31, 2016. The Board took into account management’s discussion of the Portfolio’s performance, including prevailing market conditions.

The Board also considered that the Portfolio’s actual management fees were above the Expense Group median and the Expense Universe median, and equal to the Sub-advised Expense Universe median. The Board noted that the Portfolio’s total expenses (exclusive of 12b-1 fees) were equal to 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 asset-weighted average of certain comparable funds at the Portfolio’s current size. The Board also considered that the Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees were below the averages of the Sub-advised Expense Group and the Sub-advised Expense Universe at the Portfolio’s current size.

MSF-25

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Artisan Mid Cap Value Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Advisory Agreements

The separation (the “Separation”) of MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”), the investment adviser to each of the series (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”) of Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (collectively, the “Trusts”), from its parent company, MetLife, Inc. (“MetLife”), to a separate retail business, Brighthouse Financial, Inc. (“Brighthouse”), is expected to result in a change in control of the Adviser, and therefore an “assignment” of each Portfolio’s current advisory agreement (each a “Current Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “Current Advisory Agreements”). At the November 15-16, 2016 meeting (“November Meeting”) of the Board of Trustees of the Trusts (the “Board”), the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not “interested persons,” as defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940, of any Portfolio (the “Independent Trustees”), approved a new advisory agreement (each a “New Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “New Advisory Agreements”) between the Trusts, on behalf of a Portfolio, and the Adviser, to be effective upon the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements in connection with the Separation, and recommended that the shareholders of the Trusts approve the New Advisory Agreements. The Board took those actions after consideration of and deliberation over information concerning the Separation, including with respect to the degree to which the Separation would affect the provision of investment advisory services to the Trusts. Information about the Board’s considerations and process is set forth below.

In determining whether to approve the New Advisory Agreements and in considering the Separation, the Board considered the nature, quality and extent of the services that are currently provided by the Adviser under the Current Advisory Agreements as well as the services to be provided under the New Advisory Agreements. The Board’s review was conducted as part of, and in conjunction with, the Board’s annual review of the Current Advisory Agreements, which culminated at the November Meeting. In approving the New Advisory Agreements, the Board considered its conclusions with respect to its approvals of the Current Advisory Agreements, including the Board’s general satisfaction with the nature, extent and quality of services being provided by the Adviser to each Portfolio. Appendix A and Appendix B contains a further description of the process followed, information reviewed and the material factors considered by the Board in approving the continuation of the Current Advisory Agreements.

A substantial portion of the Board’s review of the New Advisory Agreements focused on the Separation, including the potential effect of the implementation of the Separation on the operations, personnel, organizational structure, capitalization, and financial and other resources of the Adviser. After being informed by the Adviser in January 2016 of the possibility of the Separation, the Board and its Committees discussed the Separation and its possible effects on the Trusts with personnel of the Adviser and the anticipated senior management at Brighthouse during the course of the Board’s or Committee’s regularly scheduled, in-person, quarterly meetings.

Between August and November 2016, the Board and the Independent Trustees engaged in an extensive review and analysis of the Separation and how the Separation related to the Adviser and the Trusts and how it could affect the services provided to the Trusts. This analysis focused on, among other matters, the assurances from Brighthouse’s anticipated leadership as to its expectations for the continuity and stability of the Adviser’s personnel throughout implementation of the Separation and for the foreseeable future thereafter. The Board considered that the Separation is being implemented as a result of MetLife’s determination to divest itself of a substantial portion of its U.S. retail business (of which the Adviser forms a portion). The Board also considered that it has been satisfied as a general matter with the nature and quality of the services that the Adviser provides to the Portfolios, including investment advisory, administrative, legal, compliance, and support services, and that it would be in the Portfolios’ best interests to maintain continuity and stability in the services that are currently being provided. The Board carefully considered the anticipated future plans of Brighthouse related to capitalization and operational matters for Brighthouse and the Adviser, as well as the importance of the Adviser to the businesses of Brighthouse after the Separation.

Among other steps in its review process, which accelerated on October 5, 2016 when Brighthouse filed its Form 10 with the SEC, the following actions were taken and considered by or on behalf of the Board:

1. The Independent Trustees solicited and received ongoing advice regarding the legal duties of the Independent Trustees from Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young LLP (“Stradley Ronon”), legal counsel for the Independent Trustees, which law firm has extensive experience regarding such matters.

2. Following the August 16-17, 2016 Board and Committee quarterly meetings, the Independent Trustees established an ad hoc group of Independent Trustees (the “Working Group”) to help oversee, coordinate, and conduct due diligence activities with respect to the Separation. The Working Group regularly reported on the due diligence activities to the other Independent Trustees.

3. Since January 2016, the Board posed ongoing inquiries to, and received regular updates from, the Adviser and anticipated senior management at Brighthouse at either in-person meetings dedicated to the status of the Separation or during the course of the Board or Committee’s regular quarterly meetings. The Board considered, among other matters, relevant legal guidance and the processes followed by certain other investment company boards of directors or trustees when they approved contracts in connection with change in control events, while recognizing the unique circumstances of the Separation.

MSF-26

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Artisan Mid Cap Value Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

4. The Board received and reviewed the Form 10 of Brighthouse that contained extensive information relating to, among other matters, Brighthouse’s anticipated business plans and financial structure. The Board also received and reviewed reports from rating agencies with respect to Brighthouse.

5. Stradley Ronon retained Barrington Partners (“Barrington”), an independent consulting firm with a specific focus on the asset management industry and experience relating to business operations such as those to be conducted by Brighthouse, including its proposed subsidiary, the Adviser, in order to help Stradley Ronon evaluate the Separation based on the Form 10 and other materials and related information provided by the Adviser and its affiliates. Barrington conducted a series of in-person and telephonic meetings with anticipated senior management at Brighthouse (i.e., the aforementioned anticipated officers of Brighthouse and others) and with personnel of the Adviser who provide services to the Trusts. Stradley Ronon, with the assistance of Barrington, evaluated the information and advised the Independent Trustees with respect to, among other matters, details of Brighthouse’s anticipated business plan to understand the implications of the Separation to the Adviser and its personnel. The Independent Trustees and the Working Group attended certain in-person and telephonic conference call meetings at which Barrington rendered advice to Stradley Ronon regarding these matters and responded to questions.

6. The Independent Trustees requested and participated in in-person meetings with anticipated senior management personnel at Brighthouse, including its President and Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, Chief Operating Officer, and Chief Investment Officer. The Independent Trustees also met with personnel of the Adviser.

7. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of Stradley Ronon, prepared written inquiries to the Adviser and its affiliates regarding the Separation, and received written assurances from the Adviser and its affiliates that they have no plans to make any material changes affecting the personnel of the Adviser (including those personnel who provide investment, administrative, legal and compliance services) and the Adviser and its affiliates will not initiate such changes without prior notice to and discussion with the Board.

8. The Board considered representations by the Adviser and its affiliates that approval of the New Advisory Agreements would be necessary for the Portfolios to continue receiving investment advisory services from the Adviser following the change in control.

9. The Board considered representations by the Adviser, as well as related supporting documentation, indicating that the New Advisory Agreements, including the fees payable thereunder, are substantially identical to the terms of the corresponding Current Advisory Agreements.

10. The Board considered representations by the Adviser and its affiliates, as well as related supporting documentation, indicating that: (1) the Adviser can be expected to provide services of the same nature, extent, and quality under the New Advisory Agreements and as are provided thereby under the Current Advisory Agreements; and (2) the Separation is not expected to result in any changes to (i) the management of the Portfolios, or (ii) the investment objective of or the principal investment strategies used to manage any of the Portfolios.

11. The Board considered the ability of the Adviser and its affiliates to retain the employment of key personnel, as well as the overall positive indications by many such personnel regarding the opportunities presented by the Separation.

12. The Board considered that the Adviser and its affiliates have agreed to bear all expenses associated with obtaining shareholder approval of the New Advisory Agreements.

13. The Board considered Brighthouse’s preliminary “branding” plans regarding the future name of its operations.

14. The Board considered the advice provided by Ropes & Gray, LLP, legal counsel to the Trusts and the Adviser, with respect to the New Advisory Agreements (including advice relating to the process and timing of seeking shareholder approval of the New Advisory Agreements, and whether shareholder approvals would be required in connection with any future aspects of the Separation) and regarding the Board’s role and responsibilities with respect to the Separation.

15. The Board considered MetLife’s stated intention of divesting its ownership interest in the Adviser through the Separation, including the potential advantages and disadvantages of this divestiture to shareholders of the Portfolios. The Board considered the likelihood that the Adviser would retain its key personnel after the Separation. The Board considered that the garnering of new assets into the Trusts is based on sales of variable annuity and variable life insurance products, which sales have declined in prior years as a result of, among other things, the capital requirements of MetLife. The Board considered the representations of the anticipated senior management of Brighthouse that the Separation provides the Trusts with an opportunity for the garnering of new assets as Brighthouse will likely sell such products going forward. The Board considered also that the divestiture would result in a change in the manner in

MSF-27

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Artisan Mid Cap Value Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

which the Trusts access certain services and resources of MetLife (after the Separation those services will be provided through a transition services agreement), the loss of affiliation with the MetLife name brand, and the possible going forward need of the Trusts to hire a transfer agent, as such transfer agency services are currently provided to the Trusts for no fee.

16. The Board considered that, if shareholders approve the New Advisory Agreements, the Board and the Adviser will conduct their annual contract review process in November 2017. Thus, the Board emphasized that it would be able to, and intends to, monitor on a regular basis the ability of the Adviser and its affiliates to comply with their undertakings to the Board and to monitor on an ongoing basis the quality of services to, and expenses of, the Portfolios. In addition, the Board considered that, under the New Advisory Agreements, it will continue to have the authority, should the need arise in its view, to terminate any of the New Advisory Agreements without penalty upon 60 days’ notice.

Based on the foregoing and other relevant considerations, at the November Meeting, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, voted to approve the New Advisory Agreements and to recommend approval of the New Advisory Agreements by shareholders of the Portfolios. In this connection, the Board concluded that, in light of all factors considered, the terms of the New Advisory Agreement, including fee rates, were fair and reasonable, and that it would be in the best interests of shareholders of each Portfolio to approve the New Advisory Agreements.

In the event that approval of the New Advisory Agreements by shareholders of the Portfolios has not been obtained before the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements as a result of the change in control of the Adviser, the Board also approved an interim advisory agreement with the Adviser (the “Interim Advisory Agreement”) on behalf of each Portfolio that will go into effect upon the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements. The Board’s determination to approve each Interim Advisory Agreement was based on the same information and considerations as the Board’s approval of the New Advisory Agreements so as to ensure continuity of advisory services from the Adviser to the Portfolios following the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements.

MSF-28

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Artisan Mid Cap Value Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Sub-Advisory Agreements

The separation (the “Separation”) of MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”), the investment adviser to each of the series (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”) of Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (collectively, the “Trusts”), from its parent company, MetLife, Inc. (“MetLife”), to a separate retail business, Brighthouse Financial, Inc. (“Brighthouse”), is expected to result in a change in control of the Adviser, and therefore an “assignment” of each Portfolio’s current advisory agreement and, as a result, the automatic termination of the sub-advisory agreement (each a “Sub-Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisory Agreements”) between the Adviser and the investment sub-advisers (each a “Sub-Adviser” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisers”). At the November 15-16, 2016 meeting (“November Meeting”) of the Board of Trustees of the Trusts (the “Board”), the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not “interested persons,” as defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940, of any Portfolio (the “Independent Trustees”), approved new sub-advisory agreements (each a “New Sub-Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “New Sub-Advisory Agreements”). Information about the Board’s considerations and process is set forth below.

In determining whether to approve the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, the Board considered the nature, quality and extent of the services that are currently provided by the Sub-Advisers under the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements as well as the services to be provided under the New Sub-Advisory Agreements. The Board’s review was conducted as part of, and in conjunction with, the Board’s annual review of the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements, which culminated at the November Meeting. In approving the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, the Board considered its conclusions with respect to its approvals of the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements, including the Board’s general satisfaction with the nature, extent and quality of services being provided by the Sub-Advisers to the Portfolios, as applicable. Appendix A contains a further description of the process followed, information reviewed and the material factors considered by the Board in approving the continuation of the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements.

In addition, the following actions were taken and considered by or on behalf of the Board:

1. The Independent Trustees of the Board solicited and received ongoing advice regarding the legal duties of the Independent Trustees from Stradley Ronon, legal counsel for the Independent Trustees, which law firm has extensive experience regarding such matters.

2. The Board considered representations by the Adviser and its affiliates that approval of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements would be necessary for the Portfolios to continue receiving sub-advisory services from the Sub-Advisers following the change in control of the Adviser.

3. The Board considered representations by the Adviser, as well as related supporting documentation, indicating that the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, including the fees payable thereunder, are the same as the terms of the corresponding Current Sub-Advisory Agreements.

4. The Board considered the advice provided by Ropes & Gray, LLP, legal counsel to the Trusts and the Adviser, with respect to the New Sub-Advisory Agreements and regarding the Board’s role and responsibilities with respect to the Separation.

5. The Board considered that the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers will conduct their annual contract review process in November 2017. Thus, the Board emphasized that it would be able to, and intends to, monitor on an ongoing basis the ability of the Sub-Advisers to comply with its undertakings to the Board and the Adviser and to monitor on an ongoing basis the quality of services to, and expenses of, the Portfolios. In addition, the Board considered that, under the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, it will continue to have the authority, should the need arise in its view, to terminate any of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements without penalty upon no more than 60 days’ notice.

Based on the foregoing and other relevant considerations, at the November Meeting, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, voted to approve the New Sub-Advisory Agreements. In this connection, the Board concluded that, in light of all factors considered, the terms of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, including fee rates, were fair and reasonable.

MSF-29

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Dimensional International Small Company Portfolio

Managed by Dimensional Fund Advisors LP

Portfolio Manager Commentary*

PERFORMANCE

For the 12 months ended December 31, 2016, the Class A and B shares of the Met/Dimensional International Small Company Portfolio returned 6.00% and 5.83%, respectively. The Portfolio’s benchmark, the MSCI World ex-U.S. Small Cap Index¹, returned 4.32%.

MARKET ENVIRONMENT / CONDITIONS

In U.S. dollar terms, developed ex-U.S. markets posted positive returns for the one-year period ending December 31, 2016, but trailed both the U.S. market and emerging markets. Using the MSCI World ex-U.S. Investable Market Index (net dividends) as a proxy, developed ex-U.S. markets returned 3.0%, as compared to 12.7% for the Russell 3000 Index and 9.9% for the MSCI Emerging Markets Investable Market Index (net dividends).

The U.S. dollar appreciated against a number of the major developed market currencies, particularly the British pound and Swedish krona. Overall, currency fluctuations had a negative impact on U.S. dollar-denominated returns of developed ex-U.S. equities.

Along the market capitalization dimension, small caps (MSCI World ex-U.S. Small Cap Index) outperformed large caps (MSCI World ex-U.S. Index) by 1.6% for the year.

Along the relative price dimension, large value stocks (MSCI World ex-U.S. Value Index) outperformed large growth stocks (MSCI World ex-U.S. Growth Index) by 9.3%, and small value stocks (MSCI World ex-U.S. Small Cap Value Index) outperformed small growth stocks (MSCI World ex-U.S. Small Cap Growth Index) by 7.0%. Profitability premiums were negative in developed ex-U.S. markets among both large caps and small caps during the year.

PORTFOLIO REVIEW / PERIOD END POSITIONING

For the year ended December 31, 2016, the Portfolio outperformed its benchmark by 168 basis points. The Portfolio’s greater allocations to micro-cap stocks contributed positively to relative performance, as the smallest stocks in the investible universe generally outperformed for the year. Additionally, the Portfolio’s exclusion of stocks with the lowest profitability and highest relative price contributed positively to relative performance, as those securities underperformed. At the sector level, the Portfolio generally excludes Real Estate Investment Trusts (“REITs”) and the exclusion benefited relative performance, as REITs underperformed many other sectors in the international small company equity universe over the period.

The Portfolio held more than 3,500 securities as of December 31, 2016 and was diversified across countries and sectors.

Joseph Chi

Jed Fogdall

Henry Gray

Arun Keswani

Bhanu Singh

Portfolio Managers

Dimensional Fund Advisors LP

* 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 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.

MSF-1

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Dimensional International Small Company Portfolio

A $10,000 INVESTMENT COMPARED TO THE MSCI WORLD EX-U.S. SMALL CAP INDEX

AVERAGE ANNUAL RETURNS (%) (FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2016)

	1 Year3		5 Year		Since Inception2
Met/Dimensional International Small Company Portfolio
Class A		6.00		9.72		11.23
Class B		5.83		9.46		10.96
MSCI World ex-U.S. Small Cap Index		4.32		8.96		11.70

¹ The MSCI World ex-U.S. Small Cap Index is an unmanaged index that measures the performance of stocks with market capitalizations between US $200 million and $800 million across 23 developed 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 Inception date of the Class A and Class B shares is 10/31/08. Index since inception return is based on the Portfolio’s inception date.

³ Includes the impact of the non-recurring refund for overbilling of prior years’ custodian out-of-pocket fees which enhanced the performance of the portfolio. Excluding this item, total return would have been 5.91% for Class A and 5.66% for Class B.

Portfolio performance is calculated including reinvestment of all income and capital gain distributions. Performance numbers are net of all Portfolio expenses but do not include any insurance, sales, separate account or administrative charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts or any additional expenses that participants may bear relating to the operations of their plans. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower. The performance of any index referenced above has not been adjusted for ongoing management, distribution and operating expenses, and sales charges applicable to mutual fund investments. Direct investment in any index is not possible. The performance of Class A shares, as set forth in the line graph above, will differ from that of other classes because of the difference in expenses paid by policyholders investing in the different share classes.

This information represents past performance and is not indicative of future results. Investment return and principal value may fluctuate so that shares, upon redemption, may be worth more or less than the original cost.

PORTFOLIO COMPOSITION AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2016

Top Holdings

	% of Net Assets
Teleperformance SE		0.4
LANXESS AG		0.3
Prysmian S.p.A.		0.3
RPC Group plc		0.3
Melrose Industries plc		0.3
MTU Aero Engines AG		0.3
DS Smith plc		0.3
Bellway plc		0.3
Rentokil Initial plc		0.2
Temenos Group AG		0.2

Top Countries

	% of Net Assets
Japan		24.2
United Kingdom		15.2
Canada		8.9
Australia		6.5
Germany		6.3
Switzerland		5.4
France		4.6
Italy		3.7
Hong Kong		3.3
Sweden		3.3

MSF-2

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Dimensional International Small Company 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, 2016 through December 31, 2016.

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.

Met/Dimensional International Small Company Portfolio		Annualized Expense Ratio			Beginning Account Value July 1, 2016		Ending Account Value December 31, 2016		Expenses Paid During Period** July 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016
Class A(a)	Actual		0.91	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,068.90	$	4.73
	Hypothetical*		0.91	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,020.56	$	4.62
Class B(a)	Actual		1.16	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,068.40	$	6.03
	Hypothetical*		1.16	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,019.31	$	5.89

* 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 366 (to reflect the one-half year period).

^(a) The annualized expense ratio shown reflects the impact of the management fee waiver as described in Note 5 of the Notes to Financial Statements.

MSF-3

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Dimensional International Small Company Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—99.2% of Net Assets

Security Description	Shares		Value
Australia—6.5%
Acrux, Ltd. (a)		41,605	$	9,294
Adelaide Brighton, Ltd.		197,116		770,994
AED Oil, Ltd. (a) (b) (c)		93,946		0
Ainsworth Game Technology, Ltd.		51,616		78,377
Alkane Resources, Ltd. (a)		120,355		29,432
ALS, Ltd.		76,663		333,266
Altium, Ltd.		31,832		185,097
Altona Mining, Ltd. (a)		67,875		6,351
Alumina, Ltd. (d)		250,180		329,135
AMA Group, Ltd.		111,029		78,821
Ansell, Ltd.		39,937		711,439
AP Eagers, Ltd.		7,774		51,684
APN News & Media, Ltd. (a)		109,386		222,603
ARB Corp., Ltd. (d)		30,444		387,043
Ardent Leisure Group		50,226		84,396
Arrium, Ltd. (a) (b) (c)		972,288		5
AUB Group, Ltd.		25,969		196,522
Ausdrill, Ltd. (a)		110,321		99,822
Austal, Ltd. (d)		81,889		102,729
Australian Agricultural Co., Ltd. (a)		192,359		234,664
Australian Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd.		174,311		258,375
Auswide Bank, Ltd.		9,275		34,078
Automotive Holdings Group, Ltd.		101,744		289,616
Aveo Group		70,126		169,405
AVJennings, Ltd.		10,332		4,518
AWE, Ltd. (a)		335,940		149,908
Bapcor, Ltd.		23,618		100,513
Beach Energy, Ltd.		950,434		581,152
Beadell Resources, Ltd. (a)		102,327		18,997
Bega Cheese, Ltd.		58,513		178,546
Bellamy’s Australia, Ltd. (b) (c) (d)		11,890		57,317
Billabong International, Ltd. (a)		56,120		50,774
Blackmores, Ltd. (d)		5,495		408,934
Blue Sky Alternative Investments, Ltd.		5,962		30,110
BlueScope Steel, Ltd.		46,048		306,404
Bradken, Ltd. (a)		48,239		112,070
Breville Group, Ltd.		42,107		262,546
Brickworks, Ltd.		5,923		58,020
BT Investment Management, Ltd.		25,960		198,919
Buru Energy, Ltd. (a)		23,457		3,466
Cabcharge Australia, Ltd.		55,813		156,459
Capral, Ltd. (a)		136,176		15,667
Cardno, Ltd. (a)		69,333		47,071
Carnarvon Petroleum, Ltd. (a)		251,902		17,942
carsales.com, Ltd.		83,570		683,308
Cash Converters International, Ltd.		152,939		36,870
Cedar Woods Properties, Ltd.		27,273		99,349
Cleanaway Waste Management, Ltd.		693,108		614,549
Coal of Africa, Ltd. (a) (c)		133,534		4,722
Collection House, Ltd.		19,217		20,171
Collins Foods, Ltd.		4,975		23,531
Cooper Energy, Ltd. (a)		232,325		59,366
Corporate Travel Management, Ltd.		20,836		274,932
Costa Group Holdings, Ltd.		42,134		104,235
Credit Corp. Group, Ltd.		13,415		173,248
CSG, Ltd.		66,837		35,203
CSR, Ltd.		282,278		940,394
Australia—(Continued)
Cudeco, Ltd. (a)		51,210		19,235
Data #3, Ltd.		55,471		61,243
Decmil Group, Ltd.		56,744		42,336
Downer EDI, Ltd.		238,347		1,044,076
DuluxGroup, Ltd.		165,477		743,348
DWS, Ltd.		36,847		34,506
Elders, Ltd. (a)		18,937		54,071
Energy Resources of Australia, Ltd. (a)		51,910		16,295
Energy World Corp., Ltd. (a)		325,379		60,666
EQT Holdings, Ltd.		3,062		38,662
ERM Power, Ltd.		49,991		46,326
Euroz, Ltd.		23,559		17,836
Event Hospitality and Entertainment, Ltd.		38,556		382,645
Evolution Mining, Ltd.		179,899		264,723
Fairfax Media, Ltd.		967,464		619,578
Finbar Group, Ltd. (d)		6,909		4,608
Fleetwood Corp., Ltd. (a)		22,683		32,256
FlexiGroup, Ltd.		49,133		80,273
Flight Centre Travel Group, Ltd.		14,871		334,600
G8 Education, Ltd. (d)		133,209		344,334
Gateway Lifestyle		13,237		20,605
Global Construction Services, Ltd.		9,380		3,721
GrainCorp, Ltd. - Class A		83,590		575,787
Grange Resources, Ltd.		120,000		12,122
Greencross, Ltd.		21,334		105,318
GUD Holdings, Ltd.		39,734		299,441
GWA Group, Ltd.		104,458		222,498
Hansen Technologies, Ltd.		47,406		133,763
HFA Holdings, Ltd.		45,623		78,919
Hills, Ltd. (a)		80,453		26,662
Horizon Oil, Ltd. (a)		652,736		26,357
IDM International, Ltd. (a) (b) (c)		1,969		0
Iluka Resources, Ltd.		160,998		841,537
Imdex, Ltd. (a)		100,165		41,493
IMF Bentham, Ltd.		49,173		62,032
Independence Group NL		112,057		345,471
Infigen Energy, Ltd. (a)		282,132		183,187
Infomedia, Ltd.		131,353		69,169
Integrated Research, Ltd.		28,972		58,527
International Ferro Metals, Ltd. (a) (b) (c)		82,765		172
Invocare, Ltd.		38,500		384,708
IOOF Holdings, Ltd.		103,265		684,041
Iress, Ltd.		57,739		493,106
iSelect, Ltd.		46,213		63,056
JB Hi-Fi, Ltd.		46,350		935,751
Jupiter Mines, Ltd. (a) (b) (c)		63,164		839
K&S Corp., Ltd.		1,802		2,076
Karoon Gas Australia, Ltd. (a)		75,600		97,777
Kingsgate Consolidated, Ltd. (a)		121,238		25,050
Kingsrose Mining, Ltd. (a) (b) (c)		102,961		7,430
MACA, Ltd.		56,351		69,635
Macmahon Holdings, Ltd. (a)		380,170		27,296
Macquarie Atlas Roads Group		181,433		661,081
Magellan Financial Group, Ltd.		27,343		467,264
MaxiTRANS Industries, Ltd.		59,013		21,884
Mayne Pharma Group, Ltd. (a)		452,144		436,713
McMillan Shakespeare, Ltd.		29,453		230,442

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-4

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Dimensional International Small Company Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Australia—(Continued)
McPherson’s, Ltd.		34,460	$	25,621
Medusa Mining, Ltd. (a)		60,972		21,575
Melbourne IT, Ltd.		36,135		48,280
Metals X, Ltd. (a)		75,358		30,327
Metcash, Ltd. (a)		385,184		632,272
Michael Hill International, Ltd.		82,929		73,822
Mincor Resources NL (a)		105,687		16,014
Mineral Resources, Ltd.		41,091		357,513
MMA Offshore, Ltd. (a)		100,235		19,530
Monadelphous Group, Ltd.		40,177		324,288
Monash IVF Group, Ltd.		21,931		32,402
Morning Star Gold NL (a) (b) (c)		33,455		7
Mortgage Choice, Ltd.		48,689		83,918
Mount Gibson Iron, Ltd. (a)		439,215		110,465
Myer Holdings, Ltd. (d)		355,143		353,076
MYOB Group, Ltd.		42,222		111,033
MyState, Ltd.		3,899		12,450
Navitas, Ltd.		96,272		345,246
New Hope Corp., Ltd.		6,285		7,487
nib holdings, Ltd.		199,351		683,895
Nick Scali, Ltd.		16,348		72,455
Nine Entertainment Co. Holdings, Ltd.		18,490		14,195
Northern Star Resources, Ltd.		220,636		557,942
Nufarm, Ltd.		79,335		523,003
OFX Group, Ltd. (d)		99,303		120,139
Orocobre, Ltd. (a)		49,318		160,501
Orora, Ltd.		225,473		485,010
OrotonGroup, Ltd.		8,647		13,777
OZ Minerals, Ltd.		149,299		846,725
Pacific Current Group, Ltd.		1,159		3,509
Pacific Smiles Group, Ltd.		13,431		19,354
Pact Group Holdings, Ltd.		4,623		22,464
Paladin Energy, Ltd. (a)		612,137		37,941
Panoramic Resources, Ltd. (a)		146,618		28,879
Peet, Ltd.		88,199		61,769
Peninsula Energy, Ltd. (a)		11,352		4,597
Perpetual, Ltd.		19,256		675,507
Perseus Mining, Ltd. (a)		231,401		54,044
Platinum Asset Management, Ltd.		21,691		82,784
Pluton Resources, Ltd. (a) (b) (c)		48,332		0
PMP, Ltd.		158,703		77,161
Premier Investments, Ltd.		44,992		468,311
Primary Health Care, Ltd.		244,279		717,820
Prime Media Group, Ltd.		93,371		20,884
Programmed Maintenance Services, Ltd.		95,504		132,456
Qube Holdings, Ltd. (d)		283,099		497,062
RCG Corp., Ltd.		90,942		97,377
RCR Tomlinson, Ltd.		61,564		121,905
Reckon, Ltd.		36,898		42,316
Regis Resources, Ltd.		180,703		374,021
Reject Shop, Ltd. (The)		12,421		75,890
Resolute Mining, Ltd.		277,334		249,028
Retail Food Group, Ltd.		60,846		307,439
Ridley Corp., Ltd.		123,003		111,048
RungePincockMinarco, Ltd. (a)		4,190		1,626
Ruralco Holdings, Ltd. (d)		7,095		15,092
Salmat, Ltd. (a)		45,807		18,535
Australia—(Continued)
Sandfire Resources NL		40,717		165,307
Saracen Mineral Holdings, Ltd. (a)		390,479		269,361
Select Harvests, Ltd.		30,640		146,598
Senex Energy, Ltd. (a)		248,220		47,378
Servcorp, Ltd.		23,622		133,678
Service Stream, Ltd.		62,705		49,656
Seven Group Holdings, Ltd.		15,634		88,231
Seven West Media, Ltd.		460,617		267,310
Sigma Pharmaceuticals, Ltd.		621,692		578,131
Silex Systems, Ltd. (a)		28,112		8,056
Silver Chef, Ltd.		8,241		52,657
Silver Lake Resources, Ltd. (a) (d)		112,092		50,074
Sims Metal Management, Ltd.		86,197		794,327
Sirtex Medical, Ltd.		22,520		229,423
Slater & Gordon, Ltd. (a) (d)		116,238		18,838
SMS Management & Technology, Ltd.		35,576		34,085
Southern Cross Media Group, Ltd.		229,061		254,464
Spark Infrastructure Group		742,738		1,273,958
Specialty Fashion Group, Ltd. (a)		34,701		12,716
Spotless Group Holdings, Ltd.		23,095		16,467
St. Barbara, Ltd. (a)		192,892		275,251
Star Entertainment Group, Ltd. (The)		210,220		782,238
Steadfast Group, Ltd.		104,744		166,975
Strike Energy, Ltd. (a)		182,555		10,526
Sundance Energy Australia, Ltd. (a)		373,357		59,194
Sunland Group, Ltd.		40,150		46,638
Super Retail Group, Ltd.		69,714		519,293
Tabcorp Holdings, Ltd.		236,852		821,756
Tassal Group, Ltd.		72,156		216,026
Technology One, Ltd.		85,252		346,361
Ten Network Holdings, Ltd. (a)		109,315		72,897
TFS Corp., Ltd. (d)		106,522		127,551
Thorn Group, Ltd.		60,945		84,390
Tiger Resources, Ltd. (a)		591,241		15,306
Toro Energy, Ltd. (a)		75,052		2,220
Tox Free Solutions, Ltd.		90,131		168,319
Treasury Wine Estates, Ltd.		56,464		434,465
Troy Resources, Ltd. (a)		106,145		10,807
Villa World, Ltd.		14,787		24,327
Village Roadshow, Ltd.		32,709		107,395
Virgin Australia Holdings, Ltd. (a) (d)		442,369		74,990
Virgin Australia International Holding, Ltd. (a) (b) (c)		968,773		1
Virtus Health, Ltd.		37,091		166,726
Vita Group, Ltd.		18,112		42,090
Watpac, Ltd. (a) (d)		37,999		20,843
Webjet, Ltd.		25,862		197,058
Western Areas, Ltd. (a) (d)		118,029		260,093
Westgold Resources, Ltd. (a)		37,679		44,865
Whitehaven Coal, Ltd. (a)		121,287		227,647
WorleyParsons, Ltd. (a)		33,331		233,004
WPP AUNZ, Ltd.		131,382		114,468
				43,015,128
Austria—1.1%
A-TEC Industries AG (a) (b) (c) (d)		1,312		0
Agrana Beteiligungs AG		1,574		186,977

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-5

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Dimensional International Small Company Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Austria—(Continued)
ams AG		23,302	$	660,060
Andritz AG		7,833		393,181
Austria Technologie & Systemtechnik AG (d)		14,133		138,323
BUWOG AG (a)		15,282		355,481
CA Immobilien Anlagen AG (a)		19,105		351,190
Conwert Immobilien Invest SE (a)		20,619		350,746
DO & Co. AG		1,857		121,995
EVN AG		12,657		149,273
IMMOFINANZ AG (a)		125,781		245,322
Kapsch TrafficCom AG		2,222		87,237
Lenzing AG		3,209		388,113
Mayr Melnhof Karton AG		3,412		361,646
Oberbank AG		198		12,568
Oesterreichische Post AG (a)		10,867		364,741
Palfinger AG		5,947		179,005
POLYTEC Holding AG		10,783		117,847
Porr AG		1,436		58,824
Raiffeisen Bank International AG (a)		13,074		239,168
RHI AG		8,926		227,786
Rosenbauer International AG		1,615		92,136
S IMMO AG (a)		35,979		378,696
S&T AG		2,389		21,970
Schoeller-Bleckmann Oilfield Equipment AG		3,509		281,724
Semperit AG Holding		6,041		163,756
Strabag SE		6,827		241,433
Telekom Austria AG (a)		24,392		144,020
UBM Development AG		78		2,545
UNIQA Insurance Group AG		14,804		112,153
Wienerberger AG		39,101		678,482
Zumtobel Group AG		14,277		255,053
				7,361,451
Belgium—1.9%
Ablynx NV (a) (d)		15,614		177,728
Ackermans & van Haaren NV		8,887		1,235,611
AGFA-Gevaert NV (a)		93,175		359,652
Atenor		1,089		52,164
Banque Nationale de Belgique		104		327,879
Barco NV		5,609		472,171
Bekaert S.A.		11,685		471,757
bpost S.A.		6,013		142,169
Cie d’Entreprises CFE		4,729		514,875
Cie Immobiliere de Belgique S.A. (a)		1,276		71,197
D’ieteren S.A.		8,787		388,346
Dalenys (a)		1,352		9,462
Deceuninck NV (c)		45,410		108,100
Econocom Group S.A.		27,496		403,380
Elia System Operator S.A.		12,209		638,461
Euronav NV		30,049		239,094
EVS Broadcast Equipment S.A.		4,761		166,360
Exmar NV		10,339		83,850
Fagron (a)		17,646		180,024
Galapagos NV (a)		16,401		1,052,100
GIMV NV		450		24,936
Ion Beam Applications		10,326		452,526
Jensen-Group NV		738		26,854
Belgium—(Continued)
Kinepolis Group NV (d)		7,227		323,275
Lotus Bakeries NV		118		310,600
MDxHealth (a)		5,915		29,714
Melexis NV		9,084		608,445
Nyrstar NV (a) (d)		26,926		220,756
Ontex Group NV		5,030		149,546
Orange Belgium S.A. (a)		13,209		276,009
Picanol		1,699		138,885
RealDolmen NV		1,200		31,198
Recticel S.A.		24,409		170,338
Resilux NV		229		37,840
Roularta Media Group NV		1,629		41,712
Sioen Industries NV		4,097		120,719
Sipef S.A.		3,346		213,037
Tessenderlo Chemie NV (a)		17,303		633,722
ThromboGenics NV (a)		9,279		24,699
Umicore S.A.		26,112		1,486,269
Van de Velde NV		2,850		198,474
Viohalco S.A. (a)		45,397		58,301
				12,672,235
Cambodia—0.0%
NagaCorp, Ltd.		458,000		263,119
Canada—8.9%
5N Plus, Inc. (a)		33,732		44,971
Absolute Software Corp.		18,754		89,115
Acadian Timber Corp.		3,800		51,935
Advantage Oil & Gas, Ltd. (a)		113,630		771,836
Aecon Group, Inc.		33,422		379,612
AG Growth International, Inc.		5,820		227,659
AGF Management, Ltd. - Class B		32,280		150,743
AGT Food & Ingredients, Inc.		7,901		215,613
Aimia, Inc.		29,471		194,915
Air Canada (a)		16,200		164,938
AirBoss of America Corp.		3,761		33,194
AKITA Drilling, Ltd. - Class A		2,003		12,606
Alacer Gold Corp. (a)		102,778		171,469
Alamos Gold, Inc. - Class A		95,845		661,025
Alaris Royalty Corp.		8,954		159,720
Algoma Central Corp.		4,410		40,236
Algonquin Power & Utilities Corp.		77,093		653,997
Alterra Power Corp.		15,076		58,501
Altius Minerals Corp. (d)		9,660		91,229
Altus Group, Ltd.		14,488		334,077
Andrew Peller, Ltd. - Class A		6,617		57,661
Argonaut Gold, Inc. (a)		57,325		90,514
Asanko Gold, Inc. (a)		23,027		70,660
Athabasca Oil Corp. (a)		66,624		101,724
ATS Automation Tooling Systems, Inc. (a)		36,533		340,664
AuRico Metals, Inc. (a)		42,144		31,703
AutoCanada, Inc.		8,428		145,127
Avigilon Corp. (a) (d)		14,381		137,314
B2Gold Corp. (a)		313,368		744,530
Badger Daylighting, Ltd.		11,262		269,251
Baytex Energy Corp. (a)		67,105		327,866

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-6

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Dimensional International Small Company Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Canada—(Continued)
Bellatrix Exploration, Ltd. (a) (d)		60,265	$	57,453
Birchcliff Energy, Ltd. (a)		58,552		408,619
Bird Construction, Inc.		18,612		125,591
Black Diamond Group, Ltd.		19,812		66,697
BlackPearl Resources, Inc. (a)		117,817		143,032
BMTC Group, Inc.		5,387		53,563
Bonavista Energy Corp.		43,607		156,221
Bonterra Energy Corp.		12,499		270,805
Boralex, Inc. - Class A		14,254		203,302
Brookfield Real Estate Services, Inc.		800		9,396
BRP, Inc. (a)		10,168		214,697
Calfrac Well Services, Ltd. (a) (d)		26,393		93,569
Calian Group, Ltd.		2,846		51,975
Callidus Capital Corp.		4,100		56,371
Canaccord Genuity Group, Inc. (a)		54,653		194,164
Canacol Energy, Ltd. (a)		37,461		127,786
Canadian Energy Services & Technology Corp.		70,437		401,853
Canadian Western Bank (d)		32,028		723,740
Canam Group, Inc.		22,324		149,974
Canexus Corp.		56,579		68,688
Canfor Corp. (a)		17,141		194,945
Canfor Pulp Products, Inc.		15,297		115,185
CanWel Building Materials Group, Ltd.		9,304		41,577
Canyon Services Group, Inc.		27,085		141,815
Capital Power Corp.		43,408		751,028
Capstone Mining Corp. (a)		117,839		110,585
Cargojet, Inc.		800		27,587
Cascades, Inc.		46,236		416,680
Celestica, Inc. (a)		36,485		432,336
Celestica, Inc. (U.S. Listed Shares) (a)		223		2,643
Centerra Gold, Inc.		62,285		291,791
Cequence Energy, Ltd. (a)		86,636		22,907
Cervus Equipment Corp.		2,998		35,391
China Gold International Resources Corp., Ltd. (a)		62,113		91,598
Chinook Energy, Inc. (a)		27,917		9,461
Cineplex, Inc. (d)		19,036		726,194
Clairvest Group, Inc.		200		4,469
Clarke, Inc.		1,614		11,252
Clearwater Seafoods, Inc.		7,044		61,120
Cogeco Communications, Inc.		4,620		227,929
Cogeco, Inc.		2,309		97,543
Colliers International Group, Inc.		12,580		463,698
Computer Modelling Group, Ltd.		21,620		146,694
Continental Gold, Inc. (a)		30,500		99,952
Copper Mountain Mining Corp. (a)		57,011		39,914
Corby Spirit and Wine, Ltd.		3,957		65,751
Corridor Resources, Inc. (a)		21,385		8,919
Corus Entertainment, Inc. - B Shares		31,990		300,208
Cott Corp.		2,000		22,660
Cott Corp. (Toronto Exchange)		38,179		432,220
CRAFT Oil, Ltd. (a) (c)		19,637		0
Crew Energy, Inc. (a)		69,029		386,108
CRH Medical Corp. (a)		7,400		39,517
Delphi Energy Corp. (a) (d)		95,850		120,647
Denison Mines Corp. (a) (d)		247,548		129,061
Descartes Systems Group, Inc. (The) (a)		28,586		609,554
DH Corp.		2,600		43,144
Canada—(Continued)
DHX Media, Ltd.		11,696		61,501
DirectCash Payments, Inc.		4,974		70,314
DIRTT Environmental Solutions (a)		6,900		32,222
Dominion Diamond Corp.		23,880		231,392
Dominion Diamond Corp. (U.S. Listed Shares)		9,238		89,424
Dorel Industries, Inc. - Class B		12,134		350,649
Dundee Precious Metals, Inc. (a) (d)		40,545		67,945
E-L Financial Corp., Ltd.		177		96,235
Eastern Platinum, Ltd. (a)		42,003		13,765
Echelon Financial Holdings, Inc.		900		7,440
EcoSynthetix, Inc. (a)		800		1,353
Enbridge Income Fund Holdings, Inc.		18,118		469,194
Endeavour Mining Corp. (a)		16,215		242,262
EnerCare, Inc.		30,725		408,248
Enerflex, Ltd.		29,289		371,934
Energy Fuels, Inc. (a)		4,125		6,790
Enghouse Systems, Ltd.		7,089		295,355
Ensign Energy Services, Inc.		51,526		359,970
Epsilon Energy, Ltd. (a)		18,214		39,476
Equitable Group, Inc.		3,909		176,024
Equity Financial Holdings, Inc. (a)		1,100		8,111
Essential Energy Services Trust (a)		53,526		33,089
Evertz Technologies, Ltd.		9,149		115,091
Exchange Income Corp.		6,151		191,267
Exco Technologies, Ltd.		13,332		107,041
EXFO, Inc. (a)		85		370
Extendicare, Inc. (d)		41,356		304,321
Fiera Capital Corp.		11,419		108,692
Firm Capital Mortgage Investment Corp.		6,774		69,423
First Majestic Silver Corp. (a) (d)		33,160		253,396
First National Financial Corp.		4,107		82,375
FirstService Corp.		12,580		597,214
Fortress Paper, Ltd. - Class A (a)		7,338		38,257
Fortuna Silver Mines, Inc. (a)		60,121		339,864
Freehold Royalties, Ltd. (d)		27,212		287,189
Gamehost, Inc.		4,952		41,234
Genesis Land Development Corp.		14,348		31,952
Genworth MI Canada, Inc. (d)		12,125		303,972
Gibson Energy, Inc.		40,344		570,312
Glacier Media, Inc. (a)		9,600		4,790
Gluskin Sheff & Associates, Inc.		10,533		136,816
GMP Capital, Inc. (a)		28,336		93,071
Goeasy, Ltd.		2,000		36,346
Golden Star Resources, Ltd. (a) (d)		93,633		69,040
Gran Tierra Energy, Inc. (a)		99,813		301,822
Granite Oil Corp.		10,252		44,974
Great Canadian Gaming Corp. (a)		14,894		277,103
Great Panther Silver, Ltd. (a) (d)		67,206		111,121
Guyana Goldfields, Inc. (a)		48,247		219,917
Hanfeng Evergreen, Inc. (a) (b) (c)		12,100		0
Heroux-Devtek, Inc. (a)		14,606		159,914
High Liner Foods, Inc.		4,807		71,426
HNZ Group, Inc. (a)		3,031		30,273
Home Capital Group, Inc. (d)		20,814		485,838
Horizon North Logistics, Inc.		30,612		44,687
HudBay Minerals, Inc.		103,103		589,752
Hudson’s Bay Co.		16,774		164,785

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-7

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Dimensional International Small Company Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Canada—(Continued)
IAMGOLD Corp. (a) (d)		152,782	$	590,577
IMAX Corp. (a) (d)		21,475		674,315
Imperial Metals Corp. (a) (d)		15,126		68,271
Indigo Books & Music, Inc. (a)		1,986		26,610
Innergex Renewable Energy, Inc.		38,391		401,166
Interfor Corp. (a)		33,292		372,680
International Tower Hill Mines, Ltd. (a)		21,604		12,068
Intertain Group, Ltd. (The) (a)		2,200		15,370
Intertape Polymer Group, Inc.		16,713		313,435
Ithaca Energy, Inc. (a) (d)		123,116		154,967
Ivanhoe Mines, Ltd. - Class A (a)		62,484		118,206
Jean Coutu Group PJC, Inc. (The) - Class A		16,800		261,763
Just Energy Group, Inc.		71,937		393,265
K-Bro Linen, Inc.		2,319		72,801
Kelt Exploration, Ltd. (a)		21,351		107,657
Kingsway Financial Services, Inc. (a)		8,765		54,575
Kirkland Lake Gold, Ltd. (a)		42,041		219,810
Klondex Mines, Ltd. (a)		48,447		225,519
Knight Therapeutics, Inc. (a)		15,898		127,170
Labrador Iron Ore Royalty Corp.		14,800		205,248
Laurentian Bank of Canada		13,206		567,819
Leon’s Furniture, Ltd.		9,639		129,798
Lightstream Resources, Ltd. (a) (b) (c)		108,373		9,282
Linamar Corp.		11,100		476,937
Liquor Stores N.A., Ltd. (d)		12,660		99,289
Lucara Diamond Corp.		110,136		249,368
Lundin Mining Corp. (a)		51,967		247,711
MacDonald Dettwiler & Associates, Ltd.		4,268		212,629
Magellan Aerospace Corp.		5,794		77,590
Mainstreet Equity Corp. (a)		2,561		63,174
Major Drilling Group International, Inc. (a)		36,670		191,728
Mandalay Resources Corp.		87,627		52,211
Manitoba Telecom Services, Inc. (d)		9,487		268,221
Maple Leaf Foods, Inc.		34,605		724,755
Martinrea International, Inc.		32,289		206,578
Maxim Power Corp. (a)		2,800		6,152
McCoy Global, Inc. (a)		4,388		6,438
Mediagrif Interactive Technologies, Inc.		4,176		58,940
Medical Facilities Corp.		12,861		168,300
MEG Energy Corp. (a)		21,200		145,739
Melcor Developments, Ltd.		3,120		33,695
Mitel Networks Corp. (a)		23,670		160,779
Morguard Corp.		800		104,808
Morneau Shepell, Inc.		14,285		204,170
MTY Food Group, Inc.		5,404		203,498
Mullen Group, Ltd. (d)		37,792		558,161
Nautilus Minerals, Inc. (a)		134,471		14,522
Nevsun Resources, Ltd.		81,011		250,397
New Flyer Industries, Inc.		17,136		521,234
New Gold, Inc. (a)		96,948		340,092
Newalta Corp. (a)		23,919		41,330
Norbord, Inc.		7,018		177,247
North American Energy Partners, Inc.		14,743		56,879
North West Co., Inc. (The)		17,071		349,900
Northern Blizzard Resources, Inc.		4,700		13,582
Northern Dynasty Minerals, Ltd. (a)		27,464		56,660
Northland Power, Inc.		33,879		587,927
Canada—(Continued)
Novelion Therapeutics, Inc. (a)		5,100		42,657
NuVista Energy, Ltd. (a)		59,117		305,569
OceanaGold Corp.		166,811		485,779
Osisko Gold Royalties, Ltd.		18,606		181,397
Painted Pony Petroleum, Ltd. (a)		38,738		266,014
Pan American Silver Corp.		55,071		830,587
Paramount Resources, Ltd. - Class A (a)		9,617		129,430
Parex Resources, Inc. (a)		55,359		696,806
Parkland Fuel Corp.		26,463		554,429
Pason Systems, Inc.		22,516		329,359
Pengrowth Energy Corp. (a) (d)		183,295		263,478
Penn West Petroleum, Ltd. (a) (d)		92,088		162,551
Petrus Resources, Ltd. (a)		1,290		3,123
PHX Energy Services Corp. (a)		12,350		37,805
Pizza Pizza Royalty Corp.		6,998		92,045
Platinum Group Metals, Ltd. (a)		3,208		4,635
Points International, Ltd. (a)		5,320		40,693
Polymet Mining Corp. (a)		38,355		28,567
Precision Drilling Corp. (a)		82,898		451,952
Premium Brands Holdings Corp.		7,879		404,674
Pretium Resources, Inc. (a)		15,884		131,553
Primero Mining Corp. (a) (d)		70,253		55,464
Pulse Seismic, Inc. (a)		15,720		27,397
Pure Technologies, Ltd.		7,900		28,243
Questerre Energy Corp. - Class A (a)		83,569		54,150
Raging River Exploration, Inc. (a)		56,263		442,511
RB Energy, Inc. (a) (c)		76,741		31
Reitmans Canada, Ltd. - Class A		20,566		89,301
Richelieu Hardware, Ltd.		18,390		350,090
Richmont Mines, Inc. (a)		20,415		132,588
RMP Energy, Inc. (a) (d)		72,808		41,213
Rocky Mountain Dealerships, Inc.		3,738		26,977
Rogers Sugar, Inc.		35,106		178,060
Russel Metals, Inc.		25,722		490,052
Sabina Gold & Silver Corp. (a)		57,206		41,755
Sandstorm Gold, Ltd. (a) (d)		48,383		189,907
Sandvine Corp.		44,900		93,970
Savanna Energy Services Corp. (a)		34,913		54,606
Sears Canada, Inc. (a)		5,768		9,537
Secure Energy Services, Inc.		55,376		482,965
SEMAFO, Inc. (a)		123,983		408,152
ShawCor, Ltd.		22,391		597,694
Sherritt International Corp. (a)		132,332		131,085
Sienna Senior Living, Inc. (d)		13,276		161,173
Sierra Wireless, Inc. (a) (d)		18,510		289,785
Silver Standard Resources, Inc. (a)		37,551		335,894
Solium Capital, Inc. (a)		11,317		71,139
Spartan Energy Corp. (a)		65,003		161,218
Sprott Resource Corp. (a)		40,405		14,896
Sprott, Inc.		56,027		104,739
Stantec, Inc.		19,582		494,709
Stella-Jones, Inc.		10,990		356,716
Stornoway Diamond Corp. (a)		33,687		25,090
Strad Energy Services, Ltd. (a)		10,641		12,601
Street Capital Group, Inc. (a)		5,900		8,261
Stuart Olson, Inc.		11,157		48,445
Student Transportation, Inc. (d)		27,425		153,399

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-8

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Dimensional International Small Company Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Canada—(Continued)
SunOpta, Inc. (a) (d)		26,392	$	188,114
Superior Plus Corp.		39,949		379,361
Surge Energy, Inc. (d)		74,075		182,615
Taseko Mines, Ltd. (a)		108,786		93,987
Tembec, Inc. (a)		32,111		57,399
Teranga Gold Corp. (a) (d)		122,593		74,871
Teranga Gold Corp. (a)		26,882		16,833
TFI International, Inc.		25,364		659,107
Theratechnologies, Inc. (a)		9,500		19,387
Timmins Gold Corp. (a)		59,665		18,442
TMX Group, Ltd.		6,827		363,659
TORC Oil & Gas, Ltd.		42,724		263,157
Torex Gold Resources, Inc. (a)		13,790		213,528
Toromont Industries, Ltd.		22,483		709,161
Torstar Corp. - Class B		21,453		30,518
Total Energy Services, Inc.		13,248		143,862
TransAlta Corp.		62,449		345,582
TransAlta Renewables, Inc.		10,414		111,225
Transcontinental, Inc. - Class A (d)		26,130		431,851
TransGlobe Energy Corp. (a)		36,372		61,494
Trican Well Service, Ltd. (a)		55,663		190,705
Trilogy Energy Corp. (a)		19,776		111,205
Trinidad Drilling, Ltd. (a)		68,873		171,330
Uni-Select, Inc.		11,171		245,360
Valener, Inc.		16,303		254,505
Vecima Networks, Inc.		2,500		17,205
Veresen, Inc.		76,138		743,432
Wajax Corp.		7,885		135,425
Wesdome Gold Mines, Ltd. (a)		38,107		59,318
West Fraser Timber Co., Ltd.		11,700		418,364
Western Energy Services Corp. (a)		17,973		41,497
Western Forest Products, Inc.		145,247		204,459
WestJet Airlines, Ltd.		861		14,775
Westshore Terminals Investment Corp. (d)		23,388		450,985
Whitecap Resources, Inc.		27,350		247,701
Wi-Lan, Inc.		58,061		94,703
Winpak, Ltd.		9,102		307,908
Xtreme Drilling Corp. (a)		11,600		24,191
Yellow Pages, Ltd. (a)		6,975		91,899
ZCL Composites, Inc.		9,681		93,518
Zenith Capital Corp. (a) (b) (c)		12,830		774
				58,783,663
China—0.0%
Bund Center Investment, Ltd.		138,000		66,573
China Chuanglian Education Group, Ltd. (a)		336,000		6,732
China Everbright Water, Ltd.		82,200		28,286
China Ludao Technology Co., Ltd. (a)		56,000		12,819
New Sports Group, Ltd. (a)		2,230,000		29,872
				144,282
Denmark—1.9%
ALK-Abello A/S		1,476		192,038
Alm Brand A/S		37,876		289,601
Ambu A/S - Class B (d)		9,548		382,254
Bakkafrost P/F		8,908		353,656
Denmark—(Continued)
Bang & Olufsen A/S (a)		9,221		104,369
Bavarian Nordic A/S (a)		10,666		374,639
Brodrene Hartmann A/S		663		31,701
D/S Norden A/S (a) (d)		5,328		83,362
DFDS A/S		11,185		510,009
FLSmidth & Co. A/S		19,649		814,495
GN Store Nord A/S		52,383		1,084,918
Gronlandsbanken A/S		17		1,478
H+H International A/S - Class B (a)		1,737		18,534
Harboes Bryggeri A/S - Class B		1,454		28,619
IC Group A/S		3,209		67,149
Jeudan A/S (a)		201		20,396
Jyske Bank A/S		14,672		698,180
Matas A/S		972		13,261
NKT Holding A/S		6,820		481,770
NNIT A/S		717		20,711
Nordjyske Bank A/S		185		2,749
Parken Sport & Entertainment A/S (a)		2,351		22,964
PER Aarsleff Holding A/S		9,620		239,609
Ringkjoebing Landbobank A/S		2,122		439,555
Rockwool International A/S - B Shares		3,162		556,543
Royal Unibrew A/S		15,546		600,129
RTX A/S		2,568		51,352
Santa Fe Group A/S (a)		7,121		56,436
Schouw & Co. AB		6,963		518,589
SimCorp A/S		16,061		781,955
Solar A/S - B Shares		3,176		162,240
Spar Nord Bank A/S		32,428		371,584
Sydbank A/S		26,018		805,545
TDC A/S (a)		141,824		728,147
TK Development A/S (a)		44,643		59,716
Topdanmark A/S (a)		29,081		738,294
Tryg A/S		18,564		335,663
United International Enterprises		1,090		191,512
Vestjysk Bank A/S (a)		3,300		6,071
William Demant Holding A/S (a)		13,600		236,472
Zealand Pharma A/S (a)		3,880		58,420
				12,534,685
Finland—2.9%
Ahlstrom Oyj		11,406		181,557
Aktia Bank Oyj		3,139		32,146
Alma Media Oyj (a)		22,695		120,120
Amer Sports Oyj		47,651		1,265,696
Apetit Oyj		1,205		16,443
Aspo Oyj		8,414		72,443
Atria Oyj		2,604		31,501
BasWare Oyj (a) (d)		3,525		134,642
Bittium Oyj		2,063		12,310
Cargotec Oyj - B Shares		12,591		568,311
Caverion Corp. (d)		40,680		339,019
Citycon Oyj		146,997		361,728
Comptel Oyj		30,187		75,290
Cramo Oyj		9,503		237,914
Elisa Oyj		30,080		977,542
F-Secure Oyj		35,820		131,193

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-9

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Dimensional International Small Company Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Finland—(Continued)
Finnair Oyj (a) (d)		28,666	$	121,578
Fiskars Oyj Abp		17,515		324,426
HKScan Oyj - A Shares		6,704		22,507
Huhtamaki Oyj		37,559		1,394,341
Ilkka-Yhtyma Oyj		2,976		8,486
Kemira Oyj		41,153		525,404
Kesko Oyj - A Shares		933		43,059
Kesko Oyj - B Shares		24,862		1,242,342
Konecranes Oyj		16,662		592,293
Lassila & Tikanoja Oyj		14,630		295,587
Lemminkainen Oyj		5,098		109,441
Metsa Board Oyj (d)		110,343		789,032
Metso Oyj		25,057		713,246
Munksjo Oyj (a)		6,311		104,868
Nokian Renkaat Oyj		40,917		1,525,158
Olvi Oyj - A Shares		6,303		185,756
Oriola-KD Oyj - B Shares		61,632		279,458
Orion Oyj - Class A		12,582		560,224
Orion Oyj - Class B		30,210		1,344,572
Outokumpu Oyj (a)		102,277		915,118
Outotec Oyj (a)		52,402		275,259
PKC Group Oyj		7,624		126,741
Ponsse Oyj		3,208		80,959
Poyry Oyj (a)		14,295		49,892
Raisio Oyj - V Shares		58,833		221,062
Ramirent Oyj		37,284		289,930
Rapala VMC Oyj		8,902		38,678
Sanoma Oyj		31,912		276,904
Sponda Oyj		44,426		204,586
Stockmann Oyj Abp - B Shares (a)		11,956		89,023
Talvivaara Mining Co. plc (a) (b) (c)		286,881		1,721
Technopolis Oyj		66,184		217,732
Teleste Oyj		772		7,198
Tieto Oyj		21,736		592,940
Tikkurila Oyj		14,683		290,398
Uponor Oyj		19,661		341,195
Vaisala Oyj - A Shares		4,116		145,931
Valmet Oyj		12,429		182,848
YIT Oyj		33,084		264,243
				19,351,991
France—4.6%
ABC Arbitrage		7,498		56,741
Actia Group		5,737		45,562
Air France-KLM (a)		50,893		277,053
Akka Technologies S.A.		3,864		140,739
Albioma S.A.		13,155		229,049
Altamir Amboise		9,152		123,021
Alten S.A.		9,511		667,858
Altran Technologies S.A. (a)		62,318		909,843
APRIL S.A.		9,077		114,596
Assystem		5,619		156,555
Aubay		1,785		49,787
Axway Software S.A.		2,132		68,667
Bastide le Confort Medical		590		14,728
Beneteau S.A.		15,076		218,050
France—(Continued)
BioMerieux		4,066		607,269
Boiron S.A.		2,586		228,813
Bonduelle SCA		6,712		176,621
Burelle S.A.		184		183,978
Catering International Services		541		9,624
Cegedim S.A. (a)		2,643		72,962
CGG S.A. (a) (d)		3,847		55,114
Chargeurs S.A.		7,816		131,262
Cie des Alpes		3,241		64,477
Coface S.A. (a)		2,022		13,195
Derichebourg S.A.		31,305		138,423
Devoteam S.A.		4,318		261,221
Edenred		44,518		882,246
Electricite de Strasbourg S.A.		88		9,695
Elior Group		19,131		436,929
Elis S.A.		6,943		123,784
Eramet (a)		1,499		89,492
Esso S.A. Francaise (a)		1,341		58,069
Etablissements Maurel et Prom (a)		27,199		120,820
Euler Hermes Group		2,457		215,937
Eutelsat Communications S.A.		3,630		70,270
Exel Industries - A Shares		618		49,673
Faiveley Transport S.A.		3,418		360,336
Faurecia		25,665		994,667
Fimalac		59		6,325
Fleury Michon S.A.		461		31,252
Gaztransport Et Technigaz S.A.		5,272		227,530
GEA		165		16,109
GL Events		3,794		67,875
Groupe Crit		1,062		76,002
Groupe Fnac S.A. (a)		3,721		251,571
Groupe Fnac S.A. (a)		5,410		359,400
Groupe Gorge (a)		1,266		28,169
Groupe Open		722		17,262
Guerbet (d)		2,188		163,938
Haulotte Group S.A.		5,337		78,979
Havas S.A.		13,471		113,420
HERIGE SADCS (a)		235		6,396
HiPay Group S.A. (a)		1,527		17,356
ID Logistics Group (a)		354		50,305
Imerys S.A.		3,235		245,115
Interparfums S.A.		4,802		138,470
Ipsen S.A.		13,044		943,191
IPSOS		12,134		381,081
Jacquet Metal Service		7,386		153,979
Korian S.A.		22,136		648,566
Lagardere SCA		36,064		1,001,786
Lanson-BCC		15		534
Laurent-Perrier		1,367		103,603
Le Belier		299		12,653
Le Noble Age		1,488		55,342
Lectra		8,150		154,572
Linedata Services		855		42,091
LISI		8,732		281,687
Maisons France Confort S.A.		1,526		76,279
Manitou BF S.A.		4,534		89,240
Manutan International		589		43,210

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-10

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Dimensional International Small Company Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
France—(Continued)
Mersen		8,985	$	192,274
METabolic EXplorer S.A. (a)		6,035		15,590
Metropole Television S.A.		15,772		293,328
MGI Coutier		3,301		99,032
Mr. Bricolage		601		7,764
Naturex (a)		2,045		182,963
Neopost S.A.		12,528		391,784
Nexans S.A. (a)		10,974		567,494
Nexity S.A. (a)		12,502		585,037
NRJ Group (a)		11,923		119,855
Oeneo S.A.		2,860		23,839
Onxeo S.A. (a)		3,499		9,204
Onxeo S.A. (a)		4,566		12,025
Orpea		11,098		896,100
Parrot S.A. (a)		2,647		28,896
Pierre & Vacances S.A. (a)		3,103		123,877
Plastic Omnium S.A.		30,265		965,954
Plastivaloire		197		29,138
Rallye S.A.		8,372		162,289
Rexel S.A.		55,587		913,145
Robertet S.A.		14		5,154
Rothschild & Co.		488		13,197
Rubis SCA		16,886		1,392,036
Samse S.A.		107		16,448
Sartorius Stedim Biotech		7,221		455,691
Savencia S.A.		3,042		214,087
Seche Environnement S.A.		1,555		47,386
Sequana S.A. (a)		10,224		18,183
Societe des Bains de Mer et du Cercle des Etrangers a Monaco (a)		16		507
Societe Marseillaise du Tunnel Prado-Carenage S.A.		293		9,853
Societe Television Francaise 1 (d)		48,852		485,888
Soitec (a)		118,705		183,617
Solocal Group (a)		16,327		52,935
Somfy S.A.		267		108,935
Sopra Steria Group		5,251		596,061
SPIE S.A.		9,828		207,018
Ste Industrielle d’Aviation Latecoere S.A. (a)		26,469		116,501
STEF S.A.		1,145		96,172
Store Electronic (a)		715		20,527
Sword Group		3,419		104,596
Synergie S.A.		4,031		148,504
Tarkett S.A.		3,298		118,310
Technicolor S.A.		88,305		477,662
Teleperformance SE		23,996		2,406,722
Tessi S.A.		895		151,906
TFF Group		308		32,407
Thermador Groupe		1,043		91,671
Total Gabon		324		53,204
Touax S.A. (a)		1,706		19,763
Trigano S.A.		3,132		245,026
UBISOFT Entertainment S.A. (a)		41,482		1,475,706
Union Financiere de France BQE S.A.		1,257		31,490
Vallourec S.A. (a)		56,190		383,610
Valneva SE (a) (d)		15,386		50,038
Vetoquinol S.A.		1,341		64,236
Vicat S.A.		5,373		326,056
France—(Continued)
VIEL & Cie S.A.		4,205		19,252
Vilmorin & Cie S.A.		2,684		169,031
Virbac S.A. (a)		1,270		223,231
Vranken-Pommery Monopole S.A.		958		22,679
				30,585,298
Germany—6.1%
Aareal Bank AG		30,580		1,151,450
Adler Modemaerkte AG		2,828		13,988
ADLER Real Estate AG (a) (d)		2,365		36,059
ADVA Optical Networking SE (a)		13,833		112,093
AIXTRON SE (a)		30,799		100,442
Allgeier SE		2,942		53,346
Amadeus Fire AG		2,107		162,621
Aurubis AG		14,317		824,680
Axel Springer SE		10,274		498,158
Basler AG		236		14,987
Bauer AG		4,696		56,285
BayWa AG		5,731		185,630
BayWa AG		305		10,107
Bechtle AG		9,176		953,407
Bertrandt AG		1,677		170,455
Bijou Brigitte AG		1,603		93,347
Bilfinger SE (a) (d)		3,381		129,081
Biotest AG		4,221		70,606
Borussia Dortmund GmbH & Co. KGaA (Xetra Exchange)		30,779		169,921
CANCOM SE		7,164		338,011
Carl Zeiss Meditec AG		9,550		351,847
CENIT AG		5,012		105,376
CENTROTEC Sustainable AG		3,158		50,791
Cewe Stiftung & Co. KGaA		3,145		279,745
Clere AG (a)		1,425		23,968
Comdirect Bank AG		13,399		135,853
CompuGroup Medical SE		8,932		366,149
Constantin Medien AG (a)		15,941		34,607
CropEnergies AG		9,235		49,659
CTS Eventim AG & Co. KGaA		17,775		559,182
Data Modul AG		138		7,111
DEAG Deutsche Entertainment AG (a)		2,049		6,126
Delticom AG (d)		1,562		29,405
Deutsche Beteiligungs AG		2,815		91,158
Deutsche Euroshop AG		6,674		271,825
Deutsche Pfandbriefbank AG		10,699		102,447
Deutz AG		35,346		198,600
Dialog Semiconductor plc (a)		22,851		963,646
DIC Asset AG		7,859		75,195
DMG Mori AG		14,118		640,141
Dr. Hoenle AG		2,084		61,557
Draegerwerk AG & Co. KGaA		1,062		72,634
Drillisch AG (d)		17,268		741,661
Duerr AG		8,529		684,322
Eckert & Ziegler AG		1,629		45,848
Elmos Semiconductor AG		7,336		109,434
ElringKlinger AG (d)		11,206		187,076
Euromicron AG (a)		2,048		12,600

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-11

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Dimensional International Small Company Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Germany—(Continued)
Evotec AG (a)		24,706	$	193,565
Fielmann AG (d)		2,497		164,639
Francotyp-Postalia Holding AG		3,300		19,066
Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide		3,441		203,242
Freenet AG		51,967		1,464,819
FUCHS Petrolub SE		4,292		166,855
Gerresheimer AG		9,821		728,928
Gerry Weber International AG (d)		9,842		113,591
Gesco AG		4,563		108,022
GFK SE		7,297		332,654
GFT Technologies SE		5,932		127,696
Grammer AG		7,596		380,067
GRENKE AG		1,704		266,783
H&R AG GmbH & Co. KGaA (a)		4,113		64,719
Hamburger Hafen und Logistik AG		8,624		160,402
Heidelberger Druckmaschinen AG (a)		100,140		266,887
Hella KGaA Hueck & Co.		2,951		111,202
HolidayCheck Group AG (a)		1,815		4,484
Hornbach Baumarkt AG		1,543		45,010
Hugo Boss AG		9,989		616,361
Indus Holding AG		13,812		750,316
Init Innovation In Traffic Systems AG		1,794		28,179
Isra Vision AG (d)		2,083		221,518
Jenoptik AG		19,047		328,902
K&S AG (d)		19,765		472,469
KION Group AG		12,333		685,421
Kloeckner & Co. SE (a)		38,909		484,739
Koenig & Bauer AG (a)		4,373		196,376
Kontron AG (a) (d)		21,842		65,477
Krones AG		5,091		465,245
KSB AG		103		40,455
KUKA AG (a)		8,843		1,068,675
KWS Saat SE		949		281,627
LANXESS AG		31,725		2,078,693
LEG Immobilien AG (a)		15,885		1,232,303
Leifheit AG		945		56,150
Leoni AG		12,471		443,415
LPKF Laser & Electronics AG (a) (d)		5,852		42,779
Manz AG (a)		1,272		44,134
Medigene AG (a)		3,423		42,855
MLP AG		20,985		92,185
MTU Aero Engines AG		14,899		1,718,904
MVV Energie AG		544		12,312
Nemetschek SE		12,828		745,999
Nexus AG		2,764		52,058
Nordex SE (a) (d)		23,261		499,516
Norma Group SE		10,781		459,423
OHB SE		2,315		45,189
OSRAM Licht AG		21,899		1,149,696
Patrizia Immobilien AG (a)		17,552		290,728
Pfeiffer Vacuum Technology AG		3,596		335,999
PNE Wind AG (d)		24,548		56,343
Progress-Werk Oberkirch AG		822		34,375
PSI AG Gesellschaft Fuer Produkte und Systeme der Informationstechnologie		2,118		27,176
Puma SE		549		144,190
PVA TePla AG (a)		3,358		8,049
Germany—(Continued)
QSC AG		26,632		53,575
R Stahl AG		1,594		47,830
Rational AG (d)		795		354,359
Rheinmetall AG		12,940		869,446
Rhoen Klinikum AG		23,160		625,069
RIB Software AG		8,127		106,340
SAF-Holland S.A.		29,975		430,957
Salzgitter AG (d)		12,083		425,545
Schaltbau Holding AG (d)		2,118		68,305
SHW AG		2,013		69,156
Siltronic AG (a)		2,093		96,907
Sixt SE		8,854		474,875
SMA Solar Technology AG (d)		3,992		105,441
SMT Scharf AG (a)		831		12,127
Softing AG		1,971		26,629
Software AG		20,357		740,206
Solarworld AG (a)		348		890
Stada Arzneimittel AG		19,797		1,022,897
Stroeer SE & Co. KGaA (d)		8,451		370,145
Suedzucker AG		26,310		627,642
Surteco SE		1,501		37,231
Suss Microtec AG (a)		6,216		41,697
TAG Immobilien AG		39,448		518,552
Takkt AG		11,656		264,166
Technotrans AG		3,008		72,475
TLG Immobilien AG		6,129		115,295
Tom Tailor Holding AG (a)		6,389		34,811
VERBIO Vereinigte BioEnergie AG		2,621		19,958
Vossloh AG (a)		4,905		307,503
VTG AG		5,545		165,630
Wacker Chemie AG		2,424		251,973
Wacker Neuson SE		10,071		163,018
Washtec AG		3,397		176,870
XING AG		1,097		202,191
				40,543,210
Hong Kong—3.3%
Agritrade Resources, Ltd.		135,000		27,917
Alco Holdings, Ltd.		136,000		40,272
Allan International Holdings		20,000		4,844
Allied Group, Ltd.		22,000		112,064
Allied Properties HK, Ltd.		1,406,024		313,143
Anxian Yuan China Holdings, Ltd. (a)		420,000		5,336
Apac Resources, Ltd. (a)		472,173		6,496
Applied Development Holdings, Ltd. (a)		250,000		26,756
APT Satellite Holdings, Ltd.		164,250		78,819
Arts Optical International Holdings, Ltd.		16,000		6,107
Asia Financial Holdings, Ltd.		278,000		132,793
Asia Satellite Telecommunications Holdings, Ltd. (a)		58,500		72,875
Asia Standard International Group, Ltd.		370,000		75,211
ASM Pacific Technology, Ltd.		26,600		281,600
Associated International Hotels, Ltd.		14,000		38,004
Auto Italia Holdings (a)		175,000		2,713
BeijingWest Industries International, Ltd. (a)		41,200		10,209
Bel Global Resources Holdings, Ltd. (a) (b) (c)		520,000		0
BEP International Holdings, Ltd.		2,020,000		115,420

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-12

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Dimensional International Small Company Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Hong Kong—(Continued)
Bonjour Holdings, Ltd.		615,000	$	27,675
Bossini International Holdings, Ltd.		302,000		16,335
Bright Smart Securities & Commodities Group, Ltd.		96,000		31,287
Brightoil Petroleum Holdings, Ltd.		640,000		181,318
Brockman Mining, Ltd. (a)		2,516,770		43,068
Burwill Holdings, Ltd. (a)		1,566,000		51,148
Cafe de Coral Holdings, Ltd.		134,000		434,301
Cash Financial Services Group, Ltd. (a)		288,000		15,557
Century City International Holdings, Ltd.		616,000		42,748
CGN Mining Co., Ltd. (a)		145,000		11,005
Champion Technology Holdings, Ltd. (a)		1,233,093		22,625
Chen Hsong Holdings		150,000		37,483
Cheuk Nang Holdings, Ltd.		94,214		65,556
Chevalier International Holdings, Ltd.		75,139		115,176
China Billion Resources, Ltd. (a)		238,000		887
China Energy Development Holdings, Ltd. (a)		3,670,000		41,098
China Flavors & Fragrances Co., Ltd.		71,446		22,556
China Healthcare Enterprise Group, Ltd. (a)		160,000		2,306
China LNG Group, Ltd.		1,720,000		39,968
China Metal International Holdings, Inc.		198,000		62,414
China Motor Bus Co., Ltd.		1,200		13,801
China Solar Energy Holdings, Ltd. (a) (b) (c)		162,000		705
China Star Entertainment, Ltd. (a)		126,000		7,742
China Strategic Holdings, Ltd. (a)		3,402,500		76,897
China Ting Group Holdings, Ltd.		318,550		19,224
Chinese Estates Holdings, Ltd.		21,000		36,536
Chinney Investment, Ltd.		8,000		1,783
Chong Hing Bank, Ltd.		7,000		13,524
Chow Sang Sang Holdings International, Ltd.		119,000		220,679
Chuang’s China Investments, Ltd.		511,500		31,241
Chuang’s Consortium International, Ltd.		446,357		83,282
CITIC Telecom International Holdings, Ltd.		467,000		140,149
CK Life Sciences International Holdings, Inc.		1,594,000		141,143
CNQC International Holdings, Ltd.		82,500		32,128
CNT Group, Ltd.		246,000		19,957
Common Splendor International Health Industry Group, Ltd. (a)		342,000		29,516
Continental Holdings, Ltd. (a)		220,000		3,668
Convoy Global Holdings, Ltd. (a)		1,314,000		39,009
CP Lotus Corp. (a)		1,750,000		31,711
Crocodile Garments (a)		216,000		28,350
Cross-Harbour Holdings, Ltd. (The)		119,000		171,858
CSI Properties, Ltd.		3,194,023		113,118
Dah Sing Banking Group, Ltd.		172,671		316,681
Dah Sing Financial Holdings, Ltd.		66,260		447,388
Dickson Concepts International, Ltd.		131,000		46,837
Eagle Nice International Holdings, Ltd.		120,000		33,744
EcoGreen International Group, Ltd.		118,800		25,512
Emperor Capital Group, Ltd.		540,000		47,820
Emperor Entertainment Hotel, Ltd.		235,000		55,251
Emperor International Holdings, Ltd.		565,250		128,093
Emperor Watch & Jewellery, Ltd. (a)		1,520,000		54,752
ENM Holdings, Ltd. (a)		556,000		41,181
EPI Holdings, Ltd. (a)		586,800		14,105
Esprit Holdings, Ltd. (a)		833,950		650,627
eSun Holdings, Ltd. (a)		400,000		36,073
Fairwood Holdings, Ltd.		34,500		125,833
Hong Kong—(Continued)
Far East Consortium International, Ltd.		683,913		291,237
Far East Holdings International, Ltd. (a)		150,000		17,308
First Pacific Co., Ltd.		74,000		51,685
Fountain SET Holdings, Ltd.		422,000		53,076
Future Bright Holdings, Ltd.		156,000		16,420
G-Resources Group, Ltd.		11,842,800		216,695
GCL New Energy Holdings, Ltd. (a)		1,406,000		82,087
Get Nice Financial Group, Ltd.		64,350		7,849
Get Nice Holdings, Ltd.		2,574,000		87,455
Giordano International, Ltd.		536,000		288,375
Global Brands Group Holding, Ltd. (a)		876,000		115,314
Glorious Sun Enterprises, Ltd.		393,000		48,894
Gold Peak Industries Holdings, Ltd.		277,714		26,156
Golden Resources Development International, Ltd.		370,000		20,461
Good Resources Holdings, Ltd. (a)		420,000		25,962
Great Eagle Holdings, Ltd.		44,000		209,550
Guangnan Holdings, Ltd.		264,000		31,993
Guoco Group, Ltd.		2,000		22,026
Guotai Junan International Holdings, Ltd. (d)		503,600		154,299
Haitong International Securities Group, Ltd.		428,289		244,258
Hanison Construction Holdings, Ltd.		148,009		26,672
Hao Tian Development Group, Ltd. (a)		858,000		31,437
Harbour Centre Development, Ltd.		88,000		161,056
HKBN, Ltd.		169,500		185,451
HKR International, Ltd. (a)		405,600		185,657
Hon Kwok Land Investment Co., Ltd.		140,000		54,602
Hong Kong Aircraft Engineering Co., Ltd.		8,800		58,725
Hong Kong Ferry Holdings Co., Ltd.		22,000		24,840
Hong Kong Television Network, Ltd. (a)		165,000		27,926
Hongkong & Shanghai Hotels (The)		21,000		23,274
Hongkong Chinese, Ltd.		866,000		151,272
Hopewell Holdings, Ltd.		70,000		240,966
Hsin Chong Construction Group, Ltd. (a)		918,000		41,978
Huarong Investment Stock Corp., Ltd. (a)		175,000		34,639
Hung Hing Printing Group, Ltd.		252,000		42,162
Hutchison Telecommunications Hong Kong Holdings, Ltd.		526,000		169,500
I-CABLE Communications, Ltd. (a)		177,000		17,784
Imagi International Holdings, Ltd. (a)		720,900		13,871
International Standard Resources Holdings, Ltd. (a)		1,782,000		22,961
iOne Holdings, Ltd. (a)		960,000		25,893
IPE Group, Ltd.		285,000		73,369
IRC, Ltd. (a)		760,000		31,720
IT, Ltd.		278,000		110,442
ITC Properties Group, Ltd.		99,556		40,192
Jinhui Holdings Co., Ltd. (a)		70,000		9,930
Johnson Electric Holdings, Ltd.		106,875		281,254
K Wah International Holdings, Ltd.		649,045		298,343
Kader Holdings Co., Ltd.		264,000		26,761
Kam Hing International Holdings, Ltd.		196,000		12,549
Kantone Holdings, Ltd. (a)		93,000		8,766
Karrie International Holdings, Ltd.		140,000		12,245
Keck Seng Investments		72,000		51,696
Kerry Logistics Network, Ltd.		107,000		134,754
Kingmaker Footwear Holdings, Ltd.		102,000		32,372
Kowloon Development Co., Ltd.		159,000		150,532

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-13

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Dimensional International Small Company Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Hong Kong—(Continued)
Kwan On Holdings, Ltd. (a)		50,000	$	13,830
L’sea Resources International Holdings, Ltd. (a)		360,000		4,617
Lai Sun Development Co., Ltd.		6,835,666		127,461
Lai Sun Garment International, Ltd.		498,800		103,483
Lam Soon Hong Kong, Ltd.		15,000		16,380
Landing International Development, Ltd. (a)		2,185,000		28,150
Landsea Green Properties Co., Ltd.		120,000		8,980
Lifestyle China Group, Ltd. (a)		161,500		38,528
Lifestyle International Holdings, Ltd.		161,500		207,264
Lippo China Resources, Ltd.		2,106,000		62,870
Lippo, Ltd.		122,000		71,328
Lisi Group Holdings, Ltd.		562,000		50,716
Liu Chong Hing Investment, Ltd.		86,000		114,882
Luen Thai Holdings, Ltd.		116,000		48,869
Luk Fook Holdings International, Ltd.		135,000		351,475
Luks Group Vietnam Holdings Co., Ltd.		68,000		24,432
Lung Kee Bermuda Holdings		116,000		38,846
Magnificent Hotel Investment, Ltd.		1,310,000		29,149
Man Sang International, Ltd. (a)		150,000		10,452
Man Wah Holdings, Ltd.		583,200		393,420
Mandarin Oriental International, Ltd.		7,700		9,814
Mason Financial Holdings, Ltd. (a)		2,250,000		53,569
Matrix Holdings, Ltd.		36,000		15,181
Melco International Development, Ltd.		140,000		189,362
Midland Holdings, Ltd. (a)		302,000		77,792
Midland IC&I, Ltd. (a)		1,510,000		8,720
Ming Fai International Holdings, Ltd.		145,000		22,943
Miramar Hotel & Investment		12,000		25,224
National Electronic Holdings, Ltd.		182,600		22,774
Neo-Neon Holdings, Ltd. (a)		322,500		47,655
NetMind Financial Holdings, Ltd. (a)		8,984,000		69,113
New Century Group Hong Kong, Ltd. (a)		912,000		16,323
New Times Energy Corp., Ltd. (a)		306,300		8,776
Newocean Energy Holdings, Ltd.		488,000		129,321
Next Digital, Ltd. (a)		414,000		19,795
Nine Express, Ltd. (a)		216,000		13,007
Noble Group, Ltd. (a)		2,264,400		263,586
O Luxe Holdings, Ltd. (a)		648,000		61,842
Orange Sky Golden Harvest Entertainment Holdings, Ltd. (a)		375,882		27,554
Orient Overseas International, Ltd.		45,000		186,219
Oriental Watch Holdings		271,600		52,337
Pacific Andes International Holdings, Ltd. (a) (b) (c)		1,819,984		6,431
Pacific Basin Shipping, Ltd. (a)		976,000		159,212
Pacific Textiles Holdings, Ltd.		187,000		202,263
Paliburg Holdings, Ltd.		328,000		102,592
Paradise Entertainment, Ltd. (a)		168,000		32,972
Pearl Oriental Oil, Ltd. (a)		404,000		13,796
Perfect Shape Beauty Technology, Ltd.		108,000		8,037
Pico Far East Holdings, Ltd.		468,000		143,478
Playmates Holdings, Ltd.		56,000		73,321
Playmates Toys, Ltd.		236,000		43,335
Polytec Asset Holdings, Ltd.		565,000		36,166
Public Financial Holdings, Ltd.		166,000		74,652
PYI Corp., Ltd. (a)		2,140,366		37,824
Quam, Ltd.		100,000		16,693
Regal Hotels International Holdings, Ltd.		402,000		220,250
Hong Kong—(Continued)
Rentian Technology Holdings, Ltd. (a)		180,000		12,500
Rivera Holdings, Ltd.		20,000		1,361
Sa Sa International Holdings, Ltd.		343,199		136,180
SAS Dragon Holdings, Ltd.		140,000		28,732
SEA Holdings, Ltd.		94,000		225,358
SEEC Media Group, Ltd. (a)		860,000		14,030
Shenwan Hongyuan HK, Ltd.		172,500		74,775
Shun Ho Property Investments, Ltd.		21,615		7,554
Shun Tak Holdings, Ltd. (a)		701,500		240,459
Silver Base Group Holdings, Ltd. (a)		633,000		37,890
Sincere Watch Hong Kong, Ltd. (a)		250,000		6,429
Sing Tao News Corp., Ltd.		276,000		35,909
Singamas Container Holdings, Ltd. (a)		786,000		84,825
SIS International Holdings		16,000		7,903
SITC International Holdings Co., Ltd.		223,000		135,305
Sitoy Group Holdings, Ltd.		111,000		28,918
Skyway Securities Group, Ltd. (a)		750,000		19,793
SmarTone Telecommunications Holdings, Ltd.		142,388		191,220
SOCAM Development, Ltd. (a)		179,876		60,484
Solomon Systech International, Ltd. (a)		920,000		39,388
Soundwill Holdings, Ltd.		50,000		90,732
South China Holdings Co., Ltd. (a)		1,240,000		63,125
Stella International Holdings, Ltd.		161,500		259,766
Stelux Holdings International, Ltd. (a)		260,500		17,736
Styland Holdings, Ltd.		460,000		11,876
Success Universe Group, Ltd. (a)		240,000		6,114
Sun Hing Vision Group Holdings, Ltd.		42,000		15,111
Sun Hung Kai & Co., Ltd.		322,440		199,199
Sunwah Kingsway Capital Holdings, Ltd.		310,000		5,634
TAI Cheung Holdings, Ltd.		232,000		203,391
Talent Property Group, Ltd. (a)		420,000		7,835
Tan Chong International, Ltd.		63,000		18,686
Tao Heung Holdings, Ltd.		204,000		50,478
TCL Display Technology Holdings, Ltd. (a)		136,000		12,594
Television Broadcasts, Ltd.		123,500		406,081
Texwinca Holdings, Ltd.		300,000		195,943
Titan Petrochemicals Group, Ltd. (a)		1,000,000		9,868
Tom Group, Ltd. (a)		118,000		26,714
Town Health International Medical Group, Ltd.		230,000		37,036
Tradelink Electronic Commerce, Ltd.		256,000		52,681
Transport International Holdings, Ltd.		132,000		374,738
Trinity, Ltd. (a)		466,000		34,905
TSC Group Holdings, Ltd. (a)		216,000		30,784
Tsui Wah Holdings, Ltd.		40,000		6,679
United Laboratories International Holdings, Ltd. (The) (a)		241,000		163,675
Universal Technologies Holdings, Ltd. (a)		120,000		5,184
Up Energy Development Group, Ltd. (a) (b) (c)		92,000		1,148
Upbest Group, Ltd.		16,000		2,508
Value Convergence Holdings, Ltd. (a)		104,000		24,394
Value Partners Group, Ltd.		69,000		54,889
Valuetronics Holdings, Ltd.		48,900		17,545
Varitronix International, Ltd.		137,000		57,138
Vedan International Holdings, Ltd.		296,000		37,300
Victory City International Holdings, Ltd.		839,449		27,651
Vitasoy International Holdings, Ltd.		358,000		717,576
VS International Group, Ltd. (a)		160,000		6,156

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-14

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Dimensional International Small Company Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Hong Kong—(Continued)
VST Holdings, Ltd.		487,200	$	170,291
VTech Holdings, Ltd.		41,500		554,160
Wai Kee Holdings, Ltd.		54,000		17,131
Win Hanverky Holdings, Ltd.		332,000		53,745
Winfull Group Holdings, Ltd. (a)		528,000		12,065
Wing On Co. International, Ltd.		46,000		141,418
Wing Tai Properties, Ltd.		280,000		168,573
Wonderful Sky Financial Group Holdings, Ltd.		44,000		11,795
Xinyi Glass Holdings, Ltd. (a)		826,000		671,919
Yat Sing Holdings, Ltd. (a)		160,000		81,366
Yeebo International Holdings, Ltd.		158,000		92,040
YGM Trading, Ltd.		46,000		43,417
Yugang International, Ltd.		1,466,000		27,985
				21,646,548
Ireland—0.8%
C&C Group plc		144,358		584,431
FBD Holdings plc (a)		10,350		75,026
Glanbia plc		37,294		619,421
Grafton Group plc		88,160		596,584
Greencore Group plc		365,753		1,112,001
IFG Group plc		44,002		81,608
Independent News & Media plc (a)		35,056		4,702
Irish Continental Group plc		22,664		107,265
Kingspan Group plc		44,238		1,199,403
Smurfit Kappa Group plc		13,745		315,128
Tarsus Group plc		3,274		11,423
UDG Healthcare plc		104,367		859,357
				5,566,349
Isle of Man—0.1%
GVC Holdings plc (a)		61,038		482,755
Paysafe Group plc (a)		51,693		235,284
				718,039
Israel—0.9%
ADO Group, Ltd. (a)		4,040		46,140
Africa Israel Investments, Ltd. (a)		64,935		9,721
Africa Israel Properties, Ltd.		4,653		79,610
Africa Israel Residences, Ltd.		880		17,063
Airport City, Ltd. (a)		25,014		249,135
Allot Communications, Ltd. (a)		10,216		49,152
Alrov Properties and Lodgings, Ltd.		5,057		109,653
Amot Investments, Ltd.		25,066		106,595
Ashtrom Properties, Ltd.		6,725		23,953
AudioCodes, Ltd. (a)		5,709		35,277
Avgol Industries 1953, Ltd.		9,099		10,936
Azorim-Investment Development & Construction Co., Ltd. (a)		23,712		21,259
Bayside Land Corp.		205		74,449
Big Shopping Centers, Ltd.		1,031		67,616
BioLine RX, Ltd. (a)		2,565		2,321
Blue Square Real Estate, Ltd.		767		29,272
Cellcom Israel, Ltd. (a)		13,058		105,045
Ceragon Networks, Ltd. (a)		14,799		36,946
Israel—(Continued)
Clal Biotechnology Industries, Ltd. (a)		17,579		10,942
Clal Insurance Enterprises Holdings, Ltd. (a)		7,114		91,219
Cohen Development & Industrial Buildings, Ltd. (a)		305		7,720
Compugen, Ltd. (a)		14,846		75,695
Delek Automotive Systems, Ltd.		10,535		93,114
Delta-Galil Industries, Ltd.		4,030		117,162
Direct Insurance Financial Investments, Ltd.		5,783		51,614
El Al Israel Airlines		54,306		35,933
Electra Consumer Products 1970, Ltd.		1,236		16,967
Electra, Ltd.		652		104,759
Elron Electronic Industries, Ltd.		7,585		35,207
Energix-Renewable Energies, Ltd.		13,559		8,377
Equital, Ltd. (a)		550		10,431
Evogene, Ltd. (a)		5,090		25,895
First International Bank of Israel, Ltd.		8,900		130,237
FMS Enterprises Migun, Ltd.		910		24,449
Formula Systems 1985, Ltd.		2,591		104,819
Fox Wizel, Ltd.		1,475		23,867
Gilat Satellite Networks, Ltd. (a)		7,707		38,895
Hadera Paper, Ltd. (a)		1,104		37,674
Hamlet Israel-Canada, Ltd.		203		2,947
Harel Insurance Investments & Financial Services, Ltd.		43,597		199,888
Hilan, Ltd.		2,216		33,367
IDI Insurance Co., Ltd.		630		30,488
Industrial Buildings Corp., Ltd.		39,465		47,186
Israel Discount Bank, Ltd. - Class A (a)		134,749		279,736
Israel Land Development Co., Ltd. (The)		3,950		21,080
Jerusalem Oil Exploration (a)		4,736		203,164
Kamada, Ltd. (a)		11,729		64,054
Kerur Holdings, Ltd.		931		24,116
Maabarot Products, Ltd.		3,435		53,214
Magic Software Enterprises, Ltd.		9,462		64,792
Matrix IT, Ltd.		14,215		113,434
Maytronics, Ltd.		7,834		30,029
Mazor Robotics, Ltd. (a)		11,491		127,255
Meitav DS Investments, Ltd.		5,193		23,877
Melisron, Ltd.		4,351		184,775
Menora Mivtachim Holdings, Ltd. (a)		11,310		102,722
Migdal Insurance & Financial Holding, Ltd. (a)		55,471		45,363
Mivtach Shamir Holdings, Ltd.		1,401		28,553
Naphtha Israel Petroleum Corp., Ltd. (a)		14,775		95,400
Neto ME Holdings, Ltd.		963		74,865
Nova Measuring Instruments, Ltd. (a)		9,293		124,214
Oil Refineries, Ltd. (a)		418,554		147,438
Ormat Technologies, Inc.		1		30
Partner Communications Co., Ltd. (a)		21,648		103,811
Paz Oil Co., Ltd.		1,481		217,214
Perion Network, Ltd. (a)		3,246		4,483
Phoenix Holdings, Ltd. (The) (a)		20,176		69,924
Plasson Industries, Ltd.		1,729		50,989
Rami Levi Chain Stores Hashikma Marketing, Ltd.		1,803		72,913
Sapiens International Corp. NV		6,702		95,527
Scope Metals Group, Ltd.		646		12,957
Shapir Engineering & Industry, Ltd.		13,184		28,659
Shikun & Binui, Ltd.		73,332		139,998
Shufersal, Ltd.		23,137		86,381
Space Communication, Ltd. (a)		2,951		18,584

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-15

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Dimensional International Small Company Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Israel—(Continued)
Strauss Group, Ltd.		6,965	$	110,098
Summit Real Estate Holdings, Ltd. (a)		2,798		15,065
Tadiran Holdings, Ltd.		568		12,659
Tower Semiconductor, Ltd. (a)		12,319		233,052
Tower Semiconductor, Ltd. (U.S. Listed Shares) (a)		1,303		24,796
Union Bank of Israel (a)		7,545		33,101
				5,571,317
Italy—3.7%
A2A S.p.A.		481,411		622,960
ACEA S.p.A.		23,394		284,206
Aeffe S.p.A. (a)		11,359		13,255
Amplifon S.p.A.		36,377		346,432
Anima Holding S.p.A.		16,529		89,710
Ansaldo STS S.p.A.		39,015		486,239
Arnoldo Mondadori Editore S.p.A. (a)		63,913		78,706
Ascopiave S.p.A.		28,294		81,100
Astaldi S.p.A.		20,559		116,798
Autogrill S.p.A.		44,414		401,209
Azimut Holding S.p.A.		40,582		675,919
Banca Carige S.p.A. (a)		156,432		52,303
Banca Finnat Euramerica S.p.A.		50,851		19,892
Banca Generali S.p.A.		19,591		466,991
Banca IFIS S.p.A.		7,714		210,761
Banca Mediolanum S.p.A.		39,203		281,599
Banca Popolare dell’Emilia Romagna SC		202,667		1,078,180
Banca Popolare dell’Etruria e del Lazio SC (a) (b) (c) (d)		91,952		0
Banca Popolare di Milano Scarl		1,819,630		685,978
Banca Popolare di Sondrio Scarl		173,614		571,180
Banca Profilo S.p.A.		117,883		21,529
Banco di Desio e della Brianza S.p.A.		20,306		41,998
Banco Popolare SC		105,433		254,252
BasicNet S.p.A.		13,493		47,571
Biesse S.p.A.		6,021		121,068
Brembo S.p.A.		9,033		546,361
Brunello Cucinelli S.p.A.		8,151		174,498
Buzzi Unicem S.p.A.		30,820		729,324
Cairo Communication S.p.A.		24,474		98,060
Caltagirone Editore S.p.A. (a)		6,273		4,853
Cementir Holding S.p.A.		31,117		137,579
Cerved Information Solutions S.p.A.		44,102		365,464
CIR-Compagnie Industriali Riunite S.p.A.		201,871		219,402
Credito Emiliano S.p.A.		44,882		269,263
Credito Valtellinese SC		463,264		181,429
Danieli & C Officine Meccaniche S.p.A.		4,846		98,451
Datalogic S.p.A.		9,916		194,992
Davide Campari-Milano S.p.A.		106,679		1,042,748
De’Longhi S.p.A.		16,896		401,245
DeA Capital S.p.A.		18,071		22,788
DiaSorin S.p.A.		6,863		406,279
Ei Towers S.p.A. (a)		7,035		379,032
El.En. S.p.A.		5,028		124,205
ERG S.p.A.		21,603		231,782
Esprinet S.p.A.		18,719		139,440
Eurotech S.p.A. (a) (d)		13,076		20,840
Italy—(Continued)
Falck Renewables S.p.A.		34,815		33,844
Fincantieri S.p.A. (a)		79,520		39,542
FNM S.p.A.		55,327		28,753
Geox S.p.A.		42,620		99,100
Gruppo Editoriale L’Espresso S.p.A. (a)		75,580		58,739
Gruppo MutuiOnline S.p.A.		5,404		48,054
Hera S.p.A.		231,619		533,794
IMMSI S.p.A.		100,436		39,063
Industria Macchine Automatiche S.p.A.		5,461		331,029
Infrastrutture Wireless Italiane S.p.A.		24,893		115,273
Intek Group S.p.A. (a)		80,757		17,371
Interpump Group S.p.A.		28,206		461,450
Iren S.p.A.		231,134		378,382
Italgas S.p.A. (a)		28,211		111,005
Italmobiliare S.p.A.		4,262		200,220
Juventus Football Club S.p.A. (a)		147,435		46,709
La Doria S.p.A.		3,877		36,586
Maire Tecnimont S.p.A.		35,567		96,433
MARR S.p.A.		13,428		245,078
Mediaset S.p.A.		192,042		829,968
Moncler S.p.A.		22,813		396,756
Nice S.p.A.		9,890		26,518
Parmalat S.p.A.		26,712		83,283
Piaggio & C S.p.A.		71,430		119,128
Prelios S.p.A. (a)		54,976		5,326
Prima Industrie S.p.A.		1,853		30,842
Prysmian S.p.A.		75,002		1,925,253
Recordati S.p.A.		33,633		952,640
Reno de Medici S.p.A.		29,538		9,483
Reply S.p.A.		1,999		248,481
Retelit S.p.A. (a)		36,769		41,370
Sabaf S.p.A.		3,059		33,516
SAES Getters S.p.A.		1,416		17,739
Safilo Group S.p.A. (a)		10,142		84,942
Saipem S.p.A. (a)		747,418		418,204
Salini Impregilo S.p.A.		70,140		221,489
Salvatore Ferragamo S.p.A.		16,352		385,923
Saras S.p.A.		134,526		242,857
SAVE S.p.A.		5,376		98,146
Snai S.p.A. (a)		21,135		29,177
Societa Cattolica di Assicurazioni S.c.r.l.		63,558		372,454
Societa Iniziative Autostradali e Servizi S.p.A.		25,981		221,328
Sogefi S.p.A. (a)		24,822		63,550
SOL S.p.A.		11,001		92,231
Tamburi Investment Partners S.p.A.		14,397		54,545
Tiscali S.p.A. (a)		802,477		38,394
Tod’s S.p.A. (d)		3,954		257,072
Trevi Finanziaria Industriale S.p.A. (a)		31,414		32,419
TXT e-solutions S.p.A.		1,815		14,322
Uni Land S.p.A. (a) (b) (c)		4,937		0
Unione di Banche Italiane S.p.A.		6,735		18,512
Unipol Gruppo Finanziario S.p.A.		126,457		455,338
UnipolSai S.p.A.		34,177		72,966
Vittoria Assicurazioni S.p.A.		12,164		129,824
Yoox Net-A-Porter Group S.p.A. (a)		21,096		595,915
Zignago Vetro S.p.A.		11,476		66,681
				24,444,888

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-16

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Dimensional International Small Company Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Japan—24.2%
A&A Material Corp.		12,000	$	13,122
A&D Co., Ltd.		3,000		11,998
A/S One Corp.		4,100		170,183
Accordia Golf Co., Ltd.		19,200		196,795
Achilles Corp.		6,500		87,153
Adastria Co., Ltd.		9,240		238,436
ADEKA Corp.		34,600		469,336
Advan Co., Ltd.		8,300		85,319
Advanex, Inc.		900		12,564
Aeon Delight Co., Ltd.		3,900		108,597
Aeon Fantasy Co., Ltd.		2,400		65,550
Aeon Hokkaido Corp.		2,600		13,113
AGORA Hospitality Group Co., Ltd. (a)		27,000		9,000
Agro-Kanesho Co., Ltd.		3,500		36,344
Ahresty Corp.		9,200		103,128
Ai Holdings Corp.		12,200		242,233
Aica Kogyo Co., Ltd.		17,200		452,964
Aichi Bank, Ltd. (The)		4,100		229,583
Aichi Corp.		10,800		75,588
Aichi Steel Corp.		4,300		179,532
Aichi Tokei Denki Co., Ltd.		1,900		60,097
Aida Engineering, Ltd.		20,700		195,907
Aigan Co., Ltd.		6,600		10,995
Ain Holdings, Inc.		2,300		152,024
Aiphone Co., Ltd.		6,800		113,983
Airport Facilities Co., Ltd.		7,500		36,843
Aisan Industry Co., Ltd.		10,400		88,861
Aizawa Securities Co., Ltd.		13,800		77,307
Akebono Brake Industry Co., Ltd. (a)		32,600		84,199
Akita Bank, Ltd. (The)		79,000		255,010
Alconix Corp.		3,200		45,596
Alinco, Inc.		5,800		52,141
Alpen Co., Ltd.		7,000		125,528
Alpha Corp.		2,200		21,211
Alpha Systems, Inc.		3,940		62,698
Alpine Electronics, Inc.		16,600		215,080
Alps Logistics Co., Ltd.		8,200		47,348
Altech Corp.		2,600		55,001
Amano Corp.		21,000		368,197
Amiyaki Tei Co., Ltd.		1,100		36,688
Amuse, Inc.		3,600		55,378
Anabuki Kosan, Inc.		400		9,059
Anest Iwata Corp.		10,400		101,843
Anicom Holdings, Inc.		2,100		43,576
Anritsu Corp.		48,800		262,674
AOI Electronics Co., Ltd.		1,100		28,481
AOI Pro, Inc. (b)		4,700		35,026
AOKI Holdings, Inc.		15,900		195,153
Aomori Bank, Ltd. (The)		94,000		314,490
Aoyama Trading Co., Ltd.		17,900		622,576
Arakawa Chemical Industries, Ltd.		7,200		114,676
Arata Corp.		4,600		103,874
Araya Industrial Co., Ltd.		26,000		35,322
Arcland Sakamoto Co., Ltd.		11,700		135,756
Arcs Co., Ltd.		13,364		300,600
Ardepro Co., Ltd.		15,000		20,057
Argo Graphics, Inc.		2,800		56,249
Japan—(Continued)
Ariake Japan Co., Ltd.		5,700		303,918
Arisawa Manufacturing Co., Ltd.		14,300		78,640
Arrk Corp. (a)		22,600		22,782
Artnature, Inc.		5,000		30,211
Asahi Broadcasting Corp.		2,400		14,337
Asahi Co., Ltd.		4,500		49,465
Asahi Diamond Industrial Co., Ltd.		21,200		154,303
Asahi Holdings, Inc.		9,000		156,189
Asahi Kogyosha Co., Ltd.		2,700		67,323
Asahi Net, Inc.		5,000		20,933
Asahi Printing Co., Ltd.		200		4,483
ASAHI YUKIZAI Corp.		34,000		63,230
Asahipen Corp.		4,000		6,016
Asanuma Corp.		24,000		78,501
Asatsu-DK, Inc.		12,800		309,308
Asax Co., Ltd.		1,800		24,993
Ashimori Industry Co., Ltd.		24,000		32,812
ASKA Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.		7,500		109,401
ASKUL Corp.		1,500		51,232
Asunaro Aoki Construction Co., Ltd.		8,000		53,449
Ateam, Inc.		600		11,811
Atom Corp.		11,100		68,340
Atsugi Co., Ltd.		88,000		93,910
Autobacs Seven Co., Ltd.		22,700		340,242
Avex Group Holdings, Inc.		12,000		172,390
Awa Bank, Ltd. (The)		82,000		502,237
Axell Corp.		3,800		31,733
Axial Retailing, Inc.		5,100		175,104
Azbil Corp.		1,600		44,930
Bando Chemical Industries, Ltd.		18,200		161,094
Bank of Iwate, Ltd. (The)		7,200		289,636
Bank of Kochi, Ltd. (The)		16,000		18,132
Bank of Nagoya, Ltd. (The)		7,100		250,968
Bank of Okinawa, Ltd. (The)		9,760		355,404
Bank of Saga, Ltd. (The)		67,000		171,098
Bank of the Ryukyus, Ltd.		15,800		206,729
Belc Co., Ltd.		2,800		107,825
Belluna Co., Ltd.		21,900		134,651
Benefit One, Inc.		5,400		133,590
Best Denki Co., Ltd.		30,400		39,742
Bic Camera, Inc.		23,500		214,884
Biofermin Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.		500		12,482
BML, Inc.		7,600		180,842
Bookoff Corp.		4,700		31,617
BP Castrol KK		2,600		30,838
Broadleaf Co., Ltd.		10,200		54,899
BRONCO BILLY Co., Ltd.		2,400		60,085
Bull-Dog Sauce Co., Ltd.		600		10,929
Bunka Shutter Co., Ltd.		19,000		146,314
C Uyemura & Co., Ltd.		2,800		121,977
CAC Holdings Corp.		6,200		46,826
Calsonic Kansei Corp.		49,000		748,942
Can Do Co., Ltd.		3,500		52,769
Canare Electric Co., Ltd.		800		14,397
Canon Electronics, Inc.		7,400		111,287
Capcom Co., Ltd.		14,000		328,694
Carlit Holdings Co., Ltd.		7,300		34,619

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-17

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Dimensional International Small Company Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Japan—(Continued)
Cawachi, Ltd.		5,700	$	141,948
Central Glass Co., Ltd.		75,000		348,944
Central Security Patrols Co., Ltd.		3,300		59,164
Central Sports Co., Ltd.		2,600		61,934
Chiba Kogyo Bank, Ltd. (The)		16,000		80,798
Chilled & Frozen Logistics Holdings Co., Ltd.		2,800		32,081
CHIMNEY Co., Ltd.		1,400		34,419
Chino Corp.		4,000		37,392
Chiyoda Co., Ltd.		7,000		165,567
Chiyoda Corp.		6,000		41,474
Chiyoda Integre Co., Ltd.		5,300		106,671
Chofu Seisakusho Co., Ltd.		5,700		127,804
Chori Co., Ltd.		5,000		75,007
Chubu Shiryo Co., Ltd.		10,400		90,162
Chudenko Corp.		8,600		189,460
Chuetsu Pulp & Paper Co., Ltd.		35,000		71,193
Chugai Mining Co., Ltd. (a)		68,200		16,904
Chugai Ro Co., Ltd.		29,000		55,673
Chugoku Marine Paints, Ltd.		22,000		161,640
Chukyo Bank, Ltd. (The)		5,700		114,286
Chuo Gyorui Co., Ltd.		2,000		4,739
Chuo Spring Co., Ltd.		19,000		51,498
Ci:z Holdings Co., Ltd.		7,500		210,934
Citizen Watch Co., Ltd.		25,600		152,670
CKD Corp.		20,900		236,486
Clarion Co., Ltd.		34,000		121,613
Cleanup Corp.		9,700		78,448
CMIC Holdings Co., Ltd.		3,900		50,338
CMK Corp. (a)		24,300		142,910
Cocokara fine, Inc.		5,700		208,900
COLOPL, Inc.		6,700		56,768
Colowide Co., Ltd.		17,000		282,312
Computer Engineering & Consulting, Ltd.		5,200		82,282
Computer Institute of Japan, Ltd.		2,000		9,026
CONEXIO Corp.		7,900		100,714
COOKPAD, Inc. (a) (d)		12,600		115,676
Corona Corp.		8,500		83,477
Cosel Co., Ltd.		9,900		105,482
Cosmo Energy Holdings Co., Ltd.		21,800		305,784
Cosmos Initia Co., Ltd.		3,500		11,784
Create Medic Co., Ltd.		1,800		14,730
Create SD Holdings Co., Ltd.		8,300		177,494
Cresco, Ltd.		2,000		40,857
CROOZ, Inc.		1,400		32,850
CTI Engineering Co., Ltd.		5,900		52,430
D.A. Consortium Holdings, Inc. (a)		7,600		56,676
Dai Nippon Toryo Co., Ltd.		47,000		95,136
Dai-Dan Co., Ltd.		14,000		116,776
Dai-ichi Seiko Co., Ltd.		4,000		44,918
Daibiru Corp.		19,800		169,031
Daido Kogyo Co., Ltd.		10,000		22,377
Daido Metal Co., Ltd.		11,200		111,423
Daido Steel Co., Ltd.		36,000		148,749
Daidoh, Ltd.		13,700		47,678
Daifuku Co., Ltd.		8,500		180,414
Daihatsu Diesel Manufacturing Co., Ltd.		9,000		54,683
Daihen Corp.		36,000		221,939
Japan—(Continued)
Daiho Corp.		25,000		118,078
Daiichi Jitsugyo Co., Ltd.		20,000		114,295
Daiichi Kigenso Kagaku-Kogyo Co., Ltd.		1,000		34,125
Daiichikosho Co., Ltd.		2,100		82,527
Daiken Corp.		4,800		84,294
Daiken Medical Co., Ltd.		4,400		30,194
Daiki Aluminium Industry Co., Ltd.		9,000		38,807
Daikoku Denki Co., Ltd.		2,700		41,337
Daikokutenbussan Co., Ltd.		1,900		79,767
Daikokuya Holdings Co., Ltd. (a)		21,000		15,608
Daikyo, Inc.		115,000		230,014
Daikyonishikawa Corp.		4,100		52,472
Dainichi Co., Ltd.		4,100		24,896
Dainichiseika Color & Chemicals Manufacturing Co., Ltd.		31,000		166,323
Daio Paper Corp.		25,300		267,190
Daisan Bank, Ltd. (The)		8,400		130,453
Daiseki Co., Ltd.		10,700		219,096
Daiseki Eco. Solution Co., Ltd.		2,000		24,559
Daishi Bank, Ltd. (The)		133,000		595,770
Daishinku Corp.		3,600		43,909
Daisue Construction Co., Ltd.		2,300		18,771
Daisyo Corp.		4,100		55,692
Daito Bank, Ltd. (The)		59,000		84,200
Daito Electron Co., Ltd.		800		6,398
Daito Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.		3,960		76,049
Daiwa Industries, Ltd.		11,000		83,302
Daiwabo Holdings Co., Ltd.		73,000		178,451
DCM Holdings Co., Ltd.		37,900		336,361
Denka Co., Ltd.		24,000		105,653
Denki Kogyo Co., Ltd.		21,000		102,733
Denyo Co., Ltd.		4,800		64,955
Descente, Ltd.		13,700		157,372
Digital Arts, Inc.		500		11,281
Dip Corp.		4,100		84,669
DKK-Toa Corp.		2,200		9,968
DKS Co., Ltd.		18,000		57,220
DMG Mori Co., Ltd.		23,500		284,283
DMW Corp.		700		10,976
Doshisha Co., Ltd.		8,200		147,093
Doutor Nichires Holdings Co., Ltd.		11,500		211,017
DSB Co., Ltd.		5,300		28,258
DTS Corp.		6,600		140,392
Dunlop Sports Co., Ltd.		4,900		43,270
Duskin Co., Ltd.		14,900		305,887
Dydo Drinco, Inc.		2,700		140,270
Dynic Corp.		16,000		24,068
Eagle Industry Co., Ltd.		7,800		103,426
Earth Chemical Co., Ltd.		2,700		109,706
Ebara Jitsugyo Co., Ltd.		3,500		40,220
EDION Corp.		30,800		288,615
eGuarantee, Inc.		1,200		25,381
Ehime Bank, Ltd. (The) (d)		13,600		160,173
Eidai Co., Ltd.		14,000		60,695
Eighteenth Bank, Ltd. (The)		70,000		208,665
Eiken Chemical Co., Ltd.		4,600		120,927
Eizo Corp.		6,300		187,275

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-18

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Dimensional International Small Company Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Japan—(Continued)
Elecom Co., Ltd.		5,100	$	85,399
Elematec Corp.		4,000		62,172
EM Systems Co., Ltd.		1,800		24,742
en-japan, Inc.		6,800		121,188
Endo Lighting Corp.		2,600		19,444
Enplas Corp.		3,400		99,801
Enshu, Ltd. (a)		23,000		19,459
EPS Holdings, Inc.		7,900		91,928
ESPEC Corp.		9,100		103,984
Excel Co., Ltd.		2,500		32,704
Exedy Corp.		12,400		348,281
F-Tech, Inc.		3,600		40,413
F@N Communications, Inc.		9,600		60,773
Faith, Inc.		2,680		28,031
FALCO HOLDINGS Co., Ltd.		3,100		38,989
FamilyMart UNY Holdings Co., Ltd.		1		66
Fancl Corp.		5,300		74,021
FCC Co., Ltd.		12,600		226,128
FDK Corp. (a)		25,000		20,718
Feed One Co., Ltd.		65,080		86,213
Ferrotec Corp.		12,700		164,439
FIDEA Holdings Co., Ltd.		62,510		111,556
Fields Corp.		6,000		69,560
Financial Products Group Co., Ltd.		20,000		173,012
FINDEX, Inc.		3,900		31,499
First Juken Co., Ltd.		3,400		43,756
Foster Electric Co., Ltd.		8,800		166,094
FP Corp.		3,100		142,045
France Bed Holdings Co., Ltd.		11,300		89,702
Freund Corp.		2,400		32,192
FTGroup Co., Ltd.		1,500		9,079
Fudo Tetra Corp.		60,300		105,645
Fuji Co., Ltd.		7,300		151,703
Fuji Corp., Ltd.		8,600		55,249
Fuji Kiko Co., Ltd.		7,600		32,194
Fuji Kosan Co., Ltd.		4,600		17,844
Fuji Kyuko Co., Ltd.		13,000		119,925
Fuji Oil Co., Ltd. (a)		21,100		68,698
Fuji Oil Holdings, Inc.		21,300		418,033
Fuji Pharma Co., Ltd.		2,800		64,603
Fuji Seal International, Inc.		14,000		298,460
Fuji Soft, Inc.		7,300		171,923
Fujibo Holdings, Inc.		3,700		104,979
Fujicco Co., Ltd.		7,100		146,483
Fujikura Kasei Co., Ltd.		9,500		53,283
Fujikura Rubber, Ltd.		5,800		32,837
Fujikura, Ltd.		106,000		574,323
Fujimi, Inc.		7,000		130,774
Fujimori Kogyo Co., Ltd.		4,800		119,419
Fujisash Co., Ltd.		24,500		20,909
Fujishoji Co., Ltd.		1,300		14,453
Fujita Kanko, Inc.		8,000		24,057
Fujitec Co., Ltd.		21,000		245,685
Fujitsu Frontech, Ltd.		4,500		56,445
Fujitsu General, Ltd.		2,000		42,334
Fujiya Co., Ltd. (a)		5,000		9,149
FuKoKu Co., Ltd.		5,100		40,531
Japan—(Continued)
Fukuda Corp.		10,000		95,950
Fukui Bank, Ltd. (The)		109,000		274,422
Fukui Computer Holdings, Inc.		600		14,923
Fukushima Bank, Ltd. (The)		112,000		93,032
Fukushima Industries Corp.		4,600		132,310
Fukuyama Transporting Co., Ltd. (d)		53,000		299,965
FULLCAST Holdings Co., Ltd.		4,300		35,402
Fumakilla, Ltd.		5,000		30,480
Funai Electric Co., Ltd.		7,900		62,078
Funai Soken Holdings, Inc.		7,780		122,093
Furukawa Battery Co., Ltd.		5,000		31,623
Furukawa Co., Ltd.		105,000		190,877
Furukawa Electric Co., Ltd.		23,200		677,833
Furuno Electric Co., Ltd.		10,500		75,620
Furusato Industries, Ltd.		4,600		66,721
Furuya Metal Co., Ltd.		1,700		24,200
Fuso Chemical Co., Ltd.		4,000		85,781
Fuso Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd.		3,100		73,724
Futaba Corp.		10,200		170,690
Futaba Industrial Co., Ltd.		23,600		137,619
Future Corp.		8,400		51,956
Fuyo General Lease Co., Ltd.		8,000		381,786
G-Tekt Corp.		7,700		148,980
Gakken Holdings Co., Ltd.		23,000		62,546
GCA Corp.		4,900		34,403
Gecoss Corp.		6,400		60,607
Genki Sushi Co., Ltd.		1,600		28,832
Genky Stores, Inc.		1,200		57,799
Geo Holdings Corp.		13,500		157,091
GLOBERIDE, Inc.		3,500		57,782
Glory, Ltd.		5,700		179,608
GMO Click Holdings, Inc.		1,800		13,311
GMO internet, Inc.		20,400		259,525
GMO Payment Gateway, Inc.		2,600		115,498
Godo Steel, Ltd.		5,000		90,261
Goldcrest Co., Ltd.		8,230		147,850
Grandy House Corp.		3,600		12,336
Gree, Inc.		26,400		139,159
GSI Creos Corp.		28,000		29,672
Gun-Ei Chemical Industry Co., Ltd.		2,400		68,327
Gunze, Ltd.		69,000		229,245
Gurunavi, Inc.		8,500		167,969
H-One Co., Ltd.		6,000		54,417
Hagihara Industries, Inc.		2,900		64,360
Hakudo Co., Ltd.		500		6,027
Hakuto Co., Ltd.		7,100		63,109
Hakuyosha Co., Ltd.		800		18,329
Hamakyorex Co., Ltd.		5,600		103,770
Hanwa Co., Ltd.		69,000		450,664
Happinet Corp.		5,000		54,401
Hard Off Corp. Co., Ltd.		3,700		38,765
Harima Chemicals Group, Inc.		7,100		45,466
Haruyama Trading Co., Ltd.		5,400		39,620
Hazama Ando Corp.		54,490		358,948
Heiwa Corp.		200		4,575
Heiwa Real Estate Co., Ltd.		16,900		229,492
Heiwado Co., Ltd.		11,200		263,464

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-19

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Dimensional International Small Company Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Japan—(Continued)
HI-LEX Corp.		7,700	$	193,930
Hibiya Engineering, Ltd.		8,700		123,154
Hiday Hidaka Corp.		4,039		96,232
Himaraya Co., Ltd.		2,600		18,924
Hioki EE Corp.		2,300		41,327
Hiramatsu, Inc.		8,300		47,669
Hirano Tecseed Co., Ltd.		500		4,953
HIS Co., Ltd.		1,400		36,575
Hisaka Works, Ltd.		11,000		82,670
Hitachi Koki Co., Ltd.		19,600		246,408
Hitachi Kokusai Electric, Inc.		14,600		304,448
Hitachi Maxell, Ltd.		900		15,308
Hitachi Transport System, Ltd.		9,600		194,505
Hitachi Zosen Corp.		61,600		321,585
Hochiki Corp.		8,800		107,240
Hodogaya Chemical Co., Ltd.		2,800		64,328
Hogy Medical Co., Ltd.		4,400		271,150
Hokkaido Electric Power Co., Inc.		35,000		273,028
Hokkaido Gas Co., Ltd.		27,000		63,694
Hokkan Holdings, Ltd.		25,000		100,358
Hokko Chemical Industry Co., Ltd.		8,000		30,278
Hokkoku Bank, Ltd. (The)		109,000		387,013
Hokuetsu Bank, Ltd. (The)		9,600		216,762
Hokuetsu Industries Co., Ltd.		7,000		47,489
Hokuetsu Kishu Paper Co., Ltd.		51,800		292,725
Hokuriku Electric Industry Co., Ltd.		28,000		32,057
Hokuriku Electrical Construction Co., Ltd.		3,000		21,869
Hokuriku Gas Co., Ltd.		1,000		23,564
Hokuto Corp.		7,100		128,006
Honeys Co., Ltd.		6,930		72,022
Hoosiers Holdings Co., Ltd.		12,700		65,852
Horiba, Ltd.		7,800		360,224
Hosiden Corp.		20,000		161,411
Hosokawa Micron Corp.		11,000		70,888
House Foods Group, Inc.		3,300		68,299
Howa Machinery, Ltd.		5,700		29,874
Hurxley Corp.		800		7,757
Hyakugo Bank, Ltd. (The)		94,000		380,862
Hyakujushi Bank, Ltd. (The)		107,000		362,591
I-Net Corp.		3,520		32,669
Ibiden Co., Ltd.		5,700		76,479
IBJ Leasing Co., Ltd.		7,200		160,625
Ichibanya Co., Ltd.		1,000		31,860
Ichigo, Inc.		35,900		132,711
Ichiken Co., Ltd.		12,000		43,973
Ichikoh Industries, Ltd.		16,000		51,353
ICHINEN HOLDINGS Co., Ltd.		7,400		72,266
Ichiyoshi Securities Co., Ltd.		12,600		96,482
Icom, Inc.		3,800		73,505
Idec Corp.		11,300		105,378
IDOM, Inc.		20,400		112,222
Ihara Chemical Industry Co., Ltd.		13,500		130,236
Iino Kaiun Kaisha, Ltd.		32,200		126,657
IJT Technology Holdings Co., Ltd.		9,000		35,311
Ikegami Tsushinki Co., Ltd.		30,000		42,524
Imagica Robot Holdings, Inc.		4,500		26,450
Imasen Electric Industrial		7,200		61,613
Japan—(Continued)
Imperial Hotel, Ltd.		1,300		23,070
Inaba Denki Sangyo Co., Ltd.		8,100		278,334
Inaba Seisakusho Co., Ltd.		2,100		24,152
Inabata & Co., Ltd.		17,700		194,620
Inageya Co., Ltd.		11,200		141,677
Ines Corp.		13,900		144,578
Infocom Corp.		4,000		56,448
Infomart Corp.		4,200		24,524
Information Services International-Dentsu, Ltd.		4,300		65,711
Innotech Corp.		10,300		50,589
Intage Holdings, Inc.		6,700		113,295
Internet Initiative Japan, Inc.		9,800		147,703
Inui Global Logistics Co., Ltd.		5,355		45,107
Iriso Electronics Co., Ltd.		2,500		142,893
Ise Chemicals Corp.		5,000		21,100
Iseki & Co., Ltd.		74,000		142,063
Ishihara Sangyo Kaisha, Ltd. (a)		12,200		95,116
Ishii Iron Works Co., Ltd.		900		14,226
Ishizuka Glass Co., Ltd.		5,000		8,353
IT Holdings Corp.		25,700		548,733
Itfor, Inc.		10,300		55,592
Itochu Enex Co., Ltd.		19,400		152,265
Itochu-Shokuhin Co., Ltd.		2,400		89,638
Itoham Yonekyu Holdings, Inc. (a)		11,178		103,361
Itoki Corp.		17,500		110,394
IwaiCosmo Holdings, Inc.		7,900		73,905
Iwaki & Co., Ltd.		14,000		26,814
Iwasaki Electric Co., Ltd.		25,000		39,951
Iwatani Corp.		58,000		308,134
Iwatsuka Confectionery Co., Ltd.		500		17,467
Izutsuya Co., Ltd. (a)		4,700		15,941
J-Oil Mills, Inc.		4,000		136,159
Jafco Co., Ltd.		6,400		209,339
Jalux, Inc.		2,400		41,138
Jamco Corp. (d)		3,400		69,929
Janome Sewing Machine Co., Ltd. (a)		7,099		48,477
Japan Aviation Electronics Industry, Ltd.		7,000		98,399
Japan Digital Laboratory Co., Ltd.		1,800		36,972
Japan Display, Inc. (a)		60,000		169,659
Japan Drilling Co., Ltd.		2,100		43,692
Japan Foundation Engineering Co., Ltd.		10,200		30,938
Japan Material Co., Ltd.		1,000		15,438
Japan Medical Dynamic Marketing, Inc.		3,000		21,184
Japan Oil Transportation Co., Ltd.		100		2,072
Japan Petroleum Exploration Co., Ltd.		6,000		133,030
Japan Property Management Center Co., Ltd.		2,000		22,196
Japan Pulp & Paper Co., Ltd.		46,000		144,653
Japan Radio Co., Ltd.		4,000		47,851
Japan Steel Works, Ltd. (The)		23,200		410,613
Japan Transcity Corp.		29,000		105,836
Japan Wool Textile Co., Ltd. (The)		23,000		170,964
Jastec Co., Ltd.		5,100		46,005
JBCC Holdings, Inc.		7,000		45,411
JCU Corp.		1,600		77,254
Jeol, Ltd.		26,000		113,203
Jimoto Holdings, Inc.		67,900		114,829
Jin Co., Ltd.		4,200		192,742

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-20

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Dimensional International Small Company Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Japan—(Continued)
JK Holdings Co., Ltd.		5,600	$	28,021
JMS Co., Ltd.		15,000		38,854
Joban Kosan Co., Ltd. (d)		1,700		23,217
Joshin Denki Co., Ltd.		21,000		177,604
JP-Holdings, Inc.		17,900		38,999
JSP Corp.		5,100		118,471
Juki Corp.		11,200		101,004
Juroku Bank, Ltd. (The)		131,000		458,324
Justsystems Corp.		9,700		93,703
JVC Kenwood Corp.		53,300		145,198
K&O Energy Group, Inc.		6,700		105,390
K’s Holdings Corp.		5,700		99,679
kabu.com Securities Co., Ltd.		47,800		164,771
Kadokawa Dwango (a)		12,508		180,380
Kaga Electronics Co., Ltd.		7,200		116,351
Kakiyasu Honten Co., Ltd.		3,800		62,806
Kameda Seika Co., Ltd.		4,100		187,098
Kamei Corp.		12,500		127,406
Kanaden Corp.		9,700		88,146
Kanagawa Chuo Kotsu Co., Ltd.		18,000		112,165
Kanamoto Co., Ltd.		8,800		232,655
Kandenko Co., Ltd.		37,000		333,086
Kanematsu Corp.		149,000		250,638
Kanematsu Electronics, Ltd.		4,300		92,013
Kanemi Co., Ltd.		100		2,934
Kansai Urban Banking Corp.		11,000		136,974
Kanto Denka Kogyo Co., Ltd.		15,000		134,993
Kappa Create Co., Ltd.		1,200		13,412
Kasai Kogyo Co., Ltd.		8,600		101,792
Katakura & Co-op Agri Corp.		8,000		15,659
Katakura Industries Co., Ltd.		10,400		121,409
Kato Sangyo Co., Ltd.		7,100		165,865
Kato Works Co., Ltd.		3,800		98,514
Kawada Technologies, Inc.		1,500		101,115
Kawai Musical Instruments Manufacturing Co., Ltd.		2,600		51,249
Kawasaki Kinkai Kisen Kaisha, Ltd.		7,000		17,545
Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha, Ltd. (d)		122,000		275,431
Kawasumi Laboratories, Inc.		4,900		28,365
Keihanshin Building Co., Ltd.		14,500		75,715
Keihin Co., Ltd./Minato-Ku Tokyo Japan		23,000		30,070
Keihin Corp.		15,600		272,677
Keiyo Bank, Ltd. (The)		109,000		492,912
Keiyo Co., Ltd.		14,400		68,923
Kenko Mayonnaise Co., Ltd.		3,200		90,283
KEY Coffee, Inc.		6,700		124,691
KFC Holdings Japan, Ltd.		4,000		65,589
Kimoto Co., Ltd.		14,900		31,750
Kimura Chemical Plants Co., Ltd.		3,300		9,427
King Jim Co., Ltd.		5,800		41,864
Kinki Sharyo Co., Ltd. (The)		1,200		26,835
Kintetsu Department Store Co., Ltd. (a)		19,000		56,434
Kintetsu World Express, Inc.		10,800		149,415
Kissei Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.		8,100		201,557
Kita-Nippon Bank, Ltd. (The)		4,000		106,651
Kitagawa Iron Works Co., Ltd.		3,100		60,365
Kitamura Co., Ltd.		3,700		25,563
Kitano Construction Corp.		22,000		60,459
Japan—(Continued)
Kito Corp.		8,200		88,305
Kitz Corp.		39,200		213,886
Kiyo Bank, Ltd. (The)		32,500		519,174
KLab, Inc. (a)		10,600		60,109
KNT-CT Holdings Co., Ltd. (a)		33,000		40,903
Koa Corp.		13,800		130,960
Koatsu Gas Kogyo Co., Ltd.		13,000		83,440
Kobe Bussan Co., Ltd.		2,400		84,144
Kobe Electric Railway Co., Ltd. (a)		5,000		16,030
Kobelco Eco-Solutions Co., Ltd.		6,000		22,827
Kohnan Shoji Co., Ltd.		13,000		243,845
Kohsoku Corp.		5,400		51,205
Koike Sanso Kogyo Co., Ltd.		7,000		17,582
Kojima Co., Ltd. (a)		12,000		29,584
Kokusai Co., Ltd.		3,400		23,667
Kokuyo Co., Ltd.		33,800		388,433
KOMAIHALTEC, Inc.		2,400		43,873
Komatsu Seiren Co., Ltd.		14,200		91,468
Komatsu Wall Industry Co., Ltd.		2,700		43,853
Komeri Co., Ltd.		12,300		276,762
Komori Corp.		20,000		261,376
Konaka Co., Ltd.		7,300		36,450
Kondotec, Inc.		9,400		68,037
Konishi Co., Ltd.		12,100		130,118
Konoike Transport Co., Ltd.		3,200		42,006
Kosaido Co., Ltd. (a)		3,700		11,385
Koshidaka Holdings Co., Ltd.		2,500		42,352
Kotobuki Spirits Co., Ltd.		6,700		159,802
Kourakuen Holdings Corp.		2,900		40,602
Krosaki Harima Corp.		24,000		62,970
KRS Corp.		2,200		45,926
KU Holdings Co., Ltd.		8,000		56,016
Kumagai Gumi Co., Ltd.		91,000		233,147
Kura Corp.		3,300		138,619
Kurabo Industries, Ltd.		93,000		181,482
Kureha Corp.		5,200		195,262
Kurimoto, Ltd.		3,500		67,864
Kuroda Electric Co., Ltd.		13,800		272,406
Kusuri No. Aoki Holdings Co., Ltd.		4,900		218,011
KYB Corp.		74,000		358,106
Kyodo Printing Co., Ltd.		46,000		157,271
Kyoei Steel, Ltd.		6,100		115,929
Kyokuto Boeki Kaisha, Ltd.		9,000		18,692
Kyokuto Kaihatsu Kogyo Co., Ltd.		11,400		152,930
Kyokuto Securities Co., Ltd.		7,600		112,158
Kyokuyo Co., Ltd.		3,500		81,714
KYORIN Holdings, Inc.		15,500		331,780
Kyoritsu Maintenance Co., Ltd.		3,259		189,167
Kyoritsu Printing Co., Ltd.		6,800		18,478
Kyosan Electric Manufacturing Co., Ltd.		25,000		83,882
Kyowa Electronic Instruments Co., Ltd.		8,000		26,722
Kyowa Exeo Corp.		32,300		463,939
Kyowa Leather Cloth Co., Ltd.		3,300		23,940
Kyudenko Corp.		8,100		216,833
Kyushu Financial Group, Inc.		99,100		670,226
LAC Co., Ltd.		5,900		52,197
Land Business Co., Ltd.		7,100		16,494

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-21

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Dimensional International Small Company Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Japan—(Continued)
Lasertec Corp.		6,100	$	118,886
LEC, Inc.		2,900		80,111
Leopalace21 Corp.		82,400		454,725
Life Corp.		5,500		154,823
Linical Co., Ltd.		1,700		18,281
Link And Motivation, Inc.		8,900		32,478
Lintec Corp.		17,100		372,758
Livesense, Inc. (a)		3,500		13,223
Look, Inc.		11,000		15,802
M&A Capital Partners Co., Ltd. (a)		1,200		32,825
Macnica Fuji Electronics Holdings, Inc.		16,350		214,944
Maeda Corp.		40,000		348,089
Maeda Kosen Co., Ltd.		5,700		62,268
Maeda Road Construction Co., Ltd.		21,000		350,698
Maezawa Kasei Industries Co., Ltd.		6,800		69,377
Maezawa Kyuso Industries Co., Ltd.		5,600		72,844
Makino Milling Machine Co., Ltd.		40,000		312,057
Mamiya-Op Co., Ltd.		1,900		19,943
Mandom Corp.		5,200		223,898
Mani, Inc.		5,700		135,633
Mars Engineering Corp.		3,600		69,213
Marubun Corp.		8,200		48,069
Marudai Food Co., Ltd.		44,000		185,462
Marufuji Sheet Piling Co., Ltd.		13,000		28,346
Maruha Nichiro Corp.		13,900		374,435
Maruka Machinery Co., Ltd.		2,900		39,475
Marusan Securities Co., Ltd.		7,600		63,914
Maruwa Co., Ltd.		3,700		122,174
Maruyama Manufacturing Co., Inc.		15,000		24,361
Maruzen CHI Holdings Co., Ltd. (a)		11,900		37,872
Maruzen Showa Unyu Co., Ltd.		28,000		109,095
Marvelous, Inc. (d)		9,500		62,822
Matsuda Sangyo Co., Ltd.		7,000		89,890
Matsui Construction Co., Ltd.		7,800		70,535
Matsui Securities Co., Ltd.		2,000		17,260
Matsuya Foods Co., Ltd.		2,500		80,617
Max Co., Ltd.		15,000		182,862
Maxvalu Nishinihon Co., Ltd.		2,400		34,074
Maxvalu Tokai Co., Ltd.		5,000		80,698
MCJ Co., Ltd.		1,600		15,699
MEC Co., Ltd.		7,300		60,406
Media Do Co., Ltd.		1,000		11,782
Medical System Network Co., Ltd.		5,300		19,520
Megmilk Snow Brand Co., Ltd.		8,000		220,194
Meidensha Corp.		58,000		199,037
Meiji Shipping Co., Ltd.		8,500		31,090
Meiko Electronics Co., Ltd. (a)		7,500		57,054
Meiko Network Japan Co., Ltd.		7,200		66,698
Meisei Industrial Co., Ltd.		17,000		82,639
Meitec Corp.		9,500		363,080
Meito Sangyo Co., Ltd.		4,500		53,244
Meiwa Corp.		10,900		37,822
Meiwa Estate Co., Ltd.		5,200		31,599
Melco Holdings, Inc.		4,500		122,290
Michinoku Bank, Ltd. (The)		69,000		131,499
Micronics Japan Co., Ltd.		8,600		85,024
Mie Bank, Ltd. (The)		4,300		85,496
Japan—(Continued)
Mikuni Corp.		3,000		10,142
Milbon Co., Ltd.		3,660		138,478
Mimasu Semiconductor Industry Co., Ltd.		8,200		115,507
Minato Bank, Ltd. (The)		6,300		111,878
Ministop Co., Ltd.		5,400		94,230
Miraial Co., Ltd.		2,900		24,803
Mirait Holdings Corp. (d)		24,400		220,063
Miroku Jyoho Service Co., Ltd.		5,900		90,509
Misawa Homes Co., Ltd. (d)		11,400		101,460
Mitani Corp.		8,600		235,537
Mitani Sekisan Co., Ltd.		4,100		105,195
Mito Securities Co., Ltd.		24,000		66,726
Mitsuba Corp.		13,200		213,724
Mitsubishi Nichiyu Forklift Co., Ltd.		8,000		57,864
Mitsubishi Paper Mills, Ltd. (a)		14,400		92,385
Mitsubishi Pencil Co., Ltd.		5,900		309,898
Mitsubishi Research Institute, Inc.		2,700		75,916
Mitsubishi Shokuhin Co., Ltd.		4,800		142,431
Mitsubishi Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd.		65,000		126,549
Mitsuboshi Belting, Ltd.		22,000		186,917
Mitsui Engineering & Shipbuilding Co., Ltd.		300,000		462,331
Mitsui High-Tec, Inc.		11,600		82,625
Mitsui Home Co., Ltd.		14,000		60,832
Mitsui Matsushima Co., Ltd.		6,600		72,706
Mitsui Mining & Smelting Co., Ltd.		228,000		575,654
Mitsui Sugar Co., Ltd.		7,200		154,232
Mitsui-Soko Holdings Co., Ltd.		47,000		138,098
Mitsumi Electric Co., Ltd. (a) (d)		33,000		180,596
Mitsumura Printing Co., Ltd.		5,000		9,361
Mitsuuroko Group Holdings Co., Ltd.		12,900		76,586
Miyaji Engineering Group, Inc.		27,000		44,180
Miyazaki Bank, Ltd. (The)		73,000		224,945
Miyoshi Oil & Fat Co., Ltd.		40,000		49,581
Mizuno Corp.		37,000		179,435
Mochida Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.		3,500		242,450
Modec, Inc.		3,000		47,874
Monex Group, Inc.		73,600		204,187
Money Partners Group Co., Ltd.		7,100		33,052
Monogatari Corp. (The)		1,700		60,750
MORESCO Corp.		2,500		33,322
Morinaga & Co., Ltd.		10,000		415,879
Morinaga Milk Industry Co., Ltd.		52,000		373,569
Morita Holdings Corp.		12,500		176,863
Morozoff, Ltd.		13,000		56,041
Mory Industries, Inc.		2,800		46,214
Mr Max Corp.		10,500		37,582
MTI, Ltd.		9,200		57,041
Mugen Estate Co., Ltd.		400		2,478
Murakami Corp.		3,000		57,663
Musashi Seimitsu Industry Co., Ltd.		7,900		204,554
Musashino Bank, Ltd. (The)		12,600		361,590
Mutoh Holdings Co., Ltd.		9,000		19,392
N Field Co., Ltd.		1,300		15,093
NAC Co., Ltd.		3,600		30,101
Nachi-Fujikoshi Corp.		60,000		259,432
Nafco Co., Ltd.		1,400		21,372
Nagaileben Co., Ltd.		5,600		121,518

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-22

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Dimensional International Small Company Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Japan—(Continued)
Nagano Bank, Ltd. (The)		4,300	$	74,709
Nagano Keiki Co., Ltd.		4,200		24,907
Nagase & Co., Ltd.		2,600		33,881
Nagatanien Holdings Co., Ltd.		10,000		119,326
Nagawa Co., Ltd.		2,800		108,828
Nakabayashi Co., Ltd.		18,000		40,988
Nakamuraya Co., Ltd.		1,900		80,983
Nakanishi, Inc.		4,100		158,589
Nakano Corp.		4,000		20,684
Nakayama Steel Works, Ltd. (a)		6,300		38,889
Nakayamafuku Co., Ltd.		2,000		13,880
Namura Shipbuilding Co., Ltd.		18,956		129,223
Nanto Bank, Ltd. (The)		9,700		368,493
Narasaki Sangyo Co., Ltd.		4,000		10,065
Natori Co., Ltd.		2,600		42,269
NDS Co., Ltd.		2,700		67,013
NEC Capital Solutions, Ltd.		3,800		58,876
NEC Networks & System Integration Corp.		9,100		164,060
NET One Systems Co., Ltd.		31,600		201,991
Neturen Co., Ltd.		9,800		75,328
New Japan Chemical Co., Ltd. (a)		9,900		13,438
New Japan Radio Co., Ltd. (a)		6,000		20,285
Next Co., Ltd.		17,000		114,774
Nexyz Group Corp.		1,300		15,633
Nice Holdings, Inc.		40,000		51,621
Nichi-iko Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.		13,200		188,528
Nichia Steel Works, Ltd.		13,000		30,450
Nichias Corp.		33,000		317,395
Nichiban Co., Ltd.		8,000		55,251
Nichicon Corp.		23,900		208,056
Nichiden Corp.		3,100		83,346
Nichiha Corp.		9,600		236,876
NichiiGakkan Co., Ltd.		11,800		84,967
Nichimo Co., Ltd.		16,000		23,661
Nichireki Co., Ltd.		9,000		70,800
Nihon Chouzai Co., Ltd.		1,660		61,825
Nihon Dempa Kogyo Co., Ltd.		7,600		57,808
Nihon Eslead Corp.		2,700		31,110
Nihon House Holdings Co., Ltd.		15,000		63,324
Nihon Kagaku Sangyo Co., Ltd.		3,000		23,127
Nihon Kohden Corp.		4,400		97,098
Nihon Nohyaku Co., Ltd.		14,000		76,804
Nihon Parkerizing Co., Ltd.		31,600		369,633
Nihon Plast Co., Ltd.		2,500		23,387
Nihon Tokushu Toryo Co., Ltd.		2,200		32,124
Nihon Trim Co., Ltd.		1,300		50,086
Nihon Unisys, Ltd.		16,900		212,342
Nihon Yamamura Glass Co., Ltd.		45,000		78,333
Nikkato Corp.		300		1,042
Nikkiso Co., Ltd.		21,500		203,921
Nikko Co., Ltd.		1,800		32,405
Nikkon Holdings Co., Ltd.		22,600		469,983
Nippon Air Conditioning Services Co., Ltd.		9,600		49,938
Nippon Beet Sugar Manufacturing Co., Ltd.		5,000		98,887
Nippon Carbide Industries Co., Inc.		23,000		29,605
Nippon Carbon Co., Ltd. (d)		39,000		75,585
Nippon Ceramic Co., Ltd.		5,200		88,887
Japan—(Continued)
Nippon Chemi-Con Corp.		59,000		128,284
Nippon Chemical Industrial Co., Ltd.		30,000		61,232
Nippon Chemiphar Co., Ltd.		800		37,282
Nippon Coke & Engineering Co., Ltd.		71,000		64,901
Nippon Concrete Industries Co., Ltd.		14,000		40,649
Nippon Denko Co., Ltd. (a)		56,465		115,712
Nippon Densetsu Kogyo Co., Ltd.		13,400		213,839
Nippon Felt Co., Ltd.		8,600		37,705
Nippon Filcon Co., Ltd.		5,200		25,518
Nippon Fine Chemical Co., Ltd.		5,800		44,522
Nippon Flour Mills Co., Ltd.		22,500		312,056
Nippon Gas Co., Ltd.		9,600		274,750
Nippon Hume Corp.		8,200		48,398
Nippon Kanzai Co., Ltd.		4,800		74,409
Nippon Kasei Chemical Co., Ltd.		18,000		24,515
Nippon Kayaku Co., Ltd.		8,000		98,328
Nippon Kinzoku Co., Ltd. (a)		1,900		20,681
Nippon Kodoshi Corp.		1,600		12,349
Nippon Koei Co., Ltd.		6,200		137,190
Nippon Koshuha Steel Co., Ltd.		31,000		22,511
Nippon Light Metal Holdings Co., Ltd.		198,000		416,836
Nippon Paper Industries Co., Ltd.		7,000		118,398
Nippon Parking Development Co., Ltd.		65,100		92,207
Nippon Pillar Packing Co., Ltd.		9,600		100,254
Nippon Piston Ring Co., Ltd.		3,200		55,893
Nippon Rietec Co., Ltd.		7,000		66,689
Nippon Road Co., Ltd. (The)		27,000		105,197
Nippon Seiki Co., Ltd.		15,000		319,000
Nippon Seisen Co., Ltd.		10,000		50,435
Nippon Sharyo, Ltd. (a)		26,000		61,980
Nippon Sheet Glass Co., Ltd. (a)		33,000		239,668
Nippon Signal Co., Ltd.		20,700		174,713
Nippon Soda Co., Ltd.		50,000		234,452
Nippon Steel & Sumikin Bussan Corp.		5,196		200,652
Nippon Suisan Kaisha, Ltd.		80,500		386,782
Nippon Systemware Co., Ltd.		1,300		15,865
Nippon Thompson Co., Ltd.		27,000		113,459
Nippon Valqua Industries, Ltd.		6,000		78,843
Nippon Yakin Kogyo Co., Ltd.		54,000		88,044
Nipro Corp.		24,900		271,873
Nishi-Nippon Railroad Co., Ltd.		61,000		278,228
Nishikawa Rubber Co., Ltd.		1,200		18,236
Nishimatsu Construction Co., Ltd.		97,000		469,209
Nishimatsuya Chain Co., Ltd.		4,900		58,754
Nishio Rent All Co., Ltd.		4,400		134,794
Nissan Shatai Co., Ltd.		1,300		12,605
Nissan Tokyo Sales Holdings Co., Ltd.		11,000		31,388
Nissei ASB Machine Co., Ltd.		2,100		42,321
Nissei Build Kogyo Co., Ltd.		18,000		81,663
Nissei Corp.		3,700		31,621
Nissei Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd.		7,100		61,252
Nissha Printing Co., Ltd. (d)		8,700		208,643
Nisshin Fudosan Co.		15,200		69,985
Nisshin Oillio Group, Ltd. (The)		51,000		234,072
Nisshin Steel Co., Ltd.		35,596		438,610
Nisshinbo Holdings, Inc.		47,000		452,586
Nissin Corp.		30,000		92,755

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-23

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Dimensional International Small Company Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Japan—(Continued)
Nissin Electric Co., Ltd.		14,800	$	162,967
Nissin Kogyo Co., Ltd.		16,400		258,877
Nissui Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.		6,000		66,123
Nitta Corp.		6,800		184,456
Nitta Gelatin, Inc.		4,500		28,467
Nittan Valve Co., Ltd.		6,300		21,486
Nittetsu Mining Co., Ltd.		2,500		118,093
Nitto Boseki Co., Ltd.		49,000		191,276
Nitto FC Co., Ltd.		4,500		35,312
Nitto Fuji Flour Milling Co., Ltd.		400		13,134
Nitto Kogyo Corp.		9,000		122,515
Nitto Kohki Co., Ltd.		4,100		90,877
Nitto Seiko Co., Ltd.		15,000		53,335
Nittoc Construction Co., Ltd.		13,550		54,400
Nittoku Engineering Co., Ltd.		5,200		71,787
NJS Co., Ltd.		3,300		39,121
Noevir Holdings Co., Ltd.		4,800		150,169
NOF Corp.		52,000		496,112
Nohmi Bosai, Ltd.		7,000		103,037
Nojima Corp.		4,200		45,214
Nomura Co., Ltd.		12,000		173,377
Noritake Co., Ltd.		5,600		136,316
Noritsu Koki Co., Ltd.		4,000		28,824
Noritz Corp.		11,400		192,036
North Pacific Bank, Ltd.		122,400		503,302
NS Solutions Corp.		10,200		182,991
NS United Kaiun Kaisha, Ltd.		41,000		69,997
NSD Co., Ltd.		10,670		167,436
NTN Corp.		38,000		153,076
Nuflare Technology, Inc.		800		48,549
Obara Group, Inc.		4,400		195,930
Obayashi Road Corp.		10,000		59,811
Odelic Co., Ltd.		1,000		35,695
Oenon Holdings, Inc.		21,000		46,473
Ogaki Kyoritsu Bank, Ltd. (The)		135,000		524,316
Ohara, Inc.		4,700		33,324
Ohashi Technica, Inc.		4,600		55,314
Ohsho Food Service Corp.		3,600		135,598
Oiles Corp.		9,100		163,466
Oita Bank, Ltd. (The)		75,000		279,933
Okabe Co., Ltd.		16,000		131,394
Okamoto Industries, Inc.		16,000		147,378
Okamoto Machine Tool Works, Ltd.		14,000		16,764
Okamura Corp.		26,300		236,039
Okasan Securities Group, Inc.		29,000		178,586
Okaya Electric Industries Co., Ltd.		8,900		30,965
Oki Electric Industry Co., Ltd.		22,700		318,271
Okinawa Cellular Telephone Co.		4,400		131,150
Okinawa Electric Power Co., Inc. (The)		12,825		288,011
OKK Corp.		41,000		41,244
OKUMA Corp.		43,000		408,770
Okumura Corp.		57,000		320,198
Okura Industrial Co., Ltd.		22,000		92,930
Okuwa Co., Ltd.		10,000		100,363
Olympic Group Corp.		4,900		26,129
ONO Sokki Co., Ltd.		4,200		31,454
Onoken Co., Ltd.		7,400		85,856
Japan—(Continued)
Onward Holdings Co., Ltd.		49,000		342,953
Open House Co., Ltd.		6,500		154,391
OPT Holding, Inc. (a)		4,700		28,901
Optex Co., Ltd.		4,700		102,402
Organo Corp.		18,000		72,459
Origin Electric Co., Ltd.		17,000		45,537
Osaka Organic Chemical Industry, Ltd.		5,900		48,484
Osaka Soda Co., Ltd.		30,000		119,534
Osaka Steel Co., Ltd.		5,900		109,025
OSAKA Titanium Technologies Co., Ltd. (a) (d)		2,600		36,018
Osaki Electric Co., Ltd.		11,000		114,382
OSG Corp.		19,600		384,529
Otsuka Kagu, Ltd.		5,500		50,069
OUG Holdings, Inc.		7,000		15,659
Outsourcing, Inc.		3,100		96,388
Oyo Corp.		7,400		88,726
Pacific Industrial Co., Ltd.		17,600		223,346
Pacific Metals Co., Ltd. (a)		67,000		212,820
Pack Corp. (The)		5,100		113,729
Pal Group Holdings Co., Ltd.		3,800		90,057
Paltac Corp.		12,650		298,340
PanaHome Corp.		32,000		258,415
Panasonic Industrial Devices SUNX Co., Ltd.		6,800		46,242
Paramount Bed Holdings Co., Ltd.		6,000		239,352
Parco Co., Ltd.		8,100		71,497
Paris Miki Holdings, Inc.		17,000		67,538
Pasco Corp.		6,000		20,120
Pasona Group, Inc.		7,700		52,760
Penta-Ocean Construction Co., Ltd.		90,500		436,830
PIA Corp.		300		7,492
Pilot Corp.		9,900		407,969
Piolax, Inc.		3,500		232,168
Pioneer Corp. (a)		117,700		235,781
Plenus Co., Ltd.		7,800		152,133
Press Kogyo Co., Ltd.		37,000		162,971
Pressance Corp.		10,400		128,963
Prestige International, Inc.		13,400		94,356
Prima Meat Packers, Ltd.		48,000		170,783
Pronexus, Inc.		7,800		73,154
Proto Corp.		5,300		60,644
PS Mitsubishi Construction Co., Ltd.		8,800		29,040
Qol Co., Ltd.		3,400		40,451
Raito Kogyo Co., Ltd.		16,900		173,224
Rasa Industries, Ltd. (a)		26,000		30,112
Relo Holdings, Inc.		1,600		228,478
Renaissance, Inc.		2,800		35,679
Rengo Co., Ltd.		72,300		392,927
Renown, Inc. (a)		29,200		28,212
Resort Solution Co., Ltd.		4,000		11,378
Retail Partners Co., Ltd.		1,300		12,947
Rheon Automatic Machinery Co., Ltd.		5,000		37,590
Rhythm Watch Co., Ltd.		30,000		46,896
Riberesute Corp.		4,300		28,793
Ricoh Leasing Co., Ltd.		6,400		197,085
Right On Co., Ltd.		5,900		50,795
Riken Corp.		3,500		132,290
Riken Keiki Co., Ltd.		6,000		85,940

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-24

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Dimensional International Small Company Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Japan—(Continued)
Riken Technos Corp.		15,000	$	68,667
Riken Vitamin Co., Ltd.		2,700		109,082
Ringer Hut Co., Ltd.		4,200		81,254
Rion Co., Ltd.		2,200		30,455
Riso Kagaku Corp.		9,458		159,462
Riso Kyoiku Co., Ltd.		11,590		58,803
Rock Field Co., Ltd.		6,600		89,357
Rohto Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.		16,000		250,385
Rokko Butter Co., Ltd.		3,600		77,549
Roland DG Corp.		3,000		78,280
Round One Corp.		28,300		195,744
Royal Holdings Co., Ltd.		9,000		143,798
Ryobi, Ltd.		47,000		184,160
Ryoden Corp.		16,000		100,761
Ryosan Co., Ltd.		11,600		349,738
Ryoyo Electro Corp.		8,600		107,747
S Foods, Inc.		4,100		106,326
S&B Foods, Inc.		600		25,595
Sac’s Bar Holdings, Inc.		6,850		69,356
Saibu Gas Co., Ltd.		136,000		292,922
Saizeriya Co., Ltd.		10,300		231,348
Sakai Chemical Industry Co., Ltd.		42,000		140,283
Sakai Heavy Industries, Ltd.		14,000		39,124
Sakai Moving Service Co., Ltd.		2,600		59,930
Sakai Ovex Co., Ltd.		1,600		23,935
Sakata INX Corp.		11,800		145,668
Sakata Seed Corp.		8,800		248,375
Sakura Internet, Inc.		1,600		12,897
Sala Corp.		12,900		71,880
SAMTY Co., Ltd.		2,600		25,291
San Holdings, Inc.		2,500		33,190
San-A Co., Ltd.		5,700		275,464
San-Ai Oil Co., Ltd.		25,000		178,107
San-In Godo Bank, Ltd. (The)		59,000		490,743
Sanden Holdings Corp.		42,000		133,467
Sanei Architecture Planning Co., Ltd.		3,500		51,747
Sangetsu Corp.		20,500		354,759
Sanken Electric Co., Ltd. (a)		37,000		160,989
Sanki Engineering Co., Ltd.		22,200		184,678
Sanko Marketing Foods Co., Ltd.		3,100		25,269
Sanko Metal Industrial Co., Ltd.		1,000		26,928
Sankyo Frontier Co., Ltd.		2,000		20,449
Sankyo Seiko Co., Ltd.		16,300		55,585
Sankyo Tateyama, Inc.		11,200		151,750
Sankyu, Inc.		96,000		578,744
Sanoh Industrial Co., Ltd.		10,100		71,447
Sanrio Co., Ltd.		5,400		101,730
Sanshin Electronics Co., Ltd.		10,900		104,995
Sanwa Holdings Corp.		25,800		245,579
Sanyo Chemical Industries, Ltd.		4,200		178,659
Sanyo Denki Co., Ltd.		16,000		111,593
Sanyo Electric Railway Co., Ltd.		20,000		104,101
Sanyo Housing Nagoya Co., Ltd.		3,000		28,041
Sanyo Industries, Ltd.		13,000		21,529
Sanyo Shokai, Ltd.		51,000		76,673
Sanyo Special Steel Co., Ltd.		47,000		222,293
Sapporo Holdings, Ltd.		13,000		334,342
Japan—(Continued)
Sata Construction Co., Ltd.		2,600		9,796
Sato Holdings Corp.		6,900		137,960
Sato Shoji Corp.		6,500		47,035
Satori Electric Co., Ltd.		7,100		44,176
Sawada Holdings Co., Ltd.		10,300		82,930
Saxa Holdings, Inc.		24,000		44,906
SBS Holdings, Inc.		6,900		48,031
Scroll Corp.		13,100		38,397
SEC Carbon, Ltd.		7,000		15,299
Secom Joshinetsu Co., Ltd.		900		26,333
Seibu Electric Industry Co., Ltd.		2,400		45,983
Seika Corp.		28,000		81,555
Seikitokyu Kogyo Co., Ltd.		12,500		52,760
Seiko Holdings Corp.		44,000		155,496
Seino Holdings Co., Ltd.		13,100		145,167
Seiren Co., Ltd.		19,100		233,462
Sekisui Jushi Corp.		12,900		203,363
Sekisui Plastics Co., Ltd.		12,000		83,441
Senko Co., Ltd.		31,000		208,946
Senshu Electric Co., Ltd.		2,400		38,965
Senshu Ikeda Holdings, Inc.		84,000		386,407
Senshukai Co., Ltd.		13,800		83,462
Septeni Holdings Co., Ltd.		27,500		93,770
Shibaura Electronics Co., Ltd.		2,800		57,155
Shibaura Mechatronics Corp.		18,000		39,491
Shibusawa Warehouse Co., Ltd. (The)		25,000		74,202
Shibuya Corp.		6,500		135,953
Shidax Corp.		9,600		35,790
Shiga Bank, Ltd. (The)		89,000		481,911
Shikibo, Ltd.		56,000		65,603
Shikoku Bank, Ltd. (The)		89,000		216,517
Shikoku Chemicals Corp.		16,000		145,177
Shima Seiki Manufacturing, Ltd.		10,400		351,138
Shimachu Co., Ltd.		20,500		545,405
Shimane Bank, Ltd. (The)		2,500		29,268
Shimizu Bank, Ltd. (The)		4,400		137,606
Shimojima Co., Ltd.		6,300		60,310
Shin Nippon Air Technologies Co., Ltd.		6,000		64,785
Shin-Etsu Polymer Co., Ltd.		22,600		176,232
Shin-Keisei Electric Railway Co., Ltd.		23,000		81,029
Shinagawa Refractories Co., Ltd.		20,000		41,760
Shindengen Electric Manufacturing Co., Ltd.		28,000		103,912
Shinkawa, Ltd. (a)		5,300		36,931
Shinko Electric Industries Co., Ltd.		27,600		185,936
Shinko Plantech Co., Ltd.		16,100		116,718
Shinko Shoji Co., Ltd.		7,700		81,662
Shinko Wire Co., Ltd.		12,000		14,243
Shinmaywa Industries, Ltd.		34,000		304,695
Shinnihon Corp.		10,200		82,036
Shinoken Group Co., Ltd.		1,600		28,215
Shinsho Corp.		1,400		29,066
Shinwa Co., Ltd.		3,900		58,180
Ship Healthcare Holdings, Inc.		14,200		364,079
Shizuki Electric Co., Inc.		8,000		45,574
Shizuoka Gas Co., Ltd.		21,300		149,728
Shobunsha Publications, Inc.		6,700		38,025
Shochiku Co., Ltd.		3,000		33,287

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-25

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Dimensional International Small Company Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Japan—(Continued)
Shoei Foods Corp.		4,300	$	81,326
Shofu, Inc.		3,900		44,891
Shoko Co., Ltd. (a)		19,000		16,396
Showa Aircraft Industry Co., Ltd.		4,000		38,250
Showa Corp.		17,600		122,282
Showa Denko KK		22,600		322,861
Showa Sangyo Co., Ltd.		33,000		169,471
Siix Corp.		4,800		161,868
Sinanen Holdings Co., Ltd.		3,600		65,695
Sinfonia Technology Co., Ltd.		42,000		94,331
Sinko Industries, Ltd.		6,400		76,897
Sintokogio, Ltd.		21,100		183,068
SKY Perfect JSAT Holdings, Inc.		29,800		136,924
SMK Corp.		23,000		81,739
SMS Co., Ltd.		7,300		161,618
SNT Corp.		7,800		44,025
Soda Nikka Co., Ltd.		7,000		30,273
Sodick Co., Ltd.		16,800		138,541
Soft99 Corp.		5,100		34,858
Softbank Technology Corp.		1,600		44,430
Software Service, Inc.		1,200		57,766
Sogo Medical Co., Ltd.		2,400		87,893
Sotoh Co., Ltd.		4,300		41,857
Space Co., Ltd.		5,800		61,172
Sparx Group Co., Ltd.		35,900		69,553
SPK Corp.		2,500		51,001
SRA Holdings		3,100		68,005
Srg Takamiya Co., Ltd.		5,200		27,411
ST Corp.		6,900		89,480
St. Marc Holdings Co., Ltd.		5,100		154,949
Star Mica Co., Ltd.		800		13,446
Star Micronics Co., Ltd.		4,400		59,821
Starts Corp., Inc.		5,800		97,995
Starzen Co., Ltd.		2,500		103,018
Stella Chemifa Corp.		3,600		95,539
Step Co., Ltd.		4,100		47,253
Striders Corp. (a)		16,000		9,970
Studio Alice Co., Ltd.		2,900		53,666
Subaru Enterprise Co., Ltd.		1,000		4,319
Sugimoto & Co., Ltd.		3,800		48,619
Sumida Corp.		6,300		57,002
Suminoe Textile Co., Ltd.		23,000		49,479
Sumitomo Bakelite Co., Ltd.		76,000		425,103
Sumitomo Densetsu Co., Ltd.		7,700		84,475
Sumitomo Mitsui Construction Co., Ltd.		260,300		273,530
Sumitomo Osaka Cement Co., Ltd.		142,000		533,960
Sumitomo Precision Products Co., Ltd.		12,000		36,304
Sumitomo Real Estate Sales Co., Ltd.		5,960		138,706
Sumitomo Riko Co., Ltd.		16,700		163,644
Sumitomo Seika Chemicals Co., Ltd.		3,600		140,806
Sumitomo Warehouse Co., Ltd. (The)		53,000		279,567
Sun Frontier Fudousan Co., Ltd.		7,600		66,855
Sun-Wa Technos Corp.		3,900		31,359
Suncall Corp.		11,000		51,844
SWCC Showa Holdings Co., Ltd. (a)		116,000		85,191
Systena Corp.		6,700		101,994
T Hasegawa Co., Ltd.		9,100		151,406
Japan—(Continued)
T RAD Co., Ltd.		36,000		89,420
T&K Toka Co., Ltd.		10,000		87,402
T-Gaia Corp.		8,400		136,415
Tabuchi Electric Co., Ltd.		8,900		30,261
Tachi-S Co., Ltd.		10,300		172,350
Tachibana Eletech Co., Ltd.		5,640		64,158
Tadano, Ltd.		38,000		476,867
Taihei Dengyo Kaisha, Ltd.		12,000		116,535
Taiheiyo Kouhatsu, Inc.		21,000		17,938
Taiho Kogyo Co., Ltd.		7,800		109,014
Taikisha, Ltd.		9,100		220,956
Taiko Bank, Ltd. (The)		41,000		92,093
Taiko Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.		2,300		36,427
Taisei Lamick Co., Ltd.		2,200		59,738
Taiyo Holdings Co., Ltd.		5,300		205,480
Taiyo Yuden Co., Ltd.		26,600		317,978
Takachiho Koheki Co., Ltd.		400		3,438
Takagi Securities Co., Ltd.		18,000		34,566
Takamatsu Construction Group Co., Ltd.		5,400		114,603
Takano Co., Ltd.		6,000		43,606
Takaoka Toko Co., Ltd.		5,365		99,294
Takara Holdings, Inc.		26,000		238,584
Takara Leben Co., Ltd.		28,600		166,363
Takara Printing Co., Ltd.		3,100		40,975
Takara Standard Co., Ltd.		18,800		306,598
Takasago International Corp.		6,400		168,916
Takasago Thermal Engineering Co., Ltd.		16,800		215,768
Takashima & Co., Ltd.		25,000		40,586
Takata Corp. (a) (d)		14,300		104,464
Take And Give Needs Co., Ltd.		4,010		24,938
Takeei Corp.		8,200		67,397
Takeuchi Manufacturing Co., Ltd.		10,000		221,667
Takihyo Co., Ltd.		13,000		50,528
Takiron Co., Ltd.		18,000		79,806
Takisawa Machine Tool Co., Ltd.		22,000		29,700
Takuma Co., Ltd.		25,000		213,446
Tama Home Co., Ltd.		8,500		38,096
Tamron Co., Ltd.		6,000		99,383
Tamura Corp.		26,000		98,060
Tanseisha Co., Ltd.		11,750		80,432
TASAKI & Co., Ltd.		800		10,759
Tatsuta Electric Wire and Cable Co., Ltd.		17,000		66,094
Tayca Corp.		12,000		65,612
TBK Co., Ltd.		8,000		33,933
Teac Corp. (a)		40,000		19,180
TECHNO ASSOCIE Co., Ltd.		300		2,772
Techno Medica Co., Ltd.		2,400		40,279
Techno Ryowa, Ltd.		4,800		31,511
Tecnos Japan, Inc.		2,000		21,601
Teikoku Electric Manufacturing Co., Ltd.		6,800		58,929
Teikoku Sen-I Co., Ltd.		6,900		90,141
Teikoku Tsushin Kogyo Co., Ltd.		24,000		36,107
Tenma Corp.		6,200		106,544
Teraoka Seisakusho Co., Ltd.		200		645
Tigers Polymer Corp.		2,200		15,009
TKC Corp.		6,700		182,246
Toa Corp.		9,600		86,042

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-26

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Dimensional International Small Company Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Japan—(Continued)
Toa Corp.		8,200	$	139,762
Toa Oil Co., Ltd.		32,000		39,008
TOA ROAD Corp.		18,000		53,371
Toabo Corp. (a)		3,400		15,899
Toagosei Co., Ltd.		37,000		363,549
Tobishima Corp.		55,600		87,348
Tobu Store Co., Ltd.		1,100		26,661
TOC Co., Ltd.		15,800		125,736
Tocalo Co., Ltd.		4,800		104,117
Tochigi Bank, Ltd. (The)		45,000		220,324
Toda Corp.		78,000		410,858
Toda Kogyo Corp.		11,000		26,408
Toei Animation Co., Ltd.		1,800		92,853
Toei Co., Ltd.		28,000		242,478
Toenec Corp.		16,000		78,608
Toho Bank, Ltd. (The)		83,000		309,635
Toho Co., Ltd.		3,400		73,521
Toho Holdings Co., Ltd.		19,600		390,435
Toho Zinc Co., Ltd.		50,000		193,376
Tohoku Bank, Ltd. (The)		56,000		74,680
Tohokushinsha Film Corp.		4,800		29,906
Tohto Suisan Co., Ltd.		1,400		21,809
Tokai Carbon Co., Ltd.		68,000		219,417
Tokai Corp.		3,900		132,711
TOKAI Holdings Corp. (d)		23,700		165,301
Tokai Lease Co., Ltd.		16,000		28,322
Tokai Rika Co., Ltd.		8,800		175,962
Tokai Tokyo Financial Holdings, Inc.		20,300		107,692
Token Corp.		2,460		173,949
Tokushu Tokai Paper Co., Ltd.		3,900		131,688
Tokuyama Corp. (a)		106,000		401,595
Tokyo Dome Corp.		31,000		304,946
Tokyo Electron Device, Ltd.		2,400		32,315
Tokyo Energy & Systems, Inc.		10,000		85,434
Tokyo Individualized Educational Institute, Inc.		5,000		40,375
Tokyo Keiki, Inc.		21,000		40,455
Tokyo Ohka Kogyo Co., Ltd.		13,100		440,831
Tokyo Rakutenchi Co., Ltd.		17,000		77,999
Tokyo Rope Manufacturing Co., Ltd.		4,600		77,129
Tokyo Sangyo Co., Ltd.		12,000		48,946
Tokyo Seimitsu Co., Ltd.		13,800		408,080
Tokyo Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd.		36,800		281,842
Tokyo Tekko Co., Ltd.		17,000		68,433
Tokyo Theatres Co., Inc.		42,000		58,080
Tokyo TY Financial Group, Inc.		9,724		337,773
Tokyotokeiba Co., Ltd.		31,000		70,971
Tokyu Recreation Co., Ltd.		6,000		40,443
Toli Corp.		20,000		63,728
Tomato Bank, Ltd.		5,500		75,287
Tomen Devices Corp.		1,500		26,277
Tomoe Corp.		12,500		38,334
Tomoe Engineering Co., Ltd.		2,100		30,332
Tomoegawa Co., Ltd.		12,000		23,618
Tomoku Co., Ltd.		31,000		86,856
TOMONY Holdings, Inc.		62,700		323,533
Tomy Co., Ltd.		22,400		237,444
Tonami Holdings Co., Ltd.		22,000		67,113
Japan—(Continued)
Topcon Corp.		11,500		172,330
Toppan Forms Co., Ltd.		19,800		206,136
Topre Corp.		12,700		317,235
Topy Industries, Ltd.		8,100		208,445
Toridoll.corp		6,900		148,519
Torigoe Co., Ltd. (The)		9,200		61,109
Torii Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.		3,600		79,520
Torishima Pump Manufacturing Co., Ltd.		7,700		74,398
Tosei Corp.		13,200		98,670
Toshiba Machine Co., Ltd.		42,000		167,695
Toshiba Plant Systems & Services Corp.		14,100		185,384
Toshiba TEC Corp. (a)		13,000		62,201
Tosho Co., Ltd.		2,400		110,280
Tosho Printing Co., Ltd.		14,000		58,542
Totetsu Kogyo Co., Ltd.		8,400		217,269
Tottori Bank, Ltd. (The)		3,700		60,412
Toukei Computer Co., Ltd.		1,400		24,759
Tow Co., Ltd.		3,600		20,032
Towa Bank, Ltd. (The)		115,000		109,032
Towa Corp.		8,000		112,463
Towa Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.		2,800		109,664
Toyo Construction Co., Ltd.		25,499		89,288
Toyo Corp.		9,600		85,074
Toyo Denki Seizo KK		3,200		43,392
Toyo Engineering Corp.		38,000		101,264
Toyo Ink SC Holdings Co., Ltd.		76,000		347,078
Toyo Kanetsu KK		48,000		129,156
Toyo Kohan Co., Ltd.		16,000		50,543
Toyo Machinery & Metal Co., Ltd.		7,800		29,864
Toyo Securities Co., Ltd.		23,000		55,525
Toyo Sugar Refining Co., Ltd.		9,000		8,850
Toyo Tanso Co., Ltd.		5,300		84,845
Toyo Tire & Rubber Co., Ltd.		2,900		35,948
Toyo Wharf & Warehouse Co., Ltd.		25,000		39,299
Toyobo Co., Ltd.		332,000		492,475
TPR Co., Ltd.		7,300		204,968
Trancom Co., Ltd.		2,300		112,395
Transcosmos, Inc.		7,700		179,574
Trusco Nakayama Corp.		12,600		263,337
Trust Tech, Inc.		3,000		42,555
TS Tech Co., Ltd.		2,600		66,762
TSI Holdings Co., Ltd.		28,205		168,743
Tsubakimoto Chain Co.		45,000		364,795
Tsubakimoto Kogyo Co., Ltd.		8,000		22,968
Tsudakoma Corp. (a)		16,000		22,558
Tsugami Corp.		22,000		125,979
Tsukada Global Holdings, Inc.		7,200		41,827
Tsukamoto Corp. Co., Ltd.		21,000		22,980
Tsukishima Kikai Co., Ltd.		8,600		89,656
Tsukuba Bank, Ltd.		34,500		102,160
Tsukui Corp.		18,800		127,184
Tsumura & Co.		6,600		181,502
Tsurumi Manufacturing Co., Ltd.		6,100		87,818
Tsutsumi Jewelry Co., Ltd.		3,800		63,457
TTK Co., Ltd.		4,000		16,569
TV Tokyo Holdings Corp.		3,700		72,859
TYK Corp.		6,000		9,686

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-27

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Dimensional International Small Company Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Japan—(Continued)
Tyo, Inc. (b)		9,600	$	12,485
U-Shin, Ltd. (d)		8,400		54,812
UACJ Corp.		106,850		291,935
Ube Industries, Ltd.		215,000		449,605
Uchida Yoko Co., Ltd.		21,000		87,150
Ueki Corp.		11,000		24,259
UKC Holdings Corp.		5,000		89,578
Ulvac, Inc.		13,000		397,109
Uniden Holdings Corp. (a)		25,000		35,461
Union Tool Co.		3,400		88,318
Unipres Corp.		13,900		276,008
United Arrows, Ltd.		6,000		165,189
United Super Markets Holdings, Inc.		20,700		174,292
Unitika, Ltd. (a)		156,000		111,519
Universal Entertainment Corp. (a)		6,800		196,104
Unizo Holdings Co., Ltd.		3,800		100,094
Usen Corp.		40,800		147,880
Ushio, Inc.		39,000		496,032
UT Group Co., Ltd. (a)		9,800		80,516
Utoc Corp.		5,100		17,777
V Technology Co., Ltd.		800		89,248
Valor Holdings Co., Ltd.		11,800		307,433
VeriServe Corp.		500		13,281
Village Vanguard Co., Ltd.		2,300		23,225
Vital KSK Holdings, Inc.		14,200		120,087
Vitec Holdings Co., Ltd.		3,700		39,344
Voyage Group, Inc.		1,500		13,421
VT Holdings Co., Ltd.		24,300		119,682
W-Scope Corp.		2,100		31,467
Wacoal Holdings Corp.		29,000		337,611
Wakachiku Construction Co., Ltd.		46,000		60,506
Wakamoto Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.		9,000		19,125
Wakita & Co., Ltd.		15,300		127,074
Warabeya Nichiyo Holdings Co., Ltd.		5,000		105,484
WATAMI Co., Ltd.		7,600		71,715
Weathernews, Inc.		2,100		64,502
Wellnet Corp.		4,600		50,891
West Holdings Corp.		7,200		51,841
WirelessGate, Inc.		1,000		14,542
Wood One Co., Ltd.		19,000		44,343
Wowow, Inc.		2,200		65,794
Xebio Holdings Co., Ltd.		8,700		134,210
Y. A. C. Co., Ltd.		3,900		42,274
Yachiyo Industry Co., Ltd.		3,900		34,617
Yahagi Construction Co., Ltd.		10,900		100,602
Yaizu Suisankagaku Industry Co., Ltd.		4,400		41,758
YAMABIKO Corp.		12,800		177,775
Yamagata Bank, Ltd. (The)		52,000		219,291
Yamaichi Electronics Co., Ltd.		8,200		79,508
Yamanashi Chuo Bank, Ltd. (The)		66,000		313,775
Yamatane Corp.		3,400		46,161
Yamato Corp.		9,000		44,612
Yamato International, Inc.		6,700		23,090
Yamato Kogyo Co., Ltd.		1,800		49,923
Yamaya Corp.		1,150		16,797
Yamazawa Co., Ltd.		1,000		15,060
Yamazen Corp.		19,500		162,552
Japan—(Continued)
Yaoko Co., Ltd.		5,200		206,698
Yashima Denki Co., Ltd.		7,500		39,164
Yasuda Logistics Corp.		7,400		47,784
Yellow Hat, Ltd.		5,800		125,087
Yodogawa Steel Works, Ltd.		7,600		198,220
Yokogawa Bridge Holdings Corp.		12,800		148,781
Yokohama Reito Co., Ltd.		18,600		162,982
Yokowo Co., Ltd.		7,900		64,947
Yomeishu Seizo Co., Ltd.		3,000		48,172
Yomiuri Land Co., Ltd.		13,000		53,773
Yondenko Corp.		8,000		30,567
Yondoshi Holdings, Inc.		4,600		97,063
Yorozu Corp.		7,900		113,460
Yoshinoya Holdings Co., Ltd.		13,600		186,304
Yuasa Funashoku Co., Ltd.		13,000		34,904
Yuasa Trading Co., Ltd.		6,700		166,999
Yuken Kogyo Co., Ltd.		17,000		31,958
Yuki Gosei Kogyo Co., Ltd.		6,000		13,032
Yumeshin Holdings Co., Ltd.		10,100		68,009
Yurtec Corp.		17,000		115,312
Yusen Logistics Co., Ltd.		7,100		73,788
Yushiro Chemical Industry Co., Ltd.		3,700		45,332
Yutaka Giken Co., Ltd.		600		11,872
Zappallas, Inc. (a)		4,900		17,504
Zenrin Co., Ltd.		7,900		143,461
Zensho Holdings Co., Ltd.		15,400		253,528
ZERIA Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.		9,200		141,716
Zojirushi Corp.		9,800		131,469
Zuiko Corp.		1,000		35,284
Zuken, Inc.		7,200		73,570
				159,884,886
Liechtenstein—0.0%
VP Bank AG		358		37,977
Luxembourg—0.1%
B&M European Value Retail S.A.		38,447		131,525
d’Amico International Shipping S.A. (a)		60,320		21,066
L’Occitane International S.A.		53,500		101,057
Stabilus S.A. (a)		3,005		161,286
				414,934
Macau—0.0%
Macau Legend Development, Ltd. (a)		359,000		72,298
Malta—0.1%
Unibet Group plc		77,749		729,079
Netherlands—2.5%
Aalberts Industries NV		34,547		1,119,609
Accell Group		11,551		266,276
AMG Advanced Metallurgical Group NV		12,258		190,380
Amsterdam Commodities NV		6,535		143,771
APERAM S.A.		33,328		1,523,447
Arcadis NV (d)		33,193		465,070
ASM International NV		19,662		881,358

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-28

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Dimensional International Small Company Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Netherlands—(Continued)
BE Semiconductor Industries NV		23,461	$	781,216
Beter Bed Holding NV		5,373		95,500
BinckBank NV		28,201		163,161
Boskalis Westminster		18,250		632,857
Brack Capital Properties NV		1,270		113,962
Brunel International NV		9,034		146,101
Corbion NV		20,382		545,161
Delta Lloyd NV		179,865		1,006,018
Euronext NV		11,793		486,389
Fugro NV (a)		18,901		289,265
Gemalto NV		9,032		521,478
Heijmans NV (a) (d)		12,756		74,045
Hunter Douglas NV		2,423		136,345
IMCD Group NV		3,646		155,214
KAS Bank NV		6,580		58,342
Kendrion NV		3,947		111,123
Koninklijke BAM Groep NV		119,230		550,260
Koninklijke Vopak NV		6,562		309,559
Nederland Apparatenfabriek		2,241		78,785
Ordina NV (a)		44,115		97,394
PostNL NV (a)		162,817		703,233
QIAGEN NV (a)		51,378		1,441,429
SBM Offshore NV		72,035		1,127,684
Sligro Food Group NV		10,629		370,013
SNS REAAL NV (a) (b) (c)		105,329		0
STMicroelectronics NV		37,151		421,217
Telegraaf Media Groep NV		13,542		67,475
TKH Group NV		13,932		551,161
TomTom NV (a) (d)		51,405		462,248
Van Lanschot NV		45		946
Wessanen		35,515		496,579
				16,584,071
New Zealand—1.2%
a2 Milk Co., Ltd. (a)		134,580		198,482
Abano Healthcare Group, Ltd.		880		5,139
Air New Zealand, Ltd.		205,023		312,242
Briscoe Group, Ltd.		13,123		35,914
Chorus, Ltd.		123,027		338,879
Contact Energy, Ltd.		88,793		286,762
Ebos Group, Ltd.		37,883		438,985
Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Corp., Ltd.		148,984		879,323
Freightways, Ltd.		61,668		288,471
Genesis Energy, Ltd.		44,091		64,192
Gentrack Group, Ltd.		6,656		16,030
Hallenstein Glasson Holdings, Ltd.		19,012		40,235
Heartland Bank, Ltd.		72,313		75,177
Hellaby Holdings, Ltd.		13,986		34,264
Infratil, Ltd.		212,874		407,005
Kathmandu Holdings, Ltd.		23,984		32,393
Mainfreight, Ltd.		34,644		498,212
Mercury NZ, Ltd.		8,650		17,723
Methven, Ltd.		19,898		18,376
Metlifecare, Ltd.		34,148		131,517
Metro Performance Glass, Ltd.		8,816		11,725
New Zealand Oil & Gas, Ltd.		131,264		57,437
New Zealand—(Continued)
New Zealand Refining Co., Ltd. (The)		27,432		49,524
NZME, Ltd.		71,247		28,293
NZX, Ltd.		98,289		71,744
Opus International Consultants, Ltd.		4,000		2,474
Pacific Edge, Ltd. (a)		17,353		7,117
PGG Wrightson, Ltd.		58,545		19,918
Port of Tauranga, Ltd.		135,672		362,747
Restaurant Brands New Zealand, Ltd.		61,567		217,096
Rubicon, Ltd. (a)		9,922		1,517
Ryman Healthcare, Ltd.		34,349		193,793
Sanford, Ltd.		314		1,478
Scales Corp., Ltd.		7,570		18,158
Skellerup Holdings, Ltd.		29,759		31,392
SKY Network Television, Ltd.		114,579		361,333
SKYCITY Entertainment Group, Ltd.		254,840		696,203
Summerset Group Holdings, Ltd.		25,600		83,273
Tilt Renewables, Ltd.		13,980		18,841
Tourism Holdings, Ltd.		4,866		12,504
TOWER, Ltd.		59,836		34,673
Trade Me Group, Ltd.		117,080		406,519
Trustpower, Ltd.		13,980		46,034
Vector, Ltd.		130,306		292,799
Vista Group International, Ltd. (a)		7,356		28,525
Warehouse Group, Ltd. (The)		54,373		107,511
Xero, Ltd. (a)		18,888		229,345
Z Energy, Ltd.		30,805		155,499
				7,666,793
Norway—0.9%
ABG Sundal Collier Holding ASA		112,462		64,329
AF Gruppen ASA		945		16,907
Akastor ASA (a)		21,838		40,973
Aker ASA - A Shares		3,036		113,558
Aker BP ASA		34,725		620,779
Aker Solutions ASA (a)		21,369		102,258
American Shipping Co. ASA (a)		12,027		33,846
Atea ASA (a)		22,644		208,385
Austevoll Seafood ASA		29,238		283,474
Biotec Pharmacon ASA (a)		10,494		13,734
Bonheur ASA		10,311		86,240
Borregaard ASA		16,711		163,422
BW LPG, Ltd.		6,290		26,452
BW Offshore, Ltd. (a)		29,311		94,046
Deep Sea Supply plc (a)		40,102		6,449
DNO ASA (a) (d)		140,550		137,802
Ekornes ASA		11,636		143,519
Fred Olsen Energy ASA (a)		4,442		16,282
Frontline, Ltd. (d)		10,258		73,650
Grieg Seafood ASA		11,731		110,848
Hexagon Composites ASA (a)		24,991		77,862
Hoegh LNG Holdings, Ltd.		13,626		152,172
Kongsberg Automotive ASA (a)		185,093		121,597
Kvaerner ASA (a)		92,750		129,758
Nordic Semiconductor ASA (a)		44,887		182,474
Norske Skogindustrier ASA (a) (d)		121,097		39,828
Norwegian Air Shuttle ASA (a) (d)		8,166		271,445

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-29

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Dimensional International Small Company Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Norway—(Continued)
Ocean Yield ASA		5,643	$	42,480
Odfjell SE - A Shares (a)		1,949		6,623
Opera Software ASA (a) (d)		21,316		91,992
Petroleum Geo-Services ASA (a)		55,241		186,364
PhotoCure ASA (a)		5,477		26,632
ProSafe SE (a)		3,505		15,008
Protector Forsikring ASA (d)		13,480		107,339
Q-Free ASA (a)		24,256		22,109
REC Silicon ASA (a) (d)		643,607		84,957
Scatec Solar ASA		7,932		35,286
Selvaag Bolig ASA		3,405		15,765
Sevan Marine ASA (a)		16,466		32,419
Solstad Offshore ASA (a)		5,981		7,974
Songa Offshore (a)		3,180		11,582
SpareBank 1 SMN		40,946		306,944
SpareBank 1 SR Bank ASA		7,986		56,189
Stolt-Nielsen, Ltd.		5,818		71,419
TGS Nopec Geophysical Co. ASA		11,794		261,562
Tomra Systems ASA		37,589		393,833
Treasure ASA (a)		21,003		40,597
Veidekke ASA		49,276		704,789
Wilh Wilhelmsen ASA (a)		21,003		82,225
Wilh Wilhelmsen Holding ASA - Class A		4,777		109,461
XXL ASA		15,447		175,319
				6,220,957
Philippines—0.0%
Del Monte Pacific, Ltd.		77,636		18,156
Portugal—0.3%
Altri SGPS S.A.		41,235		167,672
Banco BPI S.A. (a)		181,563		216,157
Banco Comercial Portugues S.A. (a) (d)		133,953		150,961
Banco Espirito Santo S.A. (a) (b) (c)		89,078		0
CTT-Correios de Portugal S.A.		5,621		38,124
Mota-Engil SGPS S.A.		40,942		69,241
Navigator Co. S.A. (The)		131,380		451,420
NOS SGPS S.A.		73,113		433,819
Novabase SGPS S.A.		7,827		20,504
REN - Redes Energeticas Nacionais SGPS S.A.		94,602		268,628
Semapa-Sociedade de Investimento e Gestao		3,197		45,126
Sonae SGPS S.A.		280,308		257,557
Teixeira Duarte S.A.		59,382		11,611
				2,130,820
Singapore—1.2%
Abterra, Ltd. (a)		51,720		13,572
Accordia Golf Trust		47,600		20,684
Ascendas India Trust		48,900		34,192
ASL Marine Holdings, Ltd.		52,500		4,654
Baker Technology, Ltd.		33,200		13,774
Banyan Tree Holdings, Ltd. (a)		155,000		51,656
Bonvests Holdings, Ltd.		18,000		15,270
Boustead Projects, Ltd. (a)		24,607		12,362
Boustead Singapore, Ltd.		82,025		45,561
Breadtalk Group, Ltd.		37,000		29,589
Singapore—(Continued)
Broadway Industrial Group, Ltd. (a)		156,399		20,425
Bukit Sembawang Estates, Ltd.		72,000		222,363
Centurion Corp., Ltd.		38,000		8,668
China Aviation Oil Singapore Corp., Ltd.		108,400		104,721
Chip Eng Seng Corp., Ltd.		157,000		68,283
Chuan Hup Holdings, Ltd.		125,000		20,215
Cosco Corp. Singapore, Ltd. (a) (b)		477,000		92,228
Creative Technology, Ltd. (a)		22,600		15,011
CSE Global, Ltd.		197,000		61,899
CW Group Holdings, Ltd.		106,000		20,885
CWT, Ltd.		81,000		107,913
Delfi, Ltd.		66,000		101,175
DMX Technologies Group, Ltd. (a) (b) (c)		186,000		5,253
Dyna-Mac Holdings, Ltd. (a)		98,000		11,084
Elec & Eltek International Co., Ltd.		23,000		19,090
Ezion Holdings, Ltd. (a)		516,229		136,621
Ezra Holdings, Ltd. (a)		1,000,703		33,722
Far East Orchard, Ltd.		74,044		74,149
First Resources, Ltd.		86,700		113,600
First Sponsor Group, Ltd.		8,628		7,928
FJ Benjamin Holdings, Ltd. (a)		106,000		4,247
Food Empire Holdings, Ltd. (a)		54,000		16,745
Fragrance Group, Ltd.		752,800		83,322
Frasers Centrepoint, Ltd.		17,300		18,812
Gallant Venture, Ltd. (a)		126,000		10,194
Geo Energy Resources, Ltd. (a)		155,000		24,040
GK Goh Holdings, Ltd.		12,000		6,788
GL, Ltd.		188,000		98,491
Global Premium Hotels, Ltd. (a)		73,200		14,960
Golden Agri-Resources, Ltd.		882,200		260,561
GSH Corp., Ltd.		108,400		38,080
GuocoLand, Ltd.		28,000		34,744
Halcyon Agri Corp., Ltd. (a)		188,713		79,644
Hanwell Holdings, Ltd. (a)		19,000		3,170
Haw Par Corp., Ltd.		10,300		64,575
Hi-P International, Ltd.		99,500		34,995
Hiap Hoe, Ltd.		58,000		28,435
Ho Bee Land, Ltd.		87,000		121,764
Hong Fok Corp., Ltd.		146,740		63,707
Hong Leong Asia, Ltd.		41,000		19,042
Hotel Grand Central, Ltd.		1,000		933
Hour Glass, Ltd. (The)		129,000		55,229
Hwa Hong Corp., Ltd.		138,000		28,435
Hyflux, Ltd.		179,500		63,809
IGG, Inc.		167,000		111,813
Indofood Agri Resources, Ltd.		152,000		54,936
Innovalues, Ltd.		64,000		43,946
Japfa, Ltd.		38,500		24,044
k1 Ventures, Ltd.		80,800		49,909
Kenon Holdings, Ltd. (a)		2,312		27,236
Keppel Infrastructure Trust		549,659		180,392
Keppel Telecommunications & Transportation, Ltd.		44,000		51,985
Koh Brothers Group, Ltd.		97,000		17,433
Lian Beng Group, Ltd.		157,000		50,334
Low Keng Huat Singapore, Ltd.		122,600		48,694
Lum Chang Holdings, Ltd.		115,000		27,733
M1, Ltd.		75,600		102,123

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-30

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Dimensional International Small Company Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Singapore—(Continued)
Marco Polo Marine, Ltd. (a)		51,000	$	1,620
Metro Holdings, Ltd.		141,600		97,241
Mewah International, Inc.		110,000		20,874
Midas Holdings, Ltd.		452,000		67,062
Nam Cheong, Ltd. (a)		321,000		13,594
NSL, Ltd.		15,000		16,401
Olam International, Ltd.		45,700		62,134
Overseas Union Enterprise, Ltd.		174,000		210,786
Oxley Holdings, Ltd.		155,000		45,959
Pan-United Corp., Ltd.		43,000		17,021
Penguin International, Ltd.		64,333		10,239
Q&M Dental Group Singapore, Ltd.		41,800		20,600
QAF, Ltd.		86,667		83,129
Raffles Education Corp., Ltd. (a)		384,774		50,488
Raffles Medical Group, Ltd.		147,006		145,010
RHT Health Trust		65,200		41,193
Rickmers Maritime (a) (b) (c)		110,000		1,975
Riverstone Holdings, Ltd.		40,000		24,267
Rotary Engineering, Ltd.		85,000		22,261
Roxy-Pacific Holdings, Ltd.		85,750		25,396
SATS, Ltd.		100,500		335,769
SBS Transit, Ltd.		40,500		59,279
Sembcorp Industries, Ltd.		125,400		245,988
Sembcorp Marine, Ltd.		39,300		37,373
Sheng Siong Group, Ltd.		133,900		87,291
SHS Holdings, Ltd.		47,000		6,456
SIA Engineering Co., Ltd.		44,300		102,826
SIIC Environment Holdings, Ltd. (a)		167,400		67,303
Sinarmas Land, Ltd.		694,000		203,497
Sing Holdings, Ltd.		82,000		17,277
Singapore Post, Ltd.		261,100		263,752
Singapore Reinsurance Corp., Ltd.		1,000		211
Sino Grandness Food Industry Group, Ltd.		137,000		22,674
Stamford Land Corp., Ltd.		278,000		92,375
StarHub, Ltd.		75,000		145,057
Sunningdale Tech, Ltd.		60,600		46,015
Super Group, Ltd.		143,000		126,178
Swiber Holdings, Ltd. (a) (b) (c)		117,749		6,651
Tuan Sing Holdings, Ltd.		169,000		33,190
UMS Holdings, Ltd.		93,000		39,144
United Engineers, Ltd.		138,000		243,911
United Industrial Corp., Ltd.		13,600		25,976
United Overseas Insurance, Ltd.		4,000		12,927
UOB-Kay Hian Holdings, Ltd.		131,440		115,265
UOL Group, Ltd.		53,000		218,322
UPP Holdings, Ltd.		46,000		8,564
Vard Holdings, Ltd. (a)		203,000		34,966
Venture Corp., Ltd.		97,000		660,993
Vibrant Group, Ltd.		47,600		11,167
Vicom, Ltd.		2,000		7,857
Wee Hur Holdings, Ltd.		85,000		13,171
Wheelock Properties Singapore, Ltd.		58,000		59,188
Wing Tai Holdings, Ltd.		159,621		175,040
Yeo Hiap Seng, Ltd.		19,712		18,105
YHI International, Ltd.		39,000		8,887
Yongnam Holdings, Ltd. (a)		241,875		32,898
				8,014,640
Spain—2.1%
Acciona S.A.		7,188		528,972
Acerinox S.A.		70,013		928,370
Adveo Group International S.A.		6,292		22,582
Almirall S.A.		20,336		315,788
Amper S.A. (a)		186,713		43,428
Applus Services S.A.		17,445		176,848
Atresmedia Corp. de Medios de Comunicacion S.A.		21,362		233,491
Azkoyen S.A.		1,608		9,941
Baron de Ley (a)		1,139		143,358
Bolsas y Mercados Espanoles S.A.		27,936		822,988
Caja de Ahorros del Mediterraneo (a) (b) (c)		14,621		0
Cellnex Telecom S.A.		22,587		324,392
Cementos Portland Valderrivas S.A. (a)		4,058		25,556
Cie Automotive S.A.		17,266		336,420
Construcciones y Auxiliar de Ferrocarriles S.A.		5,880		236,980
Distribuidora Internacional de Alimentacion S.A.		184,598		906,152
Duro Felguera S.A. (a)		27,756		32,700
Ebro Foods S.A.		25,801		540,417
Elecnor S.A.		11,262		106,440
Ence Energia y Celulosa S.A		61,968		163,210
Ercros S.A. (a)		60,314		116,589
Faes Farma S.A.		168,810		596,895
Fluidra S.A.		12,850		58,431
Gamesa Corp. Tecnologica S.A.		69,346		1,406,007
Grupo Catalana Occidente S.A.		21,149		692,306
Grupo Ezentis S.A. (a)		39,717		21,704
Iberpapel Gestion S.A.		612		14,742
Indra Sistemas S.A. (a)		39,802		436,008
Inmobiliaria Colonial S.A.		34,172		236,981
Laboratorios Farmaceuticos Rovi S.A.		6,104		78,617
Liberbank S.A. (a)		9,453		9,795
Mediaset Espana Comunicacion S.A.		49,361		579,196
Melia Hotels International S.A.		21,300		248,341
Miquel y Costas & Miquel S.A.		7,840		204,214
NH Hotel Group S.A. (a)		69,951		282,905
Nmas1 Dinamia S.A.		3,678		31,128
Obrascon Huarte Lain S.A. (d)		35,775		124,002
Papeles y Cartones de Europa S.A.		21,436		118,342
Pescanova S.A. (a) (b) (c)		7,446		0
Pharma Mar S.A. (a)		72,263		205,733
Prim S.A.		3,013		28,223
Promotora de Informaciones S.A. - Class A (a)		13,933		76,879
Prosegur Cia de Seguridad S.A.		54,905		342,724
Quabit Inmobiliaria S.A. (a)		8,932		18,130
Realia Business S.A. (a)		112,366		101,699
Sacyr S.A. (a)		107,800		251,030
Solaria Energia y Medio Ambiente S.A. (a)		19,439		15,648
Talgo S.A. (a)		7,525		35,768
Tecnicas Reunidas S.A.		11,115		454,753
Tecnocom Telecomunicaciones y Energia S.A.		13,592		60,066
Tubacex S.A.		28,250		81,064
Tubos Reunidos S.A. (a)		21,752		19,799
Vidrala S.A.		7,952		410,078
Viscofan S.A.		14,797		729,557
Vocento S.A. (a)		10,923		14,250
Zardoya Otis S.A.		9,760		82,474
				14,082,111

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-31

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Dimensional International Small Company Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Sweden—3.3%
AAK AB		11,380	$	747,701
Acando AB		32,705		92,777
AddLife AB (a)		8,096		120,465
AddNode Group AB		1,849		11,465
AddTech AB - B Shares		25,912		405,205
AF AB - B Shares		24,002		439,875
Arise AB (a)		4,852		10,651
Atrium Ljungberg AB - B Shares		5,167		80,693
Avanza Bank Holding AB		7,660		310,094
Axactor AB (a)		126,649		38,871
B&B Tools AB - B Shares		12,796		268,225
BE Group AB (a)		1,962		8,969
Beijer Alma AB		9,404		240,217
Beijer Electronics AB		5,229		23,465
Beijer Ref AB		6,405		151,882
Betsson AB (a)		27,465		264,685
Bilia AB - A Shares		18,106		416,219
BillerudKorsnas AB		40,202		674,219
BioGaia AB - B Shares		5,094		167,711
Biotage AB		15,339		77,093
Bjorn Borg AB (a)		9,936		36,746
Bonava AB - B Shares (a)		684		10,586
Bulten AB		2,144		20,936
Bure Equity AB		17,448		198,201
Byggmax Group AB		18,326		126,549
Castellum AB		73,943		1,013,392
Clas Ohlson AB - B Shares		16,271		239,301
Cloetta AB - B Shares		92,493		291,331
Com Hem Holding AB		7,445		70,991
Concentric AB		21,708		270,558
Concordia Maritime AB - B Shares		4,217		6,428
Dios Fastigheter AB		17,696		116,613
Doro AB (a)		3,391		19,726
Duni AB		15,028		205,939
East Capital Explorer AB		7,088		51,925
Elekta AB - B Shares		9,189		81,181
Fabege AB		48,889		797,914
Fagerhult AB		6,390		163,717
Fastighets AB Balder - B Shares (a)		323		6,517
Granges AB		7,417		69,984
Gunnebo AB		12,816		54,293
Haldex AB		17,698		226,306
Hemfosa Fastigheter AB		14,975		139,493
HIQ International AB (a)		23,043		155,530
Hoist Finance AB		3,141		29,179
Holmen AB - B Shares		15,352		549,857
Hufvudstaden AB - A Shares		15,492		244,298
Indutrade AB		26,721		535,641
Intrum Justitia AB		21,993		741,924
Inwido AB		3,779		39,190
ITAB Shop Concept AB - Class B		1,944		17,330
JM AB		23,748		685,788
KappAhl AB		29,980		166,180
Karo Pharma AB (a)		13,498		41,612
Karolinska Development AB - Class B (a)		770		507
Klovern AB - B Shares		114,185		119,498
Know It AB		9,489		93,466
Sweden—(Continued)
Kungsleden AB		47,047		297,730
Lagercrantz Group AB - B Shares		24,681		226,351
Lindab International AB		21,316		170,612
Loomis AB - Class B		25,196		749,053
Medivir AB - B Shares (a)		10,470		112,605
Mekonomen AB		9,225		173,517
Modern Times Group MTG AB - B Shares		9,830		291,212
MQ Holding AB (d)		9,112		36,193
Mycronic AB		38,874		417,307
NCC AB - B Shares		9,031		223,379
Nederman Holding AB		932		19,129
Net Insight AB - Class B (a)		143,837		140,441
NetEnt AB (a)		45,991		354,329
New Wave Group AB - B Shares		15,773		95,632
Nibe Industrier AB - B Shares		36,530		287,807
Nobia AB		43,387		403,992
Nolato AB - B Shares		9,452		272,622
Nordnet AB - B Shares		33,249		136,073
OEM International AB - B Shares		498		8,252
Pandox AB		2,349		36,440
Peab AB		53,219		422,265
Pricer AB - B Shares		32,212		32,838
Proact IT Group AB		4,203		67,350
Probi AB		826		43,102
Ratos AB - B Shares (d)		40,725		192,778
RaySearch Laboratories AB		3,556		72,001
Recipharm AB - B Shares		2,485		32,993
Rezidor Hotel Group AB		37,700		146,845
Saab AB - Class B		6,324		235,946
Sagax AB - Class B		14,540		130,238
SAS AB (a)		30,409		46,483
Scandi Standard AB		6,479		40,521
Sectra AB - B Shares (a)		4,644		65,879
Semcon AB		5,540		27,965
SkiStar AB		9,076		151,580
SSAB AB (Helsinki Exchange) - A Shares (a)		27,650		104,744
SSAB AB (Helsinki Exchange) - B Shares (a)		156,539		490,776
SSAB AB (Stockholm Exchange) - A Shares (a)		54,482		206,030
SSAB AB (Stockholm Exchange) - B Shares (a)		112,731		355,319
Sweco AB - B Shares		29,847		590,147
Systemair AB		4,286		57,388
Thule Group AB		14,376		224,806
Transcom Worldwide AB		1,837		17,636
Victoria Park AB - B Shares		4,080		10,029
Vitrolife AB		4,321		183,483
Wallenstam AB - B Shares		64,604		502,160
Wihlborgs Fastigheter AB		28,117		522,211
				21,615,298
Switzerland—5.4%
AFG Arbonia-Forster Holding AG (a)		10,560		169,726
Allreal Holding AG (a)		3,866		574,265
APG SGA S.A.		468		205,427
Aryzta AG (a)		11,588		510,239
Ascom Holding AG		13,341		209,626
Autoneum Holding AG		1,411		370,226

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-32

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Dimensional International Small Company Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Switzerland—(Continued)
Bachem Holding AG - Class B		1,074	$	95,226
Baloise Holding AG		10,261		1,290,284
Bank Coop AG		2,772		114,334
Banque Cantonale de Geneve		375		109,653
Banque Cantonale Vaudoise		739		468,019
Basler Kantonalbank		130		8,560
Belimo Holding AG		215		649,875
Bell AG		560		241,185
Bellevue Group AG		3,322		51,217
Berner Kantonalbank AG		1,950		352,350
BFW Liegenschaften AG (a)		528		20,402
BKW AG		4,798		232,071
Bobst Group S.A.		5,037		350,171
Bossard Holding AG - Class A (a)		2,245		316,068
Bucher Industries AG		2,604		641,281
Burckhardt Compression Holding AG (d)		1,124		295,555
Burkhalter Holding AG		1,291		173,924
Calida Holding AG (a)		2,002		68,404
Carlo Gavazzi Holding AG		48		11,454
Cembra Money Bank AG (a)		3,891		283,548
Cham Paper Holding AG (a)		113		36,227
Cicor Technologies (a)		644		17,646
Cie Financiere Tradition S.A.		557		44,823
Clariant AG (a)		41,461		714,520
Coltene Holding AG		1,326		96,426
Conzzeta AG		292		206,439
Daetwyler Holding AG		2,920		396,822
DKSH Holding AG		2,596		178,288
dorma+kaba Holding AG - Class B (a)		1,085		806,688
Edmond de Rothschild Suisse S.A.		3		41,229
EFG International AG (a)		20,307		122,821
Emmi AG (a)		1,164		704,812
Energiedienst Holding AG		3,017		71,694
Feintool International Holding AG (a)		684		73,346
Fenix Outdoor International AG		768		56,890
FIH Mobile, Ltd.		214,000		67,419
Flughafen Zuerich AG		7,945		1,474,087
Forbo Holding AG (a)		521		671,899
GAM Holding AG (a)		68,723		795,957
Georg Fischer AG		1,395		1,142,259
Gurit Holding AG (a)		292		232,274
Helvetia Holding AG		2,402		1,294,077
Hiag Immobilien Holding AG (a)		744		76,473
Highlight Communications AG (a)		7,829		46,838
HOCHDORF Holding AG (a)		174		52,917
Huber & Suhner AG		5,559		308,474
Implenia AG		7,145		527,899
Inficon Holding AG (a)		688		247,999
Interroll Holding AG		253		275,615
Intershop Holding AG		418		205,655
IWG plc		206,169		625,043
Jungfraubahn Holding AG		85		8,139
Kardex AG (a)		2,548		237,788
Komax Holding AG		1,321		326,296
Kudelski S.A. (a)		13,221		229,098
LEM Holding S.A.		279		260,850
Liechtensteinische Landesbank AG		2,973		117,809
Switzerland—(Continued)
Logitech International S.A.		59,506		1,484,511
Luzerner Kantonalbank AG (a)		1,489		586,377
MCH Group AG		831		56,395
Metall Zug AG - B Shares		66		209,658
Meyer Burger Technology AG (a)		24,493		16,116
Mikron Holding AG (a)		474		2,839
Mobilezone Holding AG		10,014		142,604
Mobimo Holding AG (a)		3,098		774,937
OC Oerlikon Corp. AG (a)		74,629		732,710
Orascom Development Holding AG (a)		5,250		26,340
Orell Fuessli Holding AG		428		52,590
Oriflame Holding AG (a)		4,387		132,438
Orior AG (a)		2,240		164,436
Panalpina Welttransport Holding AG		2,641		329,931
Phoenix Mecano AG		337		155,207
Plazza AG - Class A (d)		292		64,347
PSP Swiss Property AG		9,560		826,041
Rieter Holding AG (a)		1,344		233,638
Romande Energie Holding S.A.		111		140,072
Schaffner Holding AG (a)		238		56,802
Schmolz & Bickenbach AG (a)		161,565		107,772
Schweiter Technologies AG		381		430,013
Siegfried Holding AG (a)		1,665		348,132
St. Galler Kantonalbank AG		1,175		456,967
Straumann Holding AG		1,968		767,258
Sulzer AG		2,848		293,285
Sunrise Communications Group AG (a)		1,477		97,201
Swiss Prime Site AG (a)		7,387		604,531
Swissquote Group Holding S.A. (a)		3,968		92,944
Tamedia AG		904		138,599
Tecan Group AG		2,995		466,492
Temenos Group AG (a)		22,137		1,541,582
U-Blox Holding AG (a)		2,262		424,669
Valiant Holding AG		5,102		508,080
Valora Holding AG		1,316		373,795
Vaudoise Assurances Holding S.A.		464		219,624
Vetropack Holding AG		88		153,397
Von Roll Holding AG (a)		7,038		4,285
Vontobel Holding AG		9,780		513,231
VZ Holding AG		318		95,407
Walliser Kantonalbank		1,160		87,066
Walter Meier AG		872		30,967
Warteck Invest AG		15		26,908
Ypsomed Holding AG (a)		1,609		292,275
Zehnder Group AG (a)		4,642		146,573
Zug Estates Holding AG - B Shares (a)		83		134,732
Zuger Kantonalbank AG		68		331,954
				35,482,354
United Arab Emirates—0.0%
Lamprell plc (a)		100,553		113,733
United Kingdom—15.2%
4imprint Group plc		6,953		152,016
888 Holdings plc		47,916		128,679
A.G.Barr plc		43,047		265,961

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-33

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Dimensional International Small Company Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
United Kingdom—(Continued)
AA plc		77,322	$	263,754
Aberdeen Asset Management plc		24,859		79,003
Acacia Mining plc		56,954		258,699
Acal plc		17,866		49,969
Afren plc (a) (b) (c)		251,096		0
Aggreko plc		26,887		303,770
Air Partner plc		992		6,141
Amec Foster Wheeler plc		99,456		573,446
Anglo Pacific Group plc		35,633		56,839
Anglo-Eastern Plantations plc		4,252		35,359
Arrow Global Group plc		27,741		101,652
Ashmore Group plc		105,606		368,494
Atrium European Real Estate, Ltd.		114,274		472,655
Auto Trader Group plc		132,873		669,030
AVEVA Group plc		4,501		103,726
Avon Rubber plc		10,973		140,573
Balfour Beatty plc		272,534		900,051
BBA Aviation plc		419,362		1,459,533
Beazley plc		227,019		1,082,677
Bellway plc		55,252		1,681,178
Berendsen plc		63,707		680,539
BGEO Group plc		6,261		230,667
Bloomsbury Publishing plc		25,349		52,999
Bodycote plc		101,186		802,090
Booker Group plc		440,978		951,376
Bovis Homes Group plc		60,601		611,448
Braemar Shipping Services plc		7,120		24,446
Brammer plc		36,027		73,282
Brewin Dolphin Holdings plc		136,293		513,076
Britvic plc		71,540		499,539
BTG plc (a)		51,257		371,756
Cairn Energy plc (a)		234,247		678,784
Cape plc		51,292		92,215
Capital & Counties Properties plc		46,906		171,401
Carclo plc		16,990		28,373
Carillion plc		169,977		491,911
Carr’s Group plc		15,540		28,410
Castings plc		1,484		7,632
Centamin plc		342,133		577,592
Centaur Media plc		92,526		49,033
Chemring Group plc (a)		123,138		257,594
Chesnara plc		58,648		263,724
Cineworld Group plc		70,599		490,415
City of London Investment Group plc		2,966		12,498
Clarkson plc		4,101		109,815
Close Brothers Group plc		58,401		1,036,388
CLS Holdings plc (a)		3,476		65,431
Cobham plc		545,934		1,100,159
Communisis plc		57,478		30,698
Computacenter plc		33,426		327,662
Connect Group plc		113,354		213,186
Consort Medical plc		23,287		303,823
Costain Group plc		21,151		91,741
Countrywide plc		2,910		6,314
Cranswick plc		22,242		642,452
Crest Nicholson Holdings plc		18,352		101,899
Daejan Holdings plc		1,147		87,350
United Kingdom—(Continued)
Daily Mail & General Trust plc - Class A		83,431		799,870
Dairy Crest Group plc		61,577		470,197
De La Rue plc		29,428		222,468
Debenhams plc		426,182		300,655
Dechra Pharmaceuticals plc		29,807		493,826
Devro plc		61,396		142,783
Dialight plc (a)		3,360		32,671
Dignity plc		22,395		681,123
Diploma plc		38,305		490,349
Domino’s Pizza Group plc		147,744		654,906
Drax Group plc		137,597		639,927
DS Smith plc		336,909		1,690,034
Dunelm Group plc		12,749		126,306
E2V Technologies plc		74,152		249,356
Electrocomponents plc		174,930		1,027,008
Elementis plc		171,004		583,121
EnQuest plc (a)		582,443		299,861
EnQuest plc (a)		38,556		19,260
Enterprise Inns plc (a)		256,620		384,208
Essentra plc		78,989		447,348
esure Group plc		6,724		16,683
Euromoney Institutional Investor plc		14,736		208,333
Evraz plc (a)		60,200		163,444
Fenner plc		78,996		229,317
Ferrexpo plc (a)		36,701		60,396
Fidessa Group plc		14,501		406,694
Findel plc (a)		17,439		40,193
Firstgroup plc (a)		412,049		524,960
Foxtons Group plc		51,116		64,193
Fuller Smith & Turner plc - Class A		7,667		91,996
G4S plc		27,804		80,463
Galliford Try plc		39,495		627,657
Gem Diamonds, Ltd.		35,552		48,178
Genus plc		26,031		575,746
Go-Ahead Group plc		12,021		329,989
Grainger plc		65,581		192,164
Greene King plc		121,167		1,041,394
Greggs plc		41,552		496,182
Halfords Group plc		99,977		450,020
Halma plc		135,194		1,490,083
Hansard Global plc		2,566		3,347
Hays plc		439,356		806,424
Headlam Group plc		56,817		341,588
Helical plc		63,391		230,262
Henderson Group plc		414,124		1,197,850
Henry Boot plc		5,947		14,788
Hill & Smith Holdings plc		46,114		679,701
Hilton Food Group plc		1,888		14,460
Hiscox, Ltd.		106,215		1,329,874
Hochschild Mining plc		74,658		194,479
Hogg Robinson Group plc		72,262		60,348
HomeServe plc		112,845		856,311
Howden Joinery Group plc		194,200		913,793
Hunting plc		52,837		407,296
Huntsworth plc		31,310		14,655
IG Group Holdings plc		127,101		772,641
Imagination Technologies Group plc (a)		46,403		143,576

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-34

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Dimensional International Small Company Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
United Kingdom—(Continued)
IMI plc		16,795	$	214,178
Inchcape plc		161,511		1,391,482
Indivior plc		132,106		481,433
Inmarsat plc		78,879		727,601
Intermediate Capital Group plc		26,473		227,585
International Personal Finance plc		79,366		167,686
Interserve plc		69,361		292,017
IP Group plc (a)		139,902		308,468
ITE Group plc		76,274		144,702
James Fisher & Sons plc		20,005		384,296
Jardine Lloyd Thompson Group plc		46,166		559,757
JD Sports Fashion plc		168,830		660,545
JD Wetherspoon plc		38,521		421,281
John Menzies plc		21,887		160,538
John Wood Group plc		122,821		1,322,424
Jupiter Fund Management plc		111,316		606,584
KAZ Minerals plc (a)		44,157		193,794
Kcom Group plc		240,465		280,816
Keller Group plc		25,571		264,698
Kier Group plc		26,579		448,403
Ladbrokes Coral Group plc		312,983		445,787
Laird plc		150,399		282,691
Lancashire Holdings, Ltd.		67,933		579,229
Laura Ashley Holdings plc		25,157		6,181
Lavendon Group plc		44,306		144,172
Lonmin plc (a)		12,029		20,927
Lookers plc		131,372		189,562
Low & Bonar plc		37,972		30,613
LSL Property Services plc		11,741		33,346
Man Group plc		598,620		871,242
Marshalls plc		63,336		227,962
Marston’s plc		328,476		550,116
McBride plc (a)		87,417		195,052
McColl’s Retail Group plc		12,767		29,290
Mears Group plc		41,542		233,044
Meggitt plc		11,991		67,715
Melrose Industries plc		718,835		1,750,359
Micro Focus International plc		5,079		136,254
Millennium & Copthorne Hotels plc		69,703		395,118
Mitchells & Butlers plc		67,625		208,939
Mitie Group plc		137,149		379,121
Moneysupermarket.com Group plc		143,669		520,199
Morgan Advanced Materials plc		113,848		399,513
Morgan Sindall Group plc		17,569		161,969
Mothercare plc (a)		51,119		71,150
N Brown Group plc		73,957		202,028
National Express Group plc		225,819		983,326
NCC Group plc		76,130		169,445
New World Resources plc - A Shares (a) (b) (c)		11,898		12
NEX Group plc		114,424		655,020
Northgate plc		48,315		294,077
Novae Group plc		22,502		190,653
Ocado Group plc (a)		24,697		80,330
OneSavings Bank plc		6,910		28,761
Ophir Energy plc (a)		122,457		145,183
Oxford Instruments plc		13,946		125,597
Pagegroup plc		84,971		407,333
United Kingdom—(Continued)
PayPoint plc		19,490		240,613
Pendragon plc		345,188		132,526
Pennon Group plc		139,688		1,419,947
Petra Diamonds, Ltd. (a)		172,115		330,459
Petrofac, Ltd.		30,916		330,395
Petropavlovsk plc (a)		192,556		16,461
Phoenix Group Holdings		51,559		466,471
Photo-Me International plc		41,655		84,083
Playtech plc		58,243		592,357
Polypipe Group plc		4,075		16,243
Porvair plc		2,554		13,701
Premier Foods plc (a)		334,879		193,646
Premier Oil plc (a)		172,107		156,311
Punch Taverns plc (a)		16,132		37,521
PZ Cussons plc		102,110		419,736
QinetiQ Group plc		183,469		593,645
Rank Group plc		29,633		71,187
Rathbone Brothers plc		21,429		522,405
Raven Russia, Ltd. (a)		80,649		44,422
REA Holdings plc (a)		1,120		4,863
Redrow plc		150,678		795,843
Renishaw plc		17,538		543,277
Renold plc (a)		64,766		35,190
Rentokil Initial plc		576,032		1,575,769
Restaurant Group plc (The)		63,027		251,124
Ricardo plc		13,452		159,571
Rightmove plc		30,801		1,480,271
RM plc		43,283		72,025
Robert Walters plc		14,599		61,953
Rotork plc		286,300		846,613
RPC Group plc		142,285		1,861,465
RPS Group plc		100,537		274,291
Saga plc		33,972		81,502
Savills plc		62,765		540,473
SDL plc		33,826		184,586
Senior plc		166,890		397,834
Sepura plc (a)		11,245		2,618
Serco Group plc (a)		73,667		130,020
Severfield plc		100,890		93,136
Shanks Group plc		221,260		250,027
SIG plc		252,797		321,758
Soco International plc		50,968		100,054
Spectris plc		44,465		1,265,969
Speedy Hire plc		205,988		129,367
Spirax-Sarco Engineering plc		22,020		1,130,872
Spirent Communications plc		240,086		291,652
Sportech plc (a)		20,264		21,826
SSP Group plc		42,641		203,303
St. Ives plc		36,663		57,598
St. Modwen Properties plc		94,644		354,321
Stagecoach Group plc		127,734		339,903
Stallergenes Greer plc (a)		569		18,494
SThree plc		33,106		126,451
Stobart Group, Ltd.		12,441		27,311
SuperGroup plc		18,185		368,609
Synthomer plc		102,899		484,275
TalkTalk Telecom Group plc		151,305		315,066

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-35

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Dimensional International Small Company Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
United Kingdom—(Continued)
Tate & Lyle plc		139,162	$	1,211,981
Ted Baker plc		8,336		288,861
Telecom Plus plc		21,749		315,101
Thomas Cook Group plc (a)		438,591		468,066
Topps Tiles plc		83,374		89,586
TP ICAP plc		203,445		1,085,238
Trifast plc		11,558		29,215
Trinity Mirror plc		174,518		229,646
TT electronics plc		79,682		161,036
Tullow Oil plc (a) (d)		283,543		1,086,732
U & I Group plc		54,856		115,105
UBM plc		98,172		882,415
Ultra Electronics Holdings plc		27,882		666,210
UNITE Group plc (The)		97,058		725,572
Vectura Group plc (a)		245,376		414,690
Vedanta Resources plc		28,343		303,686
Vesuvius plc		97,752		476,093
Victrex plc		29,970		710,342
Vitec Group plc (The)		10,351		82,872
Volex plc (a)		20,438		12,176
Vp plc		1,199		11,282
Weir Group plc (The)		18,886		437,568
WH Smith plc		53,179		1,018,543
William Hill plc		315,264		1,123,647
Wincanton plc		37,122		112,105
WS Atkins plc		34,945		626,816
Xaar plc		18,088		88,834
XP Power, Ltd.		3,554		76,098
Zeal Network SE		1,934		74,925
				100,381,132
Total Common Stocks (Cost $574,271,710)				656,651,442
Preferred Stocks—0.2%
Germany—0.2%
Biotest AG		3,558		50,103
Draegerwerk AG & Co. KGaA		945		78,933
FUCHS Petrolub SE		7,687		322,785
Jungheinrich AG		13,710		392,492
Sartorius AG		3,540		262,110
Sixt SE		554		22,739
Sto SE & Co. KGaA		102		9,970
Total Preferred Stocks (Cost $952,111)				1,139,132
Rights—0.0%
Australia—0.0%
Centrebet International, Ltd. (Litigation Units), Expires 07/29/16 (a) (c)		9,600		0
Australia—(Continued)
Corporate Travel Management, Ltd., Expires 01/17/17 (a)		992		2,463
				2,463
Austria—0.0%
Intercell AG (a) (b) (c)		24,163		0
Italy—0.0%
Credito Valtellinese SC, Expires 01/05/17 (a) (c)		463,264		0
Norway—0.0%
Petroleum Geo-Services ASA, Expires 01/05/17 (a)		6,195		4,806
Spain—0.0%
Faes Farma S.A., Expires 01/05/17 (a)		168,810		16,171
United Kingdom—0.0%
Fortune Oil CVR (a) (b)		575,627		0
Total Rights (Cost $15,823)				23,440
Warrants—0.0%
Canada—0.0%
Novelion Therapeutics, Inc., Expires 11/23/17 (a) (c)		25,500		0
Novelion Therapeutics, Inc., Expires 11/23/17 (a) (c)		25,500		0
Total Warrants (Cost $0)				0
Short-Term Investment—0.4%
Repurchase Agreement—0.4%
Fixed Income Clearing Corp. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/16 at 0.030% to be repurchased at $2,627,583 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $2,695,000 U.S. Treasury Note at 1.625% due 11/30/20 with a value of $2,683,870.		2,627,574		2,627,574
Total Short-Term Investments (Cost $2,627,574)				2,627,574
Securities Lending Reinvestments (e)—3.1%
Certificates of Deposit—1.6%
Bank of Tokyo UFJ, Ltd., New York 1.121%, 02/28/17 (f)		600,000		600,012
Chiba Bank, Ltd., New York 0.870%, 01/10/17		400,000		400,009

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-36

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Dimensional International Small Company Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Securities Lending Reinvestments (e)—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Certificates of Deposit—(Continued)
Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank 1.274%, 04/12/17 (f)		250,000	$	250,197
Credit Industriel et Commercial 1.245%, 04/05/17 (f)		200,000		200,108
Credit Suisse AG New York 1.335%, 04/03/17 (f)		200,000		200,044
1.364%, 04/11/17 (f)		300,000		300,065
Credit Suisse AG New York 1.364%, 05/12/17 (f)		250,000		250,026
DG Bank New York 0.940%, 01/12/17		250,000		250,013
0.950%, 01/03/17		200,000		200,001
DNB NOR Bank ASA 1.130%, 07/28/17 (f)		200,000		199,965
DZ Bank AG New York 1.010%, 02/27/17		200,000		200,058
ING Bank NV 1.265%, 04/18/17 (f)		250,000		250,458
KBC Bank NV 1.000%, 01/04/17		200,000		200,000
1.050%, 01/17/17		200,000		200,024
KBC Brussells 1.050%, 01/27/17		400,000		400,076
Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen London Zero Coupon, 01/24/17		498,853		499,785
Mitsubishi UFJ Trust and Banking Corp. 1.364%, 04/11/17 (f)		200,000		200,095
Mizuho Bank, Ltd., New York 1.336%, 05/17/17		200,000		199,981
1.361%, 04/26/17 (f)		200,000		199,990
1.395%, 04/11/17 (f)		200,000		200,060
1.436%, 04/18/17 (f)		300,000		300,094
National Australia Bank London 1.182%, 11/09/17 (f)		500,000		498,760
National Bank of Canada 0.650%, 01/06/17		500,000		500,020
Natixis New York 0.900%, 02/17/17		250,000		250,032
Royal Bank of Canada New York 1.145%, 04/04/17 (f)		500,000		499,872
Shizuoka Bank New York 0.840%, 01/03/17		500,000		500,002
Sumitomo Bank New York 1.212%, 06/05/17 (f)		500,000		499,990
Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corp. London Zero Coupon, 02/06/17		249,328		249,820
Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corp. New York 1.352%, 04/07/17 (f)		250,000		250,128
Sumitomo Mitsui Trust Bank, Ltd., New York 1.351%, 04/26/17 (f)		500,000		500,059
1.364%, 04/10/17 (f)		200,000		200,077
Svenska Handelsbanken New York 1.266%, 05/18/17 (f)		500,000		500,087
UBS, Stamford 1.084%, 05/12/17 (f)		300,000		299,977
Certificates of Deposit—(Continued)
Wells Fargo Bank San Francisco N.A. 1.231%, 04/26/17 (f)		200,000		200,056
1.264%, 10/26/17 (f)		200,000		200,137
				10,850,078
Commercial Paper—0.8%
ABN AMRO Funding USA 0.910%, 01/11/17		199,545		199,938
Atlantic Asset Securitization LLC 0.990%, 01/12/17		199,505		199,935
1.040%, 02/03/17		199,393		199,825
Commonwealth Bank Australia 1.236%, 10/23/17 (f)		500,000		500,281
Den Norske ASA 1.206%, 04/27/17 (f)		200,000		200,011
HSBC plc 1.216%, 04/25/17 (f)		500,000		499,979
Macquarie Bank, Ltd. 0.930%, 01/19/17		199,525		199,877
National Australia Bank, Ltd. 1.288%, 12/06/17 (f)		500,000		500,001
Ridgefield Funding Co. LLC 1.000%, 01/03/17		399,000		399,977
Sheffield Receivables Co. 1.050%, 01/06/17		498,629		499,935
Suncorp Metway, Ltd. 0.930%, 02/09/17		798,099		799,114
Toronto Dominion Holding Corp. 0.600%, 01/05/17		249,742		249,972
Versailles Commercial Paper LLC 1.000%, 01/31/17		299,200		299,774
1.050%, 01/17/17		199,393		199,911
Westpac Banking Corp. 1.232%, 10/20/17 (f)		300,000		300,524
				5,249,054
Repurchase Agreements—0.5%
Citigroup Global Markets, Ltd. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/29/16 at 0.710% to be repurchased at $100,010 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $100,874 U.S. Treasury and Foreign Obligations with rates ranging from 1.750% - 2.750%, maturity dates ranging from 10/15/19 - 11/15/23, with a value of $102,000.		100,000		100,000
Deutsche Bank AG, London Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/16 at 0.950% to be repurchased at $100,011 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $102,090 Foreign Obligations with rates ranging from 1.750% - 2.500%, maturity dates ranging from 09/05/19 - 11/20/24, with a value of $102,001.		100,000		100,000
Repurchase Agreement dated 12/15/16 - 12/30/16 at 1.050% to be repurchased at $1,200,359 on 01/03/17, collateralized by various Common Stock with a value of $1,333,866.		1,200,000		1,200,000

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-37

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Dimensional International Small Company Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Securities Lending Reinvestments (e)—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Repurchase Agreements—(Continued)
Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. Repurchase Agreement dated 10/18/16 at 1.110% to be repurchased at $502,097 on 03/03/17, collateralized by various Common Stock with a value of $550,000.		500,000	$	500,000
Goldman Sachs & Co. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/16 at 0.460% to be repurchased at $289,068 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $1,487,523 U.S. Government Agency Obligations with rates ranging from 2.000% - 10.500%, maturity dates ranging from 03/15/17 - 09/20/65, with a value of $294,834.		289,053		289,053
Macquarie Bank, Ltd. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/27/16 at 0.580% to be repurchased at $200,023 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $197,871 U.S. Treasury Obligations with rates ranging from 0.000% - 8.750%, maturity dates ranging from 01/05/17 - 05/15/46, with a value of $204,103.		200,000		200,000
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. Repurchase Agreement dated 10/26/16 at 1.160% to be repurchased at $301,537 on 04/03/17, collateralized by various Common Stock with a value of $330,000.		300,000		300,000
Natixis Repurchase Agreement dated 12/28/16 at 0.750% to be repurchased at $1,000,167 on 01/05/17, collateralized by $1,605,069 U.S. Government Agency and Treasury Obligations with rates ranging from 0.000% - 4.672%, maturity dates ranging from 01/31/17 - 09/16/58, with a value of $1,020,125.		1,000,000		1,000,000
				3,689,053
Time Deposits—0.2%
OP Corporate Bank plc 1.010%, 01/04/17		200,000		200,000
1.200%, 01/23/17		500,000		500,000
Shinkin Central Bank 1.200%, 01/27/17		100,000		100,000
1.220%, 01/26/17		300,000		300,000
				1,100,000
Total Securities Lending Reinvestments (Cost $20,887,075)				20,888,185
Total Investments—102.9% (Cost $598,754,293) (g)				681,329,773
Other assets and liabilities (net)—(2.9)%				(19,390,229	)
Net Assets—100.0%			$	661,939,544

* Principal amount stated in U.S. dollars unless otherwise noted.

(a) Non-income producing security.

(b) Security was valued in good faith under procedures approved by the Board of Trustees. As of December 31, 2016, these securities represent less than 0.05% of net assets.

(c) Illiquid security. As of December 31, 2016, these securities represent 0.0% of net assets.

(d) All or a portion of the security was held on loan. As of December 31, 2016, the market value of securities loaned was $19,727,155 and the collateral received consisted of cash in the amount of $20,879,265. The cash collateral investments are disclosed in the Schedule of Investments and categorized as Securities Lending Reinvestments.

(e) Represents investment of cash collateral received from securities on loan as of December 31, 2016.

(f) Variable or floating rate security. The stated rate represents the rate at December 31,2016.

(g) As of December 31, 2016, the aggregate cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was $606,165,241. The aggregate unrealized appreciation and depreciation of investments were $169,560,397 and $(94,395,865), respectively, resulting in net unrealized appreciation of $75,164,532 for federal income tax purposes.

Ten Largest Industries as of December 31, 2016 (Unaudited)	% of Net Assets
Machinery		6.0
Metals & Mining		5.1
Real Estate Management & Development		4.2
Banks		4.2
Food Products		3.9
Chemicals		3.6
Construction & Engineering		3.6
Hotels, Restaurants & Leisure		3.2
Capital Markets		3.1
Media		3.0

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-38

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Dimensional International Small Company Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Fair Value Hierarchy

Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) define 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, separately for each major category of assets and liabilities, 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, quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities 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, or other market corroborated inputs)

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 used in determining the fair value of investments and derivative financial instruments)

The inputs or methodologies used for valuing investments are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in them. Changes to the inputs or methodologies used may result in transfers between levels, which 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, 2016:

Description	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
Common Stocks
Australia	$	49,587	$	42,899,770	$	65,771	$	43,015,128
Austria		—		7,361,451		0		7,361,451
Belgium		1,052,100		11,620,135		—		12,672,235
Cambodia		—		263,119		—		263,119
Canada		58,756,774		16,833		10,056		58,783,663
China		—		144,282		—		144,282
Denmark		—		12,534,685		—		12,534,685
Finland		—		19,350,270		1,721		19,351,991
France		—		30,585,298		—		30,585,298
Germany		—		40,543,210		—		40,543,210
Hong Kong		325,730		21,312,534		8,284		21,646,548
Ireland		—		5,566,349		—		5,566,349
Isle of Man		—		718,039		—		718,039
Israel		24,796		5,546,521		—		5,571,317
Italy		111,005		24,333,883		0		24,444,888
Japan		218,011		159,619,364		47,511		159,884,886
Liechtenstein		—		37,977		—		37,977
Luxembourg		—		414,934		—		414,934
Macau		—		72,298		—		72,298
Malta		—		729,079		—		729,079
Netherlands		—		16,584,071		—		16,584,071
New Zealand		64,875		7,601,918		—		7,666,793
Norway		73,650		6,147,307		—		6,220,957
Philippines		—		18,156		—		18,156
Portugal		—		2,130,820		0		2,130,820
Singapore		111,536		7,796,997		106,107		8,014,640
Spain		—		14,082,111		0		14,082,111
Sweden		—		21,615,298		—		21,615,298
Switzerland		625,043		34,857,311		—		35,482,354
United Arab Emirates		—		113,733		—		113,733
United Kingdom		655,020		99,726,100		12		100,381,132
Total Common Stocks		62,068,127		594,343,853		239,462		656,651,442
Total Preferred Stocks*		—		1,139,132		—		1,139,132

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-39

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Dimensional International Small Company Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Fair Value Hierarchy—(Continued)

Description	Level 1		Level 2			Level 3		Total
Rights
Australia	$	2,463	$	—		$	—	$	2,463
Austria		—		—			0		0
Italy		—		0			—		0
Norway		—		4,806			—		4,806
Spain		16,171		—			—		16,171
United Kingdom		—		—			0		0
Total Rights		18,634		4,806			0		23,440
Total Warrants*		—		0			—		0
Total Short-Term Investment*		—		2,627,574			—		2,627,574
Total Securities Lending Reinvestments*		—		20,888,185			—		20,888,185
Total Investments	$	62,086,761	$	619,003,550		$	239,462	$	681,329,773
Collateral for Securities Loaned (Liability)	$	—	$	(20,879,265	)	$	—	$	(20,879,265	)

* See Schedule of Investments for additional detailed categorizations.

Level 3 investments at the beginning and/or end of the period in relation to net assets were not significant and accordingly, a reconciliation of Level 3 assets for the year ended December 31, 2016 is not presented.

Transfers from Level 2 to Level 1 in the amount of $180,243 were due to the discontinuation of a systematic fair valuation model factor. Transfers from Level 1 to Level 2 in the amount of $834,697 were due to the application of a systematic fair valuation model factor.

Transfers from Level 3 to Level 2 in the amount of $29,918 were due to the resumption of trading activity which resulted in the availability of significant observable inputs. Transfers from Level 2 and Level 1 to Level 3 in the amount of $309,132 were due to trading halts on the securities’ respective exchanges which resulted in the lack of observable inputs.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-40

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Dimensional International Small Company Portfolio

Statement of Assets and Liabilities

December 31, 2016

Assets
Investments at value (a) (b)	$	681,329,773
Cash		4,601
Cash denominated in foreign currencies (c)		1,357,532
Receivable for:
Investments sold		538,836
Fund shares sold		5,060
Dividends and interest		1,023,594
Prepaid expenses		1,899
Total Assets		684,261,295
Liabilities
Collateral for securities loaned		20,879,265
Payables for:
Investments purchased		414,457
Securities lending cash collateral		6,590
Fund shares redeemed		21,459
Accrued Expenses:
Management fees		443,775
Distribution and service fees		16,079
Deferred trustees’ fees		92,334
Other expenses		447,792
Total Liabilities		22,321,751
Net Assets	$	661,939,544
Net Assets Consist of:
Paid in surplus	$	538,796,865
Undistributed net investment income		8,267,635
Accumulated net realized gain		32,340,961
Unrealized appreciation on investments and foreign currency transactions		82,534,083
Net Assets	$	661,939,544
Net Assets
Class A	$	585,616,818
Class B		76,322,726
Capital Shares Outstanding*
Class A		46,572,476
Class B		6,106,192
Net Asset Value, Offering Price and Redemption Price Per Share
Class A	$	12.57
Class B		12.50

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

(a) Identified cost of investments was $598,754,293.

(b) Includes securities loaned at value of $19,727,155.

(c) Identified cost of cash denominated in foreign currencies was $1,364,502.

Statement of Operations

Year Ended December 31, 2016

Investment Income
Dividends (a)	$	18,695,060
Interest (b)		101
Securities lending income		1,281,137
Other income (c)		951,958
Total investment income		20,928,256
Expenses
Management fees		5,321,293
Administration fees		21,578
Custodian and accounting fees		391,559
Distribution and service fees—Class B		190,453
Audit and tax services		66,496
Legal		33,031
Trustees’ fees and expenses		45,248
Shareholder reporting		30,415
Insurance		4,608
Miscellaneous		182,780
Total expenses		6,287,461
Less management fee waiver		(50,000	)
Net expenses		6,237,461
Net Investment Income		14,690,795
Net Realized and Unrealized Gain (Loss)
Net realized gain (loss) on:
Investments		34,610,646
Futures contracts		(92,247	)
Foreign currency transactions		81,341
Net realized gain		34,599,740
Net change in unrealized depreciation on:
Investments		(10,309,010	)
Foreign currency transactions		(10,129	)
Net change in unrealized depreciation		(10,319,139	)
Net realized and unrealized gain		24,280,601
Net Increase in Net Assets From Operations	$	38,971,396

(a) Net of foreign withholding taxes of $1,471,832.

(b) Net of foreign withholding taxes of $701.

(c) Other income represents a non-recurring refund for overbilling of prior years’ custodian out-of-pocket fees.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-41

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Dimensional International Small Company Portfolio

Statements of Changes in Net Assets

	Year Ended December 31, 2016			Year Ended December 31, 2015
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets:
From Operations
Net investment income	$	14,690,795		$	12,455,986
Net realized gain		34,599,740			43,422,897
Net change in unrealized depreciation		(10,319,139	)		(11,511,915	)
Increase in net assets from operations		38,971,396			44,366,968
From Distributions to Shareholders
Net investment income
Class A		(12,648,546	)		(12,147,392	)
Class B		(1,467,138	)		(1,324,201	)
Net realized capital gains
Class A		(36,530,415	)		(102,736,764	)
Class B		(4,808,951	)		(12,835,328	)
Total distributions		(55,455,050	)		(129,043,685	)
Increase (decrease) in net assets from capital share transactions		(6,958,272	)		89,136,085
Total increase (decrease) in net assets		(23,441,926	)		4,459,368
Net Assets
Beginning of period		685,381,470			680,922,102
End of period	$	661,939,544		$	685,381,470
Undistributed net investment income
End of period	$	8,267,635		$	5,795,282

Other Information:

Capital Shares

Transactions in capital shares were as follows:

	Year Ended December 31, 2016						Year Ended December 31, 2015
	Shares			Value			Shares			Value
Class A
Sales		70,203		$	852,354			1,577,058		$	23,277,000
Reinvestments		4,143,131			49,178,961			8,484,797			114,884,156
Redemptions		(4,240,434	)		(54,395,002	)		(4,336,404	)		(65,559,909	)
Net increase (decrease)		(27,100	)	$	(4,363,687	)		5,725,451		$	72,601,247
Class B
Sales		863,724		$	10,719,761			1,224,134		$	16,756,624
Reinvestments		531,421			6,276,089			1,050,410			14,159,529
Redemptions		(1,588,476	)		(19,590,435	)		(1,020,649	)		(14,381,315	)
Net increase (decrease)		(193,331	)	$	(2,594,585	)		1,253,895		$	16,534,838
Increase (decrease) derived from capital shares transactions				$	(6,958,272	)				$	89,136,085

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-42

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Dimensional International Small Company Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class A
	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014			2013			2012
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	12.97		$	14.84		$	16.83		$	13.85		$	13.25
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (a)		0.28	(b)		0.25			0.26			0.28			0.27
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		0.44			0.78			(1.28	)		3.42			2.04
Total from investment operations		0.72			1.03			(1.02	)		3.70			2.31
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.29	)		(0.31	)		(0.38	)		(0.30	)		(0.36	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(0.83	)		(2.59	)		(0.59	)		(0.42	)		(1.35	)
Total distributions		(1.12	)		(2.90	)		(0.97	)		(0.72	)		(1.71	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	12.57		$	12.97		$	14.84		$	16.83		$	13.85
Total Return (%) (c)		6.00	(e)		6.08			(6.50	)		27.94			18.25
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Gross ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.93			0.95			0.98			0.95			0.98
Net ratio of expenses to average net assets (%) (d)		0.92			0.94			0.97			0.94			0.98
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		2.26	(b)		1.78			1.58			1.86			2.06
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		8			12			10			12			12
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	585.6		$	604.2		$	606.4		$	913.3		$	713.4
	Class B
	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014			2013			2012
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	12.89		$	14.77		$	16.75		$	13.79		$	13.20
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (a)		0.25	(b)		0.21			0.21			0.24			0.24
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		0.44			0.77			(1.26	)		3.41			2.02
Total from investment operations		0.69			0.98			(1.05	)		3.65			2.26
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.25	)		(0.27	)		(0.34	)		(0.27	)		(0.32	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(0.83	)		(2.59	)		(0.59	)		(0.42	)		(1.35	)
Total distributions		(1.08	)		(2.86	)		(0.93	)		(0.69	)		(1.67	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	12.50		$	12.89		$	14.77		$	16.75		$	13.79
Total Return (%) (c)		5.83	(e)		5.76			(6.69	)		27.60			17.90
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Gross ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		1.18			1.20			1.23			1.20			1.23
Net ratio of expenses to average net assets (%) (d)		1.17			1.19			1.22			1.19			1.23
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		2.01	(b)		1.50			1.32			1.58			1.81
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		8			12			10			12			12
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	76.3		$	81.2		$	74.5		$	81.1		$	63.5

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

(b) Net investment income per share and the ratio of net investment income to average net assets include a non-recurring refund for overbilling of prior years’ custodian out-of-pocket fees which amounted to $0.02 per share and 0.14% of average net assets, respectively.

(c) Total return does not reflect any insurance, sales, separate account or administrative charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts or any additional expenses that contract owners may bear under their variable contracts. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower.

(d) Includes the effects of management fee waivers (see Note 6 of the Notes to Financial Statements).

(e) Includes the impact of the non-recurring refund for overbilling of prior years’ custodian out-of-pocket fees which enhanced the performance of the portfolio. Excluding this item, total return would have been 5.91% for Class A and 5.66% for Class B.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-43

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Dimensional International Small Company Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016

1. Organization

Metropolitan Series Fund (the “Trust”) is organized as a Delaware statutory trust and registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), as an open-end management investment company. The Trust, which is managed by MetLife Advisers, LLC (“MetLife Advisers” or the “Adviser”), an affiliate of MetLife, Inc., is currently comprised of thirty series, each of which operates as a distinct investment vehicle of the Trust. The portfolio included in this report is Met/Dimensional International Small Company 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.

On January 12, 2016, MetLife, Inc. announced its plan to pursue the separation of a substantial portion of its retail segment and is currently evaluating structural alternatives for such separation. It is anticipated that MetLife Advisers would be included in any such separation. Any separation transaction that might occur will be subject to the satisfaction of various conditions and approvals, including approval of any transaction by the MetLife, Inc. Board of Directors, satisfaction of any applicable requirements of the SEC, and receipt of insurance and other regulatory approvals and other anticipated conditions. MetLife, Inc. cannot currently provide a specific potential completion date for a separation transaction or any assurance that a separation will in fact occur. MetLife Advisers’ continued service as investment adviser to the Trusts following a separation transaction is the subject of a proxy statement that was filed with the SEC on December 20, 2016 and mailed to shareholders of the Portfolio on or about December 30, 2016.

The Portfolio has registered and offers two classes of shares: Class A and B shares. 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 plan and such distribution expenses are allocated to the corresponding Class of shares.

2. Significant Accounting Policies

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities as of the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of income and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates. In the preparation of these financial statements, management has evaluated events and transactions subsequent to December 31, 2016 through the date the financial statements were issued.

The Portfolio is an investment company and follows the accounting and reporting guidance of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Accounting Standards Codification Topic 946—Financial Services—Investment Companies and Topic 820—Fair Value Measurement. 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 - Domestic and foreign equity securities, such as common stock, exchange-traded funds, rights, warrants, and preferred stock, that are traded on a securities exchange on a valuation date are generally valued at their last quoted sale price or official closing price on the primary exchange for such security, or, if no sales occurred on that day, at the last reported bid price. Equity securities traded over-the-counter (“OTC”) are generally valued at the last reported bid price. In the event of a major exchange closing during the trading day, the Adviser may use other market information obtained from quotation reporting systems, established market makers, or pricing services in valuing the securities. Valuation adjustments may be applied to certain foreign equity securities that are traded solely on foreign exchanges that close before the time as of which the Portfolio determines its NAV to account for the market movement between the close of the foreign exchanges and the time as of which the Portfolio determines its NAV. The Portfolio may use a systematic fair valuation model provided by a pricing service to value securities principally traded in these foreign markets in order to adjust for possible market movements or other changes that may occur between the close of the foreign exchanges and the time as of which the Portfolio determines its NAV. Foreign equity securities valued using these valuation adjustments are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy. Equity securities that are actively traded, and have no valuation adjustments applied, are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other equity securities traded on inactive markets, or valued in reference to similar instruments traded on active markets, 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 on the valuation date and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy.

Debt securities, including corporate, convertible and municipal bonds and notes; obligations of the U.S. Treasury and U.S. government agencies; foreign sovereign issues; and non-U.S. bonds, are generally valued on the basis of evaluated or composite bid quotations

MSF-44

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Dimensional International Small Company Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

obtained from independent pricing services and/or brokers and dealers selected by the Adviser (each a “pricing service”), pursuant to authorization of and subject to general oversight by the Board of Trustees of the Trust (the “Board” or “Trustees”). Such pricing services may use matrix pricing, which considers observable inputs including, among other things, issuer details, maturity dates, interest rates, yield curves, rates of prepayment, credit risks/spreads, default rates, reported trades, broker dealer quotes and quoted prices for similar assets. Short-term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less may be valued at amortized cost in the absence of market quotes, so long as the amortized cost value of such short-term debt instrument is approximately the same as the fair value of the instrument as determined without the use of amortized cost valuation. Floating rate loans are generally valued on the basis of an evaluated or composite average of aggregate bid and ask quotations supplied by brokers or dealers, as obtained from the pricing service. Securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally 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 sale price available as of the close of business on a valuation day or, if there is no such price available, at the last reported bid price. These types of options are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Futures contracts that are traded on commodity exchanges are valued at their settlement prices established by the exchanges on which they are traded as of the close of such exchanges and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy.

If no current market value quotation or other observable inputs are readily available or market value quotations are deemed to be unreliable for an investment, the fair value of the investment will be determined in accordance with procedures approved by, and under the general supervision of, the Board. In such a circumstance, the Board will be assisted in its responsibility to determine the fair value of an investment by the Valuation Committee (“Committee”) of MetLife Advisers. The Committee provides general pricing oversight and fair value pricing determinations related to portfolio securities and meets on a regular basis to review reports relating to the valuation of the securities in the Portfolio. The Board has delegated to State Street Bank and Trust Company, the Trust’s custodian (“custodian”), the responsibility for calculating the net asset values (“NAVs”) of the Trust’s Portfolios. The Committee is responsible for overseeing the calculation of the NAVs of the Portfolios by the custodian. The Committee also periodically reviews pricing services, including the pricing services providing fair value pricing for the Portfolio’s foreign securities, and is responsible for overseeing the correction of pricing errors and addressing other pricing issues that arise in the ordinary course of business, such as making real-time fair value determinations, as necessary.

No single standard for determining the fair value of an investment can be set forth because fair value depends upon the facts and circumstances with respect to each investment. Information relating to any relevant factors may be obtained by the Committee from any appropriate source, including the subadviser of the Portfolio, the custodian, a pricing service, market maker and/or broker for such security or the issuer. Appropriate methodologies for determining fair value under particular circumstances may include: matrix pricing, a discounted cash flow analysis, comparisons of securities with comparable characteristics, value based on multiples of earnings, discount from market price of similar marketable securities or a combination of these and other methods.

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 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. These foreign taxes have been provided for in accordance with the Portfolio’s understanding of the applicable countries’ tax rules and rates.

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 the U.S. dollar 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. Because the values of investment securities are translated at the foreign exchange rates prevailing at the end of the period, that portion of the results of operations arising from changes in exchange rates and that portion of the results of operations reflecting fluctuations arising from changes in market prices of the investment securities are not separated. 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. 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.

Dividends and Distributions to Shareholders - The Portfolio records dividends and distributions on the ex-dividend date. Net realized gains from securities 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

MSF-45

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Dimensional International Small Company Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

distributed net investment income, accumulated net realized gains/losses, and paid-in surplus. Book-tax differences are primarily due to foreign currency transactions and passive foreign investment companies (PFICs). These adjustments have no impact on net assets or the results 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 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. As of December 31, 2016, the Portfolio had no uncertain tax positions that would require financial statement recognition, or de-recognition or disclosure.

Repurchase Agreements - The Portfolio may enter into repurchase agreements, under the terms of a Master Repurchase Agreement (“MRA”), 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, under a tri-party repurchase agreement, receives delivery of the underlying securities collateralizing any repurchase agreements. It is the Portfolio’s policy that the market value of the collateral be equal to at least 100% of the repurchase price in the case of a repurchase agreement of one-day duration and equal to at least 102% of the repurchase price in the case of all other repurchase agreements. In the event of default or failure by a party to perform an obligation in connection with any repurchase transaction, the MRA gives the non-defaulting party the right to set-off claims and to apply property held by it in connection with any repurchase transaction against obligations owed to it.

At December 31, 2016, the Portfolio had direct investments in repurchase agreements with a gross value of $2,627,574. Additionally, the Portfolio invested cash collateral for loans of portfolio securities in repurchase agreements with a gross value of $3,689,053. The combined value of all repurchase agreements is included as part of investments at value on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. The value of the related collateral exceeded the value of the repurchase agreements at December 31, 2016.

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 collateral held from securities on loan. 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.

Effective September 8, 2016, the Trust has entered into a Non-Custodial Securities Lending Agreement with JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (the “lending agent”). Prior to September 8, 2016, the Trust had entered into a Securities Lending Authorization Agreement with the custodian (the “prior lending agent”). Under each agreement, the lending agent is authorized to loan portfolio securities on the Portfolio’s behalf. In exchange, the Portfolio receives either cash or government securities as collateral against the loaned securities. The Portfolio receives collateral equal to at least 102% of the market value for loans secured by government securities or cash in the same currency as the loaned shares and 105% for all other loaned securities at each loan’s inception. Collateral representing at least 100% of the market value of the loaned securities is maintained for the duration of the loan. Any cash collateral received by the Portfolio is generally invested by the lending agent in short-term investments, which may include certificates of deposit, commercial paper, repurchase agreements, time deposits and money market funds. Cash collateral that was received by the prior lending agent had been generally invested in the State Street Navigator Securities Lending MET Portfolio (the “Navigator Portfolio”), a series of the State Street Navigator Securities Lending Trust that was a registered money market fund managed by an affiliate of the custodian. The market value of investments made with cash collateral received are disclosed in the Schedule of Investments and the valuation techniques are described in Note 2. 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 is 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 is equal to at least 100% of the market value of all the loaned securities as of such preceding day. A portion of the income earned on the collateral is rebated to the borrower of the securities and the remainder is split between the lending agent and the Portfolio. On loans collateralized by government securities, a fee is received from the borrower and is allocated between the Portfolio and the lending agent.

Income received by the Portfolio in securities lending transactions during the year ended December 31, 2016 is reflected as securities lending income on the Statement of Operations. The values of any securities loaned by the Portfolio and the related collateral at December 31, 2016 are disclosed in the footnotes to the Schedule of Investments. The value of the related collateral received by the Portfolio exceeded the value of the securities out on loan at December 31, 2016.

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. The lending agent shall indemnify the Portfolio in the case of default of any securities borrower, subject to the terms of the Non-Custodial Securities Lending Agreement.

MSF-46

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Dimensional International Small Company Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

All securities on loan are classified as Common Stocks in the Portfolio’s Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016, with a contractual maturity of overnight and continuous.

3. Investments in Derivative Instruments

Futures Contracts - The Portfolio may buy and sell futures contracts 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 cash collateral 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 whether unrealized gains or losses are incurred. These amounts are reflected as receivables or payables on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities and as a component of net change in unrealized appreciation/depreciation on the Statement of Operations. When the contract is closed or expires, the Portfolio records 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. 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. If futures contracts are exchange-traded, the exchange’s clearinghouse, as counterparty to all exchange-traded futures, guarantees the futures contracts against default. For OTC futures, the Portfolio’s ability to terminate the positions may be more limited than in the case of exchange-traded positions and may also involve the risk that securities dealers participating in such transactions would fail to meet their obligations to the Portfolio.

During the year ended December 31, 2016, the Portfolio entered into equity index futures contracts which were subject to equity price risk. During the period October 28, 2016 through November 1, 2016, the Portfolio had bought and sold $6,935,302 in notional cost on equity index futures contracts. At December 31, 2016, the Portfolio did not have any open futures contracts. For the year ended December 31, 2016, the Portfolio had realized losses in the amount of $92,247 which are shown under Net realized loss on futures contracts in the Statement of Operations.

4. Certain Risks

In the normal course of business, the Portfolio invests in securities and enters into transactions where risks exist. Those risks include:

Market 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, interest rate, and price fluctuations.

Credit and Counterparty Risk: 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 and counterparty risk consist principally of cash due from counterparties and investments. The Portfolio manages counterparty risk by entering into agreements only with counterparties that it believes have the financial resources to honor their obligations and by monitoring the financial stability of those counterparties. The Portfolio’s investment adviser attempts to mitigate counterparty risk by (i) periodically assessing the creditworthiness of its trading partners, (ii) monitoring and/or limiting the amount of its net exposure to each individual counterparty based on its assessment, and (iii) requiring collateral from the counterparty for certain transactions. In order to preserve certain safeguards for non-standard settlement trades, the Portfolio restricts its exposure to credit and counterparty losses by entering into master netting agreements (“Master Agreements”) with counterparties (approved brokers) with whom it undertakes a significant volume of transactions. Master Agreements govern the terms of certain transactions, and reduce the counterparty risk associated with relevant transactions by specifying credit protection mechanisms and providing standardization that improves legal certainty. Master Agreements can also help limit counterparty risk by specifying collateral posting arrangements at pre-arranged exposure levels.

Repurchase and reverse repurchase agreements are primarily executed under Global Master Repurchase Agreements (“GMRAs”) or Master Repurchase Agreements (“MRAs”), which provide the rights to set-off. Each repurchase and reverse repurchase agreement is initially collateralized at the transaction level. In the event of default, the total market value exposure will be offset against collateral exchanged to date, which would result in a net receivable/(payable) that would be due from/to the counterparty.

Foreign Investment Risk: The investments by the Portfolio in foreign securities may involve risks not present in domestic investments. Because securities may be denominated in foreign currencies, may require settlement in foreign currencies and may pay interest or dividends in foreign currencies, changes in the relationship of these foreign currencies to the U.S. dollar can significantly affect the value of the investments and earnings of the Portfolio. Foreign investments may also subject the Portfolio to foreign government

MSF-47

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Dimensional International Small Company Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

exchange restrictions, expropriation, taxation or other political, social or economic developments, all of which could affect the market and/or credit risk of the investments. In addition to the risks described above, risks may arise from forward foreign currency contracts with respect to the potential inability of counterparties to meet the terms of their contracts.

Additional risks associated with each type of investment are described above within the respective security type notes. The Portfolio’s prospectus includes a discussion of the principal risks of investing in the Portfolio.

5. Investment Transactions

Aggregate cost of purchases and proceeds of sales of investment securities, excluding short-term securities, for the year ended December 31, 2016 were as follows:

Purchases			Sales
U.S. Government	Non U.S. Government		U.S. Government		Non U.S. Government
$0	$	50,535,804	$	0	$	98,392,852

6. Investment Management Fees and Other Transactions with Affiliates

Investment Management Agreement - MetLife Advisers is the investment adviser to the Portfolio. The Trust has entered into an investment management agreement with MetLife Advisers with respect to the Portfolio. For providing investment management services to the Portfolio, MetLife Advisers receives monthly compensation at the following annual rates:

Management Fees earned by MetLife Advisers for the year ended December 31, 2016	% per annum			Average Daily Net Assets
$5,321,293		0.850	%	Of the first $100 million
		0.800	%	On amounts in excess of $100 million

MetLife Advisers has entered into an investment subadvisory agreement with respect to managing the Portfolio. Dimensional Fund Advisors LP is compensated by MetLife Advisers to provide subadvisory services for the Portfolio.

Management Fee Waivers - Pursuant to an expense agreement, MetLife Advisers has agreed, for the period May 1, 2016 to April 30, 2017, to reduce its advisory fees set out above under “Investment Management Agreement” for each class of the Portfolio as follows:

% per annum	Average Daily Net Assets
0.050%		Of the first $100 million

An identical expense agreement was in place for the period May 1, 2015 to April 30, 2016. Amounts waived for the year ended December 31, 2016 are shown as management fee waivers in the Statement of Operations.

Certain officers and trustees of the Trust may also be officers of MetLife Advisers; 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 and Service Fees - The Trust has a distribution agreement with MetLife Investors Distribution Company (“MIDC” or the “Distributor”) in which MIDC serves as the distributor for the Portfolio’s Class A and B Shares. MIDC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife Investors Group, LLC, an affiliate of the Adviser. The Trust has also adopted a Distribution and Service Plan under Rule 12b-1 of the 1940 Act for the Portfolio’s Class B Shares. Under the Distribution and Service Plan, the Class B Shares of the Portfolio pay a fee to compensate the Insurance Companies (or their affiliates) and other broker-dealers and financial intermediaries involved in the offer and sale of Portfolio shares for promoting or selling and servicing the Class B Shares. The fees under the Distribution and Service Plan for each class of the Portfolio’s shares are calculated as a percentage of the Portfolio’s average daily net assets that are attributable to that Class. Currently, the fee is 0.25% per year for Class B Shares. Amounts incurred by the Portfolio for the year ended December 31, 2016 are shown as Distribution and service fees in the Statement of Operations.

Deferred Trustee Compensation - Each Trustee 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 Trust. 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 Met Investors Series Trust, an affiliate of the Trust, as designated by the participating Trustee.

MSF-48

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Dimensional International Small Company Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

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 under the Plan is reflected as Deferred trustees’ fees in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

7. Contractual Obligations

Under the Trust’s organizational documents, its officers and Trustees may be indemnified against certain liabilities and expenses arising out of the performance of their duties to the Trust. Additionally, 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 Trust that have not yet occurred.

8. Income Tax Information

The tax character of distributions paid for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015 were as follows:

Ordinary Income			Long-Term Capital Gain				Total
2016	2015		2016		2015		2016		2015
$14,816,351	$	14,989,927	$	40,638,699	$	114,053,758	$	55,455,050	$	129,043,685

As of December 31, 2016, 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		Other Accumulated Capital Losses		Total
$17,911,663	$	30,200,215	$	75,123,135	$	—	$	123,235,013

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 up to 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, 2016, the Portfolio had no post-enactment accumulated capital losses and no pre-enactment accumulated capital loss carryforwards.

9. Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In October 2016, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) adopted new rules and forms, and amendments to certain current rules and forms, to modernize reporting and disclosure of information by registered investment companies. The amendments to Regulation S-X will require standardized, enhanced disclosure about derivatives in investment company financial statements, and will also change the rules governing the form and content of such financial statements. The compliance date for the amendments to Regulation S-X is August 1, 2017. Management is currently evaluating the impact that the adoption of the amendments to Regulation S-X will have on the Portfolio’s financial statements and related disclosures.

MSF-49

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Dimensional International Small Company Portfolio

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Shareholders of Met/Dimensional International Small Company Portfolio and the Board of Trustees of Metropolitan Series Fund:

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities, including the schedule of investments, of Met/Dimensional International Small Company Portfolio (one of the portfolios constituting the Metropolitan Series Fund) (the “Portfolio”) as of December 31, 2016, 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 Portfolio’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 Portfolio 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 Portfolio’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, 2016, by correspondence with the custodian and brokers; when 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/Dimensional International Small Company Portfolio of the Metropolitan Series Fund as of December 31, 2016, 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.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

February 24, 2017

MSF-50

Metropolitan Series Fund

Trustees and Officers

MANAGEMENT OF THE TRUSTS

The Boards of Trustees (the “Board”) of Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (“MIST” and “MSF”, respectively, and collectively the “Trusts”) supervise the Trusts and are responsible for representing the interests of shareholders. The Trustees, the Chairman of the Board and the Chairmen of each subcommittee are the same for both Trusts. The Trustees of each Trust meet periodically throughout the year to oversee the Portfolios’ activities, reviewing, among other things, each Portfolio’s performance and its contractual arrangements with various service providers. The Trustees of each Trust elect the officers of the Trust, who are responsible for administering the Trust’s day-to-day operations.

Trustees and Officers

The Trustees and executive officers of the Trusts, as well as their ages and their principal occupations during the past five years, are set forth below. Unless otherwise indicated, the business address of each is c/o MetLife Funds, One Financial Center, Boston, Massachusetts 02111. Each Trustee who is deemed an “interested person,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, is referred to as an “Interested Trustee.” Those Trustees who are not “interested persons,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, are referred to as “Independent Trustees.” There is no limit to the term a Trustee may serve. Trustees serve until their death, resignation or removal in accordance with the MIST Trust’s and MSF Trust’s respective organizational documents and policies adopted by the Boards of the respective Trusts from time to time. Officers hold office at the pleasure of each Board and serve until their removal or resignation in accordance with the Trusts’ respective organizational documents and policies adopted by the Board of each Trust from time to time.

Name and Age	Current 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 MetLife Funds Complex(2) Overseen by Trustee	Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Interested Trustee
John Rosenthal* (56)	Trustee	Indefinite; From May 2016 (MIST and MSF) to present	Senior Managing Director and Head of Global Portfolio Management, MetLife, Inc.	75	None
Independent Trustees
Dawn M. Vroegop (50)	Trustee and Chairman of the Board	Indefinite; From December 2000 (MIST)/ May 2009 (MSF) to present as Trustee; From May 2016 (MIST and MSF) until present as Chairman	Private Investor.	75	Trustee, Driehaus Mutual Funds.**
Stephen M. Alderman (57)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 (MIST)/ April 2012 (MSF) to present	Shareholder in the law firm of Garfield and Merel, Ltd.	75	None

MSF-51

Metropolitan Series Fund

Trustees and Officers—(Continued)

Name and Age	Current 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 MetLife Funds Complex(2) Overseen by Trustee	Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Robert J. Boulware (60)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 (MIST)/ April 2012 (MSF) to present	Managing Director, Pilgrim Funds, LLC (private equity fund).	75	Trustee, Vertical Capital Income Fund (closed-end fund);** Director, Gainsco, Inc. (auto insurance);** Trustee, SharesPost 100 Fund (closed-end fund).**
Susan C. Gause (64)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 (MIST)/ April 2012 (MSF) to present	Private Investor.	75	Trustee, HSBC Funds.**
Nancy Hawthorne (65)	Trustee	Indefinite; From May 2003 (MSF)/ April 2012 (MIST) to present	Partner, Hawthorne Financial Advisors, LLC (registered investment advisor); until June 2014, Chief Executive Officer, Clerestory LLC (corporate advisor).	75	Director and Chairman of the Board of Directors, THL Credit, Inc.;** Lead Director, Avid Technology, Inc.;** Director, CRA International, Inc.**
Barbara A. Nugent (60)	Trustee	Indefinite; From January 2014 (MIST and MSF) to present	President, True North Board Governance, LLC (consulting); until December 2013, partner in the law firm of Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young, LLP.	75	None
Linda B. Strumpf (69)	Trustee	Indefinite; From May 2000 (MSF)/ April 2012 (MIST) to present	Chair of the Investment Committee, Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust; until June 2011, Chief Investment Officer, Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust.	75	None

Executive Officers

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Kristi Slavin (43)	President and Chief Executive Officer, of MIST and MSF	From May 2016 (MIST and MSF) to present	President, MetLife Advisers, LLC (May 2016-present); Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Vice President, MetLife, Inc.; Vice President, MIST and MSF (2015-2016).

MSF-52

Metropolitan Series Fund

Trustees and Officers—(Continued)

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Peter H. Duffy (61)	Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, of MIST and MSF	From November 2000 (MSF)/ May 2012 (MIST) to present	Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Andrew L. Gangolf (62)	Secretary, of MIST and MSF	From May 2011 (MIST and MSF) to present	Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; until 2011, Senior Vice President & Assistant General Counsel, AllianceBernstein Investments, Inc.
Steven E. Hartstein (53)	Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”), of MIST and MSF	From February 2014 (MIST and MSF) to present	Vice President, MetLife, Inc. (2013- present); Senior Vice President and CCO, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Executive Director, Morgan Stanley (2009-2013); CCO, Consulting Group Capital Markets Funds (2006-2013).
Alan C. Leland (64)	Vice President, of MIST and MSF	From February 2005 (MSF)/ May 2012 (MIST) to present	Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Vice President, MetLife, Inc.

* Mr. Rosenthal is an “interested person” of the Trusts because of his position with MetLife, Inc., the current parent company of MetLife Advisers, LLC.

** 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 Trusts, MetLife, Inc. or the Manager are omitted if not materially different.

(2) The Fund Complex includes 45 MIST Portfolios and 30 MSF Portfolios.

MSF-53

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Dimensional International Small Company Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements

At an in-person meeting held on November 15-16, 2016 (the “November Meeting”), the Boards of Trustees (the “Board”) of the Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (“MIST” and “MSF,” respectively, and collectively, the “Trusts”), including a majority of the Trustees who are not “interested persons” of the Trusts (the “Independent Trustees”) under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “1940 Act”), approved the continuation of the Trusts’ advisory agreements (each, an “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 the series of the Trusts (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”).

In reaching that decision, the Board reviewed a variety of materials provided for the specific purpose of the annual contract renewal process. In addition, various materials provided to and discussed with the Board throughout the year also informed the Board’s decision to renew the Agreements. That information for each Portfolio included, but was not limited to, investment performance reports, along with periodic reports on various expenses, shareholder services, legal and compliance matters, asset pricing, brokerage commissions and trade execution. The Board also recognized the pending separation of the Adviser from its parent company, MetLife, Inc., as a consideration in their deliberations with respect to the Agreements.

The Board met in person with personnel of the Adviser on September 27, 2016 for the specific purpose of giving preliminary consideration to the proposed continuation of the Agreements (the “September Meeting”) through the review by the Adviser with the Board of the performance and fees experienced by each Portfolio, as well as other information. In considering the Agreements, the Independent Trustees were advised by independent legal counsel throughout the contract renewal process, and met with independent legal counsel in several executive sessions outside of the presence of management.

Information furnished and reviewed specifically in connection with the renewal process included, but was not limited to, a report for each Portfolio prepared by Broadridge (“Broadridge”), an independent organization, and a Portfolio-by-Portfolio profitability analysis prepared by the Adviser. In addition, the Independent Trustees received and reviewed a report prepared by JDL Consultants, LLC (“JDL”), an independent consultant to the Independent Trustees (“JDL Report”), which examined the comparative fees, expenses and performance of each Portfolio, based upon the Broadridge reports. Also, the Board reviewed the responses to wide-ranging questions relating to the business, operations and performance of the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers that the Adviser and Sub-Advisers had prepared specifically for the renewal process.

At the November Meeting, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, concluded that the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser supported the renewal of the Agreements. The Board also concluded that the investment performance of each Portfolio was such that each Agreement should continue, and that the fees paid by a Portfolio to the Adviser appeared to be reasonable in light of the nature, extent and quality of the services provided by the Adviser and Sub-Adviser. Further, the Board concluded that the Adviser’s profitability in providing services under the Advisory Agreements did not appear unreasonably high in light of the nature, extent and quality of the services provided by the Adviser. Finally, the Board concluded that the investment advisory fees paid by the Portfolios in some measure shared economies of scale with contract holders. In approving the renewal of each of the Agreements, the Board, including the Independent Trustees, gave attention to all of the information that was furnished. The Board evaluated the information available to it on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis, and its decision was made separately with respect to each Portfolio. The following discusses some of the primary factors that generally were relevant to the Board’s decision. The Board did not identify any single factor as controlling, and the Trustees generally attributed different weights to various factors for the various Portfolios.

Nature, extent and quality of services. The Board evaluated the nature, extent and quality of the services that the Adviser, and the Sub-Advisers as relevant, have provided to the Portfolios. The Board considered the Adviser’s services as investment manager to the Portfolios, including its services relating to the oversight of the Sub-Advisers and their investment management activities, trading practices, financial condition, relevant personnel matters and compliance programs, among other things. The Adviser’s services in coordinating and overseeing the activities of the Trusts’ other service providers were also considered. The Board considered information received from the Trusts’ Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) regarding the Portfolios’ compliance policies and procedures that were established pursuant to Rule 38a-l under the 1940 Act. In addition, throughout the year, the Board considered the expertise, experience and performance of the personnel of the Adviser who performed the various services that are mentioned above.

The Board also noted that the Adviser’s investment, compliance and legal staff conduct regular, periodic, telephonic and in-person meetings with the Sub-Advisers to review and assess the services that are provided to the Portfolios, and that personnel of the Adviser prepare and present reports to the Independent Trustees regarding those meetings.

MSF-54

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Dimensional International Small Company Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

With respect to the services provided by each of the Sub-Advisers, the Board considered a variety of information that the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser provided. The Board considered each Sub-Adviser’s investment process and philosophy, and the investment performance experienced by the Portfolio (as described in more detail below). The Board took into account that each Sub-Adviser’s responsibilities include the development and maintenance of an investment program for the applicable Portfolio that 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. In particular, the Board considered, among other things, the Sub-Adviser’s current level of staffing as well as its compensation program and its overall resources. The Board reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s history and investment experience, as well as information provided 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 regulatory and disciplinary history. In its review, the Board also took into account information regarding any services and/or payments provided to the Adviser by the Sub-Advisers in connection with marketing activities.

Performance. The Board placed emphasis on the performance of the Portfolios in light of, among other things, its importance to contract holders. The Board considered the Adviser’s quarterly reviews with the Board of detailed information about each Portfolio’s investment strategies and performance results and composition, including discussions regarding the relevant effect of current market conditions. The Board reviewed and considered the reports prepared by Broadridge, which provided a statistical analysis comparing the Portfolios’ investment performance to that of comparable funds underlying variable insurance products (the “Performance Universe”). The Independent Trustees also met separately with a representative of JDL during the September Meeting to review the JDL Report. The Board also compared the performance records of certain Portfolios to those of comparable funds that were managed by the relevant Sub-Adviser. At the November Meeting, the Board considered each Portfolio’s performance for periods subsequent to the performance period covered by the Broadridge reports, and the Adviser’s discussion of the same, including the effect of current market conditions on each Portfolio’s more recent performance.

The Board focused particular attention on Portfolios with less favorable performance records. The Board noted the Adviser’s focus on each Sub-Adviser’s performance and that the Adviser has been active in monitoring and responding to any performance issues with respect to the Portfolios.

Fees and Expenses. The Board gave consideration to the level and method of computing the fees payable under the Agreements. The Board considered the Broadridge report for each of the Portfolios, which included comparisons for each Portfolio of its contractual management and sub-adviser fees (at current and various asset levels), and total expenses, with those of its peers, including as those peers were divided into a broad group of peer funds (“Expense Universe”), a narrower group of peer funds (“Expense Group”), a broad group of peer sub-advised funds (“Sub-advised Expense Universe”), and a narrower group of peer sub-advised funds (“Sub-advised Expense Group”). Broadridge selected the peer funds which were similarly situated funds underlying variable insurance products deemed to be comparable to the Portfolios. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of JDL, also examined the JDL Report. The Board compared the fee payable to a Sub-Adviser by the Adviser with respect to the Portfolio to the fee payable to the Sub-Adviser by other comparable funds and accounts, to the extent such information was available.

The Board noted that the sub-advisory fees for the Portfolios are paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fee, and that, in the case of an unaffiliated Sub-Adviser, the Adviser negotiates the fee at arm’s length. The Board also considered that the Adviser had entered into expense limitation or management fee waiver agreements with certain of the Portfolios pursuant to which the Adviser had 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.

Profitability. The Board examined the profitability of the Adviser on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis. The Board also considered that an affiliate of the Adviser, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, serves as distributor for the Trusts, and, as such, receives Rule 12b-1 payments to support the distribution of the Portfolios. The Board considered the profitability to the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates as a result of their relationships with the Portfolios, to the extent available, and the Board considered the ability of the Adviser to negotiate with an unaffiliated Sub-Adviser at arm’s length. In reviewing the profitability analyses, the Board recognized that expense allocation methodologies are inherently subjective and various expense allocation methodologies may be reasonable while producing different results.

Economies of scale. The Board also considered each Portfolio’s fees in light of its size. The Board noted the fee schedules for the Portfolios that 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

MSF-55

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Dimensional International Small Company Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

schedule for such Portfolios. The Board considered the effective fees under the Advisory Agreement and Sub-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. The Board examined, among other data, the effect of a Portfolio’s growth in size, and reduction in size, on various fee schedules and the Board reviewed the Broadridge and JDL Reports, which compared fees among peers. The Board also generally noted that if a Portfolio’s assets increase over time, the Portfolio may realize other economies of scale if assets increase proportionally more than certain other fixed expenses.

Other factors. The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trusts. Among them, the Board recognized that MetLife Investors Distribution Company, as the distributor for the Trusts, receives payments pursuant to Rule 12b-1 from the Portfolios to compensate for the provision of shareholder services and distribution activities, which could lead to growth in the Trusts’ assets and corresponding benefits from such growth, including economies of scale. The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by each Sub-Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trusts, including the opportunity to provide advisory services to additional portfolios of the Trusts and reputational benefits. In conjunction with these considerations, the Board noted the ongoing commitment of the Adviser to the Portfolios.

The Board considered possible conflicts of interest in the form of material benefits or detriments to the Trusts resulting from the nature of the Trusts’ and the Adviser’s or the Sub-Advisers’ affiliations and the services that are provided to the Trusts, and the manner in which such conflicts were mitigated.

* * *

Met/Dimensional International Small Company Portfolio. The Board also considered the following information in relation to the Agreements with the Adviser and Dimensional Fund Advisors LP regarding the Portfolio:

Among other data relating specifically to the 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, 2016. The Board also took into account that the Portfolio outperformed its benchmark, the MSCI World ex-U.S. Small Cap Index, for the one-, three-, and five-year periods ended October 31, 2016.

The Board also 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 fees were below the asset-weighted average of certain comparable funds at the Portfolio’s current size.

MSF-56

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Dimensional International Small Company Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Advisory Agreements

The separation (the “Separation”) of MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”), the investment adviser to each of the series (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”) of Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (collectively, the “Trusts”), from its parent company, MetLife, Inc. (“MetLife”), to a separate retail business, Brighthouse Financial, Inc. (“Brighthouse”), is expected to result in a change in control of the Adviser, and therefore an “assignment” of each Portfolio’s current advisory agreement (each a “Current Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “Current Advisory Agreements”). At the November 15-16, 2016 meeting (“November Meeting”) of the Board of Trustees of the Trusts (the “Board”), the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not “interested persons,” as defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940, of any Portfolio (the “Independent Trustees”), approved a new advisory agreement (each a “New Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “New Advisory Agreements”) between the Trusts, on behalf of a Portfolio, and the Adviser, to be effective upon the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements in connection with the Separation, and recommended that the shareholders of the Trusts approve the New Advisory Agreements. The Board took those actions after consideration of and deliberation over information concerning the Separation, including with respect to the degree to which the Separation would affect the provision of investment advisory services to the Trusts. Information about the Board’s considerations and process is set forth below.

In determining whether to approve the New Advisory Agreements and in considering the Separation, the Board considered the nature, quality and extent of the services that are currently provided by the Adviser under the Current Advisory Agreements as well as the services to be provided under the New Advisory Agreements. The Board’s review was conducted as part of, and in conjunction with, the Board’s annual review of the Current Advisory Agreements, which culminated at the November Meeting. In approving the New Advisory Agreements, the Board considered its conclusions with respect to its approvals of the Current Advisory Agreements, including the Board’s general satisfaction with the nature, extent and quality of services being provided by the Adviser to each Portfolio. Appendix A and Appendix B contains a further description of the process followed, information reviewed and the material factors considered by the Board in approving the continuation of the Current Advisory Agreements.

A substantial portion of the Board’s review of the New Advisory Agreements focused on the Separation, including the potential effect of the implementation of the Separation on the operations, personnel, organizational structure, capitalization, and financial and other resources of the Adviser. After being informed by the Adviser in January 2016 of the possibility of the Separation, the Board and its Committees discussed the Separation and its possible effects on the Trusts with personnel of the Adviser and the anticipated senior management at Brighthouse during the course of the Board’s or Committee’s regularly scheduled, in-person, quarterly meetings.

Between August and November 2016, the Board and the Independent Trustees engaged in an extensive review and analysis of the Separation and how the Separation related to the Adviser and the Trusts and how it could affect the services provided to the Trusts. This analysis focused on, among other matters, the assurances from Brighthouse’s anticipated leadership as to its expectations for the continuity and stability of the Adviser’s personnel throughout implementation of the Separation and for the foreseeable future thereafter. The Board considered that the Separation is being implemented as a result of MetLife’s determination to divest itself of a substantial portion of its U.S. retail business (of which the Adviser forms a portion). The Board also considered that it has been satisfied as a general matter with the nature and quality of the services that the Adviser provides to the Portfolios, including investment advisory, administrative, legal, compliance, and support services, and that it would be in the Portfolios’ best interests to maintain continuity and stability in the services that are currently being provided. The Board carefully considered the anticipated future plans of Brighthouse related to capitalization and operational matters for Brighthouse and the Adviser, as well as the importance of the Adviser to the businesses of Brighthouse after the Separation.

Among other steps in its review process, which accelerated on October 5, 2016 when Brighthouse filed its Form 10 with the SEC, the following actions were taken and considered by or on behalf of the Board:

1. The Independent Trustees solicited and received ongoing advice regarding the legal duties of the Independent Trustees from Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young LLP (“Stradley Ronon”), legal counsel for the Independent Trustees, which law firm has extensive experience regarding such matters.

2. Following the August 16-17, 2016 Board and Committee quarterly meetings, the Independent Trustees established an ad hoc group of Independent Trustees (the “Working Group”) to help oversee, coordinate, and conduct due diligence activities with respect to the Separation. The Working Group regularly reported on the due diligence activities to the other Independent Trustees.

3. Since January 2016, the Board posed ongoing inquiries to, and received regular updates from, the Adviser and anticipated senior management at Brighthouse at either in-person meetings dedicated to the status of the Separation or during the course of the Board or Committee’s regular quarterly meetings. The Board considered, among other matters, relevant legal guidance and the processes followed by certain other investment company boards of directors or trustees when they approved contracts in connection with change in control events, while recognizing the unique circumstances of the Separation.

MSF-57

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Dimensional International Small Company Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

4. The Board received and reviewed the Form 10 of Brighthouse that contained extensive information relating to, among other matters, Brighthouse’s anticipated business plans and financial structure. The Board also received and reviewed reports from rating agencies with respect to Brighthouse.

5. Stradley Ronon retained Barrington Partners (“Barrington”), an independent consulting firm with a specific focus on the asset management industry and experience relating to business operations such as those to be conducted by Brighthouse, including its proposed subsidiary, the Adviser, in order to help Stradley Ronon evaluate the Separation based on the Form 10 and other materials and related information provided by the Adviser and its affiliates. Barrington conducted a series of in-person and telephonic meetings with anticipated senior management at Brighthouse (i.e., the aforementioned anticipated officers of Brighthouse and others) and with personnel of the Adviser who provide services to the Trusts. Stradley Ronon, with the assistance of Barrington, evaluated the information and advised the Independent Trustees with respect to, among other matters, details of Brighthouse’s anticipated business plan to understand the implications of the Separation to the Adviser and its personnel. The Independent Trustees and the Working Group attended certain in-person and telephonic conference call meetings at which Barrington rendered advice to Stradley Ronon regarding these matters and responded to questions.

6. The Independent Trustees requested and participated in in-person meetings with anticipated senior management personnel at Brighthouse, including its President and Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, Chief Operating Officer, and Chief Investment Officer. The Independent Trustees also met with personnel of the Adviser.

7. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of Stradley Ronon, prepared written inquiries to the Adviser and its affiliates regarding the Separation, and received written assurances from the Adviser and its affiliates that they have no plans to make any material changes affecting the personnel of the Adviser (including those personnel who provide investment, administrative, legal and compliance services) and the Adviser and its affiliates will not initiate such changes without prior notice to and discussion with the Board.

8. The Board considered representations by the Adviser and its affiliates that approval of the New Advisory Agreements would be necessary for the Portfolios to continue receiving investment advisory services from the Adviser following the change in control.

9. The Board considered representations by the Adviser, as well as related supporting documentation, indicating that the New Advisory Agreements, including the fees payable thereunder, are substantially identical to the terms of the corresponding Current Advisory Agreements.

10. The Board considered representations by the Adviser and its affiliates, as well as related supporting documentation, indicating that: (1) the Adviser can be expected to provide services of the same nature, extent, and quality under the New Advisory Agreements and as are provided thereby under the Current Advisory Agreements; and (2) the Separation is not expected to result in any changes to (i) the management of the Portfolios, or (ii) the investment objective of or the principal investment strategies used to manage any of the Portfolios.

11. The Board considered the ability of the Adviser and its affiliates to retain the employment of key personnel, as well as the overall positive indications by many such personnel regarding the opportunities presented by the Separation.

12. The Board considered that the Adviser and its affiliates have agreed to bear all expenses associated with obtaining shareholder approval of the New Advisory Agreements.

13. The Board considered Brighthouse’s preliminary “branding” plans regarding the future name of its operations.

14. The Board considered the advice provided by Ropes & Gray, LLP, legal counsel to the Trusts and the Adviser, with respect to the New Advisory Agreements (including advice relating to the process and timing of seeking shareholder approval of the New Advisory Agreements, and whether shareholder approvals would be required in connection with any future aspects of the Separation) and regarding the Board’s role and responsibilities with respect to the Separation.

15. The Board considered MetLife’s stated intention of divesting its ownership interest in the Adviser through the Separation, including the potential advantages and disadvantages of this divestiture to shareholders of the Portfolios. The Board considered the likelihood that the Adviser would retain its key personnel after the Separation. The Board considered that the garnering of new assets into the Trusts is based on sales of variable annuity and variable life insurance products, which sales have declined in prior years as a result of, among other things, the capital requirements of MetLife. The Board considered the representations of the anticipated senior management of Brighthouse that the Separation provides the Trusts with an opportunity for the garnering of new assets as Brighthouse will likely sell such products going forward. The Board considered also that the divestiture would result in a change in the manner in

MSF-58

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Dimensional International Small Company Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

which the Trusts access certain services and resources of MetLife (after the Separation those services will be provided through a transition services agreement), the loss of affiliation with the MetLife name brand, and the possible going forward need of the Trusts to hire a transfer agent, as such transfer agency services are currently provided to the Trusts for no fee.

16. The Board considered that, if shareholders approve the New Advisory Agreements, the Board and the Adviser will conduct their annual contract review process in November 2017. Thus, the Board emphasized that it would be able to, and intends to, monitor on a regular basis the ability of the Adviser and its affiliates to comply with their undertakings to the Board and to monitor on an ongoing basis the quality of services to, and expenses of, the Portfolios. In addition, the Board considered that, under the New Advisory Agreements, it will continue to have the authority, should the need arise in its view, to terminate any of the New Advisory Agreements without penalty upon 60 days’ notice.

Based on the foregoing and other relevant considerations, at the November Meeting, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, voted to approve the New Advisory Agreements and to recommend approval of the New Advisory Agreements by shareholders of the Portfolios. In this connection, the Board concluded that, in light of all factors considered, the terms of the New Advisory Agreement, including fee rates, were fair and reasonable, and that it would be in the best interests of shareholders of each Portfolio to approve the New Advisory Agreements.

In the event that approval of the New Advisory Agreements by shareholders of the Portfolios has not been obtained before the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements as a result of the change in control of the Adviser, the Board also approved an interim advisory agreement with the Adviser (the “Interim Advisory Agreement”) on behalf of each Portfolio that will go into effect upon the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements. The Board’s determination to approve each Interim Advisory Agreement was based on the same information and considerations as the Board’s approval of the New Advisory Agreements so as to ensure continuity of advisory services from the Adviser to the Portfolios following the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements.

MSF-59

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Dimensional International Small Company Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Sub-Advisory Agreements

The separation (the “Separation”) of MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”), the investment adviser to each of the series (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”) of Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (collectively, the “Trusts”), from its parent company, MetLife, Inc. (“MetLife”), to a separate retail business, Brighthouse Financial, Inc. (“Brighthouse”), is expected to result in a change in control of the Adviser, and therefore an “assignment” of each Portfolio’s current advisory agreement and, as a result, the automatic termination of the sub-advisory agreement (each a “Sub-Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisory Agreements”) between the Adviser and the investment sub-advisers (each a “Sub-Adviser” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisers”). At the November 15-16, 2016 meeting (“November Meeting”) of the Board of Trustees of the Trusts (the “Board”), the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not “interested persons,” as defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940, of any Portfolio (the “Independent Trustees”), approved new sub-advisory agreements (each a “New Sub-Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “New Sub-Advisory Agreements”). Information about the Board’s considerations and process is set forth below.

In determining whether to approve the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, the Board considered the nature, quality and extent of the services that are currently provided by the Sub-Advisers under the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements as well as the services to be provided under the New Sub-Advisory Agreements. The Board’s review was conducted as part of, and in conjunction with, the Board’s annual review of the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements, which culminated at the November Meeting. In approving the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, the Board considered its conclusions with respect to its approvals of the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements, including the Board’s general satisfaction with the nature, extent and quality of services being provided by the Sub-Advisers to the Portfolios, as applicable. Appendix A contains a further description of the process followed, information reviewed and the material factors considered by the Board in approving the continuation of the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements.

In addition, the following actions were taken and considered by or on behalf of the Board:

1. The Independent Trustees of the Board solicited and received ongoing advice regarding the legal duties of the Independent Trustees from Stradley Ronon, legal counsel for the Independent Trustees, which law firm has extensive experience regarding such matters.

2. The Board considered representations by the Adviser and its affiliates that approval of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements would be necessary for the Portfolios to continue receiving sub-advisory services from the Sub-Advisers following the change in control of the Adviser.

3. The Board considered representations by the Adviser, as well as related supporting documentation, indicating that the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, including the fees payable thereunder, are the same as the terms of the corresponding Current Sub-Advisory Agreements.

4. The Board considered the advice provided by Ropes & Gray, LLP, legal counsel to the Trusts and the Adviser, with respect to the New Sub-Advisory Agreements and regarding the Board’s role and responsibilities with respect to the Separation.

5. The Board considered that the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers will conduct their annual contract review process in November 2017. Thus, the Board emphasized that it would be able to, and intends to, monitor on an ongoing basis the ability of the Sub-Advisers to comply with its undertakings to the Board and the Adviser and to monitor on an ongoing basis the quality of services to, and expenses of, the Portfolios. In addition, the Board considered that, under the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, it will continue to have the authority, should the need arise in its view, to terminate any of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements without penalty upon no more than 60 days’ notice.

Based on the foregoing and other relevant considerations, at the November Meeting, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, voted to approve the New Sub-Advisory Agreements. In this connection, the Board concluded that, in light of all factors considered, the terms of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, including fee rates, were fair and reasonable.

MSF-60

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Wellington Balanced Portfolio

Managed by Wellington Management Company LLP

Portfolio Manager Commentary*

PERFORMANCE

For the 12 months ended December 31, 2016, the Class A, B, and E shares of the Met/Wellington Balanced Portfolio returned 6.99%, 6.74%, and 6.83%, respectively. The Portfolio’s benchmarks, the Standard & Poor’s (“S&P”) 500 Index¹ and the Bloomberg Barclays U.S. Aggregate Bond Index², returned 11.96% and 2.65%, respectively. A blend of the S&P 500 Index (60%) and the Bloomberg Barclays U.S. Aggregate Bond Index (40%) returned 8.31%.

MARKET ENVIRONMENT / CONDITIONS

U.S. equities rose over the period, as measured by the S&P 500 Index, notwithstanding significant volatility during the year. Early in the first quarter of 2016, stocks plunged and moved in virtual lockstep with the price of oil as fears of a recession and weakness in China weighed on investors’ minds. However, equities surged in late February and March as solid economic data, a stabilization in oil prices, and accommodative commentary from the Federal Reserve (the “Fed”) helped to calm the market’s early year jitters. A better-than-feared U.S. corporate earnings season in the second quarter and an encouraging economic backdrop helped sustain the rally. At its June meeting, the Fed left rates unchanged and reduced its U.S. growth and long-run policy rate forecasts, citing mixed U.S. economic data and uncertainty about global economic and financial developments. After plunging in the two trading days following the U.K. referendum vote to leave the European Union (“Brexit”), U.S. stocks staged an impressive comeback in the days following.

U.S. equities continued to climb in July, following a solid start to the corporate earnings season and encouraging housing and employment data releases. Stocks were essentially flat in August and September as investors remained focused on the Fed’s actions, specifically on the timing of the next rate hike. A confluence of worries contributed to increased volatility during September, including uncertainty surrounding the U.S. presidential election, tepid economic data, and valuation concerns. Stocks rose following Donald Trump’s victory on hopes of increased fiscal stimulus, reduced regulatory restrictions, and lower corporate taxes. Economic data released during the quarter was generally encouraging, as third quarter Gross Domestic Product growth was revised slightly higher and the U.S. housing market continued to display healthy trends. In December, the Fed raised rates by 0.25% a well-telegraphed move and only the second hike in the last decade.

Returns varied by market-cap, as small- and mid-cap stocks, as measured by the Russell 2000 Index and S&P MidCap 400 Index, outperformed large-cap stocks, as measured by the S&P 500 Index.

Over the period, global fixed income markets were influenced by global economic growth concerns, central bank monetary policy expectations, political upheaval, and oil prices.

Policy paths of major central banks appeared to diverge in the third quarter as the Bank of England unveiled a stimulus package designed to prevent a recession following the Brexit vote while the European Central Bank kept its stimulus program unchanged and avoided making a firm commitment to further expand its bond-buying program. Developed markets government bond prices largely gained outside the U.S. over the period, as global uncertainties kept central banks in easing mode for most of the year. Global government bond yields moved sharply higher in the fourth quarter, particularly following the U.S. election results as President-elect Trump’s proposed expansionary fiscal policy lifted inflation expectations. In December, the Fed hiked rates for only the second time in ten years. While markets had largely anticipated the decision, the Fed’s post-meeting statement and press conference leaned more hawkish than expected. The U.S. dollar ended higher against a broad basket of currencies over the period, particularly following the U.S. election results and Fed rate hike decision. Emerging market currencies also weakened significantly against the dollar following Trump’s election victory over concerns about potential U.S. trade protectionism. Meanwhile, the U.K. pound depreciated in the aftermath of Brexit.

Absolute returns in the major fixed income spread sectors were positive during the 12-month period, aided by the decline in government bond yields outside the U.S. In the U.S., coupon income helped offset the impact of higher Treasury yields. On an excess return basis, most spread sectors posted positive returns over the period, including High Yield, Emerging Markets Debt, and Investment Grade corporates, as credit spreads tightened during the year. However, this masked considerable volatility in spread sector returns, including a drawdown in many spread sectors in the first part of 2016 and immediately following the Brexit referendum.

PORTFOLIO REVIEW / PERIOD END POSITIONING

The Portfolio underperformed its custom benchmark, consisting of 60% S&P 500 Index / 40% Bloomberg Barclays U.S. Aggregate Bond Index, for the period ended December 31, 2016.

The equity portion of the Portfolio underperformed its benchmark, the S&P 500 Index, for the 12-month period ended December 31, 2016. As a bottom-up research portfolio, we expect stock selection, rather than sector allocation, to typically drive the majority of our performance. During the period, weak stock selection was the primary driver of the Portfolio’s benchmark-relative underperformance. While negative stock selection drove performance, we do not believe that we have been rewarded based on our conviction levels in stocks we believed have exhibited fundamental progress (i.e. through upgrades in consensus earnings estimates). Consequently, the positive attributes we believed these stocks possessed were not rewarded by increased share prices during the period.

Selection within Information Technology, Financials, and Consumer Staples sectors detracted most from relative results. This was partially offset by stronger stock selection within the Consumer Discretionary, Utilities, and Industrials sectors.

MSF-1

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Wellington Balanced Portfolio

Managed by Wellington Management Company LLP

Portfolio Manager Commentary*—(Continued)

Among the equity portion of the Portfolio’s largest individual detractors were McKesson, Allergan, and Wells Fargo. Wells Fargo was eliminated from the Portfolio over the period. Not owning large benchmark constituent JPMorgan Chase within the Financials sector also weighed on relative returns. We believed JPMorgan Chase was fairly valued and instead we continued to focus on undervalued stocks in the banks group.

The Portfolio’s equity holdings in Seagate Technology and Bank of America were among the stocks that contributed most to relative performance during the period. Seagate Technology is a U.S.-based data-storage company. Seagate Technology announced an ambitious restructuring plan, boosting the stock price. Bank of America is a global financial services company. The stock price was driven higher on investors’ expectations of rising interest rates and that the Republican sweep of the White House and Congress will relieve regulatory pressures the banking sector has faced since the financial crisis.

The fixed income portion of the Portfolio outperformed its benchmark, the Bloomberg Barclays U.S. Aggregate Bond Index, for the 2016 calendar year. Sector allocation contributed positively to relative performance. The Portfolio’s allocations to structured finance sectors Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities (“CMBS”), non-agency Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities (“RMBS”), and Collateralized Loan Obligations (“CLOs”) all contributed positively to returns. Additionally, the allocations to High Yield and Bank Loans contributed to relative outperformance over the year, though contribution from High Yield security selection was somewhat offset by credit hedges implemented with High Yield credit event indices. Security selection within Investment Grade Energy and Financials also benefitted results. Additionally, the Portfolio had been positioned for rising inflation expectations being long U.S. Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (“TIPS”) vs. nominal Treasuries, and this position contributed to returns as market inflation expectations rose in the second half of the year.

During the period, the fixed income portion of the Portfolio used Treasury futures, swaps, and options to manage duration and yield curve positioning. The Portfolio also used currency forwards, futures, and options to implement non-U.S. rate and currency positions. Credit Default Swaps (“CDS”) were used to manage credit exposures, and Investment Grade and High Yield CDS index positions were used as a source of liquidity and to manage overall portfolio risk. The Portfolio’s use of credit derivatives, implemented as short positions to hedge, detracted from relative performance over the period as High Yield and Investment Grade sectors outperformed many other fixed income sectors during the period.

At period end, we believed the majority of the U.S. Industrial sector may benefit from more cash mobility, lower taxes and higher U.S. infrastructure spending. Almost all have been hit by the recent “industrial recession” with business confidence remaining depressed as capital spending checkbooks have not opened up in a meaningful way. We believed there was a disconnect between what the infrastructure levered stocks priced in versus a realistic reality. At the end of the period, we avoided some manufacturing stocks that have aggressively rallied on the U.S. infrastructure theme.

Within the Financials sector, U.S. banks have rallied following the election of Donald Trump. We expect fewer regulatory restrictions and more fiscal stimulus to provide a tailwind for many banks with large deposit franchises. We remained sanguine on U.S. banks due to their inexpensive valuations relative to their returns and the potential upside that higher interest rates could provide. We continued to focus on value stocks in the group with Bank of America as our largest active weight within the sector at period end. We also added to PNC Financial Services in the fourth quarter of 2016. We believe this diversified financial services firm, which focuses on mostly retail and business banking, has a disciplined management team, clear plan to deepen relationships with clients to drive fee growth, and trades at an attractive valuation.

The Portfolio is generally industry/sector-neutral relative to the benchmark. On an absolute basis, the Portfolio’s largest exposures were to the Information Technology, Financials, and Health Care sectors and no exposure to the Telecommunications Services sector at the end of the period. Exposure to the Health Care sector increased over the period while exposure to the Industrials sector decreased.

At the end of the year, the Portfolio’s fixed income portion was positioned with a long duration; however, longer term, the team is duration-neutral (while taking longer or shorter positions opportunistically) and continues to be positioned for rising inflation expectations. The Portfolio was neutral to Investment Grade Credit, but continued to favor Financials issuers. The Portfolio was overweight agency MBS and CMBS. The Portfolio continued to hold allocations to non-agency MBS, CLOs, Bank Loans, and BB-rated High Yield as of the end of the year.

MSF-2

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Wellington Balanced Portfolio

Managed by Wellington Management Company LLP

Portfolio Manager Commentary*—(Continued)

At the end of the year, the Portfolio’s asset allocation breakdown was approximately a 61% allocation to the equity portion of the Portfolio and a 39% allocation to the fixed income portion of the Portfolio and represented a marginal increase to the equity allocation and decrease to the fixed income allocation from the beginning of the period.

Cheryl M. Duckworth

Mark D. Mandel

Joseph F. Marvan

Robert D. Burn

Campe Goodman

Portfolio Managers

Wellington Management Company LLP

* 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 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.

MSF-3

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Wellington Balanced Portfolio

A $10,000 INVESTMENT COMPARED TO THE S&P 500 INDEX AND THE BLOOMBERG BARCLAYS U.S. AGGREGATE BOND INDEX

AVERAGE ANNUAL RETURNS (%) (FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2016)

	1 Year		5 Year		10 Year
Met/Wellington Balanced Portfolio
Class A		6.99		10.46		5.75
Class B		6.74		10.18		5.48
Class E		6.83		10.28		5.59
S&P 500 Index		11.96		14.66		6.95
Bloomberg Barclays U.S. Aggregate Bond Index		2.65		2.23		4.34

¹ The Standard & Poor’s (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 The Bloomberg Barclays 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.

Portfolio performance is calculated including reinvestment of all income and capital gain distributions. Performance numbers are net of all Portfolio expenses but do not include any insurance, sales, separate account or administrative charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts or any additional expenses that participants may bear relating to the operations of their plans. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower. The performance of any index referenced above has not been adjusted for ongoing management, distribution and operating expenses, and sales charges applicable to mutual fund investments. Direct investment in any index is not possible. The performance of Class A shares, as set forth in the line graph above, will differ from that of other classes because of the difference in expenses paid by policyholders investing in the different share classes.

This information represents past performance and is not indicative of future results. Investment return and principal value may fluctuate so that shares, upon redemption, may be worth more or less than the original cost.

PORTFOLIO COMPOSITION AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2016

Top Equity Holdings

	% of Net Assets
Apple, Inc.		1.8
Bank of America Corp.		1.7
Alphabet, Inc.		1.6
Amazon.com, Inc.		1.2
Comcast Corp.		1.1

Top Fixed Income Issuers

	% of Net Assets
Fannie Mae 30 Yr. Pool		4.9
Freddie Mac 30 Yr. Gold Pool		4.7
Freddie Mac 15 Yr. Gold Pool		1.8
Fannie Mae 15 Yr. Pool		1.8
Ginnie Mae I 30 Yr. Pool		0.8

Top Equity Sectors

	% of Net Assets
Information Technology		11.5
Financials		9.5
Health Care		9.4
Consumer Discretionary		7.1
Consumer Staples		6.7

Top Fixed Income Sectors

	% of Net Assets
U.S. Treasury & Government Agencies		17.3
Corporate Bonds & Notes		12.8
Asset-Backed Securities		6.1
Mortgage-Backed Securities		5.1
Floating Rate Loans		1.9

MSF-4

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Wellington 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, 2016 through December 31, 2016.

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.

Met/Wellington Balanced Portfolio		Annualized Expense Ratio			Beginning Account Value July 1, 2016		Ending Account Value December 31, 2016		Expenses Paid During Period** July 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016
Class A(a)	Actual		0.51	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,035.90	$	2.61
	Hypothetical*		0.51	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,022.57	$	2.59
Class B(a)	Actual		0.76	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,034.30	$	3.89
	Hypothetical*		0.76	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,021.32	$	3.86
Class E(a)	Actual		0.66	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,034.80	$	3.38
	Hypothetical*		0.66	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,021.82	$	3.35

* 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 366 (to reflect the one-half year period).

^(a) The annualized expense ratio shown reflects the impact of the management fee waiver as described in Note 6 of the Notes to Financial Statements.

MSF-5

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Wellington Balanced Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—60.3% of Net Assets

Security Description	Shares		Value
Aerospace & Defense—1.7%
Boeing Co. (The)		19,947	$	3,105,349
General Dynamics Corp.		31,398		5,421,179
Lockheed Martin Corp.		24,476		6,117,531
United Technologies Corp.		58,967		6,463,963
				21,108,022
Air Freight & Logistics—0.4%
FedEx Corp.		14,244		2,652,233
XPO Logistics, Inc. (a) (b)		49,050		2,116,998
				4,769,231
Airlines—0.1%
American Airlines Group, Inc. (b)		37,785		1,764,182
Banks—3.0%
Bank of America Corp.		946,688		20,921,805
Huntington Bancshares, Inc.		314,799		4,161,643
PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. (The)		97,334		11,384,184
				36,467,632
Beverages—2.7%
Anheuser-Busch InBev S.A. (ADR)		16,427		1,732,063
Constellation Brands, Inc. - Class A		30,898		4,736,972
Dr Pepper Snapple Group, Inc.		33,560		3,042,885
Molson Coors Brewing Co. - Class B		47,899		4,661,052
Monster Beverage Corp. (a) (b)		170,345		7,553,097
PepsiCo, Inc.		105,684		11,057,717
				32,783,786
Biotechnology—1.1%
Aduro Biotech, Inc. (a) (b)		39,469		449,947
Alkermes plc (a) (b)		27,232		1,513,554
Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a) (b)		4,677		175,107
ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a) (b)		54,552		678,627
Biogen, Inc. (a)		5,237		1,485,108
Bluebird Bio, Inc. (a)		7,380		455,346
Celgene Corp. (a)		25,540		2,956,255
GlycoMimetics, Inc. (a) (b)		55,683		339,666
Incyte Corp. (a)		10,975		1,100,463
Ironwood Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a)		59,748		913,547
Karyopharm Therapeutics, Inc. (a)		35,087		329,818
Nivalis Therapeutics, Inc. (a) (b)		28,240		63,258
Otonomy, Inc. (a) (b)		21,612		343,631
PTC Therapeutics, Inc. (a)		25,399		277,103
Ra Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a)		17,129		260,189
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a)		1,263		463,635
Regulus Therapeutics, Inc. (a) (b)		25,920		58,320
Syndax Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a) (b)		36,000		258,120
TESARO, Inc. (a) (b)		8,748		1,176,431
Trevena, Inc. (a)		63,243		371,869
				13,669,994
Building Products—0.1%
Fortune Brands Home & Security, Inc.		21,548		1,151,956
Capital Markets—1.0%
Evercore Partners, Inc. - Class A		21,824		1,499,309
Intercontinental Exchange, Inc.		43,770		2,469,503
Investment Technology Group, Inc.		22,400		442,176
Legg Mason, Inc. (b)		26,612		795,965
Morgan Stanley		50,145		2,118,626
Northern Trust Corp. (b)		28,664		2,552,529
TD Ameritrade Holding Corp. (b)		42,553		1,855,311
WisdomTree Investments, Inc. (b)		51,390		572,485
				12,305,904
Chemicals—1.1%
Cabot Corp.		19,850		1,003,219
Celanese Corp. - Series A		31,083		2,447,476
Dow Chemical Co. (The)		66,310		3,794,258
Monsanto Co.		15,990		1,682,308
PPG Industries, Inc.		38,463		3,644,754
Westlake Chemical Corp. (b)		13,264		742,651
				13,314,666
Commercial Services & Supplies—0.3%
Waste Management, Inc.		59,735		4,235,809
Communications Equipment—0.4%
Arista Networks, Inc. (a)		54,714		5,294,674
Construction Materials—0.3%
CRH plc (ADR)		21,879		752,200
Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.		7,230		1,601,662
Vulcan Materials Co.		13,674		1,711,301
				4,065,163
Consumer Finance—1.9%
American Express Co.		102,728		7,610,090
Capital One Financial Corp.		126,811		11,062,992
Santander Consumer USA Holdings, Inc. (a)		382,961		5,169,973
				23,843,055
Containers & Packaging—0.6%
Ball Corp. (b)		43,979		3,301,503
International Paper Co.		58,355		3,096,316
Owens-Illinois, Inc. (a) (b)		35,933		625,594
				7,023,413
Electric Utilities—1.7%
Avangrid, Inc.		81,098		3,071,992
Edison International		36,101		2,598,911
Eversource Energy		19,526		1,078,421
Exelon Corp.		72,221		2,563,123
NextEra Energy, Inc.		62,305		7,442,956
PG&E Corp.		58,190		3,536,206
Pinnacle West Capital Corp.		16,971		1,324,247
				21,615,856

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-6

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Wellington Balanced Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Electrical Equipment—0.4%
AMETEK, Inc. (b)		44,376	$	2,156,674
Eaton Corp. plc		44,360		2,976,112
				5,132,786
Energy Equipment & Services—0.5%
Baker Hughes, Inc.		78,615		5,107,617
Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc. (a) (b)		59,903		528,344
Tesco Corp. (a)		73,560		606,870
				6,242,831
Equity Real Estate Investment Trusts—2.0%
Alexandria Real Estate Equities, Inc.		23,451		2,606,110
American Tower Corp.		67,799		7,164,998
Apartment Investment & Management Co. - Class A		72,419		3,291,443
Equinix, Inc.		6,326		2,260,976
Host Hotels & Resorts, Inc.		58,334		1,099,013
Outfront Media, Inc. (b)		88,476		2,200,398
Prologis, Inc. (b)		63,480		3,351,109
Simon Property Group, Inc.		13,027		2,314,507
				24,288,554
Food & Staples Retailing—1.1%
Costco Wholesale Corp.		42,169		6,751,678
Kroger Co. (The) (b)		75,055		2,590,148
Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc.		44,730		3,701,855
				13,043,681
Food Products—1.3%
Mondelez International, Inc. - Class A		209,763		9,298,794
Post Holdings, Inc. (a) (b)		80,670		6,485,061
				15,783,855
Gas Utilities—0.1%
UGI Corp.		39,758		1,832,049
Health Care Equipment & Supplies—3.3%
Abbott Laboratories		30,431		1,168,855
Baxter International, Inc.		65,556		2,906,753
Becton Dickinson & Co.		19,666		3,255,706
Boston Scientific Corp. (a)		231,830		5,014,483
ConforMIS, Inc. (a) (b)		45,600		369,360
Danaher Corp.		98,049		7,632,134
Medtronic plc		165,935		11,819,550
St. Jude Medical, Inc.		41,215		3,305,031
Stryker Corp.		39,969		4,788,686
				40,260,558
Health Care Providers & Services—2.2%
Cardinal Health, Inc.		26,224		1,887,341
Cigna Corp.		28,230		3,765,600
HCA Holdings, Inc. (a)		54,150		4,008,183
McKesson Corp.		47,700		6,699,465
UnitedHealth Group, Inc.		69,293		11,089,652
				27,450,241
Hotels, Restaurants & Leisure—0.3%
Hilton Worldwide Holdings, Inc.		57,527		1,564,735
Starbucks Corp.		36,529		2,028,090
Wingstop, Inc. (b)		1,800		53,262
				3,646,087
Household Durables—0.4%
Mohawk Industries, Inc. (a)		22,092		4,411,331
Household Products—0.0%
Colgate-Palmolive Co.		2,787		182,381
Industrial Conglomerates—0.2%
General Electric Co.		77,494		2,448,810
Insurance—3.6%
Allstate Corp. (The)		32,620		2,417,794
American International Group, Inc.		143,988		9,403,856
Assured Guaranty, Ltd. (b)		135,116		5,103,331
Chubb, Ltd.		17,020		2,248,682
Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. (The) (b)		102,192		4,869,449
Manulife Financial Corp.		92,944		1,656,262
Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc.		102,806		6,948,658
Principal Financial Group, Inc. (b)		28,681		1,659,483
Prudential Financial, Inc.		47,326		4,924,744
XL Group, Ltd.		127,888		4,765,107
				43,997,366
Internet & Direct Marketing Retail—2.0%
Amazon.com, Inc. (a)		19,635		14,723,697
Expedia, Inc.		32,541		3,686,245
Netflix, Inc. (a)		36,754		4,550,145
Wayfair, Inc. - Class A (a) (b)		62,730		2,198,687
				25,158,774
Internet Software & Services—2.5%
Alphabet, Inc. - Class A (a)		24,557		19,460,195
Blucora, Inc. (a) (b)		55,533		819,112
Envestnet, Inc. (a) (b)		19,106		673,486
Facebook, Inc. - Class A (a)		85,244		9,807,322
				30,760,115
IT Services—2.6%
Accenture plc - Class A		20,728		2,427,871
Alliance Data Systems Corp.		11,466		2,619,981
Automatic Data Processing, Inc.		35,841		3,683,738
Cognizant Technology Solutions Corp. - Class A (a)		27,607		1,546,820
FleetCor Technologies, Inc. (a)		12,013		1,700,080
Genpact, Ltd. (a)		109,197		2,657,855
Global Payments, Inc.		65,179		4,524,074
PayPal Holdings, Inc. (a)		30,277		1,195,033
Visa, Inc. - Class A		122,186		9,532,952
WEX, Inc. (a) (b)		16,969		1,893,740
				31,782,144

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-7

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Wellington Balanced Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Life Sciences Tools & Services—0.2%
Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc.		21,589	$	3,046,208
Machinery—1.0%
AGCO Corp. (b)		9,835		569,053
Fortive Corp. (b)		50,042		2,683,753
Illinois Tool Works, Inc.		52,211		6,393,759
Pentair plc		48,143		2,699,378
				12,345,943
Marine—0.0%
Kirby Corp. (a) (b)		2,630		174,895
Media—2.5%
Charter Communications, Inc. - Class A (a)		42,072		12,113,370
Comcast Corp. - Class A		188,211		12,995,970
Liberty Media Corp. - Liberty Media - Class C (a) (b)		40,291		1,262,317
Twenty-First Century Fox, Inc. - Class A		146,829		4,117,085
				30,488,742
Metals & Mining—0.2%
Freeport-McMoRan, Inc. (a)		85,767		1,131,267
Reliance Steel & Aluminum Co.		5,548		441,288
Steel Dynamics, Inc.		30,575		1,087,858
				2,660,413
Multi-Utilities—0.8%
Ameren Corp.		31,364		1,645,355
Dominion Resources, Inc.		55,198		4,227,615
Sempra Energy (b)		34,907		3,513,041
				9,386,011
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels—3.1%
Antero Resources Corp. (a)		61,981		1,465,851
Arch Coal, Inc. - Class A (a)		1,037		80,938
Chevron Corp.		28,469		3,350,801
Cobalt International Energy, Inc. (a) (b)		614,721		749,960
Diamondback Energy, Inc. (a) (b)		27,055		2,734,178
Extraction Oil & Gas, Inc. (a) (b)		35,308		707,572
Hess Corp.		7,516		468,172
Kinder Morgan, Inc.		172,920		3,581,173
Newfield Exploration Co. (a)		123,481		5,000,980
ONEOK, Inc. (b)		19,968		1,146,363
Parsley Energy, Inc. - Class A (a)		29,466		1,038,382
PDC Energy, Inc. (a) (b)		26,951		1,956,104
Pioneer Natural Resources Co.		58,172		10,475,032
QEP Resources, Inc. (a)		47,523		874,898
Rice Energy, Inc. (a)		58,984		1,259,308
Spectra Energy Corp.		27,797		1,142,179
TransCanada Corp.		35,980		1,624,497
				37,656,388
Paper & Forest Products—0.1%
Boise Cascade Co. (a) (b)		75,922		1,708,245
Personal Products—0.9%
Coty, Inc. - Class A (b)		277,549		5,081,922
Estee Lauder Cos., Inc. (The) - Class A		77,847		5,954,517
				11,036,439
Pharmaceuticals—2.6%
Aerie Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a)		16,870		638,529
Allergan plc (a)		26,692		5,605,587
AstraZeneca plc (ADR) (b)		98,081		2,679,573
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.		137,945		8,061,506
Eli Lilly & Co.		78,367		5,763,893
Johnson & Johnson		53,960		6,216,732
Mylan NV (a) (b)		58,530		2,232,919
MyoKardia, Inc. (a) (b)		30,360		393,162
				31,591,901
Professional Services—0.7%
Equifax, Inc.		20,610		2,436,720
IHS Markit, Ltd. (a)		27,594		977,104
Nielsen Holdings plc		58,598		2,458,186
TransUnion (a)		106,711		3,300,571
				9,172,581
Real Estate Management & Development—0.1%
Conyers Park Acquisition Corp. (a)		148,420		1,610,357
Road & Rail—0.3%
CSX Corp.		26,965		968,852
Genesee & Wyoming, Inc. - Class A (a)		14,107		979,167
J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc.		7,432		721,424
Kansas City Southern		2,463		208,986
Knight Transportation, Inc. (b)		39,926		1,319,554
				4,197,983
Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment—1.5%
Analog Devices, Inc.		17,408		1,264,169
Broadcom, Ltd.		10,836		1,915,480
First Solar, Inc. (a) (b)		6,436		206,531
Intel Corp.		212,691		7,714,303
Microchip Technology, Inc. (b)		31,475		2,019,121
Micron Technology, Inc. (a) (b)		46,782		1,025,461
QUALCOMM, Inc.		62,329		4,063,851
SunPower Corp. (a) (b)		6,525		43,130
				18,252,046
Software—1.9%
Electronic Arts, Inc. (a)		53,321		4,199,562
Microsoft Corp.		153,600		9,544,704
Salesforce.com, Inc. (a)		35,517		2,431,494
ServiceNow, Inc. (a)		35,677		2,652,228
SS&C Technologies Holdings, Inc. (b)		23,930		684,398
Workday, Inc. - Class A (a) (b)		53,336		3,524,976
				23,037,362

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-8

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Wellington Balanced Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares/ Principal Amount*		Value
Specialty Retail—1.0%
Advance Auto Parts, Inc. (b)		45,878	$	7,758,887
L Brands, Inc. (b)		15,915		1,047,844
O’Reilly Automotive, Inc. (a)		13,449		3,744,336
				12,551,067
Technology Hardware, Storage & Peripherals—2.7%
Apple, Inc.		194,857		22,568,338
Pure Storage, Inc. - Class A (a) (b)		290,265		3,282,897
Seagate Technology plc (b)		190,389		7,267,148
				33,118,383
Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods—0.9%
NIKE, Inc. - Class B		175,771		8,934,440
Under Armour, Inc. - Class C (a)		29,599		745,007
VF Corp.		23,042		1,229,291
				10,908,738
Tobacco—0.8%
Altria Group, Inc.		153,542		10,382,510
Trading Companies & Distributors—0.1%
NOW, Inc. (a) (b)		34,836		713,093
Total Common Stocks (Cost $660,499,084)				743,874,211
U.S. Treasury & Government Agencies—17.3%
Agency Sponsored Mortgage - Backed—16.1%
Fannie Mae 15 Yr. Pool 2.500%, TBA (c)		12,425,000		12,444,656
3.000%, 07/01/28		2,197,622		2,258,716
3.000%, 02/01/31		252,032		258,856
3.000%, 03/01/31		28,657		29,433
3.000%, TBA (c)		2,153,000		2,209,348
3.500%, 07/01/28		321,097		335,968
4.000%, 04/01/26		58,068		61,365
4.000%, 02/01/29		1,447,062		1,527,620
4.500%, 06/01/24		307,779		325,412
4.500%, 02/01/25		94,570		100,419
4.500%, 04/01/25		14,135		14,900
4.500%, 07/01/25		70,049		74,050
4.500%, 06/01/26		1,431,842		1,517,253
5.000%, TBA (c)		500,000		510,586
Fannie Mae 30 Yr. Pool 3.000%, 02/01/43		924,736		924,472
3.000%, 03/01/43		1,200,410		1,200,068
3.000%, 04/01/43		1,096,371		1,096,059
3.000%, 05/01/43		3,074,090		3,073,214
3.000%, 06/01/43		353,565		353,465
3.000%, TBA (c)		7,775,000		7,723,792
3.500%, 03/01/43		68,352		70,501
3.500%, 05/01/43		127,621		131,635
3.500%, 07/01/43		282,774		291,648
Agency Sponsored Mortgage - Backed—(Continued)
Fannie Mae 30 Yr. Pool
3.500%, 08/01/43		512,077		528,191
3.500%, 10/01/44		493,106		507,446
3.500%, 02/01/45		646,169		662,721
3.500%, 01/01/46		1,104,731		1,133,204
3.500%, 02/01/46		1,374,164		1,409,616
3.500%, 06/01/46		4,124,419		4,230,987
3.500%, 09/01/46		1,065,808		1,093,416
3.500%, 10/01/46		444,305		455,813
3.500%, 11/01/46		298,344		307,088
3.500%, TBA (c)		15,475,000		15,860,666
4.000%, 10/01/40		1,127,831		1,186,999
4.000%, 11/01/40		483,202		509,856
4.000%, 12/01/40		345,064		364,117
4.000%, 02/01/41		172,800		182,485
4.000%, 03/01/41		419,102		442,430
4.000%, 08/01/42		226,000		238,418
4.000%, 09/01/42		381,354		400,858
4.000%, 03/01/45		72,463		76,215
4.000%, 02/01/46		720,086		757,700
4.000%, 05/01/46		756,304		795,983
4.000%, 06/01/46		389,866		410,259
4.000%, TBA (c)		1,675,000		1,760,942
4.500%, 10/01/40		1,068,418		1,151,431
4.500%, 09/01/41		119,979		129,631
4.500%, 10/01/41		482,007		519,383
4.500%, 08/01/42		149,264		161,082
4.500%, 09/01/43		2,432,270		2,617,215
4.500%, 10/01/43		344,664		371,046
4.500%, 12/01/43		312,748		337,110
4.500%, 01/01/44		777,992		843,834
5.000%, 04/01/33		4,719		5,171
5.000%, 07/01/33		16,110		17,640
5.000%, 09/01/33		241,967		265,526
5.000%, 11/01/33		60,961		66,963
5.000%, 12/01/33		24,733		27,161
5.000%, 02/01/34		10,907		11,978
5.000%, 03/01/34		5,201		5,713
5.000%, 04/01/34		4,937		5,418
5.000%, 06/01/34		4,636		5,079
5.000%, 07/01/34		72,890		80,023
5.000%, 10/01/34		185,614		203,509
5.000%, 07/01/35		125,854		138,179
5.000%, 10/01/35		139,844		153,608
5.000%, 12/01/35		110,472		121,282
5.000%, 08/01/36		101,441		111,397
5.000%, 07/01/37		55,116		60,539
5.000%, 07/01/41		103,034		112,745
5.000%, 08/01/41		63,485		69,452
5.500%, 08/01/28		28,480		31,629
5.500%, 04/01/33		65,178		73,095
5.500%, 08/01/37		392,346		440,115
5.500%, 04/01/41		36,641		40,871
6.000%, 03/01/28		2,838		3,211
6.000%, 05/01/28		9,356		10,585

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-9

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Wellington Balanced Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

U.S. Treasury & Government Agencies—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Agency Sponsored Mortgage - Backed—(Continued)
Fannie Mae 30 Yr. Pool
6.000%, 02/01/34		263,808	$	303,420
6.000%, 08/01/34		140,512		161,419
6.000%, 04/01/35		1,185,139		1,363,044
6.000%, 02/01/38		93,801		107,693
6.000%, 03/01/38		32,592		37,423
6.000%, 05/01/38		105,798		121,931
6.000%, 10/01/38		31,228		35,703
6.000%, 12/01/38		36,758		41,955
6.000%, TBA (c)		1,000,000		1,132,344
6.500%, 05/01/40		758,501		861,736
Fannie Mae ARM Pool 2.810%, 03/01/41 (d)		129,965		137,959
2.945%, 03/01/41 (d)		75,517		79,761
3.144%, 12/01/40 (d)		203,713		214,518
3.396%, 06/01/41 (d)		234,471		245,714
3.525%, 09/01/41 (d)		163,698		172,039
Fannie Mae Pool 2.350%, 11/01/26		500,000		472,411
2.690%, 04/01/25		200,000		197,431
2.780%, 02/01/27		689,464		679,793
3.140%, 11/01/27		687,742		691,960
3.160%, 12/01/26		90,000		90,968
3.210%, 05/01/23		165,000		170,361
3.240%, 12/01/26		83,911		85,385
3.340%, 04/01/24		84,164		87,171
3.410%, 08/01/27		490,857		504,151
3.450%, 01/01/24		33,989		35,408
3.470%, 01/01/24		33,607		35,051
3.650%, 08/01/23		1,813,503		1,917,494
3.670%, 08/01/23		81,320		86,077
3.700%, 10/01/23		25,000		26,410
3.760%, 03/01/24		30,000		31,864
3.855%, 12/01/25		45,000		47,840
3.860%, 11/01/23		25,000		26,683
3.870%, 10/01/25		76,321		81,035
3.890%, 05/01/30		102,308		106,486
3.930%, 10/01/23		109,772		116,792
3.960%, 05/01/34		43,410		45,185
3.970%, 05/01/29		29,767		31,963
4.060%, 10/01/28		65,357		70,534
Fannie Mae REMICS (CMO) Zero Coupon, 03/25/36 (e)		41,737		36,177
Zero Coupon, 06/25/36 (e) (f)		358,483		314,288
1.938%, 04/25/55 (d) (g)		1,280,022		74,216
1.968%, 08/25/44 (d) (f) (g)		1,237,006		80,027
1.972%, 05/25/46 (d) (f) (g)		1,337,036		74,728
2.500%, 06/25/28 (f) (g)		267,215		22,260
3.000%, 09/25/27 (f) (g)		235,113		22,001
3.000%, 01/25/28 (f) (g)		1,718,165		163,987
3.000%, 04/25/28 (f) (g)		775,258		74,838
3.500%, 10/25/27 (f) (g)		438,311		50,119
3.500%, 05/25/30 (f) (g)		417,906		56,713
4.000%, 03/25/42 (f) (g)		188,763		26,845
4.000%, 05/25/42 (f) (g)		1,106,214		178,463
4.000%, 11/25/42 (f) (g)		108,046		16,147
Agency Sponsored Mortgage - Backed—(Continued)
Fannie Mae REMICS (CMO)
4.500%, 07/25/27 (f) (g)		260,191		27,242
5.459%, 05/25/42 (d) (g)		153,646		17,898
5.500%, 04/25/35 (f)		418,995		462,408
5.500%, 04/25/37 (f)		186,560		207,172
Fannie Mae-ACES 2.292%, 01/25/22 (d) (g)		1,587,894		114,288
3.329%, 10/25/23 (d)		505,000		523,480
Freddie Mac 15 Yr. Gold Pool 2.500%, TBA (c)		12,400,000		12,422,282
3.000%, 07/01/28		807,975		829,927
3.000%, 08/01/29		548,460		564,407
3.000%, TBA (c)		7,175,000		7,362,262
3.500%, TBA (c)		1,500,000		1,564,309
Freddie Mac 20 Yr. Gold Pool 3.000%, 11/01/36		1,385,898		1,402,498
3.500%, 08/01/34		1,087,937		1,125,042
Freddie Mac 30 Yr. Gold Pool 3.000%, 11/01/46		2,123,922		2,111,862
3.000%, 12/01/46		7,487,140		7,442,553
3.000%, TBA (c)		4,725,000		4,691,804
3.500%, 08/01/42		161,661		166,789
3.500%, 11/01/42		238,407		245,477
3.500%, 05/01/46		6,347,848		6,505,450
3.500%, 06/01/46		340,863		349,363
3.500%, TBA (c)		15,800,000		16,178,298
4.000%, 05/01/42		1,082,228		1,142,213
4.000%, 08/01/42		299,451		317,466
4.000%, 09/01/42		458,203		485,769
4.000%, 07/01/44		94,813		99,599
4.000%, 01/01/46		674,857		709,323
4.000%, 02/01/46		367,674		386,475
4.000%, TBA (c)		10,800,000		11,343,586
4.500%, 09/01/43		190,761		205,274
4.500%, 11/01/43		1,890,258		2,030,488
4.500%, 09/01/44		275,138		295,538
4.500%, TBA (c)		1,425,000		1,529,556
5.000%, TBA (c)		1,500,000		1,633,242
5.500%, 07/01/33		173,103		194,240
5.500%, 04/01/39		75,130		83,683
5.500%, 06/01/41		282,912		315,119
Freddie Mac ARM Non-Gold Pool 2.997%, 02/01/41 (d)		202,240		214,428
Freddie Mac Multifamily Structured Pass-Through Certificates 1.481%, 06/25/22 (d) (g)		1,875,645		123,379
1.529%, 12/25/18 (d) (g)		3,081,940		75,451
1.694%, 03/25/22 (d) (g)		1,418,373		101,476
1.759%, 05/25/19 (d) (g)		2,370,251		79,040
Freddie Mac REMICS (CMO) Zero Coupon, 11/15/36 (e)		43,656		39,113
3.000%, 03/15/28 (f) (g)		924,778		81,864
3.000%, 03/15/33 (f) (g)		242,043		30,222
3.500%, 03/15/41 (f) (g)		101,047		12,995
4.000%, 07/15/27 (f) (g)		1,141,184		126,958
4.500%, 03/15/41		296,665		331,851

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-10

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Wellington Balanced Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

U.S. Treasury & Government Agencies—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Agency Sponsored Mortgage - Backed—(Continued)
Freddie Mac REMICS (CMO)
4.750%, 07/15/39 (f)		812,401	$	876,291
5.500%, 08/15/33		93,596		102,149
5.500%, 07/15/36 (f)		202,226		226,563
5.500%, 06/15/46		283,142		314,582
6.500%, 07/15/36 (f)		278,825		313,218
FREMF Mortgage Trust 3.002%, 10/25/47 (144A) (d)		770,000		770,365
Ginnie Mae I 30 Yr. Pool 3.000%, 12/15/44		26,992		27,377
3.000%, 02/15/45		84,056		85,056
3.000%, 04/15/45		1,218,824		1,233,313
3.000%, 05/15/45		1,789,392		1,810,665
3.000%, 07/15/45		42,752		43,260
4.000%, 09/15/42		1,203,398		1,282,607
4.500%, 04/15/41		927,024		1,004,901
4.500%, 02/15/42		1,896,623		2,055,974
5.000%, 12/15/38		65,723		72,506
5.000%, 04/15/39		1,343,562		1,482,261
5.000%, 07/15/39		140,734		154,754
5.000%, 12/15/40		186,214		205,441
5.500%, 12/15/40		623,784		697,372
Ginnie Mae II 30 Yr. Pool 3.500%, 10/20/46		4,516,530		4,700,934
3.500%, TBA (c)		3,275,000		3,404,401
4.500%, 01/20/46		231,377		247,189
4.500%, TBA (c)		100,000		106,730
5.000%, 10/20/39		31,423		34,829
Government National Mortgage Association 0.836%, 02/16/53 (d) (g)		2,531,628		135,091
Government National Mortgage Association (CMO) 4.000%, 05/16/42 (f) (g)		134,912		20,449
4.000%, 01/20/44 (f) (g)		93,632		18,526
4.000%, 11/20/44 (f) (g)		1,454,485		276,248
5.000%, 10/16/41 (f) (g)		561,822		95,652
				197,988,251
U.S. Treasury—1.2%
U.S. Treasury Bonds
2.750%, 08/15/42 (h)		350,000		330,654
3.000%, 11/15/44 (h) (i)		595,000		587,772
4.500%, 02/15/36 (b) (h) (i)		1,199,000		1,517,109
U.S. Treasury Inflation Indexed Notes 0.250%, 01/15/25 (i) (j) (k)		8,187,792		8,052,555
U.S. Treasury Notes 2.000%, 11/15/26		4,474,000		4,304,650
				14,792,740
Total U.S. Treasury & Government Agencies (Cost $214,773,104)				212,780,991
Corporate Bonds & Notes—12.8%
Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Advertising—0.0%
Lamar Media Corp. 5.750%, 02/01/26 (b)		20,000		21,050
Aerospace/Defense—0.1%
BAE Systems Holdings, Inc. 2.850%, 12/15/20 (144A)		130,000		130,190
BAE Systems plc 4.750%, 10/11/21 (144A)		135,000		145,977
L-3 Communications Corp. 3.850%, 12/15/26		70,000		69,581
Lockheed Martin Corp. 2.500%, 11/23/20		265,000		267,239
4.700%, 05/15/46		380,000		413,336
				1,026,323
Agriculture—0.2%
Altria Group, Inc. 2.850%, 08/09/22		250,000		250,306
3.875%, 09/16/46		190,000		175,350
BAT International Finance plc 2.750%, 06/15/20 (144A)		490,000		492,621
Imperial Brands Finance plc 2.050%, 07/20/18 (144A)		200,000		199,955
2.950%, 07/21/20 (144A)		550,000		553,365
3.750%, 07/21/22 (144A)		310,000		318,237
Reynolds American, Inc. 3.250%, 06/12/20		517,000		529,751
				2,519,585
Apparel—0.0%
Hanesbrands, Inc. 4.875%, 05/15/26 (144A)		100,000		97,750
William Carter Co. (The) 5.250%, 08/15/21		165,000		170,981
				268,731
Auto Manufacturers—0.6%
Daimler Finance North America LLC 1.650%, 03/02/18 (144A) (b)		900,000		898,828
Ford Motor Co. 4.346%, 12/08/26 (b)		400,000		404,199
Ford Motor Credit Co. LLC 1.461%, 03/27/17		1,560,000		1,560,250
2.240%, 06/15/18		535,000		535,725
4.134%, 08/04/25		200,000		200,240
General Motors Co. 6.600%, 04/01/36		375,000		428,628
6.750%, 04/01/46		85,000		99,679
General Motors Financial Co., Inc. 2.400%, 04/10/18		575,000		575,615
3.500%, 07/10/19		925,000		941,886
3.700%, 05/09/23		300,000		295,196
4.750%, 08/15/17		900,000		917,071

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-11

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Wellington Balanced Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Corporate Bonds & Notes—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Auto Manufacturers—(Continued)
General Motors Financial Co., Inc.
5.250%, 03/01/26		375,000	$	393,934
				7,251,251
Banks—4.2%
Allied Irish Banks plc 7.375%, 12/03/20 (EUR) (d)		600,000		622,745
Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria S.A. 7.000%, 02/19/19 (EUR) (d)		800,000		807,627
9.000%, 05/09/18 (d)		800,000		832,797
Banco Santander S.A. 6.250%, 03/12/19 (EUR) (d)		500,000		492,114
Bank of America Corp. 2.503%, 10/21/22		925,000		894,592
2.625%, 04/19/21 (b)		500,000		496,569
3.950%, 04/21/25		350,000		348,421
4.000%, 04/01/24		245,000		252,678
4.000%, 01/22/25		1,410,000		1,411,771
4.125%, 01/22/24		265,000		275,402
4.183%, 11/25/27 (b)		540,000		540,345
6.110%, 01/29/37		145,000		169,983
7.750%, 05/14/38		840,000		1,156,515
Bank of Ireland 7.375%, 06/18/20 (EUR) (d)		675,000		723,187
Bank of Nova Scotia (The) 4.500%, 12/16/25 (b)		465,000		477,688
Barclays Bank plc 6.050%, 12/04/17 (144A)		1,200,000		1,239,704
8.000%, 12/15/20 (EUR) (d)		750,000		832,625
BNP Paribas S.A. 7.625%, 03/30/21 (144A) (b) (d)		390,000		411,489
BPCE S.A. 5.150%, 07/21/24 (144A)		260,000		264,318
Capital One N.A. 1.650%, 02/05/18		925,000		923,204
2.350%, 08/17/18		580,000		583,332
Citigroup, Inc. 2.700%, 03/30/21		295,000		294,325
3.200%, 10/21/26		70,000		66,936
4.300%, 11/20/26		675,000		681,161
4.450%, 09/29/27		1,815,000		1,843,761
4.600%, 03/09/26		215,000		222,220
4.650%, 07/30/45 (b)		56,000		59,027
5.500%, 09/13/25		490,000		538,515
Credit Agricole S.A. 7.500%, 06/23/26 (GBP) (d)		100,000		123,214
8.125%, 12/23/25 (144A) (d)		725,000		763,034
8.125%, 09/19/33 (144A) (d)		225,000		242,044
Credit Suisse Group AG 6.250%, 12/18/24 (144A) (b) (d)		1,320,000		1,284,624
Credit Suisse Group Funding Guernsey, Ltd. 3.125%, 12/10/20		495,000		493,453
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (The) 2.000%, 04/25/19		140,000		139,444
2.350%, 11/15/21		560,000		544,074
Banks—(Continued)
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (The)
2.600%, 04/23/20		1,605,000		1,606,682
2.750%, 09/15/20		440,000		441,901
2.875%, 02/25/21 (b)		520,000		522,404
4.750%, 10/21/45		215,000		226,963
5.150%, 05/22/45		640,000		673,062
6.250%, 02/01/41		430,000		533,014
6.750%, 10/01/37		1,375,000		1,697,915
HSBC Holdings plc 2.950%, 05/25/21 (b)		255,000		254,903
3.400%, 03/08/21		765,000		777,912
3.600%, 05/25/23		255,000		256,478
4.250%, 08/18/25		900,000		908,233
5.250%, 09/16/22 (EUR) (d)		225,000		232,526
5.250%, 03/14/44		280,000		299,842
HSBC USA, Inc. 2.750%, 08/07/20		375,000		375,744
Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A. 7.700%, 09/17/25 (144A) (b) (d)		650,000		610,188
JPMorgan Chase & Co. 2.112%, 10/24/23 (d)		665,000		678,279
2.295%, 08/15/21 (b)		420,000		412,219
2.400%, 06/07/21 (b)		565,000		559,810
2.550%, 10/29/20		530,000		529,609
2.700%, 05/18/23		480,000		469,627
2.750%, 06/23/20 (b)		830,000		837,507
4.250%, 10/01/27 (b)		635,000		652,417
5.600%, 07/15/41		125,000		149,475
6.000%, 01/15/18		455,000		474,622
Landsbanki Islands Zero Coupon, 08/25/20 (l)		320,000		30,800
Lloyds Banking Group plc 7.000%, 06/27/19 (GBP) (d)		280,000		348,957
Morgan Stanley 2.500%, 01/24/19		455,000		459,783
2.500%, 04/21/21		1,190,000		1,177,062
3.125%, 07/27/26		1,225,000		1,170,336
3.950%, 04/23/27		160,000		158,385
4.000%, 07/23/25		280,000		287,005
4.350%, 09/08/26		95,000		97,351
5.000%, 11/24/25		707,000		755,279
5.550%, 04/27/17		1,350,000		1,367,867
6.250%, 08/28/17		555,000		571,849
PNC Bank N.A. 1.450%, 07/29/19		420,000		414,286
Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc 3.875%, 09/12/23		1,270,000		1,219,525
6.125%, 12/15/22		125,000		132,917
7.500%, 08/10/20 (b) (d)		720,000		682,200
Santander Issuances S.A.U. 5.179%, 11/19/25		800,000		807,522
Societe Generale S.A. 7.375%, 09/13/21 (144A) (d)		650,000		648,908
8.250%, 11/29/18 (d)		885,000		920,453
UBS Group AG 5.750%, 02/19/22 (EUR) (d)		250,000		276,647

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-12

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Wellington Balanced Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Corporate Bonds & Notes—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Banks—(Continued)
UBS Group AG
6.875%, 03/22/21 (d)		450,000	$	457,875
7.000%, 02/19/25 (d)		200,000		209,856
7.125%, 02/19/20 (d)		470,000		483,336
UBS Group Funding Jersey, Ltd. 2.650%, 02/01/22 (144A)		620,000		602,575
Wells Fargo & Co. 3.000%, 04/22/26		310,000		295,812
3.000%, 10/23/26		200,000		190,479
4.400%, 06/14/46		640,000		612,515
4.900%, 11/17/45		980,000		1,006,579
5.606%, 01/15/44		675,000		764,803
Wells Fargo Bank N.A. 2.150%, 12/06/19 (b)		880,000		879,454
				52,264,686
Beverages—0.6%
Anheuser-Busch InBev Finance, Inc. 1.900%, 02/01/19		840,000		841,205
2.150%, 02/01/19		175,000		176,083
3.300%, 02/01/23		2,620,000		2,666,458
3.650%, 02/01/26		120,000		121,823
4.700%, 02/01/36		815,000		857,272
4.900%, 02/01/46		1,275,000		1,378,109
Anheuser-Busch InBev Worldwide, Inc. 2.500%, 07/15/22		290,000		285,420
3.750%, 07/15/42		405,000		364,254
Molson Coors Brewing Co. 4.200%, 07/15/46		285,000		265,713
Pernod Ricard S.A. 3.250%, 06/08/26 (144A)		505,000		484,562
				7,440,899
Biotechnology—0.1%
Celgene Corp. 4.625%, 05/15/44		195,000		190,928
Gilead Sciences, Inc. 2.500%, 09/01/23		120,000		115,719
3.250%, 09/01/22		205,000		209,249
				515,896
Building Materials—0.1%
Boise Cascade Co. 5.625%, 09/01/24 (144A)		35,000		34,738
CRH America, Inc. 5.125%, 05/18/45 (144A)		500,000		520,681
Eagle Materials, Inc. 4.500%, 08/01/26		75,000		74,812
Norbord, Inc. 6.250%, 04/15/23 (144A)		125,000		129,375
Standard Industries, Inc. 5.375%, 11/15/24 (144A)		115,000		118,162
6.000%, 10/15/25 (144A) (b)		220,000		231,550
				1,109,318
Chemicals—0.0%
Methanex Corp. 4.250%, 12/01/24		245,000		235,685
5.650%, 12/01/44		220,000		193,002
Versum Materials, Inc. 5.500%, 09/30/24 (144A)		20,000		20,450
				449,137
Commercial Services—0.1%
Cardtronics, Inc. 5.125%, 08/01/22		130,000		130,975
ERAC USA Finance LLC 2.600%, 12/01/21 (144A)		550,000		541,263
United Rentals North America, Inc. 4.625%, 07/15/23		60,000		61,200
5.500%, 07/15/25 (b)		110,000		112,200
				845,638
Computers—0.1%
Apple, Inc. 3.450%, 02/09/45		550,000		485,457
3.850%, 08/04/46		95,000		91,023
Diamond 1 Finance Corp. / Diamond 2 Finance Corp. 3.480%, 06/01/19 (144A)		250,000		255,202
4.420%, 06/15/21 (144A)		195,000		201,775
8.350%, 07/15/46 (144A)		125,000		153,911
NCR Corp. 5.000%, 07/15/22		53,000		54,060
				1,241,428
Diversified Financial Services—0.4%
Aircastle, Ltd. 5.000%, 04/01/23 (b)		25,000		25,500
5.500%, 02/15/22 (b)		50,000		53,000
CIT Group, Inc. 5.500%, 02/15/19 (144A)		275,000		290,125
GTP Acquisition Partners LLC 3.482%, 06/16/25 (144A)		1,355,000		1,316,301
Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. 2.750%, 12/01/20		435,000		438,923
Nasdaq, Inc. 3.850%, 06/30/26		110,000		109,274
Navient Corp. 5.500%, 01/15/19		330,000		342,375
Synchrony Financial 2.600%, 01/15/19		740,000		743,743
Visa, Inc. 2.800%, 12/14/22		440,000		442,466
4.300%, 12/14/45		580,000		612,198
				4,373,905
Electric—0.5%
AES Corp. 4.875%, 05/15/23		20,000		19,754

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-13

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Wellington Balanced Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Corporate Bonds & Notes—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Electric—(Continued)
AES Corp.
5.500%, 03/15/24 (b)		325,000	$	330,687
Dominion Resources, Inc. 2.850%, 08/15/26 (b)		340,000		318,319
DTE Energy Co. 1.500%, 10/01/19		315,000		309,764
Duke Energy Carolinas LLC 4.250%, 12/15/41		275,000		281,323
Duke Energy Corp. 2.650%, 09/01/26 (b)		135,000		125,999
Duke Energy Florida LLC 3.400%, 10/01/46		430,000		382,603
Duke Energy Progress LLC 4.375%, 03/30/44		320,000		331,594
Electricite de France S.A. 4.950%, 10/13/45 (144A) (b)		460,000		465,418
Emera U.S. Finance L.P. 2.700%, 06/15/21 (144A)		80,000		79,187
4.750%, 06/15/46 (144A)		90,000		90,760
Exelon Corp. 2.450%, 04/15/21		80,000		79,039
2.850%, 06/15/20		565,000		571,031
FirstEnergy Corp. 4.250%, 03/15/23		475,000		491,053
Fortis, Inc. 2.100%, 10/04/21 (144A)		155,000		149,810
3.055%, 10/04/26 (144A)		330,000		308,641
NextEra Energy Capital Holdings, Inc. 1.649%, 09/01/18		210,000		209,341
NRG Energy, Inc. 6.250%, 07/15/22 (b)		130,000		130,325
Oncor Electric Delivery Co. LLC 7.000%, 09/01/22		130,000		158,674
Southern Co. (The) 1.850%, 07/01/19		315,000		314,025
2.950%, 07/01/23		130,000		128,322
4.400%, 07/01/46		155,000		153,313
				5,428,982
Electrical Components & Equipment—0.0%
EnerSys 5.000%, 04/30/23 (144A)		130,000		130,650
Electronics—0.0%
Fortive Corp. 2.350%, 06/15/21 (144A)		295,000		291,055
Entertainment—0.0%
GLP Capital L.P. / GLP Financing II, Inc. 5.375%, 04/15/26		50,000		52,145
WMG Acquisition Corp. 4.875%, 11/01/24 (144A)		150,000		149,250
5.000%, 08/01/23 (144A) (b)		40,000		40,200
				241,595
Environmental Control—0.0%
Clean Harbors, Inc. 5.250%, 08/01/20		210,000		214,988
Food—0.2%
Danone S.A. 1.691%, 10/30/19 (144A)		705,000		696,173
Kraft Heinz Foods Co. 2.000%, 07/02/18		325,000		325,073
2.800%, 07/02/20		205,000		206,948
4.375%, 06/01/46		125,000		117,622
Kroger Co. (The) 1.500%, 09/30/19		180,000		177,265
2.650%, 10/15/26 (b)		255,000		236,910
3.875%, 10/15/46 (b)		30,000		27,311
Lamb Weston Holdings, Inc. 4.625%, 11/01/24 (144A) (b)		65,000		65,163
4.875%, 11/01/26 (144A)		65,000		64,309
Sigma Alimentos S.A. de C.V. 4.125%, 05/02/26 (144A)		430,000		408,500
Sysco Corp. 2.500%, 07/15/21		430,000		425,411
				2,750,685
Forest Products & Paper—0.0%
Cascades, Inc. 5.750%, 07/15/23 (144A)		95,000		96,425
Clearwater Paper Corp. 5.375%, 02/01/25 (144A) (b)		220,000		217,800
				314,225
Gas—0.0%
AmeriGas Partners L.P. / AmeriGas Finance Corp. 5.625%, 05/20/24		95,000		97,137
5.875%, 08/20/26		95,000		96,425
Southern Co. Gas Capital Corp. 2.450%, 10/01/23		95,000		91,114
Southern Star Central Corp. 5.125%, 07/15/22 (144A)		25,000		25,313
				309,989
Healthcare-Products—0.2%
Kinetic Concepts, Inc. / KCI USA, Inc. 7.875%, 02/15/21 (144A)		125,000		135,625
Medtronic, Inc. 4.375%, 03/15/35		398,000		421,055
4.625%, 03/15/45		130,000		140,585
Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc. 2.950%, 09/19/26		95,000		89,704
3.000%, 04/15/23		455,000		447,204
Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. 1.450%, 04/01/17		555,000		555,134
				1,789,307

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-14

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Wellington Balanced Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Corporate Bonds & Notes—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Healthcare-Services—0.3%
Aetna, Inc. 2.800%, 06/15/23		175,000	$	172,377
4.250%, 06/15/36		80,000		80,212
Anthem, Inc. 3.500%, 08/15/24		900,000		897,445
4.625%, 05/15/42		170,000		170,811
CHS/Community Health Systems, Inc. 5.125%, 08/01/21 (b)		125,000		115,937
HCA, Inc. 7.500%, 02/15/22 (b)		200,000		227,000
MEDNAX, Inc. 5.250%, 12/01/23 (144A) (b)		40,000		41,200
Tenet Healthcare Corp. 6.000%, 10/01/20 (b)		335,000		350,912
UnitedHealth Group, Inc. 1.700%, 02/15/19 (b)		465,000		463,602
3.350%, 07/15/22		460,000		473,941
3.750%, 07/15/25		475,000		491,736
4.750%, 07/15/45		130,000		143,210
				3,628,383
Home Builders—0.0%
CalAtlantic Group, Inc. 5.375%, 10/01/22		170,000		173,400
Meritage Homes Corp. 6.000%, 06/01/25		125,000		126,562
				299,962
Household Products/Wares—0.0%
ACCO Brands Corp. 5.250%, 12/15/24 (144A)		20,000		20,138
Insurance—0.1%
American International Group, Inc. 4.700%, 07/10/35		265,000		274,652
CNO Financial Group, Inc. 4.500%, 05/30/20		10,000		10,250
5.250%, 05/30/25		90,000		89,887
Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc. 3.500%, 03/10/25		340,000		342,316
Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co. 8.875%, 06/01/39 (144A)		325,000		487,877
MGIC Investment Corp. 5.750%, 08/15/23 (b)		45,000		46,912
Radian Group, Inc. 7.000%, 03/15/21		80,000		89,000
				1,340,894
Internet—0.0%
Netflix, Inc. 4.375%, 11/15/26 (144A) (b)		65,000		63,050
Iron/Steel—0.0%
Steel Dynamics, Inc. 5.500%, 10/01/24 (b)		105,000		111,300
Lodging—0.0%
Wynn Las Vegas LLC / Wynn Las Vegas Capital Corp. 5.375%, 03/15/22		171,000		175,275
Machinery-Construction & Mining—0.0%
Oshkosh Corp. 5.375%, 03/01/25 (b)		120,000		122,400
Machinery-Diversified—0.0%
CNH Industrial Capital LLC 3.375%, 07/15/19		15,000		15,038
CNH Industrial NV 4.500%, 08/15/23 (b)		145,000		143,187
				158,225
Media—1.0%
21st Century Fox America, Inc. 3.375%, 11/15/26 (144A)		305,000		298,985
4.750%, 11/15/46 (144A) (b)		55,000		55,164
6.150%, 03/01/37		685,000		801,631
Altice U.S. Finance I Corp. 5.500%, 05/15/26 (144A) (b)		200,000		204,000
CBS Corp. 4.000%, 01/15/26		150,000		152,557
CCO Holdings LLC / CCO Holdings Capital Corp. 5.125%, 02/15/23		10,000		10,275
5.250%, 09/30/22		35,000		36,225
5.750%, 09/01/23		60,000		62,700
5.750%, 02/15/26 (144A)		30,000		31,050
Charter Communications Operating LLC / Charter Communications Operating Capital Corp. 3.579%, 07/23/20		270,000		275,463
4.464%, 07/23/22		815,000		851,700
4.908%, 07/23/25		760,000		800,987
6.484%, 10/23/45		1,305,000		1,508,683
Comcast Corp. 2.750%, 03/01/23		655,000		650,317
3.150%, 03/01/26		860,000		848,539
3.400%, 07/15/46		400,000		349,325
4.750%, 03/01/44		240,000		257,406
COX Communications, Inc. 3.250%, 12/15/22 (144A)		190,000		185,076
3.350%, 09/15/26 (144A)		95,000		90,719
3.850%, 02/01/25 (144A) (b)		355,000		348,166
DISH DBS Corp. 5.875%, 11/15/24		280,000		288,120
Grupo Televisa S.A.B. 6.125%, 01/31/46		360,000		357,259

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-15

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Wellington Balanced Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Corporate Bonds & Notes—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Media—(Continued)
Liberty Interactive LLC 8.250%, 02/01/30 (b)		385,000	$	410,025
NBCUniversal Media LLC 5.150%, 04/30/20		86,000		94,043
Sky plc 2.625%, 09/16/19 (144A)		480,000		481,956
TEGNA, Inc. 4.875%, 09/15/21 (144A)		225,000		228,938
5.125%, 10/15/19 (b)		105,000		107,756
6.375%, 10/15/23		10,000		10,582
Time Warner Cable LLC 4.500%, 09/15/42		325,000		294,338
7.300%, 07/01/38		500,000		615,071
8.250%, 04/01/19		231,000		259,575
8.750%, 02/14/19		759,000		855,351
Time Warner, Inc. 4.850%, 07/15/45 (b)		275,000		275,299
Viacom, Inc. 3.450%, 10/04/26 (b)		65,000		60,073
Videotron, Ltd. 5.375%, 06/15/24 (144A) (b)		145,000		148,806
				12,306,160
Mining—0.1%
Anglo American Capital plc 4.875%, 05/14/25 (144A)		210,000		212,887
Freeport-McMoRan, Inc. 3.875%, 03/15/23 (b)		25,000		22,938
4.550%, 11/14/24		20,000		18,750
5.400%, 11/14/34 (b)		65,000		54,600
5.450%, 03/15/43		50,000		41,376
Kaiser Aluminum Corp. 5.875%, 05/15/24		45,000		46,575
Rio Tinto Finance USA, Ltd. 3.750%, 06/15/25 (b)		180,000		185,365
Teck Resources, Ltd. 8.500%, 06/01/24 (144A) (b)		105,000		121,013
				703,504
Oil & Gas—1.1%
Anadarko Petroleum Corp. 3.450%, 07/15/24		460,000		451,557
4.500%, 07/15/44		240,000		225,492
4.850%, 03/15/21 (b)		370,000		396,728
5.550%, 03/15/26		5,000		5,596
6.600%, 03/15/46 (b)		400,000		493,344
6.950%, 06/15/19		75,000		83,209
Antero Resources Corp. 5.625%, 06/01/23		50,000		51,187
BP Capital Markets plc 2.112%, 09/16/21		355,000		348,308
2.750%, 05/10/23		500,000		490,874
3.062%, 03/17/22		125,000		126,438
Cenovus Energy, Inc. 3.000%, 08/15/22		785,000		758,920
Oil & Gas—(Continued)
Cenovus Energy, Inc.
3.800%, 09/15/23		120,000		117,124
5.200%, 09/15/43		280,000		266,700
Concho Resources, Inc. 5.500%, 04/01/23 (b)		75,000		77,722
6.500%, 01/15/22		65,000		67,255
ConocoPhillips Co. 4.950%, 03/15/26 (b)		605,000		667,921
Continental Resources, Inc. 3.800%, 06/01/24		5,000		4,613
4.500%, 04/15/23		60,000		58,800
4.900%, 06/01/44 (b)		10,000		8,550
5.000%, 09/15/22 (b)		70,000		70,657
Devon Energy Corp. 3.250%, 05/15/22 (b)		895,000		889,321
Devon Financing Co. LLC 7.875%, 09/30/31		100,000		126,884
Diamondback Energy, Inc. 4.750%, 11/01/24 (144A) (b)		10,000		9,800
Encana Corp. 3.900%, 11/15/21		255,000		256,831
EOG Resources, Inc. 4.150%, 01/15/26 (b)		225,000		235,461
Hess Corp. 4.300%, 04/01/27 (b)		370,000		368,306
5.600%, 02/15/41		210,000		212,339
5.800%, 04/01/47 (b)		320,000		332,102
6.000%, 01/15/40 (b)		260,000		268,212
Kerr-McGee Corp. 6.950%, 07/01/24		480,000		566,301
Marathon Oil Corp. 2.700%, 06/01/20		200,000		200,266
2.800%, 11/01/22 (b)		370,000		353,817
3.850%, 06/01/25		100,000		96,973
5.200%, 06/01/45		30,000		28,277
6.600%, 10/01/37 (b)		15,000		16,392
6.800%, 03/15/32		15,000		16,706
MEG Energy Corp. 7.000%, 03/31/24 (144A)		61,000		55,205
Petroleos Mexicanos 3.500%, 07/23/20		180,000		176,175
5.500%, 02/04/19 (144A)		380,000		393,638
5.500%, 06/27/44		99,000		82,388
6.375%, 02/04/21 (144A)		195,000		207,675
6.500%, 03/13/27 (144A)		25,000		25,787
6.750%, 09/21/47 (144A)		421,000		397,761
Pioneer Natural Resources Co. 3.450%, 01/15/21		65,000		66,423
3.950%, 07/15/22		120,000		124,504
4.450%, 01/15/26 (b)		580,000		614,547
QEP Resources, Inc. 5.375%, 10/01/22		5,000		5,013
6.800%, 03/01/20 (f)		15,000		15,600
Shell International Finance B.V. 2.500%, 09/12/26 (b)		185,000		173,579
3.250%, 05/11/25		490,000		489,598

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-16

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Wellington Balanced Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Corporate Bonds & Notes—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Oil & Gas—(Continued)
Shell International Finance B.V.
4.375%, 05/11/45		470,000	$	476,099
SM Energy Co. 6.125%, 11/15/22 (b)		55,000		55,687
Statoil ASA 3.700%, 03/01/24		90,000		94,202
3.950%, 05/15/43 (b)		445,000		424,457
Tesoro Corp. 5.125%, 04/01/24		150,000		153,375
Valero Energy Corp. 3.400%, 09/15/26		610,000		584,389
4.900%, 03/15/45		75,000		74,741
				13,439,826
Packaging & Containers—0.0%
Crown Americas LLC / Crown Americas Capital Corp. 4.250%, 09/30/26 (144A)		55,000		51,838
Owens-Brockway Glass Container, Inc. 5.875%, 08/15/23 (144A)		95,000		99,037
Reynolds Group Issuer, Inc. / Reynolds Group Issuer LLC 5.125%, 07/15/23 (144A) (b)		170,000		173,612
				324,487
Pharmaceuticals—0.5%
AbbVie, Inc. 3.200%, 05/14/26 (b)		250,000		237,857
Actavis Funding SCS 2.350%, 03/12/18		1,545,000		1,553,932
3.000%, 03/12/20		1,020,000		1,034,140
Baxalta, Inc. 3.600%, 06/23/22		55,000		55,421
Cardinal Health, Inc. 1.950%, 06/15/18		265,000		265,576
EMD Finance LLC 2.950%, 03/19/22 (144A)		600,000		597,455
Mylan NV 3.000%, 12/15/18 (144A)		280,000		282,025
3.150%, 06/15/21 (144A) (b)		255,000		250,254
3.750%, 12/15/20 (144A)		325,000		328,178
Shire Acquisitions Investments Ireland DAC 2.400%, 09/23/21 (b)		480,000		463,674
Teva Pharmaceutical Finance Netherlands III B.V. 1.700%, 07/19/19		875,000		859,712
2.200%, 07/21/21 (b)		700,000		669,681
				6,597,905
Pipelines—0.5%
DCP Midstream Operating L.P. 2.700%, 04/01/19		30,000		29,625
3.875%, 03/15/23		20,000		19,238
4.950%, 04/01/22		66,000		67,650
5.600%, 04/01/44		50,000		45,625
Pipelines—(Continued)
Energy Transfer Equity L.P. 7.500%, 10/15/20		310,000		345,650
Energy Transfer Partners L.P. 3.600%, 02/01/23		40,000		39,340
4.050%, 03/15/25		180,000		178,184
5.950%, 10/01/43		120,000		123,675
Enterprise Products Operating LLC 3.950%, 02/15/27 (b)		240,000		245,854
Kinder Morgan Energy Partners L.P. 5.300%, 09/15/20		135,000		145,007
6.500%, 04/01/20		50,000		55,344
6.850%, 02/15/20		95,000		105,903
Kinder Morgan, Inc. 5.050%, 02/15/46		580,000		574,145
Magellan Midstream Partners L.P. 5.000%, 03/01/26		145,000		159,002
Phillips 66 Partners L.P. 3.550%, 10/01/26		110,000		106,455
Plains All American Pipeline L.P. / PAA Finance Corp. 2.850%, 01/31/23		470,000		444,310
3.650%, 06/01/22		470,000		472,594
4.500%, 12/15/26 (b)		275,000		278,973
Regency Energy Partners L.P. / Regency Energy Finance Corp. 4.500%, 11/01/23		275,000		279,049
5.875%, 03/01/22		55,000		60,503
Sunoco Logistics Partners Operations L.P. 3.900%, 07/15/26		25,000		24,199
4.250%, 04/01/24		300,000		302,318
Tesoro Logistics L.P. / Tesoro Logistics Finance Corp. 6.250%, 10/15/22		110,000		116,600
Texas Eastern Transmission L.P. 2.800%, 10/15/22 (144A)		420,000		408,810
Williams Cos., Inc. (The) 3.700%, 01/15/23		70,000		67,550
4.550%, 06/24/24 (b)		21,000		20,843
7.875%, 09/01/21		25,000		28,563
Williams Partners L.P. 3.600%, 03/15/22		905,000		909,788
4.000%, 11/15/21		215,000		220,662
4.300%, 03/04/24 (b)		260,000		262,551
5.250%, 03/15/20		280,000		299,157
				6,437,167
Real Estate—0.1%
ProLogis L.P. 3.350%, 02/01/21		595,000		612,281
Real Estate Investment Trusts—0.2%
American Tower Corp. 3.400%, 02/15/19		385,000		393,450
3.450%, 09/15/21		135,000		136,747
4.500%, 01/15/18		280,000		287,390

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-17

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Wellington Balanced Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Corporate Bonds & Notes—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Real Estate Investment Trusts—(Continued)
Brandywine Operating Partnership L.P. 3.950%, 02/15/23		400,000	$	398,451
CoreCivic, Inc. 4.125%, 04/01/20 (b)		70,000		69,825
Crown Castle International Corp. 3.400%, 02/15/21		65,000		65,959
3.700%, 06/15/26		245,000		240,475
HCP, Inc. 4.000%, 06/01/25		130,000		129,228
Kimco Realty Corp. 3.125%, 06/01/23		605,000		598,977
3.400%, 11/01/22		70,000		71,034
Ventas Realty L.P. / Ventas Capital Corp. 2.700%, 04/01/20		330,000		331,997
				2,723,533
Retail—0.3%
AutoZone, Inc. 1.625%, 04/21/19		140,000		138,722
CVS Health Corp. 2.125%, 06/01/21 (b)		80,000		78,444
2.800%, 07/20/20		750,000		760,954
3.875%, 07/20/25		324,000		334,238
5.125%, 07/20/45		645,000		718,818
Home Depot, Inc. (The) 3.500%, 09/15/56		410,000		358,893
KFC Holding Co. / Pizza Hut Holdings LLC / Taco Bell of America LLC 5.250%, 06/01/26 (144A) (b)		110,000		111,650
Lowe’s Cos., Inc. 2.500%, 04/15/26 (b)		700,000		664,765
3.700%, 04/15/46		575,000		536,731
Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. 2.600%, 06/01/21		195,000		193,776
				3,896,991
Savings & Loans—0.0%
Nationwide Building Society 6.875%, 06/20/19 (GBP) (d)		130,000		160,724
Semiconductors—0.1%
Intel Corp. 4.100%, 05/19/46 (b)		235,000		232,926
Lam Research Corp. 2.800%, 06/15/21		410,000		407,792
Sensata Technologies B.V. 5.000%, 10/01/25 (144A)		120,000		117,600
5.625%, 11/01/24 (144A)		20,000		20,850
				779,168
Shipbuilding—0.0%
Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc. 5.000%, 11/15/25 (144A)		25,000		25,969
Software—0.3%
First Data Corp. 5.000%, 01/15/24 (144A)		40,000		40,213
5.375%, 08/15/23 (144A) (b)		185,000		191,937
Microsoft Corp. 1.550%, 08/08/21		655,000		635,292
2.400%, 08/08/26		255,000		240,898
3.700%, 08/08/46		350,000		329,513
3.950%, 08/08/56		400,000		377,793
MSCI, Inc. 5.250%, 11/15/24 (144A)		75,000		78,750
5.750%, 08/15/25 (144A) (b)		65,000		69,062
Open Text Corp. 5.625%, 01/15/23 (144A)		80,000		83,600
Oracle Corp. 1.900%, 09/15/21		875,000		855,044
Quintiles IMS, Inc. 4.875%, 05/15/23 (144A)		85,000		86,275
				2,988,377
Telecommunications—0.6%
AT&T, Inc. 3.600%, 02/17/23		570,000		574,856
4.125%, 02/17/26 (b)		170,000		172,136
4.500%, 05/15/35		130,000		125,602
4.750%, 05/15/46		715,000		677,405
5.150%, 03/15/42		439,000		437,320
Cisco Systems, Inc. 1.400%, 09/20/19		785,000		776,440
2.200%, 02/28/21		470,000		468,987
CommScope, Inc. 4.375%, 06/15/20 (144A)		135,000		138,037
Frontier Communications Corp. 10.500%, 09/15/22 (b)		65,000		68,334
Nokia Oyj 6.625%, 05/15/39		150,000		158,250
Sprint Communications, Inc. 7.000%, 03/01/20 (144A) (b)		320,000		347,200
Sprint Spectrum Co. LLC / Sprint Spectrum Co. II LLC / Sprint Spectrum Co. III LLC 3.360%, 09/20/21 (144A)		1,235,000		1,237,309
T-Mobile USA, Inc. 6.731%, 04/28/22		125,000		130,625
Telecom Italia Capital S.A. 6.000%, 09/30/34		45,000		41,625
6.375%, 11/15/33		10,000		9,550
7.721%, 06/04/38		50,000		51,982
Verizon Communications, Inc. 4.400%, 11/01/34		535,000		528,038
4.672%, 03/15/55		1,228,000		1,153,227
5.012%, 08/21/54		523,000		520,261
				7,617,184
Transportation—0.1%
FedEx Corp. 4.550%, 04/01/46		315,000		317,428

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-18

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Wellington Balanced Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Corporate Bonds & Notes—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Transportation—(Continued)
FedEx Corp.
4.750%, 11/15/45		125,000	$	129,459
Norfolk Southern Corp. 2.900%, 06/15/26		400,000		384,919
Ryder System, Inc. 2.550%, 06/01/19		260,000		261,957
				1,093,763
Trucking & Leasing—0.1%
Penske Truck Leasing Co. L.P. / PTL Finance Corp. 4.875%, 07/11/22 (144A)		1,180,000		1,266,271
Total Corporate Bonds & Notes (Cost $158,730,268)				157,692,260
Asset-Backed Securities—6.1%
Asset-Backed - Automobile—0.2%
AmeriCredit Automobile Receivables Trust 3.310%, 10/08/19		245,000		249,231
First Investors Auto Owner Trust 2.390%, 11/16/20 (144A)		285,000		285,751
Flagship Credit Auto Trust 1.210%, 04/15/19 (144A)		23,394		23,387
GM Financial Automobile Leasing Trust 1.960%, 03/20/18 (144A)		200,000		200,534
Honor Automobile Trust Securitization 2.940%, 11/15/19 (144A)		1,150,000		1,150,065
Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 3.780%, 10/15/19 (144A)		195,000		198,638
4.670%, 01/15/20 (144A)		1,085,000		1,108,271
				3,215,877
Asset-Backed - Home Equity—0.3%
GSAA Home Equity Trust 0.806%, 12/25/46 (d) (f)		116,066		72,474
0.826%, 12/25/46 (d) (f)		375,099		203,150
0.856%, 03/25/37 (d) (f)		832,071		443,991
0.976%, 05/25/47 (d) (f)		27,112		20,419
0.986%, 04/25/47 (d) (f)		265,606		174,908
0.996%, 11/25/36 (d) (f)		336,814		187,881
1.056%, 03/25/36 (d) (f)		1,494,686		1,001,131
5.876%, 09/25/36 (f)		162,672		83,938
5.985%, 06/25/36 (d) (f)		632,885		312,148
Morgan Stanley ABS Capital, Inc. Trust 0.906%, 06/25/36 (d) (f)		57,323		49,396
Renaissance Home Equity Loan Trust 5.909%, 04/25/37 (f)		676,224		334,461
6.120%, 11/25/36 (f)		261,545		159,214
Soundview Home Loan Trust 1.006%, 11/25/36 (d) (f)		595,000		426,716
				3,469,827
Asset-Backed - Other—5.6%
AMMC CLO, Ltd. 2.332%, 07/27/26 (144A) (d)		1,340,000		1,340,122
Anchorage Capital CLO, Ltd. 2.461%, 01/15/29 (144A) (d)		760,744		760,725
Apidos CLO 2.241%, 01/16/27 (144A) (d)		480,000		480,000
2.328%, 01/19/25 (144A) (d)		895,000		896,107
2.730%, 07/15/23 (144A) (d)		465,000		461,305
Ares CLO, Ltd. 1.731%, 04/20/23 (144A) (d)		738,657		736,695
2.400%, 04/17/26 (144A) (d)		1,475,000		1,475,217
Atlas Senior Loan Fund CLO, Ltd. 2.298%, 07/16/26 (144A) (d)		620,000		619,688
2.420%, 10/15/26 (144A) (d)		1,190,000		1,190,363
Avery Point CLO, Ltd. 2.402%, 04/25/26 (144A) (d)		1,460,000		1,460,120
Babson CLO, Ltd. 2.371%, 07/20/25 (144A) (d)		340,000		340,015
Battalion CLO, Ltd. 2.282%, 10/22/25 (144A) (d)		615,000		615,021
Benefit Street Partners CLO, Ltd. 2.080%, 07/15/24 (144A) (d)		320,000		319,276
Carlyle Global Market Strategies CLO, Ltd. 2.356%, 04/27/27 (144A) (d)		1,425,000		1,425,915
Cent CLO, Ltd. 2.187%, 01/30/25 (144A) (d)		1,135,000		1,134,343
2.291%, 11/07/26 (144A) (d)		755,000		754,994
2.370%, 04/17/26 (144A) (d)		1,345,000		1,344,997
2.376%, 07/27/26 (144A) (d)		940,000		940,022
2.930%, 04/17/26 (144A) (d)		530,000		529,996
CIFC Funding, Ltd. 2.382%, 04/18/25 (144A) (d)		1,585,000		1,585,049
2.409%, 08/14/24 (144A) (d)		985,000		985,095
2.410%, 05/24/26 (144A) (d)		1,580,000		1,583,574
3.642%, 12/05/24 (144A) (d)		950,000		950,841
Consumer Credit Origination Loan Trust 2.820%, 03/15/21 (144A) (m)		33,582		33,603
Dryden Senior Loan Fund 2.310%, 07/15/27 (144A) (d)		1,215,000		1,215,211
2.316%, 10/15/28 (144A) (d)		1,604,000		1,607,009
Finance America Mortgage Loan Trust 1.806%, 09/25/33 (d) (f)		96,877		90,715
First Franklin Mortgage Loan Trust 1.066%, 09/25/36 (d) (f)		560,000		395,578
Flatiron CLO, Ltd. 2.780%, 07/17/26 (144A) (d)		330,000		329,998
Ford Credit Floorplan Master Owner Trust 3.500%, 01/15/19		265,000		265,195
Fremont Home Loan Trust 1.806%, 12/25/33 (d) (f)		87,976		83,427
Galaxy CLO, Ltd. 2.130%, 04/15/25 (144A) (d)		400,000		399,538
GMACM Home Equity Loan Trust 1.092%, 10/25/34 (144A) (d)		84,703		79,925
Green Tree Agency Advance Funding Trust 3.095%, 10/15/48 (144A)		705,000		705,000

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-19

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Wellington Balanced Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Asset-Backed Securitiess—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Asset-Backed - Other—(Continued)
Highbridge Loan Management, Ltd. 2.331%, 05/05/27 (144A) (d)		895,000	$	894,993
KKR Financial CLO, Ltd. 2.030%, 07/15/25 (144A) (d)		565,000		564,522
Knollwood CDO, Ltd. 4.076%, 01/10/39 (144A) (d)		594,322		6
Lehman XS Trust 1.276%, 11/25/35 (d) (f)		229,316		153,098
Lendmark Funding Trust 3.260%, 04/21/25 (144A) (m)		875,000		869,359
Limerock CLO, Ltd. 2.382%, 04/18/26 (144A) (d)		1,590,000		1,590,782
Madison Park Funding, Ltd. 2.162%, 10/23/25 (144A) (d)		1,341,165		1,340,292
2.381%, 07/20/26 (144A) (d)		1,485,000		1,485,400
Magnetite, Ltd. 2.180%, 04/15/26 (144A) (d)		865,000		864,990
2.256%, 04/15/27 (144A) (d)		955,000		954,523
2.302%, 07/25/26 (144A) (d)		1,255,000		1,255,350
2.832%, 07/25/26 (144A) (d)		1,010,000		1,010,041
Nationstar HECM Loan Trust 2.239%, 06/25/26 (144A)		149,012		149,525
2.981%, 02/25/26 (144A)		433,537		432,882
Neuberger Berman CLO, Ltd. 2.346%, 08/04/25 (144A) (d)		1,230,000		1,230,044
New Residential Advance Receivables Trust 2.575%, 10/15/49 (144A)		1,249,000		1,234,183
NRZ Advance Receivables Trust 3.107%, 12/15/50 (144A)		1,195,000		1,190,090
Oak Hill Credit Partners, Ltd. 2.351%, 07/20/26 (144A) (d)		455,000		455,013
Oaktree EIF, Ltd. 2.456%, 02/15/26 (144A) (d)		1,345,000		1,345,324
OCP CLO, Ltd. 2.410%, 04/17/27 (144A) (d)		1,230,000		1,230,540
Octagon Investment Partners, Ltd. 2.000%, 07/17/25 (144A) (d)		720,000		719,310
OHA Loan Funding, Ltd. 2.190%, 08/23/24 (144A) (d)		695,000		695,013
OneMain Financial Issuance Trust 4.100%, 03/20/28 (144A)		1,650,000		1,682,168
OZLM Funding, Ltd. 2.032%, 07/22/25 (144A) (d)		1,205,000		1,203,609
OZLM, Ltd. 2.337%, 04/30/27 (144A) (d)		1,360,000		1,360,700
Race Point CLO, Ltd. 2.390%, 04/15/27 (144A) (d)		1,610,000		1,613,748
SBA Tower Trust 2.898%, 10/15/44 (144A)		845,000		851,413
Securitized Asset-Backed Receivables LLC Trust 0.846%, 07/25/36 (d) (f)		550,072		266,154
Seneca Park CLO, Ltd. 2.360%, 07/17/26 (144A) (d)		1,095,000		1,095,198
Shackleton CLO 2.360%, 07/17/26 (144A) (d)		1,105,000		1,096,903
Asset-Backed - Other—(Continued)
SoFi Consumer Loan Program LLC 3.090%, 10/27/25 (144A) (m)		875,037		874,281
Sound Point CLO, Ltd. 2.251%, 01/21/26 (144A) (d)		1,415,000		1,414,878
2.410%, 04/15/27 (144A) (d)		1,315,000		1,315,030
Springleaf Funding Trust 2.410%, 12/15/22 (144A)		360,037		360,169
2.900%, 11/15/29 (144A)		960,000		957,856
SPS Servicer Advance Receivables Trust 2.750%, 11/15/49 (144A)		1,020,000		1,016,726
2.920%, 07/15/47 (144A)		1,185,000		1,185,943
Symphony CLO, Ltd. 2.361%, 07/14/26 (144A) (d)		1,295,000		1,295,277
2.626%, 01/09/23 (144A) (d)		1,280,000		1,275,521
Treman Park CLO, Ltd. 2.251%, 04/20/27 (144A) (d)		1,300,000		1,299,350
Voya CLO, Ltd. 2.362%, 04/18/27 (144A) (d)		1,265,000		1,265,106
2.982%, 04/18/27 (144A) (d)		440,000		440,037
				68,670,026
Total Asset-Backed Securities (Cost $76,006,309)				75,355,730
Mortgage-Backed Securities—5.1%
Collateralized Mortgage Obligations—2.5%
Adjustable Rate Mortgage Trust 0.844%, 01/25/36 (d)		67,178		55,768
1.026%, 11/25/35 (d)		408,374		377,492
1.256%, 01/25/36 (d)		328,236		281,907
4.076%, 11/25/37 (144A) (d)		204,908		169,228
Banc of America Funding Trust 0.969%, 02/20/47 (d)		1,417,466		1,249,024
Bear Stearns Adjustable Rate Mortgage Trust 3.243%, 07/25/36 (d)		577,206		555,380
Bear Stearns ALT-A Trust 1.236%, 02/25/36 (d)		853,497		731,930
Bear Stearns Mortgage Funding Trust 0.936%, 10/25/36 (d)		473,937		384,942
0.956%, 02/25/37 (d)		949,690		797,419
CHL Mortgage Pass-Through Trust 3.090%, 03/20/36 (d)		85,297		69,474
COLT Mortgage Loan Trust 2.800%, 12/26/46 (144A) (d)		550,000		550,438
Countrywide Alternative Loan Trust 0.904%, 11/25/35 (d)		173,799		145,618
1.026%, 01/25/36 (d)		333,681		275,062
1.156%, 10/25/36 (d)		44,755		25,485
1.556%, 12/25/35 (d)		251,566		194,063
1.917%, 08/25/35 (d)		429,351		365,350
5.500%, 11/25/35		1,027,712		887,511
5.500%, 12/25/35		121,806		101,581
5.750%, 05/25/36		77,247		59,422
6.000%, 12/25/36		206,670		138,536

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-20

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Wellington Balanced Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Mortgage-Backed Securities—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Collateralized Mortgage Obligations—(Continued)
Countrywide Home Loan Mortgage Pass-Through Trust 0.956%, 04/25/46 (d)		409,482	$	328,391
1.436%, 02/25/35 (d)		197,729		173,359
1.436%, 03/25/35 (d)		197,986		154,784
2.960%, 06/20/35 (d)		29,590		27,617
3.130%, 09/25/47 (d)		818,345		751,681
Deutsche ALT-A Securities Mortgage Loan Trust 0.906%, 12/25/36 (d)		490,124		397,243
DSLA Mortgage Loan Trust 1.461%, 03/19/46 (d)		858,415		736,274
Fannie Mae Connecticut Avenue Securities 5.106%, 04/25/29 (d)		780,142		802,427
GreenPoint Mortgage Funding Trust 1.941%, 10/25/45 (d)		308,383		237,013
GSR Mortgage Loan Trust 1.056%, 01/25/37 (d)		1,004,233		612,439
3.289%, 01/25/36 (d)		829,223		766,072
6.000%, 07/25/37		441,933		398,772
HarborView Mortgage Loan Trust 1.436%, 01/19/35 (d)		101,668		66,318
IndyMac INDX Mortgage Loan Trust 0.946%, 04/25/37 (d)		60,353		44,187
3.183%, 10/25/35 (d)		77,500		68,883
JPMorgan Mortgage Trust 3.096%, 05/25/36 (d)		53,354		47,551
Lehman XS Trust 0.946%, 11/25/46 (d) (f)		963,068		792,060
0.996%, 06/25/47 (d)		863,765		655,830
LSTAR Securities Investment Trust 2.533%, 01/01/20 (144A) (d)		1,156,208		1,153,754
LSTAR Securities Investment, Ltd. 2.617%, 04/01/20 (144A) (d)		988,404		986,551
2.617%, 10/01/20 (144A) (d)		1,345,031		1,339,777
2.617%, 09/01/21 (144A) (d)		555,981		549,205
Luminent Mortgage Trust 0.956%, 10/25/46 (d)		150,434		128,446
1.016%, 11/25/35 (d)		73,457		66,129
MASTR Adjustable Rate Mortgages Trust 0.996%, 05/25/37 (d)		154,390		94,595
2.763%, 09/25/33 (d)		126,622		120,630
Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 3.123%, 05/25/36 (d)		515,594		359,778
Mortgage Repurchase Agreement Financing Trust 1.872%, 06/10/19 (144A) (d)		1,688,000		1,688,000
New Residential Mortgage Loan Trust 3.750%, 11/26/35 (144A) (d)		1,362,825		1,384,798
3.750%, 11/25/56 (144A) (d)		1,236,011		1,273,412
Nomura Asset Acceptance Corp. Alternative Loan Trust 3.898%, 06/25/36 (d)		80,004		59,797
Residential Accredit Loans, Inc. Trust 0.976%, 02/25/46 (d)		458,800		199,610
1.056%, 04/25/36 (d)		805,656		574,009
Collateralized Mortgage Obligations—(Continued)
Residential Accredit Loans, Inc. Trust
6.000%, 12/25/35		406,489		376,187
Residential Asset Securitization Trust 1.206%, 03/25/35 (d)		327,896		257,590
RFMSI Trust 3.267%, 08/25/35 (d)		125,477		92,501
Structured Adjustable Rate Mortgage Loan Trust 1.056%, 09/25/34 (d)		96,494		83,727
Structured Asset Mortgage Investments Trust 0.986%, 02/25/36 (d)		173,622		146,324
Towd Point Mortgage Trust 2.250%, 08/25/55 (144A) (d)		1,213,670		1,203,908
2.750%, 02/25/55 (144A) (d)		315,026		315,768
2.750%, 08/25/55 (144A) (d)		976,216		974,179
3.000%, 03/25/54 (144A) (d)		75,972		76,628
WaMu Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Trust 1.176%, 06/25/44 (d)		165,964		153,859
1.361%, 12/25/46 (d)		124,674		96,667
1.547%, 07/25/46 (d)		103,535		83,576
2.098%, 11/25/46 (d)		106,685		95,782
2.583%, 06/25/37 (d)		201,822		180,610
Washington Mutual Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates 1.356%, 07/25/36 (d)		148,860		81,678
Wells Fargo Alternative Loan Trust 3.160%, 12/28/37 (d)		33,116		28,867
Wells Fargo Mortgage-Backed Securities Trust 3.075%, 10/25/35 (d)		1,541,000		1,469,804
3.230%, 10/25/36 (d)		396,964		366,363
				30,539,040
Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities—2.6%
Banc of America Commercial Mortgage Trust 3.116%, 09/15/48 (144A) (d) (m)		548,000		292,594
3.705%, 09/15/48		150,000		156,179
5.492%, 02/10/51		589,603		599,756
BB-UBS Trust 3.430%, 11/05/36 (144A)		2,520,000		2,550,226
Bear Stearns Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust 5.124%, 10/12/42 (d)		145,000		141,003
CD Mortgage Trust 6.116%, 11/15/44 (d)		80,000		82,517
Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Trust 1.115%, 07/10/47 (d) (g)		4,582,185		271,499
1.167%, 04/10/48 (d) (g)		5,040,205		325,674
2.935%, 04/10/48		85,000		83,642
3.110%, 04/10/48 (144A)		245,000		169,028
3.762%, 06/10/48		295,000		307,446
3.818%, 11/10/48		220,000		230,044
3.855%, 05/10/47		25,000		26,313
4.401%, 03/10/47 (144A) (d) (m)		130,000		88,809

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-21

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Wellington Balanced Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Mortgage-Backed Securities—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities—(Continued)
Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Mortgage Trust 0.839%, 02/10/47 (d) (g)		3,851,971	$	129,232
1.903%, 10/15/45 (d) (g)		450,711		31,517
2.853%, 10/15/45		160,000		161,710
3.101%, 03/10/46		145,000		147,558
3.183%, 02/10/48		145,000		146,017
3.213%, 03/10/46		280,000		286,454
3.350%, 02/10/48		320,000		322,615
3.424%, 03/10/31 (144A)		1,065,000		1,093,839
3.612%, 06/10/46 (d)		260,000		271,961
3.620%, 07/10/50		130,000		133,358
3.694%, 08/10/47		395,000		408,740
3.796%, 08/10/47		225,000		235,737
3.902%, 07/10/50		210,000		219,445
3.961%, 03/10/47		95,125		100,160
4.074%, 02/10/47 (d)		115,000		122,787
4.205%, 08/10/46		100,035		107,803
4.210%, 08/10/46 (d)		175,000		188,815
4.236%, 02/10/47 (d)		100,000		107,979
4.571%, 10/15/45 (144A) (d) (m)		165,000		100,903
4.750%, 10/15/45 (144A) (d) (m)		220,000		133,815
6.095%, 12/10/49 (d)		407,818		415,746
Credit Suisse Commercial Mortgage Trust 5.687%, 06/15/39 (d)		176,396		177,075
Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage Securities Corp. 4.877%, 04/15/37		39,036		37,984
CSAIL Commercial Mortgage Trust 0.881%, 06/15/57 (d) (g)		13,277,930		666,653
1.058%, 11/15/48 (d) (g)		1,160,264		72,366
3.360%, 08/15/48 (d)		175,000		129,765
3.544%, 11/15/48		280,000		286,524
3.718%, 08/15/48		1,553,000		1,619,692
FREMF Mortgage Trust 5.251%, 09/25/43 (144A) (d)		855,000		918,804
GE Commercial Mortgage Corp. Trust 5.606%, 12/10/49 (d)		65,000		65,037
GS Mortgage Securities Corp. 2.943%, 02/10/46		20,000		20,281
2.954%, 11/05/34 (144A)		1,200,000		1,200,111
GS Mortgage Securities Corp. Trust 3.633%, 06/05/31 (144A)		130,000		131,112
GS Mortgage Securities Trust 0.213%, 07/10/46 (d) (g)		12,526,655		75,676
1.369%, 08/10/44 (144A) (d) (g)		1,050,452		52,143
3.582%, 06/10/47 (144A) (m)		195,000		112,672
3.674%, 04/10/47 (144A) (m)		235,000		119,552
4.511%, 11/10/47 (144A) (d)		205,000		165,310
4.867%, 04/10/47 (144A) (d) (m)		585,000		405,524
JPMBB Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust 0.846%, 09/15/47 (d) (g)		4,732,401		170,704
3.611%, 05/15/48		150,000		154,714
3.739%, 10/15/48 (144A) (d)		220,000		157,921
3.775%, 08/15/47		160,000		167,630
Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities—(Continued)
JPMorgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp. 4.415%, 12/15/47 (144A) (d) (m)		245,000		185,382
JPMorgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust 2.164%, 02/12/51 (d)		1,611,124		1,540,958
2.733%, 10/15/45 (144A) (d) (m)		400,000		129,341
3.905%, 05/05/30 (144A)		877,241		911,432
4.000%, 08/15/46 (144A) (d) (m)		105,000		82,399
6.068%, 02/12/51		192,976		196,523
LB-UBS Commercial Mortgage Trust 6.113%, 04/15/41 (d)		291,310		302,006
ML-CFC Commercial Mortgage Trust 5.419%, 08/12/48		97,973		97,946
Morgan Stanley Bank of America Merrill Lynch Trust 1.121%, 10/15/48 (d) (g)		913,422		63,256
1.147%, 12/15/47 (d) (g)		2,940,295		163,350
2.918%, 02/15/46		130,000		130,908
3.060%, 10/15/48 (144A)		180,000		124,167
3.102%, 11/15/49		235,000		230,335
3.134%, 12/15/48		315,000		319,305
3.176%, 08/15/45		245,000		252,067
3.766%, 11/15/46		180,000		187,946
4.064%, 02/15/47		85,000		90,037
4.259%, 10/15/46 (d)		115,000		123,884
4.500%, 08/15/45 (144A) (m)		250,000		170,830
Morgan Stanley Capital Trust 2.782%, 08/15/49		210,000		202,482
5.155%, 07/15/49 (144A) (d) (m)		265,000		198,309
5.328%, 10/12/52 (144A) (d)		135,000		94,250
5.692%, 04/15/49 (d)		1,130,988		1,133,522
6.275%, 01/11/43 (144A) (d)		100,000		99,193
Morgan Stanley Re-REMIC Trust 5.793%, 08/12/45 (144A) (d)		182,802		183,243
5.793%, 08/15/45 (144A) (d)		118,018		118,313
SFAVE Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust 3.872%, 01/05/43 (144A) (d)		250,000		245,875
UBS-Barclays Commercial Mortgage Trust 3.091%, 08/10/49		355,000		363,478
3.185%, 03/10/46		155,000		158,021
3.244%, 04/10/46		300,119		306,908
4.085%, 03/10/46 (144A) (d) (m)		155,000		106,409
VNDO Mortgage Trust 2.996%, 11/15/30 (144A)		1,105,000		1,115,188
Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Trust 1.184%, 09/15/57 (d) (g)		8,454,575		529,699
1.194%, 05/15/48 (d) (g)		3,922,971		258,070
2.881%, 05/15/48 (144A) (d) (m)		510,000		254,429
2.918%, 10/15/45		320,000		325,647
3.356%, 09/15/58 (144A) (m)		245,000		135,429
3.560%, 01/15/59		230,000		235,788
3.637%, 06/15/48		190,000		196,038
3.839%, 09/15/58		185,000		193,635
3.957%, 12/15/47 (144A) (d)		72,000		55,582

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-22

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Wellington Balanced Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Mortgage-Backed Securities—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities—(Continued)
Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Trust
4.104%, 05/15/48 (d)		80,000	$	63,201
4.225%, 06/15/48 (d)		150,000		114,528
WF-RBS Commercial Mortgage Trust 1.387%, 03/15/47 (d) (g)		2,406,447		143,854
2.870%, 11/15/45		400,000		406,228
2.875%, 12/15/45		175,000		177,002
3.016%, 11/15/47 (144A) (m)		550,000		245,216
3.071%, 03/15/45		185,000		188,510
3.345%, 05/15/45		100,000		100,891
3.607%, 11/15/47		190,000		195,877
3.723%, 05/15/47		190,000		198,234
3.995%, 05/15/47		160,281		169,968
4.045%, 03/15/47		40,000		42,506
4.101%, 03/15/47		335,000		357,346
4.351%, 03/15/48 (144A) (d)		55,000		50,625
5.000%, 06/15/44 (144A) (d) (m)		105,000		86,906
5.000%, 04/15/45 (144A) (d) (m)		130,000		76,699
5.589%, 04/15/45 (144A) (d)		255,000		255,365
				31,782,707
Total Mortgage-Backed Securities (Cost $63,567,908)				62,321,747
Floating Rate Loans (n)—1.9%
Advertising—0.0%
inVentiv Health, Inc. Term Loan B, 4.750%, 11/09/23		345,000		346,240
Aerospace/Defense—0.0%
TransDigm, Inc. Term Loan E, 3.845%, 05/14/22		393,337		396,563
Agriculture—0.0%
American Rock Salt Holdings LLC 1st Lien Term Loan, 4.750%, 05/20/21		282,750		280,276
Incremental Term Loan, 4.750%, 05/20/21		122,796		122,949
				403,225
Auto Manufacturers—0.1%
FCA U.S. LLC Term Loan B, 3.270%, 12/31/18		512,322		514,241
Building Materials—0.0%
Quikrete Holdings, Inc. 1st Lien Term Loan, 4.000%, 11/15/23		130,000		131,463
Chemicals—0.1%
Chemours Co. (The) Term Loan B, 3.770%, 05/12/22		246,525		246,448
Ineos U.S. Finance LLC Term Loan, 3.750%, 05/04/18		1,024,882		1,028,982
Chemicals—(Continued)
Nexeo Solutions LLC Term Loan, 5.250%, 06/09/23		169,150		170,842
				1,446,272
Commercial Services—0.1%
Acosta Holdco, Inc. Term Loan, 4.250%, 09/26/21		181,314		177,159
Brickman Group, Ltd. LLC 1st Lien Term Loan, 4.000%, 12/18/20		298,465		299,505
Jaguar Holding Co. II Term Loan B, 4.250%, 08/18/22		132,688		134,181
ON Assignment, Inc. Term Loan, 3.520%, 06/03/22		111,321		112,782
WEX, Inc. Term Loan B, 4.270%, 07/01/23		417,900		423,982
				1,147,609
Computers—0.0%
Dell, Inc. Term Loan B, 4.020%, 09/07/23		165,000		168,008
Cosmetics/Personal Care—0.0%
Galleria Co. Term Loan B, 3.750%, 01/26/23		90,000		90,562
Revlon Consumer Products Corp. Term Loan B, 4.307%, 09/07/23		244,388		247,015
				337,577
Diversified Financial Services—0.0%
Russell Investment Group Term Loan B, 6.750%, 06/01/23		134,325		135,794
Electric—0.1%
Calpine Construction Finance Co. L.P. Term Loan B2, 3.270%, 01/31/22		833,818		833,818
Energy Future Intermediate Holding Co. LLC Term Loan, 4.250%, 06/30/17		100,000		100,775
TEX Operations Co. LLC Term Loan B, 5.000%, 08/04/23		145,000		146,360
Term Loan C, 5.000%, 08/04/23		35,000		35,473
				1,116,426
Energy Equipment & Services—0.0%
Chief Exploration & Development LLC 2nd Lien Term Loan, 7.753%, 05/16/21 (f)		105,000		103,163
Seadrill Partners Finco LLC Term Loan B, 4.000%, 02/21/21		421,851		291,780
				394,943
Food—0.1%
Albertsons LLC Term Loan B4, 3.770%, 08/22/21		191,098		193,502

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-23

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Wellington Balanced Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Floating Rate Loans (n)—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Food—(Continued)
Aramark Services, Inc. Term Loan F, 3.498%, 02/24/21		482,360	$	487,485
Hostess Brands LLC 1st Lien Term Loan, 4.000%, 08/03/22		109,444		110,915
JBS USA LLC Term Loan B, 4.000%, 10/30/22		217,800		219,887
				1,011,789
Healthcare-Services—0.1%
Community Health Systems, Inc. Term Loan H, 4.000%, 01/27/21		133,662		129,533
Envision Healthcare Corp. Term Loan B, 4.000%, 12/01/23		158,800		160,289
MPH Acquisition Holdings LLC Term Loan B, 5.000%, 06/07/23		167,032		170,253
Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc. Term Loan B, 4.750%, 06/30/21		134,763		134,110
U.S. Renal Care, Inc. Term Loan B, 5.250%, 12/31/22		257,400		241,742
				835,927
Insurance—0.2%
Asurion LLC 2nd Lien Term Loan, 8.500%, 03/03/21		385,000		390,775
Term Loan B2, 4.020%, 07/08/20		310,504		312,348
Term Loan B4, 5.000%, 08/04/22		328,534		332,436
Camelot UK Holdco, Ltd. Term Loan B, 4.750%, 10/03/23		109,725		111,206
Hub International, Ltd. Term Loan B, 4.000%, 10/02/20		339,153		341,326
Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc. 1st Lien Term Loan, 3.750%, 03/01/21		789,167		791,041
2nd Lien Term Loan, 6.750%, 02/28/22		205,000		205,128
				2,484,260
Internet & Direct Marketing Retail—0.0%
Lands’ End, Inc. Term Loan B, 4.250%, 04/04/21		208,891		159,280
Leisure Time—0.1%
Delta 2 (LUX) S.a.r.l. 2nd Lien Term Loan, 8.068%, 07/31/22		165,000		166,650
Term Loan B3, 5.068%, 07/30/21		500,000		505,447
				672,097
Lodging—0.1%
Boyd Gaming Corp. Term Loan B2, 3.756%, 09/15/23		134,663		136,178
La Quinta Intermediate Holdings LLC Term Loan B, 3.750%, 04/14/21		517,545		518,596
Lodging—(Continued)
MGM Growth Properties Operating Partnership L.P. Term Loan B, 3.500%, 04/25/23		223,313		225,301
				880,075
Machinery-Diversified—0.1%
Gardner Denver, Inc. Term Loan, 4.558%, 07/30/20		557,707		552,827
Media—0.1%
Advantage Sales & Marketing, Inc. 1st Lien Term Loan, 4.250%, 07/23/21		200,707		201,359
Charter Communications Operating LLC Term Loan I, 3.005%, 01/15/24		238,200		240,284
Mission Broadcasting, Inc. Term Loan B2, 09/26/23 (o)		10,000		10,095
Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc. Term Loan B, 09/21/23 (o)		101,182		102,139
				553,877
Oil & Gas—0.1%
California Resources Corp. Term Loan, 11.375%, 12/31/21		130,000		144,950
Calpine Corp. Term Loan B7, 3.750%, 05/31/23		154,225		155,317
Chesapeake Energy Corp. Term Loan, 8.500%, 08/23/21		110,000		120,129
Fieldwood Energy LLC 1st Lien Term Loan, 3.875%, 10/01/18		499,780		477,290
Paragon Offshore Finance Co. Term Loan B, 5.500%, 07/18/21		98,750		36,538
Templar Energy LLC 2nd Lien Term Loan, 8.500%, 11/25/20		90,815		21,001
				955,225
Packaging & Containers—0.1%
Berry Plastics Holding Corp. Term Loan D, 3.500%, 02/08/20		290,932		293,444
Caesars Growth Properties Holdings LLC Term Loan, 6.250%, 05/08/21		209,625		211,623
Flex Acquisition Co., Inc. 1st Lien Term Loan, 12/13/23 (o)		100,000		101,094
Reynolds Group Holdings, Inc. Term Loan, 4.250%, 02/05/23		408,975		413,948
Signode Industrial Group U.S., Inc. Term Loan B, 3.898%, 05/01/21		203,843		204,734
				1,224,843
Pharmaceuticals—0.1%
Endo Luxembourg Finance Co. I S.a.r.l. Term Loan B, 3.813%, 09/26/22		321,750		323,485
Grifols Worldwide Operations USA, Inc. Term Loan B, 3.715%, 02/27/21		632,125		637,291

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-24

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Wellington Balanced Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Floating Rate Loans (n)—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Pharmaceuticals—(Continued)
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. Term Loan B F1, 5.500%, 04/01/22		149,446	$	149,792
				1,110,568
Pipelines—0.0%
Energy Transfer Equity L.P. Term Loan, 3.387%, 12/02/19		325,000		325,609
Professional Services—0.0%
Trans Union LLC Term Loan B2, 3.520%, 04/09/21		277,663		279,968
Real Estate—0.0%
DTZ U.S. Borrower LLC 1st Lien Term Loan, 4.250%, 11/04/21		402,104		404,157
Retail—0.1%
Bass Pro Group LLC Term Loan B, 12/16/23 (o)		275,000		272,962
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. Term Loan B, 3.887%, 08/19/23		119,700		121,355
J. Crew Group, Inc. Term Loan B, 4.000%, 03/05/21		314,058		177,574
Michaels Stores, Inc. Term Loan B1, 3.750%, 01/27/23		100,166		101,310
Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. (The) Term Loan, 4.250%, 10/25/20		427,263		373,855
Party City Holdings, Inc. Term Loan, 4.210%, 08/19/22		242,396		244,346
				1,291,402
Semiconductors—0.0%
Entegris, Inc. Term Loan B, 2.750%, 04/30/21		249,101		251,799
ON Semiconductor Corp. Incremental Term Loan, 4.020%, 03/31/23		109,725		111,173
				362,972
Software—0.2%
Conduent, Inc. Term Loan B, 6.250%, 12/07/23		135,000		136,856
First Data Corp. Term Loan, 3.756%, 07/10/22		765,022		774,393
Infor (U.S.), Inc. Term Loan B5, 3.750%, 06/03/20		327,103		327,784
Quintiles IMS, Inc. Term Loan B, 3.499%, 03/17/21		933,600		941,186
SS&C Technologies, Inc. Term Loan B1, 4.001%, 07/08/22		187,058		189,680
Term Loan B2, 4.002%, 07/08/22		18,421		18,679
				2,388,578
Telecommunications—0.1%
CSC Holdings LLC Term Loan, 3.876%, 10/11/24		108,553		109,892
Level 3 Financing, Inc. Term Loan B2, 3.500%, 05/31/22		565,000		570,944
UPC Financing Partnership Term Loan AN, 4.080%, 08/31/24		210,000		212,389
Virgin Media Investment Holdings, Ltd. Term Loan I, 01/31/25 (o)		145,000		145,846
XO Communications LLC Term Loan, 4.250%, 03/17/21		364,688		366,055
Ziggo Financing Partnership Term Loan B1, 3.500%, 01/15/22		128,150		128,837
Term Loan B2A, 3.500%, 01/15/22		75,947		76,354
Term Loan B3, 3.701%, 01/15/22		23,599		23,725
				1,634,042
Trading Companies & Distributors—0.0%
Neff Rental LLC 2nd Lien Term Loan, 7.543%, 06/09/21 (f)		103,402		102,999
Transportation—0.0%
Kenan Advantage Group, Inc. Strip Delayed Draw Term Loan, 1.500%, 01/31/17 (f) (p)		5,267		5,281
Term Loan, 4.000%, 07/31/22		83,245		83,558
Term Loan B, 4.000%, 07/31/22		30,980		31,096
				119,935
Total Floating Rate Loans (Cost $24,188,361)				23,888,791
Foreign Government—1.3%
Banks—0.1%
Bank of Thailand 1.490%, 02/23/18 (THB)		44,465,000		1,238,842
Sovereign—1.2%
Argentine Republic Government International Bonds 2.260%, 12/31/38 (EUR) (j) (q)		1,330,187		779,224
Brazil Notas do Tesouro Nacional 6.000%, 05/15/17 (BRL) (j)		3,086,000		2,819,893
10.000%, 01/01/23 (BRL)		1,682,000		486,219
Brazilian Government International Bonds 5.000%, 01/27/45		470,000		381,264
5.625%, 01/07/41		280,000		249,116
Colombia Government International Bond 5.000%, 06/15/45		1,014,000		962,033
Colombian TES 4.250%, 05/17/17 (COP) (j)		2,157,816,570		728,229
Mexican Bonos 5.000%, 12/11/19 (MXN)		18,288,700		837,101

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-25

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Wellington Balanced Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Foreign Government—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*/ Notional Amount*		Value
Sovereign—(Continued)
Mexico Government International Bond 5.750%, 10/12/2110		614,000	$	566,415
Qatar Government International Bond 4.625%, 06/02/46 (144A)		285,000		284,642
Romania Treasury Bills 0.561%, 08/28/17 (RON) (r)		4,035,000		930,552
0.580%, 06/26/17 (RON) (r)		8,195,000		1,892,460
Russian Federal Bond - OFZ 11.700%, 01/29/20 (RUB) (d)		60,033,000		1,009,684
Saudi Government International Bonds 2.375%, 10/26/21 (144A)		450,000		436,921
4.500%, 10/26/46 (144A)		295,000		282,561
Turkey Government International Bond 6.000%, 01/14/41		635,000		587,527
Uruguay Government International Bond 5.100%, 06/18/50 (j)		1,000,000		900,000
				14,133,841
Total Foreign Government (Cost $15,858,721)				15,372,683
Municipals—0.4%
Chicago Transit Authority Transfer Tax Receipts Revenue 6.899%, 12/01/40		805,000		1,008,038
Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, Build America Bonds 6.637%, 04/01/57		55,000		68,212
Puerto Rico Commonwealth Government Employees Retirement System 6.150%, 07/01/38 (f)		1,990,000		791,025
6.200%, 07/01/39 (f)		955,000		379,612
6.550%, 07/01/58 (f)		315,000		125,212
State of California General Obligation Unlimited, Build America Bonds 7.350%, 11/01/39		1,420,000		2,016,144
7.600%, 11/01/40		195,000		293,725
State of Illinois General Obligation Unlimited 5.665%, 03/01/18		300,000		310,422
State of Illinois, Build America Bonds 5.100%, 06/01/33		140,000		123,735
Total Municipals (Cost $5,376,438)				5,116,125
Purchased Option—0.0%
Currency Option—0.0%
CNH Put/JPY Call, Strike Price JPY 16.49, Expires 01/17/17 (Counterparty - Goldman Sachs International) (CNH) (f) (Cost $26,049)		11,602,000		3,286
Short-Term Investment—3.1%
Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Repurchase Agreement—3.1%
Fixed Income Clearing Corp. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/16 at 0.030% to be repurchased at $38,215,605 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $39,145,000 U.S. Treasury Note at 1.625% due 11/30/20 with a value of $38,983,331.		38,215,478		38,215,478
Total Short-Term Investments (Cost $38,215,478)				38,215,478
Securities Lending Reinvestments (s)—7.4%
Certificates of Deposit—4.7%
Banco Del Estado De Chile New York 1.154%, 06/21/17 (f)		2,000,000		1,999,590
Barclays New York 0.894%, 02/10/17 (f)		2,000,000		2,000,647
Chiba Bank, Ltd., New York 0.870%, 01/10/17		1,000,000		1,000,023
Cooperative Rabobank UA New York 1.278%, 10/13/17 (f)		500,000		500,113
Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank 1.274%, 04/12/17 (f)		2,000,000		2,001,578
Credit Industriel et Commercial 1.245%, 04/05/17 (f)		1,200,000		1,200,648
Credit Suisse AG New York 1.335%, 04/03/17 (f)		1,200,000		1,200,263
1.364%, 04/11/17 (f)		1,200,000		1,200,262
1.364%, 05/12/17 (f)		1,000,000		1,000,104
DG Bank New York 0.940%, 01/12/17		1,250,000		1,250,066
0.950%, 01/03/17		250,000		250,002
DNB NOR Bank ASA 1.130%, 07/28/17 (f)		900,000		899,842
DZ Bank AG New York 1.010%, 02/27/17		1,500,000		1,500,433
ING Bank NV 1.265%, 04/18/17 (f)		2,200,000		2,204,033
KBC Bank NV 1.000%, 01/04/17		250,000		250,000
1.050%, 01/17/17		2,100,000		2,100,252
KBC Brussells 1.050%, 01/27/17		800,000		800,152
Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen London Zero Coupon, 01/24/17		748,279		749,677
Mitsubishi UFJ Trust and Banking Corp. 1.364%, 04/11/17 (f)		2,000,000		2,000,946
Mizuho Bank, Ltd., New York 1.336%, 05/17/17		2,000,000		1,999,808
1.395%, 04/11/17 (f)		2,000,000		2,000,602
1.436%, 04/18/17 (f)		500,000		500,157

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-26

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Wellington Balanced Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Securities Lending Reinvestments (s)—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Certificates of Deposit—(Continued)
National Australia Bank London 1.034%, 05/02/17 (f)		1,750,000	$	1,751,652
1.182%, 11/09/17 (f)		2,500,000		2,493,800
National Bank of Canada 0.650%, 01/06/17		5,000,000		5,000,200
Natixis New York 0.900%, 02/17/17		2,000,000		2,000,256
1.262%, 04/07/17 (f)		2,000,000		2,000,802
Rabobank London 1.281%, 10/13/17 (f)		500,000		501,199
Royal Bank of Canada New York 1.145%, 04/04/17 (f)		1,000,000		999,743
1.281%, 10/13/17 (f)		500,000		500,388
Standard Chartered Bank New York 1.150%, 03/21/17		4,000,000		4,000,676
Sumitomo Bank New York 1.215%, 05/05/17 (f)		750,000		751,249
Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corp. New York 1.352%, 04/07/17 (f)		750,000		750,382
1.395%, 04/12/17 (f)		1,000,000		1,001,140
Sumitomo Mitsui Trust Bank, Ltd., New York 1.351%, 04/26/17 (f)		2,000,000		2,000,236
1.364%, 04/10/17 (f)		1,000,000		1,000,387
Svenska Handelsbanken New York 1.266%, 05/18/17 (f)		2,000,000		2,000,348
UBS, Stamford 1.084%, 05/12/17 (f)		900,000		899,932
Wells Fargo Bank San Francisco N.A. 1.231%, 04/26/17 (f)		900,000		900,252
1.264%, 10/26/17 (f)		900,000		900,615
				58,062,455
Commercial Paper—1.6%
ABN AMRO Funding USA 0.910%, 01/11/17		498,863		499,845
Atlantic Asset Securitization LLC 0.990%, 01/12/17		199,505		199,935
1.040%, 02/03/17		199,393		199,825
Barton Capital Corp. 0.660%, 01/12/17		1,498,268		1,499,626
Commonwealth Bank Australia 1.236%, 10/23/17 (f)		1,500,000		1,500,843
Den Norske ASA 1.206%, 04/27/17 (f)		900,000		900,048
Erste Abwicklungsanstalt 1.014%, 03/10/17 (f)		1,700,000		1,700,010
HSBC plc 1.216%, 04/25/17 (f)		2,000,000		1,999,914
Macquarie Bank, Ltd. 0.950%, 01/03/17		3,990,711		3,999,572
Ridgefield Funding Co. LLC 1.000%, 01/03/17		498,750		499,972
Sheffield Receivables Co. 1.050%, 01/06/17		747,944		749,902
Commercial Paper—(Continued)
Starbird Funding Corp. 0.930%, 02/10/17		2,493,542		2,497,602
Toronto Dominion Holding Corp. 0.600%, 01/05/17		998,967		999,888
Versailles Commercial Paper LLC 1.050%, 01/17/17		996,967		999,553
Victory Receivables Corp. 1.050%, 01/04/17		299,134		299,979
Westpac Banking Corp. 1.232%, 10/20/17 (f)		1,300,000		1,302,270
				19,848,784
Repurchase Agreements—0.8%
Deutsche Bank AG, London Repurchase Agreement dated 12/15/16 - 12/30/16 at 1.050% to be repurchased at $4,100,697 on 01/03/17, collateralized by various Common Stock with a value of $4,557,376.		4,100,000		4,100,000
Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. Repurchase Agreement dated 10/18/16 at 1.110% to be repurchased at $2,008,387 on 03/03/17, collateralized by various Common Stock with a value of $2,200,000.		2,000,000		2,000,000
Goldman Sachs & Co. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/16 at 0.460% to be repurchased at $12,934 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $66,556 U.S. Government Agency Obligations with rates ranging from 2.000% - 10.500%, maturity dates ranging from 03/15/17 - 09/20/65, with a value of $13,192.		12,933		12,933
Macquarie Bank, Ltd. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/15/16 at 0.600% to be repurchased at $2,000,733 on 01/06/17, collateralized by $1,978,710 U.S. Treasury Obligations with rates ranging from 0.000% - 8.750%, maturity dates ranging from 01/05/17 - 05/15/46, with a value of $2,041,034.		2,000,000		2,000,000
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. Repurchase Agreement dated 10/26/16 at 1.160% to be repurchased at $1,407,173 on 04/03/17, collateralized by various Common Stock with a value of $1,540,000.		1,400,000		1,400,000
				9,512,933
Time Deposits—0.3%
OP Corporate Bank plc 1.010%, 01/04/17		900,000		900,000
1.200%, 01/23/17		1,800,000		1,800,000

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-27

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Wellington Balanced Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Securities Lending Reinvestments (s)—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Time Deposits—(Continued)
Shinkin Central Bank 1.200%, 01/27/17		200,000	$	200,000
1.220%, 01/26/17		1,100,000		1,100,000
				4,000,000
Total Securities Lending Reinvestments (Cost $91,408,994)				91,424,172
Total Investments—115.7% (Cost $1,348,650,714)				1,426,045,474
Unfunded Loan Commitments—(0.0)% (Cost $(5,267))				(5,267	)
Net Investments—115.7% (Cost $1,348,645,447) (t)				1,426,040,207
Other assets and liabilities (net)—(15.7)%				(193,110,184	)
Net Assets—100.0%			$	1,232,930,023

* Principal and notional amounts stated in U.S. dollars unless otherwise noted.

(a) Non-income producing security.

(b) All or a portion of the security was held on loan. As of December 31, 2016, the market value of securities loaned was $88,739,883 and the collateral received consisted of cash in the amount of $91,383,254. The cash collateral investments are disclosed in the Schedule of Investments and categorized as Securities Lending Reinvestments.

(c) TBA (To Be Announced) Securities are purchased on a forward commitment basis with an approximate principal amount and no defined maturity date. The actual principal and maturity date will be determined upon settlement date.

(d) Variable or floating rate security. The stated rate represents the rate at December 31, 2016. Maturity date shown for callable securities reflects the earliest possible call date.

(e) Principal only security.

(f) Illiquid security. As of December 31, 2016, these securities represent 0.9% of net assets.

(g) Interest only security.

(h) All or a portion of the security was pledged as collateral against open centrally cleared swap contracts. As of December 31, 2016, the market value of securities pledged was $1,431,162.

(i) All or a portion of the security was pledged as collateral against open swap contracts. As of December 31, 2016, the market value of securities pledged was $1,343,531.

(j) Principal amount of security is adjusted for inflation.

(k) All or a portion of the security was pledged as collateral against open futures contracts. As of December 31, 2016, the market value of securities pledged was $1,525,539.

(l) Non-income producing; security is in default and/or issuer is in bankruptcy.

(m) Restricted securities are not registered under the Securities Act of 1933 and are subject to legal restrictions on resale. These securities generally may be resold in transactions exempt from registration or to the public if the securities are subsequently registered. Disposal of these securities may involve time-consuming negotiations and prompt sale at an acceptable price may be difficult. As of December 31, 2016, the market value of restricted securities was $4,702,461, which is 0.4% of net assets. See details shown in the Restricted Securities table that follows.

(n) Floating rate loans (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.

(o) This loan will settle after December 31, 2016, at which time the interest rate will be determined.

(p) Unfunded or partially unfunded loan commitments. The Portfolio may enter into certain credit agreements for which all or a portion may be unfunded. The Portfolio is obligated to fund these commitments at the borrower’s discretion.

(q) Security is a “step-up” bond where coupon increases or steps up at a predetermined date. Rate shown is current coupon rate.

(r) The rate shown represents current yield to maturity.

(s) Represents investment of cash collateral received from securities on loan as of December 31, 2016.

(t) As of December 31, 2016, the aggregate cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was $1,351,502,466. The aggregate unrealized appreciation and depreciation of investments were $115,989,328 and $(41,451,587), respectively, resulting in net unrealized appreciation of $74,537,741 for federal income tax purposes.

(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, 2016, the market value of 144A securities was $123,170,589, which is 10.0% of net assets.

(ACES)— Alternative Credit Enhancement Securities

(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.

(ARM)— Adjustable-Rate Mortgage

(BRL)— Brazilian Real

(CDO)— Collateralized Debt Obligation

(CLO)— Collateralized Loan Obligation

(CMO)— Collateralized Mortgage Obligation

(CNH)— Chinese Renminbi

(COP)— Colombian Peso

(EUR)— Euro

(GBP)— British Pound

(MXN)— Mexican Peso

(REMIC)— Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit

(RON)— New Romanian Leu

(RUB)— Russian Ruble

(THB)— Thai Baht

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-28

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Wellington Balanced Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Restricted Securities	Acquisition Date		Principal Amount		Cost		Value
Banc of America Commercial Mortgage Trust, 3.116%, 09/15/48		01/21/16 - 02/01/16	$	548,000	$	293,680	$	292,594
Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Trust, 4.401%, 03/10/47		01/15/15		130,000		107,367		88,809
Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Mortgage Trust, 4.750%, 10/15/45		02/18/15		220,000		175,716		133,815
Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Mortgage Trust, 4.571%, 10/15/45		12/05/14		165,000		129,274		100,903
Consumer Credit Origination Loan Trust, 2.820%, 03/15/21		02/03/15		33,582		33,580		33,603
GS Mortgage Securities Trust, 4.867%, 04/10/47		03/27/14 - 06/20/14		585,000		534,065		405,524
GS Mortgage Securities Trust, 3.674%, 04/10/47		04/03/14		235,000		147,173		119,552
GS Mortgage Securities Trust, 3.582%, 06/10/47		04/24/15		195,000		149,282		112,672
JPMorgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp., 4.415%, 12/15/47		03/17/14		245,000		198,450		185,382
JPMorgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust, 4.000%, 08/15/46		07/30/15		105,000		94,959		82,399
JPMorgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust, 2.733%, 10/15/45		05/19/15		400,000		269,984		129,341
Lendmark Funding Trust, 3.260%, 04/21/25		10/26/16		875,000		874,901		869,359
Morgan Stanley Bank of America Merrill Lynch Trust, 4.500%, 08/15/45		07/10/14		250,000		197,031		170,830
Morgan Stanley Capital Trust, 5.155%, 07/15/49		03/13/15		265,000		242,868		198,309
SoFi Consumer Loan Program LLC, 3.090%, 10/27/25		07/26/16		875,037		874,900		874,281
UBS-Barclays Commercial Mortgage Trust, 4.085%, 03/10/46		07/10/14		155,000		130,182		106,409
WF-RBS Commercial Mortgage Trust, 5.000%, 06/15/44		03/27/14		105,000		94,365		86,906
WF-RBS Commercial Mortgage Trust, 5.000%, 04/15/45		08/13/14		130,000		103,594		76,699
WF-RBS Commercial Mortgage Trust, 3.016%, 11/15/47		11/05/14		550,000		362,270		245,216
Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Trust, 3.356%, 09/15/58		09/24/15		245,000		147,153		135,429
Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Trust, 2.881%, 05/15/48		09/15/15		510,000		315,702		254,429
							$	4,702,461

TBA Forward Sale Commitments

Security Description	Interest Rate			Maturity		Face Amount			Cost			Value
Fannie Mae 15 Yr. Pool		3.500	%		TBA		(1,200,000	)	$	(1,248,188	)	$	(1,250,180	)
Fannie Mae 15 Yr. Pool		4.500	%		TBA		(3,500,000	)		(3,600,078	)		(3,591,055	)
Fannie Mae 30 Yr. Pool		4.500	%		TBA		(1,925,000	)		(2,070,387	)		(2,070,503	)
Fannie Mae 30 Yr. Pool		5.000	%		TBA		(1,850,000	)		(2,020,547	)		(2,015,344	)
Freddie Mac 30 Yr. Gold Pool		5.500	%		TBA		(200,000	)		(222,063	)		(221,750	)
Ginnie Mae II 30 Yr. Pool		4.000	%		TBA		(1,373,000	)		(1,457,954	)		(1,458,088	)
Ginnie Mae II 30 Yr. Pool		3.000	%		TBA		(3,100,000	)		(3,136,328	)		(3,138,810	)
Totals									$	(13,755,545	)	$	(13,745,730	)

Forward Foreign Currency Exchange Contracts

Contracts to Buy		Counterparty	Settlement Date		In Exchange for		Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation)
EUR	155,000	Bank of America N.A.		03/15/17	$	177,515	$	(13,785	)
EUR	205,000	Bank of America N.A.		03/15/17		234,910		(18,366	)
EUR	375,000	Citibank N.A.		03/15/17		416,250		(20,131	)
EUR	270,000	UBS AG		03/15/17		309,587		(24,382	)
ZAR	10,000	Citibank N.A.		03/15/17		720		(1	)
Contracts to Deliver
BRL	1,649,000	Goldman Sachs International		03/15/17		485,071		(11,866	)
BRL	9,192,000	State Street Bank and Trust		03/15/17		2,662,881		(107,190	)
COP	2,217,800,000	State Street Bank and Trust		03/15/17		728,724		(1,099	)
EUR	3,718,000	Barclays Bank plc		01/31/17		3,886,221		(32,981	)
EUR	105,000	National Australia Bank, Ltd.		01/31/17		110,957		275
EUR	1,005,000	Bank of America N.A.		03/15/17		1,080,446		18,848

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-29

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Wellington Balanced Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Forward Foreign Currency Exchange Contracts—(Continued)

Contracts to Deliver		Counterparty	Settlement Date		In Exchange for		Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation)
EUR	794,000	Morgan Stanley & Co. International plc		03/15/17	$	848,453	$	9,737
GBP	514,000	Bank of America N.A.		01/31/17		636,885		2,965
JPY	156,000,000	Citibank N.A.		01/10/17		1,366,545		31,205
JPY	308,000,000	State Street Bank and Trust		01/10/17		2,709,674		73,234
MXN	18,103,000	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		03/15/17		902,284		37,088
RON	8,195,000	Citibank N.A.		06/26/17		2,045,962		138,203
RON	1,520,000	BNP Paribas S.A.		08/28/17		387,508		33,391
RON	2,515,000	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		08/28/17		641,909		55,986
RUB	63,901,000	Barclays Bank plc		03/15/17		970,550		(57,136	)
THB	44,581,000	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		03/15/17		1,251,924		7,411
Net Unrealized Appreciation							$	121,406

Futures Contracts

Futures Contracts—Long	Expiration Date		Number of Contracts			Notional Amount				Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation)
Australian 10 Year Treasury Bond Futures		03/15/17		76			AUD	9,664,848		$	31,453
S&P 500 E-Mini Index Futures		03/17/17		36			USD	4,077,733			(52,573	)
U.S. Treasury 10-Year Ultra Note Future		03/22/17		34			USD	4,495,716			62,409
U.S. Treasury Note 2 Year Futures		03/31/17		72			USD	15,585,575			15,925
U.S. Treasury Note 5 Year Futures		03/31/17		380			USD	44,771,203			(58,859	)
U.S. Treasury Ultra Long Bond Futures		03/22/17		153			USD	24,663,805			(145,556	)
Futures Contracts—Short
U.S. Treasury Long Bond Futures		03/22/17		(11	)		USD	(1,673,326	)		16,108
U.S. Treasury Note 10 Year Futures		03/22/17		(176	)		USD	(21,890,712	)		17,212
Net Unrealized Depreciation										$	(113,881	)

Swap Agreements

OTC Interest Rate Swaps

Pay/Receive Floating Rate	Floating Rate Index	Fixed Rate			Maturity Date	Counterparty	Notional Amount			Market Value			Upfront Premium Paid/(Received)		Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation)
Pay	6M MIBOR		6.260	%	09/12/21	Goldman Sachs International		INR	67,350,000	$	(2,077	)	$	—	$	(2,077	)
Receive	CPI-U		1.810	%	09/04/25	Bank of America N.A.		USD	3,803,000		114,141			—		114,141
Receive	CPI-U		1.820	%	09/22/25	Bank of America N.A.		USD	10,320,000		299,494			—		299,494
Totals										$	411,558		$	—	$	411,558

Centrally Cleared Interest Rate Swaps

Pay/Receive Floating Rate	Floating Rate Index	Fixed Rate			Maturity Date		Notional Amount			Unrealized Appreciation
Receive	3M LIBOR		1.750	%		03/15/27		USD	3,000,000	$	255,058
Receive	Federal Funds Rate Compounded - OIS		1.625	%		11/14/26		USD	2,610,000		75,883
Net Unrealized Appreciation										$	330,941

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-30

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Wellington Balanced Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Centrally Cleared Credit Default Swaps on Credit Indices—Buy Protection (a)

Reference Obligation	Fixed Deal (Pay) Rate		Maturity Date		Implied Credit Spread at December 31, 2016(b)	Notional Amount(c)			Unrealized Depreciation
CDX.NA.HY.27.V1		(5.000%)		12/20/21	3.542%		USD	12,014,000	$	(309,751)

Centrally Cleared Credit Default Swaps on Credit Indices—Sell Protection (d)

Reference Obligation	Fixed Deal Receive Rate		Maturity Date		Implied Credit Spread at December 31, 2016(b)	Notional Amount(c)			Unrealized Appreciation
CDX.NA.IG.27		1.000%		12/20/21	0.677%		USD	4,988,000	$	10,534
ITRAXX.EUR.26.V1		1.000%		12/20/21	0.721%		EUR	6,974,000		23,479
ITRAXX.XO.26.V1		5.000%		12/20/21	2.882%		EUR	2,905,000		68,554
Net Unrealized Appreciation									$	102,567

OTC Credit Default Swaps on Sovereign Issues—Sell Protection (d)

Reference Obligation	Fixed Deal Receive Rate		Maturity Date		Counterparty	Implied Credit Spread at December 31, 2016(b)		Notional Amount(c)			Market Value		Upfront Premium (Received)		Unrealized Appreciation
Federative Republic of Brazil		1.000%		12/20/21	Goldman Sachs International		2.754%		USD	260,000	$	(20,674)	$	(21,282)	$	608
Federative Republic of Brazil		1.000%		12/20/21	Goldman Sachs International		2.754%		USD	265,000		(21,072)		(21,494)		422
Totals											$	(41,746)	$	(42,776)	$	1,030

OTC Credit Default Swaps on Credit Indices—Buy Protection (a)

Reference Obligation	Fixed Deal (Pay) Rate		Maturity Date		Counterparty	Implied Credit Spread at December 31, 2016(b)		Notional Amount(c)			Market Value		Upfront Premium Paid/(Received)		Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation)
ABX.HE.AAA.6-1		(0.180%)		07/25/45	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		0.000%		USD	45,079	$	1,014	$	1,134	$	(120)
ABX.HE.AAA.6-1		(0.180%)		07/25/45	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		0.000%		USD	13,990		315		—		315
ABX.HE.AAA.7-1		(0.090%)		08/25/37	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		0.000%		USD	340,873		79,253		86,923		(7,670)
ABX.HE.AAA.7-1		(0.090%)		08/25/37	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		0.000%		USD	147,114		34,204		37,514		(3,310)
ABX.HE.AAA.7-1		(0.090%)		08/25/37	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		0.000%		USD	100,468		23,359		26,122		(2,763)
ABX.HE.PEN.AAA.6-2		(0.110%)		05/25/46	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		0.000%		USD	280,834		29,488		39,362		(9,874)
CMBX.NA.A.7		(2.000%)		01/17/47	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		0.000%		USD	480,000		11,091		(10,238)		21,329
CMBX.NA.A.9		(2.000%)		09/17/58	Deutsche Bank AG		0.000%		USD	185,000		10,423		9,450		973
CMBX.NA.AA.7		(1.500%)		01/17/47	Credit Suisse International		0.000%		USD	735,000		8,947		23,330		(14,383)
CMBX.NA.AA.7		(1.500%)		01/17/47	Credit Suisse International		0.000%		USD	635,000		7,729		20,156		(12,427)
CMBX.NA.AA.7		(1.500%)		01/17/47	Credit Suisse International		0.000%		USD	600,000		7,303		19,045		(11,742)
CMBX.NA.AA.7		(1.500%)		01/17/47	Morgan Stanley & Co. International plc		0.000%		USD	80,000		974		945		29
CMBX.NA.AA.8		(1.500%)		10/17/57	Morgan Stanley & Co. International plc		0.000%		USD	265,000		6,303		10,823		(4,520)
CMBX.NA.AAA.8		(0.500%)		10/17/57	Morgan Stanley & Co. International plc		0.000%		USD	295,000		3,395		7,757		(4,362)
CMBX.NA.AAA.8		(0.500%)		10/17/57	Morgan Stanley & Co. International plc		0.000%		USD	125,000		1,439		3,337		(1,898)
CMBX.NA.AJ.4		(0.960%)		02/17/51	Bank of America N.A.		0.000%		USD	315,587		74,065		55,944		18,121
CMBX.NA.AJ.4		(0.960%)		02/17/51	Credit Suisse International		0.000%		USD	1,903,385		446,707		475,322		(28,615)
CMBX.NA.AJ.4		(0.960%)		02/17/51	Morgan Stanley & Co. International plc		0.000%		USD	1,262,349		296,261		315,247		(18,986)

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-31

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Wellington Balanced Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

OTC Credit Default Swaps on Credit Indices—Buy Protection (a)—(Continued)

Reference Obligation	Fixed Deal (Pay) Rate		Maturity Date		Counterparty	Implied Credit Spread at December 31, 2016(b)		Notional Amount(c)			Market Value		Upfront Premium Paid/(Received)		Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation)
CMBX.NA.AS.6		(1.000%)		05/11/63	Credit Suisse International		0.000%		USD	635,000	$	(3,113)	$	6,876	$	(9,989)
CMBX.NA.AS.6		(1.000%)		05/11/63	Credit Suisse International		0.000%		USD	775,000		(3,800)		8,392		(12,192)
CMBX.NA.AS.7		(1.000%)		01/17/47	Credit Suisse International		0.000%		USD	1,375,000		64		25,476		(25,412)
CMBX.NA.AS.7		(1.000%)		01/17/47	Goldman Sachs International		0.000%		USD	500,000		23		14,481		(14,458)
CMBX.NA.AS.8		(1.000%)		10/17/57	Deutsche Bank AG		0.000%		USD	210,000		1,486		15,785		(14,299)
CMBX.NA.BBB.7		(3.000%)		01/17/47	Credit Suisse International		0.000%		USD	375,000		21,330		34,662		(13,332)
CMBX.NA.BBB.7		(3.000%)		01/17/47	Credit Suisse International		0.000%		USD	300,000		17,064		29,605		(12,541)
CMBX.NA.BBB.7		(3.000%)		01/17/47	Credit Suisse International		0.000%		USD	255,000		14,505		25,164		(10,659)
CMBX.NA.BBB.7		(3.000%)		01/17/47	Deutsche Bank AG		0.000%		USD	175,000		9,954		22,550		(12,596)
CMBX.NA.BBB.7		(3.000%)		01/17/47	Deutsche Bank AG		0.000%		USD	170,000		9,670		16,725		(7,055)
CMBX.NA.BBB.7		(3.000%)		01/17/47	Deutsche Bank AG		0.000%		USD	170,000		9,670		12,815		(3,145)
CMBX.NA.BBB.7		(3.000%)		01/17/47	Goldman Sachs International		0.000%		USD	1,020,000		58,018		98,003		(39,985)
CMBX.NA.BBB.7		(3.000%)		01/17/47	Goldman Sachs International		0.000%		USD	260,000		14,789		25,513		(10,724)
CMBX.NA.BBB.7		(3.000%)		01/17/47	Goldman Sachs International		0.000%		USD	230,000		13,083		20,132		(7,049)
CMBX.NA.BBB.7		(3.000%)		01/17/47	Goldman Sachs International		0.000%		USD	175,000		9,954		25,231		(15,277)
CMBX.NA.BBB.7		(3.000%)		01/17/47	Goldman Sachs International		0.000%		USD	30,000		1,706		2,769		(1,063)
CMBX.NA.BBB.7		(3.000%)		01/17/47	Morgan Stanley & Co. International plc		0.000%		USD	750,000		42,660		74,013		(31,353)
CMBX.NA.BBB.7		(3.000%)		01/17/47	Morgan Stanley & Co. International plc		0.000%		USD	385,000		21,899		40,214		(18,315)
CMBX.NA.BBB.7		(3.000%)		01/17/47	Morgan Stanley & Co. International plc		0.000%		USD	230,000		13,083		19,356		(6,273)
Totals											$	1,294,315	$	1,639,935	$	(345,620)

OTC Credit Default Swaps on Credit Indices—Sell Protection (d)

Reference Obligation	Fixed Deal Receive Rate		Maturity Date		Counterparty	Implied Credit Spread at December 31, 2016(b)		Notional Amount(c)			Market Value		Upfront Premium Paid/(Received)		Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation)
CDX.EM.26		1.000%		12/20/21	Barclays Bank plc		2.408%		USD	982,000	$	(61,647)	$	(83,362)	$	21,715
CDX.EM.26		1.000%		12/20/21	Barclays Bank plc		2.408%		USD	1,470,000		(92,281)		(115,248)		22,967
CDX.EM.26		1.000%		12/20/21	Barclays Bank plc		2.408%		USD	1,510,000		(94,793)		(113,552)		18,759
CMBX.NA.A.6.		2.000%		05/11/63	Goldman Sachs International		0.000%		USD	355,000		(7,429)		4,634		(12,063)
CMBX.NA.AAA.6		0.500%		05/11/63	Credit Suisse International		0.000%		USD	549,738		(226)		(13,159)		12,933
CMBX.NA.AAA.6		0.500%		05/11/63	Credit Suisse International		0.000%		USD	554,736		(228)		(13,261)		13,033
CMBX.NA.AAA.6		0.500%		05/11/63	Credit Suisse International		0.000%		USD	774,631		(318)		(28,854)		28,536
CMBX.NA.AAA.6		0.500%		05/11/63	Credit Suisse International		0.000%		USD	1,979,057		(814)		(21,401)		20,587
CMBX.NA.AAA.6		0.500%		05/11/63	Credit Suisse International		0.000%		USD	1,979,057		(814)		(21,401)		20,587
CMBX.NA.AAA.6		0.500%		05/11/63	Credit Suisse International		0.000%		USD	2,298,904		(945)		(24,860)		23,915
CMBX.NA.AAA.6		0.500%		05/11/63	Deutsche Bank AG		0.000%		USD	729,652		(300)		(25,010)		24,710
CMBX.NA.AAA.6		0.500%		05/11/63	Deutsche Bank AG		0.000%		USD	1,068,491		(439)		(25,543)		25,104
CMBX.NA.AAA.6		0.500%		05/11/63	Goldman Sachs International		0.000%		USD	84,960		(35)		(1,017)		982
CMBX.NA.AAA.6		0.500%		05/11/63	Goldman Sachs International		0.000%		USD	369,824		(152)		(12,019)		11,867
CMBX.NA.AAA.6		0.500%		05/11/63	Goldman Sachs International		0.000%		USD	439,790		(181)		(15,064)		14,883
CMBX.NA.AAA.6		0.500%		05/11/63	Goldman Sachs International		0.000%		USD	464,778		(191)		(15,583)		15,392
CMBX.NA.AAA.6		0.500%		05/11/63	Morgan Stanley & Co. International plc		0.000%		USD	329,843		(136)		(2,751)		2,615
CMBX.NA.AAA.6		0.500%		05/11/63	Morgan Stanley & Co. International plc		0.000%		USD	529,747		(218)		(12,524)		12,306
CMBX.NA.AAA.6		0.500%		05/11/63	Morgan Stanley & Co. International plc		0.000%		USD	624,702		(257)		(21,412)		21,155
CMBX.NA.AAA.6		0.500%		05/11/63	Morgan Stanley & Co. International plc		0.000%		USD	659,686		(271)		(15,770)		15,499
CMBX.NA.AAA.6		0.500%		05/11/63	Morgan Stanley & Co. International plc		0.000%		USD	664,683		(273)		(5,348)		5,075

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-32

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Wellington Balanced Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

OTC Credit Default Swaps on Credit Indices—Sell Protection (d)—(Continued)

Reference Obligation	Fixed Deal Receive Rate		Maturity Date		Counterparty	Implied Credit Spread at December 31, 2016(b)		Notional Amount(c)			Market Value		Upfront Premium Paid/(Received)		Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation)
CMBX.NA.AAA.6		0.500%		05/11/63	Morgan Stanley & Co. International plc		0.000%		USD	754,640	$	(310)	$	(25,525)	$	25,215
CMBX.NA.AAA.6		0.500%		05/11/63	Morgan Stanley & Co. International plc		0.000%		USD	8,992,713		(3,697)		(294,726)		291,029
CMBX.NA.BB.6		5.000%		05/11/63	Credit Suisse International		0.000%		USD	206,000		(27,277)		(36,850)		9,573
CMBX.NA.BB.6		5.000%		05/11/63	Credit Suisse International		0.000%		USD	460,000		(60,910)		(85,670)		24,760
CMBX.NA.BB.6		5.000%		05/11/63	Credit Suisse International		0.000%		USD	465,000		(61,572)		(86,601)		25,029
CMBX.NA.BB.6		5.000%		05/11/63	Credit Suisse International		0.000%		USD	465,000		(61,572)		(86,601)		25,029
CMBX.NA.BB.6		5.000%		05/11/63	Credit Suisse International		0.000%		USD	465,000		(61,572)		(86,601)		25,029
CMBX.NA.BB.6		5.000%		05/11/63	Goldman Sachs International		0.000%		USD	304,000		(40,254)		(50,355)		10,101
CMBX.NA.BB.6		5.000%		05/11/63	Goldman Sachs International		0.000%		USD	530,000		(70,179)		(58,813)		(11,366)
CMBX.NA.BB.6		5.000%		05/11/63	Morgan Stanley & Co. International plc		0.000%		USD	1,020,000		(135,062)		(189,964)		54,902
CMBX.NA.BB.8		5.000%		10/17/57	Bank of America N.A.		0.000%		USD	335,000		(83,883)		(24,355)		(59,528)
CMBX.NA.BB.8		5.000%		10/17/57	Credit Suisse International		0.000%		USD	60,000		(15,024)		(15,153)		129
CMBX.NA.BB.8		5.000%		10/17/57	Credit Suisse International		0.000%		USD	285,000		(71,364)		(80,923)		9,559
CMBX.NA.BB.8		5.000%		10/17/57	Credit Suisse International		0.000%		USD	550,000		(137,719)		(156,166)		18,447
CMBX.NA.BB.8		5.000%		10/17/57	Credit Suisse International		0.000%		USD	550,000		(137,719)		(156,166)		18,447
CMBX.NA.BB.8		5.000%		10/17/57	Goldman Sachs International		0.000%		USD	75,000		(18,780)		(22,824)		4,044
CMBX.NA.BB.8		5.000%		10/17/57	Goldman Sachs International		0.000%		USD	115,000		(28,796)		(32,462)		3,666
CMBX.NA.BB.8		5.000%		10/17/57	Goldman Sachs International		0.000%		USD	170,000		(42,568)		(27,682)		(14,886)
CMBX.NA.BB.8		5.000%		10/17/57	Goldman Sachs International		0.000%		USD	191,000		(47,826)		(22,902)		(24,924)
CMBX.NA.BB.8		5.000%		10/17/57	Goldman Sachs International		0.000%		USD	580,000		(145,231)		(181,510)		36,279
CMBX.NA.BB.8		5.000%		10/17/57	Morgan Stanley & Co. International plc		0.000%		USD	160,000		(40,064)		(46,535)		6,471
CMBX.NA.BB.8		5.000%		10/17/57	Morgan Stanley & Co. International plc		0.000%		USD	190,000		(47,576)		(55,341)		7,765
CMBX.NA.BB.8		5.000%		10/17/57	Morgan Stanley & Co. International plc		0.000%		USD	1,289,000		(322,764)		(365,997)		43,233
CMBX.NA.BB.9		5.000%		09/15/58	Goldman Sachs International		0.000%		USD	125,000		(27,459)		(35,383)		7,924
CMBX.NA.BB.9		5.000%		09/15/58	Goldman Sachs International		0.000%		USD	130,000		(28,557)		(36,481)		7,924
CMBX.NA.BB.9		5.000%		09/15/58	Goldman Sachs International		0.000%		USD	250,000		(54,918)		(70,766)		15,848
CMBX.NA.BB.9		5.000%		09/17/58	Goldman Sachs International		0.000%		USD	125,000		(27,459)		(35,733)		8,274
CMBX.NA.BB.9		5.000%		09/17/58	Morgan Stanley & Co. International plc		0.000%		USD	255,000		(56,016)		(80,525)		24,509
CMBX.NA.BBB.6		3.000%		05/11/63	Morgan Stanley & Co. International plc		0.000%		USD	90,000		(5,118)		(8,031)		2,913
CMBX.NA.BBB.8		3.000%		10/17/57	Goldman Sachs International		0.000%		USD	530,000		(75,121)		(78,177)		3,056
PRIMEX.ARM.2		4.580%		12/25/37	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		4.497%		USD	555,180		5,091		16,671		(11,580)
Totals											$	(2,193,224)	$	(3,100,652)	$	907,428

(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 indices 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 of purchased protection credit default swap contracts entered into by the Portfolio for the same referenced debt obligation.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-33

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Wellington Balanced Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

(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.

(AUD)— Australian Dollar

(BRL)— Brazilian Real

(COP)— Colombian Peso

(EUR)— Euro

(GBP)— British Pound

(INR)— Indian Rupee

(JPY)— Japanese Yen

(MXN)— Mexican Peso

(RON)— New Romanian Leu

(RUB)— Russian Ruble

(THB)— Thai Baht

(USD)— United States Dollar

(ZAR)— South African Rand

(ABX.HE)— Markit Asset-Backed Home Equity Index

(ABX.HE.PEN)— Markit Asset-Backed Home Equity Penultimate Index

(CDX.EM)— Markit Emerging Market CDS Index

(CDX.NA.HY)— Markit North America High Yield CDS Index

(CDX.NA.IG)— Markit North America Investment Grade CDS Index

(CMBX.NA.A)— Markit North America A Rated CMBS Index

(CMBX.NA.AA)— Markit North America AA Rated CMBS Index

(CMBX.NA.AAA)— Markit North America AAA Rated CMBS Index

(CMBX.NA.AJ)— Markit North America Junior AAA Rated CMBS Index

(CMBX.NA.AS)— Markit North America Junior AAA Rated CMBS Index

(CMBX.NA.BB)— Markit North America BB Rated CMBS Index

(CMBX.NA.BBB-)— Markit North America BBB- Rated CMBS Index

(CPI-U)— U.S. Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers

(MIBOR)— Mumbai Interbank Offered Rate

(PRIMEX.ARM)— Markit Primex Adjustable Rate Mortgage Index

(ITRAXX.EUR)— Markit iTraxx Europe Index

(ITAXX.XO)— Markit iTraxx Crossover Index

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-34

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Wellington Balanced Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Fair Value Hierarchy

Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) define 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, separately for each major category of assets and liabilities, 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, quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities 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, or other market corroborated inputs)

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 used in determining the fair value of investments and derivative financial instruments)

The inputs or methodologies used for valuing investments are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in them. Changes to the inputs or methodologies used may result in transfers between levels, which 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, 2016:

Description	Level 1			Level 2			Level 3		Total
Total Common Stocks*	$	743,874,211		$	—		$	—	$	743,874,211
Total U.S. Treasury & Government Agencies*		—			212,780,991			—		212,780,991
Total Corporate Bonds & Notes*		—			157,692,260			—		157,692,260
Total Asset-Backed Securities*		—			75,355,730			—		75,355,730
Total Mortgage-Backed Securities*		—			62,321,747			—		62,321,747
Total Floating Rate Loans (Less Unfunded Loan Commitments)*		—			23,883,524			—		23,883,524
Total Foreign Government*		—			15,372,683			—		15,372,683
Total Municipals		—			5,116,125			—		5,116,125
Total Purchased Option*		—			3,286			—		3,286
Total Short-Term Investment*		—			38,215,478			—		38,215,478
Securities Lending Reinvestments
Certificates of Deposit		—			58,062,455			—		58,062,455
Commercial Paper		—			19,848,784			—		19,848,784
Repurchase Agreements		—			9,512,933			—		9,512,933
Time Deposits		—			4,000,000			—		4,000,000
Total Securities Lending Reinvestments		—			91,424,172			—		91,424,172
Total Net Investments	$	743,874,211		$	682,165,996		$	—	$	1,426,040,207
Collateral for Securities Loaned (Liability)	$	—		$	(91,383,254	)	$	—	$	(91,383,254	)
TBA Forward Sales Commitments	$	—		$	(13,745,730	)	$	—	$	(13,745,730	)
Forward Contracts
Forward Foreign Currency Exchange Contracts (Unrealized Appreciation)	$	—		$	408,343		$	—	$	408,343
Forward Foreign Currency Exchange Contracts (Unrealized Depreciation)		—			(286,937	)		—		(286,937	)
Total Forward Contracts	$	—		$	121,406		$	—	$	121,406
Futures Contracts
Futures Contracts (Unrealized Appreciation)	$	143,107		$	—		$	—	$	143,107
Futures Contracts (Unrealized Depreciation)		(256,988	)		—			—		(256,988	)
Total Futures Contracts	$	(113,881	)	$	—		$	—	$	(113,881	)
Centrally Cleared Swap Contracts
Centrally Cleared Swap Contracts (Unrealized Appreciation)	$	—		$	433,508		$	—	$	433,508
Centrally Cleared Swap Contracts (Unrealized Depreciation)		—			(309,751	)		—		(309,751	)
Total Centrally Cleared Swap Contracts	$	—		$	123,757		$	—	$	123,757
OTC Swap Contracts
OTC Swap Contracts at Value (Assets)	$	—		$	1,719,954		$	—	$	1,719,954
OTC Swap Contracts at Value (Liabilities)		—			(2,249,051	)		—		(2,249,051	)
Total OTC Swap Contracts	$	—		$	(529,097	)	$	—	$	(529,097	)

* See Schedule of Investments for additional detailed categorizations.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-35

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Wellington Balanced Portfolio

Statement of Assets and Liabilities

December 31, 2016

Assets
Investments at value (a) (b)	$	1,426,040,207
Cash denominated in foreign currencies (c)		3,977,680
Cash collateral (d)		188,670
OTC swap contracts at market value (e)		1,719,954
Unrealized appreciation on forward foreign currency exchange contracts		408,343
Receivable for:
Investments sold		5,512,614
TBA securities sold (f)		162,640,883
Fund shares sold		46,677
Principal paydowns		4,525
Dividends and interest		3,961,111
Variation margin on futures contracts		155,660
Interest on OTC swap contracts		16,031
Variation margin on centrally cleared swap contracts		21,261
Prepaid expenses		3,527
Total Assets		1,604,697,143
Liabilities
Due to custodian		143,562
Forward sales commitments, at value		13,745,730
OTC swap contracts at market value (g)		2,249,051
Cash collateral for OTC swap contracts		590,000
Unrealized depreciation on forward foreign currency exchange contracts		286,937
Collateral for securities loaned		91,383,254
Payables for:
Investments purchased		10,383,487
TBA securities purchased (f)		250,675,792
Fund shares redeemed		1,146,609
Interest on OTC swap contracts		4,970
Accrued Expenses:
Management fees		451,175
Distribution and service fees		18,081
Deferred trustees’ fees		93,708
Other expenses		594,764
Total Liabilities		371,767,120
Net Assets	$	1,232,930,023
Net Assets Consist of:
Paid in surplus	$	1,102,733,683
Undistributed net investment income		23,976,181
Accumulated net realized gain		27,809,990
Unrealized appreciation on investments, futures contracts, swap contracts and foreign currency transactions		78,410,169
Net Assets	$	1,232,930,023
Net Assets
Class A	$	1,135,560,062
Class B		66,423,813
Class E		30,946,148
Capital Shares Outstanding*
Class A		61,412,034
Class B		3,615,306
Class E		1,677,857
Net Asset Value, Offering Price and Redemption Price Per Share
Class A	$	18.49
Class B		18.37
Class E		18.44

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

(a) Identified cost of investments was $1,348,645,447.

(b) Includes securities loaned at value of $88,739,883.

(c) Identified cost of cash denominated in foreign currencies was $4,079,311.

(d) Includes collateral of $188,100 for futures contracts and $570 for centrally cleared swap contracts.

(e) Net premium paid on OTC swap contracts was $1,641,338.

(f) Included within TBA securities sold is $25,044,189 related to TBA forward sale commitments and included within TBA securities purchased is $11,285,469 related to TBA forward sale commitments.

(g) Net premium received on OTC swap contracts was $3,144,831.

Statement of Operations

Year Ended December 31, 2016

Investment Income
Dividends (a)	$	12,302,033
Interest (b)		18,040,781
Securities lending income		501,474
Other income (c)		493,945
Total investment income		31,338,233
Expenses
Management fees		5,701,599
Administration fees		40,354
Custodian and accounting fees		547,992
Distribution and service fees—Class B		163,327
Distribution and service fees—Class E		46,694
Audit and tax services		104,446
Legal		33,032
Trustees’ fees and expenses		45,247
Shareholder reporting		241,716
Insurance		8,559
Miscellaneous		30,598
Total expenses		6,963,564
Less management fee waiver		(370,083	)
Less broker commission recapture		(12,881	)
Net expenses		6,580,600
Net Investment Income		24,757,633
Net Realized and Unrealized Gain
Net realized gain (loss) on:
Investments (d)		34,641,510
Futures contracts		759,698
Written options		705,002
Swap contracts		(4,684,478	)
Foreign currency transactions		(595,395	)
Net realized gain		30,826,337
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on:
Investments (e)		26,499,637
Futures contracts		(90,712	)
Written options		(288	)
Swap contracts		1,374,210
Foreign currency transactions		(55,601	)
Net change in unrealized appreciation		27,727,246
Net realized and unrealized gain		58,553,583
Net Increase in Net Assets From Operations	$	83,311,216

(a) Net of foreign withholding taxes of $20,655.

(b) Net of foreign withholding taxes of $1,398.

(c) Other income represents a non-recurring refund for overbilling of prior years’ custodian out-of-pocket fees.

(d) Net of foreign capital gains tax of $19,003.

(e) Includes change in foreign capital gains tax of $842.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-36

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Wellington Balanced Portfolio

Statements of Changes in Net Assets

	Year Ended December 31, 2016			Year Ended December 31, 2015
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets:
From Operations
Net investment income	$	24,757,633		$	24,677,644
Net realized gain		30,826,337			59,530,052
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation)		27,727,246			(49,574,711	)
Increase in net assets from operations		83,311,216			34,632,985
From Distributions to Shareholders
Net investment income
Class A		(31,406,742	)		(23,978,812	)
Class B		(1,622,094	)		(1,187,739	)
Class E		(809,717	)		(625,351	)
Net realized capital gains
Class A		(52,901,850	)		(204,816,772	)
Class B		(3,025,631	)		(11,695,847	)
Class E		(1,452,246	)		(5,811,632	)
Total distributions		(91,218,280	)		(248,116,153	)
Increase (decrease) in net assets from capital share transactions		(26,430,737	)		122,384,240
Total decrease in net assets		(34,337,801	)		(91,098,928	)
Net Assets
Beginning of period		1,267,267,824			1,358,366,752
End of period	$	1,232,930,023		$	1,267,267,824
Undistributed net investment income
End of period	$	23,976,181		$	33,739,195

Other Information:

Capital Shares

Transactions in capital shares were as follows:

	Year Ended December 31, 2016						Year Ended December 31, 2015
	Shares			Value			Shares			Value
Class A
Sales		964,978		$	17,720,014			661,786		$	13,589,496
Reinvestments		4,763,197			84,308,592			12,169,978			228,795,584
Redemptions		(6,939,141	)		(127,453,287	)		(6,304,527	)		(128,069,858	)
Net increase (decrease)		(1,210,966	)	$	(25,424,681	)		6,527,237		$	114,315,222
Class B
Sales		337,929		$	6,142,915			251,656		$	5,041,729
Reinvestments		263,926			4,647,725			688,593			12,883,586
Redemptions		(578,924	)		(10,535,397	)		(577,769	)		(11,738,448	)
Net increase		22,931		$	255,243			362,480		$	6,186,867
Class E
Sales		27,622		$	507,808			28,593		$	578,068
Reinvestments		128,012			2,261,963			343,123			6,436,983
Redemptions		(220,880	)		(4,031,070	)		(252,306	)		(5,132,900	)
Net increase (decrease)		(65,246	)	$	(1,261,299	)		119,410		$	1,882,151
Increase (decrease) derived from capital shares transactions				$	(26,430,737	)				$	122,384,240

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-37

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Wellington Balanced Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class A
	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014			2013			2012
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	18.66		$	22.29		$	20.59		$	17.52		$	15.95
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (a)		0.37	(b)		0.38			0.39			0.36			0.38
Net realized and unrealized gain on investments		0.88			0.24			1.73			3.18			1.58
Total from investment operations		1.25			0.62			2.12			3.54			1.96
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.53	)		(0.45	)		(0.42	)		(0.47	)		(0.39	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(0.89	)		(3.80	)		0.00			0.00			0.00
Total distributions		(1.42	)		(4.25	)		(0.42	)		(0.47	)		(0.39	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	18.49		$	18.66		$	22.29		$	20.59		$	17.52
Total Return (%) (c)		6.99			2.58			10.55			20.59	(d)		12.38
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Gross ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.55			0.54			0.53			0.51			0.52
Gross ratio of expenses to average net assets excluding interest expense (%)		0.55			0.54			0.53			0.51			0.52
Net ratio of expenses to average net assets (%) (e)		0.52			0.51			0.50			0.51			0.52
Net ratio of expenses to average net assets excluding interest expense (%) (e)		0.52			0.51			0.50			0.51			0.52
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		2.02	(b)		1.87			1.81			1.89			2.23
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		405	(f)		299	(f)		413	(f)		340	(f)		494	(f)
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	1,135.6		$	1,168.2		$	1,250.6		$	1,249.1		$	1,137.3
	Class B
	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014			2013			2012
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	18.54		$	22.17		$	20.48		$	17.43		$	15.88
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (a)		0.32	(b)		0.33			0.33			0.31			0.33
Net realized and unrealized gain on investments		0.88			0.23			1.73			3.16			1.57
Total from investment operations		1.20			0.56			2.06			3.47			1.90
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.48	)		(0.39	)		(0.37	)		(0.42	)		(0.35	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(0.89	)		(3.80	)		0.00			0.00			0.00
Total distributions		(1.37	)		(4.19	)		(0.37	)		(0.42	)		(0.35	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	18.37		$	18.54		$	22.17		$	20.48		$	17.43
Total Return (%) (c)		6.74			2.29			10.28			20.28	(d)		12.11
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Gross ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.80			0.79			0.78			0.76			0.77
Gross ratio of expenses to average net assets excluding interest expense (%)		0.80			0.79			0.78			0.76			0.77
Net ratio of expenses to average net assets (%) (e)		0.77			0.76			0.75			0.76			0.77
Net ratio of expenses to average net assets excluding interest expense (%) (e)		0.77			0.76			0.75			0.76			0.77
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		1.77	(b)		1.62			1.56			1.64			1.98
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		405	(f)		299	(f)		413	(f)		340	(f)		494	(f)
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	66.4		$	66.6		$	71.6		$	75.0		$	68.7

Please see following page for Financial Highlights footnote legend.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-38

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Wellington Balanced Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class E
	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014			2013			2012
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	18.61		$	22.24		$	20.54		$	17.48		$	15.92
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (a)		0.34	(b)		0.35			0.35			0.33			0.35
Net realized and unrealized gain on investments		0.87			0.23			1.74			3.17			1.57
Total from investment operations		1.21			0.58			2.09			3.50			1.92
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.49	)		(0.41	)		(0.39	)		(0.44	)		(0.36	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(0.89	)		(3.80	)		0.00			0.00			0.00
Total distributions		(1.38	)		(4.21	)		(0.39	)		(0.44	)		(0.36	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	18.44		$	18.61		$	22.24		$	20.54		$	17.48
Total Return (%) (c)		6.83			2.41			10.41			20.39	(d)		12.18
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Gross ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.70			0.69			0.68			0.66			0.67
Gross ratio of expenses to average net assets excluding interest expense (%)		0.70			0.69			0.68			0.66			0.67
Net ratio of expenses to average net assets (%) (e)		0.67			0.66			0.65			0.66			0.67
Net ratio of expenses to average net assets excluding interest expense (%) (e)		0.67			0.66			0.65			0.66			0.67
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		1.87	(b)		1.72			1.66			1.74			2.08
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		405	(f)		299	(f)		413	(f)		340	(f)		494	(f)
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	30.9		$	32.4		$	36.1		$	36.9		$	35.0

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

(b) Net investment income per share and the ratio of net investment income to average net assets include a non-recurring refund for overbilling of prior years’ custodian out-of-pocket fees which amounted to less than $0.01 per share and 0.04% of average net assets, respectively.

(c) Total return does not reflect any insurance, sales, separate account or administrative charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts or any additional expenses that contract owners may bear under their variable contracts. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower.

(d) In 2013, 0.04%, 0.04% and 0.04% of the Portfolio’s total return for Class A, Class B and Class E, respectively, consists of a voluntary reimbursement by the subadvisor for a realized loss. Excluding this item, total return would have been 20.55%, 20.24% and 20.35% for Class A, Class B and Class E, respectively.

(e) Includes the effects of management fee waivers (see Note 6 of the Notes to Financial Statements).

(f) Includes mortgage dollar roll and TBA transactions; excluding these transactions the portfolio turnover rates would have been 58%, 71%, 163%, 139% and 243% for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013 and 2012, respectively.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-39

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Wellington Balanced Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016

1. Organization

Metropolitan Series Fund (the “Trust”) is organized as a Delaware statutory trust and registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), as an open-end management investment company. The Trust, which is managed by MetLife Advisers, LLC (“MetLife Advisers” or the “Adviser”), an affiliate of MetLife, Inc., is currently comprised of thirty series, each of which operates as a distinct investment vehicle of the Trust. The portfolio included in this report is Met/Wellington Balanced Portfolio (formerly, WMC Balanced 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.

On January 12, 2016, MetLife, Inc. announced its plan to pursue the separation of a substantial portion of its retail segment and is currently evaluating structural alternatives for such separation. It is anticipated that MetLife Advisers would be included in any such separation. Any separation transaction that might occur will be subject to the satisfaction of various conditions and approvals, including approval of any transaction by the MetLife, Inc. Board of Directors, satisfaction of any applicable requirements of the SEC, and receipt of insurance and other regulatory approvals and other anticipated conditions. MetLife, Inc. cannot currently provide a specific potential completion date for a separation transaction or any assurance that a separation will in fact occur. MetLife Advisers’ continued service as investment adviser to the Trusts following a separation transaction is the subject of a proxy statement that was filed with the SEC on December 20, 2016 and mailed to shareholders of the Portfolio on or about December 30, 2016.

The Portfolio has registered and offers three classes of shares: Class A, B and E shares. 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 plan and such distribution expenses are allocated to the corresponding Class of shares.

2. Significant Accounting Policies

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities as of the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of income and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates. In the preparation of these financial statements, management has evaluated events and transactions subsequent to December 31, 2016 through the date the financial statements were issued.

The Portfolio is an investment company and follows the accounting and reporting guidance of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Accounting Standards Codification Topic 946—Financial Services—Investment Companies and Topic 820—Fair Value Measurement. 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, including corporate, convertible and municipal bonds and notes; obligations of the U.S. Treasury and U.S. government agencies; foreign sovereign issues; 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 the Adviser (each a “pricing service”), pursuant to authorization of and subject to general oversight by the Board of Trustees of the Trust (the “Board” or “Trustees”). Such pricing services may use matrix pricing, which considers observable inputs including, among other things, issuer details, maturity dates, interest rates, yield curves, rates of prepayment, credit risks/spreads, default rates, reported trades, broker dealer quotes and quoted prices for similar assets. Short-term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less may be valued at amortized cost in the absence of market quotes, so long as the amortized cost value of such short-term debt instrument is approximately the same as the fair value of the instrument as determined without the use of amortized cost valuation. Floating rate loans are generally valued on the basis of an evaluated or composite average of aggregate bid and ask quotations supplied by brokers or dealers, as obtained from the pricing service. 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 generally valued on the basis of evaluated or composite bid quotations obtained from pricing services selected by the Adviser pursuant to authorization of and subject to general oversight by the Board. These securities are usually issued as separate tranches, or classes, of securities within each deal. The pricing models for these securities usually consider tranche-level attributes, current market data, estimated cash flows and market-based yield spreads for each tranche 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.

Domestic and foreign equity securities, such as common stock, exchange-traded funds, rights, warrants, and preferred stock, that are traded on a securities exchange on a valuation date are generally valued at their last quoted sale price or official closing price on the

MSF-40

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Wellington Balanced Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

primary exchange for such security, or, if no sales occurred on that day, at the last reported bid price. Equity securities traded over-the-counter (“OTC”) are generally valued at the last reported bid price. In the event of a major exchange closing during the trading day, the Adviser may use other market information obtained from quotation reporting systems, established market makers, or pricing services in valuing the securities. Valuation adjustments may be applied to certain foreign equity securities that are traded solely on foreign exchanges that close before the time as of which the Portfolio determines its NAV to account for the market movement between the close of the foreign exchanges and the time as of which the Portfolio determines its NAV. The Portfolio may use a systematic fair valuation model provided by a pricing service to value securities principally traded in these foreign markets in order to adjust for possible market movements or other changes that may occur between the close of the foreign exchanges and the time as of which the Portfolio determines its NAV. Foreign equity securities valued using these valuation adjustments are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy. Equity securities that are actively traded, and have no valuation adjustments applied, are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other equity securities traded on inactive markets, or valued in reference to similar instruments traded on active markets, 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 on the valuation date and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy.

Foreign currency forward contracts are valued through an independent pricing service by interpolating between forward and spot currency rates in the London foreign exchange markets as of a designated hour on a valuation day. These contracts are generally 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 sale price available as of the close of business on a valuation day or, if there is no such price available, at the last reported bid price. These types of options are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Futures contracts that are traded on commodity exchanges are valued at their settlement prices established by the exchanges on which they are traded as of the close of such exchanges and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy.

Options, including swaptions, and futures contracts that are traded OTC are generally valued on the basis of interdealer bid and asked prices or prices provided by 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, yield curves, credit curves, measures of volatility and exchange rates. These contracts are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Swap contracts (other than centrally cleared swaps) are marked-to-market daily based on quotations and prices supplied by market makers, broker-dealers and other pricing services. Such quotations and prices are derived utilizing observable data, including the underlying reference securities or indices, credit spread quotations and expected default recovery rates determined by the pricing service. These contracts are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Centrally cleared swaps listed or traded on a multilateral or trade facility platform, such as a registered exchange, are valued at the daily settlement price determined by the respective exchange or a pricing service when the exchange price is not available. For centrally cleared credit default swaps, the clearing facility requires its members to provide actionable price levels across complete term structures. These levels along with external third party prices are used to produce daily settlement prices. These securities are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy. Centrally cleared interest rate swaps are valued using a pricing model that references the underlying rates, including the overnight index swap rate and London Interbank Offered Rate (“LIBOR”) forward rate to produce the daily settlement price. These securities are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

If no current market value quotation or other observable inputs are readily available or market value quotations are deemed to be unreliable for an investment, the fair value of the investment will be determined in accordance with procedures approved by, and under the general supervision of, the Board. In such a circumstance, the Board will be assisted in its responsibility to determine the fair value of an investment by the Valuation Committee (“Committee”) of MetLife Advisers. The Committee provides general pricing oversight and fair value pricing determinations related to portfolio securities and meets on a regular basis to review reports relating to the valuation of the securities in the Portfolio. The Board has delegated to State Street Bank and Trust Company, the Trust’s custodian (“custodian”), the responsibility for calculating the net asset values (“NAVs”) of the Trust’s Portfolios. The Committee is responsible for overseeing the calculation of the NAVs of the Portfolios by the custodian. The Committee also periodically reviews pricing services, including the pricing services providing fair value pricing for the Portfolio’s foreign securities, and is responsible for overseeing the correction of pricing errors and addressing other pricing issues that arise in the ordinary course of business, such as making real-time fair value determinations, as necessary.

No single standard for determining the fair value of an investment can be set forth because fair value depends upon the facts and circumstances with respect to each investment. Information relating to any relevant factors may be obtained by the Committee from any appropriate source, including the subadviser of the Portfolio, the custodian, a pricing service, market maker and/or broker for such security or the issuer. Appropriate methodologies for determining fair value under particular circumstances may include: matrix

MSF-41

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Wellington Balanced Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

pricing, a discounted cash flow analysis, comparisons of securities with comparable characteristics, value based on multiples of earnings, discount from market price of similar marketable securities or a combination of these and other methods.

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 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. These foreign taxes have been provided for in accordance with the Portfolio’s understanding of the applicable countries’ tax rules and rates.

Due to Custodian - Pursuant to the custodian agreement, State Street Bank and Trust Company (SSBT) may, in its discretion, advance funds to the Portfolio to make properly authorized payments. When such payments result in an overdraft, the Portfolio is obligated to repay SSBT at the current rate of interest charged by SSBT for secured loans (currently, the Federal Funds rate plus 2%). This obligation is payable on demand to SSBT. SSBT has a lien on a Portfolio’s assets to the extent of any overdraft. At December 31, 2016, the Portfolio had a payment due to SSBT pursuant to the foregoing arrangement of $143,562. Based on the short-term nature of these payments and the variable interest rate, the carrying value of the overdraft advances approximated its fair value at December 31, 2016. If measured at fair value, overdraft advances would have been considered as Level 2 in the fair value hierarchy at December 31, 2016. The Portfolio’s average overdraft advances during the year ended December 31, 2016 were not significant.

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 the U.S. dollar 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. Because the values of investment securities are translated at the foreign exchange rates prevailing at the end of the period, that portion of the results of operations arising from changes in exchange rates and that portion of the results of operations reflecting fluctuations arising from changes in market prices of the investment securities are not separated. 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. 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.

Dividends and Distributions to Shareholders - The Portfolio records dividends and distributions on the ex-dividend date. Net realized gains from securities 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, paydown gain/loss reclasses, broker commission recapture, amortization and accretion of debt securities, real estate investment trust (REIT) adjustments, adjustments to prior period accumulated balances and swap contract transactions. These adjustments have no impact on net assets or the results 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 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. As of December 31, 2016, the Portfolio had no uncertain tax positions that would require financial statement recognition, or de-recognition or disclosure.

Mortgage Dollar Rolls - The Portfolio may enter into mortgage “dollar rolls” in which a Portfolio sells to-be-announced (“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. For the duration of the transaction, or 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.

Treasury and mortgage dollar roll transactions involve the risk that the market value of the securities that the Portfolio is required to repurchase or reacquire may be less than the agreed-upon repurchase price of those securities and that the investment performance of securities purchased with proceeds from these transactions does not exceed the income, capital appreciation, and gain or loss that would have been realized on the securities transferred or sold, as applicable, as part of the treasury or mortgage dollar roll.

MSF-42

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Wellington Balanced Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

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 mortgage obligations (“CMOs”), commercial mortgage-backed securities, 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). 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 netted against payments received for the IOs and the net amount is 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.

TBA Purchase & Forward 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. TBA forward sale commitments are valued at the current market value of the underlying securities, according to the procedures described under “Investment Valuation and Fair Value Measurements”.

When-Issued and Delayed-Delivery Securities - The Portfolio may purchase securities on a when-issued or delayed-delivery basis. Settlement of such transactions normally occurs within a month or more after the purchase 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 or delayed-delivery basis, the Portfolio will hold liquid assets in a segregated account with the Portfolio’s custodian, or set aside liquid assets in the Portfolio’s records, 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.

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 generally 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.

Floating Rate Loans - 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, 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. The Portfolio may not benefit directly from any collateral supporting the loan in which it has purchased the participation or assignment. The purchase of assignments will typically result in the Portfolio having a direct contractual relationship with the borrower, and the Portfolio may enforce compliance by the borrower with the terms of the loan agreement.

The Portfolio may invest in multiple series or tranches of a loan, which may have varying terms and carry different associated risks. When the Portfolio purchases assignments it acquires direct rights against the borrower of the loan. These loans may include participations in bridge loans, which are loans taken out by borrowers for a short period (typically less than one year) pending arrangement of more permanent financing.

MSF-43

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Wellington Balanced Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

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.

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, 2016, the Portfolio had open unfunded loan commitments of $5,267. At December 31, 2016, the Portfolio had sufficient cash and/or securities to cover these commitments.

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 net ratio of expenses to average net assets presented in the Financial Highlights for each share class.

Repurchase Agreements - The Portfolio may enter into repurchase agreements, under the terms of a Master Repurchase Agreement (“MRA”), 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, under a tri-party repurchase agreement, receives delivery of the underlying securities collateralizing any repurchase agreements. It is the Portfolio’s policy that the market value of the collateral be equal to at least 100% of the repurchase price in the case of a repurchase agreement of one-day duration and equal to at least 102% of the repurchase price in the case of all other repurchase agreements. In the event of default or failure by a party to perform an obligation in connection with any repurchase transaction, the MRA gives the non-defaulting party the right to set-off claims and to apply property held by it in connection with any repurchase transaction against obligations owed to it.

At December 31, 2016, the Portfolio had direct investments in repurchase agreements with a gross value of $38,215,478. Additionally, the Portfolio invested cash collateral for loans of portfolio securities in repurchase agreements with a gross value of $9,512,933. The combined value of all repurchase agreements is included as part of investments at value on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. The value of the related collateral exceeded the value of the repurchase agreements at December 31, 2016.

Reverse Repurchase Agreements - The Portfolio may enter into reverse repurchase agreements with qualified institutions. In a reverse repurchase agreement, the Portfolio transfers securities in exchange for cash to a financial institution or counterparty, concurrently with an agreement by the Portfolio to re-acquire the same securities at an agreed upon price and date. 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 transferred by the Portfolio may decline below the agreed-upon reacquisition price of the securities. In the event of default or failure by a party to perform an obligation in connection with any reverse repurchase transaction, the MRA entitles the non-defaulting party with a right to set-off claims and apply property held by it in respect of any reverse repurchase transaction against obligations owed to it. Cash received in exchange for securities transferred under reverse repurchase agreements plus accrued interest payments to be made by the Portfolio to counterparties are reflected as Reverse repurchase agreements on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

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 collateral held from securities on loan. 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.

Effective September 8, 2016, the Trust has entered into a Non-Custodial Securities Lending Agreement with JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (the “lending agent”). Prior to September 8, 2016, the Trust had entered into a Securities Lending Authorization Agreement with the custodian (the “prior lending agent”). Under each agreement, the lending agent is authorized to loan portfolio securities on the Portfolio’s behalf. In exchange, the Portfolio receives either cash or government securities as collateral against the loaned securities. The Portfolio receives collateral equal to at least 102% of the market value for loans secured by government securities or cash in the same currency as the loaned shares and 105% for all other loaned securities at each loan’s inception. Collateral representing at least 100% of the market value of the loaned securities is maintained for the duration of the loan. Any cash collateral received by the Portfolio is generally invested by the lending agent in short-term investments, which may include certificates of deposit, commercial paper, repurchase agreements, time deposits and money market funds. Cash collateral that was received by the prior lending agent had been generally invested in the State Street Navigator Securities Lending MET Portfolio (the “Navigator Portfolio”), a series of the State Street Navigator Securities Lending Trust that was a registered money market fund managed by an affiliate of the custodian. The market value of investments made with cash collateral received are disclosed in the Schedule of Investments and the valuation techniques are described in Note 2. If the market value of the collateral at the close of trading on a business day is less than 100% of

MSF-44

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Wellington Balanced Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

the market value of the loaned securities at the close of trading on that day, the borrower is 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 is equal to at least 100% of the market value of all the loaned securities as of such preceding day. A portion of the income earned on the collateral is rebated to the borrower of the securities and the remainder is split between the lending agent and the Portfolio. On loans collateralized by government securities, a fee is received from the borrower and is allocated between the Portfolio and the lending agent.

Income received by the Portfolio in securities lending transactions during the year ended December 31, 2016 is reflected as securities lending income on the Statement of Operations. The values of any securities loaned by the Portfolio and the related collateral at December 31, 2016 are disclosed in the footnotes to the Schedule of Investments. The value of the related collateral received by the Portfolio exceeded the value of the securities out on loan at December 31, 2016.

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. The lending agent shall indemnify the Portfolio in the case of default of any securities borrower, subject to the terms of the Non-Custodial Securities Lending Agreement.

The following table provides a breakdown of transactions accounted for as secured borrowings, the gross obligations by the type of collateral pledged, and the remaining contractual maturities of those transactions, which are accounted for as secured borrowings.

	Remaining Contractual Maturity of the Agreements As of December 31, 2016
	Overnight and Continuous			Up to 30 Days		31 - 90 Days		Greater than 90 days		Total
Securities Lending Transactions
Common Stocks	$	(68,219,149	)	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	(68,219,149	)
Corporate Bonds & Notes		(23,122,443	)		—		—		—		(23,122,443	)
U.S. Treasury & Government Agencies		(41,662	)		—		—		—		(41,662	)
Total	$	(91,383,254	)	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	(91,383,254	)
Total Borrowings	$	(91,383,254	)	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	(91,383,254	)
Gross amount of recognized liabilities for securities lending transactions										$	(91,383,254	)

3. 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 valuation 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 losses if the counterparties to the contracts are unable to meet the terms of the contracts. The Portfolio may also experience losses even when such contracts are used for hedging purposes. The Portfolio’s maximum potential loss from such contracts is the aggregate face value in U.S. dollars at the time the contract was opened.

Futures Contracts - The Portfolio may buy and sell futures contracts 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 cash collateral on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. Futures

MSF-45

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Wellington Balanced Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

contracts are marked-to-market daily, and subsequent payments (“variation margin”) are made or received by the Portfolio depending on whether unrealized gains or losses are incurred. These amounts are reflected as receivables or payables on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities and as a component of net change in unrealized appreciation/depreciation on the Statement of Operations. When the contract is closed or expires, the Portfolio records 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. 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. If futures contracts are exchange-traded, the exchange’s clearinghouse, as counterparty to all exchange-traded futures, guarantees the futures contracts against default. For OTC futures, the Portfolio’s ability to terminate the positions may be more limited than in the case of exchange-traded positions and may also involve the risk that securities dealers participating in such transactions would fail to meet their obligations to the Portfolio.

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 give 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 investment exposure to a target asset class or to enhance return. Writing puts or buying calls tends to increase the Portfolio’s exposure to the underlying instrument and writing calls or buying puts tends to decrease the Portfolio’s exposure to the underlying instrument, and can be used to hedge other Portfolio investments. For options used 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. The Portfolio also bears the risk of an unfavorable change in the value of the underlying instrument or the risk that the Portfolio may not be able to enter into a closing transaction due to an illiquid market. 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 any unrealized gains.

The main risk associated with purchasing an option is that the option expires without being exercised. In this case, the option is worthless when it expires and the premium paid for the option is considered a realized 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 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 by the Portfolio for a written option is recorded as an asset and an equivalent liability. The liability is subsequently marked to market to reflect the current value of the option written. 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 by the Portfolio is offset against the amount paid for the purchase of the underlying instrument.

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.

Options on swaps (“swaptions”) are similar to options on securities except that instead of selling or purchasing the right to buy or sell a security, the writer or purchaser of the swaptions is granting or buying the right to enter into a previously agreed upon interest rate or credit default swap agreement (interest rate risk and/or credit risk) at any time before the expiration of the option.

Swap Agreements - The Portfolio may enter into swap agreements in which the Portfolio and a counterparty agree to either make periodic net payments on a specified notional amount or net payment upon termination. Swap agreements are either privately negotiated in the OTC market (“OTC swaps”) or executed in a multilateral or other trade facility platform, such as a registered commodities exchange

MSF-46

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Wellington Balanced Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

(“centrally-cleared swaps”). The Portfolio may enter into swap agreements for the purposes of managing exposure to interest rate, credit or market risk, or for other purposes. In connection with these agreements, securities or cash may be paid or received, as applicable, by the Portfolio as collateral or margin in accordance with the terms of the respective swap agreements to provide assets of value and recourse in the event of default or bankruptcy/insolvency. Securities posted by the Portfolio as collateral for swap contracts are identified in the Schedule of Investments and restricted cash, if any, is reflected on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

Centrally Cleared Swaps: Clearinghouses currently offer clearing derivative transactions which include interest rate and 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.

Swap agreements are marked-to-market daily. The fair value of an OTC swap is reflected on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. The changes in value, if any, are reflected as a component of net change in unrealized appreciation/depreciation on the Statement of Operations. Daily changes in valuation of centrally cleared swaps, if any, are recorded as a receivable or payable for variation margin on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities and as a component of unrealized appreciation/depreciation on the Statement of Operations. Upfront payments paid or received upon entering into the swap agreement compensate for differences between the stated terms of the swap agreement and prevailing market conditions (such as credit spreads, currency exchange rates, interest rates, and other relevant factors). Upon termination or maturity of the swap, upfront premiums are recorded as realized gains or losses on the Statement of Operations. A liquidation payment received or made at the termination of the swap is recorded as realized gain or loss on the Statement of Operations. Net periodic payments received or paid by the Portfolio are included as part of realized gains or losses on the Statement of Operations.

Swap transactions involve, to varying degrees, elements of interest rate, credit, and market risk in excess of the amounts recognized in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. Such risks involve the possibility that there will be no liquid market for these agreements, that the counterparty to the agreements may default on its obligation to perform, or that there may be unfavorable changes in market conditions or interest rates. In addition, entering into swap agreements involves documentation risk resulting from the possibility that the parties to a swap agreement may disagree as to the meaning of contractual terms in the agreement. The Portfolio may enter into swap transactions with counterparties 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. A Portfolio’s maximum risk of loss from counterparty credit risk is the discounted value of the net cash flows to be received from the counterparty over the contract’s remaining life, to the extent that amount is positive, or the fair value of the contract. The risk may be mitigated by having a master netting arrangement between the Portfolio and the counterparty and by the posting of collateral by the counterparty to cover the Portfolio’s exposure to the counterparty. Counterparty risk related to centrally-cleared swaps is mitigated due to the protection against defaults provided by the exchange on which these contracts trade.

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/or sovereign issuers, or to create exposure to corporate and/or sovereign issuers to which they are not otherwise exposed. Credit default swaps involve one party making a stream of payments (referred to as the buyer of protection) to another party (the seller of protection) in exchange for the right to receive a specified return if a credit event occurs for the referenced entity, obligation or index. A credit event is defined under the terms of each swap agreement and may include, but is not limited to, underlying entity default, bankruptcy, write-down, principal shortfall or interest shortfall. As the seller of protection, if an underlying credit event occurs, the Portfolio will either pay the buyer 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 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). In return, the Portfolio would receive from the counterparty an upfront or periodic stream of payments throughout the life of the credit default swap agreement provided that no credit event has occurred. As the seller of protection, the Portfolio will effectively add leverage to its portfolio because, in addition to its total net assets, the Portfolio would be subject to investment exposure on the notional amount of the credit default 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 be worthless when it expires 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, whereby the seller may fail to satisfy its payment obligations to the Portfolio in the event of a default. As the buyer of protection, if an underlying credit event occurs, the Portfolio will either 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 receive a net settlement amount in the form of cash or securities equal to the notional amount of

MSF-47

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Wellington Balanced Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

the swap less the recovery value of the referenced obligation (or underlying securities comprising the referenced index). If no credit event occurs and the Portfolio is a buyer of protection, the Portfolio will typically recover nothing under the credit default swap agreement, but it will have had to pay the required upfront payment or stream of continuing payments under the credit default swap agreement. Recovery values are at times established through the credit event auction process in which market participants are ensured that a transparent price has been set for the defaulted obligation.

Credit default swap agreements on credit indices involve one party making a stream of payments to another party in exchange for the right to receive a specified return in the event of a write-down, principal shortfall, interest shortfall or default of all or part of the referenced entities comprising the credit index. A credit index is a basket of credit instruments or exposures designed to be representative of some part of the credit market as a whole. An index credit default swap references all the names in the index, and if there is a credit event involving an entity in the index, the credit event is settled based on that entity’s weight in the index. A Portfolio may use credit default swaps on credit indices as a hedge for credit default swaps or bonds held in the portfolio, which is less expensive than it would be to buy many individual credit default swaps to achieve similar effect. Credit default swaps on indices are benchmarks for protecting investors owning bonds against default, and may be used to speculate on changes in credit quality.

Implied credit spreads, represented in absolute terms, utilized in determining the market value of credit default swap agreements on a credit index or corporate or sovereign issuer, serve as some indication of the status of the payment/performance risk and 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 reflect upfront payments required to be made to enter into the agreement. Wider credit spreads generally 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 particular swap agreement. When no implied credit spread is available for a credit default swap, the current unrealized appreciation/depreciation on the position may be used as an indicator of the current status of the payment/performance risk.

The maximum potential amount of future payments (undiscounted) that the 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, 2016, for which the Portfolio is the seller of protection, are disclosed in the Schedule of Investments. 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 the Portfolio for the same referenced entity or entities.

Interest Rate Swaps: The Portfolio may enter into interest rate swaps to manage its exposure to interest rates or to protect against currency fluctuations, to adjust the interest rate sensitivity (duration), to preserve a return or spread on a particular investment, or otherwise as a substitute for a direct investment in debt securities. The Portfolio is subject to interest rate risk exposure in the normal course of pursuing its investment objectives. Because the Portfolio holds fixed rate bonds, the value of these bonds 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 agreements. Interest rate swaps are agreements in which one party pays a stream of interest payments, either fixed or floating rate, for another party’s stream of interest payments, either fixed or floating, on the same notional amount for a specified period of time. Other forms of interest rate swap agreements may include: (1) interest rate caps, under which, in return for a premium, one party agrees to make payments to the other to the extent that interest rates exceed a specified rate, or “cap”; (2) interest rate floors, under which, in return for a premium, one party agrees to make payments to the other to the extent that interest rates fall below a specified rate, or “floor”; and (3) interest rate collars, under which a party sells a cap and purchases a floor or vice versa in an attempt to protect itself against interest rate movements exceeding given minimum or maximum levels. 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.

Spreadlock Swap Contracts - The Portfolio may invest in spreadlock swap contracts. These contracts involve commitments to pay or receive a settlement amount calculated as the spread difference between two interest rate curves and a fixed spread at a specific forward date determined at the beginning of the contract. Settlement amounts paid or received are recorded as a realized gain or loss on the Statements of Operations at the determination date.

The following table summarizes the fair value of derivatives held by the Portfolio at December 31, 2016 by category of risk exposure:

	Asset Derivatives			Liability Derivatives
Risk Exposure	Statement of Assets & Liabilities Location	Fair Value		Statement of Assets & Liabilities Location	Fair Value
Interest Rate	OTC swap contracts at market value (a)	$	413,635	OTC swap contracts at market value (a)	$	2,077
	Unrealized appreciation on centrally cleared swap contracts (b) (c)		330,941
	Unrealized appreciation on futures contracts (b) (d)		143,107	Unrealized depreciation on futures contracts (b) (d)		204,415

MSF-48

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Wellington Balanced Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

	Asset Derivatives			Liability Derivatives
Risk Exposure	Statement of Assets & Liabilities Location	Fair Value		Statement of Assets & Liabilities Location	Fair Value
Credit	OTC swap contracts at market value (a)	$	1,306,319	OTC swap contracts at market value (a)	$	2,246,974
	Unrealized appreciation on centrally cleared swap contracts (b) (c)		102,567	Unrealized depreciation on centrally cleared swap contracts (b) (c)		309,751
Equity				Unrealized depreciation on futures contracts (b) (d)		52,573
Foreign Exchange	Investments at market value (e)		3,286
	Unrealized appreciation on forward foreign currency exchange contracts		408,343	Unrealized depreciation on forward foreign currency exchange contracts		286,937
Total		$	2,708,198		$	3,102,727

(a) Excludes OTC swap interest receivable of $16,031 and OTC swap interest payable of $4,970.

(b) Financial instrument not subject to a master netting agreement.

(c) Represents the unrealized appreciation/depreciation of centrally cleared swaps as reported in the Schedule of Investments. Only the variation margin is reported within the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

(d) Includes cumulative appreciation/depreciation of futures contracts as reported in the Schedule of Investments. Only the current day’s variation margin is reported within the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

(e) Represents purchased options which are part of investments at value as shown in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

The Portfolio is required to disclose the impact of offsetting assets and liabilities represented in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities to enable users of the financial statements to evaluate the effect or potential effect of netting arrangements on its financial position for recognized assets and liabilities.

The following table presents the Portfolio’s derivative assets by counterparty net of amounts available for offset under a master netting agreement (“MNA”) (see Note 4), or similar agreement, and net of the related collateral received by the Portfolio as of December 31, 2016.

Counterparty	Derivative Assets subject to an MNA by Counterparty		Financial Instruments available for offset			Collateral Received†			Net Amount*
Bank of America N.A.	$	509,513	$	(116,034	)	$	(330,000	)	$	63,479
BNP Paribas S.A.		33,391		—			—			33,391
Citibank N.A.		169,408		(20,132	)		—			149,276
Credit Suisse International		523,649		(523,649	)		—			—
Deutsche Bank AG		41,203		(739	)		—			40,464
Goldman Sachs International		100,859		(100,859	)		—			—
JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		284,300		—			(260,000	)		24,300
Morgan Stanley & Co. International plc		395,751		(395,751	)		—			—
National Australia Bank, Ltd.		275		—			—			275
State Street Bank and Trust		73,234		(73,234	)		—			—
	$	2,131,583	$	(1,230,398	)	$	(590,000	)	$	311,185

The following table presents the Portfolio’s derivative liabilities by counterparty net of amounts available for offset under an MNA, or similar agreement, and net of the related collateral pledged by the Portfolio as of December 31, 2016.

Counterparty	Derivative Liabilities subject to an MNA by Counterparty		Financial Instruments available for offset			Collateral Pledged†			Net Amount**
Bank of America N.A.	$	116,034	$	(116,034	)	$	—		$	—
Barclays Bank plc		338,838		—			(258,940	)		79,898
Citibank N.A.		20,132		(20,132	)		—			—
Credit Suisse International		644,987		(523,649	)		(121,338	)		—
Deutsche Bank AG		739		(739	)		—			—
Goldman Sachs International		670,825		(100,859	)		(517,513	)		52,453
Morgan Stanley & Co. International plc		611,762		(395,751	)		(216,011	)		—
State Street Bank and Trust		108,289		(73,234	)		—			35,055
UBS AG		24,382		—			—			24,382
	$	2,535,988	$	(1,230,398	)	$	(1,113,802	)	$	191,788

* Net amount represents the net amount receivable from the counterparty in the event of default.

** Net amount represents the net amount payable due to the counterparty in the event of default.

† In some instances, the actual collateral received and/or pledged may be more than the amount shown here due to overcollateralization.

MSF-49

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Wellington Balanced Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

The following tables summarize the effect of derivative instruments on the Statement of Operations, classified by derivative type and category of risk exposure, for the year ended December 31, 2016:

Statement of Operations Location—Net Realized Gain (Loss)	Interest Rate			Credit			Equity		Foreign Exchange			Total
Investments (a)	$	(802	)	$	—		$	—	$	(34,103	)	$	(34,905	)
Forward foreign currency transactions		—			—			—		(696,157	)		(696,157	)
Futures contracts		(13,853	)		—			773,551		—			759,698
Swap contracts		312,233			(4,996,711	)		—		—			(4,684,478	)
Written options		—			637,113			—		67,889			705,002
	$	297,578		$	(4,359,598	)	$	773,551	$	(662,371	)	$	(3,950,840	)
Statement of Operations Location—Net Change in Unrealized Appreciation (Depreciation)	Interest Rate			Credit			Equity		Foreign Exchange			Total
Investments (a)	$	—		$	—		$	—	$	(20,746	)	$	(20,746	)
Forward foreign currency transactions		—			—			—		36,766			36,766
Futures contracts		(192,886	)		—			102,174		—			(90,712	)
Swap contracts		724,545			649,665			—		—			1,374,210
Written options		—			(288	)		—		—			(288	)
	$	531,659		$	649,377		$	102,174	$	16,020		$	1,299,230

For the year ended December 31, 2016, the average notional par or face amount outstanding for each derivative type was as follows:

Derivative Description	Average Notional Par or Face Amount‡
Investments (a)	$	4,718,812
Forward foreign currency transactions		29,713,874
Futures contracts long		102,604,321
Futures contracts short		(64,421,835	)
Swap contracts		141,674,922
Written options		77,380,667

‡ Averages are based on activity levels during the year.

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

Written Options

The Portfolio transactions in written options during the year ended December 31, 2016:

Call Options	Notional Amount			Premium Received
Options outstanding December 31, 2015		13,365,000		$	39,761
Options written		227,468,000			703,396
Options exercised		(149,254,000	)		(474,566	)
Options expired		(91,579,000	)		(268,591	)
Options outstanding December 31, 2016		—		$	—
Put Options	Notional Amount			Premium Received
Options outstanding December 31, 2015		13,370,000		$	26,406
Options written		256,548,000			737,721
Options bought back		(2,679,000	)		(74,289	)
Options exercised		(100,376,000	)		(260,193	)
Options expired		(166,863,000	)		(429,645	)
Options outstanding December 31, 2016		—		$	—

MSF-50

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Wellington Balanced Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

4. Certain Risks

In the normal course of business, the Portfolio invests in securities and enters into transactions where risks exist. Those risks include:

Market 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, interest rate, and price fluctuations.

Credit and Counterparty Risk: 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 and counterparty risk consist principally of cash due from counterparties and investments. The Portfolio manages counterparty risk by entering into agreements only with counterparties that it believes have the financial resources to honor their obligations and by monitoring the financial stability of those counterparties. The Portfolio’s investment adviser attempts to mitigate counterparty risk by (i) periodically assessing the creditworthiness of its trading partners, (ii) monitoring and/or limiting the amount of its net exposure to each individual counterparty based on its assessment, and (iii) requiring collateral from the counterparty for certain transactions. In order to preserve certain safeguards for non-standard settlement trades, the Portfolio restricts its exposure to credit and counterparty losses by entering into master netting agreements (“Master Agreements”) with counterparties (approved brokers) with whom it undertakes a significant volume of transactions. Master Agreements govern the terms of certain transactions, and reduce the counterparty risk associated with relevant transactions by specifying credit protection mechanisms and providing standardization that improves legal certainty. Master Agreements can also help limit counterparty risk by specifying collateral posting arrangements at pre-arranged exposure levels. Collateral requirements may differ by type of derivative or investment, as applicable. Collateral or margin requirements are set by the broker or exchange clearing house for exchange-traded derivatives (e.g., futures contracts and exchange-traded options), while collateral terms are contract specific for OTC traded derivatives (e.g., forward foreign currency exchange contracts, swap agreements and OTC options).

For derivatives traded under an International Swaps and Derivatives Association, Inc. Master Agreement (“ISDA Master Agreement”) or similar master agreement, the collateral requirements are netted across all transactions traded under such agreement and one amount is posted from one party to the other to collateralize such obligations. The ISDA Master Agreement gives each party to the agreement the right to terminate all transactions traded under such agreement if there is a certain deterioration in the credit quality of the other party. The ISDA Master Agreement gives the Portfolio the right, upon an event of default by the applicable counterparty or a termination of the agreement, to close out all transactions traded under such agreement and to net amounts owed under each transaction to one net amount payable by one party to the other. This right to close out and net payments across all transactions traded under the ISDA Master Agreement could result in a reduction of the Portfolio’s credit risk to such counterparty equal to any amounts payable by the Portfolio under the applicable transactions, if any. However, absent an event of default by the counterparty or a termination of the agreement, the ISDA Master Agreement does not result in an offset of reported amounts of assets and liabilities in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities across transactions between the Portfolio and the applicable counterparty. The enforceability of the right to offset may vary by jurisdiction. Cash collateral that has been pledged to cover obligations of the Portfolio under derivative contracts, if any, will be reported separately in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. Securities pledged as collateral, if any, for the same purpose are noted in the Schedule of Investments.

Master Securities Forward Transaction Agreements (“MSFTA”) govern the considerations and factors surrounding the settlement of certain forward settling transactions, such as TBA securities and delayed-delivery or secured borrowings transactions by and between the Portfolio and select counterparties. The MSFTA maintain provisions for, among other things, initiation and confirmation, payment and transfer, events of default, termination, and maintenance of collateral.

Customer Account Agreements and related addenda govern cleared derivatives transactions such as futures, options on futures, and cleared OTC derivatives. Cleared derivative transactions require posting of initial margin as determined by each relevant clearing agency, which is segregated at a broker account registered with the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”), or the applicable regulator. In the U.S., counterparty risk is significantly reduced as creditors of the futures broker do not have claim to Portfolio assets in the segregated account. Additionally, portability of exposure in the event of default further reduces risk to the Portfolio. Variation margin, or changes in market value, are exchanged daily, but may not be netted between futures and cleared OTC derivatives.

Foreign Investment Risk: The investments by the Portfolio in foreign securities may involve risks not present in domestic investments. Because securities may be denominated in foreign currencies, may require settlement in foreign currencies and may pay interest or dividends in foreign currencies, changes in the relationship of these foreign currencies to the U.S. dollar can significantly affect the value of the investments and earnings of the Portfolio. Foreign investments may also subject the Portfolio to foreign government exchange restrictions, expropriation, taxation or other political, social or economic developments, all of which could affect the market and/or credit risk of the investments. In addition to the risks described above, risks may arise from forward foreign currency contracts with respect to the potential inability of counterparties to meet the terms of their contracts.

MSF-51

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Wellington Balanced Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

Additional risks associated with each type of investment are described above within the respective security type notes. The Portfolio’s prospectus includes a discussion of the principal risks of investing in the Portfolio.

5. Investment Transactions

Aggregate cost of purchases and proceeds of sales of investment securities, including mortgage dollar roll and TBA transactions but excluding short-term securities, for the year ended December 31, 2016 were as follows:

Purchases			Sales
U.S. Government	Non U.S. Government		U.S. Government		Non U.S. Government
$4,731,074,569	$	623,819,089	$	4,714,576,009	$	724,176,067

Purchases and sales of mortgage dollar rolls and TBA transactions for the year ended December 31, 2016 were as follows:

Purchases	Sales
$4,653,220,686	$	4,641,531,147

6. Investment Management Fees and Other Transactions with Affiliates

Investment Management Agreement - MetLife Advisers is the investment adviser to the Portfolio. The Trust has entered into an investment management agreement with MetLife Advisers with respect to the Portfolio. For providing investment management services to the Portfolio, MetLife Advisers receives monthly compensation at the following annual rates:

Management Fees earned by MetLife Advisers for the year ended December 31, 2016	% per annum			Average Daily Net Assets
$5,701,599		0.500	%	Of the first $500 million
		0.450	%	Of the next $500 million
		0.400	%	On amounts in excess of $1 billion

MetLife Advisers has entered into an investment subadvisory agreement with respect to managing the Portfolio. Wellington Management Company LLP is compensated by MetLife Advisers to provide subadvisory services for the Portfolio.

Management Fee Waiver - Pursuant to a management fee waiver agreement, the Adviser has agreed, for the period May 1, 2016 to April 30, 2017, to reduce its advisory fees set out above under “Investment Management Agreement” for each class of the Portfolio as follows:

% per annum reduction	Average Daily Net Assets
0.020%	On the first $500 million

Any reductions in total advisory fees paid by the Portfolio due to these waivers may be reduced or eliminated by changes in the advisory fee structure at higher asset levels. MetLife Advisers will receive advisory fees equal to 0.480% of the Portfolio’s average daily net assets for amounts over $500 million but less than $750 million (0.030% over the contractual advisory fee rate) and 0.460% for amounts over $750 million but less than $1 billion (0.010% over the contractual advisory fee rate). As a result, the dollar amount of the waiver will be reduced as assets grow beyond $500 million up to $1 billion, but the advisory fee net of waivers will never exceed the contractual dollar amount that would otherwise be payable under the advisory fee. An identical agreement was in place for the period May 1, 2015 to April 30, 2016.

The Subadviser has voluntarily agreed to waive a portion of its subadvisory fees payable by the Adviser to the Subadviser for managing the Portfolio. In addition to the above advisory fee agreement, the Adviser has agreed to reduce its advisory fee reflecting a portion of the amount waived by the Subadviser for managing the Portfolio pursuant to the voluntary subadvisory fee waiver. $370,083 was waived in the aggregate for the year ended December 31, 2016 and is reflected in the total amount shown as a management fee waiver in the Statement of Operations.

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.

MSF-52

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Wellington Balanced Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

Distribution and Service Fees - The Trust has a distribution agreement with MetLife Investors Distribution Company (“MIDC” or the “Distributor”) in which MIDC serves as the distributor for the Portfolio’s Class A, B and E Shares. MIDC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife Investors Group, LLC, an affiliate of the Adviser. The Trust has also adopted a Distribution and Service Plan under Rule 12b-1 of the 1940 Act for the Portfolio’s Class B and E Shares. Under the Distribution and Service Plan, the Class B and E Shares of the Portfolio pay a fee to compensate the Insurance Companies (or their affiliates) and other broker-dealers and financial intermediaries involved in the offer and sale of Portfolio shares for promoting or selling and servicing the Class B and E Shares. The fees under the Distribution and Service Plan for each class of the Portfolio’s shares are calculated as a percentage of the Portfolio’s average daily net assets that are attributable to that Class. Currently, the fee is 0.25% per year for Class B Shares and 0.15% per year for Class E Shares. Amounts incurred by the Portfolio for the year ended December 31, 2016 are shown as Distribution and service fees in the Statement of Operations.

Deferred Trustee Compensation - Each Trustee who is not currently an active employee of MetLife or its affiliates receives compensation from the Trust for his or her service to the Trust. 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 Met Investors Series Trust, an affiliate of the Trust, 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 under the Plan is reflected as Deferred trustees’ fees in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

7. Contractual Obligations

Under the Trust’s organizational documents, its officers and Trustees may be indemnified against certain liabilities and expenses arising out of the performance of their duties to the Trust. Additionally, 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 Trust that have not yet occurred.

8. Income Tax Information

The tax character of distributions paid for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015 were as follows:

Ordinary Income			Long-Term Capital Gain				Total
2016	2015		2016		2015		2016		2015
$33,838,553	$	68,197,869	$	57,379,727	$	179,918,284	$	91,218,280	$	248,116,153

As of December 31, 2016, 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		Other Accumulated Capital Losses		Total
$30,599,124	$	24,234,514	$	75,456,409	$	—	$	130,290,047

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 up to 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, 2016, the Portfolio had no post-enactment accumulated capital losses and no pre-enactment accumulated capital loss carryforwards.

9. Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In October 2016, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) adopted new rules and forms, and amendments to certain current rules and forms, to modernize reporting and disclosure of information by registered investment companies. The amendments to Regulation S-X will require standardized, enhanced disclosure about derivatives in investment company financial statements, and will also change the rules governing the form and content of such financial statements. The compliance date for the amendments to Regulation S-X is August 1, 2017. Management is currently evaluating the impact that the adoption of the amendments to Regulation S-X will have on the Portfolio’s financial statements and related disclosures.

MSF-53

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Wellington Balanced Portfolio

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Shareholders of Met/Wellington Balanced Portfolio (formerly, WMC Balanced Portfolio) and the Board of Trustees of Metropolitan Series Fund:

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities, including the schedule of investments, of Met/Wellington Balanced Portfolio (formerly, WMC Balanced Portfolio) (one of the portfolios constituting the Metropolitan Series Fund) (the “Portfolio”) as of December 31, 2016, 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 Portfolio’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 Portfolio 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 Portfolio’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, 2016, by correspondence with the custodian, brokers, and agent banks; when replies were not received from brokers and agent banks, 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/Wellington Balanced Portfolio of the Metropolitan Series Fund as of December 31, 2016, 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.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

February 24, 2017

MSF-54

Metropolitan Series Fund

Trustees and Officers

MANAGEMENT OF THE TRUSTS

The Boards of Trustees (the “Board”) of Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (“MIST” and “MSF”, respectively, and collectively the “Trusts”) supervise the Trusts and are responsible for representing the interests of shareholders. The Trustees, the Chairman of the Board and the Chairmen of each subcommittee are the same for both Trusts. The Trustees of each Trust meet periodically throughout the year to oversee the Portfolios’ activities, reviewing, among other things, each Portfolio’s performance and its contractual arrangements with various service providers. The Trustees of each Trust elect the officers of the Trust, who are responsible for administering the Trust’s day-to-day operations.

Trustees and Officers

The Trustees and executive officers of the Trusts, as well as their ages and their principal occupations during the past five years, are set forth below. Unless otherwise indicated, the business address of each is c/o MetLife Funds, One Financial Center, Boston, Massachusetts 02111. Each Trustee who is deemed an “interested person,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, is referred to as an “Interested Trustee.” Those Trustees who are not “interested persons,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, are referred to as “Independent Trustees.” There is no limit to the term a Trustee may serve. Trustees serve until their death, resignation or removal in accordance with the MIST Trust’s and MSF Trust’s respective organizational documents and policies adopted by the Boards of the respective Trusts from time to time. Officers hold office at the pleasure of each Board and serve until their removal or resignation in accordance with the Trusts’ respective organizational documents and policies adopted by the Board of each Trust from time to time.

Name and Age	Current 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 MetLife Funds Complex(2) Overseen by Trustee	Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Interested Trustee
John Rosenthal* (56)	Trustee	Indefinite; From May 2016 (MIST and MSF) to present	Senior Managing Director and Head of Global Portfolio Management, MetLife, Inc.	75	None
Independent Trustees
Dawn M. Vroegop (50)	Trustee and Chairman of the Board	Indefinite; From December 2000 (MIST)/ May 2009 (MSF) to present as Trustee; From May 2016 (MIST and MSF) until present as Chairman	Private Investor.	75	Trustee, Driehaus Mutual Funds.**
Stephen M. Alderman (57)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 (MIST)/ April 2012 (MSF) to present	Shareholder in the law firm of Garfield and Merel, Ltd.	75	None

MSF-55

Metropolitan Series Fund

Trustees and Officers—(Continued)

Name and Age	Current 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 MetLife Funds Complex(2) Overseen by Trustee	Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Robert J. Boulware (60)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 (MIST)/ April 2012 (MSF) to present	Managing Director, Pilgrim Funds, LLC (private equity fund).	75	Trustee, Vertical Capital Income Fund (closed-end fund);** Director, Gainsco, Inc. (auto insurance);** Trustee, SharesPost 100 Fund (closed-end fund).**
Susan C. Gause (64)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 (MIST)/ April 2012 (MSF) to present	Private Investor.	75	Trustee, HSBC Funds.**
Nancy Hawthorne (65)	Trustee	Indefinite; From May 2003 (MSF)/ April 2012 (MIST) to present	Partner, Hawthorne Financial Advisors, LLC (registered investment advisor); until June 2014, Chief Executive Officer, Clerestory LLC (corporate advisor).	75	Director and Chairman of the Board of Directors, THL Credit, Inc.;** Lead Director, Avid Technology, Inc.;** Director, CRA International, Inc.**
Barbara A. Nugent (60)	Trustee	Indefinite; From January 2014 (MIST and MSF) to present	President, True North Board Governance, LLC (consulting); until December 2013, partner in the law firm of Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young, LLP.	75	None
Linda B. Strumpf (69)	Trustee	Indefinite; From May 2000 (MSF)/ April 2012 (MIST) to present	Chair of the Investment Committee, Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust; until June 2011, Chief Investment Officer, Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust.	75	None

Executive Officers

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Kristi Slavin (43)	President and Chief Executive Officer, of MIST and MSF	From May 2016 (MIST and MSF) to present	President, MetLife Advisers, LLC (May 2016-present); Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Vice President, MetLife, Inc.; Vice President, MIST and MSF (2015-2016).

MSF-56

Metropolitan Series Fund

Trustees and Officers—(Continued)

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Peter H. Duffy (61)	Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, of MIST and MSF	From November 2000 (MSF)/ May 2012 (MIST) to present	Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Andrew L. Gangolf (62)	Secretary, of MIST and MSF	From May 2011 (MIST and MSF) to present	Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; until 2011, Senior Vice President & Assistant General Counsel, AllianceBernstein Investments, Inc.
Steven E. Hartstein (53)	Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”), of MIST and MSF	From February 2014 (MIST and MSF) to present	Vice President, MetLife, Inc. (2013- present); Senior Vice President and CCO, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Executive Director, Morgan Stanley (2009-2013); CCO, Consulting Group Capital Markets Funds (2006-2013).
Alan C. Leland (64)	Vice President, of MIST and MSF	From February 2005 (MSF)/ May 2012 (MIST) to present	Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Vice President, MetLife, Inc.

* Mr. Rosenthal is an “interested person” of the Trusts because of his position with MetLife, Inc., the current parent company of MetLife Advisers, LLC.

** 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 Trusts, MetLife, Inc. or the Manager are omitted if not materially different.

(2) The Fund Complex includes 45 MIST Portfolios and 30 MSF Portfolios.

MSF-57

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Wellington Balanced Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements

At an in-person meeting held on November 15-16, 2016 (the “November Meeting”), the Boards of Trustees (the “Board”) of the Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (“MIST” and “MSF,” respectively, and collectively, the “Trusts”), including a majority of the Trustees who are not “interested persons” of the Trusts (the “Independent Trustees”) under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “1940 Act”), approved the continuation of the Trusts’ advisory agreements (each, an “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 the series of the Trusts (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”).

In reaching that decision, the Board reviewed a variety of materials provided for the specific purpose of the annual contract renewal process. In addition, various materials provided to and discussed with the Board throughout the year also informed the Board’s decision to renew the Agreements. That information for each Portfolio included, but was not limited to, investment performance reports, along with periodic reports on various expenses, shareholder services, legal and compliance matters, asset pricing, brokerage commissions and trade execution. The Board also recognized the pending separation of the Adviser from its parent company, MetLife, Inc., as a consideration in their deliberations with respect to the Agreements.

The Board met in person with personnel of the Adviser on September 27, 2016 for the specific purpose of giving preliminary consideration to the proposed continuation of the Agreements (the “September Meeting”) through the review by the Adviser with the Board of the performance and fees experienced by each Portfolio, as well as other information. In considering the Agreements, the Independent Trustees were advised by independent legal counsel throughout the contract renewal process, and met with independent legal counsel in several executive sessions outside of the presence of management.

Information furnished and reviewed specifically in connection with the renewal process included, but was not limited to, a report for each Portfolio prepared by Broadridge (“Broadridge”), an independent organization, and a Portfolio-by-Portfolio profitability analysis prepared by the Adviser. In addition, the Independent Trustees received and reviewed a report prepared by JDL Consultants, LLC (“JDL”), an independent consultant to the Independent Trustees (“JDL Report”), which examined the comparative fees, expenses and performance of each Portfolio, based upon the Broadridge reports. Also, the Board reviewed the responses to wide-ranging questions relating to the business, operations and performance of the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers that the Adviser and Sub-Advisers had prepared specifically for the renewal process.

At the November Meeting, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, concluded that the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser supported the renewal of the Agreements. The Board also concluded that the investment performance of each Portfolio was such that each Agreement should continue, and that the fees paid by a Portfolio to the Adviser appeared to be reasonable in light of the nature, extent and quality of the services provided by the Adviser and Sub-Adviser. Further, the Board concluded that the Adviser’s profitability in providing services under the Advisory Agreements did not appear unreasonably high in light of the nature, extent and quality of the services provided by the Adviser. Finally, the Board concluded that the investment advisory fees paid by the Portfolios in some measure shared economies of scale with contract holders. In approving the renewal of each of the Agreements, the Board, including the Independent Trustees, gave attention to all of the information that was furnished. The Board evaluated the information available to it on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis, and its decision was made separately with respect to each Portfolio. The following discusses some of the primary factors that generally were relevant to the Board’s decision. The Board did not identify any single factor as controlling, and the Trustees generally attributed different weights to various factors for the various Portfolios.

Nature, extent and quality of services. The Board evaluated the nature, extent and quality of the services that the Adviser, and the Sub-Advisers as relevant, have provided to the Portfolios. The Board considered the Adviser’s services as investment manager to the Portfolios, including its services relating to the oversight of the Sub-Advisers and their investment management activities, trading practices, financial condition, relevant personnel matters and compliance programs, among other things. The Adviser’s services in coordinating and overseeing the activities of the Trusts’ other service providers were also considered. The Board considered information received from the Trusts’ Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) regarding the Portfolios’ compliance policies and procedures that were established pursuant to Rule 38a-l under the 1940 Act. In addition, throughout the year, the Board considered the expertise, experience and performance of the personnel of the Adviser who performed the various services that are mentioned above.

The Board also noted that the Adviser’s investment, compliance and legal staff conduct regular, periodic, telephonic and in-person meetings with the Sub-Advisers to review and assess the services that are provided to the Portfolios, and that personnel of the Adviser prepare and present reports to the Independent Trustees regarding those meetings.

MSF-58

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Wellington Balanced Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

With respect to the services provided by each of the Sub-Advisers, the Board considered a variety of information that the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser provided. The Board considered each Sub-Adviser’s investment process and philosophy, and the investment performance experienced by the Portfolio (as described in more detail below). The Board took into account that each Sub-Adviser’s responsibilities include the development and maintenance of an investment program for the applicable Portfolio that 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. In particular, the Board considered, among other things, the Sub-Adviser’s current level of staffing as well as its compensation program and its overall resources. The Board reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s history and investment experience, as well as information provided 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 regulatory and disciplinary history. In its review, the Board also took into account information regarding any services and/or payments provided to the Adviser by the Sub-Advisers in connection with marketing activities.

Performance. The Board placed emphasis on the performance of the Portfolios in light of, among other things, its importance to contract holders. The Board considered the Adviser’s quarterly reviews with the Board of detailed information about each Portfolio’s investment strategies and performance results and composition, including discussions regarding the relevant effect of current market conditions. The Board reviewed and considered the reports prepared by Broadridge, which provided a statistical analysis comparing the Portfolios’ investment performance to that of comparable funds underlying variable insurance products (the “Performance Universe”). The Independent Trustees also met separately with a representative of JDL during the September Meeting to review the JDL Report. The Board also compared the performance records of certain Portfolios to those of comparable funds that were managed by the relevant Sub-Adviser. At the November Meeting, the Board considered each Portfolio’s performance for periods subsequent to the performance period covered by the Broadridge reports, and the Adviser’s discussion of the same, including the effect of current market conditions on each Portfolio’s more recent performance.

The Board focused particular attention on Portfolios with less favorable performance records. The Board noted the Adviser’s focus on each Sub-Adviser’s performance and that the Adviser has been active in monitoring and responding to any performance issues with respect to the Portfolios.

Fees and Expenses. The Board gave consideration to the level and method of computing the fees payable under the Agreements. The Board considered the Broadridge report for each of the Portfolios, which included comparisons for each Portfolio of its contractual management and sub-adviser fees (at current and various asset levels), and total expenses, with those of its peers, including as those peers were divided into a broad group of peer funds (“Expense Universe”), a narrower group of peer funds (“Expense Group”), a broad group of peer sub-advised funds (“Sub-advised Expense Universe”), and a narrower group of peer sub-advised funds (“Sub-advised Expense Group”). Broadridge selected the peer funds which were similarly situated funds underlying variable insurance products deemed to be comparable to the Portfolios. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of JDL, also examined the JDL Report. The Board compared the fee payable to a Sub-Adviser by the Adviser with respect to the Portfolio to the fee payable to the Sub-Adviser by other comparable funds and accounts, to the extent such information was available.

The Board noted that the sub-advisory fees for the Portfolios are paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fee, and that, in the case of an unaffiliated Sub-Adviser, the Adviser negotiates the fee at arm’s length. The Board also considered that the Adviser had entered into expense limitation or management fee waiver agreements with certain of the Portfolios pursuant to which the Adviser had 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.

Profitability. The Board examined the profitability of the Adviser on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis. The Board also considered that an affiliate of the Adviser, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, serves as distributor for the Trusts, and, as such, receives Rule 12b-1 payments to support the distribution of the Portfolios. The Board considered the profitability to the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates as a result of their relationships with the Portfolios, to the extent available, and the Board considered the ability of the Adviser to negotiate with an unaffiliated Sub-Adviser at arm’s length. In reviewing the profitability analyses, the Board recognized that expense allocation methodologies are inherently subjective and various expense allocation methodologies may be reasonable while producing different results.

Economies of scale. The Board also considered each Portfolio’s fees in light of its size. The Board noted the fee schedules for the Portfolios that 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

MSF-59

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Wellington Balanced Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

schedule for such Portfolios. The Board considered the effective fees under the Advisory Agreement and Sub-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. The Board examined, among other data, the effect of a Portfolio’s growth in size, and reduction in size, on various fee schedules and the Board reviewed the Broadridge and JDL Reports, which compared fees among peers. The Board also generally noted that if a Portfolio’s assets increase over time, the Portfolio may realize other economies of scale if assets increase proportionally more than certain other fixed expenses.

Other factors. The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trusts. Among them, the Board recognized that MetLife Investors Distribution Company, as the distributor for the Trusts, receives payments pursuant to Rule 12b-1 from the Portfolios to compensate for the provision of shareholder services and distribution activities, which could lead to growth in the Trusts’ assets and corresponding benefits from such growth, including economies of scale. The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by each Sub-Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trusts, including the opportunity to provide advisory services to additional portfolios of the Trusts and reputational benefits. In conjunction with these considerations, the Board noted the ongoing commitment of the Adviser to the Portfolios.

The Board considered possible conflicts of interest in the form of material benefits or detriments to the Trusts resulting from the nature of the Trusts’ and the Adviser’s or the Sub-Advisers’ affiliations and the services that are provided to the Trusts, and the manner in which such conflicts were mitigated.

* * *

Met/Wellington Balance Portfolio. The Board also considered the following information in relation to the Agreements with the Adviser and Wellington Management Company LLP regarding the Portfolio:

Among other data relating specifically to the 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, 2016. The Board further considered that the Portfolio outperformed its blended benchmark, the S&P 500 Index (60%) & Barclays U.S. Aggregate Bond Index (40%), for the three- and five-year periods ended October 31, 2016, and underperformed its blended benchmark for the one-year period ended October 31, 2016. In addition, the Board noted that the Sub-Adviser did not manage the Portfolio for all of the periods referenced.

The Board also considered that the Portfolio’s actual management fee and total expenses (exclusive of 12b-l fees) were below the Expense Group median, Expense Universe median, and Sub-advised Expense Universe median. The Board noted that the Portfolio’s contractual management fees were below the asset-weighted average of certain comparable funds at the Portfolio’s current size. The Board also noted that the Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees were below the averages of the Sub-advised Expense Group and the Sub-advised Expense Universe at the Portfolio’s current size.

MSF-60

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Wellington Balanced Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Advisory Agreements

The separation (the “Separation”) of MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”), the investment adviser to each of the series (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”) of Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (collectively, the “Trusts”), from its parent company, MetLife, Inc. (“MetLife”), to a separate retail business, Brighthouse Financial, Inc. (“Brighthouse”), is expected to result in a change in control of the Adviser, and therefore an “assignment” of each Portfolio’s current advisory agreement (each a “Current Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “Current Advisory Agreements”). At the November 15-16, 2016 meeting (“November Meeting”) of the Board of Trustees of the Trusts (the “Board”), the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not “interested persons,” as defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940, of any Portfolio (the “Independent Trustees”), approved a new advisory agreement (each a “New Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “New Advisory Agreements”) between the Trusts, on behalf of a Portfolio, and the Adviser, to be effective upon the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements in connection with the Separation, and recommended that the shareholders of the Trusts approve the New Advisory Agreements. The Board took those actions after consideration of and deliberation over information concerning the Separation, including with respect to the degree to which the Separation would affect the provision of investment advisory services to the Trusts. Information about the Board’s considerations and process is set forth below.

In determining whether to approve the New Advisory Agreements and in considering the Separation, the Board considered the nature, quality and extent of the services that are currently provided by the Adviser under the Current Advisory Agreements as well as the services to be provided under the New Advisory Agreements. The Board’s review was conducted as part of, and in conjunction with, the Board’s annual review of the Current Advisory Agreements, which culminated at the November Meeting. In approving the New Advisory Agreements, the Board considered its conclusions with respect to its approvals of the Current Advisory Agreements, including the Board’s general satisfaction with the nature, extent and quality of services being provided by the Adviser to each Portfolio. Appendix A and Appendix B contains a further description of the process followed, information reviewed and the material factors considered by the Board in approving the continuation of the Current Advisory Agreements.

A substantial portion of the Board’s review of the New Advisory Agreements focused on the Separation, including the potential effect of the implementation of the Separation on the operations, personnel, organizational structure, capitalization, and financial and other resources of the Adviser. After being informed by the Adviser in January 2016 of the possibility of the Separation, the Board and its Committees discussed the Separation and its possible effects on the Trusts with personnel of the Adviser and the anticipated senior management at Brighthouse during the course of the Board’s or Committee’s regularly scheduled, in-person, quarterly meetings.

Between August and November 2016, the Board and the Independent Trustees engaged in an extensive review and analysis of the Separation and how the Separation related to the Adviser and the Trusts and how it could affect the services provided to the Trusts. This analysis focused on, among other matters, the assurances from Brighthouse’s anticipated leadership as to its expectations for the continuity and stability of the Adviser’s personnel throughout implementation of the Separation and for the foreseeable future thereafter. The Board considered that the Separation is being implemented as a result of MetLife’s determination to divest itself of a substantial portion of its U.S. retail business (of which the Adviser forms a portion). The Board also considered that it has been satisfied as a general matter with the nature and quality of the services that the Adviser provides to the Portfolios, including investment advisory, administrative, legal, compliance, and support services, and that it would be in the Portfolios’ best interests to maintain continuity and stability in the services that are currently being provided. The Board carefully considered the anticipated future plans of Brighthouse related to capitalization and operational matters for Brighthouse and the Adviser, as well as the importance of the Adviser to the businesses of Brighthouse after the Separation.

Among other steps in its review process, which accelerated on October 5, 2016 when Brighthouse filed its Form 10 with the SEC, the following actions were taken and considered by or on behalf of the Board:

1. The Independent Trustees solicited and received ongoing advice regarding the legal duties of the Independent Trustees from Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young LLP (“Stradley Ronon”), legal counsel for the Independent Trustees, which law firm has extensive experience regarding such matters.

2. Following the August 16-17, 2016 Board and Committee quarterly meetings, the Independent Trustees established an ad hoc group of Independent Trustees (the “Working Group”) to help oversee, coordinate, and conduct due diligence activities with respect to the Separation. The Working Group regularly reported on the due diligence activities to the other Independent Trustees.

3. Since January 2016, the Board posed ongoing inquiries to, and received regular updates from, the Adviser and anticipated senior management at Brighthouse at either in-person meetings dedicated to the status of the Separation or during the course of the Board or Committee’s regular quarterly meetings. The Board considered, among other matters, relevant legal guidance and the processes followed by certain other investment company boards of directors or trustees when they approved contracts in connection with change in control events, while recognizing the unique circumstances of the Separation.

MSF-61

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Wellington Balanced Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

4. The Board received and reviewed the Form 10 of Brighthouse that contained extensive information relating to, among other matters, Brighthouse’s anticipated business plans and financial structure. The Board also received and reviewed reports from rating agencies with respect to Brighthouse.

5. Stradley Ronon retained Barrington Partners (“Barrington”), an independent consulting firm with a specific focus on the asset management industry and experience relating to business operations such as those to be conducted by Brighthouse, including its proposed subsidiary, the Adviser, in order to help Stradley Ronon evaluate the Separation based on the Form 10 and other materials and related information provided by the Adviser and its affiliates. Barrington conducted a series of in-person and telephonic meetings with anticipated senior management at Brighthouse (i.e., the aforementioned anticipated officers of Brighthouse and others) and with personnel of the Adviser who provide services to the Trusts. Stradley Ronon, with the assistance of Barrington, evaluated the information and advised the Independent Trustees with respect to, among other matters, details of Brighthouse’s anticipated business plan to understand the implications of the Separation to the Adviser and its personnel. The Independent Trustees and the Working Group attended certain in-person and telephonic conference call meetings at which Barrington rendered advice to Stradley Ronon regarding these matters and responded to questions.

6. The Independent Trustees requested and participated in in-person meetings with anticipated senior management personnel at Brighthouse, including its President and Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, Chief Operating Officer, and Chief Investment Officer. The Independent Trustees also met with personnel of the Adviser.

7. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of Stradley Ronon, prepared written inquiries to the Adviser and its affiliates regarding the Separation, and received written assurances from the Adviser and its affiliates that they have no plans to make any material changes affecting the personnel of the Adviser (including those personnel who provide investment, administrative, legal and compliance services) and the Adviser and its affiliates will not initiate such changes without prior notice to and discussion with the Board.

8. The Board considered representations by the Adviser and its affiliates that approval of the New Advisory Agreements would be necessary for the Portfolios to continue receiving investment advisory services from the Adviser following the change in control.

9. The Board considered representations by the Adviser, as well as related supporting documentation, indicating that the New Advisory Agreements, including the fees payable thereunder, are substantially identical to the terms of the corresponding Current Advisory Agreements.

10. The Board considered representations by the Adviser and its affiliates, as well as related supporting documentation, indicating that: (1) the Adviser can be expected to provide services of the same nature, extent, and quality under the New Advisory Agreements and as are provided thereby under the Current Advisory Agreements; and (2) the Separation is not expected to result in any changes to (i) the management of the Portfolios, or (ii) the investment objective of or the principal investment strategies used to manage any of the Portfolios.

11. The Board considered the ability of the Adviser and its affiliates to retain the employment of key personnel, as well as the overall positive indications by many such personnel regarding the opportunities presented by the Separation.

12. The Board considered that the Adviser and its affiliates have agreed to bear all expenses associated with obtaining shareholder approval of the New Advisory Agreements.

13. The Board considered Brighthouse’s preliminary “branding” plans regarding the future name of its operations.

14. The Board considered the advice provided by Ropes & Gray, LLP, legal counsel to the Trusts and the Adviser, with respect to the New Advisory Agreements (including advice relating to the process and timing of seeking shareholder approval of the New Advisory Agreements, and whether shareholder approvals would be required in connection with any future aspects of the Separation) and regarding the Board’s role and responsibilities with respect to the Separation.

15. The Board considered MetLife’s stated intention of divesting its ownership interest in the Adviser through the Separation, including the potential advantages and disadvantages of this divestiture to shareholders of the Portfolios. The Board considered the likelihood that the Adviser would retain its key personnel after the Separation. The Board considered that the garnering of new assets into the Trusts is based on sales of variable annuity and variable life insurance products, which sales have declined in prior years as a result of, among other things, the capital requirements of MetLife. The Board considered the representations of the anticipated senior management of Brighthouse that the Separation provides the Trusts with an opportunity for the garnering of new assets as Brighthouse will likely sell such products going forward. The Board considered also that the divestiture would result in a change in the manner in

MSF-62

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Wellington Balanced Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

which the Trusts access certain services and resources of MetLife (after the Separation those services will be provided through a transition services agreement), the loss of affiliation with the MetLife name brand, and the possible going forward need of the Trusts to hire a transfer agent, as such transfer agency services are currently provided to the Trusts for no fee.

16. The Board considered that, if shareholders approve the New Advisory Agreements, the Board and the Adviser will conduct their annual contract review process in November 2017. Thus, the Board emphasized that it would be able to, and intends to, monitor on a regular basis the ability of the Adviser and its affiliates to comply with their undertakings to the Board and to monitor on an ongoing basis the quality of services to, and expenses of, the Portfolios. In addition, the Board considered that, under the New Advisory Agreements, it will continue to have the authority, should the need arise in its view, to terminate any of the New Advisory Agreements without penalty upon 60 days’ notice.

Based on the foregoing and other relevant considerations, at the November Meeting, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, voted to approve the New Advisory Agreements and to recommend approval of the New Advisory Agreements by shareholders of the Portfolios. In this connection, the Board concluded that, in light of all factors considered, the terms of the New Advisory Agreement, including fee rates, were fair and reasonable, and that it would be in the best interests of shareholders of each Portfolio to approve the New Advisory Agreements.

In the event that approval of the New Advisory Agreements by shareholders of the Portfolios has not been obtained before the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements as a result of the change in control of the Adviser, the Board also approved an interim advisory agreement with the Adviser (the “Interim Advisory Agreement”) on behalf of each Portfolio that will go into effect upon the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements. The Board’s determination to approve each Interim Advisory Agreement was based on the same information and considerations as the Board’s approval of the New Advisory Agreements so as to ensure continuity of advisory services from the Adviser to the Portfolios following the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements.

MSF-63

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Wellington Balanced Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Sub-Advisory Agreements

The separation (the “Separation”) of MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”), the investment adviser to each of the series (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”) of Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (collectively, the “Trusts”), from its parent company, MetLife, Inc. (“MetLife”), to a separate retail business, Brighthouse Financial, Inc. (“Brighthouse”), is expected to result in a change in control of the Adviser, and therefore an “assignment” of each Portfolio’s current advisory agreement and, as a result, the automatic termination of the sub-advisory agreement (each a “Sub-Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisory Agreements”) between the Adviser and the investment sub-advisers (each a “Sub-Adviser” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisers”). At the November 15-16, 2016 meeting (“November Meeting”) of the Board of Trustees of the Trusts (the “Board”), the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not “interested persons,” as defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940, of any Portfolio (the “Independent Trustees”), approved new sub-advisory agreements (each a “New Sub-Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “New Sub-Advisory Agreements”). Information about the Board’s considerations and process is set forth below.

In determining whether to approve the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, the Board considered the nature, quality and extent of the services that are currently provided by the Sub-Advisers under the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements as well as the services to be provided under the New Sub-Advisory Agreements. The Board’s review was conducted as part of, and in conjunction with, the Board’s annual review of the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements, which culminated at the November Meeting. In approving the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, the Board considered its conclusions with respect to its approvals of the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements, including the Board’s general satisfaction with the nature, extent and quality of services being provided by the Sub-Advisers to the Portfolios, as applicable. Appendix A contains a further description of the process followed, information reviewed and the material factors considered by the Board in approving the continuation of the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements.

In addition, the following actions were taken and considered by or on behalf of the Board:

1. The Independent Trustees of the Board solicited and received ongoing advice regarding the legal duties of the Independent Trustees from Stradley Ronon, legal counsel for the Independent Trustees, which law firm has extensive experience regarding such matters.

2. The Board considered representations by the Adviser and its affiliates that approval of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements would be necessary for the Portfolios to continue receiving sub-advisory services from the Sub-Advisers following the change in control of the Adviser.

3. The Board considered representations by the Adviser, as well as related supporting documentation, indicating that the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, including the fees payable thereunder, are the same as the terms of the corresponding Current Sub-Advisory Agreements.

4. The Board considered the advice provided by Ropes & Gray, LLP, legal counsel to the Trusts and the Adviser, with respect to the New Sub-Advisory Agreements and regarding the Board’s role and responsibilities with respect to the Separation.

5. The Board considered that the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers will conduct their annual contract review process in November 2017. Thus, the Board emphasized that it would be able to, and intends to, monitor on an ongoing basis the ability of the Sub-Advisers to comply with its undertakings to the Board and the Adviser and to monitor on an ongoing basis the quality of services to, and expenses of, the Portfolios. In addition, the Board considered that, under the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, it will continue to have the authority, should the need arise in its view, to terminate any of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements without penalty upon no more than 60 days’ notice.

Based on the foregoing and other relevant considerations, at the November Meeting, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, voted to approve the New Sub-Advisory Agreements. In this connection, the Board concluded that, in light of all factors considered, the terms of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, including fee rates, were fair and reasonable.

MSF-64

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Wellington Core Equity Opportunities Portfolio

Managed by Wellington Management Company LLP

Portfolio Manager Commentary*

PERFORMANCE

For the 12 months ended December 31, 2016, the Class A, B, and E shares of the Met/Wellington Core Equity Opportunities Portfolio returned 7.34%, 7.06%, and 7.15%, respectively. The Portfolio’s benchmark, the Russell 1000 Index¹, returned 12.05%.

MARKET ENVIRONMENT / CONDITIONS

U.S. equities rose over the period, as measured by the S&P 500 Index, notwithstanding significant volatility during the year. Early in the first quarter of 2016, stocks plunged and moved in virtual lockstep with the price of oil as fears of a recession and weakness in China weighed on investors’ minds. However, equities surged in late February and March as solid economic data, a stabilization in oil prices, and accommodative commentary from the Federal Reserve (the “Fed”) helped to calm the market’s early year jitters. A better-than-feared U.S. corporate earnings season in the second quarter and an encouraging economic backdrop helped sustain the rally. At its June meeting, the Fed left rates unchanged and reduced its U.S. growth and long-run policy rate forecasts, citing mixed U.S. economic data and uncertainty about global economic and financial developments. After plunging in the two trading days following the U.K. referendum vote to leave the European Union (“Brexit”), U.S. stocks staged an impressive comeback in the days following.

U.S. equities continued to climb in July, following a solid start to the corporate earnings season and encouraging housing and employment data releases. Stocks were essentially flat in August and September as investors remained focused on the Fed’s actions, specifically on the timing of the next rate hike. A confluence of worries contributed to increased volatility during September, including uncertainty surrounding the U.S. presidential election, tepid economic data, and valuation concerns. Stocks rose following Donald Trump’s victory on hopes of increased fiscal stimulus, reduced regulatory restrictions, and lower corporate taxes. Economic data released during the fourth quarter was generally encouraging, as third quarter Gross Domestic Product growth was revised slightly higher and the U.S. housing market continued to display healthy trends. In December, the Fed raised rates by 0.25%, a well-telegraphed move and only the second hike in the last decade.

Returns for the year varied noticeably by market-cap, as small- and mid-cap stocks, as measured by the Russell 2000 Index and S&P MidCap 400 Index, outperformed large-cap stocks, as measured by the S&P 500 Index.

PORTFOLIO REVIEW / PERIOD END POSITIONING

The Portfolio lagged its benchmark for the period ended December 31, 2016. Weak stock selection within the Consumer Discretionary, Consumer Staples, and Financials sectors detracted most from relative performance but was partially offset by stronger stock selection in the Health Care, Industrials, and Information Technology sectors. Sector positioning, a result of the bottom-up stock selection process, was also negative; driven largely by the Portfolio’s underweight allocations to the Energy, Financials, and Telecommunication Services sectors, and overweight allocations to the Consumer Staples and Health Care sectors.

The Portfolio’s exposure to NIKE and Cardinal Health detracted most from relative performance. NIKE is a provider of athletic footwear, apparel, equipment, and accessories. While the stock underperformed in 2016, we think the concerns of many investors (increased competition and unpredictable macro-environment) were temporary and it offered us a chance to buy an excellent business at an attractive price. The company’s growth appears healthy in our view and we used the weakness in the stock to add to our position over the period. NIKE has a new manufacturing process (Flyknit) that is a much more flexible and cheaper manufacturing process, which we believe, have positive implications for margins. The company is also selling a lot more through their own channel (Direct-to-Consumer), a higher margin outlet relative to other distribution channels. Shares of Cardinal Health, a U.S.-based distributor of pharmaceuticals, fell as investors worried about a slowdown in generic pricing.

The Portfolio’s holdings in Union Pacific, UnitedHealth Group, and PNC Financial were among the top relative contributors during the period. Our avoidance of benchmark constituents Allergan and Gilead Sciences in the Health Care sector also aided relative results. Union Pacific, which operates North America’s premier railroad franchise, modestly beat earnings expectations and also management believes volumes should accelerate in the coming year. At period end, we continued to favor this stock as we believe it is among the most efficient and well run operators, with less exposure to eastern coal and with more diversified and longer-haul routes.

MSF-1

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Wellington Core Equity Opportunities Portfolio

Managed by Wellington Management Company LLP

Portfolio Manager Commentary*—(Continued)

As of December 31, 2016, the Portfolio was most overweight the Consumer Staples, Industrials, and Health Care sectors, and most underweight the Information Technology, Financials, and Energy sectors.

Donald J. Kilbride

Portfolio Manager

Wellington Management Company LLP

* 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 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.

MSF-2

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Wellington Core Equity Opportunities Portfolio

A $10,000 INVESTMENT COMPARED TO THE RUSSELL 1000 INDEX & THE S&P 500 INDEX

AVERAGE ANNUAL RETURNS (%) (FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2016)

	1 Year		5 Year		10 Year
Met/Wellington Core Equity Opportunities Portfolio
Class A		7.34		12.91		5.14
Class B		7.06		12.63		4.88
Class E		7.15		12.74		4.98
Russell 1000 Index		12.05		14.69		7.08

¹ The 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.

Portfolio performance is calculated including reinvestment of all income and capital gain distributions. Performance numbers are net of all Portfolio expenses but do not include any insurance, sales, separate account or administrative charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts or any additional expenses that participants may bear relating to the operations of their plans. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower. The performance of any index referenced above has not been adjusted for ongoing management, distribution and operating expenses, and sales charges applicable to mutual fund investments. Direct investment in any index is not possible. The performance of Class A shares, as set forth in the line graph above, will differ from that of other classes because of the difference in expenses paid by policyholders investing in the different share classes.

This information represents past performance and is not indicative of future results. Investment return and principal value may fluctuate so that shares, upon redemption, may be worth more or less than the original cost.

PORTFOLIO COMPOSITION AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2016

Top Holdings

	% of Net Assets
NIKE, Inc. - Class B		3.7
Costco Wholesale Corp.		3.7
Microsoft Corp.		3.6
United Parcel Service, Inc. - Class B		2.9
Chubb, Ltd.		2.8
Automatic Data Processing, Inc.		2.7
Cardinal Health, Inc.		2.6
Coca-Cola Co. (The)		2.5
Visa, Inc. - Class A		2.5
Medtronic plc		2.5

Top Sectors

	% of Net Assets
Consumer Staples		18.0
Industrials		17.0
Health Care		16.8
Consumer Discretionary		13.3
Information Technology		11.2
Financials		10.6
Energy		4.1
Real Estate		3.9
Materials		3.4

MSF-3

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Wellington Core Equity Opportunities 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, 2016 through December 31, 2016.

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.

Met/Wellington Core Equity Opportunities Portfolio		Annualized Expense Ratio			Beginning Account Value July 1, 2016		Ending Account Value December 31, 2016		Expenses Paid During Period** July 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016
Class A(a)	Actual		0.58	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,016.70	$	2.94
	Hypothetical*		0.58	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,022.22	$	2.95
Class B(a)	Actual		0.83	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,015.10	$	4.20
	Hypothetical*		0.83	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,020.96	$	4.22
Class E(a)	Actual		0.73	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,015.80	$	3.70
	Hypothetical*		0.73	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,021.47	$	3.71

* 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 366 (to reflect the one-half year period).

^(a) The annualized expense ratio shown reflects the impact of the management fee waiver as described in Note 5 of the Notes to Financial Statements.

MSF-4

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Wellington Core Equity Opportunities Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—98.3% of Net Assets

Security Description	Shares		Value
Aerospace & Defense—6.9%
General Dynamics Corp.		282,613	$	48,795,961
Lockheed Martin Corp. (a)		361,766		90,419,794
Northrop Grumman Corp.		244,222		56,801,153
United Technologies Corp.		736,828		80,771,085
				276,787,993
Air Freight & Logistics—2.9%
United Parcel Service, Inc. - Class B		1,022,446		117,213,209
Banks—2.4%
PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. (The) (a)		808,858		94,604,032
Beverages—6.9%
Coca-Cola Co. (The)		2,454,581		101,766,928
Diageo plc		3,178,414		82,229,049
PepsiCo, Inc.		884,974		92,594,830
				276,590,807
Biotechnology—1.8%
Amgen, Inc.		499,464		73,026,631
Capital Markets—1.5%
BlackRock, Inc.		160,284		60,994,473
Chemicals—3.4%
Ecolab, Inc. (a)		514,550		60,315,551
Praxair, Inc.		660,406		77,392,979
				137,708,530
Consumer Finance—1.8%
American Express Co. (a)		956,316		70,843,889
Energy Equipment & Services—2.0%
Schlumberger, Ltd.		953,344		80,033,229
Equity Real Estate Investment Trusts—3.9%
American Tower Corp. (a)		594,178		62,792,731
Public Storage (a)		410,635		91,776,923
				154,569,654
Food & Staples Retailing—7.4%
Costco Wholesale Corp. (a)		926,752		148,382,263
CVS Health Corp.		874,420		69,000,482
Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. (a)		949,952		78,618,028
				296,000,773
Health Care Equipment & Supplies—2.5%
Medtronic plc		1,399,169		99,662,808
Health Care Providers & Services—7.0%
Cardinal Health, Inc.		1,449,353		104,309,935
McKesson Corp.		594,369		83,479,126
UnitedHealth Group, Inc.		572,672		91,650,427
				279,439,488
Hotels, Restaurants & Leisure—2.0%
McDonald’s Corp.		672,992		81,916,586
Household Products—3.7%
Colgate-Palmolive Co.		1,507,267		98,635,552
Procter & Gamble Co. (The)		576,335		48,458,247
				147,093,799
Industrial Conglomerates—2.3%
Honeywell International, Inc.		781,523		90,539,440
Insurance—5.0%
Chubb, Ltd.		842,857		111,358,267
Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc.		1,308,773		88,459,967
				199,818,234
IT Services—7.6%
Accenture plc - Class A (a)		834,800		97,780,124
Automatic Data Processing, Inc.		1,040,478		106,940,329
Visa, Inc. - Class A		1,290,512		100,685,746
				305,406,199
Media—1.5%
Walt Disney Co. (The) (a)		595,008		62,011,734
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels—2.1%
Exxon Mobil Corp.		913,990		82,496,737
Pharmaceuticals—5.5%
Johnson & Johnson (a)		730,579		84,170,007
Merck & Co., Inc. (a)		1,526,245		89,850,043
Roche Holding AG		200,772		45,746,544
				219,766,594
Road & Rail—4.9%
Canadian National Railway Co.		1,468,784		98,848,786
Union Pacific Corp. (a)		955,092		99,023,938
				197,872,724
Software—3.6%
Microsoft Corp.		2,321,109		144,233,713
Specialty Retail—4.3%
Lowe’s Cos., Inc.		1,075,848		76,514,310
TJX Cos., Inc. (The)		1,291,009		96,993,506
				173,507,816
Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods—5.4%
NIKE, Inc. - Class B (a)		2,927,784		148,819,261
VF Corp. (a)		1,250,823		66,731,407
				215,550,668
Total Common Stocks (Cost $3,511,933,117)				3,937,689,760

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-5

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Wellington Core Equity Opportunities Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Escrow Shares—0.0%

Security Description	Shares/ Principal Amount*		Value
Forest Products & Paper—0.0%
Sino-Forest Corp. (b) (Cost $0)		5,844,000	$	0
Short-Term Investment—1.6%
Repurchase Agreement—1.6%
Fixed Income Clearing Corp. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/16 at 0.030% to be repurchased at $64,292,542 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $52,695,000 U.S. Treasury Bond at 8.500% due 02/15/20 with a value of $65,580,508.		64,292,328		64,292,328
Total Short-Term Investments (Cost $64,292,328)				64,292,328
Securities Lending Reinvestments (c)—3.1%
Certificates of Deposit—0.7%
Bank of Tokyo UFJ Ltd., New York 1.300%, 04/21/17		2,004,529		2,001,108
Chiba Bank, Ltd., New York 0.920%, 02/03/17		2,000,000		2,000,222
Credit Suisse AG New York 1.364%, 05/12/17 (d)		4,500,000		4,500,468
Mitsubishi UFJ Trust and Banking Corp. 1.217%, 06/01/17 (d)		2,999,629		2,999,946
Mizuho Bank, Ltd., New York 1.336%, 05/17/17		5,000,000		4,999,520
National Bank of Canada 0.650%, 01/06/17		3,000,000		3,000,120
Natixis New York 0.900%, 02/17/17		5,000,000		5,000,640
Sumitomo Bank New York 1.336%, 06/19/17 (d)		2,000,000		1,999,848
UBS, Stamford 1.084%, 05/12/17 (d)		1,500,000		1,499,886
				28,001,758
Commercial Paper—0.5%
Barton Capital Corp. 0.870%, 01/12/17		2,998,478		2,999,253
Erste Abwicklungsanstalt 1.014%, 03/10/17 (d)		1,000,000		1,000,006
Macquarie Bank, Ltd. 1.160%, 03/20/17		3,988,271		3,990,019
Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp., Ltd. 0.890%, 02/21/17		997,726		998,672
Starbird Funding Corp. 1.240%, 06/13/17 (d)		6,000,000		5,999,514
United Overseas Bank, Ltd. 0.900%, 02/22/17		3,990,800		3,994,924
				18,982,388
Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Repurchase Agreements—1.7%
Citigroup Global Markets Ltd. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/29/16 at 0.710% to be repurchased at $5,600,552 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $5,648,925 U.S. Treasury and Foreign Obligations with rates ranging from 1.750% - 2.750%, maturity dates ranging from 10/15/19 - 11/15/23, with a value of $5,712,001.		5,600,000		5,600,000
Deutsche Bank AG, London Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/16 at 0.950% to be repurchased at $2,000,211on 01/03/17, collateralized by $2,041,800 Foreign Obligations with rates ranging from 1.750% - 2.500%, maturity dates ranging from 09/05/19 - 11/20/24, with a value of $2,040,011.		2,000,000		2,000,000
Repurchase Agreement dated 12/15/16 - 12/30/16 at 1.050% to be repurchased at $12,201,861 on 01/03/17, collateralized by various Common Stock with a value of $13,560,971.		12,200,000		12,200,000
Goldman Sachs & Co. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/16 at 0.460% to be repurchased at $8,642,057 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $44,471,443 U.S. Government Agency Obligations with rates ranging from 2.000% - 10.500%, maturity dates ranging from 03/15/17 - 09/20/65, with a value of $8,814,447.		8,641,615		8,641,615
Macquarie Bank, Ltd. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/27/16 at 0.580% to be repurchased at $7,664,226 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $7,581,787 U.S. Treasury Obligations with rates ranging from 0.000% - 8.750%, maturity dates ranging from 01/05/17 - 05/15/46, with a value of $7,820,589.		7,663,362		7,663,362
Repurchase Agreement dated 12/15/16 at 0.600% to be repurchased at $13,404,913 on 01/06/17, collateralized by $13,257,359 U.S. Treasury Obligations with rates ranging from 0.000% - 8.750%, maturity dates ranging from 01/05/17 - 05/15/46, with a value of $13,674,925.		13,400,000		13,400,000
Natixis Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/16 at 0.600% to be repurchased at $12,000,800 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $21,549,172 U.S. Government Agency and Treasury Obligations with rates ranging from 0.996% - 7.000%, maturity dates ranging from 01/15/20 - 12/01/46, with a value of $12,240,816.		12,000,000		12,000,000

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-6

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Wellington Core Equity Opportunities Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Securities Lending Reinvestments (c)—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Repurchase Agreements—(Continued)
Natixis Repurchase Agreement dated 12/27/16 at 0.850% to be repurchased at $5,000,826 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $8,025,347 U.S. Government Agency and Treasury Obligations with rates ranging from 0.000% - 4.672%, maturity dates ranging from 01/31/17 - 09/16/58, with a value of $5,100,627.		5,000,000	$	5,000,000
Pershing LLC Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/16 at 0.680% to be repurchased at $4,000,302 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $5,869,458 U.S. Government Agency Obligations with rates ranging from 0.625% - 11.018%, maturity dates ranging from 01/17/17 - 08/20/66, with a value of $4,080,000.		4,000,000		4,000,000
				70,504,977
Time Deposits—0.2%
OP Corporate Bank plc 1.200%, 01/23/17		5,000,000		5,000,000
Royal Bank of Canada London 0.700%, 01/04/17		2,000,000		2,000,000
				7,000,000
Total Securities Lending Reinvestments (Cost $124,486,712)				124,489,123
Total Investments—103.0% (Cost $3,700,712,157) (e)				4,126,471,211
Other assets and liabilities (net)—(3.0)%				(120,659,240	)
Net Assets—100.0%			$	4,005,811,971

* Principal amount stated in U.S. dollars unless otherwise noted.

(a) All or a portion of the security was held on loan. As of December 31, 2016, the market value of securities loaned was $121,649,303 and the collateral received consisted of cash in the amount of $124,484,409. The cash collateral investments are disclosed in the Schedule of Investments and categorized as Securities Lending Reinvestments.

(b) Security was valued in good faith under procedures approved by the Board of Trustees. As of December 31, 2016, this security represents 0.00% of net assets.

(c) Represents investment of cash collateral received from securities on loan as of December 31, 2016.

(d) Variable or floating rate security. The stated rate represents the rate at December 31, 2016.

(e) As of December 31, 2016, the aggregate cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was $3,717,768,620. The aggregate unrealized appreciation and depreciation of investments were $473,402,550 and $(64,699,959), respectively, resulting in net unrealized appreciation of $408,702,591 for federal income tax purposes.

Fair Value Hierarchy

Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) define 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, separately for each major category of assets and liabilities, 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, quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities 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, or other market corroborated inputs)

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 used in determining the fair value of investments and derivative financial instruments)

The inputs or methodologies used for valuing investments are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in them. Changes to the inputs or methodologies used may result in transfers between levels, which 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.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-7

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Wellington Core Equity Opportunities Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Fair Value Hierarchy—(Continued)

The following table summarizes the fair value hierarchy of the Portfolio’s investments as of December 31, 2016:

Description	Level 1		Level 2			Level 3		Total
Common Stocks
Aerospace & Defense	$	276,787,993	$	—		$	—	$	276,787,993
Air Freight & Logistics		117,213,209		—			—		117,213,209
Banks		94,604,032		—			—		94,604,032
Beverages		194,361,758		82,229,049			—		276,590,807
Biotechnology		73,026,631		—			—		73,026,631
Capital Markets		60,994,473		—			—		60,994,473
Chemicals		137,708,530		—			—		137,708,530
Consumer Finance		70,843,889		—			—		70,843,889
Energy Equipment & Services		80,033,229		—			—		80,033,229
Equity Real Estate Investment Trusts		154,569,654		—			—		154,569,654
Food & Staples Retailing		296,000,773		—			—		296,000,773
Health Care Equipment & Supplies		99,662,808		—			—		99,662,808
Health Care Providers & Services		279,439,488		—			—		279,439,488
Hotels, Restaurants & Leisure		81,916,586		—			—		81,916,586
Household Products		147,093,799		—			—		147,093,799
Industrial Conglomerates		90,539,440		—			—		90,539,440
Insurance		199,818,234		—			—		199,818,234
IT Services		305,406,199		—			—		305,406,199
Media		62,011,734		—			—		62,011,734
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels		82,496,737		—			—		82,496,737
Pharmaceuticals		174,020,050		45,746,544			—		219,766,594
Road & Rail		197,872,724		—			—		197,872,724
Software		144,233,713		—			—		144,233,713
Specialty Retail		173,507,816		—			—		173,507,816
Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods		215,550,668		—			—		215,550,668
Total Common Stocks		3,809,714,167		127,975,593			—		3,937,689,760
Total Escrow Shares*		—		—			0		0
Total Short-Term Investment*		—		64,292,328			—		64,292,328
Total Securities Lending Reinvestments*		—		124,489,123			—		124,489,123
Total Investments	$	3,809,714,167	$	316,757,044		$	0	$	4,126,471,211
Collateral for Securities Loaned (Liability)	$	—	$	(124,484,409	)	$	—	$	(124,484,409	)

* See Schedule of Investments for additional detailed categorizations.

Level 3 investments at the beginning and/or end of the period in relation to net assets were not significant and accordingly, a reconciliation of Level 3 assets for the year ended December 31, 2016 is not presented.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-8

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Wellington Core Equity Opportunities Portfolio

Statement of Assets and Liabilities

December 31, 2016

Assets
Investments at value (a) (b)	$	4,126,471,211
Cash denominated in foreign currencies (c)		357,835
Receivable for:
Fund shares sold		498,583
Dividends and interest		7,539,688
Prepaid expenses		11,703
Total Assets		4,134,879,020
Liabilities
Collateral for securities loaned		124,484,409
Payables for:
Fund shares redeemed		1,911,051
Accrued Expenses:
Management fees		1,898,690
Distribution and service fees		247,997
Deferred trustees’ fees		177,879
Other expenses		347,023
Total Liabilities		129,067,049
Net Assets	$	4,005,811,971
Net Assets Consist of:
Paid in surplus	$	3,383,950,462
Undistributed net investment income		61,551,816
Accumulated net realized gain		134,677,066
Unrealized appreciation on investments and foreign currency transactions		425,632,627
Net Assets	$	4,005,811,971
Net Assets
Class A	$	2,538,169,561
Class B		691,842,057
Class E		775,800,353
Capital Shares Outstanding*
Class A		88,723,593
Class B		24,477,742
Class E		27,363,923
Net Asset Value, Offering Price and Redemption Price Per Share
Class A	$	28.61
Class B		28.26
Class E		28.35

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

(a) Includes securities loaned at value of $121,649,303.

(b) Identified cost of investments was $3,700,712,157.

(c) Identified cost of cash denominated in foreign currencies was $355,702.

Statement of Operations

Year Ended December 31, 2016

Investment Income
Dividends (a)	$	86,225,292
Interest		23,063
Securities lending income		678,671
Other income (b)		181,747
Total investment income		87,108,773
Expenses
Management fees		26,928,874
Administration fees		124,658
Custodian and accounting fees		200,097
Distribution and service fees—Class B		1,652,797
Distribution and service fees—Class E		1,198,643
Audit and tax services		53,836
Legal		33,511
Trustees’ fees and expenses		45,819
Shareholder reporting		243,063
Insurance		25,998
Miscellaneous		44,092
Total expenses		30,551,388
Less management fee waiver		(5,606,110	)
Less broker commission recapture		(5,833	)
Net expenses		24,939,445
Net Investment Income		62,169,328
Net Realized and Unrealized Gain
Net realized gain on:
Investments		143,254,475
Foreign currency transactions		19,844
Net realized gain		143,274,319
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on:
Investments		54,634,448
Foreign currency transactions		(29,402	)
Net change in unrealized appreciation		54,605,046
Net realized and unrealized gain		197,879,365
Net Increase in Net Assets From Operations	$	260,048,693

(a) Net of foreign withholding taxes of $590,506.

(b) Other income represents a non-recurring refund for overbilling of prior years’ custodian out-of-pocket fees.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-9

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Wellington Core Equity Opportunities Portfolio

Statements of Changes in Net Assets

	Year Ended December 31, 2016			Year Ended December 31, 2015
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets:
From Operations
Net investment income	$	62,169,328		$	62,073,611
Net realized gain		143,274,319			170,115,385
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation)		54,605,046			(144,588,195	)
Increase in net assets from operations		260,048,693			87,600,801
From Distributions to Shareholders
Net investment income
Class A		(40,649,104	)		(40,437,981	)
Class B		(9,626,451	)		(10,031,844	)
Class E		(11,830,071	)		(14,494,701	)
Net realized capital gains
Class A		(111,016,460	)		(777,894,919	)
Class B		(30,747,876	)		(226,707,477	)
Class E		(35,932,458	)		(307,031,634	)
Total distributions		(239,802,420	)		(1,376,598,556	)
Increase in net assets from capital share transactions		431,856,519			844,497,747
Total increase (decrease) in net assets		452,102,792			(444,500,008	)
Net Assets
Beginning of period		3,553,709,179			3,998,209,187
End of period	$	4,005,811,971		$	3,553,709,179
Undistributed net investment income
End of period	$	61,551,816		$	61,690,407

Other Information:

Capital Shares

Transactions in capital shares were as follows:

	Year Ended December 31, 2016						Year Ended December 31, 2015
	Shares			Value			Shares			Value
Class A
Sales		4,260,240		$	124,462,208			401,489		$	13,704,699
Shares issued through acquisition (a)		11,681,896			342,746,988			0			0
Reinvestments		5,503,105			151,665,564			29,122,167			818,332,900
Redemptions		(7,201,166	)		(203,965,242	)		(9,579,161	)		(306,647,027	)
Net increase		14,244,075		$	414,909,518			19,944,495		$	525,390,572
Class B
Sales		1,529,631		$	43,299,317			328,723		$	11,328,433
Shares issued through acquisition (a)		2,998,245			86,919,323			0			0
Reinvestments		1,480,540			40,374,327			8,509,681			236,739,321
Redemptions		(3,305,754	)		(92,826,567	)		(3,274,950	)		(107,903,847	)
Net increase		2,702,662		$	77,766,400			5,563,454		$	140,163,907
Class E
Sales		470,112		$	13,192,817			350,956		$	11,476,908
Reinvestments		1,746,984			47,762,529			11,532,509			321,526,335
Redemptions		(4,328,947	)		(121,774,745	)		(4,621,898	)		(154,059,975	)
Net increase (decrease)		(2,111,851	)	$	(60,819,399	)		7,261,567		$	178,943,268
Increase derived from capital shares transactions				$	431,856,519					$	844,497,747

(a) See Note 8 of the Notes to Financial Statements.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-10

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Wellington Core Equity Opportunities Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class A
	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014			2013			2012
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	28.38		$	43.13		$	42.97		$	33.21		$	29.67
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (a)		0.48			0.58			0.72			0.28			0.48
Net realized and unrealized gain on investments		1.53			0.31			3.41			10.64			3.33
Total from investment operations		2.01			0.89			4.13			10.92			3.81
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.48	)		(0.77	)		(0.31	)		(0.53	)		(0.27	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(1.30	)		(14.87	)		(3.66	)		(0.63	)		0.00
Total distributions		(1.78	)		(15.64	)		(3.97	)		(1.16	)		(0.27	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	28.61		$	28.38		$	43.13		$	42.97		$	33.21
Total Return (%) (b)		7.34			2.40			10.63			33.70			12.86
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Gross ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.72			0.72			0.73			0.72			0.73
Net ratio of expenses to average net assets (%) (c)(d)		0.58			0.58			0.59			0.67			0.68
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		1.70			1.72			1.74			0.74			1.50
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		32			25			105			11			16
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	2,538.2		$	2,113.5		$	2,352.1		$	2,391.0		$	2,098.2
	Class B
	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014			2013			2012
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	28.06		$	42.79		$	42.66		$	32.98		$	29.46
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (a)		0.41			0.49			0.61			0.18			0.40
Net realized and unrealized gain on investments		1.50			0.31			3.38			10.57			3.31
Total from investment operations		1.91			0.80			3.99			10.75			3.71
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.41	)		(0.66	)		(0.20	)		(0.44	)		(0.19	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(1.30	)		(14.87	)		(3.66	)		(0.63	)		0.00
Total distributions		(1.71	)		(15.53	)		(3.86	)		(1.07	)		(0.19	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	28.26		$	28.06		$	42.79		$	42.66		$	32.98
Total Return (%) (b)		7.06			2.14			10.35			33.36			12.62
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Gross ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.97			0.97			0.98			0.97			0.98
Net ratio of expenses to average net assets (%) (c)(d)		0.83			0.83			0.84			0.92			0.93
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		1.44			1.47			1.49			0.49			1.25
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		32			25			105			11			16
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	691.8		$	611.0		$	693.7		$	738.0		$	638.2

Please see following page for Financial Highlights footnote legend.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-11

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Wellington Core Equity Opportunities Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class E
	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014			2013			2012
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	28.13		$	42.87		$	42.74		$	33.03		$	29.51
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (a)		0.43			0.53			0.65			0.22			0.43
Net realized and unrealized gain on investments		1.52			0.30			3.38			10.60			3.31
Total from investment operations		1.95			0.83			4.03			10.82			3.74
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.43	)		(0.70	)		(0.24	)		(0.48	)		(0.22	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(1.30	)		(14.87	)		(3.66	)		(0.63	)		0.00
Total distributions		(1.73	)		(15.57	)		(3.90	)		(1.11	)		(0.22	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	28.35		$	28.13		$	42.87		$	42.74		$	33.03
Total Return (%) (b)		7.15			2.27			10.45			33.53			12.70
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Gross ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.87			0.87			0.88			0.87			0.88
Net ratio of expenses to average net assets (%) (c)(d)		0.73			0.73			0.74			0.82			0.83
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		1.54			1.57			1.59			0.59			1.34
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		32			25			105			11			16
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	775.8		$	829.2		$	952.4		$	1,032.7		$	900.7

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

(b) Total return does not reflect any insurance, sales, separate account or administrative charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts or any additional expenses that contract owners may bear under their variable contracts. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower.

(c) The effect of the voluntary portion of the waivers on the net ratio of expenses to average net assets was 0.03% for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014. (see Note 5 of the Notes to Financial Statements).

(d) Includes the effects of management fee waivers (see Note 5 of the Notes to Financial Statements).

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-12

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Wellington Core Equity Opportunities Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016

1. Organization

Metropolitan Series Fund (the “Trust”) is organized as a Delaware statutory trust and registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), as an open-end management investment company. The Trust, which is managed by MetLife Advisers, LLC (“MetLife Advisers” or the “Adviser”), an affiliate of MetLife, Inc., is currently comprised of thirty series, each of which operates as a distinct investment vehicle of the Trust. The portfolio included in this report is Met/Wellington Core Equity Opportunities Portfolio (formerly, WMC Core Equity Opportunities 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.

On January 12, 2016, MetLife, Inc. announced its plan to pursue the separation of a substantial portion of its retail segment and is currently evaluating structural alternatives for such separation. It is anticipated that MetLife Advisers would be included in any such separation. Any separation transaction that might occur will be subject to the satisfaction of various conditions and approvals, including approval of any transaction by the MetLife, Inc. Board of Directors, satisfaction of any applicable requirements of the SEC, and receipt of insurance and other regulatory approvals and other anticipated conditions. MetLife, Inc. cannot currently provide a specific potential completion date for a separation transaction or any assurance that a separation will in fact occur. MetLife Advisers’ continued service as investment adviser to the Trusts following a separation transaction is the subject of a proxy statement that was filed with the SEC on December 20, 2016 and mailed to shareholders of the Portfolio on or about December 30, 2016.

The Portfolio has registered and offers three classes of shares: Class A, B and E shares. 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 plan and such distribution expenses are allocated to the corresponding Class of shares.

2. Significant Accounting Policies

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities as of the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of income and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates. In the preparation of these financial statements, management has evaluated events and transactions subsequent to December 31, 2016 through the date the financial statements were issued.

The Portfolio is an investment company and follows the accounting and reporting guidance of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Accounting Standards Codification Topic 946—Financial Services—Investment Companies and Topic 820—Fair Value Measurement. 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 - Domestic and foreign equity securities, such as common stock, exchange-traded funds, rights, warrants, and preferred stock, that are traded on a securities exchange on a valuation date are generally valued at their last quoted sale price or official closing price on the primary exchange for such security, or, if no sales occurred on that day, at the last reported bid price. Equity securities traded over-the-counter (“OTC”) are generally valued at the last reported bid price. In the event of a major exchange closing during the trading day, the Adviser may use other market information obtained from quotation reporting systems, established market makers, or pricing services in valuing the securities. Valuation adjustments may be applied to certain foreign equity securities that are traded solely on foreign exchanges that close before the time as of which the Portfolio determines its NAV to account for the market movement between the close of the foreign exchanges and the time as of which the Portfolio determines its NAV. The Portfolio may use a systematic fair valuation model provided by a pricing service to value securities principally traded in these foreign markets in order to adjust for possible market movements or other changes that may occur between the close of the foreign exchanges and the time as of which the Portfolio determines its NAV. Foreign equity securities valued using these valuation adjustments are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy. Equity securities that are actively traded, and have no valuation adjustments applied, are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other equity securities traded on inactive markets, or valued in reference to similar instruments traded on active markets, 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 on the valuation date and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy.

Debt securities, including corporate, convertible and municipal bonds and notes; obligations of the U.S. Treasury and U.S. government agencies; foreign sovereign issues; and non-U.S. bonds, are generally valued on the basis of evaluated or composite bid quotations

MSF-13

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Wellington Core Equity Opportunities Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

obtained from independent pricing services and/or brokers and dealers selected by the Adviser (each a “pricing service”), pursuant to authorization of and subject to general oversight by the Board of Trustees of the Trust (the “Board” or “Trustees”). Such pricing services may use matrix pricing, which considers observable inputs including, among other things, issuer details, maturity dates, interest rates, yield curves, rates of prepayment, credit risks/spreads, default rates, reported trades, broker dealer quotes and quoted prices for similar assets. Short-term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less may be valued at amortized cost in the absence of market quotes, so long as the amortized cost value of such short-term debt instrument is approximately the same as the fair value of the instrument as determined without the use of amortized cost valuation. Floating rate loans are generally valued on the basis of an evaluated or composite average of aggregate bid and ask quotations supplied by brokers or dealers, as obtained from the pricing service. Securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally 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 sale price available as of the close of business on a valuation day or, if there is no such price available, at the last reported bid price. These types of options are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Futures contracts that are traded on commodity exchanges are valued at their settlement prices established by the exchanges on which they are traded as of the close of such exchanges and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy.

If no current market value quotation or other observable inputs are readily available or market value quotations are deemed to be unreliable for an investment, the fair value of the investment will be determined in accordance with procedures approved by, and under the general supervision of, the Board. In such a circumstance, the Board will be assisted in its responsibility to determine the fair value of an investment by the Valuation Committee (“Committee”) of MetLife Advisers. The Committee provides general pricing oversight and fair value pricing determinations related to portfolio securities and meets on a regular basis to review reports relating to the valuation of the securities in the Portfolio. The Board has delegated to State Street Bank and Trust Company, the Trust’s custodian (“custodian”), the responsibility for calculating the net asset values (“NAVs”) of the Trust’s Portfolios. The Committee is responsible for overseeing the calculation of the NAVs of the Portfolios by the custodian. The Committee also periodically reviews pricing services, including the pricing services providing fair value pricing for the Portfolio’s foreign securities, and is responsible for overseeing the correction of pricing errors and addressing other pricing issues that arise in the ordinary course of business, such as making real-time fair value determinations, as necessary.

No single standard for determining the fair value of an investment can be set forth because fair value depends upon the facts and circumstances with respect to each investment. Information relating to any relevant factors may be obtained by the Committee from any appropriate source, including the subadviser of the Portfolio, the custodian, a pricing service, market maker and/or broker for such security or the issuer. Appropriate methodologies for determining fair value under particular circumstances may include: matrix pricing, a discounted cash flow analysis, comparisons of securities with comparable characteristics, value based on multiples of earnings, discount from market price of similar marketable securities or a combination of these and other methods.

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 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. These foreign taxes have been provided for in accordance with the Portfolio’s understanding of the applicable countries’ tax rules and rates.

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 the U.S. dollar 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. Because the values of investment securities are translated at the foreign exchange rates prevailing at the end of the period, that portion of the results of operations arising from changes in exchange rates and that portion of the results of operations reflecting fluctuations arising from changes in market prices of the investment securities are not separated. 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. 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.

Dividends and Distributions to Shareholders - The Portfolio records dividends and distributions on the ex-dividend date. Net realized gains from securities 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

MSF-14

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Wellington Core Equity Opportunities Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

distributed net investment income, accumulated net realized gains/losses, and paid-in surplus. Book-tax differences are primarily due to foreign currency transactions, merger adjustments, adjustments to prior period accumulated balances, distribution re-designations, real estate investment in trust (REIT) adjustments and broker commission recapture. These adjustments have no impact on net assets or the results 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 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. As of December 31, 2016, the Portfolio had no uncertain tax positions that would require financial statement recognition, or de-recognition or disclosure.

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 net ratio of expenses to average net assets presented in the Financial Highlights for each share class.

Repurchase Agreements - The Portfolio may enter into repurchase agreements, under the terms of a Master Repurchase Agreement (“MRA”), 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, under a tri-party repurchase agreement, receives delivery of the underlying securities collateralizing any repurchase agreements. It is the Portfolio’s policy that the market value of the collateral be equal to at least 100% of the repurchase price in the case of a repurchase agreement of one-day duration and equal to at least 102% of the repurchase price in the case of all other repurchase agreements. In the event of default or failure by a party to perform an obligation in connection with any repurchase transaction, the MRA gives the non-defaulting party the right to set-off claims and to apply property held by it in connection with any repurchase transaction against obligations owed to it.

At December 31, 2016, the Portfolio had direct investments in repurchase agreements with a gross value of $64,292,328. Additionally, the Portfolio invested cash collateral for loans of portfolio securities in repurchase agreements with a gross value of $ 70,504,977. The combined value of all repurchase agreements is included as part of investments at value on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. The value of the related collateral exceeded the value of the repurchase agreements at December 31, 2016.

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 collateral held from securities on loan. 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.

Effective September 8, 2016, the Trust has entered into a Non-Custodial Securities Lending Agreement with JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (the “lending agent”). Prior to September 8, 2016, the Trust had entered into a Securities Lending Authorization Agreement with the custodian (the “prior lending agent”). Under each agreement, the lending agent is authorized to loan portfolio securities on the Portfolio’s behalf. In exchange, the Portfolio receives either cash or government securities as collateral against the loaned securities. The Portfolio receives collateral equal to at least 102% of the market value for loans secured by government securities or cash in the same currency as the loaned shares and 105% for all other loaned securities at each loan’s inception. Collateral representing at least 100% of the market value of the loaned securities is maintained for the duration of the loan. Any cash collateral received by the Portfolio is generally invested by the lending agent in short-term investments, which may include certificates of deposit, commercial paper, repurchase agreements, time deposits and money market funds. Cash collateral that was received by the prior lending agent had been generally invested in the State Street Navigator Securities Lending MET Portfolio (the “Navigator Portfolio”), a series of the State Street Navigator Securities Lending Trust that was a registered money market fund managed by an affiliate of the custodian. The market value of investments made with cash collateral received are disclosed in the Schedule of Investments and the valuation techniques are described in Note 2. 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 is 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 is equal to at least 100% of the market value of all the loaned securities as of such preceding day. A portion of the income earned on the collateral is rebated to the borrower of the securities and the remainder is split between the lending agent and the Portfolio. On loans collateralized by government securities, a fee is received from the borrower and is allocated between the Portfolio and the lending agent.

Income received by the Portfolio in securities lending transactions during the year ended December 31, 2016 is reflected as securities lending income on the Statement of Operations. The values of any securities loaned by the Portfolio and the related collateral at

MSF-15

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Wellington Core Equity Opportunities Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

December 31, 2016 are disclosed in the footnotes to the Schedule of Investments. The value of the related collateral received by the Portfolio exceeded the value of the securities out on loan at December 31, 2016.

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. The lending agent shall indemnify the Portfolio in the case of default of any securities borrower, subject to the terms of the Non-Custodial Securities Lending Agreement

All securities on loan are classified as Common Stocks in the Portfolio’s Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016, with a contractual maturity of overnight and continuous.

3. Certain Risks

In the normal course of business, the Portfolio invests in securities and enters into transactions where risks exist. Those risks include:

Market 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, interest rate, and price fluctuations.

Credit and Counterparty Risk: 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 and counterparty risk consist principally of cash due from counterparties and investments. The Portfolio manages counterparty risk by entering into agreements only with counterparties that it believes have the financial resources to honor their obligations and by monitoring the financial stability of those counterparties. The Portfolio’s investment adviser attempts to mitigate counterparty risk by (i) periodically assessing the creditworthiness of its trading partners, (ii) monitoring and/or limiting the amount of its net exposure to each individual counterparty based on its assessment, and (iii) requiring collateral from the counterparty for certain transactions. In order to preserve certain safeguards for non-standard settlement trades, the Portfolio restricts its exposure to credit and counterparty losses by entering into master netting agreements (“Master Agreements”) with counterparties (approved brokers) with whom it undertakes a significant volume of transactions. Master Agreements govern the terms of certain transactions, and reduce the counterparty risk associated with relevant transactions by specifying credit protection mechanisms and providing standardization that improves legal certainty. Master Agreements can also help limit counterparty risk by specifying collateral posting arrangements at pre-arranged exposure levels.

Repurchase and reverse repurchase agreements are primarily executed under Global Master Repurchase Agreements (“GMRAs”) or Master Repurchase Agreements (“MRAs”), which provide the rights to set-off. Each repurchase and reverse repurchase agreement is initially collateralized at the transaction level. In the event of default, the total market value exposure will be offset against collateral exchanged to date, which would result in a net receivable/(payable) that would be due from/to the counterparty.

Additional risks associated with each type of investment are described above within the respective security type notes. The Portfolio’s prospectus includes a discussion of the principal risks of investing in the Portfolio.

4. Investment Transactions

Aggregate cost of purchases and proceeds of sales of investment securities, excluding short-term securities, for the year ended December 31, 2016 were as follows:

Purchases			Sales
U.S. Government	Non U.S. Government		U.S. Government		Non U.S. Government
$0	$	1,215,138,242	$	0	$	1,333,107,109

The Portfolio engaged in security transactions with other accounts managed by Wellington Management Company LLP that amounted to $1,987,469 in purchases and $1,147,409 in sales of investments, which are included above, and resulted in realized gains of $360,502.

With respect to the Portfolio’s merger with Pioneer Fund Portfolio (see Note 8) on April 29, 2016, the Portfolio acquired long-term securities with a cost of $379,709,359 that are not included in the above non-U.S. Government purchases value.

MSF-16

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Wellington Core Equity Opportunities Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

5. Investment Management Fees and Other Transactions with Affiliates

Investment Management Agreement - MetLife Advisers is the investment adviser to the Portfolio. The Trust has entered into an investment management agreement with MetLife Advisers with respect to the Portfolio. For providing investment management services to the Portfolio, MetLife Advisers receives monthly compensation at the following annual rates:

Management Fees earned by MetLife Advisers for the year ended December 31, 2016	% per annum			Average Daily Net Assets
$26,928,874		0.750	%	Of the first $1 billion
		0.700	%	On the next $2 billion
		0.650	%	On amounts in excess of $3 billion

MetLife Advisers has entered into an investment subadvisory agreement with respect to managing the Portfolio. Wellington Management Company LLP is compensated by MetLife Advisers to provide subadvisory services for the Portfolio.

Management Fee Waivers - Pursuant to an expense agreement, MetLife Advisers has agreed, for the period May 1, 2016 to April 30, 2017, to reduce its advisory fees set out above under “Investment Management Agreement” for each class of the Portfolio as follows:

% per annum	Average Daily Net Assets
0.120%	First $500 million
0.145%	$500 million to $1 billion
0.120%	$1 billion to $3 billion
0.080%	$3 billion to $4.5 billion
0.105%	Over $4.5 billion

An identical agreement was in place for the period December 1, 2015 through April 30, 2016. Amounts waived for the year ended December 31, 2016 amounted to $4,393,169 and are included in the total amount shown as management fee waivers in the Statement of Operations.

The Subadviser has voluntarily agreed to waive a portion of its subadvisory fees payable by the Adviser to the Subadviser for managing the Portfolio. In addition to the above advisory fee waiver, the Adviser has agreed to reduce its advisory fee reflecting a portion of the amount waived by the Subadviser for managing the Portfolio pursuant to the voluntary subadvisory fee waiver. $1,212,941 was waived in the aggregate for the year ended December 31, 2016 and is reflected in the total amount shown as a management fee waiver in the Statement of Operations.

Certain officers and trustees of the Trust may also be officers of MetLife Advisers; 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 and Service Fees - The Trust has a distribution agreement with MetLife Investors Distribution Company (“MIDC” or the “Distributor”) in which MIDC serves as the distributor for the Portfolio’s Class A, B and E Shares. MIDC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife Investors Group, LLC, an affiliate of the Adviser. The Trust has also adopted a Distribution and Service Plan under Rule 12b-1 of the 1940 Act for the Portfolio’s Class B and E Shares. Under the Distribution and Service Plan, the Class B and E Shares of the Portfolio pay a fee to compensate the Insurance Companies (or their affiliates) and other broker-dealers and financial intermediaries involved in the offer and sale of Portfolio shares for promoting or selling and servicing the Class B and E Shares. The fees under the Distribution and Service Plan for each class of the Portfolio’s shares are calculated as a percentage of the Portfolio’s average daily net assets that are attributable to that Class. Currently, the fee is 0.25% per year for Class B Shares and 0.15% per year for Class E Shares. Amounts incurred by the Portfolio for the year ended December 31, 2016 are shown as Distribution and service fees in the Statement of Operations.

Deferred Trustee Compensation - Each Trustee 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 Trust. 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 Met Investors Series Trust, an affiliate of the Trust, 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 under the Plan is reflected as Deferred trustees’ fees in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

MSF-17

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Wellington Core Equity Opportunities Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

6. Contractual Obligations

Under the Trust’s organizational documents, its officers and Trustees may be indemnified against certain liabilities and expenses arising out of the performance of their duties to the Trust. Additionally, 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 Trust that have not yet occurred.

7. Income Tax Information

The tax character of distributions paid for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015 were as follows:

Ordinary Income			Long-Term Capital Gain				Total
2016	2015		2016		2015		2016		2015
$70,580,396	$	141,263,345	$	169,222,024	$	1,235,335,211	$	239,802,420	$	1,376,598,556

As of December 31, 2016, 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		Other Accumulated Capital Losses		Total
$61,695,417	$	151,767,807	$	408,576,164	$	—	$	622,039,388

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 up to 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, 2016, the Portfolio had no post-enactment accumulated capital losses and no pre-enactment accumulated capital loss carryforwards.

8. Acquisition

At the close of business on April 29, 2016, the Portfolio, with aggregate Class A, Class B and Class E net assets of $2,079,742,205, $598,612,281 and $818,724,006, respectively, acquired all of the assets and liabilities of Pioneer Fund Portfolio of the Met Investors Series Trust (“Pioneer Fund”).

The acquisition was accomplished by a tax-free exchange of 11,681,896 Class A shares of the Portfolio (valued at $342,746,988) for 37,657,033 Class A shares of Pioneer Fund and 2,998,245 Class B shares of the Portfolio (valued at $86,919,323) for 9,737,087 Class B shares of Pioneer Fund. Each shareholder of Pioneer Fund received shares of the Portfolio with the same class designation and at the respective Class NAV, as determined at the close of business on April 29, 2016. 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. Some of the investments held by Pioneer Fund may have been purchased or sold prior to the acquisition for the purpose of complying with the anticipated investment policies or limitations of the Portfolio after the acquisition. If such purchases or sales occurred, the transaction costs were borne by Pioneer Fund. All other costs associated with the merger were not borne by the shareholders of either portfolio.

Pioneer Fund’s net assets on April 29, 2016, were $342,746,988 and $86,919,323 for Class A and Class B shares, respectively, including investments valued at $429,706,208 with a cost basis of $417,385,987. For financial reporting purposes, assets received, liabilities assumed and shares issued by the Portfolio were recorded at fair value; however, the cost basis of the investments received by the Portfolio from Pioneer Fund 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 aggregate net assets of the Portfolio immediately after the acquisition were $3,926,744,803, which included $12,320,388 of acquired unrealized appreciation on investments and foreign currency transactions.

Assuming the acquisition had been completed on January 1, 2016, the Portfolio’s pro-forma results of operations for the year ended December 31, 2016 are as follows:

Net investment income	$	63,902,224	(a)
Net realized and unrealized gain on investments	$	200,724,550	(b)
Net increase in net assets from operations	$	264,626,774

MSF-18

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Wellington Core Equity Opportunities Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

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 Pioneer Fund that have been included in the Portfolio’s Statement of Operations since April 29, 2016.

(a) $62,169,328 net investment income as reported at December 31, 2016, plus $1,584,300 from Pioneer Fund pre-merger net investment income, plus $130,479 in lower net advisory fees, plus $18,117 of pro-forma eliminated other expenses.

(b) $425,632,627 unrealized appreciation as reported at December 31, 2016, minus $454,921,890 pro-forma December 31, 2015 unrealized appreciation, plus $143,274,319 net realized gain as reported at December 31 2016, plus $86,739,494 in net realized gain from Pioneer Fund pre-merger.

9. Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In October 2016, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) adopted new rules and forms, and amendments to certain current rules and forms, to modernize reporting and disclosure of information by registered investment companies. The amendments to Regulation S-X will require standardized, enhanced disclosure about derivatives in investment company financial statements, and will also change the rules governing the form and content of such financial statements. The compliance date for the amendments to Regulation S-X is August 1, 2017. Management is currently evaluating the impact that the adoption of the amendments to Regulation S-X will have on the Portfolio’s financial statements and related disclosures.

MSF-19

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Wellington Core Equity Opportunities Portfolio

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Shareholders of Met/Wellington Core Equity Opportunities Portfolio (formerly, WMC Core Equity Opportunities Portfolio) and the Board of Trustees of Metropolitan Series Fund:

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities, including the schedule of investments, of Met/Wellington Core Equity Opportunities Portfolio (formerly, WMC Core Equity Opportunities Portfolio) (one of the portfolios constituting the Metropolitan Series Fund) (the “Portfolio”) as of December 31, 2016, 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 Portfolio’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 Portfolio 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 Portfolio’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, 2016, by correspondence with the custodian and brokers; when 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/Wellington Core Equity Opportunities Portfolio of the Metropolitan Series Fund as of December 31, 2016, 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.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

February 24, 2017

MSF-20

Metropolitan Series Fund

Trustees and Officers

MANAGEMENT OF THE TRUSTS

The Boards of Trustees (the “Board”) of Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (“MIST” and “MSF”, respectively, and collectively the “Trusts”) supervise the Trusts and are responsible for representing the interests of shareholders. The Trustees, the Chairman of the Board and the Chairmen of each subcommittee are the same for both Trusts. The Trustees of each Trust meet periodically throughout the year to oversee the Portfolios’ activities, reviewing, among other things, each Portfolio’s performance and its contractual arrangements with various service providers. The Trustees of each Trust elect the officers of the Trust, who are responsible for administering the Trust’s day-to-day operations.

Trustees and Officers

The Trustees and executive officers of the Trusts, as well as their ages and their principal occupations during the past five years, are set forth below. Unless otherwise indicated, the business address of each is c/o MetLife Funds, One Financial Center, Boston, Massachusetts 02111. Each Trustee who is deemed an “interested person,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, is referred to as an “Interested Trustee.” Those Trustees who are not “interested persons,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, are referred to as “Independent Trustees.” There is no limit to the term a Trustee may serve. Trustees serve until their death, resignation or removal in accordance with the MIST Trust’s and MSF Trust’s respective organizational documents and policies adopted by the Boards of the respective Trusts from time to time. Officers hold office at the pleasure of each Board and serve until their removal or resignation in accordance with the Trusts’ respective organizational documents and policies adopted by the Board of each Trust from time to time.

Name and Age	Current 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 MetLife Funds Complex(2) Overseen by Trustee	Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Interested Trustee
John Rosenthal* (56)	Trustee	Indefinite; From May 2016 (MIST and MSF) to present	Senior Managing Director and Head of Global Portfolio Management, MetLife, Inc.	75	None
Independent Trustees
Dawn M. Vroegop (50)	Trustee and Chairman of the Board	Indefinite; From December 2000 (MIST)/ May 2009 (MSF) to present as Trustee; From May 2016 (MIST and MSF) until present as Chairman	Private Investor.	75	Trustee, Driehaus Mutual Funds.**
Stephen M. Alderman (57)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 (MIST)/ April 2012 (MSF) to present	Shareholder in the law firm of Garfield and Merel, Ltd.	75	None

MSF-21

Metropolitan Series Fund

Trustees and Officers—(Continued)

Name and Age	Current 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 MetLife Funds Complex(2) Overseen by Trustee	Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Robert J. Boulware (60)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 (MIST)/ April 2012 (MSF) to present	Managing Director, Pilgrim Funds, LLC (private equity fund).	75	Trustee, Vertical Capital Income Fund (closed-end fund);** Director, Gainsco, Inc. (auto insurance);** Trustee, SharesPost 100 Fund (closed-end fund).**
Susan C. Gause (64)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 (MIST)/ April 2012 (MSF) to present	Private Investor.	75	Trustee, HSBC Funds.**
Nancy Hawthorne (65)	Trustee	Indefinite; From May 2003 (MSF)/ April 2012 (MIST) to present	Partner, Hawthorne Financial Advisors, LLC (registered investment advisor); until June 2014, Chief Executive Officer, Clerestory LLC (corporate advisor).	75	Director and Chairman of the Board of Directors, THL Credit, Inc.;** Lead Director, Avid Technology, Inc.;** Director, CRA International, Inc.**
Barbara A. Nugent (60)	Trustee	Indefinite; From January 2014 (MIST and MSF) to present	President, True North Board Governance, LLC (consulting); until December 2013, partner in the law firm of Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young, LLP.	75	None
Linda B. Strumpf (69)	Trustee	Indefinite; From May 2000 (MSF)/ April 2012 (MIST) to present	Chair of the Investment Committee, Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust; until June 2011, Chief Investment Officer, Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust.	75	None

Executive Officers

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Kristi Slavin (43)	President and Chief Executive Officer, of MIST and MSF	From May 2016 (MIST and MSF) to present	President, MetLife Advisers, LLC (May 2016-present); Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Vice President, MetLife, Inc.; Vice President, MIST and MSF (2015-2016).

MSF-22

Metropolitan Series Fund

Trustees and Officers—(Continued)

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Peter H. Duffy (61)	Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, of MIST and MSF	From November 2000 (MSF)/ May 2012 (MIST) to present	Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Andrew L. Gangolf (62)	Secretary, of MIST and MSF	From May 2011 (MIST and MSF) to present	Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; until 2011, Senior Vice President & Assistant General Counsel, AllianceBernstein Investments, Inc.
Steven E. Hartstein (53)	Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”), of MIST and MSF	From February 2014 (MIST and MSF) to present	Vice President, MetLife, Inc. (2013- present); Senior Vice President and CCO, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Executive Director, Morgan Stanley (2009-2013); CCO, Consulting Group Capital Markets Funds (2006-2013).
Alan C. Leland (64)	Vice President, of MIST and MSF	From February 2005 (MSF)/ May 2012 (MIST) to present	Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Vice President, MetLife, Inc.

* Mr. Rosenthal is an “interested person” of the Trusts because of his position with MetLife, Inc., the current parent company of MetLife Advisers, LLC.

** 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 Trusts, MetLife, Inc. or the Manager are omitted if not materially different.

(2) The Fund Complex includes 45 MIST Portfolios and 30 MSF Portfolios.

MSF-23

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Wellington Core Equity Opportunities Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements

At an in-person meeting held on November 15-16, 2016 (the “November Meeting”), the Boards of Trustees (the “Board”) of the Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (“MIST” and “MSF,” respectively, and collectively, the “Trusts”), including a majority of the Trustees who are not “interested persons” of the Trusts (the “Independent Trustees”) under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “1940 Act”), approved the continuation of the Trusts’ advisory agreements (each, an “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 the series of the Trusts (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”).

In reaching that decision, the Board reviewed a variety of materials provided for the specific purpose of the annual contract renewal process. In addition, various materials provided to and discussed with the Board throughout the year also informed the Board’s decision to renew the Agreements. That information for each Portfolio included, but was not limited to, investment performance reports, along with periodic reports on various expenses, shareholder services, legal and compliance matters, asset pricing, brokerage commissions and trade execution. The Board also recognized the pending separation of the Adviser from its parent company, MetLife, Inc., as a consideration in their deliberations with respect to the Agreements.

The Board met in person with personnel of the Adviser on September 27, 2016 for the specific purpose of giving preliminary consideration to the proposed continuation of the Agreements (the “September Meeting”) through the review by the Adviser with the Board of the performance and fees experienced by each Portfolio, as well as other information. In considering the Agreements, the Independent Trustees were advised by independent legal counsel throughout the contract renewal process, and met with independent legal counsel in several executive sessions outside of the presence of management.

Information furnished and reviewed specifically in connection with the renewal process included, but was not limited to, a report for each Portfolio prepared by Broadridge (“Broadridge”), an independent organization, and a Portfolio-by-Portfolio profitability analysis prepared by the Adviser. In addition, the Independent Trustees received and reviewed a report prepared by JDL Consultants, LLC (“JDL”), an independent consultant to the Independent Trustees (“JDL Report”), which examined the comparative fees, expenses and performance of each Portfolio, based upon the Broadridge reports. Also, the Board reviewed the responses to wide-ranging questions relating to the business, operations and performance of the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers that the Adviser and Sub-Advisers had prepared specifically for the renewal process.

At the November Meeting, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, concluded that the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser supported the renewal of the Agreements. The Board also concluded that the investment performance of each Portfolio was such that each Agreement should continue, and that the fees paid by a Portfolio to the Adviser appeared to be reasonable in light of the nature, extent and quality of the services provided by the Adviser and Sub-Adviser. Further, the Board concluded that the Adviser’s profitability in providing services under the Advisory Agreements did not appear unreasonably high in light of the nature, extent and quality of the services provided by the Adviser. Finally, the Board concluded that the investment advisory fees paid by the Portfolios in some measure shared economies of scale with contract holders. In approving the renewal of each of the Agreements, the Board, including the Independent Trustees, gave attention to all of the information that was furnished. The Board evaluated the information available to it on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis, and its decision was made separately with respect to each Portfolio. The following discusses some of the primary factors that generally were relevant to the Board’s decision. The Board did not identify any single factor as controlling, and the Trustees generally attributed different weights to various factors for the various Portfolios.

Nature, extent and quality of services. The Board evaluated the nature, extent and quality of the services that the Adviser, and the Sub-Advisers as relevant, have provided to the Portfolios. The Board considered the Adviser’s services as investment manager to the Portfolios, including its services relating to the oversight of the Sub-Advisers and their investment management activities, trading practices, financial condition, relevant personnel matters and compliance programs, among other things. The Adviser’s services in coordinating and overseeing the activities of the Trusts’ other service providers were also considered. The Board considered information received from the Trusts’ Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) regarding the Portfolios’ compliance policies and procedures that were established pursuant to Rule 38a-l under the 1940 Act. In addition, throughout the year, the Board considered the expertise, experience and performance of the personnel of the Adviser who performed the various services that are mentioned above.

The Board also noted that the Adviser’s investment, compliance and legal staff conduct regular, periodic, telephonic and in-person meetings with the Sub-Advisers to review and assess the services that are provided to the Portfolios, and that personnel of the Adviser prepare and present reports to the Independent Trustees regarding those meetings.

MSF-24

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Wellington Core Equity Opportunities Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

With respect to the services provided by each of the Sub-Advisers, the Board considered a variety of information that the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser provided. The Board considered each Sub-Adviser’s investment process and philosophy, and the investment performance experienced by the Portfolio (as described in more detail below). The Board took into account that each Sub-Adviser’s responsibilities include the development and maintenance of an investment program for the applicable Portfolio that 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. In particular, the Board considered, among other things, the Sub-Adviser’s current level of staffing as well as its compensation program and its overall resources. The Board reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s history and investment experience, as well as information provided 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 regulatory and disciplinary history. In its review, the Board also took into account information regarding any services and/or payments provided to the Adviser by the Sub-Advisers in connection with marketing activities.

Performance. The Board placed emphasis on the performance of the Portfolios in light of, among other things, its importance to contract holders. The Board considered the Adviser’s quarterly reviews with the Board of detailed information about each Portfolio’s investment strategies and performance results and composition, including discussions regarding the relevant effect of current market conditions. The Board reviewed and considered the reports prepared by Broadridge, which provided a statistical analysis comparing the Portfolios’ investment performance to that of comparable funds underlying variable insurance products (the “Performance Universe”). The Independent Trustees also met separately with a representative of JDL during the September Meeting to review the JDL Report. The Board also compared the performance records of certain Portfolios to those of comparable funds that were managed by the relevant Sub-Adviser. At the November Meeting, the Board considered each Portfolio’s performance for periods subsequent to the performance period covered by the Broadridge reports, and the Adviser’s discussion of the same, including the effect of current market conditions on each Portfolio’s more recent performance.

The Board focused particular attention on Portfolios with less favorable performance records. The Board noted the Adviser’s focus on each Sub-Adviser’s performance and that the Adviser has been active in monitoring and responding to any performance issues with respect to the Portfolios.

Fees and Expenses. The Board gave consideration to the level and method of computing the fees payable under the Agreements. The Board considered the Broadridge report for each of the Portfolios, which included comparisons for each Portfolio of its contractual management and sub-adviser fees (at current and various asset levels), and total expenses, with those of its peers, including as those peers were divided into a broad group of peer funds (“Expense Universe”), a narrower group of peer funds (“Expense Group”), a broad group of peer sub-advised funds (“Sub-advised Expense Universe”), and a narrower group of peer sub-advised funds (“Sub-advised Expense Group”). Broadridge selected the peer funds which were similarly situated funds underlying variable insurance products deemed to be comparable to the Portfolios. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of JDL, also examined the JDL Report. The Board compared the fee payable to a Sub-Adviser by the Adviser with respect to the Portfolio to the fee payable to the Sub-Adviser by other comparable funds and accounts, to the extent such information was available.

The Board noted that the sub-advisory fees for the Portfolios are paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fee, and that, in the case of an unaffiliated Sub-Adviser, the Adviser negotiates the fee at arm’s length. The Board also considered that the Adviser had entered into expense limitation or management fee waiver agreements with certain of the Portfolios pursuant to which the Adviser had 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.

Profitability. The Board examined the profitability of the Adviser on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis. The Board also considered that an affiliate of the Adviser, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, serves as distributor for the Trusts, and, as such, receives Rule 12b-1 payments to support the distribution of the Portfolios. The Board considered the profitability to the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates as a result of their relationships with the Portfolios, to the extent available, and the Board considered the ability of the Adviser to negotiate with an unaffiliated Sub-Adviser at arm’s length. In reviewing the profitability analyses, the Board recognized that expense allocation methodologies are inherently subjective and various expense allocation methodologies may be reasonable while producing different results.

Economies of scale. The Board also considered each Portfolio’s fees in light of its size. The Board noted the fee schedules for the Portfolios that 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

MSF-25

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Wellington Core Equity Opportunities Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

schedule for such Portfolios. The Board considered the effective fees under the Advisory Agreement and Sub-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. The Board examined, among other data, the effect of a Portfolio’s growth in size, and reduction in size, on various fee schedules and the Board reviewed the Broadridge and JDL Reports, which compared fees among peers. The Board also generally noted that if a Portfolio’s assets increase over time, the Portfolio may realize other economies of scale if assets increase proportionally more than certain other fixed expenses.

Other factors. The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trusts. Among them, the Board recognized that MetLife Investors Distribution Company, as the distributor for the Trusts, receives payments pursuant to Rule 12b-1 from the Portfolios to compensate for the provision of shareholder services and distribution activities, which could lead to growth in the Trusts’ assets and corresponding benefits from such growth, including economies of scale. The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by each Sub-Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trusts, including the opportunity to provide advisory services to additional portfolios of the Trusts and reputational benefits. In conjunction with these considerations, the Board noted the ongoing commitment of the Adviser to the Portfolios.

The Board considered possible conflicts of interest in the form of material benefits or detriments to the Trusts resulting from the nature of the Trusts’ and the Adviser’s or the Sub-Advisers’ affiliations and the services that are provided to the Trusts, and the manner in which such conflicts were mitigated.

* * *

Met/Wellington Core Equity Opportunities Portfolio. The Board also considered the following information in relation to the Agreements with the Adviser and Wellington Management Company LLP regarding the Portfolio:

Among other data relating specifically to the 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, 2016. The Board further considered that the Portfolio underperformed its benchmark, the Russell 1000 Index, for the one-, three-, and five-year periods ended October 31, 2016. In addition, the Board noted that the Sub-Adviser did not manage the Portfolio for all of the periods referenced.

The Board considered that the Portfolio’s actual management fees were below the medians for the Expense Universe and Sub-advised Expense Universe, and equal to the median for Expense Group. The Board considered that the Portfolio’s 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 asset-weighted average of certain comparable funds at the Portfolio’s current size. The Board also noted that the Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees were below the averages of the Sub-advised Expense Group and the Sub-advised Expense Universe at the Portfolio’s current size.

MSF-26

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Wellington Core Equity Opportunities Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Advisory Agreements

The separation (the “Separation”) of MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”), the investment adviser to each of the series (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”) of Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (collectively, the “Trusts”), from its parent company, MetLife, Inc. (“MetLife”), to a separate retail business, Brighthouse Financial, Inc. (“Brighthouse”), is expected to result in a change in control of the Adviser, and therefore an “assignment” of each Portfolio’s current advisory agreement (each a “Current Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “Current Advisory Agreements”). At the November 15-16, 2016 meeting (“November Meeting”) of the Board of Trustees of the Trusts (the “Board”), the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not “interested persons,” as defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940, of any Portfolio (the “Independent Trustees”), approved a new advisory agreement (each a “New Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “New Advisory Agreements”) between the Trusts, on behalf of a Portfolio, and the Adviser, to be effective upon the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements in connection with the Separation, and recommended that the shareholders of the Trusts approve the New Advisory Agreements. The Board took those actions after consideration of and deliberation over information concerning the Separation, including with respect to the degree to which the Separation would affect the provision of investment advisory services to the Trusts. Information about the Board’s considerations and process is set forth below.

In determining whether to approve the New Advisory Agreements and in considering the Separation, the Board considered the nature, quality and extent of the services that are currently provided by the Adviser under the Current Advisory Agreements as well as the services to be provided under the New Advisory Agreements. The Board’s review was conducted as part of, and in conjunction with, the Board’s annual review of the Current Advisory Agreements, which culminated at the November Meeting. In approving the New Advisory Agreements, the Board considered its conclusions with respect to its approvals of the Current Advisory Agreements, including the Board’s general satisfaction with the nature, extent and quality of services being provided by the Adviser to each Portfolio. Appendix A and Appendix B contains a further description of the process followed, information reviewed and the material factors considered by the Board in approving the continuation of the Current Advisory Agreements.

A substantial portion of the Board’s review of the New Advisory Agreements focused on the Separation, including the potential effect of the implementation of the Separation on the operations, personnel, organizational structure, capitalization, and financial and other resources of the Adviser. After being informed by the Adviser in January 2016 of the possibility of the Separation, the Board and its Committees discussed the Separation and its possible effects on the Trusts with personnel of the Adviser and the anticipated senior management at Brighthouse during the course of the Board’s or Committee’s regularly scheduled, in-person, quarterly meetings.

Between August and November 2016, the Board and the Independent Trustees engaged in an extensive review and analysis of the Separation and how the Separation related to the Adviser and the Trusts and how it could affect the services provided to the Trusts. This analysis focused on, among other matters, the assurances from Brighthouse’s anticipated leadership as to its expectations for the continuity and stability of the Adviser’s personnel throughout implementation of the Separation and for the foreseeable future thereafter. The Board considered that the Separation is being implemented as a result of MetLife’s determination to divest itself of a substantial portion of its U.S. retail business (of which the Adviser forms a portion). The Board also considered that it has been satisfied as a general matter with the nature and quality of the services that the Adviser provides to the Portfolios, including investment advisory, administrative, legal, compliance, and support services, and that it would be in the Portfolios’ best interests to maintain continuity and stability in the services that are currently being provided. The Board carefully considered the anticipated future plans of Brighthouse related to capitalization and operational matters for Brighthouse and the Adviser, as well as the importance of the Adviser to the businesses of Brighthouse after the Separation.

Among other steps in its review process, which accelerated on October 5, 2016 when Brighthouse filed its Form 10 with the SEC, the following actions were taken and considered by or on behalf of the Board:

1. The Independent Trustees solicited and received ongoing advice regarding the legal duties of the Independent Trustees from Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young LLP (“Stradley Ronon”), legal counsel for the Independent Trustees, which law firm has extensive experience regarding such matters.

2. Following the August 16-17, 2016 Board and Committee quarterly meetings, the Independent Trustees established an ad hoc group of Independent Trustees (the “Working Group”) to help oversee, coordinate, and conduct due diligence activities with respect to the Separation. The Working Group regularly reported on the due diligence activities to the other Independent Trustees.

3. Since January 2016, the Board posed ongoing inquiries to, and received regular updates from, the Adviser and anticipated senior management at Brighthouse at either in-person meetings dedicated to the status of the Separation or during the course of the Board or Committee’s regular quarterly meetings. The Board considered, among other matters, relevant legal guidance and the processes followed by certain other investment company boards of directors or trustees when they approved contracts in connection with change in control events, while recognizing the unique circumstances of the Separation.

MSF-27

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Wellington Core Equity Opportunities Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

4. The Board received and reviewed the Form 10 of Brighthouse that contained extensive information relating to, among other matters, Brighthouse’s anticipated business plans and financial structure. The Board also received and reviewed reports from rating agencies with respect to Brighthouse.

5. Stradley Ronon retained Barrington Partners (“Barrington”), an independent consulting firm with a specific focus on the asset management industry and experience relating to business operations such as those to be conducted by Brighthouse, including its proposed subsidiary, the Adviser, in order to help Stradley Ronon evaluate the Separation based on the Form 10 and other materials and related information provided by the Adviser and its affiliates. Barrington conducted a series of in-person and telephonic meetings with anticipated senior management at Brighthouse (i.e., the aforementioned anticipated officers of Brighthouse and others) and with personnel of the Adviser who provide services to the Trusts. Stradley Ronon, with the assistance of Barrington, evaluated the information and advised the Independent Trustees with respect to, among other matters, details of Brighthouse’s anticipated business plan to understand the implications of the Separation to the Adviser and its personnel. The Independent Trustees and the Working Group attended certain in-person and telephonic conference call meetings at which Barrington rendered advice to Stradley Ronon regarding these matters and responded to questions.

6. The Independent Trustees requested and participated in in-person meetings with anticipated senior management personnel at Brighthouse, including its President and Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, Chief Operating Officer, and Chief Investment Officer. The Independent Trustees also met with personnel of the Adviser.

7. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of Stradley Ronon, prepared written inquiries to the Adviser and its affiliates regarding the Separation, and received written assurances from the Adviser and its affiliates that they have no plans to make any material changes affecting the personnel of the Adviser (including those personnel who provide investment, administrative, legal and compliance services) and the Adviser and its affiliates will not initiate such changes without prior notice to and discussion with the Board.

8. The Board considered representations by the Adviser and its affiliates that approval of the New Advisory Agreements would be necessary for the Portfolios to continue receiving investment advisory services from the Adviser following the change in control.

9. The Board considered representations by the Adviser, as well as related supporting documentation, indicating that the New Advisory Agreements, including the fees payable thereunder, are substantially identical to the terms of the corresponding Current Advisory Agreements.

10. The Board considered representations by the Adviser and its affiliates, as well as related supporting documentation, indicating that: (1) the Adviser can be expected to provide services of the same nature, extent, and quality under the New Advisory Agreements and as are provided thereby under the Current Advisory Agreements; and (2) the Separation is not expected to result in any changes to (i) the management of the Portfolios, or (ii) the investment objective of or the principal investment strategies used to manage any of the Portfolios.

11. The Board considered the ability of the Adviser and its affiliates to retain the employment of key personnel, as well as the overall positive indications by many such personnel regarding the opportunities presented by the Separation.

12. The Board considered that the Adviser and its affiliates have agreed to bear all expenses associated with obtaining shareholder approval of the New Advisory Agreements.

13. The Board considered Brighthouse’s preliminary “branding” plans regarding the future name of its operations.

14. The Board considered the advice provided by Ropes & Gray, LLP, legal counsel to the Trusts and the Adviser, with respect to the New Advisory Agreements (including advice relating to the process and timing of seeking shareholder approval of the New Advisory Agreements, and whether shareholder approvals would be required in connection with any future aspects of the Separation) and regarding the Board’s role and responsibilities with respect to the Separation.

15. The Board considered MetLife’s stated intention of divesting its ownership interest in the Adviser through the Separation, including the potential advantages and disadvantages of this divestiture to shareholders of the Portfolios. The Board considered the likelihood that the Adviser would retain its key personnel after the Separation. The Board considered that the garnering of new assets into the Trusts is based on sales of variable annuity and variable life insurance products, which sales have declined in prior years as a result of, among other things, the capital requirements of MetLife. The Board considered the representations of the anticipated senior management of Brighthouse that the Separation provides the Trusts with an opportunity for the garnering of new assets as Brighthouse will likely sell such products going forward. The Board considered also that the divestiture would result in a change in the manner in

MSF-28

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Wellington Core Equity Opportunities Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

which the Trusts access certain services and resources of MetLife (after the Separation those services will be provided through a transition services agreement), the loss of affiliation with the MetLife name brand, and the possible going forward need of the Trusts to hire a transfer agent, as such transfer agency services are currently provided to the Trusts for no fee.

16. The Board considered that, if shareholders approve the New Advisory Agreements, the Board and the Adviser will conduct their annual contract review process in November 2017. Thus, the Board emphasized that it would be able to, and intends to, monitor on a regular basis the ability of the Adviser and its affiliates to comply with their undertakings to the Board and to monitor on an ongoing basis the quality of services to, and expenses of, the Portfolios. In addition, the Board considered that, under the New Advisory Agreements, it will continue to have the authority, should the need arise in its view, to terminate any of the New Advisory Agreements without penalty upon 60 days’ notice.

Based on the foregoing and other relevant considerations, at the November Meeting, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, voted to approve the New Advisory Agreements and to recommend approval of the New Advisory Agreements by shareholders of the Portfolios. In this connection, the Board concluded that, in light of all factors considered, the terms of the New Advisory Agreement, including fee rates, were fair and reasonable, and that it would be in the best interests of shareholders of each Portfolio to approve the New Advisory Agreements.

In the event that approval of the New Advisory Agreements by shareholders of the Portfolios has not been obtained before the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements as a result of the change in control of the Adviser, the Board also approved an interim advisory agreement with the Adviser (the “Interim Advisory Agreement”) on behalf of each Portfolio that will go into effect upon the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements. The Board’s determination to approve each Interim Advisory Agreement was based on the same information and considerations as the Board’s approval of the New Advisory Agreements so as to ensure continuity of advisory services from the Adviser to the Portfolios following the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements.

MSF-29

Metropolitan Series Fund

Met/Wellington Core Equity Opportunities Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Sub-Advisory Agreements

The separation (the “Separation”) of MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”), the investment adviser to each of the series (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”) of Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (collectively, the “Trusts”), from its parent company, MetLife, Inc. (“MetLife”), to a separate retail business, Brighthouse Financial, Inc. (“Brighthouse”), is expected to result in a change in control of the Adviser, and therefore an “assignment” of each Portfolio’s current advisory agreement and, as a result, the automatic termination of the sub-advisory agreement (each a “Sub-Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisory Agreements”) between the Adviser and the investment sub-advisers (each a “Sub-Adviser” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisers”). At the November 15-16, 2016 meeting (“November Meeting”) of the Board of Trustees of the Trusts (the “Board”), the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not “interested persons,” as defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940, of any Portfolio (the “Independent Trustees”), approved new sub-advisory agreements (each a “New Sub-Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “New Sub-Advisory Agreements”). Information about the Board’s considerations and process is set forth below.

In determining whether to approve the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, the Board considered the nature, quality and extent of the services that are currently provided by the Sub-Advisers under the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements as well as the services to be provided under the New Sub-Advisory Agreements. The Board’s review was conducted as part of, and in conjunction with, the Board’s annual review of the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements, which culminated at the November Meeting. In approving the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, the Board considered its conclusions with respect to its approvals of the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements, including the Board’s general satisfaction with the nature, extent and quality of services being provided by the Sub-Advisers to the Portfolios, as applicable. Appendix A contains a further description of the process followed, information reviewed and the material factors considered by the Board in approving the continuation of the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements.

In addition, the following actions were taken and considered by or on behalf of the Board:

1. The Independent Trustees of the Board solicited and received ongoing advice regarding the legal duties of the Independent Trustees from Stradley Ronon, legal counsel for the Independent Trustees, which law firm has extensive experience regarding such matters.

2. The Board considered representations by the Adviser and its affiliates that approval of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements would be necessary for the Portfolios to continue receiving sub-advisory services from the Sub-Advisers following the change in control of the Adviser.

3. The Board considered representations by the Adviser, as well as related supporting documentation, indicating that the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, including the fees payable thereunder, are the same as the terms of the corresponding Current Sub-Advisory Agreements.

4. The Board considered the advice provided by Ropes & Gray, LLP, legal counsel to the Trusts and the Adviser, with respect to the New Sub-Advisory Agreements and regarding the Board’s role and responsibilities with respect to the Separation.

5. The Board considered that the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers will conduct their annual contract review process in November 2017. Thus, the Board emphasized that it would be able to, and intends to, monitor on an ongoing basis the ability of the Sub-Advisers to comply with its undertakings to the Board and the Adviser and to monitor on an ongoing basis the quality of services to, and expenses of, the Portfolios. In addition, the Board considered that, under the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, it will continue to have the authority, should the need arise in its view, to terminate any of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements without penalty upon no more than 60 days’ notice.

Based on the foregoing and other relevant considerations, at the November Meeting, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, voted to approve the New Sub-Advisory Agreements. In this connection, the Board concluded that, in light of all factors considered, the terms of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, including fee rates, were fair and reasonable.

MSF-30

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Asset Allocation 20 Portfolio

Managed by MetLife Advisers, LLC

Portfolio Manager Commentary*

PERFORMANCE

For the one year period ended December 31, 2016, the Class A and B share of the MetLife Asset Allocation 20 Portfolio returned 4.76% and 4.53%, respectively. The Portfolio’s benchmark, the Dow Jones Conservative Index¹, returned 3.01%.

ECONOMIC AND MARKET REVIEW

Investors started off 2016 with a bit of a scare as market participants priced in a potential collapse of growth in China and a global recession. The markets are known for their desire to predict future outcomes, but the underlying economic factors had changed only marginally from the year prior. One of the biggest fears and conundrums that was extrapolated upon was the stubbornly low rate of inflation despite the supposedly inflationary activities conducted by central banks around the globe. As it turned out though, it was the supply factors that were the main driver behind falling commodity prices, not a drop in demand. As a result, the economic datasets continued to improve and investors with a longer term view and calm nerves were able to enjoy a strong rebound.

Investor nerves were tested once again by the end of June as the U.K. voted to leave the European Union (“Brexit”). Global markets, as measured by the MSCI ACWI Index, reacted sharply, dropping over 7% during the following two trading days, but the misery was short lived and losses were recouped within two weeks, with the seemingly devastating impact on the global economy of the Brexit all but forgotten.

As economic data continued to improve, so did the odds that the Federal Reserve (the “Fed”) was going to raise interest rates before the year was over. As with any addict being removed from stimulants, the market reacted negatively and the month of October and the first part of November delivered negative returns for all major equity and fixed income benchmarks. Then it was time for the presidential election which, to most, surprisingly was won by Donald Trump. Overnight, as it became clear that Trump would win, futures on the S&P 500 Index declined nearly 6% but by the time Trump had delivered his acceptance speech, the S&P 500 Index was up more than 1%, providing another example of extreme market movements based on sentiment.

For the remainder of the year, global developed equities enjoyed healthy gains led by U.S. stocks, as the market celebrated the prospects of fiscal stimulus via lower taxes and less regulation as a result of policies expected to be implemented by the new government. The dollar rallied strongly as well, causing a headwind for emerging market equities which ended the year on a negative note.

10-year U.S. Treasury rates finished the 2016 rollercoaster ride at 2.49%, slightly above the 2.24% at the beginning of the year, after having dropped to 1.37% by early July. The strong spike in rates after the election was a result of the Fed’s expected second rate hike in a decade, and their intention of raising rates further in 2017. In addition, there was upward pressure on longer-term rates from the perceived expansionary fiscal policies about to be implemented, which are expected to lead to higher inflation and higher levels of government debt in the U.S.

In summary, 2016 was marked by a year of significant political change, the perceived beginning of a rising interest rate environment, a U.S. equity market reaching new highs with Energy and Financial sectors as the new leaders and the Healthcare sector the laggard, a stronger dollar, and a global economy with continued but muted improvement.

Overall, Natural Resources, Small Cap equities, and High Yield bonds provided the strongest return in 2016, delivering returns of 30.87%, 21.31%, and 17.13% respectively (as measured by the S&P North American Natural Resources Index, the Russell 2000 Index, and the Bloomberg Barclays U.S. Corporate High Yield Bond Index). The U.S. stock market, as measured by the S&P 500 Index, returned a healthy 11.96% for the year, followed by Emerging Markets which returned 11.19% as measured by the MSCI Emerging Markets Total Return Index.

PORTFOLIO REVIEW / PERIOD-END POSITIONING

The MetLife Asset Allocation 20 Portfolio invested in underlying portfolios of the Met Investors Series Trust and the Metropolitan Series Fund to maintain a broad asset allocation of approximately 20% to equities and 80% to fixed income.

Over the twelve month period, the Portfolio outpaced the Dow Jones Conservative Index. While expenses, weak security selection within the underlying equity portfolios, and an underweight to small cap weighed on relative performance, an overweight to U.S. bonds versus cash, an overweight to high yield bonds, and a strong equity value tilt more than offset the negative impact.

The fixed income portfolio in aggregate contributed positively to the Asset Allocation 20 Portfolio’s relative performance as a result of better sector positioning versus the overall benchmark. At the individual portfolio level, the Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities Portfolio outperformed its respective benchmark by a wide margin. The Portfolio benefitted greatly from an overweight to high yield and emerging market debt as well as more favorable yield curve positioning. Another strong performer was the Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio which benefitted from exposures to corporate loans, high yield corporate credit, non-agency residential mortgage-backed securities, Treasury inflation protected securities, and commercial mortgage-backed securities. The PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond Portfolio also outperformed its benchmark, primarily because the Portfolio correctly positioned for a higher than expected inflation rate as inflation expectations rose, and as a result of exposure to U.K. real rates as rates fell across the curve post-Brexit. Despite outperforming its benchmark by almost 15% during the last six months of the year, the Met/Templeton International Bond

MSF-1

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Asset Allocation 20 Portfolio

Managed by MetLife Advisers, LLC

Portfolio Manager Commentary*—(Continued)

Portfolio ended up slightly underperforming its benchmark for the year. The biggest impact on relative performance was the Portfolio’s very defensive exposure to interest rates which was a large detractor from performance during the first half of the year as rates fell, but an almost equally large contributor to performance during the second half of the year as rates rose. Finally, the Portfolio’s significant overweight to high yield bonds was a strong contributor to the Asset Allocation 20 Portfolio’s relative performance. This was despite the BlackRock High Yield Portfolio underperforming its benchmark by the widest margin of any of the fixed income funds utilized. The main detractor to relative performance came from an underweight to Oil Field Services as names within the sector rallied strongly as energy prices stabilized.

Contribution from the domestic equity portfolios to relative performance was minimal, as a beneficial value tilt generally was outweighed by poor stock selection in most of the underlying portfolios. The BlackRock Large Cap Value Portfolio was able to outperform its benchmark, primarily as a result of an overweight to and selection within Financials, as well as strong stock selection in Energy and Healthcare. The Met/Artisan Mid Cap Value Portfolio also managed to outperform its benchmark. Contribution to relative performance came primarily from underweights to Real Estate, Health Care, Utilities, and Consumer Staples, as well as strong stock selection within the Energy sector. All domestic large cap growth portfolios underperformed their respective benchmarks significantly. While the specifics varied, poor stock selection within Healthcare was a strong headwind across all portfolios as the sector was heavily influenced by comments from politicians on both sides of the aisle regarding product pricing and the general structure of healthcare services in the U.S. Another headwind across the board was within Technology, where high growth names were punished severely in the first six months of the year and didn’t recover enough during the latter six months of the year to make it back to positive territory.

The international equity portfolios produced mixed results. The Harris Oakmark International Portfolio was a strong performer for the year, mostly as a result strong stock selection within the Basic Materials sector and an overweight to, and strong selection within, the Industrials sector. At the other end of the spectrum was the Met/Artisan International Portfolio, which significantly underperformed its benchmark as a result of poor stock selection.

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, 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 subject to change at any time based upon economic, market, or other conditions and the advisory 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.

MSF-2

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Asset Allocation 20 Portfolio

A $10,000 INVESTMENT COMPARED TO THE DOW JONES CONSERVATIVE INDEX

AVERAGE ANNUAL RETURNS (%) (FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2016)

	1 Year		5 Year		10 Year
MetLife Asset Allocation 20 Portfolio
Class A		4.76		4.61		4.60
Class B		4.53		4.33		4.34
Dow Jones Conservative Index		3.01		2.60		4.04

¹ The Dow Jones Conservative Index is a total return 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) such that the risk combination will have 20% of the risk of an all equity portfolio.

Portfolio performance is calculated including reinvestment of all income and capital gain distributions. Performance numbers are net of all Portfolio expenses but do not include any insurance, sales, separate account or administrative charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts or any additional expenses that participants may bear relating to the operations of their plans. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower. The performance of any index referenced above has not been adjusted for ongoing management, distribution and operating expenses, and sales charges applicable to mutual fund investments. Direct investment in any index is not possible. The performance of Class A shares, as set forth in the line graph above, will differ from that of other classes because of the difference in expenses paid by policyholders investing in the different share classes.

This information represents past performance and is not indicative of future results. Investment return and principal value may fluctuate so that shares, upon redemption, may be worth more or less than the original cost.

PORTFOLIO COMPOSITION AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2016

Top Holdings

	% of Net Assets
Western Asset Management U.S. Government Portfolio (Class A)		13.0
BlackRock Bond Income Portfolio (Class A)		12.5
PIMCO Total Return Portfolio (Class A)		12.1
TCW Core Fixed Income Portfolio (Class A)		10.5
JPMorgan Core Bond Portfolio (Class A)		9.5
PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond Portfolio (Class A)		9.0
Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio (Class A)		5.0
Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities Portfolio (Class A)		4.0
Met/Eaton Vance Floating Rate Portfolio (Class A)		2.0
MFS Value Portfolio (Class A)		2.0

MSF-3

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Asset Allocation 20 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, 2016 through December 31, 2016.

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.

MetLife Asset Allocation 20 Portfolio		Annualized Expense Ratio			Beginning Account Value July 1, 2016		Ending Account Value December 31, 2016		Expenses Paid During Period** July 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016
Class A(a)(b)	Actual		0.60	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,008.50	$	3.03
	Hypothetical*		0.60	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,022.12	$	3.05
Class B(a)(b)	Actual		0.85	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,007.60	$	4.29
	Hypothetical*		0.85	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,020.86	$	4.32

* 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 366 (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 5 of the Notes to Financial Statements.

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

MSF-4

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Asset Allocation 20 Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Mutual Funds—100.0% of Net Assets

Security Description	Shares		Value
Affiliated Investment Companies—100.0%
Baillie Gifford International Stock Portfolio (Class A) (a)		661,879	$	6,658,500
BlackRock Bond Income Portfolio (Class A) (a)		787,557		83,473,208
BlackRock Capital Appreciation Portfolio (Class A) (a)		197,346		6,557,809
BlackRock High Yield Portfolio (Class A) (b)		433,169		3,326,735
BlackRock Large Cap Value Portfolio (Class A) (a)		725,111		6,547,754
Clarion Global Real Estate Portfolio (Class A) (b)		288,726		3,360,766
Goldman Sachs Mid Cap Value Portfolio (Class A) (b)		142,121		1,647,183
Harris Oakmark International Portfolio (Class A) (b)		629,071		8,291,151
Invesco Comstock Portfolio (Class A) (b)		894,533		13,113,857
Jennison Growth Portfolio (Class A) (a)		495,327		6,563,089
JPMorgan Core Bond Portfolio (Class A) (b)		6,203,505		63,399,826
JPMorgan Small Cap Value Portfolio (Class A) (b)		181,142		3,280,476
Met/Aberdeen Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio (Class A) (b)		186,252		1,674,408
Met/Artisan International Portfolio (Class A) (b)		767,229		6,644,200
Met/Artisan Mid Cap Value Portfolio (Class A) (a)		7,101		1,642,378
Met/Eaton Vance Floating Rate Portfolio (Class A) (b)		1,285,174		13,301,554
Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio (Class A) (b)		3,457,751		33,263,567
Met/Templeton International Bond Portfolio (Class A) (b)		988,415		9,923,684
Met/Wellington Core Equity Opportunities Portfolio (Class A) (a)		460,954		13,187,898
Met/Wellington Large Cap Research Portfolio (Class A) (b)		477,174		6,570,685
MetLife Small Cap Value Portfolio (Class A) (b)		206,539		3,292,236
MFS Research International Portfolio (Class A) (b)		492,518		4,999,058
MFS Value Portfolio (Class A) (a)		861,713		13,192,829
Neuberger Berman Genesis Portfolio (Class A) (a)		307,998		6,584,989
Affiliated Investment Companies—(Continued)
Oppenheimer Global Equity Portfolio (Class A) (b)		85,688		1,652,071
PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond Portfolio (Class A) (b) (c)		6,153,224		60,117,003
PIMCO Total Return Portfolio (Class A) (b)		7,089,721		80,255,640
T. Rowe Price Large Cap Growth Portfolio (Class A) (a)		324,859		6,555,663
T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio (Class A) (b)		389,228		13,159,791
TCW Core Fixed Income Portfolio (Class A) (b)		6,943,584		70,130,198
Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities Portfolio (Class A) (a)		1,990,650		26,654,806
Western Asset Management U.S. Government Portfolio (Class A) (a)		7,389,795		86,756,193
Total Mutual Funds (Cost $680,931,111)				665,779,205
Total Investments—100.0% (Cost $680,931,111) (d)				665,779,205
Other assets and liabilities (net)—0.0%				(305,253	)
Net Assets—100.0%			$	665,473,952

(a) A Portfolio of Metropolitan Series Fund. (See Note 6 of the Notes to Financial Statements for a summary of transactions in the securities of affiliated Underlying Portfolios.)

(b) A Portfolio of Met Investors Series Trust. (See Note 6 of the Notes to Financial Statements for a summary of transactions in the securities of affiliated Underlying Portfolios.)

(c) Non-income producing security.

(d) As of December 31, 2016, the aggregate cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was $686,761,814. The aggregate unrealized appreciation and depreciation of investments were $7,791,484 and $(28,774,093), respectively, resulting in net unrealized depreciation of $(20,982,609) for federal income tax purposes.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-5

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Asset Allocation 20 Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Fair Value Hierarchy

Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) define 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, separately for each major category of assets and liabilities, 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, quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities 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, or other market corroborated inputs)

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 used in determining the fair value of investments and derivative financial instruments)

The inputs or methodologies used for valuing investments are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in them. Changes to the inputs or methodologies used may result in transfers between levels, which 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, 2016:

Description	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
Mutual Funds
Affiliated Investment Companies	$	665,779,205	$	—	$	—	$	665,779,205
Total Investments	$	665,779,205	$	—	$	—	$	665,779,205

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-6

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Asset Allocation 20 Portfolio

Statement of Assets and Liabilities

December 31, 2016

Assets
Affiliated investments at value (a)	$	665,779,205
Receivable for:
Investments sold		71,833
Fund shares sold		146,632
Due from investment adviser		21,399
Total Assets		666,019,069
Liabilities
Payables for:
Fund shares redeemed		218,465
Accrued Expenses:
Management fees		53,173
Distribution and service fees		133,187
Deferred trustees’ fees		92,334
Other expenses		47,958
Total Liabilities		545,117
Net Assets	$	665,473,952
Net Assets Consist of:
Paid in surplus	$	663,165,796
Undistributed net investment income		13,137,120
Accumulated net realized gain		4,322,942
Unrealized depreciation on affiliated investments		(15,151,906	)
Net Assets	$	665,473,952
Net Assets
Class A	$	41,229,844
Class B		624,244,108
Capital Shares Outstanding*
Class A		3,856,547
Class B		58,865,543
Net Asset Value, Offering Price and Redemption Price Per Share
Class A	$	10.69
Class B		10.60

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

(a) Identified cost of affiliated investments was $680,931,111.

Statement of Operations

Year Ended December 31, 2016

Investment Income
Dividends from affiliated investments	$	15,072,171
Interest		865
Other income (a)		834
Total investment income		15,073,870
Expenses
Management fees		642,351
Administration fees		22,191
Custodian and accounting fees		27,753
Distribution and service fees—Class B		1,611,131
Audit and tax services		31,146
Legal		33,032
Trustees’ fees and expenses		45,247
Miscellaneous		8,188
Total expenses		2,421,039
Less expenses reimbursed by the Adviser		(120,106	)
Net expenses		2,300,933
Net Investment Income		12,772,937
Net Realized and Unrealized Gain (Loss)
Net realized gain (loss) on:
Affiliated investments		(181,948	)
Capital gain distributions from Affiliated Underlying Portfolios		9,208,803
Net realized gain		9,026,855
Net change in unrealized appreciation on affiliated investments		9,432,216
Net realized and unrealized gain		18,459,071
Net Increase in Net Assets From Operations	$	31,232,008

(a) Other income represents a non-recurring refund for overbilling of prior years’ custodian out-of-pocket fees.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-7

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Asset Allocation 20 Portfolio

Statements of Changes in Net Assets

	Year Ended December 31, 2016			Year Ended December 31, 2015
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets:
From Operations
Net investment income	$	12,772,937		$	20,059,942
Net realized gain		9,026,855			24,704,372
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation)		9,432,216			(47,782,427	)
Increase (decrease) in net assets from operations		31,232,008			(3,018,113	)
From Distributions to Shareholders
Net investment income
Class A		(1,595,816	)		(1,170,030	)
Class B		(20,821,731	)		(13,237,836	)
Net realized capital gains
Class A		(1,533,963	)		(1,562,919	)
Class B		(21,575,721	)		(19,884,218	)
Total distributions		(45,527,231	)		(35,855,003	)
Increase (decrease) in net assets from capital share transactions		16,951,400			(2,015,259	)
Total increase (decrease) in net assets		2,656,177			(40,888,375	)
Net Assets
Beginning of period		662,817,775			703,706,150
End of period	$	665,473,952		$	662,817,775
Undistributed net investment income
End of period	$	13,137,120		$	22,243,093

Other Information:

Capital Shares

Transactions in capital shares were as follows:

	Year Ended December 31, 2016						Year Ended December 31, 2015
	Shares			Value			Shares			Value
Class A
Sales		309,240		$	3,347,808			522,688		$	5,983,411
Reinvestments		297,508			3,129,779			245,990			2,732,949
Redemptions		(1,090,132	)		(11,786,694	)		(747,765	)		(8,472,736	)
Net increase (decrease)		(483,384	)	$	(5,309,107	)		20,913		$	243,624
Class B
Sales		10,480,652		$	112,771,940			8,734,073		$	97,554,725
Reinvestments		4,057,172			42,397,452			3,000,186			33,122,054
Redemptions		(12,373,645	)		(132,908,885	)		(11,835,805	)		(132,935,662	)
Net increase (decrease)		2,164,179		$	22,260,507			(101,546	)	$	(2,258,883	)
Increase (decrease) derived from capital shares transactions				$	16,951,400					$	(2,015,259	)

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-8

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Asset Allocation 20 Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class A
	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014			2013			2012
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	10.94		$	11.59		$	12.05		$	11.94		$	11.60
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (a)		0.23			0.36			0.25			0.33			0.30
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		0.28			(0.38	)		0.29			0.20			0.77
Total from investment operations		0.51			(0.02	)		0.54			0.53			1.07
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.39	)		(0.27	)		(0.50	)		(0.36	)		(0.41	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(0.37	)		(0.36	)		(0.50	)		(0.06	)		(0.32	)
Total distributions		(0.76	)		(0.63	)		(1.00	)		(0.42	)		(0.73	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	10.69		$	10.94		$	11.59		$	12.05		$	11.94
Total Return (%) (b)		4.76			(0.23	)		4.73			4.50			9.49
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Gross ratio of expenses to average net assets (%) (c)		0.12			0.11			0.12			0.11			0.11
Net ratio of expenses to average net assets (%) (c)(d)		0.10			0.10			0.10			0.10			0.10
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%) (e)		2.15			3.20			2.17			2.73			2.58
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		14			21			16			18			9
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	41.2		$	47.5		$	50.1		$	50.5		$	54.9
	Class B
	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014			2013			2012
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	10.85		$	11.51		$	11.97		$	11.86		$	11.53
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (a)		0.20			0.33			0.22			0.29			0.27
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		0.28			(0.39	)		0.28			0.22			0.76
Total from investment operations		0.48			(0.06	)		0.50			0.51			1.03
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.36	)		(0.24	)		(0.46	)		(0.34	)		(0.38	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(0.37	)		(0.36	)		(0.50	)		(0.06	)		(0.32	)
Total distributions		(0.73	)		(0.60	)		(0.96	)		(0.40	)		(0.70	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	10.60		$	10.85		$	11.51		$	11.97		$	11.86
Total Return (%) (b)		4.53			(0.59	)		4.47			4.29			9.18
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Gross ratio of expenses to average net assets (%) (c)		0.37			0.36			0.37			0.36			0.36
Net ratio of 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)		1.83			2.89			1.89			2.49			2.35
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		14			21			16			18			9
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	624.2		$	615.4		$	653.6		$	653.8		$	723.0

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

(b) Total return does not reflect any insurance, sales, separate account or administrative charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts or any additional expenses that contract owners may bear under their variable contracts. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower.

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

(d) Includes the effects of expenses reimbursed by the Adviser (see Note 5 of the Notes to Financial Statements).

(e) Recognition of net investment income by the Asset Allocation 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.

MSF-9

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Asset Allocation 20 Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016

1. Organization

Metropolitan Series Fund (the “Trust”) is organized as a Delaware statutory trust and registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), as an open-end management investment company. The Trust, which is managed by MetLife Advisers, LLC (“MetLife Advisers” or the “Adviser”), an affiliate of MetLife, Inc., is currently comprised of thirty series, each of which operates as a distinct investment vehicle of the Trust. The portfolio included in this report is MetLife Asset Allocation 20 Portfolio (the “Asset Allocation Portfolio”), which is diversified. The Asset Allocation Portfolio operates under a “fund of funds” structure, investing substantially all of its assets in other Portfolios advised by MetLife Advisers (each, an “Underlying Portfolio,” and, collectively, the “Underlying Portfolios”). Shares in the Asset Allocation 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.

On January 12, 2016, MetLife, Inc. announced its plan to pursue the separation of a substantial portion of its retail segment and is currently evaluating structural alternatives for such separation. It is anticipated that MetLife Advisers would be included in any such separation. Any separation transaction that might occur will be subject to the satisfaction of various conditions and approvals, including approval of any transaction by the MetLife, Inc. Board of Directors, satisfaction of any applicable requirements of the SEC, and receipt of insurance and other regulatory approvals and other anticipated conditions. MetLife, Inc. cannot currently provide a specific potential completion date for a separation transaction or any assurance that a separation will in fact occur. MetLife Advisers’ continued service as investment adviser to the Trusts following a separation transaction is the subject of a proxy statement that was filed with the SEC on December 20, 2016 and mailed to shareholders of the Portfolio on or about December 30, 2016.

The Asset Allocation Portfolio has registered and offers two classes of shares: Class A and B shares. Shares of each Class of the Asset Allocation Portfolio represent an equal pro rata interest in the Asset Allocation 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 Asset Allocation Portfolio, and certain Asset Allocation 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 Asset Allocation Portfolio. Each Class of shares differs in its respective distribution plan and such distribution expenses are allocated to the corresponding Class of shares.

2. Significant Accounting Policies

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities as of the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of income and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates. In the preparation of these financial statements, management has evaluated events and transactions subsequent to December 31, 2016 through the date the financial statements were issued.

The Asset Allocation Portfolio is an investment company and follows the accounting and reporting guidance of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Accounting Standards Codification Topic 946—Financial Services—Investment Companies and Topic 820—Fair Value Measurement. The following is a summary of significant accounting policies consistently followed by the Asset Allocation Portfolio in the preparation of its financial statements.

Investment Valuation and Fair Value Measurements - Investments in the Underlying Portfolios are valued at their closing daily net asset value on the valuation date. Investments in the Underlying Portfolios are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. 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 - Asset Allocation Portfolio security transactions are recorded on the trade date. Dividend income is recorded on the ex-dividend date. Realized gains and losses on investments 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.

Dividends and Distributions to Shareholders - The Asset Allocation Portfolio records dividends and distributions on the ex-dividend date. Net realized gains from securities 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 distribution re-designations and distributions from Underlying Portfolios. These adjustments have no impact on net assets or the results of operations.

MSF-10

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Asset Allocation 20 Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

Income Taxes - It is the Asset Allocation 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 Asset Allocation Portfolio files U.S. federal tax returns. No income tax returns are currently under examination. The Asset Allocation Portfolio’s federal tax returns for the prior three fiscal years remain subject to examination by the Internal Revenue Service. As of December 31, 2016, the Asset Allocation Portfolio had no uncertain tax positions that would require financial statement recognition, or de-recognition or disclosure.

3. Certain Risks

In the normal course of business, the Underlying Portfolios invest in securities and enter into transactions where risks exist. Those risks include:

Market 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, interest rate, and price fluctuations.

Credit and Counterparty Risk: 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 and counterparty risk consist principally of cash due from counterparties and investments. The Underlying Portfolios manage counterparty risk by entering into agreements only with counterparties that they believe have the financial resources to honor their obligations and by monitoring the financial stability of those counterparties. The Underlying Portfolios’ investment adviser attempts to mitigate counterparty risk by (i) periodically assessing the creditworthiness of their trading partners, (ii) monitoring and/or limiting the amount of their net exposure to each individual counterparty based on the adviser’s assessment, and (iii) requiring collateral from the counterparty for certain transactions. In order to preserve certain safeguards for non-standard settlement trades, the Underlying Portfolios restrict their exposure to credit and counterparty losses by entering into master netting agreements (“Master Agreements”) with counterparties (approved brokers) with whom the Underlying Portfolios undertake a significant volume of transactions. Master Agreements govern the terms of certain transactions, and reduce the counterparty risk associated with relevant transactions by specifying credit protection mechanisms and providing standardization that improves legal certainty. Master Agreements can also help limit counterparty risk by specifying collateral posting arrangements at pre-arranged exposure levels.

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

4. Investment Transactions

Aggregate cost of purchases and proceeds of sales of shares of the Underlying Portfolios by the Asset Allocation Portfolio for the year ended December 31, 2016 were as follows:

Purchases			Sales
U.S. Government	Non U.S. Government		U.S. Government		Non U.S. Government
$0	$	99,685,132	$	0	$	106,269,247

5. Investment Management Fees and Other Transactions with Affiliates

Investment Management Agreement - MetLife Advisers is the investment adviser to the Asset Allocation Portfolio. The Trust has entered into an investment management agreement with MetLife Advisers with respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolio. For providing investment management services to the Asset Allocation Portfolio, MetLife Advisers receives monthly compensation at the following annual rates:

Management Fees earned by MetLife Advisers for the year ended December 31, 2016	% per annum			Average Daily Net Assets
$642,351		0.100	%	Of the first $500 million
		0.075	%	Of the next $500 million
		0.050	%	On amounts in excess of $1 billion

MSF-11

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Asset Allocation 20 Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

In addition to the above management fee paid to MetLife Advisers, the Asset Allocation Portfolio indirectly pays MetLife Advisers an investment advisory fee through its investments in the Underlying Portfolios.

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

Expense Limitation Agreement - Pursuant to an expense agreement relating to each class of the Asset Allocation Portfolio, MetLife Advisers has contractually agreed, from May 1, 2016 to April 30, 2017, to waive a portion of its advisory fees or pay a portion of the other operating expenses (not including acquired fund fees and expenses, brokerage costs, interest, taxes, or extraordinary expenses) to the extent total operating expenses exceed stated annual expense limits (based on the Asset Allocation Portfolio’s then-current fiscal year). For the Asset Allocation Portfolio, this subsidy, and identical subsidies in effect in earlier periods, are subject to the obligation of each class of the Asset Allocation Portfolio to repay MetLife Advisers in future years, if any, when a class’ expenses fall below the stated expense limit pertaining to that class that was in effect at the time of the subsidy in question. Such deferred expenses may be charged to a class in a subsequent year to the extent that the charge does not cause the total expenses in such subsequent year to exceed the class’ stated expense limit that was in effect at the time of the subsidy in question; provided, however, that no class of the Asset Allocation Portfolio is obligated to repay any expense paid by MetLife Advisers more than five years after the end of the fiscal year in which such expense was incurred. The expense limits (annual rates as a percentage of each class of the Asset Allocation Portfolio’s net average daily net assets) in effect from May 1, 2015 to April 30, 2016 are 0.10% and 0.35% for Class A and B, respectively.

As of December 31, 2016, the amount of expenses deferred in 2012 subject to repayment until December 31, 2017 was $74,663. The amount of expenses deferred in 2013 subject to repayment until December 31, 2018 was $61,885. The amount of expenses deferred in 2014 subject to repayment until December 31, 2019 was $111,213. The amount of expenses deferred in 2015 subject to repayment until December 31, 2020 was $99,092. The amount of expenses deferred in 2016 subject to repayment until December 31, 2021 was $120,106.

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 and Service Fees - The Trust has a distribution agreement with MetLife Investors Distribution Company (“MIDC” or the “Distributor”) in which MIDC serves as the distributor for the Asset Allocation Portfolio’s Class A and B Shares. MIDC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife Investors Group, LLC, an affiliate of the Adviser. The Trust has also adopted a Distribution and Service Plan under Rule 12b-1 of the 1940 Act for the Asset Allocation Portfolio’s Class B shares. Under the Distribution and Services Plan, the Class B shares of the Asset Allocation Portfolio pay a fee to compensate the Insurance Companies (or their affiliates) and other broker-dealers and financial intermediaries involved in the offer and sale of Asset Allocation Portfolio shares for promoting or selling and servicing the Class B shares of the Asset Allocation Portfolio. The fees under the Distribution and Services Plan for each class of the Asset Allocation Portfolio’s shares are calculated as a percentage of the Asset Allocation Portfolio’s average daily net assets that are attributable to that Class. Currently, the fee is 0.25% per year for Class B shares. Amount incurred by the Asset Allocation Portfolio for the year ended December 31, 2016 is shown as Distribution and service fees in the Statement of Operations.

Deferred Trustee Compensation - Each Trustee who is not currently an active employee of MetLife or its affiliates receives compensation from the Trust for his or her service to the Trust. 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 Met Investors Series Trust, an affiliate of the Trust, 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 Asset Allocation Portfolio under the Plan is reflected as Deferred trustees’ fees in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

6. Transactions in Securities of Affiliated Underlying Portfolios

The Asset Allocation Portfolio does not invest in the Underlying Portfolios for the purpose of exercising control; however, investments by the Asset Allocation Portfolio within its principal investment strategies may represent a significant portion of the Underlying Portfolios’ net assets. Transactions in the Underlying Portfolios for the year ended December 31, 2016 were as follows:

Underlying Portfolio	Number of shares held at December 31, 2015		Shares purchased		Shares sold			Number of shares held at December 31, 2016
Baillie Gifford International Stock		676,030		206,969		(221,120	)		661,879
BlackRock Bond Income		751,851		88,601		(52,895	)		787,557
BlackRock Capital Appreciation		180,539		72,184		(55,377	)		197,346

MSF-12

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Asset Allocation 20 Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

Underlying Portfolio	Number of shares held at December 31, 2015			Shares purchased		Shares sold			Number of shares held at December 31, 2016
BlackRock High Yield		455,067			66,781		(88,679	)		433,169
BlackRock Large Cap Value		781,037			296,053		(351,979	)		725,111
Clarion Global Real Estate		280,825			83,253		(75,352	)		288,726
Goldman Sachs Mid Cap Value		293,121			73,468		(224,468	)		142,121
Harris Oakmark International		487,931			426,011		(284,871	)		629,071
Invesco Comstock		938,190			400,069		(443,726	)		894,533
Jennison Growth		430,005			221,892		(156,570	)		495,327
JPMorgan Core Bond		6,142,782			552,540		(491,817	)		6,203,505
JPMorgan Small Cap Value		214,450			81,875		(115,183	)		181,142
Lord Abbett Bond Debenture		284,299			54,886		(339,185	)		—
Met/Aberdeen Emerging Markets Equity		199,885			59,308		(72,941	)		186,252
Met/Artisan International		686,411			200,963		(120,145	)		767,229
Met/Artisan Mid Cap Value		15,215			3,830		(11,944	)		7,101
Met/Eaton Vance Floating Rate		1,347,339			128,214		(190,379	)		1,285,174
Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return		4,149,783			370,612		(1,062,644	)		3,457,751
Met/Templeton International Bond		1,322,475			188,671		(522,731	)		988,415
Met/Wellington Core Equity Opportunities		465,081			100,475		(104,602	)		460,954
Met/Wellington Large Cap Research		472,534			153,922		(149,282	)		477,174
MetLife Small Cap Value		256,341			76,275		(126,077	)		206,539
MFS Research International		472,705			145,860		(126,047	)		492,518
MFS Value		872,478			266,931		(277,696	)		861,713
Neuberger Berman Genesis		359,440			85,241		(136,683	)		307,998
Oppenheimer Global Equity		—			105,079		(19,391	)		85,688
PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond		6,446,923			318,615		(612,314	)		6,153,224
PIMCO Total Return		7,048,316			576,081		(534,676	)		7,089,721
T. Rowe Price Large Cap Growth		290,773			133,789		(99,703	)		324,859
T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value		387,245			143,323		(141,340	)		389,228
TCW Core Fixed Income		6,349,046			1,034,711		(440,173	)		6,943,584
Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities		1,847,566			396,547		(253,463	)		1,990,650
Western Asset Management U.S. Government		7,266,635			673,595		(550,435	)		7,389,795
Underlying Portfolio	Net Realized Gain/(Loss) on sales of Affiliated Underlying Portfolios			Capital Gain Distributions from Affiliated Underlying Portfolios		Dividend Income from Affiliated Underlying Portfolios			Ending Value as of December 31, 2016
Baillie Gifford International Stock	$	349,569		$	—	$	112,447		$	6,658,500
BlackRock Bond Income		155,864			—		2,763,710			83,473,208
BlackRock Capital Appreciation		423,380			618,669		—			6,557,809
BlackRock High Yield		(74,572	)		1		235,138			3,326,735
BlackRock Large Cap Value		(314,198	)		526,773		115,256			6,547,754
Clarion Global Real Estate		46,818			—		80,098			3,360,766
Goldman Sachs Mid Cap Value		(803,645	)		131,729		19,158			1,647,183
Harris Oakmark International		(629,120	)		579,670		206,882			8,291,151
Invesco Comstock		640,749			1,075,325		390,580			13,113,857
Jennison Growth		221,169			904,584		20,439			6,563,089
JPMorgan Core Bond		(54,760	)		—		1,995,029			63,399,826
JPMorgan Small Cap Value		(70,862	)		230,922		64,216			3,280,476
Lord Abbett Bond Debenture		(39,933	)		—		230,095			—
Met/Aberdeen Emerging Markets Equity		(122,172	)		—		21,183			1,674,408
Met/Artisan International		(89,948	)		—		64,074			6,644,200
Met/Artisan Mid Cap Value		154,434			186,396		18,706			1,642,378
Met/Eaton Vance Floating Rate		35,759			—		577,739			13,301,554
Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return		(337,150	)		—		1,115,822			33,263,567
Met/Templeton International Bond		(1,258,698	)		27,285		—			9,923,684
Met/Wellington Core Equity Opportunities		(350,938	)		610,902		223,684			13,187,898
Met/Wellington Large Cap Research		95,843			455,332		167,395			6,570,685
MetLife Small Cap Value		(788,120	)		91,306		44,904			3,292,236
MFS Research International		177,128			—		115,596			4,999,058
MFS Value		758,130			1,238,363		310,454			13,192,829
Neuberger Berman Genesis		1,009,532			—		32,455			6,584,989

MSF-13

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Asset Allocation 20 Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

Underlying Portfolio	Net Realized Gain/(Loss) on sales of Affiliated Underlying Portfolios			Capital Gain Distributions from Affiliated Underlying Portfolios		Dividend Income from Affiliated Underlying Portfolios		Ending Value as of December 31, 2016
Oppenheimer Global Equity	$	(4,821	)	$	86,322	$	20,732	$	1,652,071
PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond		(829,698	)		—		—		60,117,003
PIMCO Total Return		(590,230	)		—		2,322,635		80,255,640
T. Rowe Price Large Cap Growth		196,838			859,957		4,130		6,555,663
T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value		1,688,237			1,585,267		415,955		13,159,791
TCW Core Fixed Income		89,328			—		588,145		70,130,198
Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities		176,815			—		434,517		26,654,806
Western Asset Management U.S. Government		(42,676	)		—		2,360,997		86,756,193
	$	(181,948	)	$	9,208,803	$	15,072,171	$	665,779,205

7. Contractual Obligations

Under the Trust’s organizational documents, its officers and Trustees may be indemnified against certain liabilities and expenses arising out of the performance of their duties to the Trust. Additionally, 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 Trust that have not yet occurred.

8. Income Tax Information

The tax character of distributions paid for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015 were as follows:

Ordinary Income			Long-Term Capital Gain				Total
2016	2015		2016		2015		2016		2015
$22,479,670	$	14,585,605	$	23,047,561	$	21,269,398	$	45,527,231	$	35,855,003

As of December 31, 2016, 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			Other Accumulated Capital Losses		Total
$13,229,453	$	10,153,647	$	(20,982,609	)	$	—	$	2,400,491

The Asset Allocation 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 up to 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, 2016, the Asset Allocation Portfolio had no post-enactment accumulated capital losses and no pre-enactment accumulated capital loss carryforwards.

9. Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In October 2016, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) adopted new rules and forms, and amendments to certain current rules and forms, to modernize reporting and disclosure of information by registered investment companies. The amendments to Regulation S-X will require standardized, enhanced disclosure about derivatives in investment company financial statements, and will also change the rules governing the form and content of such financial statements. The compliance date for the amendments to Regulation S-X is August 1, 2017. Management is currently evaluating the impact that the adoption of the amendments to Regulation S-X will have on the Portfolio’s financial statements and related disclosures.

MSF-14

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Asset Allocation 20 Portfolio

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Shareholders of MetLife Asset Allocation 20 Portfolio and the Board of Trustees of Metropolitan Series Fund:

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities, including the schedule of investments, of MetLife Asset Allocation 20 Portfolio (one of the portfolios constituting the Metropolitan Series Fund) (the “Portfolio”) as of December 31, 2016, 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 Portfolio’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 Portfolio 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 Portfolio’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, 2016, 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 Asset Allocation 20 Portfolio of the Metropolitan Series Fund as of December 31, 2016, 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.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

February 24, 2017

MSF-15

Metropolitan Series Fund

Trustees and Officers

MANAGEMENT OF THE TRUSTS

The Boards of Trustees (the “Board”) of Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (“MIST” and “MSF”, respectively, and collectively the “Trusts”) supervise the Trusts and are responsible for representing the interests of shareholders. The Trustees, the Chairman of the Board and the Chairmen of each subcommittee are the same for both Trusts. The Trustees of each Trust meet periodically throughout the year to oversee the Portfolios’ activities, reviewing, among other things, each Portfolio’s performance and its contractual arrangements with various service providers. The Trustees of each Trust elect the officers of the Trust, who are responsible for administering the Trust’s day-to-day operations.

Trustees and Officers

The Trustees and executive officers of the Trusts, as well as their ages and their principal occupations during the past five years, are set forth below. Unless otherwise indicated, the business address of each is c/o MetLife Funds, One Financial Center, Boston, Massachusetts 02111. Each Trustee who is deemed an “interested person,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, is referred to as an “Interested Trustee.” Those Trustees who are not “interested persons,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, are referred to as “Independent Trustees.” There is no limit to the term a Trustee may serve. Trustees serve until their death, resignation or removal in accordance with the MIST Trust’s and MSF Trust’s respective organizational documents and policies adopted by the Boards of the respective Trusts from time to time. Officers hold office at the pleasure of each Board and serve until their removal or resignation in accordance with the Trusts’ respective organizational documents and policies adopted by the Board of each Trust from time to time.

Name and Age	Current 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 MetLife Funds Complex(2) Overseen by Trustee	Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Interested Trustee
John Rosenthal* (56)	Trustee	Indefinite; From May 2016 (MIST and MSF) to present	Senior Managing Director and Head of Global Portfolio Management, MetLife, Inc.	75	None
Independent Trustees
Dawn M. Vroegop (50)	Trustee and Chairman of the Board	Indefinite; From December 2000 (MIST)/ May 2009 (MSF) to present as Trustee; From May 2016 (MIST and MSF) until present as Chairman	Private Investor.	75	Trustee, Driehaus Mutual Funds.**
Stephen M. Alderman (57)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 (MIST)/ April 2012 (MSF) to present	Shareholder in the law firm of Garfield and Merel, Ltd.	75	None

MSF-16

Metropolitan Series Fund

Trustees and Officers—(Continued)

Name and Age	Current 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 MetLife Funds Complex(2) Overseen by Trustee	Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Robert J. Boulware (60)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 (MIST)/ April 2012 (MSF) to present	Managing Director, Pilgrim Funds, LLC (private equity fund).	75	Trustee, Vertical Capital Income Fund (closed-end fund);** Director, Gainsco, Inc. (auto insurance);** Trustee, SharesPost 100 Fund (closed-end fund).**
Susan C. Gause (64)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 (MIST)/ April 2012 (MSF) to present	Private Investor.	75	Trustee, HSBC Funds.**
Nancy Hawthorne (65)	Trustee	Indefinite; From May 2003 (MSF)/ April 2012 (MIST) to present	Partner, Hawthorne Financial Advisors, LLC (registered investment advisor); until June 2014, Chief Executive Officer, Clerestory LLC (corporate advisor).	75	Director and Chairman of the Board of Directors, THL Credit, Inc.;** Lead Director, Avid Technology, Inc.;** Director, CRA International, Inc.**
Barbara A. Nugent (60)	Trustee	Indefinite; From January 2014 (MIST and MSF) to present	President, True North Board Governance, LLC (consulting); until December 2013, partner in the law firm of Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young, LLP.	75	None
Linda B. Strumpf (69)	Trustee	Indefinite; From May 2000 (MSF)/ April 2012 (MIST) to present	Chair of the Investment Committee, Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust; until June 2011, Chief Investment Officer, Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust.	75	None

Executive Officers

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Kristi Slavin (43)	President and Chief Executive Officer, of MIST and MSF	From May 2016 (MIST and MSF) to present	President, MetLife Advisers, LLC (May 2016-present); Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Vice President, MetLife, Inc.; Vice President, MIST and MSF (2015-2016).

MSF-17

Metropolitan Series Fund

Trustees and Officers—(Continued)

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Peter H. Duffy (61)	Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, of MIST and MSF	From November 2000 (MSF)/ May 2012 (MIST) to present	Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Andrew L. Gangolf (62)	Secretary, of MIST and MSF	From May 2011 (MIST and MSF) to present	Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; until 2011, Senior Vice President & Assistant General Counsel, AllianceBernstein Investments, Inc.
Steven E. Hartstein (53)	Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”), of MIST and MSF	From February 2014 (MIST and MSF) to present	Vice President, MetLife, Inc. (2013-present); Senior Vice President and CCO, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Executive Director, Morgan Stanley (2009-2013); CCO, Consulting Group Capital Markets Funds (2006-2013).
Alan C. Leland (64)	Vice President, of MIST and MSF	From February 2005 (MSF)/ May 2012 (MIST) to present	Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Vice President, MetLife, Inc.

* Mr. Rosenthal is an “interested person” of the Trusts because of his position with MetLife, Inc., the current parent company of MetLife Advisers, LLC.

** 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 Trusts, MetLife, Inc. or the Manager are omitted if not materially different.

(2) The Fund Complex includes 45 MIST Portfolios and 30 MSF Portfolios.

MSF-18

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Asset Allocation 20 Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory Agreements

At an in-person meeting held on November 15-16, 2016 (the “November Meeting”), the Boards of Trustees (the “Board”) of the Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (“MIST” and “MSF,” respectively, and collectively, the “Trusts”), including a majority of the Trustees who are not “interested persons” of the Trusts (the “Independent Trustees”) under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “1940 Act”), approved the continuation of the Trusts’ advisory agreements (the “Advisory Agreements” or “Agreements”) with MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”) for the series of the Trusts (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”).

In reaching that decision, the Board reviewed a variety of materials provided for the specific purpose of the annual contract renewal process. In addition, various materials provided to and discussed with the Board throughout the year also informed the Board’s decision to renew the Agreements. That information for each Portfolio included, but was not limited to, investment performance reports, along with periodic reports on various expenses, shareholder services, legal and compliance matters, asset pricing, brokerage commissions and trade execution. The Board also recognized the pending separation of the Adviser from its parent company, MetLife, Inc., as a consideration in their deliberations with respect to the Agreements.

The Board met in person with personnel of the Adviser on September 27, 2016 for the specific purpose of giving preliminary consideration to the proposed continuation of the Agreements (the “September Meeting”) through the review by the Adviser with the Board of the performance and fees experienced by each Portfolio, as well as other information. In considering the Agreements, the Independent Trustees were advised by independent legal counsel throughout the contract renewal process, and met with independent legal counsel in several executive sessions outside of the presence of management.

Information furnished and reviewed specifically in connection with the renewal process included, but was not limited to, a report for each Portfolio prepared by Broadridge (“Broadridge”), an independent organization, and a Portfolio-by-Portfolio profitability analysis prepared by the Adviser. In addition, the Independent Trustees received and reviewed a report prepared by JDL Consultants, LLC (“JDL”), an independent consultant to the Independent Trustees (“JDL Report”), which examined the comparative fees, expenses and performance of each Portfolio, based upon the Broadridge reports. Also, the Board reviewed the responses to wide-ranging questions relating to the business, operations and performance of the Adviser that the Adviser had prepared specifically for the renewal process.

At the November Meeting, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, concluded that the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser supported the renewal of the Agreements. The Board also concluded that the investment performance of each Portfolio was such that each Agreement should continue, and that the fees paid by a Portfolio to the Adviser appeared to be reasonable in light of nature, extent and quality of the services provided by the Adviser. Further, the Board concluded that the Adviser’s profitability in providing services under the Advisory Agreements did not appear unreasonably high in light of the nature, extent and quality of the services provided by the Adviser. Finally, the Board concluded that the investment advisory fees paid by the Portfolios in some measure shared economies of scale with contract holders. In approving the renewal of each of the Agreements, the Board, including the Independent Trustees, gave attention to all of the information that was furnished. The Board evaluated the information available to it on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis, and its decision was made separately with respect to each Portfolio. The following discusses some of the primary factors that generally were relevant to the Board’s decision. The Board did not identify any single factor as controlling, and the Trustees generally attributed different weights to various factors for the various Portfolios.

Nature, extent and quality of services. The Board evaluated the nature, extent and quality of the services that the Adviser has provided to the Portfolios. The Board considered the Adviser’s services as investment manager to the Portfolios, including its investment management activities, trading practices, financial condition, relevant personnel matters and compliance program, among other things. The Adviser’s services in coordinating and overseeing the activities of the Trusts’ service providers were also considered. The Board considered information received from the Trusts’ Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) regarding the Portfolios’ compliance policies and procedures that were established pursuant to Rule 38a-l under the 1940 Act. In addition, throughout the year, the Board considered the expertise, experience and performance of the personnel of the Adviser who performed the various services that are mentioned above.

The Board also noted that the Adviser’s investment, compliance and legal staff regularly review and assess the services that are provided to the Portfolios, and that personnel of the Adviser prepare and present reports to the Independent Trustees regarding material information related to those reviews and assessments.

The Board further considered the provision of investment advisory services by the Adviser to the MetLife Asset Allocation 20 Portfolio, MetLife Asset Allocation 40 Portfolio, MetLife Asset Allocation 60 Portfolio, MetLife Asset Allocation 80 Portfolio and MetLife Asset Allocation 100 Portfolio (the “Asset Allocation Portfolios”) and the American Funds Balanced Allocation Portfolio, American Funds

MSF-19

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Asset Allocation 20 Portfolio

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

Growth Allocation Portfolio and American Funds Moderate Allocation Portfolio (the “American Funds of Funds”). With respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios, the Board noted that the Adviser has hired at its own expense 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 investments in other Portfolios of the Trusts (the “Underlying Portfolios”). Additionally, the Board considered that a committee, consisting of investment professionals from across the Adviser, meets regularly to review the asset allocations and discuss the performance of the Asset Allocation Portfolios and the American Funds of Funds.

The Board further considered and found that the advisory fee paid to the Adviser with respect to each Asset Allocation Portfolio and American Fund of Funds was based on services provided that were in addition to, rather than duplicative of, the services provided pursuant to the advisory agreements for the Underlying Portfolios in which the Portfolio invests.

Performance. The Board placed emphasis on the performance of the Portfolios in light of, among other things, its importance to contract holders. The Board considered the Adviser’s quarterly reviews with the Board of detailed information about each Portfolio’s investment strategies and performance results and composition, including discussions regarding the relevant effect of current market conditions. The Board reviewed and considered the reports prepared by Broadridge, which provided a statistical analysis comparing the Portfolios’ investment performance to that of comparable funds underlying variable insurance products (the “Performance Universe”). The Independent Trustees also met separately with a representative of JDL during the September Meeting to review the JDL Report. At the November Meeting, the Board considered each Portfolio’s performance for periods subsequent to the performance period covered by the Broadridge reports, and the Adviser’s discussion of the same, including the effect of current market conditions on each Portfolio’s more recent performance. The Board focused particular attention on Portfolios with less favorable performance records.

Fees and Expenses. The Board gave consideration to the level and method of computing the fees payable under the Agreements. The Board considered the Broadridge report for each of the Portfolios, which included comparisons for each Portfolio of its contractual management fees (at current and various asset levels), and total expenses, with those of its peers, including as those peers were divided into a broad group of peer funds (“Expense Universe”) and a narrower group of peer funds (“Expense Group”). Broadridge selected the peer funds which were similarly situated funds underlying variable insurance products deemed to be comparable to the Portfolios. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of JDL, also examined the JDL Report.

The Board also considered that the Adviser had entered into expense limitation or management fee waiver agreements with certain of the Portfolios pursuant to which the Adviser had 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.

Profitability. The Board examined the profitability of the Adviser on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis. In the case of the Asset Allocation Portfolios, the Board also considered the Adviser’s analysis of its profitability that was attributable to its management of the Underlying Portfolios of the Trust in which the Asset Allocation Portfolios invest. The Board further considered that an affiliate of the Adviser, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, serves as distributor for the Portfolios, and, as such, receives Rule 12b-1 payments to support the distribution of the Portfolios. In reviewing the profitability analyses, the Board recognized that expense allocation methodologies are inherently subjective and various expense allocation methodologies may be reasonable while producing different results.

Economies of scale. The Board also considered each Portfolio’s fees in light of its size. The Board noted the fee schedules for the Portfolios that 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 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. The Board examined, among other data, the effect of a Portfolio’s growth in size on various fee schedules and reviewed the Broadridge and JDL Reports, which compared fees among peers. The Board also generally noted that if a Portfolio’s assets increase over time, the Portfolio may realize other economies of scale if assets increase proportionally more than certain other fixed expenses.

Other factors. The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trusts. Among them, the Board recognized that MetLife Investors Distribution Company, as the distributor for the Trusts, receives payments pursuant to Rule 12b-1 from the Portfolios to compensate for the provision of shareholder services and distribution activities, which could lead to growth in the Trusts’ assets and corresponding benefits from such growth, including economies of scale. In conjunction with these considerations, the Board noted the ongoing commitment of the Adviser to the Portfolios.

MSF-20

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Asset Allocation 20 Portfolio

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

The Board considered possible conflicts of interest in the form of material benefits or detriments to the Trusts resulting from the nature of the Trusts’ and the Adviser’s affiliations and the services that are provided to the Trusts, and the manner in which such conflicts were mitigated.

*  *  *

MetLife Asset Allocation 20 Portfolio. The Board also considered the following information in relation to the Agreement with the Adviser regarding the Portfolio:

Among other data relating specifically to the 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, 2016, and underperformed the median of its Performance Universe and its Lipper Index for the three- and five-year periods ended June 30, 2016. The Board further considered that the Portfolio underperformed its benchmark, the MetLife AA 20 Broad Index, for the one-, three-, and five-year periods ended October 31, 2016. The Board also took into account that the Portfolio outperformed its other benchmark, the Dow Jones Conservative Index, for the one-, three-, and five-year periods ended October 31, 2016.

The Board considered that the Portfolio’s actual management fees and total expenses (exclusive of 12b-l fees) were below the Expense Group median and the Expense Universe median. The Board noted that the Portfolio’s contractual management fees were below the asset-weighted average of the Expense Group at the Portfolio’s current size.

MSF-21

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Asset Allocation 20 Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Advisory Agreements

The separation (the “Separation”) of MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”), the investment adviser to each of the series (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”) of Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (collectively, the “Trusts”), from its parent company, MetLife, Inc. (“MetLife”), to a separate retail business, Brighthouse Financial, Inc. (“Brighthouse”), is expected to result in a change in control of the Adviser, and therefore an “assignment” of each Portfolio’s current advisory agreement (each a “Current Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “Current Advisory Agreements”). At the November 15-16, 2016 meeting (“November Meeting”) of the Board of Trustees of the Trusts (the “Board”), the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not “interested persons,” as defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940, of any Portfolio (the “Independent Trustees”), approved a new advisory agreement (each a “New Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “New Advisory Agreements”) between the Trusts, on behalf of a Portfolio, and the Adviser, to be effective upon the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements in connection with the Separation, and recommended that the shareholders of the Trusts approve the New Advisory Agreements. The Board took those actions after consideration of and deliberation over information concerning the Separation, including with respect to the degree to which the Separation would affect the provision of investment advisory services to the Trusts. Information about the Board’s considerations and process is set forth below.

In determining whether to approve the New Advisory Agreements and in considering the Separation, the Board considered the nature, quality and extent of the services that are currently provided by the Adviser under the Current Advisory Agreements as well as the services to be provided under the New Advisory Agreements. The Board’s review was conducted as part of, and in conjunction with, the Board’s annual review of the Current Advisory Agreements, which culminated at the November Meeting. In approving the New Advisory Agreements, the Board considered its conclusions with respect to its approvals of the Current Advisory Agreements, including the Board’s general satisfaction with the nature, extent and quality of services being provided by the Adviser to each Portfolio. Appendix A and Appendix B contains a further description of the process followed, information reviewed and the material factors considered by the Board in approving the continuation of the Current Advisory Agreements.

A substantial portion of the Board’s review of the New Advisory Agreements focused on the Separation, including the potential effect of the implementation of the Separation on the operations, personnel, organizational structure, capitalization, and financial and other resources of the Adviser. After being informed by the Adviser in January 2016 of the possibility of the Separation, the Board and its Committees discussed the Separation and its possible effects on the Trusts with personnel of the Adviser and the anticipated senior management at Brighthouse during the course of the Board’s or Committee’s regularly scheduled, in-person, quarterly meetings.

Between August and November 2016, the Board and the Independent Trustees engaged in an extensive review and analysis of the Separation and how the Separation related to the Adviser and the Trusts and how it could affect the services provided to the Trusts. This analysis focused on, among other matters, the assurances from Brighthouse’s anticipated leadership as to its expectations for the continuity and stability of the Adviser’s personnel throughout implementation of the Separation and for the foreseeable future thereafter. The Board considered that the Separation is being implemented as a result of MetLife’s determination to divest itself of a substantial portion of its U.S. retail business (of which the Adviser forms a portion). The Board also considered that it has been satisfied as a general matter with the nature and quality of the services that the Adviser provides to the Portfolios, including investment advisory, administrative, legal, compliance, and support services, and that it would be in the Portfolios’ best interests to maintain continuity and stability in the services that are currently being provided. The Board carefully considered the anticipated future plans of Brighthouse related to capitalization and operational matters for Brighthouse and the Adviser, as well as the importance of the Adviser to the businesses of Brighthouse after the Separation.

Among other steps in its review process, which accelerated on October 5, 2016 when Brighthouse filed its Form 10 with the SEC, the following actions were taken and considered by or on behalf of the Board:

1. The Independent Trustees solicited and received ongoing advice regarding the legal duties of the Independent Trustees from Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young LLP (“Stradley Ronon”), legal counsel for the Independent Trustees, which law firm has extensive experience regarding such matters.

2. Following the August 16-17, 2016 Board and Committee quarterly meetings, the Independent Trustees established an ad hoc group of Independent Trustees (the “Working Group”) to help oversee, coordinate, and conduct due diligence activities with respect to the Separation. The Working Group regularly reported on the due diligence activities to the other Independent Trustees.

3. Since January 2016, the Board posed ongoing inquiries to, and received regular updates from, the Adviser and anticipated senior management at Brighthouse at either in-person meetings dedicated to the status of the Separation or during the course of the Board or Committee’s regular quarterly meetings. The Board considered, among other matters, relevant legal guidance and the processes followed by certain other investment company boards of directors or trustees when they approved contracts in connection with change in control events, while recognizing the unique circumstances of the Separation.

MSF-22

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Asset Allocation 20 Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

4. The Board received and reviewed the Form 10 of Brighthouse that contained extensive information relating to, among other matters, Brighthouse’s anticipated business plans and financial structure. The Board also received and reviewed reports from rating agencies with respect to Brighthouse.

5. Stradley Ronon retained Barrington Partners (“Barrington”), an independent consulting firm with a specific focus on the asset management industry and experience relating to business operations such as those to be conducted by Brighthouse, including its proposed subsidiary, the Adviser, in order to help Stradley Ronon evaluate the Separation based on the Form 10 and other materials and related information provided by the Adviser and its affiliates. Barrington conducted a series of in-person and telephonic meetings with anticipated senior management at Brighthouse (i.e., the aforementioned anticipated officers of Brighthouse and others) and with personnel of the Adviser who provide services to the Trusts. Stradley Ronon, with the assistance of Barrington, evaluated the information and advised the Independent Trustees with respect to, among other matters, details of Brighthouse’s anticipated business plan to understand the implications of the Separation to the Adviser and its personnel. The Independent Trustees and the Working Group attended certain in-person and telephonic conference call meetings at which Barrington rendered advice to Stradley Ronon regarding these matters and responded to questions.

6. The Independent Trustees requested and participated in in-person meetings with anticipated senior management personnel at Brighthouse, including its President and Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, Chief Operating Officer, and Chief Investment Officer. The Independent Trustees also met with personnel of the Adviser.

7. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of Stradley Ronon, prepared written inquiries to the Adviser and its affiliates regarding the Separation, and received written assurances from the Adviser and its affiliates that they have no plans to make any material changes affecting the personnel of the Adviser (including those personnel who provide investment, administrative, legal and compliance services) and the Adviser and its affiliates will not initiate such changes without prior notice to and discussion with the Board.

8. The Board considered representations by the Adviser and its affiliates that approval of the New Advisory Agreements would be necessary for the Portfolios to continue receiving investment advisory services from the Adviser following the change in control.

9. The Board considered representations by the Adviser, as well as related supporting documentation, indicating that the New Advisory Agreements, including the fees payable thereunder, are substantially identical to the terms of the corresponding Current Advisory Agreements.

10. The Board considered representations by the Adviser and its affiliates, as well as related supporting documentation, indicating that: (1) the Adviser can be expected to provide services of the same nature, extent, and quality under the New Advisory Agreements and as are provided thereby under the Current Advisory Agreements; and (2) the Separation is not expected to result in any changes to (i) the management of the Portfolios, or (ii) the investment objective of or the principal investment strategies used to manage any of the Portfolios.

11. The Board considered the ability of the Adviser and its affiliates to retain the employment of key personnel, as well as the overall positive indications by many such personnel regarding the opportunities presented by the Separation.

12. The Board considered that the Adviser and its affiliates have agreed to bear all expenses associated with obtaining shareholder approval of the New Advisory Agreements.

13. The Board considered Brighthouse’s preliminary “branding” plans regarding the future name of its operations.

14. The Board considered the advice provided by Ropes & Gray, LLP, legal counsel to the Trusts and the Adviser, with respect to the New Advisory Agreements (including advice relating to the process and timing of seeking shareholder approval of the New Advisory Agreements, and whether shareholder approvals would be required in connection with any future aspects of the Separation) and regarding the Board’s role and responsibilities with respect to the Separation.

15. The Board considered MetLife’s stated intention of divesting its ownership interest in the Adviser through the Separation, including the potential advantages and disadvantages of this divestiture to shareholders of the Portfolios. The Board considered the likelihood that the Adviser would retain its key personnel after the Separation. The Board considered that the garnering of new assets into the Trusts is based on sales of variable annuity and variable life insurance products, which sales have declined in prior years as a result of, among other things, the capital requirements of MetLife. The Board considered the representations of the anticipated senior management of Brighthouse that the Separation provides the Trusts with an opportunity for the garnering of new assets as Brighthouse will likely sell such products going forward. The Board considered also that the divestiture would result in a change in the manner in

MSF-23

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Asset Allocation 20 Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

which the Trusts access certain services and resources of MetLife (after the Separation those services will be provided through a transition services agreement), the loss of affiliation with the MetLife name brand, and the possible going forward need of the Trusts to hire a transfer agent, as such transfer agency services are currently provided to the Trusts for no fee.

16. The Board considered that, if shareholders approve the New Advisory Agreements, the Board and the Adviser will conduct their annual contract review process in November 2017. Thus, the Board emphasized that it would be able to, and intends to, monitor on a regular basis the ability of the Adviser and its affiliates to comply with their undertakings to the Board and to monitor on an ongoing basis the quality of services to, and expenses of, the Portfolios. In addition, the Board considered that, under the New Advisory Agreements, it will continue to have the authority, should the need arise in its view, to terminate any of the New Advisory Agreements without penalty upon 60 days’ notice.

Based on the foregoing and other relevant considerations, at the November Meeting, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, voted to approve the New Advisory Agreements and to recommend approval of the New Advisory Agreements by shareholders of the Portfolios. In this connection, the Board concluded that, in light of all factors considered, the terms of the New Advisory Agreement, including fee rates, were fair and reasonable, and that it would be in the best interests of shareholders of each Portfolio to approve the New Advisory Agreements.

In the event that approval of the New Advisory Agreements by shareholders of the Portfolios has not been obtained before the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements as a result of the change in control of the Adviser, the Board also approved an interim advisory agreement with the Adviser (the “Interim Advisory Agreement”) on behalf of each Portfolio that will go into effect upon the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements. The Board’s determination to approve each Interim Advisory Agreement was based on the same information and considerations as the Board’s approval of the New Advisory Agreements so as to ensure continuity of advisory services from the Adviser to the Portfolios following the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements.

MSF-24

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Asset Allocation 40 Portfolio

Managed by MetLife Advisers, LLC

Portfolio Manager Commentary*

PERFORMANCE

For the one year period ended December 31, 2016, the Class A and B share of the MetLife Asset Allocation 40 Portfolio returned 6.33% and 6.09%, respectively. The Portfolio’s benchmark, the Dow Jones Moderately Conservative Index¹, returned 5.65%.

ECONOMIC AND MARKET REVIEW

Investors started off 2016 with a bit of a scare as market participants priced in a potential collapse of growth in China and a global recession. The markets are known for their desire to predict future outcomes, but the underlying economic factors had changed only marginally from the year prior. One of the biggest fears and conundrums that was extrapolated upon was the stubbornly low rate of inflation despite the supposedly inflationary activities conducted by central banks around the globe. As it turned out though, it was the supply factors that were the main driver behind falling commodity prices, not a drop in demand. As a result, the economic datasets continued to improve and investors with a longer term view and calm nerves were able to enjoy a strong rebound.

Investor nerves were tested once again by the end of June as the U.K. voted to leave the European Union (“Brexit”). Global markets, as measured by the MSCI ACWI Index, reacted sharply, dropping over 7% during the following two trading days, but the misery was short lived and losses were recouped within two weeks, with the seemingly devastating impact on the global economy of the Brexit all but forgotten.

As economic data continued to improve, so did the odds that the Federal Reserve (the “Fed”) was going to raise interest rates before the year was over. As with any addict being removed from stimulants, the market reacted negatively and the month of October and the first part of November delivered negative returns for all major equity and fixed income benchmarks. Then it was time for the presidential election which, to most, surprisingly was won by Donald Trump. Overnight, as it became clear that Trump would win, futures on the S&P 500 Index declined nearly 6% but by the time Trump had delivered his acceptance speech, the S&P 500 Index was up more than 1%, providing another example of extreme market movements based on sentiment.

For the remainder of the year, global developed equities enjoyed healthy gains led by U.S. stocks, as the market celebrated the prospects of fiscal stimulus via lower taxes and less regulation as a result of policies expected to be implemented by the new government. The dollar rallied strongly as well, causing a headwind for emerging market equities which ended the year on a negative note.

10-year U.S. Treasury rates finished the 2016 rollercoaster ride at 2.49%, slightly above the 2.24% at the beginning of the year, after having dropped to 1.37% by early July. The strong spike in rates after the election was a result of the Fed’s expected second rate hike in a decade, and their intention of raising rates further in 2017. In addition, there was upward pressure on longer-term rates from the perceived expansionary fiscal policies about to be implemented, which are expected to lead to higher inflation and higher levels of government debt in the U.S.

In summary, 2016 was marked by a year of significant political change, the perceived beginning of a rising interest rate environment, a U.S. equity market reaching new highs with Energy and Financial sectors as the new leaders and the Healthcare sector the laggard, a stronger dollar, and a global economy with continued but muted improvement.

Overall, Natural Resources, Small Cap equities, and High Yield bonds provided the strongest return in 2016, delivering returns of 30.87%, 21.31%, and 17.13% respectively (as measured by the S&P North American Natural Resources Index, the Russell 2000 Index, and the Bloomberg Barclays U.S. Corporate High Yield Bond Index). The U.S. stock market, as measured by the S&P 500 Index, returned a healthy 11.96% for the year, followed by Emerging Markets which returned 11.19% as measured by the MSCI Emerging Markets Total Return Index.

PORTFOLIO REVIEW / PERIOD-END POSITIONING

The MetLife Asset Allocation 40 Portfolio invested in underlying portfolios of the Met Investors Series Trust and the Metropolitan Series Fund to maintain a broad asset allocation of approximately 40% to equities and 60% to fixed income.

Over the twelve month period, the Portfolio outpaced the Dow Jones Moderately Conservative Index. While expenses, weak security selection within the underlying equity portfolios, and an underweight to small cap weighed on relative performance, an overweight to U.S. bonds versus cash, an overweight to high yield bonds, strong security selection within the international equity portfolios, and an overweight to natural resources more than offset the negative impact.

The fixed income portfolio in aggregate contributed positively to the Asset Allocation 40 Portfolio’s relative performance as a result of better sector positioning versus the overall benchmark. At the individual portfolio level, the Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities Portfolio outperformed its respective benchmark by a wide margin. The Portfolio benefitted greatly from an overweight to high yield and emerging market debt as well as more favorable yield curve positioning. Another strong performer was the Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio which benefitted from exposures to corporate loans, high yield corporate credit, non-agency residential mortgage-backed securities, Treasury inflation protected securities, and commercial mortgage-backed securities. The PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond Portfolio also outperformed its benchmark, primarily because the Portfolio correctly positioned for a higher than expected inflation rate as inflation expectations rose, and as a result of exposure to U.K. real rates as rates fell across the curve post-Brexit. Despite outperforming its benchmark by almost 15% during the last

MSF-1

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Asset Allocation 40 Portfolio

Managed by MetLife Advisers, LLC

Portfolio Manager Commentary*—(Continued)

six months of the year, the Met/Templeton International Bond Portfolio ended up slightly underperforming its benchmark for the year. The biggest impact on relative performance was the Portfolio’s very defensive exposure to interest rates which was a large detractor from performance during the first half of the year as rates fell, but an almost equally large contributor to performance during the second half of the year as rates rose. Finally, the Portfolio’s significant overweight to high yield bonds was a strong contributor to the Asset Allocation 40 Portfolio’s relative performance. This was despite the BlackRock High Yield Portfolio underperforming its benchmark by the widest margin of any of the fixed income funds utilized. The main detractor to relative performance came from an underweight to Oil Field Services as names within the sector rallied strongly as energy prices stabilized.

Contribution from the domestic equity portfolios to relative performance was minimal, as a beneficial value tilt generally was outweighed by poor stock selection in most of the underlying portfolios. The BlackRock Large Cap Value Portfolio was able to outperform its benchmark, primarily as a result of an overweight to and selection within Financials, as well as strong stock selection in Energy and Healthcare. The Met/Artisan Mid Cap Value Portfolio also managed to outperform its benchmark. Contribution to relative performance came primarily from underweights to Real Estate, Health Care, Utilities, and Consumer Staples, as well as strong stock selection within the Energy sector. All domestic large cap growth portfolios underperformed their respective benchmarks significantly. While the specifics varied, poor stock selection within Healthcare was a strong headwind across all portfolios as the sector was heavily influenced by comments from politicians on both sides of the aisle regarding product pricing and the general structure of healthcare services in the U.S. Another headwind across the board was within Technology, where high growth names were punished severely in the first six months of the year and didn’t recover enough during the latter six months of the year to make it back to positive territory. Within the small cap space, only the Invesco Small Cap Growth Portfolio was able to beat its benchmark. While the Portfolio’s asset allocation was a drag on relative performance, strong security selection within Healthcare and Energy more than outweighed the negative impact.

The international equity portfolios overall provided favorable relative returns. The Van Eck Global Natural Resources Portfolio delivered the biggest absolute return and the biggest relative outperformance of all the portfolios in the Asset Allocation 40 Portfolio as commodity prices rebounded strongly over the year. The Portfolio’s relative outperformance was driven by overweights to and strong selection within Diversified Metals & Mining, Oil & Gas Drilling, and Copper. The Harris Oakmark International Portfolio was another strong performer for the year, mostly as a result strong stock selection within the Basic Materials sector and an overweight to, and strong selection within, the Industrials sector. At the other end of the spectrum was the Met/Artisan International Portfolio, which significantly underperformed its benchmark as a result of poor stock selection.

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, 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 subject to change at any time based upon economic, market, or other conditions and the advisory 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.

MSF-2

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Asset Allocation 40 Portfolio

A $10,000 INVESTMENT COMPARED TO THE DOW JONES MODERATELY CONSERVATIVE INDEX

AVERAGE ANNUAL RETURNS (%) (FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2016)

	1 Year		5 Year		10 Year
MetLife Asset Allocation 40 Portfolio
Class A		6.33		6.63		4.80
Class B		6.09		6.37		4.54
Dow Jones Moderately Conservative Index		5.65		5.11		4.58

¹ The Dow Jones Moderately Conservative Index is a total return 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) such that the risk combination will have 40% of the risk of an all equity portfolio.

Portfolio performance is calculated including reinvestment of all income and capital gain distributions. Performance numbers are net of all Portfolio expenses but do not include any insurance, sales, separate account or administrative charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts or any additional expenses that participants may bear relating to the operations of their plans. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower. The performance of any index referenced above has not been adjusted for ongoing management, distribution and operating expenses, and sales charges applicable to mutual fund investments. Direct investment in any index is not possible. The performance of Class A shares, as set forth in the line graph above, will differ from that of other classes because of the difference in expenses paid by policyholders investing in the different share classes.

This information represents past performance and is not indicative of future results. Investment return and principal value may fluctuate so that shares, upon redemption, may be worth more or less than the original cost.

PORTFOLIO COMPOSITION AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2016

Top Holdings

	% of Net Assets
BlackRock Bond Income Portfolio (Class A)		9.5
PIMCO Total Return Portfolio (Class A)		9.0
Western Asset Management U.S. Government Portfolio (Class A)		8.0
TCW Core Fixed Income Portfolio (Class A)		8.0
JPMorgan Core Bond Portfolio (Class A)		7.0
PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond Portfolio (Class A)		6.0
Met/Wellington Core Equity Opportunities Portfolio (Class A)		3.8
Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities Portfolio (Class A)		3.5
MFS Value Portfolio (Class A)		3.5
T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio (Class A)		3.5

MSF-3

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Asset Allocation 40 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, 2016 through December 31, 2016.

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.

MetLife Asset Allocation 40 Portfolio		Annualized Expense Ratio			Beginning Account Value July 1, 2016		Ending Account Value December 31, 2016		Expenses Paid During Period** July 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016
Class A(a)	Actual		0.61	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,029.90	$	3.11
	Hypothetical*		0.61	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,022.07	$	3.10
Class B(a)	Actual		0.86	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,028.30	$	4.38
	Hypothetical*		0.86	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,020.81	$	4.37

* 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 366 (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.

MSF-4

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Asset Allocation 40 Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Mutual Funds—100.0% of Net Assets

Security Description	Shares		Value
Affiliated Investment Companies—100.0%
Baillie Gifford International Stock Portfolio (Class A) (a)		13,277,655	$	133,573,209
BlackRock Bond Income Portfolio (Class A) (a)		6,090,927		645,577,309
BlackRock Capital Appreciation Portfolio (Class A) (a)		4,103,684		136,365,415
BlackRock High Yield Portfolio (Class A) (b)		4,499,866		34,558,974
BlackRock Large Cap Value Portfolio (Class A) (a)		15,227,343		137,502,904
Clarion Global Real Estate Portfolio (Class A) (b)		4,178,592		48,638,817
ClearBridge Aggressive Growth Portfolio (Class A) (b)		6,572,230		102,855,403
Goldman Sachs Mid Cap Value Portfolio (Class A) (b)		1,486,067		17,223,519
Harris Oakmark International Portfolio (Class A) (b)		14,413,767		189,973,451
Invesco Comstock Portfolio (Class A) (b)		14,100,853		206,718,506
Invesco Small Cap Growth Portfolio (Class A) (b)		6,236,306		85,686,849
Jennison Growth Portfolio (Class A) (a)		7,758,597		102,801,414
JPMorgan Core Bond Portfolio (Class A) (b)		46,391,317		474,119,258
JPMorgan Small Cap Value Portfolio (Class A) (b)		2,857,968		51,757,801
Met/Aberdeen Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio (Class A) (b)		7,242,100		65,106,482
Met/Artisan International Portfolio (Class A) (b)		9,350,429		80,974,716
Met/Artisan Mid Cap Value Portfolio (Class A) (a)		74,324		17,189,729
Met/Eaton Vance Floating Rate Portfolio (Class A) (b)		13,343,516		138,105,389
Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio (Class A) (b)		21,515,284		206,977,028
Met/Templeton International Bond Portfolio (Class A) (b)		17,190,819		172,595,819
Met/Wellington Core Equity Opportunities Portfolio (Class A) (a)		9,019,222		258,039,946
Met/Wellington Large Cap Research Portfolio (Class A) (b)		11,232,851		154,676,356
MetLife Small Cap Value Portfolio (Class A) (b)		4,331,731		69,047,792
MFS Research International Portfolio (Class A) (b)		10,085,332		102,366,120
MFS Value Portfolio (Class A) (a)		15,757,143		241,241,854
Affiliated Investment Companies—(Continued)
Neuberger Berman Genesis Portfolio (Class A) (a)		2,418,404		51,705,471
Oppenheimer Global Equity Portfolio (Class A) (b)		3,570,922		68,847,375
PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond Portfolio (Class A) (b) (c)		41,783,301		408,222,848
PIMCO Total Return Portfolio (Class A) (b)		54,115,005		612,581,861
T. Rowe Price Large Cap Growth Portfolio (Class A) (a)		6,790,138		137,024,982
T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio (Class A) (b)		7,131,774		241,125,272
T. Rowe Price Mid Cap Growth Portfolio (Class A) (b)		3,302,610		34,248,063
TCW Core Fixed Income Portfolio (Class A) (b)		53,765,765		543,034,223
Van Eck Global Natural Resources Portfolio (Class A) (a)		6,193,723		67,263,829
Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities Portfolio (Class A) (a)		18,019,032		241,274,845
Western Asset Management U.S. Government Portfolio (Class A) (a)		46,351,655		544,168,434
Total Mutual Funds (Cost $6,794,027,749)				6,823,171,263
Total Investments—100.0% (Cost $6,794,027,749) (d)				6,823,171,263
Other assets and liabilities (net)—0.0%				(1,990,745	)
Net Assets—100.0%			$	6,821,180,518

(a) A Portfolio of Metropolitan Series Fund. (See Note 6 of the Notes to Financial Statements for a summary of transactions in the securities of affiliated Underlying Portfolios.)

(b) A Portfolio of Met Investors Series Trust. (See Note 6 of the Notes to Financial Statements for a summary of transactions in the securities of affiliated Underlying Portfolios.)

(c) Non-income producing security.

(d) As of December 31, 2016, the aggregate cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was $6,837,041,315. The aggregate unrealized appreciation and depreciation of investments were $216,657,925 and $(230,527,977), respectively, resulting in net unrealized depreciation of $(13,870,052) for federal income tax purposes.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-5

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Asset Allocation 40 Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Fair Value Hierarchy

Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) define 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, separately for each major category of assets and liabilities, 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, quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities 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, or other market corroborated inputs)

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 used in determining the fair value of investments and derivative financial instruments)

The inputs or methodologies used for valuing investments are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in them. Changes to the inputs or methodologies used may result in transfers between levels, which 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, 2016:

Description	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
Mutual Funds
Affiliated Investment Companies	$	6,823,171,263	$	—	$	—	$	6,823,171,263
Total Investments	$	6,823,171,263	$	—	$	—	$	6,823,171,263

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-6

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Asset Allocation 40 Portfolio

Statement of Assets and Liabilities

December 31, 2016

Assets
Affiliated investments at value (a)	$	6,823,171,263
Receivable for:
Investments sold		3,819,850
Fund shares sold		128,340
Total Assets		6,827,119,453
Liabilities
Payables for:
Fund shares redeemed		3,948,190
Accrued Expenses:
Management fees		322,147
Distribution and service fees		1,432,053
Deferred trustees’ fees		188,342
Other expenses		48,203
Total Liabilities		5,938,935
Net Assets	$	6,821,180,518
Net Assets Consist of:
Paid in surplus	$	6,498,491,745
Undistributed net investment income		131,160,495
Accumulated net realized gain		162,384,764
Unrealized appreciation on affiliated investments		29,143,514
Net Assets	$	6,821,180,518
Net Assets
Class A	$	90,985,993
Class B		6,730,194,525
Capital Shares Outstanding*
Class A		8,009,613
Class B		598,463,093
Net Asset Value, Offering Price and Redemption Price Per Share
Class A	$	11.36
Class B		11.25

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

(a) Identified cost of affiliated investments was $6,794,027,749.

Statement of Operations

Year Ended December 31, 2016

Investment Income
Dividends from Affiliated Underlying Portfolios	$	141,574,169
Interest		865
Other income (a)		22,738
Total investment income		141,597,772
Expenses
Management fees		3,890,199
Administration fees		22,191
Custodian and accounting fees		27,753
Distribution and service fees—Class B		17,328,511
Audit and tax services		31,263
Legal		33,028
Trustees’ fees and expenses		45,247
Miscellaneous		14,501
Total expenses		21,392,693
Net Investment Income		120,205,079
Net Realized and Unrealized Gain (Loss)
Net realized gain on:
Affiliated investments		25,617,015
Capital gain distributions from Affiliated Underlying Portfolios		190,208,170
Net realized gain		215,825,185
Net change in unrealized appreciation on affiliated investments		75,487,126
Net realized and unrealized gain		291,312,311
Net Increase in Net Assets From Operations	$	411,517,390

(a) Other income represents a non-recurring refund for overbilling of prior years’ custodian out-of-pocket fees.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-7

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Asset Allocation 40 Portfolio

Statements of Changes in Net Assets

	Year Ended December 31, 2016			Year Ended December 31, 2015
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets:
From Operations
Net investment income	$	120,205,079		$	207,492,901
Net realized gain		215,825,185			510,606,763
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation)		75,487,126			(781,991,413	)
Increase (decrease) in net assets from operations		411,517,390			(63,891,749	)
From Distributions to Shareholders
Net investment income
Class A		(3,752,608	)		(518,211	)
Class B		(245,962,542	)		(21,482,236	)
Net realized capital gains
Class A		(6,398,157	)		(5,972,166	)
Class B		(452,755,406	)		(431,486,058	)
Total distributions		(708,868,713	)		(459,458,671	)
Decrease in net assets from capital share transactions		(136,732,186	)		(638,557,857	)
Total decrease in net assets		(434,083,509	)		(1,161,908,277	)
Net Assets
Beginning of period		7,255,264,027			8,417,172,304
End of period	$	6,821,180,518		$	7,255,264,027
Undistributed net investment income
End of period	$	131,160,495		$	249,313,212

Other Information:

Capital Shares

Transactions in capital shares were as follows:

	Year Ended December 31, 2016						Year Ended December 31, 2015
	Shares			Value			Shares			Value
Class A
Sales		640,434		$	7,395,624			849,812		$	10,598,533
Reinvestments		927,011			10,150,765			528,532			6,490,377
Redemptions		(2,181,467	)		(25,122,906	)		(1,615,348	)		(20,139,971	)
Net decrease		(614,022	)	$	(7,576,517	)		(237,004	)	$	(3,051,061	)
Class B
Sales		7,093,454		$	81,278,867			7,961,364		$	98,018,022
Reinvestments		64,397,968			698,717,948			37,189,515			452,968,294
Redemptions		(79,694,568	)		(909,152,484	)		(95,699,293	)		(1,186,493,112	)
Net decrease		(8,203,146	)	$	(129,155,669	)		(50,548,414	)	$	(635,506,796	)
Decrease derived from capital shares transactions				$	(136,732,186	)				$	(638,557,857	)

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-8

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Asset Allocation 40 Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class A
	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014			2013			2012
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	11.90		$	12.74		$	12.99		$	12.14		$	11.25
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (a)		0.23			0.36			0.24			0.29			0.28
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		0.48			(0.44	)		0.40			1.04			1.02
Total from investment operations		0.71			(0.08	)		0.64			1.33			1.30
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.46	)		(0.06	)		(0.41	)		(0.35	)		(0.37	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(0.79	)		(0.70	)		(0.48	)		(0.13	)		(0.04	)
Total distributions		(1.25	)		(0.76	)		(0.89	)		(0.48	)		(0.41	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	11.36		$	11.90		$	12.74		$	12.99		$	12.14
Total Return (%) (b)		6.33			(0.78	)		5.16			11.20			11.74
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%) (c)		0.06			0.06			0.06			0.08			0.08
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%) (d)		1.97			2.85			1.92			2.31			2.37
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		8			16			15			15			10
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	91.0		$	102.6		$	112.9		$	107.7		$	97.3
	Class B
	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014			2013			2012
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	11.79		$	12.64		$	12.89		$	12.05		$	11.17
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (a)		0.19			0.32			0.03			0.26			0.25
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		0.49			(0.43	)		0.57			1.03			1.01
Total from investment operations		0.68			(0.11	)		0.60			1.29			1.26
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.43	)		(0.04	)		(0.37	)		(0.32	)		(0.34	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(0.79	)		(0.70	)		(0.48	)		(0.13	)		(0.04	)
Total distributions		(1.22	)		(0.74	)		(0.85	)		(0.45	)		(0.38	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	11.25		$	11.79		$	12.64		$	12.89		$	12.05
Total Return (%) (b)		6.09			(1.07	)		4.93			10.92			11.46
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%) (c)		0.31			0.31			0.31			0.33			0.33
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%) (d)		1.71			2.62			0.21			2.10			2.16
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		8			16			15			15			10
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	6,730.2		$	7,152.6		$	8,304.3		$	1,678.4		$	1,618.0

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

(b) Total return does not reflect any insurance, sales, separate account or administrative charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts or any additional expenses that contract owners may bear under their variable contracts. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower.

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

(d) Recognition of net investment income by the Asset Allocation 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.

MSF-9

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Asset Allocation 40 Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016

1. Organization

Metropolitan Series Fund (the “Trust”) is organized as a Delaware statutory trust and registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), as an open-end management investment company. The Trust, which is managed by MetLife Advisers, LLC (“MetLife Advisers” or the “Adviser”), an affiliate of MetLife, Inc., is currently comprised of thirty series, each of which operates as a distinct investment vehicle of the Trust. The portfolio included in this report is MetLife Asset Allocation 40 Portfolio (the “Asset Allocation Portfolio”), which is diversified. The Asset Allocation Portfolio operates under a “fund of funds” structure, investing substantially all of its assets in other Portfolios advised by MetLife Advisers (each, an “Underlying Portfolio,” and, collectively, the “Underlying Portfolios”). Shares in the Asset Allocation 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.

On January 12, 2016, MetLife, Inc. announced its plan to pursue the separation of a substantial portion of its retail segment and is currently evaluating structural alternatives for such separation. It is anticipated that MetLife Advisers would be included in any such separation. Any separation transaction that might occur will be subject to the satisfaction of various conditions and approvals, including approval of any transaction by the MetLife, Inc. Board of Directors, satisfaction of any applicable requirements of the SEC, and receipt of insurance and other regulatory approvals and other anticipated conditions. MetLife, Inc. cannot currently provide a specific potential completion date for a separation transaction or any assurance that a separation will in fact occur. MetLife Advisers’ continued service as investment adviser to the Trusts following a separation transaction is the subject of a proxy statement that was filed with the SEC on December 20, 2016 and mailed to shareholders of the Portfolio on or about December 30, 2016.

The Asset Allocation Portfolio has registered and offers two classes of shares: Class A and B shares. Shares of each Class of the Asset Allocation Portfolio represent an equal pro rata interest in the Asset Allocation 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 Asset Allocation Portfolio, and certain Asset Allocation 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 Asset Allocation Portfolio. Each Class of shares differs in its respective distribution plan and such distribution expenses are allocated to the corresponding Class of shares.

2. Significant Accounting Policies

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities as of the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of income and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates. In the preparation of these financial statements, management has evaluated events and transactions subsequent to December 31, 2016 through the date the financial statements were issued.

The Asset Allocation Portfolio is an investment company and follows the accounting and reporting guidance of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Accounting Standards Codification Topic 946—Financial Services—Investment Companies and Topic 820—Fair Value Measurement. The following is a summary of significant accounting policies consistently followed by the Asset Allocation Portfolio in the preparation of its financial statements.

Investment Valuation and Fair Value Measurements - Investments in the Underlying Portfolios are valued at their closing daily net asset value on the valuation date. Investments in the Underlying Portfolios are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. 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 - Asset Allocation Portfolio security transactions are recorded on the trade date. Dividend income is recorded on the ex-dividend date. Realized gains and losses on investments 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.

Dividends and Distributions to Shareholders - The Asset Allocation Portfolio records dividends and distributions on the ex-dividend date. Net realized gains from securities 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 distributions from Underlying Portfolios. These adjustments have no impact on net assets or the results of operations.

MSF-10

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Asset Allocation 40 Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

Income Taxes - It is the Asset Allocation 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 Asset Allocation Portfolio files U.S. federal tax returns. No income tax returns are currently under examination. The Asset Allocation Portfolio’s federal tax returns for the prior three fiscal years remain subject to examination by the Internal Revenue Service. As of December 31, 2016, the Asset Allocation Portfolio had no uncertain tax positions that would require financial statement recognition, or de-recognition or disclosure.

3. Certain Risks

In the normal course of business, the Underlying Portfolios invest in securities and enter into transactions where risks exist. Those risks include:

Market 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, interest rate, and price fluctuations.

Credit and Counterparty Risk: 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 and counterparty risk consist principally of cash due from counterparties and investments. The Underlying Portfolios manage counterparty risk by entering into agreements only with counterparties that they believe have the financial resources to honor their obligations and by monitoring the financial stability of those counterparties. The Underlying Portfolios’ investment adviser attempts to mitigate counterparty risk by (i) periodically assessing the creditworthiness of their trading partners, (ii) monitoring and/or limiting the amount of their net exposure to each individual counterparty based on the adviser’s assessment, and (iii) requiring collateral from the counterparty for certain transactions. In order to preserve certain safeguards for non-standard settlement trades, the Underlying Portfolios restrict their exposure to credit and counterparty losses by entering into master netting agreements (“Master Agreements”) with counterparties (approved brokers) with whom the Underlying Portfolios undertake a significant volume of transactions. Master Agreements govern the terms of certain transactions, and reduce the counterparty risk associated with relevant transactions by specifying credit protection mechanisms and providing standardization that improves legal certainty. Master Agreements can also help limit counterparty risk by specifying collateral posting arrangements at pre-arranged exposure levels.

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

4. Investment Transactions

Aggregate cost of purchases and proceeds of sales of shares of the Underlying Portfolios by the Asset Allocation Portfolio for the year ended December 31, 2016 were as follows:

Purchases			Sales
U.S. Government	Non U.S. Government		U.S. Government		Non U.S. Government
$0	$	562,199,344	$	0	$	1,097,486,044

5. Investment Management Fees and Other Transactions with Affiliates

Investment Management Agreement - MetLife Advisers is the investment adviser to the Asset Allocation Portfolio. The Trust has entered into an investment management agreement with MetLife Advisers with respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolio. For providing investment management services to the Asset Allocation Portfolio, MetLife Advisers receives monthly compensation at the following annual rates:

Management Fees earned by MetLife Advisers for the year ended December 31, 2016	% per annum			Average Daily Net Assets
$3,890,199		0.100	%	Of the first $500 million
		0.075	%	Of the next $500 million
		0.050	%	On amounts in excess of $1 billion

MSF-11

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Asset Allocation 40 Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

In addition to the above management fee paid to MetLife Advisers, the Asset Allocation Portfolio indirectly pays MetLife Advisers an investment advisory fee through its investments in the Underlying Portfolios.

Certain officers and trustees of the Trust may also be officers of MetLife Advisers; 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 and Service Fees - The Trust has a distribution agreement with MetLife Investors Distribution Company (“MIDC” or the “Distributor”) in which MIDC serves as the distributor for the Asset Allocation Portfolio’s Class A and B Shares. MIDC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife Investors Group, LLC, an affiliate of the Adviser. The Trust has also adopted a Distribution and Service Plan under Rule 12b-1 of the 1940 Act for the Asset Allocation Portfolio’s Class B shares. Under the Distribution and Services Plan, the Class B shares of the Asset Allocation Portfolio pay a fee to compensate the Insurance Companies (or their affiliates) and other broker-dealers and financial intermediaries involved in the offer and sale of Asset Allocation Portfolio shares for promoting or selling and servicing the Class B shares of the Asset Allocation Portfolio. The fees under the Distribution and Services Plan for each class of the Asset Allocation Portfolio’s shares are calculated as a percentage of the Asset Allocation Portfolio’s average daily net assets that are attributable to that Class. Currently, the fee is 0.25% per year for Class B shares. Amount incurred by the Asset Allocation Portfolio for the year ended December 31, 2016 is shown as Distribution and service fees in the Statement of Operations.

Deferred Trustee Compensation - Each Trustee who is not currently an active employee of MetLife or its affiliates receives compensation from the Trust for his or her service to the Trust. 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 Met Investors Series Trust, an affiliate of the Trust, 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 Asset Allocation Portfolio under the Plan is reflected as Deferred trustees’ fees in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

6. Transactions in Securities of Affiliated Underlying Portfolios

The Asset Allocation Portfolio does not invest in the Underlying Portfolios for the purpose of exercising control; however, investments by the Asset Allocation Portfolio within its principal investment strategies may represent a significant portion of the Underlying Portfolios’ net assets. Transactions in the Underlying Portfolios for the year ended December 31, 2016 were as follows:

Underlying Portfolio	Number of shares held at December 31, 2015		Shares purchased		Shares sold			Number of shares held at December 31, 2016
Baillie Gifford International Stock		14,833,137		551,073		(2,106,555	)		13,277,655
BlackRock Bond Income		6,216,855		399,794		(525,722	)		6,090,927
BlackRock Capital Appreciation		3,979,383		485,893		(361,592	)		4,103,684
BlackRock High Yield		5,014,395		340,246		(854,775	)		4,499,866
BlackRock Large Cap Value		17,051,891		2,030,000		(3,854,548	)		15,227,343
Clarion Global Real Estate		4,637,940		109,658		(569,006	)		4,178,592
ClearBridge Aggressive Growth		7,054,379		252,994		(735,143	)		6,572,230
Goldman Sachs Mid Cap Value		3,171,594		269,825		(1,955,352	)		1,486,067
Harris Oakmark International		13,076,802		3,435,462		(2,098,497	)		14,413,767
Invesco Comstock		15,402,207		2,276,023		(3,577,377	)		14,100,853
Invesco Small Cap Growth		7,136,912		1,515,083		(2,415,689	)		6,236,306
Jennison Growth		7,107,683		1,342,127		(691,213	)		7,758,597
JPMorgan Core Bond		49,911,714		1,581,729		(5,102,126	)		46,391,317
JPMorgan Small Cap Value		4,650,429		509,987		(2,302,448	)		2,857,968
Lord Abbett Bond Debenture		3,143,685		213,981		(3,357,666	)		—
Met/Aberdeen Emerging Markets Equity		8,223,175		902,014		(1,883,089	)		7,242,100
Met/Artisan International		9,398,029		132,224		(179,824	)		9,350,429
Met/Artisan Mid Cap Value		165,677		15,171		(106,524	)		74,324
Met/Eaton Vance Floating Rate		14,870,719		600,653		(2,127,856	)		13,343,516
Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return		30,509,837		731,074		(9,725,627	)		21,515,284
Met/Templeton International Bond		21,948,523		64,699		(4,822,403	)		17,190,819
Met/Wellington Core Equity Opportunities		8,963,882		905,223		(849,883	)		9,019,222
Met/Wellington Large Cap Research		10,408,233		1,956,314		(1,131,696	)		11,232,851
MetLife Small Cap Value		5,584,381		463,300		(1,715,950	)		4,331,731

MSF-12

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Asset Allocation 40 Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

Underlying Portfolio	Number of shares held at December 31, 2015			Shares purchased		Shares sold			Number of shares held at December 31, 2016
MFS Research International		10,221,149			563,142		(698,959	)		10,085,332
MFS Value		16,828,609			1,984,400		(3,055,866	)		15,757,143
Neuberger Berman Genesis		3,932,809			111,691		(1,626,096	)		2,418,404
Oppenheimer Global Equity		1,769,503			2,069,203		(267,784	)		3,570,922
PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond		47,383,678			17,133		(5,617,510	)		41,783,301
PIMCO Total Return		58,276,542			1,603,814		(5,765,351	)		54,115,005
T. Rowe Price Large Cap Growth		6,400,709			1,094,267		(704,838	)		6,790,138
T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value		7,460,847			1,197,416		(1,526,489	)		7,131,774
T. Rowe Price Mid Cap Growth		3,197,413			545,614		(440,417	)		3,302,610
TCW Core Fixed Income		51,581,213			6,421,743		(4,237,191	)		53,765,765
Van Eck Global Natural Resources		7,773,717			2,148,562		(3,728,556	)		6,193,723
Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities		17,503,336			3,098,353		(2,582,657	)		18,019,032
Western Asset Management U.S. Government		49,312,059			1,535,718		(4,496,122	)		46,351,655
Underlying Portfolio	Net Realized Gain/(Loss) on sales of Affiliated Underlying Portfolios			Capital Gain Distributions from Affiliated Underlying Portfolios		Dividend Income from Affiliated Underlying Portfolios			Ending Value as of December 31, 2016
Baillie Gifford International Stock	$	2,768,771		$	—	$	2,302,638		$	133,573,209
BlackRock Bond Income		879,202			—		21,206,802			645,577,309
BlackRock Capital Appreciation		1,687,683			12,733,452		—			136,365,415
BlackRock High Yield		(592,282	)		—		2,418,424			34,558,974
BlackRock Large Cap Value		(1,728,511	)		10,833,525		2,370,331			137,502,904
Clarion Global Real Estate		1,254,237			—		1,229,211			48,638,817
ClearBridge Aggressive Growth		4,652,080			—		710,688			102,855,403
Goldman Sachs Mid Cap Value		(4,068,617	)		1,358,479		197,569			17,223,519
Harris Oakmark International		1,431,819			12,409,067		4,428,729			189,973,451
Invesco Comstock		19,449,074			16,548,177		6,010,637			206,718,506
Invesco Small Cap Growth		1,779,937			15,639,334		—			85,686,849
Jennison Growth		1,213,782			13,859,298		313,163			102,801,414
JPMorgan Core Bond		(643,074	)		—		15,053,294			474,119,258
JPMorgan Small Cap Value		(845,082	)		3,578,425		995,105			51,757,801
Lord Abbett Bond Debenture		(148,570	)		—		2,396,593			—
Met/Aberdeen Emerging Markets Equity		(2,467,380	)		—		868,689			65,106,482
Met/Artisan International		(98,333	)		—		817,714			80,974,716
Met/Artisan Mid Cap Value		6,220,883			1,919,410		192,617			17,189,729
Met/Eaton Vance Floating Rate		143,379			—		5,930,935			138,105,389
Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return		(3,053,206	)		—		6,880,267			206,977,028
Met/Templeton International Bond		(3,700,067	)		465,639		—			172,595,819
Met/Wellington Core Equity Opportunities		(2,058,647	)		11,487,152		4,206,065			258,039,946
Met/Wellington Large Cap Research		815,318			10,364,627		3,810,361			154,676,356
MetLife Small Cap Value		(2,381,557	)		1,884,930		927,014			69,047,792
MFS Research International		(120,495	)		—		2,370,207			102,366,120
MFS Value		12,574,621			22,324,716		5,596,726			241,241,854
Neuberger Berman Genesis		9,927,188			—		251,389			51,705,471
Oppenheimer Global Equity		(166,876	)		3,461,724		831,388			68,847,375
PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond		(6,283,107	)		—		—			408,222,848
PIMCO Total Return		(7,037,338	)		—		17,852,502			612,581,861
T. Rowe Price Large Cap Growth		2,819,910			17,662,604		84,822			137,024,982
T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value		15,410,498			28,562,401		7,494,406			241,125,272
T. Rowe Price Mid Cap Growth		296,564			5,115,210		—			34,248,063
TCW Core Fixed Income		585,380			—		4,522,229			543,034,223
Van Eck Global Natural Resources		(22,772,248	)		—		576,718			67,263,829
Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities		(678,547	)		—		3,909,013			241,274,845
Western Asset Management U.S. Government		550,626			—		14,817,923			544,168,434
	$	25,617,015		$	190,208,170	$	141,574,169		$	6,823,171,263

MSF-13

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Asset Allocation 40 Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

7. Contractual Obligations

Under the Trust’s organizational documents, its officers and Trustees may be indemnified against certain liabilities and expenses arising out of the performance of their duties to the Trust. Additionally, 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 Trust that have not yet occurred.

8. Income Tax Information

The tax character of distributions paid for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015 were as follows:

Ordinary Income			Long-Term Capital Gain				Total
2016	2015		2016		2015		2016		2015
$251,467,645	$	25,111,814	$	457,401,068	$	434,346,857	$	708,868,713	$	459,458,671

As of December 31, 2016, 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			Other Accumulated Capital Losses		Total
$131,370,425	$	205,376,743	$	(13,870,054	)	$	—	$	322,877,114

The Asset Allocation 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 up to 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, 2016, the Asset Allocation Portfolio had no post-enactment accumulated capital losses and no pre-enactment accumulated capital loss carryforwards.

9. Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In October 2016, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) adopted new rules and forms, and amendments to certain current rules and forms, to modernize reporting and disclosure of information by registered investment companies. The amendments to Regulation S-X will require standardized, enhanced disclosure about derivatives in investment company financial statements, and will also change the rules governing the form and content of such financial statements. The compliance date for the amendments to Regulation S-X is August 1, 2017. Management is currently evaluating the impact that the adoption of the amendments to Regulation S-X will have on the Portfolio’s financial statements and related disclosures.

MSF-14

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Asset Allocation 40 Portfolio

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Shareholders of MetLife Asset Allocation 40 Portfolio and the Board of Trustees of Metropolitan Series Fund:

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities, including the schedule of investments, of MetLife Asset Allocation 40 Portfolio (one of the portfolios constituting the Metropolitan Series Fund) (the “Portfolio”) as of December 31, 2016, 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 Portfolio’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 Portfolio 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 Portfolio’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, 2016, 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 Asset Allocation 40 Portfolio of the Metropolitan Series Fund as of December 31, 2016, 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.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

February 24, 2017

MSF-15

Metropolitan Series Fund

Trustees and Officers

MANAGEMENT OF THE TRUSTS

The Boards of Trustees (the “Board”) of Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (“MIST” and “MSF”, respectively, and collectively the “Trusts”) supervise the Trusts and are responsible for representing the interests of shareholders. The Trustees, the Chairman of the Board and the Chairmen of each subcommittee are the same for both Trusts. The Trustees of each Trust meet periodically throughout the year to oversee the Portfolios’ activities, reviewing, among other things, each Portfolio’s performance and its contractual arrangements with various service providers. The Trustees of each Trust elect the officers of the Trust, who are responsible for administering the Trust’s day-to-day operations.

Trustees and Officers

The Trustees and executive officers of the Trusts, as well as their ages and their principal occupations during the past five years, are set forth below. Unless otherwise indicated, the business address of each is c/o MetLife Funds, One Financial Center, Boston, Massachusetts 02111. Each Trustee who is deemed an “interested person,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, is referred to as an “Interested Trustee.” Those Trustees who are not “interested persons,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, are referred to as “Independent Trustees.” There is no limit to the term a Trustee may serve. Trustees serve until their death, resignation or removal in accordance with the MIST Trust’s and MSF Trust’s respective organizational documents and policies adopted by the Boards of the respective Trusts from time to time. Officers hold office at the pleasure of each Board and serve until their removal or resignation in accordance with the Trusts’ respective organizational documents and policies adopted by the Board of each Trust from time to time.

Name and Age	Current 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 MetLife Funds Complex(2) Overseen by Trustee	Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Interested Trustee
John Rosenthal* (56)	Trustee	Indefinite; From May 2016 (MIST and MSF) to present	Senior Managing Director and Head of Global Portfolio Management, MetLife, Inc.	75	None
Independent Trustees
Dawn M. Vroegop (50)	Trustee and Chairman of the Board	Indefinite; From December 2000 (MIST)/ May 2009 (MSF) to present as Trustee; From May 2016 (MIST and MSF) until present as Chairman	Private Investor.	75	Trustee, Driehaus Mutual Funds.**
Stephen M. Alderman (57)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 (MIST)/ April 2012 (MSF) to present	Shareholder in the law firm of Garfield and Merel, Ltd.	75	None

MSF-16

Metropolitan Series Fund

Trustees and Officers—(Continued)

Name and Age	Current 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 MetLife Funds Complex(2) Overseen by Trustee	Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Robert J. Boulware (60)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 (MIST)/ April 2012 (MSF) to present	Managing Director, Pilgrim Funds, LLC (private equity fund).	75	Trustee, Vertical Capital Income Fund (closed-end fund);** Director, Gainsco, Inc. (auto insurance);** Trustee, SharesPost 100 Fund (closed-end fund).**
Susan C. Gause (64)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 (MIST)/ April 2012 (MSF) to present	Private Investor.	75	Trustee, HSBC Funds.**
Nancy Hawthorne (65)	Trustee	Indefinite; From May 2003 (MSF)/ April 2012 (MIST) to present	Partner, Hawthorne Financial Advisors, LLC (registered investment advisor); until June 2014, Chief Executive Officer, Clerestory LLC (corporate advisor).	75	Director and Chairman of the Board of Directors, THL Credit, Inc.;** Lead Director, Avid Technology, Inc.;** Director, CRA International, Inc.**
Barbara A. Nugent (60)	Trustee	Indefinite; From January 2014 (MIST and MSF) to present	President, True North Board Governance, LLC (consulting); until December 2013, partner in the law firm of Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young, LLP.	75	None
Linda B. Strumpf (69)	Trustee	Indefinite; From May 2000 (MSF)/ April 2012 (MIST) to present	Chair of the Investment Committee, Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust; until June 2011, Chief Investment Officer, Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust.	75	None

Executive Officers

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Kristi Slavin (43)	President and Chief Executive Officer, of MIST and MSF	From May 2016 (MIST and MSF) to present	President, MetLife Advisers, LLC (May 2016-present); Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Vice President, MetLife, Inc.; Vice President, MIST and MSF (2015-2016).

MSF-17

Metropolitan Series Fund

Trustees and Officers—(Continued)

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Peter H. Duffy (61)	Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, of MIST and MSF	From November 2000 (MSF)/ May 2012 (MIST) to present	Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Andrew L. Gangolf (62)	Secretary, of MIST and MSF	From May 2011 (MIST and MSF) to present	Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; until 2011, Senior Vice President & Assistant General Counsel, AllianceBernstein Investments, Inc.
Steven E. Hartstein (53)	Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”), of MIST and MSF	From February 2014 (MIST and MSF) to present	Vice President, MetLife, Inc. (2013-present); Senior Vice President and CCO, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Executive Director, Morgan Stanley (2009-2013); CCO, Consulting Group Capital Markets Funds (2006-2013).
Alan C. Leland (64)	Vice President, of MIST and MSF	From February 2005 (MSF)/ May 2012 (MIST) to present	Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Vice President, MetLife, Inc.

* Mr. Rosenthal is an “interested person” of the Trusts because of his position with MetLife, Inc., the current parent company of MetLife Advisers, LLC.

** 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 Trusts, MetLife, Inc. or the Manager are omitted if not materially different.

(2) The Fund Complex includes 45 MIST Portfolios and 30 MSF Portfolios.

MSF-18

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Asset Allocation 40 Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory Agreements

At an in-person meeting held on November 15-16, 2016 (the “November Meeting”), the Boards of Trustees (the “Board”) of the Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (“MIST” and “MSF,” respectively, and collectively, the “Trusts”), including a majority of the Trustees who are not “interested persons” of the Trusts (the “Independent Trustees”) under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “1940 Act”), approved the continuation of the Trusts’ advisory agreements (the “Advisory Agreements” or “Agreements”) with MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”) for the series of the Trusts (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”).

In reaching that decision, the Board reviewed a variety of materials provided for the specific purpose of the annual contract renewal process. In addition, various materials provided to and discussed with the Board throughout the year also informed the Board’s decision to renew the Agreements. That information for each Portfolio included, but was not limited to, investment performance reports, along with periodic reports on various expenses, shareholder services, legal and compliance matters, asset pricing, brokerage commissions and trade execution. The Board also recognized the pending separation of the Adviser from its parent company, MetLife, Inc., as a consideration in their deliberations with respect to the Agreements.

The Board met in person with personnel of the Adviser on September 27, 2016 for the specific purpose of giving preliminary consideration to the proposed continuation of the Agreements (the “September Meeting”) through the review by the Adviser with the Board of the performance and fees experienced by each Portfolio, as well as other information. In considering the Agreements, the Independent Trustees were advised by independent legal counsel throughout the contract renewal process, and met with independent legal counsel in several executive sessions outside of the presence of management.

Information furnished and reviewed specifically in connection with the renewal process included, but was not limited to, a report for each Portfolio prepared by Broadridge (“Broadridge”), an independent organization, and a Portfolio-by-Portfolio profitability analysis prepared by the Adviser. In addition, the Independent Trustees received and reviewed a report prepared by JDL Consultants, LLC (“JDL”), an independent consultant to the Independent Trustees (“JDL Report”), which examined the comparative fees, expenses and performance of each Portfolio, based upon the Broadridge reports. Also, the Board reviewed the responses to wide-ranging questions relating to the business, operations and performance of the Adviser that the Adviser had prepared specifically for the renewal process.

At the November Meeting, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, concluded that the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser supported the renewal of the Agreements. The Board also concluded that the investment performance of each Portfolio was such that each Agreement should continue, and that the fees paid by a Portfolio to the Adviser appeared to be reasonable in light of nature, extent and quality of the services provided by the Adviser. Further, the Board concluded that the Adviser’s profitability in providing services under the Advisory Agreements did not appear unreasonably high in light of the nature, extent and quality of the services provided by the Adviser. Finally, the Board concluded that the investment advisory fees paid by the Portfolios in some measure shared economies of scale with contract holders. In approving the renewal of each of the Agreements, the Board, including the Independent Trustees, gave attention to all of the information that was furnished. The Board evaluated the information available to it on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis, and its decision was made separately with respect to each Portfolio. The following discusses some of the primary factors that generally were relevant to the Board’s decision. The Board did not identify any single factor as controlling, and the Trustees generally attributed different weights to various factors for the various Portfolios.

Nature, extent and quality of services. The Board evaluated the nature, extent and quality of the services that the Adviser has provided to the Portfolios. The Board considered the Adviser’s services as investment manager to the Portfolios, including its investment management activities, trading practices, financial condition, relevant personnel matters and compliance program, among other things. The Adviser’s services in coordinating and overseeing the activities of the Trusts’ service providers were also considered. The Board considered information received from the Trusts’ Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) regarding the Portfolios’ compliance policies and procedures that were established pursuant to Rule 38a-l under the 1940 Act. In addition, throughout the year, the Board considered the expertise, experience and performance of the personnel of the Adviser who performed the various services that are mentioned above.

The Board also noted that the Adviser’s investment, compliance and legal staff regularly review and assess the services that are provided to the Portfolios, and that personnel of the Adviser prepare and present reports to the Independent Trustees regarding material information related to those reviews and assessments.

The Board further considered the provision of investment advisory services by the Adviser to the MetLife Asset Allocation 20 Portfolio, MetLife Asset Allocation 40 Portfolio, MetLife Asset Allocation 60 Portfolio, MetLife Asset Allocation 80 Portfolio and MetLife Asset Allocation 100 Portfolio (the “Asset Allocation Portfolios”) and the American Funds Balanced Allocation Portfolio, American Funds

MSF-19

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Asset Allocation 40 Portfolio

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

Growth Allocation Portfolio and American Funds Moderate Allocation Portfolio (the “American Funds of Funds”). With respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios, the Board noted that the Adviser has hired at its own expense 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 investments in other Portfolios of the Trusts (the “Underlying Portfolios”). Additionally, the Board considered that a committee, consisting of investment professionals from across the Adviser, meets regularly to review the asset allocations and discuss the performance of the Asset Allocation Portfolios and the American Funds of Funds.

The Board further considered and found that the advisory fee paid to the Adviser with respect to each Asset Allocation Portfolio and American Fund of Funds was based on services provided that were in addition to, rather than duplicative of, the services provided pursuant to the advisory agreements for the Underlying Portfolios in which the Portfolio invests.

Performance. The Board placed emphasis on the performance of the Portfolios in light of, among other things, its importance to contract holders. The Board considered the Adviser’s quarterly reviews with the Board of detailed information about each Portfolio’s investment strategies and performance results and composition, including discussions regarding the relevant effect of current market conditions. The Board reviewed and considered the reports prepared by Broadridge, which provided a statistical analysis comparing the Portfolios’ investment performance to that of comparable funds underlying variable insurance products (the “Performance Universe”). The Independent Trustees also met separately with a representative of JDL during the September Meeting to review the JDL Report. At the November Meeting, the Board considered each Portfolio’s performance for periods subsequent to the performance period covered by the Broadridge reports, and the Adviser’s discussion of the same, including the effect of current market conditions on each Portfolio’s more recent performance. The Board focused particular attention on Portfolios with less favorable performance records.

Fees and Expenses. The Board gave consideration to the level and method of computing the fees payable under the Agreements. The Board considered the Broadridge report for each of the Portfolios, which included comparisons for each Portfolio of its contractual management fees (at current and various asset levels), and total expenses, with those of its peers, including as those peers were divided into a broad group of peer funds (“Expense Universe”) and a narrower group of peer funds (“Expense Group”). Broadridge selected the peer funds which were similarly situated funds underlying variable insurance products deemed to be comparable to the Portfolios. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of JDL, also examined the JDL Report.

The Board also considered that the Adviser had entered into expense limitation or management fee waiver agreements with certain of the Portfolios pursuant to which the Adviser had 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.

Profitability. The Board examined the profitability of the Adviser on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis. In the case of the Asset Allocation Portfolios, the Board also considered the Adviser’s analysis of its profitability that was attributable to its management of the Underlying Portfolios of the Trust in which the Asset Allocation Portfolios invest. The Board further considered that an affiliate of the Adviser, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, serves as distributor for the Portfolios, and, as such, receives Rule 12b-1 payments to support the distribution of the Portfolios. In reviewing the profitability analyses, the Board recognized that expense allocation methodologies are inherently subjective and various expense allocation methodologies may be reasonable while producing different results.

Economies of scale. The Board also considered each Portfolio’s fees in light of its size. The Board noted the fee schedules for the Portfolios that 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 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. The Board examined, among other data, the effect of a Portfolio’s growth in size on various fee schedules and reviewed the Broadridge and JDL Reports, which compared fees among peers. The Board also generally noted that if a Portfolio’s assets increase over time, the Portfolio may realize other economies of scale if assets increase proportionally more than certain other fixed expenses.

Other factors. The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trusts. Among them, the Board recognized that MetLife Investors Distribution Company, as the distributor for the Trusts, receives payments pursuant to Rule 12b-1 from the Portfolios to compensate for the provision of shareholder services and distribution activities, which could lead to growth in the Trusts’ assets and corresponding benefits from such growth, including economies of scale. In conjunction with these considerations, the Board noted the ongoing commitment of the Adviser to the Portfolios.

MSF-20

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Asset Allocation 40 Portfolio

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

The Board considered possible conflicts of interest in the form of material benefits or detriments to the Trusts resulting from the nature of the Trusts’ and the Adviser’s affiliations and the services that are provided to the Trusts, and the manner in which such conflicts were mitigated.

*  *  *

MetLife Asset Allocation 40 Portfolio. The Board also considered the following information in relation to the Agreement with the Adviser regarding the Portfolio:

Among other data relating specifically to the Portfolio’s performance, the Board considered that the Portfolio outperformed the median of its Performance Universe and its Lipper Index for the three- and five-year periods ended June 30, 2016, and underperformed the median of its Performance Universe and its Lipper Index for the one-year period ended June 30, 2016. The Board further considered that the Portfolio underperformed its benchmark, the MetLife AA 40 Broad Index, for the one-, three-, and five-year periods ended October 31, 2016. In addition, the Board noted that the Portfolio outperformed its other benchmark, the Dow Jones Moderately Conservative Index, for the three- and five-year periods ended October 31, 2016, and underperformed its other benchmark for the one-year period ended October 31, 2016.

The Board also considered that the Portfolio’s actual management fees and total expenses (exclusive of 12b-l fees) were below the Expense Group median and Expense Universe median. The Board noted that the Portfolio’s contractual management fees were below the asset-weighted average of the Expense Group at the Portfolio’s current size.

MSF-21

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Asset Allocation 40 Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Advisory Agreements

The separation (the “Separation”) of MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”), the investment adviser to each of the series (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”) of Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (collectively, the “Trusts”), from its parent company, MetLife, Inc. (“MetLife”), to a separate retail business, Brighthouse Financial, Inc. (“Brighthouse”), is expected to result in a change in control of the Adviser, and therefore an “assignment” of each Portfolio’s current advisory agreement (each a “Current Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “Current Advisory Agreements”). At the November 15-16, 2016 meeting (“November Meeting”) of the Board of Trustees of the Trusts (the “Board”), the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not “interested persons,” as defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940, of any Portfolio (the “Independent Trustees”), approved a new advisory agreement (each a “New Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “New Advisory Agreements”) between the Trusts, on behalf of a Portfolio, and the Adviser, to be effective upon the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements in connection with the Separation, and recommended that the shareholders of the Trusts approve the New Advisory Agreements. The Board took those actions after consideration of and deliberation over information concerning the Separation, including with respect to the degree to which the Separation would affect the provision of investment advisory services to the Trusts. Information about the Board’s considerations and process is set forth below.

In determining whether to approve the New Advisory Agreements and in considering the Separation, the Board considered the nature, quality and extent of the services that are currently provided by the Adviser under the Current Advisory Agreements as well as the services to be provided under the New Advisory Agreements. The Board’s review was conducted as part of, and in conjunction with, the Board’s annual review of the Current Advisory Agreements, which culminated at the November Meeting. In approving the New Advisory Agreements, the Board considered its conclusions with respect to its approvals of the Current Advisory Agreements, including the Board’s general satisfaction with the nature, extent and quality of services being provided by the Adviser to each Portfolio. Appendix A and Appendix B contains a further description of the process followed, information reviewed and the material factors considered by the Board in approving the continuation of the Current Advisory Agreements.

A substantial portion of the Board’s review of the New Advisory Agreements focused on the Separation, including the potential effect of the implementation of the Separation on the operations, personnel, organizational structure, capitalization, and financial and other resources of the Adviser. After being informed by the Adviser in January 2016 of the possibility of the Separation, the Board and its Committees discussed the Separation and its possible effects on the Trusts with personnel of the Adviser and the anticipated senior management at Brighthouse during the course of the Board’s or Committee’s regularly scheduled, in-person, quarterly meetings.

Between August and November 2016, the Board and the Independent Trustees engaged in an extensive review and analysis of the Separation and how the Separation related to the Adviser and the Trusts and how it could affect the services provided to the Trusts. This analysis focused on, among other matters, the assurances from Brighthouse’s anticipated leadership as to its expectations for the continuity and stability of the Adviser’s personnel throughout implementation of the Separation and for the foreseeable future thereafter. The Board considered that the Separation is being implemented as a result of MetLife’s determination to divest itself of a substantial portion of its U.S. retail business (of which the Adviser forms a portion). The Board also considered that it has been satisfied as a general matter with the nature and quality of the services that the Adviser provides to the Portfolios, including investment advisory, administrative, legal, compliance, and support services, and that it would be in the Portfolios’ best interests to maintain continuity and stability in the services that are currently being provided. The Board carefully considered the anticipated future plans of Brighthouse related to capitalization and operational matters for Brighthouse and the Adviser, as well as the importance of the Adviser to the businesses of Brighthouse after the Separation.

Among other steps in its review process, which accelerated on October 5, 2016 when Brighthouse filed its Form 10 with the SEC, the following actions were taken and considered by or on behalf of the Board:

1. The Independent Trustees solicited and received ongoing advice regarding the legal duties of the Independent Trustees from Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young LLP (“Stradley Ronon”), legal counsel for the Independent Trustees, which law firm has extensive experience regarding such matters.

2. Following the August 16-17, 2016 Board and Committee quarterly meetings, the Independent Trustees established an ad hoc group of Independent Trustees (the “Working Group”) to help oversee, coordinate, and conduct due diligence activities with respect to the Separation. The Working Group regularly reported on the due diligence activities to the other Independent Trustees.

3. Since January 2016, the Board posed ongoing inquiries to, and received regular updates from, the Adviser and anticipated senior management at Brighthouse at either in-person meetings dedicated to the status of the Separation or during the course of the Board or Committee’s regular quarterly meetings. The Board considered, among other matters, relevant legal guidance and the processes followed by certain other investment company boards of directors or trustees when they approved contracts in connection with change in control events, while recognizing the unique circumstances of the Separation.

MSF-22

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Asset Allocation 40 Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

4. The Board received and reviewed the Form 10 of Brighthouse that contained extensive information relating to, among other matters, Brighthouse’s anticipated business plans and financial structure. The Board also received and reviewed reports from rating agencies with respect to Brighthouse.

5. Stradley Ronon retained Barrington Partners (“Barrington”), an independent consulting firm with a specific focus on the asset management industry and experience relating to business operations such as those to be conducted by Brighthouse, including its proposed subsidiary, the Adviser, in order to help Stradley Ronon evaluate the Separation based on the Form 10 and other materials and related information provided by the Adviser and its affiliates. Barrington conducted a series of in-person and telephonic meetings with anticipated senior management at Brighthouse (i.e., the aforementioned anticipated officers of Brighthouse and others) and with personnel of the Adviser who provide services to the Trusts. Stradley Ronon, with the assistance of Barrington, evaluated the information and advised the Independent Trustees with respect to, among other matters, details of Brighthouse’s anticipated business plan to understand the implications of the Separation to the Adviser and its personnel. The Independent Trustees and the Working Group attended certain in-person and telephonic conference call meetings at which Barrington rendered advice to Stradley Ronon regarding these matters and responded to questions.

6. The Independent Trustees requested and participated in in-person meetings with anticipated senior management personnel at Brighthouse, including its President and Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, Chief Operating Officer, and Chief Investment Officer. The Independent Trustees also met with personnel of the Adviser.

7. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of Stradley Ronon, prepared written inquiries to the Adviser and its affiliates regarding the Separation, and received written assurances from the Adviser and its affiliates that they have no plans to make any material changes affecting the personnel of the Adviser (including those personnel who provide investment, administrative, legal and compliance services) and the Adviser and its affiliates will not initiate such changes without prior notice to and discussion with the Board.

8. The Board considered representations by the Adviser and its affiliates that approval of the New Advisory Agreements would be necessary for the Portfolios to continue receiving investment advisory services from the Adviser following the change in control.

9. The Board considered representations by the Adviser, as well as related supporting documentation, indicating that the New Advisory Agreements, including the fees payable thereunder, are substantially identical to the terms of the corresponding Current Advisory Agreements.

10. The Board considered representations by the Adviser and its affiliates, as well as related supporting documentation, indicating that: (1) the Adviser can be expected to provide services of the same nature, extent, and quality under the New Advisory Agreements and as are provided thereby under the Current Advisory Agreements; and (2) the Separation is not expected to result in any changes to (i) the management of the Portfolios, or (ii) the investment objective of or the principal investment strategies used to manage any of the Portfolios.

11. The Board considered the ability of the Adviser and its affiliates to retain the employment of key personnel, as well as the overall positive indications by many such personnel regarding the opportunities presented by the Separation.

12. The Board considered that the Adviser and its affiliates have agreed to bear all expenses associated with obtaining shareholder approval of the New Advisory Agreements.

13. The Board considered Brighthouse’s preliminary “branding” plans regarding the future name of its operations.

14. The Board considered the advice provided by Ropes & Gray, LLP, legal counsel to the Trusts and the Adviser, with respect to the New Advisory Agreements (including advice relating to the process and timing of seeking shareholder approval of the New Advisory Agreements, and whether shareholder approvals would be required in connection with any future aspects of the Separation) and regarding the Board’s role and responsibilities with respect to the Separation.

15. The Board considered MetLife’s stated intention of divesting its ownership interest in the Adviser through the Separation, including the potential advantages and disadvantages of this divestiture to shareholders of the Portfolios. The Board considered the likelihood that the Adviser would retain its key personnel after the Separation. The Board considered that the garnering of new assets into the Trusts is based on sales of variable annuity and variable life insurance products, which sales have declined in prior years as a result of, among other things, the capital requirements of MetLife. The Board considered the representations of the anticipated senior management of Brighthouse that the Separation provides the Trusts with an opportunity for the garnering of new assets as Brighthouse will likely sell such products going forward. The Board considered also that the divestiture would result in a change in the manner in

MSF-23

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Asset Allocation 40 Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

which the Trusts access certain services and resources of MetLife (after the Separation those services will be provided through a transition services agreement), the loss of affiliation with the MetLife name brand, and the possible going forward need of the Trusts to hire a transfer agent, as such transfer agency services are currently provided to the Trusts for no fee.

16. The Board considered that, if shareholders approve the New Advisory Agreements, the Board and the Adviser will conduct their annual contract review process in November 2017. Thus, the Board emphasized that it would be able to, and intends to, monitor on a regular basis the ability of the Adviser and its affiliates to comply with their undertakings to the Board and to monitor on an ongoing basis the quality of services to, and expenses of, the Portfolios. In addition, the Board considered that, under the New Advisory Agreements, it will continue to have the authority, should the need arise in its view, to terminate any of the New Advisory Agreements without penalty upon 60 days’ notice.

Based on the foregoing and other relevant considerations, at the November Meeting, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, voted to approve the New Advisory Agreements and to recommend approval of the New Advisory Agreements by shareholders of the Portfolios. In this connection, the Board concluded that, in light of all factors considered, the terms of the New Advisory Agreement, including fee rates, were fair and reasonable, and that it would be in the best interests of shareholders of each Portfolio to approve the New Advisory Agreements.

In the event that approval of the New Advisory Agreements by shareholders of the Portfolios has not been obtained before the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements as a result of the change in control of the Adviser, the Board also approved an interim advisory agreement with the Adviser (the “Interim Advisory Agreement”) on behalf of each Portfolio that will go into effect upon the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements. The Board’s determination to approve each Interim Advisory Agreement was based on the same information and considerations as the Board’s approval of the New Advisory Agreements so as to ensure continuity of advisory services from the Adviser to the Portfolios following the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements.

MSF-24

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Asset Allocation 60 Portfolio

Managed by MetLife Advisers, LLC

Portfolio Manager Commentary*

PERFORMANCE

For the one year period ended December 31, 2016, the Class A and B share of the MetLife Asset Allocation 60 Portfolio returned 7.47% and 7.11%, respectively. The Portfolio’s benchmark, the Dow Jones Moderate Index¹, returned 7.67%.

ECONOMIC AND MARKET REVIEW

Investors started off 2016 with a bit of a scare as market participants priced in a potential collapse of growth in China and a global recession. The markets are known for their desire to predict future outcomes, but the underlying economic factors had changed only marginally from the year prior. One of the biggest fears and conundrums that was extrapolated upon was the stubbornly low rate of inflation despite the supposedly inflationary activities conducted by central banks around the globe. As it turned out though, it was the supply factors that were the main driver behind falling commodity prices, not a drop in demand. As a result, the economic datasets continued to improve and investors with a longer term view and calm nerves were able to enjoy a strong rebound.

Investor nerves were tested once again by the end of June as the U.K. voted to leave the European Union (“Brexit”). Global markets, as measured by the MSCI ACWI Index, reacted sharply, dropping over 7% during the following two trading days, but the misery was short lived and losses were recouped within two weeks, with the seemingly devastating impact on the global economy of the Brexit all but forgotten.

As economic data continued to improve, so did the odds that the Federal Reserve (the “Fed”) was going to raise interest rates before the year was over. As with any addict being removed from stimulants, the market reacted negatively and the month of October and the first part of November delivered negative returns for all major equity and fixed income benchmarks. Then it was time for the presidential election which, to most, surprisingly was won by Donald Trump. Overnight, as it became clear that Trump would win, futures on the S&P 500 Index declined nearly 6% but by the time Trump had delivered his acceptance speech, the S&P 500 Index was up more than 1%, providing another example of extreme market movements based on sentiment.

For the remainder of the year, global developed equities enjoyed healthy gains led by U.S. stocks, as the market celebrated the prospects of fiscal stimulus via lower taxes and less regulation as a result of policies expected to be implemented by the new government. The dollar rallied strongly as well, causing a headwind for emerging market equities which ended the year on a negative note.

10-year U.S. Treasury rates finished the 2016 rollercoaster ride at 2.49%, slightly above the 2.24% at the beginning of the year, after having dropped to 1.37% by early July. The strong spike in rates after the election was a result of the Fed’s expected second rate hike in a decade, and their intention of raising rates further in 2017. In addition, there was upward pressure on longer-term rates from the perceived expansionary fiscal policies about to be implemented, which are expected to lead to higher inflation and higher levels of government debt in the U.S.

In summary, 2016 was marked by a year of significant political change, the perceived beginning of a rising interest rate environment, a U.S. equity market reaching new highs with Energy and Financial sectors as the new leaders and the Healthcare sector the laggard, a stronger dollar, and a global economy with continued but muted improvement.

Overall, Natural Resources, Small Cap equities, and High Yield bonds provided the strongest return in 2016, delivering returns of 30.87%, 21.31%, and 17.13% respectively (as measured by the S&P North American Natural Resources Index, the Russell 2000 Index, and the Bloomberg Barclays U.S. Corporate High Yield Bond Index). The U.S. stock market, as measured by the S&P 500 Index, returned a healthy 11.96% for the year, followed by Emerging Markets which returned 11.19% as measured by the MSCI Emerging Markets Total Return Index.

PORTFOLIO REVIEW / PERIOD-END POSITIONING

The MetLife Asset Allocation 60 Portfolio invested in underlying portfolios of the Met Investors Series Trust and the Metropolitan Series Fund to maintain a broad asset allocation of approximately 60% to equities and 40% to fixed income.

Over the twelve month period, the Portfolio underperformed the Dow Jones Moderate Index. While expenses, weak security selection within the underlying equity portfolios, and an underweight to small cap weighed on relative performance, an overweight to high yield bonds, strong security selection within the international equity portfolios, and an overweight to natural resources offset some of the negative impact.

The fixed income portfolios in aggregate contributed positively to the Asset Allocation 60 Portfolio’s relative performance as a result of better sector positioning versus the overall benchmark. At the individual portfolio level, the Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities Portfolio outperformed its respective benchmark by a wide margin. The Portfolio benefitted greatly from an overweight to high yield and emerging market debt as well as more favorable yield curve positioning. Another strong performer was the Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio which benefitted from exposures to corporate loans, high yield corporate credit, non-agency residential mortgage-backed securities, Treasury inflation protected securities, and commercial mortgage-backed securities. The PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond Portfolio also outperformed its benchmark, primarily because the Portfolio correctly positioned for a higher than expected inflation rate as inflation expectations rose, and as a result of exposure to U.K. real rates as rates fell across the curve post-Brexit. Despite outperforming its benchmark by almost 15% during the last

MSF-1

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Asset Allocation 60 Portfolio

Managed by MetLife Advisers, LLC

Portfolio Manager Commentary*—(Continued)

six months of the year, the Met/Templeton International Bond Portfolio ended up slightly underperforming its benchmark for the year. The biggest impact on relative performance was the Portfolio’s very defensive exposure to interest rates which was a large detractor from performance during the first half of the year as rates fell, but an almost equally large contributor to performance during the second half of the year as rates rose. Finally, the Portfolio’s significant overweight to high yield bonds was a strong contributor to the Asset Allocation 60 Portfolio’s relative performance. This was despite the BlackRock High Yield Portfolio underperforming its benchmark by the widest margin of any of the fixed income funds utilized. The main detractor to relative performance came from an underweight to Oil Field Services as names within the sector rallied strongly as energy prices stabilized.

Contribution from the domestic equity portfolios to relative performance was negative as performance was weighed down by poor stock selection in most of the underlying portfolios. The BlackRock Large Cap Value Portfolio was able to outperform its benchmark, primarily as a result of an overweight to and selection within Financials, as well as strong stock selection in Energy and Healthcare. The Met/Artisan Mid Cap Value Portfolio also managed to outperform its benchmark. Contribution to relative performance came primarily from underweights to Real Estate, Health Care, Utilities, and Consumer Staples, as well as strong stock selection within the Energy sector. All domestic large cap growth portfolios underperformed their respective benchmarks significantly. While the specifics varied, poor stock selection within Healthcare was a strong headwind across all portfolios, as the sector was heavily influenced by comments from politicians on both sides of the aisle regarding product pricing and the general structure of healthcare services in the U.S. Another headwind across the board was within Technology, where high growth names were punished severely in the first six months of the year, and didn’t recover enough during the latter six months of the year to make it back to positive territory. The Morgan Stanley Mid Cap Growth Portfolio significantly underperformed its benchmark. The main contributor to the poor performance was stock selection within the Financials, Healthcare, and Technology sectors. Within the small cap space, only the Invesco Small Cap Growth Portfolio was able to beat its benchmark. While the Portfolio’s asset allocation was a drag on relative performance, strong security selection within Healthcare and Energy more than outweighed the negative impact.

The international equity portfolios overall provided favorable relative returns. The Van Eck Global Natural Resources Portfolio delivered the biggest absolute return and the biggest relative outperformance of all the funds in the Asset Allocation 60 Portfolio as commodity prices rebounded strongly over the year. The Portfolio’s relative outperformance was driven by overweight to, and strong selection within, Diversified Metals & Mining, Oil & Gas Drilling, and Copper. The Harris Oakmark International Portfolio was another strong performer for the year, mostly as a result of strong stock selection within the Basic Materials sector and an overweight to, and strong selection within, the Industrials sector. At the other end of the spectrum was the Met/Artisan International Portfolio, which significantly underperformed its benchmark as a result of poor stock selection.

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, 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 subject to change at any time based upon economic, market, or other conditions and the advisory 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.

MSF-2

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Asset Allocation 60 Portfolio

A $10,000 INVESTMENT COMPARED TO THE DOW JONES MODERATE INDEX

AVERAGE ANNUAL RETURNS (%) (FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2016)

	1 Year		5 Year		10 Year
MetLife Asset Allocation 60 Portfolio
Class A		7.47		8.50		4.82
Class B		7.11		8.22		4.55
Dow Jones Moderate Index		7.67		7.37		5.08

¹ The Dow Jones Moderate Index is a total return 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) such that the risk combination will have 60% of the risk of an all equity portfolio.

Portfolio performance is calculated including reinvestment of all income and capital gain distributions. Performance numbers are net of all Portfolio expenses but do not include any insurance, sales, separate account or administrative charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts or any additional expenses that participants may bear relating to the operations of their plans. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower. The performance of any index referenced above has not been adjusted for ongoing management, distribution and operating expenses, and sales charges applicable to mutual fund investments. Direct investment in any index is not possible. The performance of Class A shares, as set forth in the line graph above, will differ from that of other classes because of the difference in expenses paid by policyholders investing in the different share classes.

This information represents past performance and is not indicative of future results. Investment return and principal value may fluctuate so that shares, upon redemption, may be worth more or less than the original cost.

PORTFOLIO COMPOSITION AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2016

Top Holdings

	% of Net Assets
BlackRock Bond Income Portfolio (Class A)		6.4
PIMCO Total Return Portfolio (Class A)		5.9
TCW Core Fixed Income Portfolio (Class A)		5.3
MFS Value Portfolio (Class A)		4.6
Met/Wellington Core Equity Opportunities Portfolio (Class A)		4.6
JPMorgan Core Bond Portfolio (Class A)		4.4
T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio (Class A)		4.1
Western Asset Management U.S. Government Portfolio (Class A)		3.9
Invesco Comstock Portfolio (Class A)		3.6
BlackRock Large Cap Value Portfolio (Class A)		3.6

MSF-3

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Asset Allocation 60 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, 2016 through December 31, 2016.

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.

MetLife Asset Allocation 60 Portfolio		Annualized Expense Ratio			Beginning Account Value July 1, 2016		Ending Account Value December 31, 2016		Expenses Paid During Period** July 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016
Class A(a)	Actual		0.64	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,047.20	$	3.29
	Hypothetical*		0.64	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,021.92	$	3.25
Class B(a)	Actual		0.89	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,044.70	$	4.57
	Hypothetical*		0.89%		$	1,000.00	$	1,020.66	$	4.52

* 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 366 (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.

MSF-4

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Asset Allocation 60 Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Mutual Funds—100.0% of Net Assets

Security Description	Shares		Value
Affiliated Investment Companies—100.0%
Baillie Gifford International Stock Portfolio (Class A) (a)		34,374,118	$	345,803,623
BlackRock Bond Income Portfolio (Class A) (a)		8,548,930		906,101,120
BlackRock Capital Appreciation Portfolio (Class A) (a)		12,669,965		421,022,938
BlackRock High Yield Portfolio (Class A) (b)		11,367,631		87,303,408
BlackRock Large Cap Value Portfolio (Class A) (a)		56,915,647		513,948,294
Clarion Global Real Estate Portfolio (Class A) (b)		17,363,812		202,114,774
ClearBridge Aggressive Growth Portfolio (Class A) (b)		29,906,151		468,031,271
Goldman Sachs Mid Cap Value Portfolio (Class A) (b)		3,154,171		36,556,838
Harris Oakmark International Portfolio (Class A) (b)		36,091,653		475,687,986
Invesco Comstock Portfolio (Class A) (b)		35,357,565		518,341,903
Invesco Small Cap Growth Portfolio (Class A) (b)		15,835,532		217,580,209
Jennison Growth Portfolio (Class A) (a)		37,630,435		498,603,269
JPMorgan Core Bond Portfolio (Class A) (b)		61,180,076		625,260,372
JPMorgan Small Cap Value Portfolio (Class A) (b)		6,257,816		113,329,041
Loomis Sayles Small Cap Growth Portfolio (Class A) (a)		5,846,679		72,264,953
Met/Aberdeen Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio (Class A) (b)		26,067,044		234,342,723
Met/Artisan International Portfolio (Class A) (b)		34,062,613		294,982,226
Met/Artisan Mid Cap Value Portfolio (Class A) (a)		317,601		73,454,671
Met/Dimensional International Small Company Portfolio (Class A) (a)		11,346,986		142,631,619
Met/Eaton Vance Floating Rate Portfolio (Class A) (b)		27,844,011		288,185,518
Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio (Class A) (b)		29,623,117		284,974,385
Met/Templeton International Bond Portfolio (Class A) (b)		43,566,795		437,410,619
Met/Wellington Core Equity Opportunities Portfolio (Class A) (a)		22,730,943		650,332,281
Met/Wellington Large Cap Research Portfolio (Class A) (b)		31,636,505		435,634,679
MetLife Small Cap Value Portfolio (Class A) (b)		9,433,377		150,368,030
MFS Research International Portfolio (Class A) (b)		27,787,660		282,044,745
Affiliated Investment Companies—(Continued)
MFS Value Portfolio (Class A) (a)		42,957,290		657,676,105
Neuberger Berman Genesis Portfolio (Class A) (a)		6,907,441		147,681,089
Oppenheimer Global Equity Portfolio (Class A) (b)		7,478,956		144,194,264
PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond Portfolio (Class A) (b) (c)		42,858,192		418,724,531
PIMCO Total Return Portfolio (Class A) (b)		74,004,896		837,735,427
T. Rowe Price Large Cap Growth Portfolio (Class A) (a)		21,302,407		429,882,565
T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio (Class A) (b)		17,302,753		585,006,080
T. Rowe Price Mid Cap Growth Portfolio (Class A) (b)		13,893,994		144,080,723
T. Rowe Price Small Cap Growth Portfolio (Class A) (a)		10,201,894		218,422,552
TCW Core Fixed Income Portfolio (Class A) (b)		74,418,648		751,628,347
Van Eck Global Natural Resources Portfolio (Class A) (a)		26,372,873		286,409,402
Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities Portfolio (Class A) (a)		21,153,213		283,241,523
Western Asset Management U.S. Government Portfolio (Class A) (a)		47,552,995		558,272,166
Total Mutual Funds (Cost $13,937,196,985)				14,239,266,269
Total Investments—100.0% (Cost $13,937,196,985) (d)				14,239,266,269
Other assets and liabilities (net)—0.0%				(3,787,576	)
Net Assets—100.0%			$	14,235,478,693

(a) A Portfolio of Metropolitan Series Fund. (See Note 6 of the Notes to Financial Statements for a summary of transactions in the securities of affiliated Underlying Portfolios.)

(b) A Portfolio of Met Investors Series Trust. (See Note 6 of the Notes to Financial Statements for a summary of transactions in the securities of affiliated Underlying Portfolios.)

(c) Non-income producing security.

(d) As of December 31, 2016, the aggregate cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was $14,040,988,943. The aggregate unrealized appreciation and depreciation of investments were $633,466,151 and $(435,188,825), respectively, resulting in net unrealized appreciation of $198,277,326 for federal income tax purposes.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-5

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Asset Allocation 60 Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Fair Value Hierarchy

Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) define 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, separately for each major category of assets and liabilities, 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, quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities 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, or other market corroborated inputs)

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 used in determining the fair value of investments and derivative financial instruments)

The inputs or methodologies used for valuing investments are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in them. Changes to the inputs or methodologies used may result in transfers between levels, which 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, 2016:

Description	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
Mutual Funds
Affiliated Investment Companies	$	14,239,266,269	$	—	$	—	$	14,239,266,269
Total Investments	$	14,239,266,269	$	—	$	—	$	14,239,266,269

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-6

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Asset Allocation 60 Portfolio

Statement of Assets and Liabilities

December 31, 2016

Assets
Affiliated investments at value (a)	$	14,239,266,269
Receivable for:
Investments sold		4,390,759
Fund shares sold		1,353,264
Total Assets		14,245,010,292
Liabilities
Payables for:
Fund shares redeemed		5,744,023
Accrued Expenses:
Management fees		637,791
Distribution and service fees		2,959,550
Deferred trustees’ fees		140,338
Other expenses		49,897
Total Liabilities		9,531,599
Net Assets	$	14,235,478,693
Net Assets Consist of:
Paid in surplus	$	13,215,569,437
Undistributed net investment income		249,317,628
Accumulated net realized gain		468,522,344
Unrealized appreciation on affiliated investments		302,069,284
Net Assets	$	14,235,478,693
Net Assets
Class A	$	331,190,922
Class B		13,904,287,771
Capital Shares Outstanding*
Class A		28,169,016
Class B		1,189,038,200
Net Asset Value, Offering Price and Redemption Price Per Share
Class A	$	11.76
Class B		11.69

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

(a) Identified cost of affiliated investments was $13,937,196,985.

Statement of Operations

Year Ended December 31, 2016

Investment Income
Dividends from affiliated investments	$	261,447,324
Interest		865
Other income (a)		141,196
Total investment income		261,589,385
Expenses
Management fees		7,535,844
Administration fees		22,191
Custodian and accounting fees		27,753
Distribution and service fees—Class B		34,983,392
Audit and tax services		31,204
Legal		32,989
Trustees’ fees and expenses		45,247
Miscellaneous		22,768
Total expenses		42,701,388
Net Investment Income		218,887,997
Net Realized and Unrealized Gain (Loss)
Net realized gain on:
Affiliated investments		46,373,609
Capital gain distributions from Affiliated Underlying Portfolios		583,015,071
Net realized gain		629,388,680
Net change in unrealized appreciation on affiliated investments		137,092,249
Net realized and unrealized gain		766,480,929
Net Increase in Net Assets From Operations	$	985,368,926

(a) Other income represents a non-recurring refund for overbilling of prior years’ custodian out-of-pocket fees.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-7

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Asset Allocation 60 Portfolio

Statements of Changes in Net Assets

	Year Ended December 31, 2016			Year Ended December 31, 2015
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets:
From Operations
Net investment income	$	218,887,997		$	342,104,501
Net realized gain		629,388,680			1,441,615,565
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation)		137,092,249			(1,947,867,438	)
Increase (decrease) in net assets from operations		985,368,926			(164,147,372	)
From Distributions to Shareholders
Net investment income
Class A		(11,103,260	)		(2,574,394	)
Class B		(440,630,708	)		(82,914,174	)
Net realized capital gains
Class A		(29,446,663	)		(22,379,384	)
Class B		(1,271,092,592	)		(997,241,710	)
Total distributions		(1,752,273,223	)		(1,105,109,662	)
Increase (decrease) in net assets from capital share transactions		282,510,317			(490,987,334	)
Total decrease in net assets		(484,393,980	)		(1,760,244,368	)
Net Assets
Beginning of period		14,719,872,673			16,480,117,041
End of period	$	14,235,478,693		$	14,719,872,673
Undistributed net investment income
End of period	$	249,317,628		$	450,471,337

Other Information:

Capital Shares

Transactions in capital shares were as follows:

	Year Ended December 31, 2016						Year Ended December 31, 2015
	Shares			Value			Shares			Value
Class A
Sales		1,738,201		$	20,624,999			2,093,319		$	27,736,767
Reinvestments		3,640,029			40,549,923			1,909,241			24,953,778
Redemptions		(3,614,918	)		(43,116,439	)		(3,600,738	)		(47,485,604	)
Net increase		1,763,312		$	18,058,483			401,822		$	5,204,941
Class B
Sales		12,663,938		$	150,563,373			14,904,548		$	196,446,489
Reinvestments		154,348,359			1,711,723,300			82,961,281			1,080,155,884
Redemptions		(134,911,201	)		(1,597,834,839	)		(134,153,618	)		(1,772,794,648	)
Net increase (decrease)		32,101,096		$	264,451,834			(36,287,789	)	$	(496,192,275	)
Increase (decrease) derived from capital shares transactions				$	282,510,317					$	(490,987,334	)

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-8

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Asset Allocation 60 Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class A
	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014			2013			2012
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	12.50		$	13.57		$	13.74		$	11.98		$	10.83
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (a)		0.21			0.32			0.21			0.25			0.23
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		0.63			(0.41	)		0.48			1.89			1.21
Total from investment operations		0.84			(0.09	)		0.69			2.14			1.44
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.43	)		(0.10	)		(0.32	)		(0.28	)		(0.29	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(1.15	)		(0.88	)		(0.54	)		(0.10	)		0.00
Total distributions		(1.58	)		(0.98	)		(0.86	)		(0.38	)		(0.29	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	11.76		$	12.50		$	13.57		$	13.74		$	11.98
Total Return (%) (b)		7.47			(0.99	)		5.29			18.29			13.47
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%) (c)		0.05			0.05			0.05			0.06			0.06
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%) (d)		1.74			2.40			1.58			1.95			2.03
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		10			15			16			15			11
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	331.2		$	330.1		$	353.0		$	331.6		$	274.8
	Class B
	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014			2013			2012
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	12.44		$	13.52		$	13.69		$	11.94		$	10.79
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (a)		0.18			0.28			0.05			0.22			0.21
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		0.62			(0.41	)		0.61			1.88			1.20
Total from investment operations		0.80			(0.13	)		0.66			2.10			1.41
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.40	)		(0.07	)		(0.29	)		(0.25	)		(0.26	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(1.15	)		(0.88	)		(0.54	)		(0.10	)		0.00
Total distributions		(1.55	)		(0.95	)		(0.83	)		(0.35	)		(0.26	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	11.69		$	12.44		$	13.52		$	13.69		$	11.94
Total Return (%) (b)		7.11			(1.27	)		5.05			17.98			13.24
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%) (c)		0.30			0.30			0.30			0.31			0.31
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%) (d)		1.52			2.15			0.39			1.71			1.81
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		10			15			16			15			11
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	13,904.3		$	14,389.8		$	16,127.1		$	5,420.8		$	4,800.4

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

(b) Total return does not reflect any insurance, sales, separate account or administrative charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts or any additional expenses that contract owners may bear under their variable contracts. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower.

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

(d) Recognition of net investment income by the Asset Allocation 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.

MSF-9

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Asset Allocation 60 Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016

1. Organization

Metropolitan Series Fund (the “Trust”) is organized as a Delaware statutory trust and registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), as an open-end management investment company. The Trust, which is managed by MetLife Advisers, LLC (“MetLife Advisers” or the “Adviser”), an affiliate of MetLife, Inc., is currently comprised of thirty series, each of which operates as a distinct investment vehicle of the Trust. The portfolio included in this report is MetLife Asset Allocation 60 Portfolio (the “Asset Allocation Portfolio”), which is diversified. The Asset Allocation Portfolio operates under a “fund of funds” structure, investing substantially all of its assets in other Portfolios advised by MetLife Advisers (each, an “Underlying Portfolio,” and, collectively, the “Underlying Portfolios”). Shares in the Asset Allocation 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.

On January 12, 2016, MetLife, Inc. announced its plan to pursue the separation of a substantial portion of its retail segment and is currently evaluating structural alternatives for such separation. It is anticipated that MetLife Advisers would be included in any such separation. Any separation transaction that might occur will be subject to the satisfaction of various conditions and approvals, including approval of any transaction by the MetLife, Inc. Board of Directors, satisfaction of any applicable requirements of the SEC, and receipt of insurance and other regulatory approvals and other anticipated conditions. MetLife, Inc. cannot currently provide a specific potential completion date for a separation transaction or any assurance that a separation will in fact occur. MetLife Advisers’ continued service as investment adviser to the Trusts following a separation transaction is the subject of a proxy statement that was filed with the SEC on December 20, 2016 and mailed to shareholders of the Portfolio on or about December 30, 2016.

The Asset Allocation Portfolio has registered and offers two classes of shares: Class A and B shares. Shares of each Class of the Asset Allocation Portfolio represent an equal pro rata interest in the Asset Allocation 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 Asset Allocation Portfolio, and certain Asset Allocation 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 Asset Allocation Portfolio. Each Class of shares differs in its respective distribution plan and such distribution expenses are allocated to the corresponding Class of shares.

2. Significant Accounting Policies

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities as of the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of income and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates. In the preparation of these financial statements, management has evaluated events and transactions subsequent to December 31, 2016 through the date the financial statements were issued.

The Asset Allocation Portfolio is an investment company and follows the accounting and reporting guidance of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Accounting Standards Codification Topic 946—Financial Services—Investment Companies and Topic 820—Fair Value Measurement. The following is a summary of significant accounting policies consistently followed by the Asset Allocation Portfolio in the preparation of its financial statements.

Investment Valuation and Fair Value Measurements - Investments in the Underlying Portfolios are valued at their closing daily net asset value on the valuation date. Investments in the Underlying Portfolios are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. 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 - Asset Allocation Portfolio security transactions are recorded on the trade date. Dividend income is recorded on the ex-dividend date. Realized gains and losses on investments 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.

Dividends and Distributions to Shareholders - The Asset Allocation Portfolio records dividends and distributions on the ex-dividend date. Net realized gains from securities 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 distribution re-designations and distributions from Underlying Portfolios. These adjustments have no impact on net assets or the results of operations.

MSF-10

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Asset Allocation 60 Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

Income Taxes - It is the Asset Allocation 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 Asset Allocation Portfolio files U.S. federal tax returns. No income tax returns are currently under examination. The Asset Allocation Portfolio’s federal tax returns for the prior three fiscal years remain subject to examination by the Internal Revenue Service. As of December 31, 2016, the Asset Allocation Portfolio had no uncertain tax positions that would require financial statement recognition, or de-recognition or disclosure.

3. Certain Risks

In the normal course of business, the Underlying Portfolios invest in securities and enter into transactions where risks exist. Those risks include:

Market 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, interest rate, and price fluctuations.

Credit and Counterparty Risk: 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 and counterparty risk consist principally of cash due from counterparties and investments. The Underlying Portfolios manage counterparty risk by entering into agreements only with counterparties that they believe have the financial resources to honor their obligations and by monitoring the financial stability of those counterparties. The Underlying Portfolios’ investment adviser attempts to mitigate counterparty risk by (i) periodically assessing the creditworthiness of their trading partners, (ii) monitoring and/or limiting the amount of their net exposure to each individual counterparty based on the adviser’s assessment, and (iii) requiring collateral from the counterparty for certain transactions. In order to preserve certain safeguards for non-standard settlement trades, the Underlying Portfolios restrict their exposure to credit and counterparty losses by entering into master netting agreements (“Master Agreements”) with counterparties (approved brokers) with whom the Underlying Portfolios undertake a significant volume of transactions. Master Agreements govern the terms of certain transactions, and reduce the counterparty risk associated with relevant transactions by specifying credit protection mechanisms and providing standardization that improves legal certainty. Master Agreements can also help limit counterparty risk by specifying collateral posting arrangements at pre-arranged exposure levels.

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

4. Investment Transactions

Aggregate cost of purchases and proceeds of sales of shares of the Underlying Portfolios by the Asset Allocation Portfolio for the year ended December 31, 2016 were as follows:

Purchases			Sales
U.S. Government	Non U.S. Government		U.S. Government		Non U.S. Government
$0	$	1,381,421,824	$	0	$	2,049,399,868

5. Investment Management Fees and Other Transactions with Affiliates

Investment Management Agreement - MetLife Advisers is the investment adviser to the Asset Allocation Portfolio. The Trust has entered into an investment management agreement with MetLife Advisers with respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolio. For providing investment management services to the Asset Allocation Portfolio, MetLife Advisers receives monthly compensation at the following annual rates:

Management Fees earned by MetLife Advisers for the year ended December 31, 2016	% per annum			Average Daily Net Assets
$7,535,844		0.100	%	Of the first $500 million
		0.075	%	Of the next $500 million
		0.050	%	On amounts in excess of $1 billion

MSF-11

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Asset Allocation 60 Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

In addition to the above management fee paid to MetLife Advisers, the Asset Allocation Portfolio indirectly pays MetLife Advisers an investment advisory fee through its investments in the Underlying Portfolios.

Certain officers and trustees of the Trust may also be officers of MetLife Advisers; 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 and Service Fees - The Trust has a distribution agreement with MetLife Investors Distribution Company (“MIDC” or the “Distributor”) in which MIDC serves as the distributor for the Asset Allocation Portfolio’s Class A and B Shares. MIDC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife Investors Group, LLC, an affiliate of the Adviser. The Trust has also adopted a Distribution and Service Plan under Rule 12b-1 of the 1940 Act for the Asset Allocation Portfolio’s Class B shares. Under the Distribution and Services Plan, the Class B shares of the Asset Allocation Portfolio pay a fee to compensate the Insurance Companies (or their affiliates) and other broker-dealers and financial intermediaries involved in the offer and sale of Asset Allocation Portfolio shares for promoting or selling and servicing the Class B shares of the Asset Allocation Portfolio. The fees under the Distribution and Services Plan for each class of the Asset Allocation Portfolio’s shares are calculated as a percentage of the Asset Allocation Portfolio’s average daily net assets that are attributable to that Class. Currently, the fee is 0.25% per year for Class B shares. Amount incurred by the Asset Allocation Portfolio for the year ended December 31, 2016 is shown as Distribution and service fees in the Statement of Operations.

Deferred Trustee Compensation - Each Trustee who is not currently an active employee of MetLife or its affiliates receives compensation from the Trust for his or her service to the Trust. 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 Met Investors Series Trust, an affiliate of the Trust, 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 Asset Allocation Portfolio under the Plan is reflected as Deferred trustees’ fees in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

6. Transactions in Securities of Affiliated Underlying Portfolios

The Asset Allocation Portfolio does not invest in the Underlying Portfolios for the purpose of exercising control; however, investments by the Asset Allocation Portfolio within its principal investment strategies may represent a significant portion of the Underlying Portfolios’ net assets. Transactions in the Underlying Portfolios for the year ended December 31, 2016 were as follows:

Underlying Portfolio	Number of shares held at December 31, 2015		Shares purchased		Shares sold			Number of shares held at December 31, 2016
Baillie Gifford International Stock		37,579,213		646,931		(3,852,026	)		34,374,118
BlackRock Bond Income		8,450,922		824,907		(726,899	)		8,548,930
BlackRock Capital Appreciation		12,239,055		1,407,419		(976,509	)		12,669,965
BlackRock High Yield		12,157,806		833,672		(1,623,847	)		11,367,631
BlackRock Large Cap Value		60,520,848		6,030,542		(9,635,743	)		56,915,647
Clarion Global Real Estate		19,027,930		446,481		(2,110,599	)		17,363,812
ClearBridge Aggressive Growth		28,753,090		2,942,952		(1,789,891	)		29,906,151
Goldman Sachs Mid Cap Value		6,424,892		416,803		(3,687,524	)		3,154,171
Harris Oakmark International		31,785,933		7,484,467		(3,178,747	)		36,091,653
Invesco Comstock		36,786,881		4,381,965		(5,811,281	)		35,357,565
Invesco Small Cap Growth		16,864,369		3,387,073		(4,415,910	)		15,835,532
Jennison Growth		34,055,978		5,980,304		(2,405,847	)		37,630,435
JPMorgan Core Bond		65,401,734		2,358,687		(6,580,345	)		61,180,076
JPMorgan Small Cap Value		9,538,284		733,800		(4,014,268	)		6,257,816
Loomis Sayles Small Cap Growth		5,587,636		793,888		(534,845	)		5,846,679
Lord Abbett Bond Debenture		8,946,551		610,812		(9,557,363	)		—
Met/Aberdeen Emerging Markets Equity		29,047,732		2,655,226		(5,635,914	)		26,067,044
Met/Artisan International		30,405,402		3,797,910		(140,699	)		34,062,613
Met/Artisan Mid Cap Value		670,611		48,841		(401,851	)		317,601
Met/Dimensional International Small Company		11,580,137		1,023,525		(1,256,676	)		11,346,986
Met/Eaton Vance Floating Rate		30,190,747		1,220,767		(3,567,503	)		27,844,011
Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return		46,665,314		997,118		(18,039,315	)		29,623,117
Met/Templeton International Bond		44,786,279		800,460		(2,019,944	)		43,566,795
Met/Wellington Core Equity Opportunities		21,021,582		3,086,954		(1,377,593	)		22,730,943
Met/Wellington Large Cap Research		26,688,876		6,897,950		(1,950,321	)		31,636,505

MSF-12

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Asset Allocation 60 Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

Underlying Portfolio	Number of shares held at December 31, 2015			Shares purchased		Shares sold			Number of shares held at December 31, 2016
MetLife Small Cap Value		14,320,914			599,208		(5,486,745	)		9,433,377
MFS Research International		27,620,038			1,003,724		(836,102	)		27,787,660
MFS Value		44,276,996			5,215,661		(6,535,367	)		42,957,290
Neuberger Berman Genesis		10,092,568			37,514		(3,222,641	)		6,907,441
Oppenheimer Global Equity		7,229,298			588,980		(339,322	)		7,478,956
PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond		48,179,383			8,944		(5,330,135	)		42,858,192
PIMCO Total Return		79,222,899			2,521,699		(7,739,702	)		74,004,896
T. Rowe Price Large Cap Growth		19,742,591			3,103,931		(1,544,115	)		21,302,407
T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value		17,481,846			2,802,730		(2,981,823	)		17,302,753
T. Rowe Price Mid Cap Growth		13,117,456			2,132,494		(1,355,956	)		13,893,994
T. Rowe Price Small Cap Growth		10,092,964			1,462,254		(1,353,324	)		10,201,894
TCW Core Fixed Income		67,619,840			12,494,436		(5,695,628	)		74,418,648
Van Eck Global Natural Resources		31,347,644			8,055,425		(13,030,196	)		26,372,873
Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities		20,131,062			8,337,480		(7,315,329	)		21,153,213
Western Asset Management U.S. Government		50,301,302			1,790,177		(4,538,484	)		47,552,995
Underlying Portfolio	Net Realized Gain/(Loss) on sales of Affiliated Underlying Portfolios			Capital Gain Distributions from Affiliated Underlying Portfolios		Dividend Income from Affiliated Underlying Portfolios			Ending Value as of December 31, 2016
Baillie Gifford International Stock	$	6,583,929		$	—	$	5,901,450		$	345,803,623
BlackRock Bond Income		1,050,362			—		29,451,371			906,101,120
BlackRock Capital Appreciation		4,587,306			39,001,720		—			421,022,938
BlackRock High Yield		(1,270,898	)		—		5,927,404			87,303,408
BlackRock Large Cap Value		(13,483,471	)		39,003,262		8,533,754			513,948,294
Clarion Global Real Estate		6,250,855			—		5,019,352			202,114,774
ClearBridge Aggressive Growth		19,666,784			—		3,104,530			468,031,271
Goldman Sachs Mid Cap Value		(11,789,669	)		2,799,199		407,099			36,556,838
Harris Oakmark International		89,702			29,778,968		10,627,952			475,687,986
Invesco Comstock		24,696,002			39,491,067		14,343,965			518,341,903
Invesco Small Cap Growth		(5,836,210	)		38,929,310		—			217,580,209
Jennison Growth		2,279,103			65,649,827		1,483,417			498,603,269
JPMorgan Core Bond		(989,009	)		—		19,630,242			625,260,372
JPMorgan Small Cap Value		(1,753,548	)		7,397,311		2,057,080			113,329,041
Loomis Sayles Small Cap Growth		479,600			7,899,726		—			72,264,953
Lord Abbett Bond Debenture		(403,591	)		—		6,841,094			—
Met/Aberdeen Emerging Markets Equity		25,487			—		3,132,446			234,342,723
Met/Artisan International		(95,098	)		—		2,929,645			294,982,226
Met/Artisan Mid Cap Value		37,181,863			7,898,618		792,649			73,454,671
Met/Dimensional International Small Company		(4,446,701	)		8,997,859		3,115,481			142,631,619
Met/Eaton Vance Floating Rate		73,716			—		12,071,985			288,185,518
Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return		(5,561,475	)		—		9,366,957			284,974,385
Met/Templeton International Bond		(389,760	)		1,107,739		—			437,410,619
Met/Wellington Core Equity Opportunities		7,005,389			27,985,252		10,246,908			650,332,281
Met/Wellington Large Cap Research		1,434,823			28,059,029		10,315,377			435,634,679
MetLife Small Cap Value		(13,138,668	)		3,902,821		1,919,420			150,368,030
MFS Research International		241,409			—		6,407,820			282,044,745
MFS Value		31,524,928			58,751,722		14,728,844			657,676,105
Neuberger Berman Genesis		19,664,176			—		692,920			147,681,089
Oppenheimer Global Equity		(220,480	)		7,046,111		1,692,234			144,194,264
PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond		(4,670,972	)		—		—			418,724,531
PIMCO Total Return		(4,452,022	)		—		24,145,625			837,735,427
T. Rowe Price Large Cap Growth		5,932,139			53,851,738		258,616			429,882,565
T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value		36,631,286			66,880,936		17,548,695			585,006,080
T. Rowe Price Mid Cap Growth		768,470			20,995,331		—			144,080,723
T. Rowe Price Small Cap Growth		2,750,256			27,587,525		579,240			218,422,552
TCW Core Fixed Income		553,991			—		6,195,603			751,628,347
Van Eck Global Natural Resources		(86,860,840	)		—		2,404,262			286,409,402
Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities		(8,550,000	)		—		4,577,810			283,241,523
Western Asset Management U.S. Government		814,445			—		14,996,077			558,272,166
	$	46,373,609		$	583,015,071	$	261,447,324		$	14,239,266,269

MSF-13

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Asset Allocation 60 Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

7. Contractual Obligations

Under the Trust’s organizational documents, its officers and Trustees may be indemnified against certain liabilities and expenses arising out of the performance of their duties to the Trust. Additionally, 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 Trust that have not yet occurred.

8. Income Tax Information

The tax character of distributions paid for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015 were as follows:

Ordinary Income			Long-Term Capital Gain				Total
2016	2015		2016		2015		2016		2015
$456,253,652	$	88,972,467	$	1,296,019,571	$	1,016,137,195	$	1,752,273,223	$	1,105,109,662

As of December 31, 2016, 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		Other Accumulated Capital Losses		Total
$249,457,966	$	572,314,305	$	198,277,323	$	—	$	1,020,049,594

The Asset Allocation 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 up to 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, 2016, the Asset Allocation Portfolio had no post-enactment accumulated capital losses and no pre-enactment accumulated capital loss carryforwards.

9. Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In October 2016, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) adopted new rules and forms, and amendments to certain current rules and forms, to modernize reporting and disclosure of information by registered investment companies. The amendments to Regulation S-X will require standardized, enhanced disclosure about derivatives in investment company financial statements, and will also change the rules governing the form and content of such financial statements. The compliance date for the amendments to Regulation S-X is August 1, 2017. Management is currently evaluating the impact that the adoption of the amendments to Regulation S-X will have on the Portfolio’s financial statements and related disclosures.

MSF-14

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Asset Allocation 60 Portfolio

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Shareholders of MetLife Asset Allocation 60 Portfolio and the Board of Trustees of Metropolitan Series Fund:

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities, including the schedule of investments, of MetLife Asset Allocation 60 Portfolio (one of the portfolios constituting the Metropolitan Series Fund) (the “Portfolio”) as of December 31, 2016, 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 Portfolio’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 Portfolio 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 Portfolio’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, 2016, 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 Asset Allocation 60 Portfolio of the Metropolitan Series Fund as of December 31, 2016, 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.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

February 24, 2017

MSF-15

Metropolitan Series Fund

Trustees and Officers

MANAGEMENT OF THE TRUSTS

The Boards of Trustees (the “Board”) of Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (“MIST” and “MSF”, respectively, and collectively the “Trusts”) supervise the Trusts and are responsible for representing the interests of shareholders. The Trustees, the Chairman of the Board and the Chairmen of each subcommittee are the same for both Trusts. The Trustees of each Trust meet periodically throughout the year to oversee the Portfolios’ activities, reviewing, among other things, each Portfolio’s performance and its contractual arrangements with various service providers. The Trustees of each Trust elect the officers of the Trust, who are responsible for administering the Trust’s day-to-day operations.

Trustees and Officers

The Trustees and executive officers of the Trusts, as well as their ages and their principal occupations during the past five years, are set forth below. Unless otherwise indicated, the business address of each is c/o MetLife Funds, One Financial Center, Boston, Massachusetts 02111. Each Trustee who is deemed an “interested person,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, is referred to as an “Interested Trustee.” Those Trustees who are not “interested persons,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, are referred to as “Independent Trustees.” There is no limit to the term a Trustee may serve. Trustees serve until their death, resignation or removal in accordance with the MIST Trust’s and MSF Trust’s respective organizational documents and policies adopted by the Boards of the respective Trusts from time to time. Officers hold office at the pleasure of each Board and serve until their removal or resignation in accordance with the Trusts’ respective organizational documents and policies adopted by the Board of each Trust from time to time.

Name and Age	Current 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 MetLife Funds Complex(2) Overseen by Trustee	Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Interested Trustee
John Rosenthal* (56)	Trustee	Indefinite; From May 2016 (MIST and MSF) to present	Senior Managing Director and Head of Global Portfolio Management, MetLife, Inc.	75	None
Independent Trustees
Dawn M. Vroegop (50)	Trustee and Chairman of the Board	Indefinite; From December 2000 (MIST)/ May 2009 (MSF) to present as Trustee; From May 2016 (MIST and MSF) until present as Chairman	Private Investor.	75	Trustee, Driehaus Mutual Funds.**
Stephen M. Alderman (57)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 (MIST)/ April 2012 (MSF) to present	Shareholder in the law firm of Garfield and Merel, Ltd.	75	None

MSF-16

Metropolitan Series Fund

Trustees and Officers—(Continued)

Name and Age	Current 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 MetLife Funds Complex(2) Overseen by Trustee	Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Robert J. Boulware (60)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 (MIST)/ April 2012 (MSF) to present	Managing Director, Pilgrim Funds, LLC (private equity fund).	75	Trustee, Vertical Capital Income Fund (closed-end fund);** Director, Gainsco, Inc. (auto insurance);** Trustee, SharesPost 100 Fund (closed-end fund).**
Susan C. Gause (64)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 (MIST)/ April 2012 (MSF) to present	Private Investor.	75	Trustee, HSBC Funds.**
Nancy Hawthorne (65)	Trustee	Indefinite; From May 2003 (MSF)/ April 2012 (MIST) to present	Partner, Hawthorne Financial Advisors, LLC (registered investment advisor); until June 2014, Chief Executive Officer, Clerestory LLC (corporate advisor).	75	Director and Chairman of the Board of Directors, THL Credit, Inc.;** Lead Director, Avid Technology, Inc.;** Director, CRA International, Inc.**
Barbara A. Nugent (60)	Trustee	Indefinite; From January 2014 (MIST and MSF) to present	President, True North Board Governance, LLC (consulting); until December 2013, partner in the law firm of Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young, LLP.	75	None
Linda B. Strumpf (69)	Trustee	Indefinite; From May 2000 (MSF)/ April 2012 (MIST) to present	Chair of the Investment Committee, Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust; until June 2011, Chief Investment Officer, Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust.	75	None

Executive Officers

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Kristi Slavin (43)	President and Chief Executive Officer, of MIST and MSF	From May 2016 (MIST and MSF) to present	President, MetLife Advisers, LLC (May 2016-present); Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Vice President, MetLife, Inc.; Vice President, MIST and MSF (2015-2016).

MSF-17

Metropolitan Series Fund

Trustees and Officers—(Continued)

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Peter H. Duffy (61)	Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, of MIST and MSF	From November 2000 (MSF)/ May 2012 (MIST) to present	Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Andrew L. Gangolf (62)	Secretary, of MIST and MSF	From May 2011 (MIST and MSF) to present	Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; until 2011, Senior Vice President & Assistant General Counsel, AllianceBernstein Investments, Inc.
Steven E. Hartstein (53)	Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”), of MIST and MSF	From February 2014 (MIST and MSF) to present	Vice President, MetLife, Inc. (2013-present); Senior Vice President and CCO, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Executive Director, Morgan Stanley (2009-2013); CCO, Consulting Group Capital Markets Funds (2006-2013).
Alan C. Leland (64)	Vice President, of MIST and MSF	From February 2005 (MSF)/ May 2012 (MIST) to present	Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Vice President, MetLife, Inc.

* Mr. Rosenthal is an “interested person” of the Trusts because of his position with MetLife, Inc., the current parent company of MetLife Advisers, LLC.

** 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 Trusts, MetLife, Inc. or the Manager are omitted if not materially different.

(2) The Fund Complex includes 45 MIST Portfolios and 30 MSF Portfolios.

MSF-18

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Asset Allocation 60 Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory Agreements

At an in-person meeting held on November 15-16, 2016 (the “November Meeting”), the Boards of Trustees (the “Board”) of the Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (“MIST” and “MSF,” respectively, and collectively, the “Trusts”), including a majority of the Trustees who are not “interested persons” of the Trusts (the “Independent Trustees”) under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “1940 Act”), approved the continuation of the Trusts’ advisory agreements (the “Advisory Agreements” or “Agreements”) with MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”) for the series of the Trusts (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”).

In reaching that decision, the Board reviewed a variety of materials provided for the specific purpose of the annual contract renewal process. In addition, various materials provided to and discussed with the Board throughout the year also informed the Board’s decision to renew the Agreements. That information for each Portfolio included, but was not limited to, investment performance reports, along with periodic reports on various expenses, shareholder services, legal and compliance matters, asset pricing, brokerage commissions and trade execution. The Board also recognized the pending separation of the Adviser from its parent company, MetLife, Inc., as a consideration in their deliberations with respect to the Agreements.

The Board met in person with personnel of the Adviser on September 27, 2016 for the specific purpose of giving preliminary consideration to the proposed continuation of the Agreements (the “September Meeting”) through the review by the Adviser with the Board of the performance and fees experienced by each Portfolio, as well as other information. In considering the Agreements, the Independent Trustees were advised by independent legal counsel throughout the contract renewal process, and met with independent legal counsel in several executive sessions outside of the presence of management.

Information furnished and reviewed specifically in connection with the renewal process included, but was not limited to, a report for each Portfolio prepared by Broadridge (“Broadridge”), an independent organization, and a Portfolio-by-Portfolio profitability analysis prepared by the Adviser. In addition, the Independent Trustees received and reviewed a report prepared by JDL Consultants, LLC (“JDL”), an independent consultant to the Independent Trustees (“JDL Report”), which examined the comparative fees, expenses and performance of each Portfolio, based upon the Broadridge reports. Also, the Board reviewed the responses to wide-ranging questions relating to the business, operations and performance of the Adviser that the Adviser had prepared specifically for the renewal process.

At the November Meeting, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, concluded that the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser supported the renewal of the Agreements. The Board also concluded that the investment performance of each Portfolio was such that each Agreement should continue, and that the fees paid by a Portfolio to the Adviser appeared to be reasonable in light of nature, extent and quality of the services provided by the Adviser. Further, the Board concluded that the Adviser’s profitability in providing services under the Advisory Agreements did not appear unreasonably high in light of the nature, extent and quality of the services provided by the Adviser. Finally, the Board concluded that the investment advisory fees paid by the Portfolios in some measure shared economies of scale with contract holders. In approving the renewal of each of the Agreements, the Board, including the Independent Trustees, gave attention to all of the information that was furnished. The Board evaluated the information available to it on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis, and its decision was made separately with respect to each Portfolio. The following discusses some of the primary factors that generally were relevant to the Board’s decision. The Board did not identify any single factor as controlling, and the Trustees generally attributed different weights to various factors for the various Portfolios.

Nature, extent and quality of services. The Board evaluated the nature, extent and quality of the services that the Adviser has provided to the Portfolios. The Board considered the Adviser’s services as investment manager to the Portfolios, including its investment management activities, trading practices, financial condition, relevant personnel matters and compliance program, among other things. The Adviser’s services in coordinating and overseeing the activities of the Trusts’ service providers were also considered. The Board considered information received from the Trusts’ Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) regarding the Portfolios’ compliance policies and procedures that were established pursuant to Rule 38a-l under the 1940 Act. In addition, throughout the year, the Board considered the expertise, experience and performance of the personnel of the Adviser who performed the various services that are mentioned above.

The Board also noted that the Adviser’s investment, compliance and legal staff regularly review and assess the services that are provided to the Portfolios, and that personnel of the Adviser prepare and present reports to the Independent Trustees regarding material information related to those reviews and assessments.

The Board further considered the provision of investment advisory services by the Adviser to the MetLife Asset Allocation 20 Portfolio, MetLife Asset Allocation 40 Portfolio, MetLife Asset Allocation 60 Portfolio, MetLife Asset Allocation 80 Portfolio and MetLife Asset Allocation 100 Portfolio (the “Asset Allocation Portfolios”) and the American Funds Balanced Allocation Portfolio, American Funds

MSF-19

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Asset Allocation 60 Portfolio

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

Growth Allocation Portfolio and American Funds Moderate Allocation Portfolio (the “American Funds of Funds”). With respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios, the Board noted that the Adviser has hired at its own expense 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 investments in other Portfolios of the Trusts (the “Underlying Portfolios”). Additionally, the Board considered that a committee, consisting of investment professionals from across the Adviser, meets regularly to review the asset allocations and discuss the performance of the Asset Allocation Portfolios and the American Funds of Funds.

The Board further considered and found that the advisory fee paid to the Adviser with respect to each Asset Allocation Portfolio and American Fund of Funds was based on services provided that were in addition to, rather than duplicative of, the services provided pursuant to the advisory agreements for the Underlying Portfolios in which the Portfolio invests.

Performance. The Board placed emphasis on the performance of the Portfolios in light of, among other things, its importance to contract holders. The Board considered the Adviser’s quarterly reviews with the Board of detailed information about each Portfolio’s investment strategies and performance results and composition, including discussions regarding the relevant effect of current market conditions. The Board reviewed and considered the reports prepared by Broadridge, which provided a statistical analysis comparing the Portfolios’ investment performance to that of comparable funds underlying variable insurance products (the “Performance Universe”). The Independent Trustees also met separately with a representative of JDL during the September Meeting to review the JDL Report. At the November Meeting, the Board considered each Portfolio’s performance for periods subsequent to the performance period covered by the Broadridge reports, and the Adviser’s discussion of the same, including the effect of current market conditions on each Portfolio’s more recent performance. The Board focused particular attention on Portfolios with less favorable performance records.

Fees and Expenses. The Board gave consideration to the level and method of computing the fees payable under the Agreements. The Board considered the Broadridge report for each of the Portfolios, which included comparisons for each Portfolio of its contractual management fees (at current and various asset levels), and total expenses, with those of its peers, including as those peers were divided into a broad group of peer funds (“Expense Universe”) and a narrower group of peer funds (“Expense Group”). Broadridge selected the peer funds which were similarly situated funds underlying variable insurance products deemed to be comparable to the Portfolios. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of JDL, also examined the JDL Report.

The Board also considered that the Adviser had entered into expense limitation or management fee waiver agreements with certain of the Portfolios pursuant to which the Adviser had 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.

Profitability. The Board examined the profitability of the Adviser on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis. In the case of the Asset Allocation Portfolios, the Board also considered the Adviser’s analysis of its profitability that was attributable to its management of the Underlying Portfolios of the Trust in which the Asset Allocation Portfolios invest. The Board further considered that an affiliate of the Adviser, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, serves as distributor for the Portfolios, and, as such, receives Rule 12b-1 payments to support the distribution of the Portfolios. In reviewing the profitability analyses, the Board recognized that expense allocation methodologies are inherently subjective and various expense allocation methodologies may be reasonable while producing different results.

Economies of scale. The Board also considered each Portfolio’s fees in light of its size. The Board noted the fee schedules for the Portfolios that 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 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. The Board examined, among other data, the effect of a Portfolio’s growth in size on various fee schedules and reviewed the Broadridge and JDL Reports, which compared fees among peers. The Board also generally noted that if a Portfolio’s assets increase over time, the Portfolio may realize other economies of scale if assets increase proportionally more than certain other fixed expenses.

Other factors. The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trusts. Among them, the Board recognized that MetLife Investors Distribution Company, as the distributor for the Trusts, receives payments pursuant to Rule 12b-1 from the Portfolios to compensate for the provision of shareholder services and distribution activities, which could lead to growth in the Trusts’ assets and corresponding benefits from such growth, including economies of scale. In conjunction with these considerations, the Board noted the ongoing commitment of the Adviser to the Portfolios.

MSF-20

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Asset Allocation 60 Portfolio

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

The Board considered possible conflicts of interest in the form of material benefits or detriments to the Trusts resulting from the nature of the Trusts’ and the Adviser’s affiliations and the services that are provided to the Trusts, and the manner in which such conflicts were mitigated.

*  *  *

MetLife Asset Allocation 60 Portfolio. The Board also considered the following information in relation to the Agreement with the Adviser regarding the Portfolio:

Among other data relating specifically to the Portfolio’s performance, the Board considered that the Portfolio outperformed the median of its Performance Universe and its Lipper Index for the three- and five-year periods ended June 30, 2016, and underperformed the median of its Performance Universe and its Lipper Index for the one-year period ended June 30, 2016. The Board further considered that the Portfolio underperformed its benchmark, the MetLife AA 60 Broad Index, for the one-, three-, and five-year periods ended October 31, 2016. The Board also noted that the Portfolio outperformed its other benchmark, the Dow Jones Moderate Index, for the three- and five-year periods ended October 31, 2016, and underperformed its other benchmark for the one-year period ended October 31, 2016.

The Board also considered that the Portfolio’s actual management fees and total expenses (exclusive of 12b-l fees) were below the Expense Group median and the Expense Universe median. The Board noted that the Portfolio’s contractual management fees were below the asset-weighted average of the Expense Group at the Portfolio’s current size.

MSF-21

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Asset Allocation 60 Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Advisory Agreements

The separation (the “Separation”) of MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”), the investment adviser to each of the series (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”) of Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (collectively, the “Trusts”), from its parent company, MetLife, Inc. (“MetLife”), to a separate retail business, Brighthouse Financial, Inc. (“Brighthouse”), is expected to result in a change in control of the Adviser, and therefore an “assignment” of each Portfolio’s current advisory agreement (each a “Current Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “Current Advisory Agreements”). At the November 15-16, 2016 meeting (“November Meeting”) of the Board of Trustees of the Trusts (the “Board”), the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not “interested persons,” as defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940, of any Portfolio (the “Independent Trustees”), approved a new advisory agreement (each a “New Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “New Advisory Agreements”) between the Trusts, on behalf of a Portfolio, and the Adviser, to be effective upon the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements in connection with the Separation, and recommended that the shareholders of the Trusts approve the New Advisory Agreements. The Board took those actions after consideration of and deliberation over information concerning the Separation, including with respect to the degree to which the Separation would affect the provision of investment advisory services to the Trusts. Information about the Board’s considerations and process is set forth below.

In determining whether to approve the New Advisory Agreements and in considering the Separation, the Board considered the nature, quality and extent of the services that are currently provided by the Adviser under the Current Advisory Agreements as well as the services to be provided under the New Advisory Agreements. The Board’s review was conducted as part of, and in conjunction with, the Board’s annual review of the Current Advisory Agreements, which culminated at the November Meeting. In approving the New Advisory Agreements, the Board considered its conclusions with respect to its approvals of the Current Advisory Agreements, including the Board’s general satisfaction with the nature, extent and quality of services being provided by the Adviser to each Portfolio. Appendix A and Appendix B contains a further description of the process followed, information reviewed and the material factors considered by the Board in approving the continuation of the Current Advisory Agreements.

A substantial portion of the Board’s review of the New Advisory Agreements focused on the Separation, including the potential effect of the implementation of the Separation on the operations, personnel, organizational structure, capitalization, and financial and other resources of the Adviser. After being informed by the Adviser in January 2016 of the possibility of the Separation, the Board and its Committees discussed the Separation and its possible effects on the Trusts with personnel of the Adviser and the anticipated senior management at Brighthouse during the course of the Board’s or Committee’s regularly scheduled, in-person, quarterly meetings.

Between August and November 2016, the Board and the Independent Trustees engaged in an extensive review and analysis of the Separation and how the Separation related to the Adviser and the Trusts and how it could affect the services provided to the Trusts. This analysis focused on, among other matters, the assurances from Brighthouse’s anticipated leadership as to its expectations for the continuity and stability of the Adviser’s personnel throughout implementation of the Separation and for the foreseeable future thereafter. The Board considered that the Separation is being implemented as a result of MetLife’s determination to divest itself of a substantial portion of its U.S. retail business (of which the Adviser forms a portion). The Board also considered that it has been satisfied as a general matter with the nature and quality of the services that the Adviser provides to the Portfolios, including investment advisory, administrative, legal, compliance, and support services, and that it would be in the Portfolios’ best interests to maintain continuity and stability in the services that are currently being provided. The Board carefully considered the anticipated future plans of Brighthouse related to capitalization and operational matters for Brighthouse and the Adviser, as well as the importance of the Adviser to the businesses of Brighthouse after the Separation.

Among other steps in its review process, which accelerated on October 5, 2016 when Brighthouse filed its Form 10 with the SEC, the following actions were taken and considered by or on behalf of the Board:

1. The Independent Trustees solicited and received ongoing advice regarding the legal duties of the Independent Trustees from Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young LLP (“Stradley Ronon”), legal counsel for the Independent Trustees, which law firm has extensive experience regarding such matters.

2. Following the August 16-17, 2016 Board and Committee quarterly meetings, the Independent Trustees established an ad hoc group of Independent Trustees (the “Working Group”) to help oversee, coordinate, and conduct due diligence activities with respect to the Separation. The Working Group regularly reported on the due diligence activities to the other Independent Trustees.

3. Since January 2016, the Board posed ongoing inquiries to, and received regular updates from, the Adviser and anticipated senior management at Brighthouse at either in-person meetings dedicated to the status of the Separation or during the course of the Board or Committee’s regular quarterly meetings. The Board considered, among other matters, relevant legal guidance and the processes followed by certain other investment company boards of directors or trustees when they approved contracts in connection with change in control events, while recognizing the unique circumstances of the Separation.

MSF-22

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Asset Allocation 60 Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

4. The Board received and reviewed the Form 10 of Brighthouse that contained extensive information relating to, among other matters, Brighthouse’s anticipated business plans and financial structure. The Board also received and reviewed reports from rating agencies with respect to Brighthouse.

5. Stradley Ronon retained Barrington Partners (“Barrington”), an independent consulting firm with a specific focus on the asset management industry and experience relating to business operations such as those to be conducted by Brighthouse, including its proposed subsidiary, the Adviser, in order to help Stradley Ronon evaluate the Separation based on the Form 10 and other materials and related information provided by the Adviser and its affiliates. Barrington conducted a series of in-person and telephonic meetings with anticipated senior management at Brighthouse (i.e., the aforementioned anticipated officers of Brighthouse and others) and with personnel of the Adviser who provide services to the Trusts. Stradley Ronon, with the assistance of Barrington, evaluated the information and advised the Independent Trustees with respect to, among other matters, details of Brighthouse’s anticipated business plan to understand the implications of the Separation to the Adviser and its personnel. The Independent Trustees and the Working Group attended certain in-person and telephonic conference call meetings at which Barrington rendered advice to Stradley Ronon regarding these matters and responded to questions.

6. The Independent Trustees requested and participated in in-person meetings with anticipated senior management personnel at Brighthouse, including its President and Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, Chief Operating Officer, and Chief Investment Officer. The Independent Trustees also met with personnel of the Adviser.

7. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of Stradley Ronon, prepared written inquiries to the Adviser and its affiliates regarding the Separation, and received written assurances from the Adviser and its affiliates that they have no plans to make any material changes affecting the personnel of the Adviser (including those personnel who provide investment, administrative, legal and compliance services) and the Adviser and its affiliates will not initiate such changes without prior notice to and discussion with the Board.

8. The Board considered representations by the Adviser and its affiliates that approval of the New Advisory Agreements would be necessary for the Portfolios to continue receiving investment advisory services from the Adviser following the change in control.

9. The Board considered representations by the Adviser, as well as related supporting documentation, indicating that the New Advisory Agreements, including the fees payable thereunder, are substantially identical to the terms of the corresponding Current Advisory Agreements.

10. The Board considered representations by the Adviser and its affiliates, as well as related supporting documentation, indicating that: (1) the Adviser can be expected to provide services of the same nature, extent, and quality under the New Advisory Agreements and as are provided thereby under the Current Advisory Agreements; and (2) the Separation is not expected to result in any changes to (i) the management of the Portfolios, or (ii) the investment objective of or the principal investment strategies used to manage any of the Portfolios.

11. The Board considered the ability of the Adviser and its affiliates to retain the employment of key personnel, as well as the overall positive indications by many such personnel regarding the opportunities presented by the Separation.

12. The Board considered that the Adviser and its affiliates have agreed to bear all expenses associated with obtaining shareholder approval of the New Advisory Agreements.

13. The Board considered Brighthouse’s preliminary “branding” plans regarding the future name of its operations.

14. The Board considered the advice provided by Ropes & Gray, LLP, legal counsel to the Trusts and the Adviser, with respect to the New Advisory Agreements (including advice relating to the process and timing of seeking shareholder approval of the New Advisory Agreements, and whether shareholder approvals would be required in connection with any future aspects of the Separation) and regarding the Board’s role and responsibilities with respect to the Separation.

15. The Board considered MetLife’s stated intention of divesting its ownership interest in the Adviser through the Separation, including the potential advantages and disadvantages of this divestiture to shareholders of the Portfolios. The Board considered the likelihood that the Adviser would retain its key personnel after the Separation. The Board considered that the garnering of new assets into the Trusts is based on sales of variable annuity and variable life insurance products, which sales have declined in prior years as a result of, among other things, the capital requirements of MetLife. The Board considered the representations of the anticipated senior management of Brighthouse that the Separation provides the Trusts with an opportunity for the garnering of new assets as Brighthouse will likely sell such products going forward. The Board considered also that the divestiture would result in a change in the manner in

MSF-23

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Asset Allocation 60 Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

which the Trusts access certain services and resources of MetLife (after the Separation those services will be provided through a transition services agreement), the loss of affiliation with the MetLife name brand, and the possible going forward need of the Trusts to hire a transfer agent, as such transfer agency services are currently provided to the Trusts for no fee.

16. The Board considered that, if shareholders approve the New Advisory Agreements, the Board and the Adviser will conduct their annual contract review process in November 2017. Thus, the Board emphasized that it would be able to, and intends to, monitor on a regular basis the ability of the Adviser and its affiliates to comply with their undertakings to the Board and to monitor on an ongoing basis the quality of services to, and expenses of, the Portfolios. In addition, the Board considered that, under the New Advisory Agreements, it will continue to have the authority, should the need arise in its view, to terminate any of the New Advisory Agreements without penalty upon 60 days’ notice.

Based on the foregoing and other relevant considerations, at the November Meeting, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, voted to approve the New Advisory Agreements and to recommend approval of the New Advisory Agreements by shareholders of the Portfolios. In this connection, the Board concluded that, in light of all factors considered, the terms of the New Advisory Agreement, including fee rates, were fair and reasonable, and that it would be in the best interests of shareholders of each Portfolio to approve the New Advisory Agreements.

In the event that approval of the New Advisory Agreements by shareholders of the Portfolios has not been obtained before the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements as a result of the change in control of the Adviser, the Board also approved an interim advisory agreement with the Adviser (the “Interim Advisory Agreement”) on behalf of each Portfolio that will go into effect upon the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements. The Board’s determination to approve each Interim Advisory Agreement was based on the same information and considerations as the Board’s approval of the New Advisory Agreements so as to ensure continuity of advisory services from the Adviser to the Portfolios following the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements.

MSF-24

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Asset Allocation 80 Portfolio

Managed by MetLife Advisers, LLC

Portfolio Manager Commentary*

PERFORMANCE

For the one year period ended December 31, 2016, the Class A and B share of the MetLife Asset Allocation 80 Portfolio returned 8.43% and 8.14%, respectively. The Portfolio’s benchmark, the Dow Jones Moderately Aggressive Index¹, returned 9.31%.

ECONOMIC AND MARKET REVIEW

Investors started off 2016 with a bit of a scare as market participants priced in a potential collapse of growth in China and a global recession. The markets are known for their desire to predict future outcomes, but the underlying economic factors had changed only marginally from the year prior. One of the biggest fears and conundrums that was extrapolated upon was the stubbornly low rate of inflation despite the supposedly inflationary activities conducted by central banks around the globe. As it turned out though, it was the supply factors that were the main driver behind falling commodity prices, not a drop in demand. As a result, the economic datasets continued to improve and investors with a longer term view and calm nerves were able to enjoy a strong rebound.

Investor nerves were tested once again by the end of June as the U.K. voted to leave the European Union (“Brexit”). Global markets, as measured by the MSCI ACWI Index, reacted sharply, dropping over 7% during the following two trading days, but the misery was short lived and losses were recouped within two weeks, with the seemingly devastating impact on the global economy of the Brexit all but forgotten.

As economic data continued to improve, so did the odds that the Federal Reserve (the “Fed”) was going to raise interest rates before the year was over. As with any addict being removed from stimulants, the market reacted negatively and the month of October and the first part of November delivered negative returns for all major equity and fixed income benchmarks. Then it was time for the presidential election which, to most, surprisingly was won by Donald Trump. Overnight, as it became clear that Trump would win, futures on the S&P 500 Index declined nearly 6% but by the time Trump had delivered his acceptance speech, the S&P 500 Index was up more than 1%, providing another example of extreme market movements based on sentiment.

For the remainder of the year, global developed equities enjoyed healthy gains led by U.S. stocks, as the market celebrated the prospects of fiscal stimulus via lower taxes and less regulation as a result of policies expected to be implemented by the new government. The dollar rallied strongly as well, causing a headwind for emerging market equities which ended the year on a negative note.

10-year U.S. Treasury rates finished the 2016 rollercoaster ride at 2.49%, slightly above the 2.24% at the beginning of the year, after having dropped to 1.37% by early July. The strong spike in rates after the election was a result of the Fed’s expected second rate hike in a decade, and their intention of raising rates further in 2017. In addition, there was upward pressure on longer-term rates from the perceived expansionary fiscal policies about to be implemented, which are expected to lead to higher inflation and higher levels of government debt in the U.S.

In summary, 2016 was marked by a year of significant political change, the perceived beginning of a rising interest rate environment, a U.S. equity market reaching new highs with Energy and Financial sectors as the new leaders and the Healthcare sector the laggard, a stronger dollar, and a global economy with continued but muted improvement.

Overall, Natural Resources, Small Cap equities, and High Yield bonds provided the strongest return in 2016, delivering returns of 30.87%, 21.31%, and 17.13% respectively (as measured by the S&P North American Natural Resources Index, the Russell 2000 Index, and the Bloomberg Barclays U.S. Corporate High Yield Bond Index). The U.S. stock market, as measured by the S&P 500 Index, returned a healthy 11.96% for the year, followed by Emerging Markets which returned 11.19% as measured by the MSCI Emerging Markets Total Return Index.

PORTFOLIO REVIEW / PERIOD-END POSITIONING

The MetLife Asset Allocation 80 Portfolio invested in underlying portfolios of the Met Investors Series Trust and the Metropolitan Series Fund to maintain a broad asset allocation of approximately 80% to equities and 20% to fixed income.

Over the twelve month period, the Portfolio underperformed the Dow Jones Moderately Aggressive Index. While expenses, weak security selection within the underlying domestic equity portfolios, and an underweight to small cap weighed on relative performance, an overweight to high yield bonds, strong security selection within the international equity portfolios, and an overweight to natural resources offset some of the negative impact.

The fixed income portfolios in aggregate contributed positively to the Asset Allocation 80 Portfolio’s relative performance as a result of better sector positioning versus the overall benchmark. At the individual portfolio level, the Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities Portfolio outperformed its respective benchmark by a wide margin. The Portfolio benefitted greatly from an overweight to high yield and emerging market debt as well as more favorable yield curve positioning. Another strong performer was the Met/Franklin Low Duration Total Return Portfolio which benefitted from exposures to corporate loans, high yield corporate credit, non-agency residential mortgage-backed securities, Treasury inflation protected securities, and commercial mortgage-backed securities. The PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond Portfolio also outperformed its benchmark, primarily because the Portfolio correctly positioned for a higher than expected inflation rate as inflation expectations rose, and as a result of exposure to U.K. real rates as rates fell across the curve post-Brexit. Despite outperforming its benchmark by almost 15% during the last

MSF-1

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Asset Allocation 80 Portfolio

Managed by MetLife Advisers, LLC

Portfolio Manager Commentary*—(Continued)

six months of the year, the Met/Templeton International Bond Portfolio ended up slightly underperforming its benchmark for the year. The biggest impact on relative performance was the Portfolio’s very defensive exposure to interest rates which was a large detractor from performance during the first half of the year as rates fell, but an almost equally large contributor to performance during the second half of the year as rates rose. Finally, the Portfolio’s significant overweight to high yield bonds was a strong contributor to the Asset Allocation 80 Portfolio’s relative performance. This was despite the BlackRock High Yield Portfolio underperforming its benchmark by the widest margin of any of the fixed income funds utilized. The main detractor to relative performance came from an underweight to Oil Field Services as names within the sector rallied strongly as energy prices stabilized.

Contribution from the domestic equity portfolios to relative performance was negative as performance was weighed down by poor stock selection in most of the underlying portfolios. The BlackRock Large Cap Value Portfolio was able to outperform its benchmark, primarily as a result of an overweight to and selection within Financials, as well as strong stock selection in Energy and Healthcare. The Met/Artisan Mid Cap Value Portfolio also managed to outperform its benchmark. Contribution to relative performance came primarily from underweights to Real Estate, Health Care, Utilities, and Consumer Staples, as well as strong stock selection within the Energy sector. All domestic large cap growth portfolios underperformed their respective benchmarks significantly. While the specifics varied, poor stock selection within Healthcare was a strong headwind across all portfolios as the sector was heavily influenced by comments from politicians on both sides of the aisle regarding product pricing and the general structure of healthcare services in the U.S. Another headwind across the board was within Technology, where high growth names were punished severely in the first six months of the year and didn’t recover enough during the latter six months of the year to make it back to positive territory. The Morgan Stanley Mid Cap Growth Portfolio significantly underperformed its benchmark. The main contributor to the poor performance was stock selection within the Financials, Healthcare, and Technology sectors. Within the small cap space, only the Invesco Small Cap Growth Portfolio was able to beat its benchmark. While the Portfolio’s asset allocation was a drag on relative performance, strong security selection within Healthcare and Energy more than outweighed the negative impact.

The international equity portfolios overall provided favorable relative returns. The Van Eck Global Natural Resources Portfolio delivered the biggest absolute return and the biggest relative outperformance of all the portfolios in the Asset Allocation 80 Portfolio as commodity prices rebounded strongly over the year. The portfolio’s relative outperformance was driven by overweight to and strong selection within Diversified Metals & Mining, Oil & Gas Drilling, and Copper. The Harris Oakmark International Portfolio was another strong performer for the year, mostly as a result strong stock selection within the Basic Materials sector and an overweight to, and strong selection, within the Industrials sector. At the other end of the spectrum was the Met/Artisan International Portfolio, which significantly underperformed its benchmark as a result of poor stock selection.

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, 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 subject to change at any time based upon economic, market, or other conditions and the advisory 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.

MSF-2

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Asset Allocation 80 Portfolio

A $10,000 INVESTMENT COMPARED TO THE DOW JONES MODERATELY AGGRESSIVE INDEX

AVERAGE ANNUAL RETURNS (%) (FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2016)

	1 Year		5 Year		10 Year
MetLife Asset Allocation 80 Portfolio
Class A		8.43		10.20		4.67
Class B		8.14		9.92		4.42
Dow Jones Moderately Aggressive Index		9.31		9.34		5.37

¹ The Dow Jones Moderately Aggressive Index is a total return 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) such that the risk combination will have 80% of the risk of an all equity portfolio.

Portfolio performance is calculated including reinvestment of all income and capital gain distributions. Performance numbers are net of all Portfolio expenses but do not include any insurance, sales, separate account or administrative charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts or any additional expenses that participants may bear relating to the operations of their plans. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower. The performance of any index referenced above has not been adjusted for ongoing management, distribution and operating expenses, and sales charges applicable to mutual fund investments. Direct investment in any index is not possible. The performance of Class A shares, as set forth in the line graph above, will differ from that of other classes because of the difference in expenses paid by policyholders investing in the different share classes.

This information represents past performance and is not indicative of future results. Investment return and principal value may fluctuate so that shares, upon redemption, may be worth more or less than the original cost.

PORTFOLIO COMPOSITION AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2016

Top Holdings

	% of Net Assets
MFS Value Portfolio (Class A)		5.1
Met/Wellington Core Equity Opportunities Portfolio (Class A)		5.0
Jennison Growth Portfolio (Class A)		5.0
ClearBridge Aggressive Growth Portfolio (Class A)		4.8
Invesco Comstock Portfolio (Class A)		4.7
T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio (Class A)		4.6
T. Rowe Price Large Cap Growth Portfolio (Class A)		4.5
Harris Oakmark International Portfolio (Class A)		4.4
BlackRock Large Cap Value Portfolio (Class A)		3.6
Met/Wellington Large Cap Research Portfolio (Class A)		3.6

MSF-3

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Asset Allocation 80 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, 2016 through December 31, 2016.

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.

MetLife Asset Allocation 80 Portfolio		Annualized Expense Ratio			Beginning Account Value July 1, 2016		Ending Account Value December 31, 2016		Expenses Paid During Period** July 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016
Class A(a)	Actual		0.69	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,064.60	$	3.58
	Hypothetical*		0.69	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,021.67	$	3.51
Class B(a)	Actual		0.94	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,063.10	$	4.87
	Hypothetical*		0.94	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,020.41	$	4.77

* 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 366 (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.

MSF-4

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Asset Allocation 80 Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Mutual Funds—100.0% of Net Assets

Security Description	Shares		Value
Affiliated Investment Companies—100.0%
Baillie Gifford International Stock Portfolio (Class A) (a)		36,574,012	$	367,934,564
BlackRock Bond Income Portfolio (Class A) (a)		2,967,065		314,479,189
BlackRock Capital Appreciation Portfolio (Class A) (a)		11,250,400		373,850,799
BlackRock High Yield Portfolio (Class A) (b)		7,154,585		54,947,216
BlackRock Large Cap Value Portfolio (Class A) (a)		43,642,214		394,089,188
Clarion Global Real Estate Portfolio (Class A) (b)		21,877,183		254,650,413
ClearBridge Aggressive Growth Portfolio (Class A) (b)		33,329,146		521,601,133
Frontier Mid Cap Growth Portfolio (Class A) (a)		1,749,614		54,955,391
Goldman Sachs Mid Cap Value Portfolio (Class A) (b)		9,641,394		111,743,758
Harris Oakmark International Portfolio (Class A) (b)		35,967,819		474,055,858
Invesco Comstock Portfolio (Class A) (b)		34,852,715		510,940,809
Invesco Small Cap Growth Portfolio (Class A) (b)		20,192,546		277,445,588
Jennison Growth Portfolio (Class A) (a)		40,791,562		540,488,199
JPMorgan Core Bond Portfolio (Class A) (b)		20,420,041		208,692,821
JPMorgan Small Cap Value Portfolio (Class A) (b)		9,652,574		174,808,122
Loomis Sayles Small Cap Growth Portfolio (Class A) (a)		11,175,251		138,126,101
Met/Aberdeen Emerging Markets Equity Portfolio (Class A) (b)		28,252,286		253,988,054
Met/Artisan International Portfolio (Class A) (b)		36,992,135		320,351,887
Met/Artisan Mid Cap Value Portfolio (Class A) (a)		243,087		56,221,155
Met/Dimensional International Small Company Portfolio (Class A) (a)		17,179,222		215,942,819
Met/Eaton Vance Floating Rate Portfolio (Class A) (b)		10,488,901		108,560,124
Met/Templeton International Bond Portfolio (Class A) (b)		32,925,468		330,571,694
Met/Wellington Core Equity Opportunities Portfolio (Class A) (a)		19,103,461		546,550,008
Met/Wellington Large Cap Research Portfolio (Class A) (b)		28,150,280		387,629,351
MetLife Small Cap Value Portfolio (Class A) (b)		10,886,932		173,537,699
MFS Research International Portfolio (Class A) (b)		31,617,066		320,913,220
Affiliated Investment Companies—(Continued)
MFS Value Portfolio (Class A) (a)		36,427,694		557,707,997
Morgan Stanley Mid Cap Growth Portfolio (Class A) (b) (c)		3,472,191		50,068,988
Neuberger Berman Genesis Portfolio (Class A) (a)		2,649,036		56,636,390
Oppenheimer Global Equity Portfolio (Class A) (b)		8,529,408		164,446,982
PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond Portfolio (Class A) (b) (c)		16,132,098		157,610,594
PIMCO Total Return Portfolio (Class A) (b)		27,858,259		315,355,494
T. Rowe Price Large Cap Growth Portfolio (Class A) (a)		24,217,091		488,700,905
T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value Portfolio (Class A) (b)		14,863,521		502,535,640
T. Rowe Price Mid Cap Growth Portfolio (Class A) (b)		10,600,830		109,930,611
T. Rowe Price Small Cap Growth Portfolio (Class A) (a)		7,808,757		167,185,481
TCW Core Fixed Income Portfolio (Class A) (b)		25,852,931		261,114,600
Van Eck Global Natural Resources Portfolio (Class A) (a)		30,347,697		329,575,990
Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities Portfolio (Class A) (a)		15,924,143		213,224,268
Total Mutual Funds (Cost $10,473,249,694)				10,861,169,100
Total Investments—100.0% (Cost $10,473,249,694) (d)				10,861,169,100
Other assets and liabilities (net)—0.0%				(2,945,468	)
Net Assets—100.0%			$	10,858,223,632

(a) A Portfolio of Metropolitan Series Fund. (See Note 6 of the Notes to Financial Statements for a summary of transactions in the securities of affiliated Underlying Portfolios.)

(b) A Portfolio of Met Investors Series Trust. (See Note 6 of the Notes to Financial Statements for a summary of transactions in the securities of affiliated Underlying Portfolios.)

(c) Non-income producing security.

(d) As of December 31, 2016, the aggregate cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was $10,617,214,937. The aggregate unrealized appreciation and depreciation of investments were $558,757,446 and $(314,803,283), respectively, resulting in net unrealized appreciation of $243,954,163 for federal income tax purposes.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-5

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Asset Allocation 80 Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Fair Value Hierarchy

Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) define 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, separately for each major category of assets and liabilities, 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, quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities 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, or other market corroborated inputs)

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 used in determining the fair value of investments and derivative financial instruments)

The inputs or methodologies used for valuing investments are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in them. Changes to the inputs or methodologies used may result in transfers between levels, which 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, 2016:

Description	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
Mutual Funds
Affiliated Investment Companies	$	10,861,169,100	$	—	$	—	$	10,861,169,100
Total Investments	$	10,861,169,100	$	—	$	—	$	10,861,169,100

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-6

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Asset Allocation 80 Portfolio

Statement of Assets and Liabilities

December 31, 2016

Assets
Affiliated investments at value (a)	$	10,861,169,100
Receivable for:
Investments sold		4,151,011
Fund shares sold		93,543
Total Assets		10,865,413,654
Liabilities
Payables for:
Fund shares redeemed		4,244,555
Accrued Expenses:
Management fees		494,565
Distribution and service fees		2,229,134
Deferred trustees’ fees		173,383
Other expenses		48,385
Total Liabilities		7,190,022
Net Assets	$	10,858,223,632
Net Assets Consist of:
Paid in surplus	$	9,823,879,843
Undistributed net investment income		174,036,256
Accumulated net realized gain		472,388,127
Unrealized appreciation on affiliated investments		387,919,406
Net Assets	$	10,858,223,632
Net Assets
Class A	$	398,205,840
Class B		10,460,017,792
Capital Shares Outstanding*
Class A		30,973,442
Class B		817,447,811
Net Asset Value, Offering Price and Redemption Price Per Share
Class A	$	12.86
Class B		12.80

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

(a) Identified cost of affiliated investments was $10,473,249,694.

Statement of Operations

Year Ended December 31, 2016

Investment Income
Dividends from affiliated investments	$	174,695,729
Interest		865
Other income (a)		136,796
Total investment income		174,833,390
Expenses
Management fees		5,760,385
Administration fees		22,191
Custodian and accounting fees		27,753
Distribution and service fees—Class B		25,958,621
Audit and tax services		31,204
Legal		32,989
Trustees’ fees and expenses		45,248
Miscellaneous		17,745
Total expenses		31,896,136
Net Investment Income		142,937,254
Net Realized and Unrealized Gain (Loss)
Net realized gain on:
Affiliated investments		120,582,976
Capital gain distributions from Affiliated Underlying Portfolios		575,648,394
Net realized gain		696,231,370
Net change in unrealized depreciation on affiliated investments		(1,222,410	)
Net realized and unrealized gain		695,008,960
Net Increase in Net Assets From Operations	$	837,946,214

(a) Other income represents a non-recurring refund for overbilling of prior years’ custodian out-of-pocket fees.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-7

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Asset Allocation 80 Portfolio

Statements of Changes in Net Assets

	Year Ended December 31, 2016			Year Ended December 31, 2015
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets:
From Operations
Net investment income	$	142,937,254		$	208,806,650
Net realized gain		696,231,370			1,410,282,114
Net change in unrealized depreciation		(1,222,410	)		(1,798,225,312	)
Increase (decrease) in net assets from operations		837,946,214			(179,136,548	)
From Distributions to Shareholders
Net investment income
Class A		(12,442,422	)		(2,097,361	)
Class B		(305,769,387	)		(38,532,004	)
Net realized capital gains
Class A		(45,949,646	)		(17,880,004	)
Class B		(1,237,778,000	)		(525,576,538	)
Total distributions		(1,601,939,455	)		(584,085,907	)
Increase (decrease) in net assets from capital share transactions		493,678,669			(537,645,681	)
Total decrease in net assets		(270,314,572	)		(1,300,868,136	)
Net Assets
Beginning of period		11,128,538,204			12,429,406,340
End of period	$	10,858,223,632		$	11,128,538,204
Undistributed net investment income
End of period	$	174,036,256		$	317,815,737

Other Information:

Capital Shares

Transactions in capital shares were as follows:

	Year Ended December 31, 2016						Year Ended December 31, 2015
	Shares			Value			Shares			Value
Class A
Sales		1,613,028		$	21,073,047			2,069,476		$	30,549,734
Reinvestments		4,878,201			58,392,068			1,344,372			19,977,365
Redemptions		(3,159,848	)		(41,121,076	)		(2,276,097	)		(33,686,689	)
Net increase		3,331,381		$	38,344,039			1,137,751		$	16,840,410
Class B
Sales		9,628,013		$	125,113,184			13,028,991		$	189,959,011
Reinvestments		129,383,687			1,543,547,387			38,089,706			564,108,542
Redemptions		(93,479,114	)		(1,213,325,941	)		(88,844,098	)		(1,308,553,644	)
Net increase (decrease)		45,532,586		$	455,334,630			(37,725,401	)	$	(554,486,091	)
Increase (decrease) derived from capital shares transactions				$	493,678,669					$	(537,645,681	)

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-8

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Asset Allocation 80 Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class A
	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014			2013			2012
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	13.98		$	14.92		$	14.41		$	11.78		$	10.39
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (a)		0.20			0.29			0.18			0.21			0.18
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		0.82			(0.47	)		0.60			2.64			1.45
Total from investment operations		1.02			(0.18	)		0.78			2.85			1.63
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.46	)		(0.08	)		(0.27	)		(0.22	)		(0.24	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(1.68	)		(0.68	)		0.00			0.00			0.00
Total distributions		(2.14	)		(0.76	)		(0.27	)		(0.22	)		(0.24	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	12.86		$	13.98		$	14.92		$	14.41		$	11.78
Total Return (%) (b)		8.43			(1.50	)		5.53			24.51			15.82
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%) (c)		0.06			0.05			0.06			0.07			0.07
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%) (d)		1.55			1.96			1.26			1.65			1.60
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		10			13			22			13			13
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	398.2		$	386.4		$	395.4		$	365.2		$	290.4
	Class B
	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014			2013			2012
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	13.92		$	14.86		$	14.36		$	11.73		$	10.36
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (a)		0.17			0.25			0.02			0.19			0.15
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		0.81			(0.46	)		0.72			2.63			1.43
Total from investment operations		0.98			(0.21	)		0.74			2.82			1.58
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.42	)		(0.05	)		(0.24	)		(0.19	)		(0.21	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(1.68	)		(0.68	)		0.00			0.00			0.00
Total distributions		(2.10	)		(0.73	)		(0.24	)		(0.19	)		(0.21	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	12.80		$	13.92		$	14.86		$	14.36		$	11.73
Total Return (%) (b)		8.14			(1.70	)		5.23			24.31			15.39
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%) (c)		0.31			0.30			0.31			0.32			0.32
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%) (d)		1.32			1.73			0.14			1.43			1.38
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		10			13			22			13			13
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	10,460.0		$	10,742.1		$	12,034.0		$	3,042.8		$	2,608.8

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

(b) Total return does not reflect any insurance, sales, separate account or administrative charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts or any additional expenses that contract owners may bear under their variable contracts. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower.

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

(d) Recognition of net investment income by the Asset Allocation 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.

MSF-9

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Asset Allocation 80 Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016

1. Organization

Metropolitan Series Fund (the “Trust”) is organized as a Delaware statutory trust and registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), as an open-end management investment company. The Trust, which is managed by MetLife Advisers, LLC (“MetLife Advisers” or the “Adviser”), an affiliate of MetLife, Inc., is currently comprised of thirty series, each of which operates as a distinct investment vehicle of the Trust. The portfolio included in this report is MetLife Asset Allocation 80 Portfolio (the “Asset Allocation Portfolio”), which is diversified. The Asset Allocation Portfolio operates under a “fund of funds” structure, investing substantially all of its assets in other Portfolios advised by MetLife Advisers (each, an “Underlying Portfolio,” and, collectively, the “Underlying Portfolios”). Shares in the Asset Allocation 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.

On January 12, 2016, MetLife, Inc. announced its plan to pursue the separation of a substantial portion of its retail segment and is currently evaluating structural alternatives for such separation. It is anticipated that MetLife Advisers would be included in any such separation. Any separation transaction that might occur will be subject to the satisfaction of various conditions and approvals, including approval of any transaction by the MetLife, Inc. Board of Directors, satisfaction of any applicable requirements of the SEC, and receipt of insurance and other regulatory approvals and other anticipated conditions. MetLife, Inc. cannot currently provide a specific potential completion date for a separation transaction or any assurance that a separation will in fact occur. MetLife Advisers’ continued service as investment adviser to the Trusts following a separation transaction is the subject of a proxy statement that was filed with the SEC on December 20, 2016 and mailed to shareholders of the Portfolio on or about December 30, 2016.

The Asset Allocation Portfolio has registered and offers two classes of shares: Class A and B shares. Shares of each Class of the Asset Allocation Portfolio represent an equal pro rata interest in the Asset Allocation 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 Asset Allocation Portfolio, and certain Asset Allocation 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 Asset Allocation Portfolio. Each Class of shares differs in its respective distribution plan and such distribution expenses are allocated to the corresponding Class of shares.

2. Significant Accounting Policies

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities as of the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of income and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates. In the preparation of these financial statements, management has evaluated events and transactions subsequent to December 31, 2016 through the date the financial statements were issued.

The Asset Allocation Portfolio is an investment company and follows the accounting and reporting guidance of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Accounting Standards Codification Topic 946—Financial Services—Investment Companies and Topic 820—Fair Value Measurement. The following is a summary of significant accounting policies consistently followed by the Asset Allocation Portfolio in the preparation of its financial statements.

Investment Valuation and Fair Value Measurements - Investments in the Underlying Portfolios are valued at their closing daily net asset value on the valuation date. Investments in the Underlying Portfolios are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. 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 - Asset Allocation Portfolio security transactions are recorded on the trade date. Dividend income is recorded on the ex-dividend date. Realized gains and losses on investments 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.

Dividends and Distributions to Shareholders - The Asset Allocation Portfolio records dividends and distributions on the ex-dividend date. Net realized gains from securities 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 distribution re-designations and distributions from Underlying Portfolios. These adjustments have no impact on net assets or the results of operations.

MSF-10

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Asset Allocation 80 Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

Income Taxes - It is the Asset Allocation 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 Asset Allocation Portfolio files U.S. federal tax returns. No income tax returns are currently under examination. The Asset Allocation Portfolio’s federal tax returns for the prior three fiscal years remain subject to examination by the Internal Revenue Service. As of December 31, 2016, the Asset Allocation Portfolio had no uncertain tax positions that would require financial statement recognition, or de-recognition or disclosure.

3. Certain Risks

In the normal course of business, the Underlying Portfolios invest in securities and enter into transactions where risks exist. Those risks include:

Market 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, interest rate, and price fluctuations.

Credit and Counterparty Risk: 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 and counterparty risk consist principally of cash due from counterparties and investments. The Underlying Portfolios manage counterparty risk by entering into agreements only with counterparties that they believe have the financial resources to honor their obligations and by monitoring the financial stability of those counterparties. The Underlying Portfolios’ investment adviser attempts to mitigate counterparty risk by (i) periodically assessing the creditworthiness of their trading partners, (ii) monitoring and/or limiting the amount of their net exposure to each individual counterparty based on the adviser’s assessment, and (iii) requiring collateral from the counterparty for certain transactions. In order to preserve certain safeguards for non-standard settlement trades, the Underlying Portfolios restrict their exposure to credit and counterparty losses by entering into master netting agreements (“Master Agreements”) with counterparties (approved brokers) with whom the Underlying Portfolios undertake a significant volume of transactions. Master Agreements govern the terms of certain transactions, and reduce the counterparty risk associated with relevant transactions by specifying credit protection mechanisms and providing standardization that improves legal certainty. Master Agreements can also help limit counterparty risk by specifying collateral posting arrangements at pre-arranged exposure levels.

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

4. Investment Transactions

Aggregate cost of purchases and proceeds of sales of shares of the Underlying Portfolios by the Asset Allocation Portfolio for the year ended December 31, 2016 were as follows:

Purchases			Sales
U.S. Government	Non U.S. Government		U.S. Government		Non U.S. Government
$0	$	1,113,914,782	$	0	$	1,503,654,786

5. Investment Management Fees and Other Transactions with Affiliates

Investment Management Agreement - MetLife Advisers is the investment adviser to the Asset Allocation Portfolio. The Trust has entered into an investment management agreement with MetLife Advisers with respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolio. For providing investment management services to the Asset Allocation Portfolio, MetLife Advisers receives monthly compensation at the following annual rates:

Management Fees earned by MetLife Advisers for the year ended December 31, 2016	% per annum			Average Daily Net Assets
$5,760,385		0.100	%	Of the first $500 million
		0.075	%	Of the next $500 million
		0.050	%	On amounts in excess of $1 billion

MSF-11

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Asset Allocation 80 Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

In addition to the above management fee paid to MetLife Advisers, the Asset Allocation Portfolio indirectly pays MetLife Advisers an investment advisory fee through its investments in the Underlying Portfolios.

Certain officers and trustees of the Trust may also be officers of MetLife Advisers; 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 and Service Fees - The Trust has a distribution agreement with MetLife Investors Distribution Company (“MIDC” or the “Distributor”) in which MIDC serves as the distributor for the Asset Allocation Portfolio’s Class A and B Shares. MIDC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife Investors Group, LLC, an affiliate of the Adviser. The Trust has also adopted a Distribution and Service Plan under Rule 12b-1 of the 1940 Act for the Asset Allocation Portfolio’s Class B shares. Under the Distribution and Services Plan, the Class B shares of the Asset Allocation Portfolio pay a fee to compensate the Insurance Companies (or their affiliates) and other broker-dealers and financial intermediaries involved in the offer and sale of Asset Allocation Portfolio shares for promoting or selling and servicing the Class B shares of the Asset Allocation Portfolio. The fees under the Distribution and Services Plan for each class of the Asset Allocation Portfolio’s shares are calculated as a percentage of the Asset Allocation Portfolio’s average daily net assets that are attributable to that Class. Currently, the fee is 0.25% per year for Class B shares. Amount incurred by the Asset Allocation Portfolio for the year ended December 31, 2016 is shown as Distribution and service fees in the Statement of Operations.

Deferred Trustee Compensation - Each Trustee who is not currently an active employee of MetLife or its affiliates receives compensation from the Trust for his or her service to the Trust. 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 Met Investors Series Trust, an affiliate of the Trust, 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 Asset Allocation Portfolio under the Plan is reflected as Deferred trustees’ fees in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

6. Transactions in Securities of Affiliated Underlying Portfolios

The Asset Allocation Portfolio does not invest in the Underlying Portfolios for the purpose of exercising control; however, investments by the Asset Allocation Portfolio within its principal investment strategies may represent a significant portion of the Underlying Portfolios’ net assets. Transactions in the Underlying Portfolios for the year ended December 31, 2016 were as follows:

Underlying Portfolio	Number of shares held at December 31, 2015		Shares purchased		Shares sold			Number of shares held at December 31, 2016
Baillie Gifford International Stock		40,371,978		686,731		(4,484,697	)		36,574,012
BlackRock Bond Income		3,191,919		149,275		(374,129	)		2,967,065
BlackRock Capital Appreciation		10,853,918		1,186,308		(789,826	)		11,250,400
BlackRock High Yield		7,591,279		522,164		(958,858	)		7,154,585
BlackRock Large Cap Value*		46,292,832		4,535,270		(7,185,888	)		43,642,214
Clarion Global Real Estate		24,085,117		572,079		(2,780,013	)		21,877,183
ClearBridge Aggressive Growth		33,009,817		1,751,798		(1,432,469	)		33,329,146
Frontier Mid Cap Growth		1,660,188		209,719		(120,293	)		1,749,614
Goldman Sachs Mid Cap Value		14,832,588		924,776		(6,115,970	)		9,641,394
Harris Oakmark International		32,467,322		6,153,618		(2,653,121	)		35,967,819
Invesco Comstock		36,107,381		4,244,940		(5,499,606	)		34,852,715
Invesco Mid Cap Value		3,036,363		83,487		(3,119,850	)		—
Invesco Small Cap Growth		20,216,744		3,913,465		(3,937,663	)		20,192,546
Jennison Growth		37,025,242		6,220,094		(2,453,774	)		40,791,562
JPMorgan Core Bond		21,947,710		1,022,227		(2,549,896	)		20,420,041
JPMorgan Small Cap Value*		10,968,262		969,297		(2,284,985	)		9,652,574
Loomis Sayles Small Cap Growth*		12,690,835		1,344,313		(2,859,897	)		11,175,251
Lord Abbett Bond Debenture		14,380,088		979,173		(15,359,261	)		—
Met/Aberdeen Emerging Markets Equity		31,775,541		1,714,321		(5,237,576	)		28,252,286
Met/Artisan International*		34,440,380		2,701,083		(149,328	)		36,992,135
Met/Artisan Mid Cap Value		511,787		31,885		(300,585	)		243,087
Met/Dimensional International Small Company*		17,607,509		1,544,759		(1,973,046	)		17,179,222
Met/Eaton Vance Floating Rate		11,327,411		516,150		(1,354,660	)		10,488,901
Met/Templeton International Bond*		34,036,040		863,155		(1,973,727	)		32,925,468

MSF-12

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Asset Allocation 80 Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

Underlying Portfolio	Number of shares held at December 31, 2015		Shares purchased		Shares sold			Number of shares held at December 31, 2016
Met/Wellington Core Equity Opportunities		17,974,943		2,368,458		(1,239,940	)		19,103,461
Met/Wellington Large Cap Research		24,333,501		5,361,408		(1,544,629	)		28,150,280
MetLife Small Cap Value		13,152,811		500,505		(2,766,384	)		10,886,932
MFS Research International		31,696,333		775,593		(854,860	)		31,617,066
MFS Value		37,381,138		4,359,908		(5,313,352	)		36,427,694
Morgan Stanley Mid Cap Growth		3,575,102		117,106		(220,017	)		3,472,191
Neuberger Berman Genesis		4,630,674		13,961		(1,995,599	)		2,649,036
Oppenheimer Global Equity		5,499,512		3,242,976		(213,080	)		8,529,408
PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond		18,078,897		143,603		(2,090,402	)		16,132,098
PIMCO Total Return		29,956,449		1,268,599		(3,366,789	)		27,858,259
T. Rowe Price Large Cap Growth		22,528,961		3,401,654		(1,713,524	)		24,217,091
T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value		14,948,745		2,371,793		(2,457,017	)		14,863,521
T. Rowe Price Mid Cap Growth		9,965,663		1,604,244		(969,077	)		10,600,830
T. Rowe Price Small Cap Growth		7,677,471		1,101,580		(970,294	)		7,808,757
TCW Core Fixed Income		22,696,128		5,723,718		(2,566,915	)		25,852,931
Van Eck Global Natural Resources		35,787,387		7,889,702		(13,329,392	)		30,347,697
Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities		8,926,377		13,076,942		(6,079,176	)		15,924,143

* The Portfolio had ownership of at least 25% of the outstanding voting securities of the Underlying Portfolio as of December 31, 2016. The most recent Annual Report of the Underlying Portfolio is available without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 848-3854 or on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

Underlying Portfolio	Net Realized Gain/(Loss) on sales of Affiliated Underlying Portfolios			Capital Gain Distributions from Affiliated Underlying Portfolios		Dividend Income from Affiliated Underlying Portfolios		Ending Value as of December 31, 2016
Baillie Gifford International Stock	$	10,594,591		$	—	$	6,227,610	$	367,934,564
BlackRock Bond Income		490,835			—		10,269,464		314,479,189
BlackRock Capital Appreciation		3,622,551			34,300,246		1		373,850,799
BlackRock High Yield		(837,514	)		—		3,711,504		54,947,216
BlackRock Large Cap Value		(7,004,124	)		29,368,770		6,425,767		394,089,188
Clarion Global Real Estate		15,710,190			—		6,280,611		254,650,413
ClearBridge Aggressive Growth		15,818,250			—		3,404,363		521,601,133
Frontier Mid Cap Growth		171,389			6,286,104		—		54,955,391
Goldman Sachs Mid Cap Value		(14,243,015	)		8,438,404		1,227,232		111,743,758
Harris Oakmark International		11,421,927			29,190,601		10,417,966		474,055,858
Invesco Comstock		41,862,119			38,301,310		13,911,820		510,940,809
Invesco Mid Cap Value		(2,764,856	)		—		—		—
Invesco Small Cap Growth		15,806,565			48,889,774		—		277,445,588
Jennison Growth		7,627,800			70,857,392		1,601,087		540,488,199
JPMorgan Core Bond		645,749			—		6,480,396		208,692,821
JPMorgan Small Cap Value		1,226,936			11,107,085		3,088,710		174,808,122
Loomis Sayles Small Cap Growth		2,897,973			15,077,543		—		138,126,101
Lord Abbett Bond Debenture		(628,653	)		—		10,966,733		—
Met/Aberdeen Emerging Markets Equity		(5,763,252	)		—		3,362,831		253,988,054
Met/Artisan International		(101,352	)		—		3,174,800		320,351,887
Met/Artisan Mid Cap Value		28,192,991			5,942,812		596,377		56,221,155
Met/Dimensional International Small Company		(3,503,389	)		13,559,940		4,695,088		215,942,819
Met/Eaton Vance Floating Rate		(484,212	)		—		4,507,157		108,560,124
Met/Templeton International Bond		(524,366	)		822,782		—		330,571,694
Met/Wellington Core Equity Opportunities		(4,012,845	)		23,343,737		8,547,400		546,550,008
Met/Wellington Large Cap Research		970,207			24,577,534		9,035,471		387,629,351
MetLife Small Cap Value		6,187,325			4,397,009		2,162,463		173,537,699
MFS Research International		1,119,469			—		7,262,637		320,913,220
MFS Value		32,520,268			49,113,275		12,312,521		557,707,997
Morgan Stanley Mid Cap Growth		573,385			—		—		50,068,988
Neuberger Berman Genesis		10,594,951			—		260,871		56,636,390
Oppenheimer Global Equity		(154,232	)		7,880,403		1,892,602		164,446,982
PIMCO Inflation Protected Bond		(3,424,247	)		—		—		157,610,594
PIMCO Total Return		(1,809,026	)		—		8,980,840		315,355,494

MSF-13

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Asset Allocation 80 Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

Underlying Portfolio	Net Realized Gain/(Loss) on sales of Affiliated Underlying Portfolios			Capital Gain Distributions from Affiliated Underlying Portfolios		Dividend Income from Affiliated Underlying Portfolios		Ending Value as of December 31, 2016
T. Rowe Price Large Cap Growth	$	5,769,164		$	61,023,631	$	293,058	$	488,700,905
T. Rowe Price Large Cap Value		23,895,962			56,598,788		14,850,793		502,535,640
T. Rowe Price Mid Cap Growth		420,721			15,795,588		—		109,930,611
T. Rowe Price Small Cap Growth		1,963,287			20,775,666		436,215		167,185,481
TCW Core Fixed Income		210,303			—		2,152,829		261,114,600
Van Eck Global Natural Resources		(63,574,307	)		—		2,710,880		329,575,990
Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities		(10,902,542	)		—		3,447,632		213,224,268
	$	120,582,976		$	575,648,394	$	174,695,729	$	10,861,169,100

7. Contractual Obligations

Under the Trust’s organizational documents, its officers and Trustees may be indemnified against certain liabilities and expenses arising out of the performance of their duties to the Trust. Additionally, 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 Trust that have not yet occurred.

8. Income Tax Information

The tax character of distributions paid for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015 were as follows:

Ordinary Income			Long-Term Capital Gain				Total
2016	2015		2016		2015		2016		2015
$322,023,352	$	40,629,365	$	1,279,916,103	$	543,456,542	$	1,601,939,455	$	584,085,907

As of December 31, 2016, 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		Other Accumulated Capital Losses		Total
$174,209,639	$	616,353,371	$	243,954,162	$	—	$	1,034,517,172

The Asset Allocation 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 up to 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, 2016, the Asset Allocation Portfolio had no post-enactment accumulated capital losses and no pre-enactment accumulated capital loss carryforwards.

9. Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In October 2016, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) adopted new rules and forms, and amendments to certain current rules and forms, to modernize reporting and disclosure of information by registered investment companies. The amendments to Regulation S-X will require standardized, enhanced disclosure about derivatives in investment company financial statements, and will also change the rules governing the form and content of such financial statements. The compliance date for the amendments to Regulation S-X is August 1, 2017. Management is currently evaluating the impact that the adoption of the amendments to Regulation S-X will have on the Portfolio’s financial statements and related disclosures.

MSF-14

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Asset Allocation 80 Portfolio

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Shareholders of MetLife Asset Allocation 80 Portfolio and the Board of Trustees of Metropolitan Series Fund:

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities, including the schedule of investments, of MetLife Asset Allocation 80 Portfolio (one of the portfolios constituting the Metropolitan Series Fund) (the “Portfolio”) as of December 31, 2016, 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 Portfolio’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 Portfolio 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 Portfolio’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, 2016, 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 Asset Allocation 80 Portfolio of the Metropolitan Series Fund as of December 31, 2016, 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.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

February 24, 2017

MSF-15

Metropolitan Series Fund

Trustees and Officers

MANAGEMENT OF THE TRUSTS

The Boards of Trustees (the “Board”) of Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (“MIST” and “MSF”, respectively, and collectively the “Trusts”) supervise the Trusts and are responsible for representing the interests of shareholders. The Trustees, the Chairman of the Board and the Chairmen of each subcommittee are the same for both Trusts. The Trustees of each Trust meet periodically throughout the year to oversee the Portfolios’ activities, reviewing, among other things, each Portfolio’s performance and its contractual arrangements with various service providers. The Trustees of each Trust elect the officers of the Trust, who are responsible for administering the Trust’s day-to-day operations.

Trustees and Officers

The Trustees and executive officers of the Trusts, as well as their ages and their principal occupations during the past five years, are set forth below. Unless otherwise indicated, the business address of each is c/o MetLife Funds, One Financial Center, Boston, Massachusetts 02111. Each Trustee who is deemed an “interested person,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, is referred to as an “Interested Trustee.” Those Trustees who are not “interested persons,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, are referred to as “Independent Trustees.” There is no limit to the term a Trustee may serve. Trustees serve until their death, resignation or removal in accordance with the MIST Trust’s and MSF Trust’s respective organizational documents and policies adopted by the Boards of the respective Trusts from time to time. Officers hold office at the pleasure of each Board and serve until their removal or resignation in accordance with the Trusts’ respective organizational documents and policies adopted by the Board of each Trust from time to time.

Name and Age	Current 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 MetLife Funds Complex(2) Overseen by Trustee	Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Interested Trustee
John Rosenthal* (56)	Trustee	Indefinite; From May 2016 (MIST and MSF) to present	Senior Managing Director and Head of Global Portfolio Management, MetLife, Inc.	75	None
Independent Trustees
Dawn M. Vroegop (50)	Trustee and Chairman of the Board	Indefinite; From December 2000 (MIST)/ May 2009 (MSF) to present as Trustee; From May 2016 (MIST and MSF) until present as Chairman	Private Investor.	75	Trustee, Driehaus Mutual Funds.**
Stephen M. Alderman (57)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 (MIST)/ April 2012 (MSF) to present	Shareholder in the law firm of Garfield and Merel, Ltd.	75	None

MSF-16

Metropolitan Series Fund

Trustees and Officers—(Continued)

Name and Age	Current 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 MetLife Funds Complex(2) Overseen by Trustee	Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Robert J. Boulware (60)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 (MIST)/ April 2012 (MSF) to present	Managing Director, Pilgrim Funds, LLC (private equity fund).	75	Trustee, Vertical Capital Income Fund (closed-end fund);** Director, Gainsco, Inc. (auto insurance);** Trustee, SharesPost 100 Fund (closed-end fund).**
Susan C. Gause (64)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 (MIST)/ April 2012 (MSF) to present	Private Investor.	75	Trustee, HSBC Funds.**
Nancy Hawthorne (65)	Trustee	Indefinite; From May 2003 (MSF)/ April 2012 (MIST) to present	Partner, Hawthorne Financial Advisors, LLC (registered investment advisor); until June 2014, Chief Executive Officer, Clerestory LLC (corporate advisor).	75	Director and Chairman of the Board of Directors, THL Credit, Inc.;** Lead Director, Avid Technology, Inc.;** Director, CRA International, Inc.**
Barbara A. Nugent (60)	Trustee	Indefinite; From January 2014 (MIST and MSF) to present	President, True North Board Governance, LLC (consulting); until December 2013, partner in the law firm of Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young, LLP.	75	None
Linda B. Strumpf (69)	Trustee	Indefinite; From May 2000 (MSF)/ April 2012 (MIST) to present	Chair of the Investment Committee, Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust; until June 2011, Chief Investment Officer, Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust.	75	None

Executive Officers

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Kristi Slavin (43)	President and Chief Executive Officer, of MIST and MSF	From May 2016 (MIST and MSF) to present	President, MetLife Advisers, LLC (May 2016-present); Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Vice President, MetLife, Inc.; Vice President, MIST and MSF (2015-2016).

MSF-17

Metropolitan Series Fund

Trustees and Officers—(Continued)

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Peter H. Duffy (61)	Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, of MIST and MSF	From November 2000 (MSF)/ May 2012 (MIST) to present	Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Andrew L. Gangolf (62)	Secretary, of MIST and MSF	From May 2011 (MIST and MSF) to present	Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; until 2011, Senior Vice President & Assistant General Counsel, AllianceBernstein Investments, Inc.
Steven E. Hartstein (53)	Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”), of MIST and MSF	From February 2014 (MIST and MSF) to present	Vice President, MetLife, Inc. (2013-present); Senior Vice President and CCO, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Executive Director, Morgan Stanley (2009-2013); CCO, Consulting Group Capital Markets Funds (2006-2013).
Alan C. Leland (64)	Vice President, of MIST and MSF	From February 2005 (MSF)/ May 2012 (MIST) to present	Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Vice President, MetLife, Inc.

* Mr. Rosenthal is an “interested person” of the Trusts because of his position with MetLife, Inc., the current parent company of MetLife Advisers, LLC.

** 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 Trusts, MetLife, Inc. or the Manager are omitted if not materially different.

(2) The Fund Complex includes 45 MIST Portfolios and 30 MSF Portfolios.

MSF-18

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Asset Allocation 80 Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory Agreements

At an in-person meeting held on November 15-16, 2016 (the “November Meeting”), the Boards of Trustees (the “Board”) of the Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (“MIST” and “MSF,” respectively, and collectively, the “Trusts”), including a majority of the Trustees who are not “interested persons” of the Trusts (the “Independent Trustees”) under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “1940 Act”), approved the continuation of the Trusts’ advisory agreements (the “Advisory Agreements” or “Agreements”) with MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”) for the series of the Trusts (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”).

In reaching that decision, the Board reviewed a variety of materials provided for the specific purpose of the annual contract renewal process. In addition, various materials provided to and discussed with the Board throughout the year also informed the Board’s decision to renew the Agreements. That information for each Portfolio included, but was not limited to, investment performance reports, along with periodic reports on various expenses, shareholder services, legal and compliance matters, asset pricing, brokerage commissions and trade execution. The Board also recognized the pending separation of the Adviser from its parent company, MetLife, Inc., as a consideration in their deliberations with respect to the Agreements.

The Board met in person with personnel of the Adviser on September 27, 2016 for the specific purpose of giving preliminary consideration to the proposed continuation of the Agreements (the “September Meeting”) through the review by the Adviser with the Board of the performance and fees experienced by each Portfolio, as well as other information. In considering the Agreements, the Independent Trustees were advised by independent legal counsel throughout the contract renewal process, and met with independent legal counsel in several executive sessions outside of the presence of management.

Information furnished and reviewed specifically in connection with the renewal process included, but was not limited to, a report for each Portfolio prepared by Broadridge (“Broadridge”), an independent organization, and a Portfolio-by-Portfolio profitability analysis prepared by the Adviser. In addition, the Independent Trustees received and reviewed a report prepared by JDL Consultants, LLC (“JDL”), an independent consultant to the Independent Trustees (“JDL Report”), which examined the comparative fees, expenses and performance of each Portfolio, based upon the Broadridge reports. Also, the Board reviewed the responses to wide-ranging questions relating to the business, operations and performance of the Adviser that the Adviser had prepared specifically for the renewal process.

At the November Meeting, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, concluded that the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser supported the renewal of the Agreements. The Board also concluded that the investment performance of each Portfolio was such that each Agreement should continue, and that the fees paid by a Portfolio to the Adviser appeared to be reasonable in light of nature, extent and quality of the services provided by the Adviser. Further, the Board concluded that the Adviser’s profitability in providing services under the Advisory Agreements did not appear unreasonably high in light of the nature, extent and quality of the services provided by the Adviser. Finally, the Board concluded that the investment advisory fees paid by the Portfolios in some measure shared economies of scale with contract holders. In approving the renewal of each of the Agreements, the Board, including the Independent Trustees, gave attention to all of the information that was furnished. The Board evaluated the information available to it on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis, and its decision was made separately with respect to each Portfolio. The following discusses some of the primary factors that generally were relevant to the Board’s decision. The Board did not identify any single factor as controlling, and the Trustees generally attributed different weights to various factors for the various Portfolios.

Nature, extent and quality of services. The Board evaluated the nature, extent and quality of the services that the Adviser has provided to the Portfolios. The Board considered the Adviser’s services as investment manager to the Portfolios, including its investment management activities, trading practices, financial condition, relevant personnel matters and compliance program, among other things. The Adviser’s services in coordinating and overseeing the activities of the Trusts’ service providers were also considered. The Board considered information received from the Trusts’ Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) regarding the Portfolios’ compliance policies and procedures that were established pursuant to Rule 38a-l under the 1940 Act. In addition, throughout the year, the Board considered the expertise, experience and performance of the personnel of the Adviser who performed the various services that are mentioned above.

The Board also noted that the Adviser’s investment, compliance and legal staff regularly review and assess the services that are provided to the Portfolios, and that personnel of the Adviser prepare and present reports to the Independent Trustees regarding material information related to those reviews and assessments.

The Board further considered the provision of investment advisory services by the Adviser to the MetLife Asset Allocation 20 Portfolio, MetLife Asset Allocation 40 Portfolio, MetLife Asset Allocation 60 Portfolio, MetLife Asset Allocation 80 Portfolio and MetLife Asset Allocation 100 Portfolio (the “Asset Allocation Portfolios”) and the American Funds Balanced Allocation Portfolio, American Funds

MSF-19

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Asset Allocation 80 Portfolio

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

Growth Allocation Portfolio and American Funds Moderate Allocation Portfolio (the “American Funds of Funds”). With respect to the Asset Allocation Portfolios, the Board noted that the Adviser has hired at its own expense 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 investments in other Portfolios of the Trusts (the “Underlying Portfolios”). Additionally, the Board considered that a committee, consisting of investment professionals from across the Adviser, meets regularly to review the asset allocations and discuss the performance of the Asset Allocation Portfolios and the American Funds of Funds.

The Board further considered and found that the advisory fee paid to the Adviser with respect to each Asset Allocation Portfolio and American Fund of Funds was based on services provided that were in addition to, rather than duplicative of, the services provided pursuant to the advisory agreements for the Underlying Portfolios in which the Portfolio invests.

Performance. The Board placed emphasis on the performance of the Portfolios in light of, among other things, its importance to contract holders. The Board considered the Adviser’s quarterly reviews with the Board of detailed information about each Portfolio’s investment strategies and performance results and composition, including discussions regarding the relevant effect of current market conditions. The Board reviewed and considered the reports prepared by Broadridge, which provided a statistical analysis comparing the Portfolios’ investment performance to that of comparable funds underlying variable insurance products (the “Performance Universe”). The Independent Trustees also met separately with a representative of JDL during the September Meeting to review the JDL Report. At the November Meeting, the Board considered each Portfolio’s performance for periods subsequent to the performance period covered by the Broadridge reports, and the Adviser’s discussion of the same, including the effect of current market conditions on each Portfolio’s more recent performance. The Board focused particular attention on Portfolios with less favorable performance records.

Fees and Expenses. The Board gave consideration to the level and method of computing the fees payable under the Agreements. The Board considered the Broadridge report for each of the Portfolios, which included comparisons for each Portfolio of its contractual management fees (at current and various asset levels), and total expenses, with those of its peers, including as those peers were divided into a broad group of peer funds (“Expense Universe”) and a narrower group of peer funds (“Expense Group”). Broadridge selected the peer funds which were similarly situated funds underlying variable insurance products deemed to be comparable to the Portfolios. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of JDL, also examined the JDL Report.

The Board also considered that the Adviser had entered into expense limitation or management fee waiver agreements with certain of the Portfolios pursuant to which the Adviser had 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.

Profitability. The Board examined the profitability of the Adviser on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis. In the case of the Asset Allocation Portfolios, the Board also considered the Adviser’s analysis of its profitability that was attributable to its management of the Underlying Portfolios of the Trust in which the Asset Allocation Portfolios invest. The Board further considered that an affiliate of the Adviser, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, serves as distributor for the Portfolios, and, as such, receives Rule 12b-1 payments to support the distribution of the Portfolios. In reviewing the profitability analyses, the Board recognized that expense allocation methodologies are inherently subjective and various expense allocation methodologies may be reasonable while producing different results.

Economies of scale. The Board also considered each Portfolio’s fees in light of its size. The Board noted the fee schedules for the Portfolios that 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 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. The Board examined, among other data, the effect of a Portfolio’s growth in size on various fee schedules and reviewed the Broadridge and JDL Reports, which compared fees among peers. The Board also generally noted that if a Portfolio’s assets increase over time, the Portfolio may realize other economies of scale if assets increase proportionally more than certain other fixed expenses.

Other factors. The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trusts. Among them, the Board recognized that MetLife Investors Distribution Company, as the distributor for the Trusts, receives payments pursuant to Rule 12b-1 from the Portfolios to compensate for the provision of shareholder services and distribution activities, which could lead to growth in the Trusts’ assets and corresponding benefits from such growth, including economies of scale. In conjunction with these considerations, the Board noted the ongoing commitment of the Adviser to the Portfolios.

MSF-20

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Asset Allocation 80 Portfolio

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

The Board considered possible conflicts of interest in the form of material benefits or detriments to the Trusts resulting from the nature of the Trusts’ and the Adviser’s affiliations and the services that are provided to the Trusts, and the manner in which such conflicts were mitigated.

*  *  *

MetLife Asset Allocation 80 Portfolio. The Board also considered the following information in relation to the Agreement with the Adviser regarding the Portfolio:

Among other data relating specifically to the 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, 2016. The Board also noted that the Portfolio outperformed its Lipper Index for the one- and five-year periods ended June 30, 2016 and underperformed its Lipper Index for the three-year period ended June 30, 2016. The Board further considered that the Portfolio underperformed its benchmark, the MetLife AA 80 Broad Index, for the one-, three-, and five-year periods ended October 31, 2016. The Board also took into account that the Portfolio outperformed its other benchmark, the Dow Jones Moderately Aggressive Index, for the five-year period ended October 31, 2016, performed equally to its other benchmark for the three-year period ended October 31, 2016, and underperformed its other benchmark for the one-year period ended October 31, 2016.

The Board also considered that the Portfolio’s actual management fees and total expenses (exclusive of 12b-l fees) were below the Expense Group median and the Expense Universe median. The Board noted that the Portfolio’s contractual management fees were below the asset-weighted average of the Expense Group at the Portfolio’s current size.

MSF-21

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Asset Allocation 80 Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Advisory Agreements

The separation (the “Separation”) of MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”), the investment adviser to each of the series (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”) of Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (collectively, the “Trusts”), from its parent company, MetLife, Inc. (“MetLife”), to a separate retail business, Brighthouse Financial, Inc. (“Brighthouse”), is expected to result in a change in control of the Adviser, and therefore an “assignment” of each Portfolio’s current advisory agreement (each a “Current Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “Current Advisory Agreements”). At the November 15-16, 2016 meeting (“November Meeting”) of the Board of Trustees of the Trusts (the “Board”), the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not “interested persons,” as defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940, of any Portfolio (the “Independent Trustees”), approved a new advisory agreement (each a “New Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “New Advisory Agreements”) between the Trusts, on behalf of a Portfolio, and the Adviser, to be effective upon the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements in connection with the Separation, and recommended that the shareholders of the Trusts approve the New Advisory Agreements. The Board took those actions after consideration of and deliberation over information concerning the Separation, including with respect to the degree to which the Separation would affect the provision of investment advisory services to the Trusts. Information about the Board’s considerations and process is set forth below.

In determining whether to approve the New Advisory Agreements and in considering the Separation, the Board considered the nature, quality and extent of the services that are currently provided by the Adviser under the Current Advisory Agreements as well as the services to be provided under the New Advisory Agreements. The Board’s review was conducted as part of, and in conjunction with, the Board’s annual review of the Current Advisory Agreements, which culminated at the November Meeting. In approving the New Advisory Agreements, the Board considered its conclusions with respect to its approvals of the Current Advisory Agreements, including the Board’s general satisfaction with the nature, extent and quality of services being provided by the Adviser to each Portfolio. Appendix A and Appendix B contains a further description of the process followed, information reviewed and the material factors considered by the Board in approving the continuation of the Current Advisory Agreements.

A substantial portion of the Board’s review of the New Advisory Agreements focused on the Separation, including the potential effect of the implementation of the Separation on the operations, personnel, organizational structure, capitalization, and financial and other resources of the Adviser. After being informed by the Adviser in January 2016 of the possibility of the Separation, the Board and its Committees discussed the Separation and its possible effects on the Trusts with personnel of the Adviser and the anticipated senior management at Brighthouse during the course of the Board’s or Committee’s regularly scheduled, in-person, quarterly meetings.

Between August and November 2016, the Board and the Independent Trustees engaged in an extensive review and analysis of the Separation and how the Separation related to the Adviser and the Trusts and how it could affect the services provided to the Trusts. This analysis focused on, among other matters, the assurances from Brighthouse’s anticipated leadership as to its expectations for the continuity and stability of the Adviser’s personnel throughout implementation of the Separation and for the foreseeable future thereafter. The Board considered that the Separation is being implemented as a result of MetLife’s determination to divest itself of a substantial portion of its U.S. retail business (of which the Adviser forms a portion). The Board also considered that it has been satisfied as a general matter with the nature and quality of the services that the Adviser provides to the Portfolios, including investment advisory, administrative, legal, compliance, and support services, and that it would be in the Portfolios’ best interests to maintain continuity and stability in the services that are currently being provided. The Board carefully considered the anticipated future plans of Brighthouse related to capitalization and operational matters for Brighthouse and the Adviser, as well as the importance of the Adviser to the businesses of Brighthouse after the Separation.

Among other steps in its review process, which accelerated on October 5, 2016 when Brighthouse filed its Form 10 with the SEC, the following actions were taken and considered by or on behalf of the Board:

1. The Independent Trustees solicited and received ongoing advice regarding the legal duties of the Independent Trustees from Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young LLP (“Stradley Ronon”), legal counsel for the Independent Trustees, which law firm has extensive experience regarding such matters.

2. Following the August 16-17, 2016 Board and Committee quarterly meetings, the Independent Trustees established an ad hoc group of Independent Trustees (the “Working Group”) to help oversee, coordinate, and conduct due diligence activities with respect to the Separation. The Working Group regularly reported on the due diligence activities to the other Independent Trustees.

3. Since January 2016, the Board posed ongoing inquiries to, and received regular updates from, the Adviser and anticipated senior management at Brighthouse at either in-person meetings dedicated to the status of the Separation or during the course of the Board or Committee’s regular quarterly meetings. The Board considered, among other matters, relevant legal guidance and the processes followed by certain other investment company boards of directors or trustees when they approved contracts in connection with change in control events, while recognizing the unique circumstances of the Separation.

MSF-22

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Asset Allocation 80 Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

4. The Board received and reviewed the Form 10 of Brighthouse that contained extensive information relating to, among other matters, Brighthouse’s anticipated business plans and financial structure. The Board also received and reviewed reports from rating agencies with respect to Brighthouse.

5. Stradley Ronon retained Barrington Partners (“Barrington”), an independent consulting firm with a specific focus on the asset management industry and experience relating to business operations such as those to be conducted by Brighthouse, including its proposed subsidiary, the Adviser, in order to help Stradley Ronon evaluate the Separation based on the Form 10 and other materials and related information provided by the Adviser and its affiliates. Barrington conducted a series of in-person and telephonic meetings with anticipated senior management at Brighthouse (i.e., the aforementioned anticipated officers of Brighthouse and others) and with personnel of the Adviser who provide services to the Trusts. Stradley Ronon, with the assistance of Barrington, evaluated the information and advised the Independent Trustees with respect to, among other matters, details of Brighthouse’s anticipated business plan to understand the implications of the Separation to the Adviser and its personnel. The Independent Trustees and the Working Group attended certain in-person and telephonic conference call meetings at which Barrington rendered advice to Stradley Ronon regarding these matters and responded to questions.

6. The Independent Trustees requested and participated in in-person meetings with anticipated senior management personnel at Brighthouse, including its President and Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, Chief Operating Officer, and Chief Investment Officer. The Independent Trustees also met with personnel of the Adviser.

7. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of Stradley Ronon, prepared written inquiries to the Adviser and its affiliates regarding the Separation, and received written assurances from the Adviser and its affiliates that they have no plans to make any material changes affecting the personnel of the Adviser (including those personnel who provide investment, administrative, legal and compliance services) and the Adviser and its affiliates will not initiate such changes without prior notice to and discussion with the Board.

8. The Board considered representations by the Adviser and its affiliates that approval of the New Advisory Agreements would be necessary for the Portfolios to continue receiving investment advisory services from the Adviser following the change in control.

9. The Board considered representations by the Adviser, as well as related supporting documentation, indicating that the New Advisory Agreements, including the fees payable thereunder, are substantially identical to the terms of the corresponding Current Advisory Agreements.

10. The Board considered representations by the Adviser and its affiliates, as well as related supporting documentation, indicating that: (1) the Adviser can be expected to provide services of the same nature, extent, and quality under the New Advisory Agreements and as are provided thereby under the Current Advisory Agreements; and (2) the Separation is not expected to result in any changes to (i) the management of the Portfolios, or (ii) the investment objective of or the principal investment strategies used to manage any of the Portfolios.

11. The Board considered the ability of the Adviser and its affiliates to retain the employment of key personnel, as well as the overall positive indications by many such personnel regarding the opportunities presented by the Separation.

12. The Board considered that the Adviser and its affiliates have agreed to bear all expenses associated with obtaining shareholder approval of the New Advisory Agreements.

13. The Board considered Brighthouse’s preliminary “branding” plans regarding the future name of its operations.

14. The Board considered the advice provided by Ropes & Gray, LLP, legal counsel to the Trusts and the Adviser, with respect to the New Advisory Agreements (including advice relating to the process and timing of seeking shareholder approval of the New Advisory Agreements, and whether shareholder approvals would be required in connection with any future aspects of the Separation) and regarding the Board’s role and responsibilities with respect to the Separation.

15. The Board considered MetLife’s stated intention of divesting its ownership interest in the Adviser through the Separation, including the potential advantages and disadvantages of this divestiture to shareholders of the Portfolios. The Board considered the likelihood that the Adviser would retain its key personnel after the Separation. The Board considered that the garnering of new assets into the Trusts is based on sales of variable annuity and variable life insurance products, which sales have declined in prior years as a result of, among other things, the capital requirements of MetLife. The Board considered the representations of the anticipated senior management of Brighthouse that the Separation provides the Trusts with an opportunity for the garnering of new assets as Brighthouse will likely sell such products going forward. The Board considered also that the divestiture would result in a change in the manner in

MSF-23

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Asset Allocation 80 Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

which the Trusts access certain services and resources of MetLife (after the Separation those services will be provided through a transition services agreement), the loss of affiliation with the MetLife name brand, and the possible going forward need of the Trusts to hire a transfer agent, as such transfer agency services are currently provided to the Trusts for no fee.

16. The Board considered that, if shareholders approve the New Advisory Agreements, the Board and the Adviser will conduct their annual contract review process in November 2017. Thus, the Board emphasized that it would be able to, and intends to, monitor on a regular basis the ability of the Adviser and its affiliates to comply with their undertakings to the Board and to monitor on an ongoing basis the quality of services to, and expenses of, the Portfolios. In addition, the Board considered that, under the New Advisory Agreements, it will continue to have the authority, should the need arise in its view, to terminate any of the New Advisory Agreements without penalty upon 60 days’ notice.

Based on the foregoing and other relevant considerations, at the November Meeting, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, voted to approve the New Advisory Agreements and to recommend approval of the New Advisory Agreements by shareholders of the Portfolios. In this connection, the Board concluded that, in light of all factors considered, the terms of the New Advisory Agreement, including fee rates, were fair and reasonable, and that it would be in the best interests of shareholders of each Portfolio to approve the New Advisory Agreements.

In the event that approval of the New Advisory Agreements by shareholders of the Portfolios has not been obtained before the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements as a result of the change in control of the Adviser, the Board also approved an interim advisory agreement with the Adviser (the “Interim Advisory Agreement”) on behalf of each Portfolio that will go into effect upon the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements. The Board’s determination to approve each Interim Advisory Agreement was based on the same information and considerations as the Board’s approval of the New Advisory Agreements so as to ensure continuity of advisory services from the Adviser to the Portfolios following the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements.

MSF-24

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Aggregate Bond Index Portfolio (formerly, Barclays Aggregate Bond Index Portfolio)

Managed by MetLife Investment Advisors, LLC

Portfolio Manager Commentary*

PERFORMANCE

For the 12 months ended December 31, 2016, the Class A, B, E, and G shares of the MetLife Aggregate Bond Index Portfolio returned 2.35%, 2.14%, 2.19%, and 2.09%, respectively. The Portfolio’s benchmark, the Bloomberg Barclays U.S. Aggregate Bond Index¹, returned 2.65%.

MARKET ENVIRONMENT / CONDITIONS

During 2016, the Federal Open Market Committee (the “Committee”) met eight times and during the December meeting raised the target range for the federal funds rate to 0.50% to 0.75%. The Committee noted the continued strengthening of the labor market, indicators of inflation pressures and expectations and readings on financial and international developments as factors for determining the timing and size of future adjustments to the target range. The Committee stated that it would maintain the program of reinvesting principal payments from its retained agency debt and agency Mortgage-Backed Securities (“MBS”) into agency MBS and continue rolling over maturing Treasury securities at auction.

The U.S. Presidential election and President-elect Trump’s resulting victory dominated headlines and markets during the year. Equity benchmarks moved to record highs while investors sold off Treasuries amid the possibility of larger deficits and rising inflation. Interest rates were higher along the yield curve, which steepened from 2015 year-end levels. At the end of the fourth quarter, the 2-year Treasury finished at 1.19% (up from 1.05% at December 31, 2015), and the 30-year Treasury finished at 3.07% (up from 3.02% at December 31, 2015).

Crude oil prices fluctuated during the one-year period. After beginning the year at approximately $37 per barrel and dipping to as low as $26 per barrel, it ended the year at approximately $54 per barrel, aided by OPEC’s decision to cut production.

The Corporate sector was the strongest performing Index sector for the one-year period on a total return basis. Total returns for the Index sectors were: 6.11% for Corporate; 3.32% for Commercial MBS; 2.73% for Government-Related; 2.03% for Asset-Backed Securities; 1.67% for MBS; and 1.04% for Treasury.

PORTFOLIO REVIEW / PERIOD END POSITIONING

The Portfolio is managed utilizing a stratified sampling approach where the objective is to track the performance of the Index by holding a subset of Index constituents and neutralizing exposures across key characteristics (i.e., duration, term structure, high sector, sub-sector, quality). Factors that impact tracking error include: sampling, transaction costs, contributions and withdrawals.

Stacey Lituchy

Jason Chapin

Brian Leonard

Portfolio Managers

MetLife Investment 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 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.

MSF-1

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Aggregate Bond Index Portfolio (formerly, Barclays Aggregate Bond Index Portfolio)

A $10,000 INVESTMENT COMPARED TO THE BLOOMBERG BARCLAYS U.S. AGGREGATE BOND INDEX

AVERAGE ANNUAL RETURNS (%) (FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2016)

	1 Year		5 Year		10 Year		Since Inception2
MetLife Aggregate Bond Index Portfolio
Class A		2.35		1.96		4.11		—
Class B		2.14		1.72		3.86		—
Class E		2.19		1.81		3.96		—
Class G		2.09		1.66		—		3.31
Bloomberg Barclays U.S. Aggregate Bond Index		2.65		2.23		4.34		—

¹The Bloomberg Barclays 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 Inception dates of the Class A, Class B, Class E and Class G shares are 11/9/98,1/2/01, 5/1/01 and 4/28/09, respectively.

Portfolio performance is calculated including reinvestment of all income and capital gain distributions. Performance numbers are net of all Portfolio expenses but do not include any insurance, sales, separate account or administrative charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts or any additional expenses that participants may bear relating to the operations of their plans. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower. The performance of any index referenced above has not been adjusted for ongoing management, distribution and operating expenses, and sales charges applicable to mutual fund investments. Direct investment in any index is not possible. The performance of Class A shares, as set forth in the line graph above, will differ from that of other classes because of the difference in expenses paid by policyholders investing in the different share classes.

This information represents past performance and is not indicative of future results. Investment return and principal value may fluctuate so that shares, upon redemption, may be worth more or less than the original cost.

PORTFOLIO COMPOSITION AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2016

Top Sectors

	% of Net Assets
U.S. Treasury & Government Agencies		67.0
Corporate Bonds & Notes		27.6
Foreign Government		2.1
Mortgage-Backed Securities		1.2
Municipals		0.7
Asset-Backed Securities		0.4

MSF-2

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Aggregate Bond Index Portfolio (formerly, Barclays Aggregate Bond Index 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, 2016 through December 31, 2016.

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.

MetLife Aggregate Bond Index Portfolio		Annualized Expense Ratio			Beginning Account Value July 1, 2016		Ending Account Value December 31, 2016		Expenses Paid During Period** July 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016
Class A(a)	Actual		0.27	%	$	1,000.00	$	973.10	$	1.34
	Hypothetical*		0.27	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,023.78	$	1.37
Class B(a)	Actual		0.52	%	$	1,000.00	$	972.60	$	2.58
	Hypothetical*		0.52	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,022.52	$	2.64
Class E(a)	Actual		0.42	%	$	1,000.00	$	973.00	$	2.08
	Hypothetical*		0.42	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,023.03	$	2.14
Class G(a)	Actual		0.57	%	$	1,000.00	$	971.60	$	2.82
	Hypothetical*		0.57	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,022.27	$	2.90

* 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 366 (to reflect the one-half year period).

^(a) The annualized expense ratio shown reflects the impact of the management fee waiver as described in Note 5 of the Notes to Financial Statements.

MSF-3

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Aggregate Bond Index Portfolio (formerly, Barclays Aggregate Bond Index Portfolio)

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

U.S. Treasury & Government Agencies—67.0% of Net Assets

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Agency Sponsored Mortgage - Backed—28.3%
Fannie Mae 15 Yr. Pool 2.500%, 12/01/27		3,771,535	$	3,811,098
2.500%, 02/01/28		2,876,470		2,901,402
2.500%, 07/01/28		5,154,188		5,198,863
2.500%, 10/01/28		3,248,667		3,276,826
2.500%, 03/01/30		3,236,747		3,250,129
2.500%, 09/01/31		4,782,357		4,797,383
3.000%, 01/01/27		1,460,392		1,502,564
3.000%, 02/01/27		2,419,787		2,489,936
3.000%, 03/01/27		1,277,672		1,314,712
3.000%, 01/01/29		5,652,921		5,813,890
3.000%, 10/01/29		2,559,186		2,631,839
3.000%, 06/01/30		3,160,094		3,247,099
3.500%, 02/01/26		2,338,520		2,439,828
3.500%, 03/01/26		941,101		981,871
3.500%, 05/01/29		2,408,804		2,517,848
4.000%, 04/01/19		50,882		52,388
4.000%, 05/01/19		111,879		115,187
4.000%, 01/01/20		245,689		253,050
4.000%, 06/01/24		390,464		409,468
4.000%, 11/01/24		2,011,029		2,108,905
4.500%, 07/01/18		127,714		129,955
4.500%, 05/01/19		64,670		66,464
4.500%, 08/01/24		496,438		528,456
4.500%, 06/01/25		921,351		983,869
5.000%, 06/01/18		18,252		18,618
5.000%, 01/01/19		59,240		60,626
5.000%, 02/01/20		137,251		143,039
5.000%, 01/01/22		187,117		195,547
5.000%, 02/01/24		569,549		608,182
5.500%, 11/01/17		6,764		6,822
5.500%, 02/01/18		9,145		9,263
5.500%, 04/01/18		83,207		84,731
6.000%, 09/01/17		7,857		7,892
6.500%, 04/01/17		19,121		19,165
Fannie Mae 20 Yr. Pool 3.000%, 02/01/33		1,860,124		1,898,010
3.000%, 08/01/35		2,560,409		2,598,122
3.000%, 05/01/36		3,534,649		3,582,985
3.500%, 04/01/32		1,726,768		1,799,477
3.500%, 09/01/35		2,624,570		2,735,294
4.000%, 02/01/31		804,828		854,979
4.500%, 08/01/30		509,001		548,709
5.000%, 02/01/24		199,833		217,570
5.000%, 09/01/25		156,162		170,086
5.500%, 07/01/23		115,644		128,432
5.500%, 01/01/24		76,544		85,024
5.500%, 07/01/24		202,126		224,586
5.500%, 07/01/25		180,037		200,093
7.000%, 10/01/21		8,855		9,449
Fannie Mae 30 Yr. Pool 2.500%, 08/01/46		3,872,439		3,680,959
3.000%, 08/01/42		1,582,636		1,581,949
3.000%, 09/01/42		2,076,635		2,075,733
3.000%, 11/01/42		2,619,818		2,618,680
3.000%, 12/01/42		4,941,570		4,939,425
Agency Sponsored Mortgage - Backed—(Continued)
Fannie Mae 30 Yr. Pool 3.000%, 01/01/43		1,278,966		1,278,410
3.000%, 02/01/43		4,582,857		4,576,987
3.000%, 03/01/43		5,551,941		5,544,828
3.000%, 05/01/43		3,898,883		3,893,889
3.000%, 07/01/43		10,097,685		10,084,752
3.000%, 09/01/43		3,167,889		3,163,831
3.000%, 05/01/45		3,464,032		3,447,887
3.000%, 05/01/46		3,656,520		3,637,701
3.000%, 06/01/46		4,654,632		4,630,676
3.000%, 08/01/46		4,712,798		4,688,543
3.000%, 10/01/46		9,720,967		9,670,937
3.000%, 11/01/46		2,541,016		2,527,938
3.000%, 01/01/47		4,982,014		4,958,856
3.500%, 12/01/40		1,966,135		2,026,379
3.500%, 03/01/42		1,298,195		1,338,409
3.500%, 04/01/42		2,829,454		2,917,101
3.500%, 05/01/42		3,279,987		3,381,590
3.500%, 06/01/42		2,478,748		2,555,532
3.500%, 08/01/42		1,626,364		1,676,743
3.500%, 09/01/42		4,634,552		4,778,114
3.500%, 10/01/42		2,245,437		2,314,993
3.500%, 01/01/43		2,041,002		2,104,226
3.500%, 02/01/43		3,225,720		3,325,641
3.500%, 04/01/43		3,654,607		3,763,761
3.500%, 06/01/43		2,022,253		2,082,652
3.500%, 08/01/44		2,367,592		2,431,749
3.500%, 02/01/45		3,544,801		3,640,859
3.500%, 03/01/45		5,366,276		5,504,343
3.500%, 04/01/45		6,775,299		6,949,618
3.500%, 09/01/45		11,157,845		11,444,919
3.500%, 11/01/45		3,947,920		4,049,494
3.500%, 01/01/46		4,294,475		4,404,965
3.500%, 03/01/46		4,333,838		4,446,278
3.500%, 05/01/46		3,593,404		3,686,634
4.000%, 08/01/39		1,284,401		1,355,786
4.000%, 09/01/39		1,010,171		1,066,315
4.000%, 12/01/39		1,244,194		1,313,345
4.000%, 06/01/40		1,676,294		1,769,984
4.000%, 09/01/40		786,743		830,715
4.000%, 12/01/40		5,753,069		6,074,614
4.000%, 01/01/41		3,151,604		3,327,549
4.000%, 02/01/41		3,749,225		3,958,280
4.000%, 12/01/41		1,359,601		1,435,412
4.000%, 02/01/42		1,547,141		1,633,759
4.000%, 09/01/43		2,262,964		2,382,520
4.000%, 02/01/44		3,247,812		3,416,034
4.000%, 05/01/44		2,536,016		2,667,370
4.000%, 08/01/44		3,530,748		3,713,624
4.000%, 10/01/44		2,192,520		2,306,082
4.000%, 11/01/44		4,518,278		4,752,303
4.000%, 01/01/45		3,648,896		3,837,891
4.000%, 03/01/45		3,018,111		3,176,656
4.000%, 10/01/45		3,899,838		4,104,701
4.500%, 08/01/33		238,996		258,297
4.500%, 10/01/33		248,063		268,096

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-4

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Aggregate Bond Index Portfolio (formerly, Barclays Aggregate Bond Index Portfolio)

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

U.S. Treasury & Government Agencies—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Agency Sponsored Mortgage - Backed—(Continued)
Fannie Mae 30 Yr. Pool 4.500%, 04/01/34		106,719	$	114,816
4.500%, 01/01/39		133,495		144,173
4.500%, 07/01/39		1,612,479		1,741,085
4.500%, 09/01/39		2,441,368		2,636,081
4.500%, 10/01/39		1,164,262		1,257,119
4.500%, 05/01/40		1,473,035		1,588,178
4.500%, 08/01/40		2,369,540		2,554,760
4.500%, 11/01/40		1,236,407		1,333,053
4.500%, 12/01/40		2,181,171		2,351,666
4.500%, 04/01/41		5,163,096		5,570,637
4.500%, 05/01/41		1,269,728		1,369,952
4.500%, 03/01/44		1,851,451		1,993,873
5.000%, 07/01/33		146,887		160,753
5.000%, 08/01/33		474,794		519,616
5.000%, 09/01/33		222,715		243,740
5.000%, 10/01/33		2,194,764		2,401,960
5.000%, 03/01/34		256,460		280,671
5.000%, 04/01/34		579,315		633,802
5.000%, 05/01/34		76,164		83,307
5.000%, 09/01/34		212,751		232,702
5.000%, 02/01/35		338,405		370,139
5.000%, 04/01/35		154,598		168,977
5.000%, 05/01/35		43,944		48,032
5.000%, 11/01/35		151,053		165,103
5.000%, 03/01/36		604,418		660,637
5.000%, 07/01/37		508,802		556,465
5.000%, 01/01/39		462,829		504,927
5.000%, 04/01/40		1,688,779		1,843,472
5.000%, 07/01/41		1,119,261		1,226,489
5.500%, 10/01/32		42,372		47,310
5.500%, 02/01/33		127,967		142,880
5.500%, 03/01/33		414,229		462,499
5.500%, 05/01/33		1,590,057		1,775,349
5.500%, 08/01/33		669,923		747,991
5.500%, 10/01/33		87,232		97,397
5.500%, 12/01/33		848,524		947,405
5.500%, 02/01/34		184,511		205,923
5.500%, 03/01/34		125,832		140,434
5.500%, 04/01/34		62,123		69,332
5.500%, 06/01/34		234,320		261,513
5.500%, 09/01/34		215,478		240,484
5.500%, 12/01/34		526,819		587,953
5.500%, 01/01/35		151,484		169,063
5.500%, 02/01/35		419,245		467,897
5.500%, 04/01/35		181,808		202,721
5.500%, 06/01/35		864,303		963,719
5.500%, 01/01/37		220,687		245,834
5.500%, 05/01/37		140,369		156,452
5.500%, 05/01/38		114,806		127,718
5.500%, 06/01/38		145,027		161,338
5.500%, 07/01/38		103,278		114,894
6.000%, 08/01/28		2,809		3,178
6.000%, 11/01/28		844		960
6.000%, 12/01/28		921		1,053
6.000%, 06/01/31		37,363		42,310
Agency Sponsored Mortgage - Backed—(Continued)
Fannie Mae 30 Yr. Pool 6.000%, 09/01/32		92,521		104,984
6.000%, 01/01/33		18,030		20,459
6.000%, 02/01/33		82,994		94,158
6.000%, 03/01/33		97,242		110,323
6.000%, 04/01/33		268,098		304,161
6.000%, 05/01/33		281,302		319,140
6.000%, 05/01/34		399,001		451,919
6.000%, 09/01/34		232,056		262,833
6.000%, 11/01/34		324,444		367,474
6.000%, 01/01/35		117,486		132,889
6.000%, 07/01/36		55,175		62,425
6.000%, 09/01/36		167,571		189,588
6.000%, 07/01/37		48,594		55,038
6.000%, 08/01/37		229,879		260,364
6.000%, 09/01/37		523,587		593,020
6.000%, 10/01/37		192,764		218,326
6.000%, 05/01/38		649,378		735,492
6.000%, 12/01/38		150,709		170,897
6.500%, 05/01/28		48,384		55,054
6.500%, 12/01/28		118,089		133,602
6.500%, 03/01/29		2,915		3,298
6.500%, 04/01/29		27,018		30,567
6.500%, 05/01/29		5,126		5,800
6.500%, 08/01/29		839		950
6.500%, 05/01/30		29,883		33,809
6.500%, 09/01/31		6,058		6,914
6.500%, 06/01/32		24,520		28,069
6.500%, 09/01/33		14,805		16,749
6.500%, 10/01/33		103,480		117,073
6.500%, 10/01/34		266,255		304,167
6.500%, 10/01/37		100,411		114,825
7.000%, 06/01/26		550		594
7.000%, 06/01/28		7,159		7,240
7.000%, 10/01/29		9,077		10,350
7.000%, 12/01/29		3,491		3,587
7.000%, 06/01/32		55,023		62,184
7.000%, 10/01/37		183,089		220,214
7.500%, 09/01/25		4,365		4,987
7.500%, 06/01/26		5,003		5,835
7.500%, 07/01/29		10,715		12,477
7.500%, 10/01/29		6,986		7,410
8.000%, 11/01/29		138		155
8.000%, 05/01/30		17,012		17,650
8.000%, 11/01/30		2,992		3,397
8.000%, 01/01/31		3,201		3,622
8.000%, 02/01/31		5,596		6,537
Fannie Mae ARM Pool 2.542%, 02/01/45 (a)		865,352		882,329
2.763%, 11/01/43 (a)		1,402,430		1,456,922
2.783%, 02/01/42 (a)		1,899,674		1,967,145
2.990%, 10/01/41 (a)		194,451		203,251
Fannie Mae-ACES 2.679%, 05/25/21 (a)		5,000,000		5,056,300
Freddie Mac 15 Yr. Gold Pool 2.500%, 12/01/27		1,767,428		1,786,740

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-5

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Aggregate Bond Index Portfolio (formerly, Barclays Aggregate Bond Index Portfolio)

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

U.S. Treasury & Government Agencies—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Agency Sponsored Mortgage - Backed—(Continued)
Freddie Mac 15 Yr. Gold Pool 2.500%, 02/01/28		2,859,060	$	2,884,938
2.500%, 04/01/28		2,347,932		2,369,183
2.500%, 12/01/29		3,415,144		3,438,618
2.500%, 01/01/31		4,254,003		4,268,234
2.500%, 12/01/31		2,985,773		2,993,824
3.000%, 03/01/27		1,337,012		1,375,897
3.000%, 05/01/27		1,792,810		1,844,951
3.000%, 11/01/28		2,163,986		2,226,239
3.000%, 12/01/29		3,872,670		3,983,369
3.000%, 05/01/31		4,421,648		4,543,622
3.500%, 12/01/25		1,565,618		1,634,308
3.500%, 05/01/26		537,117		560,805
3.500%, 09/01/30		3,337,609		3,501,960
4.000%, 06/01/19		79,859		81,935
4.000%, 05/01/25		838,867		882,299
4.000%, 08/01/25		447,236		470,392
4.000%, 10/01/25		394,646		415,079
4.500%, 09/01/18		64,297		65,428
4.500%, 10/01/18		148,041		150,645
4.500%, 04/01/19		156,099		160,628
4.500%, 06/01/19		95,057		97,527
4.500%, 08/01/19		30,839		31,689
5.000%, 05/01/18		147,390		151,002
5.000%, 12/01/18		30,507		31,255
5.000%, 06/01/19		118,083		121,057
5.500%, 11/01/17		10,172		10,283
5.500%, 01/01/24		391,408		420,999
6.000%, 05/01/17		2,237		2,243
Freddie Mac 20 Yr. Gold Pool 3.000%, 04/01/33		2,914,556		2,971,833
3.500%, 04/01/32		2,305,251		2,400,044
4.000%, 01/01/31		880,796		935,002
4.000%, 08/01/31		877,576		931,583
4.500%, 05/01/29		233,942		251,237
5.000%, 03/01/27		125,341		136,449
Freddie Mac 30 Yr. Gold Pool 2.500%, 07/01/43		2,688,845		2,557,897
3.000%, 10/01/42		2,514,585		2,511,518
3.000%, 01/01/43		2,440,811		2,437,834
3.000%, 03/01/43		5,872,044		5,859,966
3.000%, 04/01/43		4,529,514		4,520,198
3.000%, 06/01/43		1,820,921		1,817,175
3.000%, 07/01/43		3,973,966		3,965,793
3.000%, 06/01/45		4,353,121		4,329,491
3.000%, 01/01/46		2,664,384		2,649,921
3.000%, 06/01/46		4,638,925		4,611,410
3.000%, 10/01/46		3,822,025		3,799,356
3.000%, 11/01/46		4,819,544		4,790,958
3.000%, 12/01/46		7,517,883		7,473,293
3.500%, 01/01/42		1,423,274		1,465,931
3.500%, 03/01/42		1,294,209		1,332,998
3.500%, 08/01/42		4,554,547		4,691,051
3.500%, 02/01/43		1,849,653		1,903,021
3.500%, 05/01/43		3,011,670		3,098,564
3.500%, 06/01/43		2,007,555		2,065,478
Agency Sponsored Mortgage - Backed—(Continued)
Freddie Mac 30 Yr. Gold Pool 3.500%, 06/01/44		2,203,774		2,261,489
3.500%, 10/01/44		2,417,926		2,481,249
3.500%, 11/01/44		3,270,645		3,356,300
3.500%, 12/01/44		3,224,041		3,308,476
3.500%, 05/01/45		3,893,629		3,989,638
3.500%, 08/01/45		3,670,034		3,760,529
3.500%, 11/01/45		4,066,645		4,166,919
3.500%, 12/01/45		2,464,750		2,525,525
3.500%, 03/01/46		7,540,403		7,728,096
4.000%, 06/01/39		809,812		854,254
4.000%, 12/01/39		1,330,103		1,403,098
4.000%, 11/01/40		1,235,171		1,303,278
4.000%, 04/01/41		1,227,232		1,294,734
4.000%, 09/01/41		1,252,552		1,321,447
4.000%, 10/01/41		2,964,759		3,127,833
4.000%, 11/01/41		1,250,968		1,319,776
4.000%, 10/01/43		3,296,545		3,468,300
4.000%, 07/01/44		3,630,450		3,815,984
4.000%, 10/01/44		2,780,689		2,922,796
4.000%, 07/01/45		4,361,128		4,586,117
4.000%, 01/01/46		4,414,350		4,643,049
4.000%, 02/01/46		2,362,947		2,485,367
4.500%, 10/01/35		438,920		472,822
4.500%, 06/01/38		655,870		704,873
4.500%, 02/01/39		409,728		441,613
4.500%, 03/01/39		287,638		310,022
4.500%, 04/01/39		662,701		714,271
4.500%, 09/01/39		764,314		823,791
4.500%, 10/01/39		1,951,218		2,103,058
4.500%, 11/01/39		598,763		645,358
4.500%, 01/01/40		383,176		412,362
4.500%, 05/01/40		764,652		822,895
4.500%, 11/01/40		1,122,635		1,208,144
4.500%, 02/01/41		471,976		508,262
4.500%, 05/01/41		693,875		747,220
4.500%, 06/01/41		479,722		516,604
4.500%, 12/01/43		1,103,003		1,185,416
5.000%, 10/01/33		563,172		615,525
5.000%, 03/01/34		114,456		125,026
5.000%, 08/01/35		509,466		556,186
5.000%, 09/01/35		229,296		250,324
5.000%, 10/01/35		191,699		209,279
5.000%, 01/01/36		628,689		686,343
5.000%, 04/01/38		334,823		364,695
5.000%, 11/01/39		1,423,782		1,550,355
5.000%, 05/01/40		1,856,732		2,023,752
5.500%, 06/01/34		467,218		520,388
5.500%, 10/01/35		176,063		195,939
5.500%, 12/01/35		677,355		753,820
5.500%, 01/01/36		417,328		464,197
5.500%, 12/01/37		380,974		423,591
5.500%, 04/01/38		1,691,273		1,877,756
5.500%, 07/01/38		200,299		222,384
5.500%, 08/01/38		524,575		582,416
6.000%, 11/01/28		7,697		8,734

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-6

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Aggregate Bond Index Portfolio (formerly, Barclays Aggregate Bond Index Portfolio)

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

U.S. Treasury & Government Agencies—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Agency Sponsored Mortgage - Backed—(Continued)
Freddie Mac 30 Yr. Gold Pool 6.000%, 12/01/28		6,062	$	6,951
6.000%, 04/01/29		2,382		2,691
6.000%, 05/01/29		1,911		2,159
6.000%, 06/01/31		2,118		2,393
6.000%, 07/01/31		711		815
6.000%, 09/01/31		58,578		66,234
6.000%, 04/01/32		21,080		23,962
6.000%, 11/01/32		30,448		34,611
6.000%, 06/01/34		113,107		128,383
6.000%, 11/01/35		87,477		98,919
6.000%, 02/01/36		131,217		148,498
6.000%, 08/01/36		75,953		85,956
6.000%, 10/01/36		167,705		189,792
6.000%, 11/01/36		91,156		103,162
6.000%, 01/01/37		153,969		174,247
6.000%, 02/01/38		166,354		188,753
6.000%, 11/01/39		1,436,533		1,626,807
6.000%, 04/01/40		455,924		517,312
6.500%, 02/01/30		5,281		5,965
6.500%, 08/01/31		9,088		10,444
6.500%, 10/01/31		7,061		7,975
6.500%, 11/01/31		19,717		22,659
6.500%, 03/01/32		345,628		390,378
6.500%, 04/01/32		264,557		306,720
6.500%, 09/01/36		377,218		432,425
6.500%, 11/01/37		175,101		199,737
7.000%, 12/01/27		1,232		1,407
7.000%, 11/01/28		3,379		3,919
7.000%, 04/01/29		3,448		3,983
7.000%, 05/01/29		667		731
7.000%, 06/01/29		5,823		6,018
7.000%, 07/01/29		1,946		2,163
7.000%, 01/01/31		99,058		105,005
7.500%, 08/01/24		7,924		7,951
7.500%, 10/01/27		9,820		11,054
7.500%, 10/01/29		12,655		14,487
7.500%, 05/01/30		11,855		13,309
8.000%, 02/01/27		3,095		3,555
8.000%, 10/01/28		6,051		7,166
Freddie Mac Multifamily Structured Pass-Through Certificates 2.902%, 08/25/20		956,165		974,763
3.060%, 07/25/23 (a)		4,800,000		4,950,720
Ginnie Mae I 15 Yr. Pool 3.000%, 08/15/28		2,561,788		2,644,332
5.000%, 10/15/20		124,220		130,699
5.000%, 01/15/21		106,734		112,237
Ginnie Mae I 30 Yr. Pool 3.000%, 11/15/42		2,747,050		2,790,540
3.000%, 12/15/42		2,089,408		2,122,486
3.000%, 02/15/43		1,798,636		1,828,932
3.000%, 03/15/43		2,198,862		2,235,899
3.000%, 05/15/43		2,979,758		3,029,948
3.000%, 07/15/43		1,951,899		1,984,777
3.500%, 01/15/42		2,703,528		2,826,864
Agency Sponsored Mortgage - Backed—(Continued)
Ginnie Mae I 30 Yr. Pool 3.500%, 02/15/42		915,052		956,653
3.500%, 03/15/42		1,787,594		1,868,863
3.500%, 05/15/42		1,251,301		1,308,189
3.500%, 09/15/42		1,636,687		1,711,095
3.500%, 05/15/43		2,158,279		2,255,109
4.000%, 07/15/39		1,914,905		2,039,585
4.000%, 07/15/40		1,124,601		1,194,058
4.000%, 03/15/41		849,362		904,919
4.000%, 10/15/41		1,923,227		2,049,024
4.500%, 01/15/39		285,566		310,064
4.500%, 04/15/39		868,623		943,140
4.500%, 05/15/39		1,908,817		2,072,571
4.500%, 08/15/39		861,836		935,771
4.500%, 01/15/40		874,351		951,368
4.500%, 04/15/40		1,046,824		1,139,033
4.500%, 02/15/41		204,557		222,447
4.500%, 04/15/41		541,580		588,947
5.000%, 12/15/35		321,946		353,602
5.000%, 12/15/36		139,259		153,817
5.000%, 01/15/39		994,563		1,088,759
5.000%, 02/15/39		190,014		207,777
5.000%, 08/15/39		1,340,091		1,465,362
5.000%, 09/15/39		326,987		357,554
5.000%, 12/15/39		607,856		664,678
5.000%, 05/15/40		966,662		1,060,533
5.500%, 03/15/36		249,015		277,775
5.500%, 01/15/37		407,325		460,225
5.500%, 11/15/37		522,563		583,299
5.500%, 09/15/38		216,879		242,013
5.500%, 08/15/39		1,057,736		1,180,045
6.000%, 01/15/29		5,346		6,119
6.000%, 01/15/33		211,090		244,540
6.000%, 03/15/35		220,950		255,800
6.000%, 12/15/35		162,804		188,256
6.000%, 06/15/36		152,897		174,355
6.000%, 09/15/36		189,336		215,908
6.000%, 07/15/38		910,243		1,043,323
6.500%, 05/15/23		1,127		1,287
6.500%, 02/15/27		27,029		30,874
6.500%, 07/15/28		9,034		10,319
6.500%, 08/15/28		9,435		10,778
6.500%, 11/15/28		8,233		9,492
6.500%, 12/15/28		8,890		10,154
6.500%, 07/15/29		2,031		2,319
6.500%, 05/15/36		117,151		133,818
7.000%, 01/15/28		1,528		1,690
7.000%, 04/15/28		2,892		2,968
7.000%, 05/15/28		9,717		10,344
7.000%, 06/15/28		7,784		8,663
7.000%, 10/15/28		7,485		8,200
7.000%, 06/15/29		1,953		1,992
7.000%, 09/15/29		2,443		2,492
7.000%, 01/15/31		1,303		1,328
7.000%, 03/15/31		12,312		12,599
7.000%, 07/15/31		383,249		450,530

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-7

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Aggregate Bond Index Portfolio (formerly, Barclays Aggregate Bond Index Portfolio)

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

U.S. Treasury & Government Agencies—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Agency Sponsored Mortgage - Backed—(Continued)
Ginnie Mae I 30 Yr. Pool 7.000%, 08/15/31		62,166	$	74,426
7.000%, 02/15/32		9,964		10,076
7.000%, 07/15/32		23,813		28,535
7.500%, 04/15/30		8,050		8,186
8.000%, 08/15/26		3,161		3,556
8.000%, 09/15/26		2,699		2,985
8.000%, 06/15/29		22,008		23,464
9.000%, 11/15/24		5,826		6,362
Ginnie Mae II 30 Yr. Pool 3.000%, 12/20/42		2,529,425		2,571,925
3.000%, 03/20/43		3,550,072		3,610,107
3.000%, 12/20/44		3,311,997		3,359,805
3.000%, 04/20/45		3,079,185		3,121,607
3.000%, 08/20/45		4,330,661		4,390,325
3.000%, 11/20/45		2,498,544		2,532,966
3.000%, 01/20/46		4,298,931		4,358,157
3.000%, 08/20/46		4,640,236		4,704,134
3.000%, 09/20/46		4,712,651		4,777,546
3.000%, 10/20/46		4,767,247		4,832,894
3.000%, 11/20/46		4,903,304		4,970,824
3.500%, 12/20/41		1,611,618		1,686,614
3.500%, 03/20/42		3,403,367		3,561,828
3.500%, 08/20/42		1,555,598		1,628,027
3.500%, 01/20/43		4,684,690		4,899,395
3.500%, 04/20/43		1,882,367		1,967,677
3.500%, 05/20/43		3,094,703		3,234,957
3.500%, 07/20/44		4,212,137		4,386,147
3.500%, 02/20/45		4,574,891		4,759,761
3.500%, 06/20/45		2,913,536		3,031,271
3.500%, 08/20/45		6,515,488		6,778,776
3.500%, 09/20/45		7,440,684		7,741,360
3.500%, 10/20/45		4,398,633		4,576,380
3.500%, 12/20/45		3,829,401		3,984,146
3.500%, 01/20/46		3,858,955		4,014,894
3.500%, 02/20/46		3,161,841		3,290,869
3.500%, 05/20/46		4,332,153		4,508,940
3.500%, 06/20/46		3,600,452		3,747,379
4.000%, 11/20/40		1,575,412		1,690,271
4.000%, 12/20/40		1,679,980		1,802,463
4.000%, 05/20/43		2,473,068		2,632,678
4.000%, 11/20/43		1,193,905		1,270,959
4.000%, 02/20/44		3,775,621		4,017,888
4.000%, 04/20/44		1,645,273		1,750,844
4.000%, 05/20/44		2,025,532		2,155,502
4.000%, 09/20/44		3,166,944		3,370,155
4.000%, 10/20/44		4,577,973		4,871,723
4.000%, 11/20/44		905,755		963,874
4.000%, 10/20/45		3,804,426		4,043,668
4.000%, 11/20/45		1,984,372		2,109,160
4.500%, 08/20/40		1,380,100		1,479,303
4.500%, 12/20/40		865,291		927,489
4.500%, 04/20/41		765,052		822,402
4.500%, 03/20/42		607,705		653,260
4.500%, 10/20/43		1,004,073		1,073,745
4.500%, 02/20/44		1,922,963		2,056,398
Agency Sponsored Mortgage - Backed—(Continued)
Ginnie Mae II 30 Yr. Pool 4.500%, 04/20/45		1,921,561		2,054,898
5.000%, 08/20/40		621,422		677,937
5.000%, 10/20/40		631,053		688,444
5.000%, 06/20/44		1,525,553		1,664,296
6.500%, 06/20/31		23,291		27,004
6.500%, 11/20/38		534,724		616,726
7.500%, 02/20/28		2,937		3,471
				753,652,390
Federal Agencies—2.9%
Federal Home Loan Bank 1.750%, 06/12/20		17,700,000		17,744,958
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. 0.875%, 03/07/18 (b)		17,000,000		16,963,620
1.250%, 10/02/19		3,000,000		2,981,040
1.375%, 05/01/20 (b)		5,145,000		5,103,223
5.125%, 11/17/17		3,530,000		3,657,934
Federal National Mortgage Association 0.875%, 05/21/18		10,160,000		10,128,199
2.125%, 04/24/26 (b)		13,500,000		12,771,270
6.625%, 11/15/30 (b)		2,450,000		3,404,300
Tennessee Valley Authority 5.250%, 09/15/39		3,350,000		4,177,785
				76,932,329
U.S. Treasury—35.8%
U.S. Treasury Bonds 2.250%, 08/15/46 (b)		3,000,000		2,523,450
2.500%, 02/15/45		14,400,000		12,832,272
2.500%, 02/15/46		8,200,000		7,290,538
2.500%, 05/15/46		4,800,000		4,267,248
2.750%, 08/15/42		2,020,000		1,909,062
2.875%, 05/15/43		4,760,000		4,600,588
2.875%, 08/15/45		5,000,000		4,812,650
3.000%, 11/15/44		11,000,000		10,872,070
3.000%, 05/15/45		4,500,000		4,440,465
3.000%, 11/15/45		7,700,000		7,598,129
3.125%, 02/15/42 (b)		1,800,000		1,827,594
3.125%, 02/15/43		3,270,000		3,314,079
3.125%, 08/15/44		4,700,000		4,758,374
3.375%, 05/15/44		3,000,000		3,182,580
3.500%, 02/15/39		2,080,000		2,274,834
3.625%, 02/15/44		10,120,000		11,223,181
3.750%, 08/15/41		1,830,000		2,061,934
3.875%, 08/15/40		10,380,000		11,920,288
4.250%, 11/15/40		7,280,000		8,839,594
4.375%, 11/15/39		3,900,000		4,814,745
4.375%, 05/15/40		5,220,000		6,449,205
4.375%, 05/15/41		5,850,000		7,239,609
4.500%, 05/15/38		4,950,000		6,252,196
5.000%, 05/15/37 (b)		6,560,000		8,808,177
5.250%, 02/15/29		750,000		958,703
5.375%, 02/15/31		3,675,000		4,896,202
6.125%, 11/15/27		5,750,000		7,717,132

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-8

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Aggregate Bond Index Portfolio (formerly, Barclays Aggregate Bond Index Portfolio)

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

U.S. Treasury & Government Agencies—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
U.S. Treasury—(Continued)
U.S. Treasury Bonds 6.250%, 08/15/23		7,700,000	$	9,627,926
6.375%, 08/15/27 (b)		6,900,000		9,393,592
6.500%, 11/15/26		4,500,000		6,095,295
7.125%, 02/15/23		11,125,000		14,330,335
7.250%, 08/15/22		6,120,000		7,806,366
7.875%, 02/15/21		4,450,000		5,520,981
8.000%, 11/15/21		2,920,000		3,740,199
8.125%, 08/15/19		2,645,000		3,102,664
8.125%, 08/15/21		1,250,000		1,592,225
8.500%, 02/15/20		6,700,000		8,126,563
8.750%, 08/15/20		1,000,000		1,248,720
8.875%, 02/15/19 (b)		10,215,000		11,869,830
9.125%, 05/15/18 (b)		1,600,000		1,775,184
U.S. Treasury Notes 0.625%, 04/30/18		5,000,000		4,975,250
0.750%, 01/31/18		12,000,000		11,975,280
0.750%, 02/28/18		27,500,000		27,430,151
0.750%, 02/15/19		14,100,000		13,959,550
0.750%, 08/15/19		5,000,000		4,923,200
0.875%, 04/15/19		6,000,000		5,945,880
1.000%, 08/15/18		28,000,000		27,962,479
1.125%, 05/31/19 (b)		12,300,000		12,247,479
1.125%, 03/31/20		5,100,000		5,033,955
1.125%, 02/28/21		5,000,000		4,865,250
1.250%, 10/31/19		5,130,000		5,107,787
1.250%, 01/31/20		15,000,000		14,889,750
1.250%, 02/29/20		25,800,000		25,592,052
1.250%, 03/31/21		6,100,000		5,959,175
1.375%, 09/30/18 (b)		47,890,000		48,070,066
1.375%, 11/30/18		15,000,000		15,053,699
1.375%, 01/31/20 (b)		27,100,000		26,997,021
1.375%, 08/31/20		14,900,000		14,744,891
1.500%, 03/31/19		31,870,000		32,029,668
1.500%, 02/28/23		4,000,000		3,847,560
1.625%, 11/30/20		5,000,000		4,979,950
1.625%, 11/15/22		5,000,000		4,867,450
1.625%, 05/31/23		7,900,000		7,634,244
1.625%, 05/15/26		15,900,000		14,828,023
1.750%, 10/31/20		10,000,000		10,020,000
1.750%, 12/31/20		14,800,000		14,796,152
1.750%, 02/28/22 (b)		9,000,000		8,892,630
1.750%, 05/15/22		4,900,000		4,829,195
1.750%, 05/15/23		17,520,000		17,067,809
1.875%, 08/31/22		7,400,000		7,314,308
2.000%, 11/30/20 (b)		14,800,000		14,952,587
2.000%, 02/28/21		5,000,000		5,040,500
2.000%, 10/31/21		6,000,000		6,017,161
2.000%, 02/15/22		3,800,000		3,806,498
2.000%, 11/30/22		9,600,000		9,536,928
2.000%, 02/15/23		6,900,000		6,844,800
2.000%, 02/15/25		5,000,000		4,867,550
2.000%, 08/15/25		5,000,000		4,844,650
2.000%, 11/15/26 (b)		13,300,000		12,798,457
2.125%, 08/31/20		5,800,000		5,893,264
2.125%, 06/30/21		12,000,000		12,128,159
U.S. Treasury—(Continued)
U.S. Treasury Notes 2.125%, 08/15/21		8,710,000		8,792,745
2.125%, 05/15/25		7,100,000		6,962,757
2.250%, 07/31/21		19,000,000		19,300,961
2.250%, 11/15/24		7,800,000		7,754,058
2.250%, 11/15/25		6,800,000		6,714,456
2.375%, 05/31/18		31,000,000		31,575,051
2.375%, 12/31/20		7,600,000		7,785,896
2.375%, 08/15/24 (b)		16,800,000		16,881,983
2.500%, 08/15/23		14,400,000		14,659,777
2.500%, 05/15/24		7,000,000		7,107,660
2.625%, 08/15/20		6,000,000		6,203,880
2.750%, 11/15/23		19,335,000		19,972,668
2.750%, 02/15/24		5,600,000		5,785,752
3.125%, 05/15/19		3,000,000		3,126,930
3.375%, 11/15/19		4,350,000		4,589,250
3.500%, 02/15/18		4,000,000		4,111,280
3.500%, 05/15/20		7,790,000		8,279,523
3.625%, 02/15/20		17,190,000		18,289,988
3.750%, 11/15/18		4,550,000		4,765,852
3.875%, 05/15/18 (b)		4,700,000		4,883,206
4.000%, 08/15/18		9,620,000		10,072,333
				953,101,243
Total U.S. Treasury & Government Agencies (Cost $1,755,920,602)				1,783,685,962
Corporate Bonds & Notes—27.6%
Aerospace/Defense—0.4%
Boeing Co. (The) 7.250%, 06/15/25		460,000		597,551
Lockheed Martin Corp. 4.700%, 05/15/46 (b)		3,000,000		3,282,330
6.150%, 09/01/36		1,700,000		2,132,701
Northrop Grumman Systems Corp. 7.750%, 02/15/31		515,000		709,315
Raytheon Co. 3.125%, 10/15/20		1,000,000		1,030,250
United Technologies Corp. 4.500%, 06/01/42		2,645,000		2,829,462
7.500%, 09/15/29		200,000		279,098
				10,860,707
Agriculture—0.3%
Altria Group, Inc. 9.700%, 11/10/18		750,000		856,598
Archer-Daniels-Midland Co. 4.479%, 03/01/21		2,000,000		2,160,000
Philip Morris International, Inc. 3.250%, 11/10/24 (b)		3,000,000		3,018,570
4.500%, 03/26/20		925,000		989,352
				7,024,520

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-9

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Aggregate Bond Index Portfolio (formerly, Barclays Aggregate Bond Index Portfolio)

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Corporate Bonds & Notes—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Auto Manufacturers—0.7%
American Honda Finance Corp. 2.300%, 09/09/26		1,100,000	$	1,026,564
Daimler Finance North America LLC 8.500%, 01/18/31		1,050,000		1,583,116
Ford Motor Co. 7.450%, 07/16/31 (b)		2,200,000		2,764,542
Ford Motor Credit Co. LLC 2.597%, 11/04/19		3,000,000		2,994,780
General Motors Financial Co., Inc. 2.400%, 05/09/19		5,000,000		4,962,500
Toyota Motor Credit Corp. 3.300%, 01/12/22		4,000,000		4,126,680
				17,458,182
Banks—5.5%
Bank of America Corp. 3.300%, 01/11/23 (b)		4,075,000		4,088,937
4.100%, 07/24/23		2,905,000		3,027,533
4.200%, 08/26/24 (b)		3,000,000		3,056,430
5.875%, 02/07/42		3,000,000		3,636,060
6.500%, 07/15/18		200,000		213,308
Bank of New York Mellon Corp. (The) 5.450%, 05/15/19		2,000,000		2,155,000
Bank of Nova Scotia (The) 2.050%, 10/30/18 (b)		3,480,000		3,497,574
Barclays plc 5.250%, 08/17/45		2,700,000		2,911,005
BNP Paribas S.A. 5.000%, 01/15/21		3,225,000		3,503,447
Branch Banking & Trust Co. 2.850%, 04/01/21		3,400,000		3,447,974
Capital One Financial Corp. 6.750%, 09/15/17		1,200,000		1,242,864
Citigroup, Inc. 5.375%, 08/09/20 (b)		2,200,000		2,396,636
6.125%, 05/15/18		1,900,000		2,004,728
Cooperatieve Rabobank UA 5.250%, 05/24/41 (b)		3,640,000		4,241,037
Credit Suisse 4.375%, 08/05/20		2,611,000		2,760,166
Credit Suisse Group Funding Guernsey, Ltd. 3.800%, 09/15/22		3,000,000		3,028,410
Deutsche Bank AG 6.000%, 09/01/17		1,500,000		1,535,492
Fifth Third Bancorp 8.250%, 03/01/38		1,175,000		1,660,310
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (The) 6.000%, 06/15/20 (b)		2,000,000		2,216,900
6.125%, 02/15/33		2,075,000		2,517,473
6.450%, 05/01/36		2,000,000		2,369,220
6.750%, 10/01/37		3,500,000		4,322,920
HSBC Holdings plc 5.100%, 04/05/21		2,556,000		2,769,733
6.500%, 09/15/37		905,000		1,121,485
Banks—(Continued)
HSBC USA, Inc. 2.350%, 03/05/20		3,000,000		2,975,220
JPMorgan Chase & Co. 1.700%, 03/01/18 (b)		2,000,000		1,998,880
3.250%, 09/23/22 (b)		2,850,000		2,885,169
3.900%, 07/15/25 (b)		4,700,000		4,835,595
4.950%, 03/25/20		2,650,000		2,856,356
6.300%, 04/23/19		1,900,000		2,074,135
KeyBank N.A. 3.300%, 06/01/25 (b)		3,800,000		3,791,032
KFW 1.000%, 06/11/18		3,536,000		3,519,204
2.375%, 08/25/21		1,945,000		1,961,396
2.750%, 09/08/20		2,300,000		2,363,181
Lloyds Bank plc 6.375%, 01/21/21 (b)		1,500,000		1,707,570
Morgan Stanley 4.350%, 09/08/26		3,800,000		3,884,588
5.625%, 09/23/19		1,900,000		2,058,232
7.250%, 04/01/32		1,850,000		2,510,450
7.300%, 05/13/19		2,460,000		2,738,694
Oesterreichische Kontrollbank AG 1.625%, 03/12/19		3,025,000		3,023,215
PNC Bank N.A.
2.950%, 02/23/25		4,100,000		4,002,994
4.875%, 09/21/17		1,000,000		1,023,917
5.250%, 01/15/17 (b)		1,600,000		1,601,800
Royal Bank of Canada 2.150%, 03/15/19 (b)		3,915,000		3,928,585
Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corp. 1.950%, 07/23/18 (b)		4,000,000		3,996,640
Toronto-Dominion Bank (The) 2.250%, 11/05/19		4,000,000		4,020,680
U.S. Bancorp 3.600%, 09/11/24		3,000,000		3,051,840
UBS AG 4.875%, 08/04/20		3,500,000		3,778,600
Wachovia Corp. 5.750%, 06/15/17		700,000		713,332
Wells Fargo & Co. 2.600%, 07/22/20		4,000,000		4,020,760
3.000%, 01/22/21 (b)		3,400,000		3,446,614
Wells Fargo Bank N.A. 5.950%, 08/26/36		1,900,000		2,209,206
Westpac Banking Corp. 1.950%, 11/23/18		3,000,000		3,004,560
				147,707,087
Beverages—0.8%
Anheuser-Busch Cos. LLC 6.450%, 09/01/37		880,000		1,119,536
Anheuser-Busch InBev Finance, Inc. 1.250%, 01/17/18 (b)		3,500,000		3,490,375
4.900%, 02/01/46		7,800,000		8,397,870

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-10

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Aggregate Bond Index Portfolio (formerly, Barclays Aggregate Bond Index Portfolio)

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Corporate Bonds & Notes—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Beverages—(Continued)
Coca-Cola Co. (The) 3.150%, 11/15/20		280,000	$	290,505
3.200%, 11/01/23 (b)		3,000,000		3,082,680
Pepsi Bottling Group, Inc. (The) 7.000%, 03/01/29		300,000		410,454
PepsiCo, Inc. 3.600%, 03/01/24 (b)		3,975,000		4,146,522
5.000%, 06/01/18		1,000,000		1,049,800
				21,987,742
Biotechnology—0.4%
Amgen, Inc. 5.700%, 02/01/19		850,000		913,470
6.150%, 06/01/18		1,650,000		1,749,445
Celgene Corp. 4.625%, 05/15/44		4,000,000		3,940,280
Gilead Sciences, Inc. 3.650%, 03/01/26		3,000,000		3,042,030
				9,645,225
Chemicals—0.6%
Dow Chemical Co. (The) 4.250%, 11/15/20		2,750,000		2,908,400
9.400%, 05/15/39		650,000		1,009,398
E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. 5.600%, 12/15/36		1,000,000		1,138,100
6.000%, 07/15/18 (b)		1,000,000		1,061,290
LyondellBasell Industries NV 4.625%, 02/26/55 (b)		4,400,000		4,103,132
Potash Corp. of Saskatchewan, Inc. 4.875%, 03/30/20 (b)		970,000		1,029,083
Praxair, Inc. 3.000%, 09/01/21		3,950,000		4,029,000
				15,278,403
Computers—0.6%
Apple, Inc. 2.250%, 02/23/21		3,000,000		2,997,030
2.400%, 05/03/23		2,072,000		2,020,345
4.450%, 05/06/44		2,944,000		3,058,580
HP, Inc. 4.650%, 12/09/21 (b)		3,600,000		3,840,876
International Business Machines Corp. 4.000%, 06/20/42 (b)		3,200,000		3,199,296
8.375%, 11/01/19		425,000		499,243
				15,615,370
Cosmetics/Personal Care—0.1%
Procter & Gamble Co. (The) 2.300%, 02/06/22		3,600,000		3,596,112
Diversified Financial Services—1.0%
Air Lease Corp. 2.625%, 09/04/18 (b)		4,000,000		4,022,160
Diversified Financial Services—(Continued)
American Express Co. 7.000%, 03/19/18		3,000,000		3,185,490
Associates Corp. of North America 6.950%, 11/01/18		1,700,000		1,845,010
BlackRock, Inc. 3.500%, 03/18/24		3,800,000		3,920,878
GE Capital International Funding Co. 4.418%, 11/15/35		2,700,000		2,841,318
HSBC Finance Corp. 6.676%, 01/15/21		3,500,000		3,936,135
National Rural Utilities Cooperative Finance Corp. 10.375%, 11/01/18		2,900,000		3,343,874
Nomura Holdings, Inc. 6.700%, 03/04/20		1,325,000		1,480,542
Visa, Inc. 2.800%, 12/14/22		3,000,000		3,011,610
				27,587,017
Electric—1.6%
CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric LLC 4.500%, 04/01/44 (b)		3,800,000		4,113,348
Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc. 3.950%, 03/01/43 (b)		3,070,000		2,988,062
5.850%, 04/01/18		855,000		897,981
Dominion Resources, Inc. 6.400%, 06/15/18		1,750,000		1,857,187
DTE Electric Co. 3.700%, 03/15/45 (b)		4,000,000		3,842,720
Duke Energy Carolinas LLC 5.300%, 02/15/40 (b)		2,000,000		2,362,800
Duke Energy Corp. 3.050%, 08/15/22 (b)		4,000,000		4,022,720
Exelon Corp. 5.625%, 06/15/35 (b)		1,500,000		1,665,375
Florida Power & Light Co. 5.950%, 02/01/38		1,700,000		2,144,397
Georgia Power Co. 5.700%, 06/01/17		1,400,000		1,425,393
Northern States Power Co. 6.250%, 06/01/36		2,200,000		2,850,826
Ohio Power Co. 5.375%, 10/01/21		1,640,000		1,828,698
Oncor Electric Delivery Co. LLC 7.000%, 05/01/32		950,000		1,289,473
Pacific Gas & Electric Co. 5.400%, 01/15/40		3,320,000		3,885,894
PacifiCorp 2.950%, 02/01/22		2,800,000		2,839,480
PPL Capital Funding, Inc. 3.400%, 06/01/23		4,000,000		4,017,120
PSEG Power LLC 8.625%, 04/15/31 (b)		1,000,000		1,218,440
				43,249,914

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-11

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Aggregate Bond Index Portfolio (formerly, Barclays Aggregate Bond Index Portfolio)

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Corporate Bonds & Notes—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Electrical Components & Equipment—0.1%
Emerson Electric Co. 4.875%, 10/15/19		1,800,000	$	1,941,426
Electronics—0.1%
Koninklijke Philips NV 5.750%, 03/11/18		900,000		945,279
Tyco Electronics Group S.A. 6.550%, 10/01/17		1,600,000		1,659,600
				2,604,879
Environmental Control—0.1%
Waste Management, Inc. 7.000%, 07/15/28		1,265,000		1,617,201
Food—0.6%
General Mills, Inc. 5.650%, 02/15/19		1,700,000		1,825,936
Kraft Heinz Foods Co. 3.000%, 06/01/26		3,300,000		3,095,697
Kroger Co. (The) 3.300%, 01/15/21		3,900,000		3,997,929
Mondelez International, Inc. 5.375%, 02/10/20		1,800,000		1,949,652
Sysco Corp. 2.600%, 06/12/22		2,400,000		2,357,304
Unilever Capital Corp. 5.900%, 11/15/32		1,500,000		1,948,590
				15,175,108
Forest Products & Paper—0.1%
Georgia-Pacific LLC 8.000%, 01/15/24 (b)		1,800,000		2,288,988
Gas—0.2%
Nisource Finance Corp. 4.800%, 02/15/44 (b)		4,000,000		4,191,040
Sempra Energy 6.150%, 06/15/18		900,000		950,571
				5,141,611
Healthcare-Products—0.6%
Abbott Laboratories 4.750%, 11/30/36		3,000,000		3,050,490
5.125%, 04/01/19		1,073,000		1,142,198
Becton Dickinson & Co. 4.685%, 12/15/44 (b)		3,500,000		3,621,065
Medtronic, Inc. 4.000%, 04/01/43		3,900,000		3,783,975
Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc. 4.150%, 02/01/24		3,445,000		3,577,701
				15,175,429
Healthcare-Services—0.5%
Aetna, Inc. 2.750%, 11/15/22		3,000,000		2,950,050
Healthcare-Services—(Continued)
Anthem, Inc. 5.850%, 01/15/36		1,800,000		2,030,922
Cigna Corp. 5.375%, 02/15/42		3,000,000		3,334,290
Laboratory Corp. of America Holdings 4.625%, 11/15/20 (b)		1,900,000		2,021,657
UnitedHealth Group, Inc. 3.750%, 07/15/25 (b)		3,600,000		3,734,568
				14,071,487
Household Products/Wares—0.0%
Kimberly-Clark Corp. 6.125%, 08/01/17		500,000		514,424
Insurance—1.0%
Aflac, Inc. 3.625%, 06/15/23		2,975,000		3,070,973
Allstate Corp. (The) 6.900%, 05/15/38		150,000		200,054
7.450%, 05/16/19 (b)		1,700,000		1,897,795
American International Group, Inc. 3.300%, 03/01/21		3,000,000		3,069,510
5.850%, 01/16/18		1,800,000		1,875,780
AXA S.A. 8.600%, 12/15/30		1,165,000		1,603,832
Berkshire Hathaway, Inc. 3.125%, 03/15/26 (b)		2,900,000		2,879,236
Chubb Corp. (The) 6.000%, 05/11/37		865,000		1,076,432
Chubb INA Holdings, Inc. 3.350%, 05/15/24		4,000,000		4,070,520
Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. (The) 6.100%, 10/01/41		780,000		910,158
Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc. 3.750%, 03/14/26 (b)		4,000,000		4,086,680
Prudential Financial, Inc. 5.700%, 12/14/36		1,525,000		1,767,399
				26,508,369
Internet—0.1%
Amazon.com, Inc. 3.800%, 12/05/24 (b)		3,800,000		3,985,364
Iron/Steel—0.0%
Vale Overseas, Ltd. 6.875%, 11/21/36		1,100,000		1,086,250
Machinery-Construction & Mining—0.1%
Caterpillar, Inc. 7.900%, 12/15/18		1,757,000		1,960,636
Machinery-Diversified—0.1%
Deere & Co. 2.600%, 06/08/22		1,950,000		1,936,896

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-12

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Aggregate Bond Index Portfolio (formerly, Barclays Aggregate Bond Index Portfolio)

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Corporate Bonds & Notes—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Media—1.0%
21st Century Fox America, Inc. 6.550%, 03/15/33 (b)		1,950,000	$	2,359,520
Comcast Corp. 4.650%, 07/15/42		3,670,000		3,866,088
5.650%, 06/15/35		1,500,000		1,784,175
6.950%, 08/15/37		3,400,000		4,649,568
Discovery Communications LLC 6.350%, 06/01/40		1,800,000		1,919,466
Historic TW, Inc. 6.875%, 06/15/18		1,800,000		1,928,754
Thomson Reuters Corp. 6.500%, 07/15/18 (b)		800,000		853,256
Time Warner Cable LLC 5.000%, 02/01/20 (b)		1,900,000		2,011,625
6.550%, 05/01/37 (b)		100,000		113,250
Time Warner Entertainment Co. L.P. 8.375%, 03/15/23		380,000		473,575
Time Warner, Inc. 6.100%, 07/15/40		925,000		1,060,244
7.700%, 05/01/32		685,000		933,813
Viacom, Inc. 4.375%, 03/15/43		3,500,000		2,793,385
Walt Disney Co. (The) 2.750%, 08/16/21		1,930,000		1,964,605
				26,711,324
Mining—0.3%
Barrick North America Finance LLC 4.400%, 05/30/21		3,125,000		3,297,875
Newmont Mining Corp. 6.250%, 10/01/39		1,800,000		1,982,916
Rio Tinto Alcan, Inc. 6.125%, 12/15/33		1,751,000		1,897,349
				7,178,140
Miscellaneous Manufacturing—0.4%
General Electric Co. 3.375%, 03/11/24 (b)		2,900,000		2,980,823
5.250%, 12/06/17		1,800,000		1,865,448
5.300%, 02/11/21 (b)		1,915,000		2,120,269
6.750%, 03/15/32		1,250,000		1,670,975
7.500%, 08/21/35 (b)		100,000		133,991
Ingersoll-Rand Luxembourg Finance S.A. 2.625%, 05/01/20		1,200,000		1,197,228
				9,968,734
Multi-National—1.5%
Asian Development Bank 1.625%, 08/26/20		4,000,000		3,969,600
European Bank for Reconstruction & Development 1.000%, 06/15/18		3,564,000		3,547,071
European Investment Bank 1.625%, 06/15/17		1,975,000		1,979,957
2.500%, 10/15/24		3,800,000		3,784,382
4.000%, 02/16/21		1,700,000		1,824,899
Multi-National—(Continued)
European Investment Bank 4.875%, 02/15/36		3,700,000		4,601,505
5.125%, 05/30/17		1,750,000		1,778,663
Inter-American Development Bank 2.125%, 01/15/25		3,900,000		3,782,064
2.375%, 08/15/17		2,000,000		2,014,228
6.800%, 10/15/25		500,000		632,696
7.000%, 06/15/25		200,000		261,564
International Bank for Reconstruction & Development 2.125%, 03/03/25		3,000,000		2,897,520
7.625%, 01/19/23 (b)		2,970,000		3,848,556
8.875%, 03/01/26		535,000		785,976
International Finance Corp. 1.750%, 09/04/18		2,975,000		2,994,427
				38,703,108
Office/Business Equipment—0.1%
Xerox Corp. 6.350%, 05/15/18 (b)		2,550,000		2,679,489
Oil & Gas—1.6%
Apache Finance Canada Corp. 7.750%, 12/15/29		300,000		387,120
BP Capital Markets plc 3.245%, 05/06/22		3,900,000		3,974,802
Canadian Natural Resources, Ltd. 6.250%, 03/15/38		1,800,000		2,052,846
Chevron Corp. 3.191%, 06/24/23 (b)		3,025,000		3,094,212
ConocoPhillips Canada Funding Co. I 5.950%, 10/15/36		1,550,000		1,814,895
ConocoPhillips Holding Co. 6.950%, 04/15/29 (b)		700,000		880,348
Hess Corp. 8.125%, 02/15/19		1,630,000		1,809,300
Marathon Oil Corp. 6.600%, 10/01/37 (b)		2,000,000		2,170,000
Noble Energy, Inc. 3.900%, 11/15/24		4,200,000		4,235,196
Petroleos Mexicanos 6.625%, 06/15/35 (b)		3,400,000		3,368,448
Shell International Finance B.V. 1.875%, 05/10/21 (b)		5,000,000		4,884,550
4.300%, 09/22/19		1,000,000		1,060,340
4.375%, 05/11/45		1,900,000		1,926,068
Statoil ASA 3.250%, 11/10/24 (b)		3,100,000		3,138,533
6.700%, 01/15/18		300,000		315,174
Suncor Energy, Inc. 6.100%, 06/01/18		2,500,000		2,644,175
Total Capital International S.A. 2.700%, 01/25/23		3,000,000		2,970,690
XTO Energy, Inc. 6.500%, 12/15/18		1,600,000		1,748,400
				42,475,097

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-13

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Aggregate Bond Index Portfolio (formerly, Barclays Aggregate Bond Index Portfolio)

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Corporate Bonds & Notes—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Oil & Gas Services—0.1%
Halliburton Co. 3.500%, 08/01/23		4,000,000	$	4,063,360
Pharmaceuticals—1.3%
AbbVie, Inc. 4.400%, 11/06/42		3,200,000		3,025,248
Actavis Funding SCS 2.350%, 03/12/18		3,900,000		3,922,269
AstraZeneca plc 4.000%, 09/18/42 (b)		1,200,000		1,141,248
Express Scripts Holding Co. 4.500%, 02/25/26 (b)		2,700,000		2,781,108
6.125%, 11/15/41		313,000		359,540
GlaxoSmithKline Capital, Inc. 6.375%, 05/15/38		2,100,000		2,775,780
Johnson & Johnson 5.950%, 08/15/37		910,000		1,198,133
6.950%, 09/01/29		250,000		339,943
Merck & Co., Inc. 2.400%, 09/15/22 (b)		4,000,000		3,947,600
6.550%, 09/15/37		1,000,000		1,347,140
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. 5.950%, 12/01/28		300,000		368,781
Novartis Capital Corp. 4.400%, 04/24/20 (b)		900,000		963,279
Sanofi 4.000%, 03/29/21		2,775,000		2,947,161
Shire Acquisitions Investments Ireland DAC 3.200%, 09/23/26		3,000,000		2,803,050
Teva Pharmaceutical Finance Netherlands B.V. 2.800%, 07/21/23 (b)		3,000,000		2,823,660
Wyeth LLC 5.950%, 04/01/37 (b)		3,300,000		4,153,677
				34,897,617
Pipelines—0.9%
El Paso Natural Gas Co. LLC 8.375%, 06/15/32		220,000		272,261
Enbridge Energy Partners L.P. 5.875%, 10/15/25 (b)		3,000,000		3,367,260
Energy Transfer Partners L.P. 4.650%, 06/01/21		1,950,000		2,050,406
5.150%, 03/15/45		2,600,000		2,490,826
Enterprise Products Operating LLC 3.950%, 02/15/27 (b)		3,800,000		3,884,854
Kinder Morgan Energy Partners L.P. 6.500%, 02/01/37		2,000,000		2,178,420
Plains All American Pipeline L.P. / PAA Finance Corp. 6.500%, 05/01/18 (b)		2,485,000		2,629,627
Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co. LLC
7.000%, 10/15/28		1,050,000		1,224,741
7.625%, 04/01/37		640,000		774,541
TransCanada PipeLines, Ltd. 6.200%, 10/15/37		1,800,000		2,224,386
Pipelines—(Continued)
Williams Partners L.P. 5.250%, 03/15/20		3,575,000		3,827,145
				24,924,467
Real Estate Investment Trusts—0.5%
AvalonBay Communities, Inc. 6.100%, 03/15/20		860,000		954,712
Boston Properties L.P. 3.850%, 02/01/23		2,950,000		3,025,077
ERP Operating L.P. 5.750%, 06/15/17		900,000		917,634
HCP, Inc. 5.375%, 02/01/21		2,591,000		2,821,780
Kimco Realty Corp. 6.875%, 10/01/19		550,000		615,676
Simon Property Group L.P. 3.300%, 01/15/26 (b)		3,800,000		3,773,438
				12,108,317
Retail—1.1%
Costco Wholesale Corp. 5.500%, 03/15/17		465,000		469,294
CVS Health Corp. 2.250%, 12/05/18		3,930,000		3,963,287
Home Depot, Inc. (The) 2.000%, 04/01/21		3,000,000		2,974,410
4.400%, 04/01/21 (b)		1,450,000		1,568,740
Lowe’s Cos., Inc. 6.875%, 02/15/28		1,000,000		1,291,490
Macy’s Retail Holdings, Inc. 4.300%, 02/15/43		4,600,000		3,795,184
McDonald’s Corp. 3.700%, 01/30/26 (b)		6,000,000		6,103,021
5.350%, 03/01/18		885,000		922,321
Target Corp. 6.350%, 11/01/32		708,000		896,016
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 2.550%, 04/11/23		4,000,000		3,960,760
5.250%, 09/01/35		935,000		1,122,122
5.625%, 04/15/41		1,900,000		2,352,618
Walgreen Co. 5.250%, 01/15/19		225,000		237,852
				29,657,115
Semiconductors—0.2%
Intel Corp. 2.700%, 12/15/22		2,000,000		2,005,680
QUALCOMM, Inc. 3.450%, 05/20/25 (b)		4,000,000		4,070,440
				6,076,120
Software—1.0%
Adobe Systems, Inc. 4.750%, 02/01/20		2,200,000		2,361,040

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-14

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Aggregate Bond Index Portfolio (formerly, Barclays Aggregate Bond Index Portfolio)

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Corporate Bonds & Notes—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Software—(Continued)
Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. 2.850%, 10/15/18		4,000,000	$	4,067,440
Microsoft Corp. 2.000%, 11/03/20		3,000,000		3,002,370
3.125%, 11/03/25 (b)		5,100,000		5,153,856
4.200%, 06/01/19		2,700,000		2,866,212
Oracle Corp. 2.375%, 01/15/19		3,885,000		3,940,595
4.125%, 05/15/45		4,200,000		4,092,018
				25,483,531
Telecommunications—1.6%
America Movil S.A.B. de C.V. 5.625%, 11/15/17 (b)		2,700,000		2,787,799
AT&T Mobility LLC 7.125%, 12/15/31		100,000		124,959
AT&T, Inc. 2.450%, 06/30/20		4,100,000		4,068,020
5.000%, 03/01/21		2,600,000		2,795,130
5.500%, 02/01/18		3,500,000		3,637,655
5.800%, 02/15/19		1,700,000		1,824,967
6.300%, 01/15/38		1,300,000		1,482,325
British Telecommunications plc 9.125%, 12/15/30		1,000,000		1,520,100
Cisco Systems, Inc. 5.500%, 01/15/40		2,000,000		2,444,060
Deutsche Telekom International Finance B.V. 8.750%, 06/15/30		1,000,000		1,458,750
Orange S.A. 5.500%, 02/06/44 (b)		2,400,000		2,763,840
Rogers Communications, Inc. 6.800%, 08/15/18		800,000		862,184
Telefonica Emisiones S.A.U. 6.221%, 07/03/17		1,400,000		1,431,419
Verizon Communications, Inc. 4.600%, 04/01/21		2,400,000		2,574,648
5.150%, 09/15/23		3,510,000		3,874,584
6.100%, 04/15/18 (b)		1,600,000		1,690,944
6.550%, 09/15/43		3,304,000		4,129,570
Verizon New York, Inc. 7.375%, 04/01/32		500,000		591,686
Vodafone Group plc 6.150%, 02/27/37		2,170,000		2,442,899
				42,505,539
Transportation—0.4%
Burlington Northern Santa Fe LLC 4.150%, 04/01/45		3,900,000		3,964,974
CSX Corp. 6.150%, 05/01/37		1,600,000		1,948,640
7.900%, 05/01/17		500,000		510,596
FedEx Corp. 8.000%, 01/15/19		675,000		754,373
Norfolk Southern Corp. 3.000%, 04/01/22		1,911,000		1,929,804
Transportation—(Continued)
Norfolk Southern Corp. 5.590%, 05/17/25		28,000		31,736
Union Pacific Corp. 6.625%, 02/01/29		1,200,000		1,565,520
United Parcel Service, Inc. 5.125%, 04/01/19 (b)		760,000		815,670
				11,521,313
Total Corporate Bonds & Notes (Cost $728,911,235)				732,971,618
Foreign Government—2.1%
Banks—0.6%
KFW 0.875%, 04/19/18		3,500,000		3,480,820
1.500%, 02/06/19		5,000,000		4,997,550
1.625%, 03/15/21 (b)		3,500,000		3,433,815
Landwirtschaftliche Rentenbank 2.000%, 01/13/25		3,500,000		3,351,005
				15,263,190
Electric—0.1%
Hydro-Quebec 8.400%, 01/15/22		1,000,000		1,250,160
Provincial—0.3%
Province of British Columbia Canada 2.000%, 10/23/22		1,970,000		1,928,000
Province of Nova Scotia Canada 9.250%, 03/01/20		250,000		302,145
Province of Ontario Canada 2.450%, 06/29/22 (b)		4,000,000		3,997,920
4.400%, 04/14/20		2,100,000		2,258,214
Province of Quebec Canada 7.500%, 07/15/23		350,000		441,588
				8,927,867
Sovereign—1.1%
Canada Government International Bonds 1.625%, 02/27/19		4,000,000		4,019,440
Colombia Government International Bonds 8.125%, 05/21/24 (b)		1,500,000		1,876,245
Japan Bank for International Cooperation 1.750%, 05/28/20		5,000,000		4,916,400
Mexico Government International Bonds 5.750%, 10/12/10 (b)		4,100,000		3,816,485
6.750%, 09/27/34 (b)		1,050,000		1,252,881
8.000%, 09/24/22		2,200,000		2,687,828
Panama Government International Bonds 5.200%, 01/30/20		1,370,000		1,473,038
Peruvian Government International Bonds 8.750%, 11/21/33 (b)		1,450,000		2,133,153
Philippine Government International Bonds 5.000%, 01/13/37		1,740,000		1,970,237

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-15

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Aggregate Bond Index Portfolio (formerly, Barclays Aggregate Bond Index Portfolio)

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Foreign Government—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Sovereign—(Continued)
Republic of Korea 7.125%, 04/16/19		4,900,000	$	5,486,432
				29,632,139
Total Foreign Government (Cost $55,362,836)				55,073,356
Mortgage-Backed Securities—1.2%
Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities—1.2%
Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Mortgage Trust 3.902%, 07/10/50		1,835,000		1,906,308
Commercial Mortgage Trust 3.838%, 09/10/47		3,800,000		3,939,726
5.812%, 12/10/49 (a)		1,853,163		1,868,145
GS Mortgage Securities Corp. II 3.382%, 05/10/50		1,835,000		1,864,764
GS Mortgage Securities Trust 3.135%, 06/10/46		2,935,000		2,982,136
3.377%, 05/10/45		2,750,000		2,862,173
4.243%, 08/10/46		966,000		1,039,030
JPMBB Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust 3.598%, 11/15/48		3,900,000		3,993,483
JPMorgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust 5.420%, 01/15/49		610,095		610,253
5.440%, 06/12/47		102,606		102,535
Morgan Stanley Bank of America Merrill Lynch Trust 3.544%, 01/15/49		3,850,000		3,921,456
3.732%, 05/15/48		3,750,000		3,889,538
Morgan Stanley Capital Trust 5.809%, 12/12/49		1,829,618		1,856,538
5.902%, 06/11/49 (a)		928,005		942,649
WF-RBS Commercial Mortgage Trust 3.488%, 06/15/46		1,054,000		1,073,467
Total Mortgage-Backed Securities (Cost $33,270,227)				32,852,201
Municipals—0.7%
Los Angeles Community College District, Build America Bonds 6.750%, 08/01/49		2,210,000		3,181,825
Los Angeles, Unified School District, Build America Bonds 6.758%, 07/01/34		2,160,000		2,898,720
Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, Build America Bonds 6.637%, 04/01/57		2,000,000		2,480,420
New Jersey State Turnpike Authority, Build America Bonds 7.414%, 01/01/40		3,500,000		5,054,665
Oregon School Boards Association, Build America Bonds 5.680%, 06/30/28		1,900,000		2,243,330
State of California General Obligation Unlimited, Build America Bonds 7.300%, 10/01/39		2,000,000		2,830,560
State of Illinois, Build America Bonds 5.100%, 06/01/33		1,230,000		1,087,099
Total Municipals (Cost $17,308,091)				19,776,619
Asset-Backed Securities—0.4%
Asset-Backed - Automobile—0.1%
Capital Auto Receivables Asset Trust 1.610%, 06/20/19		830,000		831,694
1.940%, 01/21/20		2,000,000		2,009,451
Nissan Auto Receivables Owner Trust 0.750%, 07/15/19		332,373		332,173
Volkswagen Auto Loan Enhanced Trust 0.950%, 04/22/19		870,396		868,284
				4,041,602
Asset-Backed - Credit Card—0.3%
Capital One Multi-Asset Execution Trust 5.750%, 07/15/20		1,960,000		2,022,606
Citibank Credit Card Issuance Trust 2.880%, 01/23/23		4,924,000		5,048,272
				7,070,878
Asset-Backed - Home Equity—0.0%
Centex Home Equity Loan Trust 4.250%, 12/25/31		52,522		52,524
Total Asset-Backed Securities (Cost $11,236,561)				11,165,004
Short-Term Investments—0.8%
Discount Notes—0.4%
Federal Home Loan Bank 0.338%, 01/06/17 (c)		6,400,000		6,399,795
0.466%, 01/23/17 (c)		2,000,000		1,999,578
0.482%, 01/20/17 (c)		800,000		799,857
0.488%, 01/27/17 (c)		1,600,000		1,599,595
				10,798,825
U.S. Treasury—0.4%
U.S. Treasury Bills 0.183%, 01/05/17 (c)		4,400,000		4,399,912
0.363%, 01/12/17 (c)		6,700,000		6,699,330
				11,099,242
Total Short-Term Investments (Cost $21,897,360)				21,898,067

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-16

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Aggregate Bond Index Portfolio (formerly, Barclays Aggregate Bond Index Portfolio)

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Securities Lending Reinvestments (d)—9.3%

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Certificates of Deposit—4.7%
Banco Del Estado De Chile New York 1.154%, 06/21/17 (e)		4,000,000	$	3,999,180
Bank of Montreal London
Zero Coupon, 01/12/17		4,996,816		4,999,086
Bank of Nova Scotia Houston 1.201%, 11/03/17 (e)		4,000,000		4,003,385
Bank of Tokyo UFJ, Ltd., New York 1.121%, 02/28/17 (e)		1,300,000		1,300,026
Barclays New York 0.894%, 02/10/17 (e)		3,500,000		3,501,132
Chiba Bank, Ltd., New York 0.920%, 02/03/17		1,000,000		1,000,111
0.950%, 02/02/17		5,000,000		5,000,690
Cooperative Rabobank UA New York 1.278%, 10/13/17 (e)		500,000		500,113
Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank 1.274%, 04/12/17 (e)		1,500,000		1,501,183
Credit Industriel et Commercial 1.245%, 04/05/17 (e)		300,000		300,162
Credit Suisse AG New York 1.335%, 04/03/17 (e)		300,000		300,066
1.364%, 04/11/17 (e)		1,500,000		1,500,327
1.364%, 05/12/17 (e)		5,000,000		5,000,520
DG Bank New York 0.940%, 01/12/17		750,000		750,040
0.950%, 01/03/17		250,000		250,002
DNB NOR Bank ASA 1.130%, 07/28/17 (e)		2,800,000		2,799,510
DZ Bank AG New York 1.010%, 02/27/17		6,000,000		6,001,734
ING Bank NV 1.265%, 04/18/17 (e)		1,600,000		1,602,933
KBC Bank NV 1.000%, 01/04/17		250,000		250,000
1.050%, 01/17/17		1,000,000		1,000,120
KBC Brussells 1.050%, 01/27/17		6,675,000		6,676,268
Landesbank Baden-Wuerttemberg Zero Coupon, 01/09/17		9,991,918		9,998,800
Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen London Zero Coupon, 01/24/17		1,795,870		1,799,226
Mitsubishi UFJ Trust and Banking Corp. 1.364%, 04/11/17 (e)		1,000,000		1,000,473
Mizuho Bank, Ltd., New York 1.395%, 04/11/17 (e)		1,000,000		1,000,301
1.436%, 04/18/17 (e)		1,400,000		1,400,440
National Australia Bank London 1.034%, 05/02/17 (e)		3,500,000		3,503,304
1.182%, 11/09/17 (e)		3,500,000		3,491,320
National Bank of Canada 0.650%, 01/06/17		12,000,000		12,000,480
Rabobank London 1.281%, 10/13/17 (e)		500,000		501,199
Royal Bank of Canada New York 1.145%, 04/04/17 (e)		500,000		499,872
1.281%, 10/13/17 (e)		500,000		500,388
Certificates of Deposit—(Continued)
Standard Chartered Bank New York 1.150%, 03/21/17		10,000,000		10,001,690
Sumitomo Bank New York 1.212%, 06/05/17 (e)		4,000,000		3,999,920
1.215%, 05/05/17 (e)		500,000		500,833
1.336%, 06/19/17 (e)		3,000,000		2,999,772
Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corp. London Zero Coupon, 02/06/17		997,312		999,280
Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corp. New York 1.352%, 04/07/17 (e)		500,000		500,255
1.395%, 04/12/17 (e)		1,000,000		1,001,140
Sumitomo Mitsui Trust Bank, Ltd., New York 1.194%, 06/02/17 (e)		4,000,000		3,999,420
1.351%, 04/26/17 (e)		3,000,000		3,000,354
1.364%, 04/10/17 (e)		1,000,000		1,000,387
Svenska Handelsbanken New York 1.266%, 05/18/17 (e)		2,000,000		2,000,348
UBS, Stamford 1.084%, 05/12/17 (e)		1,600,000		1,599,878
Wells Fargo Bank San Francisco N.A. 1.231%, 04/26/17 (e)		2,100,000		2,100,588
1.264%, 10/26/17 (e)		2,100,000		2,101,434
				123,737,690
Commercial Paper—1.7%
ABN AMRO Funding USA 0.910%, 01/11/17		498,863		499,845
Atlantic Asset Securitization LLC 0.990%, 01/12/17		399,010		399,870
1.040%, 02/03/17		498,483		499,564
Commonwealth Bank Australia 1.236%, 10/23/17 (e)		2,000,000		2,001,124
Den Norske ASA 1.206%, 04/27/17 (e)		4,000,000		4,000,212
Erste Abwicklungsanstalt 1.014%, 03/10/17 (e)		4,500,000		4,500,027
HSBC plc 1.216%, 04/25/17 (e)		4,000,000		3,999,828
Kells Funding LLC 1.040%, 01/19/17		697,533		699,725
Macquarie Bank, Ltd. 0.930%, 01/19/17		997,623		999,383
0.950%, 01/03/17		498,839		499,946
1.160%, 03/20/17		4,985,339		4,987,524
National Australia Bank, Ltd. 1.288%, 12/06/17 (e)		2,750,000		2,750,005
Ridgefield Funding Co. LLC 1.000%, 01/03/17		498,750		499,971
Sheffield Receivables Co. 1.050%, 01/06/17		398,903		399,948
Starbird Funding Corp. 0.930%, 02/10/17		748,063		749,281
1.240%, 06/13/17 (e)		8,000,000		7,999,352
Toronto Dominion Holding Corp. 0.600%, 01/05/17		2,996,900		2,999,664

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-17

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Aggregate Bond Index Portfolio (formerly, Barclays Aggregate Bond Index Portfolio)

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Securities Lending Reinvestments (d)—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Commercial Paper—(Continued)
Versailles Commercial Paper LLC 1.000%, 01/31/17		3,989,333	$	3,996,992
1.050%, 01/17/17		199,393		199,911
Victory Receivables Corp. 1.050%, 01/04/17		249,278		249,982
Westpac Banking Corp. 1.232%, 10/20/17 (e)		2,100,000		2,103,667
				45,035,821
Repurchase Agreements—2.7%
Citigroup Global Markets, Ltd. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/29/16 at 0.710% to be repurchased at $1,000,099 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $1,008,737 U.S. Treasury and Foreign Obligations with rates ranging from 1.750% - 2.750%, maturity dates ranging from 10/15/19 - 11/15/23, with a value of $1,020,000.		1,000,000		1,000,000
Deutsche Bank AG, London Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/16 at 0.950% to be repurchased at $600,063 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $612,540 Foreign Obligations with rates ranging from 1.750% - 2.500%, maturity dates ranging from 09/05/19 - 11/20/24, with a value of $612,003.		600,000		600,000
Repurchase Agreement dated 12/15/16 - 12/30/16 at 1.050% to be repurchased at $18,499,813 on 01/03/17, collateralized by various Common Stock with a value of $20,552,652.		18,490,000		18,490,000
Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. Repurchase Agreement dated 10/18/16 at 1.110% to be repurchased at $2,008,387 on 03/03/17, collateralized by various Common Stock with a value of $2,200,000.		2,000,000		2,000,000
Goldman Sachs & Co. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/16 at 0.460% to be repurchased at $4,427,811 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $22,785,221 U.S. Government Agency Obligations with rates ranging from 2.000% - 10.500%, maturity dates ranging from 03/15/17 - 09/20/65, with a value of $4,516,137.		4,427,585		4,427,585
Macquarie Bank, Ltd. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/27/16 at 0.580% to be repurchased at $1,100,124 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $1,088,291 U.S. Treasury Obligations with rates ranging from 0.000% - 8.750%, maturity dates ranging from 01/05/17 - 05/15/46, with a value of $1,122,568.		1,100,000		1,100,000
Repurchase Agreements—(Continued)
Macquarie Bank, Ltd. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/15/16 at 0.600% to be repurchased at $22,608,287 on 01/06/17, collateralized by $22,359,426 U.S. Treasury Obligations with rates ranging from 0.000% - 8.750%, maturity dates ranging from 01/05/17 - 05/15/46, with a value of $23,063,679.		22,600,000		22,600,000
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. Repurchase Agreement dated 10/26/16 at 1.160% to be repurchased at $4,121,006 on 04/03/17, collateralized by various Common Stock with a value of $4,510,000.		4,100,000		4,100,000
Natixis Repurchase Agreement dated 12/28/16 at 0.750% to be repurchased at $5,000,833 on 01/05/17, collateralized by $8,025,347 U.S. Government Agency and Treasury Obligations with rates ranging from 0.000% - 4.672%, maturity dates ranging from 01/31/17 - 09/16/58, with a value of $5,100,627.		5,000,000		5,000,000
Repurchase Agreement dated 12/27/16 at 0.850% to be repurchased at $10,001,653 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $16,050,693 U.S. Government Agency and Treasury Obligations with rates ranging from 0.000% - 4.672%, maturity dates ranging from 01/31/17 - 09/16/58, with a value of $10,201,254		10,000,000		10,000,000
Pershing LLC Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/16 at 0.680% to be repurchased at $1,400,106 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $2,054,310 U.S. Government Agency Obligations with rates ranging from 0.625% - 11.018%, maturity dates ranging from 01/17/17 - 08/20/66, with a value of $1,428,000.		1,400,000		1,400,000
				70,717,585
Time Deposits—0.2%
OP Corporate Bank plc 1.010%, 01/04/17		1,500,000		1,500,000
1.200%, 01/23/17		2,500,000		2,500,000
Shinkin Central Bank 1.200%, 01/27/17		500,000		500,000
1.220%, 01/26/17		2,000,000		2,000,000
				6,500,000
Total Securities Lending Reinvestments (Cost $245,970,571)				245,991,096
Total Investments—109.1% (Cost $2,869,877,483) (f)				2,903,413,923
Other assets and liabilities (net)—(9.1)%				(242,493,480	)
Net Assets—100.0%			$	2,660,920,443

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-18

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Aggregate Bond Index Portfolio (formerly, Barclays Aggregate Bond Index Portfolio)

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

* Principal amount stated in U.S. dollars unless otherwise noted.

(a) Variable or floating rate security. The stated rate represents the rate at December 31, 2016. Maturity date shown for callable securities reflects the earliest possible call date.

(b) All or a portion of the security was held on loan. As of December 31, 2016, the market value of securities loaned was $239,694,405 and the collateral received consisted of cash in the amount of $245,930,811. The cash collateral investments are disclosed in the Schedule of Investments and categorized as Securities Lending Reinvestments.

(c) The rate shown represents current yield to maturity.

(d) Represents investment of cash collateral received from securities on loan as of December 31, 2016.

(e) Variable or floating rate security. The stated rate represents the rate at December 31, 2016.

(f) As of December 31, 2016, the aggregate cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was $2,902,254,876. The aggregate unrealized appreciation and depreciation of investments were $49,799,467 and $(48,640,420), respectively, resulting in net unrealized appreciation of $1,159,047 for federal income tax purposes.

(ACES)—Alternative Credit Enhancement Securities

(ARM)—Adjustable-Rate Mortgage

Fair Value Hierarchy

Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) define 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, separately for each major category of assets and liabilities, 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, quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities 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, or other market corroborated inputs)

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 used in determining the fair value of investments and derivative financial instruments)

The inputs or methodologies used for valuing investments are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in them. Changes to the inputs or methodologies used may result in transfers between levels, which 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, 2016:

Description	Level 1		Level 2			Level 3		Total
Total U.S. Treasury & Government Agencies*	$	—	$	1,783,685,962		$	—	$	1,783,685,962
Total Corporate Bonds & Notes*		—		732,971,618			—		732,971,618
Total Foreign Government*		—		55,073,356			—		55,073,356
Total Mortgage-Backed Securities*		—		32,852,201			—		32,852,201
Total Municipals		—		19,776,619			—		19,776,619
Total Asset-Backed Securities*		—		11,165,004			—		11,165,004
Short-Term Investments
Discount Notes		—		10,798,825			—		10,798,825
U.S. Treasury		—		11,099,242			—		11,099,242
Total Short-Term Investments		—		21,898,067			—		21,898,067
Total Securities Lending Reinvestments*		—		245,991,096			—		245,991,096
Total Investments	$	—	$	2,903,413,923		$	—	$	2,903,413,923
Collateral for Securities Loaned (Liability)	$	—	$	(245,930,811	)	$	—	$	(245,930,811	)

* See Schedule of Investments for additional detailed categorizations.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-19

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Aggregate Bond Index Portfolio (formerly, Barclays Aggregate Bond Index Portfolio)

Statement of Assets and Liabilities

December 31, 2016

Assets
Investments at value (a) (b)	$	2,903,413,923
Cash		105,749
Receivable for:
Investments sold		23,016,533
Fund shares sold		6,961,181
Interest		17,853,175
Prepaid expenses		7,863
Total Assets		2,951,358,424
Liabilities
Collateral for securities loaned		245,930,811
Payables for:
Investments purchased		41,856,548
Fund shares redeemed		1,387,303
Accrued Expenses:
Management fees		540,541
Distribution and service fees		294,966
Deferred trustees’ fees		91,656
Other expenses		336,156
Total Liabilities		290,437,981
Net Assets	$	2,660,920,443
Net Assets Consist of:
Paid in surplus	$	2,630,531,378
Undistributed net investment income		75,280,892
Accumulated net realized loss		(78,428,267	)
Unrealized appreciation on investments		33,536,440
Net Assets	$	2,660,920,443
Net Assets
Class A	$	1,299,152,481
Class B		974,549,439
Class E		61,506,134
Class G		325,712,389
Capital Shares Outstanding*
Class A		119,501,205
Class B		91,545,141
Class E		5,689,737
Class G		30,699,136
Net Asset Value, Offering Price and Redemption Price Per Share
Class A	$	10.87
Class B		10.65
Class E		10.81
Class G		10.61

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

(a) Identified cost of investments was $2,869,877,483.

(b) Includes securities loaned at value of $239,694,405.

Statement of Operations

Year Ended December 31, 2016

Investment Income
Interest	$	70,387,309
Securities lending income		302,527
Other income (a)		124,104
Total investment income		70,813,940
Expenses
Management fees		6,661,833
Administration fees		86,547
Custodian and accounting fees		216,322
Distribution and service fees—Class B		2,486,439
Distribution and service fees—Class E		97,293
Distribution and service fees—Class G		980,986
Audit and tax services		88,438
Legal		33,031
Trustees’ fees and expenses		45,248
Shareholder reporting		228,007
Insurance		16,872
Miscellaneous		24,895
Total expenses		10,965,911
Less management fee waiver		(224,710	)
Net expenses		10,741,201
Net Investment Income		60,072,739
Net Realized and Unrealized Gain (Loss)
Net realized gain on investments		4,607,161
Net change in unrealized depreciation on investments		(9,700,851	)
Net realized and unrealized loss		(5,093,690	)
Net Increase in Net Assets From Operations	$	54,979,049

(a) Other income represents a non-recurring refund for overbilling of prior years’ custodian out-of-pocket fees.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-20

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Aggregate Bond Index Portfolio (formerly, Barclays Aggregate Bond Index Portfolio)

Statements of Changes in Net Assets

	Year Ended December 31, 2016			Year Ended December 31, 2015
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets:
From Operations
Net investment income	$	60,072,739		$	56,527,042
Net realized gain		4,607,161			1,373,336
Net change in unrealized depreciation		(9,700,851	)		(55,044,718	)
Increase in net assets from operations		54,979,049			2,855,660
From Distributions to Shareholders
Net investment income
Class A		(35,505,596	)		(31,869,029	)
Class B		(25,827,980	)		(27,379,615	)
Class E		(1,710,890	)		(2,026,136	)
Class G		(8,916,198	)		(6,508,764	)
Total distributions		(71,960,664	)		(67,783,544	)
Increase in net assets from capital share transactions		202,342,319			235,033,876
Total increase in net assets		185,360,704			170,105,992
Net Assets
Beginning of period		2,475,559,739			2,305,453,747
End of period	$	2,660,920,443		$	2,475,559,739
Undistributed net investment income
End of period	$	75,280,892		$	71,761,344

Other Information:

Capital Shares

Transactions in capital shares were as follows:

	Year Ended December 31, 2016						Year Ended December 31, 2015
	Shares			Value			Shares			Value
Class A
Sales		14,977,122		$	167,041,241			22,094,159		$	245,862,213
Reinvestments		3,198,702			35,505,596			2,931,833			31,869,029
Redemptions		(6,472,663	)		(72,124,890	)		(7,121,088	)		(79,138,007	)
Net increase		11,703,161		$	130,421,947			17,904,904		$	198,593,235
Class B
Sales		6,937,312		$	75,769,716			6,433,633		$	70,248,315
Reinvestments		2,373,895			25,827,980			2,566,037			27,379,615
Redemptions		(8,757,227	)		(95,246,249	)		(8,707,427	)		(94,405,934	)
Net increase		553,980		$	6,351,447			292,243		$	3,221,996
Class E
Sales		218,707		$	2,421,191			205,493		$	2,278,438
Reinvestments		154,832			1,710,890			187,258			2,026,136
Redemptions		(858,121	)		(9,490,766	)		(1,116,025	)		(12,326,766	)
Net decrease		(484,582	)	$	(5,358,685	)		(723,274	)	$	(8,022,192	)
Class G
Sales		15,083,718		$	163,746,308			7,491,067		$	81,485,884
Reinvestments		821,769			8,916,198			611,726			6,508,764
Redemptions		(9,352,634	)		(101,734,896	)		(4,315,187	)		(46,753,811	)
Net increase		6,552,853		$	70,927,610			3,787,606		$	41,240,837
Increase derived from capital shares transactions				$	202,342,319					$	235,033,876

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-21

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Aggregate Bond Index Portfolio (formerly, Barclays Aggregate Bond Index Portfolio)

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class A
	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014			2013			2012
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	10.92		$	11.22		$	10.93		$	11.59		$	11.58
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (a)		0.27			0.28			0.29			0.29			0.34
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.01	)		(0.25	)		0.33			(0.55	)		0.10
Total from investment operations		0.26			0.03			0.62			(0.26	)		0.44
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.31	)		(0.33	)		(0.33	)		(0.40	)		(0.43	)
Total distributions		(0.31	)		(0.33	)		(0.33	)		(0.40	)		(0.43	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	10.87		$	10.92		$	11.22		$	10.93		$	11.59
Total Return (%) (b)		2.35			0.25			5.81			(2.33	)		3.90
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Gross ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.28			0.28			0.28			0.28			0.29
Net ratio of expenses to average net assets (%) (c)		0.27			0.27			0.28			0.28			0.28
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		2.39			2.48			2.62			2.65			2.92
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		16			18			13			18			24
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	1,299.2		$	1,177.2		$	1,008.2		$	797.4		$	637.3
	Class B
	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014			2013			2012
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	10.70		$	10.99		$	10.72		$	11.37		$	11.37
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (a)		0.23			0.24			0.26			0.26			0.30
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		0.01			(0.23	)		0.32			(0.54	)		0.10
Total from investment operations		0.24			0.01			0.58			(0.28	)		0.40
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.29	)		(0.30	)		(0.31	)		(0.37	)		(0.40	)
Total distributions		(0.29	)		(0.30	)		(0.31	)		(0.37	)		(0.40	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	10.65		$	10.70		$	10.99		$	10.72		$	11.37
Total Return (%) (b)		2.14			0.09			5.48			(2.53	)		3.62
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Gross ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.53			0.53			0.53			0.53			0.54
Net ratio of expenses to average net assets (%) (c)		0.52			0.52			0.53			0.53			0.53
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		2.14			2.23			2.37			2.40			2.67
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		16			18			13			18			24
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	974.5		$	973.6		$	997.1		$	964.2		$	934.5

Please see following page for Financial Highlights footnote legend.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-22

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Aggregate Bond Index Portfolio (formerly, Barclays Aggregate Bond Index Portfolio)

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class E
	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014			2013			2012
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	10.86		$	11.15		$	10.87		$	11.52		$	11.52
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (a)		0.25			0.26			0.27			0.28			0.32
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.01	)		(0.24	)		0.33			(0.55	)		0.09
Total from investment operations		0.24			0.02			0.60			(0.27	)		0.41
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.29	)		(0.31	)		(0.32	)		(0.38	)		(0.41	)
Total distributions		(0.29	)		(0.31	)		(0.32	)		(0.38	)		(0.41	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	10.81		$	10.86		$	11.15		$	10.87		$	11.52
Total Return (%) (b)		2.19			0.19			5.58			(2.41	)		3.68
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Gross ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.43			0.43			0.43			0.43			0.44
Net ratio of expenses to average net assets (%) (c)		0.42			0.42			0.43			0.43			0.43
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		2.24			2.33			2.47			2.50			2.77
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		16			18			13			18			24
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	61.5		$	67.0		$	76.9		$	82.2		$	88.1
	Class G
	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014			2013			2012
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	10.67		$	10.97		$	10.70		$	11.35		$	11.35
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (a)		0.23			0.24			0.25			0.26			0.30
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		0.00			(0.25	)		0.33			(0.54	)		0.10
Total from investment operations		0.23			(0.01	)		0.58			(0.28	)		0.40
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.29	)		(0.29	)		(0.31	)		(0.37	)		(0.40	)
Total distributions		(0.29	)		(0.29	)		(0.31	)		(0.37	)		(0.40	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	10.61		$	10.67		$	10.97		$	10.70		$	11.35
Total Return (%) (b)		2.09			(0.06	)		5.46			(2.57	)		3.58
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Gross ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.58			0.58			0.58			0.58			0.59
Net ratio of expenses to average net assets (%) (c)		0.57			0.57			0.58			0.58			0.58
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		2.09			2.18			2.32			2.35			2.62
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		16			18			13			18			24
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	325.7		$	257.7		$	223.3		$	169.1		$	157.5

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

(b) Total return does not reflect any insurance, sales, separate account or administrative charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts or any additional expenses that contract owners may bear under their variable contracts. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower.

(c) Includes the effects of management fee waivers (see Note 5 of the Notes to Financial Statements).

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-23

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Aggregate Bond Index Portfolio (formerly, Barclays Aggregate Bond Index Portfolio)

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016

1. Organization

Metropolitan Series Fund (the “Trust”) is organized as a Delaware statutory trust and registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), as an open-end management investment company. The Trust, which is managed by MetLife Advisers, LLC (“MetLife Advisers” or the “Adviser”), an affiliate of MetLife, Inc., is currently comprised of thirty series, each of which operates as a distinct investment vehicle of the Trust. The portfolio included in this report is MetLife Aggregate Bond Index Portfolio (formerly, Barclays Aggregate Bond Index 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.

On January 12, 2016, MetLife, Inc. announced its plan to pursue the separation of a substantial portion of its retail segment and is currently evaluating structural alternatives for such separation. It is anticipated that MetLife Advisers would be included in any such separation. Any separation transaction that might occur will be subject to the satisfaction of various conditions and approvals, including approval of any transaction by the MetLife, Inc. Board of Directors, satisfaction of any applicable requirements of the SEC, and receipt of insurance and other regulatory approvals and other anticipated conditions. MetLife, Inc. cannot currently provide a specific potential completion date for a separation transaction or any assurance that a separation will in fact occur. MetLife Advisers’ continued service as investment adviser to the Trusts following a separation transaction is the subject of a proxy statement that was filed with the SEC on December 20, 2016 and mailed to shareholders of the Portfolio on or about December 30, 2016.

The Portfolio has registered and offers four classes of shares: Class A, B, E and G shares. 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 plan and such distribution expenses are allocated to the corresponding Class of shares.

2. Significant Accounting Policies

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities as of the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of income and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates. In the preparation of these financial statements, management has evaluated events and transactions subsequent to December 31, 2016 through the date the financial statements were issued.

The Portfolio is an investment company and follows the accounting and reporting guidance of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Accounting Standards Codification Topic 946—Financial Services—Investment Companies and Topic 820—Fair Value Measurement. 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, including corporate, convertible and municipal bonds and notes; obligations of the U.S. Treasury and U.S. government agencies; foreign sovereign issues; 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 the Adviser (each a “pricing service”), pursuant to authorization of and subject to general oversight by the Board of Trustees of the Trust (the “Board” or “Trustees”). Such pricing services may use matrix pricing, which considers observable inputs including, among other things, issuer details, maturity dates, interest rates, yield curves, rates of prepayment, credit risks/spreads, default rates, reported trades, broker dealer quotes and quoted prices for similar assets. Short-term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less may be valued at amortized cost in the absence of market quotes, so long as the amortized cost value of such short-term debt instrument is approximately the same as the fair value of the instrument as determined without the use of amortized cost valuation. Floating rate loans are generally valued on the basis of an evaluated or composite average of aggregate bid and ask quotations supplied by brokers or dealers, as obtained from the pricing service. 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 generally valued on the basis of evaluated or composite bid quotations obtained from pricing services selected by the Adviser pursuant to authorization of and subject to general oversight by the Board. These securities are usually issued as separate tranches, or classes, of securities within each deal. The pricing models for these securities usually consider tranche-level attributes, current market data, estimated cash flows and market-based yield spreads for each tranche 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.

MSF-24

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Aggregate Bond Index Portfolio (formerly, Barclays Aggregate Bond Index Portfolio)

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

Domestic and foreign equity securities, such as common stock, exchange-traded funds, rights, warrants, and preferred stock, that are traded on a securities exchange on a valuation date are generally valued at their last quoted sale price or official closing price on the primary exchange for such security, or, if no sales occurred on that day, at the last reported bid price. Equity securities traded over-the-counter (“OTC”) are generally valued at the last reported bid price. In the event of a major exchange closing during the trading day, the Adviser may use other market information obtained from quotation reporting systems, established market makers, or pricing services in valuing the securities. Valuation adjustments may be applied to certain foreign equity securities that are traded solely on foreign exchanges that close before the time as of which the Portfolio determines its NAV to account for the market movement between the close of the foreign exchanges and the time as of which the Portfolio determines its NAV. The Portfolio may use a systematic fair valuation model provided by a pricing service to value securities principally traded in these foreign markets in order to adjust for possible market movements or other changes that may occur between the close of the foreign exchanges and the time as of which the Portfolio determines its NAV. Foreign equity securities valued using these valuation adjustments are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy. Equity securities that are actively traded, and have no valuation adjustments applied, are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other equity securities traded on inactive markets, or valued in reference to similar instruments traded on active markets, 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 on the valuation date and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy.

Futures contracts that 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.

If no current market value quotation or other observable inputs are readily available or market value quotations are deemed to be unreliable for an investment, the fair value of the investment will be determined in accordance with procedures approved by, and under the general supervision of, the Board. In such a circumstance, the Board will be assisted in its responsibility to determine the fair value of an investment by the Valuation Committee (“Committee”) of MetLife Advisers. The Committee provides general pricing oversight and fair value pricing determinations related to portfolio securities and meets on a regular basis to review reports relating to the valuation of the securities in the Portfolio. The Board has delegated to State Street Bank and Trust Company, the Trust’s custodian (“custodian”), the responsibility for calculating the net asset values (“NAVs”) of the Trust’s Portfolios. The Committee is responsible for overseeing the calculation of the NAVs of the Portfolios by the custodian. The Committee also periodically reviews pricing services, including the pricing services providing fair value pricing for the Portfolio’s foreign securities, and is responsible for overseeing the correction of pricing errors and addressing other pricing issues that arise in the ordinary course of business, such as making real-time fair value determinations, as necessary.

No single standard for determining the fair value of an investment can be set forth because fair value depends upon the facts and circumstances with respect to each investment. Information relating to any relevant factors may be obtained by the Committee from any appropriate source, including the subadviser of the Portfolio, the custodian, a pricing service, market maker and/or broker for such security or the issuer. Appropriate methodologies for determining fair value under particular circumstances may include: matrix pricing, a discounted cash flow analysis, comparisons of securities with comparable characteristics, value based on multiples of earnings, discount from market price of similar marketable securities or a combination of these and other methods.

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 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. These foreign taxes have been provided for in accordance with the Portfolio’s understanding of the applicable countries’ tax rules and rates.

Dividends and Distributions to Shareholders - The Portfolio records dividends and distributions on the ex-dividend date. Net realized gains from securities 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 amortization of debt securities, expired capital loss carryforwards and paydown reclasses. These adjustments have no impact on net assets or the results 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 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. As of December 31, 2016, the Portfolio had no uncertain tax positions that would require financial statement recognition, or de-recognition or disclosure.

MSF-25

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Aggregate Bond Index Portfolio (formerly, Barclays Aggregate Bond Index Portfolio)

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

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 mortgage obligations (“CMOs”), commercial mortgage-backed securities, 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). 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 netted against payments received for the IOs and the net amount is 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.

When-Issued and Delayed-Delivery Securities - The Portfolio may purchase securities on a when-issued or delayed-delivery basis. Settlement of such transactions normally occurs within a month or more after the purchase 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 or delayed-delivery basis, the Portfolio will hold liquid assets in a segregated account with the Portfolio’s custodian, or set aside liquid assets in the Portfolio’s records, 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.

Repurchase Agreements - The Portfolio may enter into repurchase agreements, under the terms of a Master Repurchase Agreement (“MRA”), 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, under a tri-party repurchase agreement, receives delivery of the underlying securities collateralizing any repurchase agreements. It is the Portfolio’s policy that the market value of the collateral be equal to at least 100% of the repurchase price in the case of a repurchase agreement of one-day duration and equal to at least 102% of the repurchase price in the case of all other repurchase agreements. In the event of default or failure by a party to perform an obligation in connection with any repurchase transaction, the MRA gives the non-defaulting party the right to set-off claims and to apply property held by it in connection with any repurchase transaction against obligations owed to it.

At December 31, 2016, the Portfolio invested cash collateral for loans of portfolio securities in repurchase agreements with a gross value of $ 70,717,585. The combined value of all repurchase agreements is included as part of investments at value on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. The value of the related collateral exceeded the value of the repurchase agreements at December 31, 2016.

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 collateral held from securities on loan. 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.

Effective September 8, 2016, the Trust has entered into a Non-Custodial Securities Lending Agreement with JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (the “lending agent”). Prior to September 8, 2016, the Trust had entered into a Securities Lending Authorization Agreement with the custodian (the “prior lending agent”). Under each agreement, the lending agent is authorized to loan portfolio securities on the Portfolio’s behalf. In exchange, the Portfolio receives either cash or government securities as collateral against the loaned securities. The Portfolio receives collateral equal to at least 102% of the market value for loans secured by government securities or cash in the same currency as the loaned shares and 105% for all other loaned securities at each loan’s inception. Collateral representing at least 100% of the market value of the loaned securities is maintained for the duration of the loan. Any cash collateral received by the Portfolio is generally invested by the lending agent in short-term investments, which may include certificates of deposit, commercial

MSF-26

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Aggregate Bond Index Portfolio (formerly, Barclays Aggregate Bond Index Portfolio)

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

paper, repurchase agreements, time deposits and money market funds. Cash collateral that was received by the prior lending agent had been generally invested in the State Street Navigator Securities Lending MET Portfolio (the “Navigator Portfolio”), a series of the State Street Navigator Securities Lending Trust that was a registered money market fund managed by an affiliate of the custodian. The market value of investments made with cash collateral received are disclosed in the Schedule of Investments and the valuation techniques are described in Note 2. 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 is 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 is equal to at least 100% of the market value of all the loaned securities as of such preceding day. A portion of the income earned on the collateral is rebated to the borrower of the securities and the remainder is split between the lending agent and the Portfolio. On loans collateralized by government securities, a fee is received from the borrower and is allocated between the Portfolio and the lending agent.

Income received by the Portfolio in securities lending transactions during the year ended December 31, 2016 is reflected as securities lending income on the Statement of Operations. The values of any securities loaned by the Portfolio and the related collateral at December 31, 2016 are disclosed in the footnotes to the Schedule of Investments. The value of the related collateral received by the Portfolio exceeded the value of the securities out on loan at December 31, 2016.

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. The lending agent shall indemnify the Portfolio in the case of default of any securities borrower, subject to the terms of the Non-Custodial Securities Lending Agreement.

The following table provides a breakdown of transactions accounted for as secured borrowings, the gross obligations by the type of collateral pledged, and the remaining contractual maturities of those transactions, which are accounted for as secured borrowings.

	Remaining Contractual Maturity of the Agreements As of December 31, 2016
	Overnight and Continuous			Up to 30 Days		31 - 90 Days		Greater than 90 days		Total
Securities Lending Transactions
Corporate Bonds & Notes	$	(85,864,954	)	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	(85,864,954	)
Foreign Government		(12,060,285	)		—		—		—		(12,060,285	)
U.S. Treasury & Government Agencies		(148,005,572	)		—		—		—		(148,005,572	)
Total	$	(245,930,811	)	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	(245,930,811	)
Total Borrowings	$	(245,930,811	)	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	(245,930,811	)
Gross amount of recognized liabilities for securities lending transactions										$	(245,930,811	)

3. Certain Risks

In the normal course of business, the Portfolio invests in securities and enters into transactions where risks exist. Those risks include:

Market 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, interest rate, and price fluctuations.

Credit and Counterparty Risk: 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 and counterparty risk consist principally of cash due from counterparties and investments. The Portfolio manages counterparty risk by entering into agreements only with counterparties that it believes have the financial resources to honor their obligations and by monitoring the financial stability of those counterparties. The Portfolio’s investment adviser attempts to mitigate counterparty risk by (i) periodically assessing the creditworthiness of its trading partners, (ii) monitoring and/or limiting the amount of its net exposure to each individual counterparty based on its assessment, and (iii) requiring collateral from the counterparty for certain transactions. In order to preserve certain safeguards for non-standard settlement trades, the Portfolio restricts its exposure to credit and counterparty losses by entering into master netting agreements (“Master Agreements”) with counterparties (approved brokers) with whom it undertakes a significant volume of transactions. Master Agreements govern the terms of certain transactions, and reduce the counterparty risk associated with relevant transactions by specifying credit protection mechanisms and providing standardization that improves legal certainty. Master Agreements can also help limit counterparty risk by specifying collateral posting arrangements at pre-arranged exposure levels.

Additional risks associated with each type of investment are described above within the respective security type notes. The Portfolio’s prospectus includes a discussion of the principal risks of investing in the Portfolio.

MSF-27

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Aggregate Bond Index Portfolio (formerly, Barclays Aggregate Bond Index Portfolio)

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(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, 2016 were as follows:

Purchases			Sales
U.S. Government	Non U.S. Government		U.S. Government		Non U.S. Government
$466,823,753	$	176,421,130	$	355,509,903	$	77,626,084

5. Investment Management Fees and Other Transactions with Affiliates

Investment Management Agreement - MetLife Advisers is the investment adviser to the Portfolio. The Trust has entered into an investment management agreement with MetLife Advisers with respect to the Portfolio. For providing investment management services to the Portfolio, MetLife Advisers receives monthly compensation at the annual rate of 0.250% of average daily net assets. Fees earned by MetLife Advisers with respect to the Portfolio for the year ended December 31, 2016 were $6,661,833.

MetLife Advisers has entered into an investment subadvisory agreement with MetLife Investment Advisors, LLC (“MIA”) with respect to managing the Portfolio. For providing subadvisory services to the Portfolio, MetLife Advisers has agreed to pay MIA an investment subadvisory fee for each class of the Portfolio as follows:

% per annum	Average Daily Net Assets
0.040%	On the first $500 million
0.030%	Of the next $500 million
0.015%	On amounts over $1 billion

Fees earned by MIA with respect to the Portfolio for the year ended December 31, 2016 were $599,710.

Management Fee Waivers - Pursuant to an expense agreement, MetLife Advisers has agreed, for the period May 1, 2016 to April 30, 2017, to reduce its advisory fees set out above under “Investment Management Agreement” for each class of the Portfolio as follows:

% per annum	Average Daily Net Assets
0.005%	Over $500 million and under $1 billion
0.010%	Of the next $1 billion
0.015%	On amounts over $2 billion

An identical expense agreement was in place for the period May 1, 2015 to April 30, 2016. Amounts waived for the year ended December 31, 2016 are shown as management fee waivers in the Statement of Operations.

Certain officers and trustees of the Trust may also be officers of MetLife Advisers; 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 and Service Fees - The Trust has a distribution agreement with MetLife Investors Distribution Company (“MIDC” or the “Distributor”) in which MIDC serves as the distributor for the Portfolio’s Class A, B, E, and G Shares. MIDC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife Investors Group, LLC, an affiliate of the Adviser. The Trust has also adopted a Distribution and Service Plan under Rule 12b-1 of the 1940 Act for the Portfolio’s Class B, E, and G Shares. Under the Distribution and Service Plan, the Class B, E, and G Shares of the Portfolio pay a fee to compensate the Insurance Companies (or their affiliates) and other broker-dealers and financial intermediaries involved in the offer and sale of Portfolio shares for promoting or selling and servicing the Class B, E, and G Shares of the Portfolio. The fees under the Distribution and Service Plan for each class of the Portfolio’s shares are calculated as a percentage of the Portfolio’s average daily net assets that are attributable to that Class. Currently, the fee is 0.25% per year for Class B Shares, 0.15% per year for Class E Shares, and 0.30% per year for Class G Shares. Amounts incurred by the Portfolio for the year ended December 31, 2016 are shown as Distribution and service fees in the Statement of Operations.

Deferred Trustee Compensation - Each Trustee 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 Trust. 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 Met Investors Series Trust, an affiliate of the Trust, 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 under the Plan is reflected as Deferred trustees’ fees in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

MSF-28

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Aggregate Bond Index Portfolio (formerly, Barclays Aggregate Bond Index Portfolio)

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

6. Contractual Obligations

Under the Trust’s organizational documents, its officers and Trustees may be indemnified against certain liabilities and expenses arising out of the performance of their duties to the Trust. Additionally, 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 Trust that have not yet occurred.

7. Income Tax Information

The tax character of distributions paid for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015 were as follows:

Ordinary Income			Long-Term Capital Gain				Total
2016	2015		2016		2015		2016		2015
$71,960,664	$	67,783,544	$	—	$	—	$	71,960,664	$	67,783,544

As of December 31, 2016, 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			Other Accumulated Capital Losses			Total
$75,372,548	$	—	$	1,159,047	$	(9,934,932	)	$	(36,115,942	)	$	30,480,721

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 up to 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.

During the year ended December 31, 2016, $6,670,752 of capital loss carryforwards expired.

As of December 31, 2016, the Portfolio had post-enactment short-term accumulated capital losses of $6,088,888, post-enactment long-term accumulated capital losses of $30,027,054, and the pre-enactment accumulated capital loss carryforwards and expiration dates were as follows:

Expiring
12/31/17

$9,934,932

8. Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In October 2016, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) adopted new rules and forms, and amendments to certain current rules and forms, to modernize reporting and disclosure of information by registered investment companies. The amendments to Regulation S-X will require standardized, enhanced disclosure about derivatives in investment company financial statements, and will also change the rules governing the form and content of such financial statements. The compliance date for the amendments to Regulation S-X is August 1, 2017. Management is currently evaluating the impact that the adoption of the amendments to Regulation S-X will have on the Portfolio’s financial statements and related disclosures.

MSF-29

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Aggregate Bond Index Portfolio (formerly, Barclays Aggregate Bond Index Portfolio)

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Shareholders of Barclays Aggregate Bond Index Portfolio and the Board of Trustees of Metropolitan Series Fund:

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities, including the schedule of investments, of Barclays Aggregate Bond Index Portfolio (one of the portfolios constituting the Metropolitan Series Fund) (the “Portfolio”) as of December 31, 2016, 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 Portfolio’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 Portfolio 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 Portfolio’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, 2016, by correspondence with the custodian and brokers; when 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 Barclays Aggregate Bond Index Portfolio of the Metropolitan Series Fund as of December 31, 2016, 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.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

February 24, 2017

MSF-30

Metropolitan Series Fund

Trustees and Officers

MANAGEMENT OF THE TRUSTS

The Boards of Trustees (the “Board”) of Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (“MIST” and “MSF”, respectively, and collectively the “Trusts”) supervise the Trusts and are responsible for representing the interests of shareholders. The Trustees, the Chairman of the Board and the Chairmen of each subcommittee are the same for both Trusts. The Trustees of each Trust meet periodically throughout the year to oversee the Portfolios’ activities, reviewing, among other things, each Portfolio’s performance and its contractual arrangements with various service providers. The Trustees of each Trust elect the officers of the Trust, who are responsible for administering the Trust’s day-to-day operations.

Trustees and Officers

The Trustees and executive officers of the Trusts, as well as their ages and their principal occupations during the past five years, are set forth below. Unless otherwise indicated, the business address of each is c/o MetLife Funds, One Financial Center, Boston, Massachusetts 02111. Each Trustee who is deemed an “interested person,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, is referred to as an “Interested Trustee.” Those Trustees who are not “interested persons,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, are referred to as “Independent Trustees.” There is no limit to the term a Trustee may serve. Trustees serve until their death, resignation or removal in accordance with the MIST Trust’s and MSF Trust’s respective organizational documents and policies adopted by the Boards of the respective Trusts from time to time. Officers hold office at the pleasure of each Board and serve until their removal or resignation in accordance with the Trusts’ respective organizational documents and policies adopted by the Board of each Trust from time to time.

Name and Age	Current 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 MetLife Funds Complex(2) Overseen by Trustee	Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Interested Trustee
John Rosenthal* (56)	Trustee	Indefinite; From May 2016 (MIST and MSF) to present	Senior Managing Director and Head of Global Portfolio Management, MetLife, Inc.	75	None
Independent Trustees
Dawn M. Vroegop (50)	Trustee and Chairman of the Board	Indefinite; From December 2000 (MIST)/ May 2009 (MSF) to present as Trustee; From May 2016 (MIST and MSF) until present as Chairman	Private Investor.	75	Trustee, Driehaus Mutual Funds.**
Stephen M. Alderman (57)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 (MIST)/ April 2012 (MSF) to present	Shareholder in the law firm of Garfield and Merel, Ltd.	75	None

MSF-31

Metropolitan Series Fund

Trustees and Officers—(Continued)

Name and Age	Current 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 MetLife Funds Complex(2) Overseen by Trustee	Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Robert J. Boulware (60)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 (MIST)/ April 2012 (MSF) to present	Managing Director, Pilgrim Funds, LLC (private equity fund).	75	Trustee, Vertical Capital Income Fund (closed-end fund);** Director, Gainsco, Inc. (auto insurance);** Trustee, SharesPost 100 Fund (closed-end fund).**
Susan C. Gause (64)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 (MIST)/ April 2012 (MSF) to present	Private Investor.	75	Trustee, HSBC Funds.**
Nancy Hawthorne (65)	Trustee	Indefinite; From May 2003 (MSF)/ April 2012 (MIST) to present	Partner, Hawthorne Financial Advisors, LLC (registered investment advisor); until June 2014, Chief Executive Officer, Clerestory LLC (corporate advisor).	75	Director and Chairman of the Board of Directors, THL Credit, Inc.;** Lead Director, Avid Technology, Inc.;** Director, CRA International, Inc.**
Barbara A. Nugent (60)	Trustee	Indefinite; From January 2014 (MIST and MSF) to present	President, True North Board Governance, LLC (consulting); until December 2013, partner in the law firm of Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young, LLP.	75	None
Linda B. Strumpf (69)	Trustee	Indefinite; From May 2000 (MSF)/ April 2012 (MIST) to present	Chair of the Investment Committee, Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust; until June 2011, Chief Investment Officer, Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust.	75	None

Executive Officers

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Kristi Slavin (43)	President and Chief Executive Officer, of MIST and MSF	From May 2016 (MIST and MSF) to present	President, MetLife Advisers, LLC (May 2016-present); Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Vice President, MetLife, Inc.; Vice President, MIST and MSF (2015-2016).

MSF-32

Metropolitan Series Fund

Trustees and Officers—(Continued)

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Peter H. Duffy (61)	Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, of MIST and MSF	From November 2000 (MSF)/ May 2012 (MIST) to present	Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Andrew L. Gangolf (62)	Secretary, of MIST and MSF	From May 2011 (MIST and MSF) to present	Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; until 2011, Senior Vice President & Assistant General Counsel, AllianceBernstein Investments, Inc.
Steven E. Hartstein (53)	Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”), of MIST and MSF	From February 2014 (MIST and MSF) to present	Vice President, MetLife, Inc. (2013- present); Senior Vice President and CCO, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Executive Director, Morgan Stanley (2009-2013); CCO, Consulting Group Capital Markets Funds (2006-2013).
Alan C. Leland (64)	Vice President, of MIST and MSF	From February 2005 (MSF)/ May 2012 (MIST) to present	Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Vice President, MetLife, Inc.

* Mr. Rosenthal is an “interested person” of the Trusts because of his position with MetLife, Inc., the current parent company of MetLife Advisers, LLC.

** 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 Trusts, MetLife, Inc. or the Manager are omitted if not materially different.

(2) The Fund Complex includes 45 MIST Portfolios and 30 MSF Portfolios.

MSF-33

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Aggregate Bond Index Portfolio (formerly, Barclays Aggregate Bond Index Portfolio)

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements

At an in-person meeting held on November 15-16, 2016 (the “November Meeting”), the Boards of Trustees (the “Board”) of the Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (“MIST” and “MSF,” respectively, and collectively, the “Trusts”), including a majority of the Trustees who are not “interested persons” of the Trusts (the “Independent Trustees”) under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “1940 Act”), approved the continuation of the Trusts’ advisory agreements (each, an “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 the series of the Trusts (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”).

In reaching that decision, the Board reviewed a variety of materials provided for the specific purpose of the annual contract renewal process. In addition, various materials provided to and discussed with the Board throughout the year also informed the Board’s decision to renew the Agreements. That information for each Portfolio included, but was not limited to, investment performance reports, along with periodic reports on various expenses, shareholder services, legal and compliance matters, asset pricing, brokerage commissions and trade execution. The Board also recognized the pending separation of the Adviser from its parent company, MetLife, Inc., as a consideration in their deliberations with respect to the Agreements.

The Board met in person with personnel of the Adviser on September 27, 2016 for the specific purpose of giving preliminary consideration to the proposed continuation of the Agreements (the “September Meeting”) through the review by the Adviser with the Board of the performance and fees experienced by each Portfolio, as well as other information. In considering the Agreements, the Independent Trustees were advised by independent legal counsel throughout the contract renewal process, and met with independent legal counsel in several executive sessions outside of the presence of management.

Information furnished and reviewed specifically in connection with the renewal process included, but was not limited to, a report for each Portfolio prepared by Broadridge (“Broadridge”), an independent organization, and a Portfolio-by-Portfolio profitability analysis prepared by the Adviser. In addition, the Independent Trustees received and reviewed a report prepared by JDL Consultants, LLC (“JDL”), an independent consultant to the Independent Trustees (“JDL Report”), which examined the comparative fees, expenses and performance of each Portfolio, based upon the Broadridge reports. Also, the Board reviewed the responses to wide-ranging questions relating to the business, operations and performance of the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers that the Adviser and Sub-Advisers had prepared specifically for the renewal process.

At the November Meeting, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, concluded that the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser supported the renewal of the Agreements. The Board also concluded that the investment performance of each Portfolio was such that each Agreement should continue, and that the fees paid by a Portfolio to the Adviser appeared to be reasonable in light of the nature, extent and quality of the services provided by the Adviser and Sub-Adviser. Further, the Board concluded that the Adviser’s profitability in providing services under the Advisory Agreements did not appear unreasonably high in light of the nature, extent and quality of the services provided by the Adviser. Finally, the Board concluded that the investment advisory fees paid by the Portfolios in some measure shared economies of scale with contract holders. In approving the renewal of each of the Agreements, the Board, including the Independent Trustees, gave attention to all of the information that was furnished. The Board evaluated the information available to it on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis, and its decision was made separately with respect to each Portfolio. The following discusses some of the primary factors that generally were relevant to the Board’s decision. The Board did not identify any single factor as controlling, and the Trustees generally attributed different weights to various factors for the various Portfolios.

Nature, extent and quality of services. The Board evaluated the nature, extent and quality of the services that the Adviser, and the Sub-Advisers as relevant, have provided to the Portfolios. The Board considered the Adviser’s services as investment manager to the Portfolios, including its services relating to the oversight of the Sub-Advisers and their investment management activities, trading practices, financial condition, relevant personnel matters and compliance programs, among other things. The Adviser’s services in coordinating and overseeing the activities of the Trusts’ other service providers were also considered. The Board considered information received from the Trusts’ Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) regarding the Portfolios’ compliance policies and procedures that were established pursuant to Rule 38a-l under the 1940 Act. In addition, throughout the year, the Board considered the expertise, experience and performance of the personnel of the Adviser who performed the various services that are mentioned above.

The Board also noted that the Adviser’s investment, compliance and legal staff conduct regular, periodic, telephonic and in-person meetings with the Sub-Advisers to review and assess the services that are provided to the Portfolios, and that personnel of the Adviser prepare and present reports to the Independent Trustees regarding those meetings.

MSF-34

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Aggregate Bond Index Portfolio (formerly, Barclays Aggregate Bond Index Portfolio)

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

With respect to the services provided by each of the Sub-Advisers, the Board considered a variety of information that the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser provided. The Board considered each Sub-Adviser’s investment process and philosophy, and the investment performance experienced by the Portfolio (as described in more detail below). The Board took into account that each Sub-Adviser’s responsibilities include the development and maintenance of an investment program for the applicable Portfolio that 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. In particular, the Board considered, among other things, the Sub-Adviser’s current level of staffing as well as its compensation program and its overall resources. The Board reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s history and investment experience, as well as information provided 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 regulatory and disciplinary history. In its review, the Board also took into account information regarding any services and/or payments provided to the Adviser by the Sub-Advisers in connection with marketing activities.

Performance. The Board placed emphasis on the performance of the Portfolios in light of, among other things, its importance to contract holders. The Board considered the Adviser’s quarterly reviews with the Board of detailed information about each Portfolio’s investment strategies and performance results and composition, including discussions regarding the relevant effect of current market conditions. The Board reviewed and considered the reports prepared by Broadridge, which provided a statistical analysis comparing the Portfolios’ investment performance to that of comparable funds underlying variable insurance products (the “Performance Universe”). The Independent Trustees also met separately with a representative of JDL during the September Meeting to review the JDL Report. The Board also compared the performance records of certain Portfolios to those of comparable funds that were managed by the relevant Sub-Adviser. At the November Meeting, the Board considered each Portfolio’s performance for periods subsequent to the performance period covered by the Broadridge reports, and the Adviser’s discussion of the same, including the effect of current market conditions on each Portfolio’s more recent performance.

The Board focused particular attention on Portfolios with less favorable performance records. The Board noted the Adviser’s focus on each Sub-Adviser’s performance and that the Adviser has been active in monitoring and responding to any performance issues with respect to the Portfolios.

Fees and Expenses. The Board gave consideration to the level and method of computing the fees payable under the Agreements. The Board considered the Broadridge report for each of the Portfolios, which included comparisons for each Portfolio of its contractual management and sub-adviser fees (at current and various asset levels), and total expenses, with those of its peers, including as those peers were divided into a broad group of peer funds (“Expense Universe”), a narrower group of peer funds (“Expense Group”), a broad group of peer sub-advised funds (“Sub-advised Expense Universe”), and a narrower group of peer sub-advised funds (“Sub-advised Expense Group”). Broadridge selected the peer funds which were similarly situated funds underlying variable insurance products deemed to be comparable to the Portfolios. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of JDL, also examined the JDL Report. The Board compared the fee payable to a Sub-Adviser by the Adviser with respect to the Portfolio to the fee payable to the Sub-Adviser by other comparable funds and accounts, to the extent such information was available.

The Board noted that the sub-advisory fees for the Portfolios are paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fee, and that, in the case of an unaffiliated Sub-Adviser, the Adviser negotiates the fee at arm’s length. The Board also considered that the Adviser had entered into expense limitation or management fee waiver agreements with certain of the Portfolios pursuant to which the Adviser had 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.

Profitability. The Board examined the profitability of the Adviser on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis. The Board also considered that an affiliate of the Adviser, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, serves as distributor for the Trusts, and, as such, receives Rule 12b-1 payments to support the distribution of the Portfolios. The Board considered the profitability to the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates as a result of their relationships with the Portfolios, to the extent available, and the Board considered the ability of the Adviser to negotiate with an unaffiliated Sub-Adviser at arm’s length. In reviewing the profitability analyses, the Board recognized that expense allocation methodologies are inherently subjective and various expense allocation methodologies may be reasonable while producing different results.

Economies of scale. The Board also considered each Portfolio’s fees in light of its size. The Board noted the fee schedules for the Portfolios that 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

MSF-35

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Aggregate Bond Index Portfolio (formerly, Barclays Aggregate Bond Index Portfolio)

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

schedule for such Portfolios. The Board considered the effective fees under the Advisory Agreement and Sub-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. The Board examined, among other data, the effect of a Portfolio’s growth in size, and reduction in size, on various fee schedules and the Board reviewed the Broadridge and JDL Reports, which compared fees among peers. The Board also generally noted that if a Portfolio’s assets increase over time, the Portfolio may realize other economies of scale if assets increase proportionally more than certain other fixed expenses.

Other factors. The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trusts. Among them, the Board recognized that MetLife Investors Distribution Company, as the distributor for the Trusts, receives payments pursuant to Rule 12b-1 from the Portfolios to compensate for the provision of shareholder services and distribution activities, which could lead to growth in the Trusts’ assets and corresponding benefits from such growth, including economies of scale. The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by each Sub-Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trusts, including the opportunity to provide advisory services to additional portfolios of the Trusts and reputational benefits. In conjunction with these considerations, the Board noted the ongoing commitment of the Adviser to the Portfolios.

The Board considered possible conflicts of interest in the form of material benefits or detriments to the Trusts resulting from the nature of the Trusts’ and the Adviser’s or the Sub-Advisers’ affiliations and the services that are provided to the Trusts, and the manner in which such conflicts were mitigated.

* * *

MetLife Aggregate Bond Index Portfolio. The Board also considered the following information in relation to the Agreements with the Adviser and MetLife Investment Advisors, LLC regarding the Portfolio:

Among other data relating specifically to the Portfolio’s performance, the Board considered that the Portfolio outperformed the median of its Performance Universe and its Lipper Index for the one-year and three-year periods ended June 30, 2016. The Board further considered that the Portfolio underperformed the median of its Performance Universe and its Lipper Index for the five-year period ended June 30, 2016. The Board further considered that the Portfolio underperformed its benchmark, the Barclays U.S. Aggregate Bond Index, for the one-, three-, and five-year periods ended October 31, 2016.

The Board also 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 noted that the Portfolio’s contractual management fees were below the asset-weighted average of certain comparable funds at the Portfolio’s current size. The Board also noted that the Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees were below the averages of the Sub-advised Expense Group and Sub-advised Expense Universe at the Portfolio’s current size.

MSF-36

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Aggregate Bond Index Portfolio (formerly, Barclays Aggregate Bond Index Portfolio)

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Advisory Agreements

The separation (the “Separation”) of MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”), the investment adviser to each of the series (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”) of Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (collectively, the “Trusts”), from its parent company, MetLife, Inc. (“MetLife”), to a separate retail business, Brighthouse Financial, Inc. (“Brighthouse”), is expected to result in a change in control of the Adviser, and therefore an “assignment” of each Portfolio’s current advisory agreement (each a “Current Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “Current Advisory Agreements”). At the November 15-16, 2016 meeting (“November Meeting”) of the Board of Trustees of the Trusts (the “Board”), the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not “interested persons,” as defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940, of any Portfolio (the “Independent Trustees”), approved a new advisory agreement (each a “New Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “New Advisory Agreements”) between the Trusts, on behalf of a Portfolio, and the Adviser, to be effective upon the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements in connection with the Separation, and recommended that the shareholders of the Trusts approve the New Advisory Agreements. The Board took those actions after consideration of and deliberation over information concerning the Separation, including with respect to the degree to which the Separation would affect the provision of investment advisory services to the Trusts. Information about the Board’s considerations and process is set forth below.

In determining whether to approve the New Advisory Agreements and in considering the Separation, the Board considered the nature, quality and extent of the services that are currently provided by the Adviser under the Current Advisory Agreements as well as the services to be provided under the New Advisory Agreements. The Board’s review was conducted as part of, and in conjunction with, the Board’s annual review of the Current Advisory Agreements, which culminated at the November Meeting. In approving the New Advisory Agreements, the Board considered its conclusions with respect to its approvals of the Current Advisory Agreements, including the Board’s general satisfaction with the nature, extent and quality of services being provided by the Adviser to each Portfolio. Appendix A and Appendix B contains a further description of the process followed, information reviewed and the material factors considered by the Board in approving the continuation of the Current Advisory Agreements.

A substantial portion of the Board’s review of the New Advisory Agreements focused on the Separation, including the potential effect of the implementation of the Separation on the operations, personnel, organizational structure, capitalization, and financial and other resources of the Adviser. After being informed by the Adviser in January 2016 of the possibility of the Separation, the Board and its Committees discussed the Separation and its possible effects on the Trusts with personnel of the Adviser and the anticipated senior management at Brighthouse during the course of the Board’s or Committee’s regularly scheduled, in-person, quarterly meetings.

Between August and November 2016, the Board and the Independent Trustees engaged in an extensive review and analysis of the Separation and how the Separation related to the Adviser and the Trusts and how it could affect the services provided to the Trusts. This analysis focused on, among other matters, the assurances from Brighthouse’s anticipated leadership as to its expectations for the continuity and stability of the Adviser’s personnel throughout implementation of the Separation and for the foreseeable future thereafter. The Board considered that the Separation is being implemented as a result of MetLife’s determination to divest itself of a substantial portion of its U.S. retail business (of which the Adviser forms a portion). The Board also considered that it has been satisfied as a general matter with the nature and quality of the services that the Adviser provides to the Portfolios, including investment advisory, administrative, legal, compliance, and support services, and that it would be in the Portfolios’ best interests to maintain continuity and stability in the services that are currently being provided. The Board carefully considered the anticipated future plans of Brighthouse related to capitalization and operational matters for Brighthouse and the Adviser, as well as the importance of the Adviser to the businesses of Brighthouse after the Separation.

Among other steps in its review process, which accelerated on October 5, 2016 when Brighthouse filed its Form 10 with the SEC, the following actions were taken and considered by or on behalf of the Board:

1. The Independent Trustees solicited and received ongoing advice regarding the legal duties of the Independent Trustees from Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young LLP (“Stradley Ronon”), legal counsel for the Independent Trustees, which law firm has extensive experience regarding such matters.

2. Following the August 16-17, 2016 Board and Committee quarterly meetings, the Independent Trustees established an ad hoc group of Independent Trustees (the “Working Group”) to help oversee, coordinate, and conduct due diligence activities with respect to the Separation. The Working Group regularly reported on the due diligence activities to the other Independent Trustees.

3. Since January 2016, the Board posed ongoing inquiries to, and received regular updates from, the Adviser and anticipated senior management at Brighthouse at either in-person meetings dedicated to the status of the Separation or during the course of the Board or Committee’s regular quarterly meetings. The Board considered, among other matters, relevant legal guidance and the processes followed by certain other investment company boards of directors or trustees when they approved contracts in connection with change in control events, while recognizing the unique circumstances of the Separation.

MSF-37

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Aggregate Bond Index Portfolio (formerly, Barclays Aggregate Bond Index Portfolio)

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

4. The Board received and reviewed the Form 10 of Brighthouse that contained extensive information relating to, among other matters, Brighthouse’s anticipated business plans and financial structure. The Board also received and reviewed reports from rating agencies with respect to Brighthouse.

5. Stradley Ronon retained Barrington Partners (“Barrington”), an independent consulting firm with a specific focus on the asset management industry and experience relating to business operations such as those to be conducted by Brighthouse, including its proposed subsidiary, the Adviser, in order to help Stradley Ronon evaluate the Separation based on the Form 10 and other materials and related information provided by the Adviser and its affiliates. Barrington conducted a series of in-person and telephonic meetings with anticipated senior management at Brighthouse (i.e., the aforementioned anticipated officers of Brighthouse and others) and with personnel of the Adviser who provide services to the Trusts. Stradley Ronon, with the assistance of Barrington, evaluated the information and advised the Independent Trustees with respect to, among other matters, details of Brighthouse’s anticipated business plan to understand the implications of the Separation to the Adviser and its personnel. The Independent Trustees and the Working Group attended certain in-person and telephonic conference call meetings at which Barrington rendered advice to Stradley Ronon regarding these matters and responded to questions.

6. The Independent Trustees requested and participated in in-person meetings with anticipated senior management personnel at Brighthouse, including its President and Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, Chief Operating Officer, and Chief Investment Officer. The Independent Trustees also met with personnel of the Adviser.

7. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of Stradley Ronon, prepared written inquiries to the Adviser and its affiliates regarding the Separation, and received written assurances from the Adviser and its affiliates that they have no plans to make any material changes affecting the personnel of the Adviser (including those personnel who provide investment, administrative, legal and compliance services) and the Adviser and its affiliates will not initiate such changes without prior notice to and discussion with the Board.

8. The Board considered representations by the Adviser and its affiliates that approval of the New Advisory Agreements would be necessary for the Portfolios to continue receiving investment advisory services from the Adviser following the change in control.

9. The Board considered representations by the Adviser, as well as related supporting documentation, indicating that the New Advisory Agreements, including the fees payable thereunder, are substantially identical to the terms of the corresponding Current Advisory Agreements.

10. The Board considered representations by the Adviser and its affiliates, as well as related supporting documentation, indicating that: (1) the Adviser can be expected to provide services of the same nature, extent, and quality under the New Advisory Agreements and as are provided thereby under the Current Advisory Agreements; and (2) the Separation is not expected to result in any changes to (i) the management of the Portfolios, or (ii) the investment objective of or the principal investment strategies used to manage any of the Portfolios.

11. The Board considered the ability of the Adviser and its affiliates to retain the employment of key personnel, as well as the overall positive indications by many such personnel regarding the opportunities presented by the Separation.

12. The Board considered that the Adviser and its affiliates have agreed to bear all expenses associated with obtaining shareholder approval of the New Advisory Agreements.

13. The Board considered Brighthouse’s preliminary “branding” plans regarding the future name of its operations.

14. The Board considered the advice provided by Ropes & Gray, LLP, legal counsel to the Trusts and the Adviser, with respect to the New Advisory Agreements (including advice relating to the process and timing of seeking shareholder approval of the New Advisory Agreements, and whether shareholder approvals would be required in connection with any future aspects of the Separation) and regarding the Board’s role and responsibilities with respect to the Separation.

15. The Board considered MetLife’s stated intention of divesting its ownership interest in the Adviser through the Separation, including the potential advantages and disadvantages of this divestiture to shareholders of the Portfolios. The Board considered the likelihood that the Adviser would retain its key personnel after the Separation. The Board considered that the garnering of new assets into the Trusts is based on sales of variable annuity and variable life insurance products, which sales have declined in prior years as a result of, among other things, the capital requirements of MetLife. The Board considered the representations of the anticipated senior management of Brighthouse that the Separation provides the Trusts with an opportunity for the garnering of new assets as Brighthouse will likely sell such products going forward. The Board considered also that the divestiture would result in a change in the manner in

MSF-38

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Aggregate Bond Index Portfolio (formerly, Barclays Aggregate Bond Index Portfolio)

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

which the Trusts access certain services and resources of MetLife (after the Separation those services will be provided through a transition services agreement), the loss of affiliation with the MetLife name brand, and the possible going forward need of the Trusts to hire a transfer agent, as such transfer agency services are currently provided to the Trusts for no fee.

16. The Board considered that, if shareholders approve the New Advisory Agreements, the Board and the Adviser will conduct their annual contract review process in November 2017. Thus, the Board emphasized that it would be able to, and intends to, monitor on a regular basis the ability of the Adviser and its affiliates to comply with their undertakings to the Board and to monitor on an ongoing basis the quality of services to, and expenses of, the Portfolios. In addition, the Board considered that, under the New Advisory Agreements, it will continue to have the authority, should the need arise in its view, to terminate any of the New Advisory Agreements without penalty upon 60 days’ notice.

Based on the foregoing and other relevant considerations, at the November Meeting, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, voted to approve the New Advisory Agreements and to recommend approval of the New Advisory Agreements by shareholders of the Portfolios. In this connection, the Board concluded that, in light of all factors considered, the terms of the New Advisory Agreement, including fee rates, were fair and reasonable, and that it would be in the best interests of shareholders of each Portfolio to approve the New Advisory Agreements.

In the event that approval of the New Advisory Agreements by shareholders of the Portfolios has not been obtained before the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements as a result of the change in control of the Adviser, the Board also approved an interim advisory agreement with the Adviser (the “Interim Advisory Agreement”) on behalf of each Portfolio that will go into effect upon the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements. The Board’s determination to approve each Interim Advisory Agreement was based on the same information and considerations as the Board’s approval of the New Advisory Agreements so as to ensure continuity of advisory services from the Adviser to the Portfolios following the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements.

MSF-39

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Aggregate Bond Index Portfolio (formerly, Barclays Aggregate Bond Index Portfolio)

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Sub-Advisory Agreements

The separation (the “Separation”) of MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”), the investment adviser to each of the series (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”) of Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (“MIST” and “MSF,” respectively, and collectively, the “Trusts”), from its parent company, MetLife, Inc. (“MetLife”), to a separate retail business, Brighthouse Financial, Inc. (“Brighthouse”), is expected to result in a change in control of the Adviser, and therefore an “assignment” of each Portfolio’s current advisory agreement and, as a result, the automatic termination of the sub-advisory agreements (each a “Sub-Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisory Agreements”) between the Adviser and MetLife Investment Advisors, LLC (“MLIA”), an affiliate of the Adviser, for the MetLife Aggregate Bond Index Portfolio (formerly, Barclays Aggregate Bond Index Portfolio), MetLife Stock Index Portfolio, MetLife Mid Cap Stock Index Portfolio, Russell 2000^® Index Portfolio and MSCI EAFE^® Index Portfolio, each a series of MSF, and for MetLife Multi-Index Targeted Risk Portfolio, a series of MIST (the “MLIA Sub-Advised Portfolios”), each of which is sub-advised by MLIA. At the November 15-16, 2016 meeting (“November Meeting”) of the Board of Trustees of the Trusts (the “Board”), the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not “interested persons,” as defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940, of any Portfolio (the “Independent Trustees”), approved new sub-advisory agreements (each a “New Sub-Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “New Sub-Advisory Agreements”) for each of the MLIA Sub-Advised Portfolios, and recommended that the shareholders of the Trusts approve the New Sub-Advisory Agreements. Information about the Board’s considerations and process is set forth below.

In determining whether to approve the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, the Board considered the nature, quality and extent of the services that are currently provided by MLIA under the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements as well as the services to be provided under the New Sub-Advisory Agreements. The Board’s review was conducted as part of, and in conjunction with, the Board’s annual review of the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements, which culminated at the November Meeting. In approving the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, the Board considered its conclusions with respect to its approvals of the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements, including the Board’s general satisfaction with the nature, extent and quality of services being provided by MLIA to the MLIA Sub-Advised Portfolios. Appendix A contains a further description of the process followed, information reviewed and the material factors considered by the Board in approving the continuation of the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements.

In addition, the following actions were taken and considered by or on behalf of the Board:

1. The Independent Trustees of the Board solicited and received ongoing advice regarding the legal duties of the Independent Trustees from Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young LLP (“Stradley Ronon”), legal counsel for the Independent Trustees, which law firm has extensive experience regarding such matters.

2. The Board considered representations by the Adviser and its affiliates, including MLIA, that the Separation will not have any impact on the level, nature and quality of services currently provided by MLIA to the MLIA Sub-Advised Portfolios.

3. The Board considered representations by the Adviser and its affiliates that approval of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements would be necessary for the MLIA Sub-Advised Portfolios to continue receiving sub-advisory services from MLIA following the change in control of the Adviser.

4. The Board considered representations by the Adviser, as well as related supporting documentation, indicating that the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, including the fees payable thereunder, are the same as the terms of the corresponding Current Sub-Advisory Agreements.

5. The Board considered that the Adviser and its affiliates have agreed to bear all expenses associated with obtaining shareholder approval of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements.

6. The Board considered the advice provided by Ropes & Gray, LLP, legal counsel to the Trusts and the Adviser, with respect to the New Sub-Advisory Agreements (including advice relating to the necessity for shareholder approval for the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, the process and timing of seeking shareholder approval of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, and whether shareholder approvals would be required in connection with any future aspects of the Separation) and regarding the Board’s role and responsibilities with respect to the Separation.

7. The Board considered that, if shareholders approve the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, the Board, the Adviser, and MLIA will conduct their annual contract review process in November 2017. Thus, the Board emphasized that it would be able to, and intends to, monitor on a regular basis the ability of MLIA to comply with its undertakings to the Board and the Adviser and to monitor on an ongoing basis the quality of services to, and expenses of, the MLIA Sub-Advised Portfolios. In addition, the Board considered that, under the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, it will continue to have the authority, should the need arise in its view, to terminate any of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements without penalty upon no more than 60 days’ notice.

MSF-40

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Aggregate Bond Index Portfolio (formerly, Barclays Aggregate Bond Index Portfolio)

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

Based on the foregoing and other relevant considerations, at the November Meeting, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, voted to approve the New Sub-Advisory Agreements and to recommend approval of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements by shareholders of the MLIA Sub-Advised Portfolios. In this connection, the Board concluded that, in light of all factors considered, the terms of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, including fee rates, were fair and reasonable, and that it would be in the best interests of shareholders of each MLIA Sub-Advised Portfolio to approve the New Sub-Advisory Agreements.

In the event that approval of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements by shareholders of the MLIA Sub-Advised Portfolios has not been obtained before the termination of the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements as a result of the change in control of the Adviser, the Board also approved an interim sub-advisory agreement with MLIA (the “Interim Sub-Advisory Agreement”) on behalf of each MLIA Sub-Advised Portfolio that will go into effect upon the termination of the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements. The Board’s determination to approve each Interim Sub-Advisory Agreement was based on the same information and considerations as the Board’s approval of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements so as to ensure continuity of sub-advisory services from MLIA to the MLIA Sub-Advised Portfolios following the termination of the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements.

MSF-41

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Mid Cap Stock Index Portfolio

Managed by MetLife Investment Advisors, LLC

Portfolio Manager Commentary*

PERFORMANCE

For the 12 months ended December 31, 2016, the Class A, B, E, and G shares of the MetLife Mid Cap Stock Index Portfolio returned 20.43%, 20.14%, 20.26%, and 20.08%, respectively. The Portfolio’s benchmark, the Standard & Poor’s (“S&P”) MidCap 400 Index¹, returned 20.74%.

MARKET ENVIRONMENT / CONDITIONS

Global equity markets were mixed in the first half of 2016 on uncertainty about a global economic slowdown, potential Federal Reserve Bank (the “Fed”) interest rate hikes, the U.S. Presidential election, and Brexit. However, equity indexes rallied in the second half of the year on easy monetary policies and strong macroeconomic data. Equity markets also benefited from central bank intervention and improving commodity prices. The People’s Bank of China cut reserve requirement ratios, the European Central Bank cut rates further and the Fed lowered the expected number of rate increases for 2016. On June 23, United Kingdom voters chose to “Leave” the European Union and on the day after the unexpected vote outcome, the price of gold had its largest single day increase since 2008, the British pound fell to its lowest level in 30 years, and equity markets around the world fell as much as 8%. However, global equity markets remained resilient and continued to trend higher as concerns about the referendum abated and volatility declined. U.S. equity markets reached new all-time highs in December, following Donald Trump’s surprise victory and optimism surrounding the incoming U.S. administration’s agenda. Equity markets also benefited from better than expected macroeconomic data, including U.S. durable goods orders, U.S. consumer sentiment and U.S. home sales. Factors that weighed on the equity markets included the Fed’s decision in December to raise interest rates, diplomatic tensions between the U.S. and other major world powers and terrorism concerns.

During the year, the Federal Open Market Committee (the “Committee”) met eight times and maintained the target range for the Federal Funds Rate at 0.25% to 0.50% through November. In December, the Committee raised the target range for the Federal Funds Rate to 0.50% to 0.75%. The Committee stated that the labor market had continued to strengthen and that economic activity had been expanding at a moderate pace since mid-year. The Committee also stated that job gains have been solid in recent months and that the unemployment rate had declined.

Ten of the eleven sectors comprising the S&P MidCap 400 Index experienced positive returns for the year. Financials (27.1% beginning weight in the benchmark), up 30.6%, was the best performing sector and had the largest positive impact on the benchmark return. Industrials (15.1% beginning weight), up 28.7%, and Information Technology (16.7% beginning weight), up 21.4%, were the next best-performing sectors. Real Estate (11.8% beginning weight), down 3.0%, was the worst-performing sector. Please note, the Real Estate sector was created on August 31, 2016, by moving Real Estate companies and Real Estate Investment Trusts out of the Financials sector.

The stocks with the largest positive impact on the benchmark return for the year were Advanced Micro Devices, up 295.1%; Steel Dynamics, up 103.4%; and Idexx Laboratories, up 60.8%. The stocks with the largest negative impact were Tenet Healthcare, down 53.0%; Jones Lang Lasalle, down 36.4%; and Alaska Air Group, down 18.2%.

PORTFOLIO REVIEW / PERIOD END POSITIONING

The Portfolio is managed utilizing a full replication strategy versus the S&P MidCap 400 Index. This strategy seeks to replicate the performance of the Index by owning all of the components of the Index at their respective Index capitalization weights. The Portfolio is periodically rebalanced for compositional changes in the S&P MidCap 400 Index. Factors that impact tracking error include transaction costs, cash drag, securities lending, NAV rounding, contributions and withdrawals.

Stacey Lituchy

Norman Hu

Mirsad Usejnoski

Portfolio Managers

MetLife Investment 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 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.

MSF-1

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Mid Cap Stock Index Portfolio

A $10,000 INVESTMENT COMPARED TO THE S&P MIDCAP 400 INDEX

AVERAGE ANNUAL RETURNS (%) (FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2016)

	1 Year		5 Year		10 Year		Since Inception2
MetLife Mid Cap Stock Index Portfolio
Class A		20.43		15.05		8.94		—
Class B		20.14		14.77		8.67		—
Class E		20.26		14.88		8.78		—
Class G		20.08		14.72		—		16.71
S&P MidCap 400 Index		20.74		15.33		9.16		—

¹ The Standard & Poor’s (S&P) MidCap 400 Index is an unmanaged index measuring the performance of the mid-size company segment of the U.S. market. The Index consists of 400 domestic stocks chosen for market size, liquidity, and industry group representation.

² Inception dates of the Class A, Class B, Class E and Class G shares are 7/5/00, 1/2/01, 5/1/01 and 4/28/09, respectively.

Portfolio performance is calculated including reinvestment of all income and capital gain distributions. Performance numbers are net of all Portfolio expenses but do not include any insurance, sales, separate account or administrative charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts or any additional expenses that participants may bear relating to the operations of their plans. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower. The performance of any index referenced above has not been adjusted for ongoing management, distribution and operating expenses, and sales charges applicable to mutual fund investments. Direct investment in any index is not possible. The performance of Class A shares, as set forth in the line graph above, will differ from that of other classes because of the difference in expenses paid by policyholders investing in the different share classes.

This information represents past performance and is not indicative of future results. Investment return and principal value may fluctuate so that shares, upon redemption, may be worth more or less than the original cost.

PORTFOLIO COMPOSITION AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2016

Top Holdings

	% of Net Assets
SPDR S&P MidCap 400 ETF Trust		2.5
IDEXX Laboratories, Inc.		0.6
WhiteWave Foods Co. (The)		0.6
Duke Realty Corp.		0.6
Alleghany Corp.		0.5
Ingredion, Inc.		0.5
SVB Financial Group		0.5
CDK Global, Inc.		0.5
Synopsys, Inc.		0.5
Everest Re Group, Ltd.		0.5

Top Sectors

	% of Net Assets
Financials		18.8
Information Technology		16.8
Industrials		14.1
Consumer Discretionary		10.7
Real Estate		10.0
Health Care		7.2
Materials		7.0
Utilities		5.1
Consumer Staples		4.1
Energy		3.8

MSF-2

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Mid Cap Stock Index 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, 2016 through December 31, 2016.

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.

MetLife Mid Cap Stock Index Portfolio		Annualized Expense Ratio			Beginning Account Value July 1, 2016		Ending Account Value December 31, 2016		Expenses Paid During Period** July 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016
Class A(a)	Actual		0.29	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,117.10	$	1.54
	Hypothetical*		0.29	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,023.68	$	1.48
Class B(a)	Actual		0.54	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,116.20	$	2.87
	Hypothetical*		0.54	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,022.42	$	2.75
Class E(a)	Actual		0.44	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,116.10	$	2.34
	Hypothetical*		0.44	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,022.93	$	2.24
Class G(a)	Actual		0.59	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,115.70	$	3.14
	Hypothetical*		0.59	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,022.17	$	3.00

* 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 366 (to reflect the one-half year period).

^(a) The annualized expense ratio shown reflects the impact of the management fee waiver as described in Note 6 of the Notes to Financial Statements.

MSF-3

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Mid Cap Stock Index Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—95.1% of Net Assets

Security Description	Shares		Value
Aerospace & Defense—2.0%
BE Aerospace, Inc.		64,083	$	3,857,156
Curtiss-Wright Corp.		27,897		2,743,949
Esterline Technologies Corp. (a) (b)		18,654		1,663,937
Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc.		29,244		5,386,452
KLX, Inc. (a)		33,231		1,499,050
Orbital ATK, Inc.		36,933		3,240,132
Teledyne Technologies, Inc. (a) (b)		22,038		2,710,674
Triumph Group, Inc. (b)		31,252		828,178
				21,929,528
Airlines—0.4%
JetBlue Airways Corp. (a)		204,185		4,577,828
Auto Components—0.5%
Dana, Inc.		90,712		1,721,714
Gentex Corp.		180,708		3,558,140
				5,279,854
Automobiles—0.3%
Thor Industries, Inc.		30,182		3,019,709
Banks—6.9%
Associated Banc-Corp.		93,393		2,306,807
BancorpSouth, Inc. (b)		53,752		1,668,999
Bank of Hawaii Corp. (b)		26,928		2,388,244
Bank of the Ozarks, Inc.		57,308		3,013,828
Cathay General Bancorp (b)		46,772		1,778,739
Chemical Financial Corp.		44,495		2,410,294
Commerce Bancshares, Inc. (b)		55,012		3,180,244
Cullen/Frost Bankers, Inc. (b)		35,342		3,118,225
East West Bancorp, Inc. (b)		90,925		4,621,718
First Horizon National Corp. (b)		147,106		2,943,591
FNB Corp.		131,618		2,109,836
Fulton Financial Corp. (b)		109,286		2,054,577
Hancock Holding Co. (b)		52,396		2,258,267
International Bancshares Corp.		36,612		1,493,770
MB Financial, Inc.		44,807		2,116,235
PacWest Bancorp		75,863		4,129,982
PrivateBancorp, Inc. (b)		50,256		2,723,373
Prosperity Bancshares, Inc. (b)		43,825		3,145,758
Signature Bank (a)		33,859		5,085,622
SVB Financial Group (a) (b)		32,853		5,639,546
Synovus Financial Corp.		77,136		3,168,747
TCF Financial Corp.		107,853		2,112,840
Trustmark Corp. (b)		42,653		1,520,579
UMB Financial Corp.		27,509		2,121,494
Umpqua Holdings Corp. (b)		138,890		2,608,354
Valley National Bancorp (b)		160,537		1,868,651
Webster Financial Corp. (b)		57,853		3,140,261
				74,728,581
Beverages—0.1%
Boston Beer Co., Inc. (The) - Class A (a)		5,700		968,145
Biotechnology—0.4%
United Therapeutics Corp. (a)		26,752		3,837,039
Building Products—0.8%
A.O. Smith Corp.		93,157		4,410,984
Lennox International, Inc. (b)		24,436		3,742,862
				8,153,846
Capital Markets—3.5%
CBOE Holdings, Inc.		51,268		3,788,193
Eaton Vance Corp. (b)		71,539		2,996,053
FactSet Research Systems, Inc. (b)		25,188		4,116,475
Federated Investors, Inc. - Class B (b)		58,664		1,659,018
Janus Capital Group, Inc.		89,839		1,192,164
Legg Mason, Inc. (b)		56,699		1,695,867
MarketAxess Holdings, Inc.		23,703		3,482,445
MSCI, Inc.		59,366		4,676,853
Raymond James Financial, Inc.		79,694		5,520,403
SEI Investments Co.		84,768		4,184,148
Stifel Financial Corp. (a)		41,788		2,087,311
Waddell & Reed Financial, Inc. - Class A (b)		52,230		1,019,007
WisdomTree Investments, Inc. (b)		72,262		804,999
				37,222,936
Chemicals—2.7%
Ashland Global Holdings, Inc.		39,215		4,285,807
Cabot Corp.		39,315		1,986,980
Minerals Technologies, Inc.		22,034		1,702,127
NewMarket Corp. (b)		5,830		2,470,987
Olin Corp. (b)		104,240		2,669,586
PolyOne Corp.		52,841		1,693,026
RPM International, Inc.		84,124		4,528,395
Scotts Miracle-Gro Co. (The) - Class A (b)		28,044		2,679,604
Sensient Technologies Corp. (b)		28,094		2,207,627
Valspar Corp. (The)		46,046		4,770,826
				28,994,965
Commercial Services & Supplies—1.3%
Clean Harbors, Inc. (a) (b)		32,941		1,833,167
Copart, Inc. (a) (b)		64,322		3,564,082
Deluxe Corp.		30,651		2,194,918
Herman Miller, Inc. (b)		37,830		1,293,786
HNI Corp. (b)		28,090		1,570,793
MSA Safety, Inc. (b)		19,679		1,364,345
Rollins, Inc. (b)		60,452		2,042,068
				13,863,159
Communications Equipment—1.5%
ARRIS International plc (a)		120,263		3,623,524
Brocade Communications Systems, Inc.		253,753		3,169,375
Ciena Corp. (a)		87,885		2,145,273
InterDigital, Inc. (b)		21,623		1,975,261
NetScout Systems, Inc. (a) (b)		57,756		1,819,314
Plantronics, Inc.		20,997		1,149,796
ViaSat, Inc. (a) (b)		32,487		2,151,289
				16,033,832

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-4

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Mid Cap Stock Index Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Construction & Engineering—1.2%
AECOM (a)		97,098	$	3,530,483
Dycom Industries, Inc. (a) (b)		19,846		1,593,436
EMCOR Group, Inc.		38,251		2,706,641
Granite Construction, Inc.		24,979		1,373,845
KBR, Inc.		89,983		1,501,816
Valmont Industries, Inc. (b)		14,198		2,000,498
				12,706,719
Construction Materials—0.3%
Eagle Materials, Inc.		30,414		2,996,691
Consumer Finance—0.3%
SLM Corp. (a)		270,118		2,976,700
Containers & Packaging—1.7%
AptarGroup, Inc. (b)		39,541		2,904,287
Bemis Co., Inc.		59,105		2,826,401
Greif, Inc. - Class A (b)		16,261		834,352
Owens-Illinois, Inc. (a)		102,301		1,781,060
Packaging Corp. of America		58,900		4,995,898
Silgan Holdings, Inc.		23,602		1,207,950
Sonoco Products Co. (b)		62,977		3,318,888
				17,868,836
Distributors—0.3%
Pool Corp.		26,074		2,720,561
Diversified Consumer Services—0.7%
DeVry Education Group, Inc.		35,942		1,121,391
Graham Holdings Co. - Class B		2,933		1,501,549
Service Corp. International		120,145		3,412,118
Sotheby’s (a) (b)		29,064		1,158,491
				7,193,549
Electric Utilities—1.8%
Great Plains Energy, Inc. (b)		135,791		3,713,884
Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc.		68,448		2,263,575
IDACORP, Inc. (b)		31,790		2,560,684
OGE Energy Corp. (b)		125,957		4,213,262
PNM Resources, Inc. (b)		50,239		1,723,198
Westar Energy, Inc.		89,428		5,039,268
				19,513,871
Electrical Equipment—0.7%
EnerSys		27,392		2,139,315
Hubbell, Inc.		32,471		3,789,366
Regal-Beloit Corp.		28,232		1,955,066
				7,883,747
Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components—3.9%
Arrow Electronics, Inc. (a)		56,504		4,028,735
Avnet, Inc.		80,499		3,832,558
Belden, Inc.		26,581		1,987,461
Cognex Corp.		54,031		3,437,452
IPG Photonics Corp. (a)		23,447		2,314,453
Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components—(Continued)
Jabil Circuit, Inc. (b)		117,049		2,770,550
Keysight Technologies, Inc. (a)		107,183		3,919,682
Knowles Corp. (a)		55,961		935,108
Littelfuse, Inc. (b)		14,212		2,156,955
National Instruments Corp.		66,675		2,054,924
SYNNEX Corp.		18,315		2,216,481
Tech Data Corp. (a) (b)		22,215		1,881,166
Trimble, Inc. (a)		158,049		4,765,177
VeriFone Systems, Inc. (a) (b)		69,991		1,240,941
Vishay Intertechnology, Inc. (b)		84,422		1,367,637
Zebra Technologies Corp. - Class A (a)		33,296		2,855,465
				41,764,745
Energy Equipment & Services—1.5%
Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc. (a) (b)		40,662		719,717
Dril-Quip, Inc. (a) (b)		23,703		1,423,365
Ensco plc - Class A		191,186		1,858,328
Nabors Industries, Ltd.		178,764		2,931,730
Noble Corp. plc (b)		153,412		908,199
Oceaneering International, Inc.		61,851		1,744,817
Oil States International, Inc. (a)		32,403		1,263,717
Patterson-UTI Energy, Inc.		93,416		2,514,759
Rowan Cos. plc - Class A (a) (b)		79,117		1,494,520
Superior Energy Services, Inc. (b)		95,705		1,615,500
				16,474,652
Equity Real Estate Investment Trusts—9.6%
Alexandria Real Estate Equities, Inc.		50,088		5,566,279
American Campus Communities, Inc.		83,318		4,146,737
Camden Property Trust (b)		55,176		4,638,646
Care Capital Properties, Inc. (b)		52,955		1,323,875
Communications Sales & Leasing, Inc. (b)		88,434		2,247,108
CoreCivic, Inc.		74,142		1,813,513
Corporate Office Properties Trust		59,768		1,865,957
Cousins Properties, Inc. (b)		215,860		1,836,969
DCT Industrial Trust, Inc.		57,412		2,748,887
Douglas Emmett, Inc. (b)		90,792		3,319,356
Duke Realty Corp.		223,713		5,941,817
Education Realty Trust, Inc. (b)		46,072		1,948,846
EPR Properties (b)		40,132		2,880,274
Equity One, Inc.		58,587		1,798,035
First Industrial Realty Trust, Inc. (b)		73,742		2,068,463
Healthcare Realty Trust, Inc.		73,087		2,215,998
Highwoods Properties, Inc.		63,207		3,224,189
Hospitality Properties Trust		103,608		3,288,518
Kilroy Realty Corp.		58,158		4,258,329
Lamar Advertising Co. - Class A (b)		52,168		3,507,776
LaSalle Hotel Properties		71,326		2,173,303
Liberty Property Trust (b)		92,712		3,662,124
Life Storage, Inc.		29,266		2,495,219
Mack-Cali Realty Corp.		56,568		1,641,603
Medical Properties Trust, Inc. (b)		201,987		2,484,440
National Retail Properties, Inc.		92,794		4,101,495
Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc.		123,081		3,847,512
Potlatch Corp.		25,556		1,064,407
Quality Care Properties, Inc. (a) (b)		59,031		914,980

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-5

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Mid Cap Stock Index Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Equity Real Estate Investment Trusts—(Continued)
Rayonier, Inc.		77,281	$	2,055,675
Regency Centers Corp.		65,906		4,544,219
Senior Housing Properties Trust		149,825		2,836,187
Tanger Factory Outlet Centers, Inc.		60,592		2,167,982
Taubman Centers, Inc.		38,115		2,817,842
Urban Edge Properties (b)		57,877		1,592,196
Washington Prime Group, Inc.		116,953		1,217,481
Weingarten Realty Investors		74,311		2,659,591
				102,915,828
Food & Staples Retailing—0.6%
Casey’s General Stores, Inc. (b)		24,712		2,937,763
Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc. (a)		84,383		1,596,526
United Natural Foods, Inc. (a) (b)		31,853		1,520,025
				6,054,314
Food Products—2.9%
Dean Foods Co.		57,077		1,243,137
Flowers Foods, Inc.		115,243		2,301,403
Hain Celestial Group, Inc. (The) (a)		65,247		2,546,590
Ingredion, Inc.		45,666		5,706,423
Lamb Weston Holdings, Inc. (a)		87,481		3,311,156
Lancaster Colony Corp.		12,281		1,736,411
Post Holdings, Inc. (a)		40,921		3,289,639
Snyder’s-Lance, Inc. (b)		53,979		2,069,555
Tootsie Roll Industries, Inc. (b)		10,959		435,620
TreeHouse Foods, Inc. (a)		35,782		2,583,103
WhiteWave Foods Co. (The) (a)		111,782		6,215,079
				31,438,116
Gas Utilities—2.0%
Atmos Energy Corp.		65,573		4,862,238
National Fuel Gas Co.		53,713		3,042,304
New Jersey Resources Corp. (b)		54,307		1,927,899
ONE Gas, Inc.		32,952		2,107,610
Southwest Gas Corp.		29,948		2,294,616
UGI Corp.		109,105		5,027,558
WGL Holdings, Inc. (b)		32,285		2,462,700
				21,724,925
Health Care Equipment & Supplies—3.6%
ABIOMED, Inc. (a) (b)		25,446		2,867,255
Align Technology, Inc. (a)		47,246		4,541,758
Globus Medical, Inc. - Class A (a) (b)		45,366		1,125,531
Halyard Health, Inc. (a) (b)		29,438		1,088,617
Hill-Rom Holdings, Inc.		37,717		2,117,432
IDEXX Laboratories, Inc. (a)		56,550		6,631,619
LivaNova plc (a) (b)		27,595		1,240,947
NuVasive, Inc. (a) (b)		31,756		2,139,084
ResMed, Inc. (b)		88,910		5,516,866
STERIS plc		53,737		3,621,336
Teleflex, Inc.		27,785		4,477,553
West Pharmaceutical Services, Inc.		46,159		3,915,668
				39,283,666
Health Care Providers & Services—1.7%
HealthSouth Corp. (b)		56,636		2,335,669
LifePoint Health, Inc. (a) (b)		25,327		1,438,574
MEDNAX, Inc. (a)		58,421		3,894,344
Molina Healthcare, Inc. (a) (b)		26,879		1,458,454
Owens & Minor, Inc. (b)		38,795		1,369,076
Tenet Healthcare Corp. (a) (b)		50,274		746,066
VCA, Inc. (a)		51,176		3,513,232
WellCare Health Plans, Inc. (a)		27,935		3,829,330
				18,584,745
Health Care Technology—0.1%
Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc. (a) (b)		116,740		1,191,915
Hotels, Restaurants & Leisure—2.5%
Brinker International, Inc. (b)		31,319		1,551,230
Buffalo Wild Wings, Inc. (a) (b)		11,481		1,772,666
Cheesecake Factory, Inc. (The) (b)		27,821		1,665,921
Churchill Downs, Inc. (b)		7,857		1,182,086
Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. (b)		15,162		2,531,751
Domino’s Pizza, Inc.		30,325		4,828,953
Dunkin’ Brands Group, Inc. (b)		57,856		3,033,969
International Speedway Corp. - Class A		16,316		600,429
Jack in the Box, Inc.		20,395		2,276,898
Panera Bread Co. - Class A (a) (b)		13,771		2,824,294
Papa John’s International, Inc. (b)		16,752		1,433,636
Texas Roadhouse, Inc.		40,475		1,952,514
Wendy’s Co. (The) (b)		126,448		1,709,577
				27,363,924
Household Durables—1.4%
CalAtlantic Group, Inc. (b)		46,107		1,568,099
Helen of Troy, Ltd. (a)		17,581		1,484,715
KB Home		52,469		829,535
NVR, Inc. (a)		2,224		3,711,856
Tempur Sealy International, Inc. (a) (b)		31,771		2,169,324
Toll Brothers, Inc. (a)		94,125		2,917,875
TRI Pointe Group, Inc. (a) (b)		91,870		1,054,668
Tupperware Brands Corp. (b)		31,890		1,678,052
				15,414,124
Household Products—0.2%
Energizer Holdings, Inc.		38,939		1,737,069
Industrial Conglomerates—0.4%
Carlisle Cos., Inc.		40,682		4,486,818
Insurance—4.9%
Alleghany Corp. (a)		9,726		5,914,575
American Financial Group, Inc.		46,012		4,054,577
Aspen Insurance Holdings, Ltd.		37,980		2,088,900
Brown & Brown, Inc.		72,515		3,253,023
CNO Financial Group, Inc.		109,461		2,096,178
Endurance Specialty Holdings, Ltd.		40,507		3,742,847
Everest Re Group, Ltd.		25,780		5,578,792
First American Financial Corp.		69,266		2,537,214

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-6

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Mid Cap Stock Index Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Insurance—(Continued)
Genworth Financial, Inc. - Class A (a)		314,333	$	1,197,609
Hanover Insurance Group, Inc. (The)		26,833		2,442,071
Kemper Corp. (b)		30,670		1,358,681
Mercury General Corp. (b)		23,008		1,385,312
Old Republic International Corp.		154,033		2,926,627
Primerica, Inc. (b)		28,888		1,997,605
Reinsurance Group of America, Inc.		40,499		5,095,989
RenaissanceRe Holdings, Ltd.		25,958		3,535,999
W.R. Berkley Corp. (b)		61,242		4,073,205
				53,279,204
Internet & Direct Marketing Retail—0.1%
HSN, Inc. (b)		20,079		688,710
Internet Software & Services—0.4%
comScore, Inc. (a)		28,489		899,683
j2 Global, Inc. (b)		30,282		2,477,068
WebMD Health Corp. (a) (b)		23,329		1,156,418
				4,533,169
IT Services—3.7%
Acxiom Corp. (a) (b)		48,860		1,309,448
Broadridge Financial Solutions, Inc.		75,105		4,979,462
Computer Sciences Corp.		88,815		5,277,387
Convergys Corp. (b)		60,152		1,477,333
CoreLogic, Inc. (a)		54,473		2,006,241
DST Systems, Inc.		20,174		2,161,644
Gartner, Inc. (a) (c)		52,104		5,266,151
Jack Henry & Associates, Inc.		49,261		4,373,392
Leidos Holdings, Inc.		90,096		4,607,509
MAXIMUS, Inc.		40,857		2,279,412
NeuStar, Inc. - Class A (a) (b)		34,420		1,149,628
Science Applications International Corp.		28,272		2,397,466
WEX, Inc. (a) (b)		24,259		2,707,304
				39,992,377
Leisure Products—0.7%
Brunswick Corp.		56,569		3,085,273
Polaris Industries, Inc. (b)		37,580		3,096,216
Vista Outdoor, Inc. (a)		37,092		1,368,695
				7,550,184
Life Sciences Tools & Services—0.9%
Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. - Class A (a)		13,092		2,386,410
Bio-Techne Corp.		23,532		2,419,795
Charles River Laboratories International, Inc. (a)		29,851		2,274,348
PAREXEL International Corp. (a)		33,597		2,207,995
				9,288,548
Machinery—4.7%
AGCO Corp. (b)		42,526		2,460,554
CLARCOR, Inc.		30,663		2,528,778
Crane Co.		31,447		2,267,958
Donaldson Co., Inc.		83,291		3,504,885
Machinery—(Continued)
Graco, Inc. (b)		35,121		2,918,204
IDEX Corp.		48,088		4,330,805
ITT, Inc.		55,629		2,145,610
Joy Global, Inc.		61,913		1,733,564
Kennametal, Inc. (b)		50,416		1,576,004
Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc. (b)		39,147		3,001,400
Nordson Corp.		33,547		3,758,941
Oshkosh Corp.		46,967		3,034,538
Terex Corp.		66,793		2,105,983
Timken Co. (The)		44,171		1,753,589
Toro Co. (The)		68,946		3,857,529
Trinity Industries, Inc. (b)		96,031		2,665,821
Wabtec Corp. (b)		56,180		4,664,064
Woodward, Inc.		34,981		2,415,438
				50,723,665
Marine—0.2%
Kirby Corp. (a) (b)		33,967		2,258,806
Media—1.3%
AMC Networks, Inc. - Class A (a)		37,176		1,945,792
Cable One, Inc.		2,955		1,837,212
Cinemark Holdings, Inc. (b)		66,693		2,558,343
John Wiley & Sons, Inc. - Class A		28,341		1,544,585
Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. (a)		83,404		2,218,546
Meredith Corp. (b)		23,038		1,362,698
New York Times Co. (The) - Class A (b)		76,830		1,021,839
Time, Inc.		62,480		1,115,268
				13,604,283
Metals & Mining—2.0%
Allegheny Technologies, Inc. (b)		68,702		1,094,423
Carpenter Technology Corp. (b)		29,402		1,063,470
Commercial Metals Co. (b)		72,876		1,587,239
Compass Minerals International, Inc. (b)		21,310		1,669,638
Reliance Steel & Aluminum Co.		45,768		3,640,387
Royal Gold, Inc. (b)		41,196		2,609,767
Steel Dynamics, Inc.		153,782		5,471,564
United States Steel Corp.		108,773		3,590,597
Worthington Industries, Inc.		27,633		1,310,909
				22,037,994
Multi-Utilities—0.9%
Black Hills Corp.		33,522		2,056,240
MDU Resources Group, Inc. (b)		123,182		3,543,946
NorthWestern Corp.		30,481		1,733,454
Vectren Corp.		52,266		2,725,672
				10,059,312
Multiline Retail—0.3%
Big Lots, Inc. (b)		28,078		1,409,796
J.C. Penney Co., Inc. (a) (b)		194,451		1,615,888
				3,025,684

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-7

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Mid Cap Stock Index Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels—2.2%
CONSOL Energy, Inc.		111,429	$	2,031,351
Denbury Resources, Inc. (a) (b)		251,283		924,722
Energen Corp. (a)		61,226		3,530,904
Gulfport Energy Corp. (a)		97,417		2,108,104
HollyFrontier Corp. (b)		110,884		3,632,560
QEP Resources, Inc. (a)		151,096		2,781,677
SM Energy Co.		60,782		2,095,763
Western Refining, Inc.		49,924		1,889,623
World Fuel Services Corp. (b)		44,442		2,040,332
WPX Energy, Inc. (a)		217,260		3,165,478
				24,200,514
Paper & Forest Products—0.3%
Domtar Corp. (b)		39,473		1,540,631
Louisiana-Pacific Corp. (a)		89,704		1,698,097
				3,238,728
Personal Products—0.4%
Avon Products, Inc. (a)		275,952		1,390,798
Edgewell Personal Care Co. (a) (b)		36,526		2,666,033
				4,056,831
Pharmaceuticals—0.5%
Akorn, Inc. (a)		55,294		1,207,068
Catalent, Inc. (a)		78,681		2,121,240
Prestige Brands Holdings, Inc. (a)		33,386		1,739,410
				5,067,718
Professional Services—0.6%
CEB, Inc. (b)		20,327		1,231,816
FTI Consulting, Inc. (a) (b)		26,727		1,204,853
ManpowerGroup, Inc. (b)		42,296		3,758,846
				6,195,515
Real Estate Management & Development—0.4%
Alexander & Baldwin, Inc.		29,063		1,304,057
Jones Lang LaSalle, Inc.		28,514		2,881,054
				4,185,111
Road & Rail—1.1%
Avis Budget Group, Inc. (a) (b)		55,434		2,033,319
Genesee & Wyoming, Inc. - Class A (a)		38,664		2,683,668
Landstar System, Inc. (b)		26,352		2,247,826
Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc. (a)		43,677		3,747,050
Werner Enterprises, Inc. (b)		28,179		759,424
				11,471,287
Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment—2.7%
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (a)		479,370		5,436,056
Cirrus Logic, Inc. (a)		40,184		2,272,003
Cree, Inc. (a) (b)		62,885		1,659,535
Cypress Semiconductor Corp. (b)		202,576		2,317,469
Integrated Device Technology, Inc. (a)		84,542		1,991,810
Intersil Corp. - Class A		86,333		1,925,226
Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment—(Continued)
Microsemi Corp. (a) (b)		72,312		3,902,679
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. (b)		23,602		1,933,712
Silicon Laboratories, Inc. (a)		26,331		1,711,515
Synaptics, Inc. (a)		22,012		1,179,403
Teradyne, Inc. (b)		126,915		3,223,641
Versum Materials, Inc. (a)		68,543		1,924,002
				29,477,051
Software—4.0%
ACI Worldwide, Inc. (a) (b)		73,976		1,342,664
ANSYS, Inc. (a)		54,577		5,047,827
Cadence Design Systems, Inc. (a)		180,837		4,560,709
CDK Global, Inc.		94,294		5,628,409
CommVault Systems, Inc. (a)		26,567		1,365,544
Fair Isaac Corp.		19,515		2,326,578
Fortinet, Inc. (a)		92,769		2,794,202
Manhattan Associates, Inc. (a) (b)		44,900		2,381,047
Mentor Graphics Corp. (b)		69,078		2,548,287
PTC, Inc. (a)		72,914		3,373,731
Synopsys, Inc. (a)		95,453		5,618,364
Tyler Technologies, Inc. (a) (b)		21,023		3,001,454
Ultimate Software Group, Inc. (The) (a) (b)		18,291		3,335,364
				43,324,180
Specialty Retail—2.0%
Aaron’s, Inc. (b)		40,090		1,282,479
American Eagle Outfitters, Inc. (b)		107,832		1,635,811
Cabela’s, Inc. (a)		32,394		1,896,669
Chico’s FAS, Inc.		81,493		1,172,684
CST Brands, Inc.		47,740		2,298,681
Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc.		55,466		2,945,245
GameStop Corp. - Class A (b)		64,254		1,623,056
Murphy USA, Inc. (a) (b)		22,885		1,406,741
Office Depot, Inc. (b)		333,263		1,506,349
Restoration Hardware Holding (a)		24,136		740,975
Sally Beauty Holdings, Inc. (a) (b)		90,892		2,401,367
Williams-Sonoma, Inc. (b)		51,370		2,485,794
				21,395,851
Technology Hardware, Storage & Peripherals—0.5%
3D Systems Corp. (a) (b)		67,324		894,736
Diebold Nixdorf, Inc.		47,392		1,191,909
NCR Corp. (a) (b)		78,272		3,174,712
				5,261,357
Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods—0.7%
Carter’s, Inc.		31,139		2,690,098
Deckers Outdoor Corp. (a)		20,237		1,120,927
Fossil Group, Inc. (a) (b)		26,411		682,989
Kate Spade & Co. (a)		80,815		1,508,816
Skechers USA, Inc. - Class A (a)		84,094		2,067,031
				8,069,861

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-8

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Mid Cap Stock Index Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares/ Principal Amount*		Value
Thrifts & Mortgage Finance—0.6%
New York Community Bancorp, Inc.		307,198	$	4,887,520
Washington Federal, Inc. (b)		56,186		1,929,989
				6,817,509
Trading Companies & Distributors—0.7%
GATX Corp. (b)		25,166		1,549,722
MSC Industrial Direct Co., Inc. - Class A		28,162		2,601,887
NOW, Inc. (a) (b)		67,786		1,387,579
Watsco, Inc.		16,271		2,410,061
				7,949,249
Water Utilities—0.3%
Aqua America, Inc. (b)		111,863		3,360,365
Wireless Telecommunication Services—0.2%
Telephone & Data Systems, Inc.		58,956		1,702,060
Total Common Stocks (Cost $738,834,060)				1,023,720,060
Mutual Fund—2.5%
Investment Company Security—2.5%
SPDR S&P MidCap 400 ETF Trust (Cost $25,768,420)		91,300		27,547,949
Short-Term Investments—2.2%
Discount Notes—0.5%
Federal Home Loan Bank
0.385%, 01/25/17 (d)		975,000		974,774
0.447%, 03/24/17 (d)		3,000,000		2,996,532
0.558%, 03/17/17 (d)		1,150,000		1,148,788
				5,120,094
U.S. Treasury—1.7%
U.S. Treasury Bills 0.210%, 01/05/17 (d)		1,425,000		1,424,971
0.321%, 01/26/17 (d)		10,350,000		10,347,216
0.418%, 02/16/17 (d)		6,775,000		6,771,355
				18,543,542
Total Short-Term Investments (Cost $23,664,314)				23,663,636
Securities Lending Reinvestments(e)—20.9%
Certificates of Deposit—9.3%
Banco Del Estado De Chile New York 1.154%, 06/21/17 (f)		1,000,000		999,795
Barclays New York 0.894%, 02/10/17 (f)		4,500,000		4,501,455
Certificates of Deposit—(Continued)
Chiba Bank, Ltd., New York 0.870%, 01/10/17		1,500,000		1,500,035
0.950%, 02/02/17		1,000,000		1,000,138
Cooperative Rabobank UA New York 1.278%, 10/13/17 (f)		1,500,000		1,500,337
Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank 1.274%, 04/12/17 (f)		3,000,000		3,002,367
Credit Industriel et Commercial 1.245%, 04/05/17 (f)		1,500,000		1,500,810
Credit Suisse AG New York 1.335%, 04/03/17 (f)		1,500,000		1,500,329
1.364%, 04/11/17 (f)		2,000,000		2,000,436
1.364%, 05/12/17 (f)		2,000,000		2,000,208
DG Bank New York 0.940%, 01/12/17		3,000,000		3,000,159
0.950%, 01/03/17		1,000,000		1,000,007
DNB NOR Bank ASA 1.130%, 07/28/17 (f)		2,500,000		2,499,562
DZ Bank London 0.990%, 03/01/17		3,500,000		3,500,735
ING Bank NV 1.265%, 04/18/17 (f)		4,000,000		4,007,333
KBC Bank NV 1.000%, 01/04/17		1,000,000		1,000,000
1.050%, 01/17/17		2,500,000		2,500,300
KBC Brussells 1.050%, 01/27/17		4,900,000		4,900,931
Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen London
Zero Coupon, 01/24/17		1,795,870		1,799,226
Mitsubishi UFJ Trust and Banking Corp. 1.364%, 04/11/17 (f)		3,000,000		3,001,419
Mizuho Bank, Ltd., New York 1.395%, 04/11/17 (f)		3,000,000		3,000,903
1.436%, 04/18/17 (f)		3,700,000		3,701,162
National Australia Bank London 1.034%, 05/02/17 (f)		4,500,000		4,504,248
1.182%, 11/09/17 (f)		2,500,000		2,493,800
National Bank of Canada 0.650%, 01/06/17		7,000,000		7,000,280
Natixis New York 1.262%, 04/07/17 (f)		3,000,000		3,001,203
Rabobank London 1.281%, 10/13/17 (f)		1,500,000		1,503,598
Royal Bank of Canada New York 1.145%, 04/04/17 (f)		2,000,000		1,999,486
Sumitomo Bank New York 1.215%, 05/05/17 (f)		750,000		751,249
Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corp. London Zero Coupon, 02/06/17		1,495,968		1,498,920
Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corp. New York 1.352%, 04/07/17 (f)		2,000,000		2,001,020
1.395%, 04/12/17 (f)		2,000,000		2,002,281
Sumitomo Mitsui Trust Bank, Ltd., New York 1.194%, 06/02/17 (f)		1,000,000		999,855
1.351%, 04/26/17 (f)		5,000,000		5,000,590
1.364%, 04/10/17 (f)		2,500,000		2,500,967

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-9

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Mid Cap Stock Index Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Securities Lending Reinvestments(e)—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Certificates of Deposit—(Continued)
Svenska Handelsbanken New York 1.266%, 05/18/17 (f)		4,000,000	$	4,000,696
UBS, Stamford 1.084%, 05/12/17 (f)		2,100,000		2,099,840
Wells Fargo Bank San Francisco N.A. 1.231%, 04/26/17 (f)		2,500,000		2,500,700
1.264%, 10/26/17 (f)		2,400,000		2,401,639
				99,678,019
Commercial Paper—4.5%
ABN AMRO Funding USA 0.910%, 01/11/17		997,725		999,689
Atlantic Asset Securitization LLC 0.990%, 01/12/17		997,525		999,676
1.040%, 02/03/17		996,967		999,127
Barton Capital Corp. 1.160%, 03/28/17		5,484,050		5,485,722
Commonwealth Bank Australia 1.236%, 10/23/17 (f)		3,000,000		3,001,686
Den Norske ASA 1.206%, 04/27/17 (f)		2,500,000		2,500,132
Erste Abwicklungsanstalt 1.014%, 03/10/17 (f)		3,500,000		3,500,021
HSBC plc 1.216%, 04/25/17 (f)		5,700,000		5,699,755
Kells Funding LLC 1.040%, 01/19/17		597,885		599,764
Macquarie Bank, Ltd. 0.930%, 01/19/17		1,995,247		1,998,766
0.950%, 01/03/17		1,995,356		1,999,786
1.160%, 03/20/17		1,994,136		1,995,010
Ridgefield Funding Co. LLC 1.000%, 01/03/17		1,197,000		1,199,932
Sheffield Receivables Co. 1.050%, 01/06/17		997,258		999,870
Starbird Funding Corp. 0.930%, 02/10/17		6,483,208		6,493,766
Toronto Dominion Holding Corp. 0.600%, 01/05/17		3,995,867		3,999,552
Versailles Commercial Paper LLC 1.000%, 01/31/17		997,333		999,248
1.050%, 01/17/17		996,967		999,553
Westpac Banking Corp. 1.232%, 10/20/17 (f)		3,800,000		3,806,635
				48,277,690
Repurchase Agreements—6.4%
Citigroup Global Markets, Ltd. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/29/16 at 0.710% to be repurchased at $3,100,306 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $3,127,084 U.S. Treasury and Foreign Obligations with rates ranging from 1.750% - 2.750%, maturity dates ranging from 10/15/19 - 11/15/23, with a value of $3,162,001.		3,100,000		3,100,000
Repurchase Agreements—(Continued)
Deutsche Bank AG, London Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/16 at 0.950% to be repurchased at $1,900,201 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $1,939,710 Foreign Obligations with rates ranging from 1.750% - 2.500%, maturity dates ranging from 09/05/19 - 11/20/24, with a value of $1,938,011.		1,900,000		1,900,000
Repurchase Agreement dated 12/15/16 - 12/30/16 at 1.050% to be repurchased at $13,305,533 on 01/03/17, collateralized by various Common Stock with a value of $14,783,682.		13,300,000		13,300,000
Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. Repurchase Agreement dated 10/18/16 at 1.110% to be repurchased at $5,020,967 on 03/03/17, collateralized by various Common Stock with a value of $5,500,000.		5,000,000		5,000,000
Goldman Sachs & Co. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/16 at 0.460% to be repurchased at $1,709,480 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $8,796,870 U.S. Government Agency Obligations with rates ranging from 2.000% - 10.500%, maturity dates ranging from 03/15/17 - 09/20/65, with a value of $1,743,581.		1,709,393		1,709,393
Macquarie Bank, Ltd. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/27/16 at 0.580% to be repurchased at $3,600,406 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $3,561,679 U.S. Treasury Obligations with rates ranging from 0.000% - 8.750%, maturity dates ranging from 01/05/17 - 05/15/46, with a value of $3,673,860.		3,600,000		3,600,000
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. Repurchase Agreement dated 10/26/16 at 1.160% to be repurchased at $4,020,493 on 04/03/17, collateralized by various Common Stock with a value of $4,400,000.		4,000,000		4,000,000
Natixis Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/16 at 0.600% to be repurchased at $4,000,267 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $7,183,057 U.S. Government Agency and Treasury Obligations with rates ranging from 0.996% - 7.000%, maturity dates ranging from 01/15/20 - 12/01/46, with a value of $4,080,272.		4,000,000		4,000,000
Repurchase Agreement dated 12/28/16 at 0.750% to be repurchased at $15,002,500 on 01/05/17, collateralized by $24,076,040 U.S. Government Agency and Treasury Obligations with rates ranging from 0.000% - 4.672%, maturity dates ranging from 01/31/17 - 09/16/58, with a value of $15,301,881.		15,000,000		15,000,000

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-10

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Mid Cap Stock Index Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Securities Lending Reinvestments(e)—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Repurchase Agreements—(Continued)
Natixis Repurchase Agreement dated 12/27/16 at 0.850% to be repurchased at $10,001,653 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $16,050,693 U.S. Government Agency and Treasury Obligations with rates ranging from 0.000% - 4.672%, maturity dates ranging from 01/31/17 - 09/16/58, with a value of $10,201,254.		10,000,000	$	10,000,000
Pershing LLC Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/16 at 0.680% to be repurchased at $7,000,529 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $10,271,551 U.S. Government Agency Obligations with rates ranging from 0.625% - 11.018%, maturity dates ranging from 01/17/17 - 08/20/66, with a value of $7,140,000.		7,000,000		7,000,000
				68,609,393
Time Deposits—0.7%
OP Corporate Bank plc 1.010%, 01/04/17		2,400,000		2,400,000
1.200%, 01/23/17		1,000,000		1,000,000
Shinkin Central Bank 1.200%, 01/27/17		800,000		800,000
1.220%, 01/26/17		3,200,000		3,200,000
				7,400,000
Total Securities Lending Reinvestments (Cost $223,927,028)				223,965,102
Total Investments—120.7% (Cost $1,012,193,822) (g)				1,298,896,747
Other assets and liabilities (net)—(20.7)%				(223,027,265	)
Net Assets—100.0%			$	1,075,869,482

* Principal amount stated in U.S. dollars unless otherwise noted.

(a) Non-income producing security.

(b) All or a portion of the security was held on loan. As of December 31, 2016, the market value of securities loaned was $216,918,999 and the collateral received consisted of cash in the amount of $223,877,754. The cash collateral investments are disclosed in the Schedule of Investments and categorized as Securities Lending Reinvestments.

(c) All or a portion of the security was pledged as collateral against open futures contracts. As of December 31, 2016, the market value of securities pledged was $2,526,750.

(d) The rate shown represents current yield to maturity.

(e) Represents investment of cash collateral received from securities on loan as of December 31, 2016.

(f) Variable or floating rate security. The stated rate represents the rate at December 31, 2016.

(g) As of December 31, 2016, the aggregate cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was $1,015,253,481. The aggregate unrealized appreciation and depreciation of investments were $327,511,274 and $(43,868,008), respectively, resulting in net unrealized appreciation of $283,643,266 for federal income tax purposes.

(ETF)— Exchange-Traded Fund

Futures Contracts

Futures Contracts—Long	Expiration Date		Number of Contracts		Notional Amount			Unrealized Depreciation
S&P Midcap 400 E-Mini Index Futures		03/17/17		142		USD	24,006,007	$	(446,787	)

(USD)— United States Dollar

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-11

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Mid Cap Stock Index Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Fair Value Hierarchy

Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) define 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, separately for each major category of assets and liabilities, 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, quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities 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, or other market corroborated inputs)

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 used in determining the fair value of investments and derivative financial instruments)

The inputs or methodologies used for valuing investments are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in them. Changes to the inputs or methodologies used may result in transfers between levels, which 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, 2016:

Description	Level 1			Level 2			Level 3		Total
Total Common Stocks*	$	1,023,720,060		$	—		$	—	$	1,023,720,060
Total Mutual Fund*		27,547,949			—			—		27,547,949
Short-Term Investments
Discount Notes		—			5,120,094			—		5,120,094
U.S. Treasury		—			18,543,542			—		18,543,542
Total Short-Term Investments		—			23,663,636			—		23,663,636
Total Securities Lending Reinvestments*		—			223,965,102			—		223,965,102
Total Investments	$	1,051,268,009		$	247,628,738		$	—	$	1,298,896,747
Collateral for Securities Loaned (Liability)	$	—		$	(223,877,754	)	$	—	$	(223,877,754	)
Futures Contracts
Futures Contracts (Unrealized Depreciation)	$	(446,787	)	$	—		$	—	$	(446,787	)

* See Schedule of Investments for additional detailed categorizations.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-12

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Mid Cap Stock Index Portfolio

Statement of Assets and Liabilities

December 31, 2016

Assets
Investments at value (a) (b)	$	1,298,896,747
Cash		19,689
Receivable for:
Investments sold		3,169,271
Fund shares sold		1,090,003
Dividends		1,302,507
Prepaid expenses		2,792
Total Assets		1,304,481,009
Liabilities
Collateral for securities loaned		223,877,754
Payables for:
Fund shares redeemed		4,002,276
Variation margin on futures contracts		97,980
Accrued Expenses:
Management fees		226,460
Distribution and service fees		125,714
Deferred trustees’ fees		92,334
Other expenses		189,009
Total Liabilities		228,611,527
Net Assets	$	1,075,869,482
Net Assets Consist of:
Paid in surplus	$	707,674,609
Undistributed net investment income		13,577,624
Accumulated net realized gain		68,361,111
Unrealized appreciation on investments and futures contracts		286,256,138
Net Assets	$	1,075,869,482
Net Assets
Class A	$	494,103,292
Class B		409,334,002
Class E		39,239,440
Class G		133,192,748
Capital Shares Outstanding*
Class A		26,158,177
Class B		21,975,366
Class E		2,093,317
Class G		7,192,878
Net Asset Value, Offering Price and Redemption Price Per Share
Class A	$	18.89
Class B		18.63
Class E		18.75
Class G		18.52

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

(a) Identified cost of investments was $1,012,193,822.

(b) Includes securities loaned at value of $216,918,999.

Statement of Operations

Year Ended December 31, 2016

Investment Income
Dividends	$	17,010,280
Interest		76,574
Securities lending income		636,571
Other income (a)		72,851
Total investment income		17,796,276
Expenses
Management fees		2,437,520
Administration fees		31,793
Custodian and accounting fees		66,414
Distribution and service fees—Class B		959,566
Distribution and service fees—Class E		55,456
Distribution and service fees—Class G		332,968
Audit and tax services		42,040
Legal		33,032
Trustees’ fees and expenses		45,247
Shareholder reporting		162,423
Insurance		6,450
Miscellaneous		64,644
Total expenses		4,237,553
Less management fee waiver		(24,433	)
Net expenses		4,213,120
Net Investment Income		13,583,156
Net Realized and Unrealized Gain
Net realized gain on:
Investments		68,083,914
Futures contracts		4,251,711
Net realized gain		72,335,625
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on:
Investments		99,502,619
Futures contracts		(274,000	)
Net change in unrealized appreciation		99,228,619
Net realized and unrealized gain		171,564,244
Net Increase in Net Assets From Operations	$	185,147,400

(a) Other income represents a non-recurring refund for overbilling of prior years’ custodian out-of-pocket fees.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-13

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Mid Cap Stock Index Portfolio

Statements of Changes in Net Assets

	Year Ended December 31, 2016			Year Ended December 31, 2015
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets:
From Operations
Net investment income	$	13,583,156		$	11,066,217
Net realized gain		72,335,625			75,095,053
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation)		99,228,619			(109,787,489	)
Increase (decrease) in net assets from operations		185,147,400			(23,626,219	)
From Distributions to Shareholders
Net investment income
Class A		(5,545,745	)		(4,767,959	)
Class B		(3,993,247	)		(3,691,076	)
Class E		(419,718	)		(405,629	)
Class G		(1,094,410	)		(949,660	)
Net realized capital gains
Class A		(33,298,068	)		(25,916,508	)
Class B		(29,970,595	)		(25,360,594	)
Class E		(2,888,891	)		(2,557,138	)
Class G		(8,484,683	)		(6,872,392	)
Total distributions		(85,695,357	)		(70,520,956	)
Increase in net assets from capital share transactions		49,521,306			69,824,634
Total increase (decrease) in net assets		148,973,349			(24,322,541	)
Net Assets
Beginning of period		926,896,133			951,218,674
End of period	$	1,075,869,482		$	926,896,133
Undistributed net investment income
End of period	$	13,577,624		$	11,138,550

Other Information:

Capital Shares

Transactions in capital shares were as follows:

	Year Ended December 31, 2016						Year Ended December 31, 2015
	Shares			Value			Shares			Value
Class A
Sales		3,164,401		$	54,007,217			3,506,531		$	64,641,146
Reinvestments		2,324,584			38,843,813			1,639,127			30,684,467
Redemptions		(3,218,808	)		(56,807,431	)		(2,274,800	)		(42,411,572	)
Net increase		2,270,177		$	36,043,599			2,870,858		$	52,914,041
Class B
Sales		961,246		$	16,438,942			1,208,962		$	21,967,391
Reinvestments		2,058,415			33,963,842			1,569,513			29,051,670
Redemptions		(3,079,377	)		(53,725,241	)		(2,246,139	)		(41,819,610	)
Net increase (decrease)		(59,716	)	$	(3,322,457	)		532,336		$	9,199,451
Class E
Sales		89,484		$	1,566,085			76,495		$	1,400,972
Reinvestments		199,314			3,308,609			159,288			2,962,767
Redemptions		(340,312	)		(5,923,336	)		(336,558	)		(6,301,631	)
Net decrease		(51,514	)	$	(1,048,642	)		(100,775	)	$	(1,937,892	)
Class G
Sales		1,679,990		$	29,260,345			1,164,834		$	21,323,849
Reinvestments		583,735			9,579,093			424,881			7,822,052
Redemptions		(1,219,032	)		(20,990,632	)		(1,066,078	)		(19,496,867	)
Net increase		1,044,693		$	17,848,806			523,637		$	9,649,034
Increase derived from capital shares transactions				$	49,521,306					$	69,824,634

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-14

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Mid Cap Stock Index Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class A
	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014			2013			2012
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	17.23		$	19.01		$	18.45		$	14.47		$	12.97
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (a)		0.27			0.24			0.24			0.18			0.19
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		3.04			(0.57	)		1.41			4.46			2.05
Total from investment operations		3.31			(0.33	)		1.65			4.64			2.24
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.24	)		(0.23	)		(0.20	)		(0.19	)		(0.14	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(1.41	)		(1.22	)		(0.89	)		(0.47	)		(0.60	)
Total distributions		(1.65	)		(1.45	)		(1.09	)		(0.66	)		(0.74	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	18.89		$	17.23		$	19.01		$	18.45		$	14.47
Total Return (%) (b)		20.43			(2.35	)		9.49			33.15			17.60
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Gross ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.30			0.30			0.30			0.30			0.32
Net ratio of expenses to average net assets (%) (c)		0.29			0.29			0.30			0.30			0.31
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		1.53			1.30			1.33			1.09			1.40
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		28			25			17			16			11
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	494.1		$	411.5		$	399.6		$	370.0		$	260.2
	Class B
	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014			2013			2012
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	17.01		$	18.79		$	18.25		$	14.32		$	12.84
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (a)		0.22			0.19			0.19			0.14			0.16
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		3.00			(0.57	)		1.39			4.42			2.03
Total from investment operations		3.22			(0.38	)		1.58			4.56			2.19
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.19	)		(0.18	)		(0.15	)		(0.16	)		(0.11	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(1.41	)		(1.22	)		(0.89	)		(0.47	)		(0.60	)
Total distributions		(1.60	)		(1.40	)		(1.04	)		(0.63	)		(0.71	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	18.63		$	17.01		$	18.79		$	18.25		$	14.32
Total Return (%) (b)		20.14			(2.62	)		9.23			32.83			17.33
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Gross ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.55			0.55			0.55			0.55			0.57
Net ratio of expenses to average net assets (%) (c)		0.54			0.54			0.55			0.55			0.56
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		1.28			1.04			1.08			0.83			1.16
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		28			25			17			16			11
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	409.3		$	374.7		$	404.0		$	388.4		$	311.6

Please see following page for Financial Highlights footnote legend.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-15

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Mid Cap Stock Index Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class E
	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014			2013			2012
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	17.10		$	18.89		$	18.33		$	14.38		$	12.89
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (a)		0.24			0.21			0.21			0.15			0.17
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		3.03			(0.59	)		1.41			4.44			2.04
Total from investment operations		3.27			(0.38	)		1.62			4.59			2.21
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.21	)		(0.19	)		(0.17	)		(0.17	)		(0.12	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(1.41	)		(1.22	)		(0.89	)		(0.47	)		(0.60	)
Total distributions		(1.62	)		(1.41	)		(1.06	)		(0.64	)		(0.72	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	18.75		$	17.10		$	18.89		$	18.33		$	14.38
Total Return (%) (b)		20.26			(2.58	)		9.39			32.95			17.46
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Gross ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.45			0.45			0.45			0.45			0.47
Net ratio of expenses to average net assets (%) (c)		0.44			0.44			0.45			0.45			0.46
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		1.38			1.13			1.17			0.93			1.24
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		28			25			17			16			11
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	39.2		$	36.7		$	42.4		$	45.0		$	37.6
	Class G
	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014			2013			2012
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	16.92		$	18.70		$	18.16		$	14.26		$	12.79
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (a)		0.21			0.18			0.18			0.13			0.15
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		2.98			(0.57	)		1.39			4.40			2.02
Total from investment operations		3.19			(0.39	)		1.57			4.53			2.17
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.18	)		(0.17	)		(0.14	)		(0.16	)		(0.10	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(1.41	)		(1.22	)		(0.89	)		(0.47	)		(0.60	)
Total distributions		(1.59	)		(1.39	)		(1.03	)		(0.63	)		(0.70	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	18.52		$	16.92		$	18.70		$	18.16		$	14.26
Total Return (%) (b)		20.08			(2.68	)		9.21			32.75			17.27
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Gross ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.60			0.60			0.60			0.60			0.62
Net ratio of expenses to average net assets (%) (c)		0.59			0.59			0.60			0.60			0.61
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		1.24			1.00			1.02			0.79			1.10
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		28			25			17			16			11
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	133.2		$	104.0		$	105.2		$	103.3		$	71.4

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

(b) Total return does not reflect any insurance, sales, separate account or administrative charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts or any additional expenses that contract owners may bear under their variable contracts. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower.

(c) Includes the effects of management fee waivers (see Note 6 of the Notes to Financial Statements).

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-16

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Mid Cap Stock Index Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016

1. Organization

Metropolitan Series Fund (the “Trust”) is organized as a Delaware statutory trust and registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), as an open-end management investment company. The Trust, which is managed by MetLife Advisers, LLC (“MetLife Advisers” or the “Adviser”), an affiliate of MetLife, Inc., is currently comprised of thirty series, each of which operates as a distinct investment vehicle of the Trust. The portfolio included in this report is MetLife Mid Cap Stock Index 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.

On January 12, 2016, MetLife, Inc. announced its plan to pursue the separation of a substantial portion of its retail segment and is currently evaluating structural alternatives for such separation. It is anticipated that MetLife Advisers would be included in any such separation. Any separation transaction that might occur will be subject to the satisfaction of various conditions and approvals, including approval of any transaction by the MetLife, Inc. Board of Directors, satisfaction of any applicable requirements of the SEC, and receipt of insurance and other regulatory approvals and other anticipated conditions. MetLife, Inc. cannot currently provide a specific potential completion date for a separation transaction or any assurance that a separation will in fact occur. MetLife Advisers’ continued service as investment adviser to the Trusts following a separation transaction is the subject of a proxy statement that was filed with the SEC on December 20, 2016 and mailed to shareholders of the Portfolio on or about December 30, 2016.

The Portfolio has registered and offers four classes of shares: Class A, B, E and G shares. 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 plan and such distribution expenses are allocated to the corresponding Class of shares.

2. Significant Accounting Policies

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities as of the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of income and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates. In the preparation of these financial statements, management has evaluated events and transactions subsequent to December 31, 2016 through the date the financial statements were issued.

The Portfolio is an investment company and follows the accounting and reporting guidance of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Accounting Standards Codification Topic 946- Financial Services- Investment Companies and Topic 820- Fair Value Measurement. 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 - Domestic and foreign equity securities, such as common stock, exchange-traded funds, rights, warrants, and preferred stock, that are traded on a securities exchange on a valuation date are generally valued at their last quoted sale price or official closing price on the primary exchange for such security, or, if no sales occurred on that day, at the last reported bid price. Equity securities traded over-the-counter (“OTC”) are generally valued at the last reported bid price. In the event of a major exchange closing during the trading day, the Adviser may use other market information obtained from quotation reporting systems, established market makers, or pricing services in valuing the securities. Valuation adjustments may be applied to certain foreign equity securities that are traded solely on foreign exchanges that close before the time as of which the Portfolio determines its NAV to account for the market movement between the close of the foreign exchanges and the time as of which the Portfolio determines its NAV. The Portfolio may use a systematic fair valuation model provided by a pricing service to value securities principally traded in these foreign markets in order to adjust for possible market movements or other changes that may occur between the close of the foreign exchanges and the time as of which the Portfolio determines its NAV. Foreign equity securities valued using these valuation adjustments are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy. Equity securities that are actively traded, and have no valuation adjustments applied, are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other equity securities traded on inactive markets, or valued in reference to similar instruments traded on active markets, 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 on the valuation date and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy.

Debt securities, including corporate, convertible and municipal bonds and notes; obligations of the U.S. Treasury and U.S. government agencies; foreign sovereign issues; and non-U.S. bonds, are generally valued on the basis of evaluated or composite bid quotations

MSF-17

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Mid Cap Stock Index Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

obtained from independent pricing services and/or brokers and dealers selected by the Adviser (each a “pricing service”), pursuant to authorization of and subject to general oversight by the Board of Trustees of the Trust (the “Board” or “Trustees”). Such pricing services may use matrix pricing, which considers observable inputs including, among other things, issuer details, maturity dates, interest rates, yield curves, rates of prepayment, credit risks/spreads, default rates, reported trades, broker dealer quotes and quoted prices for similar assets. Short-term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less may be valued at amortized cost in the absence of market quotes, so long as the amortized cost value of such short-term debt instrument is approximately the same as the fair value of the instrument as determined without the use of amortized cost valuation. Floating rate loans are generally valued on the basis of an evaluated or composite average of aggregate bid and ask quotations supplied by brokers or dealers, as obtained from the pricing service. Securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally 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 sale price available as of the close of business on a valuation day or, if there is no such price available, at the last reported bid price. These types of options are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Futures contracts that are traded on commodity exchanges are valued at their settlement prices established by the exchanges on which they are traded as of the close of such exchanges and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy.

If no current market value quotation or other observable inputs are readily available or market value quotations are deemed to be unreliable for an investment, the fair value of the investment will be determined in accordance with procedures approved by, and under the general supervision of, the Board. In such a circumstance, the Board will be assisted in its responsibility to determine the fair value of an investment by the Valuation Committee (“Committee”) of MetLife Advisers. The Committee provides general pricing oversight and fair value pricing determinations related to portfolio securities and meets on a regular basis to review reports relating to the valuation of the securities in the Portfolio. The Board has delegated to State Street Bank and Trust Company, the Trust’s custodian (“custodian”), the responsibility for calculating the net asset values (“NAVs”) of the Trust’s Portfolios. The Committee is responsible for overseeing the calculation of the NAVs of the Portfolios by the custodian. The Committee also periodically reviews pricing services, including the pricing services providing fair value pricing for the Portfolio’s foreign securities, and is responsible for overseeing the correction of pricing errors and addressing other pricing issues that arise in the ordinary course of business, such as making real-time fair value determinations, as necessary.

No single standard for determining the fair value of an investment can be set forth because fair value depends upon the facts and circumstances with respect to each investment. Information relating to any relevant factors may be obtained by the Committee from any appropriate source, including the subadviser of the Portfolio, the custodian, a pricing service, market maker and/or broker for such security or the issuer. Appropriate methodologies for determining fair value under particular circumstances may include: matrix pricing, a discounted cash flow analysis, comparisons of securities with comparable characteristics, value based on multiples of earnings, discount from market price of similar marketable securities or a combination of these and other methods.

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 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. These foreign taxes have been provided for in accordance with the Portfolio’s understanding of the applicable countries’ tax rules and rates.

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 the U.S. dollar 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. Because the values of investment securities are translated at the foreign exchange rates prevailing at the end of the period, that portion of the results of operations arising from changes in exchange rates and that portion of the results of operations reflecting fluctuations arising from changes in market prices of the investment securities are not separated. 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. 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.

Dividends and Distributions to Shareholders - The Portfolio records dividends and distributions on the ex-dividend date. Net realized gains from securities 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

MSF-18

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Mid Cap Stock Index Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

distributed net investment income, accumulated net realized gains/losses, and paid-in surplus. Book-tax differences are primarily due to adjustments to prior period accumulated balances and real estate investment trust (REIT) adjustments. These adjustments have no impact on net assets or the results 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 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. As of December 31, 2016, the Portfolio had no uncertain tax positions that would require financial statement recognition, or de-recognition or disclosure.

Repurchase Agreements - The Portfolio may enter into repurchase agreements, under the terms of a Master Repurchase Agreement (“MRA”), 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, under a tri-party repurchase agreement, receives delivery of the underlying securities collateralizing any repurchase agreements. It is the Portfolio’s policy that the market value of the collateral be equal to at least 100% of the repurchase price in the case of a repurchase agreement of one-day duration and equal to at least 102% of the repurchase price in the case of all other repurchase agreements. In the event of default or failure by a party to perform an obligation in connection with any repurchase transaction, the MRA gives the non-defaulting party the right to set-off claims and to apply property held by it in connection with any repurchase transaction against obligations owed to it.

At December 31, 2016, the Portfolio invested cash collateral for loans of portfolio securities in repurchase agreements with a gross value of $68,609,393. The combined value of all repurchase agreements is included as part of investments at value on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. The value of the related collateral exceeded the value of the repurchase agreements at December 31, 2016.

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 collateral held from securities on loan. 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.

Effective September 8, 2016, the Trust has entered into a Non-Custodial Securities Lending Agreement with JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (the “lending agent”). Prior to September 8, 2016, the Trust had entered into a Securities Lending Authorization Agreement with the custodian (the “prior lending agent”). Under each agreement, the lending agent is authorized to loan portfolio securities on the Portfolio’s behalf. In exchange, the Portfolio receives either cash or government securities as collateral against the loaned securities. The Portfolio receives collateral equal to at least 102% of the market value for loans secured by government securities or cash in the same currency as the loaned shares and 105% for all other loaned securities at each loan’s inception. Collateral representing at least 100% of the market value of the loaned securities is maintained for the duration of the loan. Any cash collateral received by the Portfolio is generally invested by the lending agent in short-term investments, which may include certificates of deposit, commercial paper, repurchase agreements, time deposits and money market funds. Cash collateral that was received by the prior lending agent had been generally invested in the State Street Navigator Securities Lending MET Portfolio (the “Navigator Portfolio”), a series of the State Street Navigator Securities Lending Trust that was a registered money market fund managed by an affiliate of the custodian. The market value of investments made with cash collateral received are disclosed in the Schedule of Investments and the valuation techniques are described in Note 2. 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 is 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 is equal to at least 100% of the market value of all the loaned securities as of such preceding day. A portion of the income earned on the collateral is rebated to the borrower of the securities and the remainder is split between the lending agent and the Portfolio. On loans collateralized by government securities, a fee is received from the borrower and is allocated between the Portfolio and the lending agent.

Income received by the Portfolio in securities lending transactions during the year ended December 31, 2016 is reflected as securities lending income on the Statement of Operations. The values of any securities loaned by the Portfolio and the related collateral at December 31, 2016 are disclosed in the footnotes to the Schedule of Investments. The value of the related collateral received by the Portfolio exceeded the value of the securities out on loan at December 31, 2016.

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. The lending agent shall indemnify the Portfolio in the case of default of any securities borrower, subject to the terms of the Non-Custodial Securities Lending Agreement.

MSF-19

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Mid Cap Stock Index Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

All securities on loan are classified as Common Stocks in the Portfolio’s Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016, with a contractual maturity of overnight and continuous.

3. Investments in Derivative Instruments

Futures Contracts - The Portfolio may buy and sell futures contracts 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 cash collateral 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 whether unrealized gains or losses are incurred. These amounts are reflected as receivables or payables on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities and as a component of net change in unrealized appreciation/depreciation on the Statement of Operations. When the contract is closed or expires, the Portfolio records 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. 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. If futures contracts are exchange-traded, the exchange’s clearinghouse, as counterparty to all exchange-traded futures, guarantees the futures contracts against default. For OTC futures, the Portfolio’s ability to terminate the positions may be more limited than in the case of exchange-traded positions and may also involve the risk that securities dealers participating in such transactions would fail to meet their obligations to the Portfolio.

The following table summarizes the fair value of derivatives held by the Portfolio at December 31, 2016 by category of risk exposure:

	Liability Derivatives
Risk Exposure	Statement of Assets & Liabilities Location	Fair Value
Equity	Unrealized depreciation on futures contracts (a)		446,787

(a) Includes cumulative appreciation/depreciation of futures contracts as reported in the Schedule of Investments. Only the current day’s variation margin is reported within the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

The following tables summarize the effect of derivative instruments on the Statement of Operations, classified by derivative type and category of risk exposure, for the year ended December 31, 2016:

Statement of Operations Location—Net Realized Gain (Loss)	Equity
Futures contracts	$	4,251,711
Statement of Operations Location—Net Change in Unrealized Appreciation (Depreciation)	Equity
Futures contracts	$	(274,000	)

For the year ended December 31, 2016, the average notional par or face amount outstanding for each derivative type was as follows:

Derivative Description	Average Notional Par or Face Amount‡
Futures contracts long	$	14,200

‡ Averages are based on activity levels during the year.

4. Certain Risks

In the normal course of business, the Portfolio invests in securities and enters into transactions where risks exist. Those risks include:

Market 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, interest rate, and price fluctuations.

MSF-20

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Mid Cap Stock Index Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

Credit and Counterparty Risk: 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 and counterparty risk consist principally of cash due from counterparties and investments. The Portfolio manages counterparty risk by entering into agreements only with counterparties that it believes have the financial resources to honor their obligations and by monitoring the financial stability of those counterparties. The Portfolio’s investment adviser attempts to mitigate counterparty risk by (i) periodically assessing the creditworthiness of its trading partners, (ii) monitoring and/or limiting the amount of its net exposure to each individual counterparty based on its assessment, and (iii) requiring collateral from the counterparty for certain transactions. In order to preserve certain safeguards for non-standard settlement trades, the Portfolio restricts its exposure to credit and counterparty losses by entering into master netting agreements (“Master Agreements”) with counterparties (approved brokers) with whom it undertakes a significant volume of transactions. Master Agreements govern the terms of certain transactions, and reduce the counterparty risk associated with relevant transactions by specifying credit protection mechanisms and providing standardization that improves legal certainty. Master Agreements can also help limit counterparty risk by specifying collateral posting arrangements at pre-arranged exposure levels.

Repurchase and reverse repurchase agreements are primarily executed under Global Master Repurchase Agreements (“GMRAs”) or Master Repurchase Agreements (“MRAs”), which provide the rights to set-off. Each repurchase and reverse repurchase agreement is initially collateralized at the transaction level. In the event of default, the total market value exposure will be offset against collateral exchanged to date, which would result in a net receivable/(payable) that would be due from/to the counterparty.

Customer Account Agreements and related addenda govern cleared derivatives transactions such as futures, options on futures, and cleared OTC derivatives. Cleared derivative transactions require posting of initial margin as determined by each relevant clearing agency, which is segregated at a broker account registered with the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”), or the applicable regulator. In the U.S., counterparty risk is significantly reduced as creditors of the futures broker do not have claim to Portfolio assets in the segregated account. Additionally, portability of exposure in the event of default further reduces risk to the Portfolio. Variation margin, or changes in market value, are exchanged daily, but may not be netted between futures and cleared OTC derivatives.

Additional risks associated with each type of investment are described above within the respective security type notes. The Portfolio’s prospectus includes a discussion of the principal risks of investing in the Portfolio.

5. Investment Transactions

Aggregate cost of purchases and proceeds of sales of investment securities, excluding short-term securities, for the year ended December 31, 2016 were as follows:

Purchases			Sales
U.S. Government	Non U.S. Government		U.S. Government		Non U.S. Government
$0	$	270,783,116	$	0	$	285,543,062

6. Investment Management Fees and Other Transactions with Affiliates

Investment Management Agreement - MetLife Advisers is the investment adviser to the Portfolio. The Trust has entered into an investment management agreement with MetLife Advisers with respect to the Portfolio. For providing investment management services to the Portfolio, MetLife Advisers receives monthly compensation at the annual rate of 0.250% of average daily net assets. Fees earned by MetLife Advisers with respect to the Portfolio for the year ended December 31, 2016 were $2,437,520.

MetLife Advisers has entered into an investment subadvisory agreement with MetLife Investment Advisors, LLC (“MIA”) with respect to managing the Portfolio. For providing subadvisory services to the Portfolio, MetLife Advisers has agreed to pay MIA an investment subadvisory fee for each class of the Portfolio as follows:

% per annum			Average Daily Net Assets
	0.030	%	On the first $500 million
	0.020	%	On the next $500 million
	0.010	%	On amounts over $1 billion

Fees earned by MIA with respect to the Portfolio for the year ended December 31, 2016 were $243,647.

MSF-21

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Mid Cap Stock Index Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

Management Fee Waivers - Pursuant to an expense agreement, MetLife Advisers has agreed, for the period May 1, 2016 to April 30, 2017, to reduce its advisory fees set out above under “Investment Management Agreement” for each class of the Portfolio as follows:

% per annum reduction			Average Daily Net Assets
	0.005	%	Over $500 million and under $1 billion
	0.010	%	Of the next $1 billion
	0.015	%	On amounts over $2 billion

An identical expense agreement was in place for the period May 1, 2015 to April 30, 2016. Amounts waived for the year ended December 31, 2016 are shown as management fee waivers in the Statement of Operations.

Certain officers and trustees of the Trust may also be officers of MetLife Advisers; 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 and Service Fees - The Trust has a distribution agreement with MetLife Investors Distribution Company (“MIDC” or the “Distributor”) in which MIDC serves as the distributor for the Portfolio’s Class A, B, E, and G Shares. MIDC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife Investors Group, LLC, an affiliate of the Adviser. The Trust has also adopted a Distribution and Service Plan under Rule 12b-1 of the 1940 Act for the Portfolio’s Class B, E, and G Shares. Under the Distribution and Service Plan, the Class B, E, and G Shares of the Portfolio pay a fee to compensate the Insurance Companies (or their affiliates) and other broker-dealers and financial intermediaries involved in the offer and sale of Portfolio shares for promoting or selling and servicing the Class B, E, and G Shares of the Portfolio. The fees under the Distribution and Service Plan for each class of the Portfolio’s shares are calculated as a percentage of the Portfolio’s average daily net assets that are attributable to that Class. Currently, the fee is 0.25% per year for Class B Shares, 0.15% per year for Class E Shares, and 0.30% per year for Class G Shares. Amounts incurred by the Portfolio for the year ended December 31, 2016 are shown as Distribution and service fees in the Statement of Operations.

Deferred Trustee Compensation - Each Trustee 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 Trust. 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 Met Investors Series Trust, an affiliate of the Trust, 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 under the Plan is reflected as Deferred trustees’ fees in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

7. Contractual Obligations

Under the Trust’s organizational documents, its officers and Trustees may be indemnified against certain liabilities and expenses arising out of the performance of their duties to the Trust. Additionally, 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 Trust that have not yet occurred.

8. Income Tax Information

The tax character of distributions paid for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015 were as follows:

Ordinary Income			Long-Term Capital Gain				Total
2016	2015		2016		2015		2016		2015
$11,053,120	$	14,033,509	$	74,642,237	$	56,487,447	$	85,695,357	$	70,520,956

As of December 31, 2016, 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		Other Accumulated Capital Losses		Total
$14,672,131	$	69,971,811	$	283,643,265	$	—	$	368,287,207

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

MSF-22

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Mid Cap Stock Index Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

as short-term and/or long-term losses. Previously, net capital losses were carried forward for up to 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, 2016, the Portfolio had no post-enactment accumulated capital losses and no pre-enactment accumulated capital loss carryforwards.

9. Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In October 2016, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) adopted new rules and forms, and amendments to certain current rules and forms, to modernize reporting and disclosure of information by registered investment companies. The amendments to Regulation S-X will require standardized, enhanced disclosure about derivatives in investment company financial statements, and will also change the rules governing the form and content of such financial statements. The compliance date for the amendments to Regulation S-X is August 1, 2017. Management is currently evaluating the impact that the adoption of the amendments to Regulation S-X will have on the Portfolio’s financial statements and related disclosures.

MSF-23

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Mid Cap Stock Index Portfolio

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Shareholders of MetLife Mid Cap Stock Index Portfolio and the Board of Trustees of Metropolitan Series Fund:

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities, including the schedule of investments, of MetLife Mid Cap Stock Index Portfolio (one of the portfolios constituting the Metropolitan Series Fund) (the “Portfolio”) as of December 31, 2016, 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 Portfolio’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 Portfolio 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 Portfolio’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, 2016, by correspondence with the custodian and brokers; when 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 MetLife Mid Cap Stock Index Portfolio of the Metropolitan Series Fund as of December 31, 2016, 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.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

February 24, 2017

MSF-24

Metropolitan Series Fund

Trustees and Officers

MANAGEMENT OF THE TRUSTS

The Boards of Trustees (the “Board”) of Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (“MIST” and “MSF”, respectively, and collectively the “Trusts”) supervise the Trusts and are responsible for representing the interests of shareholders. The Trustees, the Chairman of the Board and the Chairmen of each subcommittee are the same for both Trusts. The Trustees of each Trust meet periodically throughout the year to oversee the Portfolios’ activities, reviewing, among other things, each Portfolio’s performance and its contractual arrangements with various service providers. The Trustees of each Trust elect the officers of the Trust, who are responsible for administering the Trust’s day-to-day operations.

Trustees and Officers

The Trustees and executive officers of the Trusts, as well as their ages and their principal occupations during the past five years, are set forth below. Unless otherwise indicated, the business address of each is c/o MetLife Funds, One Financial Center, Boston, Massachusetts 02111. Each Trustee who is deemed an “interested person,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, is referred to as an “Interested Trustee.” Those Trustees who are not “interested persons,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, are referred to as “Independent Trustees.” There is no limit to the term a Trustee may serve. Trustees serve until their death, resignation or removal in accordance with the MIST Trust’s and MSF Trust’s respective organizational documents and policies adopted by the Boards of the respective Trusts from time to time. Officers hold office at the pleasure of each Board and serve until their removal or resignation in accordance with the Trusts’ respective organizational documents and policies adopted by the Board of each Trust from time to time.

Name and Age	Current 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 MetLife Funds Complex(2) Overseen by Trustee	Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Interested Trustee
John Rosenthal* (56)	Trustee	Indefinite; From May 2016 (MIST and MSF) to present	Senior Managing Director and Head of Global Portfolio Management, MetLife, Inc.	75	None
Independent Trustees
Dawn M. Vroegop (50)	Trustee and Chairman of the Board	Indefinite; From December 2000 (MIST)/ May 2009 (MSF) to present as Trustee; From May 2016 (MIST and MSF) until present as Chairman	Private Investor.	75	Trustee, Driehaus Mutual Funds.**
Stephen M. Alderman (57)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 (MIST)/ April 2012 (MSF) to present	Shareholder in the law firm of Garfield and Merel, Ltd.	75	None

MSF-25

Metropolitan Series Fund

Trustees and Officers—(Continued)

Name and Age	Current 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 MetLife Funds Complex(2) Overseen by Trustee	Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Robert J. Boulware (60)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 (MIST)/ April 2012 (MSF) to present	Managing Director, Pilgrim Funds, LLC (private equity fund).	75	Trustee, Vertical Capital Income Fund (closed-end fund);** Director, Gainsco, Inc. (auto insurance);** Trustee, SharesPost 100 Fund (closed-end fund).**
Susan C. Gause (64)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 (MIST)/ April 2012 (MSF) to present	Private Investor.	75	Trustee, HSBC Funds.**
Nancy Hawthorne (65)	Trustee	Indefinite; From May 2003 (MSF)/ April 2012 (MIST) to present	Partner, Hawthorne Financial Advisors, LLC (registered investment advisor); until June 2014, Chief Executive Officer, Clerestory LLC (corporate advisor).	75	Director and Chairman of the Board of Directors, THL Credit, Inc.;** Lead Director, Avid Technology, Inc.;** Director, CRA International, Inc.**
Barbara A. Nugent (60)	Trustee	Indefinite; From January 2014 (MIST and MSF) to present	President, True North Board Governance, LLC (consulting); until December 2013, partner in the law firm of Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young, LLP.	75	None
Linda B. Strumpf (69)	Trustee	Indefinite; From May 2000 (MSF)/ April 2012 (MIST) to present	Chair of the Investment Committee, Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust; until June 2011, Chief Investment Officer, Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust.	75	None

Executive Officers

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Kristi Slavin (43)	President and Chief Executive Officer, of MIST and MSF	From May 2016 (MIST and MSF) to present	President, MetLife Advisers, LLC (May 2016-present); Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Vice President, MetLife, Inc.; Vice President, MIST and MSF (2015-2016).

MSF-26

Metropolitan Series Fund

Trustees and Officers—(Continued)

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Peter H. Duffy (61)	Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, of MIST and MSF	From November 2000 (MSF)/ May 2012 (MIST) to present	Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Andrew L. Gangolf (62)	Secretary, of MIST and MSF	From May 2011 (MIST and MSF) to present	Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; until 2011, Senior Vice President & Assistant General Counsel, AllianceBernstein Investments, Inc.
Steven E. Hartstein (53)	Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”), of MIST and MSF	From February 2014 (MIST and MSF) to present	Vice President, MetLife, Inc. (2013- present); Senior Vice President and CCO, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Executive Director, Morgan Stanley (2009-2013); CCO, Consulting Group Capital Markets Funds (2006-2013).
Alan C. Leland (64)	Vice President, of MIST and MSF	From February 2005 (MSF)/ May 2012 (MIST) to present	Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Vice President, MetLife, Inc.

* Mr. Rosenthal is an “interested person” of the Trusts because of his position with MetLife, Inc., the current parent company of MetLife Advisers, LLC.

** 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 Trusts, MetLife, Inc. or the Manager are omitted if not materially different.

(2) The Fund Complex includes 45 MIST Portfolios and 30 MSF Portfolios.

MSF-27

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Mid Cap Stock Index Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements

At an in-person meeting held on November 15-16, 2016 (the “November Meeting”), the Boards of Trustees (the “Board”) of the Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (“MIST” and “MSF,” respectively, and collectively, the “Trusts”), including a majority of the Trustees who are not “interested persons” of the Trusts (the “Independent Trustees”) under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “1940 Act”), approved the continuation of the Trusts’ advisory agreements (each, an “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 the series of the Trusts (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”).

In reaching that decision, the Board reviewed a variety of materials provided for the specific purpose of the annual contract renewal process. In addition, various materials provided to and discussed with the Board throughout the year also informed the Board’s decision to renew the Agreements. That information for each Portfolio included, but was not limited to, investment performance reports, along with periodic reports on various expenses, shareholder services, legal and compliance matters, asset pricing, brokerage commissions and trade execution. The Board also recognized the pending separation of the Adviser from its parent company, MetLife, Inc., as a consideration in their deliberations with respect to the Agreements.

The Board met in person with personnel of the Adviser on September 27, 2016 for the specific purpose of giving preliminary consideration to the proposed continuation of the Agreements (the “September Meeting”) through the review by the Adviser with the Board of the performance and fees experienced by each Portfolio, as well as other information. In considering the Agreements, the Independent Trustees were advised by independent legal counsel throughout the contract renewal process, and met with independent legal counsel in several executive sessions outside of the presence of management.

Information furnished and reviewed specifically in connection with the renewal process included, but was not limited to, a report for each Portfolio prepared by Broadridge (“Broadridge”), an independent organization, and a Portfolio-by-Portfolio profitability analysis prepared by the Adviser. In addition, the Independent Trustees received and reviewed a report prepared by JDL Consultants, LLC (“JDL”), an independent consultant to the Independent Trustees (“JDL Report”), which examined the comparative fees, expenses and performance of each Portfolio, based upon the Broadridge reports. Also, the Board reviewed the responses to wide-ranging questions relating to the business, operations and performance of the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers that the Adviser and Sub-Advisers had prepared specifically for the renewal process.

At the November Meeting, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, concluded that the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser supported the renewal of the Agreements. The Board also concluded that the investment performance of each Portfolio was such that each Agreement should continue, and that the fees paid by a Portfolio to the Adviser appeared to be reasonable in light of the nature, extent and quality of the services provided by the Adviser and Sub-Adviser. Further, the Board concluded that the Adviser’s profitability in providing services under the Advisory Agreements did not appear unreasonably high in light of the nature, extent and quality of the services provided by the Adviser. Finally, the Board concluded that the investment advisory fees paid by the Portfolios in some measure shared economies of scale with contract holders. In approving the renewal of each of the Agreements, the Board, including the Independent Trustees, gave attention to all of the information that was furnished. The Board evaluated the information available to it on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis, and its decision was made separately with respect to each Portfolio. The following discusses some of the primary factors that generally were relevant to the Board’s decision. The Board did not identify any single factor as controlling, and the Trustees generally attributed different weights to various factors for the various Portfolios.

Nature, extent and quality of services. The Board evaluated the nature, extent and quality of the services that the Adviser, and the Sub-Advisers as relevant, have provided to the Portfolios. The Board considered the Adviser’s services as investment manager to the Portfolios, including its services relating to the oversight of the Sub-Advisers and their investment management activities, trading practices, financial condition, relevant personnel matters and compliance programs, among other things. The Adviser’s services in coordinating and overseeing the activities of the Trusts’ other service providers were also considered. The Board considered information received from the Trusts’ Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) regarding the Portfolios’ compliance policies and procedures that were established pursuant to Rule 38a-l under the 1940 Act. In addition, throughout the year, the Board considered the expertise, experience and performance of the personnel of the Adviser who performed the various services that are mentioned above.

The Board also noted that the Adviser’s investment, compliance and legal staff conduct regular, periodic, telephonic and in-person meetings with the Sub-Advisers to review and assess the services that are provided to the Portfolios, and that personnel of the Adviser prepare and present reports to the Independent Trustees regarding those meetings.

MSF-28

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Mid Cap Stock Index Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

With respect to the services provided by each of the Sub-Advisers, the Board considered a variety of information that the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser provided. The Board considered each Sub-Adviser’s investment process and philosophy, and the investment performance experienced by the Portfolio (as described in more detail below). The Board took into account that each Sub-Adviser’s responsibilities include the development and maintenance of an investment program for the applicable Portfolio that 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. In particular, the Board considered, among other things, the Sub-Adviser’s current level of staffing as well as its compensation program and its overall resources. The Board reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s history and investment experience, as well as information provided 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 regulatory and disciplinary history. In its review, the Board also took into account information regarding any services and/or payments provided to the Adviser by the Sub-Advisers in connection with marketing activities.

Performance. The Board placed emphasis on the performance of the Portfolios in light of, among other things, its importance to contract holders. The Board considered the Adviser’s quarterly reviews with the Board of detailed information about each Portfolio’s investment strategies and performance results and composition, including discussions regarding the relevant effect of current market conditions. The Board reviewed and considered the reports prepared by Broadridge, which provided a statistical analysis comparing the Portfolios’ investment performance to that of comparable funds underlying variable insurance products (the “Performance Universe”). The Independent Trustees also met separately with a representative of JDL during the September Meeting to review the JDL Report. The Board also compared the performance records of certain Portfolios to those of comparable funds that were managed by the relevant Sub-Adviser. At the November Meeting, the Board considered each Portfolio’s performance for periods subsequent to the performance period covered by the Broadridge reports, and the Adviser’s discussion of the same, including the effect of current market conditions on each Portfolio’s more recent performance.

The Board focused particular attention on Portfolios with less favorable performance records. The Board noted the Adviser’s focus on each Sub-Adviser’s performance and that the Adviser has been active in monitoring and responding to any performance issues with respect to the Portfolios.

Fees and Expenses. The Board gave consideration to the level and method of computing the fees payable under the Agreements. The Board considered the Broadridge report for each of the Portfolios, which included comparisons for each Portfolio of its contractual management and sub-adviser fees (at current and various asset levels), and total expenses, with those of its peers, including as those peers were divided into a broad group of peer funds (“Expense Universe”), a narrower group of peer funds (“Expense Group”), a broad group of peer sub-advised funds (“Sub-advised Expense Universe”), and a narrower group of peer sub-advised funds (“Sub-advised Expense Group”). Broadridge selected the peer funds which were similarly situated funds underlying variable insurance products deemed to be comparable to the Portfolios. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of JDL, also examined the JDL Report. The Board compared the fee payable to a Sub-Adviser by the Adviser with respect to the Portfolio to the fee payable to the Sub-Adviser by other comparable funds and accounts, to the extent such information was available.

The Board noted that the sub-advisory fees for the Portfolios are paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fee, and that, in the case of an unaffiliated Sub-Adviser, the Adviser negotiates the fee at arm’s length. The Board also considered that the Adviser had entered into expense limitation or management fee waiver agreements with certain of the Portfolios pursuant to which the Adviser had 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.

Profitability. The Board examined the profitability of the Adviser on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis. The Board also considered that an affiliate of the Adviser, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, serves as distributor for the Trusts, and, as such, receives Rule 12b-1 payments to support the distribution of the Portfolios. The Board considered the profitability to the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates as a result of their relationships with the Portfolios, to the extent available, and the Board considered the ability of the Adviser to negotiate with an unaffiliated Sub-Adviser at arm’s length. In reviewing the profitability analyses, the Board recognized that expense allocation methodologies are inherently subjective and various expense allocation methodologies may be reasonable while producing different results.

Economies of scale. The Board also considered each Portfolio’s fees in light of its size. The Board noted the fee schedules for the Portfolios that 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

MSF-29

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Mid Cap Stock Index Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

schedule for such Portfolios. The Board considered the effective fees under the Advisory Agreement and Sub-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. The Board examined, among other data, the effect of a Portfolio’s growth in size, and reduction in size, on various fee schedules and the Board reviewed the Broadridge and JDL Reports, which compared fees among peers. The Board also generally noted that if a Portfolio’s assets increase over time, the Portfolio may realize other economies of scale if assets increase proportionally more than certain other fixed expenses.

Other factors. The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trusts. Among them, the Board recognized that MetLife Investors Distribution Company, as the distributor for the Trusts, receives payments pursuant to Rule 12b-1 from the Portfolios to compensate for the provision of shareholder services and distribution activities, which could lead to growth in the Trusts’ assets and corresponding benefits from such growth, including economies of scale. The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by each Sub-Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trusts, including the opportunity to provide advisory services to additional portfolios of the Trusts and reputational benefits. In conjunction with these considerations, the Board noted the ongoing commitment of the Adviser to the Portfolios.

The Board considered possible conflicts of interest in the form of material benefits or detriments to the Trusts resulting from the nature of the Trusts’ and the Adviser’s or the Sub-Advisers’ affiliations and the services that are provided to the Trusts, and the manner in which such conflicts were mitigated.

* * *

MetLife Mid Cap Stock Index Portfolio. The Board also considered the following information in relation to the Agreements with the Adviser and MetLife Investment Advisors, LLC regarding the Portfolio:

Among other data relating specifically to the 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, 2016. The Board further considered that the Portfolio underperformed its benchmark, the S&P 400 Index, for the one-, three-, and five-year periods ended October 31, 2016.

The Board also 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 asset-weighted average of certain comparable funds at the Portfolio’s current size. The Board also took into account that the Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees were below the averages of the Sub-advised Expense Group and the Sub-advised Expense Universe at the Portfolio’s current size.

MSF-30

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Mid Cap Stock Index Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Advisory Agreements

The separation (the “Separation”) of MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”), the investment adviser to each of the series (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”) of Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (collectively, the “Trusts”), from its parent company, MetLife, Inc. (“MetLife”), to a separate retail business, Brighthouse Financial, Inc. (“Brighthouse”), is expected to result in a change in control of the Adviser, and therefore an “assignment” of each Portfolio’s current advisory agreement (each a “Current Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “Current Advisory Agreements”). At the November 15-16, 2016 meeting (“November Meeting”) of the Board of Trustees of the Trusts (the “Board”), the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not “interested persons,” as defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940, of any Portfolio (the “Independent Trustees”), approved a new advisory agreement (each a “New Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “New Advisory Agreements”) between the Trusts, on behalf of a Portfolio, and the Adviser, to be effective upon the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements in connection with the Separation, and recommended that the shareholders of the Trusts approve the New Advisory Agreements. The Board took those actions after consideration of and deliberation over information concerning the Separation, including with respect to the degree to which the Separation would affect the provision of investment advisory services to the Trusts. Information about the Board’s considerations and process is set forth below.

In determining whether to approve the New Advisory Agreements and in considering the Separation, the Board considered the nature, quality and extent of the services that are currently provided by the Adviser under the Current Advisory Agreements as well as the services to be provided under the New Advisory Agreements. The Board’s review was conducted as part of, and in conjunction with, the Board’s annual review of the Current Advisory Agreements, which culminated at the November Meeting. In approving the New Advisory Agreements, the Board considered its conclusions with respect to its approvals of the Current Advisory Agreements, including the Board’s general satisfaction with the nature, extent and quality of services being provided by the Adviser to each Portfolio. Appendix A and Appendix B contains a further description of the process followed, information reviewed and the material factors considered by the Board in approving the continuation of the Current Advisory Agreements.

A substantial portion of the Board’s review of the New Advisory Agreements focused on the Separation, including the potential effect of the implementation of the Separation on the operations, personnel, organizational structure, capitalization, and financial and other resources of the Adviser. After being informed by the Adviser in January 2016 of the possibility of the Separation, the Board and its Committees discussed the Separation and its possible effects on the Trusts with personnel of the Adviser and the anticipated senior management at Brighthouse during the course of the Board’s or Committee’s regularly scheduled, in-person, quarterly meetings.

Between August and November 2016, the Board and the Independent Trustees engaged in an extensive review and analysis of the Separation and how the Separation related to the Adviser and the Trusts and how it could affect the services provided to the Trusts. This analysis focused on, among other matters, the assurances from Brighthouse’s anticipated leadership as to its expectations for the continuity and stability of the Adviser’s personnel throughout implementation of the Separation and for the foreseeable future thereafter. The Board considered that the Separation is being implemented as a result of MetLife’s determination to divest itself of a substantial portion of its U.S. retail business (of which the Adviser forms a portion). The Board also considered that it has been satisfied as a general matter with the nature and quality of the services that the Adviser provides to the Portfolios, including investment advisory, administrative, legal, compliance, and support services, and that it would be in the Portfolios’ best interests to maintain continuity and stability in the services that are currently being provided. The Board carefully considered the anticipated future plans of Brighthouse related to capitalization and operational matters for Brighthouse and the Adviser, as well as the importance of the Adviser to the businesses of Brighthouse after the Separation.

Among other steps in its review process, which accelerated on October 5, 2016 when Brighthouse filed its Form 10 with the SEC, the following actions were taken and considered by or on behalf of the Board:

1. The Independent Trustees solicited and received ongoing advice regarding the legal duties of the Independent Trustees from Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young LLP (“Stradley Ronon”), legal counsel for the Independent Trustees, which law firm has extensive experience regarding such matters.

2. Following the August 16-17, 2016 Board and Committee quarterly meetings, the Independent Trustees established an ad hoc group of Independent Trustees (the “Working Group”) to help oversee, coordinate, and conduct due diligence activities with respect to the Separation. The Working Group regularly reported on the due diligence activities to the other Independent Trustees.

3. Since January 2016, the Board posed ongoing inquiries to, and received regular updates from, the Adviser and anticipated senior management at Brighthouse at either in-person meetings dedicated to the status of the Separation or during the course of the Board or Committee’s regular quarterly meetings. The Board considered, among other matters, relevant legal guidance and the processes followed by certain other investment company boards of directors or trustees when they approved contracts in connection with change in control events, while recognizing the unique circumstances of the Separation.

MSF-31

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Mid Cap Stock Index Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

4. The Board received and reviewed the Form 10 of Brighthouse that contained extensive information relating to, among other matters, Brighthouse’s anticipated business plans and financial structure. The Board also received and reviewed reports from rating agencies with respect to Brighthouse.

5. Stradley Ronon retained Barrington Partners (“Barrington”), an independent consulting firm with a specific focus on the asset management industry and experience relating to business operations such as those to be conducted by Brighthouse, including its proposed subsidiary, the Adviser, in order to help Stradley Ronon evaluate the Separation based on the Form 10 and other materials and related information provided by the Adviser and its affiliates. Barrington conducted a series of in-person and telephonic meetings with anticipated senior management at Brighthouse (i.e., the aforementioned anticipated officers of Brighthouse and others) and with personnel of the Adviser who provide services to the Trusts. Stradley Ronon, with the assistance of Barrington, evaluated the information and advised the Independent Trustees with respect to, among other matters, details of Brighthouse’s anticipated business plan to understand the implications of the Separation to the Adviser and its personnel. The Independent Trustees and the Working Group attended certain in-person and telephonic conference call meetings at which Barrington rendered advice to Stradley Ronon regarding these matters and responded to questions.

6. The Independent Trustees requested and participated in in-person meetings with anticipated senior management personnel at Brighthouse, including its President and Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, Chief Operating Officer, and Chief Investment Officer. The Independent Trustees also met with personnel of the Adviser.

7. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of Stradley Ronon, prepared written inquiries to the Adviser and its affiliates regarding the Separation, and received written assurances from the Adviser and its affiliates that they have no plans to make any material changes affecting the personnel of the Adviser (including those personnel who provide investment, administrative, legal and compliance services) and the Adviser and its affiliates will not initiate such changes without prior notice to and discussion with the Board.

8. The Board considered representations by the Adviser and its affiliates that approval of the New Advisory Agreements would be necessary for the Portfolios to continue receiving investment advisory services from the Adviser following the change in control.

9. The Board considered representations by the Adviser, as well as related supporting documentation, indicating that the New Advisory Agreements, including the fees payable thereunder, are substantially identical to the terms of the corresponding Current Advisory Agreements.

10. The Board considered representations by the Adviser and its affiliates, as well as related supporting documentation, indicating that: (1) the Adviser can be expected to provide services of the same nature, extent, and quality under the New Advisory Agreements and as are provided thereby under the Current Advisory Agreements; and (2) the Separation is not expected to result in any changes to (i) the management of the Portfolios, or (ii) the investment objective of or the principal investment strategies used to manage any of the Portfolios.

11. The Board considered the ability of the Adviser and its affiliates to retain the employment of key personnel, as well as the overall positive indications by many such personnel regarding the opportunities presented by the Separation.

12. The Board considered that the Adviser and its affiliates have agreed to bear all expenses associated with obtaining shareholder approval of the New Advisory Agreements.

13. The Board considered Brighthouse’s preliminary “branding” plans regarding the future name of its operations.

14. The Board considered the advice provided by Ropes & Gray, LLP, legal counsel to the Trusts and the Adviser, with respect to the New Advisory Agreements (including advice relating to the process and timing of seeking shareholder approval of the New Advisory Agreements, and whether shareholder approvals would be required in connection with any future aspects of the Separation) and regarding the Board’s role and responsibilities with respect to the Separation.

15. The Board considered MetLife’s stated intention of divesting its ownership interest in the Adviser through the Separation, including the potential advantages and disadvantages of this divestiture to shareholders of the Portfolios. The Board considered the likelihood that the Adviser would retain its key personnel after the Separation. The Board considered that the garnering of new assets into the Trusts is based on sales of variable annuity and variable life insurance products, which sales have declined in prior years as a result of, among other things, the capital requirements of MetLife. The Board considered the representations of the anticipated senior management of Brighthouse that the Separation provides the Trusts with an opportunity for the garnering of new assets as Brighthouse will likely sell such products going forward. The Board considered also that the divestiture would result in a change in the manner in

MSF-32

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Mid Cap Stock Index Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

which the Trusts access certain services and resources of MetLife (after the Separation those services will be provided through a transition services agreement), the loss of affiliation with the MetLife name brand, and the possible going forward need of the Trusts to hire a transfer agent, as such transfer agency services are currently provided to the Trusts for no fee.

16. The Board considered that, if shareholders approve the New Advisory Agreements, the Board and the Adviser will conduct their annual contract review process in November 2017. Thus, the Board emphasized that it would be able to, and intends to, monitor on a regular basis the ability of the Adviser and its affiliates to comply with their undertakings to the Board and to monitor on an ongoing basis the quality of services to, and expenses of, the Portfolios. In addition, the Board considered that, under the New Advisory Agreements, it will continue to have the authority, should the need arise in its view, to terminate any of the New Advisory Agreements without penalty upon 60 days’ notice.

Based on the foregoing and other relevant considerations, at the November Meeting, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, voted to approve the New Advisory Agreements and to recommend approval of the New Advisory Agreements by shareholders of the Portfolios. In this connection, the Board concluded that, in light of all factors considered, the terms of the New Advisory Agreement, including fee rates, were fair and reasonable, and that it would be in the best interests of shareholders of each Portfolio to approve the New Advisory Agreements.

In the event that approval of the New Advisory Agreements by shareholders of the Portfolios has not been obtained before the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements as a result of the change in control of the Adviser, the Board also approved an interim advisory agreement with the Adviser (the “Interim Advisory Agreement”) on behalf of each Portfolio that will go into effect upon the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements. The Board’s determination to approve each Interim Advisory Agreement was based on the same information and considerations as the Board’s approval of the New Advisory Agreements so as to ensure continuity of advisory services from the Adviser to the Portfolios following the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements.

MSF-33

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Mid Cap Stock Index Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Sub-Advisory Agreements

The separation (the “Separation”) of MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”), the investment adviser to each of the series (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”) of Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (“MIST” and “MSF,” respectively, and collectively, the “Trusts”), from its parent company, MetLife, Inc. (“MetLife”), to a separate retail business, Brighthouse Financial, Inc. (“Brighthouse”), is expected to result in a change in control of the Adviser, and therefore an “assignment” of each Portfolio’s current advisory agreement and, as a result, the automatic termination of the sub-advisory agreements (each a “Sub-Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisory Agreements”) between the Adviser and MetLife Investment Advisors, LLC (“MLIA”), an affiliate of the Adviser, for the MetLife Aggregate Bond Index Portfolio (formerly, Barclays Aggregate Bond Index Portfolio), MetLife Stock Index Portfolio, MetLife Mid Cap Stock Index Portfolio, Russell 2000^® Index Portfolio and MSCI EAFE^® Index Portfolio, each a series of MSF, and for MetLife Multi-Index Targeted Risk Portfolio, a series of MIST (the “MLIA Sub-Advised Portfolios”), each of which is sub-advised by MLIA. At the November 15-16, 2016 meeting (“November Meeting”) of the Board of Trustees of the Trusts (the “Board”), the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not “interested persons,” as defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940, of any Portfolio (the “Independent Trustees”), approved new sub-advisory agreements (each a “New Sub-Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “New Sub-Advisory Agreements”) for each of the MLIA Sub-Advised Portfolios, and recommended that the shareholders of the Trusts approve the New Sub-Advisory Agreements. Information about the Board’s considerations and process is set forth below.

In determining whether to approve the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, the Board considered the nature, quality and extent of the services that are currently provided by MLIA under the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements as well as the services to be provided under the New Sub-Advisory Agreements. The Board’s review was conducted as part of, and in conjunction with, the Board’s annual review of the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements, which culminated at the November Meeting. In approving the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, the Board considered its conclusions with respect to its approvals of the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements, including the Board’s general satisfaction with the nature, extent and quality of services being provided by MLIA to the MLIA Sub-Advised Portfolios. Appendix A contains a further description of the process followed, information reviewed and the material factors considered by the Board in approving the continuation of the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements.

In addition, the following actions were taken and considered by or on behalf of the Board:

1. The Independent Trustees of the Board solicited and received ongoing advice regarding the legal duties of the Independent Trustees from Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young LLP (“Stradley Ronon”), legal counsel for the Independent Trustees, which law firm has extensive experience regarding such matters.

2. The Board considered representations by the Adviser and its affiliates, including MLIA, that the Separation will not have any impact on the level, nature and quality of services currently provided by MLIA to the MLIA Sub-Advised Portfolios.

3. The Board considered representations by the Adviser and its affiliates that approval of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements would be necessary for the MLIA Sub-Advised Portfolios to continue receiving sub-advisory services from MLIA following the change in control of the Adviser.

4. The Board considered representations by the Adviser, as well as related supporting documentation, indicating that the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, including the fees payable thereunder, are the same as the terms of the corresponding Current Sub-Advisory Agreements.

5. The Board considered that the Adviser and its affiliates have agreed to bear all expenses associated with obtaining shareholder approval of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements.

6. The Board considered the advice provided by Ropes & Gray, LLP, legal counsel to the Trusts and the Adviser, with respect to the New Sub-Advisory Agreements (including advice relating to the necessity for shareholder approval for the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, the process and timing of seeking shareholder approval of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, and whether shareholder approvals would be required in connection with any future aspects of the Separation) and regarding the Board’s role and responsibilities with respect to the Separation.

7. The Board considered that, if shareholders approve the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, the Board, the Adviser, and MLIA will conduct their annual contract review process in November 2017. Thus, the Board emphasized that it would be able to, and intends to, monitor on a regular basis the ability of MLIA to comply with its undertakings to the Board and the Adviser and to monitor on an ongoing basis the quality of services to, and expenses of, the MLIA Sub-Advised Portfolios. In addition, the Board considered that, under the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, it will continue to have the authority, should the need arise in its view, to terminate any of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements without penalty upon no more than 60 days’ notice.

MSF-34

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Mid Cap Stock Index Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

Based on the foregoing and other relevant considerations, at the November Meeting, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, voted to approve the New Sub-Advisory Agreements and to recommend approval of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements by shareholders of the MLIA Sub-Advised Portfolios. In this connection, the Board concluded that, in light of all factors considered, the terms of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, including fee rates, were fair and reasonable, and that it would be in the best interests of shareholders of each MLIA Sub-Advised Portfolio to approve the New Sub-Advisory Agreements.

In the event that approval of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements by shareholders of the MLIA Sub-Advised Portfolios has not been obtained before the termination of the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements as a result of the change in control of the Adviser, the Board also approved an interim sub-advisory agreement with MLIA (the “Interim Sub-Advisory Agreement”) on behalf of each MLIA Sub-Advised Portfolio that will go into effect upon the termination of the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements. The Board’s determination to approve each Interim Sub-Advisory Agreement was based on the same information and considerations as the Board’s approval of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements so as to ensure continuity of sub-advisory services from MLIA to the MLIA Sub-Advised Portfolios following the termination of the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements.

MSF-35

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Stock Index Portfolio

Managed by MetLife Investment Advisors, LLC

Portfolio Manager Commentary*

PERFORMANCE

For the 12 months ended December 31, 2016, the Class A, B, D, E, and G shares of the MetLife Stock Index Portfolio returned 11.67%, 11.38%, 11.54%, 11.50%, and 11.32%, respectively. The Portfolio’s benchmark, the Standard & Poor’s (“S&P”) 500 Index¹, returned 11.96%.

MARKET ENVIRONMENT / CONDITIONS

Global equity markets were mixed in the first half of 2016 on uncertainty about a global economic slowdown, potential Federal Reserve Bank (the “Fed”) interest rate hikes, the U.S. Presidential election, and Brexit. However, equity indexes rallied in the second half of the year on easy monetary policies and strong macroeconomic data. Equity markets also benefited from central bank intervention and improving commodity prices. The People’s Bank of China cut reserve requirement ratios, the European Central Bank cut rates further and the Fed lowered the expected number of rate increases for 2016. On June 23, United Kingdom voters chose to “Leave” the European Union and on the day after the unexpected vote outcome, the price of gold had its largest single day increase since 2008, the British pound fell to its lowest level in 30 years, and equity markets around the world fell as much as 8%. However, global equity markets remained resilient and continued to trend higher as concerns about the referendum abated and volatility declined. U.S. equity markets reached new all-time highs in December, following Donald Trump’s surprise victory and optimism surrounding the incoming U.S. administration’s agenda. Equity markets also benefited from better than expected macroeconomic data, including U.S. durable goods orders, U.S. consumer sentiment and U.S. home sales. Factors that weighed on the equity markets included the Fed’s decision in December to raise interest rates, diplomatic tensions between the U.S. and other major world powers and terrorism concerns.

During the year, the Federal Open Market Committee (the “Committee”) met eight times and maintained the target range for the Federal Funds Rate at 0.25% to 0.50% through November. In December, the Committee raised the target range for the Federal Funds Rate to 0.50% to 0.75%. The Committee stated that the labor market had continued to strengthen and that economic activity had been expanding at a moderate pace since mid-year. The Committee also stated that job gains have been solid in recent months and that the unemployment rate had declined.

Nine of the eleven sectors comprising the S&P 500 Index experienced positive returns for the year. Energy (6.5% beginning weight in the benchmark), up 27.3%, was the best-performing sector. Telecom Services (2.4% beginning weight), up 23.5%, and Financials (16.5% beginning weight), up 22.9%, were the next best-performing sectors. Real Estate (3.1% beginning weight), down 5.7%, and Health Care (15.2% beginning weight), down, 2.6%, were the worst-performing sectors. Please note, the Real Estate sector was created on August 31, 2016, by moving Real Estate companies and Real Estate Investment Trusts out of the Finance sector.

The stocks in the S&P 500 Index with the largest positive impact on the benchmark return for the year were JPMorgan Chase, up 34.6%; Microsoft, up 15.1%; and Apple, up 12.5%. The stocks with the largest negative impact were Allergan, down 32.8%; Gilead Sciences, down 27.6%; and CVS, down 17.8%.

PORTFOLIO REVIEW / PERIOD END POSITIONING

The Portfolio is managed utilizing a full replication strategy versus the S&P 500 Index. This strategy seeks to replicate the performance of the Index by owning all of the components of the Index at their respective Index capitalization weights. The Portfolio is periodically rebalanced for compositional changes in the S&P 500 Index. Factors that impact tracking error include transaction costs, cash drag, securities lending, NAV rounding, contributions and withdrawals.

Stacey Lituchy

Norman Hu

Mirsad Usejnoski

Portfolio Managers

MetLife Investment 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 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.

MSF-1

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Stock Index Portfolio

A $10,000 INVESTMENT COMPARED TO THE S&P 500 INDEX

AVERAGE ANNUAL RETURNS (%) (FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2016)

	1 Year		5 Year		10 Year		Since Inception2
MetLife Stock Index Portfolio
Class A		11.67		14.37		6.70		—
Class B		11.38		14.08		6.43		—
Class D		11.54		14.26		—		15.38
Class E		11.50		14.20		6.54		—
Class G		11.32		—		—		6.19
S&P 500 Index		11.96		14.66		6.95		—

¹ The Standard & Poor’s (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 Inception dates of the Class A, Class B, Class D, Class E and Class G shares are 5/1/90, 1/2/01, 4/28/09, 5/1/01 and 11/12/14, respectively.

Portfolio performance is calculated including reinvestment of all income and capital gain distributions. Performance numbers are net of all Portfolio expenses but do not include any insurance, sales, separate account or administrative charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts or any additional expenses that participants may bear relating to the operations of their plans. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower. The performance of any index referenced above has not been adjusted for ongoing management, distribution and operating expenses, and sales charges applicable to mutual fund investments. Direct investment in any index is not possible. The performance of Class A shares, as set forth in the line graph above, will differ from that of other classes because of the difference in expenses paid by policyholders investing in the different share classes.

This information represents past performance and is not indicative of future results. Investment return and principal value may fluctuate so that shares, upon redemption, may be worth more or less than the original cost.

PORTFOLIO COMPOSITION AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2016

Top Holdings

	% of Net Assets
Apple, Inc.		3.2
Microsoft Corp.		2.5
Exxon Mobil Corp.		1.9
Johnson & Johnson		1.6
Berkshire Hathaway, Inc.- Class B		1.6
JPMorgan Chase & Co.		1.6
Amazon.com, Inc.		1.5
General Electric Co.		1.4
Facebook, Inc.- Class A		1.4
AT&T, Inc.		1.3

Top Sectors

	% of Net Assets
Information Technology		20.5
Financials		15.3
Health Care		13.5
Consumer Discretionary		11.9
Industrials		10.1
Consumer Staples		9.2
Energy		7.5
Utilities		3.1
Real Estate		2.8
Materials		2.8

MSF-2

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Stock Index 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, 2016 through December 31, 2016.

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.

MetLife Stock Index Portfolio		Annualized Expense Ratio			Beginning Account Value July 1, 2016		Ending Account Value December 31, 2016		Expenses Paid During Period** July 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016
Class A(a)	Actual		0.26	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,077.00	$	1.36
	Hypothetical*		0.26	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,023.83	$	1.32
Class B(a)	Actual		0.51	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,075.40	$	2.66
	Hypothetical*		0.51	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,022.57	$	2.59
Class D(a)	Actual		0.36	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,076.20	$	1.88
	Hypothetical*		0.36	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,023.33	$	1.83
Class E(a)	Actual		0.41	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,076.00	$	2.14
	Hypothetical*		0.41	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,023.08	$	2.08
Class G(a)	Actual		0.56	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,075.00	$	2.92
	Hypothetical*		0.56	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,022.32	$	2.85

* 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 366 (to reflect the one-half year period).

^(a) The annualized expense ratio shown reflects the impact of the management fee waiver as described in Note 6 of the Notes to Financial Statements.

MSF-3

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Stock Index Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—98.7% of Net Assets

Security Description	Shares		Value
Aerospace & Defense—2.2%
Arconic, Inc. (a)		147,308	$	2,731,090
Boeing Co. (The)		192,826		30,019,152
General Dynamics Corp.		96,167		16,604,194
L3 Technologies, Inc.		25,972		3,950,601
Lockheed Martin Corp.		84,647		21,156,671
Northrop Grumman Corp.		59,216		13,772,457
Raytheon Co.		98,652		14,008,584
Rockwell Collins, Inc.		43,761		4,059,271
Textron, Inc.		90,777		4,408,131
TransDigm Group, Inc. (a)		16,847		4,194,229
United Technologies Corp.		257,263		28,201,170
				143,105,550
Air Freight & Logistics—0.7%
C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. (a)		47,574		3,485,271
Expeditors International of Washington, Inc. (a)		60,597		3,209,217
FedEx Corp.		82,140		15,294,468
United Parcel Service, Inc. - Class B		231,593		26,549,822
				48,538,778
Airlines—0.6%
Alaska Air Group, Inc. (a)		41,413		3,674,575
American Airlines Group, Inc. (a)		174,066		8,127,142
Delta Air Lines, Inc.		247,391		12,169,163
Southwest Airlines Co.		206,812		10,307,510
United Continental Holdings, Inc. (b)		97,000		7,069,360
				41,347,750
Auto Components—0.2%
BorgWarner, Inc. (a)		67,261		2,652,774
Delphi Automotive plc		90,990		6,128,176
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (The) (a)		87,701		2,707,330
				11,488,280
Automobiles—0.5%
Ford Motor Co.		1,311,182		15,904,638
General Motors Co.		466,019		16,236,102
Harley-Davidson, Inc.		59,387		3,464,637
				35,605,377
Banks—6.6%
Bank of America Corp.		3,394,830		75,025,743
BB&T Corp. (a)		272,601		12,817,699
Citigroup, Inc.		957,378		56,896,975
Citizens Financial Group, Inc.		171,967		6,127,184
Comerica, Inc.		57,872		3,941,662
Fifth Third Bancorp		253,851		6,846,361
Huntington Bancshares, Inc. (a)		364,437		4,817,857
JPMorgan Chase & Co.		1,202,132		103,731,970
KeyCorp		363,069		6,633,271
M&T Bank Corp. (a)		52,090		8,148,439
People’s United Financial, Inc. (a)		104,613		2,025,308
PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. (The)		163,442		19,116,176
Regions Financial Corp.		413,550		5,938,578
Banks—(Continued)
SunTrust Banks, Inc.		164,885		9,043,942
U.S. Bancorp		536,752		27,572,950
Wells Fargo & Co.		1,518,536		83,686,519
Zions Bancorporation (a)		68,439		2,945,615
				435,316,249
Beverages—2.0%
Brown-Forman Corp. - Class B (a)		61,275		2,752,473
Coca-Cola Co. (The)		1,304,060		54,066,327
Constellation Brands, Inc. - Class A		59,706		9,153,527
Dr Pepper Snapple Group, Inc.		61,720		5,596,152
Molson Coors Brewing Co. - Class B		61,912		6,024,657
Monster Beverage Corp. (b)		136,193		6,038,798
PepsiCo, Inc.		481,820		50,412,827
				134,044,761
Biotechnology—2.7%
AbbVie, Inc.		545,958		34,187,890
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (b)		75,337		9,217,482
Amgen, Inc.		249,924		36,541,388
Biogen, Inc. (b)		73,095		20,728,280
Celgene Corp. (b)		260,433		30,145,120
Gilead Sciences, Inc.		442,604		31,694,872
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (b)		25,398		9,323,352
Vertex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (b)		83,328		6,138,774
				177,977,158
Building Products—0.3%
Allegion plc (a)		32,217		2,061,888
Fortune Brands Home & Security, Inc. (a)		51,840		2,771,366
Johnson Controls International plc		314,693		12,962,205
Masco Corp.		110,296		3,487,560
				21,283,019
Capital Markets—2.8%
Affiliated Managers Group, Inc. (a) (b)		18,416		2,675,845
Ameriprise Financial, Inc.		53,097		5,890,581
Bank of New York Mellon Corp. (The)		355,216		16,830,134
BlackRock, Inc.		40,836		15,539,732
Charles Schwab Corp. (The)		405,281		15,996,441
CME Group, Inc.		114,006		13,150,592
E*Trade Financial Corp. (a) (b)		91,966		3,186,622
Franklin Resources, Inc.		116,566		4,613,682
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (The)		124,241		29,749,508
Intercontinental Exchange, Inc.		200,119		11,290,714
Invesco, Ltd.		137,248		4,164,104
Moody’s Corp.		55,884		5,268,185
Morgan Stanley		484,469		20,468,815
Nasdaq, Inc.		38,295		2,570,360
Northern Trust Corp. (a)		71,506		6,367,609
S&P Global, Inc.		87,046		9,360,927
State Street Corp.		121,814		9,467,384
T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. (a)		81,782		6,154,913
				182,746,148

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-4

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Stock Index Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Chemicals—2.1%
Air Products & Chemicals, Inc.		73,028	$	10,502,887
Albemarle Corp.		37,787		3,252,705
CF Industries Holdings, Inc. (a)		78,315		2,465,356
Dow Chemical Co. (The)		376,732		21,556,605
E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.		292,059		21,437,131
Eastman Chemical Co.		49,301		3,707,928
Ecolab, Inc.		88,153		10,333,295
FMC Corp. (a)		44,963		2,543,107
International Flavors & Fragrances, Inc. (a)		26,683		3,144,058
LyondellBasell Industries NV - Class A		112,266		9,630,177
Monsanto Co.		147,142		15,480,810
Mosaic Co. (The)		117,664		3,451,085
PPG Industries, Inc.		88,690		8,404,264
Praxair, Inc.		95,878		11,235,943
Sherwin-Williams Co. (The)		27,155		7,297,635
				134,442,986
Commercial Services & Supplies—0.3%
Cintas Corp. (a)		28,908		3,340,609
Pitney Bowes, Inc. (a)		62,406		947,947
Republic Services, Inc.		77,663		4,430,674
Stericycle, Inc. (b)		28,584		2,202,111
Waste Management, Inc.		136,613		9,687,228
				20,608,569
Communications Equipment—1.0%
Cisco Systems, Inc.		1,686,407		50,963,220
F5 Networks, Inc. (b)		21,943		3,175,591
Harris Corp. (a)		41,751		4,278,225
Juniper Networks, Inc. (a)		127,771		3,610,808
Motorola Solutions, Inc.		55,755		4,621,532
				66,649,376
Construction & Engineering—0.1%
Fluor Corp.		46,781		2,456,938
Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. (a) (b)		40,566		2,312,262
Quanta Services, Inc. (b)		50,796		1,770,241
				6,539,441
Construction Materials—0.2%
Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.		21,322		4,723,463
Vulcan Materials Co.		44,450		5,562,917
				10,286,380
Consumer Finance—0.8%
American Express Co.		258,286		19,133,827
Capital One Financial Corp.		162,031		14,135,585
Discover Financial Services		132,500		9,551,925
Navient Corp.		101,826		1,673,001
Synchrony Financial		263,452		9,555,404
				54,049,742
Containers & Packaging—0.3%
Avery Dennison Corp.		29,896		2,099,297
Ball Corp.		58,727		4,408,636
Containers & Packaging—(Continued)
International Paper Co.		138,148		7,330,133
Sealed Air Corp.		64,942		2,944,470
WestRock Co.		84,358		4,282,856
				21,065,392
Distributors—0.1%
Genuine Parts Co.		49,969		4,774,038
LKQ Corp. (b)		103,309		3,166,421
				7,940,459
Diversified Consumer Services—0.0%
H&R Block, Inc. (a)		69,582		1,599,690
Diversified Financial Services—1.6%
Berkshire Hathaway, Inc. - Class B (b)		637,932		103,970,157
Leucadia National Corp. (a)		108,855		2,530,879
				106,501,036
Diversified Telecommunication Services—2.6%
AT&T, Inc. (a)		2,063,093		87,743,345
CenturyLink, Inc. (a)		183,662		4,367,483
Frontier Communications Corp. (a)		394,084		1,332,004
Level 3 Communications, Inc. (b)		97,945		5,520,180
Verizon Communications, Inc.		1,369,561		73,107,166
				172,070,178
Electric Utilities—2.0%
Alliant Energy Corp.		76,429		2,895,895
American Electric Power Co., Inc.		165,192		10,400,488
Duke Energy Corp.		231,452		17,965,304
Edison International		109,457		7,879,810
Entergy Corp.		60,179		4,421,351
Eversource Energy (a)		106,567		5,885,695
Exelon Corp.		310,176		11,008,146
FirstEnergy Corp.		143,030		4,429,639
NextEra Energy, Inc.		156,981		18,752,950
PG&E Corp.		169,881		10,323,668
Pinnacle West Capital Corp.		37,394		2,917,854
PPL Corp.		228,323		7,774,398
Southern Co. (The) (a)		329,234		16,195,021
Xcel Energy, Inc.		170,648		6,945,374
				127,795,593
Electrical Equipment—0.5%
Acuity Brands, Inc.		14,810		3,419,037
AMETEK, Inc.		77,750		3,778,650
Eaton Corp. plc		151,750		10,180,907
Emerson Electric Co.		215,943		12,038,822
Rockwell Automation, Inc.		43,080		5,789,952
				35,207,368
Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components—0.4%
Amphenol Corp. - Class A		103,634		6,964,205
Corning, Inc. (a)		319,567		7,755,891

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-5

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Stock Index Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components—(Continued)
FLIR Systems, Inc.		45,733	$	1,655,077
TE Connectivity, Ltd.		119,379		8,270,577
				24,645,750
Energy Equipment & Services—1.2%
Baker Hughes, Inc.		142,039		9,228,274
FMC Technologies, Inc. (b)		75,825		2,694,062
Halliburton Co.		290,416		15,708,602
Helmerich & Payne, Inc. (a)		36,342		2,812,871
National Oilwell Varco, Inc. (a)		126,884		4,750,537
Schlumberger, Ltd.		467,415		39,239,489
Transocean, Ltd. (b)		130,783		1,927,741
				76,361,576
Equity Real Estate Investment Trusts—2.8%
American Tower Corp.		143,012		15,113,508
Apartment Investment & Management Co. - Class A		52,707		2,395,533
AvalonBay Communities, Inc.		46,135		8,172,815
Boston Properties, Inc. (a)		51,661		6,497,921
Crown Castle International Corp.		121,147		10,511,925
Digital Realty Trust, Inc. (a)		53,396		5,246,691
Equinix, Inc.		23,980		8,570,692
Equity Residential (a)		122,846		7,906,369
Essex Property Trust, Inc. (a)		22,011		5,117,557
Extra Space Storage, Inc. (a)		42,266		3,264,626
Federal Realty Investment Trust (a)		24,117		3,427,267
General Growth Properties, Inc. (a)		196,172		4,900,377
HCP, Inc.		157,086		4,668,596
Host Hotels & Resorts, Inc. (a)		248,560		4,682,870
Iron Mountain, Inc. (a)		82,310		2,673,429
Kimco Realty Corp.		142,789		3,592,571
Macerich Co. (The) (a)		40,559		2,873,200
Mid-America Apartment Communities, Inc.		38,139		3,734,571
Prologis, Inc.		177,590		9,374,976
Public Storage		50,111		11,199,808
Realty Income Corp. (a)		86,877		4,993,690
Simon Property Group, Inc.		105,567		18,756,089
SL Green Realty Corp. (a)		34,040		3,661,002
UDR, Inc. (a)		89,783		3,275,284
Ventas, Inc. (a)		118,964		7,437,629
Vornado Realty Trust		57,778		6,030,290
Welltower, Inc. (a)		121,794		8,151,672
Weyerhaeuser Co.		251,313		7,562,008
				183,792,966
Food & Staples Retailing—2.0%
Costco Wholesale Corp.		146,855		23,512,954
CVS Health Corp.		358,274		28,271,402
Kroger Co. (The)		317,198		10,946,503
Sysco Corp.		169,044		9,359,966
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.		505,900		34,967,808
Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc.		287,507		23,794,079
Whole Foods Market, Inc. (a)		106,971		3,290,428
				134,143,140
Food Products—1.6%
Archer-Daniels-Midland Co.		193,307		8,824,465
Campbell Soup Co. (a)		65,092		3,936,113
ConAgra Foods, Inc.		139,717		5,525,807
General Mills, Inc.		198,677		12,272,278
Hershey Co. (The)		46,859		4,846,626
Hormel Foods Corp. (a)		90,671		3,156,258
J.M. Smucker Co. (The)		39,117		5,009,323
Kellogg Co. (a)		84,879		6,256,431
Kraft Heinz Co. (The)		200,384		17,497,531
McCormick & Co., Inc. (a)		38,487		3,591,992
Mead Johnson Nutrition Co.		62,057		4,391,153
Mondelez International, Inc. - Class A		518,851		23,000,665
Tyson Foods, Inc. - Class A (a)		97,614		6,020,832
				104,329,474
Health Care Equipment & Supplies—2.4%
Abbott Laboratories		494,628		18,998,661
Baxter International, Inc.		164,458		7,292,068
Becton Dickinson & Co.		71,330		11,808,682
Boston Scientific Corp. (b)		457,460		9,894,860
C.R. Bard, Inc.		24,702		5,549,551
Cooper Cos., Inc. (The)		16,375		2,864,479
Danaher Corp.		204,494		15,917,813
DENTSPLY SIRONA, Inc. (a)		77,565		4,477,827
Edwards Lifesciences Corp. (a) (b)		71,832		6,730,658
Hologic, Inc. (b)		93,467		3,749,896
Intuitive Surgical, Inc. (b)		13,018		8,255,625
Medtronic plc		461,280		32,856,974
St. Jude Medical, Inc.		95,987		7,697,198
Stryker Corp.		104,413		12,509,722
Varian Medical Systems, Inc. (a) (b)		31,381		2,817,386
Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. (a)		67,292		6,944,534
				158,365,934
Health Care Providers & Services—2.6%
Aetna, Inc.		117,886		14,619,043
AmerisourceBergen Corp. (a)		56,197		4,394,043
Anthem, Inc.		88,502		12,723,932
Cardinal Health, Inc.		107,525		7,738,574
Centene Corp. (b)		57,411		3,244,296
Cigna Corp.		86,253		11,505,288
DaVita, Inc. (b)		53,054		3,406,067
Envision Healthcare Corp. (b)		39,413		2,494,449
Express Scripts Holding Co. (b)		207,156		14,250,261
HCA Holdings, Inc. (a) (b)		98,184		7,267,580
Henry Schein, Inc. (a) (b)		27,041		4,102,390
Humana, Inc.		50,091		10,220,067
Laboratory Corp. of America Holdings (b)		34,603		4,442,333
McKesson Corp.		75,955		10,667,880
Patterson Cos., Inc. (a)		27,992		1,148,512
Quest Diagnostics, Inc. (a)		46,577		4,280,426
UnitedHealth Group, Inc.		319,767		51,175,511
Universal Health Services, Inc. - Class B		30,125		3,204,697
				170,885,349

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-6

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Stock Index Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Health Care Technology—0.1%
Cerner Corp. (a) (b)		101,508	$	4,808,434
Hotels, Restaurants & Leisure—1.5%
Carnival Corp.		140,875		7,333,952
Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. (a) (b)		9,726		3,669,814
Darden Restaurants, Inc. (a)		41,349		3,006,899
Marriott International, Inc. - Class A (a)		107,570		8,893,888
McDonald’s Corp.		278,991		33,958,785
Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.		56,230		4,613,109
Starbucks Corp.		488,947		27,146,337
Wyndham Worldwide Corp. (a)		36,208		2,765,205
Wynn Resorts, Ltd. (a)		26,660		2,306,357
Yum! Brands, Inc.		117,132		7,417,970
				101,112,316
Household Durables—0.5%
DR Horton, Inc. (a)		114,010		3,115,893
Garmin, Ltd. (a)		38,618		1,872,587
Harman International Industries, Inc.		23,421		2,603,478
Leggett & Platt, Inc. (a)		44,910		2,195,201
Lennar Corp. - Class A		66,014		2,833,981
Mohawk Industries, Inc. (b)		21,179		4,229,023
Newell Brands, Inc. (a)		162,064		7,236,158
PulteGroup, Inc.		100,002		1,838,037
Whirlpool Corp. (a)		25,233		4,586,602
				30,510,960
Household Products—1.8%
Church & Dwight Co., Inc. (a)		86,879		3,839,183
Clorox Co. (The)		43,252		5,191,105
Colgate-Palmolive Co.		298,610		19,541,038
Kimberly-Clark Corp.		120,324		13,731,375
Procter & Gamble Co. (The)		899,010		75,588,761
				117,891,462
Independent Power and Renewable Electricity Producers—0.1%
AES Corp.		221,452		2,573,272
NRG Energy, Inc. (a)		105,973		1,299,229
				3,872,501
Industrial Conglomerates—2.5%
3M Co.		202,065		36,082,747
General Electric Co.		2,971,979		93,914,537
Honeywell International, Inc.		256,039		29,662,118
Roper Technologies, Inc.		34,077		6,238,817
				165,898,219
Insurance—2.7%
Aflac, Inc.		137,103		9,542,369
Allstate Corp. (The)		123,714		9,169,682
American International Group, Inc.		327,816		21,409,663
Aon plc		88,388		9,857,914
Arthur J. Gallagher & Co.		59,780		3,106,169
Assurant, Inc.		19,153		1,778,547
Chubb, Ltd.		156,333		20,654,716
Insurance—(Continued)
Cincinnati Financial Corp. (a)		50,367		3,815,300
Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. (The) (a)		126,901		6,046,833
Lincoln National Corp. (a)		76,785		5,088,542
Loews Corp.		92,826		4,347,041
Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc.		173,216		11,707,669
MetLife, Inc. (a) (c)		369,258		19,899,314
Principal Financial Group, Inc. (a)		89,882		5,200,572
Progressive Corp. (The)		194,954		6,920,867
Prudential Financial, Inc.		144,460		15,032,508
Torchmark Corp. (a)		37,072		2,734,431
Travelers Cos., Inc. (The)		95,431		11,682,663
Unum Group		77,981		3,425,705
Willis Towers Watson plc (a)		43,184		5,280,539
XL Group, Ltd.		90,391		3,367,969
				180,069,013
Internet & Direct Marketing Retail—2.3%
Amazon.com, Inc. (b)		132,497		99,355,525
Expedia, Inc.		40,571		4,595,883
Netflix, Inc. (b)		144,175		17,848,865
Priceline Group, Inc. (The) (b)		16,578		24,304,343
TripAdvisor, Inc. (b)		38,397		1,780,469
				147,885,085
Internet Software & Services—4.2%
Akamai Technologies, Inc. (b)		58,221		3,882,176
Alphabet, Inc. - Class A (b)		99,472		78,826,586
Alphabet, Inc. - Class C (b) (d)		99,704		76,953,541
eBay, Inc. (b)		349,281		10,370,153
Facebook, Inc. - Class A (b)		786,410		90,476,471
VeriSign, Inc. (a)		30,565		2,325,080
Yahoo!, Inc. (b)		294,898		11,403,706
				274,237,713
IT Services—3.6%
Accenture plc - Class A		208,395		24,409,306
Alliance Data Systems Corp. (a)		19,405		4,434,043
Automatic Data Processing, Inc.		151,573		15,578,673
Cognizant Technology Solutions Corp. - Class A (b)		203,823		11,420,203
CSRA, Inc. (a)		48,864		1,555,830
Fidelity National Information Services, Inc.		110,270		8,340,823
Fiserv, Inc. (b)		72,921		7,750,044
Global Payments, Inc.		51,635		3,583,985
International Business Machines Corp. (a)		290,694		48,252,297
MasterCard, Inc. - Class A (a)		319,778		33,017,079
Paychex, Inc. (a)		108,133		6,583,137
PayPal Holdings, Inc. (b)		377,001		14,880,229
Teradata Corp. (a) (b)		43,640		1,185,699
Total System Services, Inc.		55,579		2,725,038
Visa, Inc. - Class A (a)		627,421		48,951,386
Western Union Co. (The) (a)		162,888		3,537,927
Xerox Corp.		286,090		2,497,566
				238,703,265

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-7

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Stock Index Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Leisure Products—0.1%
Hasbro, Inc. (a)		37,731	$	2,935,095
Mattel, Inc. (a)		114,911		3,165,798
				6,100,893
Life Sciences Tools & Services—0.6%
Agilent Technologies, Inc.		108,978		4,965,038
Illumina, Inc. (a) (b)		49,352		6,319,030
Mettler-Toledo International, Inc. (b)		8,816		3,690,025
PerkinElmer, Inc. (a)		36,802		1,919,224
Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc.		132,710		18,725,381
Waters Corp. (a) (b)		27,071		3,638,072
				39,256,770
Machinery—1.5%
Caterpillar, Inc.		196,558		18,228,789
Cummins, Inc.		51,795		7,078,823
Deere & Co.		97,181		10,013,530
Dover Corp.		52,189		3,910,522
Flowserve Corp. (a)		43,825		2,105,791
Fortive Corp. (a)		101,052		5,419,419
Illinois Tool Works, Inc.		106,129		12,996,557
Ingersoll-Rand plc		86,787		6,512,497
PACCAR, Inc. (a)		117,764		7,525,120
Parker-Hannifin Corp. (a)		44,816		6,274,240
Pentair plc		56,171		3,149,508
Snap-on, Inc.		19,494		3,338,737
Stanley Black & Decker, Inc.		50,625		5,806,181
Xylem, Inc.		60,268		2,984,471
				95,344,185
Media—3.0%
CBS Corp. - Class B		131,686		8,377,863
Charter Communications, Inc. - Class A (b)		72,745		20,944,740
Comcast Corp. - Class A		800,709		55,288,957
Discovery Communications, Inc. - Class A (a) (b)		51,044		1,399,116
Discovery Communications, Inc. - Class C (a) (b)		74,107		1,984,586
Interpublic Group of Cos., Inc. (The)		133,377		3,122,356
News Corp. - Class A		128,311		1,470,444
News Corp. - Class B		40,239		474,820
Omnicom Group, Inc. (a)		79,245		6,744,542
Scripps Networks Interactive, Inc. - Class A (a)		32,003		2,284,054
TEGNA, Inc. (a)		72,034		1,540,807
Time Warner, Inc.		259,064		25,007,448
Twenty-First Century Fox, Inc. - Class A		355,711		9,974,136
Twenty-First Century Fox, Inc. - Class B		163,642		4,459,245
Viacom, Inc. - Class B		116,703		4,096,275
Walt Disney Co. (The)		491,885		51,264,255
				198,433,644
Metals & Mining—0.3%
Freeport-McMoRan, Inc. (b)		420,867		5,551,236
Newmont Mining Corp. (a)		178,307		6,074,919
Nucor Corp. (a)		106,996		6,368,402
				17,994,557
Multi-Utilities—1.1%
Ameren Corp. (a)		81,514		4,276,224
CenterPoint Energy, Inc.		144,689		3,565,137
CMS Energy Corp.		93,766		3,902,541
Consolidated Edison, Inc.		102,374		7,542,916
Dominion Resources, Inc. (a)		210,559		16,126,714
DTE Energy Co. (a)		60,282		5,938,380
NiSource, Inc.		108,425		2,400,529
Public Service Enterprise Group, Inc.		169,957		7,457,713
SCANA Corp. (a)		48,013		3,518,393
Sempra Energy (a)		84,008		8,454,565
WEC Energy Group, Inc. (a)		106,032		6,218,777
				69,401,889
Multiline Retail—0.5%
Dollar General Corp. (a)		85,387		6,324,615
Dollar Tree, Inc. (b)		79,309		6,121,068
Kohl’s Corp. (a)		59,286		2,927,543
Macy’s, Inc. (a)		102,691		3,677,365
Nordstrom, Inc. (a)		39,017		1,870,085
Target Corp.		188,704		13,630,090
				34,550,766
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels—6.3%
Anadarko Petroleum Corp.		187,765		13,092,854
Apache Corp.		127,470		8,090,521
Cabot Oil & Gas Corp.		156,268		3,650,421
Chesapeake Energy Corp. (a) (b)		250,422		1,757,962
Chevron Corp.		634,204		74,645,811
Cimarex Energy Co. (a)		31,904		4,335,754
Concho Resources, Inc. (b)		49,067		6,506,284
ConocoPhillips		416,256		20,871,076
Devon Energy Corp.		175,905		8,033,581
EOG Resources, Inc.		193,663		19,579,329
EQT Corp. (a)		58,039		3,795,751
Exxon Mobil Corp.		1,393,098		125,741,026
Hess Corp.		89,586		5,580,312
Kinder Morgan, Inc.		644,975		13,357,432
Marathon Oil Corp.		284,623		4,926,824
Marathon Petroleum Corp.		177,321		8,928,112
Murphy Oil Corp. (a)		54,380		1,692,849
Newfield Exploration Co. (b)		66,266		2,683,773
Noble Energy, Inc.		144,017		5,481,287
Occidental Petroleum Corp.		256,732		18,287,020
ONEOK, Inc. (a)		70,725		4,060,322
Phillips 66		148,734		12,852,105
Pioneer Natural Resources Co.		57,019		10,267,411
Range Resources Corp.		63,102		2,168,185
Southwestern Energy Co. (a) (b)		164,879		1,783,991
Spectra Energy Corp.		235,678		9,684,009
Tesoro Corp.		39,265		3,433,724
Valero Energy Corp.		152,074		10,389,696
Williams Cos., Inc. (The) (a)		229,544		7,148,000
				412,825,422
Personal Products—0.1%
Coty, Inc. - Class A		157,959		2,892,229

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-8

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Stock Index Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Personal Products—(Continued)
Estee Lauder Cos., Inc. (The)—Class A		74,676	$	5,711,967
				8,604,196
Pharmaceuticals—5.1%
Allergan plc (b)		126,010		26,463,360
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.		561,456		32,811,489
Eli Lilly & Co.		326,370		24,004,513
Endo International plc (a) (b)		66,640		1,097,561
Johnson & Johnson		913,974		105,298,945
Mallinckrodt plc (b)		35,563		1,771,749
Merck & Co., Inc.		926,271		54,529,574
Mylan NV (a) (b)		154,602		5,898,066
Perrigo Co. plc (a)		48,167		4,008,939
Pfizer, Inc.		2,038,687		66,216,554
Zoetis, Inc.		165,904		8,880,841
				330,981,591
Professional Services—0.3%
Dun & Bradstreet Corp. (The) (a)		12,358		1,499,273
Equifax, Inc.		40,234		4,756,866
Nielsen Holdings plc (a)		112,875		4,735,106
Robert Half International, Inc. (a)		43,299		2,112,125
Verisk Analytics, Inc. (a) (b)		52,318		4,246,652
				17,350,022
Real Estate Management & Development—0.1%
CBRE Group, Inc. - Class A (a) (b)		100,846		3,175,641
Road & Rail—0.9%
CSX Corp.		314,674		11,306,237
J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc.		29,397		2,853,567
Kansas City Southern		36,142		3,066,648
Norfolk Southern Corp.		98,079		10,599,397
Ryder System, Inc. (a)		17,963		1,337,166
Union Pacific Corp.		276,863		28,705,156
				57,868,171
Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment—3.3%
Analog Devices, Inc.		103,531		7,518,421
Applied Materials, Inc.		363,130		11,718,205
Broadcom, Ltd.		133,485		23,596,143
First Solar, Inc. (a) (b)		26,182		840,180
Intel Corp.		1,592,085		57,744,923
KLA-Tencor Corp.		52,516		4,131,959
Lam Research Corp.		54,703		5,783,748
Linear Technology Corp.		80,749		5,034,700
Microchip Technology, Inc. (a)		72,573		4,655,558
Micron Technology, Inc. (b)		346,768		7,601,155
NVIDIA Corp.		181,079		19,328,373
Qorvo, Inc. (a) (b)		42,910		2,262,644
QUALCOMM, Inc.		496,166		32,350,023
Skyworks Solutions, Inc. (a)		62,425		4,660,651
Texas Instruments, Inc.		335,781		24,501,940
Xilinx, Inc.		84,832		5,121,308
				216,849,931
Software—4.3%
Activision Blizzard, Inc.		229,710		8,294,828
Adobe Systems, Inc. (b)		167,045		17,197,283
Autodesk, Inc. (b)		65,796		4,869,562
CA, Inc. (a)		105,280		3,344,746
Citrix Systems, Inc. (b)		52,397		4,679,576
Electronic Arts, Inc. (b)		101,377		7,984,452
Intuit, Inc.		81,918		9,388,622
Microsoft Corp.		2,612,160		162,319,622
Oracle Corp.		1,006,875		38,714,344
Red Hat, Inc. (b)		60,336		4,205,419
Salesforce.com, Inc. (b)		214,455		14,681,589
Symantec Corp.		209,440		5,003,522
				280,683,565
Specialty Retail—2.4%
Advance Auto Parts, Inc. (a)		24,743		4,184,536
AutoNation, Inc. (a) (b)		22,064		1,073,414
AutoZone, Inc. (a) (b)		9,696		7,657,804
Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc.		51,093		2,076,420
Best Buy Co., Inc. (a)		91,725		3,913,906
CarMax, Inc. (a) (b)		63,941		4,117,161
Foot Locker, Inc.		45,457		3,222,447
Gap, Inc. (The) (a)		73,703		1,653,895
Home Depot, Inc. (The)		409,246		54,871,704
L Brands, Inc. (a)		80,697		5,313,090
Lowe’s Cos., Inc.		292,228		20,783,255
O’Reilly Automotive, Inc. (a) (b)		31,735		8,835,341
Ross Stores, Inc. (a)		133,232		8,740,019
Signet Jewelers, Ltd.		23,376		2,203,422
Staples, Inc. (a)		218,554		1,977,914
Tiffany & Co. (a)		35,957		2,784,150
TJX Cos., Inc. (The)		219,009		16,454,146
Tractor Supply Co.		44,094		3,342,766
Ulta Salon Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc. (b)		19,697		5,021,553
Urban Outfitters, Inc. (a) (b)		29,677		845,201
				159,072,144
Technology Hardware, Storage & Peripherals—3.7%
Apple, Inc.		1,791,412		207,481,338
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co.		559,699		12,951,435
HP, Inc.		574,775		8,529,661
NetApp, Inc.		92,514		3,262,969
Seagate Technology plc (a)		98,946		3,776,769
Western Digital Corp.		95,906		6,516,812
				242,518,984
Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods—0.7%
Coach, Inc. (a)		94,189		3,298,499
Hanesbrands, Inc. (a)		126,972		2,738,786
Michael Kors Holdings, Ltd. (b)		55,179		2,371,594
NIKE, Inc. - Class B		448,895		22,817,333
PVH Corp. (a)		26,630		2,403,091
Ralph Lauren Corp. (a)		18,919		1,708,764
Under Armour, Inc. - Class A (a) (b)		61,728		1,793,198
Under Armour, Inc. - Class C (b)		62,073		1,562,377

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-9

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Stock Index Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares/ Principal Amount*		Value
Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods—(Continued)
VF Corp.		111,190	$	5,931,987
				44,625,629
Tobacco—1.6%
Altria Group, Inc.		655,201		44,304,692
Philip Morris International, Inc.		521,182		47,682,941
Reynolds American, Inc.		277,820		15,569,033
				107,556,666
Trading Companies & Distributors—0.2%
Fastenal Co.		97,101		4,561,805
United Rentals, Inc. (b)		28,295		2,987,386
WW Grainger, Inc. (a)		18,412		4,276,187
				11,825,378
Water Utilities—0.1%
American Water Works Co., Inc.		59,801		4,327,200
Total Common Stocks (Cost $3,565,264,507)				6,473,069,681
Mutual Fund—0.7%
Investment Company Security—0.7%
SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (Cost $43,175,086)		196,000		43,811,880
Short-Term Investments—0.5%
Discount Notes—0.2%
Fannie Mae 0.493%, 03/01/17 (e)		1,525,000		1,523,744
Federal Home Loan Bank 0.431%, 02/15/17 (e)		5,025,000		5,022,000
0.444%, 01/25/17 (e)		2,600,000		2,599,397
0.447%, 03/24/17 (e)		3,925,000		3,920,463
				13,065,604
U.S. Treasury—0.3%
U.S. Treasury Bills 0.385%, 03/16/17 (e)		4,325,000		4,320,675
0.431%, 02/16/17 (e)		3,200,000		3,198,279
0.474%, 03/09/17 (e)		1,375,000		1,373,809
0.515%, 03/23/17 (e)		7,400,000		7,391,882
				16,284,645
Total Short-Term Investments (Cost $29,351,301)				29,350,249
Securities Lending Reinvestments(f)— 6.5%
Certificates of Deposit—4.1%
Bank of Montreal London Zero Coupon, 01/12/17		5,996,179		5,998,904
Certificates of Deposit—(Continued)
Chiba Bank, Ltd., New York 0.870%, 01/10/17		1,600,000		1,600,037
Cooperative Rabobank UA New York 1.278%, 10/13/17 (g)		8,000,000		8,001,800
Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank 1.274%, 04/12/17 (g)		22,000,000		22,017,358
Credit Industriel et Commercial 1.245%, 04/05/17 (g)		7,000,000		7,003,780
Credit Suisse AG New York 1.335%, 04/03/17 (g)		9,000,000		9,001,971
1.364%, 04/11/17 (g)		16,500,000		16,503,597
DG Bank New York 0.940%, 01/12/17		8,000,000		8,000,424
0.950%, 01/03/17		1,000,000		1,000,007
DNB NOR Bank ASA 1.130%, 07/28/17 (g)		5,900,000		5,898,968
ING Bank NV 1.265%, 04/18/17 (g)		21,500,000		21,539,412
KBC Bank NV 1.000%, 01/04/17		1,000,000		1,000,000
1.050%, 01/17/17		20,000,000		20,002,400
Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen London Zero Coupon, 01/24/17		1,895,640		1,899,183
Mitsubishi UFJ Trust and Banking Corp. 1.364%, 04/11/17 (g)		15,000,000		15,007,095
Mizuho Bank, Ltd., New York 1.395%, 04/11/17 (g)		10,000,000		10,003,010
1.436%, 04/18/17 (g)		15,500,000		15,504,867
Natixis New York 1.262%, 04/07/17 (g)		10,000,000		10,004,010
Rabobank London 1.281%, 10/13/17 (g)		7,000,000		7,016,789
Royal Bank of Canada New York 1.145%, 04/04/17 (g)		6,500,000		6,498,329
1.281%, 10/13/17 (g)		15,000,000		15,011,625
Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corp. New York 1.352%, 04/07/17 (g)		10,000,000		10,005,100
1.395%, 04/12/17 (g)		10,000,000		10,011,404
Sumitomo Mitsui Trust Bank, Ltd., New York 1.364%, 04/10/17 (g)		13,000,000		13,005,031
Svenska Handelsbanken New York 1.266%, 05/18/17 (g)		15,000,000		15,002,610
Wells Fargo Bank San Francisco N.A. 1.231%, 04/26/17 (g)		6,400,000		6,401,792
1.264%, 10/26/17 (g)		6,200,000		6,204,235
				269,143,738
Commercial Paper—0.8%
ABN AMRO Funding USA 0.910%, 01/11/17		8,979,525		8,997,201
Atlantic Asset Securitization LLC 0.990%, 01/12/17		2,493,813		2,499,190
Commonwealth Bank Australia 1.236%, 10/23/17 (g)		7,000,000		7,003,934

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-10

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Stock Index Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Securities Lending Reinvestments(f)—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Commercial Paper—(Continued)
Den Norske ASA 1.206%, 04/27/17 (g)		5,900,000	$	5,900,313
Kells Funding LLC 1.040%, 01/19/17		2,092,599		2,099,176
Macquarie Bank, Ltd. 0.930%, 01/19/17		997,623		999,383
0.950%, 01/03/17		11,972,133		11,998,716
Ridgefield Funding Co. LLC 1.000%, 01/03/17		4,987,500		4,999,715
Sheffield Receivables Co. 1.050%, 01/06/17		997,258		999,870
Versailles Commercial Paper LLC 1.050%, 01/17/17		6,480,283		6,497,094
Victory Receivables Corp. 1.050%, 01/04/17		1,495,669		1,499,893
				53,494,485
Repurchase Agreements—1.1%
Deutsche Bank AG, London Repurchase Agreement dated 12/15/16 - 12/30/16 at 1.050% to be repurchased at $14,205,594 on 01/03/17, collateralized by various Common Stock with a value of $15,784,081.		14,200,000		14,200,000
Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. Repurchase Agreement dated 10/18/16 at 1.110% to be repurchased at $17,573,383 on 03/03/17, collateralized by various Common Stock with a value of $19,250,000.		17,500,000		17,500,000
Goldman Sachs & Co. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/16 at 0.460% to be repurchased at $12,410,083 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $63,861,451 U.S. Government Agency Obligations with rates ranging from 2.000% - 10.500%, maturity dates ranging from 03/15/17 - 09/20/65, with a value of $12,657,637.		12,409,448		12,409,448
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. Repurchase Agreement dated 10/26/16 at 1.160% to be repurchased at $11,156,869 on 04/03/17, collateralized by various Common Stock with a value of $12,210,000.		11,100,000		11,100,000
Natixis Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/16 at 0.600% to be repurchased at $2,000,133 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $3,591,529 U.S. Government Agency and Treasury Obligations with rates ranging from 0.996% - 7.000%, maturity dates ranging from 01/15/20 - 12/01/46, with a value of $2,040,136.		2,000,000		2,000,000
Repurchase Agreements—(Continued)
Natixis Repurchase Agreement dated 12/28/16 at 0.750% to be repurchased at $15,002,500 on 01/05/17, collateralized by $24,076,040 U.S. Government Agency and Treasury Obligations with rates ranging from 0.000% - 4.672%, maturity dates ranging from 01/31/17 - 09/16/58, with a value of $15,301,881.		15,000,000		15,000,000
				72,209,448
Time Deposits—0.5%
Canadian Imperial Bank 0.520%, 01/03/17		20,000,000		20,000,000
OP Corporate Bank plc 1.010%, 01/04/17		5,000,000		5,000,000
Shinkin Central Bank 1.200%, 01/27/17		1,800,000		1,800,000
1.220%, 01/26/17		8,600,000		8,600,000
				35,400,000
Total Securities Lending Reinvestments (Cost $430,100,732)				430,247,671
Total Investments—106.4% (Cost $4,067,891,626) (h)				6,976,479,481
Other assets and liabilities (net)—(6.4)%				(418,346,746	)
Net Assets—100.0%			$	6,558,132,735

* Principal amount stated in U.S. dollars unless otherwise noted.

(a) All or a portion of the security was held on loan. As of December 31, 2016, the market value of securities loaned was $418,853,880 and the collateral received consisted of cash in the amount of $429,997,671. The cash collateral investments are disclosed in the Schedule of Investments and categorized as Securities Lending Reinvestments.

(b) Non-income producing security.

(c) Affiliated Issuer. (See Note 7 of the Notes to Financial Statements for a summary of transactions in securities of affiliated issuers.)

(d) All or a portion of the security was pledged as collateral against open futures contracts. As of December 31, 2016, the market value of securities pledged was $15,478,850.

(e) The rate shown represents current yield to maturity.

(f) Represents investment of cash collateral received from securities on loan as of December 31, 2016.

(g) Variable or floating rate security. The stated rate represents the rate at December 31, 2016.

(h) As of December 31, 2016, the aggregate cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was $4,182,470,779. The aggregate unrealized appreciation and depreciation of investments were $2,890,168,866 and $(96,160,164), respectively, resulting in net unrealized appreciation of $2,794,008,702 for federal income tax purposes.

(ETF)— Exchange-Traded Fund

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-11

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Stock Index Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Futures Contracts

Futures Contracts—Long	Expiration Date		Number of Contracts		Notional Amount			Unrealized Depreciation
S&P 500 E-Mini Index Futures		03/17/17		300		USD	33,817,167	$	(274,167	)

(USD)— United States Dollar

Fair Value Hierarchy

Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) define 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, separately for each major category of assets and liabilities, 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, quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities 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, or other market corroborated inputs)

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 used in determining the fair value of investments and derivative financial instruments)

The inputs or methodologies used for valuing investments are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in them. Changes to the inputs or methodologies used may result in transfers between levels, which 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, 2016:

Description	Level 1			Level 2			Level 3		Total
Total Common Stocks*	$	6,473,069,681		$	—		$	—	$	6,473,069,681
Total Mutual Fund*		43,811,880			—			—		43,811,880
Short-Term Investments
Discount Notes		—			13,065,604			—		13,065,604
U.S. Treasury		—			16,284,645			—		16,284,645
Total Short-Term Investments		—			29,350,249			—		29,350,249
Total Securities Lending Reinvestments*		—			430,247,671			—		430,247,671
Total Investments	$	6,516,881,561		$	459,597,920		$	—	$	6,976,479,481
Collateral for Securities Loaned (Liability)	$	—		$	(429,997,671	)	$	—	$	(429,997,671	)
Futures Contracts
Futures Contracts (Unrealized Depreciation)	$	(274,167	)	$	—		$	—	$	(274,167	)

*    See Schedule of Investments for additional detailed categorizations.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-12

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Stock Index Portfolio

Statement of Assets and Liabilities

December 31, 2016

Assets
Investments at value (a) (b)	$	6,956,580,167
Affiliated investments at value (c)		19,899,314
Cash		76,485
Receivable for:
Investments sold		13,741,656
Fund shares sold		2,919,206
Dividends		8,359,727
Prepaid expenses		18,127
Total Assets		7,001,594,682
Liabilities
Collateral for securities loaned		429,997,671
Payables for:
Fund shares redeemed		10,699,236
Variation margin on futures contracts		133,500
Accrued Expenses:
Management fees		1,328,013
Distribution and service fees		450,076
Deferred trustees’ fees		113,326
Other expenses		740,125
Total Liabilities		443,461,947
Net Assets	$	6,558,132,735
Net Assets Consist of:
Paid in surplus	$	3,452,675,779
Undistributed net investment income		119,230,492
Accumulated net realized gain		77,912,776
Unrealized appreciation on investments, affiliated investments and futures contracts		2,908,313,688
Net Assets	$	6,558,132,735
Net Assets
Class A	$	4,347,488,522
Class B		1,988,239,659
Class D		64,298,283
Class E		144,156,099
Class G		13,950,172
Capital Shares Outstanding*
Class A		94,449,828
Class B		44,809,290
Class D		1,400,755
Class E		3,153,645
Class G		314,945
Net Asset Value, Offering Price and Redemption Price Per Share
Class A	$	46.03
Class B		44.37
Class D		45.90
Class E		45.71
Class G		44.29

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

(a) Identified cost of investments, excluding affiliated investments, was $4,052,798,666.

(b) Includes securities loaned at value of $418,853,880.

(c) Identified cost of affiliated investments was $15,092,960.

Statement of Operations

Year Ended December 31, 2016

Investment Income
Dividends (a)	$	141,507,925
Dividends from affiliated investments		587,951
Interest		115,796
Securities lending income		1,142,699
Other income (b)		127,591
Total investment income		143,481,962
Expenses
Management fees		15,725,187
Administration fees		204,111
Custodian and accounting fees		277,753
Distribution and service fees—Class B		4,763,244
Distribution and service fees—Class D		70,548
Distribution and service fees—Class E		211,674
Distribution and service fees—Class G		35,971
Audit and tax services		42,040
Legal		33,111
Trustees’ fees and expenses		45,245
Shareholder reporting		512,971
Insurance		42,827
Miscellaneous		345,210
Total expenses		22,309,892
Less management fee waiver		(768,511	)
Net expenses		21,541,381
Net Investment Income		121,940,581
Net Realized and Unrealized Gain
Net realized gain (loss) on:
Investments		200,568,403
Affiliated investments		(56,240	)
Futures contracts		3,516,171
Net realized gain		204,028,334
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on:
Investments		370,126,101
Affiliated investments		2,145,426
Futures contracts		(45,251	)
Net change in unrealized appreciation		372,226,276
Net realized and unrealized gain		576,254,610
Net Increase in Net Assets From Operations	$	698,195,191

(a) Net of foreign withholding taxes of $4,750.

(b) Other income represents a non-recurring refund for overbilling of prior years’ custodian out-of-pocket fees.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-13

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Stock Index Portfolio

Statements of Changes in Net Assets

	Year Ended December 31, 2016			Year Ended December 31, 2015
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets:
From Operations
Net investment income	$	121,940,581		$	116,616,898
Net realized gain		204,028,334			285,658,755
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation)		372,226,276			(327,512,527	)
Increase in net assets from operations		698,195,191			74,763,126
From Distributions to Shareholders
Net investment income
Class A		(82,857,392	)		(73,614,161	)
Class B		(34,449,077	)		(30,456,704	)
Class D		(1,352,543	)		(1,804,092	)
Class E		(2,620,458	)		(2,445,450	)
Class G		(221,158	)		(50,027	)
Net realized capital gains
Class A		(181,662,999	)		(177,074,360	)
Class B		(86,318,673	)		(85,896,734	)
Class D		(3,124,405	)		(4,613,354	)
Class E		(6,212,616	)		(6,448,300	)
Class G		(570,749	)		(146,175	)
Total distributions		(399,390,070	)		(382,549,357	)
Increase (decrease) in net assets from capital share transactions		22,715,272			(81,924,353	)
Total increase (decrease) in net assets		321,520,393			(389,710,584	)
Net Assets
Beginning of period		6,236,612,342			6,626,322,926
End of period	$	6,558,132,735		$	6,236,612,342
Undistributed net investment income
End of period	$	119,230,492		$	122,692,773

Other Information:

Capital Shares

Transactions in capital shares were as follows:

	Year Ended December 31, 2016						Year Ended December 31, 2015
	Shares			Value			Shares			Value
Class A
Sales		4,983,063		$	217,058,335			4,408,353		$	197,974,631
Reinvestments		6,272,715			264,520,391			5,596,975			250,688,521
Redemptions		(10,092,498	)		(444,409,066	)		(9,668,977	)		(436,539,916	)
Net increase		1,163,280		$	37,169,660			336,351		$	12,123,236
Class B
Sales		3,242,120		$	138,068,372			2,909,978		$	126,781,458
Reinvestments		2,967,267			120,767,750			2,685,287			116,353,438
Redemptions		(5,867,660	)		(249,825,548	)		(6,413,569	)		(280,296,296	)
Net increase (decrease)		341,727		$	9,010,574			(818,304	)	$	(37,161,400	)
Class D
Sales		384,822		$	16,959,636			171,240		$	7,839,888
Reinvestments		106,417			4,476,948			143,599			6,417,446
Redemptions		(1,004,553	)		(43,730,065	)		(1,514,796	)		(68,755,233	)
Net decrease		(513,314	)	$	(22,293,481	)		(1,199,957	)	$	(54,497,899	)

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-14

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Stock Index Portfolio

Statements of Changes in Net Assets

	Year Ended December 31, 2016						Year Ended December 31, 2015
	Shares			Value			Shares			Value
Class E
Sales		67,984		$	2,927,160			81,125		$	3,612,139
Reinvestments		210,763			8,833,074			199,725			8,893,750
Redemptions		(405,732	)		(17,710,668	)		(514,709	)		(23,229,019	)
Net decrease		(126,985	)	$	(5,950,434	)		(233,859	)	$	(10,723,130	)
Class G
Sales		136,685		$	5,693,057			248,691		$	10,694,963
Reinvestments		19,486			791,907			4,535			196,202
Redemptions		(40,319	)		(1,706,011	)		(62,418	)		(2,556,325	)
Net increase		115,852		$	4,778,953			190,808		$	8,334,840
Increase (decrease) derived from capital shares transactions				$	22,715,272					$	(81,924,353	)

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-15

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Stock Index Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class A
	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014			2013			2012
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	44.04		$	46.21		$	42.58		$	33.42		$	29.60
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (a)		0.89			0.85			0.79			0.71			0.67
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		3.98			(0.26	)		4.66			9.72			3.95
Total from investment operations		4.87			0.59			5.45			10.43			4.62
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.90	)		(0.81	)		(0.74	)		(0.70	)		(0.57	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(1.98	)		(1.95	)		(1.08	)		(0.57	)		(0.23	)
Total distributions		(2.88	)		(2.76	)		(1.82	)		(1.27	)		(0.80	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	46.03		$	44.04		$	46.21		$	42.58		$	33.42
Total Return (%) (b)		11.67			1.17			13.36			32.02			15.76
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Gross ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.27			0.27			0.27			0.27			0.28
Net ratio of expenses to average net assets (%) (c)		0.26			0.26			0.26			0.26			0.27
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		2.02			1.88			1.81			1.87			2.08
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		8			9			12			12			12
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	4,347.5		$	4,108.5		$	4,295.4		$	4,059.9		$	3,303.3
	Class B
	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014			2013			2012
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	42.55		$	44.73		$	41.27		$	32.43		$	28.76
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (a)		0.75			0.71			0.66			0.60			0.57
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		3.84			(0.25	)		4.52			9.43			3.83
Total from investment operations		4.59			0.46			5.18			10.03			4.40
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.79	)		(0.69	)		(0.64	)		(0.62	)		(0.50	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(1.98	)		(1.95	)		(1.08	)		(0.57	)		(0.23	)
Total distributions		(2.77	)		(2.64	)		(1.72	)		(1.19	)		(0.73	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	44.37		$	42.55		$	44.73		$	41.27		$	32.43
Total Return (%) (b)		11.38			0.91			13.10			31.70			15.43
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Gross ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.52			0.52			0.52			0.52			0.53
Net ratio of expenses to average net assets (%) (c)		0.51			0.51			0.51			0.51			0.52
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		1.77			1.63			1.56			1.62			1.83
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		8			9			12			12			12
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	1,988.2		$	1,892.0		$	2,025.6		$	1,928.0		$	1,615.0

Please see following page for Financial Highlights footnote legend.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-16

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Stock Index Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class D
	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014			2013			2012
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	43.93		$	46.10		$	42.46		$	33.32		$	29.52
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (a)		0.84			0.80			0.73			0.66			0.63
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		3.97			(0.26	)		4.67			9.71			3.94
Total from investment operations		4.81			0.54			5.40			10.37			4.57
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.86	)		(0.76	)		(0.68	)		(0.66	)		(0.54	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(1.98	)		(1.95	)		(1.08	)		(0.57	)		(0.23	)
Total distributions		(2.84	)		(2.71	)		(1.76	)		(1.23	)		(0.77	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	45.90		$	43.93		$	46.10		$	42.46		$	33.32
Total Return (%) (b)		11.54			1.07			13.26			31.91			15.62
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Gross ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.37			0.37			0.37			0.37			0.38
Net ratio of expenses to average net assets (%) (c)		0.36			0.36			0.36			0.36			0.37
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		1.92			1.76			1.70			1.77			1.97
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		8			9			12			12			12
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	64.3		$	84.1		$	143.5		$	237.5		$	297.3
	Class E
	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014			2013			2012
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	43.75		$	45.92		$	42.32		$	33.22		$	29.44
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (a)		0.81			0.78			0.72			0.65			0.62
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		3.97			(0.26	)		4.64			9.67			3.92
Total from investment operations		4.78			0.52			5.36			10.32			4.54
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.84	)		(0.74	)		(0.68	)		(0.65	)		(0.53	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(1.98	)		(1.95	)		(1.08	)		(0.57	)		(0.23	)
Total distributions		(2.82	)		(2.69	)		(1.76	)		(1.22	)		(0.76	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	45.71		$	43.75		$	45.92		$	42.32		$	33.22
Total Return (%) (b)		11.50			1.02			13.20			31.83			15.54
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Gross ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.42			0.42			0.42			0.42			0.43
Net ratio of expenses to average net assets (%) (c)		0.41			0.41			0.41			0.41			0.42
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		1.87			1.73			1.66			1.72			1.92
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		8			9			12			12			12
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	144.2		$	143.5		$	161.4		$	164.9		$	147.9

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-17

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Stock Index Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class G
	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014(d)
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	42.48		$	44.64		$	44.10
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (a)		0.73			0.70			0.09
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		3.83			(0.24	)		0.45
Total from investment operations		4.56			0.46			0.54
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.77	)		(0.67	)		0.00
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(1.98	)		(1.95	)		0.00
Total distributions		(2.75	)		(2.62	)		0.00
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	44.29		$	42.48		$	44.64
Total Return (%) (b)		11.32			0.91			1.22	(e)
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Gross ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.57			0.57			0.58	(f)
Net ratio of expenses to average net assets (%) (c)		0.56			0.56			0.57	(f)
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		1.72			1.64			1.54	(f)
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		8			9			12
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	14.0		$	8.5		$	0.4

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

(b) Total return does not reflect any insurance, sales, separate account or administrative charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts or any additional expenses that contract owners may bear under their variable contracts. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower.

(c) Includes the effects of management fee waivers (see Note 6 of the Notes to Financial Statements).

(d) Commencement of operations was November 12, 2014.

(e) Periods less than one year are not computed on an annualized basis.

(f) Computed on an annualized basis.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-18

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Stock Index Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016

1. Organization

Metropolitan Series Fund (the “Trust”) is organized as a Delaware statutory trust and registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), as an open-end management investment company. The Trust, which is managed by MetLife Advisers, LLC (“MetLife Advisers” or the “Adviser”), an affiliate of MetLife, Inc., is currently comprised of thirty series, each of which operates as a distinct investment vehicle of the Trust. The portfolio included in this report is MetLife Stock Index 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.

On January 12, 2016, MetLife, Inc. announced its plan to pursue the separation of a substantial portion of its retail segment and is currently evaluating structural alternatives for such separation. It is anticipated that MetLife Advisers would be included in any such separation. Any separation transaction that might occur will be subject to the satisfaction of various conditions and approvals, including approval of any transaction by the MetLife, Inc. Board of Directors, satisfaction of any applicable requirements of the SEC, and receipt of insurance and other regulatory approvals and other anticipated conditions. MetLife, Inc. cannot currently provide a specific potential completion date for a separation transaction or any assurance that a separation will in fact occur. MetLife Advisers’ continued service as investment adviser to the Trusts following a separation transaction is the subject of a proxy statement that was filed with the SEC on December 20, 2016 and mailed to shareholders of the Portfolio on or about December 30, 2016.

The Portfolio has registered and offers five classes of shares: Class A, B, D, E and G shares. 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 plan and such distribution expenses are allocated to the corresponding Class of shares.

2. Significant Accounting Policies

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities as of the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of income and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates. In the preparation of these financial statements, management has evaluated events and transactions subsequent to December 31, 2016 through the date the financial statements were issued.

The Portfolio is an investment company and follows the accounting and reporting guidance of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Accounting Standards Codification Topic 946- Financial Services- Investment Companies and Topic 820- Fair Value Measurement. 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 - Domestic and foreign equity securities, such as common stock, exchange-traded funds, rights, warrants, and preferred stock, that are traded on a securities exchange on a valuation date are generally valued at their last quoted sale price or official closing price on the primary exchange for such security, or, if no sales occurred on that day, at the last reported bid price. Equity securities traded over-the-counter (“OTC”) are generally valued at the last reported bid price. In the event of a major exchange closing during the trading day, the Adviser may use other market information obtained from quotation reporting systems, established market makers, or pricing services in valuing the securities. Valuation adjustments may be applied to certain foreign equity securities that are traded solely on foreign exchanges that close before the time as of which the Portfolio determines its NAV to account for the market movement between the close of the foreign exchanges and the time as of which the Portfolio determines its NAV. The Portfolio may use a systematic fair valuation model provided by a pricing service to value securities principally traded in these foreign markets in order to adjust for possible market movements or other changes that may occur between the close of the foreign exchanges and the time as of which the Portfolio determines its NAV. Foreign equity securities valued using these valuation adjustments are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy. Equity securities that are actively traded, and have no valuation adjustments applied, are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other equity securities traded on inactive markets, or valued in reference to similar instruments traded on active markets, 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 on the valuation date and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy.

Debt securities, including corporate, convertible and municipal bonds and notes; obligations of the U.S. Treasury and U.S. government agencies; foreign sovereign issues; 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 the Adviser (each a “pricing service”), pursuant to authorization

MSF-19

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Stock Index Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

of and subject to general oversight by the Board of Trustees of the Trust (the “Board” or “Trustees”). Such pricing services may use matrix pricing, which considers observable inputs including, among other things, issuer details, maturity dates, interest rates, yield curves, rates of prepayment, credit risks/spreads, default rates, reported trades, broker dealer quotes and quoted prices for similar assets. Short-term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less may be valued at amortized cost in the absence of market quotes, so long as the amortized cost value of such short-term debt instrument is approximately the same as the fair value of the instrument as determined without the use of amortized cost valuation. Floating rate loans are generally valued on the basis of an evaluated or composite average of aggregate bid and ask quotations supplied by brokers or dealers, as obtained from the pricing service. Securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally 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 sale price available as of the close of business on a valuation day or, if there is no such price available, at the last reported bid price. These types of options are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Futures contracts that are traded on commodity exchanges are valued at their settlement prices established by the exchanges on which they are traded as of the close of such exchanges and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy.

If no current market value quotation or other observable inputs are readily available or market value quotations are deemed to be unreliable for an investment, the fair value of the investment will be determined in accordance with procedures approved by, and under the general supervision of, the Board. In such a circumstance, the Board will be assisted in its responsibility to determine the fair value of an investment by the Valuation Committee (“Committee”) of MetLife Advisers. The Committee provides general pricing oversight and fair value pricing determinations related to portfolio securities and meets on a regular basis to review reports relating to the valuation of the securities in the Portfolio. The Board has delegated to State Street Bank and Trust Company, the Trust’s custodian (“custodian”), the responsibility for calculating the net asset values (“NAVs”) of the Trust’s Portfolios. The Committee is responsible for overseeing the calculation of the NAVs of the Portfolios by the custodian. The Committee also periodically reviews pricing services, including the pricing services providing fair value pricing for the Portfolio’s foreign securities, and is responsible for overseeing the correction of pricing errors and addressing other pricing issues that arise in the ordinary course of business, such as making real-time fair value determinations, as necessary.

No single standard for determining the fair value of an investment can be set forth because fair value depends upon the facts and circumstances with respect to each investment. Information relating to any relevant factors may be obtained by the Committee from any appropriate source, including the subadviser of the Portfolio, the custodian, a pricing service, market maker and/or broker for such security or the issuer. Appropriate methodologies for determining fair value under particular circumstances may include: matrix pricing, a discounted cash flow analysis, comparisons of securities with comparable characteristics, value based on multiples of earnings, discount from market price of similar marketable securities or a combination of these and other methods.

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 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. These foreign taxes have been provided for in accordance with the Portfolio’s understanding of the applicable countries’ tax rules and rates.

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 the U.S. dollar 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. Because the values of investment securities are translated at the foreign exchange rates prevailing at the end of the period, that portion of the results of operations arising from changes in exchange rates and that portion of the results of operations reflecting fluctuations arising from changes in market prices of the investment securities are not separated. 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. 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.

Dividends and Distributions to Shareholders - The Portfolio records dividends and distributions on the ex-dividend date. Net realized gains from securities 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 adjustments to prior period accumulated balances and real estate investment trust (REIT) adjustments. These adjustments have no impact on net assets or the results of operations.

MSF-20

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Stock Index Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

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 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. As of December 31, 2016, the Portfolio had no uncertain tax positions that would require financial statement recognition, or de-recognition or disclosure.

Repurchase Agreements - The Portfolio may enter into repurchase agreements, under the terms of a Master Repurchase Agreement (“MRA”), 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, under a tri-party repurchase agreement, receives delivery of the underlying securities collateralizing any repurchase agreements. It is the Portfolio’s policy that the market value of the collateral be equal to at least 100% of the repurchase price in the case of a repurchase agreement of one-day duration and equal to at least 102% of the repurchase price in the case of all other repurchase agreements. In the event of default or failure by a party to perform an obligation in connection with any repurchase transaction, the MRA gives the non-defaulting party the right to set-off claims and to apply property held by it in connection with any repurchase transaction against obligations owed to it.

At December 31, 2016, the Portfolio invested cash collateral for loans of portfolio securities in repurchase agreements with a gross value of $ 72,209,448. The combined value of all repurchase agreements is included as part of investments at value on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. The value of the related collateral exceeded the value of the repurchase agreements at December 31, 2016.

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 collateral held from securities on loan. 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.

Effective September 8, 2016, the Trust has entered into a Non-Custodial Securities Lending Agreement with JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (the “lending agent”). Prior to September 8, 2016, the Trust had entered into a Securities Lending Authorization Agreement with the custodian (the “prior lending agent”). Under each agreement, the lending agent is authorized to loan portfolio securities on the Portfolio’s behalf. In exchange, the Portfolio receives either cash or government securities as collateral against the loaned securities. The Portfolio receives collateral equal to at least 102% of the market value for loans secured by government securities or cash in the same currency as the loaned shares and 105% for all other loaned securities at each loan’s inception. Collateral representing at least 100% of the market value of the loaned securities is maintained for the duration of the loan. Any cash collateral received by the Portfolio is generally invested by the lending agent in short-term investments, which may include certificates of deposit, commercial paper, repurchase agreements, time deposits and money market funds. Cash collateral that was received by the prior lending agent had been generally invested in the State Street Navigator Securities Lending MET Portfolio (the “Navigator Portfolio”), a series of the State Street Navigator Securities Lending Trust that was a registered money market fund managed by an affiliate of the custodian. The market value of investments made with cash collateral received are disclosed in the Schedule of Investments and the valuation techniques are described in Note 2. 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 is 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 is equal to at least 100% of the market value of all the loaned securities as of such preceding day. A portion of the income earned on the collateral is rebated to the borrower of the securities and the remainder is split between the lending agent and the Portfolio. On loans collateralized by government securities, a fee is received from the borrower and is allocated between the Portfolio and the lending agent.

Income received by the Portfolio in securities lending transactions during the year ended December 31, 2016 is reflected as securities lending income on the Statement of Operations. The values of any securities loaned by the Portfolio and the related collateral at December 31, 2016 are disclosed in the footnotes to the Schedule of Investments. The value of the related collateral received by the Portfolio exceeded the value of the securities out on loan at December 31, 2016.

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. The lending agent shall indemnify the Portfolio in the case of default of any securities borrower, subject to the terms of the Non-Custodial Securities Lending Agreement.

All securities on loan are classified as Common Stocks in the Portfolio’s Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016, with a contractual maturity of overnight and continuous.

MSF-21

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Stock Index Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

3. Investments in Derivative Instruments

Futures Contracts - The Portfolio may buy and sell futures contracts 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 cash collateral 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 whether unrealized gains or losses are incurred. These amounts are reflected as receivables or payables on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities and as a component of net change in unrealized appreciation/depreciation on the Statement of Operations. When the contract is closed or expires, the Portfolio records 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. 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. If futures contracts are exchange-traded, the exchange’s clearinghouse, as counterparty to all exchange-traded futures, guarantees the futures contracts against default. For OTC futures, the Portfolio’s ability to terminate the positions may be more limited than in the case of exchange-traded positions and may also involve the risk that securities dealers participating in such transactions would fail to meet their obligations to the Portfolio.

The following table summarizes the fair value of derivatives held by the Portfolio at December 31, 2016 by category of risk exposure:

	Liability Derivatives
Risk Exposure	Statement of Assets & Liabilities Location	Fair Value
Equity	Unrealized depreciation on futures contracts (a)		274,167

(a) Includes cumulative appreciation/depreciation of futures contracts as reported in the Schedule of Investments. Only the current day’s variation margin is reported within the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

The following tables summarize the effect of derivative instruments on the Statement of Operations, classified by derivative type and category of risk exposure, for the year ended December 31, 2016:

Statement of Operations Location—Net Realized Gain (Loss)	Equity
Futures contracts	$	3,516,171
Statement of Operations Location—Net Change in Unrealized Appreciation (Depreciation)	Equity
Futures contracts	$	(45,251	)

For the year ended December 31, 2016, the average notional par or face amount outstanding for each derivative type was as follows:

Derivative Description	Average Notional Par or Face Amount‡
Futures contracts long	$	15,000

‡ Averages are based on activity levels during the year.

4. Certain Risks

In the normal course of business, the Portfolio invests in securities and enters into transactions where risks exist. Those risks include:

Market 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, interest rate, and price fluctuations.

Credit and Counterparty Risk: 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 and counterparty risk consist principally of cash due from counterparties and investments. The Portfolio manages counterparty risk by entering into agreements

MSF-22

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Stock Index Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

only with counterparties that it believes have the financial resources to honor their obligations and by monitoring the financial stability of those counterparties. The Portfolio’s investment adviser attempts to mitigate counterparty risk by (i) periodically assessing the creditworthiness of its trading partners, (ii) monitoring and/or limiting the amount of its net exposure to each individual counterparty based on its assessment, and (iii) requiring collateral from the counterparty for certain transactions. In order to preserve certain safeguards for non-standard settlement trades, the Portfolio restricts its exposure to credit and counterparty losses by entering into master netting agreements (“Master Agreements”) with counterparties (approved brokers) with whom it undertakes a significant volume of transactions. Master Agreements govern the terms of certain transactions, and reduce the counterparty risk associated with relevant transactions by specifying credit protection mechanisms and providing standardization that improves legal certainty. Master Agreements can also help limit counterparty risk by specifying collateral posting arrangements at pre-arranged exposure levels.

Customer Account Agreements and related addenda govern cleared derivatives transactions such as futures, options on futures, and cleared OTC derivatives. Cleared derivative transactions require posting of initial margin as determined by each relevant clearing agency, which is segregated at a broker account registered with the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”), or the applicable regulator. In the U.S., counterparty risk is significantly reduced as creditors of the futures broker do not have claim to Portfolio assets in the segregated account. Additionally, portability of exposure in the event of default further reduces risk to the Portfolio. Variation margin, or changes in market value, are exchanged daily, but may not be netted between futures and cleared OTC derivatives.

Additional risks associated with each type of investment are described above within the respective security type notes. The Portfolio’s prospectus includes a discussion of the principal risks of investing in the Portfolio.

5. Investment Transactions

Aggregate cost of purchases and proceeds of sales of investment securities, excluding short-term securities, for the year ended December 31, 2016 were as follows:

Purchases			Sales
U.S. Government	Non U.S. Government		U.S. Government		Non U.S. Government
$0	$	515,926,966	$	0	$	745,618,856

6. Investment Management Fees and Other Transactions with Affiliates

Investment Management Agreement - MetLife Advisers is the investment adviser to the Portfolio. The Trust has entered into an investment management agreement with MetLife Advisers with respect to the Portfolio. For providing investment management services to the Portfolio, MetLife Advisers receives monthly compensation at the annual rate of 0.250% of average daily net assets. Fees earned by MetLife Advisers with respect to the Portfolio for the year ended December 31, 2016 were $15,725,187.

MetLife Advisers has entered into an investment subadvisory agreement with MetLife Investment Advisors, LLC (“MIA”) with respect to managing the Portfolio. For providing subadvisory services to the Portfolio, MetLife Advisers has agreed to pay MIA an investment subadvisory fee for each class of the Portfolio as follows:

% per annum	Average Daily Net Assets
0.020%	On the first $500 million
0.015%	Of the next $500 million
0.010%	Of the next $1 billion
0.005%	On amounts over $2 billion

Fees earned by MIA with respect to the Portfolio for the year ended December 31, 2016 were $489,504.

Management Fee Waiver - Pursuant to a management fee waiver agreement, the Adviser has agreed, for the period May 1, 2016 to April 30, 2017, to reduce its advisory fees set out above under “Investment Management Agreement” for each class of the Portfolio as follows:

% per annum	Average Daily Net Assets
0.005%	Over $500 million and under $1 billion
0.010%	Of the next $1 billion
0.015%	On amounts over $2 billion

An identical agreement was in place for the period May 1, 2015 to April 30, 2016. Amounts waived for the year ended December 31, 2016 are shown as a management fee waiver in the Statement of Operations.

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

MSF-23

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Stock Index Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(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 and Service Fees - The Trust has a distribution agreement with MetLife Investors Distribution Company (“MIDC” or the “Distributor”) in which MIDC serves as the distributor for the Portfolio’s Class A, B, D, E, and G Shares. MIDC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife Investors Group, LLC, an affiliate of the Adviser. The Trust has also adopted a Distribution and Service Plan under Rule 12b-1 of the 1940 Act for the Portfolio’s Class B, D, E, and G Shares. Under the Distribution and Service Plan, the Class B, D, E, and G Shares of the Portfolio pay a fee to compensate the Insurance Companies (or their affiliates) and other broker-dealers and financial intermediaries involved in the offer and sale of Portfolio shares for promoting or selling and servicing the Class B, D, E, and G Shares of the Portfolio. The fees under the Distribution and Service Plan for each class of the Portfolio’s shares are calculated as a percentage of the Portfolio’s average daily net assets that are attributable to that Class. Currently, the fee is 0.25% per year for Class B Shares, 0.10% per year for Class D Shares, 0.15% per year for Class E Shares, and 0.30% per year for Class G Shares. Amounts incurred by the Portfolio for the year ended December 31, 2016 are shown as Distribution and service fees in the Statement of Operations.

Deferred Trustee Compensation - Each Trustee 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 Trust. 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 Met Investors Series Trust, an affiliate of the Trust, 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 under the Plan is reflected as Deferred trustees’ fees in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

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, 2016 is as follows:

Security Description	Number of shares held at December 31, 2015		Shares purchased		Shares sold			Number of shares held at December 31, 2016		Realized Loss on shares sold			Income earned from affiliates during the period
MetLife, Inc.		380,176		3,623		(14,541	)		369,258	$	(56,240	)	$	587,951

8. Contractual Obligations

Under the Trust’s organizational documents, its officers and Trustees may be indemnified against certain liabilities and expenses arising out of the performance of their duties to the Trust. Additionally, 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 Trust that have not yet occurred.

9. Income Tax Information

The tax character of distributions paid for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015 were as follows:

Ordinary Income			Long-Term Capital Gain				Total
2016	2015		2016		2015		2016		2015
$130,333,642	$	114,006,177	$	269,056,428	$	268,543,180	$	399,390,070	$	382,549,357

As of December 31, 2016, 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		Other Accumulated Capital Losses		Total
$128,199,537	$	183,362,044	$	2,794,008,700	$	—	$	3,105,570,281

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 up to 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.

MSF-24

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Stock Index Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

As of December 31, 2016, the Portfolio had no post-enactment accumulated capital losses and no pre-enactment accumulated capital loss carryforwards.

10. Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In October 2016, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) adopted new rules and forms, and amendments to certain current rules and forms, to modernize reporting and disclosure of information by registered investment companies. The amendments to Regulation S-X will require standardized, enhanced disclosure about derivatives in investment company financial statements, and will also change the rules governing the form and content of such financial statements. The compliance date for the amendments to Regulation S-X is August 1, 2017. Management is currently evaluating the impact that the adoption of the amendments to Regulation S-X will have on the Portfolio’s financial statements and related disclosures.

MSF-25

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Stock Index Portfolio

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Shareholders of MetLife Stock Index Portfolio and the Board of Trustees of Metropolitan Series Fund:

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities, including the schedule of investments, of MetLife Stock Index Portfolio (one of the portfolios constituting the Metropolitan Series Fund) (the “Portfolio”) as of December 31, 2016, 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 Portfolio’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 Portfolio 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 Portfolio’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, 2016, by correspondence with the custodian and brokers; when 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 MetLife Stock Index Portfolio of the Metropolitan Series Fund as of December 31, 2016, 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.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

February 24, 2017

MSF-26

Metropolitan Series Fund

Trustees and Officers

MANAGEMENT OF THE TRUSTS

The Boards of Trustees (the “Board”) of Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (“MIST” and “MSF”, respectively, and collectively the “Trusts”) supervise the Trusts and are responsible for representing the interests of shareholders. The Trustees, the Chairman of the Board and the Chairmen of each subcommittee are the same for both Trusts. The Trustees of each Trust meet periodically throughout the year to oversee the Portfolios’ activities, reviewing, among other things, each Portfolio’s performance and its contractual arrangements with various service providers. The Trustees of each Trust elect the officers of the Trust, who are responsible for administering the Trust’s day-to-day operations.

Trustees and Officers

The Trustees and executive officers of the Trusts, as well as their ages and their principal occupations during the past five years, are set forth below. Unless otherwise indicated, the business address of each is c/o MetLife Funds, One Financial Center, Boston, Massachusetts 02111. Each Trustee who is deemed an “interested person,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, is referred to as an “Interested Trustee.” Those Trustees who are not “interested persons,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, are referred to as “Independent Trustees.” There is no limit to the term a Trustee may serve. Trustees serve until their death, resignation or removal in accordance with the MIST Trust’s and MSF Trust’s respective organizational documents and policies adopted by the Boards of the respective Trusts from time to time. Officers hold office at the pleasure of each Board and serve until their removal or resignation in accordance with the Trusts’ respective organizational documents and policies adopted by the Board of each Trust from time to time.

Name and Age	Current 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 MetLife Funds Complex(2) Overseen by Trustee	Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Interested Trustee
John Rosenthal* (56)	Trustee	Indefinite; From May 2016 (MIST and MSF) to present	Senior Managing Director and Head of Global Portfolio Management, MetLife, Inc.	75	None
Independent Trustees
Dawn M. Vroegop (50)	Trustee and Chairman of the Board	Indefinite; From December 2000 (MIST)/ May 2009 (MSF) to present as Trustee; From May 2016 (MIST and MSF) until present as Chairman	Private Investor.	75	Trustee, Driehaus Mutual Funds.**
Stephen M. Alderman (57)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 (MIST)/ April 2012 (MSF) to present	Shareholder in the law firm of Garfield and Merel, Ltd.	75	None

MSF-27

Metropolitan Series Fund

Trustees and Officers—(Continued)

Name and Age	Current 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 MetLife Funds Complex(2) Overseen by Trustee	Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Robert J. Boulware (60)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 (MIST)/ April 2012 (MSF) to present	Managing Director, Pilgrim Funds, LLC (private equity fund).	75	Trustee, Vertical Capital Income Fund (closed-end fund);** Director, Gainsco, Inc. (auto insurance);** Trustee, SharesPost 100 Fund (closed-end fund).**
Susan C. Gause (64)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 (MIST)/ April 2012 (MSF) to present	Private Investor.	75	Trustee, HSBC Funds.**
Nancy Hawthorne (65)	Trustee	Indefinite; From May 2003 (MSF)/ April 2012 (MIST) to present	Partner, Hawthorne Financial Advisors, LLC (registered investment advisor); until June 2014, Chief Executive Officer, Clerestory LLC (corporate advisor).	75	Director and Chairman of the Board of Directors, THL Credit, Inc.;** Lead Director, Avid Technology, Inc.;** Director, CRA International, Inc.**
Barbara A. Nugent (60)	Trustee	Indefinite; From January 2014 (MIST and MSF) to present	President, True North Board Governance, LLC (consulting); until December 2013, partner in the law firm of Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young, LLP.	75	None
Linda B. Strumpf (69)	Trustee	Indefinite; From May 2000 (MSF)/ April 2012 (MIST) to present	Chair of the Investment Committee, Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust; until June 2011, Chief Investment Officer, Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust.	75	None

Executive Officers

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Kristi Slavin (43)	President and Chief Executive Officer, of MIST and MSF	From May 2016 (MIST and MSF) to present	President, MetLife Advisers, LLC (May 2016-present); Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Vice President, MetLife, Inc.; Vice President, MIST and MSF (2015-2016).

MSF-28

Metropolitan Series Fund

Trustees and Officers—(Continued)

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Peter H. Duffy (61)	Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, of MIST and MSF	From November 2000 (MSF)/ May 2012 (MIST) to present	Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Andrew L. Gangolf (62)	Secretary, of MIST and MSF	From May 2011 (MIST and MSF) to present	Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; until 2011, Senior Vice President & Assistant General Counsel, AllianceBernstein Investments, Inc.
Steven E. Hartstein (53)	Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”), of MIST and MSF	From February 2014 (MIST and MSF) to present	Vice President, MetLife, Inc. (2013- present); Senior Vice President and CCO, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Executive Director, Morgan Stanley (2009-2013); CCO, Consulting Group Capital Markets Funds (2006-2013).
Alan C. Leland (64)	Vice President, of MIST and MSF	From February 2005 (MSF)/ May 2012 (MIST) to present	Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Vice President, MetLife, Inc.

* Mr. Rosenthal is an “interested person” of the Trusts because of his position with MetLife, Inc., the current parent company of MetLife Advisers, LLC.

** 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 Trusts, MetLife, Inc. or the Manager are omitted if not materially different.

(2) The Fund Complex includes 45 MIST Portfolios and 30 MSF Portfolios.

MSF-29

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Stock Index Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements

At an in-person meeting held on November 15-16, 2016 (the “November Meeting”), the Boards of Trustees (the “Board”) of the Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (“MIST” and “MSF,” respectively, and collectively, the “Trusts”), including a majority of the Trustees who are not “interested persons” of the Trusts (the “Independent Trustees”) under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “1940 Act”), approved the continuation of the Trusts’ advisory agreements (each, an “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 the series of the Trusts (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”).

In reaching that decision, the Board reviewed a variety of materials provided for the specific purpose of the annual contract renewal process. In addition, various materials provided to and discussed with the Board throughout the year also informed the Board’s decision to renew the Agreements. That information for each Portfolio included, but was not limited to, investment performance reports, along with periodic reports on various expenses, shareholder services, legal and compliance matters, asset pricing, brokerage commissions and trade execution. The Board also recognized the pending separation of the Adviser from its parent company, MetLife, Inc., as a consideration in their deliberations with respect to the Agreements.

The Board met in person with personnel of the Adviser on September 27, 2016 for the specific purpose of giving preliminary consideration to the proposed continuation of the Agreements (the “September Meeting”) through the review by the Adviser with the Board of the performance and fees experienced by each Portfolio, as well as other information. In considering the Agreements, the Independent Trustees were advised by independent legal counsel throughout the contract renewal process, and met with independent legal counsel in several executive sessions outside of the presence of management.

Information furnished and reviewed specifically in connection with the renewal process included, but was not limited to, a report for each Portfolio prepared by Broadridge (“Broadridge”), an independent organization, and a Portfolio-by-Portfolio profitability analysis prepared by the Adviser. In addition, the Independent Trustees received and reviewed a report prepared by JDL Consultants, LLC (“JDL”), an independent consultant to the Independent Trustees (“JDL Report”), which examined the comparative fees, expenses and performance of each Portfolio, based upon the Broadridge reports. Also, the Board reviewed the responses to wide-ranging questions relating to the business, operations and performance of the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers that the Adviser and Sub-Advisers had prepared specifically for the renewal process.

At the November Meeting, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, concluded that the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser supported the renewal of the Agreements. The Board also concluded that the investment performance of each Portfolio was such that each Agreement should continue, and that the fees paid by a Portfolio to the Adviser appeared to be reasonable in light of the nature, extent and quality of the services provided by the Adviser and Sub-Adviser. Further, the Board concluded that the Adviser’s profitability in providing services under the Advisory Agreements did not appear unreasonably high in light of the nature, extent and quality of the services provided by the Adviser. Finally, the Board concluded that the investment advisory fees paid by the Portfolios in some measure shared economies of scale with contract holders. In approving the renewal of each of the Agreements, the Board, including the Independent Trustees, gave attention to all of the information that was furnished. The Board evaluated the information available to it on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis, and its decision was made separately with respect to each Portfolio. The following discusses some of the primary factors that generally were relevant to the Board’s decision. The Board did not identify any single factor as controlling, and the Trustees generally attributed different weights to various factors for the various Portfolios.

Nature, extent and quality of services. The Board evaluated the nature, extent and quality of the services that the Adviser, and the Sub-Advisers as relevant, have provided to the Portfolios. The Board considered the Adviser’s services as investment manager to the Portfolios, including its services relating to the oversight of the Sub-Advisers and their investment management activities, trading practices, financial condition, relevant personnel matters and compliance programs, among other things. The Adviser’s services in coordinating and overseeing the activities of the Trusts’ other service providers were also considered. The Board considered information received from the Trusts’ Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) regarding the Portfolios’ compliance policies and procedures that were established pursuant to Rule 38a-l under the 1940 Act. In addition, throughout the year, the Board considered the expertise, experience and performance of the personnel of the Adviser who performed the various services that are mentioned above.

The Board also noted that the Adviser’s investment, compliance and legal staff conduct regular, periodic, telephonic and in-person meetings with the Sub-Advisers to review and assess the services that are provided to the Portfolios, and that personnel of the Adviser prepare and present reports to the Independent Trustees regarding those meetings.

MSF-30

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Stock Index Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

With respect to the services provided by each of the Sub-Advisers, the Board considered a variety of information that the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser provided. The Board considered each Sub-Adviser’s investment process and philosophy, and the investment performance experienced by the Portfolio (as described in more detail below). The Board took into account that each Sub-Adviser’s responsibilities include the development and maintenance of an investment program for the applicable Portfolio that 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. In particular, the Board considered, among other things, the Sub-Adviser’s current level of staffing as well as its compensation program and its overall resources. The Board reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s history and investment experience, as well as information provided 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 regulatory and disciplinary history. In its review, the Board also took into account information regarding any services and/or payments provided to the Adviser by the Sub-Advisers in connection with marketing activities.

Performance. The Board placed emphasis on the performance of the Portfolios in light of, among other things, its importance to contract holders. The Board considered the Adviser’s quarterly reviews with the Board of detailed information about each Portfolio’s investment strategies and performance results and composition, including discussions regarding the relevant effect of current market conditions. The Board reviewed and considered the reports prepared by Broadridge, which provided a statistical analysis comparing the Portfolios’ investment performance to that of comparable funds underlying variable insurance products (the “Performance Universe”). The Independent Trustees also met separately with a representative of JDL during the September Meeting to review the JDL Report. The Board also compared the performance records of certain Portfolios to those of comparable funds that were managed by the relevant Sub-Adviser. At the November Meeting, the Board considered each Portfolio’s performance for periods subsequent to the performance period covered by the Broadridge reports, and the Adviser’s discussion of the same, including the effect of current market conditions on each Portfolio’s more recent performance.

The Board focused particular attention on Portfolios with less favorable performance records. The Board noted the Adviser’s focus on each Sub-Adviser’s performance and that the Adviser has been active in monitoring and responding to any performance issues with respect to the Portfolios.

Fees and Expenses. The Board gave consideration to the level and method of computing the fees payable under the Agreements. The Board considered the Broadridge report for each of the Portfolios, which included comparisons for each Portfolio of its contractual management and sub-adviser fees (at current and various asset levels), and total expenses, with those of its peers, including as those peers were divided into a broad group of peer funds (“Expense Universe”), a narrower group of peer funds (“Expense Group”), a broad group of peer sub-advised funds (“Sub-advised Expense Universe”), and a narrower group of peer sub-advised funds (“Sub-advised Expense Group”). Broadridge selected the peer funds which were similarly situated funds underlying variable insurance products deemed to be comparable to the Portfolios. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of JDL, also examined the JDL Report. The Board compared the fee payable to a Sub-Adviser by the Adviser with respect to the Portfolio to the fee payable to the Sub-Adviser by other comparable funds and accounts, to the extent such information was available.

The Board noted that the sub-advisory fees for the Portfolios are paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fee, and that, in the case of an unaffiliated Sub-Adviser, the Adviser negotiates the fee at arm’s length. The Board also considered that the Adviser had entered into expense limitation or management fee waiver agreements with certain of the Portfolios pursuant to which the Adviser had 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.

Profitability. The Board examined the profitability of the Adviser on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis. The Board also considered that an affiliate of the Adviser, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, serves as distributor for the Trusts, and, as such, receives Rule 12b-1 payments to support the distribution of the Portfolios. The Board considered the profitability to the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates as a result of their relationships with the Portfolios, to the extent available, and the Board considered the ability of the Adviser to negotiate with an unaffiliated Sub-Adviser at arm’s length. In reviewing the profitability analyses, the Board recognized that expense allocation methodologies are inherently subjective and various expense allocation methodologies may be reasonable while producing different results.

Economies of scale. The Board also considered each Portfolio’s fees in light of its size. The Board noted the fee schedules for the Portfolios that 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

MSF-31

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Stock Index Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

schedule for such Portfolios. The Board considered the effective fees under the Advisory Agreement and Sub-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. The Board examined, among other data, the effect of a Portfolio’s growth in size, and reduction in size, on various fee schedules and the Board reviewed the Broadridge and JDL Reports, which compared fees among peers. The Board also generally noted that if a Portfolio’s assets increase over time, the Portfolio may realize other economies of scale if assets increase proportionally more than certain other fixed expenses.

Other factors. The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trusts. Among them, the Board recognized that MetLife Investors Distribution Company, as the distributor for the Trusts, receives payments pursuant to Rule 12b-1 from the Portfolios to compensate for the provision of shareholder services and distribution activities, which could lead to growth in the Trusts’ assets and corresponding benefits from such growth, including economies of scale. The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by each Sub-Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trusts, including the opportunity to provide advisory services to additional portfolios of the Trusts and reputational benefits. In conjunction with these considerations, the Board noted the ongoing commitment of the Adviser to the Portfolios.

The Board considered possible conflicts of interest in the form of material benefits or detriments to the Trusts resulting from the nature of the Trusts’ and the Adviser’s or the Sub-Advisers’ affiliations and the services that are provided to the Trusts, and the manner in which such conflicts were mitigated.

* * *

MetLife Stock Index Portfolio. The Board also considered the following information in relation to the Agreements with the Adviser and MetLife Investment Advisors, LLC regarding the Portfolio:

Among other data relating specifically to the 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, 2016. The Board further considered that the Portfolio underperformed its benchmark, the S&P 500 Index, for the one-, three-, and five-year periods ended October 31, 2016.

The Board also considered that the Portfolio’s actual management fees were above the Expense Group median and the Expense Universe median and equal to the Sub-advised Expense Universe median. The Board also noted that the Portfolio’s total expenses (exclusive of 12b-1 fees) were above the Expense Group median and below 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 asset-weighted average of certain comparable funds at the Portfolio’s current size. The Board also took into account that the Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees were below the averages of the Sub-advised Expense Group and Sub-advised Expense Universe at the Portfolio’s current size.

MSF-32

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Stock Index Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Advisory Agreements

The separation (the “Separation”) of MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”), the investment adviser to each of the series (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”) of Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (collectively, the “Trusts”), from its parent company, MetLife, Inc. (“MetLife”), to a separate retail business, Brighthouse Financial, Inc. (“Brighthouse”), is expected to result in a change in control of the Adviser, and therefore an “assignment” of each Portfolio’s current advisory agreement (each a “Current Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “Current Advisory Agreements”). At the November 15-16, 2016 meeting (“November Meeting”) of the Board of Trustees of the Trusts (the “Board”), the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not “interested persons,” as defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940, of any Portfolio (the “Independent Trustees”), approved a new advisory agreement (each a “New Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “New Advisory Agreements”) between the Trusts, on behalf of a Portfolio, and the Adviser, to be effective upon the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements in connection with the Separation, and recommended that the shareholders of the Trusts approve the New Advisory Agreements. The Board took those actions after consideration of and deliberation over information concerning the Separation, including with respect to the degree to which the Separation would affect the provision of investment advisory services to the Trusts. Information about the Board’s considerations and process is set forth below.

In determining whether to approve the New Advisory Agreements and in considering the Separation, the Board considered the nature, quality and extent of the services that are currently provided by the Adviser under the Current Advisory Agreements as well as the services to be provided under the New Advisory Agreements. The Board’s review was conducted as part of, and in conjunction with, the Board’s annual review of the Current Advisory Agreements, which culminated at the November Meeting. In approving the New Advisory Agreements, the Board considered its conclusions with respect to its approvals of the Current Advisory Agreements, including the Board’s general satisfaction with the nature, extent and quality of services being provided by the Adviser to each Portfolio. Appendix A and Appendix B contains a further description of the process followed, information reviewed and the material factors considered by the Board in approving the continuation of the Current Advisory Agreements.

A substantial portion of the Board’s review of the New Advisory Agreements focused on the Separation, including the potential effect of the implementation of the Separation on the operations, personnel, organizational structure, capitalization, and financial and other resources of the Adviser. After being informed by the Adviser in January 2016 of the possibility of the Separation, the Board and its Committees discussed the Separation and its possible effects on the Trusts with personnel of the Adviser and the anticipated senior management at Brighthouse during the course of the Board’s or Committee’s regularly scheduled, in-person, quarterly meetings.

Between August and November 2016, the Board and the Independent Trustees engaged in an extensive review and analysis of the Separation and how the Separation related to the Adviser and the Trusts and how it could affect the services provided to the Trusts. This analysis focused on, among other matters, the assurances from Brighthouse’s anticipated leadership as to its expectations for the continuity and stability of the Adviser’s personnel throughout implementation of the Separation and for the foreseeable future thereafter. The Board considered that the Separation is being implemented as a result of MetLife’s determination to divest itself of a substantial portion of its U.S. retail business (of which the Adviser forms a portion). The Board also considered that it has been satisfied as a general matter with the nature and quality of the services that the Adviser provides to the Portfolios, including investment advisory, administrative, legal, compliance, and support services, and that it would be in the Portfolios’ best interests to maintain continuity and stability in the services that are currently being provided. The Board carefully considered the anticipated future plans of Brighthouse related to capitalization and operational matters for Brighthouse and the Adviser, as well as the importance of the Adviser to the businesses of Brighthouse after the Separation.

Among other steps in its review process, which accelerated on October 5, 2016 when Brighthouse filed its Form 10 with the SEC, the following actions were taken and considered by or on behalf of the Board:

1. The Independent Trustees solicited and received ongoing advice regarding the legal duties of the Independent Trustees from Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young LLP (“Stradley Ronon”), legal counsel for the Independent Trustees, which law firm has extensive experience regarding such matters.

2. Following the August 16-17, 2016 Board and Committee quarterly meetings, the Independent Trustees established an ad hoc group of Independent Trustees (the “Working Group”) to help oversee, coordinate, and conduct due diligence activities with respect to the Separation. The Working Group regularly reported on the due diligence activities to the other Independent Trustees.

3. Since January 2016, the Board posed ongoing inquiries to, and received regular updates from, the Adviser and anticipated senior management at Brighthouse at either in-person meetings dedicated to the status of the Separation or during the course of the Board or Committee’s regular quarterly meetings. The Board considered, among other matters, relevant legal guidance and the processes followed by certain other investment company boards of directors or trustees when they approved contracts in connection with change in control events, while recognizing the unique circumstances of the Separation.

MSF-33

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Stock Index Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

4. The Board received and reviewed the Form 10 of Brighthouse that contained extensive information relating to, among other matters, Brighthouse’s anticipated business plans and financial structure. The Board also received and reviewed reports from rating agencies with respect to Brighthouse.

5. Stradley Ronon retained Barrington Partners (“Barrington”), an independent consulting firm with a specific focus on the asset management industry and experience relating to business operations such as those to be conducted by Brighthouse, including its proposed subsidiary, the Adviser, in order to help Stradley Ronon evaluate the Separation based on the Form 10 and other materials and related information provided by the Adviser and its affiliates. Barrington conducted a series of in-person and telephonic meetings with anticipated senior management at Brighthouse (i.e., the aforementioned anticipated officers of Brighthouse and others) and with personnel of the Adviser who provide services to the Trusts. Stradley Ronon, with the assistance of Barrington, evaluated the information and advised the Independent Trustees with respect to, among other matters, details of Brighthouse’s anticipated business plan to understand the implications of the Separation to the Adviser and its personnel. The Independent Trustees and the Working Group attended certain in-person and telephonic conference call meetings at which Barrington rendered advice to Stradley Ronon regarding these matters and responded to questions.

6. The Independent Trustees requested and participated in in-person meetings with anticipated senior management personnel at Brighthouse, including its President and Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, Chief Operating Officer, and Chief Investment Officer. The Independent Trustees also met with personnel of the Adviser.

7. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of Stradley Ronon, prepared written inquiries to the Adviser and its affiliates regarding the Separation, and received written assurances from the Adviser and its affiliates that they have no plans to make any material changes affecting the personnel of the Adviser (including those personnel who provide investment, administrative, legal and compliance services) and the Adviser and its affiliates will not initiate such changes without prior notice to and discussion with the Board.

8. The Board considered representations by the Adviser and its affiliates that approval of the New Advisory Agreements would be necessary for the Portfolios to continue receiving investment advisory services from the Adviser following the change in control.

9. The Board considered representations by the Adviser, as well as related supporting documentation, indicating that the New Advisory Agreements, including the fees payable thereunder, are substantially identical to the terms of the corresponding Current Advisory Agreements.

10. The Board considered representations by the Adviser and its affiliates, as well as related supporting documentation, indicating that: (1) the Adviser can be expected to provide services of the same nature, extent, and quality under the New Advisory Agreements and as are provided thereby under the Current Advisory Agreements; and (2) the Separation is not expected to result in any changes to (i) the management of the Portfolios, or (ii) the investment objective of or the principal investment strategies used to manage any of the Portfolios.

11. The Board considered the ability of the Adviser and its affiliates to retain the employment of key personnel, as well as the overall positive indications by many such personnel regarding the opportunities presented by the Separation.

12. The Board considered that the Adviser and its affiliates have agreed to bear all expenses associated with obtaining shareholder approval of the New Advisory Agreements.

13. The Board considered Brighthouse’s preliminary “branding” plans regarding the future name of its operations.

14. The Board considered the advice provided by Ropes & Gray, LLP, legal counsel to the Trusts and the Adviser, with respect to the New Advisory Agreements (including advice relating to the process and timing of seeking shareholder approval of the New Advisory Agreements, and whether shareholder approvals would be required in connection with any future aspects of the Separation) and regarding the Board’s role and responsibilities with respect to the Separation.

15. The Board considered MetLife’s stated intention of divesting its ownership interest in the Adviser through the Separation, including the potential advantages and disadvantages of this divestiture to shareholders of the Portfolios. The Board considered the likelihood that the Adviser would retain its key personnel after the Separation. The Board considered that the garnering of new assets into the Trusts is based on sales of variable annuity and variable life insurance products, which sales have declined in prior years as a result of, among other things, the capital requirements of MetLife. The Board considered the representations of the anticipated senior management of Brighthouse that the Separation provides the Trusts with an opportunity for the garnering of new assets as Brighthouse will likely sell such products going forward. The Board considered also that the divestiture would result in a change in the manner in

MSF-34

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Stock Index Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

which the Trusts access certain services and resources of MetLife (after the Separation those services will be provided through a transition services agreement), the loss of affiliation with the MetLife name brand, and the possible going forward need of the Trusts to hire a transfer agent, as such transfer agency services are currently provided to the Trusts for no fee.

16. The Board considered that, if shareholders approve the New Advisory Agreements, the Board and the Adviser will conduct their annual contract review process in November 2017. Thus, the Board emphasized that it would be able to, and intends to, monitor on a regular basis the ability of the Adviser and its affiliates to comply with their undertakings to the Board and to monitor on an ongoing basis the quality of services to, and expenses of, the Portfolios. In addition, the Board considered that, under the New Advisory Agreements, it will continue to have the authority, should the need arise in its view, to terminate any of the New Advisory Agreements without penalty upon 60 days’ notice.

Based on the foregoing and other relevant considerations, at the November Meeting, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, voted to approve the New Advisory Agreements and to recommend approval of the New Advisory Agreements by shareholders of the Portfolios. In this connection, the Board concluded that, in light of all factors considered, the terms of the New Advisory Agreement, including fee rates, were fair and reasonable, and that it would be in the best interests of shareholders of each Portfolio to approve the New Advisory Agreements.

In the event that approval of the New Advisory Agreements by shareholders of the Portfolios has not been obtained before the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements as a result of the change in control of the Adviser, the Board also approved an interim advisory agreement with the Adviser (the “Interim Advisory Agreement”) on behalf of each Portfolio that will go into effect upon the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements. The Board’s determination to approve each Interim Advisory Agreement was based on the same information and considerations as the Board’s approval of the New Advisory Agreements so as to ensure continuity of advisory services from the Adviser to the Portfolios following the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements.

MSF-35

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Stock Index Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Sub-Advisory Agreements

The separation (the “Separation”) of MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”), the investment adviser to each of the series (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”) of Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (“MIST” and “MSF,” respectively, and collectively, the “Trusts”), from its parent company, MetLife, Inc. (“MetLife”), to a separate retail business, Brighthouse Financial, Inc. (“Brighthouse”), is expected to result in a change in control of the Adviser, and therefore an “assignment” of each Portfolio’s current advisory agreement and, as a result, the automatic termination of the sub-advisory agreements (each a “Sub-Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisory Agreements”) between the Adviser and MetLife Investment Advisors, LLC (“MLIA”), an affiliate of the Adviser, for the MetLife Aggregate Bond Index Portfolio (formerly, Barclays Aggregate Bond Index Portfolio), MetLife Stock Index Portfolio, MetLife Mid Cap Stock Index Portfolio, Russell 2000^® Index Portfolio and MSCI EAFE^® Index Portfolio, each a series of MSF, and for MetLife Multi-Index Targeted Risk Portfolio, a series of MIST (the “MLIA Sub-Advised Portfolios”), each of which is sub-advised by MLIA. At the November 15-16, 2016 meeting (“November Meeting”) of the Board of Trustees of the Trusts (the “Board”), the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not “interested persons,” as defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940, of any Portfolio (the “Independent Trustees”), approved new sub-advisory agreements (each a “New Sub-Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “New Sub-Advisory Agreements”) for each of the MLIA Sub-Advised Portfolios, and recommended that the shareholders of the Trusts approve the New Sub-Advisory Agreements. Information about the Board’s considerations and process is set forth below.

In determining whether to approve the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, the Board considered the nature, quality and extent of the services that are currently provided by MLIA under the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements as well as the services to be provided under the New Sub-Advisory Agreements. The Board’s review was conducted as part of, and in conjunction with, the Board’s annual review of the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements, which culminated at the November Meeting. In approving the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, the Board considered its conclusions with respect to its approvals of the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements, including the Board’s general satisfaction with the nature, extent and quality of services being provided by MLIA to the MLIA Sub-Advised Portfolios. Appendix A contains a further description of the process followed, information reviewed and the material factors considered by the Board in approving the continuation of the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements.

In addition, the following actions were taken and considered by or on behalf of the Board:

1. The Independent Trustees of the Board solicited and received ongoing advice regarding the legal duties of the Independent Trustees from Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young LLP (“Stradley Ronon”), legal counsel for the Independent Trustees, which law firm has extensive experience regarding such matters.

2. The Board considered representations by the Adviser and its affiliates, including MLIA, that the Separation will not have any impact on the level, nature and quality of services currently provided by MLIA to the MLIA Sub-Advised Portfolios.

3. The Board considered representations by the Adviser and its affiliates that approval of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements would be necessary for the MLIA Sub-Advised Portfolios to continue receiving sub-advisory services from MLIA following the change in control of the Adviser.

4. The Board considered representations by the Adviser, as well as related supporting documentation, indicating that the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, including the fees payable thereunder, are the same as the terms of the corresponding Current Sub-Advisory Agreements.

5. The Board considered that the Adviser and its affiliates have agreed to bear all expenses associated with obtaining shareholder approval of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements.

6. The Board considered the advice provided by Ropes & Gray, LLP, legal counsel to the Trusts and the Adviser, with respect to the New Sub-Advisory Agreements (including advice relating to the necessity for shareholder approval for the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, the process and timing of seeking shareholder approval of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, and whether shareholder approvals would be required in connection with any future aspects of the Separation) and regarding the Board’s role and responsibilities with respect to the Separation.

7. The Board considered that, if shareholders approve the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, the Board, the Adviser, and MLIA will conduct their annual contract review process in November 2017. Thus, the Board emphasized that it would be able to, and intends to, monitor on a regular basis the ability of MLIA to comply with its undertakings to the Board and the Adviser and to monitor on an ongoing basis the quality of services to, and expenses of, the MLIA Sub-Advised Portfolios. In addition, the Board considered that, under the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, it will continue to have the authority, should the need arise in its view, to terminate any of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements without penalty upon no more than 60 days’ notice.

MSF-36

Metropolitan Series Fund

MetLife Stock Index Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

Based on the foregoing and other relevant considerations, at the November Meeting, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, voted to approve the New Sub-Advisory Agreements and to recommend approval of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements by shareholders of the MLIA Sub-Advised Portfolios. In this connection, the Board concluded that, in light of all factors considered, the terms of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, including fee rates, were fair and reasonable, and that it would be in the best interests of shareholders of each MLIA Sub-Advised Portfolio to approve the New Sub-Advisory Agreements.

In the event that approval of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements by shareholders of the MLIA Sub-Advised Portfolios has not been obtained before the termination of the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements as a result of the change in control of the Adviser, the Board also approved an interim sub-advisory agreement with MLIA (the “Interim Sub-Advisory Agreement”) on behalf of each MLIA Sub-Advised Portfolio that will go into effect upon the termination of the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements. The Board’s determination to approve each Interim Sub-Advisory Agreement was based on the same information and considerations as the Board’s approval of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements so as to ensure continuity of sub-advisory services from MLIA to the MLIA Sub-Advised Portfolios following the termination of the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements.

MSF-37

Metropolitan Series Fund

MFS Total Return Portfolio

Managed by Massachusetts Financial Services Company

Portfolio Manager Commentary*

PERFORMANCE

For the 12 months ended December 31, 2016, the Class A, B, E, and F shares of the MFS Total Return Portfolio returned 9.20%, 8.92%, 9.03%, and 8.97%, respectively. The Portfolio’s benchmarks, the Standard & Poor’s (“S&P”) 500 Index¹ and the Bloomberg Barclays U.S. Aggregate Bond Index², returned 11.96% and 2.65%, respectively. A blend of the S&P 500 Index (60%) and the Bloomberg Barclays U.S. Aggregate Bond Index (40%) returned 8.31%.

MARKET ENVIRONMENT/CONDITIONS

Sluggish global growth weighed on both developed and emerging market (“EM”) economies during much of the reporting period, though signs of improved growth became evident in late 2016. The U.S. Federal Reserve increased interest rates by 25 basis points at the end of the period, the second hike of the cycle which began in December 2015. Globally, however, central bank policy remained highly accommodative, which forced many government, and even some corporate, bond yields into negative territory during the period. During the first half of the year, the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union (“EU”), beginning a multi-year process of negotiation in order to achieve “Brexit.” While markets initially reacted to the vote with alarm, the spillover to European and EM economies was relatively short-lived, although risks of further hits to EU cohesiveness could re-emerge. Late in the period, the surprising U.S. presidential election outcome prompted a significant rally in equities and a rise in bond yields in anticipation of a reflationary policy mix from the incoming Trump administration.

Headwinds from lower energy and commodity prices, which had spread beyond the Energy, Materials, and Industrial sectors early in the reporting period, abated later in the year as stabilizing oil prices helped push energy earnings higher relative to expectations. A sharp rise in the U.S. dollar was a headwind for multinationals late in the period. The sharp rise in the U.S. dollar also weighed on earnings. U.S. consumer spending held up well during the second half of the period amid a modest increase in real wages and relatively low gasoline prices. Demand for autos reached near-record territory, while the housing market continued its recovery. Slow global trade continued to mirror slow global growth, particularly for many EM countries. That said, EM countries began to show signs of a modest upturn in activity along with adjustment in their external accounts. These improved conditions appeared to have reassured investors and contributed to record inflows into the asset class during July and August as negative yields for an increasing share of developed market bonds drove yield-hungry investors further out on the risk spectrum. Similar investor inflows were experienced in the investment grade and high yield corporate markets. Late in the reporting period, however, new challenges emerged for emerging markets debt (“EMD”) as a result of the U.S. presidential election, which raised concerns about the potential for a protectionist turn in U.S. trade policy which could negatively impact EM economies. These concerns, along with rising expectations for U.S. growth, inflation and rates, have turned the tables on flows into EMD. Since the election, flows have reversed. As of the end of the period, the markets seemed to be in “wait-and-see” mode, looking for evidence to either confirm or refute the repricing of risk that has occurred since Election Day.

PORTFOLIO REVIEW/PERIOD END POSITIONING

The Portfolio outperformed its blended benchmark for the period. Within the equity portion of the Portfolio, an overweight position in the Financials sector aided performance relative to the S&P 500 Index. Most notably, the Portfolio’s overweight holdings of global financial services firms JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs Group, Bank of America, and insurance company Prudential Financial aided relative performance as all four companies outperformed the S&P 500 Index during the reporting period.

Stock selection within the Consumer Discretionary sector also helped boost relative results. Within this sector, overweight holdings of media firm Time Warner and cable services provider Charter Communications bolstered relative performance. Not owning shares of athletic shoes and apparel manufacturer NIKE further supported relative results.

In other sectors, the Portfolio’s underweight positions in holding company Alphabet and biotech firm Gilead Sciences strengthened relative performance as both stocks underperformed the S&P 500 Index during the reporting period. Not owning shares of biotechnology medicines company Amgen also boosted relative returns.

Within the fixed income portion of the Portfolio, a greater exposure to both the corporate industrials and corporate financials sectors, a lesser exposure to U.S. Treasuries, and an overweight position to commercial mortgage backed securities (“CMBS”) aided performance relative to the Bloomberg Barclays U.S. Aggregate Bond Index.

Within the equity portion of the Portfolio, stock selection within both the Energy and Materials sectors was a primary detractor from performance relative to the S&P 500 Index. However, no individual stocks with the Energy sector were amongst the Portfolio’s top relative detractors during the reporting period. Within the Materials sector, an overweight position in chemical company PPG Industries further weighed on relative results.

Stock selection within the Telecommunications Services sector also detracted from relative performance. The Portfolio’s underweight position in Telecommunication Services provider AT&T weakened relative returns.

Elsewhere, overweight positions in drugstore retailer CVS, diversified financial services firm Wells Fargo, pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly, and pharmaceutical and medical products maker Abbott Laboratories hurt relative performance. Not owning shares of computer graphics processors maker NVIDIA, health insurance and Medicare/Medicaid provider UnitedHealth Group, and insurance and investment firm Berkshire Hathaway also dampened relative results. The

MSF-1

Metropolitan Series Fund

MFS Total Return Portfolio

Managed by Massachusetts Financial Services Company

Portfolio Manager Commentary*—(Continued)

Portfolio’s holdings of motor vehicle manufacturer Kia Motors weighed on relative returns.

During the reporting period, within the equity portion of the Portfolio, the Portfolio’s relative currency exposure resulting primarily from differences between the Portfolio’s and the benchmark’s exposures to holdings of securities denominated in foreign currencies, was another detractor from relative performance. All of MFS’ investment decisions are driven by the fundamentals of each individual opportunity and as such, it is common for our portfolios to have different currency exposure than the benchmark.

Within the fixed income portion of the Portfolio, security selection within corporate bonds rated in the “BBB” credit quality segment was a primary detractor from performance relative to the Bloomberg Barclays U.S. Aggregate Bond Index.

For the twelve-month period ending December 31, 2016, the equity portion of the Portfolio increased its exposure to Industrials and Financials while decreasing exposure to Health Care and Consumer Discretionary. Within the fixed income portion, the Portfolio slightly increased its weighting in government and municipal securities while slightly decreasing its weighting in CMBS.

Brooks Taylor

Steven Gorham

Nevin Chitkara

Jonathan Sage

Richard Hawkins

William Douglas

Joshua Marston

Portfolio Managers

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 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.

MSF-2

Metropolitan Series Fund

MFS Total Return Portfolio

A $10,000 INVESTMENT COMPARED TO THE S&P 500 INDEX & THE BLOOMBERG BARCLAYS U.S. AGGREGATE BOND INDEX

AVERAGE ANNUAL RETURNS (%) (FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2016)

	1 Year		5 Year		10 Year
MFS Total Return Portfolio
Class A		9.20		9.48		5.50
Class B		8.92		9.21		5.24
Class E		9.03		9.31		5.34
Class F		8.97		9.26		5.29
Bloomberg Barclays U.S. Aggregate Bond Index		2.65		2.23		4.34
S&P 500 Index		11.96		14.66		6.95

¹ The Standard & Poor’s (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 The Bloomberg Barclays 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.

Portfolio performance is calculated including reinvestment of all income and capital gain distributions. Performance numbers are net of all Portfolio expenses but do not include any insurance, sales, separate account or administrative charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts or any additional expenses that participants may bear relating to the operations of their plans. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower. The performance of any index referenced above has not been adjusted for ongoing management, distribution and operating expenses, and sales charges applicable to mutual fund investments. Direct investment in any index is not possible. The performance of Class A shares, as set forth in the line graph above, will differ from that of other classes because of the difference in expenses paid by policyholders investing in the different share classes.

This information represents past performance and is not indicative of future results. Investment return and principal value may fluctuate so that shares, upon redemption, may be worth more or less than the original cost.

PORTFOLIO COMPOSITION AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2016

Top Equity Sectors

	% of Net Assets
Financials		14.4
Industrials		7.9
Health Care		7.8
Consumer Staples		7.1
Information Technology		6.3

Top Fixed Income Sectors

	% of Net Assets
U.S. Treasury & Government Agencies		24.6
Corporate Bonds & Notes		11.9
Mortgage-Backed Securities		1.6
Asset-Backed Securities		1.0
Municipals		0.4

Top Equity Holdings

	% of Net Assets
JPMorgan Chase & Co.		2.4
Philip Morris International, Inc.		1.6
Johnson & Johnson		1.1
Travelers Cos., Inc. (The)		1.1
Comcast Corp.		1.1

Top Fixed Income Issuers

	% of Net Assets
U.S. Treasury Notes		9.6
Fannie Mae 30 Yr. Pool		5.3
U.S. Treasury Bonds		3.3
Freddie Mac 30 Yr. Gold Pool		3.0
Freddie Mac Multifamily Structured Pass-Through Certificates		1.0

MSF-3

Metropolitan Series Fund

MFS 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, 2016 through December 31, 2016.

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.

MFS Total Return Portfolio		Annualized Expense Ratio			Beginning Account Value July 1, 2016		Ending Account Value December 31, 2016		Expenses Paid During Period** July 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016
Class A	Actual		0.60	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,033.10	$	3.07
	Hypothetical*		0.60	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,022.12	$	3.05
Class B	Actual		0.85	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,031.80	$	4.34
	Hypothetical*		0.85	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,020.86	$	4.32
Class E	Actual		0.75	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,032.30	$	3.83
	Hypothetical*		0.75	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,021.37	$	3.81
Class F	Actual		0.80	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,032.00	$	4.09
	Hypothetical*		0.80	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,021.12	$	4.06

* 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 366 (to reflect the one-half year period).

MSF-4

Metropolitan Series Fund

MFS Total Return Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—58.5% of Net Assets

Security Description	Shares		Value
Aerospace & Defense—2.1%
L3 Technologies, Inc.		8,413	$	1,279,702
Lockheed Martin Corp.		16,582		4,144,505
Northrop Grumman Corp.		24,380		5,670,300
Orbital ATK, Inc.		6,048		530,591
United Technologies Corp.		59,839		6,559,551
				18,184,649
Air Freight & Logistics—0.5%
United Parcel Service, Inc. - Class B		34,148		3,914,727
Airlines—0.4%
Copa Holdings S.A. - Class A		22,495		2,043,221
Delta Air Lines, Inc.		25,929		1,275,447
				3,318,668
Auto Components—0.3%
Delphi Automotive plc		36,615		2,466,020
Automobiles—0.5%
General Motors Co.		39,085		1,361,721
Harley-Davidson, Inc.		14,940		871,600
Hyundai Motor Co.		8,320		999,589
Kia Motors Corp.		40,812		1,324,243
				4,557,153
Banks—6.6%
Bank of America Corp.		322,919		7,136,510
BB&T Corp. (b)		34,129		1,604,746
BNP Paribas S.A.		11,300		719,826
Citigroup, Inc.		67,799		4,029,295
JPMorgan Chase & Co.		242,709		20,943,360
PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. (The)		38,988		4,560,036
Royal Bank of Canada		36,562		2,474,501
Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group, Inc.		42,000		1,592,222
SunTrust Banks, Inc.		17,574		963,934
U.S. Bancorp		125,076		6,425,154
Wells Fargo & Co.		109,429		6,030,632
				56,480,216
Beverages—0.6%
Coca-Cola Co. (The)		22,633		938,364
Coca-Cola European Partners plc (b)		22,956		720,818
Diageo plc		104,351		2,699,675
PepsiCo, Inc.		7,696		805,233
				5,164,090
Biotechnology—0.2%
Celgene Corp. (a)		6,427		743,925
Gilead Sciences, Inc.		11,031		789,930
				1,533,855
Building Products—1.0%
Johnson Controls International plc		137,553		5,665,808
Building Products—(Continued)
Owens Corning		65,666		3,385,739
				9,051,547
Capital Markets—3.7%
Bank of New York Mellon Corp. (The)		117,711		5,577,147
BlackRock, Inc.		7,872		2,995,611
Blackstone Group L.P. (The)		34,531		933,373
Charles Schwab Corp. (The)		22,576		891,075
Franklin Resources, Inc.		45,257		1,791,272
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (The)		30,494		7,301,788
Moody’s Corp.		10,497		989,552
Morgan Stanley		96,629		4,082,575
Nasdaq, Inc.		28,213		1,893,657
S&P Global, Inc.		3,008		323,480
State Street Corp.		43,707		3,396,908
UBS Group AG		90,928		1,423,472
				31,599,910
Chemicals—1.7%
AdvanSix, Inc. (a)		1		22
Axalta Coating Systems, Ltd. (a) (b)		48,377		1,315,854
Celanese Corp. - Series A		16,156		1,272,124
E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.		27,970		2,052,998
LyondellBasell Industries NV - Class A		20,764		1,781,136
Monsanto Co.		16,911		1,779,206
PPG Industries, Inc.		59,551		5,643,053
Sherwin-Williams Co. (The)		3,570		959,402
				14,803,795
Commercial Services & Supplies—0.1%
Transcontinental, Inc. - Class A (b)		50,849		840,382
Communications Equipment—0.7%
Cisco Systems, Inc.		159,028		4,805,826
Motorola Solutions, Inc. (b)		10,271		851,363
				5,657,189
Consumer Finance—0.5%
American Express Co.		21,315		1,579,015
Discover Financial Services		32,969		2,376,735
				3,955,750
Containers & Packaging—0.1%
Crown Holdings, Inc. (a)		15,081		792,808
Distributors—0.1%
LKQ Corp. (a)		32,417		993,581
Diversified Telecommunication Services—1.3%
AT&T, Inc. (b)		22,725		966,494
Frontier Communications Corp. (b)		148,871		503,184
TDC A/S (a)		127,843		656,367
Telefonica Brasil S.A. (ADR) (b)		48,618		650,509

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-5

Metropolitan Series Fund

MFS Total Return Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Diversified Telecommunication Services—(Continued)
Verizon Communications, Inc.		152,366	$	8,133,297
				10,909,851
Electric Utilities—1.4%
American Electric Power Co., Inc.		25,730		1,619,961
Duke Energy Corp.		27,407		2,127,331
Exelon Corp.		93,947		3,334,179
FirstEnergy Corp.		21,982		680,783
PPL Corp.		88,101		2,999,839
SSE plc		37,804		722,672
Xcel Energy, Inc.		12,525		509,767
				11,994,532
Electrical Equipment—0.3%
Eaton Corp. plc		38,603		2,589,875
Energy Equipment & Services—0.3%
Schlumberger, Ltd.		32,809		2,754,316
Equity Real Estate Investment Trusts—0.7%
Medical Properties Trust, Inc. (b)		251,147		3,089,108
STORE Capital Corp. (b)		55,054		1,360,385
Washington Prime Group, Inc. (b)		123,252		1,283,053
				5,732,546
Food & Staples Retailing—1.0%
CVS Health Corp.		88,003		6,944,317
Kroger Co. (The) (b)		26,053		899,089
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.		11,449		791,355
				8,634,761
Food Products—2.2%
Archer-Daniels-Midland Co.		82,111		3,748,367
Bunge, Ltd.		12,708		918,026
Danone S.A.		23,829		1,508,265
General Mills, Inc.		47,336		2,923,945
J.M. Smucker Co. (The)		6,985		894,499
Kellogg Co. (b)		14,891		1,097,616
Marine Harvest ASA (a)		95,274		1,718,042
Mead Johnson Nutrition Co.		19,257		1,362,625
Mondelez International, Inc. - Class A		24,871		1,102,531
Nestle S.A.		55,241		3,962,221
				19,236,137
Health Care Equipment & Supplies—2.2%
Abbott Laboratories		121,067		4,650,183
Danaher Corp.		65,923		5,131,446
Medtronic plc		79,916		5,692,417
St. Jude Medical, Inc.		28,724		2,303,378
Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. (b)		13,313		1,373,902
				19,151,326
Health Care Providers & Services—0.6%
Cigna Corp.		13,387		1,785,692
Health Care Providers & Services—(Continued)
Express Scripts Holding Co. (a)		14,250		980,257
HCA Holdings, Inc. (a) (b)		5,516		408,294
McKesson Corp.		17,188		2,414,055
				5,588,298
Hotels, Restaurants & Leisure—0.6%
Aramark (b)		33,249		1,187,654
Brinker International, Inc. (b)		25,975		1,286,542
Marriott International, Inc. - Class A		12,193		1,008,117
Starbucks Corp.		10,830		601,282
Yum! Brands, Inc.		20,280		1,284,332
				5,367,927
Household Durables—0.0%
Newell Brands, Inc. (b)		6,235		278,393
Household Products—0.6%
Kimberly-Clark Corp.		9,676		1,104,225
Procter & Gamble Co. (The)		38,207		3,212,445
Reckitt Benckiser Group plc		10,380		877,466
				5,194,136
Industrial Conglomerates—1.5%
3M Co.		34,335		6,131,201
Honeywell International, Inc.		56,766		6,576,341
				12,707,542
Insurance—3.5%
Aon plc		38,632		4,308,627
Chubb, Ltd.		54,620		7,216,394
Prudential Financial, Inc.		56,628		5,892,710
Travelers Cos., Inc. (The)		77,374		9,472,125
Validus Holdings, Ltd. (b)		12,271		675,028
Zurich Insurance Group AG (a)		8,256		2,267,605
				29,832,489
Internet & Direct Marketing Retail—0.1%
Amazon.com, Inc. (a)		1,045		783,614
Internet Software & Services—0.6%
Alphabet, Inc. - Class A (a)		1,381		1,094,373
Facebook, Inc. - Class A (a)		35,920		4,132,596
				5,226,969
IT Services—2.1%
Accenture plc - Class A		60,846		7,126,892
Amdocs, Ltd.		7,515		437,749
Cognizant Technology Solutions Corp. - Class A (a)		11,451		641,599
Fidelity National Information Services, Inc.		20,079		1,518,776
Fiserv, Inc. (a)		7,177		762,772
Global Payments, Inc.		12,833		890,738
International Business Machines Corp.		28,425		4,718,266
Sabre Corp. (b)		50,437		1,258,403

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-6

Metropolitan Series Fund

MFS Total Return Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
IT Services—(Continued)
Visa, Inc. - Class A (b)		11,225	$	875,774
				18,230,969
Life Sciences Tools & Services—0.6%
Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc.		35,081		4,949,929
Machinery—1.3%
Allison Transmission Holdings, Inc.		68,806		2,318,074
Cummins, Inc.		2,447		334,431
Deere & Co.		9,994		1,029,782
Fortive Corp. (b)		17,006		912,032
Illinois Tool Works, Inc.		29,671		3,633,511
Ingersoll-Rand plc		12,332		925,393
Pentair plc		12,008		673,289
Stanley Black & Decker, Inc.		14,395		1,650,962
				11,477,474
Media—2.7%
Charter Communications, Inc. - Class A (a)		14,654		4,219,180
Comcast Corp. - Class A		133,293		9,203,882
Interpublic Group of Cos., Inc. (The)		28,160		659,225
Omnicom Group, Inc. (b)		41,361		3,520,235
Time Warner, Inc.		44,685		4,313,443
Twenty-First Century Fox, Inc. - Class A		34,675		972,287
Walt Disney Co. (The)		4,032		420,215
				23,308,467
Metals & Mining—0.2%
Rio Tinto plc		40,183		1,530,194
Mortgage Real Estate Investment Trusts—0.2%
Annaly Capital Management, Inc. (b)		82,247		820,002
Starwood Property Trust, Inc. (b)		57,588		1,264,057
				2,084,059
Multi-Utilities—0.3%
Engie S.A.		67,894		864,948
Public Service Enterprise Group, Inc.		22,341		980,323
WEC Energy Group, Inc. (b)		15,159		889,076
				2,734,347
Multiline Retail—0.6%
Kohl’s Corp. (b)		21,071		1,040,486
Target Corp.		55,664		4,020,611
				5,061,097
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels—3.6%
Anadarko Petroleum Corp.		25,425		1,772,885
BP plc		444,771		2,763,581
Canadian Natural Resources, Ltd.		19,758		629,885
Chevron Corp.		30,887		3,635,400
Enterprise Products Partners L.P.		61,897		1,673,695
EOG Resources, Inc.		32,835		3,319,618
EQT Corp. (b)		17,964		1,174,846
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels—(Continued)
Exxon Mobil Corp.		49,175		4,438,535
Galp Energia SGPS S.A.		59,522		884,799
Hess Corp.		22,080		1,375,363
Noble Energy, Inc.		33,895		1,290,044
Occidental Petroleum Corp.		42,082		2,997,501
Plains All American Pipeline L.P.		19,096		616,610
Rice Energy, Inc. (a)		39,605		845,567
Valero Energy Corp. (b)		45,886		3,134,932
Western Gas Partners L.P.		13,334		783,506
				31,336,767
Personal Products—0.2%
Coty, Inc. - Class A		87,644		1,604,762
Pharmaceuticals—4.0%
Allergan plc (a)		4,656		977,807
Bayer AG		32,129		3,351,889
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.		17,936		1,048,180
Eli Lilly & Co. (b)		66,474		4,889,163
Johnson & Johnson		84,815		9,771,536
Merck & Co., Inc.		153,144		9,015,587
Novartis AG		5,263		382,823
Pfizer, Inc. (b)		152,741		4,961,028
Roche Holding AG		1,512		344,514
				34,742,527
Professional Services—0.2%
Equifax, Inc.		13,179		1,558,153
Road & Rail—0.4%
Canadian National Railway Co. (b)		13,475		908,215
Union Pacific Corp.		26,755		2,773,958
				3,682,173
Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment—1.2%
Broadcom, Ltd.		5,342		944,305
Intel Corp.		39,561		1,434,878
Maxim Integrated Products, Inc.		26,524		1,023,031
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (ADR)		92,729		2,665,959
Texas Instruments, Inc.		55,585		4,056,037
				10,124,210
Software—1.1%
CA, Inc. (b)		13,946		443,064
Check Point Software Technologies, Ltd. (a) (b)		30,532		2,578,733
Intuit, Inc. (b)		5,290		606,287
Microsoft Corp.		54,489		3,385,947
Oracle Corp.		61,689		2,371,942
				9,385,973
Specialty Retail—0.6%
Advance Auto Parts, Inc. (b)		2,459		415,866
Best Buy Co., Inc. (b)		39,073		1,667,245

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-7

Metropolitan Series Fund

MFS Total Return Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares/ Principal Amount*		Value
Specialty Retail—(Continued)
Gap, Inc. (The) (b)		152,112	$	3,413,393
				5,496,504
Technology Hardware, Storage & Peripherals—0.6%
Apple, Inc.		11,158		1,292,320
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co.		144,595		3,345,928
Seagate Technology plc		15,909		607,246
				5,245,494
Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods—0.1%
Hanesbrands, Inc. (b)		27,555		594,361
Tobacco—2.4%
Altria Group, Inc.		96,885		6,551,364
Japan Tobacco, Inc.		15,200		499,371
Philip Morris International, Inc.		146,922		13,441,894
				20,492,629
Trading Companies & Distributors—0.1%
MSC Industrial Direct Co., Inc. - Class A		5,612		518,493
Total Common Stocks (Cost $393,722,199)				503,455,634
U.S. Treasury & Government Agencies—24.6%
Agency Sponsored Mortgage-Backed—11.6%
Fannie Mae 15 Yr. Pool 3.000%, 03/01/27		122,812		126,312
3.000%, 04/01/27		366,564		377,021
3.000%, 04/01/30		337,791		346,938
3.000%, 05/01/30		400,749		411,601
3.000%, 10/01/30		423,296		434,758
3.000%, 11/01/30		365,510		375,513
3.000%, 12/01/30		625,033		642,157
3.000%, 04/01/31		536,428		550,953
3.000%, 12/01/31		1,533,614		1,578,241
4.500%, 04/01/18		6,512		6,693
4.500%, 06/01/18		21,030		21,613
4.500%, 07/01/18		15,053		15,470
4.500%, 03/01/19		37,087		38,116
4.500%, 06/01/19		25,546		26,254
4.500%, 04/01/20		28,441		29,445
4.500%, 07/01/20		14,438		14,941
5.000%, 11/01/17		9,474		9,696
5.000%, 02/01/18		34,604		35,421
5.000%, 12/01/18		83,762		86,045
5.000%, 07/01/19		52,837		54,423
5.000%, 07/01/20		36,205		37,052
5.000%, 08/01/20		24,873		26,069
5.000%, 12/01/20		72,653		75,334
5.500%, 11/01/17		12,915		13,065
5.500%, 12/01/17		2,307		2,332
Agency Sponsored Mortgage-Backed—(Continued)
Fannie Mae 15 Yr. Pool 5.500%, 01/01/18		1,503		1,505
5.500%, 02/01/18		10,573		10,703
5.500%, 06/01/19		51,031		52,445
5.500%, 07/01/19		51,546		53,152
5.500%, 08/01/19		13,328		13,736
5.500%, 09/01/19		53,048		54,912
5.500%, 01/01/21		27,022		28,104
5.500%, 03/01/21		9,270		9,734
6.000%, 01/01/17		146		146
6.000%, 02/01/17		400		399
6.000%, 07/01/17		3,392		3,409
6.000%, 08/01/17		576		579
6.000%, 09/01/17		7,062		7,119
6.000%, 03/01/18		827		837
6.000%, 11/01/18		4,817		4,899
6.000%, 01/01/21		43,182		45,242
6.000%, 05/01/21		9,448		9,847
Fannie Mae 20 Yr. Pool 6.000%, 11/01/25		25,468		28,818
Fannie Mae 30 Yr. Pool 3.000%, 09/01/46		246,786		245,568
3.000%, 10/01/46		1,723,415		1,714,475
3.000%, 11/01/46		1,164,850		1,159,102
3.500%, 11/01/41		60,842		62,757
3.500%, 01/01/42		814,977		840,622
3.500%, 01/01/43		272,890		281,324
3.500%, 04/01/43		880,579		907,611
3.500%, 05/01/43		1,342,250		1,376,311
3.500%, 06/01/43		510,502		526,193
3.500%, 07/01/43		1,413,999		1,457,258
3.500%, 08/01/43		461,899		476,147
3.500%, 09/01/43		1,966,257		2,026,666
3.500%, 02/01/45		1,387,610		1,428,578
3.500%, 09/01/45		1,617,831		1,659,477
3.500%, 10/01/45		1,806,316		1,855,835
3.500%, 01/01/46		341,588		351,389
3.500%, 05/01/46		274,040		281,111
3.500%, TBA (c)		1,388,000		1,422,592
4.000%, 09/01/40		1,676,520		1,765,231
4.000%, 11/01/40		343,223		361,443
4.000%, 12/01/40		794,498		836,718
4.000%, 02/01/41		919,142		969,616
4.000%, 06/01/41		918,584		969,300
4.000%, 11/01/41		314,724		332,321
4.000%, 01/01/42		2,181,503		2,303,309
4.000%, 04/01/42		270,798		285,724
4.000%, 10/01/42		237,682		250,461
4.000%, 12/01/42		282,130		297,805
4.000%, 01/01/43		444,602		469,619
4.000%, 04/01/43		81,763		86,339
4.000%, 05/01/43		872,564		922,602
4.000%, 06/01/43		407,671		429,541
4.000%, 07/01/43		388,652		408,757

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-8

Metropolitan Series Fund

MFS Total Return Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

U.S. Treasury & Government Agencies—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Agency Sponsored Mortgage-Backed—(Continued)
Fannie Mae 15 Yr. Pool 4.000%, 01/01/44		163,150	$	172,754
4.000%, 11/01/44		369,389		388,414
4.500%, 08/01/33		197,912		213,163
4.500%, 03/01/34		600,227		649,325
4.500%, 01/01/40		206,121		222,045
4.500%, 08/01/40		48,474		52,348
4.500%, 02/01/41		326,227		352,737
4.500%, 04/01/41		561,682		606,150
4.500%, 11/01/42		195,091		210,199
4.500%, 01/01/43		442,834		477,307
4.500%, 04/01/44		2,549,193		2,751,510
4.500%, 06/01/44		256,839		276,731
5.000%, 11/01/33		114,631		125,561
5.000%, 03/01/34		96,173		104,869
5.000%, 05/01/34		38,720		42,279
5.000%, 08/01/34		40,067		44,003
5.000%, 09/01/34		150,706		165,450
5.000%, 06/01/35		107,138		117,031
5.000%, 07/01/35		299,535		327,684
5.000%, 08/01/35		93,493		102,061
5.000%, 09/01/35		67,766		73,884
5.000%, 10/01/35		268,438		292,771
5.000%, 07/01/39		292,422		318,572
5.000%, 10/01/39		186,540		205,586
5.000%, 11/01/39		80,750		89,101
5.000%, 11/01/40		121,583		133,659
5.000%, 01/01/41		31,819		35,059
5.000%, 03/01/41		77,013		84,468
5.500%, 02/01/33		50,375		56,472
5.500%, 05/01/33		8,764		9,837
5.500%, 06/01/33		192,649		215,932
5.500%, 07/01/33		185,937		208,266
5.500%, 11/01/33		114,787		128,731
5.500%, 12/01/33		12,524		13,915
5.500%, 01/01/34		139,161		155,582
5.500%, 02/01/34		174,373		195,665
5.500%, 03/01/34		44,467		50,606
5.500%, 04/01/34		49,941		55,587
5.500%, 05/01/34		336,335		379,752
5.500%, 06/01/34		429,761		482,425
5.500%, 07/01/34		133,260		149,177
5.500%, 09/01/34		461,786		516,162
5.500%, 10/01/34		530,114		594,069
5.500%, 11/01/34		711,435		797,093
5.500%, 12/01/34		305,371		342,264
5.500%, 01/01/35		367,962		413,097
5.500%, 02/01/35		7,123		7,915
5.500%, 04/01/35		63,634		71,336
5.500%, 07/01/35		35,775		39,894
5.500%, 08/01/35		8,110		9,011
5.500%, 09/01/35		213,128		240,040
6.000%, 02/01/32		105,477		120,487
6.000%, 03/01/34		26,509		30,711
6.000%, 04/01/34		239,947		275,771
6.000%, 06/01/34		259,541		299,551
Agency Sponsored Mortgage-Backed—(Continued)
Fannie Mae 15 Yr. Pool 6.000%, 07/01/34		242,470		277,508
6.000%, 08/01/34		371,987		425,747
6.000%, 10/01/34		208,901		239,512
6.000%, 11/01/34		34,036		38,641
6.000%, 12/01/34		8,939		10,115
6.000%, 08/01/35		72,878		83,605
6.000%, 09/01/35		68,786		79,327
6.000%, 10/01/35		98,052		112,177
6.000%, 11/01/35		17,907		20,275
6.000%, 12/01/35		102,817		117,887
6.000%, 02/01/36		129,988		149,243
6.000%, 04/01/36		79,603		90,102
6.000%, 06/01/36		23,766		27,190
6.000%, 07/01/37		136,747		157,528
6.500%, 06/01/31		38,516		44,161
6.500%, 07/01/31		9,878		11,175
6.500%, 08/01/31		2,089		2,363
6.500%, 09/01/31		36,519		41,317
6.500%, 02/01/32		30,725		35,111
6.500%, 07/01/32		104,251		120,369
6.500%, 08/01/32		83,994		96,422
6.500%, 01/01/33		43,312		49,643
6.500%, 04/01/34		59,296		67,785
6.500%, 06/01/34		27,912		31,578
6.500%, 08/01/34		17,531		19,834
6.500%, 04/01/36		25,624		28,990
6.500%, 05/01/36		78,446		89,346
6.500%, 02/01/37		118,997		137,106
6.500%, 05/01/37		82,430		93,937
6.500%, 07/01/37		61,123		69,153
Fannie Mae Pool 2.410%, 05/01/23		93,694		92,882
2.550%, 05/01/23		150,576		150,436
2.700%, 07/01/25		121,000		119,124
3.800%, 02/01/18		132,252		134,339
3.829%, 07/01/18		125,316		128,840
4.600%, 09/01/19		128,326		136,352
5.370%, 05/01/18		602,681		622,341
Fannie Mae-ACES 2.578%, 09/25/18		428,114		432,688
Freddie Mac 15 Yr. Gold Pool 4.500%, 05/01/18		6,726		6,901
4.500%, 08/01/18		12,113		12,428
4.500%, 11/01/18		23,399		24,041
4.500%, 01/01/19		47,635		48,952
4.500%, 08/01/19		3,488		3,587
4.500%, 02/01/20		23,458		24,068
4.500%, 08/01/24		256,795		271,460
5.000%, 12/01/17		330		338
5.000%, 05/01/18		6,805		6,972
5.000%, 09/01/18		23,193		23,761
5.500%, 01/01/19		9,736		9,976
5.500%, 04/01/19		6,304		6,463
5.500%, 06/01/19		4,481		4,570
5.500%, 07/01/19		2,189		2,213

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-9

Metropolitan Series Fund

MFS Total Return Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

U.S. Treasury & Government Agencies—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Agency Sponsored Mortgage-Backed—(Continued)
Freddie Mac 15 Yr. Gold Pool 5.500%, 08/01/19		2,835	$	2,903
5.500%, 02/01/20		3,746		3,875
6.000%, 04/01/17		485		487
6.000%, 07/01/17		497		498
6.000%, 10/01/17		857		860
6.000%, 08/01/19		27,333		28,153
6.000%, 09/01/19		7,970		8,097
6.000%, 11/01/19		7,855		8,080
6.000%, 05/01/21		13,785		14,320
6.000%, 10/01/21		37,460		39,351
Freddie Mac 20 Yr. Gold Pool 5.500%, 10/01/24		50,369		55,827
5.500%, 06/01/25		93,981		104,143
5.500%, 07/01/25		52,696		58,403
5.500%, 08/01/25		74,670		82,708
6.000%, 02/01/23		74,968		84,693
6.000%, 12/01/25		33,991		38,401
6.000%, 02/01/26		28,995		32,756
Freddie Mac 30 Yr. Gold Pool 3.000%, 10/01/42		664,236		663,965
3.000%, 04/01/43		1,472,840		1,472,239
3.000%, 05/01/43		1,256,491		1,255,268
3.000%, 05/01/46		658,860		655,323
3.000%, 10/01/46		1,166,891		1,160,627
3.000%, 11/01/46		1,498,702		1,490,658
3.000%, 12/01/46		2,331,000		2,317,042
3.500%, 02/01/42		701,750		722,838
3.500%, 04/01/42		405,855		418,862
3.500%, 12/01/42		1,063,842		1,095,671
3.500%, 04/01/43		287,154		295,645
3.500%, 07/01/43		402,790		414,666
3.500%, 08/01/43		685,099		705,000
3.500%, 11/01/45		1,467,889		1,504,175
3.500%, 12/01/45		666,932		683,435
3.500%, 04/01/46		911,092		933,702
4.000%, 11/01/40		830,226		874,246
4.000%, 01/01/41		1,678,203		1,769,687
4.000%, 11/01/43		499,787		524,949
4.000%, 04/01/44		576,635		606,350
4.000%, 09/01/44		1,731,836		1,819,344
4.500%, 04/01/35		53,172		57,172
4.500%, 07/01/39		291,694		313,745
4.500%, 09/01/39		160,744		173,438
4.500%, 10/01/39		93,212		100,340
4.500%, 12/01/39		150,546		162,079
4.500%, 05/01/42		255,353		274,807
5.000%, 09/01/33		230,575		253,377
5.000%, 03/01/34		47,474		51,849
5.000%, 04/01/34		41,430		45,465
5.000%, 08/01/35		55,155		60,077
5.000%, 10/01/35		118,220		130,128
5.000%, 11/01/35		99,949		109,290
5.000%, 12/01/36		65,512		71,649
5.000%, 07/01/39		473,472		515,624
5.500%, 12/01/33		251,901		286,588
Agency Sponsored Mortgage-Backed—(Continued)
Freddie Mac 30 Yr. Gold Pool 5.500%, 01/01/34		179,458		201,830
5.500%, 04/01/34		37,722		41,798
5.500%, 11/01/34		39,118		44,019
5.500%, 12/01/34		25,390		28,143
5.500%, 05/01/35		34,052		38,018
5.500%, 09/01/35		57,337		64,447
5.500%, 10/01/35		66,803		75,555
6.000%, 04/01/34		106,160		122,029
6.000%, 07/01/34		35,308		40,071
6.000%, 08/01/34		293,163		336,451
6.000%, 09/01/34		4,674		5,280
6.000%, 07/01/35		51,209		58,543
6.000%, 08/01/35		60,803		69,570
6.000%, 11/01/35		108,932		124,726
6.000%, 03/01/36		31,120		35,157
6.000%, 10/01/36		42,813		48,966
6.000%, 03/01/37		7,927		8,955
6.000%, 05/01/37		69,355		79,731
6.000%, 06/01/37		65,082		73,735
6.500%, 05/01/34		22,308		25,197
6.500%, 06/01/34		71,276		80,505
6.500%, 08/01/34		85,654		96,744
6.500%, 10/01/34		88,861		103,364
6.500%, 11/01/34		44,686		50,471
6.500%, 05/01/37		72,843		83,343
6.500%, 07/01/37		88,642		100,503
Freddie Mac Multifamily Structured Pass-Through Certificates 1.869%, 11/25/19		363,000		363,434
2.412%, 08/25/18		451,401		457,030
2.456%, 08/25/19		330,000		334,954
2.510%, 11/25/22		415,000		416,554
2.670%, 12/25/24		507,000		503,990
2.673%, 03/25/26		676,000		662,931
2.682%, 10/25/22		620,000		628,127
2.716%, 06/25/22		346,271		352,154
2.791%, 01/25/22		474,000		484,323
3.111%, 02/25/23		695,000		719,949
3.154%, 02/25/18		109,435		111,062
3.171%, 10/25/24		424,000		436,416
3.250%, 04/25/23 (d)		803,000		837,740
3.300%, 10/25/26		310,000		318,981
3.320%, 02/25/23 (d)		186,000		194,745
3.458%, 08/25/23 (d)		835,000		879,981
5.085%, 03/25/19		1,226,000		1,301,089
Ginnie Mae I 30 Yr. Pool 3.000%, 02/15/43		513,563		521,225
3.500%, 12/15/41		370,655		388,573
3.500%, 02/15/42		154,973		161,791
4.500%, 09/15/33		99,798		108,911
4.500%, 11/15/39		323,572		351,317
4.500%, 03/15/40		349,568		387,561
4.500%, 04/15/40		422,647		457,837
4.500%, 06/15/40		180,793		197,898
5.000%, 03/15/34		37,127		41,036

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-10

Metropolitan Series Fund

MFS Total Return Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

U.S. Treasury & Government Agencies—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Agency Sponsored Mortgage-Backed—(Continued)
Ginnie Mae I 30 Yr. Pool 5.000%, 06/15/34		83,504	$	92,332
5.000%, 12/15/34		35,317		39,020
5.000%, 06/15/35		10,493		11,471
5.500%, 11/15/32		151,157		169,597
5.500%, 08/15/33		267,899		302,757
5.500%, 12/15/33		160,595		181,466
5.500%, 09/15/34		123,057		139,059
5.500%, 10/15/35		31,343		35,439
6.000%, 12/15/28		38,799		44,448
6.000%, 12/15/31		34,549		40,057
6.000%, 03/15/32		3,596		4,077
6.000%, 10/15/32		161,412		187,162
6.000%, 01/15/33		33,315		37,839
6.000%, 02/15/33		1,785		2,055
6.000%, 04/15/33		179,825		208,548
6.000%, 08/15/33		1,094		1,241
6.000%, 07/15/34		117,481		136,001
6.000%, 09/15/34		42,004		47,642
6.000%, 01/15/38		168,334		196,083
Ginnie Mae II 30 Yr. Pool 3.000%, 06/20/43		620,743		631,168
3.000%, 07/20/43		463,518		471,302
3.500%, 06/20/43		878,170		917,072
3.500%, 07/20/43		1,107,926		1,157,034
3.500%, 05/20/46		370,915		385,988
4.000%, 01/20/41		1,096,716		1,176,212
4.000%, 02/20/41		275,579		294,476
4.000%, 04/20/41		206,399		220,513
4.000%, 02/20/42		284,584		303,099
4.500%, 07/20/33		20,125		21,669
4.500%, 09/20/33		12,288		13,230
4.500%, 12/20/34		9,495		10,223
4.500%, 03/20/35		50,200		54,017
4.500%, 01/20/41		285,603		308,076
5.000%, 07/20/33		41,713		46,490
6.000%, 01/20/35		46,323		53,990
6.000%, 02/20/35		23,509		27,407
6.000%, 04/20/35		39,176		45,653
				100,170,347
Federal Agencies—0.1%
Financing Corp. 9.650%, 11/02/18		430,000		494,797
U.S. Treasury—12.9%
U.S. Treasury Bonds 2.500%, 02/15/45		2,347,000		2,090,571
2.875%, 05/15/43		22,942,400		22,160,018
4.500%, 02/15/36 (b)		179,000		226,491
4.500%, 08/15/39		2,514,000		3,157,033
5.000%, 05/15/37 (b)		232,000		311,505
5.250%, 02/15/29		16,000		20,451
5.375%, 02/15/31 (b)		276,000		367,598
6.250%, 08/15/23		80,000		100,006
U.S. Treasury—(Continued)
U.S. Treasury Notes 1.000%, 06/30/19		16,589,000		16,459,407
1.375%, 02/29/20		798,000		794,197
1.750%, 11/30/21 (b)		3,455,000		3,429,222
2.500%, 08/15/23		22,520,000		22,919,370
3.125%, 05/15/19		6,086,000		6,345,367
3.125%, 05/15/21		3,504,000		3,692,477
3.500%, 05/15/20		25,140,000		26,722,060
3.750%, 11/15/18		2,067,000		2,165,586
				110,961,359
Total U.S. Treasury & Government Agencies (Cost $211,349,712)				211,626,503
Corporate Bonds & Notes—11.9%
Agriculture—0.3%
Imperial Brands Finance plc 2.950%, 07/21/20 (144A) (e)		828,000		833,065
Reynolds American, Inc. 4.450%, 06/12/25 (b)		1,430,000		1,509,810
				2,342,875
Auto Manufacturers—0.3%
General Motors Financial Co., Inc. 3.200%, 07/06/21		776,000		769,526
5.250%, 03/01/26 (b)		391,000		410,742
Toyota Motor Credit Corp. 3.400%, 09/15/21		880,000		915,313
Volkswagen International Finance NV 2.375%, 03/22/17 (144A)		857,000		858,928
				2,954,509
Banks—2.7%
ABN AMRO Bank NV 4.800%, 04/18/26 (144A)		800,000		815,743
Banco de Credito del Peru 5.375%, 09/16/20		835,000		899,712
Bank of America Corp. 4.100%, 07/24/23		1,270,000		1,326,642
4.125%, 01/22/24		1,973,000		2,050,442
4.183%, 11/25/27 (b)		1,208,000		1,208,772
5.490%, 03/15/19		196,000		207,926
7.625%, 06/01/19		710,000		797,838
Bank One Corp. 8.000%, 04/29/27		100,000		130,633
BBVA Bancomer S.A. 6.750%, 09/30/22 (144A)		810,000		882,900
BNP Paribas S.A. 7.195%, 06/25/37 (144A) (d)		500,000		545,000
BPCE S.A. 12.500%, 09/30/19 (144A) (b) (d)		922,000		1,125,559
Citigroup, Inc. 2.500%, 09/26/18 (b)		580,000		585,548

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-11

Metropolitan Series Fund

MFS Total Return Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Corporate Bonds & Notes—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Banks—(Continued)
Credit Suisse AG 6.500%, 08/08/23 (144A)		396,000	$	420,651
ING Bank NV 5.800%, 09/25/23 (144A)		1,076,000		1,182,297
JPMorgan Chase & Co. 6.300%, 04/23/19		1,210,000		1,322,212
KFW 4.875%, 06/17/19		1,290,000		1,390,648
Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Inc. 3.850%, 03/01/26		784,000		805,360
Morgan Stanley 3.875%, 04/29/24		1,081,000		1,108,641
4.000%, 07/23/25		396,000		405,907
6.625%, 04/01/18		1,343,000		1,420,260
PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. (The) 5.625%, 02/01/17		1,080,000		1,083,267
Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc 3.875%, 09/12/23		1,128,000		1,083,169
Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group, Inc. 3.010%, 10/19/26 (b)		1,126,000		1,077,535
Swedbank AB 2.125%, 09/29/17 (144A)		231,000		232,108
UBS Group Funding Jersey, Ltd. 4.125%, 04/15/26 (144A) (e)		838,000		857,043
				22,965,813
Beverages—0.4%
Anheuser-Busch InBev Finance, Inc. 3.650%, 02/01/26		1,171,000		1,188,787
Anheuser-Busch InBev Worldwide, Inc. 8.000%, 11/15/39		1,020,000		1,500,038
Diageo Capital plc 2.625%, 04/29/23		1,020,000		1,008,376
				3,697,201
Biotechnology—0.3%
Celgene Corp. 2.875%, 08/15/20		504,000		509,773
Gilead Sciences, Inc. 3.500%, 02/01/25		1,880,000		1,900,791
3.700%, 04/01/24		312,000		320,245
				2,730,809
Commercial Services—0.2%
ERAC USA Finance LLC 7.000%, 10/15/37 (144A)		1,115,000		1,412,767
Computers—0.2%
Apple, Inc. 2.850%, 02/23/23		1,176,000		1,183,330
3.850%, 05/04/43		370,000		353,810
				1,537,140
Diversified Financial Services—0.3%
GE Capital International Funding Co. 3.373%, 11/15/25 (b)		358,000		363,934
Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. 2.750%, 12/01/20		301,000		303,715
4.000%, 10/15/23		832,000		872,484
Visa, Inc. 3.150%, 12/14/25		1,192,000		1,197,228
				2,737,361
Electric—1.1%
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Co. 3.750%, 11/15/23 (b)		440,000		460,110
Duke Energy Corp. 2.650%, 09/01/26		131,000		122,266
Exelon Corp. 3.400%, 04/15/26 (b)		1,137,000		1,115,600
Midamerican Funding LLC 6.927%, 03/01/29		699,000		927,502
Oncor Electric Delivery Co. LLC 7.000%, 09/01/22		795,000		970,353
Pacific Gas & Electric Co. 4.600%, 06/15/43		880,000		928,230
PPL Capital Funding, Inc. 3.400%, 06/01/23		880,000		885,996
5.000%, 03/15/44		296,000		313,023
Progress Energy, Inc. 3.150%, 04/01/22		1,083,000		1,092,790
Southern Co. (The) 3.250%, 07/01/26 (b)		1,295,000		1,260,334
State Grid Overseas Investment, Ltd. 2.750%, 05/07/19 (144A) (e)		778,000		788,140
W3A Funding Corp. 8.090%, 01/02/17		244,260		244,260
				9,108,604
Food—0.3%
Danone S.A. 2.947%, 11/02/26 (144A)		1,133,000		1,081,203
J.M. Smucker Co. (The) 3.500%, 03/15/25 (b)		580,000		584,837
Kraft Heinz Foods Co. 3.500%, 06/06/22		412,000		418,992
WM Wrigley Jr. Co. 2.400%, 10/21/18 (144A)		248,000		250,219
				2,335,251
Healthcare-Products—0.4%
Becton Dickinson & Co. 2.675%, 12/15/19		520,000		527,597
Medtronic, Inc. 4.375%, 03/15/35		946,000		1,000,800
Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc. 2.950%, 09/19/26 (b)		851,000		803,557

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-12

Metropolitan Series Fund

MFS Total Return Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Corporate Bonds & Notes—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Healthcare-Products—(Continued)
Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. 3.550%, 04/01/25		1,222,000	$	1,190,212
				3,522,166
Healthcare-Services—0.4%
Aetna, Inc. 3.200%, 06/15/26 (b)		1,132,000		1,119,852
Anthem, Inc. 3.300%, 01/15/23 (b)		600,000		598,988
Laboratory Corp. of America Holdings 3.200%, 02/01/22		850,000		857,061
UnitedHealth Group, Inc. 3.750%, 07/15/25 (b)		1,303,000		1,348,910
				3,924,811
Household Products/Wares—0.1%
Reckitt Benckiser Treasury Services plc 3.625%, 09/21/23 (144A)		1,070,000		1,091,093
Housewares—0.1%
Newell Brands, Inc. 3.850%, 04/01/23		914,000		948,099
Insurance—0.7%
American International Group, Inc. 4.125%, 02/15/24 (b)		750,000		778,663
4.875%, 06/01/22		1,770,000		1,934,212
Berkshire Hathaway, Inc. 3.125%, 03/15/26		390,000		387,467
Liberty Mutual Group, Inc. 4.250%, 06/15/23 (144A)		578,000		605,152
4.850%, 08/01/44 (144A)		484,000		477,315
Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc. 4.800%, 07/15/21		920,000		1,000,027
ZFS Finance USA Trust V 6.500%, 05/09/37 (144A) (d)		491,000		492,301
				5,675,137
Internet—0.1%
Baidu, Inc. 3.500%, 11/28/22		1,110,000		1,107,805
Media—0.4%
21st Century Fox America, Inc. 8.500%, 02/23/25		722,000		949,705
Charter Communications Operating LLC / Charter Communications Operating Capital Corp. 4.908%, 07/23/25 (b)		523,000		551,205
Time Warner Entertainment Co. L.P. 8.375%, 07/15/33		1,240,000		1,624,662
				3,125,572
Mining—0.1%
Freeport-McMoRan, Inc. 3.875%, 03/15/23 (b)		1,010,000		926,675
Miscellaneous Manufacturing—0.1%
General Electric Co. 1.496%, 01/09/20 (d)		633,000		637,890
Multi-National—0.1%
Asian Development Bank 1.125%, 03/15/17		574,000		574,084
Oil & Gas—1.1%
BP Capital Markets plc 4.500%, 10/01/20		306,000		328,358
4.742%, 03/11/21		847,000		923,928
Chevron Corp. 1.076%, 11/15/17 (d)		1,696,000		1,696,238
CNOOC Finance, Ltd. 3.875%, 05/02/22 (144A)		1,010,000		1,032,432
Petro-Canada 6.050%, 05/15/18		1,664,000		1,758,522
Petroleos Mexicanos 3.125%, 01/23/19 (b)		352,000		349,008
Shell International Finance B.V. 3.750%, 09/12/46 (b)		397,000		365,298
Statoil ASA 7.750%, 06/15/23		100,000		125,794
Total Capital International S.A. 1.550%, 06/28/17		684,000		685,125
3.750%, 04/10/24		910,000		952,776
Valero Energy Corp. 3.400%, 09/15/26		1,741,000		1,667,902
				9,885,381
Pharmaceuticals—0.3%
Actavis Funding SCS 3.800%, 03/15/25		463,000		463,545
4.850%, 06/15/44 (b)		537,000		532,435
Shire Acquisitions Investments Ireland DAC 3.200%, 09/23/26 (b)		1,498,000		1,399,634
Teva Pharmaceutical Finance IV B.V. 3.650%, 11/10/21		572,000		579,348
				2,974,962
Pipelines—0.6%
APT Pipelines, Ltd. 4.200%, 03/23/25 (144A)		1,228,000		1,224,235
Enterprise Products Operating LLC 6.500%, 01/31/19		908,000		989,796
Kinder Morgan Energy Partners L.P. 4.150%, 02/01/24 (b)		691,000		700,430
7.750%, 03/15/32		625,000		767,226

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-13

Metropolitan Series Fund

MFS Total Return Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Corporate Bonds & Notes—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Pipelines—(Continued)
Spectra Energy Capital LLC 8.000%, 10/01/19		1,253,000	$	1,425,156
				5,106,843
Real Estate Investment Trusts—0.1%
HCP, Inc. 5.375%, 02/01/21		734,000		801,824
Realty Income Corp. 3.000%, 01/15/27 (b)		305,000		287,156
				1,088,980
Retail—0.3%
CVS Health Corp. 3.875%, 07/20/25 (b)		1,094,000		1,128,570
Home Depot, Inc. (The) 5.950%, 04/01/41		278,000		353,413
Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. 3.300%, 11/18/21		836,000		851,693
4.500%, 11/18/34		426,000		428,663
				2,762,339
Sovereign—0.2%
Temasek Financial I, Ltd. 2.375%, 01/23/23 (144A)		1,790,000		1,745,637
Telecommunications—0.7%
AT&T, Inc. 3.000%, 06/30/22		838,000		822,589
3.400%, 05/15/25		838,000		807,684
Crown Castle Towers LLC 4.883%, 08/15/20 (144A)		370,000		394,002
6.113%, 01/15/20 (144A)		711,000		770,341
Rogers Communications, Inc. 6.800%, 08/15/18		1,483,000		1,599,040
Verizon Communications, Inc. 5.050%, 03/15/34 (b)		1,024,000		1,078,309
6.400%, 09/15/33 (b)		320,000		386,084
				5,858,049
Total Corporate Bonds & Notes (Cost $97,531,970)				102,777,853
Mortgage-Backed Securities—1.6%
Collateralized Mortgage Obligations—0.0%
BlackRock Capital Finance L.P. 7.750%, 09/25/26 (144A) (e)		16,376		1,603
Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities—1.6%
Commercial Mortgage Trust 3.708%, 07/10/48		1,300,833		1,350,576
5.475%, 03/10/39		1,942,230		1,941,535
Credit Suisse Commercial Mortgage Trust 5.695%, 09/15/40 (d)		1,145,543		1,161,915
Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities—(Continued)
CSAIL Commercial Mortgage Trust 3.504%, 06/15/57		738,578		756,144
General Electric Capital Assurance Co. 5.743%, 05/12/35 (144A) (d) (e)		19,284		20,508
GS Mortgage Securities Corp. II 3.382%, 05/10/50		1,387,991		1,408,221
JPMBB Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust 3.494%, 01/15/48		1,590,000		1,632,094
JPMorgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust 5.753%, 06/15/49 (d)		1,805,278		1,816,157
Morgan Stanley Capital I, Inc. 1.024%, 11/15/30 (144A) (d) (f)		1,039,160		9,625
Wachovia Bank Commercial Mortgage Trust 5.707%, 06/15/49 (d)		1,104,265		1,110,983
5.969%, 02/15/51 (d)		915,952		920,161
Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Trust 3.540%, 05/15/48		1,410,327		1,448,447
				13,576,366
Total Mortgage-Backed Securities (Cost $13,908,521)				13,577,969
Asset-Backed Securities—1.0%
Asset-Backed - Automobile—0.3%
Chesapeake Funding II LLC 1.704%, 06/15/28 (144A) (d) (e)		1,216,000		1,222,324
Ford Credit Auto Owner Trust 2.260%, 11/15/25 (144A)		550,000		554,695
2.310%, 04/15/26 (144A)		425,000		428,555
				2,205,574
Asset-Backed - Home Equity—0.1%
Bayview Financial Revolving Asset Trust 2.203%, 12/28/40 (144A) (d) (e)		688,388		525,115
GMAC Home Equity Loan Trust 5.805%, 10/25/36 (d)		214,751		206,991
Home Equity Loan Trust 5.320%, 12/25/35 (d)		464,606		396,805
				1,128,911
Asset-Backed - Other—0.6%
American Tower Trust I 3.070%, 03/15/48 (144A)		1,000,000		991,120
Cent CLO, Ltd. 2.187%, 01/30/25 (144A) (d)		831,000		830,519
Dryden XXVI Senior Loan Fund 1.980%, 07/15/25 (144A) (d)		1,068,000		1,063,919
Fortress Credit BSL, Ltd. 2.058%, 01/19/25 (144A) (d)		716,478		715,228
Small Business Administration Participation Certificates 4.350%, 07/01/23		209,417		218,055

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-14

Metropolitan Series Fund

MFS Total Return Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Asset-Backed Securities—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares/ Principal Amount*		Value
Asset-Backed - Other—(Continued)
Small Business Administration Participation Certificates 4.770%, 04/01/24		11,951	$	12,579
4.950%, 03/01/25		75,045		79,653
4.990%, 09/01/24		40,260		42,824
5.110%, 08/01/25		106,905		114,085
5.180%, 05/01/24		16,976		18,056
5.520%, 06/01/24		43,714		46,681
Voya CLO, Ltd. 2.032%, 04/25/25 (144A) (d)		970,000		969,301
				5,102,020
Total Asset-Backed Securities (Cost $8,593,647)				8,436,505
Convertible Preferred Stocks—0.5%
Diversified Telecommunication Services—0.1%
Frontier Communications Corp. 11.125%, 06/29/18		5,512		391,793
Electric Utilities—0.2%
Exelon Corp. 6.500%, 06/01/17		35,730		1,729,689
Food Products—0.1%
Tyson Foods, Inc. 4.750%, 07/15/17 (b)		17,100		1,156,815
Pharmaceuticals—0.1%
Allergan plc 5.500%, 03/01/18		1,285		979,761
Total Convertible Preferred Stocks (Cost $4,194,547)				4,258,058
Municipals—0.4%
New Jersey State Turnpike Authority, Build America Bonds 7.414%, 01/01/40		1,050,000		1,516,400
State of California General Obligation Unlimited 5.000%, 08/01/27		1,510,000		1,816,741
Total Municipals (Cost $2,985,231)				3,333,141
Foreign Government—0.1%
Sovereign—0.1%
Mexico Government International Bonds 4.750%, 03/08/44 (Cost $896,839)		909,000		826,554
Short-Term Investments—1.6%
Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Discount Note—0.7%
Federal Home Loan Bank 0.203%, 01/03/17 (g)		6,250,000		6,249,896
Repurchase Agreement—0.9%
Fixed Income Clearing Corp. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/16 at 0.030% to be repurchased at $7,647,606 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $7,490,000 U.S. Treasury Inflation Indexed Note at 0.125% due 04/15/20 with a value of $7,802,198.		7,647,581		7,647,581
Total Short-Term Investments (Cost $13,897,477)				13,897,477
Securities Lending Reinvestments (h)—7.2%
Certificates of Deposit—3.2%
Bank of Tokyo UFJ, Ltd., New York 1.121%, 02/28/17 (i)		1,600,000		1,600,032
Barclays New York 0.894%, 02/10/17 (i)		1,500,000		1,500,485
BNP Paribas New York 1.226%, 08/04/17 (i)		250,000		250,111
Chiba Bank, Ltd., New York 0.870%, 01/10/17		2,200,000		2,200,051
0.950%, 02/02/17		500,000		500,069
Credit Suisse AG New York 1.364%, 05/12/17 (i)		2,000,000		2,000,208
1.444%, 04/24/17 (i)		300,000		300,071
DNB NOR Bank ASA 1.130%, 07/28/17 (i)		500,000		499,913
DZ Bank AG New York 1.010%, 02/27/17		2,000,000		2,000,578
KBC Brussells 1.050%, 01/27/17		600,000		600,114
1.050%, 02/07/17		500,000		500,125
Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen London Zero Coupon, 01/24/17		399,082		399,828
Mizuho Bank, Ltd., New York 1.336%, 05/17/17		2,000,000		1,999,808
1.361%, 04/26/17 (i)		750,000		749,962
National Australia Bank London 1.182%, 11/09/17 (i)		2,500,000		2,493,800
Natixis New York 0.900%, 02/17/17		1,500,000		1,500,192
Shizuoka Bank New York 0.840%, 01/03/17		1,300,000		1,300,005
Sumitomo Bank New York 1.212%, 06/05/17 (i)		500,000		499,990
1.215%, 05/05/17 (i)		1,600,000		1,602,665
Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corp. London Zero Coupon, 02/06/17		498,656		499,640

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-15

Metropolitan Series Fund

MFS Total Return Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Securities Lending Reinvestments (h)—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Certificates of Deposit—(Continued)
Sumitomo Mitsui Trust Bank, Ltd., London 1.262%, 05/08/17 (i)		1,500,000	$	1,502,747
Sumitomo Mitsui Trust Bank, Ltd., New York 1.194%, 06/02/17 (i)		700,000		699,898
1.351%, 04/26/17 (i)		750,000		750,088
UBS, Stamford 1.084%, 05/12/17 (i)		1,000,000		999,924
Wells Fargo Bank San Francisco N.A. 1.231%, 04/26/17 (i)		400,000		400,112
1.264%, 10/26/17 (i)		400,000		400,273
				27,750,689
Commercial Paper—1.5%
Atlantic Asset Securitization LLC 0.720%, 01/03/17		499,430		499,960
1.040%, 02/03/17		498,483		499,564
Barton Capital Corp. 0.660%, 01/12/17		998,845		999,751
Den Norske ASA 1.206%, 04/27/17 (i)		500,000		500,026
Erste Abwicklungsanstalt 1.014%, 03/10/17 (i)		1,500,000		1,500,009
HSBC plc 1.216%, 04/25/17 (i)		400,000		399,983
LMA Americas LLC 0.710%, 01/06/17		1,198,580		1,199,833
National Australia Bank, Ltd. 1.288%, 12/06/17 (i)		500,000		500,001
Sheffield Receivables Co. 1.050%, 01/06/17		199,452		199,974
Starbird Funding Corp. 1.240%, 06/13/17 (i)		2,500,000		2,499,797
Suncorp Metway, Ltd. 0.930%, 02/09/17		2,194,771		2,197,565
Versailles Commercial Paper LLC 1.000%, 01/31/17		1,496,000		1,498,872
Westpac Banking Corp. 1.232%, 10/20/17 (i)		300,000		300,524
				12,795,859
Repurchase Agreements—1.8%
Citigroup Global Markets, Ltd. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/29/16 at 0.710% to be repurchased at $700,069 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $706,116 U.S. Treasury and Foreign Obligations with rates ranging from 1.750% - 2.750%, maturity dates ranging from 10/15/19 - 11/15/23, with a value of $714,000.		700,000		700,000
Repurchase Agreements—(Continued)
Deutsche Bank AG, London
Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/16 at 0.950% to be repurchased at $400,042 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $408,360 Foreign Obligations with rates ranging from 1.750% - 2.500%, maturity dates ranging from 09/05/19 - 11/20/24, with a value of $408,002.		400,000		400,000
Repurchase Agreement dated 12/15/16 - 12/30/16 at 1.050% to be repurchased at $4,551,428 on 01/03/17, collateralized by various Common Stock with a value of $5,057,575.		4,550,000		4,550,000
Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. Repurchase Agreement dated 10/18/16 at 1.110% to be repurchased at $502,097 on 03/03/17, collateralized by various Common Stock with a value of $550,000.		500,000		500,000
Goldman Sachs & Co. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/16 at 0.460% to be repurchased at $4,925,638 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $25,347,000 U.S. Government Agency Obligations with rates ranging from 2.000% - 10.500%, maturity dates ranging from 03/15/17 - 09/20/65, with a value of $5,023,894.		4,925,386		4,925,386
Macquarie Bank, Ltd. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/27/16 at 0.580% to be repurchased at $900,102 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $890,420 U.S. Treasury Obligations with rates ranging from 0.000% - 8.750%, maturity dates ranging from 01/05/17 - 05/15/46, with a value of $918,465.		900,000		900,000
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. Repurchase Agreement dated 10/26/16 at 1.160% to be repurchased at $1,105,636 on 04/03/17, collateralized by various Common Stock with a value of $1,210,000.		1,100,000		1,100,000
Natixis Repurchase Agreement dated 12/28/16 at 0.750% to be repurchased at $2,000,333 on 01/05/17, collateralized by $3,210,139 U.S. Government Agency and Treasury Obligations with rates ranging from 0.000% - 4.672%, maturity dates ranging from 01/31/17 - 09/16/58, with a value of $2,040,251.		2,000,000		2,000,000
				15,075,386
Time Deposits—0.7%
Australia New Zealand Bank 0.550%, 01/03/17		2,000,000		2,000,000
OP Corporate Bank plc 1.010%, 01/04/17		200,000		200,000
1.200%, 01/23/17		3,000,000		3,000,000

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-16

Metropolitan Series Fund

MFS Total Return Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Securities Lending Reinvestments (h)—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Time Deposits—(Continued)
Shinkin Central Bank 1.200%, 01/27/17		300,000	$	300,000
1.220%, 01/26/17		900,000		900,000
				6,400,000
Total Securities Lending Reinvestments (Cost $62,020,739)				62,021,934
Total Investments—107.4% (Cost $809,100,882) (j)				924,211,628
Other assets and liabilities (net)—(7.4)%				(63,472,219	)
Net Assets—100.0%			$	860,739,409

* Principal amount stated in U.S. dollars unless otherwise noted.

(a) Non-income producing security.

(b) All or a portion of the security was held on loan. As of December 31, 2016, the market value of securities loaned was $60,323,051 and the collateral received consisted of cash in the amount of $62,008,686. The cash collateral investments are disclosed in the Schedule of Investments and categorized as Securities Lending Reinvestments.

(c) TBA (To Be Announced) Securities are purchased on a forward commitment basis with an approximate principal amount and no defined maturity date. The actual principal and maturity date will be determined upon settlement date.

(d) Variable or floating rate security. The stated rate represents the rate at December 31, 2016. Maturity date shown for callable securities reflects the earliest possible call date.

(e) Restricted securities are not registered under the Securities Act of 1933 and are subject to legal restrictions on resale. These securities generally may be resold in transactions exempt from registration or to the public if the securities are subsequently registered. Disposal of these securities may involve time-consuming negotiations and prompt sale at an acceptable price may be difficult. As of December 31, 2016, the market value of restricted securities was $4,247,798, which is 0.5% of net assets. See details shown in the Restricted Securities table that follows.

(f) Interest only security.

(g) The rate shown represents current yield to maturity.

(h) Represents investment of cash collateral received from securities on loan as of December 31, 2016.

(i) Variable or floating rate security. The stated rate represents the rate at December 31, 2016.

(j) As of December 31, 2016, the aggregate cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was $815,482,008. The aggregate unrealized appreciation and depreciation of investments were $120,856,436 and $(12,126,816), respectively, resulting in net unrealized appreciation of $108,729,620 for federal income tax purposes.

(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, 2016, the market value of 144A securities was $26,450,643, which is 3.1% of net assets.

(ACES)— Alternative Credit Enhancement Securities

(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.

(CLO)— Collateralized Loan Obligation

Restricted Securities	Acquisition Date		Principal Amount		Cost		Value
Bayview Financial Revolving Asset Trust, 2.203%, 12/28/40		03/01/06	$	688,388	$	688,388	$	525,115
BlackRock Capital Finance L.P., 7.750%, 09/25/26		10/10/96		16,376		15,781		1,603
Chesapeake Funding II LLC, 1.704%, 06/15/28		06/14/16		1,216,000		1,216,000		1,222,324
General Electric Capital Assurance Co., 5.743%, 05/12/35		09/23/03		19,284		19,380		20,508
Imperial Brands Finance plc, 2.950%, 07/21/20		07/15/15		828,000		821,482		833,065
State Grid Overseas Investment, Ltd., 2.750%, 05/07/19		04/28/14		778,000		774,498		788,140
UBS Group Funding Jersey, Ltd., 4.125%, 04/15/26		03/29/16		838,000		836,261		857,043
							$	4,247,798

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-17

Metropolitan Series Fund

MFS Total Return Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Fair Value Hierarchy

Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) define 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, separately for each major category of assets and liabilities, 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, quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities 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, or other market corroborated inputs)

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 used in determining the fair value of investments and derivative financial instruments)

The inputs or methodologies used for valuing investments are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in them. Changes to the inputs or methodologies used may result in transfers between levels, which 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, 2016:

Description	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
Common Stocks
Aerospace & Defense	$	18,184,649	$	—	$	—	$	18,184,649
Air Freight & Logistics		3,914,727		—		—		3,914,727
Airlines		3,318,668		—		—		3,318,668
Auto Components		2,466,020		—		—		2,466,020
Automobiles		2,233,321		2,323,832		—		4,557,153
Banks		54,168,168		2,312,048		—		56,480,216
Beverages		2,464,415		2,699,675		—		5,164,090
Biotechnology		1,533,855		—		—		1,533,855
Building Products		9,051,547		—		—		9,051,547
Capital Markets		30,176,438		1,423,472		—		31,599,910
Chemicals		14,803,795		—		—		14,803,795
Commercial Services & Supplies		840,382		—		—		840,382
Communications Equipment		5,657,189		—		—		5,657,189
Consumer Finance		3,955,750		—		—		3,955,750
Containers & Packaging		792,808		—		—		792,808
Distributors		993,581		—		—		993,581
Diversified Telecommunication Services		10,253,484		656,367		—		10,909,851
Electric Utilities		11,271,860		722,672		—		11,994,532
Electrical Equipment		2,589,875		—		—		2,589,875
Energy Equipment & Services		2,754,316		—		—		2,754,316
Equity Real Estate Investment Trusts		5,732,546		—		—		5,732,546
Food & Staples Retailing		8,634,761		—		—		8,634,761
Food Products		12,047,609		7,188,528		—		19,236,137
Health Care Equipment & Supplies		19,151,326		—		—		19,151,326
Health Care Providers & Services		5,588,298		—		—		5,588,298
Hotels, Restaurants & Leisure		5,367,927		—		—		5,367,927
Household Durables		278,393		—		—		278,393
Household Products		4,316,670		877,466		—		5,194,136
Industrial Conglomerates		12,707,542		—		—		12,707,542
Insurance		27,564,884		2,267,605		—		29,832,489
Internet & Direct Marketing Retail		783,614		—		—		783,614
Internet Software & Services		5,226,969		—		—		5,226,969
IT Services		18,230,969		—		—		18,230,969
Life Sciences Tools & Services		4,949,929		—		—		4,949,929
Machinery		11,477,474		—		—		11,477,474
Media		23,308,467		—		—		23,308,467

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-18

Metropolitan Series Fund

MFS Total Return Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Fair Value Hierarchy—(Continued)

Description	Level 1		Level 2			Level 3		Total
Metals & Mining	$	—	$	1,530,194		$	—	$	1,530,194
Mortgage Real Estate Investment Trusts		2,084,059		—			—		2,084,059
Multi-Utilities		1,869,399		864,948			—		2,734,347
Multiline Retail		5,061,097		—			—		5,061,097
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels		27,688,387		3,648,380			—		31,336,767
Personal Products		1,604,762		—			—		1,604,762
Pharmaceuticals		30,663,301		4,079,226			—		34,742,527
Professional Services		1,558,153		—			—		1,558,153
Road & Rail		3,682,173		—			—		3,682,173
Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment		10,124,210		—			—		10,124,210
Software		9,385,973		—			—		9,385,973
Specialty Retail		5,496,504		—			—		5,496,504
Technology Hardware, Storage & Peripherals		5,245,494		—			—		5,245,494
Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods		594,361		—			—		594,361
Tobacco		19,993,258		499,371			—		20,492,629
Trading Companies & Distributors		518,493		—			—		518,493
Total Common Stocks		472,361,850		31,093,784			—		503,455,634
Total U.S. Treasury & Government Agencies*		—		211,626,503			—		211,626,503
Total Corporate Bonds & Notes*		—		102,777,853			—		102,777,853
Total Mortgage-Backed Securities*		—		13,577,969			—		13,577,969
Total Asset-Backed Securities*		—		8,436,505			—		8,436,505
Total Convertible Preferred Stocks*		4,258,058		—			—		4,258,058
Total Municipals		—		3,333,141			—		3,333,141
Total Foreign Government*		—		826,554			—		826,554
Short-Term Investments
Discount Note		—		6,249,896			—		6,249,896
Repurchase Agreement		—		7,647,581			—		7,647,581
Total Short-Term Investments		—		13,897,477			—		13,897,477
Total Securities Lending Reinvestments*		—		62,021,934			—		62,021,934
Total Investments	$	476,619,908	$	447,591,720		$	—	$	924,211,628
Collateral for Securities Loaned (Liability)	$	—	$	(62,008,686	)	$	—	$	(62,008,686	)

* See Schedule of Investments for additional detailed categorizations.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-19

Metropolitan Series Fund

MFS Total Return Portfolio

Statement of Assets and Liabilities

December 31, 2016

Assets
Investments at value (a) (b)	$	924,211,628
Cash		8,569
Cash denominated in foreign currencies (c)		193
Receivable for:
Investments sold		918,522
TBA securities sold		1,709,261
Fund shares sold		210,690
Dividends and interest		3,216,864
Prepaid expenses		2,470
Total Assets		930,278,197
Liabilities
Collateral for securities loaned		62,008,686
Payables for:
Investments purchased		2,737,782
TBA securities purchased		3,144,603
Fund shares redeemed		818,004
Accrued Expenses:
Management fees		408,592
Distribution and service fees		124,667
Deferred trustees’ fees		91,956
Other expenses		204,498
Total Liabilities		69,538,788
Net Assets	$	860,739,409
Net Assets Consist of:
Paid in surplus	$	685,993,001
Undistributed net investment income		20,241,291
Accumulated net realized gain		39,405,654
Unrealized appreciation on investments and foreign currency transactions		115,099,463
Net Assets	$	860,739,409
Net Assets
Class A	$	178,029,857
Class B		227,380,131
Class E		26,292,178
Class F		429,037,243
Capital Shares Outstanding*
Class A		1,044,182
Class B		1,351,686
Class E		155,070
Class F		2,538,780
Net Asset Value, Offering Price and Redemption Price Per Share
Class A	$	170.50
Class B		168.22
Class E		169.55
Class F		168.99

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

(a) Identified cost of investments was $809,100,882.

(b) Includes securities loaned at value of $60,323,051.

(c) Identified cost of cash denominated in foreign currencies was $193.

Statement of Operations

Year Ended December 31, 2016

Investment Income
Dividends (a)	$	14,444,974
Interest (b)		10,235,986
Securities lending income		116,112
Other income (c)		616,989
Total investment income		25,414,061
Expenses
Management fees		4,815,711
Administration fees		28,182
Custodian and accounting fees		145,047
Distribution and service fees—Class B		562,685
Distribution and service fees—Class E		39,780
Distribution and service fees—Class F		880,388
Audit and tax services		61,777
Legal		33,061
Trustees’ fees and expenses		45,248
Shareholder reporting		91,317
Insurance		6,061
Miscellaneous		22,656
Total expenses		6,731,913
Less broker commission recapture		(13,145	)
Net expenses		6,718,768
Net Investment Income		18,695,293
Net Realized and Unrealized Gain
Net realized gain (loss) on:
Investments		48,292,286
Foreign currency transactions		(11,790	)
Net realized gain		48,280,496
Net change in unrealized appreciation on:
Investments		7,343,937
Foreign currency transactions		2,116
Net change in unrealized appreciation		7,346,053
Net realized and unrealized gain		55,626,549
Net Increase in Net Assets From Operations	$	74,321,842

(a) Net of foreign withholding taxes of $120,066.

(b) Net of foreign withholding taxes of $1,684.

(c) Other income represents a non-recurring refund for overbilling of prior years’ custodian out-of-pocket fees.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-20

Metropolitan Series Fund

MFS Total Return Portfolio

Statements of Changes in Net Assets

	Year Ended December 31, 2016			Year Ended December 31, 2015
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets:
From Operations
Net investment income	$	18,695,293		$	18,332,793
Net realized gain		48,280,496			63,473,896
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation)		7,346,053			(83,606,019	)
Increase (decrease) in net assets from operations		74,321,842			(1,799,330	)
From Distributions to Shareholders
Net investment income
Class A		(4,805,228	)		(4,674,856	)
Class B		(6,072,122	)		(5,704,188	)
Class E		(733,783	)		(726,208	)
Class F		(12,040,322	)		(11,893,043	)
Net realized capital gains
Class A		(6,863,400	)		0
Class B		(9,524,717	)		0
Class E		(1,110,818	)		0
Class F		(18,598,020	)		0
Total distributions		(59,748,410	)		(22,998,295	)
Decrease in net assets from capital share transactions		(20,253,047	)		(98,585,300	)
Total decrease in net assets		(5,679,615	)		(123,382,925	)
Net Assets
Beginning of period		866,419,024			989,801,949
End of period	$	860,739,409		$	866,419,024
Undistributed net investment income
End of period	$	20,241,291		$	23,771,827

Other Information:

Capital Shares

Transactions in capital shares were as follows:

	Year Ended December 31, 2016						Year Ended December 31, 2015
	Shares			Value			Shares			Value
Class A
Sales		129,730		$	21,615,075			45,931		$	7,887,755
Reinvestments		71,666			11,668,628			27,213			4,674,856
Redemptions		(144,671	)		(24,428,265	)		(166,791	)		(28,716,810	)
Net increase (decrease)		56,725		$	8,855,438			(93,647	)	$	(16,154,199	)
Class B
Sales		100,356		$	16,734,253			78,297		$	13,303,631
Reinvestments		96,959			15,596,839			33,584			5,704,188
Redemptions		(190,185	)		(31,631,267	)		(218,141	)		(37,048,767	)
Net increase (decrease)		7,130		$	699,825			(106,260	)	$	(18,040,948	)
Class E
Sales		6,091		$	1,025,578			5,625		$	957,696
Reinvestments		11,383			1,844,601			4,247			726,208
Redemptions		(24,686	)		(4,135,523	)		(27,391	)		(4,675,378	)
Net decrease		(7,212	)	$	(1,265,344	)		(17,519	)	$	(2,991,474	)
Class F
Sales		132,303		$	22,113,886			99,869		$	17,025,766
Reinvestments		189,641			30,638,342			69,746			11,893,043
Redemptions		(486,568	)		(81,295,194	)		(530,173	)		(90,317,488	)
Net decrease		(164,624	)	$	(28,542,966	)		(360,558	)	$	(61,398,679	)
Decrease derived from capital shares transactions				$	(20,253,047	)				$	(98,585,300	)

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-21

Metropolitan Series Fund

MFS Total Return Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class A
	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014			2013			2012
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	168.01		$	172.72		$	162.91		$	140.60		$	129.68
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (a)		3.94	(b)		3.66			3.85			3.33			3.34
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		10.93			(3.83	)		9.94			22.92			11.49
Total from investment operations		14.87			(0.17	)		13.79			26.25			14.83
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(5.10	)		(4.54	)		(3.98	)		(3.94	)		(3.91	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(7.28	)		0.00			0.00			0.00			0.00
Total distributions		(12.38	)		(4.54	)		(3.98	)		(3.94	)		(3.91	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	170.50		$	168.01		$	172.72		$	162.91		$	140.60
Total Return (%) (c)		9.20			(0.16	)		8.64			18.99			11.58
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.61			0.60			0.60			0.59			0.60
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		2.34	(b)		2.13			2.32			2.19			2.46
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		35	(d)		41	(d)		34	(d)		53	(d)		20
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	178.0		$	165.9		$	186.7		$	185.5		$	169.9
	Class B
	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014			2013			2012
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	165.89		$	170.57		$	160.94		$	138.95		$	128.21
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (a)		3.48	(b)		3.20			3.40			2.92			2.97
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		10.77			(3.79	)		9.81			22.66			11.36
Total from investment operations		14.25			(0.59	)		13.21			25.58			14.33
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(4.64	)		(4.09	)		(3.58	)		(3.59	)		(3.59	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(7.28	)		0.00			0.00			0.00			0.00
Total distributions		(11.92	)		(4.09	)		(3.58	)		(3.59	)		(3.59	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	168.22		$	165.89		$	170.57		$	160.94		$	138.95
Total Return (%) (c)		8.92			(0.40	)		8.36			18.70			11.31
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.86			0.85			0.85			0.84			0.85
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		2.09	(b)		1.88			2.07			1.94			2.21
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		35	(d)		41	(d)		34	(d)		53	(d)		20
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	227.4		$	223.0		$	247.5		$	252.6		$	229.8

Please see following page for Financial Highlights footnote legend.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-22

Metropolitan Series Fund

MFS Total Return Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class E
	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014			2013			2012
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	167.11		$	171.80		$	162.06		$	139.88		$	129.04
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (a)		3.67	(b)		3.39			3.59			3.09			3.12
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		10.86			(3.82	)		9.88			22.81			11.44
Total from investment operations		14.53			(0.43	)		13.47			25.90			14.56
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(4.81	)		(4.26	)		(3.73	)		(3.72	)		(3.72	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(7.28	)		0.00			0.00			0.00			0.00
Total distributions		(12.09	)		(4.26	)		(3.73	)		(3.72	)		(3.72	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	169.55		$	167.11		$	171.80		$	162.06		$	139.88
Total Return (%) (c)		9.03			(0.31	)		8.48			18.82			11.42
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.76			0.75			0.75			0.74			0.75
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		2.19	(b)		1.98			2.17			2.04			2.31
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		35	(d)		41	(d)		34	(d)		53	(d)		20
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	26.3		$	27.1		$	30.9		$	32.5		$	30.3
	Class F
	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014			2013			2012
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	166.59		$	171.25		$	161.54		$	139.43		$	128.64
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (a)		3.57	(b)		3.29			3.50			3.00			3.04
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		10.83			(3.79	)		9.84			22.74			11.40
Total from investment operations		14.40			(0.50	)		13.34			25.74			14.44
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(4.72	)		(4.16	)		(3.63	)		(3.63	)		(3.65	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(7.28	)		0.00			0.00			0.00			0.00
Total distributions		(12.00	)		(4.16	)		(3.63	)		(3.63	)		(3.65	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	168.99		$	166.59		$	171.25		$	161.54		$	139.43
Total Return (%) (c)		8.97			(0.35	)		8.42			18.75			11.36
Ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.81			0.80			0.80			0.79			0.80
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		2.14	(b)		1.93			2.12			1.99			2.26
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		35	(d)		41	(d)		34	(d)		53	(d)		20
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	429.0		$	450.4		$	524.7		$	584.1		$	571.1

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

(b) Net investment income per share and the ratio of net investment income to average net assets include a non-recurring refund for overbilling of prior years’ custodian out-of-pocket fees which amounted to $0.12 per share and 0.07% of average net assets, respectively.

(c) Total return does not reflect any insurance, sales, separate account or administrative charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts or any additional expenses that contract owners may bear under their variable contracts. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower.

(d) Includes mortgage dollar roll and TBA transactions; excluding these transactions the portfolio turnover rates would have been 34%, 37%, 25% and 45% for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-23

Metropolitan Series Fund

MFS Total Return Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016

1. Organization

Metropolitan Series Fund (the “Trust”) is organized as a Delaware statutory trust and registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), as an open-end management investment company. The Trust, which is managed by MetLife Advisers, LLC (“MetLife Advisers” or the “Adviser”), an affiliate of MetLife, Inc., is currently comprised of thirty series, each of which operates as a distinct investment vehicle of the Trust. The portfolio included in this report is MFS 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.

On January 12, 2016, MetLife, Inc. announced its plan to pursue the separation of a substantial portion of its retail segment and is currently evaluating structural alternatives for such separation. It is anticipated that MetLife Advisers would be included in any such separation. Any separation transaction that might occur will be subject to the satisfaction of various conditions and approvals, including approval of any transaction by the MetLife, Inc. Board of Directors, satisfaction of any applicable requirements of the SEC, and receipt of insurance and other regulatory approvals and other anticipated conditions. MetLife, Inc. cannot currently provide a specific potential completion date for a separation transaction or any assurance that a separation will in fact occur. MetLife Advisers’ continued service as investment adviser to the Trusts following a separation transaction is the subject of a proxy statement that was filed with the SEC on December 20, 2016 and mailed to shareholders of the Portfolio on or about December 30, 2016.

The Portfolio has registered and offers four classes of shares: Class A, B, E and F shares. 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 plan and such distribution expenses are allocated to the corresponding Class of shares.

2. Significant Accounting Policies

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities as of the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of income and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates. In the preparation of these financial statements, management has evaluated events and transactions subsequent to December 31, 2016 through the date the financial statements were issued.

The Portfolio is an investment company and follows the accounting and reporting guidance of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Accounting Standards Codification Topic 946—Financial Services—Investment Companies and Topic 820—Fair Value Measurement. 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, including corporate, convertible and municipal bonds and notes; obligations of the U.S. Treasury and U.S. government agencies; foreign sovereign issues; 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 the Adviser (each a “pricing service”), pursuant to authorization of and subject to general oversight by the Board of Trustees of the Trust (the “Board” or “Trustees”). Such pricing services may use matrix pricing, which considers observable inputs including, among other things, issuer details, maturity dates, interest rates, yield curves, rates of prepayment, credit risks/spreads, default rates, reported trades, broker dealer quotes and quoted prices for similar assets. Short-term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less may be valued at amortized cost in the absence of market quotes, so long as the amortized cost value of such short-term debt instrument is approximately the same as the fair value of the instrument as determined without the use of amortized cost valuation. Floating rate loans are generally valued on the basis of an evaluated or composite average of aggregate bid and ask quotations supplied by brokers or dealers, as obtained from the pricing service. 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 generally valued on the basis of evaluated or composite bid quotations obtained from pricing services selected by the Adviser pursuant to authorization of and subject to general oversight by the Board. These securities are usually issued as separate tranches, or classes, of securities within each deal. The pricing models for these securities usually consider tranche-level attributes, current market data, estimated cash flows and market-based yield spreads for each tranche 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.

Domestic and foreign equity securities, such as common stock, exchange-traded funds, rights, warrants, and preferred stock, that are traded on a securities exchange on a valuation date are generally valued at their last quoted sale price or official closing price on the

MSF-24

Metropolitan Series Fund

MFS Total Return Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

primary exchange for such security, or, if no sales occurred on that day, at the last reported bid price. Equity securities traded over-the-counter (“OTC”) are generally valued at the last reported bid price. In the event of a major exchange closing during the trading day, the Adviser may use other market information obtained from quotation reporting systems, established market makers, or pricing services in valuing the securities. Valuation adjustments may be applied to certain foreign equity securities that are traded solely on foreign exchanges that close before the time as of which the Portfolio determines its NAV to account for the market movement between the close of the foreign exchanges and the time as of which the Portfolio determines its NAV. The Portfolio may use a systematic fair valuation model provided by a pricing service to value securities principally traded in these foreign markets in order to adjust for possible market movements or other changes that may occur between the close of the foreign exchanges and the time as of which the Portfolio determines its NAV. Foreign equity securities valued using these valuation adjustments are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy. Equity securities that are actively traded, and have no valuation adjustments applied, are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other equity securities traded on inactive markets, or valued in reference to similar instruments traded on active markets, 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 on the valuation date and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy.

Futures contracts that 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.

If no current market value quotation or other observable inputs are readily available or market value quotations are deemed to be unreliable for an investment, the fair value of the investment will be determined in accordance with procedures approved by, and under the general supervision of, the Board. In such a circumstance, the Board will be assisted in its responsibility to determine the fair value of an investment by the Valuation Committee (“Committee”) of MetLife Advisers. The Committee provides general pricing oversight and fair value pricing determinations related to portfolio securities and meets on a regular basis to review reports relating to the valuation of the securities in the Portfolio. The Board has delegated to State Street Bank and Trust Company, the Trust’s custodian (“custodian”), the responsibility for calculating the net asset values (“NAVs”) of the Trust’s Portfolios. The Committee is responsible for overseeing the calculation of the NAVs of the Portfolios by the custodian. The Committee also periodically reviews pricing services, including the pricing services providing fair value pricing for the Portfolio’s foreign securities, and is responsible for overseeing the correction of pricing errors and addressing other pricing issues that arise in the ordinary course of business, such as making real-time fair value determinations, as necessary.

No single standard for determining the fair value of an investment can be set forth because fair value depends upon the facts and circumstances with respect to each investment. Information relating to any relevant factors may be obtained by the Committee from any appropriate source, including the subadviser of the Portfolio, the custodian, a pricing service, market maker and/or broker for such security or the issuer. Appropriate methodologies for determining fair value under particular circumstances may include: matrix pricing, a discounted cash flow analysis, comparisons of securities with comparable characteristics, value based on multiples of earnings, discount from market price of similar marketable securities or a combination of these and other methods.

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 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. These foreign taxes have been provided for in accordance with the Portfolio’s understanding of the applicable countries’ tax rules and rates.

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 the U.S. dollar 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. Because the values of investment securities are translated at the foreign exchange rates prevailing at the end of the period, that portion of the results of operations arising from changes in exchange rates and that portion of the results of operations reflecting fluctuations arising from changes in market prices of the investment securities are not separated. 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. 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.

Dividends and Distributions to Shareholders - The Portfolio records dividends and distributions on the ex-dividend date. Net realized gains from securities transactions (if any) are generally distributed annually to shareholders. The timing and characterization

MSF-25

Metropolitan Series Fund

MFS Total Return Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

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 amortization of debt securities, paydown gain/loss reclasses, foreign currency transactions, real estate investment trust (REIT) adjustments, convertible preferred stock, partnership transactions, adjustments to prior period accumulated balances and broker commission recapture. These adjustments have no impact on net assets or the results 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 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. As of December 31, 2016, the Portfolio had no uncertain tax positions that would require financial statement recognition, or de-recognition or disclosure.

Mortgage Dollar Rolls - The Portfolio may enter into mortgage “dollar rolls” in which a Portfolio sells to-be-announced (“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. For the duration of the transaction, or 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.

Treasury and mortgage dollar roll transactions involve the risk that the market value of the securities that the Portfolio is required to repurchase or reacquire may be less than the agreed-upon repurchase price of those securities and that the investment performance of securities purchased with proceeds from these transactions does not exceed the income, capital appreciation, and gain or loss that would have been realized on the securities transferred or sold, as applicable, as part of the treasury or mortgage dollar roll.

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 mortgage obligations (“CMOs”), commercial mortgage-backed securities, 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). 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 netted against payments received for the IOs and the net amount is 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.

TBA Purchase & Forward 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. TBA forward sale commitments are valued at the current market value of the underlying securities, according to the procedures described under “Investment Valuation and Fair Value Measurements”.

When-Issued and Delayed-Delivery Securities - The Portfolio may purchase securities on a when-issued or delayed-delivery basis. Settlement of such transactions normally occurs within a month or more after the purchase 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.

MSF-26

Metropolitan Series Fund

MFS Total Return Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

Upon making a commitment to purchase a security on a when-issued or delayed-delivery basis, the Portfolio will hold liquid assets in a segregated account with the Portfolio’s custodian, or set aside liquid assets in the Portfolio’s records, 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.

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 net ratio of expenses to average net assets presented in the Financial Highlights for each share class.

Repurchase Agreements - The Portfolio may enter into repurchase agreements, under the terms of a Master Repurchase Agreement (“MRA”), 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, under a tri-party repurchase agreement, receives delivery of the underlying securities collateralizing any repurchase agreements. It is the Portfolio’s policy that the market value of the collateral be equal to at least 100% of the repurchase price in the case of a repurchase agreement of one-day duration and equal to at least 102% of the repurchase price in the case of all other repurchase agreements. In the event of default or failure by a party to perform an obligation in connection with any repurchase transaction, the MRA gives the non-defaulting party the right to set-off claims and to apply property held by it in connection with any repurchase transaction against obligations owed to it.

At December 31, 2016, the Portfolio had direct investments in repurchase agreements with a gross value of $7,647,581. Additionally, the Portfolio invested cash collateral for loans of portfolio securities in repurchase agreements with a gross value of $15,075,386. The combined value of all repurchase agreements is included as part of investments at value on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. The value of the related collateral exceeded the value of the repurchase agreements at December 31, 2016.

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 collateral held from securities on loan. 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.

Effective September 8, 2016, the Trust has entered into a Non-Custodial Securities Lending Agreement with JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (the “lending agent”). Prior to September 8, 2016, the Trust had entered into a Securities Lending Authorization Agreement with the custodian (the “prior lending agent”). Under each agreement, the lending agent is authorized to loan portfolio securities on the Portfolio’s behalf. In exchange, the Portfolio receives either cash or government securities as collateral against the loaned securities. The Portfolio receives collateral equal to at least 102% of the market value for loans secured by government securities or cash in the same currency as the loaned shares and 105% for all other loaned securities at each loan’s inception. Collateral representing at least 100% of the market value of the loaned securities is maintained for the duration of the loan. Any cash collateral received by the Portfolio is generally invested by the lending agent in short-term investments, which may include certificates of deposit, commercial paper, repurchase agreements, time deposits and money market funds. Cash collateral that was received by the prior lending agent had been generally invested in the State Street Navigator Securities Lending MET Portfolio (the “Navigator Portfolio”), a series of the State Street Navigator Securities Lending Trust that was a registered money market fund managed by an affiliate of the custodian. The market value of investments made with cash collateral received are disclosed in the Schedule of Investments and the valuation techniques are described in Note 2. 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 is 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 is equal to at least 100% of the market value of all the loaned securities as of such preceding day. A portion of the income earned on the collateral is rebated to the borrower of the securities and the remainder is split between the lending agent and the Portfolio. On loans collateralized by government securities, a fee is received from the borrower and is allocated between the Portfolio and the lending agent.

Income received by the Portfolio in securities lending transactions during the year ended December 31, 2016 is reflected as securities lending income on the Statement of Operations. The values of any securities loaned by the Portfolio and the related collateral at December 31, 2016 are disclosed in the footnotes to the Schedule of Investments. The value of the related collateral received by the Portfolio exceeded the value of the securities out on loan at December 31, 2016.

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. The lending agent shall indemnify the Portfolio in the case of default of any securities borrower, subject to the terms of the Non-Custodial Securities Lending Agreement.

MSF-27

Metropolitan Series Fund

MFS Total Return Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

The following table provides a breakdown of transactions accounted for as secured borrowings, the gross obligations by the type of collateral pledged, and the remaining contractual maturities of those transactions, which are accounted for as secured borrowings.

	Remaining Contractual Maturity of the Agreements As of December 31, 2016
	Overnight and Continuous			Up to 30 Days		31 - 90 Days		Greater than 90 days		Total
Securities Lending Transactions
Common Stocks	$	(45,877,014	)	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	(45,877,014	)
Convertible Preferred Stocks		(20,862	)		—		—		—		(20,862	)
Corporate Bonds & Notes		(11,660,057	)		—		—		—		(11,660,057	)
U.S. Treasury & Government Agencies		(4,450,753	)		—		—		—		(4,450,753	)
Total	$	(62,008,686	)	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	(62,008,686	)
Total Borrowings	$	(62,008,686	)	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	(62,008,686	)
Gross amount of recognized liabilities for securities lending transactions										$	(62,008,686	)

3. Certain Risks

In the normal course of business, the Portfolio invests in securities and enters into transactions where risks exist. Those risks include:

Market 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, interest rate, and price fluctuations.

Credit and Counterparty Risk: 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 and counterparty risk consist principally of cash due from counterparties and investments. The Portfolio manages counterparty risk by entering into agreements only with counterparties that it believes have the financial resources to honor their obligations and by monitoring the financial stability of those counterparties. The Portfolio’s investment adviser attempts to mitigate counterparty risk by (i) periodically assessing the creditworthiness of its trading partners, (ii) monitoring and/or limiting the amount of its net exposure to each individual counterparty based on its assessment, and (iii) requiring collateral from the counterparty for certain transactions. In order to preserve certain safeguards for non-standard settlement trades, the Portfolio restricts its exposure to credit and counterparty losses by entering into master netting agreements (“Master Agreements”) with counterparties (approved brokers) with whom it undertakes a significant volume of transactions. Master Agreements govern the terms of certain transactions, and reduce the counterparty risk associated with relevant transactions by specifying credit protection mechanisms and providing standardization that improves legal certainty. Master Agreements can also help limit counterparty risk by specifying collateral posting arrangements at pre-arranged exposure levels.

Repurchase and reverse repurchase agreements are primarily executed under Global Master Repurchase Agreements (“GMRAs”) or Master Repurchase Agreements (“MRAs”), which provide the rights to set-off. Each repurchase and reverse repurchase agreement is initially collateralized at the transaction level. In the event of default, the total market value exposure will be offset against collateral exchanged to date, which would result in a net receivable/(payable) that would be due from/to the counterparty.

Master Securities Forward Transaction Agreements (“MSFTA”) govern the considerations and factors surrounding the settlement of certain forward settling transactions, such as TBA securities and delayed-delivery or secured borrowings transactions by and between the Portfolio and select counterparties. The MSFTA maintain provisions for, among other things, initiation and confirmation, payment and transfer, events of default, termination, and maintenance of collateral.

Additional risks associated with each type of investment are described above within the respective security type notes. The Portfolio’s prospectus includes a discussion of the principal risks of investing in the Portfolio.

4. Investment Transactions

Aggregate cost of purchases and proceeds of sales of investment securities, including mortgage dollar roll and TBA transactions but excluding short-term securities, for the year ended December 31, 2016 were as follows:

Purchases			Sales
U.S. Government	Non U.S. Government		U.S. Government		Non U.S. Government
$115,669,145	$	183,799,517	$	117,312,054	$	239,273,952

MSF-28

Metropolitan Series Fund

MFS Total Return Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

The Portfolio engaged in security transactions with other accounts managed by Massachusetts Financial Services Company that amounted to $319,945 in purchases and $344,191 in sales of investments, which are included above, and resulted in realized losses of $34,436.

Purchases and sales of mortgage dollar rolls and TBA transactions for the year ended December 31, 2016 were as follows:

Purchases	Sales
$12,385,672	$	17,080,589

5. Investment Management Fees and Other Transactions with Affiliates

Investment Management Agreement - MetLife Advisers is the investment adviser to the Portfolio. The Trust has entered into an investment management agreement with MetLife Advisers with respect to the Portfolio. For providing investment management services to the Portfolio, MetLife Advisers receives monthly compensation at the following annual rates:

Management Fees earned by MetLife Advisers for the year ended December 31, 2016	% per annum			Average Daily Net Assets
$4,815,711		0.600	%	Of the first $250 million
		0.550	%	Of the next $500 million
		0.500	%	On amounts in excess of $750 million

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

MetLife Advisers has entered into an investment subadvisory agreement with respect to managing the Portfolio. Massachusetts Financial Services Company is compensated by MetLife Advisers to provide subadvisory services for the Portfolio.

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 and Service Fees - The Trust has a distribution agreement with MetLife Investors Distribution Company (“MIDC” or the “Distributor”) in which MIDC serves as the distributor for the Portfolio’s Class A, B, E, and F Shares. MIDC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife Investors Group, LLC, an affiliate of the Adviser. The Trust has also adopted a Distribution and Service Plan under Rule 12b-1 of the 1940 Act for the Portfolio’s Class B, E, and F Shares. Under the Distribution and Service Plan, the Class B, E, and F Shares of the Portfolio pay a fee to compensate the Insurance Companies (or their affiliates) and other broker-dealers and financial intermediaries involved in the offer and sale of Portfolio shares for promoting or selling and servicing the Class B, E, and F Shares. The fees under the Distribution and Service Plan for each class of the Portfolio’s shares are calculated as a percentage of the Portfolio’s average daily net assets that are attributable to that Class. Currently, the fee is 0.25% per year for Class B Shares, 0.15% per year for Class E Shares, and 0.20% per year for Class F Shares. Amounts incurred by the Portfolio for the year ended December 31, 2016 are shown as Distribution and service fees in the Statement of Operations.

Deferred Trustee Compensation - Each Trustee 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 Trust. 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 Met Investors Series Trust, an affiliate of the Trust, 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 under the Plan is reflected as Deferred trustees’ fees in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

6. Contractual Obligations

Under the Trust’s organizational documents, its officers and Trustees may be indemnified against certain liabilities and expenses arising out of the performance of their duties to the Trust. Additionally, 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 Trust that have not yet occurred.

MSF-29

Metropolitan Series Fund

MFS Total Return Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

7. Income Tax Information

The tax character of distributions paid for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015 were as follows:

Ordinary Income			Long-Term Capital Gain				Total
2016	2015		2016		2015		2016		2015
$23,651,455	$	22,998,295	$	36,096,955	$	—	$	59,748,410	$	22,998,295

As of December 31, 2016, 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		Other Accumulated Capital Losses		Total
$22,482,035	$	43,637,991	$	108,718,338	$	—	$	174,838,364

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 up to 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, 2016, the Portfolio had no post-enactment accumulated capital losses and no pre-enactment accumulated capital loss carryforwards.

8. Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In October 2016, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) adopted new rules and forms, and amendments to certain current rules and forms, to modernize reporting and disclosure of information by registered investment companies. The amendments to Regulation S-X will require standardized, enhanced disclosure about derivatives in investment company financial statements, and will also change the rules governing the form and content of such financial statements. The compliance date for the amendments to Regulation S-X is August 1, 2017. Management is currently evaluating the impact that the adoption of the amendments to Regulation S-X will have on the Portfolio’s financial statements and related disclosures.

MSF-30

Metropolitan Series Fund

MFS Total Return Portfolio

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Shareholders of MFS Total Return Portfolio and the Board of Trustees of Metropolitan Series Fund:

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities, including the schedule of investments, of MFS Total Return Portfolio (one of the portfolios constituting the Metropolitan Series Fund) (the “Portfolio”) as of December 31, 2016, 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 Portfolio’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 Portfolio 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 Portfolio’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, 2016, by correspondence with the custodian and brokers; when 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 Total Return Portfolio of the Metropolitan Series Fund as of December 31, 2016, 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.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

February 24, 2017

MSF-31

Metropolitan Series Fund

Trustees and Officers

MANAGEMENT OF THE TRUSTS

The Boards of Trustees (the “Board”) of Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (“MIST” and “MSF”, respectively, and collectively the “Trusts”) supervise the Trusts and are responsible for representing the interests of shareholders. The Trustees, the Chairman of the Board and the Chairmen of each subcommittee are the same for both Trusts. The Trustees of each Trust meet periodically throughout the year to oversee the Portfolios’ activities, reviewing, among other things, each Portfolio’s performance and its contractual arrangements with various service providers. The Trustees of each Trust elect the officers of the Trust, who are responsible for administering the Trust’s day-to-day operations.

Trustees and Officers

The Trustees and executive officers of the Trusts, as well as their ages and their principal occupations during the past five years, are set forth below. Unless otherwise indicated, the business address of each is c/o MetLife Funds, One Financial Center, Boston, Massachusetts 02111. Each Trustee who is deemed an “interested person,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, is referred to as an “Interested Trustee.” Those Trustees who are not “interested persons,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, are referred to as “Independent Trustees.” There is no limit to the term a Trustee may serve. Trustees serve until their death, resignation or removal in accordance with the MIST Trust’s and MSF Trust’s respective organizational documents and policies adopted by the Boards of the respective Trusts from time to time. Officers hold office at the pleasure of each Board and serve until their removal or resignation in accordance with the Trusts’ respective organizational documents and policies adopted by the Board of each Trust from time to time.

Name and Age	Current 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 MetLife Funds Complex(2) Overseen by Trustee	Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Interested Trustee
John Rosenthal* (56)	Trustee	Indefinite; From May 2016 (MIST and MSF) to present	Senior Managing Director and Head of Global Portfolio Management, MetLife, Inc.	75	None
Independent Trustees
Dawn M. Vroegop (50)	Trustee and Chairman of the Board	Indefinite; From December 2000 (MIST)/ May 2009 (MSF) to present as Trustee; From May 2016 (MIST and MSF) until present as Chairman	Private Investor.	75	Trustee, Driehaus Mutual Funds.**
Stephen M. Alderman (57)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 (MIST)/ April 2012 (MSF) to present	Shareholder in the law firm of Garfield and Merel, Ltd.	75	None

MSF-32

Metropolitan Series Fund

Trustees and Officers—(Continued)

Name and Age	Current 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 MetLife Funds Complex(2) Overseen by Trustee	Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Robert J. Boulware (60)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 (MIST)/ April 2012 (MSF) to present	Managing Director, Pilgrim Funds, LLC (private equity fund).	75	Trustee, Vertical Capital Income Fund (closed-end fund);** Director, Gainsco, Inc. (auto insurance);** Trustee, SharesPost 100 Fund (closed-end fund).**
Susan C. Gause (64)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 (MIST)/ April 2012 (MSF) to present	Private Investor.	75	Trustee, HSBC Funds.**
Nancy Hawthorne (65)	Trustee	Indefinite; From May 2003 (MSF)/ April 2012 (MIST) to present	Partner, Hawthorne Financial Advisors, LLC (registered investment advisor); until June 2014, Chief Executive Officer, Clerestory LLC (corporate advisor).	75	Director and Chairman of the Board of Directors, THL Credit, Inc.;** Lead Director, Avid Technology, Inc.;** Director, CRA International, Inc.**
Barbara A. Nugent (60)	Trustee	Indefinite; From January 2014 (MIST and MSF) to present	President, True North Board Governance, LLC (consulting); until December 2013, partner in the law firm of Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young, LLP.	75	None
Linda B. Strumpf (69)	Trustee	Indefinite; From May 2000 (MSF)/ April 2012 (MIST) to present	Chair of the Investment Committee, Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust; until June 2011, Chief Investment Officer, Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust.	75	None

Executive Officers

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Kristi Slavin (43)	President and Chief Executive Officer, of MIST and MSF	From May 2016 (MIST and MSF) to present	President, MetLife Advisers, LLC (May 2016-present); Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Vice President, MetLife, Inc.; Vice President, MIST and MSF (2015-2016).

MSF-33

Metropolitan Series Fund

Trustees and Officers—(Continued)

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Peter H. Duffy (61)	Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, of MIST and MSF	From November 2000 (MSF)/ May 2012 (MIST) to present	Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Andrew L. Gangolf (62)	Secretary, of MIST and MSF	From May 2011 (MIST and MSF) to present	Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; until 2011, Senior Vice President & Assistant General Counsel, AllianceBernstein Investments, Inc.
Steven E. Hartstein (53)	Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”), of MIST and MSF	From February 2014 (MIST and MSF) to present	Vice President, MetLife, Inc. (2013-present); Senior Vice President and CCO, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Executive Director, Morgan Stanley (2009-2013); CCO, Consulting Group Capital Markets Funds (2006-2013).
Alan C. Leland (64)	Vice President, of MIST and MSF	From February 2005 (MSF)/ May 2012 (MIST) to present	Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Vice President, MetLife, Inc.

* Mr. Rosenthal is an “interested person” of the Trusts because of his position with MetLife, Inc., the current parent company of MetLife Advisers, LLC.

** 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 Trusts, MetLife, Inc. or the Manager are omitted if not materially different.

(2) The Fund Complex includes 45 MIST Portfolios and 30 MSF Portfolios.

MSF-34

Metropolitan Series Fund

MFS Total Return Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements

At an in-person meeting held on November 15-16, 2016 (the “November Meeting”), the Boards of Trustees (the “Board”) of the Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (“MIST” and “MSF,” respectively, and collectively, the “Trusts”), including a majority of the Trustees who are not “interested persons” of the Trusts (the “Independent Trustees”) under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “1940 Act”), approved the continuation of the Trusts’ advisory agreements (each, an “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 the series of the Trusts (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”).

In reaching that decision, the Board reviewed a variety of materials provided for the specific purpose of the annual contract renewal process. In addition, various materials provided to and discussed with the Board throughout the year also informed the Board’s decision to renew the Agreements. That information for each Portfolio included, but was not limited to, investment performance reports, along with periodic reports on various expenses, shareholder services, legal and compliance matters, asset pricing, brokerage commissions and trade execution. The Board also recognized the pending separation of the Adviser from its parent company, MetLife, Inc., as a consideration in their deliberations with respect to the Agreements.

The Board met in person with personnel of the Adviser on September 27, 2016 for the specific purpose of giving preliminary consideration to the proposed continuation of the Agreements (the “September Meeting”) through the review by the Adviser with the Board of the performance and fees experienced by each Portfolio, as well as other information. In considering the Agreements, the Independent Trustees were advised by independent legal counsel throughout the contract renewal process, and met with independent legal counsel in several executive sessions outside of the presence of management.

Information furnished and reviewed specifically in connection with the renewal process included, but was not limited to, a report for each Portfolio prepared by Broadridge (“Broadridge”), an independent organization, and a Portfolio-by-Portfolio profitability analysis prepared by the Adviser. In addition, the Independent Trustees received and reviewed a report prepared by JDL Consultants, LLC (“JDL”), an independent consultant to the Independent Trustees (“JDL Report”), which examined the comparative fees, expenses and performance of each Portfolio, based upon the Broadridge reports. Also, the Board reviewed the responses to wide-ranging questions relating to the business, operations and performance of the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers that the Adviser and Sub-Advisers had prepared specifically for the renewal process.

At the November Meeting, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, concluded that the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser supported the renewal of the Agreements. The Board also concluded that the investment performance of each Portfolio was such that each Agreement should continue, and that the fees paid by a Portfolio to the Adviser appeared to be reasonable in light of the nature, extent and quality of the services provided by the Adviser and Sub-Adviser. Further, the Board concluded that the Adviser’s profitability in providing services under the Advisory Agreements did not appear unreasonably high in light of the nature, extent and quality of the services provided by the Adviser. Finally, the Board concluded that the investment advisory fees paid by the Portfolios in some measure shared economies of scale with contract holders. In approving the renewal of each of the Agreements, the Board, including the Independent Trustees, gave attention to all of the information that was furnished. The Board evaluated the information available to it on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis, and its decision was made separately with respect to each Portfolio. The following discusses some of the primary factors that generally were relevant to the Board’s decision. The Board did not identify any single factor as controlling, and the Trustees generally attributed different weights to various factors for the various Portfolios.

Nature, extent and quality of services. The Board evaluated the nature, extent and quality of the services that the Adviser, and the Sub-Advisers as relevant, have provided to the Portfolios. The Board considered the Adviser’s services as investment manager to the Portfolios, including its services relating to the oversight of the Sub-Advisers and their investment management activities, trading practices, financial condition, relevant personnel matters and compliance programs, among other things. The Adviser’s services in coordinating and overseeing the activities of the Trusts’ other service providers were also considered. The Board considered information received from the Trusts’ Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) regarding the Portfolios’ compliance policies and procedures that were established pursuant to Rule 38a-l under the 1940 Act. In addition, throughout the year, the Board considered the expertise, experience and performance of the personnel of the Adviser who performed the various services that are mentioned above.

The Board also noted that the Adviser’s investment, compliance and legal staff conduct regular, periodic, telephonic and in-person meetings with the Sub-Advisers to review and assess the services that are provided to the Portfolios, and that personnel of the Adviser prepare and present reports to the Independent Trustees regarding those meetings.

With respect to the services provided by each of the Sub-Advisers, the Board considered a variety of information that the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser provided. The Board considered each Sub-Adviser’s investment process and philosophy, and the investment

MSF-35

Metropolitan Series Fund

MFS Total Return Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory agreements—(Continued)

performance experienced by the Portfolio (as described in more detail below). The Board took into account that each Sub-Adviser’s responsibilities include the development and maintenance of an investment program for the applicable Portfolio that 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. In particular, the Board considered, among other things, the Sub-Adviser’s current level of staffing as well as its compensation program and its overall resources. The Board reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s history and investment experience, as well as information provided 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 regulatory and disciplinary history. In its review, the Board also took into account information regarding any services and/or payments provided to the Adviser by the Sub-Advisers in connection with marketing activities.

Performance. The Board placed emphasis on the performance of the Portfolios in light of, among other things, its importance to contract holders. The Board considered the Adviser’s quarterly reviews with the Board of detailed information about each Portfolio’s investment strategies and performance results and composition, including discussions regarding the relevant effect of current market conditions. The Board reviewed and considered the reports prepared by Broadridge, which provided a statistical analysis comparing the Portfolios’ investment performance to that of comparable funds underlying variable insurance products (the “Performance Universe”). The Independent Trustees also met separately with a representative of JDL during the September Meeting to review the JDL Report. The Board also compared the performance records of certain Portfolios to those of comparable funds that were managed by the relevant Sub-Adviser. At the November Meeting, the Board considered each Portfolio’s performance for periods subsequent to the performance period covered by the Broadridge reports, and the Adviser’s discussion of the same, including the effect of current market conditions on each Portfolio’s more recent performance.

The Board focused particular attention on Portfolios with less favorable performance records. The Board noted the Adviser’s focus on each Sub-Adviser’s performance and that the Adviser has been active in monitoring and responding to any performance issues with respect to the Portfolios.

Fees and Expenses. The Board gave consideration to the level and method of computing the fees payable under the Agreements. The Board considered the Broadridge report for each of the Portfolios, which included comparisons for each Portfolio of its contractual management and sub-adviser fees (at current and various asset levels), and total expenses, with those of its peers, including as those peers were divided into a broad group of peer funds (“Expense Universe”), a narrower group of peer funds (“Expense Group”), a broad group of peer sub-advised funds (“Sub-advised Expense Universe”), and a narrower group of peer sub-advised funds (“Sub-advised Expense Group”). Broadridge selected the peer funds which were similarly situated funds underlying variable insurance products deemed to be comparable to the Portfolios. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of JDL, also examined the JDL Report. The Board compared the fee payable to a Sub-Adviser by the Adviser with respect to the Portfolio to the fee payable to the Sub-Adviser by other comparable funds and accounts, to the extent such information was available.

The Board noted that the sub-advisory fees for the Portfolios are paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fee, and that, in the case of an unaffiliated Sub-Adviser, the Adviser negotiates the fee at arm’s length. The Board also considered that the Adviser had entered into expense limitation or management fee waiver agreements with certain of the Portfolios pursuant to which the Adviser had 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.

Profitability. The Board examined the profitability of the Adviser on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis. The Board also considered that an affiliate of the Adviser, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, serves as distributor for the Trusts, and, as such, receives Rule 12b-1 payments to support the distribution of the Portfolios. The Board considered the profitability to the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates as a result of their relationships with the Portfolios, to the extent available, and the Board considered the ability of the Adviser to negotiate with an unaffiliated Sub-Adviser at arm’s length. In reviewing the profitability analyses, the Board recognized that expense allocation methodologies are inherently subjective and various expense allocation methodologies may be reasonable while producing different results.

Economies of scale. The Board also considered each Portfolio’s fees in light of its size. The Board noted the fee schedules for the Portfolios that 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 and Sub-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

MSF-36

Metropolitan Series Fund

MFS Total Return Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

the Portfolio grow. The Board examined, among other data, the effect of a Portfolio’s growth in size, and reduction in size, on various fee schedules and the Board reviewed the Broadridge and JDL Reports, which compared fees among peers. The Board also generally noted that if a Portfolio’s assets increase over time, the Portfolio may realize other economies of scale if assets increase proportionally more than certain other fixed expenses.

Other factors. The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trusts. Among them, the Board recognized that MetLife Investors Distribution Company, as the distributor for the Trusts, receives payments pursuant to Rule 12b-1 from the Portfolios to compensate for the provision of shareholder services and distribution activities, which could lead to growth in the Trusts’ assets and corresponding benefits from such growth, including economies of scale. The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by each Sub-Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trusts, including the opportunity to provide advisory services to additional portfolios of the Trusts and reputational benefits. In conjunction with these considerations, the Board noted the ongoing commitment of the Adviser to the Portfolios.

The Board considered possible conflicts of interest in the form of material benefits or detriments to the Trusts resulting from the nature of the Trusts’ and the Adviser’s or the Sub-Advisers’ affiliations and the services that are provided to the Trusts, and the manner in which such conflicts were mitigated.

*  *  *

MFS Total Return Portfolio. The Board also considered the following information in relation to the Agreements with the Adviser and Massachusetts Financial Services Company regarding the Portfolio:

Among other data relating specifically to the 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, 2016. The Board further considered that the Portfolio outperformed its blended benchmark, the S&P 500 Index (60%) and Barclays U.S. Aggregate Bond Index (40%), for the one-year period ended October 31, 2016, and underperformed its blended benchmark for the three- and five-year periods ended October 31, 2016.

The Board also 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 further noted that the Portfolio’s total expenses (exclusive of 12b-l 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 asset-weighted average of certain comparable funds at the Portfolio’s current size. The Board also took into account that the Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees were above the averages of the Sub-advised Expense Group and the Sub-advised Expense Universe at the Portfolio’s current size.

MSF-37

Metropolitan Series Fund

MFS Total Return Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Advisory Agreements

The separation (the “Separation”) of MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”), the investment adviser to each of the series (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”) of Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (collectively, the “Trusts”), from its parent company, MetLife, Inc. (“MetLife”), to a separate retail business, Brighthouse Financial, Inc. (“Brighthouse”), is expected to result in a change in control of the Adviser, and therefore an “assignment” of each Portfolio’s current advisory agreement (each a “Current Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “Current Advisory Agreements”). At the November 15-16, 2016 meeting (“November Meeting”) of the Board of Trustees of the Trusts (the “Board”), the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not “interested persons,” as defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940, of any Portfolio (the “Independent Trustees”), approved a new advisory agreement (each a “New Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “New Advisory Agreements”) between the Trusts, on behalf of a Portfolio, and the Adviser, to be effective upon the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements in connection with the Separation, and recommended that the shareholders of the Trusts approve the New Advisory Agreements. The Board took those actions after consideration of and deliberation over information concerning the Separation, including with respect to the degree to which the Separation would affect the provision of investment advisory services to the Trusts. Information about the Board’s considerations and process is set forth below.

In determining whether to approve the New Advisory Agreements and in considering the Separation, the Board considered the nature, quality and extent of the services that are currently provided by the Adviser under the Current Advisory Agreements as well as the services to be provided under the New Advisory Agreements. The Board’s review was conducted as part of, and in conjunction with, the Board’s annual review of the Current Advisory Agreements, which culminated at the November Meeting. In approving the New Advisory Agreements, the Board considered its conclusions with respect to its approvals of the Current Advisory Agreements, including the Board’s general satisfaction with the nature, extent and quality of services being provided by the Adviser to each Portfolio. Appendix A and Appendix B contains a further description of the process followed, information reviewed and the material factors considered by the Board in approving the continuation of the Current Advisory Agreements.

A substantial portion of the Board’s review of the New Advisory Agreements focused on the Separation, including the potential effect of the implementation of the Separation on the operations, personnel, organizational structure, capitalization, and financial and other resources of the Adviser. After being informed by the Adviser in January 2016 of the possibility of the Separation, the Board and its Committees discussed the Separation and its possible effects on the Trusts with personnel of the Adviser and the anticipated senior management at Brighthouse during the course of the Board’s or Committee’s regularly scheduled, in-person, quarterly meetings.

Between August and November 2016, the Board and the Independent Trustees engaged in an extensive review and analysis of the Separation and how the Separation related to the Adviser and the Trusts and how it could affect the services provided to the Trusts. This analysis focused on, among other matters, the assurances from Brighthouse’s anticipated leadership as to its expectations for the continuity and stability of the Adviser’s personnel throughout implementation of the Separation and for the foreseeable future thereafter. The Board considered that the Separation is being implemented as a result of MetLife’s determination to divest itself of a substantial portion of its U.S. retail business (of which the Adviser forms a portion). The Board also considered that it has been satisfied as a general matter with the nature and quality of the services that the Adviser provides to the Portfolios, including investment advisory, administrative, legal, compliance, and support services, and that it would be in the Portfolios’ best interests to maintain continuity and stability in the services that are currently being provided. The Board carefully considered the anticipated future plans of Brighthouse related to capitalization and operational matters for Brighthouse and the Adviser, as well as the importance of the Adviser to the businesses of Brighthouse after the Separation.

Among other steps in its review process, which accelerated on October 5, 2016 when Brighthouse filed its Form 10 with the SEC, the following actions were taken and considered by or on behalf of the Board:

1. The Independent Trustees solicited and received ongoing advice regarding the legal duties of the Independent Trustees from Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young LLP (“Stradley Ronon”), legal counsel for the Independent Trustees, which law firm has extensive experience regarding such matters.

2. Following the August 16-17, 2016 Board and Committee quarterly meetings, the Independent Trustees established an ad hoc group of Independent Trustees (the “Working Group”) to help oversee, coordinate, and conduct due diligence activities with respect to the Separation. The Working Group regularly reported on the due diligence activities to the other Independent Trustees.

3. Since January 2016, the Board posed ongoing inquiries to, and received regular updates from, the Adviser and anticipated senior management at Brighthouse at either in-person meetings dedicated to the status of the Separation or during the course of the Board or Committee’s regular quarterly meetings. The Board considered, among other matters, relevant legal guidance and the processes followed by certain other investment company boards of directors or trustees when they approved contracts in connection with change in control events, while recognizing the unique circumstances of the Separation.

MSF-38

Metropolitan Series Fund

MFS Total Return Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

4. The Board received and reviewed the Form 10 of Brighthouse that contained extensive information relating to, among other matters, Brighthouse’s anticipated business plans and financial structure. The Board also received and reviewed reports from rating agencies with respect to Brighthouse.

5. Stradley Ronon retained Barrington Partners (“Barrington”), an independent consulting firm with a specific focus on the asset management industry and experience relating to business operations such as those to be conducted by Brighthouse, including its proposed subsidiary, the Adviser, in order to help Stradley Ronon evaluate the Separation based on the Form 10 and other materials and related information provided by the Adviser and its affiliates. Barrington conducted a series of in-person and telephonic meetings with anticipated senior management at Brighthouse (i.e., the aforementioned anticipated officers of Brighthouse and others) and with personnel of the Adviser who provide services to the Trusts. Stradley Ronon, with the assistance of Barrington, evaluated the information and advised the Independent Trustees with respect to, among other matters, details of Brighthouse’s anticipated business plan to understand the implications of the Separation to the Adviser and its personnel. The Independent Trustees and the Working Group attended certain in-person and telephonic conference call meetings at which Barrington rendered advice to Stradley Ronon regarding these matters and responded to questions.

6. The Independent Trustees requested and participated in in-person meetings with anticipated senior management personnel at Brighthouse, including its President and Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, Chief Operating Officer, and Chief Investment Officer. The Independent Trustees also met with personnel of the Adviser.

7. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of Stradley Ronon, prepared written inquiries to the Adviser and its affiliates regarding the Separation, and received written assurances from the Adviser and its affiliates that they have no plans to make any material changes affecting the personnel of the Adviser (including those personnel who provide investment, administrative, legal and compliance services) and the Adviser and its affiliates will not initiate such changes without prior notice to and discussion with the Board.

8. The Board considered representations by the Adviser and its affiliates that approval of the New Advisory Agreements would be necessary for the Portfolios to continue receiving investment advisory services from the Adviser following the change in control.

9. The Board considered representations by the Adviser, as well as related supporting documentation, indicating that the New Advisory Agreements, including the fees payable thereunder, are substantially identical to the terms of the corresponding Current Advisory Agreements.

10. The Board considered representations by the Adviser and its affiliates, as well as related supporting documentation, indicating that: (1) the Adviser can be expected to provide services of the same nature, extent, and quality under the New Advisory Agreements and as are provided thereby under the Current Advisory Agreements; and (2) the Separation is not expected to result in any changes to (i) the management of the Portfolios, or (ii) the investment objective of or the principal investment strategies used to manage any of the Portfolios.

11. The Board considered the ability of the Adviser and its affiliates to retain the employment of key personnel, as well as the overall positive indications by many such personnel regarding the opportunities presented by the Separation.

12. The Board considered that the Adviser and its affiliates have agreed to bear all expenses associated with obtaining shareholder approval of the New Advisory Agreements.

13. The Board considered Brighthouse’s preliminary “branding” plans regarding the future name of its operations.

14. The Board considered the advice provided by Ropes & Gray, LLP, legal counsel to the Trusts and the Adviser, with respect to the New Advisory Agreements (including advice relating to the process and timing of seeking shareholder approval of the New Advisory Agreements, and whether shareholder approvals would be required in connection with any future aspects of the Separation) and regarding the Board’s role and responsibilities with respect to the Separation.

15. The Board considered MetLife’s stated intention of divesting its ownership interest in the Adviser through the Separation, including the potential advantages and disadvantages of this divestiture to shareholders of the Portfolios. The Board considered the likelihood that the Adviser would retain its key personnel after the Separation. The Board considered that the garnering of new assets into the Trusts is based on sales of variable annuity and variable life insurance products, which sales have declined in prior years as a result of, among other things, the capital requirements of MetLife. The Board considered the representations of the anticipated senior management of Brighthouse that the Separation provides the Trusts with an opportunity for the garnering of new assets as Brighthouse will likely sell such products going forward. The Board considered also that the divestiture would result in a change in the manner in

MSF-39

Metropolitan Series Fund

MFS Total Return Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

which the Trusts access certain services and resources of MetLife (after the Separation those services will be provided through a transition services agreement), the loss of affiliation with the MetLife name brand, and the possible going forward need of the Trusts to hire a transfer agent, as such transfer agency services are currently provided to the Trusts for no fee.

16. The Board considered that, if shareholders approve the New Advisory Agreements, the Board and the Adviser will conduct their annual contract review process in November 2017. Thus, the Board emphasized that it would be able to, and intends to, monitor on a regular basis the ability of the Adviser and its affiliates to comply with their undertakings to the Board and to monitor on an ongoing basis the quality of services to, and expenses of, the Portfolios. In addition, the Board considered that, under the New Advisory Agreements, it will continue to have the authority, should the need arise in its view, to terminate any of the New Advisory Agreements without penalty upon 60 days’ notice.

Based on the foregoing and other relevant considerations, at the November Meeting, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, voted to approve the New Advisory Agreements and to recommend approval of the New Advisory Agreements by shareholders of the Portfolios. In this connection, the Board concluded that, in light of all factors considered, the terms of the New Advisory Agreement, including fee rates, were fair and reasonable, and that it would be in the best interests of shareholders of each Portfolio to approve the New Advisory Agreements.

In the event that approval of the New Advisory Agreements by shareholders of the Portfolios has not been obtained before the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements as a result of the change in control of the Adviser, the Board also approved an interim advisory agreement with the Adviser (the “Interim Advisory Agreement”) on behalf of each Portfolio that will go into effect upon the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements. The Board’s determination to approve each Interim Advisory Agreement was based on the same information and considerations as the Board’s approval of the New Advisory Agreements so as to ensure continuity of advisory services from the Adviser to the Portfolios following the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements.

MSF-40

Metropolitan Series Fund

MFS Total Return Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Sub-Advisory Agreements

The separation (the “Separation”) of MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”), the investment adviser to each of the series (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”) of Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (collectively, the “Trusts”), from its parent company, MetLife, Inc. (“MetLife”), to a separate retail business, Brighthouse Financial, Inc. (“Brighthouse”), is expected to result in a change in control of the Adviser, and therefore an “assignment” of each Portfolio’s current advisory agreement and, as a result, the automatic termination of the sub-advisory agreement (each a “Sub-Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisory Agreements”) between the Adviser and the investment sub-advisers (each a “Sub-Adviser” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisers”). At the November 15-16, 2016 meeting (“November Meeting”) of the Board of Trustees of the Trusts (the “Board”), the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not “interested persons,” as defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940, of any Portfolio (the “Independent Trustees”), approved new sub-advisory agreements (each a “New Sub-Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “New Sub-Advisory Agreements”). Information about the Board’s considerations and process is set forth below.

In determining whether to approve the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, the Board considered the nature, quality and extent of the services that are currently provided by the Sub-Advisers under the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements as well as the services to be provided under the New Sub-Advisory Agreements. The Board’s review was conducted as part of, and in conjunction with, the Board’s annual review of the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements, which culminated at the November Meeting. In approving the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, the Board considered its conclusions with respect to its approvals of the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements, including the Board’s general satisfaction with the nature, extent and quality of services being provided by the Sub-Advisers to the Portfolios, as applicable. Appendix A contains a further description of the process followed, information reviewed and the material factors considered by the Board in approving the continuation of the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements.

In addition, the following actions were taken and considered by or on behalf of the Board:

1. The Independent Trustees of the Board solicited and received ongoing advice regarding the legal duties of the Independent Trustees from Stradley Ronon, legal counsel for the Independent Trustees, which law firm has extensive experience regarding such matters.

2. The Board considered representations by the Adviser and its affiliates that approval of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements would be necessary for the Portfolios to continue receiving sub-advisory services from the Sub-Advisers following the change in control of the Adviser.

3. The Board considered representations by the Adviser, as well as related supporting documentation, indicating that the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, including the fees payable thereunder, are the same as the terms of the corresponding Current Sub-Advisory Agreements.

4. The Board considered the advice provided by Ropes & Gray, LLP, legal counsel to the Trusts and the Adviser, with respect to the New Sub-Advisory Agreements and regarding the Board’s role and responsibilities with respect to the Separation.

5. The Board considered that the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers will conduct their annual contract review process in November 2017. Thus, the Board emphasized that it would be able to, and intends to, monitor on an ongoing basis the ability of the Sub-Advisers to comply with its undertakings to the Board and the Adviser and to monitor on an ongoing basis the quality of services to, and expenses of, the Portfolios. In addition, the Board considered that, under the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, it will continue to have the authority, should the need arise in its view, to terminate any of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements without penalty upon no more than 60 days’ notice.

Based on the foregoing and other relevant considerations, at the November Meeting, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, voted to approve the New Sub-Advisory Agreements. In this connection, the Board concluded that, in light of all factors considered, the terms of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, including fee rates, were fair and reasonable.

MSF-41

Metropolitan Series Fund

MFS Value Portfolio

Managed by Massachusetts Financial Services Company

Portfolio Manager Commentary*

PERFORMANCE

For the 12 months ended December 31, 2016, the Class A, B, D and E shares of the MFS Value Portfolio returned 14.39%, 14.10%, 14.23%, and 14.20%, respectively. The Portfolio’s benchmark, the Russell 1000 Value Index¹, returned 17.34%.

MARKET ENVIRONMENT/CONDITIONS

Sluggish global growth weighed on both developed and emerging market (“EM”) economies during much of the reporting period, though signs of improved growth became evident in late 2016. The U.S. Federal Reserve increased interest rates by 25 basis points at the end of the period, the second hike of the cycle which began in December 2015. Globally, however, central bank policy remained highly accommodative, which forced many government, and even some corporate, bond yields into negative territory during the period. During the first half of the year, the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union (“EU”), beginning a multi-year process of negotiation in order to achieve “Brexit.” While markets initially reacted to the vote with alarm, the spillover to European and EM economies was relatively short-lived, although risks of further hits to EU cohesiveness could re-emerge. Late in the period, the surprising U.S. presidential election outcome prompted a significant rally in equities and a rise in bond yields in anticipation of a reflationary policy mix from the incoming Trump administration.

Headwinds from lower energy and commodity prices, which had spread beyond the Energy, Materials, and Industrial sectors early in the reporting period, abated later in the year as stabilizing oil prices helped push energy earnings higher relative to expectations. A sharp rise in the U.S dollar was a headwind for multinationals late in the period. The sharp rise in the U.S. dollar also weighed on earnings. U.S. consumer spending held up well during the second half of the period amid a modest increase in real wages and relatively low gasoline prices. Demand for autos reached near-record territory, while the housing market continued its recovery. Slow global trade continued to mirror slow global growth, particularly for many EM countries. That said, EM countries began to show signs of a modest upturn in activity along with adjustment in their external accounts. These improved conditions appeared to have reassured investors and contributed to record inflows into the asset class during July and August as negative yields for an increasing share of developed market bonds drove yield-hungry investors further out on the risk spectrum. Similar investor inflows were experienced in the investment grade and high yield corporate markets. Late in the reporting period, however, new challenges emerged for emerging markets debt (“EMD”) as a result of the U.S. presidential election, which raised concerns about the potential for a protectionist turn in U.S. trade policy which could negatively impact EM economies. These concerns, along with rising expectations for U.S. growth, inflation and rates, have turned the tables on flows into EMD. Since the election, flows have reversed. As of the end of the period, the markets seemed to be in “wait-and-see” mode, looking for evidence to either confirm or refute the repricing of risk that has occurred since Election Day.

PORTFOLIO REVIEW/PERIOD END POSITIONING

The Portfolio underperformed its benchmark Index for the period. The combination of an overweight allocation and weak stock selection in the Health Care sector detracted from performance relative to the Index. Here, overweight positions in healthcare services company Express Scripts and medical device maker Medtronic, and holdings of health services and information technology company McKesson, held back relative results.

Stock selection in the Materials sector hurt relative returns. Within this sector, the Portfolio’s holdings of chemical company PPG Industries dampened relative performance.

The combination of an overweight allocation and weak stock selection in the Consumer Staples sector also hampered relative results led by an overweight position in drugstore retailer CVS Health, and holdings of global food company Nestle (Switzerland) and international manufacturer and distributer of premium drinks Diageo (United Kingdom).

Other top relative detractors during the period included holdings of automotive components manufacturer Delphi Automotive, and not owning shares of financial services firm Bank of America and telecommunications company AT&T.

During the reporting period, the Portfolio’s relative currency exposure, resulting primarily from differences between the Portfolio’s and the benchmark’s exposures to holdings of securities denominated in foreign currencies, was a detractor to relative performance. All of MFS’ investment decisions are driven by the fundamentals of each individual opportunity and as such, it is common for our portfolios to have different currency exposure than the benchmark.

The Portfolio’s avoidance of the Real Estate sector bolstered relative performance. However, there were no individual stocks within this sector that were among the Portfolio’s largest relative contributors during the period.

An overweight position in the Industrials sector aided relative results, led by the Portfolio’s avoidance of poor-performing diversified industrial conglomerate General Electric.

Strong stock selection in the Consumer Discretionary sector also bolstered relative performance. Here, the Portfolio’s overweight position in media firm Time Warner supported relative results.

Stocks in other sectors that benefited relative results included overweight positions in financial services firms JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs Group, and Prudential Financial; semiconductor company Texas Instruments; and telecommunication services provider Verizon Communications. Additionally, not owning shares of software giant Microsoft, and underweight positions in eye care and skin care products company Allergan and diversified financial services firm Citigroup further supported relative results.

MSF-1

Metropolitan Series Fund

MFS Value Portfolio

Managed by Massachusetts Financial Services Company

Portfolio Manager Commentary*—(Continued)

For the 12-month period ending December 31, 2016, the Portfolio was overweight Industrials, Health Care, and Consumer Staples while being most underweight Energy, Utilities, and Real Estate. Relative sector positioning reflects the investment team’s bottom up stock selection process rather than any top-down macroeconomic view.

Steven R. Gorham

Nevin P. Chitkara

Portfolio Managers

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 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.

MSF-2

Metropolitan Series Fund

MFS Value Portfolio

A $10,000 INVESTMENT COMPARED TO THE RUSSELL 1000 VALUE INDEX

AVERAGE ANNUAL RETURNS (%) (FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2016)

	1 Year		5 Year		10 Year		Since Inception2
MFS Value Portfolio
Class A		14.39		14.91		7.05		—
Class B		14.10		14.63		—		7.54
Class D		14.23		—		—		11.67
Class E		14.20		14.74		—		7.65
Russell 1000 Value Index		17.34		14.80		5.72		—

¹ The 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 Inception dates of the Class A, Class B, Class D and Class E shares are 7/20/98, 4/28/08, 4/26/13 and 4/28/08, respectively.

Portfolio performance is calculated including reinvestment of all income and capital gain distributions. Performance numbers are net of all Portfolio expenses but do not include any insurance, sales, separate account or administrative charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts or any additional expenses that participants may bear relating to the operations of their plans. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower. The performance of any index referenced above has not been adjusted for ongoing management, distribution and operating expenses, and sales charges applicable to mutual fund investments. Direct investment in any index is not possible. The performance of Class A shares, as set forth in the line graph above, will differ from that of other classes because of the difference in expenses paid by policyholders investing in the different share classes.

This information represents past performance and is not indicative of future results. Investment return and principal value may fluctuate so that shares, upon redemption, may be worth more or less than the original cost.

PORTFOLIO COMPOSITION AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2016

Top Holdings

	% of Net Assets
JPMorgan Chase & Co.		4.8
Wells Fargo & Co.		3.5
Johnson & Johnson		3.4
Philip Morris International, Inc.		3.2
Accenture plc - Class A		2.6
Travelers Cos., Inc. (The)		2.5
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (The)		2.5
U.S. Bancorp		2.4
Chubb, Ltd.		2.3
Medtronic plc		2.2

Top Sectors

	% of Net Assets
Financials		30.2
Industrials		15.3
Health Care		15.2
Consumer Staples		12.4
Information Technology		7.4
Consumer Discretionary		6.9
Energy		5.2
Materials		4.0
Telecommunication Services		1.4
Utilities		1.1

MSF-3

Metropolitan Series Fund

MFS 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, 2016 through December 31, 2016.

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.

MFS Value Portfolio		Annualized Expense Ratio			Beginning Account Value July 1, 2016		Ending Account Value December 31, 2016		Expenses Paid During Period** July 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016
Class A(a)	Actual		0.58	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,067.60	$	3.01
	Hypothetical*		0.58	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,022.22	$	2.95
Class B(a)	Actual		0.83	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,066.90	$	4.31
	Hypothetical*		0.83	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,020.96	$	4.22
Class D(a)	Actual		0.68	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,067.10	$	3.53
	Hypothetical*		0.68	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,021.72	$	3.46
Class E(a)	Actual		0.73	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,066.60	$	3.79
	Hypothetical*		0.73	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,021.47	$	3.71

* 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 366 (to reflect the one-half year period).

^(a) The annualized expense ratio shown reflects the impact of the management fee waiver as described in Note 5 of the Notes to Financial Statements.

MSF-4

Metropolitan Series Fund

MFS Value Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—99.1% of Net Assets

Security Description	Shares		Value
Aerospace & Defense—3.3%
Lockheed Martin Corp.		147,894	$	36,964,626
Northrop Grumman Corp.		121,094		28,164,043
United Technologies Corp.		328,134		35,970,049
				101,098,718
Air Freight & Logistics—1.5%
United Parcel Service, Inc. - Class B		411,456		47,169,316
Auto Components—0.9%
Delphi Automotive plc		399,911		26,934,006
Automobiles—0.5%
Harley-Davidson, Inc. (a)		268,493		15,663,882
Banks—13.9%
Citigroup, Inc.		946,218		56,233,736
JPMorgan Chase & Co.		1,736,841		149,872,010
PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. (The) (a)		380,914		44,551,701
U.S. Bancorp		1,423,098		73,104,544
Wells Fargo & Co.		1,980,520		109,146,457
				432,908,448
Beverages—1.4%
Diageo plc		1,171,375		30,304,754
PepsiCo, Inc.		140,348		14,684,611
				44,989,365
Building Products—1.8%
Johnson Controls International plc		1,375,161		56,642,882
Capital Markets—7.8%
Bank of New York Mellon Corp. (The)		769,926		36,479,094
BlackRock, Inc.		77,312		29,420,309
Franklin Resources, Inc.		406,937		16,106,566
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (The) (a)		318,660		76,303,137
Moody’s Corp. (a)		190,775		17,984,359
Nasdaq, Inc.		492,503		33,056,801
S&P Global, Inc.		54,562		5,867,598
State Street Corp.		344,649		26,786,120
				242,003,984
Chemicals—3.5%
E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.		315,509		23,158,361
Monsanto Co.		111,238		11,703,350
PPG Industries, Inc.		586,734		55,598,914
Sherwin-Williams Co. (The)		65,087		17,491,480
				107,952,105
Consumer Finance—0.9%
American Express Co.		386,755		28,650,810
Containers & Packaging—0.5%
Crown Holdings, Inc. (a) (b)		274,410		14,425,734
Diversified Telecommunication Services—1.4%
Verizon Communications, Inc. (a)		813,337		43,415,929
Electric Utilities—1.1%
Duke Energy Corp.		333,514		25,887,357
Xcel Energy, Inc. (a)		229,172		9,327,300
				35,214,657
Electrical Equipment—0.9%
Eaton Corp. plc		396,560		26,605,210
Energy Equipment & Services—1.2%
Schlumberger, Ltd.		456,210		38,298,829
Food & Staples Retailing—1.7%
CVS Health Corp.		658,073		51,928,540
Food Products—4.6%
Archer-Daniels-Midland Co. (a)		560,460		25,584,999
Danone S.A.		201,253		12,738,379
General Mills, Inc.		494,196		30,526,487
J.M. Smucker Co. (The) (a)		127,285		16,300,117
Mead Johnson Nutrition Co.		111,069		7,859,242
Nestle S.A.		677,008		48,559,137
				141,568,361
Health Care Equipment & Supplies—5.1%
Abbott Laboratories		848,091		32,575,175
Danaher Corp.		426,669		33,211,915
Medtronic plc		964,989		68,736,166
St. Jude Medical, Inc.		293,892		23,567,200
				158,090,456
Health Care Providers & Services—1.7%
Cigna Corp.		116,181		15,497,384
Express Scripts Holding Co. (b)		259,955		17,882,304
McKesson Corp.		146,444		20,568,060
				53,947,748
Household Durables—0.2%
Newell Brands, Inc. (a)		113,823		5,082,197
Household Products—0.4%
Procter & Gamble Co. (The)		139,632		11,740,259
Industrial Conglomerates—3.9%
3M Co. (a)		354,086		63,229,137
Honeywell International, Inc.		490,556		56,830,913
				120,060,050
Insurance—7.6%
Aon plc (a)		421,744		47,037,108
Chubb, Ltd.		531,141		70,174,349
Prudential Financial, Inc. (a)		386,708		40,240,834
Travelers Cos., Inc. (The)		639,797		78,323,949
				235,776,240

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-5

Metropolitan Series Fund

MFS Value Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
IT Services—5.2%
Accenture plc - Class A (a)		683,579	$	80,067,608
Amdocs, Ltd.		129,964		7,570,403
Cognizant Technology Solutions Corp. - Class A (a) (b)		206,537		11,572,268
Fidelity National Information Services, Inc.		365,978		27,682,576
Fiserv, Inc. (a) (b)		131,262		13,950,525
International Business Machines Corp. (a)		133,546		22,167,301
				163,010,681
Life Sciences Tools & Services—1.1%
Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc.		239,626		33,811,229
Machinery—2.3%
Illinois Tool Works, Inc.		230,763		28,259,237
Ingersoll-Rand plc		222,857		16,723,189
Pentair plc		219,431		12,303,496
Stanley Black & Decker, Inc.		135,166		15,502,189
				72,788,111
Media—4.3%
Comcast Corp. - Class A		570,617		39,401,104
Interpublic Group of Cos., Inc. (The) (a)		513,430		12,019,396
Omnicom Group, Inc. (a)		532,916		45,356,481
Time Warner, Inc. (a)		285,960		27,603,719
Walt Disney Co. (The) (a)		73,819		7,693,416
				132,074,116
Multiline Retail—0.5%
Target Corp.		212,945		15,381,017
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels—4.0%
Chevron Corp.		259,789		30,577,165
EOG Resources, Inc.		319,037		32,254,641
Exxon Mobil Corp.		376,715		34,002,296
Occidental Petroleum Corp. (a)		377,783		26,909,483
				123,743,585
Personal Products—0.4%
Coty, Inc. - Class A (a)		714,668		13,085,571
Pharmaceuticals—7.3%
Johnson & Johnson (a)		916,602		105,601,716
Merck & Co., Inc.		741,216		43,635,386
Novartis AG		95,841		6,971,345
Pfizer, Inc. (a)		1,995,452		64,812,281
Roche Holding AG		27,492		6,264,140
				227,284,868
Professional Services—0.4%
Equifax, Inc.		96,400		11,397,372
Road & Rail—1.3%
Canadian National Railway Co. (a)		246,345		16,603,653
Road & Rail—(Continued)
Union Pacific Corp.		224,054		23,229,919
				39,833,572
Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment—1.5%
Texas Instruments, Inc.		653,379		47,677,066
Software—0.6%
Oracle Corp.		486,608		18,710,078
Specialty Retail—0.2%
Advance Auto Parts, Inc. (a)		44,834		7,582,326
Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods—0.3%
Hanesbrands, Inc. (a)		496,860		10,717,270
Tobacco—3.9%
Altria Group, Inc.		316,294		21,387,800
Philip Morris International, Inc.		1,099,811		100,621,709
				122,009,509
Total Common Stocks (Cost $2,289,406,246)				3,079,274,097
Short-Term Investment—0.9%
Commercial Paper—0.9%
GE Capital Treasury Services U.S. LLC 0.406%, 01/03/17 (c)		28,626,000		28,625,046
Total Short-Term Investments (Cost $28,625,046)				28,625,046
Securities Lending Reinvestments (d)— 7.2%
Certificates of Deposit—3.9%
Banco Del Estado De Chile New York 1.154%, 06/21/17 (e)		3,000,000		2,999,385
Bank of Nova Scotia Houston 1.201%, 11/03/17 (e)		5,000,000		5,004,232
Bank of Tokyo UFJ, Ltd., New York 1.121%, 02/28/17 (e)		3,400,000		3,400,068
Barclays New York 0.894%, 02/10/17 (e)		5,000,000		5,001,617
BNP Paribas New York 1.226%, 08/04/17 (e)		3,500,000		3,501,554
Chiba Bank, Ltd., New York 0.870%, 01/10/17		2,400,000		2,400,055
0.920%, 02/03/17		5,000,000		5,000,555
Credit Suisse AG New York 1.444%, 04/24/17 (e)		3,500,000		3,500,823
DNB NOR Bank ASA 1.130%, 07/28/17 (e)		1,200,000		1,199,790
DZ Bank AG New York 1.010%, 02/27/17		4,000,000		4,001,156

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-6

Metropolitan Series Fund

MFS Value Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Securities Lending Reinvestments (d)—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Certificates of Deposit—(Continued)
KBC Brussells 1.050%, 01/27/17		4,300,000	$	4,300,817
Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen London Zero Coupon, 01/24/17		3,491,968		3,498,495
Mizuho Bank, Ltd., New York 1.336%, 05/17/17		10,000,000		9,999,040
1.361%, 04/26/17 (e)		3,000,000		2,999,847
National Australia Bank London 1.034%, 05/02/17 (e)		2,000,000		2,001,888
1.182%, 11/09/17 (e)		6,000,000		5,985,120
National Bank of Canada 0.650%, 01/06/17		10,500,000		10,500,420
Natixis New York 0.900%, 02/17/17		8,000,000		8,001,024
Shizuoka Bank New York 0.840%, 01/03/17		4,600,000		4,600,018
Standard Chartered Bank New York 1.150%, 03/21/17		8,000,000		8,001,352
Sumitomo Bank New York 1.215%, 05/05/17 (e)		2,500,000		2,504,164
1.336%, 06/19/17 (e)		2,000,000		1,999,848
Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corp. 0.900%, 01/12/17		2,000,000		2,000,076
Sumitomo Mitsui Trust Bank, Ltd., London 1.262%, 05/08/17 (e)		3,500,000		3,506,410
Sumitomo Mitsui Trust Bank, Ltd., New York 1.351%, 04/26/17 (e)		4,000,000		4,000,472
Svenska Handelsbanken New York 1.266%, 05/18/17 (e)		1,500,000		1,500,261
UBS, Stamford 1.084%, 05/12/17 (e)		4,700,000		4,699,643
Wells Fargo Bank San Francisco N.A. 1.231%, 04/26/17 (e)		1,200,000		1,200,336
1.264%, 10/26/17 (e)		1,750,000		1,751,195
				119,059,661
Commercial Paper—1.7%
Atlantic Asset Securitization LLC 1.040%, 02/03/17		3,489,383		3,496,944
Barton Capital Corp. 0.660%, 01/12/17		4,994,225		4,998,755
Den Norske ASA 1.206%, 04/27/17 (e)		1,200,000		1,200,064
Erste Abwicklungsanstalt 1.014%, 03/10/17 (e)		6,000,000		6,000,036
HSBC plc 1.216%, 04/25/17 (e)		4,750,000		4,749,796
LMA S.A. & LMA Americas 1.000%, 01/13/17		498,792		499,825
Macquarie Bank, Ltd. 0.930%, 01/19/17		1,496,435		1,499,074
1.160%, 03/20/17		7,976,542		7,980,038
Old Line Funding LLC 0.840%, 01/03/17		1,746,856		1,749,862
1.030%, 03/13/17 (e)		4,200,000		4,203,278
Commercial Paper—(Continued)
Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp., Ltd. 0.890%, 02/21/17		4,988,628		4,993,360
Toronto Dominion Holding Corp. 0.600%, 01/05/17		5,993,800		5,999,328
Versailles Commercial Paper LLC 1.000%, 01/31/17		2,892,267		2,897,819
Westpac Banking Corp. 1.232%, 10/20/17 (e)		3,250,000		3,255,675
				53,523,854
Repurchase Agreements—1.5%
Deutsche Bank AG, London Repurchase Agreement dated 12/15/16 - 12/30/16 at 1.050% to be repurchased at $10,901,928 on 01/03/17, collateralized by various Common Stock with a value of $12,115,950.		10,900,000		10,900,000
Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. Repurchase Agreement dated 10/18/16 at 1.110% to be repurchased at $1,506,290 on 03/03/17, collateralized by various Common Stock with a value of $1,650,000.		1,500,000		1,500,000
Goldman Sachs & Co. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/16 at 0.460% to be repurchased at $70,551 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $363,051 U.S. Government Agency Obligations with rates ranging from 2.000% - 10.500%, maturity dates ranging from 03/15/17 - 09/20/65, with a value of $71,958.		70,547		70,547
Macquarie Bank, Ltd. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/15/16 at 0.600% to be repurchased at $16,005,867 on 01/06/17, collateralized by $15,829,682 U.S. Treasury Obligations with rates ranging from 0.000% - 8.750%, maturity dates ranging from 01/05/17 - 05/15/46, with a value of $16,328,268.		16,000,000		16,000,000
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. Repurchase Agreement dated 10/26/16 at 1.160% to be repurchased at $2,010,247 on 04/03/17, collateralized by various Common Stock with a value of $2,200,000.		2,000,000		2,000,000
Natixis Repurchase Agreement dated 12/27/16 at 0.850% to be repurchased at $16,502,727 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $26,483,644 U.S. Government Agency and Treasury Obligations with rates ranging from 0.000% - 4.672%, maturity dates ranging from 01/31/17 - 09/16/58, with a value of $16,832,069.		16,500,000		16,500,000
				46,970,547

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-7

Metropolitan Series Fund

MFS Value Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Securities Lending Reinvestments (d)—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Time Deposits—0.1%
OP Corporate Bank plc 1.010%, 01/04/17		1,500,000	$	1,500,000
Shinkin Central Bank 1.200%, 01/27/17		300,000		300,000
1.220%, 01/26/17		1,900,000		1,900,000
				3,700,000
Total Securities Lending Reinvestments (Cost $223,235,893)				223,254,062
Total Investments—107.2% (Cost $2,541,267,185) (f)				3,331,153,205
Other assets and liabilities (net)—(7.2)%				(223,483,326	)
Net Assets—100.0%			$	3,107,669,879

* Principal amount stated in U.S. dollars unless otherwise noted.

(a) All or a portion of the security was held on loan. As of December 31, 2016, the market value of securities loaned was $217,331,241 and the collateral received consisted of cash in the amount of $223,189,444. The cash collateral investments are disclosed in the Schedule of Investments and categorized as Securities Lending Reinvestments.

(b) Non-income producing security.

(c) The rate shown represents current yield to maturity.

(d) Represents investment of cash collateral received from securities on loan as of December 31, 2016.

(e) Variable or floating rate security. The stated rate represents the rate at December 31, 2016.

(f) As of December 31, 2016, the aggregate cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was $2,542,223,946. The aggregate unrealized appreciation and depreciation of investments were $822,886,495 and $(33,957,236), respectively, resulting in net unrealized appreciation of $788,929,259 for federal income tax purposes.

Fair Value Hierarchy

Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) define 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, separately for each major category of assets and liabilities, 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, quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities 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, or other market corroborated inputs)

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 used in determining the fair value of investments and derivative financial instruments)

The inputs or methodologies used for valuing investments are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in them. Changes to the inputs or methodologies used may result in transfers between levels, which 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, 2016:

Description	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
Common Stocks
Aerospace & Defense	$	101,098,718	$	—	$	—	$	101,098,718
Air Freight & Logistics		47,169,316		—		—		47,169,316
Auto Components		26,934,006		—		—		26,934,006
Automobiles		15,663,882		—		—		15,663,882
Banks		432,908,448		—		—		432,908,448
Beverages		14,684,611		30,304,754		—		44,989,365
Building Products		56,642,882		—		—		56,642,882
Capital Markets		242,003,984		—		—		242,003,984
Chemicals		107,952,105		—		—		107,952,105
Consumer Finance		28,650,810		—		—		28,650,810
Containers & Packaging		14,425,734		—		—		14,425,734
Diversified Telecommunication Services		43,415,929		—		—		43,415,929
Electric Utilities		35,214,657		—		—		35,214,657
Electrical Equipment		26,605,210		—		—		26,605,210
Energy Equipment & Services		38,298,829		—		—		38,298,829
Food & Staples Retailing		51,928,540		—		—		51,928,540

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-8

Metropolitan Series Fund

MFS Value Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Fair Value Hierarchy—(Continued)

Description	Level 1		Level 2			Level 3		Total
Food Products	$	80,270,845	$	61,297,516		$	—	$	141,568,361
Health Care Equipment & Supplies		158,090,456		—			—		158,090,456
Health Care Providers & Services		53,947,748		—			—		53,947,748
Household Durables		5,082,197		—			—		5,082,197
Household Products		11,740,259		—			—		11,740,259
Industrial Conglomerates		120,060,050		—			—		120,060,050
Insurance		235,776,240		—			—		235,776,240
IT Services		163,010,681		—			—		163,010,681
Life Sciences Tools & Services		33,811,229		—			—		33,811,229
Machinery		72,788,111		—			—		72,788,111
Media		132,074,116		—			—		132,074,116
Multiline Retail		15,381,017		—			—		15,381,017
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels		123,743,585		—			—		123,743,585
Personal Products		13,085,571		—			—		13,085,571
Pharmaceuticals		214,049,383		13,235,485			—		227,284,868
Professional Services		11,397,372		—			—		11,397,372
Road & Rail		39,833,572		—			—		39,833,572
Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment		47,677,066		—			—		47,677,066
Software		18,710,078		—			—		18,710,078
Specialty Retail		7,582,326		—			—		7,582,326
Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods		10,717,270		—			—		10,717,270
Tobacco		122,009,509		—			—		122,009,509
Total Common Stocks		2,974,436,342		104,837,755			—		3,079,274,097
Total Short-Term Investment*		—		28,625,046			—		28,625,046
Total Securities Lending Reinvestments*		—		223,254,062			—		223,254,062
Total Investments	$	2,974,436,342	$	356,716,863		$	—	$	3,331,153,205
Collateral for Securities Loaned (Liability)	$	—	$	(223,189,444	)	$	—	$	(223,189,444	)

* See Schedule of Investments for additional detailed categorizations.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-9

Metropolitan Series Fund

MFS Value Portfolio

Statement of Assets and Liabilities

December 31, 2016

Assets
Investments at value (a) (b)	$	3,331,153,205
Cash		830
Cash denominated in foreign currencies (c)		777
Receivable for:
Investments sold		148,050
Fund shares sold		192,315
Dividends		6,293,818
Prepaid expenses		8,734
Total Assets		3,337,797,729
Liabilities
Collateral for securities loaned		223,189,444
Payables for:
Investments purchased		1,025,918
Fund shares redeemed		3,814,066
Accrued Expenses:
Management fees		1,493,811
Distribution and service fees		181,942
Deferred trustees’ fees		152,178
Other expenses		270,491
Total Liabilities		230,127,850
Net Assets	$	3,107,669,879
Net Assets Consist of:
Paid in surplus	$	2,056,330,244
Undistributed net investment income		65,654,481
Accumulated net realized gain		195,929,552
Unrealized appreciation on investments and foreign currency transactions		789,755,602
Net Assets	$	3,107,669,879
Net Assets
Class A	$	2,222,240,436
Class B		804,169,565
Class D		14,384,918
Class E		66,874,960
Capital Shares Outstanding*
Class A		145,115,825
Class B		53,132,380
Class D		942,523
Class E		4,393,905
Net Asset Value, Offering Price and Redemption Price Per Share
Class A	$	15.31
Class B		15.14
Class D		15.26
Class E		15.22

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

(a) Identified cost of investments was $2,541,267,185.

(b) Includes securities loaned at value of $217,331,241.

(c) Identified cost of cash denominated in foreign currencies was $770.

Statement of Operations

Year Ended December 31, 2016

Investment Income
Dividends (a)	$	85,132,912
Interest		76,382
Securities lending income		459,543
Other income (b)		310,084
Total investment income		85,978,921
Expenses
Management fees		21,207,964
Administration fees		98,472
Custodian and accounting fees		173,759
Distribution and service fees—Class B		1,899,454
Distribution and service fees—Class D		14,296
Distribution and service fees—Class E		98,305
Audit and tax services		42,040
Legal		33,604
Trustees’ fees and expenses		45,219
Shareholder reporting		174,769
Insurance		21,003
Miscellaneous		40,833
Total expenses		23,849,718
Less management fee waiver		(4,128,917	)
Less broker commission recapture		(84,103	)
Net expenses		19,636,698
Net Investment Income		66,342,223
Net Realized and Unrealized Gain
Net realized gain (loss) on:
Investments		198,423,362
Foreign currency transactions		(70,499	)
Net realized gain		198,352,863
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on:
Investments		141,300,927
Foreign currency transactions		(7,022	)
Net change in unrealized appreciation		141,293,905
Net realized and unrealized gain		339,646,768
Net Increase in Net Assets From Operations	$	405,988,991

(a) Net of foreign withholding taxes of $438,010.

(b) Other income represents a non-recurring refund for overbilling of prior years’ custodian out-of-pocket fees.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-10

Metropolitan Series Fund

MFS Value Portfolio

Statements of Changes in Net Assets

	Year Ended December 31, 2016			Year Ended December 31, 2015
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets:
From Operations
Net investment income	$	66,342,223		$	58,468,761
Net realized gain		198,352,863			283,803,641
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation)		141,293,905			(342,330,247	)
Increase (decrease) in net assets from operations		405,988,991			(57,845	)
From Distributions to Shareholders
Net investment income
Class A		(49,437,763	)		(64,266,030	)
Class B		(15,441,649	)		(18,873,575	)
Class D		(312,156	)		(413,063	)
Class E		(1,387,482	)		(1,838,640	)
Net realized capital gains
Class A		(197,201,744	)		(369,239,893	)
Class B		(69,294,401	)		(119,713,583	)
Class D		(1,306,868	)		(2,472,344	)
Class E		(5,965,342	)		(11,239,619	)
Total distributions		(340,347,405	)		(588,056,747	)
Increase in net assets from capital share transactions		3,928,365			239,569,799
Total increase (decrease) in net assets		69,569,951			(348,544,793	)
Net Assets
Beginning of period		3,038,099,928			3,386,644,721
End of period	$	3,107,669,879		$	3,038,099,928
Undistributed net investment income
End of period	$	65,654,481		$	67,871,282

Other Information:

Capital Shares

Transactions in capital shares were as follows:

	Year Ended December 31, 2016						Year Ended December 31, 2015
	Shares			Value			Shares			Value
Class A
Sales		2,740,550		$	40,952,732			3,370,415		$	57,892,552
Reinvestments		17,504,578			246,639,507			27,842,385			433,505,923
Redemptions		(22,073,025	)		(331,716,371	)		(19,942,986	)		(335,396,986	)
Net increase (decrease)		(1,827,897	)	$	(44,124,132	)		11,269,814		$	156,001,489
Class B
Sales		5,538,629		$	82,344,094			4,205,956		$	67,865,522
Reinvestments		6,074,268			84,736,050			8,981,670			138,587,158
Redemptions		(7,981,193	)		(117,959,367	)		(7,493,315	)		(124,870,417	)
Net increase		3,631,704		$	49,120,777			5,694,311		$	81,582,263
Class D
Sales		45,140		$	685,564			17,071		$	268,085
Reinvestments		115,233			1,619,024			185,796			2,885,407
Redemptions		(192,125	)		(2,857,392	)		(143,771	)		(2,360,733	)
Net increase (decrease)		(31,752	)	$	(552,804	)		59,096		$	792,759
Class E
Sales		200,827		$	2,991,361			108,399		$	1,772,656
Reinvestments		524,452			7,352,824			843,758			13,078,259
Redemptions		(731,067	)		(10,859,661	)		(815,386	)		(13,657,627	)
Net increase (decrease)		(5,788	)	$	(515,476	)		136,771		$	1,193,288
Increase derived from capital shares transactions				$	3,928,365					$	239,569,799

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-11

Metropolitan Series Fund

MFS Value Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class A
	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014			2013			2012
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	15.09		$	18.38		$	17.75		$	13.80		$	12.23
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (a)		0.34	(b)		0.31			0.43			0.30			0.29
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		1.68			(0.23	)		1.36			4.46			1.72
Total from investment operations		2.02			0.08			1.79			4.76			2.01
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.36	)		(0.50	)		(0.31	)		(0.30	)		(0.26	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(1.44	)		(2.87	)		(0.85	)		(0.51	)		(0.18	)
Total distributions		(1.80	)		(3.37	)		(1.16	)		(0.81	)		(0.44	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	15.31		$	15.09		$	18.38		$	17.75		$	13.80
Total Return (%) (c)		14.39			(0.15	)		10.81			35.73			16.65
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Gross ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.72			0.72			0.72			0.72			0.73
Net ratio of expenses to average net assets (%) (d)		0.58			0.58			0.58			0.58			0.60
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		2.25	(b)		1.87			2.49			1.92			2.21
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		14			12			12			17			16
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	2,222.2		$	2,218.1		$	2,493.9		$	3,074.8		$	2,363.0
	Class B
	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014			2013			2012
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	14.94		$	18.22		$	17.61		$	13.70		$	12.15
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (a)		0.30	(b)		0.27			0.37			0.27			0.26
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		1.66			(0.23	)		1.36			4.41			1.70
Total from investment operations		1.96			0.04			1.73			4.68			1.96
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.32	)		(0.45	)		(0.27	)		(0.26	)		(0.23	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(1.44	)		(2.87	)		(0.85	)		(0.51	)		(0.18	)
Total distributions		(1.76	)		(3.32	)		(1.12	)		(0.77	)		(0.41	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	15.14		$	14.94		$	18.22		$	17.61		$	13.70
Total Return (%) (c)		14.10			(0.36	)		10.56			35.38			16.32
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Gross ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.97			0.97			0.97			0.97			0.98
Net ratio of expenses to average net assets (%) (d)		0.83			0.83			0.83			0.83			0.85
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		2.01	(b)		1.62			2.16			1.68			1.96
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		14			12			12			17			16
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	804.2		$	739.3		$	798.0		$	795.9		$	250.2

Please see following page for Financial Highlights footnote legend.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-12

Metropolitan Series Fund

MFS Value Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class D
	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014			2013(e)
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	15.05		$	18.33		$	17.71		$	14.88
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (a)		0.32	(b)		0.29			0.41			0.20
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		1.67			(0.22	)		1.35			2.63
Total from investment operations		1.99			0.07			1.76			2.83
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.34	)		(0.48	)		(0.29	)		0.00
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(1.44	)		(2.87	)		(0.85	)		0.00
Total distributions		(1.78	)		(3.35	)		(1.14	)		0.00
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	15.26		$	15.05		$	18.33		$	17.71
Total Return (%) (c)		14.23			(0.20	)		10.69			19.02	(f)
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Gross ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.82			0.82			0.82			0.82	(g)
Net ratio of expenses to average net assets (%) (d)		0.68			0.68			0.68			0.68	(g)
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		2.15	(b)		1.77			2.34			1.80	(g)
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		14			12			12			17
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	14.4		$	14.7		$	16.8		$	18.6
	Class E
	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014			2013			2012
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	15.01		$	18.29		$	17.67		$	13.73		$	12.18
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (a)		0.31	(b)		0.29			0.40			0.28			0.27
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		1.67			(0.23	)		1.35			4.45			1.70
Total from investment operations		1.98			0.06			1.75			4.73			1.97
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.33	)		(0.47	)		(0.28	)		(0.28	)		(0.24	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(1.44	)		(2.87	)		(0.85	)		(0.51	)		(0.18	)
Total distributions		(1.77	)		(3.34	)		(1.13	)		(0.79	)		(0.42	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	15.22		$	15.01		$	18.29		$	17.67		$	13.73
Total Return (%) (c)		14.20			(0.27	)		10.63			35.63			16.39
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Gross ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.87			0.87			0.87			0.87			0.88
Net ratio of expenses to average net assets (%) (d)		0.73			0.73			0.73			0.73			0.75
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		2.10	(b)		1.72			2.28			1.81			2.05
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		14			12			12			17			16
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	66.9		$	66.0		$	78.0		$	83.5		$	57.0

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

(b) Net investment income per share and the ratio of net investment income to average net assets include a non-recurring refund for overbilling of prior years’ custodian out-of-pocket fees which amounted to less than $0.01 per share and 0.01% of average net assets, respectively.

(c) Total return does not reflect any insurance, sales, separate account or administrative charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts or any additional expenses that contract owners may bear under their variable contracts. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower.

(d) Includes the effects of management fee waivers (see Note 5 of the Notes to Financial Statements).

(e) Commencement of operations was April 26, 2013.

(f) Periods less than one year are not computed on an annualized basis.

(g) Computed on an annualized basis.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-13

Metropolitan Series Fund

MFS Value Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016

1. Organization

Metropolitan Series Fund (the “Trust”) is organized as a Delaware statutory trust and registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), as an open-end management investment company. The Trust, which is managed by MetLife Advisers, LLC (“MetLife Advisers” or the “Adviser”), an affiliate of MetLife, Inc., is currently comprised of thirty series, each of which operates as a distinct investment vehicle of the Trust. The portfolio included in this report is MFS 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.

On January 12, 2016, MetLife, Inc. announced its plan to pursue the separation of a substantial portion of its retail segment and is currently evaluating structural alternatives for such separation. It is anticipated that MetLife Advisers would be included in any such separation. Any separation transaction that might occur will be subject to the satisfaction of various conditions and approvals, including approval of any transaction by the MetLife, Inc. Board of Directors, satisfaction of any applicable requirements of the SEC, and receipt of insurance and other regulatory approvals and other anticipated conditions. MetLife, Inc. cannot currently provide a specific potential completion date for a separation transaction or any assurance that a separation will in fact occur. MetLife Advisers’ continued service as investment adviser to the Trusts following a separation transaction is the subject of a proxy statement that was filed with the SEC on December 20, 2016 and mailed to shareholders of the Portfolio on or about December 30, 2016.

The Portfolio has registered and offers four classes of shares: Class A, B, D and E shares. 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 plan and such distribution expenses are allocated to the corresponding Class of shares.

2. Significant Accounting Policies

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities as of the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of income and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates. In the preparation of these financial statements, management has evaluated events and transactions subsequent to December 31, 2016 through the date the financial statements were issued.

The Portfolio is an investment company and follows the accounting and reporting guidance of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Accounting Standards Codification Topic 946—Financial Services—Investment Companies and Topic 820—Fair Value Measurement. 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 - Domestic and foreign equity securities, such as common stock, exchange-traded funds, rights, warrants, and preferred stock, that are traded on a securities exchange on a valuation date are generally valued at their last quoted sale price or official closing price on the primary exchange for such security, or, if no sales occurred on that day, at the last reported bid price. Equity securities traded over-the-counter (“OTC”) are generally valued at the last reported bid price. In the event of a major exchange closing during the trading day, the Adviser may use other market information obtained from quotation reporting systems, established market makers, or pricing services in valuing the securities. Valuation adjustments may be applied to certain foreign equity securities that are traded solely on foreign exchanges that close before the time as of which the Portfolio determines its NAV to account for the market movement between the close of the foreign exchanges and the time as of which the Portfolio determines its NAV. The Portfolio may use a systematic fair valuation model provided by a pricing service to value securities principally traded in these foreign markets in order to adjust for possible market movements or other changes that may occur between the close of the foreign exchanges and the time as of which the Portfolio determines its NAV. Foreign equity securities valued using these valuation adjustments are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy. Equity securities that are actively traded, and have no valuation adjustments applied, are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other equity securities traded on inactive markets, or valued in reference to similar instruments traded on active markets, 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 on the valuation date and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy.

Debt securities, including corporate, convertible and municipal bonds and notes; obligations of the U.S. Treasury and U.S. government agencies; foreign sovereign issues; 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 the Adviser (each a “pricing service”), pursuant to

MSF-14

Metropolitan Series Fund

MFS Value Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

authorization of and subject to general oversight by the Board of Trustees of the Trust (the “Board” or “Trustees”). Such pricing services may use matrix pricing, which considers observable inputs including, among other things, issuer details, maturity dates, interest rates, yield curves, rates of prepayment, credit risks/spreads, default rates, reported trades, broker dealer quotes and quoted prices for similar assets. Short-term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less may be valued at amortized cost in the absence of market quotes, so long as the amortized cost value of such short-term debt instrument is approximately the same as the fair value of the instrument as determined without the use of amortized cost valuation. Floating rate loans are generally valued on the basis of an evaluated or composite average of aggregate bid and ask quotations supplied by brokers or dealers, as obtained from the pricing service. Securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally 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 sale price available as of the close of business on a valuation day or, if there is no such price available, at the last reported bid price. These types of options are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Futures contracts that are traded on commodity exchanges are valued at their settlement prices established by the exchanges on which they are traded as of the close of such exchanges and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy.

If no current market value quotation or other observable inputs are readily available or market value quotations are deemed to be unreliable for an investment, the fair value of the investment will be determined in accordance with procedures approved by, and under the general supervision of, the Board. In such a circumstance, the Board will be assisted in its responsibility to determine the fair value of an investment by the Valuation Committee (“Committee”) of MetLife Advisers. The Committee provides general pricing oversight and fair value pricing determinations related to portfolio securities and meets on a regular basis to review reports relating to the valuation of the securities in the Portfolio. The Board has delegated to State Street Bank and Trust Company, the Trust’s custodian (“custodian”), the responsibility for calculating the net asset values (“NAVs”) of the Trust’s Portfolios. The Committee is responsible for overseeing the calculation of the NAVs of the Portfolios by the custodian. The Committee also periodically reviews pricing services, including the pricing services providing fair value pricing for the Portfolio’s foreign securities, and is responsible for overseeing the correction of pricing errors and addressing other pricing issues that arise in the ordinary course of business, such as making real-time fair value determinations, as necessary.

No single standard for determining the fair value of an investment can be set forth because fair value depends upon the facts and circumstances with respect to each investment. Information relating to any relevant factors may be obtained by the Committee from any appropriate source, including the subadviser of the Portfolio, the custodian, a pricing service, market maker and/or broker for such security or the issuer. Appropriate methodologies for determining fair value under particular circumstances may include: matrix pricing, a discounted cash flow analysis, comparisons of securities with comparable characteristics, value based on multiples of earnings, discount from market price of similar marketable securities or a combination of these and other methods.

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 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. These foreign taxes have been provided for in accordance with the Portfolio’s understanding of the applicable countries’ tax rules and rates.

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 the U.S. dollar 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. Because the values of investment securities are translated at the foreign exchange rates prevailing at the end of the period, that portion of the results of operations arising from changes in exchange rates and that portion of the results of operations reflecting fluctuations arising from changes in market prices of the investment securities are not separated. 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. 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.

Dividends and Distributions to Shareholders - The Portfolio records dividends and distributions on the ex-dividend date. Net realized gains from securities 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

MSF-15

Metropolitan Series Fund

MFS Value Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

to foreign currency transactions, distribution re-designations, adjustments to prior period accumulated balances and broker commission recapture. These adjustments have no impact on net assets or the results 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 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. As of December 31, 2016, the Portfolio had no uncertain tax positions that would require financial statement recognition, or de-recognition or disclosure.

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 net ratio of expenses to average net assets presented in the Financial Highlights for each share class.

Repurchase Agreements - The Portfolio may enter into repurchase agreements, under the terms of a Master Repurchase Agreement (“MRA”), 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, under a tri-party repurchase agreement, receives delivery of the underlying securities collateralizing any repurchase agreements. It is the Portfolio’s policy that the market value of the collateral be equal to at least 100% of the repurchase price in the case of a repurchase agreement of one-day duration and equal to at least 102% of the repurchase price in the case of all other repurchase agreements. In the event of default or failure by a party to perform an obligation in connection with any repurchase transaction, the MRA gives the non-defaulting party the right to set-off claims and to apply property held by it in connection with any repurchase transaction against obligations owed to it.

At December 31, 2016, the Portfolio invested cash collateral for loans of portfolio securities in repurchase agreements with a gross value of $ 46,970,547 . The combined value of all repurchase agreements is included as part of investments at value on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. The value of the related collateral exceeded the value of the repurchase agreements at December 31, 2016.

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 collateral held from securities on loan. 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.

Effective September 8, 2016, the Trust has entered into a Non-Custodial Securities Lending Agreement with JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (the “lending agent”). Prior to September 8, 2016, the Trust had entered into a Securities Lending Authorization Agreement with the custodian (the “prior lending agent”). Under each agreement, the lending agent is authorized to loan portfolio securities on the Portfolio’s behalf. In exchange, the Portfolio receives either cash or government securities as collateral against the loaned securities. The Portfolio receives collateral equal to at least 102% of the market value for loans secured by government securities or cash in the same currency as the loaned shares and 105% for all other loaned securities at each loan’s inception. Collateral representing at least 100% of the market value of the loaned securities is maintained for the duration of the loan. Any cash collateral received by the Portfolio is generally invested by the lending agent in short-term investments, which may include certificates of deposit, commercial paper, repurchase agreements, time deposits and money market funds. Cash collateral that was received by the prior lending agent had been generally invested in the State Street Navigator Securities Lending MET Portfolio (the “Navigator Portfolio”), a series of the State Street Navigator Securities Lending Trust that was a registered money market fund managed by an affiliate of the custodian. The market value of investments made with cash collateral received are disclosed in the Schedule of Investments and the valuation techniques are described in Note 2. 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 is 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 is equal to at least 100% of the market value of all the loaned securities as of such preceding day. A portion of the income earned on the collateral is rebated to the borrower of the securities and the remainder is split between the lending agent and the Portfolio. On loans collateralized by government securities, a fee is received from the borrower and is allocated between the Portfolio and the lending agent.

Income received by the Portfolio in securities lending transactions during the year ended December 31, 2016 is reflected as securities lending income on the Statement of Operations. The values of any securities loaned by the Portfolio and the related collateral at December 31, 2016 are disclosed in the footnotes to the Schedule of Investments. The value of the related collateral received by the Portfolio exceeded the value of the securities out on loan at December 31, 2016.

MSF-16

Metropolitan Series Fund

MFS Value Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

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. The lending agent shall indemnify the Portfolio in the case of default of any securities borrower, subject to the terms of the Non-Custodial Securities Lending Agreement.

All securities on loan are classified as Common Stocks in the Portfolio’s Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016, with a contractual maturity of overnight and continuous.

3. Certain Risks

In the normal course of business, the Portfolio invests in securities and enters into transactions where risks exist. Those risks include:

Market 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, interest rate, and price fluctuations.

Credit and Counterparty Risk: 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 and counterparty risk consist principally of cash due from counterparties and investments. The Portfolio manages counterparty risk by entering into agreements only with counterparties that it believes have the financial resources to honor their obligations and by monitoring the financial stability of those counterparties. The Portfolio’s investment adviser attempts to mitigate counterparty risk by (i) periodically assessing the creditworthiness of its trading partners, (ii) monitoring and/or limiting the amount of its net exposure to each individual counterparty based on its assessment, and (iii) requiring collateral from the counterparty for certain transactions. In order to preserve certain safeguards for non-standard settlement trades, the Portfolio restricts its exposure to credit and counterparty losses by entering into master netting agreements (“Master Agreements”) with counterparties (approved brokers) with whom it undertakes a significant volume of transactions. Master Agreements govern the terms of certain transactions, and reduce the counterparty risk associated with relevant transactions by specifying credit protection mechanisms and providing standardization that improves legal certainty. Master Agreements can also help limit counterparty risk by specifying collateral posting arrangements at pre-arranged exposure levels.

Repurchase and reverse repurchase agreements are primarily executed under Global Master Repurchase Agreements (“GMRAs”) or Master Repurchase Agreements (“MRAs”), which provide the rights to set-off. Each repurchase and reverse repurchase agreement is initially collateralized at the transaction level. In the event of default, the total market value exposure will be offset against collateral exchanged to date, which would result in a net receivable/(payable) that would be due from/to the counterparty.

Additional risks associated with each type of investment are described above within the respective security type notes. The Portfolio’s prospectus includes a discussion of the principal risks of investing in the Portfolio.

4. Investment Transactions

Aggregate cost of purchases and proceeds of sales of investment securities, excluding short-term securities, for the year ended December 31, 2016 were as follows:

Purchases			Sales
U.S. Government	Non U.S. Government		U.S. Government		Non U.S. Government
$0	$	421,993,063	$	0	$	673,315,278

The Portfolio engaged in security transactions with other accounts managed by Massachusetts Financial Services Company that amounted to $2,400,110 in purchases and $7,351,703 in sales of investments, which are included above, and resulted in realized gains of $2,969,782.

MSF-17

Metropolitan Series Fund

MFS Value Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

5. Investment Management Fees and Other Transactions with Affiliates

Investment Management Agreement - MetLife Advisers is the investment adviser to the Portfolio. The Trust has entered into an investment management agreement with MetLife Advisers with respect to the Portfolio. For providing investment management services to the Portfolio, MetLife Advisers receives monthly compensation at the following annual rates:

Management Fees earned by MetLife Advisers for the year ended December 31, 2016	% per annum			Average daily net assets
$21,207,964		0.750	%	Of the first $250 million
		0.700	%	Of the next $2.25 billion
		0.675	%	Of the next $2.5 billion
		0.650	%	On amounts in excess of $5 billion

MetLife Advisers has entered into an investment subadvisory agreement with respect to managing the Portfolio. Massachusetts Financial Services Company is compensated by MetLife Advisers to provide subadvisory services for the Portfolio.

Management Fee Waiver - Pursuant to a management fee waiver agreement, MetLife Advisers has agreed, for the period May 1, 2016 to April 30, 2017, to reduce its advisory fees set out above under “Investment Management Agreement” for each class of the Portfolio as follows:

% per annum	Average daily net assets
0.100%	On the first $200 million
0.125%	On the next $50 million
0.075%	On the next $1.25 billion
0.200%	On the next $1 billion
0.175%	On the next $2.5 billion
0.150%	On amounts in excess of $5 billion

An identical agreement was in place for the period May 1, 2015 to April 30, 2016. Amounts waived for the year ended December 31, 2016 are shown as a management fee waiver in the Statement of Operations.

Certain officers and trustees of the Trust may also be officers of MetLife Advisers; 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 and Service Fees - The Trust has a distribution agreement with MetLife Investors Distribution Company (“MIDC” or the “Distributor”) in which MIDC serves as the distributor for the Portfolio’s Class A, B, D, and E Shares. MIDC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife Investors Group, LLC, an affiliate of the Adviser. The Trust has also adopted a Distribution and Service Plan under Rule 12b-1 of the 1940 Act for the Portfolio’s Class B, D, and E Shares. Under the Distribution and Service Plan, the Class B, D, and E Shares of the Portfolio pay a fee to compensate the Insurance Companies (or their affiliates) and other broker-dealers and financial intermediaries involved in the offer and sale of Portfolio shares for promoting or selling and servicing the Class B, D, and E Shares. The fees under the Distribution and Service Plan for each class of the Portfolio’s shares are calculated as a percentage of the Portfolio’s average daily net assets that are attributable to that Class. Currently, the fee is 0.25% per year for Class B Shares, 0.10% per year for Class D Shares, and 0.15% per year for Class E Shares. Amounts incurred by the Portfolio for the year ended December 31, 2016 are shown as Distribution and service fees in the Statement of Operations.

Deferred Trustee Compensation - Each Trustee 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 Trust. 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 Met Investors Series Trust, an affiliate of the Trust, 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 under the Plan is reflected as Deferred trustees’ fees in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

MSF-18

Metropolitan Series Fund

MFS Value Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

6. Contractual Obligations

Under the Trust’s organizational documents, its officers and Trustees may be indemnified against certain liabilities and expenses arising out of the performance of their duties to the Trust. Additionally, 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 Trust that have not yet occurred.

7. Income Tax Information

The tax character of distributions paid for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015 were as follows:

Ordinary Income				Long-Term Capital Gain				Total
2016		2015		2016		2015		2016		2015
$	71,154,565	$	93,281,069	$	269,192,840	$	494,775,678	$	340,347,405	$	588,056,747

As of December 31, 2016, 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		Other Accumulated Capital Losses		Total
$	65,806,659	$	196,886,312	$	788,798,842	$	—	$	1,051,491,813

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 up to 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, 2016, the Portfolio had no post-enactment accumulated capital losses and no pre-enactment accumulated capital loss carryforwards.

8. Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In October 2016, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) adopted new rules and forms, and amendments to certain current rules and forms, to modernize reporting and disclosure of information by registered investment companies. The amendments to Regulation S-X will require standardized, enhanced disclosure about derivatives in investment company financial statements, and will also change the rules governing the form and content of such financial statements. The compliance date for the amendments to Regulation S-X is August 1, 2017. Management is currently evaluating the impact that the adoption of the amendments to Regulation S-X will have on the Portfolio’s financial statements and related disclosures.

MSF-19

Metropolitan Series Fund

MFS Value Portfolio

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Shareholders of MFS Value Portfolio and the Board of Trustees of Metropolitan Series Fund:

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities, including the schedule of investments, of MFS Value Portfolio (one of the portfolios constituting the Metropolitan Series Fund) (the “Portfolio”) as of December 31, 2016, 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 Portfolio’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 Portfolio 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 Portfolio’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, 2016, by correspondence with the custodian and brokers; when 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 Value Portfolio of the Metropolitan Series Fund as of December 31, 2016, 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.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

February 24, 2017

MSF-20

Metropolitan Series Fund

Trustees and Officers

MANAGEMENT OF THE TRUSTS

The Boards of Trustees (the “Board”) of Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (“MIST” and “MSF”, respectively, and collectively the “Trusts”) supervise the Trusts and are responsible for representing the interests of shareholders. The Trustees, the Chairman of the Board and the Chairmen of each subcommittee are the same for both Trusts. The Trustees of each Trust meet periodically throughout the year to oversee the Portfolios’ activities, reviewing, among other things, each Portfolio’s performance and its contractual arrangements with various service providers. The Trustees of each Trust elect the officers of the Trust, who are responsible for administering the Trust’s day-to-day operations.

Trustees and Officers

The Trustees and executive officers of the Trusts, as well as their ages and their principal occupations during the past five years, are set forth below. Unless otherwise indicated, the business address of each is c/o MetLife Funds, One Financial Center, Boston, Massachusetts 02111. Each Trustee who is deemed an “interested person,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, is referred to as an “Interested Trustee.” Those Trustees who are not “interested persons,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, are referred to as “Independent Trustees.” There is no limit to the term a Trustee may serve. Trustees serve until their death, resignation or removal in accordance with the MIST Trust’s and MSF Trust’s respective organizational documents and policies adopted by the Boards of the respective Trusts from time to time. Officers hold office at the pleasure of each Board and serve until their removal or resignation in accordance with the Trusts’ respective organizational documents and policies adopted by the Board of each Trust from time to time.

Name and Age	Current 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 MetLife Funds Complex(2) Overseen by Trustee	Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Interested Trustee
John Rosenthal* (56)	Trustee	Indefinite; From May 2016 (MIST and MSF) to present	Senior Managing Director and Head of Global Portfolio Management, MetLife, Inc.	75	None
Independent Trustees
Dawn M. Vroegop (50)	Trustee and Chairman of the Board	Indefinite; From December 2000 (MIST)/ May 2009 (MSF) to present as Trustee; From May 2016 (MIST and MSF) until present as Chairman	Private Investor.	75	Trustee, Driehaus Mutual Funds.**
Stephen M. Alderman (57)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 (MIST)/ April 2012 (MSF) to present	Shareholder in the law firm of Garfield and Merel, Ltd.	75	None

MSF-21

Metropolitan Series Fund

Trustees and Officers—(Continued)

Name and Age	Current 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 MetLife Funds Complex(2) Overseen by Trustee	Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Robert J. Boulware (60)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 (MIST)/ April 2012 (MSF) to present	Managing Director, Pilgrim Funds, LLC (private equity fund).	75	Trustee, Vertical Capital Income Fund (closed-end fund);** Director, Gainsco, Inc. (auto insurance);** Trustee, SharesPost 100 Fund (closed-end fund).**
Susan C. Gause (64)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 (MIST)/ April 2012 (MSF) to present	Private Investor.	75	Trustee, HSBC Funds.**
Nancy Hawthorne (65)	Trustee	Indefinite; From May 2003 (MSF)/ April 2012 (MIST) to present	Partner, Hawthorne Financial Advisors, LLC (registered investment advisor); until June 2014, Chief Executive Officer, Clerestory LLC (corporate advisor).	75	Director and Chairman of the Board of Directors, THL Credit, Inc.;** Lead Director, Avid Technology, Inc.;** Director, CRA International, Inc.**
Barbara A. Nugent (60)	Trustee	Indefinite; From January 2014 (MIST and MSF) to present	President, True North Board Governance, LLC (consulting); until December 2013, partner in the law firm of Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young, LLP.	75	None
Linda B. Strumpf (69)	Trustee	Indefinite; From May 2000 (MSF)/ April 2012 (MIST) to present	Chair of the Investment Committee, Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust; until June 2011, Chief Investment Officer, Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust.	75	None

Executive Officers

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Kristi Slavin (43)	President and Chief Executive Officer, of MIST and MSF	From May 2016 (MIST and MSF) to present	President, MetLife Advisers, LLC (May 2016-present); Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Vice President, MetLife, Inc.; Vice President, MIST and MSF (2015-2016).

MSF-22

Metropolitan Series Fund

Trustees and Officers—(Continued)

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Peter H. Duffy (61)	Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, of MIST and MSF	From November 2000 (MSF)/ May 2012 (MIST) to present	Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Andrew L. Gangolf (62)	Secretary, of MIST and MSF	From May 2011 (MIST and MSF) to present	Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; until 2011, Senior Vice President & Assistant General Counsel, AllianceBernstein Investments, Inc.
Steven E. Hartstein (53)	Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”), of MIST and MSF	From February 2014 (MIST and MSF) to present	Vice President, MetLife, Inc. (2013-present); Senior Vice President and CCO, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Executive Director, Morgan Stanley (2009-2013); CCO, Consulting Group Capital Markets Funds (2006-2013).
Alan C. Leland (64)	Vice President, of MIST and MSF	From February 2005 (MSF)/ May 2012 (MIST) to present	Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Vice President, MetLife, Inc.

* Mr. Rosenthal is an “interested person” of the Trusts because of his position with MetLife, Inc., the current parent company of MetLife Advisers, LLC.

** 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 Trusts, MetLife, Inc. or the Manager are omitted if not materially different.

(2) The Fund Complex includes 45 MIST Portfolios and 30 MSF Portfolios.

MSF-23

Metropolitan Series Fund

MFS Value Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements

At an in-person meeting held on November 15-16, 2016 (the “November Meeting”), the Boards of Trustees (the “Board”) of the Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (“MIST” and “MSF,” respectively, and collectively, the “Trusts”), including a majority of the Trustees who are not “interested persons” of the Trusts (the “Independent Trustees”) under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “1940 Act”), approved the continuation of the Trusts’ advisory agreements (each, an “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 the series of the Trusts (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”).

In reaching that decision, the Board reviewed a variety of materials provided for the specific purpose of the annual contract renewal process. In addition, various materials provided to and discussed with the Board throughout the year also informed the Board’s decision to renew the Agreements. That information for each Portfolio included, but was not limited to, investment performance reports, along with periodic reports on various expenses, shareholder services, legal and compliance matters, asset pricing, brokerage commissions and trade execution. The Board also recognized the pending separation of the Adviser from its parent company, MetLife, Inc., as a consideration in their deliberations with respect to the Agreements.

The Board met in person with personnel of the Adviser on September 27, 2016 for the specific purpose of giving preliminary consideration to the proposed continuation of the Agreements (the “September Meeting”) through the review by the Adviser with the Board of the performance and fees experienced by each Portfolio, as well as other information. In considering the Agreements, the Independent Trustees were advised by independent legal counsel throughout the contract renewal process, and met with independent legal counsel in several executive sessions outside of the presence of management.

Information furnished and reviewed specifically in connection with the renewal process included, but was not limited to, a report for each Portfolio prepared by Broadridge (“Broadridge”), an independent organization, and a Portfolio-by-Portfolio profitability analysis prepared by the Adviser. In addition, the Independent Trustees received and reviewed a report prepared by JDL Consultants, LLC (“JDL”), an independent consultant to the Independent Trustees (“JDL Report”), which examined the comparative fees, expenses and performance of each Portfolio, based upon the Broadridge reports. Also, the Board reviewed the responses to wide-ranging questions relating to the business, operations and performance of the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers that the Adviser and Sub-Advisers had prepared specifically for the renewal process.

At the November Meeting, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, concluded that the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser supported the renewal of the Agreements. The Board also concluded that the investment performance of each Portfolio was such that each Agreement should continue, and that the fees paid by a Portfolio to the Adviser appeared to be reasonable in light of the nature, extent and quality of the services provided by the Adviser and Sub-Adviser. Further, the Board concluded that the Adviser’s profitability in providing services under the Advisory Agreements did not appear unreasonably high in light of the nature, extent and quality of the services provided by the Adviser. Finally, the Board concluded that the investment advisory fees paid by the Portfolios in some measure shared economies of scale with contract holders. In approving the renewal of each of the Agreements, the Board, including the Independent Trustees, gave attention to all of the information that was furnished. The Board evaluated the information available to it on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis, and its decision was made separately with respect to each Portfolio. The following discusses some of the primary factors that generally were relevant to the Board’s decision. The Board did not identify any single factor as controlling, and the Trustees generally attributed different weights to various factors for the various Portfolios.

Nature, extent and quality of services. The Board evaluated the nature, extent and quality of the services that the Adviser, and the Sub-Advisers as relevant, have provided to the Portfolios. The Board considered the Adviser’s services as investment manager to the Portfolios, including its services relating to the oversight of the Sub-Advisers and their investment management activities, trading practices, financial condition, relevant personnel matters and compliance programs, among other things. The Adviser’s services in coordinating and overseeing the activities of the Trusts’ other service providers were also considered. The Board considered information received from the Trusts’ Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) regarding the Portfolios’ compliance policies and procedures that were established pursuant to Rule 38a-l under the 1940 Act. In addition, throughout the year, the Board considered the expertise, experience and performance of the personnel of the Adviser who performed the various services that are mentioned above.

The Board also noted that the Adviser’s investment, compliance and legal staff conduct regular, periodic, telephonic and in-person meetings with the Sub-Advisers to review and assess the services that are provided to the Portfolios, and that personnel of the Adviser prepare and present reports to the Independent Trustees regarding those meetings.

With respect to the services provided by each of the Sub-Advisers, the Board considered a variety of information that the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser provided. The Board considered each Sub-Adviser’s investment process and philosophy, and the investment

MSF-24

Metropolitan Series Fund

MFS Value Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

performance experienced by the Portfolio (as described in more detail below). The Board took into account that each Sub-Adviser’s responsibilities include the development and maintenance of an investment program for the applicable Portfolio that 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. In particular, the Board considered, among other things, the Sub-Adviser’s current level of staffing as well as its compensation program and its overall resources. The Board reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s history and investment experience, as well as information provided 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 regulatory and disciplinary history. In its review, the Board also took into account information regarding any services and/or payments provided to the Adviser by the Sub-Advisers in connection with marketing activities.

Performance. The Board placed emphasis on the performance of the Portfolios in light of, among other things, its importance to contract holders. The Board considered the Adviser’s quarterly reviews with the Board of detailed information about each Portfolio’s investment strategies and performance results and composition, including discussions regarding the relevant effect of current market conditions. The Board reviewed and considered the reports prepared by Broadridge, which provided a statistical analysis comparing the Portfolios’ investment performance to that of comparable funds underlying variable insurance products (the “Performance Universe”). The Independent Trustees also met separately with a representative of JDL during the September Meeting to review the JDL Report. The Board also compared the performance records of certain Portfolios to those of comparable funds that were managed by the relevant Sub-Adviser. At the November Meeting, the Board considered each Portfolio’s performance for periods subsequent to the performance period covered by the Broadridge reports, and the Adviser’s discussion of the same, including the effect of current market conditions on each Portfolio’s more recent performance.

The Board focused particular attention on Portfolios with less favorable performance records. The Board noted the Adviser’s focus on each Sub-Adviser’s performance and that the Adviser has been active in monitoring and responding to any performance issues with respect to the Portfolios.

Fees and Expenses. The Board gave consideration to the level and method of computing the fees payable under the Agreements. The Board considered the Broadridge report for each of the Portfolios, which included comparisons for each Portfolio of its contractual management and sub-adviser fees (at current and various asset levels), and total expenses, with those of its peers, including as those peers were divided into a broad group of peer funds (“Expense Universe”), a narrower group of peer funds (“Expense Group”), a broad group of peer sub-advised funds (“Sub-advised Expense Universe”), and a narrower group of peer sub-advised funds (“Sub-advised Expense Group”). Broadridge selected the peer funds which were similarly situated funds underlying variable insurance products deemed to be comparable to the Portfolios. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of JDL, also examined the JDL Report. The Board compared the fee payable to a Sub-Adviser by the Adviser with respect to the Portfolio to the fee payable to the Sub-Adviser by other comparable funds and accounts, to the extent such information was available.

The Board noted that the sub-advisory fees for the Portfolios are paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fee, and that, in the case of an unaffiliated Sub-Adviser, the Adviser negotiates the fee at arm’s length. The Board also considered that the Adviser had entered into expense limitation or management fee waiver agreements with certain of the Portfolios pursuant to which the Adviser had 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.

Profitability. The Board examined the profitability of the Adviser on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis. The Board also considered that an affiliate of the Adviser, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, serves as distributor for the Trusts, and, as such, receives Rule 12b-1 payments to support the distribution of the Portfolios. The Board considered the profitability to the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates as a result of their relationships with the Portfolios, to the extent available, and the Board considered the ability of the Adviser to negotiate with an unaffiliated Sub-Adviser at arm’s length. In reviewing the profitability analyses, the Board recognized that expense allocation methodologies are inherently subjective and various expense allocation methodologies may be reasonable while producing different results.

Economies of scale. The Board also considered each Portfolio’s fees in light of its size. The Board noted the fee schedules for the Portfolios that 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 and Sub-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

MSF-25

Metropolitan Series Fund

MFS Value Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

the Portfolio grow. The Board examined, among other data, the effect of a Portfolio’s growth in size, and reduction in size, on various fee schedules and the Board reviewed the Broadridge and JDL Reports, which compared fees among peers. The Board also generally noted that if a Portfolio’s assets increase over time, the Portfolio may realize other economies of scale if assets increase proportionally more than certain other fixed expenses.

Other factors. The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trusts. Among them, the Board recognized that MetLife Investors Distribution Company, as the distributor for the Trusts, receives payments pursuant to Rule 12b-1 from the Portfolios to compensate for the provision of shareholder services and distribution activities, which could lead to growth in the Trusts’ assets and corresponding benefits from such growth, including economies of scale. The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by each Sub-Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trusts, including the opportunity to provide advisory services to additional portfolios of the Trusts and reputational benefits. In conjunction with these considerations, the Board noted the ongoing commitment of the Adviser to the Portfolios.

The Board considered possible conflicts of interest in the form of material benefits or detriments to the Trusts resulting from the nature of the Trusts’ and the Adviser’s or the Sub-Advisers’ affiliations and the services that are provided to the Trusts, and the manner in which such conflicts were mitigated.

*  *  *

MFS Value Portfolio. The Board also considered the following information in relation to the Agreements with the Adviser and Massachusetts Financial Services Company regarding the Portfolio:

Among other data relating specifically to the 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, 2016. The Board further considered that the Portfolio outperformed its benchmark, the Russell 1000 Value Index, for the three- and five-year periods ended October 31, 2016, and underperformed its benchmark for the one-year period ended October 31, 2016.

The Board also considered that the Portfolio’s actual management fees and total expenses (exclusive of 12b-l 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 asset-weighted average of certain comparable funds at the Portfolio’s current size. The Board took into account that the Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees were below the averages of the Sub-advised Expense Group and the Sub-advised Expense Universe at the Portfolio’s current size.

MSF-26

Metropolitan Series Fund

MFS Value Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Advisory Agreements

The separation (the “Separation”) of MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”), the investment adviser to each of the series (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”) of Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (collectively, the “Trusts”), from its parent company, MetLife, Inc. (“MetLife”), to a separate retail business, Brighthouse Financial, Inc. (“Brighthouse”), is expected to result in a change in control of the Adviser, and therefore an “assignment” of each Portfolio’s current advisory agreement (each a “Current Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “Current Advisory Agreements”). At the November 15-16, 2016 meeting (“November Meeting”) of the Board of Trustees of the Trusts (the “Board”), the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not “interested persons,” as defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940, of any Portfolio (the “Independent Trustees”), approved a new advisory agreement (each a “New Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “New Advisory Agreements”) between the Trusts, on behalf of a Portfolio, and the Adviser, to be effective upon the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements in connection with the Separation, and recommended that the shareholders of the Trusts approve the New Advisory Agreements. The Board took those actions after consideration of and deliberation over information concerning the Separation, including with respect to the degree to which the Separation would affect the provision of investment advisory services to the Trusts. Information about the Board’s considerations and process is set forth below.

In determining whether to approve the New Advisory Agreements and in considering the Separation, the Board considered the nature, quality and extent of the services that are currently provided by the Adviser under the Current Advisory Agreements as well as the services to be provided under the New Advisory Agreements. The Board’s review was conducted as part of, and in conjunction with, the Board’s annual review of the Current Advisory Agreements, which culminated at the November Meeting. In approving the New Advisory Agreements, the Board considered its conclusions with respect to its approvals of the Current Advisory Agreements, including the Board’s general satisfaction with the nature, extent and quality of services being provided by the Adviser to each Portfolio. Appendix A and Appendix B contains a further description of the process followed, information reviewed and the material factors considered by the Board in approving the continuation of the Current Advisory Agreements.

A substantial portion of the Board’s review of the New Advisory Agreements focused on the Separation, including the potential effect of the implementation of the Separation on the operations, personnel, organizational structure, capitalization, and financial and other resources of the Adviser. After being informed by the Adviser in January 2016 of the possibility of the Separation, the Board and its Committees discussed the Separation and its possible effects on the Trusts with personnel of the Adviser and the anticipated senior management at Brighthouse during the course of the Board’s or Committee’s regularly scheduled, in-person, quarterly meetings.

Between August and November 2016, the Board and the Independent Trustees engaged in an extensive review and analysis of the Separation and how the Separation related to the Adviser and the Trusts and how it could affect the services provided to the Trusts. This analysis focused on, among other matters, the assurances from Brighthouse’s anticipated leadership as to its expectations for the continuity and stability of the Adviser’s personnel throughout implementation of the Separation and for the foreseeable future thereafter. The Board considered that the Separation is being implemented as a result of MetLife’s determination to divest itself of a substantial portion of its U.S. retail business (of which the Adviser forms a portion). The Board also considered that it has been satisfied as a general matter with the nature and quality of the services that the Adviser provides to the Portfolios, including investment advisory, administrative, legal, compliance, and support services, and that it would be in the Portfolios’ best interests to maintain continuity and stability in the services that are currently being provided. The Board carefully considered the anticipated future plans of Brighthouse related to capitalization and operational matters for Brighthouse and the Adviser, as well as the importance of the Adviser to the businesses of Brighthouse after the Separation.

Among other steps in its review process, which accelerated on October 5, 2016 when Brighthouse filed its Form 10 with the SEC, the following actions were taken and considered by or on behalf of the Board:

1. The Independent Trustees solicited and received ongoing advice regarding the legal duties of the Independent Trustees from Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young LLP (“Stradley Ronon”), legal counsel for the Independent Trustees, which law firm has extensive experience regarding such matters.

2. Following the August 16-17, 2016 Board and Committee quarterly meetings, the Independent Trustees established an ad hoc group of Independent Trustees (the “Working Group”) to help oversee, coordinate, and conduct due diligence activities with respect to the Separation. The Working Group regularly reported on the due diligence activities to the other Independent Trustees.

3. Since January 2016, the Board posed ongoing inquiries to, and received regular updates from, the Adviser and anticipated senior management at Brighthouse at either in-person meetings dedicated to the status of the Separation or during the course of the Board or Committee’s regular quarterly meetings. The Board considered, among other matters, relevant legal guidance and the processes followed by certain other investment company boards of directors or trustees when they approved contracts in connection with change in control events, while recognizing the unique circumstances of the Separation.

MSF-27

Metropolitan Series Fund

MFS Value Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

4. The Board received and reviewed the Form 10 of Brighthouse that contained extensive information relating to, among other matters, Brighthouse’s anticipated business plans and financial structure. The Board also received and reviewed reports from rating agencies with respect to Brighthouse.

5. Stradley Ronon retained Barrington Partners (“Barrington”), an independent consulting firm with a specific focus on the asset management industry and experience relating to business operations such as those to be conducted by Brighthouse, including its proposed subsidiary, the Adviser, in order to help Stradley Ronon evaluate the Separation based on the Form 10 and other materials and related information provided by the Adviser and its affiliates. Barrington conducted a series of in-person and telephonic meetings with anticipated senior management at Brighthouse (i.e., the aforementioned anticipated officers of Brighthouse and others) and with personnel of the Adviser who provide services to the Trusts. Stradley Ronon, with the assistance of Barrington, evaluated the information and advised the Independent Trustees with respect to, among other matters, details of Brighthouse’s anticipated business plan to understand the implications of the Separation to the Adviser and its personnel. The Independent Trustees and the Working Group attended certain in-person and telephonic conference call meetings at which Barrington rendered advice to Stradley Ronon regarding these matters and responded to questions.

6. The Independent Trustees requested and participated in in-person meetings with anticipated senior management personnel at Brighthouse, including its President and Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, Chief Operating Officer, and Chief Investment Officer. The Independent Trustees also met with personnel of the Adviser.

7. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of Stradley Ronon, prepared written inquiries to the Adviser and its affiliates regarding the Separation, and received written assurances from the Adviser and its affiliates that they have no plans to make any material changes affecting the personnel of the Adviser (including those personnel who provide investment, administrative, legal and compliance services) and the Adviser and its affiliates will not initiate such changes without prior notice to and discussion with the Board.

8. The Board considered representations by the Adviser and its affiliates that approval of the New Advisory Agreements would be necessary for the Portfolios to continue receiving investment advisory services from the Adviser following the change in control.

9. The Board considered representations by the Adviser, as well as related supporting documentation, indicating that the New Advisory Agreements, including the fees payable thereunder, are substantially identical to the terms of the corresponding Current Advisory Agreements.

10. The Board considered representations by the Adviser and its affiliates, as well as related supporting documentation, indicating that: (1) the Adviser can be expected to provide services of the same nature, extent, and quality under the New Advisory Agreements and as are provided thereby under the Current Advisory Agreements; and (2) the Separation is not expected to result in any changes to (i) the management of the Portfolios, or (ii) the investment objective of or the principal investment strategies used to manage any of the Portfolios.

11. The Board considered the ability of the Adviser and its affiliates to retain the employment of key personnel, as well as the overall positive indications by many such personnel regarding the opportunities presented by the Separation.

12. The Board considered that the Adviser and its affiliates have agreed to bear all expenses associated with obtaining shareholder approval of the New Advisory Agreements.

13. The Board considered Brighthouse’s preliminary “branding” plans regarding the future name of its operations.

14. The Board considered the advice provided by Ropes & Gray, LLP, legal counsel to the Trusts and the Adviser, with respect to the New Advisory Agreements (including advice relating to the process and timing of seeking shareholder approval of the New Advisory Agreements, and whether shareholder approvals would be required in connection with any future aspects of the Separation) and regarding the Board’s role and responsibilities with respect to the Separation.

15. The Board considered MetLife’s stated intention of divesting its ownership interest in the Adviser through the Separation, including the potential advantages and disadvantages of this divestiture to shareholders of the Portfolios. The Board considered the likelihood that the Adviser would retain its key personnel after the Separation. The Board considered that the garnering of new assets into the Trusts is based on sales of variable annuity and variable life insurance products, which sales have declined in prior years as a result of, among other things, the capital requirements of MetLife. The Board considered the representations of the anticipated senior management of Brighthouse that the Separation provides the Trusts with an opportunity for the garnering of new assets as Brighthouse will likely sell such products going forward. The Board considered also that the divestiture would result in a change in the manner in

MSF-28

Metropolitan Series Fund

MFS Value Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

which the Trusts access certain services and resources of MetLife (after the Separation those services will be provided through a transition services agreement), the loss of affiliation with the MetLife name brand, and the possible going forward need of the Trusts to hire a transfer agent, as such transfer agency services are currently provided to the Trusts for no fee.

16. The Board considered that, if shareholders approve the New Advisory Agreements, the Board and the Adviser will conduct their annual contract review process in November 2017. Thus, the Board emphasized that it would be able to, and intends to, monitor on a regular basis the ability of the Adviser and its affiliates to comply with their undertakings to the Board and to monitor on an ongoing basis the quality of services to, and expenses of, the Portfolios. In addition, the Board considered that, under the New Advisory Agreements, it will continue to have the authority, should the need arise in its view, to terminate any of the New Advisory Agreements without penalty upon 60 days’ notice.

Based on the foregoing and other relevant considerations, at the November Meeting, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, voted to approve the New Advisory Agreements and to recommend approval of the New Advisory Agreements by shareholders of the Portfolios. In this connection, the Board concluded that, in light of all factors considered, the terms of the New Advisory Agreement, including fee rates, were fair and reasonable, and that it would be in the best interests of shareholders of each Portfolio to approve the New Advisory Agreements.

In the event that approval of the New Advisory Agreements by shareholders of the Portfolios has not been obtained before the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements as a result of the change in control of the Adviser, the Board also approved an interim advisory agreement with the Adviser (the “Interim Advisory Agreement”) on behalf of each Portfolio that will go into effect upon the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements. The Board’s determination to approve each Interim Advisory Agreement was based on the same information and considerations as the Board’s approval of the New Advisory Agreements so as to ensure continuity of advisory services from the Adviser to the Portfolios following the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements.

MSF-29

Metropolitan Series Fund

MFS Value Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Sub-Advisory Agreements

The separation (the “Separation”) of MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”), the investment adviser to each of the series (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”) of Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (collectively, the “Trusts”), from its parent company, MetLife, Inc. (“MetLife”), to a separate retail business, Brighthouse Financial, Inc. (“Brighthouse”), is expected to result in a change in control of the Adviser, and therefore an “assignment” of each Portfolio’s current advisory agreement and, as a result, the automatic termination of the sub-advisory agreement (each a “Sub-Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisory Agreements”) between the Adviser and the investment sub-advisers (each a “Sub-Adviser” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisers”). At the November 15-16, 2016 meeting (“November Meeting”) of the Board of Trustees of the Trusts (the “Board”), the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not “interested persons,” as defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940, of any Portfolio (the “Independent Trustees”), approved new sub-advisory agreements (each a “New Sub-Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “New Sub-Advisory Agreements”). Information about the Board’s considerations and process is set forth below.

In determining whether to approve the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, the Board considered the nature, quality and extent of the services that are currently provided by the Sub-Advisers under the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements as well as the services to be provided under the New Sub-Advisory Agreements. The Board’s review was conducted as part of, and in conjunction with, the Board’s annual review of the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements, which culminated at the November Meeting. In approving the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, the Board considered its conclusions with respect to its approvals of the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements, including the Board’s general satisfaction with the nature, extent and quality of services being provided by the Sub-Advisers to the Portfolios, as applicable. Appendix A contains a further description of the process followed, information reviewed and the material factors considered by the Board in approving the continuation of the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements.

In addition, the following actions were taken and considered by or on behalf of the Board:

1. The Independent Trustees of the Board solicited and received ongoing advice regarding the legal duties of the Independent Trustees from Stradley Ronon, legal counsel for the Independent Trustees, which law firm has extensive experience regarding such matters.

2. The Board considered representations by the Adviser and its affiliates that approval of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements would be necessary for the Portfolios to continue receiving sub-advisory services from the Sub-Advisers following the change in control of the Adviser.

3. The Board considered representations by the Adviser, as well as related supporting documentation, indicating that the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, including the fees payable thereunder, are the same as the terms of the corresponding Current Sub-Advisory Agreements.

4. The Board considered the advice provided by Ropes & Gray, LLP, legal counsel to the Trusts and the Adviser, with respect to the New Sub-Advisory Agreements and regarding the Board’s role and responsibilities with respect to the Separation.

5. The Board considered that the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers will conduct their annual contract review process in November 2017. Thus, the Board emphasized that it would be able to, and intends to, monitor on an ongoing basis the ability of the Sub-Advisers to comply with its undertakings to the Board and the Adviser and to monitor on an ongoing basis the quality of services to, and expenses of, the Portfolios. In addition, the Board considered that, under the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, it will continue to have the authority, should the need arise in its view, to terminate any of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements without penalty upon no more than 60 days’ notice.

Based on the foregoing and other relevant considerations, at the November Meeting, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, voted to approve the New Sub-Advisory Agreements. In this connection, the Board concluded that, in light of all factors considered, the terms of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, including fee rates, were fair and reasonable.

MSF-30

Metropolitan Series Fund

MSCI EAFE Index Portfolio

Managed by MetLife Investment Advisors, LLC

Portfolio Manager Commentary*

PERFORMANCE

For the 12 months ended December 31, 2016, the Class A, B, E, and G shares of the MSCI EAFE Index Portfolio returned 1.34%, 1.00%, 1.08%, and 0.97%, respectively. The Portfolio’s benchmark, the MSCI EAFE Index¹, returned 1.00%.

MARKET ENVIRONMENT / CONDITIONS

Global equity markets were mixed in the first half of 2016 on uncertainty about a global economic slowdown, potential Federal Reserve Bank (the “Fed”) interest rate hikes, the U.S. Presidential election, and Brexit. However, equity indexes rallied in the second half of the year on easy monetary policies and strong macroeconomic data. Equity markets also benefited from central bank intervention and improving commodity prices. The People’s Bank of China cut reserve requirement ratios, the European Central Bank cut rates further and the Fed lowered the expected number of rate increases for 2016. On June 23, United Kingdom voters chose to “Leave” the European Union and on the day after the unexpected vote outcome, the price of gold had its largest single day increase since 2008, the British pound fell to its lowest level in 30 years, and equity markets around the world fell as much as 8%. However, global equity markets remained resilient and continued to trend higher as concerns about the referendum abated and volatility declined. U.S. equity markets reached new all-time highs in December, following Donald Trump’s surprise victory and optimism surrounding the incoming U.S. administration’s agenda. Equity markets also benefited from better than expected macroeconomic data, including U.S. durable goods orders, U.S. consumer sentiment and U.S. home sales. Factors that weighed on the equity markets included the Fed’s decision in December to raise interest rates, diplomatic tensions between the U.S. and other major world powers and terrorism concerns.

The U.S. dollar strengthened during the year, which negatively impacted the U.S. investors’ MSCI EAFE Index return versus the local currency return by approximately 4.3%.

Thirteen of the twenty-one countries comprising the MSCI EAFE Index experienced positive returns for the year. New Zealand (0.2% beginning weight in the benchmark), up 20.9%, was the best-performing country. Norway (0.5% beginning weight), up 14.6%, and Australia (6.9% beginning weight), up 13.3%, were the next best-performing countries. Israel (0.8% beginning weight), down 23.7%, and Denmark (1.9% beginning weight), down 15.2%, were the worst-performing countries.

The stocks in the MSCI EAFE Index with the largest positive impact on the benchmark return for the year were Royal Dutch Shell (Class B), up 38.1%; Royal Dutch Shell (Class A), up 33.1%; and BP, up 30.7%. The stocks with the largest negative impact were Novo-Nordisk, down 36.2%; Roche Holdings, down 14.4%; and Novartis, down 12.8%.

PORTFOLIO REVIEW / PERIOD END POSITIONING

The Portfolio is managed utilizing a stratified sampling strategy versus the MSCI EAFE Index. This strategy seeks to replicate the performance of the Index by owning a subset of Index constituents and neutralizing exposures across countries. The Portfolio is periodically rebalanced for compositional changes in the MSCI EAFE Index. Factors that impact tracking error include sampling, fair value pricing, transaction costs, cash drag, securities lending, NAV rounding, contributions and withdrawals.

Stacey Lituchy

Norman Hu

Mirsad Usejnoski

Portfolio Managers

MetLife Investment 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 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.

MSF-1

Metropolitan Series Fund

MSCI EAFE Index Portfolio

A $10,000 INVESTMENT COMPARED TO THE MSCI EAFE INDEX

AVERAGE ANNUAL RETURNS (%) (FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2016)

	1 Year		5 Year		10 Year		Since Inception2
MSCI EAFE Index Portfolio
Class A		1.34		6.32		0.61		—
Class B		1.00		6.03		0.35		—
Class E		1.08		6.15		0.45		—
Class G		0.97		5.98		—		7.67
MSCI EAFE Index		1.00		6.53		0.75		—

¹ The MSCI EAFE (Europe, Australasia, Far East) Index is a free float-adjusted market capitalization index that is designed to measure the equity market performance of developed markets, excluding the U.S. & Canada.

² Inception dates of the Class A, Class B, Class E and Class G shares are 11/9/98, 1/2/01, 5/1/01 and 4/28/09, respectively.

Portfolio performance is calculated including reinvestment of all income and capital gain distributions. Performance numbers are net of all Portfolio expenses but do not include any insurance, sales, separate account or administrative charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts or any additional expenses that participants may bear relating to the operations of their plans. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower. The performance of any index referenced above has not been adjusted for ongoing management, distribution and operating expenses, and sales charges applicable to mutual fund investments. Direct investment in any index is not possible. The performance of Class A shares, as set forth in the line graph above, will differ from that of other classes because of the difference in expenses paid by policyholders investing in the different share classes.

This information represents past performance and is not indicative of future results. Investment return and principal value may fluctuate so that shares, upon redemption, may be worth more or less than the original cost.

PORTFOLIO COMPOSITION AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2016

Top Holdings

	% of Net Assets
Nestle S.A.		1.8
Novartis AG		1.3
HSBC Holdings plc		1.3
Roche Holding AG		1.3
Toyota Motor Corp.		1.2
Royal Dutch Shell plc- A Shares		0.9
BP plc		0.9
Total S.A.		0.9
Royal Dutch Shell plc- B Shares		0.8
British American Tobacco plc		0.8

Top Countries

	% of Net Assets
Japan		23.1
United Kingdom		16.9
France		9.3
Germany		8.9
Switzerland		8.7
Australia		7.3
Netherlands		3.2
Hong Kong		3.1
Spain		3.0
Sweden		2.7

MSF-2

Metropolitan Series Fund

MSCI EAFE Index 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, 2016 through December 31, 2016.

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.

MSCI EAFE Index Portfolio		Annualized Expense Ratio			Beginning Account Value July 1, 2016		Ending Account Value December 31, 2016		Expenses Paid During Period** July 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016
Class A(a)	Actual		0.38	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,043.60	$	1.95
	Hypothetical*		0.38	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,023.23	$	1.93
Class B(a)	Actual		0.63	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,041.70	$	3.23
	Hypothetical*		0.63	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,021.97	$	3.20
Class E(a)	Actual		0.53	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,042.90	$	2.72
	Hypothetical*		0.53	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,022.47	$	2.69
Class G(a)	Actual		0.68	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,042.00	$	3.49
	Hypothetical*		0.68	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,021.72	$	3.46

* 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 366 (to reflect the one-half year period).

^(a) The annualized expense ratio shown reflects the impact of the management fee waiver as described in Note 6 of the Notes to Financial Statements.

MSF-3

Metropolitan Series Fund

MSCI EAFE Index Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—95.3% of Net Assets

Security Description	Shares		Value
Australia—7.3%
AGL Energy, Ltd.		54,235	$	865,825
Alumina, Ltd. (a)		191,453		252,729
Amcor, Ltd.		95,202		1,028,993
AMP, Ltd.		234,994		855,321
APA Group		98,264		609,196
Aristocrat Leisure, Ltd.		41,217		461,450
ASX, Ltd.		16,055		577,009
Aurizon Holdings, Ltd.		157,842		576,328
AusNet Services		138,423		158,201
Australia & New Zealand Banking Group, Ltd.		237,205		5,210,464
Bank of Queensland, Ltd.		24,917		213,635
Bendigo & Adelaide Bank, Ltd.		35,779		328,492
BHP Billiton plc		172,349		2,732,206
BHP Billiton, Ltd.		257,180		4,606,236
Boral, Ltd.		114,731		447,883
Brambles, Ltd.		129,540		1,159,437
Caltex Australia, Ltd.		24,958		549,805
Challenger, Ltd.		44,035		357,256
CIMIC Group, Ltd.		8,428		212,605
Coca-Cola Amatil, Ltd.		42,510		311,067
Cochlear, Ltd.		5,478		485,233
Commonwealth Bank of Australia		137,934		8,208,795
Computershare, Ltd.		41,806		377,102
Crown Resorts, Ltd.		29,464		246,480
CSL, Ltd.		37,261		2,700,876
Dexus Property Group (REIT)		77,269		539,675
Domino’s Pizza Enterprises, Ltd.		4,938		230,765
DUET Group		178,971		354,874
Fortescue Metals Group, Ltd. (a)		125,869		533,321
Goodman Group (REIT)		139,425		721,754
GPT Group (The) (REIT)		140,241		510,269
Harvey Norman Holdings, Ltd. (a)		44,837		166,721
Healthscope, Ltd.		134,432		222,191
Incitec Pivot, Ltd.		152,808		396,491
Insurance Australia Group, Ltd.		184,566		798,110
Lend Lease Group (REIT)		51,045		538,739
Macquarie Group, Ltd.		24,276		1,535,441
Medibank Private, Ltd.		199,900		407,812
Mirvac Group (REIT)		298,553		459,813
National Australia Bank, Ltd.		212,826		4,713,307
Newcrest Mining, Ltd.		60,310		853,233
Oil Search, Ltd.		104,563		541,698
Orica, Ltd.		26,176		333,630
Origin Energy, Ltd.		140,897		670,542
QBE Insurance Group, Ltd.		110,125		992,510
Ramsay Health Care, Ltd.		10,616		525,094
REA Group, Ltd.		4,158		165,738
Rio Tinto, Ltd.		34,042		1,469,340
Santos, Ltd.		164,725		477,444
Scentre Group (REIT)		417,733		1,406,866
Seek, Ltd.		22,233		238,892
Sonic Healthcare, Ltd.		32,696		506,305
South32, Ltd.		422,905		837,387
Stockland (REIT)		205,214		679,931
Suncorp Group, Ltd.		108,776		1,061,641
Sydney Airport		80,467		347,770
Tabcorp Holdings, Ltd.		54,472		189,632
Australia—(Continued)
Tatts Group, Ltd.		123,533		400,216
Telstra Corp., Ltd.		335,688		1,237,919
TPG Telecom, Ltd.		21,838		107,542
Transurban Group		159,204		1,189,658
Treasury Wine Estates, Ltd.		68,905		531,992
Vicinity Centres (REIT)		252,185		547,355
Vocus Communications, Ltd.		38,375		107,190
Wesfarmers, Ltd.		90,211		2,748,093
Westfield Corp. (REIT)		163,017		1,110,149
Westpac Banking Corp.		266,028		6,253,133
Woodside Petroleum, Ltd.		60,391		1,359,997
Woolworths, Ltd.		104,896		1,826,286
				74,379,090
Austria—0.2%
Andritz AG		3,998		201,082
Erste Group Bank AG (b)		25,311		742,550
OMV AG		12,416		438,247
Raiffeisen Bank International AG (b)		9,390		172,118
Voestalpine AG		9,525		374,700
				1,928,697
Belgium—1.1%
Ageas		15,573		617,531
Anheuser-Busch InBev S.A.		61,052		6,460,379
Colruyt S.A.		5,430		269,151
Groupe Bruxelles Lambert S.A.		5,864		492,945
KBC Groep NV		19,558		1,213,023
Proximus		14,232		410,601
Solvay S.A.		5,735		672,530
Telenet Group Holding NV (b)		4,184		232,605
UCB S.A.		9,619		616,921
Umicore S.A.		8,519		485,860
				11,471,546
Denmark—1.6%
AP Moeller - Maersk A/S - Class A		274		413,277
AP Moeller - Maersk A/S - Class B		566		902,225
Carlsberg A/S - Class B		9,405		813,151
Chr Hansen Holding A/S		7,473		414,133
Coloplast A/S - Class B (a)		9,594		646,788
Danske Bank A/S		53,815		1,635,164
DONG Energy A/S (b)		6,737		255,453
DSV A/S		16,462		733,715
Genmab A/S (b)		4,236		703,428
ISS A/S		13,228		446,536
Novo Nordisk A/S - Class B		153,669		5,529,853
Novozymes A/S - B Shares		17,609		607,154
Pandora A/S		9,197		1,203,446
TDC A/S (b)		59,338		305,210
Tryg A/S		8,735		158,231
Vestas Wind Systems A/S		17,209		1,120,487
William Demant Holding A/S (b)		9,405		163,831
				16,052,082

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-4

Metropolitan Series Fund

MSCI EAFE Index Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Finland—0.9%
Elisa Oyj		13,058	$	425,206
Fortum Oyj		39,670		608,388
Kone Oyj - Class B		26,344		1,182,580
Metso Oyj		7,511		214,227
Neste Oyj		9,073		348,994
Nokia Oyj		468,997		2,260,007
Nokian Renkaat Oyj		10,639		397,354
Orion Oyj - Class B		9,644		430,086
Sampo Oyj - A Shares		35,348		1,583,818
Stora Enso Oyj - R Shares		40,497		434,683
UPM-Kymmene Oyj		42,203		1,036,329
Wartsila Oyj Abp		12,999		585,048
				9,506,720
France—9.3%
Accor S.A.		13,973		521,968
Aeroports de Paris (a)		2,209		237,124
Air Liquide S.A.		31,702		3,526,353
Alstom S.A. (b)		13,067		360,273
Arkema S.A.		5,073		496,589
Atos SE		7,084		748,800
AXA S.A.		155,873		3,941,130
BNP Paribas S.A.		84,745		5,409,142
Bollore S.A.		61,600		217,471
Bouygues S.A.		14,921		535,100
Bureau Veritas S.A.		19,643		381,345
Cap Gemini S.A.		13,915		1,175,899
Carrefour S.A.		46,421		1,119,002
Casino Guichard Perrachon S.A.		4,364		209,788
Christian Dior SE		4,654		976,992
Cie de St-Gobain		40,023		1,867,443
Cie Generale des Etablissements Michelin		14,364		1,600,877
CNP Assurances		10,520		195,243
Credit Agricole S.A.		90,038		1,118,482
Danone S.A.		47,151		2,990,391
Dassault Aviation S.A.		183		204,600
Dassault Systemes SE		10,162		775,692
Edenred		20,034		397,820
Eiffage S.A.		4,533		316,679
Electricite de France S.A.		17,389		177,045
Engie S.A.		120,464		1,537,735
Essilor International S.A.		16,817		1,903,696
Eurazeo S.A.		2,479		145,296
Eutelsat Communications S.A.		14,990		290,758
Fonciere Des Regions (REIT)		3,163		276,444
Gecina S.A. (REIT)		3,255		450,911
Groupe Eurotunnel SE		32,808		312,084
Hermes International		2,256		927,040
ICADE (REIT)		3,450		246,638
Iliad S.A.		2,335		449,406
Imerys S.A.		2,253		171,050
Ingenico Group S.A.		4,093		327,453
JCDecaux S.A.		4,706		138,425
Kering (a)		5,893		1,323,756
Klepierre (REIT)		16,658		655,582
L’Oreal S.A.		20,265		3,701,610
France—(Continued)
Lagardere SCA		8,303		231,101
Legrand S.A.		20,811		1,180,926
LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton SE		22,305		4,261,541
Natixis S.A.		80,165		452,930
Orange S.A.		164,771		2,505,517
Pernod-Ricard S.A.		17,290		1,876,798
Peugeot S.A. (b)		40,345		659,024
Publicis Groupe S.A.		15,420		1,065,879
Remy Cointreau S.A.		1,860		158,963
Renault S.A.		15,031		1,339,190
Rexel S.A.		28,808		474,182
Safran S.A.		24,884		1,795,157
Sanofi		92,334		7,482,488
Schneider Electric SE		45,859		3,192,990
SCOR SE		11,686		404,514
SEB S.A.		1,809		245,613
SES S.A.		29,140		642,977
SFR Group S.A. (b)		9,888		279,336
Societe BIC S.A.		2,149		292,686
Societe Generale S.A.		60,631		2,982,352
Sodexo S.A.		7,921		912,034
Suez		22,682		335,201
Technip S.A.		9,722		691,273
Thales S.A.		7,807		757,959
Total S.A.		179,310		9,171,625
Unibail-Rodamco SE (REIT)		7,985		1,907,250
Valeo S.A.		20,400		1,174,514
Veolia Environnement S.A.		38,440		654,763
Vinci S.A.		40,596		2,766,814
Vivendi S.A.		82,472		1,569,890
Wendel S.A.		2,267		273,481
Zodiac Aerospace (a)		14,929		343,401
				94,441,501
Germany—8.4%
adidas AG		14,905		2,360,296
Allianz SE		36,569		6,057,027
Axel Springer SE		3,006		146,043
BASF SE		73,821		6,898,347
Bayer AG		66,149		6,914,823
Bayerische Motoren Werke AG		26,677		2,502,558
Beiersdorf AG		8,429		716,656
Brenntag AG		12,657		702,774
Commerzbank AG		87,047		665,216
Continental AG		8,799		1,716,268
Covestro AG		5,610		386,701
Daimler AG		77,142		5,736,545
Deutsche Bank AG (b)		109,061		1,977,592
Deutsche Boerse AG (b)		14,640		1,195,073
Deutsche Lufthansa AG (a)		17,782		230,226
Deutsche Post AG		76,616		2,520,953
Deutsche Telekom AG		262,317		4,515,498
Deutsche Wohnen AG		28,299		889,204
E.ON SE		159,825		1,116,969
Evonik Industries AG		13,109		391,097
Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide		4,331		256,320

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-5

Metropolitan Series Fund

MSCI EAFE Index Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Germany—(Continued)
Fresenius Medical Care AG & Co. KGaA		17,215	$	1,462,451
Fresenius SE & Co. KGaA		32,401		2,536,025
GEA Group AG		14,300		574,336
Hannover Rueck SE		5,368		582,301
HeidelbergCement AG		11,924		1,114,663
Henkel AG & Co. KGaA		7,933		825,615
HOCHTIEF AG		1,646		230,619
Hugo Boss AG		4,934		305,054
Infineon Technologies AG		90,469		1,571,122
Innogy SE (b)		11,200		390,189
K&S AG (a)		14,121		338,226
LANXESS AG		7,402		485,963
Linde AG		15,006		2,465,504
MAN SE		3,022		300,770
Merck KGaA		10,657		1,114,391
Metro AG		15,747		523,630
Muenchener Rueckversicherungs-Gesellschaft AG		13,047		2,472,531
OSRAM Licht AG		8,388		441,248
ProSiebenSat.1 Media SE		18,669		723,142
RWE AG (b)		39,146		487,802
SAP SE		78,616		6,884,360
Siemens AG		61,857		7,618,746
Symrise AG		10,907		664,733
Telefonica Deutschland Holding AG		58,800		251,779
ThyssenKrupp AG		32,245		769,879
TUI AG		37,093		531,389
United Internet AG		8,781		342,467
Volkswagen AG (a)		2,495		359,054
Vonovia SE		36,786		1,200,650
Zalando SE (b)		6,525		249,746
				85,714,571
Hong Kong—3.1%
AIA Group, Ltd.		969,200		5,424,844
ASM Pacific Technology, Ltd.		19,600		207,531
Bank of East Asia, Ltd. (The)		103,920		396,512
BOC Hong Kong Holdings, Ltd.		290,465		1,040,100
Cheung Kong Infrastructure Holdings, Ltd.		57,000		453,428
Cheung Kong Property Holdings, Ltd.		214,440		1,300,626
CK Hutchison Holdings, Ltd.		213,440		2,409,966
CLP Holdings, Ltd.		131,377		1,200,637
Galaxy Entertainment Group, Ltd.		181,000		778,827
Hang Lung Group, Ltd.		74,000		257,291
Hang Lung Properties, Ltd.		222,000		464,912
Hang Seng Bank, Ltd.		60,800		1,127,043
Henderson Land Development Co., Ltd.		98,093		517,916
HK Electric Investments & HK Electric Investments, Ltd.		206,500		170,287
HKT Trust & HKT, Ltd.		189,980		232,304
Hong Kong & China Gas Co., Ltd.		646,116		1,142,339
Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing, Ltd.		95,700		2,252,398
Hongkong Land Holdings, Ltd.		95,400		602,050
Hysan Development Co., Ltd.		45,000		185,550
Jardine Matheson Holdings, Ltd.		19,700		1,086,712
Kerry Properties, Ltd.		57,500		154,961
Hong Kong—(Continued)
Li & Fung, Ltd.		429,600		187,865
Link REIT (REIT)		181,141		1,169,919
Melco Crown Entertainment, Ltd. (ADR)		16,000		254,400
MGM China Holdings, Ltd.		81,600		168,478
MTR Corp., Ltd.		110,500		534,247
New World Development Co., Ltd.		476,707		499,767
NWS Holdings, Ltd.		177,000		287,836
PCCW, Ltd.		481,000		259,258
Power Assets Holdings, Ltd.		107,549		947,667
Sands China, Ltd.		190,000		817,290
Sino Land Co., Ltd.		289,600		428,739
Sun Hung Kai Properties, Ltd.		115,250		1,443,196
Swire Pacific, Ltd. - Class A		44,317		423,113
Swire Properties, Ltd.		83,600		229,116
Techtronic Industries Co., Ltd.		128,000		458,608
WH Group, Ltd.		660,000		531,489
Wharf Holdings, Ltd. (The)		104,976		689,977
Wheelock & Co., Ltd.		68,000		381,771
Wynn Macau, Ltd.		134,800		213,460
Yue Yuen Industrial Holdings, Ltd.		50,500		182,830
				31,515,260
Ireland—1.1%
Bank of Ireland (b)		2,405,091		592,673
CRH plc		67,317		2,331,266
DCC plc		7,008		520,882
Experian plc		79,898		1,550,599
James Hardie Industries plc		40,250		639,485
Kerry Group plc - Class A		13,003		931,668
Paddy Power Betfair plc		6,200		663,788
Shire plc		71,765		4,077,371
				11,307,732
Israel—0.6%
Azrieli Group, Ltd.		3,653		158,241
Bank Hapoalim B.M.		86,396		513,321
Bank Leumi Le-Israel B.M. (b)		120,713		496,528
Bezeq The Israeli Telecommunication Corp., Ltd.		178,026		338,395
Check Point Software Technologies, Ltd. (b)		10,500		886,830
Elbit Systems, Ltd.		1,987		200,840
Frutarom Industries, Ltd.		3,269		166,962
Israel Chemicals, Ltd.		45,583		186,315
Mizrahi Tefahot Bank, Ltd.		11,922		174,231
Nice, Ltd.		5,213		357,899
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. (ADR)		73,053		2,648,171
				6,127,733
Italy—1.7%
Assicurazioni Generali S.p.A.		93,308		1,388,582
Atlantia S.p.A.		31,412		736,467
Enel S.p.A.		626,740		2,763,547
Eni S.p.A.		203,492		3,305,809
Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A.		993,553		2,541,400
Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A. - Risparmio Shares		65,400		153,950

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-6

Metropolitan Series Fund

MSCI EAFE Index Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Italy—(Continued)
Leonardo-Finmeccanica S.p.A. (b)		28,782	$	404,318
Luxottica Group S.p.A.		13,581		732,973
Mediobanca S.p.A.		44,816		366,500
Poste Italiane S.p.A.		41,357		274,895
Prysmian S.p.A.		19,125		491,906
Saipem S.p.A. (b)		422,993		237,150
Snam S.p.A.		193,977		799,485
Telecom Italia S.p.A. (b)		866,636		764,572
Telecom Italia S.p.A. - Risparmio Shares (b)		501,246		363,009
Terna Rete Elettrica Nazionale S.p.A.		118,746		544,305
UniCredit S.p.A.		422,053		1,215,732
UnipolSai S.p.A.		64,500		137,978
				17,222,578
Japan—23.1%
ABC-Mart, Inc.		2,200		124,707
Acom Co., Ltd. (b)		31,200		136,415
Aeon Co., Ltd.		51,500		730,204
AEON Financial Service Co., Ltd.		8,400		148,888
Air Water, Inc.		10,000		180,419
Aisin Seiki Co., Ltd.		16,500		715,524
Ajinomoto Co., Inc.		44,000		886,759
Alfresa Holdings Corp.		15,300		252,764
Alps Electric Co., Ltd.		13,100		315,986
Amada Holdings Co., Ltd.		27,000		301,283
ANA Holdings, Inc.		84,000		226,403
Aozora Bank, Ltd.		96,000		340,266
Asahi Glass Co., Ltd.		72,000		490,177
Asahi Group Holdings, Ltd.		30,700		969,952
Asahi Kasei Corp.		97,000		846,228
Asics Corp.		11,000		219,714
Astellas Pharma, Inc.		174,100		2,418,200
Bandai Namco Holdings, Inc.		16,000		441,366
Bank of Kyoto, Ltd. (The)		22,000		163,212
Benesse Holdings, Inc.		5,400		148,877
Bridgestone Corp.		51,600		1,859,980
Brother Industries, Ltd.		16,400		295,527
Calbee, Inc.		5,500		172,422
Canon, Inc.		83,900		2,354,336
Casio Computer Co., Ltd.		16,900		238,691
Central Japan Railway Co.		11,700		1,925,613
Chiba Bank, Ltd. (The)		49,000		300,114
Chubu Electric Power Co., Inc.		57,000		796,765
Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.		16,800		482,146
Chugoku Bank, Ltd. (The)		12,000		172,140
Chugoku Electric Power Co., Inc. (The)		23,700		278,177
Concordia Financial Group, Ltd.		83,000		398,872
Credit Saison Co., Ltd.		10,500		187,204
Dai Nippon Printing Co., Ltd.		40,000		395,213
Dai-ichi Life Holdings Inc.		83,600		1,387,956
Daicel Corp.		22,000		241,945
Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd.		49,000		1,002,785
Daikin Industries, Ltd.		18,800		1,725,242
Daito Trust Construction Co., Ltd.		6,200		933,101
Daiwa House Industry Co., Ltd.		47,500		1,298,444
Daiwa House Residential Investment Corp. (REIT)		110		278,734
Japan—(Continued)
Daiwa Securities Group, Inc.		126,000		775,619
DeNA Co., Ltd.		8,500		185,545
Denso Corp.		40,100		1,735,841
Dentsu, Inc.		16,600		783,549
Don Quijote Holdings Co., Ltd.		8,200		303,551
East Japan Railway Co.		26,900		2,325,229
Eisai Co., Ltd.		19,300		1,105,559
Electric Power Development Co., Ltd.		10,900		250,979
FamilyMart UNY Holdings Co., Ltd.		6,600		439,384
FANUC Corp.		15,300		2,592,564
Fast Retailing Co., Ltd.		4,200		1,501,546
Fuji Electric Co., Ltd.		43,000		222,924
Fuji Heavy Industries, Ltd.		49,600		2,021,694
FUJIFILM Holdings Corp.		36,700		1,393,414
Fujitsu, Ltd.		146,000		810,399
Fukuoka Financial Group, Inc.		53,000		235,109
Hachijuni Bank, Ltd. (The)		30,000		173,830
Hakuhodo DY Holdings, Inc.		17,600		216,767
Hamamatsu Photonics KK		9,600		252,344
Hankyu Hanshin Holdings, Inc.		20,400		654,795
Hikari Tsushin, Inc.		1,800		167,889
Hino Motors, Ltd.		19,000		193,209
Hirose Electric Co., Ltd.		2,300		285,006
Hiroshima Bank, Ltd. (The)		38,000		177,242
Hisamitsu Pharmaceutical Co., Inc.		4,500		224,945
Hitachi Chemical Co., Ltd.		8,500		212,547
Hitachi Construction Machinery Co., Ltd.		8,900		192,544
Hitachi High-Technologies Corp.		5,500		221,830
Hitachi Metals, Ltd.		20,000		270,817
Hitachi, Ltd.		383,000		2,067,862
Hokuriku Electric Power Co.		12,000		134,552
Honda Motor Co., Ltd.		130,600		3,810,002
Hoshizaki Corp.		4,100		324,774
Hoya Corp.		31,900		1,339,736
Hulic Co., Ltd.		32,300		287,095
Idemitsu Kosan Co., Ltd.		7,200		191,250
IHI Corp. (b)		145,000		376,724
Iida Group Holdings Co., Ltd.		12,700		240,927
Inpex Corp.		71,100		711,300
Isetan Mitsukoshi Holdings, Ltd.		26,900		289,821
Isuzu Motors, Ltd.		54,500		689,435
ITOCHU Corp.		124,100		1,648,284
J Front Retailing Co., Ltd.		23,000		309,724
Japan Airlines Co., Ltd.		8,400		245,626
Japan Airport Terminal Co., Ltd.		3,800		137,495
Japan Exchange Group, Inc.		46,400		665,966
Japan Post Bank Co., Ltd.		30,800		369,773
Japan Post Holdings Co., Ltd.		34,200		427,063
Japan Prime Realty Investment Corp. (REIT)		88		347,385
Japan Real Estate Investment Corp. (REIT)		105		573,801
Japan Retail Fund Investment Corp. (REIT)		202		409,963
Japan Tobacco, Inc.		88,100		2,900,340
JFE Holdings, Inc.		41,700		634,126
JGC Corp.		14,000		254,029
JSR Corp.		19,100		301,143
JTEKT Corp.		20,000		319,540
JX Holdings, Inc.		160,000		676,085

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-7

Metropolitan Series Fund

MSCI EAFE Index Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Japan—(Continued)
Kajima Corp.		80,000	$	553,418
Kakaku.com, Inc.		11,000		182,243
Kamigumi Co., Ltd.		17,000		162,081
Kaneka Corp.		22,000		179,210
Kansai Electric Power Co., Inc. (The) (b)		55,000		601,569
Kansai Paint Co., Ltd.		17,200		316,960
Kao Corp.		40,000		1,896,418
Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Ltd.		124,000		387,856
KDDI Corp.		149,300		3,777,269
Keihan Holdings Co., Ltd.		39,000		255,998
Keikyu Corp.		36,000		417,526
Keio Corp.		45,000		370,214
Keisei Electric Railway Co., Ltd.		10,000		242,844
Keyence Corp.		3,900		2,677,696
Kikkoman Corp.		12,000		384,113
Kintetsu Group Holdings Co., Ltd.		157,120		599,872
Kirin Holdings Co., Ltd.		66,100		1,075,359
Kobe Steel, Ltd. (b)		27,200		258,748
Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd.		10,100		534,428
Komatsu, Ltd.		75,400		1,705,369
Konami Holdings Corp.		7,300		294,736
Konica Minolta, Inc.		37,000		367,282
Kose Corp.		2,300		191,194
Kubota Corp.		89,000		1,269,587
Kuraray Co., Ltd.		24,500		367,370
Kurita Water Industries, Ltd.		7,100		156,288
Kyocera Corp.		24,900		1,237,558
Kyowa Hakko Kirin Co., Ltd.		20,000		275,669
Kyushu Electric Power Co., Inc.		39,700		430,264
Kyushu Financial Group, Inc.		26,400		178,914
Lawson, Inc.		4,900		344,692
LINE Corp. (a) (b)		3,500		119,596
Lion Corp.		19,000		312,070
LIXIL Group Corp.		24,500		556,351
M3, Inc.		18,600		469,145
Mabuchi Motor Co., Ltd.		3,600		187,339
Makita Corp.		9,500		636,810
Marubeni Corp.		133,500		756,837
Marui Group Co., Ltd.		16,000		233,579
Maruichi Steel Tube, Ltd.		4,600		149,674
Mazda Motor Corp.		43,000		699,870
McDonald’s Holdings Co. Japan, Ltd. (a)		5,400		141,437
Mebuki Financial Group, Inc.		63,100		233,645
Medipal Holdings Corp.		10,700		168,337
MEIJI Holdings Co., Ltd.		10,200		801,813
Minebea Co., Ltd.		24,000		224,650
Miraca Holdings, Inc.		4,000		179,521
MISUMI Group, Inc.		22,200		365,090
Mitsubishi Chemical Holdings Corp.		116,300		750,982
Mitsubishi Corp.		119,900		2,553,025
Mitsubishi Electric Corp.		160,000		2,228,834
Mitsubishi Estate Co., Ltd.		99,000		1,966,477
Mitsubishi Gas Chemical Co., Inc.		13,000		221,813
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.		260,000		1,183,552
Mitsubishi Materials Corp.		7,900		241,658
Mitsubishi Motors Corp.		44,999		256,336
Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corp.		22,000		431,831
Japan—(Continued)
Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Inc.		1,021,088		6,290,532
Mitsubishi UFJ Lease & Finance Co., Ltd.		41,500		214,265
Mitsui & Co., Ltd.		137,517		1,889,959
Mitsui Chemicals, Inc.		75,000		336,705
Mitsui Fudosan Co., Ltd.		75,000		1,734,214
Mitsui OSK Lines, Ltd.		75,000		207,586
Mizuho Financial Group, Inc.		1,933,900		3,469,351
MS&AD Insurance Group Holdings, Inc.		40,200		1,244,598
Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd.		15,900		2,121,714
Nabtesco Corp.		7,500		174,475
Nagoya Railroad Co., Ltd.		74,000		358,161
NEC Corp.		225,000		595,625
Nexon Co., Ltd.		19,100		276,603
NGK Insulators, Ltd.		23,000		445,779
NGK Spark Plug Co., Ltd.		12,000		266,183
NH Foods, Ltd.		14,000		378,750
Nidec Corp.		20,000		1,723,540
Nikon Corp.		31,200		484,360
Nintendo Co., Ltd.		9,000		1,885,281
Nippon Building Fund, Inc. (REIT)		118		655,188
Nippon Electric Glass Co., Ltd.		31,000		167,596
Nippon Express Co., Ltd.		59,000		317,564
Nippon Paint Holdings Co., Ltd.		13,000		353,052
Nippon Prologis REIT, Inc. (REIT)		109		223,302
Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metal Corp.		62,800		1,399,718
Nippon Telegraph & Telephone Corp.		54,900		2,312,514
Nippon Yusen KK		142,000		263,395
Nissan Chemical Industries, Ltd.		10,000		334,053
Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.		197,400		1,984,492
Nisshin Seifun Group, Inc.		15,700		235,877
Nissin Foods Holdings Co., Ltd.		4,700		247,138
Nitori Holdings Co., Ltd.		6,900		790,117
Nitto Denko Corp.		12,600		966,754
NOK Corp.		7,900		159,888
Nomura Holdings, Inc.		303,200		1,790,914
Nomura Real Estate Holdings, Inc.		13,100		222,823
Nomura Real Estate Master Fund, Inc. (REIT)		322		487,987
Nomura Research Institute, Ltd.		9,900		301,564
NSK, Ltd.		39,000		450,746
NTT Data Corp.		10,776		521,062
NTT DoCoMo, Inc.		112,700		2,568,157
Obayashi Corp.		58,000		553,865
Obic Co., Ltd.		5,000		218,535
Odakyu Electric Railway Co., Ltd.		27,500		544,412
OJI Holdings Corp.		68,000		276,986
Olympus Corp.		22,800		787,788
Omron Corp.		16,400		628,947
Ono Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.		32,000		699,131
Oracle Corp. Japan		3,000		151,275
Oriental Land Co., Ltd.		17,300		978,668
ORIX Corp.		110,600		1,716,999
Osaka Gas Co., Ltd.		161,000		619,679
Otsuka Corp.		3,700		172,824
Otsuka Holdings Co., Ltd.		32,000		1,395,156
Panasonic Corp.		183,800		1,869,225
Park24 Co., Ltd.		7,400		200,921
Pola Orbis Holdings, Inc.		1,900		156,996

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-8

Metropolitan Series Fund

MSCI EAFE Index Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Japan—(Continued)
Rakuten, Inc.		76,600	$	751,114
Recruit Holdings Co., Ltd.		29,300		1,175,729
Resona Holdings, Inc.		169,400		873,655
Ricoh Co., Ltd.		63,700		538,551
Rinnai Corp.		2,800		226,020
Rohm Co., Ltd.		6,700		385,298
Ryohin Keikaku Co., Ltd.		1,800		352,686
Santen Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.		27,500		336,534
SBI Holdings, Inc.		19,011		241,780
Secom Co., Ltd.		17,500		1,279,694
Sega Sammy Holdings, Inc.		13,300		197,892
Seibu Holdings, Inc.		13,800		247,470
Seiko Epson Corp.		20,000		423,342
Sekisui Chemical Co., Ltd.		37,900		604,416
Sekisui House, Ltd.		46,800		778,897
Seven & i Holdings Co., Ltd.		62,400		2,379,592
Seven Bank, Ltd.		43,000		123,793
Sharp Corp. (b)		120,000		277,017
Shimadzu Corp.		16,000		254,830
Shimamura Co., Ltd.		2,300		287,540
Shimano, Inc.		6,000		941,071
Shimizu Corp.		39,000		356,806
Shin-Etsu Chemical Co., Ltd.		30,900		2,386,380
Shinsei Bank, Ltd.		160,000		269,642
Shionogi & Co., Ltd.		25,200		1,204,895
Shiseido Co., Ltd.		29,300		741,709
Shizuoka Bank, Ltd. (The)		41,000		344,164
Showa Shell Sekiyu KK		15,400		143,362
SMC Corp.		4,500		1,073,073
SoftBank Group Corp.		77,300		5,113,642
Sohgo Security Services Co., Ltd.		4,800		184,481
Sompo Holdings, Inc.		26,999		913,555
Sony Corp.		103,400		2,879,511
Sony Financial Holdings, Inc.		12,800		198,807
Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.		11,800		322,305
Start Today Co., Ltd.		14,400		247,568
Sumitomo Chemical Co., Ltd.		126,000		597,368
Sumitomo Corp.		93,000		1,094,750
Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma Co., Ltd.		12,500		215,077
Sumitomo Electric Industries, Ltd.		66,334		954,423
Sumitomo Heavy Industries, Ltd.		39,000		250,976
Sumitomo Metal Mining Co., Ltd.		40,000		515,541
Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group, Inc.		106,500		4,045,729
Sumitomo Mitsui Trust Holdings, Inc.		26,526		944,413
Sumitomo Realty & Development Co., Ltd.		28,000		743,484
Sumitomo Rubber Industries, Ltd.		12,500		198,142
Sundrug Co., Ltd.		3,000		207,720
Suntory Beverage & Food, Ltd.		10,400		431,119
Suruga Bank, Ltd.		13,000		290,010
Suzuken Co., Ltd.		5,800		189,576
Suzuki Motor Corp.		26,200		921,588
Sysmex Corp.		12,200		706,649
T&D Holdings, Inc.		49,200		649,204
Taiheiyo Cement Corp.		82,000		259,288
Taisei Corp.		80,000		560,328
Taisho Pharmaceutical Holdings Co., Ltd.		3,000		249,014
Takashimaya Co., Ltd.		19,000		156,743
Japan—(Continued)
Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.		56,400		2,334,128
TDK Corp.		10,500		721,469
Teijin, Ltd.		13,200		267,468
Terumo Corp.		27,200		1,004,162
THK Co., Ltd.		7,700		170,062
Tobu Railway Co., Ltd.		73,000		362,514
Toho Co., Ltd.		8,500		240,713
Toho Gas Co., Ltd.		31,000		252,285
Tohoku Electric Power Co., Inc.		39,800		503,230
Tokio Marine Holdings, Inc.		53,500		2,192,144
Tokyo Electric Power Co. Holdings, Inc. (b)		124,100		501,193
Tokyo Electron, Ltd.		13,500		1,275,380
Tokyo Gas Co., Ltd.		162,000		732,808
Tokyo Tatemono Co., Ltd.		14,500		193,876
Tokyu Corp.		96,000		705,768
Tokyu Fudosan Holdings Corp.		37,000		218,422
TonenGeneral Sekiyu KK		18,000		189,817
Toppan Printing Co., Ltd.		41,000		391,544
Toray Industries, Inc.		126,000		1,020,489
Toshiba Corp. (b)		313,000		757,779
TOTO, Ltd.		10,400		411,278
Toyo Seikan Group Holdings, Ltd.		17,200		320,962
Toyo Suisan Kaisha, Ltd.		6,000		217,469
Toyota Industries Corp.		12,600		599,629
Toyota Motor Corp.		213,700		12,501,363
Toyota Tsusho Corp.		15,500		403,570
Trend Micro, Inc.		10,400		369,583
Tsuruha Holdings, Inc.		2,900		275,042
Unicharm Corp.		33,200		726,576
United Urban Investment Corp. (REIT)		266		405,662
USS Co., Ltd.		16,600		264,445
West Japan Railway Co.		13,700		841,256
Yahoo Japan Corp.		132,900		511,064
Yakult Honsha Co., Ltd.		6,300		292,276
Yamada Denki Co., Ltd.		55,900		301,280
Yamaguchi Financial Group, Inc.		15,000		163,328
Yamaha Corp.		15,800		482,514
Yamaha Motor Co., Ltd. (a)		23,700		521,057
Yamato Holdings Co., Ltd.		27,000		548,464
Yamazaki Baking Co., Ltd.		9,000		174,061
Yaskawa Electric Corp.		18,000		279,778
Yokogawa Electric Corp.		16,300		235,846
Yokohama Rubber Co., Ltd. (The)		9,200		164,342
				235,263,308
Luxembourg—0.2%
ArcelorMittal (b)		145,609		1,075,676
Eurofins Scientific SE		878		374,791
RTL Group S.A. (b)		2,700		198,293
Tenaris S.A.		43,902		784,130
				2,432,890
Netherlands—3.2%
ABN AMRO Group NV		22,595		501,479
Aegon NV		144,233		794,729
AerCap Holdings NV (b)		13,600		565,896

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-9

Metropolitan Series Fund

MSCI EAFE Index Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Netherlands—(Continued)
Airbus Group SE		46,190	$	3,054,555
Akzo Nobel NV		19,973		1,249,831
Altice NV - Class A (a) (b)		27,259		540,261
Altice NV - Class B (b)		8,752		174,395
ASML Holding NV		29,205		3,278,762
Boskalis Westminster		6,294		218,693
CNH Industrial NV		78,026		679,739
EXOR NV		10,723		463,366
Ferrari NV		9,578		558,346
Gemalto NV		7,697		445,286
Heineken Holding NV		8,233		573,633
Heineken NV		17,749		1,332,110
ING Groep NV		310,514		4,378,555
Koninklijke Ahold Delhaize NV		106,335		2,242,581
Koninklijke DSM NV		13,712		822,524
Koninklijke KPN NV		263,537		781,948
Koninklijke Philips NV		74,893		2,287,368
Koninklijke Vopak NV		7,217		341,137
NN Group NV		24,394		827,695
NXP Semiconductors NV (b)		23,300		2,283,633
QIAGEN NV (b)		15,750		442,753
Randstad Holding NV		9,402		510,252
RELX NV		78,420		1,320,830
STMicroelectronics NV		44,693		507,738
Wolters Kluwer NV		26,213		949,850
				32,127,945
New Zealand—0.2%
Auckland International Airport, Ltd.		99,212		431,528
Contact Energy, Ltd.		58,969		191,156
Fletcher Building, Ltd.		56,031		413,110
Meridian Energy, Ltd.		124,449		225,134
Ryman Healthcare, Ltd.		29,900		169,324
Spark New Zealand, Ltd.		153,824		365,060
				1,795,312
Norway—0.6%
DNB ASA		81,386		1,214,242
Gjensidige Forsikring ASA		14,357		228,528
Marine Harvest ASA (b)		30,284		547,855
Norsk Hydro ASA		110,802		530,626
Orkla ASA		68,492		621,660
Schibsted ASA - B Shares		6,744		143,384
Statoil ASA		87,269		1,595,264
Telenor ASA		58,784		879,261
Yara International ASA		15,820		624,964
				6,385,784
Portugal—0.1%
Banco Espirito Santo S.A. (b) (c) (d)		199,038		0
EDP - Energias de Portugal S.A.		185,244		565,253
Galp Energia SGPS S.A.		40,100		597,279
Jeronimo Martins SGPS S.A.		22,596		351,200
				1,513,732
Singapore—1.2%
Ascendas Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT)		215,000		336,744
CapitaLand Commercial Trust (REIT)		143,000		145,682
CapitaLand Mall Trust (REIT)		240,200		312,162
CapitaLand, Ltd.		227,200		473,068
City Developments, Ltd.		34,000		194,130
ComfortDelGro Corp., Ltd.		153,000		260,522
DBS Group Holdings, Ltd.		141,667		1,694,229
Genting Singapore plc		418,200		260,538
Global Logistic Properties, Ltd.		184,100		279,563
Golden Agri-Resources, Ltd.		605,100		179,145
Hutchison Port Holdings Trust - Class U		538,000		233,955
Jardine Cycle & Carriage, Ltd.		8,888		252,185
Keppel Corp., Ltd.		128,900		513,419
Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp., Ltd.		247,264		1,520,833
SATS, Ltd.		56,300		188,547
Sembcorp Industries, Ltd.		71,000		139,608
Singapore Airlines, Ltd.		51,440		343,433
Singapore Exchange, Ltd.		80,900		400,753
Singapore Press Holdings, Ltd.		153,050		373,094
Singapore Technologies Engineering, Ltd.		130,000		289,262
Singapore Telecommunications, Ltd.		628,020		1,579,853
Suntec Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT)		179,000		203,452
United Overseas Bank, Ltd.		105,192		1,479,770
UOL Group, Ltd.		33,000		136,261
Wilmar International, Ltd.		159,200		393,738
				12,183,946
Spain—3.0%
Abertis Infraestructuras S.A.		51,494		721,904
ACS Actividades de Construccion y Servicios S.A.		14,558		459,857
Aena S.A.		5,774		789,332
Amadeus IT Group S.A.		36,080		1,642,358
Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria S.A.		528,740		3,574,163
Banco de Sabadell S.A.		465,409		649,139
Banco Popular Espanol S.A. (a)		253,956		245,757
Banco Santander S.A.		1,167,905		6,108,897
Bankia S.A.		323,299		330,951
Bankinter S.A.		48,939		379,768
CaixaBank S.A.		268,510		888,772
Distribuidora Internacional de Alimentacion S.A.		40,490		199,153
Enagas S.A.		17,953		456,528
Endesa S.A.		23,384		496,128
Ferrovial S.A.		38,372		687,630
Gas Natural SDG S.A.		31,745		599,221
Grifols S.A.		23,842		474,662
Iberdrola S.A.		433,124		2,845,880
Industria de Diseno Textil S.A.		89,257		3,052,015
International Consolidated Airlines Group S.A. - Class DI		69,940		378,158
Mapfre S.A.		74,474		227,712
Red Electrica Corp. S.A.		36,520		690,007
Repsol S.A.		87,827		1,237,793
Telefonica S.A.		373,718		3,472,404
				30,608,189

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-10

Metropolitan Series Fund

MSCI EAFE Index Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Sweden—2.7%
Alfa Laval AB		20,852	$	345,453
Assa Abloy AB - Class B		80,175		1,491,502
Atlas Copco AB - A Shares		53,715		1,637,475
Atlas Copco AB - B Shares		32,703		892,641
Boliden AB		20,002		522,567
Electrolux AB - Series B		17,118		426,234
Getinge AB - B Shares		19,011		305,380
Hennes & Mauritz AB - B Shares		74,424		2,071,908
Hexagon AB - B Shares		19,206		686,871
Husqvarna AB - B Shares		25,677		199,945
ICA Gruppen AB		5,619		171,633
Industrivarden AB - C Shares		16,050		299,967
Investor AB - B Shares		35,158		1,317,606
Kinnevik AB - Class B		21,519		517,038
L E Lundbergforetagen AB - B Shares		3,045		187,184
Lundin Petroleum AB (b)		16,017		348,209
Millicom International Cellular S.A.		5,384		230,625
Nordea Bank AB		237,519		2,648,152
Sandvik AB		84,986		1,052,161
Securitas AB - B Shares (a)		21,462		338,501
Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB - Class A		125,966		1,324,731
Skanska AB - B Shares		30,119		711,895
SKF AB - B Shares		32,785		603,508
Svenska Cellulosa AB SCA - Class B		51,018		1,442,685
Svenska Handelsbanken AB - A Shares		123,478		1,720,537
Swedbank AB - A Shares		75,029		1,818,587
Swedish Match AB		14,499		461,959
Tele2 AB - B Shares		23,661		190,206
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson - B Shares		245,096		1,432,898
Telia Co. AB		219,400		885,155
Volvo AB - B Shares		126,102		1,473,566
				27,756,779
Switzerland—8.7%
ABB, Ltd. (b)		149,315		3,149,316
Actelion, Ltd. (b)		8,051		1,743,545
Adecco Group AG		12,943		846,663
Aryzta AG (b)		7,132		314,636
Baloise Holding AG		4,297		541,369
Barry Callebaut AG (b)		132		161,857
Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Spruengli AG		9		547,700
Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Spruengli AG (Participation Certifcate)		81		420,331
Cie Financiere Richemont S.A.		40,858		2,710,473
Coca-Cola HBC AG (b)		13,800		301,585
Credit Suisse Group AG (b)		159,081		2,275,879
Dufry AG (b)		3,625		452,865
EMS-Chemie Holding AG		579		294,752
Galenica AG		295		332,795
Geberit AG		3,038		1,218,118
Givaudan S.A.		717		1,316,087
Glencore plc (b)		976,977		3,292,371
Julius Baer Group, Ltd. (b)		17,027		757,408
Kuehne & Nagel International AG		4,135		546,942
LafargeHolcim, Ltd. (b)		35,455		1,866,045
Lonza Group AG (b)		4,579		793,153
Switzerland—(Continued)
Nestle S.A.		249,363		17,920,149
Novartis AG		179,478		13,080,035
Pargesa Holding S.A.		3,763		245,512
Partners Group Holding AG		1,388		650,838
Roche Holding AG		56,166		12,822,157
Schindler Holding AG		1,428		249,918
Schindler Holding AG (Participation Certificate)		3,216		567,402
SGS S.A.		429		872,874
Sika AG		170		818,163
Sonova Holding AG		4,058		491,923
Swatch Group AG (The)		5,039		308,562
Swatch Group AG (The) - Bearer Shares (a)		2,384		742,678
Swiss Life Holding AG (b)		2,458		696,796
Swiss Prime Site AG (b)		6,356		521,155
Swiss Re AG		26,071		2,474,730
Swisscom AG		2,156		965,837
Syngenta AG		7,276		2,880,861
UBS Group AG		294,259		4,615,443
Zurich Insurance Group AG (b)		12,336		3,394,725
				88,203,648
United Kingdom—16.9%
3i Group plc		83,477		727,077
Aberdeen Asset Management plc		62,282		198,458
Admiral Group plc		16,009		359,932
Anglo American plc (b)		114,075		1,604,203
Antofagasta plc		26,957		222,537
Ashtead Group plc		37,846		735,147
Associated British Foods plc		27,546		933,410
AstraZeneca plc		101,128		5,498,966
Auto Trader Group plc		75,401		380,653
Aviva plc		331,823		1,985,244
Babcock International Group plc		22,688		266,871
BAE Systems plc		259,623		1,890,400
Barclays plc		1,358,982		3,742,926
Barratt Developments plc		88,548		505,085
Berkeley Group Holdings plc		10,289		356,586
BP plc		1,498,691		9,336,660
British American Tobacco plc		149,122		8,489,311
British Land Co. plc (The) (REIT)		73,348		569,840
BT Group plc		669,710		3,040,674
Bunzl plc		27,344		709,462
Burberry Group plc		32,742		605,114
Capita plc		56,282		369,441
Carnival plc		15,318		778,122
Centrica plc		433,996		1,253,667
Cobham plc		148,611		300,269
Coca-Cola European Partners plc		17,100		540,622
Compass Group plc		136,155		2,516,270
Croda International plc		12,193		479,585
Diageo plc		202,310		5,247,783
Direct Line Insurance Group plc		120,497		547,925
Dixons Carphone plc		87,082		380,642
easyJet plc		10,815		134,120
Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV		70,787		644,257
Fresnillo plc		22,254		331,353

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-11

Metropolitan Series Fund

MSCI EAFE Index Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
United Kingdom—(Continued)
G4S plc		145,464	$	422,072
GKN plc		126,099		515,043
GlaxoSmithKline plc		389,565		7,459,203
Hammerson plc (REIT)		74,953		529,484
Hargreaves Lansdown plc		23,808		356,327
Hikma Pharmaceuticals plc		11,370		264,433
HSBC Holdings plc		1,592,402		12,909,520
IMI plc		20,055		256,426
Imperial Brands plc		77,211		3,367,669
Inmarsat plc		33,445		309,319
InterContinental Hotels Group plc		15,517		694,297
Intertek Group plc		14,174		606,323
Intu Properties plc (REIT)		92,411		321,863
Investec plc		52,596		348,672
J Sainsbury plc		120,106		368,963
Johnson Matthey plc		15,590		610,772
Kingfisher plc		189,541		818,386
Land Securities Group plc (REIT)		69,232		916,971
Legal & General Group plc		465,307		1,420,958
Lloyds Banking Group plc		5,267,223		4,061,339
London Stock Exchange Group plc		25,259		909,929
Marks & Spencer Group plc		137,472		593,466
Mediclinic International plc		30,600		289,939
Meggitt plc		55,862		316,292
Merlin Entertainments plc		52,353		290,041
Mondi plc		27,093		555,091
National Grid plc		299,625		3,513,455
NEX Group plc		30,684		176,114
Next plc		11,803		724,279
Old Mutual plc		378,865		963,654
Pearson plc		63,486		638,804
Persimmon plc		22,805		498,940
Petrofac, Ltd.		17,337		185,766
Provident Financial plc		11,099		391,239
Prudential plc		205,782		4,115,381
Randgold Resources, Ltd.		8,250		632,514
Reckitt Benckiser Group plc		50,862		4,310,920
RELX plc		85,441		1,523,498
Rio Tinto plc		100,627		3,842,044
Rolls-Royce Holdings plc (b)		152,053		1,253,759
Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc (b)		315,947		874,923
Royal Dutch Shell plc - A Shares		346,614		9,576,031
Royal Dutch Shell plc - B Shares		299,606		8,572,045
Royal Mail plc		67,965		387,727
RSA Insurance Group plc		93,305		674,726
Sage Group plc (The)		93,810		756,365
Schroders plc		10,735		396,994
Segro plc (REIT)		61,844		350,909
Severn Trent plc		20,415		560,030
Sky plc		81,836		998,254
Smith & Nephew plc		70,070		1,046,701
Smiths Group plc		31,976		556,927
SSE plc		80,939		1,551,332
St. James’s Place plc		38,927		485,464
Standard Chartered plc (b)		260,617		2,140,179
United Kingdom—(Continued)
Standard Life plc		166,532	$	761,283
Tate & Lyle plc		33,576		293,189
Taylor Wimpey plc		240,026		451,970
Tesco plc (b)		671,221		1,713,087
TP ICAP plc		25,074		134,105
Travis Perkins plc		20,832		373,325
Unilever NV		130,477		5,373,249
Unilever plc		103,156		4,183,676
United Utilities Group plc		57,234		635,836
Vodafone Group plc		2,124,260		5,238,342
Weir Group plc (The)		17,104		397,326
Whitbread plc		14,502		675,894
William Hill plc		82,380		294,389
WM Morrison Supermarkets plc		166,578		474,479
Wolseley plc		20,872		1,278,520
Worldpay Group plc		144,225		479,568
WPP plc		101,031		2,264,574
				171,917,196
United States—0.1%
Mobileye NV (b)		14,200		541,304
Total Common Stocks (Cost $928,632,393)				970,397,543
Mutual Fund—2.2%
United States—2.2%
iShares MSCI EAFE ETF (a) (e) (Cost $22,255,545)		389,000		22,456,970
Preferred Stocks—0.5%
Germany—0.5%
Bayerische Motoren Werke (BMW) AG		3,581		275,213
FUCHS Petrolub SE		4,900		206,166
Henkel AG & Co. KGaA		13,964		1,668,618
Porsche Automobil Holding SE		11,870		646,558
Schaeffler AG		13,141		194,337
Volkswagen AG		15,111		2,121,308
Total Preferred Stocks (Cost $4,157,085)				5,112,200
Rights—0.0%
Spain—0.0%
Repsol S.A., Expires 01/12/17 (b) (Cost $30,627)		87,827		32,608

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-12

Metropolitan Series Fund

MSCI EAFE Index Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Short-Term Investments—1.9%

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Discount Notes—0.4%
Federal Home Loan Bank 0.794%, 03/17/17 (f)		325,000	$	324,657
0.836%, 02/27/17 (f)		375,000		374,714
0.969%, 03/24/17 (f)		2,200,000		2,197,457
1.167%, 01/25/17 (f)		725,000		724,832
1.704%, 01/04/17 (f)		300,000		299,997
2.367%, 01/06/17 (f)		150,000		149,995
				4,071,652
U.S. Treasury—1.5%
U.S. Treasury Bills 0.327%, 01/05/17 (f)		1,875,000		1,874,962
0.738%, 04/27/17 (f)		3,675,000		3,668,628
0.815%, 02/16/17 (f)		600,000		599,677
0.862%, 03/16/17 (f)		6,175,000		6,168,825
1.091%, 01/26/17 (f)		2,550,000		2,549,314
				14,861,406
Total Short-Term Investments (Cost $18,935,323)				18,933,058
Securities Lending Reinvestments(g)—1.3%
Repurchase Agreements—1.3%
Barclays Capital, Inc. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/16 at 0.450% to be repurchased at $1,844,235 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $3,691,516 U.S. Treasury Strip Obligations with zero coupon, maturity dates ranging from 02/15/17 - 11/15/46, with a value of $1,881,027.		1,844,143		1,844,143
Deutsche Bank AG, London Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/16 at 0.950% to be repurchased at $1,000,106 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $1,020,900 Foreign Obligations with rates ranging from 1.750% - 2.500%, maturity dates ranging from 09/05/19 - 11/20/24, with a value of $1,020,006.		1,000,000		1,000,000
Repurchase Agreement dated 12/15/16 - 12/30/16 at 1.050% to be repurchased at $1,250,627 on 01/03/17, collateralized by various Common Stock with a value of $1,389,444.		1,250,000		1,250,000
Goldman Sachs & Co. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/16 at 0.460% to be repurchased at $2,847,212 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $14,651,559 U.S. Government Agency Obligations with rates ranging from 2.000% - 10.500%, maturity dates ranging from 03/15/17 - 09/20/65, with a value of $2,904,007.		2,847,066		2,847,066
Repurchase Agreements—(Continued)
Macquarie Bank, Ltd. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/15/16 at 0.600% to be repurchased at $4,001,467 on 01/06/17, collateralized by $3,957,421 U.S. Treasury Obligations with rates ranging from 0.000% - 8.750%, maturity dates ranging from 01/05/17 - 05/15/46, with a value of $4,082,067.		4,000,000		4,000,000
Natixis Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/16 at 0.600% to be repurchased at $1,000,067 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $1,795,764 U.S. Government Agency and Treasury Obligations with rates ranging from 0.996% - 7.000%, maturity dates ranging from 01/15/20 - 12/01/46, with a value of $1,020,000.		1,000,000		1,000,000
Pershing LLC Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/16 at 0.680% to be repurchased at $1,000,076 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $1,467,364 U.S. Government Agency Obligations with rates ranging from 0.625% - 11.018%, maturity dates ranging from 01/17/17 - 08/20/66, with a value of $1,020,000.		1,000,000		1,000,000
				12,941,209
Total Securities Lending Reinvestments (Cost $12,941,209)				12,941,209
Total Investments—101.2% (Cost $986,952,182) (h)				1,029,873,588
Other assets and liabilities (net)—(1.2)%				(12,177,450	)
Net Assets—100.0%			$	1,017,696,138

* Principal amount stated in U.S. dollars unless otherwise noted.

(a) All or a portion of the security was held on loan. As of December 31, 2016, the market value of securities loaned was $12,544,325 and the collateral received consisted of cash in the amount of $12,941,209. The cash collateral investments are disclosed in the Schedule of Investments and categorized as Securities Lending Reinvestments.

(b) Non-income producing security.

(c) Security was valued in good faith under procedures approved by the Board of Trustees. As of December 31, 2016, these securities represent less than 0.05% of net assets.

(d) Illiquid security. As of December 31, 2016, these securities represent 0.0% of net assets.

(e) All or a portion of the security was pledged as collateral against open futures contracts. As of December 31, 2016, the market value of securities pledged was $2,309,200.

(f) The rate shown represents current yield to maturity.

(g) Represents investment of cash collateral received from securities on loan as of December 31, 2016.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-13

Metropolitan Series Fund

MSCI EAFE Index Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

(h) As of December 31, 2016, the aggregate cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was $999,676,025. The aggregate unrealized appreciation and depreciation of investments were $188,097,640 and $(157,900,077), respectively, resulting in net unrealized appreciation of $30,197,563 for federal income tax purposes.

(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.

(ETF)— Exchange-Traded Fund

(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, 2016 (Unaudited)	% of Net Assets
Banks		12.0
Pharmaceuticals		7.5
Insurance		5.3
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels		5.0
Automobiles		3.8
Chemicals		3.7
Food Products		3.0
Metals & Mining		2.7
Diversified Telecommunication Services		2.7
Machinery		2.4

Futures Contracts

Futures Contracts – Long	Expiration Date		Number of Contracts		Notional Amount			Unrealized Depreciation
MSCI EAFE Mini Index Futures		03/17/17		216		USD	18,209,238	$	(112,758	)

(USD)— United States Dollar

Fair Value Hierarchy

Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) define 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, separately for each major category of assets and liabilities, 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, quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities 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, or other market corroborated inputs)

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 used in determining the fair value of investments and derivative financial instruments)

The inputs or methodologies used for valuing investments are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in them. Changes to the inputs or methodologies used may result in transfers between levels, which 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.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-14

Metropolitan Series Fund

MSCI EAFE Index Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

The following table summarizes the fair value hierarchy of the Portfolio’s investments as of December 31, 2016:

Description	Level 1			Level 2			Level 3		Total
Common Stocks
Australia	$	—		$	74,379,090		$	—	$	74,379,090
Austria		—			1,928,697			—		1,928,697
Belgium		—			11,471,546			—		11,471,546
Denmark		—			16,052,082			—		16,052,082
Finland		—			9,506,720			—		9,506,720
France		—			94,441,501			—		94,441,501
Germany		—			85,714,571			—		85,714,571
Hong Kong		254,400			31,260,860			—		31,515,260
Ireland		—			11,307,732			—		11,307,732
Israel		3,535,001			2,592,732			—		6,127,733
Italy		—			17,222,578			—		17,222,578
Japan		—			235,263,308			—		235,263,308
Luxembourg		—			2,432,890			—		2,432,890
Netherlands		2,849,529			29,278,416			—		32,127,945
New Zealand		—			1,795,312			—		1,795,312
Norway		—			6,385,784			—		6,385,784
Portugal		—			1,513,732			0		1,513,732
Singapore		—			12,183,946			—		12,183,946
Spain		—			30,608,189			—		30,608,189
Sweden		—			27,756,779			—		27,756,779
Switzerland		—			88,203,648			—		88,203,648
United Kingdom		176,114			171,741,082			—		171,917,196
United States		541,304			—			—		541,304
Total Common Stocks		7,356,348			963,041,195			0		970,397,543
Total Mutual Fund*		22,456,970			—			—		22,456,970
Total Preferred Stocks*		—			5,112,200			—		5,112,200
Total Rights*		32,608			—			—		32,608
Short-Term Investments
Discount Notes		—			4,071,652			—		4,071,652
U.S. Treasury		—			14,861,406			—		14,861,406
Total Short-Term Investments		—			18,933,058			—		18,933,058
Total Securities Lending Reinvestments*		—			12,941,209			—		12,941,209
Total Investments	$	29,845,926		$	1,000,027,662		$	0	$	1,029,873,588
Collateral for Securities Loaned (Liability)	$	—		$	(12,941,209	)	$	—	$	(12,941,209	)
Futures Contracts
Futures Contracts (Unrealized Depreciation)	$	(112,758	)	$	—		$	—	$	(112,758	)

* See Schedule of Investments for additional detailed categorizations.

Transfers from Level 1 to Level 2 in the amount of $978,286 were due to the application of a systematic fair valuation model factor.

Level 3 investments at the beginning and/or end of the period in relation to net assets were not significant and accordingly, a reconciliation of Level 3 assets for the year ended December 31, 2016 is not presented.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-15

Metropolitan Series Fund

MSCI EAFE Index Portfolio

Statement of Assets and Liabilities

December 31, 2016

Assets
Investments at value (a) (b)	$	1,029,873,588
Cash		9,116
Cash denominated in foreign currencies (c)		88,219
Receivable for:
Investments sold		117,604
Fund shares sold		3,008,668
Dividends		2,425,693
Variation margin on futures contracts		57,240
Prepaid expenses		2,855
Total Assets		1,035,582,983
Liabilities
Collateral for securities loaned		12,941,209
Payables for:
Investments purchased		3,867,390
Fund shares redeemed		195,713
Accrued Expenses:
Management fees		253,625
Distribution and service fees		110,344
Deferred trustees’ fees		93,196
Other expenses		425,368
Total Liabilities		17,886,845
Net Assets	$	1,017,696,138
Net Assets Consist of:
Paid in surplus	$	997,439,023
Undistributed net investment income		20,805,946
Accumulated net realized loss		(43,257,231	)
Unrealized appreciation on investments, futures contracts and foreign currency transactions		42,708,400
Net Assets	$	1,017,696,138
Net Assets
Class A	$	498,718,278
Class B		390,733,362
Class E		29,601,498
Class G		98,643,000
Capital Shares Outstanding*
Class A		41,675,507
Class B		33,305,221
Class E		2,486,809
Class G		8,458,168
Net Asset Value, Offering Price and Redemption Price Per Share
Class A	$	11.97
Class B		11.73
Class E		11.90
Class G		11.66

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

(a) Identified cost of investments was $986,952,182.

(b) Includes securities loaned at value of $12,544,325.

(c) Identified cost of cash denominated in foreign currencies was $87,428.

Statement of Operations

Year Ended December 31, 2016

Investment Income
Dividends (a)	$	31,680,152
Interest		58,152
Securities lending income		658,878
Other income (b)		444,005
Total investment income		32,841,187
Expenses
Management fees		2,975,114
Administration fees		32,332
Custodian and accounting fees		274,533
Distribution and service fees—Class B		966,417
Distribution and service fees—Class E		44,661
Distribution and service fees—Class G		285,938
Audit and tax services		44,040
Legal		33,031
Trustees’ fees and expenses		45,248
Shareholder reporting		164,034
Insurance		6,731
Miscellaneous		192,488
Total expenses		5,064,567
Less management fee waiver		(25,218	)
Net expenses		5,039,349
Net Investment Income		27,801,838
Net Realized and Unrealized Gain (Loss)
Net realized gain (loss) on:
Investments		1,530,528
Futures contracts		278,202
Foreign currency transactions		(513,952	)
Net realized gain		1,294,778
Net change in unrealized depreciation on:
Investments		(13,374,000	)
Futures contracts		(7,683	)
Foreign currency transactions		(15,552	)
Net change in unrealized depreciation		(13,397,235	)
Net realized and unrealized loss		(12,102,457	)
Net Increase in Net Assets From Operations	$	15,699,381

(a) Net of foreign withholding taxes of $2,702,922.

(b) Other income represents a non-recurring refund for overbilling of prior years’ custodian out-of-pocket fees.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-16

Metropolitan Series Fund

MSCI EAFE Index Portfolio

Statements of Changes in Net Assets

	Year Ended December 31, 2016			Year Ended December 31, 2015
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets:
From Operations
Net investment income	$	27,801,838		$	24,846,819
Net realized gain (loss)		1,294,778			(6,126,582	)
Net change in unrealized depreciation		(13,397,235	)		(29,385,462	)
Increase (decrease) in net assets from operations		15,699,381			(10,665,225	)
From Distributions to Shareholders
Net investment income
Class A		(12,581,615	)		(14,562,770	)
Class B		(9,346,457	)		(12,357,853	)
Class E		(740,137	)		(1,026,590	)
Class G		(2,272,642	)		(3,019,719	)
Total distributions		(24,940,851	)		(30,966,932	)
Increase in net assets from capital share transactions		43,616,044			64,623,279
Total increase in net assets		34,374,574			22,991,122
Net Assets
Beginning of period		983,321,564			960,330,442
End of period	$	1,017,696,138		$	983,321,564
Undistributed net investment income
End of period	$	20,805,946		$	18,316,673

Other Information:

Capital Shares

Transactions in capital shares were as follows:

	Year Ended December 31, 2016						Year Ended December 31, 2015
	Shares			Value			Shares			Value
Class A
Sales		5,749,280		$	65,578,434			6,272,137		$	79,515,163
Reinvestments		1,120,357			12,581,615			1,108,278			14,562,770
Redemptions		(3,480,264	)		(41,023,397	)		(3,046,693	)		(39,870,679	)
Net increase		3,389,373		$	37,136,652			4,333,722		$	54,207,254
Class B
Sales		2,296,371		$	26,002,064			2,583,811		$	31,901,634
Reinvestments		848,135			9,346,457			957,973			12,357,853
Redemptions		(2,928,273	)		(34,015,204	)		(3,059,588	)		(39,653,025	)
Net increase		216,233		$	1,333,317			482,196		$	4,606,462
Class E
Sales		105,785		$	1,216,258			156,699		$	1,969,785
Reinvestments		66,202			740,137			78,486			1,026,590
Redemptions		(278,954	)		(3,258,030	)		(364,841	)		(4,779,099	)
Net decrease		(106,967	)	$	(1,301,635	)		(129,656	)	$	(1,782,724	)
Class G
Sales		1,362,232		$	15,441,431			2,300,480		$	29,415,668
Reinvestments		207,358			2,272,642			235,364			3,019,719
Redemptions		(978,555	)		(11,266,363	)		(2,007,117	)		(24,843,100	)
Net increase		591,035		$	6,447,710			528,727		$	7,592,287
Increase derived from capital shares transactions				$	43,616,044					$	64,623,279

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-17

Metropolitan Series Fund

MSCI EAFE Index Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class A
	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014			2013			2012
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	12.14		$	12.67		$	13.83		$	11.72		$	10.22
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (a)		0.34	(b)		0.34			0.45			0.35			0.35
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.20	)		(0.45	)		(1.26	)		2.15			1.49
Total from investment operations		0.14			(0.11	)		(0.81	)		2.50			1.84
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.31	)		(0.42	)		(0.35	)		(0.39	)		(0.34	)
Total distributions		(0.31	)		(0.42	)		(0.35	)		(0.39	)		(0.34	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	11.97		$	12.14		$	12.67		$	13.83		$	11.72
Total Return (%) (c)		1.34			(1.09	)		(6.00	)		21.86			18.33
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Gross ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.38			0.40			0.40			0.40			0.41
Net ratio of expenses to average net assets (%) (d)		0.38			0.40			0.40			0.40			0.40
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		2.93	(b)		2.59			3.34			2.76			3.25
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		12			9			9			10			8
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	498.7		$	464.9		$	430.0		$	394.5		$	297.7
	Class B
	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014			2013			2012
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	11.91		$	12.43		$	13.58		$	11.52		$	10.05
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (a)		0.31	(b)		0.30			0.42			0.31			0.32
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.21	)		(0.43	)		(1.25	)		2.11			1.46
Total from investment operations		0.10			(0.13	)		(0.83	)		2.42			1.78
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.28	)		(0.39	)		(0.32	)		(0.36	)		(0.31	)
Total distributions		(0.28	)		(0.39	)		(0.32	)		(0.36	)		(0.31	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	11.73		$	11.91		$	12.43		$	13.58		$	11.52
Total Return (%) (c)		1.00			(1.28	)		(6.27	)		21.52			18.02
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Gross ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.63			0.65			0.65			0.65			0.66
Net ratio of expenses to average net assets (%) (d)		0.63			0.65			0.65			0.65			0.65
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		2.69	(b)		2.37			3.14			2.55			2.99
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		12			9			9			10			8
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	390.7		$	394.0		$	405.3		$	422.9		$	375.4

Please see following page for Financial Highlights footnote legend.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-18

Metropolitan Series Fund

MSCI EAFE Index Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class E
	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014			2013			2012
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	12.08		$	12.60		$	13.75		$	11.66		$	10.17
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (a)		0.33	(b)		0.32			0.44			0.33			0.33
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.22	)		(0.44	)		(1.26	)		2.13			1.48
Total from investment operations		0.11			(0.12	)		(0.82	)		2.46			1.81
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.29	)		(0.40	)		(0.33	)		(0.37	)		(0.32	)
Total distributions		(0.29	)		(0.40	)		(0.33	)		(0.37	)		(0.32	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	11.90		$	12.08		$	12.60		$	13.75		$	11.66
Total Return (%) (c)		1.08			(1.18	)		(6.11	)		21.62			18.13
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Gross ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.53			0.55			0.55			0.55			0.56
Net ratio of expenses to average net assets (%) (d)		0.53			0.55			0.55			0.55			0.55
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		2.80	(b)		2.48			3.26			2.66			3.11
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		12			9			9			10			8
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	29.6		$	31.3		$	34.3		$	38.9		$	37.0
	Class G
	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014			2013			2012
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	11.84		$	12.36		$	13.51		$	11.47		$	10.01
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (a)		0.30	(b)		0.29			0.41			0.31			0.31
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.20	)		(0.42	)		(1.25	)		2.09			1.46
Total from investment operations		0.10			(0.13	)		(0.84	)		2.40			1.77
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.28	)		(0.39	)		(0.31	)		(0.36	)		(0.31	)
Total distributions		(0.28	)		(0.39	)		(0.31	)		(0.36	)		(0.31	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	11.66		$	11.84		$	12.36		$	13.51		$	11.47
Total Return (%) (c)		0.97			(1.31	)		(6.33	)		21.44			17.94
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Gross ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.68			0.70			0.70			0.70			0.71
Net ratio of expenses to average net assets (%) (d)		0.68			0.70			0.70			0.70			0.70
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		2.63	(b)		2.32			3.10			2.49			2.94
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		12			9			9			10			8
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	98.6		$	93.1		$	90.7		$	99.3		$	69.8

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

(b) Net investment income per share and the ratio of net investment income to average net assets include a non-recurring refund for overbilling of prior years’ custodian out-of-pocket fees which amounted to less than $0.01 per share and 0.04% of average net assets, respectively.

(c) Total return does not reflect any insurance, sales, separate account or administrative charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts or any additional expenses that contract owners may bear under their variable contracts. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower.

(d) Includes the effects of management fee waivers (see Note 6 of the Notes to Financial Statements).

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-19

Metropolitan Series Fund

MSCI EAFE Index Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016

1. Organization

Metropolitan Series Fund (the “Trust”) is organized as a Delaware statutory trust and registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), as an open-end management investment company. The Trust, which is managed by MetLife Advisers, LLC (“MetLife Advisers” or the “Adviser”), an affiliate of MetLife, Inc., is currently comprised of thirty series, each of which operates as a distinct investment vehicle of the Trust. The portfolio included in this report is MSCI EAFE Index 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.

On January 12, 2016, MetLife, Inc. announced its plan to pursue the separation of a substantial portion of its retail segment and is currently evaluating structural alternatives for such separation. It is anticipated that MetLife Advisers would be included in any such separation. Any separation transaction that might occur will be subject to the satisfaction of various conditions and approvals, including approval of any transaction by the MetLife, Inc. Board of Directors, satisfaction of any applicable requirements of the SEC, and receipt of insurance and other regulatory approvals and other anticipated conditions. MetLife, Inc. cannot currently provide a specific potential completion date for a separation transaction or any assurance that a separation will in fact occur. MetLife Advisers’ continued service as investment adviser to the Trusts following a separation transaction is the subject of a proxy statement that was filed with the SEC on December 20, 2016 and mailed to shareholders of the Portfolio on or about December 30, 2016.

The Portfolio has registered and offers four classes of shares: Class A, B, E and G shares. 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 plan and such distribution expenses are allocated to the corresponding Class of shares.

2. Significant Accounting Policies

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities as of the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of income and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates. In the preparation of these financial statements, management has evaluated events and transactions subsequent to December 31, 2016 through the date the financial statements were issued.

The Portfolio is an investment company and follows the accounting and reporting guidance of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Accounting Standards Codification Topic 946- Financial Services- Investment Companies and Topic 820- Fair Value Measurement. 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 - Domestic and foreign equity securities, such as common stock, exchange-traded funds, rights, warrants, and preferred stock, that are traded on a securities exchange on a valuation date are generally valued at their last quoted sale price or official closing price on the primary exchange for such security, or, if no sales occurred on that day, at the last reported bid price. Equity securities traded over-the-counter (“OTC”) are generally valued at the last reported bid price. In the event of a major exchange closing during the trading day, the Adviser may use other market information obtained from quotation reporting systems, established market makers, or pricing services in valuing the securities. Valuation adjustments may be applied to certain foreign equity securities that are traded solely on foreign exchanges that close before the time as of which the Portfolio determines its NAV to account for the market movement between the close of the foreign exchanges and the time as of which the Portfolio determines its NAV. The Portfolio may use a systematic fair valuation model provided by a pricing service to value securities principally traded in these foreign markets in order to adjust for possible market movements or other changes that may occur between the close of the foreign exchanges and the time as of which the Portfolio determines its NAV. Foreign equity securities valued using these valuation adjustments are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy. Equity securities that are actively traded, and have no valuation adjustments applied, are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other equity securities traded on inactive markets, or valued in reference to similar instruments traded on active markets, 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 on the valuation date and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy.

Debt securities, including corporate, convertible and municipal bonds and notes; obligations of the U.S. Treasury and U.S. government agencies; foreign sovereign issues; 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 the Adviser (each a “pricing service”), pursuant to

MSF-20

Metropolitan Series Fund

MSCI EAFE Index Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

authorization of and subject to general oversight by the Board of Trustees of the Trust (the “Board” or “Trustees”). Such pricing services may use matrix pricing, which considers observable inputs including, among other things, issuer details, maturity dates, interest rates, yield curves, rates of prepayment, credit risks/spreads, default rates, reported trades, broker dealer quotes and quoted prices for similar assets. Short-term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less may be valued at amortized cost in the absence of market quotes, so long as the amortized cost value of such short-term debt instrument is approximately the same as the fair value of the instrument as determined without the use of amortized cost valuation. Floating rate loans are generally valued on the basis of an evaluated or composite average of aggregate bid and ask quotations supplied by brokers or dealers, as obtained from the pricing service. Securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally 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 sale price available as of the close of business on a valuation day or, if there is no such price available, at the last reported bid price. These types of options are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Futures contracts that are traded on commodity exchanges are valued at their settlement prices established by the exchanges on which they are traded as of the close of such exchanges and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy.

If no current market value quotation or other observable inputs are readily available or market value quotations are deemed to be unreliable for an investment, the fair value of the investment will be determined in accordance with procedures approved by, and under the general supervision of, the Board. In such a circumstance, the Board will be assisted in its responsibility to determine the fair value of an investment by the Valuation Committee (“Committee”) of MetLife Advisers. The Committee provides general pricing oversight and fair value pricing determinations related to portfolio securities and meets on a regular basis to review reports relating to the valuation of the securities in the Portfolio. The Board has delegated to State Street Bank and Trust Company, the Trust’s custodian (“custodian”), the responsibility for calculating the net asset values (“NAVs”) of the Trust’s Portfolios. The Committee is responsible for overseeing the calculation of the NAVs of the Portfolios by the custodian. The Committee also periodically reviews pricing services, including the pricing services providing fair value pricing for the Portfolio’s foreign securities, and is responsible for overseeing the correction of pricing errors and addressing other pricing issues that arise in the ordinary course of business, such as making real-time fair value determinations, as necessary.

No single standard for determining the fair value of an investment can be set forth because fair value depends upon the facts and circumstances with respect to each investment. Information relating to any relevant factors may be obtained by the Committee from any appropriate source, including the subadviser of the Portfolio, the custodian, a pricing service, market maker and/or broker for such security or the issuer. Appropriate methodologies for determining fair value under particular circumstances may include: matrix pricing, a discounted cash flow analysis, comparisons of securities with comparable characteristics, value based on multiples of earnings, discount from market price of similar marketable securities or a combination of these and other methods.

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 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. These foreign taxes have been provided for in accordance with the Portfolio’s understanding of the applicable countries’ tax rules and rates.

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 the U.S. dollar 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. Because the values of investment securities are translated at the foreign exchange rates prevailing at the end of the period, that portion of the results of operations arising from changes in exchange rates and that portion of the results of operations reflecting fluctuations arising from changes in market prices of the investment securities are not separated. 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. 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.

Dividends and Distributions to Shareholders - The Portfolio records dividends and distributions on the ex-dividend date. Net realized gains from securities 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

MSF-21

Metropolitan Series Fund

MSCI EAFE Index Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

distributed net investment income, accumulated net realized gains/losses, and paid-in surplus. Book-tax differences are primarily due to foreign currency transactions and passive foreign investment companies (PFICs). These adjustments have no impact on net assets or the results 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 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. As of December 31, 2016, the Portfolio had no uncertain tax positions that would require financial statement recognition, or de-recognition or disclosure.

Repurchase Agreements - The Portfolio may enter into repurchase agreements, under the terms of a Master Repurchase Agreement (“MRA”), 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, under a tri-party repurchase agreement, receives delivery of the underlying securities collateralizing any repurchase agreements. It is the Portfolio’s policy that the market value of the collateral be equal to at least 100% of the repurchase price in the case of a repurchase agreement of one-day duration and equal to at least 102% of the repurchase price in the case of all other repurchase agreements. In the event of default or failure by a party to perform an obligation in connection with any repurchase transaction, the MRA gives the non-defaulting party the right to set-off claims and to apply property held by it in connection with any repurchase transaction against obligations owed to it.

At December 31, 2016, the Portfolio invested cash collateral for loans of portfolio securities in repurchase agreements with a gross value of $12,941,209. The combined value of all repurchase agreements is included as part of investments at value on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. The value of the related collateral exceeded the value of the repurchase agreements at December 31, 2016.

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 collateral held from securities on loan. 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.

Effective September 8, 2016, the Trust has entered into a Non-Custodial Securities Lending Agreement with JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (the “lending agent”). Prior to September 8, 2016, the Trust had entered into a Securities Lending Authorization Agreement with the custodian (the “prior lending agent”). Under each agreement, the lending agent is authorized to loan portfolio securities on the Portfolio’s behalf. In exchange, the Portfolio receives either cash or government securities as collateral against the loaned securities. The Portfolio receives collateral equal to at least 102% of the market value for loans secured by government securities or cash in the same currency as the loaned shares and 105% for all other loaned securities at each loan’s inception. Collateral representing at least 100% of the market value of the loaned securities is maintained for the duration of the loan. Any cash collateral received by the Portfolio is generally invested by the lending agent in short-term investments, which may include certificates of deposit, commercial paper, repurchase agreements, time deposits and money market funds. Cash collateral that was received by the prior lending agent had been generally invested in the State Street Navigator Securities Lending MET Portfolio (the “Navigator Portfolio”), a series of the State Street Navigator Securities Lending Trust that was a registered money market fund managed by an affiliate of the custodian. The market value of investments made with cash collateral received are disclosed in the Schedule of Investments and the valuation techniques are described in Note 2. 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 is 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 is equal to at least 100% of the market value of all the loaned securities as of such preceding day. A portion of the income earned on the collateral is rebated to the borrower of the securities and the remainder is split between the lending agent and the Portfolio. On loans collateralized by government securities, a fee is received from the borrower and is allocated between the Portfolio and the lending agent.

Income received by the Portfolio in securities lending transactions during the year ended December 31, 2016 is reflected as securities lending income on the Statement of Operations. The values of any securities loaned by the Portfolio and the related collateral at December 31, 2016 are disclosed in the footnotes to the Schedule of Investments. The value of the related collateral received by the Portfolio exceeded the value of the securities out on loan at December 31, 2016.

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. The lending agent shall indemnify the Portfolio in the case of default of any securities borrower, subject to the terms of the Non-Custodial Securities Lending Agreement.

MSF-22

Metropolitan Series Fund

MSCI EAFE Index Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

The following table provides a breakdown of transactions accounted for as secured borrowings, the gross obligations by the type of collateral pledged, and the remaining contractual maturities of those transactions, which are accounted for as secured borrowings.

	Remaining Contractual Maturity of the Agreements As of December 31, 2016
	Overnight and Continuous			Up to 30 Days		31 - 90 Days		Greater than 90 days		Total
Securities Lending Transactions
Common Stocks	$	(5,628,150	)	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	(5,628,150	)
Mutual Funds		(7,313,059	)		—		—		—		(7,313,059	)
Total	$	(12,941,209	)	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	(12,941,209	)
Total Borrowings	$	(12,941,209	)	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	(12,941,209	)
Gross amount of recognized liabilities for securities lending transactions										$	(12,941,209	)

3. Investments in Derivative Instruments

Futures Contracts - The Portfolio may buy and sell futures contracts 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 cash collateral 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 whether unrealized gains or losses are incurred. These amounts are reflected as receivables or payables on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities and as a component of net change in unrealized appreciation/depreciation on the Statement of Operations. When the contract is closed or expires, the Portfolio records 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. 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. If futures contracts are exchange-traded, the exchange’s clearinghouse, as counterparty to all exchange-traded futures, guarantees the futures contracts against default. For OTC futures, the Portfolio’s ability to terminate the positions may be more limited than in the case of exchange-traded positions and may also involve the risk that securities dealers participating in such transactions would fail to meet their obligations to the Portfolio.

The following table summarizes the fair value of derivatives held by the Portfolio at December 31, 2016 by category of risk exposure:

	Liability Derivatives
Risk Exposure	Statement of Assets & Liabilities Location	Fair Value
Equity	Unrealized depreciation on futures contracts (a)		112,758

(a) Includes cumulative appreciation/depreciation of futures contracts as reported in the Schedule of Investments. Only the current day’s variation margin is reported within the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

The following tables summarize the effect of derivative instruments on the Statement of Operations, classified by derivative type and category of risk exposure, for the year ended December 31, 2016:

Statement of Operations Location—Net Realized Gain (Loss)	Equity
Futures contracts	$	278,202
Statement of Operations Location—Net Change in Unrealized Appreciation (Depreciation)	Equity
Futures contracts	$	(7,683	)

For the year ended December 31, 2016, the average notional par or face amount outstanding for each derivative type was as follows:

Derivative Description	Average Notional Par or Face Amount‡
Futures contracts long	$	9,875

‡ Averages are based on activity levels during the year.

MSF-23

Metropolitan Series Fund

MSCI EAFE Index Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

4. Certain Risks

In the normal course of business, the Portfolio invests in securities and enters into transactions where risks exist. Those risks include:

Market 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, interest rate, and price fluctuations.

Credit and Counterparty Risk: 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 and counterparty risk consist principally of cash due from counterparties and investments. The Portfolio manages counterparty risk by entering into agreements only with counterparties that it believes have the financial resources to honor their obligations and by monitoring the financial stability of those counterparties. The Portfolio’s investment adviser attempts to mitigate counterparty risk by (i) periodically assessing the creditworthiness of its trading partners, (ii) monitoring and/or limiting the amount of its net exposure to each individual counterparty based on its assessment, and (iii) requiring collateral from the counterparty for certain transactions. In order to preserve certain safeguards for non-standard settlement trades, the Portfolio restricts its exposure to credit and counterparty losses by entering into master netting agreements (“Master Agreements”) with counterparties (approved brokers) with whom it undertakes a significant volume of transactions. Master Agreements govern the terms of certain transactions, and reduce the counterparty risk associated with relevant transactions by specifying credit protection mechanisms and providing standardization that improves legal certainty. Master Agreements can also help limit counterparty risk by specifying collateral posting arrangements at pre-arranged exposure levels.

Repurchase and reverse repurchase agreements are primarily executed under Global Master Repurchase Agreements (“GMRAs”) or Master Repurchase Agreements (“MRAs”), which provide the rights to set-off. Each repurchase and reverse repurchase agreement is initially collateralized at the transaction level. In the event of default, the total market value exposure will be offset against collateral exchanged to date, which would result in a net receivable/(payable) that would be due from/to the counterparty.

Customer Account Agreements and related addenda govern cleared derivatives transactions such as futures, options on futures, and cleared OTC derivatives. Cleared derivative transactions require posting of initial margin as determined by each relevant clearing agency, which is segregated at a broker account registered with the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”), or the applicable regulator. In the U.S., counterparty risk is significantly reduced as creditors of the futures broker do not have claim to Portfolio assets in the segregated account. Additionally, portability of exposure in the event of default further reduces risk to the Portfolio. Variation margin, or changes in market value, are exchanged daily, but may not be netted between futures and cleared OTC derivatives.

Foreign Investment Risk: The investments by the Portfolio in foreign securities may involve risks not present in domestic investments. Because securities may be denominated in foreign currencies, may require settlement in foreign currencies and may pay interest or dividends in foreign currencies, changes in the relationship of these foreign currencies to the U.S. dollar can significantly affect the value of the investments and earnings of the Portfolio. Foreign investments may also subject the Portfolio to foreign government exchange restrictions, expropriation, taxation or other political, social or economic developments, all of which could affect the market and/or credit risk of the investments. In addition to the risks described above, risks may arise from forward foreign currency contracts with respect to the potential inability of counterparties to meet the terms of their contracts.

Additional risks associated with each type of investment are described above within the respective security type notes. The Portfolio’s prospectus includes a discussion of the principal risks of investing in the Portfolio.

5. Investment Transactions

Aggregate cost of purchases and proceeds of sales of investment securities, excluding short-term securities, for the year ended December 31, 2016 were as follows:

Purchases			Sales
U.S. Government	Non U.S. Government		U.S. Government		Non U.S. Government
$0	$	166,738,588	$	0	$	115,621,484

6. Investment Management Fees and Other Transactions with Affiliates

Investment Management Agreement - MetLife Advisers is the investment adviser to the Portfolio. The Trust has entered into an investment management agreement with MetLife Advisers with respect to the Portfolio. For providing investment management services to the Portfolio, MetLife Advisers receives monthly compensation at the annual rate of 0.300% of average daily net assets. Fees earned by MetLife Advisers with respect to the Portfolio for the year ended December 31, 2016 were $2,975,114.

MSF-24

Metropolitan Series Fund

MSCI EAFE Index Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

MetLife Advisers has entered into an investment subadvisory agreement with MetLife Investment Advisors, LLC (“MIA”) with respect to managing the Portfolio. For providing subadvisory services to the Portfolio, MetLife Advisers has agreed to pay MIA an investment subadvisory fee for each class of the Portfolio as follows:

% per annum	Average Daily Net Assets
0.050%	On the first $500 million
0.040%	Of the next $500 million
0.020%	On amounts over $1 billion

Fees earned by MIA with respect to the Portfolio for the year ended December 31, 2016 were $444,162.

Management Fee Waiver - Pursuant to a management fee waiver agreement, the Adviser has agreed, for the period May 1, 2016 to April 30, 2017, to reduce its advisory fees set out above under “Investment Management Agreement” for each class of the Portfolio as follows:

% per annum	Average Daily Net Assets
0.005%	Over $500 million and under $1 billion
0.010%	Of the next $1 billion
0.015%	On amounts over $2 billion

An identical agreement was in place for the period May 1, 2015 to April 30, 2016. Amounts waived for the year ended December 31, 2016 are shown as a management fee waiver in the Statement of Operations.

Certain officers and trustees of the Trust may also be officers of MetLife Advisers; 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 and Service Fees - The Trust has a distribution agreement with MetLife Investors Distribution Company (“MIDC” or the “Distributor”) in which MIDC serves as the distributor for the Portfolio’s Class A, B, E, and G Shares. MIDC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife Investors Group, LLC, an affiliate of the Adviser. The Trust has also adopted a Distribution and Service Plan under Rule 12b-1 of the 1940 Act for the Portfolio’s Class B, E, and G Shares. Under the Distribution and Service Plan, the Class B, E, and G Shares of the Portfolio pay a fee to compensate the Insurance Companies (or their affiliates) and other broker-dealers and financial intermediaries involved in the offer and sale of Portfolio shares for promoting or selling and servicing the Class B, E, and G Shares of the Portfolio. The fees under the Distribution and Service Plan for each class of the Portfolio’s shares are calculated as a percentage of the Portfolio’s average daily net assets that are attributable to that Class. Currently, the fee is 0.25% per year for Class B Shares, 0.15% per year for Class E Shares, and 0.30% per year for Class G Shares. Amounts incurred by the Portfolio for the year ended December 31, 2016 are shown as Distribution and service fees in the Statement of Operations.

Deferred Trustee Compensation - Each Trustee 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 Trust. 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 Met Investors Series Trust, an affiliate of the Trust, 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 under the Plan is reflected as Deferred trustees’ fees in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

7. Contractual Obligations

Under the Trust’s organizational documents, its officers and Trustees may be indemnified against certain liabilities and expenses arising out of the performance of their duties to the Trust. Additionally, 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 Trust that have not yet occurred.

8. Income Tax Information

The tax character of distributions paid for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015 were as follows:

Ordinary Income			Long-Term Capital Gain				Total
2016	2015		2016		2015		2016		2015
$24,940,851	$	30,966,932	$	—	$	—	$	24,940,851	$	30,966,932

MSF-25

Metropolitan Series Fund

MSCI EAFE Index Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

As of December 31, 2016, 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			Other Accumulated Capital Losses			Total
$28,503,271	$	—	$	30,097,317	$	(26,531,041	)	$	(11,719,235	)	$	20,350,312

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 up to 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, 2016, the post-enactment accumulated short-term capital losses were $2,156,264, the post-enactment accumulated long-term capital losses were $9,562,971 and the pre-enactment accumulated capital loss carryforwards and expiration dates were as follows:

Expiring 12/31/17	Expiring 12/31/18		Total
$23,421,712	$	3,109,329	$	26,531,041

9. Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In October 2016, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) adopted new rules and forms, and amendments to certain current rules and forms, to modernize reporting and disclosure of information by registered investment companies. The amendments to Regulation S-X will require standardized, enhanced disclosure about derivatives in investment company financial statements, and will also change the rules governing the form and content of such financial statements. The compliance date for the amendments to Regulation S-X is August 1, 2017. Management is currently evaluating the impact that the adoption of the amendments to Regulation S-X will have on the Portfolio’s financial statements and related disclosures.

MSF-26

Metropolitan Series Fund

MSCI EAFE Index Portfolio

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Shareholders of MSCI EAFE Index Portfolio and the Board of Trustees of Metropolitan Series Fund:

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities, including the schedule of investments, of MSCI EAFE Index Portfolio (one of the portfolios constituting the Metropolitan Series Fund) (the “Portfolio”) as of December 31, 2016, 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 Portfolio’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 Portfolio 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 Portfolio’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, 2016, by correspondence with the custodian and brokers; when 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 MSCI EAFE Index Portfolio of the Metropolitan Series Fund as of December 31, 2016, 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.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

February 24, 2017

MSF-27

Metropolitan Series Fund

Trustees and Officers

MANAGEMENT OF THE TRUSTS

The Boards of Trustees (the “Board”) of Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (“MIST” and “MSF”, respectively, and collectively the “Trusts”) supervise the Trusts and are responsible for representing the interests of shareholders. The Trustees, the Chairman of the Board and the Chairmen of each subcommittee are the same for both Trusts. The Trustees of each Trust meet periodically throughout the year to oversee the Portfolios’ activities, reviewing, among other things, each Portfolio’s performance and its contractual arrangements with various service providers. The Trustees of each Trust elect the officers of the Trust, who are responsible for administering the Trust’s day-to-day operations.

Trustees and Officers

The Trustees and executive officers of the Trusts, as well as their ages and their principal occupations during the past five years, are set forth below. Unless otherwise indicated, the business address of each is c/o MetLife Funds, One Financial Center, Boston, Massachusetts 02111. Each Trustee who is deemed an “interested person,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, is referred to as an “Interested Trustee.” Those Trustees who are not “interested persons,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, are referred to as “Independent Trustees.” There is no limit to the term a Trustee may serve. Trustees serve until their death, resignation or removal in accordance with the MIST Trust’s and MSF Trust’s respective organizational documents and policies adopted by the Boards of the respective Trusts from time to time. Officers hold office at the pleasure of each Board and serve until their removal or resignation in accordance with the Trusts’ respective organizational documents and policies adopted by the Board of each Trust from time to time.

Name and Age	Current 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 MetLife Funds Complex(2) Overseen by Trustee	Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Interested Trustee
John Rosenthal* (56)	Trustee	Indefinite; From May 2016 (MIST and MSF) to present	Senior Managing Director and Head of Global Portfolio Management, MetLife, Inc.	75	None
Independent Trustees
Dawn M. Vroegop (50)	Trustee and Chairman of the Board	Indefinite; From December 2000 (MIST)/ May 2009 (MSF) to present as Trustee; From May 2016 (MIST and MSF) until present as Chairman	Private Investor.	75	Trustee, Driehaus Mutual Funds.**
Stephen M. Alderman (57)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 (MIST)/ April 2012 (MSF) to present	Shareholder in the law firm of Garfield and Merel, Ltd.	75	None

MSF-28

Metropolitan Series Fund

Trustees and Officers—(Continued)

Name and Age	Current 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 MetLife Funds Complex(2) Overseen by Trustee	Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Robert J. Boulware (60)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 (MIST)/ April 2012 (MSF) to present	Managing Director, Pilgrim Funds, LLC (private equity fund).	75	Trustee, Vertical Capital Income Fund (closed-end fund);** Director, Gainsco, Inc. (auto insurance);** Trustee, SharesPost 100 Fund (closed-end fund).**
Susan C. Gause (64)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 (MIST)/ April 2012 (MSF) to present	Private Investor.	75	Trustee, HSBC Funds.**
Nancy Hawthorne (65)	Trustee	Indefinite; From May 2003 (MSF)/ April 2012 (MIST) to present	Partner, Hawthorne Financial Advisors, LLC (registered investment advisor); until June 2014, Chief Executive Officer, Clerestory LLC (corporate advisor).	75	Director and Chairman of the Board of Directors, THL Credit, Inc.;** Lead Director, Avid Technology, Inc.;** Director, CRA International, Inc.**
Barbara A. Nugent (60)	Trustee	Indefinite; From January 2014 (MIST and MSF) to present	President, True North Board Governance, LLC (consulting); until December 2013, partner in the law firm of Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young, LLP.	75	None
Linda B. Strumpf (69)	Trustee	Indefinite; From May 2000 (MSF)/ April 2012 (MIST) to present	Chair of the Investment Committee, Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust; until June 2011, Chief Investment Officer, Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust.	75	None

Executive Officers

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Kristi Slavin (43)	President and Chief Executive Officer, of MIST and MSF	From May 2016 (MIST and MSF) to present	President, MetLife Advisers, LLC (May 2016-present); Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Vice President, MetLife, Inc.; Vice President, MIST and MSF (2015-2016).

MSF-29

Metropolitan Series Fund

Trustees and Officers—(Continued)

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Peter H. Duffy (61)	Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, of MIST and MSF	From November 2000 (MSF)/ May 2012 (MIST) to present	Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Andrew L. Gangolf (62)	Secretary, of MIST and MSF	From May 2011 (MIST and MSF) to present	Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; until 2011, Senior Vice President & Assistant General Counsel, AllianceBernstein Investments, Inc.
Steven E. Hartstein (53)	Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”), of MIST and MSF	From February 2014 (MIST and MSF) to present	Vice President, MetLife, Inc. (2013- present); Senior Vice President and CCO, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Executive Director, Morgan Stanley (2009-2013); CCO, Consulting Group Capital Markets Funds (2006-2013).
Alan C. Leland (64)	Vice President, of MIST and MSF	From February 2005 (MSF)/ May 2012 (MIST) to present	Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Vice President, MetLife, Inc.

* Mr. Rosenthal is an “interested person” of the Trusts because of his position with MetLife, Inc., the current parent company of MetLife Advisers, LLC.

** 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 Trusts, MetLife, Inc. or the Manager are omitted if not materially different.

(2) The Fund Complex includes 45 MIST Portfolios and 30 MSF Portfolios.

MSF-30

Metropolitan Series Fund

MSCI EAFE Index Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements

At an in-person meeting held on November 15-16, 2016 (the “November Meeting”), the Boards of Trustees (the “Board”) of the Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (“MIST” and “MSF,” respectively, and collectively, the “Trusts”), including a majority of the Trustees who are not “interested persons” of the Trusts (the “Independent Trustees”) under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “1940 Act”), approved the continuation of the Trusts’ advisory agreements (each, an “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 the series of the Trusts (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”).

In reaching that decision, the Board reviewed a variety of materials provided for the specific purpose of the annual contract renewal process. In addition, various materials provided to and discussed with the Board throughout the year also informed the Board’s decision to renew the Agreements. That information for each Portfolio included, but was not limited to, investment performance reports, along with periodic reports on various expenses, shareholder services, legal and compliance matters, asset pricing, brokerage commissions and trade execution. The Board also recognized the pending separation of the Adviser from its parent company, MetLife, Inc., as a consideration in their deliberations with respect to the Agreements.

The Board met in person with personnel of the Adviser on September 27, 2016 for the specific purpose of giving preliminary consideration to the proposed continuation of the Agreements (the “September Meeting”) through the review by the Adviser with the Board of the performance and fees experienced by each Portfolio, as well as other information. In considering the Agreements, the Independent Trustees were advised by independent legal counsel throughout the contract renewal process, and met with independent legal counsel in several executive sessions outside of the presence of management.

Information furnished and reviewed specifically in connection with the renewal process included, but was not limited to, a report for each Portfolio prepared by Broadridge (“Broadridge”), an independent organization, and a Portfolio-by-Portfolio profitability analysis prepared by the Adviser. In addition, the Independent Trustees received and reviewed a report prepared by JDL Consultants, LLC (“JDL”), an independent consultant to the Independent Trustees (“JDL Report”), which examined the comparative fees, expenses and performance of each Portfolio, based upon the Broadridge reports. Also, the Board reviewed the responses to wide-ranging questions relating to the business, operations and performance of the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers that the Adviser and Sub-Advisers had prepared specifically for the renewal process.

At the November Meeting, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, concluded that the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser supported the renewal of the Agreements. The Board also concluded that the investment performance of each Portfolio was such that each Agreement should continue, and that the fees paid by a Portfolio to the Adviser appeared to be reasonable in light of the nature, extent and quality of the services provided by the Adviser and Sub-Adviser. Further, the Board concluded that the Adviser’s profitability in providing services under the Advisory Agreements did not appear unreasonably high in light of the nature, extent and quality of the services provided by the Adviser. Finally, the Board concluded that the investment advisory fees paid by the Portfolios in some measure shared economies of scale with contract holders. In approving the renewal of each of the Agreements, the Board, including the Independent Trustees, gave attention to all of the information that was furnished. The Board evaluated the information available to it on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis, and its decision was made separately with respect to each Portfolio. The following discusses some of the primary factors that generally were relevant to the Board’s decision. The Board did not identify any single factor as controlling, and the Trustees generally attributed different weights to various factors for the various Portfolios.

Nature, extent and quality of services. The Board evaluated the nature, extent and quality of the services that the Adviser, and the Sub-Advisers as relevant, have provided to the Portfolios. The Board considered the Adviser’s services as investment manager to the Portfolios, including its services relating to the oversight of the Sub-Advisers and their investment management activities, trading practices, financial condition, relevant personnel matters and compliance programs, among other things. The Adviser’s services in coordinating and overseeing the activities of the Trusts’ other service providers were also considered. The Board considered information received from the Trusts’ Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) regarding the Portfolios’ compliance policies and procedures that were established pursuant to Rule 38a-l under the 1940 Act. In addition, throughout the year, the Board considered the expertise, experience and performance of the personnel of the Adviser who performed the various services that are mentioned above.

The Board also noted that the Adviser’s investment, compliance and legal staff conduct regular, periodic, telephonic and in-person meetings with the Sub-Advisers to review and assess the services that are provided to the Portfolios, and that personnel of the Adviser prepare and present reports to the Independent Trustees regarding those meetings.

MSF-31

Metropolitan Series Fund

MSCI EAFE Index Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

With respect to the services provided by each of the Sub-Advisers, the Board considered a variety of information that the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser provided. The Board considered each Sub-Adviser’s investment process and philosophy, and the investment performance experienced by the Portfolio (as described in more detail below). The Board took into account that each Sub-Adviser’s responsibilities include the development and maintenance of an investment program for the applicable Portfolio that 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. In particular, the Board considered, among other things, the Sub-Adviser’s current level of staffing as well as its compensation program and its overall resources. The Board reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s history and investment experience, as well as information provided 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 regulatory and disciplinary history. In its review, the Board also took into account information regarding any services and/or payments provided to the Adviser by the Sub-Advisers in connection with marketing activities.

Performance. The Board placed emphasis on the performance of the Portfolios in light of, among other things, its importance to contract holders. The Board considered the Adviser’s quarterly reviews with the Board of detailed information about each Portfolio’s investment strategies and performance results and composition, including discussions regarding the relevant effect of current market conditions. The Board reviewed and considered the reports prepared by Broadridge, which provided a statistical analysis comparing the Portfolios’ investment performance to that of comparable funds underlying variable insurance products (the “Performance Universe”). The Independent Trustees also met separately with a representative of JDL during the September Meeting to review the JDL Report. The Board also compared the performance records of certain Portfolios to those of comparable funds that were managed by the relevant Sub-Adviser. At the November Meeting, the Board considered each Portfolio’s performance for periods subsequent to the performance period covered by the Broadridge reports, and the Adviser’s discussion of the same, including the effect of current market conditions on each Portfolio’s more recent performance.

The Board focused particular attention on Portfolios with less favorable performance records. The Board noted the Adviser’s focus on each Sub-Adviser’s performance and that the Adviser has been active in monitoring and responding to any performance issues with respect to the Portfolios.

Fees and Expenses. The Board gave consideration to the level and method of computing the fees payable under the Agreements. The Board considered the Broadridge report for each of the Portfolios, which included comparisons for each Portfolio of its contractual management and sub-adviser fees (at current and various asset levels), and total expenses, with those of its peers, including as those peers were divided into a broad group of peer funds (“Expense Universe”), a narrower group of peer funds (“Expense Group”), a broad group of peer sub-advised funds (“Sub-advised Expense Universe”), and a narrower group of peer sub-advised funds (“Sub-advised Expense Group”). Broadridge selected the peer funds which were similarly situated funds underlying variable insurance products deemed to be comparable to the Portfolios. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of JDL, also examined the JDL Report. The Board compared the fee payable to a Sub-Adviser by the Adviser with respect to the Portfolio to the fee payable to the Sub-Adviser by other comparable funds and accounts, to the extent such information was available.

The Board noted that the sub-advisory fees for the Portfolios are paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fee, and that, in the case of an unaffiliated Sub-Adviser, the Adviser negotiates the fee at arm’s length. The Board also considered that the Adviser had entered into expense limitation or management fee waiver agreements with certain of the Portfolios pursuant to which the Adviser had 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.

Profitability. The Board examined the profitability of the Adviser on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis. The Board also considered that an affiliate of the Adviser, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, serves as distributor for the Trusts, and, as such, receives Rule 12b-1 payments to support the distribution of the Portfolios. The Board considered the profitability to the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates as a result of their relationships with the Portfolios, to the extent available, and the Board considered the ability of the Adviser to negotiate with an unaffiliated Sub-Adviser at arm’s length. In reviewing the profitability analyses, the Board recognized that expense allocation methodologies are inherently subjective and various expense allocation methodologies may be reasonable while producing different results.

Economies of scale. The Board also considered each Portfolio’s fees in light of its size. The Board noted the fee schedules for the Portfolios that 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

MSF-32

Metropolitan Series Fund

MSCI EAFE Index Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

schedule for such Portfolios. The Board considered the effective fees under the Advisory Agreement and Sub-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. The Board examined, among other data, the effect of a Portfolio’s growth in size, and reduction in size, on various fee schedules and the Board reviewed the Broadridge and JDL Reports, which compared fees among peers. The Board also generally noted that if a Portfolio’s assets increase over time, the Portfolio may realize other economies of scale if assets increase proportionally more than certain other fixed expenses.

Other factors. The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trusts. Among them, the Board recognized that MetLife Investors Distribution Company, as the distributor for the Trusts, receives payments pursuant to Rule 12b-1 from the Portfolios to compensate for the provision of shareholder services and distribution activities, which could lead to growth in the Trusts’ assets and corresponding benefits from such growth, including economies of scale. The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by each Sub-Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trusts, including the opportunity to provide advisory services to additional portfolios of the Trusts and reputational benefits. In conjunction with these considerations, the Board noted the ongoing commitment of the Adviser to the Portfolios.

The Board considered possible conflicts of interest in the form of material benefits or detriments to the Trusts resulting from the nature of the Trusts’ and the Adviser’s or the Sub-Advisers’ affiliations and the services that are provided to the Trusts, and the manner in which such conflicts were mitigated.

* * *

MSCI EAFE Index Portfolio. The Board also considered the following information in relation to the Agreements with the Adviser and MetLife Investment Advisors, LLC regarding the Portfolio:

Among other data relating specifically to the 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, 2016. The Board also noted that the Portfolio outperformed its Lipper Index for the three-year period ended June 30, 2016 and underperformed its Lipper Index for the one- and five-year periods ended June 30, 2016. The Board took into account that the Portfolio outperformed its benchmark, the MSCI EAFE Index, for the one-year period ended October 31, 2016 and underperformed its benchmark for the three- and five-year periods ended October 31, 2016.

The Board also 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 asset-weighted average of certain comparable funds at the Portfolio’s current size. The Board also noted that the Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees were below the averages of the Sub-advised Expense Group and the Sub-advised Expense Universe at the Portfolio’s current size.

MSF-33

Metropolitan Series Fund

MSCI EAFE Index Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Advisory Agreements

The separation (the “Separation”) of MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”), the investment adviser to each of the series (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”) of Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (collectively, the “Trusts”), from its parent company, MetLife, Inc. (“MetLife”), to a separate retail business, Brighthouse Financial, Inc. (“Brighthouse”), is expected to result in a change in control of the Adviser, and therefore an “assignment” of each Portfolio’s current advisory agreement (each a “Current Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “Current Advisory Agreements”). At the November 15-16, 2016 meeting (“November Meeting”) of the Board of Trustees of the Trusts (the “Board”), the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not “interested persons,” as defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940, of any Portfolio (the “Independent Trustees”), approved a new advisory agreement (each a “New Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “New Advisory Agreements”) between the Trusts, on behalf of a Portfolio, and the Adviser, to be effective upon the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements in connection with the Separation, and recommended that the shareholders of the Trusts approve the New Advisory Agreements. The Board took those actions after consideration of and deliberation over information concerning the Separation, including with respect to the degree to which the Separation would affect the provision of investment advisory services to the Trusts. Information about the Board’s considerations and process is set forth below.

In determining whether to approve the New Advisory Agreements and in considering the Separation, the Board considered the nature, quality and extent of the services that are currently provided by the Adviser under the Current Advisory Agreements as well as the services to be provided under the New Advisory Agreements. The Board’s review was conducted as part of, and in conjunction with, the Board’s annual review of the Current Advisory Agreements, which culminated at the November Meeting. In approving the New Advisory Agreements, the Board considered its conclusions with respect to its approvals of the Current Advisory Agreements, including the Board’s general satisfaction with the nature, extent and quality of services being provided by the Adviser to each Portfolio. Appendix A and Appendix B contains a further description of the process followed, information reviewed and the material factors considered by the Board in approving the continuation of the Current Advisory Agreements.

A substantial portion of the Board’s review of the New Advisory Agreements focused on the Separation, including the potential effect of the implementation of the Separation on the operations, personnel, organizational structure, capitalization, and financial and other resources of the Adviser. After being informed by the Adviser in January 2016 of the possibility of the Separation, the Board and its Committees discussed the Separation and its possible effects on the Trusts with personnel of the Adviser and the anticipated senior management at Brighthouse during the course of the Board’s or Committee’s regularly scheduled, in-person, quarterly meetings.

Between August and November 2016, the Board and the Independent Trustees engaged in an extensive review and analysis of the Separation and how the Separation related to the Adviser and the Trusts and how it could affect the services provided to the Trusts. This analysis focused on, among other matters, the assurances from Brighthouse’s anticipated leadership as to its expectations for the continuity and stability of the Adviser’s personnel throughout implementation of the Separation and for the foreseeable future thereafter. The Board considered that the Separation is being implemented as a result of MetLife’s determination to divest itself of a substantial portion of its U.S. retail business (of which the Adviser forms a portion). The Board also considered that it has been satisfied as a general matter with the nature and quality of the services that the Adviser provides to the Portfolios, including investment advisory, administrative, legal, compliance, and support services, and that it would be in the Portfolios’ best interests to maintain continuity and stability in the services that are currently being provided. The Board carefully considered the anticipated future plans of Brighthouse related to capitalization and operational matters for Brighthouse and the Adviser, as well as the importance of the Adviser to the businesses of Brighthouse after the Separation.

Among other steps in its review process, which accelerated on October 5, 2016 when Brighthouse filed its Form 10 with the SEC, the following actions were taken and considered by or on behalf of the Board:

1. The Independent Trustees solicited and received ongoing advice regarding the legal duties of the Independent Trustees from Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young LLP (“Stradley Ronon”), legal counsel for the Independent Trustees, which law firm has extensive experience regarding such matters.

2. Following the August 16-17, 2016 Board and Committee quarterly meetings, the Independent Trustees established an ad hoc group of Independent Trustees (the “Working Group”) to help oversee, coordinate, and conduct due diligence activities with respect to the Separation. The Working Group regularly reported on the due diligence activities to the other Independent Trustees.

3. Since January 2016, the Board posed ongoing inquiries to, and received regular updates from, the Adviser and anticipated senior management at Brighthouse at either in-person meetings dedicated to the status of the Separation or during the course of the Board or Committee’s regular quarterly meetings. The Board considered, among other matters, relevant legal guidance and the processes followed by certain other investment company boards of directors or trustees when they approved contracts in connection with change in control events, while recognizing the unique circumstances of the Separation.

MSF-34

Metropolitan Series Fund

MSCI EAFE Index Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

4. The Board received and reviewed the Form 10 of Brighthouse that contained extensive information relating to, among other matters, Brighthouse’s anticipated business plans and financial structure. The Board also received and reviewed reports from rating agencies with respect to Brighthouse.

5. Stradley Ronon retained Barrington Partners (“Barrington”), an independent consulting firm with a specific focus on the asset management industry and experience relating to business operations such as those to be conducted by Brighthouse, including its proposed subsidiary, the Adviser, in order to help Stradley Ronon evaluate the Separation based on the Form 10 and other materials and related information provided by the Adviser and its affiliates. Barrington conducted a series of in-person and telephonic meetings with anticipated senior management at Brighthouse (i.e., the aforementioned anticipated officers of Brighthouse and others) and with personnel of the Adviser who provide services to the Trusts. Stradley Ronon, with the assistance of Barrington, evaluated the information and advised the Independent Trustees with respect to, among other matters, details of Brighthouse’s anticipated business plan to understand the implications of the Separation to the Adviser and its personnel. The Independent Trustees and the Working Group attended certain in-person and telephonic conference call meetings at which Barrington rendered advice to Stradley Ronon regarding these matters and responded to questions.

6. The Independent Trustees requested and participated in in-person meetings with anticipated senior management personnel at Brighthouse, including its President and Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, Chief Operating Officer, and Chief Investment Officer. The Independent Trustees also met with personnel of the Adviser.

7. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of Stradley Ronon, prepared written inquiries to the Adviser and its affiliates regarding the Separation, and received written assurances from the Adviser and its affiliates that they have no plans to make any material changes affecting the personnel of the Adviser (including those personnel who provide investment, administrative, legal and compliance services) and the Adviser and its affiliates will not initiate such changes without prior notice to and discussion with the Board.

8. The Board considered representations by the Adviser and its affiliates that approval of the New Advisory Agreements would be necessary for the Portfolios to continue receiving investment advisory services from the Adviser following the change in control.

9. The Board considered representations by the Adviser, as well as related supporting documentation, indicating that the New Advisory Agreements, including the fees payable thereunder, are substantially identical to the terms of the corresponding Current Advisory Agreements.

10. The Board considered representations by the Adviser and its affiliates, as well as related supporting documentation, indicating that: (1) the Adviser can be expected to provide services of the same nature, extent, and quality under the New Advisory Agreements and as are provided thereby under the Current Advisory Agreements; and (2) the Separation is not expected to result in any changes to (i) the management of the Portfolios, or (ii) the investment objective of or the principal investment strategies used to manage any of the Portfolios.

11. The Board considered the ability of the Adviser and its affiliates to retain the employment of key personnel, as well as the overall positive indications by many such personnel regarding the opportunities presented by the Separation.

12. The Board considered that the Adviser and its affiliates have agreed to bear all expenses associated with obtaining shareholder approval of the New Advisory Agreements.

13. The Board considered Brighthouse’s preliminary “branding” plans regarding the future name of its operations.

14. The Board considered the advice provided by Ropes & Gray, LLP, legal counsel to the Trusts and the Adviser, with respect to the New Advisory Agreements (including advice relating to the process and timing of seeking shareholder approval of the New Advisory Agreements, and whether shareholder approvals would be required in connection with any future aspects of the Separation) and regarding the Board’s role and responsibilities with respect to the Separation.

15. The Board considered MetLife’s stated intention of divesting its ownership interest in the Adviser through the Separation, including the potential advantages and disadvantages of this divestiture to shareholders of the Portfolios. The Board considered the likelihood that the Adviser would retain its key personnel after the Separation. The Board considered that the garnering of new assets into the Trusts is based on sales of variable annuity and variable life insurance products, which sales have declined in prior years as a result of, among other things, the capital requirements of MetLife. The Board considered the representations of the anticipated senior management of Brighthouse that the Separation provides the Trusts with an opportunity for the garnering of new assets as Brighthouse will likely sell such products going forward. The Board considered also that the divestiture would result in a change in the manner in

MSF-35

Metropolitan Series Fund

MSCI EAFE Index Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

which the Trusts access certain services and resources of MetLife (after the Separation those services will be provided through a transition services agreement), the loss of affiliation with the MetLife name brand, and the possible going forward need of the Trusts to hire a transfer agent, as such transfer agency services are currently provided to the Trusts for no fee.

16. The Board considered that, if shareholders approve the New Advisory Agreements, the Board and the Adviser will conduct their annual contract review process in November 2017. Thus, the Board emphasized that it would be able to, and intends to, monitor on a regular basis the ability of the Adviser and its affiliates to comply with their undertakings to the Board and to monitor on an ongoing basis the quality of services to, and expenses of, the Portfolios. In addition, the Board considered that, under the New Advisory Agreements, it will continue to have the authority, should the need arise in its view, to terminate any of the New Advisory Agreements without penalty upon 60 days’ notice.

Based on the foregoing and other relevant considerations, at the November Meeting, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, voted to approve the New Advisory Agreements and to recommend approval of the New Advisory Agreements by shareholders of the Portfolios. In this connection, the Board concluded that, in light of all factors considered, the terms of the New Advisory Agreement, including fee rates, were fair and reasonable, and that it would be in the best interests of shareholders of each Portfolio to approve the New Advisory Agreements.

In the event that approval of the New Advisory Agreements by shareholders of the Portfolios has not been obtained before the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements as a result of the change in control of the Adviser, the Board also approved an interim advisory agreement with the Adviser (the “Interim Advisory Agreement”) on behalf of each Portfolio that will go into effect upon the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements. The Board’s determination to approve each Interim Advisory Agreement was based on the same information and considerations as the Board’s approval of the New Advisory Agreements so as to ensure continuity of advisory services from the Adviser to the Portfolios following the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements.

MSF-36

Metropolitan Series Fund

MSCI EAFE Index Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Sub-Advisory Agreements

The separation (the “Separation”) of MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”), the investment adviser to each of the series (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”) of Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (“MIST” and “MSF,” respectively, and collectively, the “Trusts”), from its parent company, MetLife, Inc. (“MetLife”), to a separate retail business, Brighthouse Financial, Inc. (“Brighthouse”), is expected to result in a change in control of the Adviser, and therefore an “assignment” of each Portfolio’s current advisory agreement and, as a result, the automatic termination of the sub-advisory agreements (each a “Sub-Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisory Agreements”) between the Adviser and MetLife Investment Advisors, LLC (“MLIA”), an affiliate of the Adviser, for the MetLife Aggregate Bond Index Portfolio (formerly, Barclays Aggregate Bond Index Portfolio), MetLife Stock Index Portfolio, MetLife Mid Cap Stock Index Portfolio, Russell 2000^® Index Portfolio and MSCI EAFE^® Index Portfolio, each a series of MSF, and for MetLife Multi-Index Targeted Risk Portfolio, a series of MIST (the “MLIA Sub-Advised Portfolios”), each of which is sub-advised by MLIA. At the November 15-16, 2016 meeting (“November Meeting”) of the Board of Trustees of the Trusts (the “Board”), the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not “interested persons,” as defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940, of any Portfolio (the “Independent Trustees”), approved new sub-advisory agreements (each a “New Sub-Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “New Sub-Advisory Agreements”) for each of the MLIA Sub-Advised Portfolios, and recommended that the shareholders of the Trusts approve the New Sub-Advisory Agreements. Information about the Board’s considerations and process is set forth below.

In determining whether to approve the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, the Board considered the nature, quality and extent of the services that are currently provided by MLIA under the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements as well as the services to be provided under the New Sub-Advisory Agreements. The Board’s review was conducted as part of, and in conjunction with, the Board’s annual review of the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements, which culminated at the November Meeting. In approving the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, the Board considered its conclusions with respect to its approvals of the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements, including the Board’s general satisfaction with the nature, extent and quality of services being provided by MLIA to the MLIA Sub-Advised Portfolios. Appendix A contains a further description of the process followed, information reviewed and the material factors considered by the Board in approving the continuation of the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements.

In addition, the following actions were taken and considered by or on behalf of the Board:

1. The Independent Trustees of the Board solicited and received ongoing advice regarding the legal duties of the Independent Trustees from Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young LLP (“Stradley Ronon”), legal counsel for the Independent Trustees, which law firm has extensive experience regarding such matters.

2. The Board considered representations by the Adviser and its affiliates, including MLIA, that the Separation will not have any impact on the level, nature and quality of services currently provided by MLIA to the MLIA Sub-Advised Portfolios.

3. The Board considered representations by the Adviser and its affiliates that approval of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements would be necessary for the MLIA Sub-Advised Portfolios to continue receiving sub-advisory services from MLIA following the change in control of the Adviser.

4. The Board considered representations by the Adviser, as well as related supporting documentation, indicating that the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, including the fees payable thereunder, are the same as the terms of the corresponding Current Sub-Advisory Agreements.

5. The Board considered that the Adviser and its affiliates have agreed to bear all expenses associated with obtaining shareholder approval of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements.

6. The Board considered the advice provided by Ropes & Gray, LLP, legal counsel to the Trusts and the Adviser, with respect to the New Sub-Advisory Agreements (including advice relating to the necessity for shareholder approval for the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, the process and timing of seeking shareholder approval of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, and whether shareholder approvals would be required in connection with any future aspects of the Separation) and regarding the Board’s role and responsibilities with respect to the Separation.

7. The Board considered that, if shareholders approve the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, the Board, the Adviser, and MLIA will conduct their annual contract review process in November 2017. Thus, the Board emphasized that it would be able to, and intends to, monitor on a regular basis the ability of MLIA to comply with its undertakings to the Board and the Adviser and to monitor on an ongoing basis the quality of services to, and expenses of, the MLIA Sub-Advised Portfolios. In addition, the Board considered that, under the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, it will continue to have the authority, should the need arise in its view, to terminate any of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements without penalty upon no more than 60 days’ notice.

MSF-37

Metropolitan Series Fund

MSCI EAFE Index Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

Based on the foregoing and other relevant considerations, at the November Meeting, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, voted to approve the New Sub-Advisory Agreements and to recommend approval of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements by shareholders of the MLIA Sub-Advised Portfolios. In this connection, the Board concluded that, in light of all factors considered, the terms of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, including fee rates, were fair and reasonable, and that it would be in the best interests of shareholders of each MLIA Sub-Advised Portfolio to approve the New Sub-Advisory Agreements.

In the event that approval of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements by shareholders of the MLIA Sub-Advised Portfolios has not been obtained before the termination of the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements as a result of the change in control of the Adviser, the Board also approved an interim sub-advisory agreement with MLIA (the “Interim Sub-Advisory Agreement”) on behalf of each MLIA Sub-Advised Portfolio that will go into effect upon the termination of the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements. The Board’s determination to approve each Interim Sub-Advisory Agreement was based on the same information and considerations as the Board’s approval of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements so as to ensure continuity of sub-advisory services from MLIA to the MLIA Sub-Advised Portfolios following the termination of the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements.

MSF-38

Metropolitan Series Fund

Neuberger Berman Genesis Portfolio

Managed by Neuberger Berman Management LLC

Portfolio Manager Commentary*

PERFORMANCE

For the 12 months ended December 31, 2016, the Class A, B, and E shares of the Neuberger Berman Genesis Portfolio returned 18.68%, 18.39%, and 18.54%, respectively. The Portfolio’s benchmark, the Russell 2000 Value Index¹, returned 31.74%.

MARKET ENVIRONMENT / CONDITIONS

The U.S. stock market was volatile at times, but ultimately generated strong results during the reporting period. The year started off on a weak note due to concerns over moderating growth in China and falling oil prices. After a small decline in February the market then posted positive returns over the next seven months. This turnaround was triggered by improved investor risk appetite given generally positive economic data, continued Federal Reserve policy accommodation, and rising oil prices. After a brief setback in October, stocks rallied sharply over the last two months of the year given optimism for improving economic growth in the Trump administration. The overall U.S. stock market, as measured by the S&P 500 Index, gained 11.96% for the 12 months ended December 31, 2016. Small-cap stocks generated outstanding results in 2016, as the Russell 2000 Index gained 21.31%. There was a significant dispersion between small-cap growth and value stocks, as the Russell 2000 Growth and Value Indexes returned 11.32% and 31.74%, respectively.

PORTFOLIO REVIEW / PERIOD END POSITIONING

The Portfolio underperformed the Russell 2000 Value Index during the reporting period. Stock selection drove the Portfolio’s underperformance. Sector allocation was also a headwind for results, albeit to a lesser extent. As we’ve seen in the past, when expectations for improving economic growth occurs, investors tend to shift their emphasis to more cyclical and speculative small-cap stocks. This proved to be the case during the 2016 calendar year. While the Portfolio generated a strong absolute return for the period, this environment was a headwind for its relative results, as we emphasize higher quality, less economically sensitive businesses with the ability to consistently generate free cash flow.

Within the Portfolio, relative performance was the weakest in the Information Technology, Materials, and Consumer Staples sectors. Within these sectors, the most cyclical and speculative industries drove the benchmark’s performance and the Portfolio’s lack of or limited exposure to these types of securities resulted in relative underperformance. Stock selection was not negative in every sector, as the Portfolio’s holdings in the Consumer Discretionary and Health Care sectors outperformed those of the benchmark.

A number of individual holdings were negative for performance due to company-specific issues. These included Tyler Technologies, Inc., Manhattan Associates, Inc., and Gray Television, Inc. Tyler Technologies provides software and services for local governments throughout the U.S. The company recently reported solid results from both its core business and the acquired New World business, as well as provided guidance that implied a solid demand outlook. However, the results were not enough to satisfy the lofty expectations reflected in the stock’s multiple. Manhattan Associates provides software solutions that enable the efficient movement of goods through the supply chain. While it recently reported solid results, concern regarding the health of its retail customers weighed heavily on the company’s shares. Prior to 2016, both Manhattan Associates and Tyler Technologies had been very strong performers in the Portfolio. Gray Television is a local television broadcaster with operations in small markets throughout the U.S. The company announced disappointing political advertising results due to a combination of lower spending from the Trump camp and a lack of exposure to contested gubernatorial markets.

Examples of individual stocks that produced strong returns included West Pharmaceutical Services, Inc., IDEXX Laboratories, Inc., and Nordson Corp. West Pharmaceutical Services is a dominant supplier of drug containment devices for injectable drugs. The stock performed well during the year in response to consistently better than expected operating results. The company also raised guidance, supported by strong industry demand for its products. IDEXX Laboratories provides diagnostic, detection, and information systems for veterinary testing applications and operates a network of veterinary reference laboratories. During the period, the company reported solid results and reaffirmed guidance. Nordson is a critical component supplier of precision dispensing systems used in applying adhesives, sealants, coatings, and surface treatment for industrial, consumer, and technology markets. Its strong returns are supported by intellectual property, scale, a global installed base and service capabilities. The company’s shares outperformed in 2016 on better than expected earnings as fundamentals (both internal execution and end demand) inflected to the upside, particularly led by new applications in adjacent markets, opportunities to displace legacy technology, and shorten customer’s product upgrade cycle.

Sector allocation also detracted from performance during the reporting period. An overweight to the Health Care sector was the largest negative for relative returns. Within the Financials sector, an underweight to banks was a drag on relative results.

MSF-1

Metropolitan Series Fund

Neuberger Berman Genesis Portfolio

Managed by Neuberger Berman Management LLC

Portfolio Manager Commentary*—(Continued)

In terms of Portfolio changes, we made a number of adjustments on the margin throughout the year. In addition, toward the end of the period we modestly increased the Portfolio’s exposure to interest rate sensitive companies, such as commercial banks. These purchases were funded by selling certain positions in companies with less compelling fundamentals. At year end, we continued to look to maintain a diversified portfolio that emphasizes companies that consistently generate solid free cash flow, are profitable, and maintain conservative balance sheets. In addition, the Portfolio’s holdings in companies with below average leverage or net cash balance sheets should be relative winners in a rising rate environment.

Judith M. Vale,

Robert W. D’Alelio

Brett S. Reiner

Gregory G. Spiegel

Portfolio Managers

Neuberger Berman 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 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.

MSF-2

Metropolitan Series Fund

Neuberger Berman Genesis Portfolio

A $10,000 INVESTMENT COMPARED TO THE RUSSELL 2000 VALUE INDEX

AVERAGE ANNUAL RETURNS (%) (FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2016)

	1 Year		5 Year		10 Year
Neuberger Berman Genesis Portfolio
Class A		18.68		12.72		4.65
Class B		18.39		12.44		4.39
Class E		18.54		12.56		4.49
Russell 2000 Value Index		31.74		15.07		6.26

¹ The 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.

Portfolio performance is calculated including reinvestment of all income and capital gain distributions. Performance numbers are net of all Portfolio expenses but do not include any insurance, sales, separate account or administrative charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts or any additional expenses that participants may bear relating to the operations of their plans. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower. The performance of any index referenced above has not been adjusted for ongoing management, distribution and operating expenses, and sales charges applicable to mutual fund investments. Direct investment in any index is not possible. The performance of Class A shares, as set forth in the line graph above, will differ from that of other classes because of the difference in expenses paid by policyholders investing in the different share classes.

This information represents past performance and is not indicative of future results. Investment return and principal value may fluctuate so that shares, upon redemption, may be worth more or less than the original cost.

PORTFOLIO COMPOSITION AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2016

Top Holdings

	% of Net Assets
West Pharmaceutical Services, Inc.		2.2
Pool Corp.		2.0
Sensient Technologies Corp.		1.9
Bank of Hawaii Corp.		1.8
Church & Dwight Co., Inc.		1.8
IDEXX Laboratories, Inc.		1.5
Littelfuse, Inc.		1.5
Rollins, Inc.		1.5
Manhattan Associates, Inc.		1.5
Bank of the Ozarks, Inc.		1.5

Top Sectors

	% of Net Assets
Industrials		21.1
Information Technology		18.1
Financials		17.4
Health Care		13.6
Consumer Discretionary		11.6
Materials		8.4
Consumer Staples		6.1
Energy		2.6

MSF-3

Metropolitan Series Fund

Neuberger Berman Genesis 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, 2016 through December 31, 2016.

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.

Neuberger Berman Genesis Portfolio		Annualized Expense Ratio			Beginning Account Value July 1, 2016		Ending Account Value December 31, 2016		Expenses Paid During Period** July 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016
Class A(a)	Actual		0.84	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,120.50	$	4.48
	Hypothetical*		0.84	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,020.91	$	4.27
Class B(a)	Actual		1.09	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,118.60	$	5.80
	Hypothetical*		1.09	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,019.66	$	5.53
Class E(a)	Actual		0.99	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,119.10	$	5.27
	Hypothetical*		0.99	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,020.16	$	5.03

* 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 366 (to reflect the one-half year period).

^(a) The annualized expense ratio shown reflects the impact of the management fee waiver as described in Note 6 of the Notes to Financial Statements.

MSF-4

Metropolitan Series Fund

Neuberger Berman Genesis Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—98.9% of Net Assets

Security Description	Shares		Value
Aerospace & Defense—0.4%
Astronics Corp. (a)		141,697	$	4,795,026
Air Freight & Logistics—0.6%
Forward Air Corp.		148,426		7,032,424
Airlines—0.6%
Allegiant Travel Co.		42,800		7,121,920
Auto Components—1.6%
Gentex Corp.		257,250		5,065,253
LCI Industries		130,400		14,050,600
				19,115,853
Automobiles—0.2%
Thor Industries, Inc.		28,000		2,801,400
Banks—13.6%
Bank of Hawaii Corp.		246,550		21,866,519
Bank of the Ozarks, Inc.		346,776		18,236,950
BankUnited, Inc.		330,750		12,465,968
BOK Financial Corp.		151,032		12,541,697
Columbia Banking System, Inc.		51,100		2,283,148
Community Bank System, Inc.		177,837		10,988,548
Cullen/Frost Bankers, Inc.		183,798		16,216,498
CVB Financial Corp.		675,300		15,484,629
First Financial Bankshares, Inc.		337,560		15,257,712
First Hawaiian, Inc.		26,000		905,320
FNB Corp.		698,898		11,203,335
Glacier Bancorp, Inc.		42,200		1,528,906
LegacyTexas Financial Group, Inc.		265,850		11,447,501
PacWest Bancorp		210,078		11,436,646
				161,863,377
Beverages—0.2%
MGP Ingredients, Inc.		41,600		2,079,168
Building Products—1.6%
A.O. Smith Corp.		205,300		9,720,955
AAON, Inc.		269,222		8,897,787
Patrick Industries, Inc. (a)		6,400		488,320
				19,107,062
Capital Markets—2.4%
Artisan Partners Asset Management, Inc. - Class A		140,300		4,173,925
FactSet Research Systems, Inc.		58,800		9,609,684
MarketAxess Holdings, Inc.		84,050		12,348,626
OM Asset Management plc		148,300		2,150,350
				28,282,585
Chemicals—4.1%
Balchem Corp.		155,713		13,067,435
NewMarket Corp.		7,367		3,122,429
Quaker Chemical Corp.		43,050		5,507,817
RPM International, Inc.		77,150		4,152,985
Chemicals—(Continued)
Sensient Technologies Corp.		286,450		22,509,241
				48,359,907
Commercial Services & Supplies—4.0%
Healthcare Services Group, Inc.		329,014		12,887,478
Ritchie Bros. Auctioneers, Inc.		316,500		10,761,000
Rollins, Inc.		543,565		18,361,626
UniFirst Corp.		42,850		6,155,403
				48,165,507
Communications Equipment—1.2%
NetScout Systems, Inc. (a)		463,950		14,614,425
Construction & Engineering—0.9%
Valmont Industries, Inc.		78,525		11,064,173
Construction Materials—1.5%
Eagle Materials, Inc.		180,000		17,735,400
Containers & Packaging—1.5%
AptarGroup, Inc.		225,804		16,585,304
Silgan Holdings, Inc.		19,650		1,005,687
				17,590,991
Distributors—2.0%
Pool Corp.		233,610		24,374,867
Electrical Equipment—0.6%
AZZ, Inc.		106,800		6,824,520
Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components—4.1%
Cognex Corp.		164,100		10,440,042
Littelfuse, Inc.		121,250		18,402,112
Rogers Corp. (a)		125,650		9,651,177
Zebra Technologies Corp. - Class A (a)		117,732		10,096,696
				48,590,027
Energy Equipment & Services—1.2%
Dril-Quip, Inc. (a)		30,000		1,801,500
Natural Gas Services Group, Inc. (a)		164,885		5,301,053
Oceaneering International, Inc.		13,450		379,425
Pason Systems, Inc.		445,000		6,511,106
				13,993,084
Food Products—3.2%
Blue Buffalo Pet Products, Inc. (a)		321,900		7,738,476
Cal-Maine Foods, Inc.		144,000		6,361,200
Calavo Growers, Inc.		99,200		6,090,880
J&J Snack Foods Corp.		70,809		9,448,045
Lancaster Colony Corp.		61,600		8,709,624
				38,348,225
Health Care Equipment & Supplies—7.1%
Abaxis, Inc.		102,054		5,385,390

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-5

Metropolitan Series Fund

Neuberger Berman Genesis Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Health Care Equipment & Supplies—(Continued)
Atrion Corp.		5,900	$	2,992,480
Cantel Medical Corp.		97,307		7,662,926
DENTSPLY SIRONA, Inc.		216,050		12,472,567
Haemonetics Corp. (a)		133,196		5,354,479
IDEXX Laboratories, Inc. (a)		157,000		18,411,390
Neogen Corp. (a)		41,900		2,765,400
Vascular Solutions, Inc. (a)		48,800		2,737,680
West Pharmaceutical Services, Inc.		313,616		26,604,045
				84,386,357
Health Care Providers & Services—3.4%
Chemed Corp.		85,000		13,634,850
Henry Schein, Inc. (a)		84,050		12,751,225
Surgery Partners, Inc. (a)		133,500		2,115,975
Surgical Care Affiliates, Inc. (a)		132,407		6,126,472
U.S. Physical Therapy, Inc.		92,200		6,472,440
				41,100,962
Hotels, Restaurants & Leisure—3.5%
Brinker International, Inc.		95,250		4,717,732
Cheesecake Factory, Inc. (The)		148,100		8,868,228
Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc.		58,650		9,793,377
Papa John’s International, Inc.		92,900		7,950,382
Texas Roadhouse, Inc.		204,050		9,843,372
				41,173,091
Household Products—2.7%
Church & Dwight Co., Inc.		475,900		21,030,021
Energizer Holdings, Inc.		163,900		7,311,579
WD-40 Co.		29,600		3,460,240
				31,801,840
Industrial Conglomerates—0.3%
Raven Industries, Inc.		141,679		3,570,311
Insurance—1.4%
AMERISAFE, Inc.		64,300		4,009,105
RLI Corp.		206,190		13,016,775
				17,025,880
IT Services—1.2%
Jack Henry & Associates, Inc.		157,450		13,978,411
Life Sciences Tools & Services—2.5%
Bio-Techne Corp.		130,500		13,419,315
ICON plc (a)		152,287		11,451,982
PAREXEL International Corp. (a)		74,750		4,912,570
				29,783,867
Machinery—9.1%
CLARCOR, Inc.		73,702		6,078,204
Donaldson Co., Inc.		124,550		5,241,064
Franklin Electric Co., Inc.		136,350		5,304,015
Graco, Inc.		73,350		6,094,651
Machinery—(Continued)
Lindsay Corp.		20,300		1,514,583
Middleby Corp. (The) (a)		118,200		15,225,342
Nordson Corp.		115,862		12,982,337
RBC Bearings, Inc. (a)		165,300		15,341,493
Tennant Co.		95,878		6,826,514
Toro Co. (The)		308,200		17,243,790
Wabtec Corp.		201,850		16,757,587
				108,609,580
Marine—0.4%
Kirby Corp. (a)		71,700		4,768,050
Media—1.6%
Gray Television, Inc. (a)		420,200		4,559,170
Nexstar Broadcasting Group, Inc. - Class A		235,600		14,913,480
				19,472,650
Metals & Mining—0.5%
Compass Minerals International, Inc.		74,900		5,868,415
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels—1.4%
Centennial Resource Development, Inc. - Class A (a)		80,700		1,591,404
Diamondback Energy, Inc. (a)		26,800		2,708,408
Gulfport Energy Corp. (a)		121,600		2,631,424
Matador Resources Co. (a)		188,800		4,863,488
RSP Permian, Inc. (a)		111,200		4,961,744
				16,756,468
Paper & Forest Products—0.9%
Stella-Jones, Inc.		327,850		10,641,420
Pharmaceuticals—0.6%
Heska Corp. (a)		18,500		1,324,600
Prestige Brands Holdings, Inc. (a)		115,000		5,991,500
				7,316,100
Professional Services—1.0%
Exponent, Inc.		191,156		11,526,707
Road & Rail—0.2%
Genesee & Wyoming, Inc. - Class A (a)		30,400		2,110,064
Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment—1.9%
MKS Instruments, Inc.		116,300		6,908,220
Power Integrations, Inc.		227,480		15,434,518
				22,342,738
Software—9.3%
Aspen Technology, Inc. (a)		275,300		15,053,404
Blackbaud, Inc.		16,500		1,056,000
Computer Modelling Group, Ltd.		229,500		1,547,955
Constellation Software, Inc.		30,520		13,868,739
Descartes Systems Group, Inc. (The) (a)		221,500		4,740,100
Fair Isaac Corp.		148,450		17,698,209

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-6

Metropolitan Series Fund

Neuberger Berman Genesis Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Software—(Continued)
Manhattan Associates, Inc. (a)		344,076	$	18,246,350
Monotype Imaging Holdings, Inc.		314,543		6,243,679
NICE, Ltd. (ADR)		74,100		5,095,116
Progress Software Corp.		173,500		5,539,855
Qualys, Inc. (a)		137,650		4,356,622
Tyler Technologies, Inc. (a)		125,100		17,860,527
				111,306,556
Specialty Retail—2.6%
Asbury Automotive Group, Inc. (a)		60,300		3,720,510
Hibbett Sports, Inc. (a)		28,650		1,068,645
Lithia Motors, Inc. - Class A		99,750		9,658,792
Monro Muffler Brake, Inc.		103,650		5,928,780
Sally Beauty Holdings, Inc. (a)		54,150		1,430,643
Tractor Supply Co.		118,350		8,972,114
				30,779,484
Technology Hardware, Storage & Peripherals—0.4%
Electronics For Imaging, Inc. (a)		105,150		4,611,879
Trading Companies & Distributors—1.4%
Applied Industrial Technologies, Inc.		72,721		4,319,627
Watsco, Inc.		86,575		12,823,489
				17,143,116
Total Common Stocks (Cost $778,016,850)				1,177,933,887
Short-Term Investment—1.3%
Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Repurchase Agreement—1.3%
Fixed Income Clearing Corp. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/16 at 0.030% to be repurchased at $15,661,079 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $16,045,000 U.S. Treasury Note at 1.625% due 11/30/20 with a value of $15,978,734.		15,661,026		15,661,026
Total Short-Term Investments (Cost $15,661,026)				15,661,026
Total Investments—100.2% (Cost $793,677,876) (b)				1,193,594,913
Other assets and liabilities (net)—(0.2)%				(2,589,547	)
Net Assets—100.0%			$	1,191,005,366

* Principal amount stated in U.S. dollars unless otherwise noted.

(a) Non-income producing security.

(b) As of December 31, 2016, the aggregate cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was $794,107,659. The aggregate unrealized appreciation and depreciation of investments were $415,231,071 and $(15,743,817), respectively, resulting in net unrealized appreciation of $399,487,254 for federal income tax purposes.

(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.

MSF-7

Metropolitan Series Fund

Neuberger Berman Genesis Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Fair Value Hierarchy

Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) define 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, separately for each major category of assets and liabilities, 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, quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities 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, or other market corroborated inputs)

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 used in determining the fair value of investments and derivative financial instruments)

The inputs or methodologies used for valuing investments are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in them. Changes to the inputs or methodologies used may result in transfers between levels, which 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, 2016:

Description	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
Total Common Stocks*	$	1,177,933,887	$	—	$	—	$	1,177,933,887
Total Short-Term Investment*		—		15,661,026		—		15,661,026
Total Investments	$	1,177,933,887	$	15,661,026	$	—	$	1,193,594,913

* See Schedule of Investments for additional detailed categorizations.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-8

Metropolitan Series Fund

Neuberger Berman Genesis Portfolio

Statement of Assets and Liabilities

December 31, 2016

Assets
Investments at value (a)	$	1,193,594,913
Cash		259,712
Receivable for:
Investments sold		578,968
Fund shares sold		79,305
Dividends and interest		438,101
Prepaid expenses		3,244
Total Assets		1,194,954,243
Liabilities
Payables for:
Investments purchased		488,495
Fund shares redeemed		2,267,688
Accrued Expenses:
Management fees		819,580
Distribution and service fees		83,444
Deferred trustees’ fees		122,613
Other expenses		167,057
Total Liabilities		3,948,877
Net Assets	$	1,191,005,366
Net Assets Consist of:
Paid in surplus	$	692,112,360
Undistributed net investment income		3,879,318
Accumulated net realized gain		95,096,942
Unrealized appreciation on investments and foreign currency transactions		399,916,746
Net Assets	$	1,191,005,366
Net Assets
Class A	$	764,500,075
Class B		333,121,961
Class E		93,383,330
Capital Shares Outstanding*
Class A		35,760,411
Class B		15,842,205
Class E		4,417,484
Net Asset Value, Offering Price and Redemption Price Per Share
Class A	$	21.38
Class B		21.03
Class E		21.14

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

(a) Identified cost of investments was $793,677,876.

Statement of Operations

Year Ended December 31, 2016

Investment Income
Dividends (a)	$	14,577,621
Interest		5,722
Other income (b)		211,007
Total investment income		14,794,350
Expenses
Management fees		9,477,130
Administration fees		37,995
Custodian and accounting fees		93,750
Distribution and service fees—Class B		791,843
Distribution and service fees—Class E		132,066
Audit and tax services		42,040
Legal		33,031
Trustees’ fees and expenses		45,247
Shareholder reporting		151,547
Insurance		8,263
Miscellaneous		18,629
Total expenses		10,831,541
Less management fee waiver		(125,000	)
Less broker commission recapture		(52,711	)
Net expenses		10,653,830
Net Investment Income		4,140,520
Net Realized and Unrealized Gain
Net realized gain (loss) on:
Investments		137,196,259
Futures contracts		213,627
Foreign currency transactions		(770	)
Net realized gain		137,409,116
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on:
Investments		56,843,651
Foreign currency transactions		(308	)
Net change in unrealized appreciation		56,843,343
Net realized and unrealized gain		194,252,459
Net Increase in Net Assets From Operations	$	198,392,979

(a) Net of foreign withholding taxes of $117,139.

(b) Other income represents a non-recurring refund for overbilling of prior years’ custodian out-of-pocket fees.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-9

Metropolitan Series Fund

Neuberger Berman Genesis Portfolio

Statements of Changes in Net Assets

	Year Ended December 31, 2016			Year Ended December 31, 2015
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets:
From Operations
Net investment income	$	4,140,520		$	4,663,836
Net realized gain		137,409,116			107,705,200
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation)		56,843,343			(99,286,751	)
Increase in net assets from operations		198,392,979			13,082,285
From Distributions to Shareholders
Net investment income
Class A		(3,463,083	)		(3,753,077	)
Class B		(665,055	)		(551,741	)
Class E		(278,065	)		(262,696	)
Total distributions		(4,406,203	)		(4,567,514	)
Decrease in net assets from capital share transactions		(228,549,486	)		(239,142,296	)
Total decrease in net assets		(34,562,710	)		(230,627,525	)
Net Assets
Beginning of period		1,225,568,076			1,456,195,601
End of period	$	1,191,005,366		$	1,225,568,076
Undistributed net investment income
End of period	$	3,879,318		$	4,389,968

Other Information:

Capital Shares

Transactions in capital shares were as follows:

	Year Ended December 31, 2016						Year Ended December 31, 2015
	Shares			Value			Shares			Value
Class A
Sales		702,433		$	12,718,668			609,854		$	11,146,651
Reinvestments		183,329			3,463,083			196,805			3,753,077
Redemptions		(10,142,957	)		(192,212,696	)		(10,359,968	)		(192,459,060	)
Net decrease		(9,257,195	)	$	(176,030,945	)		(9,553,309	)	$	(177,559,332	)
Class B
Sales		555,919		$	10,253,670			781,858		$	14,264,839
Reinvestments		35,736			665,055			29,379			551,741
Redemptions		(2,824,814	)		(52,729,946	)		(3,381,960	)		(61,607,986	)
Net decrease		(2,233,159	)	$	(41,811,221	)		(2,570,723	)	$	(46,791,406	)
Class E
Sales		76,839		$	1,449,272			59,140		$	1,086,128
Reinvestments		14,870			278,065			13,921			262,696
Redemptions		(664,776	)		(12,434,657	)		(882,303	)		(16,140,382	)
Net decrease		(573,067	)	$	(10,707,320	)		(809,242	)	$	(14,791,558	)
Decrease derived from capital shares transactions				$	(228,549,486	)				$	(239,142,296	)

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-10

Metropolitan Series Fund

Neuberger Berman Genesis Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class A
	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014			2013			2012
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	18.10		$	18.07		$	18.14		$	13.21		$	12.05
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (a)		0.08	(b)		0.08			0.08			0.07			0.11
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		3.29			0.03			(0.08	)		4.98			1.10
Total from investment operations		3.37			0.11			0.00			5.05			1.21
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.09	)		(0.08	)		(0.07	)		(0.12	)		(0.05	)
Total distributions		(0.09	)		(0.08	)		(0.07	)		(0.12	)		(0.05	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	21.38		$	18.10		$	18.07		$	18.14		$	13.21
Total Return (%) (c)		18.68			0.58			0.01			38.52			10.03
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Gross ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.85			0.84			0.83			0.83			0.86
Net ratio of expenses to average net assets (%) (d)		0.84			0.83			0.83			0.82			0.85
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		0.43	(b)		0.42			0.43			0.42			0.89
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		19			16			9			17			15
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	764.5		$	814.6		$	985.8		$	1,154.0		$	922.1
	Class B
	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014			2013			2012
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	17.80		$	17.76		$	17.85		$	13.00		$	11.86
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (a)		0.04	(b)		0.03			0.03			0.03			0.08
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		3.23			0.04			(0.08	)		4.91			1.08
Total from investment operations		3.27			0.07			(0.05	)		4.94			1.16
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.04	)		(0.03	)		(0.04	)		(0.09	)		(0.02	)
Total distributions		(0.04	)		(0.03	)		(0.04	)		(0.09	)		(0.02	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	21.03		$	17.80		$	17.76		$	17.85		$	13.00
Total Return (%) (c)		18.39			0.38			(0.30	)		38.19			9.75
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Gross ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		1.10			1.09			1.08			1.08			1.11
Net ratio of expenses to average net assets (%) (d)		1.09			1.08			1.08			1.07			1.10
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		0.19	(b)		0.17			0.18			0.22			0.63
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		19			16			9			17			15
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	333.1		$	321.7		$	366.8		$	418.9		$	117.0

Please see following page for Financial Highlights footnote legend.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-11

Metropolitan Series Fund

Neuberger Berman Genesis Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class E
	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014			2013			2012
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	17.89		$	17.86		$	17.94		$	13.06		$	11.91
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (a)		0.05	(b)		0.05			0.05			0.04			0.09
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		3.26			0.03			(0.09	)		4.94			1.09
Total from investment operations		3.31			0.08			(0.04	)		4.98			1.18
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.06	)		(0.05	)		(0.04	)		(0.10	)		(0.03	)
Total distributions		(0.06	)		(0.05	)		(0.04	)		(0.10	)		(0.03	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	21.14		$	17.89		$	17.86		$	17.94		$	13.06
Total Return (%) (c)		18.54			0.43			(0.19	)		38.37			9.90
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Gross ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		1.00			0.99			0.98			0.98			1.01
Net ratio of expenses to average net assets (%) (d)		0.99			0.98			0.98			0.97			1.00
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		0.29	(b)		0.27			0.28			0.28			0.72
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		19			16			9			17			15
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	93.4		$	89.3		$	103.6		$	122.0		$	90.6

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

(b) Net investment income per share and the ratio of net investment income to average net assets include a non-recurring refund for overbilling of prior years’ custodian out-of-pocket fees which amounted to less than $0.01 per share and 0.02% of average net assets, respectively.

(c) Total return does not reflect any insurance, sales, separate account or administrative charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts or any additional expenses that contract owners may bear under their variable contracts. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower.

(d) Includes the effects of management fee waivers (see Note 6 of the Notes to Financial Statements).

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-12

Metropolitan Series Fund

Neuberger Berman Genesis Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016

1. Organization

Metropolitan Series Fund (the “Trust”) is organized as a Delaware statutory trust and registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), as an open-end management investment company. The Trust, which is managed by MetLife Advisers, LLC (“MetLife Advisers” or the “Adviser”), an affiliate of MetLife, Inc., is currently comprised of thirty series, each of which operates as a distinct investment vehicle of the Trust. The portfolio included in this report is Neuberger Berman Genesis 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.

On January 12, 2016, MetLife, Inc. announced its plan to pursue the separation of a substantial portion of its retail segment and is currently evaluating structural alternatives for such separation. It is anticipated that MetLife Advisers would be included in any such separation. Any separation transaction that might occur will be subject to the satisfaction of various conditions and approvals, including approval of any transaction by the MetLife, Inc. Board of Directors, satisfaction of any applicable requirements of the SEC, and receipt of insurance and other regulatory approvals and other anticipated conditions. MetLife, Inc. cannot currently provide a specific potential completion date for a separation transaction or any assurance that a separation will in fact occur. MetLife Advisers’ continued service as investment adviser to the Trusts following a separation transaction is the subject of a proxy statement that was filed with the SEC on December 20, 2016 and mailed to shareholders of the Portfolio on or about December 30, 2016.

The Portfolio has registered and offers three classes of shares: Class A, B and E shares. 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 plan and such distribution expenses are allocated to the corresponding Class of shares.

2. Significant Accounting Policies

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities as of the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of income and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates. In the preparation of these financial statements, management has evaluated events and transactions subsequent to December 31, 2016 through the date the financial statements were issued.

The Portfolio is an investment company and follows the accounting and reporting guidance of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Accounting Standards Codification Topic 946—Financial Services—Investment Companies and Topic 820—Fair Value Measurement. 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 - Domestic and foreign equity securities, such as common stock, exchange-traded funds, rights, warrants, and preferred stock, that are traded on a securities exchange on a valuation date are generally valued at their last quoted sale price or official closing price on the primary exchange for such security, or, if no sales occurred on that day, at the last reported bid price. Equity securities traded over-the-counter (“OTC”) are generally valued at the last reported bid price. In the event of a major exchange closing during the trading day, the Adviser may use other market information obtained from quotation reporting systems, established market makers, or pricing services in valuing the securities. Valuation adjustments may be applied to certain foreign equity securities that are traded solely on foreign exchanges that close before the time as of which the Portfolio determines its NAV to account for the market movement between the close of the foreign exchanges and the time as of which the Portfolio determines its NAV. The Portfolio may use a systematic fair valuation model provided by a pricing service to value securities principally traded in these foreign markets in order to adjust for possible market movements or other changes that may occur between the close of the foreign exchanges and the time as of which the Portfolio determines its NAV. Foreign equity securities valued using these valuation adjustments are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy. Equity securities that are actively traded, and have no valuation adjustments applied, are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other equity securities traded on inactive markets, or valued in reference to similar instruments traded on active markets, 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 on the valuation date and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy.

Debt securities, including corporate, convertible and municipal bonds and notes; obligations of the U.S. Treasury and U.S. government agencies; foreign sovereign issues; 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 the Adviser (each a “pricing service”), pursuant to

MSF-13

Metropolitan Series Fund

Neuberger Berman Genesis Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

authorization of and subject to general oversight by the Board of Trustees of the Trust (the “Board” or “Trustees”). Such pricing services may use matrix pricing, which considers observable inputs including, among other things, issuer details, maturity dates, interest rates, yield curves, rates of prepayment, credit risks/spreads, default rates, reported trades, broker dealer quotes and quoted prices for similar assets. Short-term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less may be valued at amortized cost in the absence of market quotes, so long as the amortized cost value of such short-term debt instrument is approximately the same as the fair value of the instrument as determined without the use of amortized cost valuation. Floating rate loans are generally valued on the basis of an evaluated or composite average of aggregate bid and ask quotations supplied by brokers or dealers, as obtained from the pricing service. Securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally 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 sale price available as of the close of business on a valuation day or, if there is no such price available, at the last reported bid price. These types of options are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Futures contracts that are traded on commodity exchanges are valued at their settlement prices established by the exchanges on which they are traded as of the close of such exchanges and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy.

If no current market value quotation or other observable inputs are readily available or market value quotations are deemed to be unreliable for an investment, the fair value of the investment will be determined in accordance with procedures approved by, and under the general supervision of, the Board. In such a circumstance, the Board will be assisted in its responsibility to determine the fair value of an investment by the Valuation Committee (“Committee”) of MetLife Advisers. The Committee provides general pricing oversight and fair value pricing determinations related to portfolio securities and meets on a regular basis to review reports relating to the valuation of the securities in the Portfolio. The Board has delegated to State Street Bank and Trust Company, the Trust’s custodian (“custodian”), the responsibility for calculating the net asset values (“NAVs”) of the Trust’s Portfolios. The Committee is responsible for overseeing the calculation of the NAVs of the Portfolios by the custodian. The Committee also periodically reviews pricing services, including the pricing services providing fair value pricing for the Portfolio’s foreign securities, and is responsible for overseeing the correction of pricing errors and addressing other pricing issues that arise in the ordinary course of business, such as making real-time fair value determinations, as necessary.

No single standard for determining the fair value of an investment can be set forth because fair value depends upon the facts and circumstances with respect to each investment. Information relating to any relevant factors may be obtained by the Committee from any appropriate source, including the subadviser of the Portfolio, the custodian, a pricing service, market maker and/or broker for such security or the issuer. Appropriate methodologies for determining fair value under particular circumstances may include: matrix pricing, a discounted cash flow analysis, comparisons of securities with comparable characteristics, value based on multiples of earnings, discount from market price of similar marketable securities or a combination of these and other methods.

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 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. These foreign taxes have been provided for in accordance with the Portfolio’s understanding of the applicable countries’ tax rules and rates.

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 the U.S. dollar 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. Because the values of investment securities are translated at the foreign exchange rates prevailing at the end of the period, that portion of the results of operations arising from changes in exchange rates and that portion of the results of operations reflecting fluctuations arising from changes in market prices of the investment securities are not separated. 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. 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.

Dividends and Distributions to Shareholders - The Portfolio records dividends and distributions on the ex-dividend date. Net realized gains from securities 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

MSF-14

Metropolitan Series Fund

Neuberger Berman Genesis Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

to broker commission recapture, adjustments to prior period accumulated balances and foreign currency transactions. These adjustments have no impact on net assets or the results 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 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. As of December 31, 2016, the Portfolio had no uncertain tax positions that would require financial statement recognition, or de-recognition or disclosure.

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 net ratio of expenses to average net assets presented in the Financial Highlights for each share class.

Repurchase Agreements - The Portfolio may enter into repurchase agreements, under the terms of a Master Repurchase Agreement (“MRA”), 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, under a tri-party repurchase agreement, receives delivery of the underlying securities collateralizing any repurchase agreements. It is the Portfolio’s policy that the market value of the collateral be equal to at least 100% of the repurchase price in the case of a repurchase agreement of one-day duration and equal to at least 102% of the repurchase price in the case of all other repurchase agreements. In the event of default or failure by a party to perform an obligation in connection with any repurchase transaction, the MRA gives the non-defaulting party the right to set-off claims and to apply property held by it in connection with any repurchase transaction against obligations owed to it.

At December 31, 2016, the Portfolio had investments in repurchase agreements with a gross value of $15,661,026, which is included as part of investments at value on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. The value of the related collateral exceeded the value of the repurchase agreements at December 31, 2016.

3. Investments in Derivative Instruments

Futures Contracts - The Portfolio may buy and sell futures contracts 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 cash collateral 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 whether unrealized gains or losses are incurred. These amounts are reflected as receivables or payables on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities and as a component of net change in unrealized appreciation/depreciation on the Statement of Operations. When the contract is closed or expires, the Portfolio records 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. 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. If futures contracts are exchange-traded, the exchange’s clearinghouse, as counterparty to all exchange-traded futures, guarantees the futures contracts against default. For OTC futures, the Portfolio’s ability to terminate the positions may be more limited than in the case of exchange-traded positions and may also involve the risk that securities dealers participating in such transactions would fail to meet their obligations to the Portfolio.

During the year ended December 31, 2016, the Portfolio entered into equity index futures contracts which were subject to equity price risk. During the period May 6, 2016 through May 9, 2016, the Portfolio had bought and sold $66,681,366 in notional cost on equity index futures contracts. At December 31, 2016, the Portfolio did not have any open futures contracts. For the year ended December 31, 2016, the Portfolio had realized gains in the amount of $213,627 which are shown under Net realized gain on futures contracts in the Statement of Operations.

4. Certain Risks

In the normal course of business, the Portfolio invests in securities and enters into transactions where risks exist. Those risks include:

MSF-15

Metropolitan Series Fund

Neuberger Berman Genesis Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

Market 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, interest rate, and price fluctuations.

Credit and Counterparty Risk: 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 and counterparty risk consist principally of cash due from counterparties and investments. The Portfolio manages counterparty risk by entering into agreements only with counterparties that it believes have the financial resources to honor their obligations and by monitoring the financial stability of those counterparties. The Portfolio’s investment adviser attempts to mitigate counterparty risk by (i) periodically assessing the creditworthiness of its trading partners, (ii) monitoring and/or limiting the amount of its net exposure to each individual counterparty based on its assessment, and (iii) requiring collateral from the counterparty for certain transactions. In order to preserve certain safeguards for non-standard settlement trades, the Portfolio restricts its exposure to credit and counterparty losses by entering into master netting agreements (“Master Agreements”) with counterparties (approved brokers) with whom it undertakes a significant volume of transactions. Master Agreements govern the terms of certain transactions, and reduce the counterparty risk associated with relevant transactions by specifying credit protection mechanisms and providing standardization that improves legal certainty. Master Agreements can also help limit counterparty risk by specifying collateral posting arrangements at pre-arranged exposure levels.

Repurchase and reverse repurchase agreements are primarily executed under Global Master Repurchase Agreements (“GMRAs”) or Master Repurchase Agreements (“MRAs”), which provide the rights to set-off. Each repurchase and reverse repurchase agreement is initially collateralized at the transaction level. In the event of default, the total market value exposure will be offset against collateral exchanged to date, which would result in a net receivable/(payable) that would be due from/to the counterparty.

Customer Account Agreements and related addenda govern cleared derivatives transactions such as futures, options on futures, and cleared OTC derivatives. Cleared derivative transactions require posting of initial margin as determined by each relevant clearing agency, which is segregated at a broker account registered with the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”), or the applicable regulator. In the U.S., counterparty risk is significantly reduced as creditors of the futures broker do not have claim to Portfolio assets in the segregated account. Additionally, portability of exposure in the event of default further reduces risk to the Portfolio. Variation margin, or changes in market value, are exchanged daily, but may not be netted between futures and cleared OTC derivatives.

Additional risks associated with each type of investment are described above within the respective security type notes. The Portfolio’s prospectus includes a discussion of the principal risks of investing in the Portfolio.

5. Investment Transactions

Aggregate cost of purchases and proceeds of sales of investment securities, excluding short-term securities, for the year ended December 31, 2016 were as follows:

Purchases			Sales
U.S. Government	Non U.S. Government		U.S. Government		Non U.S. Government
$0	$	214,596,681	$	0	$	431,239,994

6. Investment Management Fees and Other Transactions with Affiliates

Investment Management Agreement - MetLife Advisers is the investment adviser to the Portfolio. The Trust has entered into an investment management agreement with MetLife Advisers with respect to the Portfolio. For providing investment management services to the Portfolio, MetLife Advisers receives monthly compensation at the following annual rates:

Management Fees earned by MetLife Advisers for the year ended December 31, 2016	% per annum			Average daily net assets
$9,477,130		0.850	%	Of the first $500 million
		0.800	%	Of the next $500 million
		0.750	%	On amounts in excess of $1 billion

MetLife Advisers has entered into an investment subadvisory agreement with respect to managing the Portfolio. Neuberger Berman Management LLC is compensated by MetLife Advisers to provide subadvisory services for the Portfolio.

MSF-16

Metropolitan Series Fund

Neuberger Berman Genesis Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

Management Fee Waiver - Pursuant to a management fee waiver agreement, MetLife Advisers has agreed, for the period May 1, 2016 to April 30, 2017, to reduce its advisory fees set out above under “Investment Management Agreement” for each class of the Portfolio as follows:

% per annum	Average daily net assets
0.025%	First $500 million

An identical agreement was in place for the period May 1, 2015 to April 30, 2016. Amounts waived for the year ended December 31, 2016 are shown as a management fee waiver in the Statement of Operations.

Certain officers and trustees of the Trust may also be officers of MetLife Advisers; 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 and Service Fees - The Trust has a distribution agreement with MetLife Investors Distribution Company (“MIDC” or the “Distributor”) in which MIDC serves as the distributor for the Portfolio’s Class A, B and E Shares. MIDC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife Investors Group, LLC, an affiliate of the Adviser. The Trust has also adopted a Distribution and Service Plan under Rule 12b-1 of the 1940 Act for the Portfolio’s Class B and E Shares. Under the Distribution and Service Plan, the Class B and E Shares of the Portfolio pay a fee to compensate the Insurance Companies (or their affiliates) and other broker-dealers and financial intermediaries involved in the offer and sale of Portfolio shares for promoting or selling and servicing the Class B and E Shares. The fees under the Distribution and Service Plan for each class of the Portfolio’s shares are calculated as a percentage of the Portfolio’s average daily net assets that are attributable to that Class. Currently, the fee is 0.25% per year for Class B Shares and 0.15% per year for Class E Shares. Amounts incurred by the Portfolio for the year ended December 31, 2016 are shown as Distribution and service fees in the Statement of Operations.

Deferred Trustee Compensation - Each Trustee 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 Trust. 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 Met Investors Series Trust, an affiliate of the Trust, 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 under the Plan is reflected as Deferred trustees’ fees in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

7. Contractual Obligations

Under the Trust’s organizational documents, its officers and Trustees may be indemnified against certain liabilities and expenses arising out of the performance of their duties to the Trust. Additionally, 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 Trust that have not yet occurred.

8. Income Tax Information

The tax character of distributions paid for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015 were as follows:

Ordinary Income			Long-Term Capital Gain				Total
2016	2015		2016		2015		2016		2015
$4,406,203	$	4,567,514	$	—	$	—	$	4,406,203	$	4,567,514

As of December 31, 2016, 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		Other Accumulated Capital Losses		Total
$4,001,931	$	95,526,724	$	399,486,963	$	—	$	499,015,618

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

MSF-17

Metropolitan Series Fund

Neuberger Berman Genesis Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

as short-term and/or long-term losses. Previously, net capital losses were carried forward for up to 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.

During the year ended December 31, 2016, the Portfolio utilized capital loss carryforwards of $42,434,976.

As of December 31, 2016, the Portfolio had no post-enactment accumulated capital losses and no pre-enactment accumulated capital loss carryforwards.

9. Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In October 2016, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) adopted new rules and forms, and amendments to certain current rules and forms, to modernize reporting and disclosure of information by registered investment companies. The amendments to Regulation S-X will require standardized, enhanced disclosure about derivatives in investment company financial statements, and will also change the rules governing the form and content of such financial statements. The compliance date for the amendments to Regulation S-X is August 1, 2017. Management is currently evaluating the impact that the adoption of the amendments to Regulation S-X will have on the Portfolio’s financial statements and related disclosures.

MSF-18

Metropolitan Series Fund

Neuberger Berman Genesis Portfolio

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Shareholders of Neuberger Berman Genesis Portfolio and the Board of Trustees of Metropolitan Series Fund:

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities, including the schedule of investments, of Neuberger Berman Genesis Portfolio (one of the portfolios constituting the Metropolitan Series Fund) (the “Portfolio”) as of December 31, 2016, 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 Portfolio’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 Portfolio 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 Portfolio’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, 2016, by correspondence with the custodian and brokers; when 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 Neuberger Berman Genesis Portfolio of the Metropolitan Series Fund as of December 31, 2016, 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.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

February 24, 2017

MSF-19

Metropolitan Series Fund

Trustees and Officers

MANAGEMENT OF THE TRUSTS

The Boards of Trustees (the “Board”) of Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (“MIST” and “MSF”, respectively, and collectively the “Trusts”) supervise the Trusts and are responsible for representing the interests of shareholders. The Trustees, the Chairman of the Board and the Chairmen of each subcommittee are the same for both Trusts. The Trustees of each Trust meet periodically throughout the year to oversee the Portfolios’ activities, reviewing, among other things, each Portfolio’s performance and its contractual arrangements with various service providers. The Trustees of each Trust elect the officers of the Trust, who are responsible for administering the Trust’s day-to-day operations.

Trustees and Officers

The Trustees and executive officers of the Trusts, as well as their ages and their principal occupations during the past five years, are set forth below. Unless otherwise indicated, the business address of each is c/o MetLife Funds, One Financial Center, Boston, Massachusetts 02111. Each Trustee who is deemed an “interested person,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, is referred to as an “Interested Trustee.” Those Trustees who are not “interested persons,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, are referred to as “Independent Trustees.” There is no limit to the term a Trustee may serve. Trustees serve until their death, resignation or removal in accordance with the MIST Trust’s and MSF Trust’s respective organizational documents and policies adopted by the Boards of the respective Trusts from time to time. Officers hold office at the pleasure of each Board and serve until their removal or resignation in accordance with the Trusts’ respective organizational documents and policies adopted by the Board of each Trust from time to time.

Name and Age	Current 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 MetLife Funds Complex(2) Overseen by Trustee	Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Interested Trustee
John Rosenthal* (56)	Trustee	Indefinite; From May 2016 (MIST and MSF) to present	Senior Managing Director and Head of Global Portfolio Management, MetLife, Inc.	75	None
Independent Trustees
Dawn M. Vroegop (50)	Trustee and Chairman of the Board	Indefinite; From December 2000 (MIST)/ May 2009 (MSF) to present as Trustee; From May 2016 (MIST and MSF) until present as Chairman	Private Investor.	75	Trustee, Driehaus Mutual Funds.**
Stephen M. Alderman (57)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 (MIST)/ April 2012 (MSF) to present	Shareholder in the law firm of Garfield and Merel, Ltd.	75	None

MSF-20

Metropolitan Series Fund

Trustees and Officers—(Continued)

Name and Age	Current 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 MetLife Funds Complex(2) Overseen by Trustee	Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Robert J. Boulware (60)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 (MIST)/ April 2012 (MSF) to present	Managing Director, Pilgrim Funds, LLC (private equity fund).	75	Trustee, Vertical Capital Income Fund (closed-end fund);** Director, Gainsco, Inc. (auto insurance);** Trustee, SharesPost 100 Fund (closed-end fund).**
Susan C. Gause (64)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 (MIST)/ April 2012 (MSF) to present	Private Investor.	75	Trustee, HSBC Funds.**
Nancy Hawthorne (65)	Trustee	Indefinite; From May 2003 (MSF)/ April 2012 (MIST) to present	Partner, Hawthorne Financial Advisors, LLC (registered investment advisor); until June 2014, Chief Executive Officer, Clerestory LLC (corporate advisor).	75	Director and Chairman of the Board of Directors, THL Credit, Inc.;** Lead Director, Avid Technology, Inc.;** Director, CRA International, Inc.**
Barbara A. Nugent (60)	Trustee	Indefinite; From January 2014 (MIST and MSF) to present	President, True North Board Governance, LLC (consulting); until December 2013, partner in the law firm of Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young, LLP.	75	None
Linda B. Strumpf (69)	Trustee	Indefinite; From May 2000 (MSF)/ April 2012 (MIST) to present	Chair of the Investment Committee, Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust; until June 2011, Chief Investment Officer, Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust.	75	None

Executive Officers

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Kristi Slavin (43)	President and Chief Executive Officer, of MIST and MSF	From May 2016 (MIST and MSF) to present	President, MetLife Advisers, LLC (May 2016-present); Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Vice President, MetLife, Inc.; Vice President, MIST and MSF (2015-2016).

MSF-21

Metropolitan Series Fund

Trustees and Officers—(Continued)

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Peter H. Duffy (61)	Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, of MIST and MSF	From November 2000 (MSF)/ May 2012 (MIST) to present	Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Andrew L. Gangolf (62)	Secretary, of MIST and MSF	From May 2011 (MIST and MSF) to present	Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; until 2011, Senior Vice President & Assistant General Counsel, AllianceBernstein Investments, Inc.
Steven E. Hartstein (53)	Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”), of MIST and MSF	From February 2014 (MIST and MSF) to present	Vice President, MetLife, Inc. (2013-present); Senior Vice President and CCO, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Executive Director, Morgan Stanley (2009-2013); CCO, Consulting Group Capital Markets Funds (2006-2013).
Alan C. Leland (64)	Vice President, of MIST and MSF	From February 2005 (MSF)/ May 2012 (MIST) to present	Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Vice President, MetLife, Inc.

* Mr. Rosenthal is an “interested person” of the Trusts because of his position with MetLife, Inc., the current parent company of MetLife Advisers, LLC.

** 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 Trusts, MetLife, Inc. or the Manager are omitted if not materially different.

(2) The Fund Complex includes 45 MIST Portfolios and 30 MSF Portfolios.

MSF-22

Metropolitan Series Fund

Neuberger Berman Genesis Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements

At an in-person meeting held on November 15-16, 2016 (the “November Meeting”), the Boards of Trustees (the “Board”) of the Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (“MIST” and “MSF,” respectively, and collectively, the “Trusts”), including a majority of the Trustees who are not “interested persons” of the Trusts (the “Independent Trustees”) under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “1940 Act”), approved the continuation of the Trusts’ advisory agreements (each, an “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 the series of the Trusts (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”).

In reaching that decision, the Board reviewed a variety of materials provided for the specific purpose of the annual contract renewal process. In addition, various materials provided to and discussed with the Board throughout the year also informed the Board’s decision to renew the Agreements. That information for each Portfolio included, but was not limited to, investment performance reports, along with periodic reports on various expenses, shareholder services, legal and compliance matters, asset pricing, brokerage commissions and trade execution. The Board also recognized the pending separation of the Adviser from its parent company, MetLife, Inc., as a consideration in their deliberations with respect to the Agreements.

The Board met in person with personnel of the Adviser on September 27, 2016 for the specific purpose of giving preliminary consideration to the proposed continuation of the Agreements (the “September Meeting”) through the review by the Adviser with the Board of the performance and fees experienced by each Portfolio, as well as other information. In considering the Agreements, the Independent Trustees were advised by independent legal counsel throughout the contract renewal process, and met with independent legal counsel in several executive sessions outside of the presence of management.

Information furnished and reviewed specifically in connection with the renewal process included, but was not limited to, a report for each Portfolio prepared by Broadridge (“Broadridge”), an independent organization, and a Portfolio-by-Portfolio profitability analysis prepared by the Adviser. In addition, the Independent Trustees received and reviewed a report prepared by JDL Consultants, LLC (“JDL”), an independent consultant to the Independent Trustees (“JDL Report”), which examined the comparative fees, expenses and performance of each Portfolio, based upon the Broadridge reports. Also, the Board reviewed the responses to wide-ranging questions relating to the business, operations and performance of the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers that the Adviser and Sub-Advisers had prepared specifically for the renewal process.

At the November Meeting, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, concluded that the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser supported the renewal of the Agreements. The Board also concluded that the investment performance of each Portfolio was such that each Agreement should continue, and that the fees paid by a Portfolio to the Adviser appeared to be reasonable in light of the nature, extent and quality of the services provided by the Adviser and Sub-Adviser. Further, the Board concluded that the Adviser’s profitability in providing services under the Advisory Agreements did not appear unreasonably high in light of the nature, extent and quality of the services provided by the Adviser. Finally, the Board concluded that the investment advisory fees paid by the Portfolios in some measure shared economies of scale with contract holders. In approving the renewal of each of the Agreements, the Board, including the Independent Trustees, gave attention to all of the information that was furnished. The Board evaluated the information available to it on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis, and its decision was made separately with respect to each Portfolio. The following discusses some of the primary factors that generally were relevant to the Board’s decision. The Board did not identify any single factor as controlling, and the Trustees generally attributed different weights to various factors for the various Portfolios.

Nature, extent and quality of services. The Board evaluated the nature, extent and quality of the services that the Adviser, and the Sub-Advisers as relevant, have provided to the Portfolios. The Board considered the Adviser’s services as investment manager to the Portfolios, including its services relating to the oversight of the Sub-Advisers and their investment management activities, trading practices, financial condition, relevant personnel matters and compliance programs, among other things. The Adviser’s services in coordinating and overseeing the activities of the Trusts’ other service providers were also considered. The Board considered information received from the Trusts’ Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) regarding the Portfolios’ compliance policies and procedures that were established pursuant to Rule 38a-l under the 1940 Act. In addition, throughout the year, the Board considered the expertise, experience and performance of the personnel of the Adviser who performed the various services that are mentioned above.

The Board also noted that the Adviser’s investment, compliance and legal staff conduct regular, periodic, telephonic and in-person meetings with the Sub-Advisers to review and assess the services that are provided to the Portfolios, and that personnel of the Adviser prepare and present reports to the Independent Trustees regarding those meetings.

With respect to the services provided by each of the Sub-Advisers, the Board considered a variety of information that the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser provided. The Board considered each Sub-Adviser’s investment process and philosophy, and the investment

MSF-23

Metropolitan Series Fund

Neuberger Berman Genesis Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

performance experienced by the Portfolio (as described in more detail below). The Board took into account that each Sub-Adviser’s responsibilities include the development and maintenance of an investment program for the applicable Portfolio that 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. In particular, the Board considered, among other things, the Sub-Adviser’s current level of staffing as well as its compensation program and its overall resources. The Board reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s history and investment experience, as well as information provided 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 regulatory and disciplinary history. In its review, the Board also took into account information regarding any services and/or payments provided to the Adviser by the Sub-Advisers in connection with marketing activities.

Performance. The Board placed emphasis on the performance of the Portfolios in light of, among other things, its importance to contract holders. The Board considered the Adviser’s quarterly reviews with the Board of detailed information about each Portfolio’s investment strategies and performance results and composition, including discussions regarding the relevant effect of current market conditions. The Board reviewed and considered the reports prepared by Broadridge, which provided a statistical analysis comparing the Portfolios’ investment performance to that of comparable funds underlying variable insurance products (the “Performance Universe”). The Independent Trustees also met separately with a representative of JDL during the September Meeting to review the JDL Report. The Board also compared the performance records of certain Portfolios to those of comparable funds that were managed by the relevant Sub-Adviser. At the November Meeting, the Board considered each Portfolio’s performance for periods subsequent to the performance period covered by the Broadridge reports, and the Adviser’s discussion of the same, including the effect of current market conditions on each Portfolio’s more recent performance.

The Board focused particular attention on Portfolios with less favorable performance records. The Board noted the Adviser’s focus on each Sub-Adviser’s performance and that the Adviser has been active in monitoring and responding to any performance issues with respect to the Portfolios.

Fees and Expenses. The Board gave consideration to the level and method of computing the fees payable under the Agreements. The Board considered the Broadridge report for each of the Portfolios, which included comparisons for each Portfolio of its contractual management and sub-adviser fees (at current and various asset levels), and total expenses, with those of its peers, including as those peers were divided into a broad group of peer funds (“Expense Universe”), a narrower group of peer funds (“Expense Group”), a broad group of peer sub-advised funds (“Sub-advised Expense Universe”), and a narrower group of peer sub-advised funds (“Sub-advised Expense Group”). Broadridge selected the peer funds which were similarly situated funds underlying variable insurance products deemed to be comparable to the Portfolios. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of JDL, also examined the JDL Report. The Board compared the fee payable to a Sub-Adviser by the Adviser with respect to the Portfolio to the fee payable to the Sub-Adviser by other comparable funds and accounts, to the extent such information was available.

The Board noted that the sub-advisory fees for the Portfolios are paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fee, and that, in the case of an unaffiliated Sub-Adviser, the Adviser negotiates the fee at arm’s length. The Board also considered that the Adviser had entered into expense limitation or management fee waiver agreements with certain of the Portfolios pursuant to which the Adviser had 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.

Profitability. The Board examined the profitability of the Adviser on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis. The Board also considered that an affiliate of the Adviser, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, serves as distributor for the Trusts, and, as such, receives Rule 12b-1 payments to support the distribution of the Portfolios. The Board considered the profitability to the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates as a result of their relationships with the Portfolios, to the extent available, and the Board considered the ability of the Adviser to negotiate with an unaffiliated Sub-Adviser at arm’s length. In reviewing the profitability analyses, the Board recognized that expense allocation methodologies are inherently subjective and various expense allocation methodologies may be reasonable while producing different results.

Economies of scale. The Board also considered each Portfolio’s fees in light of its size. The Board noted the fee schedules for the Portfolios that 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 and Sub-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

MSF-24

Metropolitan Series Fund

Neuberger Berman Genesis Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

the Portfolio grow. The Board examined, among other data, the effect of a Portfolio’s growth in size, and reduction in size, on various fee schedules and the Board reviewed the Broadridge and JDL Reports, which compared fees among peers. The Board also generally noted that if a Portfolio’s assets increase over time, the Portfolio may realize other economies of scale if assets increase proportionally more than certain other fixed expenses.

Other factors. The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trusts. Among them, the Board recognized that MetLife Investors Distribution Company, as the distributor for the Trusts, receives payments pursuant to Rule 12b-1 from the Portfolios to compensate for the provision of shareholder services and distribution activities, which could lead to growth in the Trusts’ assets and corresponding benefits from such growth, including economies of scale. The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by each Sub-Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trusts, including the opportunity to provide advisory services to additional portfolios of the Trusts and reputational benefits. In conjunction with these considerations, the Board noted the ongoing commitment of the Adviser to the Portfolios.

The Board considered possible conflicts of interest in the form of material benefits or detriments to the Trusts resulting from the nature of the Trusts’ and the Adviser’s or the Sub-Advisers’ affiliations and the services that are provided to the Trusts, and the manner in which such conflicts were mitigated.

*  *  *

Neuberger Berman Genesis Portfolio. The Board also considered the following information in relation to the Agreements with the Adviser and Neuberger Berman Management LLC regarding the Portfolio:

Among other data relating specifically to the 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, 2016. The Board further considered that the Portfolio underperformed its benchmark, the Russell 2000 Value Index, for the one-, three-, and five-year periods ended October 31, 2016.

The Board also 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 asset-weighted average of certain comparable funds at the Portfolio’s current size. The Board took into account that the Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees were below the averages of the Sub-advised Expense Group and the Sub-advised Expense Universe at the Portfolio’s current size.

MSF-25

Metropolitan Series Fund

Neuberger Berman Genesis Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Advisory Agreements

The separation (the “Separation”) of MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”), the investment adviser to each of the series (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”) of Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (collectively, the “Trusts”), from its parent company, MetLife, Inc. (“MetLife”), to a separate retail business, Brighthouse Financial, Inc. (“Brighthouse”), is expected to result in a change in control of the Adviser, and therefore an “assignment” of each Portfolio’s current advisory agreement (each a “Current Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “Current Advisory Agreements”). At the November 15-16, 2016 meeting (“November Meeting”) of the Board of Trustees of the Trusts (the “Board”), the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not “interested persons,” as defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940, of any Portfolio (the “Independent Trustees”), approved a new advisory agreement (each a “New Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “New Advisory Agreements”) between the Trusts, on behalf of a Portfolio, and the Adviser, to be effective upon the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements in connection with the Separation, and recommended that the shareholders of the Trusts approve the New Advisory Agreements. The Board took those actions after consideration of and deliberation over information concerning the Separation, including with respect to the degree to which the Separation would affect the provision of investment advisory services to the Trusts. Information about the Board’s considerations and process is set forth below.

In determining whether to approve the New Advisory Agreements and in considering the Separation, the Board considered the nature, quality and extent of the services that are currently provided by the Adviser under the Current Advisory Agreements as well as the services to be provided under the New Advisory Agreements. The Board’s review was conducted as part of, and in conjunction with, the Board’s annual review of the Current Advisory Agreements, which culminated at the November Meeting. In approving the New Advisory Agreements, the Board considered its conclusions with respect to its approvals of the Current Advisory Agreements, including the Board’s general satisfaction with the nature, extent and quality of services being provided by the Adviser to each Portfolio. Appendix A and Appendix B contains a further description of the process followed, information reviewed and the material factors considered by the Board in approving the continuation of the Current Advisory Agreements.

A substantial portion of the Board’s review of the New Advisory Agreements focused on the Separation, including the potential effect of the implementation of the Separation on the operations, personnel, organizational structure, capitalization, and financial and other resources of the Adviser. After being informed by the Adviser in January 2016 of the possibility of the Separation, the Board and its Committees discussed the Separation and its possible effects on the Trusts with personnel of the Adviser and the anticipated senior management at Brighthouse during the course of the Board’s or Committee’s regularly scheduled, in-person, quarterly meetings.

Between August and November 2016, the Board and the Independent Trustees engaged in an extensive review and analysis of the Separation and how the Separation related to the Adviser and the Trusts and how it could affect the services provided to the Trusts. This analysis focused on, among other matters, the assurances from Brighthouse’s anticipated leadership as to its expectations for the continuity and stability of the Adviser’s personnel throughout implementation of the Separation and for the foreseeable future thereafter. The Board considered that the Separation is being implemented as a result of MetLife’s determination to divest itself of a substantial portion of its U.S. retail business (of which the Adviser forms a portion). The Board also considered that it has been satisfied as a general matter with the nature and quality of the services that the Adviser provides to the Portfolios, including investment advisory, administrative, legal, compliance, and support services, and that it would be in the Portfolios’ best interests to maintain continuity and stability in the services that are currently being provided. The Board carefully considered the anticipated future plans of Brighthouse related to capitalization and operational matters for Brighthouse and the Adviser, as well as the importance of the Adviser to the businesses of Brighthouse after the Separation.

Among other steps in its review process, which accelerated on October 5, 2016 when Brighthouse filed its Form 10 with the SEC, the following actions were taken and considered by or on behalf of the Board:

1. The Independent Trustees solicited and received ongoing advice regarding the legal duties of the Independent Trustees from Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young LLP (“Stradley Ronon”), legal counsel for the Independent Trustees, which law firm has extensive experience regarding such matters.

2. Following the August 16-17, 2016 Board and Committee quarterly meetings, the Independent Trustees established an ad hoc group of Independent Trustees (the “Working Group”) to help oversee, coordinate, and conduct due diligence activities with respect to the Separation. The Working Group regularly reported on the due diligence activities to the other Independent Trustees.

3. Since January 2016, the Board posed ongoing inquiries to, and received regular updates from, the Adviser and anticipated senior management at Brighthouse at either in-person meetings dedicated to the status of the Separation or during the course of the Board or Committee’s regular quarterly meetings. The Board considered, among other matters, relevant legal guidance and the processes followed by certain other investment company boards of directors or trustees when they approved contracts in connection with change in control events, while recognizing the unique circumstances of the Separation.

MSF-26

Metropolitan Series Fund

Neuberger Berman Genesis Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

4. The Board received and reviewed the Form 10 of Brighthouse that contained extensive information relating to, among other matters, Brighthouse’s anticipated business plans and financial structure. The Board also received and reviewed reports from rating agencies with respect to Brighthouse.

5. Stradley Ronon retained Barrington Partners (“Barrington”), an independent consulting firm with a specific focus on the asset management industry and experience relating to business operations such as those to be conducted by Brighthouse, including its proposed subsidiary, the Adviser, in order to help Stradley Ronon evaluate the Separation based on the Form 10 and other materials and related information provided by the Adviser and its affiliates. Barrington conducted a series of in-person and telephonic meetings with anticipated senior management at Brighthouse (i.e., the aforementioned anticipated officers of Brighthouse and others) and with personnel of the Adviser who provide services to the Trusts. Stradley Ronon, with the assistance of Barrington, evaluated the information and advised the Independent Trustees with respect to, among other matters, details of Brighthouse’s anticipated business plan to understand the implications of the Separation to the Adviser and its personnel. The Independent Trustees and the Working Group attended certain in-person and telephonic conference call meetings at which Barrington rendered advice to Stradley Ronon regarding these matters and responded to questions.

6. The Independent Trustees requested and participated in in-person meetings with anticipated senior management personnel at Brighthouse, including its President and Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, Chief Operating Officer, and Chief Investment Officer. The Independent Trustees also met with personnel of the Adviser.

7. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of Stradley Ronon, prepared written inquiries to the Adviser and its affiliates regarding the Separation, and received written assurances from the Adviser and its affiliates that they have no plans to make any material changes affecting the personnel of the Adviser (including those personnel who provide investment, administrative, legal and compliance services) and the Adviser and its affiliates will not initiate such changes without prior notice to and discussion with the Board.

8. The Board considered representations by the Adviser and its affiliates that approval of the New Advisory Agreements would be necessary for the Portfolios to continue receiving investment advisory services from the Adviser following the change in control.

9. The Board considered representations by the Adviser, as well as related supporting documentation, indicating that the New Advisory Agreements, including the fees payable thereunder, are substantially identical to the terms of the corresponding Current Advisory Agreements.

10. The Board considered representations by the Adviser and its affiliates, as well as related supporting documentation, indicating that: (1) the Adviser can be expected to provide services of the same nature, extent, and quality under the New Advisory Agreements and as are provided thereby under the Current Advisory Agreements; and (2) the Separation is not expected to result in any changes to (i) the management of the Portfolios, or (ii) the investment objective of or the principal investment strategies used to manage any of the Portfolios.

11. The Board considered the ability of the Adviser and its affiliates to retain the employment of key personnel, as well as the overall positive indications by many such personnel regarding the opportunities presented by the Separation.

12. The Board considered that the Adviser and its affiliates have agreed to bear all expenses associated with obtaining shareholder approval of the New Advisory Agreements.

13. The Board considered Brighthouse’s preliminary “branding” plans regarding the future name of its operations.

14. The Board considered the advice provided by Ropes & Gray, LLP, legal counsel to the Trusts and the Adviser, with respect to the New Advisory Agreements (including advice relating to the process and timing of seeking shareholder approval of the New Advisory Agreements, and whether shareholder approvals would be required in connection with any future aspects of the Separation) and regarding the Board’s role and responsibilities with respect to the Separation.

15. The Board considered MetLife’s stated intention of divesting its ownership interest in the Adviser through the Separation, including the potential advantages and disadvantages of this divestiture to shareholders of the Portfolios. The Board considered the likelihood that the Adviser would retain its key personnel after the Separation. The Board considered that the garnering of new assets into the Trusts is based on sales of variable annuity and variable life insurance products, which sales have declined in prior years as a result of, among other things, the capital requirements of MetLife. The Board considered the representations of the anticipated senior management of Brighthouse that the Separation provides the Trusts with an opportunity for the garnering of new assets as Brighthouse will likely sell such products going forward. The Board considered also that the divestiture would result in a change in the manner in

MSF-27

Metropolitan Series Fund

Neuberger Berman Genesis Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

which the Trusts access certain services and resources of MetLife (after the Separation those services will be provided through a transition services agreement), the loss of affiliation with the MetLife name brand, and the possible going forward need of the Trusts to hire a transfer agent, as such transfer agency services are currently provided to the Trusts for no fee.

16. The Board considered that, if shareholders approve the New Advisory Agreements, the Board and the Adviser will conduct their annual contract review process in November 2017. Thus, the Board emphasized that it would be able to, and intends to, monitor on a regular basis the ability of the Adviser and its affiliates to comply with their undertakings to the Board and to monitor on an ongoing basis the quality of services to, and expenses of, the Portfolios. In addition, the Board considered that, under the New Advisory Agreements, it will continue to have the authority, should the need arise in its view, to terminate any of the New Advisory Agreements without penalty upon 60 days’ notice.

Based on the foregoing and other relevant considerations, at the November Meeting, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, voted to approve the New Advisory Agreements and to recommend approval of the New Advisory Agreements by shareholders of the Portfolios. In this connection, the Board concluded that, in light of all factors considered, the terms of the New Advisory Agreement, including fee rates, were fair and reasonable, and that it would be in the best interests of shareholders of each Portfolio to approve the New Advisory Agreements.

In the event that approval of the New Advisory Agreements by shareholders of the Portfolios has not been obtained before the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements as a result of the change in control of the Adviser, the Board also approved an interim advisory agreement with the Adviser (the “Interim Advisory Agreement”) on behalf of each Portfolio that will go into effect upon the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements. The Board’s determination to approve each Interim Advisory Agreement was based on the same information and considerations as the Board’s approval of the New Advisory Agreements so as to ensure continuity of advisory services from the Adviser to the Portfolios following the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements.

MSF-28

Metropolitan Series Fund

Neuberger Berman Genesis Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Sub-Advisory Agreements

The separation (the “Separation”) of MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”), the investment adviser to each of the series (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”) of Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (collectively, the “Trusts”), from its parent company, MetLife, Inc. (“MetLife”), to a separate retail business, Brighthouse Financial, Inc. (“Brighthouse”), is expected to result in a change in control of the Adviser, and therefore an “assignment” of each Portfolio’s current advisory agreement and, as a result, the automatic termination of the sub-advisory agreement (each a “Sub-Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisory Agreements”) between the Adviser and the investment sub-advisers (each a “Sub-Adviser” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisers”). At the November 15-16, 2016 meeting (“November Meeting”) of the Board of Trustees of the Trusts (the “Board”), the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not “interested persons,” as defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940, of any Portfolio (the “Independent Trustees”), approved new sub-advisory agreements (each a “New Sub-Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “New Sub-Advisory Agreements”). Information about the Board’s considerations and process is set forth below.

In determining whether to approve the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, the Board considered the nature, quality and extent of the services that are currently provided by the Sub-Advisers under the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements as well as the services to be provided under the New Sub-Advisory Agreements. The Board’s review was conducted as part of, and in conjunction with, the Board’s annual review of the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements, which culminated at the November Meeting. In approving the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, the Board considered its conclusions with respect to its approvals of the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements, including the Board’s general satisfaction with the nature, extent and quality of services being provided by the Sub-Advisers to the Portfolios, as applicable. Appendix A contains a further description of the process followed, information reviewed and the material factors considered by the Board in approving the continuation of the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements.

In addition, the following actions were taken and considered by or on behalf of the Board:

1. The Independent Trustees of the Board solicited and received ongoing advice regarding the legal duties of the Independent Trustees from Stradley Ronon, legal counsel for the Independent Trustees, which law firm has extensive experience regarding such matters.

2. The Board considered representations by the Adviser and its affiliates that approval of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements would be necessary for the Portfolios to continue receiving sub-advisory services from the Sub-Advisers following the change in control of the Adviser.

3. The Board considered representations by the Adviser, as well as related supporting documentation, indicating that the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, including the fees payable thereunder, are the same as the terms of the corresponding Current Sub-Advisory Agreements.

4. The Board considered the advice provided by Ropes & Gray, LLP, legal counsel to the Trusts and the Adviser, with respect to the New Sub-Advisory Agreements and regarding the Board’s role and responsibilities with respect to the Separation.

5. The Board considered that the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers will conduct their annual contract review process in November 2017. Thus, the Board emphasized that it would be able to, and intends to, monitor on an ongoing basis the ability of the Sub-Advisers to comply with its undertakings to the Board and the Adviser and to monitor on an ongoing basis the quality of services to, and expenses of, the Portfolios. In addition, the Board considered that, under the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, it will continue to have the authority, should the need arise in its view, to terminate any of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements without penalty upon no more than 60 days’ notice.

Based on the foregoing and other relevant considerations, at the November Meeting, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, voted to approve the New Sub-Advisory Agreements. In this connection, the Board concluded that, in light of all factors considered, the terms of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, including fee rates, were fair and reasonable.

MSF-29

Metropolitan Series Fund

Russell 2000 Index Portfolio

Managed by MetLife Investment Advisors, LLC

Portfolio Manager Commentary*

PERFORMANCE

For the 12 months ended December 31, 2016, the Class A, B, E, and G shares of the Russell 2000 Index Portfolio returned 21.28%, 20.96%, 21.09%, and 20.92%, respectively. The Portfolio’s benchmark, the Russell 2000 Index¹, returned 21.31%.

MARKET ENVIRONMENT / CONDITIONS

Global equity markets were mixed in the first half of 2016 on uncertainty about a global economic slowdown, potential Federal Reserve Bank (the “Fed”) interest rate hikes, the U.S. Presidential election, and Brexit. However, equity indexes rallied in the second half of the year on easy monetary policies and strong macroeconomic data. Equity markets also benefited from central bank intervention and improving commodity prices. The People’s Bank of China cut reserve requirement ratios, the European Central Bank cut rates further and the Fed lowered the expected number of rate increases for 2016. On June 23, United Kingdom voters chose to “Leave” the European Union and on the day after the unexpected vote outcome, the price of gold had its largest single day increase since 2008, the British pound fell to its lowest level in 30 years, and equity markets around the world fell as much as 8%. However, global equity markets remained resilient and continued to trend higher as concerns about the referendum abated and volatility declined. U.S. equity markets reached new all-time highs in December, following Donald Trump’s surprise victory and optimism surrounding the incoming U.S. administration’s agenda. Equity markets also benefited from better than expected macroeconomic data, including U.S. durable goods orders, U.S. consumer sentiment and U.S. home sales. Factors that weighed on the equity markets included the Fed’s decision in December to raise interest rates, diplomatic tensions between the U.S. and other major world powers and terrorism concerns.

During the year, the Federal Open Market Committee (the “Committee”) met eight times and maintained the target range for the Federal Funds Rate at 0.25% to 0.50% through November. In December, the Committee raised the target range for the Federal Funds Rate to 0.50% to 0.75%. The Committee stated that the labor market had continued to strengthen and that economic activity had been expanding at a moderate pace since mid-year. The Committee also stated that job gains have been solid in recent months and that the unemployment rate had declined.

Eight of the nine sectors comprising the Russell 2000 Index experienced positive returns for the year. Materials & Processing (5.7% beginning weight in the benchmark), up 44.3%, was the best performing sector. Energy (2.3% beginning weight), up 34.0%, and Financial Services (26.6% beginning weight), up 31.2%, were the next best-performing sectors. Health Care (16.4% beginning weight), down 7.0%, was the worst-performing sectors.

The stocks with the largest positive impact on the benchmark return for the year were Advanced Micro Devices, up 295.1 %; U.S. Silica Holdings, up 204.9%; and Microsemi, up 65.6%. The stocks with the largest negative impact were Ophthotech, down 93.8%; Novavax, down 85.0%; and Impax Laboratories, down 69.0%.

PORTFOLIO REVIEW / PERIOD END POSITIONING

The Portfolio is managed utilizing a stratified sampling strategy versus the Russell 2000 Index. This strategy seeks to replicate the performance of the Index by owning a subset of Index constituents and neutralizing exposures across sectors. The Portfolio is periodically rebalanced for compositional changes in the Russell 2000 Index. Factors that impact tracking error include sampling, transaction costs, cash drag, securities lending, NAV rounding, contributions and withdrawals.

Stacey Lituchy

Norman Hu

Mirsad Usejnoski

Portfolio Managers

MetLife Investment 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 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.

MSF-1

Metropolitan Series Fund

Russell 2000 Index Portfolio

A $10,000 INVESTMENT COMPARED TO THE RUSSELL 2000 INDEX

AVERAGE ANNUAL RETURNS (%) (FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2016)

	1 Year		5 Year		10 Year		Since Inception2
Russell 2000 Index Portfolio
Class A		21.28		14.48		7.04		—
Class B		20.96		14.19		6.78		—
Class E		21.09		14.30		6.89		—
Class G		20.92		14.13		—		15.93
Russell 2000 Index		21.31		14.46		7.07		—

¹ The Russell 2000 Index is an unmanaged measure of performance of the 2,000 smallest companies in the Russell 3000 Index.

² Inception dates of the Class A, Class B, Class E and Class G shares are 11/9/98, 1/2/01, 5/1/01 and 4/28/09, respectively.

Portfolio performance is calculated including reinvestment of all income and capital gain distributions. Performance numbers are net of all Portfolio expenses but do not include any insurance, sales, separate account or administrative charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts or any additional expenses that participants may bear relating to the operations of their plans. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower. The performance of any index referenced above has not been adjusted for ongoing management, distribution and operating expenses, and sales charges applicable to mutual fund investments. Direct investment in any index is not possible. The performance of Class A shares, as set forth in the line graph above, will differ from that of other classes because of the difference in expenses paid by policyholders investing in the different share classes.

This information represents past performance and is not indicative of future results. Investment return and principal value may fluctuate so that shares, upon redemption, may be worth more or less than the original cost.

PORTFOLIO COMPOSITION AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2016

Top Holdings

	% of Net Assets
iShares Russell 2000 Index Fund		1.8
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.		0.4
Microsemi Corp.		0.3
Webster Financial Corp.		0.3
Prosperity Bancshares, Inc.		0.2
Bank of the Ozarks, Inc.		0.2
RSP Permian, Inc.		0.2
Curtiss-Wright Corp.		0.2
Aspen Technology, Inc.		0.2
U.S. Silica Holdings, Inc.		0.2

Top Sectors

	% of Net Assets
Financials		20.6
Information Technology		16.2
Industrials		14.0
Consumer Discretionary		11.9
Health Care		11.5
Real Estate		7.7
Materials		4.6
Energy		3.5
Utilities		3.5
Consumer Staples		2.9

MSF-2

Metropolitan Series Fund

Russell 2000 Index 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, 2016 through December 31, 2016.

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.

Russell 2000 Index Portfolio		Annualized Expense Ratio			Beginning Account Value July 1, 2016		Ending Account Value December 31, 2016		Expenses Paid During Period** July 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016
Class A(a)	Actual		0.30	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,185.90	$	1.65
	Hypothetical*		0.30	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,023.63	$	1.53
Class B(a)	Actual		0.55	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,184.70	$	3.02
	Hypothetical*		0.55	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,022.37	$	2.80
Class E(a)	Actual		0.45	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,185.10	$	2.47
	Hypothetical*		0.45	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,022.87	$	2.29
Class G(a)	Actual		0.60	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,184.60	$	3.29
	Hypothetical*		0.60	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,022.12	$	3.05

* 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 366 (to reflect the one-half year period).

^(a) The annualized expense ratio shown reflects the impact of the management fee waiver as described in Note 6 of the Notes to Financial Statements.

MSF-3

Metropolitan Series Fund

Russell 2000 Index Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—95.3% of Net Assets

Security Description	Shares		Value
Aerospace & Defense—1.5%
AAR Corp.		16,635	$	549,787
Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings, Inc. (a)		29,383		527,425
Aerovironment, Inc. (a) (b)		8,967		240,585
Astronics Corp. (a)		8,569		289,975
Cubic Corp. (b)		12,431		596,066
Curtiss-Wright Corp.		21,215		2,086,707
DigitalGlobe, Inc. (a)		29,669		850,017
Ducommun, Inc. (a)		5,959		152,312
Engility Holdings, Inc. (a)		8,737		294,437
Esterline Technologies Corp. (a)		14,168		1,263,786
KEYW Holding Corp. (The) (a) (b)		17,571		207,162
KLX, Inc. (a)		25,831		1,165,236
Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc. (a)		23,529		174,115
Mercury Systems, Inc. (a) (b)		19,389		585,935
Moog, Inc. - Class A (a)		15,634		1,026,841
National Presto Industries, Inc. (b)		2,572		273,661
Sparton Corp. (a) (b)		5,193		123,853
TASER International, Inc. (a) (b)		26,071		631,961
Teledyne Technologies, Inc. (a)		15,874		1,952,502
Triumph Group, Inc. (b)		24,082		638,173
Vectrus, Inc. (a)		5,647		134,681
Wesco Aircraft Holdings, Inc. (a) (b)		29,211		436,704
				14,201,921
Air Freight & Logistics—0.5%
Air Transport Services Group, Inc. (a)		25,431		405,879
Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings, Inc. (a)		12,481		650,884
Echo Global Logistics, Inc. (a)		14,649		366,957
Forward Air Corp.		14,772		699,897
HUB Group, Inc. - Class A (a)		15,117		661,369
Park-Ohio Holdings Corp.		4,748		202,265
XPO Logistics, Inc. (a) (b)		45,582		1,967,319
				4,954,570
Airlines—0.4%
Allegiant Travel Co.		6,072		1,010,381
Hawaiian Holdings, Inc. (a)		25,756		1,468,092
SkyWest, Inc.		24,419		890,072
				3,368,545
Auto Components—1.2%
American Axle & Manufacturing Holdings, Inc. (a) (b)		37,813		729,791
Cooper Tire & Rubber Co.		27,246		1,058,507
Cooper-Standard Holding, Inc. (a)		6,881		711,358
Dana, Inc.		69,361		1,316,472
Dorman Products, Inc. (a)		12,774		933,268
Federal-Mogul Holdings Corp. (a)		15,664		161,496
Fox Factory Holding Corp. (a)		11,504		319,236
Gentherm, Inc. (a)		17,276		584,793
Horizon Global Corp. (a)		9,617		230,808
LCI Industries		11,598		1,249,685
Metaldyne Performance Group, Inc.		6,210		142,520
Modine Manufacturing Co. (a)		23,187		345,486
Motorcar Parts of America, Inc. (a) (b)		8,000		215,360
Spartan Motors, Inc.		17,934		165,890
Auto Components—(Continued)
Standard Motor Products, Inc.		9,638		512,934
Stoneridge, Inc. (a)		13,705		242,441
Superior Industries International, Inc. (b)		12,615		332,405
Tenneco, Inc. (a) (b)		27,494		1,717,550
Tower International, Inc.		10,455		296,399
				11,266,399
Automobiles—0.0%
Winnebago Industries, Inc.		12,257		387,934
Banks—11.3%
1st Source Corp.		7,645		341,426
Access National Corp. (b)		4,414		122,533
Allegiance Bancshares, Inc. (a)		5,825		210,574
American National Bankshares, Inc.		4,311		150,023
Ameris Bancorp		16,855		734,878
Ames National Corp.		4,647		153,351
Arrow Financial Corp. (b)		5,994		242,757
Atlantic Capital Bancshares, Inc. (a)		7,046		133,874
Banc of California, Inc. (b)		23,881		414,335
BancFirst Corp.		3,589		333,956
Banco Latinoamericano de Comercio Exterior S.A. - Class E		14,005		412,307
Bancorp, Inc. (The) (a) (b)		25,747		202,371
BancorpSouth, Inc.		41,566		1,290,624
Bank of Marin Bancorp		3,199		223,130
Bank of NT Butterfield & Son, Ltd. (The)		9,084		285,601
Bank of the Ozarks, Inc.		41,195		2,166,445
Banner Corp.		14,787		825,262
Bar Harbor Bankshares		2,884		136,500
Berkshire Hills Bancorp, Inc.		14,754		543,685
Blue Hills Bancorp, Inc. (b)		13,063		244,931
BNC Bancorp		18,833		600,773
Boston Private Financial Holdings, Inc.		40,232		665,840
Bridge Bancorp, Inc.		8,870		336,173
Brookline Bancorp, Inc.		33,001		541,216
Bryn Mawr Bank Corp.		8,151		343,565
Camden National Corp.		7,839		348,444
Capital Bank Financial Corp. - Class A		11,940		468,645
Capital City Bank Group, Inc.		5,769		118,149
Cardinal Financial Corp.		14,931		489,588
Carolina Financial Corp.		5,566		171,377
Cascade Bancorp (a)		16,748		135,994
Cathay General Bancorp		34,405		1,308,422
CenterState Banks, Inc.		21,605		543,798
Central Pacific Financial Corp.		15,142		475,762
Chemical Financial Corp.		30,595		1,657,331
Citizens & Northern Corp.		6,716		175,959
City Holding Co. (b)		6,429		434,600
CNB Financial Corp.		6,782		181,351
CoBiz Financial, Inc.		17,832		301,183
Codorus Valley Bancorp, Inc.		4,262		121,893
Columbia Banking System, Inc.		28,451		1,271,191
Community Bank System, Inc. (b)		20,283		1,253,287
Community Trust Bancorp, Inc.		8,162		404,835
ConnectOne Bancorp, Inc. (b)		13,860		359,667

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-4

Metropolitan Series Fund

Russell 2000 Index Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Banks—(Continued)
CU Bancorp (a)		8,163	$	292,235
Customers Bancorp, Inc. (a)		11,686		418,593
CVB Financial Corp. (b)		50,002		1,146,546
Eagle Bancorp, Inc. (a)		15,010		914,860
Enterprise Bancorp, Inc.		4,064		152,644
Enterprise Financial Services Corp.		9,318		400,674
Farmers Capital Bank Corp.		3,713		156,132
Farmers National Banc Corp.		13,414		190,479
FCB Financial Holdings, Inc. - Class A (a)		14,825		707,153
Fidelity Southern Corp. (b)		10,827		256,275
Financial Institutions, Inc.		6,461		220,966
First BanCorp (a)		55,535		367,086
First Bancorp		8,573		232,671
First Bancorp, Inc.		5,308		175,695
First Busey Corp.		15,850		487,863
First Citizens BancShares, Inc. - Class A		3,585		1,272,675
First Commonwealth Financial Corp.		41,887		593,958
First Community Bancshares, Inc. (b)		8,470		255,286
First Connecticut Bancorp, Inc. (b)		7,629		172,797
First Financial Bancorp		28,214		802,688
First Financial Bankshares, Inc. (b)		30,167		1,363,548
First Financial Corp.		4,114		217,219
First Foundation, Inc. (a)		6,983		199,016
First Interstate BancSystem, Inc. - Class A (b)		9,233		392,864
First Merchants Corp.		20,166		759,250
First Mid-Illinois Bancshares, Inc.		4,235		143,990
First Midwest Bancorp, Inc.		39,553		997,922
First of Long Island Corp. (The) (b)		9,924		283,330
Flushing Financial Corp.		15,132		444,730
FNB Corp.		102,372		1,641,023
Franklin Financial Network, Inc. (a)		4,922		205,986
Fulton Financial Corp.		82,075		1,543,010
German American Bancorp, Inc.		6,759		355,591
Glacier Bancorp, Inc. (b)		37,248		1,349,495
Great Southern Bancorp, Inc.		4,991		272,758
Great Western Bancorp, Inc.		28,884		1,259,054
Green Bancorp, Inc. (a)		11,285		171,532
Guaranty Bancorp		8,675		209,935
Hancock Holding Co.		37,825		1,630,258
Hanmi Financial Corp.		15,681		547,267
HarborOne Bancorp, Inc. (a) (b)		7,619		147,351
Heartland Financial USA, Inc.		10,964		526,272
Heritage Commerce Corp.		10,489		151,356
Heritage Financial Corp.		12,644		325,583
Heritage Oaks Bancorp		11,367		140,155
Hilltop Holdings, Inc.		34,409		1,025,388
Home BancShares, Inc. (b)		58,980		1,637,875
HomeTrust Bancshares, Inc. (a)		6,444		166,900
Hope Bancorp, Inc.		59,993		1,313,247
Horizon Bancorp		9,708		271,824
Iberiabank Corp. (b)		21,123		1,769,051
Independent Bank Corp.		11,863		257,427
Independent Bank Corp./Rockland Trust (b)		12,760		898,942
Independent Bank Group, Inc. (b)		5,438		339,331
International Bancshares Corp.		25,537		1,041,910
Investors Bancorp, Inc.		137,546		1,918,767
Lakeland Bancorp, Inc.		17,320		337,740
Banks—(Continued)
Lakeland Financial Corp.		12,208		578,171
LegacyTexas Financial Group, Inc. (b)		22,230		957,224
Live Oak Bancshares, Inc.		10,388		192,178
Macatawa Bank Corp.		14,416		150,071
MainSource Financial Group, Inc.		10,246		352,462
MB Financial, Inc.		36,413		1,719,786
Mercantile Bank Corp.		8,647		325,992
Merchants Bancshares, Inc.		3,000		162,600
MidWestOne Financial Group, Inc.		3,645		137,052
National Bank Holdings Corp. - Class A		12,889		411,030
National Bankshares, Inc. (b)		3,487		151,510
National Commerce Corp. (a)		4,628		171,930
NBT Bancorp, Inc. (b)		20,117		842,500
Nicolet Bankshares, Inc. (a) (b)		3,298		157,282
OFG Bancorp		19,884		260,480
Old National Bancorp (b)		65,101		1,181,583
Old Second Bancorp, Inc.		14,296		157,971
Opus Bank (b)		8,631		259,362
Pacific Continental Corp.		10,841		236,876
Pacific Premier Bancorp, Inc. (a)		12,610		445,764
Park National Corp.		6,727		804,953
Park Sterling Corp.		23,392		252,400
Peapack Gladstone Financial Corp.		6,672		206,031
Penns Woods Bancorp, Inc.		2,408		121,604
People’s Utah Bancorp		7,011		188,245
Peoples Bancorp, Inc.		6,641		215,567
Peoples Financial Services Corp.		3,673		178,875
Pinnacle Financial Partners, Inc. (b)		20,982		1,454,053
Preferred Bank		5,630		295,125
PrivateBancorp, Inc.		36,340		1,969,265
Prosperity Bancshares, Inc. (b)		31,257		2,243,627
QCR Holdings, Inc.		5,811		251,616
Renasant Corp.		20,087		848,073
Republic Bancorp, Inc. - Class A		5,421		214,346
Republic First Bancorp, Inc. (a)		25,144		209,952
S&T Bancorp, Inc.		15,660		611,366
Sandy Spring Bancorp, Inc.		10,533		421,215
Seacoast Banking Corp. of Florida (a)		15,100		333,106
ServisFirst Bancshares, Inc.		20,928		783,544
Sierra Bancorp		5,841		155,312
Simmons First National Corp. - Class A (b)		13,943		866,557
South State Corp. (b)		10,971		958,865
Southside Bancshares, Inc.		12,681		477,693
Southwest Bancorp, Inc.		9,007		261,203
State Bank Financial Corp.		16,379		439,940
Sterling Bancorp		61,931		1,449,185
Stock Yards Bancorp, Inc. (b)		10,633		499,219
Stonegate Bank		5,132		214,158
Suffolk Bancorp		6,378		273,106
Summit Financial Group, Inc.		4,363		120,113
Sun Bancorp, Inc.		4,652		120,952
Texas Capital Bancshares, Inc. (a)		23,642		1,853,533
Tompkins Financial Corp. (b)		7,424		701,865
Towne Bank		27,456		912,912
TriCo Bancshares		11,155		381,278
TriState Capital Holdings, Inc. (a)		11,422		252,426
Triumph Bancorp, Inc. (a)		7,480		195,602

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-5

Metropolitan Series Fund

Russell 2000 Index Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Banks—(Continued)
Trustmark Corp. (b)		31,188	$	1,111,852
UMB Financial Corp.		21,887		1,687,925
Umpqua Holdings Corp.		104,556		1,963,562
Union Bankshares Corp.		20,843		744,929
United Bankshares, Inc. (b)		30,603		1,415,389
United Community Banks, Inc.		34,521		1,022,512
Univest Corp. of Pennsylvania		12,133		374,910
Valley National Bancorp (b)		120,885		1,407,101
Veritex Holdings, Inc. (a)		4,364		116,562
Washington Trust Bancorp, Inc.		7,713		432,314
WashingtonFirst Bankshares, Inc.		4,654		134,908
Webster Financial Corp. (b)		43,929		2,384,466
WesBanco, Inc.		20,241		871,577
West Bancorp, Inc.		8,036		198,489
Westamerica Bancorp (b)		12,513		787,443
Wintrust Financial Corp.		25,023		1,815,919
Xenith Bankshares, Inc. (a) (b)		3,934		110,939
Yadkin Financial Corp.		24,582		842,179
				105,363,461
Beverages—0.2%
Boston Beer Co., Inc. (The) - Class A (a)		4,334		736,130
Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Consolidated		2,376		424,948
MGP Ingredients, Inc. (b)		5,440		271,891
National Beverage Corp.		5,742		293,301
Primo Water Corp. (a)		10,997		135,043
				1,861,313
Biotechnology—3.9%
Acceleron Pharma, Inc. (a) (b)		13,695		349,496
Achillion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a)		56,103		231,705
Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. (a)		20,455		384,554
Adamas Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a) (b)		7,040		118,976
Aduro Biotech, Inc. (a) (b)		18,643		212,530
Advaxis, Inc. (a) (b)		18,811		134,687
Agenus, Inc. (a) (b)		38,088		156,923
Aimmune Therapeutics, Inc. (a) (b)		14,043		287,179
Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. (a)		22,828		237,640
Alder Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. (a) (b)		23,239		483,371
AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a)		16,034		557,983
Amicus Therapeutics, Inc. (a) (b)		70,916		352,453
Ardelyx, Inc. (a)		16,415		233,093
Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a)		114,310		162,320
ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a) (b)		87,547		1,089,085
Array BioPharma, Inc. (a)		82,904		728,726
Atara Biotherapeutics, Inc. (a) (b)		11,963		169,875
Avexis, Inc. (a) (b)		2,726		130,112
Axovant Sciences, Ltd. (a) (b)		13,161		163,460
Bellicum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a) (b)		11,404		155,323
BioCryst Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a) (b)		42,881		271,437
BioSpecifics Technologies Corp. (a)		3,039		169,272
BioTime, Inc. (a) (b)		39,767		143,559
Bluebird Bio, Inc. (a)		19,539		1,205,556
Blueprint Medicines Corp. (a)		10,512		294,862
Celldex Therapeutics, Inc. (a)		47,742		169,007
Clovis Oncology, Inc. (a) (b)		16,535		734,485
Biotechnology—(Continued)
Coherus Biosciences, Inc. (a)		15,243		429,090
Curis, Inc. (a) (b)		63,039		194,160
Cytokinetics, Inc. (a)		18,716		227,399
CytomX Therapeutics, Inc. (a)		11,599		127,473
Eagle Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a) (b)		4,073		323,152
Emergent BioSolutions, Inc. (a) (b)		15,717		516,146
Enanta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a)		7,598		254,533
Epizyme, Inc. (a)		20,920		253,132
Exact Sciences Corp. (a)		50,476		674,359
Exelixis, Inc. (a)		111,773		1,666,535
FibroGen, Inc. (a) (b)		24,972		534,401
Five Prime Therapeutics, Inc. (a) (b)		13,422		672,576
Flexion Therapeutics, Inc. (a)		12,372		235,315
Foundation Medicine, Inc. (a) (b)		7,156		126,661
Genomic Health, Inc. (a)		8,810		258,926
Geron Corp. (a) (b)		75,588		156,467
Global Blood Therapeutics, Inc. (a)		7,789		112,551
Halozyme Therapeutics, Inc. (a) (b)		51,119		505,056
Heron Therapeutics, Inc. (a) (b)		18,692		244,865
Immunomedics, Inc. (a) (b)		49,803		182,777
Inovio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a) (b)		36,297		251,901
Insmed, Inc. (a) (b)		30,343		401,438
Insys Therapeutics, Inc. (a) (b)		11,118		102,286
Ironwood Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a)		63,682		973,698
Karyopharm Therapeutics, Inc. (a)		15,254		143,388
Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. (a) (b)		50,118		293,692
Kite Pharma, Inc. (a) (b)		19,210		861,376
La Jolla Pharmaceutical Co. (a)		6,436		112,823
Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a) (b)		23,843		329,749
Ligand Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a)		9,331		948,123
Lion Biotechnologies, Inc. (a)		25,388		176,447
Loxo Oncology, Inc. (a) (b)		7,131		229,012
MacroGenics, Inc. (a)		14,803		302,573
Merrimack Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a) (b)		64,388		262,703
MiMedx Group, Inc. (a) (b)		48,233		427,344
Minerva Neurosciences, Inc. (a) (b)		10,917		128,275
Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a)		32,218		484,881
Myriad Genetics, Inc. (a)		33,438		557,412
Natera, Inc. (a)		13,813		161,750
NewLink Genetics Corp. (a)		11,288		116,041
Novavax, Inc. (a) (b)		138,764		174,843
Organovo Holdings, Inc. (a) (b)		45,372		153,811
Otonomy, Inc. (a)		12,561		199,720
PDL BioPharma, Inc.		77,531		164,366
Portola Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a) (b)		23,603		529,651
Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a)		32,263		278,752
Prothena Corp. plc (a)		16,405		806,962
PTC Therapeutics, Inc. (a)		15,786		172,225
Puma Biotechnology, Inc. (a)		13,791		423,384
Radius Health, Inc. (a)		15,372		584,597
REGENXBIO, Inc. (a)		11,312		209,838
Repligen Corp. (a)		15,913		490,439
Retrophin, Inc. (a)		16,403		310,509
Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a)		44,752		106,510
Sage Therapeutics, Inc. (a)		14,728		752,012
Sangamo Biosciences, Inc. (a)		31,616		96,429
Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. (a) (b)		24,301		666,576

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-6

Metropolitan Series Fund

Russell 2000 Index Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Biotechnology—(Continued)
Spark Therapeutics, Inc. (a)		9,557	$	476,894
Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a) (b)		40,647		180,066
Synergy Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a)		91,913		559,750
TESARO, Inc. (a)		13,684		1,840,224
Trevena, Inc. (a)		24,287		142,808
Ultragenyx Pharmaceutical, Inc. (a) (b)		17,507		1,230,917
Vanda Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a)		20,273		323,354
Versartis, Inc. (a)		16,518		246,118
XBiotech, Inc. (a) (b)		9,412		95,249
Xencor, Inc. (a)		16,674		438,860
ZIOPHARM Oncology, Inc. (a) (b)		61,375		328,356
				36,271,375
Building Products—1.1%
AAON, Inc.		19,095		631,090
Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc.		15,729		324,017
American Woodmark Corp. (a)		6,699		504,100
Apogee Enterprises, Inc. (b)		13,684		732,915
Armstrong Flooring, Inc. (a) (b)		11,681		232,569
Builders FirstSource, Inc. (a) (b)		41,041		450,220
Caesarstone, Ltd. (a)		11,687		334,833
Continental Building Products, Inc. (a)		17,313		399,930
CSW Industrials, Inc. (a)		6,168		227,291
Gibraltar Industries, Inc. (a)		14,856		618,752
Griffon Corp. (b)		14,438		378,276
Insteel Industries, Inc. (b)		7,222		257,392
Masonite International Corp. (a)		14,468		951,994
NCI Building Systems, Inc. (a)		13,110		205,172
Patrick Industries, Inc. (a)		7,120		543,256
PGT Innovations, Inc. (a) (b)		22,494		257,556
Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. (a)		11,295		183,544
Quanex Building Products Corp. (b)		17,697		359,249
Simpson Manufacturing Co., Inc.		19,498		853,037
Trex Co., Inc. (a) (b)		14,671		944,812
Universal Forest Products, Inc.		9,556		976,432
				10,366,437
Capital Markets—1.3%
Arlington Asset Investment Corp. - Class A (b)		10,056		149,030
BGC Partners, Inc. - Class A (b)		106,454		1,089,024
Cohen & Steers, Inc. (b)		9,693		325,685
Cowen Group, Inc. - Class A (a) (b)		13,196		204,538
Diamond Hill Investment Group, Inc.		1,546		325,247
Evercore Partners, Inc. - Class A		19,079		1,310,727
Financial Engines, Inc.		25,168		924,924
Gain Capital Holdings, Inc. (b)		20,006		131,639
Greenhill & Co., Inc. (b)		13,790		381,983
Houlihan Lokey, Inc.		5,655		175,984
International FCStone, Inc. (a)		7,668		303,653
Investment Technology Group, Inc. (b)		17,949		354,313
Janus Capital Group, Inc.		67,529		896,110
KCG Holdings, Inc. - Class A (a)		26,254		347,865
Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services, Inc. (a)		51,479		125,609
Moelis & Co. - Class A		8,425		285,608
Capital Markets—(Continued)
OM Asset Management plc		20,265		293,843
Piper Jaffray Cos. (a) (b)		7,063		512,067
PJT Partners, Inc. - Class A		7,794		240,679
Safeguard Scientifics, Inc. (a)		10,084		135,630
Stifel Financial Corp. (a)		29,866		1,491,807
Virtu Financial, Inc. - Class A		12,905		205,835
Virtus Investment Partners, Inc.		2,012		237,517
Waddell & Reed Financial, Inc. - Class A (b)		38,993		760,753
Westwood Holdings Group, Inc.		3,235		194,068
WisdomTree Investments, Inc. (b)		53,688		598,084
				12,002,222
Chemicals—2.4%
A. Schulman, Inc.		12,704		424,949
American Vanguard Corp.		14,887		285,086
Balchem Corp. (b)		15,291		1,283,221
Calgon Carbon Corp. (b)		26,333		447,661
Chase Corp.		3,533		295,182
Chemours Co. (The)		85,221		1,882,532
Chemtura Corp. (a)		31,150		1,034,180
Ferro Corp. (a) (b)		40,624		582,142
Flotek Industries, Inc. (a) (b)		28,523		267,831
FutureFuel Corp.		10,195		141,710
GCP Applied Technologies, Inc. (a)		34,475		922,206
Hawkins, Inc.		4,778		257,773
HB Fuller Co.		23,919		1,155,527
Ingevity Corp. (a)		20,745		1,138,071
Innophos Holdings, Inc.		9,884		516,538
Innospec, Inc.		11,303		774,255
KMG Chemicals, Inc.		5,294		205,884
Koppers Holdings, Inc. (a)		10,265		413,679
Kraton Corp. (a)		14,021		399,318
Kronos Worldwide, Inc.		11,199		133,716
Minerals Technologies, Inc.		16,456		1,271,226
Olin Corp. (b)		76,354		1,955,426
OMNOVA Solutions, Inc. (a)		22,821		228,210
PolyOne Corp.		39,392		1,262,120
Quaker Chemical Corp.		5,838		746,914
Rayonier Advanced Materials, Inc. (b)		19,176		296,461
Sensient Technologies Corp.		20,810		1,635,250
Stepan Co.		9,222		751,409
Trecora Resources (a)		10,819		149,843
Tredegar Corp. (b)		13,367		320,808
Trinseo S.A.		12,370		733,541
Tronox, Ltd. - Class A		30,359		313,001
				22,225,670
Commercial Services & Supplies—2.4%
ABM Industries, Inc.		25,771		1,052,488
ACCO Brands Corp. (a)		52,031		679,005
Advanced Disposal Services, Inc. (a)		15,761		350,209
Brady Corp. - Class A		22,732		853,587
Brink’s Co. (The)		21,829		900,446
Casella Waste Systems, Inc. - Class A (a)		20,153		250,099
Ceco Environmental Corp.		14,983		209,013
Deluxe Corp.		23,575		1,688,206

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-7

Metropolitan Series Fund

Russell 2000 Index Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Commercial Services & Supplies—(Continued)
Ennis, Inc.		14,123	$	245,034
Essendant, Inc.		18,301		382,491
G&K Services, Inc. - Class A		9,849		949,936
Healthcare Services Group, Inc.		33,776		1,323,006
Herman Miller, Inc.		28,305		968,031
HNI Corp. (b)		20,835		1,165,093
InnerWorkings, Inc. (a)		18,741		184,599
Interface, Inc.		31,333		581,227
Kimball International, Inc. - Class B		16,738		293,919
Knoll, Inc.		23,781		664,203
Matthews International Corp. - Class A		15,251		1,172,039
McGrath RentCorp		10,515		412,083
Mobile Mini, Inc. (b)		20,245		612,411
MSA Safety, Inc.		15,204		1,054,093
Multi-Color Corp. (b)		6,168		478,637
Quad/Graphics, Inc.		13,076		351,483
SP Plus Corp. (a)		8,683		244,426
Steelcase, Inc. - Class A		42,340		757,886
Team, Inc. (a) (b)		14,183		556,683
Tetra Tech, Inc. (d)		27,830		1,200,865
U.S. Ecology, Inc.		10,067		494,793
UniFirst Corp. (b)		7,187		1,032,413
Viad Corp.		8,932		393,901
VSE Corp.		4,190		162,740
West Corp.		20,298		502,578
				22,167,623
Communications Equipment—1.7%
ADTRAN, Inc.		24,190		540,646
Applied Optoelectronics, Inc. (a)		8,622		202,100
Bel Fuse, Inc. - Class B		4,719		145,817
Black Box Corp.		7,770		118,493
CalAmp Corp. (a) (b)		19,380		281,010
Calix, Inc. (a)		19,494		150,104
Ciena Corp. (a)		66,636		1,626,585
Clearfield, Inc. (a) (b)		6,024		124,697
Comtech Telecommunications Corp.		11,475		135,979
Digi International, Inc. (a)		12,500		171,875
EMCORE Corp.		13,561		117,981
Extreme Networks, Inc. (a)		50,414		253,582
Finisar Corp. (a) (b)		50,382		1,525,063
Harmonic, Inc. (a)		42,437		212,185
Infinera Corp. (a)		66,643		565,799
InterDigital, Inc.		16,024		1,463,792
Ixia (a)		28,748		462,843
Lumentum Holdings, Inc. (a)		24,695		954,462
NETGEAR, Inc. (a)		14,969		813,565
NetScout Systems, Inc. (a) (b)		43,077		1,356,925
Oclaro, Inc. (a)		49,350		441,683
Plantronics, Inc.		15,665		857,815
ShoreTel, Inc. (a)		28,961		207,071
Silicom, Ltd.		2,937		120,681
Sonus Networks, Inc. (a)		24,015		151,295
Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. (a)		12,458		720,072
ViaSat, Inc. (a)		24,578		1,627,555
Viavi Solutions, Inc. (a)		114,315		935,097
				16,284,772
Construction & Engineering—0.9%
Aegion Corp. (a)		17,495		414,632
Argan, Inc. (b)		6,140		433,177
Comfort Systems USA, Inc.		17,796		592,607
Dycom Industries, Inc. (a) (b)		14,939		1,199,452
EMCOR Group, Inc.		28,215		1,996,493
Granite Construction, Inc.		19,068		1,048,740
Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Corp. (a)		30,133		126,559
MasTec, Inc. (a)		32,059		1,226,257
MYR Group, Inc. (a)		6,874		259,012
NV5 Global, Inc. (a)		3,969		132,565
Orion Marine Group, Inc. (a)		14,333		142,613
Primoris Services Corp. (b)		17,845		406,509
Tutor Perini Corp. (a)		19,192		537,376
				8,515,992
Construction Materials—0.3%
Forterra, Inc. (a)		14,048		304,280
Headwaters, Inc. (a)		34,173		803,749
Summit Materials, Inc. - Class A (a)		37,470		891,411
U.S. Concrete, Inc. (a) (b)		7,217		472,713
				2,472,153
Consumer Finance—0.5%
Encore Capital Group, Inc. (a) (b)		12,804		366,835
Enova International, Inc. (a)		13,048		163,752
EZCORP, Inc. - Class A (a) (b)		25,543		272,033
FirstCash, Inc.		22,224		1,044,528
Green Dot Corp. - Class A (a)		21,594		508,539
LendingClub Corp. (a)		161,286		846,751
Nelnet, Inc. - Class A		9,125		463,094
PRA Group, Inc. (a) (b)		22,334		873,259
Regional Management Corp. (a) (b)		5,771		151,662
World Acceptance Corp. (a) (b)		3,560		228,837
				4,919,290
Containers & Packaging—0.1%
AEP Industries, Inc.		1,974		229,182
Greif, Inc. - Class A		12,112		621,467
Greif, Inc. - Class B		2,277		153,811
Multi Packaging Solutions International, Ltd. (a)		9,350		133,331
Myers Industries, Inc.		13,337		190,719
				1,328,510
Distributors—0.1%
Core-Mark Holding Co., Inc. (b)		22,876		985,269
Diversified Consumer Services—1.0%
American Public Education, Inc. (a)		8,921		219,011
Apollo Education Group, Inc. (a)		44,173		437,313
Bright Horizons Family Solutions, Inc. (a)		21,377		1,496,818
Capella Education Co.		5,633		494,577
Career Education Corp. (a)		35,115		354,310
Carriage Services, Inc. (b)		7,506		214,972
Chegg, Inc. (a) (b)		36,609		270,174

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-8

Metropolitan Series Fund

Russell 2000 Index Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Diversified Consumer Services—(Continued)
DeVry Education Group, Inc.		29,702	$	926,702
Grand Canyon Education, Inc. (a) (b)		20,833		1,217,689
Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Co. (a)		59,125		641,506
K12, Inc. (a)		17,337		297,503
LifeLock, Inc. (a)		38,744		926,756
Regis Corp. (a)		18,180		263,974
Sotheby’s (a) (b)		23,893		952,375
Strayer Education, Inc. (a)		5,524		445,400
Weight Watchers International, Inc. (a) (b)		13,493		154,495
				9,313,575
Diversified Financial Services—0.1%
FNFV Group (a)		30,326		415,466
NewStar Financial, Inc. (a)		12,166		112,536
PICO Holdings, Inc. (a)		12,147		184,027
				712,029
Diversified Telecommunication Services—0.6%
ATN International, Inc.		4,754		380,938
Cincinnati Bell, Inc. (a)		19,517		436,205
Cogent Communications Holdings, Inc.		19,575		809,426
Consolidated Communications Holdings, Inc.		24,229		650,549
FairPoint Communications, Inc. (a)		11,602		216,957
General Communication, Inc. - Class A (a)		10,930		212,588
Globalstar, Inc. (a) (b)		221,510		349,986
IDT Corp. - Class B		8,438		156,440
Inteliquent, Inc.		16,025		367,293
Iridium Communications, Inc. (a) (b)		38,356		368,218
Lumos Networks Corp. (a)		8,396		131,146
ORBCOMM, Inc. (a)		31,662		261,845
pdvWireless, Inc. (a)		3,369		75,971
Straight Path Communications, Inc. - Class B (a) (b)		4,955		168,024
Vonage Holdings Corp. (a)		86,416		591,950
Windstream Holdings, Inc. (b)		47,088		345,155
				5,522,691
Electric Utilities—1.1%
ALLETE, Inc.		23,439		1,504,549
El Paso Electric Co.		18,779		873,224
Empire District Electric Co. (The)		19,878		677,641
IDACORP, Inc.		23,206		1,869,243
MGE Energy, Inc.		16,879		1,102,199
Otter Tail Corp. (b)		18,873		770,018
PNM Resources, Inc. (b)		38,721		1,328,130
Portland General Electric Co.		43,293		1,875,886
				10,000,890
Electrical Equipment—0.7%
Atkore International Group, Inc. (a)		6,426		153,646
AZZ, Inc.		12,522		800,156
Babcock & Wilcox Enterprises, Inc. (a)		22,628		375,398
Encore Wire Corp. (b)		10,537		456,779
Energous Corp. (a) (b)		7,743		130,470
EnerSys		21,009		1,640,803
Electrical Equipment—(Continued)
Generac Holdings, Inc. (a)		31,369		1,277,973
General Cable Corp.		24,951		475,316
LSI Industries, Inc.		10,801		105,202
Plug Power, Inc. (a) (b)		84,766		101,719
Powell Industries, Inc.		4,404		171,756
Sunrun, Inc. (a) (b)		34,164		181,411
Thermon Group Holdings, Inc. (a)		15,847		302,519
Vicor Corp. (a)		8,793		132,774
				6,305,922
Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components—2.7%
Anixter International, Inc. (a)		13,642		1,105,684
AVX Corp.		21,871		341,844
Badger Meter, Inc. (b)		13,640		503,998
Belden, Inc.		19,822		1,482,091
Benchmark Electronics, Inc. (a)		24,418		744,749
Coherent, Inc. (a)		11,761		1,615,785
Control4 Corp. (a)		10,604		108,161
CTS Corp.		15,701		351,702
Daktronics, Inc. (b)		18,513		198,089
ePlus, Inc. (a)		2,743		315,994
Fabrinet (a) (b)		17,507		705,532
FARO Technologies, Inc. (a)		8,551		307,836
II-VI, Inc. (a)		29,121		863,438
Insight Enterprises, Inc. (a) (d)		17,579		710,895
InvenSense, Inc. (a)		39,596		506,433
Itron, Inc. (a)		16,214		1,019,050
Kimball Electronics, Inc. (a)		14,109		256,784
Knowles Corp. (a) (b)		43,119		720,518
Littelfuse, Inc.		10,673		1,619,841
Mesa Laboratories, Inc.		1,474		180,933
Methode Electronics, Inc.		17,959		742,605
MTS Systems Corp. (b)		7,482		424,229
Novanta, Inc. (a)		13,298		279,258
OSI Systems, Inc. (a)		8,490		646,259
Park Electrochemical Corp. (b)		10,569		197,112
PC Connection, Inc.		5,366		150,731
Plexus Corp. (a) (d)		15,422		833,405
Rogers Corp. (a) (b)		8,965		688,602
Sanmina Corp. (a)		35,180		1,289,347
ScanSource, Inc. (a)		12,162		490,737
SYNNEX Corp.		14,237		1,722,962
Tech Data Corp. (a)		16,978		1,437,697
TTM Technologies, Inc. (a) (b)		35,998		490,653
Universal Display Corp. (a)		20,124		1,132,981
Vishay Intertechnology, Inc. (b)		66,423		1,076,052
Vishay Precision Group, Inc. (a) (b)		6,515		123,133
				25,385,120
Energy Equipment & Services—1.2%
Archrock, Inc.		34,795		459,294
Atwood Oceanics, Inc. (b)		30,662		402,592
Bristow Group, Inc. (b)		17,044		349,061
Era Group, Inc. (a)		10,295		174,706
Exterran Corp. (a)		14,849		354,891
Fairmount Santrol Holdings, Inc. (a) (b)		44,533		525,044

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-9

Metropolitan Series Fund

Russell 2000 Index Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Energy Equipment & Services—(Continued)
Forum Energy Technologies, Inc. (a)		29,182	$	642,004
Geospace Technologies Corp. (a)		3,888		79,160
Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc. (a)		51,612		455,218
Hornbeck Offshore Services, Inc. (a)		17,356		125,310
Matrix Service Co. (a)		14,196		322,249
McDermott International, Inc. (a)		116,414		860,299
Natural Gas Services Group, Inc. (a)		6,643		213,572
Newpark Resources, Inc. (a) (b)		44,365		332,738
Oil States International, Inc. (a) (b)		24,545		957,255
Parker Drilling Co. (a)		59,681		155,171
Pioneer Energy Services Corp. (a)		42,051		288,049
RigNet, Inc. (a)		7,269		168,277
SEACOR Holdings, Inc. (a)		7,977		568,601
Seadrill, Ltd. (a) (b)		188,659		643,327
Tesco Corp. (a)		19,926		164,390
TETRA Technologies, Inc. (a)		41,173		206,688
U.S. Silica Holdings, Inc. (b)		35,317		2,001,768
Unit Corp. (a)		24,655		662,480
				11,112,144
Equity Real Estate Investment Trusts—7.2%
Acadia Realty Trust (b)		38,553		1,259,912
Agree Realty Corp. (b)		11,290		519,905
Alexander’s, Inc.		1,029		439,249
American Assets Trust, Inc.		19,187		826,576
Armada Hoffler Properties, Inc.		19,662		286,475
Ashford Hospitality Prime, Inc.		14,521		198,212
Ashford Hospitality Trust, Inc.		39,201		304,200
Bluerock Residential Growth REIT, Inc.		9,427		129,338
CareTrust REIT, Inc. (b)		27,942		428,071
CatchMark Timber Trust, Inc. - Class A		19,002		213,963
CBL & Associates Properties, Inc. (b)		82,772		951,878
Cedar Realty Trust, Inc. (b)		37,954		247,840
Chatham Lodging Trust		18,798		386,299
Chesapeake Lodging Trust		28,075		726,020
City Office REIT, Inc. (b)		10,122		133,307
Colony Starwood Homes (b)		31,797		916,072
Community Healthcare Trust, Inc.		6,730		154,992
CorEnergy Infrastructure Trust, Inc. (b)		5,980		208,582
CoreSite Realty Corp. (b)		16,325		1,295,715
Cousins Properties, Inc. (b)		161,208		1,371,880
DiamondRock Hospitality Co.		92,371		1,065,038
DuPont Fabros Technology, Inc. (b)		36,270		1,593,341
Easterly Government Properties, Inc. (b)		16,288		326,086
EastGroup Properties, Inc. (b)		15,137		1,117,716
Education Realty Trust, Inc. (b)		35,414		1,498,012
FelCor Lodging Trust, Inc.		66,829		535,300
First Industrial Realty Trust, Inc.		56,517		1,585,302
First Potomac Realty Trust		27,829		305,284
Four Corners Property Trust, Inc. (b)		29,818		611,865
Franklin Street Properties Corp.		48,177		624,374
Geo Group, Inc. (The) (b)		35,110		1,261,502
Getty Realty Corp. (b)		13,449		342,815
Gladstone Commercial Corp. (b)		10,038		201,764
Global Net Lease, Inc. (b)		80,310		628,827
Government Properties Income Trust (b)		33,503		638,735
Gramercy Property Trust (b)		205,223		1,883,947
Equity Real Estate Investment Trusts—(Continued)
Healthcare Realty Trust, Inc.		55,310		1,676,999
Hersha Hospitality Trust		21,188		455,542
Hudson Pacific Properties, Inc.		51,064		1,776,006
Independence Realty Trust, Inc. (b)		27,689		246,986
InfraREIT, Inc.		19,986		357,949
Investors Real Estate Trust		56,725		404,449
iStar, Inc. (a)		31,393		388,331
Kite Realty Group Trust		38,990		915,485
LaSalle Hotel Properties		49,406		1,505,401
Lexington Realty Trust		112,246		1,212,257
LTC Properties, Inc. (b)		17,896		840,754
Mack-Cali Realty Corp.		43,539		1,263,502
MedEquities Realty Trust, Inc.		19,414		215,495
Medical Properties Trust, Inc. (b)		140,719		1,730,844
Monmouth Real Estate Investment Corp.		32,365		493,243
Monogram Residential Trust, Inc.		82,552		893,213
National Health Investors, Inc. (b)		17,654		1,309,397
National Storage Affiliates Trust (b)		17,510		386,446
New Senior Investment Group, Inc. (b)		40,485		396,348
New York REIT, Inc.		81,130		821,036
NexPoint Residential Trust, Inc.		9,072		202,669
NorthStar Realty Europe Corp. (b)		30,012		377,251
One Liberty Properties, Inc.		6,290		158,005
Parkway, Inc. (a)		20,151		448,360
Pebblebrook Hotel Trust (b)		33,791		1,005,282
Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust		32,570		617,527
Physicians Realty Trust (b)		63,878		1,211,127
Potlatch Corp.		19,692		820,172
Preferred Apartment Communities, Inc. - Class A		11,149		166,232
PS Business Parks, Inc.		9,635		1,122,670
QTS Realty Trust, Inc. - Class A		22,822		1,133,112
RAIT Financial Trust		39,654		133,237
Ramco-Gershenson Properties Trust		37,976		629,642
Retail Opportunity Investments Corp.		52,344		1,106,029
Rexford Industrial Realty, Inc.		31,246		724,595
RLJ Lodging Trust		58,062		1,421,938
Ryman Hospitality Properties, Inc. (b)		20,440		1,287,924
Sabra Health Care REIT, Inc.		29,659		724,273
Saul Centers, Inc.		4,228		281,627
Select Income REIT		31,114		784,073
Seritage Growth Properties - Class A (b)		11,383		486,168
Silver Bay Realty Trust Corp.		16,953		290,574
STAG Industrial, Inc.		36,497		871,183
Summit Hotel Properties, Inc.		40,984		656,974
Sunstone Hotel Investors, Inc. (b)		105,917		1,615,234
Terreno Realty Corp.		20,992		598,062
Tier REIT, Inc.		22,342		388,527
UMH Properties, Inc.		11,462		172,503
Universal Health Realty Income Trust (b)		6,109		400,689
Urban Edge Properties (b)		43,765		1,203,975
Urstadt Biddle Properties, Inc. - Class A		13,207		318,421
Washington Prime Group, Inc.		90,826		945,499
Washington Real Estate Investment Trust		34,947		1,142,417
Whitestone REIT		14,069		202,312
Xenia Hotels & Resorts, Inc.		47,706		926,451
				67,082,811

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-10

Metropolitan Series Fund

Russell 2000 Index Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Food & Staples Retailing—0.6%
Andersons, Inc. (The) (b)		13,251	$	592,320
Chefs’ Warehouse, Inc. (The) (a)		8,577		135,517
Ingles Markets, Inc. - Class A		6,173		296,921
Performance Food Group Co. (a)		18,393		441,432
Pricesmart, Inc. (b)		9,802		818,467
Smart & Final Stores, Inc. (a) (b)		12,072		170,215
SpartanNash Co.		16,917		668,898
SUPERVALU, Inc. (a)		122,481		571,986
United Natural Foods, Inc. (a) (b)		23,843		1,137,788
Village Super Market, Inc. - Class A		3,674		113,527
Weis Markets, Inc.		4,490		300,111
				5,247,182
Food Products—1.4%
AdvancePierre Foods Holdings, Inc. (b)		10,704		318,765
Amplify Snack Brands, Inc. (a) (b)		14,688		129,401
B&G Foods, Inc. (b)		31,647		1,386,139
Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. (b)		14,936		659,798
Calavo Growers, Inc.		7,353		451,474
Darling Ingredients, Inc. (a)		78,508		1,013,538
Dean Foods Co.		44,397		966,967
Farmer Bros Co. (a)		3,967		145,589
Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc.		15,644		948,496
Freshpet, Inc. (a) (b)		10,616		107,752
J&J Snack Foods Corp.		6,995		933,343
John B Sanfilippo & Son, Inc.		4,642		326,750
Lancaster Colony Corp.		9,036		1,277,600
Landec Corp. (a)		14,010		193,338
Limoneira Co. (b)		6,121		131,663
Omega Protein Corp. (a) (b)		11,349		284,292
Sanderson Farms, Inc. (b)		9,453		890,851
Seaboard Corp. (a) (b)		132		521,663
Seneca Foods Corp. - Class A (a)		3,507		140,455
Snyder’s-Lance, Inc. (b)		39,103		1,499,209
Tootsie Roll Industries, Inc. (b)		9,390		373,253
				12,700,336
Gas Utilities—1.1%
Chesapeake Utilities Corp. (b)		6,975		466,976
New Jersey Resources Corp.		41,016		1,456,068
Northwest Natural Gas Co.		13,257		792,769
ONE Gas, Inc.		24,719		1,581,027
South Jersey Industries, Inc. (b)		37,607		1,266,980
Southwest Gas Corp.		22,906		1,755,058
Spire, Inc.		21,579		1,392,925
WGL Holdings, Inc. (b)		24,423		1,862,986
				10,574,789
Health Care Equipment & Supplies—3.0%
Abaxis, Inc. (b)		11,146		588,174
Accuray, Inc. (a) (b)		37,218		171,203
Analogic Corp.		6,383		529,470
AngioDynamics, Inc. (a)		13,423		226,446
Anika Therapeutics, Inc. (a) (b)		7,087		346,980
AtriCure, Inc. (a) (b)		16,270		318,404
Atrion Corp.		822		416,918
Health Care Equipment & Supplies—(Continued)
AxoGen, Inc. (a) (b)		13,718		123,462
Cantel Medical Corp.		16,951		1,334,891
Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. (a)		14,951		361,964
Cerus Corp. (a) (b)		58,326		253,718
ConforMIS, Inc. (a) (b)		19,621		158,930
CONMED Corp.		14,604		645,059
CryoLife, Inc. (a)		17,220		329,763
Cynosure, Inc. - Class A (a) (b)		11,463		522,713
Endologix, Inc. (a) (b)		44,063		252,040
Exactech, Inc. (a)		5,785		157,930
GenMark Diagnostics, Inc. (a)		19,362		236,991
Glaukos Corp. (a)		8,646		296,558
Globus Medical, Inc. - Class A (a) (b)		34,489		855,672
Haemonetics Corp. (a)		23,946		962,629
Halyard Health, Inc. (a)		23,074		853,277
ICU Medical, Inc. (a)		7,246		1,067,698
Inogen, Inc. (a)		7,470		501,760
Insulet Corp. (a) (b)		27,643		1,041,588
Integer Holdings Corp. (a)		15,275		449,849
Integra LifeSciences Holdings Corp. (a) (b)		14,525		1,246,100
Invacare Corp. (b)		15,930		207,886
K2M Group Holdings, Inc. (a) (b)		13,487		270,279
LeMaitre Vascular, Inc.		7,651		193,876
Masimo Corp. (a)		19,860		1,338,564
Meridian Bioscience, Inc.		22,552		399,170
Merit Medical Systems, Inc. (a)		21,638		573,407
Natus Medical, Inc. (a)		16,472		573,226
Neogen Corp. (a)		17,828		1,176,648
Nevro Corp. (a)		11,810		858,115
Novocure, Ltd. (a)		25,960		203,786
NuVasive, Inc. (a)		24,181		1,628,832
NxStage Medical, Inc. (a)		30,508		799,615
OraSure Technologies, Inc. (a)		29,491		258,931
Orthofix International NV (a)		9,598		347,256
Oxford Immunotec Global plc (a)		12,520		187,174
Penumbra, Inc. (a)		12,555		801,009
Quidel Corp. (a) (b)		13,903		297,802
Rockwell Medical, Inc. (a) (b)		30,372		198,937
Spectranetics Corp. (The) (a)		21,548		527,926
STAAR Surgical Co. (a)		19,419		210,696
SurModics, Inc. (a)		6,159		156,439
Utah Medical Products, Inc.		2,002		145,645
Vascular Solutions, Inc. (a)		8,462		474,718
Wright Medical Group NV (a) (b)		50,705		1,165,201
Zeltiq Aesthetics, Inc. (a) (b)		17,712		770,826
				28,016,151
Health Care Providers & Services—2.0%
Aceto Corp. (b)		15,842		348,049
Addus HomeCare Corp. (a)		4,191		146,895
Air Methods Corp. (a)		18,730		596,550
Almost Family, Inc. (a)		4,667		205,815
Amedisys, Inc. (a) (b)		13,972		595,626
AMN Healthcare Services, Inc. (a) (b)		23,983		922,146
BioTelemetry, Inc. (a) (b)		15,006		335,384
Capital Senior Living Corp. (a)		14,260		228,873

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-11

Metropolitan Series Fund

Russell 2000 Index Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Health Care Providers & Services—(Continued)
Chemed Corp. (b)		7,919	$	1,270,287
Civitas Solutions, Inc. (a)		6,456		128,474
Community Health Systems, Inc. (a) (b)		54,438		304,308
Corvel Corp. (a)		5,325		194,895
Cross Country Healthcare, Inc. (a)		16,495		257,487
Diplomat Pharmacy, Inc. (a)		22,308		281,081
Ensign Group, Inc. (The) (b)		24,374		541,347
HealthEquity, Inc. (a)		21,384		866,480
HealthSouth Corp. (b)		42,354		1,746,679
Healthways, Inc. (a) (b)		16,239		369,437
Kindred Healthcare, Inc. (b)		40,056		314,440
Landauer, Inc. (b)		5,165		248,437
LHC Group, Inc. (a)		6,847		312,908
Magellan Health, Inc. (a)		12,415		934,229
Molina Healthcare, Inc. (a)		21,194		1,149,986
National Healthcare Corp.		5,246		397,594
Owens & Minor, Inc.		31,238		1,102,389
PharMerica Corp. (a)		16,508		415,176
Providence Service Corp. (The) (a)		6,975		265,399
Quorum Health Corp. (a)		17,212		125,131
RadNet, Inc. (a)		21,044		135,734
Select Medical Holdings Corp. (a)		52,961		701,733
Surgery Partners, Inc. (a)		12,495		198,046
Surgical Care Affiliates, Inc. (a)		13,303		615,530
Team Health Holdings, Inc. (a) (b)		32,172		1,397,873
Teladoc, Inc. (a) (b)		11,307		186,566
Triple-S Management Corp. - Class B (a)		12,074		249,932
U.S. Physical Therapy, Inc.		6,011		421,972
Universal American Corp. (a)		21,072		209,666
				18,722,554
Health Care Technology—0.4%
Computer Programs & Systems, Inc. (b)		5,856		138,202
Cotiviti Holdings, Inc. (a) (b)		6,657		229,001
Evolent Health, Inc. - Class A (a)		7,002		103,630
HealthStream, Inc. (a) (b)		12,016		301,001
HMS Holdings Corp. (a) (b)		40,747		739,965
Medidata Solutions, Inc. (a)		26,132		1,297,976
Omnicell, Inc. (a)		16,746		567,689
Quality Systems, Inc. (a)		24,814		326,304
Vocera Communications, Inc. (a)		11,244		207,902
				3,911,670
Hotels, Restaurants & Leisure—2.9%
Belmond, Ltd. - Class A (a)		38,098		508,608
Biglari Holdings, Inc. (a)		528		249,850
BJ’s Restaurants, Inc. (a)		11,541		453,561
Bloomin’ Brands, Inc. (b)		47,353		853,775
Bob Evans Farms, Inc.		8,975		477,560
Boyd Gaming Corp. (a)		40,615		819,205
Buffalo Wild Wings, Inc. (a)		8,962		1,383,733
Caesars Acquisition Co. - Class A (a) (b)		23,146		312,471
Caesars Entertainment Corp. (a) (b)		25,824		219,504
Carrols Restaurant Group, Inc. (a)		17,458		266,235
Cheesecake Factory, Inc. (The) (b)		21,038		1,259,755
Churchill Downs, Inc.		6,613		994,926
Hotels, Restaurants & Leisure—(Continued)
Chuy’s Holdings, Inc. (a)		8,272		268,426
ClubCorp Holdings, Inc.		32,025		459,559
Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. (b)		9,084		1,516,846
Dave & Buster’s Entertainment, Inc. (a)		18,558		1,044,815
Del Frisco’s Restaurant Group, Inc. (a)		12,052		204,884
Del Taco Restaurants, Inc. (a)		10,164		143,516
Denny’s Corp. (a)		39,857		511,365
DineEquity, Inc.		8,597		661,969
El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc. (a)		10,816		133,037
Eldorado Resorts, Inc. (a) (b)		14,157		239,961
Fiesta Restaurant Group, Inc. (a) (b)		13,371		399,124
Habit Restaurants, Inc. (The) - Class A (a)		7,281		125,597
ILG, Inc.		53,999		981,162
International Speedway Corp. - Class A		12,935		476,008
Intrawest Resorts Holdings, Inc. (a)		8,831		157,633
Isle of Capri Casinos, Inc. (a)		12,013		296,601
Jack in the Box, Inc.		15,472		1,727,294
La Quinta Holdings, Inc. (a)		43,635		620,053
Marcus Corp. (The)		9,550		300,825
Marriott Vacations Worldwide Corp. (b)		10,700		907,895
Monarch Casino & Resort, Inc. (a)		5,265		135,732
Papa John’s International, Inc. (b)		13,488		1,154,303
Penn National Gaming, Inc. (a)		32,560		449,002
Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc. (a)		28,622		415,019
Planet Fitness, Inc. - Class A		13,067		262,647
Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen, Inc. (a) (b)		9,453		571,717
Potbelly Corp. (a)		12,520		161,508
Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Inc. (a)		5,863		330,673
Red Rock Resorts, Inc. - Class A		13,488		312,787
Ruth’s Hospitality Group, Inc.		17,912		327,790
Scientific Games Corp. - Class A (a) (b)		23,377		327,278
SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. (b)		32,101		607,672
Shake Shack, Inc. - Class A (a) (b)		7,924		283,600
Sonic Corp. (b)		20,556		544,940
Speedway Motorsports, Inc.		7,078		153,380
Texas Roadhouse, Inc.		31,030		1,496,887
Wingstop, Inc. (b)		8,064		238,614
Zoe’s Kitchen, Inc. (a) (b)		9,191		220,492
				26,969,794
Household Durables—1.2%
Bassett Furniture Industries, Inc.		5,374		163,370
Beazer Homes USA, Inc. (a)		13,700		182,210
Cavco Industries, Inc. (a) (b)		4,452		444,532
Century Communities, Inc. (a)		7,561		158,781
CSS Industries, Inc.		4,201		113,721
Ethan Allen Interiors, Inc.		12,159		448,059
Flexsteel Industries, Inc.		3,005		185,318
GoPro, Inc. - Class A (a) (b)		49,877		434,429
Green Brick Partners, Inc. (a)		12,508		125,705
Helen of Troy, Ltd. (a)		13,453		1,136,106
Hooker Furniture Corp.		5,444		206,600
Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc. - Class A (a) (b)		60,910		166,284
Installed Building Products, Inc. (a)		9,469		391,070
iRobot Corp. (a) (b)		12,468		728,755
KB Home (b)		41,097		649,744

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-12

Metropolitan Series Fund

Russell 2000 Index Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Household Durables—(Continued)
La-Z-Boy, Inc.		24,718	$	767,494
LGI Homes, Inc. (a) (b)		8,210		235,873
Libbey, Inc.		10,247		199,407
M/I Homes, Inc. (a) (b)		12,868		324,016
MDC Holdings, Inc.		20,862		535,319
Meritage Homes Corp. (a) (b)		18,033		627,548
NACCO Industries, Inc. - Class A		2,176		197,037
Taylor Morrison Home Corp. - Class A (a)		15,532		299,146
TopBuild Corp. (a) (b)		18,904		672,982
TRI Pointe Group, Inc. (a) (b)		69,898		802,429
Universal Electronics, Inc. (a) (b)		7,461		481,608
WCI Communities, Inc. (a)		11,203		262,710
William Lyon Homes - Class A (a) (b)		12,315		234,355
				11,174,608
Household Products—0.3%
Central Garden and Pet Co. (a)		4,446		147,118
Central Garden and Pet Co. - Class A (a)		16,480		509,232
HRG Group, Inc. (a)		58,164		905,032
Orchids Paper Products Co. (b)		5,348		140,011
WD-40 Co. (b)		6,750		789,075
				2,490,468
Independent Power and Renewable Electricity Producers—0.5%
Atlantic Power Corp. (a)		57,898		144,745
Atlantica Yield plc		28,653		554,435
Dynegy, Inc. (a) (b)		59,317		501,822
NRG Yield, Inc. - Class A		16,087		247,096
NRG Yield, Inc. - Class C		29,107		459,891
Ormat Technologies, Inc.		18,869		1,011,756
Pattern Energy Group, Inc.		30,133		572,226
TerraForm Global, Inc. - Class A (a)		51,489		203,381
TerraForm Power, Inc. - Class A (a) (b)		44,539		570,545
				4,265,897
Industrial Conglomerates—0.1%
Raven Industries, Inc.		18,658		470,182
Insurance—2.3%
Ambac Financial Group, Inc. (a)		22,444		504,990
American Equity Investment Life Holding Co.		41,683		939,535
AMERISAFE, Inc.		9,298		579,730
Argo Group International Holdings, Ltd.		14,148		932,353
Baldwin & Lyons, Inc. - Class B		4,133		104,152
Citizens, Inc. (a) (b)		22,172		217,729
CNO Financial Group, Inc.		86,562		1,657,662
EMC Insurance Group, Inc.		3,800		114,038
Employers Holdings, Inc.		14,789		585,644
Enstar Group, Ltd. (a)		5,573		1,101,782
FBL Financial Group, Inc. - Class A		4,790		374,339
Federated National Holding Co.		5,884		109,972
Fidelity & Guaranty Life (b)		4,816		114,139
Genworth Financial, Inc. - Class A (a)		246,697		939,916
Global Indemnity, Ltd. (a)		3,335		127,430
Greenlight Capital Re, Ltd. - Class A (a) (b)		13,998		319,154
HCI Group, Inc.		3,077		121,480
Insurance—(Continued)
Heritage Insurance Holdings, Inc. (b)		11,792		184,781
Horace Mann Educators Corp. (b)		18,978		812,258
Infinity Property & Casualty Corp.		5,597		491,976
Investors Title Co.		748		118,319
James River Group Holdings, Ltd.		7,276		302,318
Kemper Corp. (b)		18,020		798,286
Maiden Holdings, Ltd. (b)		33,144		578,363
MBIA, Inc. (a) (b)		65,336		699,095
National General Holdings Corp.		23,963		598,835
National Western Life Group, Inc. - Class A		1,054		327,583
Navigators Group, Inc. (The)		5,559		654,572
OneBeacon Insurance Group, Ltd. - Class A		11,496		184,511
Primerica, Inc. (b)		22,155		1,532,018
RLI Corp.		18,544		1,170,683
Safety Insurance Group, Inc.		6,815		502,266
Selective Insurance Group, Inc. (b)		26,789		1,153,267
State Auto Financial Corp. (b)		7,940		212,871
State National Cos., Inc.		15,205		210,741
Stewart Information Services Corp. (b)		11,286		520,059
Third Point Reinsurance, Ltd. (a)		32,322		373,319
Trupanion, Inc. (a) (b)		8,141		126,348
United Fire Group, Inc.		9,677		475,818
United Insurance Holdings Corp.		8,654		131,022
Universal Insurance Holdings, Inc. (b)		17,550		498,420
WMIH Corp. (a)		88,867		137,744
				21,639,518
Internet & Direct Marketing Retail—0.5%
1-800-Flowers.com, Inc. - Class A (a)		13,330		142,631
Blue Nile, Inc.		6,605		268,361
Duluth Holdings, Inc. - Class B (a) (b)		4,134		105,004
Etsy, Inc. (a)		51,942		611,877
FTD Cos., Inc. (a) (b)		9,600		228,864
HSN, Inc.		14,279		489,770
Lands’ End, Inc. (a) (b)		8,472		128,351
Liberty TripAdvisor Holdings, Inc. - Class A (a)		34,803		523,785
Nutrisystem, Inc.		14,262		494,178
Overstock.com, Inc. (a)		6,439		112,682
PetMed Express, Inc. (b)		11,281		260,253
Shutterfly, Inc. (a)		17,108		858,479
Wayfair, Inc. - Class A (a) (b)		15,513		543,731
				4,767,966
Internet Software & Services—2.1%
2U, Inc. (a)		18,127		546,529
Actua Corp. (a)		20,148		282,072
Alarm.com Holdings, Inc. (a)		5,307		147,694
Angie’s List, Inc. (a) (b)		21,237		174,781
Bankrate, Inc. (a)		20,088		221,972
Bazaarvoice, Inc. (a)		41,849		202,968
Benefitfocus, Inc. (a) (b)		6,419		190,644
Blucora, Inc. (a)		20,338		299,985
Box, Inc. - Class A (a) (b)		24,267		336,341
Brightcove, Inc. (a)		16,995		136,810
Carbonite, Inc. (a)		9,317		152,799
ChannelAdvisor Corp. (a)		10,403		149,283

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-13

Metropolitan Series Fund

Russell 2000 Index Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Internet Software & Services—(Continued)
Cimpress NV (a)		12,234	$	1,120,757
comScore, Inc. (a)		23,234		733,730
Cornerstone OnDemand, Inc. (a)		24,008		1,015,778
Coupa Software, Inc. (a) (b)		7,914		197,929
DHI Group, Inc. (a)		21,586		134,913
EarthLink Holdings Corp.		48,787		275,159
Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc. (a) (b)		27,384		254,671
Envestnet, Inc. (a)		20,207		712,297
Five9, Inc. (a)		16,631		235,994
Gogo, Inc. (a) (b)		27,419		252,803
GrubHub, Inc. (a)		39,224		1,475,607
GTT Communications, Inc. (a)		11,597		333,414
Hortonworks, Inc. (a) (b)		20,178		167,679
IntraLinks Holdings, Inc. (a)		20,583		278,282
j2 Global, Inc. (b)		22,619		1,850,234
Liquidity Services, Inc. (a)		13,611		132,707
LivePerson, Inc. (a) (b)		29,330		221,442
LogMeIn, Inc.		12,270		1,184,668
MeetMe, Inc. (a) (b)		21,638		106,675
MINDBODY, Inc. - Class A (a) (b)		7,507		159,899
New Relic, Inc. (a)		10,856		306,682
NIC, Inc. (b)		29,109		695,705
Q2 Holdings, Inc. (a) (b)		12,619		364,058
Quotient Technology, Inc. (a)		29,125		313,094
RetailMeNot, Inc. (a)		18,130		168,609
Shutterstock, Inc. (a) (b)		9,230		438,610
SPS Commerce, Inc. (a) (b)		7,550		527,669
Stamps.com, Inc. (a) (b)		7,949		911,353
TrueCar, Inc. (a) (b)		23,179		289,738
Web.com Group, Inc. (a)		20,520		433,998
WebMD Health Corp. (a) (b)		17,955		890,029
Xactly Corp. (a)		11,677		128,447
XO Group, Inc. (a)		11,305		219,882
				19,374,390
IT Services—2.0%
Acxiom Corp. (a)		37,591		1,007,439
Blackhawk Network Holdings, Inc. (a)		27,022		1,018,054
CACI International, Inc. - Class A (a) (d)		11,262		1,399,867
Cardtronics plc - Class A (a) (b)		22,064		1,204,032
Cass Information Systems, Inc. (b)		5,928		436,123
Convergys Corp. (b)		42,882		1,053,182
CSG Systems International, Inc.		15,258		738,487
Datalink Corp. (a)		10,297		115,944
EPAM Systems, Inc. (a)		22,354		1,437,586
EVERTEC, Inc.		30,384		539,316
ExlService Holdings, Inc. (a)		15,842		799,070
Forrester Research, Inc.		5,782		248,337
Hackett Group, Inc. (The)		13,330		235,408
Lionbridge Technologies, Inc. (a)		31,361		181,894
ManTech International Corp. - Class A		12,440		525,590
MAXIMUS, Inc.		31,383		1,750,858
MoneyGram International, Inc. (a)		14,692		173,512
NeuStar, Inc. - Class A (a)		26,451		883,463
Perficient, Inc. (a)		17,369		303,784
IT Services—(Continued)
Science Applications International Corp.		19,917		1,688,962
ServiceSource International, Inc. (a)		29,419		167,100
Sykes Enterprises, Inc. (a)		18,634		537,777
Syntel, Inc. (b)		14,931		295,484
TeleTech Holdings, Inc.		7,377		224,998
Travelport Worldwide, Ltd.		56,729		799,879
Unisys Corp. (a) (b)		26,228		392,109
Virtusa Corp. (a) (b)		11,780		295,914
				18,454,169
Leisure Products—0.2%
Acushnet Holdings Corp. (a) (b)		15,630		308,067
Arctic Cat, Inc. (a) (b)		7,064		106,101
Callaway Golf Co.		46,706		511,898
Malibu Boats, Inc. - Class A (a) (b)		8,768		167,293
Nautilus, Inc. (a) (b)		16,328		302,068
Smith & Wesson Holding Corp. (a)		25,637		540,428
Sturm Ruger & Co., Inc. (b)		8,538		449,953
				2,385,808
Life Sciences Tools & Services—0.6%
Accelerate Diagnostics, Inc. (a) (b)		11,348		235,471
Albany Molecular Research, Inc. (a) (b)		12,484		234,200
Cambrex Corp. (a)		15,180		818,961
Enzo Biochem, Inc. (a)		21,985		152,576
Fluidigm Corp. (a) (b)		16,732		121,809
INC Research Holdings, Inc. - Class A (a)		20,394		1,072,724
Luminex Corp. (a)		18,901		382,367
Medpace Holdings, Inc. (a)		4,563		164,587
NanoString Technologies, Inc. (a)		7,907		176,326
NeoGenomics, Inc. (a)		26,497		227,079
Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc. (a)		40,732		154,782
PAREXEL International Corp. (a) (b)		25,369		1,667,251
PRA Health Sciences, Inc. (a)		12,050		664,196
				6,072,329
Machinery—3.5%
Actuant Corp. - Class A (b)		28,401		737,006
Alamo Group, Inc.		4,629		352,267
Albany International Corp. - Class A		14,147		655,006
Altra Industrial Motion Corp. (b)		13,385		493,907
American Railcar Industries, Inc. (b)		4,708		213,225
Astec Industries, Inc.		9,004		607,410
Barnes Group, Inc.		23,751		1,126,272
Briggs & Stratton Corp.		21,617		481,194
Chart Industries, Inc. (a) (b)		15,307		551,358
CIRCOR International, Inc. (b)		7,291		473,040
CLARCOR, Inc.		23,160		1,910,005
Columbus McKinnon Corp.		10,074		272,401
DMC Global, Inc.		7,215		114,358
Douglas Dynamics, Inc.		9,877		332,361
Energy Recovery, Inc. (a) (b)		17,996		186,259
EnPro Industries, Inc.		9,829		662,081
ESCO Technologies, Inc.		12,540		710,391
Federal Signal Corp.		29,548		461,244
Franklin Electric Co., Inc.		21,104		820,946

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-14

Metropolitan Series Fund

Russell 2000 Index Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Machinery—(Continued)
Global Brass & Copper Holdings, Inc.		11,099	$	380,696
Gorman-Rupp Co. (The) (b)		7,300		225,935
Graham Corp.		5,130		113,630
Greenbrier Cos., Inc. (The) (b)		12,008		498,932
Harsco Corp.		37,700		512,720
Hillenbrand, Inc.		27,246		1,044,884
Hyster-Yale Materials Handling, Inc.		4,976		317,320
John Bean Technologies Corp.		13,616		1,170,295
Joy Global, Inc.		48,075		1,346,100
Kadant, Inc.		5,766		352,879
Kennametal, Inc.		38,584		1,206,136
Lindsay Corp. (b)		4,595		342,833
Lydall, Inc. (a)		8,342		515,953
Manitowoc Co., Inc. (The) (a)		63,397		379,114
Meritor, Inc. (a)		43,321		538,047
Milacron Holdings Corp. (a)		6,533		121,710
Miller Industries, Inc.		5,680		150,236
Mueller Industries, Inc.		26,115		1,043,555
Mueller Water Products, Inc. - Class A		76,369		1,016,471
Navistar International Corp. (a)		23,914		750,182
NN, Inc. (b)		12,696		241,859
Proto Labs, Inc. (a)		12,094		621,027
RBC Bearings, Inc. (a) (b)		10,876		1,009,402
Rexnord Corp. (a)		40,317		789,810
SPX Corp. (a)		20,781		492,925
SPX FLOW, Inc. (a)		17,419		558,453
Standex International Corp.		6,262		550,117
Sun Hydraulics Corp.		10,558		422,003
Tennant Co.		8,929		635,745
Titan International, Inc.		22,706		254,534
TriMas Corp. (a)		22,514		529,079
Wabash National Corp. (a) (b)		32,109		507,964
Watts Water Technologies, Inc. - Class A		13,118		855,294
Woodward, Inc.		25,737		1,777,140
				32,433,711
Marine—0.1%
Matson, Inc.		20,127		712,295
Scorpio Bulkers, Inc. (a)		29,948		151,237
				863,532
Media—1.5%
AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. - Class A		13,809		464,673
Central European Media Enterprises, Ltd. - Class A (a) (b)		41,350		105,443
Daily Journal Corp. (a) (b)		598		144,596
Entercom Communications Corp. - Class A		14,538		222,431
Entravision Communications Corp. - Class A (b)		29,645		207,515
Eros International plc (a) (b)		13,360		174,348
EW Scripps Co. (The) - Class A (a) (b)		29,695		574,004
Gannett Co., Inc.		57,579		559,092
Global Eagle Entertainment, Inc. (a)		28,412		183,542
Gray Television, Inc. (a)		30,714		333,247
IMAX Corp. (a)		28,090		882,026
Liberty Braves Group - Class C (a)		16,010		329,646
Media—(Continued)
Liberty Media Corp.-Liberty Media - Class C (a)		22,971		719,682
Liberty Media Corp.-Liberty Media - Class A (a)		11,738		367,986
Loral Space & Communications, Inc. (a) (b)		6,669		273,763
MDC Partners, Inc. - Class A		25,380		166,239
Media General, Inc. (a)		53,348		1,004,543
Meredith Corp. (b)		18,346		1,085,166
MSG Networks, Inc. - Class A (a)		29,478		633,777
National CineMedia, Inc. (b)		31,052		457,396
New Media Investment Group, Inc.		22,310		356,737
New York Times Co. (The) - Class A (b)		58,218		774,299
Nexstar Broadcasting Group, Inc. - Class A (b)		14,830		938,739
Reading International, Inc. - Class A (a)		8,504		141,166
Scholastic Corp.		12,129		576,006
Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. - Class A		30,881		1,029,881
Time, Inc.		50,189		895,874
tronc, Inc.		14,706		203,972
World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. - Class A (b)		18,113		333,279
				14,139,068
Metals & Mining—1.3%
AK Steel Holding Corp. (a) (b)		148,008		1,511,162
Allegheny Technologies, Inc. (b)		52,856		841,996
Carpenter Technology Corp. (b)		20,845		753,964
Century Aluminum Co. (a)		24,781		212,125
Cliffs Natural Resources, Inc. (a) (b)		106,868		898,760
Coeur Mining, Inc. (a)		85,970		781,467
Commercial Metals Co. (b)		53,553		1,166,384
Ferroglobe plc (b)		31,634		342,596
Ferroglobe Representation & Warranty Insurance Trust (a) (b) (c)		31,634		0
Haynes International, Inc. (b)		6,653		286,013
Hecla Mining Co.		185,576		972,418
Kaiser Aluminum Corp.		8,616		669,377
Materion Corp.		9,498		376,121
Olympic Steel, Inc.		4,783		115,892
Schnitzer Steel Industries, Inc. - Class A (b)		13,529		347,695
Stillwater Mining Co. (a)		56,563		911,230
SunCoke Energy, Inc. (b)		27,008		306,271
TimkenSteel Corp. (a) (b)		18,629		288,377
Worthington Industries, Inc.		21,960		1,041,782
				11,823,630
Mortgage Real Estate Investment Trusts—1.0%
AG Mortgage Investment Trust, Inc.		14,345		245,443
Altisource Residential Corp. (b)		26,537		292,968
Anworth Mortgage Asset Corp.		49,995		258,474
Apollo Commercial Real Estate Finance, Inc.		35,624		592,071
Ares Commercial Real Estate Corp.		11,438		157,044
ARMOUR Residential REIT, Inc. (b)		16,682		361,833
Capstead Mortgage Corp.		44,863		457,154
Colony Capital, Inc. - Class A (b)		52,740		1,067,985
CYS Investments, Inc.		74,681		577,284
Dynex Capital, Inc.		26,422		180,198

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-15

Metropolitan Series Fund

Russell 2000 Index Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Mortgage Real Estate Investment Trusts—(Continued)
Hannon Armstrong Sustainable Infrastructure Capital, Inc. (b)		20,919	$	397,252
Invesco Mortgage Capital, Inc. (b)		55,256		806,738
Ladder Capital Corp.		20,669		283,579
Mortgage Investment Corp. (b)		23,775		373,267
New Residential Investment Corp.		117,072		1,840,372
New York Mortgage Trust, Inc. (b)		51,471		339,709
Orchid Island Capital, Inc. (b)		11,326		122,661
PennyMac Mortgage Investment Trust		29,655		485,452
Redwood Trust, Inc. (b)		39,826		605,753
Resource Capital Corp. (b)		16,059		133,771
Western Asset Mortgage Capital Corp.		20,929		210,755
				9,789,763
Multi-Utilities—0.5%
Avista Corp.		30,657		1,225,973
Black Hills Corp.		24,978		1,532,150
NorthWestern Corp.		23,557		1,339,687
Unitil Corp.		7,429		336,831
				4,434,641
Multiline Retail—0.2%
Big Lots, Inc. (b)		21,721		1,090,611
Fred’s, Inc. - Class A (b)		16,936		314,332
Ollie’s Bargain Outlet Holdings, Inc. (a) (b)		10,284		292,580
Tuesday Morning Corp. (a)		21,822		117,839
				1,815,362
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels—2.3%
Abraxas Petroleum Corp. (a)		72,356		185,955
Alon USA Energy, Inc.		18,417		209,585
Bill Barrett Corp. (a)		16,588		115,950
California Resources Corp. (a) (b)		16,775		357,140
Callon Petroleum Co. (a)		70,686		1,086,444
Carrizo Oil & Gas, Inc. (a)		29,574		1,104,589
Clayton Williams Energy, Inc. (a) (b)		3,063		365,293
Clean Energy Fuels Corp. (a) (b)		51,916		148,480
Cobalt International Energy, Inc. (a) (b)		207,968		253,721
Contango Oil & Gas Co. (a)		13,006		121,476
CVR Energy, Inc. (b)		8,864		225,057
Delek U.S. Holdings, Inc.		30,748		740,104
Denbury Resources, Inc. (a)		174,216		641,115
DHT Holdings, Inc.		44,160		182,822
EP Energy Corp. - Class A (a) (b)		20,652		135,271
Evolution Petroleum Corp.		14,189		141,890
Frontline, Ltd. (b)		32,746		232,824
GasLog, Ltd. (b)		20,748		334,043
Golar LNG, Ltd.		44,104		1,011,746
Green Plains, Inc.		17,956		500,075
International Seaways, Inc. (a)		7,786		109,315
Jones Energy, Inc. - Class A (a) (b)		33,852		169,260
Matador Resources Co. (a)		37,202		958,324
Nordic American Tankers, Ltd. (b)		48,340		406,056
Oasis Petroleum, Inc. (a) (b)		112,465		1,702,720
Pacific Ethanol, Inc. (a)		17,367		164,986
Panhandle Oil and Gas, Inc. - Class A (b)		7,855		184,985
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels—(Continued)
Par Pacific holdings, Inc. (a) (b)		16,282		236,740
PDC Energy, Inc. (a)		25,753		1,869,153
Renewable Energy Group, Inc. (a) (b)		22,727		220,452
REX American Resources Corp. (a)		2,989		295,164
Ring Energy, Inc. (a)		19,854		257,903
RSP Permian, Inc. (a)		47,196		2,105,885
Sanchez Energy Corp. (a)		30,771		277,862
Scorpio Tankers, Inc.		83,337		377,517
SemGroup Corp. - Class A (b)		32,021		1,336,877
Ship Finance International, Ltd. (b)		28,428		422,156
Synergy Resources Corp. (a) (b)		91,847		818,357
Teekay Corp.		22,735		182,562
Teekay Tankers, Ltd. - Class A		53,596		121,127
Western Refining, Inc.		36,954		1,398,709
Westmoreland Coal Co. (a)		9,538		168,536
				21,878,226
Paper & Forest Products—0.6%
Boise Cascade Co. (a)		18,411		414,247
Clearwater Paper Corp. (a) (b)		7,836		513,650
Deltic Timber Corp. (b)		5,314		409,550
KapStone Paper and Packaging Corp. (b)		39,372		868,153
Louisiana-Pacific Corp. (a)		69,948		1,324,116
Neenah Paper, Inc.		7,745		659,874
PH Glatfelter Co. (b)		21,278		508,331
Schweitzer-Mauduit International, Inc.		14,898		678,306
				5,376,227
Personal Products—0.3%
Avon Products, Inc.		215,512		1,086,180
elf Beauty, Inc. (a) (b)		8,102		234,472
Inter Parfums, Inc.		8,191		268,255
Medifast, Inc.		5,660		235,626
Nutraceutical International Corp.		4,388		153,361
Revlon, Inc. - Class A (a) (b)		6,172		179,914
USANA Health Sciences, Inc. (a)		5,606		343,087
				2,500,895
Pharmaceuticals—1.5%
Aclaris Therapeutics, Inc. (a)		5,550		150,627
Aerie Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a)		14,203		537,584
Amphastar Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a) (b)		18,205		335,336
ANI Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a)		3,945		239,146
Aratana Therapeutics, Inc. (a)		17,356		124,616
Catalent, Inc. (a)		48,749		1,314,273
Cempra, Inc. (a) (b)		20,861		58,411
Collegium Pharmaceutical, Inc. (a) (b)		7,456		116,090
Corcept Therapeutics, Inc. (a)		39,100		283,866
Depomed, Inc. (a) (b)		31,379		565,450
Dermira, Inc. (a)		12,436		377,184
Heska Corp. (a)		3,277		234,633
Horizon Pharma plc (a)		78,756		1,274,272
Impax Laboratories, Inc. (a)		35,866		475,224
Innoviva, Inc. (a) (b)		40,393		432,205
Intersect ENT, Inc. (a)		11,434		138,351
Intra-Cellular Therapies, Inc. (a) (b)		16,993		256,424

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-16

Metropolitan Series Fund

Russell 2000 Index Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Pharmaceuticals—(Continued)
Lannett Co., Inc. (a) (b)		12,710	$	280,255
Medicines Co. (The) (a) (b)		32,038		1,087,370
Nektar Therapeutics (a)		69,236		849,526
Omeros Corp. (a) (b)		18,771		186,208
Pacira Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a)		17,459		563,926
Paratek Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a)		7,167		110,372
Phibro Animal Health Corp. - Class A		9,993		292,795
Prestige Brands Holdings, Inc. (a)		25,686		1,338,241
Revance Therapeutics, Inc. (a) (b)		8,949		185,244
Sciclone Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a)		27,839		300,661
Sucampo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. - Class A (a) (b)		12,005		162,668
Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a)		23,502		593,425
Teligent, Inc. (a) (b)		28,000		185,080
TherapeuticsMD, Inc. (a) (b)		70,014		403,981
Theravance Biopharma, Inc. (a) (b)		19,690		627,717
WAVE Life Sciences, Ltd. (a) (b)		4,065		106,300
Zogenix, Inc. (a) (b)		12,033		146,201
				14,333,662
Professional Services—1.3%
Acacia Research Corp. (a)		26,966		175,279
Advisory Board Co. (The) (a) (b)		20,097		668,225
Barrett Business Services, Inc.		3,858		247,298
CBIZ, Inc. (a)		24,387		334,102
CEB, Inc.		15,566		943,300
CRA International, Inc.		4,868		178,169
Exponent, Inc.		12,398		747,599
Franklin Covey Co. (a)		5,529		111,409
FTI Consulting, Inc. (a)		19,255		868,015
GP Strategies Corp. (a)		5,793		165,680
Heidrick & Struggles International, Inc.		9,634		232,661
Huron Consulting Group, Inc. (a)		10,356		524,531
ICF International, Inc. (a)		8,868		489,514
Insperity, Inc. (b)		7,461		529,358
Kelly Services, Inc. - Class A		14,944		342,516
Kforce, Inc.		12,692		293,185
Korn/Ferry International		28,161		828,778
Mistras Group, Inc. (a)		8,222		211,141
Navigant Consulting, Inc. (a)		21,686		567,740
On Assignment, Inc. (a) (b)		24,181		1,067,833
Resources Connection, Inc. (b)		17,930		345,153
RPX Corp. (a)		26,264		283,651
TriNet Group, Inc. (a)		19,326		495,132
TrueBlue, Inc. (a)		19,573		482,474
WageWorks, Inc. (a) (b)		17,251		1,250,698
				12,383,441
Real Estate Management & Development—0.5%
Alexander & Baldwin, Inc.		22,995		1,031,786
Altisource Portfolio Solutions S.A. (a) (b)		6,754		179,589
Consolidated-Tomoka Land Co.		2,461		131,467
Forestar Group, Inc. (a)		17,933		238,509
FRP Holdings, Inc. (a)		3,389		127,765
HFF, Inc. - Class A		17,641		533,640
Kennedy-Wilson Holdings, Inc.		38,983		799,151
Real Estate Management & Development—(Continued)
Marcus & Millichap, Inc. (a)		6,463		172,691
RE/MAX Holdings, Inc. - Class A (b)		8,877		497,112
RMR Group, Inc. (The) - Class A		3,481		137,500
St. Joe Co. (The) (a)		25,487		484,253
Stratus Properties, Inc. (a)		3,293		107,846
Tejon Ranch Co. (a)		7,566		192,403
				4,633,712
Road & Rail—0.5%
ArcBest Corp.		12,815		354,335
Celadon Group, Inc. (b)		14,521		103,825
Covenant Transportation Group, Inc. - Class A (a) (b)		5,776		111,708
Heartland Express, Inc. (b)		22,410		456,268
Knight Transportation, Inc.		32,744		1,082,189
Marten Transport, Ltd.		11,626		270,886
Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc. (a)		13,855		143,953
Saia, Inc. (a)		11,835		522,515
Swift Transportation Co. (a) (b)		36,623		892,136
Werner Enterprises, Inc. (b)		22,043		594,059
YRC Worldwide, Inc. (a)		14,785		196,345
				4,728,219
Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment—3.8%
Acacia Communications, Inc. (a) (b)		2,652		163,761
Advanced Energy Industries, Inc. (a)		19,555		1,070,636
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (a)		359,193		4,073,249
Alpha & Omega Semiconductor, Ltd. (a)		10,203		217,018
Ambarella, Inc. (a) (b)		15,830		856,878
Amkor Technology, Inc. (a)		46,149		486,872
Applied Micro Circuits Corp. (a)		37,494		309,325
Axcelis Technologies, Inc. (a)		13,934		202,740
Brooks Automation, Inc.		32,611		556,670
Cabot Microelectronics Corp.		11,541		729,045
Cavium, Inc. (a) (b)		29,819		1,861,898
Ceva, Inc. (a) (b)		9,018		302,554
Cirrus Logic, Inc. (a)		28,876		1,632,649
Cohu, Inc.		11,848		164,687
Diodes, Inc. (a) (b)		18,315		470,146
DSP Group, Inc. (a)		11,248		146,786
Entegris, Inc. (a)		65,120		1,165,648
Exar Corp. (a) (d)		20,123		216,926
FormFactor, Inc. (a) (b) (d)		31,704		355,080
Inphi Corp. (a) (b)		19,424		866,699
Integrated Device Technology, Inc. (a)		64,575		1,521,387
Intersil Corp. - Class A		65,364		1,457,617
IXYS Corp.		13,771		163,875
Lattice Semiconductor Corp. (a)		55,774		410,497
MACOM Technology Solutions Holdings, Inc. (a) (b)		10,997		508,941
MaxLinear, Inc. - Class A (a)		26,699		582,038
Microsemi Corp. (a)		53,406		2,882,322
MKS Instruments, Inc.		25,868		1,536,559
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. (b)		18,931		1,551,017
Nanometrics, Inc. (a)		12,771		320,041
NeoPhotonics Corp. (a)		14,422		155,902

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-17

Metropolitan Series Fund

Russell 2000 Index Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment—(Continued)
NVE Corp.		2,605	$	186,075
PDF Solutions, Inc. (a) (b)		13,631		307,379
Photronics, Inc. (a)		30,362		343,091
Power Integrations, Inc.		13,771		934,362
Rambus, Inc. (a) (b)		49,965		688,018
Rudolph Technologies, Inc. (a)		13,085		305,535
Semtech Corp. (a)		29,669		936,057
Silicon Laboratories, Inc. (a)		19,814		1,287,910
Synaptics, Inc. (a)		17,366		930,470
Tessera Holding Corp. (b)		24,436		1,080,071
Ultra Clean Holdings, Inc. (a)		16,793		162,892
Ultratech, Inc. (a)		9,957		238,769
Veeco Instruments, Inc. (a)		20,425		595,389
Xcerra Corp. (a)		26,473		202,254
				35,137,735
Software—3.4%
8x8, Inc. (a)		41,065		587,230
A10 Networks, Inc. (a)		21,727		180,551
ACI Worldwide, Inc. (a)		53,497		970,971
American Software, Inc. - Class A		12,761		131,821
Aspen Technology, Inc. (a) (d)		37,022		2,024,363
Barracuda Networks, Inc. (a) (b)		11,138		238,687
Blackbaud, Inc. (b)		22,367		1,431,488
Blackline, Inc. (a) (b)		8,835		244,111
Bottomline Technologies de, Inc. (a) (b)		19,170		479,633
BroadSoft, Inc. (a) (b)		14,701		606,416
Callidus Software, Inc. (a) (b)		28,634		481,051
CommVault Systems, Inc. (a)		18,850		968,890
Digimarc Corp. (a)		3,943		118,290
Ebix, Inc. (b)		12,122		691,560
Ellie Mae, Inc. (a)		15,728		1,316,119
Fair Isaac Corp.		14,308		1,705,800
Gigamon, Inc. (a) (b)		15,887		723,653
Globant S.A. (a) (b)		12,602		420,277
Glu Mobile, Inc. (a) (b)		56,662		109,924
HubSpot, Inc. (a)		14,089		662,183
Imperva, Inc. (a)		14,007		537,869
Jive Software, Inc. (a)		29,952		130,291
Mentor Graphics Corp. (b)		52,058		1,920,420
MicroStrategy, Inc. - Class A (a)		4,589		905,869
Monotype Imaging Holdings, Inc.		18,592		369,051
Paycom Software, Inc. (a) (b)		21,414		974,123
Paylocity Holding Corp. (a)		10,675		320,357
Pegasystems, Inc.		16,572		596,592
Progress Software Corp.		23,712		757,124
Proofpoint, Inc. (a) (b)		19,783		1,397,669
PROS Holdings, Inc. (a) (b)		10,832		233,105
QAD, Inc. - Class A		4,798		145,859
Qualys, Inc. (a)		13,378		423,414
Rapid7, Inc. (a)		10,207		124,219
RealPage, Inc. (a)		27,401		822,030
RingCentral, Inc. - Class A (a)		28,664		590,478
Rubicon Project, Inc. (The) (a)		18,549		137,634
Sapiens International Corp. NV		11,949		171,349
Silver Spring Networks, Inc. (a)		17,691		235,467
Software—(Continued)
Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. (a)		19,823		759,221
Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. (a)		39,881		1,965,734
Tangoe, Inc. (a)		9,777		77,043
Telenav, Inc. (a)		16,939		119,420
TiVo Corp. (a) (b)		54,357		1,136,061
Varonis Systems, Inc. (a)		5,014		134,375
VASCO Data Security International, Inc. (a)		15,031		205,173
Verint Systems, Inc. (a)		28,969		1,021,157
Workiva, Inc. (a)		11,206		152,962
Zendesk, Inc. (a)		39,450		836,340
Zix Corp. (a)		28,558		141,077
				31,434,501
Specialty Retail—2.3%
Aaron’s, Inc.		32,279		1,032,605
Abercrombie & Fitch Co. - Class A (b)		32,535		390,420
America’s Car-Mart, Inc. (a)		3,580		156,625
American Eagle Outfitters, Inc. (b)		80,529		1,221,625
Asbury Automotive Group, Inc. (a)		9,029		557,089
Ascena Retail Group, Inc. (a) (b)		79,891		494,525
Barnes & Noble Education, Inc. (a)		20,589		236,156
Barnes & Noble, Inc. (b)		31,637		352,753
Big 5 Sporting Goods Corp. (b)		9,615		166,820
Buckle, Inc. (The) (b)		14,188		323,486
Caleres, Inc.		20,189		662,603
Camping World Holdings, Inc. - Class A		8,880		289,399
Cato Corp. (The) - Class A		13,930		419,014
Chico’s FAS, Inc.		60,613		872,221
Children’s Place, Inc. (The) (b)		8,817		890,076
Citi Trends, Inc.		8,551		161,101
Conn’s, Inc. (a) (b)		11,086		140,238
DSW, Inc. - Class A (b)		33,068		748,990
Express, Inc. (a)		37,753		406,222
Finish Line, Inc. (The) - Class A (b)		20,123		378,514
Five Below, Inc. (a) (b)		25,874		1,033,925
Francesca’s Holdings Corp. (a) (b)		18,782		338,640
Genesco, Inc. (a) (b)		10,535		654,224
GNC Holdings, Inc. - Class A (b)		33,443		369,211
Group 1 Automotive, Inc. (b)		9,411		733,493
Guess?, Inc.		30,485		368,869
Haverty Furniture Cos., Inc.		10,391		246,267
Hibbett Sports, Inc. (a) (b)		10,209		380,796
Kirkland’s, Inc. (a)		7,993		123,971
Lithia Motors, Inc. - Class A (b)		11,630		1,126,133
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. (a) (b)		13,856		218,093
MarineMax, Inc. (a) (b)		12,696		245,668
Monro Muffler Brake, Inc. (b)		15,070		862,004
Office Depot, Inc.		270,619		1,223,198
Party City Holdco, Inc. (a) (b)		13,656		193,915
Pier 1 Imports, Inc.		35,527		303,401
Rent-A-Center, Inc.		21,277		239,366
Restoration Hardware Holding (a)		19,129		587,260
Select Comfort Corp. (a) (b)		24,198		547,359
Shoe Carnival, Inc. (b)		8,227		221,964
Sonic Automotive, Inc. - Class A		14,688		336,355
Sportsman’s Warehouse Holdings, Inc. (a) (b)		14,062		132,042

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-18

Metropolitan Series Fund

Russell 2000 Index Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Specialty Retail—(Continued)
Tailored Brands, Inc.		22,434	$	573,189
Tile Shop Holdings, Inc. (a)		14,624		285,899
Vitamin Shoppe, Inc. (a) (b)		12,621		299,749
Winmark Corp.		1,140		143,811
Zumiez, Inc. (a) (b)		10,452		228,376
				21,917,660
Technology Hardware, Storage & Peripherals—0.5%
3D Systems Corp. (a) (b)		52,340		695,599
Cray, Inc. (a)		19,290		399,303
Diebold Nixdorf, Inc.		34,285		862,268
Eastman Kodak Co. (a)		9,487		147,048
Electronics for Imaging, Inc. (a) (b)		22,186		973,078
Immersion Corp. (a) (b)		15,004		159,493
Nimble Storage, Inc. (a) (b)		31,351		248,300
Pure Storage, Inc. - Class A (a) (b)		30,203		341,596
Stratasys, Ltd. (a)		23,667		391,452
Super Micro Computer, Inc. (a)		17,788		498,953
				4,717,090
Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods—0.7%
Columbia Sportswear Co. (b)		13,362		779,005
Crocs, Inc. (a) (d)		36,244		248,634
Culp, Inc.		4,697		174,494
Deckers Outdoor Corp. (a)		14,873		823,816
Fossil Group, Inc. (a) (b)		20,656		534,164
G-III Apparel Group, Ltd. (a) (b)		21,024		621,469
Iconix Brand Group, Inc. (a)		23,416		218,705
Movado Group, Inc.		7,984		229,540
Oxford Industries, Inc. (b)		7,657		460,415
Perry Ellis International, Inc. (a)		7,318		182,291
Steven Madden, Ltd. (a)		30,077		1,075,253
Unifi, Inc. (a) (b)		7,892		257,516
Vera Bradley, Inc. (a)		10,263		120,282
Wolverine World Wide, Inc. (b)		45,644		1,001,886
				6,727,470
Thrifts & Mortgage Finance—2.3%
Astoria Financial Corp.		45,250		843,913
Bank Mutual Corp.		22,673		214,260
BankFinancial Corp.		8,210		121,672
Beneficial Bancorp, Inc.		32,692		601,533
BofI Holding, Inc. (a) (b)		28,164		804,082
BSB Bancorp, Inc. (a)		4,295		124,340
Capitol Federal Financial, Inc. (b)		59,838		984,933
Charter Financial Corp.		7,188		119,824
Clifton Bancorp, Inc.		13,646		230,890
Dime Community Bancshares, Inc. (b)		15,501		311,570
Essent Group, Ltd. (a)		36,651		1,186,393
EverBank Financial Corp.		50,515		982,517
Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corp. - Class C		4,263		244,142
First Defiance Financial Corp.		5,038		255,628
Flagstar Bancorp, Inc. (a) (b)		9,133		246,043
Hingham Institution for Savings		716		140,894
Home Bancorp, Inc.		3,034		117,143
HomeStreet, Inc. (a) (b)		10,511		332,148
Thrifts & Mortgage Finance—(Continued)
Kearny Financial Corp.		43,899		682,629
LendingTree, Inc. (a) (b)		2,772		280,942
Meridian Bancorp, Inc.		20,622		389,756
Meta Financial Group, Inc.		4,218		434,032
MGIC Investment Corp. (a)		157,888		1,608,879
Nationstar Mortgage Holdings, Inc. (a) (b)		13,208		238,536
NMI Holdings, Inc. - Class A (a)		20,655		219,976
Northfield Bancorp, Inc.		19,366		386,739
Northwest Bancshares, Inc. (b)		47,880		863,276
OceanFirst Financial Corp.		12,572		377,537
Ocwen Financial Corp. (a) (b)		51,713		278,733
Oritani Financial Corp. (b)		16,857		316,069
PennyMac Financial Services, Inc. - Class A (a)		7,300		121,545
PHH Corp. (a)		24,884		377,241
Provident Financial Services, Inc.		29,105		823,672
Radian Group, Inc.		99,468		1,788,435
Territorial Bancorp, Inc.		4,282		140,621
TrustCo Bank Corp.		45,137		394,949
United Community Financial Corp.		24,319		217,412
United Financial Bancorp, Inc.		21,901		397,722
Walker & Dunlop, Inc. (a)		12,545		391,404
Washington Federal, Inc.		43,725		1,501,954
Waterstone Financial, Inc.		10,900		200,560
Western New England Bancorp, Inc. (b)		13,397		125,262
WSFS Financial Corp.		14,223		659,236
				21,079,042
Tobacco—0.2%
Universal Corp.		10,350		659,812
Vector Group, Ltd. (b)		44,917		1,021,413
				1,681,225
Trading Companies & Distributors—1.0%
Aircastle, Ltd.		23,576		491,560
Applied Industrial Technologies, Inc.		17,771		1,055,597
Beacon Roofing Supply, Inc. (a)		28,993		1,335,708
BMC Stock Holdings, Inc. (a)		26,965		525,817
DXP Enterprises, Inc. (a)		6,978		242,416
GATX Corp. (b)		19,980		1,230,368
H&E Equipment Services, Inc. (b)		15,412		358,329
Kaman Corp. (b)		13,043		638,194
MRC Global, Inc. (a)		44,689		905,399
NOW, Inc. (a) (b)		48,295		988,599
Rush Enterprises, Inc. - Class A (a)		12,945		412,945
SiteOne Landscape Supply, Inc. (a)		5,340		185,458
Titan Machinery, Inc. (a)		9,306		135,588
Triton International, Ltd. (b)		20,087		317,375
Univar, Inc. (a)		21,106		598,777
Veritiv Corp. (a)		3,938		211,668
				9,633,798
Water Utilities—0.3%
American States Water Co.		16,817		766,183
Artesian Resources Corp. - Class A		3,766		120,286
California Water Service Group		22,665		768,344

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-19

Metropolitan Series Fund

Russell 2000 Index Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares/ Principal Amount*		Value
Water Utilities—(Continued)
Connecticut Water Service, Inc.		4,871	$	272,045
Middlesex Water Co.		7,497		321,921
SJW Group		7,394		413,916
York Water Co. (The)		6,695		255,749
				2,918,444
Wireless Telecommunication Services—0.1%
Boingo Wireless, Inc. (a) (b)		17,390		211,984
Shenandoah Telecommunications Co. (b)		22,906		625,334
Spok Holdings, Inc.		11,723		243,252
				1,080,570
Total Common Stocks (Cost $616,748,416)				889,078,073
Mutual Fund—1.8%
Investment Company Security—1.8%
iShares Russell 2000 Index Fund (b) (Cost $15,565,590)		123,400		16,640,490
Rights—0.0%
Biotechnology—0.0%
Dyax Corp., Expires 12/31/19 (a) (c) (e)		69,204		169,550
Tobira Therapeutics, Inc., Expires 12/31/28 (a) (c) (e)		4,660		64,028
				233,578
Machinery—0.0%
Gerber Scientific, Inc. (a) (c)		14,024		0
Wireless Telecommunication Services—0.0%
Leap Wireless International, Inc., Expires 03/13/17 (a) (c) (e)		27,485		69,262
Total Rights (Cost $210,106)				302,840
Short-Term Investments—2.9%
Discount Notes—0.6%
Federal Home Loan Bank 0.328%, 01/13/17 (f)		100,000		99,989
0.418%, 01/25/17 (f)		500,000		499,884
0.456%, 03/24/17 (f)		3,375,000		3,371,099
0.487%, 01/04/17 (f)		900,000		899,990
0.533%, 02/27/17 (f)		775,000		774,408
				5,645,370
U.S. Treasury—2.3%
U.S. Treasury Bills 0.255%, 01/05/17 (f)		2,150,000		2,149,957
0.323%, 01/26/17 (f)		11,300,000		11,296,960
0.407%, 03/16/17 (f)		4,425,000		4,420,575
U.S. Treasury—(Continued)
U.S. Treasury Bills 0.430%, 02/16/17 (f)		3,750,000		3,747,983
				21,615,475
Total Short-Term Investments (Cost $27,262,197)				27,260,845
Securities Lending Reinvestments (g)—21.3%
Certificates of Deposit—9.3%
Barclays New York 0.894%, 02/10/17 (h)		3,500,000		3,501,132
Chiba Bank, Ltd., New York 0.950%, 02/02/17		1,500,000		1,500,207
Cooperative Rabobank UA New York 1.278%, 10/13/17 (h)		2,500,000		2,500,563
Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank 1.274%, 04/12/17 (h)		5,000,000		5,003,945
Credit Industriel et Commercial 1.245%, 04/05/17 (h)		2,000,000		2,001,080
Credit Suisse AG New York 1.335%, 04/03/17 (h)		2,300,000		2,300,504
1.364%, 04/11/17 (h)		1,500,000		1,500,327
DG Bank New York 0.940%, 01/12/17		3,000,000		3,000,159
0.950%, 01/03/17		1,500,000		1,500,011
DNB NOR Bank ASA 1.130%, 07/28/17 (h)		2,200,000		2,199,615
DZ Bank London 0.990%, 03/01/17		2,000,000		2,000,420
ING Bank NV 1.265%, 04/18/17 (h)		4,500,000		4,508,249
KBC Bank NV 1.000%, 01/04/17		1,500,000		1,500,000
1.050%, 01/17/17		3,400,000		3,400,408
KBC Brussells 1.050%, 01/27/17		2,900,000		2,900,551
Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen London Zero Coupon, 01/24/17		1,995,411		1,999,140
Mitsubishi UFJ Trust and Banking Corp. 1.364%, 04/11/17 (h)		4,000,000		4,001,892
Mizuho Bank, Ltd., New York 1.395%, 04/11/17 (h)		4,000,000		4,001,204
1.436%, 04/18/17 (h)		2,100,000		2,100,659
National Australia Bank London 1.034%, 05/02/17 (h)		3,500,000		3,503,304
National Bank of Canada 0.650%, 01/06/17		1,500,000		1,500,060
Natixis New York 1.262%, 04/07/17 (h)		2,000,000		2,000,802
Rabobank London 1.281%, 10/13/17 (h)		2,000,000		2,004,797
Royal Bank of Canada New York 1.145%, 04/04/17 (h)		2,500,000		2,499,358
1.281%, 10/13/17 (h)		3,000,000		3,002,325

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-20

Metropolitan Series Fund

Russell 2000 Index Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Securities Lending Reinvestments (g)—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Certificates of Deposit—(Continued)
Sumitomo Bank New York 1.215%, 05/05/17 (h)		750,000	$	751,249
Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corp. New York 1.352%, 04/07/17 (h)		2,000,000		2,001,020
1.395%, 04/12/17 (h)		2,000,000		2,002,281
Sumitomo Mitsui Trust Bank, Ltd., New York 1.351%, 04/26/17 (h)		3,750,000		3,750,442
1.364%, 04/10/17 (h)		2,500,000		2,500,967
Svenska Handelsbanken New York 1.266%, 05/18/17 (h)		4,000,000		4,000,696
UBS, Stamford 1.084%, 05/12/17 (h)		1,800,000		1,799,863
Wells Fargo Bank San Francisco N.A. 1.231%, 04/26/17 (h)		2,200,000		2,200,616
1.264%, 10/26/17 (h)		2,100,000		2,101,434
				87,039,280
Commercial Paper—4.9%
ABN AMRO Funding USA 0.910%, 01/11/17		2,494,313		2,499,222
Atlantic Asset Securitization LLC 0.990%, 01/12/17		997,525		999,676
Barton Capital Corp. 0.870%, 01/12/17		5,996,955		5,998,506
Commonwealth Bank Australia 1.236%, 10/23/17 (h)		2,500,000		2,501,405
Den Norske ASA 1.206%, 04/27/17 (h)		2,200,000		2,200,117
Erste Abwicklungsanstalt 1.014%, 03/10/17 (h)		1,900,000		1,900,011
HSBC plc 1.216%, 04/25/17 (h)		5,100,000		5,099,781
Macquarie Bank, Ltd. 0.930%, 01/19/17		1,496,435		1,499,075
0.950%, 01/03/17		997,678		999,893
1.160%, 03/20/17		1,994,136		1,995,009
Ridgefield Funding Co. LLC 1.000%, 01/03/17		1,995,000		1,999,886
Sheffield Receivables Co. 1.050%, 01/06/17		2,991,775		2,999,610
Starbird Funding Corp. 0.930%, 02/10/17		4,488,375		4,495,684
Toronto Dominion Holding Corp. 0.600%, 01/05/17		2,996,900		2,999,664
Versailles Commercial Paper LLC 1.000%, 01/31/17		997,333		999,248
1.050%, 01/17/17		1,644,995		1,649,262
Victory Receivables Corp. 1.050%, 01/04/17		1,744,947		1,749,876
Westpac Banking Corp. 1.232%, 10/20/17 (h)		3,400,000		3,405,937
				45,991,862
Repurchase Agreements—6.2%
Citigroup Global Markets, Ltd. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/29/16 at 0.710% to be repurchased at $1,400,138 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $1,412,231 U.S. Treasury and Foreign Obligations with rates ranging from 1.750% - 2.750%, maturity dates ranging from 10/15/19 - 11/15/23, with a value of $1,428,000.		1,400,000		1,400,000
Deutsche Bank AG, London Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/16 at 0.950% to be repurchased at $900,095 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $918,810 Foreign Obligations with rates ranging from 1.750% - 2.500%, maturity dates ranging from 09/05/19 - 11/20/24, with a value of $918,005.		900,000		900,000
Repurchase Agreement dated 12/15/16 - 12/30/16 at 1.050% to be repurchased at $12,305,810 on 01/03/17, collateralized by various Common Stock with a value of $13,672,127.		12,300,000		12,300,000
Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. Repurchase Agreement dated 10/18/16 at 1.110% to be repurchased at $4,016,773 on 03/03/17, collateralized by various Common Stock with a value of $4,400,000.		4,000,000		4,000,000
Goldman Sachs & Co. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/16 at 0.460% to be repurchased at $4,523,787 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $23,279,103 U.S. Government Agency Obligations with rates ranging from 2.000% - 10.500%, maturity dates ranging from 03/15/17 - 09/20/65, with a value of $4,614,027.		4,523,556		4,523,556
Macquarie Bank, Ltd. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/27/16 at 0.580% to be repurchased at $1,700,192 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $1,681,904 U.S. Treasury Obligations with rates ranging from 0.000% - 8.750%, maturity dates ranging from 01/05/17 - 05/15/46, with a value of $1,734,879.		1,700,000		1,700,000
Repurchase Agreement dated 12/15/16 at 0.600% to be repurchased at $4,001,467 on 01/06/17, collateralized by $3,957,421 U.S. Treasury Obligations with rates ranging from 0.000% - 8.750%, maturity dates ranging from 01/05/17 - 05/15/46, with a value of $4,082,067.		4,000,000		4,000,000
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. Repurchase Agreement dated 10/26/16 at 1.160% to be repurchased at $3,517,932 on 04/03/17, collateralized by various Common Stock with a value of $3,850,000.		3,500,000		3,500,000

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-21

Metropolitan Series Fund

Russell 2000 Index Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Securities Lending Reinvestments (g)—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Repurchase Agreements—(Continued)
Natixis
Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/16 at 0.600% to be repurchased at $5,000,333 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $8,978,822 U.S. Government Agency and Treasury Obligations with rates ranging from 0.996% - 7.000%, maturity dates ranging from 01/15/20 - 12/01/46, with a value of $5,100,340.		5,000,000	$	5,000,000
Repurchase Agreement dated 12/28/16 at 0.750% to be repurchased at $10,001,667 on 01/05/17, collateralized by $16,050,693 U.S. Government Agency and Treasury Obligations with rates ranging from 0.000% - 4.672%, maturity dates ranging from 01/31/17 - 09/16/58, with a value of $10,201,254.		10,000,000		10,000,000
Repurchase Agreement dated 12/27/16 at 0.850% to be repurchased at $5,000,826 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $8,025,347 U.S. Government Agency and Treasury Obligations with rates ranging from 0.000% - 4.672%, maturity dates ranging from 01/31/17 - 09/16/58, with a value of $5,100,627.		5,000,000		5,000,000
Pershing LLC Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/16 at 0.680% to be repurchased at $5,000,378 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $7,336,822 U.S. Government Agency Obligations with rates ranging from 0.625% - 11.018%, maturity dates ranging from 01/17/17 - 08/20/66, with a value of $5,100,000.		5,000,000		5,000,000
				57,323,556
Time Deposits—0.9%
OP Corporate Bank plc 1.010%, 01/04/17		2,300,000		2,300,000
1.200%, 01/23/17		2,000,000		2,000,000
Time Deposits—(Continued)
Shinkin Central Bank 1.200%, 01/27/17		700,000		700,000
1.220%, 01/26/17		3,000,000		3,000,000
				8,000,000
Total Securities Lending Reinvestments (Cost $198,308,645)				198,354,698
Total Investments—121.3% (Cost $858,094,954) (i)				1,131,636,946
Other assets and liabilities (net)—(21.3)%				(198,452,681	)
Net Assets—100.0%			$	933,184,265

* Principal amount stated in U.S. dollars unless otherwise noted.

(a) Non-income producing security.

(b) All or a portion of the security was held on loan. As of December 31, 2016, the market value of securities loaned was $191,083,221 and the collateral received consisted of cash in the amount of $198,255,332. The cash collateral investments are disclosed in the Schedule of Investments and categorized as Securities Lending Reinvestments.

(c) Illiquid security. As of December 31, 2016, these securities represent 0.0% of net assets.

(d) All or a portion of the security was pledged as collateral against open futures contracts. As of December 31, 2016, the market value of securities pledged was $3,270,934.

(e) Security was valued in good faith under procedures approved by the Board of Trustees. As of December 31, 2016, these securities represent less than 0.05% of net assets.

(f) The rate shown represents current yield to maturity.

(g) Represents investment of cash collateral received from securities on loan as of December 31, 2016.

(h) Variable or floating rate security. The stated rate represents the rate at December 31, 2016.

(i) As of December 31, 2016, the aggregate cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was $862,343,877. The aggregate unrealized appreciation and depreciation of investments were $316,383,597 and $(47,090,528), respectively, resulting in net unrealized appreciation of $269,293,069 for federal income tax purposes.

Futures Contracts

Futures Contracts—Long	Expiration Date		Number of Contracts		Notional Amount			Unrealized Depreciation
Russell 2000 Mini Index Futures		03/17/17		394		USD	27,310,606	$	(579,676	)

(USD)— United States Dollar

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-22

Metropolitan Series Fund

Russell 2000 Index Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Fair Value Hierarchy

Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) define 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, separately for each major category of assets and liabilities, 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, quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities 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, or other market corroborated inputs)

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 used in determining the fair value of investments and derivative financial instruments)

The inputs or methodologies used for valuing investments are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in them. Changes to the inputs or methodologies used may result in transfers between levels, which 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, 2016:

Description	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
Common Stocks
Aerospace & Defense	$	14,201,921	$	—	$	—	$	14,201,921
Air Freight & Logistics		4,954,570		—		—		4,954,570
Airlines		3,368,545		—		—		3,368,545
Auto Components		11,266,399		—		—		11,266,399
Automobiles		387,934		—		—		387,934
Banks		105,363,461		—		—		105,363,461
Beverages		1,861,313		—		—		1,861,313
Biotechnology		36,271,375		—		—		36,271,375
Building Products		10,366,437		—		—		10,366,437
Capital Markets		12,002,222		—		—		12,002,222
Chemicals		22,225,670		—		—		22,225,670
Commercial Services & Supplies		22,167,623		—		—		22,167,623
Communications Equipment		16,284,772		—		—		16,284,772
Construction & Engineering		8,515,992		—		—		8,515,992
Construction Materials		2,472,153		—		—		2,472,153
Consumer Finance		4,919,290		—		—		4,919,290
Containers & Packaging		1,328,510		—		—		1,328,510
Distributors		985,269		—		—		985,269
Diversified Consumer Services		9,313,575		—		—		9,313,575
Diversified Financial Services		712,029		—		—		712,029
Diversified Telecommunication Services		5,522,691		—		—		5,522,691
Electric Utilities		10,000,890		—		—		10,000,890
Electrical Equipment		6,305,922		—		—		6,305,922
Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components		25,385,120		—		—		25,385,120
Energy Equipment & Services		11,112,144		—		—		11,112,144
Equity Real Estate Investment Trusts		67,082,811		—		—		67,082,811
Food & Staples Retailing		5,247,182		—		—		5,247,182
Food Products		12,700,336		—		—		12,700,336
Gas Utilities		10,574,789		—		—		10,574,789
Health Care Equipment & Supplies		28,016,151		—		—		28,016,151
Health Care Providers & Services		18,722,554		—		—		18,722,554
Health Care Technology		3,911,670		—		—		3,911,670
Hotels, Restaurants & Leisure		26,969,794		—		—		26,969,794
Household Durables		11,174,608		—		—		11,174,608
Household Products		2,490,468		—		—		2,490,468
Independent Power and Renewable Electricity Producers		4,265,897		—		—		4,265,897

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-23

Metropolitan Series Fund

Russell 2000 Index Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Fair Value Hierarchy—(Continued)

Description	Level 1			Level 2			Level 3		Total
Industrial Conglomerates	$	470,182		$	—		$	—	$	470,182
Insurance		21,639,518			—			—		21,639,518
Internet & Direct Marketing Retail		4,767,966			—			—		4,767,966
Internet Software & Services		19,374,390			—			—		19,374,390
IT Services		18,454,169			—			—		18,454,169
Leisure Products		2,385,808			—			—		2,385,808
Life Sciences Tools & Services		6,072,329			—			—		6,072,329
Machinery		32,433,711			—			—		32,433,711
Marine		863,532			—			—		863,532
Media		14,139,068			—			—		14,139,068
Metals & Mining		11,823,630			0			—		11,823,630
Mortgage Real Estate Investment Trusts		9,789,763			—			—		9,789,763
Multi-Utilities		4,434,641			—			—		4,434,641
Multiline Retail		1,815,362			—			—		1,815,362
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels		21,878,226			—			—		21,878,226
Paper & Forest Products		5,376,227			—			—		5,376,227
Personal Products		2,500,895			—			—		2,500,895
Pharmaceuticals		14,333,662			—			—		14,333,662
Professional Services		12,383,441			—			—		12,383,441
Real Estate Management & Development		4,633,712			—			—		4,633,712
Road & Rail		4,728,219			—			—		4,728,219
Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment		35,137,735			—			—		35,137,735
Software		31,434,501			—			—		31,434,501
Specialty Retail		21,917,660			—			—		21,917,660
Technology Hardware, Storage & Peripherals		4,717,090			—			—		4,717,090
Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods		6,727,470			—			—		6,727,470
Thrifts & Mortgage Finance		21,079,042			—			—		21,079,042
Tobacco		1,681,225			—			—		1,681,225
Trading Companies & Distributors		9,633,798			—			—		9,633,798
Water Utilities		2,918,444			—			—		2,918,444
Wireless Telecommunication Services		1,080,570			—			—		1,080,570
Total Common Stocks		889,078,073			0			—		889,078,073
Total Mutual Fund		16,640,490			—			—		16,640,490
Total Rights*		—			—			302,840		302,840
Short-Term Investments
Discount Notes		—			5,645,370			—		5,645,370
U.S. Treasury		—			21,615,475			—		21,615,475
Total Short-Term Investments		—			27,260,845			—		27,260,845
Total Securities Lending Reinvestments*		—			198,354,698			—		198,354,698
Total Investments	$	905,718,563		$	225,615,543		$	302,840	$	1,131,636,946
Collateral for Securities Loaned (Liability)	$	—		$	(198,255,332	)	$	—	$	(198,255,332	)
Futures Contracts
Futures Contracts (Unrealized Depreciation)	$	(579,676	)	$	—		$	—	$	(579,676	)

* See Schedule of Investments for additional detailed categorizations.

Level 3 investments at the beginning and/or end of the period in relation to net assets were not significant and accordingly, a reconciliation of Level 3 assets for the year ended December 31, 2016 is not presented.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-24

Metropolitan Series Fund

Russell 2000 Index Portfolio

Statement of Assets and Liabilities

December 31, 2016

Assets
Investments at value (a) (b)	$	1,131,636,946
Receivable for:
Investments sold		2,369,818
Fund shares sold		806,977
Dividends		1,084,565
Prepaid expenses		2,359
Total Assets		1,135,900,665
Liabilities
Due to custodian		36,579
Collateral for securities loaned		198,255,332
Payables for:
Investments purchased		270,760
Fund shares redeemed		3,433,891
Variation margin on futures contracts		112,290
Accrued Expenses:
Management fees		196,486
Distribution and service fees		92,852
Deferred trustees’ fees		92,334
Other expenses		225,876
Total Liabilities		202,716,400
Net Assets	$	933,184,265
Net Assets Consist of:
Paid in surplus	$	614,738,887
Undistributed net investment income		10,559,888
Accumulated net realized gain		34,923,174
Unrealized appreciation on investments and futures contracts		272,962,316
Net Assets	$	933,184,265
Net Assets
Class A	$	513,697,498
Class B		246,628,555
Class E		27,781,172
Class G		145,077,040
Capital Shares Outstanding*
Class A		25,404,905
Class B		12,479,218
Class E		1,382,229
Class G		7,365,285
Net Asset Value, Offering Price and Redemption Price Per Share
Class A	$	20.22
Class B		19.76
Class E		20.10
Class G		19.70

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

(a) Identified cost of investments was $858,094,954.

(b) Includes securities loaned at value of $191,083,221.

Statement of Operations

Year Ended December 31, 2016

Investment Income
Dividends (a)	$	11,877,341
Interest		79,231
Securities lending income		2,141,938
Other income (b)		138,925
Total investment income		14,237,435
Expenses
Management fees		2,085,793
Administration fees		27,262
Custodian and accounting fees		87,080
Distribution and service fees—Class B		558,938
Distribution and service fees—Class E		37,179
Distribution and service fees—Class G		383,821
Audit and tax services		45,570
Legal		33,031
Trustees’ fees and expenses		45,248
Shareholder reporting		167,410
Insurance		5,790
Miscellaneous		73,889
Total expenses		3,551,011
Less management fee waiver		(16,716	)
Net expenses		3,534,295
Net Investment Income		10,703,140
Net Realized and Unrealized Gain
Net realized gain on:
Investments		36,278,253
Futures contracts		5,225,254
Net realized gain		41,503,507
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on:
Investments		114,414,260
Futures contracts		(467,010	)
Foreign currency transactions		5
Net change in unrealized appreciation		113,947,255
Net realized and unrealized gain		155,450,762
Net Increase in Net Assets From Operations	$	166,153,902

(a) Net of foreign withholding taxes of $4,299.

(b) Other income represents a non-recurring refund for overbilling of prior years’ custodian out-of-pocket fees.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-25

Metropolitan Series Fund

Russell 2000 Index Portfolio

Statements of Changes in Net Assets

	Year Ended December 31, 2016			Year Ended December 31, 2015
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets:
From Operations
Net investment income	$	10,703,140		$	10,956,587
Net realized gain		41,503,507			45,329,061
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation)		113,947,255			(92,804,307	)
Increase (decrease) in net assets from operations		166,153,902			(36,518,659	)
From Distributions to Shareholders
Net investment income
Class A		(6,199,626	)		(5,846,773	)
Class B		(2,602,492	)		(2,312,441	)
Class E		(306,015	)		(293,363	)
Class G		(1,328,503	)		(1,394,445	)
Net realized capital gains
Class A		(26,106,237	)		(27,706,544	)
Class B		(13,423,379	)		(13,697,672	)
Class E		(1,459,665	)		(1,599,037	)
Class G		(7,420,341	)		(8,565,878	)
Total distributions		(58,846,258	)		(61,416,153	)
Increase (decrease) in net assets from capital share transactions		(9,842,161	)		31,844,502
Total increase (decrease) in net assets		97,465,483			(66,090,310	)
Net Assets
Beginning of period		835,718,782			901,809,092
End of period	$	933,184,265		$	835,718,782
Undistributed net investment income
End of period	$	10,559,888		$	10,467,424

Other Information:

Capital Shares

Transactions in capital shares were as follows:

	Year Ended December 31, 2016						Year Ended December 31, 2015
	Shares			Value			Shares			Value
Class A
Sales		2,734,140		$	48,541,845			2,532,460		$	48,694,241
Reinvestments		1,900,345			32,305,863			1,686,944			33,553,317
Redemptions		(4,749,649	)		(85,498,973	)		(2,981,074	)		(58,210,387	)
Net increase (decrease)		(115,164	)	$	(4,651,265	)		1,238,330		$	24,037,171
Class B
Sales		979,533		$	17,010,942			939,710		$	17,661,440
Reinvestments		963,672			16,025,871			821,031			16,010,113
Redemptions		(2,005,944	)		(35,652,777	)		(1,402,642	)		(27,143,102	)
Net increase (decrease)		(62,739	)	$	(2,615,964	)		358,099		$	6,528,451
Class E
Sales		231,975		$	4,151,723			284,095		$	5,510,582
Reinvestments		104,416			1,765,680			95,624			1,892,400
Redemptions		(351,709	)		(6,252,408	)		(418,044	)		(8,188,505	)
Net decrease		(15,318	)	$	(335,005	)		(38,325	)	$	(785,523	)
Class G
Sales		1,199,600		$	21,425,493			1,613,232		$	30,391,213
Reinvestments		527,675			8,748,844			512,626			9,960,323
Redemptions		(1,827,855	)		(32,414,264	)		(2,022,084	)		(38,287,133	)
Net increase (decrease)		(100,580	)	$	(2,239,927	)		103,774		$	2,064,403
Increase (decrease) derived from capital shares transactions				$	(9,842,161	)				$	31,844,502

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-26

Metropolitan Series Fund

Russell 2000 Index Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class A
	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014			2013			2012
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	17.98		$	20.11		$	19.83		$	14.56		$	12.66
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (a)		0.25	(b)		0.26			0.24			0.20			0.28
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		3.33			(0.98	)		0.71			5.33			1.78
Total from investment operations		3.58			(0.72	)		0.95			5.53			2.06
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.26	)		(0.25	)		(0.23	)		(0.26	)		(0.16	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(1.08	)		(1.16	)		(0.44	)		0.00			0.00
Total distributions		(1.34	)		(1.41	)		(0.67	)		(0.26	)		(0.16	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	20.22		$	17.98		$	20.11		$	19.83		$	14.56
Total Return (%) (c)		21.28			(4.27	)		5.04			38.55			16.35
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Gross ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.31			0.31			0.32			0.31			0.33
Net ratio of expenses to average net assets (%) (d)		0.31			0.31			0.31			0.31			0.33
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		1.40	(b)		1.35			1.26			1.18			2.01
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		24			27			24			25			26
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	513.7		$	459.0		$	488.3		$	485.5		$	366.9
	Class B
	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014			2013			2012
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	17.60		$	19.71		$	19.45		$	14.29		$	12.43
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (a)		0.20	(b)		0.21			0.19			0.16			0.24
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		3.25			(0.96	)		0.69			5.23			1.75
Total from investment operations		3.45			(0.75	)		0.88			5.39			1.99
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.21	)		(0.20	)		(0.18	)		(0.23	)		(0.13	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(1.08	)		(1.16	)		(0.44	)		0.00			0.00
Total distributions		(1.29	)		(1.36	)		(0.62	)		(0.23	)		(0.13	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	19.76		$	17.60		$	19.71		$	19.45		$	14.29
Total Return (%) (c)		20.96			(4.49	)		4.78			38.18			16.05
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Gross ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.56			0.56			0.57			0.56			0.58
Net ratio of expenses to average net assets (%) (d)		0.56			0.56			0.56			0.56			0.58
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		1.15	(b)		1.10			1.01			0.93			1.77
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		24			27			24			25			26
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	246.6		$	220.8		$	240.2		$	238.1		$	185.7

Please see following page for Financial Highlights footnote legend.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-27

Metropolitan Series Fund

Russell 2000 Index Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class E
	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014			2013			2012
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	17.88		$	20.00		$	19.72		$	14.48		$	12.60
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (a)		0.22	(b)		0.23			0.21			0.17			0.25
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		3.31			(0.98	)		0.71			5.31			1.77
Total from investment operations		3.53			(0.75	)		0.92			5.48			2.02
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.23	)		(0.21	)		(0.20	)		(0.24	)		(0.14	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(1.08	)		(1.16	)		(0.44	)		0.00			0.00
Total distributions		(1.31	)		(1.37	)		(0.64	)		(0.24	)		(0.14	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	20.10		$	17.88		$	20.00		$	19.72		$	14.48
Total Return (%) (c)		21.09			(4.39	)		4.91			38.35			16.10
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Gross ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.46			0.46			0.47			0.46			0.48
Net ratio of expenses to average net assets (%) (d)		0.46			0.46			0.46			0.46			0.48
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		1.25	(b)		1.19			1.10			1.03			1.85
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		24			27			24			25			26
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	27.8		$	25.0		$	28.7		$	30.6		$	25.7
	Class G
	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014			2013			2012
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	17.54		$	19.65		$	19.40		$	14.26		$	12.41
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (a)		0.19	(b)		0.20			0.18			0.15			0.24
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		3.24			(0.96	)		0.69			5.22			1.73
Total from investment operations		3.43			(0.76	)		0.87			5.37			1.97
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.19	)		(0.19	)		(0.18	)		(0.23	)		(0.12	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(1.08	)		(1.16	)		(0.44	)		0.00			0.00
Total distributions		(1.27	)		(1.35	)		(0.62	)		(0.23	)		(0.12	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	19.70		$	17.54		$	19.65		$	19.40		$	14.26
Total Return (%) (c)		20.92			(4.54	)		4.73			38.12			15.94
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Gross ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.61			0.61			0.62			0.61			0.63
Net ratio of expenses to average net assets (%) (d)		0.61			0.61			0.61			0.61			0.63
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		1.10	(b)		1.04			0.96			0.89			1.81
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		24			27			24			25			26
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	145.1		$	131.0		$	144.7		$	141.2		$	88.7

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

(b) Net investment income per share and the ratio of net investment income to average net assets include a non-recurring refund for overbilling of prior years’ custodian out-of-pocket fees which amounted to less than $0.01 per share and 0.02% of average net assets, respectively.

(c) Total return does not reflect any insurance, sales, separate account or administrative charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts or any additional expenses that contract owners may bear under their variable contracts. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower.

(d) Includes the effects of management fee waivers (see Note 6 of the Notes to Financial Statements).

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-28

Metropolitan Series Fund

Russell 2000 Index Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016

1. Organization

Metropolitan Series Fund (the “Trust”) is organized as a Delaware statutory trust and registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), as an open-end management investment company. The Trust, which is managed by MetLife Advisers, LLC (“MetLife Advisers” or the “Adviser”), an affiliate of MetLife, Inc., is currently comprised of thirty series, each of which operates as a distinct investment vehicle of the Trust. The portfolio included in this report is Russell 2000 Index 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.

On January 12, 2016, MetLife, Inc. announced its plan to pursue the separation of a substantial portion of its retail segment and is currently evaluating structural alternatives for such separation. It is anticipated that MetLife Advisers would be included in any such separation. Any separation transaction that might occur will be subject to the satisfaction of various conditions and approvals, including approval of any transaction by the MetLife, Inc. Board of Directors, satisfaction of any applicable requirements of the SEC, and receipt of insurance and other regulatory approvals and other anticipated conditions. MetLife, Inc. cannot currently provide a specific potential completion date for a separation transaction or any assurance that a separation will in fact occur. MetLife Advisers’ continued service as investment adviser to the Trusts following a separation transaction is the subject of a proxy statement that was filed with the SEC on December 20, 2016 and mailed to shareholders of the Portfolio on or about December 30, 2016.

The Portfolio has registered and offers four classes of shares: Class A, B, E and G shares. 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 plan and such distribution expenses are allocated to the corresponding Class of shares.

2. Significant Accounting Policies

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities as of the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of income and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates. In the preparation of these financial statements, management has evaluated events and transactions subsequent to December 31, 2016 through the date the financial statements were issued.

The Portfolio is an investment company and follows the accounting and reporting guidance of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Accounting Standards Codification Topic 946- Financial Services- Investment Companies and Topic 820- Fair Value Measurement. 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 - Domestic and foreign equity securities, such as common stock, exchange-traded funds, rights, warrants, and preferred stock, that are traded on a securities exchange on a valuation date are generally valued at their last quoted sale price or official closing price on the primary exchange for such security, or, if no sales occurred on that day, at the last reported bid price. Equity securities traded over-the-counter (“OTC”) are generally valued at the last reported bid price. In the event of a major exchange closing during the trading day, the Adviser may use other market information obtained from quotation reporting systems, established market makers, or pricing services in valuing the securities. Valuation adjustments may be applied to certain foreign equity securities that are traded solely on foreign exchanges that close before the time as of which the Portfolio determines its NAV to account for the market movement between the close of the foreign exchanges and the time as of which the Portfolio determines its NAV. The Portfolio may use a systematic fair valuation model provided by a pricing service to value securities principally traded in these foreign markets in order to adjust for possible market movements or other changes that may occur between the close of the foreign exchanges and the time as of which the Portfolio determines its NAV. Foreign equity securities valued using these valuation adjustments are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy. Equity securities that are actively traded, and have no valuation adjustments applied, are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other equity securities traded on inactive markets, or valued in reference to similar instruments traded on active markets, 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 on the valuation date and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy.

Debt securities, including corporate, convertible and municipal bonds and notes; obligations of the U.S. Treasury and U.S. government agencies; foreign sovereign issues; 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 the Adviser (each a “pricing service”), pursuant to

MSF-29

Metropolitan Series Fund

Russell 2000 Index Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

authorization of and subject to general oversight by the Board of Trustees of the Trust (the “Board” or “Trustees”). Such pricing services may use matrix pricing, which considers observable inputs including, among other things, issuer details, maturity dates, interest rates, yield curves, rates of prepayment, credit risks/spreads, default rates, reported trades, broker dealer quotes and quoted prices for similar assets. Short-term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less may be valued at amortized cost in the absence of market quotes, so long as the amortized cost value of such short-term debt instrument is approximately the same as the fair value of the instrument as determined without the use of amortized cost valuation. Floating rate loans are generally valued on the basis of an evaluated or composite average of aggregate bid and ask quotations supplied by brokers or dealers, as obtained from the pricing service. Securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally 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 sale price available as of the close of business on a valuation day or, if there is no such price available, at the last reported bid price. These types of options are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Futures contracts that are traded on commodity exchanges are valued at their settlement prices established by the exchanges on which they are traded as of the close of such exchanges and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy.

If no current market value quotation or other observable inputs are readily available or market value quotations are deemed to be unreliable for an investment, the fair value of the investment will be determined in accordance with procedures approved by, and under the general supervision of, the Board. In such a circumstance, the Board will be assisted in its responsibility to determine the fair value of an investment by the Valuation Committee (“Committee”) of MetLife Advisers. The Committee provides general pricing oversight and fair value pricing determinations related to portfolio securities and meets on a regular basis to review reports relating to the valuation of the securities in the Portfolio. The Board has delegated to State Street Bank and Trust Company, the Trust’s custodian (“custodian”), the responsibility for calculating the net asset values (“NAVs”) of the Trust’s Portfolios. The Committee is responsible for overseeing the calculation of the NAVs of the Portfolios by the custodian. The Committee also periodically reviews pricing services, including the pricing services providing fair value pricing for the Portfolio’s foreign securities, and is responsible for overseeing the correction of pricing errors and addressing other pricing issues that arise in the ordinary course of business, such as making real-time fair value determinations, as necessary.

No single standard for determining the fair value of an investment can be set forth because fair value depends upon the facts and circumstances with respect to each investment. Information relating to any relevant factors may be obtained by the Committee from any appropriate source, including the subadviser of the Portfolio, the custodian, a pricing service, market maker and/or broker for such security or the issuer. Appropriate methodologies for determining fair value under particular circumstances may include: matrix pricing, a discounted cash flow analysis, comparisons of securities with comparable characteristics, value based on multiples of earnings, discount from market price of similar marketable securities or a combination of these and other methods.

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 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. These foreign taxes have been provided for in accordance with the Portfolio’s understanding of the applicable countries’ tax rules and rates.

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 the U.S. dollar 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. Because the values of investment securities are translated at the foreign exchange rates prevailing at the end of the period, that portion of the results of operations arising from changes in exchange rates and that portion of the results of operations reflecting fluctuations arising from changes in market prices of the investment securities are not separated. 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. 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.

Dividends and Distributions to Shareholders - The Portfolio records dividends and distributions on the ex-dividend date. Net realized gains from securities 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

MSF-30

Metropolitan Series Fund

Russell 2000 Index Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

to adjustments to prior period accumulated balances, passive foreign investment companies (PFICs) and real estate investment trust (REIT) adjustments. These adjustments have no impact on net assets or the results 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 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. As of December 31, 2016, the Portfolio had no uncertain tax positions that would require financial statement recognition, or de-recognition or disclosure.

Repurchase Agreements - The Portfolio may enter into repurchase agreements, under the terms of a Master Repurchase Agreement (“MRA”), 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, under a tri-party repurchase agreement, receives delivery of the underlying securities collateralizing any repurchase agreements. It is the Portfolio’s policy that the market value of the collateral be equal to at least 100% of the repurchase price in the case of a repurchase agreement of one-day duration and equal to at least 102% of the repurchase price in the case of all other repurchase agreements. In the event of default or failure by a party to perform an obligation in connection with any repurchase transaction, the MRA gives the non-defaulting party the right to set-off claims and to apply property held by it in connection with any repurchase transaction against obligations owed to it.

At December 31, 2016, the Portfolio invested cash collateral for loans of portfolio securities in repurchase agreements with a gross value of $ 57,323,556. The combined value of all repurchase agreements is included as part of investments at value on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. The value of the related collateral exceeded the value of the repurchase agreements at December 31, 2016.

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 collateral held from securities on loan. 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.

Effective September 8, 2016, the Trust has entered into a Non-Custodial Securities Lending Agreement with JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (the “lending agent”). Prior to September 8, 2016, the Trust had entered into a Securities Lending Authorization Agreement with the custodian (the “prior lending agent”). Under each agreement, the lending agent is authorized to loan portfolio securities on the Portfolio’s behalf. In exchange, the Portfolio receives either cash or government securities as collateral against the loaned securities. The Portfolio receives collateral equal to at least 102% of the market value for loans secured by government securities or cash in the same currency as the loaned shares and 105% for all other loaned securities at each loan’s inception. Collateral representing at least 100% of the market value of the loaned securities is maintained for the duration of the loan. Any cash collateral received by the Portfolio is generally invested by the lending agent in short-term investments, which may include certificates of deposit, commercial paper, repurchase agreements, time deposits and money market funds. Cash collateral that was received by the prior lending agent had been generally invested in the State Street Navigator Securities Lending MET Portfolio (the “Navigator Portfolio”), a series of the State Street Navigator Securities Lending Trust that was a registered money market fund managed by an affiliate of the custodian. The market value of investments made with cash collateral received are disclosed in the Schedule of Investments and the valuation techniques are described in Note 2. 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 is 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 is equal to at least 100% of the market value of all the loaned securities as of such preceding day. A portion of the income earned on the collateral is rebated to the borrower of the securities and the remainder is split between the lending agent and the Portfolio. On loans collateralized by government securities, a fee is received from the borrower and is allocated between the Portfolio and the lending agent.

Income received by the Portfolio in securities lending transactions during the year ended December 31, 2016 is reflected as securities lending income on the Statement of Operations. The values of any securities loaned by the Portfolio and the related collateral at December 31, 2016 are disclosed in the footnotes to the Schedule of Investments. The value of the related collateral received by the Portfolio exceeded the value of the securities out on loan at December 31, 2016.

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. The lending agent shall indemnify the Portfolio in the case of default of any securities borrower, subject to the terms of the Non-Custodial Securities Lending Agreement.

MSF-31

Metropolitan Series Fund

Russell 2000 Index Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

The following table provides a breakdown of transactions accounted for as secured borrowings, the gross obligations by the type of collateral pledged, and the remaining contractual maturities of those transactions, which are accounted for as secured borrowings.

	Remaining Contractual Maturity of the Agreements As of December 31, 2016
	Overnight and Continuous			Up to 30 Days		31 - 90 Days		Greater than 90 days		Total
Securities Lending Transactions
Common Stocks	$	(194,200,279	)	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	(194,200,279	)
Mutual Funds		(4,055,053	)		—		—		—		(4,055,053	)
Total	$	(198,255,332	)	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	(198,255,332	)
Total Borrowings	$	(198,255,332	)	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	(198,255,332	)
Gross amount of recognized liabilities for securities lending transactions										$	(198,255,332	)

3. Investments in Derivative Instruments

Futures Contracts - The Portfolio may buy and sell futures contracts 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 cash collateral 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 whether unrealized gains or losses are incurred. These amounts are reflected as receivables or payables on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities and as a component of net change in unrealized appreciation/depreciation on the Statement of Operations. When the contract is closed or expires, the Portfolio records 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. 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. If futures contracts are exchange-traded, the exchange’s clearinghouse, as counterparty to all exchange-traded futures, guarantees the futures contracts against default. For OTC futures, the Portfolio’s ability to terminate the positions may be more limited than in the case of exchange-traded positions and may also involve the risk that securities dealers participating in such transactions would fail to meet their obligations to the Portfolio.

The following table summarizes the fair value of derivatives held by the Portfolio at December 31, 2016 by category of risk exposure:

	Liability Derivatives
Risk Exposure	Statement of Assets & Liabilities Location	Fair Value
Equity	Unrealized depreciation on futures contracts (a)		579,676

(a) Includes cumulative appreciation/depreciation of futures contracts as reported in the Schedule of Investments. Only the current day’s variation margin is reported within the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

The following tables summarize the effect of derivative instruments on the Statement of Operations, classified by derivative type and category of risk exposure, for the year ended December 31, 2016:

Statement of Operations Location—Net Realized Gain (Loss)	Equity
Futures contracts	$	5,225,254
Statement of Operations Location—Net Change in Unrealized Appreciation (Depreciation)	Equity
Futures contracts	$	(467,010	)

MSF-32

Metropolitan Series Fund

Russell 2000 Index Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

For the year ended December 31, 2016, the average notional par or face amount outstanding for each derivative type was as follows:

Derivative Description	Average Notional Par or Face Amount‡
Futures contracts long	$	19,700

‡ Averages are based on activity levels during the year.

4. Certain Risks

In the normal course of business, the Portfolio invests in securities and enters into transactions where risks exist. Those risks include:

Market 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, interest rate, and price fluctuations.

Credit and Counterparty Risk: 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 and counterparty risk consist principally of cash due from counterparties and investments. The Portfolio manages counterparty risk by entering into agreements only with counterparties that it believes have the financial resources to honor their obligations and by monitoring the financial stability of those counterparties. The Portfolio’s investment adviser attempts to mitigate counterparty risk by (i) periodically assessing the creditworthiness of its trading partners, (ii) monitoring and/or limiting the amount of its net exposure to each individual counterparty based on its assessment, and (iii) requiring collateral from the counterparty for certain transactions. In order to preserve certain safeguards for non-standard settlement trades, the Portfolio restricts its exposure to credit and counterparty losses by entering into master netting agreements (“Master Agreements”) with counterparties (approved brokers) with whom it undertakes a significant volume of transactions. Master Agreements govern the terms of certain transactions, and reduce the counterparty risk associated with relevant transactions by specifying credit protection mechanisms and providing standardization that improves legal certainty. Master Agreements can also help limit counterparty risk by specifying collateral posting arrangements at pre-arranged exposure levels.

Customer Account Agreements and related addenda govern cleared derivatives transactions such as futures, options on futures, and cleared OTC derivatives. Cleared derivative transactions require posting of initial margin as determined by each relevant clearing agency, which is segregated at a broker account registered with the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”), or the applicable regulator. In the U.S., counterparty risk is significantly reduced as creditors of the futures broker do not have claim to Portfolio assets in the segregated account. Additionally, portability of exposure in the event of default further reduces risk to the Portfolio. Variation margin, or changes in market value, are exchanged daily, but may not be netted between futures and cleared OTC derivatives.

Additional risks associated with each type of investment are described above within the respective security type notes. The Portfolio’s prospectus includes a discussion of the principal risks of investing in the Portfolio.

5. Investment Transactions

Aggregate cost of purchases and proceeds of sales of investment securities, excluding short-term securities, for the year ended December 31, 2016 were as follows:

Purchases			Sales
U.S. Government	Non U.S. Government		U.S. Government		Non U.S. Government
$0	$	193,764,310	$	0	$	241,589,934

6. Investment Management Fees and Other Transactions with Affiliates

Investment Management Agreement - MetLife Advisers is the investment adviser to the Portfolio. The Trust has entered into an investment management agreement with MetLife Advisers with respect to the Portfolio. For providing investment management services to the Portfolio, MetLife Advisers receives monthly compensation at the annual rate of 0.250% of average daily net assets. Fees earned by MetLife Advisers with respect to the Portfolio for the year ended December 31, 2016 were $2,085,793.

MSF-33

Metropolitan Series Fund

Russell 2000 Index Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

MetLife Advisers has entered into an investment subadvisory agreement with MetLife Investment Advisors, LLC (“MIA”) with respect to managing the Portfolio. For providing subadvisory services to the Portfolio, MetLife Advisers has agreed to pay MIA an investment subadvisory fee for each class of the Portfolio as follows:

% per annum	Average Daily Net Assets
0.040%	On the first $500 million
0.030%	Of the next $500 million
0.015%	On amounts over $1 billion

Fees earned by MIA with respect to the Portfolio for the year ended December 31, 2016 were $300,295.

Management Fee Waiver - Pursuant to a management fee waiver agreement, MetLife Advisers has agreed, for the period May 1, 2016 to April 30, 2017, to reduce its advisory fees set out above under “Investment Management Agreement” for each class of the Portfolio as follows:

% per annum	Average Daily Net Assets
0.005%	Over $500 million and under $1 billion
0.010%	Of the next $1 billion
0.015%	On amounts over $2 billion

An identical agreement was in place for the period May 1, 2015 to April 30, 2016. Amounts waived for the year ended December 31, 2016 are shown as a management fee waiver in the Statement of Operations.

Certain officers and trustees of the Trust may also be officers of MetLife Advisers; 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 and Service Fees - The Trust has a distribution agreement with MetLife Investors Distribution Company (“MIDC” or the “Distributor”) in which MIDC serves as the distributor for the Portfolio’s Class A, B, E, and G Shares. MIDC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife Investors Group, LLC, an affiliate of the Adviser. The Trust has also adopted a Distribution and Service Plan under Rule 12b-1 of the 1940 Act for the Portfolio’s Class B, E, and G Shares. Under the Distribution and Service Plan, the Class B, E, and G Shares of the Portfolio pay a fee to compensate the Insurance Companies (or their affiliates) and other broker-dealers and financial intermediaries involved in the offer and sale of Portfolio shares for promoting or selling and servicing the Class B, E, and G Shares of the Portfolio. The fees under the Distribution and Service Plan for each class of the Portfolio’s shares are calculated as a percentage of the Portfolio’s average daily net assets that are attributable to that Class. Currently, the fee is 0.25% per year for Class B Shares, 0.15% per year for Class E Shares, and 0.30% per year for Class G Shares. Amounts incurred by the Portfolio for the year ended December 31, 2016 are shown as Distribution and service fees in the Statement of Operations.

Deferred Trustee Compensation - Each Trustee 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 Trust. 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 Met Investors Series Trust, an affiliate of the Trust, 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 under the Plan is reflected as Deferred trustees’ fees in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

7. Contractual Obligations

Under the Trust’s organizational documents, its officers and Trustees may be indemnified against certain liabilities and expenses arising out of the performance of their duties to the Trust. Additionally, 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 Trust that have not yet occurred.

8. Income Tax Information

The tax character of distributions paid for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015 were as follows:

Ordinary Income			Long-Term Capital Gain				Total
2016	2015		2016		2015		2016		2015
$10,436,636	$	10,291,201	$	48,409,622	$	51,124,952	$	58,846,258	$	61,416,153

MSF-34

Metropolitan Series Fund

Russell 2000 Index Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

As of December 31, 2016, 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		Other Accumulated Capital Losses		Total
$10,863,900	$	38,380,735	$	269,293,077	$	—	$	318,537,712

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 up to 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, 2016, the Portfolio had no post-enactment accumulated capital losses and no pre-enactment accumulated capital loss carryforwards.

9. Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In October 2016, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) adopted new rules and forms, and amendments to certain current rules and forms, to modernize reporting and disclosure of information by registered investment companies. The amendments to Regulation S-X will require standardized, enhanced disclosure about derivatives in investment company financial statements, and will also change the rules governing the form and content of such financial statements. The compliance date for the amendments to Regulation S-X is August 1, 2017. Management is currently evaluating the impact that the adoption of the amendments to Regulation S-X will have on the Portfolio’s financial statements and related disclosures.

MSF-35

Metropolitan Series Fund

Russell 2000 Index Portfolio

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Shareholders of Russell 2000 Index Portfolio and the Board of Trustees of Metropolitan Series Fund:

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities, including the schedule of investments, of Russell 2000 Index Portfolio (one of the portfolios constituting the Metropolitan Series Fund) (the “Portfolio”) as of December 31, 2016, 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 Portfolio’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 Portfolio 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 Portfolio’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, 2016, by correspondence with the custodian and brokers; when 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 Russell 2000 Index Portfolio of the Metropolitan Series Fund as of December 31, 2016, 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.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

February 24, 2017

MSF-36

Metropolitan Series Fund

Trustees and Officers

MANAGEMENT OF THE TRUSTS

The Boards of Trustees (the “Board”) of Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (“MIST” and “MSF”, respectively, and collectively the “Trusts”) supervise the Trusts and are responsible for representing the interests of shareholders. The Trustees, the Chairman of the Board and the Chairmen of each subcommittee are the same for both Trusts. The Trustees of each Trust meet periodically throughout the year to oversee the Portfolios’ activities, reviewing, among other things, each Portfolio’s performance and its contractual arrangements with various service providers. The Trustees of each Trust elect the officers of the Trust, who are responsible for administering the Trust’s day-to-day operations.

Trustees and Officers

The Trustees and executive officers of the Trusts, as well as their ages and their principal occupations during the past five years, are set forth below. Unless otherwise indicated, the business address of each is c/o MetLife Funds, One Financial Center, Boston, Massachusetts 02111. Each Trustee who is deemed an “interested person,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, is referred to as an “Interested Trustee.” Those Trustees who are not “interested persons,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, are referred to as “Independent Trustees.” There is no limit to the term a Trustee may serve. Trustees serve until their death, resignation or removal in accordance with the MIST Trust’s and MSF Trust’s respective organizational documents and policies adopted by the Boards of the respective Trusts from time to time. Officers hold office at the pleasure of each Board and serve until their removal or resignation in accordance with the Trusts’ respective organizational documents and policies adopted by the Board of each Trust from time to time.

Name and Age	Current 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 MetLife Funds Complex(2) Overseen by Trustee	Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Interested Trustee
John Rosenthal* (56)	Trustee	Indefinite; From May 2016 (MIST and MSF) to present	Senior Managing Director and Head of Global Portfolio Management, MetLife, Inc.	75	None
Independent Trustees
Dawn M. Vroegop (50)	Trustee and Chairman of the Board	Indefinite; From December 2000 (MIST)/ May 2009 (MSF) to present as Trustee; From May 2016 (MIST and MSF) until present as Chairman	Private Investor.	75	Trustee, Driehaus Mutual Funds.**
Stephen M. Alderman (57)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 (MIST)/ April 2012 (MSF) to present	Shareholder in the law firm of Garfield and Merel, Ltd.	75	None

MSF-37

Metropolitan Series Fund

Trustees and Officers—(Continued)

Name and Age	Current 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 MetLife Funds Complex(2) Overseen by Trustee	Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Robert J. Boulware (60)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 (MIST)/ April 2012 (MSF) to present	Managing Director, Pilgrim Funds, LLC (private equity fund).	75	Trustee, Vertical Capital Income Fund (closed-end fund);** Director, Gainsco, Inc. (auto insurance);** Trustee, SharesPost 100 Fund (closed-end fund).**
Susan C. Gause (64)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 (MIST)/ April 2012 (MSF) to present	Private Investor.	75	Trustee, HSBC Funds.**
Nancy Hawthorne (65)	Trustee	Indefinite; From May 2003 (MSF)/ April 2012 (MIST) to present	Partner, Hawthorne Financial Advisors, LLC (registered investment advisor); until June 2014, Chief Executive Officer, Clerestory LLC (corporate advisor).	75	Director and Chairman of the Board of Directors, THL Credit, Inc.;** Lead Director, Avid Technology, Inc.;** Director, CRA International, Inc.**
Barbara A. Nugent (60)	Trustee	Indefinite; From January 2014 (MIST and MSF) to present	President, True North Board Governance, LLC (consulting); until December 2013, partner in the law firm of Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young, LLP.	75	None
Linda B. Strumpf (69)	Trustee	Indefinite; From May 2000 (MSF)/ April 2012 (MIST) to present	Chair of the Investment Committee, Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust; until June 2011, Chief Investment Officer, Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust.	75	None

Executive Officers

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Kristi Slavin (43)	President and Chief Executive Officer, of MIST and MSF	From May 2016 (MIST and MSF) to present	President, MetLife Advisers, LLC (May 2016-present); Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Vice President, MetLife, Inc.; Vice President, MIST and MSF (2015-2016).

MSF-38

Metropolitan Series Fund

Trustees and Officers—(Continued)

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Peter H. Duffy (61)	Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, of MIST and MSF	From November 2000 (MSF)/ May 2012 (MIST) to present	Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Andrew L. Gangolf (62)	Secretary, of MIST and MSF	From May 2011 (MIST and MSF) to present	Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; until 2011, Senior Vice President & Assistant General Counsel, AllianceBernstein Investments, Inc.
Steven E. Hartstein (53)	Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”), of MIST and MSF	From February 2014 (MIST and MSF) to present	Vice President, MetLife, Inc. (2013- present); Senior Vice President and CCO, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Executive Director, Morgan Stanley (2009-2013); CCO, Consulting Group Capital Markets Funds (2006-2013).
Alan C. Leland (64)	Vice President, of MIST and MSF	From February 2005 (MSF)/ May 2012 (MIST) to present	Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Vice President, MetLife, Inc.

* Mr. Rosenthal is an “interested person” of the Trusts because of his position with MetLife, Inc., the current parent company of MetLife Advisers, LLC.

** 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 Trusts, MetLife, Inc. or the Manager are omitted if not materially different.

(2) The Fund Complex includes 45 MIST Portfolios and 30 MSF Portfolios.

MSF-39

Metropolitan Series Fund

Russell 2000 Index Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements

At an in-person meeting held on November 15-16, 2016 (the “November Meeting”), the Boards of Trustees (the “Board”) of the Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (“MIST” and “MSF,” respectively, and collectively, the “Trusts”), including a majority of the Trustees who are not “interested persons” of the Trusts (the “Independent Trustees”) under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “1940 Act”), approved the continuation of the Trusts’ advisory agreements (each, an “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 the series of the Trusts (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”).

In reaching that decision, the Board reviewed a variety of materials provided for the specific purpose of the annual contract renewal process. In addition, various materials provided to and discussed with the Board throughout the year also informed the Board’s decision to renew the Agreements. That information for each Portfolio included, but was not limited to, investment performance reports, along with periodic reports on various expenses, shareholder services, legal and compliance matters, asset pricing, brokerage commissions and trade execution. The Board also recognized the pending separation of the Adviser from its parent company, MetLife, Inc., as a consideration in their deliberations with respect to the Agreements.

The Board met in person with personnel of the Adviser on September 27, 2016 for the specific purpose of giving preliminary consideration to the proposed continuation of the Agreements (the “September Meeting”) through the review by the Adviser with the Board of the performance and fees experienced by each Portfolio, as well as other information. In considering the Agreements, the Independent Trustees were advised by independent legal counsel throughout the contract renewal process, and met with independent legal counsel in several executive sessions outside of the presence of management.

Information furnished and reviewed specifically in connection with the renewal process included, but was not limited to, a report for each Portfolio prepared by Broadridge (“Broadridge”), an independent organization, and a Portfolio-by-Portfolio profitability analysis prepared by the Adviser. In addition, the Independent Trustees received and reviewed a report prepared by JDL Consultants, LLC (“JDL”), an independent consultant to the Independent Trustees (“JDL Report”), which examined the comparative fees, expenses and performance of each Portfolio, based upon the Broadridge reports. Also, the Board reviewed the responses to wide-ranging questions relating to the business, operations and performance of the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers that the Adviser and Sub-Advisers had prepared specifically for the renewal process.

At the November Meeting, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, concluded that the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser supported the renewal of the Agreements. The Board also concluded that the investment performance of each Portfolio was such that each Agreement should continue, and that the fees paid by a Portfolio to the Adviser appeared to be reasonable in light of the nature, extent and quality of the services provided by the Adviser and Sub-Adviser. Further, the Board concluded that the Adviser’s profitability in providing services under the Advisory Agreements did not appear unreasonably high in light of the nature, extent and quality of the services provided by the Adviser. Finally, the Board concluded that the investment advisory fees paid by the Portfolios in some measure shared economies of scale with contract holders. In approving the renewal of each of the Agreements, the Board, including the Independent Trustees, gave attention to all of the information that was furnished. The Board evaluated the information available to it on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis, and its decision was made separately with respect to each Portfolio. The following discusses some of the primary factors that generally were relevant to the Board’s decision. The Board did not identify any single factor as controlling, and the Trustees generally attributed different weights to various factors for the various Portfolios.

Nature, extent and quality of services. The Board evaluated the nature, extent and quality of the services that the Adviser, and the Sub-Advisers as relevant, have provided to the Portfolios. The Board considered the Adviser’s services as investment manager to the Portfolios, including its services relating to the oversight of the Sub-Advisers and their investment management activities, trading practices, financial condition, relevant personnel matters and compliance programs, among other things. The Adviser’s services in coordinating and overseeing the activities of the Trusts’ other service providers were also considered. The Board considered information received from the Trusts’ Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) regarding the Portfolios’ compliance policies and procedures that were established pursuant to Rule 38a-l under the 1940 Act. In addition, throughout the year, the Board considered the expertise, experience and performance of the personnel of the Adviser who performed the various services that are mentioned above.

The Board also noted that the Adviser’s investment, compliance and legal staff conduct regular, periodic, telephonic and in-person meetings with the Sub-Advisers to review and assess the services that are provided to the Portfolios, and that personnel of the Adviser prepare and present reports to the Independent Trustees regarding those meetings.

MSF-40

Metropolitan Series Fund

Russell 2000 Index Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

With respect to the services provided by each of the Sub-Advisers, the Board considered a variety of information that the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser provided. The Board considered each Sub-Adviser’s investment process and philosophy, and the investment performance experienced by the Portfolio (as described in more detail below). The Board took into account that each Sub-Adviser’s responsibilities include the development and maintenance of an investment program for the applicable Portfolio that 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. In particular, the Board considered, among other things, the Sub-Adviser’s current level of staffing as well as its compensation program and its overall resources. The Board reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s history and investment experience, as well as information provided 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 regulatory and disciplinary history. In its review, the Board also took into account information regarding any services and/or payments provided to the Adviser by the Sub-Advisers in connection with marketing activities.

Performance. The Board placed emphasis on the performance of the Portfolios in light of, among other things, its importance to contract holders. The Board considered the Adviser’s quarterly reviews with the Board of detailed information about each Portfolio’s investment strategies and performance results and composition, including discussions regarding the relevant effect of current market conditions. The Board reviewed and considered the reports prepared by Broadridge, which provided a statistical analysis comparing the Portfolios’ investment performance to that of comparable funds underlying variable insurance products (the “Performance Universe”). The Independent Trustees also met separately with a representative of JDL during the September Meeting to review the JDL Report. The Board also compared the performance records of certain Portfolios to those of comparable funds that were managed by the relevant Sub-Adviser. At the November Meeting, the Board considered each Portfolio’s performance for periods subsequent to the performance period covered by the Broadridge reports, and the Adviser’s discussion of the same, including the effect of current market conditions on each Portfolio’s more recent performance.

The Board focused particular attention on Portfolios with less favorable performance records. The Board noted the Adviser’s focus on each Sub-Adviser’s performance and that the Adviser has been active in monitoring and responding to any performance issues with respect to the Portfolios.

Fees and Expenses. The Board gave consideration to the level and method of computing the fees payable under the Agreements. The Board considered the Broadridge report for each of the Portfolios, which included comparisons for each Portfolio of its contractual management and sub-adviser fees (at current and various asset levels), and total expenses, with those of its peers, including as those peers were divided into a broad group of peer funds (“Expense Universe”), a narrower group of peer funds (“Expense Group”), a broad group of peer sub-advised funds (“Sub-advised Expense Universe”), and a narrower group of peer sub-advised funds (“Sub-advised Expense Group”). Broadridge selected the peer funds which were similarly situated funds underlying variable insurance products deemed to be comparable to the Portfolios. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of JDL, also examined the JDL Report. The Board compared the fee payable to a Sub-Adviser by the Adviser with respect to the Portfolio to the fee payable to the Sub-Adviser by other comparable funds and accounts, to the extent such information was available.

The Board noted that the sub-advisory fees for the Portfolios are paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fee, and that, in the case of an unaffiliated Sub-Adviser, the Adviser negotiates the fee at arm’s length. The Board also considered that the Adviser had entered into expense limitation or management fee waiver agreements with certain of the Portfolios pursuant to which the Adviser had 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.

Profitability. The Board examined the profitability of the Adviser on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis. The Board also considered that an affiliate of the Adviser, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, serves as distributor for the Trusts, and, as such, receives Rule 12b-1 payments to support the distribution of the Portfolios. The Board considered the profitability to the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates as a result of their relationships with the Portfolios, to the extent available, and the Board considered the ability of the Adviser to negotiate with an unaffiliated Sub-Adviser at arm’s length. In reviewing the profitability analyses, the Board recognized that expense allocation methodologies are inherently subjective and various expense allocation methodologies may be reasonable while producing different results.

Economies of scale. The Board also considered each Portfolio’s fees in light of its size. The Board noted the fee schedules for the Portfolios that 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

MSF-41

Metropolitan Series Fund

Russell 2000 Index Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

schedule for such Portfolios. The Board considered the effective fees under the Advisory Agreement and Sub-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. The Board examined, among other data, the effect of a Portfolio’s growth in size, and reduction in size, on various fee schedules and the Board reviewed the Broadridge and JDL Reports, which compared fees among peers. The Board also generally noted that if a Portfolio’s assets increase over time, the Portfolio may realize other economies of scale if assets increase proportionally more than certain other fixed expenses.

Other factors. The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trusts. Among them, the Board recognized that MetLife Investors Distribution Company, as the distributor for the Trusts, receives payments pursuant to Rule 12b-1 from the Portfolios to compensate for the provision of shareholder services and distribution activities, which could lead to growth in the Trusts’ assets and corresponding benefits from such growth, including economies of scale. The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by each Sub-Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trusts, including the opportunity to provide advisory services to additional portfolios of the Trusts and reputational benefits. In conjunction with these considerations, the Board noted the ongoing commitment of the Adviser to the Portfolios.

The Board considered possible conflicts of interest in the form of material benefits or detriments to the Trusts resulting from the nature of the Trusts’ and the Adviser’s or the Sub-Advisers’ affiliations and the services that are provided to the Trusts, and the manner in which such conflicts were mitigated.

* * *

Russell 2000 Index Portfolio. The Board also considered the following information in relation to the Agreements with the Adviser and MetLife Investment Advisors, LLC regarding the Portfolio:

Among other data relating specifically to the Portfolio’s performance, the Board considered that the Portfolio performed equally to the median of its Performance Universe for the one-year period ended June 30, 2016, underperformed the median of its Performance Universe for the three-year period ended June 30, 2016, and outperformed the median of its Performance Universe for the five-year period ended June 30, 2016. The Board also noted that the Portfolio underperformed its Lipper Index for the one- and three-year periods ended June 30, 2016, and outperformed its Lipper Index for the five-year period ended June 30, 2016. The Board further considered that the Portfolio outperformed its benchmark, the Russell 2000 Index, for the one-, three-, and five-year periods ended October 31, 2016.

The Board also 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 asset-weighted average of certain comparable funds at the Portfolio’s current size. The Board also noted that the Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees were below the averages of the Sub-advised Expense Group and the Sub-advised Expense Universe at the Portfolio’s current size.

MSF-42

Metropolitan Series Fund

Russell 2000 Index Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Advisory Agreements

The separation (the “Separation”) of MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”), the investment adviser to each of the series (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”) of Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (collectively, the “Trusts”), from its parent company, MetLife, Inc. (“MetLife”), to a separate retail business, Brighthouse Financial, Inc. (“Brighthouse”), is expected to result in a change in control of the Adviser, and therefore an “assignment” of each Portfolio’s current advisory agreement (each a “Current Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “Current Advisory Agreements”). At the November 15-16, 2016 meeting (“November Meeting”) of the Board of Trustees of the Trusts (the “Board”), the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not “interested persons,” as defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940, of any Portfolio (the “Independent Trustees”), approved a new advisory agreement (each a “New Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “New Advisory Agreements”) between the Trusts, on behalf of a Portfolio, and the Adviser, to be effective upon the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements in connection with the Separation, and recommended that the shareholders of the Trusts approve the New Advisory Agreements. The Board took those actions after consideration of and deliberation over information concerning the Separation, including with respect to the degree to which the Separation would affect the provision of investment advisory services to the Trusts. Information about the Board’s considerations and process is set forth below.

In determining whether to approve the New Advisory Agreements and in considering the Separation, the Board considered the nature, quality and extent of the services that are currently provided by the Adviser under the Current Advisory Agreements as well as the services to be provided under the New Advisory Agreements. The Board’s review was conducted as part of, and in conjunction with, the Board’s annual review of the Current Advisory Agreements, which culminated at the November Meeting. In approving the New Advisory Agreements, the Board considered its conclusions with respect to its approvals of the Current Advisory Agreements, including the Board’s general satisfaction with the nature, extent and quality of services being provided by the Adviser to each Portfolio. Appendix A and Appendix B contains a further description of the process followed, information reviewed and the material factors considered by the Board in approving the continuation of the Current Advisory Agreements.

A substantial portion of the Board’s review of the New Advisory Agreements focused on the Separation, including the potential effect of the implementation of the Separation on the operations, personnel, organizational structure, capitalization, and financial and other resources of the Adviser. After being informed by the Adviser in January 2016 of the possibility of the Separation, the Board and its Committees discussed the Separation and its possible effects on the Trusts with personnel of the Adviser and the anticipated senior management at Brighthouse during the course of the Board’s or Committee’s regularly scheduled, in-person, quarterly meetings.

Between August and November 2016, the Board and the Independent Trustees engaged in an extensive review and analysis of the Separation and how the Separation related to the Adviser and the Trusts and how it could affect the services provided to the Trusts. This analysis focused on, among other matters, the assurances from Brighthouse’s anticipated leadership as to its expectations for the continuity and stability of the Adviser’s personnel throughout implementation of the Separation and for the foreseeable future thereafter. The Board considered that the Separation is being implemented as a result of MetLife’s determination to divest itself of a substantial portion of its U.S. retail business (of which the Adviser forms a portion). The Board also considered that it has been satisfied as a general matter with the nature and quality of the services that the Adviser provides to the Portfolios, including investment advisory, administrative, legal, compliance, and support services, and that it would be in the Portfolios’ best interests to maintain continuity and stability in the services that are currently being provided. The Board carefully considered the anticipated future plans of Brighthouse related to capitalization and operational matters for Brighthouse and the Adviser, as well as the importance of the Adviser to the businesses of Brighthouse after the Separation.

Among other steps in its review process, which accelerated on October 5, 2016 when Brighthouse filed its Form 10 with the SEC, the following actions were taken and considered by or on behalf of the Board:

1. The Independent Trustees solicited and received ongoing advice regarding the legal duties of the Independent Trustees from Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young LLP (“Stradley Ronon”), legal counsel for the Independent Trustees, which law firm has extensive experience regarding such matters.

2. Following the August 16-17, 2016 Board and Committee quarterly meetings, the Independent Trustees established an ad hoc group of Independent Trustees (the “Working Group”) to help oversee, coordinate, and conduct due diligence activities with respect to the Separation. The Working Group regularly reported on the due diligence activities to the other Independent Trustees.

3. Since January 2016, the Board posed ongoing inquiries to, and received regular updates from, the Adviser and anticipated senior management at Brighthouse at either in-person meetings dedicated to the status of the Separation or during the course of the Board or Committee’s regular quarterly meetings. The Board considered, among other matters, relevant legal guidance and the processes followed by certain other investment company boards of directors or trustees when they approved contracts in connection with change in control events, while recognizing the unique circumstances of the Separation.

MSF-43

Metropolitan Series Fund

Russell 2000 Index Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

4. The Board received and reviewed the Form 10 of Brighthouse that contained extensive information relating to, among other matters, Brighthouse’s anticipated business plans and financial structure. The Board also received and reviewed reports from rating agencies with respect to Brighthouse.

5. Stradley Ronon retained Barrington Partners (“Barrington”), an independent consulting firm with a specific focus on the asset management industry and experience relating to business operations such as those to be conducted by Brighthouse, including its proposed subsidiary, the Adviser, in order to help Stradley Ronon evaluate the Separation based on the Form 10 and other materials and related information provided by the Adviser and its affiliates. Barrington conducted a series of in-person and telephonic meetings with anticipated senior management at Brighthouse (i.e., the aforementioned anticipated officers of Brighthouse and others) and with personnel of the Adviser who provide services to the Trusts. Stradley Ronon, with the assistance of Barrington, evaluated the information and advised the Independent Trustees with respect to, among other matters, details of Brighthouse’s anticipated business plan to understand the implications of the Separation to the Adviser and its personnel. The Independent Trustees and the Working Group attended certain in-person and telephonic conference call meetings at which Barrington rendered advice to Stradley Ronon regarding these matters and responded to questions.

6. The Independent Trustees requested and participated in in-person meetings with anticipated senior management personnel at Brighthouse, including its President and Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, Chief Operating Officer, and Chief Investment Officer. The Independent Trustees also met with personnel of the Adviser.

7. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of Stradley Ronon, prepared written inquiries to the Adviser and its affiliates regarding the Separation, and received written assurances from the Adviser and its affiliates that they have no plans to make any material changes affecting the personnel of the Adviser (including those personnel who provide investment, administrative, legal and compliance services) and the Adviser and its affiliates will not initiate such changes without prior notice to and discussion with the Board.

8. The Board considered representations by the Adviser and its affiliates that approval of the New Advisory Agreements would be necessary for the Portfolios to continue receiving investment advisory services from the Adviser following the change in control.

9. The Board considered representations by the Adviser, as well as related supporting documentation, indicating that the New Advisory Agreements, including the fees payable thereunder, are substantially identical to the terms of the corresponding Current Advisory Agreements.

10. The Board considered representations by the Adviser and its affiliates, as well as related supporting documentation, indicating that: (1) the Adviser can be expected to provide services of the same nature, extent, and quality under the New Advisory Agreements and as are provided thereby under the Current Advisory Agreements; and (2) the Separation is not expected to result in any changes to (i) the management of the Portfolios, or (ii) the investment objective of or the principal investment strategies used to manage any of the Portfolios.

11. The Board considered the ability of the Adviser and its affiliates to retain the employment of key personnel, as well as the overall positive indications by many such personnel regarding the opportunities presented by the Separation.

12. The Board considered that the Adviser and its affiliates have agreed to bear all expenses associated with obtaining shareholder approval of the New Advisory Agreements.

13. The Board considered Brighthouse’s preliminary “branding” plans regarding the future name of its operations.

14. The Board considered the advice provided by Ropes & Gray, LLP, legal counsel to the Trusts and the Adviser, with respect to the New Advisory Agreements (including advice relating to the process and timing of seeking shareholder approval of the New Advisory Agreements, and whether shareholder approvals would be required in connection with any future aspects of the Separation) and regarding the Board’s role and responsibilities with respect to the Separation.

15. The Board considered MetLife’s stated intention of divesting its ownership interest in the Adviser through the Separation, including the potential advantages and disadvantages of this divestiture to shareholders of the Portfolios. The Board considered the likelihood that the Adviser would retain its key personnel after the Separation. The Board considered that the garnering of new assets into the Trusts is based on sales of variable annuity and variable life insurance products, which sales have declined in prior years as a result of, among other things, the capital requirements of MetLife. The Board considered the representations of the anticipated senior management of Brighthouse that the Separation provides the Trusts with an opportunity for the garnering of new assets as Brighthouse will likely sell such products going forward. The Board considered also that the divestiture would result in a change in the manner in

MSF-44

Metropolitan Series Fund

Russell 2000 Index Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

which the Trusts access certain services and resources of MetLife (after the Separation those services will be provided through a transition services agreement), the loss of affiliation with the MetLife name brand, and the possible going forward need of the Trusts to hire a transfer agent, as such transfer agency services are currently provided to the Trusts for no fee.

16. The Board considered that, if shareholders approve the New Advisory Agreements, the Board and the Adviser will conduct their annual contract review process in November 2017. Thus, the Board emphasized that it would be able to, and intends to, monitor on a regular basis the ability of the Adviser and its affiliates to comply with their undertakings to the Board and to monitor on an ongoing basis the quality of services to, and expenses of, the Portfolios. In addition, the Board considered that, under the New Advisory Agreements, it will continue to have the authority, should the need arise in its view, to terminate any of the New Advisory Agreements without penalty upon 60 days’ notice.

Based on the foregoing and other relevant considerations, at the November Meeting, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, voted to approve the New Advisory Agreements and to recommend approval of the New Advisory Agreements by shareholders of the Portfolios. In this connection, the Board concluded that, in light of all factors considered, the terms of the New Advisory Agreement, including fee rates, were fair and reasonable, and that it would be in the best interests of shareholders of each Portfolio to approve the New Advisory Agreements.

In the event that approval of the New Advisory Agreements by shareholders of the Portfolios has not been obtained before the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements as a result of the change in control of the Adviser, the Board also approved an interim advisory agreement with the Adviser (the “Interim Advisory Agreement”) on behalf of each Portfolio that will go into effect upon the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements. The Board’s determination to approve each Interim Advisory Agreement was based on the same information and considerations as the Board’s approval of the New Advisory Agreements so as to ensure continuity of advisory services from the Adviser to the Portfolios following the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements.

MSF-45

Metropolitan Series Fund

Russell 2000 Index Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Sub-Advisory Agreements

The separation (the “Separation”) of MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”), the investment adviser to each of the series (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”) of Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (“MIST” and “MSF,” respectively, and collectively, the “Trusts”), from its parent company, MetLife, Inc. (“MetLife”), to a separate retail business, Brighthouse Financial, Inc. (“Brighthouse”), is expected to result in a change in control of the Adviser, and therefore an “assignment” of each Portfolio’s current advisory agreement and, as a result, the automatic termination of the sub-advisory agreements (each a “Sub-Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisory Agreements”) between the Adviser and MetLife Investment Advisors, LLC (“MLIA”), an affiliate of the Adviser, for the MetLife Aggregate Bond Index Portfolio (formerly, Barclays Aggregate Bond Index Portfolio), MetLife Stock Index Portfolio, MetLife Mid Cap Stock Index Portfolio, Russell 2000^® Index Portfolio and MSCI EAFE^® Index Portfolio, each a series of MSF, and for MetLife Multi-Index Targeted Risk Portfolio, a series of MIST (the “MLIA Sub-Advised Portfolios”), each of which is sub-advised by MLIA. At the November 15-16, 2016 meeting (“November Meeting”) of the Board of Trustees of the Trusts (the “Board”), the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not “interested persons,” as defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940, of any Portfolio (the “Independent Trustees”), approved new sub-advisory agreements (each a “New Sub-Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “New Sub-Advisory Agreements”) for each of the MLIA Sub-Advised Portfolios, and recommended that the shareholders of the Trusts approve the New Sub-Advisory Agreements. Information about the Board’s considerations and process is set forth below.

In determining whether to approve the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, the Board considered the nature, quality and extent of the services that are currently provided by MLIA under the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements as well as the services to be provided under the New Sub-Advisory Agreements. The Board’s review was conducted as part of, and in conjunction with, the Board’s annual review of the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements, which culminated at the November Meeting. In approving the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, the Board considered its conclusions with respect to its approvals of the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements, including the Board’s general satisfaction with the nature, extent and quality of services being provided by MLIA to the MLIA Sub-Advised Portfolios. Appendix A contains a further description of the process followed, information reviewed and the material factors considered by the Board in approving the continuation of the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements.

In addition, the following actions were taken and considered by or on behalf of the Board:

1. The Independent Trustees of the Board solicited and received ongoing advice regarding the legal duties of the Independent Trustees from Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young LLP (“Stradley Ronon”), legal counsel for the Independent Trustees, which law firm has extensive experience regarding such matters.

2. The Board considered representations by the Adviser and its affiliates, including MLIA, that the Separation will not have any impact on the level, nature and quality of services currently provided by MLIA to the MLIA Sub-Advised Portfolios.

3. The Board considered representations by the Adviser and its affiliates that approval of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements would be necessary for the MLIA Sub-Advised Portfolios to continue receiving sub-advisory services from MLIA following the change in control of the Adviser.

4. The Board considered representations by the Adviser, as well as related supporting documentation, indicating that the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, including the fees payable thereunder, are the same as the terms of the corresponding Current Sub-Advisory Agreements.

5. The Board considered that the Adviser and its affiliates have agreed to bear all expenses associated with obtaining shareholder approval of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements.

6. The Board considered the advice provided by Ropes & Gray, LLP, legal counsel to the Trusts and the Adviser, with respect to the New Sub-Advisory Agreements (including advice relating to the necessity for shareholder approval for the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, the process and timing of seeking shareholder approval of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, and whether shareholder approvals would be required in connection with any future aspects of the Separation) and regarding the Board’s role and responsibilities with respect to the Separation.

7. The Board considered that, if shareholders approve the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, the Board, the Adviser, and MLIA will conduct their annual contract review process in November 2017. Thus, the Board emphasized that it would be able to, and intends to, monitor on a regular basis the ability of MLIA to comply with its undertakings to the Board and the Adviser and to monitor on an ongoing basis the quality of services to, and expenses of, the MLIA Sub-Advised Portfolios. In addition, the Board considered that, under the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, it will continue to have the authority, should the need arise in its view, to terminate any of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements without penalty upon no more than 60 days’ notice.

MSF-46

Metropolitan Series Fund

Russell 2000 Index Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

Based on the foregoing and other relevant considerations, at the November Meeting, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, voted to approve the New Sub-Advisory Agreements and to recommend approval of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements by shareholders of the MLIA Sub-Advised Portfolios. In this connection, the Board concluded that, in light of all factors considered, the terms of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, including fee rates, were fair and reasonable, and that it would be in the best interests of shareholders of each MLIA Sub-Advised Portfolio to approve the New Sub-Advisory Agreements.

In the event that approval of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements by shareholders of the MLIA Sub-Advised Portfolios has not been obtained before the termination of the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements as a result of the change in control of the Adviser, the Board also approved an interim sub-advisory agreement with MLIA (the “Interim Sub-Advisory Agreement”) on behalf of each MLIA Sub-Advised Portfolio that will go into effect upon the termination of the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements. The Board’s determination to approve each Interim Sub-Advisory Agreement was based on the same information and considerations as the Board’s approval of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements so as to ensure continuity of sub-advisory services from MLIA to the MLIA Sub-Advised Portfolios following the termination of the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements.

MSF-47

Metropolitan Series Fund

T. Rowe Price Large Cap Growth Portfolio

Managed by T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc.

Portfolio Manager Commentary*

PERFORMANCE

For the 12 months ended December 31, 2016, the Class A, B, and E shares of the T. Rowe Price Large Cap Growth Portfolio returned 1.76%, 1.53%, and 1.61%, respectively. The Portfolio’s benchmark, the Russell 1000 Growth Index¹, returned 7.08%.

MARKET ENVIRONMENT / CONDITIONS

Despite a sharp sell-off at the beginning of the year, U.S. stocks rose in 2016, with major indexes reaching record highs near year-end in response to the unexpected election of Donald Trump as the next U.S. president in November. Cyclical stocks, particularly potential beneficiaries of the president’s stated preference for higher infrastructure spending and lower taxes, performed strongly. The energy sector received a boost when the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (“OPEC”) agreed to cut production, and oil-producing nations outside OPEC announced they would follow suit. As measured by the various Russell indexes, small- and mid-cap stocks substantially outperformed large-caps, and value strategies outpaced growth across all capitalization levels. Within the Russell 1000 Growth Index, Telecommunication Services and Energy were the leading performers, followed by Utilities, Industrials and Business Services, and Financials. Health Care and Real Estate both ended in negative territory for the year.

PORTFOLIO REVIEW / PERIOD-END POSITIONING

The Portfolio turned in positive results but underperformed its benchmark during the one-year period ended December 31, 2016. Broadly speaking, stock selection accounted for the majority of underperformance, and sector allocation also detracted.

Health Care proved to be the greatest detractor, due to stock choices and a detrimental overweight. Underperforming names included Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Valeant Pharmaceuticals, and Allergan. Alexion Pharmaceuticals sold off along with other biotechnology stocks, a trend that was exacerbated when management issued a disappointing outlook. Allergan declined after its proposed merger with Pfizer was called off due to regulatory concerns. We eliminated our holdings in Valeant during the first quarter, after the company released new information that undercut our reasons for investing in the firm.

In Information Technology, the Portfolio’s stock holdings also underperformed their benchmark peers, though an overweight position partly mitigated that negative effect. Detrimental names included LinkedIn, salesforce.com, and Alibaba Group Holding. The Portfolio’s exposure to salesforce.com hurt as the stock suffered from a lack of clarity about the company’s acquisition strategy. LinkedIn issued a disappointing outlook, leading us to eliminate the position early in the year, before Microsoft’s takeover announcement. Despite excellent fundamentals, Alibaba fell amid concerns about potential tensions between the U.S. and China in the wake of the U.S. election, as well as foreign exchange headwinds.

Another area of relative weakness was Industrials and Business Services, owing to stock selection and an underweight allocation. United Continental and Roper Technologies both hurt here. United Continental was reduced significantly at the end of the second quarter and subsequently eliminated from the Portfolio. The company was a net detractor for the year. Roper Technologies weighed on relative performance, with shares of the industrial conglomerate down nearly 3% for the year.

In Financials and Real Estate, the Portfolio’s stock holdings outperformed their benchmark peers. Within the Financials sector, Morgan Stanley and TD Ameritrade Holding were leading performers. Morgan Stanley benefited from a rally in the broader banking industry in the wake of the U.S. election. Tailwinds in the Financials sector also benefited the Portfolio’s position in the leading brokerage firm TD Ameritrade Holding. Another boost came from American Tower, a wireless tower operator structured as a real estate investment trust that shifted from Financials to Real Estate when the two sectors were separated during the review period.

The Portfolio ended the period with overweights to Health Care, Consumer Discretionary, Information Technology, Financials, and Utilities. It was roughly in line with the benchmark’s exposure in Real Estate and underweight in Energy, Telecommunication Services, Materials, Industrials and Business Services, and Consumer Staples.

Joseph B. Fath

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 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.

MSF-1

Metropolitan Series Fund

T. Rowe Price Large Cap Growth Portfolio

A $10,000 INVESTMENT COMPARED TO THE RUSSELL 1000 GROWTH INDEX

AVERAGE ANNUAL RETURNS (%) (FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2016)

	1 Year		5 Year		10 Year
T. Rowe Price Large Cap Growth Portfolio
Class A		1.76		15.28		7.95
Class B		1.53		14.99		7.69
Class E		1.61		15.11		7.79
Russell 1000 Growth Index		7.08		14.50		8.33

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.

Portfolio performance is calculated including reinvestment of all income and capital gain distributions. Performance numbers are net of all Portfolio expenses but do not include any insurance, sales, separate account or administrative charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts or any additional expenses that participants may bear relating to the operations of their plans. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower. The performance of any index referenced above has not been adjusted for ongoing management, distribution and operating expenses, and sales charges applicable to mutual fund investments. Direct investment in any index is not possible. The performance of Class A shares, as set forth in the line graph above, will differ from that of other classes because of the difference in expenses paid by policyholders investing in the different share classes.

This information represents past performance and is not indicative of future results. Investment return and principal value may fluctuate so that shares, upon redemption, may be worth more or less than the original cost.

PORTFOLIO COMPOSITION AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2016

Top Holdings

	% of Net Assets
Amazon.com, Inc.		7.6
Priceline Group, Inc. (The)		4.3
Facebook, Inc. - Class A		4.1
Microsoft Corp.		4.0
Alphabet, Inc. - Class A		3.6
Alphabet, Inc. - Class C		3.1
Visa, Inc. - Class A		3.0
Apple, Inc.		2.9
MasterCard, Inc. - Class A		2.2
PayPal Holdings, Inc.		2.0

Top Sectors

	% of Net Assets
Information Technology		37.0
Consumer Discretionary		25.7
Health Care		15.5
Industrials		6.6
Financials		6.2
Consumer Staples		3.6
Real Estate		2.9
Utilities		0.7
Materials		0.7
Telecommunication Services		0.4

MSF-2

Metropolitan Series Fund

T. Rowe Price Large 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, 2016 through December 31, 2016.

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.

T. Rowe Price Large Cap Growth Portfolio		Annualized Expense Ratio			Beginning Account Value July 1, 2016		Ending Account Value December 31, 2016		Expenses Paid During Period** July 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016
Class A(a)	Actual		0.58	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,080.30	$	3.03
	Hypothetical*		0.58	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,022.22	$	2.95
Class B(a)	Actual		0.83	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,079.40	$	4.34
	Hypothetical*		0.83	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,020.96	$	4.22
Class E(a)	Actual		0.73	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,079.90	$	3.82
	Hypothetical*		0.73	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,021.47	$	3.71

* 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 366 (to reflect the one-half year period).

^(a) The annualized expense ratio shown reflects the impact of the management fee waiver as described in Note 5 of the Notes to Financial Statements.

MSF-3

Metropolitan Series Fund

T. Rowe Price Large Cap Growth Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—98.0% of Net Assets

Security Description	Shares		Value
Aerospace & Defense—1.4%
Boeing Co. (The)		200,700	$	31,244,976
Air Freight & Logistics—0.6%
FedEx Corp.		66,500		12,382,300
Airlines—1.7%
American Airlines Group, Inc. (a)		680,441		31,769,790
Delta Air Lines, Inc.		102,400		5,037,056
				36,806,846
Auto Components—0.7%
Delphi Automotive plc		247,600		16,675,860
Automobiles—2.2%
Ferrari NV		298,220		17,338,511
Tesla Motors, Inc. (a) (b)		142,520		30,455,099
				47,793,610
Banks—0.9%
First Republic Bank		49,583		4,568,578
JPMorgan Chase & Co.		190,700		16,455,503
				21,024,081
Biotechnology—4.0%
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (b)		254,951		31,193,255
Biogen, Inc. (b)		99,566		28,234,926
Celgene Corp. (b)		120,334		13,928,660
Vertex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (b)		221,234		16,298,309
				89,655,150
Capital Markets—5.2%
Charles Schwab Corp. (The)		413,900		16,336,633
Intercontinental Exchange, Inc.		452,940		25,554,875
Morgan Stanley		880,300		37,192,675
State Street Corp.		230,300		17,898,916
TD Ameritrade Holding Corp.		408,741		17,821,107
				114,804,206
Chemicals—0.3%
Ashland Global Holdings, Inc. (a)		55,600		6,076,524
Communications Equipment—0.2%
Palo Alto Networks, Inc. (a) (b)		40,700		5,089,535
Construction Materials—0.4%
Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.		40,776		9,033,107
Electric Utilities—0.7%
NextEra Energy, Inc.		130,600		15,601,476
Equity Real Estate Investment Trusts—2.9%
American Tower Corp.		321,000		33,923,280
Crown Castle International Corp.		196,478		17,048,396
Equity Real Estate Investment Trusts—(Continued)
Equinix, Inc.		39,800		14,224,918
				65,196,594
Food & Staples Retailing—1.3%
Costco Wholesale Corp.		18,100		2,897,991
Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc.		309,706		25,631,269
				28,529,260
Food Products—0.9%
Mondelez International, Inc. - Class A		431,300		19,119,529
Health Care Equipment & Supplies—4.1%
Danaher Corp.		396,200		30,840,208
Intuitive Surgical, Inc. (b)		54,100		34,308,597
Stryker Corp.		218,100		26,130,561
				91,279,366
Health Care Providers & Services—4.8%
Aetna, Inc.		181,150		22,464,412
Anthem, Inc.		67,700		9,733,229
Centene Corp. (b)		79,289		4,480,621
Cigna Corp.		96,600		12,885,474
Humana, Inc.		104,892		21,401,115
UnitedHealth Group, Inc.		218,800		35,016,752
				105,981,603
Hotels, Restaurants & Leisure—4.2%
Hilton Worldwide Holdings, Inc.		386,900		10,523,680
Las Vegas Sands Corp.		244,300		13,048,063
Marriott International, Inc. - Class A (a)		239,500		19,801,860
MGM Resorts International (b)		736,420		21,230,989
Starbucks Corp.		333,900		18,538,128
Yum! Brands, Inc.		144,500		9,151,185
				92,293,905
Industrial Conglomerates—1.5%
Honeywell International, Inc.		139,000		16,103,150
Roper Technologies, Inc.		95,640		17,509,771
				33,612,921
Internet & Direct Marketing Retail—12.8%
Amazon.com, Inc. (b)		224,705		168,499,538
Ctrip.com International, Ltd. (ADR) (a) (b)		247,800		9,912,000
Netflix, Inc. (b)		74,843		9,265,563
Priceline Group, Inc. (The) (b)		65,440		95,938,967
				283,616,068
Internet Software & Services—14.4%
Alibaba Group Holding, Ltd. (ADR) (a) (b)		296,200		26,009,322
Alphabet, Inc. - Class A (b)		101,770		80,647,636
Alphabet, Inc. - Class C (b)		89,702		69,233,798
Dropbox, Inc. - Class A (b) (c) (d)		214,763		2,061,725
Facebook, Inc. - Class A (b)		795,710		91,546,435
MercadoLibre, Inc. (a)		60,800		9,493,312

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-4

Metropolitan Series Fund

T. Rowe Price Large Cap Growth Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Internet Software & Services—(Continued)
Tencent Holdings, Ltd.		1,134,785	$	27,541,431
VeriSign, Inc. (a) (b)		177,265		13,484,549
				320,018,208
IT Services—8.3%
Fidelity National Information Services, Inc.		74,000		5,597,360
Fiserv, Inc. (b)		173,291		18,417,368
MasterCard, Inc. - Class A		480,200		49,580,650
PayPal Holdings, Inc. (b)		1,106,600		43,677,502
Visa, Inc. - Class A (a)		861,420		67,207,988
				184,480,868
Life Sciences Tools & Services—0.6%
Illumina, Inc. (b)		97,191		12,444,336
Machinery—0.9%
Fortive Corp.		220,250		11,812,008
Illinois Tool Works, Inc.		37,400		4,580,004
Wabtec Corp. (a)		54,516		4,525,918
				20,917,930
Multiline Retail—0.4%
Dollar General Corp.		109,700		8,125,479
Pharmaceuticals—2.0%
Allergan plc (b)		47,783		10,034,908
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.		284,800		16,643,712
Zoetis, Inc.		336,200		17,996,786
				44,675,406
Professional Services—0.5%
Equifax, Inc.		27,258		3,222,713
IHS Markit, Ltd. (b)		221,680		7,849,689
				11,072,402
Real Estate Management & Development—0.0%
WeWork Cos., Inc. - Class A (b) (c) (d)		7,199		233,248
Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment—2.8%
ASML Holding NV		171,100		19,197,420
NVIDIA Corp.		135,000		14,409,900
NXP Semiconductors NV (b)		302,343		29,632,637
				63,239,957
Software—7.1%
Microsoft Corp.		1,442,700		89,649,378
Salesforce.com, Inc. (b)		531,560		36,390,598
ServiceNow, Inc. (b)		272,072		20,225,832
Workday, Inc. - Class A (a) (b)		170,200		11,248,518
				157,514,326
Specialty Retail—5.5%
AutoZone, Inc. (b)		33,878		26,756,505
Home Depot, Inc. (The)		121,400		16,277,312
Specialty Retail—(Continued)
Lowe’s Cos., Inc.		281,900		20,048,728
O’Reilly Automotive, Inc. (a) (b)		53,100		14,783,571
Ross Stores, Inc.		251,500		16,498,400
Signet Jewelers, Ltd.		104,703		9,869,305
Tractor Supply Co.		236,547		17,932,628
				122,166,449
Technology Hardware, Storage & Peripherals—2.9%
Apple, Inc.		558,440		64,678,521
Tobacco—1.4%
Philip Morris International, Inc.		349,800		32,003,202
Wireless Telecommunication Services—0.4%
T-Mobile U.S., Inc. (b)		166,000		9,546,660
Total Common Stocks (Cost $1,704,767,206)				2,176,933,909
Convertible Preferred Stocks—1.3%
Internet Software & Services—0.7%
Airbnb, Inc. - Series D (b) (c) (d)		97,047		10,198,669
Airbnb, Inc. - Series E (b) (c) (d)		9,760		1,025,679
Xiaoju Kuaizhi, Inc. - Series A-17 (b) (c) (d)		91,053		3,480,692
				14,705,040
Real Estate Management & Development—0.1%
WeWork Cos., Inc. - Series E (b) (c) (d)		64,744		2,097,705
Software—0.5%
Magic Leap, Inc. - Series C (b) (c) (d)		124,428		2,865,950
Snap, Inc. - Series F (b) (c) (d)		108,803		3,342,428
UBER Technologies, Inc. - Series G (b) (c) (d)		98,227		4,790,747
				10,999,125
Total Convertible Preferred Stocks (Cost $20,485,445)				27,801,870
Short-Term Investment—0.7%
Mutual Fund—0.7%
T. Rowe Price Government Reserve Fund (formerly, T. Rowe Price Government Reserve Investment Fund) (e)		16,421,964		16,421,964
Total Short-Term Investments (Cost $16,421,964)				16,421,964

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-5

Metropolitan Series Fund

T. Rowe Price Large Cap Growth Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Securities Lending Reinvestments (f)—8.6%

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Certificates of Deposit—4.2%
Banco Del Estado De Chile New York 1.154%, 06/21/17 (g)		4,000,000	$	3,999,180
Bank of Nova Scotia Houston 1.201%, 11/03/17 (g)		3,000,000		3,002,539
Bank of Tokyo UFJ, Ltd., New York 1.121%, 02/28/17 (g)		5,500,000		5,500,110
Barclays New York 0.894%, 02/10/17 (g)		4,000,000		4,001,294
BNP Paribas New York 1.226%, 08/04/17 (g)		1,000,000		1,000,444
Credit Suisse AG New York 1.364%, 05/12/17 (g)		2,250,000		2,250,234
1.444%, 04/24/17 (g)		6,000,000		6,001,410
DNB NOR Bank ASA 1.130%, 07/28/17 (g)		2,300,000		2,299,597
DZ Bank AG New York 1.010%, 02/27/17		7,200,000		7,202,081
KBC Brussells 1.050%, 01/27/17		5,000,000		5,000,950
Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen London Zero Coupon, 01/24/17		5,986,232		5,997,420
Mizuho Bank, Ltd., New York 1.361%, 04/26/17 (g)		4,000,000		3,999,796
National Australia Bank London 1.034%, 05/02/17 (g)		3,750,000		3,753,540
National Bank of Canada 0.650%, 01/06/17		7,000,000		7,000,280
Shizuoka Bank New York 0.840%, 01/03/17		3,700,000		3,700,015
Standard Chartered Bank New York 1.150%, 03/21/17		5,000,000		5,000,845
Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corp. 0.900%, 01/12/17		4,300,000		4,300,163
Sumitomo Mitsui Trust Bank, Ltd., London 1.262%, 05/08/17 (g)		1,000,000		1,001,832
Sumitomo Mitsui Trust Bank, Ltd., New York 1.351%, 04/26/17 (g)		6,000,000		6,000,708
Svenska Handelsbanken New York 1.266%, 05/18/17 (g)		4,500,000		4,500,783
UBS, Stamford 1.084%, 05/12/17 (g)		2,100,000		2,099,840
Wells Fargo Bank San Francisco N.A. 1.231%, 04/26/17 (g)		2,300,000		2,300,644
1.264%, 10/26/17 (g)		3,000,000		3,002,049
				92,915,754
Commercial Paper—2.6%
Atlantic Asset Securitization LLC 1.040%, 02/03/17		2,193,327		2,198,079
Den Norske ASA 1.206%, 04/27/17 (g)		2,300,000		2,300,122
HSBC plc 1.216%, 04/25/17 (g)		5,500,000		5,499,764
LMA S.A. & LMA Americas 1.000%, 01/13/17		4,987,917		4,998,255
Commercial Paper—(Continued)
Macquarie Bank, Ltd. 0.930%, 01/19/17		4,489,305		4,497,224
1.160%, 03/20/17		2,991,203		2,992,514
National Australia Bank, Ltd. 1.288%, 12/06/17 (g)		3,750,000		3,750,008
Old Line Funding LLC 0.840%, 01/03/17		4,292,274		4,299,660
1.030%, 03/13/17 (g)		3,000,000		3,002,341
Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp., Ltd. 0.890%, 02/21/17		1,995,451		1,997,344
Starbird Funding Corp. 1.240%, 06/13/17 (g)		6,500,000		6,499,473
Toronto Dominion Holding Corp. 0.600%, 01/05/17		6,992,767		6,999,216
Versailles Commercial Paper LLC 1.000%, 01/31/17		5,385,600		5,395,939
Westpac Banking Corp. 1.232%, 10/20/17 (g)		3,700,000		3,706,461
				58,136,400
Repurchase Agreements—1.1%
Citigroup Global Markets, Ltd. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/29/16 at 0.710% to be repurchased at $1,100,108 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $1,109,610 U.S. Treasury and Foreign Obligations with rates ranging from 1.750% - 2.750%, maturity dates ranging from 10/15/19 - 11/15/23, with a value of $1,122,000.		1,100,000		1,100,000
Deutsche Bank AG, London Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/16 at 0.950% to be repurchased at $700,074 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $714,630 Foreign Obligations with rates ranging from 1.750% - 2.500%, maturity dates ranging from 09/05/19 - 11/20/24, with a value of $714,004.		700,000		700,000
Repurchase Agreement dated 12/15/16 - 12/30/16 at 1.050% to be repurchased at $12,603,220 on 01/03/17, collateralized by various Common Stock with a value of $14,005,593.		12,600,000		12,600,000
Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. Repurchase Agreement dated 10/18/16 at 1.110% to be repurchased at $3,012,580 on 03/03/17, collateralized by various Common Stock with a value of $3,300,000.		3,000,000		3,000,000
Goldman Sachs & Co. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/16 at 0.460% to be repurchased at $402,026 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $2,068,795 U.S. Government Agency Obligations with rates ranging from 2.000% - 10.500%, maturity dates ranging from 03/15/17 - 09/20/65, with a value of $410,045.		402,005		402,005

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-6

Metropolitan Series Fund

T. Rowe Price Large Cap Growth Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Securities Lending Reinvestments (f)—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Repurchase Agreements—(Continued)
Macquarie Bank, Ltd. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/15/16 at 0.600% to be repurchased at $4,001,467 on 01/06/17, collateralized by $3,957,421 U.S. Treasury Obligations with rates ranging from 0.000% - 8.750%, maturity dates ranging from 01/05/17 - 05/15/46, with a value of $4,082,067.		4,000,000	$	4,000,000
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. Repurchase Agreement dated 10/26/16 at 1.160% to be repurchased at $3,517,932 on 04/03/17, collateralized by various Common Stock with a value of $3,850,000.		3,500,000		3,500,000
				25,302,005
Time Deposits—0.7%
Canadian Imperial Bank 0.520%, 01/03/17		5,400,000		5,400,000
OP Corporate Bank plc 1.010%, 01/04/17		2,400,000		2,400,000
1.200%, 01/23/17		3,000,000		3,000,000
Shinkin Central Bank 1.200%, 01/27/17		700,000		700,000
1.220%, 01/26/17		3,500,000		3,500,000
				15,000,000
Total Securities Lending Reinvestments (Cost $191,329,439)				191,354,159
Total Investments—108.6% (Cost $1,933,004,054) (h)				2,412,511,902
Other assets and liabilities (net)—(8.6)%				(191,613,320	)
Net Assets—100.0%			$	2,220,898,582

* Principal amount stated in U.S. dollars unless otherwise noted.

(a) All or a portion of the security was held on loan. As of December 31, 2016, the market value of securities loaned was $186,597,790 and the collateral received consisted of cash in the amount of $191,266,080. The cash collateral investments are disclosed in the Schedule of Investments and categorized as Securities Lending Reinvestments.

(b) Non-income producing security.

(c) Security was valued in good faith under procedures approved by the Board of Trustees. As of December 31, 2016, these securities represent 1.4% of net assets.

(d) Restricted securities are not registered under the Securities Act of 1933 and are subject to legal restrictions on resale. These securities generally may be resold in transactions exempt from registration or to the public if the securities are subsequently registered. Disposal of these securities may involve time-consuming negotiations and prompt sale at an acceptable price may be difficult. As of December 31, 2016, the market value of restricted securities was $30,096,843, which is 1.4% of net assets. See details shown in the Restricted Securities table that follows.

(e) Affiliated Issuer. (See Note 6 of the Notes to Financial Statements for a summary of transactions in securities of affiliated issuers.)

(f) Represents investment of cash collateral received from securities on loan as of December 31, 2016.

(g) Variable or floating rate security. The stated rate represents the rate at December 31, 2016.

(h) As of December 31, 2016, the aggregate cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was $1,938,539,716. The aggregate unrealized appreciation and depreciation of investments were $503,729,541 and $(29,757,355), respectively, resulting in net unrealized appreciation of $473,972,186 for federal income tax purposes.

(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.

Restricted Securities	Acquisition Date		Shares		Cost		Value
Airbnb, Inc. - Series D		04/16/14		97,047	$	3,951,078	$	10,198,669
Airbnb, Inc. - Series E		07/14/15		9,760		908,601		1,025,679
Dropbox, Inc. - Class A		11/07/14		214,763		4,102,231		2,061,725
Magic Leap, Inc. - Series C		01/20/16		124,428		2,865,950		2,865,950
Snap, Inc. - Series F		05/06/16		108,803		3,342,428		3,342,428
UBER Technologies, Inc. - Series G		12/03/15		98,227		4,790,747		4,790,747
WeWork Cos., Inc. - Class A		06/23/15		7,199		236,772		233,248
WeWork Cos., Inc. - Series E		06/23/15		64,744		2,129,403		2,097,705
Xiaoju Kuaizhi, Inc. - Series A-17		10/19/15		91,053		2,497,238		3,480,692
							$	30,096,843

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-7

Metropolitan Series Fund

T. Rowe Price Large Cap Growth Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Fair Value Hierarchy

Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) define 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, separately for each major category of assets and liabilities, 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, quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities 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, or other market corroborated inputs)

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 used in determining the fair value of investments and derivative financial instruments)

The inputs or methodologies used for valuing investments are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in them. Changes to the inputs or methodologies used may result in transfers between levels, which 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, 2016:

Description	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
Common Stocks
Aerospace & Defense	$	31,244,976	$	—	$	—	$	31,244,976
Air Freight & Logistics		12,382,300		—		—		12,382,300
Airlines		36,806,846		—		—		36,806,846
Auto Components		16,675,860		—		—		16,675,860
Automobiles		47,793,610		—		—		47,793,610
Banks		21,024,081		—		—		21,024,081
Biotechnology		89,655,150		—		—		89,655,150
Capital Markets		114,804,206		—		—		114,804,206
Chemicals		6,076,524		—		—		6,076,524
Communications Equipment		5,089,535		—		—		5,089,535
Construction Materials		9,033,107		—		—		9,033,107
Electric Utilities		15,601,476		—		—		15,601,476
Equity Real Estate Investment Trusts		65,196,594		—		—		65,196,594
Food & Staples Retailing		28,529,260		—		—		28,529,260
Food Products		19,119,529		—		—		19,119,529
Health Care Equipment & Supplies		91,279,366		—		—		91,279,366
Health Care Providers & Services		105,981,603		—		—		105,981,603
Hotels, Restaurants & Leisure		92,293,905		—		—		92,293,905
Industrial Conglomerates		33,612,921		—		—		33,612,921
Internet & Direct Marketing Retail		283,616,068		—		—		283,616,068
Internet Software & Services		290,415,052		27,541,431		2,061,725		320,018,208
IT Services		184,480,868		—		—		184,480,868
Life Sciences Tools & Services		12,444,336		—		—		12,444,336
Machinery		20,917,930		—		—		20,917,930
Multiline Retail		8,125,479		—		—		8,125,479
Pharmaceuticals		44,675,406		—		—		44,675,406
Professional Services		11,072,402		—		—		11,072,402
Real Estate Management & Development		—		—		233,248		233,248
Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment		63,239,957		—		—		63,239,957
Software		157,514,326		—		—		157,514,326
Specialty Retail		122,166,449		—		—		122,166,449
Technology Hardware, Storage & Peripherals		64,678,521		—		—		64,678,521
Tobacco		32,003,202		—		—		32,003,202
Wireless Telecommunication Services		9,546,660		—		—		9,546,660
Total Common Stocks		2,147,097,505		27,541,431		2,294,973		2,176,933,909
Total Convertible Preferred Stocks*		—		—		27,801,870		27,801,870
Total Short-Term Investment*		16,421,964		—		—		16,421,964

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-8

Metropolitan Series Fund

T. Rowe Price Large Cap Growth Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Fair Value Hierarchy—(Continued)

Description	Level 1		Level 2			Level 3		Total
Total Securities Lending Reinvestments*	$	—	$	191,354,159		$	—	$	191,354,159
Total Investments	$	2,163,519,469	$	218,895,590		$	30,096,843	$	2,412,511,902
Collateral for Securities Loaned (Liability)	$	—	$	(191,266,080	)	$	—	$	(191,266,080	)

* 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, 2015		Change in Unrealized Appreciation/ Depreciation			Purchases		Balance as of December 31, 2016		Change in Unrealized Appreciation/ Depreciation from Investments Still Held at December 31, 2016
Common Stock
Internet Software & Services	$	2,018,772	$	42,953		$	—	$	2,061,725	$	42,953
Real Estate Management & Development		236,772		(3,524	)		—		233,248		(3,524	)
Convertible Preferred Stocks
Internet Software & Services		11,718,487		2,986,553			—		14,705,040		2,986,553
Real Estate Management & Development		2,129,403		(31,698	)		—		2,097,705		(31,698	)
Software		4,790,750		(3	)		6,208,378		10,999,125		(3	)
Total	$	20,894,184	$	2,994,281		$	6,208,378	$	30,096,843	$	2,994,281

	Fair Value at December 31, 2016		Valuation Technique(s)		Unobservable Input		Range						Weighted Average			Relationship Between Fair Value and Input; if input value increases then Fair Value:
Common Stock
Internet Software & Services	$	2,061,725		M&A Transaction		Enterprise Value/TTM Revenue		9.1x			9.1x			9.1x		Increase
				Comparable Company Analysis		Enterprise Value/Revenue		5.2x			5.2x			5.2x		Increase
						Discount for Lack of Marketability		10.00	%		10.00	%		10.00	%	Decrease
Real Estate Management & Development		233,248		Market Transaction Method		Precedent Transaction	$	50.19		$	50.19		$	50.19		Increase
						Discount for Lack of Marketability		15.00	%		15.00	%		15.00	%	Decrease
				Discounted Cash Flow		Discount Rate		17.00	%		26.00	%		21.50	%	Decrease
						Enterprise Value/EBITDA		7.4x			19.1x			13.3x		Increase
				Comparable Company Analysis		Enterprise Value/Revenue		14.7x			14.7x			14.7x		Increase
						Discount for Lack of Marketability		10.00	%		10.00	%		10.00	%	Decrease
Convertible Preferred Stocks
Internet Software & Services		11,224,348		Market Transaction Method		Precedent Transaction	$	105.00		$	105.00		$	105.00		Increase
				Discounted Cash Flow		Weighted Average Cost of Capital		15.50	%		17.50	%		16.50	%	Decrease
						Perpetual Growth Rate		3.00	%		4.00	%		3.50	%	Increase
				Comparable Company Analysis		Enterprise Value/Revenue		12.8x			12.8x			12.8x		Increase
						Discount for Lack of Marketability		20.00	%		20.00	%		20.00	%	Decrease
		3,480,692		Market Transaction Method		Precedent Transaction	$	38.23		$	38.23		$	38.23		Increase
Real Estate Management & Development		2,097,705		Market Transaction Method		Precedent Transaction	$	50.19		$	50.19		$	50.19		Increase
						Discount for Lack of Marketability		15.00	%		15.00	%		15.00	%	Decrease
				Discounted Cash Flow		Discount Rate		17.00	%		26.00	%		21.50	%	Decrease
						Enterprise Value/EBITDA		7.4x			19.1x			13.3x		Increase
				Comparable Company Analysis		Enterprise Value/Revenue		14.7x			14.7x			14.7x		Increase
						Discount for Lack of Marketability		10.00	%		10.00	%		10.00	%	Decrease
Software		2,865,950		Market Transaction Method		Precedent Transaction	$	23.03		$	23.03		$	23.03		Increase
		3,342,428		Market Transaction Method		Precedent Transaction	$	30.72		$	30.72		$	30.72		Increase
		4,790,747		Market Transaction Method		Precedent Transaction	$	48.77		$	48.77		$	48.77		Increase

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-9

Metropolitan Series Fund

T. Rowe Price Large Cap Growth Portfolio

Statement of Assets and Liabilities

December 31, 2016

Assets
Investments at value (a) (b)	$	2,396,089,938
Affiliated investments at value (c)		16,421,964
Receivable for:
Investments sold		18,664,825
Fund shares sold		308,427
Dividends		928,179
Dividends on affiliated investments		3,890
Prepaid expenses		6,436
Total Assets		2,432,423,659
Liabilities
Collateral for securities loaned		191,266,080
Payables for:
Investments purchased		16,864,209
Fund shares redeemed		1,850,900
Accrued Expenses:
Management fees		1,061,091
Distribution and service fees		157,661
Deferred trustees’ fees		122,613
Other expenses		202,523
Total Liabilities		211,525,077
Net Assets	$	2,220,898,582
Net Assets Consist of:
Paid in surplus	$	1,597,497,863
Undistributed net investment income		4,788,471
Accumulated net realized gain		139,111,214
Unrealized appreciation on investments and foreign currency transactions		479,501,034
Net Assets	$	2,220,898,582
Net Assets
Class A	$	1,472,729,511
Class B		712,929,289
Class E		35,239,782
Capital Shares Outstanding*
Class A		72,965,963
Class B		35,938,920
Class E		1,760,828
Net Asset Value, Offering Price and Redemption Price Per Share
Class A	$	20.18
Class B		19.84
Class E		20.01

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

(a) Identified cost of investments, excluding affiliated investments, was $1,916,582,090.

(b) Includes securities loaned at value of $186,597,790.

(c) Identified cost of affiliated investments was $16,421,964.

Statement of Operations

Year Ended December 31, 2016

Investment Income
Dividends (a)	$	18,335,973
Dividends from affiliated investments		73,209
Securities lending income		1,562,990
Other income (b)		412,655
Total investment income		20,384,827
Expenses
Management fees		13,300,371
Administration fees		72,060
Custodian and accounting fees		122,871
Distribution and service fees—Class B		1,781,943
Distribution and service fees—Class E		54,016
Audit and tax services		46,641
Legal		33,031
Trustees’ fees and expenses		45,248
Shareholder reporting		136,203
Insurance		15,231
Miscellaneous		32,475
Total expenses		15,640,090
Less management fee waiver		(941,468	)
Less broker commission recapture		(10,450	)
Net expenses		14,688,172
Net Investment Income		5,696,655
Net Realized and Unrealized Gain (Loss)
Net realized gain (loss) on:
Investments		140,272,287
Foreign currency transactions		(1,989	)
Net realized gain		140,270,298
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on:
Investments		(107,842,765	)
Foreign currency transactions		3,092
Net change in unrealized depreciation		(107,839,673	)
Net realized and unrealized gain		32,430,625
Net Increase in Net Assets From Operations	$	38,127,280

(a) Net of foreign withholding taxes of $52,535.

(b) Other income represents a non-recurring refund for overbilling of prior years’ custodian out-of-pocket fees.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-10

Metropolitan Series Fund

T. Rowe Price Large Cap Growth Portfolio

Statements of Changes in Net Assets

	Year Ended December 31, 2016			Year Ended December 31, 2015
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets:
From Operations
Net investment income	$	5,696,655		$	1,955,094
Net realized gain		140,270,298			277,364,162
Net change in unrealized depreciation		(107,839,673	)		(33,254,026	)
Increase in net assets from operations		38,127,280			246,065,230
From Distributions to Shareholders
Net investment income
Class A		(883,202	)		(2,222,739	)
Net realized capital gains
Class A		(183,909,807	)		(284,325,405	)
Class B		(89,221,445	)		(118,081,761	)
Class E		(4,487,412	)		(6,718,484	)
Total distributions		(278,501,866	)		(411,348,389	)
Increase in net assets from capital share transactions		129,445,154			106,410,312
Total decrease in net assets		(110,929,432	)		(58,872,847	)
Net Assets
Beginning of period		2,331,828,014			2,390,700,861
End of period	$	2,220,898,582		$	2,331,828,014
Undistributed net investment income
End of period	$	4,788,471		$	1,625,990

Other Information:

Capital Shares

Transactions in capital shares were as follows:

	Year Ended December 31, 2016						Year Ended December 31, 2015
	Shares			Value			Shares			Value
Class A
Sales		1,949,795		$	40,317,524			1,319,598		$	31,306,653
Reinvestments		9,829,415			184,793,009			12,861,228			286,548,144
Redemptions		(6,686,028	)		(135,065,085	)		(15,383,857	)		(376,148,086	)
Net increase (decrease)		5,093,182		$	90,045,448			(1,203,031	)	$	(58,293,289	)
Class B
Sales		4,906,830		$	98,323,462			7,164,173		$	165,681,094
Reinvestments		4,822,781			89,221,445			5,364,915			118,081,761
Redemptions		(7,341,814	)		(147,929,049	)		(5,189,456	)		(123,208,224	)
Net increase		2,387,797		$	39,615,858			7,339,632		$	160,554,631
Class E
Sales		127,839		$	2,565,477			210,050		$	4,788,133
Reinvestments		240,483			4,487,412			303,317			6,718,484
Redemptions		(359,311	)		(7,269,041	)		(308,265	)		(7,357,647	)
Net increase (decrease)		9,011		$	(216,152	)		205,102		$	4,148,970
Increase derived from capital shares transactions				$	129,445,154					$	106,410,312

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-11

Metropolitan Series Fund

T. Rowe Price Large Cap Growth Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class A
	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014			2013			2012
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	22.70		$	24.76		$	24.51		$	17.67		$	14.87
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (a)		0.07	(b)		0.04			0.04			0.03			0.07
Net realized and unrealized gain on investments		0.13			2.55			1.94			6.87			2.75
Total from investment operations		0.20			2.59			1.98			6.90			2.82
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.01	)		(0.04	)		(0.02	)		(0.06	)		(0.02	)
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(2.71	)		(4.61	)		(1.71	)		0.00			0.00
Total distributions		(2.72	)		(4.65	)		(1.73	)		(0.06	)		(0.02	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	20.18		$	22.70		$	24.76		$	24.51		$	17.67
Total Return (%) (c)		1.76			10.78			9.09			39.16			18.97
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Gross ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.62			0.62			0.63			0.63			0.64
Net ratio of expenses to average net assets (%) (d)(e)		0.58			0.58			0.58			0.58			0.60
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		0.34	(b)		0.16			0.15			0.14			0.43
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		42			35			34			41			38
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	1,472.7		$	1,540.8		$	1,710.2		$	2,007.8		$	1,328.9
	Class B
	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014			2013			2012
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	22.40		$	24.51		$	24.32		$	17.54		$	14.78
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (loss) (a)		0.02	(b)		(0.02	)		(0.02	)		(0.03	)		0.02
Net realized and unrealized gain on investments		0.13			2.52			1.92			6.83			2.74
Total from investment operations		0.15			2.50			1.90			6.80			2.76
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		0.00			0.00			0.00			(0.02	)		0.00
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(2.71	)		(4.61	)		(1.71	)		0.00			0.00
Total distributions		(2.71	)		(4.61	)		(1.71	)		(0.02	)		0.00
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	19.84		$	22.40		$	24.51		$	24.32		$	17.54
Total Return (%) (c)		1.53			10.51			8.83			38.77			18.67
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Gross ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.87			0.87			0.88			0.88			0.89
Net ratio of expenses to average net assets (%) (d)(e)		0.83			0.83			0.83			0.83			0.85
Ratio of net investment income (loss) to average net assets (%)		0.09	(b)		(0.09	)		(0.09	)		(0.12	)		0.12
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		42			35			34			41			38
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	712.9		$	751.5		$	642.4		$	615.0		$	215.7

Please see following page for Financial Highlights footnote legend.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-12

Metropolitan Series Fund

T. Rowe Price Large Cap Growth Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class E
	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014			2013			2012
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	22.55		$	24.62		$	24.40		$	17.60		$	14.81
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (loss) (a)		0.04	(b)		0.00	(f)		0.00	(f)		(0.01	)		0.04
Net realized and unrealized gain on investments		0.13			2.54			1.93			6.84			2.75
Total from investment operations		0.17			2.54			1.93			6.83			2.79
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		0.00			0.00			0.00			(0.03	)		0.00
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(2.71	)		(4.61	)		(1.71	)		0.00			0.00
Total distributions		(2.71	)		(4.61	)		(1.71	)		(0.03	)		0.00
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	20.01		$	22.55		$	24.62		$	24.40		$	17.60
Total Return (%) (c)		1.61			10.63			8.93			38.87			18.84
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Gross ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.77			0.77			0.78			0.78			0.79
Net ratio of expenses to average net assets (%) (d)(e)		0.73			0.73			0.73			0.73			0.75
Ratio of net investment income (loss) to average net assets (%)		0.19	(b)		0.01			0.00	(g)		(0.03	)		0.22
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		42			35			34			41			38
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	35.2		$	39.5		$	38.1		$	40.1		$	16.8

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

(b) Net investment income per share and the ratio of net investment income to average net assets include a non-recurring refund for overbilling of prior years’ custodian out-of-pocket fees which amounted to less than $0.01 per share and 0.02% of average net assets, respectively.

(c) Total return does not reflect any insurance, sales, separate account or administrative charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts or any additional expenses that contract owners may bear under their variable contracts. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower.

(d) The effect of the voluntary portion of the waiver on average net assets was 0.03% for each of the years ended December 31, 2016 through 2012 (see Note 5 of the Notes to Financial Statements).

(e) Includes the effects of management fee waivers (see Note 5 of the Notes to Financial Statements).

(f) Net investment income was less than $0.01.

(g) Ratio of net investment income to average net assets was less than 0.01%.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-13

Metropolitan Series Fund

T. Rowe Price Large Cap Growth Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016

1. Organization

Metropolitan Series Fund (the “Trust”) is organized as a Delaware statutory trust and registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), as an open-end management investment company. The Trust, which is managed by MetLife Advisers, LLC (“MetLife Advisers” or the “Adviser”), an affiliate of MetLife, Inc., is currently comprised of thirty series, each of which operates as a distinct investment vehicle of the Trust. The portfolio included in this report is T. Rowe Price Large 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.

On January 12, 2016, MetLife, Inc. announced its plan to pursue the separation of a substantial portion of its retail segment and is currently evaluating structural alternatives for such separation. It is anticipated that MetLife Advisers would be included in any such separation. Any separation transaction that might occur will be subject to the satisfaction of various conditions and approvals, including approval of any transaction by the MetLife, Inc. Board of Directors, satisfaction of any applicable requirements of the SEC, and receipt of insurance and other regulatory approvals and other anticipated conditions. MetLife, Inc. cannot currently provide a specific potential completion date for a separation transaction or any assurance that a separation will in fact occur. MetLife Advisers’ continued service as investment adviser to the Trusts following a separation transaction is the subject of a proxy statement that was filed with the SEC on December 20, 2016 and mailed to shareholders of the Portfolio on or about December 30, 2016.

The Portfolio has registered and offers three classes of shares: Class A, B and E shares. 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 plan and such distribution expenses are allocated to the corresponding Class of shares.

2. Significant Accounting Policies

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities as of the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of income and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates. In the preparation of these financial statements, management has evaluated events and transactions subsequent to December 31, 2016 through the date the financial statements were issued.

The Portfolio is an investment company and follows the accounting and reporting guidance of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Accounting Standards Codification Topic 946—Financial Services—Investment Companies and Topic 820—Fair Value Measurement. 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 - Domestic and foreign equity securities, such as common stock, exchange-traded funds, rights, warrants, and preferred stock, that are traded on a securities exchange on a valuation date are generally valued at their last quoted sale price or official closing price on the primary exchange for such security, or, if no sales occurred on that day, at the last reported bid price. Equity securities traded over-the-counter (“OTC”) are generally valued at the last reported bid price. In the event of a major exchange closing during the trading day, the Adviser may use other market information obtained from quotation reporting systems, established market makers, or pricing services in valuing the securities. Valuation adjustments may be applied to certain foreign equity securities that are traded solely on foreign exchanges that close before the time as of which the Portfolio determines its NAV to account for the market movement between the close of the foreign exchanges and the time as of which the Portfolio determines its NAV. The Portfolio may use a systematic fair valuation model provided by a pricing service to value securities principally traded in these foreign markets in order to adjust for possible market movements or other changes that may occur between the close of the foreign exchanges and the time as of which the Portfolio determines its NAV. Foreign equity securities valued using these valuation adjustments are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy. Equity securities that are actively traded, and have no valuation adjustments applied, are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other equity securities traded on inactive markets, or valued in reference to similar instruments traded on active markets, 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 on the valuation date and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy.

Debt securities, including corporate, convertible and municipal bonds and notes; obligations of the U.S. Treasury and U.S. government agencies; foreign sovereign issues; and non-U.S. bonds, are generally valued on the basis of evaluated or composite bid quotations

MSF-14

Metropolitan Series Fund

T. Rowe Price Large Cap Growth Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

obtained from independent pricing services and/or brokers and dealers selected by the Adviser (each a “pricing service”), pursuant to authorization of and subject to general oversight by the Board of Trustees of the Trust (the “Board” or “Trustees”). Such pricing services may use matrix pricing, which considers observable inputs including, among other things, issuer details, maturity dates, interest rates, yield curves, rates of prepayment, credit risks/spreads, default rates, reported trades, broker dealer quotes and quoted prices for similar assets. Short-term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less may be valued at amortized cost in the absence of market quotes, so long as the amortized cost value of such short-term debt instrument is approximately the same as the fair value of the instrument as determined without the use of amortized cost valuation. Floating rate loans are generally valued on the basis of an evaluated or composite average of aggregate bid and ask quotations supplied by brokers or dealers, as obtained from the pricing service. Securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally 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 sale price available as of the close of business on a valuation day or, if there is no such price available, at the last reported bid price. These types of options are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Futures contracts that are traded on commodity exchanges are valued at their settlement prices established by the exchanges on which they are traded as of the close of such exchanges and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy.

If no current market value quotation or other observable inputs are readily available or market value quotations are deemed to be unreliable for an investment, the fair value of the investment will be determined in accordance with procedures approved by, and under the general supervision of, the Board. In such a circumstance, the Board will be assisted in its responsibility to determine the fair value of an investment by the Valuation Committee (“Committee”) of MetLife Advisers. The Committee provides general pricing oversight and fair value pricing determinations related to portfolio securities and meets on a regular basis to review reports relating to the valuation of the securities in the Portfolio. The Board has delegated to State Street Bank and Trust Company, the Trust’s custodian (“custodian”), the responsibility for calculating the net asset values (“NAVs”) of the Trust’s Portfolios. The Committee is responsible for overseeing the calculation of the NAVs of the Portfolios by the custodian. The Committee also periodically reviews pricing services, including the pricing services providing fair value pricing for the Portfolio’s foreign securities, and is responsible for overseeing the correction of pricing errors and addressing other pricing issues that arise in the ordinary course of business, such as making real-time fair value determinations, as necessary.

No single standard for determining the fair value of an investment can be set forth because fair value depends upon the facts and circumstances with respect to each investment. Information relating to any relevant factors may be obtained by the Committee from any appropriate source, including the subadviser of the Portfolio, the custodian, a pricing service, market maker and/or broker for such security or the issuer. Appropriate methodologies for determining fair value under particular circumstances may include: matrix pricing, a discounted cash flow analysis, comparisons of securities with comparable characteristics, value based on multiples of earnings, discount from market price of similar marketable securities or a combination of these and other methods.

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 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. These foreign taxes have been provided for in accordance with the Portfolio’s understanding of the applicable countries’ tax rules and rates.

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 the U.S. dollar 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. Because the values of investment securities are translated at the foreign exchange rates prevailing at the end of the period, that portion of the results of operations arising from changes in exchange rates and that portion of the results of operations reflecting fluctuations arising from changes in market prices of the investment securities are not separated. 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. 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.

Dividends and Distributions to Shareholders - The Portfolio records dividends and distributions on the ex-dividend date. Net realized gains from securities 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

MSF-15

Metropolitan Series Fund

T. Rowe Price Large Cap Growth Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

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), adjustments to prior period accumulated balances and broker commission recapture. These adjustments have no impact on net assets or the results 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 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. As of December 31, 2016, the Portfolio had no uncertain tax positions that would require financial statement recognition, or de-recognition or disclosure.

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 net ratio of expenses to average net assets presented in the Financial Highlights for each share class.

Repurchase Agreements - The Portfolio may enter into repurchase agreements, under the terms of a Master Repurchase Agreement (“MRA”), 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, under a tri-party repurchase agreement, receives delivery of the underlying securities collateralizing any repurchase agreements. It is the Portfolio’s policy that the market value of the collateral be equal to at least 100% of the repurchase price in the case of a repurchase agreement of one-day duration and equal to at least 102% of the repurchase price in the case of all other repurchase agreements. In the event of default or failure by a party to perform an obligation in connection with any repurchase transaction, the MRA gives the non-defaulting party the right to set-off claims and to apply property held by it in connection with any repurchase transaction against obligations owed to it.

At December 31, 2016, the Portfolio invested cash collateral for loans of portfolio securities in repurchase agreements with a gross value of $25,302,005. The combined value of all repurchase agreements is included as part of investments at value on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. The value of the related collateral exceeded the value of the repurchase agreements at December 31, 2016.

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 collateral held from securities on loan. 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.

Effective September 8, 2016, the Trust has entered into a Non-Custodial Securities Lending Agreement with JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (the “lending agent”). Prior to September 8, 2016, the Trust had entered into a Securities Lending Authorization Agreement with the custodian (the “prior lending agent”). Under each agreement, the lending agent is authorized to loan portfolio securities on the Portfolio’s behalf. In exchange, the Portfolio receives either cash or government securities as collateral against the loaned securities. The Portfolio receives collateral equal to at least 102% of the market value for loans secured by government securities or cash in the same currency as the loaned shares and 105% for all other loaned securities at each loan’s inception. Collateral representing at least 100% of the market value of the loaned securities is maintained for the duration of the loan. Any cash collateral received by the Portfolio is generally invested by the lending agent in short-term investments, which may include certificates of deposit, commercial paper, repurchase agreements, time deposits and money market funds. Cash collateral that was received by the prior lending agent had been generally invested in the State Street Navigator Securities Lending MET Portfolio (the “Navigator Portfolio”), a series of the State Street Navigator Securities Lending Trust that was a registered money market fund managed by an affiliate of the custodian. The market value of investments made with cash collateral received are disclosed in the Schedule of Investments and the valuation techniques are described in Note 2. 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 is 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 is equal to at least 100% of the market value of all the loaned securities as of such preceding day. A portion of the income earned on the collateral is rebated to the borrower of the securities and the remainder is split between the lending agent and the Portfolio. On loans collateralized by government securities, a fee is received from the borrower and is allocated between the Portfolio and the lending agent.

Income received by the Portfolio in securities lending transactions during the year ended December 31, 2016 is reflected as securities lending income on the Statement of Operations. The values of any securities loaned by the Portfolio and the related collateral at December 31, 2016 are disclosed in the footnotes to the Schedule of Investments. The value of the related collateral received by the Portfolio exceeded the value of the securities out on loan at December 31, 2016.

MSF-16

Metropolitan Series Fund

T. Rowe Price Large Cap Growth Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

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. The lending agent shall indemnify the Portfolio in the case of default of any securities borrower, subject to the terms of the Non-Custodial Securities Lending Agreement.

All securities on loan are classified as Common Stocks in the Portfolio’s Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016, with a contractual maturity of overnight and continuous.

3. Certain Risks

In the normal course of business, the Portfolio invests in securities and enters into transactions where risks exist. Those risks include:

Market 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, interest rate, and price fluctuations.

Credit and Counterparty Risk: 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 and counterparty risk consist principally of cash due from counterparties and investments. The Portfolio manages counterparty risk by entering into agreements only with counterparties that it believes have the financial resources to honor their obligations and by monitoring the financial stability of those counterparties. The Portfolio’s investment adviser attempts to mitigate counterparty risk by (i) periodically assessing the creditworthiness of its trading partners, (ii) monitoring and/or limiting the amount of its net exposure to each individual counterparty based on its assessment, and (iii) requiring collateral from the counterparty for certain transactions. In order to preserve certain safeguards for non-standard settlement trades, the Portfolio restricts its exposure to credit and counterparty losses by entering into master netting agreements (“Master Agreements”) with counterparties (approved brokers) with whom it undertakes a significant volume of transactions. Master Agreements govern the terms of certain transactions, and reduce the counterparty risk associated with relevant transactions by specifying credit protection mechanisms and providing standardization that improves legal certainty. Master Agreements can also help limit counterparty risk by specifying collateral posting arrangements at pre-arranged exposure levels.

Repurchase and reverse repurchase agreements are primarily executed under Global Master Repurchase Agreements (“GMRAs”) or Master Repurchase Agreements (“MRAs”), which provide the rights to set-off. Each repurchase and reverse repurchase agreement is initially collateralized at the transaction level. In the event of default, the total market value exposure will be offset against collateral exchanged to date, which would result in a net receivable/(payable) that would be due from/to the counterparty.

Additional risks associated with each type of investment are described above within the respective security type notes. The Portfolio’s prospectus includes a discussion of the principal risks of investing in the Portfolio.

4. Investment Transactions

Aggregate cost of purchases and proceeds of sales of investment securities, excluding short-term securities, for the year ended December 31, 2016 were as follows:

Purchases			Sales
U.S. Government	Non U.S. Government		U.S. Government		Non U.S. Government
$0	$	914,675,098	$	0	$	1,011,449,311

The Portfolio engaged in security transactions with other accounts managed by T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc. that amounted to $1,386,022 in purchases and $1,053,583 in sales of investments, which are included above, and resulted in realized gains of $184,927.

5. Investment Management Fees and Other Transactions with Affiliates

Investment Management Agreement - MetLife Advisers is the investment adviser to the Portfolio. The Trust has entered into an investment management agreement with MetLife Advisers with respect to the Portfolio. For providing investment management services to the Portfolio, MetLife Advisers receives monthly compensation at the following annual rates:

Management Fees earned by MetLife Advisers for the year ended December 31, 2016	% per annum			Average daily net assets
$13,300,371		0.650	%	Of the first $50 million
		0.600	%	On amounts in excess of $50 million

MSF-17

Metropolitan Series Fund

T. Rowe Price Large Cap Growth Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

MetLife Advisers has entered into an investment subadvisory agreement with respect to managing the Portfolio. T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc. (“T. Rowe Price”) is compensated by MetLife Advisers to provide subadvisory services for the Portfolio.

Management Fee Waivers - Pursuant to an expense agreement, MetLife Advisers has agreed, for the period May 1, 2016 to April 30, 2017, to reduce its advisory fees set out above under “Investment Management Agreement” for each class of the Portfolio as follows provided the Portfolio’s assets exceed $1 billion:

% per annum	Average daily net assets
0.030%	On the first $50 million
0.010%	On amounts between $100 million and $1.5 billion
0.025%	On amounts in excess of $1.5 billion

If the Portfolio’s average daily net assets fall below $1 billion, the per annum fee reduction would be 0.015% on the first $50 million.

An identical expense agreement was in place for the period May 1, 2015 to April 30, 2016. Amounts waived for the year ended December 31, 2016 amounted to $333,140 and are included in the total amounts shown as management fee waivers in the Statement of Operations.

Effective February 17, 2005, T. Rowe Price agreed to a voluntary subadvisory fee waiver that applies if (i) assets under management by T. Rowe Price for the Trust and Met Investors Series Trust (“MIST”), an affiliate of the Trust, in the aggregate, exceed $750,000,000, (ii) T. Rowe Price subadvises three or more portfolios of the Trust and MIST in the aggregate, and (iii) at least one of those portfolios is a large cap domestic equity portfolio.

If the aforementioned conditions are met, T. Rowe Price will waive its subadvisory fee paid by MetLife Advisers by 5% for combined Trust and MIST average daily net assets over $750,000,000, 7.5% for the next $1,500,000,000 of combined assets, and 10% for amounts over $3,000,000,000. MetLife Advisers has voluntarily agreed to reduce its advisory fee for the Portfolio by the amount waived (if any) by T. Rowe Price for the Portfolio pursuant to this voluntary subadvisory fee waiver. Because these fee waivers are voluntary, and not contractual, they may be discontinued by T. Rowe Price and MetLife Advisers at any time. Amounts voluntarily waived by MetLife Advisers for the year ended December 31, 2016 amounted to $608,328 and are included in the total amounts shown as management fee waivers in the Statement of Operations.

Certain officers and trustees of the Trust may also be officers of MetLife Advisers; 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 and Service Fees - The Trust has a distribution agreement with MetLife Investors Distribution Company (“MIDC” or the “Distributor”) in which MIDC serves as the distributor for the Portfolio’s Class A, B and E Shares. MIDC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife Investors Group, LLC, an affiliate of the Adviser. The Trust has also adopted a Distribution and Service Plan under Rule 12b-1 of the 1940 Act for the Portfolio’s Class B and E Shares. Under the Distribution and Service Plan, the Class B and E Shares of the Portfolio pay a fee to compensate the Insurance Companies (or their affiliates) and other broker-dealers and financial intermediaries involved in the offer and sale of Portfolio shares for promoting or selling and servicing the Class B and E Shares. The fees under the Distribution and Service Plan for each class of the Portfolio’s shares are calculated as a percentage of the Portfolio’s average daily net assets that are attributable to that Class. Currently, the fee is 0.25% per year for Class B Shares and 0.15% per year for Class E Shares. Amounts incurred by the Portfolio for the year ended December 31, 2016 are shown as Distribution and service fees in the Statement of Operations.

Deferred Trustee Compensation - Each Trustee 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 Trust. 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 Met Investors Series Trust, an affiliate of the Trust, 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 under the Plan is reflected as Deferred trustees’ fees in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

MSF-18

Metropolitan Series Fund

T. Rowe Price Large Cap Growth Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

6. 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, 2016 is as follows:

Security Description	Number of shares held at December 31, 2015		Shares purchased		Shares sold			Number of shares held at December 31, 2016		Realized Gain on shares sold		Income earned from affiliates during the period		Ending Value as of December 31, 2016
T. Rowe Price Government Reserve Fund		38,785,488		325,547,994		(347,911,518	)		16,421,964	$	—	$	73,209	$	16,421,964

7. Contractual Obligations

Under the Trust’s organizational documents, its officers and Trustees may be indemnified against certain liabilities and expenses arising out of the performance of their duties to the Trust. Additionally, 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 Trust that have not yet occurred.

8. Income Tax Information

The tax character of distributions paid for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015 were as follows:

Ordinary Income			Long-Term Capital Gain				Total
2016	2015		2016		2015		2016		2015
$883,202	$	33,229,220	$	277,618,664	$	378,119,169	$	278,501,866	$	411,348,389

As of December 31, 2016, 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		Other Accumulated Capital Losses		Total
$4,911,084	$	144,646,878	$	473,965,370	$	—	$	623,523,332

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 up to 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, 2016, the Portfolio had no post-enactment accumulated capital losses and no pre-enactment accumulated capital loss carryforwards.

9. Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In October 2016, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) adopted new rules and forms, and amendments to certain current rules and forms, to modernize reporting and disclosure of information by registered investment companies. The amendments to Regulation S-X will require standardized, enhanced disclosure about derivatives in investment company financial statements, and will also change the rules governing the form and content of such financial statements. The compliance date for the amendments to Regulation S-X is August 1, 2017. Management is currently evaluating the impact that the adoption of the amendments to Regulation S-X will have on the Portfolio’s financial statements and related disclosures.

MSF-19

Metropolitan Series Fund

T. Rowe Price Large Cap Growth Portfolio

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Shareholders of T. Rowe Price Large Cap Growth Portfolio and the Board of Trustees of Metropolitan Series Fund:

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities, including the schedule of investments, of T. Rowe Price Large Cap Growth Portfolio (one of the portfolios constituting the Metropolitan Series Fund) (the “Portfolio”) as of December 31, 2016, 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 Portfolio’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 Portfolio 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 Portfolio’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, 2016, by correspondence with the custodian and brokers; when 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 Growth Portfolio of the Metropolitan Series Fund as of December 31, 2016, 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.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

February 24, 2017

MSF-20

Metropolitan Series Fund

Trustees and Officers

MANAGEMENT OF THE TRUSTS

The Boards of Trustees (the “Board”) of Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (“MIST” and “MSF”, respectively, and collectively the “Trusts”) supervise the Trusts and are responsible for representing the interests of shareholders. The Trustees, the Chairman of the Board and the Chairmen of each subcommittee are the same for both Trusts. The Trustees of each Trust meet periodically throughout the year to oversee the Portfolios’ activities, reviewing, among other things, each Portfolio’s performance and its contractual arrangements with various service providers. The Trustees of each Trust elect the officers of the Trust, who are responsible for administering the Trust’s day-to-day operations.

Trustees and Officers

The Trustees and executive officers of the Trusts, as well as their ages and their principal occupations during the past five years, are set forth below. Unless otherwise indicated, the business address of each is c/o MetLife Funds, One Financial Center, Boston, Massachusetts 02111. Each Trustee who is deemed an “interested person,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, is referred to as an “Interested Trustee.” Those Trustees who are not “interested persons,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, are referred to as “Independent Trustees.” There is no limit to the term a Trustee may serve. Trustees serve until their death, resignation or removal in accordance with the MIST Trust’s and MSF Trust’s respective organizational documents and policies adopted by the Boards of the respective Trusts from time to time. Officers hold office at the pleasure of each Board and serve until their removal or resignation in accordance with the Trusts’ respective organizational documents and policies adopted by the Board of each Trust from time to time.

Name and Age	Current 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 MetLife Funds Complex(2) Overseen by Trustee	Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Interested Trustee
John Rosenthal* (56)	Trustee	Indefinite; From May 2016 (MIST and MSF) to present	Senior Managing Director and Head of Global Portfolio Management, MetLife, Inc.	75	None
Independent Trustees
Dawn M. Vroegop (50)	Trustee and Chairman of the Board	Indefinite; From December 2000 (MIST)/ May 2009 (MSF) to present as Trustee; From May 2016 (MIST and MSF) until present as Chairman	Private Investor.	75	Trustee, Driehaus Mutual Funds.**
Stephen M. Alderman (57)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 (MIST)/ April 2012 (MSF) to present	Shareholder in the law firm of Garfield and Merel, Ltd.	75	None

MSF-21

Metropolitan Series Fund

Trustees and Officers—(Continued)

Name and Age	Current 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 MetLife Funds Complex(2) Overseen by Trustee	Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Robert J. Boulware (60)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 (MIST)/ April 2012 (MSF) to present	Managing Director, Pilgrim Funds, LLC (private equity fund).	75	Trustee, Vertical Capital Income Fund (closed-end fund);** Director, Gainsco, Inc. (auto insurance);** Trustee, SharesPost 100 Fund (closed-end fund).**
Susan C. Gause (64)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 (MIST)/ April 2012 (MSF) to present	Private Investor.	75	Trustee, HSBC Funds.**
Nancy Hawthorne (65)	Trustee	Indefinite; From May 2003 (MSF)/ April 2012 (MIST) to present	Partner, Hawthorne Financial Advisors, LLC (registered investment advisor); until June 2014, Chief Executive Officer, Clerestory LLC (corporate advisor).	75	Director and Chairman of the Board of Directors, THL Credit, Inc.;** Lead Director, Avid Technology, Inc.;** Director, CRA International, Inc.**
Barbara A. Nugent (60)	Trustee	Indefinite; From January 2014 (MIST and MSF) to present	President, True North Board Governance, LLC (consulting); until December 2013, partner in the law firm of Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young, LLP.	75	None
Linda B. Strumpf (69)	Trustee	Indefinite; From May 2000 (MSF)/ April 2012 (MIST) to present	Chair of the Investment Committee, Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust; until June 2011, Chief Investment Officer, Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust.	75	None

Executive Officers

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Kristi Slavin (43)	President and Chief Executive Officer, of MIST and MSF	From May 2016 (MIST and MSF) to present	President, MetLife Advisers, LLC (May 2016-present); Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Vice President, MetLife, Inc.; Vice President, MIST and MSF (2015-2016).

MSF-22

Metropolitan Series Fund

Trustees and Officers—(Continued)

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Peter H. Duffy (61)	Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, of MIST and MSF	From November 2000 (MSF)/ May 2012 (MIST) to present	Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Andrew L. Gangolf (62)	Secretary, of MIST and MSF	From May 2011 (MIST and MSF) to present	Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; until 2011, Senior Vice President & Assistant General Counsel, AllianceBernstein Investments, Inc.
Steven E. Hartstein (53)	Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”), of MIST and MSF	From February 2014 (MIST and MSF) to present	Vice President, MetLife, Inc. (2013-present); Senior Vice President and CCO, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Executive Director, Morgan Stanley (2009-2013); CCO, Consulting Group Capital Markets Funds (2006-2013).
Alan C. Leland (64)	Vice President, of MIST and MSF	From February 2005 (MSF)/ May 2012 (MIST) to present	Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Vice President, MetLife, Inc.

* Mr. Rosenthal is an “interested person” of the Trusts because of his position with MetLife, Inc., the current parent company of MetLife Advisers, LLC.

** 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 Trusts, MetLife, Inc. or the Manager are omitted if not materially different.

(2) The Fund Complex includes 45 MIST Portfolios and 30 MSF Portfolios.

MSF-23

Metropolitan Series Fund

T. Rowe Price Large Cap Growth Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements

At an in-person meeting held on November 15-16, 2016 (the “November Meeting”), the Boards of Trustees (the “Board”) of the Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (“MIST” and “MSF,” respectively, and collectively, the “Trusts”), including a majority of the Trustees who are not “interested persons” of the Trusts (the “Independent Trustees”) under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “1940 Act”), approved the continuation of the Trusts’ advisory agreements (each, an “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 the series of the Trusts (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”).

In reaching that decision, the Board reviewed a variety of materials provided for the specific purpose of the annual contract renewal process. In addition, various materials provided to and discussed with the Board throughout the year also informed the Board’s decision to renew the Agreements. That information for each Portfolio included, but was not limited to, investment performance reports, along with periodic reports on various expenses, shareholder services, legal and compliance matters, asset pricing, brokerage commissions and trade execution. The Board also recognized the pending separation of the Adviser from its parent company, MetLife, Inc., as a consideration in their deliberations with respect to the Agreements.

The Board met in person with personnel of the Adviser on September 27, 2016 for the specific purpose of giving preliminary consideration to the proposed continuation of the Agreements (the “September Meeting”) through the review by the Adviser with the Board of the performance and fees experienced by each Portfolio, as well as other information. In considering the Agreements, the Independent Trustees were advised by independent legal counsel throughout the contract renewal process, and met with independent legal counsel in several executive sessions outside of the presence of management.

Information furnished and reviewed specifically in connection with the renewal process included, but was not limited to, a report for each Portfolio prepared by Broadridge (“Broadridge”), an independent organization, and a Portfolio-by-Portfolio profitability analysis prepared by the Adviser. In addition, the Independent Trustees received and reviewed a report prepared by JDL Consultants, LLC (“JDL”), an independent consultant to the Independent Trustees (“JDL Report”), which examined the comparative fees, expenses and performance of each Portfolio, based upon the Broadridge reports. Also, the Board reviewed the responses to wide-ranging questions relating to the business, operations and performance of the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers that the Adviser and Sub-Advisers had prepared specifically for the renewal process.

At the November Meeting, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, concluded that the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser supported the renewal of the Agreements. The Board also concluded that the investment performance of each Portfolio was such that each Agreement should continue, and that the fees paid by a Portfolio to the Adviser appeared to be reasonable in light of the nature, extent and quality of the services provided by the Adviser and Sub-Adviser. Further, the Board concluded that the Adviser’s profitability in providing services under the Advisory Agreements did not appear unreasonably high in light of the nature, extent and quality of the services provided by the Adviser. Finally, the Board concluded that the investment advisory fees paid by the Portfolios in some measure shared economies of scale with contract holders. In approving the renewal of each of the Agreements, the Board, including the Independent Trustees, gave attention to all of the information that was furnished. The Board evaluated the information available to it on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis, and its decision was made separately with respect to each Portfolio. The following discusses some of the primary factors that generally were relevant to the Board’s decision. The Board did not identify any single factor as controlling, and the Trustees generally attributed different weights to various factors for the various Portfolios.

Nature, extent and quality of services. The Board evaluated the nature, extent and quality of the services that the Adviser, and the Sub-Advisers as relevant, have provided to the Portfolios. The Board considered the Adviser’s services as investment manager to the Portfolios, including its services relating to the oversight of the Sub-Advisers and their investment management activities, trading practices, financial condition, relevant personnel matters and compliance programs, among other things. The Adviser’s services in coordinating and overseeing the activities of the Trusts’ other service providers were also considered. The Board considered information received from the Trusts’ Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) regarding the Portfolios’ compliance policies and procedures that were established pursuant to Rule 38a-l under the 1940 Act. In addition, throughout the year, the Board considered the expertise, experience and performance of the personnel of the Adviser who performed the various services that are mentioned above.

The Board also noted that the Adviser’s investment, compliance and legal staff conduct regular, periodic, telephonic and in-person meetings with the Sub-Advisers to review and assess the services that are provided to the Portfolios, and that personnel of the Adviser prepare and present reports to the Independent Trustees regarding those meetings.

With respect to the services provided by each of the Sub-Advisers, the Board considered a variety of information that the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser provided. The Board considered each Sub-Adviser’s investment process and philosophy, and the investment

MSF-24

Metropolitan Series Fund

T. Rowe Price Large Cap Growth Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

performance experienced by the Portfolio (as described in more detail below). The Board took into account that each Sub-Adviser’s responsibilities include the development and maintenance of an investment program for the applicable Portfolio that 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. In particular, the Board considered, among other things, the Sub-Adviser’s current level of staffing as well as its compensation program and its overall resources. The Board reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s history and investment experience, as well as information provided 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 regulatory and disciplinary history. In its review, the Board also took into account information regarding any services and/or payments provided to the Adviser by the Sub-Advisers in connection with marketing activities.

Performance. The Board placed emphasis on the performance of the Portfolios in light of, among other things, its importance to contract holders. The Board considered the Adviser’s quarterly reviews with the Board of detailed information about each Portfolio’s investment strategies and performance results and composition, including discussions regarding the relevant effect of current market conditions. The Board reviewed and considered the reports prepared by Broadridge, which provided a statistical analysis comparing the Portfolios’ investment performance to that of comparable funds underlying variable insurance products (the “Performance Universe”). The Independent Trustees also met separately with a representative of JDL during the September Meeting to review the JDL Report. The Board also compared the performance records of certain Portfolios to those of comparable funds that were managed by the relevant Sub-Adviser. At the November Meeting, the Board considered each Portfolio’s performance for periods subsequent to the performance period covered by the Broadridge reports, and the Adviser’s discussion of the same, including the effect of current market conditions on each Portfolio’s more recent performance.

The Board focused particular attention on Portfolios with less favorable performance records. The Board noted the Adviser’s focus on each Sub-Adviser’s performance and that the Adviser has been active in monitoring and responding to any performance issues with respect to the Portfolios.

Fees and Expenses. The Board gave consideration to the level and method of computing the fees payable under the Agreements. The Board considered the Broadridge report for each of the Portfolios, which included comparisons for each Portfolio of its contractual management and sub-adviser fees (at current and various asset levels), and total expenses, with those of its peers, including as those peers were divided into a broad group of peer funds (“Expense Universe”), a narrower group of peer funds (“Expense Group”), a broad group of peer sub-advised funds (“Sub-advised Expense Universe”), and a narrower group of peer sub-advised funds (“Sub-advised Expense Group”). Broadridge selected the peer funds which were similarly situated funds underlying variable insurance products deemed to be comparable to the Portfolios. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of JDL, also examined the JDL Report. The Board compared the fee payable to a Sub-Adviser by the Adviser with respect to the Portfolio to the fee payable to the Sub-Adviser by other comparable funds and accounts, to the extent such information was available.

The Board noted that the sub-advisory fees for the Portfolios are paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fee, and that, in the case of an unaffiliated Sub-Adviser, the Adviser negotiates the fee at arm’s length. The Board also considered that the Adviser had entered into expense limitation or management fee waiver agreements with certain of the Portfolios pursuant to which the Adviser had 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.

Profitability. The Board examined the profitability of the Adviser on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis. The Board also considered that an affiliate of the Adviser, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, serves as distributor for the Trusts, and, as such, receives Rule 12b-1 payments to support the distribution of the Portfolios. The Board considered the profitability to the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates as a result of their relationships with the Portfolios, to the extent available, and the Board considered the ability of the Adviser to negotiate with an unaffiliated Sub-Adviser at arm’s length. In reviewing the profitability analyses, the Board recognized that expense allocation methodologies are inherently subjective and various expense allocation methodologies may be reasonable while producing different results.

Economies of scale. The Board also considered each Portfolio’s fees in light of its size. The Board noted the fee schedules for the Portfolios that 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 and Sub-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

MSF-25

Metropolitan Series Fund

T. Rowe Price Large Cap Growth Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

the Portfolio grow. The Board examined, among other data, the effect of a Portfolio’s growth in size, and reduction in size, on various fee schedules and the Board reviewed the Broadridge and JDL Reports, which compared fees among peers. The Board also generally noted that if a Portfolio’s assets increase over time, the Portfolio may realize other economies of scale if assets increase proportionally more than certain other fixed expenses.

Other factors. The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trusts. Among them, the Board recognized that MetLife Investors Distribution Company, as the distributor for the Trusts, receives payments pursuant to Rule 12b-1 from the Portfolios to compensate for the provision of shareholder services and distribution activities, which could lead to growth in the Trusts’ assets and corresponding benefits from such growth, including economies of scale. The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by each Sub-Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trusts, including the opportunity to provide advisory services to additional portfolios of the Trusts and reputational benefits. In conjunction with these considerations, the Board noted the ongoing commitment of the Adviser to the Portfolios.

The Board considered possible conflicts of interest in the form of material benefits or detriments to the Trusts resulting from the nature of the Trusts’ and the Adviser’s or the Sub-Advisers’ affiliations and the services that are provided to the Trusts, and the manner in which such conflicts were mitigated.

*  *  *

T. Rowe Price Large Cap Growth Portfolio. The Board also considered the following information in relation to the Agreements with the Adviser and T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc. regarding the Portfolio:

Among other data relating specifically to the Portfolio’s performance, the Board considered that the Portfolio outperformed the median of its Performance Universe and its Lipper Index for the three- and five-year periods ended June 30, 2016, and underperformed the median of its Performance Universe and its Lipper Index for the one-year period ended June 30, 2016. The Board also considered that the Portfolio outperformed its benchmark, the Russell 1000 Growth Index, for the five-year period ended October 31, 2016, and underperformed its benchmark for the one- and three-year periods ended October 31, 2016.

The Board also 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 above the asset-weighted average of certain comparable funds at the Portfolio’s current size. The Board also noted that the Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees were above the averages of the Sub-advised Expense Group and the Sub-advised Expense Universe at the Portfolio’s current size.

MSF-26

Metropolitan Series Fund

T. Rowe Price Large Cap Growth Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Advisory Agreements

The separation (the “Separation”) of MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”), the investment adviser to each of the series (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”) of Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (collectively, the “Trusts”), from its parent company, MetLife, Inc. (“MetLife”), to a separate retail business, Brighthouse Financial, Inc. (“Brighthouse”), is expected to result in a change in control of the Adviser, and therefore an “assignment” of each Portfolio’s current advisory agreement (each a “Current Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “Current Advisory Agreements”). At the November 15-16, 2016 meeting (“November Meeting”) of the Board of Trustees of the Trusts (the “Board”), the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not “interested persons,” as defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940, of any Portfolio (the “Independent Trustees”), approved a new advisory agreement (each a “New Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “New Advisory Agreements”) between the Trusts, on behalf of a Portfolio, and the Adviser, to be effective upon the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements in connection with the Separation, and recommended that the shareholders of the Trusts approve the New Advisory Agreements. The Board took those actions after consideration of and deliberation over information concerning the Separation, including with respect to the degree to which the Separation would affect the provision of investment advisory services to the Trusts. Information about the Board’s considerations and process is set forth below.

In determining whether to approve the New Advisory Agreements and in considering the Separation, the Board considered the nature, quality and extent of the services that are currently provided by the Adviser under the Current Advisory Agreements as well as the services to be provided under the New Advisory Agreements. The Board’s review was conducted as part of, and in conjunction with, the Board’s annual review of the Current Advisory Agreements, which culminated at the November Meeting. In approving the New Advisory Agreements, the Board considered its conclusions with respect to its approvals of the Current Advisory Agreements, including the Board’s general satisfaction with the nature, extent and quality of services being provided by the Adviser to each Portfolio. Appendix A and Appendix B contains a further description of the process followed, information reviewed and the material factors considered by the Board in approving the continuation of the Current Advisory Agreements.

A substantial portion of the Board’s review of the New Advisory Agreements focused on the Separation, including the potential effect of the implementation of the Separation on the operations, personnel, organizational structure, capitalization, and financial and other resources of the Adviser. After being informed by the Adviser in January 2016 of the possibility of the Separation, the Board and its Committees discussed the Separation and its possible effects on the Trusts with personnel of the Adviser and the anticipated senior management at Brighthouse during the course of the Board’s or Committee’s regularly scheduled, in-person, quarterly meetings.

Between August and November 2016, the Board and the Independent Trustees engaged in an extensive review and analysis of the Separation and how the Separation related to the Adviser and the Trusts and how it could affect the services provided to the Trusts. This analysis focused on, among other matters, the assurances from Brighthouse’s anticipated leadership as to its expectations for the continuity and stability of the Adviser’s personnel throughout implementation of the Separation and for the foreseeable future thereafter. The Board considered that the Separation is being implemented as a result of MetLife’s determination to divest itself of a substantial portion of its U.S. retail business (of which the Adviser forms a portion). The Board also considered that it has been satisfied as a general matter with the nature and quality of the services that the Adviser provides to the Portfolios, including investment advisory, administrative, legal, compliance, and support services, and that it would be in the Portfolios’ best interests to maintain continuity and stability in the services that are currently being provided. The Board carefully considered the anticipated future plans of Brighthouse related to capitalization and operational matters for Brighthouse and the Adviser, as well as the importance of the Adviser to the businesses of Brighthouse after the Separation.

Among other steps in its review process, which accelerated on October 5, 2016 when Brighthouse filed its Form 10 with the SEC, the following actions were taken and considered by or on behalf of the Board:

1. The Independent Trustees solicited and received ongoing advice regarding the legal duties of the Independent Trustees from Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young LLP (“Stradley Ronon”), legal counsel for the Independent Trustees, which law firm has extensive experience regarding such matters.

2. Following the August 16-17, 2016 Board and Committee quarterly meetings, the Independent Trustees established an ad hoc group of Independent Trustees (the “Working Group”) to help oversee, coordinate, and conduct due diligence activities with respect to the Separation. The Working Group regularly reported on the due diligence activities to the other Independent Trustees.

3. Since January 2016, the Board posed ongoing inquiries to, and received regular updates from, the Adviser and anticipated senior management at Brighthouse at either in-person meetings dedicated to the status of the Separation or during the course of the Board or Committee’s regular quarterly meetings. The Board considered, among other matters, relevant legal guidance and the processes followed by certain other investment company boards of directors or trustees when they approved contracts in connection with change in control events, while recognizing the unique circumstances of the Separation.

MSF-27

Metropolitan Series Fund

T. Rowe Price Large Cap Growth Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

4. The Board received and reviewed the Form 10 of Brighthouse that contained extensive information relating to, among other matters, Brighthouse’s anticipated business plans and financial structure. The Board also received and reviewed reports from rating agencies with respect to Brighthouse.

5. Stradley Ronon retained Barrington Partners (“Barrington”), an independent consulting firm with a specific focus on the asset management industry and experience relating to business operations such as those to be conducted by Brighthouse, including its proposed subsidiary, the Adviser, in order to help Stradley Ronon evaluate the Separation based on the Form 10 and other materials and related information provided by the Adviser and its affiliates. Barrington conducted a series of in-person and telephonic meetings with anticipated senior management at Brighthouse (i.e., the aforementioned anticipated officers of Brighthouse and others) and with personnel of the Adviser who provide services to the Trusts. Stradley Ronon, with the assistance of Barrington, evaluated the information and advised the Independent Trustees with respect to, among other matters, details of Brighthouse’s anticipated business plan to understand the implications of the Separation to the Adviser and its personnel. The Independent Trustees and the Working Group attended certain in-person and telephonic conference call meetings at which Barrington rendered advice to Stradley Ronon regarding these matters and responded to questions.

6. The Independent Trustees requested and participated in in-person meetings with anticipated senior management personnel at Brighthouse, including its President and Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, Chief Operating Officer, and Chief Investment Officer. The Independent Trustees also met with personnel of the Adviser.

7. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of Stradley Ronon, prepared written inquiries to the Adviser and its affiliates regarding the Separation, and received written assurances from the Adviser and its affiliates that they have no plans to make any material changes affecting the personnel of the Adviser (including those personnel who provide investment, administrative, legal and compliance services) and the Adviser and its affiliates will not initiate such changes without prior notice to and discussion with the Board.

8. The Board considered representations by the Adviser and its affiliates that approval of the New Advisory Agreements would be necessary for the Portfolios to continue receiving investment advisory services from the Adviser following the change in control.

9. The Board considered representations by the Adviser, as well as related supporting documentation, indicating that the New Advisory Agreements, including the fees payable thereunder, are substantially identical to the terms of the corresponding Current Advisory Agreements.

10. The Board considered representations by the Adviser and its affiliates, as well as related supporting documentation, indicating that: (1) the Adviser can be expected to provide services of the same nature, extent, and quality under the New Advisory Agreements and as are provided thereby under the Current Advisory Agreements; and (2) the Separation is not expected to result in any changes to (i) the management of the Portfolios, or (ii) the investment objective of or the principal investment strategies used to manage any of the Portfolios.

11. The Board considered the ability of the Adviser and its affiliates to retain the employment of key personnel, as well as the overall positive indications by many such personnel regarding the opportunities presented by the Separation.

12. The Board considered that the Adviser and its affiliates have agreed to bear all expenses associated with obtaining shareholder approval of the New Advisory Agreements.

13. The Board considered Brighthouse’s preliminary “branding” plans regarding the future name of its operations.

14. The Board considered the advice provided by Ropes & Gray, LLP, legal counsel to the Trusts and the Adviser, with respect to the New Advisory Agreements (including advice relating to the process and timing of seeking shareholder approval of the New Advisory Agreements, and whether shareholder approvals would be required in connection with any future aspects of the Separation) and regarding the Board’s role and responsibilities with respect to the Separation.

15. The Board considered MetLife’s stated intention of divesting its ownership interest in the Adviser through the Separation, including the potential advantages and disadvantages of this divestiture to shareholders of the Portfolios. The Board considered the likelihood that the Adviser would retain its key personnel after the Separation. The Board considered that the garnering of new assets into the Trusts is based on sales of variable annuity and variable life insurance products, which sales have declined in prior years as a result of, among other things, the capital requirements of MetLife. The Board considered the representations of the anticipated senior management of Brighthouse that the Separation provides the Trusts with an opportunity for the garnering of new assets as Brighthouse will likely sell such products going forward. The Board considered also that the divestiture would result in a change in the manner in

MSF-28

Metropolitan Series Fund

T. Rowe Price Large Cap Growth Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

which the Trusts access certain services and resources of MetLife (after the Separation those services will be provided through a transition services agreement), the loss of affiliation with the MetLife name brand, and the possible going forward need of the Trusts to hire a transfer agent, as such transfer agency services are currently provided to the Trusts for no fee.

16. The Board considered that, if shareholders approve the New Advisory Agreements, the Board and the Adviser will conduct their annual contract review process in November 2017. Thus, the Board emphasized that it would be able to, and intends to, monitor on a regular basis the ability of the Adviser and its affiliates to comply with their undertakings to the Board and to monitor on an ongoing basis the quality of services to, and expenses of, the Portfolios. In addition, the Board considered that, under the New Advisory Agreements, it will continue to have the authority, should the need arise in its view, to terminate any of the New Advisory Agreements without penalty upon 60 days’ notice.

Based on the foregoing and other relevant considerations, at the November Meeting, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, voted to approve the New Advisory Agreements and to recommend approval of the New Advisory Agreements by shareholders of the Portfolios. In this connection, the Board concluded that, in light of all factors considered, the terms of the New Advisory Agreement, including fee rates, were fair and reasonable, and that it would be in the best interests of shareholders of each Portfolio to approve the New Advisory Agreements.

In the event that approval of the New Advisory Agreements by shareholders of the Portfolios has not been obtained before the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements as a result of the change in control of the Adviser, the Board also approved an interim advisory agreement with the Adviser (the “Interim Advisory Agreement”) on behalf of each Portfolio that will go into effect upon the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements. The Board’s determination to approve each Interim Advisory Agreement was based on the same information and considerations as the Board’s approval of the New Advisory Agreements so as to ensure continuity of advisory services from the Adviser to the Portfolios following the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements.

MSF-29

Metropolitan Series Fund

T. Rowe Price Large Cap Growth Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

The separation (the “Separation”) of MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”), the investment adviser to each of the series (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”) of Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (collectively, the “Trusts”), from its parent company, MetLife, Inc. (“MetLife”), to a separate retail business, Brighthouse Financial, Inc. (“Brighthouse”), is expected to result in a change in control of the Adviser, and therefore an “assignment” of each Portfolio’s current advisory agreement and, as a result, the automatic termination of the sub-advisory agreement (each a “Sub-Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisory Agreements”) between the Adviser and the investment sub-advisers (each a “Sub-Adviser” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisers”). At the November 15-16, 2016 meeting (“November Meeting”) of the Board of Trustees of the Trusts (the “Board”), the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not “interested persons,” as defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940, of any Portfolio (the “Independent Trustees”), approved new sub-advisory agreements (each a “New Sub-Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “New Sub-Advisory Agreements”). Information about the Board’s considerations and process is set forth below.

In determining whether to approve the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, the Board considered the nature, quality and extent of the services that are currently provided by the Sub-Advisers under the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements as well as the services to be provided under the New Sub-Advisory Agreements. The Board’s review was conducted as part of, and in conjunction with, the Board’s annual review of the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements, which culminated at the November Meeting. In approving the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, the Board considered its conclusions with respect to its approvals of the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements, including the Board’s general satisfaction with the nature, extent and quality of services being provided by the Sub-Advisers to the Portfolios, as applicable. Appendix A contains a further description of the process followed, information reviewed and the material factors considered by the Board in approving the continuation of the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements.

In addition, the following actions were taken and considered by or on behalf of the Board:

1. The Independent Trustees of the Board solicited and received ongoing advice regarding the legal duties of the Independent Trustees from Stradley Ronon, legal counsel for the Independent Trustees, which law firm has extensive experience regarding such matters.

2. The Board considered representations by the Adviser and its affiliates that approval of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements would be necessary for the Portfolios to continue receiving sub-advisory services from the Sub-Advisers following the change in control of the Adviser.

3. The Board considered representations by the Adviser, as well as related supporting documentation, indicating that the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, including the fees payable thereunder, are the same as the terms of the corresponding Current Sub-Advisory Agreements.

4. The Board considered the advice provided by Ropes & Gray, LLP, legal counsel to the Trusts and the Adviser, with respect to the New Sub-Advisory Agreements and regarding the Board’s role and responsibilities with respect to the Separation.

5. The Board considered that the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers will conduct their annual contract review process in November 2017. Thus, the Board emphasized that it would be able to, and intends to, monitor on an ongoing basis the ability of the Sub-Advisers to comply with its undertakings to the Board and the Adviser and to monitor on an ongoing basis the quality of services to, and expenses of, the Portfolios. In addition, the Board considered that, under the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, it will continue to have the authority, should the need arise in its view, to terminate any of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements without penalty upon no more than 60 days’ notice.

Based on the foregoing and other relevant considerations, at the November Meeting, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, voted to approve the New Sub-Advisory Agreements. In this connection, the Board concluded that, in light of all factors considered, the terms of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, including fee rates, were fair and reasonable.

MSF-30

Metropolitan Series Fund

T. Rowe Price Small Cap Growth Portfolio

Managed by T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc.

Portfolio Manager Commentary*

PERFORMANCE

For the 12 months ended December 31, 2016, the Class A, B, E, and G shares of the T. Rowe Price Small Cap Growth Portfolio returned 11.74%, 11.48%, 11.55%, and 11.14%, respectively. The Portfolio’s benchmark, the MSCI U.S. Small Cap Growth Index¹, returned 13.44%.

MARKET ENVIRONMENT / CONDITIONS

Despite a sharp sell-off at the beginning of the year, driven by fears of a global economic slowdown, especially in China, and a collapse in oil prices, stocks worked their way higher through late June. After a brief but intense sell-off as the U.K. unexpectedly voted in favor of leaving the European Union, stocks resumed their upward trajectory amid expectations that global central banks would provide additional monetary stimulus. After trading mostly flat prior to the November 8^th U.S. elections, an unexpected presidential victory by Donald Trump sparked a feverish stock market rally in anticipation of a friendlier regulatory environment and stimulative fiscal policies, including tax cuts and increased infrastructure spending. The Federal Reserve raised short-term rates in mid-December and projected three rate increases in 2017. Major indexes reached record highs near year-end. High yield bonds rose, and small- and mid-cap stocks substantially outperformed large-cap stocks.

PORTFOLIO REVIEW / PERIOD-END POSITIONING

The Portfolio turned in positive returns for the year but underperformed its benchmark index. Stock selection was the overall cause of the relative underperformance. Stock choices were especially detrimental in the Information Technology, Energy, Materials, and Financials sectors. Strong stock selection in the Health Care and Consumer Discretionary sectors contributed to relative performance.

Information Technology was the largest detractor from relative performance due to stock choices. While Tyler Technologies, an application software company, suffered through a significant software sell-off at the beginning of the period, we believe Tyler Technologies is a high-quality business that should be able to capitalize on increasing government spending due to aging infrastructure and the need for efficiency and automation. SS&C Technologies Holdings, which sells portfolio accounting and reporting software and services, also came under pressure from a significant sell-off in the software industry. We continue to favor SS&C Technologies Holdings, which has a capable management team that consistently adds value through tuck-in acquisitions and sound integration.

Energy, Materials, and Financials also contributed to underperformance because of weak stock selection. Within Financials, Signature Bank, a deposit-oriented commercial bank, had shares come under pressure early in the period due to a sell-off of growth-oriented banks with investors expressing concern over prospects of growth in a low interest rate environment. Shares later recovered due to a postelection rally, with investors more optimistic about economic growth.

The Health Care sector was an area of relative strength due to strong stock selection. Notably, Align Technology, which designs and manufactures Invisalign, had technological advancements in the product portfolio, coupled with commercial initiatives, which drove accelerating organic revenue growth with broad-based momentum in both U.S. and international markets. Align Technology is a highly profitable company whose Invisalign product has garnered a dominant leadership position and should be able to compound above-average earnings over the next few years.

Stock choices also made the Consumer Discretionary sector a source of relative strength. Burlington Stores is the third-largest off-price retailer in the U.S. Shares climbed as Burlington consistently exceeded analyst estimates with growth in traffic, units per transaction, and conversion driving higher-than-expected sales, while higher initial markup and shrinking expenses expanded margins. We continue to believe Burlington Stores is on the right side of a secular trend with the right people, process, and systems in place to deliver strong earnings growth.

The Portfolio ended the year with an overweight to the Health Care, Energy, and Information Technology sectors. Portfolio holdings among Consumer Discretionary, Industrials and Business Services, and Consumer Staples were roughly in-line with the benchmark. The Portfolio was underweight the benchmark in the Real Estate, Telecommunication Services, Utilities, Financials, and Materials sectors.

Sudhir Nanda

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 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.

MSF-1

Metropolitan Series Fund

T. Rowe Price Small Cap Growth Portfolio

A $10,000 INVESTMENT COMPARED TO THE MSCI U.S. SMALL CAP GROWTH INDEX

AVERAGE ANNUAL RETURNS (%) (FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2016)

	1 Year		5 Year		10 Year		Since Inception2
T. Rowe Price Small Cap Growth Portfolio
Class A		11.74		15.56		10.67		—
Class B		11.48		15.28		10.40		—
Class E		11.55		15.39		10.50		—
Class G		11.14		—		—		6.96
MSCI U.S. Small Cap Growth Index		13.44		14.36		8.91		—

¹ The MSCI U.S. Small Cap Growth Index represents the growth companies of the MSCI U.S. Small Cap 1750 Index. (The MSCI U.S. Small Cap 1750 Index represents the universe of small capitalization companies in the U.S. equity market).

² Inception dates of the Class A, Class B, Class E and Class G shares are 3/3/97, 7/30/02, 5/1/01 and 11/12/14, respectively.

Portfolio performance is calculated including reinvestment of all income and capital gain distributions. Performance numbers are net of all Portfolio expenses but do not include any insurance, sales, separate account or administrative charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts or any additional expenses that participants may bear relating to the operations of their plans. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower. The performance of any index referenced above has not been adjusted for ongoing management, distribution and operating expenses, and sales charges applicable to mutual fund investments. Direct investment in any index is not possible. The performance of Class A shares, as set forth in the line graph above, will differ from that of other classes because of the difference in expenses paid by policyholders investing in the different share classes.

This information represents past performance and is not indicative of future results. Investment return and principal value may fluctuate so that shares, upon redemption, may be worth more or less than the original cost.

PORTFOLIO COMPOSITION AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2016

Top Holdings

	% of Net Assets
Burlington Stores, Inc.		1.1
Toro Co. (The)		1.0
Vail Resorts, Inc.		1.0
Domino’s Pizza, Inc.		0.9
Teledyne Technologies, Inc.		0.9
Casey’s General Stores, Inc.		0.9
Berry Plastics Group, Inc.		0.8
John Bean Technologies Corp.		0.8
MarketAxess Holdings, Inc.		0.8
Microsemi Corp.		0.8

Top Sectors

	% of Net Assets
Information Technology		23.5
Health Care		19.5
Industrials		17.3
Consumer Discretionary		17.0
Financials		6.2
Energy		4.4
Materials		4.2
Real Estate		3.9
Consumer Staples		3.8

MSF-2

Metropolitan Series Fund

T. Rowe Price 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, 2016 through December 31, 2016.

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.

T. Rowe Price Small Cap Growth Portfolio		Annualized Expense Ratio			Beginning Account Value July 1, 2016		Ending Account Value December 31, 2016		Expenses Paid During Period** July 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016
Class A(a)	Actual		0.48	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,099.60	$	2.53
	Hypothetical*		0.48	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,022.72	$	2.44
Class B(a)	Actual		0.73	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,098.90	$	3.85
	Hypothetical*		0.73	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,021.47	$	3.71
Class E(a)	Actual		0.63	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,099.00	$	3.32
	Hypothetical*		0.63	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,021.97	$	3.20
Class G(a)	Actual		0.78	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,098.60	$	4.11
	Hypothetical*		0.78	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,021.22	$	3.96

* 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 366 (to reflect the one-half year period).

^(a) The annualized expense ratio shown reflects the impact of the management fee waiver as described in Note 5 of the Notes to Financial Statements.

MSF-3

Metropolitan Series Fund

T. Rowe Price Small Cap Growth Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—99.7% of Net Assets

Security Description	Shares		Value
Aerospace & Defense—3.3%
Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings, Inc. (a) (b)		158,600	$	2,846,870
Curtiss-Wright Corp.		55,100		5,419,636
Esterline Technologies Corp. (a) (b)		25,300		2,256,760
HEICO Corp. - Class A (b)		124,481		8,452,260
Hexcel Corp. (b)		102,100		5,252,024
Moog, Inc. - Class A (a)		102,400		6,725,632
Teledyne Technologies, Inc. (a)		91,200		11,217,600
				42,170,782
Airlines—0.5%
Allegiant Travel Co. (b)		16,800		2,795,520
Spirit Airlines, Inc. (a) (b)		70,800		4,096,488
				6,892,008
Auto Components—1.1%
Cooper-Standard Holding, Inc. (a)		32,400		3,349,512
Gentherm, Inc. (a) (b)		38,100		1,289,685
LCI Industries		35,000		3,771,250
Tenneco, Inc. (a) (b)		89,900		5,616,053
				14,026,500
Banks—2.0%
CenterState Banks, Inc. (b)		211,100		5,313,387
Hilltop Holdings, Inc.		39,300		1,171,140
Signature Bank (a)		47,800		7,179,560
SVB Financial Group (a) (b)		45,200		7,759,032
Texas Capital Bancshares, Inc. (a) (b)		49,100		3,849,440
				25,272,559
Beverages—0.3%
Boston Beer Co., Inc. (The) - Class A (a) (b)		25,887		4,396,907
Biotechnology—5.1%
ACADIA Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a) (b)		102,000		2,941,680
Acceleron Pharma, Inc. (a) (b)		31,500		803,880
Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. (a) (b)		45,900		862,920
Agios Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a) (b)		28,000		1,168,440
Alkermes plc (a) (b)		25,200		1,400,616
Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a) (b)		26,600		995,904
AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a) (b)		49,400		1,719,120
ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a) (b)		165,900		2,063,796
Bellicum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a) (b)		26,300		358,206
BioMarin Pharmaceutical, Inc. (a)		9,000		745,560
Bluebird Bio, Inc. (a)		44,500		2,745,650
Exelixis, Inc. (a) (b)		305,100		4,549,041
Incyte Corp. (a)		42,005		4,211,841
Insmed, Inc. (a) (b)		144,300		1,909,089
Insys Therapeutics, Inc. (a) (b)		16,600		152,720
Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a) (b)		49,000		2,343,670
Ironwood Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a)		106,500		1,628,385
Kite Pharma, Inc. (a) (b)		20,600		923,704
Ligand Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a) (b)		44,900		4,562,289
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. (a)		130,900		5,065,830
Ophthotech Corp. (a) (b)		28,400		137,172
Opko Health, Inc. (a) (b)		158,500		1,474,050
Biotechnology—(Continued)
Prothena Corp. plc (a)		41,800		2,056,142
Radius Health, Inc. (a)		21,800		829,054
Regulus Therapeutics, Inc. (a)		32,500		73,125
Repligen Corp. (a)		64,400		1,984,808
Sage Therapeutics, Inc. (a)		24,500		1,250,970
Seattle Genetics, Inc. (a) (b)		51,000		2,691,270
Spark Therapeutics, Inc. (a) (b)		41,400		2,065,860
TESARO, Inc. (a) (b)		54,100		7,275,368
Ultragenyx Pharmaceutical, Inc. (a) (b)		37,100		2,608,501
United Therapeutics Corp. (a)		16,400		2,352,252
				65,950,913
Building Products—1.4%
AAON, Inc. (b)		111,299		3,678,432
Lennox International, Inc. (b)		55,000		8,424,350
Patrick Industries, Inc. (a) (b)		79,900		6,096,370
				18,199,152
Capital Markets—3.1%
Affiliated Managers Group, Inc. (a) (b)		5,449		791,740
CBOE Holdings, Inc.		111,700		8,253,513
E*Trade Financial Corp. (a)		182,860		6,336,099
FactSet Research Systems, Inc. (b)		30,000		4,902,900
Financial Engines, Inc.		62,500		2,296,875
MarketAxess Holdings, Inc.		72,900		10,710,468
MSCI, Inc.		78,778		6,206,131
				39,497,726
Chemicals—2.4%
AdvanSix, Inc. (a)		62,900		1,392,606
Chase Corp.		8,000		668,400
GCP Applied Technologies, Inc. (a) (b)		189,700		5,074,475
Innospec, Inc.		44,900		3,075,650
Minerals Technologies, Inc. (b)		65,100		5,028,975
NewMarket Corp. (b)		14,700		6,230,448
PolyOne Corp.		172,100		5,514,084
Stepan Co.		32,800		2,672,544
WR Grace & Co.		22,900		1,548,956
				31,206,138
Commercial Services & Supplies—1.6%
Clean Harbors, Inc. (a) (b)		50,100		2,788,065
Healthcare Services Group, Inc. (b)		121,400		4,755,238
Rollins, Inc. (b)		204,625		6,912,232
U.S. Ecology, Inc. (b)		86,200		4,236,730
West Corp.		59,700		1,478,172
				20,170,437
Communications Equipment—1.2%
ARRIS International plc (a)		204,800		6,170,624
EchoStar Corp. - Class A (a)		41,600		2,137,824
NetScout Systems, Inc. (a) (b)		60,900		1,918,350
Plantronics, Inc.		83,500		4,572,460
				14,799,258

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-4

Metropolitan Series Fund

T. Rowe Price Small Cap Growth Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Construction & Engineering—0.2%
Valmont Industries, Inc. (b)		17,300	$	2,437,570
Consumer Finance—0.2%
PRA Group, Inc. (a) (b)		73,100		2,858,210
Containers & Packaging—1.3%
Berry Plastics Group, Inc. (a)		222,700		10,852,171
Graphic Packaging Holding Co.		462,900		5,776,992
				16,629,163
Distributors—0.8%
Pool Corp.		97,300		10,152,282
Diversified Consumer Services—1.7%
Capella Education Co.		51,800		4,548,040
Service Corp. International (b)		300,300		8,528,520
ServiceMaster Global Holdings, Inc. (a)		184,600		6,953,882
Sotheby’s (a) (b)		51,400		2,048,804
				22,079,246
Electrical Equipment—0.9%
Acuity Brands, Inc.		19,500		4,501,770
AZZ, Inc. (b)		78,400		5,009,760
Generac Holdings, Inc. (a)		49,100		2,000,334
				11,511,864
Electronic Equipment, Instruments & Components—1.9%
Anixter International, Inc. (a)		36,600		2,966,430
Cognex Corp.		143,200		9,110,384
Coherent, Inc. (a)		58,600		8,050,761
OSI Systems, Inc. (a) (b)		50,400		3,836,448
VeriFone Systems, Inc. (a) (b)		35,500		629,415
				24,593,438
Energy Equipment & Services—0.6%
Core Laboratories NV (b)		10,700		1,284,428
Dril-Quip, Inc. (a) (b)		42,900		2,576,145
Oceaneering International, Inc.		70,600		1,991,626
Oil States International, Inc. (a) (b)		55,200		2,152,800
Tesco Corp. (a)		33,600		277,200
				8,282,199
Equity Real Estate Investment Trusts—3.7%
CoreSite Realty Corp. (b)		94,800		7,524,276
CubeSmart		144,700		3,873,619
CyrusOne, Inc. (b)		148,900		6,660,297
Empire State Realty Trust, Inc. - Class A (b)		196,200		3,961,278
Equity Lifestyle Properties, Inc.		110,500		7,967,050
FelCor Lodging Trust, Inc. (b)		497,000		3,980,970
First Industrial Realty Trust, Inc.		174,600		4,897,530
Forest City Realty Trust, Inc. - Class A		140,500		2,928,020
Pebblebrook Hotel Trust (b)		71,600		2,130,100
PS Business Parks, Inc.		28,400		3,309,168
				47,232,308
Food & Staples Retailing—0.9%
Casey’s General Stores, Inc.		94,300		11,210,384
Food Products—2.1%
Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. (b)		57,900		2,557,732
J&J Snack Foods Corp.		72,706		9,701,162
John B Sanfilippo & Son, Inc. (b)		38,000		2,674,820
Post Holdings, Inc. (a)		87,300		7,018,047
TreeHouse Foods, Inc. (a) (b)		60,800		4,389,152
				26,340,913
Health Care Equipment & Supplies—5.3%
Abaxis, Inc. (b)		47,800		2,522,406
Align Technology, Inc. (a) (b)		84,900		8,161,437
Cantel Medical Corp.		74,000		5,827,500
Cooper Cos., Inc. (The)		21,300		3,726,009
DexCom, Inc. (a) (b)		76,500		4,567,050
Halyard Health, Inc. (a)		68,600		2,536,828
ICU Medical, Inc. (a)		53,700		7,912,695
IDEXX Laboratories, Inc. (a)		41,400		4,854,978
Inogen, Inc. (a) (b)		68,500		4,601,145
Masimo Corp. (a)		101,100		6,814,140
Natus Medical, Inc. (a)		99,200		3,452,160
NuVasive, Inc. (a) (b)		62,100		4,183,056
West Pharmaceutical Services, Inc.		101,600		8,618,728
				67,778,132
Health Care Providers & Services—3.4%
Air Methods Corp. (a)		8,300		264,355
Centene Corp. (a)		113,387		6,407,499
Chemed Corp. (b)		35,600		5,710,596
Corvel Corp. (a)		61,800		2,261,880
HealthSouth Corp. (b)		83,900		3,460,036
MEDNAX, Inc. (a) (b)		40,100		2,673,066
Surgical Care Affiliates, Inc. (a) (b)		96,100		4,446,547
Team Health Holdings, Inc. (a)		101,600		4,414,520
U.S. Physical Therapy, Inc. (b)		74,200		5,208,840
WellCare Health Plans, Inc. (a)		63,300		8,677,164
				43,524,503
Health Care Technology—0.6%
Omnicell, Inc. (a) (b)		113,100		3,834,090
Veeva Systems, Inc. - Class A (a)		91,100		3,707,770
				7,541,860
Hotels, Restaurants & Leisure—5.6%
Brinker International, Inc. (b)		116,500		5,770,245
Buffalo Wild Wings, Inc. (a) (b)		22,500		3,474,000
Cheesecake Factory, Inc. (The) (b)		53,000		3,173,640
Choice Hotels International, Inc.		49,300		2,763,265
Churchill Downs, Inc. (b)		43,400		6,529,530
Denny’s Corp. (a)		474,300		6,085,269
Domino’s Pizza, Inc.		76,600		12,197,784
Jack in the Box, Inc.		74,600		8,328,344
Marriott Vacations Worldwide Corp. (b)		65,900		5,591,615
Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Inc. (a)		5,000		282,000

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-5

Metropolitan Series Fund

T. Rowe Price Small Cap Growth Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Hotels, Restaurants & Leisure—(Continued)
Six Flags Entertainment Corp. (b)		97,400	$	5,840,104
Vail Resorts, Inc.		77,700		12,533,787
				72,569,583
Household Durables—0.6%
Helen of Troy, Ltd. (a)		90,000		7,600,500
Household Products—0.3%
Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc. (b)		35,600		4,354,948
Insurance—0.3%
Amtrust Financial Services, Inc.		145,056		3,971,633
Internet & Direct Marketing Retail—1.3%
HSN, Inc. (b)		118,400		4,061,120
Liberty Expedia Holdings, Inc. - Class A (a)		93,139		3,694,824
Liberty TripAdvisor Holdings, Inc. - Class A (a)		145,000		2,182,250
Liberty Ventures - Series A (a)		105,259		3,880,899
Shutterfly, Inc. (a)		53,100		2,664,558
				16,483,651
Internet Software & Services—2.5%
CommerceHub, Inc. - Series A (a) (b)		17,880		268,379
CommerceHub, Inc. - Series C (a) (b)		35,760		537,473
comScore, Inc. (a)		74,500		2,352,710
CoStar Group, Inc. (a)		18,300		3,449,367
Envestnet, Inc. (a)		72,500		2,555,625
j2 Global, Inc. (b)		55,800		4,564,440
LogMeIn, Inc.		51,600		4,981,980
MercadoLibre, Inc. (b)		16,400		2,560,696
Stamps.com, Inc. (a) (b)		44,100		5,056,065
WebMD Health Corp. (a) (b)		105,900		5,249,463
				31,576,198
IT Services—6.2%
Blackhawk Network Holdings, Inc. (a) (b)		55,100		2,075,892
Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corp.		178,700		6,445,709
Broadridge Financial Solutions, Inc.		112,600		7,465,380
Cardtronics plc - Class A (a) (b)		121,600		6,635,712
CoreLogic, Inc. (a)		158,300		5,830,189
CSRA, Inc.		133,500		4,250,640
DST Systems, Inc.		59,500		6,375,425
EPAM Systems, Inc. (a)		25,200		1,620,612
Euronet Worldwide, Inc. (a)		90,100		6,525,943
Gartner, Inc. (a)		61,300		6,195,591
Jack Henry & Associates, Inc.		46,000		4,083,880
MAXIMUS, Inc.		164,800		9,194,192
Perficient, Inc. (a)		14,300		250,107
Travelport Worldwide, Ltd.		222,900		3,142,890
WEX, Inc. (a) (b)		80,200		8,950,320
				79,042,482
Leisure Products—0.5%
Brunswick Corp.		122,100		6,659,334
Life Sciences Tools & Services—2.8%
Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. - Class A (a)		26,300		4,793,964
Bruker Corp.		121,000		2,562,780
Cambrex Corp. (a)		115,000		6,204,250
Charles River Laboratories International, Inc. (a)		69,500		5,295,205
INC Research Holdings, Inc. - Class A (a)		98,500		5,181,100
PAREXEL International Corp. (a) (b)		76,400		5,021,008
PRA Health Sciences, Inc. (a)		58,400		3,219,008
VWR Corp. (a)		166,000		4,154,980
				36,432,295
Machinery—5.6%
Chart Industries, Inc. (a) (b)		26,700		961,734
Graco, Inc. (b)		76,200		6,331,458
Hyster-Yale Materials Handling, Inc. (b)		9,194		586,301
IDEX Corp.		34,600		3,116,076
John Bean Technologies Corp. (b)		125,900		10,821,105
Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc. (b)		23,100		1,771,077
Lydall, Inc. (a) (b)		75,600		4,675,860
Manitowoc Foodservice, Inc. (a) (b)		136,200		2,632,746
Middleby Corp. (The) (a) (b)		61,500		7,921,815
Nordson Corp.		63,700		7,137,585
Standex International Corp. (b)		26,500		2,328,025
Sun Hydraulics Corp. (b)		20,113		803,917
Toro Co. (The)		230,400		12,890,880
Wabtec Corp. (b)		48,500		4,026,470
Woodward, Inc.		89,000		6,145,450
				72,150,499
Marine—0.5%
Kirby Corp. (a) (b)		45,700		3,039,050
Matson, Inc. (b)		79,800		2,824,122
				5,863,172
Media—1.5%
Cable One, Inc.		12,300		7,647,279
Eros International plc (a) (b)		55,200		720,360
Gray Television, Inc. (a)		190,200		2,063,670
Lions Gate Entertainment Corp. - Class B (a)		128,043		3,142,175
Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. (a)		232,800		6,192,480
				19,765,964
Metals & Mining—0.2%
Worthington Industries, Inc. (b)		63,200		2,998,208
Multiline Retail—0.4%
Big Lots, Inc. (b)		97,800		4,910,538
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels—3.8%
Carrizo Oil & Gas, Inc. (a) (b)		92,500		3,454,875
Diamondback Energy, Inc. (a)		63,500		6,417,310
Gran Tierra Energy, Inc. (a)		180,900		546,318
Matador Resources Co. (a) (b)		246,200		6,342,112
Parsley Energy, Inc. - Class A (a)		167,500		5,902,700
PDC Energy, Inc. (a) (b)		67,800		4,920,924
Rice Energy, Inc. (a)		148,400		3,168,340

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-6

Metropolitan Series Fund

T. Rowe Price Small Cap Growth Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares		Value
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels—(Continued)
RSP Permian, Inc. (a)		86,500	$	3,859,630
SM Energy Co.		62,900		2,168,792
World Fuel Services Corp.		141,300		6,487,083
WPX Energy, Inc. (a)		369,700		5,386,529
				48,654,613
Paper & Forest Products—0.2%
Clearwater Paper Corp. (a) (b)		13,200		865,260
KapStone Paper and Packaging Corp. (b)		96,300		2,123,415
				2,988,675
Personal Products—0.1%
Nu Skin Enterprises, Inc. - Class A		38,700		1,849,086
Pharmaceuticals—2.3%
Akorn, Inc. (a)		140,600		3,069,298
Depomed, Inc. (a) (b)		201,700		3,634,634
Innoviva, Inc. (a) (b)		62,900		673,030
Jazz Pharmaceuticals plc (a)		3,100		337,993
Mallinckrodt plc (a)		2,776		138,300
Medicines Co. (The) (a) (b)		66,500		2,257,010
Nektar Therapeutics (a)		168,500		2,067,495
Pacira Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a)		35,400		1,143,420
Phibro Animal Health Corp. - Class A		70,600		2,068,580
Prestige Brands Holdings, Inc. (a)		157,700		8,216,170
Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a) (b)		61,200		1,545,300
TherapeuticsMD, Inc. (a) (b)		328,200		1,893,714
Theravance Biopharma, Inc. (a) (b)		58,514		1,865,427
				28,910,371
Professional Services—1.4%
Dun & Bradstreet Corp. (The)		43,700		5,301,684
Exponent, Inc. (b)		98,100		5,915,430
Huron Consulting Group, Inc. (a)		65,400		3,312,510
TransUnion (a)		117,900		3,646,647
				18,176,271
Real Estate Management & Development—0.2%
Kennedy-Wilson Holdings, Inc. (b)		156,243		3,202,982
Road & Rail—1.1%
AMERCO (b)		7,700		2,845,843
Landstar System, Inc. (b)		50,400		4,299,120
Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc. (a)		82,750		7,099,123
				14,244,086
Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment—3.6%
Advanced Energy Industries, Inc. (a)		60,400		3,306,900
Cabot Microelectronics Corp.		30,500		1,926,685
Cavium, Inc. (a) (b)		90,500		5,650,820
Cirrus Logic, Inc. (a)		128,200		7,248,428
Integrated Device Technology, Inc. (a)		255,000		6,007,800
MaxLinear, Inc. - Class A (a) (b)		195,700		4,266,260
Microsemi Corp. (a) (b)		196,900		10,626,693
Semiconductors & Semiconductor Equipment—(Continued)
Synaptics, Inc. (a)		77,900		4,173,882
Teradyne, Inc.		10,100		256,540
Versum Materials, Inc. (a)		115,200		3,233,664
				46,697,672
Software—7.7%
ACI Worldwide, Inc. (a) (b)		183,200		3,325,080
Aspen Technology, Inc. (a) (b)		120,400		6,583,472
Blackbaud, Inc. (b)		121,200		7,756,800
CommVault Systems, Inc. (a)		71,300		3,664,820
Computer Modelling Group, Ltd.		240,700		1,633,171
Descartes Systems Group, Inc. (The) (a)		168,000		3,595,200
Ellie Mae, Inc. (a)		39,500		3,305,360
Fair Isaac Corp.		75,200		8,965,344
Fortinet, Inc. (a)		135,400		4,078,248
Manhattan Associates, Inc. (a)		161,400		8,559,042
Monotype Imaging Holdings, Inc.		43,305		859,604
Pegasystems, Inc. (b)		137,900		4,964,400
Proofpoint, Inc. (a) (b)		78,600		5,553,090
PTC, Inc. (a)		151,000		6,986,770
SS&C Technologies Holdings, Inc. (b)		228,500		6,535,100
Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. (a) (b)		134,900		6,649,221
Tyler Technologies, Inc. (a) (b)		65,100		9,294,327
Ultimate Software Group, Inc. (The) (a) (b)		36,600		6,674,010
				98,983,059
Specialty Retail—2.4%
Aaron’s, Inc.		29,100		930,909
Burlington Stores, Inc. (a)		162,900		13,805,775
Children’s Place, Inc. (The) (b)		22,800		2,301,660
Monro Muffler Brake, Inc. (b)		56,700		3,243,240
Murphy USA, Inc. (a) (b)		130,400		8,015,688
Sally Beauty Holdings, Inc. (a) (b)		93,100		2,459,702
				30,756,974
Technology Hardware, Storage & Peripherals—0.5%
Cray, Inc. (a)		68,900		1,426,230
NCR Corp. (a)		110,300		4,473,768
				5,899,998
Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods—1.1%
Carter’s, Inc.		74,500		6,436,055
G-III Apparel Group, Ltd. (a) (b)		44,300		1,309,508
Steven Madden, Ltd. (a)		173,400		6,199,050
				13,944,613
Thrifts & Mortgage Finance—0.6%
MGIC Investment Corp. (a)		369,400		3,764,186
Radian Group, Inc. (b)		218,800		3,934,024
				7,698,210
Trading Companies & Distributors—0.8%
Beacon Roofing Supply, Inc. (a)		62,100		2,860,947
Univar, Inc. (a)		82,500		2,340,525

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-7

Metropolitan Series Fund

T. Rowe Price Small Cap Growth Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares/ Principal Amount*		Value
Trading Companies & Distributors—(Continued)
Watsco, Inc.		31,500	$	4,665,780
				9,867,252
Total Common Stocks (Cost $998,177,661)				1,281,007,319
Rights—0.0%
Biotechnology—0.0%
Dyax Corp., Expires 12/31/19 (a) (c) (d) (Cost $146,631)		132,100		323,645
Short-Term Investment—0.1%
Mutual Fund—0.1%
T. Rowe Price Government Reserve Fund (formerly, T. Rowe Price Government Reserve Investment Fund) (e)		1,145,182		1,145,182
Total Short-Term Investments (Cost $1,145,182)				1,145,182
Securities Lending Reinvestments (f)—21.3%
Certificates of Deposit—9.8%
Barclays New York 0.894%, 02/10/17 (g)		4,500,000		4,501,455
Chiba Bank, Ltd., New York 0.870%, 01/10/17		2,500,000		2,500,058
0.950%, 02/02/17		1,500,000		1,500,207
Cooperative Rabobank UA New York 1.278%, 10/13/17 (g)		2,000,000		2,000,450
Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank 1.274%, 04/12/17 (g)		5,000,000		5,003,945
Credit Industriel et Commercial 1.245%, 04/05/17 (g)		2,000,000		2,001,080
Credit Suisse AG New York 1.335%, 04/03/17 (g)		2,200,000		2,200,482
1.364%, 04/11/17 (g)		3,000,000		3,000,654
1.364%, 05/12/17 (g)		4,500,000		4,500,468
DG Bank New York 0.940%, 01/12/17		3,000,000		3,000,159
0.950%, 01/03/17		1,500,000		1,500,011
DNB NOR Bank ASA 1.130%, 07/28/17 (g)		3,000,000		2,999,475
DZ Bank AG New York 1.010%, 02/27/17		2,000,000		2,000,578
DZ Bank London 0.990%, 03/01/17		2,000,000		2,000,420
ING Bank NV 1.265%, 04/18/17 (g)		4,500,000		4,508,249
KBC Bank NV 1.000%, 01/04/17		1,500,000		1,500,000
1.050%, 01/17/17		3,300,000		3,300,396
Certificates of Deposit—(Continued)
KBC Brussells 1.050%, 01/27/17		5,300,000		5,301,007
Landesbank Baden-Wuerttemberg Zero Coupon, 01/09/17		9,991,918		9,998,800
Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen London Zero Coupon, 01/24/17		2,993,116		2,998,710
Mitsubishi UFJ Trust and Banking Corp. 1.364%, 04/11/17 (g)		3,000,000		3,001,419
Mizuho Bank, Ltd., New York 1.395%, 04/11/17 (g)		3,000,000		3,000,903
1.436%, 04/18/17 (g)		4,200,000		4,201,319
National Australia Bank London 1.034%, 05/02/17 (g)		5,000,000		5,004,720
1.182%, 11/09/17 (g)		3,000,000		2,992,560
Natixis New York 1.262%, 04/07/17 (g)		2,000,000		2,000,802
Rabobank London 1.281%, 10/13/17 (g)		2,000,000		2,004,797
Royal Bank of Canada New York 1.145%, 04/04/17 (g)		2,000,000		1,999,486
1.281%, 10/13/17 (g)		3,000,000		3,002,325
Sumitomo Bank New York 1.212%, 06/05/17 (g)		3,000,000		2,999,940
1.215%, 05/05/17 (g)		3,000,000		3,004,997
Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corp. New York 1.352%, 04/07/17 (g)		2,000,000		2,001,020
1.395%, 04/12/17 (g)		2,000,000		2,002,281
Sumitomo Mitsui Trust Bank, Ltd., New York 1.351%, 04/26/17 (g)		5,000,000		5,000,590
1.364%, 04/10/17 (g)		2,500,000		2,500,968
Svenska Handelsbanken New York 1.266%, 05/18/17 (g)		6,000,000		6,001,044
UBS, Stamford 1.084%, 05/12/17 (g)		2,600,000		2,599,802
Wells Fargo Bank San Francisco N.A. 1.231%, 04/26/17 (g)		3,000,000		3,000,840
1.264%, 10/26/17 (g)		2,800,000		2,801,912
				125,438,329
Commercial Paper—4.1%
ABN AMRO Funding USA 0.910%, 01/11/17		2,494,313		2,499,223
Atlantic Asset Securitization LLC 0.990%, 01/12/17		1,496,288		1,499,514
1.040%, 02/03/17		996,967		999,127
Barton Capital Corp. 1.160%, 03/28/17		3,988,400		3,989,616
Commonwealth Bank Australia 1.236%, 10/23/17 (g)		3,000,000		3,001,686
Den Norske ASA 1.206%, 04/27/17 (g)		3,000,000		3,000,159
Erste Abwicklungsanstalt 1.014%, 03/10/17 (g)		5,000,000		5,000,030

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-8

Metropolitan Series Fund

T. Rowe Price Small Cap Growth Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Securities Lending Reinvestments (f)—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares/ Principal Amount*		Value
Commercial Paper—(Continued)
HSBC plc 1.216%, 04/25/17 (g)		6,500,000	$	6,499,721
Macquarie Bank, Ltd. 0.930%, 01/19/17		3,491,682		3,497,841
Ridgefield Funding Co. LLC 1.000%, 01/03/17		1,496,250		1,499,915
Sheffield Receivables Co. 1.050%, 01/06/17		1,994,517		1,999,740
Starbird Funding Corp. 0.930%, 02/10/17		7,480,625		7,492,806
Toronto Dominion Holding Corp. 0.600%, 01/05/17		2,996,900		2,999,664
Versailles Commercial Paper LLC 1.000%, 01/31/17		997,333		999,248
1.050%, 01/17/17		1,644,995		1,649,262
Victory Receivables Corp. 1.050%, 01/04/17		1,495,669		1,499,893
Westpac Banking Corp. 1.232%, 10/20/17 (g)		4,300,000		4,307,508
				52,434,953
Money Market Fund—0.4%
Fidelity Investments Money Market Treasury Portfolio		5,000,000		5,000,000
Repurchase Agreements—6.1%
Citigroup Global Markets, Ltd. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/29/16 at 0.710% to be repurchased at $5,000,493 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $5,043,683 U.S. Treasury and Foreign Obligations with rates ranging from 1.750% - 2.750%, maturity dates ranging from 10/15/19 - 11/15/23, with a value of $5,100,001.		5,000,000		5,000,000
Deutsche Bank AG, London Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/16 at 0.950% to be repurchased at $2,400,253 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $2,450,160 Foreign Obligations with rates ranging from 1.750% - 2.500%, maturity dates ranging from 09/05/19 - 11/20/24, with a value of $2,448,014.		2,400,000		2,400,000
Repurchase Agreement dated 12/15/16 - 12/30/16 at 1.050% to be repurchased at $17,608,178 on 01/03/17, collateralized by various Common Stock with a value of $19,563,368.		17,600,000		17,600,000
Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. Repurchase Agreement dated 10/18/16 at 1.110% to be repurchased at $5,020,967 on 03/03/17, collateralized by Various Common Stock with a value of $5,500,000.		5,000,000		5,000,000
Repurchase Agreements—(Continued)
Goldman Sachs & Co. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/16 at 0.460% to be repurchased at $2,459,639 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $12,657,138 U.S. Government Agency Obligations with rates ranging from 2.000% - 10.500%, maturity dates ranging from 03/15/17 - 09/20/65, with a value of $2,508,704.		2,459,513		2,459,513
Macquarie Bank, Ltd. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/27/16 at 0.580% to be repurchased at $9,401,060 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $9,299,938 U.S. Treasury Obligations with rates ranging from 0.000% - 8.750%, maturity dates ranging from 01/05/17 - 05/15/46, with a value of $9,592,858.		9,400,000		9,400,000
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. Repurchase Agreement dated 10/26/16 at 1.160% to be repurchased at $4,623,567 on 04/03/17, collateralized by various Common Stock with a value of $5,060,000.		4,600,000		4,600,000
Natixis Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/16 at 0.600% to be repurchased at $5,000,333 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $8,978,822 U.S. Government Agency and Treasury Obligations with rates ranging from 0.996% - 7.000%, maturity dates ranging from 01/15/20 - 12/01/46, with a value of $5,100,340.		5,000,000		5,000,000
Repurchase Agreement dated 12/28/16 at 0.750% to be repurchased at $20,003,333 on 01/05/17, collateralized by $32,101,387 U.S. Government Agency and Treasury Obligations with rates ranging from 0.000% - 4.672%, maturity dates ranging from 01/31/17 - 09/16/58, with a value of $20,402,508.		20,000,000		20,000,000
Pershing LLC Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/16 at 0.680% to be repurchased at $7,000,529 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $10,271,551 U.S. Government Agency Obligations with rates ranging from 0.625% - 11.018%, maturity dates ranging from 01/17/17 - 08/20/66, with a value of $7,140,000.		7,000,000		7,000,000
				78,459,513
Time Deposits—0.9%
OP Corporate Bank plc 1.010%, 01/04/17		2,800,000		2,800,000
1.200%, 01/23/17		4,000,000		4,000,000

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-9

Metropolitan Series Fund

T. Rowe Price Small Cap Growth Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Securities Lending Reinvestments (f)—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Time Deposits—(Continued)
Shinkin Central Bank 1.200%, 01/27/17		900,000	$	900,000
1.220%, 01/26/17		3,600,000		3,600,000
				11,300,000
Total Securities Lending Reinvestments (Cost $272,583,248)				272,632,795
Total Investments—121.1% (Cost $1,272,052,722) (h)				1,555,108,941
Other assets and liabilities (net)—(21.1)%				(270,908,303	)
Net Assets—100.0%			$	1,284,200,638

* Principal amount stated in U.S. dollars unless otherwise noted.

(a) Non-income producing security.

(b) All or a portion of the security was held on loan. As of December 31, 2016, the market value of securities loaned was $261,363,443 and the collateral received consisted of cash in the amount of $272,518,484. The cash collateral investments are disclosed in the Schedule of Investments and categorized as Securities Lending Reinvestments.

(c) Security was valued in good faith under procedures approved by the Board of Trustees. As of December 31, 2016, these securities represent less than 0.05% of net assets.

(d) Illiquid security. As of December 31, 2016, these securities represent 0.0% of net assets.

(e) Affiliated Issuer. (See Note 6 of the Notes to Financial Statements for a summary of transactions in securities of affiliated issuers.)

(f) Represents investment of cash collateral received from securities on loan as of December 31, 2016.

(g) Variable or floating rate security. The stated rate represents the rate at December 31, 2016.

(h) As of December 31, 2016, the aggregate cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was $1,273,335,297. The aggregate unrealized appreciation and depreciation of investments were $326,178,004 and $(44,404,360), respectively, resulting in net unrealized appreciation of $281,773,644 for federal income tax purposes.

Fair Value Hierarchy

Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) define 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, separately for each major category of assets and liabilities, 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, quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities 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, or other market corroborated inputs)

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 used in determining the fair value of investments and derivative financial instruments)

The inputs or methodologies used for valuing investments are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in them. Changes to the inputs or methodologies used may result in transfers between levels, which 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, 2016:

Description	Level 1		Level 2			Level 3		Total
Total Common Stocks*	$	1,281,007,319	$	—		$	—	$	1,281,007,319
Total Rights*		—		—			323,645		323,645
Total Short-Term Investment*		1,145,182		—			—		1,145,182
Securities Lending Reinvestments
Certificates of Deposit		—		125,438,329			—		125,438,329
Commercial Paper		—		52,434,953			—		52,434,953
Money Market Fund		5,000,000		—			—		5,000,000
Repurchase Agreements		—		78,459,513			—		78,459,513
Time Deposits		—		11,300,000			—		11,300,000
Total Securities Lending Reinvestments		5,000,000		267,632,795			—		272,632,795
Total Investments	$	1,287,152,501	$	267,632,795		$	323,645	$	1,555,108,941
Collateral for Securities Loaned (Liability)	$	—	$	(272,518,484	)	$	—	$	(272,518,484	)

* See Schedule of Investments for additional detailed categorizations.

Level 3 investments at the beginning and/or end of the period in relation to net assets were not significant and accordingly, a reconciliation of Level 3 assets for the year ended December 31, 2016 is not presented.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-10

Metropolitan Series Fund

T. Rowe Price Small Cap Growth Portfolio

Statement of Assets and Liabilities

December 31, 2016

Assets
Investments at value (a) (b)	$	1,553,963,759
Affiliated investments at value (c)		1,145,182
Cash		267,625
Cash denominated in foreign currencies (d)		15,238
Receivable for:
Investments sold		4,341,882
Fund shares sold		154,733
Dividends		776,253
Dividends on affiliated investments		1,159
Prepaid expenses		3,578
Total Assets		1,560,669,409
Liabilities
Collateral for securities loaned		272,518,484
Payables for:
Investments purchased		1,951,869
Fund shares redeemed		1,178,852
Accrued Expenses:
Management fees		493,212
Distribution and service fees		85,249
Deferred trustees’ fees		92,334
Other expenses		148,771
Total Liabilities		276,468,771
Net Assets	$	1,284,200,638
Net Assets Consist of:
Paid in surplus	$	916,642,101
Undistributed net investment income		3,195,807
Accumulated net realized gain		81,306,684
Unrealized appreciation on investments and foreign currency transactions		283,056,046
Net Assets	$	1,284,200,638
Net Assets
Class A	$	880,781,357
Class B		384,727,545
Class E		15,840,517
Class G		2,851,219
Capital Shares Outstanding*
Class A		41,129,927
Class B		19,131,196
Class E		771,372
Class G		146,302
Net Asset Value, Offering Price and Redemption Price Per Share
Class A	$	21.41
Class B		20.11
Class E		20.54
Class G		19.49

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

(a) Identified cost of investments, excluding affiliated investments, was $1,270,907,540.

(b) Includes securities loaned at value of $261,363,443.

(c) Identified cost of affiliated investments was $1,145,182.

(d) Identified cost of cash denominated in foreign currencies was $15,411.

Statement of Operations

Year Ended December 31, 2016

Investment Income
Dividends (a)	$	8,610,922
Dividends from affiliated investments		20,227
Securities lending income		1,398,219
Other income (b)		305,269
Total investment income		10,334,637
Expenses
Management fees		5,785,892
Administration fees		40,080
Custodian and accounting fees		71,635
Distribution and service fees—Class B		914,706
Distribution and service fees—Class E		23,275
Distribution and service fees—Class G		6,614
Audit and tax services		42,040
Legal		33,111
Trustees’ fees and expenses		45,248
Shareholder reporting		121,619
Insurance		8,615
Miscellaneous		21,306
Total expenses		7,114,141
Less management fee waiver		(271,905	)
Less broker commission recapture		(6,159	)
Net expenses		6,836,077
Net Investment Income		3,498,560
Net Realized and Unrealized Gain
Net realized gain (loss) on:
Investments		82,251,432
Foreign currency transactions		(434	)
Net realized gain		82,250,998
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on:
Investments		53,514,678
Foreign currency transactions		(50	)
Net change in unrealized appreciation		53,514,628
Net realized and unrealized gain		135,765,626
Net Increase in Net Assets From Operations	$	139,264,186

(a) Net of foreign withholding taxes of $17,433.

(b) Other income represents a non-recurring refund for overbilling of prior years’ custodian out-of-pocket fees.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-11

Metropolitan Series Fund

T. Rowe Price Small Cap Growth Portfolio

Statements of Changes in Net Assets

	Year Ended December 31, 2016			Year Ended December 31, 2015
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets:
From Operations
Net investment income	$	3,498,560		$	2,688,274
Net realized gain		82,250,998			158,042,254
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation)		53,514,628			(122,202,415	)
Increase in net assets from operations		139,264,186			38,528,113
From Distributions to Shareholders
Net investment income
Class A		(2,262,161	)		(1,259,590	)
Class B		(122,343	)		0
Class E		(22,202	)		0
Net realized capital gains
Class A		(107,740,208	)		(79,094,819	)
Class B		(49,111,904	)		(34,643,548	)
Class E		(2,012,509	)		(1,604,588	)
Class G		(310,878	)		(31,998	)
Total distributions		(161,582,205	)		(116,634,543	)
Increase in net assets from capital share transactions		51,363,420			8,079,153
Total increase (decrease) in net assets		29,045,401			(70,027,277	)
Net Assets
Beginning of period		1,255,155,237			1,325,182,514
End of period	$	1,284,200,638		$	1,255,155,237
Undistributed net investment income
End of period	$	3,195,807		$	2,472,057

Other Information:

Capital Shares

Transactions in capital shares were as follows:

	Year Ended December 31, 2016						Year Ended December 31, 2015
	Shares			Value			Shares			Value
Class A
Sales		1,981,592		$	42,181,500			920,807		$	21,896,567
Reinvestments		5,702,560			110,002,369			3,406,291			80,354,409
Redemptions		(5,785,041	)		(121,880,009	)		(5,210,225	)		(125,668,142	)
Net increase (decrease)		1,899,111		$	30,303,860			(883,127	)	$	(23,417,166	)
Class B
Sales		1,507,636		$	29,367,915			1,884,588		$	41,925,115
Reinvestments		2,714,127			49,234,247			1,548,661			34,643,548
Redemptions		(3,007,893	)		(58,496,856	)		(2,107,023	)		(47,302,904	)
Net increase		1,213,870		$	20,105,306			1,326,226		$	29,265,759
Class E
Sales		68,010		$	1,354,404			111,886		$	2,564,259
Reinvestments		109,925			2,034,711			70,469			1,604,588
Redemptions		(202,798	)		(4,018,315	)		(141,884	)		(3,228,218	)
Net increase (decrease)		(24,863	)	$	(629,200	)		40,471		$	940,629
Class G
Sales		75,500		$	1,413,250			61,861		$	1,321,908
Reinvestments		17,683			310,878			1,463			31,998
Redemptions		(7,445	)		(140,674	)		(3,075	)		(63,975	)
Net increase		85,738		$	1,583,454			60,249		$	1,289,931
Increase derived from capital shares transactions				$	51,363,420					$	8,079,153

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-12

Metropolitan Series Fund

T. Rowe Price Small Cap Growth Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class A
	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014			2013			2012
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	22.01		$	23.40		$	23.77		$	17.53		$	16.68
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (a)		0.07	(b)		0.07			0.06			0.04			0.10
Net realized and unrealized gain on investments		2.20			0.71			1.35			7.37			2.52
Total from investment operations		2.27			0.78			1.41			7.41			2.62
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.06	)		(0.03	)		(0.00	)(c)		(0.07	)		0.00
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(2.81	)		(2.14	)		(1.78	)		(1.10	)		(1.77	)
Total distributions		(2.87	)		(2.17	)		(1.78	)		(1.17	)		(1.77	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	21.41		$	22.01		$	23.40		$	23.77		$	17.53
Total Return (%) (d)		11.74			2.71			6.91			44.55			16.18
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Gross ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.50			0.50			0.51			0.52			0.55
Net ratio of expenses to average net assets (%) (e)		0.48			0.48			0.48			0.49			0.52
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		0.36	(b)		0.28			0.25			0.21			0.56
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		22			27			25			29			26
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	880.8		$	863.6		$	938.5		$	714.2		$	387.0
	Class B
	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014			2013			2012
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	20.84		$	22.28		$	22.77		$	16.84		$	16.12
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (loss) (a)		0.02	(b)		0.01			(0.00	)(f)		(0.01	)		0.04
Net realized and unrealized gain on investments		2.07			0.69			1.29			7.07			2.45
Total from investment operations		2.09			0.70			1.29			7.06			2.49
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.01	)		0.00			0.00			(0.03	)		0.00
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(2.81	)		(2.14	)		(1.78	)		(1.10	)		(1.77	)
Total distributions		(2.82	)		(2.14	)		(1.78	)		(1.13	)		(1.77	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	20.11		$	20.84		$	22.28		$	22.77		$	16.84
Total Return (%) (d)		11.48			2.46			6.65			44.17			15.91
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Gross ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.75			0.75			0.76			0.77			0.80
Net ratio of expenses to average net assets (%) (e)		0.73			0.73			0.73			0.74			0.77
Ratio of net investment income (loss) to average net assets (%)		0.11	(b)		0.03			(0.01	)		(0.05	)		0.25
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		22			27			25			29			26
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	384.7		$	373.4		$	369.6		$	373.6		$	276.5

Please see following page for Financial Highlights footnote legend.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-13

Metropolitan Series Fund

T. Rowe Price Small Cap Growth Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class E
	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014			2013			2012
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	21.23		$	22.63		$	23.09		$	17.06		$	16.29
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (a)		0.04	(b)		0.03			0.02			0.01			0.06
Net realized and unrealized gain on investments		2.11			0.71			1.30			7.16			2.48
Total from investment operations		2.15			0.74			1.32			7.17			2.54
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.03	)		0.00			0.00			(0.04	)		0.00
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(2.81	)		(2.14	)		(1.78	)		(1.10	)		(1.77	)
Total distributions		(2.84	)		(2.14	)		(1.78	)		(1.14	)		(1.77	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	20.54		$	21.23		$	22.63		$	23.09		$	17.06
Total Return (%) (d)		11.55			2.61			6.69			44.32			16.06
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Gross ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.65			0.65			0.66			0.67			0.70
Net ratio of expenses to average net assets (%) (e)		0.63			0.63			0.63			0.64			0.67
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		0.21	(b)		0.12			0.09			0.05			0.34
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		22			27			25			29			26
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	15.8		$	16.9		$	17.1		$	18.8		$	14.2
	Class G
	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014(g)
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	20.34		$	21.78		$	21.49
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (loss) (a)		0.02	(b)		(0.01	)		0.01
Net realized and unrealized gain on investments		1.94			0.71			0.28
Total from investment operations		1.96			0.70			0.29
Less Distributions
Distributions from net realized capital gains		(2.81	)		(2.14	)		0.00
Total distributions		(2.81	)		(2.14	)		0.00
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	19.49		$	20.34		$	21.78
Total Return (%) (d)		11.14			2.51			1.35	(h)
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Gross ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.80			0.80			0.83	(i)
Net ratio of expenses to average net assets (%) (e)		0.78			0.78			0.81	(i)
Ratio of net investment income (loss) to average net assets (%)		0.08	(b)		(0.06	)		0.40	(i)
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		22			27			25
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	2.9		$	1.2		$	0.0	(j)

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

(b) Net investment income per share and the ratio of net investment income to average net assets include a non-recurring refund for overbilling of prior years’ custodian out-of-pocket fees which amounted to less than $0.01 per share and 0.02% of average net assets, respectively.

(c) Distributions from net investment income were less than $0.01.

(d) Total return does not reflect any insurance, sales, separate account or administrative charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts or any additional expenses that contract owners may bear under their variable contracts. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower.

(e) Includes the effects of management fee waivers (see Note 5 of the Notes to Financial Statements).

(f) Net investment loss was less than $0.01.

(g) Commencement of operations was November 12, 2014.

(h) Periods less than one year are not computed on an annualized basis.

(i) Computed on an annualized basis.

(j) Net assets, end of period rounds to less than $0.1 million.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-14

Metropolitan Series Fund

T. Rowe Price Small Cap Growth Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016

1. Organization

Metropolitan Series Fund (the “Trust”) is organized as a Delaware statutory trust and registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), as an open-end management investment company. The Trust, which is managed by MetLife Advisers, LLC (“MetLife Advisers” or the “Adviser”), an affiliate of MetLife, Inc., is currently comprised of thirty series, each of which operates as a distinct investment vehicle of the Trust. The portfolio included in this report is T. Rowe Price 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.

On January 12, 2016, MetLife, Inc. announced its plan to pursue the separation of a substantial portion of its retail segment and is currently evaluating structural alternatives for such separation. It is anticipated that MetLife Advisers would be included in any such separation. Any separation transaction that might occur will be subject to the satisfaction of various conditions and approvals, including approval of any transaction by the MetLife, Inc. Board of Directors, satisfaction of any applicable requirements of the SEC, and receipt of insurance and other regulatory approvals and other anticipated conditions. MetLife, Inc. cannot currently provide a specific potential completion date for a separation transaction or any assurance that a separation will in fact occur. MetLife Advisers’ continued service as investment adviser to the Trusts following a separation transaction is the subject of a proxy statement that was filed with the SEC on December 20, 2016 and mailed to shareholders of the Portfolio on or about December 30, 2016.

The Portfolio has registered and offers four classes of shares: Class A, B, E and G shares. 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 plan and such distribution expenses are allocated to the corresponding Class of shares.

2. Significant Accounting Policies

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities as of the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of income and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates. In the preparation of these financial statements, management has evaluated events and transactions subsequent to December 31, 2016 through the date the financial statements were issued.

The Portfolio is an investment company and follows the accounting and reporting guidance of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Accounting Standards Codification Topic 946—Financial Services—Investment Companies and Topic 820—Fair Value Measurement. 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 - Domestic and foreign equity securities, such as common stock, exchange-traded funds, rights, warrants, and preferred stock, that are traded on a securities exchange on a valuation date are generally valued at their last quoted sale price or official closing price on the primary exchange for such security, or, if no sales occurred on that day, at the last reported bid price. Equity securities traded over-the-counter (“OTC”) are generally valued at the last reported bid price. In the event of a major exchange closing during the trading day, the Adviser may use other market information obtained from quotation reporting systems, established market makers, or pricing services in valuing the securities. Valuation adjustments may be applied to certain foreign equity securities that are traded solely on foreign exchanges that close before the time as of which the Portfolio determines its NAV to account for the market movement between the close of the foreign exchanges and the time as of which the Portfolio determines its NAV. The Portfolio may use a systematic fair valuation model provided by a pricing service to value securities principally traded in these foreign markets in order to adjust for possible market movements or other changes that may occur between the close of the foreign exchanges and the time as of which the Portfolio determines its NAV. Foreign equity securities valued using these valuation adjustments are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy. Equity securities that are actively traded, and have no valuation adjustments applied, are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other equity securities traded on inactive markets, or valued in reference to similar instruments traded on active markets, 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 on the valuation date and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy.

MSF-15

Metropolitan Series Fund

T. Rowe Price Small Cap Growth Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

Debt securities, including corporate, convertible and municipal bonds and notes; obligations of the U.S. Treasury and U.S. government agencies; foreign sovereign issues; 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 the Adviser (each a “pricing service”), pursuant to authorization of and subject to general oversight by the Board of Trustees of the Trust (the “Board” or “Trustees”). Such pricing services may use matrix pricing, which considers observable inputs including, among other things, issuer details, maturity dates, interest rates, yield curves, rates of prepayment, credit risks/spreads, default rates, reported trades, broker dealer quotes and quoted prices for similar assets. Short-term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less may be valued at amortized cost in the absence of market quotes, so long as the amortized cost value of such short-term debt instrument is approximately the same as the fair value of the instrument as determined without the use of amortized cost valuation. Floating rate loans are generally valued on the basis of an evaluated or composite average of aggregate bid and ask quotations supplied by brokers or dealers, as obtained from the pricing service. Securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally 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 sale price available as of the close of business on a valuation day or, if there is no such price available, at the last reported bid price. These types of options are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Futures contracts that are traded on commodity exchanges are valued at their settlement prices established by the exchanges on which they are traded as of the close of such exchanges and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy.

If no current market value quotation or other observable inputs are readily available or market value quotations are deemed to be unreliable for an investment, the fair value of the investment will be determined in accordance with procedures approved by, and under the general supervision of, the Board. In such a circumstance, the Board will be assisted in its responsibility to determine the fair value of an investment by the Valuation Committee (“Committee”) of MetLife Advisers. The Committee provides general pricing oversight and fair value pricing determinations related to portfolio securities and meets on a regular basis to review reports relating to the valuation of the securities in the Portfolio. The Board has delegated to State Street Bank and Trust Company, the Trust’s custodian (“custodian”), the responsibility for calculating the net asset values (“NAVs”) of the Trust’s Portfolios. The Committee is responsible for overseeing the calculation of the NAVs of the Portfolios by the custodian. The Committee also periodically reviews pricing services, including the pricing services providing fair value pricing for the Portfolio’s foreign securities, and is responsible for overseeing the correction of pricing errors and addressing other pricing issues that arise in the ordinary course of business, such as making real-time fair value determinations, as necessary.

No single standard for determining the fair value of an investment can be set forth because fair value depends upon the facts and circumstances with respect to each investment. Information relating to any relevant factors may be obtained by the Committee from any appropriate source, including the subadviser of the Portfolio, the custodian, a pricing service, market maker and/or broker for such security or the issuer. Appropriate methodologies for determining fair value under particular circumstances may include: matrix pricing, a discounted cash flow analysis, comparisons of securities with comparable characteristics, value based on multiples of earnings, discount from market price of similar marketable securities or a combination of these and other methods.

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 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. These foreign taxes have been provided for in accordance with the Portfolio’s understanding of the applicable countries’ tax rules and rates.

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 the U.S. dollar 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. Because the values of investment securities are translated at the foreign exchange rates prevailing at the end of the period, that portion of the results of operations arising from changes in exchange rates and that portion of the results of operations reflecting fluctuations arising from changes in market prices of the investment securities are not separated. 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. 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.

Dividends and Distributions to Shareholders - The Portfolio records dividends and distributions on the ex-dividend date. Net realized gains from securities transactions (if any) are generally distributed annually to shareholders. The timing and characterization

MSF-16

Metropolitan Series Fund

T. Rowe Price Small Cap Growth Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

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, adjustments to prior period accumulated balances, real estate investment trust (REIT) adjustments, and broker commission recapture. These adjustments have no impact on net assets or the results 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 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. As of December 31, 2016, the Portfolio had no uncertain tax positions that would require financial statement recognition, or de-recognition or disclosure.

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 net ratio of expenses to average net assets presented in the Financial Highlights for each share class.

Repurchase Agreements - The Portfolio may enter into repurchase agreements, under the terms of a Master Repurchase Agreement (“MRA”), 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, under a tri-party repurchase agreement, receives delivery of the underlying securities collateralizing any repurchase agreements. It is the Portfolio’s policy that the market value of the collateral be equal to at least 100% of the repurchase price in the case of a repurchase agreement of one-day duration and equal to at least 102% of the repurchase price in the case of all other repurchase agreements. In the event of default or failure by a party to perform an obligation in connection with any repurchase transaction, the MRA gives the non-defaulting party the right to set-off claims and to apply property held by it in connection with any repurchase transaction against obligations owed to it.

At December 31, 2016, the Portfolio invested cash collateral for loans of portfolio securities in repurchase agreements with a gross value of $78,459,513. The combined value of all repurchase agreements is included as part of investments at value on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. The value of the related collateral exceeded the value of the repurchase agreements at December 31, 2016.

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 collateral held from securities on loan. 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.

Effective September 8, 2016, the Trust has entered into a Non-Custodial Securities Lending Agreement with JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (the “lending agent”). Prior to September 8, 2016, the Trust had entered into a Securities Lending Authorization Agreement with the custodian (the “prior lending agent”). Under each agreement, the lending agent is authorized to loan portfolio securities on the Portfolio’s behalf. In exchange, the Portfolio receives either cash or government securities as collateral against the loaned securities. The Portfolio receives collateral equal to at least 102% of the market value for loans secured by government securities or cash in the same currency as the loaned shares and 105% for all other loaned securities at each loan’s inception. Collateral representing at least 100% of the market value of the loaned securities is maintained for the duration of the loan. Any cash collateral received by the Portfolio is generally invested by the lending agent in short-term investments, which may include certificates of deposit, commercial paper, repurchase agreements, time deposits and money market funds. Cash collateral that was received by the prior lending agent had been generally invested in the State Street Navigator Securities Lending MET Portfolio (the “Navigator Portfolio”), a series of the State Street Navigator Securities Lending Trust that was a registered money market fund managed by an affiliate of the custodian. The market value of investments made with cash collateral received are disclosed in the Schedule of Investments and the valuation techniques are described in Note 2. 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 is 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 is equal to at least 100% of the market value of all the loaned securities as of such preceding day. A portion of the income earned on the collateral is rebated to the borrower of the securities and the remainder is split between the lending agent and the Portfolio. On loans collateralized by government securities, a fee is received from the borrower and is allocated between the Portfolio and the lending agent.

Income received by the Portfolio in securities lending transactions during the year ended December 31, 2016 is reflected as securities lending income on the Statement of Operations. The values of any securities loaned by the Portfolio and the related collateral at

MSF-17

Metropolitan Series Fund

T. Rowe Price Small Cap Growth Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

December 31, 2016 are disclosed in the footnotes to the Schedule of Investments. The value of the related collateral received by the Portfolio exceeded the value of the securities out on loan at December 31, 2016.

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. The lending agent shall indemnify the Portfolio in the case of default of any securities borrower, subject to the terms of the Non-Custodial Securities Lending Agreement.

All securities on loan are classified as Common Stocks in the Portfolio’s Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016, with a contractual maturity of overnight and continuous.

3. Certain Risks

In the normal course of business, the Portfolio invests in securities and enters into transactions where risks exist. Those risks include:

Market 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, interest rate, and price fluctuations.

Credit and Counterparty Risk: 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 and counterparty risk consist principally of cash due from counterparties and investments. The Portfolio manages counterparty risk by entering into agreements only with counterparties that it believes have the financial resources to honor their obligations and by monitoring the financial stability of those counterparties. The Portfolio’s investment adviser attempts to mitigate counterparty risk by (i) periodically assessing the creditworthiness of its trading partners, (ii) monitoring and/or limiting the amount of its net exposure to each individual counterparty based on its assessment, and (iii) requiring collateral from the counterparty for certain transactions. In order to preserve certain safeguards for non-standard settlement trades, the Portfolio restricts its exposure to credit and counterparty losses by entering into master netting agreements (“Master Agreements”) with counterparties (approved brokers) with whom it undertakes a significant volume of transactions. Master Agreements govern the terms of certain transactions, and reduce the counterparty risk associated with relevant transactions by specifying credit protection mechanisms and providing standardization that improves legal certainty. Master Agreements can also help limit counterparty risk by specifying collateral posting arrangements at pre-arranged exposure levels.

Repurchase and reverse repurchase agreements are primarily executed under Global Master Repurchase Agreements (“GMRAs”) or Master Repurchase Agreements (“MRAs”), which provide the rights to set-off. Each repurchase and reverse repurchase agreement is initially collateralized at the transaction level. In the event of default, the total market value exposure will be offset against collateral exchanged to date, which would result in a net receivable/(payable) that would be due from/to the counterparty.

Additional risks associated with each type of investment are described above within the respective security type notes. The Portfolio’s prospectus includes a discussion of the principal risks of investing in the Portfolio.

4. Investment Transactions

Aggregate cost of purchases and proceeds of sales of investment securities, excluding short-term securities, for the year ended December 31, 2016 were as follows:

Purchases			Sales
U.S. Government	Non U.S. Government		U.S. Government		Non U.S. Government
$0	$	275,289,006	$	0	$	364,097,559

The Portfolio engaged in security transactions with other accounts managed by T. Rowe Price Associates that amounted to $30,401 in purchases and $260,764 in sales of investments, which are included above, and resulted in realized losses of $70,320.

MSF-18

Metropolitan Series Fund

T. Rowe Price Small Cap Growth Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

5. Investment Management Fees and Other Transactions with Affiliates

Investment Management Agreement - MetLife Advisers is the investment adviser to the Portfolio. The Trust has entered into an investment management agreement with MetLife Advisers with respect to the Portfolio. For providing investment management services to the Portfolio, MetLife Advisers receives monthly compensation at the following annual rates:

Management Fees earned by MetLife Advisers for the year ended December 31, 2016	% per annum			Average Daily Net Assets
$5,785,892		0.550	%	Of the first $100 million
		0.500	%	Of the next $300 million
		0.450	%	On amounts in excess of $400 million

MetLife Advisers has entered into an investment subadvisory agreement with respect to managing the Portfolio. T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc. (“T. Rowe Price”) is compensated by MetLife Advisers to provide subadvisory services for the Portfolio.

Management Fee Waivers - Effective February 17, 2005, T. Rowe Price agreed to a voluntary subadvisory fee waiver that applies if (i) assets under management by T. Rowe Price for the Trust and Met Investors Series Trust (“MIST”), an affiliate of the Trust, in the aggregate, exceed $750,000,000, (ii) T. Rowe Price subadvises three or more portfolios of the Trust and MIST in the aggregate, and (iii) at least one of those portfolios is a large cap domestic equity portfolio.

If the aforementioned conditions are met, T. Rowe Price will waive its subadvisory fee paid by MetLife Advisers by 5% for combined Trust and MIST average daily net assets over $750,000,000, 7.5% for the next $1,500,000,000 of combined assets, and 10% for amounts over $3,000,000,000. MetLife Advisers has voluntarily agreed to reduce its advisory fee for the Portfolio by the amount waived (if any) by T. Rowe Price for the Portfolio pursuant to this voluntary subadvisory fee waiver. Because these fee waivers are voluntary, and not contractual, they may be discontinued by T. Rowe Price and MetLife Advisers at any time. Amounts waived for the year ended December 31, 2016 are shown as management fee waivers in the Statement of Operations.

Certain officers and trustees of the Trust may also be officers of MetLife Advisers; 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 and Service Fees - The Trust has a distribution agreement with MetLife Investors Distribution Company (“MIDC” or the “Distributor”) in which MIDC serves as the distributor for the Portfolio’s Class A, B, E, and G Shares. MIDC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife Investors Group, LLC, an affiliate of the Adviser. The Trust has also adopted a Distribution and Service Plan under Rule 12b-1 of the 1940 Act for the Portfolio’s Class B, E, and G Shares. Under the Distribution and Service Plan, the Class B, E, and G Shares of the Portfolio pay a fee to compensate the Insurance Companies (or their affiliates) and other broker-dealers and financial intermediaries involved in the offer and sale of Portfolio shares for promoting or selling and servicing the Class B, E, and G Shares of the Portfolio. The fees under the Distribution and Service Plan for each class of the Portfolio’s shares are calculated as a percentage of the Portfolio’s average daily net assets that are attributable to that Class. Currently, the fee is 0.25% per year for Class B Shares, 0.15% per year for Class E Shares, and 0.30% per year for Class G Shares. Amounts incurred by the Portfolio for the year ended December 31, 2016 are shown as Distribution and service fees in the Statement of Operations.

Deferred Trustee Compensation - Each Trustee 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 Trust. 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 Met Investors Series Trust, an affiliate of the Trust, 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 under the Plan is reflected as Deferred trustees’ fees in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

MSF-19

Metropolitan Series Fund

T. Rowe Price Small Cap Growth Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

6. 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, 2016 is as follows:

Security Description	Number of shares held at December 31, 2015		Shares purchased		Shares sold			Number of shares held at December 31, 2016		Realized Gain/(Loss) on shares sold		Income earned from affiliates during the period		Ending Value as of December 31, 2016
T. Rowe Price Government Reserve Fund		6,869,128		151,383,679		(157,107,625	)		1,145,182	$	—	$	20,227	$	1,145,182

7. Contractual Obligations

Under the Trust’s organizational documents, its officers and Trustees may be indemnified against certain liabilities and expenses arising out of the performance of their duties to the Trust. Additionally, 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 Trust that have not yet occurred.

8. Income Tax Information

The tax character of distributions paid for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015 were as follows:

Ordinary Income			Long-Term Capital Gain				Total
2016	2015		2016		2015		2016		2015
$11,380,536	$	6,987,808	$	150,201,669	$	109,646,735	$	161,582,205	$	116,634,543

As of December 31, 2016, 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		Other Accumulated Capital Losses		Total
$3,288,141	$	82,589,259	$	281,773,471	$	—	$	367,650,871

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 up to 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, 2016, the Portfolio had no post-enactment accumulated capital losses and no pre-enactment accumulated capital loss carryforwards.

9. Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In October 2016, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) adopted new rules and forms, and amendments to certain current rules and forms, to modernize reporting and disclosure of information by registered investment companies. The amendments to Regulation S-X will require standardized, enhanced disclosure about derivatives in investment company financial statements, and will also change the rules governing the form and content of such financial statements. The compliance date for the amendments to Regulation S-X is August 1, 2017. Management is currently evaluating the impact that the adoption of the amendments to Regulation S-X will have on the Portfolio’s financial statements and related disclosures.

MSF-20

Metropolitan Series Fund

T. Rowe Price Small Cap Growth Portfolio

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Shareholders of T. Rowe Price Small Cap Growth Portfolio and the Board of Trustees of Metropolitan Series Fund:

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities, including the schedule of investments, of T. Rowe Price Small Cap Growth Portfolio (one of the portfolios constituting the Metropolitan Series Fund) (the “Portfolio”) as of December 31, 2016, 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 Portfolio’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 Portfolio 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 Portfolio’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, 2016, by correspondence with the custodian and brokers; when 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 Small Cap Growth Portfolio of the Metropolitan Series Fund as of December 31, 2016, 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.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

February 24, 2017

MSF-21

Metropolitan Series Fund

Trustees and Officers

MANAGEMENT OF THE TRUSTS

The Boards of Trustees (the “Board”) of Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (“MIST” and “MSF”, respectively, and collectively the “Trusts”) supervise the Trusts and are responsible for representing the interests of shareholders. The Trustees, the Chairman of the Board and the Chairmen of each subcommittee are the same for both Trusts. The Trustees of each Trust meet periodically throughout the year to oversee the Portfolios’ activities, reviewing, among other things, each Portfolio’s performance and its contractual arrangements with various service providers. The Trustees of each Trust elect the officers of the Trust, who are responsible for administering the Trust’s day-to-day operations.

Trustees and Officers

The Trustees and executive officers of the Trusts, as well as their ages and their principal occupations during the past five years, are set forth below. Unless otherwise indicated, the business address of each is c/o MetLife Funds, One Financial Center, Boston, Massachusetts 02111. Each Trustee who is deemed an “interested person,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, is referred to as an “Interested Trustee.” Those Trustees who are not “interested persons,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, are referred to as “Independent Trustees.” There is no limit to the term a Trustee may serve. Trustees serve until their death, resignation or removal in accordance with the MIST Trust’s and MSF Trust’s respective organizational documents and policies adopted by the Boards of the respective Trusts from time to time. Officers hold office at the pleasure of each Board and serve until their removal or resignation in accordance with the Trusts’ respective organizational documents and policies adopted by the Board of each Trust from time to time.

Name and Age	Current 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 MetLife Funds Complex(2) Overseen by Trustee	Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Interested Trustee
John Rosenthal* (56)	Trustee	Indefinite; From May 2016 (MIST and MSF) to present	Senior Managing Director and Head of Global Portfolio Management, MetLife, Inc.	75	None
Independent Trustees
Dawn M. Vroegop (50)	Trustee and Chairman of the Board	Indefinite; From December 2000 (MIST)/ May 2009 (MSF) to present as Trustee; From May 2016 (MIST and MSF) until present as Chairman	Private Investor.	75	Trustee, Driehaus Mutual Funds.**
Stephen M. Alderman (57)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 (MIST)/ April 2012 (MSF) to present	Shareholder in the law firm of Garfield and Merel, Ltd.	75	None

MSF-22

Metropolitan Series Fund

Trustees and Officers—(Continued)

Name and Age	Current 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 MetLife Funds Complex(2) Overseen by Trustee	Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Robert J. Boulware (60)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 (MIST)/ April 2012 (MSF) to present	Managing Director, Pilgrim Funds, LLC (private equity fund).	75	Trustee, Vertical Capital Income Fund (closed-end fund);** Director, Gainsco, Inc. (auto insurance);** Trustee, SharesPost 100 Fund (closed-end fund).**
Susan C. Gause (64)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 (MIST)/ April 2012 (MSF) to present	Private Investor.	75	Trustee, HSBC Funds.**
Nancy Hawthorne (65)	Trustee	Indefinite; From May 2003 (MSF)/ April 2012 (MIST) to present	Partner, Hawthorne Financial Advisors, LLC (registered investment advisor); until June 2014, Chief Executive Officer, Clerestory LLC (corporate advisor).	75	Director and Chairman of the Board of Directors, THL Credit, Inc.;** Lead Director, Avid Technology, Inc.;** Director, CRA International, Inc.**
Barbara A. Nugent (60)	Trustee	Indefinite; From January 2014 (MIST and MSF) to present	President, True North Board Governance, LLC (consulting); until December 2013, partner in the law firm of Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young, LLP.	75	None
Linda B. Strumpf (69)	Trustee	Indefinite; From May 2000 (MSF)/ April 2012 (MIST) to present	Chair of the Investment Committee, Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust; until June 2011, Chief Investment Officer, Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust.	75	None

Executive Officers

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Kristi Slavin (43)	President and Chief Executive Officer, of MIST and MSF	From May 2016 (MIST and MSF) to present	President, MetLife Advisers, LLC (May 2016-present); Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Vice President, MetLife, Inc.; Vice President, MIST and MSF (2015-2016).

MSF-23

Metropolitan Series Fund

Trustees and Officers—(Continued)

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Peter H. Duffy (61)	Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, of MIST and MSF	From November 2000 (MSF)/ May 2012 (MIST) to present	Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Andrew L. Gangolf (62)	Secretary, of MIST and MSF	From May 2011 (MIST and MSF) to present	Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; until 2011, Senior Vice President & Assistant General Counsel, AllianceBernstein Investments, Inc.
Steven E. Hartstein (53)	Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”), of MIST and MSF	From February 2014 (MIST and MSF) to present	Vice President, MetLife, Inc. (2013-present); Senior Vice President and CCO, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Executive Director, Morgan Stanley (2009-2013); CCO, Consulting Group Capital Markets Funds (2006-2013).
Alan C. Leland (64)	Vice President, of MIST and MSF	From February 2005 (MSF)/ May 2012 (MIST) to present	Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Vice President, MetLife, Inc.

* Mr. Rosenthal is an “interested person” of the Trusts because of his position with MetLife, Inc., the current parent company of MetLife Advisers, LLC.

** 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 Trusts, MetLife, Inc. or the Manager are omitted if not materially different.

(2) The Fund Complex includes 45 MIST Portfolios and 30 MSF Portfolios.

MSF-24

Metropolitan Series Fund

T. Rowe Price Small Cap Growth Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements

At an in-person meeting held on November 15-16, 2016 (the “November Meeting”), the Boards of Trustees (the “Board”) of the Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (“MIST” and “MSF,” respectively, and collectively, the “Trusts”), including a majority of the Trustees who are not “interested persons” of the Trusts (the “Independent Trustees”) under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “1940 Act”), approved the continuation of the Trusts’ advisory agreements (each, an “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 the series of the Trusts (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”).

In reaching that decision, the Board reviewed a variety of materials provided for the specific purpose of the annual contract renewal process. In addition, various materials provided to and discussed with the Board throughout the year also informed the Board’s decision to renew the Agreements. That information for each Portfolio included, but was not limited to, investment performance reports, along with periodic reports on various expenses, shareholder services, legal and compliance matters, asset pricing, brokerage commissions and trade execution. The Board also recognized the pending separation of the Adviser from its parent company, MetLife, Inc., as a consideration in their deliberations with respect to the Agreements.

The Board met in person with personnel of the Adviser on September 27, 2016 for the specific purpose of giving preliminary consideration to the proposed continuation of the Agreements (the “September Meeting”) through the review by the Adviser with the Board of the performance and fees experienced by each Portfolio, as well as other information. In considering the Agreements, the Independent Trustees were advised by independent legal counsel throughout the contract renewal process, and met with independent legal counsel in several executive sessions outside of the presence of management.

Information furnished and reviewed specifically in connection with the renewal process included, but was not limited to, a report for each Portfolio prepared by Broadridge (“Broadridge”), an independent organization, and a Portfolio-by-Portfolio profitability analysis prepared by the Adviser. In addition, the Independent Trustees received and reviewed a report prepared by JDL Consultants, LLC (“JDL”), an independent consultant to the Independent Trustees (“JDL Report”), which examined the comparative fees, expenses and performance of each Portfolio, based upon the Broadridge reports. Also, the Board reviewed the responses to wide-ranging questions relating to the business, operations and performance of the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers that the Adviser and Sub-Advisers had prepared specifically for the renewal process.

At the November Meeting, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, concluded that the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser supported the renewal of the Agreements. The Board also concluded that the investment performance of each Portfolio was such that each Agreement should continue, and that the fees paid by a Portfolio to the Adviser appeared to be reasonable in light of the nature, extent and quality of the services provided by the Adviser and Sub-Adviser. Further, the Board concluded that the Adviser’s profitability in providing services under the Advisory Agreements did not appear unreasonably high in light of the nature, extent and quality of the services provided by the Adviser. Finally, the Board concluded that the investment advisory fees paid by the Portfolios in some measure shared economies of scale with contract holders. In approving the renewal of each of the Agreements, the Board, including the Independent Trustees, gave attention to all of the information that was furnished. The Board evaluated the information available to it on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis, and its decision was made separately with respect to each Portfolio. The following discusses some of the primary factors that generally were relevant to the Board’s decision. The Board did not identify any single factor as controlling, and the Trustees generally attributed different weights to various factors for the various Portfolios.

Nature, extent and quality of services. The Board evaluated the nature, extent and quality of the services that the Adviser, and the Sub-Advisers as relevant, have provided to the Portfolios. The Board considered the Adviser’s services as investment manager to the Portfolios, including its services relating to the oversight of the Sub-Advisers and their investment management activities, trading practices, financial condition, relevant personnel matters and compliance programs, among other things. The Adviser’s services in coordinating and overseeing the activities of the Trusts’ other service providers were also considered. The Board considered information received from the Trusts’ Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) regarding the Portfolios’ compliance policies and procedures that were established pursuant to Rule 38a-l under the 1940 Act. In addition, throughout the year, the Board considered the expertise, experience and performance of the personnel of the Adviser who performed the various services that are mentioned above.

The Board also noted that the Adviser’s investment, compliance and legal staff conduct regular, periodic, telephonic and in-person meetings with the Sub-Advisers to review and assess the services that are provided to the Portfolios, and that personnel of the Adviser prepare and present reports to the Independent Trustees regarding those meetings.

With respect to the services provided by each of the Sub-Advisers, the Board considered a variety of information that the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser provided. The Board considered each Sub-Adviser’s investment process and philosophy, and the investment

MSF-25

Metropolitan Series Fund

T. Rowe Price Small Cap Growth Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

performance experienced by the Portfolio (as described in more detail below). The Board took into account that each Sub-Adviser’s responsibilities include the development and maintenance of an investment program for the applicable Portfolio that 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. In particular, the Board considered, among other things, the Sub-Adviser’s current level of staffing as well as its compensation program and its overall resources. The Board reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s history and investment experience, as well as information provided 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 regulatory and disciplinary history. In its review, the Board also took into account information regarding any services and/or payments provided to the Adviser by the Sub-Advisers in connection with marketing activities.

Performance. The Board placed emphasis on the performance of the Portfolios in light of, among other things, its importance to contract holders. The Board considered the Adviser’s quarterly reviews with the Board of detailed information about each Portfolio’s investment strategies and performance results and composition, including discussions regarding the relevant effect of current market conditions. The Board reviewed and considered the reports prepared by Broadridge, which provided a statistical analysis comparing the Portfolios’ investment performance to that of comparable funds underlying variable insurance products (the “Performance Universe”). The Independent Trustees also met separately with a representative of JDL during the September Meeting to review the JDL Report. The Board also compared the performance records of certain Portfolios to those of comparable funds that were managed by the relevant Sub-Adviser. At the November Meeting, the Board considered each Portfolio’s performance for periods subsequent to the performance period covered by the Broadridge reports, and the Adviser’s discussion of the same, including the effect of current market conditions on each Portfolio’s more recent performance.

The Board focused particular attention on Portfolios with less favorable performance records. The Board noted the Adviser’s focus on each Sub-Adviser’s performance and that the Adviser has been active in monitoring and responding to any performance issues with respect to the Portfolios.

Fees and Expenses. The Board gave consideration to the level and method of computing the fees payable under the Agreements. The Board considered the Broadridge report for each of the Portfolios, which included comparisons for each Portfolio of its contractual management and sub-adviser fees (at current and various asset levels), and total expenses, with those of its peers, including as those peers were divided into a broad group of peer funds (“Expense Universe”), a narrower group of peer funds (“Expense Group”), a broad group of peer sub-advised funds (“Sub-advised Expense Universe”), and a narrower group of peer sub-advised funds (“Sub-advised Expense Group”). Broadridge selected the peer funds which were similarly situated funds underlying variable insurance products deemed to be comparable to the Portfolios. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of JDL, also examined the JDL Report. The Board compared the fee payable to a Sub-Adviser by the Adviser with respect to the Portfolio to the fee payable to the Sub-Adviser by other comparable funds and accounts, to the extent such information was available.

The Board noted that the sub-advisory fees for the Portfolios are paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fee, and that, in the case of an unaffiliated Sub-Adviser, the Adviser negotiates the fee at arm’s length. The Board also considered that the Adviser had entered into expense limitation or management fee waiver agreements with certain of the Portfolios pursuant to which the Adviser had 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.

Profitability. The Board examined the profitability of the Adviser on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis. The Board also considered that an affiliate of the Adviser, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, serves as distributor for the Trusts, and, as such, receives Rule 12b-1 payments to support the distribution of the Portfolios. The Board considered the profitability to the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates as a result of their relationships with the Portfolios, to the extent available, and the Board considered the ability of the Adviser to negotiate with an unaffiliated Sub-Adviser at arm’s length. In reviewing the profitability analyses, the Board recognized that expense allocation methodologies are inherently subjective and various expense allocation methodologies may be reasonable while producing different results.

Economies of scale. The Board also considered each Portfolio’s fees in light of its size. The Board noted the fee schedules for the Portfolios that 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 and Sub-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

MSF-26

Metropolitan Series Fund

T. Rowe Price Small Cap Growth Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

the Portfolio grow. The Board examined, among other data, the effect of a Portfolio’s growth in size, and reduction in size, on various fee schedules and the Board reviewed the Broadridge and JDL Reports, which compared fees among peers. The Board also generally noted that if a Portfolio’s assets increase over time, the Portfolio may realize other economies of scale if assets increase proportionally more than certain other fixed expenses.

Other factors. The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trusts. Among them, the Board recognized that MetLife Investors Distribution Company, as the distributor for the Trusts, receives payments pursuant to Rule 12b-1 from the Portfolios to compensate for the provision of shareholder services and distribution activities, which could lead to growth in the Trusts’ assets and corresponding benefits from such growth, including economies of scale. The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by each Sub-Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trusts, including the opportunity to provide advisory services to additional portfolios of the Trusts and reputational benefits. In conjunction with these considerations, the Board noted the ongoing commitment of the Adviser to the Portfolios.

The Board considered possible conflicts of interest in the form of material benefits or detriments to the Trusts resulting from the nature of the Trusts’ and the Adviser’s or the Sub-Advisers’ affiliations and the services that are provided to the Trusts, and the manner in which such conflicts were mitigated.

*  *  *

T. Rowe Price Small Cap Growth Portfolio. The Board also considered the following information in relation to the Agreements with the Adviser and T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc. regarding the Portfolio:

Among other data relating specifically to the 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, 2016. The Board also considered that the Portfolio outperformed its benchmark, the MSCI U.S. Small Cap Growth Index, for the three- and five-year periods ended October 31, 2016, and underperformed its benchmark for the one-year period ended October 31, 2016.

The Board also 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 asset-weighted average of certain comparable funds at the Portfolio’s current size and were the lowest in the Expense Group. The Board also noted that the Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees were above the average of the Sub-advised Expense Group and below the average of the Sub-advised Expense Universe at the Portfolio’s current size.

MSF-27

Metropolitan Series Fund

T. Rowe Price Small Cap Growth Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Advisory Agreements

The separation (the “Separation”) of MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”), the investment adviser to each of the series (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”) of Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (collectively, the “Trusts”), from its parent company, MetLife, Inc. (“MetLife”), to a separate retail business, Brighthouse Financial, Inc. (“Brighthouse”), is expected to result in a change in control of the Adviser, and therefore an “assignment” of each Portfolio’s current advisory agreement (each a “Current Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “Current Advisory Agreements”). At the November 15-16, 2016 meeting (“November Meeting”) of the Board of Trustees of the Trusts (the “Board”), the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not “interested persons,” as defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940, of any Portfolio (the “Independent Trustees”), approved a new advisory agreement (each a “New Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “New Advisory Agreements”) between the Trusts, on behalf of a Portfolio, and the Adviser, to be effective upon the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements in connection with the Separation, and recommended that the shareholders of the Trusts approve the New Advisory Agreements. The Board took those actions after consideration of and deliberation over information concerning the Separation, including with respect to the degree to which the Separation would affect the provision of investment advisory services to the Trusts. Information about the Board’s considerations and process is set forth below.

In determining whether to approve the New Advisory Agreements and in considering the Separation, the Board considered the nature, quality and extent of the services that are currently provided by the Adviser under the Current Advisory Agreements as well as the services to be provided under the New Advisory Agreements. The Board’s review was conducted as part of, and in conjunction with, the Board’s annual review of the Current Advisory Agreements, which culminated at the November Meeting. In approving the New Advisory Agreements, the Board considered its conclusions with respect to its approvals of the Current Advisory Agreements, including the Board’s general satisfaction with the nature, extent and quality of services being provided by the Adviser to each Portfolio. Appendix A and Appendix B contains a further description of the process followed, information reviewed and the material factors considered by the Board in approving the continuation of the Current Advisory Agreements.

A substantial portion of the Board’s review of the New Advisory Agreements focused on the Separation, including the potential effect of the implementation of the Separation on the operations, personnel, organizational structure, capitalization, and financial and other resources of the Adviser. After being informed by the Adviser in January 2016 of the possibility of the Separation, the Board and its Committees discussed the Separation and its possible effects on the Trusts with personnel of the Adviser and the anticipated senior management at Brighthouse during the course of the Board’s or Committee’s regularly scheduled, in-person, quarterly meetings.

Between August and November 2016, the Board and the Independent Trustees engaged in an extensive review and analysis of the Separation and how the Separation related to the Adviser and the Trusts and how it could affect the services provided to the Trusts. This analysis focused on, among other matters, the assurances from Brighthouse’s anticipated leadership as to its expectations for the continuity and stability of the Adviser’s personnel throughout implementation of the Separation and for the foreseeable future thereafter. The Board considered that the Separation is being implemented as a result of MetLife’s determination to divest itself of a substantial portion of its U.S. retail business (of which the Adviser forms a portion). The Board also considered that it has been satisfied as a general matter with the nature and quality of the services that the Adviser provides to the Portfolios, including investment advisory, administrative, legal, compliance, and support services, and that it would be in the Portfolios’ best interests to maintain continuity and stability in the services that are currently being provided. The Board carefully considered the anticipated future plans of Brighthouse related to capitalization and operational matters for Brighthouse and the Adviser, as well as the importance of the Adviser to the businesses of Brighthouse after the Separation.

Among other steps in its review process, which accelerated on October 5, 2016 when Brighthouse filed its Form 10 with the SEC, the following actions were taken and considered by or on behalf of the Board:

1. The Independent Trustees solicited and received ongoing advice regarding the legal duties of the Independent Trustees from Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young LLP (“Stradley Ronon”), legal counsel for the Independent Trustees, which law firm has extensive experience regarding such matters.

2. Following the August 16-17, 2016 Board and Committee quarterly meetings, the Independent Trustees established an ad hoc group of Independent Trustees (the “Working Group”) to help oversee, coordinate, and conduct due diligence activities with respect to the Separation. The Working Group regularly reported on the due diligence activities to the other Independent Trustees.

3. Since January 2016, the Board posed ongoing inquiries to, and received regular updates from, the Adviser and anticipated senior management at Brighthouse at either in-person meetings dedicated to the status of the Separation or during the course of the Board or Committee’s regular quarterly meetings. The Board considered, among other matters, relevant legal guidance and the processes followed by certain other investment company boards of directors or trustees when they approved contracts in connection with change in control events, while recognizing the unique circumstances of the Separation.

MSF-28

Metropolitan Series Fund

T. Rowe Price Small Cap Growth Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

4. The Board received and reviewed the Form 10 of Brighthouse that contained extensive information relating to, among other matters, Brighthouse’s anticipated business plans and financial structure. The Board also received and reviewed reports from rating agencies with respect to Brighthouse.

5. Stradley Ronon retained Barrington Partners (“Barrington”), an independent consulting firm with a specific focus on the asset management industry and experience relating to business operations such as those to be conducted by Brighthouse, including its proposed subsidiary, the Adviser, in order to help Stradley Ronon evaluate the Separation based on the Form 10 and other materials and related information provided by the Adviser and its affiliates. Barrington conducted a series of in-person and telephonic meetings with anticipated senior management at Brighthouse (i.e., the aforementioned anticipated officers of Brighthouse and others) and with personnel of the Adviser who provide services to the Trusts. Stradley Ronon, with the assistance of Barrington, evaluated the information and advised the Independent Trustees with respect to, among other matters, details of Brighthouse’s anticipated business plan to understand the implications of the Separation to the Adviser and its personnel. The Independent Trustees and the Working Group attended certain in-person and telephonic conference call meetings at which Barrington rendered advice to Stradley Ronon regarding these matters and responded to questions.

6. The Independent Trustees requested and participated in in-person meetings with anticipated senior management personnel at Brighthouse, including its President and Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, Chief Operating Officer, and Chief Investment Officer. The Independent Trustees also met with personnel of the Adviser.

7. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of Stradley Ronon, prepared written inquiries to the Adviser and its affiliates regarding the Separation, and received written assurances from the Adviser and its affiliates that they have no plans to make any material changes affecting the personnel of the Adviser (including those personnel who provide investment, administrative, legal and compliance services) and the Adviser and its affiliates will not initiate such changes without prior notice to and discussion with the Board.

8. The Board considered representations by the Adviser and its affiliates that approval of the New Advisory Agreements would be necessary for the Portfolios to continue receiving investment advisory services from the Adviser following the change in control.

9. The Board considered representations by the Adviser, as well as related supporting documentation, indicating that the New Advisory Agreements, including the fees payable thereunder, are substantially identical to the terms of the corresponding Current Advisory Agreements.

10. The Board considered representations by the Adviser and its affiliates, as well as related supporting documentation, indicating that: (1) the Adviser can be expected to provide services of the same nature, extent, and quality under the New Advisory Agreements and as are provided thereby under the Current Advisory Agreements; and (2) the Separation is not expected to result in any changes to (i) the management of the Portfolios, or (ii) the investment objective of or the principal investment strategies used to manage any of the Portfolios.

11. The Board considered the ability of the Adviser and its affiliates to retain the employment of key personnel, as well as the overall positive indications by many such personnel regarding the opportunities presented by the Separation.

12. The Board considered that the Adviser and its affiliates have agreed to bear all expenses associated with obtaining shareholder approval of the New Advisory Agreements.

13. The Board considered Brighthouse’s preliminary “branding” plans regarding the future name of its operations.

14. The Board considered the advice provided by Ropes & Gray, LLP, legal counsel to the Trusts and the Adviser, with respect to the New Advisory Agreements (including advice relating to the process and timing of seeking shareholder approval of the New Advisory Agreements, and whether shareholder approvals would be required in connection with any future aspects of the Separation) and regarding the Board’s role and responsibilities with respect to the Separation.

15. The Board considered MetLife’s stated intention of divesting its ownership interest in the Adviser through the Separation, including the potential advantages and disadvantages of this divestiture to shareholders of the Portfolios. The Board considered the likelihood that the Adviser would retain its key personnel after the Separation. The Board considered that the garnering of new assets into the Trusts is based on sales of variable annuity and variable life insurance products, which sales have declined in prior years as a result of, among other things, the capital requirements of MetLife. The Board considered the representations of the anticipated senior management of Brighthouse that the Separation provides the Trusts with an opportunity for the garnering of new assets as Brighthouse will likely sell such products going forward. The Board considered also that the divestiture would result in a change in the manner in

MSF-29

Metropolitan Series Fund

T. Rowe Price Small Cap Growth Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

which the Trusts access certain services and resources of MetLife (after the Separation those services will be provided through a transition services agreement), the loss of affiliation with the MetLife name brand, and the possible going forward need of the Trusts to hire a transfer agent, as such transfer agency services are currently provided to the Trusts for no fee.

16. The Board considered that, if shareholders approve the New Advisory Agreements, the Board and the Adviser will conduct their annual contract review process in November 2017. Thus, the Board emphasized that it would be able to, and intends to, monitor on a regular basis the ability of the Adviser and its affiliates to comply with their undertakings to the Board and to monitor on an ongoing basis the quality of services to, and expenses of, the Portfolios. In addition, the Board considered that, under the New Advisory Agreements, it will continue to have the authority, should the need arise in its view, to terminate any of the New Advisory Agreements without penalty upon 60 days’ notice.

Based on the foregoing and other relevant considerations, at the November Meeting, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, voted to approve the New Advisory Agreements and to recommend approval of the New Advisory Agreements by shareholders of the Portfolios. In this connection, the Board concluded that, in light of all factors considered, the terms of the New Advisory Agreement, including fee rates, were fair and reasonable, and that it would be in the best interests of shareholders of each Portfolio to approve the New Advisory Agreements.

In the event that approval of the New Advisory Agreements by shareholders of the Portfolios has not been obtained before the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements as a result of the change in control of the Adviser, the Board also approved an interim advisory agreement with the Adviser (the “Interim Advisory Agreement”) on behalf of each Portfolio that will go into effect upon the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements. The Board’s determination to approve each Interim Advisory Agreement was based on the same information and considerations as the Board’s approval of the New Advisory Agreements so as to ensure continuity of advisory services from the Adviser to the Portfolios following the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements.

MSF-30

Metropolitan Series Fund

T. Rowe Price Small Cap Growth Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Sub-Advisory Agreements

The separation (the “Separation”) of MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”), the investment adviser to each of the series (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”) of Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (collectively, the “Trusts”), from its parent company, MetLife, Inc. (“MetLife”), to a separate retail business, Brighthouse Financial, Inc. (“Brighthouse”), is expected to result in a change in control of the Adviser, and therefore an “assignment” of each Portfolio’s current advisory agreement and, as a result, the automatic termination of the sub-advisory agreement (each a “Sub-Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisory Agreements”) between the Adviser and the investment sub-advisers (each a “Sub-Adviser” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisers”). At the November 15-16, 2016 meeting (“November Meeting”) of the Board of Trustees of the Trusts (the “Board”), the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not “interested persons,” as defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940, of any Portfolio (the “Independent Trustees”), approved new sub-advisory agreements (each a “New Sub-Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “New Sub-Advisory Agreements”). Information about the Board’s considerations and process is set forth below.

In determining whether to approve the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, the Board considered the nature, quality and extent of the services that are currently provided by the Sub-Advisers under the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements as well as the services to be provided under the New Sub-Advisory Agreements. The Board’s review was conducted as part of, and in conjunction with, the Board’s annual review of the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements, which culminated at the November Meeting. In approving the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, the Board considered its conclusions with respect to its approvals of the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements, including the Board’s general satisfaction with the nature, extent and quality of services being provided by the Sub-Advisers to the Portfolios, as applicable. Appendix A contains a further description of the process followed, information reviewed and the material factors considered by the Board in approving the continuation of the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements.

In addition, the following actions were taken and considered by or on behalf of the Board:

1. The Independent Trustees of the Board solicited and received ongoing advice regarding the legal duties of the Independent Trustees from Stradley Ronon, legal counsel for the Independent Trustees, which law firm has extensive experience regarding such matters.

2. The Board considered representations by the Adviser and its affiliates that approval of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements would be necessary for the Portfolios to continue receiving sub-advisory services from the Sub-Advisers following the change in control of the Adviser.

3. The Board considered representations by the Adviser, as well as related supporting documentation, indicating that the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, including the fees payable thereunder, are the same as the terms of the corresponding Current Sub-Advisory Agreements.

4. The Board considered the advice provided by Ropes & Gray, LLP, legal counsel to the Trusts and the Adviser, with respect to the New Sub-Advisory Agreements and regarding the Board’s role and responsibilities with respect to the Separation.

5. The Board considered that the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers will conduct their annual contract review process in November 2017. Thus, the Board emphasized that it would be able to, and intends to, monitor on an ongoing basis the ability of the Sub-Advisers to comply with its undertakings to the Board and the Adviser and to monitor on an ongoing basis the quality of services to, and expenses of, the Portfolios. In addition, the Board considered that, under the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, it will continue to have the authority, should the need arise in its view, to terminate any of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements without penalty upon no more than 60 days’ notice.

Based on the foregoing and other relevant considerations, at the November Meeting, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, voted to approve the New Sub-Advisory Agreements. In this connection, the Board concluded that, in light of all factors considered, the terms of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, including fee rates, were fair and reasonable.

MSF-31

Metropolitan Series Fund

Van Eck Global Natural Resources Portfolio

Managed by Van Eck Associates Corporation

Portfolio Manager Commentary*

PERFORMANCE

For the 12 months ended December 31, 2016, the Class A and B shares of the Van Eck Global Natural Resources Portfolio returned 44.26% and 43.74%, respectively. The Portfolio’s benchmark, the Standard & Poor’s (“S&P”) North American Natural Resources Index¹, returned 30.87%.

MARKET ENVIRONMENT / CONDITIONS

The most significant macroeconomic factor influencing the market in which the Portfolio invested continued to be the extraordinary monetary accommodation extended by central banks around the world. At the end of the year this was reflected, not least, in the record high balance sheets of these banks. Added to this in the fourth quarter of the year, following the election of Donald Trump as President, was the expectation of future fiscal stimulus in the U.S.

As the year drew to a close, the deflation/inflation “conversation” shifted from being strongly deflationary to including a degree of valid concern about the prospect of forthcoming inflation. We believe this was reflected in the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank’s (the “Fed”) intimation that there might be three further rate hikes in 2017—following the hike in December.

Taken together with the continued rebalancing of supply and demand, particularly for oil and gas, all these factors proved, for the most part, positive for commodities.

While the market may have spent much of the year under the twin shadows and uncertainties of Brexit (British withdrawal from the European Union) and the U.S. presidential elections, when it came down to it, the results of neither were quite what had been expected.

Despite the surprises both brought with them, the effects of Brexit (about which there had been so much concern) appear, in the short term anyway, to have been minimal and, in the U.S., markets have risen inexorably since the election of Donald Trump as the country’s 45^th president.

Having ended 2015 at 698, the U.S. rig count (both oil and gas) continued to drop in the early part of the year before appearing to bottom at the end of May. Thereafter it started to climb again. But, by the end of the year, at 658, it still fell short of its level at the beginning of the year. Over 1,200 rigs throughout the U.S. have been taken out of commission since the count’s peak in September 2014 and we remain at near historically low levels. Any rebound will, therefore, necessarily remain incremental.

Following a low in mid-February, the price of crude oil rose through June. Thereafter, it paused during the summer, following a generally sideways (if slightly rising) trajectory through to the end of October. It then fell, once again, after a “special meeting” of OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries), at which it essentially agreed to come to an agreement to cap production, but no agreement was actually consummated. The price rebounded, however, after the organization’s official meeting at the end of November at which it agreed to cut production. The OPEC agreement was soon followed by a similar agreement among various non-OPEC producers to do likewise and front month West Texas Intermediate (“WTI”) crude oil ended the 12-month period at $53.72 per barrel, very near the high for the year.

Roughly paralleling oil, and having also troughed in the first quarter, the price of natural gas also strengthened over the rest of the year, not least because of the drop in the gas rig count and the fall in production.

Placing OPEC’s November meeting in context, we believe it could well be described as “historic.” In a two-year timeframe, the Saudi Arabians have executed a 180° turn in terms of policy. Until the meeting in November, OPEC was, essentially, defunct as an effective institution. While the Saudis may have brought it to its knees, it is they who resurrected it. The result has been that they have basically said that oil prices in the $40s are unsustainable, and the closer they get to $40, or the longer they stay in the $40 range or below, the higher the likelihood of strict adherence to the quotas that have been established.

Much in the same way that, for example, the monetary policy approaches Fed chairmen Alan Greenspan (1987-2000) and Ben Bernanke (2007-2008), became known, respectively, as the “Greenspan put” and “Bernanke put,” we believe that OPEC’s approach can, likewise, be described as the “OPEC put.”

OPEC’s move can be viewed from a couple of different perspectives. In the short term, $40 oil had become unbearable, with OPEC’s members unable to meet their own fiscal obligations, and Saudi Arabia suffering the most. In the longer term, $40 oil provided the majors and national oil companies, in particular, with little incentive to make any investment in establishing any sort of stable, longer-term, oil supply that would: 1) eventually hold up to inevitable demand growth; and, 2) down the road, avoid spikes.

However, coming in on the back of the historically low discoveries of conventional oil in 2015, the continued dramatic capital expenditure reductions by both the international and national oil companies would suggest that, when the data for the year come in, 2016 is not going to be any better in terms of such discoveries.

With regard to demand, despite the balance of risks and data that came out in 2016 leaning to the down side, demand for crude oil and gasoline remained resilient in the face of both anemic global GDP (Gross Domestic Product) and, indeed, GDP outlooks. The U.S., the largest consumer of crude oil and petroleum products, was particularly robust with recent weekly gasoline consumption figures reaching all-time record levels—remarkable for the “non-driving season” month of December.

MSF-1

Metropolitan Series Fund

Van Eck Global Natural Resources Portfolio

Managed by Van Eck Associates Corporation

Portfolio Manager Commentary*—(Continued)

Gold had a roller-coaster of a year in 2016. For the first half of the year, it benefited from continued monetary easing, stimulus policies, and the erosion of confidence in the ability of central banks to deliver global growth. However, this, then, turned around when it became very apparent that the Fed was going to raise rates and the U.S. dollar started to strengthen.

Base metals remained more or less strong over the course of the year. Following somewhat of a stuttering start, they strengthened into the end of the year, reflecting some of the production cuts that were part of the continuing multi-year restructuring in the industry. Among the base metals, zinc’s supply and demand came into better alignment, not least because Glencore significantly reduced production of the metal at one of its major mines and demand remained solid. Copper, too, had a good year in 2016.

Despite strong share price performance, the global mining sector continued its corporate-level restructuring, with the strengthening of balance sheets and reduction of operating costs the main focus. However, signs are now becoming apparent that at least some companies are starting to focus again on growth.

A very healthy corn crop in North America put pressure both on prices and companies engaged in activities ancillary to this commodity—be they related either to input or output.

While these prices may have been, in part, helpful and stimulative for proteins, they too had their own supply issues with cattle markets, in particular, under pressure from oversupply: the U.S. cattle herd, having dropped in number drastically three or four years ago, has now completely rebounded.

PORTFOLIO REVIEW / PERIOD END POSITIONING

Several key aspects that contributed to outperformance of the Portfolio relative to the S&P North American Natural Resources Sector Index were overweight positions and outperformance in the diversified metals & mining, oil & gas drilling, gold, and copper sub-industries.

The Portfolio’s three strongest positive-contributing individual positions were: diversified metals & mining company Glencore (Switzerland), which benefited from both commodity price support, in particular, strong copper prices and continued, and expanded, successful strategic structural optimization; gold mining company Agnico Eagle Mines (Canada), which, together with robust gold prices earlier in the year, benefited from its continued focus on cost reduction and strong operational performance; and copper producing company First Quantum Minerals (Canada), which also benefited from commodity price support, in particular, strong copper prices and continuing, successful, strategic structural optimization.

The three weakest-contributing sub-industries to the Portfolio’s performance were fertilizers & agricultural chemicals, semiconductor equipment, and electrical components & equipment. The Portfolio’s three weakest-contributing companies were: CF Industries Holdings, a fertilizer & agricultural chemicals company which was hit by softer pricing related to nitrogen oversupply; Valero Energy (sold by the Portfolio during the period), an oil & gas refining & marketing company which suffered from the rebound in crude oil prices; and SunEdison (sold by the Portfolio during the period), a semiconductor equipment (solar) company.

The Portfolio’s largest new positions during the reporting period were in the gold and oil & gas exploration & production sub-industries, establishing new positions in Newmont Mining, PDC Energy, and Hess, respectively.

The Portfolio’s largest exited positions were in the oil & gas refining & marketing, oil & gas exploration & production, and oil & gas equipment & services sub-industries, which, respectively, eliminated positions in Valero Energy, Anadarko Petroleum, and Baker Hughes.

Broadly speaking, on both an absolute and relative basis, the Portfolio increased sizably its weightings to the oil & gas drilling and diversified metals & mining sub-industries. The Portfolio, on both an absolute and relative basis, decreased sizably its weightings to the gold and oil & gas storage & transportation sub-industries. The Portfolio also reduced its weighting to the oil & gas refining and marketing sub-industry.

As of December 31, 2016, the Portfolio’s most substantially overweight positions relative to the benchmark were in the oil & gas exploration & production and diversified metals & mining sub-industries. It also had a substantially overweight position in the oil & gas drilling sub-industry.

As of December 31, 2016, the Portfolio had no allocation to the integrated oil & gas sub-industry, making that a substantially underweight position relative to the benchmark. As of the same date, the Portfolio’s next most underweight position was in the oil & gas

MSF-2

Metropolitan Series Fund

Van Eck Global Natural Resources Portfolio

Managed by Van Eck Associates Corporation

Portfolio Manager Commentary*—(Continued)

storage & transportation sub-industry. The Portfolio also held an underweight position in the oil & gas refining & marketing sub-industry.

Shawn Reynolds

Charles Cameron

Portfolio Managers

Van Eck Associates Corporation

* 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 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.

MSF-3

Metropolitan Series Fund

Van Eck Global Natural Resources Portfolio

A $10,000 INVESTMENT COMPARED TO THE S&P NORTH AMERICAN NATURAL RESOURCES SECTOR INDEX

AVERAGE ANNUAL RETURNS (%) (FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2016)

	1 Year		5 Year		Since Inception2
Van Eck Global Natural Resources Portfolio
Class A		44.26		-2.02		4.83
Class B		43.74		-2.27		4.06
S&P North American Natural Resources Sector Index		30.87		1.26		6.03

¹ The S&P North American Natural Resources Sector Index was developed as an equity benchmark for U.S. traded natural resource related stocks.

² Inception dates of the Class A and Class B shares are 10/31/08 and 4/28/09, respectively. Index since inception return is based on the Class A inception date.

Portfolio performance is calculated including reinvestment of all income and capital gain distributions. Performance numbers are net of all Portfolio expenses but do not include any insurance, sales, separate account or administrative charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts or any additional expenses that participants may bear relating to the operations of their plans. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower. The performance of any index referenced above has not been adjusted for ongoing management, distribution and operating expenses, and sales charges applicable to mutual fund investments. Direct investment in any index is not possible. The performance of Class A shares, as set forth in the line graph above, will differ from that of other classes because of the difference in expenses paid by policyholders investing in the different share classes.

This information represents past performance and is not indicative of future results. Investment return and principal value may fluctuate so that shares, upon redemption, may be worth more or less than the original cost.

PORTFOLIO COMPOSITION AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2016

Top Holdings

	% of Net Assets
Halliburton Co.		4.5
Nabors Industries, Ltd.		4.4
Glencore plc		4.3
Diamondback Energy, Inc.		3.9
Parsley Energy, Inc. - Class A		3.8
Patterson-UTI Energy, Inc.		3.8
Pioneer Natural Resources Co.		3.6
Schlumberger, Ltd.		3.6
Cimarex Energy Co.		3.5
EOG Resources, Inc.		3.5

Top Sectors

	% of Net Assets
Energy		64.8
Materials		29.8
Industrials		1.4
Consumer Staples		0.9
Financials		0.2

MSF-4

Metropolitan Series Fund

Van Eck Global Natural Resources 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, 2016 through December 31, 2016.

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.

Van Eck Global Natural Resources Portfolio		Annualized Expense Ratio			Beginning Account Value July 1, 2016		Ending Account Value December 31, 2016		Expenses Paid During Period** July 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016
Class A(a)	Actual		0.79	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,115.00	$	4.20
	Hypothetical*		0.79	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,021.17	$	4.01
Class B(a)	Actual		1.04	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,112.40	$	5.52
	Hypothetical*		1.04	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,019.91	$	5.28

* 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 366 (to reflect the one-half year period).

^(a) The annualized expense ratio shown reflects the impact of the management fee waiver as described in Note 5 of the Notes to Financial Statements.

MSF-5

Metropolitan Series Fund

Van Eck Global Natural Resources Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Common Stocks—97.2% of Net Assets

Security Description	Shares		Value
Chemicals—4.0%
Agrium, Inc. (a)		207,800	$	20,894,290
CF Industries Holdings, Inc. (a)		670,400		21,104,192
				41,998,482
Electrical Equipment—0.3%
Sunrun, Inc. (a) (b)		616,600		3,274,146
Energy Equipment & Services—21.7%
Halliburton Co.		870,400		47,079,936
Nabors Industries, Ltd. (a)		2,801,000		45,936,400
Patterson-UTI Energy, Inc. (a)		1,490,000		40,110,800
Schlumberger, Ltd.		443,500		37,231,825
Superior Energy Services, Inc. (a)		1,173,700		19,812,056
Tenaris S.A. (ADR)		318,500		11,373,635
Vallourec S.A. (b)		899,200		6,138,857
Weatherford International plc (a) (b)		3,936,500		19,643,135
				227,326,644
Food Products—0.9%
Tyson Foods, Inc. - Class A		146,200		9,017,616
Metals & Mining—24.1%
Agnico Eagle Mines, Ltd. (U.S. Listed Shares) (a)		559,733		23,508,786
Barrick Gold Corp.		735,500		11,753,290
First Quantum Minerals, Ltd.		3,680,300		36,593,308
Freeport-McMoRan, Inc. (b)		888,100		11,714,039
Glencore plc (b)		13,448,337		45,201,130
Goldcorp, Inc. (a)		857,700		11,664,720
Kinross Gold Corp. (b)		1,875,900		5,834,049
New Gold, Inc. (b)		1,522,900		5,330,150
Newmont Mining Corp.		667,600		22,745,132
Petra Diamonds, Ltd. (b)		4,762,427		9,143,813
Randgold Resources, Ltd. (ADR)		152,600		11,649,484
Steel Dynamics, Inc.		597,500		21,259,050
Teck Resources, Ltd. - Class B (a)		1,804,400		36,142,132
				252,539,083
Mortgage Real Estate Investment Trusts—0.2%
Hannon Armstrong Sustainable Infrastructure Capital, Inc. (a)		134,000		2,544,660
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels—43.2%
Callon Petroleum Co. (b)		694,600		10,676,002
Cimarex Energy Co. (a)		271,000		36,828,900
Concho Resources, Inc. (b)		267,850		35,516,910
CONSOL Energy, Inc.		1,288,300		23,485,709
Diamondback Energy, Inc. (a) (b)		403,600		40,787,816
EOG Resources, Inc.		362,000		36,598,200
Golar LNG, Ltd.		316,100		7,251,334
Green Plains, Inc. (a)		477,800		13,306,730
Gulfport Energy Corp. (b)		742,900		16,076,356
Hess Corp.		390,000		24,293,100
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels—(Continued)
Laredo Petroleum, Inc. (a) (b)		1,805,600		25,531,184
Newfield Exploration Co. (a) (b)		792,900		32,112,450
Parsley Energy, Inc. - Class A (a) (b)		1,140,100		40,177,124
PDC Energy, Inc. (a) (b)		443,500		32,189,230
Pioneer Natural Resources Co.		210,000		37,814,700
RSP Permian, Inc. (b)		245,500		10,954,210
Scorpio Tankers, Inc.		1,156,200		5,237,586
SM Energy Co.		684,200		23,591,216
				452,428,757
Paper & Forest Products—1.7%
Louisiana-Pacific Corp. (b)		958,300		18,140,619
Road & Rail—1.1%
Union Pacific Corp.		108,200		11,218,176
Total Common Stocks (Cost $868,311,934)				1,018,488,183
Short-Term Investment—2.2%
Mutual Fund—2.2%
AIM STIT-STIC Prime Portfolio		22,478,742		22,480,990
Total Short-Term Investments (Cost $22,480,990)				22,480,990
Securities Lending Reinvestments (c)—9.0%
Certificates of Deposit—3.8%
Banco Del Estado De Chile New York 1.154%, 06/21/17 (d)		1,500,000		1,499,693
Bank of Nova Scotia Houston 1.201%, 11/03/17 (d)		2,000,000		2,001,693
Bank of Tokyo UFJ, Ltd., New York 1.121%, 02/28/17 (d)		1,500,000		1,500,030
Barclays New York 0.894%, 02/10/17 (d)		1,500,000		1,500,485
Chiba Bank, Ltd., New York 0.950%, 02/02/17		3,500,000		3,500,483
Credit Suisse AG New York 1.364%, 05/12/17 (d)		750,000		750,078
1.444%, 04/24/17 (d)		1,500,000		1,500,353
DNB NOR Bank ASA 1.130%, 07/28/17 (d)		600,000		599,895
DZ Bank AG New York 1.010%, 02/27/17		2,100,000		2,100,607
KBC Brussells 1.050%, 01/27/17		1,800,000		1,800,342
1.050%, 02/07/17		500,000		500,125
Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen London Zero Coupon, 01/24/17		1,496,558		1,499,355
Mizuho Bank, Ltd., New York 1.336%, 05/17/17		2,000,000		1,999,808
1.361%, 04/26/17 (d)		1,000,000		999,949

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-6

Metropolitan Series Fund

Van Eck Global Natural Resources Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Securities Lending Reinvestments (c)—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Certificates of Deposit—(Continued)
National Australia Bank London 1.034%, 05/02/17 (d)		1,000,000	$	1,000,944
National Bank of Canada 0.650%, 01/06/17		2,000,000		2,000,080
Natixis New York 0.900%, 02/17/17		2,000,000		2,000,256
Shizuoka Bank New York 0.840%, 01/03/17		2,100,000		2,100,008
Standard Chartered Bank New York 1.150%, 03/21/17		3,500,000		3,500,591
Sumitomo Bank New York 1.212%, 06/05/17 (d)		2,500,000		2,499,950
1.215%, 05/05/17 (d)		250,000		250,416
Sumitomo Mitsui Trust Bank, Ltd., London 1.262%, 05/08/17 (d)		1,500,000		1,502,747
Sumitomo Mitsui Trust Bank, Ltd., New York 1.351%, 04/26/17 (d)		1,000,000		1,000,118
UBS, Stamford 1.084%, 05/12/17 (d)		600,000		599,954
Wells Fargo Bank San Francisco N.A. 1.231%, 04/26/17 (d)		600,000		600,168
1.264%, 10/26/17 (d)		1,250,000		1,250,854
				40,058,982
Commercial Paper—1.8%
Atlantic Asset Securitization LLC 1.040%, 02/03/17		1,794,540		1,798,429
Den Norske ASA 1.206%, 04/27/17 (d)		600,000		600,032
Erste Abwicklungsanstalt 1.014%, 03/10/17 (d)		500,000		500,003
HSBC plc 1.216%, 04/25/17 (d)		2,000,000		1,999,914
Macquarie Bank, Ltd. 0.930%, 01/19/17		249,406		249,846
National Australia Bank, Ltd. 1.288%, 12/06/17 (d)		1,500,000		1,500,003
Old Line Funding LLC 1.030%, 03/13/17 (d)		2,300,000		2,301,795
Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp., Ltd. 0.890%, 02/21/17		1,496,588		1,498,008
Starbird Funding Corp. 1.240%, 06/13/17 (d)		3,000,000		2,999,757
Suncorp Metway, Ltd. 0.930%, 02/09/17		1,496,435		1,498,339
United Overseas Bank, Ltd. 0.900%, 02/22/17		1,496,550		1,498,096
Versailles Commercial Paper LLC 1.000%, 01/31/17		1,595,733		1,598,797
Westpac Banking Corp. 1.232%, 10/20/17 (d)		1,250,000		1,252,183
				19,295,202
Repurchase Agreements—3.0%
Citigroup Global Markets Ltd. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/29/16 at 0.710% to be repurchased at $1,300,128 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $1,311,358 U.S. Treasury and Foreign Obligations with rates ranging from 1.750% - 2.750%, maturity dates ranging from 10/15/19 - 11/15/23, with a value of $1,326,000.		1,300,000		1,300,000
Deutsche Bank AG, London Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/16 at 0.950% to be repurchased at $800,084 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $816,720 Foreign Obligations with rates ranging from 1.750% - 2.500%, maturity dates ranging from 09/05/19 - 11/20/24, with a value of $816,005.		800,000		800,000
Repurchase Agreement dated 12/15/16 - 12/30/16 at 1.050% to be repurchased at $7,703,523 on 01/03/17, collateralized by various Common Stock with a value of $8,558,974.		7,700,000		7,700,000
Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. Repurchase Agreement dated 10/18/16 at 1.110% to be repurchased at $1,004,193 on 03/03/17, collateralized by various Common Stock with a value of $1,100,000.		1,000,000		1,000,000
Goldman Sachs & Co. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/16 at 0.460% to be repurchased at $6,929,875 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $35,660,672 U.S. Government Agency Obligations with rates ranging from 2.000% - 10.500%, maturity dates ranging from 03/15/17 - 09/20/65, with a value of $7,068,112.		6,929,521		6,929,521
Macquarie Bank, Ltd. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/27/16 at 0.580% to be repurchased at $1,600,180 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $1,582,968 U.S. Treasury Obligations with rates ranging from 0.000% - 8.750%, maturity dates ranging from 01/05/17 - 05/15/46, with a value of $1,632,827.		1,600,000		1,600,000
Repurchase Agreement dated 12/15/16 at 0.600% to be repurchased at $6,002,200 on 01/06/17, collateralized by $5,936,131 U.S. Treasury Obligations with rates ranging from 0.000% - 8.750%, maturity dates ranging from 01/05/17 - 05/15/46, with a value of $6,123,101.		6,000,000		6,000,000
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. Repurchase Agreement dated 10/26/16 at 1.160% to be repurchased at $804,099 on 04/03/17, collateralized by various Common Stock with a value of $880,000.		800,000		800,000

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-7

Metropolitan Series Fund

Van Eck Global Natural Resources Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Securities Lending Reinvestments (c)—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Repurchase Agreements—(Continued)
Natixis Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/16 at 0.600% to be repurchased at $1,000,067 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $1,795,764 U.S. Government Agency and Treasury Obligations with rates ranging from 0.996% - 7.000%, maturity dates ranging from 01/15/20 - 12/01/46, with a value of $1,020,068.		1,000,000	$	1,000,000
Repurchase Agreement dated 12/28/16 at 0.750% to be repurchased at $4,000,667 on 01/05/17, collateralized by $6,420,277 U.S. Government Agency and Treasury Obligations with rates ranging from 0.000% - 4.672%, maturity dates ranging from 01/31/17 - 09/16/58, with a value of $4,080,502.
		4,000,000		4,000,000
				31,129,521
Time Deposits—0.4%
OP Corporate Bank plc 1.010%, 01/04/17		600,000		600,000
1.200%, 01/23/17		3,000,000		3,000,000
Shinkin Central Bank 1.200%, 01/27/17		200,000		200,000
1.220%, 01/26/17		800,000		800,000
				4,600,000
Total Securities Lending Reinvestments (Cost $95,070,654)				95,083,705
Total Investments—108.4% (Cost $985,863,578) (e)				1,136,052,878
Other assets and liabilities (net)—(8.4)%				(87,682,363	)
Net Assets—100.0%			$	1,048,370,515

* Principal amount stated in U.S. dollars unless otherwise noted.

(a) All or a portion of the security was held on loan. As of December 31, 2016, the market value of securities loaned was $92,382,224 and the collateral received consisted of cash in the amount of $95,055,332. The cash collateral investments are disclosed in the Schedule of Investments and categorized as Securities Lending Reinvestments.

(b) Non-income producing security.

(c) Represents investment of cash collateral received from securities on loan as of December 31, 2016.

(d) Variable or floating rate security. The stated rate represents the rate at December 31, 2016.

(e) As of December 31, 2016, the aggregate cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was $1,017,048,161. The aggregate unrealized appreciation and depreciation of investments were $159,862,928 and $(40,858,211), respectively, resulting in net unrealized appreciation of $119,004,717 for federal income tax purposes.

(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.

MSF-8

Metropolitan Series Fund

Van Eck Global Natural Resources Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Fair Value Hierarchy

Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) define 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, separately for each major category of assets and liabilities, 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, quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities 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, or other market corroborated inputs)

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 used in determining the fair value of investments and derivative financial instruments)

The inputs or methodologies used for valuing investments are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in them. Changes to the inputs or methodologies used may result in transfers between levels, which 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, 2016:

Description	Level 1		Level 2			Level 3		Total
Common Stocks
Chemicals	$	41,998,482	$	—		$	—	$	41,998,482
Electrical Equipment		3,274,146		—			—		3,274,146
Energy Equipment & Services		221,187,787		6,138,857			—		227,326,644
Food Products		9,017,616		—			—		9,017,616
Metals & Mining		198,194,140		54,344,943			—		252,539,083
Mortgage Real Estate Investment Trusts		2,544,660		—			—		2,544,660
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels		452,428,757		—			—		452,428,757
Paper & Forest Products		18,140,619		—			—		18,140,619
Road & Rail		11,218,176		—			—		11,218,176
Total Common Stocks		958,004,383		60,483,800			—		1,018,488,183
Total Short-Term Investment*		22,480,990		—			—		22,480,990
Total Securities Lending Reinvestments*		—		95,083,705			—		95,083,705
Total Investments	$	980,485,373	$	155,567,505		$	—	$	1,136,052,878
Collateral for Securities Loaned (Liability)	$	—	$	(95,055,332	)	$	—	$	(95,055,332	)

* See Schedule of Investments for additional detailed categorizations.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-9

Metropolitan Series Fund

Van Eck Global Natural Resources Portfolio

Statement of Assets and Liabilities

December 31, 2016

Assets
Investments at value (a) (b)	$	1,136,052,878
Cash		57,267
Receivable for:
Investments sold		7,700,752
Fund shares sold		1,356
Dividends		681,387
Prepaid expenses		2,988
Total Assets		1,144,496,628
Liabilities
Cash due to bank denominated in foreign currencies (c)		6
Collateral for securities loaned		95,055,332
Payables for:
Investments purchased		59,067
Fund shares redeemed		73,296
Accrued Expenses:
Management fees		705,841
Distribution and service fees		29,264
Deferred trustees’ fees		90,794
Other expenses		112,513
Total Liabilities		96,126,113
Net Assets	$	1,048,370,515
Net Assets Consist of:
Paid in surplus	$	1,168,453,642
Undistributed net investment income		812,988
Accumulated net realized loss		(271,085,179	)
Unrealized appreciation on investments and foreign currency transactions		150,189,064
Net Assets	$	1,048,370,515
Net Assets
Class A	$	916,173,109
Class B		132,197,406
Capital Shares Outstanding*
Class A		84,396,965
Class B		12,250,792
Net Asset Value, Offering Price and Redemption Price Per Share
Class A	$	10.86
Class B		10.79

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

(a) Identified cost of investments was $985,863,578.

(b) Includes securities loaned at value of $92,382,224.

(c) Identified cost of cash due to bank denominated in foreign currencies was $6.

Statement of Operations

Year Ended December 31, 2016

Investment Income
Dividends (a)	$	8,824,356
Interest		84,133
Securities lending income		723,526
Other income (b)		41,075
Total investment income		9,673,090
Expenses
Management fees		8,100,047
Administration fees		33,825
Custodian and accounting fees		61,007
Distribution and service fees—Class B		329,917
Audit and tax services		51,292
Legal		33,032
Trustees’ fees and expenses		45,248
Shareholder reporting		39,335
Insurance		7,187
Miscellaneous		20,341
Total expenses		8,721,231
Less management fee waiver		(120,399	)
Less broker commission recapture		(60,722	)
Net expenses		8,540,110
Net Investment Income		1,132,980
Net Realized and Unrealized Gain (Loss)
Net realized loss on:
Investments		(135,904,318	)
Foreign currency transactions		(7,731	)
Net realized loss		(135,912,049	)
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on:
Investments		541,328,687
Foreign currency transactions		(182	)
Net change in unrealized appreciation		541,328,505
Net realized and unrealized gain		405,416,456
Net Increase in Net Assets From Operations	$	406,549,436

(a) Net of foreign withholding taxes of $253,786.

(b) Other income represents a non-recurring refund for overbilling of prior years’ custodian out-of-pocket fees.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-10

Metropolitan Series Fund

Van Eck Global Natural Resources Portfolio

Statements of Changes in Net Assets

	Year Ended December 31, 2016			Year Ended December 31, 2015
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets:
From Operations
Net investment income	$	1,132,980		$	8,261,009
Net realized loss		(135,912,049	)		(116,383,481	)
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation)		541,328,505			(267,741,713	)
Increase (decrease) in net assets from operations		406,549,436			(375,864,185	)
From Distributions to Shareholders
Net investment income
Class A		(7,529,545	)		(4,538,788	)
Class B		(774,707	)		(282,297	)
Total distributions		(8,304,252	)		(4,821,085	)
Increase (decrease) in net assets from capital share transactions		(216,213,976	)		270,758,603
Total increase (decrease) in net assets		182,031,208			(109,926,667	)
Net Assets
Beginning of period		866,339,307			976,265,974
End of period	$	1,048,370,515		$	866,339,307
Undistributed net investment income
End of period	$	812,988		$	8,079,344

Other Information:

Capital Shares

Transactions in capital shares were as follows:

	Year Ended December 31, 2016						Year Ended December 31, 2015
	Shares			Value			Shares			Value
Class A
Sales		22,439,892		$	159,259,405			29,202,455		$	297,797,116
Reinvestments		786,786			7,529,545			388,928			4,538,788
Redemptions		(37,901,036	)		(351,491,583	)		(4,823,710	)		(59,007,302	)
Net increase (decrease)		(14,674,358	)	$	(184,702,633	)		24,767,673		$	243,328,602
Class B
Sales		2,278,552		$	17,711,278			4,747,123		$	45,406,659
Reinvestments		81,377			774,707			24,294			282,297
Redemptions		(5,245,745	)		(49,997,328	)		(1,662,099	)		(18,258,955	)
Net increase (decrease)		(2,885,816	)	$	(31,511,343	)		3,109,318		$	27,430,001
Increase (decrease) derived from capital shares transactions				$	(216,213,976	)				$	270,758,603

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-11

Metropolitan Series Fund

Van Eck Global Natural Resources Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class A
	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014			2013			2012
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	7.59		$	11.32		$	14.21		$	12.91		$	13.52
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (a)		0.01			0.08			0.08			0.08			0.13
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		3.34			(3.76	)		(2.66	)		1.34			0.25
Total from investment operations		3.35			(3.68	)		(2.58	)		1.42			0.38
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.08	)		(0.05	)		(0.08	)		(0.12	)		0.00
Distributions from net realized capital gains		0.00			0.00			(0.23	)		0.00			(0.99	)
Total distributions		(0.08	)		(0.05	)		(0.31	)		(0.12	)		(0.99	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	10.86		$	7.59		$	11.32		$	14.21		$	12.91
Total Return (%) (b)		44.26			(32.64	)		(18.63	)		11.06			2.80
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Gross ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.81			0.81			0.81			0.81			0.82
Net ratio of expenses to average net assets (%) (c)		0.80			0.80			0.80			0.80			0.82
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		0.14			0.82			0.56			0.64			0.98
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		49			25			39			36			23
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	916.2		$	752.1		$	841.0		$	1,018.8		$	828.1
	Class B
	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014			2013			2012
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	7.55		$	11.25		$	14.12		$	12.83		$	13.47
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (loss) (a)		(0.01	)		0.06			0.04			0.05			0.09
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		3.31			(3.74	)		(2.64	)		1.33			0.26
Total from investment operations		3.30			(3.68	)		(2.60	)		1.38			0.35
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.06	)		(0.02	)		(0.04	)		(0.09	)		0.00
Distributions from net realized capital gains		0.00			0.00			(0.23	)		0.00			(0.99	)
Total distributions		(0.06	)		(0.02	)		(0.27	)		(0.09	)		(0.99	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	10.79		$	7.55		$	11.25		$	14.12		$	12.83
Total Return (%) (b)		43.74			(32.76	)		(18.82	)		10.76			2.58
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Gross ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		1.06			1.06			1.06			1.06			1.07
Net ratio of expenses to average net assets (%) (c)		1.05			1.05			1.05			1.05			1.07
Ratio of net investment income (loss) to average net assets (%)		(0.12	)		0.56			0.31			0.38			0.72
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		49			25			39			36			23
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	132.2		$	114.2		$	135.3		$	158.8		$	165.1

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

(b) Total return does not reflect any insurance, sales, separate account or administrative charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts or any additional expenses that contract owners may bear under their variable contracts. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower.

(c) Includes the effects of management fee waivers (see Note 5 of the Notes to Financial Statements).

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-12

Metropolitan Series Fund

Van Eck Global Natural Resources Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016

1. Organization

Metropolitan Series Fund (the “Trust”) is organized as a Delaware statutory trust and registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), as an open-end management investment company. The Trust, which is managed by MetLife Advisers, LLC (“MetLife Advisers” or the “Adviser”), an affiliate of MetLife, Inc., is currently comprised of thirty series, each of which operates as a distinct investment vehicle of the Trust. The portfolio included in this report is Van Eck Global Natural Resources 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.

On January 12, 2016, MetLife, Inc. announced its plan to pursue the separation of a substantial portion of its retail segment and is currently evaluating structural alternatives for such separation. It is anticipated that MetLife Advisers would be included in any such separation. Any separation transaction that might occur will be subject to the satisfaction of various conditions and approvals, including approval of any transaction by the MetLife, Inc. Board of Directors, satisfaction of any applicable requirements of the SEC, and receipt of insurance and other regulatory approvals and other anticipated conditions. MetLife, Inc. cannot currently provide a specific potential completion date for a separation transaction or any assurance that a separation will in fact occur. MetLife Advisers’ continued service as investment adviser to the Trusts following a separation transaction is the subject of a proxy statement that was filed with the SEC on December 20, 2016 and mailed to shareholders of the Portfolio on or about December 30, 2016.

The Portfolio has registered and offers two classes of shares: Class A and B shares. 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 plan and such distribution expenses are allocated to the corresponding Class of shares.

2. Significant Accounting Policies

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities as of the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of income and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates. In the preparation of these financial statements, management has evaluated events and transactions subsequent to December 31, 2016 through the date the financial statements were issued.

The Portfolio is an investment company and follows the accounting and reporting guidance of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Accounting Standards Codification Topic 946—Financial Services—Investment Companies and Topic 820—Fair Value Measurement. 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 - Domestic and foreign equity securities, such as common stock, exchange-traded funds, rights, warrants, and preferred stock, that are traded on a securities exchange on a valuation date are generally valued at their last quoted sale price or official closing price on the primary exchange for such security, or, if no sales occurred on that day, at the last reported bid price. Equity securities traded over-the-counter (“OTC”) are generally valued at the last reported bid price. In the event of a major exchange closing during the trading day, the Adviser may use other market information obtained from quotation reporting systems, established market makers, or pricing services in valuing the securities. Valuation adjustments may be applied to certain foreign equity securities that are traded solely on foreign exchanges that close before the time as of which the Portfolio determines its NAV to account for the market movement between the close of the foreign exchanges and the time as of which the Portfolio determines its NAV. The Portfolio may use a systematic fair valuation model provided by a pricing service to value securities principally traded in these foreign markets in order to adjust for possible market movements or other changes that may occur between the close of the foreign exchanges and the time as of which the Portfolio determines its NAV. Foreign equity securities valued using these valuation adjustments are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy. Equity securities that are actively traded, and have no valuation adjustments applied, are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other equity securities traded on inactive markets, or valued in reference to similar instruments traded on active markets, 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 on the valuation date and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy.

Debt securities, including corporate, convertible and municipal bonds and notes; obligations of the U.S. Treasury and U.S. government agencies; foreign sovereign issues; and non-U.S. bonds, are generally valued on the basis of evaluated or composite bid quotations

MSF-13

Metropolitan Series Fund

Van Eck Global Natural Resources Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

obtained from independent pricing services and/or brokers and dealers selected by the Adviser (each a “pricing service”), pursuant to authorization of and subject to general oversight by the Board of Trustees of the Trust (the “Board” or “Trustees”). Such pricing services may use matrix pricing, which considers observable inputs including, among other things, issuer details, maturity dates, interest rates, yield curves, rates of prepayment, credit risks/spreads, default rates, reported trades, broker dealer quotes and quoted prices for similar assets. Short-term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less may be valued at amortized cost in the absence of market quotes, so long as the amortized cost value of such short-term debt instrument is approximately the same as the fair value of the instrument as determined without the use of amortized cost valuation. Floating rate loans are generally valued on the basis of an evaluated or composite average of aggregate bid and ask quotations supplied by brokers or dealers, as obtained from the pricing service. Securities that use similar valuation techniques and inputs as described above are generally 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 sale price available as of the close of business on a valuation day or, if there is no such price available, at the last reported bid price. These types of options are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Futures contracts that are traded on commodity exchanges are valued at their settlement prices established by the exchanges on which they are traded as of the close of such exchanges and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy.

If no current market value quotation or other observable inputs are readily available or market value quotations are deemed to be unreliable for an investment, the fair value of the investment will be determined in accordance with procedures approved by, and under the general supervision of, the Board. In such a circumstance, the Board will be assisted in its responsibility to determine the fair value of an investment by the Valuation Committee (“Committee”) of MetLife Advisers. The Committee provides general pricing oversight and fair value pricing determinations related to portfolio securities and meets on a regular basis to review reports relating to the valuation of the securities in the Portfolio. The Board has delegated to State Street Bank and Trust Company, the Trust’s custodian (“custodian”), the responsibility for calculating the net asset values (“NAVs”) of the Trust’s Portfolios. The Committee is responsible for overseeing the calculation of the NAVs of the Portfolios by the custodian. The Committee also periodically reviews pricing services, including the pricing services providing fair value pricing for the Portfolio’s foreign securities, and is responsible for overseeing the correction of pricing errors and addressing other pricing issues that arise in the ordinary course of business, such as making real-time fair value determinations, as necessary.

No single standard for determining the fair value of an investment can be set forth because fair value depends upon the facts and circumstances with respect to each investment. Information relating to any relevant factors may be obtained by the Committee from any appropriate source, including the subadviser of the Portfolio, the custodian, a pricing service, market maker and/or broker for such security or the issuer. Appropriate methodologies for determining fair value under particular circumstances may include: matrix pricing, a discounted cash flow analysis, comparisons of securities with comparable characteristics, value based on multiples of earnings, discount from market price of similar marketable securities or a combination of these and other methods.

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 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. These foreign taxes have been provided for in accordance with the Portfolio’s understanding of the applicable countries’ tax rules and rates.

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 the U.S. dollar 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. Because the values of investment securities are translated at the foreign exchange rates prevailing at the end of the period, that portion of the results of operations arising from changes in exchange rates and that portion of the results of operations reflecting fluctuations arising from changes in market prices of the investment securities are not separated. 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. 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.

Dividends and Distributions to Shareholders - The Portfolio records dividends and distributions on the ex-dividend date. Net realized gains from securities 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

MSF-14

Metropolitan Series Fund

Van Eck Global Natural Resources Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

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 trust (REIT) adjustments and broker commission recapture. These adjustments have no impact on net assets or the results 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 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. As of December 31, 2016, the Portfolio had no uncertain tax positions that would require financial statement recognition, or de-recognition or disclosure.

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 net ratio of expenses to average net assets presented in the Financial Highlights for each share class.

Repurchase Agreements - The Portfolio may enter into repurchase agreements, under the terms of a Master Repurchase Agreement (“MRA”), 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, under a tri-party repurchase agreement, receives delivery of the underlying securities collateralizing any repurchase agreements. It is the Portfolio’s policy that the market value of the collateral be equal to at least 100% of the repurchase price in the case of a repurchase agreement of one-day duration and equal to at least 102% of the repurchase price in the case of all other repurchase agreements. In the event of default or failure by a party to perform an obligation in connection with any repurchase transaction, the MRA gives the non-defaulting party the right to set-off claims and to apply property held by it in connection with any repurchase transaction against obligations owed to it.

At December 31, 2016, the Portfolio invested cash collateral for loans of portfolio securities in repurchase agreements with a gross value of $31,129,521. The combined value of all repurchase agreements is included as part of investments at value on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. The value of the related collateral exceeded the value of the repurchase agreements at December 31, 2016.

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 collateral held from securities on loan. 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.

Effective September 8, 2016, the Trust has entered into a Non-Custodial Securities Lending Agreement with JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (the “lending agent”). Prior to September 8, 2016, the Trust had entered into a Securities Lending Authorization Agreement with the custodian (the “prior lending agent”). Under each agreement, the lending agent is authorized to loan portfolio securities on the Portfolio’s behalf. In exchange, the Portfolio receives either cash or government securities as collateral against the loaned securities. The Portfolio receives collateral equal to at least 102% of the market value for loans secured by government securities or cash in the same currency as the loaned shares and 105% for all other loaned securities at each loan’s inception. Collateral representing at least 100% of the market value of the loaned securities is maintained for the duration of the loan. Any cash collateral received by the Portfolio is generally invested by the lending agent in short-term investments, which may include certificates of deposit, commercial paper, repurchase agreements, time deposits and money market funds. Cash collateral that was received by the prior lending agent had been generally invested in the State Street Navigator Securities Lending MET Portfolio (the “Navigator Portfolio”), a series of the State Street Navigator Securities Lending Trust that was a registered money market fund managed by an affiliate of the custodian. The market value of investments made with cash collateral received are disclosed in the Schedule of Investments and the valuation techniques are described in Note 2. 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 is 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 is equal to at least 100% of the market value of all the loaned securities as of such preceding day. A portion of the income earned on the collateral is rebated to the borrower of the securities and the remainder is split between the lending agent and the Portfolio. On loans collateralized by government securities, a fee is received from the borrower and is allocated between the Portfolio and the lending agent.

Income received by the Portfolio in securities lending transactions during the year ended December 31, 2016 is reflected as securities lending income on the Statement of Operations. The values of any securities loaned by the Portfolio and the related collateral at December 31, 2016 are disclosed in the footnotes to the Schedule of Investments. The value of the related collateral received by the Portfolio exceeded the value of the securities out on loan at December 31, 2016.

MSF-15

Metropolitan Series Fund

Van Eck Global Natural Resources Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

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. The lending agent shall indemnify the Portfolio in the case of default of any securities borrower, subject to the terms of the Non-Custodial Securities Lending Agreement.

All securities on loan are classified as Common Stocks in the Portfolio’s Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016, with a contractual maturity of overnight and continuous.

3. Certain Risks

In the normal course of business, the Portfolio invests in securities and enters into transactions where risks exist. Those risks include:

Market 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, interest rate, and price fluctuations.

Credit and Counterparty Risk: 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 and counterparty risk consist principally of cash due from counterparties and investments. The Portfolio manages counterparty risk by entering into agreements only with counterparties that it believes have the financial resources to honor their obligations and by monitoring the financial stability of those counterparties. The Portfolio’s investment adviser attempts to mitigate counterparty risk by (i) periodically assessing the creditworthiness of its trading partners, (ii) monitoring and/or limiting the amount of its net exposure to each individual counterparty based on its assessment, and (iii) requiring collateral from the counterparty for certain transactions. In order to preserve certain safeguards for non-standard settlement trades, the Portfolio restricts its exposure to credit and counterparty losses by entering into master netting agreements (“Master Agreements”) with counterparties (approved brokers) with whom it undertakes a significant volume of transactions. Master Agreements govern the terms of certain transactions, and reduce the counterparty risk associated with relevant transactions by specifying credit protection mechanisms and providing standardization that improves legal certainty. Master Agreements can also help limit counterparty risk by specifying collateral posting arrangements at pre-arranged exposure levels.

Repurchase and reverse repurchase agreements are primarily executed under Global Master Repurchase Agreements (“GMRAs”) or Master Repurchase Agreements (“MRAs”), which provide the rights to set-off. Each repurchase and reverse repurchase agreement is initially collateralized at the transaction level. In the event of default, the total market value exposure will be offset against collateral exchanged to date, which would result in a net receivable/(payable) that would be due from/to the counterparty.

Natural Resource and Foreign Investment Risk: The Portfolio may concentrate its investments in companies which are significantly engaged in the exploration, development, production and distribution of gold and other natural resources such as strategic and other metals, minerals, forest products, oil, natural gas and coal and by investing in gold bullion and coins. Since the Portfolio may concentrate its investments, it may be subject to greater risks and market fluctuations than other more diversified portfolios. The production and marketing of gold and other natural resources may be affected by actions and changes in governments. In addition, gold and natural resources may be cyclical in nature. In addition, the investments by the Portfolio in foreign securities may involve risks not present in domestic investments. Since securities may be denominated in foreign currencies, may require settlement in foreign currencies and pay interest or dividends in foreign currencies, changes in the relationship of these foreign currencies to the U.S. dollar can significantly affect the value of the investments and earnings of the Portfolio. Foreign investments may also subject the Portfolio to foreign government exchange restrictions, expropriation, taxation or other political, social or economic developments, all of which could affect the market and/or credit risk of the investments. In addition to the risks described above, risks may arise from forward foreign currency contracts with respect to the potential inability of counterparties to meet the terms of their contracts.

Additional risks associated with each type of investment are described above within the respective security type notes. The Portfolio’s prospectus includes a discussion of the principal risks of investing in the Portfolio.

4. Investment Transactions

Aggregate cost of purchases and proceeds of sales of investment securities, excluding short-term securities, for the year ended December 31, 2016 were as follows:

Purchases			Sales
U.S. Government	Non U.S. Government		U.S. Government		Non U.S. Government
$0	$	494,154,834	$	0	$	708,797,748

The Portfolio engaged in security transactions with other accounts managed by Van Eck Associates Corporation that amounted to $10,673,258 in purchases of investments, which are included above.

MSF-16

Metropolitan Series Fund

Van Eck Global Natural Resources Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

5. Investment Management Fees and Other Transactions with Affiliates

Investment Management Agreement - MetLife Advisers is the investment adviser to the Portfolio. The Trust has entered into an investment management agreement with MetLife Advisers with respect to the Portfolio. For providing investment management services to the Portfolio, MetLife Advisers receives monthly compensation at the following annual rates:

Management Fees earned by MetLife Advisers for the year ended December 31, 2016	% per annum			Average Daily Net Assets
$8,100,047		0.800	%	Of the first $250 million
		0.775	%	Of the next $750 million
		0.750	%	On amounts in excess of $1 billion

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

MetLife Advisers has entered into an investment subadvisory agreement with respect to managing the Portfolio. Van Eck Associates Corporation is compensated by MetLife Advisers to provide subadvisory services for the Portfolio.

Management Fee Waiver - Pursuant to a management fee waiver agreement, the Adviser has agreed, for the period May 1, 2016 to April 30, 2017, to reduce its advisory fees set out above under “Investment Management Agreement” for each class of the Portfolio as follows:

% per annum	Average Daily Net Assets
0.025%	On amounts over $500 million and under $1 billion

An identical agreement was in place for the period May 1, 2015 to April 30, 2016. Amounts waived for the year ended December 31, 2016 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 and Service Fees - The Trust has a distribution agreement with MetLife Investors Distribution Company (“MIDC” or the “Distributor”) in which MIDC serves as the distributor for the Portfolio’s Class A and B Shares. MIDC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife Investors Group, LLC, an affiliate of the Adviser. The Trust has also adopted a Distribution and Service Plan under Rule 12b-1 of the 1940 Act for the Portfolio’s Class B Shares. Under the Distribution and Service Plan, the Class B Shares of the Portfolio pay a fee to compensate the Insurance Companies (or their affiliates) and other broker-dealers and financial intermediaries involved in the offer and sale of Portfolio shares for promoting or selling and servicing the Class B Shares. The fees under the Distribution and Service Plan for each class of the Portfolio’s shares are calculated as a percentage of the Portfolio’s average daily net assets that are attributable to that Class. Currently, the fee is 0.25% per year for Class B Shares. Amounts incurred by the Portfolio for the year ended December 31, 2016 are shown as Distribution and service fees in the Statement of Operations.

Deferred Trustee Compensation - Each Trustee 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 Trust. 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 Met Investors Series Trust, an affiliate of the Trust, 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 under the Plan is reflected as Deferred trustees’ fees in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

6. Contractual Obligations

Under the Trust’s organizational documents, its officers and Trustees may be indemnified against certain liabilities and expenses arising out of the performance of their duties to the Trust. Additionally, 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 Trust that have not yet occurred.

MSF-17

Metropolitan Series Fund

Van Eck Global Natural Resources Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

7. Income Tax Information

The tax character of distributions paid for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015 were as follows:

Ordinary Income			Long-Term Capital Gain				Total
2016	2015		2016		2015		2016		2015
$8,304,252	$	4,821,085	$	—	$	—	$	8,304,252	$	4,821,085

As of December 31, 2016, 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		Other Accumulated Capital Losses			Total
$902,255	$	—	$	119,006,181	$	(239,900,595	)	$	(119,992,159	)

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 up to 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, 2016, the Portfolio had post-enactment accumulated short-term capital losses of $17,058,465, post-enactment accumulated long-term capital losses of $222,842,130, and no pre-enactment accumulated capital loss carryforwards.

8. Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In October 2016, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) adopted new rules and forms, and amendments to certain current rules and forms, to modernize reporting and disclosure of information by registered investment companies. The amendments to Regulation S-X will require standardized, enhanced disclosure about derivatives in investment company financial statements, and will also change the rules governing the form and content of such financial statements. The compliance date for the amendments to Regulation S-X is August 1, 2017. Management is currently evaluating the impact that the adoption of the amendments to Regulation S-X will have on the Portfolio’s financial statements and related disclosures.

MSF-18

Metropolitan Series Fund

Van Eck Global Natural Resources Portfolio

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Shareholders of Van Eck Global Natural Resources Portfolio and the Board of Trustees of Metropolitan Series Fund:

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities, including the schedule of investments, of Van Eck Global Natural Resources Portfolio (one of the portfolios constituting the Metropolitan Series Fund) (the “Portfolio”) as of December 31, 2016, 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 Portfolio’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 Portfolio 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 Portfolio’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, 2016, by correspondence with the custodian and brokers; when 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 Eck Global Natural Resources Portfolio of the Metropolitan Series Fund as of December 31, 2016, 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.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

February 24, 2017

MSF-19

Metropolitan Series Fund

Trustees and Officers

MANAGEMENT OF THE TRUSTS

The Boards of Trustees (the “Board”) of Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (“MIST” and “MSF”, respectively, and collectively the “Trusts”) supervise the Trusts and are responsible for representing the interests of shareholders. The Trustees, the Chairman of the Board and the Chairmen of each subcommittee are the same for both Trusts. The Trustees of each Trust meet periodically throughout the year to oversee the Portfolios’ activities, reviewing, among other things, each Portfolio’s performance and its contractual arrangements with various service providers. The Trustees of each Trust elect the officers of the Trust, who are responsible for administering the Trust’s day-to-day operations.

Trustees and Officers

The Trustees and executive officers of the Trusts, as well as their ages and their principal occupations during the past five years, are set forth below. Unless otherwise indicated, the business address of each is c/o MetLife Funds, One Financial Center, Boston, Massachusetts 02111. Each Trustee who is deemed an “interested person,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, is referred to as an “Interested Trustee.” Those Trustees who are not “interested persons,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, are referred to as “Independent Trustees.” There is no limit to the term a Trustee may serve. Trustees serve until their death, resignation or removal in accordance with the MIST Trust’s and MSF Trust’s respective organizational documents and policies adopted by the Boards of the respective Trusts from time to time. Officers hold office at the pleasure of each Board and serve until their removal or resignation in accordance with the Trusts’ respective organizational documents and policies adopted by the Board of each Trust from time to time.

Name and Age	Current 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 MetLife Funds Complex(2) Overseen by Trustee	Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Interested Trustee
John Rosenthal* (56)	Trustee	Indefinite; From May 2016 (MIST and MSF) to present	Senior Managing Director and Head of Global Portfolio Management, MetLife, Inc.	75	None
Independent Trustees
Dawn M. Vroegop (50)	Trustee and Chairman of the Board	Indefinite; From December 2000 (MIST)/ May 2009 (MSF) to present as Trustee; From May 2016 (MIST and MSF) until present as Chairman	Private Investor.	75	Trustee, Driehaus Mutual Funds.**
Stephen M. Alderman (57)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 (MIST)/ April 2012 (MSF) to present	Shareholder in the law firm of Garfield and Merel, Ltd.	75	None

MSF-20

Metropolitan Series Fund

Trustees and Officers—(Continued)

Name and Age	Current 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 MetLife Funds Complex(2) Overseen by Trustee	Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Robert J. Boulware (60)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 (MIST)/ April 2012 (MSF) to present	Managing Director, Pilgrim Funds, LLC (private equity fund).	75	Trustee, Vertical Capital Income Fund (closed-end fund);** Director, Gainsco, Inc. (auto insurance);** Trustee, SharesPost 100 Fund (closed-end fund).**
Susan C. Gause (64)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 (MIST)/ April 2012 (MSF) to present	Private Investor.	75	Trustee, HSBC Funds.**
Nancy Hawthorne (65)	Trustee	Indefinite; From May 2003 (MSF)/ April 2012 (MIST) to present	Partner, Hawthorne Financial Advisors, LLC (registered investment advisor); until June 2014, Chief Executive Officer, Clerestory LLC (corporate advisor).	75	Director and Chairman of the Board of Directors, THL Credit, Inc.;** Lead Director, Avid Technology, Inc.;** Director, CRA International, Inc.**
Barbara A. Nugent (60)	Trustee	Indefinite; From January 2014 (MIST and MSF) to present	President, True North Board Governance, LLC (consulting); until December 2013, partner in the law firm of Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young, LLP.	75	None
Linda B. Strumpf (69)	Trustee	Indefinite; From May 2000 (MSF)/ April 2012 (MIST) to present	Chair of the Investment Committee, Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust; until June 2011, Chief Investment Officer, Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust.	75	None

Executive Officers

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Kristi Slavin (43)	President and Chief Executive Officer, of MIST and MSF	From May 2016 (MIST and MSF) to present	President, MetLife Advisers, LLC (May 2016-present); Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Vice President, MetLife, Inc.; Vice President, MIST and MSF (2015-2016).

MSF-21

Metropolitan Series Fund

Trustees and Officers—(Continued)

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Peter H. Duffy (61)	Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, of MIST and MSF	From November 2000 (MSF)/ May 2012 (MIST) to present	Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Andrew L. Gangolf (62)	Secretary, of MIST and MSF	From May 2011 (MIST and MSF) to present	Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; until 2011, Senior Vice President & Assistant General Counsel, AllianceBernstein Investments, Inc.
Steven E. Hartstein (53)	Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”), of MIST and MSF	From February 2014 (MIST and MSF) to present	Vice President, MetLife, Inc. (2013-present); Senior Vice President and CCO, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Executive Director, Morgan Stanley (2009-2013); CCO, Consulting Group Capital Markets Funds (2006-2013).
Alan C. Leland (64)	Vice President, of MIST and MSF	From February 2005 (MSF)/ May 2012 (MIST) to present	Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Vice President, MetLife, Inc.

* Mr. Rosenthal is an “interested person” of the Trusts because of his position with MetLife, Inc., the current parent company of MetLife Advisers, LLC.

** 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 Trusts, MetLife, Inc. or the Manager are omitted if not materially different.

(2) The Fund Complex includes 45 MIST Portfolios and 30 MSF Portfolios.

MSF-22

Metropolitan Series Fund

Van Eck Global Natural Resources Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements

At an in-person meeting held on November 15-16, 2016 (the “November Meeting”), the Boards of Trustees (the “Board”) of the Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (“MIST” and “MSF,” respectively, and collectively, the “Trusts”), including a majority of the Trustees who are not “interested persons” of the Trusts (the “Independent Trustees”) under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “1940 Act”), approved the continuation of the Trusts’ advisory agreements (each, an “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 the series of the Trusts (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”).

In reaching that decision, the Board reviewed a variety of materials provided for the specific purpose of the annual contract renewal process. In addition, various materials provided to and discussed with the Board throughout the year also informed the Board’s decision to renew the Agreements. That information for each Portfolio included, but was not limited to, investment performance reports, along with periodic reports on various expenses, shareholder services, legal and compliance matters, asset pricing, brokerage commissions and trade execution. The Board also recognized the pending separation of the Adviser from its parent company, MetLife, Inc., as a consideration in their deliberations with respect to the Agreements.

The Board met in person with personnel of the Adviser on September 27, 2016 for the specific purpose of giving preliminary consideration to the proposed continuation of the Agreements (the “September Meeting”) through the review by the Adviser with the Board of the performance and fees experienced by each Portfolio, as well as other information. In considering the Agreements, the Independent Trustees were advised by independent legal counsel throughout the contract renewal process, and met with independent legal counsel in several executive sessions outside of the presence of management.

Information furnished and reviewed specifically in connection with the renewal process included, but was not limited to, a report for each Portfolio prepared by Broadridge (“Broadridge”), an independent organization, and a Portfolio-by-Portfolio profitability analysis prepared by the Adviser. In addition, the Independent Trustees received and reviewed a report prepared by JDL Consultants, LLC (“JDL”), an independent consultant to the Independent Trustees (“JDL Report”), which examined the comparative fees, expenses and performance of each Portfolio, based upon the Broadridge reports. Also, the Board reviewed the responses to wide-ranging questions relating to the business, operations and performance of the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers that the Adviser and Sub-Advisers had prepared specifically for the renewal process.

At the November Meeting, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, concluded that the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser supported the renewal of the Agreements. The Board also concluded that the investment performance of each Portfolio was such that each Agreement should continue, and that the fees paid by a Portfolio to the Adviser appeared to be reasonable in light of the nature, extent and quality of the services provided by the Adviser and Sub-Adviser. Further, the Board concluded that the Adviser’s profitability in providing services under the Advisory Agreements did not appear unreasonably high in light of the nature, extent and quality of the services provided by the Adviser. Finally, the Board concluded that the investment advisory fees paid by the Portfolios in some measure shared economies of scale with contract holders. In approving the renewal of each of the Agreements, the Board, including the Independent Trustees, gave attention to all of the information that was furnished. The Board evaluated the information available to it on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis, and its decision was made separately with respect to each Portfolio. The following discusses some of the primary factors that generally were relevant to the Board’s decision. The Board did not identify any single factor as controlling, and the Trustees generally attributed different weights to various factors for the various Portfolios.

Nature, extent and quality of services. The Board evaluated the nature, extent and quality of the services that the Adviser, and the Sub-Advisers as relevant, have provided to the Portfolios. The Board considered the Adviser’s services as investment manager to the Portfolios, including its services relating to the oversight of the Sub-Advisers and their investment management activities, trading practices, financial condition, relevant personnel matters and compliance programs, among other things. The Adviser’s services in coordinating and overseeing the activities of the Trusts’ other service providers were also considered. The Board considered information received from the Trusts’ Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) regarding the Portfolios’ compliance policies and procedures that were established pursuant to Rule 38a-l under the 1940 Act. In addition, throughout the year, the Board considered the expertise, experience and performance of the personnel of the Adviser who performed the various services that are mentioned above.

The Board also noted that the Adviser’s investment, compliance and legal staff conduct regular, periodic, telephonic and in-person meetings with the Sub-Advisers to review and assess the services that are provided to the Portfolios, and that personnel of the Adviser prepare and present reports to the Independent Trustees regarding those meetings.

MSF-23

Metropolitan Series Fund

Van Eck Global Natural Resources Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

With respect to the services provided by each of the Sub-Advisers, the Board considered a variety of information that the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser provided. The Board considered each Sub-Adviser’s investment process and philosophy, and the investment performance experienced by the Portfolio (as described in more detail below). The Board took into account that each Sub-Adviser’s responsibilities include the development and maintenance of an investment program for the applicable Portfolio that 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. In particular, the Board considered, among other things, the Sub-Adviser’s current level of staffing as well as its compensation program and its overall resources. The Board reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s history and investment experience, as well as information provided 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 regulatory and disciplinary history. In its review, the Board also took into account information regarding any services and/or payments provided to the Adviser by the Sub-Advisers in connection with marketing activities.

Performance. The Board placed emphasis on the performance of the Portfolios in light of, among other things, its importance to contract holders. The Board considered the Adviser’s quarterly reviews with the Board of detailed information about each Portfolio’s investment strategies and performance results and composition, including discussions regarding the relevant effect of current market conditions. The Board reviewed and considered the reports prepared by Broadridge, which provided a statistical analysis comparing the Portfolios’ investment performance to that of comparable funds underlying variable insurance products (the “Performance Universe”). The Independent Trustees also met separately with a representative of JDL during the September Meeting to review the JDL Report. The Board also compared the performance records of certain Portfolios to those of comparable funds that were managed by the relevant Sub-Adviser. At the November Meeting, the Board considered each Portfolio’s performance for periods subsequent to the performance period covered by the Broadridge reports, and the Adviser’s discussion of the same, including the effect of current market conditions on each Portfolio’s more recent performance.

The Board focused particular attention on Portfolios with less favorable performance records. The Board noted the Adviser’s focus on each Sub-Adviser’s performance and that the Adviser has been active in monitoring and responding to any performance issues with respect to the Portfolios.

Fees and Expenses. The Board gave consideration to the level and method of computing the fees payable under the Agreements. The Board considered the Broadridge report for each of the Portfolios, which included comparisons for each Portfolio of its contractual management and sub-adviser fees (at current and various asset levels), and total expenses, with those of its peers, including as those peers were divided into a broad group of peer funds (“Expense Universe”), a narrower group of peer funds (“Expense Group”), a broad group of peer sub-advised funds (“Sub-advised Expense Universe”), and a narrower group of peer sub-advised funds (“Sub-advised Expense Group”). Broadridge selected the peer funds which were similarly situated funds underlying variable insurance products deemed to be comparable to the Portfolios. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of JDL, also examined the JDL Report. The Board compared the fee payable to a Sub-Adviser by the Adviser with respect to the Portfolio to the fee payable to the Sub-Adviser by other comparable funds and accounts, to the extent such information was available.

The Board noted that the sub-advisory fees for the Portfolios are paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fee, and that, in the case of an unaffiliated Sub-Adviser, the Adviser negotiates the fee at arm’s length. The Board also considered that the Adviser had entered into expense limitation or management fee waiver agreements with certain of the Portfolios pursuant to which the Adviser had 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.

Profitability. The Board examined the profitability of the Adviser on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis. The Board also considered that an affiliate of the Adviser, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, serves as distributor for the Trusts, and, as such, receives Rule 12b-1 payments to support the distribution of the Portfolios. The Board considered the profitability to the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates as a result of their relationships with the Portfolios, to the extent available, and the Board considered the ability of the Adviser to negotiate with an unaffiliated Sub-Adviser at arm’s length. In reviewing the profitability analyses, the Board recognized that expense allocation methodologies are inherently subjective and various expense allocation methodologies may be reasonable while producing different results.

Economies of scale. The Board also considered each Portfolio’s fees in light of its size. The Board noted the fee schedules for the Portfolios that 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

MSF-24

Metropolitan Series Fund

Van Eck Global Natural Resources Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

schedule for such Portfolios. The Board considered the effective fees under the Advisory Agreement and Sub-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. The Board examined, among other data, the effect of a Portfolio’s growth in size, and reduction in size, on various fee schedules and the Board reviewed the Broadridge and JDL Reports, which compared fees among peers. The Board also generally noted that if a Portfolio’s assets increase over time, the Portfolio may realize other economies of scale if assets increase proportionally more than certain other fixed expenses.

Other factors. The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trusts. Among them, the Board recognized that MetLife Investors Distribution Company, as the distributor for the Trusts, receives payments pursuant to Rule 12b-1 from the Portfolios to compensate for the provision of shareholder services and distribution activities, which could lead to growth in the Trusts’ assets and corresponding benefits from such growth, including economies of scale. The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by each Sub-Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trusts, including the opportunity to provide advisory services to additional portfolios of the Trusts and reputational benefits. In conjunction with these considerations, the Board noted the ongoing commitment of the Adviser to the Portfolios.

The Board considered possible conflicts of interest in the form of material benefits or detriments to the Trusts resulting from the nature of the Trusts’ and the Adviser’s or the Sub-Advisers’ affiliations and the services that are provided to the Trusts, and the manner in which such conflicts were mitigated.

*  *  *

Van Eck Global Natural Resources Portfolio. The Board also considered the following information in relation to the Agreements with the Adviser and Van Eck Associates Corporation regarding the Portfolio:

Among other data relating specifically to the 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, 2016. The Board also considered that the Portfolio outperformed its benchmark, the S&P North American Natural Resources Sector Index, for the one-year period ended October 31, 2016, and underperformed its benchmark for the three- and five-year periods ended October 31, 2016.

The Board also considered that the Portfolio’s actual management fees were equal to the Expense Group median and the Sub-advised Expense Universe median and were above the Expense Universe median. The Board further 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. The Board further noted that the Portfolio’s contractual management fees were above the asset-weighted average of certain comparable funds at the Portfolio’s current size. The Board also noted that the Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees were above the averages of the Sub-advised Expense Group and the Sub-advised Expense Universe at the Portfolio’s current size.

MSF-25

Metropolitan Series Fund

Van Eck Global Natural Resources Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Advisory Agreements

The separation (the “Separation”) of MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”), the investment adviser to each of the series (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”) of Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (collectively, the “Trusts”), from its parent company, MetLife, Inc. (“MetLife”), to a separate retail business, Brighthouse Financial, Inc. (“Brighthouse”), is expected to result in a change in control of the Adviser, and therefore an “assignment” of each Portfolio’s current advisory agreement (each a “Current Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “Current Advisory Agreements”). At the November 15-16, 2016 meeting (“November Meeting”) of the Board of Trustees of the Trusts (the “Board”), the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not “interested persons,” as defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940, of any Portfolio (the “Independent Trustees”), approved a new advisory agreement (each a “New Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “New Advisory Agreements”) between the Trusts, on behalf of a Portfolio, and the Adviser, to be effective upon the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements in connection with the Separation, and recommended that the shareholders of the Trusts approve the New Advisory Agreements. The Board took those actions after consideration of and deliberation over information concerning the Separation, including with respect to the degree to which the Separation would affect the provision of investment advisory services to the Trusts. Information about the Board’s considerations and process is set forth below.

In determining whether to approve the New Advisory Agreements and in considering the Separation, the Board considered the nature, quality and extent of the services that are currently provided by the Adviser under the Current Advisory Agreements as well as the services to be provided under the New Advisory Agreements. The Board’s review was conducted as part of, and in conjunction with, the Board’s annual review of the Current Advisory Agreements, which culminated at the November Meeting. In approving the New Advisory Agreements, the Board considered its conclusions with respect to its approvals of the Current Advisory Agreements, including the Board’s general satisfaction with the nature, extent and quality of services being provided by the Adviser to each Portfolio. Appendix A and Appendix B contains a further description of the process followed, information reviewed and the material factors considered by the Board in approving the continuation of the Current Advisory Agreements.

A substantial portion of the Board’s review of the New Advisory Agreements focused on the Separation, including the potential effect of the implementation of the Separation on the operations, personnel, organizational structure, capitalization, and financial and other resources of the Adviser. After being informed by the Adviser in January 2016 of the possibility of the Separation, the Board and its Committees discussed the Separation and its possible effects on the Trusts with personnel of the Adviser and the anticipated senior management at Brighthouse during the course of the Board’s or Committee’s regularly scheduled, in-person, quarterly meetings.

Between August and November 2016, the Board and the Independent Trustees engaged in an extensive review and analysis of the Separation and how the Separation related to the Adviser and the Trusts and how it could affect the services provided to the Trusts. This analysis focused on, among other matters, the assurances from Brighthouse’s anticipated leadership as to its expectations for the continuity and stability of the Adviser’s personnel throughout implementation of the Separation and for the foreseeable future thereafter. The Board considered that the Separation is being implemented as a result of MetLife’s determination to divest itself of a substantial portion of its U.S. retail business (of which the Adviser forms a portion). The Board also considered that it has been satisfied as a general matter with the nature and quality of the services that the Adviser provides to the Portfolios, including investment advisory, administrative, legal, compliance, and support services, and that it would be in the Portfolios’ best interests to maintain continuity and stability in the services that are currently being provided. The Board carefully considered the anticipated future plans of Brighthouse related to capitalization and operational matters for Brighthouse and the Adviser, as well as the importance of the Adviser to the businesses of Brighthouse after the Separation.

Among other steps in its review process, which accelerated on October 5, 2016 when Brighthouse filed its Form 10 with the SEC, the following actions were taken and considered by or on behalf of the Board:

1. The Independent Trustees solicited and received ongoing advice regarding the legal duties of the Independent Trustees from Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young LLP (“Stradley Ronon”), legal counsel for the Independent Trustees, which law firm has extensive experience regarding such matters.

2. Following the August 16-17, 2016 Board and Committee quarterly meetings, the Independent Trustees established an ad hoc group of Independent Trustees (the “Working Group”) to help oversee, coordinate, and conduct due diligence activities with respect to the Separation. The Working Group regularly reported on the due diligence activities to the other Independent Trustees.

3. Since January 2016, the Board posed ongoing inquiries to, and received regular updates from, the Adviser and anticipated senior management at Brighthouse at either in-person meetings dedicated to the status of the Separation or during the course of the Board or Committee’s regular quarterly meetings. The Board considered, among other matters, relevant legal guidance and the processes

MSF-26

Metropolitan Series Fund

Van Eck Global Natural Resources Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

followed by certain other investment company boards of directors or trustees when they approved contracts in connection with change in control events, while recognizing the unique circumstances of the Separation.

4. The Board received and reviewed the Form 10 of Brighthouse that contained extensive information relating to, among other matters, Brighthouse’s anticipated business plans and financial structure. The Board also received and reviewed reports from rating agencies with respect to Brighthouse.

5. Stradley Ronon retained Barrington Partners (“Barrington”), an independent consulting firm with a specific focus on the asset management industry and experience relating to business operations such as those to be conducted by Brighthouse, including its proposed subsidiary, the Adviser, in order to help Stradley Ronon evaluate the Separation based on the Form 10 and other materials and related information provided by the Adviser and its affiliates. Barrington conducted a series of in-person and telephonic meetings with anticipated senior management at Brighthouse (i.e., the aforementioned anticipated officers of Brighthouse and others) and with personnel of the Adviser who provide services to the Trusts. Stradley Ronon, with the assistance of Barrington, evaluated the information and advised the Independent Trustees with respect to, among other matters, details of Brighthouse’s anticipated business plan to understand the implications of the Separation to the Adviser and its personnel. The Independent Trustees and the Working Group attended certain in-person and telephonic conference call meetings at which Barrington rendered advice to Stradley Ronon regarding these matters and responded to questions.

6. The Independent Trustees requested and participated in in-person meetings with anticipated senior management personnel at Brighthouse, including its President and Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, Chief Operating Officer, and Chief Investment Officer. The Independent Trustees also met with personnel of the Adviser.

7. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of Stradley Ronon, prepared written inquiries to the Adviser and its affiliates regarding the Separation, and received written assurances from the Adviser and its affiliates that they have no plans to make any material changes affecting the personnel of the Adviser (including those personnel who provide investment, administrative, legal and compliance services) and the Adviser and its affiliates will not initiate such changes without prior notice to and discussion with the Board.

8. The Board considered representations by the Adviser and its affiliates that approval of the New Advisory Agreements would be necessary for the Portfolios to continue receiving investment advisory services from the Adviser following the change in control.

9. The Board considered representations by the Adviser, as well as related supporting documentation, indicating that the New Advisory Agreements, including the fees payable thereunder, are substantially identical to the terms of the corresponding Current Advisory Agreements.

10. The Board considered representations by the Adviser and its affiliates, as well as related supporting documentation, indicating that: (1) the Adviser can be expected to provide services of the same nature, extent, and quality under the New Advisory Agreements and as are provided thereby under the Current Advisory Agreements; and (2) the Separation is not expected to result in any changes to (i) the management of the Portfolios, or (ii) the investment objective of or the principal investment strategies used to manage any of the Portfolios.

11. The Board considered the ability of the Adviser and its affiliates to retain the employment of key personnel, as well as the overall positive indications by many such personnel regarding the opportunities presented by the Separation.

12. The Board considered that the Adviser and its affiliates have agreed to bear all expenses associated with obtaining shareholder approval of the New Advisory Agreements.

13. The Board considered Brighthouse’s preliminary “branding” plans regarding the future name of its operations.

14. The Board considered the advice provided by Ropes & Gray, LLP, legal counsel to the Trusts and the Adviser, with respect to the New Advisory Agreements (including advice relating to the process and timing of seeking shareholder approval of the New Advisory Agreements, and whether shareholder approvals would be required in connection with any future aspects of the Separation) and regarding the Board’s role and responsibilities with respect to the Separation.

15. The Board considered MetLife’s stated intention of divesting its ownership interest in the Adviser through the Separation, including the potential advantages and disadvantages of this divestiture to shareholders of the Portfolios. The Board considered the likelihood that the Adviser would retain its key personnel after the Separation. The Board considered that the garnering of new assets into the Trusts is based on sales of variable annuity and variable life insurance products, which sales have declined in prior years as a result of, among other things, the capital requirements of MetLife. The Board considered the representations of the anticipated senior management of Brighthouse that the Separation provides the Trusts with an opportunity for the garnering of new assets as Brighthouse

MSF-27

Metropolitan Series Fund

Van Eck Global Natural Resources Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

will likely sell such products going forward. The Board considered also that the divestiture would result in a change in the manner in which the Trusts access certain services and resources of MetLife (after the Separation those services will be provided through a transition services agreement), the loss of affiliation with the MetLife name brand, and the possible going forward need of the Trusts to hire a transfer agent, as such transfer agency services are currently provided to the Trusts for no fee.

16. The Board considered that, if shareholders approve the New Advisory Agreements, the Board and the Adviser will conduct their annual contract review process in November 2017. Thus, the Board emphasized that it would be able to, and intends to, monitor on a regular basis the ability of the Adviser and its affiliates to comply with their undertakings to the Board and to monitor on an ongoing basis the quality of services to, and expenses of, the Portfolios. In addition, the Board considered that, under the New Advisory Agreements, it will continue to have the authority, should the need arise in its view, to terminate any of the New Advisory Agreements without penalty upon 60 days’ notice.

Based on the foregoing and other relevant considerations, at the November Meeting, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, voted to approve the New Advisory Agreements and to recommend approval of the New Advisory Agreements by shareholders of the Portfolios. In this connection, the Board concluded that, in light of all factors considered, the terms of the New Advisory Agreement, including fee rates, were fair and reasonable, and that it would be in the best interests of shareholders of each Portfolio to approve the New Advisory Agreements.

In the event that approval of the New Advisory Agreements by shareholders of the Portfolios has not been obtained before the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements as a result of the change in control of the Adviser, the Board also approved an interim advisory agreement with the Adviser (the “Interim Advisory Agreement”) on behalf of each Portfolio that will go into effect upon the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements. The Board’s determination to approve each Interim Advisory Agreement was based on the same information and considerations as the Board’s approval of the New Advisory Agreements so as to ensure continuity of advisory services from the Adviser to the Portfolios following the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements.

MSF-28

Metropolitan Series Fund

Van Eck Global Natural Resources Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Sub-advisory Agreements

The separation (the “Separation”) of MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”), the investment adviser to each of the series (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”) of Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (collectively, the “Trusts”), from its parent company, MetLife, Inc. (“MetLife”), to a separate retail business, Brighthouse Financial, Inc. (“Brighthouse”), is expected to result in a change in control of the Adviser, and therefore an “assignment” of each Portfolio’s current advisory agreement and, as a result, the automatic termination of the sub-advisory agreement (each a “Sub-Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisory Agreements”) between the Adviser and the investment sub-advisers (each a “Sub-Adviser” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisers”). At the November 15-16, 2016 meeting (“November Meeting”) of the Board of Trustees of the Trusts (the “Board”), the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not “interested persons,” as defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940, of any Portfolio (the “Independent Trustees”), approved new sub-advisory agreements (each a “New Sub-Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “New Sub-Advisory Agreements”). Information about the Board’s considerations and process is set forth below.

In determining whether to approve the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, the Board considered the nature, quality and extent of the services that are currently provided by the Sub-Advisers under the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements as well as the services to be provided under the New Sub-Advisory Agreements. The Board’s review was conducted as part of, and in conjunction with, the Board’s annual review of the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements, which culminated at the November Meeting. In approving the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, the Board considered its conclusions with respect to its approvals of the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements, including the Board’s general satisfaction with the nature, extent and quality of services being provided by the Sub-Advisers to the Portfolios, as applicable. Appendix A contains a further description of the process followed, information reviewed and the material factors considered by the Board in approving the continuation of the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements.

In addition, the following actions were taken and considered by or on behalf of the Board:

1. The Independent Trustees of the Board solicited and received ongoing advice regarding the legal duties of the Independent Trustees from Stradley Ronon, legal counsel for the Independent Trustees, which law firm has extensive experience regarding such matters.

2. The Board considered representations by the Adviser and its affiliates that approval of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements would be necessary for the Portfolios to continue receiving sub-advisory services from the Sub-Advisers following the change in control of the Adviser.

3. The Board considered representations by the Adviser, as well as related supporting documentation, indicating that the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, including the fees payable thereunder, are the same as the terms of the corresponding Current Sub-Advisory Agreements.

4. The Board considered the advice provided by Ropes & Gray, LLP, legal counsel to the Trusts and the Adviser, with respect to the New Sub-Advisory Agreements and regarding the Board’s role and responsibilities with respect to the Separation.

5. The Board considered that the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers will conduct their annual contract review process in November 2017. Thus, the Board emphasized that it would be able to, and intends to, monitor on an ongoing basis the ability of the Sub-Advisers to comply with its undertakings to the Board and the Adviser and to monitor on an ongoing basis the quality of services to, and expenses of, the Portfolios. In addition, the Board considered that, under the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, it will continue to have the authority, should the need arise in its view, to terminate any of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements without penalty upon no more than 60 days’ notice.

Based on the foregoing and other relevant considerations, at the November Meeting, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, voted to approve the New Sub-Advisory Agreements. In this connection, the Board concluded that, in light of all factors considered, the terms of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, including fee rates, were fair and reasonable.

MSF-29

Metropolitan Series Fund

Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities Portfolio

Managed by Western Asset Management Company

Portfolio Manager Commentary*

PERFORMANCE

For the 12 months ended December 31, 2016, the Class A, B, and E shares of the Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities Portfolio returned 8.55%, 8.30%, and 8.47%, respectively. The Portfolio’s benchmark, the Bloomberg Barclays U.S. Aggregate Bond Index¹, returned 2.65%.

MARKET ENVIRONMENT / CONDITIONS

The broad U.S. fixed income market posted a modest gain in 2016 even as Treasury yields moved higher, especially towards the end of the year. Economic growth in the U.S. continued at a subdued pace as it has in recent years. Coming into 2016, markets had just experienced the first U.S. Federal Reserve (the “Fed”) rate hike since the financial crisis and expected four more hikes over the coming year. Risk markets began the year as they had for much of the last half of 2015, dominated by concerns of possible slowing global growth, weak commodity prices and a strengthening U.S. dollar.

Both short- and longer-term Treasury yields increased in 2016. The yield on the two-year Treasury began at 1.06% and ended the year 14 basis points (“bps”) higher at 1.20%. After beginning the year at 2.27%, the yield on the 10-year Treasury fell to 1.49% at the end of June but ultimately ended the year higher at 2.45%. Rates surged higher after the surprise election of Donald Trump as markets expected the policies of his administration to boost growth and inflation which in turn will lead to a faster pace of Fed rate increases. All told, the broad market bond index, as measured by the Bloomberg Barclays U.S. Aggregate Bond Index, returned 2.65% during the year.

Economic growth over the year remained positive but was generally muted. The most recent Gross Domestic Product (“GDP”) release, for the third quarter’s real annualized growth, registered an impressive 3.5% which followed a 1.4% expansion in the second quarter of 2016 and a smaller 0.8% pickup in the first quarter of the year. While the third quarter’s print was a large surprise to the upside, much of the gain appears due to a quirk related to unusually large soybean exports which were in turn due to poor crops in other parts of the world.

The job market pushed well into full-employment territory in 2016. The unemployment rate began the year at 5.0% and inched down to 4.6% by year-end. The workforce participation rate, however, ended the year where it began at 62.7%. Wage gains were unimpressive for most of the year but improved towards the end of the year as the labor force tightened.

The Fed moved away from emergency policy rates for the first time in nearly a decade in late 2015 as it raised the federal funds rate to a range between 0.25% and 0.50%. A year later at its December 2016 meeting the Fed initiated its next increase as employment looked reasonably healthy, inflation measures appeared to be moving closer to targets and the recent 3.5% GDP print, despite its quirks, pointed to improving growth. Markets had expected a few more Fed increases earlier in the year, but the Fed held off as economic data failed to cooperate in the early part of the year, then international concerns such as bank worries and then Brexit, the U.K. referendum on leaving the European Union, complicated matters, and later the Fed did not want to impact markets in the fall as the U.S. election approached.

PORTFOLIO REVIEW / PERIOD END POSITIONING

The Portfolio outperformed its benchmark over the reporting period, returning 8.55% versus the Bloomberg Barclays U.S. Aggregate Bond Index return of 2.65%.

The Portfolio’s high-yield corporate bond exposure was the largest contributor overall during 2016. After a challenging first quarter, this sector rebounded sharply on the back of a broad-based rally in global markets fueled by strong demand for higher-yielding assets, especially after the surprise U.S. presidential election outcome. The high yield sector also benefitted from the continued rally in crude oil and global commodity prices, which boosted valuations across the energy and metals & mining complexes. Investment grade corporate bonds and inflation-linked holdings also contributed to the Portfolio’s performance.

Another key contributor to the Portfolio’s relative performance for the period was its out-of-benchmark allocation to emerging market debt. The asset class performed strongly on the rebound in commodity prices, easing concerns related to moderating growth in China, and the Fed’s decision to refrain from initiating an aggressive rate normalization cycle.

Currency strategies were another positive contributor to performance, in large part due to the sharp rally in the U.S. dollar which benefitted our short positions in the Japanese yen, Korean won and Taiwan dollar.

The principal detractor to the Portfolio’s performance was our exposure to Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities issues, which had performed strongly in 2015, but were impacted by a technical rotation away from the sector which dampened valuations, and non-U.S. issues (mainly emerging markets local currency denominated bonds) which were impacted by the resurgence of the U.S. dollar as we moved into year-end.

MSF-1

Metropolitan Series Fund

Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities Portfolio

Managed by Western Asset Management Company

Portfolio Manager Commentary*—(Continued)

Given the improvement in high-yield spreads over the past year, we reduced the Portfolio’s allocation to the high yield sector and deployed those proceeds into bank loans. This asset class generally enjoys more senior and secured status, typically exhibits less volatility than high-yield bonds and typically does well in a rising-rate environment. From a technical perspective, the recent pick up in LIBOR has served to boost investor demand for these securities.

S. Kenneth Leech

Carl L. Eichsteadt

Mark S. Lindbloom

Michael Buchanan

Chia-Liang Lian

Portfolio Managers

Western Asset Management 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 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.

MSF-2

Metropolitan Series Fund

Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities Portfolio

A $10,000 INVESTMENT COMPARED TO THE BLOOMBERG BARCLAYS U.S. AGGREGATE BOND INDEX

AVERAGE ANNUAL RETURNS (%) (FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2016)

	1 Year		5 Year		10 Year
Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities Portfolio
Class A		8.55		4.87		5.90
Class B		8.30		4.63		5.64
Class E		8.47		4.73		5.75
Bloomberg Barclays U.S. Aggregate Bond Index		2.65		2.23		4.34

¹ The Bloomberg Barclays 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.

Portfolio performance is calculated including reinvestment of all income and capital gain distributions. Performance numbers are net of all Portfolio expenses but do not include any insurance, sales, separate account or administrative charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts or any additional expenses that participants may bear relating to the operations of their plans. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower. The performance of any index referenced above has not been adjusted for ongoing management, distribution and operating expenses, and sales charges applicable to mutual fund investments. Direct investment in any index is not possible. The performance of Class A shares, as set forth in the line graph above, will differ from that of other classes because of the difference in expenses paid by policyholders investing in the different share classes.

This information represents past performance and is not indicative of future results. Investment return and principal value may fluctuate so that shares, upon redemption, may be worth more or less than the original cost.

PORTFOLIO COMPOSITION AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2016

Top Sectors

	% of Net Assets
Corporate Bonds & Notes		53.5
Mortgage-Backed Securities		15.1
Foreign Government		13.3
Floating Rate Loans		6.2
U.S. Treasury & Government Agencies		5.9
Investment Company Securities		2.3
Asset-Backed Securities		2.1
Convertible Preferred Stocks		0.4
Municipals		0.3
Preferred Stocks		0.1

MSF-3

Metropolitan Series Fund

Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities 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, 2016 through December 31, 2016.

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.

Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities Portfolio		Annualized Expense Ratio			Beginning Account Value July 1, 2016		Ending Account Value December 31, 2016		Expenses Paid During Period** July 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016
Class A(a)	Actual		0.54	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,028.40	$	2.75
	Hypothetical*		0.54	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,022.42	$	2.75
Class B(a)	Actual		0.79	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,027.00	$	4.03
	Hypothetical*		0.79	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,021.17	$	4.01
Class E(a)	Actual		0.69	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,027.80	$	3.52
	Hypothetical*		0.69	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,021.67	$	3.51

* 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 366 (to reflect the one-half year period).

^(a) The annualized expense ratio shown reflects the impact of the management fee waiver as described in Note 6 of the Notes to Financial Statements.

MSF-4

Metropolitan Series Fund

Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Corporate Bonds & Notes—53.5% of Net Assets

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Advertising—0.0%
WPP Finance 2010 5.125%, 09/07/42		120,000	$	120,035
Aerospace/Defense—1.0%
Arconic, Inc. 5.125%, 10/01/24 (a)		2,125,000		2,178,125
Harris Corp. 4.854%, 04/27/35		570,000		598,865
5.054%, 04/27/45		1,089,000		1,149,786
Lockheed Martin Corp. 3.100%, 01/15/23		220,000		222,405
3.550%, 01/15/26		2,261,000		2,310,091
4.700%, 05/15/46		3,321,000		3,612,338
Northrop Grumman Corp. 3.200%, 02/01/27		22,500,000		22,261,500
Raytheon Co. 3.125%, 10/15/20		30,000		30,972
United Technologies Corp. 4.500%, 06/01/42		290,000		310,417
				32,674,499
Agriculture—0.7%
Alliance One International, Inc. 8.500%, 04/15/21 (144A)		3,870,000		3,928,050
9.875%, 07/15/21 (a)		6,015,000		5,157,862
Altria Group, Inc. 5.375%, 01/31/44		939,000		1,084,660
Reynolds American, Inc. 4.850%, 09/15/23		2,960,000		3,214,708
5.850%, 08/15/45		8,465,000		10,023,627
				23,408,907
Airlines—0.1%
Air Canada Pass-Through Trust 4.125%, 05/15/25 (144A)		706,957		727,246
American Airlines Group, Inc. 4.625%, 03/01/20 (144A) (a)		1,400,000		1,417,500
Delta Air Lines Pass-Through Trust 4.950%, 05/23/19		290,401		304,340
Hawaiian Airlines Pass-Through Certificates 3.900%, 01/15/26		411,956		420,710
Northwest Airlines Pass-Through Trust 7.575%, 03/01/19		12,640		13,146
				2,882,942
Apparel—0.4%
Hanesbrands, Inc. 4.625%, 05/15/24 (144A) (a)		5,949,000		5,770,530
4.875%, 05/15/26 (144A)		6,575,000		6,427,062
William Carter Co. (The) 5.250%, 08/15/21		2,375,000		2,461,094
				14,658,686
Auto Manufacturers—0.6%
Ford Motor Co. 4.750%, 01/15/43 (a)		2,070,000		1,965,273
Ford Motor Credit Co. LLC 3.664%, 09/08/24		720,000		702,545
General Motors Co. 6.600%, 04/01/36		5,134,000		5,868,198
6.750%, 04/01/46		10,000,000		11,726,900
General Motors Financial Co., Inc. 5.250%, 03/01/26		1,660,000		1,743,815
				22,006,731
Auto Parts & Equipment—0.9%
Allison Transmission, Inc. 5.000%, 10/01/24 (144A) (a)		4,810,000		4,858,100
American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. 6.250%, 03/15/21 (a)		2,100,000		2,168,250
6.625%, 10/15/22 (a)		1,590,000		1,639,608
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (The) 5.000%, 05/31/26		3,630,000		3,613,447
IHO Verwaltungs GmbH 4.125%, 09/15/21 (144A) (b)		1,840,000		1,858,400
4.750%, 09/15/26 (144A) (a) (b)		3,440,000		3,319,600
Schaeffler Finance B.V. 4.250%, 05/15/21 (144A) (a)		4,000,000		4,080,000
ZF North America Capital, Inc. 4.500%, 04/29/22 (144A) (a)		1,425,000		1,469,532
4.750%, 04/29/25 (144A) (a)		9,010,000		9,167,675
				32,174,612
Banks—9.8%
ABN AMRO Bank NV 4.750%, 07/28/25 (144A)		3,831,000		3,876,049
Bank of America Corp. 3.875%, 08/01/25		1,040,000		1,057,504
4.000%, 01/22/25		17,810,000		17,832,369
4.125%, 01/22/24		880,000		914,541
4.200%, 08/26/24		2,380,000		2,424,516
4.250%, 10/22/26		7,628,000		7,720,345
6.300%, 03/10/26 (a) (c)		375,000		391,875
6.500%, 10/23/24 (a) (c)		4,835,000		5,052,575
Barclays Bank plc 7.625%, 11/21/22		16,450,000		18,053,875
10.179%, 06/12/21 (144A)		1,180,000		1,465,218
Barclays plc 4.375%, 01/12/26		1,575,000		1,595,195
BNP Paribas S.A. 4.375%, 05/12/26 (144A) (a)		11,070,000		10,910,592
7.625%, 03/30/21 (144A) (a) (c)		2,850,000		3,007,035
BPCE S.A. 4.875%, 04/01/26 (144A) (a)		12,000,000		11,991,348
5.150%, 07/21/24 (144A)		420,000		426,975
Citigroup, Inc. 4.050%, 07/30/22 (a)		2,000,000		2,069,968
4.400%, 06/10/25		1,470,000		1,503,883
4.450%, 09/29/27		16,094,000		16,349,026

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-5

Metropolitan Series Fund

Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Corporate Bonds & Notes—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Banks—(Continued)
Citigroup, Inc.
5.350%, 05/15/23 (c)		560,000	$	527,800
5.900%, 02/15/23 (a) (c)		1,475,000		1,491,594
5.950%, 01/30/23 (a) (c)		3,606,000		3,655,582
5.950%, 05/15/25 (c)		2,790,000		2,755,683
6.300%, 05/15/24 (a) (c)		850,000		842,775
Cooperatieve Rabobank UA 3.750%, 07/21/26		4,210,000		4,126,844
4.375%, 08/04/25		1,470,000		1,508,408
11.000%, 06/30/19 (144A) (c)		415,000		487,750
Credit Agricole S.A. 7.875%, 01/23/24 (144A) (c)		1,750,000		1,767,657
8.125%, 12/23/25 (144A) (c)		7,050,000		7,419,843
8.375%, 10/13/19 (144A) (a) (c)		640,000		702,093
Credit Suisse Group AG 7.500%, 12/11/23 (144A) (a) (c)		4,365,000		4,566,881
Credit Suisse Group Funding Guernsey, Ltd. 4.875%, 05/15/45		1,560,000		1,601,299
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (The) 3.500%, 11/16/26		3,480,000		3,399,908
3.750%, 02/25/26 (a)		1,660,000		1,664,877
4.000%, 03/03/24		3,180,000		3,298,992
4.250%, 10/21/25		13,890,000		14,110,031
5.150%, 05/22/45		3,184,000		3,348,485
5.250%, 07/27/21		1,330,000		1,457,667
6.750%, 10/01/37		2,000,000		2,469,694
7.500%, 02/15/19		20,000		22,172
HSBC Holdings plc 3.900%, 05/25/26		14,240,000		14,337,245
4.250%, 08/18/25		2,253,000		2,273,610
6.375%, 09/17/24 (a) (c)		1,290,000		1,269,037
ICICI Bank, Ltd. 5.750%, 11/16/20		9,290,000		10,119,318
Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A. 5.710%, 01/15/26 (144A)		3,820,000		3,645,346
6.500%, 02/24/21 (144A)		1,175,000		1,288,593
Itau CorpBanca 3.875%, 09/22/19		6,290,000		6,482,587
Itau Unibanco Holding S.A. 2.850%, 05/26/18 (a)		10,770,000		10,796,925
JPMorgan Chase & Co. 3.625%, 05/13/24		690,000		701,859
3.625%, 12/01/27		6,430,000		6,238,296
3.875%, 09/10/24		5,082,000		5,142,156
4.350%, 08/15/21 (a)		10,000		10,698
4.500%, 01/24/22		160,000		172,549
6.750%, 02/01/24 (a) (c)		1,105,000		1,190,638
Lloyds Banking Group plc 4.582%, 12/10/25		3,011,000		3,025,555
4.650%, 03/24/26 (a)		7,220,000		7,313,080
7.500%, 06/27/24 (a) (c)		4,580,000		4,717,400
Macquarie Bank, Ltd. 4.875%, 06/10/25 (144A)		2,100,000		2,125,181
Morgan Stanley 4.000%, 07/23/25		1,165,000		1,194,145
4.100%, 05/22/23 (a)		2,500,000		2,566,305
Banks—(Continued)
Morgan Stanley
4.875%, 11/01/22 (a)		450,000		482,283
6.625%, 04/01/18		714,000		755,075
Nordea Bank AB 4.250%, 09/21/22 (144A)		3,400,000		3,541,756
Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp., Ltd. 4.250%, 06/19/24		10,230,000		10,272,414
Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc 4.800%, 04/05/26		400,000		400,452
5.125%, 05/28/24		4,530,000		4,516,777
6.000%, 12/19/23		875,000		908,866
6.100%, 06/10/23		780,000		816,434
6.125%, 12/15/22		390,000		414,700
8.625%, 08/15/21 (c)		2,890,000		2,947,800
Royal Bank of Scotland NV 4.650%, 06/04/18		410,000		416,809
Royal Bank of Scotland plc (The) 13.125%, 03/19/22 (AUD) (c)		1,580,000		1,163,530
Santander Holdings USA, Inc. 4.500%, 07/17/25		890,000		884,434
Santander UK Group Holdings plc 4.750%, 09/15/25 (144A) (a)		12,691,000		12,424,502
7.375%, 06/24/22 (GBP) (c)		2,620,000		3,229,055
Santander UK plc 7.950%, 10/26/29		272,000		316,988
Scotia Bank Peru DPR Finance Co. 3.713%, 03/15/17 (144A) (c) (d)		52,632		52,615
Standard Chartered plc 3.950%, 01/11/23 (144A) (a)		2,425,000		2,369,780
5.700%, 03/26/44 (144A)		9,800,000		9,787,681
UBS AG 7.625%, 08/17/22 (a)		2,850,000		3,231,187
Wachovia Capital Trust III 5.570%, 01/30/17 (a) (c)		1,021,000		1,001,907
Wells Fargo & Co. 4.300%, 07/22/27 (a)		17,670,000		18,174,903
4.750%, 12/07/46		7,170,000		7,276,518
Wells Fargo Capital X 5.950%, 12/15/36		380,000		395,200
				338,261,113
Beverages—1.0%
Anheuser-Busch InBev Finance, Inc. 3.650%, 02/01/26		7,642,000		7,758,082
4.900%, 02/01/46		6,215,000		6,717,607
Anheuser-Busch InBev Worldwide, Inc. 7.750%, 01/15/19 (a)		1,254,000		1,396,790
Beverages & More, Inc. 10.000%, 11/15/18 (144A)		1,640,000		1,562,100
Carolina Beverage Group LLC / Carolina Beverage Group Finance, Inc. 10.625%, 08/01/18 (144A)		370,000		344,100
Constellation Brands, Inc. 4.250%, 05/01/23 (a)		2,500,000		2,592,225
4.750%, 11/15/24		11,649,000		12,365,413

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-6

Metropolitan Series Fund

Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Corporate Bonds & Notes—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Beverages—(Continued)
Constellation Brands, Inc.
4.750%, 12/01/25		140,000	$	148,400
6.000%, 05/01/22		2,282,000		2,573,731
Dr Pepper Snapple Group, Inc. 3.400%, 11/15/25		64,000		63,883
4.500%, 11/15/45		32,000		32,466
				35,554,797
Biotechnology—0.2%
Celgene Corp. 3.875%, 08/15/25		1,120,000		1,136,027
5.000%, 08/15/45		920,000		956,552
Gilead Sciences, Inc. 2.550%, 09/01/20		1,675,000		1,692,653
3.500%, 02/01/25		2,525,000		2,552,924
4.600%, 09/01/35		1,800,000		1,866,942
4.750%, 03/01/46		125,000		129,334
				8,334,432
Building Materials—0.1%
Hardwoods Acquisition, Inc. 7.500%, 08/01/21 (144A)		2,090,000		1,766,050
NWH Escrow Corp. 7.500%, 08/01/21 (144A)		550,000		462,000
Ply Gem Industries, Inc. 6.500%, 02/01/22		1,540,000		1,580,425
				3,808,475
Chemicals—0.4%
Eastman Chemical Co. 4.800%, 09/01/42 (a)		740,000		735,380
OCP S.A. 5.625%, 04/25/24		9,930,000		10,267,560
Potash Corp. of Saskatchewan, Inc. 4.875%, 03/30/20 (a)		40,000		42,526
Rain CII Carbon LLC / CII Carbon Corp. 8.000%, 12/01/18 (144A) (a)		1,275,000		1,268,625
Westlake Chemical Corp. 4.625%, 02/15/21 (144A)		1,060,000		1,097,100
				13,411,191
Coal—0.0%
Murray Energy Corp. 11.250%, 04/15/21 (144A)		10,000		7,750
Commercial Services—0.7%
AA Bond Co., Ltd. 5.500%, 07/31/22 (GBP)		2,690,000		3,383,945
ADT Corp. (The) 4.125%, 06/15/23		4,070,000		3,886,850
Board of Trustees of The Leland Stanford Junior University (The) 4.750%, 05/01/19		950,000		1,016,273
Commercial Services—(Continued)
Ecolab, Inc. 4.350%, 12/08/21		70,000		75,646
Metropolitan Museum of Art (The) 3.400%, 07/01/45		2,025,000		1,846,899
Ritchie Bros Auctioneers, Inc. 5.375%, 01/15/25 (144A)		5,030,000		5,130,600
UBM plc 5.750%, 11/03/20 (144A)		50,000		52,565
United Rentals North America, Inc. 5.875%, 09/15/26		8,000,000		8,230,000
6.125%, 06/15/23 (a)		1,850,000		1,961,000
				25,583,778
Computers—0.4%
Compiler Finance Sub, Inc. 7.000%, 05/01/21 (144A) (d)		70,000		32,200
Diamond 1 Finance Corp. / Diamond 2 Finance Corp. 3.480%, 06/01/19 (144A)		1,000,000		1,020,806
4.420%, 06/15/21 (144A)		12,010,000		12,427,287
				13,480,293
Diversified Financial Services—2.2%
AerCap Ireland Capital, Ltd. / AerCap Global Aviation Trust 4.625%, 10/30/20 (a)		1,060,000		1,102,400
4.625%, 07/01/22 (a)		600,000		618,000
5.000%, 10/01/21 (a)		15,056,000		15,827,620
Ally Financial, Inc. 5.750%, 11/20/25 (a)		5,392,000		5,378,520
8.000%, 11/01/31		1,025,000		1,188,918
Carlyle Holdings II Finance LLC 5.625%, 03/30/43 (144A)		3,370,000		3,334,416
CIT Group, Inc. 5.000%, 08/15/22 (a)		1,482,000		1,544,985
GE Capital International Funding Co. 2.342%, 11/15/20		538,000		537,743
International Lease Finance Corp. 6.250%, 05/15/19		2,470,000		2,655,250
8.250%, 12/15/20		2,613,000		3,044,145
8.625%, 01/15/22		2,500,000		3,003,125
KKR Group Finance Co. II LLC 5.500%, 02/01/43 (144A)		130,000		130,486
Macquarie Group, Ltd. 6.000%, 01/14/20 (144A)		3,200,000		3,466,928
6.250%, 01/14/21 (144A)		400,000		442,862
Navient Corp. 5.000%, 10/26/20 (a)		5,811,000		5,927,220
5.875%, 10/25/24 (a)		3,150,000		2,992,500
8.000%, 03/25/20 (a)		1,610,000		1,786,134
Quicken Loans, Inc. 5.750%, 05/01/25 (144A) (a)		19,470,000		18,934,575
TMX Finance LLC / TitleMax Finance Corp. 8.500%, 09/15/18 (144A) (a)		3,840,000		3,350,400

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-7

Metropolitan Series Fund

Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Corporate Bonds & Notes—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Diversified Financial Services—(Continued)
Visa, Inc. 3.150%, 12/14/25		1,850,000	$	1,858,114
				77,124,341
Electric—1.2%
Comision Federal de Electricidad 6.125%, 06/16/45 (144A)		10,430,000		9,986,725
Electricite de France S.A. 5.250%, 01/29/23 (144A) (c)		950,000		893,000
Enel S.p.A. 7.750%, 09/10/75 (GBP) (c)		2,450,000		3,301,873
FirstEnergy Corp. 4.250%, 03/15/23		1,560,000		1,612,720
7.375%, 11/15/31 (a)		3,550,000		4,575,588
Mirant Mid Atlantic Pass-Through Trust 10.060%, 12/30/28		5,056,588		4,310,741
NSG Holdings LLC / NSG Holdings, Inc. 7.750%, 12/15/25 (144A) (d)		2,725,307		2,939,925
Pacific Gas & Electric Co. 4.000%, 12/01/46		1,390,000		1,370,837
6.050%, 03/01/34		1,180,000		1,476,732
Panoche Energy Center LLC 6.885%, 07/31/29 (144A)		713,638		737,879
Perusahaan Listrik Negara PT 5.500%, 11/22/21		9,750,000		10,456,875
Southern California Edison Co. 3.900%, 03/15/43		1,217,000		1,196,847
				42,859,742
Electronics—0.1%
Flex, Ltd. 4.625%, 02/15/20		780,000		820,400
Flextronics International, Ltd. 5.000%, 02/15/23		1,300,000		1,386,467
				2,206,867
Energy-Alternate Sources—0.1%
Alta Wind Holdings LLC 7.000%, 06/30/35 (144A) (d)		1,510,573		1,648,147
Engineering & Construction—0.3%
CRCC Yuxiang, Ltd. 3.500%, 05/16/23		10,520,000		10,369,953
Entertainment—0.1%
Greektown Holdings LLC / Greektown Mothership Corp. 8.875%, 03/15/19 (144A) (a)		1,150,000		1,208,937
Vue International Bidco plc 7.875%, 07/15/20 (GBP)		2,510,000		3,213,654
				4,422,591
Environmental Control—0.0%
Waste Management, Inc. 3.500%, 05/15/24		890,000		917,625
4.600%, 03/01/21		180,000		194,161
7.375%, 05/15/29		190,000		248,063
				1,359,849
Food—0.6%
Dole Food Co., Inc. 7.250%, 05/01/19 (144A)		8,520,000		8,690,400
Kraft Heinz Foods Co. 3.500%, 06/06/22		570,000		579,673
3.950%, 07/15/25		280,000		283,650
4.875%, 02/15/25 (144A) (a)		1,157,000		1,248,144
5.000%, 07/15/35		380,000		398,657
5.200%, 07/15/45		390,000		408,257
Lamb Weston Holdings, Inc. 4.625%, 11/01/24 (144A) (a)		4,420,000		4,431,050
4.875%, 11/01/26 (144A) (a)		4,160,000		4,115,800
				20,155,631
Healthcare-Products—1.0%
Abbott Laboratories 4.900%, 11/30/46		10,340,000		10,612,304
DJO Finance LLC / DJO Finance Corp. 10.750%, 04/15/20 (a)		2,060,000		1,730,400
DJO Finco, Inc. / DJO Finance LLC / DJO Finance Corp. 8.125%, 06/15/21 (144A) (a)		4,570,000		3,964,475
Immucor, Inc. 11.125%, 08/15/19 (a)		4,810,000		4,521,400
Medtronic, Inc. 3.150%, 03/15/22		2,393,000		2,450,963
3.500%, 03/15/25		1,730,000		1,781,405
Universal Hospital Services, Inc. 7.625%, 08/15/20 (a)		9,755,000		9,657,450
				34,718,397
Healthcare-Services—1.7%
Centene Corp. 4.750%, 05/15/22 (a)		7,386,000		7,459,860
4.750%, 01/15/25 (a)		1,620,000		1,581,525
5.625%, 02/15/21 (a)		1,120,000		1,177,568
6.125%, 02/15/24 (a)		3,073,000		3,238,174
DaVita, Inc. 5.000%, 05/01/25 (a)		6,110,000		6,010,712
Dignity Health 3.812%, 11/01/24		1,800,000		1,791,378
4.500%, 11/01/42		339,000		313,712
Fresenius Medical Care U.S. Finance II, Inc. 4.750%, 10/15/24 (144A) (a)		700,000		707,000
5.875%, 01/31/22 (144A) (a)		3,225,000		3,531,375
HCA, Inc. 4.750%, 05/01/23		590,000		604,013
5.250%, 04/15/25 (a)		375,000		391,406

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-8

Metropolitan Series Fund

Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Corporate Bonds & Notes—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Healthcare-Services—(Continued)
HCA, Inc.
5.250%, 06/15/26		2,550,000	$	2,636,063
5.375%, 02/01/25 (a)		4,615,000		4,626,537
5.875%, 05/01/23		50,000		53,125
6.500%, 02/15/20 (a)		1,550,000		1,695,700
7.500%, 02/15/22 (a)		6,583,000		7,471,705
7.690%, 06/15/25		1,817,000		1,975,988
IASIS Healthcare LLC / IASIS Capital Corp. 8.375%, 05/15/19 (a)		7,887,000		6,861,690
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center 4.200%, 07/01/55		1,825,000		1,770,726
Tenet Healthcare Corp. 8.125%, 04/01/22 (a)		3,655,000		3,448,492
				57,346,749
Holding Companies-Diversified—0.1%
Co-operative Group Holdings, Ltd. 7.500%, 07/08/26 (GBP)		2,410,000		3,507,847
Home Builders—0.9%
Meritage Homes Corp. 7.000%, 04/01/22		2,500,000		2,706,250
Taylor Morrison Communities, Inc. / Monarch Communities, Inc. 5.250%, 04/15/21 (144A) (a)		3,955,000		4,053,875
5.625%, 03/01/24 (144A)		6,000,000		6,060,000
5.875%, 04/15/23 (144A) (a)		780,000		791,700
William Lyon Homes, Inc. 5.750%, 04/15/19		4,247,000		4,289,470
7.000%, 08/15/22 (a)		8,040,000		8,321,400
8.500%, 11/15/20		3,060,000		3,197,700
				29,420,395
Household Products/Wares—0.1%
ACCO Brands Corp. 5.250%, 12/15/24 (144A)		4,060,000		4,087,933
Housewares—0.4%
American Greetings Corp. 7.375%, 12/01/21		1,505,000		1,535,100
Newell Brands, Inc. 3.850%, 04/01/23		2,750,000		2,852,594
4.200%, 04/01/26 (a)		4,000,000		4,175,120
5.500%, 04/01/46 (a)		4,800,000		5,510,525
				14,073,339
Insurance—0.6%
American Equity Investment Life Holding Co. 6.625%, 07/15/21		1,630,000		1,699,275
American International Group, Inc. 3.750%, 07/10/25		1,380,000		1,388,907
6.250%, 03/15/87 (c)		453,000		455,265
AXA S.A. 8.600%, 12/15/30		1,320,000		1,815,000
Insurance—(Continued)
Delphi Financial Group, Inc. 7.875%, 01/31/20		2,190,000		2,460,364
Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. 7.697%, 10/15/97 (144A)		2,600,000		3,191,331
Prudential Financial, Inc. 5.625%, 06/15/43 (c)		550,000		571,313
5.875%, 09/15/42 (c)		1,200,000		1,258,500
8.875%, 06/15/38 (c)		915,000		988,200
Teachers Insurance & Annuity Association of America 4.900%, 09/15/44 (144A)		1,771,000		1,915,792
6.850%, 12/16/39 (144A)		2,546,000		3,304,005
TIAA Asset Management Finance Co. LLC 4.125%, 11/01/24 (144A) (a)		1,807,000		1,825,131
				20,873,083
Internet—0.5%
Alibaba Group Holding, Ltd. 3.125%, 11/28/21 (a)		10,475,000		10,467,626
eBay, Inc. 3.800%, 03/09/22 (a)		1,095,000		1,131,278
Netflix, Inc. 5.500%, 02/15/22		2,453,000		2,643,108
Priceline Group, Inc. (The) 3.650%, 03/15/25		1,625,000		1,620,484
				15,862,496
Iron/Steel—0.3%
Vale Overseas, Ltd. 6.250%, 08/10/26 (a)		3,990,000		4,149,600
6.875%, 11/10/39		7,980,000		7,760,550
				11,910,150
Leisure Time—1.0%
Gibson Brands, Inc. 8.875%, 08/01/18 (144A)		2,070,000		1,914,750
NCL Corp., Ltd. 4.625%, 11/15/20 (144A) (a)		2,590,000		2,635,325
4.750%, 12/15/21 (144A)		8,020,000		8,015,028
Viking Cruises, Ltd. 8.500%, 10/15/22 (144A)		9,800,000		10,167,500
Vista Outdoor, Inc. 5.875%, 10/01/23 (a)		9,530,000		9,976,766
				32,709,369
Lodging—0.4%
MCE Finance, Ltd. 5.000%, 02/15/21 (144A) (a)		2,450,000		2,434,391
MGM Resorts International 6.000%, 03/15/23 (a)		5,592,000		6,039,360
6.625%, 12/15/21 (a)		4,180,000		4,671,150
				13,144,901

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-9

Metropolitan Series Fund

Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Corporate Bonds & Notes—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Media—3.3%
Altice Financing S.A. 6.625%, 02/15/23 (144A) (a)		5,340,000	$	5,486,850
7.500%, 05/15/26 (144A) (a)		5,000,000		5,200,000
CCO Holdings LLC / CCO Holdings Capital Corp. 5.375%, 05/01/25 (144A)		880,000		906,400
5.875%, 04/01/24 (144A) (a)		284,000		303,170
6.625%, 01/31/22 (a)		2,300,000		2,383,375
Charter Communications Operating LLC / Charter Communications Operating Capital Corp. 4.464%, 07/23/22		2,180,000		2,278,168
4.908%, 07/23/25		3,660,000		3,857,384
6.384%, 10/23/35		4,647,000		5,306,093
Comcast Corp. 7.050%, 03/15/33		7,600,000		10,202,909
CSC Holdings LLC 6.625%, 10/15/25 (144A) (a)		2,680,000		2,927,900
10.125%, 01/15/23 (144A) (a)		1,125,000		1,299,375
10.875%, 10/15/25 (144A) (a)		6,447,000		7,671,930
DISH DBS Corp. 5.000%, 03/15/23		3,247,000		3,230,765
5.875%, 07/15/22		2,880,000		3,031,200
5.875%, 11/15/24 (a)		2,450,000		2,521,050
6.750%, 06/01/21		75,000		81,375
7.750%, 07/01/26 (a)		3,630,000		4,092,825
SFR Group S.A. 6.000%, 05/15/22 (144A) (a)		7,185,000		7,373,606
7.375%, 05/01/26 (144A)		3,040,000		3,116,000
Sinclair Television Group, Inc. 6.125%, 10/01/22 (a)		2,450,000		2,554,125
Time Warner Cable LLC 5.875%, 11/15/40		1,942,000		2,071,036
Unitymedia Hessen GmbH & Co. KG / Unitymedia NRW GmbH 5.500%, 01/15/23 (144A) (a)		5,975,000		6,221,469
Univision Communications, Inc. 5.125%, 02/15/25 (144A) (a)		9,890,000		9,457,312
UPCB Finance IV, Ltd. 5.375%, 01/15/25 (144A) (a)		2,296,000		2,313,220
Viacom, Inc. 3.450%, 10/04/26		9,360,000		8,650,503
3.875%, 04/01/24		240,000		232,925
Virgin Media Finance plc 6.000%, 10/15/24 (144A) (a)		3,985,000		4,104,550
6.375%, 10/15/24 (GBP)		2,510,000		3,271,375
Virgin Media Secured Finance plc 5.500%, 08/15/26 (144A) (a)		2,000,000		1,995,000
				112,141,890
Metal Fabricate/Hardware—0.0%
Valmont Industries, Inc. 6.625%, 04/20/20		314,000		347,743
Mining—3.2%
Alcoa Nederland Holding B.V. 6.750%, 09/30/24 (144A)		1,940,000		2,104,900
7.000%, 09/30/26 (144A) (a)		1,770,000		1,938,150
Anglo American Capital plc 2.625%, 04/03/17 (144A)		850,000		850,000
2.625%, 09/27/17 (144A) (a)		3,000,000		3,000,000
Barminco Finance Pty, Ltd. 9.000%, 06/01/18 (144A)		195,000		200,363
Barrick Gold Corp. 4.100%, 05/01/23 (a)		7,521,000		7,715,350
5.250%, 04/01/42 (a)		4,000,000		3,895,992
6.950%, 04/01/19 (a)		57,000		62,350
Barrick North America Finance LLC 4.400%, 05/30/21		97,000		101,933
5.750%, 05/01/43 (a)		11,289,000		11,866,308
BHP Billiton Finance USA, Ltd. 2.875%, 02/24/22 (a)		160,000		161,295
3.250%, 11/21/21		430,000		443,020
5.000%, 09/30/43 (a)		750,000		837,720
6.250%, 10/19/75 (144A) (a) (c)		2,392,000		2,589,818
6.750%, 10/19/75 (144A) (c)		8,191,000		9,194,397
Coeur Mining, Inc. 7.875%, 02/01/21 (a)		1,246,000		1,292,725
FMG Resources Pty, Ltd. 6.875%, 04/01/22 (144A) (a)		3,240,000		3,361,500
Freeport-McMoRan, Inc. 2.300%, 11/14/17		1,500,000		1,488,750
3.550%, 03/01/22		5,670,000		5,273,100
3.875%, 03/15/23 (a)		4,704,000		4,315,920
6.625%, 05/01/21 (144A)		680,000		691,900
6.750%, 02/01/22 (144A)		1,453,000		1,492,958
Glencore Finance Canada, Ltd. 4.250%, 10/25/22 (144A) (a)		788,000		805,730
Glencore Funding LLC 4.000%, 04/16/25 (144A)		6,580,000		6,448,400
Gold Fields Orogen Holdings BVI, Ltd. 4.875%, 10/07/20 (144A)		2,745,000		2,698,335
HudBay Minerals, Inc. 7.250%, 01/15/23 (144A) (a)		2,280,000		2,359,800
7.625%, 01/15/25 (144A)		5,375,000		5,586,667
Midwest Vanadium Pty, Ltd. 11.500%, 02/15/18 (144A) (d) (e)		952,902		14,294
Mirabela Nickel, Ltd. 1.000%, 09/10/44 (144A) (d) (f)		36,414		4
Rio Tinto Finance USA, Ltd. 3.750%, 09/20/21		130,000		136,523
3.750%, 06/15/25 (a)		7,330,000		7,548,485
Southern Copper Corp. 5.250%, 11/08/42 (a)		12,250,000		11,223,205
Yamana Gold, Inc. 4.950%, 07/15/24 (a)		9,130,000		8,947,400
				108,647,292

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-10

Metropolitan Series Fund

Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Corporate Bonds & Notes—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Miscellaneous Manufacturing—0.5%
CBC Ammo LLC / CBC FinCo, Inc. 7.250%, 11/15/21 (144A)		2,250,000	$	2,210,625
CTP Transportation Products LLC / CTP Finance, Inc. 8.250%, 12/15/19 (144A)		1,530,000		1,319,625
General Electric Co. 4.500%, 03/11/44		260,000		279,103
5.000%, 01/21/21 (c)		9,740,000		10,107,198
5.300%, 02/11/21		187,000		207,394
6.875%, 01/10/39		1,258,000		1,773,707
				15,897,652
Oil & Gas—6.0%
Anadarko Finance Co. 7.500%, 05/01/31		80,000		101,812
Anadarko Petroleum Corp. 4.500%, 07/15/44		800,000		751,641
5.550%, 03/15/26 (a)		3,000,000		3,357,780
6.450%, 09/15/36		220,000		261,837
6.600%, 03/15/46		7,000,000		8,633,513
Apache Corp. 3.250%, 04/15/22		574,000		583,017
4.250%, 01/15/44		260,000		256,314
4.750%, 04/15/43		12,000,000		12,360,336
Berry Petroleum Co. LLC 6.375%, 09/15/22 (e) (g)		1,040,000		663,000
6.750%, 11/01/20 (e) (g)		850,000		541,875
BP Capital Markets plc 3.119%, 05/04/26 (a)		11,580,000		11,309,815
3.216%, 11/28/23		4,270,000		4,312,653
3.245%, 05/06/22		220,000		224,649
3.723%, 11/28/28 (a)		5,970,000		6,065,992
Carrizo Oil & Gas, Inc. 6.250%, 04/15/23 (a)		1,668,000		1,709,700
7.500%, 09/15/20 (a)		3,980,000		4,119,300
Chesapeake Energy Corp. 6.125%, 02/15/21 (a)		3,635,000		3,544,125
6.625%, 08/15/20		5,960,000		6,019,600
8.000%, 01/15/25 (144A)		3,730,000		3,804,600
Clayton Williams Energy, Inc. 7.750%, 04/01/19 (a)		1,441,000		1,448,205
Concho Resources, Inc. 5.500%, 04/01/23 (a)		4,875,000		5,051,962
6.500%, 01/15/22 (a)		1,400,000		1,448,580
ConocoPhillips Holding Co. 6.950%, 04/15/29		375,000		471,584
CrownRock L.P. / CrownRock Finance, Inc. 7.125%, 04/15/21 (144A)		3,850,000		4,004,000
Devon Energy Corp. 3.250%, 05/15/22 (a)		2,035,000		2,022,088
5.000%, 06/15/45		2,110,000		2,072,727
5.600%, 07/15/41		110,000		113,300
5.850%, 12/15/25 (a)		970,000		1,102,053
Devon Financing Co. LLC 7.875%, 09/30/31		140,000		177,638
Oil & Gas—(Continued)
Diamondback Energy, Inc. 4.750%, 11/01/24 (144A) (a)		3,968,000		3,888,640
5.375%, 05/31/25 (144A) (a)		2,330,000		2,343,281
Ecopetrol S.A. 5.375%, 06/26/26		11,570,000		11,512,150
Ensco plc 4.500%, 10/01/24 (a)		2,377,000		2,038,277
4.700%, 03/15/21 (a)		3,830,000		3,684,154
5.200%, 03/15/25 (a)		1,494,000		1,290,323
EOG Resources, Inc. 3.150%, 04/01/25		1,248,000		1,224,541
4.150%, 01/15/26 (a)		1,665,000		1,742,414
Exxon Mobil Corp. 4.114%, 03/01/46		1,630,000		1,669,567
Kerr-McGee Corp. 6.950%, 07/01/24		290,000		342,140
7.875%, 09/15/31		285,000		364,948
MEG Energy Corp. 6.375%, 01/30/23 (144A)		7,655,000		6,812,950
6.500%, 03/15/21 (144A)		641,000		592,925
7.000%, 03/31/24 (144A)		1,566,000		1,417,230
Noble Energy, Inc. 6.000%, 03/01/41		10,200,000		11,325,254
Oasis Petroleum, Inc. 6.500%, 11/01/21 (a)		780,000		794,625
6.875%, 03/15/22 (a)		6,057,000		6,208,425
6.875%, 01/15/23		90,000		92,250
Occidental Petroleum Corp. 3.125%, 02/15/22		110,000		112,431
3.500%, 06/15/25 (a)		1,850,000		1,876,128
4.625%, 06/15/45		230,000		239,317
Parsley Energy LLC / Parsley Finance Corp. 6.250%, 06/01/24 (144A) (a)		5,360,000		5,640,328
Petrobras Global Finance B.V. 6.850%, 06/05/2115		17,700,000		14,337,000
Petroleos Mexicanos 5.375%, 03/13/22 (144A)		2,780,000		2,846,664
Pride International, Inc. 6.875%, 08/15/20		1,795,000		1,916,163
QEP Resources, Inc. 5.250%, 05/01/23 (a)		2,650,000		2,656,625
6.875%, 03/01/21 (a)		1,050,000		1,115,625
Range Resources Corp. 4.875%, 05/15/25 (a)		2,875,000		2,785,156
Rice Energy, Inc. 6.250%, 05/01/22 (a)		3,388,000		3,481,170
7.250%, 05/01/23 (a)		2,050,000		2,173,000
RSP Permian, Inc. 6.625%, 10/01/22		4,284,000		4,530,330
Sanchez Energy Corp. 6.125%, 01/15/23 (a) (g)		3,710,000		3,524,500
7.750%, 06/15/21 (a) (g)		3,000,000		3,052,500
Shell International Finance B.V. 2.875%, 05/10/26 (a)		2,840,000		2,745,689
3.250%, 05/11/25 (a)		1,773,000		1,771,546
4.000%, 05/10/46		360,000		344,253

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-11

Metropolitan Series Fund

Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Corporate Bonds & Notes—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Oil & Gas—(Continued)
Shell International Finance B.V.
4.125%, 05/11/35		470,000	$	479,899
4.550%, 08/12/43		735,000		766,482
SM Energy Co. 5.000%, 01/15/24		70,000		65,975
6.500%, 11/15/21 (a)		1,725,000		1,759,500
Valero Energy Corp. 9.375%, 03/15/19		1,230,000		1,416,468
Whiting Petroleum Corp. 5.750%, 03/15/21		1,860,000		1,852,262
6.250%, 04/01/23		1,755,000		1,755,000
WPX Energy, Inc. 8.250%, 08/01/23		20,000		22,350
				207,144,151
Oil & Gas Services—0.4%
CGG S.A. 6.500%, 06/01/21		2,840,000		1,306,400
6.875%, 01/15/22		220,000		101,200
Halliburton Co. 3.800%, 11/15/25 (a)		1,210,000		1,229,235
4.850%, 11/15/35		2,000,000		2,109,256
5.000%, 11/15/45		8,200,000		8,843,249
KCA Deutag UK Finance plc 7.250%, 05/15/21 (144A)		1,430,000		1,269,125
				14,858,465
Packaging & Containers—0.7%
Ardagh Packaging Finance plc / Ardagh Holdings USA, Inc. 7.250%, 05/15/24 (144A)		5,000,000		5,268,750
Ball Corp. 5.250%, 07/01/25 (a)		1,210,000		1,264,450
BWAY Holding Co. 9.125%, 08/15/21 (144A)		1,263,000		1,332,465
Coveris Holdings S.A. 7.875%, 11/01/19 (144A) (a)		3,190,000		3,166,075
Graphic Packaging International, Inc. 4.750%, 04/15/21 (a)		1,400,000		1,470,000
4.875%, 11/15/22		1,337,000		1,370,425
Pactiv LLC 7.950%, 12/15/25		1,300,000		1,378,000
8.375%, 04/15/27		3,180,000		3,474,150
Reynolds Group Issuer, Inc. / Reynolds Group Issuer LLC 5.125%, 07/15/23 (144A) (a)		2,010,000		2,052,713
7.000%, 07/15/24 (144A) (a)		2,920,000		3,104,325
WestRock RKT Co. 4.000%, 03/01/23		140,000		144,568
				24,025,921
Pharmaceuticals—0.6%
Actavis Funding SCS 3.450%, 03/15/22		450,000		456,754
4.750%, 03/15/45 (a)		8,220,000		8,069,853
Pharmaceuticals—(Continued)
BioScrip, Inc. 8.875%, 02/15/21		3,662,000		2,746,500
DPx Holdings B.V. 7.500%, 02/01/22 (144A) (a)		2,030,000		2,146,725
Mead Johnson Nutrition Co. 4.125%, 11/15/25		1,653,000		1,690,011
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. 5.375%, 03/15/20 (144A)		670,000		566,150
5.500%, 03/01/23 (144A)		1,740,000		1,305,000
5.875%, 05/15/23 (144A)		675,000		509,625
6.125%, 04/15/25 (144A)		3,340,000		2,509,175
6.375%, 10/15/20 (144A)		400,000		343,624
Zoetis, Inc. 3.250%, 02/01/23		1,766,000		1,762,140
				22,105,557
Pipelines—2.8%
Blue Racer Midstream LLC / Blue Racer Finance Corp. 6.125%, 11/15/22 (144A) (a)		3,185,000		3,185,000
El Paso Natural Gas Co. LLC 8.375%, 06/15/32		190,000		235,623
Enbridge, Inc. 4.250%, 12/01/26 (a)		5,900,000		6,040,957
5.500%, 12/01/46 (a)		1,290,000		1,380,326
Energy Transfer Equity L.P. 5.500%, 06/01/27 (a)		1,376,000		1,341,600
5.875%, 01/15/24 (a)		1,638,000		1,691,235
Enterprise Products Operating LLC 3.700%, 02/15/26 (a)		1,072,000		1,075,887
3.750%, 02/15/25 (a)		2,100,000		2,133,730
3.900%, 02/15/24		225,000		232,060
4.593%, 08/01/66 (c)		1,059,000		996,021
Genesis Energy L.P. / Genesis Energy Finance Corp. 6.000%, 05/15/23		6,046,000		6,151,805
IFM U.S. Colonial Pipeline 2 LLC 6.450%, 05/01/21 (144A) (a)		2,500,000		2,721,978
Kinder Morgan, Inc. 5.550%, 06/01/45 (a)		4,130,000		4,343,823
7.800%, 08/01/31		67,000		82,832
MPLX L.P. 4.875%, 12/01/24		6,130,000		6,312,024
5.500%, 02/15/23		1,680,000		1,747,801
Niska Gas Storage, Ltd. / Niska Gas Storage Canada Finance Corp. 6.500%, 04/01/19		5,703,000		5,731,515
Plains All American Pipeline L.P. / PAA Finance Corp. 4.650%, 10/15/25		2,050,000		2,117,923
Regency Energy Partners L.P. / Regency Energy Finance Corp. 5.875%, 03/01/22		780,000		858,045
Rockies Express Pipeline LLC 5.625%, 04/15/20 (144A) (a)		1,298,000		1,366,145
6.875%, 04/15/40 (144A)		2,675,000		2,661,625
7.500%, 07/15/38 (144A) (a)		6,175,000		6,329,375

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-12

Metropolitan Series Fund

Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Corporate Bonds & Notes—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Pipelines—(Continued)
Sabine Pass Liquefaction LLC 5.750%, 05/15/24		2,648,000	$	2,839,980
Southern Natural Gas Co. LLC 5.900%, 04/01/17 (144A)		10,000		10,104
8.000%, 03/01/32		25,000		31,301
Summit Midstream Holdings LLC / Summit Midstream Finance Corp. 7.500%, 07/01/21		4,020,000		4,221,000
Tesoro Logistics L.P. / Tesoro Logistics Finance Corp. 5.500%, 10/15/19		600,000		634,500
5.875%, 10/01/20 (a)		1,753,000		1,807,781
6.125%, 10/15/21 (a)		1,200,000		1,260,000
Williams Cos., Inc. (The) 7.750%, 06/15/31		1,563,000		1,781,820
8.750%, 03/15/32		20,194,000		24,384,255
				95,708,071
Real Estate—0.1%
Grainger plc 5.000%, 12/16/20 (GBP)		2,550,000		3,453,833
Real Estate Investment Trusts—0.5%
CoreCivic, Inc. 4.125%, 04/01/20 (a)		1,260,000		1,256,850
5.000%, 10/15/22 (a)		5,400,000		5,386,500
Crown Castle International Corp. 5.250%, 01/15/23		1,850,000		1,991,063
CTR Partnership L.P. / CareTrust Capital Corp. 5.875%, 06/01/21		2,410,000		2,452,175
Iron Mountain, Inc. 4.375%, 06/01/21 (144A) (a)		4,580,000		4,683,050
6.000%, 10/01/20 (144A)		1,657,000		1,748,135
6.000%, 08/15/23		560,000		595,000
				18,112,773
Retail—1.7%
1011778 BC ULC / New Red Finance, Inc. 6.000%, 04/01/22 (144A) (a)		10,120,000		10,575,400
AutoZone, Inc. 2.500%, 04/15/21		800,000		791,011
CST Brands, Inc. 5.000%, 05/01/23		2,692,000		2,779,490
CVS Health Corp. 3.875%, 07/20/25		496,000		511,674
5.125%, 07/20/45		1,440,000		1,604,804
Dollar Tree, Inc. 5.750%, 03/01/23 (a)		11,372,000		12,040,901
Guitar Center, Inc. 6.500%, 04/15/19 (144A) (a)		2,370,000		2,150,775
L Brands, Inc. 5.625%, 02/15/22		4,400,000		4,697,000
6.625%, 04/01/21		3,103,000		3,483,117
6.950%, 03/01/33		8,060,000		8,060,000
Retail—(Continued)
McDonald’s Corp. 2.750%, 12/09/20 (a)		441,000		445,916
3.700%, 01/30/26		1,047,000		1,065,948
4.600%, 05/26/45		1,259,000		1,299,992
Neiman Marcus Group, Ltd. LLC 8.000%, 10/15/21 (144A) (a)		10,383,000		7,709,377
				57,215,405
Savings & Loans—0.1%
Nationwide Building Society 6.875%, 06/20/19 (GBP) (c)		2,640,000		3,263,940
Semiconductors—0.3%
Analog Devices, Inc. 2.500%, 12/05/21		2,800,000		2,774,307
3.125%, 12/05/23 (a)		4,440,000		4,439,636
Intel Corp. 4.900%, 07/29/45		1,875,000		2,097,531
				9,311,474
Software—0.4%
First Data Corp. 5.750%, 01/15/24 (144A) (a)		1,468,000		1,514,800
7.000%, 12/01/23 (144A) (a)		3,759,000		4,003,335
Microsoft Corp. 2.375%, 02/12/22		3,932,000		3,916,173
Oracle Corp. 4.375%, 05/15/55		2,590,000		2,576,066
				12,010,374
Telecommunications—4.1%
AT&T, Inc. 3.950%, 01/15/25		4,723,000		4,731,180
4.800%, 06/15/44		5,000,000		4,724,570
Bharti Airtel International Netherlands B.V. 5.350%, 05/20/24 (a)		9,810,000		10,275,337
British Telecommunications plc 9.125%, 12/15/30		4,915,000		7,498,717
CenturyLink, Inc. 5.625%, 04/01/20 (a)		690,000		729,675
5.625%, 04/01/25 (a)		1,670,000		1,586,500
6.450%, 06/15/21 (a)		1,175,000		1,236,688
6.750%, 12/01/23		1,290,000		1,319,025
CommScope, Inc. 5.500%, 06/15/24 (144A)		2,200,000		2,277,000
Deutsche Telekom International Finance B.V. 2.485%, 09/19/23 (144A)		24,317,000		23,227,769
Digicel, Ltd. 6.750%, 03/01/23		4,810,000		4,336,840
Frontier Communications Corp. 8.875%, 09/15/20 (a)		50,000		53,250
11.000%, 09/15/25 (a)		5,757,000		5,944,102
HC2 Holdings, Inc. 11.000%, 12/01/19 (144A)		4,350,000		4,263,000

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-13

Metropolitan Series Fund

Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Corporate Bonds & Notes—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Telecommunications—(Continued)
Sprint Capital Corp. 8.750%, 03/15/32 (a)		3,360,000	$	3,696,000
Sprint Communications, Inc. 9.000%, 11/15/18 (144A) (a)		4,500,000		4,961,250
11.500%, 11/15/21 (a)		3,483,000		4,275,382
Sprint Corp. 7.625%, 02/15/25 (a)		1,790,000		1,881,737
7.875%, 09/15/23 (a)		8,920,000		9,522,100
T-Mobile USA, Inc. 6.500%, 01/15/24 (a)		803,000		861,218
6.542%, 04/28/20		900,000		927,000
6.625%, 11/15/20		875,000		894,688
6.633%, 04/28/21 (a)		3,425,000		3,574,844
6.836%, 04/28/23 (a)		228,000		244,245
Telecom Italia S.p.A. 5.303%, 05/30/24 (144A) (a)		3,390,000		3,313,725
Telefonica Europe B.V. 6.750%, 11/26/20 (GBP) (c)		2,400,000		3,076,070
Verizon Communications, Inc. 5.150%, 09/15/23		1,790,000		1,979,280
6.550%, 09/15/43		6,778,000		8,465,566
West Corp. 5.375%, 07/15/22 (144A) (a)		13,604,000		13,144,865
Windstream Services LLC 6.375%, 08/01/23 (a)		265,000		236,513
7.750%, 10/15/20		5,925,000		6,090,900
				139,349,036
Transportation—0.7%
Florida East Coast Holdings Corp. 6.750%, 05/01/19 (144A) (a)		9,865,000		10,210,275
9.750%, 05/01/20 (144A)		872,000		895,980
Navios Maritime Acquisition Corp. / Navios Acquisition Finance U.S., Inc. 8.125%, 11/15/21 (144A)		4,670,000		3,969,500
SPL Logistics Escrow LLC / SPL Logistics Finance Corp. 8.875%, 08/01/20 (144A)		4,140,000		3,591,450
XPO Logistics, Inc. 6.500%, 06/15/22 (144A) (a)		5,520,000		5,796,000
				24,463,205
Trucking & Leasing—0.1%
Penske Truck Leasing Co. L.P. / PTL Finance Corp. 3.375%, 02/01/22 (144A)		3,495,000		3,524,564
Water—0.1%
Anglian Water Osprey Financing plc 5.000%, 04/30/23 (GBP)		2,650,000		3,420,557
Total Corporate Bonds & Notes (Cost $1,805,487,995)				1,839,171,924
Mortgage-Backed Securities—15.1%
Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Collateralized Mortgage Obligations—7.2%
American Home Mortgage Assets Trust 0.946%, 12/25/46 (c)		3,476,076	$	2,457,917
American Home Mortgage Investment Trust 1.336%, 11/25/45 (c)		634,384		547,279
Banc of America Funding Corp. 0.714%, 02/27/37 (144A) (c)		15,442,837		8,205,218
0.844%, 06/29/37 (144A)		19,889,793		9,475,139
0.926%, 06/29/37 (144A) (c)		7,129,902		7,049,691
Banc of America Funding Trust 0.863%, 09/29/36 (144A) (c)		38,969,877		18,626,148
0.896%, 03/27/36 (144A) (c)		6,179,448		3,619,648
0.909%, 05/20/36 (c)		267,771		256,844
14.999%, 01/01/30 (144A) (c)		11,939,231		5,815,134
Banc of America Mortgage Trust 3.242%, 09/25/35 (c)		128,162		122,881
3.342%, 12/25/34 (c)		6,888		6,683
5.750%, 01/25/35		329,180		333,876
BCAP LLC Trust 0.794%, 10/28/36 (144A) (c)		3,412,735		3,257,525
3.183%, 05/26/47 (144A) (c)		7,913,328		5,406,813
Bear Stearns ALT-A Trust 3.107%, 08/25/34 (c)		8,287,184		8,432,274
Bear Stearns Asset-Backed Securities Trust 31.052%, 07/25/36 (c)		597,757		964,827
Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust, Inc. 3.509%, 12/25/35 (c)		1,824,761		1,441,553
CitiMortgage Alternative Loan Trust 31.720%, 07/25/37 (c)		1,846,720		2,895,672
Countrywide Alternative Loan Trust 0.974%, 07/20/35 (c)		1,822,053		1,619,997
1.026%, 01/25/36 (c)		313,185		258,166
1.396%, 07/25/35 (c)		1,300,000		1,167,273
5.750%, 01/25/37		3,242,812		2,615,072
6.000%, 01/25/37		3,297,893		2,852,021
15.277%, 06/25/35 (c)		2,238,668		2,724,244
20.532%, 02/25/36 (c)		2,049,163		2,238,772
25.576%, 07/25/36 (c)		3,540,464		4,531,041
34.463%, 08/25/37 (c)		1,838,246		2,949,732
Countrywide Alternative Loan Trust Resecuritization 6.000%, 08/25/37		8,283,636		6,226,362
Countrywide Home Loan Reperforming Loan REMIC Trust 1.116%, 03/25/35 (144A) (c)		691,424		607,176
5.642%, 03/25/35 (144A) (c) (d) (h)		8,407,151		1,184,737
Credit Suisse Mortgage Trust 0.784%, 06/27/46 (144A) (c)		3,329,825		3,159,358
26.366%, 02/25/36 (c)		2,024,822		2,662,810
DSLA Mortgage Loan Trust 0.946%, 03/19/45 (c)		174,441		154,182
Fannie Mae Connecticut Avenue Securities 6.006%, 10/25/23 (c)		2,780,000		3,060,266
Freddie Mac Structured Agency Credit Risk Debt Notes 5.256%, 02/25/24 (c)		2,210,000		2,410,119
5.406%, 10/25/28 (c)		12,940,000		13,793,636
5.506%, 10/25/24 (c)		5,925,000		6,430,491

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-14

Metropolitan Series Fund

Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Mortgage-Backed Securities—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Collateralized Mortgage Obligations—(Continued)
GreenPoint MTA Trust 1.196%, 06/25/45 (c)		1,728,936	$	1,504,624
GSMPS Mortgage Loan Trust 1.156%, 04/25/36 (144A) (c)		938,665		774,337
GSR Mortgage Loan Trust 3.247%, 10/25/35 (c)		359,118		312,005
HarborView Mortgage Loan Trust 0.986%, 01/19/36 (c)		1,129,059		740,270
1.536%, 11/19/34 (c)		1,988,852		1,745,032
1.756%, 10/25/37 (c)		1,894,669		1,762,540
Impac CMB Trust 1.224%, 09/25/34 (c)		8,714,004		8,227,179
Impac Secured Assets CMN Owner Trust 1.076%, 03/25/36 (c)		999,649		714,686
IndyMac INDX Mortgage Loan Trust 1.476%, 01/25/35 (c)		1,233,911		923,223
3.152%, 03/25/35 (c)		560,602		544,448
3.174%, 05/25/37 (c)		4,586,860		3,675,673
JPMorgan Mortgage Trust 2.500%, 03/25/43 (144A) (c)		17,238		17,007
6.500%, 01/25/36		126,608		112,122
JPMorgan Resecuritization Trust 0.744%, 07/27/46 (144A) (c)		4,731,419		4,571,477
Lehman Mortgage Trust 5.874%, 02/25/37 (c) (g) (h)		9,578,890		2,923,089
Lehman XS Trust 0.916%, 03/25/47 (c)		3,368,938		3,039,961
0.956%, 08/25/46 (c)		3,009,848		2,404,789
MASTR Adjustable Rate Mortgages Trust 3.012%, 11/25/35 (144A) (c)		68,919		51,574
MASTR Seasoned Securitization Trust 3.439%, 10/25/32 (c)		165,874		161,311
Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors Trust 3.173%, 05/25/34 (c)		108,174		107,288
3.226%, 08/25/33 (c)		978,606		913,706
Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 1.076%, 01/25/35 (c)		1,065,441		982,061
Mortgage Repurchase Agreement Financing Trust 1.737%, 05/10/19 (144A) (c)		2,830,000		2,823,850
New Residential Mortgage Loan Trust 4.250%, 09/25/56 (144A) (c)		8,305,524		8,370,848
Nomura Resecuritization Trust Zero Coupon, 07/26/37 (144A) (c)		2,694,244		2,610,983
0.724%, 05/26/46 (144A) (c)		17,785,312		10,296,814
0.844%, 02/26/46 (144A) (c)		4,868,000		4,331,222
NovaStar Mortgage Funding Trust 0.782%, 09/25/46 (c)		1,040,295		846,917
Prime Mortgage Trust 5.500%, 05/25/35 (144A)		1,080,659		1,080,653
6.000%, 05/25/35 (144A)		2,845,802		2,699,364
RBSGC Mortgage Loan Trust 1.206%, 01/25/37 (c)		918,451		528,631
Residential Accredit Loans, Inc. Trust 0.946%, 05/25/47 (c)		1,640,447		1,365,616
0.966%, 04/25/46 (c)		1,799,188		809,865
Collateralized Mortgage Obligations—(Continued)
Residential Accredit Loans, Inc. Trust
1.016%, 04/25/46 (c)		933,534		427,074
1.853%, 11/25/37 (c)		5,163,119		3,539,075
Residential Asset Securitization Trust 5.750%, 02/25/36		2,665,596		2,519,062
5.794%, 12/25/36 (c) (g) (h)		14,994,634		4,431,045
Sequoia Mortgage Trust 1.955%, 06/20/33 (c)		148,631		144,133
3.726%, 07/25/45 (144A) (c)		10,615		9,903
Structured Adjustable Rate Mortgage Loan Trust 2.117%, 09/25/37 (c)		5,299,617		4,429,901
3.067%, 01/25/35 (c)		708,717		669,975
3.364%, 09/25/35 (c)		956,740		783,569
3.453%, 03/25/34 (c)		123,805		120,628
Structured Asset Mortgage Investments Trust 0.966%, 05/25/46 (c)		263,893		197,854
1.036%, 02/25/36 (c)		4,825,574		4,049,087
3.054%, 08/25/35 (c)		93,746		89,265
Structured Asset Securities Corp. Trust 1.106%, 03/25/35 (c)		2,001,212		1,590,600
WaMu Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Trust 1.026%, 12/25/45 (c)		814,300		770,019
1.046%, 07/25/45 (c)		511,832		486,156
1.848%, 03/25/47 (c)		2,888,303		2,314,151
2.591%, 09/25/36 (c)		1,006,947		896,960
2.692%, 08/25/33 (c)		2,099,461		2,016,456
2.839%, 10/25/34 (c)		906,140		910,523
5.924%, 04/25/37 (c) (g) (h)		13,912,401		3,583,156
Wells Fargo Mortgage-Backed Securities Trust 3.072%, 10/25/35 (c)		75,698		76,258
3.075%, 06/25/35 (c)		67,748		68,954
3.083%, 04/25/36 (c)		109,214		107,360
				245,764,906
Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities—7.9%
A10 Securitization LLC 2.400%, 11/15/25 (144A)		14,532		14,530
BAMLL Mezzanine Securities Trust 9.183%, 12/15/19 (144A) (c)		5,700,000		5,526,275
BAMLL Re-REMIC Trust 5.793%, 07/10/17 (144A) (c)		11,727,532		7,621,981
Banc of America Commercial Mortgage Trust 5.648%, 04/10/49 (c)		4,570,000		4,359,047
Bayview Commercial Asset Trust Zero Coupon, 07/25/37 (144A) (d)		3,939,234		0
Bear Stearns Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust 6.222%, 06/11/50 (c)		3,540,000		3,453,977
BLCP Hotel Trust 6.432%, 08/15/29 (144A) (c)		6,414,136		6,366,637
CGBAM Commercial Mortgage Trust 8.104%, 11/15/21 (144A) (c)		17,780,000		17,981,216
Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Trust 3.110%, 04/10/48 (144A)		1,400,000		965,873
3.208%, 07/10/47 (144A) (c)		4,398,000		2,650,726

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-15

Metropolitan Series Fund

Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Mortgage-Backed Securities—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities—(Continued)
Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Trust
3.648%, 09/15/27 (144A) (c)		7,250,000	$	6,671,391
6.136%, 12/10/49 (c)		9,063,000		6,072,210
Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Mortgage Trust 3.000%, 12/10/47 (144A)		2,230,000		1,301,278
4.354%, 03/10/46 (144A) (c)		2,710,000		1,676,298
4.443%, 07/10/50 (c)		1,726,000		1,245,139
4.547%, 08/10/48 (144A) (c)		5,800,000		3,093,176
Credit Suisse Commercial Mortgage Trust 4.373%, 09/15/37 (144A)		3,920,000		3,276,311
5.373%, 12/15/39		1,075,027		1,026,607
6.173%, 06/15/38 (c)		4,604,410		2,760,954
9.168%, 03/15/17 (144A)		6,400,000		6,192,000
CSAIL Commercial Mortgage Trust 4.394%, 11/15/49 (c)		3,888,000		3,524,850
DBUBS Mortgage Trust 3.750%, 08/10/44 (144A)		5,180,000		2,842,162
EQTY Mortgage Trust 4.099%, 05/08/31 (144A) (c)		10,780,000		10,541,795
5.399%, 05/08/31 (144A) (c)		11,009,372		10,548,053
GE Business Loan Trust 1.124%, 05/15/34 (144A) (c)		695,023		598,807
GE Commercial Mortgage Corp. Trust 5.677%, 12/10/49 (c)		240,000		150,378
GMAC Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc. 5.349%, 11/10/45 (c)		2,210,000		1,919,639
GS Mortgage Securities Trust 4.530%, 05/10/49 (c)		5,755,000		5,849,905
4.646%, 06/10/47 (c)		5,993,000		6,049,027
5.622%, 11/10/39		3,095,143		2,651,117
Hyatt Hotel Portfolio Trust 6.929%, 11/15/19 (144A) (c)		3,500,000		3,534,802
JPMorgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust 3.462%, 12/15/49 (c)		6,090,000		5,447,923
3.958%, 04/15/46 (c)		3,750,000		3,695,176
4.004%, 08/15/27 (144A) (c)		460,000		458,409
4.304%, 06/15/29 (144A) (c)		3,540,000		3,515,813
5.386%, 05/15/47 (c)		2,280,000		1,584,828
5.411%, 05/15/47		2,120,000		1,484,212
5.502%, 06/12/47 (c)		6,170,000		5,067,112
5.503%, 01/15/49 (c)		7,680,000		2,921,347
5.623%, 05/12/45		669,706		572,598
6.039%, 02/15/51 (c)		1,350,000		1,238,672
6.929%, 10/15/19 (144A) (c)		9,900,000		9,962,031
LB-UBS Commercial Mortgage Trust 6.245%, 09/15/45 (c)		1,100,000		963,380
Lone Star Portfolio Trust 7.604%, 09/15/28 (144A) (c)		5,545,947		5,333,296
7.921%, 09/15/20 (144A) (c)		5,318,716		5,266,377
ML-CFC Commercial Mortgage Trust 5.450%, 08/12/48 (c)		1,918,000		1,638,828
5.450%, 08/12/48 (144A) (c)		200,000		170,982
6.177%, 09/12/49 (c)		9,253,000		6,488,608
Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities—(Continued)
Morgan Stanley Bank of America Merrill Lynch Trust 4.297%, 12/15/49 (c)		4,870,000		4,698,524
4.529%, 10/15/48 (144A) (c)		9,534,000		5,722,015
Morgan Stanley Capital Trust 3.912%, 11/15/49 (c)		3,759,000		3,591,834
4.151%, 12/15/49 (c)		12,593,000		11,873,019
5.399%, 12/15/43		3,449,053		2,643,009
5.902%, 06/11/49 (c)		5,560,000		5,130,439
Multifamily Trust 9.855%, 04/25/46 (144A) (c)		16,382,964		17,992,541
UBS-Barclays Commercial Mortgage Trust 4.885%, 05/10/63 (144A) (c)		4,530,000		2,370,612
Wachovia Bank Commercial Mortgage Trust 5.594%, 01/15/45 (144A) (c)		6,466,500		6,050,704
Waterfall Commercial Mortgage Trust 4.104%, 09/14/22 (144A) (c) (d)		6,101,843		5,961,805
Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Trust 4.458%, 08/15/50		6,613,000		6,537,727
4.495%, 12/15/49 (c)		6,251,000		6,069,112
WF-RBS Commercial Mortgage Trust 3.016%, 11/15/47 (144A)		4,441,004		1,980,008
3.250%, 06/15/46 (144A)		8,240,000		5,434,033
				272,331,135
Total Mortgage-Backed Securities (Cost $537,703,206)				518,096,041
Foreign Government—13.3%
Regional Government—0.1%
Japan Finance Organization for Municipalities 4.000%, 01/13/21		1,900,000		1,998,494
Sovereign—13.2%
Abu Dhabi Government International Bonds 3.125%, 05/03/26 (144A)		17,360,000		17,035,194
Argentine Bonos del Tesoro 22.750%, 03/05/18 (ARS)		104,350,000		7,144,963
Argentine Republic Government International Bonds 6.875%, 04/22/21 (144A)		2,150,000		2,289,750
7.500%, 04/22/26 (144A)		41,610,000		43,690,500
7.625%, 04/22/46 (144A)		1,170,000		1,170,000
Bahamas Government International Bonds 5.750%, 01/16/24 (144A)		1,500,000		1,523,295
Bermuda Government International Bonds 4.138%, 01/03/23 (144A)		2,000,000		2,040,800
Brazil Notas do Tesouro Nacional 10.000%, 01/01/21 (BRL)		25,000,000		7,397,218
10.000%, 01/01/23 (BRL)		110,000,000		31,797,932
Brazilian Government International Bonds 6.000%, 04/07/26 (a)		44,100,000		45,643,500
Ecuador Government International Bonds 10.750%, 03/28/22 (144A)		8,450,000		9,168,250

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-16

Metropolitan Series Fund

Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Foreign Government—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Sovereign—(Continued)
Hungary Government International Bonds 5.750%, 11/22/23		16,414,000	$	18,199,023
Indonesia Government International Bonds 4.750%, 01/08/26		7,000,000		7,225,988
5.125%, 01/15/45		3,000,000		2,993,271
5.250%, 01/17/42		41,590,000		41,914,943
Kazakhstan Government International Bonds 5.125%, 07/21/25		26,080,000		27,864,081
Mexican Bonos 8.500%, 11/18/38 (MXN)		531,300,000		27,223,549
Mexico Government International Bonds 4.125%, 01/21/26 (a)		8,170,000		8,104,640
4.750%, 03/08/44		44,760,000		40,700,268
Peruvian Government International Bonds 4.125%, 08/25/27 (a)		25,600,000		26,592,000
Poland Government International Bonds 3.250%, 04/06/26 (a)		33,000,000		31,647,924
4.000%, 01/22/24 (a)		3,410,000		3,487,605
Portugal Government International Bonds 5.125%, 10/15/24 (144A)		14,000,000		13,545,000
Russian Federal Bonds - OFZ 7.050%, 01/19/28 (RUB)		2,515,050,000		37,481,030
				455,880,724
Total Foreign Government (Cost $463,619,198)				457,879,218
Floating Rate Loans (i)—6.2%
Airlines—0.1%
Air Canada Term Loan B, 3.614%, 10/06/23		3,081,208		3,105,602
Commercial Services—0.5%
Jaguar Holding Co. II Term Loan B, 4.250%, 08/18/22		8,272,184		8,365,246
Prime Security Services Borrower LLC Incremental Term Loan B1, 05/02/22 (j)		8,290,000		8,397,770
				16,763,016
Distributors—0.2%
American Builders & Contractors Supply Co., Inc. Term Loan B, 3.520%, 10/31/23		8,115,000		8,205,572
Diversified Financial Services—0.0%
Nord Anglia Education Finance LLC Term Loan, 03/31/21 (j)		907,673		922,990
Electric—0.2%
Energy Future Intermediate Holding Co. LLC Term Loan, 4.250%, 06/30/17		6,240,991		6,289,359
Entertainment—0.5%
Lions Gate Entertainment Corp. 1st Lien Term Loan, 12/08/23 (j)		8,735,000		8,799,097
Scientific Games International, Inc. Term Loan B2, 6.000%, 10/01/21		7,525,802		7,626,595
				16,425,692
Equity Real Estate Investment Trusts—0.2%
Communications Sales & Leasing, Inc. Term Loan B, 4.500%, 10/24/22		8,269,275		8,376,776
Food—0.1%
Albertson’s LLC Term Loan B6, 06/22/23 (j)		4,570,000		4,642,224
Healthcare-Services—0.4%
DaVita HealthCare Partners, Inc. Term Loan B, 3.520%, 06/24/21		3,401,279		3,440,961
MPH Acquisition Holdings LLC Term Loan B, 06/07/23 (j)		8,326,416		8,486,999
				11,927,960
Hotels, Restaurants & Leisure—0.1%
1011778 B.C. Unlimited Liability Co. Term Loan B2, 3.750%, 12/10/21		3,361,407		3,394,322
Insurance—0.4%
RPI Finance Trust Term Loan B5, 3.498%, 10/14/22		6,608,425		6,690,442
UFC Holdings LLC 1st Lien Term Loan, 5.000%, 08/18/23		8,490,000		8,597,008
				15,287,450
Internet—0.1%
Ancestry.com Operations, Inc. 1st Lien Term Loan, 5.250%, 10/19/23		1,670,000		1,683,861
Lodging—0.4%
Boyd Gaming Corp. Term Loan B2, 3.756%, 09/15/23		4,558,575		4,609,859
Hilton Worldwide Finance LLC Term Loan B2, 10/25/23 (j)		2,281,767		2,310,901
MGM Growth Properties Operating Partnership L.P. Term Loan B, 3.520%, 04/25/23		4,269,246		4,307,268
Station Casinos LLC Term Loan B, 3.750%, 06/08/23		3,571,028		3,618,165
				14,846,193
Machinery—0.1%
Zebra Technologies Corp. Term Loan B, 10/27/21 (j)		4,050,515		4,094,183

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-17

Metropolitan Series Fund

Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Floating Rate Loans (i)—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Media—0.3%
CBS Radio, Inc. Term Loan B, 4.500%, 10/17/23		3,088,302	$	3,126,887
Charter Communications Operating LLC Term Loan I, 3.005%, 01/15/24		4,547,093		4,586,880
Univision Communications, Inc. Term Loan C4, 4.000%, 03/01/20		3,500,632		3,521,296
				11,235,063
Oil & Gas—0.1%
Hercules Offshore LLC Term Loan, 10.500%, 05/06/20 (f) (g)		3,290,868		3,234,265
Packaging & Containers—0.5%
Berry Plastics Group, Inc. Term Loan H, 3.750%, 10/01/22		8,457,837		8,545,587
BWAY Holding Co. Term Loan B, 08/14/23 (j)		893,459		898,373
Reynolds Group Holdings, Inc. Term Loan, 4.250%, 02/05/23		8,089,725		8,188,088
				17,632,048
Pharmaceuticals—0.1%
Catalent Pharma Solutions, Inc. Term Loan B, 3.750%, 05/20/21		1,969,777		1,987,889
Professional Services—0.1%
Trans Union LLC Term Loan B2, 3.520%, 04/09/21		3,984,772		4,017,861
Retail—0.9%
Bass Pro Group LLC Term Loan B, 12/16/23 (j)		7,545,000		7,489,084
CWGS Group LLC Term Loan, 4.500%, 11/08/23		1,330,000		1,342,885
Leslie’s Poolmart, Inc. Term Loan, 08/16/23 (j)		3,142,125		3,176,164
Michaels Stores, Inc. Term Loan B1, 3.750%, 01/27/23		4,537,521		4,589,380
Party City Holdings, Inc. Term Loan, 4.210%, 08/19/22		4,331,644		4,366,500
Petco Animal Supplies, Inc. Term Loan B1, 5.000%, 01/26/23		4,558,518		4,599,353
PetSmart, Inc. Term Loan B2, 4.000%, 03/11/22		3,484,051		3,501,272
				29,064,638
Software—0.1%
First Data Corp. Term Loan, 3.756%, 03/24/21		2,626,330		2,655,329
Telecommunications—0.6%
Level 3 Financing, Inc. Term Loan B2, 3.500%, 05/31/22		4,830,000		4,880,816
T-Mobile USA, Inc. Term Loan B, 3.520%, 11/09/22		4,547,035		4,604,687
Telecommunications—(Continued)
UPC Financing Partnership Term Loan AN, 4.080%, 08/31/24		4,570,000		4,621,984
Virgin Media Investment Holdings, Ltd. Term Loan I, 01/31/25 (j)		2,865,395		2,882,109
Windstream Services LLC Term Loan, 03/29/21 (j)		1,341,332		1,348,039
Term Loan B6, 03/16/21 (j)		2,006,971		2,020,143
				20,357,778
Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods—0.1%
Kate Spade & Co. Term Loan B, 4.000%, 04/10/21		3,750,000		3,768,750
Transportation—0.1%
XPO Logistics, Inc. Term Loan B2, 4.250%, 10/30/21		3,316,484		3,362,915
Total Floating Rate Loans (Cost $212,200,194)				213,281,736
U.S. Treasury & Government Agencies—5.9%
Agency Sponsored Mortgage - Backed—0.9%
Fannie Mae 15 Yr. Pool 4.000%, 07/01/18		31,914		32,838
4.000%, 08/01/18		43,416		44,680
4.000%, 03/01/19		49,718		51,170
5.000%, 12/01/21		15,412		15,773
6.500%, 01/01/17		4		4
Fannie Mae 20 Yr. Pool 8.500%, 08/01/19		7,045		7,329
Fannie Mae 30 Yr. Pool 4.500%, 05/01/39		2,165,878		2,349,949
4.500%, 08/01/40		5,983,259		6,449,835
4.500%, 05/01/41		4,105,650		4,425,895
4.500%, 11/01/43		3,484,346		3,748,052
5.000%, 01/01/39		409,077		445,386
5.000%, 06/01/40		221,220		241,571
5.000%, 07/01/40		162,078		176,948
6.000%, 07/01/38		30,633		34,684
6.500%, 08/01/31		1,298		1,469
6.500%, 12/01/36		1,413		1,598
6.500%, 06/01/37		25,253		28,570
6.500%, 10/01/37		27,499		31,111
7.000%, 05/01/26		1,359		1,449
7.000%, 07/01/30		275		282
7.000%, 01/01/31		414		461
7.000%, 07/01/31		1,619		1,808
7.000%, 09/01/31		3,207		3,502
7.000%, 10/01/31		3,232		3,672
7.000%, 11/01/31		23,967		25,724
7.000%, 01/01/32		5,868		6,029
7.000%, 02/01/32		4,490		4,654
7.500%, 12/01/29		485		495
7.500%, 01/01/30		547		653

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-18

Metropolitan Series Fund

Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

U.S. Treasury & Government Agencies—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Agency Sponsored Mortgage - Backed—(Continued)
Fannie Mae 30 Yr. Pool
7.500%, 02/01/30		340	$	344
7.500%, 06/01/30		466		467
7.500%, 08/01/30		88		90
7.500%, 09/01/30		772		882
7.500%, 10/01/30		90		100
7.500%, 11/01/30		10,369		10,980
7.500%, 02/01/31		3,610		3,712
8.000%, 08/01/27		1,156		1,291
8.000%, 07/01/30		681		833
8.000%, 09/01/30		409		433
Fannie Mae REMICS (CMO) 1.106%, 05/25/34 (c)		147,038		146,811
4.500%, 06/25/29		323,495		343,875
9.750%, 11/25/18		95,097		100,031
9.750%, 08/25/19		30,607		32,168
Freddie Mac 30 Yr. Gold Pool 3.000%, 11/01/42		2,519,356		2,518,330
6.000%, 12/01/36		22,084		25,119
6.000%, 02/01/37		27,847		31,459
7.000%, 03/01/39		167,893		199,464
Freddie Mac Multifamily Structured Pass-Through Certificates 1.329%, 08/25/42 (c) (h)		70,400,000		4,113,718
Freddie Mac REMICS (CMO) 1,156.500%, 06/15/21 (h)		5		52
Ginnie Mae I 30 Yr. Pool 5.000%, 04/15/35		12,013		13,424
5.500%, 01/15/34		61,166		69,028
5.500%, 04/15/34		19,791		22,497
5.500%, 07/15/34		108,210		121,780
5.500%, 10/15/34		98,002		110,755
5.750%, 10/15/38		99,974		113,262
6.000%, 02/15/33		1,996		2,315
6.000%, 03/15/33		7,951		9,090
6.000%, 06/15/33		5,365		6,160
6.000%, 07/15/33		8,031		9,264
6.000%, 09/15/33		6,775		7,687
6.000%, 10/15/33		3,669		4,263
6.000%, 08/15/34		31,487		35,894
6.500%, 03/15/29		3,126		3,571
6.500%, 02/15/32		1,128		1,308
6.500%, 03/15/32		1,197		1,398
6.500%, 11/15/32		4,493		5,192
7.000%, 03/15/31		198		207
Ginnie Mae II 30 Yr. Pool 3.500%, 03/20/45		342,479		356,598
3.500%, 03/20/46		532,207		556,668
5.000%, 08/20/34		75,674		83,386
5.500%, 03/20/34		9,349		10,735
6.000%, 05/20/32		13,383		15,570
6.000%, 11/20/33		15,590		18,100
Ginnie Mae II ARM Pool 2.040%, 01/20/60 (c)		735,463		752,831
2.416%, 05/20/60 (c)		667,823		688,611
Agency Sponsored Mortgage - Backed—(Continued)
Government National Mortgage Association (CMO) 0.700%, 03/16/47 (c) (h)		9,338,414		249,697
0.885%, 04/16/52 (c) (h)		16,590,728		531,796
0.900%, 09/16/56 (c) (h)		10,118,760		635,215
3.000%, 04/20/41		798,975		818,032
				30,920,084
Federal Agencies—0.1%
Tennessee Valley Authority 5.250%, 09/15/39		400,000		502,398
5.980%, 04/01/36		1,760,000		2,373,194
				2,875,592
U.S. Treasury—4.9%
U.S. Treasury Bonds 2.250%, 08/15/46 (a)		510,000		428,818
2.875%, 11/15/46		130,000		125,511
3.000%, 05/15/45		37,330,000		36,825,448
4.500%, 02/15/36 (a)		14,550,000		18,410,290
U.S. Treasury Floating Rate Notes 0.724%, 10/31/17 (a) (c)		10,000,000		10,013,420
0.828%, 01/31/18 (a) (c)		50,000,000		50,143,400
U.S. Treasury Inflation Indexed Bonds 0.750%, 02/15/45 (k)		50,872,844		47,868,345
1.000%, 02/15/46 (k)		6,085,195		6,110,911
U.S. Treasury Notes 1.500%, 08/31/18		220,000		221,375
1.500%, 08/15/26		790,000		726,584
2.000%, 11/15/26 (a)		5,000		4,811
2.375%, 08/15/24		10,000		10,046
				170,888,959
Total U.S. Treasury & Government Agencies (Cost $209,631,981)				204,684,635
Investment Company Security—2.3%
PowerShares Senior Loan Portfolio (a) (Cost $79,534,840)		3,424,440		79,994,918
Asset-Backed Securities—2.1%
Asset-Backed - Home Equity—0.2%
Asset-Backed Securities Corp. Home Equity Loan Trust 3.554%, 04/15/33 (c)		6,421		6,316
Bear Stearns Asset-Backed Securities Trust 1.324%, 01/25/34 (c)		18,584		17,975
EMC Mortgage Loan Trust 1.034%, 05/25/43 (144A) (c)		613,096		600,028
1.234%, 05/25/43 (144A) (c)		7,660,000		6,490,059

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-19

Metropolitan Series Fund

Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Asset-Backed Securities—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Asset-Backed - Home Equity—(Continued)
Structured Asset Securities Corp. Mortgage Loan Trust 0.976%, 02/25/36 (144A) (c)		2,659,676	$	168,620
				7,282,998
Asset-Backed - Manufactured Housing—0.5%
Conseco Financial Corp. 7.030%, 07/15/28		7,119,835		6,930,150
Greenpoint Manufactured Housing 3.137%, 03/18/29 (c)		425,000		391,462
3.817%, 06/19/29 (c)		325,000		295,711
4.066%, 02/20/30 (c)		350,000		313,415
Manufactured Housing Contract Trust Pass-Through Certificates 4.037%, 02/20/32 (c)		250,000		225,764
4.038%, 03/13/32 (c)		425,000		382,279
Mid-State Trust VI 7.340%, 07/01/35		197,276		207,882
Origen Manufactured Housing Contract Trust 2.291%, 04/15/37 (c)		1,513,109		1,382,091
2.379%, 10/15/37 (c)		1,685,826		1,488,803
UCFC Manufactured Housing Contract 7.095%, 04/15/29 (c)		4,850,000		4,673,383
				16,290,940
Asset-Backed - Other—0.8%
Amortizing Residential Collateral Trust 2.556%, 08/25/32 (c)		35,168		32,048
Applebee’s Funding LLC / IHOP Funding LLC 4.277%, 09/05/44 (144A)		5,210,000		5,154,459
Bear Stearns Asset-Backed Securities Trust 6.000%, 10/25/36		1,924,630		1,418,519
Countrywide Asset-Backed Certificates Trust 2.631%, 06/25/34 (c)		151,144		139,932
Countrywide Revolving Home Equity Loan Resecuritization Trust 1.004%, 12/15/33 (144A) (c)		224,393		192,968
Countrywide Revolving Home Equity Loan Trust 0.844%, 07/15/36 (c)		441,741		382,948
Encore Credit Receivables Trust 1.791%, 10/25/35 (c)		2,327,806		1,499,834
First Horizon Asset-Backed Trust 0.916%, 10/25/34 (c)		34,758		33,900
GSAMP Trust 0.956%, 01/25/36 (c)		100,572		15,929
GSRPM Mortgage Loan Trust 1.056%, 03/25/35 (144A) (c)		525,107		517,126
Home Equity Mortgage Loan Asset-Backed Notes 0.926%, 04/25/36 (c)		143,868		103,915
HSI Asset Securitization Corp. Trust 1.176%, 11/25/35 (c)		4,000,000		3,485,299
Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 1.264%, 01/21/31 (c)		22,022		20,807
Asset-Backed - Other—(Continued)
MidOcean Credit CLO IV 4.780%, 04/15/27 (144A) (c)		1,750,000		1,699,169
Oaktree CLO, Ltd. 6.481%, 10/20/27 (144A) (c)		7,050,000		6,480,395
SACO I Trust 1.016%, 06/25/36 (c)		356,667		629,817
1.096%, 03/25/36 (c)		90,461		158,363
SoFi Consumer Loan Program 3.280%, 09/15/23 (144A)		6,564,886		6,587,312
				28,552,740
Asset-Backed - Student Loan—0.6%
DRB Prime Student Loan Trust 3.170%, 07/25/31 (144A)		4,261,590		4,271,477
National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 1.026%, 03/26/29 (c)		2,199,808		2,105,930
1.442%, 03/25/38 (c)		8,346,942		4,687,765
Nelnet Student Loan Trust Zero Coupon, 03/22/32 (c)		6,200,000		5,618,155
Northstar Education Finance, Inc. 1.768%, 10/30/45 (c)		100,000		73,246
SoFi Professional Loan Program LLC Zero Coupon, 08/25/36 (144A) (d)		500		2,937,500
				19,694,073
Total Asset-Backed Securities (Cost $72,070,592)				71,820,751
Convertible Preferred Stocks—0.4%
Banks—0.2%
Wells Fargo & Co., Series L 7.500%,		4,965		5,908,350
Pharmaceuticals—0.2%
Allergan plc 5.500%, 03/01/18		9,490		7,235,745
Total Convertible Preferred Stocks (Cost $13,392,002)				13,144,095
Municipals—0.3%
Brazos River Harbor, TX Navigation District Revenue Bonds Dow Chemical Co. Project 5.950%, 05/15/33		3,360,000		3,569,630
Massachusetts State Development Finance Agency Revenue Board Institute, Inc. 5.375%, 04/01/41		400,000		447,504
Texas Brazos Harbor Industrial Development Corp., Environmental Facilities Revenue Dow Chemical Project. 5.900%, 05/01/38 (c)		1,505,000		1,562,882

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-20

Metropolitan Series Fund

Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Municipals—(Continued)

Security Description	Shares/ Principal Amount*		Value
Texas Municipal Gas Acquisition & Supply Corp. III 5.000%, 12/15/30		750,000	$	784,470
5.000%, 12/15/31		1,550,000		1,615,426
Virginia Housing Development Authority 6.000%, 06/25/34		774,065		811,073
Total Municipals (Cost $8,296,569)				8,790,985
Preferred Stocks—0.1%
Air Freight & Logistics—0.0%
CEVA Group plc - Series A2 (g)		864		194,337
Banks—0.1%
Citigroup Capital, 7.257% (c)		66,710		1,722,452
GMAC Capital Trust, 6.691% (c)		53,100		1,348,740
				3,071,192
Marine—0.0%
Tricer (f)		10,446,300		140,983
Total Preferred Stocks (Cost $5,211,653)				3,406,512
Convertible Bonds—0.1%
Energy-Alternate Sources—0.0%
LDK Solar Co., Ltd. 5.535%, 12/31/18 (e) (g)		341,970		13,138
Mining—0.0%
Mirabela Nickel, Ltd. 9.500%, 06/24/19 (144A) (d) (e)		1,420,687		120,758
Telecommunications—0.1%
Finisar Corp. 0.500%, 12/15/36 (144A) (a)		1,980,000		1,996,088
Total Convertible Bonds (Cost $3,418,857)				2,129,984
Common Stocks—0.0%
Air Freight & Logistics—0.0%
CEVA Group plc (g)		399		49,875
Diversified Consumer Services—0.0%
Ascent CNR Corp. - Class A (g)		1,399,556		27,991
Household Durables—0.0%
Desarrolladora Homex S.A.B. de C.V. (l)		220,114		11,999
Marine—0.0%
Tricer Holdco SCA (f) (g) (l)		23,504		31,729
Media—0.0%
Cengage Learning, Inc.		10,995		170,423
ION Media Networks, Inc. (f) (g)		785		364,601
				535,024
Metals & Mining—0.0%
Mirabela Nickel, Ltd. (f) (g) (l)		7,827,755		56,489
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels—0.0%
Pacific Exploration and Production Corp. (l)		3,963		161,274
Total Common Stocks (Cost $4,197,687)				874,381
Warrant—0.0%
Sovereign—0.0%
Venezuela Government Oil-Linked Payment Obligation, Expires 04/15/20 (l) (Cost $0)		1,700		3,825
Escrow Shares—0.0%
Energy Equipment & Services—0.0%
Hercules Offshore, Inc. (g)		10,611		11,990
Forest Products & Paper—0.0%
Sino-Forest Corp. (f) (g)		1,246,000		0
Sino-Forest Corp. (f) (g)		500,000		0
Total Escrow Shares (Cost $484,642)				11,990
Short-Term Investments—0.2%
Repurchase Agreements—0.2%
Fixed Income Clearing Corp. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/16 at 0.030% to be repurchased at $5,543,066 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $4,715,000 U.S. Government Agency Obligations with rates ranging from 3.625% - 8.500%, due 02/15/20 with a value of $5,657,165.		5,543,048		5,543,048
Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc Repurchase Agreement dated 12/31/16 at 0.450% to be repurchased at $2,000,100 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $2,016,000 U.S. Treasury Note at 2.125% due 06/30/22 with a value of $2,023,088.		2,000,000		2,000,000
Total Short-Term Investments (Cost $7,543,048)				7,543,048

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-21

Metropolitan Series Fund

Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Securities Lending Reinvestments (m)—13.5%

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Certificates of Deposit—6.6%
Barclays New York 0.894%, 02/10/17 (n)		10,000,000	$	10,003,234
Chiba Bank, Ltd., New York 0.870%, 01/10/17		2,000,000		2,000,046
0.950%, 02/02/17		2,000,000		2,000,276
Cooperative Rabobank UA New York 1.278%, 10/13/17 (n)		4,000,000		4,000,900
Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank 1.274%, 04/12/17 (n)		9,000,000		9,007,101
Credit Industriel et Commercial 1.245%, 04/05/17 (n)		3,500,000		3,501,890
Credit Suisse AG New York 1.335%, 04/03/17 (n)		4,500,000		4,500,985
1.364%, 04/11/17 (n)		6,500,000		6,501,417
DG Bank New York 0.940%, 01/12/17		5,000,000		5,000,265
0.950%, 01/03/17		2,500,000		2,500,018
DNB NOR Bank ASA 1.130%, 07/28/17 (n)		7,300,000		7,298,722
DZ Bank AG New York 1.010%, 02/27/17		6,300,000		6,301,821
DZ Bank London 0.990%, 03/01/17		7,500,000		7,501,575
ING Bank NV 1.265%, 04/18/17 (n)		10,000,000		10,018,331
KBC Bank NV 1.000%, 01/04/17		2,500,000		2,500,000
1.050%, 01/17/17		6,400,000		6,400,768
KBC Brussells 1.050%, 01/27/17		13,300,000		13,302,527
Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen London Zero Coupon, 01/24/17		8,979,348		8,996,130
Mitsubishi UFJ Trust and Banking Corp. 1.364%, 04/11/17 (n)		8,000,000		8,003,784
Mizuho Bank, Ltd., New York 1.395%, 04/11/17 (n)		8,000,000		8,002,408
1.436%, 04/18/17 (n)		6,800,000		6,802,135
National Australia Bank London 1.034%, 05/02/17 (n)		13,000,000		13,012,272
Natixis New York 1.262%, 04/07/17 (n)		3,500,000		3,501,404
Rabobank London 1.281%, 10/13/17 (n)		4,000,000		4,009,594
Royal Bank of Canada New York 1.145%, 04/04/17 (n)		3,500,000		3,499,101
1.281%, 10/13/17 (n)		2,000,000		2,001,550
Sumitomo Bank New York 1.215%, 05/05/17 (n)		5,000,000		5,008,329
Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corp. London Zero Coupon, 02/06/17		2,493,281		2,498,200
Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corp. New York 1.352%, 04/07/17 (n)		3,500,000		3,501,785
1.395%, 04/12/17 (n)		5,000,000		5,005,702
Sumitomo Mitsui Trust Bank, Ltd., New York 1.194%, 06/02/17 (n)		1,000,000		999,855
1.351%, 04/26/17 (n)		14,000,000		14,001,652
1.364%, 04/10/17 (n)		6,000,000		6,002,322
Certificates of Deposit—(Continued)
Svenska Handelsbanken New York 1.266%, 05/18/17 (n)		10,000,000		10,001,740
UBS, Stamford 1.084%, 05/12/17 (n)		5,700,000		5,699,567
Wells Fargo Bank San Francisco N.A. 1.231%, 04/26/17 (n)		7,300,000		7,302,044
1.264%, 10/26/17 (n)		7,000,000		7,004,781
				227,194,231
Commercial Paper—3.3%
ABN AMRO Funding USA 0.910%, 01/11/17		3,990,900		3,998,756
Atlantic Asset Securitization LLC 0.990%, 01/12/17		2,992,575		2,999,028
1.040%, 02/03/17		2,990,900		2,997,381
Barton Capital Corp. 0.660%, 01/12/17		4,994,225		4,998,755
Commonwealth Bank Australia 1.236%, 10/23/17 (n)		7,000,000		7,003,934
Den Norske ASA 1.206%, 04/27/17 (n)		7,300,000		7,300,387
Erste Abwicklungsanstalt 1.014%, 03/10/17 (n)		6,000,000		6,000,036
HSBC plc 1.216%, 04/25/17 (n)		17,400,000		17,399,252
Kells Funding LLC 1.040%, 01/19/17		797,180		799,686
Macquarie Bank, Ltd. 0.930%, 01/19/17		6,484,552		6,495,989
0.950%, 01/03/17		2,993,033		2,999,679
Ridgefield Funding Co. LLC 1.000%, 01/03/17		2,493,750		2,499,857
Sheffield Receivables Co. 1.050%, 01/06/17		4,986,292		4,999,350
Starbird Funding Corp. 0.930%, 02/10/17		17,454,792		17,483,215
Toronto Dominion Holding Corp. 0.600%, 01/05/17		6,992,767		6,999,216
Versailles Commercial Paper LLC 1.000%, 01/31/17		4,986,667		4,996,240
1.050%, 01/17/17		2,990,900		2,998,659
Westpac Banking Corp. 1.232%, 10/20/17 (n)		11,600,000		11,620,255
				114,589,675
Repurchase Agreements—3.0%
Citigroup Global Markets, Ltd. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/29/16 at 0.710% to be repurchased at $5,000,493 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $5,043,683 U.S. Treasury and Foreign Obligations with rates ranging from 1.750% - 2.750%, maturity dates ranging from 10/15/19 - 11/15/23, with a value of $5,100,001.		5,000,000		5,000,000

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-22

Metropolitan Series Fund

Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Securities Lending Reinvestments (m)—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Repurchase Agreements—(Continued)
Deutsche Bank AG, London Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/16 at 0.950% to be repurchased at $1,700,179 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $1,735,530 Foreign Obligations with rates ranging from 1.750% - 2.500%, maturity dates ranging from 09/05/19 - 11/20/24, with a value of $1,734,010.		1,700,000	$	1,700,000
Repurchase Agreement dated 12/15/16 - 12/30/16 at 1.050% to be repurchased at $19,409,263 on 01/03/17, collateralized by various Common Stock with a value of $21,564,167.		19,400,000		19,400,000
Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. Repurchase Agreement dated 10/18/16 at 1.110% to be repurchased at $17,573,383 on 03/03/17, collateralized by various Common Stock with a value of $19,250,000.		17,500,000		17,500,000
Goldman Sachs & Co. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/16 at 0.460% to be repurchased at $2,433,892 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $12,524,642 U.S. Government Agency Obligations with rates ranging from 2.000% - 10.500%, maturity dates ranging from 03/15/17 - 09/20/65, with a value of $2,482,443.		2,433,767		2,433,767
Macquarie Bank, Ltd. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/27/16 at 0.580% to be repurchased at $2,000,226 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $1,978,710 U.S. Treasury Obligations with rates ranging from 0.000% - 8.750%, maturity dates ranging from 01/05/17 - 05/15/46, with a value of $2,041,034.		2,000,000		2,000,000
Repurchase Agreement dated 12/15/16 at 0.600% to be repurchased at $10,003,667 on 01/06/17, collateralized by $9,893,551 U.S. Treasury Obligations with rates ranging from 0.000% - 8.750%, maturity dates ranging from 01/05/17 - 05/15/46, with a value of $10,205,168.		10,000,000		10,000,000
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. Repurchase Agreement dated 10/26/16 at 1.160% to be repurchased at $9,548,672 on 04/03/17, collateralized by various Common Stock with a value of $10,450,000.		9,500,000		9,500,000
Natixis Repurchase Agreement dated 12/28/16 at 0.750% to be repurchased at $10,001,667 on 01/05/17, collateralized by $16,050,693 U.S. Government Agency and Treasury Obligations with rates ranging from 0.000% - 4.672%, maturity dates ranging from 01/31/17 - 09/16/58, with a value of $10,201,254.		10,000,000		10,000,000
Repurchase Agreements—(Continued)
Natixis Repurchase Agreement dated 12/27/16 at 0.850% to be repurchased at $10,001,653 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $16,050,693 U.S. Government Agency and Treasury Obligations with rates ranging from 0.000% - 4.672%, maturity dates ranging from 01/31/17 - 09/16/58, with a value of $10,201,254.		10,000,000		10,000,000
Pershing LLC Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/16 at 0.680% to be repurchased at $15,001,133 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $22,010,467 U.S. Government Agency Obligations with rates ranging from 0.625% - 11.018%, maturity dates ranging from 01/17/17 - 08/20/66, with a value of $15,300,000.		15,000,000		15,000,000
				102,533,767
Time Deposits—0.6%
OP Corporate Bank plc 1.010%, 01/04/17		7,300,000		7,300,000
1.200%, 01/23/17		2,000,000		2,000,000
Shinkin Central Bank 1.200%, 01/27/17		2,000,000		2,000,000
1.220%, 01/26/17		9,600,000		9,600,000
				20,900,000
Total Securities Lending Reinvestments (Cost $465,095,645)				465,217,673
Total Investments—113.0% (Cost $3,887,888,109) (o)				3,886,051,716
Other assets and liabilities (net)—(13.0)%				(445,705,101	)
Net Assets—100.0%			$	3,440,346,615

* Principal amount stated in U.S. dollars unless otherwise noted.

(a) All or a portion of the security was held on loan. As of December 31, 2016, the market value of securities loaned was $449,624,627 and the collateral received consisted of cash in the amount of $464,954,927. The cash collateral investments are disclosed in the Schedule of Investments and categorized as Securities Lending Reinvestments.

(b) Payment-in-kind security for which part of the income earned may be paid as additional principal.

(c) Variable or floating rate security. The stated rate represents the rate at December 31, 2016. Maturity date shown for callable securities reflects the earliest possible call date.

(d) Restricted securities are not registered under the Securities Act of 1933 and are subject to legal restrictions on resale. These securities generally may be resold in transactions exempt from registration or to the public if the securities are subsequently registered. Disposal of these securities may involve time-consuming negotiations and prompt sale at an acceptable price may be difficult. As of December 31, 2016, the market value of restricted securities was $14,891,985, which is 0.4% of net assets. See details shown in the Restricted Securities table that follows.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-23

Metropolitan Series Fund

Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

(e) Non-income producing; security is in default and/or issuer is in bankruptcy.

(f) Security was valued in good faith under procedures approved by the Board of Trustees. As of December 31, 2016, these securities represent 0.1% of net assets.

(g) Illiquid security. As of December 31, 2016, these securities represent 0.7% of net assets.

(h) Interest only security.

(i) Floating rate loans (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.

(j) This loan will settle after December 31, 2016, at which time the interest rate will be determined.

(k) Principal amount of security is adjusted for inflation.

(l) Non-income producing security.

(m) Represents investment of cash collateral received from securities on loan as of December 31, 2016.

(n) Variable or floating rate security. The stated rate represents the rate at December 31, 2016.

(o) As of December 31, 2016, the aggregate cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was $3,893,539,282. The aggregate unrealized appreciation and depreciation of investments were $195,165,417 and $(202,652,983), respectively, resulting in net unrealized depreciation of $(7,487,566) for federal income tax purposes.

(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, 2016, the market value of 144A securities was $955,559,457, which is 27.8% of net assets.

(ARM)— Adjustable-Rate Mortgage

(ARS)— Argentine Peso

(AUD)— Australian Dollar

(BRL)— Brazilian Real

(CLO)— Collateralized Loan Obligation

(CMO)— Collateralized Mortgage Obligation

(EMTN)— Euro Medium-Term Note

(GBP)— British Pound

(MXN)— Mexican Peso

(REMIC)— Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit

(RUB)— Russian Ruble

Restricted Securities	Acquisition Date		Principal Amount		Cost		Value
Alta Wind Holdings LLC, 7.000%, 06/30/35		07/14/10	$	1,510,573	$	1,510,573	$	1,648,147
Bayview Commercial Asset Trust, Zero Coupon, 07/25/37		11/23/10		3,939,234		375,458		0
Compiler Finance Sub, Inc., 7.000%, 05/01/21		04/10/15		70,000		56,625		32,200
Countrywide Home Loan Reperforming Loan REMIC Trust, 5.642%, 03/25/35		01/08/15		8,407,151		1,224,291		1,184,737
Midwest Vanadium Pty, Ltd., 11.500%, 02/15/18		05/05/11 - 05/24/11		952,902		982,680		14,294
Mirabela Nickel, Ltd., 9.500%, 06/24/19		06/06/14 - 06/30/14		1,420,687		1,420,687		120,758
Mirabela Nickel, Ltd., 1.000%, 09/10/44		09/10/14 - 10/21/16		36,414		32,880		4
NSG Holdings LLC / NSG Holdings, Inc., 7.750%, 12/15/25		01/25/13		2,725,307		2,881,959		2,939,925
Scotia Bank Peru DPR Finance Co., 3.713%, 03/15/17		02/18/10		52,632		52,632		52,615
SoFi Professional Loan Program LLC, Zero Coupon, 08/25/36		08/05/15		500		2,964,375		2,937,500
Waterfall Commercial Mortgage Trust, 4.104%, 09/14/22		09/08/15 - 11/18/16		6,101,843		6,086,968		5,961,805
							$	14,891,985

Forward Foreign Currency Exchange Contracts

Contracts to Buy		Counterparty	Settlement Date		In Exchange for		Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation)
ARS	39,310,000	Citibank N.A.		02/15/17	$	2,389,666	$	6,638
ARS	193,304,000	Citibank N.A.		02/15/17		11,822,875		(39,227	)
ARS	295,610,000	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		02/15/17		18,727,273		(707,139	)
BRL	81,220,000	Citibank N.A.		01/20/17		23,388,815		1,451,355
CAD	2,322,047	Citibank N.A.		01/20/17		1,712,102		17,725
CAD	43,700,000	Citibank N.A.		01/20/17		32,500,589		54,077
EUR	68,086	Citibank N.A.		01/20/17		74,863		(3,127	)
EUR	409,001	Citibank N.A.		01/20/17		435,302		(4,374	)
EUR	1,909,001	Citibank N.A.		01/20/17		1,988,539		22,807
EUR	3,080,000	Citibank N.A.		01/20/17		3,416,090		(170,965	)
EUR	5,839	Citibank N.A.		02/13/17		6,496		(338	)

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-24

Metropolitan Series Fund

Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Forward Foreign Currency Exchange Contracts—(Continued)

Contracts to Buy		Counterparty	Settlement Date		In Exchange for		Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation)
EUR	1,444,001	Citibank N.A.		02/13/17	$	1,552,315	$	(29,288	)
EUR	3,459,171	Citibank N.A.		02/13/17		3,845,284		(196,801	)
GBP	8,054,475	Citibank N.A.		01/20/17		10,037,431		(106,349	)
GBP	31,760,000	Citibank N.A.		01/20/17		39,365,154		(205,414	)
GBP	46,650,000	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		01/20/17		56,818,767		700,184
IDR	235,349,535,439	Bank of America N.A.		01/20/17		17,893,221		(462,480	)
IDR	234,932,230,000	Citibank N.A.		01/20/17		17,811,390		(411,555	)
INR	1,825,290,000	Citibank N.A.		01/20/17		27,005,326		(151,890	)
INR	2,247,720,000	Citibank N.A.		01/20/17		33,294,623		(226,451	)
JPY	781,120,000	Citibank N.A.		01/20/17		6,774,352		(84,368	)
MXN	168,790,000	Citibank N.A.		01/20/17		8,638,930		(515,140	)
MXN	317,670,000	Citibank N.A.		01/20/17		16,287,178		(997,859	)
RUB	876,110,000	Barclays Bank plc		01/20/17		13,525,852		722,149
RUB	980,400,000	Barclays Bank plc		01/20/17		15,325,934		618,114
RUB	1,303,470,000	Citibank N.A.		01/20/17		20,350,820		847,251
Contracts to Deliver
AUD	14,253,231	Barclays Bank plc		01/20/17		10,830,246		548,710
AUD	710,701	Citibank N.A.		01/20/17		528,975		16,313
BRL	140,227,677	Citibank N.A.		01/20/17		42,211,823		(675,143	)
CAD	22,750,000	Barclays Bank plc		01/20/17		17,274,226		326,431
CAD	71,520,000	Citibank N.A.		01/20/17		54,321,779		1,042,381
CAD	33,405,024	Citibank N.A.		01/20/17		25,391,089		505,748
CAD	550,642	Citibank N.A.		01/20/17		408,725		(1,480	)
CAD	293,001	Citibank N.A.		01/20/17		218,497		223
CAD	239,001	Citibank N.A.		01/20/17		176,985		(1,060	)
CAD	13,003	Citibank N.A.		01/20/17		9,650		(36	)
CNY	59,360,000	Citibank N.A.		01/20/17		8,636,581		100,563
EUR	6,170,000	Citibank N.A.		01/20/17		6,592,337		91,550
EUR	552,494	Citibank N.A.		01/20/17		620,130		38,016
EUR	2,175,000	Citibank N.A.		02/13/17		2,424,560		130,527
EUR	1,041,001	Citibank N.A.		02/13/17		1,120,767		22,794
EUR	898,001	Citibank N.A.		02/13/17		942,239		(4,907	)
EUR	446,001	Citibank N.A.		02/13/17		475,678		5,268
GBP	42,690,000	Barclays Bank plc		01/20/17		54,395,811		1,759,498
GBP	46,650,000	Citibank N.A.		01/20/17		58,246,304		727,353
GBP	3,180,000	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		01/20/17		3,966,191		45,285
GBP	41,000,000	Bank of America N.A.		02/13/17		50,634,180		54,029
GBP	2,656,627	Citibank N.A.		02/13/17		3,317,911		40,532
JPY	6,792,036,734	Citibank N.A.		01/20/17		65,907,551		7,736,444
JPY	910,131,228	Citibank N.A.		01/20/17		8,570,450		775,536
KRW	41,204,220,000	Barclays Bank plc		01/20/17		37,266,965		3,151,863
MXN	256,650,000	Citibank N.A.		01/20/17		12,439,415		86,962
MXN	135,200,000	Goldman Sachs Capital Markets, Inc.		01/20/17		7,203,175		696,058
MXN	485,880,000	JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		01/20/17		23,483,241		98,048
NZD	100,000	Barclays Bank plc		01/20/17		71,304		1,870
NZD	5,000,000	Citibank N.A.		02/13/17		3,454,400		(14,717	)
NZD	4,800,000	Citibank N.A.		02/13/17		3,492,000		161,648
NZD	2,000,000	Citibank N.A.		02/13/17		1,456,102		68,455
NZD	1,000,000	Citibank N.A.		02/13/17		690,157		(3,666	)
TWD	1,045,790,000	Citibank N.A.		01/20/17		33,465,280		995,280
TWD	768,990,000	Citibank N.A.		01/20/17		24,030,938		155,107
TWD	512,660,000	Citibank N.A.		01/20/17		16,020,625		103,405
TWD	391,345,000	Citibank N.A.		01/20/17		12,248,670		98,074
Net Unrealized Appreciation							$	19,010,497

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-25

Metropolitan Series Fund

Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Futures Contracts

Futures Contracts—Long	Expiration Date		Number of Contracts			Notional Amount				Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation)
90 Day Eurodollar Futures		06/19/17		2,120			USD	524,733,653		$	(1,120,153	)
Australian 10 Year Treasury Bond Futures		03/15/17		1,418			AUD	180,461,187			489,087
Euro-BTP Futures		03/08/17		657			EUR	87,600,544			1,366,473
U.S. Treasury Long Bond Futures		03/22/17		64			USD	9,740,208			(98,208	)
U.S. Treasury Note 10 Year Futures		03/22/17		309			USD	38,413,661			(10,754	)
U.S. Treasury Note 5 Year Futures		03/31/17		2,407			USD	283,731,714			(514,314	)
Futures Contracts—Short
90 Day Eurodollar Futures		03/13/17		(3,426	)		USD	(847,663,803	)		71,403
90 Day Eurodollar Futures		06/17/19		(2,120	)		USD	(523,306,273	)		4,833,773
Euro-Bund Futures		03/08/17		(866	)		EUR	(140,258,271	)		(1,995,435	)
U.S. Treasury Ultra Long Bond Futures		03/22/17		(608	)		USD	(98,506,501	)		1,074,501
Net Unrealized Appreciation										$	4,096,373

Written Options

Foreign Currency Written Options	Strike Price		Counterparty		Expiration Date		Notional Amount			Premiums Received			Market Value			Unrealized Appreciation
USD Put/MXN Call		19.444		JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		02/15/17		(15,000,000	)	$	(162,150	)	$	(26,865	)	$	135,285

Options on Exchange-Traded Futures Contracts	Strike Price	Expiration Date		Number of Contracts			Premiums Received			Market Value			Unrealized Appreciation
Call - U.S. Treasury Note 5 Year Futures	$120.000		01/27/17		(1,696	)	$	(327,629	)	$	(26,500	)	$	301,129

Swap Agreements

OTC Interest Rate Swaps

Pay/Receive Floating Rate

Floating Rate Index

Fixed Rate

Maturity Date

Counterparty

Notional Amount

Market Value

Upfront Premium Paid/(Received)

Unrealized Appreciation

Pay

1 Day CDI

14.850

%

01/04/21

Bank of America N.A.

BRL

190,843,760

$

5,399,103

$

—

$

5,399,103

Centrally Cleared Interest Rate Swaps

Pay/Receive Floating Rate	Floating Rate Index	Fixed Rate			Maturity Date		Notional Amount			Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation)
Pay	3-Month NZD-BBR-FRA		2.103	%		08/02/21		NZD	56,400,000	$	(1,487,870	)
Pay	3-Month NZD-BBR-FRA		2.105	%		08/04/21		NZD	55,490,000		(1,463,413	)
Pay	3-Month NZD-BBR-FRA		2.105	%		08/04/21		NZD	55,490,000		(1,463,413	)
Pay	3-Month NZD-BBR-FRA		2.128	%		08/02/21		NZD	56,400,000		(1,445,885	)
Pay	3M LIBOR		1.185	%		06/13/21		USD	56,430,000		(1,759,076	)
Pay	3M LIBOR		1.340	%		12/08/18		USD	913,070,000		(1,709,906	)
Pay	3M LIBOR		1.355	%		12/13/18		USD	851,950,000		(1,384,001	)
Receive	3M CDOR		1.085	%		12/09/18		CAD	1,116,900,000		88,011
Receive	3M LIBOR		1.081	%		08/02/21		USD	38,970,000		1,461,095
Receive	3M LIBOR		1.084	%		08/02/21		USD	38,970,000		1,455,914
Receive	3M LIBOR		1.142	%		08/04/21		USD	38,950,000		1,357,910
Receive	3M LIBOR		1.144	%		08/04/21		USD	38,950,000		1,354,454
Receive	3M LIBOR		1.269	%		02/28/21		USD	416,280,000		10,086,623
Receive	3M LIBOR		1.580	%		06/13/26		USD	56,280,000		3,634,573
Receive	3M LIBOR		1.674	%		11/30/22		USD	99,324,000		2,229,774
Receive	6M LIBOR		0.664	%		12/06/18		GBP	713,670,000		(978,386	)
Net Unrealized Appreciation										$	9,976,404

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-26

Metropolitan Series Fund

Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Centrally Cleared Credit Default Swaps on Credit Indices—Buy Protection (a)

Reference Obligation	Fixed Deal (Pay) Rate		Maturity Date		Implied Credit Spread at December 31, 2016(b)	Notional Amount(c)			Unrealized Depreciation
CDX.NA.HY.27		(5.000%)		12/20/21	0.000%		USD	56,705,000	$	(1,682,770)

Centrally Cleared Credit Default Swaps on Credit Indices—Sell Protection (d)
Reference Obligation	Fixed Deal Receive Rate		Maturity Date		Implied Credit Spread at December 31, 2016(b)	Notional Amount(c)			Unrealized Appreciation
CDX.NA.IG.27		1.000%		12/20/21	0.000%		USD	80,160,000	$	242,461

(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 indices 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 of 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.

Securities in the amount of $5,280,437 have been received at the custodian bank as collateral for OTC swap contracts.

(ARS)— Argentine Peso

(AUD)— Australian Dollar

(BRL)— Brazilian Real

(CAD)— Canadian Dollar

(CNY)— Chinese Yuan

(EUR)— Euro

(GBP)— British Pound

(IDR)— Indonesian Rupiah

(INR)— Indian Rupee

(JPY)— Japanese Yen

(KRW)— South Korean Won

(MXN)— Mexican Peso

(NZD)— New Zealand Dollar

(RUB)— Russian Ruble

(TWD)— Taiwanese Dollar

(USD)— United States Dollar

(BBR)— Bank Bill Rate

(CDI)— Brazil Interbank Deposit Rate

(CDOR)— Canadian Dollar Offered Rate

(CDX.NA.HY)— Markit North America High Yield CDS Index

(CDX.NA.IG)— Markit North America Investment Grade CDS Index

(LIBOR)— London Interbank Offered Rate

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-27

Metropolitan Series Fund

Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Fair Value Hierarchy

Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) define 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, separately for each major category of assets and liabilities, 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, quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities 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, or other market corroborated inputs)

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 used in determining the fair value of investments and derivative financial instruments)

The inputs or methodologies used for valuing investments are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in them. Changes to the inputs or methodologies used may result in transfers between levels, which 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, 2016:

Description	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
Corporate Bonds & Notes
Advertising	$	—	$	120,035	$	—	$	120,035
Aerospace/Defense		—		32,674,499		—		32,674,499
Agriculture		—		23,408,907		—		23,408,907
Airlines		—		2,882,942		—		2,882,942
Apparel		—		14,658,686		—		14,658,686
Auto Manufacturers		—		22,006,731		—		22,006,731
Auto Parts & Equipment		—		32,174,612		—		32,174,612
Banks		—		338,261,113		—		338,261,113
Beverages		—		35,554,797		—		35,554,797
Biotechnology		—		8,334,432		—		8,334,432
Building Materials		—		3,808,475		—		3,808,475
Chemicals		—		13,411,191		—		13,411,191
Coal		—		7,750		—		7,750
Commercial Services		—		25,583,778		—		25,583,778
Computers		—		13,480,293		—		13,480,293
Diversified Financial Services		—		77,124,341		—		77,124,341
Electric		—		42,859,742		—		42,859,742
Electronics		—		2,206,867		—		2,206,867
Energy-Alternate Sources		—		1,648,147		—		1,648,147
Engineering & Construction		—		10,369,953		—		10,369,953
Entertainment		—		4,422,591		—		4,422,591
Environmental Control		—		1,359,849		—		1,359,849
Food		—		20,155,631		—		20,155,631
Healthcare-Products		—		34,718,397		—		34,718,397
Healthcare-Services		—		57,346,749		—		57,346,749
Holding Companies-Diversified		—		3,507,847		—		3,507,847
Home Builders		—		29,420,395		—		29,420,395
Household Products/Wares		—		4,087,933		—		4,087,933
Housewares		—		14,073,339		—		14,073,339
Insurance		—		20,873,083		—		20,873,083
Internet		—		15,862,496		—		15,862,496
Iron/Steel		—		11,910,150		—		11,910,150
Leisure Time		—		32,709,369		—		32,709,369
Lodging		—		13,144,901		—		13,144,901
Media		—		112,141,890		—		112,141,890
Metal Fabricate/Hardware		—		347,743		—		347,743

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-28

Metropolitan Series Fund

Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Fair Value Hierarchy—(Continued)

Description	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
Mining	$	—	$	108,647,288	$	4	$	108,647,292
Miscellaneous Manufacturing		—		15,897,652		—		15,897,652
Oil & Gas		—		207,144,151		—		207,144,151
Oil & Gas Services		—		14,858,465		—		14,858,465
Packaging & Containers		—		24,025,921		—		24,025,921
Pharmaceuticals		—		22,105,557		—		22,105,557
Pipelines		—		95,708,071		—		95,708,071
Real Estate		—		3,453,833		—		3,453,833
Real Estate Investment Trusts		—		18,112,773		—		18,112,773
Retail		—		57,215,405		—		57,215,405
Savings & Loans		—		3,263,940		—		3,263,940
Semiconductors		—		9,311,474		—		9,311,474
Software		—		12,010,374		—		12,010,374
Telecommunications		—		139,349,036		—		139,349,036
Transportation		—		24,463,205		—		24,463,205
Trucking & Leasing		—		3,524,564		—		3,524,564
Water		—		3,420,557		—		3,420,557
Total Corporate Bonds & Notes		—		1,839,171,920		4		1,839,171,924
Total Mortgage-Backed Securities*		—		518,096,041		—		518,096,041
Total Foreign Government*		—		457,879,218		—		457,879,218
Floating Rate Loans
Airlines		—		3,105,602		—		3,105,602
Commercial Services		—		16,763,016		—		16,763,016
Distributors		—		8,205,572		—		8,205,572
Diversified Financial Services		—		922,990		—		922,990
Electric		—		6,289,359		—		6,289,359
Entertainment		—		16,425,692		—		16,425,692
Equity Real Estate Investment Trusts		—		8,376,776		—		8,376,776
Food		—		4,642,224		—		4,642,224
Healthcare-Services		—		11,927,960		—		11,927,960
Hotels, Restaurants & Leisure		—		3,394,322		—		3,394,322
Insurance		—		15,287,450		—		15,287,450
Internet		—		1,683,861		—		1,683,861
Lodging		—		14,846,193		—		14,846,193
Machinery		—		4,094,183		—		4,094,183
Media		—		11,235,063		—		11,235,063
Oil & Gas		—		—		3,234,265		3,234,265
Packaging & Containers		—		17,632,048		—		17,632,048
Pharmaceuticals		—		1,987,889		—		1,987,889
Professional Services		—		4,017,861		—		4,017,861
Retail		—		29,064,638		—		29,064,638
Software		—		2,655,329		—		2,655,329
Telecommunications		—		20,357,778		—		20,357,778
Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods		—		3,768,750		—		3,768,750
Transportation		—		3,362,915		—		3,362,915
Total Floating Rate Loans		—		210,047,471		3,234,265		213,281,736
Total U.S. Treasury & Government Agencies*		—		204,684,635		—		204,684,635
Total Investment Company Security		79,994,918		—		—		79,994,918
Total Asset-Backed Securities*		—		71,820,751		—		71,820,751
Total Convertible Preferred Stocks*		13,144,095		—		—		13,144,095
Total Municipals		—		8,790,985		—		8,790,985
Preferred Stocks
Air Freight & Logistics		—		194,337		—		194,337
Banks		3,071,192		—		—		3,071,192
Marine		—		—		140,983		140,983
Total Preferred Stocks		3,071,192		194,337		140,983		3,406,512
Total Convertible Bonds*		—		2,129,984		—		2,129,984

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-29

Metropolitan Series Fund

Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Fair Value Hierarchy—(Continued)

Description	Level 1			Level 2			Level 3		Total
Common Stocks
Air Freight & Logistics	$	—		$	49,875		$	—	$	49,875
Diversified Consumer Services		—			—			27,991		27,991
Household Durables		11,999			—			—		11,999
Marine		—			—			31,729		31,729
Media		—			170,423			364,601		535,024
Metals & Mining		—			—			56,489		56,489
Oil, Gas & Consumable Fuels		161,274			—			—		161,274
Total Common Stocks		173,273			220,298			480,810		874,381
Total Warrant*		—			3,825			—		3,825
Escrow Shares
Energy Equipment & Services		—			11,990			—		11,990
Forest Products & Paper		—			—			0		0
Total Escrow Shares		—			11,990			0		11,990
Total Short-Term Investments*		—			7,543,048			—		7,543,048
Total Securities Lending Reinvestments*		—			465,217,673			—		465,217,673
Total Investments	$	96,383,478		$	3,785,812,176		$	3,856,062	$	3,886,051,716
Collateral for Securities Loaned (Liability)	$	—		$	(464,954,927	)	$	—	$	(464,954,927	)
Forward Contracts
Forward Foreign Currency Exchange Contracts (Unrealized Appreciation)	$	—		$	24,024,271		$	—	$	24,024,271
Forward Foreign Currency Exchange Contracts (Unrealized Depreciation)		—			(5,013,774	)		—		(5,013,774	)
Total Forward Contracts	$	—		$	19,010,497		$	—	$	19,010,497
Futures Contracts
Futures Contracts (Unrealized Appreciation)	$	7,835,237		$	—		$	—	$	7,835,237
Futures Contracts (Unrealized Depreciation)		(3,738,864	)		—			—		(3,738,864	)
Total Futures Contracts	$	4,096,373		$	—		$	—	$	4,096,373
Written Options
Foreign Currency Written Options at Value	$	—		$	(26,865	)	$	—	$	(26,865	)
Options on Exchange-Traded Futures Contracts at Value		(26,500	)		—			—		(26,500	)
Total Written Options	$	(26,500	)	$	(26,865	)	$	—	$	(53,365	)
Centrally Cleared Swap Contracts
Centrally Cleared Swap Contracts (Unrealized Appreciation)	$	—		$	21,910,815		$	—	$	21,910,815
Centrally Cleared Swap Contracts (Unrealized Depreciation)		—			(13,374,720	)		—		(13,374,720	)
Total Centrally Cleared Swap Contracts	$	—		$	8,536,095		$	—	$	8,536,095
OTC Swap Contracts
OTC Swap Contracts at Value (Assets)	$	—		$	5,399,103		$	—	$	5,399,103

* See Schedule of Investments for additional detailed categorizations.

Level 3 investments at the beginning and/or end of the period in relation to net assets were not significant and accordingly, a reconciliation of Level 3 assets for the year ended December 31, 2016 is not presented.

Transfers from Level 2 to Level 3 in the amount of $4,110,150 were due to a decline in market activity for significant observable inputs which resulted in a lack of available market inputs to determine price.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-30

Metropolitan Series Fund

Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities Portfolio

Statement of Assets and Liabilities

December 31, 2016

Assets
Investments at value (a) (b)	$	3,886,051,716
Cash denominated in foreign currencies (c)		4,951,200
Cash collateral (d)		22,307,233
OTC swap contracts at market value		5,399,103
Unrealized appreciation on forward foreign currency exchange contracts		24,024,271
Receivable for:
Investments sold		2,055,878
Fund shares sold		793,462
Principal paydowns		336,523
Dividends and interest		36,188,786
Variation margin on futures contracts		2,231,770
Prepaid expenses		11,240
Other assets		52,258
Total Assets		3,984,403,440
Liabilities
Due to custodian		685,995
Written options at value (e)		53,365
Unrealized depreciation on forward foreign currency exchange contracts		5,013,774
Collateral for securities loaned		464,954,927
Payables for:
Investments purchased		68,544,097
Fund shares redeemed		1,079,115
Variation margin on centrally cleared swap contracts		1,191,848
Accrued Expenses:
Management fees		1,468,948
Distribution and service fees		228,412
Deferred trustees’ fees		262,586
Other expenses		573,758
Total Liabilities		544,056,825
Net Assets	$	3,440,346,615
Net Assets Consist of:
Paid in surplus	$	3,452,265,530
Undistributed net investment income		116,577,457
Accumulated net realized loss		(163,698,284	)
Unrealized appreciation on investments, written options, futures contracts, swap contracts and foreign currency transactions		35,201,912
Net Assets	$	3,440,346,615
Net Assets
Class A	$	2,239,189,993
Class B		911,729,358
Class E		289,427,264
Capital Shares Outstanding*
Class A		167,151,229
Class B		68,581,146
Class E		21,710,470
Net Asset Value, Offering Price and Redemption Price Per Share
Class A	$	13.40
Class B		13.29
Class E		13.33

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

(a) Identified cost of investments was $3,887,888,109.

(b) Includes securities loaned at value of $449,624,627.

(c) Identified cost of cash denominated in foreign currencies was $5,046,028.

(d) Includes collateral of $9,647,293 for futures contracts, and $12,659,940 for centrally cleared swap contracts.

(e) Premiums received on written options were $489,779.

Statement of Operations

Year Ended December 31, 2016

Investment Income
Dividends	$	2,374,735
Interest		142,300,343
Securities lending income		1,355,921
Other income (a)		446,560
Total investment income		146,477,559
Expenses
Management fees		15,812,476
Administration fees		90,824
Custodian and accounting fees		317,233
Distribution and service fees—Class B		1,708,812
Distribution and service fees—Class E		328,544
Audit and tax services		120,709
Legal		32,988
Trustees’ fees and expenses		46,357
Shareholder reporting		236,046
Insurance		16,670
Miscellaneous		29,640
Total expenses		18,740,299
Less management fee waiver		(1,547,588	)
Net expenses		17,192,711
Net Investment Income		129,284,848
Net Realized and Unrealized Gain (Loss)
Net realized gain (loss) on:
Investments		(17,978,424	)
Futures contracts		(6,353,204	)
Written options		6,815,361
Swap contracts		10,072,195
Foreign currency transactions		(5,260,718	)
Net realized loss		(12,704,790	)
Net change in unrealized appreciation on:
Investments		57,537,016
Futures contracts		2,497,689
Written options		436,414
Swap contracts		14,064,020
Foreign currency transactions		16,814,893
Net change in unrealized appreciation		91,350,032
Net realized and unrealized gain		78,645,242
Net Increase in Net Assets From Operations	$	207,930,090

(a) Other income represents a non-recurring refund for overbilling of prior years’ custodian out-of-pocket fees.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-31

Metropolitan Series Fund

Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities Portfolio

Statements of Changes in Net Assets

	Year Ended December 31, 2016			Year Ended December 31, 2015
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets:
From Operations
Net investment income	$	129,284,848		$	59,796,475
Net realized loss		(12,704,790	)		(35,780,466	)
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation)		91,350,032			(49,293,413	)
Increase (decrease) in net assets from operations		207,930,090			(25,277,404	)
From Distributions to Shareholders
Net investment income
Class A		(35,720,494	)		(57,669,980	)
Class B		(14,043,055	)		(10,166,780	)
Class E		(4,707,996	)		(2,750,972	)
Total distributions		(54,471,545	)		(70,587,732	)
Increase in net assets from capital share transactions		1,976,278,443			143,712,626
Total increase in net assets		2,129,736,988			47,847,490
Net Assets
Beginning of period		1,310,609,627			1,262,762,137
End of period	$	3,440,346,615		$	1,310,609,627
Undistributed net investment income
End of period	$	116,577,457		$	51,020,127

Other Information:

Capital Shares

Transactions in capital shares were as follows:

	Year Ended December 31, 2016						Year Ended December 31, 2015
	Shares			Value			Shares			Value
Class A
Sales		2,045,719		$	26,862,922			12,538,685		$	170,643,437
Shares issued through acquisition (a)		103,655,018			1,346,478,441			0			0
Reinvestments		2,771,179			35,720,494			4,491,432			57,669,980
Redemptions		(26,690,502	)		(348,288,878	)		(4,818,291	)		(62,520,412	)
Net increase		81,781,414		$	1,060,772,979			12,211,826		$	165,793,005
Class B
Sales		3,388,344		$	44,497,609			791,911		$	10,370,451
Shares issued through acquisition (a)		59,736,085			771,192,945			0			0
Reinvestments		1,096,257			14,043,055			795,523			10,166,780
Redemptions		(10,876,641	)		(141,918,411	)		(2,876,914	)		(37,568,769	)
Net increase (decrease)		53,344,045		$	687,815,198			(1,289,480	)	$	(17,031,538	)
Class E
Sales		2,108,691		$	27,371,470			180,111		$	2,345,501
Shares issued through acquisition (a)		18,973,217			245,512,995			0			0
Reinvestments		366,666			4,707,996			214,920			2,750,972
Redemptions		(3,805,759	)		(49,902,195	)		(774,805	)		(10,145,314	)
Net increase (decrease)		17,642,815		$	227,690,266			(379,774	)	$	(5,048,841	)
Increase derived from capital shares transactions				$	1,976,278,443					$	143,712,626

(a) See Note 9 of the Notes to Financial Statements.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-32

Metropolitan Series Fund

Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class A
	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014			2013			2012
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	12.53		$	13.43		$	13.45		$	13.98		$	13.01
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (a)		0.62	(b)		0.59			0.64			0.63			0.50
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		0.45			(0.80	)		0.09			(0.47	)		0.96
Total from investment operations		1.07			(0.21	)		0.73			0.16			1.46
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.20	)		(0.69	)		(0.75	)		(0.69	)		(0.49	)
Total distributions		(0.20	)		(0.69	)		(0.75	)		(0.69	)		(0.49	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	13.40		$	12.53		$	13.43		$	13.45		$	13.98
Total Return (%) (c)		8.55			(1.72	)		5.47			1.09			11.50
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Gross ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.60			0.63			0.65			0.66			0.65
Net ratio of expenses to average net assets (%) (d)		0.54			0.59			0.61			0.62			0.61
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		4.74	(b)		4.51			4.77			4.65			3.70
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		86			99	(e)		98	(e)		132	(e)		228	(e)
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	2,239.2		$	1,070.0		$	982.6		$	682.7		$	708.5
	Class B
	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014			2013			2012
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	12.46		$	13.35		$	13.37		$	13.90		$	12.93
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (a)		0.58	(b)		0.56			0.61			0.59			0.46
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		0.45			(0.80	)		0.08			(0.46	)		0.97
Total from investment operations		1.03			(0.24	)		0.69			0.13			1.43
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.20	)		(0.65	)		(0.71	)		(0.66	)		(0.46	)
Total distributions		(0.20	)		(0.65	)		(0.71	)		(0.66	)		(0.46	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	13.29		$	12.46		$	13.35		$	13.37		$	13.90
Total Return (%) (c)		8.30			(2.00	)		5.29			0.83			11.29
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Gross ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.85			0.88			0.90			0.91			0.90
Net ratio of expenses to average net assets (%) (d)		0.79			0.84			0.86			0.87			0.86
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		4.43	(b)		4.25			4.53			4.39			3.45
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		86			99	(e)		98	(e)		132	(e)		228	(e)
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	911.7		$	189.9		$	220.7		$	238.4		$	268.0

Please see following page for Financial Highlights footnote legend.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-33

Metropolitan Series Fund

Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class E
	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014			2013			2012
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	12.48		$	13.38		$	13.39		$	13.93		$	12.96
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (a)		0.59	(b)		0.57			0.62			0.61			0.48
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		0.46			(0.81	)		0.09			(0.48	)		0.96
Total from investment operations		1.05			(0.24	)		0.71			0.13			1.44
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.20	)		(0.66	)		(0.72	)		(0.67	)		(0.47	)
Total distributions		(0.20	)		(0.66	)		(0.72	)		(0.67	)		(0.47	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	13.33		$	12.48		$	13.38		$	13.39		$	13.93
Total Return (%) (c)		8.47			(1.90	)		5.40			0.94			11.30
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Gross ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.75			0.78			0.80			0.81			0.80
Net ratio of expenses to average net assets (%) (d)		0.69			0.74			0.76			0.77			0.76
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		4.52	(b)		4.35			4.63			4.49			3.55
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		86			99	(e)		98	(e)		132	(e)		228	(e)
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	289.4		$	50.8		$	59.5		$	66.2		$	74.0

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

(b) Net investment income per share and the ratio of net investment income to average net assets include a non-recurring refund for overbilling of prior years’ custodian out-of-pocket fees which amounted to less than $0.01 per share and 0.02% of average net assets, respectively.

(c) Total return does not reflect any insurance, sales, separate account or administrative charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts or any additional expenses that contract owners may bear under their variable contracts. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower.

(d) Includes the effects of management fee waivers (see Note 6 of the Notes to Financial Statements).

(e) Includes mortgage dollar roll and TBA transactions; excluding these transactions the portfolio turnover rate would have been 71%, 57%, 62% and 84% for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014, 2013 and 2012, respectively.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-34

Metropolitan Series Fund

Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016

1. Organization

Metropolitan Series Fund (the “Trust”) is organized as a Delaware statutory trust and registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), as an open-end management investment company. The Trust, which is managed by MetLife Advisers, LLC (“MetLife Advisers” or the “Adviser”), an affiliate of MetLife, Inc., is currently comprised of thirty series, each of which operates as a distinct investment vehicle of the Trust. The portfolio included in this report is Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities 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.

On January 12, 2016, MetLife, Inc. announced its plan to pursue the separation of a substantial portion of its retail segment and is currently evaluating structural alternatives for such separation. It is anticipated that MetLife Advisers would be included in any such separation. Any separation transaction that might occur will be subject to the satisfaction of various conditions and approvals, including approval of any transaction by the MetLife, Inc. Board of Directors, satisfaction of any applicable requirements of the SEC, and receipt of insurance and other regulatory approvals and other anticipated conditions. MetLife, Inc. cannot currently provide a specific potential completion date for a separation transaction or any assurance that a separation will in fact occur. MetLife Advisers’ continued service as investment adviser to the Trusts following a separation transaction is the subject of a proxy statement that was filed with the SEC on December 20, 2016 and mailed to shareholders of the Portfolio on or about December 30, 2016.

The Portfolio has registered and offers three classes of shares: Class A, B and E shares. 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 plan and such distribution expenses are allocated to the corresponding Class of shares.

2. Significant Accounting Policies

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities as of the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of income and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates. In the preparation of these financial statements, management has evaluated events and transactions subsequent to December 31, 2016 through the date the financial statements were issued.

The Portfolio is an investment company and follows the accounting and reporting guidance of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Accounting Standards Codification Topic 946—Financial Services—Investment Companies and Topic 820- Fair Value Measurement. 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, including corporate, convertible and municipal bonds and notes; obligations of the U.S. Treasury and U.S. government agencies; foreign sovereign issues; 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 the Adviser (each a “pricing service”), pursuant to authorization of and subject to general oversight by the Board of Trustees of the Trust (the “Board” or “Trustees”). Such pricing services may use matrix pricing, which considers observable inputs including, among other things, issuer details, maturity dates, interest rates, yield curves, rates of prepayment, credit risks/spreads, default rates, reported trades, broker dealer quotes and quoted prices for similar assets. Short-term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less may be valued at amortized cost in the absence of market quotes, so long as the amortized cost value of such short-term debt instrument is approximately the same as the fair value of the instrument as determined without the use of amortized cost valuation. Floating rate loans are generally valued on the basis of an evaluated or composite average of aggregate bid and ask quotations supplied by brokers or dealers, as obtained from the pricing service. 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 generally valued on the basis of evaluated or composite bid quotations obtained from pricing services selected by the Adviser pursuant to authorization of and subject to general oversight by the Board. These securities are usually issued as separate tranches, or classes, of securities within each deal. The pricing models for these securities usually consider tranche-level attributes, current market data, estimated cash flows and market-based yield spreads for each tranche 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.

MSF-35

Metropolitan Series Fund

Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

Domestic and foreign equity securities, such as common stock, exchange-traded funds, rights, warrants, and preferred stock, that are traded on a securities exchange on a valuation date are generally valued at their last quoted sale price or official closing price on the primary exchange for such security, or, if no sales occurred on that day, at the last reported bid price. Equity securities traded over-the-counter (“OTC”) are generally valued at the last reported bid price. In the event of a major exchange closing during the trading day, the Adviser may use other market information obtained from quotation reporting systems, established market makers, or pricing services in valuing the securities. Valuation adjustments may be applied to certain foreign equity securities that are traded solely on foreign exchanges that close before the time as of which the Portfolio determines its NAV to account for the market movement between the close of the foreign exchanges and the time as of which the Portfolio determines its NAV. The Portfolio may use a systematic fair valuation model provided by a pricing service to value securities principally traded in these foreign markets in order to adjust for possible market movements or other changes that may occur between the close of the foreign exchanges and the time as of which the Portfolio determines its NAV. Foreign equity securities valued using these valuation adjustments are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy. Equity securities that are actively traded, and have no valuation adjustments applied, are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other equity securities traded on inactive markets, or valued in reference to similar instruments traded on active markets, 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 on the valuation date and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy.

Foreign currency forward contracts are valued through an independent pricing service by interpolating between forward and spot currency rates in the London foreign exchange markets as of a designated hour on a valuation day. These contracts are generally 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 sale price available as of the close of business on a valuation day or, if there is no such price available, at the last reported bid price. These types of options are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Futures contracts that are traded on commodity exchanges are valued at their settlement prices established by the exchanges on which they are traded as of the close of such exchanges and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy.

Options, including swaptions, and futures contracts that are traded OTC are generally valued on the basis of interdealer bid and asked prices or prices provided by 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, yield curves, credit curves, measures of volatility and exchange rates. These contracts are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Swap contracts (other than centrally cleared swaps) are marked-to-market daily based on quotations and prices supplied by market makers, broker-dealers and other pricing services. Such quotations and prices are derived utilizing observable data, including the underlying reference securities or indices, credit spread quotations and expected default recovery rates determined by the pricing service. These contracts are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

Centrally cleared swaps listed or traded on a multilateral or trade facility platform, such as a registered exchange, are valued at the daily settlement price determined by the respective exchange or a pricing service when the exchange price is not available. For centrally cleared credit default swaps, the clearing facility requires its members to provide actionable price levels across complete term structures. These levels along with external third party prices are used to produce daily settlement prices. These securities are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy. Centrally cleared interest rate swaps are valued using a pricing model that references the underlying rates, including the overnight index swap rate and London Interbank Offered Rate (“LIBOR”) forward rate to produce the daily settlement price. These securities are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

If no current market value quotation or other observable inputs are readily available or market value quotations are deemed to be unreliable for an investment, the fair value of the investment will be determined in accordance with procedures approved by, and under the general supervision of, the Board. In such a circumstance, the Board will be assisted in its responsibility to determine the fair value of an investment by the Valuation Committee (“Committee”) of MetLife Advisers. The Committee provides general pricing oversight and fair value pricing determinations related to portfolio securities and meets on a regular basis to review reports relating to the valuation of the securities in the Portfolio. The Board has delegated to State Street Bank and Trust Company, the Trust’s custodian (“custodian”), the responsibility for calculating the net asset values (“NAVs”) of the Trust’s Portfolios. The Committee is responsible for overseeing the calculation of the NAVs of the Portfolios by the custodian. The Committee also periodically reviews pricing services, including the pricing services providing fair value pricing for the Portfolio’s foreign securities, and is responsible for overseeing the correction of pricing errors and addressing other pricing issues that arise in the ordinary course of business, such as making real-time fair value determinations, as necessary.

No single standard for determining the fair value of an investment can be set forth because fair value depends upon the facts and circumstances with respect to each investment. Information relating to any relevant factors may be obtained by the Committee from

MSF-36

Metropolitan Series Fund

Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

any appropriate source, including the subadviser of the Portfolio, the custodian, a pricing service, market maker and/or broker for such security or the issuer. Appropriate methodologies for determining fair value under particular circumstances may include: matrix pricing, a discounted cash flow analysis, comparisons of securities with comparable characteristics, value based on multiples of earnings, discount from market price of similar marketable securities or a combination of these and other methods.

Due to Custodian - Pursuant to the custodian agreement, State Street Bank and Trust Company (SSBT) may, in its discretion, advance funds to the Portfolio to make properly authorized payments. When such payments result in an overdraft, the Portfolio is obligated to repay SSBT at the current rate of interest charged by SSBT for secured loans (currently, the Federal Funds rate plus 2%). This obligation is payable on demand to SSBT. SSBT has a lien on a Portfolio’s assets to the extent of any overdraft. At December 31, 2016, the Portfolio had a payment due to SSBT pursuant to the foregoing arrangement of $685,995. Based on the short-term nature of these payments and the variable interest rate, the carrying value of the overdraft advances approximated its fair value at December 31, 2016. If measured at fair value, overdraft advances would have been considered as Level 2 in the fair value hierarchy at December 31, 2016. The Portfolio’s average overdraft advances during the year ended December 31, 2016 were not significant

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 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. These foreign taxes have been provided for in accordance with the Portfolio’s understanding of the applicable countries’ tax rules and rates.

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 the U.S. dollar 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. Because the values of investment securities are translated at the foreign exchange rates prevailing at the end of the period, that portion of the results of operations arising from changes in exchange rates and that portion of the results of operations reflecting fluctuations arising from changes in market prices of the investment securities are not separated. 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. 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.

Dividends and Distributions to Shareholders - The Portfolio records dividends and distributions on the ex-dividend date. Net realized gains from securities 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 amortization of debt securities, paydown reclasses, merger adjustments, swap transactions, defaulted bonds and foreign currency transactions. These adjustments have no impact on net assets or the results 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 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. As of December 31, 2016, the Portfolio had no uncertain tax positions that would require financial statement recognition, or de-recognition or disclosure.

Mortgage Dollar Rolls - The Portfolio may enter into mortgage “dollar rolls” in which a Portfolio sells to-be-announced (“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. For the duration of the transaction, or 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.

Mortgage dollar roll transactions involve the risk that the market value of the securities that the Portfolio is required to reacquire may be less than the agreed-upon repurchase price of those securities and that the investment performance of securities purchased with proceeds from these transactions does not exceed the income, capital appreciation and gain or loss that would have been realized on the securities transferred or sold, as applicable, as part of the treasury or mortgage dollar roll.

MSF-37

Metropolitan Series Fund

Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

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 mortgage obligations (“CMOs”), commercial mortgage-backed securities, 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). 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 netted against payments received for the IOs and the net amount is 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.

TBA Purchase & Forward 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. TBA forward sale commitments are valued at the current market value of the underlying securities, according to the procedures described under “Investment Valuation and Fair Value Measurements”.

When-Issued and Delayed-Delivery Securities - The Portfolio may purchase securities on a when-issued or delayed-delivery basis. Settlement of such transactions normally occurs within a month or more after the purchase 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 or delayed-delivery basis, the Portfolio will hold liquid assets in a segregated account with the Portfolio’s custodian, or set aside liquid assets in the Portfolio’s records, 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.

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 generally 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.

Floating Rate Loans - 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, 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. The Portfolio may not benefit directly from any collateral supporting the loan in which it has purchased the participation or assignment. The purchase of assignments will typically result in the Portfolio having a direct contractual relationship with the borrower, and the Portfolio may enforce compliance by the borrower with the terms of the loan agreement.

The Portfolio may invest in multiple series or tranches of a loan, which may have varying terms and carry different associated risks. When the Portfolio purchases assignments it acquires direct rights against the borrower of the loan. These loans may include participations in bridge loans, which are loans taken out by borrowers for a short period (typically less than one year) pending arrangement of more permanent financing.

MSF-38

Metropolitan Series Fund

Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

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.

Repurchase Agreements - The Portfolio may enter into repurchase agreements, under the terms of a Master Repurchase Agreement (“MRA”), 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, under a tri-party repurchase agreement, receives delivery of the underlying securities collateralizing any repurchase agreements. It is the Portfolio’s policy that the market value of the collateral be equal to at least 100% of the repurchase price in the case of a repurchase agreement of one-day duration and equal to at least 102% of the repurchase price in the case of all other repurchase agreements. In the event of default or failure by a party to perform an obligation in connection with any repurchase transaction, the MRA gives the non-defaulting party the right to set-off claims and to apply property held by it in connection with any repurchase transaction against obligations owed to it.

At December 31, 2016, the Portfolio had direct investments in repurchase agreements with a gross value of $7,543,048. Additionally, the Portfolio invested cash collateral for loans of portfolio securities in repurchase agreements with a gross value of $102,533,767. The combined value of all repurchase agreements is included as part of investments at value on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. The value of the related collateral exceeded the value of the repurchase agreements at December 31, 2016.

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 collateral held from securities on loan. 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.

Effective September 8, 2016, the Trust has entered into a Non-Custodial Securities Lending Agreement with JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (the “lending agent”). Prior to September 8, 2016, the Trust had entered into a Securities Lending Authorization Agreement with the custodian (the “prior lending agent”). Under each agreement, the lending agent is authorized to loan portfolio securities on the Portfolio’s behalf. In exchange, the Portfolio receives either cash or government securities as collateral against the loaned securities. The Portfolio receives collateral equal to at least 102% of the market value for loans secured by government securities or cash in the same currency as the loaned shares and 105% for all other loaned securities at each loan’s inception. Collateral representing at least 100% of the market value of the loaned securities is maintained for the duration of the loan. Any cash collateral received by the Portfolio is generally invested by the lending agent in short-term investments, which may include certificates of deposit, commercial paper, repurchase agreements, time deposits and money market funds. Cash collateral that was received by the prior lending agent had been generally invested in the State Street Navigator Securities Lending MET Portfolio (the “Navigator Portfolio”), a series of the State Street Navigator Securities Lending Trust that was a registered money market fund managed by an affiliate of the custodian. The market value of investments made with cash collateral received are disclosed in the Schedule of Investments and the valuation techniques are described in Note 2. 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 is 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 is equal to at least 100% of the market value of all the loaned securities as of such preceding day. A portion of the income earned on the collateral is rebated to the borrower of the securities and the remainder is split between the lending agent and the Portfolio. On loans collateralized by government securities, a fee is received from the borrower and is allocated between the Portfolio and the lending agent.

Income received by the Portfolio in securities lending transactions during the year ended December 31, 2016 is reflected as securities lending income on the Statement of Operations. The values of any securities loaned by the Portfolio and the related collateral at December 31, 2016 are disclosed in the footnotes to the Schedule of Investments. The value of the related collateral received by the Portfolio exceeded the value of the securities out on loan at December 31, 2016.

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. The lending agent shall indemnify the Portfolio in the case of default of any securities borrower, subject to the terms of the Non-Custodial Securities Lending Agreement.

MSF-39

Metropolitan Series Fund

Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

The following table provides a breakdown of transactions accounted for as secured borrowings, the gross obligations by the type of collateral pledged, and the remaining contractual maturities of those transactions, which are accounted for as secured borrowings.

	Remaining Contractual Maturity of the Agreements As of December 31, 2016
	Overnight and Continuous			Up to 30 Days		31 - 90 Days		Greater than 90 days		Total
Securities Lending Transactions
Convertible Bonds	$	(2,058,876	)	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	(2,058,876	)
Corporate Bonds & Notes		(367,305,256	)		—		—		—		(367,305,256	)
Foreign Government		(60,300,465	)		—		—		—		(60,300,465	)
Investment Company Securities		(4,416,881	)		—		—		—		(4,416,881	)
U.S. Treasury & Government Agencies		(30,873,449	)		—		—		—		(30,873,449	)
Total	$	(464,954,927	)	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	(464,954,927	)
Total Borrowings	$	(464,954,927	)	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	(464,954,927	)
Gross amount of recognized liabilities for securities lending transactions										$	(464,954,927	)

3. 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 valuation 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 losses if the counterparties to the contracts are unable to meet the terms of the contracts. The Portfolio may also experience losses even when such contracts are used for hedging purposes. The Portfolio’s maximum potential loss from such contracts is the aggregate face value in U.S. dollars at the time the contract was opened.

Futures Contracts - The Portfolio may buy and sell futures contracts 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 cash collateral 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 whether unrealized gains or losses are incurred. These amounts are reflected as receivables or payables on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities and as a component of net change in unrealized appreciation/depreciation on the Statement of Operations. When the contract is closed or expires, the Portfolio records 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. 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. If futures contracts are exchange-traded, the exchange’s clearinghouse, as counterparty to all exchange-traded futures, guarantees the futures contracts against default. For OTC futures, the Portfolio’s ability to terminate the positions may be more limited than in the case of exchange-traded positions and may also involve the risk that securities dealers participating in such transactions would fail to meet their obligations to the Portfolio.

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 give 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.

MSF-40

Metropolitan Series Fund

Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

The Portfolio may use options to hedge against changes in values of securities the Portfolio owns or expects to purchase, to maintain investment exposure to a target asset class or to enhance return. Writing puts or buying calls tends to increase the Portfolio’s exposure to the underlying instrument and writing calls or buying puts tends to decrease the Portfolio’s exposure to the underlying instrument, and can be used to hedge other Portfolio investments. For options used 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. The Portfolio also bears the risk of an unfavorable change in the value of the underlying instrument or the risk that the Portfolio may not be able to enter into a closing transaction due to an illiquid market. 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 any unrealized gains.

The main risk associated with purchasing an option is that the option expires without being exercised. In this case, the option is worthless when it expires and the premium paid for the option is considered a realized 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 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 by the Portfolio for a written option is recorded as an asset and an equivalent liability. The liability is subsequently marked to market to reflect the current value of the option written. 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 by the Portfolio is offset against the amount paid for the purchase of the underlying instrument.

Options on Exchange-Traded Futures Contract (“Futures Option”) is an option contract in which the underlying instrument is a single futures contract.

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.

Options on swaps (“swaptions”) are similar to options on securities except that instead of selling or purchasing the right to buy or sell a security, the writer or purchaser of the swaptions is granting or buying the right to enter into a previously agreed upon interest rate or credit default swap agreement (interest rate risk and/or credit risk) at any time before the expiration of the option.

Swap Agreements - The Portfolio may enter into swap agreements in which the Portfolio and a counterparty agree to either make periodic net payments on a specified notional amount or net payment upon termination. Swap agreements are either privately negotiated in the OTC market (“OTC swaps”) or executed in a multilateral or other trade facility platform, such as a registered commodities exchange (“centrally-cleared swaps”). The Portfolio may enter into swap agreements for the purposes of managing exposure to interest rate, credit or market risk, or for other purposes. In connection with these agreements, securities or cash may be paid or received, as applicable, by the Portfolio as collateral or margin in accordance with the terms of the respective swap agreements to provide assets of value and recourse in the event of default or bankruptcy/insolvency. Securities posted by the Portfolio as collateral for swap contracts are identified in the Schedule of Investments and restricted cash, if any, is reflected on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

Centrally Cleared Swaps: Clearinghouses currently offer clearing derivative transactions which include interest rate and 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.

MSF-41

Metropolitan Series Fund

Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

Swap agreements are marked-to-market daily. The fair value of an OTC swap is reflected on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. The changes in value, if any, are reflected as a component of net change in unrealized appreciation/depreciation on the Statement of Operations. Daily changes in valuation of centrally cleared swaps, if any, are recorded as a receivable or payable for variation margin on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities and as a component of unrealized appreciation/depreciation on the Statement of Operations. Upfront payments paid or received upon entering into the swap agreement compensate for differences between the stated terms of the swap agreement and prevailing market conditions (such as credit spreads, currency exchange rates, interest rates, and other relevant factors). Upon termination or maturity of the swap, upfront premiums are recorded as realized gains or losses on the Statement of Operations. A liquidation payment received or made at the termination of the swap is recorded as realized gain or loss on the Statement of Operations. Net periodic payments received or paid by the Portfolio are included as part of realized gains or losses on the Statement of Operations.

Swap transactions involve, to varying degrees, elements of interest rate, credit, and market risk in excess of the amounts recognized in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. Such risks involve the possibility that there will be no liquid market for these agreements, that the counterparty to the agreements may default on its obligation to perform, or that there may be unfavorable changes in market conditions or interest rates. In addition, entering into swap agreements involves documentation risk resulting from the possibility that the parties to a swap agreement may disagree as to the meaning of contractual terms in the agreement. The Portfolio may enter into swap transactions with counterparties 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. A Portfolio’s maximum risk of loss from counterparty credit risk is the discounted value of the net cash flows to be received from the counterparty over the contract’s remaining life, to the extent that amount is positive, or the fair value of the contract. The risk may be mitigated by having a master netting arrangement between the Portfolio and the counterparty and by the posting of collateral by the counterparty to cover the Portfolio’s exposure to the counterparty. Counterparty risk related to centrally-cleared swaps is mitigated due to the protection against defaults provided by the exchange on which these contracts trade.

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/or sovereign issuers, or to create exposure to corporate and/or sovereign issuers to which they are not otherwise exposed. Credit default swaps involve one party making a stream of payments (referred to as the buyer of protection) to another party (the seller of protection) in exchange for the right to receive a specified return if a credit event occurs for the referenced entity, obligation or index. A credit event is defined under the terms of each swap agreement and may include, but is not limited to, underlying entity default, bankruptcy, write-down, principal shortfall or interest shortfall. As the seller of protection, if an underlying credit event occurs, the Portfolio will either pay the buyer 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 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). In return, the Portfolio would receive from the counterparty an upfront or periodic stream of payments throughout the life of the credit default swap agreement provided that no credit event has occurred. As the seller of protection, the Portfolio will effectively add leverage to its portfolio because, in addition to its total net assets, the Portfolio would be subject to investment exposure on the notional amount of the credit default 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 be worthless when it expires 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, whereby the seller may fail to satisfy its payment obligations to the Portfolio in the event of a default. As the buyer of protection, if an underlying credit event occurs, the Portfolio will either 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 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). If no credit event occurs and the Portfolio is a buyer of protection, the Portfolio will typically recover nothing under the credit default swap agreement, but it will have had to pay the required upfront payment or stream of continuing payments under the credit default swap agreement. Recovery values are at times established through the credit event auction process in which market participants are ensured that a transparent price has been set for the defaulted obligation.

Credit default swap agreements on credit indices involve one party making a stream of payments to another party in exchange for the right to receive a specified return in the event of a write-down, principal shortfall, interest shortfall or default of all or part of the referenced entities comprising the credit index. A credit index is a basket of credit instruments or exposures designed to be representative of some part of the credit market as a whole. An index credit default swap references all the names in the index, and if there is a credit event involving an entity in the index, the credit event is settled based on that entity’s weight in the index. A Portfolio may use credit default swaps on credit indices as a hedge for credit default swaps or bonds held in the portfolio, which is less

MSF-42

Metropolitan Series Fund

Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

expensive than it would be to buy many individual credit default swaps to achieve similar effect. Credit default swaps on indices are benchmarks for protecting investors owning bonds against default, and may be used to speculate on changes in credit quality.

Implied credit spreads, represented in absolute terms, utilized in determining the market value of credit default swap agreements on a credit index or corporate or sovereign issuer, serve as some indication of the status of the payment/performance risk and 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 reflect upfront payments required to be made to enter into the agreement. Wider credit spreads generally 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 particular swap agreement. When no implied credit spread is available for a credit default swap, the current unrealized appreciation/depreciation on the position may be used as an indicator of the current status of the payment/performance risk.

The maximum potential amount of future payments (undiscounted) that the 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, 2016, for which the Portfolio is the seller of protection, are disclosed in the Schedule of Investments. 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 the Portfolio for the same referenced entity or entities.

Currency Swaps: The Portfolio may enter into currency swap agreements to gain or mitigate exposure to currency risk. 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 to manage its exposure to interest rates or to protect against currency fluctuations, to adjust the interest rate sensitivity (duration), to preserve a return or spread on a particular investment, or otherwise as a substitute for a direct investment in debt securities. The Portfolio is subject to interest rate risk exposure in the normal course of pursuing its investment objectives. Because the Portfolio holds fixed rate bonds, the value of these bonds 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 agreements. Interest rate swaps are agreements in which one party pays a stream of interest payments, either fixed or floating rate, for another party’s stream of interest payments, either fixed or floating, on the same notional amount for a specified period of time. Other forms of interest rate swap agreements may include: (1) interest rate caps, under which, in return for a premium, one party agrees to make payments to the other to the extent that interest rates exceed a specified rate, or “cap”; (2) interest rate floors, under which, in return for a premium, one party agrees to make payments to the other to the extent that interest rates fall below a specified rate, or “floor”; and (3) interest rate collars, under which a party sells a cap and purchases a floor or vice versa in an attempt to protect itself against interest rate movements exceeding given minimum or maximum levels. 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.

The following table summarizes the fair value of derivatives held by the Portfolio at December 31, 2016 by category of risk exposure:

	Asset Derivatives			Liability Derivatives
Risk Exposure	Statement of Assets & Liabilities Location	Fair Value		Statement of Assets & Liabilities Location	Fair Value
Interest Rate	OTC swap contracts at market value	$	5,399,103
	Unrealized appreciation on centrally cleared swap contracts (a)(b)		21,668,354	Unrealized depreciation on centrally cleared swap contracts (a)(b)		11,691,950
	Unrealized appreciation on futures contracts (a)(c)		7,835,237	Unrealized depreciation on futures contracts (a)(c)		3,738,864
				Written options at value		26,500
Credit	Unrealized appreciation on centrally cleared swap contracts (a)(b)		242,461	Unrealized depreciation on centrally cleared swap contracts (a)(b)		1,682,770
Foreign Exchange	Unrealized appreciation on forward foreign currency exchange contracts	$	24,024,271	Unrealized depreciation on forward foreign currency exchange contracts	$	5,013,774
				Written options at value		26,865
Total		$	59,169,426		$	22,180,723

MSF-43

Metropolitan Series Fund

Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

(a) Financial instrument not subject to a master netting agreement.

(b) Represents the unrealized appreciation/depreciation of centrally cleared swaps as reported in the Schedule of Investments. Only the variation margin is reported within the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

(c) Includes cumulative appreciation/depreciation of futures contracts as reported in the Schedule of Investments. Only the current day’s variation margin is reported within the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

The Portfolio is required to disclose the impact of offsetting assets and liabilities represented in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities to enable users of the financial statements to evaluate the effect or potential effect of netting arrangements on its financial position for recognized assets and liabilities.

The following table presents the Portfolio’s derivative assets by counterparty net of amounts available for offset under a master netting agreement (“MNA”)(see Note 4), or similar agreement, and net of the related collateral received by the Portfolio as of December 31, 2016.

Counterparty	Derivative Assets subject to an MNA by Counterparty		Financial Instruments available for offset			Collateral Received†			Net Amount*
Bank of America N.A.	$	5,453,132	$	(462,480	)	$	(4,990,652	)	$	—
Barclays Bank plc		7,128,635		—			—			7,128,635
Citibank N.A.		15,302,032		(3,844,155	)		—			11,457,877
Goldman Sachs Capital Markets, Inc.		696,058		—			—			696,058
JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		843,517		(734,004	)		—			109,513
	$	29,423,374	$	(5,040,639	)	$	(4,990,652	)	$	19,392,083

The following table presents the Portfolio’s derivative liabilities by counterparty net of amounts available for offset under an MNA, or similar agreement, and net of the related collateral pledged by the Portfolio as of December 31, 2016.

Counterparty	Derivative Liabilities subject to an MNA by Counterparty		Financial Instruments available for offset			Collateral Pledged†		Net Amount**
Bank of America N.A.	$	462,480	$	(462,480	)	$	—	$	—
Citibank N.A.		3,844,155		(3,844,155	)		—		—
JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.		734,004		(734,004	)		—		—
	$	5,040,639	$	(5,040,639	)	$	—	$	—

* Net amount represents the net amount receivable from the counterparty in the event of default.

** Net amount represents the net amount payable due to the counterparty in the event of default.

† In some instances, the actual collateral received and/or pledged may be more than the amount shown here due to overcollateralization.

The following tables summarize the effect of derivative instruments on the Statement of Operations, classified by derivative type and category of risk exposure, for the year ended December 31, 2016:

Statement of Operations Location-Net Realized Gain (Loss)	Interest Rate			Credit			Foreign Exchange			Total
Investments (a)	$	(1,728,910	)	$	(9,109,389	)	$	(1,128,144	)	$	(11,966,443	)
Forward foreign currency transactions		—			—			(4,289,739	)		(4,289,739	)
Futures contracts		(6,353,204	)		—			—			(6,353,204	)
Swap contracts		6,592,547			1,798,192			1,681,456			10,072,195
Written options		1,104,870			3,757,882			1,952,609			6,815,361
	$	(384,697	)	$	(3,553,315	)	$	(1,783,818	)	$	(5,721,830	)
Statement of Operations Location-Net Change in Unrealized Appreciation (Depreciation)	Interest Rate			Credit			Foreign Exchange			Total
Investments (a)	$	(2,525	)	$	169,748		$	—		$	167,223
Forward foreign currency transactions		—			—			17,136,416			17,136,416
Futures contracts		2,497,689			—			—			2,497,689
Swap contracts		17,171,294			(1,440,309	)		(1,666,965	)		14,064,020
Written options		301,129			—			135,285			436,414
	$	19,967,587		$	(1,270,561	)	$	15,604,736		$	34,301,762

MSF-44

Metropolitan Series Fund

Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

For the year ended December 31, 2016, the average notional par or face amount outstanding for each derivative type was as follows:

Derivative Description	Average Notional Par or Face Amount‡
Investments (a)	$	868,554,182
Forward foreign currency transactions		946,131,566
Futures contracts long		853,748,503
Futures contracts short		(847,980,996	)
Swap contracts		1,858,642,657
Written options		(468,924,167	)

‡ Averages are based on activity levels during the year.

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

Written Options

The Portfolio transactions in written options during the year ended December 31, 2016:

Call Options	Notional Amount*			Number of Contracts			Premium Received
Options outstanding December 31, 2015		—			—		$	—
Options written		1,057,780,000			9,862			7,583,334
Options bought back		(121,370,000	)		(6,314	)		(5,720,276	)
Options exercised		—			(751	)		(374,778	)
Options expired		(936,410,000	)		(1,101	)		(1,160,651	)
Options outstanding December 31, 2016		—			1,696		$	327,629
Put Options	Notional Amount*			Number of Contracts			Premium Received
Options outstanding December 31, 2015		—			—		$	—
Options written		1,630,320,000			7,675			7,708,767
Options bought back		(32,400,000	)		(6,485	)		(4,296,395	)
Options expired		(1,582,920,000	)		(1,190	)		(3,250,222	)
Options outstanding December 31, 2016		15,000,000			—		$	162,150

* Amount shown is in the currency in which the transaction was denominated.

4. Certain Risks

In the normal course of business, the Portfolio invests in securities and enters into transactions where risks exist. Those risks include:

Market 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, interest rate, and price fluctuations.

Credit and Counterparty Risk: 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 and counterparty risk consist principally of cash due from counterparties and investments. The Portfolio manages counterparty risk by entering into agreements only with counterparties that it believes have the financial resources to honor their obligations and by monitoring the financial stability of those counterparties. The Portfolio’s investment adviser attempts to mitigate counterparty risk by (i) periodically assessing the creditworthiness of its trading partners, (ii) monitoring and/or limiting the amount of its net exposure to each individual counterparty based on its assessment, and (iii) requiring collateral from the counterparty for certain transactions. In order to preserve certain safeguards for non-standard settlement trades, the Portfolio restricts its exposure to credit and counterparty losses by entering into master netting agreements (“Master Agreements”) with counterparties (approved brokers) with whom it undertakes a significant volume of transactions. Master Agreements govern the terms of certain transactions, and reduce the counterparty risk associated with relevant transactions by specifying credit protection mechanisms and providing standardization that improves legal certainty. Master Agreements can also help limit counterparty risk by specifying collateral posting arrangements at pre-arranged exposure levels. Collateral requirements may differ by type of derivative or investment, as applicable. Collateral or margin requirements are set by the

MSF-45

Metropolitan Series Fund

Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

broker or exchange clearing house for exchange-traded derivatives (e.g., futures contracts and exchange-traded options), while collateral terms are contract specific for OTC traded derivatives (e.g., forward foreign currency exchange contracts, swap agreements and OTC options).

For derivatives traded under an International Swaps and Derivatives Association, Inc. Master Agreement (“ISDA Master Agreement”) or similar master agreement, the collateral requirements are netted across all transactions traded under such agreement and one amount is posted from one party to the other to collateralize such obligations. The ISDA Master Agreement gives each party to the agreement the right to terminate all transactions traded under such agreement if there is a certain deterioration in the credit quality of the other party. The ISDA Master Agreement gives the Portfolio the right, upon an event of default by the applicable counterparty or a termination of the agreement, to close out all transactions traded under such agreement and to net amounts owed under each transaction to one net amount payable by one party to the other. This right to close out and net payments across all transactions traded under the ISDA Master Agreement could result in a reduction of the Portfolio’s credit risk to such counterparty equal to any amounts payable by the Portfolio under the applicable transactions, if any. However, absent an event of default by the counterparty or a termination of the agreement, the ISDA Master Agreement does not result in an offset of reported amounts of assets and liabilities in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities across transactions between the Portfolio and the applicable counterparty. The enforceability of the right to offset may vary by jurisdiction. Cash collateral that has been pledged to cover obligations of the Portfolio under derivative contracts, if any, will be reported separately in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. Securities pledged as collateral, if any, for the same purpose are noted in the Schedule of Investments.

Foreign Investment Risk: The investments by the Portfolio in foreign securities may involve risks not present in domestic investments. Because securities may be denominated in foreign currencies, may require settlement in foreign currencies and may pay interest or dividends in foreign currencies, changes in the relationship of these foreign currencies to the U.S. dollar can significantly affect the value of the investments and earnings of the Portfolio. Foreign investments may also subject the Portfolio to foreign government exchange restrictions, expropriation, taxation or other political, social or economic developments, all of which could affect the market and/or credit risk of the investments. In addition to the risks described above, risks may arise from forward foreign currency contracts with respect to the potential inability of counterparties to meet the terms of their contracts.

Repurchase and reverse repurchase agreements are primarily executed under Global Master Repurchase Agreements (“GMRAs”) or Master Repurchase Agreements (“MRAs”), which provide the rights to set-off. Each repurchase and reverse repurchase agreement is initially collateralized at the transaction level. In the event of default, the total market value exposure will be offset against collateral exchanged to date, which would result in a net receivable/(payable) that would be due from/to the counterparty.

Master Securities Forward Transaction Agreements (“MSFTA”) govern the considerations and factors surrounding the settlement of certain forward settling transactions, such as TBA securities and delayed-delivery or secured borrowings transactions by and between the Portfolio and select counterparties. The MSFTA maintain provisions for, among other things, initiation and confirmation, payment and transfer, events of default, termination, and maintenance of collateral.

Customer Account Agreements and related addenda govern cleared derivatives transactions such as futures, options on futures, and cleared OTC derivatives. Cleared derivative transactions require posting of initial margin as determined by each relevant clearing agency, which is segregated at a broker account registered with the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”), or the applicable regulator. In the U.S., counterparty risk is significantly reduced as creditors of the futures broker do not have claim to Portfolio assets in the segregated account. Additionally, portability of exposure in the event of default further reduces risk to the Portfolio. Variation margin, or changes in market value, are exchanged daily, but may not be netted between futures and cleared OTC derivatives.

Additional risks associated with each type of investment are described above within the respective security type notes. The Portfolio’s prospectus includes a discussion of the principal risks of investing in the Portfolio.

5. Investment Transactions

Aggregate cost of purchases and proceeds of sales of investment securities, including mortgage dollar roll and TBA transactions but excluding short-term securities, for the year ended December 31, 2016 were as follows:

Purchases			Sales
U.S. Government	Non U.S. Government		U.S. Government		Non U.S. Government
$615,823,691	$	2,250,598,635	$	1,130,340,804	$	1,217,501,294

With respect to the Portfolio’s merger with Lord Abbett Bond Debenture Portfolio and Pioneer Strategic Income Portfolio (see Note 9) on April 29, 2016, the Portfolio acquired long-term securities with a cost of $1,569,020,310 that are not included in the above purchases values.

MSF-46

Metropolitan Series Fund

Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

6. Investment Management Fees and Other Transactions with Affiliates

Investment Management Agreement - MetLife Advisers is the investment adviser to the Portfolio. The Trust has entered into an investment management agreement with MetLife Advisers with respect to the Portfolio. For providing investment management services to the Portfolio, MetLife Advisers receives monthly compensation at the following annual rates:

Management Fees earned by MetLife Advisers for the year ended December 31, 2016	% per annum			Average Daily Net Assets
$15,812,476		0.650	%	Of the first $500 million
		0.550	%	On amounts in excess of $500 million

MetLife Advisers has entered into an investment subadvisory agreement with respect to managing the Portfolio. Western Asset Management Company is compensated by MetLife Advisers to provide subadvisory services for the Portfolio.

Management Fee Waiver - Pursuant to a management fee waiver agreement, MetLife Advisers has agreed, for the period May 1, 2016 to April 30, 2017, to reduce its advisory fees set out above under “Investment Management Agreement” for each class of the Portfolio as follows:

% per annum	Average Daily Net Assets
0.055%	On the first $500 million
0.025%	On the next $500 million
0.050%	On the next $1 billion
0.075%	On amounts in excess of $2 billion

Prior to May 1, 2016 the Adviser had agreed, for the period May 1, 2015 to April 30, 2016, to reduce its advisory fees set out above under “Investment Management Agreement” for each class of the Portfolio as follows:

% per annum	Average Daily Net Assets
0.055%	On the first $500 million
0.025%	On the next $500 million
0.050%	On amounts in excess of $1 billion

Amounts waived for the six months ended June 30, 2016 are shown as a management fee waiver in the Statement of Operations.

Certain officers and trustees of the Trust may also be officers of MetLife Advisers; 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 and Service Fees - The Trust has a distribution agreement with MetLife Investors Distribution Company (“MIDC” or the “Distributor”) in which MIDC serves as the distributor for the Portfolio’s Class A, B and E Shares. MIDC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife Investors Group, LLC, an affiliate of the Adviser. The Trust has also adopted a Distribution and Service Plan under Rule 12b-1 of the 1940 Act for the Portfolio’s Class B and E Shares. Under the Distribution and Service Plan, the Class B and E Shares of the Portfolio pay a fee to compensate the Insurance Companies (or their affiliates) and other broker-dealers and financial intermediaries involved in the offer and sale of Portfolio shares for promoting or selling and servicing the Class B and E Shares. The fees under the Distribution and Service Plan for each class of the Portfolio’s shares are calculated as a percentage of the Portfolio’s average daily net assets that are attributable to that Class. Currently, the fee is 0.25% per year for Class B Shares and 0.15% per year for Class E Shares. Amounts incurred by the Portfolio for the year ended December 31, 2016 are shown as Distribution and service fees in the Statement of Operations.

Deferred Trustee Compensation - Each Trustee 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 Trust. 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 Met Investors Series Trust, an affiliate of the Trust, 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 under the Plan is reflected as Deferred trustees’ fees in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

MSF-47

Metropolitan Series Fund

Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

7. Contractual Obligations

Under the Trust’s organizational documents, its officers and Trustees may be indemnified against certain liabilities and expenses arising out of the performance of their duties to the Trust. Additionally, 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 Trust that have not yet occurred.

8. Income Tax Information

The tax character of distributions paid for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015 were as follows:

Ordinary Income			Long-Term Capital Gain				Total
2016	2015		2016		2015		2016		2015
$54,471,545	$	70,587,732	$	—	$	—	$	54,471,545	$	70,587,732

As of December 31, 2016, 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			Other Accumulated Capital Losses			Total
$134,884,662	$	—	$	7,788,051	$	(16,715,740	)	$	(137,613,302	)	$	(11,656,329	)

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 up to 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, 2016, the Portfolio had post-enactment accumulated short-term capital losses of $37,458,557 and post-enactment long-term accumulated capital losses of $100,154,745. The pre-enactment accumulated capital loss carryforwards and expiration dates were as follows:

Expiring 12/31/17	Expiring 12/31/18		Total
$14,261,627	$	2,454,113	$	16,715,740

On April 29, 2016, the Portfolio acquired $56,698,739 and $37,535,371 in capital loss carryforwards from Met Investors Series Trust Lord Abbett Bond Debenture Portfolio and Met Investors Series Trust Pioneer Strategic Income Portfolio, respectively. These capital loss carryforwards may be subject to loss limitations.

9. Acquisition

At the close of business on April 29, 2016, the Portfolio, with aggregate Class A, Class B and Class E net assets of $1,071,049,128, $185,485,101 and $50,610,322, respectively, acquired all the assets and liabilities of both Lord Abbett Bond Debenture Portfolio of the Met Investors Series Trust (“Lord Abbett Bond Debenture”) and Pioneer Strategic Income Portfolio of the Met Investors Series Trust (“Pioneer Strategic Income”).

The acquisitions were accomplished by a tax-free exchange of shares of the Portfolio in the following amounts:

Portfolio	Share Class		Shares Prior to Acquisition		Net Assets Prior to Acquisition		Shares Issued By Portfolio
Lord Abbett Bond Debenture		Class A		47,174,589	$	529,283,625		40,745,486
Lord Abbett Bond Debenture		Class B		60,173,990		667,991,393		51,742,162
Lord Abbett Bond Debenture		Class E		1,491,864		16,610,085		1,283,657
Pioneer Strategic Income		Class A		81,835,600		817,194,816		62,909,532
Pioneer Strategic Income		Class B		10,555,527		103,201,552		7,993,923
Pioneer Strategic Income		Class E		23,060,053		228,902,910		17,689,560

Each shareholder of Lord Abbett Bond Debenture and Pioneer Strategic Income received shares of the Portfolio with the same class designation and at the respective Class NAV, as determined at the close of business on April 29, 2016. 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

MSF-48

Metropolitan Series Fund

Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

objectives and similar investment strategies that serve as funding vehicles for insurance contracts that are offered by affiliates of MetLife. Some of the investments held by the Lord Abbett Bond Debenture and Pioneer Strategic Income Portfolios may have been purchased or sold prior to the acquisition for the purpose of complying with the anticipated investment policies or limitations of the Portfolio after the acquisition. If such purchases or sales occurred, the transaction costs were borne by Lord Abbett Bond Debenture and Pioneer Strategic Income Portfolios. All other costs associated with the merger were not borne by the shareholders of the Portfolios.

Lord Abbett Bond Debenture’s net assets on April 29, 2016 were $529,283,625, $667,991,393 and $16,610,085 for Class A, B and E shares, respectively, including investments valued at $1,206,164,787 with a cost basis of $1,199,106,024. Pioneer Strategic Income’s net assets on April 29, 2016 were $817,194,816, $103,201,552 and $228,902,910 for Class A, B and E shares, respectively, including investments valued at $1,087,157,353 with a cost basis of $1,082,699,355. For financial reporting purposes, assets received, liabilities assumed, and shares issued by the Portfolio were recorded at fair value; however, the cost basis of the investments received by the Portfolio from Lord Abbett Bond Debenture and Pioneer Strategic Income Portfolios 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 aggregate net assets of the Portfolio immediately after the acquisition were $3,670,328,932, which included $7,058,763 and $4,457,998 of acquired unrealized appreciation on investments and foreign currency transactions from Lord Abbett Bond Debenture and Pioneer Strategic Income, respectively.

Assuming the acquisition had been completed on January 1, 2016, the Portfolio’s pro-forma results of operations for the year ended December 31, 2016 are as follows:

Net Investment income	$	164,398,365	(a)
Net realized and unrealized loss on investments		(225,778,495	)(b)
Net decrease in net assets from operations	$	(61,380,130	)

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 Lord Abbett Bond Debenture and Pioneer Strategic Income that have been included in the Portfolio’s Statement of Operations since April 29, 2016.

(a) $129,284,848 net investment income as reported at December 31, 2016 plus $18,673,577 from Lord Abbett Bond Debenture pre-merger net investment income, plus $15,900,758 from Pioneer Strategic Income pre-merger net investment income, plus $371,150 in lower net advisory fees, plus $168,032 of pro-forma eliminated other expenses.

(b) $31,420,078 unrealized appreciation as reported at December 31, 2016 minus $169,506,997 pro-forma December 31, 2015 unrealized depreciation, plus $12,704,790 net realized loss as reported at December 31, 2016 plus $40,633,835 and $34,352,951 in net realized losses from Lord Abbett Bond Debenture and Pioneer Strategic Income pre-merger, respectively.

10. Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In October 2016, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) adopted new rules and forms, and amendments to certain current rules and forms, to modernize reporting and disclosure of information by registered investment companies. The amendments to Regulation S-X will require standardized, enhanced disclosure about derivatives in investment company financial statements, and will also change the rules governing the form and content of such financial statements. The compliance date for the amendments to Regulation S-X is August 1, 2017. Management is currently evaluating the impact that the adoption of the amendments to Regulation S-X will have on the Portfolio’s financial statements and related disclosures.

MSF-49

Metropolitan Series Fund

Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities Portfolio

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Shareholders of Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities Portfolio and the Board of Trustees of Metropolitan Series Fund:

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities, including the schedule of investments, of Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities Portfolio (one of the portfolios constituting the Metropolitan Series Fund) (the “Portfolio”) as of December 31, 2016, 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 Portfolio’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 Portfolio 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 Portfolio’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, 2016, by correspondence with the custodian, brokers, and agent banks; when replies were not received from brokers or agent banks, 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 Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities Portfolio of the Metropolitan Series Fund, as of December 31, 2016, 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.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

February 24, 2017

MSF-50

Metropolitan Series Fund

Trustees and Officers

MANAGEMENT OF THE TRUSTS

The Boards of Trustees (the “Board”) of Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (“MIST” and “MSF”, respectively, and collectively the “Trusts”) supervise the Trusts and are responsible for representing the interests of shareholders. The Trustees, the Chairman of the Board and the Chairmen of each subcommittee are the same for both Trusts. The Trustees of each Trust meet periodically throughout the year to oversee the Portfolios’ activities, reviewing, among other things, each Portfolio’s performance and its contractual arrangements with various service providers. The Trustees of each Trust elect the officers of the Trust, who are responsible for administering the Trust’s day-to-day operations.

Trustees and Officers

The Trustees and executive officers of the Trusts, as well as their ages and their principal occupations during the past five years, are set forth below. Unless otherwise indicated, the business address of each is c/o MetLife Funds, One Financial Center, Boston, Massachusetts 02111. Each Trustee who is deemed an “interested person,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, is referred to as an “Interested Trustee.” Those Trustees who are not “interested persons,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, are referred to as “Independent Trustees.” There is no limit to the term a Trustee may serve. Trustees serve until their death, resignation or removal in accordance with the MIST Trust’s and MSF Trust’s respective organizational documents and policies adopted by the Boards of the respective Trusts from time to time. Officers hold office at the pleasure of each Board and serve until their removal or resignation in accordance with the Trusts’ respective organizational documents and policies adopted by the Board of each Trust from time to time.

Name and Age	Current 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 MetLife Funds Complex(2) Overseen by Trustee	Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Interested Trustee
John Rosenthal* (56)	Trustee	Indefinite; From May 2016 (MIST and MSF) to present	Senior Managing Director and Head of Global Portfolio Management, MetLife, Inc.	75	None
Independent Trustees
Dawn M. Vroegop (50)	Trustee and Chairman of the Board	Indefinite; From December 2000 (MIST)/ May 2009 (MSF) to present as Trustee; From May 2016 (MIST and MSF) until present as Chairman	Private Investor.	75	Trustee, Driehaus Mutual Funds.**
Stephen M. Alderman (57)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 (MIST)/ April 2012 (MSF) to present	Shareholder in the law firm of Garfield and Merel, Ltd.	75	None

MSF-51

Metropolitan Series Fund

Trustees and Officers—(Continued)

Name and Age	Current 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 MetLife Funds Complex(2) Overseen by Trustee	Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Robert J. Boulware (60)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 (MIST)/ April 2012 (MSF) to present	Managing Director, Pilgrim Funds, LLC (private equity fund).	75	Trustee, Vertical Capital Income Fund (closed-end fund);** Director, Gainsco, Inc. (auto insurance);** Trustee, SharesPost 100 Fund (closed-end fund).**
Susan C. Gause (64)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 (MIST)/ April 2012 (MSF) to present	Private Investor.	75	Trustee, HSBC Funds.**
Nancy Hawthorne (65)	Trustee	Indefinite; From May 2003 (MSF)/ April 2012 (MIST) to present	Partner, Hawthorne Financial Advisors, LLC (registered investment advisor); until June 2014, Chief Executive Officer, Clerestory LLC (corporate advisor).	75	Director and Chairman of the Board of Directors, THL Credit, Inc.;** Lead Director, Avid Technology, Inc.;** Director, CRA International, Inc.**
Barbara A. Nugent (60)	Trustee	Indefinite; From January 2014 (MIST and MSF) to present	President, True North Board Governance, LLC (consulting); until December 2013, partner in the law firm of Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young, LLP.	75	None
Linda B. Strumpf (69)	Trustee	Indefinite; From May 2000 (MSF)/ April 2012 (MIST) to present	Chair of the Investment Committee, Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust; until June 2011, Chief Investment Officer, Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust.	75	None

Executive Officers

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Kristi Slavin (43)	President and Chief Executive Officer, of MIST and MSF	From May 2016 (MIST and MSF) to present	President, MetLife Advisers, LLC (May 2016-present); Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Vice President, MetLife, Inc.; Vice President, MIST and MSF (2015-2016).

MSF-52

Metropolitan Series Fund

Trustees and Officers—(Continued)

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Peter H. Duffy (61)	Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, of MIST and MSF	From November 2000 (MSF)/ May 2012 (MIST) to present	Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Andrew L. Gangolf (62)	Secretary, of MIST and MSF	From May 2011 (MIST and MSF) to present	Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; until 2011, Senior Vice President & Assistant General Counsel, AllianceBernstein Investments, Inc.
Steven E. Hartstein (53)	Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”), of MIST and MSF	From February 2014 (MIST and MSF) to present	Vice President, MetLife, Inc. (2013- present); Senior Vice President and CCO, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Executive Director, Morgan Stanley (2009-2013); CCO, Consulting Group Capital Markets Funds (2006-2013).
Alan C. Leland (64)	Vice President, of MIST and MSF	From February 2005 (MSF)/ May 2012 (MIST) to present	Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Vice President, MetLife, Inc.

* Mr. Rosenthal is an “interested person” of the Trusts because of his position with MetLife, Inc., the current parent company of MetLife Advisers, LLC.

** 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 Trusts, MetLife, Inc. or the Manager are omitted if not materially different.

(2) The Fund Complex includes 45 MIST Portfolios and 30 MSF Portfolios.

MSF-53

Metropolitan Series Fund

Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements

At an in-person meeting held on November 15-16, 2016 (the “November Meeting”), the Boards of Trustees (the “Board”) of the Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (“MIST” and “MSF,” respectively, and collectively, the “Trusts”), including a majority of the Trustees who are not “interested persons” of the Trusts (the “Independent Trustees”) under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “1940 Act”), approved the continuation of the Trusts’ advisory agreements (each, an “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 the series of the Trusts (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”).

In reaching that decision, the Board reviewed a variety of materials provided for the specific purpose of the annual contract renewal process. In addition, various materials provided to and discussed with the Board throughout the year also informed the Board’s decision to renew the Agreements. That information for each Portfolio included, but was not limited to, investment performance reports, along with periodic reports on various expenses, shareholder services, legal and compliance matters, asset pricing, brokerage commissions and trade execution. The Board also recognized the pending separation of the Adviser from its parent company, MetLife, Inc., as a consideration in their deliberations with respect to the Agreements.

The Board met in person with personnel of the Adviser on September 27, 2016 for the specific purpose of giving preliminary consideration to the proposed continuation of the Agreements (the “September Meeting”) through the review by the Adviser with the Board of the performance and fees experienced by each Portfolio, as well as other information. In considering the Agreements, the Independent Trustees were advised by independent legal counsel throughout the contract renewal process, and met with independent legal counsel in several executive sessions outside of the presence of management.

Information furnished and reviewed specifically in connection with the renewal process included, but was not limited to, a report for each Portfolio prepared by Broadridge (“Broadridge”), an independent organization, and a Portfolio-by-Portfolio profitability analysis prepared by the Adviser. In addition, the Independent Trustees received and reviewed a report prepared by JDL Consultants, LLC (“JDL”), an independent consultant to the Independent Trustees (“JDL Report”), which examined the comparative fees, expenses and performance of each Portfolio, based upon the Broadridge reports. Also, the Board reviewed the responses to wide-ranging questions relating to the business, operations and performance of the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers that the Adviser and Sub-Advisers had prepared specifically for the renewal process.

At the November Meeting, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, concluded that the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser supported the renewal of the Agreements. The Board also concluded that the investment performance of each Portfolio was such that each Agreement should continue, and that the fees paid by a Portfolio to the Adviser appeared to be reasonable in light of the nature, extent and quality of the services provided by the Adviser and Sub-Adviser. Further, the Board concluded that the Adviser’s profitability in providing services under the Advisory Agreements did not appear unreasonably high in light of the nature, extent and quality of the services provided by the Adviser. Finally, the Board concluded that the investment advisory fees paid by the Portfolios in some measure shared economies of scale with contract holders. In approving the renewal of each of the Agreements, the Board, including the Independent Trustees, gave attention to all of the information that was furnished. The Board evaluated the information available to it on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis, and its decision was made separately with respect to each Portfolio. The following discusses some of the primary factors that generally were relevant to the Board’s decision. The Board did not identify any single factor as controlling, and the Trustees generally attributed different weights to various factors for the various Portfolios.

Nature, extent and quality of services. The Board evaluated the nature, extent and quality of the services that the Adviser, and the Sub-Advisers as relevant, have provided to the Portfolios. The Board considered the Adviser’s services as investment manager to the Portfolios, including its services relating to the oversight of the Sub-Advisers and their investment management activities, trading practices, financial condition, relevant personnel matters and compliance programs, among other things. The Adviser’s services in coordinating and overseeing the activities of the Trusts’ other service providers were also considered. The Board considered information received from the Trusts’ Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) regarding the Portfolios’ compliance policies and procedures that were established pursuant to Rule 38a-l under the 1940 Act. In addition, throughout the year, the Board considered the expertise, experience and performance of the personnel of the Adviser who performed the various services that are mentioned above.

The Board also noted that the Adviser’s investment, compliance and legal staff conduct regular, periodic, telephonic and in-person meetings with the Sub-Advisers to review and assess the services that are provided to the Portfolios, and that personnel of the Adviser prepare and present reports to the Independent Trustees regarding those meetings.

MSF-54

Metropolitan Series Fund

Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

With respect to the services provided by each of the Sub-Advisers, the Board considered a variety of information that the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser provided. The Board considered each Sub-Adviser’s investment process and philosophy, and the investment performance experienced by the Portfolio (as described in more detail below). The Board took into account that each Sub-Adviser’s responsibilities include the development and maintenance of an investment program for the applicable Portfolio that 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. In particular, the Board considered, among other things, the Sub-Adviser’s current level of staffing as well as its compensation program and its overall resources. The Board reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s history and investment experience, as well as information provided 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 regulatory and disciplinary history. In its review, the Board also took into account information regarding any services and/or payments provided to the Adviser by the Sub-Advisers in connection with marketing activities.

Performance. The Board placed emphasis on the performance of the Portfolios in light of, among other things, its importance to contract holders. The Board considered the Adviser’s quarterly reviews with the Board of detailed information about each Portfolio’s investment strategies and performance results and composition, including discussions regarding the relevant effect of current market conditions. The Board reviewed and considered the reports prepared by Broadridge, which provided a statistical analysis comparing the Portfolios’ investment performance to that of comparable funds underlying variable insurance products (the “Performance Universe”). The Independent Trustees also met separately with a representative of JDL during the September Meeting to review the JDL Report. The Board also compared the performance records of certain Portfolios to those of comparable funds that were managed by the relevant Sub-Adviser. At the November Meeting, the Board considered each Portfolio’s performance for periods subsequent to the performance period covered by the Broadridge reports, and the Adviser’s discussion of the same, including the effect of current market conditions on each Portfolio’s more recent performance.

The Board focused particular attention on Portfolios with less favorable performance records. The Board noted the Adviser’s focus on each Sub-Adviser’s performance and that the Adviser has been active in monitoring and responding to any performance issues with respect to the Portfolios.

Fees and Expenses. The Board gave consideration to the level and method of computing the fees payable under the Agreements. The Board considered the Broadridge report for each of the Portfolios, which included comparisons for each Portfolio of its contractual management and sub-adviser fees (at current and various asset levels), and total expenses, with those of its peers, including as those peers were divided into a broad group of peer funds (“Expense Universe”), a narrower group of peer funds (“Expense Group”), a broad group of peer sub-advised funds (“Sub-advised Expense Universe”), and a narrower group of peer sub-advised funds (“Sub-advised Expense Group”). Broadridge selected the peer funds which were similarly situated funds underlying variable insurance products deemed to be comparable to the Portfolios. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of JDL, also examined the JDL Report. The Board compared the fee payable to a Sub-Adviser by the Adviser with respect to the Portfolio to the fee payable to the Sub-Adviser by other comparable funds and accounts, to the extent such information was available.

The Board noted that the sub-advisory fees for the Portfolios are paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fee, and that, in the case of an unaffiliated Sub-Adviser, the Adviser negotiates the fee at arm’s length. The Board also considered that the Adviser had entered into expense limitation or management fee waiver agreements with certain of the Portfolios pursuant to which the Adviser had 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.

Profitability. The Board examined the profitability of the Adviser on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis. The Board also considered that an affiliate of the Adviser, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, serves as distributor for the Trusts, and, as such, receives Rule 12b-1 payments to support the distribution of the Portfolios. The Board considered the profitability to the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates as a result of their relationships with the Portfolios, to the extent available, and the Board considered the ability of the Adviser to negotiate with an unaffiliated Sub-Adviser at arm’s length. In reviewing the profitability analyses, the Board recognized that expense allocation methodologies are inherently subjective and various expense allocation methodologies may be reasonable while producing different results.

Economies of scale. The Board also considered each Portfolio’s fees in light of its size. The Board noted the fee schedules for the Portfolios that 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

MSF-55

Metropolitan Series Fund

Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

schedule for such Portfolios. The Board considered the effective fees under the Advisory Agreement and Sub-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. The Board examined, among other data, the effect of a Portfolio’s growth in size, and reduction in size, on various fee schedules and the Board reviewed the Broadridge and JDL Reports, which compared fees among peers. The Board also generally noted that if a Portfolio’s assets increase over time, the Portfolio may realize other economies of scale if assets increase proportionally more than certain other fixed expenses.

Other factors. The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trusts. Among them, the Board recognized that MetLife Investors Distribution Company, as the distributor for the Trusts, receives payments pursuant to Rule 12b-1 from the Portfolios to compensate for the provision of shareholder services and distribution activities, which could lead to growth in the Trusts’ assets and corresponding benefits from such growth, including economies of scale. The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by each Sub-Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trusts, including the opportunity to provide advisory services to additional portfolios of the Trusts and reputational benefits. In conjunction with these considerations, the Board noted the ongoing commitment of the Adviser to the Portfolios.

The Board considered possible conflicts of interest in the form of material benefits or detriments to the Trusts resulting from the nature of the Trusts’ and the Adviser’s or the Sub-Advisers’ affiliations and the services that are provided to the Trusts, and the manner in which such conflicts were mitigated.

* * *

Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities Portfolio. The Board also considered the following information in relation to the Agreements with the Adviser and Western Asset Management Company regarding the Portfolio:

Among other data relating specifically to the 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, 2016. The Board also noted that the Portfolio outperformed its Lipper Index for the three- and five-year periods ended June 30, 2016, and underperformed its Lipper Index for the one-year period ended June 30, 2016. The Board further considered that the Portfolio outperformed its benchmark, the Barclays U.S. Aggregate Bond Index, and its blended benchmark for the one-, three-, and five-year periods ended October 31, 2016.

The Board also considered that the Portfolio’s actual management fees were below the Expense Group median and Expense Universe median, and were equal to the Sub-advised Expense Universe median. The Board further considered that the Portfolio’s total expenses (exclusive of 12b-1 fees) were below 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 asset-weighted average of certain comparable funds at the Portfolio’s current size. The Board also noted that the Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees were below the averages of the Sub-advised Expense Group and the Sub-advised Expense Universe at the Portfolio’s current size.

MSF-56

Metropolitan Series Fund

Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Advisory Agreements

The separation (the “Separation”) of MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”), the investment adviser to each of the series (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”) of Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (collectively, the “Trusts”), from its parent company, MetLife, Inc. (“MetLife”), to a separate retail business, Brighthouse Financial, Inc. (“Brighthouse”), is expected to result in a change in control of the Adviser, and therefore an “assignment” of each Portfolio’s current advisory agreement (each a “Current Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “Current Advisory Agreements”). At the November 15-16, 2016 meeting (“November Meeting”) of the Board of Trustees of the Trusts (the “Board”), the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not “interested persons,” as defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940, of any Portfolio (the “Independent Trustees”), approved a new advisory agreement (each a “New Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “New Advisory Agreements”) between the Trusts, on behalf of a Portfolio, and the Adviser, to be effective upon the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements in connection with the Separation, and recommended that the shareholders of the Trusts approve the New Advisory Agreements. The Board took those actions after consideration of and deliberation over information concerning the Separation, including with respect to the degree to which the Separation would affect the provision of investment advisory services to the Trusts. Information about the Board’s considerations and process is set forth below.

In determining whether to approve the New Advisory Agreements and in considering the Separation, the Board considered the nature, quality and extent of the services that are currently provided by the Adviser under the Current Advisory Agreements as well as the services to be provided under the New Advisory Agreements. The Board’s review was conducted as part of, and in conjunction with, the Board’s annual review of the Current Advisory Agreements, which culminated at the November Meeting. In approving the New Advisory Agreements, the Board considered its conclusions with respect to its approvals of the Current Advisory Agreements, including the Board’s general satisfaction with the nature, extent and quality of services being provided by the Adviser to each Portfolio. Appendix A and Appendix B contains a further description of the process followed, information reviewed and the material factors considered by the Board in approving the continuation of the Current Advisory Agreements.

A substantial portion of the Board’s review of the New Advisory Agreements focused on the Separation, including the potential effect of the implementation of the Separation on the operations, personnel, organizational structure, capitalization, and financial and other resources of the Adviser. After being informed by the Adviser in January 2016 of the possibility of the Separation, the Board and its Committees discussed the Separation and its possible effects on the Trusts with personnel of the Adviser and the anticipated senior management at Brighthouse during the course of the Board’s or Committee’s regularly scheduled, in-person, quarterly meetings.

Between August and November 2016, the Board and the Independent Trustees engaged in an extensive review and analysis of the Separation and how the Separation related to the Adviser and the Trusts and how it could affect the services provided to the Trusts. This analysis focused on, among other matters, the assurances from Brighthouse’s anticipated leadership as to its expectations for the continuity and stability of the Adviser’s personnel throughout implementation of the Separation and for the foreseeable future thereafter. The Board considered that the Separation is being implemented as a result of MetLife’s determination to divest itself of a substantial portion of its U.S. retail business (of which the Adviser forms a portion). The Board also considered that it has been satisfied as a general matter with the nature and quality of the services that the Adviser provides to the Portfolios, including investment advisory, administrative, legal, compliance, and support services, and that it would be in the Portfolios’ best interests to maintain continuity and stability in the services that are currently being provided. The Board carefully considered the anticipated future plans of Brighthouse related to capitalization and operational matters for Brighthouse and the Adviser, as well as the importance of the Adviser to the businesses of Brighthouse after the Separation.

Among other steps in its review process, which accelerated on October 5, 2016 when Brighthouse filed its Form 10 with the SEC, the following actions were taken and considered by or on behalf of the Board:

1. The Independent Trustees solicited and received ongoing advice regarding the legal duties of the Independent Trustees from Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young LLP (“Stradley Ronon”), legal counsel for the Independent Trustees, which law firm has extensive experience regarding such matters.

2. Following the August 16-17, 2016 Board and Committee quarterly meetings, the Independent Trustees established an ad hoc group of Independent Trustees (the “Working Group”) to help oversee, coordinate, and conduct due diligence activities with respect to the Separation. The Working Group regularly reported on the due diligence activities to the other Independent Trustees.

3. Since January 2016, the Board posed ongoing inquiries to, and received regular updates from, the Adviser and anticipated senior management at Brighthouse at either in-person meetings dedicated to the status of the Separation or during the course of the Board or Committee’s regular quarterly meetings. The Board considered, among other matters, relevant legal guidance and the processes followed by certain other investment company boards of directors or trustees when they approved contracts in connection with change in control events, while recognizing the unique circumstances of the Separation.

MSF-57

Metropolitan Series Fund

Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

4. The Board received and reviewed the Form 10 of Brighthouse that contained extensive information relating to, among other matters, Brighthouse’s anticipated business plans and financial structure. The Board also received and reviewed reports from rating agencies with respect to Brighthouse.

5. Stradley Ronon retained Barrington Partners (“Barrington”), an independent consulting firm with a specific focus on the asset management industry and experience relating to business operations such as those to be conducted by Brighthouse, including its proposed subsidiary, the Adviser, in order to help Stradley Ronon evaluate the Separation based on the Form 10 and other materials and related information provided by the Adviser and its affiliates. Barrington conducted a series of in-person and telephonic meetings with anticipated senior management at Brighthouse (i.e., the aforementioned anticipated officers of Brighthouse and others) and with personnel of the Adviser who provide services to the Trusts. Stradley Ronon, with the assistance of Barrington, evaluated the information and advised the Independent Trustees with respect to, among other matters, details of Brighthouse’s anticipated business plan to understand the implications of the Separation to the Adviser and its personnel. The Independent Trustees and the Working Group attended certain in-person and telephonic conference call meetings at which Barrington rendered advice to Stradley Ronon regarding these matters and responded to questions.

6. The Independent Trustees requested and participated in in-person meetings with anticipated senior management personnel at Brighthouse, including its President and Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, Chief Operating Officer, and Chief Investment Officer. The Independent Trustees also met with personnel of the Adviser.

7. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of Stradley Ronon, prepared written inquiries to the Adviser and its affiliates regarding the Separation, and received written assurances from the Adviser and its affiliates that they have no plans to make any material changes affecting the personnel of the Adviser (including those personnel who provide investment, administrative, legal and compliance services) and the Adviser and its affiliates will not initiate such changes without prior notice to and discussion with the Board.

8. The Board considered representations by the Adviser and its affiliates that approval of the New Advisory Agreements would be necessary for the Portfolios to continue receiving investment advisory services from the Adviser following the change in control.

9. The Board considered representations by the Adviser, as well as related supporting documentation, indicating that the New Advisory Agreements, including the fees payable thereunder, are substantially identical to the terms of the corresponding Current Advisory Agreements.

10. The Board considered representations by the Adviser and its affiliates, as well as related supporting documentation, indicating that: (1) the Adviser can be expected to provide services of the same nature, extent, and quality under the New Advisory Agreements and as are provided thereby under the Current Advisory Agreements; and (2) the Separation is not expected to result in any changes to (i) the management of the Portfolios, or (ii) the investment objective of or the principal investment strategies used to manage any of the Portfolios.

11. The Board considered the ability of the Adviser and its affiliates to retain the employment of key personnel, as well as the overall positive indications by many such personnel regarding the opportunities presented by the Separation.

12. The Board considered that the Adviser and its affiliates have agreed to bear all expenses associated with obtaining shareholder approval of the New Advisory Agreements.

13. The Board considered Brighthouse’s preliminary “branding” plans regarding the future name of its operations.

14. The Board considered the advice provided by Ropes & Gray, LLP, legal counsel to the Trusts and the Adviser, with respect to the New Advisory Agreements (including advice relating to the process and timing of seeking shareholder approval of the New Advisory Agreements, and whether shareholder approvals would be required in connection with any future aspects of the Separation) and regarding the Board’s role and responsibilities with respect to the Separation.

15. The Board considered MetLife’s stated intention of divesting its ownership interest in the Adviser through the Separation, including the potential advantages and disadvantages of this divestiture to shareholders of the Portfolios. The Board considered the likelihood that the Adviser would retain its key personnel after the Separation. The Board considered that the garnering of new assets into the Trusts is based on sales of variable annuity and variable life insurance products, which sales have declined in prior years as a result of, among other things, the capital requirements of MetLife. The Board considered the representations of the anticipated senior management of Brighthouse that the Separation provides the Trusts with an opportunity for the garnering of new assets as Brighthouse will likely sell such products going forward. The Board considered also that the divestiture would result in a change in the manner in

MSF-58

Metropolitan Series Fund

Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

which the Trusts access certain services and resources of MetLife (after the Separation those services will be provided through a transition services agreement), the loss of affiliation with the MetLife name brand, and the possible going forward need of the Trusts to hire a transfer agent, as such transfer agency services are currently provided to the Trusts for no fee.

16. The Board considered that, if shareholders approve the New Advisory Agreements, the Board and the Adviser will conduct their annual contract review process in November 2017. Thus, the Board emphasized that it would be able to, and intends to, monitor on a regular basis the ability of the Adviser and its affiliates to comply with their undertakings to the Board and to monitor on an ongoing basis the quality of services to, and expenses of, the Portfolios. In addition, the Board considered that, under the New Advisory Agreements, it will continue to have the authority, should the need arise in its view, to terminate any of the New Advisory Agreements without penalty upon 60 days’ notice.

Based on the foregoing and other relevant considerations, at the November Meeting, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, voted to approve the New Advisory Agreements and to recommend approval of the New Advisory Agreements by shareholders of the Portfolios. In this connection, the Board concluded that, in light of all factors considered, the terms of the New Advisory Agreement, including fee rates, were fair and reasonable, and that it would be in the best interests of shareholders of each Portfolio to approve the New Advisory Agreements.

In the event that approval of the New Advisory Agreements by shareholders of the Portfolios has not been obtained before the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements as a result of the change in control of the Adviser, the Board also approved an interim advisory agreement with the Adviser (the “Interim Advisory Agreement”) on behalf of each Portfolio that will go into effect upon the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements. The Board’s determination to approve each Interim Advisory Agreement was based on the same information and considerations as the Board’s approval of the New Advisory Agreements so as to ensure continuity of advisory services from the Adviser to the Portfolios following the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements.

MSF-59

Metropolitan Series Fund

Western Asset Management Strategic Bond Opportunities Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Sub-Advisory Agreements

The separation (the “Separation”) of MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”), the investment adviser to each of the series (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”) of Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (collectively, the “Trusts”), from its parent company, MetLife, Inc. (“MetLife”), to a separate retail business, Brighthouse Financial, Inc. (“Brighthouse”), is expected to result in a change in control of the Adviser, and therefore an “assignment” of each Portfolio’s current advisory agreement and, as a result, the automatic termination of the sub-advisory agreement (each a “Sub-Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisory Agreements”) between the Adviser and the investment sub-advisers (each a “Sub-Adviser” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisers”). At the November 15-16, 2016 meeting (“November Meeting”) of the Board of Trustees of the Trusts (the “Board”), the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not “interested persons,” as defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940, of any Portfolio (the “Independent Trustees”), approved new sub-advisory agreements (each a “New Sub-Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “New Sub-Advisory Agreements”). Information about the Board’s considerations and process is set forth below.

In determining whether to approve the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, the Board considered the nature, quality and extent of the services that are currently provided by the Sub-Advisers under the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements as well as the services to be provided under the New Sub-Advisory Agreements. The Board’s review was conducted as part of, and in conjunction with, the Board’s annual review of the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements, which culminated at the November Meeting. In approving the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, the Board considered its conclusions with respect to its approvals of the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements, including the Board’s general satisfaction with the nature, extent and quality of services being provided by the Sub-Advisers to the Portfolios, as applicable. Appendix A contains a further description of the process followed, information reviewed and the material factors considered by the Board in approving the continuation of the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements.

In addition, the following actions were taken and considered by or on behalf of the Board:

1. The Independent Trustees of the Board solicited and received ongoing advice regarding the legal duties of the Independent Trustees from Stradley Ronon, legal counsel for the Independent Trustees, which law firm has extensive experience regarding such matters.

2. The Board considered representations by the Adviser and its affiliates that approval of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements would be necessary for the Portfolios to continue receiving sub-advisory services from the Sub-Advisers following the change in control of the Adviser.

3. The Board considered representations by the Adviser, as well as related supporting documentation, indicating that the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, including the fees payable thereunder, are the same as the terms of the corresponding Current Sub-Advisory Agreements.

4. The Board considered the advice provided by Ropes & Gray, LLP, legal counsel to the Trusts and the Adviser, with respect to the New Sub-Advisory Agreements and regarding the Board’s role and responsibilities with respect to the Separation.

5. The Board considered that the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers will conduct their annual contract review process in November 2017. Thus, the Board emphasized that it would be able to, and intends to, monitor on an ongoing basis the ability of the Sub-Advisers to comply with its undertakings to the Board and the Adviser and to monitor on an ongoing basis the quality of services to, and expenses of, the Portfolios. In addition, the Board considered that, under the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, it will continue to have the authority, should the need arise in its view, to terminate any of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements without penalty upon no more than 60 days’ notice.

Based on the foregoing and other relevant considerations, at the November Meeting, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, voted to approve the New Sub-Advisory Agreements. In this connection, the Board concluded that, in light of all factors considered, the terms of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, including fee rates, were fair and reasonable.

MSF-60

Metropolitan Series Fund

Western Asset Management U.S. Government Portfolio

Managed by Western Asset Management Company

Portfolio Manager Commentary*

PERFORMANCE

For the 12 months ended December 31, 2016, the Class A, B, and E shares of the Western Asset Management U.S. Government Portfolio returned 1.28%, 1.02%, and 1.20%, respectively. The Portfolio’s benchmark, the Bloomberg Barclays U.S. Intermediate Government Bond Index¹, returned 1.05%.

MARKET ENVIRONMENT / CONDITIONS

The broad U.S. fixed income market posted a modest gain in 2016 even as Treasury yields moved higher, especially towards the end of the year. Economic growth in the U.S. continued at a subdued pace as it has in recent years. Coming into 2016, markets had just experienced the first U.S. Federal Reserve (the “Fed”) rate hike since the financial crisis and expected four more hikes over the coming year. Risk markets began the year as they had for much of the last half of 2015, dominated by concerns of possible slowing global growth, weak commodity prices and a strengthening U.S. dollar.

Both short- and longer-term Treasury yields increased in 2016. The yield on the two-year Treasury began at 1.06% and ended the year 14 basis points (“bps”) higher at 1.20%. After beginning the year at 2.27%, the yield on the 10-year Treasury fell to 1.49% at the end of June but ultimately ended the year higher at 2.45%. Rates surged higher after the surprise election of Donald Trump as markets expected the policies of his administration to boost growth and inflation which in turn will lead to a faster pace of Fed rate increases. All told, the broad market bond index, as measured by the Bloomberg Barclays U.S. Aggregate Bond Index, returned 2.65% during the year.

Economic growth over the year remained positive but was generally muted. The most recent Gross Domestic Product (“GDP”) release, for the third quarter’s real annualized growth, registered an impressive 3.5% which followed a 1.4% expansion in the second quarter of 2016 and a smaller 0.8% pickup in the first quarter of the year. While the third quarter’s print was a large surprise to the upside, much of the gain appears due to a quirk related to unusually large soybean exports which were in turn due to poor crops in other parts of the world.

The job market pushed well into full-employment territory in 2016. The unemployment rate began the year at 5.0% and inched down to 4.6% by year-end. The workforce participation rate, however, ended the year where it began at 62.7%. Wage gains were unimpressive for most of the year but improved towards the end of the year as the labor force tightened.

The Fed moved away from emergency policy rates for the first time in nearly a decade in late 2015 as it raised the federal funds rate to a range between 0.25% and 0.50%. A year later at its December 2016 meeting the Fed initiated its next increase as employment looked reasonably healthy, inflation measures appeared to be moving closer to targets and the recent 3.5% GDP print, despite its quirks, pointed to improving growth. Markets had expected a few more Fed increases earlier in the year, but the Fed held off as economic data failed to cooperate in the early part of the year, then international concerns such as bank worries and then Brexit, the U.K. referendum on leaving the European Union, complicated matters, and later the Fed did not want to impact markets in the fall as the U.S. election approached.

PORTFOLIO REVIEW / PERIOD END POSITIONING

The Portfolio outperformed its benchmark during the period. The Portfolio’s allocation to high quality Agency issues outperformed during the year and was the largest contributor to performance. Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities (“TIPS”) exposure was also a significant contributor as inflation expectations picked up over the year, especially in November and December. Over the year, 5-year break-evens, a measure of inflation expectations, increased by 55 bps. Emerging markets (“EM”) recovered from a rough 2015 and first six weeks of 2016 to generally deliver positive results; the Portfolio’s EM exposure contributed over the year. A tactical overweight duration position was the largest detractor as yields surged upon the surprise election of Donald Trump and the expectations of increased fiscal stimulus. However, our curve positioning, with an emphasis on longer-dated yields, was a modest positive as the curve ended the year flatter, with longer maturity yields decreasing (prices increasing) more than intermediate and short term yields. The other main detractor from performance was in Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities (“MBS”) as spreads widened in the bonds we held. Our high quality Asset-Backed Securities holdings only had a small, albeit positive, impact on the Portfolio’s performance.

At period end, we expected central banks to remain highly accommodative albeit less so than in recent years. We expect to maintain a tactical duration policy in response, and an overweight to longer-dated Treasuries which may continue to provide some protection if

MSF-1

Metropolitan Series Fund

Western Asset Management U.S. Government Portfolio

Managed by Western Asset Management Company

Portfolio Manager Commentary*—(Continued)

volatility increases. At year end, we found Agency MBS to be less compelling due to valuations and the uncertainty over when the Fed will end its MBS reinvestment program. We therefore continued to maintain a significant underweight relative to the benchmark and also maintained a small allocation to TIPS in case inflation expectations increase.

Fredrick Marki

S. Kenneth Leech

Mark S. Lindbloom

Portfolio Managers

Western Asset Management 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 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.

MSF-2

Metropolitan Series Fund

Western Asset Management U.S. Government Portfolio

A $10,000 INVESTMENT COMPARED TO THE BLOOMBERG BARCLAYS U.S. INTERMEDIATE GOVERNMENT BOND INDEX

AVERAGE ANNUAL RETURNS (%) (FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2016)

	1 Year		5 Year		10 Year
Western Asset Management U.S. Government Portfolio
Class A		1.28		1.45		2.67
Class B		1.02		1.19		2.41
Class E		1.20		1.30		2.52
Bloomberg Barclays U.S. Intermediate Government Bond Index		1.05		1.04		3.42

¹ The Bloomberg Barclays U.S. Intermediate Government Bond Index includes most obligations of the U.S. Treasury, agencies and quasi-federal corporations having maturities between one and ten years.

Portfolio performance is calculated including reinvestment of all income and capital gain distributions. Performance numbers are net of all Portfolio expenses but do not include any insurance, sales, separate account or administrative charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts or any additional expenses that participants may bear relating to the operations of their plans. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower. The performance of any index referenced above has not been adjusted for ongoing management, distribution and operating expenses, and sales charges applicable to mutual fund investments. Direct investment in any index is not possible. The performance of Class A shares, as set forth in the line graph above, will differ from that of other classes because of the difference in expenses paid by policyholders investing in the different share classes.

This information represents past performance and is not indicative of future results. Investment return and principal value may fluctuate so that shares, upon redemption, may be worth more or less than the original cost.

PORTFOLIO COMPOSITION AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2016

Top Sectors

	% of Net Assets
U.S. Treasury & Government Agencies		88.2
Corporate Bonds & Notes		8.8
Foreign Government		8.1
Mortgage-Backed Securities		5.4
Asset-Backed Securities		1.9

MSF-3

Metropolitan Series Fund

Western Asset Management U.S. Government 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, 2016 through December 31, 2016.

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.

Western Asset Management U.S. Government Portfolio		Annualized Expense Ratio			Beginning Account Value July 1, 2016		Ending Account Value December 31, 2016		Expenses Paid During Period** July 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016
Class A(a)	Actual		0.48	%	$	1,000.00	$	982.40	$	2.39
	Hypothetical*		0.48	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,022.72	$	2.44
Class B(a)	Actual		0.73	%	$	1,000.00	$	980.70	$	3.63
	Hypothetical*		0.73	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,021.47	$	3.71
Class E(a)	Actual		0.63	%	$	1,000.00	$	981.50	$	3.14
	Hypothetical*		0.63	%	$	1,000.00	$	1,021.97	$	3.20

* 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 366 (to reflect the one-half year period).

^(a) The annualized expense ratio shown reflects the impact of the management fee waiver as described in Note 6 of the Notes to Financial Statements.

MSF-4

Metropolitan Series Fund

Western Asset Management U.S. Government Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

U.S. Treasury & Government Agencies—88.2% of Net Assets

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Agency Sponsored Mortgage-Backed—28.7%
Fannie Mae 15 Yr. Pool 2.500%, TBA (a)		9,400,000	$	9,414,871
3.000%, TBA (a)		6,200,000		6,362,266
3.500%, TBA (a)		15,000,000		15,627,246
4.500%, 03/01/20		51,589		53,020
5.000%, 03/01/18		33,469		34,251
6.500%, 06/01/17		4,303		4,309
Fannie Mae 20 Yr. Pool 4.500%, 11/01/31		934,027		1,006,139
4.500%, 12/01/31		1,288,039		1,387,354
Fannie Mae 30 Yr. Pool 3.000%, 09/01/42		10,064,250		10,061,375
3.000%, 11/01/46		7,178,372		7,138,991
3.000%, TBA (a)		37,400,000		37,153,676
3.500%, TBA (a)		14,900,000		15,271,336
4.000%, 02/01/40		850,533		905,296
4.000%, 06/01/42		7,866,201		8,361,136
4.000%, 07/01/42		3,996,030		4,217,267
4.000%, 05/01/43		18,855,745		19,988,335
4.000%, 10/01/43		10,428,192		11,055,250
4.000%, TBA (a)		82,800,000		87,048,352
4.500%, 04/01/41		10,947,820		11,822,637
4.500%, 10/01/41		7,325,230		7,895,284
4.500%, 07/01/44		294,672		319,695
4.500%, 10/01/44		1,848,700		2,004,358
4.500%, 01/01/45		161,173		175,724
4.500%, TBA (a)		5,100,000		5,485,488
5.000%, 07/01/33		299,036		327,521
5.000%, 09/01/33		362,351		397,964
5.000%, 10/01/35		1,011,811		1,111,399
5.000%, 03/01/36		1,620,402		1,769,312
5.000%, 01/01/39		12,467		13,703
5.000%, 08/01/39		33,101		36,575
5.000%, 12/01/39		25,554		28,206
5.000%, 05/01/40		60,058		65,949
5.000%, 07/01/40		47,692		52,757
5.000%, 11/01/40		1,255,610		1,389,192
5.000%, 01/01/41		63,128		69,877
5.000%, 02/01/41		68,588		75,032
5.000%, 04/01/41		139,808		154,896
5.000%, 05/01/41		2,740,859		3,023,732
5.000%, 06/01/41		263,825		292,286
5.000%, 07/01/41		2,588,173		2,817,899
5.000%, TBA (a)		2,700,000		2,941,312
6.000%, 04/01/33		92,804		106,314
6.000%, 02/01/34		18,843		21,673
6.000%, 11/01/35		192,252		221,144
6.000%, 08/01/37		412,110		474,108
6.500%, 03/01/26		1,358		1,537
6.500%, 04/01/29		65,394		73,985
7.000%, 11/01/28		1,989		2,176
7.000%, 02/01/29		679		681
7.000%, 01/01/30		2,209		2,270
7.000%, 10/01/37		20,703		22,656
7.000%, 11/01/37		33,082		38,368
7.000%, 12/01/37		26,015		30,045
Agency Sponsored Mortgage-Backed—(Continued)
Fannie Mae 30 Yr. Pool 7.000%, 02/01/38		18,019		19,629
7.000%, 08/01/38		14,334		16,036
7.000%, 09/01/38		3,047		3,146
7.000%, 11/01/38		131,661		148,676
7.000%, 02/01/39		1,480,761		1,705,206
7.500%, 04/01/32		13,542		13,883
8.000%, 05/01/28		4,209		4,739
8.000%, 07/01/32		879		953
Fannie Mae Interest Strip (CMO) 3.500%, 11/25/41 (b)		2,962,254		569,510
4.000%, 04/25/42 (b)		4,145,741		760,931
4.500%, 11/25/39 (b)		2,380,446		479,735
Fannie Mae Pool 3.500%, 08/01/42		12,592,499		12,987,490
3.500%, 09/01/42		865,719		892,875
3.500%, 10/01/42		6,044,926		6,234,705
4.000%, 10/01/42		3,689,488		3,913,498
4.000%, 11/01/42		2,504,386		2,656,063
4.000%, 07/01/43		77,663		82,385
4.000%, 08/01/43		1,773,518		1,881,424
6.500%, 12/01/27		4,574		4,621
6.500%, 05/01/32		22,410		24,854
Fannie Mae REMIC Trust Whole Loan (CMO) 3.815%, 01/25/43 (c)		358,158		387,898
Fannie Mae REMICS (CMO) Zero Coupon, 03/25/42 (d)		625,949		547,939
3.000%, 12/25/27 (b)		8,408,445		813,603
5.394%, 03/25/42 (b) (c)		10,182,096		1,651,327
5.394%, 12/25/42 (b) (c)		1,132,106		259,982
5.500%, 07/25/41		8,249,047		9,429,556
5.500%, 04/25/42		2,614,407		2,902,274
5.774%, 01/25/41 (b) (c)		1,641,951		277,365
5.794%, 10/25/41 (b) (c)		6,303,343		1,112,047
5.894%, 02/25/41 (b) (c)		961,873		140,372
5.894%, 03/25/42 (b) (c)		2,462,064		434,483
6.000%, 05/25/42		1,689,324		1,914,590
6.500%, 06/25/39		322,004		355,228
6.500%, 07/25/42		3,095,973		3,532,194
9.750%, 11/25/18		359,257		377,895
9.750%, 08/25/19		112,224		117,949
Fannie Mae-ACES (CMO) 2.037%, 09/25/26		2,556,735		2,471,949
2.499%, 09/25/26		3,850,000		3,656,104
Freddie Mac 30 Yr. Gold Pool 3.000%, TBA (a)		10,000,000		9,929,744
3.500%, TBA (a)		36,700,000		37,578,704
4.000%, 07/01/43		5,449,818		5,772,884
4.000%, 08/01/43		5,382,904		5,702,009
4.500%, 06/01/38		1,967,767		2,119,511
5.000%, 08/01/33		27,593		30,361
5.000%, 06/01/41		6,276,943		6,926,632
6.000%, 10/01/36		1,045,294		1,195,772
6.500%, 09/01/39		372,932		424,850
8.000%, 12/01/19		295		296
8.000%, 09/01/30		3,913		4,578

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-5

Metropolitan Series Fund

Western Asset Management U.S. Government Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

U.S. Treasury & Government Agencies—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Agency Sponsored Mortgage-Backed—(Continued)
Freddie Mac 30 Yr. Non-Gold Pool 8.000%, 07/01/20		629	$	632
Freddie Mac Gold Pool 3.500%, 10/01/42		1,291,079		1,330,033
3.500%, 02/01/44		580,773		598,298
4.000%, 04/01/43		1,948,799		2,065,938
4.000%, 08/01/43		1,186,523		1,257,927
Freddie Mac REMICS (CMO) 4.500%, 04/15/32		304,579		328,344
6.000%, 05/15/36		739,180		830,545
8.500%, 06/15/21		10,008		10,744
Ginnie Mae I 30 Yr. Pool 5.500%, 06/15/36		564,591		637,865
6.000%, 03/15/33		979,388		1,162,208
6.500%, 06/15/31		3,202		3,658
6.500%, 08/15/34		204,604		233,712
7.500%, 09/15/29		2,302		2,569
7.500%, 02/15/30		1,626		1,692
8.500%, 05/15/18		2,858		2,868
8.500%, 06/15/25		30,021		35,041
Ginnie Mae II 30 Yr. Pool 3.000%, 08/20/46		28,818,307		29,220,854
3.000%, TBA (a)		36,700,000		37,159,466
3.500%, TBA (a)		24,000,000		24,948,281
4.000%, 09/20/45		2,117,599		2,267,656
4.000%, 11/20/45		12,072,734		12,908,945
4.500%, 01/20/40		918,229		993,237
4.500%, 05/20/40		1,242,791		1,338,747
4.500%, 09/20/40		25,394		27,379
4.500%, 01/20/41		196,949		212,447
4.500%, 07/20/41		1,358,553		1,464,232
5.000%, 07/20/40		950,777		1,046,784
6.000%, 11/20/34		1,849		2,155
6.000%, 06/20/35		2,997		3,494
6.000%, 07/20/36		174,272		197,094
6.000%, 09/20/36		8,750		9,849
6.000%, 07/20/38		464,737		525,690
6.000%, 09/20/38		1,261,354		1,426,455
6.000%, 06/20/39		5,199		5,960
6.000%, 05/20/40		114,667		129,826
6.000%, 06/20/40		299,083		338,599
6.000%, 08/20/40		160,735		184,422
6.000%, 09/20/40		387,270		444,532
6.000%, 10/20/40		249,609		283,364
6.000%, 11/20/40		326,641		366,651
6.000%, 01/20/41		263,781		294,003
6.000%, 03/20/41		1,379,435		1,560,651
6.000%, 07/20/41		279,140		321,350
6.000%, 12/20/41		190,479		217,845
6.500%, 10/20/37		386,037		444,102
Government National Mortgage Association (CMO) 0.311%, 02/16/53 (b) (c)		14,950,767		411,619
0.481%, 05/16/54 (b) (c)		20,399,009		612,717
0.522%, 10/16/54 (b) (c)		34,238,072		1,144,110
0.614%, 03/16/49 (b) (c)		12,100,200		364,399
Agency Sponsored Mortgage-Backed—(Continued)
Government National Mortgage Association (CMO) 0.726%, 09/16/46 (b) (c)		45,017,158		1,199,158
0.749%, 05/16/54 (b) (c)		17,365,022		831,225
0.763%, 02/16/48 (b) (c)		6,844,279		308,573
0.769%, 09/16/51 (b) (c)		68,927,306		3,647,964
0.791%, 06/16/55 (b) (c)		13,548,789		548,013
0.819%, 01/16/57 (b) (c)		24,985,927		1,738,873
0.859%, 11/16/55 (b) (c)		28,322,444		1,759,404
0.900%, 09/16/56 (b) (c)		23,299,215		1,462,632
0.910%, 12/20/60 (c)		18,492,954		18,318,168
0.919%, 09/16/55 (b) (c)		20,826,046		1,192,841
0.930%, 12/20/60 (c)		6,189,071		6,140,112
1.010%, 03/20/61 (c)		5,110,804		5,084,341
1.030%, 12/20/60 (c)		45,072,068		44,852,236
1.077%, 09/16/44 (b) (c)		18,155,160		996,085
1.158%, 02/16/46 (b) (c)		24,703,326		1,526,149
5.393%, 08/16/42 (b) (c)		1,462,063		234,134
5.761%, 03/20/39 (b) (c)		388,367		36,436
5.911%, 01/20/40 (b) (c)		1,084,464		159,387
				630,239,400
Federal Agencies—38.0%
Federal Farm Credit Bank 0.650%, 06/19/17		15,000,000		14,992,680
0.800%, 03/08/18		20,000,000		19,934,440
1.100%, 06/01/18		20,000,000		19,984,780
1.950%, 11/15/17		19,980,000		20,152,248
Federal Home Loan Bank 0.625%, 10/26/17		18,000,000		17,972,298
0.750%, 11/17/17		25,000,000		24,970,350
0.875%, 03/19/18		20,000,000		19,967,740
1.875%, 11/29/21		49,000,000		48,684,538
2.125%, 06/09/23		17,700,000		17,425,756
2.250%, 09/08/17		28,000,000		28,278,180
2.750%, 06/08/18		15,000,000		15,334,905
5.250%, 12/11/20		12,000,000		13,529,436
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. Zero Coupon, 11/29/19		10,000,000		9,490,530
0.750%, 04/09/18		9,000,000		8,966,790
0.875%, 10/12/18		20,000,000		19,891,300
1.125%, 04/15/19		30,000,000		29,878,590
5.000%, 12/14/18		12,741,000		13,637,227
Federal National Mortgage Association Zero Coupon, 10/09/19		50,000,000		47,415,150
1.250%, 05/06/21		20,000,000		19,433,360
1.875%, 09/24/26		7,000,000		6,431,075
2.125%, 04/24/26		10,000,000		9,456,910
2.625%, 09/06/24		22,000,000		22,212,960
Financing Corp. Fico Zero Coupon, 10/06/17		20,433,000		20,276,197
Zero Coupon, 05/11/18		40,000,000		39,295,680
Zero Coupon, 08/03/18		7,638,000		7,480,008
Zero Coupon, 12/27/18		16,254,000		15,738,667
Zero Coupon, 06/06/19		26,414,000		25,375,824
Zero Coupon, 09/26/19		14,535,000		13,917,190

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-6

Metropolitan Series Fund

Western Asset Management U.S. Government Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

U.S. Treasury & Government Agencies—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Federal Agencies—(Continued)
National Archives Facility Trust 8.500%, 09/01/19 (e)		1,747,594	$	1,914,914
New Valley Generation II 5.572%, 05/01/20		6,078,275		6,488,558
Overseas Private Investment Corp. Zero Coupon, 11/17/17		4,700,000		5,025,268
Zero Coupon, 07/30/19		20,000,000		20,946,480
Zero Coupon, 11/13/19		5,000,000		5,240,655
2.310%, 11/15/30		8,386,629		7,879,548
3.330%, 05/15/33		6,592,985		6,546,874
3.490%, 12/20/29		12,039,369		12,281,758
Residual Funding Corp. Principal Strip Zero Coupon, 10/15/19		10,642,000		10,204,444
Zero Coupon, 07/15/20		10,000,000		9,366,210
Zero Coupon, 10/15/20		38,159,000		35,664,661
Zero Coupon, 01/15/21		20,000,000		18,388,080
Zero Coupon, 01/15/30		25,000,000		16,341,000
Zero Coupon, 04/15/30		8,000,000		5,180,960
Tennessee Valley Authority 1.750%, 10/15/18		20,000,000		20,171,640
3.875%, 02/15/21		35,000,000		37,660,560
4.500%, 04/01/18		20,000,000		20,837,180
5.500%, 07/18/17		23,306,000		23,908,553
				834,172,152
U.S. Treasury—21.5%
U.S. Treasury Inflation Indexed Bonds 0.625%, 02/15/43 (e)		10,303,328		9,433,243
0.750%, 02/15/45 (e)		4,721,854		4,442,986
1.375%, 02/15/44 (e)		28,936,764		31,579,009
U.S. Treasury Notes 0.625%, 05/31/17		5,000,000		5,000,390
1.000%, 11/30/18 (f)		13,000,000		12,958,361
1.250%, 12/15/18		22,000,000		22,024,068
1.375%, 10/31/20		58,560,000		57,841,703
1.500%, 02/28/23		34,960,000		33,624,423
1.500%, 03/31/23		22,000,000		21,138,898
1.625%, 04/30/19		12,000,000		12,093,744
1.625%, 06/30/20		49,000,000		49,022,981
1.875%, 10/31/17		30,000,000		30,250,770
2.000%, 11/30/22		77,000,000		76,479,634
2.000%, 02/15/25		99,000,000		96,354,819
2.125%, 06/30/22		8,000,000		8,028,128
				470,273,157
Total U.S. Treasury & Government Agencies (Cost $1,955,639,850)				1,934,684,709
Corporate Bonds & Notes—8.8%
Banks—0.2%
Stadshypotek AB 1.875%, 10/02/19 (144A)		5,000,000		4,974,305
Chemicals—0.1%
Equate Petrochemical B.V. 4.250%, 11/03/26 (144A)		1,540,000		1,469,591
Diversified Financial Services—8.1%
COP I LLC 3.650%, 12/05/21		6,802,827		7,082,035
National Credit Union Administration Guaranteed Notes Trust 3.000%, 06/12/19		19,650,000		20,318,886
3.450%, 06/12/21		45,000,000		47,934,000
Postal Square L.P. 6.500%, 06/15/22		6,589,800		7,315,759
Private Export Funding Corp. 1.375%, 02/15/17		25,000,000		25,023,500
2.250%, 12/15/17		40,000,000		40,449,560
2.300%, 09/15/20		28,000,000		28,553,756
				176,677,496
Multi-National—0.1%
Asian Development Bank 2.125%, 03/19/25		2,000,000		1,930,496
Oil & Gas—0.3%
Ecopetrol S.A. 5.375%, 06/26/26		4,260,000		4,238,700
Petroleos Mexicanos 6.375%, 01/23/45		3,610,000		3,285,100
				7,523,800
Total Corporate Bonds & Notes (Cost $178,755,986)				192,575,688
Foreign Government—8.1%
Sovereign—8.1%
Colombia Government International Bond 5.625%, 02/26/44		4,840,000		4,985,200
Indonesia Government International Bonds 3.750%, 04/25/22 (144A)		410,000		411,534
3.750%, 04/25/22		1,900,000		1,907,110
4.875%, 05/05/21		2,957,000		3,130,313
5.875%, 03/13/20		310,000		338,332
5.875%, 01/15/24 (144A)		1,060,000		1,169,502
Israel Government AID Bonds Zero Coupon, 11/15/18		20,869,000		20,384,777
5.500%, 12/04/23		24,290,000		28,896,210
5.500%, 04/26/24		20,950,000		25,113,791
Mexico Government International Bond 5.550%, 01/21/45		33,080,000		33,824,300
Peruvian Government International Bond 5.625%, 11/18/50 (f)		4,000,000		4,530,000
Poland Government International Bond 4.000%, 01/22/24		7,870,000		8,049,105

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-7

Metropolitan Series Fund

Western Asset Management U.S. Government Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Foreign Government—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Sovereign—(Continued)
Ukraine Government AID Bonds 1.471%, 09/29/21		20,000,000	$	19,524,880
1.844%, 05/16/19		25,000,000		24,936,900
Total Foreign Government (Cost $176,504,644)				177,201,954
Mortgage-Backed Securities—5.4%
Collateralized Mortgage Obligations—5.1%
Banc of America Funding Corp. 0.734%, 02/27/37 (144A) (c)		11,155,542		10,505,345
Banc of America Funding Trust 0.749%, 09/29/36 (144A) (c)		10,389,235		9,948,496
2.028%, 06/20/35 (c)		293,482		184,915
Banc of America Mortgage Trust 3.239%, 07/25/35 (c)		87,059		80,396
BCAP LLC Trust 0.742%, 11/27/36 (144A) (c)		16,347,258		15,390,218
Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust 2.930%, 10/25/35 (c)		176,469		176,923
Countrywide Alternative Loan Trust 0.939%, 07/20/46 (c)		2,719,408		1,405,322
1.336%, 05/25/34 (c)		1,623,532		1,609,095
Countrywide Home Loan Reperforming Loan REMIC Trust 1.176%, 07/25/36 (144A) (c)		713,416		644,066
Fannie Mae Connecticut Avenue Securities 2.206%, 01/25/29 (c)		10,327,361		10,393,068
Freddie Mac Structured Agency Credit Risk Debt Notes 2.406%, 04/25/24 (c)		6,197,115		6,247,947
2.956%, 02/25/24 (c)		5,000,000		5,115,128
2.956%, 09/25/24 (c)		8,000,000		8,167,630
GMAC Mortgage Corp. Loan Trust 3.435%, 11/19/35 (c)		640,552		571,548
GSMPS Mortgage Loan Trust 3.500%, 06/25/34 (144A) (c)		3,899,742		3,677,490
GSR Mortgage Loan Trust 3.126%, 04/25/35 (c)		627,291		614,241
HarborView Mortgage Loan Trust 0.936%, 09/19/46 (c)		320,097		229,924
JPMorgan Mortgage Trust 2.787%, 06/25/34 (c)		175,843		173,680
MASTR Adjustable Rate Mortgages Trust 0.956%, 05/25/47 (c)		5,739,085		4,407,697
2.509%, 02/25/34 (c)		185,030		175,427
3.841%, 12/25/34 (c)		16,765		16,060
MASTR Reperforming Loan Trust 1.106%, 05/25/35 (144A) (c)		309,932		239,583
3.569%, 05/25/35 (144A) (c)		3,998,893		3,211,897
4.502%, 05/25/36 (144A) (c)		3,128,077		2,802,103
7.000%, 08/25/34 (144A)		388,542		390,503
Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 0.826%, 06/25/36 (c)		650,991		274,553
2.992%, 07/25/35 (c)		253,120		222,818
Collateralized Mortgage Obligations—(Continued)
New Residential Mortgage Loan Trust 3.250%, 09/25/56 (144A) (c)		5,185,243		5,225,870
NovaStar Mortgage Funding Trust 0.782%, 09/25/46 (c)		2,044,718		1,664,630
Provident Funding Mortgage Loan Trust 2.897%, 05/25/35 (c)		475,826		474,137
3.037%, 10/25/35 (c)		85,070		83,136
RFMSI Trust 4.750%, 12/25/18		100,716		101,257
SACO I Trust 9.002%, 06/25/21 (144A) (c)		1,062,383		1,096,675
Structured Asset Mortgage Investments Trust 0.936%, 07/25/46 (c)		252,046		207,717
Structured Asset Securities Corp. 1.106%, 04/25/35 (144A) (c)		2,617,178		2,160,576
3.516%, 06/25/35 (144A) (c)		154,311		137,599
Structured Asset Securities Corp. Mortgage Loan Trust 1.556%, 09/25/33 (144A) (c)		31,767		31,444
Towd Point Mortgage Trust 2.250%, 08/25/55 (144A) (c)		10,803,866		10,716,967
WaMu Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Trust 1.016%, 11/25/45 (c)		26,069		24,318
1.026%, 12/25/45 (c)		1,809,641		1,698,769
1.046%, 12/25/45 (c)		142,494		132,778
1.076%, 08/25/45 (c)		163,359		156,867
				110,788,813
Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities—0.3%
FDIC Structured Sale Guaranteed Notes 2.980%, 12/06/20 (144A)		6,854,204		6,912,055
Total Mortgage-Backed Securities (Cost $118,950,760)				117,700,868
Asset-Backed Securities—1.9%
Asset-Backed - Credit Card—0.8%
Capital One Multi-Asset Execution Trust 1.820%, 09/15/22		17,500,000		17,455,989
Asset-Backed - Home Equity—0.1%
EMC Mortgage Loan Trust 1.034%, 12/25/42 (144A) (c)		43,959		42,252
Home Equity Mortgage Loan Asset-Backed Trust 1.016%, 06/25/36 (c)		3,967,858		769,865
Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 0.846%, 12/25/36 (c)		226,413		132,920
1.056%, 03/25/36 (c)		1,749,818		916,064
Option One Mortgage Loan Trust 1.336%, 06/25/33 (c)		126,036		117,434
Structured Asset Securities Corp. Mortgage Loan Trust 0.976%, 02/25/36 (144A) (c)		4,769,074		302,354
				2,280,889

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-8

Metropolitan Series Fund

Western Asset Management U.S. Government Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Asset-Backed Securities—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Asset-Backed - Other—0.1%
Countrywide Home Equity Loan Trust 0.854%, 11/15/36 (c)		43,429	$	33,179
0.994%, 02/15/34 (c)		95,724		88,684
Countrywide Revolving Home Equity Loan Trust 0.844%, 07/15/36 (c)		875,865		759,293
GSR Mortgage Loan Trust 1.124%, 11/25/30 (c)		1,010		71
SACO I Trust 1.016%, 06/25/36 (c)		631,989		1,115,991
1.056%, 04/25/36 (c)		246,395		435,695
				2,432,913
Asset-Backed - Student Loan—0.9%
National Credit Union Administration Guaranteed Notes Trust 0.999%, 12/07/20 (c)		4,664,637		4,654,421
Nelnet Student Loan Trust 2.575%, 11/25/24 (c)		5,765,877		5,808,078
SLC Student Loan Trust 1.083%, 06/15/29 (c)		5,500,000		5,393,825
SLM Student Loan Trust 2.532%, 07/25/22 (c)		4,797,883		4,825,694
				20,682,018
Total Asset-Backed Securities (Cost $47,625,087)				42,851,809
Short-Term Investments—0.4%
Repurchase Agreements—0.4%
Bank of America N.A. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/16 at 0.500% to be repurchased at $5,000,278 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $5,179,800 U.S. Tresaury Note at 3.000% due 05/15/45 with a value of $5,109,790		5,000,000		5,000,000
Fixed Income Clearing Corp. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/16 at 0.030% to be repurchased at $3,325,898 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $2,730,000 U.S. Treasury Bond at 8.500% due 02/15/20 with a value of $3,397,567.		3,325,887		3,325,887
Total Short-Term Investments (Cost $8,325,887)				8,325,887
Securities Lending Reinvestments (g)—0.7%
Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Repurchase Agreements—0.7%
Citigroup Global Markets Ltd. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/29/16 at 0.710% to be repurchased at $2,000,197 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $2,017,473 U.S. Treasury and Foreign Obligations with rates ranging from 1.750% - 2.750%, maturity dates ranging from 10/15/19 - 11/15/23, with a value of $2,040,000.		2,000,000		2,000,000
Deutsche Bank AG, London Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/16 at 0.950% to be repurchased at $1,000,106 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $1,020,900 Foreign Obligations with rates ranging from 1.750% - 2.500%, maturity dates ranging from 09/05/19 - 11/20/24, with a value of $1,020,006.		1,000,000		1,000,000
Repurchase Agreement dated 12/15/16 - 12/30/16 at 1.050% to be repurchased at $1,450,235 on 01/03/17, collateralized by various Common Stock with a value of $1,611,755.		1,450,000		1,450,000
Goldman Sachs & Co. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/16 at 0.460% to be repurchased at $929,585 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $4,783,581 U.S. Government Agency Obligations with rates ranging from 2.000% - 10.500%, maturity dates ranging from 03/15/17 - 09/20/65, with a value of $948,128.		929,537		929,537
Macquarie Bank, Ltd. Repurchase Agreement dated 12/27/16 at 0.580% to be repurchased at $1,600,180 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $1,582,968 U.S. Treasury Obligations with rates ranging from 0.000% - 8.750%, maturity dates ranging from 01/05/17 - 05/15/46, with a value of $1,632,827.		1,600,000		1,600,000
Repurchase Agreement dated 12/15/16 at 0.600% to be repurchased at $400,147 on 01/06/17, collateralized by $395,742 U.S. Treasury Obligations with rates ranging from 0.000% - 8.750%, maturity dates ranging from 01/05/17 - 05/15/46, with a value of $408,207.		400,000		400,000
Natixis Repurchase Agreement dated 12/28/16 at 0.750% to be repurchased at $3,000,500 on 01/05/17, collateralized by $4,815,208 U.S. Government Agency and Treasury Obligations with rates ranging from 0.000% - 4.672%, maturity dates ranging from 01/31/17 - 09/16/58, with a value of $3,060,376.		3,000,000		3,000,000

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-9

Metropolitan Series Fund

Western Asset Management U.S. Government Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Securities Lending Reinvestments (g)—(Continued)

Security Description	Principal Amount*		Value
Repurchase Agreements—(Continued)
Pershing LLC Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/16 at 0.680% to be repurchased at $3,000,227 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $4,402,093 U.S. Government Agency Obligations with rates ranging from 0.625% - 11.018%, maturity dates ranging from 01/17/17 - 08/20/66, with a value of $3,060,000.		3,000,000	$	3,000,000
Societe Generale New York Repurchase Agreement dated 12/30/16 at 0.500% to be repurchased at $2,000,111 on 01/03/17, collateralized by $1,855,877 U.S. Treasury Obligations with rates ranging from 0.000% - 3.500%, maturity dates ranging from 01/15/17 - 02/15/39, with a value of $2,040,000.		2,000,000		2,000,000
				15,379,537
Total Securities Lending Reinvestments (Cost $15,379,537)				15,379,537
Total Investments—113.5% (Cost $2,501,181,751) (h)				2,488,720,452
Other assets and liabilities (net)—(13.5)%				(296,100,651	)
Net Assets—100.0%			$	2,192,619,801

* Principal amount stated in U.S. dollars unless otherwise noted.

(a) TBA (To Be Announced) Securities are purchased on a forward commitment basis with an approximate principal amount and no defined maturity date. The actual principal and maturity date will be determined upon settlement date.

(b) Interest only security.

(c) Variable or floating rate security. The stated rate represents the rate at December 31, 2016. Maturity date shown for callable securities reflects the earliest possible call date.

(d) Principal only security.

(e) Principal amount of security is adjusted for inflation.

(f) All or a portion of the security was held on loan. As of December 31, 2016, the market value of securities loaned was $15,049,092 and the collateral received consisted of cash in the amount of $15,379,537. The cash collateral investments are disclosed in the Schedule of Investments and categorized as Securities Lending Reinvestments.

(g) Represents investment of cash collateral received from securities on loan as of December 31, 2016.

(h) As of December 31, 2016, the aggregate cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was $2,514,234,869. The aggregate unrealized appreciation and depreciation of investments were $21,817,774 and $(47,332,191), respectively, resulting in net unrealized depreciation of $(25,514,417) for federal income tax purposes.

(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, 2016, the market value of 144A securities was $81,460,425, which is 3.7% of net assets.

(ACES)— Alternative Credit Enhancement Securities

(CMO)— Collateralized Mortgage Obligation

(REMIC)— Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit

Futures Contracts

Futures Contracts—Long	Expiration Date		Number of Contracts			Notional Amount				Unrealized Appreciation/ (Depreciation)
U.S. Treasury Note 10 Year Futures		03/22/17		76			USD	9,423,810		$	21,565
Futures Contracts—Short
U.S. Treasury Long Bond Futures		03/22/17		(342	)		USD	(51,604,436	)		79,998
U.S. Treasury Note 5 Year Futures		03/31/17		(75	)		USD	(8,813,428	)		(11,376	)
Net Unrealized Appreciation										$	90,187

(USD)— United States Dollar

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-10

Metropolitan Series Fund

Western Asset Management U.S. Government Portfolio

Schedule of Investments as of December 31, 2016

Fair Value Hierarchy

Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) define 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, separately for each major category of assets and liabilities, 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, quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities 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, or other market corroborated inputs)

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 used in determining the fair value of investments and derivative financial instruments)

The inputs or methodologies used for valuing investments are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in them. Changes to the inputs or methodologies used may result in transfers between levels, which 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, 2016:

Description	Level 1			Level 2			Level 3		Total
Total U.S. Treasury & Government Agencies*	$	—		$	1,934,684,709		$	—	$	1,934,684,709
Total Corporate Bonds & Notes*		—			192,575,688			—		192,575,688
Total Foreign Government*		—			177,201,954			—		177,201,954
Total Mortgage-Backed Securities*		—			117,700,868			—		117,700,868
Total Asset-Backed Securities*		—			42,851,809			—		42,851,809
Total Short-Term Investments*		—			8,325,887			—		8,325,887
Total Securities Lending Reinvestments*		—			15,379,537			—		15,379,537
Total Investments	$	—		$	2,488,720,452		$	—	$	2,488,720,452
Collateral for Securities Loaned (Liability)	$	—		$	(15,379,537	)	$	—	$	(15,379,537	)
Futures Contracts
Futures Contracts (Unrealized Appreciation)	$	101,563		$	—		$	—	$	101,563
Futures Contracts (Unrealized Depreciation)		(11,376	)		—			—		(11,376	)
Total Futures Contracts	$	90,187		$	—		$	—	$	90,187

* See Schedule of Investments for additional detailed categorizations.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-11

Metropolitan Series Fund

Western Asset Management U.S. Government Portfolio

Statement of Assets and Liabilities

December 31, 2016

Assets
Investments at value (a) (b)	$	2,488,720,452
Cash		37
Cash collateral for futures contracts		1,548,922
Receivable for:
Investment sold		118,886
Fund shares sold		335,864
Principal paydowns		7,844
Interest		8,243,103
Prepaid expenses		6,406
Other assets		58,807
Total Assets		2,499,040,321
Liabilities
Collateral for securities loaned		15,379,537
Payables for:
TBA securities purchased		289,034,309
Fund shares redeemed		501,366
Variation margin on futures contracts		242,680
Accrued Expenses:
Management fees		851,025
Distribution and service fees		94,604
Deferred trustees’ fees		92,194
Other expenses		224,805
Total Liabilities		306,420,520
Net Assets	$	2,192,619,801
Net Assets Consist of:
Paid in surplus	$	2,247,182,586
Undistributed net investment income		56,833,708
Accumulated net realized loss		(99,084,188	)
Unrealized depreciation on investments and futures contracts		(12,312,305	)
Net Assets	$	2,192,619,801
Net Assets
Class A	$	1,735,349,817
Class B		432,077,735
Class E		25,192,249
Capital Shares Outstanding*
Class A		147,770,151
Class B		36,985,140
Class E		2,153,001
Net Asset Value, Offering Price and Redemption Price Per Share
Class A	$	11.74
Class B		11.68
Class E		11.70

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

(a) Identified cost of investments was $2,501,181,751.

(b) Includes securities loaned at value of $15,049,092.

Statement of Operations

Year Ended December 31, 2016

Investment Income
Interest	$	50,592,199
Securities lending income		114,223
Other income (a)		135,403
Total investment income		50,841,825
Expenses
Management fees		10,661,011
Administration fees		73,427
Custodian and accounting fees		151,606
Distribution and service fees—Class B		1,139,455
Distribution and service fees—Class E		40,169
Audit and tax services		67,573
Legal		33,060
Trustees’ fees and expenses		45,248
Shareholder reporting		118,464
Insurance		15,679
Miscellaneous		25,051
Total expenses		12,370,743
Less management fee waiver		(301,600	)
Net expenses		12,069,143
Net Investment Income		38,772,682
Net Realized and Unrealized Loss
Net realized gain (loss) on:
Investments		3,281,835
Futures contracts		(4,460,378	)
Net realized loss		(1,178,543	)
Net change in unrealized depreciation on:
Investments		(7,248,639	)
Futures contracts		(336,001	)
Net change in unrealized depreciation		(7,584,640	)
Net realized and unrealized loss		(8,763,183	)
Net Increase in Net Assets From Operations	$	30,009,499

(a) Other income represents a non-recurring refund for overbilling of prior years’ custodian out-of-pocket fees.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-12

Metropolitan Series Fund

Western Asset Management U.S. Government Portfolio

Statements of Changes in Net Assets

	Year Ended December 31, 2016			Year Ended December 31, 2015
Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets:
From Operations
Net investment income	$	38,772,682		$	35,511,900
Net realized gain (loss)		(1,178,543	)		6,997,475
Net change in unrealized depreciation		(7,584,640	)		(26,340,492	)
Increase in net assets from operations		30,009,499			16,168,883
From Distributions to Shareholders
Net investment income
Class A		(46,380,937	)		(45,365,989	)
Class B		(10,833,492	)		(9,804,626	)
Class E		(656,202	)		(650,862	)
Total distributions		(57,870,631	)		(55,821,477	)
Decrease in net assets from capital share transactions		(101,863,797	)		(427,989,904	)
Total decrease in net assets		(129,724,929	)		(467,642,498	)
Net Assets
Beginning of period		2,322,344,730			2,789,987,228
End of period	$	2,192,619,801		$	2,322,344,730
Undistributed net investment income
End of period	$	56,833,708		$	57,503,990

Other Information:

Capital Shares

Transactions in capital shares were as follows:

	Year Ended December 31, 2016						Year Ended December 31, 2015
	Shares			Value			Shares			Value
Class A
Sales		4,804,242		$	57,645,459			3,149,293		$	38,107,214
Reinvestments		3,897,558			46,380,937			3,815,474			45,365,989
Redemptions		(14,800,929	)		(177,409,481	)		(40,060,724	)		(485,560,140	)
Net decrease		(6,099,129	)	$	(73,383,085	)		(33,095,957	)	$	(402,086,937	)
Class B
Sales		3,655,002		$	43,654,247			3,433,251		$	41,066,433
Reinvestments		914,219			10,833,492			828,094			9,804,626
Redemptions		(6,744,711	)		(80,333,027	)		(6,046,743	)		(72,421,342	)
Net decrease		(2,175,490	)	$	(25,845,288	)		(1,785,398	)	$	(21,550,283	)
Class E
Sales		128,976		$	1,536,976			66,612		$	795,694
Reinvestments		55,329			656,202			54,925			650,862
Redemptions		(404,339	)		(4,828,602	)		(482,959	)		(5,799,240	)
Net decrease		(220,034	)	$	(2,635,424	)		(361,422	)	$	(4,352,684	)
Decrease derived from capital shares transactions				$	(101,863,797	)				$	(427,989,904	)

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-13

Metropolitan Series Fund

Western Asset Management U.S. Government Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class A
	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014			2013			2012
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	11.90		$	12.11		$	12.01		$	12.36		$	12.21
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (a)		0.21			0.17			0.16			0.13			0.13
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.05	)		(0.10	)		0.17			(0.22	)		0.28
Total from investment operations		0.16			0.07			0.33			(0.09	)		0.41
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.32	)		(0.28	)		(0.23	)		(0.26	)		(0.26	)
Total distributions		(0.32	)		(0.28	)		(0.23	)		(0.26	)		(0.26	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	11.74		$	11.90		$	12.11		$	12.01		$	12.36
Total Return (%) (b)		1.28			0.57			2.81			(0.74	)		3.37
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Gross ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.50			0.49			0.49			0.49			0.50
Net ratio of expenses to average net assets (%) (c)		0.48			0.48			0.48			0.48			0.48
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		1.77			1.44			1.35			1.05			1.03
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		199	(d)		215	(d)		194	(d)		317	(d)		340	(d)
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	1,735.3		$	1,830.7		$	2,263.8		$	2,094.9		$	2,017.9
	Class B
	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014			2013			2012
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	11.84		$	12.04		$	11.95		$	12.29		$	12.15
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (a)		0.18			0.14			0.13			0.10			0.10
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.05	)		(0.09	)		0.16			(0.21	)		0.27
Total from investment operations		0.13			0.05			0.29			(0.11	)		0.37
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.29	)		(0.25	)		(0.20	)		(0.23	)		(0.23	)
Total distributions		(0.29	)		(0.25	)		(0.20	)		(0.23	)		(0.23	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	11.68		$	11.84		$	12.04		$	11.95		$	12.29
Total Return (%) (b)		1.02			0.31			2.55			(0.91	)		3.05
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Gross ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.75			0.74			0.74			0.74			0.75
Net ratio of expenses to average net assets (%) (c)		0.73			0.73			0.73			0.73			0.73
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		1.52			1.20			1.10			0.80			0.78
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		199	(d)		215	(d)		194	(d)		317	(d)		340	(d)
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	432.1		$	463.5		$	493.2		$	524.9		$	565.2

Please see following page for Financial Highlights footnote legend.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-14

Metropolitan Series Fund

Western Asset Management U.S. Government Portfolio

Financial Highlights

Selected per share data
	Class E
	Year Ended December 31,
	2016			2015			2014			2013			2012
Net Asset Value, Beginning of Period	$	11.85		$	12.06		$	11.97		$	12.31		$	12.16
Income (Loss) from Investment Operations
Net investment income (a)		0.19			0.16			0.14			0.11			0.11
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments		(0.04	)		(0.11	)		0.16			(0.21	)		0.28
Total from investment operations		0.15			0.05			0.30			(0.10	)		0.39
Less Distributions
Distributions from net investment income		(0.30	)		(0.26	)		(0.21	)		(0.24	)		(0.24	)
Total distributions		(0.30	)		(0.26	)		(0.21	)		(0.24	)		(0.24	)
Net Asset Value, End of Period	$	11.70		$	11.85		$	12.06		$	11.97		$	12.31
Total Return (%) (b)		1.20			0.40			2.56			(0.75	)		3.15
Ratios/Supplemental Data
Gross ratio of expenses to average net assets (%)		0.65			0.64			0.64			0.64			0.65
Net ratio of expenses to average net assets (%) (c)		0.63			0.63			0.63			0.63			0.63
Ratio of net investment income to average net assets (%)		1.62			1.30			1.20			0.90			0.88
Portfolio turnover rate (%)		199	(d)		215	(d)		194	(d)		317	(d)		340	(d)
Net assets, end of period (in millions)	$	25.2		$	28.1		$	33.0		$	37.9		$	43.8

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

(b) Total return does not reflect any insurance, sales, separate account or administrative charges of variable annuity or life insurance contracts or any additional expenses that contract owners may bear under their variable contracts. If these charges were included, the returns would be lower.

(c) Includes the effects of management fee waivers (see Note 6 of the Notes to Financial Statements).

(d) Includes mortgage dollar roll and TBA transactions; excluding these transactions the portfolio turnover rates would have been 86%, 87%, 68%, 137% and 164% for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013 and 2012, respectively.

See accompanying notes to financial statements.

MSF-15

Metropolitan Series Fund

Western Asset Management U.S. Government Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016

1. Organization

Metropolitan Series Fund (the “Trust”) is organized as a Delaware statutory trust and registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), as an open-end management investment company. The Trust, which is managed by MetLife Advisers, LLC (“MetLife Advisers” or the “Adviser”), an affiliate of MetLife, Inc., is currently comprised of thirty series, each of which operates as a distinct investment vehicle of the Trust. The portfolio included in this report is Western Asset Management U.S. Government 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.

On January 12, 2016, MetLife, Inc. announced its plan to pursue the separation of a substantial portion of its retail segment and is currently evaluating structural alternatives for such separation. It is anticipated that MetLife Advisers would be included in any such separation. Any separation transaction that might occur will be subject to the satisfaction of various conditions and approvals, including approval of any transaction by the MetLife, Inc. Board of Directors, satisfaction of any applicable requirements of the SEC, and receipt of insurance and other regulatory approvals and other anticipated conditions. MetLife, Inc. cannot currently provide a specific potential completion date for a separation transaction or any assurance that a separation will in fact occur. MetLife Advisers’ continued service as investment adviser to the Trusts following a separation transaction is the subject of a proxy statement that was filed with the SEC on December 20, 2016 and mailed to shareholders of the Portfolio on or about December 30, 2016.

The Portfolio has registered and offers three classes of shares: Class A, B and E shares. 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 plan and such distribution expenses are allocated to the corresponding Class of shares.

2. Significant Accounting Policies

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities as of the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of income and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates. In the preparation of these financial statements, management has evaluated events and transactions subsequent to December 31, 2016 through the date the financial statements were issued.

The Portfolio is an investment company and follows the accounting and reporting guidance of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Accounting Standards Codification Topic 946—Financial Services—Investment Companies and Topic 820—Fair Value Measurement. 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, including corporate, convertible and municipal bonds and notes; obligations of the U.S. Treasury and U.S. government agencies; foreign sovereign issues; 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 the Adviser (each a “pricing service”), pursuant to authorization of and subject to general oversight by the Board of Trustees of the Trust (the “Board” or “Trustees”). Such pricing services may use matrix pricing, which considers observable inputs including, among other things, issuer details, maturity dates, interest rates, yield curves, rates of prepayment, credit risks/spreads, default rates, reported trades, broker dealer quotes and quoted prices for similar assets. Short-term obligations with a remaining maturity of sixty days or less may be valued at amortized cost in the absence of market quotes, so long as the amortized cost value of such short-term debt instrument is approximately the same as the fair value of the instrument as determined without the use of amortized cost valuation. Floating rate loans are generally valued on the basis of an evaluated or composite average of aggregate bid and ask quotations supplied by brokers or dealers, as obtained from the pricing service. 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 generally valued on the basis of evaluated or composite bid quotations obtained from pricing services selected by the Adviser pursuant to authorization of and subject to general oversight by the Board. These securities are usually issued as separate tranches, or classes, of securities within each deal. The pricing models for these securities usually consider tranche-level attributes, current market data, estimated cash flows and market-based yield spreads for each tranche 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.

MSF-16

Metropolitan Series Fund

Western Asset Management U.S. Government Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

Domestic and foreign equity securities, such as common stock, exchange-traded funds, rights, warrants, and preferred stock, that are traded on a securities exchange on a valuation date are generally valued at their last quoted sale price or official closing price on the primary exchange for such security, or, if no sales occurred on that day, at the last reported bid price. Equity securities traded over-the-counter (“OTC”) are generally valued at the last reported bid price. In the event of a major exchange closing during the trading day, the Adviser may use other market information obtained from quotation reporting systems, established market makers, or pricing services in valuing the securities. Valuation adjustments may be applied to certain foreign equity securities that are traded solely on foreign exchanges that close before the time as of which the Portfolio determines its NAV to account for the market movement between the close of the foreign exchanges and the time as of which the Portfolio determines its NAV. The Portfolio may use a systematic fair valuation model provided by a pricing service to value securities principally traded in these foreign markets in order to adjust for possible market movements or other changes that may occur between the close of the foreign exchanges and the time as of which the Portfolio determines its NAV. Foreign equity securities valued using these valuation adjustments are generally categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy. Equity securities that are actively traded, and have no valuation adjustments applied, are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy. Other equity securities traded on inactive markets, or valued in reference to similar instruments traded on active markets, 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 on the valuation date and are categorized as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy.

Futures contracts that 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.

If no current market value quotation or other observable inputs are readily available or market value quotations are deemed to be unreliable for an investment, the fair value of the investment will be determined in accordance with procedures approved by, and under the general supervision of, the Board. In such a circumstance, the Board will be assisted in its responsibility to determine the fair value of an investment by the Valuation Committee (“Committee”) of MetLife Advisers. The Committee provides general pricing oversight and fair value pricing determinations related to portfolio securities and meets on a regular basis to review reports relating to the valuation of the securities in the Portfolio. The Board has delegated to State Street Bank and Trust Company, the Trust’s custodian (“custodian”), the responsibility for calculating the net asset values (“NAVs”) of the Trust’s Portfolios. The Committee is responsible for overseeing the calculation of the NAVs of the Portfolios by the custodian. The Committee also periodically reviews pricing services, including the pricing services providing fair value pricing for the Portfolio’s foreign securities, and is responsible for overseeing the correction of pricing errors and addressing other pricing issues that arise in the ordinary course of business, such as making real-time fair value determinations, as necessary.

No single standard for determining the fair value of an investment can be set forth because fair value depends upon the facts and circumstances with respect to each investment. Information relating to any relevant factors may be obtained by the Committee from any appropriate source, including the subadviser of the Portfolio, the custodian, a pricing service, market maker and/or broker for such security or the issuer. Appropriate methodologies for determining fair value under particular circumstances may include: matrix pricing, a discounted cash flow analysis, comparisons of securities with comparable characteristics, value based on multiples of earnings, discount from market price of similar marketable securities or a combination of these and other methods.

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 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. These foreign taxes have been provided for in accordance with the Portfolio’s understanding of the applicable countries’ tax rules and rates.

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 the U.S. dollar 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. Because the values of investment securities are translated at the foreign exchange rates prevailing at the end of the period, that portion of the results of operations arising from changes in exchange rates and that portion of the results of operations reflecting fluctuations arising from changes in market prices of the investment securities are not separated. 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. 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.

MSF-17

Metropolitan Series Fund

Western Asset Management U.S. Government Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

Dividends and Distributions to Shareholders - The Portfolio records dividends and distributions on the ex-dividend date. Net realized gains from securities 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 amortization of debt securities, TIPS adjustments and paydown reclasses. These adjustments have no impact on net assets or the results 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 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. As of December 31, 2016, the Portfolio had no uncertain tax positions that would require financial statement recognition, or de-recognition or disclosure.

Mortgage Dollar Rolls - The Portfolio may enter into mortgage “dollar rolls” in which a Portfolio sells to-be-announced (“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. For the duration of the transaction, or 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.

Mortgage dollar roll transactions involve the risk that the market value of the securities that the Portfolio is required to reacquire may be less than the agreed-upon repurchase price of those securities and that the investment performance of securities purchased with proceeds from these transactions does not exceed the income, capital appreciation and gain or loss that would have been realized on the securities transferred or sold, as applicable, as part of the treasury or mortgage dollar roll.

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 mortgage obligations (“CMOs”), commercial mortgage-backed securities, 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). 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 netted against payments received for the IOs and the net amount is 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.

TBA Purchase & Forward 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. TBA forward sale commitments are valued at the current market value of the underlying securities, according to the procedures described under “Investment Valuation and Fair Value Measurements”.

When-Issued and Delayed-Delivery Securities - The Portfolio may purchase securities on a when-issued or delayed-delivery basis. Settlement of such transactions normally occurs within a month or more after the purchase 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.

MSF-18

Metropolitan Series Fund

Western Asset Management U.S. Government Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

Upon making a commitment to purchase a security on a when-issued or delayed-delivery basis, the Portfolio will hold liquid assets in a segregated account with the Portfolio’s custodian, or set aside liquid assets in the Portfolio’s records, 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.

Repurchase Agreements - The Portfolio may enter into repurchase agreements, under the terms of a Master Repurchase Agreement (“MRA”), 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, under a tri-party repurchase agreement, receives delivery of the underlying securities collateralizing any repurchase agreements. It is the Portfolio’s policy that the market value of the collateral be equal to at least 100% of the repurchase price in the case of a repurchase agreement of one-day duration and equal to at least 102% of the repurchase price in the case of all other repurchase agreements. In the event of default or failure by a party to perform an obligation in connection with any repurchase transaction, the MRA gives the non-defaulting party the right to set-off claims and to apply property held by it in connection with any repurchase transaction against obligations owed to it.

At December 31, 2016, the Portfolio had direct investments in repurchase agreements with a gross value of $8,325,887. Additionally, the Portfolio invested cash collateral for loans of portfolio securities in repurchase agreements with a gross value of $ 15,379,537. The combined value of all repurchase agreements is included as part of investments at value on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. The value of the related collateral exceeded the value of the repurchase agreements at December 31, 2016.

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 collateral held from securities on loan. 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.

Effective September 8, 2016, the Trust has entered into a Non-Custodial Securities Lending Agreement with JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (the “lending agent”). Prior to September 8, 2016, the Trust had entered into a Securities Lending Authorization Agreement with the custodian (the “prior lending agent”). Under each agreement, the lending agent is authorized to loan portfolio securities on the Portfolio’s behalf. In exchange, the Portfolio receives either cash or government securities as collateral against the loaned securities. The Portfolio receives collateral equal to at least 102% of the market value for loans secured by government securities or cash in the same currency as the loaned shares and 105% for all other loaned securities at each loan’s inception. Collateral representing at least 100% of the market value of the loaned securities is maintained for the duration of the loan. Any cash collateral received by the Portfolio is generally invested by the lending agent in short-term investments, which may include certificates of deposit, commercial paper, repurchase agreements, time deposits and money market funds. Cash collateral that was received by the prior lending agent had been generally invested in the State Street Navigator Securities Lending MET Portfolio (the “Navigator Portfolio”), a series of the State Street Navigator Securities Lending Trust that was a registered money market fund managed by an affiliate of the custodian. The market value of investments made with cash collateral received are disclosed in the Schedule of Investments and the valuation techniques are described in Note 2. 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 is 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 is equal to at least 100% of the market value of all the loaned securities as of such preceding day. A portion of the income earned on the collateral is rebated to the borrower of the securities and the remainder is split between the lending agent and the Portfolio. On loans collateralized by government securities, a fee is received from the borrower and is allocated between the Portfolio and the lending agent.

Income received by the Portfolio in securities lending transactions during the year ended December 31, 2016 is reflected as securities lending income on the Statement of Operations. The values of any securities loaned by the Portfolio and the related collateral at December 31, 2016 are disclosed in the footnotes to the Schedule of Investments. The value of the related collateral received by the Portfolio exceeded the value of the securities out on loan at December 31, 2016.

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. The lending agent shall indemnify the Portfolio in the case of default of any securities borrower, subject to the terms of the Non-Custodial Securities Lending Agreement.

MSF-19

Metropolitan Series Fund

Western Asset Management U.S. Government Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

The following table provides a breakdown of transactions accounted for as secured borrowings, the gross obligations by the type of collateral pledged, and the remaining contractual maturities of those transactions, which are accounted for as secured borrowings.

	Remaining Contractual Maturity of the Agreements As of December 31, 2016
	Overnight and Continuous			Up to 30 Days		31 - 90 Days		Greater than 90 days		Total
Securities Lending Transactions
Foreign Government	$	(2,137,652	)	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	(2,137,652	)
U.S. Treasury & Government Agencies		(13,241,885	)		—		—		—		(13,241,885	)
Total	$	(15,379,537	)	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	(15,379,537	)
Total Borrowings	$	(15,379,537	)	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	(15,379,537	)
Gross amount of recognized liabilities for securities lending transactions										$	(15,379,537	)

3. Investments in Derivative Instruments

Futures Contracts - The Portfolio may buy and sell futures contracts 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 cash collateral 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 whether unrealized gains or losses are incurred. These amounts are reflected as receivables or payables on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities and as a component of net change in unrealized appreciation/depreciation on the Statement of Operations. When the contract is closed or expires, the Portfolio records 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. 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. If futures contracts are exchange-traded, the exchange’s clearinghouse, as counterparty to all exchange-traded futures, guarantees the futures contracts against default. For OTC futures, the Portfolio’s ability to terminate the positions may be more limited than in the case of exchange-traded positions and may also involve the risk that securities dealers participating in such transactions would fail to meet their obligations to the Portfolio.

The following table summarizes the fair value of derivatives held by the Portfolio at December 31, 2016 by category of risk exposure:

	Asset Derivatives			Liability Derivatives
Risk Exposure	Statement of Assets & Liabilities Location	Fair Value		Statement of Assets & Liabilities Location	Fair Value
Interest Rate	Unrealized appreciation on futures contracts (a)	$	101,563	Unrealized depreciation on futures contracts (a)	$	11,376

(a) Includes cumulative appreciation/depreciation of futures contracts as reported in the Schedule of Investments. Only the current day’s variation margin is reported within the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

The following tables summarize the effect of derivative instruments on the Statement of Operations, classified by derivative type and category of risk exposure, for the year ended December 31, 2016:

Statement of Operations Location—Net Realized Gain (Loss)	Interest Rate
Futures contracts	$	(4,460,378	)
Statement of Operations Location—Net Change in Unrealized Appreciation (Depreciation)	Interest Rate
Futures contracts	$	(336,001	)

MSF-20

Metropolitan Series Fund

Western Asset Management U.S. Government Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

For the year ended December 31, 2016, the average notional par or face amount outstanding for each derivative type was as follows:

Derivative Description	Average Notional Par or Face Amount‡
Futures contracts long	$	17,475,000
Futures contracts short		(192,762,500	)

‡ Averages are based on activity levels during the year.

4. Certain Risks

In the normal course of business, the Portfolio invests in securities and enters into transactions where risks exist. Those risks include:

Market 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, interest rate, and price fluctuations.

Credit and Counterparty Risk: 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 and counterparty risk consist principally of cash due from counterparties and investments. The Portfolio manages counterparty risk by entering into agreements only with counterparties that it believes have the financial resources to honor their obligations and by monitoring the financial stability of those counterparties. The Portfolio’s investment adviser attempts to mitigate counterparty risk by (i) periodically assessing the creditworthiness of its trading partners, (ii) monitoring and/or limiting the amount of its net exposure to each individual counterparty based on its assessment, and (iii) requiring collateral from the counterparty for certain transactions. In order to preserve certain safeguards for non-standard settlement trades, the Portfolio restricts its exposure to credit and counterparty losses by entering into master netting agreements (“Master Agreements”) with counterparties (approved brokers) with whom it undertakes a significant volume of transactions. Master Agreements govern the terms of certain transactions, and reduce the counterparty risk associated with relevant transactions by specifying credit protection mechanisms and providing standardization that improves legal certainty. Master Agreements can also help limit counterparty risk by specifying collateral posting arrangements at pre-arranged exposure levels.

Foreign Investment Risk: The investments by the Portfolio in foreign securities may involve risks not present in domestic investments. Because securities may be denominated in foreign currencies, may require settlement in foreign currencies and may pay interest or dividends in foreign currencies, changes in the relationship of these foreign currencies to the U.S. dollar can significantly affect the value of the investments and earnings of the Portfolio. Foreign investments may also subject the Portfolio to foreign government exchange restrictions, expropriation, taxation or other political, social or economic developments, all of which could affect the market and/or credit risk of the investments. In addition to the risks described above, risks may arise from forward foreign currency contracts with respect to the potential inability of counterparties to meet the terms of their contracts.

Repurchase and reverse repurchase agreements are primarily executed under Global Master Repurchase Agreements (“GMRAs”) or Master Repurchase Agreements (“MRAs”), which provide the rights to set-off. Each repurchase and reverse repurchase agreement is initially collateralized at the transaction level. In the event of default, the total market value exposure will be offset against collateral exchanged to date, which would result in a net receivable/(payable) that would be due from/to the counterparty.

Master Securities Forward Transaction Agreements (“MSFTA”) govern the considerations and factors surrounding the settlement of certain forward settling transactions, such as TBA securities and delayed-delivery or secured borrowings transactions by and between the Portfolio and select counterparties. The MSFTA maintain provisions for, among other things, initiation and confirmation, payment and transfer, events of default, termination, and maintenance of collateral.

Customer Account Agreements and related addenda govern cleared derivatives transactions such as futures, options on futures, and cleared OTC derivatives. Cleared derivative transactions require posting of initial margin as determined by each relevant clearing agency, which is segregated at a broker account registered with the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”), or the applicable regulator. In the U.S., counterparty risk is significantly reduced as creditors of the futures broker do not have claim to Portfolio assets in the segregated account. Additionally, portability of exposure in the event of default further reduces risk to the Portfolio. Variation margin, or changes in market value, are exchanged daily, but may not be netted between futures and cleared OTC derivatives.

Additional risks associated with each type of investment are described above within the respective security type notes. The Portfolio’s prospectus includes a discussion of the principal risks of investing in the Portfolio.

MSF-21

Metropolitan Series Fund

Western Asset Management U.S. Government Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

5. Investment Transactions

Aggregate cost of purchases and proceeds of sales of investment securities, including mortgage dollar roll and TBA transactions but excluding short-term securities, for the year ended December 31, 2016 were as follows:

Purchases			Sales
U.S. Government	Non U.S. Government		U.S. Government		Non U.S. Government
$4,742,699,913	$	98,953,117	$	4,776,423,012	$	165,437,382

Purchases and sales of mortgage dollar rolls and TBA transactions for the year ended December 31, 2016 were as follows:

Purchases	Sales
$2,922,251,307	$	2,819,418,359

6. Investment Management Fees and Other Transactions with Affiliates

Investment Management Agreement - MetLife Advisers is the investment adviser to the Portfolio. The Trust has entered into an investment management agreement with MetLife Advisers with respect to the Portfolio. For providing investment management services to the Portfolio, MetLife Advisers receives monthly compensation at the following annual rates:

Management Fees earned by MetLife Advisers for the year ended December 31, 2016	% per annum			Average Daily Net Assets
$10,661,011		0.550	%	Of the first $500 million
		0.450	%	On amounts in excess of $500 million

MetLife Advisers has entered into an investment subadvisory agreement with respect to managing the Portfolio. Western Asset Management Company is compensated by MetLife Advisers to provide subadvisory services for the Portfolio.

Management Fee Waiver - Pursuant to a management fee waiver agreement, MetLife Advisers has agreed, for the period May 1, 2016 to April 30, 2017, to reduce its advisory fees set out above under “Investment Management Agreement” for each class of the Portfolio as follows:

% per annum			Average Daily Net Assets
	0.050	%	On amounts over $200 million and under $500 million
	0.010	%	On amounts over $1 billion and under $2 billion
	0.020	%	On amounts in excess of $2 billion

An identical agreement was in place for the period May 1, 2015 to April 30, 2016. Amounts waived for the year ended December 31, 2016 are shown as a management fee waiver in the Statement of Operations.

Certain officers and trustees of the Trust may also be officers of MetLife Advisers; 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 and Service Fees - The Trust has a distribution agreement with MetLife Investors Distribution Company (“MIDC” or the “Distributor”) in which MIDC serves as the distributor for the Portfolio’s Class A, B and E Shares. MIDC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife Investors Group, LLC, an affiliate of the Adviser. The Trust has also adopted a Distribution and Service Plan under Rule 12b-1 of the 1940 Act for the Portfolio’s Class B and E Shares. Under the Distribution and Service Plan, the Class B and E Shares of the Portfolio pay a fee to compensate the Insurance Companies (or their affiliates) and other broker-dealers and financial intermediaries involved in the offer and sale of Portfolio shares for promoting or selling and servicing the Class B and E Shares. The fees under the Distribution and Service Plan for each class of the Portfolio’s shares are calculated as a percentage of the Portfolio’s average daily net assets that are attributable to that Class. Currently, the fee is 0.25% per year for Class B Shares and 0.15% per year for Class E Shares. Amounts incurred by the Portfolio for the year ended December 31, 2016 are shown as Distribution and service fees in the Statement of Operations.

Deferred Trustee Compensation - Each Trustee 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 Trust. 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

MSF-22

Metropolitan Series Fund

Western Asset Management U.S. Government Portfolio

Notes to Financial Statements—December 31, 2016—(Continued)

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 Met Investors Series Trust, an affiliate of the Trust, 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 under the Plan is reflected as Deferred trustees’ fees in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

7. Contractual Obligations

Under the Trust’s organizational documents, its officers and Trustees may be indemnified against certain liabilities and expenses arising out of the performance of their duties to the Trust. Additionally, 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 Trust that have not yet occurred.

8. Income Tax Information

The tax character of distributions paid for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015 were as follows:

Ordinary Income			Long-Term Capital Gain				Total
2016	2015		2016		2015		2016		2015
$57,870,631	$	55,821,477	$	—	$	—	$	57,870,631	$	55,821,477

As of December 31, 2016, 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			Other Accumulated Capital Losses			Total
$56,925,902	$	—	$	(25,455,610	)	$	(85,940,884	)	$	(54,470,592	)

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 up to 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, 2016, the Portfolio had post-enactment short-term accumulated capital losses in the amount of $525,218 and post-enactment long-term accumulated capital losses in the amount of $85,415,666, and no pre-enactment accumulated capital loss carryforwards.

9. Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In October 2016, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) adopted new rules and forms, and amendments to certain current rules and forms, to modernize reporting and disclosure of information by registered investment companies. The amendments to Regulation S-X will require standardized, enhanced disclosure about derivatives in investment company financial statements, and will also change the rules governing the form and content of such financial statements. The compliance date for the amendments to Regulation S-X is August 1, 2017. Management is currently evaluating the impact that the adoption of the amendments to Regulation S-X will have on the Portfolio’s financial statements and related disclosures.

MSF-23

Metropolitan Series Fund

Western Asset Management U.S. Government Portfolio

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Shareholders of Western Asset Management U.S. Government Portfolio and the Board of Trustees of Metropolitan Series Fund:

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities, including the schedule of investments, of Western Asset Management U.S. Government Portfolio (one of the portfolios constituting the Metropolitan Series Fund) (the “Portfolio”) as of December 31, 2016, 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 Portfolio’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 Portfolio 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 Portfolio’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, 2016, by correspondence with the custodian and brokers; when 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 Western Asset Management U.S. Government Portfolio of the Metropolitan Series Fund as of December 31, 2016, 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.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

February 24, 2017

MSF-24

Metropolitan Series Fund

Trustees and Officers

MANAGEMENT OF THE TRUSTS

The Boards of Trustees (the “Board”) of Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (“MIST” and “MSF”, respectively, and collectively the “Trusts”) supervise the Trusts and are responsible for representing the interests of shareholders. The Trustees, the Chairman of the Board and the Chairmen of each subcommittee are the same for both Trusts. The Trustees of each Trust meet periodically throughout the year to oversee the Portfolios’ activities, reviewing, among other things, each Portfolio’s performance and its contractual arrangements with various service providers. The Trustees of each Trust elect the officers of the Trust, who are responsible for administering the Trust’s day-to-day operations.

Trustees and Officers

The Trustees and executive officers of the Trusts, as well as their ages and their principal occupations during the past five years, are set forth below. Unless otherwise indicated, the business address of each is c/o MetLife Funds, One Financial Center, Boston, Massachusetts 02111. Each Trustee who is deemed an “interested person,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, is referred to as an “Interested Trustee.” Those Trustees who are not “interested persons,” as such term is defined in the 1940 Act, are referred to as “Independent Trustees.” There is no limit to the term a Trustee may serve. Trustees serve until their death, resignation or removal in accordance with the MIST Trust’s and MSF Trust’s respective organizational documents and policies adopted by the Boards of the respective Trusts from time to time. Officers hold office at the pleasure of each Board and serve until their removal or resignation in accordance with the Trusts’ respective organizational documents and policies adopted by the Board of each Trust from time to time.

Name and Age	Current 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 MetLife Funds Complex(2) Overseen by Trustee	Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Interested Trustee
John Rosenthal* (56)	Trustee	Indefinite; From May 2016 (MIST and MSF) to present	Senior Managing Director and Head of Global Portfolio Management, MetLife, Inc.	75	None
Independent Trustees
Dawn M. Vroegop (50)	Trustee and Chairman of the Board	Indefinite; From December 2000 (MIST)/ May 2009 (MSF) to present as Trustee; From May 2016 (MIST and MSF) until present as Chairman	Private Investor.	75	Trustee, Driehaus Mutual Funds.**
Stephen M. Alderman (57)	Trustee	Indefinite; From December 2000 (MIST)/ April 2012 (MSF) to present	Shareholder in the law firm of Garfield and Merel, Ltd.	75	None

MSF-25

Metropolitan Series Fund

Trustees and Officers—(Continued)

Name and Age	Current 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 MetLife Funds Complex(2) Overseen by Trustee	Other Directorships Held by Trustee During the Past 5 Years(1)
Robert J. Boulware (60)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 (MIST)/ April 2012 (MSF) to present	Managing Director, Pilgrim Funds, LLC (private equity fund).	75	Trustee, Vertical Capital Income Fund (closed-end fund);** Director, Gainsco, Inc. (auto insurance);** Trustee, SharesPost 100 Fund (closed-end fund).**
Susan C. Gause (64)	Trustee	Indefinite; From March 2008 (MIST)/ April 2012 (MSF) to present	Private Investor.	75	Trustee, HSBC Funds.**
Nancy Hawthorne (65)	Trustee	Indefinite; From May 2003 (MSF)/ April 2012 (MIST) to present	Partner, Hawthorne Financial Advisors, LLC (registered investment advisor); until June 2014, Chief Executive Officer, Clerestory LLC (corporate advisor).	75	Director and Chairman of the Board of Directors, THL Credit, Inc.;** Lead Director, Avid Technology, Inc.;** Director, CRA International, Inc.**
Barbara A. Nugent (60)	Trustee	Indefinite; From January 2014 (MIST and MSF) to present	President, True North Board Governance, LLC (consulting); until December 2013, partner in the law firm of Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young, LLP.	75	None
Linda B. Strumpf (69)	Trustee	Indefinite; From May 2000 (MSF)/ April 2012 (MIST) to present	Chair of the Investment Committee, Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust; until June 2011, Chief Investment Officer, Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust.	75	None

Executive Officers

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Kristi Slavin (43)	President and Chief Executive Officer, of MIST and MSF	From May 2016 (MIST and MSF) to present	President, MetLife Advisers, LLC (May 2016-present); Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Vice President, MetLife, Inc.; Vice President, MIST and MSF (2015-2016).

MSF-26

Metropolitan Series Fund

Trustees and Officers—(Continued)

Name and Age	Position(s) Held with Registrant	Length of Time Served	Principal Occupation(s) During the Past 5 Years(1)
Peter H. Duffy (61)	Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, of MIST and MSF	From November 2000 (MSF)/ May 2012 (MIST) to present	Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Vice President, MetLife, Inc.
Andrew L. Gangolf (62)	Secretary, of MIST and MSF	From May 2011 (MIST and MSF) to present	Senior Vice President, MetLife Advisers, LLC; until 2011, Senior Vice President & Assistant General Counsel, AllianceBernstein Investments, Inc.
Steven E. Hartstein (53)	Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”), of MIST and MSF	From February 2014 (MIST and MSF) to present	Vice President, MetLife, Inc. (2013- present); Senior Vice President and CCO, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Executive Director, Morgan Stanley (2009-2013); CCO, Consulting Group Capital Markets Funds (2006-2013).
Alan C. Leland (64)	Vice President, of MIST and MSF	From February 2005 (MSF)/ May 2012 (MIST) to present	Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer, MetLife Advisers, LLC; Vice President, MetLife, Inc.

* Mr. Rosenthal is an “interested person” of the Trusts because of his position with MetLife, Inc., the current parent company of MetLife Advisers, LLC.

** 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 Trusts, MetLife, Inc. or the Manager are omitted if not materially different.

(2) The Fund Complex includes 45 MIST Portfolios and 30 MSF Portfolios.

MSF-27

Metropolitan Series Fund

Western Asset Management U.S. Government Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements

At an in-person meeting held on November 15-16, 2016 (the “November Meeting”), the Boards of Trustees (the “Board”) of the Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (“MIST” and “MSF,” respectively, and collectively, the “Trusts”), including a majority of the Trustees who are not “interested persons” of the Trusts (the “Independent Trustees”) under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “1940 Act”), approved the continuation of the Trusts’ advisory agreements (each, an “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 the series of the Trusts (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”).

In reaching that decision, the Board reviewed a variety of materials provided for the specific purpose of the annual contract renewal process. In addition, various materials provided to and discussed with the Board throughout the year also informed the Board’s decision to renew the Agreements. That information for each Portfolio included, but was not limited to, investment performance reports, along with periodic reports on various expenses, shareholder services, legal and compliance matters, asset pricing, brokerage commissions and trade execution. The Board also recognized the pending separation of the Adviser from its parent company, MetLife, Inc., as a consideration in their deliberations with respect to the Agreements.

The Board met in person with personnel of the Adviser on September 27, 2016 for the specific purpose of giving preliminary consideration to the proposed continuation of the Agreements (the “September Meeting”) through the review by the Adviser with the Board of the performance and fees experienced by each Portfolio, as well as other information. In considering the Agreements, the Independent Trustees were advised by independent legal counsel throughout the contract renewal process, and met with independent legal counsel in several executive sessions outside of the presence of management.

Information furnished and reviewed specifically in connection with the renewal process included, but was not limited to, a report for each Portfolio prepared by Broadridge (“Broadridge”), an independent organization, and a Portfolio-by-Portfolio profitability analysis prepared by the Adviser. In addition, the Independent Trustees received and reviewed a report prepared by JDL Consultants, LLC (“JDL”), an independent consultant to the Independent Trustees (“JDL Report”), which examined the comparative fees, expenses and performance of each Portfolio, based upon the Broadridge reports. Also, the Board reviewed the responses to wide-ranging questions relating to the business, operations and performance of the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers that the Adviser and Sub-Advisers had prepared specifically for the renewal process.

At the November Meeting, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, concluded that the nature, extent and quality of services provided by the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser supported the renewal of the Agreements. The Board also concluded that the investment performance of each Portfolio was such that each Agreement should continue, and that the fees paid by a Portfolio to the Adviser appeared to be reasonable in light of the nature, extent and quality of the services provided by the Adviser and Sub-Adviser. Further, the Board concluded that the Adviser’s profitability in providing services under the Advisory Agreements did not appear unreasonably high in light of the nature, extent and quality of the services provided by the Adviser. Finally, the Board concluded that the investment advisory fees paid by the Portfolios in some measure shared economies of scale with contract holders. In approving the renewal of each of the Agreements, the Board, including the Independent Trustees, gave attention to all of the information that was furnished. The Board evaluated the information available to it on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis, and its decision was made separately with respect to each Portfolio. The following discusses some of the primary factors that generally were relevant to the Board’s decision. The Board did not identify any single factor as controlling, and the Trustees generally attributed different weights to various factors for the various Portfolios.

Nature, extent and quality of services. The Board evaluated the nature, extent and quality of the services that the Adviser, and the Sub-Advisers as relevant, have provided to the Portfolios. The Board considered the Adviser’s services as investment manager to the Portfolios, including its services relating to the oversight of the Sub-Advisers and their investment management activities, trading practices, financial condition, relevant personnel matters and compliance programs, among other things. The Adviser’s services in coordinating and overseeing the activities of the Trusts’ other service providers were also considered. The Board considered information received from the Trusts’ Chief Compliance Officer (“CCO”) regarding the Portfolios’ compliance policies and procedures that were established pursuant to Rule 38a-l under the 1940 Act. In addition, throughout the year, the Board considered the expertise, experience and performance of the personnel of the Adviser who performed the various services that are mentioned above.

The Board also noted that the Adviser’s investment, compliance and legal staff conduct regular, periodic, telephonic and in-person meetings with the Sub-Advisers to review and assess the services that are provided to the Portfolios, and that personnel of the Adviser prepare and present reports to the Independent Trustees regarding those meetings.

MSF-28

Metropolitan Series Fund

Western Asset Management U.S. Government Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

With respect to the services provided by each of the Sub-Advisers, the Board considered a variety of information that the Adviser and each Sub-Adviser provided. The Board considered each Sub-Adviser’s investment process and philosophy, and the investment performance experienced by the Portfolio (as described in more detail below). The Board took into account that each Sub-Adviser’s responsibilities include the development and maintenance of an investment program for the applicable Portfolio that 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. In particular, the Board considered, among other things, the Sub-Adviser’s current level of staffing as well as its compensation program and its overall resources. The Board reviewed each Sub-Adviser’s history and investment experience, as well as information provided 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 regulatory and disciplinary history. In its review, the Board also took into account information regarding any services and/or payments provided to the Adviser by the Sub-Advisers in connection with marketing activities.

Performance. The Board placed emphasis on the performance of the Portfolios in light of, among other things, its importance to contract holders. The Board considered the Adviser’s quarterly reviews with the Board of detailed information about each Portfolio’s investment strategies and performance results and composition, including discussions regarding the relevant effect of current market conditions. The Board reviewed and considered the reports prepared by Broadridge, which provided a statistical analysis comparing the Portfolios’ investment performance to that of comparable funds underlying variable insurance products (the “Performance Universe”). The Independent Trustees also met separately with a representative of JDL during the September Meeting to review the JDL Report. The Board also compared the performance records of certain Portfolios to those of comparable funds that were managed by the relevant Sub-Adviser. At the November Meeting, the Board considered each Portfolio’s performance for periods subsequent to the performance period covered by the Broadridge reports, and the Adviser’s discussion of the same, including the effect of current market conditions on each Portfolio’s more recent performance.

The Board focused particular attention on Portfolios with less favorable performance records. The Board noted the Adviser’s focus on each Sub-Adviser’s performance and that the Adviser has been active in monitoring and responding to any performance issues with respect to the Portfolios.

Fees and Expenses. The Board gave consideration to the level and method of computing the fees payable under the Agreements. The Board considered the Broadridge report for each of the Portfolios, which included comparisons for each Portfolio of its contractual management and sub-adviser fees (at current and various asset levels), and total expenses, with those of its peers, including as those peers were divided into a broad group of peer funds (“Expense Universe”), a narrower group of peer funds (“Expense Group”), a broad group of peer sub-advised funds (“Sub-advised Expense Universe”), and a narrower group of peer sub-advised funds (“Sub-advised Expense Group”). Broadridge selected the peer funds which were similarly situated funds underlying variable insurance products deemed to be comparable to the Portfolios. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of JDL, also examined the JDL Report. The Board compared the fee payable to a Sub-Adviser by the Adviser with respect to the Portfolio to the fee payable to the Sub-Adviser by other comparable funds and accounts, to the extent such information was available.

The Board noted that the sub-advisory fees for the Portfolios are paid by the Adviser out of the advisory fee, and that, in the case of an unaffiliated Sub-Adviser, the Adviser negotiates the fee at arm’s length. The Board also considered that the Adviser had entered into expense limitation or management fee waiver agreements with certain of the Portfolios pursuant to which the Adviser had 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.

Profitability. The Board examined the profitability of the Adviser on a Portfolio-by-Portfolio basis. The Board also considered that an affiliate of the Adviser, MetLife Investors Distribution Company, serves as distributor for the Trusts, and, as such, receives Rule 12b-1 payments to support the distribution of the Portfolios. The Board considered the profitability to the Sub-Advisers and their affiliates as a result of their relationships with the Portfolios, to the extent available, and the Board considered the ability of the Adviser to negotiate with an unaffiliated Sub-Adviser at arm’s length. In reviewing the profitability analyses, the Board recognized that expense allocation methodologies are inherently subjective and various expense allocation methodologies may be reasonable while producing different results.

Economies of scale. The Board also considered each Portfolio’s fees in light of its size. The Board noted the fee schedules for the Portfolios that 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

MSF-29

Metropolitan Series Fund

Western Asset Management U.S. Government Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of Advisory and Sub-Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

schedule for such Portfolios. The Board considered the effective fees under the Advisory Agreement and Sub-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. The Board examined, among other data, the effect of a Portfolio’s growth in size, and reduction in size, on various fee schedules and the Board reviewed the Broadridge and JDL Reports, which compared fees among peers. The Board also generally noted that if a Portfolio’s assets increase over time, the Portfolio may realize other economies of scale if assets increase proportionally more than certain other fixed expenses.

Other factors. The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trusts. Among them, the Board recognized that MetLife Investors Distribution Company, as the distributor for the Trusts, receives payments pursuant to Rule 12b-1 from the Portfolios to compensate for the provision of shareholder services and distribution activities, which could lead to growth in the Trusts’ assets and corresponding benefits from such growth, including economies of scale. The Board considered other benefits that may be realized by each Sub-Adviser and its affiliates from their relationship with the Trusts, including the opportunity to provide advisory services to additional portfolios of the Trusts and reputational benefits. In conjunction with these considerations, the Board noted the ongoing commitment of the Adviser to the Portfolios.

The Board considered possible conflicts of interest in the form of material benefits or detriments to the Trusts resulting from the nature of the Trusts’ and the Adviser’s or the Sub-Advisers’ affiliations and the services that are provided to the Trusts, and the manner in which such conflicts were mitigated.

* * *

Western Asset Management U.S. Government Portfolio. The Board also considered the following information in relation to the Agreements with the Adviser and Western Asset Management Company regarding the Portfolio:

Among other data relating specifically to the 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, 2016. The Board further considered that the Portfolio outperformed its benchmark, the Barclays U.S. Intermediate Government Bond Index, for the one-, three-, and five-year periods ended October 31, 2016. The Board also noted that the Portfolio underperformed its blended benchmark for the same periods.

The Board also 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 asset-weighted average of certain comparable funds at the Portfolio’s current size. The Board also noted that the Portfolio’s contractual sub-advisory fees were below the averages of the Sub-advised Expense Group and the Sub-advised Expense Universe at the Portfolio’s current size.

MSF-30

Metropolitan Series Fund

Western Asset Management U.S. Government Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Advisory Agreements

The separation (the “Separation”) of MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”), the investment adviser to each of the series (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”) of Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (collectively, the “Trusts”), from its parent company, MetLife, Inc. (“MetLife”), to a separate retail business, Brighthouse Financial, Inc. (“Brighthouse”), is expected to result in a change in control of the Adviser, and therefore an “assignment” of each Portfolio’s current advisory agreement (each a “Current Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “Current Advisory Agreements”). At the November 15-16, 2016 meeting (“November Meeting”) of the Board of Trustees of the Trusts (the “Board”), the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not “interested persons,” as defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940, of any Portfolio (the “Independent Trustees”), approved a new advisory agreement (each a “New Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “New Advisory Agreements”) between the Trusts, on behalf of a Portfolio, and the Adviser, to be effective upon the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements in connection with the Separation, and recommended that the shareholders of the Trusts approve the New Advisory Agreements. The Board took those actions after consideration of and deliberation over information concerning the Separation, including with respect to the degree to which the Separation would affect the provision of investment advisory services to the Trusts. Information about the Board’s considerations and process is set forth below.

In determining whether to approve the New Advisory Agreements and in considering the Separation, the Board considered the nature, quality and extent of the services that are currently provided by the Adviser under the Current Advisory Agreements as well as the services to be provided under the New Advisory Agreements. The Board’s review was conducted as part of, and in conjunction with, the Board’s annual review of the Current Advisory Agreements, which culminated at the November Meeting. In approving the New Advisory Agreements, the Board considered its conclusions with respect to its approvals of the Current Advisory Agreements, including the Board’s general satisfaction with the nature, extent and quality of services being provided by the Adviser to each Portfolio. Appendix A and Appendix B contains a further description of the process followed, information reviewed and the material factors considered by the Board in approving the continuation of the Current Advisory Agreements.

A substantial portion of the Board’s review of the New Advisory Agreements focused on the Separation, including the potential effect of the implementation of the Separation on the operations, personnel, organizational structure, capitalization, and financial and other resources of the Adviser. After being informed by the Adviser in January 2016 of the possibility of the Separation, the Board and its Committees discussed the Separation and its possible effects on the Trusts with personnel of the Adviser and the anticipated senior management at Brighthouse during the course of the Board’s or Committee’s regularly scheduled, in-person, quarterly meetings.

Between August and November 2016, the Board and the Independent Trustees engaged in an extensive review and analysis of the Separation and how the Separation related to the Adviser and the Trusts and how it could affect the services provided to the Trusts. This analysis focused on, among other matters, the assurances from Brighthouse’s anticipated leadership as to its expectations for the continuity and stability of the Adviser’s personnel throughout implementation of the Separation and for the foreseeable future thereafter. The Board considered that the Separation is being implemented as a result of MetLife’s determination to divest itself of a substantial portion of its U.S. retail business (of which the Adviser forms a portion). The Board also considered that it has been satisfied as a general matter with the nature and quality of the services that the Adviser provides to the Portfolios, including investment advisory, administrative, legal, compliance, and support services, and that it would be in the Portfolios’ best interests to maintain continuity and stability in the services that are currently being provided. The Board carefully considered the anticipated future plans of Brighthouse related to capitalization and operational matters for Brighthouse and the Adviser, as well as the importance of the Adviser to the businesses of Brighthouse after the Separation.

Among other steps in its review process, which accelerated on October 5, 2016 when Brighthouse filed its Form 10 with the SEC, the following actions were taken and considered by or on behalf of the Board:

1. The Independent Trustees solicited and received ongoing advice regarding the legal duties of the Independent Trustees from Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young LLP (“Stradley Ronon”), legal counsel for the Independent Trustees, which law firm has extensive experience regarding such matters.

2. Following the August 16-17, 2016 Board and Committee quarterly meetings, the Independent Trustees established an ad hoc group of Independent Trustees (the “Working Group”) to help oversee, coordinate, and conduct due diligence activities with respect to the Separation. The Working Group regularly reported on the due diligence activities to the other Independent Trustees.

3. Since January 2016, the Board posed ongoing inquiries to, and received regular updates from, the Adviser and anticipated senior management at Brighthouse at either in-person meetings dedicated to the status of the Separation or during the course of the Board or Committee’s regular quarterly meetings. The Board considered, among other matters, relevant legal guidance and the processes followed by certain other investment company boards of directors or trustees when they approved contracts in connection with change in control events, while recognizing the unique circumstances of the Separation.

MSF-31

Metropolitan Series Fund

Western Asset Management U.S. Government Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

4. The Board received and reviewed the Form 10 of Brighthouse that contained extensive information relating to, among other matters, Brighthouse’s anticipated business plans and financial structure. The Board also received and reviewed reports from rating agencies with respect to Brighthouse.

5. Stradley Ronon retained Barrington Partners (“Barrington”), an independent consulting firm with a specific focus on the asset management industry and experience relating to business operations such as those to be conducted by Brighthouse, including its proposed subsidiary, the Adviser, in order to help Stradley Ronon evaluate the Separation based on the Form 10 and other materials and related information provided by the Adviser and its affiliates. Barrington conducted a series of in-person and telephonic meetings with anticipated senior management at Brighthouse (i.e., the aforementioned anticipated officers of Brighthouse and others) and with personnel of the Adviser who provide services to the Trusts. Stradley Ronon, with the assistance of Barrington, evaluated the information and advised the Independent Trustees with respect to, among other matters, details of Brighthouse’s anticipated business plan to understand the implications of the Separation to the Adviser and its personnel. The Independent Trustees and the Working Group attended certain in-person and telephonic conference call meetings at which Barrington rendered advice to Stradley Ronon regarding these matters and responded to questions.

6. The Independent Trustees requested and participated in in-person meetings with anticipated senior management personnel at Brighthouse, including its President and Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, Chief Operating Officer, and Chief Investment Officer. The Independent Trustees also met with personnel of the Adviser.

7. The Independent Trustees, with the assistance of Stradley Ronon, prepared written inquiries to the Adviser and its affiliates regarding the Separation, and received written assurances from the Adviser and its affiliates that they have no plans to make any material changes affecting the personnel of the Adviser (including those personnel who provide investment, administrative, legal and compliance services) and the Adviser and its affiliates will not initiate such changes without prior notice to and discussion with the Board.

8. The Board considered representations by the Adviser and its affiliates that approval of the New Advisory Agreements would be necessary for the Portfolios to continue receiving investment advisory services from the Adviser following the change in control.

9. The Board considered representations by the Adviser, as well as related supporting documentation, indicating that the New Advisory Agreements, including the fees payable thereunder, are substantially identical to the terms of the corresponding Current Advisory Agreements.

10. The Board considered representations by the Adviser and its affiliates, as well as related supporting documentation, indicating that: (1) the Adviser can be expected to provide services of the same nature, extent, and quality under the New Advisory Agreements and as are provided thereby under the Current Advisory Agreements; and (2) the Separation is not expected to result in any changes to (i) the management of the Portfolios, or (ii) the investment objective of or the principal investment strategies used to manage any of the Portfolios.

11. The Board considered the ability of the Adviser and its affiliates to retain the employment of key personnel, as well as the overall positive indications by many such personnel regarding the opportunities presented by the Separation.

12. The Board considered that the Adviser and its affiliates have agreed to bear all expenses associated with obtaining shareholder approval of the New Advisory Agreements.

13. The Board considered Brighthouse’s preliminary “branding” plans regarding the future name of its operations.

14. The Board considered the advice provided by Ropes & Gray, LLP, legal counsel to the Trusts and the Adviser, with respect to the New Advisory Agreements (including advice relating to the process and timing of seeking shareholder approval of the New Advisory Agreements, and whether shareholder approvals would be required in connection with any future aspects of the Separation) and regarding the Board’s role and responsibilities with respect to the Separation.

15. The Board considered MetLife’s stated intention of divesting its ownership interest in the Adviser through the Separation, including the potential advantages and disadvantages of this divestiture to shareholders of the Portfolios. The Board considered the likelihood that the Adviser would retain its key personnel after the Separation. The Board considered that the garnering of new assets into the Trusts is based on sales of variable annuity and variable life insurance products, which sales have declined in prior years as a result of, among other things, the capital requirements of MetLife. The Board considered the representations of the anticipated senior management of Brighthouse that the Separation provides the Trusts with an opportunity for the garnering of new assets as Brighthouse will likely sell such products going forward. The Board considered also that the divestiture would result in a change in the manner in

MSF-32

Metropolitan Series Fund

Western Asset Management U.S. Government Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Advisory Agreements—(Continued)

which the Trusts access certain services and resources of MetLife (after the Separation those services will be provided through a transition services agreement), the loss of affiliation with the MetLife name brand, and the possible going forward need of the Trusts to hire a transfer agent, as such transfer agency services are currently provided to the Trusts for no fee.

16. The Board considered that, if shareholders approve the New Advisory Agreements, the Board and the Adviser will conduct their annual contract review process in November 2017. Thus, the Board emphasized that it would be able to, and intends to, monitor on a regular basis the ability of the Adviser and its affiliates to comply with their undertakings to the Board and to monitor on an ongoing basis the quality of services to, and expenses of, the Portfolios. In addition, the Board considered that, under the New Advisory Agreements, it will continue to have the authority, should the need arise in its view, to terminate any of the New Advisory Agreements without penalty upon 60 days’ notice.

Based on the foregoing and other relevant considerations, at the November Meeting, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, voted to approve the New Advisory Agreements and to recommend approval of the New Advisory Agreements by shareholders of the Portfolios. In this connection, the Board concluded that, in light of all factors considered, the terms of the New Advisory Agreement, including fee rates, were fair and reasonable, and that it would be in the best interests of shareholders of each Portfolio to approve the New Advisory Agreements.

In the event that approval of the New Advisory Agreements by shareholders of the Portfolios has not been obtained before the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements as a result of the change in control of the Adviser, the Board also approved an interim advisory agreement with the Adviser (the “Interim Advisory Agreement”) on behalf of each Portfolio that will go into effect upon the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements. The Board’s determination to approve each Interim Advisory Agreement was based on the same information and considerations as the Board’s approval of the New Advisory Agreements so as to ensure continuity of advisory services from the Adviser to the Portfolios following the termination of the Current Advisory Agreements.

MSF-33

Metropolitan Series Fund

Western Asset Management U.S. Government Portfolio

Board of Trustees’ Consideration of New Sub-Advisory Agreements

The separation (the “Separation”) of MetLife Advisers, LLC (the “Adviser”), the investment adviser to each of the series (each a “Portfolio,” and collectively, the “Portfolios”) of Met Investors Series Trust and Metropolitan Series Fund (collectively, the “Trusts”), from its parent company, MetLife, Inc. (“MetLife”), to a separate retail business, Brighthouse Financial, Inc. (“Brighthouse”), is expected to result in a change in control of the Adviser, and therefore an “assignment” of each Portfolio’s current advisory agreement and, as a result, the automatic termination of the sub-advisory agreement (each a “Sub-Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisory Agreements”) between the Adviser and the investment sub-advisers (each a “Sub-Adviser” and collectively, the “Sub-Advisers”). At the November 15-16, 2016 meeting (“November Meeting”) of the Board of Trustees of the Trusts (the “Board”), the Board, including a majority of the Trustees who are not “interested persons,” as defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940, of any Portfolio (the “Independent Trustees”), approved new sub-advisory agreements (each a “New Sub-Advisory Agreement” and collectively, the “New Sub-Advisory Agreements”). Information about the Board’s considerations and process is set forth below.

In determining whether to approve the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, the Board considered the nature, quality and extent of the services that are currently provided by the Sub-Advisers under the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements as well as the services to be provided under the New Sub-Advisory Agreements. The Board’s review was conducted as part of, and in conjunction with, the Board’s annual review of the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements, which culminated at the November Meeting. In approving the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, the Board considered its conclusions with respect to its approvals of the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements, including the Board’s general satisfaction with the nature, extent and quality of services being provided by the Sub-Advisers to the Portfolios, as applicable. Appendix A contains a further description of the process followed, information reviewed and the material factors considered by the Board in approving the continuation of the Current Sub-Advisory Agreements.

In addition, the following actions were taken and considered by or on behalf of the Board:

1. The Independent Trustees of the Board solicited and received ongoing advice regarding the legal duties of the Independent Trustees from Stradley Ronon, legal counsel for the Independent Trustees, which law firm has extensive experience regarding such matters.

2. The Board considered representations by the Adviser and its affiliates that approval of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements would be necessary for the Portfolios to continue receiving sub-advisory services from the Sub-Advisers following the change in control of the Adviser.

3. The Board considered representations by the Adviser, as well as related supporting documentation, indicating that the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, including the fees payable thereunder, are the same as the terms of the corresponding Current Sub-Advisory Agreements.

4. The Board considered the advice provided by Ropes & Gray, LLP, legal counsel to the Trusts and the Adviser, with respect to the New Sub-Advisory Agreements and regarding the Board’s role and responsibilities with respect to the Separation.

5. The Board considered that the Adviser and the Sub-Advisers will conduct their annual contract review process in November 2017. Thus, the Board emphasized that it would be able to, and intends to, monitor on an ongoing basis the ability of the Sub-Advisers to comply with its undertakings to the Board and the Adviser and to monitor on an ongoing basis the quality of services to, and expenses of, the Portfolios. In addition, the Board considered that, under the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, it will continue to have the authority, should the need arise in its view, to terminate any of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements without penalty upon no more than 60 days’ notice.

Based on the foregoing and other relevant considerations, at the November Meeting, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, voted to approve the New Sub-Advisory Agreements. In this connection, the Board concluded that, in light of all factors considered, the terms of the New Sub-Advisory Agreements, including fee rates, were fair and reasonable.

MSF-34

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.

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. Susan C. Gause, Nancy Hawthorne, Linda B. Strumpf, and Dawn M. Vroegop 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 (“Deloitte”), the registrant’s principal accountant.

(a) Audit Fees

The aggregate fees billed for professional services rendered by Deloitte for the audit of the registrant’s annual financial statements and for services that are normally provided by Deloitte in connection with statutory and regulatory filings for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2015 and December 31, 2016 were $1,292,323 and $1,364,001, respectively.

(b) Audit-Related Fees

During the fiscal years ended December 31, 2015 and December 31, 2016, Deloitte billed $11,538 and $0, respectively, for assurance and related services that relate directly to the operations and financial reporting of the registrant, 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. Represent fees for services rendered to the registrant related to agreed upon procedures for the registrant’s deferred trustee compensation plan for fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

(c) Tax Fees

The aggregate fees billed for professional services rendered by Deloitte 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, 2015 and December 31, 2016 were $185,920 and $191,095,

3

respectively. Represent fees for services rendered to the registrant for review of tax returns for the year end December 31, 2015 and for the fiscal year end December 31, 2016.

During the fiscal years ended December 31, 2015 and December 31, 2016, 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 Deloitte 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 Deloitte for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2015 and December 31, 2016 other than the services reported in paragraphs (a) through (c) above.

During the fiscal years ended December 31, 2015 and December 31, 2016, 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 Deloitte 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 registrant’s Audit Committee has established pre-approval procedures pursuant to paragraph (c)(7)(i)(B) of Rule 2-01 of Regulation S-X, which include regular pre-approval procedures and interim pre-approval procedures. Under the regular pre-approval procedures, the Audit Committee pre-approves at its regularly scheduled meetings audit and non-audit services that are required to be pre-approved under paragraph (c)(7) of Rule 2-01 of Regulation S-X. Under the interim pre-approval procedures, any member of the Audit Committee who is an independent Trustee is authorized to pre-approve proposed services that arise between regularly scheduled Audit Committee meetings and that need to commence prior to the next regularly scheduled Audit Committee meeting. Such Audit Committee member must report to the Audit Committee at its next regularly scheduled meeting on the pre-approval decision.

(2) Not applicable.

(f) Not applicable.

(g) The aggregate fees billed for the most recent fiscal year and the preceding fiscal year by the registrant’s principal accountant for non-audit services rendered to the registrant, its investment adviser, and adviser affiliates that provide ongoing services to the registrant for 2015 and 2016 were $0 and $175,414, respectively.

(h) The Audit Committee of the registrant’s Board of Trustees considered the provision of non-audit services that were rendered to the registrant’s investment adviser (not including any subadviser whose role is primarily portfolio management and is subcontracted with or overseen by another investment adviser), and any entity controlling, controlled by or under common

4

control with the investment adviser that provides ongoing services to the registrant that were not pre-approved pursuant to paragraph (c)(7)(ii) of Rule 2-01 of Regulation S-X and concluded that such services are compatible with maintaining the principal accountant’s independence.

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) The President and Treasurer of the registrant have concluded, based on their evaluation of the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rule 30a-3(c) under the Act) as of a date within 90 days of the filing date of this report on Form N-CSR, that the design and operation of such procedures provide reasonable assurance that information required to be disclosed by the registrant in this report on Form N-CSR is recorded, processed, summarized, and reported within the time periods specified in the Securities and Exchange Commission’s rules and forms.

(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

5

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.

6

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.

METROPOLITAN SERIES FUND
By:	/s/ Kristi Slavin
	Kristi Slavin President and Chief Executive Officer
Date: March 3, 2017

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/ Kristi Slavin
	Kristi Slavin
	President and Chief Executive Officer
Date: March 3, 2017

By:	/s/ Peter H. Duffy
	Peter H. Duffy
	Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
Date: March 3, 2017

7