AllianceBernstein Variable Products Series Fund, Inc....FUND EXPENSES (unaudited) AllianceBernstein...

AllianceBernsteinVariable Products Series Fund, Inc.

AllianceBernstein Value Portfolio

June 30, 2012

Semi-Annual Report

SEM

I-AN

NUA

LRE

PORT

Investment Products Offered

� Are Not FDIC Insured� May Lose Value� Are Not Bank Guaranteed

AllianceBernstein Investments, Inc. (ABI) is the distributor of the AllianceBernstein family ofmutual funds. ABI is a member of FINRA and is an affiliate of AllianceBernstein L.P., themanager of the funds.

You may obtain a description of the Fund’s proxy voting policies and procedures, andinformation regarding how the Fund voted proxies relating to portfolio securities during themost recent 12-month period ended June 30, without charge. Simply visit AllianceBernstein’swebsite at www.alliancebernstein.com or go to the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (the“Commission”) website at www.sec.gov, or call AllianceBernstein at (800) 227-4618.

The Fund files its complete schedule of portfolio holdings with the Commission for the first andthird quarters of each fiscal year on Form N-Q. The Fund’s Forms N-Q are available on theCommission’s website at www.sec.gov. The Fund’s Forms N-Q may also be reviewed andcopied at the Commission’s Public Reference Room in Washington, DC; information on theoperation of the Public Reference Room may be obtained by calling (800) SEC-0330.

AllianceBernstein® and the AB Logo are registered trademarks and service marks used bypermission of the owner, AllianceBernstein L.P.

VALUE PORTFOLIOFUND EXPENSES (unaudited) AllianceBernstein Variable Products Series Fund

As a shareholder of the Fund, you incur two types of costs: (1) transaction costs, including sales charges (loads) on purchasepayments, contingent deferred sales charges on redemptions and (2) ongoing costs, including management fees; distribution(12b-1) fees; and other Fund expenses. This example is intended to help you understand your ongoing costs (in dollars) ofinvesting in the Fund and to 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 asindicated below.

Actual ExpensesThe table below provides information about actual account values and actual expenses. You may use the information in thisline, together with the amount you invested, to estimate the expenses that you paid over the period. Simply divide youraccount value by $1,000 (for example, an $8,600 account value divided by $1,000 = 8.6), then multiply the result by thenumber in the first line under the heading entitled “Expenses Paid During Period” to estimate the expenses you paid on youraccount during this period. The estimate of expenses does not include fees or other expenses of any variable insurance prod-uct. If such expenses were included, the estimate of expenses you paid during the period would be higher and your endingaccount value would be lower.

Hypothetical Example for Comparison PurposesThe table below provides information about hypothetical account values and hypothetical expenses based on the Fund’sactual expense ratio and an assumed annual rate of return of 5% before expenses, which is not the Fund’s actual return. Thehypothetical account values and expenses may not be used to estimate the actual ending account balance or expenses youpaid for the period. You may use this information to compare the ongoing costs of investing in the Fund and other funds bycomparing this 5% hypothetical example with the 5% hypothetical examples that appear in the shareholder reports of otherfunds. The estimate of expenses does not include fees or other expenses of any variable insurance product. If such expenseswere included, the estimate of expenses you paid during the period would be higher and your ending account value would belower.

Please note that the expenses shown in the table are meant to highlight your ongoing costs only and do not reflect any transac-tional costs, such as sales charges (loads), or contingent deferred sales charges on redemptions. Therefore, the second line ofeach classes’ table is useful in comparing ongoing costs only, and will not help you determine the relative total costs ofowning different funds. In addition, if these transactional costs were included, your costs would have been higher.

BeginningAccount ValueJanuary 1, 2012

EndingAccount ValueJune 30, 2012

Expenses PaidDuring Period*

AnnualizedExpense Ratio*

Class AActual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 1,000 $ 1,068.30 $ 3.75 0.73%Hypothetical (5% return before expenses) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 1,000 $ 1,021.23 $ 3.67 0.73%

Class BActual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 1,000 $ 1,067.90 $ 5.04 0.98%Hypothetical (5% return before expenses) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 1,000 $ 1,019.99 $ 4.92 0.98%

* Expenses are equal to each classes’ annualized expense ratios, multiplied by the average account value over the period, multiplied by182/366 (to reflect the one-half year period).

1

VALUE PORTFOLIOTEN LARGEST HOLDINGS*

June 30, 2012 (unaudited) AllianceBernstein Variable Products Series Fund

COMPANY U.S. $ VALUE PERCENT OF NET ASSETSExxon Mobil Corp. $ 9,660,853 5.9%Pfizer, Inc. 6,525,100 4.0Johnson & Johnson 5,654,772 3.4General Electric Co. 5,553,860 3.4Wells Fargo & Co. 5,474,128 3.3Citigroup, Inc. 4,407,528 2.7Merck & Co., Inc. 4,354,525 2.6JPMorgan Chase & Co. 3,976,749 2.4Chevron Corp. 3,956,250 2.4AT&T, Inc. 3,701,508 2.3

$ 53,265,273 32.4%

SECTOR DIVERSIFICATION**

June 30, 2012 (unaudited)

SECTOR U.S. $ VALUE PERCENT OF TOTAL INVESTMENTSHealth Care $ 29,702,368 18.1%Financials 27,144,957 16.6Consumer Discretionary 26,017,238 15.9Energy 23,741,506 14.5Information Technology 17,109,997 10.4Consumer Staples 14,489,792 8.8Industrials 8,493,902 5.2Utilities 8,470,964 5.2Telecommunication Services 6,765,932 4.1Materials 1,933,896 1.2Total Investments $ 163,870,552 100.0%

* Long-term investments.

** The Portfolio’s sector breakdown is expressed as a percentage of total investments (excluding security lending collateral) and mayvary over time.

Please note: The sector classifications presented herein are based on the Global Industry Classification Standard (GICS) which wasdeveloped by Morgan Stanley Capital International and Standard & Poor’s. The components are divided into sector, industry group,and industry sub-indices as classified by the GICS for each of the market capitalization indices in the broad market. These sectorclassifications are broadly defined. The “Portfolio of Investments” section of the report reflects more specific industry informationand is consistent with the investment restrictions discussed in the Fund’s prospectus.

2

VALUE PORTFOLIOPORTFOLIO OF INVESTMENTSJune 30, 2012 (unaudited) AllianceBernstein Variable Products Series Fund

Company Shares U.S. $ Value

COMMON STOCKS–99.7%HEALTH CARE–18.1%BIOTECHNOLOGY–1.4%Gilead Sciences, Inc.(a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33,100 $ 1,697,368Vertex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.(a) . . . . 9,900 553,608

2,250,976

HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS &SERVICES–4.5%

Aetna, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,200 472,994Health Net, Inc.(a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28,800 698,976UnitedHealth Group, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . 52,500 3,071,250WellPoint, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48,500 3,093,815

7,337,035

PHARMACEUTICALS–12.2%AstraZeneca PLC

(Sponsored ADR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60,200 2,693,950Johnson & Johnson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83,700 5,654,772Merck & Co., Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104,300 4,354,525Pfizer, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283,700 6,525,100Roche Holding AG

(Sponsored ADR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20,500 886,010

20,114,357

29,702,368

FINANCIALS–16.5%CAPITAL MARKETS–0.9%State Street Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31,900 1,424,016

COMMERCIAL BANKS–5.9%BB&T Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15,100 465,835CIT Group, Inc.(a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76,900 2,740,716KeyCorp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24,700 191,178PNC Financial Services

Group, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,200 623,322Regions Financial Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . 36,700 247,725Wells Fargo & Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163,700 5,474,128

9,742,904

CONSUMER FINANCE–0.3%Discover Financial Services . . . . . . . . 12,800 442,624

DIVERSIFIED FINANCIALSERVICES–7.2%

Bank of America Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239,100 1,955,838Citigroup, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160,800 4,407,528JPMorgan Chase & Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111,300 3,976,749Leucadia National Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . 23,400 497,718Moody’s Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26,900 983,195

11,821,028

INSURANCE–2.2%Berkshire Hathaway, Inc.(a) . . . . . . . . 11,900 991,627Chubb Corp. (The) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15,500 1,128,710Reinsurance Group of America,

Inc.–Class A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17,600 936,496Travelers Cos., Inc. (The) . . . . . . . . . . . 10,300 657,552

3,714,385

27,144,957


CONSUMERDISCRETIONARY–15.8%

AUTO COMPONENTS–1.7%Lear Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32,600 $ 1,229,998Magna International,

Inc.–Class A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19,400 765,524TRW Automotive Holdings

Corp.(a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22,200 816,072

2,811,594

AUTOMOBILES–1.8%Ford Motor Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121,900 1,169,021General Motors Co.(a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89,700 1,768,884

2,937,905

DIVERSIFIED CONSUMERSERVICES–0.9%

Apollo Group, Inc.–Class A(a) . . . . . 39,200 1,418,648

HOTELS, RESTAURANTS &LEISURE–1.1%

MGM Resorts International(a) . . . . . 161,300 1,800,108

HOUSEHOLDDURABLES–1.3%

Newell Rubbermaid, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . 77,800 1,411,292NVR, Inc.(a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 850 722,500

2,133,792

MEDIA–6.6%CBS Corp.–Class B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49,000 1,606,220DIRECTV(a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26,100 1,274,202Gannett Co., Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97,300 1,433,229McGraw-Hill Cos., Inc. (The) . . . . . . 20,300 913,500News Corp.–Class A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64,400 1,435,476Time Warner Cable,

Inc.–Class A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29,000 2,380,900Viacom, Inc.–Class B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38,800 1,824,376

10,867,903

MULTILINE RETAIL–0.9%Macy’s, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45,300 1,556,055

SPECIALTY RETAIL–1.5%GameStop Corp.–Class A(b) . . . . . . . 24,700 453,492Home Depot, Inc. (The) . . . . . . . . . . . . 15,900 842,541Lowe’s Cos., Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34,500 981,180Staples, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16,400 214,020

2,491,233

26,017,238

ENERGY–14.4%ENERGY EQUIPMENT &

SERVICES–1.7%Helmerich & Payne, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . 31,000 1,347,880Transocean Ltd./Switzerland . . . . . . . 32,500 1,453,725

2,801,605

OIL, GAS & CONSUMABLEFUELS–12.7%

Anadarko Petroleum Corp. . . . . . . . . . 11,700 774,540BP PLC (Sponsored ADR) . . . . . . . . . 61,400 2,489,156

3

VALUE PORTFOLIOPORTFOLIO OF INVESTMENTS(continued) AllianceBernstein Variable Products Series Fund


Chevron Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37,500 $ 3,956,250Devon Energy Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,100 585,699Exxon Mobil Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112,900 9,660,853Marathon Oil Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49,500 1,265,715Marathon Petroleum Corp. . . . . . . . . . 39,900 1,792,308Valero Energy Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17,200 415,380

20,939,901

23,741,506

INFORMATIONTECHNOLOGY–10.4%

COMMUNICATIONSEQUIPMENT–2.2%

Cisco Systems, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183,200 3,145,544Motorola Solutions, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,100 389,691

3,535,235

COMPUTERS &PERIPHERALS–2.1%

Dell, Inc.(a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,100 138,972Hewlett-Packard Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167,300 3,364,403

3,503,375

IT SERVICES–0.6%Visa, Inc.–Class A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,500 1,050,855

SEMICONDUCTORS &SEMICONDUCTOREQUIPMENT–5.3%

Advanced SemiconductorEngineering, Inc. (ADR) . . . . . . . . . 95,435 388,420

Applied Materials, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185,900 2,130,414Intel Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135,000 3,597,750Lam Research Corp.(a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31,600 1,192,584Micron Technology, Inc.(a) . . . . . . . . 230,000 1,451,300

8,760,468

SOFTWARE–0.2%CA, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,600 260,064

17,109,997

CONSUMER STAPLES–8.8%FOOD & STAPLES

RETAILING–2.6%CVS Caremark Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36,000 1,682,280Kroger Co. (The) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109,200 2,532,348

4,214,628

FOOD PRODUCTS–0.7%Archer-Daniels-Midland Co. . . . . . . . 18,100 534,312Tyson Foods, Inc.–Class A . . . . . . . . . 37,500 706,125

1,240,437

HOUSEHOLD PRODUCTS–2.2%Procter & Gamble Co. (The) . . . . . . . 57,900 3,546,375

TOBACCO–3.3%Altria Group, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70,600 2,439,230Lorillard, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20,000 2,639,000Philip Morris International, Inc. . . . . 4,700 410,122

5,488,352

14,489,792


INDUSTRIALS–5.2%AEROSPACE & DEFENSE–0.7%General Dynamics Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . 9,600 $ 633,216Northrop Grumman Corp. . . . . . . . . . . 6,700 427,393

1,060,609

AIRLINES–0.8%Delta Air Lines, Inc.(a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120,675 1,321,391

BUILDING PRODUCTS–0.3%Fortune Brands Home & Security,

Inc.(a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25,058 558,042

INDUSTRIALCONGLOMERATES–3.4%

General Electric Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266,500 5,553,860

8,493,902

UTILITIES–5.2%ELECTRIC UTILITIES–3.3%American Electric Power Co.,

Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35,400 1,412,460Edison International . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31,100 1,436,820Great Plains Energy, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . 47,600 1,019,116NV Energy, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89,400 1,571,652

5,440,048

GAS UTILITIES–0.7%Atmos Energy Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32,000 1,122,240

MULTI-UTILITIES–1.2%CenterPoint Energy, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . 55,600 1,149,252DTE Energy Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,800 759,424

1,908,676

8,470,964

TELECOMMUNICATIONSERVICES–4.1%

DIVERSIFIEDTELECOMMUNICATIONSERVICES–4.1%

AT&T, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103,800 3,701,508CenturyLink, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77,600 3,064,424

6,765,932

MATERIALS–1.2%CHEMICALS–1.2%LyondellBasell Industries NV . . . . . . 38,800 1,562,476PPG Industries, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,500 371,420

1,933,896

Total Common Stocks(cost $153,415,763) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163,870,552

Total Investments Before SecurityLending Collateral for SecuritiesLoaned–99.7%(cost $153,415,763) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163,870,552

4

AllianceBernstein Variable Products Series Fund


INVESTMENTS OF CASHCOLLATERAL FORSECURITY LOANED–0.3%

INVESTMENTCOMPANIES–0.3%

AllianceBernstein ExchangeReserves–Class I, 0.20%(c)(cost $450,775) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 450,775 $ 450,775

TOTALINVESTMENTS–100.0%(cost $153,866,538) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164,321,327

Other assets lessliabilities–0.0%. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,574

NET ASSETS–100.0% . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 164,328,901

(a) Non-income producing security.

(b) Represents entire or partial securities out on loan. See Note Efor securities lending information.

(c) Investment in affiliated money market mutual fund. The rateshown represents the 7-day yield as of period end.

Glossary:

ADR—American Depositary Receipt

See notes to financial statements.

5

VALUE PORTFOLIOSTATEMENT OF ASSETS & LIABILITIESJune 30, 2012 (unaudited) AllianceBernstein Variable Products Series Fund

ASSETSInvestments in securities, at value

Unaffiliated issuers (cost $153,415,763) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $163,870,552(a)Affiliated issuers (cost $450,775—including investment of cash collateral for securities loaned

of $450,775) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 450,775Receivable for investment securities sold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,067,975Dividends and interest receivable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241,671Receivable for capital stock sold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

Total assets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165,631,073

LIABILITIESDue to custodian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280,228Payable for collateral received on securities loaned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 450,775Payable for capital stock redeemed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198,880Payable for investment securities purchased . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162,484Advisory fee payable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74,952Distribution fee payable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33,767Administrative fee payable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15,757Transfer Agent fee payable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172Accrued expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85,157

Total liabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,302,172

NET ASSETS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $164,328,901

COMPOSITION OF NET ASSETSCapital stock, at par . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 16,583Additional paid-in capital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225,693,933Undistributed net investment income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,270,950Accumulated net realized loss on investment and foreign currency transactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (76,107,354)Net unrealized appreciation on investments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,454,789

$164,328,901

Net Asset Value Per Share—1 billion shares of capital stock authorized, $.001 par value

Class Net AssetsShares

OutstandingNet Asset

Value

A $ 1,462,650 146,087 $ 10.01

B $ 162,866,251 16,436,539 $ 9.91

(a) Includes securities on loan with a value of $453,492 (see Note E).


6

VALUE PORTFOLIOSTATEMENT OF OPERATIONSSix Months Ended June 30, 2012 (unaudited) AllianceBernstein Variable Products Series Fund

INVESTMENT INCOMEDividends

Unaffiliated issuers (net of foreign taxes withheld of $10,338) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 2,277,119Affiliated issuers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 931

Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64Securities lending income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,949

2,285,063

EXPENSESAdvisory fee (see Note B) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 480,488Distribution fee—Class B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216,494Transfer agency—Class A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16Transfer agency—Class B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,891Custodian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50,636Printing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40,228Administrative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26,873Audit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18,378Legal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15,785Directors’ fees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,913Miscellaneous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,660

Total expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 856,362

Net investment income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,428,701

REALIZED AND UNREALIZED GAIN ON INVESTMENT AND FOREIGN CURRENCYTRANSACTIONSNet realized gain on:

Investment transactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,662,666Foreign currency transactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Net change in unrealized appreciation/depreciation of investments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,678,002

Net gain on investment and foreign currency transactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,340,673

NET INCREASE IN NET ASSETS FROM OPERATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $11,769,374


7

VALUE PORTFOLIOSTATEMENT OF CHANGES IN NET ASSETS AllianceBernstein Variable Products Series Fund

Six Months EndedJune 30, 2012(unaudited)

Year EndedDecember 31,

2011

INCREASE (DECREASE) IN NET ASSETS FROM OPERATIONSNet investment income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 1,428,701 $ 2,936,048Net realized gain on investment and foreign currency transactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,662,671 14,523,560Net change in unrealized appreciation/depreciation of investments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,678,002 (23,741,895)

Net increase (decrease) in net assets from operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,769,374 (6,282,287)DIVIDENDS TO SHAREHOLDERS FROM

Net investment incomeClass A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . –0– (22,448)Class B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . –0– (2,297,210)

CAPITAL STOCK TRANSACTIONSNet decrease . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (24,140,240) (28,927,020)

Total decrease . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (12,370,866) (37,528,965)NET ASSETS

Beginning of period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176,699,767 214,228,732

End of period (including undistributed net investment income of $4,270,950 and$2,842,249, respectively) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $164,328,901 $176,699,767


8

VALUE PORTFOLIONOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTSJune 30, 2012 (unaudited) AllianceBernstein Variable Products Series Fund

NOTE A: Significant Accounting PoliciesThe AllianceBernstein Value Portfolio (the “Portfolio”) is a series of AllianceBernstein Variable Products Series Fund, Inc.(the “Fund”). The Portfolio’s investment objective is long-term growth of capital. The Portfolio is diversified as definedunder the Investment Company Act of 1940. The Fund was incorporated in the State of Maryland on November 17, 1987, asan open-end series investment company. The Fund offers thirteen separately managed pools of assets which have differinginvestment objectives and policies. The Portfolio offers Class A and Class B shares. Both classes of shares have identicalvoting, dividend, liquidating and other rights, except that Class B shares bear a distribution expense and have exclusive vot-ing rights with respect to the Class B distribution plan.

The Portfolio offers and sells its shares only to separate accounts of certain life insurance companies for the purpose of fund-ing variable annuity contracts and variable life insurance policies. Sales are made without a sales charge at the Portfolio’s netasset value per share.

The financial statements have been prepared in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (“U.S.GAAP”) which require management to make certain estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assetsand liabilities in the financial statements and amounts of income and expenses during the reporting period. Actual resultscould differ from those estimates. The following is a summary of significant accounting policies followed by the Portfolio.

1. Security ValuationPortfolio securities are valued at their current market value determined on the basis of market quotations or, if market quota-tions are not readily available or are deemed unreliable, at “fair value” as determined in accordance with procedures estab-lished by and under the general supervision of the Fund’s Board of Directors.

In general, the market value of securities which are readily available and deemed reliable are determined as follows: Secu-rities listed on a national securities exchange (other than securities listed on the NASDAQ Stock Market, Inc.(“NASDAQ”)) or on a foreign securities exchange are valued at the last sale price at the close of the exchange or foreignsecurities exchange. If there has been no sale on such day, the securities are valued at the last traded price from the previousday. Securities listed on more than one exchange are valued by reference to the principal exchange on which the securitiesare traded; securities listed only on NASDAQ are valued in accordance with the NASDAQ Official Closing Price; listed orover the counter market (“OTC”) put or call options are valued at the mid level between the current bid and ask prices. Ifeither a current bid or current ask price is unavailable, AllianceBernstein L.P. (the “Adviser”) will have discretion todetermine the best valuation (e.g. last trade price in the case of listed options); open futures contracts are valued using theclosing settlement price or, in the absence of such a price, the most recent quoted bid price. If there are no quotations avail-able for the day of valuation, the last available closing settlement price is used; U.S. government securities and other debtinstruments having 60 days or less remaining until maturity are valued at amortized cost if their original maturity was 60days or less; or by amortizing their fair value as of the 61st day prior to maturity if their original term to maturity exceeded60 days; fixed-income securities, including mortgage backed and asset backed securities, may be valued on the basis ofprices provided by a pricing service or at a price obtained from one or more of the major broker/dealers. In cases wherebroker/dealer quotes are obtained, the Adviser may establish procedures whereby changes in market yields or spreads areused to adjust, on a daily basis, a recently obtained quoted price on a security. Swaps and other derivatives are valued daily,primarily using independent pricing services, independent pricing models using market inputs, as well as third party broker-dealers or counterparties.

Securities for which market quotations are not readily available (including restricted securities) or are deemed unreliable arevalued at fair value. Factors considered in making this determination may include, but are not limited to, informationobtained by contacting the issuer, analysts, analysis of the issuer’s financial statements or other available documents. Inaddition, the Portfolio may use fair value pricing for securities primarily traded in non-U.S. markets because most foreignmarkets close well before the Portfolio values its securities at 4:00 p.m., Eastern Time. The earlier close of these foreignmarkets gives rise to the possibility that significant events, including broad market moves, may have occurred in the interimand may materially affect the value of those securities. To account for this, the Portfolio may frequently value many of itsforeign equity securities using fair value prices based on third party vendor modeling tools to the extent available.

2. Fair Value MeasurementsIn accordance with U.S. GAAP regarding fair value measurements, fair value is defined as the price that the Portfolio wouldreceive to sell an asset or pay to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement

9

VALUE PORTFOLIONOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS(continued) AllianceBernstein Variable Products Series Fund

date. The U.S. GAAP disclosure requirements establish a framework for measuring fair value, and a three-level hierarchy forfair value measurements based upon the transparency of inputs to the valuation of an asset or liability. Inputs may beobservable or unobservable and refer broadly to the assumptions that market participants would use in pricing the asset orliability. Observable inputs reflect the assumptions market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability based onmarket data obtained from sources independent of the Portfolio. Unobservable inputs reflect the Portfolio’s own assumptionsabout the assumptions that market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability based on the best information avail-able in the circumstances. Each investment is assigned a level based upon the observability of the inputs which are sig-nificant to the overall valuation. The three-tier hierarchy of inputs is summarized below.

• Level 1—quoted prices in active markets for identical investments• Level 2—other significant observable inputs (including quoted prices for similar investments, interest rates,

prepayment speeds, credit risk, etc.)• Level 3—significant unobservable inputs (including the Portfolio’s own assumptions in determining the fair value of

investments)

The following table summarizes the valuation of the Portfolio’s investments by the above fair value hierarchy levels as ofJune 30, 2012:

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Total

Investments in Securities:Assets:Common Stocks:

Health Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 28,816,358 $886,010 $ –0– $ 29,702,368Financials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27,144,957 –0– –0– 27,144,957Consumer Discretionary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26,017,238 –0– –0– 26,017,238Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23,741,506 –0– –0– 23,741,506Information Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17,109,997 –0– –0– 17,109,997Consumer Staples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14,489,792 –0– –0– 14,489,792Industrials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,493,902 –0– –0– 8,493,902Utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,470,964 –0– –0– 8,470,964Telecommunication Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,765,932 –0– –0– 6,765,932Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,933,896 –0– –0– 1,933,896

Investments of Cash Collateral for Security Loanedin Affiliated Money Market Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 450,775 –0– –0– 450,775

Total Investments in Securities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163,435,317 886,010 –0– 164,321,327Other Financial Instruments* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . –0– –0– –0– –0–

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $163,435,317 $886,010 $ –0– $164,321,327

* Other financial instruments are derivative instruments, such as futures, forwards and swap contracts, which are valued at the unreal-ized appreciation/depreciation on the instrument.

3. Currency TranslationAssets and liabilities denominated in foreign currencies and commitments under forward currency exchange contracts aretranslated into U.S. dollars at the mean of the quoted bid and ask prices of such currencies against the U.S. dollar. Purchasesand sales of portfolio securities are translated into U.S. dollars at the rates of exchange prevailing when such securities wereacquired or sold. Income and expenses are translated into U.S. dollars at rates of exchange prevailing when accrued.

Net realized gain or loss on foreign currency transactions represents foreign exchange gains and losses from sales and matur-ities of foreign fixed income investments, foreign currency exchange contracts, holding of foreign currencies, currency gainsor losses realized between the trade and settlement dates on foreign investment transactions, and the difference between theamounts of dividends, interest and foreign withholding taxes recorded on the Portfolio’s books and the U.S. dollar equivalentamounts actually received or paid. Net unrealized currency gains and losses from valuing foreign currency denominatedassets and liabilities at period end exchange rates are reflected as a component of net unrealized appreciation or depreciationof foreign currency denominated assets and liabilities.

10


4. TaxesIt is the Portfolio’s policy to meet the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code applicable to regulated investment compa-nies and to distribute all of its investment company taxable income and net realized gains, if any, to shareholders. Therefore,no provisions for federal income or excise taxes are required. The Portfolio may be subject to taxes imposed by countries inwhich it invests. Such taxes are generally based on income and/or capital gains earned or repatriated. Taxes are accrued andapplied to net investment income, net realized gains and net unrealized appreciation/depreciation as such income and/orgains are earned.

In accordance with U.S. GAAP requirements regarding accounting for uncertainties in income taxes, management has ana-lyzed the Portfolio’s tax positions taken or expected to be taken on federal and state income tax returns for all open tax years(the current and the prior three tax years) and has concluded that no provision for income tax is required in the Portfolio’sfinancial statements.

5. Investment Income and Investment TransactionsDividend income is recorded on the ex-dividend date or as soon as the Portfolio is informed of the dividend. Interest incomeis accrued daily. Investment transactions are accounted for on the date the securities are purchased or sold. Investment gainsor losses are determined on the identified cost basis. The Portfolio amortizes premiums and accretes discounts as adjust-ments to interest income.

6. Class AllocationsAll income earned and expenses incurred by the Portfolio are borne on a pro-rata basis by each outstanding class of shares,based on the proportionate interest in the Portfolio represented by the net assets of such class, except for class specificexpenses which are allocated to the respective class. Expenses of the Fund are charged to each Portfolio in proportion to netassets. Realized and unrealized gains and losses are allocated among the various share classes based on respective net assets.

7. Dividends and DistributionsDividends and distributions to shareholders, if any, are recorded on the ex-dividend date. Income dividends and capital gainsdistributions are determined in accordance with federal tax regulations and may differ from those determined in accordancewith U.S. GAAP. To the extent these differences are permanent, such amounts are reclassified within the capital accountsbased on their federal tax basis treatment; temporary differences do not require such reclassification.

NOTE B: Advisory Fee and Other Transactions with AffiliatesUnder the terms of the investment advisory agreement, the Portfolio pays the Adviser an advisory fee at an annual rate of.55% of the first $2.5 billion, .45% of the next $2.5 billion and .40% in excess of $5 billion, of the Portfolio’s average dailynet assets. The fee is accrued daily and paid monthly. The Adviser has agreed to waive its fees and bear certain expenses tothe extent necessary to limit total operating expenses on an annual basis to 1.20% and 1.45% of daily average net assets forClass A and Class B shares, respectively (the “Expense Caps”). The Expense Caps extend through May 1, 2013 and thenmay be extended by the Adviser for additional one year terms. For the six months ended June 30, 2012, there was no suchreimbursement.

Pursuant to the investment advisory agreement, the Portfolio may reimburse the Adviser for certain legal and accountingservices provided to the Portfolio by the Adviser. For the six months ended June 30, 2012, such fee amounted to $26,873.

Brokerage commissions paid on investment transactions for the six months ended June 30, 2012 amounted to $79,874, ofwhich $0 and $0, respectively, was paid to Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. LLC and Sanford C. Bernstein Limited, affiliates ofthe Adviser.

The Portfolio compensates AllianceBernstein Investor Services, Inc. (“ABIS”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Adviser,under a Transfer Agency Agreement for providing personnel and facilities to perform transfer agency services for thePortfolio. Such compensation retained by ABIS amounted to $692 for the six months ended June 30, 2012.

NOTE C: Distribution PlanThe Portfolio has adopted a Distribution Plan (the “Plan”) for Class B shares pursuant to Rule 12b-1 under the InvestmentCompany Act of 1940. Under the Plan, the Portfolio pays distribution and servicing fees to AllianceBernstein Investments,Inc. (the “Distributor”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Adviser, at an annual rate of up to .50% of the Portfolio’s averagedaily net assets attributable to Class B shares. The fees are accrued daily and paid monthly. The Board of Directors currentlylimits payments under the Plan to .25% of the Portfolio’s average daily net assets attributable to Class B shares. The Planprovides that the Distributor will use such payments in their entirety for distribution assistance and promotional activities.

11


The Portfolio is not obligated under the Plan to pay any distribution and servicing fees in excess of the amounts set forthabove. The purpose of the payments to the Distributor under the Plan is to compensate the Distributor for its distributionservices with respect to the sale of the Portfolio’s Class B shares. Since the Distributor’s compensation is not directly tied toits expenses, the amount of compensation received by it under the Plan during any year may be more or less than its actualexpenses. For this reason, the Plan is characterized by the staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission as being of the“compensation” variety.

In the event that the Plan is terminated or not continued, no distribution or servicing fees (other than current amounts accruedbut not yet paid) would be owed by the Portfolio to the Distributor.

The Plan also provides that the Adviser may use its own resources to finance the distribution of the Portfolio’s shares.

NOTE D: Investment TransactionsPurchases and sales of investment securities (excluding short-term investments) for the six months ended June 30, 2012were as follows:

Purchases Sales

Investment securities (excluding U.S. government securities) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $31,648,963 $53,661,231U.S. government securities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . –0– –0–

The cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was substantially the same as the cost for financial reporting pur-poses. Accordingly, gross unrealized appreciation and unrealized depreciation are as follows:

Gross unrealized appreciation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $19,229,803Gross unrealized depreciation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (8,775,014)

Net unrealized appreciation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $10,454,789

1. Derivative Financial InstrumentsThe Portfolio may use derivatives in an effort to earn income and enhance returns, to replace more traditional direct invest-ments, to obtain exposure to otherwise inaccessible markets (collectively, “investment purposes”), or to hedge or adjust therisk profile of its portfolio.

The Portfolio did not engage in derivatives transactions for the six months ended June 30, 2012.

2. Currency TransactionsThe Portfolio may invest in non-U.S. Dollar securities on a currency hedged or unhedged basis. The Portfolio may seekinvestment opportunities by taking long or short positions in currencies through the use of currency-related derivatives,including forward currency exchange contracts, futures and options on futures, swaps, and other options. The Portfolio mayenter into transactions for investment opportunities when it anticipates that a foreign currency will appreciate or depreciate invalue but securities denominated in that currency are not held by the Portfolio and do not present attractive investmentopportunities. Such transactions may also be used when the Adviser believes that it may be more efficient than a directinvestment in a foreign currency-denominated security. The Portfolio may also conduct currency exchange contracts on aspot basis (i.e., for cash at the spot rate prevailing in the currency exchange market for buying or selling currencies).

NOTE E: Securities LendingThe Portfolio may enter into securities lending transactions. Under the Portfolio’s securities lending program, all securitiesloans will be collateralized continually by cash. The Portfolio will be compensated for the loan from a portion of the netreturn from the income earned on cash collateral after a rebate is paid to the borrower (in some cases, this rebate may be a“negative rebate” or fee paid by the borrower to the Portfolio in connection with the loan), and payments for fees of thesecurities lending agent and for certain other administrative expenses. It is the policy of the Portfolio to receive collateralconsisting of cash in an amount exceeding the value of the securities loaned. The Portfolio will have the right to call a loanand obtain the securities loaned at any time on notice to the borrower within the normal and customary settlement time forthe securities. While the securities are on loan, the borrower is obligated to pay the Portfolio amounts equal to any income orother distributions from the securities. The Portfolio will not have the right to vote any securities during the existence of aloan, but will have the right to regain ownership of loaned securities in order to exercise voting or other ownership rights.The lending agent has agreed to indemnify the Portfolio in the case of default of any securities borrower. Collateral receivedand securities loaned are marked to market daily to ensure that the securities loaned are secured by collateral. The lending

12


agent will invest the cash collateral received in AllianceBernstein Exchange Reserves, an eligible money market vehicle, inaccordance with the investment restrictions of the Portfolio, and as approved by the Fund’s Board of Directors. Thecollateral received on securities loaned is recorded as an asset as well as a corresponding liability in the statement of assetsand liabilities. When the Portfolio lends securities, its investment performance will continue to reflect changes in the value ofthe securities loaned. At June 30, 2012, the Portfolio had securities on loan with a value of $453,492 and had received cashcollateral which has been invested into AllianceBernstein Exchange Reserves of $450,775. The cash collateral will beadjusted on the next business day after period end to maintain the required collateral amount. The Portfolio earned securitieslending income of $6,949 and $931 from the borrowers and AllianceBernstein Exchange Reserves, respectively, for the sixmonths ended June 30, 2012; these amounts are reflected in the statement of operations. A principal risk of lending portfoliosecurities is that the borrower will fail to return the loaned securities upon termination of the loan and that the collateral willnot be sufficient to replace the loaned securities. A summary of the Portfolio’s transactions in shares of AllianceBernsteinExchange Reserves for the six months ended June 30, 2012 is as follows:

Market ValueDecember 31, 2011

(000)

Purchasesat Cost(000)

SalesProceeds

(000)

Market ValueJune 30, 2012

(000)

DividendIncome(000)

$–0– $5,849 $5,398 $451 $1

NOTE F: Capital StockEach class consists of 500,000,000 authorized shares. Transactions in capital shares for each class were as follows:

SHARES AMOUNTSix Months Ended

June 30, 2012(unaudited)


2011

Six Months EndedJune 30, 2012(unaudited)


2011

Class AShares sold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,055 13,481 $ 20,865 $ 124,573Shares issued in reinvestment of dividends . . . . . . . . . . . . –0– 2,126 –0– 22,448Shares redeemed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (17,878) (27,172) (183,359) (267,901)

Net decrease . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (15,823) (11,565) $ (162,494) $ (120,880)

Class BShares sold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92,606 1,007,484 $ 929,681 $ 9,274,516Shares issued in reinvestment of dividends . . . . . . . . . . . . –0– 219,199 –0– 2,297,210Shares redeemed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2,525,056) (4,153,579) (24,907,427) (40,377,866)

Net decrease . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2,432,450) (2,926,896) $(23,977,746) $(28,806,140)

NOTE G: Risks Involved in Investing in the PortfolioForeign Securities Risk—Investing in securities of foreign companies or foreign governments involves special risks whichinclude changes in foreign currency exchange rates and the possibility of future political and economic developments whichcould adversely affect the value of such securities. Moreover, securities of many foreign companies or foreign governmentsand their markets may be less liquid and their prices more volatile than those of comparable U.S. companies or of the U.S.government.

Currency Risk—This is the risk that changes in foreign currency exchange rates may negatively affect the value of thePortfolio’s investments or reduce the returns of the Portfolio. For example, the value of the Portfolio’s investments in foreigncurrency-denominated securities or currencies may decrease if the U.S. Dollar is strong (i.e., gaining value relative to othercurrencies) and other currencies are weak (i.e., losing value relative to the U.S. Dollar). Currency markets are generally notas regulated as securities markets. Independent of the Portfolio’s investments denominated in foreign currencies, the Portfo-lio’s positions in various foreign currencies may cause the Portfolio to experience investment losses due to the changes inexchange rates and interest rates.

Derivatives Risk—The Portfolio may enter into derivative transactions such as forwards, options, futures and swaps. Derivativesmay be illiquid, difficult to price, and leveraged so that small changes may produce disproportionate losses for the Portfolio, andsubject to counterparty risk to a greater degree than more traditional investments. Derivatives may result in significant losses,including losses that are far greater than the value of the derivatives reflected in the statement of assets and liabilities.

13


Indemnification Risk—In the ordinary course of business, the Portfolio enters into contracts that contain a variety ofindemnifications. The Portfolio’s maximum exposure under these arrangements is unknown. However, the Portfolio has nothad prior claims or losses pursuant to these indemnification provisions and expects the risk of loss thereunder to be remote.Therefore, the Portfolio has not accrued any liability in connection with these indemnification provisions.

NOTE H: Joint Credit FacilityA number of open-end mutual funds managed by the Adviser, including the Portfolio, participate in a $140 million revolvingcredit facility (the “Facility”) intended to provide short-term financing, if necessary, subject to certain restrictions in con-nection with abnormal redemption activity. Commitment fees related to the Facility are paid by the participating funds andare included in miscellaneous expenses in the statement of operations. The Portfolio did not utilize the Facility during the sixmonths ended June 30, 2012.

NOTE I: Distributions to ShareholdersThe tax character of distributions to be paid for the year ending December 31, 2012 will be determined at the end of the cur-rent fiscal year. The tax character of distributions paid during the fiscal years ended December 31, 2011 and December 31,2010 were as follows:

2011 2010

Distributions paid from:Ordinary income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $2,319,658 $3,624,876

Total taxable distributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,319,658 3,624,876

Total distributions paid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $2,319,658 $3,624,876

As of December 31, 2011, the components of accumulated earnings/(deficit) on a tax basis were as follows:

Undistributed ordinary income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 2,817,577Accumulated capital and other losses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (80,512,963)(a)Unrealized appreciation/(depreciation) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,544,397(b)

Total accumulated earnings/(deficit) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $(73,150,989)

(a) On December 31, 2011, the Portfolio had a net capital loss carryforward of $79,970,146. During the fiscal year, the Portfolio utilized$14,964,977 of capital loss carryforwards to offset current year net realized gains. At December 31, 2011, the Portfolio had a post-October short-term capital loss deferral of $542,817, which is deemed to arise on January 1, 2012.

(b) The differences between book-basis and tax-basis unrealized appreciation/(depreciation) are attributable primarily to the tax deferralof losses on wash sales and return of capital distributions received from underlying securities.

For tax purposes, net capital losses may be carried over to offset future capital gains, if any. Under the Regulated InvestmentCompany Modernization Act of 2010, funds are permitted to carry forward capital losses incurred in taxable years beginningafter December 22, 2010 for an indefinite period. These post-enactment capital losses must be utilized prior to thepre-enactment capital losses, which are subject to expiration. Post-enactment capital loss carryforwards will retain theircharacter as either short-term or long-term capital losses rather than being considered short-term as under previousregulation.

As of December 31, 2011, the Portfolio had a net capital loss carryforward of $79,970,146 which will expire as follows:

SHORT-TERMAMOUNT

LONG-TERMAMOUNT EXPIRATION

$ 79,970,146 n/a 2017

NOTE J: Recent Accounting PronouncementIn December 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued an Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”)related to disclosures about offsetting assets and liabilities in financial statements. The amendments in this update require anentity to disclose both gross and net information for derivatives and other financial instruments that are either offset in thestatement of assets and liabilities or subject to an enforceable master netting arrangement or similar agreement. The ASU iseffective during interim or annual reporting periods beginning on or after January 1, 2013. At this time, management isevaluating the implication of this ASU and its impact on the financial statements has not been determined.

14


NOTE K: Subsequent EventsManagement has evaluated subsequent events for possible recognition or disclosure in the financial statements through thedate the financial statements are issued. Management has determined that there are no material events that would requiredisclosure in the Portfolio’s financial statements through this date.

15

VALUE PORTFOLIOFINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS AllianceBernstein Variable Products Series Fund

Selected Data For A Share Of Capital Stock Outstanding Throughout Each Period

CLASS ASix Months

EndedJune 30, 2012(unaudited)

Year Ended December 31,

2011 2010 2009 2008 2007

Net asset value, beginning of period . . . . $9.37 $9.84 $8.97 $7.67 $13.92 $15.08

Income From Investment Operations

Net investment income (a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 .17 .12 .16 .27 .32Net realized and unrealized gain (loss)

on investment and foreign currencytransactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54 (.50) .93 1.41 (5.62) (.85)

Net increase (decrease) in net assetvalue from operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64 (.33) 1.05 1.57 (5.35) (.53)

Less: Dividends and Distributions

Dividends from net investmentincome. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . –0– (.14) (.18) (.27) (.28) (.21)

Distributions from net realized gain oninvestment transactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . –0– –0– –0– –0– (.62) (.42)

Total dividends and distributions . . . . . . . –0– (.14) (.18) (.27) (.90) (.63)

Net asset value, end of period . . . . . . . . . . . $10.01 $9.37 $9.84 $8.97 $7.67 $13.92

Total Return

Total investment return based on netasset value (b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.83% (3.50)% 11.81%* 21.12%* (40.83)%* (3.95)%

Ratios/Supplemental Data

Net assets, end of period(000’s omitted) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1,463 $1,517 $1,707 $1,594 $1,490 $3,305,460

Ratio to average net assets of:Expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73%(c) .71% .71%(d) .70% .67% .65%Net investment income. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.90%(c) 1.78% 1.37%(d) 2.09% 2.46% 2.17%

Portfolio turnover rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18% 62% 73% 64% 33% 20%

See footnote summary on page 17.

16


Selected Data For A Share Of Capital Stock Outstanding Throughout Each Period

CLASS BSix Months

EndedJune 30, 2012(unaudited)

Year Ended December 31,

2011 2010 2009 2008 2007

Net asset value, beginning of period . . . . $9.28 $9.75 $8.90 $7.59 $13.79 $14.95

Income From Investment Operations

Net investment income (a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .08 .15 .10 .14 .24 .27Net realized and unrealized gain (loss)

on investment and foreign currencytransactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55 (.50) .91 1.41 (5.58) (.83)

Net increase (decrease) in net assetvalue from operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63 (.35) 1.01 1.55 (5.34) (.56)

Less: Dividends and Distributions

Dividends from net investmentincome. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . –0– (.12) (.16) (.24) (.24) (.18)

Distributions from net realized gain oninvestment transactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . –0– –0– –0– –0– (.62) (.42)

Total dividends and distributions . . . . . . . –0– (.12) (.16) (.24) (.86) (.60)

Net asset value, end of period . . . . . . . . . . . $9.91 $9.28 $9.75 $8.90 $7.59 $13.79

Total Return

Total investment return based on netasset value (b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.79% (3.78)% 11.42%* 21.04%* (41.01)%* (4.16)%

Ratios/Supplemental Data

Net assets, end of period(000’s omitted) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $162,866 $175,183 $212,522 $213,827 $197,080 $329,217

Ratio to average net assets of:Expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .98%(c) .96% .96%(d) .95% .92% .90%Net investment income. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.63%(c) 1.51% 1.12%(d) 1.84% 2.24% 1.82%

Portfolio turnover rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18% 62% 73% 64% 33% 20%

(a) Based on average shares outstanding.

(b) Total investment return is calculated assuming an initial investment made at the net asset value at the beginning of the period,reinvestment of all dividends and distributions at net asset value during the period, and redemption on the last day of the period. Totalreturn does not reflect (i) insurance company’s separate account related expense charges and (ii) the deductions of taxes that a share-holder would pay on Portfolio distributions or the redemption of Portfolio shares. Total investment return calculated for a period ofless than one year is not annualized.

(c) Annualized.

(d) The ratio includes expenses attributable to costs of proxy solicitation.

* Includes the impact of proceeds received and credited to the Portfolio resulting from class action settlements, which enhanced thePortfolio’s performance for the years ended December 31, 2010, December 31, 2009 and December 31, 2008 by 0.01%, 0.02% and0.02%, respectively.


17

VALUE PORTFOLIOCONTINUANCE DISCLOSURE AllianceBernstein Variable Products Series Fund

INFORMATION REGARDING THE REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE PORTFOLIO’S ADVISORY AGREEMENTThe disinterested directors (the “directors”) of AllianceBernstein Variable Products Series Fund, Inc. (the “Fund”) unan-imously approved the continuance of the Fund’s Advisory Agreement with the Adviser in respect of AllianceBernsteinValue Portfolio (the “Portfolio”) at a meeting held on May 1-3, 2012.

Prior to approval of the continuance of the Advisory Agreement, the directors had requested from the Adviser, and receivedand evaluated, extensive materials. They reviewed the proposed continuance of the Advisory Agreement with the Adviserand with experienced counsel who are independent of the Adviser, who advised on the relevant legal standards. The direc-tors also reviewed an independent evaluation prepared by the Fund’s Senior Officer (who is also the Fund’s IndependentCompliance Officer) of the reasonableness of the advisory fee in the Advisory Agreement, in which the Senior Officer con-cluded that the contractual fee for the Portfolio was reasonable. The directors also discussed the proposed continuance inprivate sessions with counsel and the Fund’s Senior Officer.

The directors considered their knowledge of the nature and quality of the services provided by the Adviser to the Portfoliogained from their experience as directors or trustees of most of the registered investment companies advised by the Adviser,their overall confidence in the Adviser’s integrity and competence they have gained from that experience, the Adviser’s ini-tiative in identifying and raising potential issues with the directors and its responsiveness, frankness and attention to concernsraised by the directors in the past, including the Adviser’s willingness to consider and implement organizational and opera-tional changes designed to improve investment results and the services provided to the AllianceBernstein Funds. The direc-tors noted that they have four regular meetings each year, at each of which they receive presentations from the Adviser onthe investment results of the Portfolio and review extensive materials and information presented by the Adviser.

The directors also considered all other factors they believed relevant, including the specific matters discussed below. In theirdeliberations, the directors did not identify any particular information that was all-important or controlling, and differentdirectors may have attributed different weights to the various factors. The directors determined that the selection of theAdviser to manage the Portfolio and the overall arrangements between the Portfolio and the Adviser, as provided in theAdvisory Agreement, including the advisory fee, were fair and reasonable in light of the services performed, expensesincurred and such other matters as the directors considered relevant in the exercise of their business judgment. The materialfactors and conclusions that formed the basis for the directors’ determinations included the following:

Nature, Extent and Quality of Services ProvidedThe directors considered the scope and quality of services provided by the Adviser under the Advisory Agreement, includingthe quality of the investment research capabilities of the Adviser and the other resources it has dedicated to performing serv-ices for the Portfolio. They also noted the professional experience and qualifications of the Portfolio’s portfolio managementteam and other senior personnel of the Adviser. The directors also considered that the Advisory Agreement provides that thePortfolio will reimburse the Adviser for the cost to it of providing certain clerical, accounting, administrative and other serv-ices provided at the Portfolio’s request by employees of the Adviser or its affiliates. Requests for these reimbursements areapproved by the directors on a quarterly basis and, to the extent requested and paid, result in a higher rate of total compensa-tion from the Portfolio to the Adviser than the fee rate stated in the Portfolio’s Advisory Agreement. The directors noted thatthe methodology used to determine the reimbursement amounts had been reviewed by an independent consultant retained bythe Fund’s Senior Officer. The quality of administrative and other services, including the Adviser’s role in coordinating theactivities of the Portfolio’s other service providers, also were considered. The directors concluded that, overall, they weresatisfied with the nature, extent and quality of services provided to the Portfolio under the Advisory Agreement.

Costs of Services Provided and ProfitabilityThe directors reviewed a schedule of the revenues, expenses and related notes indicating the profitability of the Portfolio tothe Adviser for calendar years 2010 and 2011 that had been prepared with an expense allocation methodology arrived at inconsultation with an independent consultant retained by the Fund’s Senior Officer. The directors reviewed the assumptionsand methods of allocation used by the Adviser in preparing fund-specific profitability data and noted that there are a numberof potentially acceptable allocation methodologies for information of this type. The directors noted that the profitabilityinformation reflected all revenues and expenses of the Adviser’s relationship with the Portfolio, including those relating to itssubsidiaries which provide transfer agency, distribution and brokerage services to the Portfolio. The directors recognized thatit is difficult to make comparisons of profitability of the Advisory Agreement with fund advisory contracts for unaffiliatedfunds because comparative information is not generally publicly available and is affected by numerous factors. The directorsfocused on the profitability of the Adviser’s relationship with the Portfolio before taxes and distribution expenses. The direc-

18


tors concluded that they were satisfied that the Adviser’s level of profitability from its relationship with the Portfolio was notunreasonable.

Fall-Out BenefitsThe directors considered the other benefits to the Adviser and its affiliates from their relationships with the Portfolio, includ-ing but not limited to benefits relating to soft dollar arrangements (whereby the Adviser receives brokerage and researchservices from brokers that execute transactions for certain clients, including the Portfolio); 12b-1 fees and sales chargesreceived by the Fund’s principal underwriter (which is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Adviser) in respect of the Portfo-lio’s Class B shares; transfer agency fees paid by the Portfolio to a wholly owned subsidiary of the Adviser; and brokeragecommissions paid by the Portfolio to brokers affiliated with the Adviser. The directors recognized that the Adviser’s profit-ability would be somewhat lower without these benefits. The directors also understood that the Adviser also might derivereputational and other benefits from its association with the Portfolio.

Investment ResultsIn addition to the information reviewed by the directors in connection with the meeting, the directors receive detailed per-formance information for the Portfolio at each regular Board meeting during the year. The directors noted that the Portfoliois a clone of another fund managed by the Adviser (the “Corresponding Fund”) and is managed to track the investment per-formance of its Corresponding Fund, although investment results may differ between the Portfolio and its CorrespondingFund due to differences in their expense ratios and other factors. At the May 2012 meeting, the directors reviewedinformation prepared by Lipper showing the performance of the Class A Shares of the Portfolio as compared with that of agroup of similar funds selected by Lipper (the “Performance Group”) and as compared with that of a broader array of fundsselected by Lipper (the “Performance Universe”), and information prepared by the Adviser showing performance of theClass A Shares as compared with the Russell 1000 Value Index (the “Index”), in each case for the 1-, 3- and 5-year periodsended February 29, 2012 and (in the case of comparisons with the Index) the since inception period (July 2002 inception).The directors noted that the Portfolio was in the 5th quintile of the Performance Group and 4th quintile of the PerformanceUniverse for the 1-year period, in the 4th quintile of the Performance Group and the Performance Universe for the 3-yearperiod, and in the 5th quintile of the Performance Group and the Performance Universe for the 5-year period. The Portfoliolagged the Index in all periods. The directors also reviewed performance information for periods ended March 31, 2012 (forwhich the data was not limited to Class A Shares), and noted that in the 3-month period the Portfolio had outperformed theLipper VA Large Cap Value Funds Average and the Index.

The directors noted that they had discussed with the Adviser their concerns about the relative performance of the Portfolio.The directors took into account the Adviser’s recent restructuring of the Adviser’s research and portfolio management teamsand investment process changes that are intended to improve the investment performance of its equity services. The Adviserhad stated its belief that, in the case of its value funds, it had adhered to its rigorous process for value investing during aperiod when value investing had not generally obtained favorable returns. The Adviser believed that other managers of valuefunds may not pursue value characteristics to the same degree as the Adviser, and that their funds’ short-term performancemay have benefited from style drift. The Adviser also reiterated its conviction that, over the long term, rigorous value inves-ting would yield superior investment returns. The directors were satisfied with the Adviser’s explanation.

Based on their review and their discussion with the Adviser of the reasons for the Portfolio’s performance, the directorsretained confidence in the Adviser’s ability to manage the Portfolio. The directors determined to continue to monitor thePortfolio’s performance closely.

Advisory Fees and Other ExpensesThe directors considered the advisory fee rate paid by the Portfolio to the Adviser and information prepared by Lipper con-cerning advisory fee rates paid by other funds in the same Lipper category as the Portfolio at a common asset level. Thedirectors recognized that it is difficult to make comparisons of advisory fees because there are variations in the services thatare included in the fees paid by other funds.

The directors also considered the fees the Adviser charges non-fund clients pursuing a substantially similar investment style.For this purpose, they reviewed the relevant fee information from the Adviser’s Form ADV and the evaluation from theFund’s Senior Officer. The directors noted that the institutional fee schedule started at a higher fee rate than the Portfolio’sstarting fee rate, but had more breakpoints starting at lower asset levels. As a result, the application of the institutional feeschedule to the level of assets of the Portfolio would result in a lower fee rate than that being paid by the Portfolio. The

19

VALUE PORTFOLIOCONTINUANCE DISCLOSURE(continued) AllianceBernstein Variable Products Series Fund

directors noted that the Adviser may, in some cases, agree to fee rates with large institutional clients that are lower than thosereviewed by the directors and that they had previously discussed with the Adviser its policies in respect of such arrange-ments. The directors also reviewed information that indicated that the Portfolio’s fee rate is higher than the sub-advisory feerate earned by the Adviser for sub-advising certain registered investment companies with a similar investment style. Thedirectors noted that the advisory fee schedule for the Portfolio is the same as that for its Corresponding Fund.

The Adviser reviewed with the directors the significantly greater scope of the services it provides to the Portfolio relative toinstitutional clients and sub-advised funds. The Adviser also noted that because mutual funds are constantly issuing andredeeming shares, they are more difficult to manage than an institutional account, where the assets tend to be relatively sta-ble. In light of the substantial differences in services rendered by the Adviser to institutional clients as compared to fundssuch as the Portfolio, the directors considered these fee comparisons inapt and did not place significant weight on them intheir deliberations.

The directors also considered the total expense ratio of the Class A shares of the Portfolio in comparison to the fees andexpenses of funds within two comparison groups created by Lipper: an Expense Group and an Expense Universe. Lipperdescribed an Expense Group as a representative sample of funds similar to the Portfolio and an Expense Universe as abroader group, consisting of all funds in the investment classification/objective with a similar load type as the Portfolio. TheClass A expense ratio of the Portfolio was based on the Portfolio’s latest fiscal year. The directors noted that it was likelythat the expense ratios of some of the other funds in the Portfolio’s Lipper category were lowered by waivers or reimburse-ments by those funds’ investment advisers, which in some cases might be voluntary or temporary. The directors view theexpense ratio information as relevant to their evaluation of the Adviser’s services because the Adviser is responsible forcoordinating services provided to the Portfolio by others.

The directors noted that, at the Portfolio’s current size, its contractual effective advisory fee rate of 55 basis points, plus the 3basis point impact of the administrative expense reimbursement in the latest fiscal year, was lower than the Expense Groupmedian. The directors also noted that the Portfolio’s total expense ratio, which had been capped by the Adviser (although theexpense ratio was currently lower than the cap), was lower than the Expense Group and the Expense Universe medians. Thedirectors concluded that the Portfolio’s expense ratio was satisfactory.

Economies of ScaleThe directors noted that the advisory fee schedule for the Portfolio contains breakpoints that reduce the fee rates on assetsabove specified levels. The directors took into consideration prior presentations by an independent consultant on economiesof scale in the mutual fund industry and for the AllianceBernstein Funds, and by the Adviser concerning certain of its viewson economies of scale. The directors also had requested and received from the Adviser certain updates on economies of scaleat the May 2012 meetings. The directors believe that economies of scale may be realized (if at all) by the Adviser across avariety of products and services, and not only in respect of a single fund. The directors noted that there is no establishedmethodology for establishing breakpoints that give effect to the fund-specific services provided by a fund’s adviser and tothe economies of scale that an adviser may realize in its overall mutual fund business or those components of it whichdirectly or indirectly affect a fund’s operations. The directors observed that in the mutual fund industry as a whole, as well asamong funds similar to the Portfolio, there is no uniformity or pattern in the fees and asset levels at which breakpoints (ifany) apply. The directors also noted that the advisory agreements for many funds do not have breakpoints at all. Havingtaken these factors into account, the directors concluded that the Portfolio’s shareholders would benefit from a sharing ofeconomies of scale in the event the Portfolio’s net assets exceed a breakpoint in the future.

20

VALUE PORTFOLIOSENIOR OFFICER FEE EVALUATION AllianceBernstein Variable Products Series Fund

THE FOLLOWING IS NOT PART OF THE SHAREHOLDER REPORT OR THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

SUMMARY OF SENIOR OFFICER’S EVALUATION OF INVESTMENT ADVISORY AGREEMENT1

The following is a summary of the evaluation of the Investment Advisory Agreement between AllianceBernstein L.P. (the“Adviser”) and the AllianceBernstein Variable Products Series Fund (the “Fund”), in respect of AllianceBernstein ValuePortfolio (the “Portfolio”).2 The evaluation of the Investment Advisory Agreement was prepared by Philip L. Kirstein, theSenior Officer of the Fund, for the Directors of the Fund, as required by a September 2004 agreement between the Adviserand the New York State Attorney General (the “NYAG”). The Senior Officer’s evaluation of the Investment AdvisoryAgreement is not meant to diminish the responsibility or authority of the Board of Directors of the Fund to perform its dutiespursuant to Section 15 of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “40 Act”) and applicable state law. The purpose of thesummary is to provide shareholders with a synopsis of the independent evaluation of the reasonableness of the advisory feesproposed to be paid by the Portfolio which was provided to the Directors in connection with their review of the proposedapproval of the continuance of the Investment Advisory Agreement. The Senior Officer’s evaluation considered the follow-ing factors:

1. Advisory fees charged to institutional and other clients of the Adviser for like services;

2. Advisory fees charged by other mutual fund companies for like services;

3. Costs to the Adviser and its affiliates of supplying services pursuant to the advisory agreement, excluding any intra-corporate profit;

4. Profit margins of the Adviser and its affiliates from supplying such services;

5. Possible economies of scale as the Portfolio grows larger; and

6. Nature and quality of the Adviser’s services including the performance of the Portfolio.

These factors, with the exception of the first factor, are generally referred to as the “Gartenberg factors,” which were articu-lated by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in 1982. Gartenberg v. Merrill Lynch Asset Management,Inc., 694 F. 2d 923 (2d Cir. 1982). The first factor is an additional factor required to be considered by the AoD. OnMarch 30, 2010, the Supreme Court held the Gartenberg decision was correct in its basic formulation of what §36(b)requires: to face liability under §36(b), “an investment adviser must charge a fee that is so disproportionately large that itbears no reasonable relationship to the services rendered and could not have been the product of arm’s length bargaining.”Jones v. Harris Associates L.P., 130 S. Ct. 1418 (2010). In the Jones decision, the Court stated the Gartenberg approachfully incorporates the correct understanding of fiduciary duty within the context of section 36(b) and noted with approvalthat “Gartenberg insists that all relevant circumstances be taken into account” and “uses the range of fees that might resultfrom arm’s-length bargaining as the benchmark for reviewing challenged fees.”3

PORTFOLIO ADVISORY FEES, NET ASSETS & EXPENSE RATIOSThe Adviser proposed that the Portfolio pay the advisory fee set forth in the table below for receiving the services to be pro-vided pursuant to the Investment Advisory Agreement. The fee schedule below, implemented in January 2004 in consid-eration of the Adviser’s settlement with the NYAG in December 2003, is based on a master schedule that contemplates eightcategories of funds with almost all funds in each category having the same advisory fee schedule.

CategoryAdvisory Fee Based on % of

Average Daily Net Assets

Net Assets03/31/12($MIL) Portfolio

Value 55 bp on first $2.5 billion45 bp on next $2.5 billion40 bp on the balance

$183.4 Value Portfolio

The Adviser is reimbursed as specified in the Investment Advisory Agreement for certain clerical, legal, accounting, admin-istrative and other services provided to the Portfolio. During the Portfolio’s most recently completed fiscal year, the Adviserreceived $60,578 (0.03% of the Portfolio’s average daily net assets) for such services.

1 The information in the fee summary was completed on April 19, 2012 and discussed with the Board of Directors on May 1-3, 2012.

2 Future references to the Fund and the Portfolio do not include “AllianceBernstein.” References in the fee summary pertaining to per-formance and expense ratio rankings refer to the Class A shares of the Portfolio.

3 Jones v. Harris at 1427.

21

VALUE PORTFOLIOSENIOR OFFICER FEE EVALUATION(continued) AllianceBernstein Variable Products Series Fund

The Adviser has agreed to waive that portion of its management fees and/or reimburse the Portfolio for that portion of itstotal operating expenses to the degree necessary to limit the Portfolio’s expense ratios to the amounts set forth below for thePortfolio’s fiscal year. The waiver is terminable by the Adviser on May 1st of each year upon at least 60 days written notice.It should be noted that the Portfolio was operating below its expense caps for the most recent fiscal year; accordingly theexpense limitation undertaking of the Portfolio was of no effect. In addition, set forth below are the gross expense ratios ofthe Portfolio for the most recently completed fiscal year:

Portfolio

Expense Cap Pursuantto Expense Limitation

Undertaking

GrossExpense

Ratio Fiscal Year End

Value Portfolio Class A 1.20%Class B 1.45%

0.71%0.96%

December 31

I. ADVISORY FEES CHARGED TO INSTITUTIONAL AND OTHER CLIENTSThe advisory fees charged to investment companies which the Adviser manages and sponsors are normally higher than thosecharged to similar sized institutional accounts, including pension plans and sub-advised investment companies. The fee dif-ferential reflects, among other things, different services provided to such clients, and different liabilities assumed. Servicesprovided by the Adviser to the Portfolio that are not provided to non-investment company clients and sub-advised invest-ment companies include providing office space and personnel to serve as Fund Officers, who among other responsibilitiesmake the certifications required under the Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002, and coordinating with and monitoring the Portfo-lio’s third party service providers such as Fund counsel, auditors, custodians, transfer agents and pricing services. Theaccounting, administrative, legal and compliance requirements for the Portfolio are more costly than those for institutionalassets due to the greater complexities and time required for investment companies, although as previously noted, the Adviseris reimbursed for providing such services. Also, retail mutual funds managed by the Adviser are widely held. Servicing thePortfolio’s investors is more time consuming and labor intensive compared to institutional clients since the Adviser needs tocommunicate with a more extensive network of financial intermediaries and shareholders. The Adviser also believes that itincurs substantial entrepreneurial risk when offering a new mutual fund, since establishing a new mutual fund requires alarge upfront investment, and it may take a long time for the fund to achieve profitability since the fund must be priced toscale from inception in order to be competitive and assets are acquired one account at a time. In addition, managing the cashflow of an investment company may be more difficult than managing that of a stable pool of assets, such as an institutionalaccount with little cash movement in either direction, particularly, if a fund is in net redemption and the Adviser is frequentlyforced to sell securities to raise cash for redemptions. However, managing a fund with positive cash flow may be easier attimes than managing a stable pool of assets. In recent years, investment advisers have been sued by institutional clients andhave suffered reputational damage both by the attendant publicity and outcomes other than complete victories. Accordingly,the legal and reputational risks associated with institutional accounts are greater than previously thought, although still notequal to those related to the mutual fund industry.

Notwithstanding the Adviser’s view that managing an investment company is not comparable to managing other institu-tional accounts because the services provided are different, the Supreme Court has indicated consideration should be givento the advisory fees charged to institutional accounts that have a substantially similar investment style as the Portfolio.4 Inaddition to the AllianceBernstein institutional fee schedule, set forth below is what would have been the effective advisory

4 The Supreme Court stated that “courts may give such comparisons the weight that they merit in light of the similarities and differ-ences between the services that the clients in question require, but the courts must be wary of inapt comparisons.” Among the sig-nificant differences the Supreme Court noted that may exist between services provided to mutual funds and institutional accounts are“higher marketing costs.” Jones v. Harris at 1428.

22


fee of the Portfolio had the AllianceBernstein institutional fee schedule been applicable to the Portfolio versus the Portfolio’sadvisory fee based on March 31, 2012 net assets:5

Portfolio

Net Assets3/31/12($MIL)

AllianceBernsteinInstitutionalFee Schedule

EffectiveAB Inst.Adv. Fee

PortfolioAdvisory

Fee

Value Portfolio $183.4 Diversified Value Schedule65 bp on first $25m50 bp on the next $25m40 bp on the next $50m30 bp on the next $100m25 bp on the balanceMinimum account size $25m

0.402% 0.550%

The Adviser also manages AllianceBernstein Value Fund, Inc. (“Value Fund, Inc.”), a retail mutual fund, which has a sub-stantially similar investment style as the Portfolio. Set forth below is the fee schedule of Value Fund, Inc. and what wouldhave been the effective advisory fee of the Portfolio had the fee schedule of the retail mutual fund been applicable to thePortfolio:6

PortfolioAllianceBernstein

Mutual Fund Fee Schedule

ABMFEffective

Fee

PortfolioAdvisory

Fee

Value Portfolio Value Fund, Inc. 0.55% on first $2.5 billion0.45% on next $2.5 billion0.40% on the balance

0.550% 0.550%

The Adviser provides sub-advisory services to certain other investment companies managed by other fund families that havean investment style similar to that of the Portfolio. The Adviser charges the fees set forth below for the sub-advisoryrelationships that have a somewhat similar investment style as the Portfolio. Also shown are the Portfolio’s advisory fees andwhat would have been the effective advisory fees of the Portfolio had the fee schedules of the sub-advisory relationshipsbeen applicable to the Portfolio based on March 31, 2012 net assets.

Portfolio Fee Schedule

EffectiveSub-Adv.Fee (%)

PortfolioAdvisoryFee (%)

Value Portfolio Client #17 0.49% on the first $100 million0.30% on the next $100 million0.25% on the balance

0.404% 0.550%

Client #27 0.30% of the average daily netassets

0.300% 0.550%

Client #3 0.15% on the first $1 billion0.14% on the next $2 billion0.12% on the next $2 billion0.10% on the balance+/- Performance Fee (v. R`000V)

0.150%8 0.550%

It is fair to note that the services the Adviser provides pursuant to sub-advisory agreements are generally confined to theservices related to the investment process; in other words, they are not as comprehensive as the services provided to thePortfolio by the Adviser. In addition, to the extent that certain of these sub-advisory relationships are with affiliates of theAdviser, the fee schedules may not reflect arm’s length bargaining or negotiations.

5 The Adviser has indicated that with respect to institutional accounts with assets greater than $300 million, it will negotiate a feeschedule. Discounts that are negotiated vary based upon each client relationship.

6 The retail mutual fund was also affected by the settlement between the Adviser and the NYAG. As a result, the Portfolio has the samebreakpoints in its advisory fee schedule as the retail mutual fund.

7 The client is an affiliate of the Adviser.

8 The sub-advised fund’s sub-advisory fee shown does not include any performance fee adjustment.

23


While it appears that the sub-advisory relationships are paying a lower fee than the Portfolios, it is difficult to evaluate therelevance of such lower fees due to differences in terms of the services provided, risks involved and other competitive fac-tors between the Portfolio and the sub-advisory relationship. There could be various business reasons why an investmentadviser would be willing to provide a sub-advisory relationship investment related services at a different fee level than aninvestment company it is sponsoring where the investment adviser is providing all the services, not just investmentmanagement, generally required by a registered investment company.

II. MANAGEMENT FEES CHARGED BY OTHER MUTUAL FUND COMPANIES FOR LIKE SERVICES.Lipper, Inc. (“Lipper”), an analytical service that is not affiliated with the Adviser, compared the fees charged to the Portfo-lio with fees charged to other investment companies for similar services offered by other investment advisers.9 Lipper’sanalysis included the comparison of the Portfolio’s contractual management fee, estimated at the approximate current assetlevel of the Portfolio, to the median of the Portfolio’s Lipper Expense Group (“EG”) and the Portfolio’s contractualmanagement fee ranking.10

Lipper describes an EG as a representative sample of comparable funds. Lipper’s standard methodology for screening fundsto be included in an EG entails the consideration of several fund criteria, including fund type, investment classification/objective, load type and similar 12b-1/non-12b-1 service fees, asset (size) comparability, expense components and attributes.An EG will typically consist of seven to twenty funds.

Portfolio

ContractualManagement

Fee11

Lipper Exp.Group

Median (%) Rank

Value Portfolio 0.550 0.745 1/13

Lipper also analyzed the Portfolio’s most recently completed fiscal year total expense ratio in comparison to the Portfolio’sEG and Lipper Expense Universe (“EU”). The EU12 is a broader group compared to the EG, consisting of all funds that havethe same investment classification/objective and load type as the subject Portfolio.

Portfolio

ExpenseRatio(%)13

Lipper Exp.Group

Median (%)

LipperGroupRank

Lipper Exp.Universe

Median (%)

LipperUniverse

Rank

Value Portfolio 0.706 0.748 2/13 0.750 11/36

Based on this analysis, the Portfolio has a more favorable ranking on a management fee basis than on a total expense ratiobasis.

III. COSTS TO THE ADVISER AND ITS AFFILIATES OF SUPPLYING SERVICES PURSUANT TO THE ADVISORY FEEARRANGEMENT, EXCLUDING ANY INTRA-CORPORATE PROFIT.The Adviser utilizes two profitability reporting systems, which operate independently but are aligned with each other, toestimate the Adviser’s profitability in connection with investment advisory services provided to the Portfolio. The SeniorOfficer has retained a consultant to provide independent advice regarding the alignment of the two profitability systems aswell as the methodologies and allocations utilized by both profitability systems.

9 The Supreme Court cautioned against accepting mutual fund fee comparisons without careful scrutiny since “these comparisons areproblematic because these fees, like those challenged, may not be the product of the negotiations conducted at arm’s-length.” Jones v.Harris at 1429.

10 The contractual management fee is calculated by Lipper using the Portfolio’s contractual management fee rate at a hypothetical assetlevel. The hypothetical asset level is based on the combined net assets of all classes of the Portfolio, rounded up to the next $25 mil-lion. Lipper’s total expense ratio information is based on the most recent annual report except as otherwise noted. A ranking of “1”would mean that the Portfolio had the lowest effective fee rate in the Lipper peer group.

11 The contractual management fee does not reflect any expense reimbursements made by the Portfolio to the Adviser for certain cler-ical, legal, accounting, administrative and other services. In addition, the contractual management fee does not reflect any advisoryfee waiver or expense cap that would effectively reduce the actual management fee.

12 Except for asset (size) comparability, Lipper uses the same criteria for selecting an EG when selecting an EU. Unlike the EG, the EUallows for the same adviser to be represented by more than just one fund.

13 Most recently completed fiscal year end Class A total expense ratio.

24


IV. PROFIT MARGINS OF THE ADVISER AND ITS AFFILIATES FOR SUPPLYING SUCH SERVICES.The Portfolio’s profitability information, prepared by the Adviser for the Board of Directors, was reviewed by the SeniorOfficer and the consultant. The Adviser’s profitability from providing investment advisory services to the Portfoliodecreased during calendar year 2011, relative to 2010.

In addition to the Adviser’s direct profits from managing the Portfolio, certain of the Adviser’s affiliates have business rela-tionships with the Portfolio and may earn a profit from providing other services to the Portfolio. The courts have referred tothis type of business opportunity as “fall-out benefits” to the Adviser and indicated that such benefits should be factored intothe evaluation of the total relationship between the Portfolio and the Adviser. Neither case law nor common business prac-tice precludes the Adviser’s affiliates from earning a reasonable profit on this type of relationship provided the affiliates’charges and services are competitive. These affiliates provide transfer agent, distribution and brokerage related services tothe Portfolio and receive transfer agent fees, Rule 12b-1 payments, and brokerage commissions. In addition, the Adviserbenefits from soft dollar arrangements which offset expenses the Adviser would otherwise incur.

The Portfolio has adopted a distribution plan for Class B shares pursuant to Rule 12b-1 under the 40 Act. Under the dis-tribution plan, the Portfolio pays distribution and servicing fees to its principal underwriter, AllianceBernstein Investments,Inc. (“ABI”), at an annual rate of up to 0.50% of the Portfolio’s average daily net assets attributable to Class B shares. Thecurrent annual rate that the Portfolio pays to ABI for 12b-1 fees is 0.25%. During the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011,AllianceBernstein Investments, Inc. (“ABI”), the Portfolio’s distributor and an affiliate of the Adviser, received $481,003 inRule 12b-1 fees.

During the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011, the Adviser incurred distribution expenses in the amount of $1,408,158 inconnection with activities primarily intended to result in the sale of the Portfolio’s Class B shares. This amount includes the12b-1 fees paid by the Portfolio to the Adviser.

Financial intermediaries, such as insurers, market and sell shares of the Portfolio and typically receive compensation fromABI, the Advisers and/or the Portfolio for selling shares of the Portfolio. These financial intermediaries receive compensa-tion in any or all of the following forms: 12b-1 fees, defrayal of costs for educational seminars and training, additional dis-tribution support, recordkeeping and/or administrative services. Payments related to providing contract-holder recordkeepingand/or administrative services will generally not exceed 0.35% of the average daily net assets of the Portfolio attributable tothe relevant intermediary over the year. With respect to the Fund, which includes the Portfolio and other Portfolios of theFund not discussed in this summary, ABI paid approximately $500,000 in 2011.

The transfer agent of the Portfolio is AllianceBernstein Investor Services, Inc. (“ABIS”). During the most recently com-pleted fiscal year, ABIS received a fee of $1,385 from the Portfolio.14

The Portfolio did not effect brokerage transactions and pay commissions through the Adviser’s affiliate, Sanford C. Bern-stein & Co., LLC (“SCB & Co.”) nor its U.K. affiliate, Sanford C. Bernstein Limited (“SCB Ltd.”), collectively “SCB,”during the Portfolio’s most recently completed fiscal year. The Adviser represented that SCB’s profitability from businessconducted in the future with the Portfolio would be comparable to the profitability of SCB’s dealings with other similar thirdparty clients. In the ordinary course of business, SCB receives and pays liquidity rebates from electronic communicationsnetworks (“ECNs”) derived from trading for its clients, including the Portfolio. These credits and charges are not beingpassed onto any SCB client. The Adviser also receives certain soft dollar benefits from brokers that execute agency tradesfor the Portfolio and other clients. These soft dollar benefits reduce the Adviser’s cost of doing business and increase itsprofitability.

V. POSSIBLE ECONOMIES OF SCALEThe Adviser has indicated that economies of scale are being shared with shareholders through fee structures,15 subsidies andenhancement to services. Based on some of the professional literature that has considered economies of scale in the mutualfund industry, it is thought that to the extent economies of scale exist, they may more often exist across a fund family asopposed to a specific fund. This is because the costs incurred by the Adviser, such as investment research or technologyfor trading or compliance systems can be spread across a greater asset base as the fund family increases in size. It is also

14 The Fund (which includes the Portfolio and other Portfolios of the Fund) paid ABIS a flat fee of $18,000 in 2010.

15 Fee structures include fee reductions, pricing at scale and breakpoints in advisory fee schedules.

25


possible that as the level of services required to operate a successful investment company has increased over time, and advi-sory firms make such investments in their business to provide services, there may be a sharing of economies of scale withouta reduction in advisory fees.

An independent consultant, retained by the Senior Officer, provided the Board of Directors information on the Adviser’sfirm-wide average costs from 2005 through 2011 and potential economies of scale. The independent consultant noted thatfrom 2005 through 2007 the Adviser experienced significant growth in assets under management (“AUM”). During thisperiod, operating expenses increased, in part to keep up with growth, and in part reflecting market returns. However, from2008 through the first quarter of 2009, AUM rapidly and significantly decreased. Some operating expenses, including basecompensation and office space, adjusted more slowly during this period, resulting in an increase in average costs. Since2009, AUM has moved within a range of $400 to $500 million ending 2011 with an average of $411 million in the fourthquarter. The independent consultant noted that changes in operating expenses reflect changes in business composition andbusiness practices in response to changes in financial markets. Finally, the independent consultant concluded that theincrease in average cost and the decline in net operating margin across the company since 2008 are inconsistent with theview that there are currently “economies of scale” to be shared with clients through lower fees.

In February 2008, the independent consultant provided the Board of Directors an update of the Deli16 study on advisory feesand various fund characteristics.17 The independent consultant first reiterated the results of his previous two dimensionalcomparison analysis (fund size and family size) with the Board of Directors.18 The independent consultant then discussed theresults of the regression model that was utilized to study the effects of various factors on advisory fees. The regression modeloutput indicated that the bulk of the variation in fees predicted were explained by various factors, but substantially by fundAUM, family AUM, index fund indicator and investment style. The independent consultant also compared the advisory feesof the AllianceBernstein Mutual Funds to similar funds managed by 19 other large asset managers, regardless of the fundsize and each Adviser’s proportion of mutual fund assets to non-mutual fund assets.

VI. NATURE AND QUALITY OF THE ADVISER’S SERVICES, INCLUDING THE PERFORMANCE OF THE PORTFOLIOWith assets under management of approximately $419 billion as of March 31, 2012, the Adviser has the investment experi-ence to manage and provide non-investment services (described in Section I) to the Portfolio.

The information prepared by Lipper shows the 1, 3 and 5 year performance returns and rankings of the Portfolio19 relative toits Lipper Performance Group (“PG”) and Lipper Performance Universe (“PU”)20 for the periods ended February 29, 2012.21

FundPG

MedianPU

MedianPG

RankPU

Rank

Value Portfolio1 year �1.08 0.68 1.53 11/13 35/463 year 22.73 23.52 23.25 9/13 26/435 year �3.90 0.51 �0.04 10/10 34/36

16 The Deli study, originally published in 2002 based on 1997 data and updated for the February 2008 Presentation, may be of dimin-ished value due to the age of the data used in the presentation and the changes experienced in the industry over the last four years.

17 As mentioned previously, the Supreme Court cautioned against accepting mutual fund fee comparisons without careful scrutiny sincethe fees may not be the product of negotiations conducted at arm’s length. See Jones V. Harris at 1429.

18 The two dimensional analysis showed patterns of lower advisory fees for funds with larger asset sizes and funds from larger familysizes compared to funds with smaller asset sizes and funds from smaller family sizes, which according to the independent consultantis indicative of a sharing of economies of scale and scope. However, in less liquid and active markets, such is not the case, as theempirical analysis showed potential for diseconomies of scale in those markets. The empirical analysis also showed diminishingeconomies of scale and scope as funds surpassed a certain high level of assets.

19 The performance rankings are for the Class A shares of the Portfolio. The Portfolio’s performance returns shown were provided byLipper.

20 The Portfolio’s PG is identical to the Portfolio’s respective EG. The Portfolio’s PU is not identical to the Portfolio’s EU as the criteriafor including/excluding a fund from a PU is somewhat different from that of an EU.

21 Lipper investment classification/objective dictates the PG and PU throughout the life of the fund even if a fund had a differentinvestment classification/objective at a different point in time.

26


Set forth below are the 1, 3, 5 year and since inception performance returns of the Portfolio (in bold)22 versus its bench-marks.23 Portfolio and benchmark volatility and reward-to-variability ratio (“Sharpe Ratio”) information is also shown.24

1Year(%)

3Year(%)

5Year(%)

SinceInception

(%)

Annualized RiskPeriod(Year)

Volatility(%)

Sharpe(%)

Value Portfolio �1.08 22.73 �3.90 5.39 20.97 �0.14 5Russell 1000 Value Index 2.18 25.01 �1.08 7.60 20.05 �0.02 5

Inception Date: July 22, 2002

CONCLUSION:Based on the factors discussed above the Senior Officer’s conclusion is that the proposed advisory fee for the Portfolio isreasonable and within the range of what would have been negotiated at arm’s-length in light of all the surrounding circum-stances. This conclusion in respect of the Portfolio is based on an evaluation of all of these factors and no single factor wasdispositive.

Dated: May 25, 2012

22 The performance returns and risk measures shown in the table are for the Class A shares of the Portfolio.

23 The Adviser provided Portfolio and benchmark performance return information for periods through February 29, 2012.

24 Portfolio and benchmark volatility and Sharpe Ratio information was obtained through Lipper LANA, a database maintained byLipper. Volatility is a statistical measure of the tendency of a market price or yield to vary over time. A Sharpe Ratio is a risk adjustedmeasure of return that divides a portfolio’s return in excess of the riskless return by the portfolio’s standard deviation. A portfoliowith a greater volatility would be viewed as more risky than a portfolio with equivalent performance but lower volatility; for thatreason, a greater return would be demanded for the more risky portfolio. A portfolio with a higher Sharpe Ratio would be viewed asbetter performing than a portfolio with a lower Sharpe Ratio.

27

(This page left intentionally blank.)

AllianceBernstein Variable Products Series Fund, Inc....FUND EXPENSES (unaudited) AllianceBernstein...

Documents

Transcript of AllianceBernstein Variable Products Series Fund, Inc....FUND EXPENSES (unaudited) AllianceBernstein...