UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
FORM N-CSR
CERTIFIED SHAREHOLDER REPORT OF REGISTERED MANAGEMENT INVESTMENT COMPANIES
Investment Company Act file number 811-08349
Name of Fund: BlackRock MuniHoldings Investment Quality Fund (MFL)
Fund Address: 100 Bellevue Parkway, Wilmington, DE 19809
Name and address of agent for service: John M. Perlowski, Chief Executive Officer, BlackRock MuniHoldings Investment Quality Fund, 55 East 52nd Street, New York, NY 10055
Registrants telephone number, including area code: (800) 882-0052, Option 4
Date of fiscal year end: 08/31/2011
Date of reporting period: 02/28/2011
Item 1 Report to Stockholders
|
|
February 28, 2011 |
|
Semi-Annual Report (Unaudited) |
|
BlackRock Municipal Income Quality Trust (BYM) |
|
BlackRock Municipal Income Investment Quality Trust (BAF) |
|
BlackRock Municipal Bond Trust (BBK) |
|
BlackRock Municipal Bond Investment Trust (BIE) |
|
BlackRock Municipal Income Trust II (BLE) |
|
BlackRock MuniHoldings Investment Quality Fund (MFL) |
|
BlackRock MuniVest Fund, Inc. (MVF) |
|
Not FDIC Insured No Bank Guarantee May Lose Value |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
Table of Contents |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
Page |
|
||
|
|
|
|
3 |
|
Semi-Annual Report: |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
5 |
|
|
12 |
|
|
12 |
|
Financial Statements: |
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
42 |
|
|
43 |
|
|
44 |
|
|
46 |
|
|
47 |
|
|
54 |
|
|
61 |
|
|
62 |
|
|
|
|
||
2 |
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT |
FEBRUARY 28, 2011 |
|
|
|
Over the past 12 months, we have seen a sluggish, stimulus-driven economic recovery at long last gain real traction, accelerate, and transition into a consumption-driven expansion. For the most part, 2010 was plagued with widely fluctuating economic data, but as the year drew to a close, it became clear that cyclical stimulus had beaten out structural problems as economic data releases generally became more positive and financial markets showed signs of continuing improvement. Although the sovereign debt crises and emerging market inflation that troubled the global economy in 2010 remain a challenge, overall investor sentiment considerably improved. Near the end of the period, geopolitical tensions across the Middle East North Africa (MENA) region along with rising oil prices introduced new cause for concern about the future of the global economy. As of this writing, economic news remains fairly positive although we face additional uncertainties related to the aftermath of the devastating earthquake in Japan, with particular focus on the damage to nuclear power plants.
In the United States, strength from the corporate sector and increasing consumer spending have been key drivers of economic growth, while the housing and labor markets have been the heaviest burdens. While housing has yet to show any meaningful sign of improvement, labor statistics have delivered a mixed bag month after month, but became increasingly encouraging toward the end of the period when the unemployment rate fell to its lowest level since April 2009.
Global equity markets experienced uneven growth and high volatility over the course of 2010, but ended the year strong. Following a strong start to 2011, stocks lost their momentum on the back of geopolitical events in the MENA region and a sharp rise in oil prices. Overall, equities posted strong returns for the 12-month period. US stocks outpaced most international markets and small cap stocks outperformed large caps as investors moved into higher-risk assets.
Fixed income markets saw yields trend lower over most of 2010, until the fourth quarter brought an abrupt reversal in sentiment and risk tolerance that drove yields sharply upward (pushing bond prices down) through year end. Improving economic data continued to pressure fixed income yields in 2011; however, escalating geopolitical risks have acted as a counterweight, restoring relative stability to yield movements. Nevertheless, the yield curve remained steep and higher-risk sectors outperformed the fixed income market.
The tax-exempt municipal market enjoyed a powerful rally during the period of low interest rates in 2010; however, when the yield trend reversed, the market was dealt an additional blow as it became evident that the Build America Bond program would expire at year end. In addition, negative headlines regarding fiscal challenges faced by state and local governments damaged investor confidence and further heightened volatility in the municipal market. Tax-exempt mutual funds experienced heavy outflows, resulting in wider quality spreads and further downward pressure on municipal bond prices. These headwinds began to abate as the period came to a close and municipals finally posted gains in February, following a five-month run of negative performance.
Cash investments, as represented by the 3-month Treasury bill, returned only a fraction over 0% for the 12-month period as short-term interest rates remained low. Yields on money market securities remain near all-time lows.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total returns as of February 28, 2011 |
|
6-month |
|
12-month |
|
||
|
|||||||
US large cap equities (S&P 500 Index) |
|
27.73 |
% |
|
22.57 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
US small cap equities (Russell 2000 Index) |
|
37.55 |
|
|
32.60 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
International equities (MSCI Europe, Australasia, Far East Index) |
|
23.77 |
|
|
20.00 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3-month Treasury bill (BofA Merrill Lynch 3-Month Treasury Bill Index) |
|
0.07 |
|
|
0.14 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
US Treasury securities (BofA Merrill Lynch 10-Year US Treasury Index) |
|
(6.04 |
) |
|
4.76 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
US investment grade bonds (Barclays Capital US Aggregate Bond Index) |
|
(0.83 |
) |
|
4.93 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tax-exempt municipal bonds (Barclays Capital Municipal Bond Index) |
|
(3.51 |
) |
|
1.72 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
US high yield bonds (Barclays Capital US Corporate High Yield 2% Issuer Capped Index) |
|
10.05 |
|
|
17.34 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Index performance shown for illustrative purposes only. You cannot invest directly in an index.
While no one can peer into a crystal ball and eliminate the uncertainties presented by the economic landscape and financial markets, BlackRock can offer investors the next best thing: partnership with the worlds largest asset management firm and a unique global perspective that allows us to identify trends early and capitalize on market opportunities. For additional market perspective and investment insight, visit www.blackrock.com/shareholdermagazine, where youll find the most recent issue of our award-winning Shareholder® magazine, as well as its quarterly companion newsletter, Shareholder Perspectives. As always, we thank you for entrusting BlackRock with your investments, and we look forward to your continued partnership in the months and years ahead.
Sincerely,
Rob Kopito
President, BlackRock Advisors, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
THIS PAGE NOT PART OF YOUR FUND REPORT |
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
As of February 28, 2011 |
|
The municipal market began the six-month period with yields at historic lows as investor concerns were focused on the possibility of deflation and a double-dip in the US economy. However, as these fears soon abated, yields began drifting higher in October, and ultimately, a perfect storm of negative events resulted in the worst quarterly performance that the municipal market has seen since the Fed tightening cycle of 1994. Treasury yields lost their support as concerns about the US deficit raised questions over the willingness of foreign investors to continue to purchase Treasury securities, at least at the previous historically low yields. Municipal valuations also suffered a quick and severe setback as it became evident that the Build America Bond (BAB) program would expire at year-end. The program had opened the taxable market to municipal issuers, which had successfully alleviated supply pressure in the traditional tax-exempt marketplace, bringing down yields in that space.
The financial media has been replete with interviews, articles and presentations publicizing the stress experienced in municipal finance, resulting in a loss of confidence among retail investors who buy individual bonds or mutual funds. From the middle of November through year-end, funds specializing in tax-exempt bonds witnessed weekly outflows averaging over $2.5 billion. Long-term and high-yield funds saw the greatest redemptions, followed by state-specific funds to a lesser but still significant degree. Demand usually is strong at the beginning of a new year against a backdrop of low new-issue supply, but the mutual fund outflows continued into February, putting additional upward pressure on municipal yields. Political uncertainty surrounding the midterm elections and the approach taken by the new Congress on issues such as income tax rates and alternative minimum tax (and the previously mentioned BAB non-extension) exacerbated the situation. All these conditions, combined with the seasonal illiquidity surrounding year-end holidays and dealers closing their fiscal books, sapped willing market participation from the trading community.
As demand for municipal securities from traditional retail investors was declining and trading desk liquidity was being curtailed, there was no comparable reduction in supply. As it became evident that the BAB program would be retired, issuers rushed deals to market both in the taxable municipal space and, to a lesser degree, in the traditional tax-exempt space. This imbalance in the supply/demand technicals provided the classic market action, leading to wider quality spreads and higher bond yields. The municipal curve steepened as the issuance was concentrated in longer (greater than 20-year) maturities. Curve steepening that began in October accelerated in November, spurred on by Treasury weakness, heavy supply and record outflows. As measured by Thomson Municipal Market Data, yields on AAA-rated municipals rose nearly 103 basis points (bps) for maturities 25 years and longer from August 31, 2010, to February 28, 2011. The spread between two-year and 30-year maturities widened from 332 bps to 398 bps over the period.
The fundamental picture for municipalities will be subject to scrutiny for months to come, as the challenges to state and local budgets are real and need to be addressed with significant cuts to expenses and tax revenue increases. The debates around austerity measures needed to succeed in balancing these budgets are not over whether action needs to be taken, but over degree, approach and political will to accomplish these needs. The attention shone upon municipal finance has the potential to improve this market for the future if these efforts result in greater means toward disclosure and accuracy (and timeliness) of reporting. Early tests to judge progress will come soon as California, Illinois and Puerto Rico need to take austerity measures and access financing in the municipal market to address relatively immediate fiscal imbalances. BlackRock favors a more constructive outlook for the municipal market as the typical, and this year particularly atypical, weakness passes.
|
|
|
|
||
4 |
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT |
FEBRUARY 28, 2011 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
BlackRock Municipal Income Quality Trust |
|
|
Trust Overview |
|
Effective November 9, 2010, BlackRock Insured Municipal Income Trust changed its name to BlackRock Municipal Income Quality Trust.
BlackRock Municipal Income Quality Trusts (BYM) (the Trust) investment objective is to provide current income exempt from federal income taxes, including the alternative minimum tax. The Trust seeks to achieve its investment objective by investing, under normal circumstances, at least 80% of its assets in municipal bonds exempt from federal income taxes, including the alternative minimum tax. The Trust also invests primarily in municipal bonds that are investment grade quality at the time of investment. The Trust may invest directly in such securities or synthetically through the use of derivatives.
|
|
|
No assurance can be given that the Trusts investment objective will be achieved. |
|
|
Performance |
|
Effective November 9, 2010, the Trusts investment policy was changed by the removal of the insurance investment policy that required at least 80% of its assets to be invested in insured municipal securities. Accordingly, the Trust was moved from the Lipper Insured Municipal Debt Funds (Leveraged) category into the Lipper General Municipal Debt Funds (Leveraged) category. For the six months ended February 28, 2011, the Trust returned (9.53)% based on market price and (7.89)% based on net asset value (NAV). For the same period, the closed-end Lipper General Municipal Debt Funds (Leveraged) category posted an average return of (10.86)% based on market price and (7.86)% based on NAV, and the closed-end Lipper Insured Municipal Debt Funds (Leveraged) category posted an average return of (11.51)% based on market price and (6.90)% based on NAV. All returns reflect reinvestment of dividends. The Trusts premium to NAV, which narrowed during the period, accounts for the difference between performance based on price and performance based on NAV. The following discussion relates to performance based on NAV. The Trusts performance was negatively impacted by its long duration during a period of rising rates. The Trusts holdings of longer maturity bonds also detracted from performance as the municipal yield curve bear-steepened (long rates increased more than short rates). Conversely, the Trusts performance was positively impacted by its holdings of pre-refunded bonds and securities with higher coupons that are priced to shorter call dates. These types of securities performed well due to their shorter duration as municipal rates rose sharply. In addition, the Trust benefited from its holdings in the housing sector, which had strong performance over the period.
|
|
|
The views expressed reflect the opinions of BlackRock as of the date of this report and are subject to change based on changes in market, economic or other conditions. These views are not intended to be a forecast of future events and are no guarantee of future results. |
|
|
Trust Information |
|
|
|
|
|
Symbol on New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) |
|
BYM |
|
Initial Offering Date |
|
October 31, 2002 |
|
Yield on Closing Market Price as of February 28, 2011 ($13.34)1 |
|
6.93% |
|
Tax Equivalent Yield2 |
|
10.66% |
|
Current Monthly Distribution per Common Share3 |
|
$0.077 |
|
Current Annualized Distribution per Common Share3 |
|
$0.924 |
|
Leverage as of February 28, 20114 |
|
39% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
Yield on closing market price is calculated by dividing the current annualized distribution per share by the closing market price. Past performance does not guarantee future results. |
|
|
|
|
2 |
Tax equivalent yield assumes the maximum federal tax rate of 35%. |
|
|
|
|
3 |
The distribution rate is not constant and is subject to change. |
|
|
|
|
4 |
Represents Auction Market Preferred Shares (Preferred Shares) and tender option bond trusts (TOBs) as a percentage of total managed assets, which is the total assets of the Trust, including any assets attributable to Preferred Shares and TOBs, minus the sum of accrued liabilities. For a discussion of leveraging techniques utilized by the Trust, please see The Benefits and Risks of Leveraging on page 12. |
The table below summarizes the changes in the Trusts market price and NAV per share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
2/28/11 |
|
8/31/10 |
|
Change |
|
High |
|
Low |
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
Market Price |
|
$ |
13.34 |
|
$ |
15.26 |
|
|
(12.58 |
)% |
$ |
15.42 |
|
$ |
11.71 |
|
Net Asset Value |
|
$ |
13.03 |
|
$ |
14.64 |
|
|
(11.00 |
)% |
$ |
14.69 |
|
$ |
12.20 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The following charts show the sector and credit quality allocations of the Trusts long-term investments:
|
|
Sector Allocations |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2/28/11 |
|
8/31/10 |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
Transportation |
|
23 |
% |
|
21 |
% |
|
Utilities |
|
21 |
|
|
24 |
|
|
County/City/Special District/School District |
|
21 |
|
|
21 |
|
|
State |
|
15 |
|
|
15 |
|
|
Health |
|
7 |
|
|
7 |
|
|
Tobacco |
|
6 |
|
|
6 |
|
|
Education |
|
3 |
|
|
3 |
|
|
Corporate |
|
2 |
|
|
2 |
|
|
Housing |
|
2 |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credit Quality Allocations5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2/28/11 |
|
8/31/10 |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
AAA/Aaa |
|
25 |
% |
|
57 |
% |
|
AA/Aa |
|
54 |
|
|
24 |
|
|
A |
|
12 |
|
|
12 |
|
|
BBB/Baa |
|
9 |
|
|
5 |
|
|
Not Rated |
|
|
|
|
2 |
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 |
Using the higher of Standard & Poors (S&Ps) or Moodys Investors Service (Moodys) ratings. |
|
|
|
|
6 |
The investment advisor has deemed certain of these non-rated securities to be of investment grade quality. As of August 31, 2010, the market value of these securities was $10,513,600 representing 2% of the Trusts long-term investments. |
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT |
FEBRUARY 28, 2011 |
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trust Summary as of February 28, 2011 |
BlackRock Municipal Income Investment Quality Trust |
|
|
Trust Overview |
|
Effective
November 9, 2010, BlackRock Insured Municipal Income Investment Trust changed
its name to BlackRock Municipal Income Investment Quality Trust.
BlackRock Municipal Income Investment Quality Trusts
(BAF) (the Trust) investment objective is to provide current
income exempt from federal income tax, including the alternative minimum tax
and Florida intangible property tax. The Trust seeks to achieve its investment
objective by investing, under normal circumstances, at least 80% of its assets
in municipal bonds exempt from federal income taxes, including the alternative
minimum tax. The Trust also invests primarily in municipal bonds that are
investment grade quality at the time of investment. The Trust may invest
directly in such securities or synthetically through the use of derivatives.
Due to the repeal of the Florida intangible personal property tax, the Board
approved an amended policy in September 2008, allowing the Trust the
flexibility to invest in municipal obligations regardless of geographical
location.
|
|
|
No assurance can be given that the Trusts investment objective will be achieved. |
|
|
Performance |
|
Effective November 9, 2010, the Trusts investment policy was changed by the removal of the insurance investment policy that required at least 80% of its assets to be invested in insured municipal securities. Accordingly, the Trust was moved from the Lipper Insured Municipal Debt Funds (Leveraged) category into the Lipper General Municipal Debt Funds (Leveraged) category. For the six months ended February 28, 2011, the Trust returned (13.50)% based on market price and (7.61)% based on NAV. For the same period, the closed-end Lipper General Municipal Debt Funds (Leveraged) category posted an average return of (10.86)% based on market price and (7.86)% based on NAV, and the closed-end Lipper Insured Municipal Debt Funds (Leveraged) category posted an average return of (11.51)% based on market price and (6.90)% based on NAV. All returns reflect reinvestment of dividends. The Trust moved from a premium to NAV to a discount by period end, which accounts for the difference between performance based on price and performance based on NAV. The following discussion relates to performance based on NAV. The Trusts holdings of high-quality essential service bonds with premium coupons (6% or higher) benefited performance, as they held their value better than lower-coupon bonds in the rising interest rate environment. Conversely, exposure to longer-duration and longer-maturity bonds detracted from performance as the long end of the yield curve steepened during the period. Additionally, holdings in health care and transportation hindered performance as both sectors underperformed the broad municipal market.
|
|
|
The views expressed reflect the opinions of BlackRock as of the date of this report and are subject to change based on changes in market, economic or other conditions. These views are not intended to be a forecast of future events and are no guarantee of future results. |
|
|
Trust Information |
|
|
|
|
|
Symbol on NYSE |
|
BAF |
|
Initial Offering Date |
|
October 31, 2002 |
|
Yield on Closing Market Price as of February 28, 2011 ($13.10)1 |
|
6.82% |
|
Tax Equivalent Yield2 |
|
10.49% |
|
Current Monthly Distribution per Common Share3 |
|
$0.0745 |
|
Current Annualized Distribution per Common Share3 |
|
$0.8940 |
|
Leverage as of February 28, 20114 |
|
37% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
Yield on closing market price is calculated by dividing the current annualized distribution per share by the closing market price. Past performance does not guarantee future results. |
|
|
|
|
2 |
Tax equivalent yield assumes the maximum federal tax rate of 35%. |
|
|
|
|
3 |
The distribution rate is not constant and is subject to change. |
|
|
|
|
4 |
Represents Preferred Shares and TOBs as a percentage of total managed assets, which is the total assets of the Trust, including any assets attributable to Preferred Shares and TOBs, minus the sum of accrued liabilities. For a discussion of leveraging techniques utilized by the Trust, please see The Benefits and Risks of Leveraging on page 12. |
The table below summarizes the changes in the Trusts market price and NAV per share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
2/28/11 |
|
8/31/10 |
|
Change |
|
High |
|
Low |
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
Market Price |
|
$ |
13.10 |
|
$ |
15.64 |
|
|
(16.24 |
)% |
$ |
15.92 |
|
$ |
11.92 |
|
Net Asset Value |
|
$ |
13.49 |
|
$ |
15.08 |
|
|
(10.54 |
)% |
$ |
15.08 |
|
$ |
12.76 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The following charts show the sector and credit quality allocations of the Trusts long-term investments:
|
|
Sector Allocations |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2/28/11 |
|
8/31/10 |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
County/City/Special District/School District |
|
33 |
% |
|
36 |
% |
|
Utilities |
|
26 |
|
|
27 |
|
|
Transportation |
|
15 |
|
|
15 |
|
|
Health |
|
12 |
|
|
10 |
|
|
State |
|
11 |
|
|
11 |
|
|
Education |
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
Housing |
|
1 |
|
|
1 |
|
|
Tobacco |
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credit Quality Allocations5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2/28/11 |
|
8/31/10 |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
AAA/Aaa |
|
8 |
% |
|
59 |
% |
|
AA/Aa |
|
79 |
|
|
25 |
|
|
A |
|
9 |
|
|
13 |
|
|
BBB/Baa |
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
Not Rated |
|
|
|
|
36 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 |
Using the higher of S&Ps or Moodys ratings. |
|
|
|
|
6 |
The investment advisor has deemed certain of these non-rated securities to be of investment grade quality. As of August 31, 2010, the market value of these securities was $5,171,100 representing 3% of the Trusts long-term investments. |
|
|
|
|
||
6 |
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT |
FEBRUARY 28, 2011 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trust Summary as of February 28, 2011 |
BlackRock Municipal Bond Trust |
|
|
Trust Overview |
|
BlackRock Municipal Bond Trusts (BBK) (the Trust) investment objective is to provide current income exempt from regular federal income tax. The Trust seeks to achieve its investment objective by investing primarily in municipal bonds exempt from regular federal income taxes (except that the interest may be subject to the federal alternative minimum tax). The Trust invests, under normal market conditions, at least 80% of its assets in municipal bonds that are investment grade quality. The Trust may invest directly in such securities or synthetically through the use of derivatives.
|
|
|
No assurance can be given that the Trusts investment objective will be achieved. |
|
|
Performance |
|
For the six months ended February 28, 2011, the Trust returned (10.59)% based on market price and (8.61)% based on NAV. For the same period, the closed-end Lipper General Municipal Debt Funds (Leveraged) category posted an average return of (10.86)% based on market price and (7.86)% based on NAV. All returns reflect reinvestment of dividends. The Trusts premium to NAV, which narrowed during the period, accounts for the difference between performance based on price and performance based on NAV. The following discussion relates to performance based on NAV. The Trusts exposure to the long end of the yield curve and holdings of low-coupon, long-duration bonds during a period of rising rates had a negative impact on performance. The Trusts exposure to Puerto Rico credits and the health sector also detracted from performance, as did holdings of lower-quality credits, where spreads widened amid the backdrop of poor relative performance across the municipal market. Conversely, the Trust benefited from its holdings of tax-backed credits (state, county, city and school district) as well as its exposure to corporate-backed credits, which experienced some buy-side demand from non-traditional cross-over buyers.
|
|
|
The views expressed reflect the opinions of BlackRock as of the date of this report and are subject to change based on changes in market, economic or other conditions. These views are not intended to be a forecast of future events and are no guarantee of future results. |
|
|
Trust Information |
|
|
|
|
|
Symbol on NYSE |
|
BBK |
|
Initial Offering Date |
|
April 30, 2002 |
|
Yield on Closing Market Price as of February 28, 2011 ($13.61)1 |
|
7.58% |
|
Tax Equivalent Yield2 |
|
11.66% |
|
Current Monthly Distribution per Common Share3 |
|
$0.086 |
|
Current Annualized Distribution per Common Share3 |
|
$1.032 |
|
Leverage as of February 28, 20114 |
|
38% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
Yield on closing market price is calculated by dividing the current annualized distribution per share by the closing market price. Past performance does not guarantee future results. |
|
|
|
|
2 |
Tax equivalent yield assumes the maximum federal tax rate of 35%. |
|
|
|
|
3 |
A change in the distribution rate was declared on March 1, 2011. The Monthly Distribution per Common Share was increased to $0.0885. The Yield on Closing Market Price, Current Monthly Distribution per Common Share and Current Annualized Distribution per Common Share do not reflect the new distribution rate. The new distribution rate is not constant and is subject to further change in the future. |
|
|
|
|
4 |
Represents Preferred Shares and TOBs as a percentage of total managed assets, which is the total assets of the Trust, including any assets attributable to Preferred Shares and TOBs, minus the sum of accrued liabilities. For a discussion of leveraging techniques utilized by the Trust, please see The Benefits and Risks of Leveraging on page 12. |
The table below summarizes the changes in the Trusts market price and NAV per share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
2/28/11 |
|
8/31/10 |
|
Change |
|
High |
|
Low |
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
Market Price |
|
$ |
13.61 |
|
$ |
15.79 |
|
|
(13.81 |
)% |
$ |
16.00 |
|
$ |
12.20 |
|
Net Asset Value |
|
$ |
13.47 |
|
$ |
15.29 |
|
|
(11.90 |
)% |
$ |
15.30 |
|
$ |
12.70 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The following charts show the sector and credit quality allocations of the Trusts long-term investments:
|
|
Sector Allocations |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2/28/11 |
|
8/31/10 |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
Health |
|
24 |
% |
|
23 |
% |
|
Housing |
|
15 |
|
|
14 |
|
|
State |
|
14 |
|
|
15 |
|
|
County/City/Special District/School District |
|
11 |
|
|
13 |
|
|
Corporate |
|
10 |
|
|
8 |
|
|
Education |
|
10 |
|
|
10 |
|
|
Transportation |
|
9 |
|
|
9 |
|
|
Utilities |
|
5 |
|
|
5 |
|
|
Tobacco |
|
2 |
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credit Quality Allocations5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2/28/11 |
|
8/31/10 |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
AAA/Aaa |
|
8 |
% |
|
26 |
% |
|
AA/Aa |
|
40 |
|
|
20 |
|
|
A |
|
19 |
|
|
22 |
|
|
BBB/Baa |
|
19 |
|
|
20 |
|
|
BB/Ba |
|
5 |
|
|
1 |
|
|
B |
|
3 |
|
|
3 |
|
|
CCC/Caa |
|
1 |
|
|
1 |
|
|
Not Rated6 |
|
5 |
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 |
Using the higher of S&Ps or Moodys ratings. |
|
|
|
|
6 |
The investment advisor has deemed certain of these non-rated securities to be of investment grade quality. As of February 28, 2011 and August 31, 2010, the market value of these securities was $4,946,681 representing 2% and $6,207,616 representing 3%, respectively, of the Trusts long-term investments. |
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT |
FEBRUARY 28, 2011 |
7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trust Summary as of February 28, 2011 |
BlackRock Municipal Bond Investment Trust |
|
|
Trust Overview |
|
BlackRock Municipal Bond Investment Trusts (BIE) (the Trust) investment objective is to provide current income exempt from regular federal income tax and Florida intangible personal property tax. The Trust seeks to achieve its investment objective by investing primarily in municipal bonds exempt from federal income taxes (except that the interest may be subject to the federal alternative minimum tax). Under normal market conditions, the Trust invests at least 80% of its assets in municipal bonds that are investment grade quality at the time of investment. The Trust may invest directly in such securities or synthetically through the use of derivatives. Due to the repeal of the Florida intangible personal property tax, the Board approved an amended policy in September 2008, allowing the Trust the flexibility to invest in municipal obligations regardless of geographical location.
|
|
|
No assurance can be given that the Trusts investment objective will be achieved. |
|
|
Performance |
|
For the six months ended February 28, 2011, the Trust returned (13.80)% based on market price and (9.43)% based on NAV. For the same period, the closed-end Lipper General Municipal Debt Funds (Leveraged) category posted an average return of (10.86)% based on market price and (7.86)% based on NAV. All returns reflect reinvestment of dividends. The Trust moved from a premium to NAV to a discount by period end, which accounts for the difference between performance based on price and performance based on NAV. The following discussion relates to performance based on NAV. Exposure to longer-duration and longer-maturity bonds detracted from the Trusts performance as the long end of the yield curve steepened during the period. Additionally, holdings in health care and transportation hindered performance as both sectors underperformed the broad municipal market. Conversely, exposure to housing and corporate-backed bonds aided performance as both sectors outperformed the broad municipal market. The Trusts holdings of high-quality essential service bonds with premium coupons (6% or higher) also benefited performance, as they held their value better than lower-coupon bonds in the rising interest rate environment.
|
|
|
The views expressed reflect the opinions of BlackRock as of the date of this report and are subject to change based on changes in market, economic or other conditions. These views are not intended to be a forecast of future events and are no guarantee of future results. |
|
|
Trust Information |
|
|
|
|
|
Symbol on NYSE |
|
BIE |
|
Initial Offering Date |
|
April 30, 2002 |
|
Yield on Closing Market Price as of February 28, 2011 ($13.00)1 |
|
7.27% |
|
Tax Equivalent Yield2 |
|
11.18% |
|
Current Monthly Distribution per Common Share3 |
|
$0.0788 |
|
Current Annualized Distribution per Common Share3 |
|
$0.9456 |
|
Leverage as of February 28, 20114 |
|
43% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
Yield on closing market price is calculated by dividing the current annualized distribution per share by the closing market price. Past performance does not guarantee future results. |
|
|
|
|
2 |
Tax equivalent yield assumes the maximum federal tax rate of 35%. |
|
|
|
|
3 |
A change in the distribution rate was declared on March 1, 2011. The Monthly Distribution per Common Share was increased to $0.081. The Yield on Closing Market Price, Current Monthly Distribution per Common Share and Current Annualized Distribution per Common Share do not reflect the new distribution rate. The new distribution rate is not constant and is subject to further change in the future. |
|
|
|
|
4 |
Represents Preferred Shares and TOBs as a percentage of total managed assets, which is the total assets of the Trust, including any assets attributable to Preferred Shares and TOBs, minus the sum of accrued liabilities. For a discussion of leveraging techniques utilized by the Trust, please see The Benefits and Risks of Leveraging on page 12. |
The table below summarizes the changes in the Trusts market price and NAV per share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
2/28/11 |
|
8/31/10 |
|
Change |
|
High |
|
Low |
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
Market Price |
|
$ |
13.00 |
|
$ |
15.60 |
|
|
(16.67 |
)% |
$ |
15.76 |
|
$ |
12.14 |
|
Net Asset Value |
|
$ |
13.58 |
|
$ |
15.51 |
|
|
(12.44 |
)% |
$ |
15.51 |
|
$ |
12.76 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The following charts show the sector and credit quality allocations of the Trusts long-term investments:
|
|
Sector Allocations |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2/28/11 |
|
8/31/10 |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
Health |
|
23 |
% |
|
22 |
% |
|
Utilities |
|
19 |
|
|
18 |
|
|
Transportation |
|
18 |
|
|
18 |
|
|
County/City/Special District/School District |
|
17 |
|
|
19 |
|
|
State |
|
8 |
|
|
8 |
|
|
Education |
|
8 |
|
|
8 |
|
|
Housing |
|
5 |
|
|
5 |
|
|
Corporate |
|
1 |
|
|
1 |
|
|
Tobacco |
|
1 |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credit Quality Allocations5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2/28/11 |
|
8/31/10 |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
AAA/Aaa |
|
10 |
% |
|
14 |
% |
|
AA/Aa |
|
66 |
|
|
64 |
|
|
A |
|
18 |
|
|
17 |
|
|
BBB/Baa |
|
5 |
|
|
4 |
|
|
BB/Ba |
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
Not Rated |
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 |
Using the higher of S&Ps or Moodys ratings. |
|
|
|
|
||
8 |
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT |
FEBRUARY 28, 2011 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trust Summary as of February 28, 2011 |
BlackRock Municipal Income Trust II |
|
|
Trust Overview |
|
BlackRock Municipal Income Trust IIs (BLE) (the Trust) investment objective is to provide current income exempt from regular federal income tax. The Trust seeks to achieve its investment objective by investing primarily in municipal bonds exempt from federal income taxes (except that the interest may be subject to the federal alternative minimum tax). The Trust invests, under normal market conditions, at least 80% of its assets in municipal bonds that are investment grade quality at the time of investment. The Trust may invest directly in such securities or synthetically through the use of derivatives.
|
|
|
No assurance can be given that the Trusts investment objective will be achieved. |
|
|
Performance |
|
For the six months ended February 28, 2011, the Trust returned (11.27)% based on market price and (6.98)% based on NAV. For the same period, the closed-end Lipper General Municipal Debt Funds (Leveraged) category posted an average return of (10.86)% based on market price and (7.86)% based on NAV. All returns reflect reinvestment of dividends. The Trust moved from a premium to NAV to a discount by period end, which accounts for the difference between performance based on price and performance based on NAV. The following discussion relates to performance based on NAV. At the beginning of the period, the Trusts longer duration stance was beneficial as rates declined and credit spreads tightened; however, the sharp reversal of these trends mid-period resulted in an overall negative impact on performance for the period. In addition, the Trusts emphasis on lower-quality bonds hurt performance as credit spreads widened over the period. Contributing positively to performance was the Trusts reduced exposure to the tobacco sector, which was the worst performing sector for the period. Additionally, a general reduction of capital appreciation bond (CAB) holdings proved beneficial in the rising rate environment as CABs are highly sensitive to interest rate fluctuations.
|
|
|
The views expressed reflect the opinions of BlackRock as of the date of this report and are subject to change based on changes in market, economic or other conditions. These views are not intended to be a forecast of future events and are no guarantee of future results. |
|
|
Trust Information |
|
|
|
|
|
Symbol on NYSE Amex |
|
BLE |
|
Initial Offering Date |
|
July 30, 2002 |
|
Yield on Closing Market Price as of February 28, 2011 ($13.02)1 |
|
7.70% |
|
Tax Equivalent Yield2 |
|
11.85% |
|
Current Monthly Distribution per Common Share3 |
|
$0.0835 |
|
Current Annualized Distribution per Common Share3 |
|
$1.0020 |
|
Leverage as of February 28, 20114 |
|
38% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
Yield on closing market price is calculated by dividing the current annualized distribution per share by the closing market price. Past performance does not guarantee future results. |
|
|
|
|
2 |
Tax equivalent yield assumes the maximum federal tax rate of 35%. |
|
|
|
|
3 |
The distribution rate is not constant and is subject to change. |
|
|
|
|
4 |
Represents Preferred Shares and TOBs as a percentage of total managed assets, which is the total assets of the Trust, including any assets attributable to Preferred Shares and TOBs, minus the sum of accrued liabilities. For a discussion of leveraging techniques utilized by the Trust, please see The Benefits and Risks of Leveraging on page 12. |
The table below summarizes the changes in the Trusts market price and NAV per share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
2/28/11 |
|
8/31/10 |
|
Change |
|
High |
|
Low |
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
Market Price |
|
$ |
13.02 |
|
$ |
15.22 |
|
|
(14.45 |
)% |
$ |
15.35 |
|
$ |
11.87 |
|
Net Asset Value |
|
$ |
13.12 |
|
$ |
14.63 |
|
|
(10.32 |
)% |
$ |
14.63 |
|
$ |
12.41 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The following charts show the sector and credit quality allocations of the Trusts long-term investments:
|
|
Sector Allocations |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2/28/11 |
|
8/31/10 |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
Health |
|
20 |
% |
|
19 |
% |
|
State |
|
18 |
|
|
17 |
|
|
Utilities |
|
12 |
|
|
13 |
|
|
Corporate |
|
11 |
|
|
11 |
|
|
Transportation |
|
11 |
|
|
11 |
|
|
County/City/Special District/School District |
|
10 |
|
|
12 |
|
|
Education |
|
8 |
|
|
7 |
|
|
Housing |
|
6 |
|
|
6 |
|
|
Tobacco |
|
4 |
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credit Quality Allocations5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2/28/11 |
|
8/31/10 |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
AAA/Aaa |
|
13 |
% |
|
18 |
% |
|
AA/Aa |
|
28 |
|
|
21 |
|
|
A |
|
29 |
|
|
30 |
|
|
BBB/Baa |
|
15 |
|
|
17 |
|
|
BB/Ba |
|
5 |
|
|
1 |
|
|
B |
|
4 |
|
|
6 |
|
|
CCC/Caa |
|
1 |
|
|
1 |
|
|
Not Rated6 |
|
5 |
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 |
Using the higher of S&Ps or Moodys ratings. |
|
|
|
|
6 |
The investment advisor has deemed certain of these non-rated securities to be of investment grade quality. As of February 28, 2011 and August 31, 2010, the market value of these securities was $7,192,827 representing 1% and $13,839,185 representing 3%, respectively, of the Trusts long-term investments. |
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT |
FEBRUARY 28, 2011 |
9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trust Summary as of February 28, 2011 |
BlackRock MuniHoldings Investment Quality Fund |
|
|
Trust Overview |
|
Effective November 9, 2010, BlackRock MuniHoldings Insured Investment Fund changed its name to BlackRock MuniHoldings Investment Quality Fund.
BlackRock MuniHoldings Investment Quality Funds (MFL) (the Trust) investment objective is to provide shareholders with current income exempt from federal income tax and to provide shareholders with the opportunity to own shares the value of which is exempt from Florida intangible personal property tax. The Trust seeks to achieve its investment objective by investing primarily in long-term, investment grade municipal obligations exempt from federal income taxes (except that the interest may be subject to the federal alternative minimum tax). Under normal market conditions, the Trust invests at least 80% of its assets in municipal obligations with remaining maturities of one year or more. The Trust may invest directly in such securities or synthetically through the use of derivatives. Due to the repeal of the Florida intangible personal property tax, the Board approved an amended policy in September 2008, allowing the Trust the flexibility to invest in municipal obligations regardless of geographical location.
|
|
|
No assurance can be given that the Trusts investment objective will be achieved. |
|
|
Performance |
|
Effective November 9, 2010, the Trusts investment policy was changed by the removal of the insurance investment policy that required at least 80% of its assets to be invested in insured municipal securities. Accordingly, the Trust was moved from the Lipper Insured Municipal Debt Funds (Leveraged) category into the Lipper General Municipal Debt Funds (Leveraged) category. For the six months ended February 28, 2011, the Trust returned (10.49)% based on market price and (8.76)% based on NAV. For the same period, the closed-end Lipper General Municipal Debt Funds (Leveraged) category posted an average return of (10.86)% based on market price and (7.86)% based on NAV, and the closed-end Lipper Insured Municipal Debt Funds (Leveraged) category posted an average return of (11.51)% based on market price and (6.90)% based on NAV. All returns reflect reinvestment of dividends. The Trusts discount to NAV, which widened during the period, accounts for the difference between performance based on price and performance based on NAV. The following discussion relates to performance based on NAV. Exposure to longer-duration and longer-maturity bonds detracted from the Trusts performance as the long end of the yield curve steepened during the period. Additionally, holdings in health care and transportation hindered performance as both sectors underperformed the broad municipal market. Conversely, exposure to housing bonds aided performance as that sector outperformed the broad municipal market. The Trusts holdings of high-quality essential service bonds with premium coupons (6% or higher) also benefited performance, as they held their value better than lower-coupon bonds in the rising interest rate environment.
|
|
|
The views expressed reflect the opinions of BlackRock as of the date of this report and are subject to change based on changes in market, economic or other conditions. These views are not intended to be a forecast of future events and are no guarantee of future results. |
|
|
Trust Information |
|
|
|
|
|
Symbol on NYSE |
|
MFL |
|
Initial Offering Date |
|
September 26, 1997 |
|
Yield on Closing Market Price as of February 28, 2011 ($12.68)1 |
|
7.10% |
|
Tax Equivalent Yield2 |
|
10.92% |
|
Current Monthly Distribution per Common Share3 |
|
$0.075 |
|
Current Annualized Distribution per Common Share3 |
|
$0.900 |
|
Leverage as of February 28, 20114 |
|
41% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
Yield on closing market price is calculated by dividing the current annualized distribution per share by the closing market price. Past performance does not guarantee future results. |
|
|
|
|
2 |
The equivalent yield assumes the maximum federal tax rate of 35%. |
|
|
|
|
3 |
A change in the distribution rate was declared on March 1, 2011. The Monthly Distribution per Common Share was increased to $0.0765. The Yield on Closing Market Price, Current Monthly Distribution per Common Share and Current Annualized Distribution per Common Share do not reflect the new distribution rate. The new distribution rate is not constant and is subject to change in the future. |
|
|
|
|
4 |
Represents Preferred Shares and TOBs as a percentage of total managed assets, which is the total assets of the Trust, including any assets attributable to Preferred Shares and TOBs, minus the sum of accrued liabilities. For a discussion of leveraging techniques utilized by the Trust, please see The Benefits and Risks of Leveraging on page 12. |
The table below summarizes the changes in the Trusts market price and NAV per share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
2/28/11 |
|
8/31/10 |
|
Change |
|
High |
|
Low |
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
Market Price |
|
$ |
12.68 |
|
$ |
14.65 |
|
|
(13.45 |
)% |
$ |
14.87 |
|
$ |
11.68 |
|
Net Asset Value |
|
$ |
12.96 |
|
$ |
14.69 |
|
|
(11.78 |
)% |
$ |
14.69 |
|
$ |
12.23 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The following charts show the sector and credit quality allocations of the Trusts long-term investments:
|
|
Sector Allocations |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2/28/11 |
|
8/31/10 |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
Utilities |
|
26 |
% |
|
26 |
% |
|
Transportation |
|
24 |
|
|
27 |
|
|
County/City/Special District/School District |
|
18 |
|
|
18 |
|
|
Health |
|
12 |
|
|
11 |
|
|
State |
|
11 |
|
|
12 |
|
|
Housing |
|
5 |
|
|
4 |
|
|
Education |
|
3 |
|
|
2 |
|
|
Tobacco |
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credit Quality Allocations5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2/28/11 |
|
8/31/10 |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
AAA/Aaa |
|
6 |
% |
|
64 |
% |
|
AA/Aa |
|
82 |
|
|
24 |
|
|
A |
|
8 |
|
|
11 |
|
|
BBB/Baa |
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
Not Rated6 |
|
1 |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 |
Using the higher of S&Ps or Moodys ratings. |
|
|
|
|
6 |
The investment advisor has deemed certain of these non-rated securities to be of investment grade quality. As of February 28, 2011 and August 31, 2010, the market value of these securities was $3,022,118 representing 1% and $5,793,997 representing 1%, respectively, of the Trusts long-term investments. |
|
|
|
|
||
10 |
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT |
FEBRUARY 28, 2011 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trust Summary as of February 28, 2011 |
BlackRock MuniVest Fund, Inc. |
|
|
Trust Overview |
|
BlackRock MuniVest Fund, Inc.s (MVF) (the Trust) investment objective is to provide shareholders with as high a level of current income exempt from federal income taxes as is consistent with its investment policies and prudent investment management. The Trust seeks to achieve its investment objective by investing at least 80% of its assets in municipal obligations exempt from federal income taxes (except that the interest may be subject to the federal alternative minimum tax). The Trust invests, under normal market conditions, primarily in long term municipal obligations rated investment grade at the time of investment and invests primarily in long term municipal obligations with maturities of more than ten years at the time of investment. The Trust may invest directly in such securities or synthetically through the use of derivatives.
|
|
|
No assurance can be given that the Trusts investment objective will be achieved |
|
|
Performance |
|
For the six months ended February 28, 2011, the Trust returned (9.59)% based on market price and (7.91)% based on NAV. For the same period, the closed-end Lipper General Municipal Debt Funds (Leveraged) category posted an average return of (10.86)% based on market price and (7.86)% based on NAV. All returns reflect reinvestment of dividends. The Trusts premium to NAV, which narrowed during the period, accounts for the difference between performance based on price and performance based on NAV. The following discussion relates to performance based on NAV. At the beginning of the period, the Trust benefited from tightening credit quality spreads driven by generous investor cash flows into tax-exempt mutual funds. Spreads were pushed even tighter by heightened demand from taxable investors for corporate-backed municipal debt due to its attractive valuation relative to the corporate sector. In this environment of strong demand, we were able to sell lower-quality securities that had outperformed and had previously been very limited in their liquidity. Toward the end of the period, the Trusts position in cash and cash equivalents proved beneficial when the municipal market saw net cash flows into mutual funds turn dramatically negative. However, as municipal rates rose on credit concerns and the Build America Bonds program neared its expiration, while long-term investment rates (i.e., rates on US Treasuries and other fixed income securities) were generally increasing, the Trusts longer duration stance had an overall negative impact on performance.
|
|
|
The views expressed reflect the opinions of BlackRock as of the date of this report and are subject to change based on changes in market, economic or other conditions. These views are not intended to be a forecast of future events and are no guarantee of future results. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trust Information |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Symbol on NYSE Amex |
|
MVF |
|
|
Initial Offering Date |
|
September 29, 1988 |
|
|
Yield on Closing Market Price as of February 28, 2011 ($9.04)1 |
|
|
7.83% |
|
Tax Equivalent Yield2 |
|
|
12.05% |
|
Current Monthly Distribution per Common Share3 |
|
|
$0.059 |
|
Current Annualized Distribution per Common Share3 |
|
|
$0.708 |
|
Leverage as of February 28, 20114 |
|
|
43% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
Yield on closing market price is calculated by dividing the current annualized distribution per share by the closing market price. Past performance does not guarantee future results. |
|
|
|
|
2 |
Tax equivalent yield assumes the maximum federal tax rate of 35%. |
|
|
|
|
3 |
The distribution rate is not constant and is subject to change. |
|
|
|
|
4 |
Represents Preferred Shares and TOBs as a percentage of total managed assets, which is the total assets of the Trust, including any assets attributable to Preferred Shares and TOBs, minus the sum of accrued liabilities. For a discussion of leveraging techniques utilized by the Trust, please see The Benefits and Risks of Leveraging on page 12. |
The table below summarizes the changes in the Trusts market price and NAV per share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2/28/11 |
|
8/31/10 |
|
Change |
|
High |
|
Low |
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Market Price |
|
$ |
9.04 |
|
$ |
10.38 |
|
|
(12.91) |
% |
$ |
10.45 |
|
$ |
8.53 |
|
Net Asset Value |
|
$ |
8.88 |
|
$ |
10.01 |
|
|
(11.29) |
% |
$ |
10.03 |
|
$ |
8.45 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The following charts show the sector and credit quality allocations of the Trusts long-term investments:
|
|
Sector Allocations |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2/28/11 |
|
8/31/10 |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|||
Health |
|
24 |
% |
|
22 |
% |
|
Corporate |
|
16 |
|
|
17 |
|
|
Transportation |
|
15 |
|
|
13 |
|
|
Utilities |
|
11 |
|
|
12 |
|
|
County/City/Special District/School District |
|
10 |
|
|
10 |
|
|
State |
|
8 |
|
|
8 |
|
|
Education |
|
7 |
|
|
7 |
|
|
Housing |
|
7 |
|
|
7 |
|
|
Tobacco |
|
2 |
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credit Quality Allocations5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2/28/11 |
|
8/31/10 |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AAA/Aaa |
|
18 |
% |
|
23 |
% |
|
AA/Aa |
|
41 |
|
|
35 |
|
|
A |
|
23 |
|
|
23 |
|
|
BBB/Baa |
|
15 |
|
|
15 |
|
|
B |
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
Not Rated6 |
|
3 |
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 |
Using the higher of S&Ps or Moodys ratings. |
|
|
|
|
6 |
The investment advisor has deemed certain of these non-rated securities to be of investment grade quality. As of February 28, 2011 and August 31, 2010, the market value of these securities was $12,857,530 representing 1% and $21,938,423 representing 2%, respectively, of the Trusts long-term investments. |
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT |
FEBRUARY 28, 2011 |
11 |
|
|
|
The Trusts may utilize leverage to seek to enhance the yield and NAV of their common shares (Common Shares). However, these objectives cannot be achieved in all interest rate environments.
To leverage, the Trusts issue preferred shares (Preferred Shares), which pay dividends at prevailing short-term interest rates, and invest the proceeds in long-term municipal bonds. In general, the concept of leveraging is based on the premise that the financing cost of assets to be obtained from leverage, which will be based on short-term interest rates, will normally be lower than the income earned by each Trust on its longer-term portfolio investments. To the extent that the total assets of each Trust (including the assets obtained from leverage) are invested in higher-yielding portfolio investments, each Trusts holders of Common Shares (Common Shareholders) will benefit from the incremental net income.
To illustrate these concepts, assume a Trusts Common Shares capitalization is $100 million and it issues Preferred Shares for an additional $50 million, creating a total value of $150 million available for investment in long-term municipal bonds. If prevailing short-term interest rates are 3% and long-term interest rates are 6%, the yield curve has a strongly positive slope. In this case, the Trust pays dividends on the $50 million of Preferred Shares based on the lower short-term interest rates.At the same time, the securities purchased by the Trust with assets received from the Preferred Shares issuance earn income based on long-term interest rates. In this case, the dividends paid to holders of Preferred Shares (Preferred Shareholders) are significantly lower than the income earned on the Trusts long-term investments, and therefore the Common Shareholders are the beneficiaries of the incremental net income.
If short-term interest rates rise, narrowing the differential between short-term and long-term interest rates, the incremental net income pickup on the Common Shares will be reduced or eliminated completely. Furthermore, if prevailing short-term interest rates rise above long-term interest rates of 6%, the yield curve has a negative slope. In this case, the Trust pays interest expense on the higher short-term interest rate whereas the Trusts total portfolio earns income based on lower long-term interest rates.
Furthermore, the value of the Trusts portfolio investments generally varies inversely with the direction of long-term interest rates, although other factors can influence the value of portfolio investments. In contrast, the redemption value of the Trusts Preferred Shares and/or debt securities does not fluctuate in relation to interest rates. As a result, changes in interest rates can influence the Trusts NAV positively or negatively in addition to the impact on Trust performance from leverage from Preferred Shares discussed above.
The Trusts may also leverage their assets through the use of TOBs, as described in Note 1 of the Notes to Financial Statements. TOB investments generally will provide the Trusts with economic benefits in periods of declining short-term interest rates, but expose the Trusts to risks during periods of rising short-term interest rates similar to those associated with Preferred Shares issued by the Trusts, as described above. Additionally, fluctuations in the market value of municipal bonds deposited into the TOB may adversely affect each Trusts NAV per share.
The use of leverage may enhance opportunities for increased returns to the Trusts and Common Shareholders, but as described above, it also creates risks as short or long-term interest rates fluctuate. Leverage also will generally cause greater changes in the Trusts NAVs, market prices and dividend rates than comparable portfolios without leverage. If the income derived from securities purchased with assets received from leverage exceeds the cost of leverage, each Trusts net income will be greater than if leverage had not been used. Conversely, if the income from the securities purchased is not sufficient to cover the cost of leverage, the Trusts net income will be less than if leverage had not been used, and therefore the amount available for distribution to Common Shareholders will be reduced. Each Trust may be required to sell portfolio securities at inopportune times or at distressed values in order to comply with regulatory requirements applicable to the use of leverage or as required by the terms of leverage instruments, which may cause a Trust to incur losses. The use of leverage may limit each Trusts ability to invest in certain types of securities or use certain types of hedging strategies, such as in the case of certain restrictions imposed by ratings agencies that rate Preferred Shares issued by the Trust. Each Trust will incur expenses in connection with the use of leverage, all of which are borne by the Common Shareholders and may reduce income to the Common Shares.
Under the Investment Company Act of 1940, the Trusts are permitted to issue Preferred Shares in an amount up to 50% of their total managed assets at the time of issuance. Under normal circumstances, each Trust anticipates that the total economic leverage from Preferred Shares and/or TOBs will not exceed 50% of its total managed assets at the time such leverage is incurred. As of February 28, 2011, the Trusts had economic leverage from Preferred Shares and/or TOBs as a percentage of their total managed assets as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Percent of Leverage |
|
|
|
|
|
|
BYM |
|
|
39% |
|
BAF |
|
|
37% |
|
BBK |
|
|
38% |
|
BIE |
|
|
43% |
|
BLE |
|
|
38% |
|
MFL |
|
|
41% |
|
MVF |
|
|
43% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Trusts may invest in various derivative instruments, including financial futures contracts, as specified in Note 2 of the Notes to Financial Statements, which may constitute forms of economic leverage. Such instruments are used to obtain exposure to a market without owning or taking physical custody of securities or to hedge market and/or interest rate risks. Such derivative instruments involve risks, including the imperfect correlation between the value of a derivative instrument and the underlying asset, possible default of the counterparty to the transaction or illiquidity of the derivative instrument. Each Trusts ability to use a derivative instrument successfully depends on the investment advisors ability to predict pertinent market movements accurately, which cannot be assured. The use of derivative instruments may result in losses greater than if they had not been used, may require a Trust to sell or purchase portfolio investments at inopportune times or for distressed values, may limit the amount of appreciation a Trust can realize on an investment, may result in lower distributions paid to shareholders or may cause the Trusts to hold an investment that they might otherwise sell. The Trusts investments in these instruments are discussed in detail in the Notes to Financial Statements.
|
|
|
|
||
12 |
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT |
FEBRUARY 28, 2011 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
BlackRock Municipal Income Quality Trust (BYM) |
|
|
(Percentages shown are based on Net Assets) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Par |
|
|
|
||
Municipal Bonds |
|
(000) |
|
Value |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alabama 3.9% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alabama State Docks Department, Refunding RB, |
|
$ |
3,800 |
|
$ |
3,742,848 |
|
Birmingham Airport Authority, RB (AGM), 5.50%, |
|
|
5,800 |
|
|
5,651,230 |
|
Birmingham Special Care Facilities Financing Authority, |
|
|
1,495 |
|
|
1,556,609 |
|
County of Jefferson Alabama, RB, Series A, 4.75%, |
|
|
2,800 |
|
|
2,301,124 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13,251,811 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Arizona 0.6% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
State of Arizona, COP, Department of Administration, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.00%, 10/01/27 |
|
|
1,500 |
|
|
1,504,080 |
|
5.25%, 10/01/28 |
|
|
650 |
|
|
658,034 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,162,114 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
California 30.1% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
California Health Facilities Financing Authority, |
|
|
625 |
|
|
625,356 |
|
California Infrastructure & Economic Development |
|
|
10,100 |
|
|
11,328,564 |
|
Coast Community College District California, GO, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.58%, 8/01/13 (b) |
|
|
7,450 |
|
|
6,009,319 |
|
5.40%, 8/01/36 (c) |
|
|
4,200 |
|
|
743,022 |
|
Fresno Unified School District California, GO, Election of |
|
|
1,100 |
|
|
1,047,420 |
|
Golden State Tobacco Securitization Corp. California, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6.63%, 6/01/13 |
|
|
6,500 |
|
|
7,320,560 |
|
6.75%, 6/01/13 |
|
|
14,500 |
|
|
16,370,790 |
|
Los Angeles Municipal Improvement Corp., RB, Series B1 |
|
|
4,000 |
|
|
3,406,840 |
|
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, RB, |
|
|
17,500 |
|
|
17,600,450 |
|
Monterey Peninsula Community College District, GO, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.15%, 8/01/31 |
|
|
13,575 |
|
|
3,358,862 |
|
5.16%, 8/01/32 |
|
|
14,150 |
|
|
3,230,728 |
|
Orange County Sanitation District, COP, Series B (AGM), |
|
|
2,500 |
|
|
2,526,700 |
|
Sacramento Unified School District California, GO, |
|
|
2,700 |
|
|
2,666,871 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Par |
|
|
|
|
|
Municipal Bonds |
|
(000) |
|
Value |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
California (concluded) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
San Diego Unified School District California, GO, CAB, |
|
$ |
2,000 |
|
$ |
329,980 |
|
San Francisco City & County Public Utilities Commission, |
|
|
15,000 |
|
|
15,007,800 |
|
San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Agency |
|
|
53,000 |
|
|
9,086,850 |
|
San Jose Unified School District Santa Clara County |
|
|
2,350 |
|
|
2,359,165 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
103,019,277 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Colorado 0.3% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regional Transportation District, COP, Series A, |
|
|
960 |
|
|
965,126 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
District of Columbia 2.6% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
District of Columbia Tobacco Settlement Financing |
|
|
9,500 |
|
|
8,925,250 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Florida 14.6% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Broward County School Board Florida, COP, Series A |
|
|
2,000 |
|
|
1,896,600 |
|
City of Tallahassee Florida, RB (NPFGC), 5.00%, |
|
|
3,000 |
|
|
2,918,760 |
|
County of Broward Florida, RB, Series A, 5.25%, |
|
|
5,950 |
|
|
5,986,712 |
|
County of Duval Florida, COP, Master Lease Program |
|
|
2,800 |
|
|
2,631,272 |
|
County of Miami-Dade Florida, RB: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CAB, Sub-Series A (NPFGC), 5.25%, 10/01/38 (c) |
|
|
25,520 |
|
|
3,538,858 |
|
Jackson Health System (AGC), 5.75%, 6/01/39 |
|
|
2,300 |
|
|
2,321,735 |
|
Water & Sewer System (AGM), 5.00%, 10/01/39 |
|
|
10,100 |
|
|
9,584,799 |
|
County of Miami-Dade Florida, Refunding RB (AGM), |
|
|
1,300 |
|
|
1,231,620 |
|
Florida Housing Finance Corp., RB, Homeowner |
|
|
4,020 |
|
|
4,039,055 |
|
Florida State Department of Environmental Protection, |
|
|
7,500 |
|
|
7,582,200 |
|
Miami-Dade County School Board, COP, Refunding, |
|
|
2,385 |
|
|
2,401,814 |
|
Orange County School Board, COP, Series A (AGC), |
|
|
5,590 |
|
|
5,604,702 |
|
Sarasota County Public Hospital District, RB, Sarasota |
|
|
300 |
|
|
297,663 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
50,035,790 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Portfolio Abbreviations |
|
To simplify the listings of portfolio holdings in the Schedules of Investments, the names and descriptions of many of the securities have been abbreviated according to the following list:
|
|
ACA |
ACA Financial Guaranty Corp. |
AGC |
Assured Guaranty Corp. |
AGM |
Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp. |
AMBAC |
American Municipal Bond Assurance Corp. |
AMT |
Alternative Minimum Tax (subject to) |
ARB |
Airport Revenue Bonds |
BHAC |
Berkshire Hathaway Assurance Corp. |
CAB |
Capital Appreciation Bonds |
CIFG |
CDC IXIS Financial Guaranty |
COP |
Certificates of Participation |
EDA |
Economic Development Authority |
EDC |
Economic Development Corp. |
ERB |
Education Revenue Bonds |
FHA |
Federal Housing Administration |
GARB |
General Airport Revenue Bonds |
GO |
General Obligation Bonds |
HDA |
Housing Development Authority |
HFA |
Housing Finance Agency |
HRB |
Housing Revenue Bonds |
IDA |
Industrial Development Authority |
IDB |
Industrial Development Board |
IDRB |
Industrial Development Revenue Bonds |
ISD |
Independent School District |
MRB |
Mortgage Revenue Bonds |
NPFGC |
National Public Finance Guarantee Corp. |
PILOT |
Payment in Lieu of Taxes |
PSF-GTD |
Permanent School Fund Guaranteed |
RB |
Revenue Bonds |
SBPA |
Stand-by Bond Purchase Agreement |
S/F |
Single-Family |
VRDN |
Variable Rate Demand Notes |
|
|
|
|
See Notes to Financial Statements. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT |
FEBRUARY 28, 2011 |
13 |
|
|
|
|
Schedule of Investments (continued) |
BlackRock Municipal Income Quality Trust (BYM) |
|
(Percentages shown are based on Net Assets) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Par |
|
|
|
||
Municipal Bonds |
|
(000) |
|
Value |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Georgia 2.6% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
City of Atlanta Georgia, Refunding RB, General, Series C, |
|
$ |
7,500 |
|
$ |
8,155,875 |
|
Gwinnett County Hospital Authority, Refunding RB, |
|
|
900 |
|
|
853,002 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9,008,877 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hawaii 1.4% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hawaii State Harbor, RB, Series A, 5.50%, 7/01/35 |
|
|
5,000 |
|
|
4,843,250 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Illinois 5.3% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chicago Board of Education Illinois, GO, Refunding, |
|
|
2,500 |
|
|
2,550,050 |
|
Chicago Park District, GO, Harbor Facilities, Series C, |
|
|
600 |
|
|
584,304 |
|
City of Chicago Illinois, RB, Series A (AGC), 5.00%, |
|
|
7,310 |
|
|
6,838,651 |
|
County of Cook Illinois, GO, Refunding, Series A, |
|
|
1,475 |
|
|
1,449,911 |
|
Illinois Municipal Electric Agency, RB, Series A (NPFGC), |
|
|
4,800 |
|
|
4,853,328 |
|
Railsplitter Tobacco Settlement Authority, RB, 6.00%, |
|
|
710 |
|
|
693,535 |
|
State of Illinois, RB, Build Illinois, Series B, 5.25%, |
|
|
1,400 |
|
|
1,350,664 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
18,320,443 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indiana 2.1% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indiana Municipal Power Agency, RB: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Series A (NPFGC), 5.00%, 1/01/37 |
|
|
2,050 |
|
|
1,901,355 |
|
Series B, 5.75%, 1/01/34 |
|
|
450 |
|
|
453,591 |
|
Indianapolis Local Public Improvement Bond Bank, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(AGC), 5.50%, 1/01/38 |
|
|
2,000 |
|
|
2,051,020 |
|
(NPFGC), 5.50%, 7/01/20 |
|
|
2,630 |
|
|
2,912,146 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7,318,112 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Iowa 1.5% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Iowa Finance Authority, RB, Series A (AGC), 5.63%, |
|
|
5,000 |
|
|
5,011,550 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kentucky 0.5% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kentucky State Property & Buildings Commission, |
|
|
1,500 |
|
|
1,537,050 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Louisiana 2.2% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
State of Louisiana, RB, Series A (AGM), 5.00%, 5/01/31 |
|
|
7,500 |
|
|
7,557,225 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michigan 2.8% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
City of Detroit Michigan, RB: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Lien, Series A (NPFGC), 5.00%, 7/01/30 |
|
|
1,000 |
|
|
903,330 |
|
Senior Lien, Series A (NPFGC), 5.00%, 7/01/34 |
|
|
2,480 |
|
|
2,263,223 |
|
System, Second Lien, Series A (BHAC), 5.50%, |
|
|
2,900 |
|
|
2,856,906 |
|
System, Second Lien, Series B (NPFGC), 5.00%, |
|
|
100 |
|
|
87,876 |
|
City of Detroit Michigan, Refunding RB, Second Lien, |
|
|
3,000 |
|
|
3,048,180 |
|
Kalamazoo Hospital Finance Authority, RB, Bronson |
|
|
465 |
|
|
427,265 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9,586,780 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nebraska 1.3% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nebraska Investment Finance Authority, Refunding RB, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.90%, 9/01/36 |
|
|
2,450 |
|
|
2,507,232 |
|
6.05%, 9/01/41 |
|
|
1,860 |
|
|
1,882,766 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,389,998 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Par |
|
|
|
||
Municipal Bonds |
|
(000) |
|
Value |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nevada 1.6% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
County of Clark Nevada, RB: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Las Vegas-McCarran International Airport, Series A |
|
$ |
4,100 |
|
$ |
3,841,823 |
|
System, Subordinate Lien, Series C (AGM), |
|
|
1,650 |
|
|
1,625,580 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,467,403 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New York 2.4% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New York City Transitional Finance Authority, RB, Fiscal |
|
|
1,950 |
|
|
2,002,533 |
|
New York State Dormitory Authority, ERB, Series B, |
|
|
1,300 |
|
|
1,383,382 |
|
Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, Refunding RB, |
|
|
5,000 |
|
|
4,965,250 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8,351,165 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
North Carolina 0.7% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
North Carolina Medical Care Commission, RB, Novant |
|
|
2,875 |
|
|
2,438,345 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ohio 0.5% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
County of Lucas Ohio, Refunding RB, Promedica |
|
|
610 |
|
|
645,649 |
|
Ohio Higher Educational Facility Commission, |
|
|
1,125 |
|
|
1,042,661 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,688,310 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Puerto Rico 1.6% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Puerto Rico Sales Tax Financing Corp., RB, First |
|
|
5,300 |
|
|
5,486,295 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rhode Island 0.8% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rhode Island Health & Educational Building Corp., |
|
|
2,625 |
|
|
2,799,825 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
South Carolina 1.4% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
South Carolina State Ports Authority, RB, 5.25%, |
|
|
5,000 |
|
|
4,854,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tennessee 4.1% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Knox County Health Educational & Housing Facilities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.88%, 1/01/23 |
|
|
9,260 |
|
|
4,757,418 |
|
5.90%, 1/01/24 |
|
|
8,500 |
|
|
4,101,930 |
|
5.91%, 1/01/25 |
|
|
6,850 |
|
|
3,108,119 |
|
5.93%, 1/01/26 |
|
|
5,000 |
|
|
2,125,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14,092,467 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Texas 27.8% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
City of Houston Texas, RB, Senior Lien, Series A, |
|
|
4,165 |
|
|
4,199,694 |
|
City of San Antonio Texas, Refunding RB (NPFGC): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.13%, 5/15/29 |
|
|
9,250 |
|
|
9,296,805 |
|
5.13%, 5/15/34 |
|
|
10,000 |
|
|
10,030,000 |
|
Comal ISD, GO, School Building (PSF-GTD), 5.00%, |
|
|
2,500 |
|
|
2,525,975 |
|
Coppell ISD Texas, GO, Refunding, CAB (PSF-GTD), |
|
|
10,030 |
|
|
3,792,243 |
|
County of Harris Texas, GO (NPFGC) (c): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.57%, 8/15/25 |
|
|
7,485 |
|
|
3,936,811 |
|
5.60%, 8/15/28 |
|
|
10,915 |
|
|
4,742,895 |
|
County of Harris Texas, Refunding RB, Senior Lien, |
|
|
5,510 |
|
|
5,515,290 |
|
Harris County-Houston Sports Authority, Refunding RB |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CAB, Junior Lien, Series H, 5.93%, 11/15/38 |
|
|
5,785 |
|
|
593,830 |
|
CAB, Junior Lien, Series H, 5.94%, 11/15/39 |
|
|
6,160 |
|
|
582,490 |
|
Third Lien, Series A-3, 5.97%, 11/15/38 |
|
|
26,890 |
|
|
2,687,924 |
|
Third Lien, Series A-3, 5.98%, 11/15/39 |
|
|
27,675 |
|
|
2,559,937 |
|
|
|
|
See Notes to Financial Statements. |
|
|
|
|
|
14 |
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT |
FEBRUARY 28, 2011 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Schedule of Investments (continued) |
BlackRock Municipal Income Quality Trust (BYM) |
|
(Percentages shown are based on Net Assets) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Municipal Bonds |
|
Par |
|
Value |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
Texas (concluded) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lewisville ISD Texas, GO, Refunding, CAB, School |
|
$ |
3,815 |
|
$ |
1,947,214 |
|
Mansfield ISD Texas, GO, School Building
(PSF-GTD), |
|
|
2,980 |
|
|
3,050,864 |
|
North Texas Tollway Authority, Refunding RB, First Tier: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Series A, 6.00%, 1/01/28 |
|
|
625 |
|
|
655,994 |
|
System, (NPFGC), 5.75%, 1/01/40 |
|
|
23,050 |
|
|
22,019,204 |
|
Texas State Turnpike Authority, RB, First Tier, Series A
|
|
|
20,000 |
|
|
17,085,400 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
95,222,570 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Washington 5.2% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chelan County Public Utility District No. 1, RB, Chelan
|
|
|
3,655 |
|
|
3,657,339 |
|
County of King Washington, Refunding RB (AGM), |
|
|
2,200 |
|
|
2,184,380 |
|
Port of Seattle Washington, RB, Series A (NPFGC), |
|
|
4,500 |
|
|
4,460,400 |
|
Washington Health Care Facilities Authority, RB: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MultiCare Health Care, Series C
(AGC), 5.50%, |
|
|
6,400 |
|
|
6,120,512 |
|
Providence Health & Services,
Series A, 5.00%, |
|
|
1,000 |
|
|
885,110 |
|
Providence Health & Services,
Series A, 5.25%, |
|
|
675 |
|
|
620,798 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17,928,539 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wisconsin 0.4% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wisconsin Health & Educational Facilities Authority, RB, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ascension Health Senior Credit Group, 5.00%, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11/15/33 |
|
|
1,500 |
|
|
1,381,380 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Municipal Bonds 118.3% |
|
|
|
|
|
405,642,952 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
Municipal
Bonds Transferred to |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Arizona 0.4% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phoenix Civic Improvement Corp., RB, Junior Lien, |
|
|
1,300 |
|
|
1,311,388 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
California 10.9% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
California State University, RB, Systemwide, Series A
|
|
|
3,379 |
|
|
3,202,755 |
|
California State University, Refunding RB,
Systemwide, |
|
|
8,000 |
|
|
7,682,320 |
|
Foothill-De Anza Community College District, GO, |
|
|
7,500 |
|
|
7,320,450 |
|
Los Angeles Community College District California,
GO, |
|
|
5,000 |
|
|
4,890,450 |
|
San Diego Community College District California, GO, |
|
|
449 |
|
|
452,607 |
|
San Diego County Water Authority, COP, Refunding, |
|
|
4,870 |
|
|
4,736,075 |
|
University of California, RB, Series C (NPFGC),
4.75%, |
|
|
10,000 |
|
|
8,964,400 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
37,249,057 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
District of Columbia 0.3% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
District of Columbia, RB, Series A, 5.50%, 12/01/30 |
|
|
1,080 |
|
|
1,162,242 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Municipal Bonds Transferred to |
|
Par |
|
Value |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
Florida 4.0% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
City of Tallahassee Florida, RB (NPFGC), 5.00%, |
|
$ |
5,000 |
|
$ |
4,787,150 |
|
Florida State Board of Education, GO, Series D, |
|
|
2,999 |
|
|
2,994,075 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange County School Board, COP, Series A (NPFGC), |
|
|
6,000 |
|
|
5,911,800 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13,693,025 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hawaii 2.9% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Honolulu City & County Board of Water Supply, RB, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Series A (NPFGC), 5.00%, 7/01/33 |
|
|
10,000 |
|
|
10,042,100 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Illinois 8.2% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Illinois State Toll Highway Authority, RB, Series B, |
|
|
4,499 |
|
|
4,514,114 |
|
Metropolitan Pier & Exposition Authority, RB,
McCormick |
|
|
24,010 |
|
|
23,564,375 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
28,078,489 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Massachusetts 3.8% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Massachusetts School Building Authority, RB, Series A
|
|
|
12,987 |
|
|
13,158,069 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nevada 1.9% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
City of Las Vegas Nevada, GO, Limited Tax, Performing |
|
|
4,197 |
|
|
4,391,419 |
|
Clark County Water Reclamation District, GO, Series B, |
|
|
2,024 |
|
|
2,157,979 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,549,398 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New York 4.8% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Erie County Industrial Development Agency, RB, City |
|
|
4,494 |
|
|
4,801,911 |
|
Metropolitan Transportation Authority, RB, Series A |
|
|
7,002 |
|
|
6,992,433 |
|
Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Authority, RB,
General, |
|
|
4,500 |
|
|
4,559,445 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16,353,789 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ohio 0.2% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
State of Ohio, RB, Cleveland Clinic Health, Series B, |
|
|
620 |
|
|
620,732 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
South Carolina 0.2% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
South Carolina State Public Service Authority, RB, |
|
|
600 |
|
|
621,978 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Texas 2.8% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Northside ISD Texas, GO, School Building (PSF-GTD), |
|
|
9,500 |
|
|
9,755,913 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Utah 1.5% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Utah Transit Authority, RB, Series A (AGM), 5.00%, |
|
|
5,000 |
|
|
5,014,800 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Virginia 0.1% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fairfax County IDA Virginia, Refunding RB, Health Care, |
|
|
400 |
|
|
403,364 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Washington 1.0% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority, RB, |
|
|
3,494 |
|
|
3,529,596 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Municipal Bonds Transferred to |
|
|
|
|
|
147,543,940 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Long-Term Investments |
|
|
|
|
|
553,186,892 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See Notes to Financial Statements. |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT |
FEBRUARY 28, 2011 |
15 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Schedule of Investments (concluded) |
BlackRock Municipal Income Quality Trust (BYM) |
|
(Percentages shown are based on Net Assets) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Short-Term Securities |
|
Par |
|
Value |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
New York 0.5% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
City of New York New York, GO, VRDN, Sub-Series
A-6 |
|
$ |
1,700 |
|
$ |
1,700,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shares |
|
|
|
||
|
|||||||
Money Market Fund 0.7% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FFI Institutional Tax-Exempt Fund, 0.13% (f)(g) |
|
|
2,376,259 |
|
|
2,376,259 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Short-Term Securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Cost $4,076,259) 1.2% |
|
|
|
|
|
4,076,259 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Investments (Cost $580,828,727*) 162.5% |
|
|
|
|
|
557,263,151 |
|
Other Assets Less Liabilities 1.1% |
|
|
|
|
|
3,821,897 |
|
Liability for Trust Certificates, Including |
|
|
|
|
|
(80,966,277 |
) |
Preferred Shares, at Redemption Value (40.0)% |
|
|
|
|
|
(137,256,220 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Assets Applicable to Common Shares 100.0% |
|
|
|
|
$ |
342,862,551 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* |
The cost and unrealized appreciation (depreciation) of investments as of February 28, 2011, as computed for federal income tax purposes, were as follows: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aggregate cost |
|
$ |
500,494,695 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross unrealized appreciation |
|
$ |
10,332,280 |
|
Gross unrealized depreciation |
|
|
(34,478,336 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
Net unrealized depreciation |
|
$ |
(24,146,056 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(a) |
US government securities, held in escrow, are used to pay interest on this security as well as to retire the bond in full at the date indicated, typically at a premium to par. |
|
|
(b) |
Represents a step-up bond that pays an initial coupon rate for the first period and then a higher coupon rate for the following periods. Rate shown reflects the current yield as of report date. |
|
|
(c) |
Represents a zero-coupon bond. Rate shown reflects the current yield as of report date. |
|
|
(d) |
Securities represent bonds transferred to a TOB in exchange for which the Trust acquired residual interest certificates. These securities serve as collateral in a financing transaction. See Note 1 of the Notes to Financial Statements for details of municipal bonds transferred to TOBs. |
|
|
(e) |
Variable rate security. Rate shown is as of report date and maturity shown is the date the principal owed can be recovered through demand. |
|
|
(f) |
Investments in companies considered to be an affiliate of the Trust during the period, for purposes of Section 2(a)(3) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended, were as follows: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
Affiliate |
|
Shares
Held at |
|
Net |
|
Shares
Held at |
|
Income |
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
FFI Institutional |
|
|
9,416,737 |
|
|
(7,040,478 |
) |
|
2,376,259 |
|
$ |
6,948 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(g) |
Represents the current yield as of report date. |
|
|
|
Financial futures contracts sold as of February 28, 2011 were as follows: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
Contracts |
|
Issue |
|
Exchange |
|
Expiration |
|
Notional |
|
Unrealized |
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
195 |
|
|
10-Year U.S. Treasury Note |
|
|
Chicago
|
|
|
June |
|
$ |
23,110,176 |
|
$ |
(103,964 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair Value Measurements Various inputs are used in determining the fair value of investments and derivatives. These inputs are summarized in three broad levels for financial statement purposes as follows: |
|
|
|
|
|
Level 1 price quotations in active markets/exchanges for identical assets and liabilities |
|
|
|
Level 2 other observable inputs (including, but not limited to: quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities in markets that are active, quoted prices for identical or similar assets or liabilities in markets that are not active, inputs other than quoted prices that are observable for the assets or liabilities (such as interest rates, yield curves, volatilities, prepayment speeds, loss severities, credit risks and default rates) or other market-corroborated inputs) |
|
|
|
Level 3 unobservable inputs based on the best information available in the circumstances, to the extent observable inputs are not available (including the Trusts own assumptions used in determining the fair value of investments and derivatives) |
The inputs or methodologies used for valuing securities are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in those securities. For information about the Trusts policy regarding valuation of investments and derivatives and other significant accounting policies, please refer to Note 1 of the Notes to Financial Statements.
The following tables summarize the inputs used as of February 28, 2011 in determining the fair valuation of the Trusts investments and derivatives:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
Valuation Inputs |
|
Level 1 |
|
Level 2 |
|
Level 3 |
|
Total |
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
Assets: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investments in |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-Term |
|
|
|
|
$ |
553,186,892 |
|
|
|
|
$ |
553,186,892 |
|
Short-Term |
|
$ |
2,376,259 |
|
|
1,700,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
4,076,259 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
2,376,259 |
|
$ |
554,886,892 |
|
|
|
|
$ |
557,263,151 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
See above Schedule of Investments for values in each state or political subdivision. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivative Financial Instruments2 |
|
||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
Valuation Inputs |
|
Level 1 |
|
Level 2 |
|
Level 3 |
|
Total |
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
Liabilities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest rate |
|
$ |
(103,964 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
(103,964 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
Derivative financial instruments are financial futures contracts, which are shown at the unrealized appreciation/depreciation on the instrument. |
|
|
|
See Notes to Financial Statements. |
|
|
|
|
|
16 |
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT |
FEBRUARY 28, 2011 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Schedule of Investments February 28, 2011 (Unaudited) |
BlackRock Municipal Income Investment Quality Trust (BAF) |
|
(Percentages shown are based on Net Assets) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Municipal Bonds |
|
Par |
|
Value |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
Alabama 2.2% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Birmingham Airport Authority, RB (AGM), 5.00%, |
|
$ |
520 |
|
$ |
522,662 |
|
Birmingham Special Care Facilities Financing Authority, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6.13%, 6/01/34 |
|
|
1,000 |
|
|
1,059,990 |
|
6.00%, 6/01/39 |
|
|
1,000 |
|
|
1,041,210 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,623,862 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Arizona 0.4% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
State of Arizona, COP, Department of Administration, |
|
|
465 |
|
|
470,747 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
California 12.3% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
California Educational Facilities Authority, RB, University |
|
|
2,155 |
|
|
2,179,093 |
|
California Health Facilities Financing Authority, |
|
|
1,120 |
|
|
1,109,024 |
|
County of Sacramento California, RB, Senior Series A |
|
|
1,400 |
|
|
1,373,554 |
|
Los Angeles Community College District California, GO: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Election of 2001, Series A (NPFGC), 5.00%, |
|
|
1,000 |
|
|
975,560 |
|
Election of 2008, Series C, 5.25%, 8/01/39 |
|
|
1,000 |
|
|
985,430 |
|
Los Angeles Department of Water & Power, RB, Power |
|
|
1,175 |
|
|
1,163,132 |
|
Los Angeles Municipal Improvement Corp., Refunding |
|
|
3,810 |
|
|
3,693,300 |
|
Oxnard Union High School District, GO, Refunding, |
|
|
1,000 |
|
|
890,240 |
|
San Diego Public Facilities Financing Authority, |
|
|
1,125 |
|
|
1,145,160 |
|
San Jacinto Unified School District, GO, Election of |
|
|
1,000 |
|
|
968,710 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14,483,203 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Colorado 1.6% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Colorado Health Facilities Authority, RB, Hospital, |
|
|
1,425 |
|
|
1,531,818 |
|
Regional Transportation District, COP, Series A, 5.00%, |
|
|
300 |
|
|
300,417 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,832,235 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Florida 12.6% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
City of Jacksonville Florida, RB (NPFGC), 5.00%, |
|
|
5,000 |
|
|
4,968,000 |
|
City of Miami Florida, RB (NPFGC), 5.25%, 1/01/28 |
|
|
1,660 |
|
|
1,664,615 |
|
Village Center Community Development District, RB, |
|
|
10,000 |
|
|
8,178,100 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14,810,715 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Georgia 4.2% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Augusta-Richmond County Georgia, RB (AGM), 5.25%, |
|
|
1,000 |
|
|
1,000,600 |
|
City of Atlanta Georgia, Refunding RB, General, Series C, |
|
|
2,500 |
|
|
2,718,625 |
|
Gwinnett County Hospital Authority, Refunding RB, |
|
|
1,350 |
|
|
1,279,503 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,998,728 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Municipal Bonds |
|
Par |
|
Value |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
Illinois 11.5% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chicago Board of Education Illinois, GO, Refunding, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chicago School Reform Board, Series A (NPFGC), |
|
$ |
745 |
|
$ |
759,915 |
|
Chicago Transit Authority, RB, Federal Transit |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Administration Section 5309, Series A (AGC), |
|
|
1,300 |
|
|
1,405,196 |
|
City of Chicago Illinois, GO, Refunding, Projects, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.00%, 1/01/29 |
|
|
1,425 |
|
|
1,353,878 |
|
5.00%, 1/01/30 |
|
|
570 |
|
|
538,057 |
|
City of Chicago Illinois, RB, General, Third Lien, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.25%, 1/01/30 |
|
|
1,000 |
|
|
1,001,330 |
|
5.25%, 1/01/35 |
|
|
820 |
|
|
798,196 |
|
City of Chicago Illinois, Refunding RB, Second Lien |
|
|
1,000 |
|
|
1,023,080 |
|
Illinois Municipal Electric Agency, RB, Series A (NPFGC): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.25%, 2/01/28 |
|
|
1,560 |
|
|
1,572,558 |
|
5.25%, 2/01/35 |
|
|
1,250 |
|
|
1,216,750 |
|
Railsplitter Tobacco Settlement Authority, RB: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.50%, 6/01/23 |
|
|
915 |
|
|
874,072 |
|
6.00%, 6/01/28 |
|
|
260 |
|
|
253,971 |
|
State of Illinois, RB: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(AGM), 5.00%, 6/15/27 |
|
|
1,000 |
|
|
996,620 |
|
Build Illinois, Series B, 5.25%, 6/15/28 |
|
|
1,750 |
|
|
1,762,723 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13,556,346 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indiana 4.2% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indiana Finance Authority, Refunding RB, Trinity Health, |
|
|
3,000 |
|
|
2,451,960 |
|
Indianapolis Local Public Improvement Bond Bank, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Refunding RB, Waterworks Project, Series A (AGC), |
|
|
2,415 |
|
|
2,476,607 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,928,567 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Iowa 0.9% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Iowa Finance Authority, Refunding RB, Iowa Health |
|
|
1,125 |
|
|
1,110,814 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Louisiana 4.7% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
East Baton Rouge Sewerage Commission, RB, Series A, |
|
|
2,250 |
|
|
2,257,132 |
|
Louisiana State Citizens Property Insurance Corp., RB, |
|
|
2,510 |
|
|
2,748,425 |
|
New Orleans Aviation Board Louisiana, Refunding GARB, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Series A-1, 6.00%, 1/01/23 |
|
|
375 |
|
|
414,143 |
|
Series A-2, 6.00%, 1/01/23 |
|
|
150 |
|
|
165,657 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,585,357 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maine 0.9% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
City of Portland Maine, RB, General (AGM), 5.25%, |
|
|
1,095 |
|
|
1,091,967 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michigan 16.6% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
City of Detroit Michigan, RB: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Second Lien, Series B (AGM), 6.25%, 7/01/36 |
|
|
1,700 |
|
|
1,804,074 |
|
Second Lien, Series B (AGM), 7.00%, 7/01/36 |
|
|
200 |
|
|
223,666 |
|
Second Lien, Series B (NPFGC), 5.50%, 7/01/29 |
|
|
1,790 |
|
|
1,731,020 |
|
Senior Lien, Series B (AGM), 7.50%, 7/01/33 |
|
|
1,500 |
|
|
1,772,175 |
|
Senior Lien, Series B (BHAC), 5.50%, 7/01/35 |
|
|
4,750 |
|
|
4,724,398 |
|
System, Second Lien, Series A (BHAC), 5.50%, |
|
|
2,330 |
|
|
2,295,376 |
|
City of Detroit Michigan, Refunding RB, Second Lien: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Series C-1 (AGM), 7.00%, 7/01/27 |
|
|
1,800 |
|
|
2,069,424 |
|
Series E (BHAC), 5.75%, 7/01/31 |
|
|
2,300 |
|
|
2,336,938 |
|
Michigan State Building Authority, RB, Facilities Program, |
|
|
365 |
|
|
365,485 |
|
|
|
|
|
See Notes to Financial Statements. |
|||
|
|||
|
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT |
FEBRUARY 28, 2011 |
17 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Schedule of Investments (continued) |
BlackRock Municipal Income Investment Quality Trust (BAF) |
|
(Percentages shown are based on Net Assets) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Municipal Bonds |
|
Par |
|
Value |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
Michigan (concluded) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michigan State Building Authority, Refunding RB, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.25%, 10/15/24 |
|
$ |
565 |
|
$ |
584,374 |
|
5.25%, 10/15/25 |
|
|
300 |
|
|
306,495 |
|
Royal Oak Hospital Finance Authority Michigan, |
|
|
1,205 |
|
|
1,344,611 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
19,558,036 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Minnesota 5.1% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
City of Minneapolis Minnesota, Refunding RB, Fairview |
|
|
5,680 |
|
|
5,999,670 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nevada 1.8% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
County of Clark Nevada, RB, Las Vegas-McCarran |
|
|
2,295 |
|
|
2,150,484 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New Jersey 5.1% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New Jersey EDA, RB, School Facilities Construction, |
|
|
1,000 |
|
|
1,052,550 |
|
New Jersey Health Care Facilities Financing Authority, |
|
|
1,300 |
|
|
1,320,748 |
|
New Jersey State Housing & Mortgage Finance Agency, |
|
|
1,575 |
|
|
1,573,063 |
|
New Jersey Transportation Trust Fund Authority, RB, |
|
|
2,000 |
|
|
2,050,780 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,997,141 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New York 4.3% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New York City Municipal Water Finance Authority, RB, |
|
|
1,545 |
|
|
1,566,614 |
|
New York City Transitional Finance Authority, RB, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Series S-3, 5.25%, 1/15/39 |
|
|
900 |
|
|
906,291 |
|
Series S-4 (AGC), 5.50%, 1/15/29 |
|
|
2,465 |
|
|
2,573,682 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,046,587 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ohio 0.5% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ohio Higher Educational Facility Commission, Refunding |
|
|
625 |
|
|
579,256 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pennsylvania 0.8% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, Refunding RB, |
|
|
1,000 |
|
|
932,940 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Puerto Rico 2.2% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Puerto Rico Highway & Transportation Authority, |
|
|
1,170 |
|
|
1,167,145 |
|
Puerto Rico Sales Tax Financing Corp., RB, First |
|
|
1,350 |
|
|
1,397,453 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,564,598 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Texas 21.4% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Austin Community College District, RB, Educational |
|
|
2,000 |
|
|
2,012,120 |
|
City of Austin Texas, Refunding RB, Series A (AGM): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.00%, 11/15/28 |
|
|
705 |
|
|
717,436 |
|
5.00%, 11/15/29 |
|
|
895 |
|
|
904,541 |
|
City of Houston Texas, Refunding RB, Combined, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6.00%, 11/15/35 |
|
|
2,600 |
|
|
2,822,378 |
|
6.00%, 11/15/36 |
|
|
2,215 |
|
|
2,399,753 |
|
5.38%, 11/15/38 |
|
|
1,000 |
|
|
1,020,200 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Municipal Bonds |
|
Par |
|
Value |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
Texas (concluded) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dallas Area Rapid Transit, Refunding RB, Senior Lien, |
|
$ |
1,500 |
|
$ |
1,511,280 |
|
Frisco ISD Texas, GO, School Building (AGC): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.38%, 8/15/39 |
|
|
1,415 |
|
|
1,440,470 |
|
5.50%, 8/15/41 |
|
|
3,365 |
|
|
3,465,849 |
|
Harris County Health Facilities Development Corp., |
|
|
500 |
|
|
542,810 |
|
Lubbock Cooper ISD Texas, GO, School Building (AGC), |
|
|
500 |
|
|
512,495 |
|
North Texas Tollway Authority, RB, System, First Tier, |
|
|
1,500 |
|
|
1,510,215 |
|
North Texas Tollway Authority, Refunding RB, System, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(AGM), 6.00%, 1/01/43 |
|
|
1,000 |
|
|
1,029,860 |
|
Series A (AGC), 5.75%, 1/01/40 |
|
|
1,500 |
|
|
1,507,440 |
|
Series A (NPFGC), 5.13%, 1/01/28 |
|
|
2,895 |
|
|
2,864,226 |
|
Tarrant County Cultural Education Facilities Finance |
|
|
1,000 |
|
|
1,031,440 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
25,292,513 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Utah 1.3% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
City of Riverton Utah, RB, IHC Health Services Inc., |
|
|
1,625 |
|
|
1,521,439 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Virginia 0.9% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Virginia Public School Authority, RB, School Financing, |
|
|
1,000 |
|
|
1,094,710 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Municipal Bonds 115.5% |
|
|
|
|
|
136,229,915 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
Municipal Bonds Transferred to |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tender Option Bond Trusts (a) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alabama 1.3% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mobile Board of Water & Sewer Commissioners, RB |
|
|
1,500 |
|
|
1,498,020 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
California 2.1% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
San Diego Community College District California, GO, |
|
|
2,500 |
|
|
2,481,550 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
District of Columbia 0.7% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
District of Columbia Water & Sewer Authority, RB, |
|
|
760 |
|
|
825,081 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Florida 26.5% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
City of Jacksonville Florida, RB, Better Jacksonville |
|
|
3,930 |
|
|
3,956,370 |
|
County of Pinellas Florida, RB (AGM), 5.00%, 10/01/32 |
|
|
9,500 |
|
|
9,076,328 |
|
Florida State Board of Education, GO, Public Education, |
|
|
9,000 |
|
|
9,108,450 |
|
Palm Beach County School District, COP, Refunding, |
|
|
9,190 |
|
|
9,147,359 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
31,288,507 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Illinois 5.0% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chicago Transit Authority, Refunding RB, Federal |
|
|
2,999 |
|
|
2,832,783 |
|
Illinois State Toll Highway Authority, RB, Series B, |
|
|
2,999 |
|
|
3,009,410 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,842,193 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See Notes to Financial Statements. |
||
|
||
18 |
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT |
FEBRUARY 28, 2011 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Schedule of Investments (concluded) |
BlackRock Municipal Income Investment Quality Trust (BAF) |
|
(Percentages shown are based on Net Assets) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Municipal Bonds Transferred to |
|
Par
|
|
Value |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kentucky 0.8% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kentucky State Property & Building Commission, |
|
$ |
898 |
|
$ |
931,964 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nevada 1.8% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clark County Water Reclamation District, GO, Limited |
|
|
2,000 |
|
|
2,144,320 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Municipal Bonds Transferred to |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tender Option Bond Trusts 38.2% |
|
|
|
|
|
45,011,635 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Long-Term Investments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Cost $183,499,520) 153.7% |
|
|
|
|
|
181,241,550 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Short-Term Securities |
|
Shares |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FFI Institutional Tax-Exempt Fund, 0.13% (b)(c) |
|
|
5,323,892 |
|
|
5,323,892 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
Short-Term Securities |
|
|
|
|
|
5,323,892 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Investments (Cost $188,823,412*) 158.2% |
|
|
|
|
|
186,565,442 |
|
Liabilities in Excess of Other Assets (0.4)% |
|
|
|
|
|
(480,374 |
) |
Liability for Trust Certificates, Including |
|
|
|
|
|
(25,887,547 |
) |
Preferred Shares, at Redemption Value (35.8)% |
|
|
|
|
|
(42,278,454 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Assets Applicable to Common Shares 100.0% |
|
|
|
|
$ |
117,919,067 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* |
The cost and unrealized appreciation (depreciation) of investments as of February 28, 2011, as computed for federal income tax purposes, were as follows: |
|
|
|
|
|
Aggregate cost |
|
$ |
163,232,643 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross unrealized appreciation |
|
$ |
2,730,254 |
|
Gross unrealized depreciation |
|
|
(5,263,721 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
Net unrealized depreciation |
|
$ |
(2,533,467 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(a) |
Securities represent bonds transferred to a TOB in exchange for which the Trust acquired residual interest certificates. These securities serve as collateral in a financing transaction. See Note 1 of the Notes to Financial Statements for details of municipal bonds transferred to TOBs. |
|
|
(b) |
Investments in companies considered to be an affiliate of the Trust during the period, for purposes of Section 2(a)(3) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended, were as follows: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Affiliate |
|
Shares
Held at |
|
Net |
|
Shares
Held at |
|
Income |
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
FFI Institutional |
|
|
1,211,264 |
|
|
4,112,628 |
|
|
5,323,892 |
|
$ |
2,595 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(c) |
Represents the current yield as of report date. |
|
|
|
Financial futures contracts sold as of February 28, 2011 were as follows: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contracts |
|
Issue |
|
Exchange |
|
Expiration |
|
Notional
|
|
Unrealized
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
47 |
|
10-Year U.S. |
|
Chicago |
|
|
June 2011 |
|
$ |
5,570,145 |
|
$ |
(25,058 |
) |
|
|
Treasury Note |
|
Board of Trade |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair Value Measurements Various inputs are used in determining the fair value of investments and derivatives. These inputs are summarized in three broad levels for financial statement purposes as follows: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Level 1 price quotations in active markets/exchanges for identical assets and liabilities |
|
|
|
|
|
Level 2 other observable inputs (including, but not limited to: quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities in markets that are active, quoted prices for identical or similar assets or liabilities in markets that are not active, inputs other than quoted prices that are observable for the assets or liabilities (such as interest rates, yield curves, volatilities, prepayment speeds, loss severities, credit risks and default rates) or other market-corroborated inputs) |
|
|
|
|
|
Level 3 unobservable inputs based on the best information available in the circumstances, to the extent observable inputs are not available (including the Trusts own assumptions used in determining the fair value of investments and derivatives) |
The inputs or methodologies used for valuing securities are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in those securities. For information about the Trusts policy regarding valuation of investments and derivatives and other significant accounting policies, please refer to Note 1 of the Notes to Financial Statements.
The following tables summarize the inputs used as of February 28, 2011 in determining the fair valuation of the Trusts investments and derivatives:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Valuation Inputs |
|
Level 1 |
|
Level 2 |
|
Level 3 |
|
Total |
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Assets: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investments in |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Securities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-Term |
|
|
|
|
$ |
181,241,550 |
|
|
|
|
$ |
181,241,550 |
|
Short-Term |
|
$ |
5,323,892 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,323,892 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
5,323,892 |
|
$ |
181,241,550 |
|
|
|
|
$ |
186,565,442 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
See above Schedule of Investments for values in each state or political subdivision. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivative Financial Instruments2 |
|
||||||||||
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
Valuation Inputs |
|
Level 1 |
|
Level 2 |
|
Level 3 |
|
Total |
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
Liabilities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest rate |
|
$ |
(25,058 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
(25,058 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
Derivative financial instruments are financial futures contracts, which are shown at the unrealized appreciation/depreciation on the instrument. |
|
|
|
|
See Notes to Financial Statements. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT |
FEBRUARY 28, 2011 |
19 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Schedule of Investments February 28, 2011 (Unaudited) |
BlackRock Municipal Bond Trust (BBK) |
|
(Percentages shown are based on Net Assets) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Municipal Bonds |
|
Par |
|
Value |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alabama 3.4% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Birmingham Special Care Facilities Financing Authority, RB, Childrens Hospital (AGC): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6.00%, 6/01/34 |
|
$ |
1,150 |
|
$ |
1,205,522 |
|
6.00%, 6/01/39 |
|
|
450 |
|
|
468,544 |
|
Hoover City Board of Education, GO, Refunding, 4.25%, 2/15/40 |
|
|
3,750 |
|
|
3,131,550 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,805,616 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Arizona 4.8% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Arizona State University, RB, Series D, 5.50%, 7/01/26 |
|
|
200 |
|
|
211,662 |
|
Mohave County Unified School District No. 20 Kingman, GO, School Improvement Project of 2006, Series C (AGC), 5.00%, 7/01/26 |
|
|
200 |
|
|
205,338 |
|
Pima County IDA, Refunding IDRB, Tucson Electric Power, 5.75%, 9/01/29 |
|
|
900 |
|
|
872,802 |
|
Salt Verde Financial Corp., RB, Senior: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.00%, 12/01/32 |
|
|
1,500 |
|
|
1,297,680 |
|
5.00%, 12/01/37 |
|
|
2,065 |
|
|
1,733,712 |
|
San Luis Facility Development Corp., RB, Senior Lien, Regional Detention Center Project: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6.25%, 5/01/15 |
|
|
300 |
|
|
289,518 |
|
7.00%, 5/01/20 |
|
|
300 |
|
|
286,317 |
|
7.25%, 5/01/27 |
|
|
600 |
|
|
561,066 |
|
State of Arizona, COP, Department of Administration, Series A (AGM), 5.00%, 10/01/29 |
|
|
750 |
|
|
748,163 |
|
University Medical Center Corp. Arizona, RB, 6.50%, 7/01/39 |
|
|
500 |
|
|
509,600 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,715,858 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
California 15.3% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
California County Tobacco Securitization Agency, RB, CAB, Stanislaus, Sub-Series C, 6.30%, 6/01/55 (a) |
|
|
4,500 |
|
|
25,875 |
|
California HFA, RB, Home Mortgage, Series G, AMT, 5.05%, 2/01/29 |
|
|
2,285 |
|
|
2,129,186 |
|
California Health Facilities Financing Authority, Refunding RB, Sutter Health, Series B, 5.88%, 8/15/31 |
|
|
1,900 |
|
|
1,908,835 |
|
Carlsbad Unified School District, GO, Election of 2006, Series B, 6.09%, 5/01/34 (b) |
|
|
1,000 |
|
|
568,640 |
|
Dinuba Unified School District, GO, Election of 2006 (AGM): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.63%, 8/01/31 |
|
|
250 |
|
|
258,715 |
|
5.75%, 8/01/33 |
|
|
500 |
|
|
517,855 |
|
Hartnell Community College District California, GO, CAB, Election of 2002, Series D, 7.46%, 8/01/34 (b) |
|
|
1,650 |
|
|
803,847 |
|
Norwalk-La Mirada Unified School District California, GO, Refunding, CAB, Election of 2002, Series E (AGC), 6.47%, 8/01/38 (a) |
|
|
8,000 |
|
|
1,212,320 |
|
Palomar Community College District, GO, CAB, Election of 2006, Series B: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6.09%, 8/01/30 (a) |
|
|
1,500 |
|
|
397,860 |
|
7.57%, 8/01/39 (b) |
|
|
2,000 |
|
|
708,220 |
|
San Diego Community College District California, GO, CAB, Election of 2002, 6.24%, 8/01/19 (b) |
|
|
2,800 |
|
|
1,592,080 |
|
State of California, GO, Refunding: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(CIFG), 4.50%, 8/01/28 |
|
|
500 |
|
|
452,200 |
|
Veterans, AMT, 5.05%, 12/01/36 |
|
|
1,000 |
|
|
865,550 |
|
State of California, GO, Various Purpose: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.75%, 4/01/31 |
|
|
2,000 |
|
|
2,063,800 |
|
6.00%, 3/01/33 |
|
|
2,050 |
|
|
2,151,721 |
|
6.50%, 4/01/33 |
|
|
1,950 |
|
|
2,115,594 |
|
5.50%, 3/01/40 |
|
|
2,350 |
|
|
2,326,453 |
|
Val Verde Unified School District California, Special Tax Bonds, Refunding, Junior Lien, 6.25%, 10/01/28 |
|
|
1,585 |
|
|
1,459,674 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
21,558,425 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Municipal Bonds |
|
Par |
|
Value |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
Colorado 1.9% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Colorado Health Facilities Authority, RB, Catholic Health Initiatives, Series D, 6.25%, 10/01/33 |
|
$ |
1,070 |
|
$ |
1,120,547 |
|
Sand Creek Metropolitan District, GO, Refunding, Limited Tax, Series B: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.75%, 12/01/35 |
|
|
1,000 |
|
|
879,510 |
|
5.00%, 12/01/40 |
|
|
800 |
|
|
720,136 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,720,193 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Delaware 0.8% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
County of Sussex Delaware, RB, NRG Energy, Inc., Indian River Project, 6.00%, 10/01/40 |
|
|
1,200 |
|
|
1,168,356 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
District of Columbia 6.3% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
District of Columbia, Refunding RB, Friendship Public Charter School Inc. (ACA), 5.25%, 6/01/33 |
|
|
595 |
|
|
452,140 |
|
District of Columbia, Tax Allocation Bonds, Gallery Place Project (AGM), 5.40%, 7/01/31 |
|
|
6,000 |
|
|
6,019,560 |
|
District of Columbia Tobacco Settlement Financing Corp., Refunding RB, Asset-Backed, 6.75%, 5/15/40 |
|
|
2,500 |
|
|
2,348,750 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8,820,450 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Florida 6.4% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Miami Beach Health Facilities Authority, RB, Mount Sinai Medical Center of Florida, 6.75%, 11/15/21 |
|
|
1,180 |
|
|
1,196,024 |
|
Palm Beach County Housing Finance Authority, HRB, Indian Trace Apartments, Series A, AMT (AGM), 5.63%, 1/01/44 |
|
|
7,255 |
|
|
7,121,145 |
|
Stevens Plantation Community Development District, Special Assessment Bonds, Series A, 7.10%, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5/01/35 |
|
|
940 |
|
|
721,817 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9,038,986 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Idaho 1.7% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Idaho Health Facilities Authority, RB, St. Lukes Regional Medical Center (AGM), 5.00%, 7/01/35 |
|
|
500 |
|
|
474,350 |
|
Idaho Health Facilities Authority, Refunding RB, Trinity Health Group, Series B, 6.25%, 12/01/33 |
|
|
1,750 |
|
|
1,845,358 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,319,708 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Illinois 10.6% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Illinois Finance Authority, RB: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MJH Education Assistance IV LLC, Sub-Series B, 5.38%, 6/01/35 (c)(d) |
|
|
425 |
|
|
114,104 |
|
Navistar International, Recovery Zone, 6.50%, 10/15/40 |
|
|
1,285 |
|
|
1,298,608 |
|
Roosevelt University Project, 6.50%, 4/01/44 |
|
|
1,000 |
|
|
1,001,880 |
|
Rush University Medical Center, Series C, 6.63%, 11/01/39 |
|
|
650 |
|
|
665,346 |
|
Illinois Finance Authority, Refunding RB, Series A: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Friendship Village Schaumburg, 5.63%, 2/15/37 |
|
|
210 |
|
|
160,220 |
|
Lake Forest Hospital, 5.75%, 7/01/29 |
|
|
4,000 |
|
|
4,040,240 |
|
OSF Healthcare System, 6.00%, 5/15/39 |
|
|
1,050 |
|
|
976,017 |
|
Railsplitter Tobacco Settlement Authority, RB: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6.25%, 6/01/24 |
|
|
1,000 |
|
|
1,002,050 |
|
6.00%, 6/01/28 |
|
|
1,150 |
|
|
1,123,331 |
|
Village of Bolingbrook Illinois, GO, Refunding, Series B (NPFGC), 6.22%, 1/01/36 (a) |
|
|
23,065 |
|
|
4,465,615 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14,847,411 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indiana 2.0% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
County of Monroe Indiana, Multifamily Housing Revenue Bond Pass-Through Certificates, RB, Series 1, Canterbury House Apartments, Mandatory Put Bonds, AMT, 5.90%, 12/01/34 (e) |
|
|
1,835 |
|
|
1,845,753 |
|
Indiana Finance Authority, Refunding RB, Improvement, U.S. Steel Corp., 6.00%, 12/01/26 |
|
|
1,000 |
|
|
988,460 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,834,213 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See Notes to Financial Statements. |
||
|
||
20 |
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT |
FEBRUARY 28, 2011 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Schedule of Investments (continued) |
BlackRock Municipal Bond Trust (BBK) |
|
(Percentages shown are based on Net Assets) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Municipal Bonds |
|
Par |
|
Value |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
Iowa 1.1% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Iowa Higher Education Loan Authority, Refunding RB, Private College Facility: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.75%, 9/01/30 |
|
$ |
500 |
|
$ |
501,810 |
|
6.00%, 9/01/39 |
|
|
1,000 |
|
|
1,005,750 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,507,560 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kansas 3.5% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kansas Development Finance Authority, RB, University of Kansas Tenant, Series O, 4.75%, 6/15/41 |
|
|
700 |
|
|
632,457 |
|
Wichita Airport Authority, RB, Special, Cessna Citation Service Center, Series A, AMT, 6.25%, 6/15/32 |
|
|
5,000 |
|
|
4,308,450 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,940,907 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kentucky 0.4% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kentucky Economic Development Finance Authority, RB, Louisville Arena, Sub-Series A-1 (AGC), 6.00%, 12/01/38 |
|
|
500 |
|
|
509,655 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Louisiana 2.2% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Louisiana Local Government Environmental Facilities & Community Development Authority, RB, Westlake Chemical Corp., Series A-1, 6.50%, 11/01/35 |
|
|
1,050 |
|
|
1,068,722 |
|
Louisiana Public Facilities Authority, Refunding RB, Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, LLC Project, Series A, 5.00%, 9/01/28 |
|
|
2,000 |
|
|
1,967,920 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,036,642 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maryland 2.1% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maryland EDC, Refunding RB, CNX Marine Terminals, Inc., 5.75%, 9/01/25 |
|
|
500 |
|
|
467,915 |
|
Maryland Health & Higher Educational Facilities Authority, Refunding RB, Doctors Community Hospital, 5.63%, 7/01/30 |
|
|
2,900 |
|
|
2,477,876 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,945,791 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michigan 3.8% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michigan State Building Authority, Refunding RB, Facilities Program, Series I, 6.25%, 10/15/38 |
|
|
1,250 |
|
|
1,315,637 |
|
Michigan State Hospital Finance Authority, Refunding RB: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Henry Ford Health System, Series A, 5.25%, 11/15/46 |
|
|
1,065 |
|
|
888,306 |
|
Hospital, Henry Ford Health, 5.75%, 11/15/39 |
|
|
1,000 |
|
|
928,540 |
|
Royal Oak Hospital Finance Authority Michigan, Refunding RB, William Beaumont Hospital, 8.25%, 9/01/39 |
|
|
1,950 |
|
|
2,175,927 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,308,410 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Minnesota 4.0% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
City of Minneapolis Minnesota, Refunding RB, Fairview Health Services, Series B (AGC), 6.50%, 11/15/38 |
|
|
5,350 |
|
|
5,651,098 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mississippi 3.1% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mississippi Development Bank Special Obligation, RB, Jackson County Limited Tax Note (AGC), 5.50%, 7/01/32 |
|
|
1,750 |
|
|
1,780,292 |
|
University of Southern Mississippi, RB, Campus Facilities Improvements Project, 5.38%, 9/01/36 |
|
|
2,500 |
|
|
2,522,925 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,303,217 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Montana 1.8% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Montana Facility Finance Authority, Refunding RB, Sisters of Leavenworth, Series A, 4.75%, 1/01/40 |
|
|
2,750 |
|
|
2,489,988 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Multi-State 8.1% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Centerline Equity Issuer Trust, 7.20%, 11/15/52 (f)(g) |
|
|
10,500 |
|
|
11,416,230 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Municipal Bonds |
|
Par |
|
Value |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
Nebraska 2.0% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Douglas County Hospital Authority No. 2, RB, Health Facilities, Immanuel Obligation Group, 5.50%, 1/01/30 |
|
$ |
425 |
|
$ |
415,705 |
|
Nebraska Investment Finance Authority, Refunding RB, Series A: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.90%, 9/01/36 |
|
|
1,200 |
|
|
1,228,032 |
|
6.05%, 9/01/41 |
|
|
1,165 |
|
|
1,179,260 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,822,997 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nevada 1.2% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
City of Las Vegas Nevada, Special Assessment Bonds, Summerlin Area, 5.65%, 6/01/23 |
|
|
1,315 |
|
|
1,095,145 |
|
County of Clark Nevada, Refunding RB, Alexander Dawson School Nevada Project, 5.00%, 5/15/29 |
|
|
575 |
|
|
538,994 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,634,139 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New Jersey 14.3% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Middlesex County Improvement Authority, RB, Subordinate, Heldrich Center Hotel, Series B, 6.25%, 1/01/37 (c)(d) |
|
|
915 |
|
|
91,500 |
|
New Jersey EDA, RB: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cigarette Tax, 5.50%, 6/15/24 |
|
|
3,710 |
|
|
3,419,878 |
|
Cigarette Tax (Radian), 5.50%, 6/15/31 |
|
|
1,500 |
|
|
1,288,350 |
|
Continental Airlines Inc. Project, AMT, 7.20%, 11/15/30 (e) |
|
|
3,000 |
|
|
3,004,680 |
|
New Jersey EDA, Refunding RB, First Mortgage, Winchester, Series A, 5.80%, 11/01/31 |
|
|
1,500 |
|
|
1,423,770 |
|
New Jersey EDA, Special Assessment Bonds, Refunding, Kapkowski Road Landfill Project, 6.50%, 4/01/28 |
|
|
7,500 |
|
|
7,488,675 |
|
New Jersey Educational Facilities Authority, Refunding RB: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
College of New Jersey, Series D (AGM), 5.00%, 7/01/35 |
|
|
1,000 |
|
|
987,450 |
|
University of Medicine & Dentistry, Series B, 7.13%, 12/01/23 |
|
|
630 |
|
|
708,492 |
|
University of Medicine & Dentistry, Series B, 7.50%, 12/01/32 |
|
|
800 |
|
|
878,944 |
|
New Jersey State Housing & Mortgage Finance Agency, RB, Series AA, 6.50%, 10/01/38 |
|
|
810 |
|
|
872,167 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20,163,906 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New Mexico 1.5% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Village of Los Ranchos de Albuquerque New Mexico, Refunding RB, Albuquerque Academy Project, 4.50%, 9/01/40 |
|
|
2,500 |
|
|
2,108,325 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New York 7.9% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Albany Industrial Development Agency, RB, New Covenant Charter School Project, Series A, 7.00%, 5/01/35 (c)(d) |
|
|
455 |
|
|
136,486 |
|
Hudson Yards Infrastructure Corp., RB, Series A, 5.00%, 2/15/47 |
|
|
500 |
|
|
419,205 |
|
New York City Housing Development Corp., RB, Series A, AMT, 5.50%, 11/01/34 |
|
|
3,000 |
|
|
2,968,410 |
|
New York City Industrial Development Agency, RB: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
American Airlines Inc., JFK International Airport, AMT, 7.75%, 8/01/31 (e) |
|
|
3,165 |
|
|
3,228,933 |
|
Queens Baseball Stadium, PILOT (AGC), 6.50%, 1/01/46 |
|
|
700 |
|
|
727,776 |
|
New York Liberty Development Corp., Refunding RB, Second Priority, Bank of America Tower at One Bryant Park Project, 6.38%, 7/15/49 |
|
|
800 |
|
|
795,944 |
|
New York State Dormitory Authority, RB: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The New School (AGM), 5.50%, 7/01/43 |
|
|
1,550 |
|
|
1,555,487 |
|
Rochester Institute of Technology, Series A, 6.00%, 7/01/33 |
|
|
1,000 |
|
|
1,056,970 |
|
University of Rochester, Series A, 5.13%, 7/01/39 |
|
|
250 |
|
|
245,400 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11,134,611 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See Notes to Financial Statements. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT |
FEBRUARY 28, 2011 |
21 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Schedule of Investments (continued) |
BlackRock Municipal Bond Trust (BBK) |
|
(Percentages shown are based on Net Assets) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Municipal Bonds |
|
Par |
|
Value |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
North Carolina 8.2% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
City of Charlotte North Carolina, Refunding RB, Series A, |
|
$ |
225 |
|
$ |
228,265 |
|
Gaston County Industrial Facilities & Pollution Control |
|
|
2,945 |
|
|
2,218,498 |
|
North Carolina Capital Facilities Finance Agency, RB, |
|
|
2,475 |
|
|
2,283,410 |
|
North Carolina Medical Care Commission, RB, Series A: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Novant Health Obligation, 4.75%, 11/01/43 |
|
|
4,000 |
|
|
3,392,480 |
|
WakeMed, (AGC), 5.88%, 10/01/38 |
|
|
1,000 |
|
|
1,015,910 |
|
North Carolina Medical Care Commission, Refunding RB, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.50%, 2/15/30 |
|
|
750 |
|
|
673,620 |
|
4.63%, 2/15/35 |
|
|
1,000 |
|
|
876,760 |
|
University Health System, Series D, 6.25%, 12/01/33 |
|
|
800 |
|
|
835,856 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11,524,799 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oklahoma 1.3% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tulsa Airports Improvement Trust, RB, Series A, |
|
|
1,725 |
|
|
1,763,416 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oregon 2.1% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
City of Portland Oregon, Multifamily Housing Revenue |
|
|
515 |
|
|
515,438 |
|
Oregon Health & Science University, RB, Series A, |
|
|
1,250 |
|
|
1,273,925 |
|
Oregon State Facilities Authority, Refunding RB, Limited |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.00%, 10/01/34 |
|
|
850 |
|
|
769,207 |
|
5.25%, 10/01/40 |
|
|
500 |
|
|
461,955 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,020,525 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pennsylvania 3.0% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Delaware River Port Authority, RB, Series D (AGC), |
|
|
2,600 |
|
|
2,515,032 |
|
Pennsylvania Economic Development Financing |
|
|
2,000 |
|
|
1,758,080 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,273,112 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Puerto Rico 1.9% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Puerto Rico Sales Tax Financing Corp., RB, First |
|
|
2,000 |
|
|
1,975,800 |
|
Puerto Rico Sales Tax Financing Corp., Refunding RB, |
|
|
5,000 |
|
|
666,350 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,642,150 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rhode Island 2.4% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rhode Island Health & Educational Building Corp., RB, |
|
|
1,000 |
|
|
1,099,760 |
|
Rhode Island Housing & Mortgage Finance Corp., RB, |
|
|
1,500 |
|
|
1,322,205 |
|
State of Rhode Island, COP, Series C, School for the |
|
|
900 |
|
|
925,209 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,347,174 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
South Carolina 0.9% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
County of Florence South Carolina, RB, McLeod |
|
|
1,350 |
|
|
1,210,923 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tennessee 0.2% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Memphis-Shelby County Sports Authority Inc., |
|
|
275 |
|
|
276,777 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Municipal Bonds |
|
Par |
|
Value |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Texas 14.9% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Harris County Health Facilities Development Corp., |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7.13%, 12/01/31 |
|
$ |
500 |
|
$ |
542,810 |
|
7.25%, 12/01/35 |
|
|
1,750 |
|
|
1,895,162 |
|
Harris County Housing Finance Corp., Multifamily |
|
|
2,420 |
|
|
2,441,901 |
|
Harris County-Houston Sports Authority, Refunding RB, |
|
|
11,690 |
|
|
1,071,155 |
|
Love Field Airport Modernization Corp., RB, Southwest |
|
|
2,500 |
|
|
2,222,450 |
|
Lower Colorado River Authority, Refunding RB (NPFGC), |
|
|
15 |
|
|
16,376 |
|
Matagorda County Navigation District No. 1 Texas, |
|
|
1,500 |
|
|
1,545,810 |
|
Texas Private Activity Bond Surface Transportation Corp., |
|
|
2,000 |
|
|
2,028,440 |
|
Texas State Turnpike Authority, RB (AMBAC): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CAB, 6.08%, 8/15/35 (a) |
|
|
50,000 |
|
|
8,592,500 |
|
First Tier, Series A, 5.00%, 8/15/42 |
|
|
750 |
|
|
640,703 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20,997,307 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Virginia 0.5% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Henrico County EDA, RB, Bon Secours Health, |
|
|
860 |
|
|
715,967 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Washington 1.0% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Washington Health Care Facilities Authority, RB, |
|
|
1,400 |
|
|
1,431,052 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wisconsin 1.8% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wisconsin Health & Educational Facilities Authority, RB, |
|
|
1,350 |
|
|
1,362,946 |
|
Wisconsin Housing & EDA, Refunding RB, Series A, AMT, |
|
|
1,340 |
|
|
1,217,578 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,580,524 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wyoming 0.9% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
County of Sweetwater Wyoming, Refunding RB, Idaho |
|
|
1,200 |
|
|
1,237,248 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Municipal Bonds 149.3% |
|
|
|
|
|
209,823,666 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Municipal Bonds Transferred to |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Colorado 2.5% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Colorado Health Facilities Authority, RB, Catholic Health, |
|
|
3,750 |
|
|
3,504,225 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Massachusetts 1.0% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, Refunding RB, |
|
|
1,450 |
|
|
1,450,623 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New York 4.3% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New York City Municipal Water Finance Authority, RB: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fiscal 2009, Series A, 5.75%, 6/15/40 |
|
|
450 |
|
|
474,776 |
|
Series FF-2, 5.50%, 6/15/40 |
|
|
405 |
|
|
416,807 |
|
New York City Municipal Water Finance Authority, |
|
|
3,000 |
|
|
2,973,600 |
|
New York State Dormitory Authority, RB, New York |
|
|
2,199 |
|
|
2,147,937 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,013,120 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See Notes to Financial Statements. |
||
|
|
|
22 |
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT |
FEBRUARY 28, 2011 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Schedule of Investments (concluded) |
BlackRock Municipal Bond Trust (BBK) |
|
(Percentages shown are based on Net Assets) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Municipal Bonds Transferred to |
|
Par |
|
Value |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
Ohio 2.2% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
County of Montgomery Ohio, RB, Catholic Health, |
|
$ |
1,260 |
|
$ |
1,153,291 |
|
Ohio Higher Educational Facility Commission, |
|
|
2,000 |
|
|
1,934,260 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,087,551 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
Municipal Bonds Transferred to |
|
|
|
|
|
14,055,519 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Long-Term Investments |
|
|
|
|
|
223,879,185 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
Short-Term Securities |
|
Shares |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FFI Institutional Tax-Exempt Fund, 0.13% (j)(k) |
|
|
1,592,687 |
|
|