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 811-10337
Name of Fund: BlackRock New York Municipal Income Trust (BNY)
Fund Address: 100 Bellevue Parkway, Wilmington, DE 19809
Name and address of agent for service: John M. Perlowski, Chief Executive Officer, BlackRock New York Municipal Income Trust, 55 East 52nd Street, New York, NY 10055
Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (800) 882-0052, Option 4
Date of fiscal year end: 07/31/2011
Date of reporting period: 07/31/2011
Item 1 – Report to Stockholders
|
|
|
July 31, 2011 |
|
|
|
Annual Report |
|
|
|
BlackRock California Municipal Income Trust (BFZ) |
|
|
|
BlackRock Florida Municipal 2020 Term Trust (BFO) |
|
|
|
BlackRock Investment Quality Municipal Income Trust (RFA) |
|
|
|
BlackRock Municipal Income Investment Trust (BBF) |
|
|
|
BlackRock New Jersey Investment Quality Municipal Trust Inc. (RNJ) |
|
|
|
BlackRock New Jersey Municipal Income Trust (BNJ) |
|
|
|
BlackRock New York Investment Quality Municipal Trust Inc. (RNY) |
|
|
|
BlackRock New York Municipal Income Trust (BNY) |
|
Not FDIC Insured § No Bank Guarantee § May Lose Value |
|
|
|
|
||
|
||
Table of Contents |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page |
|
|
|
|
3 |
|
Annual Report: |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
5 |
|
|
13 |
|
|
13 |
|
Financial Statements: |
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
40 |
|
|
42 |
|
|
44 |
|
|
46 |
|
|
47 |
|
|
55 |
|
|
63 |
|
|
64 |
|
Disclosure of Investment Advisory Agreements and Sub-Advisory Agreements |
|
65 |
|
69 |
|
|
70 |
|
|
73 |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
2 |
ANNUAL REPORT |
JULY 31, 2011 |
|
|
|
Financial markets have been extremely volatile in the wake of the Standard & Poors downgrade of US Treasury debt. While the August 5 announcement was the catalyst for the market turmoil, weaker-than-expected economic data and Europes deepening financial crisis further compounded investor uncertainty as the future direction of the global economy became increasingly questionable. Although markets remain highly volatile and conditions are highly uncertain, BlackRock remains focused on finding opportunities in this environment.
The pages that follow reflect your mutual funds reporting period ended July 31, 2011. Accordingly, the below discussion is intended to provide you with additional perspective on the performance of your investments during that period.
During the summer of 2010, investors were in risk-off mode as the global economy was sputtering and the sovereign debt crisis was spreading across Europe. But markets were revived toward the end of the summer on positive economic news and robust corporate earnings. The global economy had finally gained traction and fear turned to optimism with the anticipation of a second round of quantitative easing (QE2) from the US Federal Reserve (the Fed). Stock markets rallied even though the European debt crisis continued and inflationary pressures loomed over emerging markets. Fixed income markets, however, saw yields move sharply upward (pushing prices down) especially on the long end of the historically steep yield curve. While high yield bonds benefited from the risk rally, most fixed income sectors declined in the fourth quarter. The tax-exempt municipal market faced additional headwinds as it became evident that the Build America Bond program would not be extended and municipal finance troubles abounded.
The new year brought spikes of volatility as political turmoil swept across the Middle East/North Africa region and as prices of oil and other commodities soared. Natural disasters in Japan disrupted industrial supply chains and concerns mounted over US debt and deficit issues. Equities quickly rebounded as investors chose to focus on the continuing stream of strong corporate earnings and positive economic data. Credit markets were surprisingly resilient in this environment and yields regained relative stability in 2011. The tax-exempt market saw relief from its headwinds and steadily recovered from its fourth-quarter lows. Equities, commodities and high yield bonds outpaced higher-quality assets as investors increased their risk tolerance.
However, longer-term headwinds had been brewing. Inflationary pressures intensified in emerging economies, many of which were overheating, and the European debt crisis continued to escalate. Markets were met with a sharp reversal in May when political unrest in Greece pushed the nation closer to defaulting on its debt. This development rekindled fears about the broader debt crisis and its further contagion among peripheral European countries. Concurrently, it became evident that the pace of global economic growth had slowed. Higher oil prices and supply chain disruptions finally showed up in economic data. In the final month of the reporting period, the prolonged debt ceiling debate in Washington, DC led to a loss of confidence in policymakers. Stocks generally declined from May through the end of the period, but 6- and 12-month returns through the end of July remained in positive territory. In bond markets, yields were volatile but generally moved lower for the period as a whole (pushing prices up). Continued low short-term interest rates kept yields on money market securities near their all-time lows.
|
|
|
Rob Kapito |
President, BlackRock Advisors, LLC |
|
|
|
Although markets remain highly volatile and conditions are highly uncertain, BlackRock remains focused on finding opportunities in this environment. |
|
Rob Kapito |
President, BlackRock Advisors, LLC |
|
|
Total Returns as of July 31, 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6-month |
|
12-month |
|
||
US
large cap equities |
|
1.46 |
% |
|
19.65 |
% |
|
US
small cap equities |
|
2.63 |
|
|
23.92 |
|
|
International
equities |
|
0.93 |
|
|
17.17 |
|
|
Emerging
market |
|
3.23 |
|
|
17.45 |
|
|
3-month
Treasury |
|
0.07 |
|
|
0.14 |
|
|
US
Treasury securities |
|
6.93 |
|
|
4.53 |
|
|
US
investment grade |
|
4.23 |
|
|
4.44 |
|
|
Tax-exempt
municipal |
|
6.27 |
|
|
3.24 |
|
|
US
high yield bonds |
|
3.90 |
|
|
12.89 |
|
|
|
Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Index performance is shown for illustrative purposes only. You cannot invest directly in an index. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
THIS PAGE NOT PART OF YOUR FUND REPORT |
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
For the 12-Month Period Ended July 31, 2011 |
At the outset of the 12-month period, investor concerns were focused on the possibility of deflation and a double-dip in the US economy thus leading to a flatter municipal yield curve at that time as compared to July 31, 2011. From July through September 2010, rates moved lower (and prices higher) across the curve, reaching historic lows in August when the yield on 5-year issues touched 1.06%, the 10-year reached 2.18%, and the 30-year closed at 3.67%. However, the market took a turn in October amid a perfect storm of events that ultimately resulted in the worst quarterly performance for municipals since the Fed tightening cycle of 1994. Treasury yields lost support due to concerns over the US deficit and municipal valuations suffered a quick and severe setback as it became evident that the Build America Bond (BAB) program would expire at the end of 2010. The BAB program 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.
Towards the end of the fourth quarter 2010, news about municipal finance troubles mounted and damaged confidence among retail investors. From mid-November through year end, weekly outflows from municipal mutual funds averaged over $2.5 billion. Political uncertainty surrounding the midterm elections and tax policies along with the expiration of the BAB program exacerbated the situation. These conditions combined with seasonal illiquidity sapped willful market participation from the trading community. December brought declining demand with no comparable reduction in supply as issuers rushed their deals to market before the BAB program was retired. This supply-demand imbalance led to wider quality spreads and higher yields.
Demand is usually strong at the beginning of a new year, but retail investors continued to move away from municipal mutual funds in 2011. From mid-November, outflows persisted for 29 consecutive weeks, totaling $35.1 billion before the trend finally broke in June. Weak demand has been counterbalanced by lower supply in 2011. According to Thomson Reuters, year-to-date through July, new issuance was down 40% compared to the same period last year. Issuers have been reluctant to bring new deals to the market due to higher interest rates, fiscal policy changes and a reduced need for municipal borrowing. In this positive technical environment, the S&P/Investortools Main Municipal Bond Index gained 4.22% for the second quarter of 2011, its best second-quarter performance since 1992, and municipals outperformed most other fixed income asset classes for the quarter.
Municipals displayed an impressive degree of resiliency throughout the month of July as Moodys Investors Service signaled that its potential downgrade of US government debt could also result in downgrades of a number of triple A-rated states and nearly 200 local general obligation issues. July also brought weaker US economic data. The housing market remained sluggish, fewer jobs were created and consumer confidence declined. US Treasury yields moved lower, dragging municipal yields down, which pushed bond prices up.
Overall, the municipal yield curve steepened during the period from July 31, 2010 to July 31, 2011. As measured by Thomson Municipal Market Data, yields on AAA quality-rated 30-year municipals rose 38 basis points (bps) to 4.35%, while yields for 5-year maturities rallied by 13 bps to 1.16%, and 10-year maturities increased by 10 bps to 2.67%. With the exception of the 2- to 5-year range, the yield spread between maturities increased over the past year, with the greatest increase seen in the 5- to 30-year range, where the spread widened by 51 bps, while overall the slope between 2- and 30-year maturities increased by 35 bps to 3.95%.
The fundamental picture for municipalities is improving as most states began their new fiscal year with a balanced budget. Austerity is the general theme across the country, while a small number of states continue to rely on the kick the can approach, using aggressive revenue projections and accounting gimmicks to close their shortfalls. As long as economic growth stays positive, tax receipts for states should continue to rise and lead to better credit fundamentals. BlackRock maintains a constructive view of the municipal market, recognizing that careful credit research and security selection remain imperative amid uncertainty in the economic environment.
Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Index performance is shown for illustrative purposes only. You cannot invest directly in an index.
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
4 |
ANNUAL REPORT |
JULY 31, 2011 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
BlackRock California Municipal Income Trust |
|
Trust Overview |
BlackRock California Municipal Income Trusts (BFZ) (the Trust) investment objective is to provide current income exempt from regular US federal income and California income taxes. The Trust seeks to achieve its investment objective by investing primarily in municipal obligations exempt from federal income taxes (except that the interest may be subject to the federal alternative minimum tax) and California income taxes. The Trust invests, under normal market conditions, at least 80% of its assets in municipal obligations 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 12 months ended July 31, 2011, the Trust returned (0.86)% based on market price and 4.05% based on net asset value (NAV). For the same period, the closed-end Lipper California Municipal Debt Funds category posted an average return of (1.84)% based on market price and 3.16% 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. The Trusts slightly long duration posture benefited performance as bonds with longer maturities experienced the greatest price appreciation as the yield curve flattened amid the investor flight-to-quality in the latter half of the period. Increased exposure to inverse floating rate instruments (tender option bonds) while the municipal yield curve was historically steep boosted the Trusts income accrual. Holdings of higher quality essential service revenue bonds had a positive impact on performance as investors favored these securities versus general obligation bonds and school district credits, which lagged due to budget concerns in California. Conversely, some widening of credit spreads, especially among California school district and health care issues, had a negative impact on returns. In addition, the Trusts cash reserves detracted as cash underperformed longer maturity, coupon bonds as yields fell and spreads tightened.
|
|
|
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) |
|
|
BFZ |
|
Initial Offering Date |
|
|
July 27, 2001 |
|
Yield on Closing Market Price as of July 31, 2011 ($13.16)1 |
|
|
6.90% |
|
Tax Equivalent Yield2 |
|
|
10.62% |
|
Current Monthly Distribution per Common Share3 |
|
|
$0.0757 |
|
Current Annualized Distribution per Common Share3 |
|
|
$0.9084 |
|
Leverage as of July 31, 20114 |
|
|
42% |
|
|
|
|
|
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 (AMPS) 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 AMPS 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 13. |
The table below summarizes the changes in the Trusts market price and NAV per share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7/31/11 |
|
|
7/31/10 |
|
|
Change |
|
|
High |
|
|
Low |
|
Market Price |
|
|
$13.16 |
|
|
$14.21 |
|
|
(7.39)% |
|
|
$14.99 |
|
|
$12.02 |
|
Net Asset Value |
|
|
$13.88 |
|
|
$14.28 |
|
|
(2.80)% |
|
|
$14.88 |
|
|
$12.17 |
|
The following charts show the sector and credit quality allocations of the Trusts long-term investments:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sector Allocations |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7/31/11 |
|
7/31/10 |
|
||
County/City/Special District/School District |
|
39 |
% |
|
37 |
% |
|
Utilities |
|
29 |
|
|
27 |
|
|
Health |
|
11 |
|
|
9 |
|
|
Education |
|
7 |
|
|
10 |
|
|
Transportation |
|
7 |
|
|
6 |
|
|
State |
|
5 |
|
|
7 |
|
|
Housing |
|
2 |
|
|
3 |
|
|
Corporate |
|
|
5 |
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 |
Amount rounds to less than 1%. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credit Quality Allocations6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7/31/11 |
|
7/31/10 |
|
||
AAA/Aaa |
|
11 |
% |
|
24 |
% |
|
AA/Aa |
|
67 |
|
|
46 |
|
|
A |
|
20 |
|
|
26 |
|
|
BBB/Baa |
|
2 |
|
|
3 |
|
|
Not Rated |
|
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
6 |
Using the higher of Standard & Poors (S&Ps) or Moodys Investors Service (Moodys) ratings. |
|
|
|
|
7 |
The investment advisor has deemed certain of these non-rated securities to be of investment grade quality. As of July 31, 2010, the market value of these securities was $5,717,100, representing 1% of the Trusts long-term investments. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANNUAL REPORT |
JULY 31, 2011 |
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trust Summary as of July 31, 2011 |
BlackRock Florida Municipal 2020 Term Trust |
|
Trust Overview |
BlackRock Florida Municipal 2020 Term Trusts (BFO) (the Trust) investment objectives are to provide current income exempt from regular federal income tax and Florida intangible personal property tax and to return $15.00 per Common Share (the initial offering price per share) to holders of Common Shares on or about December 31, 2020. The Trust seeks to achieve its investment objectives by investing at least 80% of its assets in municipal bonds exempt from federal income taxes (except that the interest may be subject to the federal alternative minimum tax) and Florida intangible personal property tax. The Trust invests at least 80% of its assets in municipal bonds that are investment grade quality at the time of investment. The Trust actively manages the maturity of its bonds to seek to have a dollar weighted average effective maturity approximately equal to the Trusts maturity date. The Trust may invest directly in such securities or synthetically through the use of derivatives. Effective January 1, 2007, the Florida intangible personal property tax was repealed.
No assurance can be given that the Trusts investment objective will be achieved.
|
Performance |
For the 12 months ended July 31, 2011, the Trust returned 2.00% based on market price and 5.07% based on NAV. For the same period, the closed-end Lipper Other States Municipal Debt Funds category posted an average return of (3.65)% based on market price and 3.25% 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. The Trust benefited from its exposure to pre-refunded bonds and escrow bonds, which performed well due to their shorter maturities when long-term interest rates climbed toward the end of 2010 and into the early part of 2011. Conversely, the Trusts holdings in health care bonds detracted from performance due to the sectors underperformance versus the broader municipal market in the first half of the reporting 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 NYSE |
|
|
BFO |
|
Initial Offering Date |
|
|
September 30, 2003 |
|
Termination Date (on or about) |
|
|
December 31, 2020 |
|
Yield on Closing Market Price as of July 31, 2011 ($13.91)1 |
|
|
4.83% |
|
Tax Equivalent Yield2 |
|
|
7.43% |
|
Current Monthly Distribution per Common Share3 |
|
|
$0.056 |
|
Current Annualized Distribution per Common Share3 |
|
|
$0.672 |
|
Leverage as of July 31, 20114 |
|
|
34% |
|
|
|
|
|
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 AMPS and TOBs as a percentage of total managed assets, which is the total assets of the Trust, including any assets attributable to AMPS 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 13. |
The table below summarizes the changes in the Trusts market price and NAV per share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7/31/11 |
|
|
7/31/10 |
|
|
Change |
|
|
High |
|
|
Low |
|
Market Price |
|
|
$13.91 |
|
|
$14.30 |
|
|
(2.73)% |
|
|
$14.87 |
|
|
$13.01 |
|
Net Asset Value |
|
|
$14.94 |
|
|
$14.91 |
|
|
0.20% |
|
|
$15.40 |
|
|
$13.86 |
|
The following charts show the sector and credit quality allocations of the Trusts long-term investments:
|
Sector Allocations |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7/31/11 |
|
7/31/10 |
|
||
County/City/Special District/School District |
|
46 |
% |
|
45 |
% |
|
Utilities |
|
18 |
|
|
20 |
|
|
Health |
|
12 |
|
|
12 |
|
|
State |
|
11 |
|
|
10 |
|
|
Corporate |
|
6 |
|
|
7 |
|
|
Transportation |
|
4 |
|
|
2 |
|
|
Housing |
|
2 |
|
|
3 |
|
|
Education |
|
1 |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
Credit Quality Allocations5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7/31/11 |
|
7/31/10 |
|
||
AAA/Aaa |
|
7 |
% |
|
32 |
% |
|
AA/Aa |
|
40 |
|
|
19 |
|
|
A |
|
23 |
|
|
23 |
|
|
BBB/Baa |
|
12 |
|
|
7 |
|
|
BB/Ba |
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
Not Rated6 |
|
17 |
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 July 31, 2011 and July 31, 2010, the market value of these securities was $10,771,005, representing 8%, and $15,832,064, representing 13%, respectively, of the Trusts long-term investments. |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
6 |
ANNUAL REPORT |
JULY 31, 2011 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trust Summary as of July 31, 2011 |
BlackRock Investment Quality Municipal Income Trust |
|
Trust Overview |
BlackRock Investment Quality Municipal Income Trusts (RFA) (the Trust) investment objective is to provide high current income exempt from regular federal income tax and to provide an exemption from Florida intangible personal property taxes consistent with preservation of capital. 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) and Florida intangible personal property tax. Under normal market conditions, the Trust invests at least 80% of its assets in municipal bonds rated investment grade 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 12 months ended July 31, 2011, the Trust returned (0.66)% based on market price and 2.90% based on NAV. For the same period, the closed-end Lipper General & Insured Municipal Debt Funds (Leveraged) category posted an average return of (2.24)% based on market price and 4.19% 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 in spread sectors, including housing and health care bonds, enhanced performance as these sectors provided a relatively high degree of incremental income in the low interest rate environment. In addition, the Trusts holdings of premium coupon bonds (6% or higher) and shorter-duration bonds (bonds with lower sensitivity to interest rate movements) performed well as long-term interest rates climbed toward the end of 2010 and into the early part of 2011. Conversely, the Trusts exposure to bonds with longer duration (greater sensitivity to interest rate movements) and bonds with longer-dated maturities detracted from performance as the municipal yield curve steepened over the 12-month period. The surprise non-extension of the BAB program at the end of 2010 put additional upward pressure on the long end of the yield curve, where most of the BAB supply was issued.
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
RFA |
|
Initial Offering Date |
|
|
May 28, 1993 |
|
Yield on Closing Market Price as of July 31, 2011 ($11.65)1 |
|
|
7.21% |
|
Tax Equivalent Yield2 |
|
|
11.09% |
|
Current Monthly Distribution per Common Share3 |
|
|
$0.07 |
|
Current Annualized Distribution per Common Share3 |
|
|
$0.84 |
|
Leverage as of July 31, 20114 |
|
|
40% |
|
|
|
|
|
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 AMPS and TOBs as a percentage of total managed assets, which is the total assets of the Trust, including any assets attributable to AMPS 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 13. |
The table below summarizes the changes in the Trusts market price and NAV per share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7/31/11 |
|
|
7/31/10 |
|
|
Change |
|
|
High |
|
|
Low |
|
Market Price |
|
|
$11.65 |
|
|
$12.60 |
|
|
(7.54)% |
|
|
$13.20 |
|
|
$10.40 |
|
Net Asset Value |
|
|
$11.77 |
|
|
$12.29 |
|
|
(4.23)% |
|
|
$12.76 |
|
|
$10.54 |
|
The following charts show the sector and credit quality allocations of the Trusts long-term investments:
|
Sector Allocations |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7/31/11 |
|
7/31/10 |
|
||
Transportation |
|
20 |
% |
|
19 |
% |
|
Utilities |
|
20 |
|
|
19 |
|
|
County/City/Special District/School District |
|
19 |
|
|
19 |
|
|
Health |
|
17 |
|
|
17 |
|
|
State |
|
8 |
|
|
10 |
|
|
Education |
|
7 |
|
|
7 |
|
|
Housing |
|
6 |
|
|
6 |
|
|
Corporate |
|
2 |
|
|
2 |
|
|
Tobacco |
|
1 |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
Credit Quality Allocations5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7/31/11 |
|
7/31/10 |
|
||
AAA/Aaa |
|
8 |
% |
|
16 |
% |
|
AA/Aa |
|
57 |
|
|
57 |
|
|
A |
|
25 |
|
|
22 |
|
|
BBB/Baa |
|
8 |
|
|
4 |
|
|
BB/Ba |
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
Not Rated |
|
1 |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 |
Using the higher of S&Ps or Moodys ratings. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANNUAL REPORT |
JULY 31, 2011 |
7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trust Summary as of July 31, 2011 |
BlackRock Municipal Income Investment Trust |
|
Trust Overview |
BlackRock Municipal Income Investment Trusts (BBF) (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) and Florida intangible personal property tax. 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 12 months ended July 31, 2011, the Trust returned (1.86)% based on market price and 3.15% based on NAV. For the same period, the closed-end Lipper General & Insured Municipal Debt Funds (Leveraged) category posted an average return of (2.24)% based on market price and 4.19% 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. The Trusts holdings in spread sectors, including corporate-backed municipal and health care bonds, enhanced performance as these sectors provided a relatively high degree of incremental income in the low interest rate environment. In addition, the Trusts holdings of premium coupon bonds (6% or higher) and shorter-duration bonds (bonds with lower sensitivity to interest rate movements) performed well as long-term interest rates climbed toward the end of 2010 and into the early part of 2011. Conversely, the Trusts exposure to bonds with longer duration (greater sensitivity to interest rate movements) and bonds with longer-dated maturities detracted from performance as the municipal yield curve steepened over the 12-month period. The surprise non-extension of the BAB program at the end of 2010 put additional upward pressure on the long end of the yield curve, where most of the BAB supply was issued. US Treasury financial futures contracts used to hedge interest rate risk in the portfolio had a 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 |
|
|
BBF |
|
Initial Offering Date |
|
|
July 27, 2001 |
|
Yield on Closing Market Price as of July 31, 2011 ($12.74)1 |
|
|
7.10% |
|
Tax Equivalent Yield2 |
|
|
10.92% |
|
Current Monthly Distribution per Common Share3 |
|
|
$0.075375 |
|
Current Annualized Distribution per Common Share3 |
|
|
$0.904500 |
|
Leverage as of July 31, 20114 |
|
|
42% |
|
|
|
|
|
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 AMPS and TOBs as a percentage of total managed assets, which is the total assets of the Trust, including any assets attributable to AMPS 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 13. |
The table below summarizes the changes in the Trusts market price and NAV per share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7/31/11 |
|
|
7/31/10 |
|
|
Change |
|
|
High |
|
|
Low |
|
Market Price |
|
|
$12.74 |
|
|
$13.90 |
|
|
(8.35)% |
|
|
$14.60 |
|
|
$11.13 |
|
Net Asset Value |
|
|
$13.40 |
|
|
$13.91 |
|
|
(3.67)% |
|
|
$14.47 |
|
|
$11.82 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The following charts show the sector and credit quality allocations of the Trusts long-term investments:
|
Sector Allocations |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7/31/11 |
|
7/31/10 |
|
||
Health |
|
21 |
% |
|
24 |
% |
|
County/City/Special District/School District |
|
19 |
|
|
19 |
|
|
Utilities |
|
18 |
|
|
20 |
|
|
Transportation |
|
16 |
|
|
17 |
|
|
State |
|
9 |
|
|
9 |
|
|
Corporate |
|
8 |
|
|
1 |
|
|
Education |
|
7 |
|
|
9 |
|
|
Housing |
|
1 |
|
|
1 |
|
|
Tobacco |
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credit Quality Allocations5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7/31/11 |
|
7/31/10 |
|
||
AAA/Aaa |
|
10 |
% |
|
11 |
% |
|
AA/Aa |
|
55 |
|
|
58 |
|
|
A |
|
26 |
|
|
25 |
|
|
BBB/Baa |
|
7 |
|
|
4 |
|
|
BB/Ba |
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
Not Rated |
|
1 |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 |
Using the higher of S&Ps or Moodys ratings. |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
8 |
ANNUAL REPORT |
JULY 31, 2011 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trust Summary as of July 31, 2011 |
BlackRock New Jersey Investment Quality Municipal Trust Inc. |
|
Trust Overview |
BlackRock New Jersey Investment Quality Municipal Trust Inc.s (RNJ) (the Trust) investment objective is to provide high current income exempt from regular federal income tax and New Jersey gross income tax consistent with preservation of capital. The Trust seeks to achieve its investment objective by investing at least 80% of its assets in a portfolio of investment grade New Jersey municipal obligations exempt from federal income taxes (except that the interest may be subject to the federal alternative minimum tax) and New Jersey gross income taxes. Under normal market conditions, the Trust invests at least 80% of its assets in securities rated investment grade 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 12 months ended July 31, 2011, the Trust returned (0.99)% based on market price and 4.63% based on NAV. For the same period, the closed-end Lipper New Jersey Municipal Debt Funds category posted an average return of (3.20)% based on market price and 3.20% 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 in spread sectors, including housing, health care and corporate-backed municipal bonds, enhanced performance as these sectors provided a relatively high degree of incremental income in the low interest rate environment. In addition, the Trusts holdings of premium coupon bonds (6% or higher) and shorter-duration bonds (bonds with lower sensitivity to interest rate movements) performed well as long-term interest rates climbed toward the end of 2010 and into the early part of 2011. Conversely, the Trusts exposure to bonds with longer duration (greater sensitivity to interest rate movements) and bonds with longer-dated maturities detracted from performance as the municipal yield curve steepened over the 12-month period. The surprise non-extension of the BAB program at the end of 2010 put additional upward pressure on the long end of the yield curve, where most of the BAB supply was issued.
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 |
|
|
RNJ |
|
Initial Offering Date |
|
|
May 28, 1993 |
|
Yield on Closing Market Price as of July 31, 2011 ($12.02)1 |
|
|
6.54% |
|
Tax Equivalent Yield2 |
|
|
10.06% |
|
Current Monthly Distribution per Common Share3 |
|
|
$0.0655 |
|
Current Annualized Distribution per Common Share3 |
|
|
$0.7860 |
|
Leverage as of July 31, 20114 |
|
|
36% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 AMPS and TOBs as a percentage of total managed assets, which is the total assets of the Trust, including any assets attributable to AMPS 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 13. |
The table below summarizes the changes in the Trusts market price and NAV per share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7/31/11 |
|
|
7/31/10 |
|
|
Change |
|
|
High |
|
|
Low |
|
Market Price |
|
|
$12.02 |
|
|
$12.96 |
|
|
(7.25)% |
|
|
$14.39 |
|
|
$10.94 |
|
Net Asset Value |
|
|
$12.32 |
|
|
$12.57 |
|
|
(1.99)% |
|
|
$13.01 |
|
|
$11.09 |
|
The following charts show the sector and credit quality allocations of the Trusts long-term investments:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sector Allocations |
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7/31/11 |
|
7/31/10 |
|
||
Education |
|
19 |
% |
|
15 |
% |
|
Transportation |
|
18 |
|
|
14 |
|
|
State |
|
17 |
|
|
18 |
|
|
County/City/Special District/School District |
|
13 |
|
|
8 |
|
|
Health |
|
11 |
|
|
16 |
|
|
Corporate |
|
10 |
|
|
10 |
|
|
Housing |
|
9 |
|
|
11 |
|
|
Utilities |
|
2 |
|
|
7 |
|
|
Tobacco |
|
1 |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credit Quality Allocations5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7/31/11 |
|
7/31/10 |
|
||
AAA/Aaa |
|
|
|
|
12 |
% |
|
AA/Aa |
|
39 |
% |
|
28 |
|
|
A |
|
42 |
|
|
27 |
|
|
BBB/Baa |
|
10 |
|
|
21 |
|
|
BB/Ba |
|
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
B |
|
5 |
|
|
4 |
|
|
Not Rated6 |
|
4 |
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
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 July 31, 2011 and July 31, 2010, the market value of these securities was $884,636, representing 4%, and $500,505, representing 3%, respectively, of the Trusts long-term investments. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANNUAL REPORT |
JULY 31, 2011 |
9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trust Summary as of July 31, 2011 |
BlackRock New Jersey Municipal Income Trust |
|
Trust Overview |
BlackRock New Jersey Municipal Income Trusts (BNJ) (the Trust) investment objective is to provide current income exempt from regular federal income tax and New Jersey gross 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) and New Jersey gross income taxes. 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.
No assurance can be given that the Trusts investment objective will be achieved.
|
Performance |
For the 12 months ended July 31, 2011, the Trust returned 1.85% based on market price and 4.74% based on NAV. For the same period, the closed-end Lipper New Jersey Municipal Debt Funds category posted an average return of (3.20)% based on market price and 3.20% 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 holdings in spread sectors, including housing, health care and corporate-backed municipal bonds, enhanced performance as these sectors provided a relatively high degree of incremental income in the low interest rate environment. In addition, the Trusts holdings of premium coupon bonds (6% or higher) and shorter-duration bonds (bonds with lower sensitivity to interest rate movements) performed well as long-term interest rates climbed toward the end of 2010 and into the early part of 2011. Conversely, the Trusts exposure to bonds with longer duration (greater sensitivity to interest rate movements) and bonds with longer-dated maturities detracted from performance as the municipal yield curve steepened over the 12-month period. The surprise non-extension of the BAB program at the end of 2010 put additional upward pressure on the long end of the yield curve, where most of the BAB supply was issued.
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 |
|
|
BNJ |
|
Initial Offering Date |
|
|
July 27, 2001 |
|
Yield on Closing Market Price as of July 31, 2011 ($14.10)1 |
|
|
6.73% |
|
Tax Equivalent Yield2 |
|
|
10.35% |
|
Current Monthly Distribution per Common Share3 |
|
|
$0.0791 |
|
Current Annualized Distribution per Common Share3 |
|
|
$0.9492 |
|
Leverage as of July 31, 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 AMPS and TOBs as a percentage of total managed assets, which is the total assets of the Trust, including any assets attributable to AMPS 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 13. |
The table below summarizes the changes in the Trusts market price and NAV per share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7/31/11 |
|
|
7/31/10 |
|
|
Change |
|
|
High |
|
|
Low |
|
Market Price |
|
|
$14.10 |
|
|
$14.82 |
|
|
(4.86)% |
|
|
$16.02 |
|
|
$12.50 |
|
Net Asset Value |
|
|
$14.07 |
|
|
$14.38 |
|
|
(2.16)% |
|
|
$14.86 |
|
|
$12.72 |
|
The following charts show the sector and credit quality allocations of the Trusts long-term investments:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sector Allocations |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7/31/11 |
|
7/31/10 |
|
||
State |
|
22 |
% |
|
23 |
% |
|
Transportation |
|
18 |
|
|
13 |
|
|
Health |
|
15 |
|
|
18 |
|
|
Housing |
|
13 |
|
|
19 |
|
|
County/City/Special District/School District |
|
12 |
|
|
9 |
|
|
Education |
|
11 |
|
|
8 |
|
|
Corporate |
|
7 |
|
|
7 |
|
|
Utilities |
|
1 |
|
|
2 |
|
|
Tobacco |
|
1 |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credit Quality Allocations5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7/31/11 |
|
7/31/10 |
|
||
AAA/Aaa |
|
5 |
% |
|
25 |
% |
|
AA/Aa |
|
33 |
|
|
25 |
|
|
A |
|
33 |
|
|
28 |
|
|
BBB/Baa |
|
12 |
|
|
11 |
|
|
BB/Ba |
|
5 |
|
|
2 |
|
|
B |
|
3 |
|
|
3 |
|
|
Not Rated6 |
|
9 |
|
|
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 July 31, 2011 and July 31, 2010, the market value of these securities was $13,046,133, representing 8%, and $4,086,005, representing 2%, respectively, of the Trusts long-term investments. |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
10 |
ANNUAL REPORT |
JULY 31, 2011 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trust Summary as of July 31, 2011 |
BlackRock New York Investment Quality Municipal Trust Inc. |
|
Trust Overview |
BlackRock New York Investment Quality Municipal Trust Inc.s (RNY) (the Trust) investment objective is to provide high current income exempt from regular federal, New York State and New York City income tax consistent with the preservation of capital. 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) and New York State and New York City income taxes. Under normal market conditions, the Trust invests at least 80% of its assets in securities rated investment grade 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 12 months ended July 31, 2011, the Trust returned (2.14)% based on market price and 3.63% based on NAV. For the same period, the closed-end Lipper New York Municipal Debt Funds category posted an average return of (0.55)% based on market price and 3.05% 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. Yields on the long end of the municipal yield curve were ultimately higher at the close of the period than where they started. Therefore, positive performance came mostly from the Trusts exposure to higher-yielding sectors including housing, health care and corporate/industrial development bonds, which provided incremental income. The Trust also benefited from its exposure to lower-quality bonds, which, in addition to offering higher embedded yields, experienced some price appreciation due to spread compression during the period. The Trust was most heavily invested in tax-backed credits, where performance was moderately positive during the period. Low exposure to the short end of the yield curve and high-quality pre-refunded bonds proved beneficial as performance was weak in those issues. Detracting from performance was the Trusts allocation to Puerto Rico credits, which underperformed New York issues during the period. Low exposure to tobacco, the strongest performing sector, was a disadvantage. The Trusts holdings of higher education bonds hindered returns; however, we increased exposure to the sector despite its recent under-performance as these holdings help diversify the portfolio and we believe they will benefit the Trust during periods of scarce new-issue supply. For most of the period, the Trust maintained a slightly long duration bias and exposure to the long end of the yield curve, which also detracted from 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 |
|
|
RNY |
|
Initial Offering Date |
|
|
May 28, 1993 |
|
Yield on Closing Market Price as of July 31, 2011 ($13.49)1 |
|
|
6.49% |
|
Tax Equivalent Yield2 |
|
|
9.98% |
|
Current Monthly Distribution per Common Share3 |
|
|
$0.073 |
|
Current Annualized Distribution per Common Share3 |
|
|
$0.876 |
|
Leverage as of July 31, 20114 |
|
|
36% |
|
|
|
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 AMPS and TOBs as a percentage of total managed assets, which is the total assets of the Trust, including any assets attributable to AMPS 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 13. |
The table below summarizes the changes in the Trusts market price and NAV per share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7/31/11 |
|
|
7/31/10 |
|
|
Change |
|
|
High |
|
|
Low |
|
Market Price |
|
|
$13.49 |
|
|
$14.70 |
|
|
(8.23)% |
|
|
$15.05 |
|
|
$12.39 |
|
Net Asset Value |
|
|
$13.75 |
|
|
$14.15 |
|
|
(2.83)% |
|
|
$14.66 |
|
|
$12.37 |
|
The following charts show the sector and credit quality allocations of the Trusts long-term investments:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sector Allocations |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7/31/11 |
|
7/31/10 |
|
||
County/City/Special District/School District |
|
25 |
% |
|
28 |
% |
|
Utilities |
|
16 |
|
|
16 |
|
|
Health |
|
14 |
|
|
10 |
|
|
Education |
|
13 |
|
|
12 |
|
|
Corporate |
|
11 |
|
|
12 |
|
|
State |
|
9 |
|
|
10 |
|
|
Housing |
|
7 |
|
|
7 |
|
|
Transportation |
|
3 |
|
|
3 |
|
|
Tobacco |
|
2 |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credit Quality Allocations5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7/31/11 |
|
7/31/10 |
|
||
AAA/Aaa |
|
17 |
% |
|
24 |
% |
|
AA/Aa |
|
26 |
|
|
19 |
|
|
A |
|
28 |
|
|
38 |
|
|
BBB/Baa |
|
14 |
|
|
6 |
|
|
BB/Ba |
|
6 |
|
|
4 |
|
|
B |
|
4 |
|
|
7 |
|
|
Not Rated |
|
5 |
6 |
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
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 July 31, 2011, the market value of these securities was $1,312,653, representing 5% of the Trusts long-term investments. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANNUAL REPORT |
JULY 31, 2011 |
11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trust Summary as of July 31, 2011 |
BlackRock New York Municipal Income Trust |
|
Trust Overview |
BlackRock New York Municipal Income Trusts (BNY) (the Trust) investment objective is to provide current income exempt from regular federal income tax and New York State and New York City personal income taxes. 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) and New York State and New York City personal income taxes. 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.
No assurance can be given that the Trusts investment objective will be achieved.
|
Performance |
For the 12 months ended July 31, 2011, the Trust returned 0.94% based on market price and 4.39% based on NAV. For the same period, the closed-end Lipper New York Municipal Debt Funds category posted an average return of (0.55)% based on market price and 3.05% 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. Yields on the long end of the municipal yield curve were ultimately higher at the close of the period than where they started. Therefore, positive performance came mostly from the Trusts exposure to higher-yielding sectors including housing, health care and corporate/industrial development bonds, which provided incremental income. The Trust also benefited from its exposure to lower-quality bonds, which, in addition to offering higher embedded yields, experienced some price appreciation due to spread compression during the period. The Trust was most heavily invested in tax-backed credits, where performance was moderately positive during the period. Low exposure to the short end of the yield curve and high-quality pre-refunded bonds proved beneficial as performance was weak in those issues. Detracting from performance was the Trusts allocation to Puerto Rico credits, which underperformed New York issues during the period. Low exposure to tobacco, the strongest performing sector, was a disadvantage. The Trusts holdings of higher education bonds hindered returns; however, we increased exposure to the sector despite its recent underperformance as these holdings help diversify the portfolio and we believe they will benefit the Trust during periods of scarce new-issue supply. For most of the period, the Trust maintained a slightly long duration bias and exposure to the long end of the yield curve, which also detracted from 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 |
|
|
BNY |
|
Initial Offering Date |
|
|
July 27, 2001 |
|
Yield on Closing Market Price as of July 31, 2011 ($14.20)1 |
|
|
6.97% |
|
Tax Equivalent Yield2 |
|
|
10.72% |
|
Current Monthly Distribution per Common Share3 |
|
|
$0.0825 |
|
Current Annualized Distribution per Common Share3 |
|
|
$0.9900 |
|
Leverage as of July 31, 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 AMPS and TOBs as a percentage of total managed assets, which is the total assets of the Trust, including any assets attributable to AMPS 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 13. |
The table below summarizes the changes in the Trusts market price and NAV per share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7/31/11 |
|
|
7/31/10 |
|
|
Change |
|
|
High |
|
|
Low |
|
Market Price |
|
|
$14.20 |
|
|
$15.11 |
|
|
(6.02)% |
|
|
$15.74 |
|
|
$12.97 |
|
Net Asset Value |
|
|
$13.87 |
|
|
$14.27 |
|
|
(2.80)% |
|
|
$14.67 |
|
|
$12.53 |
|
The following charts show the sector and credit quality allocations of the Trusts long-term investments:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sector Allocations |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7/31/11 |
|
7/31/10 |
|
||
County/City/Special District/School District |
|
18 |
% |
|
16 |
% |
|
Education |
|
17 |
|
|
15 |
|
|
Transportation |
|
17 |
|
|
14 |
|
|
Corporate |
|
11 |
|
|
12 |
|
|
Housing |
|
10 |
|
|
14 |
|
|
Utilities |
|
10 |
|
|
12 |
|
|
State |
|
7 |
|
|
8 |
|
|
Health |
|
6 |
|
|
4 |
|
|
Tobacco |
|
4 |
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credit Quality Allocations5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7/31/11 |
|
7/31/10 |
|
||
AAA/Aaa |
|
11 |
% |
|
23 |
% |
|
AA/Aa |
|
33 |
|
|
19 |
|
|
A |
|
27 |
|
|
29 |
|
|
BBB/Baa |
|
20 |
|
|
16 |
|
|
BB/Ba |
|
2 |
|
|
3 |
|
|
B |
|
3 |
|
|
6 |
|
|
Not Rated6 |
|
4 |
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 July 31, 2011 and July 31, 2010, the market value of these securities was $11,121,550, representing 4%, and $2,474,600, representing 1%, respectively, of the Trusts long-term investments. |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
12 |
ANNUAL REPORT |
JULY 31, 2011 |
|
|
|
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 AMPS, 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 AMPS 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 AMPS based on the lower short-term interest rates. At the same time, the securities purchased by the Trust with assets received from the AMPS issuance earn income based on long-term interest rates. In this case, the dividends paid to holders of AMPS (AMPS 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, the yield curve has a negative slope. In this case, the Trust pays dividends to AMPS Shareholders 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 AMPS 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 AMPS 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 AMPS issued by the Trusts, as described above. Additionally, fluctuations in the market value of municipal bonds deposited into the TOB trust may adversely affect each Trusts NAV per share.
The use of leverage may enhance opportunities for increased income 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, each 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 AMPS issued by the Trusts. Each Trust will incur expenses in connection with the use of leverage, all of which are borne by Common Shareholders and may reduce income to the Common Shares.
Under the Investment Company Act of 1940, the Trusts are permitted to issue AMPS in an amount of 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 AMPS and/or TOBs will not exceed 50% of its total managed assets at the time such leverage is incurred. As of July 31, 2011, the Trusts had economic leverage from AMPS and/or TOBs as a percentage of their total managed assets as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Percent
of |
|
|
BFZ |
|
42 |
% |
|
BFO |
|
34 |
% |
|
RFA |
|
40 |
% |
|
BBF |
|
42 |
% |
|
RNJ |
|
36 |
% |
|
BNJ |
|
37 |
% |
|
RNY |
|
36 |
% |
|
BNY |
|
37 |
% |
|
|
|
The Trusts may invest in various derivative financial instruments, including financial futures contracts as specified in Note 2 of the Notes to Financial Statements, which may constitute forms of economic leverage. Such derivative financial 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. Derivative financial instruments involve risks, including the imperfect correlation between the value of a derivative financial instrument and the underlying asset, possible default of the counterparty to the transaction or illiquidity of the derivative financial instrument. The Trusts ability to use a derivative financial instrument successfully depends on the investment advisors ability to predict pertinent market movements accurately, which cannot be assured. The use of derivative financial 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 dividends paid to shareholders or may cause a Trust to hold an investment that it might otherwise sell. The Trusts investments in these instruments are discussed in detail in the Notes to Financial Statements.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANNUAL REPORT |
JULY 31, 2011 |
13 |
|
|
|
|
BlackRock California Municipal Income Trust (BFZ) |
|
(Percentages shown are based on Net Assets) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Municipal Bonds |
|
Par |
|
Value |
|
||
California 105.3% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Corporate 0.2% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
City of Chula Vista California, Refunding RB, San Diego |
|
$ |
680 |
|
$ |
732,761 |
|
County/City/Special District/School District 40.8% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Butte-Glenn Community College District, GO, Election of |
|
|
8,425 |
|
|
9,271,291 |
|
California State Public Works Board, RB, Various Capital |
|
|
8,000 |
|
|
8,661,600 |
|
Central Unified School District, GO, Election of 2008, |
|
|
400 |
|
|
420,636 |
|
Cerritos Community College District, GO, Election of |
|
|
3,000 |
|
|
3,158,070 |
|
City & County of San Francisco California, COP, |
|
|
7,730 |
|
|
7,814,489 |
|
City of Los Angeles, RB, Series A, 5.00%, 6/01/39 |
|
|
2,000 |
|
|
2,034,900 |
|
City of San Jose California, RB, Convention Center |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6.13%, 5/01/31 |
|
|
500 |
|
|
519,090 |
|
6.50%, 5/01/36 |
|
|
1,210 |
|
|
1,256,767 |
|
6.50%, 5/01/42 |
|
|
2,225 |
|
|
2,299,359 |
|
County of Kern California, COP, Capital Improvements |
|
|
2,000 |
|
|
2,164,160 |
|
El Dorado Union High School District, GO, Election of |
|
|
5,020 |
|
|
5,238,169 |
|
Evergreen Elementary School District, GO, Election of |
|
|
2,500 |
|
|
2,561,825 |
|
Grossmont Healthcare District, GO, Election of 2006, |
|
|
2,000 |
|
|
2,173,980 |
|
Long Beach Unified School District California, GO, |
|
|
4,135 |
|
|
4,485,028 |
|
Los Alamitos Unified School District California, GO, |
|
|
5,675 |
|
|
6,014,535 |
|
Los Angeles Municipal Improvement Corp., Refunding |
|
|
4,975 |
|
|
5,222,009 |
|
Modesto Irrigation District, COP, Capital Improvements, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.75%, 10/01/29 |
|
|
3,000 |
|
|
3,194,760 |
|
5.75%, 10/01/34 |
|
|
180 |
|
|
185,953 |
|
Murrieta Valley Unified School District Public Financing |
|
|
1,000 |
|
|
1,029,940 |
|
Oak Grove School District California, GO, Election of |
|
|
6,000 |
|
|
6,395,460 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Municipal Bonds |
|
Par |
|
Value |
|
||
California (continued) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
County/City/Special
District/School District |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange County Sanitation District, COP (NPFGC), |
|
$ |
3,600 |
|
$ |
3,630,708 |
|
Orange County Water District, COP, Refunding, |
|
|
2,000 |
|
|
2,105,840 |
|
Pico Rivera Public Financing Authority, RB, |
|
|
2,000 |
|
|
2,030,880 |
|
Pittsburg Redevelopment Agency, Tax Allocation Bonds, |
|
|
5,500 |
|
|
5,454,845 |
|
Pittsburg Unified School District, GO, Election of 2006, |
|
|
2,000 |
|
|
2,105,540 |
|
Port of Oakland, Refunding RB, Series M (FGIC), |
|
|
4,800 |
|
|
4,808,496 |
|
San Diego Community College District California, GO, |
|
|
1,500 |
|
|
1,580,070 |
|
San Diego Regional Building Authority California, RB, |
|
|
6,500 |
|
|
6,745,635 |
|
San Jose Financing Authority, Refunding RB, Civic |
|
|
6,000 |
|
|
5,888,640 |
|
San Leandro Unified School District California, GO: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Election of 2006, Series B (AGM), 6.25%, 8/01/29 |
|
|
1,150 |
|
|
1,279,260 |
|
Election of 2010, Series A, 5.75%, 8/01/41 |
|
|
3,060 |
|
|
3,236,470 |
|
San Marcos Unified School District, GO, Election of 2010, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.00%, 8/01/34 |
|
|
3,735 |
|
|
3,758,381 |
|
5.00%, 8/01/38 |
|
|
3,520 |
|
|
3,499,338 |
|
Santa Ana Unified School District, GO, Election of 2008, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.50%, 8/01/30 |
|
|
6,455 |
|
|
6,807,443 |
|
5.13%, 8/01/33 |
|
|
10,000 |
|
|
10,227,200 |
|
Santa Clara County Financing Authority, Refunding LRB, |
|
|
21,000 |
|
|
21,177,240 |
|
Santa Cruz County Redevelopment Agency California, Tax |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6.63%, 9/01/29 |
|
|
1,000 |
|
|
1,093,750 |
|
7.00%, 9/01/36 |
|
|
1,700 |
|
|
1,846,098 |
|
Snowline Joint Unified School District, COP, Refunding, |
|
|
2,250 |
|
|
2,427,750 |
|
Torrance Unified School District California, GO, Election |
|
|
4,000 |
|
|
4,368,680 |
|
Tustin Unified School District, GO, Election of 2008, |
|
|
3,445 |
|
|
3,634,268 |
|
|
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) |
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 |
FGIC |
Financial Guaranty Insurance Co. |
FHA |
Federal Housing Administration |
FSA |
Financial Security Assurance, Inc. |
GO |
General Obligation Bonds |
HFA |
Housing Finance Agency |
HRB |
Housing Revenue Bonds |
IDA |
Industrial Development Authority |
ISD |
Independent School District |
LRB |
Lease Revenue Bonds |
MRB |
Mortgage Revenue Bonds |
NPFGC |
National Public Finance Guarantee Corp. |
PILOT |
Payment in Lieu of Taxes |
RB |
Revenue Bonds |
S/F |
Single-Family |
SONYMA |
State of New York Mortgage Agency |
VHA |
Veterans Health Administration |
|
|
|
See Notes to Financial Statements. |
|
|
|
|
|
14 |
ANNUAL REPORT |
JULY 31, 2011 |
|
|
|
|
Schedule of Investments (continued) |
BlackRock California Municipal Income Trust (BFZ) |
(Percentages shown are based on Net Assets) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Municipal Bonds |
|
Par |
|
Value |
|
||
California (continued) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
County/City/Special
District/School District |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Westminster Redevelopment Agency California, Tax |
|
$ |
7,750 |
|
$ |
8,617,767 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
180,426,320 |
|
Education 1.6% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
California Educational Facilities Authority, Refunding RB, |
|
|
6,280 |
|
|
6,708,296 |
|
University of California, RB, Series O, 5.38%, 5/15/34 |
|
|
460 |
|
|
482,485 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7,190,781 |
|
Health 18.7% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ABAG Finance Authority for Nonprofit Corps, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6.38%, 8/01/34 |
|
|
3,055 |
|
|
3,168,279 |
|
6.25%, 8/01/39 |
|
|
3,760 |
|
|
3,923,334 |
|
Series A, 6.00%, 8/01/30 |
|
|
2,250 |
|
|
2,376,450 |
|
California Health Facilities Financing Authority, RB: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adventist Health System-West, Series A, 5.75%, |
|
|
6,000 |
|
|
6,092,640 |
|
Catholic Healthcare West, Series J, 5.63%, 7/01/32 |
|
|
8,300 |
|
|
8,388,146 |
|
Providence Health, 6.50%, 10/01/18 (a) |
|
|
25 |
|
|
32,510 |
|
California Health Facilities Financing Authority, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Catholic Healthcare West, Series A, 6.00%, 7/01/29 |
|
|
1,000 |
|
|
1,061,350 |
|
Catholic Healthcare West, Series A, 6.00%, 7/01/34 |
|
|
4,400 |
|
|
4,628,888 |
|
Catholic Healthcare West, Series A, 6.00%, 7/01/39 |
|
|
2,500 |
|
|
2,620,125 |
|
Providence Health, 6.50%, 10/01/38 |
|
|
4,090 |
|
|
4,478,796 |
|
Sutter Health, Series B, 6.00%, 8/15/42 |
|
|
6,015 |
|
|
6,407,659 |
|
California Infrastructure & Economic Development Bank, |
|
|
10,000 |
|
|
10,003,000 |
|
California Statewide Communities Development |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Health Facility Memorial Health Services, 5.50%, |
|
|
8,310 |
|
|
8,371,245 |
|
Kaiser Permanente, 5.50%, 11/01/32 |
|
|
11,090 |
|
|
11,112,956 |
|
California Statewide Communities Development Authority, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Series B, 5.50%, 7/01/30 |
|
|
2,980 |
|
|
3,023,419 |
|
Series E, 5.50%, 7/01/31 |
|
|
4,255 |
|
|
4,304,018 |
|
Grossmont Healthcare District, GO, Election of 2006, |
|
|
2,250 |
|
|
2,452,455 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
82,445,270 |
|
Housing 0.9% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
California Statewide Communities Development |
|
|
2,180 |
|
|
2,122,819 |
|
City of Los Angeles, Multifamily Housing Revenue Bond |
|
|
2,035 |
|
|
1,992,163 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,114,982 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Municipal Bonds |
|
Par |
|
Value |
|
||
California (continued) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
State 8.9% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
California State Public Works Board, RB: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Department of Education, Riverside Campus Project, |
|
$ |
9,000 |
|
$ |
9,608,490 |
|
Various Capital Projects-Sub-Series I-1, |
|
|
2,475 |
|
|
2,627,856 |
|
State of California, GO, Various Purpose, |
|
|
20,500 |
|
|
22,950,160 |
|
University of California, RB, Limited Project, Series D |
|
|
4,315 |
|
|
4,261,969 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
39,448,475 |
|
Transportation 12.0% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
City of San Jose California, RB, Series A-1, AMT: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.75%, 3/01/34 |
|
|
895 |
|
|
887,124 |
|
6.25%, 3/01/34 |
|
|
1,650 |
|
|
1,713,756 |
|
County of Orange California, RB, Series B, |
|
|
8,000 |
|
|
8,531,600 |
|
County of Sacramento California, RB, Senior Series B, |
|
|
1,850 |
|
|
1,906,259 |
|
Los Angeles Department of Airports, RB, Series A, |
|
|
6,000 |
|
|
6,119,820 |
|
Los Angeles Department of Airports, Refunding RB, |
|
|
400 |
|
|
405,440 |
|
Los Angeles Harbor Department, RB, Series B, |
|
|
5,530 |
|
|
5,719,790 |
|
Palm Springs Unified School District, GO, Election of |
|
|
11,625 |
|
|
11,935,271 |
|
Port of Oakland, RB, Series K, AMT (FGIC), |
|
|
5,300 |
|
|
5,301,060 |
|
San Francisco City & County Airports Commission, RB, |
|
|
6,750 |
|
|
7,259,760 |
|
San Joaquin County Transportation Authority, RB, Limited |
|
|
2,880 |
|
|
3,154,550 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
52,934,430 |
|
Utilities 22.2% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anaheim Public Financing Authority, RB: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anaheim Electric System Distribution, |
|
|
1,500 |
|
|
1,540,860 |
|
Electric System Distribution Facilities, Series A, |
|
|
7,690 |
|
|
8,004,214 |
|
California Infrastructure & Economic Development Bank, |
|
|
5,500 |
|
|
5,845,565 |
|
Calleguas-Las Virgines Public Financing Authority |
|
|
5,475 |
|
|
5,617,076 |
|
City of Chula Vista California, San Diego Gas & Electric, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Series D, 5.88%, 1/01/34 |
|
|
1,000 |
|
|
1,077,590 |
|
Series E, 5.88%, 1/01/34 |
|
|
6,500 |
|
|
7,004,335 |
|
City of Los Angeles California, Refunding RB, |
|
|
4,000 |
|
|
4,153,160 |
|
City of Petaluma California, Refunding RB, |
|
|
5,625 |
|
|
6,159,206 |
|
Dublin-San Ramon Services District, Refunding RB, |
|
|
2,425 |
|
|
2,582,140 |
|
East Bay Municipal Utility District, RB, Series A (NPFGC), |
|
|
4,660 |
|
|
4,863,269 |
|
Los Angeles Department of Water & Power, RB: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Power System, Sub-Series A-1, 5.25%, 7/01/38 |
|
|
11,215 |
|
|
11,582,179 |
|
Series A, 5.38%, 7/01/34 |
|
|
3,050 |
|
|
3,210,796 |
|
|
|
|
|
See Notes to Financial Statements. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANNUAL REPORT |
JULY 31, 2011 |
15 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Schedule of Investments (continued) |
BlackRock California Municipal Income Trust (BFZ) |
(Percentages shown are based on Net Assets) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Municipal Bonds |
|
Par |
|
Value |
|
||
California (concluded) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Utilities (concluded) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Los Angeles Department of Water & Power, Refunding RB, |
|
$ |
2,200 |
|
$ |
2,237,400 |
|
San Diego Public Facilities Financing Authority, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Series A, 5.25%, 5/15/34 |
|
|
9,500 |
|
|
9,906,315 |
|
Series A, 5.25%, 8/01/38 |
|
|
3,255 |
|
|
3,372,603 |
|
San Francisco City & County Public Utilities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Series A (NPFGC), 5.00%, 11/01/32 |
|
|
4,000 |
|
|
4,025,800 |
|
WSIP Sub-Series A, 5.00%, 11/01/37 (c) |
|
|
5,695 |
|
|
5,809,128 |
|
San Francisco City & County Public Utilities Commission, |
|
|
10,625 |
|
|
10,832,931 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
97,824,567 |
|
Total Municipal Bonds in California |
|
|
|
|
|
465,117,586 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
Multi-State 1.9% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Housing 1.9% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Centerline Equity Issuer Trust (d)(e): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.75%, 5/15/15 |
|
|
500 |
|
|
537,870 |
|
6.00%, 5/15/15 |
|
|
1,500 |
|
|
1,630,845 |
|
6.00%, 5/15/19 |
|
|
1,000 |
|
|
1,091,540 |
|
6.30%, 5/15/19 |
|
|
1,000 |
|
|
1,095,270 |
|
7.20%, 11/15/52 |
|
|
3,500 |
|
|
3,847,865 |
|
Total Municipal Bonds in Multi-State |
|
|
|
|
|
8,203,390 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
Puerto Rico 0.7% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
County/City/Special District/School District 0.7% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Puerto Rico Sales Tax Financing Corp., RB, First |
|
|
3,000 |
|
|
3,242,550 |
|
Total Municipal Bonds 107.9% |
|
|
|
|
|
476,563,526 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Municipal
Bonds Transferred to |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
California 63.2% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
County/City/Special District/School District 25.0% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Los Angeles Community College District California, GO: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Election of 2001, Series A (AGM), 5.00%, 8/01/32 |
|
|
8,000 |
|
|
8,200,000 |
|
Election of 2008, Series A, 6.00%, 8/01/33 |
|
|
20,131 |
|
|
22,428,136 |
|
Election of 2008, Series C, 5.25%, 8/01/39 |
|
|
12,900 |
|
|
13,561,125 |
|
Los Angeles Unified School District California, GO, |
|
|
5,000 |
|
|
5,038,850 |
|
Mount San Antonio Community College District |
|
|
10,770 |
|
|
11,012,110 |
|
Ohlone Community College District, GO, Ohlone, Series B |
|
|
12,499 |
|
|
12,688,787 |
|
San Bernardino Community College District California, |
|
|
2,000 |
|
|
2,023,820 |
|
San Diego Community College District California, GO: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Election of 2002, 5.25%, 8/01/33 |
|
|
10,484 |
|
|
11,043,880 |
|
Election of 2006 (AGM), 5.00%, 8/01/32 |
|
|
9,000 |
|
|
9,277,470 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Municipal Bonds Transferred to |
|
Par |
|
Value |
|
||
California (concluded) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
County/City/Special
District/School District |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
San Jose Unified School District Santa Clara County |
|
$ |
14,625 |
|
$ |
14,998,354 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110,272,532 |
|
Education 11.1% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
California Educational Facilities Authority, RB, University |
|
|
10,395 |
|
|
10,887,203 |
|
Grossmont Union High School District California, GO, |
|
|
13,095 |
|
|
13,241,388 |
|
San Mateo County Community College District, GO, |
|
|
8,630 |
|
|
8,863,442 |
|
University of California, RB: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Limited Project, Series D (AGM), 5.00%, 5/15/41 |
|
|
2,600 |
|
|
2,568,046 |
|
Series O, 5.75%, 5/15/34 |
|
|
12,300 |
|
|
13,300,482 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
48,860,561 |
|
Utilities 27.1% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
California State Department of Water Resources, |
|
|
7,000 |
|
|
7,488,320 |
|
City of Napa California, RB (AMBAC), 5.00%, 5/01/35 |
|
|
3,000 |
|
|
3,041,700 |
|
East Bay Municipal Utility District, RB, Sub-Series A |
|
|
3,000 |
|
|
3,058,710 |
|
Eastern Municipal Water District, COP, Series H, |
|
|
18,002 |
|
|
18,200,996 |
|
Los Angeles Department of Water & Power, RB: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Power System, Sub-Series A-1 (AMBAC), |
|
|
15,998 |
|
|
16,168,584 |
|
System, Sub-Series A-2 (AGM), 5.00%, 7/01/35 |
|
|
2,000 |
|
|
2,025,140 |
|
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, RB, |
|
|
11,180 |
|
|
11,467,438 |
|
Orange County Sanitation District, COP, Series B (AGM), |
|
|
14,700 |
|
|
14,983,122 |
|
Orange County Water District, COP, Refunding, |
|
|
10,480 |
|
|
10,686,037 |
|
San Diego County Water Authority, COP, Refunding: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Series 2002-A (NPFGC), 5.00%, 5/01/32 |
|
|
5,292 |
|
|
5,331,206 |
|
Series 2008-A (AGM), 5.00%, 5/01/33 |
|
|
14,290 |
|
|
14,592,662 |
|
San Diego Public Facilities Financing Authority, |
|
|
12,457 |
|
|
12,842,161 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
119,886,076 |
|
Total
Municipal Bonds Transferred to |
|
|
|
|
|
279,019,169 |
|
Total
Long-Term Investments |
|
|
|
|
|
755,582,695 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Short-Term Securities |
|
Shares |
|
|
|
|
|
BIF California Municipal Money Fund, 0.00% (g)(h) |
|
|
2,720,243 |
|
|
2,720,243 |
|
Total
Short-Term Securities |
|
|
|
|
|
2,720,243 |
|
Total Investments (Cost $738,784,692*) 171.7% |
|
|
|
|
|
758,302,938 |
|
Liabilities in Excess of Other Assets (0.3)% |
|
|
|
|
|
(1,396,156 |
) |
Liability for TOB Trust Certificates, Including |
|
|
|
|
|
(143,834,366 |
) |
AMPS, at Redemption Value (38.8)% |
|
|
|
|
|
(171,327,730 |
) |
Net Assets Applicable to Common Shares 100.0% |
|
|
|
|
$ |
441,744,686 |
|
|
|
|
See Notes to Financial Statements. |
|
|
|
|
|
16 |
ANNUAL REPORT |
JULY 31, 2011 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Schedule of Investments (concluded) |
BlackRock California Municipal Income Trust (BFZ) |
|
|
* |
The cost and unrealized appreciation (depreciation) of investments as of July 31, 2011, as computed for federal income tax purposes, were as follows: |
|
|
|
|
|
Aggregate cost |
|
$ |
595,568,946 |
|
Gross unrealized appreciation |
|
$ |
22,075,580 |
|
Gross unrealized depreciation |
|
|
(3,054,525 |
) |
Net unrealized appreciation |
|
$ |
19,021,055 |
|
|
|
(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) |
Variable rate security. Rate shown is as of report date. |
|
|
(c) |
When-issued security. Unsettled when-issued transactions were as follows: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
Counterparty |
|
Value |
|
Unrealized |
|
||
Bank of America Merrill Lynch |
|
$ |
5,809,128 |
|
$ |
171 |
|
|
|
(d) |
Security exempt from registration under Rule 144A of the Securities Act of 1933. These securities may be resold in transactions exempt from registration to qualified institutional investors. |
|
|
(e) |
Security represents a beneficial interest in a trust. The collateral deposited into the trust is federally tax-exempt revenue bonds issued by various state or local governments, or their respective agencies or authorities. The security is subject to remarketing prior to its stated maturity. |
|
|
(f) |
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. |
|
|
(g) |
Investments in companies considered to be an affiliate of the Trust during the year, for purposes of Section 2(a)(3) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended, were as follows: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
Affiliate |
|
Shares
Held |
|
Net |
|
Shares
Held |
|
Income |
|
||||
BIF California Municipal |
|
|
26,178,133 |
|
|
(23,457,890 |
) |
|
2,720,243 |
|
|
$3,543 |
|
|
|
|
(h) |
Represents the current yield as of report date. |
|
|
|
|
|
For Trust compliance purposes, the Trusts sector classifications refer to any one or more of the sector sub-classifications used by one or more widely recognized market indexes or ratings group indexes, and/or as defined by Trust management. These definitions may not apply for purposes of this report, which may combine such sector sub-classifications for reporting ease. |
|
|
|
|
|
Fair Value Measurements Various inputs are used in determining the fair value of investments. These inputs are categorized 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) |
The categorization of a value determined for investments is based on the pricing transparency of the investment and does not necessarily correspond to the Trusts perceived risk of investing in those securities. For information about the Trusts policy regarding valuation of investments and other significant accounting policies, please refer to Note 1 of the Notes to Financial Statements.
The following table summarizes the inputs used as of July 31, 2011 in determining the fair valuation of the Trusts investments:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
Valuation Inputs |
|
Level 1 |
|
Level 2 |
|
Level 3 |
|
Total |
|
||||
Assets: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investments: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-Term |
|
|
|
|
$ |
755,582,695 |
|
|
|
|
$ |
755,582,695 |
|
Short-Term |
|
$ |
2,720,243 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,720,243 |
|
Total |
|
$ |
2,720,243 |
|
$ |
755,582,695 |
|
|
|
|
$ |
758,302,938 |
|
|
|
1 |
See above Schedule of Investments for values in each sector. |
|
|
|
|
See Notes to Financial Statements. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANNUAL REPORT |
JULY 31, 2011 |
17 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Schedule of Investments July 31, 2011 |
BlackRock Florida Municipal 2020 Term Trust (BFO) |
(Percentages shown are based on Net Assets) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Municipal Bonds |
|
Par |
|
Value |
|
||
Florida 149.0% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Corporate 8.6% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
County of Escambia Florida, Refunding RB, Environment, |
|
$ |
4,000 |
|
$ |
4,022,240 |
|
Hillsborough County IDA, Refunding RB, Tampa Electric |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.50%, 10/01/23 |
|
|
1,955 |
|
|
1,986,339 |
|
Series A, 5.65%, 5/15/18 |
|
|
1,000 |
|
|
1,144,100 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7,152,679 |
|
County/City/Special District/School District 69.5% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Broward County School Board Florida, COP, Refunding, |
|
|
2,000 |
|
|
2,172,220 |
|
Broward County School Board Florida, COP, Series A |
|
|
2,500 |
|
|
2,671,650 |
|
County of Hillsborough Florida, RB (AMBAC), |
|
|
5,545 |
|
|
6,006,122 |
|
County of Miami-Dade Florida, RB, Sub-Series B (NPFGC), |
|
|
7,560 |
|
|
1,794,215 |
|
County of Miami-Dade Florida, Refunding RB, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.33%, 10/01/19 |
|
|
5,365 |
|
|
3,480,919 |
|
5.31%, 10/01/20 |
|
|
10,000 |
|
|
5,989,100 |
|
County of Orange Florida, Refunding RB, Series A |
|
|
2,200 |
|
|
2,290,838 |
|
Florida State Board of Education, GO, Refunding, |
|
|
485 |
|
|
564,108 |
|
Hillsborough County School Board, COP (NPFGC), |
|
|
1,000 |
|
|
1,012,380 |
|
Miami-Dade County Educational Facilities Authority |
|
|
1,000 |
|
|
1,111,370 |
|
Miami-Dade County School Board, COP, Refunding, |
|
|
4,000 |
|
|
4,388,440 |
|
Northern Palm Beach County Improvement District, RB, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Series 43, 6.10%, 8/01/21 |
|
|
195 |
|
|
192,990 |
|
Unit of Development No. 43, 6.10%, 8/01/11 (b) |
|
|
2,735 |
|
|
2,763,198 |
|
Northern Palm Beach County Improvement District, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.50%, 8/01/22 |
|
|
1,000 |
|
|
860,080 |
|
5.00%, 8/01/31 |
|
|
1,000 |
|
|
820,820 |
|
Palm Beach County School District, COP, Refunding, |
|
|
6,500 |
|
|
6,596,915 |
|
Sterling Hill Community Development District, Special |
|
|
3,705 |
|
|
3,423,568 |
|
Stevens Plantation Improvement Project Dependent |
|
|
2,425 |
|
|
2,176,971 |
|
Tolomato Community Development District, Special |
|
|
1,150 |
|
|
817,558 |
|
Village Center Community Development District, RB: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(NPFGC), 5.25%, 10/01/23 |
|
|
5,000 |
|
|
4,843,200 |
|
Sub-Series B, 6.35%, 1/01/18 |
|
|
2,000 |
|
|
2,008,300 |
|
Village Community Development District No. 5 Florida, |
|
|
1,100 |
|
|
1,115,180 |
|
Watergrass Community Development District, Special |
|
|
1,000 |
|
|
652,890 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
57,753,032 |
|
Education 0.9% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange County Educational Facilities Authority, RB, |
|
|
725 |
|
|
784,406 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Municipal Bonds |
|
Par |
|
Value |
|
||
Florida (continued) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Health 17.6% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Escambia County Health Facilities Authority, RB, Florida |
|
$ |
416 |
|
$ |
429,874 |
|
Halifax Hospital Medical Center, Refunding RB, Series A, |
|
|
2,500 |
|
|
2,474,425 |
|
Highlands County Health Facilities Authority, Refunding |
|
|
2,155 |
|
|
2,398,989 |
|
Hillsborough County IDA, RB, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer |
|
|
1,500 |
|
|
1,550,775 |
|
Marion County Hospital District Florida, Refunding RB, |
|
|
1,500 |
|
|
1,536,285 |
|
Orange County Health Facilities Authority, RB, Hospital, |
|
|
4,450 |
|
|
4,785,664 |
|
Palm Beach County Health Facilities Authority, Refunding |
|
|
1,285 |
|
|
1,428,470 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14,604,482 |
|
Housing 2.8% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Florida Housing Finance Corp., RB, Homeowner |
|
|
1,065 |
|
|
1,076,747 |
|
Jacksonville Housing Finance Authority, Refunding RB, |
|
|
570 |
|
|
611,553 |
|
Manatee County Housing Finance Authority, RB, Series A, |
|
|
575 |
|
|
624,341 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,312,641 |
|
State 15.0% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Florida Municipal Loan Council, RB: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CAB, Series A (NPFGC), 5.22%, 4/01/20 (a) |
|
|
4,000 |
|
|
2,595,080 |
|
Series D (AGM), 5.00%, 10/01/19 |
|
|
1,050 |
|
|
1,179,538 |
|
Series D (AGM), 4.00%, 10/01/20 |
|
|
1,105 |
|
|
1,147,985 |
|
Series D (AGM), 4.00%, 10/01/21 |
|
|
500 |
|
|
514,180 |
|
Florida State Board of Education, GO, Public Education, |
|
|
6,150 |
|
|
6,465,433 |
|
Florida State Board of Education, GO, Refunding, Public |
|
|
500 |
|
|
539,660 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12,441,876 |
|
Transportation 6.5% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
County of Lee Florida, Refunding RB, Series B (AMBAC): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.00%, 10/01/20 |
|
|
2,250 |
|
|
2,336,670 |
|
5.00%, 10/01/22 |
|
|
3,000 |
|
|
3,082,080 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,418,750 |
|
Utilities 28.1% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
City of Deltona Florida, RB (NPFGC), 5.00%, 10/01/23 |
|
|
1,095 |
|
|
1,123,240 |
|
City of Lakeland Florida, Refunding RB, |
|
|
1,000 |
|
|
1,011,010 |
|
City of Marco Island Florida, RB (NPFGC): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.25%, 10/01/21 |
|
|
1,000 |
|
|
1,067,350 |
|
5.00%, 10/01/22 |
|
|
2,000 |
|
|
2,094,100 |
|
5.00%, 10/01/23 |
|
|
1,375 |
|
|
1,424,445 |
|
City of Palm Coast Florida, RB (NPFGC): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.00%, 10/01/22 |
|
|
1,770 |
|
|
1,807,860 |
|
5.00%, 10/01/23 |
|
|
1,485 |
|
|
1,512,116 |
|
5.00%, 10/01/24 |
|
|
1,500 |
|
|
1,523,490 |
|
County of Miami-Dade Florida, Refunding RB, System, |
|
|
4,000 |
|
|
4,683,560 |
|
|
|
|
See Notes to Financial Statements. |
|
|
|
|
|
18 |
ANNUAL REPORT |
JULY 31, 2011 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Schedule of Investments (concluded) |
BlackRock Florida Municipal 2020 Term Trust (BFO) |
(Percentages shown are based on Net Assets) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Municipal Bonds |
|
Par |
|
Value |
|
||
Florida (concluded) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Utilities (concluded) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tohopekaliga Water Authority, RB, Series B (AGM): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.00%, 10/01/22 |
|
$ |
1,975 |
|
$ |
2,106,812 |
|
5.00%, 10/01/23 |
|
|
1,180 |
|
|
1,258,753 |
|
Tohopekaliga Water Authority, Refunding RB, Series A |
|
|
3,630 |
|
|
3,776,543 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
23,389,279 |
|
Total Municipal Bonds in Florida |
|
|
|
|
|
123,857,145 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
Puerto Rico 1.4% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
State 1.4% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, GO, Public Improvement |
|
|
1,000 |
|
|
1,109,550 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
U.S. Virgin Islands 1.2% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Corporate 1.2% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Virgin Islands Public Finance Authority, Refunding RB, |
|
|
1,000 |
|
|
987,660 |
|
Total Municipal Bonds 151.6% |
|
|
|
|
|
125,954,355 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Municipal Bonds Transferred to |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Florida 1.0% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Housing 1.0% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lee County Housing Finance Authority, RB, Multi-County |
|
|
750 |
|
|
826,770 |
|
Total
Municipal Bonds Transferred to |
|
|
|
|
|
826,770 |
|
Total
Long-Term Investments |
|
|
|
|
|
126,781,125 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Short-Term Securities |
|
Shares |
|
|
|
|
|
BIF Florida Municipal Money Fund, 0.00% (d)(e) |
|
|
1,843,816 |
|
|
1,843,816 |
|
Total
Short-Term Securities |
|
|
|
|
|
1,843,816 |
|
Total Investments (Cost $128,004,371*) 154.8% |
|
|
|
|
|
128,624,941 |
|
Liabilities in Excess of Other Assets (2.5)% |
|
|
|
|
|
(2,111,706 |
) |
Liability for TOB Trust Certificates, Including |
|
|
|
|
|
(500,874 |
) |
AMPS, at Redemption Value (51.6)% |
|
|
|
|
|
(42,900,915 |
) |
Net Assets Applicable to Common Shares 100.0% |
|
|
|
|
$ |
83,111,446 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* |
The cost and unrealized appreciation (depreciation) of investments as of July 31, 2011, as computed for federal income tax purposes, were as follows: |
|
|
|
|
|
Aggregate cost |
|
$ |
127,480,901 |
|
Gross unrealized appreciation |
|
$ |
3,298,277 |
|
Gross unrealized depreciation |
|
|
(2,654,237 |
) |
Net unrealized appreciation |
|
$ |
644,040 |
|
|
|
(a) |
Represents a zero-coupon bond. Rate shown reflects the current yield as of report date. |
|
|
(b) |
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. |
|
|
(c) |
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. |
|
|
(d) |
Investments in companies considered to be an affiliate of the Trust during the year, for purposes of Section 2(a)(3) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended, were as follows: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
Affiliate |
|
Shares
Held |
|
Net |
|
Shares
Held |
|
Income |
|
||||
BIF Florida Municipal |
|
|
5,065,158 |
|
|
(3,221,342 |
) |
|
1,843,816 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(e) |
Represents the current yield as of report date. |
|
|
|
|
|
For Trust compliance purposes, the Trusts sector classifications refer to any one or more of the sector sub-classifications used by one or more widely recognized market indexes or rating group indexes, and/or as defined by Trust management. These definitions may not apply for purposes of this report, which may combine such sector sub-classifications for reporting ease. |
|
|
|
|
|
Fair Value Measurements Various inputs are used in determining the fair value of investments. These inputs are categorized 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) |
The categorization of a value determined for investments is based on the pricing transparency of the investment and does not necessarily correspond to the Trusts perceived risk of investing in those securities. For information about the Trusts policy regarding valuation of investments and other significant accounting policies, please refer to Note 1 of the Notes to Financial Statements.
The following table summarizes the inputs used as of July 31, 2011 in determining the fair valuation of the Trusts investments:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
Valuation Inputs |
|
Level 1 |
|
Level 2 |
|
Level 3 |
|
Total |
|
||||
Assets: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investments: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-Term |
|
|
|
|
$ |
126,781,125 |
|
|
|
|
$ |
126,781,125 |
|
Short-Term |
|
$ |
1,843,816 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,843,816 |
|
Total |
|
$ |
1,843,816 |
|
$ |
126,781,125 |
|
|
|
|
$ |
128,624,941 |
|
|
|
1 |
See above Schedule of Investments for values in each sector. |
|
|
|
|
See Notes to Financial Statements. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANNUAL REPORT |
JULY 31, 2011 |
19 |
|
|
|
|
Schedule of Investments July 31, 2011 |
BlackRock Investment Quality Municipal Income Trust (RFA) |
|
(Percentages shown are based on Net Assets) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Municipal Bonds |
|
Par |
|
Value |
|
||
Alaska 0.3% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Northern Tobacco Securitization Corp., RB, Series A, |
|
$ |
50 |
|
$ |
32,999 |
|
California 13.1% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bay Area Toll Authority, Refunding RB, San Francisco |
|
|
195 |
|
|
205,466 |
|
California Educational Facilities Authority, RB, University |
|
|
200 |
|
|
210,096 |
|
California Health Facilities Financing Authority, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Catholic Healthcare West, Series A, 6.00%, |
|
|
130 |
|
|
136,246 |
|
Sutter Health, Series B, 6.00%, 8/15/42 |
|
|
120 |
|
|
127,834 |
|
Los Angeles Department of Airports, Refunding RB, |
|
|
395 |
|
|
400,870 |
|
Los Angeles Department of Water & Power, RB, Power |
|
|
200 |
|
|
206,548 |
|
San Diego Regional Building Authority California, RB, |
|
|
240 |
|
|
249,070 |
|
State of California, GO, Various Purpose, 6.00%, |
|
|
185 |
|
|
202,099 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,738,229 |
|
Colorado 1.2% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Colorado Health Facilities Authority, Refunding RB, |
|
|
155 |
|
|
159,909 |
|
Delaware 1.3% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
County of Sussex Delaware, RB, NRG Energy, Inc., |
|
|
175 |
|
|
176,356 |
|
Florida 5.3% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Arborwood Community Development District, Special |
|
|
195 |
|
|
162,412 |
|
Manatee County Housing Finance Authority, RB, Series A, |
|
|
145 |
|
|
157,442 |
|
Village Center Community Development District, RB, |
|
|
450 |
|
|
388,075 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
707,929 |
|
Georgia 4.6% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
City of Atlanta Georgia, RB, Refunding, General, Series B, |
|
|
45 |
|
|
45,335 |
|
Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, Refunding RB, |
|
|
500 |
|
|
565,735 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
611,070 |
|
Illinois 11.1% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
City of Chicago Illinois, Refunding RB, General, Third Lien, |
|
|
445 |
|
|
489,727 |
|
County of Cook Illinois, GO, Refunding, Series A, 5.25%, |
|
|
100 |
|
|
103,867 |
|
Illinois Finance Authority, RB, Navistar International, |
|
|
75 |
|
|
77,081 |
|
Illinois Finance Authority, Refunding RB, Series A: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Carle Foundation, 6.00%, 8/15/41 |
|
|
250 |
|
|
252,242 |
|
Northwestern Memorial Hospital, 6.00%, 8/15/39 |
|
|
250 |
|
|
266,897 |
|
OSF Healthcare System, 6.00%, 5/15/39 |
|
|
150 |
|
|
152,546 |
|
Railsplitter Tobacco Settlement Authority, RB: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.50%, 6/01/23 |
|
|
100 |
|
|
103,605 |
|
6.00%, 6/01/28 |
|
|
30 |
|
|
30,896 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,476,861 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Municipal Bonds |
|
Par |
|
Value |
|
||
Indiana 2.7% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indiana Municipal Power Agency, RB, Series B, |
|
$ |
335 |
|
$ |
355,546 |
|
Iowa 0.2% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Iowa Tobacco Settlement Authority, RB, Series C, 5.63%, |
|
|
40 |
|
|
29,803 |
|
Kansas 2.0% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kansas Development Finance Authority, Refunding RB, |
|
|
250 |
|
|
268,560 |
|
Kentucky 4.2% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kentucky Economic Development Finance Authority, |
|
|
100 |
|
|
101,916 |
|
Louisville & Jefferson County Metropolitan Government |
|
|
220 |
|
|
237,659 |
|
Louisville/Jefferson County Metropolitan Government, |
|
|
215 |
|
|
215,742 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
555,317 |
|
Louisiana 0.8% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Louisiana Local Government Environmental Facilities & |
|
|
100 |
|
|
103,493 |
|
Maine 1.5% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maine Health & Higher Educational Facilities Authority, |
|
|
190 |
|
|
204,296 |
|
Maryland 1.1% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maryland EDC, Refunding RB, CNX Marine Terminals, Inc., |
|
|
145 |
|
|
143,066 |
|
Massachusetts 7.4% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Massachusetts Development Finance Agency, |
|
|
125 |
|
|
130,029 |
|
Massachusetts HFA, HRB, Series B, AMT, 5.50%, |
|
|
220 |
|
|
220,288 |
|
Massachusetts HFA, Refunding HRB, Series F, AMT, |
|
|
250 |
|
|
253,568 |
|
Massachusetts HFA, Refunding RB, Series C, AMT, |
|
|
120 |
|
|
116,791 |
|
Massachusetts State College Building Authority, RB, |
|
|
250 |
|
|
262,687 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
983,363 |
|
Michigan 7.4% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kalamazoo Hospital Finance Authority, Refunding RB, |
|
|
200 |
|
|
199,446 |
|
Lansing Board of Water & Light Utilities, RB, Series A, |
|
|
130 |
|
|
137,743 |
|
Michigan State Building Authority, Refunding RB, |
|
|
250 |
|
|
263,412 |
|
Royal Oak Hospital Finance Authority Michigan, |
|
|
325 |
|
|
375,209 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
975,810 |
|
Nevada 5.5% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
City of Las Vegas Nevada, GO, Limited Tax, Performing |
|
|
250 |
|
|
271,382 |
|
County of Clark Nevada, RB, Series B, 5.75%, 7/01/42 |
|
|
440 |
|
|
456,619 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
728,001 |
|
|
|
|
|
See Notes to Financial Statements. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20 |
ANNUAL REPORT |
JULY 31, 2011 |
|
|
|
|
|
Schedule of Investments (continued) |
BlackRock Investment Quality Municipal Income Trust (RFA) |
|
(Percentages shown are based on Net Assets) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Municipal Bonds |
|
Par |
|
Value |
|
||
New Jersey 6.1% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New Jersey EDA, Refunding RB: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New Jersey American Water Co., Inc., Series A, AMT, |
|
$ |
175 |
|
$ |
176,829 |
|
School Facilities Construction, Series AA, 5.50%, |
|
|
250 |
|
|
265,392 |
|
New Jersey State Housing & Mortgage Finance Agency, |
|
|
165 |
|
|
169,494 |
|
New Jersey Transportation Trust Fund Authority, RB, |
|
|
190 |
|
|
203,895 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
815,610 |
|
New York 4.8% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New York City Municipal Water Finance Authority, RB, |
|
|
55 |
|
|
58,343 |
|
New York City Transitional Finance Authority, RB, |
|
|
250 |
|
|
259,680 |
|
New York Liberty Development Corp., Refunding RB, |
|
|
85 |
|
|
87,429 |
|
Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Authority, RB, General, |
|
|
225 |
|
|
237,112 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
642,564 |
|
Ohio 0.3% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Buckeye Tobacco Settlement Financing Authority, RB, |
|
|
45 |
|
|
36,404 |
|
Pennsylvania 10.6% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pennsylvania Economic Development Financing Authority, |
|
|
300 |
|
|
321,105 |
|
Pennsylvania HFA, Refunding RB, Series 99A, AMT, |
|
|
200 |
|
|
198,552 |
|
Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, RB: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sub-Series A, 5.63%, 12/01/31 |
|
|
275 |
|
|
289,779 |
|
Sub-Series A, 6.00%, 12/01/41 |
|
|
350 |
|
|
364,367 |
|
Sub-Series C (AGC), 6.25%, 6/01/38 |
|
|
215 |
|
|
237,788 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,411,591 |
|
Texas 14.2% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority, RB, Senior Lien, |
|
|
240 |
|
|
236,724 |
|
City of Houston Texas, Refunding RB, Series B, 5.25%, |
|
|
260 |
|
|
263,809 |
|
Conroe ISD Texas, GO, School Building, Series A, 5.75%, |
|
|
140 |
|
|
155,467 |
|
Harris County Health Facilities Development Corp., |
|
|
250 |
|
|
278,383 |
|
Lower Colorado River Authority, RB, 5.75%, 5/15/28 |
|
|
120 |
|
|
127,447 |
|
North Texas Tollway Authority, RB, Special Projects |
|
|
250 |
|
|
265,293 |
|
Tarrant County Cultural Education Facilities Finance Corp., |
|
|
280 |
|
|
293,521 |
|
Texas Private Activity Bond Surface Transportation Corp., |
|
|
250 |
|
|
263,435 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,884,079 |
|
Virginia 2.1% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Virginia Public School Authority, RB, School Financing, |
|
|
250 |
|
|
280,440 |
|
Total Municipal Bonds 107.8% |
|
|
|
|
|
14,321,296 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Municipal Bonds Transferred to |
|
Par |
|
Value |
|
||
California 20.6% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
California Educational Facilities Authority, RB, University |
|
$ |
300 |
|
$ |
314,205 |
|
Grossmont Union High School District, GO, Election of |
|
|
300 |
|
|
298,632 |
|
Los Angeles Community College District California, GO: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Election of 2008, Series C, 5.25%, 8/01/39 |
|
|
390 |
|
|
409,988 |
|
Series A, 6.00%, 8/01/33 |
|
|
700 |
|
|
779,528 |
|
Los Angeles Unified School District California, GO, |
|
|
60 |
|
|
60,466 |
|
San Diego Public Facilities Financing Authority, |
|
|
615 |
|
|
646,880 |
|
University of California, RB, Series O, 5.75%, 5/15/34 |
|
|
210 |
|
|
227,081 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,736,780 |
|
District of Columbia 4.1% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
District of Columbia, RB, Series A, 5.50%, 12/01/30 |
|
|
195 |
|
|
217,458 |
|
District of Columbia Water & Sewer Authority, RB, |
|
|
300 |
|
|
318,737 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
536,195 |
|
Florida 4.1% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hillsborough County Aviation Authority, RB, Series A, AMT |
|
|
280 |
|
|
277,556 |
|
Lee County Housing Finance Authority, RB, Multi-County |
|
|
240 |
|
|
264,566 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
542,122 |
|
Illinois 5.3% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Illinois Finance Authority, RB, University of Chicago, |
|
|
400 |
|
|
449,308 |
|
Illinois State Toll Highway Authority, RB, Series B, 5.50%, |
|
|
250 |
|
|
258,127 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
707,435 |
|
Nevada 4.1% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clark County Water Reclamation District, GO, Limited Tax, |
|
|
500 |
|
|
548,210 |
|
New Hampshire 1.3% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New Hampshire Health & Education Facilities Authority, |
|
|
165 |
|
|
174,682 |
|
New Jersey 2.3% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New Jersey Transportation Trust Fund Authority, RB, |
|
|
300 |
|
|
305,556 |
|
New York 6.4% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New York City Municipal Water Finance Authority, RB: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fiscal 2009, Series A, 5.75%, 6/15/40 |
|
|
240 |
|
|
263,753 |
|
Series FF-2, 5.50%, 6/15/40 |
|
|
255 |
|
|
272,718 |
|
New York State Dormitory Authority, ERB, Series B, |
|
|
300 |
|
|
314,769 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
851,240 |
|
Ohio 1.8% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
County of Allen Ohio, Refunding RB, Catholic Healthcare, |
|
|
230 |
|
|
230,789 |
|
South Carolina 4.1% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
South Carolina State Public Service Authority, RB, |
|
|
510 |
|
|
543,186 |
|
Texas 5.5% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
City of San Antonio Texas, Refunding RB, Series A, |
|
|
300 |
|
|
322,831 |
|
Harris County Cultural Education Facilities Finance Corp., |
|
|
400 |
|
|
412,172 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
735,003 |
|
|
|
|
|
See Notes to Financial Statements. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANNUAL REPORT |
JULY 31, 2011 |
21 |
|
|
|
|
Schedule of Investments (concluded) |
BlackRock Investment Quality Municipal Income Trust (RFA) |
(Percentages shown are based on Net Assets) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Municipal Bonds Transferred to |
|
Par |
|
Value |
|
||
Virginia 1.0% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fairfax County IDA Virginia, Refunding RB, Health Care, |
|
$ |
130 |
|
$ |
134,815 |
|
Wisconsin 1.8% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wisconsin Health & Educational Facilities Authority, |
|
|
240 |
|
|
240,830 |
|
Total
Municipal Bonds Transferred to |
|
|
|
|
|
8,286,843 |
|
Total
Long-Term Investments |
|
|
|
|
|
22,608,139 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Short-Term Securities |
|
Shares |
|
|
|
|
|
FFI Institutional Tax-Exempt Fund, 0.01% (c)(d) |
|
|
302,911 |
|
|
302,911 |
|
Total
Short-Term Securities |
|
|
|
|
|
302,911 |
|
Total Investments (Cost $22,054,261*) 172.5% |
|
|
|
|
|
22,911,050 |
|
Liabilities in Excess of Other Assets (4.4)% |
|
|
|
|
|
(590,195 |
) |
Liability for TOB Trust Certificates, Including |
|
|
|
|
|
(4,462,033 |
) |
AMPS, at Redemption Value (34.4)% |
|
|
|
|
|
(4,575,047 |
) |
Net Assets Applicable to Common Shares 100.0% |
|
|
|
|
$ |
13,283,775 |
|
|
|
|
|
* |
The cost and unrealized appreciation (depreciation) of investments as of July 31, 2011, as computed for federal income tax purposes, were as follows: |
|
|
|
|
|
Aggregate cost |
|
$ |
17,661,014 |
|
Gross unrealized appreciation |
|
$ |
995,029 |
|
Gross unrealized depreciation |
|
|
(203,713 |
) |
Net unrealized appreciation |
|
$ |
791,316 |
|
|
|
(a) |
When-issued security. Unsettled when-issued transactions were as follows: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
Counterparty |
|
Value |
|
Unrealized |
|
||
Bank of America Merrill Lynch |
|
$ |
204,296 |
|
$ |
3,031 |
|
National Financial Securities |
|
$ |
45,335 |
|
$ |
904 |
|
Piper Jaffray |
|
$ |
263,809 |
|
$ |
(68 |
) |
|
|
(b) |
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. |
|
|
(c) |
Investments in companies considered to be an affiliate of the Trust during the year, for purposes of Section 2(a)(3) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended, were as follows: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
Affiliate |
|
Shares
Held |
|
Net |
|
Shares
Held |
|
Income |
|
||||
FFI Institutional |
|
|
353,621 |
|
|
(50,710 |
) |
|
302,911 |
|
$ |
377 |
|
|
|
(d) |
Represents the current yield as of report date. |
|
|
|
Financial futures contracts sold as of July 31,2011 were as follows: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
Contracts |
|
Issue |
|
Exchange |
|
Expiration |
|
Notional |
|
Unrealized |
|
|||||
5 |
|
|
10-Year
US |
|
|
Chicago |
|
|
September |
|
$ |
613,037 |
|
$ |
(15,400 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Fair Value Measurements Various inputs are used in determining the fair value of investments and derivative financial instruments. These inputs are categorized 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 derivative financial instruments) |
|
|
|
|
The categorization of a value determined for investments and derivative financial instruments is based on the pricing transparency of the investment and derivative financial instrument and does not necessarily correspond to the Trusts perceived risk of investing in those securities. For information about the Trusts policy regarding valuation of investments and derivative financial instruments and other significant accounting policies, please refer to Note 1 of the Notes to Financial Statements. |
|
|
|
|
|
The following table summarizes the inputs used as of July 31, 2011 in determining the fair valuation of the Trusts investments and derivative financial instruments: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
Valuation Inputs |
|
Level 1 |
|
Level 2 |
|
Level 3 |
|
Total |
|
||||
Assets: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investments: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-Term |
|
|
|
|
$ |
22,608,139 |
|
|
|
|
$ |
22,608,139 |
|
Short-Term |
|
$ |
302,911 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
302,911 |
|
Total |
|
$ |
302,911 |
|
$ |
22,608,139 |
|
|
|
|
$ |
22,911,050 |
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
See above Schedule of Investments for values in each state or political subdivision. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
Valuation Inputs |
|
Level 1 |
|
Level 2 |
|
Level 3 |
|
Total |
|
||||
Derivative Financial |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest rate |
|
$ |
(15,400) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
(15,400 |
) |
|
|
|
|
2 |
Derivative financial instruments are financial futures contracts, which are valued at the unrealized appreciation/depreciation on the instrument. |
|
|
|
See Notes to Financial Statements. |
|
|
|
|
|
22 |
ANNUAL REPORT |
JULY 31, 2011 |
|
|
|
|
Schedule of Investments July 31, 2011 |
BlackRock Municipal Income Investment Trust (BBF) |
(Percentages shown are based on Net Assets) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Municipal Bonds |
|
Par |
|
Value |
|
||
Alaska 0.2% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Northern Tobacco Securitization Corp., RB, Asset Backed, |
|
$ |
330 |
|
$ |
217,797 |
|
California 14.7% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bay Area Toll Authority, Refunding RB, San Francisco Bay |
|
|
1,355 |
|
|
1,427,723 |
|
California Educational Facilities Authority, RB, University |
|
|
1,315 |
|
|
1,381,381 |
|
California Health Facilities Financing Authority, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Catholic Healthcare West, 6.00%, 7/01/39 |
|
|
890 |
|
|
932,765 |
|
St. Joseph Health System, 5.75%, 7/01/39 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grossmont Union High School District, GO, Election of |
|
|
1,910 |
|
|
1,782,183 |
|
Los Angeles Department of Airports, Refunding RB, |
|
|
2,725 |
|
|
2,765,493 |
|
Los Angeles Department of Water & Power, RB, Power |
|
|
1,750 |
|
|
1,807,295 |
|
San Diego Regional Building Authority California, RB, |
|
|
1,600 |
|
|
1,660,464 |
|
State of California, GO, Various Purpose, 6.00%, |
|
|
1,275 |
|
|
1,392,848 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13,150,152 |
|
Colorado 3.3% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
City & County of Denver Colorado, Refunding RB, |
|
|
1,810 |
|
|
1,847,666 |
|
Colorado Health Facilities Authority, Refunding RB, |
|
|
1,095 |
|
|
1,129,679 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,977,345 |
|
Delaware 1.4% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
County of Sussex Delaware, RB, NRG Energy, Inc., Indian |
|
|
1,230 |
|
|
1,239,532 |
|
District of Columbia 1.2% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
District of Columbia Water & Sewer Authority, RB, |
|
|
1,000 |
|
|
1,076,570 |
|
Florida 3.1% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Escambia County Health Facilities Authority, RB, Florida |
|
|
579 |
|
|
597,693 |
|
Village Center Community Development District, RB, |
|
|
1,795 |
|
|
1,547,990 |
|
Watergrass Community Development District, Special |
|
|
1,000 |
|
|
652,890 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,798,573 |
|
Georgia 3.7% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, Refunding RB, |
|
|
2,900 |
|
|
3,281,263 |
|
Illinois 15.1% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chicago Park District, GO, Harbor Facilities, Series C, |
|
|
1,105 |
|
|
1,130,514 |
|
City of Chicago Illinois, Refunding RB, General, Third Lien, |
|
|
2,955 |
|
|
3,252,007 |
|
County of Cook Illinois, GO, Refunding, Series A, 5.25%, |
|
|
1,685 |
|
|
1,750,159 |
|
Illinois Finance Authority, RB: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Navistar International, Recovery Zone, 6.50%, |
|
|
510 |
|
|
524,153 |
|
Rush University Medical Center Obligation Group, |
|
|
1,600 |
|
|
1,788,784 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Municipal Bonds |
|
Par |
|
Value |
|
||
Illinois (concluded) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Illinois Finance Authority, Refunding RB, Series A: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Carle Foundation, 6.00%, 8/15/41 |
|
$ |
1,000 |
|
$ |
1,008,970 |
|
Northwestern Memorial Hospital, 6.00%, 8/15/39 |
|
|
1,900 |
|
|
2,028,421 |
|
OSF Healthcare System, 6.00%, 5/15/39 |
|
|
990 |
|
|
1,006,800 |
|
Railsplitter Tobacco Settlement Authority, RB: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.50%, 6/01/23 |
|
|
690 |
|
|
714,874 |
|
6.00%, 6/01/28 |
|
|
195 |
|
|
200,821 |
|
State of Illinois, RB, Build Illinois, Series B, 5.25%, |
|
|
125 |
|
|
126,844 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13,532,347 |
|
Indiana 2.6% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indiana Municipal Power Agency, RB, Series B, 6.00%, |
|
|
2,210 |
|
|
2,345,539 |
|
Iowa 0.2% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Iowa Tobacco Settlement Authority, RB, Asset Backed, |
|
|
270 |
|
|
201,172 |
|
Kansas 1.9% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kansas Development Finance Authority, Refunding RB, |
|
|
1,600 |
|
|
1,718,784 |
|
Kentucky 4.2% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kentucky Economic Development Finance Authority, |
|
|
660 |
|
|
672,646 |
|
Louisville & Jefferson County Metropolitan Government |
|
|
1,500 |
|
|
1,620,405 |
|
Louisville/Jefferson County Metropolitan Government, |
|
|
1,450 |
|
|
1,455,002 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,748,053 |
|
Louisiana 0.8% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Louisiana Local Government Environmental Facilities & |
|
|
715 |
|
|
739,975 |
|
Maine 1.5% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maine Health & Higher Educational Facilities Authority, |
|
|
1,270 |
|
|
1,365,555 |
|
Maryland 1.1% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maryland EDC, Refunding RB, CNX Marine |
|
|
985 |
|
|
971,860 |
|
Massachusetts 2.0% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Massachusetts Health & Educational Facilities Authority, |
|
|
1,000 |
|
|
1,055,390 |
|
Massachusetts State College Building Authority, RB, |
|
|
750 |
|
|
788,062 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,843,452 |
|
Michigan 5.4% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kalamazoo Hospital Finance Authority, Refunding RB, |
|
|
1,665 |
|
|
1,660,388 |
|
Lansing Board of Water & Light Utilities, RB, Series A, |
|
|
915 |
|
|
969,497 |
|
Michigan State Building Authority, Refunding RB, |
|
|
1,000 |
|
|
1,053,650 |
|
Royal Oak Hospital Finance Authority Michigan, |
|
|
995 |
|
|
1,148,718 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,832,253 |
|
|
|
|
|
See Notes to Financial Statements. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANNUAL REPORT |
JULY 31, 2011 |
23 |
|
|
|
|
Schedule of Investments (continued) |
BlackRock Municipal Income Investment Trust (BBF) |
(Percentages shown are based on Net Assets) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Municipal Bonds |
|
Par |
|
Value |
|
||
Nevada 7.1% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
City of Las Vegas Nevada, GO, Limited Tax, Performing |
|
$ |
1,600 |
|
$ |
1,736,848 |
|
County of Clark Nevada, GO, Refunding, Transportation, |
|
|
1,400 |
|
|
1,455,048 |
|
County of Clark Nevada, RB, Series B, 5.75%, 7/01/42 |
|
|
3,075 |
|
|
3,191,143 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,383,039 |
|
New Jersey 2.9% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New Jersey State Housing & Mortgage Finance Agency, |
|
|
1,165 |
|
|
1,196,735 |
|
New Jersey Transportation Trust Fund Authority, RB, |
|
|
1,295 |
|
|
1,389,703 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,586,438 |
|
New York 8.5% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New York City Municipal Water Finance Authority, RB, |
|
|
385 |
|
|
408,404 |
|
New York City Transitional Finance Authority, RB, |
|
|
1,500 |
|
|
1,558,080 |
|
New York Liberty Development Corp., Refunding RB, |
|
|
605 |
|
|
622,285 |
|
New York State Dormitory Authority, ERB, Series B, |
|
|
3,250 |
|
|
3,409,998 |
|
Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Authority, RB, General, |
|
|
1,510 |
|
|
1,591,283 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7,590,050 |
|
North Carolina 2.6% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
North Carolina Medical Care Commission, RB, Novant |
|
|
2,735 |
|
|
2,324,941 |
|
Ohio 0.3% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Buckeye Tobacco Settlement Financing Authority, RB, |
|
|
295 |
|
|
238,646 |
|
Pennsylvania 4.4% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pennsylvania Economic Development Financing Authority, |
|
|
500 |
|
|
535,175 |
|
Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, RB, Sub-Series A: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.63%, 12/01/31 |
|
|
1,775 |
|
|
1,870,388 |
|
6.00%, 12/01/41 |
|
|
1,500 |
|
|
1,561,575 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,967,138 |
|
Puerto Rico 3.0% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Puerto Rico Sales Tax Financing Corp., RB, First |
|
|
2,605 |
|
|
2,670,412 |
|
Texas 17.8% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority, RB, Senior Lien, |
|
|
1,670 |
|
|
1,647,205 |
|
Conroe ISD Texas, GO, School Building, Series A, 5.75%, |
|
|
890 |
|
|
988,327 |
|
Harris County Health Facilities Development Corp., |
|
|
500 |
|
|
556,765 |
|
Houston Texas Hotel Occupancy, RB, Refunding, Series B, |
|
|
1,800 |
|
|
1,826,370 |
|
Lower Colorado River Authority, RB: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.75%, 5/15/28 |
|
|
810 |
|
|
860,269 |
|
5.50%, 5/15/33 |
|
|
2,000 |
|
|
2,113,526 |
|
North Texas Tollway Authority, RB: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Special Projects System, Series A, 5.50%, 9/01/41 |
|
|
1,670 |
|
|
1,772,154 |
|
System, First Tier, Series K-1 (AGC), 5.75%, 1/01/38 |
|
|
1,000 |
|
|
1,038,450 |
|
Tarrant County Cultural Education Facilities Finance Corp., |
|
|
1,905 |
|
|
1,996,992 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Municipal Bonds |
|
Par |
|
Value |
|
||
Texas (concluded) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Texas Private Activity Bond Surface Transportation Corp., |
|
$ |
2,980 |
|
$ |
3,140,145 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15,940,203 |
|
Virginia 1.2% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Virginia Public School Authority, RB, School Financing, |
|
|
1,000 |
|
|
1,121,760 |
|
Total Municipal Bonds 110.2% |
|
|
|
|
|
98,862,849 |
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Municipal
Bonds Transferred to |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
California 20.1% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
California Educational Facilities Authority, RB, University |
|
|
1,995 |
|
|
2,089,463 |
|
Grossmont Union High School District, GO, Election of |
|
|
2,400 |
|
|
2,389,056 |
|
Los Angeles Community College District California, GO: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Election of 2008, Series C, 5.25%, 8/01/39 |
|
|
2,630 |
|
|
2,764,787 |
|
Series A, 6.00%, 8/01/33 |
|
|
3,898 |
|
|
4,343,085 |
|
Los Angeles Unified School District California, GO, |
|
|
400 |
|
|
403,108 |
|
San Diego Public Facilities Financing Authority, |
|
|
4,214 |
|
|
4,433,493 |
|
University of California, RB, Series O, 5.75%, 5/15/34 |
|
|
1,500 |
|
|
1,622,010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
18,045,002 |
|
District Of Columbia 3.9% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
District of Columbia, RB, Series A, 5.50%, 12/01/30 |
|
|
1,395 |
|
|
1,555,662 |
|
District of Columbia Water & Sewer Authority, RB, |
|
|
1,799 |
|
|
1,912,421 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,468,083 |
|
Florida 8.4% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jacksonville Economic Development Commission, RB, |
|
|
7,490 |
|
|
7,544,153 |
|
Illinois 3.5% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Illinois Finance Authority, RB, University of Chicago, |
|
|
2,800 |
|
|
3,145,156 |
|
Nevada 5.5% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clark County Water Reclamation District, GO: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Limited Tax, 6.00%, 7/01/38 |
|
|
2,500 |
|
|
2,741,050 |
|
Series B, 5.50%, 7/01/29 |
|
|
1,994 |
|
|
2,167,536 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,908,586 |
|
New Hampshire 1.3% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New Hampshire Health & Education Facilities Authority, |
|
|
1,094 |
|
|
1,159,255 |
|
New Jersey 2.3% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New Jersey Transportation Trust Fund Authority, RB, |
|
|
2,000 |
|
|
2,037,040 |
|
New York 6.4% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New York City Municipal Water Finance Authority, RB: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fiscal 2009, Series A, 5.75%, 6/15/40 |
|
|
1,410 |
|
|
1,549,546 |
|
Series FF-2, 5.50%, 6/15/40 |
|
|
1,994 |
|
|
2,133,618 |
|
New York State Dormitory Authority, ERB, Series B, |
|
|
2,000 |
|
|
2,098,460 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,781,624 |
|
|
|
|
See Notes to Financial Statements. |
|
|
|
|
|
24 |
ANNUAL REPORT |
JULY 31, 2011 |
|
|
|
|
Schedule of Investments (concluded) |
BlackRock Municipal Income Investment Trust (BBF) |
(Percentages shown are based on Net Assets) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Municipal Bonds Transferred to |
|
Par |
|
Value |
|
||
Ohio 1.7% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
County of Allen Ohio, Refunding RB, Catholic Healthcare, |
|
$ |
1,560 |
|
$ |
1,565,351 |
|
South Carolina 2.1% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
South Carolina State Public Service Authority, RB, |
|
|
1,755 |
|
|
1,869,198 |
|
Texas 5.6% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
City of San Antonio Texas, Refunding RB, Series A, 5.25%, |
|
|
2,025 |
|
|
2,179,108 |
|
Harris County Cultural Education Facilities Finance Corp., |
|
|
2,750 |
|
|
2,833,682 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,012,790 |
|
Virginia 1.0% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fairfax County IDA Virginia, Refunding RB, Health Care, |
|
|
899 |
|
|
933,337 |
|
Wisconsin 1.9% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wisconsin Health & Educational Facilities Authority, |
|
|
1,680 |
|
|
1,685,810 |
|
Total
Municipal Bonds Transferred to |
|
|
|
|
|
57,155,385 |
|
Total
Long-Term Investments |
|
|
|
|
|
156,018,234 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Short-Term Securities |
|
Shares |
|
|
|
|
|
FFI Institutional Tax-Exempt Fund, 0.01% (c)(d) |
|
|
2,119,108 |
|
|
2,119,108 |
|
Total
Short-Term Securities |
|
|
|
|
|
2,119,108 |
|
Total Investments (Cost $153,371,320*) 176.2% |
|
|
|
|
|
158,137,342 |
|
Liabilities in Excess of Other Assets (3.9)% |
|
|
|
|
|
(3,523,166 |
) |
Liability for TOB Trust Certificates, Including |
|
|
|
|
|
(30,638,088 |
) |
AMPS, at Redemption Value (38.2)% |
|
|
|
|
|
(34,250,572 |
) |
Net Assets Applicable to Common Shares 100.0% |
|
|
|
|
$ |
89,725,516 |
|
|
|
|
|
* |
The cost and unrealized appreciation (depreciation) of investments as of July 31, 2011, as computed for federal income tax purposes, were as follows: |
|
|
|
|
|
Aggregate cost |
|
$ |
123,256,374 |
|
Gross unrealized appreciation |
|
$ |
6,336,567 |
|
Gross unrealized depreciation |
|
|
(2,072,637 |
) |
Net unrealized appreciation |
|
$ |
4,263,930 |
|
|
|
(a) |
When-issued security. Unsettled when-issued transactions were as follows: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Value |
|
Unrealized |
|
||
Bank of America Merrill Lynch |
|
$ |
1,365,555 |
|
$ |
20,257 |
|
Piper Jaffray |
|
$ |
1,826,370 |
|
$ |
(468 |
) |
|
|
(b) |
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. |
|
|
(c) |
Investments in companies considered to be an affiliate of the Trust during the year, for purposes of Section 2(a)(3) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended, were as follows: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
Affiliate |
|
Shares
Held |
|
Net |
|
Shares
Held |
|
Income |
|
||||
FFI Institutional |
|
|
4,963,552 |
|
|
(2,844,444 |
) |
|
2,119,108 |
|
$ |
3,536 |
|
|
|
(d) |
Represents the current yield as of report date. |
|
|
|
Financial futures contracts sold as of July 31, 2011 were as follows: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
Contracts |
|
Issue |
|
Exchange |
|
Expiration |
|
Notional |
|
Unrealized |
|
|||||
43 |
|
|
10-Year
US |
|
|
Chicago |
|
|
September |
|
$ |
5,268,348 |
|
$ |
(136,215 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Fair Value Measurements Various inputs are used in determining the fair value of investments and derivative financial instruments. These inputs are categorized in three broad levels for the financials 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 derivative financial instruments) |
|
|
|
|
The categorization of a value determined for investments and derivative financial instruments is based on the pricing transparency of the investment and derivative financial instrument and does not necessarily correspond to the Trusts perceived risk of investing in those securities. For information about the Trust s policy regarding valuation of investments and derivative financial instruments 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 July 31, 2011 in determining the fair valuation of the Trusts investments and derivative financial instruments: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
Valuation Inputs |
|
Level 1 |
|
Level 2 |
|
Level 3 |
|
Total |
|
||||
Assets: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investments: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-Term |
|
|
|
|
$ |
156,018,234 |
|
|
|
|
$ |
156,018,234 |
|
Short-Term |
|
$ |
2,119,108 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,119,108 |
|
Total |
|
$ |
2,119,108 |
|
$ |
156,018,234 |
|
|
|
|
$ |
158,137,342 |
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
See above Schedule of Investments for values in each state or political subdivision. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
Valuation Inputs |
|
Level 1 |
|
Level 2 |
|
Level 3 |
|
Total |
|
||||
Derivative Financial |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest rate |
|
$ |
(136,215 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
(136,215 |
) |
|
|
|
|
2 |
Derivative financial instruments are financial futures contracts, which are valued at the unrealized appreciation/depreciation on the instrument. |
|
|
|
|
See Notes to Financial Statements. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANNUAL REPORT |
JULY 31, 2011 |
25 |
|
|
|
|
Schedule of Investments July 31, 2011 |
BlackRock New Jersey Investment Quality Municipal Trust Inc. (RNJ) |
(Percentages shown are based on Net Assets) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Municipal Bonds |
|
Par |
|
Value |
|
||
New Jersey 141.3% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Corporate 15.5% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New Jersey EDA, RB, AMT (a): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Continental Airlines, Inc. Project, 7.00%, 11/15/30 |
|
$ |
925 |
|
$ |
925,472 |
|
Disposal Waste Management of New Jersey, |
|
|
500 |
|
|
539,545 |
|
New Jersey EDA, Refunding RB, New Jersey American |
|
|
175 |
|
|
176,829 |
|
Salem County Utilities Authority, Refunding RB, |
|
|
300 |
|
|
304,731 |
|
|