BLACKROCK INVESTMENT QUALITY MUNICIPAL TRUST, INC. (Form: N-CSR, Received: 07/06/2021 15:44:45)

Public Company
Executive or Fund
Manager¹

# Outside Public Boards²

Total # of Public Boards

Director A

Director B

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: 811-07354

Name of Fund:

BlackRock Investment Quality Municipal Trust, Inc. (BKN)

Fund Address:

100 Bellevue Parkway, Wilmington, DE 19809

Name and address of agent for service: John M. Perlowski, Chief Executive Officer, BlackRock Investment Quality Municipal Trust, Inc., 55 East 52^nd Street, New York, NY 10055

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (800) 882-0052, Option 4

Date of fiscal year end: 04/30/2021

Date of reporting period: 04/30/2021

Item 1 – Report to Stockholders

(a) The Report to Shareholders is attached herewith.


		APRIL 30, 2021



		2021 Annual Report

BlackRock Investment Quality Municipal Trust, Inc. (BKN)

BlackRock Long-Term Municipal Advantage Trust (BTA)

BlackRock Municipal Income Trust (BFK)

Not FDIC Insured • May Lose Value • No Bank Guarantee

The Markets in Review

Dear Shareholder,

The 12-month reporting period as of April 30, 2021 reflected a remarkable period of adaptation and recovery, as the global economy dealt with the implications of the coronavirus (or “COVID-19”) pandemic. As the period began, the response to the virus’s spread was well underway, and countries around the world felt the effect of economically disruptive countermeasures. Stay-at-home orders and closures of non-essential businesses were imposed in many parts of the world, workers were laid off, and unemployment claims spiked, causing a global recession.

As May 2020 began, stocks had just begun to recover from the lowest point following the onset of the pandemic. This recovery continued throughout the reporting period, as businesses continued re-opening and governments learned to adapt to life with the virus. Equity prices rose through the summer, fed by strong fiscal and monetary support and improving economic indicators. The implementation of mass vaccination campaigns and passage of an additional $1.9 trillion of fiscal stimulus further boosted stocks, and many equity indices neared or surpassed all-time highs late in the reporting period. In the United States, both large- and small-capitalization stocks posted a significant advance. International equities also gained, as both developed countries and emerging markets rebounded substantially.

The 10-year U.S. Treasury yield (which is inversely related to bond prices) had fallen sharply prior to the beginning of the reporting period, which meant bonds were priced for extreme risk avoidance and economic disruption. Despite expectations of doom and gloom, the economy expanded rapidly, stoking inflation concerns late in the reporting period, which led to higher yields and a negative overall return for most U.S. Treasuries. In the corporate bond market, support from the U.S. Federal Reserve (the “Fed”) assuaged credit concerns and led to substantial returns for high-yield corporate bonds, although investment-grade corporates declined slightly.

The Fed remained committed to accommodative monetary policy by maintaining near zero interest rates and by announcing that inflation could exceed its 2% target for a sustained period without triggering a rate increase. To stabilize credit markets, the Fed also continued purchasing significant quantities of bonds, as did other influential central banks around the world, including the European Central Bank and the Bank of Japan.

Looking ahead, while coronavirus-related disruptions have clearly hindered worldwide economic growth, we believe that the global expansion will continue to accelerate as vaccination efforts ramp up and pent-up consumer demand leads to higher spending. While we expect inflation to increase somewhat as the expansion continues, we believe the recent uptick owes more to temporary supply disruptions than a lasting change in fundamentals. The change in Fed policy also means that moderate inflation is less likely to be followed by interest rate hikes that could threaten the economic expansion.

Overall, we favor a positive stance toward risk, with an overweight in equities. We see U.S. and Asian equities outside of Japan benefiting from structural growth trends in technology, while emerging markets should be particularly helped by a vaccine-led economic expansion. While we are underweight overall on credit, global high-yield and Asian bonds present attractive opportunities. We believe that international diversification and a focus on sustainability can help provide portfolio resilience, and the disruption created by the coronavirus appears to be accelerating the shift toward sustainable investments.

In this environment, our view is that investors need to think globally, extend their scope across a broad array of asset classes, and be nimble as market conditions change. We encourage you to talk with your financial advisor and visit blackrock.com for further insight about investing in today’s markets.

Sincerely,

LOGO

Rob Kapito

President, BlackRock Advisors, LLC

LOGO

Rob Kapito

President, BlackRock Advisors, LLC


Total Returns as of April 30, 2021
	6-Month	12-Month
U.S. large cap equities (S&P 500® Index)	28.85%	45.98%
U.S. small cap equities (Russell 2000® Index)	48.06	74.91
International equities (MSCI Europe, Australasia, Far East Index)	28.84	39.88
Emerging market equities (MSCI Emerging Markets Index)	22.95	48.71
3-month Treasury bills (ICE BofA 3-Month U.S. Treasury Bill Index)	0.05	0.11
U.S. Treasury securities (ICE BofA 10-Year U.S. Treasury Index)	(6.26)	(7.79)
U.S. investment grade bonds (Bloomberg Barclays U.S. Aggregate Bond Index)	(1.52)	(0.27)
Tax-exempt municipal bonds (S&P Municipal Bond Index)	2.42	7.40
U.S. high yield bonds (Bloomberg Barclays U.S. Corporate High Yield 2% Issuer Capped Index)	7.98	19.57
Past performance is not an indication of future results. Index performance is shown for illustrative purposes only. You cannot invest directly in an index.


2		T H I S P A G E I S N O T P A R T O F Y O U R F U N D R E P O R T

Table of Contents


	Page
The Markets in Review		2
Annual Report:
Municipal Market Overview		4
The Benefits and Risks of Leveraging		5
Derivative Financial Instruments		5
Trust Summary		6
Financial Statements:
Schedules of Investments		15
Statements of Assets and Liabilities		40
Statements of Operations		41
Statements of Changes in Net Assets		42
Statements of Cash Flows		44
Financial Highlights		45
Notes to Financial Statements		48
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm		59
Investment Objectives, Policies and Risks		60
Automatic Dividend Reinvestment Plan		68
Trustee and Officer Information		69
Additional Information		72
Glossary of Terms Used in this Report		75


		3

Municipal Market Overview For the Reporting Period Ended April 30, 2021

Municipal Market Conditions

Municipal bonds posted strong total returns during the period despite a considerable rise in interest rates as the economy normalized from the pandemic-induced economic shutdown. The asset class benefited from favorable supply and demand dynamics and improved credit fundamentals amid considerable fiscal stimulus and a quicker-than-expected rebound in state and local government revenues. As a result, municipal bonds generated substantial excess returns versus duration-matched U.S. Treasuries and longer duration and lower credit quality strategies outperformed. Despite broad strength, the market contended with brief periods of volatility surrounding U.S. election uncertainty as well as a temporary valuation-based market correction in late February.


Technical support was strong throughout the period as robust demand outpaced supply. During the 12 months ended April 30, 2021, municipal bond funds experienced net inflows totaling $99 billion, with January producing the largest monthly net inflow on record (based on data from the Investment Company Institute). For the same period, the market absorbed $477 billion in issuance, materially elevated compared to the $417 billion issued during the prior 12-month period. However, taxable municipal issuance, which typically draws a different and unique buyer base, was proportionally elevated, making supply less onerous on the traditional tax-exempt market.		S&P Municipal Bond Index
		Total Returns as of April 30, 2021 6 months: 2.42% 12 months: 7.40%

A Closer Look at Yields


AAA Municipal Yield Curves		From April 30, 2020 to April 30, 2021, yields on AAA-rated 30-year municipal bonds decreased by 69 basis points (“bps”) from 2.28% to 1.59%, while 10-year rates decreased by 47 bps from 1.46% to 0.99% and five-year rates decreased by 66 bps from 1.09% to 0.43% (as measured by Thomson Municipal Market Data). As a result, the municipal yield curve bull steepened over the 12-month period with the spread between two- and 30-year maturities steepening by 12 bps, led by 34 bps of steepening between two- and 10-year maturities.
AAA Municipal Yield Curves		Consistent municipal outperformance has resulted in stretched valuations. After dislocating at the height of the pandemic, municipal-to-Treasury ratios posted all-time lows in February and remain well below historical averages.
		Financial Conditions of Municipal Issuers

The COVID-19 pandemic has been an unprecedented shock to the system impacting nearly every sector in the municipal market. Fortunately, most states and municipalities were in excellent fiscal health before the crisis, and the federal government is delivering another $350 billion injection. Direct state and local government aid will provide additional support to own-source government tax receipts, which have outperformed the dire predictions made in early 2020. Essential public services such as power, water, and sewer remain protected segments. State housing authority bonds, flagship universities, and strong national and regional health systems have absorbed the impact of the economic shock. While some segments still confront financial pressures, the combination of new federal stimulus and vaccine distribution is boosting economic activity and, consequently, increasing revenue receipts in these sectors as well. Critical providers (safety net hospitals, mass transit systems, airports) with limited resources may still experience fiscal strain, but the additional aid and the re-opening of the economy should support operating results in the second half of 2021. BlackRock anticipates that a small subset of the market, mainly non-rated stand-alone projects, will remain susceptible to credit deterioration. Again, however, ongoing vaccine distribution and consequent rebound in economic activity could reduce the number of potential defaults in riskier non-rated credits. While credit fundamentals have improved noticeably across the municipal space, BlackRock advocates careful credit selection as the market must still navigate near-term uncertainty.

The opinions expressed are those of BlackRock as of April 30, 2021 and are subject to change at any time due to changes in market or economic conditions. The comments should not be construed as a recommendation of any individual holdings or market sectors. Investing involves risk including loss of principal. Bond values fluctuate in price so the value of your investment can go down depending on market conditions. Fixed income risks include interest-rate and credit risk. Typically, when interest rates rise, there is a corresponding decline in bond values. Credit risk refers to the possibility that the bond issuer will not be able to make principal and interest payments. There may be less information on the financial condition of municipal issuers than for public corporations. The market for municipal bonds may be less liquid than for taxable bonds. Some investors may be subject to Alternative Minimum Tax (“AMT”). Capital gains distributions, if any, are taxable.

The S&P Municipal Bond Index, a broad, market value-weighted index, seeks to measure the performance of the U.S. municipal bond market. All bonds in the index are exempt from U.S. federal income taxes or subject to the AMT. Past performance is not an indication of future results. Index performance is shown for illustrative purposes only. It is not possible to invest directly in an index.


4		2 0 2 1 B L A C K R O C K A N N U A L R E P O R T T O S H A R E H O L D E R S

The Benefits and Risks of Leveraging

The Trusts may utilize leverage to seek to enhance the distribution rate on, and net asset value (“NAV”) of, their common shares (“Common Shares”). However, there is no guarantee that these objectives can be achieved in all interest rate environments.

In general, the concept of leveraging is based on the premise that the financing cost of leverage, which is based on short-term interest rates, is normally lower than the income earned by a Trust on its longer-term portfolio investments purchased with the proceeds from leverage. To the extent that the total assets of each Trust (including the assets obtained from leverage) are invested in higher-yielding portfolio investments, each Trust’s shareholders benefit from the incremental net income. The interest earned on securities purchased with the proceeds from leverage (after paying the leverage costs) is paid to shareholders in the form of dividends, and the value of these portfolio holdings (less the leverage liability) is reflected in the per share NAV.

To illustrate these concepts, assume a Trust’s Common Shares capitalization is $100 million and it utilizes leverage for an additional $30 million, creating a total value of $130 million available for investment in longer-term income securities. If prevailing short-term interest rates are 3% and longer-term interest rates are 6%, the yield curve has a strongly positive slope. In this case, a Trust’s financing costs on the $30 million of proceeds obtained from leverage are based on the lower short-term interest rates. At the same time, the securities purchased by a Trust with the proceeds from leverage earn income based on longer-term interest rates. In this case, a Trust’s financing cost of leverage is significantly lower than the income earned on a Trust’s longer-term investments acquired from such leverage proceeds, and therefore the holders of Common Shares (“Common Shareholders”) are the beneficiaries of the incremental net income.

However, in order to benefit Common Shareholders, the return on assets purchased with leverage proceeds must exceed the ongoing costs associated with the leverage. If interest and other costs of leverage exceed a Trust’s return on assets purchased with leverage proceeds, income to shareholders is lower than if a Trust had not used leverage. 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 amount of each Trust’s obligations under its respective leverage arrangement generally does not fluctuate in relation to interest rates. As a result, changes in interest rates can influence the Trusts’ NAVs positively or negatively. Changes in the future direction of interest rates are very difficult to predict accurately, and there is no assurance that a Trust’s intended leveraging strategy will be successful.

The use of leverage also generally causes greater changes in each Trust’s NAV, market price and dividend rates than comparable portfolios without leverage. In a declining market, leverage is likely to cause a greater decline in the NAV and market price of a Trust’s Common Shares than if the Trust were not leveraged. In addition, 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 the Trust to incur losses. The use of leverage may limit a Trust’s ability to invest in certain types of securities or use certain types of hedging strategies. Each Trust incurs expenses in connection with the use of leverage, all of which are borne by Common Shareholders and may reduce income to the Common Shares. Moreover, to the extent the calculation of each Trust’s investment advisory fees includes assets purchased with the proceeds of leverage, the investment advisory fees payable to the Trusts’ investment adviser will be higher than if the Trusts did not use leverage.

To obtain leverage, each Trust has issued Variable Rate Demand Preferred Shares (“VRDP Shares”) or Variable Rate Muni Term Preferred Shares (“VMTP Shares”) (collectively, “Preferred Shares”) and/or leveraged its assets through the use of tender option bond trusts (“TOB Trusts”) as described in the Notes to Financial Statements.

Under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), each Trust is permitted to issue debt up to 33 1/3% of its total managed assets or equity securities (e.g., Preferred Shares) up to 50% of its total managed assets. A Trust may voluntarily elect to limit its leverage to less than the maximum amount permitted under the 1940 Act. In addition, a Trust may also be subject to certain asset coverage, leverage or portfolio composition requirements imposed by the Preferred Shares’ governing instruments or by agencies rating the Preferred Shares, which may be more stringent than those imposed by the 1940 Act.

If a Trust segregates or designates on its books and records cash or liquid assets having a value not less than the value of a Trust’s obligations under the TOB Trust (including accrued interest), then the TOB Trust is not considered a senior security and is not subject to the foregoing limitations and requirements imposed by the 1940 Act.

Derivative Financial Instruments

The Trusts may invest in various derivative financial instruments. These instruments are used to obtain exposure to a security, commodity, index, market, and/or other assets without owning or taking physical custody of securities, commodities and/or other referenced assets or to manage market, equity, credit, interest rate, foreign currency exchange rate, commodity and/or other risks. Derivative financial instruments may give rise to a form of economic leverage and 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 instrument. The Trusts’ successful use of a derivative financial instrument depends on the investment adviser’s ability to predict pertinent market movements accurately, which cannot be assured. The use of these instruments may result in losses greater than if they had not been used, may limit the amount of appreciation a Trust can realize on an investment and/or may result in lower distributions paid to shareholders. The Trusts’ investments in these instruments, if any, are discussed in detail in the Notes to Financial Statements.


T H E B E N E F I T S A N D R I S K S O F L E V E R A G I N G / D E R I V A T I V E F I N A N C I A L I N S T R U M E N T S		5


Trust Summary as of April 30, 2021		BlackRock Investment Quality Municipal Trust, Inc. (BKN)

Investment Objective

BlackRock Investment Quality Municipal Trust, Inc.’s (BKN) (the “Trust”) investment objective is to provide high current income exempt from regular U.S. federal 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 that pay interest that is exempt from U.S. federal income taxes (except that the interest may be subject to the U.S. federal alternative minimum tax). 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 up to 20% of its assets in unrated securities that are deemed by the investment adviser to be of comparable quality. The Trust may invest directly in such securities or synthetically through the use of derivatives.

No assurance can be given that the Trust’s investment objective will be achieved.

Trust Information


Symbol on New York Stock Exchange		BKN
Initial Offering Date		February 28, 1993
Yield on Closing Market Price as of April 30, 2021 ($19.20)^(a)		4.25%
Tax Equivalent Yield^(b)		7.18%
Current Monthly Distribution per Common Share^(c)		$0.0680
Current Annualized Distribution per Common Share^(c)		$0.8160
Leverage as of April 30, 2021^(d)		39%

^(a)

Yield on closing market price is calculated by dividing the current annualized distribution per share by the closing market price. Past performance is not an indication of future results.

^(b)

Tax equivalent yield assumes the maximum marginal U.S. federal tax rate of 40.8%, which includes the 3.8% Medicare tax. Actual tax rates will vary based on income, exemptions and deductions. Lower taxes will result in lower tax equivalent yields.

^(c)

The distribution rate is not constant and is subject to change.

^(d)

Represents VMTP Shares and TOB Trusts as a percentage of total managed assets, which is the total assets of the Trust, including any assets attributable to VMTP Shares and TOB Trusts, minus the sum of its accrued liabilities. Does not reflect derivatives or other instruments that may give rise to economic leverage. For a discussion of leveraging techniques utilized by the Trust, please see The Benefits and Risks of Leveraging and Derivative Financial Instruments.

Market Price and Net Asset Value Per Share Summary


	04/30/21		04/30/20		Change			High		Low
Market Price	$	19.20	$	14.75		30.17	%	$	19.35	$	14.51
Net Asset Value		16.71		14.89		12.22			17.02		14.89

Market Price and Net Asset Value History for the Past Five Years

LOGO


6		2 0 2 1 B L A C K R O C K A N N U A L R E P O R T T O S H A R E H O L D E R S


Trust Summary as of April 30, 2021 (continued)		BlackRock Investment Quality Municipal Trust, Inc. (BKN)

Performance

Returns for the twelve months ended April 30, 2021 were as follows:


	Returns Based On
	Market Price			NAV
BKN^(a)(b)		36.51	%		17.68	%
Lipper General & Insured Municipal Debt Funds (Leveraged)^(c)		24.58			17.88

^(a)

All returns reflect reinvestment of dividends and/or distributions at actual reinvestment prices. Performance results reflect the Trust’s use of leverage.

^(b)

The Trust moved from a discount to NAV to a premium during the period, which accounts for the difference between performance based on market price and performance based on NAV.

^(c)

Average return. Returns reflect reinvestment of dividends and/or distributions at NAV on the ex-dividend date as calculated by Lipper.

Performance results may include adjustments made for financial reporting purposes in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.

Past performance is not an indication of future results.

More information about the Trust’s historical performance can be found in the “Closed End Funds” section of blackrock.com.

The following discussion relates to the Trust’s absolute performance based on NAV:

Despite rising U.S. Treasury yields, municipal bonds delivered strong returns in the 12-month period. (Prices and yields move in opposite directions.) When the period began in April 2020, the market was still suffering the dislocations caused by COVID-19. Tax-exempt bonds subsequently recovered off their pandemic-driven lows due to the release of multiple coronavirus vaccines, better-than-expected growth, improving municipal finances and robust investor demand. The prospect of substantial fiscal stimulus was an additional tailwind for the market. These factors fueled a decline in yield spreads versus U.S. Treasuries, leading to impressive gains for municipal debt.

Lower-quality bonds held by the Trust outperformed the broader market amid investors’ appetite for higher-yielding securities. Additionally, sectors that were hit the hardest in the sell-off of early 2020 generally delivered the best performance in the subsequent rebound. The Trust’s positions in health care, transportation and corporate-backed sectors performed well in this environment, as did lower-rated states such as New Jersey and Illinois. Tobacco and Puerto Rico issues also posted robust gains. The Trust’s use of leverage also helped returns by augmenting income and amplifying the effect of rising prices.

On the negative side, the Trust’s short-term pre-refunded bonds—while generating positive absolute returns—lagged the broader market due to their higher credit quality.

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.


T R U S T S U M M A R Y		7


Trust Summary as of April 30, 2021 (continued)		BlackRock Investment Quality Municipal Trust, Inc. (BKN)

Overview of the Trust’s Total Investments

SECTOR ALLOCATION


Sector^(a)(b)	04/30/21			04/30/20
County/City/Special District/School District		21	%		20	%
Health		16			16
Transportation		14			16
State		13			11
Utilities		10			12
Education		8			10
Housing		7			6
Tobacco		6			6
Corporate		5			3
Other		—	^(c)		—

CALL/MATURITY SCHEDULE


Calendar Year Ended December 31,^(a)(d)	Percentage
2021		5	%
2022		8
2023		5
2024		8
2025		3

CREDIT QUALITY ALLOCATION


Credit Rating^(a)(e)	04/30/21			04/30/20
AAA/Aaa		4	%		5	%
AA/Aa		36			36
A		28			28
BBB/Baa		14			13
BB/Ba		5			4
B		2			2
C		1			1
N/R^(f)		10			11

^(a)

Excludes short-term securities.

^(b)

For Trust compliance purposes, the Trust’s sector classifications refer to 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 the investment adviser. These definitions may not apply for purposes of this report, which may combine such sector sub-classifications for reporting ease.

^(c)

Rounds to less than 1% of total investments.

^(d)

Scheduled maturity dates and/or bonds that are subject to potential calls by issuers over the next five years.

^(e)

For financial reporting purposes, credit quality ratings shown above reflect the highest rating assigned by either S&P Global Ratings or Moody’s Investors Service, Inc. if ratings differ. These rating agencies are independent, nationally recognized statistical rating organizations and are widely used. Investment grade ratings are credit ratings of BBB/Baa or higher. Below investment grade ratings are credit ratings of BB/Ba or lower. Investments designated N/R are not rated by either rating agency. Unrated investments do not necessarily indicate low credit quality. Credit quality ratings are subject to change.

^(f)

The investment adviser evaluates the credit quality of unrated investments based upon certain factors including, but not limited to, credit ratings for similar investments and financial analysis of sectors and individual investments. Using this approach, the investment adviser has deemed certain of these unrated securities as investment grade quality. As of April 30, 2021 and April 30, 2020, the market value of unrated securities deemed by the investment adviser to be investment grade represents 2% and 2%, respectively, of the Trust’s total investments.


8		2 0 2 1 B L A C K R O C K A N N U A L R E P O R T T O S H A R E H O L D E R S


Trust Summary as of April 30, 2021		BlackRock Long-Term Municipal Advantage Trust (BTA)

Investment Objective

BlackRock Long-Term Municipal Advantage Trust’s (BTA) (the “Trust”) investment objective is to provide current income exempt from regular U.S. federal income tax. The Trust seeks to achieve its investment objective by investing, under normal market conditions, at least 80% of its assets in municipal obligations and derivative instruments with exposure to such municipal obligations, in each case that are expected to pay interest or income that is exempt from U.S. federal income tax (except that the interest may be subject to the U.S. federal alternative minimum tax). The Trust invests, under normal market conditions, primarily in long-term municipal bonds with a maturity of more than ten years at the time of investment and, under normal market conditions, the Trust’s municipal bond portfolio will have a dollar-weighted average maturity of greater than 10 years. The Trust may invest directly in such securities or synthetically through the use of derivatives.

No assurance can be given that the Trust’s investment objective will be achieved.

Trust Information


Symbol on New York Stock Exchange		BTA
Initial Offering Date		February 28, 2006
Yield on Closing Market Price as of April 30, 2021 ($13.20)^(a)		4.59%
Tax Equivalent Yield^(b)		7.75%
Current Monthly Distribution per Common Share^(c)		$0.0505
Current Annualized Distribution per Common Share^(c)		$0.6060
Leverage as of April 30, 2021^(d)		39%

^(a)

Yield on closing market price is calculated by dividing the current annualized distribution per share by the closing market price. Past performance is not an indication of future results.

^(b)

^(c)

The distribution rate is not constant and is subject to change.

^(d)

Represents VRDP Shares and TOB Trusts as a percentage of total managed assets, which is the total assets of the Trust, including any assets attributable to VRDP Shares and TOB Trusts, minus the sum of its accrued liabilities. Does not reflect derivatives or other instruments that may give rise to economic leverage. For a discussion of leveraging techniques utilized by the Trust, please see The Benefits and Risks of Leveraging and Derivative Financial Instruments.

Market Price and Net Asset Value Per Share Summary


	04/30/21		04/30/20		Change			High		Low
Market Price	$	13.20	$	10.92		20.88	%	$	13.21	$	10.84
Net Asset Value		13.31		11.20		18.84			13.43		11.20

Market Price and Net Asset Value History for the Past Five Years

LOGO


T R U S T S U M M A R Y		9


Trust Summary as of April 30, 2021 (continued)		BlackRock Long-Term Municipal Advantage Trust (BTA)

Performance

Returns for the twelve months ended April 30, 2021 were as follows:


	Returns Based On
	Market Price			NAV
BTA^(a)(b)		26.94	%		24.80	%
Lipper General & Insured Municipal Debt Funds (Leveraged)^(c)		24.58			17.88

^(a)

All returns reflect reinvestment of dividends and/or distributions at actual reinvestment prices. Performance results reflect the Trust’s use of leverage.

^(b)

The Trust’s discount to NAV narrowed during the period, which accounts for the difference between performance based on market price and performance based on NAV.

^(c)

Average return. Returns reflect reinvestment of dividends and/or distributions at NAV on the ex-dividend date as calculated by Lipper.

Performance results may include adjustments made for financial reporting purposes in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.

Past performance is not an indication of future results.

More information about the Trust’s historical performance can be found in the “Closed End Funds” section of blackrock.com.

The following discussion relates to the Trust’s absolute performance based on NAV:

The Trust benefited from its positions in bonds with maturities of 20 years and above, which outperformed the broader market. The Trust’s use of leverage, which enhanced portfolio income and amplified the impact of rising prices, was an additional contributor. Positions in lower-rated investment-grade bonds also performed particularly well, as did those rated below investment grade. At the sector level, holdings in state tax-backed, health care and tobacco issues generated robust returns. In the state-tax backed area, lower-rated issuers such as Illinois, New Jersey and Puerto Rico were especially strong performers. The Trust sought to manage interest rate risk using U.S. Treasury futures, which further contributed to results given that Treasury yields rose.

Conversely, the Trust’s positions in shorter duration debt, including pre-refunded securities, underperformed. (Duration is a measure of interest rate sensitivity.) Reinvestment risk remained a headwind since the proceeds from bonds that matured or were called needed to be reinvested at lower yields compared to those that were issued when yields were higher.


10		2 0 2 1 B L A C K R O C K A N N U A L R E P O R T T O S H A R E H O L D E R S


Trust Summary as of April 30, 2021 (continued)		BlackRock Long-Term Municipal Advantage Trust (BTA)

Overview of the Trust’s Total Investments

SECTOR ALLOCATION


Sector^(a)(b)	04/30/21			04/30/20
County/City/Special District/School District		21	%		19	%
Health		14			15
Transportation		13			16
Utilities		11			16
Education		11			8
State		10			8
Tobacco		9			11
Corporate		7			5
Housing		4			2

CALL/MATURITY SCHEDULE


Calendar Year Ended December 31,^(a)(c)	Percentage
2021		12	%
2022		5
2023		9
2024		6
2025		3

CREDIT QUALITY ALLOCATION


Credit Rating^(a)(d)	04/30/21			04/30/20
AAA/Aaa		3	%		3	%
AA/Aa		26			31
A		17			17
BBB/Baa		16			19
BB/Ba		8			9
B		5			4
C		1			1
N/R^(e)		24			16

^(a)

Excludes short-term securities.

^(b)

^(c)

Scheduled maturity dates and/or bonds that are subject to potential calls by issuers over the next five years.

^(d)

^(e)

The investment adviser evaluates the credit quality of unrated investments based upon certain factors including, but not limited to, credit ratings for similar investments and financial analysis of sectors and individual investments. Using this approach, the investment adviser has deemed certain of these unrated securities as investment grade quality. As of April 30, 2021 and April 30, 2020, the market value of unrated securities deemed by the investment adviser to be investment grade represents 3% and 2%, respectively, of the Trust’s total investments.


T R U S T S U M M A R Y		11


Trust Summary as of April 30, 2021		BlackRock Municipal Income Trust (BFK)

Investment Objective

BlackRock Municipal Income Trust’s (BFK) (the “Trust”) investment objective is to provide current income exempt from regular U.S. federal income tax. The Trust seeks to achieve its investment objective by investing primarily in municipal bonds that pay interest that is exempt from U.S. federal income taxes (except that the interest may be subject to the U.S. federal alternative minimum tax). The Trust invests, under normal market conditions, at least 80% of its assets in municipal bonds that are investment grade, or if unrated, deemed to be of comparable quality by the investment adviser, 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 Trust’s investment objective will be achieved.

Trust Information


Symbol on New York Stock Exchange		BFK
Initial Offering Date		July 31, 2001
Yield on Closing Market Price as of April 30, 2021 ($15.05)^(a)		4.66%
Tax Equivalent Yield^(b)		7.87%
Current Monthly Distribution per Common Share^(c)		$0.0585
Current Annualized Distribution per Common Share^(c)		$0.7020
Leverage as of April 30, 2021^(d)		38%

^(a)

Yield on closing market price is calculated by dividing the current annualized distribution per share by the closing market price. Past performance is not an indication of future results.

^(b)

^(c)

The distribution rate is not constant and is subject to change.

^(d)

Market Price and Net Asset Value Per Share Summary


	04/30/21		04/30/20		Change			High		Low
Market Price	$	15.05	$	12.14		23.97	%	$	15.62	$	12.03
Net Asset Value		14.74		12.91		14.18			15.07		12.91

Market Price and Net Asset Value History for the Past Five Years

LOGO


12		2 0 2 1 B L A C K R O C K A N N U A L R E P O R T T O S H A R E H O L D E R S


Trust Summary as of April 30, 2021 (continued)		BlackRock Municipal Income Trust (BFK)

Performance

Returns for the twelve months ended April 30, 2021 were as follows:


	Returns Based On
	Market Price			NAV
BFK^(a)(b)		30.10	%		19.81	%
Lipper General & Insured Municipal Debt Funds (Leveraged)^(c)		24.58			17.88

^(a)

All returns reflect reinvestment of dividends and/or distributions at actual reinvestment prices. Performance results reflect the Trust’s use of leverage.

^(b)

The Trust moved from a discount to NAV to a premium during the period, which accounts for the difference between performance based on market price and performance based on NAV.

^(c)

Average return. Returns reflect reinvestment of dividends and/or distributions at NAV on the ex-dividend date as calculated by Lipper.

Performance results may include adjustments made for financial reporting purposes in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.

Past performance is not an indication of future results.

More information about the Trust’s historical performance can be found in the “Closed End Funds” section of blackrock.com.

The following discussion relates to the Trust’s absolute performance based on NAV:

The Trust’s holdings in long-dated investment grade bonds performed well due to persistent investor demand, diminished supply, and waning credit concerns brought about by expectations for robust federal support for state and local municipalities. Positions in high yield securities (those rated below investment grade) also benefited from significant yield spread compression at a time of robust investor demand for yield.

At the sector level, holdings in tax-backed, transportation, health care and tobacco issues were strong performers. The Trust’s use of leverage, which enhanced portfolio income and amplified the impact of rising prices, was an additional contributor. The Trust sought to manage interest rate risk using U.S. Treasury futures, which was a modest detractor from performance late in the period.


T R U S T S U M M A R Y		13


Trust Summary as of April 30, 2021 (continued)		BlackRock Municipal Income Trust (BFK)

Overview of the Trust’s Total Investments

SECTOR ALLOCATION


Sector^(a)(b)	04/30/21			04/30/20
Transportation		21	%		22	%
State		19			9
Health		13			12
Utilities		13			22
County/City/Special District/School District		11			15
Tobacco		10			10
Corporate		6			4
Education		6			6
Housing		1			—	^(c)
Other		—	^(c)		—

CALL/MATURITY SCHEDULE


Calendar Year Ended December 31,^(a)(d)	Percentage
2021		12	%
2022		9
2023		6
2024		7
2025		3

CREDIT QUALITY ALLOCATION


Credit Rating^(a)(e)	04/30/21			04/30/20
AAA/Aaa		5	%		5	%
AA/Aa		32			29
A		28			25
BBB/Baa		17			22
BB/Ba		7			8
B		1			2
C		1			—
N/R^(f)		9			9

^(a)

Excludes short-term securities.

^(b)

^(c)

Rounds to less than 1% of total investments.

^(d)

Scheduled maturity dates and/or bonds that are subject to potential calls by issuers over the next five years.

^(e)

^(f)


14		2 0 2 1 B L A C K R O C K A N N U A L R E P O R T T O S H A R E H O L D E R S

Schedule of Investments

April 30, 2021

BlackRock Investment Quality Municipal Trust, Inc. (BKN)

(Percentages shown are based on Net Assets)


Security	Par (000)		Value

Municipal Bonds

Arizona — 6.2%
Arizona Health Facilities Authority, Refunding RB, Series A, 5.00%, 02/01/42	$	3,300	$	3,410,286
Arizona Industrial Development Authority, Refunding RB^(a)
Series A, 5.50%, 07/01/52		215		232,475
Series G, 5.00%, 07/01/47		430		477,782
Pinal County Electric District No.3, Refunding RB
4.75%, 07/01/21^(b)		680		684,998
4.75%, 07/01/31		3,070		3,091,981
Salt Verde Financial Corp., RB
5.00%, 12/01/32		1,095		1,450,755
5.00%, 12/01/37		4,885		6,787,170
University Medical Center Corp., Refunding RB, 6.00%, 07/01/21^(b)		1,600		1,614,880

				17,750,327

Arkansas — 2.5%
Arkansas Development Finance Authority, RB, AMT, 4.50%, 09/01/49^(a)		1,550		1,702,411
City of Benton Arkansas, RB, (AGM), 4.00%, 06/01/39		755		831,746
City of Fort Smith Arkansas Water & Sewer Revenue, Refunding RB, Subordinate, 4.00%, 10/01/40		1,250		1,393,587
City of Little Rock Arkansas, RB, 4.00%, 07/01/41		2,645		2,818,671
Pulaski County Public Facilities Board, RB, 5.00%, 12/01/42		465		513,416

				7,259,831

California — 14.0%
ABC Unified School District, GO, Series C, (NPFGC), 0.00%, 08/01/33^(c)		3,420		2,672,834
California Housing Finance, RB, M/F Housing, Series 2021-1, Class A, 3.50%, 11/20/35		734		853,597
California Infrastructure & Economic Development Bank, Refunding RB, Series A, 4.00%, 11/01/45		3,330		3,530,033
California Statewide Communities Development Authority, Refunding RB, Series A, 4.00%, 12/01/53		725		760,561
Carlsbad Unified School District, GO, CAB, Series B, 6.00%, 05/01/34		1,500		1,745,370
Golden State Tobacco Securitization Corp., Refunding RB
Series A-1, 3.50%, 06/01/36		990		1,010,265
Series A-2, 5.00%, 06/01/47		830		857,971
Hartnell Community College District, GO, CAB,
Series D, 7.00%, 08/01/34^(d)		2,475		3,161,515
Norman Y Mineta San Jose International Airport SJC, Refunding RB, Series A, AMT, (BAM), 4.00%, 03/01/42		2,460		2,734,930
Norwalk-La Mirada Unified School District, Refunding GO, CAB, Series E, (AGC), 0.00%, 08/01/38^(c)		12,000		7,538,880
Palomar Community College District, GO, CAB
Series B, 0.00%, 08/01/30^(c)		2,270		2,036,576
Series B, 6.20%, 08/01/39^(d)		4,000		5,114,800
San Diego Community College District, GO, CAB, 6.00%, 08/01/33		4,200		5,513,298


Security	Par (000)		Value
California (continued)
State of California, Refunding GO
5.00%, 02/01/38	$	2,000	$	2,161,400
4.00%, 10/01/44		510		558,991

				40,251,021

Colorado — 0.5%
Colorado Educational & Cultural Facilities Authority, Refunding RB, Series A, Class A, 5.00%, 10/01/59^(a)		970		1,040,820
Colorado Health Facilities Authority, Refunding RB, Series A, 4.00%, 08/01/49		295		332,580

				1,373,400

Connecticut — 1.1%
Connecticut Housing Finance Authority, Refunding RB, M/F Housing, Series E-1, 3.25%, 11/15/54		550		576,329
Connecticut State Health & Educational Facilities
Authority, Refunding RB
Series A, 4.00%, 07/01/41		1,450		1,635,759
Series F, 5.00%, 07/01/21^(b)		950		957,324

				3,169,412

District of Columbia — 0.9%
Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority Dulles Toll Road Revenue, Refunding RB, Series A, 5.00%, 10/01/53		2,505		2,595,205


Florida — 8.1%
Capital Trust Agency, Inc., RB, Series A, 5.00%, 06/15/49^(a)		100		106,196
City of Tampa Florida, RB, CAB^(c)
Series A, 0.00%, 09/01/49		465		166,679
Series A, 0.00%, 09/01/53		500		148,995
County of Miami-Dade Florida Aviation Revenue, Refunding ARB, Series A, AMT, 5.00%, 10/01/38		365		422,929
County of Miami-Dade Florida, RB, CAB ^(c)0.00%, 10/01/32		5,000		3,853,250
0.00%, 10/01/33		15,375		11,433,465
County of Miami-Dade Seaport Department, ARB, Series B, AMT, 6.00%, 10/01/32		3,000		3,374,130
County of Osceola Florida Transportation Revenue, Refunding RB, CAB^(c)
Series A-2, 0.00%, 10/01/41		445		237,274
Series A-2, 0.00%, 10/01/42		595		304,682
Series A-2, 0.00%, 10/01/43		540		265,702
Series A-2, 0.00%, 10/01/44		550		260,485
Series A-2, 0.00%, 10/01/45		465		211,961
Escambia County Health Facilities Authority, Refunding RB, 4.00%, 08/15/45		1,000		1,146,260
Greater Orlando Aviation Authority, ARB, Sub-Series A, AMT, 5.00%, 10/01/52		1,130		1,327,219
Palm Beach County Health Facilities Authority, RB, Series B, 5.00%, 11/15/42		125		150,129

				23,409,356

Georgia — 0.7%
George L Smith II Congress Center Authority, RB, 4.00%, 01/01/54		245		277,017
Main Street Natural Gas, Inc., RB, Series A, 5.00%, 05/15/43		525		631,181


S C H E D U L E O F I N V E S T M E N T S		15

Schedule of Investments (continued)

April 30, 2021

BlackRock Investment Quality Municipal Trust, Inc. (BKN)

(Percentages shown are based on Net Assets)


Security	Par (000)		Value

Georgia (continued)
Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, RB
4.00%, 01/01/49	$	415	$	467,580
5.00%, 01/01/56		565		674,237

				2,050,015

Hawaii — 1.3%
State of Hawaii Department of Budget & Finance, Refunding RB
5.25%, 11/15/37		600		638,160
AMT, 4.00%, 03/01/37		2,770		3,050,878

				3,689,038

Idaho — 1.2%
Idaho Health Facilities Authority, RB, Series A, 5.00%, 03/01/39		3,000		3,352,110


Illinois — 7.4%
Chicago Board of Education, GO
Series C, 5.25%, 12/01/35		1,235		1,373,184
Series D, 5.00%, 12/01/46		1,635		1,782,043
Series H, 5.00%, 12/01/36		375		440,010
Chicago Board of Education, Refunding GO
Series C, 5.00%, 12/01/25		550		641,707
Series C, 5.00%, 12/01/34		370		436,966
Series D, 5.00%, 12/01/26		675		803,858
Series F, 5.00%, 12/01/22		505		539,628
Chicago Midway International Airport, Refunding ARB, Series A, 2nd Lien, AMT, 5.00%, 01/01/41		1,900		2,099,139
Chicago O’Hare International Airport, Refunding RB, Series B, AMT, 4.00%, 01/01/29		2,400		2,456,160
Chicago Transit Authority Sales Tax Receipts Fund, RB, 5.25%, 12/01/21^(b)		1,000		1,029,320
Illinois Housing Development Authority, RB, S/F Housing, Series A, (FHLMC, FNMA, GNMA), 4.13%, 10/01/38		715		801,436
Metropolitan Pier & Exposition Authority, RB, Series A, 5.00%, 06/15/57		590		689,374
Metropolitan Pier & Exposition Authority, Refunding RB, 4.00%, 06/15/50		455		506,947
Railsplitter Tobacco Settlement Authority, RB, 6.00%, 06/01/21^(b)		1,700		1,707,429
State of Illinois, GO
5.00%, 02/01/39		1,000		1,081,150
5.50%, 05/01/39		1,610		2,049,321
Series A, 5.00%, 04/01/38		200		211,650
Series D, 5.00%, 11/01/28		1,585		1,897,039
Upper Illinois River Valley Development Authority, Refunding RB, 5.00%, 01/01/55^(a)		610		643,483

				21,189,844

Iowa — 0.8%
Iowa Finance Authority, Refunding RB, Series B, 5.25%, 12/01/50^(e)		2,050		2,237,595


Kansas — 1.0%
City of Lenexa Kansas, Refunding RB, Series A, 5.00%, 05/15/39		640		699,552
Kansas City Industrial Development Authority, ARB, AMT, (AGM), 4.00%, 03/01/57		1,015		1,164,286
Seward County Unified School District No.480 Liberal, Refunding GO, 5.00%, 09/01/39		1,085		1,154,191

				3,018,029


Security	Par (000)		Value

Kentucky — 6.0%
County of Boyle, Refunding RB, 5.00%, 06/01/37	$	2,000	$	2,384,320
Kentucky Economic Development Finance Authority, RB, Series A, 5.38%, 01/01/23^(b)		3,400		3,694,542
Kentucky Economic Development Finance Authority, Refunding RB, Series B, (NPFGC), 0.00%, 10/01/23^(c)		8,500		8,396,215
Kentucky Public Transportation Infrastructure Authority, RB, CAB^(d)
Series C, 6.45%, 07/01/34		1,000		1,196,330
Series C, 6.60%, 07/01/39		1,395		1,655,823

				17,327,230

Louisiana^(b)— 0.9%
City of Alexandria Louisiana Utilities Revenue, RB, 5.00%, 05/01/24		1,790		2,045,469
Louisiana Public Facilities Authority, RB, 6.50%, 05/01/21		600		600,000

				2,645,469

Maine — 0.2%
Maine State Housing Authority, RB, S/F Housing, Series C, 3.95%, 11/15/43		505		563,514


Maryland — 0.2%
Anne Arundel County Consolidated Special Taxing District, ST
5.13%, 07/01/36		260		268,601
5.25%, 07/01/44		260		266,892

				535,493

Massachusetts — 2.3%
Massachusetts Development Finance Agency, RB
Series A, 5.25%, 01/01/42		900		1,061,622
Series A, 5.00%, 01/01/47		1,010		1,164,358
Massachusetts Development Finance Agency, Refunding RB
4.00%, 07/01/39		1,375		1,545,005
5.00%, 04/15/40		600		647,094
Series A, 4.00%, 06/01/49		235		264,182
Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency, RB, M/F Housing
Series A, 3.85%, 06/01/46		35		38,116
Series C-1, 2.90%, 12/01/39		365		386,568
Series D-1, 2.55%, 12/01/50		440		442,979
Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency, Refunding RB, S/F Housing, Series 182, AMT, 3.30%, 12/01/28		1,000		1,073,880

				6,623,804

Michigan — 4.1%
Michigan Finance Authority, RB, Series C-2, AMT, Senior Lien, 5.00%, 07/01/22^(b)		360		379,224
Michigan Finance Authority, Refunding RB, 4.00%, 11/15/46		900		993,204
Michigan State Hospital Finance Authority, Refunding RB, Series C, 4.00%, 06/01/22^(b)		4,150		4,319,320
Michigan State Housing Development Authority, RB, M/F Housing, Series A-1, 3.35%, 10/01/49		3,245		3,443,399
Michigan State Housing Development Authority, RB, S/F Housing
Series A, 4.00%, 06/01/49		750		794,363
Series B, 2.95%, 12/01/39		375		392,921
Michigan Strategic Fund, RB, AMT, 5.00%, 12/31/43		1,250		1,509,400

				11,831,831


16		2 0 2 1 B L A C K R O C K A N N U A L R E P O R T T O S H A R E H O L D E R S

Schedule of Investments (continued)

April 30, 2021

BlackRock Investment Quality Municipal Trust, Inc. (BKN)

(Percentages shown are based on Net Assets)


Security	Par (000)		Value

Minnesota — 1.5%
City of Otsego, Refunding RB, Series A, 5.00%, 09/01/44	$	700	$	732,193
City of Spring Lake Park Minnesota, RB, 5.00%, 06/15/39		1,760		1,949,165
Housing & Redevelopment Authority of The City of St. Paul Minnesota, RB, Series A, 5.50%, 07/01/52^(a)		305		333,481
Minneapolis-St Paul Metropolitan Airports Commission, Refunding RB, Sub Series D, AMT, 5.00%, 01/01/41		460		541,613
Minnesota Higher Education Facilities Authority, RB, Series 8-K, 4.00%, 03/01/43		615		656,980

				4,213,432

Mississippi — 0.2%
County of Warren Mississippi, RB, Series A, 5.38%, 12/01/35		600		616,608


Missouri — 2.6%
Health & Educational Facilities Authority of the State of Missouri, RB
5.25%, 10/01/21^(b)		500		509,960
4.13%, 02/15/43		700		716,856
Series A, 5.00%, 10/01/23^(b)		750		832,837
Series A, 5.00%, 06/01/42		860		1,034,675
Series A, 5.00%, 06/01/47		1,230		1,468,915
Series C-2, 5.00%, 10/01/34		1,500		1,657,350
Missouri Development Finance Board, RB, Series B, 5.00%, 11/01/41		1,350		1,376,919

				7,597,512

Nebraska — 1.7%
Central Plains Energy Project, RB, 5.00%, 09/01/42		900		955,125
Douglas County Hospital Authority No.3, Refunding RB, 5.00%, 11/01/45		600		696,660
Nebraska Public Power District, Refunding RB
Series A, 5.00%, 01/01/32		2,535		2,615,587
Series A, 4.00%, 01/01/44		600		611,347

				4,878,719

Nevada — 0.6%
County of Clark Department of Aviation, Refunding RB, Series A-2, Sub Lien, 4.25%, 07/01/36		1,500		1,664,520
Nevada Department of Business & Industry, RB, Series A, 5.00%, 07/15/37^(a)		125		136,324

				1,800,844

New Hampshire^(a)— 0.3%
New Hampshire Business Finance Authority, Refunding RB
Series B, 4.63%, 11/01/42		505		525,170
Series C, AMT, 4.88%, 11/01/42		220		229,928

				755,098

New Jersey — 9.2%
Middlesex County Improvement Authority, RB, Series B, 6.25%, 01/01/37^(f)(g)		1,510		30,200
New Jersey Economic Development Authority, RB
Series B, 4.50%, 06/15/40		1,930		2,261,285
Series DDD, 5.00%, 06/15/42		160		188,742
AMT, (AGM), 5.13%, 07/01/42		300		330,750
Series B, AMT, 5.63%, 11/15/30		990		1,117,225
New Jersey Health Care Facilities Financing Authority, Refunding RB
Series A, 4.63%, 07/01/21^(b)		770		775,482
Series A, 5.63%, 07/01/21^(b)		2,560		2,582,298


Security	Par (000)		Value

New Jersey (continued)
New Jersey Health Care Facilities Financing Authority, Refunding RB (continued)
Series A, 5.00%, 07/01/25	$	500	$	527,945
New Jersey Higher Education Student Assistance Authority, RB, Series B, AMT, 3.50%, 12/01/39		1,120		1,187,917
New Jersey Higher Education Student Assistance Authority, Refunding RB, Series B, AMT, 3.25%, 12/01/39		1,970		2,045,628
New Jersey Transportation Trust Fund Authority, RB
Series A, 5.00%, 06/15/42		395		413,411
Series AA, 5.00%, 06/15/38		290		323,678
Series AA, 5.00%, 06/15/45		2,055		2,396,440
Series AA, 5.00%, 06/15/46		600		676,248
Series AA, 3.00%, 06/15/50		210		215,840
Series B, 5.50%, 06/15/31		2,000		2,011,900
New Jersey Transportation Trust Fund Authority, RB, CAB, Series A, 0.00%, 12/15/35^(c)		1,600		1,121,056
New Jersey Transportation Trust Fund Authority, Refunding RB
4.00%, 12/15/39		820		938,736
Series A, 5.00%, 12/15/36		240		292,994
New Jersey Turnpike Authority, RB, Series E, 5.00%, 01/01/45		820		941,032
South Jersey Transportation Authority, RB, Series A, 4.00%, 11/01/50		455		521,425
Tobacco Settlement Financing Corp., Refunding RB, Sub-Series B, 5.00%, 06/01/46		4,770		5,590,631

				26,490,863

New Mexico — 0.3%
New Mexico Hospital Equipment Loan Council, Refunding RB, Series VIC, 5.00%, 08/01/44		680		784,897


New York — 6.7%
Erie Tobacco Asset Securitization Corp., Refunding RB, Series A, 5.00%, 06/01/45		1,825		1,840,713
Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Refunding RB
Series A, 5.00%, 11/15/41		30		31,887
Series C-1, 4.75%, 11/15/45		1,700		2,044,845
Series C-1, 5.00%, 11/15/50		550		670,554
Series C-1, 5.25%, 11/15/55		810		1,003,606
Series C-1, 5.00%, 11/15/56		320		369,174
Series D, 5.00%, 11/15/31		650		784,576
New York City Housing Development Corp., RB, M/F Housing, Series I-1, 2.55%, 11/01/45		1,940		1,944,404
New York Counties Tobacco Trust IV, Refunding RB, Series A, 6.25%, 06/01/41^(a)		1,400		1,421,042
New York Counties Tobacco Trust VI, Refunding RB, Series C, 4.00%, 06/01/51		1,000		1,010,230
New York Liberty Development Corp., Refunding RB, Series 2, Class 2, 5.15%, 11/15/34^(a)		640		715,418
New York Power Authority, Refunding RB, Series A, 4.00%, 11/15/60		350		404,632
New York State Housing Finance Agency, RB, M/F Housing, Series L-1, (SONYMA), 2.50%, 11/01/45		2,635		2,663,221
New York Transportation Development Corp., RB
AMT, 5.00%, 10/01/35		315		398,371
AMT, 5.00%, 10/01/40		900		1,119,492
Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, Refunding ARB Consolidated, 186th Series, AMT, 5.00%, 10/15/36		470		537,986


S C H E D U L E O F I N V E S T M E N T S		17

Schedule of Investments (continued)

April 30, 2021

BlackRock Investment Quality Municipal Trust, Inc. (BKN)

(Percentages shown are based on Net Assets)


Security	Par (000)		Value

New York (continued)
Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, Refunding ARB (continued)
Consolidated, 186th Series, AMT, 5.00%, 10/15/44	$	950	$	1,081,755
Westchester Tobacco Asset Securitization Corp., Refunding RB, Sub-Series C, 5.13%, 06/01/51		1,160		1,290,245

				19,332,151

North Carolina — 0.3%
North Carolina Medical Care Commission, RB, 4.00%, 11/01/52		630		723,568


North Dakota — 0.3%
County of Burleigh North Dakota, Refunding RB, Series A, 5.00%, 07/01/21^(b)		720		725,566


Ohio — 4.3%
Buckeye Tobacco Settlement Financing Authority, Refunding RB, Series B-2, Class 2, 5.00%, 06/01/55		3,800		4,268,274
City of Dayton Ohio Airport Revenue, Refunding RB, Series A, AMT, (AGM), 4.00%, 12/01/32		3,000		3,101,670
County of Montgomery Ohio, Refunding RB, 4.00%, 11/15/42		1,050		1,184,117
Ohio Air Quality Development Authority, RB, AMT, 5.00%, 07/01/49^(a)		650		719,784
Ohio Housing Finance Agency, RB, S/F Housing, Series A, (FHLMC, FNMA, GNMA), 4.00%, 09/01/48		35		38,134
State of Ohio, Refunding RB, Series A, 5.00%, 01/15/41		3,010		3,103,761

				12,415,740

Oklahoma — 0.9%
Oklahoma City Public Property Authority, Refunding RB
5.00%, 10/01/36		800		927,664
5.00%, 10/01/39		280		319,847
Oklahoma Development Finance Authority, RB, Series B, 5.50%, 08/15/52		680		830,722
Oklahoma Turnpike Authority, RB, Series A, 4.00%, 01/01/48		420		471,315

				2,549,548

Oregon — 1.4%
Oregon Health & Science University, RB, Series A, 4.00%, 07/01/37		575		658,916
Oregon State Facilities Authority, Refunding RB, Series A, 5.00%, 04/01/45		2,485		2,847,760
State of Oregon Housing & Community Services Department, RB, S/F Housing, Series C, 3.95%, 07/01/43		500		526,225

				4,032,901

Pennsylvania — 9.5%
City of Philadelphia Pennsylvania Airport Revenue, Refunding ARB, Series B, AMT, 5.00%, 07/01/35		575		684,440
Commonwealth Financing Authority, RB, (AGM), 4.00%, 06/01/39		2,785		3,178,075
Delaware River Port Authority, RB, 4.50%, 01/01/32		3,000		3,316,890
Mckeesport Area School District, Refunding GO, CAB, (FGIC, SAW), 0.00%, 10/01/31^(c)(h)		500		423,210
Montgomery County Higher Education and Health Authority, Refunding RB, Series A, 4.00%, 09/01/49		565		629,026


Security	Par (000)		Value

Pennsylvania (continued)
Pennsylvania Economic Development Financing Authority, RB
Series A-1, 4.00%, 04/15/50	$	780	$	898,747
AMT, 5.00%, 12/31/38		1,610		1,872,027
Pennsylvania Economic Development Financing Authority, Refunding RB, AMT, 5.50%, 11/01/44		810		856,640
Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency, RB, Series B, AMT, Subordinate, 3.00%, 06/01/47		155		147,845
Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency, RB, S/F Housing
Series 127B, 3.88%, 10/01/38		665		713,425
Series 128B, 3.85%, 04/01/38		1,505		1,669,692
Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, RB
Series C, 5.00%, 12/01/39		850		979,387
Series A, Subordinate, 4.00%, 12/01/49		710		811,239
Sub-Series A-1, Subordinate, 5.00%, 12/01/41		2,735		3,192,894
Pottsville Hospital Authority, Refunding RB, Series B, 5.00%, 07/01/45		2,000		2,382,480
School District of Philadelphia, Refunding GO, Series F, (SAW), 5.00%, 09/01/37		800		958,080
State Public School Building Authority, Refunding RB, Series A, (SAW), 5.00%, 06/01/34		3,825		4,619,797

				27,333,894

Puerto Rico — 5.9%
Children’s Trust Fund, Refunding RB
5.50%, 05/15/39		495		507,093
5.63%, 05/15/43		530		536,021
Puerto Rico Commonwealth Aqueduct & Sewer Authority, RB
Series A, Senior Lien, 5.00%, 07/01/33		2,145		2,236,012
Series A, Senior Lien, 5.13%, 07/01/37		615		641,679
Puerto Rico Sales Tax Financing Corp. Sales Tax Revenue, RB
Series A-1, Restructured, 4.75%, 07/01/53		1,593		1,768,501
Series A-1, Restructured, 5.00%, 07/01/58		6,444		7,239,254
Series A-2, Restructured, 4.33%, 07/01/40		861		941,090
Series A-2, Restructured, 4.78%, 07/01/58		1,459		1,624,232
Puerto Rico Sales Tax Financing Corp. Sales Tax Revenue, RB, CAB, Series A-1, Restructured, 0.00%, 07/01/46^(c)		4,827		1,522,001

				17,015,883

Rhode Island — 3.5%
Rhode Island Health and Educational Building Corp., Refunding RB, Series A, (AGM, GTD), 3.75%, 05/15/32		1,845		2,107,359
Rhode Island Student Loan Authority, RB, Series A, AMT, 3.63%, 12/01/37		1,565		1,665,598
Tobacco Settlement Financing Corp., Refunding RB
Series A, 5.00%, 06/01/40		1,000		1,117,990
Series B, 4.50%, 06/01/45		2,725		2,951,148
Series B, 5.00%, 06/01/50		2,000		2,235,460

				10,077,555

South Carolina — 1.9%
South Carolina Jobs-Economic Development Authority, RB, 5.00%, 01/01/55^(a)		755		768,303


18		2 0 2 1 B L A C K R O C K A N N U A L R E P O R T T O S H A R E H O L D E R S

Schedule of Investments (continued)

April 30, 2021

BlackRock Investment Quality Municipal Trust, Inc. (BKN)

(Percentages shown are based on Net Assets)


Security	Par (000)		Value

South Carolina (continued)
South Carolina Jobs-Economic Development Authority, Refunding RB, Series A, 5.00%, 05/01/38	$	1,895	$	2,292,609
South Carolina Public Service Authority, RB, Series E, 5.00%, 12/01/48		2,125		2,352,120

				5,413,032

Tennessee — 3.0%
Chattanooga Health Educational & Housing Facility Board, RB, Series A, 5.25%, 01/01/23^(b)		2,945		3,192,351
Chattanooga-Hamilton County Hospital Authority, Refunding RB, Series A, 5.00%, 10/01/44		875		955,990
Greeneville Health & Educational Facilities Board, Refunding RB, Series A, 4.00%, 07/01/40		615		686,297
Johnson City Health & Educational Facilities Board, RB, Series A, 5.00%, 08/15/42		1,200		1,262,004
Metropolitan Government Nashville & Davidson County Health & Educational Facilities Board, RB
Series A, 5.00%, 07/01/40		1,075		1,282,034
Series A, 5.00%, 07/01/46		945		1,123,038

				8,501,714

Texas — 8.4%
Brazos Higher Education Authority, Inc., RB, Series 1B, AMT, Subordinate, 3.00%, 04/01/40		105		99,967
Central Texas Turnpike System, RB
Series C, 5.00%, 08/15/37		1,970		2,223,657
Series C, 5.00%, 08/15/42		1,480		1,665,489
City of Houston Texas Airport System Revenue, Refunding RB, Sub-Series A, AMT, 4.00%, 07/01/47		310		351,661
Harris County-Houston Sports Authority, Refunding RB, CAB, Series A, Senior Lien, (AGM, NPFGC), 0.00%, 11/15/38^(c)		5,000		2,310,200
Leander Independent School District, Refunding GO, CAB^(c)
Series D, (PSF), 0.00%, 08/15/24^(b)		550		324,258
Series D, (PSF), 0.00%, 08/15/35		5,450		3,189,940
Midland County Fresh Water Supply District No.1, RB, CAB, Series A, 0.00%, 09/15/38^(c)		16,780		8,669,723
North Texas Tollway Authority, Refunding RB, 4.25%, 01/01/49		930		1,070,318
Red River Education Finance Corp., RB, 5.25%, 03/15/23^(b)		1,140		1,247,456
Tarrant County Cultural Education Facilities Finance Corp., RB, Series B, 5.00%, 07/01/35		440		550,664
Texas Department of Housing & Community Affairs, RB, S/F Housing, Series A, (GNMA), 4.25%, 09/01/43		300		333,336
Texas Municipal Gas Acquisition & Supply Corp. III, Refunding RB, 5.00%, 12/15/32		115		154,690
Texas Transportation Commission, RB, CAB^(c)
0.00%, 08/01/35		420		254,209
0.00%, 08/01/36		235		135,191
0.00%, 08/01/37		305		166,338
0.00%, 08/01/38		315		163,148
0.00%, 08/01/44		1,370		517,052
0.00%, 08/01/45		1,800		640,098

				24,067,395

Utah — 0.5%
Utah Charter School Finance Authority, Refunding RB 5.25%, 06/15/37^(a)		205		224,324


Security	Par (000)		Value

Utah (continued)
Utah Charter School Finance Authority, Refunding RB (continued)
4.00%, 04/15/42	$	600	$	639,768
5.38%, 06/15/48^(a)		260		281,988
Utah Housing Corp., RB, S/F Housing, Series D-2, Class III, 4.00%, 01/01/36.		375		404,411

				1,550,491

Vermont — 0.1%
Vermont Student Assistance Corp., RB, Series A, AMT, 4.25%, 06/15/32		335		352,229


Virginia — 2.0%
Ballston Quarter Community Development Authority, TA, Series A, 5.38%, 03/01/36		780		789,274
Tobacco Settlement Financing Corp., Refunding RB, Series B-1, 5.00%, 06/01/47		1,030		1,040,588
Virginia Housing Development Authority, RB, S/F Housing, Series E, 3.15%, 12/01/49		1,515		1,584,690
Virginia Small Business Financing Authority, RB
AMT, 5.00%, 01/01/48^(a)(e)		745		751,772
AMT, Senior Lien, 6.00%, 01/01/37		1,440		1,527,653

				5,693,977

Washington — 0.7%
King County Housing Authority, Refunding RB, 3.00%, 06/01/40		725		772,197
Port of Seattle Washington, ARB, Series A, AMT, 5.00%, 05/01/43		625		735,069
Washington Health Care Facilities Authority, Refunding RB, 5.00%, 09/01/55		470		586,020

				2,093,286

West Virginia — 0.3%
West Virginia Hospital Finance Authority, RB, Series A, 4.00%, 06/01/51		730		810,840


Wisconsin — 1.0%
Public Finance Authority, RB, Series A, 5.00%, 10/15/50^(a)		875		943,451
Public Finance Authority, Refunding RB, AMT, 4.00%, 08/01/35		435		437,010
WPPI Energy, Refunding RB, Series A, 5.00%, 07/01/37		1,330		1,514,790

				2,895,251


Total Municipal Bonds — 126.5% (Cost: $318,349,454)				363,595,518


Municipal Bonds Transferred to Tender Option Bond Trusts⁽ⁱ⁾

California — 0.5%
Los Angeles Unified School District, GO, Series B-1, 5.25%, 07/01/42^(j)		1,182		1,471,356

Colorado — 0.8%
City & County of Denver Colorado Airport System Revenue, Refunding ARB, Series A, AMT, 5.25%, 12/01/48^(j)		1,769		2,161,554


S C H E D U L E O F I N V E S T M E N T S		19

Schedule of Investments (continued)

April 30, 2021

BlackRock Investment Quality Municipal Trust, Inc. (BKN)

(Percentages shown are based on Net Assets)


Security	Par (000)		Value

Connecticut — 1.6%
Connecticut State Health & Educational Facilities Authority, Refunding RB, 5.00%, 12/01/45	$	3,902	$	4,657,654


District of Columbia — 0.8%
District of Columbia Housing Finance Agency, RB, M/F Housing, Series B-2, (FHA), 4.10%, 09/01/39		2,102		2,385,821


Florida — 1.6%
Greater Orlando Aviation Authority, ARB, Series A, AMT, 4.00%, 10/01/49		1,860		2,119,619
Pinellas County School Board, COP, Series A, 5.00%, 07/01/41		2,120		2,571,942

				4,691,561

Georgia — 0.6%
Georgia Housing & Finance Authority, Refunding RB, Series A, 3.70%, 06/01/49		1,561		1,732,344


Louisiana — 0.5%
State of Louisiana Gasoline & Fuels Tax Revenue, Refunding RB, Series A, 1st Lien, 4.00%, 05/01/41		1,200		1,333,608


Maryland — 1.2%
Maryland Stadium Authority, RB, 5.00%, 05/01/42		2,760		3,430,928


Massachusetts — 1.3%
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, GO, Series A, 5.00%, 01/01/46		3,018		3,737,060


Michigan — 1.9%
Michigan Finance Authority, RB, 4.00%, 02/15/47		2,759		3,159,751
Michigan State Housing Development Authority, RB, M/F Housing, Series A, 4.05%, 10/01/48		2,142		2,382,740

				5,542,491

Minnesota — 1.9%
State of Minnesota, RB, Series A, 5.00%, 06/01/38		5,000		5,467,750


Nebraska — 0.1%
Nebraska Investment Finance Authority, RB, S/F Housing, Series A, (FHLMC, FNMA, GNMA), 3.70%, 03/01/47		150		150,565


Nevada — 1.0%
County of Clark Nevada, GO, Series A, 5.00%, 06/01/38		2,311		2,874,232


New Jersey — 1.6%
New Jersey Transportation Trust Fund Authority, RB, Series B, 5.25%, 06/15/36^(j)		2,861		2,887,821
New Jersey Turnpike Authority, Refunding RB, Series G, 4.00%, 01/01/43		1,606		1,822,572

				4,710,393

New York — 9.0%
City of New York Water & Sewer System, RB, Series CC, 5.00%, 06/15/47		4,000		4,384,842
City of New York, Refunding GO, Series B, 4.00%, 08/01/32		1,600		1,765,248


Security	Par (000)		Value

New York (continued)
Hudson Yards Infrastructure Corp., RB
5.75%, 02/15/47^(j)	$	406	$	407,385
5.75%, 02/15/47		249		250,611
New York City Housing Development Corp., Refunding RB, Series A, 4.15%, 11/01/38		1,650		1,845,360
New York City Transitional Finance Authority Building Aid Revenue, RB, Series S-1, (SAW), 4.00%, 07/15/42^(j)		2,145		2,235,562
New York City Water & Sewer System, Refunding RB, Series BB, 4.00%, 06/15/47		6,000		6,332,400
New York Liberty Development Corp., ARB, 5.25%, 12/15/43		4,500		4,634,510
New York State Thruway Authority, Refunding RB, Series A, 5.00%, 03/15/31		2,360		2,401,489
Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, ARB, Series 221, AMT, 4.00%, 07/15/60		1,394		1,581,010

				25,838,417

Ohio — 0.7%
Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District, Refunding RB, 4.00%, 11/15/49^(j)		1,800		1,961,892


Pennsylvania — 1.3%
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, GO, 1st Series, 4.00%, 03/01/36^(j)		2,399		2,807,292
Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development, RB, Series A, 4.00%, 07/01/44		914		976,419

				3,783,711

Texas — 4.9%
Aldine Independent School District, Refunding GO, (PSF-GTD), 5.00%, 02/15/42		2,609		3,179,018
City of San Antonio Texas Electric & Gas Systems Revenue, RB, Junior Lien, 5.00%, 02/01/23^(b)		2,380		2,579,373
Houston Community College System, GO, 4.00%, 02/15/23^(b)		2,160		2,306,578
Howe Independent School District, GO, (PSF-GTD), 4.00%, 08/15/43		1,680		1,909,085
San Antonio Public Facilities Corp., Refunding RB, 4.00%, 09/15/42		1,409		1,462,541
Texas Department of Housing & Community Affairs, RB, S/F Housing
Series A, (GNMA), 3.63%, 09/01/44		698		763,103
Series A, (GNMA), 3.00%, 09/01/45		494		515,164
Series A, (GNMA), 3.75%, 09/01/49		383		418,375
Series A, (GNMA), 3.00%, 03/01/50		936		976,120

				14,109,357


20		2 0 2 1 B L A C K R O C K A N N U A L R E P O R T T O S H A R E H O L D E R S

Schedule of Investments (continued)

April 30, 2021

BlackRock Investment Quality Municipal Trust, Inc. (BKN)

(Percentages shown are based on Net Assets)


Security	Par (000)		Value

Washington — 0.9%
Washington Health Care Facilities Authority, Refunding RB, Series B, 4.13%, 08/15/43	$	2,213	$	2,452,770


Total Municipal Bonds Transferred to Tender Option Bond Trusts — 32.2% (Cost: $86,002,111)				92,493,464


Total Long-Term Investments — 158.7% (Cost: $404,351,565)				456,088,982


	Shares

Short-Term Securities

Money Market Funds — 2.6%
BlackRock Liquidity Funds, MuniCash, Institutional Class, 0.01%^(k)(l)		7,419,347		7,420,831


Total Short-Term Securities — 2.6% (Cost: $7,420,831)				7,420,831


Total Investments — 161.3% (Cost: $411,772,396)				463,509,813

Other Assets Less Liabilities — 1.4%				4,024,610

Liability for TOB Trust Certificates, Including Interest Expense and Fees Payable — (18.9)%.				(54,230,316	)

VMTP Shares at Liquidation Value — (43.8)%				(125,900,000	)


Net Assets Applicable to Common Shares — 100.0%			$	287,404,107

^(a)	Security exempt from registration pursuant to Rule 144A under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. These securities may be resold in transactions exempt from registration to qualified institutional investors.

^(b)	U.S. 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)	Zero-coupon bond.

^(d)	Step-up bond that pays an initial coupon rate for the first period and then a higher coupon rate for the following periods. Rate as of period end.

^(e)	Variable rate security. Interest rate resets periodically. The rate shown is the effective interest rate as of period end. Security description also includes the reference rate and spread if published and available.

^(f)	Issuer filed for bankruptcy and/or is in default.

^(g)	Non-income producing security.

^(h)	Security is collateralized by municipal bonds or U.S. Treasury obligations.

⁽ⁱ⁾	Represent bonds transferred to a TOB Trust in exchange of cash and residual certificates received by the Trust. These bonds serve as collateral in a secured borrowing. See Note 4 of the Notes to Financial Statements for details.

^(j)	All or a portion of the security is subject to a recourse agreement. The aggregate maximum potential amount the Trust could ultimately be required to pay under the agreements, which expire between July 15, 2021 to February 15, 2047, is $8,975,112.

See

Note 4 of the Notes to Financial Statements for details.

^(k) Affiliate of the Trust.

^(l) Annualized 7-day yield as of period end.

Affiliates

Investments in issuers considered to be affiliate(s) of the Trust during the year ended April 30, 2021 for purposes of Section 2(a)(3) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended, were as follows:


Affiliated Issuer	Value at 04/30/20		Purchases at Cost			Proceeds from Sales		Net Realized Gain (Loss)		Change in Unrealized Appreciation (Depreciation)			Value at 04/30/21		Shares Held at 04/30/21		Income		Capital Gain Distributions from Underlying Funds
BlackRock Liquidity Funds, MuniCash, Institutional Class	$	4,003,899	$	3,417,029	^(a)	$	—	$	429	$	(526	)	$	7,420,831		7,419,347	$	308	$	—

^(a)

Represents net amount purchased (sold).


S C H E D U L E O F I N V E S T M E N T S		21

Schedule of Investments (continued)

April 30, 2021

BlackRock Investment Quality Municipal Trust, Inc. (BKN)

Derivative Financial Instruments Outstanding as of Period End

Futures Contracts


Description	Number of Contracts		Expiration Date		Notional Amount (000)		Value/ Unrealized Appreciation (Depreciation)
Short Contracts
10-Year US Treasury Note		103		06/21/21	$	13,609	$	(56,168	)
U.S. Long Treasury Bond		49		06/21/21		7,708		(84,063	)

							$	(140,231	)

As of period end, the fair values of derivative financial instruments located in the Statements of Assets and Liabilities were as follows:


	Commodity Contracts		Credit Contracts		Equity Contracts		Foreign Currency Exchange Contracts		Interest Rate Contracts		Other Contracts		Total
Liabilities — Derivative Financial Instruments
Futures contracts
Unrealized depreciation on futures contracts^(a)	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	140,231	$	—	$	140,231

^(a)

Net cumulative unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on futures contracts and centrally cleared swaps, if any, are reported in the Schedule of Investments. In the Statements of Assets and Liabilities, only current day’s variation margin is reported in receivables or payables and the net cumulative unrealized appreciation (depreciation) is included in accumulated earnings (loss).

For the year ended April 30, 2021, the effect of derivative financial instruments in the Statements of Operations was as follows:


	Commodity Contracts		Credit Contracts		Equity Contracts		Foreign Currency Exchange Contracts		Interest Rate Contracts			Other Contracts		Total
Net Realized Gain (Loss) from
Futures contracts	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	562,315		$	—	$	562,315


Net Change in Unrealized Appreciation (Depreciation) on
Futures contracts	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	(140,231	)	$	—	$	(140,231	)

Average Quarterly Balances of Outstanding Derivative Financial Instruments


Futures contracts
Average notional value of contracts — short	$	7,458,844

For more information about the Trust’s investment risks regarding derivative financial instruments, refer to the Notes to Financial Statements.

Fair Value Hierarchy as of Period End

Various inputs are used in determining the fair value of financial instruments. For a description of the input levels and information about the Trust’s policy regarding valuation of financial instruments, refer to the Notes to Financial Statements.

The following tables summarize the Trust’s financial instruments categorized in the fair value hierarchy. The breakdown of the Trust’s investments into major categories is disclosed in the Schedule of Investments above.


	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
Assets
Investments
Long-Term Investments
Municipal Bonds	$	—	$	363,595,518	$	—	$	363,595,518
Municipal Bonds Transferred to Tender Option Bond Trusts		—		92,493,464		—		92,493,464
Short-Term Securities
Money Market Funds		7,420,831		—		—		7,420,831

	$	7,420,831	$	456,088,982	$	—	$	463,509,813


22		2 0 2 1 B L A C K R O C K A N N U A L R E P O R T T O S H A R E H O L D E R S

Schedule of Investments (continued)

April 30, 2021

BlackRock Investment Quality Municipal Trust, Inc. (BKN)

Fair Value Hierarchy as of Period End (continued)


	Level 1			Level 2		Level 3		Total
Derivative Financial Instruments^(a)
Liabilities
Interest Rate Contracts	$	(140,231	)	$	—	$	—	$	(140,231	)

^(a)

Derivative financial instruments are futures contracts. Futures contracts are valued at the unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on the instrument.

The Trust may hold assets and/or liabilities in which the fair value approximates the carrying amount for financial statement purposes. As of period end, such assets and/or liabilities are categorized within the fair value hierarchy as follows:


	Level 1		Level 2			Level 3		Total
Liabilities
TOB Trust Certificates	$	—	$	(54,214,390	)	$	—	$	(54,214,390	)
VMTP Shares at Liquidation Value		—		(125,900,000	)		—		(125,900,000	)

	$	—	$	(180,114,390	)	$	—	$	(180,114,390	)

See notes to financial statements.


S C H E D U L E O F I N V E S T M E N T S		23

Schedule of Investments

April 30, 2021

BlackRock Long-Term Municipal Advantage Trust (BTA)

(Percentages shown are based on Net Assets)


Security	Par (000)		Value

Municipal Bonds

Alabama — 2.5%
County of Jefferson Alabama Sewer Revenue, Refunding RB, Series D, Sub Lien, 6.00%, 10/01/42	$	1,655	$	1,906,643
Health Care Authority of the City of Huntsville, RB, Series B1, 4.00%, 06/01/45		395		456,888
Hoover Industrial Development Board, RB, AMT, 6.38%, 11/01/50^(a)		1,325		1,671,938
Tuscaloosa County Industrial Development Authority, Refunding RB^(b)
Series A, 4.50%, 05/01/32		180		202,952
Series A, 5.25%, 05/01/44		230		266,165

				4,504,586

Alaska — 0.6%
Northern Tobacco Securitization Corp., Refunding RB, Series A, 5.00%, 06/01/46		1,045		1,058,157


Arizona — 3.7%
Arizona Industrial Development Authority, Refunding RB^(b)
Series A, 5.13%, 07/01/37		360		402,905
Series A, 5.38%, 07/01/50		925		1,025,196
Series A, 5.50%, 07/01/52		855		924,494
Series G, 5.00%, 07/01/47		135		150,001
Industrial Development Authority of the City of Phoenix, RB
Series A, 5.00%, 07/01/33		870		893,855
Series A, 5.00%, 07/01/46^(b)		1,255		1,377,112
Industrial Development Authority of the City of Phoenix, Refunding RB, Series A, 5.00%, 07/01/35^(b)		125		137,010
Industrial Development Authority of the County of Pima, Refunding RB, 5.00%, 07/01/56^(b)		235		242,412
Maricopa County Industrial Development Authority, Refunding RB, Series A, 4.13%, 09/01/38		375		432,079
Salt Verde Financial Corp., RB, 5.00%, 12/01/37		725		1,007,308

				6,592,372

Arkansas^(b)— 2.8%
Arkansas Development Finance Authority, RB
AMT, 4.50%, 09/01/49		925		1,015,955
AMT, 4.75%, 09/01/49		3,570		4,012,395

				5,028,350

California — 3.5%
California County Tobacco Securitization Agency, Refunding RB, Series A, 5.00%, 06/01/47		140		141,403
California Municipal Finance Authority, RB, S/F Housing
Series A, 5.25%, 08/15/39		70		76,981
Series A, 5.25%, 08/15/49		175		190,778
California Public Finance Authority, RB, Series A, 6.25%, 07/01/54^(b)		850		972,748
California State Public Works Board, RB, Series I, 5.00%, 11/01/38		355		394,629
Golden State Tobacco Securitization Corp., Refunding RB, Series A-2, 5.00%, 06/01/47		535		553,029
Hastings Campus Housing Finance Authority, RB, CAB, Sub-Series A, 6.75%, 07/01/61^(b)(c)		830		455,712
San Francisco City & County Redevelopment Agency Successor Agency, TA, CAB, Series D, 0.00%, 08/01/31^(b)(d)		1,265		774,939


Security	Par (000)		Value

California (continued)
San Marcos Unified School District, GO, CAB, Series B, 0.00%, 08/01/38^(d)	$	3,725	$	2,523,911
Stockton Public Financing Authority, RB, Series A, 6.25%, 10/01/23^(e)		165		189,130

				6,273,260

Colorado — 2.7%
Centerra Metropolitan District No.1, TA, 5.00%, 12/01/47^(b)		275		288,373
Constitution Heights Metropolitan District, Refunding GO, 5.00%, 12/01/49		500		541,280
Denver Convention Center Hotel Authority, Refunding RB, 5.00%, 12/01/40		1,550		1,769,526
Pueblo Urban Renewal Authority, TA, 4.75%, 12/01/45^(b)		650		723,080
Rocky Mountain Rail Park Metropolitan District, GO, Series A, 5.00%, 12/01/41^(b)		500		543,960
Table Mountain Metropolitan District, GO, Series A, 5.25%, 12/01/21^(e)		977		1,015,191

				4,881,410

Connecticut^(b)— 0.7%
Connecticut State Health & Educational Facilities Authority, RB
Series A, 5.00%, 01/01/45		160		175,280
Series A, 5.00%, 01/01/55		210		227,905
Mohegan Tribe of Indians of Connecticut, Refunding RB, Series C, 6.25%, 02/01/30		860		885,559

				1,288,744

District of Columbia — 1.1%
District of Columbia, Refunding RB, Series A, 6.00%, 07/01/23^(e)		260		292,664
District of Columbia, TA, 5.13%, 06/01/41		750		752,752
Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority Dulles Toll Road Revenue, Refunding RB, Series B, Subordinate, 4.00%, 10/01/49		870		986,145

				2,031,561

Florida — 7.9%
Capital Region Community Development District, Refunding SAB
Series A-1, 5.13%, 05/01/39		210		233,266
Series A-2, 4.60%, 05/01/31		515		573,195
Capital Trust Agency, Inc., RB(b)
0.00%, 07/01/61^(d)		25,215		1,684,110
Series A, 5.75%, 06/01/54		450		477,436
Charlotte County Industrial Development Authority, RB^(b)
AMT, 5.00%, 10/01/34		120		135,593
AMT, 5.00%, 10/01/49		560		606,564
County of Osceola Florida Transportation Revenue, Refunding RB, CAB^(d)
Series A-2, 0.00%, 10/01/46		775		339,675
Series A-2, 0.00%, 10/01/47		745		314,435
Series A-2, 0.00%, 10/01/48		525		213,397
Series A-2, 0.00%, 10/01/49		435		170,211
Florida Development Finance Corp., RB(b)
5.25%, 06/01/55		525		584,346
Series A, AMT, 5.00%, 08/01/29^(a)		740		765,145
Series B, AMT, 7.38%, 01/01/49		1,195		1,240,780
Lakes of Sarasota Community Development District, SAB
Series A-1, 2.75%, 05/01/26		100		99,704
Series A-1, 3.90%, 05/01/41		285		287,836
Series B-1, 3.00%, 05/01/26		100		99,582
Series B-1, 4.13%, 05/01/41		200		202,174


24		2 0 2 1 B L A C K R O C K A N N U A L R E P O R T T O S H A R E H O L D E R S

Schedule of Investments (continued)

April 30, 2021

BlackRock Long-Term Municipal Advantage Trust (BTA)

(Percentages shown are based on Net Assets)


Security	Par (000)		Value

Florida (continued)
Lakes of Sarasota Community Development District, SAB (continued)
Series B-1, 4.30%, 05/01/51	$	100	$	100,897
Lakewood Ranch Stewardship District, SAB
4.00%, 05/01/21		54		53,750
4.25%, 05/01/26		100		104,797
5.13%, 05/01/46		375		400,642
Series 1B, 4.75%, 05/01/29		270		302,783
Series 1B, 5.30%, 05/01/39		310		354,934
Series 1B, 5.45%, 05/01/48		550		625,003
Mid-Bay Bridge Authority, RB, Series A, 7.25%, 10/01/21^(e)		1,080		1,111,558
Tolomato Community Development District, Refunding SAB, Series 2015-2, 6.61%, 05/01/40^(c)		310		223,188
Tolomato Community Development District, Refunding SAB, CAB, Series A-4, 6.61%, 05/01/40^(c)		120		114,742
Tolomato Community Development District, SAB ^(f)(g)
3rd Series, 6.65%, 05/01/40		275		3
Series 2015-1, 6.61%, 05/01/40^(c)		505		461,545
Series 2015-3, 6.61%, 05/01/40		340		3
Trout Creek Community Development District, SAB
5.00%, 05/01/28		160		177,064
5.50%, 05/01/49		570		635,772
Village Community Development District No.10, SAB, 5.13%, 05/01/43		735		763,489
West Villages Improvement District, SAB
4.75%, 05/01/39		220		240,964
5.00%, 05/01/50		450		492,480

				14,191,063

Georgia — 3.6%
Gainesville & Hall County Hospital Authority, Refunding RB, Series A, (GTD), 5.50%, 08/15/54		240		278,117
George L Smith II Congress Center Authority, RB, 4.00%, 01/01/54		260		293,977
Main Street Natural Gas, Inc., RB, Series A, 5.00%, 05/15/49		1,770		2,623,972
Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, RB
4.00%, 01/01/49		865		974,595
4.00%, 01/01/59		1,640		1,825,631
Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, Refunding RB, Sub-Series A, 4.00%, 01/01/49		320		360,493

				6,356,785

Illinois — 7.6%
Chicago Board of Education, GO
Series C, 5.25%, 12/01/35		795		883,953
Series D, 5.00%, 12/01/46		1,035		1,128,287
Series H, 5.00%, 12/01/36		935		1,097,092
Chicago Board of Education, Refunding GO
Series C, 5.00%, 12/01/25		350		408,359
Series C, 5.00%, 12/01/27		415		502,652
Series C, 5.00%, 12/01/34		940		1,110,131
Series F, 5.00%, 12/01/22		325		347,285
City of Chicago Illinois, Refunding GO, Series A, 6.00%, 01/01/38		595		722,693
Cook County Community College District No.508, GO, 5.50%, 12/01/38		350		382,812
Illinois Finance Authority, Refunding RB, Series C, 5.00%, 02/15/41		1,500		1,790,760
Metropolitan Pier & Exposition Authority, RB Series A, 5.50%, 06/15/53		200		231,664


Security	Par (000)		Value

Illinois (continued)
Metropolitan Pier & Exposition Authority, RB (continued)
Series A, 5.00%, 06/15/57	$	555	$	648,479
Metropolitan Pier & Exposition Authority, RB, CAB, Series A, 0.00%, 12/15/52^(d)		750		267,653
Metropolitan Pier & Exposition Authority, Refunding RB, Series B, 5.00%, 06/15/52		225		254,450
Metropolitan Pier & Exposition Authority, Refunding RB, CAB, Series B, 0.00%, 12/15/54^(d)		500		162,680
State of Illinois, GO
5.00%, 05/01/27		500		558,545
5.00%, 01/01/28		1,005		1,182,704
5.00%, 03/01/37		755		780,511
Series A, 5.00%, 01/01/33		555		570,412
University of Illinois, RB, Series A, 5.00%, 04/01/44		475		530,252

				13,561,374

Indiana — 4.9%
City of Anderson Indiana, RB, 5.38%, 01/01/40		285		293,527
City of Valparaiso Indiana, RB
AMT, 6.75%, 01/01/34		365		403,697
AMT, 7.00%, 01/01/44		885		988,492
City of Vincennes Indiana, Refunding RB, 6.25%, 01/01/29^(b)		890		890,321
Indiana Finance Authority, RB
Series A, 1st Lien, 5.25%, 10/01/38		1,285		1,311,098
Series A, AMT, 6.75%, 05/01/39		515		643,086
Series A, AMT, 5.00%, 07/01/44		160		171,173
Series A, AMT, 5.00%, 07/01/48		520		560,789
Series A, AMT, 5.25%, 01/01/51		2,190		2,389,925
Indiana Housing & Community Development Authority, RB, 5.38%, 10/01/40^(b)		595		615,807
Indianapolis Local Public Improvement Bond Bank, RB, Series A, 5.00%, 01/15/40		445		479,523

				8,747,438

Iowa — 1.6%
Iowa Finance Authority, Refunding RB
5.25%, 12/01/25		660		714,523
Series B, 5.25%, 12/01/50^(a)		825		900,496
Iowa Student Loan Liquidity Corp., Refunding RB, Series B, AMT, 3.00%, 12/01/39		1,175		1,190,827

				2,805,846

Kansas — 0.6%
Kansas City Industrial Development Authority, ARB, AMT, (AGM), 4.00%, 03/01/57		975		1,118,403


Kentucky — 0.7%
Kentucky Economic Development Finance Authority, RB, Series A, 5.25%, 01/01/23^(e)		460		498,897
Kentucky Public Transportation Infrastructure Authority, RB, CAB, Series C, 6.75%, 07/01/43^(c)		565		671,836

				1,170,733

Louisiana — 1.5%
Louisiana Local Government Environmental Facilities & Community Development Authority, RB, 5.00%, 07/01/54^(b)		445		458,612
Tobacco Settlement Financing Corp., Refunding RB
Series A, 5.25%, 05/15/31		285		285,593
Series A, 5.25%, 05/15/32		380		396,933


S C H E D U L E O F I N V E S T M E N T S		25

Schedule of Investments (continued)

April 30, 2021

BlackRock Long-Term Municipal Advantage Trust (BTA)

(Percentages shown are based on Net Assets)


Security	Par (000)		Value

Louisiana (continued)
Tobacco Settlement Financing Corp., Refunding RB (continued)
Series A, 5.25%, 05/15/33	$	415	$	433,397
Series A, 5.25%, 05/15/35		945		1,023,756

				2,598,291

Maine — 0.3%
Maine Health & Higher Educational Facilities Authority, RB, 6.75%, 07/01/21^(e)		470		474,912


Maryland^(b)— 1.6%
County of Frederick Maryland, Refunding TA, 4.63%, 07/01/43		960		1,101,965
Maryland Health & Higher Educational Facilities Authority, RB, Series A, 7.00%, 03/01/55		1,480		1,699,291

				2,801,256

Massachusetts — 1.7%
Massachusetts Development Finance Agency, RB Series A, 6.50%, 11/15/23^(b)(e)		1,000		1,159,120
Series A, 5.00%, 01/01/47		860		991,434
Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency, RB, M/F Housing, Series D-1, 2.55%, 12/01/50		195		196,320
Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency, Refunding RB, Series A, AMT, 4.45%, 12/01/42		610		647,649

				2,994,523

Michigan — 2.1%
City of Detroit Michigan Sewage Disposal System Revenue, Refunding RB, Series A, Senior Lien, 5.25%, 07/01/22^(e)		1,970		2,085,029
City of Detroit Michigan, GO
5.00%, 04/01/34		140		165,239
5.00%, 04/01/35		140		164,752
5.00%, 04/01/36		95		111,506
5.00%, 04/01/37		155		181,409
5.00%, 04/01/38		70		81,703
Michigan Finance Authority, RB, Series C-1, Senior Lien, 5.00%, 07/01/22^(e)		410		432,751
Michigan Strategic Fund, RB, AMT, 5.00%, 06/30/48		500		600,680

				3,823,069

Minnesota — 2.1%
Duluth Economic Development Authority, Refunding RB
Series A, 4.25%, 02/15/48		1,940		2,192,588
Series A, 5.25%, 02/15/58		655		797,653
Housing & Redevelopment Authority of The City of St. Paul Minnesota, Refunding RB, Series A, 5.50%, 09/01/36		690		791,292

				3,781,533

Missouri — 0.5%
Health & Educational Facilities Authority of the State of Missouri, Refunding RB, 5.50%, 05/01/43		115		123,563
Industrial Development Authority of the City of St. Louis Missouri, Refunding RB
Series A, 4.38%, 11/15/35		330		332,703
Series A, 4.75%, 11/15/47		365		368,964

				825,230

Nebraska — 0.2%
Central Plains Energy Project, RB, 5.25%, 09/01/37		285		303,559


New Hampshire — 1.0%
New Hampshire Business Finance Authority, RB
Series A, 4.13%, 08/15/40		260		263,994


Security	Par (000)		Value

New Hampshire (continued)
New Hampshire Business Finance Authority, RB (continued)
Series A, 4.25%, 08/15/46	$	290	$	292,639
Series A, 4.50%, 08/15/55		600		605,838
New Hampshire Business Finance Authority, Refunding RB^(a)(b)
Series A, 3.63%, 07/01/43		230		237,693
Series B, AMT, 3.75%, 07/01/45		375		386,606

				1,786,770

New Jersey — 9.7%
Casino Reinvestment Development Authority, Inc., Refunding RB
5.25%, 11/01/39		475		508,611
5.25%, 11/01/44		1,160		1,234,402
New Jersey Economic Development Authority, RB Series EEE, 5.00%, 06/15/43		195		234,640
AMT, 5.13%, 09/15/23		1,090		1,160,610
New Jersey Economic Development Authority, Refunding RB, Series BBB, 5.50%, 06/15/31		1,225		1,519,024
New Jersey Economic Development Authority, Refunding SAB, 5.75%, 04/01/31		785		825,993
New Jersey Higher Education Student Assistance Authority, Refunding RB, Sub-Series C, AMT, 3.63%, 12/01/49		645		659,648
New Jersey Transportation Trust Fund Authority, RB
Series AA, 5.00%, 06/15/45		585		660,670
Series B, 5.25%, 06/15/36		845		849,673
Series S, 5.25%, 06/15/43		2,535		3,140,763
New Jersey Turnpike Authority, RB, Series A, 4.00%, 01/01/48		245		279,021
Tobacco Settlement Financing Corp., Refunding RB
Series A, 5.00%, 06/01/35		730		900,579
Series A, 5.25%, 06/01/46		1,700		2,044,012
Sub-Series B, 5.00%, 06/01/46		2,825		3,311,013

				17,328,659

New York — 20.4%
Erie Tobacco Asset Securitization Corp., Refunding RB, Series A, 5.00%, 06/01/45		910		917,835
Hudson Yards Infrastructure Corp., RB, 5.75%, 02/15/47		2,440		2,451,371
Metropolitan Transportation Authority, RB
Series B, 5.25%, 11/15/38		1,125		1,271,295
Series B, 5.25%, 11/15/39		400		451,640
Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Refunding RB, Series C-1, 4.75%, 11/15/45		985		1,184,807
New York City Housing Development Corp., RB, M/F Housing, Series I-1, (FHA 542 (C)), 2.65%, 11/01/50		980		983,322
New York City Industrial Development Agency, Refunding RB, (AGM), 3.00%, 03/01/49		665		691,208
New York City Transitional Finance Authority Future Tax Secured Revenue, RB, Sub-Series B-1, 4.00%, 11/01/45		5,000		5,797,450
New York Counties Tobacco Trust IV, Refunding RB
Series A, 6.25%, 06/01/41^(b)		900		913,527
Series A, 5.00%, 06/01/42		1,505		1,520,110
Series A, 5.00%, 06/01/45		555		560,550
New York Counties Tobacco Trust VI, Refunding RB, Series A-2-B, 5.00%, 06/01/51		1,000		1,056,020
New York Liberty Development Corp., ARB, 5.25%, 12/15/43		6,140		6,323,709


26		2 0 2 1 B L A C K R O C K A N N U A L R E P O R T T O S H A R E H O L D E R S

Schedule of Investments (continued)

April 30, 2021

BlackRock Long-Term Municipal Advantage Trust (BTA)

(Percentages shown are based on Net Assets)


Security	Par (000)		Value

New York (continued)
New York Liberty Development Corp., Refunding RB
5.75%, 11/15/51	$	2,220	$	2,282,870
Series 1, Class 1, 5.00%, 11/15/44^(b)		2,355		2,564,077
Series 2, Class 2, 5.15%, 11/15/34^(b)		160		178,854
Series 2, Class 2, 5.38%, 11/15/40^(b)		395		444,462
New York Power Authority, Refunding RB, Series A, 4.00%, 11/15/60		565		653,191
New York State Dormitory Authority, Refunding RB, 5.00%, 12/01/33^(b)		410		483,460
New York State Housing Finance Agency, RB, M/F Housing, Series L-1, (SONYMA), 2.60%, 11/01/50		1,025		1,041,103
New York Transportation Development Corp., ARB, Series A, AMT, 5.25%, 01/01/50		1,000		1,126,200
New York Transportation Development Corp., RB
AMT, 5.00%, 10/01/35		190		240,287
AMT, 5.00%, 10/01/40		535		665,476
New York Transportation Development Corp., Refunding ARB, AMT, 5.38%, 08/01/36		730		903,850
Westchester Tobacco Asset Securitization Corp., Refunding RB, Sub-Series C, 4.00%, 06/01/42		1,635		1,777,261

				36,483,935

Ohio — 4.3%
Buckeye Tobacco Settlement Financing Authority, Refunding RB, Series B-2, Class 2, 5.00%, 06/01/55		3,470		3,897,608
County of Hamilton Ohio, Refunding RB, 4.00%, 08/15/50		800		928,256
Ohio Air Quality Development Authority, RB, AMT, 5.00%, 07/01/49^(b)		400		442,944
Port of Greater Cincinnati Development Authority, RB, 4.25%, 12/01/50^(b)		185		186,321
Southern Ohio Port Authority, RB, Series A, AMT, 7.00%, 12/01/42^(b)		805		908,909
State of Ohio, RB, AMT, 5.00%, 06/30/53		1,220		1,364,753

				7,728,791

Oklahoma — 3.7%
Oklahoma Development Finance Authority, RB
7.25%, 09/01/51^(b)		2,205		2,256,332
Series B, 5.00%, 08/15/38		1,450		1,764,186
Series B, 5.25%, 08/15/43		1,305		1,596,472
Tulsa County Industrial Authority, Refunding RB, 5.25%, 11/15/45		925		979,288

				6,596,278

Oregon — 0.2%
Clackamas County School District No.12 North Clackamas, GO, CAB, Series A, (GTD), 0.00%, 06/15/38^(d)		625		352,750


Pennsylvania — 2.2%
Allentown Neighborhood Improvement Zone Development Authority, RB, 5.00%, 05/01/42^(b)		470		531,640
Bucks County Industrial Development Authority, RB
4.00%, 07/01/46		100		109,526
4.00%, 07/01/51		100		109,072
Hospitals & Higher Education Facilities Authority of Philadelphia, RB, Series A, 5.63%, 07/01/42		300		315,891
Pennsylvania Economic Development Financing Authority, RB, AMT, 5.00%, 12/31/38		465		540,679


Security	Par (000)		Value

Pennsylvania (continued)
Pennsylvania Economic Development Financing Authority, Refunding RB, AMT, 5.50%, 11/01/44	$	720	$	761,458
Pennsylvania Higher Educational Facilities Authority, RB, 4.00%, 08/15/44		805		935,410
Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, RB, Series A, 5.00%, 12/01/44		520		596,861

				3,900,537

Puerto Rico — 6.1%
Children’s Trust Fund, RB, Series B, 0.00%, 05/15/57^(d)		3,645		194,825
Children’s Trust Fund, Refunding RB, 5.63%, 05/15/43		820		829,315
Puerto Rico Commonwealth Aqueduct & Sewer Authority, RB, Series A, Senior Lien, 5.25%, 07/01/42		1,875		1,968,244
Puerto Rico Sales Tax Financing Corp. Sales Tax Revenue, RB
Series A-1, Restructured, 4.75%, 07/01/53		1,529		1,697,450
Series A-1, Restructured, 5.00%, 07/01/58		3,066		3,444,375
Series A-2, Restructured, 4.33%, 07/01/40		923		1,008,880
Series A-2, Restructured, 4.78%, 07/01/58		1,038		1,155,554
Puerto Rico Sales Tax Financing Corp. Sales Tax Revenue, RB, CAB, Series A-1, Restructured, 0.00%, 07/01/46^(d)		1,914		603,503

				10,902,146

Rhode Island — 2.6%
Rhode Island Student Loan Authority, RB, Series A, AMT, 3.63%, 12/01/37		515		548,104
Tobacco Settlement Financing Corp., Refunding RB
Series A, 5.00%, 06/01/40		420		469,556
Series B, 4.50%, 06/01/45		1,875		2,030,606
Series B, 5.00%, 06/01/50		1,360		1,520,113

				4,568,379

South Carolina — 3.0%
South Carolina Jobs-Economic Development Authority, RB, Series A, 5.00%, 11/15/54		165		179,763
South Carolina Jobs-Economic Development Authority, Refunding RB, Series A, 5.00%, 05/01/43		1,110		1,329,058
South Carolina Public Service Authority, RB
Series A, 5.50%, 12/01/54		1,840		2,094,472
Series E, 5.00%, 12/01/48		420		464,890
Series E, 5.50%, 12/01/53		750		838,027
South Carolina Public Service Authority, Refunding RB, Series E, 5.25%, 12/01/55		430		503,130

				5,409,340

Tennessee — 1.7%
Memphis-Shelby County Industrial Development Board, Refunding TA
Series A, 5.50%, 07/01/37		490		501,040
Series A, 5.63%, 01/01/46		570		573,374
Metropolitan Government Nashville & Davidson County Health & Educational Facilities Board, Refunding RB
Series A, 4.00%, 10/01/49		290		305,385
Series A, 5.25%, 10/01/58		1,430		1,652,050

				3,031,849

Texas — 6.6%
Arlington Higher Education Finance Corp., Refunding RB, 5.00%, 08/15/41		180		195,583


S C H E D U L E O F I N V E S T M E N T S		27

Schedule of Investments (continued)

April 30, 2021

BlackRock Long-Term Municipal Advantage Trust (BTA)

(Percentages shown are based on Net Assets)


Security	Par (000)		Value

Texas (continued)
Brazoria County Industrial Development Corp., RB, AMT, 7.00%, 03/01/39	$	325	$	348,140
Brazos Higher Education Authority, Inc., RB, Series 1B, AMT, Subordinate, 3.00%, 04/01/40		285		271,340
City of Houston Texas Airport System Revenue, Refunding ARB, AMT, 5.00%, 07/15/27		125		145,894
City of Houston Texas Airport System Revenue, Refunding RB, Series C, AMT, 5.00%, 07/15/27		800		933,216
Harris County Cultural Education Facilities Finance Corp., RB, Series B, 7.00%, 01/01/23^(e)		210		233,730
Harris County-Houston Sports Authority, Refunding RB, CAB, Series A, Senior Lien, (AGM, NPFGC), 0.00%, 11/15/34^(d)		3,000		1,806,210
Midland County Fresh Water Supply District No.1, RB, CAB, Series A, 0.00%, 09/15/37^(d)		5,200		2,797,756
Mission Economic Development Corp., Refunding RB, AMT, Senior Lien, 4.63%, 10/01/31^(b)		430		456,079
Newark Higher Education Finance Corp., RB^(b)
Series A, 5.50%, 08/15/35		135		155,871
Series A, 5.75%, 08/15/45		275		314,270
North Texas Tollway Authority, Refunding RB, 4.25%, 01/01/49		1,890		2,175,163
Texas Private Activity Bond Surface Transportation Corp., RB, AMT, Senior Lien, 5.00%, 12/31/55		1,025		1,159,111
Texas Transportation Commission, RB, CAB, 0.00%, 08/01/43^(d)		2,205		881,096

				11,873,459

Utah^(b)— 0.1%
Utah Charter School Finance Authority, RB
Series A, 5.00%, 06/15/41		100		111,417
Series A, 5.00%, 06/15/52		125		136,190

				247,607

Vermont — 0.4%
Vermont Student Assistance Corp., RB, Series A, AMT, 3.38%, 06/15/36		775		808,627


Virginia — 2.3%
Ballston Quarter Community Development Authority, TA Series A, 5.00%, 03/01/26		260		264,706
Series A, 5.13%, 03/01/31		510		516,875
Norfolk Redevelopment & Housing Authority, RB
Series A, 5.00%, 01/01/34		235		253,349
Series A, 5.00%, 01/01/49		455		483,387
Tobacco Settlement Financing Corp., Refunding RB, Series B-1, 5.00%, 06/01/47		1,025		1,035,537
Virginia Small Business Financing Authority, RB, AMT, Senior Lien, 6.00%, 01/01/37		1,540		1,633,740

				4,187,594

Washington — 1.1%
Port of Seattle Washington, ARB, Series C, AMT, 5.00%, 04/01/40		350		396,998
Washington Health Care Facilities Authority, RB, Series A, 5.75%, 01/01/23^(e)		1,020		1,112,014
Washington State Convention Center Public Facilities District RB, 4.00%, 07/01/58		380		411,992

				1,921,004

Wisconsin — 4.2%
Public Finance Authority, RB 5.00%, 06/15/41^(b)		165		173,220


Security	Par (000)		Value

Wisconsin (continued)
Public Finance Authority, RB (continued)
5.00%, 01/01/42^(b)	$	290	$	303,021
5.00%, 06/15/55^(b)		440		448,813
5.00%, 01/01/56^(b)		710		729,064
Series A, 6.25%, 10/01/31^(b)		290		304,845
Series A, 5.00%, 11/15/41		95		114,095
Series A, 7.00%, 10/01/47^(b)		290		303,961
Series A, 5.00%, 10/15/50^(b)		530		571,462
Series A-1, 4.50%, 01/01/35^(b)		600		664,722
Series A-1, 5.50%, 12/01/48^(b)(f)(g)		9		3,163
Series A-1, 5.00%, 01/01/55^(b)		1,290		1,439,124
Series B, 0.00%, 01/01/35^(b)(d)		1,120		517,451
Series B, 0.00%, 01/01/60^(b)(d)		16,025		1,341,293
Wisconsin Health & Educational Facilities Authority, Refunding RB
5.00%, 11/01/46		230		247,275
5.00%, 11/01/54		380		403,245

				7,564,754


Total Municipal Bonds — 124.1% (Cost: $200,443,647)			221,904,934


Municipal Bonds Transferred to Tender Option Bond Trusts^(h)

California — 2.1%
City of Los Angeles Department of Airports, ARB, Series B, AMT, 5.00%, 05/15/46		2,700		3,157,488
Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency, Refunding SAB, 5.00%, 10/01/47		495		587,843

				3,745,331

Colorado — 1.1%
Colorado Health Facilities Authority, Refunding RB, Series A, 4.00%, 08/01/49⁽ⁱ⁾		1,810		2,040,576


Florida — 1.5%
Escambia County Health Facilities Authority, Refunding RB, 4.00%, 08/15/45⁽ⁱ⁾		2,321		2,660,360


Georgia — 0.7%
Dalton Whitfield County Joint Development Authority, RB, 4.00%, 08/15/48		1,025		1,152,192


Idaho — 1.3%
Idaho State Building Authority, RB, Series A, 4.00%, 09/01/48		2,120		2,388,710


Illinois — 2.3%
Illinois Finance Authority, RB, Series A, (AGM), 6.00%, 08/15/41		2,340		2,376,808
Illinois State Toll Highway Authority, RB, Series C, 5.00%, 01/01/38		1,498		1,727,621

				4,104,429

Iowa — 1.1%
Iowa Finance Authority, Refunding RB, Series E, 4.00%, 08/15/46		1,815		1,988,369


Massachusetts — 5.3%
Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency, Refunding RB, Series A, AMT, 4.50%, 12/01/47		2,009		2,175,640
Massachusetts School Building Authority, RB, Series B, 5.00%, 10/15/21^(e)		7,112		7,267,264

				9,442,904


28		2 0 2 1 B L A C K R O C K A N N U A L R E P O R T T O S H A R E H O L D E R S

Schedule of Investments (continued)

April 30, 2021

BlackRock Long-Term Municipal Advantage Trust (BTA)

(Percentages shown are based on Net Assets)


Security	Par (000)		Value

Michigan — 1.3%
Michigan Finance Authority, RB, 4.00%, 02/15/47	$	2,000	$	2,290,819


New Jersey — 0.8%
New Jersey Higher Education Student Assistance Authority, Refunding RB, Series C, AMT, 4.25%, 12/01/50		1,338		1,430,231


New York — 4.1%
New York City Housing Development Corp., Refunding RB, Series A, 4.15%, 11/01/38		2,390		2,672,976
New York City Transitional Finance Authority Future Tax Secured Revenue, RB, Series C, 3.00%, 05/01/46		1,187		1,260,352
Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, ARB, Series 221, AMT, 4.00%, 07/15/60		1,725		1,957,064
Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, Refunding ARB, 194th Series, 5.25%, 10/15/55		1,215		1,444,781

				7,335,173

North Carolina — 1.4%
North Carolina Capital Facilities Finance Agency, Refunding RB, Series B, 5.00%, 10/01/25^(e)		1,180		1,416,142
North Carolina Housing Finance Agency, RB, S/F Housing, Series 39-B, (FHLMC, FNMA, GNMA), 4.00%, 01/01/48		1,015		1,119,900

				2,536,042

Pennsylvania — 2.8%
County of Lehigh Pennsylvania, Refunding RB, Series A, 4.00%, 07/01/49⁽ⁱ⁾		2,502		2,882,194
Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, RB, Sub-Series A, 5.50%, 12/01/42		1,680		2,046,693

				4,928,887

Rhode Island — 1.5%
Rhode Island Health and Educational Building Corp., RB, Series A, 4.00%, 09/15/47		2,448		2,718,282


Texas^(e)— 7.3%
City of San Antonio Texas Electric & Gas Systems Revenue, RB, Junior Lien, 5.00%, 02/01/23		11,000		11,921,470
Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County Sales & Use Tax Revenue, Refunding RB, Series A, 5.00%, 11/01/21		1,170		1,197,413

				13,118,883

Virginia⁽ⁱ⁾— 2.1%
Hampton Roads Transportation Accountability Commission, RB
Series A, Senior Lien, 5.50%, 07/01/57		2,224		2,780,383
Series A, Senior Lien, 4.00%, 07/01/60		795		921,318

				3,701,701

West Virginia — 1.2%
Morgantown Utility Board, Inc., RB, Series B, 4.00%, 12/01/48⁽ⁱ⁾		1,891		2,125,826


Total Municipal Bonds Transferred to Tender Option Bond Trusts — 37.9% (Cost: $62,909,507)				67,708,715


Total Long-Term Investments — 162.0% (Cost: $263,353,154)				289,613,649


Security	Shares		Value

Short-Term Securities

Money Market Funds — 0.1%
BlackRock Liquidity Funds, MuniCash, Institutional Class, 0.01%^(j)(k)		133,633	$	133,660


Total Short-Term Securities — 0.1% (Cost: $133,660)				133,660


Total Investments — 162.1% (Cost: $263,486,814)				289,747,309

Other Assets Less Liabilities — 1.8%				3,250,981

Liability for TOB Trust Certificates, Including Interest Expense and Fees Payable — (21.6)%				(38,617,721	)

VRDP Shares at Liquidation Value, Net of Deferred Offering Costs — (42.3)%				(75,628,782	)


Net Assets Applicable to Common Shares — 100.0%			$	178,751,787

^(a)	Variable rate security. Interest rate resets periodically. The rate shown is the effective interest rate as of period end. Security description also includes the reference rate and spread if published and available.

^(b)	Security exempt from registration pursuant to Rule 144A under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. These securities may be resold in transactions exempt from registration to qualified institutional investors.

^(c)	Step-up bond that pays an initial coupon rate for the first period and then a higher coupon rate for the following periods. Rate as of period end.

^(d)	Zero-coupon bond.

^(e)	U.S. 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.

^(f)	Issuer filed for bankruptcy and/or is in default.

^(g)	Non-income producing security.

^(h)	Represent bonds transferred to a TOB Trust in exchange of cash and residual certificates received by the Trust. These bonds serve as collateral in a secured borrowing. See Note 4 of the Notes to Financial Statements for details.

⁽ⁱ⁾

All or a portion of the security is subject to a recourse agreement. The aggregate maximum potential amount the Trust could ultimately be required to pay under the agreements, which expire between January 1, 2026 to July 1, 2028, is $6,953,518. See Note 4 of the Notes to Financial Statements for details.

^(j)	Affiliate of the Trust.

^(k)	Annualized 7-day yield as of period end.


S C H E D U L E O F I N V E S T M E N T S		29

Schedule of Investments (continued)

April 30, 2021

BlackRock Long-Term Municipal Advantage Trust (BTA)

Affiliates


Affiliated Issuer	Value at 04/30/20		Purchases at Cost		Proceeds from Sales			Net Realized Gain (Loss)		Change in Unrealized Appreciation (Depreciation)			Value at 04/30/21		Shares Held at 04/30/21		Income		Capital Gain Distributions from Underlying Funds
BlackRock Liquidity Funds, MuniCash, Institutional Class	$	677,105	$	—	$	(543,496)	^(a)	$	58	$	(7	)	$	133,660		133,633	$	224	$	—

^(a)

Represents net amount purchased (sold).

Derivative Financial Instruments Outstanding as of Period End

Futures Contracts


Description	Number of Contracts		Expiration Date		Notional Amount (000)		Value/ Unrealized Appreciation (Depreciation)
Short Contracts
10-Year U.S. Treasury Note.		62		06/21/21	$	8,192	$	113,713
U.S. Long Treasury Bond		36		06/21/21		5,663		119,578

							$	233,291

Derivative Financial Instruments Categorized by Risk Exposure

As of period end, the fair values of derivative financial instruments located in the Statements of Assets and Liabilities were as follows:


	Commodity Contracts		Credit Contracts		Equity Contracts		Foreign Currency Exchange Contracts		Interest Rate Contracts		Other Contracts		Total
Assets — Derivative Financial Instruments
Futures contracts
Unrealized appreciation on futures contracts^(a)	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	233,291	$	—	$	233,291

^(a)

For the year ended April 30, 2021, the effect of derivative financial instruments in the Statements of Operations was as follows:


	Commodity Contracts		Credit Contracts		Equity Contracts		Foreign Currency Exchange Contracts		Interest Rate Contracts		Other Contracts		Total
Net Realized Gain (Loss) from
Futures contracts	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	538,973	$	—	$	538,973

Net Change in Unrealized Appreciation (Depreciation) on
Futures contracts	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	233,291	$	—	$	233,291

Average Quarterly Balances of Outstanding Derivative Financial Instruments


Futures contracts
Average notional value of contracts — short	$	9,723,281

For more information about the Trust’s investment risks regarding derivative financial instruments, refer to the Notes to Financial Statements.


30		2 0 2 1 B L A C K R O C K A N N U A L R E P O R T T O S H A R E H O L D E R S

Schedule of Investments (continued)

April 30, 2021

BlackRock Long-Term Municipal Advantage Trust (BTA)

Fair Value Hierarchy as of Period End


	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
Assets
Investments
Long-Term Investments
Municipal Bonds	$	—	$	221,904,934	$	—	$	221,904,934
Municipal Bonds Transferred to Tender Option Bond Trusts		—		67,708,715		—		67,708,715
Short-Term Securities
Money Market Funds		133,660		—		—		133,660

	$	133,660	$	289,613,649	$	—	$	289,747,309

Derivative Financial Instruments^(a)
Assets
Interest Rate Contracts	$	233,291	$	—	$	—	$	233,291

^(a)

Derivative financial instruments are futures contracts. Futures contracts are valued at the unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on the instrument.


	Level 1		Level 2			Level 3		Total
Liabilities
TOB Trust Certificates	$	—	$	(38,607,260	)	$	—	$	(38,607,260	)
VRDP Shares at Liquidation Value		—		(76,000,000	)		—		(76,000,000	)

	$	—	$	(114,607,260	)	$	—	$	(114,607,260	)

See notes to financial statements.


S C H E D U L E O F I N V E S T M E N T S		31

Schedule of Investments

April 30, 2021

BlackRock Municipal Income Trust (BFK)

(Percentages shown are based on Net Assets)


Security	Par (000)		Value

Municipal Bonds

Alabama — 2.4%
County of Jefferson Alabama Sewer Revenue, Refunding RB
Series A, Senior Lien, (AGM), 5.00%, 10/01/44	$	1,555	$	1,728,429
Series A, Senior Lien, (AGM), 5.25%, 10/01/48		2,275		2,537,854
Series D, Sub Lien, 6.00%, 10/01/42		5,740		6,612,767
Series D, Sub Lien, 7.00%, 10/01/51		1,765		2,087,713
Lower Alabama Gas District, RB, Series A, 5.00%, 09/01/46		2,110		3,073,679

				16,040,442

Arizona — 4.3%
Glendale Industrial Development Authority, RB
5.00%, 05/15/41		180		203,285
5.00%, 05/15/56		725		805,997
Industrial Development Authority of the City of Phoenix, RB, Series A, 5.00%, 07/01/46^(a)		3,400		3,730,820
Salt Verde Financial Corp., RB
5.00%, 12/01/32		10,030		13,288,647
5.00%, 12/01/37		7,460		10,364,849

				28,393,598

Arkansas — 0.8%
Arkansas Development Finance Authority, RB, AMT, 4.50%, 09/01/49^(a)		4,985		5,475,175


California — 7.4%
California Educational Facilities Authority, RB, Series V-1, 5.00%,) 05/01/49		4,230		6,580,695
California Health Facilities Financing Authority, Refunding RB
Series A, 5.00%, 07/01/33		2,465		2,700,087
Series A, 4.00%, 04/01/45		790		909,843
California Municipal Finance Authority, RB, S/F Housing
Series A, 5.25%, 08/15/39		290		318,922
Series A, 5.25%, 08/15/49		715		779,464
California Pollution Control Financing Authority, RB, Series A, AMT, 5.00%, 11/21/45^(a)		2,970		3,104,452
California State Public Works Board, RB, Series I, 5.00%, 11/01/38		1,495		1,661,887
City of Los Angeles Department of Airports, Refunding ARB
Series A, AMT, 5.00%, 05/15/31		690		921,840
Series A, AMT, 5.00%, 05/15/32		825		1,099,222
Series A, AMT, 5.00%, 05/15/33		815		1,076,061
Series A, AMT, 5.00%, 05/15/34		855		1,123,359
Series A, AMT, 5.00%, 05/15/35		1,345		1,758,897
Series A, AMT, 5.00%, 05/15/38		580		751,268
Series A, AMT, 5.00%, 05/15/39		625		807,144
Series A, AMT, 5.00%, 05/15/40		1,310		1,687,097
Series A, AMT, 5.00%, 05/15/41		1,410		1,811,737
Golden State Tobacco Securitization Corp., Refunding RB
Series A-1, 5.25%, 06/01/47		1,070		1,108,937
Series A-2, 5.00%, 06/01/47		4,335		4,481,089
Riverside County Transportation Commission, RB, CAB^(b)
Series B, Senior Lien, 0.00%, 06/01/41		5,000		2,931,750
Series B, Senior Lien, 0.00%, 06/01/42		6,000		3,392,940
Series B, Senior Lien, 0.00%, 06/01/43		5,000		2,697,900


Security	Par (000)		Value

California (continued)
San Marcos Unified School District, GO, CAB^(b)
Series B, 0.00%, 08/01/34	$	3,500	$	2,706,375
Series B, 0.00%, 08/01/36		4,000		2,890,840
State of California, Refunding GO, 3.00%, 12/01/46		1,010		1,091,800
Stockton Public Financing Authority, RB, Series A, 6.25%, 10/01/23^(c)		690		790,906

				49,184,512

Colorado — 1.8%
Arapahoe County School District No.6 Littleton, GO, Series A, (SAW), 5.50%, 12/01/43		3,485		4,571,902
Colorado Health Facilities Authority, Refunding RB, Series A, 4.00%, 08/01/44		3,565		4,054,581
State of Colorado, COP, Series O, 4.00%, 03/15/44		2,580		2,980,313

				11,606,796

Connecticut — 0.4%
State of Connecticut Special Tax Revenue, RB
Series A, 4.00%, 05/01/36.		670		802,888
Series A, 4.00%, 05/01/39		420		497,389
State of Connecticut, GO, Series A, 4.00%, 01/15/38		1,300		1,535,703

				2,835,980

Delaware — 0.4%
Delaware Transportation Authority, RB, 5.00%, 06/01/55		2,280		2,613,404


District of Columbia — 5.7%
District of Columbia Tobacco Settlement Financing Corp., Refunding RB, 6.75%, 05/15/40		23,035		23,693,110
District of Columbia, Refunding RB
5.00%, 04/01/35		865		1,035,543
5.00%, 10/01/48		4,590		5,387,329
Series A, 6.00%, 07/01/23^(c)		1,480		1,665,933
Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority Dulles Toll Road Revenue, Refunding RB
Series A, 5.00%, 10/01/53		3,990		4,133,680
Series B, Subordinate, 4.00%, 10/01/49		1,550		1,756,925

				37,672,520

Florida — 3.8%
Capital Projects Finance Authority, Refunding RB
Series A-1, 5.00%, 10/01/32		395		481,308
Series A-1, 5.00%, 10/01/33		435		527,011
Series A-1, 5.00%, 10/01/34		435		524,075
Series A-1, 5.00%, 10/01/35		145		173,996
Collier County Health Facilities Authority, Refunding RB,
Series A, 5.00%, 05/01/45		2,620		2,955,936
Florida Development Finance Corp., RB
Series A, 5.00%, 06/15/40		435		494,512
Series A, 5.00%, 06/15/50		1,455		1,622,223
Series A, 5.00%, 06/15/55		875		972,554
Miami-Dade County Florida Aviation Revenue, Refunding RB
Series A, 4.00%, 10/01/37		655		781,140
Series A, 4.00%, 10/01/38		655		778,684
Series A, 4.00%, 10/01/39		490		580,096
Mid-Bay Bridge Authority, RB, Series A, 7.25%, 10/01/21^(c)		5,885		6,056,960
Sarasota County Florida Utility System Revenue, RB
Series A, 5.00%, 10/01/45		875		1,126,895
Series A, 5.00%, 10/01/50		1,310		1,675,267


32		2 0 2 1 B L A C K R O C K A N N U A L R E P O R T T O S H A R E H O L D E R S

Schedule of Investments (continued)

April 30, 2021

BlackRock Municipal Income Trust (BFK)

(Percentages shown are based on Net Assets)


Security	Par (000)		Value

Florida (continued)
Stevens Plantation Community Development District, SAB, Series A, 7.10%, 05/01/35^(d)(e)	$	3,159	$	2,001,047
Volusia County Educational Facility Authority, Refunding RB, 5.00%, 10/15/49		3,535		4,335,218

				25,086,922

Georgia — 2.5%
Gainesville & Hall County Hospital Authority, Refunding RB, Series A, (GTD), 5.50%, 08/15/54		1,010		1,170,408
George L Smith II Congress Center Authority, RB, 4.00%, 01/01/54		710		802,783
Georgia Housing & Finance Authority, RB, S/F Housing Series B, 2.50%, 06/01/50		1,455		1,458,725
Main Street Natural Gas, Inc., RB
Series A, 5.00%, 05/15/35		990		1,357,399
Series A, 5.00%, 05/15/36		990		1,368,794
Series A, 5.00%, 05/15/37		1,085		1,514,226
Series A, 5.00%, 05/15/38		600		847,236
Series A, 5.00%, 05/15/49		1,990		2,950,115
Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, RB, 4.00%, 01/01/49		3,145		3,511,455
Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, Refunding RB Sub-Series A, 4.00%, 01/01/49		1,230		1,385,644

				16,366,785

Idaho — 0.3%
Idaho Health Facilities Authority, RB, Series 2017, 5.00%, 12/01/46		1,485		1,784,673


Illinois — 11.5%
Chicago Board of Education, GO
Series C, 5.25%, 12/01/35		2,905		3,230,040
Series D, 5.00%, 12/01/46		3,805		4,147,317
Series H, 5.00%, 12/01/36		920		1,079,491
Chicago Board of Education, Refunding GO
Series C, 5.00%, 12/01/25		1,280		1,493,427
Series D, 5.00%, 12/01/25		1,650		1,925,121
Series F, 5.00%, 12/01/22		1,250		1,335,712
Series G, 5.00%, 12/01/34		915		1,082,720
Chicago O’Hare International Airport, Refunding RB Series A, Senior Lien, 4.00%, 01/01/37		1,895		2,225,128
Chicago Transit Authority Sales Tax Receipts Fund, RB, 5.25%, 12/01/21^(c)		2,055		2,115,253
City of Chicago Illinois Waterworks Revenue, Refunding RB, 2nd Lien, 5.00%, 11/01/42		2,000		2,118,540
Cook County Community College District No.508, GO, 5.50%, 12/01/38		1,525		1,667,969
Illinois Finance Authority, RB
Series A, 5.00%, 02/15/47		475		519,527
Series A, 5.00%, 02/15/50		265		289,017
Illinois State Toll Highway Authority, RB
Series A, 5.00%, 01/01/45		2,605		3,311,789
Series C, 5.00%, 01/01/37		5,455		6,293,870
Metropolitan Pier & Exposition Authority, RB, Series A, 5.00%, 06/15/57		1,760		2,056,437
Metropolitan Pier & Exposition Authority, Refunding RB, 4.00%, 06/15/50		2,710		3,019,401
Metropolitan Pier & Exposition Authority, Refunding RB, CAB, Series B, (AGM), 0.00%, 06/15/43^(b)		10,455		5,619,667
Railsplitter Tobacco Settlement Authority, RB, 6.00%, 06/01/21^(c)		2,245		2,254,811


Security	Par (000)		Value

Illinois (continued)
State of Illinois, GO
5.00%, 02/01/39	$	2,990	$	3,232,638
Series A, 5.00%, 04/01/38		9,030		9,555,997
State of Illinois, Refunding GO
Series A, 5.00%, 10/01/30		10,400		12,689,560
Series B, 5.00%, 10/01/28		1,965		2,433,829
University of Illinois, RB, Series A, 5.00%, 04/01/44		1,910		2,132,171

				75,829,432

Indiana — 3.0%
City of Valparaiso Indiana, RB
AMT, 6.75%, 01/01/34		1,525		1,686,681
AMT, 7.00%, 01/01/44		3,680		4,110,339
Indiana Finance Authority, RB
Series A, 1st Lien, 5.25%, 10/01/38		6,305		6,433,055
Series A, AMT, 5.00%, 07/01/44		880		941,450
Series A, AMT, 5.00%, 07/01/48		2,905		3,132,868
Series A, AMT, 5.25%, 01/01/51		790		862,119
Indianapolis Local Public Improvement Bond Bank, RB, Series A, 5.00%, 01/15/40		2,490		2,683,174

				19,849,686

Iowa — 1.3%
Iowa Finance Authority, Refunding RB
5.25%, 12/01/25		2,125		2,300,546
Series B, 5.25%, 12/01/50^(f)		5,515		6,019,678

				8,320,224

Kentucky — 1.2%
Kentucky Economic Development Finance Authority, RB, Series A, 5.25%, 01/01/23^(c)		1,915		2,076,932
Kentucky Economic Development Finance Authority, Refunding RB, Series A, (AGM), 5.00%, 12/01/45		2,515		3,058,341
Kentucky Public Transportation Infrastructure Authority, RB, CAB, Series C, 6.75%, 07/01/43^(g)		2,325		2,764,634

				7,899,907

Louisiana — 1.4%
Tobacco Settlement Financing Corp., Refunding RB
Series A, 5.50%, 05/15/30.		1,570		1,572,559
Series A, 5.25%, 05/15/31		1,615		1,618,359
Series A, 5.25%, 05/15/32		2,160		2,256,250
Series A, 5.25%, 05/15/33		2,345		2,448,954
Series A, 5.25%, 05/15/35		985		1,067,090

				8,963,212

Maryland — 0.7%
Maryland Health & Higher Educational Facilities Authority, RB, Series 2017, 5.00%, 12/01/46		840		1,009,722
Maryland State Transportation Authority, Refunding RB, Series A, 2.50%, 07/01/47		3,540		3,552,390

				4,562,112

Massachusetts — 0.4%
Massachusetts Port Authority, RB, Series E, AMT, 5.00%, 07/01/51		2,245		2,840,958


Michigan — 2.4%
City of Detroit Michigan Sewage Disposal System Revenue, Refunding RB, Series A, Senior Lien, 5.25%, 07/01/22^(c)		8,665		9,170,949
Michigan Finance Authority, Refunding RB, Series A, 4.00%, 12/01/49		1,640		1,885,459


S C H E D U L E O F I N V E S T M E N T S		33

Schedule of Investments (continued)

April 30, 2021

BlackRock Municipal Income Trust (BFK)

(Percentages shown are based on Net Assets)


Security	Par (000)		Value

Michigan (continued)
Michigan State University, Refunding RB, Series B, 5.00%, 02/15/48	$	2,000	$	2,502,180
Michigan Strategic Fund, RB, AMT, 5.00%, 06/30/48		2,120		2,546,883

				16,105,471

Minnesota — 1.1%
Duluth Economic Development Authority, Refunding RB
Series A, 4.25%, 02/15/48		2,030		2,294,306
Series A, 5.25%, 02/15/53		4,060		4,944,187

				7,238,493

Missouri — 1.6%
Health & Educational Facilities Authority of the State of Missouri, RB, 4.00%, 06/01/53		5,830		6,713,303
Health & Educational Facilities Authority of the State of Missouri, Refunding RB
5.50%, 05/01/43		480		515,741
Series A, 4.00%, 07/01/46		1,205		1,414,790
Missouri Housing Development Commission, RB, S/F Housing
2.35%, 11/01/46		855		861,199
2.40%, 11/01/51		890		896,168

				10,401,201

Nebraska — 0.7%
Central Plains Energy Project, RB
5.25%, 09/01/37		1,610		1,714,843
5.00%, 09/01/42		2,815		2,987,419

				4,702,262

New Hampshire^(a)— 0.7%
New Hampshire Business Finance Authority, Refunding RB
Series B, 4.63%, 11/01/42		3,055		3,177,017
Series C, AMT, 4.88%, 11/01/42		1,585		1,656,531

				4,833,548

New Jersey — 16.5%
Casino Reinvestment Development Authority, Inc., Refunding RB
5.25%, 11/01/39		3,280		3,512,093
5.25%, 11/01/44		2,980		3,171,137
Hudson County Improvement Authority, RB, 4.00%, 10/01/46		3,350		3,935,647
Middlesex County Improvement Authority, RB, Series B, 6.25%, 01/01/37^(d)(e)		3,680		73,600
New Jersey Economic Development Authority, RB
4.00%, 11/01/38		1,030		1,167,206
4.00%, 11/01/39		825		932,242
5.00%, 06/15/49		4,650		5,600,042
Series EEE, 5.00%, 06/15/48		7,320		8,668,344
AMT, 5.38%, 01/01/43		2,285		2,559,223
Series B, AMT, 5.63%, 11/15/30		2,035		2,296,518
New Jersey Economic Development Authority, Refunding ARB, AMT, 5.00%, 10/01/47		2,905		3,327,736
New Jersey Economic Development Authority, Refunding SAB, 6.50%, 04/01/28		8,000		8,797,280
New Jersey Transportation Trust Fund Authority, RB
Series A, 5.50%, 06/15/21^(c)		8,000		8,048,880
Series AA, 5.00%, 06/15/44		3,765		4,107,622
Series B, 5.25%, 06/15/36		4,810		4,836,599
Series BB, 4.00%, 06/15/50		3,010		3,323,762


Security	Par (000)		Value

New Jersey (continued)
New Jersey Transportation Trust Fund Authority, RB (continued)
Series BB, 5.00%, 06/15/50	$	9,895	$	11,697,671
New Jersey Turnpike Authority, RB
Series A, 5.00%, 07/01/22^(c)		3,035		3,205,173
Series A, 4.00%, 01/01/42		1,470		1,742,714
Series E, 5.00%, 01/01/45		5,095		5,847,022
State of New Jersey, GO
Series A, 4.00%, 06/01/31		1,135		1,410,544
Series A, 3.00%, 06/01/32		2,620		2,999,952
Tobacco Settlement Financing Corp., Refunding RB
Series A, 5.25%, 06/01/46		1,070		1,286,525
Sub-Series B, 5.00%, 06/01/46		14,320		16,783,613

				109,331,145

New York — 15.7%
City of New York, GO, Series C, 5.00%, 08/01/42		2,255		2,872,284
Metropolitan Transportation Authority, RB
Series B, 5.25%, 11/15/38		4,640		5,243,386
Series B, 5.25%, 11/15/39		1,650		1,863,015
Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Refunding RB
Series C-1, 4.75%, 11/15/45		3,210		3,861,148
Series C-1, 5.00%, 11/15/50		1,040		1,267,958
Series C-1, 5.25%, 11/15/55		1,545		1,914,286
Monroe County Industrial Development Corp., Refunding RB
4.00%, 12/01/46		1,055		1,211,193
Series A, 4.00%, 07/01/50		2,155		2,499,843
New York City Housing Development Corp., RB, M/F Housing, Series A, 3.00%, 11/01/55		2,135		2,188,012
New York City Industrial Development Agency, Refunding RB
Class A, (AGM), 3.00%, 01/01/37		435		469,752
Class A, (AGM), 3.00%, 01/01/39		435		466,116
Class A, (AGM), 3.00%, 01/01/40		305		326,573
New York City Transitional Finance Authority Future Tax Secured Revenue, RB
Sub-Series E-1, 5.00%, 02/01/42		4,805		4,970,292
Series C, Subordinate, 4.00%, 05/01/45		2,190		2,556,015
Sub-Series C-1, Subordinate, 4.00%, 05/01/40		875		1,042,580
New York Counties Tobacco Trust II, RB, 5.75%, 06/01/43		840		843,142
New York Counties Tobacco Trust IV, Refunding RB, Series A, 6.25%, 06/01/41^(a)		3,500		3,552,605
New York Counties Tobacco Trust VI, Refunding RB, Series A-2-B, 5.00%, 06/01/45		9,395		10,077,923
New York Liberty Development Corp., Refunding RB^(a)
Series 1, Class 1, 5.00%, 11/15/44		7,830		8,525,147
Series 2, Class 2, 5.15%, 11/15/34		660		737,774
Series 2, Class 2, 5.38%, 11/15/40		1,655		1,862,239
New York State Dormitory Authority, Refunding RB, Series D, 5.00%, 02/15/37		6,655		6,897,242
New York State Environmental Facilities Corp., RB, Series B, Subordinate, 5.00%, 06/15/48		3,535		4,417,760
New York State Urban Development Corp., RB
Series A, 4.00%, 03/15/49		15,980		18,608,390
Series A, 3.00%, 03/15/50		2,595		2,728,279
New York Transportation Development Corp., ARB, Series A, AMT, 5.25%, 01/01/50		1,165		1,312,023


34		2 0 2 1 B L A C K R O C K A N N U A L R E P O R T T O S H A R E H O L D E R S

Schedule of Investments (continued)

April 30, 2021

BlackRock Municipal Income Trust (BFK)

(Percentages shown are based on Net Assets)


Security	Par (000)		Value

New York (continued)
New York Transportation Development Corp., RB
AMT, 5.00%, 10/01/35	$	715	$	904,239
AMT, 5.00%, 10/01/40		2,020		2,512,638
Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Authority, RB
Series A, 4.00%, 11/15/54		1,985		2,301,766
Series A, 5.00%, 11/15/54		1,705		2,144,941
Series A, 5.00%, 11/15/56		1,785		2,269,056
Westchester County Healthcare Corp., RB, Series A, Senior Lien, 5.00%, 11/01/44		1,620		1,801,818

				104,249,435

North Carolina — 1.3%
County of Union NC Enterprise System Revenue, RB, 3.00%, 06/01/51		4,150		4,486,690
North Carolina Medical Care Commission, RB
Series A, 4.00%, 10/01/40		235		261,393
Series A, 5.00%, 10/01/40		350		420,140
Series A, 4.00%, 10/01/45		215		237,108
Series A, 5.00%, 10/01/45		620		737,967
Series A, 4.00%, 10/01/50		260		285,592
Series A, 5.00%, 10/01/50		700		823,424
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, RB, 5.00%, 02/01/49		1,080		1,661,861

				8,914,175

North Dakota — 0.3%
County of Cass North Dakota, Refunding RB, Series B, 5.25%, 02/15/58		1,885		2,289,069


Ohio — 3.3%
Buckeye Tobacco Settlement Financing Authority, Refunding RB
Series A-2, Class 1, 4.00%, 06/01/37		580		681,001
Series A-2, Class 1, 4.00%, 06/01/38		580		679,348
Series A-2, Class 1, 4.00%, 06/01/39		580		677,370
Series A-2, Class 1, 4.00%, 06/01/48		1,525		1,716,174
Series B-2, Class 2, 5.00%, 06/01/55		6,705		7,531,257
County of Franklin Ohio, RB
Series 2017, 5.00%, 12/01/46		800		964,624
Series A, 6.13%, 07/01/22^(c)		75		80,188
Series A, 6.13%, 07/01/40		1,205		1,266,479
Series A, 4.00%, 12/01/49		1,015		1,174,315
County of Hamilton Ohio, Refunding RB 4.00%, 08/15/50		1,200		1,392,384
Series A, 3.75%, 08/15/50		2,110		2,369,699
Ohio Air Quality Development Authority, RB, AMT, 5.00%, 07/01/49^(a)		1,480		1,638,893
State of Ohio, RB, AMT, 5.00%, 06/30/53		1,585		1,773,060

				21,944,792

Oklahoma — 1.8%
Oklahoma Development Finance Authority, RB, Series B, 5.25%, 08/15/48		2,350		2,845,662
Oklahoma Turnpike Authority, RB
Series A, 4.00%, 01/01/48		4,065		4,561,662
Series C, 4.00%, 01/01/42		3,845		4,380,531

				11,787,855


Security	Par (000)		Value

Oregon — 1.3%
Medford Hospital Facilities Authority, Refunding RB, Series A, 4.00%, 08/15/50	$	3,390	$	3,965,554
Port of Portland Oregon Airport Revenue, Refunding ARB, Series 27-A, AMT, 5.00%, 07/01/45		3,630		4,480,364

				8,445,918

Pennsylvania — 2.6%
Allentown Neighborhood Improvement Zone Development Authority, RB^(a)
Subordinate, 5.00%, 05/01/28		375		428,865
Subordinate, 5.13%, 05/01/32		470		552,861
Subordinate, 5.38%, 05/01/42		870		1,011,418
Hospitals & Higher Education Facilities Authority of Philadelphia, RB, Series A, 5.63%, 07/01/42		1,240		1,305,683
Montgomery County Higher Education and Health Authority, Refunding RB
Series A, 5.00%, 09/01/43		2,505		3,046,155
Series A, 4.00%, 09/01/49		1,135		1,263,618
Pennsylvania Economic Development Financing Authority, RB, AMT, 5.00%, 06/30/42		1,660		1,906,112
Pennsylvania Higher Educational Facilities Authority, RB, 4.00%, 08/15/49		4,665		5,419,657
Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, RB, Series A, 5.00%, 12/01/44		2,155		2,473,531

				17,407,900

Puerto Rico — 5.9%
Children’s Trust Fund, Refunding RB
5.50%, 05/15/39		1,365		1,398,347
5.63%, 05/15/43		1,360		1,375,450
Puerto Rico Commonwealth Aqueduct & Sewer Authority, RB
Series A, Senior Lien, 5.00%, 07/01/33		4,920		5,128,756
Series A, Senior Lien, 5.13%, 07/01/37		1,410		1,471,166
Puerto Rico Sales Tax Financing Corp. Sales Tax Revenue, RB
Series A-1, Restructured, 4.75%, 07/01/53		4,044		4,489,527
Series A-1, Restructured, 5.00%, 07/01/58		14,252		16,010,839
Series A-2, Restructured, 4.33%, 07/01/40		1,950		2,131,389
Series A-2, Restructured, 4.78%, 07/01/58		3,325		3,701,556
Puerto Rico Sales Tax Financing Corp. Sales Tax Revenue, RB, CAB, Series A-1, Restructured, 0.00%, 07/01/46^(b)		10,294		3,245,801

				38,952,831

Rhode Island — 2.4%
Tobacco Settlement Financing Corp., Refunding RB
Series A, 5.00%, 06/01/35		3,060		3,518,419
Series B, 4.50%, 06/01/45		5,175		5,604,473
Series B, 5.00%, 06/01/50		5,765		6,443,713

				15,566,605

South Carolina — 5.5%
South Carolina Jobs-Economic Development Authority, RB
5.00%, 04/01/44		160		175,318
4.00%, 04/01/49		150		153,713
5.00%, 04/01/49		480		523,752
4.00%, 04/01/54		370		378,085
5.00%, 04/01/54		875		953,015


S C H E D U L E O F I N V E S T M E N T S		35

Schedule of Investments (continued)

April 30, 2021

BlackRock Municipal Income Trust (BFK)

(Percentages shown are based on Net Assets)


Security	Par (000)		Value

South Carolina (continued)
South Carolina Jobs-Economic Development Authority, Refunding RB
5.00%, 02/01/36	$	5,115	$	6,086,645
Series A, 5.00%, 05/01/48		6,075		7,173,725
South Carolina Public Service Authority, RB, Series A, 5.50%, 12/01/54		12,065		13,733,589
South Carolina Public Service Authority, Refunding RB
Series A, 5.00%, 12/01/50		2,805		3,201,150
Series E, 5.25%, 12/01/55		3,335		3,902,183

				36,281,175

Tennessee — 1.2%
Chattanooga Health Educational & Housing Facility Board, Refunding RB, Series A, 4.00%, 08/01/44		315		356,022
Memphis-Shelby County Airport Authority, RB, Series A, AMT, 5.00%, 07/01/45		3,240		4,058,780
Metropolitan Government Nashville & Davidson County Health & Educational Facilities Board, RB, Series A, 5.00%, 07/01/40		1,350		1,609,997
Metropolitan Government Nashville & Davidson County Health & Educational Facilities Board, Refunding RB, Series A, 5.25%, 10/01/58		1,925		2,223,914

				8,248,713

Texas — 7.9%
Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority, RB, Series E, Senior Lien, 4.00%, 01/01/50		4,370		4,985,820
Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority, Refunding RB, Sub Lien, 5.00%, 01/01/23^(c)		700		755,860
City of Austin Texas Airport System Revenue, ARB, AMT, 5.00%, 11/15/39		385		436,752
City of San Antonio Texas Electric & Gas Systems Revenue, Refunding RB, Series A, 5.00%, 02/01/48		2,295		2,831,548
Fort Bend County Industrial Development Corp., RB, Series B, 4.75%, 11/01/42		470		498,426
Harris County Cultural Education Facilities Finance Corp., RB, Series B, 7.00%, 01/01/23^(c)		880		979,440
Harris County-Houston Sports Authority, Refunding RB^(b)
Series A, 3rd Lien, (NPFGC), 0.00%, 11/15/24^(c)		6,000		2,732,400
Series A, 3rd Lien, (NPFGC), 0.00%, 11/15/37		10,120		4,253,436
Harris County-Houston Sports Authority, Refunding RB, CAB^(b)
Series H, Junior Lien, (NPFGC), 0.00%, 11/15/35		5,000		2,732,200
Series A, Senior Lien, (AGM, NPFGC), 0.00%, 11/15/38		12,580		5,812,463
Midland County Fresh Water Supply District No.1, RB, CAB^(b)
Series A, 0.00%, 09/15/40		9,780		4,490,389
Series A, 0.00%, 09/15/41		5,420		2,360,302
New Hope Cultural Education Facilities Finance Corp., RB, Series A, 5.00%, 04/01/25^(c)		355		418,573
New Hope Cultural Education Facilities Finance Corp., Refunding RB, Series A, 5.00%, 08/15/46^(a)		1,980		1,990,593
San Antonio Water System, Refunding RB, Series A, Junior Lien, 5.00%, 05/15/48		2,555		3,172,671


Security	Par (000)		Value

Texas (continued)
Tarrant County Cultural Education Facilities Finance Corp., RB, Series B, 5.00%, 07/01/48	$	9,025	$	10,992,631
Texas Transportation Commission, RB, Series A, 5.00%, 08/01/57		2,310		2,673,132

				52,116,636

Utah — 1.0%
County of Utah, RB
Series A, 4.00%, 05/15/43		440		522,645
Series A, 3.00%, 05/15/50		1,985		2,093,004
Salt Lake City Corp. Airport Revenue, ARB
Series A, AMT, 5.00%, 07/01/47		1,830		2,135,573
Series A, AMT, 5.00%, 07/01/48		1,735		2,054,587

				6,805,809

Virginia — 1.4%
Front Royal & Warren County Industrial Development Authority, RB, 4.00%, 01/01/50		1,465		1,602,285
Virginia Small Business Financing Authority, RB
AMT, Senior Lien, 5.25%, 01/01/32		3,155		3,324,928
AMT, Senior Lien, 6.00%, 01/01/37		3,790		4,020,698

				8,947,911

Washington — 1.6%
Port of Seattle Washington, ARB
Series A, AMT, 5.00%, 05/01/43		2,980		3,504,808
Series C, AMT, 5.00%, 04/01/40		1,475		1,673,063
Washington Health Care Facilities Authority, RB, Series A, 5.75%, 01/01/23^(c)		4,420		4,818,728
Washington Health Care Facilities Authority, Refunding RB, Series A, 4.00%, 08/01/44		685		769,556

				10,766,155


Total Municipal Bonds — 125.5% (Cost: $755,124,399)				830,663,437


Municipal Bonds Transferred to Tender Option Bond Trusts^(h)

California — 1.1%
Bay Area Toll Authority, Refunding RB, 4.00%, 04/01/42⁽ⁱ⁾		6,196		7,118,682


Colorado — 0.8%
City & County of Denver Colorado Airport System Revenue, Refunding ARB, Series A, AMT, 5.25%, 12/01/48⁽ⁱ⁾		4,475		5,467,182


District of Columbia — 0.6%
Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority Dulles Toll Road Revenue, Refunding RB, Series B, Subordinate, (AGM), 4.00%, 10/01/53		3,638		4,139,925


Georgia — 1.7%
Dalton Whitfield County Joint Development Authority, RB, 4.00%, 08/15/48		7,220		8,115,930
Georgia Housing & Finance Authority, Refunding RB, Series A, 3.60%, 12/01/44		2,898		3,142,605

				11,258,535


36		2 0 2 1 B L A C K R O C K A N N U A L R E P O R T T O S H A R E H O L D E R S

Schedule of Investments (continued)

April 30, 2021

BlackRock Municipal Income Trust (BFK)

(Percentages shown are based on Net Assets)


Security	Par (000)		Value

Illinois — 0.5%
Illinois Finance Authority, Refunding RB
Series C, 4.00%, 02/15/27^(c)	$	5	$	6,066
Series C, 4.00%, 02/15/41		2,800		3,136,159

				3,142,225

Massachusetts — 3.0%
Commonwealth of Massachusetts Transportation Fund Revenue, RB, Series A, 4.00%, 06/01/45		4,153		4,657,011
Massachusetts Development Finance Agency, Refunding RB, 5.00%, 07/01/47		9,088		10,742,938
Massachusetts School Building Authority, RB, Series B, 5.00%, 10/15/21^(c)		4,427		4,522,875

				19,922,824

New York — 14.6%
Hudson Yards Infrastructure Corp., RB⁽ⁱ⁾
5.75%, 02/15/47^(c)		725		728,637
5.75%, 02/15/47		446		448,235
New York City Water & Sewer System, Refunding RB, Series HH, 5.00%, 06/15/31⁽ⁱ⁾		16,395		16,487,632
New York Liberty Development Corp., ARB, 5.25%, 12/15/43		20,864		21,488,676
New York Liberty Development Corp., Refunding RB, 5.75%, 11/15/51⁽ⁱ⁾		12,611		12,967,821
New York Power Authority, Refunding RB, Series A, 4.00%, 11/15/60		2,655		3,069,419
New York State Dormitory Authority, Refunding RB, Series D, 4.00%, 02/15/47		12,060		13,936,295
New York State Thruway Authority, Refunding RB, Series B, Subordinate, 4.00%, 01/01/50		5,805		6,627,732
New York State Urban Development Corp., RB, Series A, 4.00%, 03/15/46		13,155		15,008,408
Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, Refunding ARB, 194th Series, 5.25%, 10/15/55		5,070		6,028,838

				96,791,693

North Carolina — 0.9%
North Carolina Capital Facilities Finance Agency, Refunding RB, Series B, 5.00%, 10/01/25^(c)		4,960		5,952,595


Pennsylvania — 0.9%
Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, RB, Sub-Series A, 5.50%, 12/01/42		4,652		5,667,690


Rhode Island — 0.5%
Narragansett Bay Commission, Refunding RB, Series A, 4.00%, 09/01/22^(c)		3,137		3,296,518


Texas — 6.8%
Board of Regents of the University of Texas System, Refunding RB, Series B, 5.00%, 08/15/43		6,003		6,349,894
City of San Antonio Texas Electric & Gas Systems Revenue, RB, Junior Lien, 5.00%, 02/01/23^(c)		4,900		5,310,473
Lower Colorado River Authority, Refunding, RB, 4.00%, 05/15/43		4,140		4,273,432
Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County Sales & Use Tax Revenue, Refunding RB, Series A, 5.00%, 11/01/21^(c)		6,650		6,805,810
San Antonio Public Facilities Corp., Refunding RB, 4.00%, 09/15/42		5,505		5,713,309
Texas Water Development Board, RB, Series A, 4.00%, 10/15/49		13,920		16,468,334

				44,921,252


Security	Par (000)		Value

Virginia — 2.4%
Hampton Roads Transportation Accountability Commission, RB, Series A, Senior Lien, 4.00%, 07/01/60⁽ⁱ⁾	$	4,346	$	5,036,165
Virginia Small Business Financing Authority, Refunding RB, Series A, 4.00%, 12/01/49		9,677		11,183,089

				16,219,254

Wisconsin — 0.9%
Wisconsin Health & Educational Facilities Authority, Refunding RB, 4.00%, 12/01/46		5,575		6,211,165


Total Municipal Bonds Transferred to Tender Option Bond Trusts — 34.7% (Cost: $216,331,392)				230,109,540


Total Long-Term Investments — 160.2% (Cost: $971,455,791)				1,060,772,977


	Shares

Short-Term Securities

Money Market Funds — 0.2%
BlackRock Liquidity Funds, MuniCash, Institutional Class, 0.01%^(j)(k)		902,606		902,787


Total Short-Term Securities — 0.2% (Cost: $902,644)				902,787


Total Investments — 160.4% (Cost: $972,358,435)				1,061,675,764

Other Assets Less Liabilities — 1.5%				10,410,389

Liability for TOB Trust Certificates, Including Interest Expense and Fees Payable — (21.0)%				(139,194,024	)

VMTP Shares at Liquidation Value — (40.9)%				(270,800,000	)


Net Assets Applicable to Common Shares — 100.0%			$	662,092,129

^(a)	Security exempt from registration pursuant to Rule 144A under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. These securities may be resold in transactions exempt from registration to qualified institutional investors.

^(b)	Zero-coupon bond.

^(c)	U.S. 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.

^(d)	Issuer filed for bankruptcy and/or is in default.

^(e)	Non-income producing security.

^(f)	Variable rate security. Interest rate resets periodically. The rate shown is the effective interest rate as of period end. Security description also includes the reference rate and spread if published and available.

^(g)	Step-up bond that pays an initial coupon rate for the first period and then a higher coupon rate for the following periods. Rate as of period end.

^(h)	Represent bonds transferred to a TOB Trust in exchange of cash and residual certificates received by the Trust. These bonds serve as collateral in a secured borrowing. See Note 4 of the Notes to Financial Statements for details.

⁽ⁱ⁾

All or a portion of the security is subject to a recourse agreement. The aggregate maximum potential amount the Trust could ultimately be required to pay under the agreements, which expire between May 15, 2021 to February 15, 2047, is $29,506,567. See Note 4 of the Notes to Financial Statements for details.

^(j)	Affiliate of the Trust.

^(k)	Annualized 7-day yield as of period end.


S C H E D U L E O F I N V E S T M E N T S		37

Schedule of Investments (continued)

April 30, 2021

BlackRock Municipal Income Trust (BFK)

Affiliates


Affiliated Issuer	Value at 04/30/20		Purchases at Cost		Proceeds from Sales			Net Realized Gain (Loss)		Change in Unrealized Appreciation (Depreciation)			Value at 04/30/21		Shares Held at 04/30/21		Income		Capital Gain Distributions from Underlying Funds
BlackRock Liquidity Funds, MuniCash, Institutional Class	$	13,735,179	$	—	$	(12,834,042	)^(a)	$	6,872	$	(5,222	)	$	902,787		902,606	$	1,451	$	—

^(a)

Represents net amount purchased (sold).

Derivative Financial Instruments Outstanding as of Period End

Futures Contracts


Description	Number of Contracts		Expiration Date		Notional Amount (000)		Value/ Unrealized Appreciation (Depreciation)
Short Contracts
10-Year U.S. Treasury Note.		133		06/21/21	$	17,573	$	(92,846	)
U.S. Long Treasury Bond		80		06/21/21		12,585		(84,096	)

							$	(176,942	)

Derivative Financial Instruments Categorized by Risk Exposure

As of period end, the fair values of derivative financial instruments located in the Statements of Assets and Liabilities were as follows:


	Commodity Contracts		Credit Contracts		Equity Contracts		Foreign Currency Exchange Contracts		Interest Rate Contracts		Other Contracts		Total
Liabilities — Derivative Financial Instruments
Futures contracts
Unrealized depreciation on futures contracts^(a)	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	176,942	$	—	$	176,942

^(a)

For the year ended April 30, 2021, the effect of derivative financial instruments in the Statements of Operations was as follows:


	Commodity Contracts		Credit Contracts		Equity Contracts		Foreign Currency Exchange Contracts		Interest Rate Contracts			Other Contracts		Total
Net Change in Unrealized Appreciation (Depreciation) on
Futures contracts	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	(176,942	)	$	—	$	(176,942	)

Average Quarterly Balances of Outstanding Derivative Financial Instruments


Futures contracts
Average notional value of contracts — short	$	7,539,406

For more information about the Trust’s investment risks regarding derivative financial instruments, refer to the Notes to Financial Statements.


38		2 0 2 1 B L A C K R O C K A N N U A L R E P O R T T O S H A R E H O L D E R S

Schedule of Investments (continued)

April 30, 2021

BlackRock Municipal Income Trust (BFK)

Fair Value Hierarchy as of Period End


	Level 1			Level 2		Level 3		Total
Assets
Investments
Long-Term Investments
Municipal Bonds	$	—		$	830,663,437	$	—	$	830,663,437
Municipal Bonds Transferred to Tender Option Bond Trusts		—			230,109,540		—		230,109,540
Short-Term Securities
Money Market Funds		902,787			—		—		902,787

	$	902,787		$	1,060,772,977	$	—	$	1,061,675,764

Derivative Financial Instruments^(a)
Liabilities
Interest Rate Contracts	$	(176,942	)	$	—	$	—	$	(176,942	)


^(a) Derivative financial instruments are futures contracts. Futures contracts are valued at the unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on the instrument.


	Level 1		Level 2			Level 3		Total
Liabilities
TOB Trust Certificates	$	—	$	(139,150,487	)	$	—	$	(139,150,487	)
VMTP Shares at Liquidation Value		—		(270,800,000	)		—		(270,800,000	)

	$	—	$	(409,950,487	)	$	—	$	(409,950,487	)

See notes to financial statements.


S C H E D U L E O F I N V E S T M E N T S		39

Statements of Assets and Liabilities

April 30, 2021


	BKN		BTA		BFK

ASSETS
Investments at value — unaffiliated^(a)	$	456,088,982	$	289,613,649	$	1,060,772,977
Investments at value — affiliated^(b)		7,420,831		133,660		902,787
Cash		26,577		18,031		39,546
Cash pledged for futures contracts		342,000		231,000		504,000
Receivables:
Investments sold		—		40,972		120,000
Dividends — affiliated		60		9		33
Interest — unaffiliated		5,246,277		3,889,593		13,385,413
Prepaid expenses		18,698		37,180		18,099

Total assets		469,143,425		293,964,094		1,075,742,855


ACCRUED LIABILITIES
Payables:
Administration fees		57,735		—		—
Income dividend distributions — Common Shares		1,169,715		678,076		2,627,436
Interest expense and fees		15,926		10,461		43,537
Investment advisory fees		134,549		146,310		527,654
Trustees’ and Officer’s fees		83,766		26,540		273,682
Other accrued expenses		83,870		43,639		93,978
Professional fees		58,759		58,022		105,285
Variation margin on futures contracts		20,608		13,217		28,667

Total accrued liabilities		1,624,928		976,265		3,700,239


OTHER LIABILITIES
TOB Trust Certificates		54,214,390		38,607,260		139,150,487
VRDP Shares, at liquidation value of $100,000 per share, net of deferred offering costs^(c)(d)(e)		—		75,628,782		—
VMTP Shares, at liquidation value of $100,000 per share^(c)(d)(e)		125,900,000		—		270,800,000

Total other liabilities		180,114,390		114,236,042		409,950,487

Total liabilities		181,739,318		115,212,307		413,650,726


NET ASSETS APPLICABLE TO COMMON SHAREHOLDERS	$	287,404,107	$	178,751,787	$	662,092,129


NET ASSETS APPLICABLE TO COMMON SHAREHOLDERS CONSIST OF
Paid-in capital^(f)(g)(h)	$	239,000,034	$	156,278,963	$	592,087,631
Accumulated earnings		48,404,073		22,472,824		70,004,498

NET ASSETS APPLICABLE TO COMMON SHAREHOLDERS	$	287,404,107	$	178,751,787	$	662,092,129


Net asset value per Common Share	$	16.71	$	13.31	$	14.74


^(a)Investments at cost — unaffiliated	$	404,351,565	$	263,353,154	$	971,455,791
^(b)Investments at cost — affiliated	$	7,420,831	$	133,660	$	902,644
^(c)Preferred Shares outstanding		1,259		760		2,708
^(d)Preferred Shares authorized		7,121		Unlimited		Unlimited
^(e)Par value per Preferred Share	$	0.10	$	0.001	$	0.001
^(f)Common Shares outstanding		17,202,208		13,427,241		44,913,436
^(g)Common Shares authorized		199,992,879		Unlimited		Unlimited
^(h)Par value per Common Share	$	0.01	$	0.001	$	0.001

See notes to financial statements.


40		2 0 2 1 B L A C K R O C K A N N U A L R E P O R T T O S H A R E H O L D E R S

Statements of Operations

Year Ended April 30, 2021


	BKN			BTA			BFK

INVESTMENT INCOME
Dividends — affiliated	$	308		$	224		$	1,451
Interest — unaffiliated		18,156,027			11,981,506			41,613,225

Total investment income		18,156,335			11,981,730			41,614,676


EXPENSES
Investment advisory		1,622,884			1,700,425			6,315,786
Administration		695,522			—			—
Accounting services		69,108			29,122			84,102
Professional		61,775			76,491			98,395
Rating agency		56,805			39,590			56,805
Trustees and Officer		37,412			16,831			106,378
Transfer agent		36,045			27,212			54,351
Custodian		17,041			6,628			12,091
Registration		8,298			8,319			15,249
Printing and postage		3,902			5,361			6,884
Liquidity fees		—			7,742			—
Remarketing fees on Preferred Shares		—			7,595			—
Miscellaneous		12,212			9,186			15,598

Total expenses excluding interest expense, fees and amortization of offering costs		2,621,004			1,934,502			6,765,639
Interest expense, fees and amortization of offering costs^(a)		1,687,672			1,008,493			3,734,185

Total expenses		4,308,676			2,942,995			10,499,824
Less:
Fees waived and/or reimbursed by the Manager		(1,295	)		(780	)		(8,993	)

Total expenses after fees waived and/or reimbursed		4,307,381			2,942,215			10,490,831

Net investment income		13,848,954			9,039,515			31,123,845


REALIZED AND UNREALIZED GAIN (LOSS)
Net realized gain from:
Investments — unaffiliated		172,258			1,551,542			1,828,732
Investments — affiliated		429			58			6,872
Futures contracts		562,315			538,973			—

		735,002			2,090,573			1,835,604

Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on:
Investments — unaffiliated		30,334,267			25,217,748			80,226,263
Investments — affiliated		(526	)		(7	)		(5,222	)
Futures contracts		(140,231	)		233,291			(176,942	)

		30,193,510			25,451,032			80,044,099

Net realized and unrealized gain		30,928,512			27,541,605			81,879,703

NET INCREASE IN NET ASSETS APPLICABLE TO COMMON SHAREHOLDERS RESULTING FROM OPERATIONS	$	44,777,466		$	36,581,120		$	113,003,548

^(a)	Related to TOB Trusts, VMTP Shares and/or VRDP Shares.

See notes to financial statements.


F I N A N C I A L S T A T E M E N T S		41

Statements of Changes in Net Assets


	BKN						BTA
	Year Ended April 30,						Year Ended April 30,
	2021			2020			2021			2020

INCREASE (DECREASE) IN NET ASSETS APPLICABLE TO COMMON SHAREHOLDERS

OPERATIONS
Net investment income	$	13,848,954		$	12,218,008		$	9,039,515		$	8,008,105
Net realized gain (loss)		735,002			(3,880,936	)		2,090,573			(3,215,979	)
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation)		30,193,510			(11,335,729	)		25,451,032			(13,792,670	)

Net increase (decrease) in net assets applicable to Common Shareholders resulting from operations		44,777,466			(2,998,657	)		36,581,120			(9,000,544	)


DISTRIBUTIONS TO COMMON SHAREHOLDERS^(a)
Decrease in net assets resulting from distributions to Common Shareholders		(13,530,018	)		(11,823,871	)		(8,188,679	)		(8,135,464	)


CAPITAL SHARE TRANSACTIONS
Reinvestment of common distributions		272,377			—			15,397			48,840


NET ASSETS APPLICABLE TO COMMON SHAREHOLDERS
Total increase (decrease) in net assets applicable to Common Shareholders		31,519,825			(14,822,528	)		28,407,838			(17,087,168	)
Beginning of year		255,884,282			270,706,810			150,343,949			167,431,117

End of year	$	287,404,107		$	255,884,282		$	178,751,787		$	150,343,949

^(a)	Distributions for annual periods determined in accordance with U.S. federal income tax regulations.

See notes to financial statements.


42		2 0 2 1 B L A C K R O C K A N N U A L R E P O R T T O S H A R E H O L D E R S

Statements of Changes in Net Assets (continued)


	BFK
	Year Ended April 30,
	2021			2020

INCREASE (DECREASE) IN NET ASSETS APPLICABLE TO COMMON SHAREHOLDERS

OPERATIONS
Net investment income	$	31,123,845		$	30,101,645
Net realized gain (loss)		1,835,604			(8,059,523	)
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation)		80,044,099			(49,080,595	)

Net increase (decrease) in net assets applicable to Common Shareholders resulting from operations		113,003,548			(27,038,473	)


DISTRIBUTIONS TO COMMON SHAREHOLDERS^(a)
Decrease in net assets resulting from distributions to Common Shareholders		(30,918,155	)		(29,230,034	)


CAPITAL SHARE TRANSACTIONS
Reinvestment of common distributions		1,199,715			—


NET ASSETS APPLICABLE TO COMMON SHAREHOLDERS
Total increase (decrease) in net assets applicable to Common Shareholders		83,285,108			(56,268,507	)
Beginning of year		578,807,021			635,075,528

End of year	$	662,092,129		$	578,807,021

^(a)	Distributions for annual periods determined in accordance with U.S. federal income tax regulations.

See notes to financial statements.


F I N A N C I A L S T A T E M E N T S		43

Statements of Cash Flows

Year Ended April 30, 2021


	BKN			BTA			BFK

CASH PROVIDED BY (USED FOR) OPERATING ACTIVITIES
Net increase in net assets resulting from operations	$	44,777,466		$	36,581,120		$	113,003,548
Adjustments to reconcile net increase in net assets resulting from operations to net cash provided by operating activities
Proceeds from sales of long-term investments		53,442,013			78,324,839			148,534,211
Purchases of long-term investments		(47,339,538	)		(81,923,646	)		(168,684,889	)
Net proceeds from sales (purchases) of short-term securities		(3,417,029	)		543,496			12,834,042
Amortization of premium and accretion of discount on investments and other fees		(1,257,190	)		201,305			2,912,389
Net realized gain on investments		(172,687	)		(1,551,600	)		(1,835,604	)
Net unrealized appreciation on investments		(30,333,741	)		(25,217,741	)		(80,221,041	)

(Increase) Decrease in Assets
Receivables
Dividends — affiliated		663			112			5,795
Interest — unaffiliated		32,647			(30,788	)		623,358
Prepaid expenses		4,962			1,776			4,334

Increase (Decrease) in Liabilities
Payables
Administration fees		(54,295	)		—			—
Interest expense and fees		(246,957	)		(132,862	)		(456,669	)
Investment advisory fees		(126,561	)		(117,095	)		(479,359	)
Trustees’ and Officer’s fees		20,080			5,794			60,004
Other accrued expenses		17,725			7,465			17,588
Variation margin on futures contracts		20,608			13,217			28,667

Net cash provided by operating activities		15,368,166			6,705,392			26,346,374


CASH PROVIDED BY (USED FOR) FINANCING ACTIVITIES
Cash dividends paid to Common Shareholders		(13,101,892	)		(8,173,220	)		(29,489,481	)
Repayments of TOB Trust Certificates		(3,541,689	)		(3,345,550	)		(4,081,270	)
Repayments of Loan for TOB Trust Certificates		—			(1,680,000	)		(3,102,244	)
Proceeds from TOB Trust Certificates		1,643,992			5,044,937			7,767,923
Proceeds from Loan for TOB Trust Certificates		—			1,680,000			3,102,244
Amortization of deferred offering costs		—			16,770			—

Net cash used for financing activities		(14,999,589	)		(6,457,063	)		(25,802,828	)


CASH
Net increase in restricted and unrestricted cash		368,577			248,329			543,546
Restricted and unrestricted cash at beginning of year		—			702			—

Restricted and unrestricted cash at end of year	$	368,577		$	249,031		$	543,546


SUPPLEMENTAL DISCLOSURE OF CASH FLOW INFORMATION
Cash paid during the year for interest expense	$	1,934,629		$	1,124,585		$	4,190,854


NON-CASH FINANCING ACTIVITIES
Capital shares issued in reinvestment of distributions paid to Common Shareholders	$	272,377		$	15,397		$	1,199,715


RECONCILIATION OF RESTRICTED AND UNRESTRICTED CASH AT THE END OF YEAR TO THE STATEMENTS OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIES
Cash	$	26,577		$	18,031		$	39,546
Cash pledged
Futures contracts		342,000			231,000			504,000

	$	368,577		$	249,031		$	543,546

See notes to financial statements.


44		2 0 2 1 B L A C K R O C K A N N U A L R E P O R T T O S H A R E H O L D E R S

Financial Highlights

(For a share outstanding throughout each period)


	BKN

	Year Ended April 30,
	2021			2020			2019			2018			2017

Net asset value, beginning of year	$	14.89		$	15.75		$	15.26		$	15.39		$	16.83

Net investment income^(a)		0.81			0.71			0.71			0.73			0.79
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss)		1.80			(0.88	)		0.46			0.02			(1.12	)

Net increase (decrease) from investment operations		2.61			(0.17	)		1.17			0.75			(0.33	)


Distributions to Common Shareholders^(b)
From net investment income		(0.79	)		(0.69	)		(0.68	)		(0.73	)		(0.85	)
From net realized gain		—			—			(0.00	)^(c)		(0.15	)		(0.26	)

Total distributions to Common Shareholders		(0.79	)		(0.69	)		(0.68	)		(0.88	)		(1.11	)


Net asset value, end of year	$	16.71		$	14.89		$	15.75		$	15.26		$	15.39


Market price, end of year	$	19.20		$	14.75		$	14.31		$	13.57		$	14.59


Total Return Applicable to Common Shareholders^(d)
Based on net asset value		17.68	%		(1.16	)%		8.45	%		5.34	%		(1.84	)%

Based on market price		36.51	%		7.77	%		10.81	%		(1.20	)%		(7.55	)%


Ratios to Average Net Assets Applicable to Common Shareholders
Total expenses		1.53	%		2.31	%		2.53	%		2.12	%		1.84	%

Total expenses after fees waived and/or reimbursed		1.53	%		2.31	%		2.53	%		2.11	%		1.84	%

Total expenses after fees waived and/or reimbursed and excluding interest expense, fees, and amortization of offering costs^(e)		0.93	%		0.93	%		0.94	%		0.90	%		0.90	%

Net investment income to Common Shareholders		4.93	%		4.39	%		4.64	%		4.64	%		4.87	%


Supplemental Data
Net assets applicable to Common Shareholders, end of year (000)	$	287,404		$	255,884		$	270,707		$	262,198		$	264,551

VMTP Shares outstanding at $100,000 liquidation value, end of year (000)	$	125,900		$	125,900		$	125,900		$	125,900		$	125,900

Asset coverage per VMTP Shares at $100,000 liquidation value, end of year	$	328,280		$	303,244		$	315,017		$	308,259		$	310,128

Borrowings outstanding, end of year (000)	$	54,214		$	56,112		$	51,999		$	41,043		$	30,783

Portfolio turnover rate		10	%		16	%		29	%		31	%		36	%

^(a)	Based on average Common Shares outstanding.

^(b)	Distributions for annual periods determined in accordance with U.S. federal income tax regulations.

^(c)	Amount is greater than $(0.005) per share.

^(d)	Total returns based on market price, which can be significantly greater or less than the net asset value, may result in substantially different returns. Where applicable, excludes the effects of any sales charges and assumes the reinvestment of distributions at actual reinvestment prices.

^(e)	Interest expense, fees and amortization of offering costs related to TOB Trusts and/or VMTP Shares. See Note 4 and Note 10 of the Notes to Financial Statements for details.

See notes to financial statements.


F I N A N C I A L H I G H L I G H T S		45

Financial Highlights (continued)

(For a share outstanding throughout each period)



	BTA

	Year Ended April 30,
	2021			2020			2019			2018			2017

Net asset value, beginning of year	$	11.20		$	12.47		$	12.28		$	12.27		$	12.89

Net investment income^(a)		0.67			0.60			0.62			0.65			0.67
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss)		2.05			(1.26	)		0.20			0.01			(0.63	)


Net increase (decrease) from investment operations		2.72			(0.66	)		0.82			0.66			0.04


Distributions to Common Shareholders from net investment income^(b)		(0.61	)		(0.61	)		(0.63	)		(0.65	)		(0.66	)


Net asset value, end of year	$	13.31		$	11.20		$	12.47		$	12.28		$	12.27


Market price, end of year	$	13.20		$	10.92		$	11.88		$	11.20		$	11.66


Total Return Applicable to Common Shareholders^(c)
Based on net asset value		24.80	%		(5.70	)%		7.34	%		5.76	%		0.53	%

Based on market price		26.94	%		(3.49	)%		12.12	%		1.50	%		0.28	%


Ratios to Average Net Assets Applicable to Common Shareholders
Total expenses		1.73	%		2.54	%		2.67	%		2.33	%		2.00	%

Total expenses after fees waived and/or reimbursed		1.73	%		2.54	%		2.67	%		2.33	%		2.00	%

Total expenses after fees waived and/or reimbursed and excluding interest expense, fees, and amortization of offering costs^(d)(e)		1.14	%		1.13	%		1.13	%		1.14	%		1.13	%

Net investment income to Common Shareholders		5.32	%		4.71	%		5.11	%		5.21	%		5.32	%


Supplemental Data
Net assets applicable to Common Shareholders, end of year (000)	$	178,752		$	150,344		$	167,431		$	164,787		$	164,745

VRDP Shares outstanding at $100,000 liquidation value, end of year (000)	$	76,000		$	76,000		$	76,000		$	76,000		$	76,000

Asset coverage per VRDP Shares at $100,000 liquidation value, end of year	$	335,200		$	297,821		$	320,304		$	316,825		$	316,770

Borrowings outstanding, end of year (000)	$	38,607		$	36,908		$	34,595		$	36,025		$	32,093

Portfolio turnover rate		27	%		34	%		31	%		44	%		43	%

^(a)	Based on average Common Shares outstanding.

^(b)	Distributions for annual periods determined in accordance with U.S. federal income tax regulations.

^(c)	Total returns based on market price, which can be significantly greater or less than the net asset value, may result in substantially different returns. Where applicable, excludes the effects of any sales charges and assumes the reinvestment of distributions at actual reinvestment prices.

^(d)	Interest expense, fees and amortization of offering costs related to TOB Trusts and/or VRDP Shares. See Note 4 and Note 10 of the Notes to Financial Statements for details.

^(e)	The total expense ratio after fees waived and/or reimbursed and excluding interest expense, fees, amortization of offering costs, liquidity and remarketing fees as follows:


	Year Ended April 30,
	2021			2020			2019			2018			2017
Expense ratios		1.13	%		1.12	%		1.12	%		1.47	%		1.52	%

See notes to financial statements.


46		2 0 2 1 B L A C K R O C K A N N U A L R E P O R T T O S H A R E H O L D E R S

Financial Highlights (continued)

(For a share outstanding throughout each period)



	BFK

	Year Ended April 30,
	2021			2020			2019			2018			2017

Net asset value, beginning of year	$	12.91		$	14.17		$	13.98		$	14.24		$	15.20

Net investment income^(a)		0.69			0.67			0.68			0.73			0.81
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss)		1.83			(1.28	)		0.21			(0.22	)		(0.92	)

Net increase (decrease) from investment operations		2.52			(0.61	)		0.89			0.51			(0.11	)


Distributions to Common Shareholders from net investment income^(b)		(0.69	)		(0.65	)		(0.70	)		(0.77	)		(0.85	)


Net asset value, end of year	$	14.74		$	12.91		$	14.17		$	13.98		$	14.24


Market price, end of year	$	15.05		$	12.14		$	13.79		$	12.78		$	14.00


Total Return Applicable to Common Shareholders^(c)
Based on net asset value		19.81	%		(4.51	)%		6.98	%		3.74	%		(0.78	)%

Based on market price		30.10	%		(7.74	)%		13.89	%		(3.54	)%		(3.96	)%


Ratios to Average Net Assets Applicable to Common Shareholders
Total expenses		1.63	%		2.30	%		2.55	%		2.31	%		1.99	%

Total expenses after fees waived and/or reimbursed		1.63	%		2.30	%		2.55	%		2.27	%		1.98	%

Total expenses after fees waived and/or reimbursed and excluding interest expense, fees, and amortization of offering costs^(d)		1.05	%		1.02	%		1.04	%		1.03	%		1.06	%

Net investment income to Common Shareholders		4.84	%		4.68	%		4.87	%		5.06	%		5.45	%


Supplemental Data
Net assets applicable to Common Shareholders, end of year (000)	$	662,092		$	578,807		$	635,076		$	626,604		$	638,047

VMTP Shares outstanding at $100,000 liquidation value, end of year (000)	$	270,800		$	270,800		$	270,800		$	270,800		$	270,800

Asset coverage per VMTP Shares at $100,000 liquidation value, end of year	$	344,495		$	313,740		$	334,518		$	331,390		$	335,616

Borrowings outstanding, end of year (000)	$	139,150		$	135,464		$	119,624		$	128,156		$	146,562

Portfolio turnover rate		13	%		17	%		19	%		9	%		13	%

^(a)	Based on average Common Shares outstanding.

^(b)	Distributions for annual periods determined in accordance with U.S. federal income tax regulations.

^(c)	Total returns based on market price, which can be significantly greater or less than the net asset value, may result in substantially different returns. Where applicable, excludes the effects of any sales charges and assumes the reinvestment of distributions at actual reinvestment prices.

^(d)	Interest expense, fees and amortization of offering costs related to TOB Trusts and/or VMTP Shares. See Note 4 and Note 10 of the Notes to Financial Statements for details.

See notes to financial statements.


F I N A N C I A L H I G H L I G H T S		47

Notes to Financial Statements

ORGANIZATION

The following are registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), as closed-end management investment companies and are referred to herein collectively as the “Trusts”, or individually as a “Trust”:


Trust Name	Herein Referred To As	Organized	Diversification Classification
BlackRock Investment Quality Municipal Trust, Inc.	BKN	Maryland	Diversified
BlackRock Long-Term Municipal Advantage Trust	BTA	Delaware	Diversified
BlackRock Municipal Income Trust	BFK	Delaware	Diversified

The Board of Trustees of the Trusts are collectively referred to throughout this report as the “Board,” and the trustees thereof are collectively referred to throughout this report as “Trustees”. The Trusts determine and make available for publication the net asset values (“NAVs”) of their Common Shares on a daily basis.

The Trusts, together with certain other registered investment companies advised by BlackRock Advisors, LLC (the “Manager”) or its affiliates, are included in a complex of non-index fixed-income mutual funds and all BlackRock-advised closed-end funds referred to as the BlackRock Fixed-Income Complex.

SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES

The financial statements are prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“U.S. GAAP”), which may require management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities in the financial statements, disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of increases and decreases in net assets from operations during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates. Each Trust is considered an investment company under U.S. GAAP and follows the accounting and reporting guidance applicable to investment companies. Below is a summary of significant accounting policies:

Investment Transactions and Income Recognition: For financial reporting purposes, investment transactions are recorded on the dates the transactions are executed. Realized gains and losses on investment transactions are determined using the specific identification method. Dividend income and capital gain distributions, if any, are recorded on the ex-dividend dates. Non-cash dividends, if any, are recorded on the ex-dividend dates at fair value. Interest income, including amortization and accretion of premiums and discounts on debt securities, is recognized daily on an accrual basis.

Segregation and Collateralization: In cases where a Trust enters into certain investments (e.g., futures contracts) or certain borrowings (e.g., TOB Trust transactions) that would be treated as “senior securities” for 1940 Act purposes, a Trust may segregate or designate on its books and records cash or liquid assets having a market value at least equal to the amount of its future obligations under such investments or borrowings. Doing so allows the investment or borrowings to be excluded from treatment as a “senior security.” Furthermore, if required by an exchange or counterparty agreement, the Trusts may be required to deliver/deposit cash and/or securities to/with an exchange, or broker-dealer or custodian as collateral for certain investments or obligations.

Distributions: Distributions from net investment income are declared and paid monthly. Distributions of capital gains are recorded on the ex-dividend dates and made at least annually. The character and timing of distributions are determined in accordance with U.S. federal income tax regulations, which may differ from U.S. GAAP.

Distributions to Preferred Shareholders are accrued and determined as described in Note 10.

Deferred Compensation Plan: Under the Deferred Compensation Plan (the “Plan”) approved by each Trust’s Board, the trustees who are not “interested persons” of the Trusts, as defined in the 1940 Act (“Independent Trustees”), may defer a portion of their annual complex-wide compensation. Deferred amounts earn an approximate return as though equivalent dollar amounts had been invested in common shares of certain funds in the BlackRock Fixed-Income Complex selected by the Independent Trustees. This has the same economic effect for the Independent Trustees as if the Independent Trustees had invested the deferred amounts directly in certain funds in the BlackRock Fixed-Income Complex.

The Plan is not funded and obligations thereunder represent general unsecured claims against the general assets of each Trust, as applicable. Deferred compensation liabilities, if any, are included in the Trustees’ and Officer’s fees payable in the Statements of Assets and Liabilities and will remain as a liability of the Trusts until such amounts are distributed in accordance with the Plan.

Indemnifications: In the normal course of business, a Trust enters into contracts that contain a variety of representations that provide general indemnification. A Trust’s maximum exposure under these arrangements is unknown because it involves future potential claims against a Trust, which cannot be predicted with any certainty.

Other: Expenses directly related to a Trust are charged to that Trust. Other operating expenses shared by several funds, including other funds managed by the Manager, are prorated among those funds on the basis of relative net assets or other appropriate methods.


48		2 0 2 1 B L A C K R O C K A N N U A L R E P O R T T O S H A R E H O L D E R S

Notes to Financial Statements (continued)

INVESTMENT VALUATION AND FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENTS

Investment Valuation Policies: Each Trust’s investments are valued at fair value (also referred to as “market value” within the financial statements) each day that the Trust is open for business and, for financial reporting purposes, as of the report date. U.S. GAAP defines fair value as the price a fund would receive to sell an asset or pay to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. Each Trust determines the fair values of its financial instruments using various independent dealers or pricing services under policies approved by the Board. If a security’s market price is not readily available or does not otherwise accurately represent the fair value of the security, the security will be valued in accordance with a policy approved by the Board as reflecting fair value. The BlackRock Global Valuation Methodologies Committee (the “Global Valuation Committee”) is the committee formed by management to develop global pricing policies and procedures and to oversee the pricing function for all financial instruments.

Fair Value Inputs and Methodologies: The following methods and inputs are used to establish the fair value of each Trust’s assets and liabilities:

•

Fixed-income investments for which market quotations are readily available are generally valued using the last available bid price or current market quotations provided by independent dealers or third party pricing services. Pricing services generally value fixed-income securities assuming orderly transactions of an institutional round lot size, but a fund may hold or transact in such securities in smaller, odd lot sizes. Odd lots may trade at lower prices than institutional round lots. The pricing services may use matrix pricing or valuation models that utilize certain inputs and assumptions to derive values, including transaction data (e.g., recent representative bids and offers), market data, credit quality information, perceived market movements, news, and other relevant information. Certain fixed-income securities, including asset-backed and mortgage related securities may be valued based on valuation models that consider the estimated cash flows of each tranche of the entity, establish a benchmark yield and develop an estimated tranche specific spread to the benchmark yield based on the unique attributes of the tranche. The amortized cost method of valuation may be used with respect to debt obligations with sixty days or less remaining to maturity unless the Manager determines such method does not represent fair value.

•

Investments in open-end U.S. mutual funds (including money market funds) are valued at that day’s published NAV.

•

Futures contracts are valued based on that day’s last reported settlement or trade price on the exchange where the contract is traded.

If events (e.g., a market closure, market volatility, company announcement or a natural disaster) occur that are expected to materially affect the value of such investment, or in the event that application of these methods of valuation results in a price for an investment that is deemed not to be representative of the market value of such investment, or if a price is not available, the investment will be valued by the Global Valuation Committee, or its delegate, in accordance with a policy approved by the Board as reflecting fair value (“Fair Valued Investments”). The fair valuation approaches that may be used by the Global Valuation Committee include market approach, income approach and cost approach. Valuation techniques such as discounted cash flow, use of market comparables and matrix pricing are types of valuation approaches and are typically used in determining fair value. When determining the price for Fair Valued Investments, the Global Valuation Committee, or its delegate, seeks to determine the price that each Trust might reasonably expect to receive or pay from the current sale or purchase of that asset or liability in an arm’s-length transaction. Fair value determinations shall be based upon all available factors that the Global Valuation Committee, or its delegate, deems relevant and consistent with the principles of fair value measurement. The pricing of all Fair Valued Investments is subsequently reported to the Board or a committee thereof on a quarterly basis.

Fair Value Hierarchy: Various inputs are used in determining the fair value of financial instruments. These inputs to valuation techniques are categorized into a fair value hierarchy consisting of three broad levels for financial reporting purposes as follows:

•

Level 1 – Unadjusted price quotations in active markets/exchanges for identical assets or liabilities that each Trust has the ability to access;

•

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); and

•

Level 3 – Unobservable inputs based on the best information available in the circumstances, to the extent observable inputs are not available (including the Global Valuation Committee’s assumptions used in determining the fair value of financial instruments).

The hierarchy gives the highest priority to unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities (Level 1 measurements) and the lowest priority to unobservable inputs (Level 3 measurements). Accordingly, the degree of judgment exercised in determining fair value is greatest for instruments categorized in Level 3. The inputs used to measure fair value may fall into different levels of the fair value hierarchy. In such cases, for disclosure purposes, the fair value hierarchy classification is determined based on the lowest level input that is significant to the fair value measurement in its entirety. Investments classified within Level 3 have significant unobservable inputs used by the Global Valuation Committee in determining the price for Fair Valued Investments. Level 3 investments include equity or debt issued by privately held companies or funds that may not have a secondary market and/or may have a limited number of investors. The categorization of a value determined for financial instruments is based on the pricing transparency of the financial instruments and is not necessarily an indication of the risks associated with investing in those securities.

SECURITIES AND OTHER INVESTMENTS

Zero-Coupon Bonds: Zero-coupon bonds are normally issued at a significant discount from face value and do not provide for periodic interest payments. These bonds may experience greater volatility in market value than other debt obligations of similar maturity which provide for regular interest payments.

Forward Commitments, When-Issued and Delayed Delivery Securities: The Trusts may purchase securities on a when-issued basis and may purchase or sell securities on a forward commitment basis. Settlement of such transactions normally occurs within a month or more after the purchase or sale commitment is made. A Trust may purchase securities under such conditions with the intention of actually acquiring them, but may enter into a separate agreement to sell the securities before the settlement date. Since


N O T E S T O F I N A N C I A L S T A T E M E N T S		49

Notes to Financial Statements (continued)

the value of securities purchased may fluctuate prior to settlement, a Trust may be required to pay more at settlement than the security is worth. In addition, a Trust is not entitled to any of the interest earned prior to settlement. When purchasing a security on a delayed delivery basis, a Trust assumes the rights and risks of ownership of the security, including the risk of price and yield fluctuations. In the event of default by the counterparty, a Trust’s maximum amount of loss is the unrealized appreciation of unsettled when-issued transactions.

Municipal Bonds Transferred to TOB Trusts: Certain Trusts leverage their assets through the use of “TOB Trust” transactions. The funds transfer municipal bonds into a special purpose trust (a “TOB Trust”). A TOB Trust issues two classes of beneficial interests: short-term floating rate interests (“TOB Trust Certificates”), which are sold to third party investors, and residual inverse floating rate interests (“TOB Residuals”), which are issued to the participating funds that contributed the municipal bonds to the TOB Trust. The TOB Trust Certificates have interest rates that reset weekly and their holders have the option to tender such certificates to the TOB Trust for redemption at par and any accrued interest at each reset date. The TOB Residuals held by a fund provide the fund with the right to cause the holders of a proportional share of the TOB Trust Certificates to tender their certificates to the TOB Trust at par plus accrued interest. The funds may withdraw a corresponding share of the municipal bonds from the TOB Trust. Other funds managed by the investment adviser may also contribute municipal bonds to a TOB Trust into which a fund has contributed bonds. If multiple BlackRock-advised funds participate in the same TOB Trust, the economic rights and obligations under the TOB Residuals will be shared among the funds ratably in proportion to their participation in the TOB Trust.

TOB Trusts are supported by a liquidity facility provided by a third party bank or other financial institution (the “Liquidity Provider”) that allows the holders of the TOB Trust Certificates to tender their certificates in exchange for payment of par plus accrued interest on any business day. The tendered TOB Trust Certificates are remarketed by a Remarketing Agent. In the event of a failed remarketing, the TOB Trust may draw upon a loan from the Liquidity Provider to purchase the tendered TOB Trust Certificates. Any loans made by the Liquidity Provider will be secured by the purchased TOB Trust Certificates held by the TOB Trust and will be subject to an increased interest rate based on number of days the loan is outstanding.

The TOB Trust may be collapsed without the consent of a fund, upon the occurrence of a termination event as defined in the TOB Trust agreement. Upon the occurrence of a termination event, a TOB Trust would be liquidated with the proceeds applied first to any accrued fees owed to the trustee of the TOB Trust, the Remarketing Agent and the Liquidity Provider. Upon certain termination events, TOB Trust Certificates holders will be paid before the TOB Residuals holders (i.e., the Trusts) whereas in other termination events, TOB Trust Certificates holders and TOB Residuals holders will be paid pro rata.

While a fund’s investment policies and restrictions expressly permit investments in inverse floating rate securities, such as TOB Residuals, they restrict the ability of a fund to borrow money for purposes of making investments. Each fund’s transfer of the municipal bonds to a TOB Trust is considered a secured borrowing for financial reporting purposes. The cash received by the TOB Trust from the sale of the TOB Trust Certificates, less certain transaction expenses, is paid to a fund. A fund typically invests the cash received in additional municipal bonds.

Accounting for TOB Trusts: The municipal bonds deposited into a TOB Trust are presented in a fund’s Schedule of Investments and the TOB Trust Certificates are shown in Other Liabilities in the Statements of Assets and Liabilities. Any loans drawn by the TOB Trust pursuant to the liquidity facility to purchase tendered TOB Trust Certificates are shown as Loan for TOB Trust Certificates. The carrying amount of a fund’s payable to the holder of the TOB Trust Certificates, as reported in the Statements of Assets and Liabilities as TOB Trust Certificates, approximates its fair value.

Interest income, including amortization and accretion of premiums and discounts, from the underlying municipal bonds is recorded by a fund on an accrual basis. Interest expense incurred on the TOB Trust transaction and other expenses related to remarketing, administration, trustee, liquidity and other services to a TOB Trust are shown as interest expense, fees and amortization of offering costs in the Statements of Operations. Fees paid upon creation of the TOB Trust are recorded as debt issuance costs and are amortized to interest expense, fees and amortization of offering costs in the Statements of Operations to the expected maturity of the TOB Trust. In connection with the restructurings of the TOB Trusts to non-bank sponsored TOB Trusts, a fund incurred non-recurring, legal and restructuring fees, which are recorded as interest expense, fees and amortization of offering costs in the Statements of Operations. Amounts recorded within interest expense, fees and amortization of offering costs in the Statements of Operations are:


Trust Name	Interest Expense		Liquidity Fees		Other Expenses		Total
BKN	$	80,471	$	235,227	$	77,567	$	393,265
BTA		58,827		158,957		58,524		276,308
BFK		213,362		551,942		184,146		949,450

For the year ended April 30, 2021, the following table is a summary of each Trust’s TOB Trusts:


Trust Name	Underlying Municipal Bonds Transferred to TOB Trusts^(a)		Liability for TOB Trust Certificates^(b)		Range of Interest Rates on TOB Trust Certificates at Period End		Average TOB Trust Certificates Outstanding		Daily Weighted Average Rate of Interest and Other Expenses on TOB Trusts
BKN	$	92,493,464	$	54,214,390		0.09% — 0.24%	$	56,647,331		0.69	%
BTA		67,708,715		38,607,260		0.08 — 0.24		37,933,253		0.73
BFK		230,109,540		139,150,487		0.07 — 0.32		138,298,550		0.68

^(a)

The municipal bonds transferred to a TOB Trust are generally high grade municipal bonds. In certain cases, when municipal bonds transferred are lower grade municipal bonds, the TOB Trust transaction may include a credit enhancement feature that provides for the timely payment of principal and interest on the bonds to the TOB Trust by a credit enhancement provider in the event of default of the municipal bond. The TOB Trust would be responsible for the payment of the credit enhancement fee and the funds, as TOB Residuals holders, would be responsible for reimbursement of any payments of principal and interest made by the credit enhancement provider. The maximum potential amounts owed by the funds, for such reimbursements, as applicable, are included in the maximum potential amounts disclosed for recourse TOB Trusts in the Schedules of Investments.


50		2 0 2 1 B L A C K R O C K A N N U A L R E P O R T T O S H A R E H O L D E R S

Notes to Financial Statements (continued)

^(b)

TOB Trusts may be structured on a non-recourse or recourse basis. When a Trust invests in TOB Trusts on a non-recourse basis, the Liquidity Provider may be required to make a payment under the liquidity facility to allow the TOB Trust to repurchase TOB Trust Certificates. The Liquidity Provider will be reimbursed from the liquidation of bonds held in the TOB Trust. If a fund invests in a TOB Trust on a recourse basis, a fund enters into a reimbursement agreement with the Liquidity Provider where a fund is required to reimburse the Liquidity Provider for any shortfall between the amount paid by the Liquidity Provider and proceeds received from liquidation of municipal bonds held in the TOB Trust (the “Liquidation Shortfall”). As a result, if a fund invests in a recourse TOB Trust, a fund will bear the risk of loss with respect to any Liquidation Shortfall. If multiple funds participate in any such TOB Trust, these losses will be shared ratably, including the maximum potential amounts owed by a fund at April 30, 2021, in proportion to their participation in the TOB Trust. The recourse TOB Trusts are identified in the Schedules of Investments including the maximum potential amounts owed by a fund at April 30, 2021.

For the year ended April 30, 2021, the following table is a summary of each Trust’s Loan for TOB Trust Certificates:


Trust Name	Loans Outstanding at Period End		Range of Interest Rates on Loans at Period End			Average Loans Outstanding		Daily Weighted Average Rate of Interest and Other Expenses on Loans
BTA	$	—		—	%	$	84,384		0.71	%
BFK		—		—			229,481		0.71

DERIVATIVE FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS

The Trusts engage in various portfolio investment strategies using derivative contracts both to increase the returns of the Trusts and/or to manage their exposure to certain risks such as credit risk, equity risk, interest rate risk, foreign currency exchange rate risk, commodity price risk or other risks (e.g., inflation risk). Derivative financial instruments categorized by risk exposure are included in the Schedules of Investments. These contracts may be transacted on an exchange or over-the-counter (“OTC”).

Futures Contracts: Futures contracts are purchased or sold to gain exposure to, or manage exposure to, changes in interest rates (interest rate risk) and changes in the value of equity securities (equity risk) or foreign currencies (foreign currency exchange rate risk).

Futures contracts are exchange-traded agreements between the Trusts and a counterparty to buy or sell a specific quantity of an underlying instrument at a specified price and on a specified date. Depending on the terms of a contract, it is settled either through physical delivery of the underlying instrument on the settlement date or by payment of a cash amount on the settlement date. Upon entering into a futures contract, the Trusts are required to deposit initial margin with the broker in the form of cash or securities in an amount that varies depending on a contract’s size and risk profile. The initial margin deposit must then be maintained at an established level over the life of the contract. Amounts pledged, which are considered restricted, are included in cash pledged for futures contracts in the Statements of Assets and Liabilities.

Securities deposited as initial margin are designated in the Schedules of Investments and cash deposited, if any, are shown as cash pledged for futures contracts in the Statements of Assets and Liabilities. Pursuant to the contract, the Trusts agree to receive from or pay to the broker an amount of cash equal to the daily fluctuation in market value of the contract (“variation margin”). Variation margin is recorded as unrealized appreciation (depreciation) and, if any, shown as variation margin receivable (or payable) on futures contracts in the Statements of Assets and Liabilities. When the contract is closed, a realized gain or loss is recorded in the Statements of Operations equal to the difference between the notional amount of the contract at the time it was opened and the notional amount at the time it was closed. The use of futures contracts involves the risk of an imperfect correlation in the movements in the price of futures contracts and interest rates, foreign currency exchange rates or underlying assets.

INVESTMENT ADVISORY AGREEMENT AND OTHER TRANSACTIONS WITH AFFILIATES

Investment Advisory: Each Trust entered into an Investment Advisory Agreement with the Manager, the Trusts’ investment adviser and an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of BlackRock, Inc. (“BlackRock”), to provide investment advisory and administrative services. The Manager is responsible for the management of each Trust’s portfolio and provides the personnel, facilities, equipment and certain other services necessary to the operations of each Trust.

For such services, each Trust, except BTA, pays the Manager a monthly fee at an annual rate equal to the following percentages of the average weekly value of each Trust’s managed assets. For such services, BTA pays the Manager a monthly fee at an annual rate equal to a percentage of the average weekly value of the Trust’s net assets.


Trust Name	Investment Advisory Fees
BKN		0.35	%
BTA		1.00
BFK		0.60

For purposes of calculating these fees, “managed assets” are determined as total assets of the Trust (including any assets attributable to money borrowed for investment purposes) less the sum of its accrued liabilities (other than money borrowed for investment purposes).


N O T E S T O F I N A N C I A L S T A T E M E N T S		51

Notes to Financial Statements (continued)

For purposes of calculating this fee, “net assets” mean the total assets of the BTA minus the sum of its accrued liabilities (which does not include liabilities represented by TOB Trusts and the liquidation preference of any outstanding preferred shares). It is understood that the liquidation preference of any outstanding preferred stock (other than accumulated dividends) and TOB Trusts is not considered a liability in determining a Trust’s NAV.

Administration: BKN has an Administration Agreement with the Manager. The administration fee paid monthly to the Manager is computed at an annual rate of 0.15% of the Trust’s average weekly managed assets. For BKN, the Manager may reduce or discontinue these arrangements at any time without notice.

Waivers: With respect to each Trust, the Manager contractually agreed to waive its investment advisory fees by the amount of investment advisory fees each Trust pays to the Manager indirectly through its investment in affiliated money market funds (the “affiliated money market fund waiver”) through June 30, 2022. The contractual agreement may be terminated upon 90 days’ notice by a majority of the Independent Trustees, or by a vote of a majority of the outstanding voting securities of a Trust. These amounts are included in fees waived and/or reimbursed by the Manager in the Statements of Operations. For the year ended April 30, 2021, the amounts waived were as follows:


Trust Name	Amounts Waived
BKN	$	1,295
BTA		780
BFK		8,993

The Manager contractually agreed to waive its investment advisory fee with respect to any portion of each Trust’s assets invested in affiliated equity and fixed-income mutual funds and affiliated exchange-traded funds that have a contractual management fee through June 30, 2022. The agreement can be renewed for annual periods thereafter, and may be terminated on 90 days’ notice, each subject to approval by a majority of the Trusts’ Independent Trustees. For the year ended April 30, 2021, there were no fees waived by the Manager pursuant to this arrangement.

Trustees and Officers: Certain trustees and/or officers of the Trusts are directors and/or officers of BlackRock or its affiliates. The Trusts reimburse the Manager for a portion of the compensation paid to the Trusts’ Chief Compliance Officer, which is included in Trustees and Officer in the Statements of Operations.

PURCHASES AND SALES

For the year ended April 30, 2021, purchases and sales of investments, excluding short-term investments, were as follows:


Trust Name	Purchases		Sales
BKN	$	46,484,082	$	51,872,356
BTA		80,536,204		76,658,146
BFK		165,886,492		138,563,198

INCOME TAX INFORMATION

It is each Trust’s policy to comply with the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, applicable to regulated investment companies, and to distribute substantially all of its taxable income to its shareholders. Therefore, no U.S. federal income tax provision is required.

Each Trust files U.S. federal and various state and local tax returns. No income tax returns are currently under examination. The statute of limitations on each Trust’s U.S. federal tax returns generally remains open for a period of three fiscal years after they are filed. The statutes of limitations on each Trust’s state and local tax returns may remain open for an additional year depending upon the jurisdiction.

Management has analyzed tax laws and regulations and their application to the Trusts as of April 30, 2021, inclusive of the open tax return years, and does not believe that there are any uncertain tax positions that require recognition of a tax liability in the Trusts’ financial statements.

U.S. GAAP requires that certain components of net assets be adjusted to reflect permanent differences between financial and tax reporting. These reclassifications have no effect on net assets or NAVs per share. As of period end, the following permanent differences attributable to non-deductible expenses, were reclassified to the following accounts:


Trust Name	Paid-in Capital			Accumulated Earnings (Loss)
BTA	$	(15,204	)	$	15,204

The tax character of distributions paid was as follows:


Trust Name	Year Ended 04/30/21		Year Ended 04/30/20
BKN
Tax-exempt income^(a)	$	14,824,065	$	14,558,611
Ordinary income^(b)		360		5,740

	$	14,824,425	$	14,564,351


52		2 0 2 1 B L A C K R O C K A N N U A L R E P O R T T O S H A R E H O L D E R S

Notes to Financial Statements (continued)


Trust Name (continued)	Year Ended 04/30/21		Year Ended 04/30/20
BTA
Tax-exempt income^(a)	$	8,844,363	$	9,760,994
Ordinary income^(b)		59,731		5,750

	$	8,904,094	$	9,766,744


BFK
Tax-exempt income^(a)	$	33,691,532	$	35,115,253
Ordinary income^(b)		11,358		9,315

	$	33,702,890	$	35,124,568

^(a)

The Trusts designate these amounts paid during the fiscal year ended April 30, 2021, as exempt-interest dividends.

^(b)

Ordinary income consists primarily of taxable income recognized from market discount. Additionally, all ordinary income distributions are comprised of interest related dividends and qualified short-term gains for non-US residents and are eligible for exemption from US withholding tax for nonresident aliens and foreign corporations.

As of period end, the tax components of accumulated earnings (loss) were as follows:


Trust Name	Undistributed Tax-Exempt Income		Undistributed Ordinary Income		Non-Expiring Capital Loss Carryforwards			Net Unrealized Gains (Losses)^(a)		Total
BKN	$	1,783,601	$	—	$	(4,950,919	)	$	51,571,391	$	48,404,073
BTA.		1,068,579		3,032		(5,043,119	)		26,444,332		22,472,824
BFK		2,536,701		—		(21,857,379	)		89,325,176		70,004,498

^(a)

The differences between book-basis and tax-basis net unrealized gains were attributable primarily to the tax deferral of losses on wash sales, amortization methods of premiums and discounts on fixed income securities, the accrual of income on securities in default, the treatment of residual interests in tender option bond trusts and the deferral of compensation to Trustees.

During the year ended April 30, 2021, the Trusts listed below utilized the following amounts of their respective capital loss carryforward:


Trust Name	Amounts
BKN	$	616,560
BTA		2,351,441
BFK		1,653,121

As of April 30, 2021, gross unrealized appreciation and depreciation based on cost of investments (including short positions and derivatives, if any) for U.S. federal income tax purposes were as follows:


Trust Name	Tax Cost		Gross Unrealized Appreciation		Gross Unrealized Depreciation			Net Unrealized Appreciation (Depreciation)
BKN	$	357,641,132	$	53,212,119	$	(1,557,828	)	$	51,654,291
BTA		224,669,706		27,320,359		(850,016	)		26,470,343
BFK		832,928,182		94,652,246		(5,055,151	)		89,597,095

PRINCIPAL RISKS

In the normal course of business, the Trusts invest in securities or other instruments and may enter into certain transactions, and such activities subject each Trust to various risks, including among others, fluctuations in the market (market risk) or failure of an issuer to meet all of its obligations. The value of securities or other instruments may also be affected by various factors, including, without limitation: (i) the general economy; (ii) the overall market as well as local, regional or global political and/or social instability; (iii) regulation, taxation or international tax treaties between various countries; or (iv) currency, interest rate and price fluctuations. Local, regional or global events such as war, acts of terrorism, the spread of infectious illness or other public health issues, recessions, or other events could have a significant impact on the Trusts and their investments.

The Trusts may hold a significant amount of bonds subject to calls by the issuers at defined dates and prices. When bonds are called by issuers and the Trusts reinvest the proceeds received, such investments may be in securities with lower yields than the bonds originally held, and correspondingly, could adversely impact the yield and total return performance of a Trust.

A Trust structures and “sponsors” the TOB Trusts in which it holds TOB Residuals and has certain duties and responsibilities, which may give rise to certain additional risks including, but not limited to, compliance, securities law and operational risks.

Should short-term interest rates rise, the Trusts’ investments in the TOB Trusts may adversely affect the Trusts’ net investment income and dividends to Common Shareholders. Also, fluctuations in the market value of municipal bonds deposited into the TOB Trust may adversely affect the Trusts’ NAVs per share.


N O T E S T O F I N A N C I A L S T A T E M E N T S		53

Notes to Financial Statements (continued)

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and various federal banking and housing agencies have adopted credit risk retention rules for securitizations (the “Risk Retention Rules”). The Risk Retention Rules would require the sponsor of a TOB Trust to retain at least 5% of the credit risk of the underlying assets supporting the TOB Trust’s municipal bonds. The Risk Retention Rules may adversely affect the Trusts’ ability to engage in TOB Trust transactions or increase the costs of such transactions in certain circumstances.

TOB Trusts constitute an important component of the municipal bond market. Any modifications or changes to rules governing TOB Trusts may adversely impact the municipal market and the Trusts, including through reduced demand for and liquidity of municipal bonds and increased financing costs for municipal issuers. The ultimate impact of any potential modifications on the TOB Trust market and the overall municipal market is not yet certain.

Each Trust may invest without limitation in illiquid or less liquid investments or investments in which no secondary market is readily available or which are otherwise illiquid, including private placement securities. A Trust may not be able to readily dispose of such investments at prices that approximate those at which a Trust could sell such investments if they were more widely traded and, as a result of such illiquidity, a Trust may have to sell other investments or engage in borrowing transactions if necessary to raise funds to meet its obligations. Limited liquidity can also affect the market price of investments, thereby adversely affecting a Trust’s net asset value and ability to make dividend distributions. Privately issued debt securities are often of below investment grade quality, frequently are unrated and present many of the same risks as investing in below investment grade public debt securities.

Market Risk: Each Trust may be exposed to prepayment risk, which is the risk that borrowers may exercise their option to prepay principal earlier than scheduled during periods of declining interest rates, which would force each Trust to reinvest in lower yielding securities. Each Trust may also be exposed to reinvestment risk, which is the risk that income from each Trust’s portfolio will decline if each Trust invests the proceeds from matured, traded or called fixed-income securities at market interest rates that are below each Trust portfolio’s current earnings rate.

Municipal securities are subject to the risk that litigation, legislation or other political events, local business or economic conditions, credit rating downgrades, or the bankruptcy of the issuer could have a significant effect on an issuer’s ability to make payments of principal and/or interest or otherwise affect the value of such securities. Municipal securities can be significantly affected by political or economic changes, including changes made in the law after issuance of the securities, as well as uncertainties in the municipal market related to, taxation, legislative changes or the rights of municipal security holders, including in connection with an issuer insolvency. Municipal securities backed by current or anticipated revenues from a specific project or specific assets can be negatively affected by the discontinuance of the tax benefits supporting the project or assets or the inability to collect revenues for the project or from the assets. Municipal securities may be less liquid than taxable bonds, and there may be less publicly available information on the financial condition of municipal security issuers than for issuers of other securities.

An outbreak of respiratory disease caused by a novel coronavirus has developed into a global pandemic and has resulted in closing borders, quarantines, disruptions to supply chains and customer activity, as well as general concern and uncertainty. The impact of this pandemic, and other global health crises that may arise in the future, could affect the economies of many nations, individual companies and the market in general in ways that cannot necessarily be foreseen at the present time. This pandemic may result in substantial market volatility and may adversely impact the prices and liquidity of a fund’s investments. The duration of this pandemic and its effects cannot be determined with certainty.

Counterparty Credit Risk: The Trusts may be exposed to counterparty credit risk, or the risk that an entity may fail to or be unable to perform on its commitments related to unsettled or open transactions, including making timely interest and/or principal payments or otherwise honoring its obligations. The Trusts manage counterparty credit risk by entering into transactions only with counterparties that the Manager believes have the financial resources to honor their obligations and by monitoring the financial stability of those counterparties. Financial assets, which potentially expose the Trusts to market, issuer and counterparty credit risks, consist principally of financial instruments and receivables due from counterparties. The extent of the Trusts’ exposure to market, issuer and counterparty credit risks with respect to these financial assets is approximately their value recorded in the Statements of Assets and Liabilities, less any collateral held by the Trusts.

A derivative contract may suffer a mark-to-market loss if the value of the contract decreases due to an unfavorable change in the market rates or values of the underlying instrument. Losses can also occur if the counterparty does not perform under the contract.

With exchange-traded futures, there is less counterparty credit risk to the Trusts since the exchange or clearinghouse, as counterparty to such instruments, guarantees against a possible default. The clearinghouse stands between the buyer and the seller of the contract; therefore, credit risk is limited to failure of the clearinghouse. While offset rights may exist under applicable law, a Trust does not have a contractual right of offset against a clearing broker or clearinghouse in the event of a default (including the bankruptcy or insolvency). Additionally, credit risk exists in exchange-traded futures with respect to initial and variation margin that is held in a clearing broker’s customer accounts. While clearing brokers are required to segregate customer margin from their own assets, in the event that a clearing broker becomes insolvent or goes into bankruptcy and at that time there is a shortfall in the aggregate amount of margin held by the clearing broker for all its clients, typically the shortfall would be allocated on a pro rata basis across all the clearing broker’s customers, potentially resulting in losses to the Trusts.

Concentration Risk: A diversified portfolio, where this is appropriate and consistent with a fund’s objectives, minimizes the risk that a price change of a particular investment will have a material impact on the NAV of a fund. The investment concentrations within each Trust’s portfolio are disclosed in its Schedule of Investments.

Certain Trusts invest a substantial amount of their assets in issuers located in a single state or limited number of states. When a Trust concentrates its investments in this manner, it assumes the risk that economic, regulatory, political or social conditions affecting that state or group of states could have a significant impact on the fund and could affect the income from, or the value or liquidity of, the fund’s portfolio. Investment percentages in specific states or U.S. territories are presented in the Schedules of Investments.

Certain Trusts invest a significant portion of their assets in securities within a single or limited number of market sectors. When a Trust concentrates its investments in this manner, it assumes the risk that economic, regulatory, political and social conditions affecting such sectors may have a significant impact on the Trust and could affect the income from, or the value or liquidity of, the Trust’s portfolio. Investment percentages in specific sectors are presented in the Schedules of Investments.


54		2 0 2 1 B L A C K R O C K A N N U A L R E P O R T T O S H A R E H O L D E R S

Notes to Financial Statements (continued)

Certain Trusts invest a significant portion of their assets in high yield securities. High yield securities that are rated below investment-grade (commonly referred to as “junk bonds”) or are unrated may be deemed speculative, involve greater levels of risk than higher-rated securities of similar maturity and are more likely to default. High yield securities may be issued by less creditworthy issuers, and issuers of high yield securities may be unable to meet their interest or principal payment obligations. High yield securities are subject to extreme price fluctuations, may be less liquid than higher rated fixed-income securities, even under normal economic conditions, and frequently have redemption features.

Certain Trusts invest a significant portion of their assets in fixed-income securities and/or use derivatives tied to the fixed-income markets. Changes in market interest rates or economic conditions may affect the value and/or liquidity of such investments. Interest rate risk is the risk that prices of bonds and other fixed-income securities will increase as interest rates fall and decrease as interest rates rise. The Trusts may be subject to a greater risk of rising interest rates due to the current period of historically low rates.

LIBOR Transition Risk: The United Kingdom’s Financial Conduct Authority announced a phase out of the London Interbank Offered Rate (“LIBOR”). Although many LIBOR rates will be phased out by the end of 2021, a selection of widely used USD LIBOR rates will continue to be published through June 2023 in order to assist with the transition. The Trusts may be exposed to financial instruments tied to LIBOR to determine payment obligations, financing terms, hedging strategies or investment value. The transition process away from LIBOR might lead to increased volatility and illiquidity in markets for, and reduce the effectiveness of new hedges placed against, instruments whose terms currently include LIBOR. The ultimate effect of the LIBOR transition process on the Trusts is uncertain.

10.

CAPITAL SHARE TRANSACTIONS

BTA and BFK are authorized to issue an unlimited number of shares, all of which were initially classified as Common Shares. BKN is authorized to issue 200 million shares, all of which were initially classified as Common Shares. The par value for each Trust’s Common Shares is $0.001, except for BKN, which is $0.01. The par value for each Trust’s Preferred Shares outstanding is $0.001, except for BKN, which is $0.10. The Board is authorized, however, to reclassify any unissued Common Shares to Preferred Shares without the approval of Common Shareholders.

Common Shares

For the periods shown, shares issued and outstanding increased by the following amounts as a result of dividend reinvestment:


	Year Ended
Trust Name	04/30/21		04/30/20
BKN		16,349		—
BTA		1,214		3,780
BFK		82,096		—

The Trusts participate in an open market share repurchase program (the “Repurchase Program”). From December 1, 2019 through November 30, 2020, each Trust may repurchase up to 5% of its outstanding common shares under the Repurchase Program, based on common shares outstanding as of the close of business on November 30, 2019, subject to certain conditions. From December 1, 2020 through November 30, 2021, each Trust may repurchase up to 5% of its outstanding common shares under the Repurchase Program, based on common shares outstanding as of the close of business on November 30, 2020, subject to certain conditions. There is no assurance that the Trusts will purchase shares in any particular amounts. For the year ended April 30, 2021, the Trusts did not repurchase any shares.

Preferred Shares

A Trust’s Preferred Shares rank prior to its Common Shares as to the payment of dividends by the Trust and distribution of assets upon dissolution or liquidation of the Trust. The 1940 Act prohibits the declaration of any dividend on Common Shares or the repurchase of Common Shares if the Trust fails to maintain asset coverage of at least 200% of the liquidation preference of the Trust’s outstanding Preferred Shares. In addition, pursuant to the Preferred Shares’ governing instruments, a Trust is restricted from declaring and paying dividends on classes of shares ranking junior to or on parity with its Preferred Shares or repurchasing such shares if the Trust fails to declare and pay dividends on the Preferred Shares, redeem any Preferred Shares required to be redeemed under the Preferred Shares’ governing instruments or comply with the basic maintenance amount requirement of the ratings agencies rating the Preferred Shares.

Holders of Preferred Shares have voting rights equal to the voting rights of holders of Common Shares (one vote per share) and vote together with holders of Common Shares (one vote per share) as a single class on certain matters. Holders of Preferred Shares, voting as a separate class, are also entitled to (i) elect two members of the Board, (ii) elect the full Board if dividends on the Preferred Shares are not paid for a period of two years and (iii) a separate class vote to amend the Preferred Share governing documents. In addition, the 1940 Act requires the approval of the holders of a majority of any outstanding Preferred Shares, voting as a separate class, to (a) adopt any plan of reorganization that would adversely affect the Preferred Shares, (b) change a Trust’s sub-classification as a closed-end investment company or change its fundamental investment restrictions or (c) change its business so as to cease to be an investment company.

VRDP Shares

BTA (for purposes of this section, a “VRDP Trust”), has issued Series W-7 VRDP Shares, $100,000 liquidation preference per share, in one or more privately negotiated offerings to qualified institutional buyers as defined pursuant to Rule 144A under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”). The VRDP Shares include a liquidity feature and may be subject to a special rate period. As of period end, the VRDP Shares outstanding were as follows:

Trust Name

Issue
Date

Shares
Issued

Aggregate
Principal

Maturity
Date

BTA

10/29/15

760

76,000,000

11/01/45


N O T E S T O F I N A N C I A L S T A T E M E N T S		55

Notes to Financial Statements (continued)

Redemption Terms: A VRDP Trust is required to redeem its VRDP Shares on the maturity date, unless earlier redeemed or repurchased. Six months prior to the maturity date, a VRDP Trust is required to begin to segregate liquid assets with the Trust’s custodian to fund the redemption. In addition, a VRDP Trust is required to redeem certain of its outstanding VRDP Shares if it fails to comply with certain asset coverage, basic maintenance amount or leverage requirements.

Subject to certain conditions, the VRDP Shares may also be redeemed, in whole or in part, at any time at the option of a VRDP Trust. The redemption price per VRDP Share is equal to the liquidation preference per share plus any outstanding unpaid dividends.

Liquidity Feature: VRDP Shares are subject to a fee agreement between the VRDP Trust and the liquidity provider that requires a per annum liquidity fee and, in some cases, an upfront or initial commitment fee, payable to the liquidity provider. These fees, if applicable, are shown as liquidity fees in the Statements of Operations. As of period end, the fee agreement is set to expire, unless renewed or terminated in advance, as follows:


		BTA
Expiration date		04/30/22

The VRDP Shares are also subject to a purchase agreement in connection with the liquidity feature. In the event a purchase agreement is not renewed or is terminated in advance, and the VRDP Shares do not become subject to a purchase agreement with an alternate liquidity provider, the VRDP Shares will be subject to mandatory purchase by the liquidity provider prior to the termination of the purchase agreement. In the event of such mandatory purchase, a VRDP Trust is required to redeem the VRDP Shares six months after the purchase date. Immediately after such mandatory purchase, the VRDP Trust is required to begin to segregate liquid assets with its custodian to fund the redemption. There is no assurance that a VRDP Trust will replace such redeemed VRDP Shares with any other preferred shares or other form of leverage.

Remarketing: A VRDP Trust may incur remarketing fees on the aggregate principal amount of all its VRDP Shares, which, if any, are included in remarketing fees on Preferred Shares in the Statements of Operations. During any special rate period (as described below), a VRDP Trust may incur nominal or no remarketing fees.

Ratings: As of period end, the VRDP Shares were assigned the following ratings:


Trust Name	Moody’s Investors Service, Inc. Long-Term Ratings	Fitch Ratings, Inc. Long-Term Ratings
BTA	Aa2	A

Any short-term ratings on VRDP Shares are directly related to the short-term ratings of the liquidity provider for such VRDP Shares. Changes in the credit quality of the liquidity provider could cause a change in the short-term credit ratings of the VRDP Shares as rated by Moody’s and Fitch. The liquidity provider may be terminated prior to the scheduled termination date if the liquidity provider fails to maintain short-term debt ratings in one of the two highest rating categories.

Special Rate Period: A VRDP Trust has commenced a “special rate period” with respect to its VRDP Shares, during which the VRDP Shares will not be subject to any remarketing and the dividend rate will be based on a predetermined methodology. During a special rate period, short-term ratings on VRDP Shares are withdrawn. BTA was in a special rate period that commenced on October 29, 2015 and has a current expiration date of April 15, 2022.

Prior to the expiration date, the VRDP Trust and the VRDP Shares holder may mutually agree to extend the special rate period. If a special rate period is not extended, the VRDP Shares will revert to remarketable securities upon the termination of the special rate period and will be remarketed and available for purchase by qualified institutional investors.

During the special rate period: (i) the liquidity and fee agreements remain in effect, (ii) VRDP Shares remain subject to mandatory redemption by the VRDP Trust on the maturity date, (iii) VRDP Shares will not be remarketed or subject to optional or mandatory tender events, (iv) the VRDP Trust is required to comply with the same asset coverage, basic maintenance amount and leverage requirements for the VRDP Shares as is required when the VRDP Shares are not in a special rate period, (v) the VRDP Trust will pay dividends monthly based on the sum of an agreed upon reference rate and a percentage per annum based on the long-term ratings assigned to the VRDP Shares and (vi) the VRDP Trust will pay nominal or no fees to the liquidity provider and remarketing agent.

Dividends: Except during the Special Rate Period as described above, dividends on the VRDP Shares are payable monthly at a variable rate set weekly by the remarketing agent. Such dividend rates are generally based upon a spread over a base rate and cannot exceed a maximum rate. A change in the short-term credit rating of the liquidity provider or the VRDP Shares may adversely affect the dividend rate paid on such shares, although the dividend rate paid on the VRDP Shares is not directly based upon either short-term rating. In the event of a failed remarketing, the dividend rate of the VRDP Shares will be reset to a maximum rate. The maximum rate is determined based on, among other things, the long-term preferred share rating assigned to the VRDP Shares and the length of time that the VRDP Shares fail to be remarketed.

For the year ended April 30, 2021, the annualized dividend rate for the VRDP Shares was 0.94%.

For the year ended April 30, 2021, VRDP Shares issued and outstanding of BTA remained constant.

VMTP Shares

BKN and BFK (for purposes of this section, each a “VMTP Trust”) have issued Series W-7 VMTP Shares, $100,000 liquidation preference per share, in one or more privately negotiated offerings to qualified institutional buyers as defined pursuant to Rule 144A under the Securities Act. The VMTP Shares are subject to certain restrictions on transfer,


56		2 0 2 1 B L A C K R O C K A N N U A L R E P O R T T O S H A R E H O L D E R S

Notes to Financial Statements (continued)

and a VMTP Trust may also be required to register its VMTP Shares for sale under the Securities Act under certain circumstances. As of period end, the VMTP Shares outstanding and assigned long-term ratings were as follows:

Trust Name

Issue
Date

Shares
Issued

Aggregate
Principal

Term
Redemption
Date

Moody’s
Rating

Fitch
Rating

BKN

12/16/11

1,259

125,900,000

07/02/23

Aa1

BFK

12/16/11

2,708

270,800,000

07/02/23

Aa1

Redemption Terms: A VMTP Trust is required to redeem its VMTP Shares on the term redemption date, unless earlier redeemed or repurchased or unless extended. There is no assurance that a term will be extended further or that any VMTP Shares will be replaced with any other preferred shares or other form of leverage upon the redemption or repurchase of the VMTP Shares. Six months prior to the term redemption date, a VMTP Trust is required to begin to segregate liquid assets with its custodian to fund the redemption. In addition, a VMTP Trust is required to redeem certain of its outstanding VMTP Shares if it fails to comply with certain asset coverage, basic maintenance amount or leverage requirements.

Subject to certain conditions, VMTP Shares may be redeemed, in whole or in part, at any time at the option of the VMTP Trust. With respect to BKN and BFK, the redemption price per VMTP Share is equal to the liquidation preference per share plus any outstanding unpaid dividends and applicable redemption premium. If BKN and BFK redeems the VMTP Shares prior to the term redemption date and the VMTP Shares have long-term ratings above A1/A+ or its equivalent by the ratings agencies then rating the VMTP Shares, then such redemption may be subject to a prescribed redemption premium (up to 2% of the liquidation preference) payable to the holder of the VMTP Shares based on the time remaining until the term redemption date, subject to certain exceptions for redemptions that are required to comply with minimum asset coverage requirements.

Dividends: Dividends on the VMTP Shares are declared daily and payable monthly at a variable rate set weekly at a fixed rate spread to the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (“SIFMA”) Municipal Swap Index or to a percentage of the one-month LIBOR rate, as set forth in the VMTP Shares governing instrument. The fixed spread is determined based on the long-term preferred share rating assigned to the VMTP Shares by the ratings agencies then rating the VMTP Shares.

The dividend rate on VMTP Shares is subject to a step-up spread if the VMTP Trust fails to comply with certain provisions, including, among other things, the timely payment of dividends, redemptions or gross-up payments, and complying with certain asset coverage and leverage requirements.

For the year ended April 30, 2021, the average annualized dividend rates for the VMTP Shares were as follows:


	BKN	BFK
Dividend rates	1.03%	1.03%

For the year ended April 30, 2021, VMTP Shares issued and outstanding of each VMTP Trust remained constant.

Offering Costs: The Trusts incurred costs in connection with the issuance of VRDP and VMTP Shares, which were recorded as a direct deduction from the carrying value of the related debt liability and will be amortized over the life of the VRDP and VMTP Shares with the exception of any upfront fees paid by a VRDP Trust to the liquidity provider which, if any, were amortized over the life of the liquidity agreement. Amortization of these costs is included in interest expense, fees and amortization of offering costs in the Statements of Operations.

Financial Reporting: The VRDP and VMTP Shares are considered debt of the issuer; therefore, the liquidation preference, which approximates fair value of the VRDP and VMTP Shares, is recorded as a liability in the Statements of Assets and Liabilities net of deferred offering costs. Unpaid dividends are included in interest expense and fees payable in the Statements of Assets and Liabilities, and the dividends accrued and paid on the VRDP and VMTP Shares are included as a component of interest expense, fees and amortization of offering costs in the Statements of Operations. The VRDP and VMTP Shares are treated as equity for tax purposes. Dividends paid to holders of the VRDP and VMTP Shares are generally classified as tax-exempt income for tax-reporting purposes. Dividends and amortization of deferred offering costs on VRDP and VMTP Shares are included in interest expense, fees and amortization of offering costs in the Statements of Operations:


Trust Name	Dividends Accrued	Deferred Offering Costs Amortization
BKN	$ 1,294,407	$—
BTA	715,415	16,770
BFK	2,784,735	—

11.

SUBSEQUENT EVENTS

Management’s evaluation of the impact of all subsequent events on the Trusts’ financial statements was completed through the date the financial statements were issued and the following items were noted:

The Trusts declared and paid or will pay distributions to Common Shareholders as follows:

Trust Name

Declaration
Date

Record
Date

Payable/
Paid Date

Dividend Per
Common Share

BKN

05/03/21

05/14/21

06/01/21

0.068000

06/01/21

06/15/21

07/01/21

0.068000


N O T E S T O F I N A N C I A L S T A T E M E N T S		57

Notes to Financial Statements (continued)

Trust Name

Declaration
Date

Record
Date

Payable/
Paid Date

Dividend Per
Common Share

BTA

05/03/21

05/14/21

06/01/21

0.050500

06/01/21

06/15/21

07/01/21

0.050500

BFK

05/03/21

05/14/21

06/01/21

0.058500

06/01/21

06/15/21

07/01/21

0.058500

The Trusts declared and paid or will pay distributions to Preferred Shareholders as follows:


	Preferred Shares^(a)
Trust Name	Shares	Series	Declared
BKN	VMTP	W-7	$109,630
BTA	VRDP	W-7	54,991
BFK	VMTP	W-7	235,805

^(a)

Dividends declared for period May 1, 2021 to May 31, 2021.


58		2 0 2 1 B L A C K R O C K A N N U A L R E P O R T T O S H A R E H O L D E R S

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Shareholders and Board of Trustees of BlackRock Investment Quality Municipal Trust, Inc., BlackRock Long-Term Municipal Advantage Trust, and BlackRock Municipal Income Trust:

Opinion on the Financial Statements and Financial Highlights

We have audited the accompanying statements of assets and liabilities of BlackRock Investment Quality Municipal Trust, Inc., BlackRock Long-Term Municipal Advantage Trust, and BlackRock Municipal Income Trust (the “Funds”), including the schedules of investments, as of April 30, 2021, the related statements of operations and cash flows for the year then ended, the statements of changes in net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, the financial highlights for each of the five years in the period then ended, and the related notes. In our opinion, the financial statements and financial highlights present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Funds as of April 30, 2021, and the results of their operations and their cash flows for the year then ended, the changes in their net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the five years in the period then ended, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Basis for Opinion

These financial statements and financial highlights are the responsibility of the Funds’ management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Funds’ financial statements and financial highlights based on our audits. We are a public accounting firm registered with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) (PCAOB) and are required to be independent with respect to the Funds in accordance with the U.S. federal securities laws and the applicable rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the PCAOB.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the PCAOB. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements and financial highlights are free of material misstatement, whether due to error or fraud. The Funds are not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of their internal control over financial reporting. As part of our audits we are required to obtain an understanding of internal control over financial reporting but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Funds’ internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion.

Our audits included performing procedures to assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements and financial highlights, whether due to error or fraud, and performing procedures that respond to those risks. Such procedures included examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements and financial highlights. Our audits also included evaluating the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements and financial highlights. Our procedures included confirmation of securities owned as of April 30, 2021, by correspondence with the custodian and brokers; when replies were not received from brokers, we performed other auditing procedures. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

June 22, 2021

We have served as the auditor of one or more BlackRock investment companies since 1992.


R E P O R T O F I N D E P E N D E N T R E G I S T E R E D P U B L I C A C C O U N T I N G F I R M		59

Investment Objectives, Policies and Risks

Recent Changes

The following information is a summary of certain changes since April 30, 2020. This information may not reflect all of the changes that have occurred since you purchased the relevant Trust.

During each Trust’s most recent fiscal year, there were no material changes in the Trust’s investment objectives or policies that have not been approved by shareholders or in the principal risk factors associated with investment in the Trust.

BlackRock Investment Quality Municipal Trust, Inc. (BKN)

The Trust’s investment objective is to provide high current income exempt from regular federal income tax consistent with the preservation of capital. No assurance can be given that the Trust will achieve its investment objective. As a matter of fundamental policy, under normal market conditions, the Trust will invest at least 80% of its Managed Assets in investments the income from which is exempt from federal income tax (except that the interest may be subject to the federal alternative minimum tax). “Managed Assets” means the Trust’s total assets (including any assets attributable to money borrowed for investment purposes) minus the sum of the Trust’s accrued liabilities (other than money borrowed for investment purposes). The Trust cannot change its investment objectives or the foregoing fundamental policy without the approval of the holders of a majority of the outstanding common shares and the outstanding preferred shares, including the Trust’s variable rate muni term preferred shares (“VMTP Shares”), voting together as a single class, and of the holders of a majority of the outstanding preferred shares, including the VMTP Shares, voting as a separate class. A majority of the outstanding means (1) 67% or more of the shares present at a meeting, if the holders of more than 50% of the outstanding shares are present or represented by proxy, or (2) more than 50% of the outstanding shares, whichever is less.

The Trust’s investment policies provide that, under normal market conditions, the Trust will invest at least 80% of its Managed Assets in investment quality securities. For the purposes of the foregoing policy, an investment quality security is a security that is rated BBB or Baa or higher by Moody’s Investor Service Inc. (“Moody’s”), S&P Global Ratings (“S&P”), Fitch Ratings, Inc. (“Fitch”) or another nationally recognized rating agency or, if unrated, deemed to be of comparable quality by the BlackRock Advisors, LLC (the “Manager”). Municipal Bonds rated Baa by Moody’s are investment grade, but Moody’s considers Municipal Bonds rated Baa to have speculative characteristics. Changes in economic conditions or other circumstances are more likely to lead to a weakened capacity for issuers of Municipal Bonds that are rated BBB or Baa (or that have equivalent ratings) to make principal and interest payments than is the case for issues of higher grade Municipal Bonds. “Municipal Bonds” means municipal obligations issued by or on behalf of states, territories and possessions of the United States and their political subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities, each of which pays interest that, in the opinion of bond counsel to the issuer, is excludable from gross income for federal income tax purposes (except that the interest may be includable in taxable income for purposes of the federal alternative minimum tax). In the case of short term notes, the investment grade rating categories are SP-1+ through SP-2 for S&P, MIG-1 through MIG-3 for Moody’s and F-1+ through F-3 for Fitch. In the case of tax exempt commercial paper, the investment grade rating categories are A-1+ through A-3 for S&P, Prime-1 through Prime-3 for Moody’s and F-1+ through F-3 for Fitch. Obligations ranked in the lowest investment grade rating category (BBB, SP-2 and A-3 for S&P; Baa, MIG-3 and Prime-3 for Moody’s and BBB and F-3 for Fitch), while considered “investment grade,” may have certain speculative characteristics. There may be sub-categories or gradations indicating relative standing within the rating categories set forth above. In assessing the quality of Municipal Bonds with respect to the foregoing requirements, the Manager takes into account the nature of any letters of credit or similar credit enhancement to which particular Municipal Bonds are entitled and the creditworthiness of the financial institution that provided such credit enhancement.

The Trust may invest up to 20% of its Managed Assets, measured at the time of investment, in securities rated BB/Ba or B by Moody’s S&P, Fitch or another nationally recognized rating agency or, if unrated, deemed to be of comparable credit quality by the Manager. Bonds of below investment grade quality (Ba/BB or below) are commonly referred to as “junk bonds.” Bonds of below investment grade quality are regarded as having predominantly speculative characteristics with respect to the issuer’s capacity to pay interest and repay principal. Such securities, sometimes referred to as “high yield” or “junk” bonds, are predominantly speculative with respect to the capacity to pay interest and repay principal in accordance with the terms of the security and generally involve a greater volatility of price than securities in higher rating categories. Below investment grade securities and comparable unrated securities involve substantial risk of loss, are considered speculative with respect to the issuer’s ability to pay interest and any required redemption or principal payments and are susceptible to default or decline in market value due to adverse economic and business developments.

The foregoing credit quality policies apply only at the time a security is purchased, and the Trust is not required to dispose of a security if a rating agency downgrades its assessment of the credit characteristics of a particular issue. In determining whether to retain or sell a security that a rating agency has downgraded, the Manager may consider such factors as the Manager’s assessment of the credit quality of the issuer of the security, the price at which the security could be sold and the rating, if any, assigned to the security by other rating agencies. In the event that the Trust disposes of a portfolio security subsequent to its being downgraded, the Trust may experience a greater risk of loss than if such security had been sold prior to such downgrade.

The Trust does not ordinarily invest more than 25% of its managed assets (taken at market value) in municipal obligations whose issuers are located in the same state.

In addition, the Trust may purchase Municipal Bonds that are additionally secured by insurance, bank credit agreements or escrow accounts. The credit quality of companies which provide these credit enhancements will affect the value of those securities. Although the insurance feature reduces certain financial risks, the premiums for insurance and the higher market price paid for insured obligations may reduce the Trust’s income. The insurance feature does not guarantee the market value of the insured obligations or the net asset value of the Trust’s common shares. The Trust may purchase insured bonds and may purchase insurance for bonds in its portfolio.

The Trust may invest in certain tax exempt securities classified as “private activity bonds” (or industrial development bonds, under pre-1986 law) (in general, bonds that benefit non-governmental entities) that may subject certain investors in the Trust to an alternative minimum tax. The percentage of the Trust’s total assets invested in private activity bonds will vary from time to time. The Trust expects that a portion of the income it produces will be includable in alternative minimum taxable income.

The average maturity of the Trust’s portfolio securities varies from time to time based upon an assessment of economic and market conditions by the Manager. The Trust’s portfolio at any given time may include both long- term and intermediate-term Municipal Bonds.


60		2 0 2 1 B L A C K R O C K A N N U A L R E P O R T T O S H A R E H O L D E R S

Investment Objectives, Policies and Risks (continued)

The Trust’s stated expectation is that it will invest in Municipal Bonds that, in the Manager’s opinion, are underrated or undervalued. Underrated Municipal Bonds are those whose ratings do not, in the opinion of the Manager, reflect their true higher creditworthiness. Undervalued Municipal Bonds are bonds that, in the opinion of the Manager, are worth more than the value assigned to them in the marketplace. The Manager may at times believe that bonds associated with a particular municipal market sector (for example, but not limited to electric utilities), or issued by a particular municipal issuer, are undervalued. The Manager may purchase those bonds for the Trust’s portfolio because they represent a market sector or issuer that the Manager considers undervalued, even if the value of those particular bonds appears to be consistent with the value of similar bonds. Municipal Bonds of particular types (for example, but not limited to hospital bonds, industrial revenue bonds or bonds issued by a particular municipal issuer) may be undervalued because there is a temporary excess of supply in that market sector, or because of a general decline in the market price of Municipal Bonds of the market sector for reasons that do not apply to the particular Municipal Bonds that are considered undervalued. The Trust’s investment in underrated or undervalued Municipal Bonds will be based on the Manager’s belief that their yield is higher than that available on bonds bearing equivalent levels of interest rate risk, credit risk and other forms of risk, and that their prices will ultimately rise, relative to the market, to reflect their true value. Any capital appreciation realized by the Trust will generally result in capital gain distributions subject to federal capital gains taxation.

The Trust ordinarily does not intend to realize significant investment income not exempt from federal income tax. From time to time, the Trust may realize taxable capital gains.

Federal tax legislation has limited the types and volume of bonds the interest on which qualifies for a federal income tax exemption. As a result, this legislation and legislation that may be enacted in the future may affect the availability of Municipal Bonds for investment by the Trust.

Leverage: The Trust may utilize leverage to seek to enhance the yield and net asset value of its common shares. However, this objective cannot be achieved in all interest rate environments. The Trust currently leverages its assets through the use of VMTP Shares and residual interest municipal tender option bonds (“TOB Residuals”), which are derivative interests in municipal bonds. The TOB Residuals in which the Trust will invest pay interest or income that, in the opinion of counsel to the issuer of such TOB Residuals, is exempt from regular U.S. federal income tax.

The Trust may purchase and sell futures contracts, enter into various interest rate transactions and may purchase and sell exchange-listed and over-the-counter put and call options on securities, financial indices and futures contracts.

The Trust may enter into interest rate swaps and the purchase or sale of interest rate caps and floors. The Trust may enter into credit default swap agreements for hedging purposes or to seek to increase its return.

As temporary investments, the Trust may invest in repurchase agreements. The Trust may enter into reverse repurchase agreements with respect to its portfolio investments subject to its investment restrictions.

BlackRock Long-Term Municipal Advantage Trust (BTA)

The Trust’s investment objective is to provide current income exempt from regular Federal income tax. Under normal market conditions, the Trust invests at least 80% of its total assets in municipal bonds, municipal securities and derivative instruments with exposure to such bonds and securities, in each case that are expected to pay interest or income that is exempt from regular Federal income tax. BlackRock Advisors, LLC (the “Manager”) will not conduct its own analysis of the tax status of the interest or income paid by these instruments, but will rely on the opinion of counsel to the issuer of each such instrument. Substantially all of the municipal bonds owned by the Trust are rated below investment grade; however, because the Trust has economic exposure to additional municipal bonds through its ownership of residual interest tender option bonds, at least 50% of the Trust’s economic exposure to investment securities is to municipal bonds rated investment grade quality. Economic exposure to municipal bonds refers to bonds owned by the Trust and bonds to which the Trust is exposed through the ownership of residual interest tender option bonds. Investment grade quality means that such bonds are rated, at the time of investment, within the four highest grades (“Baa” or “BBB” or better by Moody’s Investor Service Inc. (“Moody’s”), S&P Global Ratings (“S&P”), Fitch Ratings, Inc. (“Fitch”)) or are unrated but judged to be of comparable quality by the Manager. Municipal bonds rated “Baa” by Moody’s are investment grade, but Moody’s considers municipal bonds rated “Baa” to have speculative characteristics. Changes in economic conditions or other circumstances are more likely to lead to a weakened capacity for issuers of municipal bonds that are rated “BBB” or “Baa” (or that have equivalent ratings) to make principal and interest payments than is the case for issues of higher grade municipal bonds.

Under normal market conditions, up to 50% of the Trust’s economic exposure to investment securities may be to municipal bonds that are rated, at the time of investment, as low as “C” by Moody’s, S&P or Fitch or that are unrated but judged to be of comparable quality by the Manager. Bonds of below investment grade quality (“Ba/BB” or below) are commonly referred to as “junk bonds.” Bonds of below investment grade quality are regarded as having predominantly speculative characteristics with respect to the issuer’s capacity to pay interest and repay principal.

These credit quality policies apply only at the time a security is purchased, and the Trust is not required to dispose of a security if a rating agency downgrades its assessment of the credit characteristics of a particular issuer. In determining whether to retain or sell a security that a rating agency has downgraded, the Manager may consider such factors as the Manager’s assessment of the credit quality of the issuer of the security, the price at which the security could be sold and the rating, if any, assigned to the security by other rating agencies.

Under normal market conditions, the Trust intends for its bond portfolio to consist primarily of long-term bonds (meaning bonds with a maturity of 10 years or more). Under normal market conditions, the Trust’s municipal bond portfolio will have a dollar-weighted average maturity of greater than 10 years. In comparison to maturity (which is the date on which the issuer of a debt instrument is obligated to repay the principal amount), duration is a measure of the price volatility of a debt instrument as a result of changes in market rates of interest, based on the weighted average timing of the instrument’s expected principal and interest payments. Duration differs from maturity in that it takes into account a security’s yield, coupon payments and its principal payments in addition to the amount of time until the security finally matures. As the value of a security changes over time, so will its duration. Prices of securities with longer durations tend to be more sensitive to interest rate changes than securities with shorter durations. In general, a portfolio of securities with a longer duration can be expected to be more sensitive to interest rate changes than a portfolio with a shorter duration.


I N V E S T M E N T O B J E C T I V E S, P O L I C I E S A N D R I S K S		61

Investment Objectives, Policies and Risks (continued)

The Trust may invest in residual interest municipal tender option bonds, which are derivative interests of municipal bonds. The Trust may also invest in securities of other open-or closed-end investment companies that invest primarily in municipal bonds of the types in which the Trust may invest directly and in tax-exempt preferred shares that pay dividends exempt from Federal income tax

The Trust invests in municipal bonds that, in the Manager’s opinion, are underrated or undervalued. Underrated municipal bonds are those whose ratings do not, in the Manager’s opinion, reflect their true creditworthiness. Undervalued municipal bonds are bonds that, in the opinion of the Manager, are worth more than the value assigned to them in the marketplace. The Manager may at times believe that bonds associated with a particular municipal market sector (for example, but not limited to, electrical utilities), or issued by a particular municipal issuer, are undervalued. The Manager may purchase those bonds for the Trust’s portfolio because they represent a market sector or issuer that the Manager considers undervalued, even if the value of those particular bonds appears to be consistent with the value of similar bonds. Municipal bonds of particular types (for example, but not limited to, hospital bonds, industrial revenue bonds or bonds issued by a particular municipal issuer) may be undervalued because there is a temporary excess of supply in that market sector, or because of a general decline in the market price of municipal bonds of the market sector for reasons that do not apply to the particular municipal bonds that are considered undervalued. The Trust’s investment in underrated or undervalued municipal bonds will be based on the Manager’s belief that their yield is higher than that available on bonds bearing equivalent levels of interest rate risk, credit risk and other forms of risk, and that their prices will ultimately rise, relative to the market, to reflect their true value. Any capital appreciation realized by the Trust will generally result in capital gains distributions subject to Federal capital gains taxation.

The Trust may purchase municipal bonds that are additionally secured by insurance, bank credit agreements or escrow accounts. The credit quality of companies which provide these credit enhancements will affect the value of those securities. Although the insurance feature reduces certain financial risks, the premiums for insurance and the higher market price paid for insured obligations may reduce the Trust’s income. Insurance generally is obtained from insurers with a claims-paying ability rated “Aaa” by Moody’s or “AAA” by S&P or Fitch. The insurance feature does not guarantee the market value of the insured obligations or the net asset value of the Trust’s common shares. The Trust may purchase insured bonds and may purchase insurance for bonds in its portfolio.

During temporary defensive periods (e.g., times when, in Manager’s opinion, temporary imbalances of supply and demand or other temporary dislocations in the tax-exempt bond market adversely affect the price at which long-term or intermediate-term municipal bonds are available), and in order to keep the Trust’s cash fully invested, the Trust may invest up to 100% of its total assets in liquid, short-term investments, including high quality, short-term securities that may be either tax-exempt or taxable. The Trust may not achieve its investment objective under these circumstances. The Trust intends to invest in taxable short-term investments only if suitable tax-exempt short-term investments are not available at reasonable prices and yields. If the Trust invests in taxable short-term investments, a portion of your dividends would be subject to regular Federal income tax.

The Trust cannot change its investment objective without the approval of the holders of a majority of its outstanding common shares and preferred, voting together as a single class, and of the holders of a majority of the Trust’s outstanding preferred shares voting as a separate class. A “majority of the outstanding” means (1) 67% or more of the shares present at a meeting, if the holders of more than 50% of the shares are present or represented by proxy, or (2) more than 50% of the shares, whichever is less.

Leverage: The Trust may utilize leverage to seek to enhance the yield and net asset value of its common shares. However, this objective cannot be achieved in all interest rate environments. The Trust currently leverages its assets through the use of variable rate demand preferred shares (“VRDP Shares”) and residual interest municipal tender option bonds (“TOB Residuals”), which are derivative interests in municipal bonds. The TOB Residuals in which the Trust will invest pay interest or income that, in the opinion of counsel to the issuer of such TOB Residuals, is exempt from regular U.S. federal income tax.

The Trust may purchase and sell futures contracts, enter into various interest rate transactions such as swaps, caps, floors or collars, currency transactions such as currency forward contracts, currency futures contracts, currency swaps or options on currency or currency futures and swap contracts and may purchase and sell exchange-listed and OTC put and call options on securities and swap contracts, financial indices and futures contracts and use other derivative instruments or management techniques.

The Trust may invest in securities the potential return of which is based on the change in a specified interest rate or equity index.

The Trust may enter into reverse repurchase agreements with respect to its portfolio investments subject to its investment restrictions.

BlackRock Municipal Income Trust (BFK)

The Trust’s investment objective is to provide current income exempt from federal income taxes. As a matter of fundamental policy, under normal market conditions, the Trust will invest at least 80% of its Managed Assets in investments the income from which is exempt from federal income tax (except that the interest may be subject to the alternative minimum tax). “Managed Assets” means the Trust’s total assets (including any assets attributable to money borrowed for investment purposes) minus the sum of the Trust’s accrued liabilities (other than money borrowed for investment purposes). The Trust cannot change its investment objectives or the foregoing fundamental policy without the approval of the holders of a majority of the outstanding common shares and the outstanding preferred shares, including the Trust’s variable rate muni term preferred shares (“VMTP Shares”), voting together as a single class, and of the holders of a majority of the outstanding preferred shares, including the VMTP Shares, voting as a separate class. A majority of the outstanding means (1) 67% or more of the shares present at a meeting, if the holders of more than 50% of the outstanding shares are present or represented by proxy, or (2) more than 50% of the outstanding shares, whichever is less.

The Trust’s investment policies provide that, under normal market conditions, the Trust will invest at least 80% of its total assets in investment grade quality municipal obligations issued by or on behalf of states, territories and possessions of the United States and their political subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities, each of which pays interest that, in the opinion of bond counsel to the issuer, is excludable from gross income for federal income tax purposes (except that the interest may be includable in taxable income for purposes of the federal alternative minimum tax) (“Municipal Bonds”). Investment grade quality means that such bonds are rated, at the time of investment, within the four highest grades (Baa or BBB or better by Moody’s Investor Service Inc. (“Moody’s”), S&P Global Ratings (“S&P”) or Fitch Ratings, Inc. (“Fitch”)) or are unrated but judged to be of comparable quality by the BlackRock Advisors, LLC (the “Manager”). Municipal Bonds rated Baa by Moody’s are investment grade, but Moody’s considers Municipal Bonds rated Baa to have speculative characteristics. Changes in economic conditions or other circumstances are more likely to lead to a weakened capacity for issuers of Municipal Bonds that are rated BBB or Baa (or that have equivalent ratings) to make principal and interest payments than is the case for issues of higher grade


62		2 0 2 1 B L A C K R O C K A N N U A L R E P O R T T O S H A R E H O L D E R S

Investment Objectives, Policies and Risks (continued)

Municipal Bonds. In the case of short term notes, the investment grade rating categories are SP-1+ through SP-2 for S&P, MIG-1 through MIG-3 for Moody’s and F-1+ through F-3 for Fitch. In the case of tax exempt commercial paper, the investment grade rating categories are A-1+ through A-3 for S&P, Prime-1 through Prime-3 for Moody’s and F-1+ through F-3 for Fitch. Obligations ranked in the lowest investment grade rating category (BBB, SP-2 and A-3 for S&P; Baa, MIG-3 and Prime-3 for Moody’s and BBB and F-3 for Fitch), while considered “investment grade,” may have certain speculative characteristics. There may be sub-categories or gradations indicating relative standing within the rating categories set forth above. In assessing the quality of Municipal Bonds with respect to the foregoing requirements, the Manager takes into account the nature of any letters of credit or similar credit enhancement to which particular Municipal Bonds are entitled and the creditworthiness of the financial institution that provided such credit enhancement.

The Trust may invest up to 20% of its total assets in Municipal Bonds that are rated, at the time of investment, Ba/BB or B by Moody’s, S&P or Fitch or that are unrated but judged to be of comparable quality by the Manager. Bonds of below investment grade quality (Ba/BB or below) are commonly referred to as “junk bonds.” Bonds of below investment grade quality are regarded as having predominantly speculative characteristics with respect to the issuer’s capacity to pay interest and repay principal. Such securities, sometimes referred to as “high yield” or “junk” bonds, are predominantly speculative with respect to the capacity to pay interest and repay principal in accordance with the terms of the security and generally involve a greater volatility of price than securities in higher rating categories. Below investment grade securities and comparable unrated securities involve substantial risk of loss, are considered speculative with respect to the issuer’s ability to pay interest and any required redemption or principal payments and are susceptible to default or decline in market value due to adverse economic and business developments.

The foregoing credit quality policies apply only at the time a security is purchased, and the Trust is not required to dispose of a security if a rating agency downgrades its assessment of the credit characteristics of a particular issue. In determining whether to retain or sell a security that a rating agency has downgraded, the Manager may consider such factors as the Manager’s assessment of the credit quality of the issuer of the security, the price at which the security could be sold and the rating, if any, assigned to the security by other rating agencies. Appendix F contains a general description of Moody’s, S&P’s and Fitch’s ratings of municipal bonds. In the event that the Trust disposes of a portfolio security subsequent to its being downgraded, the Trust may experience a greater risk of loss than if such security had been sold prior to such downgrade.

The Trust may also invest in securities of other open- or closed-end investment companies that invest primarily in Municipal Bonds of the types in which the Trust may invest directly and in tax-exempt preferred shares that pay dividends that are exempt from regular federal income tax. In addition, the Trust may purchase Municipal Bonds that are additionally secured by insurance, bank credit agreements or escrow accounts. The credit quality of companies which provide these credit enhancements will affect the value of those securities. Although the insurance feature reduces certain financial risks, the premiums for insurance and the higher market price paid for insured obligations may reduce the Trust’s income. The insurance feature does not guarantee the market value of the insured obligations or the net asset value of the Trust’s common shares. The Trust may purchase insured bonds and may purchase insurance for bonds in its portfolio.

The Trust may invest in certain tax exempt securities classified as “private activity bonds” (or industrial development bonds, under pre-1986 law) (in general, bonds that benefit non-governmental entities) that may subject certain investors in the Trust to an alternative minimum tax. The percentage of the Trust’s total assets invested in private activity bonds will vary from time to time. The Trust has not established any limit on the percentage of its portfolio that may be invested in Municipal Bonds subject to the alternative minimum tax provisions of federal tax law, and the Trust expects that a portion of the income it produces will be includable in alternative minimum taxable income.

The Trust ordinarily does not intend to realize significant investment income not exempt from federal income tax. From time to time, the Trust may realize taxable capital gains.


I N V E S T M E N T O B J E C T I V E S, P O L I C I E S A N D R I S K S		63

Investment Objectives, Policies and Risks (continued)

Risk Factors

This section contains a discussion of the general risks of investing in each Trust. The net asset value and market price of, and dividends paid on, the common shares will fluctuate with and be affected by, among other things, the risks more fully described below. As with any fund, there can be no guarantee that a Trust will meet its investment objective or that the Trust’s performance will be positive for any period of time. Each risk noted below is applicable to each Trust unless the specific Trust or Trusts are noted in a parenthetical.

Investment and Market Discount Risk: An investment in the Trust’s common shares is subject to investment risk, including the possible loss of the entire amount that you invest. As with any stock, the price of the Trust’s common shares will fluctuate with market conditions and other factors. If shares are sold, the price received may be more or less than the original investment. Common shares are designed for long-term investors and the Trust should not be treated as a trading vehicle. Shares of closed-end management investment companies frequently trade at a discount from their net asset value. This risk is separate and distinct from the risk that the Trust’s net asset value could decrease as a result of its investment activities. At any point in time an investment in the Trust’s common shares may be worth less than the original amount invested, even after taking into account distributions paid by the Trust. During periods in which the Trust may use leverage, the Trust’s investment, market discount and certain other risks will be magnified.

Debt Securities Risk: Debt securities, such as bonds, involve interest rate risk, credit risk, extension risk, and prepayment risk, among other things.

•

Interest Rate Risk — The market value of bonds and other fixed-income securities changes in response to interest rate changes and other factors. Interest rate risk is the risk that prices of bonds and other fixed-income securities will increase as interest rates fall and decrease as interest rates rise.

The Trust may be subject to a greater risk of rising interest rates due to the current period of historically low rates. For example, if interest rates increase by 1%, assuming a current portfolio duration of ten years, and all other factors being equal, the value of the Trust’s investments would be expected to decrease by 10%. The magnitude of these fluctuations in the market price of bonds and other fixed-income securities is generally greater for those securities with longer maturities. Fluctuations in the market price of the Trust’s investments will not affect interest income derived from instruments already owned by the Trust, but will be reflected in the Trust’s net asset value. The Trust may lose money if short-term or long-term interest rates rise sharply in a manner not anticipated by Trust management.

Rates on certain floating rate debt securities typically reset only periodically, changes in prevailing interest rates (and particularly sudden and significant changes) can be expected to cause some fluctuations in the net asset value of the Trust to the extent that it invests in floating rate debt securities.

These basic principles of bond prices also apply to U.S. Government securities. A security backed by the “full faith and credit” of the U.S. Government is guaranteed only as to its stated interest rate and face value at maturity, not its current market price. Just like other fixed-income securities, government-guaranteed securities will fluctuate in value when interest rates change.

A general rise in interest rates has the potential to cause investors to move out of fixed-income securities on a large scale, which may increase redemptions from funds that hold large amounts of fixed-income securities. Heavy redemptions could cause the Trust to sell assets at inopportune times or at a loss or depressed value and could hurt the Trust’s performance.

•

Credit Risk — Credit risk refers to the possibility that the issuer of a debt security (i.e., the borrower) will not be able to make payments of interest and principal when due. Changes in an issuer’s credit rating or the market’s perception of an issuer’s creditworthiness may also affect the value of the Trust’s investment in that issuer. The degree of credit risk depends on both the financial condition of the issuer and the terms of the obligation.

•

Extension Risk — When interest rates rise, certain obligations will be paid off by the obligor more slowly than anticipated, causing the value of these obligations to fall.

•

Prepayment Risk — When interest rates fall, certain obligations will be paid off by the obligor more quickly than originally anticipated, and the Trust may have to invest the proceeds in securities with lower yields.

Municipal Securities Risk: Municipal securities risks include the ability of the issuer to repay the obligation, the relative lack of information about certain issuers of municipal securities, and the possibility of future legislative changes which could affect the market for and value of municipal securities. These risks include:

•

General Obligation Bonds Risks — Timely payments depend on the issuer’s credit quality, ability to raise tax revenues and ability to maintain an adequate tax base.

•

Revenue Bonds Risks — These payments depend on the money earned by the particular facility or class of facilities, or the amount of revenues derived from another source.

•

Private Activity Bonds Risks — Municipalities and other public authorities issue private activity bonds to finance development of industrial facilities for use by a private enterprise. The private enterprise pays the principal and interest on the bond, and the issuer does not pledge its full faith, credit and taxing power for repayment.

•

Moral Obligation Bonds Risks — Moral obligation bonds are generally issued by special purpose public authorities of a state or municipality. If the issuer is unable to meet its obligations, repayment of these bonds becomes a moral commitment, but not a legal obligation, of the state or municipality.

•

Municipal Notes Risks — Municipal notes are shorter term municipal debt obligations. If there is a shortfall in the anticipated proceeds, the notes may not be fully repaid and the Trust may lose money.


64		2 0 2 1 B L A C K R O C K A N N U A L R E P O R T T O S H A R E H O L D E R S

Investment Objectives, Policies and Risks (continued)

•

Municipal Lease Obligations Risks — In a municipal lease obligation, the issuer agrees to make payments when due on the lease obligation. Although the issuer does not pledge its unlimited taxing power for payment of the lease obligation, the lease obligation is secured by the leased property.

•

Tax-Exempt Status Risk — The Trust and its investment manager will rely on the opinion of issuers’ bond counsel and, in the case of derivative securities, sponsors’ counsel, on the tax-exempt status of interest on municipal bonds and payments under derivative securities. Neither the Trust nor its investment manager will independently review the bases for those tax opinions, which may ultimately be determined to be incorrect and subject the Trust and its shareholders to substantial tax liabilities.

Taxability Risk: The Trust intends to minimize the payment of taxable income to shareholders by investing in tax-exempt or municipal securities in reliance at the time of purchase on an opinion of bond counsel to the issuer that the interest paid on those securities will be excludable from gross income for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Such securities, however, may be determined to pay, or have paid, taxable income subsequent to the Trust’s acquisition of the securities. In that event, the Internal Revenue Service may demand that the Trust pay U.S. federal income taxes on the affected interest income, and, if the Trust agrees to do so, the Trust’s yield could be adversely affected. In addition, the treatment of dividends previously paid or to be paid by the Trust as “exempt interest dividends” could be adversely affected, subjecting the Trust’s shareholders to increased U.S. federal income tax liabilities. Federal tax legislation may limit the types and volume of bonds the interest on which qualifies for a federal income tax-exemption. As a result, current legislation and legislation that may be enacted in the future may affect the availability of municipal bonds for investment by the Trust. In addition, future laws, regulations, rulings or court decisions may cause interest on municipal securities to be subject, directly or indirectly, to U.S. federal income taxation or interest on state municipal securities to be subject to state or local income taxation, or the value of state municipal securities to be subject to state or local intangible personal property tax, or may otherwise prevent the Trust from realizing the full current benefit of the tax-exempt status of such securities. Any such change could also affect the market price of such securities, and thus the value of an investment in the Trust.

Insurance Risk: Insurance guarantees that interest payments on a municipal security will be made on time and that the principal will be repaid when the security matures. However, insurance does not protect against losses caused by declines in a municipal security’s value. The Trust cannot be certain that any insurance company will make the payments it guarantees. If a municipal security’s insurer fails to fulfill its obligations or loses its credit rating, the value of the security could drop.

Junk Bonds Risk: Although junk bonds generally pay higher rates of interest than investment grade bonds, junk bonds are high risk investments that are considered speculative and may cause income and principal losses for the Trust.

When-Issued and Delayed Delivery Securities and Forward Commitments Risk (BKN, BTA): When-issued and delayed delivery securities and forward commitments involve the risk that the security the Trust buys will lose value prior to its delivery. There also is the risk that the security will not be issued or that the other party to the transaction will not meet its obligation. If this occurs, the Trust may lose both the investment opportunity for the assets it set aside to pay for the security and any gain in the security’s price.

Defensive Investing Risk: For defensive purposes, the Trust may, as part of its proprietary volatility control process, allocate assets into cash or short-term fixed-income securities without limitation. In doing so, the Trust may succeed in avoiding losses but may otherwise fail to achieve its investment objective. Further, the value of short-term fixed-income securities may be affected by changing interest rates and by changes in credit ratings of the investments. If the Trust holds cash uninvested it will be subject to the credit risk of the depositary institution holding the cash.

Repurchase Agreements and Purchase and Sale Contracts (BKN, BFK): If the other party to a repurchase agreement or purchase and sale contract defaults on its obligation under the agreement, the Trust may suffer delays and incur costs or lose money in exercising its rights under the agreement. If the seller fails to repurchase the security in either situation and the market value of the security declines, the Trust may lose money.

Reverse Repurchase Agreements Risk: Reverse repurchase agreements involve the sale of securities held by the Trust with an agreement to repurchase the securities at an agreed-upon price, date and interest payment. Reverse repurchase agreements involve the risk that the other party may fail to return the securities in a timely manner or at all. The Trust could lose money if it is unable to recover the securities and the value of the collateral held by the Trust, including the value of the investments made with cash collateral, is less than the value of the securities. These events could also trigger adverse tax consequences for the Trust. In addition, reverse repurchase agreements involve the risk that the interest income earned in the investment of the proceeds will be less than the interest expense.

Indexed and Inverse Securities Risk (BTA): Indexed and inverse securities provide a potential return based on a particular index of value or interest rates. The Trust’s return on these securities will be subject to risk with respect to the value of the particular index. These securities are subject to leverage risk and correlation risk. Certain indexed and inverse securities have greater sensitivity to changes in interest rates or index levels than other securities, and the Trust’s investment in such instruments may decline significantly in value if interest rates or index levels move in a way Trust management does not anticipate.

Leverage Risk: With respect to BKN and BFK, the Trust uses leverage for investment purposes through the issuance of VMTP Shares. With respect to BTA, the Trust uses leverage for investment purposes through the issuance of VRDP Shares. The Trust also utilizes leverage for investment purposes by entering into derivative instruments with leverage embedded in them, such as TOB Residuals. The Trust’s use of leverage may increase or decrease from time to time in its discretion and the Trust may, in the future, determine not to use leverage.

The use of leverage creates an opportunity for increased common share net investment income dividends, but also creates risks for the holders of common shares. The Trust cannot assure you that the use of leverage will result in a higher yield on the common shares. Any leveraging strategy the Trust employs may not be successful.

Leverage involves risks and special considerations for common shareholders, including:

•

the likelihood of greater volatility of net asset value, market price and dividend rate of the common shares than a comparable portfolio without leverage;

•

the risk that fluctuations in interest rates or dividend rates on any leverage that the Trust must pay will reduce the return to the common shareholders;


I N V E S T M E N T O B J E C T I V E S, P O L I C I E S A N D R I S K S		65

Investment Objectives, Policies and Risks (continued)

•

the effect of leverage in a declining market, which is likely to cause a greater decline in the net asset value of the common shares than if the Trust were not leveraged, which may result in a greater decline in the market price of the common shares;

•

leverage may increase operating costs, which may reduce total return.

Any decline in the net asset value of the Trust’s investments will be borne entirely by the holders of common shares. Therefore, if the market value of the Trust’s portfolio declines, leverage will result in a greater decrease in net asset value to the holders of common shares than if the Trust were not leveraged. This greater net asset value decrease will also tend to cause a greater decline in the market price for the common shares.

Derivatives Risk: The Trust’s use of derivatives may increase its costs, reduce the Trust’s returns and/or increase volatility. Derivatives involve significant risks, including:

•

Volatility Risk — Volatility is defined as the characteristic of a security, an index or a market to fluctuate significantly in price within a short time period. A risk of the Trust’s use of derivatives is that the fluctuations in their values may not correlate with the overall securities markets.

•

Counterparty Risk — Derivatives are also subject to counterparty risk, which is the risk that the other party in the transaction will not fulfill its contractual obligation.

•

Market and Illiquidity Risk — The possible lack of a liquid secondary market for derivatives and the resulting inability of the Trust to sell or otherwise close a derivatives position could expose the Trust to losses and could make derivatives more difficult for the Trust to value accurately.

•

Valuation Risk — Valuation may be more difficult in times of market turmoil since many investors and market makers may be reluctant to purchase complex instruments or quote prices for them.

•

Hedging Risk — Hedges are sometimes subject to imperfect matching between the derivative and the underlying security, and there can be no assurance that the Trust’s hedging transactions will be effective. The use of hedging may result in certain adverse tax consequences.

•

Tax Risk — Certain aspects of the tax treatment of derivative instruments, including swap agreements and commodity-linked derivative instruments, are currently unclear and may be affected by changes in legislation, regulations or other legally binding authority. Such treatment may be less favorable than that given to a direct investment in an underlying asset and may adversely affect the timing, character and amount of income the Trust realizes from its investments.

•

Regulatory Risk — Derivative contracts, including, without limitation, swaps, currency forwards and non-deliverable forwards, are subject to regulation under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”) in the United States and under comparable regimes in Europe, Asia and other non-U.S. jurisdictions. Under the Dodd-Frank Act, certain derivatives are subject to margin requirements and swap dealers are required to collect margin from the Trust with respect to such derivatives. Specifically, regulations are now in effect that require swap dealers to post and collect variation margin (comprised of specified liquid instruments and subject to a required haircut) in connection with trading of over-the-counter (“OTC”) swaps with the Trust. Shares of investment companies (other than certain money market Trusts) may not be posted as collateral under these regulations. Requirements for posting of initial margin in connection with OTC swaps will be phased-in through at least 2021. In addition, regulations adopted by global prudential regulators that are now in effect require certain bank-regulated counterparties and certain of their affiliates to include in certain financial contracts, including many derivatives contracts, terms that delay or restrict the rights of counterparties, such as the Trust, to terminate such contracts, foreclose upon collateral, exercise other default rights or restrict transfers of credit support in the event that the counterparty and/or its affiliates are subject to certain types of resolution or insolvency proceedings. The implementation of these requirements with respect to derivatives, as well as regulations under the Dodd-Frank Act regarding clearing, mandatory trading and margining of other derivatives, may increase the costs and risks to the Trust of trading in these instruments and, as a result, may affect returns to investors in the Trust.

On October 28, 2020, the Securities and Exchange Commission adopted new regulations governing the use of derivatives by registered investment companies (“Rule 18f-4”). The Trust will be required to implement and comply with Rule 18f-4 by August 19, 2022. Once implemented, Rule 18f-4 will impose limits on the amount of derivatives a fund can enter into, eliminate the asset segregation framework currently used by funds to comply with Section 18 of the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended, treat derivatives as senior securities and require funds whose use of derivatives is more than a limited specified exposure amount to establish and maintain a comprehensive derivatives risk management program and appoint a derivatives risk manager.

Tender Option Bonds Risk: The Trust’s participation in tender option bond transactions may reduce the Trust’s returns and/or increase volatility. Investments in tender option bond transactions expose the Trust to counterparty risk and leverage risk. An investment in a tender option bond transaction typically will involve greater risk than an investment in a municipal fixed rate security, including the risk of loss of principal. Distributions on TOB Residuals will bear an inverse relationship to short-term municipal security interest rates. Distributions on TOB Residuals paid to the Trust will be reduced or, in the extreme, eliminated as short-term municipal interest rates rise and will increase when short-term municipal interest rates fall. TOB Residuals generally will underperform the market for fixed rate municipal securities in a rising interest rate environment. The Trust may invest in TOB Trusts on either a non-recourse or recourse basis. If the Trust invests in a TOB Trust on a recourse basis, it could suffer losses in excess of the value of its TOB Residuals.

Illiquid Investments Risk: The Trust may invest without limitation in illiquid or less liquid investments or investments in which no secondary market is readily available or which are otherwise illiquid, including private placement securities. The Trust may not be able to readily dispose of such investments at prices that approximate those at which the Trust could sell such investments if they were more widely traded and, as a result of such illiquidity, the Trust may have to sell other investments or engage in borrowing transactions if necessary to raise cash to meet its obligations. Limited liquidity can also affect the market price of investments, thereby adversely affecting the Trust’s net asset value and ability to make dividend distributions. The financial markets in general, and certain segments of the mortgage-related securities markets in particular, have in recent years experienced periods of extreme secondary market supply and demand imbalance, resulting in a loss of liquidity during which market prices were suddenly and substantially below traditional measures of intrinsic value. During such periods, some investments could be sold only at arbitrary prices and with substantial losses. Periods of


66		2 0 2 1 B L A C K R O C K A N N U A L R E P O R T T O S H A R E H O L D E R S

Investment Objectives, Policies and Risks (continued)

such market dislocation may occur again at any time. Privately issued debt securities are often of below investment grade quality, frequently are unrated and present many of the same risks as investing in below investment grade public debt securities.

Investment in Other Investment Companies Risk (BTA, BFK): As with other investments, investments in other investment companies, including exchange-traded funds (“ETFs”), are subject to market and selection risk. In addition, if the Trust acquires shares of investment companies, including ones affiliated with the Trust, shareholders bear both their proportionate share of expenses in the Trust (including management and advisory fees) and, indirectly, the expenses of the investment companies (to the extent not offset by the Manager through waivers). To the extent the Trust is held by an affiliated fund, the ability of the Trust itself to hold other investment companies may be limited.

Preferred Securities Risk (BTA, BFK): Preferred securities may pay fixed or adjustable rates of return. Preferred securities are subject to issuer-specific and market risks applicable generally to equity securities. In addition, a company’s preferred securities generally pay dividends only after the company makes required payments to holders of its bonds and other debt. For this reason, the value of preferred securities will usually react more strongly than bonds and other debt to actual or perceived changes in the company’s financial condition or prospects. Preferred securities of smaller companies may be more vulnerable to adverse developments than preferred securities of larger companies.

Market Risk and Selection Risk: Market risk is the risk that one or more markets in which the Trust invests will go down in value, including the possibility that the markets will go down sharply and unpredictably. The value of a security or other asset may decline due to changes in general market conditions, economic trends or events that are not specifically related to the issuer of the security or other asset, or factors that affect a particular issuer or issuers, exchange, country, group of countries, region, market, industry, group of industries, sector or asset class. Local, regional or global events such as war, acts of terrorism, the spread of infectious illness or other public health issues like pandemics or epidemics, recessions, or other events could have a significant impact on the Trust and its investments. Selection risk is the risk that the securities selected by Trust management will underperform the markets, the relevant indices or the securities selected by other funds with similar investment objectives and investment strategies. This means you may lose money.

A recent outbreak of an infectious coronavirus has developed into a global pandemic that has resulted in numerous disruptions in the market and has had significant economic impact leaving general concern and uncertainty. The impact of this coronavirus, and other epidemics and pandemics that may arise in the future, could affect the economies of many nations, individual companies and the market in general ways that cannot necessarily be foreseen at the present time.


I N V E S T M E N T O B J E C T I V E S, P O L I C I E S A N D R I S K S		67

Automatic Dividend Reinvestment Plan

Pursuant to BKN, BTA and BFK’s Dividend Reinvestment Plan (the “Reinvestment Plan”), Common Shareholders are automatically enrolled to have all distributions of dividends and capital gains and other distributions reinvested by Computershare Trust Company, N.A. (the “Reinvestment Plan Agent”) in the respective Trust’s Common Shares pursuant to the Reinvestment Plan. Shareholders who do not participate in the Reinvestment Plan will receive all distributions in cash paid by check and mailed directly to the shareholders of record (or if the shares are held in street name or other nominee name, then to the nominee) by the Reinvestment Plan Agent, which serves as agent for the shareholders in administering the Reinvestment Plan.

After BKN, BTA and BFK declare a dividend or determine to make a capital gain or other distribution, the Reinvestment Plan Agent will acquire shares for the participants’ accounts, depending upon the following circumstances, either (i) through receipt of unissued but authorized shares from the Trusts (“newly issued shares”) or (ii) by purchase of outstanding shares on the open market or on the Trust’s primary exchange (“open-market purchases”). If, on the dividend payment date, the net asset value per share (“NAV”) is equal to or less than the market price per share plus estimated brokerage commissions (such condition often referred to as a “market premium”), the Reinvestment Plan Agent will invest the dividend amount in newly issued shares acquired on behalf of the participants. The number of newly issued shares to be credited to each participant’s account will be determined by dividing the dollar amount of the dividend by the NAV on the date the shares are issued. However, if the NAV is less than 95% of the market price on the dividend payment date, the dollar amount of the dividend will be divided by 95% of the market price on the dividend payment date. If, on the dividend payment date, the NAV is greater than the market price per share plus estimated brokerage commissions (such condition often referred to as a “market discount”), the Reinvestment Plan Agent will invest the dividend amount in shares acquired on behalf of the participants in open-market purchases. If the Reinvestment Plan Agent is unable to invest the full dividend amount in open-market purchases, or if the market discount shifts to a market premium during the purchase period, the Reinvestment Plan Agent will invest any un-invested portion in newly issued shares. Investments in newly issued shares made in this manner would be made pursuant to the same process described above and the date of issue for such newly issued shares will substitute for the dividend payment date.

You may elect not to participate in the Reinvestment Plan and to receive all dividends in cash by contacting the Reinvestment Plan Agent, at the address set forth below.

Participation in the Reinvestment Plan is completely voluntary and may be terminated or resumed at any time without penalty by notice if received and processed by the Reinvestment Plan Agent prior to the dividend record date. Additionally, the Reinvestment Plan Agent seeks to process notices received after the record date but prior to the payable date and such notices often will become effective by the payable date. Where late notices are not processed by the applicable payable date, such termination or resumption will be effective with respect to any subsequently declared dividend or other distribution.

The Reinvestment Plan Agent’s fees for the handling of the reinvestment of distributions will be paid by each Trust. However, each participant will pay a pro rata share of brokerage commissions incurred with respect to the Reinvestment Plan Agent’s open-market purchases in connection with the reinvestment of all distributions. The automatic reinvestment of all distributions will not relieve participants of any U.S. federal, state or local income tax that may be payable on such dividends or distributions.

Each Trust reserves the right to amend or terminate the Reinvestment Plan. There is no direct service charge to participants in the Reinvestment Plan; however, each Trust reserves the right to amend the Reinvestment Plan to include a service charge payable by the participants. Participants in BKN, BTA and BFK that request a sale of shares are subject to a $2.50 sales fee and a $0.15 per share sold brokerage commission fee. All correspondence concerning the Reinvestment Plan should be directed to Computershare Trust Company, N.A. through the internet at computershare.com/blackrock, or in writing to Computershare, P.O. Box 505000, Louisville, KY 40233, Telephone: (800) 699-1236. Overnight correspondence should be directed to the Reinvestment Plan Agent at Computershare, 462 South 4th Street, Suite 1600, Louisville, KY 40202.


68		2 0 2 1 B L A C K R O C K A N N U A L R E P O R T T O S H A R E H O L D E R S

Trustee and Officer Information


Independent Trustees^(a)

Name Year of Birth^(b)	Position(s) Held (Length of Service)^(c)	Principal Occupation(s) During Past Five Years	Number of BlackRock-Advised Registered Investment Companies (“RICs”) Consisting of Investment Portfolios (“Portfolios”) Overseen	Public Company and Other Investment Company Directorships Held During Past Five Years

Richard E. Cavanagh 1946	Co-Chair of the Board and Trustee (Since 2007)	Director, The Guardian Life Insurance Company of America since 1998; Board Chair, Volunteers of America (a not-for-profit organization) from 2015 to 2018 (board member since 2009); Director, Arch Chemicals (chemical and allied products) from 1999 to 2011; Trustee, Educational Testing Service from 1997 to 2009 and Chairman thereof from 2005 to 2009; Senior Advisor, The Fremont Group since 2008 and Director thereof since 1996; Faculty Member/Adjunct Lecturer, Harvard University since 2007 and Executive Dean from 1987 to 1995; President and Chief Executive Officer, The Conference Board, Inc. (global business research organization) from 1995 to 2007.	73 RICs consisting of 98 Portfolios	None

Karen P. Robards 1950	Co-Chair of the Board and Trustee (Since 2007)	Principal of Robards & Company, LLC (consulting and private investing) since 1987; Co-founder and Director of the Cooke Center for Learning and Development (a not-for-profit organization) since 1987; Director of Enable Injections, LLC (medical devices) since 2019; Investment Banker at Morgan Stanley from 1976 to 1987.	73 RICs consisting of 98 Portfolios	Greenhill & Co., Inc.; AtriCure, Inc. (medical devices) from 2000 until 2017

Michael J. Castellano 1946	Trustee (Since 2011)	Chief Financial Officer of Lazard Group LLC from 2001 to 2011; Chief Financial Officer of Lazard Ltd from 2004 to 2011; Director, Support Our Aging Religious (non-profit) from 2009 to June 2015 and from 2017 to September 2020; Director, National Advisory Board of Church Management at Villanova University since 2010; Trustee, Domestic Church Media Foundation since 2012; Director, CircleBlack Inc. (financial technology company) from 2015 to July 2020.	73 RICs consisting of 98 Portfolios	None

Cynthia L. Egan 1955	Trustee (Since 2016)	Advisor, U.S. Department of the Treasury from 2014 to 2015; President, Retirement Plan Services, for T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. from 2007 to 2012; executive positions within Fidelity Investments from 1989 to 2007.	73 RICs consisting of 98 Portfolios	Unum (insurance); The Hanover Insurance Group (Board Chair) (insurance); Huntsman Corporation (chemical products); Envestnet (investment platform) from 2013 until 2016

Frank J. Fabozzi^(d)1948	Trustee (Since 2007)	Editor of The Journal of Portfolio Management since 1986; Professor of Finance, EDHEC Business School (France) since 2011; Visiting Professor, Princeton University for the 2013 to 2014 academic year and Spring 2017 semester; Professor in the Practice of Finance, Yale University School of Management from 1994 to 2011 and currently a Teaching Fellow in Yale’s Executive Programs; Board Member, BlackRock Equity-Liquidity Funds from 2014 to 2016; affiliated professor Karlsruhe Institute of Technology from 2008 to 2011; Visiting Professor, Rutgers University for the Spring 2019 semester; Visiting Professor, New York University for the 2019 academic year. Adjunct Professor of Finance, Carnegie Mellon University in fall 2020 semester.	75 RICs consisting of 100 Portfolios	None


T R U S T E E A N D O F F I C E R I N F O R M A T I O N		69

Trustee and Officer Information (continued)


Independent Trustees^(a) (continued)

Name Year of Birth^(b)	Position(s) Held (Length of Service)^(c)	Principal Occupation(s) During Past Five Years	Number of BlackRock-Advised Registered Investment Companies (“RICs”) Consisting of Investment Portfolios (“Portfolios”) Overseen	Public Company and Other Investment Company Directorships Held During Past Five Years

R. Glenn Hubbard 1958	Trustee (Since 2007)	Dean, Columbia Business School from 2004 to 2019; Faculty member, Columbia Business School since 1988.	73 RICs consisting of 98 Portfolios	ADP (data and information services) 2004-2020; Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (insurance); KKR Financial Corporation (finance) from 2004 until 2014

W. Carl Kester^(d) 1951	Trustee (Since 2007)	George Fisher Baker Jr. Professor of Business Administration, Harvard Business School since 2008; Deputy Dean for Academic Affairs from 2006 to 2010; Chairman of the Finance Unit, from 2005 to 2006; Senior Associate Dean and Chairman of the MBA Program from 1999 to 2005; Member of the faculty of Harvard Business School since 1981.	75 RICs consisting of 100 Portfolios	None

Catherine A. Lynch^(d) 1961	Trustee (Since 2016)	Chief Executive Officer, Chief Investment Officer and various other positions, National Railroad Retirement Investment Trust from 2003 to 2016; Associate Vice President for Treasury Management, The George Washington University from 1999 to 2003; Assistant Treasurer, Episcopal Church of America from 1995 to 1999.	75 RICs consisting of 100 Portfolios	None

Interested Trustees^(a)(e)

Name Year of Birth^(b)	Position(s) Held (Length of Service)^(c)	Principal Occupation(s) During Past Five Years	Number of BlackRock-Advised Registered Investment Companies (“RICs”) Consisting of Investment Portfolios (“Portfolios”) Overseen	Public Company and Other Investment Company Directorships Held During Past Five Years

Robert Fairbairn 1965	Trustee (Since 2018)	Vice Chairman of BlackRock, Inc. since 2019; Member of BlackRock’s Global Executive and Global Operating Committees; Co-Chair of BlackRock’s Human Capital Committee; Senior Managing Director of BlackRock, Inc. from 2010 to 2019; oversaw BlackRock’s Strategic Partner Program and Strategic Product Management Group from 2012 to 2019; Member of the Board of Managers of BlackRock Investments, LLC from 2011 to 2018; Global Head of BlackRock’s Retail and iShares^® businesses from 2012 to 2016.	103 RICs consisting of 250 Portfolios	None

John M. Perlowski^(d) 1964	Trustee (Since 2014) President and Chief Executive Officer (Since 2011)	Managing Director of BlackRock, Inc. since 2009; Head of BlackRock Global Accounting and Product Services since 2009; Advisory Director of Family Resource Network (charitable foundation) since 2009.	105 RICs consisting of 252 Portfolios	None

^(a)	The address of each Trustee is c/o BlackRock, Inc., 55 East 52nd Street, New York, New York 10055.

^(b)

Each Independent Trustee holds office until his or her successor is duly elected and qualifies or until his or her earlier death, resignation, retirement or removal as provided by the Trust’s by-laws or charter or statute, or until December 31 of the year in which he or she turns 75. Trustees who are “interested persons,” as defined in the Investment Company Act serve until their successor is duly elected and qualifies or until their earlier death, resignation, retirement or removal as provided by the Trust’s by-laws or statute, or until December 31 of the year in which they turn 72. The Board may determine to extend the terms of Independent Trustees on a case-by-case basis, as appropriate.


70		2 0 2 1 B L A C K R O C K A N N U A L R E P O R T T O S H A R E H O L D E R S

Trustee and Officer Information (continued)

^(c)

Following the combination of Merrill Lynch Investment Managers, L.P. (“MLIM”) and BlackRock, Inc. in September 2006, the various legacy MLIM and legacy BlackRock fund boards were realigned and consolidated into three new fund boards in 2007. Certain Independent Trustees first became members of the boards of other legacy MLIM or legacy BlackRock funds as follows: Richard E. Cavanagh, 1994; Frank J. Fabozzi, 1988; R. Glenn Hubbard, 2004; W. Carl Kester, 1995; and Karen P. Robards, 1998.

^(d)	Dr. Fabozzi, Dr. Kester, Ms. Lynch and Mr. Perlowski are also trustees of the BlackRock Credit Strategies Fund and BlackRock Private Investments Fund.

^(e)	Mr. Fairbairn and Mr. Perlowski are both “interested persons,” as defined in the 1940 Act, of the Trust based on their positions with BlackRock, Inc. and its affiliates. Mr. Fairbairn and Mr. Perlowski are also board members of the BlackRock Multi-Asset Complex.


Officers Who Are Not Trustees^(a)

Name Year of Birth^(b)	Position(s) Held (Length of Service)	Principal Occupation(s) During Past Five Years

Jonathan Diorio 1980	Vice President (Since 2015)	Managing Director of BlackRock, Inc. since 2015; Director of BlackRock, Inc. from 2011 to 2015.

Trent Walker 1974	Chief Financial Officer (Since 2021)	Managing Director of BlackRock, Inc. since September 2019; Executive Vice President of PIMCO from 2016 to 2019; Senior Vice President of PIMCO from 2008 to 2015; Treasurer from 2013 to 2019 and Assistant Treasurer from 2007 to 2017 of PIMCO Funds, PIMCO Variable Insurance Trust, PIMCO ETF Trust, PIMCO Equity Series, PIMCO Equity Series VIT, PIMCO Managed Accounts Trust, 2 PIMCO-sponsored interval funds and 21 PIMCO-sponsored closed-end funds.

Jay M. Fife 1970	Treasurer (Since 2007)	Managing Director of BlackRock, Inc. since 2007.

Charles Park 1967	Chief Compliance Officer (Since 2014)	Anti-Money Laundering Compliance Officer for certain BlackRock-advised Funds from 2014 to 2015; Chief Compliance Officer of BlackRock Advisors, LLC and the BlackRock-advised Funds in the BlackRock Multi-Asset Complex and the BlackRock Fixed-Income Complex since 2014; Principal of and Chief Compliance Officer for iShares^® Delaware Trust Sponsor LLC since 2012 and BlackRock Fund Advisors (“BFA”) since 2006; Chief Compliance Officer for the BFA-advised iShares^® exchange traded funds since 2006; Chief Compliance Officer for BlackRock Asset Management International Inc. since 2012.

Janey Ahn 1975	Secretary (Since 2012)	Managing Director of BlackRock, Inc. since 2018; Director of BlackRock, Inc. from 2009 to 2017.
^(a) The address of each Officer is c/o BlackRock, Inc., 55 East 52nd Street, New York, New York 10055. ^(b) Officers of the Trust serve at the pleasure of the Board.

Neal J. Andrews retired as the Chief Financial Officer effective December 31, 2020, and Trent Walker was elected as the Chief Financial Officer effective January 1, 2021.

Effective June 10, 2021, Stayce D. Harris and J. Phillip Holloman were each appointed to serve as a Trustee of the Trusts.


T R U S T E E A N D O F F I C E R I N F O R M A T I O N		71

Additional Information

Trust Certification

The Trusts are listed for trading on the NYSE and have filed with the NYSE their annual chief executive officer certification regarding compliance with the NYSE’s listing standards. The Trusts filed with the SEC the certification of its chief executive officer and chief financial officer required by Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

Regulation Regarding Derivatives

On October 28, 2020, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) adopted new regulations governing the use of derivatives by registered investment companies (“Rule 18f-4”). The Trusts will be required to implement and comply with Rule 18f-4 by August 19, 2022. Once implemented, Rule 18f-4 will impose limits on the amount of derivatives a fund can enter into, eliminate the asset segregation framework currently used by funds to comply with Section 18 of the 1940 Act, treat derivatives as senior securities and require funds whose use of derivatives is more than a limited specified exposure amount to establish and maintain a comprehensive derivatives risk management program and appoint a derivatives risk manager.

Environmental, Social and Governance (“ESG”) Integration

Although a Trust does not seek to implement a specific ESG, impact or sustainability strategy unless otherwise disclosed, Trust management will consider ESG characteristics as part of the investment process for actively managed Trusts. These considerations will vary depending on a Trust’s particular investment strategies and may include consideration of third-party research as well as consideration of proprietary BlackRock research across the ESG risks and opportunities regarding an issuer. Trust management will consider those ESG characteristics it deems relevant or additive when making investment decisions for a Trust. The ESG characteristics utilized in a Trust’s investment process are anticipated to evolve over time and one or more characteristics may not be relevant with respect to all issuers that are eligible for investment. ESG characteristics are not the sole considerations when making investment decisions for a Trust. Further, investors can differ in their views of what constitutes positive or negative ESG characteristics. As a result, a Trust may invest in issuers that do not reflect the beliefs and values with respect to ESG of any particular investor. ESG considerations may affect a Trust’s exposure to certain companies or industries and a Trust may forego certain investment opportunities. While Trust management views ESG considerations as having the potential to contribute to a Trust’s long-term performance, there is no guarantee that such results will be achieved.

Dividend Policy

Each Trust’s dividend policy is to distribute all or a portion of its net investment income to its shareholders on a monthly/quarterly basis. In order to provide shareholders with a more stable level of distributions, the Trusts may at times pay out less than the entire amount of net investment income earned in any particular month/quarter and may at times in any particular month/quarter pay out such accumulated but undistributed income in addition to net investment income earned in that month/quarter. As a result, the distributions paid by the Trusts for any particular month/quarter may be more or less than the amount of net investment income earned by the Trusts during such month/quarter. The Trusts’ current accumulated but undistributed net investment income, if any, is disclosed as accumulated earnings (loss) in the Statements of Assets and Liabilities, which comprises part of the financial information included in this report.

General Information

The Trusts do not make available copies of their Statements of Additional Information because the Trusts’ shares are not continuously offered, which means that the Statement of Additional Information of each Trust has not been updated after completion of the respective Trust’s offerings and the information contained in each Trust’s Statement of Additional Information may have become outdated.

The following information is a summary of certain changes since April 30, 2020. This information may not reflect all of the changes that have occurred since you purchased the relevant Trust.

Effective October 19, 2020, BKN has elected to be subject to the Maryland Control Share Acquisition Act (the “MCSAA”). In general, the MCSAA limits the ability of holders of “control shares” to vote those shares above various threshold levels that start at 10% unless the other stockholders of BKN, as applicable, reinstate those voting rights at a meeting of stockholders as provided in the MCSAA. “Control shares” are generally defined in the MCSAA as shares of stock that, if aggregated with all other shares of stock that are either (i) owned by a person or (ii) as to which that person is entitled to exercise or direct the exercise of voting power, except solely by virtue of a revocable proxy, would entitle that person to exercise voting power in electing directors above various thresholds of voting power starting at 10%. BKN’s Bylaws also provide that the provisions of the MCSAA shall not apply to the voting rights of the holders of any shares of preferred stock of BKN, but the MCSAA would apply to any common stock held by the same holder.

Except if noted otherwise herein, there were no changes to the Trusts’ charters or by-laws that would delay or prevent a change of control of the Trusts that were not approved by the shareholders. Except if noted otherwise herein, there have been no changes in the persons who are primarily responsible for the day-to-day management of the Trusts’ portfolios.

In accordance with Section 23(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, each Trust may from time to time purchase shares of its common stock in the open market or in private transactions.

Quarterly performance, semi-annual and annual reports, current net asset value and other information regarding the Trusts may be found on BlackRock’s website, which can be accessed at blackrock.com. Any reference to BlackRock’s website in this report is intended to allow investors public access to information regarding the Trusts and does not, and is not intended to, incorporate BlackRock’s website in this report.


72		2 0 2 1 B L A C K R O C K A N N U A L R E P O R T T O S H A R E H O L D E R S

Additional Information (continued)

Electronic Delivery

Shareholders can sign up for e-mail notifications of quarterly statements, annual and semi-annual shareholder reports by enrolling in the electronic delivery program. Electronic copies of shareholder reports are available on BlackRock’s website.

To enroll in electronic delivery:

Shareholders Who Hold Accounts with Investment Advisers, Banks or Brokerages:

Please contact your financial adviser. Please note that not all investment advisers, banks or brokerages may offer this service.

Householding

The Trusts will mail only one copy of shareholder documents, annual and semi-annual reports, Rule 30e-3 notices and proxy statements, to shareholders with multiple accounts at the same address. This practice is commonly called “householding” and is intended to reduce expenses and eliminate duplicate mailings of shareholder documents. Mailings of your shareholder documents may be householded indefinitely unless you instruct us otherwise. If you do not want the mailing of these documents to be combined with those for other members of your household, please call the Trusts at (800) 882-0052.

Availability of Quarterly Schedule of Investments

The Trusts file their complete schedule of portfolio holdings with the SEC for the first and third quarters of each fiscal year as an exhibit to their reports on Form N-PORT. The Trusts’ Forms N-PORT are available on the SEC’s website at sec.gov. Additionally, each Trust makes its portfolio holdings for the first and third quarters of each fiscal year available at blackrock.com/fundreports.

Availability of Proxy Voting Policies, Procedures and Voting Records

A description of the policies and procedures that the Trusts use to determine how to vote proxies relating to portfolio securities and information about how the Trusts voted proxies relating to securities held in the Trusts’ portfolios during the most recent 12-month period ended June 30 is available without charge, upon request (1) by calling (800) 882-0052; (2) on the BlackRock website at blackrock.com; and (3) on the SEC’s website at sec.gov.

Availability of Trust Updates

BlackRock will update performance and certain other data for the Trusts on a monthly basis on its website in the “Closed-end Funds” section of blackrock.com as well as certain other material information as necessary from time to time. Investors and others are advised to check the website for updated performance information and the release of other material information about the Trusts. This reference to BlackRock’s website is intended to allow investors public access to information regarding the Trusts and does not, and is not intended to, incorporate BlackRock’s website in this report.

BlackRock Privacy Principles

BlackRock is committed to maintaining the privacy of its current and former fund investors and individual clients (collectively, “Clients”) and to safeguarding their non-public personal information. The following information is provided to help you understand what personal information BlackRock collects, how we protect that information and why in certain cases we share such information with select parties.

If you are located in a jurisdiction where specific laws, rules or regulations require BlackRock to provide you with additional or different privacy-related rights beyond what is set forth below, then BlackRock will comply with those specific laws, rules or regulations.

BlackRock obtains or verifies personal non-public information from and about you from different sources, including the following: (i) information we receive from you or, if applicable, your financial intermediary, on applications, forms or other documents; (ii) information about your transactions with us, our affiliates, or others; (iii) information we receive from a consumer reporting agency; and (iv) from visits to our websites.

BlackRock does not sell or disclose to non-affiliated third parties any non-public personal information about its Clients, except as permitted by law or as is necessary to respond to regulatory requests or to service Client accounts. These non-affiliated third parties are required to protect the confidentiality and security of this information and to use it only for its intended purpose.

We may share information with our affiliates to service your account or to provide you with information about other BlackRock products or services that may be of interest to you. In addition, BlackRock restricts access to non-public personal information about its Clients to those BlackRock employees with a legitimate business need for the information. BlackRock maintains physical, electronic and procedural safeguards that are designed to protect the non-public personal information of its Clients, including procedures relating to the proper storage and disposal of such information.


A D D I T I O N A L I N F O R M A T I O N		73

Additional Information (continued)

Trust and Service Providers

Investment Adviser

BlackRock Advisors, LLC

Wilmington, DE 19809

Custodian and Accounting Agent

State Street Bank and Trust Company

Boston, MA 02111

Transfer Agent

Computershare Trust Company, N.A.

Canton, MA 02021

VRDP Liquidity Provider

Bank of America, N.A.

New York, NY 10036

VRDP Remarketing Agent

BofA Securities, Inc.

New York, NY 10036

VRDP Tender and Paying Agent and VMTP Redemption and Paying Agent

The Bank of New York Mellon

New York, NY 10286

Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, MA 02116

Legal Counsel

Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP

New York, NY 10019

Address of the Trusts

100 Bellevue Parkway

Wilmington, DE 19809


74		2 0 2 1 B L A C K R O C K A N N U A L R E P O R T T O S H A R E H O L D E R S

Glossary of Terms Used in this Report


Portfolio Abbreviation

AGC		Assured Guaranty Corp.

AGM		Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp.

AMT		Alternative Minimum Tax

ARB		Airport Revenue Bonds

BAM		Build America Mutual Assurance Co.

CAB		Capital Appreciation Bonds

COP		Certificates of Participation

FGIC		Financial Guaranty Insurance Co.

FHA		Federal Housing Administration

FHLMC		Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp.

FNMA		Federal National Mortgage Association

GNMA		Government National Mortgage Association

GO		General Obligation Bonds

GTD		GTD Guaranteed

M/F		Multi-Family

NPFGC		National Public Finance Guarantee Corp.

PSF		Permanent School Fund

PSF-GTD		Permanent School Fund Guaranteed

RB		Revenue Bond

S/F		Single-Family

SAB		Special Assessment Bonds

SAW		State Aid Withholding

SONYMA		State of New York Mortgage Agency

ST		Special Tax

TA		Tax Allocation


G L OS S A R Y O F T E R M S U S E D I N T H I S R E P O R T		75

Want to know more?

blackrock.com | 800-882-0052

This report is intended for current holders. It is not a prospectus. Past performance results shown in this report should not be considered a representation of future performance. The Trusts have leveraged their Common Shares, which creates risks for Common Shareholders, including the likelihood of greater volatility of net asset value and market price of the Common Shares, and the risk that fluctuations in short-term interest rates may reduce the Common Shares’ yield. Statements and other information herein are as dated and are subject to change.

CEMUNI5-04/21-AR

(b) Not Applicable

Item 2 –

Code of Ethics – The registrant (or the “Fund”) has adopted a code of ethics, as of the end of the period covered by this report, applicable to the registrant’s principal executive officer, principal financial officer, principal accounting officer or controller, or persons performing similar functions. During the period covered by this report, the code of ethics was amended to update certain information and to make other non-material changes. During the period covered by this report, there have been no waivers granted under the code of ethics. The registrant undertakes to provide a copy of the code of ethics to any person upon request, without charge, who calls 1-800-882-0052, option 4.

Item 3 –

Audit Committee Financial Expert – The registrant’s board of directors (the “board of directors”), has determined that (i) the registrant has the following audit committee financial experts serving on its audit committee and (ii) each audit committee financial expert is independent:

Michael Castellano

Frank J. Fabozzi

Catherine A. Lynch

Karen P. Robards

The registrant’s board of directors has determined that Karen P. Robards qualifies as an audit committee financial expert pursuant to Item 3(c)(4) of Form N-CSR.

Ms. Robards has a thorough understanding of generally accepted accounting principles, financial statements and internal control over financial reporting as well as audit committee functions. Ms. Robards has been President of Robards & Company, a financial advisory firm, since 1987. Ms. Robards was formerly an investment banker for more than 10 years where she was responsible for evaluating and assessing the performance of companies based on their financial results. Ms. Robards has over 30 years of experience analyzing financial statements. She also is a member of the audit committee of one publicly held company and a non-profit organization.

Under applicable securities laws, a person determined to be an audit committee financial expert will not be deemed an “expert” for any purpose, including without limitation for the purposes of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, as a result of being designated or identified as an audit committee financial expert. The designation or identification as an audit committee financial expert does not impose on such person any duties, obligations, or liabilities greater than the duties, obligations, and liabilities imposed on such person as a member of the audit committee and board of directors in the absence of such designation or identification. The designation or identification of a person as an audit committee financial expert does not affect the duties, obligations, or liability of any other member of the audit committee or board of directors.

Item 4 –

Principal Accountant Fees and Services

The following table presents fees billed by Deloitte & Touche LLP (“D&T”) in each of the last two fiscal years for the services rendered to the Fund:

(a) Audit Fees

(b) Audit-Related Fees¹

(c) Tax Fees²

(d) All Other Fees

Entity Name

Current
Fiscal Year
End

Previous
Fiscal Year
End

Current
Fiscal Year
End

Previous
Fiscal Year
End

Current
Fiscal Year
End

Previous
Fiscal Year
End

Current
Fiscal Year
End

Previous
Fiscal Year
End

BlackRock Investment Quality Municipal Trust, Inc.

$32,017

$32,946

$6,500

The following table presents fees billed by D&T that were required to be approved by the registrant’s audit committee (the “Committee”) for services that relate directly to the operations or financial reporting of the Fund and that are rendered on behalf of BlackRock Advisors, LLC (the “Investment Adviser” or “BlackRock”) and entities controlling, controlled by, or under common control with BlackRock (not including any sub-adviser whose role is primarily portfolio management and is subcontracted with or overseen by another investment adviser) that provide ongoing services to the Fund (“Affiliated Service Providers”):


	Current Fiscal Year End	Previous Fiscal Year End
(b) Audit-Related Fees¹	$0	$0
(c) Tax Fees²	$0	$0
(d) All Other Fees³	$2,032,000	$1,984,000

¹ The nature of the services includes assurance and related services reasonably related to the performance of the audit or review of financial statements not included in Audit Fees, including accounting consultations, agreed-upon procedure reports, attestation reports, comfort letters, out-of-pocket expenses and internal control reviews not required by regulators.

² The nature of the services includes tax compliance and/or tax preparation, including services relating to the filing or amendment of federal, state or local income tax returns, regulated investment company qualification reviews, taxable income and tax distribution calculations.

³ Non-audit fees of $2,032,000 and $1,984,000 for the current fiscal year and previous fiscal year, respectively, were paid to the Fund’s principal accountant in their entirety by BlackRock, in connection with services provided to the Affiliated Service Providers of the Fund and of certain other funds sponsored and advised by BlackRock or its affiliates for a service organization review and an accounting research tool subscription. These amounts represent aggregate fees paid by BlackRock and were not allocated on a per fund basis.

(e)(1) Audit Committee Pre-Approval Policies and Procedures:

The Committee has adopted policies and procedures with regard to the pre-approval of services. Audit, audit-related and tax compliance services provided to the registrant on an annual basis require specific pre-approval by the Committee. The Committee also must approve other non-audit services provided to the registrant and those non-audit services provided to the Investment Adviser and Affiliated Service Providers that relate directly to the operations and the financial reporting of the registrant. Certain of these non-audit services that the Committee believes are (a) consistent with the SEC’s auditor independence rules and (b) routine and recurring services that will not impair the independence of the independent accountants may be approved by the Committee without consideration on a specific case-by-case basis (“general pre-approval”). The term of any general pre-approval is 12 months from the date of the pre-approval, unless the Committee provides for a different period. Tax or other non-audit services provided to the registrant which have a direct impact on the operations or financial reporting of the registrant will only be deemed pre-approved provided that any individual project does not exceed $10,000 attributable to the registrant or $50,000 per project. For this purpose, multiple projects will be aggregated to determine if they exceed the previously mentioned cost levels.

Any proposed services exceeding the pre-approved cost levels will require specific pre-approval by the Committee, as will any other services not subject to general pre-approval (e.g., unanticipated but permissible services). The Committee is informed of each service approved

subject to general pre-approval at the next regularly scheduled in-person board meeting. At this meeting, an analysis of such services is presented to the Committee for ratification. The Committee may delegate to the Committee Chairman the authority to approve the provision of and fees for any specific engagement of permitted non-audit services, including services exceeding pre-approved cost levels.

(e)(2) None of the services described in each of Items 4(b) through (d) were approved by the Committee pursuant to the de minimis exception in paragraph (c)(7)(i)(C) of Rule 2-01 of Regulation S-X.

(f) Not Applicable

(g) The aggregate non-audit fees, defined as the sum of the fees shown under “Audit-Related Fees,” “Tax Fees” and “All Other Fees,” paid to the accountant for services rendered by the accountant to the registrant, the Investment Adviser and the Affiliated Service Providers were:


Entity Name	Current Fiscal Year End	Previous Fiscal Year End
BlackRock Investment Quality Municipal Trust, Inc.	$6,500	$6,500

Additionally, the amounts billed by D&T in connection with services provided to the Affiliated Service Providers of the Fund and of other funds sponsored or advised by BlackRock or its affiliates during the current and previous fiscal years for a service organization review and an accounting research tool subscription were:

Current Fiscal

Year End

Previous Fiscal

Year End

$2,032,000

$1,984,000

These amounts represent aggregate fees paid by BlackRock and were not allocated on a per fund basis.

(h) The Committee has considered and determined that the provision of non-audit services that were rendered to the Investment Adviser, and the Affiliated Service Providers that were not pre-approved pursuant to paragraph (c)(7)(ii) of Rule 2-01 of Regulation S-X is compatible with maintaining the principal accountant’s independence.

Item 5 –

Audit Committee of Listed Registrant

(a)

The following individuals are members of the registrant’s separately designated standing audit committee established in accordance with Section 3(a)(58)(A) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(58)(A)):

Michael Castellano

Frank J. Fabozzi

Catherine A. Lynch

Karen P. Robards

(b)

Not Applicable

Item 6 –

Investments

(a) The registrant’s Schedule of Investments is included as part of the Report to Stockholders filed under Item 1 of this Form.

(b) Not Applicable due to no such divestments during the semi-annual period covered since the previous Form N-CSR filing.

Item 7 –

Disclosure of Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures for Closed-End Management Investment Companies – The board of directors has delegated the voting of proxies for the Fund’s portfolio securities to the Investment Adviser pursuant to the Investment Adviser’s proxy voting guidelines. Under these guidelines, the Investment Adviser will vote proxies related to Fund securities in the best interests of the Fund and its stockholders. From time to time, a vote may present a conflict between the interests of the Fund’s stockholders, on the one hand, and those of the Investment Adviser, or any affiliated person of the Fund or the Investment Adviser, on the other. In such event, provided that the Investment Adviser’s Equity Investment Policy Oversight Committee, or a sub-committee thereof (the “Oversight Committee”) is aware of the real or potential conflict or material non-routine matter and if the Oversight Committee does not reasonably believe it is able to follow its general voting guidelines (or if the particular proxy matter is not addressed in the guidelines) and vote impartially, the Oversight Committee may retain an independent fiduciary to advise the Oversight Committee on how to vote or to cast votes on behalf of the Investment Adviser’s clients. If the Investment Adviser determines not to retain an independent fiduciary, or does not desire to follow the advice of such independent fiduciary, the Oversight Committee shall determine how to vote the proxy after consulting with the Investment Adviser’s Portfolio Management Group and/or the Investment Adviser’s Legal and Compliance Department and concluding that the vote cast is in its client’s best interest notwithstanding the conflict. A copy of the Fund’s Proxy Voting Policy and Procedures are attached as Exhibit 99.PROXYPOL, a copy of the Fund’s Global Corporate Governance & Engagement Principles are attached as Exhibit 99.GLOBAL.CORP.GOV and a copy of the Fund’s Corporate Governance and Proxy Voting Guidelines for U.S. Securities are attached as Exhibit 99.US.CORP.GOV. Information on how the Fund voted proxies relating to portfolio securities during the most recent 12-month period ended June 30 is available without charge, (i) at www.blackrock.com and (ii) on the SEC’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

Item 8 –

Portfolio Managers of Closed-End Management Investment Companies

(a)(1) As of the date of filing this Report.

The registrant is managed by a team of investment professionals comprised of Michael Kalinoski, Director at BlackRock, Walter O’Connor, Managing Director at BlackRock and Christian Romaglino, Director at BlackRock. Each is a member of BlackRock’s municipal tax-exempt management group. Each is jointly responsible for the day-to-day management of the registrant’s portfolio, which includes setting the registrant’s overall investment strategy, overseeing the management of the registrant and selection of its investments. Messrs. Kalinoski, O’Connor and Romaglino have been members of the registrant’s portfolio management team since 2017, 2006 and 2017, respectively.


Portfolio Manager		Biography
Michael Kalinoski		Director of BlackRock since 2006; Director of Merrill Lynch Investment Managers, L.P. (“MLIM”) from 1999 to 2006.
Walter O’Connor		Managing Director of BlackRock since 2006; Managing Director of MLIM from 2003 to 2006; Director of MLIM from 1998 to 2003.
Christian Romaglino		Director of BlackRock since 2017; Portfolio Manager for the Municipal Mutual Fund Desk within BlackRock’s Global Fixed Income Group since 2017; Portfolio Manager at Brown Brothers Harriman from 2007 to 2017.

(a)(2) As of April 30, 2021:


	(ii) Number of Other Accounts Managed and Assets by Account Type			(iii) Number of Other Accounts and Assets for Which Advisory Fee is Performance-Based
(i) Name of Portfolio Manager	Other Registered Investment Companies	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles	Other Accounts	Other Registered Investment Companies	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles	Other Accounts
Michael Kalinoski	13	0	0	0	0	0
	$35.72 Billion	$0	$0	$0	$0	$0
Walter O’Connor	22	0	0	0	0	0
	$32.49 Billion	$0	$0	$0	$0	$0
Christian Romaglino	9	0	0	0	0	0
	$5.44 Billion	$0	$0	$0	$0	$0

(iv) Potential Material Conflicts of Interest

BlackRock has built a professional working environment, firm-wide compliance culture and compliance procedures and systems designed to protect against potential incentives that may favor one account over another. BlackRock has adopted policies and procedures that address the allocation of investment opportunities, execution of portfolio transactions, personal trading by employees and other potential conflicts of interest that are designed to ensure that all client accounts are treated equitably over time. Nevertheless, BlackRock furnishes investment management and advisory services to numerous clients in addition to the Fund, and BlackRock may, consistent with applicable law, make investment recommendations to other clients or accounts (including accounts which are hedge funds or have performance or higher fees paid to BlackRock, or in which portfolio managers have a personal interest in the receipt of such fees), which may be the same as or different from those made to the Fund. In addition, BlackRock, Inc., its affiliates and significant shareholders and any officer, director, shareholder or employee may or may not have an interest in the securities whose purchase and sale BlackRock recommends to the Fund. BlackRock, Inc. or any of its affiliates or significant shareholders, or any officer, director, shareholder, employee or any member of their families may take different actions than those recommended to the Fund by BlackRock with respect to the same securities. Moreover, BlackRock may refrain from rendering any advice or

services concerning securities of companies of which any of BlackRock, Inc.’s (or its affiliates’ or significant shareholders’) officers, directors or employees are directors or officers, or companies as to which BlackRock, Inc. or any of its affiliates or significant shareholders or the officers, directors and employees of any of them has any substantial economic interest or possesses material non-public information. Certain portfolio managers also may manage accounts whose investment strategies may at times be opposed to the strategy utilized for a fund. It should also be noted that a portfolio manager may be managing certain hedge fund and/or long only accounts, or may be part of a team managing certain hedge fund and/or long only accounts, subject to incentive fees. Such portfolio managers may therefore be entitled to receive a portion of any incentive fees earned on such accounts. Currently, the portfolio managers of this fund are not entitled to receive a portion of incentive fees of other accounts.

As a fiduciary, BlackRock owes a duty of loyalty to its clients and must treat each client fairly. When BlackRock purchases or sells securities for more than one account, the trades must be allocated in a manner consistent with its fiduciary duties. BlackRock attempts to allocate investments in a fair and equitable manner among client accounts, with no account receiving preferential treatment. To this end, BlackRock, Inc. has adopted policies that are intended to ensure reasonable efficiency in client transactions and provide BlackRock with sufficient flexibility to allocate investments in a manner that is consistent with the particular investment discipline and client base, as appropriate.

(a)(3) As of April 30, 2021:

Portfolio Manager Compensation Overview

The discussion below describes the portfolio managers’ compensation as of April 30, 2021.

BlackRock’s financial arrangements with its portfolio managers, its competitive compensation and its career path emphasis at all levels reflect the value senior management places on key resources. Compensation may include a variety of components and may vary from year to year based on a number of factors. The principal components of compensation include a base salary, a performance-based discretionary bonus, participation in various benefits programs and one or more of the incentive compensation programs established by BlackRock.

Base Compensation. Generally, portfolio managers receive base compensation based on their position with the firm.

Discretionary Incentive Compensation

Discretionary incentive compensation is a function of several components: the performance of BlackRock, Inc., the performance of the portfolio manager’s group within BlackRock, the investment performance, including risk-adjusted returns, of the firm’s assets under management or supervision by that portfolio manager relative to predetermined benchmarks, and the individual’s performance and contribution to the overall performance of these portfolios and BlackRock. In most cases, these benchmarks are the same as the benchmark or benchmarks against which the performance of the Fund or other accounts managed by the portfolio managers are measured. Among other things, BlackRock’s Chief Investment Officers make a subjective determination with

respect to each portfolio manager’s compensation based on the performance of the Fund and other accounts managed by each portfolio manager relative to the various benchmarks. Performance of fixed income funds is measured on a pre-tax and/or after-tax basis over various time periods including 1-, 3- and 5- year periods, as applicable. With respect to these portfolio managers, such benchmarks for the Fund and other accounts are: a combination of market-based indices (e.g., Standard & Poor’s Municipal Bond Index), certain customized indices and certain fund industry peer groups.

Distribution of Discretionary Incentive Compensation. Discretionary incentive compensation is distributed to portfolio managers in a combination of cash, deferred BlackRock, Inc. stock awards, and/or deferred cash awards that notionally track the return of certain BlackRock investment products.

Portfolio managers receive their annual discretionary incentive compensation in the form of cash. Portfolio managers whose total compensation is above a specified threshold also receive deferred BlackRock, Inc. stock awards annually as part of their discretionary incentive compensation. Paying a portion of discretionary incentive compensation in the form of deferred BlackRock, Inc. stock puts compensation earned by a portfolio manager for a given year “at risk” based on BlackRock’s ability to sustain and improve its performance over future periods. In some cases, additional deferred BlackRock, Inc. stock may be granted to certain key employees as part of a long-term incentive award to aid in retention, align interests with long-term shareholders and motivate performance. Deferred BlackRock, Inc. stock awards are generally granted in the form of BlackRock, Inc. restricted stock units that vest pursuant to the terms of the applicable plan and, once vested, settle in BlackRock, Inc. common stock. The portfolio managers of this Fund have deferred BlackRock, Inc. stock awards.

For certain portfolio managers, a portion of the discretionary incentive compensation is also distributed in the form of deferred cash awards that notionally track the returns of select BlackRock investment products they manage, which provides direct alignment of portfolio manager discretionary incentive compensation with investment product results. Deferred cash awards vest ratably over a number of years and, once vested, settle in the form of cash. Only portfolio managers who manage specified products and whose total compensation is above a specified threshold are eligible to participate in the deferred cash award program.

Other Compensation Benefits. In addition to base salary and discretionary incentive compensation, portfolio managers may be eligible to receive or participate in one or more of the following:

Incentive Savings Plans — BlackRock, Inc. has created a variety of incentive savings plans in which BlackRock, Inc. employees are eligible to participate, including a 401(k) plan, the BlackRock Retirement Savings Plan (RSP), and the BlackRock Employee Stock Purchase Plan (ESPP). The employer contribution components of the RSP include a company match equal to 50% of the first 8% of eligible pay contributed to the plan capped at $5,000 per year, and a company retirement contribution equal to 3-5% of eligible compensation up to the Internal Revenue Service limit ($290,000 for 2021). The RSP offers a range of investment options, including registered investment companies and collective investment funds managed by the firm. BlackRock, Inc. contributions follow the investment direction set by participants for their own contributions or,

absent participant investment direction, are invested into a target date fund that corresponds to, or is closest to, the year in which the participant attains age 65. The ESPP allows for investment in BlackRock, Inc. common stock at a 5% discount on the fair market value of the stock on the purchase date. Annual participation in the ESPP is limited to the purchase of 1,000 shares of common stock or a dollar value of $25,000 based on its fair market value on the purchase date. All of the eligible portfolio managers are eligible to participate in these plans.

(a)(4) Beneficial Ownership of Securities – As of April 30, 2021:


Portfolio Manager		Dollar Range of Equity Securities of the Fund Beneficially Owned
Michael Kalinoski		None
Walter O’Connor		None
Christian Romaglino		$1 - $10,000

(b) Not Applicable

Item 9 –

Purchases of Equity Securities by Closed-End Management Investment Company and Affiliated Purchasers – Not Applicable due to no such purchases during the period covered by this report.

Item 10 –

Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders – There have been no material changes to these procedures.

Item 11 –

Controls and Procedures

(a) The registrant’s principal executive and principal financial officers, or persons performing similar functions, have concluded that the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rule 30a-3(c) under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”)) are effective as of a date within 90 days of the filing of this report based on the evaluation of these controls and procedures required by Rule 30a-3(b) under the 1940 Act and Rule 13a-15(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

(b) There were no changes in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Rule 30a-3(d) under the 1940 Act) that occurred during the period covered by this report that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

Item 12 –

Disclosure of Securities Lending Activities for Closed-End Management Investment Companies –Not Applicable

Item 13 –

Exhibits attached hereto

(a)(1) Code of Ethics – See Item 2

(a)(2) Section 302 Certifications are attached

(a)(3) Not Applicable

(a)(4) Not Applicable

(b) Section 906 Certifications are attached

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Investment Company Act of 1940, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

BlackRock Investment Quality Municipal Trust, Inc.


		By:		/s/ John M. Perlowski
				John M. Perlowski
				Chief Executive Officer (principal executive officer) of
				BlackRock Investment Quality Municipal Trust, Inc.

Date: July 6, 2021

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Investment Company Act of 1940, this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated.


		By:		/s/ John M. Perlowski
				John M. Perlowski
				Chief Executive Officer (principal executive officer) of
				BlackRock Investment Quality Municipal Trust, Inc.

Date: July 6, 2021


		By:		/s/ Trent Walker
				Trent Walker
				Chief Financial Officer (principal financial officer) of
				BlackRock Investment Quality Municipal Trust, Inc.

Date: July 6, 2021

EX-99. CERT

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 30a-2(a) UNDER THE 1940 ACT AND SECTION 302 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, John M. Perlowski, Chief Executive Officer (principal executive officer) of BlackRock Investment Quality Municipal Trust, Inc., certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form N-CSR of BlackRock Investment Quality Municipal Trust, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations, changes in net assets, and cash flows (if the financial statements are required to include a statement of cash flows) of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rule 30a-3(c) under the Investment Company Act of 1940) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Rule 30a-3(d) under the Investment Company Act of 1940) for the registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this report based on such evaluation; and

d) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by this report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize, and report financial information; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

Date: July 6, 2021

/s/ John M. Perlowski

John M. Perlowski

Chief Executive Officer (principal executive officer) of

BlackRock Investment Quality Municipal Trust, Inc.

EX-99. CERT

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 30a-2(a) UNDER THE 1940 ACT AND SECTION 302 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Trent Walker, Chief Financial Officer (principal financial officer) of BlackRock Investment Quality Municipal Trust, Inc., certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form N-CSR of BlackRock Investment Quality Municipal Trust, Inc.;

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

Date: July 6, 2021

/s/ Trent Walker

Trent Walker

Chief Financial Officer (principal financial officer) of

BlackRock Investment Quality Municipal Trust, Inc.

Exhibit 99.906CERT

Certification Pursuant to Rule 30a-2(b) under the 1940 Act and

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of BlackRock Investment Quality Municipal Trust, Inc. (the “Registrant”), hereby certifies, to the best of his knowledge, that the Registrant’s Report on Form N-CSR for the period ended April 30, 2021 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.

Date: July 6, 2021

/s/ John M. Perlowski

John M. Perlowski

Chief Executive Officer (principal executive officer) of

BlackRock Investment Quality Municipal Trust, Inc.

Date: July 6, 2021

/s/ Trent Walker

Trent Walker

Chief Financial Officer (principal financial officer) of

BlackRock Investment Quality Municipal Trust, Inc.

This certification is being furnished pursuant to Rule 30a-2(b) under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended, and 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Form N-CSR with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Closed-End Fund Proxy Voting Policy

October 1, 2020

LOGO

Closed-End Fund Proxy Voting Policy

Procedures Governing Delegation of Proxy Voting to Fund Adviser

Effective Date: October 1, 2020

Applies to the following types of Funds registered under the 1940 Act:

☐ Open-End Mutual Funds (including money market funds)

☐ Money Market Funds Only

☐ iShares and BlackRock ETFs

☒ Closed-End Funds

☐ Other

The Boards of Trustees/Directors (the “Directors”) of the closed-end funds advised by BlackRock Advisors, LLC (“BlackRock”) (the “Funds”) have the responsibility for the oversight of voting proxies relating to portfolio securities of the Funds, and have determined that it is in the best interests of the Funds and their shareholders to delegate that responsibility to BlackRock as part of BlackRock’s authority to manage, acquire and dispose of account assets, all as contemplated by the Funds’ respective investment management agreements.

BlackRock has adopted guidelines and procedures (together and as from time to time amended, the “BlackRock Proxy Voting Guidelines”) governing proxy voting by accounts managed by BlackRock. BlackRock will cast votes on behalf of each of the Funds on specific proxy issues in respect of securities held by each such Fund in accordance with the BlackRock Proxy Voting Guidelines; provided, however, that in the case of underlying closed-end funds (including business development companies and other similarly-situated asset pools) held by the Funds that have, or are proposing to adopt, a classified board structure, BlackRock will typically (a) vote in favor of proposals to adopt classification and against proposals to eliminate classification, and (b) not vote against directors as a result of their adoption of a classified board structure.

BlackRock will report on an annual basis to the Directors on (1) a summary of all proxy votes that BlackRock has made on behalf of the Funds in the preceding year together with a representation that all votes were in accordance with the BlackRock Proxy Voting Guidelines (as modified pursuant to the immediately preceding paragraph), and (2) any changes to the BlackRock Proxy Voting Guidelines that have not previously been reported.

LOGO


Public		Page 1 of 1

LOGO

Contents


Introduction to BlackRock			3

Philosophy on investment stewardship			3

Key themes			4

Boards and directors			5

Auditors and audit-related issues			7

Capital structure, mergers, asset sales and other special transactions			7

Compensation and benefits			8

Environmental and social issues			9

General corporate governance matters and shareholder protections			10

Shareholder proposals			10

BlackRock’s oversight of our investment stewardship activities			11

Vote execution			11

Conflicts management policies and procedures			12

Voting guidelines			13

Reporting and vote transparency			13

The purpose of this document is to provide an overarching explanation of BlackRock’s approach globally to our responsibilities as a shareholder on behalf of our clients, our expectations of companies, and our commitments to clients in terms of our own governance and transparency.

If you would like additional information, please contact:

ContactStewardship@blackrock.com

Introduction to BlackRock

BlackRock’s purpose is to help more and more people experience financial well-being. We manage assets on behalf of institutional and individual clients, across a full spectrum of investment strategies, asset classes, and regions. Our client base includes pension plans, endowments, foundations, charities, official institutions, insurers, and other financial institutions, as well as individuals around the world. As part of our fiduciary duty to our clients, we have determined that it is generally in the best long-term interest of our clients to promote sound corporate governance through voting as an informed, engaged shareholder. This is the responsibility of the Investment Stewardship Team.

Philosophy on investment stewardship

Companies are responsible for ensuring they have appropriate governance structures to serve the interests of shareholders and other key stakeholders. We believe that there are certain fundamental rights attached to shareholding. Companies and their boards should be accountable to shareholders and structured with appropriate checks and balances to ensure that they operate in shareholders’ best interests to create sustainable value. Shareholders should have the right to vote to elect, remove, and nominate directors, approve the appointment of the auditor, and amend the corporate charter or by-laws. Shareholders should be able to vote on matters that are material to the protection of their investment, including but not limited to, changes to the purpose of the business, dilution levels and pre-emptive rights, and the distribution of income and capital structure. In order to make informed decisions, we believe that shareholders have the right to sufficient and timely information. In addition, shareholder voting rights should be proportionate to their economic ownership—the principle of “one share, one vote” helps achieve this balance.

Consistent with these shareholder rights, we believe BlackRock has a responsibility to monitor and provide feedback to companies, in our role as stewards of our clients’ investments. BlackRock Investment Stewardship (“BIS”) does this through engagement with management teams and/or board members on material business issues including environmental, social, and governance (“ESG”) matters and, for those clients who have given us authority, through voting proxies in the best long-term economic interests of our clients. We also participate in the public debate to shape global norms and industry standards with the goal of a policy framework consistent with our clients’ interests as long-term shareholders.

BlackRock looks to companies to provide timely, accurate, and comprehensive reporting on all material governance and business matters, including ESG issues. This allows shareholders to appropriately understand and assess how relevant risks and opportunities are being effectively identified and managed. Where company reporting and disclosure is inadequate or the approach taken is inconsistent with our view of what supports sustainable long-term value creation, we will engage with a company and/or use our vote to encourage a change in practice.

BlackRock views engagement as an important activity; engagement provides us with the opportunity to improve our understanding of the business and ESG risks and opportunities that are material to the companies in which our clients invest. As long-term investors on behalf of clients, we seek to have regular and continuing dialogue with executives and board directors to advance sound governance and sustainable business practices, as well as to understand the effectiveness of the company’s management and oversight of material issues. Engagement is an important mechanism for providing feedback on company practices and disclosures, particularly where we believe they could be enhanced. We primarily engage through direct dialogue but may use other tools such as written correspondence to share our perspectives. Engagement also informs our voting decisions.

We vote in support of management and boards where and to the extent they demonstrate an approach consistent with creating sustainable long-term value. If we have concerns about a company’s approach, we may choose to engage to explain our expectations. Where we consider that a company has failed to address one or more material issues within an appropriate timeframe, we may hold directors accountable or take other voting actions to signal our concerns. We apply our voting guidelines to achieve the outcome we believe is most aligned with our clients’ long-term economic interests.


		3

Key themes

We recognize that accepted standards and norms of corporate governance differ between markets; however, there are sufficient common threads globally to identify this overarching set of principles (the “Principles”) which are anchored in transparency and accountability. At a minimum, we expect companies to observe the accepted corporate governance standards in their domestic market or to explain why not doing so supports sustainable long-term value creation.

Our regional and market-specific voting guidelines explain how these Principles inform our voting decisions in relation to specific ballot items for shareholder meetings.

These Principles cover seven key themes:

●

Boards and directors

●

Auditors and audit-related issues

●

Capital structure, mergers, asset sales, and other special transactions

●

Compensation and benefits

●

Environmental and social issues

●

General corporate governance matters and shareholder protections

●

Shareholder proposals


		4

Boards and directors

The performance of the board is critical to the economic success of the company and the protection of shareholders’ interests. As part of their responsibilities, board members owe fiduciary duties to shareholders in overseeing the strategic direction and operation of the company. For this reason, BlackRock focuses on directors in many of our engagements and sees the election of directors as one of our most important responsibilities in the proxy voting context.

We support boards whose approach is consistent with creating sustainable long-term value. This includes the effective management of strategic, operational, and material ESG factors and the consideration of key stakeholder interests. Our primary focus is on the performance of the board of directors. The board should establish and maintain a framework of robust and effective governance mechanisms to support its oversight of the company’s strategic aims. We look to the board to articulate the effectiveness of these mechanisms in overseeing the management of business risks and opportunities and the fulfillment of the company’s purpose. Disclosure of material issues that affect the company’s long-term strategy and value creation, including material ESG factors, is essential for shareholders to be able to appropriately understand and assess how the board is effectively identifying, managing, and mitigating risks.

Where a company has not adequately disclosed and demonstrated these responsibilities, we will consider withholding our support for the re-election of directors whom we hold accountable. We assess director performance on a case-by-case basis and in light of each company’s particular circumstances, taking into consideration our assessment of their governance, sustainable business practices, and performance. In serving the interests of shareholders, the responsibility of the board of directors includes, but is not limited to, the following:

●

Establishing an appropriate corporate governance structure

●

Supporting and overseeing management in setting long-term strategic goals, applicable measures of value-creation and milestones that will demonstrate progress, and steps taken if any obstacles are anticipated or incurred

●

Providing oversight on the identification and management of material, business operational and sustainability-related risks

●

Overseeing the financial resilience of the company, the integrity of financial statements, and the robustness of a company’s Enterprise Risk Management¹ frameworks

●

Making decisions on matters that require independent evaluation which may include mergers, acquisitions and disposals, activist situations or other similar cases

●

Establishing appropriate executive compensation structures

●

Addressing business issues, including environmental and social issues, when they have the potential to materially impact the company’s long-term value

There should be clear definitions of the role of the board, the committees of the board and senior management. We set out below ways in which boards and directors can demonstrate a commitment to acting in the best interests of long-term shareholders. We will seek to engage with the appropriate directors where we have concerns about the performance of the company, board, or individual directors. As noted above, we believe that when a company is not effectively addressing a material issue, its directors should be held accountable.

¹ Enterprise risk management is a process, effected by the entity’s board of directors, management, and other personnel, applied in strategy setting and across the enterprise, designed to identify potential events that may affect the entity, and manage risk to be within the risk appetite, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the achievement of objectives. (Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO), Enterprise Risk Management — Integrated Framework, September 2004, New York, NY).


		5

Regular accountability

BlackRock believes that directors should stand for re-election on a regular basis, ideally annually. In our experience, annual re-elections allow shareholders to reaffirm their support for board members or hold them accountable for their decisions in a timely manner. When board members are not re-elected annually, we believe it is good practice for boards to have a rotation policy to ensure that, through a board cycle, all directors have had their appointment re-confirmed, with a proportion of directors being put forward for re-election at each annual general meeting.

Effective board composition

Regular director elections also give boards the opportunity to adjust their composition in an orderly way to reflect the evolution of the company’s strategy and the market environment. BlackRock believes it is beneficial for new directors to be brought onto the board periodically to refresh the group’s thinking and in a manner that supports both continuity and appropriate succession planning. We expect companies to keep under regular review the effectiveness of its board (including its size), and assess directors nominated for election or re-election in the context of the composition of the board as a whole. This assessment should consider a number of factors, including the potential need to address gaps in skills or experience, the diversity of the board, and the balance of independent and non-independent directors. We also consider the average tenure of the overall board, where we are seeking a balance between the knowledge and experience of longer-serving members and the fresh perspectives of newer members.

When nominating new directors to the board, there should be detailed information on the individual candidates in order for shareholders to assess the suitability of an individual nominee and the overall board composition. These disclosures should give a clear sense of how the collective experience and expertise of the board aligns with the company’s long-term strategy and business model. We also expect disclosures to demonstrate how diversity is accounted for within the proposed board composition, including demographic factors such as gender, ethnicity, and age; as well as professional characteristics, such as a director’s industry experience, specialist areas of expertise, and geographic location.

We expect there to be a sufficient number of independent directors, free from conflicts of interest or undue influence from connected parties, to ensure objectivity in the decision-making of the board and its ability to oversee management. Common impediments to independence may include but are not limited to:

●

Current or recent employment at the company or a subsidiary

●

Being, or representing, a shareholder with a substantial shareholding in the company

●

Interlocking directorships

●

Having any other interest, business, or other relationship which could, or could reasonably be perceived to, materially interfere with a director’s ability to act in the best interests of the company

BlackRock believes that the board is able to fulfill its fiduciary duty when there is a clearly independent, senior non-executive director to chair it or, where the chairman is also the CEO (or is otherwise not independent), a lead independent director. The role of this director is to enhance the effectiveness of the independent members of the board through shaping the agenda, ensuring adequate information is provided to the board and encouraging independent participation in board deliberations. The lead independent director or another appropriate director should be available to shareholders in those situations where an independent director is best placed to explain and justify a company’s approach.

There are matters for which the board has responsibility that may involve a conflict of interest for executives or for affiliated directors. BlackRock believes that objective oversight of such matters is best achieved when the board forms committees comprised entirely of independent directors. In many markets, these committees of the board specialize in audit, director nominations and compensation matters. An ad hoc committee might also be formed to decide on a special transaction, particularly one involving a related party, or to investigate a significant adverse event.

Sufficient capacity

As the role of a director is demanding, directors must be able to commit an appropriate amount of time to board and committee matters. It is important that every director has the capacity to meet all of his/her responsibilities - including when there are unforeseen events – and therefore, he/she should not take on an excessive number of roles that would impair his/her ability to fulfill his/her duties.


		6

Auditors and audit-related issues

BlackRock recognizes the critical importance of financial statements, which should provide a true and fair picture of a company’s financial condition. Accordingly, the assumptions made by management and reviewed by the auditor in preparing the financial statements should be reasonable and justified.

The accuracy of financial statements, inclusive of financial and non-financial information, is clearly of paramount importance to BlackRock. Investors’ views on financial materiality are developing to encompass a broader range of risks. Over time, we expect increased scrutiny of the assumptions underlying financial reports.

In this context, audit committees, or equivalent, play a vital role in a company’s financial reporting system by providing independent oversight of the accounts, material financial and non-financial information, internal control frameworks, and Enterprise Risk Management systems. BlackRock believes that effective audit and risk committee oversight strengthens the quality and reliability of a company’s financial statements and provides an important level of reassurance to shareholders.

We hold the members of the audit committee or equivalent responsible for overseeing the management of the audit function. Audit committees or equivalent should have clearly articulated charters that set out the committee’s responsibilities and have a rotation plan in place that allows for a periodic refreshment of the committee memberships.

We take particular note of critical accounting matters, cases involving significant financial restatements or ad hoc notifications of material financial weakness. In this respect, audit committees should provide timely disclosure on the remediation of Key and Critical Audit Matters identified either by the external auditor or Internal Audit function.

The integrity of financial statements depends on the auditor being free of any impediments to being an effective check on management. To that end, we believe it is important that auditors are, and are seen to be, independent. Where the audit firm provides services to the company in addition to the audit, the fees earned should be disclosed and explained. Audit committees should have in place a procedure for assessing annually the independence of the auditor and the quality of the external audit process.

Comprehensive disclosure provides investors with a sense of the company’s long-term operational risk management practices and, more broadly, the quality of the board’s oversight. The audit committee or equivalent should periodically review the company’s risk assessment and risk management policies and significant risks and exposures identified by management, the internal auditors or the independent accountants, and management’s steps to address them. In the absence of robust disclosures, we may reasonably conclude that companies are not adequately managing risk.

Capital structure, mergers, asset sales, and other special transactions

The capital structure of a company is critical to shareholders as it impacts the value of their investment and the priority of their interest in the company relative to that of other equity or debt investors. Pre-emptive rights are a key protection for shareholders against the dilution of their interests.

Effective voting rights are basic rights of share ownership and we believe strongly in one vote for one share as a guiding principle that supports effective corporate governance. Shareholders, as the residual claimants, have the strongest interest in protecting company value, and voting power should match economic exposure.

In principle, we disagree with the creation of a share class with equivalent economic exposure and preferential, differentiated voting rights as it violates the fundamental corporate governance principle of proportionality, and results in a concentration of power in the hands of a few shareholders, thus disenfranchising other shareholders and amplifying any potential conflicts of interest. However, we recognize that in certain markets, at least for a period of time, companies may have a valid argument for dual-class listings. We believe that such companies should review these share class structures on a regular basis or as company circumstances change. Additionally, they should receive shareholder approval of their capital structure on a periodic basis via a management proposal at the company’s shareholder meeting. The proposal should give unaffiliated shareholders the opportunity to affirm the current structure or establish mechanisms to end or phase out controlling structures at the appropriate time, while minimizing costs to shareholders.


		7

In assessing mergers, asset sales, or other special transactions, BlackRock’s primary consideration is the long-term economic interests of our clients as shareholders. Boards proposing a transaction need to clearly explain the economic and strategic rationale behind it. We will review a proposed transaction to determine the degree to which it enhances long-term shareholder value. We would prefer that proposed transactions have the unanimous support of the board and have been negotiated at arm’s length. We may seek reassurance from the board that executives’ and/or board members’ financial interests in a given transaction have not adversely affected their ability to place shareholders’ interests before their own. Where the transaction involves related parties, we would expect the recommendation to support it to come from the independent directors, and ideally, the terms have been assessed through an independent appraisal process. In addition, it is good practice that it be approved by a separate vote of the non-conflicted shareholders.

BlackRock believes that shareholders have a right to dispose of company shares in the open market without unnecessary restriction. In our view, corporate mechanisms designed to limit shareholders’ ability to sell their shares are contrary to basic property rights. Such mechanisms can serve to protect and entrench interests other than those of the shareholders. We believe that shareholders are broadly capable of making decisions in their own best interests. We expect any so-called ‘shareholder rights plans’ proposed by a board to be subject to shareholder approval upon introduction and periodically thereafter for continuation.

Compensation and benefits

BlackRock expects a company’s board of directors to put in place a compensation structure that incentivizes and rewards executives appropriately and is linked with performance that aligns with shareholder interests, particularly the generation of sustainable long-term value. We would expect the compensation committee to carefully consider the specific circumstances of the company and the key individuals the board is trying to incentivize. We encourage companies to ensure that their compensation plans incorporate appropriate and rigorous performance metrics consistent with corporate strategy and market practice. We use third party research, in addition to our own analysis, to evaluate existing and proposed compensation structures. We hold members of the compensation committee or equivalent board members accountable for poor compensation practices or structures.

BlackRock believes that there should be a clear link between variable pay and company performance that drives value creation. We are not supportive of one-off or special bonuses unrelated to company or individual performance. Where discretion has been used by the compensation committee, we expect disclosure relating to how and why the discretion was used, and further, how the adjusted outcome is aligned with the interests of shareholders. We acknowledge that the use of peer group evaluation by compensation committees can help ensure competitive pay; however, we are concerned when the rationale for increases in total compensation at a company is solely based on peer benchmarking rather than a rigorous measure of outperformance.

We support incentive plans that foster the sustainable achievement of results consistent with the company’s long-term strategic initiatives. The vesting timeframes associated with incentive plans should facilitate a focus on long-term value creation. We believe consideration should be given to building claw back provisions into incentive plans such that executives would be required to forgo rewards when they are not justified by actual performance and/or when compensation was based on faulty financial reporting or deceptive business practices. We also favor recoupment from any senior executive whose behavior caused material financial harm to shareholders, material reputational risk to the company, or resulted in a criminal investigation, even if such actions did not ultimately result in a material restatement of past results. Compensation committees should guard against contractual arrangements that would entitle executives to material compensation for early termination of their contract. Finally, pension contributions and other deferred compensation arrangements should be reasonable in light of market practice.

Non-executive directors should be compensated in a manner that is commensurate with the time and effort expended in fulfilling their professional responsibilities. Additionally, these compensation arrangements should not risk compromising their independence or aligning their interests too closely with those of the management, whom they are charged with overseeing.


		8

Environmental and social issues

We believe that well-managed companies will deal effectively with material ESG factors relevant to their businesses. As stated throughout this document, governance is the core structure by which boards can oversee the creation of sustainable long-term value – appropriate risk oversight of environmental and social (“E&S”) considerations stems from this construct.

Robust disclosure is essential for investors to effectively gauge companies’ business practices and strategic planning related to E&S risks and opportunities. When a company’s reporting is inadequate, investors, including BlackRock, will increasingly conclude that companies are not adequately managing risk. Given the increased understanding of material sustainability risks and opportunities, and the need for better information to assess them, BlackRock will advocate for continued improvement in companies’ reporting and will hold management and/or directors accountable where disclosures or the business practices underlying them are inadequate.

BlackRock views the recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) and the standards put forward by the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) as appropriate and complementary frameworks for companies to adopt for the disclosure of financially material sustainability information. While the TCFD framework was crafted with the aim of climate-related risk disclosure, the four pillars of the TCFD Governance, Strategy, Risk Management, and Metrics and Targets are a useful way for companies to disclose how they identify, assess, manage, and oversee a variety of sustainability-related risks and opportunities. SASB’s industry-specific guidance (as identified in its materiality map) is beneficial in helping companies identify key performance indicators (KPIs) across various dimensions of sustainability that are considered to be financially material and decision-useful within their industry,

Accordingly, we ask companies to:

●

Disclose the identification, assessment, management, and oversight of sustainability-related risks in accordance with the four pillars of TCFD; and

●

Publish SASB-aligned reporting with industry-specific, material metrics and rigorous targets².

Companies may also adopt or refer to guidance on sustainable and responsible business conduct issued by supranational organizations such as the United Nations or the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Further, industry specific initiatives on managing specific operational risks may be useful. Companies should disclose any global standards adopted, the industry initiatives in which they participate, any peer group benchmarking undertaken, and any assurance processes to help investors understand their approach to sustainable and responsible business practices.

Climate risk

BlackRock believes that climate change has become a defining factor in companies’ long-term prospects. We expect every company to help their investors understand how the company may be impacted by climate-related risk and opportunities, and how they are considered within strategy. Specifically, we expect companies to articulate how they are aligned to a scenario in which global warming is limited to well below 2°C and is consistent with a global aspiration to reach net zero GHG emissions by 2050³.

The public and private sectors have roles to play in aligning greenhouse gas reduction efforts with targets based on science, where available, to curb the worst effects of climate change and reach the global goal of carbon neutrality by the mid-century. Companies have an opportunity to utilize and contribute to the development of current and future low-carbon transition technologies, which are an important consideration for the rate at which emissions can be reduced. We expect companies to disclose how they are considering these challenges, alongside opportunities for innovation, within their strategy and emissions reduction efforts.

² See our commentary on our approach to engagement on TCFD and SASB aligned reporting for greater detail of our expectations.

³ The global aspiration is reflective of aggregated efforts; companies in developed and emerging markets are not equally equipped to transition their business and reduce emissions at the same rate—those in developed markets with the largest market capitalization are better positioned to adapt their business models at an accelerated pace. Government policy and regional targets may be reflective of these realities.


		9

Key stakeholder interests

Given our expectation that companies operate in long-term shareholders’ interests to create sustainable value and fulfill their purpose, BlackRock believes that companies should take due account of their key stakeholders’ interests. It is for each company to determine its key stakeholders based on what is material to its business, but they are likely to include employees, business partners (such as suppliers and distributors), clients and consumers, government and regulators, and the communities in which they operate, as well as investors.

Having regard to the interests of key stakeholders recognizes the collective nature of long-term value creation, and the extent to which each company’s prospects for growth are tied to its ability to foster strong sustainable relationships with those stakeholders. Companies should articulate how they address adverse impacts that could arise from their business practices and affect critical business relationships with their stakeholders. We expect companies to implement, to the extent appropriate, monitoring processes (often referred to as due diligence) to identify and mitigate potential adverse impacts, and grievance mechanisms to remediate any actual adverse impacts. The maintenance of trust within these relationships is often equated with a company’s social license to operate.

To ensure transparency and accountability, companies should report on how they have identified their key stakeholders and considered their interests in business decision-making, demonstrating the applicable governance, strategy, risk management, and metrics and targets. This approach should be overseen by the board, whose job it is to ensure that the approach taken is informed by and aligns with the company’s purpose.

General corporate governance matters and shareholder protections

BlackRock believes that shareholders have a right to material and timely information on the financial performance and viability of the companies in which they invest. In addition, companies should also publish information on the governance structures in place and the rights of shareholders to influence these structures. The reporting and disclosure provided by companies help shareholders assess whether their economic interests have been protected and the quality of the board’s oversight of management. We believe shareholders should have the right to vote on key corporate governance matters, including changes to governance mechanisms, to submit proposals to the shareholders’ meeting, and to call special meetings of shareholders.

Shareholder proposals

In most markets in which BlackRock invests on behalf of clients, shareholders have the right to submit proposals to be voted on by shareholders at a company’s annual or extraordinary meeting, as long as eligibility and procedural requirements are met. The matters that we see put forward by shareholders address a wide range of topics, including governance reforms, capital management, and improvements in the management or disclosure of environmental and social risks.

When assessing shareholder proposals, we evaluate each proposal on its merit, with a singular focus on its implications for long-term value creation. We consider the business and economic relevance of the issue raised, as well as its materiality and the urgency with which we believe it should be addressed. We take into consideration the legal effect of the proposal, as shareholder proposals may be advisory or legally binding depending on the jurisdiction. We would not support proposals that we believe would result in over-reaching into the basic business decisions of the issuer.

Where a proposal is focused on an issue that we agree needs to be addressed and the intended outcome is consistent with long-term value creation, we will look to the board and management to demonstrate that the company has met the intent of the request made in the shareholder proposal. Where our analysis and / or engagement indicate a need for improvement in the company’s approach to the issue, we will support shareholder proposals that are reasonable and not unduly constraining on management. Alternatively, or in addition, we may vote against the re-election of one of more directors if, in our assessment, the board has not responded sufficiently or with an appropriate sense of urgency.


		10

BlackRock’s oversight of its investment

stewardship activities

Oversight

We hold ourselves to a very high standard in our investment stewardship activities, including proxy voting. To meet this standard, BIS is comprised of BlackRock employees who do not have other responsibilities other than their roles in BIS. BIS is considered an investment function.

BlackRock maintains three regional advisory committees (“Stewardship Advisory Committees”) for (a) the Americas; (b) Europe, the Middle East and Africa (“EMEA”); and (c) Asia-Pacific, generally consisting of senior BlackRock investment professionals and/or senior employees with practical boardroom experience. The regional Stewardship Advisory Committees review and advise on amendments to BIS proxy voting guidelines covering markets within each respective region (“Guidelines”).

In addition to the regional Stewardship Advisory Committees, the Investment Stewardship Global Oversight Committee (“Global Committee”) is a risk-focused committee, comprised of senior representatives from various BlackRock investment teams, a senior legal representative, the Global Head of Investment Stewardship (“Global Head”), and other senior executives with relevant experience and team oversight.

The Global Head has primary oversight of the activities of BIS, including voting in accordance with the Guidelines, which require the application of professional judgment and consideration of each company’s unique circumstances. The Global Committee reviews and approves amendments to these Principles. The Global Committee also reviews and approves amendments to the regional Guidelines, as proposed by the regional Stewardship Advisory Committees.

In addition, the Global Committee receives and reviews periodic reports regarding the votes cast by BIS, as well as updates on material process issues, procedural changes, and other risk oversight considerations. The Global Committee reviews these reports in an oversight capacity as informed by the BIS corporate governance engagement program and the Guidelines.

BIS carries out engagement with companies, monitors and executes proxy votes, and conducts vote operations (including maintaining records of votes cast) in a manner consistent with the relevant Guidelines. BIS also conducts research on corporate governance issues and participates in industry discussions to contribute to and keep abreast of important developments in the corporate governance field. BIS may utilize third parties for certain of the foregoing activities and performs oversight of those third parties. BIS may raise complicated or particularly controversial matters for internal discussion with the relevant investment teams and/or refer such matters to the appropriate regional Stewardship Advisory Committees for review, discussion and guidance prior to making a voting decision.

Vote execution

We carefully consider proxies submitted to funds and other fiduciary account(s) (“Fund” or “Funds”) for which we have voting authority. BlackRock votes (or refrains from voting) proxies for each Fund for which we have voting authority based on our evaluation of the best long-term economic interests of our clients as shareholders, in the exercise of our independent business judgment, and without regard to the relationship of the issuer of the proxy (or any shareholder proponent or dissident shareholder) to the Fund, the Fund’s affiliates (if any), BlackRock or BlackRock’s affiliates, or BlackRock employees (see “Conflicts management policies and procedures”, below).

When exercising voting rights, BlackRock will normally vote on specific proxy issues in accordance with the Guidelines for the relevant market. The Guidelines are reviewed regularly and are amended consistent with changes in the local market practice, as developments in corporate governance occur, or as otherwise deemed advisable by the applicable Stewardship Advisory Committees. BIS analysts may, in the exercise of their professional judgment, conclude that the Guidelines do not cover the specific matter upon which a proxy vote is required or that an exception to the Guidelines would be in the best long-term economic interests of BlackRock’s clients.


		11

In the uncommon circumstance of there being a vote with respect to fixed income securities or the securities of privately held issuers, the decision generally will be made by a Fund’s portfolio managers and/or BIS based on their assessment of the particular transactions or other matters at issue.

In certain markets, proxy voting involves logistical issues which can affect BlackRock’s ability to vote such proxies, as well as the desirability of voting such proxies. These issues include, but are not limited to: (i) untimely notice of shareholder meetings; (ii) restrictions on a foreigner’s ability to exercise votes; (iii) requirements to vote proxies in person; (iv) “share-blocking” (requirements that investors who exercise their voting rights surrender the right to dispose of their holdings for some specified period in proximity to the shareholder meeting); (v) potential difficulties in translating the proxy; (vi) regulatory constraints; and (vii) requirements to provide local agents with unrestricted powers of attorney to facilitate voting instructions. We are not supportive of impediments to the exercise of voting rights such as share-blocking or overly burdensome administrative requirements.

As a consequence, BlackRock votes proxies on a “best-efforts” basis. In addition, BIS may determine that it is generally in the best interests of BlackRock’s clients not to vote proxies if the costs (including but not limited to opportunity costs associated with share-blocking constraints) associated with exercising a vote are expected to outweigh the benefit the client would derive by voting on the proposal.

Portfolio managers have full discretion to vote the shares in the Funds they manage based on their analysis of the economic impact of a particular ballot item. Portfolio managers may from time to time reach differing views on how best to maximize economic value with respect to a particular investment. Therefore, portfolio managers may, and sometimes do, vote shares in the Funds under their management differently from one another. However, because BlackRock’s clients are mostly long-term investors with long-term economic goals, ballots are frequently cast in a uniform manner.

Conflicts management policies and procedures

BIS maintains policies and procedures that seek to prevent undue influence on BlackRock’s proxy voting activity. Such influence might stem from any relationship between the investee company (or any shareholder proponent or dissident shareholder) and BlackRock, BlackRock’s affiliates, a Fund or a Fund’s affiliates, or BlackRock employees. The following are examples of sources of perceived or potential conflicts of interest:

●

BlackRock clients who may be issuers of securities or proponents of shareholder resolutions

●

BlackRock business partners or third parties who may be issuers of securities or proponents of shareholder resolutions

●

BlackRock employees who may sit on the boards of public companies held in Funds managed by BlackRock

●

Significant BlackRock, Inc. investors who may be issuers of securities held in Funds managed by BlackRock

●

Securities of BlackRock, Inc. or BlackRock investment funds held in Funds managed by BlackRock

●

BlackRock, Inc. board members who serve as senior executives of public companies held in Funds managed by BlackRock

BlackRock has taken certain steps to mitigate perceived or potential conflicts including, but not limited to, the following:

●

Adopted the Guidelines which are designed to advance our clients’ interests in the companies in which BlackRock invests on behalf of clients.

●

Established a reporting structure that separates BIS from employees with sales, vendor management, or business partnership roles. In addition, BlackRock seeks to ensure that all engagements with corporate issuers, dissident shareholders or shareholder proponents are managed consistently and without regard to BlackRock’s relationship with such parties. Clients or business partners are not given special treatment or differentiated access to BIS. BIS prioritizes engagements based on factors including, but not limited to, our need for additional information to make a voting decision or our view on the likelihood that an engagement could lead to positive outcome(s) over time for the economic value of the company. Within the normal course of business, BIS may engage directly with BlackRock clients, business partners and/or third parties, and/or with employees with sales, vendor management, or business partnership roles, in discussions regarding our approach to stewardship, general corporate governance matters, client reporting needs, and/or to otherwise ensure that proxy-related client service levels are met.


		12

●

Determined to engage, in certain instances, an independent fiduciary to vote proxies as a further safeguard to avoid potential conflicts of interest, to satisfy regulatory compliance requirements, or as may be otherwise required by applicable law. In such circumstances, the independent fiduciary provides BlackRock’s proxy voting agent with instructions, in accordance with the Guidelines, as to how to vote such proxies, and BlackRock’s proxy voting agent votes the proxy in accordance with the independent fiduciary’s determination. BlackRock uses an independent fiduciary to vote proxies of BlackRock, Inc. and companies affiliated with BlackRock, Inc. BlackRock may also use an independent fiduciary to vote proxies of:


i.		public companies that include BlackRock employees on their boards of directors,

ii.		public companies of which a BlackRock, Inc. board member serves as a senior executive,

iii.		public companies that are the subject of certain transactions involving BlackRock Funds,

iv.		public companies that are joint venture partners with BlackRock, and

v.		public companies when legal or regulatory requirements compel BlackRock to use an independent fiduciary.

In selecting an independent fiduciary, we assess several characteristics, including but not limited to: independence, an ability to analyze proxy issues and vote in the best economic interest of our clients, reputation for reliability and integrity, and operational capacity to accurately deliver the assigned votes in a timely manner. We may engage more than one independent fiduciary, in part in order to mitigate potential or perceived conflicts of interest at an independent fiduciary. The Global Committee appoints and reviews the performance of the independent fiduciaries, generally on an annual basis.

When so authorized, BlackRock acts as a securities lending agent on behalf of Funds. With regard to the relationship between securities lending and proxy voting, BlackRock’s approach is driven by our clients’ economic interests. The decision whether to recall securities on loan to vote is based on a formal analysis of the revenue producing value to clients of loans, against the assessed economic value of casting votes. Generally, we expect that the likely economic value to clients of casting votes would be less than the securities lending income, either because, in our assessment, the resolutions being voted on will not have significant economic consequences or because the outcome would not be affected by BlackRock voting the loaned securities that were recalled in order to vote. BlackRock also may, in our discretion, determine that the value of voting outweighs the cost of recalling shares, and thus recall shares to vote in that instance.

Periodically, BlackRock reviews our process for determining whether to recall securities on loan in order to vote and may modify it as necessary.

Voting guidelines

The issue-specific Guidelines published for each region/country in which we vote are intended to summarize BlackRock’s general philosophy and approach to issues that may commonly arise in the proxy voting context in each market where we invest. The Guidelines are not intended to be exhaustive. BIS applies the Guidelines on a case-by-case basis, in the context of the individual circumstances of each company and the specific issue under review. As such, the Guidelines do not indicate how BIS will vote in every instance. Rather, they reflect our view about corporate governance issues generally, and provide insight into how we typically approach issues that commonly arise on corporate ballots.

Reporting and vote transparency

Investment stewardship is how we use our voice as an investor to promote sound corporate governance and business practices to help maximize long-term shareholder value for our clients, the vast majority of whom are investing for long-term goals such as retirement. We are committed to transparency in the stewardship work we do on behalf of clients. We inform clients about our engagement and voting policies and activities through direct communication and through disclosure on our website. Each year we publish an annual report as well as quarterly stewardship reports which provide a global overview of our investment stewardship engagement and voting activities during the quarter, including market


		13

developments, speaking engagements, and engagement, and voting statistics. Additionally, we make public our market-specific voting guidelines for the benefit of clients and companies with whom we engage. We also publish commentaries to share our perspective on market developments and emerging key themes.

At a more granular level, we publish quarterly our vote record for each company that held a shareholder meeting during the period, showing how we voted on each proposal and explaining any votes against management proposals or on shareholder proposals. For shareholder meetings where a vote might be high profile or of significant interest to clients, we publish a voting bulletin shortly after the meeting, disclosing and explaining our vote on key proposals. We also publish a quarterly list of all companies we engaged and the key topics addressed in the engagement meeting.

In this way, we help inform our clients about the work we do on their behalf in promoting the governance and business practices that support long-term sustainable value creation.

This document is provided for information purposes only and is subject to change. Reliance upon this information is at the sole discretion of the reader.

Prepared by BlackRock, Inc.


		14

LOGO

Contents


Introduction			3

Voting guidelines			3

Boards and directors			3

Auditors and audit-related issues			9

Capital structure proposals			9

Mergers, acquisitions, asset sales, and other special transactions			10

Executive compensation			11

Environmental and social issues			13

General corporate governance matters			15

Shareholder protections			16

If you would like additional information, please contact:

ContactStewardship@blackrock.com

These guidelines should be read in conjunction with the BlackRock Investment Stewardship Global Principles.

Introduction

We believe BlackRock has a responsibility to monitor and provide feedback to companies, in our role as stewards of our clients’ investments. BlackRock Investment Stewardship (“BIS”) does this through engagement with management teams and/or board members on material business issues, including environmental, social, and governance (“ESG”) matters and, for those clients who have given us authority, through voting proxies in the best long-term economic interests of our clients.

The following issue-specific proxy voting guidelines (the “Guidelines”) are intended to summarize BIS’ general philosophy and approach to ESG factors, as well as our expectations of directors, that most commonly arise in proxy voting for U.S. securities. These Guidelines are not intended to limit the analysis of individual issues at specific companies or provide a guide to how BlackRock will vote in every instance. They are applied with discretion, taking into consideration the range of issues and facts specific to the company, as well as individual ballot items.

Voting guidelines

These guidelines are divided into eight key themes, which group together the issues that frequently appear on the agenda of annual and extraordinary meetings of shareholders:

●

Boards and directors

●

Auditors and audit-related issues

●

Capital structure

●

Mergers, acquisitions, asset sales, and other special transactions

●

Executive compensation

●

Environmental and social issues

●

General corporate governance matters

●

Shareholder protections

Boards and directors

The effective performance of the board is critical to the economic success of the company and the protection of shareholders’ interests. As part of their responsibilities, board members owe fiduciary duties to shareholders in overseeing the strategic direction and operation of the company. For this reason, BlackRock focuses on directors in many of our engagements and sees the election of directors as one of our most critical responsibilities.

Disclosure of material issues that affect the company’s long-term strategy and value creation, including material ESG factors, is essential for shareholders to be able to appropriately understand and assess how effectively the board is identifying, managing, and mitigating risks.

Where we conclude that a board has failed to address or disclose one or more material issues within a specified timeframe, we may hold directors accountable or take other appropriate action in the context of our voting decisions.

Director elections

Where a board has not adequately demonstrated, through company disclosures and actions, how material issues are appropriately identified, managed, and overseen, we will consider withholding our support for the re-election of directors whom we hold accountable.


		Proxy voting guidelines for U.S. securities \| 3

In addition, we may withhold votes from directors or members of particular board committees in certain situations, as indicated below.

Independence

We expect a majority of the directors on the board to be independent. In addition, all members of key committees, including audit, compensation, and nominating/ governance committees, should be independent. Our view of independence may vary from listing standards.

Common impediments to independence may include:

●

Employment as a senior executive by the company or a subsidiary within the past five years

●

An equity ownership in the company in excess of 20%

●

Having any other interest, business, or relationship (professional or personal) which could, or could reasonably be perceived to, materially interfere with the director’s ability to act in the best interests of the company

●

When evaluating controlled companies, as defined by the U.S. stock exchanges, we may vote against insiders or affiliates who sit on the audit committee, but not other key committees

We may vote against directors serving on key committees who we do not consider to be independent.

Oversight

We expect the board to exercise appropriate oversight over management and business activities of the company. We will consider voting against committee members and/or individual directors in the following circumstances:

●

Where the board has failed to exercise sufficient oversight with regard to material ESG risk factors, or the company has failed to provide shareholders with adequate disclosure to conclude appropriate strategic consideration is given to these factors by the board

●

Where the board has failed to exercise oversight with regard to accounting practices or audit oversight, we will consider voting against the current audit committee, and any other members of the board who may be responsible. For example, we may vote against members of the audit committee during a period when the board failed to facilitate quality, independent auditing if substantial accounting irregularities suggest insufficient oversight by that committee

●

Members of the compensation committee during a period in which executive compensation appears excessive relative to performance and peers, and where we believe the compensation committee has not already substantially addressed this issue

●

The chair of the nominating/ governance committee, or where no chair exists, the nominating/governance committee member with the longest tenure, where the board is not comprised of a majority of independent directors. This may not apply in the case of a controlled company

●

Where it appears the director has acted (at the company or at other companies) in a manner that compromises his/ her ability to represent the best long-term economic interests of shareholders

●

Where a director has a multi-year pattern of poor attendance at combined board and applicable committee meetings, or a director has poor attendance in a single year with no disclosed rationale. Excluding exigent circumstances, BlackRock generally considers attendance at less than 75% of the combined board and applicable committee meetings to be poor attendance

●

Where a director serves on an excessive number of boards, which may limit his/ her capacity to focus on each board’s requirements. The following identifies the maximum number of boards on which a director may serve, before he/ she is considered to be over-committed:


		Proxy voting guidelines for U.S. securities \| 4

Responsiveness to shareholders

We expect a board to be engaged and responsive to its shareholders, including acknowledging voting outcomes for shareholder proposals, director elections, compensation, and other ballot items. Where we believe a board has not substantially addressed shareholder concerns, we may vote against the responsible committees and/or individual directors. The following illustrates common circumstances:

●

The independent chair or lead independent director, members of the nominating/governance committee, and/or the longest tenured director(s), where we observe a lack of board responsiveness to shareholders, evidence of board entrenchment, and/or failure to plan for adequate board member succession

●

The chair of the nominating/governance committee, or where no chair exists, the nominating/governance committee member with the longest tenure, where board member(s) at the most recent election of directors have received against votes from more than 25% of shares voted, and the board has not taken appropriate action to respond to shareholder concerns. This may not apply in cases where BlackRock did not support the initial against vote

●

The independent chair or lead independent director and/ or members of the nominating/governance committee, where a board fails to consider shareholder proposals that receive substantial support, and the proposals, in our view, have a material impact on the business, shareholder rights, or the potential for long-term value creation

Shareholder rights

We expect a board to act with integrity and to uphold governance best practices. Where we believe a board has not acted in the best interests of its shareholders, we may vote against the appropriate committees and/or individual directors. The following illustrates common circumstances:

●

The independent chair or lead independent director and members of the nominating/governance committee, where a board implements or renews a poison pill without shareholder approval

●

The independent chair or lead independent director and members of the nominating/governance committee, where a board amends the charter/articles/bylaws such that the effect may be to entrench directors or to significantly reduce shareholder rights

●

Members of the compensation committee where the company has repriced options without shareholder approval

●

If a board maintains a classified structure, it is possible that the director(s) with whom we have a particular concern may not be subject to election in the year that the concern arises. In such situations, if we have a concern regarding the actions of a committee and the responsible member(s) or committee chair are not up for re-election, we will generally register our concern by voting against all available members of the relevant committee

¹ In this instance, “fund manager” refers to individuals whose full-time employment involves responsibility for the investment and oversight of fund vehicles, and those who have employment as professional investors and provide oversight for those holdings.

² In addition to the company under review


		Proxy voting guidelines for U.S. securities \| 5

Board composition and effectiveness

We encourage boards to periodically renew their membership to ensure relevant skills and experience within the boardroom. To this end, regular performance reviews and skills assessments should be conducted by the nominating/ governance committee or the lead independent director.

Furthermore, we expect boards to be comprised of a diverse selection of individuals who bring their personal and professional experiences to bear in order to create a constructive debate of a variety of views and opinions in the boardroom. We recognize that diversity has multiple dimensions. In identifying potential candidates, boards should take into consideration the full breadth of diversity, including personal factors, such as gender, ethnicity, race, and age, as well as professional characteristics, such as a director’s industry, area of expertise, and geographic location. In addition to other elements of diversity, we encourage companies to have at least two women directors on their board. Our publicly available commentary explains our approach to engaging on board diversity.

We encourage boards to disclose:

●

The mix of competencies, experience, and other qualities required to effectively oversee and guide management in light of the stated long-term strategy of the company

●

The process by which candidates are identified and selected, including whether professional firms or other sources outside of incumbent directors’ networks have been engaged to identify and/or assess candidates

●

The process by which boards evaluate themselves and any significant outcomes of the evaluation process, without divulging inappropriate and/ or sensitive details

●

Demographics related to board diversity, including, but not limited to, gender, ethnicity, race, age, and geographic location, in addition to measurable milestones to achieve a boardroom reflective of multi-faceted racial, ethnic, and gender representation

Our primary concern is that board members are able to contribute effectively as corporate strategy evolves and business conditions change. We acknowledge that no single person can be expected to bring all relevant skill sets to a board; at the same time, we generally do not believe it is necessary or appropriate to have any particular director on the board solely by virtue of a singular background or specific area of expertise.

Where boards find that age limits or term limits are the most efficient and objective mechanism for ensuring periodic board refreshment, we generally defer to the board’s determination in setting such limits. BlackRock will also consider the average board tenure to evaluate processes for board renewal. We may oppose boards that appear to have an insufficient mix of short-, medium-, and long-tenured directors.

To the extent that a company has not adequately accounted for diversity in its board composition within a reasonable timeframe, based on our assessment, we may vote against members of the nominating/governance committee for an apparent lack of commitment to board effectiveness.

Board size

We typically defer to the board in setting the appropriate size and believe directors are generally in the best position to assess the optimal board size to ensure effectiveness. However, we may oppose boards that appear too small to allow for the necessary range of skills and experience or too large to function efficiently.

CEO and management succession planning

There should be a robust CEO and senior management succession plan in place at the board level that is reviewed and updated on a regular basis. We expect succession planning to cover both long-term planning consistent with the strategic direction of the company and identified leadership needs over time, as well as short-term planning in the event of an unanticipated executive departure. We encourage the company to explain its executive succession planning process, including where accountability lies within the boardroom for this task, without prematurely divulging sensitive information commonly associated with this exercise.


		Proxy voting guidelines for U.S. securities \| 6

Classified board of directors/staggered terms

We believe that directors should be re-elected annually; classification of the board generally limits shareholders’ rights to regularly evaluate a board’s performance and select directors. While we will typically support proposals requesting board de-classification, we may make exceptions, should the board articulate an appropriate strategic rationale for a classified board structure, such as when a company needs consistency and stability during a time of transition, e.g. newly public companies or companies undergoing a strategic restructuring. A classified board structure may also be justified at non-operating companies, e.g. closed-end funds or business development companies (BDC),³ in certain circumstances. We would, however, expect boards with a classified structure to periodically review the rationale for such structure and consider when annual elections might be more appropriate.

Without a voting mechanism to immediately address concerns about a specific director, we may choose to vote against the available slate of directors (see “Shareholder rights” for additional detail).

Contested director elections

The details of contested elections, or proxy contests, are assessed on a case-by-case basis. We evaluate a number of factors, which may include: the qualifications of the dissident and management candidates; the validity of the concerns identified by the dissident; the viability of both the dissident’s and management’s plans; the ownership stake and holding period of the dissident; the likelihood that the dissident’s solutions will produce the desired change; and whether the dissident represents the best option for enhancing long-term shareholder value.

Cumulative voting

We believe that a majority vote standard is in the best long-term interests of shareholders. It ensures director accountability through the requirement to be elected by more than half of the votes cast. As such, we will generally oppose proposals requesting the adoption of cumulative voting, which may disproportionately aggregate votes on certain issues or director candidates.

Director compensation and equity programs

We believe that compensation for directors should be structured to attract and retain directors, while also aligning their interests with those of shareholders. We believe director compensation packages that are based on the company’s long-term value creation and include some form of long-term equity compensation are more likely to meet this goal. In addition, we expect directors to build meaningful share ownership over time.

Majority vote requirements

BlackRock believes that directors should generally be elected by a majority of the shares voted and will normally support proposals seeking to introduce bylaws requiring a majority vote standard for director elections. Majority vote standards assist in ensuring that directors who are not broadly supported by shareholders are not elected to serve as their representatives. Some companies with a plurality voting standard have adopted a resignation policy for directors who do not receive support from at least a majority of votes cast. Where we believe that the company already has a sufficiently robust majority voting process in place, we may not support a shareholder proposal seeking an alternative mechanism.

We note that majority voting may not be appropriate in all circumstances, for example, in the context of a contested election, or for majority-controlled companies.

³A BDC is a special investment vehicle under the Investment Company Act of 1940 that is designed to facilitate capital formation for small and middle-market companies.


		Proxy voting guidelines for U.S. securities \| 7

Risk oversight

Companies should have an established process for identifying, monitoring, and managing business and material ESG risks. Independent directors should have access to relevant management information and outside advice, as appropriate, to ensure they can properly oversee risk. We encourage companies to provide transparency around risk management, mitigation, and reporting to the board. We are particularly interested in understanding how risk oversight processes evolve in response to changes in corporate strategy and/or shifts in the business and related risk environment. Comprehensive disclosure provides investors with a sense of the company’s long-term operational risk management practices and, more broadly, the quality of the board’s oversight. In the absence of robust disclosures, we may reasonably conclude that companies are not adequately managing risk.

Separation of chairman and CEO

We believe that independent leadership is important in the boardroom. There are two commonly accepted structures for independent board leadership: 1) an independent chairman; or 2) a lead independent director when the roles of chairman and CEO are combined.

In the absence of a significant governance concern, we defer to boards to designate the most appropriate leadership structure to ensure adequate balance and independence.

In the event that the board chooses a combined chair/CEO model, we generally support the designation of a lead independent director if they have the power to: 1) provide formal input into board meeting agendas; 2) call meetings of the independent directors; and 3) preside at meetings of independent directors. Furthermore, while we anticipate that most directors will be elected annually, we believe an element of continuity is important for this role to provide appropriate leadership balance to the chair/CEO.

The following table illustrates examples of responsibilities under each board leadership model:


	Combined Chair/ CEO Model		Separate Chair Model
	Chair/ CEO	Lead Independent Director	Chair

Board Meetings	Authority to call full meetings of the board of directors	Attends full meetings of the board of directors Authority to call meetings of independent directors Briefs CEO on issues arising from executive sessions	Authority to call full meetings of the board of directors

Agenda	Primary responsibility for shaping board agendas, consulting with the lead independent director	Collaborates with chair/ CEO to set board agenda and board information	Primary responsibility for shaping board agendas, in conjunction with CEO

Board Communications	Communicates with all directors on key issues and concerns outside of full board meetings	Facilitates discussion among independent directors on key issues and concerns outside of full board meetings, including contributing to the oversight of CEO and management succession planning	Facilitates discussion among independent directors on key issues and concerns outside of full board meetings, including contributing to the oversight of CEO and management succession planning


		Proxy voting guidelines for U.S. securities \| 8

Auditors and audit-related issues

BlackRock recognizes the critical importance of financial statements to provide a complete and accurate portrayal of a company’s financial condition. Consistent with our approach to voting on boards of directors, we seek to hold the audit committee of the board responsible for overseeing the management of the audit function at a company, and may vote against the audit committee members where the board has failed to facilitate quality, independent auditing. We look to the audit committee report for insight into the scope of the audit committee responsibilities, including an overview of audit committee processes, issues on the audit committee agenda, and key decisions taken by the audit committee. We take particular note of cases involving significant financial restatements or material weakness disclosures, and we expect timely disclosure and remediation of accounting irregularities.

The integrity of financial statements depends on the auditor effectively fulfilling its role. To that end, we favor an independent auditor. In addition, to the extent that an auditor fails to reasonably identify and address issues that eventually lead to a significant financial restatement, or the audit firm has violated standards of practice that protect the interests of shareholders, we may also vote against ratification.

From time to time, shareholder proposals may be presented to promote auditor independence or the rotation of audit firms. We may support these proposals when they are consistent with our views as described above.

Capital structure proposals

Equal voting rights

BlackRock believes that shareholders should be entitled to voting rights in proportion to their economic interests. We believe that companies that look to add or already have dual or multiple class share structures should review these structures on a regular basis, or as company circumstances change. Companies with multiple share classes should receive shareholder approval of their capital structure on a periodic basis via a management proposal on the company’s proxy. The proposal should give unaffiliated shareholders the opportunity to affirm the current structure or establish mechanisms to end or phase out controlling structures at the appropriate time, while minimizing costs to shareholders.

Blank check preferred stock

We frequently oppose proposals requesting authorization of a class of preferred stock with unspecified voting, conversion, dividend distribution, and other rights (“blank check” preferred stock) because they may serve as a transfer of authority from shareholders to the board and as a possible entrenchment device. We generally view the board’s discretion to establish voting rights on a when-issued basis as a potential anti-takeover device, as it affords the board the ability to place a block of stock with an investor sympathetic to management, thereby foiling a takeover bid without a shareholder vote.

Nonetheless, we may support the proposal where the company:

●

Appears to have a legitimate financing motive for requesting blank check authority

●

Has committed publicly that blank check preferred shares will not be used for anti-takeover purposes

●

Has a history of using blank check preferred stock for financings

●

Has blank check preferred stock previously outstanding such that an increase would not necessarily provide further anti-takeover protection but may provide greater financing flexibility

Increase in authorized common shares

BlackRock will evaluate requests to increase authorized shares on a case-by-case basis, in conjunction with industry-specific norms and potential dilution, as well as a company’s history with respect to the use of its common shares.


		Proxy voting guidelines for U.S. securities \| 9

Increase or issuance of preferred stock

We generally support proposals to increase or issue preferred stock in cases where the company specifies the voting, dividend, conversion, and other rights of such stock and where the terms of the preferred stock appear reasonable.

Stock splits

We generally support stock splits that are not likely to negatively affect the ability to trade shares or the economic value of a share. We generally support reverse stock splits that are designed to avoid delisting or to facilitate trading in the stock, where the reverse split will not have a negative impact on share value (e.g. one class is reduced while others remain at pre-split levels). In the event of a proposal for a reverse split that would not proportionately reduce the company’s authorized stock, we apply the same analysis we would use for a proposal to increase authorized stock.

Mergers, acquisitions, asset sales, and other special transactions

In assessing mergers, acquisitions, asset sales, or other special transactions, BlackRock’s primary consideration is the long-term economic interests of our clients as shareholders. Boards proposing a transaction need to clearly explain the economic and strategic rationale behind it. We will review a proposed transaction to determine the degree to which it enhances long-term shareholder value. While mergers, acquisitions, asset sales, and other special transaction proposals vary widely in scope and substance, we closely examine certain salient features in our analyses, such as:

●

The degree to which the proposed transaction represents a premium to the company’s trading price. We consider the share price over multiple time periods prior to the date of the merger announcement. We may consider comparable transaction analyses provided by the parties’ financial advisors and our own valuation assessments. For companies facing insolvency or bankruptcy, a premium may not apply

●

There should be clear strategic, operational, and/ or financial rationale for the combination

●

Unanimous board approval and arm’s-length negotiations are preferred. We will consider whether the transaction involves a dissenting board or does not appear to be the result of an arm’s-length bidding process. We may also consider whether executive and/ or board members’ financial interests appear likely to affect their ability to place shareholders’ interests before their own

●

We prefer transaction proposals that include the fairness opinion of a reputable financial advisor assessing the value of the transaction to shareholders in comparison to recent similar transactions

Poison pill plans

Where a poison pill is put to a shareholder vote by management, our policy is to examine these plans individually. Although we oppose most plans, we may support plans that include a reasonable “qualifying offer clause.” Such clauses typically require shareholder ratification of the pill and stipulate a sunset provision whereby the pill expires unless it is renewed. These clauses also tend to specify that an all-cash bid for all shares that includes a fairness opinion and evidence of financing does not trigger the pill, but forces either a special meeting at which the offer is put to a shareholder vote, or requires the board to seek the written consent of shareholders, where shareholders could rescind the pill at their discretion. We may also support a pill where it is the only effective method for protecting tax or other economic benefits that may be associated with limiting the ownership changes of individual shareholders.

We generally vote in favor of shareholder proposals to rescind poison pills.

Reimbursement of expenses for successful shareholder campaigns

We generally do not support shareholder proposals seeking the reimbursement of proxy contest expenses, even in situations where we support the shareholder campaign. We believe that introducing the possibility of such reimbursement may incentivize disruptive and unnecessary shareholder campaigns.


		Proxy voting guidelines for U.S. securities \| 10

Executive compensation

BlackRock expects a company’s board of directors to put in place a compensation structure that incentivizes and rewards executives appropriately and is aligned with shareholder interests, particularly the generation of sustainable long-term value.

We expect the compensation committee to carefully consider the specific circumstances of the company and the key individuals the board is focused on incentivizing. We encourage companies to ensure that their compensation plans incorporate appropriate and rigorous performance metrics consistent with corporate strategy and market practice. We use third party research, in addition to our own analysis, to evaluate existing and proposed compensation structures. We hold members of the compensation committee, or equivalent board members, accountable for poor compensation practices or structures.

BlackRock believes that there should be a clear link between variable pay and company performance that drives value creation. We are generally not supportive of one-off or special bonuses unrelated to company or individual performance. Where discretion has been used by the compensation committee, we expect disclosure relating to how and why the discretion was used and further, how the adjusted outcome is aligned with the interests of shareholders.

We acknowledge that the use of peer group evaluation by compensation committees can help calibrate competitive pay; however, we are concerned when the rationale for increases in total compensation is solely based on peer benchmarking, rather than absolute outperformance.

“Say on Pay” advisory resolutions

In cases where there is a “Say on Pay” vote, BlackRock will respond to the proposal as informed by our evaluation of compensation practices at that particular company and in a manner that appropriately addresses the specific question posed to shareholders. In a commentary on our website, entitled “BlackRock Investment Stewardship’s approach to executive compensation,” we explain our expectations related to executive compensation practices, our “Say on Pay” analysis framework, and our typical approach to engagement and voting on “Say on Pay.”

Where we conclude that a company has failed to align pay with performance, we will vote against the management compensation proposal and consider voting against the compensation committee members.

Frequency of “Say on Pay” advisory resolutions

BlackRock will generally support annual advisory votes on executive compensation, and will consider biennial and triennial timeframes, absent compensation concerns. In evaluating pay, we believe that the compensation committee is responsible for constructing a plan that appropriately incentivizes executives for long-term value creation, utilizing relevant metrics and structure to promote overall pay and performance alignment.

Clawback proposals

We generally favor recoupment from any senior executive whose compensation was based on faulty financial reporting or deceptive business practices. We also favor recoupment from any senior executive whose behavior caused material financial harm to shareholders, material reputational risk to the company, or resulted in a criminal proceeding, even if such actions did not ultimately result in a material restatement of past results. This includes, but is not limited to, settlement agreements arising from such behavior and paid for directly by the company. We typically support shareholder proposals on these matters unless the company already has a robust claw back policy that sufficiently addresses our concerns.


BlackRock		Proxy voting guidelines for U.S. securities \| 11

Employee stock purchase plans

We believe employee stock purchase plans (“ESPP”) are an important part of a company’s overall human capital management strategy and can provide performance incentives to help align employees’ interests with those of shareholders. The most common form of ESPP qualifies for favorable tax treatment under Section 423 of the Internal Revenue Code. We will typically support qualified ESPP proposals.

Equity compensation plans

BlackRock supports equity plans that align the economic interests of directors, managers, and other employees with those of shareholders. We believe that boards should establish policies prohibiting the use of equity awards in a manner that could disrupt the intended alignment with shareholder interests (e.g. the use of stock as collateral for a loan; the use of stock in a margin account; the use of stock in hedging or derivative transactions). We may support shareholder proposals requesting the establishment of such policies.

Our evaluation of equity compensation plans is based on a company’s executive pay and performance relative to peers and whether the plan plays a significant role in a pay-for-performance disconnect. We generally oppose plans that contain “evergreen” provisions, which allow for the unlimited increase of shares reserved without requiring further shareholder approval after a reasonable time period. We also generally oppose plans that allow for repricing without shareholder approval. We may also oppose plans that provide for the acceleration of vesting of equity awards even in situations where an actual change of control may not occur. We encourage companies to structure their change of control provisions to require the termination of the covered employee before acceleration or special payments are triggered (commonly referred to as “double trigger” change of control provisions).

Golden parachutes

We generally view golden parachutes as encouragement to management to consider transactions that might be beneficial to shareholders. However, a large potential pay-out under a golden parachute arrangement also presents the risk of motivating a management team to support a sub-optimal sale price for a company.

When determining whether to support or oppose an advisory vote on a golden parachute plan, BlackRock may consider several factors, including:

●

Whether we believe that the triggering event is in the best interests of shareholders

●

Whether management attempted to maximize shareholder value in the triggering event

●

The percentage of total premium or transaction value that will be transferred to the management team, rather than shareholders, as a result of the golden parachute payment

●

Whether excessively large excise tax gross-up payments are part of the pay-out

●

Whether the pay package that serves as the basis for calculating the golden parachute payment was reasonable in light of performance and peers

●

Whether the golden parachute payment will have the effect of rewarding a management team that has failed to effectively manage the company

It may be difficult to anticipate the results of a plan until after it has been triggered; as a result, BlackRock may vote against a golden parachute proposal even if the golden parachute plan under review was approved by shareholders when it was implemented.

We may support shareholder proposals requesting that implementation of such arrangements require shareholder approval. We generally support proposals requiring shareholder approval of plans that exceed 2.99 times an executive’s current salary and bonus, including equity compensation.


BlackRock		Proxy voting guidelines for U.S. securities \| 12

Option exchanges

We believe that there may be legitimate instances where underwater options create an overhang on a company’s capital structure and a repricing or option exchange may be warranted. We will evaluate these instances on a case-by-case basis. BlackRock may support a request to reprice or exchange underwater options under the following circumstances:

●

The company has experienced significant stock price decline as a result of macroeconomic trends, not individual company performance

●

Directors and executive officers are excluded; the exchange is value neutral or value creative to shareholders; tax, accounting, and other technical considerations have been fully contemplated

●

There is clear evidence that absent repricing, the company will suffer serious employee incentive or retention and recruiting problems

BlackRock may also support a request to exchange underwater options in other circumstances, if we determine that the exchange is in the best interests of shareholders.

Supplemental executive retirement plans

BlackRock may support shareholder proposals requesting to put extraordinary benefits contained in supplemental executive retirement plans (“SERP”) to a shareholder vote unless the company’s executive pension plans do not contain excessive benefits beyond what is offered under employee-wide plans.

Environmental and social issues

We believe that well-managed companies deal effectively with material ESG factors relevant to their businesses. As stated throughout this document, governance is the core structure by which boards can oversee the creation of sustainable long-term value—appropriate risk oversight of environmental and social (“E&S”) considerations stems from this construct.

Robust disclosure is essential for investors to effectively gauge companies’ business practices and strategic planning related to E&S risks and opportunities. When a company’s reporting is inadequate, investors, including BlackRock, will increasingly conclude that the company is not adequately managing risk. Given the increased understanding of material sustainability risks and opportunities, and the need for better information to assess them, BlackRock will advocate for continued improvement in companies’ reporting and will hold management and/ or directors accountable where disclosures or the business practices underlying them are inadequate.

BlackRock views the recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) and the standards put forth by the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) as appropriate and complementary frameworks for companies to disclose financially material sustainability information. While the TCFD framework was crafted with the aim of climate-related risk disclosure, the four pillars of the TCFD—Governance, Strategy, Risk Management, and Metrics and Targets—are a useful way for companies to disclose how they identify, assess, manage, and oversee a variety of sustainability-related risks and opportunities. SASB’s industry-specific guidance (as identified in its materiality map) is beneficial in helping companies identify key performance indicators (KPIs) across various dimensions of sustainability that are considered to be financially material and decision-useful within their industry.

Accordingly, we ask companies to:

●

Disclose the identification, assessment, management, and oversight of sustainability-related risks in accordance with the four pillars of TCFD

●

Publish SASB-aligned reporting with industry-specific, material metrics and rigorous targets

See our commentary on our approach to engagement on TCFD- and SASB-aligned reporting for greater detail of our expectations.


BlackRock		Proxy voting guidelines for U.S. securities \| 13

Climate risk

Specifically, we expect companies to articulate how they are aligned to a scenario in which global warming is limited to well below 2° C and is consistent with a global aspiration to reach net zero GHG emissions by 2050.⁴ In order to assess companies’ progress, BIS expects carbon-intensive companies to disclose explicit GHG emissions reduction targets.

The public and private sectors have roles to play in aligning greenhouse gas reduction efforts with targets based on science, where available to curb the worst effects of climate change and reach the global goal of carbon neutrality by mid-century. Companies have an opportunity to utilize and contribute to the development of current and future low-carbon transition technologies, which are an important consideration for the rate at which emissions can be reduced. We expect companies to disclose how they are considering these challenges, alongside opportunities for innovation, within their strategy and emissions reduction efforts.

We may support shareholder proposals that ask companies to disclose climate plans aligned with our expectations.

Key stakeholder interests

As a long-term investor, we believe that in order to deliver value for shareholders, companies should also consider their stakeholders. While stakeholder groups may vary across industries, they are likely to include employees; business partners (such as suppliers and distributors); clients and consumers; government and regulators; and the communities in which companies operate. Companies that build strong relationships with their stakeholders are more likely to meet their own strategic objectives, while poor relationships may create adverse impacts that expose a company to legal, regulatory, operational, and reputational risks and jeopardize their social license to operate. We expect companies to effectively oversee and mitigate these risks with appropriate due diligence processes and board oversight.

Human capital management

A company’s approach to human capital management is a critical factor in fostering an inclusive, diverse, and engaged workforce, which contributes to business continuity, innovation, and long-term value creation. As an important component of strategy, we expect boards to oversee human capital management.

We believe that clear and consistent reporting on these matters is critical for investors to understand the composition of a company’s workforce. We expect companies to disclose workforce demographics, such as gender, race, and ethnicity in line with the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s EEO-1 Survey, alongside the steps they are taking to advance diversity, equity, and inclusion. Where we believe a company’s disclosures or practices fall short relative to the market or peers, or we are unable to ascertain the board and management’s effectiveness in overseeing related risks and opportunities, we may vote against members of the appropriate committee or support relevant shareholder proposals. Our commentary on human capital management provides more information on our expectations.

Corporate political activities

Companies may engage in certain political activities, within legal and regulatory limits, in order to influence public policy consistent with the companies’ values and strategies. These activities can also create risks, including: the potential for allegations of corruption; reputational risk associated with a candidate, party, or issue; and risks that arise from the complex legal, regulatory, and compliance considerations associated with corporate political spending and lobbying activity. Companies that engage in political activities should develop and maintain robust processes to guide these activities and mitigate risks, including board oversight.

⁴ The global aspiration is reflective of aggregated efforts; companies in developed and emerging markets are not equally equipped to transition their business and reduce emissions at the same rate—those in developed markets with the largest market capitalization are better positioned to adapt their business models at an accelerated pace. Government policy and regional targets may be reflective of these realities.


BlackRock		Proxy voting guidelines for U.S. securities \| 14

When presented with shareholder proposals requesting increased disclosure on corporate political activities, BlackRock will evaluate publicly available information to consider how a company’s lobbying may impact the company. We will also evaluate whether there is alignment between a company’s stated positions on policy matters material to its strategy and the positions taken by industry groups of which it is a member. We may decide to support a shareholder proposal requesting additional disclosure if we identify a material misalignment. Additional detail can be found in our commentary on political contributions and lobbying disclosures.

General corporate governance matters

Adjourn meeting to solicit additional votes

We generally support such proposals unless the agenda contains items that we judge to be detrimental to shareholders’ best long-term economic interests.

Bundled proposals

We believe that shareholders should have the opportunity to review substantial governance changes individually without having to accept bundled proposals. Where several measures are grouped into one proposal, BlackRock may reject certain positive changes when linked with proposals that generally contradict or impede the rights and economic interests of shareholders.

Exclusive forum provisions

BlackRock generally supports proposals to seek exclusive forum for certain shareholder litigation. In cases where a board unilaterally adopts exclusive forum provisions that we consider unfavorable to the interests of shareholders, we will vote against the independent chair or lead independent director and members of the nominating/governance committee.

Multi-jurisdictional companies

Where a company is listed on multiple exchanges or incorporated in a country different from its primary listing, we will seek to apply the most relevant market guideline(s) to our analysis of the company’s governance structure and specific proposals on the shareholder meeting agenda. In doing so, we typically consider the governance standards of the company’s primary listing, the market standards by which the company governs itself, and the market context of each specific proposal on the agenda. If the relevant standards are silent on the issue under consideration, we will use our professional judgment as to what voting outcome would best protect the long-term economic interests of investors. We expect companies to disclose the rationale for their selection of primary listing, country of incorporation, and choice of governance structures, particularly where there is conflict between relevant market governance practices.

Other business

We oppose giving companies our proxy to vote on matters where we are not given the opportunity to review and understand those measures and carry out an appropriate level of shareholder oversight.

Reincorporation

Proposals to reincorporate from one state or country to another are most frequently motivated by considerations of anti-takeover protections, legal advantages, and/or cost savings. We will evaluate, on a case-by-case basis, the economic and strategic rationale behind the company’s proposal to reincorporate. In all instances, we will evaluate the changes to shareholder protections under the new charter/articles/bylaws to assess whether the move increases or decreases shareholder protections. Where we find that shareholder protections are diminished, we may support reincorporation if we determine that the overall benefits outweigh the diminished rights.


BlackRock		Proxy voting guidelines for U.S. securities \| 15

IPO governance

We expect boards to consider and disclose how the corporate governance structures adopted upon initial public offering (“IPO”) are in shareholders’ best long-term interests. We also expect boards to conduct a regular review of corporate governance and control structures, such that boards might evolve foundational corporate governance structures as company circumstances change, without undue costs and disruption to shareholders. In our letter on unequal voting structures, we articulate our view that “one vote for one share” is the preferred structure for publicly-traded companies. We also recognize the potential benefits of dual class shares to newly public companies as they establish themselves; however, we believe that these structures should have a specific and limited duration. We will generally engage new companies on topics such as classified boards and supermajority vote provisions to amend bylaws, as we believe that such arrangements may not be in the best interest of shareholders in the long-term.

We will typically apply a one-year grace period for the application of certain director-related guidelines (including, but not limited to, responsibilities on other public company boards and board composition concerns), during which we expect boards to take steps to bring corporate governance standards in line with our expectations.

Further, if a company qualifies as an emerging growth company (an “EGC”) under the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act of 2012 (the “JOBS Act”), we will give consideration to the NYSE and NASDAQ governance exemptions granted under the JOBS Act for the duration such a company is categorized as an EGC. We expect an EGC to have a totally independent audit committee by the first anniversary of its IPO, with our standard approach to voting on auditors and audit-related issues applicable in full for an EGC on the first anniversary of its IPO.

Shareholder protections

Amendment to charter/articles/bylaws

We believe that shareholders should have the right to vote on key corporate governance matters, including changes to governance mechanisms and amendments to the charter/articles/bylaws. We may vote against certain directors where changes to governing documents are not put to a shareholder vote within a reasonable period of time, particularly if those changes have the potential to impact shareholder rights (see “Director elections”). In cases where a board’s unilateral adoption of changes to the charter/articles/bylaws promotes cost and operational efficiency benefits for the company and its shareholders, we may support such action if it does not have a negative effect on shareholder rights or the company’s corporate governance structure.

When voting on a management or shareholder proposal to make changes to the charter/articles/bylaws, we will consider in part the company’s and/or proponent’s publicly stated rationale for the changes; the company’s governance profile and history; relevant jurisdictional laws; and situational or contextual circumstances which may have motivated the proposed changes, among other factors. We will typically support amendments to the charter/articles/bylaws where the benefits to shareholders outweigh the costs of failing to make such changes.

Proxy access

We believe that long-term shareholders should have the opportunity, when necessary and under reasonable conditions, to nominate directors on the company’s proxy card.

In our view, securing the right of shareholders to nominate directors without engaging in a control contest can enhance shareholders’ ability to meaningfully participate in the director election process, encourage board attention to shareholder interests, and provide shareholders an effective means of directing that attention where it is lacking. Proxy access mechanisms should provide shareholders with a reasonable opportunity to use this right without stipulating overly restrictive or onerous parameters for use, and also provide assurances that the mechanism will not be subject to abuse by short-term investors, investors without a substantial investment in the company, or investors seeking to take control of the board.

In general, we support market-standardized proxy access proposals, which allow a shareholder (or group of up to 20 shareholders) holding three percent of a company’s outstanding shares for at least three years the right to nominate the greater of up to two directors or 20% of the board. Where a standardized proxy access provision exists, we will generally oppose shareholder proposals requesting outlier thresholds.


BlackRock		Proxy voting guidelines for U.S. securities \| 16

Right to act by written consent

In exceptional circumstances and with sufficiently broad support, shareholders should have the opportunity to raise issues of substantial importance without having to wait for management to schedule a meeting. We therefore believe that shareholders should have the right to solicit votes by written consent provided that: 1) there are reasonable requirements to initiate the consent solicitation process (in order to avoid the waste of corporate resources in addressing narrowly supported interests); and 2) shareholders receive a minimum of 50% of outstanding shares to effectuate the action by written consent. We may oppose shareholder proposals requesting the right to act by written consent in cases where the proposal is structured for the benefit of a dominant shareholder to the exclusion of others, or if the proposal is written to discourage the board from incorporating appropriate mechanisms to avoid the waste of corporate resources when establishing a right to act by written consent. Additionally, we may oppose shareholder proposals requesting the right to act by written consent if the company already provides a shareholder right to call a special meeting that we believe offers shareholders a reasonable opportunity to raise issues of substantial importance without having to wait for management to schedule a meeting.

Right to call a special meeting

In exceptional circumstances and with sufficiently broad support, shareholders should have the opportunity to raise issues of substantial importance without having to wait for management to schedule a meeting. Accordingly, shareholders should have the right to call a special meeting in cases where a reasonably high proportion of shareholders (typically a minimum of 15% but no higher than 25%) are required to agree to such a meeting before it is called. However, we may oppose this right in cases where the proposal is structured for the benefit of a dominant shareholder, or where a lower threshold may lead to an ineffective use of corporate resources. We generally believe that a right to act via written consent is not a sufficient alternative to the right to call a special meeting.

Simple majority voting

We generally favor a simple majority voting requirement to pass proposals. Therefore, we will support the reduction or the elimination of supermajority voting requirements to the extent that we determine shareholders’ ability to protect their economic interests is improved. Nonetheless, in situations where there is a substantial or dominant shareholder, supermajority voting may be protective of minority shareholder interests and we may support supermajority voting requirements in those situations.

Virtual meetings

Shareholders should have the opportunity to participate in the annual and special meetings for the companies in which they are invested, as these meetings facilitate an opportunity for shareholders to provide feedback and hear from the board and management. While these meetings have traditionally been conducted in-person, virtual meetings are an increasingly viable way for companies to utilize technology to facilitate shareholder accessibility, inclusiveness, and cost efficiencies. We expect shareholders to have a meaningful opportunity to participate in the meeting and interact with the board and management in these virtual settings; companies should facilitate open dialogue and allow shareholders to voice concerns and provide feedback without undue censorship.


BlackRock		Proxy voting guidelines for U.S. securities \| 17

This document is provided for information purposes only and is subject to change. Reliance upon this information is at the sole discretion of the reader.

Prepared by BlackRock, Inc.


BlackRock		Proxy voting guidelines for U.S. securities \| 18