BHV BlackRock Virginia Muni Bond Trust

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: 811-21053

 

Name of Fund:

BlackRock Virginia Municipal Bond Trust (BHV)

 

Fund Address:

100 Bellevue Parkway, Wilmington, DE 19809

Name and address of agent for service: John M. Perlowski, Chief Executive Officer, BlackRock Virginia
Municipal Bond Trust, 50 Hudson Yards, New York, NY 10001

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

Date of fiscal year end: 07/31/2023

Date of reporting period: 07/31/2023

---

Item 1 – Report to Stockholders

(a) The Report to Shareholders is attached herewith.

 

---

 

		JULY 31, 2023

 

		2023 Annual Report

 

BlackRock MuniHoldings New York Quality Fund, Inc. (MHN)

BlackRock Virginia Municipal Bond Trust (BHV)

 

 

 

 

 

Not FDIC Insured • May Lose Value • No Bank Guarantee

---

 

 

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			12
Statements of Assets and Liabilities			22
Statements of Operations			23
Statements of Changes in Net Assets			24
Statements of Cash Flows			25
Financial Highlights			26
Notes to Financial Statements			29
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm			39
Important Tax Information			40
Disclosure of Investment Advisory Agreements			41
Investment Objectives, Policies and Risks			45
Automatic Dividend Reinvestment Plan			52
Trustee and Officer Information			53
Additional Information			56
Glossary of Terms Used in this Report			59

 

 

		3

---

Municipal Market Overview  For the Reporting Period Ended July 31, 2023

 

Municipal Market Conditions

Municipal bonds posted positive total returns amid heightened volatility. Interest rates rose rapidly early in the period as the Fed continued its historic hiking cycle but became increasingly rangebound later in the reporting period as economic activity slowed, inflation expectations moderated, and the Fed tempered the magnitude and pace of its policy tightening. Strong credit fundamentals, bolstered by robust post-pandemic revenue growth and elevated fund balances, drove strong positive excess returns versus comparable U.S. Treasuries. Lower-rated investment grade credits and the 15-year part of the yield curve performed best.

 

During the 12-month period ended July 31, 2023, municipal bond funds experienced net outflows totaling $52 billion (based on data from the Investment Company Institute), transitioning from the largest outflow cycle on record in 2022 to mixed in 2023. At the same time, the market contended with just $324 billion in issuance, well below the $422 billion issued during the prior 12-months. However, elevated bid-wanted activity filled some of the gap as investors raised cash to meet redemptions, portfolio leverage was repositioned, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) liquidated collapsed bank assets.				Bloomberg Municipal Bond Index(a)  Total Returns as of July 31, 2023   6 months: 0.20%  12 months: 0.93%

A Closer Look at Yields

 

AAA Municipal Yield Curves		From July 31, 2022, to July 31, 2023, yields on AAA-rated 30-year municipal bonds increased by 62 basis points (“bps”) from 2.89% to 3.51%, ten-year yields increased by 36 bps from 2.21% to 2.57%, five-year yields increased by 86 bps from 1.80% to 2.66%, and two-year yields increased by 140 bps from 1.60% to 3.00% (as measured by Refinitiv Municipal Market Data). As a result, the municipal yield curve flattened over the 12-month period with the spread between two- and 30-year maturities flattening by 78 bps to a slope of 51 bps. Still, the curve remained relatively steep compared to the deeply inverted U.S. Treasury curve.   Outperformance throughout the period prompted historically rich valuations across the curve. Municipal-to-Treasury ratios tightened well through their 5-year averages led by short and intermediate maturities.

Financial Conditions of Municipal Issuers

Buoyed by successive federal aid injections, vaccine distribution, and the re-opening of the economy, states and many local governments experienced revenue growth above forecasts in 2021 and 2022. However, revenue collections through April 2023, particularly personal income tax receipts, have softened or declined in many states, such as California and New York. A slowing economy could cause more widespread declines in overall revenue collections. While the inflation rate has slowed, higher wages and interest rates in the post-Covid recovery will pressure state and local government costs. Nevertheless, overall credit fundamentals remain solid, particularly near-record reserve levels. Other sectors also exhibit strong credit fundamentals. Municipal utilities typically benefit from autonomous rate-setting that allows them to adjust for rising fuel costs. Rising commodity prices over a prolonged period could test affordability and the political will to raise rates to balance operations. State housing authority bonds, flagship universities, and strong national and regional health systems may also be pressured but are better poised to absorb the impact of the economic shock. Critical providers (safety net hospitals, mass transit systems, airports) with limited resources may still experience fiscal strain from the economic fallout from high inflation, but aid and demand in the service sector of the economy will continue to support operating results through 2023. Work-from-home policies remain headwinds for mass transit farebox revenue and commercial real estate values.

The opinions expressed are those of BlackRock as of July 31, 2023 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.

 

(a)

The Bloomberg 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 3  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. In such circumstance, the investment adviser may nevertheless determine to maintain a Trust’s leverage if it deems such action to be appropriate. 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 “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 borrow money (including through the use of TOB Trusts) or issue debt securities 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.

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. Pursuant to Rule 18f-4 under the 1940 Act, among other things, the Trusts must either use derivative financial instruments with embedded leverage in a limited manner or comply with an outer limit on fund leverage risk based on value-at-risk. 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 July 31, 2023		BlackRock MuniHoldings New York Quality Fund, Inc. (MHN)

 

Investment Objective

BlackRock MuniHoldings NewYork Quality Fund, Inc.’s (MHN) (the “Trust”) investment objective is to provide shareholders with current income exempt from U.S. federal income tax and New York State and New York City personal income taxes. The Trust seeks to achieve its investment objective by investing, under normal market conditions, at least 80% of its assets in investment grade (as rated or, if unrated, considered to be of comparable quality at the time of investment by the Trust’s investment adviser) New York municipal obligations exempt from U.S. federal income taxes (except that the interest may be subject to the U.S. federal alternative minimum tax) and New York State and New York City personal income taxes (“New York Municipal Bonds”), except at times when, in the judgment of its investment adviser, New York Municipal Bonds of sufficient quality and quantity are unavailable for investment by the Trust. At all times, except during temporary defensive periods, the Trust invests at least 65% of its assets in New York Municipal Bonds. The Trust invests, under normal market conditions, at least 80% of its assets in municipal obligations with remaining maturities of one year or more. The Trust may invest up to 20% of its managed assets in securities that are rated below investment grade, or are considered by BlackRock to be of comparable quality, at the time of purchase. 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		MHN
Initial Offering Date		September 19, 1997
Yield on Closing Market Price as of July 31, 2023 ($ 10.44)(a)		3.85%
Tax Equivalent Yield(b)		7.97%
Current Monthly Distribution per Common Share(c)		$ 0.033500
Current Annualized Distribution per Common Share(c)		$ 0.402000
Leverage as of July 31, 2023(d)		40%

 

(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 and state tax rate of 51.7%, 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. A portion of the distribution may be deemed a return of capital or net realized gain.

(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

 

			07/31/23				07/31/22				Change				High				Low
Closing Market Price		$	10.44			$	11.23				(7.03	)%		$	11.50			$	9.22
Net Asset Value			12.12				12.58				(3.66	)			12.72				10.68

GROWTH OF $10,000 INVESTMENT

 

 

(a)

Represents the Trust’s closing market price on the NYSE and reflects the reinvestment of dividends and/or distributions at actual reinvestment prices.

(b)

An unmanaged index that tracks the U.S. long term tax-exempt bond market, including state and local general obligation bonds, revenue bonds, pre-refunded bonds, and insured bonds.

 

 

6		2 0 2 3  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 July 31, 2023 (continued)		BlackRock MuniHoldings New York Quality Fund, Inc. (MHN)

 

Performance

Returns for the period ended July 31, 2023 were as follows:

 

		Average Annual Total Returns
		1 Year				5 Years				10 Years
Trust at NAV(a)(b)			0.53	%			1.06	%			3.84	%
Trust at Market Price(a)(b)			(3.00	)			0.86				2.82
New York Customized Reference Benchmark(c)			1.40				1.85				N/A
Bloomberg Municipal Bond Index			0.93				1.87				2.81

 

(a)

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

(b)

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

(c)

The New York Customized Reference Benchmark is comprised of the Bloomberg Municipal Bond: New York Exempt Total Return Index Unhedged (90%) and the New York Bloomberg Municipal Bond: High Yield (non-Investment Grade) Total Return Index (10%). The New York Customized Reference Benchmark commenced on September 30, 2016.

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.

The Trust is presenting the performance of one or more indices for informational purposes only. The Trust is actively managed and does not seek to track or replicate the performance of any index. The index performance shown is not intended to be indicative of the Trust’s investment strategies, portfolio components or past or future performance.

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:

Municipal bonds posted slightly positive returns in the annual period. Bond market performance, in general, was dampened by the combination of high inflation and continued interest rate increases by the Fed. However, the contribution from income outweighed the impact of falling prices. New York municipals outperformed the national market.

Portfolio income was a large contributor to the Trust’s total return at a time of negative price performance. The Trust’s use of U.S. Treasury futures to manage interest rate risk added value in the rising-rate environment, with most of the contribution occurring in the first half of the period. (Prices and yields move in opposite directions.) Positions in bonds with 15- to 25-year maturities contributed, as well.

With respect to credit tiers, AA rated bonds were the largest contributor due to their sizable weighting in both the New York market and the Trust. BBB rated securities, which consisted mainly of holdings within the transportation and higher education sectors, also performed well. The tax-backed sector was another positive contributor.

On the negative side, positions in low-coupon bonds—particularly in the housing sector—detracted. Holdings in bonds with maturities of 25 years and longer also detracted, as did the Trust’s allocation to high yield bonds.

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 July 31, 2023 (continued)		BlackRock MuniHoldings New York Quality Fund, Inc. (MHN)

 

Overview of the Trust’s Total Investments

 

 

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

(d)

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.

(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 July 31, 2023, the market value of unrated securities deemed by the investment adviser to be investment grade represents 1.2% of the Trust’s total investments.

 

 

8		2 0 2 3  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 July 31, 2023		BlackRock Virginia Municipal Bond Trust (BHV)

 

Investment Objective

BlackRock Virginia Municipal Bond Trust’s (BHV) (the “Trust”) investment objective is to provide current income exempt from regular U.S. federal income tax and Virginia personal income taxes. The Trust seeks to achieve its investment objective by investing primarily in municipal bonds exempt from U.S. federal income taxes (except that the interest may be subject to the U.S. federal alternative minimum tax) and Virginia personal income taxes. The Trust invests, under normal market conditions, at least 80% of its managed assets in municipal bonds that are investment grade quality at the time of investment or, if unrated, determined to be of comparable quality at the time of investment by the Trust’s investment adviser. 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		BHV
Initial Offering Date		April 30, 2002
Yield on Closing Market Price as of July 31, 2023 ($ 10.78)(a)		2.95%
Tax Equivalent Yield(b)		5.52%
Current Monthly Distribution per Common Share(c)		$ 0.026500
Current Annualized Distribution per Common Share(c)		$ 0.318000
Leverage as of July 31, 2023(d)		40%

 

(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 and state tax rate of 46.55%, 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. A portion of the distribution may be deemed a return of capital or net realized gain.

(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

 

			07/31/23				07/31/22				Change				High				Low
Closing Market Price		$	10.78			$	14.41				(25.19	)%		$	15.00			$	10.44
Net Asset Value			12.44				13.32				(6.61	)			13.46				11.18

GROWTH OF $10,000 INVESTMENT

 

 

(a)

Represents the Trust’s closing market price on the NYSE and reflects the reinvestment of dividends and/or distributions at actual reinvestment prices.

(b)

An unmanaged index that tracks the U.S. long term tax-exempt bond market, including state and local general obligation bonds, revenue bonds, pre-refunded bonds, and insured bonds.

 

 

T R U S T  S U M M A R Y		9

---

Trust Summary  as of July 31, 2023 (continued)		BlackRock Virginia Municipal Bond Trust (BHV)

 

Performance

Returns for the period ended July 31, 2023 were as follows:

 

		Average Annual Total Returns
		1 Year				5 Years				10 Years
Trust at NAV(a)(b)			(3.42	)%			(0.19	)%			2.77	%
Trust at Market Price(a)(b)			(22.64	)			(4.89	)			0.58
Virginia Customized Reference Benchmark(c)			0.59				1.90				N/A
Bloomberg Municipal Bond Index			0.93				1.87				2.81

 

(a)

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

(b)

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

(c)

The Virginia Customized Reference Benchmark is comprised of the Bloomberg Municipal Bond: Virginia Exempt Total Return Index Unhedged (90%) and the Virginia Bloomberg Municipal Bond: High Yield (non-Investment Grade) Total Return Index (10%). The Virginia Customized Reference Benchmark commenced on September 30, 2016.

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.

The Trust is presenting the performance of one or more indices for informational purposes only. The Trust is actively managed and does not seek to track or replicate the performance of any index. The index performance shown is not intended to be indicative of the Trust’s investment strategies, portfolio components or past or future performance.

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:

Municipal bonds posted slightly positive returns in the annual period. Bond market performance, in general, was dampened by the combination of high inflation and continued interest rate increases by the Fed. However, the contribution from income outweighed the impact of falling prices.

The Trust’s use of U.S. Treasury futures to manage interest rate risk added value in the rising-rate environment. At the sector level, tax backed states, transportation, and development districts made the largest contributions. Despite the volatility throughout the period, low new issuance led to tighter yield spreads for higher-quality securities. Strong fundamental trends in the transportation sectors, especially airports, also helped fuel positive performance. Bonds with maturities of 20 to 25 years were especially notable contributors in this area.

On the negative side, long-dated securities with maturities of 25 years and above—particularly those with lower coupons—detracted from performance due to their higher interest rate sensitivity. Healthcare and transportation were the worst performing sectors, although this had more to do with the duration and coupon characteristics of the debt rather than any specific credit issues or spread widening. The long duration securities were concentrated in the higher-quality credit tiers: AA, A, and BBB. The Trust’s use of leverage, which amplified the effect of falling prices, was another detractor of note.

The Trust’s cash position was above typical levels at the close of the period, since higher cash balances were required for the potential unwinding of leverage. Additionally, new issuance and secondary market opportunities were not accretive to portfolio income relative to cash yields, which have risen with the increase in short-term rates. However, the Trust reduced cash incrementally late in the period to participate in new issuance.

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.

 

 

10		2 0 2 3  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 July 31, 2023 (continued)		BlackRock Virginia Municipal Bond Trust (BHV)

 

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

(d)

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.

(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 July 31, 2023, the market value of unrated securities deemed by the investment adviser to be investment grade represents 5.4% of the Trust’s total investments.

 

 

T R U S T  S U M M A R Y		11

---

Schedule of Investments  July 31, 2023		BlackRock MuniHoldings New York Quality Fund, Inc. (MHN) (Percentages shown are based on Net Assets)

 

 

 

12		2 0 2 3  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) July 31, 2023		BlackRock MuniHoldings New York Quality Fund, Inc. (MHN) (Percentages shown are based on Net Assets)

 

 

 

S C H E D U L E  O F  I N V E S T M E N T S		13

---

Schedule of Investments (continued) July 31, 2023		BlackRock MuniHoldings New York Quality Fund, Inc. (MHN) (Percentages shown are based on Net Assets)

 

 

 

14		2 0 2 3  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) July 31, 2023		BlackRock MuniHoldings New York Quality Fund, Inc. (MHN) (Percentages shown are based on Net Assets)

 

 

 

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) July 31, 2023		BlackRock MuniHoldings New York Quality Fund, Inc. (MHN) (Percentages shown are based on Net Assets)

 

 

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.

Affiliates

Investments in issuers considered to be affiliate(s) of the Trust during the year ended July 31, 2023 for purposes of Section 2(a)(3) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended, were as follows:

 

		Affiliated Issuer		Value at 07/31/22				Purchases at Cost				Proceeds from Sales				Net Realized Gain (Loss)				Change in Unrealized Appreciation (Depreciation)						Value at 07/31/23				Shares Held at 07/31/23				Income				Capital Gain Distributions from Underlying Funds
		BlackRock Liquidity Funds New York Money Fund Portfolio		$	620,554			$	13,916,648	(a)		$	—			$	(40)					$	—			$	14,537,162				14,537,162			$	224,694			$	—

 

(a)	Represents net amount purchased (sold).

 

 

16		2 0 2 3  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) July 31, 2023		BlackRock MuniHoldings New York Quality Fund, Inc. (MHN)

 

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			42				09/20/23			$	4,682			$	(13,841	)
U.S. Long Bond			50				09/20/23				6,231				(27,135	)
5-Year U.S. Treasury Note			47				09/29/23				5,023				(12,179	)
														$	(53,155	)

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)		$	—			$	—			$	—			$	—			$	53,155			$	—			$	53,155

 

(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 period ended July 31, 2023, 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		$	—			$	—			$	—			$	—			$	2,619,252			$	—			$	2,619,252
Net Change in Unrealized Appreciation (Depreciation) on:
Futures contracts		$	—			$	—			$	—			$	—			$	2,400,866			$	—			$	2,400,866

Average Quarterly Balances of Outstanding Derivative Financial Instruments

 

Futures contracts:
Average notional value of contracts — short		$	37,892,147

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 table summarizes the Trust’s financial instruments categorized in the fair value hierarchy. The breakdown of the Trust’s financial instruments 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		$	—							$	590,206,576							$	—							$	590,206,576
Municipal Bonds Transferred to Tender Option Bond Trusts			—								13,958,148								—								13,958,148

 

 

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) July 31, 2023		BlackRock MuniHoldings New York Quality Fund, Inc. (MHN)

 

Fair Value Hierarchy as of Period End (continued)

			Level 1								Level 2								Level 3								Total
Short-Term Securities
Money Market Funds		$	14,537,162							$	—							$	—							$	14,537,162
		$	14,537,162							$	604,164,724							$	—							$	618,701,886
Derivative Financial Instruments(a)
Liabilities
Interest Rate Contracts		$	(53,155	)						$	—							$	—							$	(53,155	)

 

(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		$	—							$	(7,283,906	)						$	—							$	(7,283,906	)
VRDP Shares at Liquidation Value			—								(243,600,000	)							—								(243,600,000	)
		$	—							$	(250,883,906	)						$	—							$	(250,883,906	)

See notes to financial statements.

 

 

18		2 0 2 3  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  July 31, 2023		BlackRock Virginia Municipal Bond Trust (BHV) (Percentages shown are based on Net Assets)

 

 

 

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) July 31, 2023		BlackRock Virginia Municipal Bond Trust (BHV) (Percentages shown are based on Net Assets)

 

 

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.

Affiliates

Investments in issuers considered to be affiliate(s) of the Trust during the year ended July 31, 2023 for purposes of Section 2(a)(3) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended, were as follows:

 

Affiliated Issuer		Value at 07/31/22				Purchases at Cost				Proceeds from Sales				Net Realized Gain (Loss)				Change in Unrealized Appreciation (Depreciation)				Value at 07/31/23				Shares Held at 07/31/23				Income				Capital Gain Distributions from Underlying Funds
BlackRock Liquidity Funds, MuniCash, Institutional Class		$	1,930,770			$	2,888,358	(a)		$	—			$	292			$	(8	)		$	4,819,412				4,819,412			$	82,859			$	—

(a)

Represents net amount purchased (sold).

 

 

20		2 0 2 3  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) July 31, 2023		BlackRock Virginia Municipal Bond Trust (BHV)

 

Derivative Financial Instruments Categorized by Risk Exposure

For the period ended July 31, 2023, 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		$	—			$	—			$	—			$	—			$	85,033			$	—			$	85,033
Net Change in Unrealized Appreciation (Depreciation) on:
Futures contracts		$	—			$	—			$	—			$	—			$	22,027			$	—			$	22,027

Average Quarterly Balances of Outstanding Derivative Financial Instruments

 

Futures contracts:
Average notional value of contracts — short		$	2,347,387

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 table summarizes the Trust’s financial instruments categorized in the fair value hierarchy. The breakdown of the Trust’s financial instruments 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		$	—			$	25,712,960			$	—			$	25,712,960
Municipal Bonds Transferred to Tender Option Bond Trusts			—				3,824,238				—				3,824,238
Short-Term Securities
Money Market Funds			4,819,412				—				—				4,819,412
		$	4,819,412			$	29,537,198			$	—			$	34,356,610

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		$	—			$	(2,000,000	)		$	—			$	(2,000,000	)
VRDP Shares at Liquidation Value			—				(11,600,000	)			—				(11,600,000	)
		$	—			$	(13,600,000	)		$	—			$	(13,600,000	)

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		21

---

Statements of Assets and Liabilities

July 31, 2023

 

		MHN				BHV
ASSETS
Investments, at value — unaffiliated(a)		$	604,164,724			$	29,537,198
Investments, at value — affiliated(b)			14,537,162				4,819,412
Cash pledged for futures contracts			345,000				—
Receivables:
Dividends — affiliated			42,796				10,827
Interest — unaffiliated			6,268,335				269,510
Prepaid expenses			29,090				13,262
Total assets			625,387,107				34,650,209
ACCRUED LIABILITIES
Bank overdraft			50,346				2,314
Payables:
Investments purchased			3,637,283				1,063,263
Accounting services fees			40,325				4,443
Capital shares redeemed			81,565				—
Custodian fees			3,319				753
Income dividend distributions — Common Shares			108,159				648
Interest expense and fees			99,884				5,439
Investment advisory fees			289,443				14,460
Trustees’ and Officer’s fees			212,412				11,174
Other accrued expenses			14,742				5,161
Professional fees			58,359				28,514
Transfer agent fees			15,544				3,901
Variation margin on futures contracts			29,848				—
Total accrued liabilities			4,641,229				1,140,070
OTHER LIABILITIES
TOB Trust Certificates			7,283,906				2,000,000
VRDP Shares, at liquidation value of $100,000 per share, net of deferred offering costs(c)(d)(e)			243,327,736				11,553,922
Total other liabilities			250,611,642				13,553,922
Total liabilities			255,252,871				14,693,992
Commitments and contingent liabilities
NET ASSETS APPLICABLE TO COMMON SHAREHOLDERS		$	370,134,236			$	19,956,217
NET ASSETS APPLICABLE TO COMMON SHAREHOLDERS CONSIST OF
Paid-in capital(f)(g)(h)		$	424,314,725			$	22,780,570
Accumulated loss			(54,180,489	)			(2,824,353	)
NET ASSETS APPLICABLE TO COMMON SHAREHOLDERS		$	370,134,236			$	19,956,217
Net asset value per Common Share		$	12.12			$	12.44
(a) Investments, at cost — unaffiliated		$	601,094,069			$	29,699,655
(b) Investments, at cost — affiliated		$	14,537,162			$	4,818,878
(c)  Preferred Shares outstanding			2,436				116
(d) Preferred Shares authorized			14,956				Unlimited
(e) Par value per Preferred Share		$	0.10			$	0.001
(f)  Common Shares outstanding			30,535,000				1,604,577
(g) Common Shares authorized			199,985,044				Unlimited
(h) Par value per Common Share		$	0.10			$	0.001

See notes to financial statements.

 

 

22		2 0 2 3  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 July 31, 2023

 

		MHN				BHV
INVESTMENT INCOME
Dividends — affiliated		$	224,694			$	82,859
Interest — unaffiliated			25,130,839				1,315,530
Total investment income			25,355,533				1,398,389
EXPENSES
Investment advisory			3,445,306				218,984
Accounting services			93,152				12,771
Professional			64,331				54,900
Rating agency			53,901				49,901
Transfer agent			34,255				22,641
Trustees and Officer			27,375				2,147
Liquidity fees			24,811				—
Remarketing fees on Preferred Shares			24,360				—
Registration			10,510				8,262
Printing and postage			8,610				6,939
Custodian			8,553				1,733
Miscellaneous			18,583				15,141
Total expenses excluding interest expense, fees and amortization of offering costs			3,813,747				393,419
Interest expense, fees and amortization of offering costs(a)			9,132,762				489,668
Total expenses			12,946,509				883,087
Less:
Fees waived and/or reimbursed by the Manager			(338,437	)			(46,745	)
Total expenses after fees waived and/or reimbursed			12,608,072				836,342
Net investment income			12,747,461				562,047
REALIZED AND UNREALIZED GAIN (LOSS)
Net realized gain (loss) from:
Investments — unaffiliated			(30,111,812	)			(1,554,253	)
Investments — affiliated			(40	)			292
Futures contracts			2,619,252				85,033
			(27,492,600	)			(1,468,928	)
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on:
Investments — unaffiliated			10,459,884				73,233
Investments — affiliated			—				(8	)
Futures contracts			2,400,866				22,027
			12,860,750				95,252
Net realized and unrealized loss			(14,631,850	)			(1,373,676	)
NET DECREASE IN NET ASSETS APPLICABLE TO COMMON SHAREHOLDERS RESULTING FROM OPERATIONS		$	(1,884,389	)		$	(811,629	)
(a) Related to TOB Trusts 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		23

---

 

Statements of Changes in Net Assets

 

		MHN																BHV
		Year Ended 07/31/23				Period from 09/01/21 to 07/31/22				Year Ended 08/31/21								Year Ended 07/31/23				Period from 09/01/21 to 07/31/22				Year Ended 08/31/21
INCREASE (DECREASE) IN NET ASSETS APPLICABLE TO COMMON SHAREHOLDERS
OPERATIONS
Net investment income		$	12,747,461			$	15,943,162			$	19,618,863							$	562,047			$	747,048			$	874,511
Net realized gain (loss)			(27,492,600	)			(5,054,226	)			(134,878	)							(1,468,928	)			(223,191	)			42,848
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation)			12,860,750				(74,499,555	)			9,667,306								95,252				(3,608,202	)			526,647
Net increase (decrease) in net assets applicable to Common Shareholders resulting from operations			(1,884,389	)			(63,610,619	)			29,151,291								(811,629	)			(3,084,345	)			1,444,006
DISTRIBUTIONS TO COMMON SHAREHOLDERS(a)
From net investment income			(11,461,512	)			(18,041,007	)			(20,266,947	)							(521,222	)			(806,411	)			(878,735	)
Return of capital			(2,133,697	)			—				—								(95,859	)			—				—
Decrease in net assets resulting from distributions to Common Shareholders			(13,595,209	)			(18,041,007	)			(20,266,947	)							(617,081	)			(806,411	)			(878,735	)
CAPITAL SHARE TRANSACTIONS
Reinvestment of common distributions			—				—				—								728				24,836				32,475
Redemption of shares resulting from share repurchase program (including transaction costs)			(6,123,353	)			—				—								(75,425	)			—				—
Net increase (decrease) in net assets derived from capital share transactions			(6,123,353	)			—				—								(74,697	)			24,836				32,475
NET ASSETS APPLICABLE TO COMMON SHAREHOLDERS
Total increase (decrease) in net assets applicable to Common Shareholders			(21,602,951	)			(81,651,626	)			8,884,344								(1,503,407	)			(3,865,920	)			597,746
Beginning of period			391,737,187				473,388,813				464,504,469								21,459,624				25,325,544				24,727,798
End of period		$	370,134,236			$	391,737,187			$	473,388,813							$	19,956,217			$	21,459,624			$	25,325,544

 

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

See notes to financial statements.

 

 

24		2 0 2 3  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 Cash Flows

Year Ended July 31, 2023

 

		MHN				BHV
CASH PROVIDED BY (USED FOR) OPERATING ACTIVITIES
Net decrease in net assets resulting from operations		$	(1,884,389	)		$	(811,629	)
Adjustments to reconcile net decrease in net assets resulting from operations to net cash provided by operating activities:
Proceeds from sales of long-term investments			304,454,786				12,258,862
Purchases of long-term investments			(261,563,073	)			(8,337,143	)
Net purchases of short-term securities			(13,916,648	)			(2,888,358	)
Amortization of premium and accretion of discount on investments and other fees			2,500,592				38,459
Net realized loss on investments			30,111,852				1,553,961
Net unrealized appreciation on investments			(10,459,884	)			(73,225	)
(Increase) Decrease in Assets
Receivables
Dividends — affiliated			(39,961	)			(9,916	)
Interest — unaffiliated			139,227				873
Prepaid expenses			76,656				24,328
Increase (Decrease) in Liabilities
Payables
Accounting services fees			(33,535	)			(4,078	)
Custodian fees			(3,578	)			(360	)
Interest expense and fees			31,150				1,559
Investment advisory fees			(324,582	)			(15,032	)
Trustees’ and Officer’s fees			(17,756	)			612
Other accrued expenses			(4,115	)			(9,892	)
Professional fees			(15,680	)			(5,204	)
Transfer agent fees			(5,876	)			(2,396	)
Variation margin on futures contracts			(22,328	)			(1,482	)
Net cash provided by operating activities			49,022,858				1,719,939
CASH PROVIDED BY (USED FOR) FINANCING ACTIVITIES
Cash dividends paid to Common Shareholders			(14,872,425	)			(688,898	)
Repayments of TOB Trust Certificates			(32,814,093	)			(1,000,000	)
Repayments of Loan for TOB Trust Certificates			(1,321,238	)			—
Net payments on Common Shares redeemed including change in redemptions payable			(6,041,788	)			(75,425	)
Proceeds from TOB Trust Certificates			3,571,238				—
Proceeds from Loan for TOB Trust Certificates			1,321,238				—
Increase in bank overdraft			50,346				2,314
Amortization of deferred offering costs			17,864				3,070
Net cash used for financing activities			(50,088,858	)			(1,758,939	)
CASH
Net decrease in restricted and unrestricted cash			(1,066,000	)			(39,000	)
Restricted and unrestricted cash at beginning of year			1,411,000				39,000
Restricted and unrestricted cash at end of year		$	345,000			$	—
SUPPLEMENTAL DISCLOSURE OFCASH FLOW INFORMATION
Cash paid during the year for interest expense		$	9,083,748			$	485,039
NON-CASH FINANCING ACTIVITIES
Reinvestment of common distributions		$	—			$	728
RECONCILIATION OF RESTRICTED AND UNRESTRICTED CASH AT THE END OF YEAR TO THE STATEMENTS OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIES
Cash pledged
Futures contracts			345,000				—
		$	345,000			$	—

See notes to financial statements.

 

 

F I N A N C I A L  S T A T E M E N T S		25

---

Financial Highlights

(For a share outstanding throughout each period)

 

		MHN
		Year Ended 07/31/23								Period from 09/01/21 to 07/31/22								Year Ended 08/31/21								Year Ended 08/31/20								Year Ended 08/31/19								Year Ended 08/31/18
Net asset value, beginning of period		$	12.58							$	15.21							$	14.92							$	15.31							$	14.27							$	14.93
Net investment income(a)			0.41								0.51								0.63								0.60								0.55								0.60
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss)			(0.43	)							(2.56	)							0.31								(0.43	)							1.02								(0.64	)
Net increase (decrease) from investment operations			(0.02	)							(2.05	)							0.94								0.17								1.57								(0.04	)
Distributions to Common Shareholders(b)
From net investment income			(0.37	)							(0.58	)							(0.65	)							(0.56	)							(0.53	)							(0.62	)
Return of capital			(0.07	)							—								—								—								—								—
Total distributions to Common Shareholders			(0.44	)							(0.58	)							(0.65	)							(0.56	)							(0.53	)							(0.62	)
Net asset value, end of period		$	12.12							$	12.58							$	15.21							$	14.92							$	15.31							$	14.27
Market price, end of period		$	10.44							$	11.23							$	14.74							$	13.79							$	13.74							$	12.35
Total Return Applicable to Common Shareholders(c)
Based on net asset value			0.53	%							(13.49	)%(d)							6.70	%							1.54	%							11.88	%							0.22	%
Based on market price			(3.00	)%							(20.31	)%(d)							11.88	%							4.57	%							16.02	%							(9.82	)%
Ratios to Average Net Assets Applicable to Common Shareholders(e)
Total expenses			3.52	%							1.78	%(f)							1.57	%							2.15	%							2.62	%							2.45	%
Total expenses after fees waived and/or reimbursed			3.43	%							1.70	%(f)							1.51	%							2.09	%							2.55	%							2.36	%
Total expenses after fees waived and/or reimbursed and excluding interest expense, fees and amortization of offering costs(g)(h)			0.95	%							0.94	%(f)							0.95	%							0.94	%							0.94	%							0.94	%
Net investment income to Common Shareholders			3.47	%							4.05	%(f)							4.17	%							4.03	%							3.82	%							4.15	%
Supplemental Data
Net assets applicable to Common Shareholders, end of period (000)		$	370,134							$	391,737							$	473,389							$	464,504							$	476,549							$	444,369
VRDP Shares outstanding at $100,000 liquidation value, end of period (000)		$	243,600							$	243,600							$	243,600							$	243,600							$	243,600							$	243,600
Asset coverage per VRDP Shares at $100,000 liquidation value, end of period		$	247,532	(i)						$	239,843	(i)						$	294,330	(j)						$	290,683	(j)						$	295,628	(j)						$	282,417	(j)
TOB Trust Certificates, end of period (000)		$	7,284							$	36,527							$	56,376							$	63,384							$	55,899							$	64,262
Asset coverage per $1,000 of TOB Trust Certificates, end of period(k)		$	85,220							$	18,386								N/A								N/A								N/A								N/A
Portfolio turnover rate			43	%							29	%							14	%							10	%							23	%							15	%

 

(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)	Not annualized.

(e)	Excludes fees and expenses incurred indirectly as a result of investments in underlying funds.

(f)	Annualized.

(g)	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.

(h)	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 07/31/23				Period from 09/01/21 to 07/31/22				Year Ended 08/31/21				Year Ended 08/31/20				Year Ended 08/31/19				Year Ended 08/31/18
Expense ratios			0.94	%			0.93	%			0.94	%			0.93	%			0.93	%			0.94	%

 

(i)	Calculated by subtracting the Trust’s total liabilities (not including VRDP Shares and TOBs) from the Trust’s total assets and dividing this by the sum of the amount of TOBs and liquidation value of the VRDP Shares, and by multiplying the results by 100,000.

(j)	Calculated by subtracting the Trust’s total liabilities (not including VRDP Shares) from the Trust’s total assets and dividing this by the liquidation value of the VRDP Shares, and by multiplying the results by 100,000.

(k)

Effective July 18, 2022, TOB Trust Certificates are treated as senior securities pursuant to Rule 18f-4 of the 1940 Act. Calculated by subtracting the Trust’s total liabilities (not including VRDP Shares and TOBs) from the Trust’s total assets and dividing this by the amount of TOBs, and by multiplying the results by 1,000.

See notes to financial statements.

 

 

26		2 0 2 3  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)

 

		BHV
		Year Ended 07/31/23								Period from 09/01/21 to 07/31/22								Year Ended 08/31/21								Year Ended 08/31/20								Year Ended 08/31/19								Year Ended 08/31/18
Net asset value, beginning of period		$	13.32							$	15.73							$	15.38							$	15.64							$	14.97							$	15.75
Net investment income(a)			0.35								0.46								0.54								0.55								0.58								0.69
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss)			(0.85	)							(2.37	)							0.36								(0.26	)							0.74								(0.69	)
Net increase (decrease) from investment operations			(0.50	)							(1.91	)							0.90								0.29								1.32								—
Distributions to Common Shareholders(b)
From net investment income			(0.32	)							(0.50	)							(0.55	)							(0.55	)							(0.65	)							(0.78	)
Return of capital			(0.06	)							—								—								—								—								—
Total distributions to Common Shareholders			(0.38	)							(0.50	)							(0.55	)							(0.55	)							(0.65	)							(0.78	)
Net asset value, end of period		$	12.44							$	13.32							$	15.73							$	15.38							$	15.64							$	14.97
Market price, end of period		$	10.78							$	14.41							$	18.75							$	16.09							$	16.54							$	16.56
Total Return Applicable to Common Shareholders(c)
Based on net asset value			(3.42	)%							(12.61	)%(d)							5.76	%							1.87	%							8.94	%							(0.20	)%
Based on market price			(22.64	)%							(20.69	)%(d)							20.50	%							0.77	%							4.15	%							(6.91	)%
Ratios to Average Net Assets Applicable to Common Shareholders(e)
Total expenses			4.43	%							2.60	%(f)(g)							2.28	%							2.86	%							3.37	%							2.94	%
Total expenses after fees waived and/or reimbursed			4.20	%							2.38	%(f)(g)							2.06	%							2.64	%							3.15	%							2.72	%
Total expenses after fees waived and/or reimbursed and excluding interest expense, fees and amortization of offering costs(h)(i)			1.74	%							1.55	%(f)(g)							1.43	%							1.69	%							1.82	%							1.70	%
Net investment income to Common Shareholders			2.82	%							3.52	%(g)							3.49	%							3.63	%							3.88	%							4.51	%
Supplemental Data
Net assets applicable to Common Shareholders, end of period (000)		$	19,956							$	21,460							$	25,326							$	24,728							$	25,119							$	24,006
VRDP Shares outstanding at $100,000 liquidation value, end of period (000)		$	11,600							$	11,600							$	11,600							$	11,600							$	11,600							$	11,600
Asset coverage per VRDP Shares at $100,000 liquidation value, end of period		$	246,737	(j)						$	246,984	(j)						$	318,324	(k)						$	313,171	(k)						$	316,539	(k)						$	306,947	(k)
TOB Trust Certificates, end of period (000)		$	2,000							$	3,000							$	4,876							$	4,876							$	5,396							$	5,396
Asset coverage per $1,000 of TOB Trust Certificates, end of period(l)		$	16,755							$	12,003								N/A								N/A								N/A								N/A
Portfolio turnover rate			31	%							39	%							10	%							28	%							17	%							26	%

 

(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)	Not annualized.

(e)	Excludes fees and expenses incurred indirectly as a result of investments in underlying funds.

(f)

Audit and printing costs were not annualized in the calculation of the expense ratios. If these expenses were annualized, the total expenses, total expenses after fees waived and/or reimbursed and total expenses after fees waived and/or reimbursed and excluding interest expense, fees and amortization of offering costs would have been 2.62%, 2.40% and 1.57%, respectively.

(g)	Annualized.

(h)	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.

(i)	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 07/31/23				Period from 09/01/21 to 07/31/22				Year Ended 08/31/21				Year Ended 08/31/20				Year Ended 08/31/19				Year Ended 08/31/18
Expense ratios			1.74	%			1.55	%			1.43	%			1.40	%			1.42	%			1.32	%

 

(j)	Calculated by subtracting the Trust’s total liabilities (not including VRDP Shares and TOBs) from the Trust’s total assets and dividing this by the sum of the amount of TOBs and liquidation value of the VRDP Shares, and by multiplying the results by 100,000.

(k)	Calculated by subtracting the Trust’s total liabilities (not including VRDP Shares) from the Trust’s total assets and dividing this by the liquidation value of the VRDP Shares, and by multiplying the results by 100,000.

 

 

F I N A N C I A L  H I G H L I G H T S		27

---

Financial Highlights (continued)

(For a share outstanding throughout each period)

 

(l)

Effective July 18, 2022, TOB Trust Certificates are treated as senior securities pursuant to Rule 18f-4 of the 1940 Act. Calculated by subtracting the Trust’s total liabilities (not including VRDP Shares and TOBs) from the Trust’s total assets and dividing this by the amount of TOBs, and by multiplying the results by 1,000.

See notes to financial statements.

 

 

28		2 0 2 3  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

 

1. 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 MuniHoldings New York Quality Fund, Inc.		MHN		Maryland		Non-diversified
BlackRock Virginia Municipal Bond Trust		BHV		Delaware		Non-diversified

The Boards of Directors and Boards 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 funds referred to as the BlackRock Fixed-Income Complex.

2. 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.

Collateralization: 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.

Distributions: Distributions from net investment income are declared monthly and paid monthly. Distributions of capital gains are recorded on the ex-dividend dates and made at least annually. The portion of distributions, if any, that exceeds a fund’s current and accumulated earnings and profits, as measured on a tax basis, constitute a non-taxable return of capital. 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 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. Net appreciation (depreciation) in the value of participants’ deferral accounts is allocated among the participating funds in the BlackRock Fixed-Income Complex and reflected as Trustees and Officer expense on the Statements of Operations. The Trustees and Officer expense may be negative as a result of a decrease in value of the deferred accounts.

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.

3. 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. The Board has approved the designation of each Trust’s Manager as the valuation designee for each Trust. Each Trust determines the fair values of its financial instruments using various independent dealers or pricing services under the Manager’s policies.

 

 

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		29

---

Notes to Financial Statements  (continued)

 

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 the Manager’s policies and procedures as reflecting fair value. The Manager has formed a committee (the “Valuation Committee”) to develop pricing policies and procedures and to oversee the pricing function for all financial instruments, with assistance from other BlackRock pricing committees.

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., 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 Valuation Committee in accordance with the Manager’s policies and procedures as reflecting fair value (“Fair Valued Investments”). The fair valuation approaches that may be used by the 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 Valuation Committee 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 Valuation Committee deems relevant and consistent with the principles of fair value measurement.

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 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 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.

4. 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. The Trusts 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 the value of securities purchased may fluctuate prior to settlement, the Trusts may be required to pay more at settlement than the security is worth. In addition, a fund is not entitled to any of the interest earned prior to settlement. When purchasing a security on a delayed delivery basis, the Trusts assume 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, the Trusts’ maximum amount of loss is the unrealized appreciation of unsettled when-issued transactions.

Municipal BondsTransferred toTOBTrusts: The 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

 

 

30		2 0 2 3  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)

 

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 Trust’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 Trust. A Trust typically invests the cash received in additional municipal bonds.

Accounting forTOBTrusts: The municipal bonds deposited into a TOB Trust are presented in a Trust’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 Trust’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 Trust 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 Trust 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
MHN		$	358,094			$	58,023			$	20,279			$	436,396
BHV			57,483				7,747				2,865				68,095

For the year ended July 31, 2023, 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
MHN		$	13,958,148			$	7,283,906				4.01% — 4.05%			$	14,832,281				2.93	%
BHV			3,824,238				2,000,000				4.01    — 4.01				2,156,164				3.15

 

(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 Trusts, 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 Trusts, for such reimbursements, as applicable, are included in the maximum potential amounts disclosed for recourse TOB Trusts in the Schedules of Investments.

(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 Trust invests in a TOB Trust on a recourse basis, a Trust enters into a reimbursement agreement with the Liquidity Provider where a Trust 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 Trust invests in a recourse TOB Trust, a Trust 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 Trust at July 31, 2023, 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 Trust at July 31, 2023.

 

 

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		31

---

Notes to Financial Statements  (continued)

 

For the year ended July 31, 2023, 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
MHN		$	—				—	%		$	32,578				0.71	%

5. 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.

6. 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, MHN pays the Manager a monthly fee at an annual rate equal to a percentage of the Trust’s average daily net assets. For such services, BHV pays the Manager a monthly fee at an annual rate equal to a percentage of the Trust’s average weekly managed assets. The Trusts pay their respective fees based on the following annual rates:

 

		MHN				BHV
Investment advisory fees			0.55	%			0.65	%

For purposes of calculating these fees, “net assets” mean the total assets of the Trust 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. 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).

Expense Waivers and Reimbursements: With respect to BHV, the Manager voluntarily agreed to waive a portion of its investment advisory fees as a percentage of the Trust’s average weekly managed assets as follows:

 

		BHV
Waiver			0.13	%

This voluntary waiver may be reduced or discontinued at any time. For the year ended July 31, 2023, the investment advisory fees waived, which are included in fees waived and/or reimbursed by the Manager in the Statements of Operations, were as follows:

 

Trust Name		Fees Waived and/or Reimbursed by the Manager
BHV		$	43,797

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, 2025. The contractual agreement may be

 

 

32		2 0 2 3  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)

 

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 July 31, 2023, the amounts waived were as follows:

 

Trust Name		Fees Waived and/or Reimbursed by the Manager
MHN		$	4,163
BHV			2,948

The Manager has 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, 2025. 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 July 31, 2023, there were no fees waived by the Manager pursuant to this arrangement.

The Manager, for MHN, voluntarily agreed to waive its investment advisory fee on the proceeds of the Preferred Shares and TOB Trusts that exceed 35% of total assets 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). The voluntary waiver may be reduced or discontinued at any time without notice. This amount is included in fees waived and/or reimbursed by the Manager in the Statements of Operations. For the year ended July 31, 2023 the waiver was $334,274.

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.

 

7.	PURCHASES AND SALES

For the year ended July 31, 2023, purchases and sales of investments, excluding short-term securities, were as follows:

 

Trust Name		Purchases				Sales
MHN		$	264,280,356			$	304,114,786
BHV			9,400,406				12,258,862

 

8.	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 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 July 31, 2023, 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, permanent differences attributable to non-deductible expenses were reclassified to the following accounts:

 

Trust Name		Paid-in Capital				Accumulated Earnings (Loss)
MHN		$	(15,441	)		$	15,441
BHV			(2,582	)			2,582

The tax character of distributions paid was as follows:

 

Trust Name		Year Ended 07/31/23				Period from 09/01/21 to 07/31/22				Year Ended 08/31/21
MHN
Tax-exempt income		$	20,104,822			$	20,656,737			$	22,472,677
Ordinary income			35,192				—				584
Return of capital			2,133,697				—				—
		$	22,273,711			$	20,656,737			$	22,473,261
BHV
Tax-exempt income		$	936,036			$	943,437			$	1,000,265
Ordinary income			3,689				—				162
Return of capital			95,859				—				—
		$	1,035,584			$	943,437			$	1,000,427

 

 

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		33

---

Notes to Financial Statements  (continued)

 

As of July 31, 2023, the tax components of accumulated earnings (loss) were as follows:

 

Trust Name		Non-Expiring Capital Loss Carryforwards(a)				Net Unrealized Gains (Losses)(b)				Total
MHN		$	(57,244,033	)		$	3,063,544			$	(54,180,489	)
BHV			(2,701,411	)			(122,942	)			(2,824,353	)

 

(a)

Amounts available to offset future realized capital gains.

(b)

The difference between book-basis and tax-basis net unrealized gains (losses) was attributable primarily to the tax deferral of losses on wash sales, amortization methods for premiums on fixed income securities, the realization for tax purposes of unrealized gains (losses) on certain futures contracts, the treatment of residual interests in tender option bond trusts and the deferral of compensation to Trustees.

As of July 31, 2023, 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)
MHN		$	608,144,127			$	11,787,083			$	(8,513,230	)		$	3,273,853
BHV			32,468,666				583,749				(695,805	)			(112,056	)

 

9.	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.

As 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.

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.

Illiquidity Risk: 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 NAV 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.

 

 

34		2 0 2 3  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)

 

Infectious Illness Risk: An outbreak of an infectious illness, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, may adversely impact the economies of many nations and the global economy, and may impact individual issuers and capital markets in ways that cannot be foreseen. An infectious illness outbreak may result in, among other things, closed international borders, prolonged quarantines, supply chain disruptions, market volatility or disruptions and other significant economic, social and political impacts.

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.

Geographic/Asset Class 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.

The Trusts invest a substantial amount of their assets in issuers located in a single state or limited number of states. When a fund 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.

The 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.

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.

The 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 decrease as interest rates rise and increase as interest rates fall. The Trusts may be subject to a greater risk of rising interest rates due to the period of historically low interest rates that ended in March 2022. The Federal Reserve has recently been raising the federal funds rate as part of its efforts to address inflation. There is a risk that interest rates will continue to rise, which will likely drive down the prices of bonds and other fixed-income securities, and could negatively impact the Trusts’ performance.

The Trusts invest a significant portion of their assets in securities of issuers located in the United States. A decrease in imports or exports, changes in trade regulations, inflation and/or an economic recession in the United States may have a material adverse effect on the U.S. economy and the securities listed on U.S. exchanges. Proposed and adopted policy and legislative changes in the United States may also have a significant effect on U.S. markets generally, as well as on the value of certain securities. Governmental agencies project that the United States will continue to maintain elevated public debt levels for the foreseeable future which may constrain future economic growth. Circumstances could arise that could prevent the timely payment of interest or principal on U.S. government debt, such as reaching the legislative “debt ceiling.” Such non-payment would result in substantial negative consequences for the U.S. economy and the global financial system. If U.S. relations with certain countries deteriorate, it could adversely affect issuers that rely on the United States for trade. The United States has also experienced increased internal unrest and discord. If these trends were to continue, they may have an adverse impact on the U.S. economy and the issuers in which the Trusts invest.

 

10.	CAPITAL SHARE TRANSACTIONS

MHN is authorized to issue 200 million shares, all of which were initially classified as Common Shares. BHV is authorized to issue an unlimited number of shares, all of which were initially classified as Common Shares. The par value for MHN’s Common Shares is $0.10 and for BHV’s Common Shares is $0.001. The par value for MHN’s Preferred Shares is $0.10 and for BHV’s Preferred Shares is $0.001. The Board is authorized, however, to reclassify any unissued Common Shares to Preferred Shares without the approval of Common Shareholders.

 

 

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		35

---

Notes to Financial Statements  (continued)

 

Common Shares

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

 

Trust Name

Year Ended 07/31/23

Period from 09/01/21 to 07/31/22

Year Ended 08/31/21

BHV

53

1,450

2,026

For the period ended July 31, 2022 and the year ended August 31, 2021, shares issued and outstanding remained constant for MHN.

The Trusts participate in an open market share repurchase program (the “Repurchase Program”). From December 1, 2021 through November 30, 2022, 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, 2021, subject to certain conditions. From December 1, 2022 through November 30, 2023, 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, 2022, subject to certain conditions. The Repurchase Program has an accretive effect as shares are purchased at a discount to the Trust’s NAV. There is no assurance that the Trusts will purchase shares in any particular amounts.

The total cost of the shares repurchased is reflected in Trusts’ Statements of Changes in Net Assets. For the periods shown, shares repurchased and cost, including transaction costs, were as follows:

 

		MHN
		Shares				Amounts
Year Ended July 31, 2023			597,023			$	6,123,353

 

		BHV
		Shares				Amounts
Year Ended July 31, 2023			7,063			$	75,425

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

Each Trust (for purposes of this section, each a “VRDP Trust”) have 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

MHN

06/30/11

2,436

$

243,600,000

07/01/41

BHV

06/14/12

116

11,600,000

07/01/42

RedemptionTerms: 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.

 

 

36		2 0 2 3  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)

 

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:

 

		MHN				BHV
Expiration date			11/30/24				07/07/24

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
MHN			Aa2				AA
BHV			Aa2				AA

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. As of period end, the following VRDP Trusts have commenced/are set to commence a special rate period:

 

Trust Name		Commencement Date				Expiration Date as of Period Ended 07/31/23
MHN			04/17/14				11/15/2024
BHV			06/25/20				06/19/2024

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.

 

		MHN				BHV
Dividend rates			3.56	%			3.61	%

For the year ended July 31, 2023, VRDP Shares issued and outstanding of each VRDP Trust remained constant.

Offering Costs: The Trusts incurred costs in connection with the issuance of VRDP 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 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 Shares are considered debt of the issuer; therefore, the liquidation preference, which approximates fair value of the VRDP 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 Shares are included as a component of interest expense, fees and amortization of offering costs in the Statements of Operations. The VRDP Shares are treated as equity for tax purposes. Dividends paid to holders of the VRDP Shares are generally classified as tax-exempt income for tax-reporting purposes. Dividends and amortization of deferred offering costs on VRDP Shares are included in interest expense, fees and amortization of offering costs in the Statements of Operations:

 

 

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		37

---

Notes to Financial Statements  (continued)

 

Trust Name		Dividends Accrued				Deferred Offering Costs Amortization
MHN		$	8,678,502			$	17,864
BHV			418,503				3,070

 

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

MHN

08/01/23

08/15/23

09/01/23

$

0.033500

09/01/23

09/15/23

10/02/23

0.033500

BHV

08/01/23

08/15/23

09/01/23

0.026500

09/01/23

09/15/23

10/02/23

0.026500

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

 

Preferred Shares(a)

Trust Name

Shares

Series

Declared

MHN

VRDP

W-7

$

922,276

BHV

VRDP

W-7

44,115

 

(a)

Dividends declared for period August 1, 2023 to August 31, 2023.

On September 8, 2023, the Board of Directors/Trustees of each of BHV, BlackRock Investment Quality Municipal Trust, Inc., BlackRock MuniYield Michigan Quality Fund, Inc. and BlackRock MuniYield Pennsylvania Quality Fund (collectively, the “Target Funds”) and the Board of Directors of BlackRock MuniYield Quality Fund III, Inc. (“MYI”) approved the merger of the respective Target Fund into MYI. Subject to the approvals by each fund’s shareholders, the potential refinancing of preferred shares and the satisfaction of customary closing conditions, the mergers are expected to be completed in the first half of 2024.

 

 

38		2 0 2 3  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 the Board of Trustees/Directors of BlackRock MuniHoldings New York Quality Fund, Inc. and BlackRock Virginia Municipal Bond Trust:

Opinion on the Financial Statements and Financial Highlights

We have audited the accompanying statements of assets and liabilities of BlackRock MuniHoldings New York Quality Fund, Inc. and BlackRock Virginia Municipal Bond Trust (the “Funds”), including the schedules of investments, as of July 31, 2023, the related statements of operations and cash flows for the year then ended, the statements of changes in net assets and the financial highlights for the periods indicated in the table below, 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 July 31, 2023, and the results of their operations and their cash flows for the year then ended, the changes in their net assets and the financial highlights for the periods indicated in the table below, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

 

Fund		Statements of Changes in Net Assets		Financial Highlights
BlackRock MuniHoldings New York Quality Fund, Inc. and BlackRock Virginia Municipal Bond Trust		For the year ended July 31, 2023, for the period from September 1, 2021, through July 31, 2022, and for the year ended August 31, 2021		For the year ended July 31, 2023, for the period from September 1, 2021, through July 31, 2022, and for each of the four years in the period ended August 31, 2021

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 July 31, 2023, by correspondence with custodians or counterparties; when replies were not received, we performed other auditing procedures. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

September 22, 2023

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		39

---

Important Tax Information  (unaudited)

 

The following amounts, or maximum amounts allowable by law, are hereby designated as tax-exempt interest dividends for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2023:

 

Trust Name		Exempt-Interest Dividends
MHN		$	21,188,237
BHV			972,955

The Trusts hereby designate the following amounts, or maximum amounts allowable by law, as interest income eligible to be treated as a Section 163(j) interest dividend for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2023:

 

Trust Name		Interest Dividends
MHN			$       33,480
BHV			1,592

The Trusts hereby designate the following amounts, or maximum amounts allowable by law, as interest-related dividends eligible for exemption from U.S. withholding tax for nonresident aliens and foreign corporations for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2023:

 

Trust Name		Interest Related Dividends
MHN		$	33,480
BHV			1,592

 

 

40		2 0 2 3  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

---

Disclosure of Investment Advisory Agreements

 

The Boards of Directors/Trustees, as applicable (together, the “Board,” the members of which are referred to as “Board Members”), of BlackRock MuniHoldings New York Quality Fund, Inc. (“MHN”) and BlackRock Virginia Municipal Bond Trust (“BHV”) (together, the “Funds” and each, a “Fund”) met on May 4, 2023 (the “May Meeting”) and June 1-2, 2023 (the “June Meeting”) to consider the approval to continue the investment advisory agreements (the “Advisory Agreements”) or (the “Agreements”) between each Fund and BlackRock Advisors, LLC (the “Manager” or “BlackRock”), each Fund’s investment adviser.

The Approval Process

Consistent with the requirements of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “1940 Act”), the Board considers the approval of the continuation of the Agreements for each Fund on an annual basis. The Board members who are not “interested persons” of each Fund, as defined in the 1940 Act, are considered independent Board members (the “Independent Board Members”). The Board’s consideration entailed a year-long deliberative process during which the Board and its committees assessed BlackRock’s various services to each Fund, including through the review of written materials and oral presentations, and the review of additional information provided in response to requests from the Independent Board Members. The Board had four quarterly meetings per year, each of which extended over a two-day period, as well as additional ad hoc meetings and executive sessions throughout the year, as needed. The committees of the Board similarly met throughout the year. The Board also had an additional one-day meeting to consider specific information regarding the renewal of the Agreements. In considering the renewal of the Agreements, the Board assessed, among other things, the nature, extent and quality of the services provided to each Fund by BlackRock, BlackRock’s personnel and affiliates, including (as applicable): investment management services; accounting oversight; administrative and shareholder services; oversight of each Fund’s service providers; risk management and oversight; and legal, regulatory and compliance services. Throughout the year, including during the contract renewal process, the Independent Board Members were advised by independent legal counsel, and met with independent legal counsel in various executive sessions outside of the presence of BlackRock’s management.

During the year, the Board, acting directly and through its committees, considered information that was relevant to its annual consideration of the renewal of the Agreements, including the services and support provided by BlackRock to each Fund and its shareholders. BlackRock also furnished additional information to the Board in response to specific questions from the Board. Among the matters the Board considered were: (a) investment performance for one-year, three-year, five-year, and/or since inception periods, as applicable, against peer funds, relevant benchmarks, and other performance metrics, as applicable, as well as BlackRock senior management’s and portfolio managers’ analyses of the reasons for any outperformance or underperformance relative to its peers, benchmarks, and other performance metrics, as applicable; (b) leverage management, as applicable; (c) fees, including advisory, administration, if applicable, and other amounts paid to BlackRock and its affiliates by each Fund for services; (d) Fund operating expenses and how BlackRock allocates expenses to each Fund; (e) the resources devoted to risk oversight of, and compliance reports relating to, implementation of each Fund’s investment objective, policies and restrictions, and meeting regulatory requirements; (f) BlackRock’s and each Fund’s adherence to applicable compliance policies and procedures; (g) the nature, character and scope of non-investment management services provided by BlackRock and its affiliates and the estimated cost of such services, as available; (h) BlackRock’s and other service providers’ internal controls and risk and compliance oversight mechanisms; (i) BlackRock’s implementation of the proxy voting policies approved by the Board; (j) execution quality of portfolio transactions; (k) BlackRock’s implementation of each Fund’s valuation and liquidity procedures; (l) an analysis of management fees paid to BlackRock for products with similar investment mandates across the open-end fund, closed-end fund, sub-advised mutual fund, collective investment trust and institutional separate account product channels, as applicable, and the similarities and differences between these products and the services provided as compared to each Fund; (m) BlackRock’s compensation methodology for its investment professionals and the incentives and accountability it creates, along with investment professionals’ investments in the fund(s) they manage; (n) periodic updates on BlackRock’s business; and (o) each Fund’s market discount/premium compared to peer funds.

Prior to and in preparation for the May Meeting, the Board received and reviewed materials specifically relating to the renewal of the Agreements. The Independent Board Members are continuously engaged in a process with their independent legal counsel and BlackRock to review the nature and scope of the information provided to the Board to better assist its deliberations. The materials provided in connection with the May Meeting included, among other things: (a) information independently compiled and prepared by Broadridge Financial Solutions, Inc. (“Broadridge”), based on either a Lipper classification or Morningstar category, regarding each Fund’s fees and expenses as compared with a peer group of funds as determined by Broadridge (“Expense Peers”) and the investment performance of each Fund as compared with a peer group of funds (“Performance Peers”); (b) information on the composition of the Expense Peers and Performance Peers and a description of Broadridge’s methodology; (c) information on the estimated profits realized by BlackRock and its affiliates pursuant to the Agreements and a discussion of fall-out benefits to BlackRock and its affiliates; (d) a general analysis provided by BlackRock concerning investment management fees received in connection with other types of investment products, such as institutional accounts, sub-advised mutual funds, closed-end funds, and open-end funds, under similar investment mandates, as applicable; (e) a review of non-management fees; (f) the existence, impact and sharing of potential economies of scale, if any, with each Fund; (g) a summary of aggregate amounts paid by each Fund to BlackRock; and (h) various additional information requested by the Board as appropriate regarding BlackRock’s and each Fund’s operations.

At the May Meeting, the Board reviewed materials relating to its consideration of the Agreements and the Independent Board Members presented BlackRock with questions and requests for additional information. BlackRock responded to these questions and requests with additional written information in advance of the June Meeting.

At the June Meeting, the Board concluded its assessment of, among other things: (a) the nature, extent and quality of the services provided by BlackRock; (b) the investment performance of each Fund as compared to its Performance Peers and to other metrics, as applicable; (c) the advisory fee and the estimated cost of the services and estimated profits realized by BlackRock and its affiliates from their relationship with each Fund; (d) each Fund’s fees and expenses compared to its Expense Peers; (e) the existence and sharing of potential economies of scale; (f) any fall-out benefits to BlackRock and its affiliates as a result of BlackRock’s relationship with each Fund; and (g) other factors deemed relevant by the Board Members.

The Board also considered other matters it deemed important to the approval process, such as other payments made to BlackRock or its affiliates relating to securities lending and cash management, and BlackRock’s services related to the valuation and pricing of Fund portfolio holdings. The Board noted the willingness of BlackRock’s personnel to engage in open, candid discussions with the Board. The Board Members evaluated the information available to them on a fund-by-fund basis. The following paragraphs provide more information about some of the primary factors that were relevant to the Board’s decision. The Board Members did not identify any particular information, or any single factor as determinative, and each Board Member may have attributed different weights to the various items and factors considered.

 

 

D I S C L O S U R E  O F  I N V E S T M E N T   A D V I S O R Y   A G R E E M E N T S		41

---

Disclosure of Investment Advisory Agreements  (continued)

 

A. Nature, Extent and Quality of the Services Provided by BlackRock

The Board, including the Independent Board Members, reviewed the nature, extent and quality of services provided by BlackRock, including the investment advisory services, and the resulting performance of each Fund. Throughout the year, the Board compared Fund performance to the performance of a comparable group of closed-end funds, relevant benchmarks, and performance metrics, as applicable. The Board met with BlackRock’s senior management personnel responsible for investment activities, including the senior investment officers. The Board also reviewed the materials provided by each Fund’s portfolio management team discussing each Fund’s performance, investment strategies and outlook.

The Board considered, among other factors, with respect to BlackRock: the experience of investment personnel generally and each Fund’s portfolio management team; research capabilities; investments by portfolio managers in the funds they manage; portfolio trading capabilities; use of technology; commitment to compliance; credit analysis capabilities; risk analysis and oversight capabilities; and the approach to training and retaining portfolio managers and other research, advisory and management personnel. The Board also considered BlackRock’s overall risk management program, including the continued efforts of BlackRock and its affiliates to address cybersecurity risks and the role of BlackRock’s Risk & Quantitative Analysis Group. The Board engaged in a review of BlackRock’s compensation structure with respect to each Fund’s portfolio management team and BlackRock’s ability to attract and retain high-quality talent and create performance incentives.

In addition to investment advisory services, the Board considered the nature and quality of the administrative and other non-investment advisory services provided to each Fund. BlackRock and its affiliates provide each Fund with certain administrative, shareholder and other services (in addition to any such services provided to each Fund by third parties) and officers and other personnel as are necessary for the operations of each Fund. In particular, BlackRock and its affiliates provide each Fund with administrative services including, among others: (i) responsibility for disclosure documents and periodic shareholder reports; (ii) preparing communications with analysts to support secondary market trading of each Fund; (iii) oversight of daily accounting and pricing; (iv) responsibility for periodic filings with regulators and stock exchanges; (v) overseeing and coordinating the activities of third-party service providers including, among others, each Fund’s custodian, fund accountant, transfer agent, and auditor; (vi) organizing Board meetings and preparing the materials for such Board meetings; (vii) providing legal and compliance support; (viii) furnishing analytical and other support to assist the Board in its consideration of strategic issues such as the merger, consolidation or repurposing of certain closed-end funds; and (ix) performing or managing administrative functions necessary for the operation of each Fund, such as tax reporting, expense management, fulfilling regulatory filing requirements, and shareholder call center and other services. The Board reviewed the structure and duties of BlackRock’s fund administration, shareholder services, and legal and compliance departments and considered BlackRock’s policies and procedures for assuring compliance with applicable laws and regulations. The Board considered the operation of BlackRock’s business continuity plans.

B. The Investment Performance of each Fund and BlackRock

The Board, including the Independent Board Members, reviewed and considered the performance history of each Fund throughout the year and at the May Meeting. In preparation for the May Meeting, the Board was provided with reports independently prepared by Broadridge, which included an analysis of each Fund’s performance as of December 31, 2022, as compared to its Performance Peers. The performance information is based on net asset value (NAV), and utilizes Lipper data. Lipper’s methodology calculates a fund’s total return assuming distributions are reinvested on the ex-date at a fund’s ex-date NAV. Broadridge ranks funds in quartiles, ranging from first to fourth, where first is the most desirable quartile position and fourth is the least desirable. In connection with its review, the Board received and reviewed information regarding the investment performance of each Fund as compared to its Performance Peers and certain performance metrics (“Performance Metrics”). The Board and its Performance Oversight Committee regularly review and meet with Fund management to discuss the performance of each Fund throughout the year.

In evaluating performance, the Board focused particular attention on funds with less favorable performance records. The Board also noted that while it found the data provided by Broadridge generally useful, it recognized the limitations of such data, including in particular, that notable differences may exist between a fund and its Performance Peers (for example, the investment objectives and strategies). Further, the Board recognized that the performance data reflects a snapshot of a period as of a particular date and that selecting a different performance period could produce significantly different results. The Board also acknowledged that long-term performance could be impacted by even one period of significant outperformance or underperformance, and that a single investment theme could have the ability to disproportionately affect long-term performance.

The Board reviewed and considered MHN’s performance relative to MHN’s Performance Metrics. Based on an overall rating relative to the Performance Metrics, MHN generally performed in line with expectations. The Board noted that BlackRock believes that the Performance Metrics are an appropriate performance comparison for MHN, and that BlackRock has explained its rationale for this belief to the Board.

The Board reviewed and considered BHV’s performance relative to BHV’s Performance Metrics. Based on an overall rating relative to the Performance Metrics, BHV generally performed below expectations. The Board noted that BlackRock believes that the Performance Metrics are an appropriate performance comparison for BHV, and that BlackRock has explained its rationale for this belief to the Board. The Board and BlackRock reviewed BHV’s underperformance relative to the Performance Metrics.

C. Consideration of the Advisory/Management Fees and the Estimated Cost of the Services and Estimated Profits Realized by BlackRock and its Affiliates from their Relationship with each Fund

The Board, including the Independent Board Members, reviewed each Fund’s contractual management fee rate compared with those of its Expense Peers. The contractual management fee rate represents a combination of the advisory fee and any administrative fees, before taking into account any reimbursements or fee waivers. The Board also compared each Fund’s total expense ratio, as well as its actual management fee rate as a percentage of managed assets, which is the total assets of each Fund (including any assets attributable to money borrowed for investment purposes) minus the sum of each Fund’s accrued liabilities (other than money borrowed for investment purposes) to those of its Expense Peers. The total expense ratio represents a fund’s total net operating expenses, excluding any investment related expenses. The total expense ratio gives effect to any expense reimbursements or fee waivers, and the actual management fee rate gives effect to any management fee reimbursements or waivers. The Board considered that the fee and expense information in the Broadridge report for each Fund reflected information for a specific period and that historical asset levels and expenses

 

 

42		2 0 2 3  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

---

Disclosure of Investment Advisory Agreements  (continued)

 

may differ from current levels, particularly in a period of market volatility. The Board considered the services provided and the fees charged by BlackRock and its affiliates to other types of clients with similar investment mandates, as applicable, including institutional accounts and sub-advised mutual funds (including mutual funds sponsored by third parties).

The Board received and reviewed statements relating to BlackRock’s financial condition. The Board reviewed BlackRock’s profitability methodology and was also provided with an estimated profitability analysis that detailed the revenues earned and the expenses incurred by BlackRock for services provided to each Fund. The Board reviewed BlackRock’s estimated profitability with respect to each Fund and other funds the Board currently oversees for the year ended December 31, 2022 compared to available aggregate estimated profitability data provided for the prior two years. The Board reviewed BlackRock’s estimated profitability with respect to certain other U.S. fund complexes managed by the Manager and/or its affiliates. The Board reviewed BlackRock’s assumptions and methodology of allocating expenses in the estimated profitability analysis, noting the inherent limitations in allocating costs among various advisory products. The Board recognized that profitability may be affected by numerous factors including, among other things, fee waivers and expense reimbursements by the Manager, the types of funds managed, precision of expense allocations and business mix. The Board thus recognized that calculating and comparing profitability at the individual fund level is difficult.

The Board noted that, in general, individual fund or product line profitability of other advisors is not publicly available. The Board reviewed BlackRock’s overall operating margin, in general, compared to that of certain other publicly traded asset management firms. The Board considered the differences between BlackRock and these other firms, including the contribution of technology at BlackRock, BlackRock’s expense management, and the relative product mix.

The Board considered whether BlackRock has the financial resources necessary to attract and retain high quality investment management personnel to perform its obligations under the Agreements and to continue to provide the high quality of services that is expected by the Board. The Board further considered factors including but not limited to BlackRock’s commitment of time and resources, assumption of risk, and liability profile in servicing each Fund, including in contrast to what is required of BlackRock with respect to other products with similar investment mandates across the open-end fund, closed-end fund, sub-advised mutual fund, collective investment trust, and institutional separate account product channels, as applicable.

The Board noted that MHN’s contractual management fee rate ranked in the first quartile, and that the actual management fee rate and total expense ratio each ranked in the first quartile relative to the Expense Peers.

The Board noted that BHV’s contractual management fee rate ranked in the third quartile, and that the actual management fee rate and total expense ratio ranked in the first and fourth quartiles, respectively, relative to the Expense Peers. The Board also noted that BlackRock had agreed to voluntarily waive a portion of the advisory fee payable by BHV. An advisory fee waiver has been in effect since 2014, the amount of which may have varied from time to time. After discussions between the Board, including the Independent Board Members, and BlackRock, the Board and BlackRock agreed to a continuation of the current 13 basis point voluntary advisory fee waiver.

D. Economies of Scale

The Board, including the Independent Board Members, considered the extent to which economies of scale might be realized as the assets of each Fund increase. The Board also considered the extent to which each Fund benefits from such economies of scale in a variety of ways, and whether there should be changes in the advisory fee rate or breakpoint structure in order to enable each Fund to more fully participate in these economies of scale. The Board considered each Fund’s asset levels and whether the current fee was appropriate.

Based on the Board’s review and consideration of the issue, the Board concluded that most closed-end funds do not have fund level breakpoints because closed-end funds generally do not experience substantial growth after the initial public offering. Closed-end funds are typically priced at scale at a fund’s inception.

E. Other Factors Deemed Relevant by the Board Members

The Board, including the Independent Board Members, also took into account other ancillary or “fall-out” benefits that BlackRock or its affiliates may derive from BlackRock’s respective relationships with each Fund, both tangible and intangible, such as BlackRock’s ability to leverage its investment professionals who manage other portfolios and its risk management personnel, an increase in BlackRock’s profile in the investment advisory community, and the engagement of BlackRock’s affiliates as service providers to each Fund, including for administrative, securities lending and cash management services. With respect to securities lending, during the year the Board also considered information provided by independent third-party consultants related to the performance of each BlackRock affiliate as securities lending agent. The Board also considered BlackRock’s overall operations and its efforts to expand the scale of, and improve the quality of, its operations. The Board also noted that, subject to applicable law, BlackRock may use and benefit from third-party research obtained by soft dollars generated by certain registered fund transactions to assist in managing all or a number of its other client accounts.

In connection with its consideration of the Agreements, the Board also received information regarding BlackRock’s brokerage and soft dollar practices. The Board received reports from BlackRock which included information on brokerage commissions and trade execution practices throughout the year.

The Board noted the competitive nature of the closed-end fund marketplace, and that shareholders are able to sell their Fund shares in the secondary market if they believe that each Fund’s fees and expenses are too high or if they are dissatisfied with the performance of each Fund.

The Board also considered the various notable initiatives and projects BlackRock performed in connection with its closed-end fund product line. These initiatives included developing equity shelf programs; efforts to eliminate product overlap with fund mergers; ongoing services to manage leverage that has become increasingly complex; periodic evaluation of share repurchases and other support initiatives for certain BlackRock funds; and continued communication efforts with shareholders, fund analysts and financial advisers. With respect to the latter, the Independent Board Members noted BlackRock’s continued commitment to supporting the secondary market for the common shares of its closed-end funds through a comprehensive secondary market communication program designed to raise investor and analyst awareness and understanding of closed-end funds. BlackRock’s support services included, among other things: sponsoring and participating in conferences; communicating with closed-end fund analysts covering the BlackRock funds throughout the year; providing marketing and product updates for the closed-end funds; and maintaining and enhancing its closed-end fund website.

 

 

D I S C L O S U R E  O F  I N V E S T M E N T  A D V I S O R Y  A G R E E M E N T S		43

---

Disclosure of Investment Advisory Agreements  (continued)

 

Conclusion

At the June Meeting, in a continuation of the discussions that occurred during the May Meeting, and as a culmination of the Board’s year-long deliberative process, the Board, including the Independent Board Members, unanimously approved the continuation of the Advisory Agreements between the Manager and each Fund for a one-year term ending June 30, 2024. Based upon its evaluation of all of the aforementioned factors in their totality, as well as other information, the Board, including the Independent Board Members, was satisfied that the terms of the Agreements were fair and reasonable and in the best interest of each Fund and its shareholders. In arriving at its decision to approve the Agreements, the Board did not identify any single factor or group of factors as all-important or controlling, but considered all factors together, and different Board Members may have attributed different weights to the various factors considered. The Independent Board Members were advised by independent legal counsel throughout the deliberative process.

 

 

44		2 0 2 3  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

 

Recent Changes

The following information is a summary of certain changes since July 31, 2022. This information may not reflect all of the changes that have occurred since you purchased the relevant Fund.

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

Investment Objectives and Policies

BlackRock MuniHoldings New York Quality Fund, Inc. (MHN)

The Fund’s investment objective is to provide shareholders with current income exempt from federal income tax and New York State and New York City personal income taxes. The Fund’s investment objective is a fundamental policy that may not be changed without a vote of a majority of the Fund’s outstanding voting securities. The Fund seeks to achieve its investment objective by investing at least 80% of its assets in municipal obligations, the interest on which, in the opinion of bond counsel to the issuer, is exempt from federal income tax and New York State and New York City personal income taxes (“New York Municipal Bonds”), except at times when BlackRock Advisors, LLC (the “Manager”) considers that New York Municipal Bonds of sufficient quantity and quality are unavailable at suitable prices. To the extent that the Manager considers that suitable New York Municipal Bonds are not available for investment, the Fund may purchase municipal obligations exempt from federal income taxes but not New York personal income taxes (“Municipal Bonds”). At all times, at least 65% of the Fund’s total assets will be invested in New York Municipal Bonds and at least 80% of each Fund’s total assets will be invested in New York Municipal Bonds and Municipal Bonds, except during interim periods pending investment of the net proceeds of public offerings of its securities and during temporary defensive periods. The Fund may invest directly in securities or synthetically through the use of derivatives. Under normal circumstances, at least 80% of the Fund’s assets will be invested in municipal obligations with remaining maturities of one year or more. There can be no assurance that the Fund’s investment objective will be realized.

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

The investment grade Municipal Bonds in which the Fund will primarily invest are those Municipal Bonds that are rated at the date of purchase in the four highest rating categories of S&P Global Ratings (“S&P”), Moody’s Investors Service, Inc. (“Moody’s”), or Fitch Ratings, Inc. (“Fitch”) or, if unrated, are considered to be of comparable quality by the Manager. In the case of long-term debt, the investment grade rating categories are AAA through BBB for S&P and Fitch and Aaa through Baa for Moody’s. 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 New York Municipal Bonds and 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 New York Municipal Bonds and Municipal Bonds are entitled and the creditworthiness of the financial institution that provided such credit enhancement. All percentage and ratings limitations on securities in which the Fund may invest apply at the time of making an investment and shall not be considered violated if an investment rating is subsequently downgraded to a rating that would have precluded the Fund’s initial investment in such security. In the event that the Fund disposes of a portfolio security subsequent to its being downgraded, the Fund may experience a greater risk of loss than if such security had been sold prior to such downgrade.

The Fund may invest up to 20% of its managed assets in securities that are rated below investment grade, or are considered by the Manager to be of comparable quality, at the time of purchase, subject to the Fund’s other investment policies. 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 are sometimes referred to as “high yield” or “junk” bonds.

The Fund intends to invest primarily in long-term Municipal Bonds with maturities of more than ten years. However, the Fund also may invest in intermediate term Municipal Bonds with maturities of between three years and ten years. The Fund also may invest from time to time in short-term Municipal Bonds with maturities of less than three years. The average maturity of the Fund’s portfolio securities will vary based upon the Manager’s assessment of economic and market conditions.

The Fund may invest in short-term, tax-exempt securities, short-term U.S. Government securities, repurchase agreements or cash. Such short-term securities or cash will not exceed 20% of its total assets except during interim periods pending investment of the net proceeds of public offerings of the Fund’s securities or in anticipation of the repurchase or redemption of the Fund’s securities and temporary periods when, in the opinion of the Manager, prevailing market or financial conditions warrant. The Fund also may invest in variable rate demand obligations (“VRDOs”) and VRDOs in the form of participation interests (“Participating VRDOs”) in variable rate tax-exempt obligations held by a financial institution. The Fund’s hedging strategies are not fundamental policies and may be modified by the Board of Directors of the Fund without the approval of the Fund’s stockholders. The Fund is also authorized to invest in indexed and inverse floating rate obligations for hedging purposes and to seek to enhance return.

The Fund may invest in securities not issued by or on behalf of a state or territory or by an agency or instrumentality thereof, if the Fund nevertheless believes such securities pay interest that is excludable from gross income for federal income tax purposes and, if applicable, exempt from New York State and New York City personal income taxes (“Non-Municipal Tax-Exempt Securities”). Non-Municipal Tax-Exempt Securities could include trust certificates, partnership interests or other instruments evidencing interest in one or more long-term Municipal Bonds. Non-Municipal Tax-Exempt Securities also may include securities issued by other investment companies that invest in New York Municipal Bonds and Municipal Bonds, to the extent such investments are permitted by the Fund’s investment restrictions and applicable law, including the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”). Non-Municipal Tax-Exempt Securities are subject to the same risks associated with an investment in Municipal Bonds as well as many of the risks associated with investments in derivatives. For purposes of the Fund’s investment objective and policies, Non-Municipal Tax-Exempt Securities that pay interest that is exempt from federal income taxes and New York personal income taxes will be considered “New York Municipal Bonds” and Non-Municipal Tax-Exempt Securities that pay interest that is exempt from federal income taxes will be considered “Municipal Bonds.”

 

 

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		45

---

Investment Objectives, Policies and Risks (continued)

 

The Fund ordinarily does not intend to realize significant investment income not exempt from federal income tax and New York personal income tax. From time to time, the Fund 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 Fund.

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

The Fund is authorized to borrow money in amounts of up to 5% of the value of its total assets at the time of such borrowings; provided, however, that the Fund is authorized to borrow moneys in amounts of up to 33 1/3% of the value of its total assets at the time of such borrowings to finance the repurchase of its own common shares pursuant to tender offers or otherwise to redeem or repurchase preferred shares.

BlackRock Virginia Municipal Bond Trust (BHV)

The Fund’s investment objective is to provide current income exempt from regular federal income taxes and Virginia personal income tax. As a fundamental policy, under normal market conditions, the Fund will invest at least 80% of its Managed Assets in municipal bonds, the interest of which is exempt from regular federal income tax and Virginia personal income tax. The Fund may invest directly in securities or synthetically through the use of derivatives. The Fund cannot change its investment objective 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 variable demand rate preferred shares (“VRDP Shares”), voting together as a single class, and of the holders of a majority of the outstanding preferred shares, including the VRDP 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.

Under normal market conditions, the Fund invests at least 80% of its Managed Assets in investment grade quality municipal bonds. Investment grade quality means that such bonds are rated, at the time of investment, within the four highest quality ratings as determined by either Moody’s Investors Service, Inc. (“Moody’s”) (currently Aaa, Aa, A and Baa), S&P Global Ratings (“S&P”) (currently AAA, AA, A and BBB) or Fitch Ratings, Inc. (“Fitch”) (currently AAA, AA, A and BBB) or are unrated but judged to be of comparable quality by 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. 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 F1+ through F3 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 F1+ through F3 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 F3 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 Fund may invest up to 20% of its Managed 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. Securities rated Ba/BB or below are commonly referred to as “high yield” or “junk” bonds and are regarded as predominantly speculative with respect to the issuer’s 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.

All percentage and ratings limitations on securities in which the Fund may invest apply at the time of making an investment and shall not be considered violated if an investment rating is subsequently downgraded to a rating that would have precluded the Fund’s initial investment in such security. 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 Fund disposes of a portfolio security subsequent to its being downgraded, the Fund may experience a greater risk of loss than if such security had been sold prior to such downgrade.

Subject to the Fund’s policy, under normal market conditions, of investing at least 80% of its Managed Assets in municipal bonds, the interest from which is exempt from Virginia personal income tax, the Fund may invest in securities that pay interest that is not exempt from Virginia personal income tax when, in the judgment of the Manager, the return to the shareholders after payment of applicable Virginia personal income tax would be higher than the return available from comparable securities that pay interest that is, or make other distributions that are, exempt from Virginia personal income tax.

The Fund 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 Fund may invest directly and in tax-exempt preferred shares that pay dividends that are exempt from regular federal income tax. In addition, the Fund 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 Fund’s income. The insurance feature does not guarantee the market value of the insured obligations or the net asset value of the common shares. The Fund may purchase insured bonds and may purchase insurance for bonds in its portfolio.

 

 

46		2 0 2 3  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 Fund may invest in certain tax exempt securities classified as “private activity bonds” (or industrial development bonds, under pre-1986 law) (“PABs”) (in general, bonds that benefit non-governmental entities) that may subject certain investors in the Fund to an alternative minimum tax. The percentage of the Fund’s total assets invested in PABs will vary from time to time. The Fund has not established any limit on the percentage of its portfolio that may be invested in municipal bonds subject to the federal alternative minimum tax provisions of federal tax law, and the Fund expects that a portion of the income it produces will be includable in alternative minimum taxable income. VRDP Shares may not be a suitable investment for investors who are subject to the federal alternative minimum tax or who would become subject to the federal alternative minimum tax as a result of purchasing VRDP Shares. The suitability of an investment in VRDP Shares will depend upon a comparison of the after-tax yield likely to be provided from the Fund with that from comparable tax-exempt investments not subject to the federal alternative minimum tax, and from comparable fully taxable investments, in light of each such investor’s tax position. Special considerations may apply to corporate investors.

The average maturity of the Fund’s portfolio securities will vary based upon the Manager’s assessment of economic and market conditions. The Fund’s portfolio at any given time may include both long-term and intermediate-term municipal bonds.

The Fund’s stated expectation is that it may 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 Fund’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 Fund’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 Fund will generally result in capital gain distributions subject to federal capital gains taxation.

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

Federal tax legislation may limit the types and volume of bonds the interest on which qualifies for a U.S. 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 Fund.

Leverage: The Fund 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 Fund currently leverages its assets through the use of VRDP Shares and residual interest municipal tender option bonds (“TOB Residuals”), which are derivative interests in municipal bonds. The TOB Residuals in which the Fund 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 Fund may enter into reverse repurchase agreements with respect to its portfolio investments subject to the Fund’s investment restrictions.

The Fund may enter into derivative transactions that have economic leverage embedded in them.

The Fund reserves the right to borrow funds subject to the Fund’s investment restrictions. The proceeds of borrowings may be used for any valid purpose including, without limitation, liquidity, investments and repurchases of shares of the Fund.

The Fund may also borrow money as a temporary measure for extraordinary or emergency purposes, including the payment of dividends and the settlement of securities transactions which otherwise might require untimely dispositions of Fund securities.

Risk Factors

This section contains a discussion of the general risks of investing in each Fund. 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 the Fund will meet its investment objective or that the Fund’s performance will be positive for any period of time. Each risk noted below is applicable to each Fund unless the specific Fund or Funds are noted in a parenthetical. The order of the below risk factors does not indicate the significance of any particular risk factor.

Non-Diversification Risk: The Fund is a non-diversified fund. Because the Fund may invest in securities of a smaller number of issuers, it may be more exposed to the risks associated with and developments affecting an individual issuer than a fund that invests more widely.

Investment and Market Discount Risk: An investment in the Fund’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 Fund’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 Fund 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 Fund’s net asset value could decrease as a result of its investment activities. At any point in time an investment in the Fund’s common shares may be worth less than the original amount invested, even after taking into account distributions paid by the Fund. During periods in which the Fund may use leverage, the Fund’s investment, market discount and certain other risks will be magnified.

 

 

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		47

---

Investment Objectives, Policies and Risks (continued)

 

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 Fund may be subject to a greater risk of rising interest rates due to the recent period of historically low interest 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 Fund’s investments would be expected to decrease by 10%. (Duration is a measure of the price sensitivity of a debt security or portfolio of debt securities to relative changes in interest rates.) 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 Fund’s investments will not affect interest income derived from instruments already owned by the Fund, but will be reflected in the Fund’s net asset value. The Fund may lose money if short-term or long-term interest rates rise sharply in a manner not anticipated by Fund management.

To the extent the Fund invests in debt securities that may be prepaid at the option of the obligor (such as mortgage-backed securities), the sensitivity of such securities to changes in interest rates may increase (to the detriment of the Fund) when interest rates rise. Moreover, because 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 Fund 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 Fund to sell assets at inopportune times or at a loss or depressed value and could hurt the Fund’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 Fund’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 Fund may have to invest the proceeds in securities with lower yields.

Municipal Securities Risks: 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. Budgetary constraints of local, state, and federal governments upon which the issuers may be relying for funding may also impact 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. The Fund’s investments may consist of private activity bonds that may subject certain shareholders to an alternative minimum tax.

 

·

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 Fund may lose money.

 

·

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 Fund 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 Fund nor its investment manager will independently review the bases for those tax opinions, which may ultimately be determined to be incorrect and subject the Fund and its shareholders to substantial tax liabilities.

State Specific Risk: The Fund invests primarily in municipal bonds issued by or on behalf of its designated state. As a result, the Fund is more exposed to risks affecting issuers of its designated state’s municipal securities than is a fund that invests more widely. Fund management does not believe that the current economic conditions will adversely affect the Fund’s ability to invest in high quality state municipal securities in its designated state.

 

 

48		2 0 2 3  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)

 

Taxability Risk: The Fund 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 Fund’s acquisition of the securities. In that event, the treatment of dividends previously paid or to be paid by the Fund as “exempt interest dividends” could be adversely affected, subjecting the Fund’s shareholders to increased U.S. federal income tax liabilities. Alternatively, the Fund might enter into an agreement with the IRS to pay an agreed upon amount in lieu of the IRS adjusting individual shareholders’ income tax liabilities. If the Fund agrees to enter into such an agreement, the Fund’s yield could be adversely affected. Further, shareholders at the time the Fund enters into such an agreement that were not shareholders when the dividends in question were paid would bear some cost for a benefit they did not receive. 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 securities for investment by the Fund. 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 Fund 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 Fund.

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 Fund 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 Fund.

U.S. Government Obligations Risk: Certain securities in which the Fund may invest, including securities issued by certain U.S. Government agencies and U.S. Government sponsored enterprises, are not guaranteed by the U.S. Government or supported by the full faith and credit of the United States. In addition, circumstances could arise that could prevent the timely payment of interest or principal on U.S. Government obligations, such as reaching the legislative “debt ceiling.” Such non-payment could result in losses to the Fund and substantial negative consequences for the U.S. economy and the global financial system.

Variable Rate Demand Obligations Risks (MHN): Variable rate demand obligations are floating rate securities that combine an interest in a long term municipal bond with a right to demand payment before maturity from a bank or other financial institution. If the bank or financial institution is unable to pay, the Fund may lose money.

Repurchase Agreements and Purchase and Sale Contracts Risk (MHN): If the other party to a repurchase agreement or purchase and sale contract defaults on its obligation under the agreement, the Fund 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 Fund may lose money.

Leverage Risk: The Fund’s use of leverage may increase or decrease from time to time in its discretion and the Fund 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 Fund cannot assure you that the use of leverage will result in a higher yield on the common shares. Any leveraging strategy the Fund 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 Fund must pay will reduce the return to the common shareholders;

 

·

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 Fund 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 Fund’s investments will be borne entirely by the holders of common shares. Therefore, if the market value of the Fund’s portfolio declines, leverage will result in a greater decrease in net asset value to the holders of common shares than if the Fund 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.

Tender Option Bonds Risk: The Fund’s participation in tender option bond transactions may reduce the Fund’s returns and/or increase volatility. Investments in tender option bond transactions expose the Fund 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 Fund 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 Fund may invest special purpose trusts formed for the purpose of holding municipal bonds contributed by one or more funds (“TOB Trusts”) on either a non-recourse or recourse basis. If the Fund invests in a TOB Trust on a recourse basis, it could suffer losses in excess of the value of its TOB Residuals.

Reverse Repurchase Agreements Risk: Reverse repurchase agreements involve the sale of securities held by the Fund 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 Fund could lose money if it is unable to recover the securities and the value of the collateral held by the Fund, 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 Fund. 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.

 

 

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		49

---

Investment Objectives, Policies and Risks (continued)

 

Illiquid Investments Risk: The Fund 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 Fund may not be able to readily dispose of such investments at prices that approximate those at which the Fund could sell such investments if they were more widely traded and, as a result of such illiquidity, the Fund 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 Fund’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 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 Companies and ETFs Risk: Subject to the limitations set forth in the 1940 Act and the rules thereunder, the Fund may acquire shares in other investment companies and in exchange-traded funds (“ETFs”), some of which may be affiliated investment companies. The market value of the shares of other investment companies and ETFs may differ from their net asset value. As an investor in investment companies and ETFs, the Fund would bear its ratable share of that entity’s expenses, including its investment advisory and administration fees, while continuing to pay its own advisory and administration fees and other expenses (to the extent not offset by the Manager through waivers). As a result, shareholders will be absorbing duplicate levels of fees with respect to investments in other investment companies and ETFs (to the extent not offset by the Manager through waivers).

The securities of other investment companies and ETFs in which the Fund may invest may be leveraged. As a result, the Fund may be indirectly exposed to leverage through an investment in such securities. An investment in securities of other investment companies and ETFs that use leverage may expose the Fund to higher volatility in the market value of such securities and the possibility that the Fund’s long-term returns on such securities (and, indirectly, the long-term returns of shares of the Fund) will be diminished.

As with other investments, investments in other investment companies, including ETFs, are subject to market and selection risk. To the extent the Fund is held by an affiliated fund, the ability of the Fund itself to hold other investment companies may be limited.

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

 

·

Leverage Risk — The Fund’s use of derivatives can magnify the Fund’s gains and losses. Relatively small market movements may result in large changes in the value of a derivatives position and can result in losses that greatly exceed the amount originally invested.

 

·

Market Risk — Some derivatives are more sensitive to interest rate changes and market price fluctuations than other securities. The Fund could also suffer losses related to its derivatives positions as a result of unanticipated market movements, which losses are potentially unlimited. Finally, the Manager may not be able to predict correctly the direction of securities prices, interest rates and other economic factors, which could cause the Fund’s derivatives positions to lose value.

 

·

Counterparty Risk — Derivatives are also subject to counterparty risk, which is the risk that the other party in the transaction will be unable or unwilling to fulfill its contractual obligation, and the related risks of having concentrated exposure to such a counterparty.

 

·

Illiquidity Risk — The possible lack of a liquid secondary market for derivatives and the resulting inability of the Fund to sell or otherwise close a derivatives position could expose the Fund to losses and could make derivatives more difficult for the Fund to value accurately.

 

·

Operational Risk — The use of derivatives includes the risk of potential operational issues, including documentation issues, settlement issues, systems failures, inadequate controls and human error.

 

·

Legal Risk — The risk of insufficient documentation, insufficient capacity or authority of counterparty, or legality or enforceability of a contract.

 

·

Volatility and Correlation 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 Fund’s use of derivatives is that the fluctuations in their values may not correlate with the overall securities markets.

 

·

Valuation Risk — Valuation for derivatives may not be readily available in the market. 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 Fund’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 Fund realizes from its investments.

Risk of Investing in the United States: Certain changes in the U.S. economy, such as when the U.S. economy weakens or when its financial markets decline, may have an adverse effect on the securities to which the Fund has exposure.

Market Risk and Selection Risk: Market risk is the risk that one or more markets in which the Fund 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 Fund and its investments. Selection risk is the risk that the securities selected by Fund 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.

 

 

50		2 0 2 3  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)

 

An outbreak of an infectious coronavirus (COVID-19) that was first detected in December 2019 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. Although vaccines have been developed and approved for use by various governments, the duration of the pandemic and its effects cannot be predicted with certainty. 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		51

---

Automatic Dividend Reinvestment Plan

 

Pursuant to MHN and BHV’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 MHN and BHV 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 (“NAV”) per share 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 BHV that request a sale of shares are subject to a $2.50 sales fee and a $0.15 per share sold fee. Per share fees include any applicable brokerage commissions the Reinvestment Plan Agent is required to pay. Participants in MHN that request a sale of shares are subject to a $0.02 per share sold brokerage commission. 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 43006, Providence, RI 02940-3078, Telephone: (800) 699-1236. Overnight correspondence should be directed to the Reinvestment Plan Agent at Computershare, 150 Royall Street, Suite 101, Canton, MA 02021.

 

 

52		2 0 2 3  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 5 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 5 Years
R. Glenn Hubbard 1958		Chair of the Board (Since 2022) Trustee (Since 2007)		Dean, Columbia Business School from 2004 to 2019; Faculty member, Columbia Business School since 1988.		70 RICs consisting of 104 Portfolios		ADP (data and information services) from 2004 to 2020; Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (insurance); TotalEnergies SE (multi-energy)
W. Carl Kester(d) 1951		Vice Chair of the Board (Since 2022) Trustee (Since 2007)		Baker Foundation Professor and George Fisher Baker Jr. Professor of Business Administration, Emeritus, Harvard Business School since 2022; George Fisher Baker Jr. Professor of Business Administration, Harvard Business School from 2008 to 2022; 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.		72 RICs consisting of 106 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.		70 RICs consisting of 104 Portfolios		Unum (insurance); The Hanover Insurance Group (Board Chair); Huntsman Corporation (Lead Independent Director and non-Executive Vice Chair of the Board) (chemical products)
Frank J. Fabozzi(d) 1948		Trustee (Since 2007)		Editor of The Journal of Portfolio Management since 1986; Professor of Finance, EDHEC Business School (France) from 2011 to 2022; Professor of Practice, Johns Hopkins University since 2021; 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; 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.		72 RICs consisting of 106 Portfolios		None
Lorenzo A. Flores 1964		Trustee (Since 2021)		Vice Chairman, Kioxia, Inc. since 2019; Chief Financial Officer, Xilinx, Inc. from 2016 to 2019; Corporate Controller, Xilinx, Inc. from 2008 to 2016.		70 RICs consisting of 104 Portfolios		None
Stayce D. Harris 1959		Trustee (Since 2021)		Lieutenant General, Inspector General of the United States Air Force from 2017 to 2019; Lieutenant General, Assistant Vice Chief of Staff and Director, Air Staff, United States Air Force from 2016 to 2017; Major General, Commander, 22nd Air Force, AFRC, Dobbins Air Reserve Base, Georgia from 2014 to 2016; Pilot, United Airlines from 1990 to 2020.		70 RICs consisting of 104 Portfolios		KULR Technology Group, Inc. in 2021; The Boeing Company (airplane manufacturer)

 

 

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		53

---

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 5 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 5 Years
J. Phillip Holloman 1955		Trustee (Since 2021)		President and Chief Operating Officer, Cintas Corporation from 2008 to 2018.		70 RICs consisting of 104 Portfolios		PulteGroup, Inc. (home construction); Rockwell Automation Inc. (industrial automation)
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.		72 RICs consisting of 106 Portfolios		PennyMac Mortgage Investment Trust
Interested Trustees(a)(e)
Name Year of Birth(b)		Position(s) Held (Length of Service)(c)		Principal Occupation(s) During Past 5 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 5 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.		98 RICs consisting of 273 Portfolios		None
John M. Perlowski(d) 1964		Trustee (Since 2015) President and Chief Executive Officer (Since 2010)		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.		100 RICs consisting of 275 Portfolios		None

(a)	The address of each Trustee is c/o BlackRock, Inc., 50 Hudson Yards, New York, New York 10001.

 

(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.

 

(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: Frank J. Fabozzi, 1988; R. Glenn Hubbard, 2004; and W. Carl Kester, 1995.

 

(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.

 

 

54		2 0 2 3  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)

 

Officers Who Are Not Trustees(a)
Name Year of Birth(b)		Position(s) Held (Length of Service)		Principal Occupation(s) During Past 5 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.
Aaron Wasserman 1974		Chief Compliance Officer (Since 2023)		Managing Director of BlackRock, Inc. since 2018; Chief Compliance Officer of the BlackRock-advised funds in the BlackRock Multi-Asset Complex, the BlackRock Fixed-Income Complex and the iShares Complex since 2023; Deputy Chief Compliance Officer for the BlackRock-advised funds in the BlackRock Multi-Asset Complex, the BlackRock Fixed- Income Complex and the iShares Complex from 2014 to 2023.
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., 50 Hudson Yards, New York, New York 10001.

(b)	Officers of the Trust serve at the pleasure of the Board.

 

 

 

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		55

---

Additional Information

 

Proxy Results

The Annual Meeting of Shareholders was held on July 12, 2023, for shareholders of record on May 15, 2023, to elect trustee nominees for each Trust. There were no broker non-votes with regard to any of the Trusts.

Shareholders elected the Class I Trustees as follows:

 

		Lorenzo A. Flores								R. Glenn Hubbard								John M. Perlowski								W. Carl Kester(a)
Fund Name		Votes For				Votes Withheld				Votes For				Votes Withheld				Votes For				Votes Withheld				Votes For				Votes Withheld
BHV			1,288,435				60,794				1,323,189				26,040				1,323,189				26,040				116				0
MHN			21,211,403				3,414,929				12,667,819				11,958,513				21,200,624				3,425,708				2,436				0

 

(a)

Voted on by holders of Preferred Shares only.

For the Trusts listed above, Trustees whose term of office continued after the Annual Meeting of Shareholders because they were not up for election are Cynthia L. Egan, Robert Fairbairn, Stayce D. Harris, J. Phillip Holloman, Catherine A. Lynch, and Frank J. Fabozzi.

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.

Environmental, Social and Governance (“ESG”) Integration

Although the Trusts do not seek to implement a specific sustainability objective, strategy or process unless otherwise disclosed, Trust management will consider ESG factors as part of the investment process for the Trusts. Trust management views ESG integration as the practice of incorporating financially material ESG data or information into investment processes with the objective of enhancing risk-adjusted returns. These ESG considerations will vary depending on the Trusts’ 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. The ESG characteristics utilized in the Trusts’ 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. Certain of these considerations may affect the Trusts’ exposure to certain companies or industries. While Trust management views ESG considerations as having the potential to contribute to the Trusts’ 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 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 and may at times in any particular month pay out such accumulated but undistributed income in addition to net investment income earned in that month. As a result, the distributions paid by the Trusts for any particular month may be more or less than the amount of net investment income earned by the Trusts during such month. 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 July 31, 2022. This information may not reflect all of the changes that have occurred since you purchased the relevant Trust.

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.

 

 

56		2 0 2 3  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 schedules 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		57

---

Additional Information  (continued)

 

Trust and Service Providers

 

Investment Adviser		VRDP Tender and Paying Agent
BlackRock Advisors, LLC		The Bank of New York Mellon
Wilmington, DE 19809		New York, NY 10286
Accounting Agent and Custodian		Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
State Street Bank and Trust Company		Deloitte & Touche LLP
Boston, MA 02114		Boston, MA 02116
Transfer Agent		Legal Counsel
Computershare Trust Company, N.A.		Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP
Canton, MA 02021		New York, NY 10019
VRDP Liquidity Provider		Address of the Trusts
Bank of America, N.A.(a)		100 Bellevue Parkway
New York, NY 10036		Wilmington, DE 19809
The Toronto-Dominion Bank(b)
New York, NY 10019
VRDP Remarketing Agent
BofA Securities, Inc.(a)
New York, NY 10036
TD Securities (USA) LLC(b)
New York, NY 10019
(a)  For MHN.
(b)  For BHV.

 

 

58		2 0 2 3  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

 

 

 

G L O S 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		59

---

 

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 NAV 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.

CEF-STMUNI-07/23-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:

Frank J. Fabozzi

Lorenzo A. Flores

Catherine A. Lynch

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 of a person 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 End3

Current  Fiscal Year End

Previous  Fiscal Year End3

Current  Fiscal Year End

Previous  Fiscal Year End3

Current  Fiscal Year End

Previous  Fiscal Year End3

BlackRock Virginia Municipal Bond Trust

$17,034

$18,870

$0

$0

$9,600

$9,200

$407

$431

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 (“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”):

 

2

---

		Current Fiscal Year End		Previous Fiscal Year End3
(b) Audit-Related Fees1		$0		$0
(c) Tax Fees2		$0		$0
(d) All Other Fees4		$2,098,000		$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 The registrant changed its fiscal year end from August 31 to July 31 effective July 31, 2022 whereby this fiscal year consists of the eleven months ended July 31, 2022.

⁴ Non-audit fees of $2,098,000 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

 

3

---

(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 End1
BlackRock Virginia Municipal Bond Trust		$10,007		$9,631

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  End1
$2,098,000		$1,984,000

These amounts represent aggregate fees paid by BlackRock and were not allocated on a per fund basis.

¹ The registrant changed its fiscal year end from August 31 to July 31 effective July 31, 2022 whereby this fiscal year consists of the eleven months ended July 31, 2022.

(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.

(i) – Not Applicable

(j) – Not Applicable

 

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)):

Frank J. Fabozzi

Lorenzo A. Flores

J. Phillip Holloman

Catherine A. Lynch

 

4

---

(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(a) 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 Phillip Soccio, CFA, Director at BlackRock, Kevin Maloney, CFA, Director at BlackRock, Christian Romaglino, CFA, Director at BlackRock, Walter O’Connor, CFA, Managing Director at BlackRock, Michael Kalinoski, CFA, Director at BlackRock and Kristi Manidis, Director at BlackRock. Each of the foregoing professionals is a member of BlackRock’s municipal tax-exempt management group and 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/or selection of its investments. Messrs. Soccio, Maloney and Romaglino have been members of the registrant’s portfolio management team since 2007, 2017, and 2022, respectively. Messrs. O’Connor and

 

5

---

Kalinoski and Ms. Manidis have been members of the registrant’s portfolio management team since 2023.

 

(a)(2) As of July 31, 2023:

 

		(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
Phillip Soccio, CFA		34		0		0		0		0		0
		$32.24 Billion		$0		$0		$0		$0		$0
Kevin Maloney, CFA		36		0		0		0		0		0
		$39.17 Billion		$0		$0		$0		$0		$0
Christian Romaglino, CFA		34		0		0		0		0		0
		$17.59 Billion		$0		$0		$0		$0		$0
Walter O’Connor, CFA		33		0		0		0		0		0
		$33.12 Billion		$0		$0		$0		$0		$0
Michael Kalinoski, CFA		34		0		0		0		0		0
		$36.96 Billion		$0		$0		$0		$0		$0
Kristi Manidis		38		0		2		0		0		0
		$24.37 Billion		$0		$1.03 Billion		$0		$0		$0

 

6

---

(iv) Portfolio Manager 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 hedge fund and/or long only accounts, or may be part of a team managing 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

 

7

---

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 July 31, 2023:

Portfolio Manager Compensation Overview

The discussion below describes the portfolio managers’ compensation as of July 31, 2023.

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 Funds 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 Funds 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., Bloomberg 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

 

8

---

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 ($330,000 for 2023). 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 July 31, 2023:

 

Portfolio Manager		Dollar Range of Equity Securities of the Fund Beneficially Owned
Phillip Soccio, CFA		None
Kevin Maloney, CFA		None
Christian Romaglino, CFA		None
Walter O’Connor, CFA		None
Michael Kalinoski, CFA		None
Kristi Manidis		None

(b) Not Applicable

 

9

---

Item 9 –

Purchases of Equity Securities by Closed-End Management Investment Company and Affiliated Purchasers

 

¹ On September 8, 2022, the Fund announced a continuation of its open market share repurchase program. Commencing on December 1, 2022, the Fund may repurchase through November 30, 2023, up to 5% of its common shares outstanding as of the close of business on November 30, 2022, subject to certain conditions.

 

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) Any written solicitation to purchase securities under Rule 23c-1 – Not Applicable

(a)(4) Change in Registrant’s independent public accountant – Not Applicable

(b) Section 906 Certifications are attached

 

10

---

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 Virginia Municipal Bond Trust

		By:		/s/ John M. Perlowski
				John M. Perlowski
				Chief Executive Officer (principal executive officer) of
				BlackRock Virginia Municipal Bond Trust

Date: September 22, 2023

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 Virginia Municipal Bond Trust

Date: September 22, 2023

		By:		/s/ Trent Walker
				Trent Walker
				Chief Financial Officer (principal financial officer) of
				BlackRock Virginia Municipal Bond Trust

Date: September 22, 2023

 

11

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 Virginia Municipal Bond Trust, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this report on Form N-CSR of BlackRock Virginia Municipal Bond Trust;

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: September 22, 2023

/s/ John M. Perlowski  

John M. Perlowski

Chief Executive Officer (principal executive officer) of

BlackRock Virginia Municipal Bond Trust

---

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 Virginia Municipal Bond Trust, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this report on Form N-CSR of BlackRock Virginia Municipal Bond Trust;

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: September 22, 2023

/s/ Trent Walker  

Trent Walker

Chief Financial Officer (principal financial officer) of

BlackRock Virginia Municipal Bond Trust

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 Virginia Municipal Bond Trust (the “Registrant”), hereby certifies, to the best of his knowledge, that the Registrant’s Report on Form N-CSR for the period ended July 31, 2023 (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: September 22, 2023

/s/ John M. Perlowski  

John M. Perlowski

Chief Executive Officer (principal executive officer) of

BlackRock Virginia Municipal Bond Trust

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of BlackRock Virginia Municipal Bond Trust (the “Registrant”), hereby certifies, to the best of his knowledge, that the Registrant’s Report on Form N-CSR for the period ended July 31, 2023 (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: September 22, 2023

/s/ Trent Walker  

Trent Walker

Chief Financial Officer (principal financial officer) of

BlackRock Virginia Municipal Bond Trust

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

August 1, 2021

 

 

Closed-End Fund Proxy Voting Policy

Procedures Governing Delegation of Proxy Voting to Fund Adviser

Effective Date: August 1, 2021 Last Review Date: August 25, 2023

 

 

 

 

Applies to the following types of Funds registered under the 1940 Act: ☐ Open-End Mutual Funds (including money market funds) ☐ Money Market Funds ☐ Exchange-Traded Funds ☒ Closed-End Funds ☐ Other

 

 

Objective and Scope

Set forth below is the Closed-End Fund Proxy Voting Policy.

Policy / Document Requirements and Statements

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 the proxy voting process as applicable to 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.

 

 

 

 

		Page 1 of 1

---

Contents

 

Introduction to BlackRock			3
Philosophy on investment stewardship			3
Key themes			5
Boards and directors			6
Auditors and audit-related issues			9
Capital structure, mergers, asset sales, and other special transactions			10
Compensation and benefits			11
Material sustainability-related risks and opportunities			12
Other corporate governance matters and shareholder protections			14
Shareholder proposals			15
BlackRock’s oversight of its investment stewardship activities			15
Vote execution			16
Conflicts management policies and procedures			17
Securities lending			19
Voting guidelines			19
Reporting and vote transparency			19

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.

 

BlackRock Investment Stewardship		Global Principles | 2

---

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 consider it one of our responsibilities to promote sound corporate governance, as an informed, engaged shareholder on their behalf. At BlackRock, 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 key board decisions 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, shareholders need 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, BlackRock has a responsibility to monitor and provide feedback to companies in our role as stewards of our clients’ investments. 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. BlackRock Investment Stewardship (BIS) does this through engagement with management teams and/or board members on material business issues and, for those clients who have given us authority, through voting proxies in their best long-term financial interests.¹ We also contribute to consultations on public policy and private sector initiatives on industry standards, consistent with our clients’ interests as long-term shareholders.

BlackRock looks to companies to provide timely, accurate, and comprehensive disclosure on all material governance and business matters. This transparency 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 where the governance approach taken may be inconsistent with durable, long-term value creation for shareholders, we will engage with a company and/or vote in a manner that advances long-term shareholders’ interests.

BlackRock views engagement as an important activity; engagement provides us with the opportunity to improve our understanding of the business and of the risks and opportunities that are material to the

 

 

¹ Through BlackRock Voting Choice we have, since January 2022, made proxy voting easier and more accessible for investors in separate accounts and certain pooled vehicles. As a result, the shares attributed to BlackRock in company share registers may be voted differently depending on whether our clients have authorized BIS to vote on their behalf, have authorized BIS to vote in accordance with a third party policy, or have elected to vote shares in accordance with their own policy. We are not able to disclose which clients have opted to exercise greater control over their voting, nor are we able to disclose which proxy voting policies they have selected.

 

BlackRock Investment Stewardship		Global Principles | 3

---

companies in which our clients invest. Engagement may also inform our voting decisions. 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 durable business practices aligned with long-term value creation, 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 to support a company’s ability to deliver financial performance. Similarly, it provides us with an opportunity to hear directly from company boards and management on how they believe their actions are aligned with durable, long-term value creation.

We generally vote in support of management and boards that exhibit an approach to decision-making that is consistent with creating durable, long-term value for shareholders. If we have concerns about a company’s approach, we may choose to explain our expectations to the company’s board and management. Following that engagement, we may signal through our voting that we have outstanding concerns, generally by voting against the re-election of directors we view as having responsibility for an issue. We apply our regional proxy voting guidelines to achieve the outcome that is most aligned with our clients’ long-term financial interests.

 

BlackRock Investment Stewardship		Global Principles | 4

---

Key themes

We recognize that accepted standards and norms of corporate governance can differ between markets. However, in our experience, there are certain fundamental elements of governance practice that are intrinsic globally to a company’s ability to create long-term value for shareholders. These global themes are set out in this overarching set of principles (the Principles), which are anchored in transparency and accountability. At a minimum, it is our view that companies should observe the accepted corporate governance standards in their domestic market and ask that, if they do not, they explain how their approach better supports durable, long-term value creation.

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

 

●

Material sustainability-related risks and opportunities

 

●

Other corporate governance matters and shareholder protections

 

●

Shareholder proposals

Our regional and market-specific voting guidelines explain how these Principles inform our voting decisions in relation to specific ballot items for shareholder meetings.

 

BlackRock Investment Stewardship		Global Principles | 5

---

Boards and directors

Our primary focus is on the performance of the board of directors to promote sound corporate governance. 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, BIS sees engaging with and the election of directors as one of our most important and impactful responsibilities.

We support boards whose approach is consistent with creating durable, long-term value. This includes the effective corporate governance and management of material sustainability-related risks and opportunities,² as well as the consideration of the company’s key constituents including their employees, clients, suppliers, and the communities within which they operate. 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 all material issues that affect the company’s long-term strategy and ability to create value is essential for shareholders to be able to appropriately understand and assess how risks are effectively identified, managed and mitigated.

Where a company has not adequately disclosed and demonstrated that they have fulfilled these responsibilities, we will consider voting against the re-election of directors whom we consider to have particular responsibility for the issue. We assess director performance on a case-by-case basis and in light of each company’s circumstances, taking into consideration our assessment of their governance, business practices that support durable, long-term value creation, 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 and applicable measures of value-creation and milestones that will demonstrate progress, and taking steps to address anticipated or actual obstacles to success

 

●

Providing oversight on the identification and management of material governance 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 Management3 framework

 

 

² By material sustainability-related risks and opportunities, we mean the drivers of risk and value creation in a company’s business model that have an environmental or social dependency or impact. Examples of environmental issues include, but are not limited to, water use, land use, waste management and climate risk. Examples of social issues include, but are not limited to, human capital management, impacts on the communities in which a company operates, customer loyalty and relationships with regulators. It is our view that well-managed companies will effectively evaluate and manage material sustainability-related risks and opportunities relevant to their businesses. Governance is the core means by which boards can oversee the creation of durable, long-term value. Appropriate risk oversight of business-relevant and material sustainability-related considerations is a component of a sound governance framework.

³ 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

 

BlackRock Investment Stewardship		Global Principles | 6

---

●

Making decisions on matters that require independent evaluation, which may include mergers, acquisitions and dispositions, activist situations or other similar cases

 

●

Establishing appropriate executive compensation structures

 

●

Monitoring business issues including material sustainability-related risks and opportunities, that have the potential to significantly impact the company’s long-term value

There should be clear descriptions of the role of the board and the committees of the board and how they engage with and oversee management. Set out below are ways in which boards and directors can demonstrate a commitment to acting in the best long-term economic interests of all shareholders.

We will seek to engage with the appropriate directors where we have concerns about the performance of the company, board, or individual directors and may signal outstanding concerns in our voting. While we consider these principles to be globally relevant, when assessing a board’s composition and governance processes, we consider local market norms and regulations.

Regular accountability

It is our view 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, in our experience, 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. In our view, 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 consider the average overall tenure of the board, where we are seeking a balance between the knowledge and experience of longer-serving members and the fresh perspectives of newer members. We encourage companies to keep under regular review the effectiveness of their 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, experience, independence, and diversity.

In our view, there should 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

 

 

Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO), Enterprise Risk Management — Integrated Framework, September 2004, New York, NY).

 

BlackRock Investment Stewardship		Global Principles | 7

---

●

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 and their shareholders

In our experience, boards are most effective at overseeing and advising management when there is a senior independent board leader. This director may chair the board, or, where the chair is also the CEO (or is otherwise not independent), be designated as 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 director 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 contextualize a company’s approach.

When nominating new directors to the board, we look to companies to provide sufficient information on the individual candidates so that shareholders can assess the suitability of each individual nominee and the overall board composition. These disclosures should give an understanding of how the collective experience and expertise of the board aligns with the company’s long-term strategy and business model. Highly qualified, engaged directors with professional characteristics relevant to a company’s business enhance the ability of the board to add value and be the voice of shareholders in board discussions. In our view, a strong board provides a competitive advantage to a company, providing valuable oversight and contributing to the most important management decisions that support long-term financial performance.

It is in this context that we are interested in diversity in the board room. We see it as a means to promoting diversity of thought and avoiding “group think” in the board’s exercise of its responsibilities to advise and oversee management. It allows boards to have deeper discussions and make more resilient decisions. We ask boards to disclose how diversity is considered in board composition, including professional characteristics, such as a director’s industry experience, specialist areas of expertise and geographic location; as well as demographic characteristics such as gender, race/ethnicity and age.

We look to understand a board’s diversity in the context of a company’s domicile, market capitalization, business model and strategy. Increasingly, we see leading boards adding members whose experience deepens the board’s understanding of the company’s customers, employees and communities. Self-identified board demographic diversity can usefully be disclosed in aggregate, consistent with local law. We believe boards should aspire to meaningful diversity of membership, at least consistent with local regulatory requirements and best practices, while recognizing that building a strong, diverse board can take time.

This position is based on our view that diversity of perspective and thought – in the board room, in the management team and throughout the company – leads to better long term economic outcomes for companies. Academic research already reveals correlations between specific dimensions of diversity and effects on decision-making processes and outcomes.⁴ In our experience, greater diversity in the board room contributes to more robust discussions and more innovative and resilient decisions. Over time, greater diversity in the board room can also promote greater diversity and resilience in the leadership

 

 

⁴ For a discussion on the different impacts of diversity see: McKinsey, “Diversity Wins: How Inclusion Matters”, May 2022; Harvard Business Review, Diverse Teams Feel Less Comfortable – and That’s Why They Perform Better, September 2016; “Do Diverse Directors Influence DEI Outcomes”, September 2022

McKinsey, “Diversity Wins: How Inclusion Matters”, May 2022; Harvard Business Review, Diverse Teams Feel Less Comfortable – and That’s Why They Perform Better, September 2016; “Do Diverse Directors Influence DEI Outcomes”, September 2022

 

BlackRock Investment Stewardship		Global Principles | 8

---

team, and the workforce more broadly. That diversity can enable companies to develop businesses that more closely reflect and resonate with the customers and communities they serve.

There are matters for which the board has responsibility that may involve a conflict of interest for executives or for affiliated directors. It is our view 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 and expectations of a director are increasingly demanding, directors must be able to commit an appropriate amount of time to board and committee matters. It is important that directors have the capacity to meet all of their responsibilities - including when there are unforeseen events – and therefore, they should not take on an excessive number of roles that would impair their ability to fulfill their duties.

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 as required or permitted under market-specific accounting rules, is of paramount importance to BlackRock. Investors increasingly recognize that a broader range of risks and opportunities have the potential to materially impact financial performance. Over time, we anticipate investors and other users of company reporting will increasingly seek to understand and scrutinize the assumptions underlying financial statements, particularly those that pertain to the impact of the transition to a low carbon economy on a company’s business model and asset mix. We recognize that this is an area of evolving practice and we look to international standards setters, the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) and the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB) to provide additional guidance to companies.

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, where appropriate to the jurisdiction, non-financial information, internal control frameworks, and in the absence of a dedicated risk committee, Enterprise Risk Management systems. In our view, effective audit committee oversight strengthens the quality and reliability of a company’s financial statements and provides an important level of reassurance to shareholders.

We hold 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 their responsibilities and have a rotation plan in place that allows for a periodic refreshment of the committee membership to introduce fresh perspectives to audit oversight. We recognize that audit committees will rely on management, internal audit and the independent auditor in fulfilling their responsibilities but look to committee members to demonstrate they have relevant expertise to monitor and oversee those functions.

We take particular note of unexplained changes in reporting methodology, cases involving significant financial restatements, or ad hoc notifications of material financial weakness. In this respect, audit

 

BlackRock Investment Stewardship		Global Principles | 9

---

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, it is important that auditors are, and are seen to be, independent. Where an 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, or a dedicated risk committee, should periodically review the company’s risk assessment and risk management policies and the 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. It is our view that one vote for one share as a guiding principle supports effective corporate governance. Shareholders, as the residual claimants, have the strongest interest in protecting company value, and voting rights should match economic exposure.

In principle, we disagree with the creation of a share class with equivalent economic exposure and preferential, differentiated voting rights. In our view, this structure 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 listing dual classes of shares with differentiated voting rights. In our view, such companies should review these share class structures on a regular basis or as company circumstances change. Additionally, they should seek 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.

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 can enhance 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, the recommendation to support should come from the independent directors, a best practice in most markets, and ideally, the terms should have

 

BlackRock Investment Stewardship		Global Principles | 10

---

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 parties.

As a matter of sound governance practice, shareholders should 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. In our experience, shareholders are broadly capable of making decisions in their own best interests. We encourage any so-called “shareholder rights plans” proposed by a board to be subject to shareholder approval upon introduction and periodically thereafter.

Compensation and benefits

In most markets, one of the most important roles for a company’s board of directors is to put in place a compensation structure that incentivizes and rewards executives appropriately. There should be a clear link between variable pay and operational and financial performance. Performance metrics should be stretching and aligned with a company’s strategy and business model. BIS does not have a position on the use of sustainability-related criteria, but in our view, where companies choose to include them, they should be as rigorous as other financial or operational targets. Long-term incentive plans should vest over timeframes aligned with the delivery of long-term shareholder value. Compensation committees should guard against contractual arrangements that would entitle executives to material compensation for early termination of their employment. Finally, pension contributions and other deferred compensation arrangements should be reasonable in light of market practice.

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 or its equivalent, we expect disclosure relating to how and why the discretion was used, and 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 encourage companies to clearly explain how compensation outcomes have rewarded outperformance against peer firms.

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.

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 directors’ independence or aligning their interests too closely with those of the management, whom they are charged with overseeing.

We use third party research, in addition to our own analysis, to evaluate existing and proposed compensation structures. We may vote against members of the compensation committee or equivalent board members for poor compensation practices or structures.

 

BlackRock Investment Stewardship		Global Principles | 11

---

Material sustainability-related risks and opportunities

It is our view that well-managed companies will effectively evaluate and manage material sustainability-related risks and opportunities relevant to their businesses. Appropriate oversight of sustainability considerations is a core component of having an effective governance framework, which supports durable, long-term value creation.

Robust disclosure is essential for investors to effectively evaluate companies’ strategy and business practices related to material sustainability-related risks and opportunities. Given the increased understanding of material sustainability-related risks and opportunities and the need for better information to assess them, BlackRock advocates for continued improvement in companies’ reporting, where necessary, and will express any concerns through our voting where a company’s actions or disclosures are inadequate.

BlackRock encourages companies to use the framework developed by the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) to disclose their approach to ensuring they have a sustainable business model and to supplement that disclosure with industry-specific metrics such as those identified by the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB), now part of the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) under the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) Foundation.⁵ While the TCFD framework was developed to support 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. In particular, we encourage companies to consider reporting on nature-related factors, given the growing materiality of these issues for many businesses.⁶ We recognize that some companies may report using different standards, which may be required by regulation, or one of a number of voluntary standards. In such cases, we ask that companies highlight the metrics that are industry- or company-specific.

Climate and other sustainability-related disclosures often require companies to collect and aggregate data from various internal and external sources. We recognize that the practical realities of data-collection and reporting may not line up with financial reporting cycles and companies may require additional time after their fiscal year-end to accurately collect, analyze and report this data to investors. To give investors time to assess the data, we encourage companies to produce climate and other sustainability-related disclosures sufficiently in advance of their annual meeting.

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 initiatives on managing specific operational risks may provide useful guidance to companies on best practices and disclosures. Companies should disclose any relevant global climate and other sustainability-related standards adopted, the industry initiatives in which they

 

 

⁵ The International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) Foundation announced in November 2021 the formation of an International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) to develop a comprehensive global baseline of high-quality sustainability disclosure standards to meet investors’ information needs. SASB standards will over time be adapted to ISSB standards but are the reference reporting tool in the meantime.

⁶ While guidance is still under development for a unified disclosure framework related to natural capital, the emerging recommendations of the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD), may prove useful to some companies.

 

BlackRock Investment Stewardship		Global Principles | 12

---

participate, any peer group benchmarking undertaken, and any assurance processes to help investors understand their approach to sustainable and responsible business practices.

Climate risk

It is our view that climate change has become a key factor in many companies’ long-term prospects. As such, as long-term investors we are interested in understanding how companies may be impacted by material climate-related risks and opportunities - just as we seek to understand other business-relevant risks and opportunities - and how these factors are considered within strategy in a manner consistent with the company’s business model and sector. Specifically, we look for companies to disclose strategies they have in place that mitigate and are resilient to any material risks to their long-term business model associated with a range of climate-related scenarios, including a scenario in which global warming is limited to well below 2°C, considering global ambitions to achieve a limit of 1.5°C.⁷ It is, of course, up to each company to define their own strategy: that is not the role of BlackRock or other investors.

BIS recognizes that climate change can be challenging for many companies, as they seek to drive long-term value by mitigating risks and capturing opportunities. A growing number of companies, financial institutions, as well as governments, have committed to advancing decarbonization in line with the Paris Agreement. There is growing consensus that companies can benefit from the more favorable macroeconomic environment under an orderly, timely and equitable global energy transition.⁸ Yet the path ahead is deeply uncertain and uneven, with different parts of the economy moving at different speeds.⁹ Many companies are asking what their role should be in contributing to an orderly and equitable transition – in ensuring a reliable energy supply and energy security, and in protecting the most vulnerable from energy price shocks and economic dislocation. In this context, we encourage companies to include in their disclosure a business plan for how they intend to deliver long-term financial performance through a transition to global net zero carbon emissions, consistent with their business model and sector.

We look to companies to disclose short-, medium- and long-term targets, ideally science-based targets where these are available for their sector, for Scope 1 and 2 greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) reductions and to demonstrate how their targets are consistent with the long-term economic interests of their shareholders. Many companies have an opportunity to use and contribute to the development of low carbon energy sources and technologies that will be essential to decarbonizing the global economy over time. We also recognize that continued investment in traditional energy sources, including oil and gas, is required to maintain an orderly and equitable transition — and that divestiture of carbon-intensive assets is unlikely to contribute to global emissions reductions. We encourage companies to disclose how their capital allocation to various energy sources is consistent with their strategy.

At this stage, we view Scope 3 emissions differently from Scopes 1 and 2, given methodological complexity, regulatory uncertainty, concerns about double-counting, and lack of direct control by companies. While we welcome any disclosures and commitments companies choose to make regarding

 

 

⁷ The global aspiration to achieve a net-zero global economy by 2050 is reflective of aggregated efforts; governments representing over 90% of GDP have committed to move to net-zero over the coming decades. In determining how to vote on behalf of clients who have authorized us to do so, we look to companies only to address issues within their control and do not anticipate that they will address matters that are the domain of public policy.

⁸ For example, BlackRock’s Capital Markets Assumptions anticipate 25 points of cumulative economic gains over a 20-year period in an orderly transition as compared to the alternative. This better macro environment will support better economic growth, financial stability, job growth, productivity, as well as ecosystem stability and health outcomes.

⁹ BlackRock, “Managing the net-zero transition”, February 2022.

 

BlackRock Investment Stewardship		Global Principles | 13

---

Scope 3 emissions, we recognize these are provided on a good-faith basis as methodology develops. Our publicly available commentary provides more information on our approach to climate risk.

Key stakeholder interests

In order to advance long-term shareholders’ interests, companies should consider the interests of the various parties on whom they depend for their success over time. It is for each company to determine their key stakeholders based on what is material to their business and long-term financial performance. Most commonly, key stakeholders include employees, business partners (such as suppliers and distributors), clients and consumers, regulators, and the communities in which they operate.

Considering 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 and support from 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 encourage 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 material impacts. In our view, maintaining trust within these relationships can contribute to a company’s long-term success.

As a long-term shareholder on behalf of our clients, we find it helpful when companies disclose how they have identified their key stakeholders and considered their interests in business decision-making. We are also interested to understand the role of the board, which is well positioned to ensure that the approach taken is informed by and aligns with the company’s strategy and purpose.

Other corporate governance matters and shareholder protections

It is our view 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 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.

Corporate Form

In our view, it is the responsibility of the board to determine the corporate form that is most appropriate given the company’s purpose and business model.¹⁰ Companies proposing to change their corporate form to a public benefit corporation or similar entity should put it to a shareholder vote if not already required to do so under applicable law. Supporting documentation from companies or shareholder proponents proposing to alter the corporate form should clearly articulate how the interests of shareholders and different stakeholders would be impacted as well as the accountability and voting mechanisms that would be available to shareholders. As a fiduciary on behalf of clients, we generally

 

 

¹⁰ Corporate form refers to the legal structure by which a business is organized.

 

BlackRock Investment Stewardship		Global Principles | 14

---

support management proposals if our analysis indicates that shareholders’ interests are adequately protected. Relevant shareholder proposals are evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

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 sustainability-related risks.

BlackRock is subject to certain requirements under antitrust law in the United States that place restrictions and limitations on how BlackRock can interact with the companies in which we invest on behalf of our clients, including our ability to submit shareholder proposals. As noted above, we can vote, on behalf of clients who authorize us to do so, on proposals put forth by others.

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 company.

Where a proposal is focused on a material governance or sustainability-related risk 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 an opportunity for improvement in the company’s approach to the issue, we may support shareholder proposals that are reasonable and not unduly prescriptive or constraining on management. Alternatively, or in addition, we may vote against the re-election of one or more directors if, in our assessment, the board has not responded sufficiently or with an appropriate sense of urgency. While we may not agree with all aspects of a shareholder proponent’s views or all facets of the proponent’s supporting statement, we may still support proposals that address material governance or sustainability-related risks where we believe it would be helpful for shareholders to have more detailed information on how those risks are identified, monitored, and managed to support a company’s ability to deliver long-term financial returns. We may also support a proposal if management is on track, but we believe that voting in favor might accelerate progress.

BlackRock’s oversight of its investment stewardship activities

Oversight

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). The advisory committees do not determine voting decisions, which are the responsibility of BIS.

 

 

BlackRock Investment Stewardship		Global Principles | 15

---

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 Oversight Committee does not determine voting decisions, which are the responsibility of BIS. 

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 governance specialists for discussion and guidance prior to making a voting decision.

Vote execution

BlackRock votes on proxy issues when our clients authorize us to do so. We offer certain clients who prefer their holdings to be voted consistent with specific values or views Voting Choice.¹¹ When BlackRock votes on behalf of our clients, 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 annually 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 To learn more visit https://www.blackrock.com/corporate/about-us/investment-stewardship/blackrock-voting-choice

 

BlackRock Investment Stewardship		Global Principles | 16

---

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 in these situations 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 (or not to vote our full allocation) 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 on their investors. 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 BIS or 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 or directors of public companies held in Funds managed by BlackRock

 

BlackRock Investment Stewardship		Global Principles | 17

---

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 their behalf

 

●

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

 

●

Determined to engage, in certain instances, an independent third party voting service provider to make proxy voting recommendations 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 voting service provider provides BlackRock with recommendations, in accordance with the Guidelines, as to how to vote such proxies. BlackRock uses an independent voting service provider to make proxy voting recommendations for shares of BlackRock, Inc. and companies affiliated with BlackRock, Inc. BlackRock may also use an independent voting service provider to make proxy voting recommendations for:

 

o

public companies that include BlackRock employees on their boards of directors

 

o

public companies of which a BlackRock, Inc. board member serves as a senior executive or a member of the board of directors

 

o

public companies that are the subject of certain transactions involving BlackRock Funds

 

o

public companies that are joint venture partners with BlackRock, and

 

o

public companies when legal or regulatory requirements compel BlackRock to use an independent voting service provider

In selecting a voting service provider, we assess several characteristics, including but not limited to: independence, an ability to analyze proxy issues and make recommendations in the best economic interest of our clients in accordance with the Guidelines, reputation for reliability and integrity, and operational capacity to accurately deliver the assigned recommendations in a timely manner. We may engage more than one voting service provider, in part to mitigate potential or perceived conflicts of interest at a single voting service provider. The Global Committee appoints and reviews the performance of the voting service providers, generally on an annual basis.

 

 

BlackRock Investment Stewardship		Global Principles | 18

---

Securities lending

When so authorized, BlackRock acts as a securities lending agent on behalf of Funds. Securities lending is a well-regulated practice that contributes to capital market efficiency. It also enables funds to generate additional returns for a fund, while allowing fund providers to keep fund expenses lower.

With regard to the relationship between securities lending and proxy voting, BlackRock’s approach is informed by our fiduciary responsibility to act in our clients’ best interests. In most cases, BlackRock anticipates that the potential long-term value to the Fund of voting shares would be less than the potential revenue the loan may provide the Fund. However, in certain instances, BlackRock may determine, in its independent business judgment as a fiduciary, that the value of voting outweighs the securities lending revenue loss to clients and would therefore recall shares to be voted in those instances.

The decision to recall securities on loan as part of BlackRock’s securities lending program in order to vote is based on an evaluation of various factors that include, but are not limited to, assessing potential securities lending revenue alongside the potential long-term value to clients of voting those securities (based on the information available at the time of recall consideration).¹² BIS works with colleagues in the Securities Lending and Risk and Quantitative Analysis teams to evaluate the costs and benefits to clients of recalling shares on loan.

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

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 that provides a global overview of our investment stewardship engagement and voting activities and a voting spotlight that summarizes our voting over a proxy year.¹³ 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.

 

 

¹² Recalling securities on loan can be impacted by the timing of record dates. In the United States, for example, the record date of a shareholder meeting typically falls before the proxy statements are released. Accordingly, it is not practicable to evaluate a proxy statement, determine that a vote has a material impact on a fund and recall any shares on loan in advance of the record date for the annual meeting. As a result, managers must weigh independent business judgement as a fiduciary, the benefit to a fund’s shareholders of recalling loaned shares in advance of an estimated record date without knowing whether there will be a vote on matters which have a material impact on the fund (thereby forgoing potential securities lending revenue for the fund’s shareholders) or leaving shares on loan to potentially earn revenue for the fund (thereby forgoing the opportunity to vote).

¹³ The proxy year runs from July 1 to June 30 of the proceeding calendar year.

 

 

BlackRock Investment Stewardship		Global Principles | 19

---

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 may publish a vote bulletin after the meeting, disclosing and explaining our vote on key proposals. We also publish a quarterly list of all companies with which 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 models that support durable, long-term value creation.

 

BlackRock Investment Stewardship		Global Principles | 20

---

Want to know more?

blackrock.com/stewardship | contactstewardship@blackrock.com

This document is provided for information and educational purposes only. Investing involves risk, including the loss of principal.

Prepared by BlackRock, Inc.

^©2023 BlackRock, Inc. All rights reserved. BLACKROCK is a trademark of BlackRock, Inc., or its subsidiaries in the United States and elsewhere. All other trademarks are those of their respective owners.

 

---

Contents

 

Introduction			3
Voting guidelines			3
Boards and directors			3
Board structure			5
Board composition and effectiveness			7
Board responsiveness and shareholder rights			9
Auditors and audit-related issues			11
Capital structure proposals			11
Mergers, acquisitions, transactions, and other special situations			12
Executive compensation			14
Material sustainability-related risks and opportunities			17
General corporate governance matters			21
Shareholder protections			23

 

 

BlackRock Investment Stewardship		Proxy voting guidelines for U.S. securities | 2

---

These guidelines should be read in conjunction with the BlackRock Investment Stewardship Global Principles.

Introduction

As stewards of our clients’ investments, BlackRock believes it has a responsibility to engage with management teams and/or board members on material business issues and, for those clients who have given us authority, to vote proxies in the best long-term economic interests of their assets.

The following issue-specific proxy voting guidelines (the “Guidelines”) summarize BlackRock Investment Stewardship’s (“BIS”) philosophy and approach to engagement and voting, as well as our view of governance best practices and the roles and responsibilities of boards and directors for publicly listed U.S. companies. These Guidelines are not intended to limit the analysis of individual issues at specific companies or provide a guide to how BIS will engage and/or vote in every instance. They are to be applied with discretion, taking into consideration the range of issues and facts specific to the company, as well as individual ballot items at shareholder meetings.

Voting guidelines

These guidelines are divided into eight key themes, which group together the issues that frequently appear on the agenda of shareholder meetings:

 

●

Boards and directors

 

●

Auditors and audit-related issues

 

●

Capital structure

 

●

Mergers, acquisitions, asset sales, and other special transactions

 

●

Executive compensation

 

●

Material sustainability-related risks and opportunities

 

●

General corporate governance matters

 

●

Shareholder protections

Boards and directors

An effective and well-functioning board is critical to the economic success of the company and the protection of shareholders’ interests, including the establishment of appropriate governance structures that facilitate oversight of management and the company’s strategic initiatives. As part of their responsibilities, board members owe fiduciary duties to shareholders in overseeing the strategic direction, operations, and risk management of the company. For this reason, BIS sees engagement with and 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, when relevant, material sustainability-related factors, is essential for shareholders to appropriately understand and assess how effectively the board is identifying, managing, and mitigating risks. 

 

BlackRock Investment Stewardship		Proxy voting guidelines for U.S. securities | 3

---

Where a company has not adequately demonstrated, through actions and/or disclosures, how material issues are appropriately identified, managed, and overseen, we will consider voting against the re-election of those directors responsible for the oversight of such issues, as indicated below.

Independence

It is our view that a majority of the directors on the board should be independent to ensure objectivity in the decision-making of the board and its ability to oversee management. In addition, all members of 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 and its shareholders

We may vote against directors who we do not consider to be independent, including at controlled companies, when we believe oversight could be enhanced with greater independent director representation. To signal our concerns, we may also vote against the chair of the nominating/governance committee, or where no chair exists, the nominating/governance committee member with the longest tenure.

Oversight role of the board

The board should exercise appropriate oversight of management and the business activities of the company. Where we determine that a board has failed to do so in a way that may impede a company’s long-term value, we may vote against the responsible committees and/or individual directors.

Common circumstances are illustrated below:

 

●

Where the board has failed to facilitate quality, independent auditing or accounting practices, we may vote against members of the audit committee

 

●

Where the company has failed to provide shareholders with adequate disclosure to conclude that appropriate strategic consideration is given to material risk factors (including, where relevant, sustainability factors), we may vote against members of the responsible committee, or the most relevant director

 

●

Where it appears that a director has acted (at the company or at other companies) in a manner that compromises their ability to represent the best long-term economic interests of shareholders, we may vote against that individual

 

●

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, we may vote against that individual. Excluding exigent circumstances, BIS generally considers attendance at less than 75% of the combined board and applicable committee meetings to be poor attendance

 

 

BlackRock Investment Stewardship		Proxy voting guidelines for U.S. securities | 4

---

●

Where a director serves on an excessive number of boards, which may limit their capacity to focus on each board’s needs, we may vote against that individual. The following identifies the maximum number of boards on which a director may serve, before BIS considers them to be over-committed:

 

In addition, we recognize that board leadership roles may vary in responsibility and time requirements in different markets around the world. In particular, where a director maintains a Chair role of a publicly listed company in European markets, we may consider that responsibility as equal to two board commitments, consistent with our EMEA Proxy Voting Guidelines. We will take the total number of board commitments across our global policies into account for director elections.

Risk oversight

Companies should have an established process for identifying, monitoring, and managing business and material 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 disclosures provide investors with a sense of the company’s long-term 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. 

Board Structure

Classified board of directors/staggered terms

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. This may include 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. However,

 

 

 

¹ A public company executive is defined as a Named Executive Officer (NEO) or Executive Chair.

² In addition to the company under review.

³ A 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.

 

BlackRock Investment Stewardship		Proxy voting guidelines for U.S. securities | 5

---

in these instances, boards should periodically review the rationale for a classified 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 directors up for election at the time (see “Shareholder rights” for additional detail).

Independent leadership

There are two commonly accepted structures for independent leadership to balance the CEO role in the boardroom: 1) an independent Chair; or 2) a Lead Independent director when the roles of Chair and CEO are combined, or when the Chair is otherwise not independent. 

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.⁴ However, BIS may vote against the most senior non-executive member of the board when appropriate independence is lacking in designated leadership roles.

In the event that the board chooses to have a combined Chair/CEO or a non-independent Chair, we support the designation of a Lead Independent director, with the ability to: 1) provide formal input into board meeting agendas; 2) call meetings of the independent directors; and 3) preside at meetings of independent directors. These roles and responsibilities should be disclosed and easily accessible. 

The following table illustrates examples⁵ of responsibilities under each board leadership model:

 

		Combined Chair/CEO or CEO + Non-independent Chair				Separate Independent Chair
		Chair/CEO or Non- independent Chair		Lead Independent Director		Independent Chair
		Authority to call full meetings of the board of directors		Attends full meetings of the board of directors		Authority to call full meetings of the board of directors
Board Meetings				Authority to call meetings of independent directors
				Briefs CEO on issues arising from executive sessions
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

 

 

 

⁴ To this end, we do not view shareholder proposals asking for the separation of Chair and CEO to be a proxy for other concerns we may have at the company for which a vote against directors would be more appropriate. Rather, support for such a proposal might arise in the case of overarching and sustained governance concerns such as lack of independence or failure to oversee a material risk over consecutive years.

⁵ This table is for illustrative purposes only. The roles and responsibilities cited here are not all-encompassing and are noted for reference as to how these leadership positions may be defined.

 

BlackRock Investment Stewardship		Proxy voting guidelines for U.S. securities | 6

---

		Combined Chair/CEO or CEO + Non-independent Chair				Separate Independent Chair
		Chair/CEO or Non- independent Chair		Lead Independent Director		Independent Chair
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

CEO and management succession planning

Companies should have a robust CEO and senior management succession plan in place at the board level that is reviewed and updated on a regular basis. Succession planning should cover scenarios over both the long-term, consistent with the strategic direction of the company and identified leadership needs over time, as well as the short-term, in the event of an unanticipated executive departure. We encourage the company to explain their executive succession planning process, including where accountability lies within the boardroom for this task, without prematurely divulging sensitive information commonly associated with this exercise.

During a CEO transition, companies may elect for the departing CEO to maintain a role in the boardroom. We ask for disclosures to understand the timeframe and responsibilities of this role. In such instances, we typically look for the board to have appropriate independent leadership structures in place. (See chart above.)

Director compensation and equity programs

Compensation for directors should generally be structured to attract and retain directors, while also aligning their interests with those of shareholders. In our view, 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.

Board composition and effectiveness

Director qualifications and skills

We encourage boards to periodically review director qualifications and skills to ensure relevant experience and diverse perspectives are represented in the boardroom. To this end, performance reviews and skills assessments should be conducted by the nominating/governance committee or the Lead Independent Director. This process may include internal board evaluations; however, boards may also find it useful to periodically conduct an assessment with a third party. We encourage boards to disclose their approach to evaluations, including objectives of the evaluation; if an external party conducts the evaluation; the frequency of the evaluations; and, whether that evaluation occurs on an individual director basis.

Board term limits and director tenure

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

 

BlackRock Investment Stewardship		Proxy voting guidelines for U.S. securities | 7

---

limits. BIS 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.

Board diversity

As noted above, highly qualified, engaged directors with professional characteristics relevant to a company’s business enhance the ability of the board to add value and be the voice of shareholders in board discussions. In our view, a strong board provides a competitive advantage to a company, providing valuable oversight and contributing to the most important management decisions that support long-term financial performance.

It is in this context that we are interested in diversity in the boardroom. We see it as a means to promoting diversity of thought and avoiding ‘group think’ in the board’s exercise of its responsibilities to advise and oversee management. It allows boards to have deeper discussions and make more resilient decisions. We ask boards to disclose how diversity is considered in board composition, including professional characteristics, such as a director’s industry experience, specialist areas of expertise and geographic location; as well as demographic characteristics such as gender, race/ethnicity, and age. 

We look to understand a board’s diversity in the context of a company’s domicile, market capitalization, business model, and strategy. Increasingly, we see leading boards adding members whose experience deepens the board’s understanding of the company’s customers, employees, and communities. Self- identified board demographic diversity can usefully be disclosed in aggregate, consistent with local law. We believe boards should aspire to meaningful diversity of membership, at least consistent with local regulatory requirements and best practices, while recognizing that building a strong, diverse board can take time.

This position is based on our view that diversity of perspective and thought—in the boardroom, in the management team and throughout the company—leads to better long-term economic outcomes for companies. Academic and other research reveals correlations between specific dimensions of diversity and effects on decision-making processes and outcomes.⁶ In our experience, greater diversity in the boardroom contributes to more robust discussions and more innovative and resilient decisions. Over time, greater diversity in the boardroom can also promote greater diversity and resilience in the leadership team, and the workforce more broadly. That diversity can enable companies to develop businesses that more closely reflect and resonate with the customers and communities they serve.

In the U.S., we believe that boards should aspire to at least 30% diversity of membership,⁷ and we encourage large companies, such as those in the S&P 500, to lead in achieving this standard. In our view, an informative indicator of diversity for such companies is having at least two women and a director who

 

 

 

⁶ For a discussion on the different impacts of diversity see: McKinsey, “Diversity Wins: How Inclusion Matters”, May 2022; Harvard Business Review, Diverse Teams Feel Less Comfortable – and That’s Why They Perform Better, September 2016; “Do Diverse Directors Influence DEI Outcomes”, September 2022

⁷ We take a case-by-case approach and consider the size of the board in our evaluation of overall composition and diversity. Business model, strategy, location, and company size may also impact our analysis of board diversity. We acknowledge that these factors may also play into the various elements of diversity that a board may attract. We look for disclosures from companies to help us understand their approach and do not prescribe any particular board composition.

 

BlackRock Investment Stewardship		Proxy voting guidelines for U.S. securities | 8

---

identifies as a member of an underrepresented group.⁸ We recognize that it may take time and that companies with smaller market capitalizations and in certain sectors may face more challenges in pursuing diversity. Among these smaller companies, we look for the presence of diversity and take into consideration the progress that companies are making.

In order to help investors understand overall diversity, we look to boards to disclose:

 

●

How diversity, including demographic factors and professional characteristics, is considered in board composition, given the company’s long-term strategy and business model

 

●

How directors’ professional characteristics, which may include domain expertise such as finance or technology, and sector- or market-specific experience, are complementary and link to the company’s long-term strategy

 

●

The process by which candidates for board positions are identified, including whether professional firms or other resources outside of incumbent directors’ networks are engaged to identify and/or assess candidates, and whether a diverse slate of nominees is considered for all available board nominations

To the extent that, based on our assessment of corporate disclosures, a company has not adequately explained their approach to diversity in their board composition, we may vote against members of the nominating/governance committee. Our publicly available commentary provides more information on our approach to board diversity.

Board size

We typically defer to the board in setting the appropriate size and believe that directors are generally in the best position to assess the optimal board size to ensure effectiveness. However, we may vote against the appropriate committees and/or individual directors if, in our view, the board is ineffective in its oversight, either because it is too small to allow for the necessary range of skills and experience or too large to function efficiently.

Board responsiveness and shareholder rights

Shareholder rights

Where we determine that a board has not acted in the best interests of the company’s shareholders, or takes action to unreasonably limit shareholder rights, we may vote against the appropriate committees and/or individual directors. Common circumstances are illustrated below:

 

 

 

⁸ Including, but not limited to, individuals who identify as Black or African American, Hispanic or Latinx, Asian, Native American or Alaska Native, or Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander; individuals who identify as LGBTQ+; individuals who identify as underrepresented based on national, Indigenous, religious, or cultural identity; individuals with disabilities; and veterans.

 

BlackRock Investment Stewardship		Proxy voting guidelines for U.S. securities | 9

---

●

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 and where the effect may be to entrench directors or to unreasonably 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) or committee members with whom we have a particular concern may not be subject to election in the year that the concern arises. In such situations, we may register our concern by voting against the most relevant director(s) up for election. 

Responsiveness to shareholders

A board should be engaged and responsive to the company’s shareholders, including acknowledging voting outcomes for director elections, compensation, shareholder proposals, and other ballot items. Where we determine that a board has not substantially addressed shareholder concerns that we deem material to the business, we may vote against the responsible committees and/or individual directors. Common circumstances are illustrated below:

 

●

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 BIS did not support the initial vote against such board member(s)

 

●

The Independent Chair or Lead Independent Director and/or members of the nominating/governance committee, where a board fails to consider shareholder proposals that (1) receive substantial support, and (2) in our view, have a material impact on the business, shareholder rights, or the potential for long-term value creation

Majority vote requirements

Directors should generally be elected by a majority of the shares voted. We will normally support proposals seeking to introduce bylaws requiring a majority vote standard for director elections. Majority vote standards generally assist in ensuring that directors who are not broadly supported by shareholders are not elected to serve as their representatives. As a best practice, companies with either a majority vote standard or a plurality vote standard should adopt a resignation policy for directors who do not receive support from at least a majority of votes cast. Where the company already has a sufficiently robust majority voting process in place, we may not support a shareholder proposal seeking an alternative mechanism.

 

BlackRock Investment Stewardship		Proxy voting guidelines for U.S. securities | 10

---

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 or those with concentrated ownership structures.

Cumulative voting

As stated above, a majority vote standard is generally in the best long-term interests of shareholders, as 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.

Auditors and audit-related issues

BIS 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 directors, we seek to hold the audit committee of the board responsible for overseeing the management of the independent auditor and the internal audit function at a company.

We may vote against the audit committee members where the board has failed to facilitate quality, independent auditing. We look to public disclosures 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 look for 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, 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

In our view, shareholders should be entitled to voting rights in proportion to their economic interests. In addition, companies that have implemented 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. Where companies are unwilling to voluntarily implement “one share, one vote” within a specified timeframe, or are unresponsive to shareholder feedback for change over time, we generally support shareholder proposals to recapitalize stock into a single voting class.

 

BlackRock Investment Stewardship		Proxy voting guidelines for U.S. securities | 11

---

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

BIS 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.

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, transactions, and other special situations

Mergers, acquisitions, and transactions

In assessing mergers, acquisitions, or other transactions – including business combinations involving Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (“SPACs”) – BIS’ primary consideration is the long-term economic interests of our clients as shareholders. Boards should clearly explain the economic and strategic rationale for any proposed transactions or material changes to the business. We will review a proposed transaction to determine the degree to which it has the potential to enhance long-term

 

BlackRock Investment Stewardship		Proxy voting guidelines for U.S. securities | 12

---

shareholder value. While mergers, acquisitions, asset sales, business combinations, 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, as well as measures taken to address conflicts of interest

 

●

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

Contested director elections and special situations

Contested elections and other special situations⁹ are assessed on a case-by-case basis. We evaluate a number of factors, which may include: the qualifications and past performance 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 strategy will produce the desired change; and whether the dissident represents the best option for enhancing long-term shareholder value.

We will evaluate the actions that the company has taken to limit shareholders’ ability to exercise the right to nominate dissident director candidates, including those actions taken absent the immediate threat of a contested situation. BIS may take voting action against directors (up to and including the full board) where those actions are viewed as egregiously infringing on shareholder rights.

We will consider a variety of possible voting outcomes in contested situations, including the ability to support a mix of management and dissident nominees.

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 have historically opposed most plans, we may support plans that include a reasonable “qualifying offer clause.” Such clauses typically require shareholder ratification of the pill and

 

 

⁹ Special situations are broadly defined as events that are non-routine and differ from the normal course of business for a company’s shareholder meeting, involving a solicitation other than by management with respect to the exercise of voting rights in a manner inconsistent with management’s recommendation. These may include instances where shareholders nominate director candidates, oppose the view of management and/or the board on mergers, acquisitions, or other transactions, etc.

 

BlackRock Investment Stewardship		Proxy voting guidelines for U.S. securities | 13

---

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. Lastly, we look for shareholder approval of poison pill plans within one year of adoption of implementation.

Reimbursement of expense 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. Introducing the possibility of such reimbursement may incentivize disruptive and unnecessary shareholder campaigns.

Executive compensation

A company’s board of directors should put in place a compensation structure that balances incentivizing, rewarding, and retaining executives appropriately across a wide range of business outcomes. This structure should be aligned with shareholder interests, particularly the generation of sustainable, long-term value.

The compensation committee should 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. Performance-based compensation should include metrics that are relevant to the business and stated strategy and/or risk mitigation efforts. Goals, and the processes used to set these goals, should be clearly articulated and appropriately rigorous. 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 and/or structures.

There should be a clear link between variable pay and company performance that drives sustained value creation for our clients as shareholders. Where compensation structures provide for a front-loaded¹⁰ award, we look for appropriate structures (including vesting and/or holding periods) that motivate sustained performance for shareholders over a number of years. We generally do not favor programs focused on awards that require performance levels to be met and maintained for a relatively short time period for payouts to be earned, unless there are extended vesting and/or holding requirements.

Compensation structures should generally drive outcomes that align the pay of the executives with performance of the company and the value received by shareholders. When evaluating performance, we examine both executive teams’ efforts, as well as outcomes realized by shareholders. Payouts to executives should reflect both the executive’s contributions to the company’s ongoing success, as well as exogenous factors that impacted shareholder value. Where discretion has been used by the

 

 

¹⁰ Front-loaded awards are generally those that accelerate the grant of multiple years’ worth of compensation in a single year.

 

BlackRock Investment Stewardship		Proxy voting guidelines for U.S. securities | 14

---

compensation committee, we look for disclosures relating to how and why the discretion was used and how the adjusted outcome is aligned with the interests of shareholders. While we believe special awards¹¹ should be used sparingly, we acknowledge that there may be instances when such awards are appropriate. When evaluating these awards, we consider a variety of factors, including the magnitude and structure of the award, the scope of award recipients, the alignment of the grant with shareholder value, and the company’s historical use of such awards, in addition to other company-specific circumstances.

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.

We support incentive plans that foster the sustainable achievement of results – both financial and non-financial – consistent with the company’s strategic initiatives. 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 practices. Our publicly available commentary provides more information on our approach to executive compensation.

Where executive compensation appears excessive relative to the performance of the company and/or compensation paid by peers, or where an equity compensation plan is not aligned with shareholders’ interests, we may vote against members of the compensation committee.

“Say on Pay” advisory resolutions

In cases where there is a “Say on Pay” vote, BIS 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. Where we conclude that a company has failed to align pay with performance, we will vote against the management compensation proposal and relevant compensation committee members.

Frequency of “Say on Pay” advisory resolutions

BIS will generally support annual advisory votes on executive compensation. It is our view that shareholders should have the opportunity to express feedback on annual incentive programs and changes to long-term compensation before multiple cycles are issued. Where a company has failed to implement a “Say on Pay” advisory vote within the frequency period that received the most support from shareholders or a “Say on Pay” resolution is omitted without explanation, BIS may vote against members of the compensation committee.

Clawback proposals

We generally favor prompt recoupment from any senior executive whose compensation was based on faulty financial reporting or deceptive business practices. We also favor prompt 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

 

 

¹¹ “Special awards” refers to awards granted outside the company’s typical compensation program.

 

BlackRock Investment Stewardship		Proxy voting guidelines for U.S. securities | 15

---

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 clawback policy that sufficiently addresses our concerns.

Employee stock purchase plans

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

BIS supports equity plans that align the economic interests of directors, managers, and other employees with those of shareholders. Boards should establish policies prohibiting the use of equity awards in a manner that could disrupt the intended alignment with shareholder interests, such as the excessive pledging or hedging of stock. 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 automatic annual increases of shares available for grant without requiring further shareholder approval; we note that the aggregate impacts of such increases are difficult to predict and may lead to significant dilution. We also generally oppose plans that allow for repricing without shareholder approval. We may 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 payout 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, BIS may consider several factors, including:

 

●

Whether we determine 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

 

BlackRock Investment Stewardship		Proxy voting guidelines for U.S. securities | 16

---

●

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, BIS 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.

Option exchanges

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. BIS 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, employee incentives, retention, and/or recruiting may be impacted

BIS 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

BIS 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.

Material sustainability-related risks and opportunities

It is our view that well-run companies, where appropriate, effectively evaluate and manage material sustainability-related risks and opportunities¹² as a core component of their long-term value creation for shareholder and business strategy. At the board level, appropriate governance structures and

 

 

¹² By material sustainability-related risks and opportunities, we mean the drivers of risk and long-term financial value creation in a company’s business model that have an environmental or social dependency or impact. Examples of environmental issues include, but are not limited to, water use, land use, waste management, and climate risk. Examples of social issues include, but are not limited to, human capital management, impacts on the communities in which a company operates, customer loyalty, and relationships with regulators. It is our view that well-run companies will effectively evaluate and manage material sustainability-related risks and opportunities relevant to their businesses. Governance is the core means by which boards can oversee the creation of durable, long-term financial value. Appropriate risk oversight of business-relevant and material sustainability-related considerations is a component of a sound governance framework.

 

BlackRock Investment Stewardship		Proxy voting guidelines for U.S. securities | 17

---

responsibilities allow for effective oversight of the strategic implementation of material sustainability issues.

When assessing how to vote – including on the election of directors and relevant shareholder proposals – robust disclosures are essential for investors to understand, where appropriate, how companies are integrating material sustainability risks and opportunities across their business and strategic, long-term planning. Where a company has failed to appropriately provide robust disclosures and evidence of effective business practices, BIS may express concerns through our engagement and voting. As part of this consideration, we encourage companies to produce sustainability-related disclosures sufficiently in advance of their annual meeting so that the disclosures can be considered in relevant vote decisions.

We encourage disclosures aligned with the reporting framework developed by the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD), supported by industry-specific metrics, such as those identified by the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB), now part of the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) under the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) Foundation.¹³ While the TCFD framework was developed to support climate-related risk disclosures, 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’s¹⁴ industry-specific metrics are beneficial in helping companies identify key performance indicators (“KPIs”) across various dimensions of sustainability that are considered to be financially material. We recognize that some companies may report using different standards, which may be required by regulation, or one of a number of private standards. In such cases, we ask that companies highlight the metrics that are industry- or company-specific.

We look to companies to:

 

●

Disclose the identification, assessment, management, and oversight of material sustainability-related risks and opportunities in accordance with the four pillars of TCFD

 

●

Publish material, investor-relevant, industry-specific metrics and rigorous targets, aligned with SASB (ISSB) or comparable sustainability reporting standards

Companies should also disclose any material supranational 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 conduct.

 

 

¹³ The International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) Foundation announced in November 2021 the formation of an International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) to develop a comprehensive global baseline of high-quality sustainability disclosure standards to meet investors’ information needs. SASB standards will over time be adapted to ISSB standards but are the reference reporting tool in the meantime.

¹⁴ The ISSB has committed to build upon the SASB standards, which identify material, sustainability-related disclosures across sectors. SASB Standards can be used to provide a baseline of investor-focused sustainability disclosure and to implement the principles-based framework recommended by the TCFD, which is also incorporated into the ISSB’s Climate Exposure Draft. Similarly, SASB Standards enable robust implementation of the Integrated Reporting Framework, providing the comparability sought by investors.

 

BlackRock Investment Stewardship		Proxy voting guidelines for U.S. securities | 18

---

Climate risk

It is our view that climate change has become a key factor in many companies’ long-term prospects. As such, as long-term investors, we are interested in understanding how companies may be impacted by material climate-related risks and opportunities—just as we seek to understand other business-relevant risks and opportunities—and how these factors are considered within their strategy in a manner that is consistent with the company’s business model and sector. Specifically, we look for companies to disclose strategies that they have in place that mitigate and are resilient to any material risks to their long-term business model associated with a range of climate-related scenarios, including a scenario in which global warming is limited to well below 2°C, and considering global ambitions to achieve a limit of 1.5°C.¹⁵ It is, of course, up to each company to define their own strategy: that is not the role of BlackRock or other investors.

BIS recognizes that climate change can be challenging for many companies, as they seek to drive long-term value by mitigating risks and capturing opportunities. A growing number of companies, financial institutions, as well as governments, have committed to advancing decarbonization in line with the Paris Agreement. There is growing consensus that companies can benefit from the more favorable macroeconomic environment under an orderly, timely, and equitable global energy transition.¹⁶ Yet, the path ahead is deeply uncertain and uneven, with different parts of the economy moving at different speeds.¹⁷ Many companies are asking what their role should be in contributing to an orderly and equitable transition—in ensuring a reliable energy supply and energy security and in protecting the most vulnerable from energy price shocks and economic dislocation. In this context, we encourage companies to include in their disclosures a business plan for how they intend to deliver long-term financial performance through a transition to global net zero carbon emissions, consistent with their business model and sector.

We look to companies to disclose short-, medium-, and long-term targets, ideally science-based targets where these are available for their sector, for Scope 1 and 2 greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) reductions and to demonstrate how their targets are consistent with the long-term economic interests of their shareholders. Many companies have an opportunity to use and contribute to the development of low carbon energy sources and technologies that will be essential to decarbonizing the global economy over time. We also recognize that continued investment in traditional energy sources, including oil and gas, is required to maintain an orderly and equitable transition—and that divestiture of carbon-intensive assets is unlikely to contribute to global emissions reductions. We encourage companies to disclose how their capital allocation to various energy sources is consistent with their strategy.

At this stage, we view Scope 3 emissions differently from Scopes 1 and 2, given methodological complexity, regulatory uncertainty, concerns about double-counting, and lack of direct control by companies. While we welcome any disclosures and commitments companies choose to make regarding

 

 

¹⁵ The global aspiration to achieve a net-zero global economy by 2050 is reflective of aggregated efforts; governments representing over 90% of GDP have committed to move to net-zero over the coming decades. In determining how to vote on behalf of clients who have authorized us to do so, we look to companies only to address issues within their control and do not anticipate that they will address matters that are the domain of public policy.

¹⁶ For example, BlackRock’s Capital Markets Assumptions anticipate 25 points of cumulative economic gains over a 20-year period in an orderly transition as compared to the alternative. This better macro environment will support better economic growth, financial stability, job growth, productivity, as well as ecosystem stability and health outcomes.

¹⁷ https://www.blackrock.com/corporate/literature/whitepaper/bii-managing-the-net-zero-transition-february-2022.pdf

 

BlackRock Investment Stewardship		Proxy voting guidelines for U.S. securities | 19

---

Scope 3 emissions, we recognize that these are provided on a good-faith basis as methodology develops. Our publicly available commentary provides more information on our approach to climate risk and the global energy transition.

Natural capital

The management of nature-related factors is increasingly a core component of some companies’ ability to generate sustainable, long-term financial returns for shareholders, particularly where a company’s strategy is heavily reliant on the availability of natural capital, or whose supply chains are exposed to locations with nature-related risks. We look for such companies to disclose¹⁸ how they consider their reliance on and use of natural capital, including appropriate risk oversight and relevant metrics and targets, to understand how these factors are integrated into strategy. We will evaluate these disclosures to inform our view of how a company is managing material nature-related risks and opportunities, as well as in our assessment of relevant shareholder proposals. Our publicly available commentary provides more information on our approach to natural capital.

Key stakeholder interests

In order to deliver long-term value for shareholders, companies should also consider the interests of their key 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 constituents of the communities in which a company operates. Companies that build strong relationships with their key 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.

Companies should effectively oversee and mitigate material risks related to stakeholders with appropriate due diligence processes and board oversight. Where we determine that company is not appropriately considering their key stakeholder interests in a way that poses material financial risk to the company and its shareholders, we may vote against relevant directors or support shareholder proposals related to these topics. Our publicly available commentary provides more information on our approach.

Conversely, we note that some shareholder proposals seek to address topics that are clearly within the purview of certain stakeholders. For example, we recognize that topics around taxation and tax reporting are within the domain of local, state, and federal authorities. BIS will generally not support these proposals.

Human capital management

A company’s approach to human capital management (“HCM”) is a critical factor in fostering an inclusive, diverse, and engaged workforce, which contributes to business continuity, innovation, and long-term value creation. Consequently, we ask companies to demonstrate a robust approach to HCM and provide

 

 

¹⁸ While guidance is still under development for a unified disclosure framework related to natural capital, the emerging recommendations of the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD), may prove useful to some companies.

 

BlackRock Investment Stewardship		Proxy voting guidelines for U.S. securities | 20

---

shareholders with disclosures to understand how their approach aligns with their stated strategy and business model.

Clear and consistent disclosures on these matters are critical for investors to make an informed assessment of a company’s HCM practices. Companies should disclose the steps they are taking to advance diversity, equity, and inclusion; job categories and workforce demographics; and their responses to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s EEO-1 Survey. 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 publicly available commentary provides more information on our approach to HCM.

Corporate political activities

Companies may engage in certain political activities, within legal and regulatory limits, in order to support public policy matters material to the companies’ long-term strategies. These activities can also create risks, including: the potential for allegations of corruption; certain reputational risks; 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.

We depend on companies to provide accessible and clear disclosures so that investors can easily understand how their political activities support their long-term strategy, including on stated public policy priorities. When presented with shareholder proposals requesting increased disclosure on corporate political activities, BIS will evaluate publicly available information to consider how a company’s lobbying and political activities may impact the company. We will also evaluate whether there is general consistency between a company’s stated positions on policy matters material to their strategy and the material positions taken by significant industry groups of which they are a member. We may decide to support a shareholder proposal requesting additional disclosures if we identify a material inconsistency or feel that further transparency may clarify how the company’s political activities support its long-term strategy. Our publicly available commentary provides more information on our approach to corporate political activities.

General corporate governance matters

IPO governance

Boards should disclose how the corporate governance structures adopted upon a company’s initial public offering (“IPO”) are in shareholders’ best long-term interests. We also ask 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 view, a “one vote for one share” structure is preferred for publicly-traded companies. We also recognize the potential benefits of dual class shares to newly public companies as they establish themselves; however, 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 think that such arrangements may not be in the best interests of shareholders over the long-term. 

We may 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),

 

BlackRock Investment Stewardship		Proxy voting guidelines for U.S. securities | 21

---

during which we ask boards to take steps to bring corporate governance standards in line with our policies.

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. An EGC should have an 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.

Corporate form

Proposals to change a corporation’s form, including those to convert to a public benefit corporation (“PBC”) structure, should clearly articulate the stakeholder groups the company seeks to benefit and provide detail on how the interests of shareholders would be augmented or adversely affected with the change to a PBC. These disclosures should also include the accountability and voting mechanisms that would be available to shareholders. We generally support management proposals to convert to a PBC if our analysis indicates that shareholders’ interests are adequately protected. Corporate form shareholder proposals are evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Exclusive forum provisions

BIS 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.

Reincorporation

We will evaluate the economic and strategic rationale behind the company’s proposal to reincorporate on a case-by-case basis. 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.

Multi-jurisdictional companies

Where a company is listed on multiple exchanges or incorporated in a country different from their 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 themselves, 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. Companies should 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.

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.

 

BlackRock Investment Stewardship		Proxy voting guidelines for U.S. securities | 22

---

Bundled proposals

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, BIS may reject certain positive changes when linked with proposals that generally contradict or impede the rights and economic interests of shareholders.

Other business

We oppose voting on matters where we are not given the opportunity to review and understand those measures and carry out an appropriate level of shareholder oversight.

Shareholder protections

Amendment to charter/articles/bylaws

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

It is our view that long-term shareholders should have the opportunity, when necessary and under reasonable conditions, to nominate directors on the company’s proxy card.¹⁹

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

 

 

¹⁹ BlackRock is subject to certain regulations and laws in the United States that place restrictions and limitations on how BlackRock can interact with the companies in which we invest on behalf of our clients, including our ability to submit shareholder proposals or elect directors to the board.

 

BlackRock Investment Stewardship		Proxy voting guidelines for U.S. securities | 23

---

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.

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. Accordingly, 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 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 think that a right to act via written consent is not a sufficient alternative to the right to call a special meeting.

Consent solicitation

While BlackRock is supportive of the shareholder rights to act by written consent and call a special meeting, BlackRock is subject to certain regulations and laws that place restrictions and limitations on how BlackRock can interact with the companies in which we invest on behalf of our clients, including our ability to participate in consent solicitations. As a result, BlackRock will generally not participate in consent solicitations or related processes. However, once an item comes to a shareholder vote, we uphold our fiduciary duty to vote in the best long-term interests of our clients, where we are authorized to do so.

Simple majority voting

We generally favor a simple majority voting requirement to pass proposals. Therefore, we will generally 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

 

BlackRock Investment Stewardship		Proxy voting guidelines for U.S. securities | 24

---

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. Shareholders should 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. Relevant shareholder proposals are assessed on a case-by-case basis.

 

BlackRock Investment Stewardship		Proxy voting guidelines for U.S. securities | 25

---

Want to know more?

blackrock.com/stewardship | contactstewardship@blackrock.com

This document is provided for information and educational purposes only. Investing involves risk, including the loss of principal.

Prepared by BlackRock, Inc.

^©2023 BlackRock, Inc. All rights reserved. BLACKROCK is a trademark of BlackRock, Inc., or its subsidiaries in the United States and elsewhere. All other trademarks are those of their respective owners.

 

 

 

 

 

---