PAINEWEBBER MUTUAL FUND TRUST
497, 2000-07-20
Previous: COMTREX SYSTEMS CORP, DEF 14A, 2000-07-20
Next: CAMERA PLATFORMS INTERNATIONAL INC, SC 13D, 2000-07-20







                    PAINEWEBBER NATIONAL TAX-FREE INCOME FUND
                     PAINEWEBBER MUNICIPAL HIGH INCOME FUND
                   PAINEWEBBER CALIFORNIA TAX-FREE INCOME FUND
                    PAINEWEBBER NEW YORK TAX-FREE INCOME FUND
                               51 WEST 52ND STREET
                          NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10019-6114

                       STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

         The four  funds  named  above  are  series of  professionally  managed,
open-end management investment companies (each a "Trust").  PaineWebber National
Tax-Free  Income  Fund  and  PaineWebber  California  Tax-Free  Income  Fund are
diversified series of PaineWebber Mutual Fund Trust.  PaineWebber Municipal High
Income Fund and PaineWebber  New York Tax-Free  Income Fund are  non-diversified
series of PaineWebber Municipal Series.

         The investment adviser,  administrator and distributor for each fund is
Mitchell Hutchins Asset Management Inc.  ("Mitchell  Hutchins"),  a wholly owned
asset  management  subsidiary of PaineWebber  Incorporated  ("PaineWebber").  As
distributor for the funds,  Mitchell Hutchins has appointed PaineWebber to serve
as dealer for the sale of fund shares.

         Portions of each fund's Annual Report to Shareholders  are incorporated
by reference into this Statement of Additional  Information  ("SAI"). The Annual
Report  accompanies  this SAI.  You may  obtain an  additional  copy of a fund's
Annual Report without charge by calling toll-free 1-800-647-1568.

         This SAI is not a  prospectus  and  should be read only in  conjunction
with  the  funds'  current  Prospectus,  dated  June  30,  2000.  A copy  of the
Prospectus  may be  obtained  by calling any  PaineWebber  Financial  Advisor or
correspondent  firm or by calling  toll-free  1-800-647-1568.  This SAI is dated
June 30, 2000.

                                TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                                            PAGE

The Funds and Their Investment Policies..................................      2
The Funds' Investments, Related Risks and Limitations....................      3
Strategies Using Derivative Instruments..................................     29
Organization of Trusts; Trustees and Officers; Principal
    Holders and Management Ownership of Securities.......................     35
Investment Advisory, Administration and Distribution
    Arrangements.........................................................     44
Portfolio Transactions...................................................     50
Reduced Sales Charges, Additional Exchange and Redemption
    Information and Other Services.......................................     52
Conversion of Class B Shares.............................................     57
Valuation of Shares......................................................     57
Performance Information..................................................     58
Taxes....................................................................     62
Other Information........................................................     68
Financial Statements.....................................................     69
Appendix.................................................................    A-1


<PAGE>


                     THE FUNDS AND THEIR INVESTMENT POLICIES

         No fund's  investment  objective  may be  changed  without  shareholder
approval.  Except where noted, the other investment policies of each fund may be
changed by its board without shareholder  approval.  As with other mutual funds,
there is no assurance that a fund will achieve its investment objective.

         NATIONAL TAX-FREE INCOME FUND'S investment objective is to achieve high
current income exempt from federal income tax,  consistent with the preservation
of capital and liquidity within the fund's quality standards.  The fund seeks to
invest  substantially  all of its net assets in  municipal  bonds.  Except under
unusual  market  conditions,  the fund invests at least 80% of its net assets in
municipal  bonds that pay  interest  that is not an item of tax  preference  for
purposes of the federal alternative minimum tax ("AMT exempt interest").

         National  Tax-Free  Income  Fund  normally  invests at least 65% of its
total assets in investment  grade municipal bonds. The fund may invest up to 35%
of its total assets in municipal bonds that are not investment  grade.  The fund
may not invest more than 10% of its total assets in inverse floaters and may not
invest  more  than  5% of its  total  assets  in  uninsured  "non-appropriation"
municipal  lease  obligations.  There is no percentage  limitation on the fund's
ability to invest in other municipal lease obligations.

         National Tax-Free Income Fund may invest up to 10% of its net assets in
illiquid  securities.  The fund may  purchase  securities  on a  when-issued  or
delayed delivery basis. The fund may lend its portfolio  securities to qualified
broker-dealers  or  institutional  investors  in an  amount up to 33 1/3% of its
total assets. The fund may also borrow for temporary or emergency purposes,  but
not in excess of 10% of its total assets.

         MUNICIPAL  HIGH INCOME FUND'S  investment  objective is to provide high
current  income  exempt from federal  income tax. The fund  normally  invests at
least 80% of its  assets in  municipal  bonds and may  invest  without  limit in
municipal  bonds  that are below  investment  grade.  The fund  also may  invest
without  limit in  municipal  bonds  that pay  interest  that is not AMT  exempt
interest.

         Municipal  High Income Fund normally  invests at least 65% of its total
assets, and seeks to invest substantially all of its assets, in medium grade and
high yield lower grade municipal bonds. The fund may not invest more than 10% of
its total  assets in inverse  floaters  and may not  invest  more than 5% of its
total assets in uninsured "non-appropriation" municipal lease obligations. There
is no percentage  limitation on the fund's ability to invest in other  municipal
lease obligations.

         Municipal  High  Income  Fund may invest up to 10% of its net assets in
illiquid  securities.  The fund may  purchase  securities  on a  when-issued  or
delayed delivery basis. The fund may lend its portfolio  securities to qualified
broker-dealers  or  institutional  investors  in an  amount up to 33 1/3% of its
total assets. The fund may also borrow for temporary or emergency purposes,  but
not in excess of 10% of its total assets.

         CALIFORNIA TAX-FREE INCOME FUND'S investment  objective is high current
income  exempt  from  federal  income tax and  California  personal  income tax,
consistent  with the  preservation  of capital and  liquidity  within the fund's
quality standards.  The fund seeks to invest substantially all of its net assets
in  municipal   bonds  that  pay  interest  that  is  exempt  from  those  taxes
("California  Obligations").  The fund normally  invests at least 80% of its net
assets in California Obligations that pay AMT exempt interest.

         California  Tax-Free  Income Fund normally  invests at least 65% of its
total assets in investment  grade municipal bonds. The fund may invest up to 35%
of its total assets in municipal bonds that are not investment  grade.  The fund
may not invest more than 10% of its total assets in inverse floaters and may not
invest  more  than  5% of its  total  assets  in  uninsured  "non-appropriation"
municipal  lease  obligations.  There is no percentage  limitation on the fund's
ability to invest in other municipal lease obligations.

         California  Tax-Free Income Fund may invest up to 10% of its net assets
in illiquid  securities.  The fund may purchase  securities on a when-issued  or
delayed delivery basis. The fund may lend its portfolio  securities to qualified


                                       2
<PAGE>


broker-dealers  or  institutional  investors  in an  amount up to 33 1/3% of its
total assets. The fund may also borrow for temporary or emergency purposes,  but
not in excess of 10% of its total assets.

         NEW YORK TAX-FREE INCOME FUND'S investment objective is to provide high
current  income  exempt from federal  income tax and New York State and New York
City personal income taxes.  The fund seeks to invest  substantially  all of its
net  assets  in  municipal   bonds  issued  by  the  State  of  New  York,   its
municipalities and public authorities or by other issuers that pay interest that
is exempt from those taxes ("New York Obligations"). Except under unusual market
conditions,  the  fund  invests  at  least  80% of its net  assets  in New  York
Obligations that pay AMT exempt interest.

         New York  Tax-Free  Income  Fund  normally  invests at least 65% of its
total assets in investment  grade municipal bonds. The fund may invest up to 35%
of its total assets in municipal bonds that are not investment  grade.  The fund
may not invest more than 10% of its total assets in inverse floaters and may not
invest  more  than  5% of its  total  assets  in  uninsured  "non-appropriation"
municipal  lease  obligations.  There is no percentage  limitation on the fund's
ability to invest in other municipal lease obligations.

         New York Tax-Free Income Fund may invest up to 10% of its net assets in
illiquid  securities.  The fund may  purchase  securities  on a  when-issued  or
delayed delivery basis. The fund may lend its portfolio  securities to qualified
broker-dealers  or  institutional  investors  in an  amount up to 33 1/3% of its
total assets. The fund may also borrow for temporary or emergency purposes,  but
not in excess of 10% of its total assets.

              THE FUNDS' INVESTMENTS, RELATED RISKS AND LIMITATIONS

         The following  supplements the information  contained in the Prospectus
and above  concerning  the funds'  investments,  related risks and  limitations.
Except as  otherwise  indicated  in the  Prospectus  or the SAI,  the funds have
established  no policy  limitations  on their ability to use the  investments or
techniques discussed in these documents.

         TYPES  OF  MUNICIPAL  BONDS.  Each  fund may  invest  in a  variety  of
municipal bonds, as described below:

         MUNICIPAL  BONDS.  Municipal bonds are municipal  obligations  that are
issued by states,  municipalities,  public authorities or other issuers and that
pay interest  that is exempt from federal  income tax in the opinion of issuer's
counsel.  The two  principal  classifications  of  municipal  bonds are "general
obligation" and "revenue"  bonds.  General  obligation  bonds are secured by the
issuer's  pledge of its full faith,  credit and taxing  power for the payment of
principal and interest. Revenue bonds are payable only from the revenues derived
from a particular  facility or class of facilities  or, in some cases,  from the
proceeds of a special excise tax or other  specific  revenue source such as from
the user of the facility  being  financed.  Municipal  bonds also include "moral
obligation" bonds, which are normally issued by special purpose authorities. For
these  bonds,  a  government  unit is regarded as morally  obligated  to support
payment  of the  debt  service,  which  is  usually  subject  to  annual  budget
appropriations.  Various types of municipal bonds are described in the following
sections.

         MUNICIPAL LEASE  OBLIGATIONS.  Municipal bonds include  municipal lease
obligations,  such as leases,  installment  purchase  contracts and  conditional
sales  contracts,  and certificates of  participation  therein.  Municipal lease
obligations  are  issued by state  and  local  governments  and  authorities  to
purchase land or various types of equipment or facilities  and may be subject to
annual budget  appropriations.  The funds  generally  invest in municipal  lease
obligations through certificates of participation.

         Although   municipal  lease  obligations  do  not  constitute   general
obligations  of the  municipality  for which its taxing  power is pledged,  they
ordinarily are backed by the municipality's  covenant to budget for, appropriate
and make the  payments  due under the lease  obligation.  The leases  underlying
certain municipal lease  obligations,  however,  provide that lease payments are
subject  to  partial  or full  abatement  if,  because  of  material  damage  or
destruction of the leased property,  there is substantial  interference with the
lessee's use or occupancy of such property. This "abatement risk" may be reduced
by the existence of insurance  covering the leased property,  the maintenance by
the lessee of reserve  funds or the  provision  of credit  enhancements  such as
letters of credit.


                                       3
<PAGE>


         Certain   municipal  lease  obligations   contain   "non-appropriation"
clauses,  which provide that the municipality has no obligation to make lease or
installment  purchase  payments in future years unless money is appropriated for
such purpose on a yearly basis.  Some municipal  lease  obligations of this type
are insured as to timely payment of principal and interest, even in the event of
a failure by the  municipality to appropriate  sufficient funds to make payments
under  the  lease.  However,  in  the  case  of  an  uninsured  municipal  lease
obligation,  a fund's  ability  to  recover  under  the  lease in the event of a
non-appropriation  or default  will be  limited  solely to the  repossession  of
leased  property  without  recourse  to the general  credit of the  lessee,  and
disposition of the property in the event of foreclosure might prove difficult.

         INDUSTRIAL  DEVELOPMENT  BONDS  ("IDBS")  AND  PRIVATE  ACTIVITY  BONDS
("PABS").  IDBs and PABs are  issued by or on behalf  of public  authorities  to
finance  various  privately  operated  facilities,  such as airport or pollution
control  facilities.  These  obligations  are considered  municipal bonds if the
interest  paid thereon is exempt from  federal  income tax in the opinion of the
bond  issuer's  counsel.  IDBs and PABs are in most cases revenue bonds and thus
are not payable from the unrestricted revenues of the issuer. The credit quality
of IDBs and PABs is usually  directly related to the credit standing of the user
of the facilities  being  financed.  IDBs issued after August 15, 1986 generally
are considered PABs, and to the extent a fund invests in such PABs, shareholders
generally  will be  required  to  include  a  portion  of their  exempt-interest
dividends from that fund in calculating their liability for the AMT. See "Taxes"
below. Each fund may invest more than 25% of its net assets in IDBs and PABs.

         FLOATING RATE AND VARIABLE RATE OBLIGATIONS. Floating rate and variable
rate  obligations  are municipal  bonds that bear interest at rates that are not
fixed,  but that vary with  changes in specified  market  rates or indices.  The
interest  rate on  floating  rate or  variable  rate  securities  ordinarily  is
readjusted  on the  basis of the  prime  rate of the bank  that  originated  the
financing  or some  other  index or  published  rate,  such as the  90-day  U.S.
Treasury bill rate, or is otherwise  reset to reflect  market rates of interest.
Generally,  these interest rate  adjustments  cause the market value of floating
rate and variable rate  municipal  securities to fluctuate  less than the market
value of fixed rate  obligations.  Accordingly,  as interest  rates  decrease or
increase, the potential for capital appreciation or capital depreciation is less
than for fixed rate  obligations.  Floating  rate or variable  rate  obligations
typically  permit the holder to demand  payment of principal  from the issuer or
remarketing  agent at par value prior to  maturity  and may permit the issuer to
prepay  principal,  plus accrued  interest,  at its discretion after a specified
notice period. Frequently, floating rate or variable rate obligations and/or the
demand features thereon are secured by letters of credit or other credit support
arrangements  provided  by banks or other  financial  institutions,  the  credit
standing of which affects the credit quality of the obligations.  Changes in the
credit quality of these  institutions could cause losses to a fund and adversely
affect its share price.

         A demand  feature  gives a fund the right to sell the  securities  to a
specified  party,  usually a remarketing  agent,  on a specified  date. A demand
feature  is often  backed by a letter of credit  from a bank or a  guarantee  or
other liquidity support arrangement from a bank or other financial  institution.
As discussed under  "Participation  Interests," to the extent that payment of an
obligation is backed by a letter of credit, guarantee or other liquidity support
that may be drawn upon demand, such payment may be subject to that institution's
ability to satisfy that commitment.

         PARTICIPATION  INTERESTS.  Participation  interests  are  interests  in
municipal   bonds,   including   IDBs,  PABs  and  floating  and  variable  rate
obligations,  that are owned by banks.  These  interests  carry a demand feature
permitting  the holder to tender  them back to the bank,  which  demand  feature
generally is backed by an irrevocable letter of credit or guarantee of the bank.
The credit standing of such bank affects the credit quality of the participation
interests.

         A  participation  interest  gives a fund  an  undivided  interest  in a
municipal bond owned by a bank.  The fund has the right to sell the  instruments
back to the bank.  Such  right  generally  is backed by the  bank's  irrevocable
letter of credit or  guarantee  and  permits  the fund to draw on the  letter of
credit on demand,  after specified notice,  for all or any part of the principal
amount of the fund's participation interest plus accrued interest.  Generally, a
fund  expects  to  exercise  the  demand  under the  letters  of credit or other
guarantees  (1) upon a default under the terms of the  underlying  bond,  (2) to
maintain the fund's  portfolio in accordance  with its investment  objective and
policies  or (3) as needed  to  provide  liquidity  to the fund in order to meet
redemption  requests.  The ability of a bank to fulfill its obligations  under a
letter  of  credit  or  guarantee  might  be  affected  by  possible   financial
difficulties  of its borrowers,  adverse  interest rate or economic  conditions,
regulatory  limitations  or other  factors.  Mitchell  Hutchins will monitor the


                                       4
<PAGE>


pricing,  quality and liquidity of the  participation  interests held by a fund,
and the  credit  standing  of banks  issuing  letters  of credit  or  guarantees
supporting  such  participation  interests on the basis of  published  financial
information reports of rating services and bank analytical services.

         TENDER OPTION BONDS.  Tender option bonds are long-term municipal bonds
sold by a bank subject to a "tender  option" that gives the  purchaser the right
to tender them to the bank at par plus accrued interest at designated times (the
"tender option"). The tender option may be exercisable at intervals ranging from
bi-weekly  to  semi-annually,  and the  interest  rate on the bonds is typically
reset at the end of the applicable  interval in an attempt to cause the bonds to
have a market  value  that  approximates  their par  value.  The  tender  option
generally  would not be exercisable in the event of a default on, or significant
downgrading of, the underlying municipal bonds.  Therefore,  a fund's ability to
exercise the tender  option will be affected by the credit  standing of both the
bank involved and the issuer of the underlying securities.

         PUT  BONDS.  A put bond is a  municipal  bond that gives the holder the
unconditional  right to sell the bond back to the issuer or a remarketing  agent
at a specified  price and exercise  date,  which is typically well in advance of
the bond's  maturity  date.  The obligation to purchase the bond on the exercise
date may be supported by a letter of credit or other credit support  arrangement
from a bank,  insurance  company  or other  financial  institution,  the  credit
standing of which affects the credit quality of the obligation.

         If the put is a "one time only" put,  the fund  ordinarily  will either
sell the bond or put the bond,  depending upon the more favorable  price. If the
bond has a series of puts after the first put, the bond will be held as long as,
in the judgment of Mitchell Hutchins,  it is in the best interest of the fund to
do so.  There is no assurance  that the issuer of a put bond  acquired by a fund
will be able to repurchase  the bond upon the exercise date, if the fund chooses
to exercise its right to put the bond back to the issuer.

         TAX-EXEMPT  COMMERCIAL PAPER AND SHORT-TERM MUNICIPAL NOTES.  Municipal
bonds include tax-exempt  commercial paper and short-term  municipal notes, such
as tax anticipation notes, bond anticipation notes,  revenue  anticipation notes
and other forms of  short-term  loans.  Such notes are issued with a  short-term
maturity  in  anticipation  of the  receipt of tax funds,  the  proceeds of bond
placements and other revenues.

         INVERSE FLOATERS.  Each fund may invest in municipal bonds on which the
rate of interest  varies  inversely with interest rates on other municipal bonds
or an index. Such obligations include components of securities on which interest
is paid in two separate parts - an auction  component,  which pays interest at a
market rate that is set periodically through an auction process or other method,
and a residual  component,  or "inverse  floater," which pays interest at a rate
equal to the  difference  between the rate that the issuer  would have paid on a
fixed-rate  obligation  at the time of issuance and the rate paid on the auction
component.  The market value of an inverse  floater will be more  volatile  than
that of a  fixed-rate  obligation  and,  like most debt  obligations,  will vary
inversely  with  changes in  interest  rates.  Because of the market  volatility
associated with inverse floaters, no fund will invest more than 10% of its total
assets in inverse floaters.

         Because  the  interest  rate paid to  holders of  inverse  floaters  is
generally determined by subtracting the interest rate paid to holders of auction
components  from a fixed  amount,  the interest  rate paid to holders of inverse
floaters  will  decrease as market  rates  increase and increase as market rates
decrease.  Moreover,  the extent of the  increases  and  decreases in the market
value of inverse  floaters may be larger than  comparable  changes in the market
value of an equal principal amount of a fixed rate municipal bond having similar
credit quality, redemption provisions and maturity. In a declining interest rate
environment,  inverse  floaters can provide a fund with a means of increasing or
maintaining the level of tax-exempt interest paid to shareholders.

         MORTGAGE  SUBSIDY BONDS.  The funds also may purchase  mortgage subsidy
bonds that are normally  issued by special purpose public  authorities.  In some
cases  the   repayment   of  such  bonds   depends   upon   annual   legislative
appropriations;  in other cases  repayment is a legal  obligation  of the issuer
and, if the issuer is unable to meet its obligations,  repayment becomes a moral
commitment  of  a  related   government   unit   (subject,   however,   to  such
appropriations).  The  types of  municipal  bonds  identified  above  and in the
Prospectus  may include  obligations  of issuers  whose  revenues are  primarily
derived  from  mortgage  loans on housing  projects  for  moderate to low income
families.


                                       5
<PAGE>


         YIELD FACTORS AND CREDIT RATINGS; NON-INVESTMENT GRADE BONDS. The yield
of a municipal bond depends on a variety of factors, including general municipal
and fixed income  security  market  conditions,  the financial  condition of the
issuer, the size of the particular  offering,  the maturity,  credit quality and
rating of the issue and expectations  regarding  changes in tax rates. Each fund
may  invest  in  municipal  bonds  with a broad  range of  maturities,  based on
Mitchell  Hutchins'  judgment of current and future market conditions as well as
other factors,  such as the fund's  liquidity needs.  Generally,  the longer the
maturity  of a  municipal  bond,  the higher the rate of  interest  paid and the
greater the volatility.

         Moody's  Investors  Service,  Inc.  ("Moody's"),  Standard & Poor's,  a
division  of The  McGraw-Hill  Companies,  Inc.  ("S&P"),  and other  nationally
recognized  statistical rating agencies ("rating agencies") are private services
that  provide  ratings  of  the  credit  quality  of  bonds  and  certain  other
securities,  including municipal bonds. A description of the ratings assigned to
municipal  bonds by Moody's  and S&P is  included  in the  Appendix to this SAI.
Credit  ratings  attempt  to  evaluate  the  safety of  principal  and  interest
payments,  but they do not  evaluate  the  volatility  of a bond's  value or its
liquidity and do not guarantee the  performance of the issuer.  Rating  agencies
may fail to make timely  changes in credit  ratings in  response  to  subsequent
events, so that an issuer's current  financial  condition may be better or worse
than the rating indicates.  There is a risk that rating agencies may downgrade a
bond's  rating.  Subsequent  to a bond's  purchase by a fund, it may cease to be
rated or its  rating  may be  reduced  below the  minimum  rating  required  for
purchase by the fund. The funds may use these ratings in determining  whether to
purchase,  sell or hold a  security.  It should  be  emphasized,  however,  that
ratings are general and are not  absolute  standards  of quality.  Consequently,
municipal  bonds  with the same  maturity,  interest  rate and  rating  may have
different market prices.

         Opinions  relating  to  the  validity  of  municipal  bonds  and to the
exemption of interest  thereon from federal income tax and (when available) from
the federal alternative minimum tax, California personal income tax and New York
State and New York City  personal  income  taxes are rendered by bond counsel to
the respective  issuing  authorities at the time of issuance.  Neither the funds
nor  Mitchell  Hutchins  reviews the  proceedings  relating  to the  issuance of
municipal bonds or the basis for such opinions.  An issuer's  obligations  under
its municipal  bonds are subject to the  bankruptcy,  insolvency  and other laws
affecting the rights and remedies of creditors  (such as the federal  bankruptcy
laws) and  federal,  state and local  laws that may be  enacted  that  adversely
affect the tax-exempt  status of interest on the municipal  bonds held by a fund
or the exempt-interest  dividends received by a fund's shareholders,  extend the
time for payment of principal or interest,  or both, or impose other constraints
upon enforcement of such  obligations.  There is also the possibility that, as a
result of  litigation  or other  conditions,  the power or ability of issuers to
meet their  obligations  for the payment of  principal  of and interest on their
municipal bonds may be materially and adversely affected.

         Investment  grade  municipal bonds are rated in one of the four highest
rating  categories or one of the two highest  short-term  rating categories by a
rating agency,  such as Moody's or S&P, or, if unrated,  are determined to be of
comparable quality by Mitchell Hutchins.  Medium grade municipal  securities are
investment  grade and are rated A, Baa or MIG-2 by  Moody's or A, BBB or SP-2 by
S&P,  have  received an  equivalent  rating from  another  rating  agency or are
determined by Mitchell Hutchins to be of comparable  quality.  Moody's considers
bonds  rated  Baa (its  lowest  investment  grade  rating)  to have  speculative
characteristics.  This  means  that  changes  in  economic  conditions  or other
circumstances  are more likely to lead to a weakened  capacity to make principal
and interest payments than is the case for higher rated bonds.

         Non-investment grade municipal bonds (commonly known as municipal "junk
bonds" and sometimes  referred to as "high yield"  municipal bonds) are rated Ba
or lower by  Moody's,  BB or lower by S&P,  comparably  rated by another  rating
agency or  determined  by Mitchell  Hutchins to be of  comparable  quality.  The
non-investment  grade municipal bonds in which the funds may invest may be rated
Ba, B or MIG-3 by Moody's  or BB, B or SP-3 by S&P,  have an  equivalent  rating
from another rating agency, or, if unrated,  are determined by Mitchell Hutchins
to be of comparable quality.

         A fund's  investments in  non-investment  grade  municipal bonds entail
greater risk than its  investments in higher rated bonds.  Non-investment  grade
municipal  bonds are considered  predominantly  speculative  with respect to the
issuer's ability to pay interest and repay principal and may involve significant
risk  exposure  to adverse  conditions.  Non-investment  grade  municipal  bonds
generally offer a higher current yield than that available for investment  grade
issues and may be less sensitive to interest rate changes; however, they involve


                                       6
<PAGE>


higher  risks,  in that  they are  more  sensitive  to  adverse  changes  market
conditions.  During periods of economic downturn or rising interest rates, their
issuers may  experience  financial  stress  that could  adversely  affect  their
ability to make payments of interest and principal and increase the  possibility
of default.

         The  market for  non-investment  grade  municipal  bonds  generally  is
thinner and less active than that for higher quality securities, which may limit
a fund's ability to sell these bonds at fair value in response to changes in the
economy or  financial  markets.  Adverse  publicity  and  investor  perceptions,
whether or not based on fundamental  analysis,  may also decrease the values and
liquidity of non-investment grade municipal bonds, especially in a thinly traded
market.

         STAND-BY  COMMITMENTS.  Each  fund  may  acquire  stand-by  commitments
pursuant  to which a bank or other  municipal  bond  dealer  agrees to  purchase
securities that are held in the fund's  portfolio or that are being purchased by
the fund, at a price equal to (1) the  acquisition  cost  (excluding any accrued
interest paid on  acquisition),  less any amortized  market  premium or plus any
accrued market or original issue discount,  plus (2) all interest accrued on the
securities  since the last interest payment date or the date the securities were
purchased  by  the  fund,  whichever  is  later.  Each  fund  may  acquire  such
commitments to facilitate portfolio liquidity.

         A fund would enter into stand-by  commitments  only with those banks or
other dealers that, in the opinion of Mitchell Hutchins,  present minimal credit
risk. A fund's right to exercise stand-by commitments would be unconditional and
unqualified. A stand-by commitment would not be transferable by a fund, although
the fund could sell the underlying municipal bonds to a third party at any time.
A fund may pay for stand-by commitments either separately in cash or by paying a
higher price for the securities  that are acquired  subject to such a commitment
(thus  reducing  the  yield  to  maturity  otherwise   available  for  the  same
securities).  The  acquisition  of a stand-by  commitment  would not  ordinarily
affect the valuation or maturity of the  underlying  municipal  bonds.  Stand-by
commitments  acquired by a fund would be valued at zero in determining net asset
value.  Whether the fund paid directly or indirectly for a stand-by  commitment,
its cost would be treated as unrealized depreciation and would be amortized over
the period the commitment is held by the fund.

         ILLIQUID  SECURITIES.  The term "illiquid  securities" means securities
that cannot be disposed of within seven days in the ordinary  course of business
at  approximately  the  amount at which a fund has  valued  the  securities  and
includes, among other things,  purchased  over-the-counter  options,  repurchase
agreements  maturing  in more than seven days and  municipal  lease  obligations
(including certificates of participation) other than those Mitchell Hutchins has
determined are liquid  pursuant to guidelines  established by each fund's board.
The assets used as cover for over-the-counter  options written by a fund will be
considered  illiquid unless the options are sold to qualified  dealers who agree
that the fund may  repurchase the options at a maximum price to be calculated by
a formula set forth in the option agreements.  The cover for an over-the-counter
option written  subject to this procedure  would be considered  illiquid only to
the extent that the  maximum  repurchase  price  under the  formula  exceeds the
intrinsic value of the option.  A fund may not be able to readily  liquidate its
investments  in illiquid  securities  and may have to sell other  investments if
necessary to raise cash to meet its obligations.  The lack of a liquid secondary
market for illiquid securities may make it more difficult for a fund to assign a
value to those  securities for purposes of valuing its portfolio and calculating
its net asset value.

         Each  board  has   delegated   the   function   of  making   day-to-day
determinations of liquidity to Mitchell Hutchins pursuant to guidelines approved
by the  board.  Mitchell  Hutchins  takes  into  account a number of  factors in
reaching  liquidity  decisions,  including  (1) the  frequency of trades for the
security,  (2) the number of dealers that make quotes for the security,  (3) the
number of dealers that have undertaken to make a market in the security, (4) the
number of other potential  purchasers and (5) the nature of the security and how
trading is effected  (E.G.,  the time needed to sell the security,  how bids are
solicited  and the  mechanics  of  transfer).  Mitchell  Hutchins  monitors  the
liquidity of securities in each fund's  portfolio  and reports  periodically  on
liquidity decisions to the applicable board.

         In  making  determinations  as to  the  liquidity  of  municipal  lease
obligations,  Mitchell Hutchins will distinguish  between direct  investments in
municipal  lease  obligations  (or  participations  therein) and  investments in
securities that may be supported by municipal lease  obligations or certificates
of  participation  therein.   Since  these  municipal  lease   obligation-backed
securities are based on a  well-established  means of  securitization,  Mitchell
Hutchins does not believe that  investing in such  securities  presents the same
liquidity issues as direct investments in municipal lease obligations.


                                       7
<PAGE>


         Mitchell  Hutchins  monitors each fund's  overall  holdings of illiquid
securities. If a fund's holdings of illiquid securities exceed its limitation on
investments in illiquid securities for any reason (such as a particular security
becoming  illiquid,  changes in relative  market  values of liquid and  illiquid
portfolio  securities  or  shareholder  redemptions),   Mitchell  Hutchins  will
consider  what  action  would  be in the  best  interest  of the  fund  and  its
shareholders.  Such action may include  engaging  in an orderly  disposition  of
securities to reduce the fund's holdings of illiquid securities. However, a fund
is not required to dispose of illiquid securities under these circumstances.

         REPURCHASE AGREEMENTS. The funds do not intend to enter into repurchase
agreements except as a temporary measure and under unusual circumstances because
repurchase agreements generate taxable income. Each fund is, however, authorized
to enter into repurchase  agreements with U.S. banks and dealers with respect to
any  obligation  issued or  guaranteed by the U.S.  government,  its agencies or
instrumentalities  and also with respect to commercial  paper, bank certificates
of deposit and bankers'  acceptances.  Repurchase agreements are transactions in
which a fund purchases securities or other obligations from a bank or securities
dealer (or its  affiliate)  and  simultaneously  commits  to resell  them to the
counterparty at an agreed-upon  date or upon demand and at a price  reflecting a
market  rate  of  interest  unrelated  to the  coupon  rate or  maturity  of the
purchased  obligations.  A fund maintains custody of the underlying  obligations
prior to their  repurchase,  either  through its regular  custodian or through a
special "tri-party"  custodian or sub-custodian that maintains separate accounts
for both the fund and its counterparty. Thus, the obligation of the counterparty
to pay the repurchase  price on the date agreed to or upon demand is, in effect,
secured by such obligations.

         Repurchase  agreements  carry certain risks not associated  with direct
investments in securities,  including a possible  decline in the market value of
the  underlying  obligations.  If their value  becomes less than the  repurchase
price,  plus any agreed-upon  additional  amount,  the counterparty must provide
additional  collateral so that at all times the  collateral is at least equal to
the repurchase  price plus any  agreed-upon  additional  amount.  The difference
between the total amount to be received upon  repurchase of the  obligations and
the price that was paid by a fund upon  acquisition  is accrued as interest  and
included  in  its  net  investment  income.   Repurchase   agreements  involving
obligations other than U.S. government  securities (such as commercial paper and
corporate bonds) may be subject to special risks and may not have the benefit of
certain protections in the event of the counterparty's insolvency. If the seller
or guarantor becomes insolvent,  the fund may suffer delays,  costs and possible
losses in connection  with the  disposition of collateral.  Each fund intends to
enter  into  repurchase  agreements  only with  counterparties  in  transactions
believed by Mitchell Hutchins to present minimum credit risks.

         WHEN-ISSUED  AND DELAYED  DELIVERY  SECURITIES.  Each fund may purchase
securities  on a  "when-issued"  basis or may  purchase or sell  securities  for
delayed delivery,  I.E., for issuance or delivery to or by the fund later than a
normal  settlement  date at a stated price and yield. A fund generally would not
pay for such  securities  or  start  earning  interest  on them  until  they are
received.  However,  when a fund  undertakes a when-issued  or delayed  delivery
obligation,  it immediately assumes the risks of ownership,  including the risks
of price fluctuation. Failure of the issuer to deliver a security purchased by a
fund on a  when-issued  or  delayed  delivery  basis may  result  in the  fund's
incurring or missing an opportunity to make an alternative investment.

         A security  purchased on a  when-issued  or delayed  delivery  basis is
recorded as an asset on the commitment  date and is subject to changes in market
value,  generally  based upon  changes  in the level of  interest  rates.  Thus,
fluctuation  in the value of the security from the time of the  commitment  date
will affect a fund's net asset value. When a fund commits to purchase securities
on a when-issued or delayed delivery basis, its custodian  segregates  assets to
cover the amount of the commitment.  See "The Funds' Investments,  Related Risks
and  Limitations  --  Segregated  Accounts."  A fund's  when-issued  and delayed
delivery  purchase  commitments  could cause its net asset value per share to be
more volatile.

         DURATION.  Duration  is a measure of the  expected  life of a bond on a
present value basis.  Duration  incorporates  the bond's yield,  coupon interest
payments,  final  maturity and call  features into one measure and is one of the
fundamental  tools used by Mitchell  Hutchins in portfolio  selection  and yield
curve  positioning  for a fund's bond  investments.  Duration was developed as a
more precise  alternative  to the concept "term to maturity."  Traditionally,  a
bond's "term to maturity"  has been used as a proxy for the  sensitivity  of the
security's price to changes in interest rates (which is the "interest rate risk"
or "volatility" of the security).  However, "term to maturity" measures only the
time until the  scheduled  final  payment on the bond,  taking no account of the
pattern of payments prior to maturity.


                                       8
<PAGE>


         Duration  takes the length of the time  intervals  between  the present
time and the time that the interest and principal  payments are scheduled or, in
the case of a  callable  bond,  expected  to be made,  and  weights  them by the
present  values of the cash to be received at each future point in time. For any
bond  with  interest  payments  occurring  prior to the  payment  of  principal,
duration is always less than maturity. For example,  depending on its coupon and
the level of market  yields,  a Treasury note with a remaining  maturity of five
years  might  have a  duration  of 4.5  years.  For  mortgage-backed  and  other
securities that are subject to  prepayments,  put or call features or adjustable
coupons,  the difference  between the remaining stated maturity and the duration
is likely to be much greater.

         Duration allows Mitchell Hutchins to make certain predictions as to the
effect that  changes in the level of interest  rates will have on the value of a
fund's  portfolio  of  bonds.  For  example,  when the level of  interest  rates
increases by 1%, a bond having a positive duration of three years generally will
decrease by approximately 3%. Thus, if Mitchell Hutchins calculates the duration
of a fund's  portfolio  of bonds as three  years,  it normally  would expect the
portfolio  to  change  in value by  approximately  3% for every 1% change in the
level  of  interest  rates.  However,   various  factors,  such  as  changes  in
anticipated prepayment rates,  qualitative  considerations and market supply and
demand,  can cause  particular  securities to respond  somewhat  differently  to
changes in interest rates than indicated in the above example.  Moreover, in the
case of mortgage-backed and other complex securities,  duration calculations are
estimates  and are not  precise.  This is  particularly  true during  periods of
market  volatility.  Accordingly,  the net asset value of a fund's  portfolio of
bonds may vary in relation to interest  rates by a greater or lesser  percentage
than indicated by the above example.

         Futures,  options  and  options  on futures  have  durations  that,  in
general,  are closely  related to the duration of the  securities  that underlie
them.  Holding long futures or call option  positions  will  lengthen  portfolio
duration by approximately  the same amount as would holding an equivalent amount
of the  underlying  securities.  Short  futures or put  options  have  durations
roughly equal to the negative  duration of the  securities  that underlie  these
positions and have the effect of reducing  portfolio  duration by  approximately
the  same  amount  as would  selling  an  equivalent  amount  of the  underlying
securities.

         There are some  situations in which the standard  duration  calculation
does not properly reflect the interest rate exposure of a security. For example,
floating and variable rate securities often have final maturities of ten or more
years; however, their interest rate exposure corresponds to the frequency of the
coupon reset.  Another  example where the interest rate exposure is not properly
captured by the standard  duration  calculation  is the case of  mortgage-backed
securities.  The stated final maturity of such securities is generally 30 years,
but  current  prepayment  rates are  critical  in  determining  the  securities'
interest rate exposure. In these and other similar situations, Mitchell Hutchins
will use more sophisticated  analytical techniques that incorporate the economic
life of a security into the  determination of its duration and,  therefore,  its
interest rate exposure.

         LENDING OF PORTFOLIO  SECURITIES.  Each fund is  authorized to lend its
portfolio securities to broker-dealers or institutional  investors that Mitchell
Hutchins deems qualified.  Lending  securities enables a fund to earn additional
income, but could result in a loss or delay in recovering these securities.  The
borrower of a fund's portfolio  securities must maintain  acceptable  collateral
with that fund's custodian in an amount,  marked to market daily, at least equal
to the  market  value  of the  securities  loaned,  plus  accrued  interest  and
dividends.  Acceptable collateral is limited to cash, U.S. government securities
and irrevocable  letters of credit that meet certain  guidelines  established by
Mitchell  Hutchins.  Each fund may reinvest any cash  collateral in money market
investments or other short-term  liquid  investments  including other investment
companies.  A fund also may  reinvest  cash  collateral  in  private  investment
vehicles  similar to money  market  funds,  including  one  managed by  Mitchell
Hutchins.   In   determining   whether  to  lend   securities  to  a  particular
broker-dealer or institutional  investor,  Mitchell Hutchins will consider,  and
during  the  period  of  the  loan  will   monitor,   all  relevant   facts  and
circumstances,  including the  creditworthiness of the borrower.  Each fund will
retain  authority to terminate  any of its loans at any time.  Each fund may pay
reasonable  fees in  connection  with a loan and may pay the borrower or placing
broker a negotiated  portion of the interest earned on the  reinvestment of cash
held as  collateral.  A fund will receive  amounts  equivalent to any dividends,
interest or other  distributions on the securities loaned. Each fund will regain
record ownership of loaned  securities to exercise  beneficial  rights,  such as
voting and subscription  rights,  when regaining such rights is considered to be
in the fund's interest.

         Pursuant  to  procedures  adopted by the boards  governing  each fund's
securities  lending  program,  PaineWebber has been retained to serve as lending
agent for each  fund.  The  boards  also have  authorized  the  payment  of fees


                                       9
<PAGE>


(including  fees  calculated  as a percentage of invested  cash  collateral)  to
PaineWebber for these services.  Each board  periodically  reviews all portfolio
securities  loan  transactions  for which  PaineWebber  acted as lending  agent.
PaineWebber  also has been approved as a borrower  under each fund's  securities
lending program.

         SEGREGATED ACCOUNTS.  When a fund enters into certain transactions that
involve  obligations  to make future  payments to third  parties,  including the
purchase of securities  on a  when-issued  or delayed  delivery  basis,  it will
maintain  with an approved  custodian  in a  segregated  account  cash or liquid
securities,  marked to market  daily,  in an amount at least equal to the fund's
obligation  or  commitment  under such  transactions.  As described  below under
"Strategies  Using  Derivative  Instruments,"  segregated  accounts  may also be
required in connection with certain transactions involving options or futures.

         TEMPORARY AND DEFENSIVE  INVESTMENTS;  MONEY MARKET  INVESTMENTS.  When
Mitchell  Hutchins  believes  that  unusual  circumstances  warrant a  defensive
posture and that there are not enough suitable  municipal bonds available,  each
fund may temporarily and without  percentage limit hold cash and invest in money
market instruments that pay taxable interest,  including repurchase  agreements.
If a fund holds cash, the cash would not earn income and would reduce the fund's
yield.  In  addition,  for  temporary  defensive  purposes,  each of  California
Tax-Free Income Fund, National Tax-Free Income Fund and New York Tax-Free Income
Fund may invest more than 20% of its net assets in  municipal  obligations  that
pay interest that is exempt from federal income tax but is subject to California
personal income tax (in the case of California  Tax-Free Income Fund),  New York
State and New York City personal  income taxes (in the case of New York Tax-Free
Income Fund) or is not AMT exempt interest.

         SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS RELATING TO CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL SECURITIES. The
following  information  provides  only a brief  summary of the  complex  factors
affecting  the financial  situation in  California  (the "State") and is derived
from sources  that are  generally  available to investors  and is believed to be
accurate.  It is based in part on  information  obtained  from various State and
local agencies in California.  It should be noted that the  creditworthiness  of
obligations  issued  by  local  California  issuers  may  be  unrelated  to  the
creditworthiness of obligations issued by the State of California,  and there is
no  obligation  on the part of the  State to make  payment  on local  government
obligations in the event of default or financial difficulty.

GENERAL

         During the early 1990's,  California experienced  significant financial
difficulties,  which reduced its credit standing,  but the State's finances have
improved  significantly  since 1994,  with  ratings  increases  since 1996.  The
ratings of certain  related debt of other  issuers for which  California  has an
outstanding lease purchase,  guarantee or other contractual  obligation (such as
for state-insured  hospital bonds) are generally linked directly to California's
rating.  Should the financial  condition of California  deteriorate  again,  its
credit ratings could be reduced,  and the market value and  marketability of all
outstanding  notes and bonds issued by  California,  its public  authorities  or
local governments could be adversely affected.

ECONOMIC FACTORS

          California's economy is the largest among the 50 states and one of the
largest in the world. The State's population of over 34 million represents about
12-1/2% of the total United States population and grew by 26% in the 1980s, more
than double the national rate. Population growth slowed to less than 1% annually
in 1994 and 1995, but rose to almost 2% in the final years of the 1990's. During
the early  1990's,  net  population  growth  in the State was due to births  and
foreign immigration, but in recent years, in-migration from the other states has
increased and once more represents net positive growth.

         Total  personal  income in the State,  at an estimated  $964 billion in
1999,  accounts  for  almost 13% of all  personal  income in the  nation.  Total
employment  is over 15 million,  the majority of which is in the service,  trade
and manufacturing sectors.

         From  mid-1990 to late 1993,  the State  suffered a recession  with the
worst  economic,  fiscal and budget  conditions  since the 1930s.  Construction,
manufacturing (especially aerospace), and financial services, among others, were
all severely  affected,  particularly in Southern  California.  Recovery did not
begin in  California  until 1994,  later than the rest of the nation,  but since
that time California's  economy has outpaced the national average. By the end of


                                       10
<PAGE>


1999,  unemployment  in the  State  was at its  lowest  level in three  decades.
Economic  indicators  show a steady and strong  recovery  underway in California
since  the  start of 1994  particularly  in high  technology  manufacturing  and
services,  including  computer  software,  electronic  manufacturing  and motion
picture/television  production,  and other services,  entertainment and tourism,
and  both  residential  and  commercial  construction.   International  economic
problems  starting in 1997 had some moderating  impact on California's  economy,
but  negative  impacts,  such as a sharp  drop in exports to Asia which hurt the
manufacturing  and  agricultural  sectors,  were offset by increased  exports to
Latin American and other nations,  and a greater strength in services,  computer
software and  construction.  With economic  conditions  in many Asian  countries
recovering in 1999, that year had the strongest economic growth in the State for
the entire decade.  Current  forecasts  predict  continued  strong growth of the
State's  economy in 2000, with slower growth  predicted in 2001 and beyond.  Any
delay or reversal of the recovery may create new shortfalls in State revenues.

CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS ON TAXES, OTHER CHARGES AND APPROPRIATIONS

         LIMITATION ON PROPERTY TAXES. Certain California Municipal  Obligations
may be  obligations  of  issuers  which  rely in whole or in part,  directly  or
indirectly,  on AD VALOREM  property  taxes as a source of  revenue.  The taxing
powers of  California  local  governments  and  districts are limited by Article
XIIIA of the California Constitution, enacted by the voters in 1978 and commonly
known as  "Proposition  13."  Briefly,  Article  XIIIA limits to 1% of full cash
value of the rate of AD VALOREM  property  taxes on real  property and generally
restricts  the  reassessment  of  property  to 2% per  year,  except  under  new
construction or change of ownership (subject to a number of exemptions).  Taxing
entities  may,  however,  raise AD VALOREM  taxes above the 1% limit to pay debt
service on voter-approved bonded indebtedness.

         Under  Article  XIIIA,  the  basic 1% AD  VALOREM  tax levy is  applied
against the assessed value of property as of the owner's date of acquisition (or
as of March 1, 1975, if acquired earlier), subject to certain adjustments.  This
system has  resulted  in widely  varying  amounts of tax on  similarly  situated
properties.  Several lawsuits have been filed challenging the  acquisition-based
assessment system of Proposition 13, but it was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court
in 1992.

         Article XIIIA prohibits local governments from raising revenues through
AD VALOREM taxes above the 1% limit; it also requires voters of any governmental
unit to give  two-thirds  approval to levy any "special  tax." Court  decisions,
however,  allowed a non-voter  approved  levy of "general  taxes" which were not
dedicated to a specific use.

         LIMITATIONS ON OTHER TAXES, FEES AND CHARGES.  On November 5, 1996, the
voters of the State approved Proposition 218, called the "Right to Vote on Taxes
Act." Proposition 218 added Articles XIIIC and XIIID to the State  Constitution,
which contain a number of provisions  affecting the ability of local agencies to
levy and collect both existing and future taxes, assessments, fees and charges.

         Article  XIIIC  requires  that  all new or  increased  local  taxes  be
submitted  to the  electorate  before they become  effective.  Taxes for general
governmental  purposes  require a majority vote and taxes for specific  purposes
require a two-thirds vote.  Further,  any general purpose tax which was imposed,
extended or increased  without voter  approval  after  December 31, 1994 must be
approved by a majority vote within two years.

         Article XIIID contains several new provisions  making it generally more
difficult for local  agencies to levy and maintain  "assessments"  for municipal
services  and  programs.  Article  XIIID also  contains  several new  provisions
affecting  "fees" and  "charges",  defined for purposes of Article XIIID to mean
"any levy other than an ad valorem tax, a special tax, or an assessment, imposed
by a  [local  government]  upon a  parcel  or upon a person  as an  incident  of
property  ownership,  including  a user fee or  charge  for a  property  related
service." All new and existing property related fees and charges must conform to
requirements  prohibiting,  among other things,  fees and charges which generate
revenues exceeding the funds required to provide the property related service or
are used for  unrelated  purposes.  There are new  notice,  hearing  and protest
procedures  for levying or increasing  property  related fees and charges,  and,
except for fees or charges for sewer,  water and refuse collection  services (or
fees for electrical and gas service, which are not treated as "property related"
for purposes of Article XIIID), no property related fee or charge may be imposed
or increased without majority approval by the property owners subject to the fee
or charge or, at the option of the local agency,  two-thirds  voter  approval by
the electorate residing in the affected area.


                                       11
<PAGE>


         In addition to the provisions  described  above,  Article XIIIC removes
limitations on the initiative power in matters of local taxes, assessments, fees
and charges.  Consequently,  local voters could, by future  initiative,  repeal,
reduce  or  prohibit  the  future  imposition  or  increase  of any  local  tax,
assessment,  fee or charge. It is unclear how this right of local initiative may
be used in  cases  where  taxes or  charges  have  been or will be  specifically
pledged to secure debt issues.

         The  interpretation  and application of Proposition 218 will ultimately
be determined  by the courts with respect to a number of matters,  and it is not
possible  at  this  time  to  predict  with   certainty   the  outcome  of  such
determinations.  Proposition  218 is generally  viewed as restricting the fiscal
flexibility  of  local  governments,  and  for  this  reason,  some  ratings  of
California cities and counties have been, and others may be, reduced.

         APPROPRIATIONS  LIMITS. The State and its local governments are subject
to an annual  "appropriations  limit" imposed by Article XIIIB of the California
Constitution,  enacted  by the  voters  in 1979  and  significantly  amended  by
Propositions 98 and 111 in 1988 and 1990, respectively.  Article XIIIB prohibits
the State or any covered local government from spending  "appropriations subject
to limitation" in excess of the  appropriations  limit imposed.  "Appropriations
subject to limitation"  are  authorizations  to spend "proceeds of taxes," which
consist of tax  revenues  and  certain  other  funds,  including  proceeds  from
regulatory  licenses,  user  charges  or other  fees,  to the  extent  that such
proceeds  exceed the cost of providing the product or service,  but "proceeds of
taxes" exclude most State subventions to local governments.  No limit is imposed
on appropriations of funds which are not "proceeds of taxes," such as reasonable
user charges or fees, and certain other non-tax funds, including bond proceeds.

         Among the expenditures not included in the Article XIIIB appropriations
limit  are (1) the debt  service  cost of bonds  issued or  authorized  prior to
January 1, 1979, or subsequently  authorized by the voters,  (2)  appropriations
arising from certain  emergencies  declared by the Governor,  (3) appropriations
for  certain  capital  outlay  projects,  (4)  appropriations  by the  State  of
post-1989  increases  in  gasoline  taxes  and  vehicle  weight  fees,  and  (5)
appropriations made in certain cases of emergency.

         The appropriations  limit for each year is adjusted annually to reflect
changes  in  cost  of  living  and  population,  and any  transfers  of  service
responsibilities  between government units. The definitions for such adjustments
were liberalized in 1990 to follow more closely growth in the State's economy.

         "Excess" revenues are measured over a two year cycle. Local governments
must return any excess to  taxpayers by rate  reductions.  The State must refund
50% of any excess,  with the other 50% paid to schools and  community  colleges.
With more liberal annual adjustment  factors since 1988, and depressed  revenues
in the  early  1990's  because  of the  recession,  few  governments  have  been
operating near their spending  limits,  but this condition may change over time.
Local  governments  may by voter approval exceed their spending limits for up to
four years.  For the last ten years,  appropriations  subject to limitation have
been under the State's limit. However, because of extraordinary revenue receipts
estimated for fiscal years 1999-2000 and 2000-01,  State  appropriations are now
estimated to be close the limit.  See "Recent  Financial  Results - FY 1999-2000
Budget" below. As noted,  the State has several options to make  expenditures in
categories which are exempt from the limit, if needed to avoid a tax rebate.

         Because of the complex nature of Articles XIIIA, XIIIB, XIIIC and XIIID
of the California Constitution,  the ambiguities and possible inconsistencies in
their terms,  and the  impossibility  of  predicting  future  appropriations  or
changes in  population  and cost of living,  and the  probability  of continuing
legal challenges,  it is not currently possible to determine fully the impact of
these  Articles on  California  municipal  obligations  or on the ability of the
State or local  governments  to pay debt  service on such  California  municipal
obligations.  It is not possible, at the present time, to predict the outcome of
any  pending   litigation  with  respect  to  the  ultimate  scope,   impact  or
constitutionality  of these  Articles  or the impact of any such  determinations
upon State  agencies  or local  governments,  or upon their  ability to pay debt
service on their obligations. Further initiatives or legislative changes in laws
or the California Constitution may also affect the ability of the State or local
issuers to repay their obligations.


                                       12
<PAGE>


OBLIGATIONS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

         Under the California Constitution,  debt service on outstanding general
obligation  bonds is the second  charge to the General Fund after support of the
public school system and public institutions of higher education. As of April 1,
2000, the State had outstanding approximately $20.6 billion of long-term general
obligation bonds, plus $679 million of general obligation commercial paper which
will be  refunded  by  long-term  bonds  in the  future,  and  $6.7  billion  of
lease-purchase  debt  supported by the State  General  Fund.  The State also had
about $15.7  billion of authorized  and unissued  long-term  general  obligation
bonds and lease-purchase debt. In FY 1998-99, debt service on general obligation
bonds and lease purchase debt was approximately 4.4% of General Fund revenues.

RECENT FINANCIAL RESULTS.

         The principal  sources of General Fund  revenues in 1998-1999  were the
California personal income tax (53 percent of total revenues), the sales tax (32
percent),  bank and corporation taxes (10 percent), and the gross premium tax on
insurance (2 percent).  An estimated 20% of personal income tax receipts (10% of
total General Fund) is derived from capital gains  realizations and stock option
income.  While these  sources have been  extraordinarily  strong in the past few
years, they are particularly volatile; any sustained drop in stock market levels
could have a significant impact on these revenues.

         The State  maintains a Special  Fund for  Economic  Uncertainties  (the
"SFEU"),  derived from General Fund revenues, as a reserve to meet cash needs of
the General Fund,  but which is required to be replenished as soon as sufficient
revenues are available. Year-end balances in the SFEU are included for financial
reporting purposes in the General Fund balance.  Because of the recession and an
accumulated budget deficit,  no reserve was budgeted in the SFEU from 1992-93 to
1995-96.

         Throughout the 1980's,  State spending  increased  rapidly as the State
population and economy also grew rapidly,  including increased spending for many
assistance programs to local governments,  which were constrained by Proposition
13 and other laws.  The largest  State  program is  assistance  to local  public
school  districts.  In 1988,  an initiative  (Proposition  98) was enacted which
(subject to suspension by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature and the Governor)
guarantees  local school  districts  and community  college  districts a minimum
share of State General Fund revenues (currently about 35 percent).

         RECENT  BUDGETS.  As a result of the  severe  economic  recession  from
1990-94 and other factors,  during this period the State experienced substantial
revenue shortfalls, and greater than anticipated social service costs. The State
accumulated  and  sustained a budget  deficit in the budget  reserve,  the SFEU,
approaching  $2.8  billion at its peak at June 30,  1993.  The  Legislature  and
Governor  responded  to these  deficits  by  enacting  a series of fiscal  steps
between  FY1991-92  and  FY1994-95,  including  significant  cuts in health  and
welfare and other  program  expenditures,  tax  increases,  transfers of program
responsibilities  and some funding sources from the State to local  governments,
and  transfer  of about  $3.6  billion in annual  local  property  tax  revenues
primarily from cities and counties to local school  districts,  thereby reducing
State funding for schools.  The budget deficits also led to cash flow shortfalls
which led the State to use  external  cash  flow  borrowing  over the end of the
fiscal year for several years to fund the deficit.

         With the economic  recovery which began in 1994, the State's  financial
condition  improved  markedly  in  the  years  from  FY1995-96  onward,  with  a
combination  of better  than  expected  revenues,  slowdown  in growth of social
welfare programs, and continued spending restraint based on the actions taken in
earlier years. The State's cash position also improved,  and no external deficit
borrowing has occurred over the fiscal year since FY 1994-95.

         The economy grew strongly  during these fiscal years,  and as a result,
the General Fund took in substantially greater tax revenues (around $2.2 billion
in 1995-96,  $1.6 billion in 1996-97,  $2.1 billion in 1997-98, and $1.6 billion
in 1998-99) than were  initially  planned when the budgets were  enacted.  These
additional  funds were  largely  directed  to school  spending  as  mandated  by
Proposition  98,  and to make up  shortfalls  from  reduced  federal  health and
welfare aid in 1995-96 and  1996-97.  The  accumulated  budget  deficit from the
recession years was finally eliminated. The Department of Finance estimates that
the State's  budget  reserve (the SFEU)  totaled  about $1.8 billion at June 30,
1998 and $3.1 billion at June 30, 1999.


                                       13
<PAGE>


         The  growth in General  Fund  revenues  since the end of the  recession
resulted in  significant  increases in State funding for local school  districts
under Proposition 98. From the recession level of about $4,300 per pupil, annual
State  funding  has  increased  to over  $6,000  per  pupil in FY  1999-2000.  A
significant amount of the new moneys have been directed to specific  educational
reforms,  including  reduction of class sizes in many grade levels. The improved
budget  condition also allowed annual  increases in support for higher education
in the State, permitting increased enrollment and reduction of student fees.

         Part of the 1997-98  Budget Act was  completion of State welfare reform
legislation  to  implement  the new  federal  law passed in 1996.  The new State
program,  called  "CalWORKs,"  became effective  January 1, 1998, and emphasizes
programs to bring aid recipients into the workforce. As required by federal law,
new time  limits are placed on receipt  of welfare  aid.  Generally,  health and
welfare  costs have been  contained  even  during the recent  period of economic
recovery,  with the first real increases  (after  inflation) in welfare  support
levels occurring in 1999-2000.

         One of the  most  important  elements  of the  1998-99  Budget  Act was
agreement on  substantial  tax cuts. The largest of these was a phased-in cut in
the Vehicle  License Fee (an annual tax on the value of cars  registered  in the
State,  the "VLF").  Starting on January 1, 1999, the VLF has been reduced by 25
percent.  Under  pre-existing  law, VLF funds are  automatically  transferred to
cities and  counties,  so the new  legislation  provided for the General Fund to
make up the  reductions.  If State General Fund revenues  continue to grow above
certain  targeted  levels in future  years,  the cut could reach as much as 67.5
percent by the year 2003. The initial 25 percent VLF cut will be offset by about
$500  million in General Fund money in FY 1998-99,  and $1 billion  annually for
future years. Other tax cuts in FY 1998-99 included an increase in the dependent
credit  exemption for personal income tax filers,  restoration of a renter's tax
credit for taxpayers,  and a variety of business tax relief measures.  The total
cost of these tax cuts was estimated at $1.4 billion for FY 1998-99.

         FY  1999-2000  BUDGET.  The  1999-00  Budget Act was signed on June 29,
1999, only the second time in the decade the budget was in place at the start of
the fiscal year.  After the  Governor  used his  line-item  veto power to reduce
expenditures  by about $581  million,  the final  spending plan called for about
$63.7  billion of  General  Fund  expenditures,  $16.1  billion of Special  Fund
expenditures, and $1.5 billion in bond funded expenditures. The Governor's final
budget  actions left the SFEU with an estimated  balance of $881 million at June
30, 2000,  but the Governor also reduced  spending to set aside $300 million for
future  appropriation  for either  employee pay raises or  potential  litigation
costs.

         The final Budget Act generally  provided  increased  funding for a wide
range of programs.  Education spending under Proposition 98 received the largest
increase (over $2.3 billion above 1998-99), with other significant increases for
higher education,  health and welfare, natural resources and capital outlay. The
budget provides  several hundred million dollars in direct new aid to cities and
counties.

         The  final  spending  plan  includes  several  targeted  tax  cuts  for
businesses,  totaling  under $100 million in 1999-00.  The plan also  includes a
one-time,  one-year  additional cut of 10 percent in the Vehicle License Fee for
calendar  year 2000.  This cut will cost the General  Fund about $500 million in
each of 1999-00 and 2000-01 to make up lost funds for local  governments.  Under
the 1998 law, the VLF cut to 35 percent would become  permanent in the year 2001
if General Fund revenues  reach a certain  specified  level in 2000-01.  Current
estimates indicate this level will be reached.

         In January,  2000, the Governor released his proposed budget for fiscal
year  2000-01  (the  "January  Governor's  Budget").  In May,  2000,  the  State
Department of Finance released its update of the January  Governor's Budget (the
"May Revision),  which also included updated revenue and expenditure projections
for  1999-2000  and 2000-01.  The May  Revision  reported  that State's  economy
remained  very  strong;  1999  had  the  greatest  growth  since  the end of the
recession in 1994. This growth,  together with the strong stock market, resulted
in  extraordinary  growth in revenues,  particular  personal  income taxes.  The
Administration  revised  its revenue  estimates  for  1999-2000  upward to $70.9
billion,  an increase of $8 billion above the original Budget Act estimate,  and
$5.7  billion  above the  previous  estimate in the January  Governor's  Budget.
Expenditures   were   projected  to  increase  to  about  $67.3   billion.   The
Administration's  projected  balance in the SFEU at June 30, 2000 increased from
about $880 million at the time of the original  Budget Act to over $6.9 billion.
Much  of  this  balance  will  be  spent  in  2000-01.   As  noted  above  under
"Constitutional  Limitations on Taxes,  Other Charges and  Appropriations,"  the


                                       14
<PAGE>


extraordinary  and rapid growth of State  revenues now places the State close to
its appropriations limit under Article XIIIB of the State Constitution.

         Although,  as noted, the  Administration  projected a budget reserve in
the SFEU of about $6.9 billion on June 30,  1999,  the General Fund fund balance
on that date also  reflects  $1.0 billion of "loans" which the General Fund made
to local schools in the  recession  years,  representing  cash outlays above the
mandatory   minimum   funding  level.   Settlement  of  litigation   over  these
transactions  in July 1996 calls for  repayment  of these  loans over the period
ending in 2001-02, about equally split between outlays from the General Fund and
from schools'  entitlements.  The 1999-2000  Budget Act contained a $350 million
appropriation from the General Fund toward this settlement.

         PROPOSED  FY  2000-01  BUDGET.  In  the  2000  Governor's  Budget,  the
Administration  proposed  General Fund  expenditures of $68.8 billion,  based on
expected  revenues of $68.2  billion  (including  $390  million from the tobacco
litigation  settlement  and sale of assets).  In the May Revision,  the Governor
increased proposed spending in FY 2000-01 to $78.2 billion, based on anticipated
revenues of $73.8 billion.  The revised proposal  included a balance in the SFEU
at June 30, 2001 of $1.8 billion,  plus set-aside of an additional  $600 million
for legal  contingencies  and  legislative  initiatives.  The Governor  proposed
substantial  additional funding for K-12 schools,  higher education,  health and
social services,  tax relief,  transportation and other capital outlay and other
programs.  About $7.2 billion of the proposed  expenditures  are one-time items.
Final  decisions  for the  2000-01  Budget  will be  made  by the  Governor  and
Legislature by July, 2000.

         Although the State's strong economy is producing record revenues to the
State government, the State's budget continues to be marked by mandated spending
on  education,  a rising  prison  population,  and  social  needs  of a  growing
population with many immigrants. These factors which limit State spending growth
also put pressure on local  governments.  There can be no  assurances  that,  if
economic  conditions  weaken,  or other  factors  intercede,  the State will not
experience budget gaps in the future.

BOND RATING

         The ratings on California's  long-term  general  obligation  bonds were
reduced in the early  1990's from "AAA"  levels  which had existed  prior to the
recession.  After 1996, the three major rating  agencies raised their ratings of
California's  general  obligation  bonds,  which as of June,  2000 were assigned
ratings of "AA-" from Standard & Poor's, "Aa3" from Moody's and "AA" from Fitch.

         There can be no assurance  that such ratings will be  maintained in the
future. It should be noted that the  creditworthiness  of obligations  issued by
local  California  issuers may be unrelated to  creditworthiness  of obligations
issued by the State of  California,  and that there is no obligation on the part
of the State to make payment on such local obligations in the event of default.

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

         The State is involved in certain  legal  proceedings  (described in the
State's recent  financial  statements)  that, if decided against the State,  may
require the State to make significant  future  expenditures or may substantially
impair  revenues.  Trial courts have  recently  entered  tentative  decisions or
injunctions  which would  overturn  several  parts of the State's  recent budget
compromises. The matters covered by these lawsuits include reductions in welfare
payments and the use of certain  cigarette  tax funds for health  costs.  All of
these cases are subject to further  proceedings  and appeals,  and if California
eventually loses, the final remedies may not have to be implemented in one year.
The State  recently  lost cases  involving  a smog  impact  fee on  out-of-state
automobiles  (total  liability of about $630 million) and certain  corporate tax
credits ($100 million). The Administration has proposed, and the Legislature has
approved, payment of the smog impact fee claims from current revenues.

OBLIGATIONS OF OTHER ISSUERS

         OTHER ISSUERS OF CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL  OBLIGATIONS.  There are a number
of State  agencies,  instrumentalities  and political  subdivisions of the State
that  issue  Municipal  Obligations,  some  of  which  may  be  conduit  revenue
obligations  payable from payments from private  borrowers.  These  entities are


                                       15
<PAGE>


subject to various economic risks and  uncertainties,  and the credit quality of
the securities  issued by them may vary  considerably from the credit quality of
obligations backed by the full faith and credit of the State.

         STATE  ASSISTANCE.  Property tax revenues received by local governments
declined more than 50% following  passage of Proposition 13.  Subsequently,  the
California Legislature enacted measures to provide for the redistribution of the
State's  General Fund surplus to local  agencies,  the  reallocation  of certain
State  revenues to local  agencies and the  assumption  of certain  governmental
functions  by the State to assist  municipal  issuers to raise  revenues.  Total
local assistance from the State's General Fund was budgeted at approximately 75%
of  General  Fund  expenditures  in  recent  years,   including  the  effect  of
implementing  reductions in certain aid  programs.  To reduce State General Fund
support for school  districts,  the 1992-93 and 1993-94 Budget Acts caused local
governments  to  transfer  $3.9  billion  of  property  tax  revenues  to school
districts,  representing  loss of the  post-Proposition  13 "bailout" aid. Local
governments have in return received greater revenues and greater  flexibility to
operate health and welfare programs.

         In 1997,  a new program  provided for the State to  substantially  take
over  funding for local  trial  courts  (saving  cities and  counties  some $400
million annually).  For the last several years, the State has also provided $100
million annually to support local law enforcement costs. In 1999-2000, the State
provided  $150 million in grants to cities and counties,  and an additional  $50
million to cities for jail booking  costs.  The  Legislature  has enacted a more
comprehensive  plan to restore some funds to local  governments,  contained in a
proposed constitutional amendment which will be on the November, 2000 ballot for
voter approval.

         To the extent the State  should be  constrained  by its  Article  XIIIB
appropriations  limit,  or its obligation to conform to Proposition 98, or other
fiscal  considerations,  the  absolute  level,  or the rate of growth,  of State
assistance to local governments may continue to be reduced.  Any such reductions
in State aid could compound the serious fiscal constraints  already  experienced
by many local  governments,  particularly  counties.  Los  Angeles  County,  the
largest  in the State,  was  forced to make  significant  cuts in  services  and
personnel,  particularly  in the health  care  system,  in order to balance  its
budget in FY1995-96 and  FY1996-97.  Orange  County,  which emerged from Federal
Bankruptcy  Court  protection in June 1996,  has  significantly  reduced  county
services and personnel,  and faces strict financial  conditions  following large
investment fund losses in 1994 which resulted in bankruptcy.

         Counties and cities may face further budgetary pressures as a result of
changes in welfare and public assistance programs, which were enacted in August,
1997 in order to comply with the federal welfare reform law. Generally, counties
play a large role in the new system,  and are given  substantial  flexibility to
develop and  administer  programs to bring aid  recipients  into the  workforce.
Counties  are also  given  financial  incentives  if  either  at the  county  or
statewide level, the "Welfare-to-Work" programs exceed minimum targets; counties
are also  subject to  financial  penalties  for  failure  to meet such  targets.
Counties  remain  responsible to provide  "general  assistance"  for able-bodied
indigents who are ineligible for other welfare programs. The long-term financial
impact of the new CalWORKs system on local governments is still unknown.

         ASSESSMENT BONDS. California Municipal Obligations which are assessment
bonds may be adversely  affected by a general decline in real estate values or a
slowdown in real estate sales activity. In many cases, such bonds are secured by
land  which  is  undeveloped  at the  time of  issuance  but  anticipated  to be
developed  within a few years after issuance.  In the event of such reduction or
slowdown,  such development may not occur or may be delayed,  thereby increasing
the risk of a default on the bonds.  Because  the special  assessments  or taxes
securing  these  bonds  are not the  personal  liability  of the  owners  of the
property assessed,  the lien on the property is the only security for the bonds.
Moreover,  in most  cases the  issuer  of these  bonds is not  required  to make
payments on the bonds in the event of  delinquency in the payment of assessments
or taxes,  except from amounts,  if any, in a reserve fund  established  for the
bonds.

         CALIFORNIA  LONG  TERM  LEASE  OBLIGATIONS.  Based on a series of court
decisions,  certain long-term lease  obligations,  though typically payable from
the  general  fund  of  the  State  or  a   municipality,   are  not  considered
"indebtedness"  requiring voter approval.  Such leases,  however, are subject to
"abatement" in the event the facility being leased is unavailable for beneficial
use and occupancy by the municipality during the term of the lease. Abatement is
not a default,  and there may be no  remedies  available  to the  holders of the
certificates  evidencing the lease obligation in the event abatement occurs. The
most common  cases of  abatement  are failure to  complete  construction  of the
facility  before the end of the period  during  which lease  payments  have been


                                       16
<PAGE>


capitalized  and  uninsured  casualty  losses  to  the  facility  (E.G.,  due to
earthquake).  In the event abatement occurs with respect to a lease  obligation,
lease  payments may be  interrupted  (if all  available  insurance  proceeds and
reserves are exhausted) and the certificates may not be paid when due.  Although
litigation is brought from time to time which  challenges the  constitutionality
of such lease  arrangements,  the  California  Supreme  Court issued a ruling in
August, 1998 which reconfirmed the legality of these financing methods.

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

         The  repayment of  industrial  development  securities  secured by real
property  may be affected by  California  laws  limiting  foreclosure  rights of
creditors.  Securities  backed  by  health  care and  hospital  revenues  may be
affected by changes in State regulations governing cost reimbursements to health
care providers under Medi-Cal (the State's  Medicaid  program),  including risks
related to the policy of awarding exclusive contracts to certain hospitals.

         Limitations on AD VALOREM property taxes may  particularly  affect "tax
allocation" bonds issued by California  redevelopment  agencies.  Such bonds are
secured solely by the increase in assessed valuation of a redevelopment  project
area  after the start of  redevelopment  activity.  In the event  that  assessed
values in the  redevelopment  project decline (E.G.,  because of a major natural
disaster such as an earthquake),  the tax increment  revenue may be insufficient
to make  principal  and interest  payments on these bonds.  Both Moody's and S&P
suspended  ratings on  California  tax  allocation  bonds after the enactment of
Articles XIIIA and XIIIB, and only resumed such ratings on a selective basis.

         Proposition  87, approved by California  voters in 1988,  requires that
all revenues  produced by a tax rate  increase go directly to the taxing  entity
which  increased  such  tax  rate to  repay  that  entity's  general  obligation
indebtedness.  As a result,  redevelopment agencies (which,  typically,  are the
issuers of tax  allocation  securities)  no longer  receive an  increase  in tax
increment  when taxes on  property in the project  area are  increased  to repay
voter-approved bonded indebtedness.

         The effect of these various  constitutional  and statutory changes upon
the ability of  California  municipal  securities  issuers to pay  interest  and
principal on their  obligations  remains  unclear.  Furthermore,  other measures
affecting  the taxing or  spending  authority  of  California  or its  political
subdivisions  may be approved or enacted in the future.  Legislation has been or
may be introduced  which would modify  existing  taxes or other  revenue-raising
measures or which either would further limit or,  alternatively,  would increase
the  abilities  of state and local  governments  to impose new taxes or increase
existing taxes. It is not possible,  at present,  to predict the extent to which
any such  legislation  will be  enacted.  Nor is it  possible,  at  present,  to
determine the impact of any such legislation on California Municipal Obligations
in which the Fund may  invest,  future  allocations  of state  revenues to local
governments  or the abilities of state or local  governments to pay the interest
on, or repay the principal of, such California Municipal Obligations.

         Substantially  all of  California is within an active  geologic  region
subject to major  seismic  activity.  Northern  California  in 1989 and Southern
California in 1994 experienced major earthquakes  causing billions of dollars in
damages.  The federal government  provided more than $13 billion in aid for both
earthquakes,  and neither event has had any long-term  negative economic impact.
Any  California  Municipal  Obligation  in the  Fund  could  be  affected  by an
interruption of revenues because of damaged facilities, or, consequently, income
tax  deductions  for  casualty  losses or property  tax  assessment  reductions.
Compensatory  financial  assistance could be constrained by the inability of (i)
an issuer to have obtained earthquake  insurance coverage rates; (ii) an insurer
to perform on its contracts of insurance in the event of widespread  losses;  or
(iii) the federal or State  government to  appropriate  sufficient  funds within
their respective budget limitations.

         SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS  RELATING TO NEW YORK MUNICIPAL SECURITIES.  The
financial  condition of the State of New York ("New York State" or the "State"),
its public authorities and public benefit  corporations (the  "Authorities") and
its local  governments,  particularly  The City of New York (the "City"),  could
affect the market values and marketability of, and therefore the net asset value
per  share and the  interest  income of a fund,  or  result  in the  default  of
existing  obligations,  including obligations which may be held by the fund. The
following section provides only a brief summary of the complex factors affecting
the financial  situation in New York and is based on  information  obtained from
New  York  State,  certain  of its  Authorities,  the  City  and  certain  other
localities  as  publicly  available  on the date of this  SAI.  The  information
contained  in such  publicly  available  documents  has not  been  independently


                                       17
<PAGE>


verified.  It should be noted that the creditworthiness of obligations issued by
local issuers may be unrelated to the  creditworthiness  of New York State,  and
that there is no  obligation  on the part of New York  State to make  payment on
such local  obligations  in the event of  default  in the  absence of a specific
guarantee or pledge provided by New York State.

         ECONOMIC  FACTORS.  New York is the third  most  populous  state in the
nation and has a relatively high level of personal  wealth.  The State's economy
is diverse, with a comparatively large share of the nation's finance, insurance,
transportation,  communications and services employment,  and a very small share
of the  nation's  farming  and mining  activity.  The State's  location  and its
excellent air transport facilities and natural harbors have made it an important
link in international commerce.  Travel and tourism constitute an important part
of the economy. Like the rest of the nation, New York has a declining proportion
of its workforce engaged in manufacturing,  and an increasing proportion engaged
in service industries.

         Both the State and the City experienced  substantial  revenue increases
in the  mid-1980s and late 1990s  attributable  directly  (corporate  income and
financial  corporations taxes) and indirectly  (personal income and a variety of
other  taxes) to growth in new jobs,  rising  profits and  capital  appreciation
derived from the finance sector of the City's economy.  Economic activity in the
City has  experienced  periods of growth and  recession  and can be  expected to
experience  periods of growth and recession in the future.  In recent years, the
City has  experienced  increases in employment.  Real per capita personal income
(i.e.,  per capita personal income adjusted for the effects of inflation and the
differential in living costs) has generally  experienced fewer fluctuations than
employment in the City. Although the City periodically  experienced  declines in
real per capita  personal income between 1969 and 1981, real per capita personal
income in the City has generally increased from the mid-1980s until the present.
In nearly all of the years  between  1969 and 1990 the City  experienced  strong
increases in retail sales.  However,  from 1991 to 1993, the City  experienced a
weak period of retail  sales.  Since 1994,  the City has returned to a period of
growth in retail  sales.  Overall,  the City's  economic  improvement  continued
strongly  into  fiscal  year  2000.  Much of the  increase  can be traced to the
performance  of the  securities  industry,  but the City's economy also produced
gains in the retail trade sector,  the hotel and tourism industry,  and business
services, with private sector employment higher than previously forecasted.  The
City's current  Financial  Plan assumes that,  after strong growth in 1998-1999,
moderate  economic growth will exist through calendar year 2003, with moderating
job growth  and wage  increases.  However,  there can be no  assurance  that the
economic  projections  assumed in the Financial  Plan will occur or that the tax
revenues  projected in the Financial Plan to be received will be received in the
amounts anticipated.  Additionally, the securities industry is more important to
the New York economy  than the  national  economy,  potentially  amplifying  the
impact of a downturn.  In 1997,  the finance,  insurance  and real estate sector
accounted for 30.4 percent of nonfarm labor and proprietors'  income  statewide,
compared to 8.6 percent nationwide.

         During the  calendar  years 1987  through  1998,  the  State's  rate of
economic  expansion was somewhat  slower than that of the nation as a whole.  In
the 1990-1991 national  recession and post-recession  period, the economy of the
Northeast region in general and the State in particular was more heavily damaged
than that of the rest of the nation and has been slower to recover. However, the
situation has been improving in the recent years. In 1999, the employment growth
rate of the State  surpassed  the national  growth rate for the first time in 13
years.  Although the State  unemployment  rate has been higher than the national
rate since 1991, the gap between them has narrowed in recent years.

         The  forecast  of  the  State's  economy  shows   continued   expansion
throughout  2000. Most major sectors recorded  significant  employment gains for
the first quarter of 2000, with the services  sector  accounting for most of the
increase.  Much of this increase occurred in business  services.  The employment
growth rate in 2000 is expected to be 2.1 percent,  which,  although  lower than
1999's 2.6 percent, represents another strong year relative to recent historical
performance.  The unemployment  rate is expected to be 4.9 percent in 2000, down
from 5.1 percent in 1999.

         Personal  income is expected  to rise 6.1  percent in 2000,  with a 7.5
percent  increase  in wages.  Two major  factors  are  working to  produce  this
impressive  growth in wages.  One is the overall  tightness in the labor market,
and the other is strong growth in financial sector bonus payments.

         Given the importance of the  securities  industry in the New York State
economy,  a significant  change in stock market  performance during the forecast
horizon  could  result  in  financial   sector  profits  and  bonuses  that  are


                                       18
<PAGE>


significantly  different from those embodied in the forecast. Any actions by the
Federal  Reserve Board to moderate  inflation by increasing  interest rates more
than anticipated may have an adverse impact in New York given the sensitivity of
financial markets to interest rate shifts and the prominence of these markets in
the  New   York   economy.   In   addition,   there   is  a   possibility   that
greater-than-anticipated  mergers, downsizing, and relocation of firms caused by
deregulation  and global  competition  may have a significant  adverse effect on
employment growth.

         In 2000-01, General Fund disbursements,  including transfers to support
capital projects, debt service and other funds, are estimated at $38.92 billion,
an increase of $1.75 billion or 4.72 percent over 1999-2000.  Projected spending
under the 2000-01 enacted budget is $992 million above the Governor's  Executive
Budget recommendations, including 30-day amendments submitted January 31, 2000.

         The 2000-01  Financial  Plan projects  closing  balances in the General
Fund and other reserves of $3.2 billion,  including $1.71 billion in the General
Fund.  This  closing  balance  is  comprised  of $675  million in  reserves  for
potential  labor costs resulting from new collective  bargaining  agreements and
other spending  commitments,  $547 million in the Tax Stabilization Reserve Fund
(for use in case of  unanticipated  deficits),  $150 million in the  Contingency
Reserve  Fund (which  helps offset  litigation  risks),  and $338 million in the
Community Projects Fund (which finances legislative initiatives). In addition to
the $1.71  billion  balance in the General  Fund,  $1.2 billion is projected for
reserve in the STAR Special  Revenue Fund and $250 million in the Debt Reduction
Reserve Fund (DRRF).

         Several  developments  arising  from  negotiations  on the budget  will
affect State  finances in  subsequent  years.  First,  a portion of  Legislative
additions to the 2000-01  Executive  Budget will recur at higher spending levels
in 2001-02  and beyond,  including  increased  funding  for school aid,  tuition
assistance,  and  prescription  drug  coverage  for  the  elderly.  Second,  the
Legislature  enacted the Debt  Reform Act of 2000 (Debt  Reform  Act).  The Debt
Reform Act, which applies to new  State-supported  debt issued on or after April
1,  2000,  imposes  caps on new debt  outstanding  and new debt  service  costs,
restricts the use of debt to capital  purposes  only,  and restricts the maximum
term of State  debt  issuances  to no more  than 30  years.  Finally,  the State
adopted an additional  tax relief  package that will reduce tax receipts by $1.2
billion when fully effective; this package includes the elimination or reduction
of gross  receipts taxes on energy ($330  million),  the expansion of the "Power
for Jobs" energy tax credit program ($125 million),  a college tuition deduction
or credit taken against  personal income taxes ($200 million),  and reduction of
the marriage penalty for taxpayers who file jointly ($200 million).

         SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS.  Despite recent budgetary surpluses recorded by
the State,  actions  affecting  the level of  receipts  and  disbursements,  the
relative strength of the State and regional economy,  and actions by the federal
government could impact  projected  budget gaps for the State.  These gaps would
result from a disparity between  recurring  revenues and the costs of increasing
the level of support for State programs. To address a potential imbalance in any
given  fiscal  year,  the State would be  required  to take  actions to increase
receipts and/or reduce disbursements as it enacts the budget for that year, and,
under the State  Constitution,  the  Governor  is required to propose a balanced
budget each year. There can be no assurance,  however, that the Legislature will
enact the Governor's proposals or that the State's actions will be sufficient to
preserve budgetary balance in a given fiscal year or to align recurring receipts
and disbursements in future fiscal years.

         Many  complex  political,  social and  economic  forces  influence  the
State's  economy and  finances,  which may in turn affect the 2000-01  Financial
Plan. These forces may affect the State unpredictably from fiscal year to fiscal
year and are influenced by  governments,  institutions,  and events that are not
subject  to the  State's  control.  The  2000-01  Financial  Plan is based  upon
forecasts  of  national  and State  economic  activity  developed  through  both
internal analysis and review of national and State economic  forecasts  prepared
by  commercial  forecasting  services and other public and private  forecasters.
Many uncertainties  exist in forecasts of both the national and State economies,
including  consumer  attitudes  toward  spending,  the extent of  corporate  and
governmental  restructuring,  the  condition of the  financial  sector,  federal
fiscal and monetary policies,  the level of interest rates, and the condition of
the world economy, which could have an adverse effect on the State. There can be
no assurance that the State economy will not  experience  results in the current
fiscal  year that are worse than  predicted,  with  corresponding  material  and
adverse effects on the State's projections of receipts and disbursements.

         An  additional  risk  to the  State  Financial  Plan  arises  from  the
potential impact of certain litigation and of federal  disallowances now pending
against the State,  which could  adversely  affect the  State's  projections  of


                                       19
<PAGE>


receipts and  disbursements.  The State  Financial  Plan assumes no  significant
litigation or federal  disallowance  or other federal  actions that could affect
State finances, but has significant reserves in the event of such an action.

         REVENUE BASE. The State's  principal  revenue sources are  economically
sensitive, and include the personal income tax, user taxes and fees and business
taxes. Total General Fund receipts and transfers from other funds in 2000-01 are
projected  to be $39.72  billion,  an increase of $2.32  billion from the $37.40
billion  recorded  in  1999-2000.  This  total  includes  $36.35  billion in tax
receipts,  $1.34  billion  in  miscellaneous  receipts,  and  $2.03  billion  in
transfers  from other  funds.  The  transfer  of $3.4  billion in net  resources
through the tax refund  reserve  account from  1999-2000  to the 2000-01  fiscal
period has the effect of exaggerating  the growth in State receipts from year to
year by depressing reported 1999-2000 figures and inflating 2000-01 projections.

         The  Personal  Income  Tax is  imposed  on the  income of  individuals,
estates  and  trusts  and is  based,  with  certain  modifications,  on  federal
definitions  of income and  deductions.  Net General  Fund  personal  income tax
collections are projected to reach $24.33 billion in 2000-01,  well over half of
all General  Fund  receipts and nearly $4 billion  above the reported  1999-2000
collection  total. Much of this increase is associated with the $3.4 billion net
impact of the  transfer of the surplus  from  1999-2000  to the current  year as
partially  offset by the diversion of an additional  $1.99 billion in income tax
receipts  to  the  STAR  Fund.  The  STAR  program  was  created  in  1998  as a
State-funded  local  property  tax  relief  program  funded  through  the use of
personal income tax receipts. Adjusted for these transactions, the growth in net
income tax  receipts is roughly $1.3  billion,  an increase of nearly 5 percent.
This growth is largely a function of two  factors:  (i) the 9 percent  growth in
income tax  liability  projected  for tax year 2000;  and (ii) the impact of the
1999  tax  year  settlement  recorded  early  in  this  fiscal  year.  The  most
significant  statutory  changes  made this fiscal year provide for: an increase,
phased in over two years,  in the earned income tax credit from 25 percent to 30
percent of the federal credit; a three-year  phased-in reduction of the marriage
penalty;  a four-year  phased-in  deduction or credit for college  tuition;  and
enhancement of the child and dependent care credit effective January 1, 2000.

         USER TAXES AND FEES are comprised of three-quarters of the State's four
percent sales and use tax, cigarette,  tobacco products, alcoholic beverage, and
auto rental taxes, and a portion of the motor fuel excise levies.  This category
also  includes  receipts  from the motor  vehicle  fees and  alcoholic  beverage
license fees. Dedicated transportation funds outside of the General Fund receive
a portion of the motor fuel tax and motor vehicle  registration  fees and all of
the highway use taxes and fees.  Receipts from user taxes and fees are projected
to total $7.02 billion, a decrease of $583 million below reported collections in
1999-2000.

         The sales tax and cigarette tax components of this category account for
virtually  all of the  2000-01  decline.  Growth in base sales tax yield,  after
adjusting  for tax law changes and other  factors,  is projected at 4.5 percent.
The projected  decrease in sales tax cash receipts of 3.4 percent  reflects,  in
large part,  the impact of the  permanent  exemption  for  clothing and footwear
items  costing under $110.  Cigarette tax and tobacco  products tax receipts are
projected  to  decline  by  $146  million   primarily  due  to  reduced  taxable
consumption  associated  with the increase in the  cigarette tax of 55 cents per
pack  imposed  on March 1, 2000.  The  decline in the motor fuel taxes and motor
vehicle fees in the General Fund largely  reflect the  increased  dedication  of
these  revenue  sources to the  Dedicated  Highway and Bridge Trust Fund and the
Dedicated Mass Transportation  Trust Fund. Alcoholic beverage taxes are expected
to decline  modestly,  consistent with  historical  trends.  Alcoholic  beverage
license  fees are  projected to increase  significantly  as 2000-01 is the final
year in the transition to the new license renewal schedule. A modest increase in
auto rental tax receipts over 1999-2000 levels is projected.

         BUSINESS TAXES include franchise taxes based generally on net income of
general   business,   bank  and  insurance   corporations,   as  well  as  gross
receipts-based taxes on utilities and gallonage-based petroleum business taxes.

         Total business tax collections in 2000-01 are now projected to be $4.23
billion,  $332 million  below  results for the prior  fiscal year.  The category
includes  receipts from:  (1) franchise tax levies  imposed on general  business
corporations, banks, and insurance companies; (2) gross receipts taxes on energy
and telecommunication  service providers; and (3) a tax imposed at various rates
on petroleum businesses.

         The  year-over-year  decline in  projected  receipts  in  business  tax
collections  is largely  attributable  to statutory  changes.  These include the
first  year  impact  of a  scheduled  bank  and  insurance  franchise  tax  rate


                                       20
<PAGE>


reduction,  a reduction in the cap on tax liability for non-life  insurers,  and
the expansion of the economic development zone (renamed Empire Zones,  effective
May 19,  2000) and zone  equivalent  areas tax credits.  Ongoing tax  reductions
include the second year of the corporation  franchise rate reduction,  the gross
receipts tax rate cut from 3.25 percent to 2.5 percent,  the continuation of the
"Power  for  Jobs"  program,  and  the use of tax  credits  for  investments  in
certified capital companies.

         Legislation  enacted  this  fiscal  year  affecting  receipts  in  this
category include:  a phased reduction in the gross receipts tax, an expansion of
the "Power for Jobs"  program,  expansion of the tax credit for  investments  in
certified capital companies,  establishment of the Empire Zones program, reforms
to allocation  rules for financial  service  companies,  tax rate reductions for
small businesses and S-corporations,  a new tax credit for investments in "green
buildings,"  and a new tax  credit  for  investment  in low and  moderate-income
housing.

         OTHER TAXES  include the estate and gift tax, the real  property  gains
tax and  pari-mutuel  taxes.  Other tax receipts are now projected to total $766
million, $341 million below 1999-2000 levels. The primary factors accounting for
this decline are  legislation  enacted  previously  that  repealed both the real
property gains tax and the gift tax, and significantly reduced estate tax rates,
and the incremental effects of tax reductions in the pari-mutuel tax.

         MISCELLANEOUS  RECEIPTS include investment  income,  abandoned property
receipts,  medical  provider  assessments,  minor federal grants,  receipts from
public  authorities,   and  certain  other  license  and  fee  revenues.   Total
miscellaneous  receipts are expected to reach $1.34  billion,  down $309 million
from  the  prior  year  amount.   This   reflects  the  absence  in  2000-01  of
non-recurring  receipts  received in 1999-2000  and the phase-out of the medical
provider  assessments,  completed in January  2000.  The State  Comptroller  has
restated medical provider  assessments in the General Fund, which has the effect
of increasing  reported  miscellaneous  receipts and spending in grants to local
governments by $120 million in 1997-98 and $82 million in 1998-99.

         TRANSFERS FROM OTHER FUNDS to the General Fund consist primarily of tax
revenues in excess of debt service requirements, including the one percent sales
tax used to support payments to Local Government Assistance  Corporation (LGAC).
Transfers from other funds are expected to total $2.03 billion,  or $108 million
less than total receipts from this category during 1999-2000. Total transfers of
sales taxes in excess of LGAC debt service requirements are expected to decrease
by $74 million consistent with the sales tax projections  described above, while
transfers from all other funds are expected to decrease by $34 million.

         STATE DEBT. The State's  2000-01  borrowing plan projects  issuances of
$367 million in general obligation bonds,  including $45 million for purposes of
redeeming the remaining  outstanding BANs. The State does not anticipate issuing
new BANs during the 2000-01  fiscal  year.  The State is expected to issue up to
$276  million  in  COPs to  finance  equipment  purchases  (including  costs  of
issuance,  reserve  funds,  and other costs) during the 2000-01  fiscal year. Of
this amount,  it is anticipated that  approximately  $76 million will be used to
finance agency equipment acquisitions. Approximately $200 million is expected to
finance the purchase of new welfare  computer  systems  designed to improve case
management, fraud detection and child support collection capabilities.

         Borrowings  by  public  authorities   pursuant  to  lease-purchase  and
contractual-obligation   financings  for  capital  programs  of  the  State  are
projected to total  approximately  $2.91 billion,  including  costs of issuance,
reserve  funds,  and  other  costs,  net of  anticipated  refundings  and  other
adjustments in 2000-01.

         NONRECURRING  SOURCES.  The Division of the Budget  estimates  that the
2000-01  Financial  Plan contains new actions in the enacted budget that provide
non-recurring resources totaling approximately $36 million, excluding use of the
1999-2000 surplus.

         OUTYEAR  PROJECTIONS OF RECEIPTS AND DISBURSEMENTS.  State law requires
the Governor to propose a balanced budget each year. Preliminary analysis by the
Division of Budget  indicates  that the State will have a 2001-02  budget gap of
approximately  $2 billion,  which is comparable  with gaps  projected  following
enactment of recent budgets.  This estimate  includes the projected costs of new
collective bargaining  agreements,  no assumed operating  efficiencies,  and the
planned  application  of  approximately  $1.2  billion  in  STAR  tax  reduction
reserves.


                                       21
<PAGE>


         In recent years,  the State has closed projected budget gaps which have
ranged from $5 billion to less than $1 billion (as  estimated by the Division of
Budget).  Sustained  growth in the State's  economy could  contribute to closing
potential  budget  imbalances  over the  next  several  years,  both in terms of
higher-than-projected  tax  receipts  and  in  lower-than-expected   entitlement
spending.  Savings from  initiatives by State agencies to deliver  services more
efficiently,  workforce  management  efforts,  and  maximization  of federal and
non-General Fund spending offsets could also help bring projected  disbursements
and receipts into balance.

         The  Division of the Budget will  formally  update its  projections  of
receipts and  disbursements  for future years as part of the Governor's  2001-02
Executive  Budget  submission.  The  revised  expectations  for these years will
reflect updated  estimates of receipts and  disbursements as well as new 2001-02
Executive Budget recommendations.

         TOBACCO  SETTLEMENT  PROCEEDS  AND USES.  On  November  23,  1998,  the
attorneys  general for  forty-six  states  (including  New York)  entered into a
master   settlement   agreement   (MSA)  with  the  nation's   largest   tobacco
manufacturers.  Under the terms of the MSA,  the states  agreed to  release  the
manufacturers from all smoking-related claims in exchange for specified payments
and the imposition of  restrictions on tobacco  advertising  and marketing.  New
York is  projected  to receive  $25 billion  over 25 years  under the MSA,  with
payments  apportioned among the State (51 percent),  counties (22 percent),  and
New York City (27 percent). The projected payments (but not the apportionment of
the  payments)  are an estimate  and  subject to  adjustments  for,  among other
things,  the annual change in the volume of cigarette  shipments and the rate of
inflation.  From 1999-2000  through 2002-03,  the State expects to receive $1.54
billion under the nationwide settlement with cigarette manufacturers.  Counties,
including New York City, are projected to receive  settlement  payments of $1.47
billion over the same period.

         The 2000-01  Financial Plan utilizes certain  resources from HCRA 2000,
the  successor  legislation  to the Health  Care  Reform Act of 1996.  HCRA 2000
continues the negotiated  reimbursement system for non-governmental  payors, and
provides funding for, among other things,  graduate medical education,  indigent
care, and the expansion of health  insurance  coverage for uninsured  adults and
children. HCRA 2000 will help finance several health-related programs, including
prescription drug assistance for the elderly,  supplemental  Medicare insurance,
and other public health  services that were  previously  funded from the General
Fund. Programs under HCRA 2000 will be financed with revenues generated from the
financing  mechanisms  continued from HCRA 1996, a share of the State's  tobacco
settlement and revenues from an increased excise tax on cigarettes.

         The State plans to use $1.29 billion in tobacco  settlement  money over
the next three years to finance health  programs under HCRA 2000 ($1.01 billion)
and projected  increased  costs in Medicaid ($274  million).  The remaining $250
million in one-time tobacco payments from 1999-2000 will be deposited to DRRF.

         LABOR  COSTS.  The State  government  workforce  is  mostly  unionized,
subject to the Taylor Law which authorizes  collective  bargaining and prohibits
(but has not,  historically,  prevented)  strikes and work slowdowns.  Costs for
employee  health benefits have increased  substantially,  and can be expected to
further  increase.  The State has  completed  or is currently  negotiating  with
various  unions to  establish  new  agreements  as most of the  labor  contracts
expired on March 31, 1999. The 2000-01  Financial  Plan has reserved  sufficient
money for the added costs incurred under collective bargaining  agreements,  and
reserves are contained in the  preliminary  outyear  projections  for 2001-02 to
cover the projected recurring costs of new agreements.

         Since January 1995, the State's  workforce has been reduced by about 10
percent, and is projected to be approximately 195,000 persons in 2000-01.

         The New York State and Local Retirement Systems (the "Systems") provide
coverage for public employees of the State and its localities  (except employees
of New York City and teachers,  who are covered by separate  plans).  Net assets
available  for  benefits  were $112.7  billion as of March 31,  1999.  Under the
funding method used by the Systems, according to the Division of Budget, the net
assets,  plus future actuarially  determined  contributions,  are expected to be
sufficient to pay for the anticipated benefits of current members,  retirees and
beneficiaries.

         PUBLIC  ASSISTANCE.  Spending  on welfare is  projected  in the 2000-01
fiscal  year at $1.20  billion,  a decline of $77  million  from the prior year.
Since  1994-95,  State  spending  on welfare has fallen by more than 25 percent,


                                       22
<PAGE>


driven by significant  welfare changes initiated at the Federal and State levels
and a large, steady decline in the number of people receiving benefits.

         Federal law enacted in 1996  abolished the federal Aid to Families with
Dependent  Children  program  (AFDC) and created a new  Temporary  Assistance to
Needy  Families  with  Dependent  Children  program  (TANF)  funded with a fixed
federal block grant to states. The law also imposes (with certain  exceptions) a
five-year  durational  limit on TANF  recipients,  requires  that  virtually all
recipients be engaged in work or community  service  activities within two years
of receiving benefits,  and limits assistance provided to certain immigrants and
other classes of individuals.

         MEDICAID. New York participates in the federal Medicaid program under a
state plan  approved by the Health Care  Financing  Administration.  The federal
government  provides a substantial  portion of eligible program costs,  with the
remainder  shared by the State and its  counties  (including  the  City).  Basic
program eligibility and benefits are determined by federal  guidelines,  but the
State provides a number of optional benefits and expanded  eligibility.  Program
costs have  increased  substantially  in recent years,  and account for a rising
share  of  the  State  budget.   Federal  law  requires  that  the  State  adopt
reimbursement  rates for  hospitals and nursing  homes that are  reasonable  and
adequate to meet the costs that must be incurred by efficiently and economically
operated  facilities in providing  patient care, a standard that has led to past
litigation by hospitals and nursing homes seeking higher  reimbursement from the
State.   Medicaid  is  the  second  largest  program,   after  grants  to  local
governments,  in the General  Fund.  Payments for  Medicaid are  projected to be
$5.59 billion in 2000-01.

         THE STATE AUTHORITIES.  The fiscal stability of the State is related in
part to the fiscal stability of its public authorities. Public authorities refer
to public benefit corporations,  created pursuant to State law, other than local
authorities.   Public   authorities  are  not  subject  to  the   constitutional
restrictions  on the  incurrence of debt which apply to the State itself and may
issue  bonds  and  notes  within  the  amounts  and  restrictions  set  forth in
legislative authorization. The State's access to the public credit markets could
be impaired and the market price of its  outstanding  debt may be materially and
adversely  affected  if any of its public  authorities  were to default on their
respective  obligations,  particularly  those  using  the  financing  techniques
referred to as State-supported  or State-related  debt. As of December 31, 1999,
there were 17 public  authorities with outstanding debt of $100 million or more,
and the aggregate  outstanding  debt,  including  refunding  bonds, of all State
public  authorities  was  $95  billion,  only a  portion  of  which  constitutes
State-supported or State-related debt.

         The   State   has   numerous    public    authorities    with   various
responsibilities,  including  those  which  finance,  construct  and/or  operate
revenue producing public  facilities.  Public authority  operating  expenses and
debt  service  costs are  generally  paid by revenues  generated by the projects
financed or operated, such as tolls charged for the use of highways,  bridges or
tunnels,  charges for public power,  electric and gas utility services,  rentals
charged for housing units, and charges for occupancy at medical care facilities.

         In addition,  State legislation authorizes several financing techniques
for public  authorities.  Also there are  statutory  arrangements  providing for
State local assistance payments otherwise payable to localities to be made under
certain  circumstances  to  public  authorities.   Although  the  State  has  no
obligation to provide additional assistance to localities whose local assistance
payments  have been paid to public  authorities  under these  arrangements,  the
affected  localities may seek additional  State  assistance if local  assistance
payments  are  diverted.   Some  authorities  also  receive  moneys  from  State
appropriations to pay for the operating costs of certain of their programs.  The
MTA  receives  the bulk of this money in order to provide  transit and  commuter
services.

         Beginning  in 1998,  the Long Island  Power  Authority  (LIPA)  assumed
responsibility  for  the  provision  of  electric  utility  services  previously
provided by Long Island  Lighting  Company for Nassau,  Suffolk and a portion of
Queens  Counties,  as part of an estimated $7 billion  financing plan. As of May
31, 2000,  LIPA has issued over $7 billion in bonds secured  solely by ratepayer
charges.  LIPA's debt is not considered either  State-supported or State-related
debt.

         METROPOLITAN  TRANSPORTATION  AUTHORITY.  Since  1980,  the  State  has
enacted  several  taxes --  including  a  surcharge  on the  profits  of  banks,
insurance  corporations and general business  corporations doing business in the
12 county Metropolitan Transportation Region served by the MTA and a special one
quarter of 1 percent  regional  sales and use tax -- that  provide  revenues for
mass transit purposes, including assistance to the MTA. Since 1987 State law has


                                       23
<PAGE>


required that the proceeds of a one quarter of 1 percent mortgage  recording tax
paid on certain mortgages in the Metropolitan Transportation Region be deposited
in a special MTA fund for  operating  or capital  expenses.  In 1993,  the State
dedicated a portion of certain  additional State petroleum business tax receipts
to fund operating or capital  assistance to the MTA. The 2000-01  enacted budget
provides State  assistance to the MTA totaling  approximately  $1.35 billion and
initiates  a  five-year  State  transportation  plan that  includes  nearly $2.2
billion in  dedicated  revenue  support for the MTA's  capital plan for the 2000
through  2004  calendar  years (the  "2000-04  Capital  Program").  This capital
commitment  includes  an  additional  $800  million  of  newly  dedicated  State
petroleum  business tax  revenues,  motor  vehicle fees and motor fuel taxes not
previously dedicated to the MTA.

         State  legislation   accompanying  the  2000-01  adopted  State  budget
authorized the MTA, Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority and Transit Authority
to issue an  aggregate  of $16.5  billion  in bonds to  finance a portion of the
$17.1 billion  2000-04  Capital  Program.  On May 4, 2000,  the Capital  Program
Review Board (CPRB)  approved the 2000-04  Capital  Program,  which is the fifth
capital  plan since the  Legislature  authorized  procedures  for the  adoption,
approval and  amendment  of MTA capital  programs and is designed to upgrade the
performance  of the MTA's  transportation  systems by  investing  in new rolling
stock,  maintaining  replacement schedules for existing assets, bringing the MTA
system  into a state of good  repair,  and making  major  investments  in system
expansion projects.

         The 2000-04  Capital  Program assumes the issuance of an estimated $8.9
billion in bonds  under this $16.5  billion  aggregate  bonding  authority.  The
remainder of the plan is projected to be financed  through  assistance  from the
State, the federal government,  and the City of New York, and from various other
revenues generated from actions taken by the MTA. In addition, the enacted State
budget authorized the MTA to undertake a major debt restructuring initiate which
will enable the MTA to refund approximately $13.7 billion in bonds,  consolidate
its  credit  sources,  and  obviate  the  need for debt  service  reserves.  The
authorization  for debt  restructuring  includes  outstanding  bonds  secured by
service contract with the State.

         There can be no assurance that all the necessary  governmental  actions
for future  capital  programs  will be taken,  that  funding  sources  currently
identified  will not be decreased  or  eliminated,  or that the 2000-04  Capital
Program, or parts thereof, will not be delayed or reduced. Should funding levels
fall below current projections, the MTA would have to revise its 2000-04 Capital
Program  accordingly.  If the  2000-04  Capital  Program is delayed or  reduced,
ridership and fare revenues may decline, which could impair the MTA's ability to
meet its operating expenses without additional assistance.

         THE CITY OF NEW  YORK.  The  fiscal  health  of the  State  may also be
affected by the fiscal health of New York City (the "City"),  which continues to
receive significant  financial  assistance from the State. State aid contributes
to the City's ability to balance its budget and meet its cash requirements.  The
State may also be  affected  by the  ability  of the City and  certain  entities
issuing debt for the benefit of the City to market their securities successfully
in the public credit markets.

         The City has achieved balanced operating results for each of its fiscal
years  since  1981 as  measured  by the GAAP  standards  in force at that  time.
However, in the early 1970s, the City incurred  substantial  operating deficits,
and its financial  controls,  accounting  practices and disclosure policies were
widely  criticized.  In response to the City's fiscal crisis in 1975,  the State
took action to assist the City in  returning  to fiscal  stability.  Among these
actions, the State established the Municipal Assistance Corporation for The City
of New York ("MAC") to provide  financing  assistance for the City; the New York
State  Financial  Control  Board (the  "Control  Board")  to oversee  the City's
financial  affairs;  and the Office of the State Deputy Comptroller for the City
of New York ("OSDC") to assist the Control  Board in  exercising  its powers and
responsibilities. A "control period" existed from 1975 to 1986, during which the
City was subject to certain statutorily  imposed conditions.  State law requires
the  Control  Board  to  reimpose  a  control  period  upon the  occurrence,  or
"substantial  likelihood and imminence' of the  occurrence,  of certain  events,
including (but not limited to) a City operating budget deficit of more than $100
million or impaired access to the public credit markets.

         The City  provides  services  usually  undertaken  by counties,  school
districts  or special  districts  in other  large  urban  areas,  including  the
provision of social services such as day care,  foster care, health care, family
planning,  services  for the elderly and special  employment  services for needy
individuals and families who qualify for such assistance. State law requires the
City to  allocate  a large  portion  of its total  budget to Board of  Education


                                       24
<PAGE>


operations,  and  mandates  that the  City  assume  the  local  share of  public
assistance and Medicaid  costs.  For each of the 1981 through 1999 fiscal years,
the City achieved balanced operating results as reported in accordance with then
applicable  generally  accepted  accounting  principles  ("GAAP").  The City was
required  to close  substantial  budget gaps  between  forecasted  revenues  and
forecasted  expenditures in order to maintain balanced operating results.  There
can be no assurance that the City will continue to maintain a balanced budget as
required by State law  without  additional  tax or other  revenue  increases  or
additional  reductions in City  services or  entitlement  programs,  which could
adversely affect the City's economic base.

         Pursuant to the New York State Financial  Emergency Act for The City of
New York (the "Financial  Emergency Act" or the "Act"), the City prepares a four
year annual  financial plan,  which is reviewed and revised on a quarterly basis
and which  includes  the City's  capital,  revenue and expense  projections  and
outlines proposed gap closing programs for years with projected budget gaps. The
City's  projections  set  forth in the  1999-2003  Financial  Plan are  based on
various  assumptions  and  contingencies  which are  uncertain and which may not
materialize.  Changes in major assumptions could significantly effect the City's
ability to balance  its  budget and to meet its annual  cash flow and  financing
requirements.  Such assumptions and contingencies include the timing and pace of
a regional and local economic  recovery,  increases in tax revenues,  employment
growth, the ability to implement proposed reductions in City personnel and other
cost reduction initiatives which may require in certain cases the cooperation of
the City's municipal  unions,  the ability of New York City Health and Hospitals
Corporation  and the  Board of  Education  to take  actions  to  offset  reduced
revenues, the ability to complete revenue generating transactions,  provision of
State and  federal aid and mandate  relief,  and the impact on City  revenues of
proposals for federal and State welfare  reform.  No assurance can be given that
the  assumptions  used  by the  City in the  1999-2003  Financial  Plan  will be
realized.

         In January of 1999,  the City  released the  Financial  Plan for fiscal
years  2000-2003.  It projects total revenues in FY 2000 of $35.46  billion,  of
which  federal  categorical  grants  provide $3.9 billion and State  categorical
grants   provide  $7.0  billion.   The  City's   Financial  Plan  projects  that
expenditures  will grow to $38.21  billion in FY 2003.  While the Financial Plan
projects  revenues  and  expenditures  for the  2000  fiscal  year  balanced  in
accordance  with GAAP, it projects  budget gaps of $1.44 billion,  $1.64 billion
and $1.17 billion in the 2001, 2002 and 2003 fiscal years, respectively.

         Although the City has maintained  balanced  budgets in each of its last
nineteen fiscal years and is projected to achieve balanced operating results for
the 2000 fiscal  year,  there can be no assurance  that the gap closing  actions
proposed in the Financial Plan can be successfully  implemented or that the City
will maintain a balanced  budget in future years without  additional  State aid,
revenue  increases or  expenditure  reductions.  Additional  tax  increases  and
reductions in essential City services could adversely affect the City's economic
base.

         The  1999-2003  Financial  Plan  reflects  the goal of  boosting  local
economic  activity by  providing a wide array of tax  relief.  To that end,  the
Financial Plan reflects actual and proposed tax reduction programs totaling $338
million,  $410  million,  $461  million  and $473  million in fiscal  years 2000
through 2003.

         The City  derives  its  revenues  from a variety of local  taxes,  user
charges  and  miscellaneous   revenues,  as  well  as  from  Federal  and  State
unrestricted  and  categorical  grants.  State aid as a percentage of the City's
revenues has  remained  relatively  constant  over the period from 1980 to 1999,
while unrestricted  Federal aid has been sharply reduced. The City projects that
local  revenues will provide  approximately  67.6% of total revenues in FY 2000,
while federal and State aid, including  unrestricted aid and categorical grants,
will provide 32.4% in the same year.

         The City since 1981 has fully satisfied its seasonal financing needs in
the public  credit  markets,  repaying all short term  obligations  within their
fiscal year of issuance.  The City issued $500 million of short term obligations
in fiscal year 1999 to finance the City's projected cash flow needs for the 1999
fiscal year.  In previous  years,  the City's short term  obligations  have been
$1.075  billion,  $2.4  billion,  $2.4  billion and $2.2 billion in fiscal years
1998,  1997,  1996 and  1995,  respectively.  The delay in the  adoption  of the
State's budget in certain past fiscal years has required the City to issue short
term notes in amounts exceeding those expected early in such fiscal years.

         The  City  makes  substantial  capital   expenditures  to  reconstruct,
rehabilitate and expand the city's infrastructure and physical assets, including
City mass transit facilities,  sewers, streets, bridges and tunnels, and to make
capital investments that will improve productivity in City operations.  The City


                                       25
<PAGE>


utilizes a three tiered  capital  planning  process  consisting  of the Ten Year
Capital  Strategy,  the Four Year  Capital  Program and the current year Capital
Budget.  The Ten Year Capital  Strategy is a long term planning tool designed to
reflect  fundamental  allocation choices and basic policy  objectives.  The Four
Year Capital Program  translates  mid-range policy goals into specific projects.
The Capital Budget defines specific projects and the timing of their initiation,
design, construction and completion.

         The  City is  nearing  the  constitutionally-permissible  limit  on its
general obligation debt. Under the State constitution, the City may not contract
indebtedness  in an amount  greater than 10 percent of the average full value of
taxable  real estate in the City for the most recent five years.  To provide for
the City's capital program,  State legislation was enacted in 1997 which created
the Transitional  Finance Authority ("TFA"), the debt of which is not subject to
the general debt limit of the City. Without TFA or other legislative relief, new
contractual  commitments  for the City's  general  obligation  financed  capital
program would have been  virtually  brought to a halt during the Financial  Plan
period beginning early in the 1998 fiscal year.

         In 1999, the City created TSASC,  Inc., a  not-for-profit  corporation,
empowered to issue tax-exempt debt backed by tobacco settlement revenues. TSASC,
Inc. is expected to issue approximately $2.8 billion of bonds.

         Even with the increased borrowing ability, the City may reach the limit
of its capacity to enter into new contractual commitments.  In order to continue
its capital program,  the City will need additional financing capacity beginning
in City fiscal year 2000-01,  which could be provided  through  increasing TFA's
borrowing authority or amending the State constitutional debt limit.

         Future  developments  concerning the City or entities  issuing debt for
the benefit of the City, and public discussion of such developments,  as well as
prevailing  market  conditions and  securities  credit  ratings,  may affect the
ability or cost to sell securities issued by the City or such entities,  and may
also effect the market for their outstanding securities.

         In addition to general  obligation  debt, the City has other  long-term
obligations,  including  capital leases and bond  transactions of public benefit
corporations  that are components of the City or whose debt is guaranteed by the
City.

         The City is the largest  municipal  debt issuer in the nation,  and has
more than  doubled its debt load since the end of FY 1988,  in large  measure to
rehabilitate  its extensive,  aging physical  plant.  The City's  Financial Plan
projects $22.3 billion of long-term borrowings for the period of FY 1999 through
FY 2003 to support  the City's  current  capital  plan.  The City's  Preliminary
Ten-Year  Capital  Strategy  dated  January 1999 has  identified  $48 billion in
additional capital expenditures over the next ten years. Additionally,  a report
of the City  Comptroller  indicates the Preliminary  Ten-Year  Capital  Strategy
significantly   underestimates   the  actual  capital  needs  of  the  City  for
reconstructing and rehabilitating the City's infrastructure and physical assets.

         OTHER  LOCALITIES.  Certain  localities  outside  New  York  City  have
experienced  financial problems and have requested and received additional State
assistance  during the last several State fiscal years.  The potential impact on
the State of any future  requests by  localities  for  additional  oversight  or
financial  assistance is not included in the projections of the State's receipts
and disbursements for the State's 2000-01 fiscal year.

         The State is considering  various  measures to help resolve  persistent
fiscal  difficulties in Nassau County.  The Governor has proposed  actions which
would,  if  legislation is enacted,  establish a Nassau County  Interim  Finance
Authority.  The  Authority  would be empowered to issue bonds,  backed solely by
diverted Nassau County sales tax revenues,  to achieve  short-term budget relief
and ensure credit market access for the County. Such Authority would also impose
financial plan  requirements  on Nassau  County.  The Governor has also proposed
that transitional State assistance be appropriated in State fiscal year 2000-01,
and in four subsequent  State fiscal years.  Allocation of such assistance would
be subject to the Authority's  approval of Nassau County's financial plan. There
is no assurance that such proposals will be enacted, or that future actions will
not be required by the State to assist  Nassau  County,  resulting  in increased
State expenditures for extraordinary local assistance.

         The State has provided  extraordinary  financial  assistance  to select
municipalities,  primarily  cities,  since the 1996-97 fiscal year.  Funding has
essentially  been continued or increased in each subsequent  fiscal year, and in


                                       26
<PAGE>


2000-01 totals $200.4 million. The 2000-01 enacted budget also increased General
Purpose State Aid for local governments by $11 million to $562 million.

         While  the   distribution  of  General  Purpose  State  Aid  for  local
governments was originally  based on a statutory  formula,  in recent years both
the total amount appropriated and the shares appropriated to specific localities
have been determined by the Legislature. A State commission established to study
the  distribution  and amounts of general purpose local government aid failed to
agree on any recommendations for a new formula.

         Counties,  cities, towns, villages, school districts and fire districts
have engaged in substantial  short-term and long-term  borrowings.  In 1998, the
total indebtedness of all localities in the State, other than New York City, was
approximately $20.3 billion. A small portion (approximately $80 million) of that
indebtedness  represented borrowing to finance budgetary deficits and was issued
pursuant to enabling State  legislation.  State law requires the  Comptroller to
review and make recommendations concerning the budgets of those local government
units  (other  than New York  City)  authorized  by State  law to issue  debt to
finance  deficits during the period that such deficit  financing is outstanding.
Twenty-three  localities had outstanding  indebtedness for deficit  financing at
the close of their fiscal year ending in 1998.

         Like the State,  local governments must respond to changing  political,
economic  and  financial  influences  over which they have little or no control.
Such changes may  adversely  affect the  financial  condition  of certain  local
governments.  For example,  the federal  government may reduce (or in some cases
eliminate)  federal  funding of some local programs  which, in turn, may require
local  governments to fund these  expenditures  from their own resources.  It is
also  possible that the State,  New York City,  Nassau  County,  or any of their
respective  public  authorities may suffer serious  financial  difficulties that
could jeopardize local access to the public credit markets,  which may adversely
affect the  marketability  of notes and bonds  issued by  localities  within the
State.  Localities may also face  unanticipated  problems resulting from certain
pending  litigation,  judicial decisions and long-range  economic trends.  Other
large-scale potential problems, such as declining urban populations,  increasing
expenditures,  and the loss of skilled  manufacturing  jobs,  may also adversely
affect localities and necessitate State assistance.

         OTHER ISSUERS OF NEW YORK MUNICIPAL OBLIGATIONS.  There are a number of
State agencies,  instrumentalities and political  subdivisions of the State that
issue Municipal  Obligations,  some of which may be conduit revenue  obligations
payable from  payments  from private  borrowers.  These  entities are subject to
various  economic  risks  and  uncertainties,  and  the  credit  quality  of the
securities  issued by them may vary  considerably  from the  credit  quality  of
obligations  backed by the full faith and credit of the State. For example,  the
repayment  of  securities  secured by real  property may be affected by New York
laws with respect to foreclosure  rights of creditors.  Securities backed by the
revenues  of a  particular  multi-family  rental  project or other  project  are
subject to the feasibility of such project. Securities backed by health care and
hospital  revenues  may be affected  by changes in  regulations  governing  cost
reimbursements  to health care  providers  under the federal and State laws, the
expansion  of  the  role  of  managed  care   companies,   and  competition  and
consolidation occurring in the health care industry.

INVESTMENT LIMITATIONS OF THE FUNDS

         FUNDAMENTAL LIMITATIONS. The following investment limitations cannot be
changed for a fund without the  affirmative  vote of the lesser of (a) more than
50% of the  outstanding  shares  of the  fund or (b)  67% or more of the  shares
present at a shareholders'  meeting if more than 50% of the  outstanding  shares
are  represented  at  the  meeting  in  person  or  by  proxy.  If a  percentage
restriction is adhered to at the time of an investment or  transaction,  a later
increase or decrease in percentage  resulting from changing  values of portfolio
securities  or amount of total assets will not be  considered a violation of any
of the  following  limitations.  With  regard to the  borrowings  limitation  in
fundamental   limitation   (2),  each  fund  will  comply  with  the  applicable
restrictions of Section 18 of the Investment Company Act.

         Each fund will not:

      (1)   purchase any security if, as a result of that purchase,  25% or more
of the fund's  total assets would be invested in  securities  of issuers  having
their  principal  business  activities  in the same  industry,  except that this


                                       27
<PAGE>


limitation  does not  apply  to  securities  issued  or  guaranteed  by the U.S.
government, its agencies or instrumentalities or to municipal securities.

      (2)   issue senior  securities or borrow money,  except as permitted under
the Investment  Company Act of 1940, as amended  ("Investment  Company Act") and
then not in excess of 33 1/3% of the fund's total assets  (including  the amount
of the senior  securities issued but reduced by any liabilities not constituting
senior  securities)  at the time of the issuance or  borrowing,  except that the
fund may borrow up to an  additional  5% of its total assets (not  including the
amount borrowed) for temporary or emergency purposes.

      (3)   make loans, except through loans of portfolio  securities or through
repurchase  agreements,  provided  that for  purposes of this  restriction,  the
acquisition  of bonds,  debentures,  other debt  securities or  instruments,  or
participations   or  other  interests  therein  and  investments  in  government
obligations,  commercial paper, certificates of deposit, bankers' acceptances or
similar instruments will not be considered the making of a loan.

      (4)   engage in the business of underwriting  securities of other issuers,
except to the extent that the fund might be considered an underwriter  under the
federal  securities  laws  in  connection  with  its  disposition  of  portfolio
securities.

      (5)   purchase or sell real estate,  except that investments in securities
of  issuers  that  invest in real  estate  and  investments  in  mortgage-backed
securities,  mortgage participations or other instruments supported by interests
in real estate are not subject to this limitation,  and except that the fund may
exercise  rights under  agreements  relating to such  securities,  including the
right to enforce  security  interests and to hold real estate acquired by reason
of such  enforcement  until  that real  estate can be  liquidated  in an orderly
manner.

      (6)   purchase or sell physical commodities unless acquired as a result of
owning securities or other instruments, but the fund may purchase, sell or enter
into financial options and futures,  forward and spot currency  contracts,  swap
transactions and other financial contracts or derivative instruments.

      (7)   In addition,  each fund has a fundamental limitation requiring it to
invest,  except  for  temporary  defensive  purposes  or  under  unusual  market
conditions, at least 80% of its net assets:

            (a)  in  the  case  of  National   Tax-Free  Income  Fund,  in  debt
                 obligations   issued  by  states,   municipalities  and  public
                 authorities  and other issuers that pay interest that is exempt
                 from federal income tax  ("municipal  obligations")  and is AMT
                 exempt interest;

            (b)  in the  case  of  Municipal  High  Income  Fund,  in  municipal
                 obligations;

            (c)  in the  case  of  California  Tax-Free  Income  Fund,  in  debt
                 obligations   issued   by  the   State   of   California,   its
                 municipalities  and public  authorities  or by other issuers if
                 such  obligations  pay  interest  that is exempt  from  federal
                 income tax and California personal income tax and is AMT exempt
                 interest; and

            (d)  in  the  case  of  New  York  Tax-Free  Income  Fund,  in  debt
                 obligations issued by the State of New York, its municipalities
                 and public  authorities or by other issuers if such obligations
                 pay interest that is exempt from federal  income tax as well as
                 New York State and New York City  personal  income taxes and is
                 AMT exempt interest.

         In addition,  National  Tax-Free  Income Fund and  California  Tax-Free
Income Fund each will not:

      (8)   purchase  securities of any one issuer if, as a result, more than 5%
of the fund's total assets would be invested in securities of that issuer or the
fund would own or hold more than 10% of the  outstanding  voting  securities  of
that  issuer,  except that up to 25% of the fund's  total assets may be invested
without  regard to this  limitation,  and except that this  limitation  does not
apply to securities  issued or guaranteed by the U.S.  government,  its agencies
and instrumentalities or to securities issued by other investment companies.


                                       28
<PAGE>


               The  following  interpretation  applies to, but is not a part of,
fundamental  limitation (8): Each state,  territory and possession of the United
States  (including  the District of Columbia and Puerto  Rico),  each  political
subdivision, agency, instrumentality and authority thereof, and each multi-state
agency of which a state is a member, is a separate "issuer." When the assets and
revenues of an agency, authority, instrumentality or other political subdivision
are separate from the government  creating the  subdivision  and the security is
backed only by the assets and  revenues  of the  subdivision,  such  subdivision
would be deemed to be the sole issuer.  Similarly, in the case of an IDB or PAB,
if that bond is backed only by the assets and  revenues of the  non-governmental
user,  then that  non-governmental  user would be deemed to be the sole  issuer.
However,  if the creating  government or another  entity  guarantees a security,
then to the extent that the value of all securities issued or guaranteed by that
government  or entity  and owned by the fund  exceeds  10% of the  fund's  total
assets,  the  guarantee  would be  considered  a separate  security and would be
treated as issued by that government or entity.

         NON-FUNDAMENTAL  LIMITATIONS. The following investment restrictions are
non-fundamental  and may be changed by the vote of the appropriate board without
shareholder approval.  If a percentage  restriction is adhered to at the time of
an  investment  or  transaction,  a later  increase or  decrease  in  percentage
resulting from changing values of portfolio securities or amount of total assets
will not be considered a violation of any of the following limitations.

         Each fund will not:

      (1)   invest more than 10% of its net assets in illiquid securities.

      (2)   purchase  portfolio  securities  while borrowings in excess of 5% of
its total assets are outstanding.

      (3)   purchase   securities  on  margin,   except  for  short-term  credit
necessary for clearance of portfolio  transactions  and except that the fund may
make  margin  deposits  in  connection  with its use of  financial  options  and
futures,  forward  and spot  currency  contracts,  swap  transactions  and other
financial contracts or derivative instruments.

      (4)   engage in short sales of  securities  or maintain a short  position,
except that the fund may (a) sell short "against the box" and (b) maintain short
positions in connection with its use of financial  options and futures,  forward
and spot currency contracts,  swap transactions and other financial contracts or
derivative instruments.

      (5)   purchase  securities of other  investment  companies,  except to the
extent  permitted by the Investment  Company Act and except that this limitation
does not apply to securities  received or acquired as dividends,  through offers
of exchange, or as a result of reorganization, consolidation, or merger.

                     STRATEGIES USING DERIVATIVE INSTRUMENTS

         GENERAL  DESCRIPTION OF DERIVATIVE  INSTRUMENTS.  Mitchell Hutchins may
use a variety of financial  instruments  ("Derivative  Instruments"),  including
certain  options,  futures  contracts  (sometimes  referred to as "futures") and
options on futures contracts.  A fund may enter into transactions  involving one
or more  types of  Derivative  Instruments  under  which  the full  value of its
portfolio is at risk. Under normal  circumstances,  however,  each fund's use of
these  instruments  will place at risk a much smaller portion of its assets.  In
particular, each fund may use the Derivative Instruments described below.

         A fund might not use any  derivative  instruments  or  strategies,  and
there can be no assurance that using any strategy will succeed.  If the Mitchell
Hutchins is incorrect in its judgment on market values,  interest rates or other
economic factors in using a derivative  instrument or strategy,  a fund may have
lower net income and a net loss on the investment.

         OPTIONS ON DEBT  SECURITIES  -- A call option is a short-term  contract
pursuant to which the purchaser of the option, in return for a premium,  has the
right to buy the security underlying the option at a specified price at any time
during the term of the option or at specified  times or at the expiration of the
option, depending on the type of option involved. The writer of the call option,
who receives the premium, has the obligation, upon exercise of the option during
the option  term,  to deliver the  underlying  security  against  payment of the
exercise price. A put option is a similar contract that gives its purchaser,  in


                                       29
<PAGE>


return for a premium,  the right to sell the underlying  security at a specified
price during the option term or at specified  times or at the  expiration of the
option,  depending on the type of option involved. The writer of the put option,
who receives the premium, has the obligation, upon exercise of the option during
the option term, to buy the underlying security at the exercise price.

         OPTIONS  ON DEBT  SECURITIES  INDICES  -- A  securities  index  assigns
relative  values to the  securities  included in the index and  fluctuates  with
changes in the market  values of those  securities.  A  securities  index option
operates in the same way as a more traditional  securities  option,  except that
exercise of a securities index option is effected with cash payment and does not
involve  delivery of  securities.  Thus,  upon  exercise of a  securities  index
option, the purchaser will realize,  and the writer will pay, an amount based on
the  difference  between  the  exercise  price  and  the  closing  price  of the
securities index.

         MUNICIPAL  BOND  INDEX  FUTURES  CONTRACTS  -- A  municipal  bond index
futures contract is a bilateral  agreement pursuant to which one party agrees to
accept, and the other party agrees to make,  delivery of an amount of cash equal
to a specified  dollar amount times the difference  between the securities index
value at the close of trading of the contract and the price at which the futures
contract is originally struck. No physical delivery of the securities comprising
the index is made.  Generally,  contracts are closed out prior to the expiration
date of the contract.

         MUNICIPAL DEBT AND INTEREST RATE FUTURES  CONTRACTS -- A municipal debt
or interest rate futures  contracts are bilateral  agreements  pursuant to which
one party agrees to make,  and the other party  agrees to accept,  delivery of a
specified type of debt security or currency at a specified  future time and at a
specified price.  Although such futures contracts by their terms call for actual
delivery  or  acceptance  of debt  securities  or  currency,  in most  cases the
contracts are closed out before the settlement date without the making or taking
of delivery.

         OPTIONS ON FUTURES  CONTRACTS  --  Options  on  futures  contracts  are
similar to options on securities or currency, except that an option on a futures
contract gives the purchaser the right,  in return for the premium,  to assume a
position in a futures  contract  (a long  position if the option is a call and a
short  position  if the  option is a put),  rather  than to  purchase  or sell a
security or currency, at a specified price at any time during the option term or
at specified times or at the expiration of the option,  depending on the type of
option  involved.  Upon  exercise  of the  option,  the  delivery of the futures
position  to the holder of the option  will be  accompanied  by  delivery of the
accumulated  balance that represents the amount by which the market price of the
futures contract exceeds, in the case of a call, or is less than, in the case of
a put, the exercise price of the option on the future.  The writer of an option,
upon  exercise,  will  assume a short  position in the case of a call and a long
position in the case of a put.

         GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF STRATEGIES USING DERIVATIVE INSTRUMENTS.  A fund
may use  Derivative  Instruments  to attempt to hedge its  portfolio and also to
attempt to enhance  income or return or realize gains and to manage the duration
of its  bond  portfolio.  A fund  may use  Derivative  Instruments  to  maintain
exposure to bonds while maintaining a cash balance for fund management  purposes
(such as to provide  liquidity  to meet  anticipated  shareholder  sales or fund
shares and for fund operating expenses),  to facilitate trading or to adjust its
exposure to different asset classes.

         Hedging  strategies  can be broadly  categorized  as "short hedges" and
"long  hedges." A short hedge is a purchase or sale of a  Derivative  Instrument
intended  partially or fully to offset potential declines in the value of one or
more investments held in a fund's portfolio. Thus, in a short hedge a fund takes
a position  in a  Derivative  Instrument  whose price is expected to move in the
opposite  direction of the price of the investment being hedged.  For example, a
fund might  purchase a put option on a  security  to hedge  against a  potential
decline in the value of that  security.  If the price of the  security  declined
below the  exercise  price of the put,  a fund could  exercise  the put and thus
limit its loss below the  exercise  price to the premium  paid plus  transaction
costs. In the  alternative,  because the value of the put option can be expected
to increase as the value of the underlying  security  declines,  a fund might be
able to close out the put option and realize a gain to offset the decline in the
value of the security.

         Conversely,  a  long  hedge  is a  purchase  or  sale  of a  Derivative
Instrument  intended  partially  or fully to offset  potential  increases in the
acquisition  cost of one or more  investments  that a fund  intends to  acquire.
Thus, in a long hedge, a fund takes a position in a Derivative  Instrument whose
price is expected to move in the same direction as the price of the  prospective
investment being hedged.  For example,  a fund might purchase a call option on a


                                       30
<PAGE>

security  it intends to  purchase  in order to hedge  against an increase in the
cost of the security.  If the price of the security increased above the exercise
price of the call, a fund could exercise the call and thus limit its acquisition
cost to the  exercise  price  plus  the  premium  paid  and  transaction  costs.
Alternatively,  a fund might be able to offset the price increase by closing out
an appreciated call option and realizing a gain.

         A fund may purchase and write (sell) straddles on securities or indices
of  securities.  A long  straddle  is a  combination  of a call and a put option
purchased  on the same  security  or on the same  futures  contract,  where  the
exercise  price of the put is equal to the  exercise  price of the call.  A fund
might enter into a long straddle when Mitchell  Hutchins believes it likely that
the prices of the securities will be more volatile during the term of the option
than the option pricing implies. A short straddle is a combination of a call and
a put written on the same security  where the exercise price of the put is equal
to the exercise price of the call. A fund might enter into a short straddle when
Mitchell Hutchins believes it unlikely that the prices of the securities will be
as volatile during the term of the option as the option pricing implies.

         Derivative  Instruments  on  securities  generally  are  used to  hedge
against price  movements in one or more particular  securities  positions that a
fund owns or intends to acquire.  Derivative  Instruments on stock  indices,  in
contrast,  generally are used to hedge  against price  movements in broad market
sectors  in  which  a  fund  has  invested  or  expects  to  invest.  Derivative
Instruments on debt securities may be used to hedge either individual securities
or broad fixed income market sectors.

         Income strategies using Derivative  Instruments may include the writing
of covered  options to obtain the related option  premiums.  Gain strategies may
include using  Derivative  Instruments to increase or decrease a fund's exposure
to different asset classes without buying or selling the underlying instruments.
A fund also may use  derivatives  to simulate full  investment by the fund while
maintaining  a cash  balance for fund  management  purposes  (such as to provide
liquidity  to meet  anticipated  shareholder  sales of fund  shares and for fund
operating expenses).

         The use of Derivative  Instruments is subject to applicable regulations
of the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  ("SEC"),  the several  options and
futures  exchanges upon which they are traded and the Commodity  Futures Trading
Commission ("CFTC"). In addition, a fund's ability to use Derivative Instruments
may be limited by tax considerations. See "Taxes."

         In addition to the products,  strategies and risks  described below and
in the Prospectus,  Mitchell Hutchins may discover  additional  opportunities in
connection  with  Derivative  Instruments  and  with  hedging,  income  and gain
strategies.   These  new   opportunities  may  become  available  as  regulatory
authorities  broaden the range of permitted  transactions  and as new Derivative
Instruments  and techniques are developed.  Mitchell  Hutchins may utilize these
opportunities  for a fund to the extent that they are consistent with the fund's
investment objective and permitted by its investment  limitations and applicable
regulatory authorities. The Prospectus or SAI will be supplemented to the extent
that new products or techniques  involve  materially  different risks than those
described below or in the Prospectus.

         SPECIAL RISKS OF STRATEGIES  USING DERIVATIVE  INSTRUMENTS.  The use of
Derivative  Instruments involves special  considerations and risks, as described
below.  Risks pertaining to particular  Derivative  Instruments are described in
the sections that follow.

     (1)    Successful  use of most  Derivative  Instruments  depends  upon  the
ability of Mitchell  Hutchins to predict  movements  of the overall  securities,
interest rate or currency exchange markets, which requires different skills than
predicting  changes  in the  prices of  individual  securities.  While  Mitchell
Hutchins is  experienced in the use of Derivative  Instruments,  there can be no
assurance that any particular strategy adopted will succeed.

     (2)    There  might  be  imperfect  correlation,  or even  no  correlation,
between price  movements of a Derivative  Instrument and price  movements of the
investments  that are being  hedged.  For example,  if the value of a Derivative
Instrument  used in a short hedge increased by less than the decline in value of
the hedged investment,  the hedge would not be fully successful.  Such a lack of
correlation might occur due to factors affecting the markets in which Derivative
Instruments are traded,  rather than the value of the investments  being hedged.
The effectiveness of hedges using Derivative  Instruments on indices will depend
on the degree of  correlation  between  price  movements  in the index and price
movements in the securities being hedged.


                                       31
<PAGE>


     (3)    Hedging strategies, if successful, can reduce risk of loss by wholly
or partially  offsetting the negative  effect of unfavorable  price movements in
the  investments  being  hedged.  However,  hedging  strategies  can also reduce
opportunity  for gain by  offsetting  the  positive  effect of  favorable  price
movements in the hedged investments. For example, if a fund entered into a short
hedge because Mitchell  Hutchins  projected a decline in the price of a security
in that fund's portfolio,  and the price of that security increased instead, the
gain from that increase might be wholly or partially  offset by a decline in the
price of the  Derivative  Instrument.  Moreover,  if the price of the Derivative
Instrument declined by more than the increase in the price of the security,  the
fund could  suffer a loss.  In either  such case,  the fund would have been in a
better position had it not hedged at all.

     (4)    As described  below, a fund might be required to maintain  assets as
"cover,"  maintain  segregated  accounts or make margin  payments  when it takes
positions in  Derivative  Instruments  involving  obligations  to third  parties
(i.e.,  Derivative  Instruments other than purchased  options).  If the fund was
unable to close out its positions in such  Derivative  Instruments,  it might be
required to continue to maintain  such assets or accounts or make such  payments
until the positions expired or matured. These requirements might impair a fund's
ability to sell a  portfolio  security or make an  investment  at a time when it
would otherwise be favorable to do so, or require that the fund sell a portfolio
security at a disadvantageous  time. A fund's ability to close out a position in
a Derivative Instrument prior to expiration or maturity depends on the existence
of a liquid  secondary  market or, in the absence of such a market,  the ability
and  willingness of a counterparty  to enter into a transaction  closing out the
position.  Therefore,  there is no  assurance  that any hedging  position can be
closed out at a time and price that is favorable to a fund.

         COVER FOR STRATEGIES USING DERIVATIVE  INSTRUMENTS.  Transactions using
Derivative  Instruments,  other than purchased  options,  expose the funds to an
obligation to another  party.  A fund will not enter into any such  transactions
unless it owns either (1) an  offsetting  ("covered")  position  in  securities,
currencies  or  other  options  or  futures  contracts  or (2)  cash  or  liquid
securities,  with a  value  sufficient  at all  times  to  cover  its  potential
obligations  to the extent not covered as provided in (1) above.  Each fund will
comply with SEC guidelines  regarding cover for such  transactions  and will, if
the guidelines so require,  set aside cash or liquid  securities in a segregated
account with its custodian in the prescribed amount.

         Assets  used as cover or held in a  segregated  account  cannot be sold
while the position in the  corresponding  Derivative  Instrument is open, unless
they are replaced with similar assets.  As a result,  committing a large portion
of a fund's  assets to cover  positions or to segregated  accounts  could impede
portfolio  management or the fund's ability to meet redemption requests or other
current obligations.

         OPTIONS.  The funds may  purchase put and call options and write (sell)
covered  put or call  options on  securities  in which they  invest and  related
indices.  The  purchase  of call  options  may  serve as a long  hedge,  and the
purchase of put options may serve as a short hedge. In addition, a fund may also
use options to attempt to realize  gains by  increasing or reducing its exposure
to an asset  class  without  purchasing  or selling the  underlying  securities.
Writing  covered  put or call  options  can enable a fund to  enhance  income by
reason of the premiums paid by the purchasers of such options.  Writing  covered
call options serves as a limited short hedge,  because  declines in the value of
the hedged  investment would be offset to the extent of the premium received for
writing the option.  However, if the security appreciates to a price higher than
the exercise  price of the call option,  it can be expected that the option will
be  exercised  and the  affected  fund will be obligated to sell the security at
less than its market value. Writing covered put options serves as a limited long
hedge,  because  increases in the value of the hedged investment would be offset
to the extent of the premium  received for writing the option.  However,  if the
security depreciates to a price lower than the exercise price of the put option,
it can be expected  that the put option will be  exercised  and the fund will be
obligated to purchase the security at more than its market value. The securities
or other  assets used as cover for  over-the-counter  options  written by a fund
would  be  considered  illiquid  to  the  extent  described  under  "The  Funds'
Investments, Related Risks and Limitations -- Illiquid Securities."

         The value of an option position will reflect,  among other things,  the
current market value of the  underlying  investment,  the time  remaining  until
expiration,  the  relationship  of the exercise price to the market price of the
underlying  investment,  the  historical  price  volatility  of  the  underlying
investment and general market conditions. Options normally have expiration dates
of up to nine months.  Generally,  the over-the-counter debt options used by the
funds are European-style options. This means that the option is only exercisable
immediately  prior to its  expiration.  This is in  contract  to  American-style
options,  which are  exercisable at any time prior to the expiration date of the


                                       32
<PAGE>


option.  There are also other types of options  exercisable on certain specified
dates before expiration. Options that expire unexercised have no value.

         A fund may  effectively  terminate  its  right or  obligation  under an
option by entering into a closing transaction. For example, a fund may terminate
its  obligation  under a call or put option that it had written by purchasing an
identical call or put option;  this is known as a closing purchase  transaction.
Conversely,  a fund may  terminate  a  position  in a put or call  option it had
purchased by writing an identical put or call option; this is known as a closing
sale transaction. Closing transactions permit a fund to realize profits or limit
losses on an option position prior to its exercise or expiration.

         The   funds  may   purchase   and  write   both   exchange-traded   and
over-the-counter  options.  However,  exchange-traded or liquid over-the-counter
options on municipal  debt  securities  are not  currently  available.  Exchange
markets for options on bonds exist but are relatively new, and these instruments
are primarily traded on the over-the-counter market.  Exchange-traded options in
the United  States are issued by a  clearing  organization  affiliated  with the
exchange on which the option is listed which, in effect,  guarantees  completion
of every  exchange-traded  option  transaction.  In  contrast,  over-the-counter
options are contracts between a fund and its counterparty  (usually a securities
dealer or a bank) with no clearing  organization  guarantee.  Thus,  when a fund
purchases or writes an over-the-counter option, it relies on the counterparty to
make or take delivery of the underlying  investment upon exercise of the option.
Failure by the  counterparty  to do so would  result in the loss of any  premium
paid by the fund as well as the loss of any expected benefit of the transaction.

         The  funds'   ability  to   establish   and  close  out   positions  in
exchange-listed  options depends on the existence of a liquid market.  The funds
intend to purchase or write only those  exchange-traded  options for which there
appears to be a liquid secondary market. However, there can be no assurance that
such a market will exist at any particular  time.  Closing  transactions  can be
made  for  over-the-counter  options  only  by  negotiating  directly  with  the
counterparty,  or by a transaction  in the  secondary  market if any such market
exists.  Although the funds will enter into  over-the-counter  options only with
counterparties  that  are  expected  to be  capable  of  entering  into  closing
transactions  with the funds,  there is no assurance that a fund will in fact be
able to close out an over-the-counter option position at a favorable price prior
to expiration.  In the event of insolvency of the counterparty,  a fund might be
unable to close out an over-the-counter option position at any time prior to its
expiration.

         If a fund were unable to effect a closing  transaction for an option it
had purchased,  it would have to exercise the option to realize any profit.  The
inability to enter into a closing purchase transaction for a covered put or call
option written by the fund could cause material losses because the fund would be
unable to sell the  investment  used as cover for the written  option  until the
option expires or is exercised.

         A fund may  purchase  and write put and call options on indices in much
the same manner as the more  traditional  options  discussed  above,  except the
index options may serve as a hedge against overall  fluctuations in a securities
market (or market sector) rather than anticipated  increases or decreases in the
value of a particular security.

         LIMITATIONS  ON THE USE OF  OPTIONS.  The use of options is governed by
the  following  guidelines,  which can be changed by each fund's  board  without
shareholder vote:

     (1)    A fund may purchase a put or call option,  including any straddle or
spread,  only if the value of its premium,  when aggregated with the premiums on
all other options held by the fund, does not exceed 5% of its total assets.

     (2)    The aggregate value of securities  underlying put options written by
a fund,  determined as of the date the put options are written,  will not exceed
50% of its net assets.

     (3)    The  aggregate  premiums paid on all options  (including  options on
securities and securities indices and options on futures contracts) purchased by
a fund that are held at any time will not exceed 20% of its net assets.


                                       33
<PAGE>


         FUTURES.  The funds may purchase and sell  municipal bond index futures
contracts,  municipal debt future contracts and interest rate futures contracts.
A fund may  purchase  put and  call  options,  and  write  covered  put and call
options, on futures in which it is allowed to invest. The purchase of futures or
call options  thereon can serve as a long hedge,  and the sale of futures or the
purchase of put options thereon can serve as a short hedge. Writing covered call
options on futures  contracts  can serve as a limited  short hedge,  and writing
covered  put  options on futures  contracts  can serve as a limited  long hedge,
using a strategy  similar to that used for writing covered options on securities
or indices.  In  addition,  a fund may  purchase or sell  futures  contracts  or
purchase  options  thereon to increase or reduce its  exposure to an asset class
without purchasing or selling the underlying securities, either as a hedge or to
enhance return or realize gains.

         Futures strategies also can be used to manage the average duration of a
fund's portfolio. If Mitchell Hutchins wishes to shorten the average duration of
a  fund's  portfolio,  the fund may sell a  futures  contract  or a call  option
thereon or purchase a put option on that futures contract.  If Mitchell Hutchins
wishes to lengthen the average  duration of the fund's  portfolio,  the fund may
buy a futures contract or a call option thereon or sell a put option thereon.

         A fund may also write put  options on  futures  contracts  while at the
same  time  purchasing  call  options  on the same  futures  contracts  in order
synthetically  to create a long futures  contract  position.  Such options would
have the same strike  prices and  expiration  dates.  A fund will engage in this
strategy  only when it is more  advantageous  to a fund than is  purchasing  the
futures contract.

         No price is paid upon entering into a futures contract. Instead, at the
inception  of a futures  contract a fund is required to deposit in a  segregated
account with its  custodian,  in the name of the futures broker through whom the
transaction was effected,  "initial margin"  consisting of cash,  obligations of
the United States or obligations  fully  guaranteed as to principal and interest
by the  United  States,  in an  amount  generally  equal  to 10% or  less of the
contract  value.  Margin must also be deposited  when writing a call option on a
futures contract, in accordance with applicable exchange rules. Unlike margin in
securities transactions,  initial margin on futures contracts does not represent
a borrowing,  but rather is in the nature of a  performance  bond or  good-faith
deposit that is returned to a fund at the  termination of the transaction if all
contractual obligations have been satisfied.  Under certain circumstances,  such
as periods of high volatility, a fund may be required by an exchange to increase
the level of its initial margin payment,  and initial margin  requirements might
be increased generally in the future by regulatory action.

         Subsequent "variation margin" payments are made to and from the futures
broker daily as the value of the futures  position  varies,  a process  known as
"marking to market."  Variation  margin  does not involve  borrowing  but rather
represents  a daily  settlement  of a fund's  obligations  to or from a  futures
broker.  When a fund  purchases  an option on a future,  the  premium  paid plus
transaction costs is all that is at risk. In contrast,  when a fund purchases or
sells a futures contract or writes a call option thereon, it is subject to daily
variation  margin calls that could be  substantial in the event of adverse price
movements.  If a fund  has  insufficient  cash to meet  daily  variation  margin
requirements,  it might  need to sell  securities  at a time when such sales are
disadvantageous.

         Holders  and  writers of futures  positions  and options on futures can
enter into offsetting closing  transactions,  similar to closing transactions on
options, by selling or purchasing,  respectively, an instrument identical to the
instrument  held or written.  Positions in futures and options on futures may be
closed only on an exchange or board of trade that  provides a secondary  market.
The funds intend to enter into futures  transactions only on exchanges or boards
of trade where there appears to be a liquid secondary market. However, there can
be no  assurance  that such a market will exist for a  particular  contract at a
particular time.

         Under certain  circumstances,  futures  exchanges  may establish  daily
limits on the amount that the price of a future or related  option can vary from
the previous day's settlement price;  once that limit is reached,  no trades may
be made that day at a price  beyond the limit.  Daily price  limits do not limit
potential  losses  because  prices  could  move to the daily  limit for  several
consecutive days with little or no trading,  thereby  preventing  liquidation of
unfavorable positions.

         If a fund  were  unable  to  liquidate  a futures  or  related  options
position due to the absence of a liquid  secondary  market or the  imposition of
price limits,  it could incur  substantial  losses.  A fund would continue to be


                                       34
<PAGE>


subject to market risk with respect to the position. In addition,  except in the
case of purchased  options,  a fund would  continue to be required to make daily
variation  margin  payments and might be required to maintain the position being
hedged by the future or option or to maintain cash or securities in a segregated
account.

         Certain  characteristics  of the futures market might increase the risk
that movements in the prices of futures  contracts or related  options might not
correlate  perfectly  with  movements  in the  prices of the  investments  being
hedged. For example, all participants in the futures and related options markets
are subject to daily variation  margin calls and might be compelled to liquidate
futures or related  options  positions  whose prices are moving  unfavorably  to
avoid being subject to further calls.  These  liquidations  could increase price
volatility of the instruments and distort the normal price relationship  between
the futures or options and the investments being hedged.  Also,  because initial
margin deposit  requirements  in the futures market are less onerous than margin
requirements in the securities markets,  there might be increased  participation
by  speculators  in the futures  markets.  This  participation  also might cause
temporary price  distortions.  In addition,  activities of large traders in both
the futures and securities  markets involving  arbitrage,  "program trading" and
other investment strategies might result in temporary price distortions.

         LIMITATIONS  ON THE USE OF  FUTURES  AND  RELATED  OPTIONS.  The use of
futures and related options is governed by the following  guidelines,  which can
be changed by a fund's board without shareholder vote:

     (1)    The aggregate  initial margin and premiums on futures  contracts and
related  options that are not for bona fide hedging  purposes (as defined by the
CFTC),  excluding the amount by which options are "in-the-money," may not exceed
5% of a fund's net assets.

     (2)    The  aggregate  premiums paid on all options  (including  options on
securities and securities indices and options on futures contracts) purchased by
a fund that are held at any time will not exceed 20% of its net assets.

     (3)    The aggregate  margin deposits on all futures  contracts and options
thereon held at any time by a fund will not exceed 5% of its total assets.



                 ORGANIZATION OF TRUSTS; TRUSTEES AND OFFICERS;
            PRINCIPAL HOLDERS AND MANAGEMENT OWNERSHIP OF SECURITIES


         Mutual Fund Trust was formed on November 21, 1986 and Municipal  Series
was  formed  on  January  28,  1987 as  business  trusts  under  the laws of the
Commonwealth  of  Massachusetts.  Each  Trust has two  operating  series  and is
governed by a board of trustees,  which is  authorized  to establish  additional
series and to issue an unlimited number of shares of beneficial interest of each
existing or future  series,  par value $0.001 per share.  The  applicable  board
oversees each fund's operations.

         The trustees and executive officers of each Trust, their ages, business
addresses and principal occupations during the past five years are:


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

       NAME AND ADDRESS; AGE            POSITION WITH EACH TRUST        BUSINESS EXPERIENCE; OTHER DIRECTORSHIPS
       ---------------------            ------------------------        ----------------------------------------
<S>                                     <C>                             <C>
Margo N. Alexander*+; 53                 Trustee and President          Mrs.  Alexander  is Chairman  (since March 1999),
                                                                        chief   executive   officer  and  a   director of
                                                                        of  Mitchell Hutchins (since  January 1995),  and
                                                                        an executive  vice president  and  a director  of
                                                                        PaineWebber (since March 1984). Mrs. Alexander is
                                                                        president   and    a   director or  trustee of 30
                                                                        investment companies for which Mitchell Hutchins,
                                                                        PaineWebber or one of their affiliates serves  as
                                                                        investment adviser.


                                                           35
<PAGE>


       NAME AND ADDRESS; AGE            POSITION WITH EACH TRUST        BUSINESS EXPERIENCE; OTHER DIRECTORSHIPS
       ---------------------            ------------------------        ----------------------------------------
<S>                                     <C>                             <C>
Richard Q. Armstrong; 65                        Trustee                 Mr.   Armstrong  is  chairman  and  principal  of
R.Q.A. Enterprises                                                      R.Q.A.  Enterprises  (management consulting firm)
One Old Church Road                                                     (since April 1991 and principal  occupation since
Unit #6                                                                 March 1995).  Mr.  Armstrong  was chairman of the
Greenwich, CT 06830                                                     board,  chief  executive  officer and co-owner of
                                                                        Adirondack Beverages (producer and distributor of
                                                                        soft drinks and sparkling/still waters)  (October
                                                                        1993-March 1995).   He  was a  partner of The New
                                                                        England  Consulting Group  (management consulting
                                                                        firm) (December  1992- September  1993).  He  was
                                                                        managing director of  LVMH U.S. Corporation (U.S.
                                                                        subsidiary   of    the    French   luxury   goods
                                                                        conglomerate,  Louis   Vuitton    Moet  Hennessey
                                                                        Corporation) (1987-1991) and chairman of its wine
                                                                        and spirits  subsidiary, Schieffelin  &  Somerset
                                                                        Company (1987-1991).  Mr. Armstrong is a director
                                                                        or  trustee  of 29 investment companies for which
                                                                        Mitchell   Hutchins, PaineWebber  or one of their
                                                                        affiliates    serves   as   investment   adviser.

E. Garrett Bewkes, Jr.**+; 73         Trustee and Chairman of the       Mr.  Bewkes is a director of Paine  Webber  Group
                                           Board of Trustees            Inc.   ("PW   Group")    (holding    company   of
                                                                        PaineWebber  and  Mitchell  Hutchins).  Prior  to
                                                                        1996,  he  was  a  consultant  to  PW  Group.  He
                                                                        serves as a consultant to PaineWebber  (since May
                                                                        1999).  Prior to  1988,  he was  chairman  of the
                                                                        board,  president and chief executive  officer of
                                                                        American  Bakeries  Company.   Mr.  Bewkes  is  a
                                                                        director  of  Interstate  Bakeries   Corporation.
                                                                        Mr.  Bewkes  is  a  director  or  trustee  of  38
                                                                        investment    companies   for   which    Mitchell
                                                                        Hutchins,  PaineWebber or one of their affiliates
                                                                        serves as investment adviser.


                                                           36
<PAGE>


       NAME AND ADDRESS; AGE            POSITION WITH EACH TRUST        BUSINESS EXPERIENCE; OTHER DIRECTORSHIPS
       ---------------------            ------------------------        ----------------------------------------
<S>                                     <C>                             <C>
Richard R. Burt; 53                             Trustee                 Mr.  Burt  is  chairman  of  IEP  Advisors,  Inc.
1275 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W.                                             (international  investments and consulting  firm)
Washington, D.C.  20004                                                 (since  March  1994) and a partner of  McKinsey &
                                                                        Company   (management   consulting  firm)  (since
                                                                        1991).    He    is    also    a    director    of
                                                                        Archer-Daniels-Midland      Co.     (agricultural
                                                                        commodities),    Hollinger    International   Co.
                                                                        (publishing),   Homestake   Mining  Corp.   (gold
                                                                        mining),   six   investment   companies   in  the
                                                                        Deutsche  Bank family of funds,  nine  investment
                                                                        companies in the Flag Investors  family of funds,
                                                                        The Central  European Fund,  Inc. and The Germany
                                                                        Fund,   Inc.,  vice  chairman  of  Anchor  Gaming
                                                                        (provides   technology  to  gaming  and  wagering
                                                                        industry   (since  July  1999)  and  chairman  of
                                                                        Weirton  Steel Corp.  (makes and  finishes  steel
                                                                        products)  (since April  1996).  He was the chief
                                                                        negotiator in the Strategic Arms Reduction  Talks
                                                                        with the former Soviet Union  (1989-1991) and the
                                                                        U.S.   Ambassador  to  the  Federal  Republic  of
                                                                        Germany  (1985-1989).  Mr.  Burt is a director or
                                                                        trustee  of 29  investment  companies  for  which
                                                                        Mitchell  Hutchins,  PaineWebber  or one of their
                                                                        affiliates serves as investment adviser.

Mary C. Farrell**+; 50                          Trustee                 Ms.  Farrell  is  a  managing  director,   senior
                                                                        investment   strategist   and   member   of   the
                                                                        Investment  Policy Committee of PaineWebber.  Ms.
                                                                        Farrell  joined  PaineWebber  in  1982.  She is a
                                                                        member of the Financial  Women's  Association and
                                                                        Women's  Economic  Roundtable  and  appears  as a
                                                                        regular  panelist  on Wall $treet Week with Louis
                                                                        Rukeyser.   She  also  serves  on  the  Board  of
                                                                        Overseers of New York  University's  Stern School
                                                                        of  Business.   Ms.  Farrell  is  a  director  or
                                                                        trustee  of 28  investment  companies  for  which
                                                                        Mitchell  Hutchins,  PaineWebber  or one of their
                                                                        affiliates serves as investment adviser.

Meyer Feldberg; 58                              Trustee                 Mr.  Feldberg is Dean and Professor of Management
Columbia University                                                     of the  Graduate  School  of  Business,  Columbia
101 Uris Hall                                                           University.  Prior to 1989,  he was  president of
New York, NY  10027                                                     the  Illinois   Institute  of  Technology.   Dean
                                                                        Feldberg  is also a director  of  Primedia,  Inc.
                                                                        (publishing),  Federated  Department Stores, Inc.
                                                                        (operator of department stores) and Revlon,  Inc.
                                                                        (cosmetics).  Dean  Feldberg  is  a  director  or
                                                                        trustee  of 35  investment  companies  for  which
                                                                        Mitchell  Hutchins,  PaineWebber  or one of their
                                                                        affiliates serves as investment adviser.


                                                           37
<PAGE>


       NAME AND ADDRESS; AGE            POSITION WITH EACH TRUST        BUSINESS EXPERIENCE; OTHER DIRECTORSHIPS
       ---------------------            ------------------------        ----------------------------------------
<S>                                     <C>                             <C>
George W. Gowen; 70                             Trustee                 Mr.  Gowen  is a  partner  in  the  law  firm  of
666 Third Avenue                                                        Dunnington,  Bartholow  &  Miller.  Prior  to May
New York, NY  10017                                                     1994,  he was a partner in the law firm of Fryer,
                                                                        Ross  &  Gowen.   Mr.  Gowen  is  a  director  or
                                                                        trustee  of 35  investment  companies  for  which
                                                                        Mitchell  Hutchins,  PaineWebber  or one of their
                                                                        affiliates serves as investment adviser.

Frederic V. Malek; 63                           Trustee                 Mr. Malek is chairman of Thayer Capital  Partners
1455 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W.                                             (merchant  bank) and  chairman  of  Thayer  Hotel
Suite 350                                                               Investors  II  and  Lodging   Opportunities  Fund
Washington, D.C.  20004                                                 (hotel  investment  partnerships).  From  January
                                                                        1992 to November  1992,  he was campaign  manager
                                                                        of  Bush-Quayle  `92.  From 1990 to 1992,  he was
                                                                        vice  chairman  and,  from  1989 to 1990,  he was
                                                                        president  of  Northwest  Airlines  Inc.  and NWA
                                                                        Inc.  (holding  company  of  Northwest   Airlines
                                                                        Inc.)  Prior  to  1989,  he was  employed  by the
                                                                        Marriott   Corporation   (hotels,    restaurants,
                                                                        airline catering and contract feeding),  where he
                                                                        most  recently  was an executive  vice  president
                                                                        and  president  of Marriott  Hotels and  Resorts.
                                                                        Mr.   Malek   is  also  a   director   of   Aegis
                                                                        Communications,  Inc.  (tele-services),  American
                                                                        Management Systems,  Inc. (management  consulting
                                                                        and computer  related  services),  Automatic Data
                                                                        Processing,   Inc.   (computing   services),   CB
                                                                        Richard Ellis, Inc. (real estate  services),  FPL
                                                                        Group, Inc. (electric services),  Global Vacation
                                                                        Group (packaged vacations),  HCR/Manor Care, Inc.
                                                                        (health  care),  SAGA  Systems,   Inc.  (software
                                                                        company) and  Northwest  Airlines  Inc. Mr. Malek
                                                                        is  a  director  or  trustee  of  29   investment
                                                                        companies    for   which    Mitchell    Hutchins,
                                                                        PaineWebber or one of their affiliates  serves as
                                                                        investment adviser.


                                                           38
<PAGE>


       NAME AND ADDRESS; AGE            POSITION WITH EACH TRUST        BUSINESS EXPERIENCE; OTHER DIRECTORSHIPS
       ---------------------            ------------------------        ----------------------------------------
<S>                                     <C>                             <C>
Carl W. Schafer; 64                             Trustee                 Mr.   Schafer  is   president   of  the  Atlantic
66 Witherspoon Street, #1100                                            Foundation   (charitable   foundation  supporting
Princeton, NJ  08542                                                    mainly  oceanographic  exploration and research).
                                                                        He is a director of Labor Ready, Inc.  (temporary
                                                                        employment),  Roadway Express,  Inc.  (trucking),
                                                                        The Guardian Group of Mutual Funds,  the Harding,
                                                                        Loevner Funds,  E.I.I.  Realty Trust  (investment
                                                                        company),   Evans  Systems,  Inc.  (motor  fuels,
                                                                        convenience   store  and  diversified   company),
                                                                        Electronic   Clearing  House,   Inc.   (financial
                                                                        transactions     processing),     Frontier    Oil
                                                                        Corporation and Nutraceutix,  Inc. (biotechnology
                                                                        company).   Prior  to   January   1993,   he  was
                                                                        chairman of the Investment  Advisory Committee of
                                                                        the  Howard   Hughes   Medical   Institute.   Mr.
                                                                        Schafer   is  a   director   or   trustee  of  29
                                                                        investment    companies   for   which    Mitchell
                                                                        Hutchins,  PaineWebber or one of their affiliates
                                                                        serves as investment adviser.

Brian M. Storms*+; 45                           Trustee                 Mr.  Storms  is  president  and  chief  operating
                                                                        officer  of  Mitchell   Hutchins   (since   March
                                                                        1999).  Mr.  Storms was  president of  Prudential
                                                                        Investments   (1996-1999).   Prior   to   joining
                                                                        Prudential,   he  was  a  managing   director  at
                                                                        Fidelity  Investments.  Mr.  Storms is a director
                                                                        or trustee of 29  investment  companies for which
                                                                        Mitchell  Hutchins,  PaineWebber  or one of their
                                                                        affiliates serves as investment adviser.

Cynthia N. Bow*; 41                          Vice President             Ms.  Bow  is a  vice  president  and a  portfolio
                                        (Mutual Fund Trust only)        manager of  Mitchell  Hutchins.  Ms. Bow has been
                                                                        with Mitchell  Hutchins  since 1982. Ms. Bow is a
                                                                        vice  president of two  investment  companies for
                                                                        which  Mitchell  Hutchins,  PaineWebber or one of
                                                                        their affiliates serves as investment adviser.

Thomas Disbrow***; 34                      Vice President and           Mr.  Disbrow  is a  first  vice  president  and a
                                          Assistant Treasurer           senior   manager  of  the  mutual  fund   finance
                                                                        department   of  Mitchell   Hutchins.   Prior  to
                                                                        November   1999,  he  was  a  vice  president  of
                                                                        Zweig/Glaser  Advisers.  Mr.  Disbrow  is a  vice
                                                                        president   and   assistant   treasurer   of   30
                                                                        investment    companies   for   which    Mitchell
                                                                        Hutchins,  PaineWebber or one of their affiliates
                                                                        serves as investment adviser.

Elbridge T. Gerry III*; 43                   Vice President             Mr. Gerry is a managing  director and a portfolio
                                                                        manager of  Mitchell  Hutchins.  Prior to January
                                                                        1996,  he was with J.P.  Morgan  Private  Banking
                                                                        where he was responsible  for managing  municipal
                                                                        assets,  including  several municipal bond funds.
                                                                        Mr. Gerry is a vice  president of six  investment
                                                                        companies    for   which    Mitchell    Hutchins,
                                                                        PaineWebber or one of their affiliates  serves as
                                                                        investment adviser.


                                                           39
<PAGE>


       NAME AND ADDRESS; AGE            POSITION WITH EACH TRUST        BUSINESS EXPERIENCE; OTHER DIRECTORSHIPS
       ---------------------            ------------------------        ----------------------------------------
<S>                                     <C>                             <C>
John J. Lee***; 31                         Vice President and           Mr. Lee is a vice  president and a manager of the
                                          Assistant Treasurer           mutual  fund  finance   department   of  Mitchell
                                                                        Hutchins.  Prior  to  September  1997,  he was an
                                                                        audit manager in the financial  services practice
                                                                        of  Ernst  &  Young  LLP.   Mr.  Lee  is  a  vice
                                                                        president   and   assistant   treasurer   of   30
                                                                        investment    companies   for   which    Mitchell
                                                                        Hutchins,  PaineWebber or one of their affiliates
                                                                        serves as investment adviser.

Kevin J. Mahoney***; 34                    Vice President and           Mr.  Mahoney  is a  first  vice  president  and a
                                          Assistant Treasurer           senior   manager  of  the  mutual  fund   finance
                                                                        department of Mitchell Hutchins. From August 1996
                                                                        through  March  1999, he was the  manager  of the
                                                                        mutual  fund  internal  control group  of Salomon
                                                                        Smith  Barney.  Prior to  August 1996,  he was an
                                                                        associate and August 1996, assistant treasurer of
                                                                        BlackRock Financial  Management L.P.  Mr. Mahoney
                                                                        is a vice president and assistant treasurer of 30
                                                                        investment   companies   for   treasurer of which
                                                                        Mitchell  Hutchins,  PaineWebber  or one of their
                                                                        affiliates serves as investment adviser.

Dennis McCauley*; 53                         Vice President             Mr.  McCauley  is a managing  director  and chief
                                                                        investment  officer--fixed   income  of  Mitchell
                                                                        Hutchins.  Mr.  McCauley is a vice  president  of
                                                                        20  investment   companies  for  which   Mitchell
                                                                        Hutchins,  PaineWebber or one of their affiliates
                                                                        serves as investment adviser.

Ann E. Moran***; 42                        Vice President and           Ms.  Moran is a vice  president  and a manager of
                                          Assistant Treasurer           the mutual fund  finance  department  of Mitchell
                                                                        Hutchins.  Ms.  Moran  is a  vice  president  and
                                                                        assistant  treasurer of 30  investment  companies
                                                                        for which Mitchell  Hutchins,  PaineWebber or one
                                                                        of  their   affiliates   serves   as   investment
                                                                        adviser.

Dianne E. O'Donnell**; 48             Vice President and Secretary      Ms.  O'Donnell  is a senior  vice  president  and
                                                                        deputy  general  counsel  of  Mitchell  Hutchins.
                                                                        Ms.  O'Donnell is a vice  president and secretary
                                                                        of 30  investment  companies  for which  Mitchell
                                                                        Hutchins,  PaineWebber or one of their affiliates
                                                                        serves as investment adviser.

Paul H. Schubert***; 37               Vice President and Treasurer      Mr.  Schubert is a senior vice  president and the
                                                                        director  of the mutual fund  finance  department
                                                                        of  Mitchell  Hutchins.  Mr.  Schubert  is a vice
                                                                        president   and   treasurer   of  30   investment
                                                                        companies    for   which    Mitchell    Hutchins,
                                                                        PaineWebber or one of their affiliates  serves as
                                                                        investment adviser.


                                                           40
<PAGE>


       NAME AND ADDRESS; AGE            POSITION WITH EACH TRUST        BUSINESS EXPERIENCE; OTHER DIRECTORSHIPS
       ---------------------            ------------------------        ----------------------------------------
<S>                                     <C>                             <C>
Barney A. Taglialatela***; 39              Vice President and           Mr.  Taglialatela  is  a  vice  president  and  a
                                          Assistant Treasurer           manager of the mutual fund finance  department of
                                                                        Mitchell  Hutchins.  Mr.  Taglialatela  is a vice
                                                                        president   and   assistant   treasurer   of   30
                                                                        investment    companies   for   which    Mitchell
                                                                        Hutchins,  PaineWebber or one of their affiliates
                                                                        serves as investment adviser.

William W. Veronda*; 54                      Vice President             Mr.   Veronda  is  a  senior  vice  president  of
                                       (PW Municipal Series only)       Mitchell  Hutchins.  Prior to September  1995, he
                                                                        was a senior vice  president and general  manager
                                                                        at  Invesco  Funds  Group.  Mr.  Veronda  is vice
                                                                        president  of one  investment  company  for which
                                                                        Mitchell   Hutchins  or  PaineWebber   serves  as
                                                                        investment adviser.

Keith A. Weller**; 38                      Vice President and           Mr.   Weller  is  a  first  vice   president  and
                                          Assistant Secretary           associate  general counsel of Mitchell  Hutchins.
                                                                        Mr.   Weller is a  vice  president  and assistant
                                                                        secretary  of  29  investment companies for which
                                                                        Mitchell  Hutchins,  PaineWebber  or one of their
                                                                        affiliates serves as investment adviser.
</TABLE>

-------------
*    This  person's  business address is 51 West 52nd Street, New York, New York
     10019-6114.

**   This person's  business  address is  1285 Avenue of the Americas, New York,
     New York 10019-6028.

***  This person's   business   address  is  Newport  Center III, 499 Washington
     Blvd., 14th Floor, Jersey City, New Jersey 07310-1998.

+    Mrs.  Alexander,  Mr. Bewkes, Ms. Farrell,  and Mr. Storms  are "interested
     persons" of each fund as defined in the Investment Company Act by virtue of
     their positions with Mitchell Hutchins, PaineWebber, and/or PW Group.

         Each Trust pays trustees who are not "interested  persons" of the Trust
$1,000  annually for each series and $150 per series for each board  meeting and
each separate meeting of a board committee.  Each Trust presently has two series
and thus pays each such board member $2,000 annually, plus any additional annual
amounts  due for board or  committee  meetings.  Each  chairman of the audit and
contract  review  committees of  individual  funds within the  PaineWebber  fund
complex receives additional  compensation  aggregating $15,000 annually from the
relevant  funds.  All  trustees  are  reimbursed  for any  expenses  incurred in
attending   meetings.   Because  Mitchell   Hutchins  and  PaineWebber   perform
substantially all of the services  necessary for the operation of the Trusts and
the funds,  neither  Trust  requires  any  employees.  No  officer,  director or
employee of Mitchell Hutchins or PaineWebber presently receives any compensation
from the Trusts for acting as a trustee or officer.

         The  table  below  includes   certain   information   relating  to  the
compensation  of the  current  board  members who held office with the Trusts or
with other PaineWebber funds during the periods indicated.


                                       41
<PAGE>
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                              COMPENSATION TABLE+

                                                                            AGGREGATE
                                                       AGGREGATE          COMPENSATION      TOTAL COMPENSATION
                                                   COMPENSATION FROM     FROM MUNICIPAL    FROM THE TRUSTS AND
                 NAME OF PERSON, POSITION          MUTUAL FUND TRUST*        SERIES*       THE FUND COMPLEX**
                 ------------------------          ------------------        ------        -------------------
          <S>                                             <C>                <C>                <C>

          Richard Q. Armstrong,
          Trustee..............................           $3,560             $3,560             $104,650

          Richard R. Burt,
          Trustee..............................            3,560              3,560              102,850

          Meyer Feldberg,
          Trustee..............................            3,560              3,560              119,650

          George W. Gowen,
          Trustee..............................            4,344              4,344              119,650

          Frederic V. Malek,
          Trustee..............................            3,560              3,560              104,650

          Carl W. Schafer,
          Trustee..............................            3,500              3,500              104,650
</TABLE>

--------------------
+  Only independent  board members are compensated by the PaineWebber  funds and
   identified above;  board members who are "interested  persons," as defined by
   the Investment Company Act, do not receive  compensation from the PaineWebber
   funds.

*  Represents  fees paid to each board member from the Trust  indicated  for the
   fiscal year ended February 29, 2000.

** Represents  total  compensation  paid during the calendar year ended December
   31, 1999, to each board member by 31 investment  companies (34 in the case of
   Messrs.  Feldberg and Gowen) for which Mitchell Hutchins,  PaineWebber or one
   of  their  affiliates  served  as  investment  adviser.  No fund  within  the
   PaineWebber fund complex has a bonus,  pension,  profit sharing or retirement
   plan.

            PRINCIPAL HOLDERS AND MANAGEMENT OWNERSHIP OF SECURITIES

         As of June 6, 2000,  trustees and officers  owned in the aggregate less
than 1% of the outstanding shares of any class of each fund.

         As of June 6, 2000, the following shareholders were shown in the funds'
records as owning 5% or more of any class of a fund's shares:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                                   PERCENTAGE OF SHARES BENEFICIALLY
           NAME AND ADDRESS*                                                            OWNED AS OF JUNE 6, 2000
           -----------------                                                       ---------------------------------
           <S>                                                                               <C>

           NATIONAL TAX-FREE INCOME FUND
           -----------------------------

           George T. Westwood TTEE                                                                 9.35% of
           UA 6/22/83                                                                        Class B shares

           Helen Polinger TTEE                                                                     5.23% of
           FBO Benjamin Polinger                                                             Class B shares

           Charlsia L. Brown TTEE for                                                             38.96% of
           Sam A. Brown Irrevocable                                                          Class Y shares
           Educational Life Insurance Trust
           U/A/D 2/28/94

           Edith M. Buss TTEE                                                                     14.64% of
           FBO Buss Family Revocable                                                         Class Y shares
           Trust U/A dated 11/8/90

           Gilbert C. Powers &                                                                     9.80% of
           Pamela M. Powers Com Prop                                                         Class Y shares


                                                                 42
<PAGE>

                                                                                   PERCENTAGE OF SHARES BENEFICIALLY
           NAME AND ADDRESS*                                                            OWNED AS OF JUNE 6, 2000
           -----------------                                                       ---------------------------------
           <S>                                                                               <C>
           MUNICIPAL HIGH INCOME FUND
           --------------------------
           Joseph L. Wisne TTEE                                                                    7.28% of
           UAD 7/9/91 by Joseph L. Wisne                                                     Class A shares

           Antony Von Elbe                                                                         5.14% of
                                                                                             Class A shares

           PaineWebber Cust                                                                       20.61% of
           Theoginia K. Duffy IRA RLVR                                                       Class Y shares

           Jacob J. Kornberg                                                                      19.98% of
           Margaret R. Kornberg JT TEN                                                       Class Y shares

           Stephen M. Brickley                                                                     7.41% of
                                                                                             Class Y shares

           Sanober H. Mumtaz                                                                       5.95% of
                                                                                             Class Y shares
           Jay T. Landgren                                                                         5.77% of
                                                                                             Class Y shares

           CALIFORNIA TAX-FREE INCOME FUND
           -------------------------------
           Thomas G. Donahue and Patricia A. Donahue TTEES FBO                                     8.57% of
           The Donahue Living Revocable                                                      Class B shares
           Trust dated 8/11/95

           Elsie J. Fabiano                                                                       50.35% of
                                                                                             Class Y shares
           Robert E. Maloney                                                                       8.95% of
           Nina B. Maloney Comm Prop                                                         Class Y shares

           Comerica Bank TTEE                                                                      8.82% of
           FBO Trust C under the                                                             Class Y shares
           Franklin Bond and Edna D. Bond
           Trust dated April 2, 1992

           Margaret Crane Trustee                                                                  7.37% of
           F/T Edward and Margaret Crane                                                     Class Y shares
           Survivor's Trust dated 12/02/93

           Carolyn L. Worthington TTEE                                                             6.88% of
           UA dated 07-16-90                                                                 Class Y shares


                                                                 43
<PAGE>

                                                                                   PERCENTAGE OF SHARES BENEFICIALLY
           NAME AND ADDRESS*                                                            OWNED AS OF JUNE 6, 2000
           -----------------                                                       ---------------------------------
           <S>                                                                               <C>
           NEW YORK TAX-FREE INCOME FUND
           -----------------------------

           Trust U/W/O Vito Monitto                                                                7.83% of
           Frances Monitto Manfredi TTEE                                                     Class A shares

           Mrs. Marguerite Rossetto                                                               17.16% of
                                                                                             Class B shares
           Wolf Kahn                                                                               6.83% of
                                                                                             Class B shares

           Harold  Wasserman and                                                                  39.62% of
           Joan  Wasserman JTWROS                                                            Class Y shares

           The Michael Gerard DiNapoli                                                            26.28% of
           Revocable Trust dated 4/3/00                                                      Class Y shares
           Sherry Crespin-DiNapoli TTEE

           Margaret L. Kawecki                                                                    13.40% of
           Living Trust dated 4/8/96                                                         Class Y shares
           Margaret L. Kawecki TTEE

           Stephen A. Castellano                                                                   9.26% of
                                                                                             Class Y shares

           Issac Malina                                                                            7.45% of
                                                                                             Class Y shares
-------------------------------
         * The shareholders  listed above may be contacted c/o Mitchell Hutchins
Asset Management Inc., 51 West 52nd Street, New York, NY 10019-6114.
</TABLE>

        INVESTMENT ADVISORY, ADMINISTRATION AND DISTRIBUTION ARRANGEMENTS

         INVESTMENT ADVISORY AND ADMINISTRATION ARRANGEMENTS.  Mitchell Hutchins
acts as the investment adviser and administrator  pursuant to separate contracts
(each an "Advisory  Contract")  with each Trust.  Under the applicable  Advisory
Contract,  each fund  pays  Mitchell  Hutchins  a fee,  computed  daily and paid
monthly,  at the annual rate of 0.50% of average daily net assets in the case of
National  Tax-Free Income Fund and California  Tax-Free Income Fund and 0.60% of
average daily net assets in the case of Municipal  High Income Fund and New York
Tax-Free Income Fund.






                                       44
<PAGE>

         During  each of the periods  indicated,  Mitchell  Hutchins  earned (or
accrued) advisory fees in the amounts set forth below:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                    FISCAL YEARS ENDED FEBRUARY 28/29,
                                                                    ----------------------------------
                                                                     2000                 1999                 1998
                                                                     ----                 ----                 ----
         <S>                                                  <C>                  <C>                  <C>

         National Tax-Free Income Fund..............          $ 1,376,862          $ 1,522,045          $ 1,634,990
         Municipal High Income Fund.................              636,525              632,526              551,107
         California Tax-Free Income Fund............              704,250              754,659              776,955
                                                                (of which            (of which
                                                              281,706 was          200,824 was
                                                                  waived)              waived)
         New York Tax-Free Income Fund..............              238,369              273,412              264,754
                                                                (of which            (of which            (of which
                                                              125,371 was          112,366 was          117,350 was
                                                                  waived)              waived)              waived)
</TABLE>

         Under the terms of the applicable  Advisory  Contract,  each fund bears
all expenses  incurred in its  operation  that are not  specifically  assumed by
Mitchell  Hutchins.  General  expenses  of a Trust not readily  identifiable  as
belonging to a particular fund are allocated between the appropriate funds by or
under the  direction  of the board in such  manner as the board  deems  fair and
equitable.  Expenses  borne by each fund  include  the  following:  (1) the cost
(including brokerage commissions, if any) of securities purchased or sold by the
fund and any losses  incurred in connection  therewith;  (2) fees payable to and
expenses incurred on behalf of the fund by Mitchell Hutchins; (3) organizational
expenses;  (4)  filing  fees  and  expenses  relating  to the  registration  and
qualification  of the fund's shares under federal and state  securities laws and
maintenance  of such  registrations  and  qualifications;  (5) fees and salaries
payable to  trustees  who are not  interested  persons  of the fund or  Mitchell
Hutchins;  (6) all expenses incurred in connection with the trustees'  services,
including travel  expenses;  (7) taxes (including any income or franchise taxes)
and  governmental  fees;  (8)  costs of any  liability,  uncollectible  items of
deposit and other insurance or fidelity bonds; (9) any costs, expenses or losses
arising out of a  liability  of or claim for  damages or other  relief  asserted
against the fund for violation of any law; (10) legal,  accounting  and auditing
expenses,  including legal fees of special counsel for the independent trustees;
(11) charges of  custodians,  transfer  agents and other  agents;  (12) costs of
preparing  share  certificates;  (13)  expenses of setting in type and  printing
prospectuses and supplements thereto,  statements of additional  information and
supplements thereto,  reports and proxy materials for existing  shareholders and
costs of mailing such materials to existing shareholders; (14) any extraordinary
expenses  (including fees and  disbursements  of counsel)  incurred by the fund;
(15) fees, voluntary  assessments and other expenses incurred in connection with
membership  in  investment  company  organizations;  (16) costs of  mailing  and
tabulating  proxies  and costs of meetings  of  shareholders,  the board and any
committees  thereof;  (17) the cost of investment  company  literature and other
publications  provided  to  trustees  and  officers;  and (18) costs of mailing,
stationery and communications equipment.

         Under each Advisory Contract,  Mitchell Hutchins will not be liable for
any error of  judgment  or mistake of law or for any loss  suffered by a fund in
connection  with  the  performance  of  the  Advisory  Contract,  except  a loss
resulting from willful misfeasance, bad faith or gross negligence on the part of
Mitchell Hutchins in the performance of its duties or from reckless disregard of
its  duties  and  obligations  thereunder.  Each  Advisory  Contract  terminates
automatically  upon its assignment and is terminable at any time without penalty
by the board or by vote of the  holders  of a majority  of a fund's  outstanding
voting  securities,  on 60 days'  written  notice  to  Mitchell  Hutchins  or by
Mitchell Hutchins on 60 days' written notice to a fund.

         TRANSFER  AGENCY-RELATED  SERVICES.  PFPC  Inc.  ("PFPC"),  the  funds'
transfer  agent,   (not  the  funds)  pays   PaineWebber  for  certain  transfer
agency-related services that PFPC has delegated to PaineWebber.  Prior to August
1, 1997,  under an  agreement  between  the  applicable  Trust and  PaineWebber,
PaineWebber  provided those services to each fund not otherwise  provided by its
transfer  agent.  Under these  agreements,  PaineWebber  earned (or accrued) the
amounts set forth below during the period indicated:


                                       45
<PAGE>

                                                                 FOR THE FIVE
                                                                 MONTHS ENDED
                                                                JULY 31, 1997
                                                                -------------

         National Tax-Free Income Fund...............             $  15,757
         Municipal High Income Fund..................                 5,104
         California Tax-Free Income Fund.............                 5,924
         New York Tax-Free Income Fund...............                 2,077


         SECURITIES  LENDING.  During the fiscal years ended  February 29, 2000,
February 28, 1999 and February 28, 1998,  the funds paid (or accrued) no fees to
PaineWebber for its services as securities lending agent.

         NET ASSETS.  The following table shows the approximate net assets as of
May 31, 2000,  sorted by category of  investment  objective,  of the  investment
companies as to which Mitchell  Hutchins  serves as adviser or  sub-adviser.  An
investment company may fall into more than one of the categories below.

                                                                     NET ASSETS
                         INVESTMENT CATEGORY                           ($MIL)
                         -------------------                           ------

        Domestic (excluding Money Market)................            $9,269.6
        Global...........................................             4,658.6
        Equity/Balanced..................................             9,676.7
        Fixed Income (excluding Money Market)............             4,251.5
                   Taxable Fixed Income..................             2,858.1
                   Tax-Free Fixed Income.................             1,393.4
        Money Market Funds...............................            38,814.8


         PERSONAL TRADING  POLICIES.  The funds,  their  investment  adviser and
their principal  underwriter each have adopted a code of ethics under rule 17j-1
of the Investment  Company Act, which permits  personnel  covered by the rule to
invest  in  securities  that may be  purchased  or held by a fund but  prohibits
fraudulent,  deceptive or manipulative  conduct in connection with that personal
investing.

         DISTRIBUTION ARRANGEMENTS. Mitchell Hutchins acts as the distributor of
each class of shares of each fund under  separate  distribution  contracts  with
each Trust (collectively,  "Distribution Contracts"). Each Distribution Contract
requires  Mitchell  Hutchins to use its best efforts,  consistent with its other
businesses,  to sell  shares  of the  applicable  fund.  Shares of each fund are
offered continuously. Under separate dealer agreements between Mitchell Hutchins
and PaineWebber relating to each class of shares of the funds (collectively, "PW
Dealer  Agreements"),  PaineWebber and its correspondent  firms sell each fund's
shares.  Mitchell Hutchins is located at 51 West 52nd Street, New York, New York
10019-6114 and PaineWebber is located at 1285 Avenue of the Americas,  New York,
New York 10019-6028.

         Under separate plans of distribution pertaining to the Class A, Class B
and Class C shares of each fund  adopted by each Trust in the manner  prescribed
under Rule 12b-1 under the Investment Company Act (each, respectively,  a "Class
A Plan,"  "Class B Plan" and "Class C Plan," and  collectively,  "Plans"),  each
fund pays Mitchell Hutchins a service fee, accrued daily and payable monthly, at
the  annual  rate of 0.25% of the  average  daily net  assets  of each  class of
shares.  Under the Class B Plan, each fund pays Mitchell Hutchins a distribution
fee,  accrued  daily and  payable  monthly,  at the annual  rate of 0.75% of the
average  daily net  assets of the Class B shares.  Under the Class C Plan,  each
fund pays  Mitchell  Hutchins a  distribution  fee,  accrued  daily and  payable
monthly,  at the  annual  rate of 0.50% of the  average  daily net assets of the
Class C shares. There is no distribution plan with respect to the funds' Class Y
shares and the funds pay no service or  distribution  fees with respect to their
Class Y shares.

         Mitchell  Hutchins  uses the service  fees under the Plans for Class A,
Class  B and  Class  C  shares  primarily  to pay  PaineWebber  for  shareholder
servicing,  currently  at the annual rate of 0.25% of the  aggregate  investment


                                       46
<PAGE>

amounts  maintained  in  each  fund by  PaineWebber  clients.  PaineWebber  then
compensates its Financial  Advisors for shareholder  servicing that they perform
and offsets its own expenses in servicing and maintaining  shareholder accounts,
including related overhead expenses.

         Mitchell  Hutchins  uses the  distribution  fees  under the Class B and
Class C Plans to:

         o      Offset  the commissions it pays to  PaineWebber for selling each
                fund's Class B and Class C shares, respectively.

         o      Offset  each   fund's  marketing  costs  attributable  to   such
                classes,  such  as  preparation,  printing  and  distribution of
                sales literature,  advertising  and prospectuses  to prospective
                investors  and  related  overhead  expenses,  such  as  employee
                salaries and bonuses.

         PaineWebber  compensates  Financial  Advisors  when Class B and Class C
shares  are  bought  by  investors,  as well as on an  ongoing  basis.  Mitchell
Hutchins receives no special  compensation from any of the funds or investors at
the time Class B or C shares are bought.

         Mitchell  Hutchins  receives the  proceeds of the initial  sales charge
paid when Class A shares are bought and of the contingent  deferred sales charge
paid upon  sales of shares.  These  proceeds  may be used to cover  distribution
expenses.

         The Plans and the related  Distribution  Contracts for Class A, Class B
and Class C shares specify that each fund must pay service and distribution fees
to Mitchell  Hutchins as compensation for its service- and  distribution-related
activities, not as reimbursement for specific expenses incurred. Therefore, even
if  Mitchell  Hutchins'  expenses  exceed the  service or  distribution  fees it
receives,  the funds will not be obligated  to pay more than those fees.  On the
other hand,  if Mitchell  Hutchins'  expenses  are less than such fees,  it will
retain its full fees and  realize a profit.  Expenses  in excess of service  and
distribution  fees received or accrued through the termination  date of any Plan
will be  Mitchell  Hutchins'  sole  responsibility  and not  that of the  funds.
Annually,  the board of each fund  reviews  the  Plans  and  Mitchell  Hutchins'
corresponding  expenses for each class separately from the Plans and expenses of
the other classes.

         Among other things,  each Plan provides that (1) Mitchell Hutchins will
submit to the applicable  board at least  quarterly,  and the board members will
review,  reports  regarding all amounts expended under the Plan and the purposes
for which such expenditures were made, (2) the Plan will continue in effect only
so long as it is approved at least annually,  and any material amendment thereto
is approved, by the applicable board,  including those board members who are not
"interested  persons" of the Trust and who have no direct or indirect  financial
interest  in the  operation  of the Plan or any  agreement  related to the Plan,
acting in person at a meeting  called for that  purpose,  (3) payments by a fund
under the Plan shall not be materially increased without the affirmative vote of
the holders of a majority of the outstanding shares of the relevant class of the
fund and (4) while the Plan remains in effect,  the selection and  nomination of
board members who are not  "interested  persons" of the Trust shall be committed
to the discretion of the board members who are not "interested  persons" of that
Trust.

         In reporting  amounts  expended  under the Plans to the board  members,
Mitchell Hutchins allocates  expenses  attributable to the sale of each class of
each  fund's  shares to such class based on the ratio of sales of shares of such
class to the sales of all three classes of shares. The fees paid by one class of
a fund's  shares  will not be used to  subsidize  the sale of any other class of
fund shares.

         The funds paid (or accrued) the following  service and/or  distribution
fees to Mitchell  Hutchins  under the Class A, Class B and Class C Plans  during
the fiscal year ended February 29, 2000:


                                       47
<PAGE>

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                 NATIONAL TAX-FREE     MUNICIPAL HIGH     CALIFORNIA TAX-FREE    NEW YORK TAX-FREE
                                    INCOME FUND          INCOME FUND          INCOME FUND           INCOME FUND
                                    -----------          -----------          -----------           -----------
      <S>                             <C>                 <C>                    <C>                  <C>

      Class A.................        $ 526,472           $ 164,945              $276,573             $ 60,508
      Class B.................          194,904             168,537               120,852               47,379
      Class C.................          335,657             171,172               133,731               80,640
</TABLE>


         Mitchell  Hutchins  estimates  that  it  and  its  parent  corporation,
PaineWebber,    incurred   the   following   shareholder   service-related   and
distribution-related  expenses  with respect to each fund during the fiscal year
ended February 29, 2000:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                                         CALIFORNIA       NEW YORK
                                                  NATIONAL TAX-FEE    MUNICIPAL HIGH      TAX-FREE        TAX-FREE
                                                     INCOME FUND       INCOME FUND      INCOME FUND      INCOME FUND
                                                     -----------       -----------      -----------      -----------
      <S>                                              <C>               <C>             <C>              <C>

      CLASS A
      Marketing and advertising...............         $  241,310        $  185,990      $  198,054       $  106,366
      Amortization of commissions.............                  0                 0               0                0
      Printing of prospectuses and statements
      of additional information...............              2,725               858           1,105              350
      Branch network costs allocated and
      interest expense........................            695,709           191,845         352,658           81,103
      Service fees paid to PaineWebber
      Financial Advisors......................            205,324            64,328         107,863           23,598

      CLASS B
      Marketing and advertising...............             22,330            47,413          21,556           20,794
      Amortization of commissions.............             72,241           118,094          44,477           17,443
      Printing of prospectuses and statements
      of additional information...............                252               221             121              100
      Branch network costs allocated and
      interest expense........................             73,433            58,094          45,176           18,075
      Service fees paid to PaineWebber
      Financial Advisors......................             19,004            16,432          11,783            4,620

      CLASS C
      Marketing and advertising...............             51,302            64,214          31,986           47,221
      Amortization of commissions.............             87,272            44,505          34,770           20,966
      Printing of prospectuses and statements
      of additional information...............                581               304             178              170
      Branch network costs allocated and
      interest expense........................            149,660            67,134          57,653           36,435
      Service fees paid to PaineWebber
      Financial Advisors......................             43,635            22,252          17,385           10,483
</TABLE>


         "Marketing and  advertising"  includes various internal costs allocated
by Mitchell  Hutchins to its efforts at  distributing  the funds' shares.  These
internal costs encompass  office rent,  salaries and other overhead  expenses of
various  departments  and areas of  operations  of  Mitchell  Hutchins.  "Branch
network costs allocated and interest expense" consist of an allocated portion of
the expenses of various PaineWebber  departments involved in the distribution of
the funds' shares, including the PaineWebber retail branch system.


                                       48
<PAGE>

         In  approving  each  fund's  overall   Flexible   PricingSM  system  of
distribution,  the applicable board considered  several factors,  including that
implementation  of Flexible  Pricing  would (1) enable  investors  to choose the
purchasing option best suited to their individual situation, thereby encouraging
current  shareholders to make additional  investments in the fund and attracting
new  investors  and  assets  to the  fund to the  benefit  of the  fund  and its
shareholders,  (2) facilitate distribution of the fund's shares and (3) maintain
the  competitive  position  of the fund in  relation  to other  funds  that have
implemented or are seeking to implement similar distribution arrangements.

         In approving the Class A Plan,  each board  considered all the features
of the  distribution  system,  including (1) the conditions  under which initial
sales  charges  would be imposed and the amount of such  charges,  (2)  Mitchell
Hutchins' belief that the initial sales charge combined with a service fee would
be  attractive  to  PaineWebber  Financial  Advisors  and  correspondent  firms,
resulting in greater  growth of the fund than might  otherwise be the case,  (3)
the advantages to the  shareholders  of economies of scale resulting from growth
in the fund's assets and potential  continued growth,  (4) the services provided
to the fund and its shareholders by Mitchell Hutchins, (5) the services provided
by PaineWebber  pursuant to the PW Dealer  Agreement with Mitchell  Hutchins and
(6) Mitchell Hutchins' shareholder service-related expenses and costs.

         In approving the Class B Plan,  each board  considered all the features
of the distribution system,  including (1) the conditions under which contingent
deferred sales charges would be imposed and the amount of such charges,  (2) the
advantage to investors in having no initial  sales  charges  deducted  from fund
purchase  payments  and  instead  having  the  entire  amount of their  purchase
payments immediately invested in fund shares, (3) Mitchell Hutchins' belief that
the ability of PaineWebber Financial Advisors and correspondent firms to receive
sales  commissions  when Class B shares  are sold and  continuing  service  fees
thereafter  while  their  customers   invest  their  entire  purchase   payments
immediately in Class B shares would prove  attractive to the Financial  Advisors
and  correspondent  firms,  resulting  in greater  growth of the fund than might
otherwise be the case,  (4) the advantages to the  shareholders  of economies of
scale resulting from growth in the fund's assets and potential continued growth,
(5) the services provided to the fund and its shareholders by Mitchell Hutchins,
(6) the services  provided by  PaineWebber  pursuant to the PW Dealer  Agreement
with  Mitchell  Hutchins and (7)  Mitchell  Hutchins'  shareholder  service- and
distribution-related  expenses and costs. The board members also recognized that
Mitchell  Hutchins'  willingness  to  compensate  PaineWebber  and its Financial
Advisors,  without the concomitant receipt by Mitchell Hutchins of initial sales
charges,  was conditioned  upon its expectation of being  compensated  under the
Class B Plan.

         In approving the Class C Plan,  each board  considered all the features
of the distribution  system,  including (1) the advantage to investors of having
no initial sales charges deducted from fund purchase payments and instead having
the entire amount of such purchase payments immediately invested in fund shares,
(2) the  advantage  to investors in being free from  contingent  deferred  sales
charges  upon  redemption  for  shares  held more than one year and  paying  for
distribution on an ongoing basis, (3) Mitchell Hutchins' belief that the ability
of  PaineWebber  Financial  Advisors and  correspondent  firms to receive  sales
compensation  for their sales of Class C shares on an ongoing basis,  along with
continuing  service fees,  while their  customers  invest their entire  purchase
payments  immediately  in  Class C  shares,  generally  do not  face  contingent
deferred sales  charges,  would prove  attractive to the Financial  Advisors and
correspondent  firms,  resulting  in  greater  growth  to the  fund  than  might
otherwise be the case,  (4) the advantages to the  shareholders  of economies of
scale resulting from growth in the fund's assets and potential continued growth,
(5) the services provided to the fund and its shareholders by Mitchell Hutchins,
(6) the services  provided by  PaineWebber  pursuant to the PW Dealer  Agreement
with  Mitchell  Hutchins and (7)  Mitchell  Hutchins'  shareholder  service- and
distribution-related  expenses and costs. The board members also recognized that
Mitchell  Hutchins'  willingness  to  compensate  PaineWebber  and its Financial
Advisors  after  Class C shares  have been held more than one year  without  the
concomitant  receipt by Mitchell Hutchins of initial sales charges or contingent
deferred sales charges upon  redemption  after one year  following  purchase was
conditioned upon its expectation of being compensated under the Class C Plan.

         With respect to each Plan, the boards  considered all compensation that
Mitchell  Hutchins would receive under the Plan and the  Distribution  Contract,
including service fees and, as applicable,  initial sales charges,  distribution
fees and  contingent  deferred  sales  charges.  The boards also  considered the
benefits that would accrue to Mitchell Hutchins under each Plan in that Mitchell
Hutchins  would  receive  service,  distribution  and  advisory  fees  that  are
calculated  based upon a percentage  of the average net assets of a fund,  which
fees  would  increase  if the Plan were  successful  and the fund  attained  and
maintained significant asset levels.


                                       49
<PAGE>

         Under  the  Distribution  Contract  between  each  Trust  and  Mitchell
Hutchins  for the Class A shares for the  fiscal  years (or  periods)  set forth
below,  Mitchell  Hutchins  earned the  following  approximate  amounts of sales
charges and retained the following  approximate  amounts,  net of concessions to
PaineWebber as dealer.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                   FISCAL YEAR ENDED FEBRUARY 28/29,
                                                                 2000                 1999              1998
                                                                 ----                 ----              ----
       <S>                                                   <C>                 <C>                <C>

       NATIONAL TAX-FREE INCOME FUND
       Earned.....................................           $ 94,940            $ 141,884          $ 79,748
       Retained...................................              8,798               12,438             6,357

       MUNICIPAL HIGH INCOME FUND
       Earned.....................................             39,934               66,403           121,988
       Retained...................................              2,931                5,007             7,764

       CALIFORNIA TAX-FREE INCOME FUND
       Earned.....................................            102,363              105,681            79,848
       Retained...................................              9,421                8,900             6,304

       NEW YORK TAX-FREE INCOME FUND
       Earned.....................................             22,184               35,695            47,579
       Retained...................................              1,775                3,239             3,962


         Mitchell  Hutchins  earned and retained the following  contingent  deferred sales charges paid upon
certain redemptions of shares for the fiscal year ended February 29, 2000:
</TABLE>

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                                                     NEW YORK
                                 NATIONAL TAX-FREE     MUNICIPAL HIGH     CALIFORNIA TAX-FREE        TAX-FREE
                                    INCOME FUND          INCOME FUND          INCOME FUND          INCOME FUND
                                    -----------          -----------          -----------          -----------
     <S>                               <C>                 <C>                    <C>                 <C>

     Class A................           $       0           $      0               $       0           $      0
     Class B................              68,963             71,092                  47,867             12,492
     Class C................               8,999              6,700                   5,907                945
</TABLE>


                             PORTFOLIO TRANSACTIONS

         Subject to policies  established  by each board,  Mitchell  Hutchins is
responsible  for the  execution of each fund's  portfolio  transactions  and the
allocation  of  brokerage  transactions.  In executing  portfolio  transactions,
Mitchell  Hutchins seeks to obtain the best net results for a fund,  taking into
account such factors as the price (including the applicable brokerage commission
or dealer  spread),  size of order,  difficulty  of  execution  and  operational
facilities of the firm  involved.  Each fund effects its portfolio  transactions
with   municipal   bond  dealers.   Municipal   securities  are  traded  on  the
over-the-counter  market on a "net" basis  without a stated  commission  through
dealers  acting for their own accounts and not through  brokers.  Prices paid to
dealers in principal  transactions  generally  include a "spread,"  which is the
difference  between  the prices at which the dealer is willing to  purchase  and
sell a specific security at the time. During the fiscal years ended February 29,
2000,  February  28,  1999 and  February  28,  1998,  the  funds did not pay any
brokerage commissions.

         The  funds  have no  obligation  to deal  with any  broker  or group of
brokers in the execution of portfolio transactions.  The funds contemplate that,
consistent  with  the  policy  of  obtaining  the best  net  results,  brokerage
transactions  may be  conducted  through  Mitchell  Hutchins or its  affiliates,
including PaineWebber. Each board has adopted procedures in conformity with Rule
17e-1 under the Investment Company Act to ensure that all brokerage  commissions
paid to PaineWebber are reasonable and fair. Specific provisions in the Advisory
Contracts authorize Mitchell Hutchins and any of its affiliates that is a member
of a national  securities  exchange  to effect  portfolio  transactions  for the
applicable  fund on such exchange and to retain  compensation in connection with
such   transactions.   Any  such  transactions  will  be  effected  and  related
compensation paid only in accordance with applicable SEC regulations. During the


                                       50
<PAGE>

fiscal years ended  February 29, 2000,  February 28, 1999 and February 28, 1998,
none of the funds paid brokerage commissions to PaineWebber.

         Transactions  in  futures   contracts  are  executed   through  futures
commission  merchants  ("FCMs"),  who receive  brokerage  commissions  for their
services.  The funds' procedures in selecting FCMs to execute their transactions
in  futures  contracts,  including  procedures  permitting  the use of  Mitchell
Hutchins  and its  affiliates,  are similar to those in effect  with  respect to
brokerage transactions in securities.

         In selecting  brokers,  Mitchell  Hutchins will consider the full range
and quality of a broker's  services.  Consistent with the interests of the funds
and subject to the review of each board,  Mitchell  Hutchins may cause a fund to
purchase and sell  portfolio  securities  through  brokers who provide  Mitchell
Hutchins with brokerage or research services.  The funds may pay those brokers a
higher  commission than may be charged by other brokers,  provided that Mitchell
Hutchins  determines  in good faith that such  commission is reasonable in terms
either  of that  particular  transaction  or of the  overall  responsibility  of
Mitchell Hutchins, to that fund and its other clients.

         Research  services  obtained from brokers may include written  reports,
pricing and appraisal  services,  analysis of issues raised in proxy statements,
educational  seminars,  subscriptions,   portfolio  attribution  and  monitoring
services, and computer hardware,  software and access charges which are directly
related to investment research. Research services may be received in the form of
written reports, online services,  telephone contacts and personal meetings with
securities  analysts,  economists,  corporate  and  industry  spokespersons  and
government representatives.

         For the fiscal year ended  February 29, 2000,  the funds did not direct
any portfolio  transactions  to brokers  chosen  because they provide  research,
analysis, advice and similar services.

         For purchases or sales with broker-dealer  firms that act as principal,
Mitchell  Hutchins seeks best execution.  Although Mitchell Hutchins may receive
certain  research or execution  services in connection with these  transactions,
Mitchell  Hutchins  will  not  purchase  securities  at a  higher  price or sell
securities  at a lower  price than  would  otherwise  be paid if no weight  were
attributed to the services provided by the executing  dealer.  Mitchell Hutchins
may engage in agency transactions in  over-the-counter  securities in return for
research  and  execution  services.  These  transactions  are entered  into only
pursuant  to  procedures  that are  designed  to  ensure  that  the  transaction
(including  commissions)  is at least as  favorable  as it  would  have  been if
effected directly with a market-maker that did not provide research or execution
services.

         Research services and information  received from brokers or dealers are
supplemental to Mitchell Hutchins' own research efforts and, when utilized,  are
subject to internal  analysis before being  incorporated  into their  investment
process.  Information  and  research  services  furnished  by brokers or dealers
through which or with which the funds effect securities transactions may be used
by  Mitchell  Hutchins in advising  other  funds or  accounts  and,  conversely,
research  services  furnished  to  Mitchell  Hutchins  by  brokers or dealers in
connection  with other funds or accounts that either of them advises may be used
in advising the funds.

         Investment  decisions  for a fund  and for  other  investment  accounts
managed by Mitchell  Hutchins are made  independently  of each other in light of
differing considerations for the various accounts.  However, the same investment
decision may  occasionally  be made for a fund and one or more of such accounts.
In such cases, simultaneous transactions are inevitable.  Purchases or sales are
then  averaged  as to price  and  allocated  between  that  fund and such  other
account(s)  as to  amount  in a  manner  deemed  equitable  to the fund and such
account(s).  While in some cases this practice  could have a detrimental  effect
upon the price or value of the security as far as a fund is  concerned,  or upon
its ability to complete  its entire  order,  in other cases it is believed  that
simultaneous  transactions and the ability to participate in volume transactions
will benefit the funds.

         The  funds  will  not   purchase   securities   that  are   offered  in
underwritings  in which  PaineWebber is a member of the  underwriting or selling
group,  except  pursuant to  procedures  adopted by each board  pursuant to Rule
10f-3 under the  Investment  Company Act. Among other things,  these  procedures
require that the spread or commission paid in connection with such a purchase be
reasonable and fair, the purchase be at not more than the public  offering price
prior to the end of the first business day after the date of the public offering
and that PaineWebber or any affiliate thereof not participate in or benefit from
the sale to the fund.


                                       51
<PAGE>

         PORTFOLIO TURNOVER. The funds' annual portfolio turnover rates may vary
greatly  from  year to  year,  but  they  will  not be a  limiting  factor  when
management deems portfolio changes  appropriate.  The portfolio turnover rate is
calculated  by dividing  the lesser of a fund's  annual  sales or  purchases  of
portfolio  securities  (exclusive  of  purchases  or sales of  securities  whose
maturities  at the time of  acquisition  were  one year or less) by the  monthly
average value of securities in the portfolio during the year.

         The funds'  respective  portfolio  turnover  rates for the fiscal years
shown were:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                        FISCAL YEARS ENDED FEBRUARY 28/29
                                                                               2000                 1999
                                                                               ----                 ----
                  <S>                                                           <C>                  <C>
                  National Tax-Free Income Fund....................             29%                  43%
                  Municipal High Income Fund.......................             19%                  26%
                  California Tax-Free Income Fund..................             24%                  45%
                  New York Tax-Free Income Fund....................             19%                  44%
</TABLE>




            REDUCED SALES CHARGES, ADDITIONAL EXCHANGE AND REDEMPTION
                         INFORMATION AND OTHER SERVICES

         WAIVERS OF SALES  CHARGES/CONTINGENT  DEFERRED SALES CHARGES -- CLASS A
SHARES. The following  additional sales charge waivers are available for Class A
shares if you:

         o    Purchase  shares  through  a  variable  annuity  offered  only  to
              qualified  plans.  For  investments  made pursuant to this waiver,
              Mitchell  Hutchins may make  payments out of its own  resources to
              PaineWebber  and to the  variable  annuity's  sponsor,  adviser or
              distributor  in a total  amount  not to  exceed  l% of the  amount
              invested;

         o    Acquire shares through an investment program that is not sponsored
              by PaineWebber  or its affiliates and that charges  participants a
              fee for program  services,  provided that the program  sponsor has
              entered into a written  agreement with PaineWebber  permitting the
              sale of shares at net asset value to that program. For investments
              made pursuant to this waiver, Mitchell Hutchins may make a payment
              to PaineWebber out of its own resources in an amount not to exceed
              1% of the amount invested. For subsequent investments or exchanges
              made to  implement  a  rebalancing  feature of such an  investment
              program,  the minimum  subsequent  investment  requirement is also
              waived;

         o    Acquire  shares in connection  with a  reorganization  pursuant to
              which  a  fund  acquires  substantially  all  of  the  assets  and
              liabilities  of another fund in exchange  solely for shares of the
              acquiring fund; or

         o    Acquire shares in connection with the disposition of proceeds from
              the sale of shares of Managed High Yield Plus Fund Inc.  that were
              acquired  during that fund's initial public offering of shares and
              that meet certain other conditions described in its prospectus.

         In  addition,  reduced  sales  charges on Class A shares are  available
through the combined  purchase plan or through rights of accumulation  described
below.  Class A share  purchases  of $1  million  or more are not  subject to an
initial sales charge;  however,  if a shareholder  sells these shares within one
year after  purchase,  a contingent  deferred sales charge of 1% of the offering
price  or the  net  asset  value  of the  shares  at the  time  of  sale  by the
shareholder, whichever is less, is imposed.

         COMBINED PURCHASE  PRIVILEGE -- CLASS A SHARES.  Investors and eligible
groups of related fund investors may combine  purchases of Class A shares of the
funds  with  concurrent  purchases  of Class A shares of any  other  PaineWebber
mutual fund and thus take  advantage of the reduced sales  charges  indicated in
the  tables of sales  charges  for Class A shares in the  Prospectus.  The sales
charge payable on the purchase of Class A shares of the funds and Class A shares
of such other funds will be at the rates  applicable  to the total amount of the
combined concurrent purchases.


                                       52
<PAGE>

         An  "eligible  group of  related  fund  investors"  can  consist of any
combination of the following:

         (a) an individual, that individual's spouse, parents and children;

         (b) an individual and his or her individual retirement account ("IRA");

         (c) an individual  (or eligible group of  individuals)  and any company
controlled  by the  individual(s)  (a person,  entity or group that holds 25% or
more of the  outstanding  voting  securities of a corporation  will be deemed to
control the  corporation,  and a partnership  will be deemed to be controlled by
each of its general partners);

         (d) an individual  (or eligible group of  individuals)  and one or more
employee benefit plans of a company controlled by the individual(s);

         (e) an  individual  (or  eligible  group  of  individuals)  and a trust
created by the  individual(s),  the  beneficiaries  of which are the  individual
and/or the individual's spouse, parents or children;

         (f) an individual and a Uniform Gifts to Minors  Act/Uniform  Transfers
to Minors Act account created by the individual or the individual's spouse;

         (g) an  employer  (or  group  of  related  employers)  and  one or more
qualified   retirement   plans  of  such  employer  or  employers  (an  employer
controlling,  controlled  by or under common  control  with another  employer is
deemed related to that other employer); or

         (h)  individual   accounts   related   together  under  one  registered
investment  adviser having full  discretion  and control over the accounts.  The
registered  investment  adviser must  communicate at least  quarterly  through a
newsletter or investment  update  establishing  a  relationship  with all of the
accounts.

         RIGHTS OF  ACCUMULATION  -- CLASS A SHARES.  Reduced  sales charges are
available  through a right of  accumulation,  under which investors and eligible
groups of related fund  investors  (as defined  above) are permitted to purchase
Class A shares  of the  funds  among  related  accounts  at the  offering  price
applicable to the total of (1) the dollar amount then being  purchased  plus (2)
an amount equal to the then-current net asset value of the purchaser's  combined
holdings  of Class A fund  shares  and Class A shares  of any other  PaineWebber
mutual  fund.  The  purchaser  must  provide  sufficient  information  to permit
confirmation of his or her holdings, and the acceptance of the purchase order is
subject  to such  confirmation.  The right of  accumulation  may be  amended  or
terminated at any time.

         REINSTATEMENT  PRIVILEGE  --  CLASS A  SHARES.  Shareholders  who  have
redeemed  Class A shares of a fund may reinstate  their account  without a sales
charge by notifying the transfer agent of such desire and forwarding a check for
the amount to be  purchased  within 365 days after the date of  redemption.  The
reinstatement  will be made at the net asset value per share next computed after
the notice of  reinstatement  and check are  received.  The amount of a purchase
under this  reinstatement  privilege  cannot exceed the amount of the redemption
proceeds.   Gain  on  a  redemption   is  taxable   regardless  of  whether  the
reinstatement  privilege  is  exercised,  although  a  loss  arising  out  of  a
redemption will not be deductible to the extent the  reinstatement  privilege is
exercised within 30 days after redemption,  in which event an adjustment will be
made  to the  shareholder's  tax  basis  for  shares  acquired  pursuant  to the
reinstatement  privilege.  Gain or loss on a redemption  also will be readjusted
for federal  income tax purposes by the amount of any sales charge paid on Class
A shares,  under the  circumstances  and to the  extent  described  in "Taxes --
Special Rule for Class A Shareholders," below.

         WAIVERS OF CONTINGENT  DEFERRED  SALES  CHARGES -- CLASS B SHARES.  The
maximum 5% contingent  deferred  sales charge  applies to sales of shares during
the first year after  purchase.  The charge  generally  declines by 1% annually,
reaching  zero  after six  years.  Among  other  circumstances,  the  contingent
deferred  sales  charge  on Class B shares is  waived  where a total or  partial
redemption is made within one year following the death of the  shareholder.  The
contingent  deferred  sales  charge  waiver is  available  where the decedent is
either the sole shareholder or owns the shares with his or her spouse as a joint
tenant with right of  survivorship.  This waiver  applies only to  redemption of
shares held at the time of death.


                                       53
<PAGE>

         PURCHASES OF CLASS Y SHARES  THROUGH THE PACESM MULTI ADVISOR  PROGRAM.
An investor who  participates in the PACESM Multi Advisor Program is eligible to
purchase Class Y shares. The PACESM Multi Advisor Program is an advisory program
sponsored  by  PaineWebber  that  provides  comprehensive  investment  services,
including investor profiling,  a personalized asset allocation strategy using an
appropriate combination of funds, and a quarterly investment performance review.
Participation  in the PACESM Multi  Advisor  Program is subject to payment of an
advisory fee at the effective  maximum annual rate of 1.5% of assets.  Employees
of PaineWebber  and its affiliates are entitled to a waiver of this fee.  Please
contact your PaineWebber Financial Advisor or PaineWebber's  correspondent firms
for more  information  concerning  mutual funds that are  available  through the
PACESM Multi Advisor Program.

         PURCHASES  OF  CLASS A  SHARES  THROUGH  THE  PAINEWEBBER  INSIGHTONESM
PROGRAM.  Investors who purchase  shares  through the  PaineWebber  InsightOneSM
Program are eligible to buy Class A shares without a sales load. The PaineWebber
InsightOneSM Program offers a nondiscretionary  brokerage account to PaineWebber
clients for an asset-based fee at an annual rate of up to 1.50% of the assets in
the account.  Account holders may purchase or sell certain  investment  products
without paying commissions or other markups/markdowns.

         ADDITIONAL  EXCHANGE AND  REDEMPTION  INFORMATION.  As discussed in the
Prospectus,  eligible  shares of the funds may be  exchanged  for  shares of the
corresponding  class of most other PaineWebber  mutual funds. Class Y shares are
not eligible for exchange. Shareholders will receive at least 60 days' notice of
any termination or material modification of the exchange offer, except no notice
need be given if, under  extraordinary  circumstances,  either  redemptions  are
suspended under the circumstances  described below or a fund temporarily  delays
or  ceases  the sales of its  shares  because  it is  unable  to invest  amounts
effectively in accordance  with the fund's  investment  objective,  policies and
restrictions.

         If  conditions  exist that make cash  payments  undesirable,  each fund
reserves  the right to honor any request  for  redemption  by making  payment in
whole or in part in securities  chosen by the fund and valued in the same way as
they would be valued for purposes of computing  the fund's net asset value.  Any
such redemption in kind will be made with readily marketable securities,  to the
extent  available.  If payment is made in  securities,  a shareholder  may incur
brokerage  expenses in  converting  these  securities  into cash.  Each fund has
elected, however, to be governed by Rule 18f-1 under the Investment Company Act,
under which it is obligated to redeem  shares solely in cash up to the lesser of
$250,000  or 1% of its  net  asset  value  during  any  90-day  period  for  one
shareholder. This election is irrevocable unless the SEC permits its withdrawal.

         The funds may suspend  redemption  privileges  or postpone  the date of
payment  during any period  (1) when the New York  Stock  Exchange  is closed or
trading on the New York Stock  Exchange is  restricted as determined by the SEC,
(2)  when an  emergency  exists,  as  defined  by the  SEC,  that  makes  it not
reasonably practicable for a fund to dispose of securities owned by it or fairly
to determine the value of its assets or (3) as the SEC may otherwise permit. The
redemption price may be more or less than the shareholder's  cost,  depending on
the market value of a fund's portfolio at the time.

         SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS. A fund may authorize service organizations,  and
their agents, to accept on its behalf purchase and redemption orders that are in
"good form" in accordance  with the policies of those service  organizations.  A
fund will be deemed to have received these purchase and redemption orders when a
service  organization or its agent accepts them. Like all customer orders, these
orders will be priced  based on the fund's net asset value next  computed  after
receipt  of the order by the  service  organizations  or their  agents.  Service
organizations  may include  retirement  plan  service  providers  who  aggregate
purchase and redemption  instructions received from numerous retirement plans or
plan participants.

         AUTOMATIC  INVESTMENT PLAN.  PaineWebber offers an automatic investment
plan with a minimum  initial  investment  of  $1,000  through  which a fund will
deduct $50 or more on a monthly, quarterly, semi-annual or annual basis from the
investor's  bank account to invest  directly in the fund.  Participation  in the
automatic  investment  plan enables an investor to use the  technique of "dollar
cost  averaging."  When an investor  invests  the same dollar  amount each month
under the plan,  the investor  will purchase more shares when a fund's net asset
value per share is low and fewer  shares  when the net asset  value per share is
high. Using this technique,  an investor's average purchase price per share over
any given period will be lower than if the investor  purchased a fixed number of
shares on a monthly basis during the period.  Of course,  investing  through the
automatic  investment  plan does not assure a profit or protect  against loss in


                                       54
<PAGE>

declining markets. Additionally,  because the automatic investment plan involves
continuous investing regardless of price levels, an investor should consider his
or her financial  ability to continue  purchases through periods of both low and
high price  levels.  An investor  should also consider  whether a single,  large
investment would qualify for sales load reductions.

         SYSTEMATIC  WITHDRAWAL  PLAN.  The  systematic  withdrawal  plan allows
investors to set up monthly,  quarterly (March,  June,  September and December),
semi-annual  (June and  December) or annual  (December)  withdrawals  from their
PaineWebber  mutual  fund  accounts.   Minimum  balances  and  withdrawals  vary
according to the class of shares:

         o    Class A and  Class C  shares.  Minimum  value  of fund  shares  is
              $5,000; minimum withdrawals of $100.

         o    Class B shares.  Minimum value of fund shares is $10,000;  minimum
              monthly,  quarterly,  and  semi-annual  and annual  withdrawals of
              $100, $200, $300 and $400, respectively.

         Withdrawals under the systematic withdrawal plan will not be subject to
a contingent deferred sales charge if the investor withdraws no more than 12% of
the  value of the fund  account  when the  investor  signed up for the Plan (for
Class B shares,  annually; for Class A and Class C shares, during the first year
under  the  Plan).   Shareholders  who  elect  to  receive  dividends  or  other
distributions in cash may not participate in this plan.

         An investor's  participation  in the  systematic  withdrawal  plan will
terminate  automatically if the "Initial Account Balance" (a term that means the
value of the fund account at the time the investor  elects to participate in the
systematic withdrawal plan), less aggregate redemptions made other than pursuant
to the systematic  withdrawal  plan, is less than the minimum  values  specified
above.  Purchases of additional shares of a fund concurrent with withdrawals are
ordinarily  disadvantageous to shareholders  because of tax liabilities and, for
Class A  shares,  initial  sales  charges.  On or about  the 20th of a month for
monthly,  quarterly,  semi-annual and annual plans, PaineWebber will arrange for
redemption  by the funds of  sufficient  fund shares to provide  the  withdrawal
payments specified by participants in the funds' systematic withdrawal plan. The
payments  generally are mailed  approximately  five Business Days (defined under
"Valuation of Shares") after the redemption date. Withdrawal payments should not
be  considered  dividends,  but  redemption  proceeds.  If periodic  withdrawals
continually exceed reinvested dividends and other distributions, a shareholder's
investment may be  correspondingly  reduced. A shareholder may change the amount
of the  systematic  withdrawal  or  terminate  participation  in the  systematic
withdrawal  plan at any time without  charge or penalty by written  instructions
with signatures  guaranteed to PaineWebber or the fund's  transfer  agent,  PFPC
Inc.  Instructions to participate in the plan,  change the withdrawal  amount or
terminate  participation in the plan will not be effective until five days after
written   instructions   with  signatures   guaranteed  are  received  by  PFPC.
Shareholders  may request the forms needed to establish a systematic  withdrawal
plan from their PaineWebber  Financial Advisors,  correspondent firms or PFPC at
1-800-647-1568.

         TRANSFER  OF  ACCOUNTS.  If  investors  holding  shares  of a fund in a
PaineWebber brokerage account transfer their brokerage accounts to another firm,
the fund shares  will be moved to an account  with PFPC.  However,  if the other
firm has  entered  into a  selected  dealer  agreement  with  Mitchell  Hutchins
relating  to the fund,  the  shareholder  may be able to hold fund  shares in an
account with the other firm.

PAINEWEBBER RMA RESOURCE ACCUMULATION PLAN(SERVICE MARK);
PAINEWEBBER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACCOUNT(REGISTERED) (RMA)(REGISTERED)

         Shares of PaineWebber mutual funds (each a "PW Fund" and, collectively,
the "PW Funds") are available for purchase through the RMA Resource Accumulation
Plan  ("Plan") by  customers  of  PaineWebber  and its  correspondent  firms who
maintain Resource Management Accounts ("RMA accountholders"). The Plan allows an
RMA  accountholder  to  continually  invest  in one or more of the PW  Funds  at
regular intervals, with payment for shares purchased automatically deducted from
the client's RMA account. The client may elect to invest at monthly or quarterly
intervals and may elect either to invest a fixed dollar amount (minimum $100 per
period) or to purchase a fixed number of shares. A client can elect to have Plan
purchases executed on the first or fifteenth day of the month. Settlement occurs
three Business Days (defined under  "Valuation of Shares") after the trade date,
and the  purchase  price of the  shares is  withdrawn  from the  investor's  RMA
account on the settlement  date from the following  sources and in the following


                                       55
<PAGE>

order:  uninvested cash balances,  balances in RMA money market funds, or margin
borrowing power, if applicable to the account.

         To participate  in the Plan, an investor must be an RMA  accountholder,
must have made an initial  purchase of the shares of each PW Fund  selected  for
investment under the Plan (meeting  applicable minimum investment  requirements)
and must complete and submit the RMA Resource Accumulation Plan Client Agreement
and Instruction Form available from PaineWebber. The investor must have received
a current  prospectus for each PW Fund selected in connection  with enrolling in
the Plan.  Information about mutual fund positions and outstanding  instructions
under  the  Plan  are  noted  on  the  RMA  accountholder's  account  statement.
Instructions  under the Plan may be changed at any time,  but may take up to two
weeks to become effective.

         The terms of the Plan, or an RMA  accountholder's  participation in the
Plan, may be modified or terminated at any time. It is anticipated  that, in the
future, shares of other PW Funds and/or mutual funds other than the PW Funds may
be offered through the Plan.

         PERIODIC INVESTING AND DOLLAR COST AVERAGING. Periodic investing in the
PW Funds or other mutual funds,  whether  through the Plan or  otherwise,  helps
investors  establish and maintain a disciplined  approach to accumulating assets
over time,  de-emphasizing the importance of timing the market's highs and lows.
Periodic  investing  also permits an investor to take  advantage of "dollar cost
averaging."  By  investing a fixed  amount in mutual fund shares at  established
intervals,  an investor  purchases more shares when the price is lower and fewer
shares  when  the  price  is  higher,  thereby  increasing  his or  her  earning
potential.  Of course,  dollar  cost  averaging  does not  guarantee a profit or
protect  against a loss in a declining  market,  and an investor should consider
his or her financial  ability to continue  investing through periods of both low
and high share  prices.  However,  over time,  dollar cost  averaging  generally
results in a lower average original investment cost than if an investor invested
a larger dollar amount in a mutual fund at one time. In deciding  whether to use
dollar cost averaging,  an investor should also consider whether a large, single
investment would qualify for sales load reductions.

         PAINEWEBBER'S  RESOURCE  MANAGEMENT  ACCOUNT. In order to enroll in the
Plan, an investor must have opened an RMA account with PaineWebber or one of its
correspondent  firms.  The RMA  account  is  PaineWebber's  comprehensive  asset
management  account and offers  investors a number of  features,  including  the
following:

         o    monthly  Premier  account  statements  that  itemize  all  account
              activity, including investment transactions, checking activity and
              Platinum MasterCard(R) transactions during the period, and provide
              unrealized   and  realized  gain  and  loss   estimates  for  most
              securities held in the account;

         o    comprehensive year-end summary statements that provide information
              on  account  activity  for  use in tax  planning  and  tax  return
              preparation;

         o    automatic "sweep" of uninvested cash into the RMA  accountholder's
              choice of one of the six RMA money market  funds-RMA  Money Market
              Portfolio,  RMA U.S. Government Portfolio,  RMA Tax-Free Fund, RMA
              California  Municipal  Money Fund, RMA New Jersey  Municipal Money
              Fund and RMA New York  Municipal  Money Fund.  AN  INVESTMENT IN A
              MONEY  MARKET  FUND IS NOT  INSURED OR  GUARANTEED  BY THE FEDERAL
              DEPOSIT  INSURANCE  CORPORATION  OR ANY OTHER  GOVERNMENT  AGENCY.
              ALTHOUGH A MONEY  MARKET FUND SEEKS TO PRESERVE  THE VALUE OF YOUR
              INVESTMENT  AT $1.00 PER SHARE,  IT IS  POSSIBLE  TO LOSE MONEY BY
              INVESTING IN A MONEY MARKET FUND.

         o    check writing,  with no per-check usage charge,  no minimum amount
              on checks and no maximum number of checks that can be written. RMA
              accountholders can code their checks to classify expenditures. All
              canceled checks are returned each month;

         o    Platinum  MasterCard,  with or  without  a line of  credit,  which
              provides RMA  accountholders  with direct access to their accounts
              and  can  be  used  with  automatic  teller  machines   worldwide.
              Purchases  on the  Platinum  MasterCard  are  debited  to the  RMA
              account once monthly, permitting accountholders to remain invested
              for a longer period of time;

         o    unlimited  electronic  funds  transfers and a bill payment service
              for an additional fee;

         o    24-hour access to account  information  through toll-free numbers,
              and more detailed  personal  assistance during business hours from
              the RMA Service Center;


                                       56
<PAGE>


         o    expanded account  protection for the net equity securities balance
              in the event of the  liquidation of  PaineWebber.  This protection
              does not apply to  shares  of funds  that are held at PFPC and not
              through PaineWebber; and

         o    automatic  direct  deposit  of checks  into your RMA  account  and
              automatic withdrawals from the account.

         The annual  account fee for an RMA account is $85,  which  includes the
Platinum  MasterCard,  with an additional fee of $40 if the investor  selects an
optional line of credit with the Platinum MasterCard.

                          CONVERSION OF CLASS B SHARES

         Class B shares of a fund will  automatically  convert to Class A shares
of that  fund,  based on the  relative  net  asset  values  per share of the two
classes, as of the close of business on the first Business Day (as defined under
"Valuation  of  Shares")  of the  month in which the  sixth  anniversary  of the
initial  issuance of such Class B shares occurs.  For the purpose of calculating
the  holding  period  required  for  conversion  of Class B shares,  the date of
initial  issuance  shall  mean (1) the date on which  such  Class B shares  were
issued or (2) for Class B shares  obtained  through an exchange,  or a series of
exchanges,  the date on which  the  original  Class B shares  were  issued.  For
purposes of conversion to Class A shares,  Class B shares purchased  through the
reinvestment  of dividends  and other  distributions  paid in respect of Class B
shares will be held in a separate  sub-account.  Each time any Class B shares in
the shareholder's  regular account (other than those in the sub-account) convert
to Class A shares,  a pro rata portion of the Class B shares in the  sub-account
will also convert to Class A shares. The portion will be determined by the ratio
that the shareholder's  Class B shares converting to Class A shares bears to the
shareholder's  total Class B shares not  acquired  through  dividends  and other
distributions.

         The conversion feature is subject to the continuing  availability of an
opinion of counsel to the effect that the dividends and other distributions paid
on Class A and Class B shares will not result in "preferential  dividends" under
the Internal  Revenue Code and that the conversion of shares does not constitute
a taxable event. If the conversion  feature ceased to be available,  the Class B
shares  would not be  converted  and would  continue to be subject to the higher
ongoing expenses beyond six years from the date of purchase.  Mitchell  Hutchins
has no reason to believe that this condition will not continue to be met.

                               VALUATION OF SHARES

         Each fund determines its net asset value per share  separately for each
class of shares, normally as of the close of regular trading (usually 4:00 p.m.,
Eastern  time) on the New York Stock  Exchange on each  Business  Day,  which is
defined as each Monday  through Friday when the New York Stock Exchange is open.
Prices will be calculated  earlier when the New York Stock Exchange closes early
because  trading  has been  halted  for the day.  Currently  the New York  Stock
Exchange is closed on the observance of the following holidays:  New Year's Day,
Martin  Luther  King,  Jr. Day,  Presidents'  Day,  Good Friday,  Memorial  Day,
Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day.

         Securities that are listed on exchanges normally are valued at the last
sale price on the day the  securities  are valued or,  lacking any sales on such
day, at the last  available bid price.  In cases where  securities are traded on
more than one exchange,  the  securities  are  generally  valued on the exchange
considered by Mitchell Hutchins as the primary market.  Securities traded in the
over-the-counter  market  and  listed  on The  Nasdaq  Stock  Market  ("Nasdaq")
normally  are  valued  at the  last  available  sale  price on  Nasdaq  prior to
valuation;  other  over-the-counter  securities are valued at the last bid price
available  prior to valuation.  Where market  quotations are readily  available,
portfolio  securities  are valued based upon market  quotations,  provided those
quotations  adequately reflect,  in the judgment of Mitchell Hutchins,  the fair
value of the security.  Where those market quotations are not readily available,
securities  are valued based upon  appraisals  received  from a pricing  service
using a  computerized  matrix  system  or based  upon  appraisals  derived  from
information   concerning  the  security  or  similar  securities  received  from
recognized  dealers in those  securities.  All other securities and other assets
are valued at fair value as  determined  in good faith by or under the direction
of the  applicable  board.  It should be recognized  that judgment often plays a
greater role in valuing  thinly traded  securities,  including  many lower rated
bonds,  than is the case with respect to securities for which a broader range of
dealer  quotations and last-sale  information  is available.  The amortized cost


                                       57
<PAGE>

method of valuation  generally is used to value debt obligations with 60 days or
less remaining until maturity,  unless the applicable board determines that this
does not represent fair value.

                             PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

         The funds' performance data quoted in advertising and other promotional
materials ("Performance  Advertisements") represent past performance and are not
intended to indicate  future  performance.  The investment  return and principal
value  of an  investment  will  fluctuate  so that an  investor's  shares,  when
redeemed, may be worth more or less than their original cost.

         TOTAL  RETURN   CALCULATIONS.   Average   annual  total  return  quotes
("Standardized  Return")  used in each  fund's  Performance  Advertisements  are
calculated according to the following formula:

                  n
          P(1 + T)   =    ERV
       where:      P =    a hypothetical initial payment of $1,000 to purchase
                          shares of a specified class
                   T =    average annual total return of shares of that class
                   n =    number of years
                 ERV =    ending redeemable value of a hypothetical $1,000
                          payment at the beginning of that period.

         Under the  foregoing  formula,  the time  periods  used in  Performance
Advertisements  will be based on rolling calendar quarters,  updated to the last
day of the most recent  quarter  prior to submission  of the  advertisement  for
publication.  Total return,  or "T" in the formula above, is computed by finding
the average annual change in the value of an initial $1,000  investment over the
period.  In calculating the ending  redeemable  value,  for Class A shares,  the
maximum sales charge of 4.0%, is deducted from the initial  $1,000  payment and,
for Class B and Class C shares, the applicable  contingent deferred sales charge
imposed  on a  redemption  of Class B or Class C shares  held for the  period is
deducted.  All  dividends  and  other  distributions  are  assumed  to have been
reinvested at net asset value.

         The funds also may refer in Performance  Advertisements to total return
performance  data that are not  calculated  according  to the  formula set forth
above ("Non-Standardized  Return"). The funds calculate  Non-Standardized Return
for specified periods of time by assuming an investment of $1,000 in fund shares
and assuming the reinvestment of all dividends and other distributions. The rate
of return is determined by subtracting  the initial value of the investment from
the ending value and by dividing the  remainder  by the initial  value.  Neither
initial  nor  contingent  deferred  sales  charges  are taken  into  account  in
calculating Non-Standardized Return; the inclusion of those charges would reduce
the return.

         Both Standardized Return and Non-Standardized Return for Class B shares
for periods of over six years reflect  conversion of the Class B shares to Class
A shares at the end of the sixth year.

         The following tables show performance information for each class of the
funds' shares outstanding for the periods indicated.  All returns for periods of
more than one year are expressed as an average annual return.



                                       58
<PAGE>
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                           NATIONAL TAX-FREE INCOME FUND

       CLASS                                              CLASS A          CLASS B        CLASS C        CLASS Y
       -----                                              -------          -------        -------        -------
       (INCEPTION DATE)                                  (12/03/84)       (07/01/91)     (07/02/92      (11/03/95)
       ----------------                                  ----------       ----------     ---------      ----------
       <S>                                                  <C>              <C>           <C>             <C>
       Year ended February 29, 2000:
                Standardized Return*.............           (7.77)%          (9.22)%       (5.10)%         (3.77)%
                Non-Standardized Return..........           (3.91)%          (4.68)%       (4.42)%         (3.77)%
       Five Years ended February 29, 2000:
                Standardized Return*.............             3.79%            3.50%         4.10%             N/A
                Non-Standardized Return..........             4.64%            3.83%         4.10%             N/A
       Ten Years ended February 29, 2000:
                Standardized Return*.............             5.44%              N/A           N/A             N/A
                Non-Standardized Return..........             5.86%              N/A           N/A             N/A
       Inception to February 29, 2000:
                Standardized Return*.............             7.26%            4.98%         4.17%           3.96%
                Non-Standardized Return..........             7.55%            4.98%         4.17%           3.96%


                                             MUNICIPAL HIGH INCOME FUND

       CLASS                                             CLASS A        CLASS B         CLASS C         CLASS Y
       -----                                             -------        -------         -------         -------
       (INCEPTION DATE)                                (06/23/87)      (07/01/91)     (07/02/92)       (02/05/98)
       ----------------                                ----------      ----------     ----------       ----------
       <S>                                                  <C>              <C>           <C>             <C>
       Year ended February 29, 2000:
                Standardized Return*.............         (7.73)%         (9.18)%        (5.17)%          (3.73)%
                Non-Standardized Return..........         (3.91)%         (4.65)%        (4.49)%          (3.73)%
       Five Years ended February 29, 2000:
                Standardized Return*.............           4.76%           4.45%          5.06%              N/A
                Non-Standardized Return..........           5.61%           4.79%          5.06%              N/A
       Ten Years ended February 29, 2000:
                Standardized Return*.............           6.03%             N/A            N/A              N/A
                Non-Standardized Return..........           6.46%             N/A            N/A              N/A
       Inception to February 29, 2000:
                Standardized Return*.............           6.72%           5.62%          4.62%            0.46%
                Non-Standardized Return..........           7.07%           5.62%          4.62%            0.46%


                                          CALIFORNIA TAX-FREE INCOME FUND

       CLASS                                             CLASS A        CLASS B         CLASS C         CLASS Y
       -----                                             -------        -------         -------         -------
       (INCEPTION DATE)                                (09/16/85)      (07/01/91)     (07/02/92)       (02/05/98)
       ----------------                                ----------      ----------     ----------       ----------
       <S>                                                  <C>              <C>           <C>             <C>
       Year ended February 29, 2000:
                Standardized Return*.............         (7.84)%         (9.16)%        (5.04)%          (3.73)%
                Non-Standardized Return..........         (3.96)%         (4.60)%        (4.36)%          (3.73)%
       Five Years ended February 29, 2000:
                Standardized Return*.............           3.79%           3.52%          4.13%              N/A
                Non-Standardized Return..........           4.65%           3.85%          4.13%              N/A
       Ten Years ended February 29, 2000:
                Standardized Return*.............           5.34%             N/A            N/A              N/A
                Non-Standardized Return..........           5.77%             N/A            N/A              N/A
       Inception to February 29, 2000:
                Standardized Return*.............           6.82%           4.84%          4.12%            0.95%
                Non-Standardized Return..........           7.13%           4.84%          4.12%            0.95%


                                                        59
<PAGE>


                                           NEW YORK TAX-FREE INCOME FUND

       CLASS                                             CLASS A        CLASS B         CLASS C         CLASS Y
       -----                                             -------        -------         -------         -------
       (INCEPTION DATE)                                (09/23/88)      (07/01/91)     (07/02/92)       (05/21/98)
       ----------------                                ----------      ----------     ----------       ----------
       <S>                                                  <C>              <C>           <C>             <C>
       Year ended February 29, 2000:
                Standardized Return*.............         (8.16)%         (9.58)%        (5.48)%          (4.10)%
                Non-Standardized Return..........         (4.33)%         (5.05)%        (4.80)%          (4.10)%
       Five Years ended February 29, 2000:
                Standardized Return*.............           4.13%           3.86%          4.46%              N/A
                Non-Standardized Return..........           4.99%           4.20%          4.46%              N/A
       Ten Years ended February 29, 2000:
                Standardized Return*.............           5.87%             N/A            N/A              N/A
                Non-Standardized Return..........           6.31%             N/A            N/A              N/A
       Inception to February 29, 2000:
                Standardized Return*.............           6.11%           5.43%          4.52%            0.60%
                Non-Standardized Return..........           6.49%           5.43%          4.52%            0.60%
--------------
</TABLE>

*  All Standardized  Return figures for Class A shares reflect  deduction of the
   current  maximum sales charges of 4.0%. All  Standardized  Return figures for
   Class B and Class C shares  reflect  deduction of the  applicable  contingent
   deferred sales charges imposed on a redemption of shares held for the period.
   Class Y shares do not impose an initial or contingent  deferred sales charge;
   therefore,  the  performance  information  is the same for both  standardized
   return and non-standardized return for the periods indicated.

         YIELD.  Yields  used  in each  fund's  Performance  Advertisements  are
calculated by dividing the fund's  interest  income  attributable  to a class of
shares for a 30-day  period  ("Period"),  net of expenses  attributable  to such
class,  by the  average  number of  shares of such  class  entitled  to  receive
dividends  during  the  Period  and  expressing  the  result  as  an  annualized
percentage (assuming semi-annual  compounding) of the maximum offering price per
share (in the case of Class A shares)  or the net asset  value per share (in the
case of Class B and Class C shares) at the end of the Period.  Yield  quotations
are calculated according to the following formula:


                         2[(a-b +1) to the power of 6 -1]
               YIELD   =   -----
                            cd

          where:     a =   interest earned during the Period attributable to a
                           class of shares
                     b =   expenses accrued for the Period attributable to a
                           class of shares (net of reimbursements)
                     c =   the  average  daily  number  of shares of a class
                           outstanding during the Period that were entitled to
                           receive dividends
                     d =   the maximum offering price per share (in the case
                           of Class A shares) or the net asset value per share
                           (in the case of Class B and Class C shares)  on the
                           last day of the Period.

         Except as noted below, in determining interest income earned during the
Period (variable "a" in the above formula), each fund calculates interest earned
on each debt  obligation  held by it during  the  Period  by (1)  computing  the
obligation's  yield to  maturity,  based on the market  value of the  obligation
(including  actual accrued  interest) on the last business day of the Period or,
if the  obligation  was  purchased  during the Period,  the purchase  price plus
accrued  interest and (2) dividing the yield to maturity by 360, and multiplying
the resulting  quotient by the market value of the obligation  (including actual
accrued  interest) to determine the interest  income on the  obligation for each
day of the period that the obligation is in the portfolio.  Once interest earned
is  calculated  in this  fashion  for each  debt  obligation  held by the  fund,
interest  earned  during the Period is then  determined by totaling the interest
earned on all debt obligations. For purposes of these calculations, the maturity
of an obligation with one or more call provisions is assumed to be the next date
on which the obligation reasonably can be expected to be called or, if none, the
maturity  date.  With  respect to Class A shares,  in  calculating  the  maximum
offering  price per share at the end of the  Period  (variable  "d" in the above
formula) the fund's current  maximum 4.0% initial sales charge on Class A shares
is included.


                                       60
<PAGE>

         The  following  table  shows the yield for each class of shares of each
fund for the 30-day period ended February 29, 2000:
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                NATIONAL TAX-                              CALIFORNIA          NEW YORK
                                 FREE INCOME        MUNICIPAL HIGH      TAX-FREE INCOME    TAX-FREE INCOME
                                    FUND              INCOME FUND             FUND               FUND
                                    ----              -----------             ----               ----
       <S>                         <C>                    <C>                <C>                <C>
       Class A.............        5.10%                  5.38%              5.08%              4.61%
       Class B.............        4.51%                  4.85%              4.51%              4.04%
       Class C.............        4.79%                  5.11%              4.78%              4.30%
       Class Y.............        5.55%                  5.73%              5.56%              5.05%


         Tax-exempt  yield is  calculated  according to the same formula  except
that the variable  "a" equals  interest  exempt from  federal  income tax earned
during the Period.  This tax-exempt yield is then translated into tax-equivalent
yield according to the following formula:

                                    E
         TAX EQUIVALENT YIELD =   (---)+t
                                   1-P

         E   =   tax-exempt yield of a class of shares

         p   =   stated income tax rate

         t    =   taxable yield of a Class of shares

         The tax-equivalent  yield of California  Tax-Free Income Fund assumes a
45.22% combined  effective  California and federal tax rate. The  tax-equivalent
yield of New York Tax-Free Income Fund assumes a 46.10%  combined  effective New
York State, New York City and federal tax rate. The tax-equivalent yield of each
of National  Tax-Free Income Fund and Municipal High Income Fund assumes a 39.6%
effective federal tax rate.

         The funds had the following tax-equivalent yields for the 30-day period
ended February 29, 2000:

                                NATIONAL TAX-                              CALIFORNIA          NEW YORK
                                 FREE INCOME        MUNICIPAL HIGH      TAX-FREE INCOME    TAX-FREE INCOME
                                    FUND              INCOME FUND             FUND               FUND
                                    ----              -----------             ----               ----
       <S>                         <C>                    <C>                <C>                <C>

       Class A.............          9.52%                8.91%               9.27%             8.55%
       Class B.............          8.41%                8.03%               8.23%             7.50%
       Class C.............          8.94%                8.46%               8.73%             7.98%
       Class Y.............         10.36%                9.49%              10.15%             9.37%
</TABLE>


         OTHER INFORMATION. In Performance Advertisements, the funds may compare
their  Standardized  Return  and/or  their  Non-Standardized  Return  with  data
published by Lipper Inc.  ("Lipper") for U.S.  government funds,  corporate bond
(BBB) funds and high yield funds,  CDA Investment  Technologies,  Inc.  ("CDA"),
Wiesenberger Investment Companies Service  ("Wiesenberger"),  Investment Company
Data,  Inc.  ("ICD") or Morningstar  Mutual Funds  ("Morningstar"),  or with the
performance of recognized stock, bond and other indices, including the Municipal
Bond Buyers  Indices,  Lehman Bond Index,  the  Standard & Poor's 500  Composite
Stock Price Index ("S&P 500"), the Dow Jones Industrial  Average,  Merrill Lynch
Municipal Bond Indices,  the Morgan Stanley Capital  International  World Index,
the Lehman Brothers  Treasury Bond Index,  Lehman Brothers  Government/Corporate
Bond Index,  the Salomon Smith Barney World Government Bond Index and changes in
the Consumer Price Index as published by the U.S.  Department of Commerce.  Each
fund also may refer in these materials to mutual fund  performance  rankings and
other data,  such as  comparative  asset,  expense and fee levels,  published by
Lipper, CDA, Wiesenberger,  ICD or Morningstar.  Performance Advertisements also
may  refer to  discussions  of the funds and  comparative  mutual  fund data and
ratings reported in independent periodicals,  including THE WALL STREET JOURNAL,
MONEY Magazine,  FORBES, BUSINESS WEEK, FINANCIAL WORLD, BARRON'S,  FORTUNE, THE
NEW YORK TIMES,  THE CHICAGO  TRIBUNE,  THE  WASHINGTON  POST and THE  KIPLINGER


                                       61
<PAGE>

LETTERS. Comparisons in Performance Advertisements may be in graphic form.

         The funds may include  discussions or  illustrations  of the effects of
compounding  in  Performance  Advertisements.  "Compounding"  refers to the fact
that, if dividends or other distributions on a fund investment are reinvested in
additional  fund shares,  any future  income or capital  appreciation  of a fund
would increase the value, not only of the original fund investment,  but also of
the additional fund shares received through reinvestment. As a result, the value
of a fund  investment  would  increase  more  quickly than if dividends or other
distributions had been paid in cash.

         The funds may also compare their  performance  with the  performance of
bank certificates of deposit (CDs) as measured by the CDA Certificate of Deposit
Index, the Bank Rate Monitor National Index and the averages of yields of CDs of
major banks  published by  Banxquote(R)  Money Markets.  In comparing the funds'
performance to CD performance,  investors  should keep in mind that bank CDs are
insured in whole or in part by an agency of the U.S.  government and offer fixed
principal and fixed or variable  rates of interest,  and that bank CD yields may
vary  depending on the  financial  institution  offering  the CD and  prevailing
interest  rates.  Shares of the funds are not insured or  guaranteed by the U.S.
government and returns and net asset values will fluctuate.  The debt securities
held by the funds generally have longer maturities than most CDs and may reflect
interest rate fluctuations for longer term debt securities. An investment in any
fund involves  greater risks than an investment in either a money market fund or
a CD.

                                      TAXES

         BACKUP  WITHHOLDING.  Each  fund is  required  to  withhold  31% of all
taxable dividends, capital gain distributions and redemption proceeds payable to
individuals and certain other non-corporate  shareholders who do not provide the
fund or PaineWebber with a correct taxpayer  identification number.  Withholding
at  that  rate  also  is  required  from  taxable  dividends  and  capital  gain
distributions  payable to those shareholders who otherwise are subject to backup
withholding.

         SALE OR EXCHANGE OF FUND SHARES. A shareholder's  sale  (redemption) of
fund  shares  may result in a taxable  gain or loss,  depending  on whether  the
shareholder  receives more or less than his or her adjusted basis for the shares
(which  normally  includes any initial sales charge paid on Class A shares).  An
exchange  of any fund's  shares for shares of another  PaineWebber  mutual  fund
generally will have similar tax  consequences.  In addition,  if a fund's shares
are  bought  within 30 days  before or after  selling  other  shares of the fund
(regardless  of  class)  at a loss,  all or a  portion  of that loss will not be
deductible and will increase the basis of the newly purchased shares.

         CLASS A  SHAREHOLDERS.  A special tax rule applies  when a  shareholder
sells or exchanges  Class A shares  within 90 days of purchase and  subsequently
acquires Class A shares of the same or another  PaineWebber  mutual fund without
paying a sales charge due to the 365-day reinstatement privilege or the exchange
privilege.  In these  cases,  any gain on the sale or exchange  of the  original
Class A shares would be increased, or any loss would be decreased, by the amount
of the sales charge paid when those  shares were  bought,  and that amount would
increase the basis of the PaineWebber mutual fund shares subsequently acquired.

         CONVERSION OF CLASS B SHARES.  A shareholder  will recognize no gain or
loss as a result of a conversion from Class B shares to Class A shares.

         QUALIFICATION AS A REGULATED INVESTMENT COMPANY. To continue to qualify
for  treatment  as a regulated  investment  company  ("RIC")  under the Internal
Revenue Code,  each fund must  distribute to its  shareholders  for each taxable
year at least 90% of its investment company taxable income (consisting generally
of taxable net investment income and net short-term  capital gain) and must meet
several additional requirements. Among these requirements are the following: (1)
the fund must  derive at least 90% of its gross  income each  taxable  year from
dividends,  interest,  payments with respect to securities  loans and gains from
the sale or other  disposition of securities,  or other income  (including gains
from  options or futures)  derived  with respect to its business of investing in
securities  ("Income  Requirement");  (2) at the  close of each  quarter  of the
fund's  taxable  year,  at least 50% of the value of its  total  assets  must be
represented by cash and cash items, U.S.  government  securities,  securities of
other RICs and other securities that are limited,  in respect of any one issuer,
to an amount  that does not exceed 5% of the value of the fund's  total  assets;


                                       62
<PAGE>

and (3) at the close of each quarter of the fund's  taxable year,  not more than
25% of the value of its total assets may be invested in  securities  (other than
U.S.  government  securities or the securities of other RICs) of any one issuer.
If a fund failed to qualify for treatment as a RIC for any taxable year,  (1) it
would be taxed as an ordinary  corporation  on its taxable  income for that year
without being able to deduct the  distributions it makes to its shareholders and
(2)  the   shareholders   would   treat  all  those   distributions,   including
distributions that otherwise would be "exempt-interest  dividends"  described in
the following paragraph and distributions of net capital gain (the excess of net
long-term capital gain over net short-term capital loss), as dividends (that is,
ordinary income) to the extent of the fund's earnings and profits.  In addition,
the fund could be required to recognize  unrealized gains, pay substantial taxes
and interest and make  substantial  distributions  before  requalifying  for RIC
treatment.

         Dividends paid by a fund will qualify as  "exempt-interest  dividends,"
and thus will be excludable from gross income for federal income tax purposes by
its  shareholders,  if the fund satisfies the requirement  that, at the close of
each quarter of its taxable  year, at least 50% of the value of its total assets
consists of  securities  the interest on which is  excludable  from gross income
under section 103(a); each fund intends to continue to satisfy this requirement.
The aggregate  dividends  designated  for any year by a fund as  exempt-interest
dividends may not exceed its net tax-exempt  income for the year.  Shareholders'
treatment  of  dividends  from a fund under state and local  income tax laws may
differ from the  treatment  thereof under the Internal  Revenue Code.  Investors
should consult their tax advisers concerning this matter.

         Entities or persons who are "substantial  users" (or persons related to
"substantial users") of facilities financed by IDBs or PABs should consult their
tax advisers  before  purchasing  fund shares  because,  for users of certain of
these facilities,  the interest on those bonds is not exempt from federal income
tax. For these purposes,  "substantial user" is defined to include a "non-exempt
person" who regularly uses in a trade or business a part of a facility  financed
from the proceeds of IDBs or PABs.

         Up to 85% of social  security and railroad  retirement  benefits may be
included in taxable income for recipients whose adjusted gross income (including
income  from  tax-exempt  sources  such as a fund)  plus 50% of  their  benefits
exceeds certain base amounts.  Exempt-interest dividends from a fund still would
be tax-exempt to the extent described above;  they would only be included in the
calculation of whether a recipient's income exceeded the established amounts.

         If fund  shares are sold at a loss  after  being held for six months or
less, the loss will be disallowed to the extent of any exempt-interest dividends
received  on those  shares,  and any  loss not  disallowed  will be  treated  as
long-term, instead of short-term, capital loss to the extent of any capital gain
distributions  received  thereon.  Investors also should be aware that if shares
are purchased  shortly  before the record date for a capital gain  distribution,
the  shareholder  will pay full price for the shares and receive some portion of
the price back as a taxable distribution.

         If a fund invests in instruments that generate taxable interest income,
under the  circumstances  described in the  Prospectus  and in the discussion of
municipal  market  discount  bonds  below,  the  portion  of any  fund  dividend
attributable  to the  interest  earned  thereon  will be  taxable  to the fund's
shareholders as ordinary  income to the extent of its earnings and profits,  and
only the  remaining  portion will qualify as an  exempt-interest  dividend.  The
respective  portions  will be determined by the "actual  earned"  method,  under
which the portion of any dividend that qualifies as an exempt-interest  dividend
may vary,  depending  on the  relative  proportions  of  tax-exempt  and taxable
interest earned during the dividend period. Moreover, if a fund realizes capital
gain as a result of market  transactions,  any distributions of the gain will be
taxable to its shareholders.

         Dividends  and  other  distributions  declared  by a fund  in  October,
November or December of any year and payable to shareholders of record on a date
in any of those months will be deemed to have been paid by the fund and received
by the shareholders on December 31 of that year if the distributions are paid by
the fund during the following  January.  Each fund invests almost exclusively in
debt  securities and  Derivative  Instruments  and receives no dividend  income;
accordingly,  no (or only a negligible) portion of the distributions paid by any
fund  will  be  eligible  for  the   dividends-received   deduction  allowed  to
corporations.


                                       63
<PAGE>

         Each fund  will be  subject  to a  nondeductible  4% excise  tax to the
extent it fails to distribute by the end of any calendar year  substantially all
of its  ordinary  (taxable)  income for the  calendar  year and capital gain net
income for the one-year  period ending on October 31 of that year,  plus certain
other amounts.

         The use of  hedging  and  option  income  strategies,  such as  writing
(selling) and purchasing  options and futures,  involves complex rules that will
determine  for  income  tax  purposes  the  amount,   character  and  timing  of
recognition  of the gains and losses a fund  realizes in  connection  therewith.
Gains from options and futures derived by a fund with respect to its business of
investing  in  securities  will qualify as  permissible  income under the Income
Requirement.

         If a fund has an  "appreciated  financial  position"  -  generally,  an
interest  (including an interest  through an option,  futures  contract or short
sale) with respect to any stock, debt instrument (other than "straight debt") or
partnership interest the fair market value of which exceeds its adjusted basis -
and enters into a "constructive sale" of the position,  the fund will be treated
as  having  made an  actual  sale  thereof,  with the  result  that gain will be
recognized at that time. A constructive sale generally consists of a short sale,
an offsetting  notional principal contract or a futures contract entered into by
a fund or a related person with respect to the same or  substantially  identical
property.  In addition,  if the appreciated financial position is itself a short
sale or such a contract, acquisition of the underlying property or substantially
identical  property will be deemed a  constructive  sale. The foregoing will not
apply,  however,  to any  transaction  of a fund  during any  taxable  year that
otherwise  would be treated as a constructive  sale if the transaction is closed
within 30 days  after the end of that  year and the fund  holds the  appreciated
financial  position  unhedged for 60 days after that closing  (I.E.,  at no time
during that 60-day  period is the fund's risk of loss  regarding  that  position
reduced  by  reason  of  certain   specified   transactions   with   respect  to
substantially  identical or related property,  such as having an option to sell,
being  contractually  obligated  to sell,  making a short  sale,  or granting an
option to buy substantially identical stock or securities).

         Each fund may invest in municipal  bonds that are purchased,  generally
not on their original issue, with market discount (that is, at a price less than
the principal  amount of the bond or, in the case of a bond that was issued with
original  issue  discount,  a price less than the amount of the issue price plus
accrued  original issue  discount)  ("municipal  market discount  bonds").  If a
bond's market  discount is less that the product of (1) 0.25% of the  redemption
price at maturity  times (2) the number of complete  years to maturity after the
taxpayer acquired the bond, then no market discount is considered to exist. Gain
on the disposition of a municipal market discount bond purchased by a fund after
April 30,  1993 (other  than a bond with a fixed  maturity  date within one year
from its issuance)  generally is treated as ordinary  (taxable)  income,  rather
than capital gain, to the extent of the bond's  accrued  market  discount at the
time of  disposition.  Market  discount  on  such a bond  generally  is  accrued
ratably, on a daily basis, over the period from the acquisition date to the date
of maturity. In lieu of treating the disposition gain as above, a fund may elect
to include market discount in its gross income currently,  for each taxable year
to which it is attributable.

         CALIFORNIA TAXES. Individual shareholders of California Tax-Free Income
Fund who reside in California will not be subject to California  personal income
tax on distributions received from the Fund to the extent such distributions are
attributable  to  interest  on  tax-exempt  obligations  issued  by the State of
California or a California  local  government (or interest earned on obligations
of U.S. possessions or territories) ("exempt-interest dividends"), provided that
the fund  qualifies as a RIC under the Internal  Revenue Code and  satisfies the
requirement  of  California  law that at least 50% of its assets at the close of
each  quarter of its taxable  year be invested in  obligations  the  interest on
which is exempt from personal  income taxation under the laws or Constitution of
California or the laws of the United States.  Distributions  from the fund which
are attributable to sources other than those described in the preceding sentence
will  generally be taxable to such  shareholders  as ordinary  income.  However,
distributions by California  Tax-Free Income Fund, if any, that are derived from
interest on  obligations  of the U.S.  government  may also be designated by the
fund and treated by its  shareholders as exempt from California  personal income
tax, provided that the foregoing 50% requirement is satisfied.  Moreover,  under
California  legislation  incorporating certain provisions of the Code applicable
to RICs,  amounts treated as capital gain  distributions  for federal income tax
purposes  generally  will be treated as long-term  capital gains for  California
personal income tax purposes.  In addition,  distributions to shareholders other
than  exempt-interest  dividends are  includable in income subject to California
alternative minimum tax.


                                       64
<PAGE>

         Distributions of investment income and long-term and short-term capital
gains will not be excluded from taxable  income in  determining  the  California
corporate  franchise  tax  for  corporate   shareholders.   In  addition,   such
distributions may be includable in income subject to the California  alternative
minimum tax.

         Interest on indebtedness  incurred by shareholders to purchase or carry
shares of California  Tax-Free Income Fund will not be deductible for California
personal income tax purposes.

         Shares of  California  Tax-Free  Income Fund will not be subject to the
California property tax.

         NEW YORK TAXES.  Individual  shareholders  of New York Tax-Free  Income
Fund will not be required  to include in their  gross  income for New York State
and City  purposes any portion of  distributions  received  from the fund to the
extent such  distributions  are  directly  attributable  to  interest  earned on
tax-exempt  obligations  issued by New York State or any political  subdivisions
thereof  (including  the  City)  or  interest  earned  on  obligations  of  U.S.
possessions or territories to the extent interest on such  obligations is exempt
from state taxation pursuant to federal law, provided that the fund qualifies as
a RIC under the Internal Revenue Code and satisfies certain requirements,  among
others,  that at least 50% of its  assets at the  close of each  quarter  of its
taxable year constitute  obligations which are tax-exempt for federal income tax
purposes.  Distributions  from the fund which are  attributable to sources other
than  those  described  in  the  preceding  sentence   (including   interest  on
obligations of other states and their political  subdivisions) will generally be
taxable to such individual  shareholders as ordinary  income.  Distributions  to
individual shareholders by the fund which represents long-term capital gains for
federal  income tax purposes will be treated as long-term  capital gains for New
York State and City personal income tax purposes. (Certain undistributed capital
gains of the fund that are treated as (taxable)  long-term  capital gains in the
hands of  shareholders  will be treated as long-term  capital gains for New York
State and City personal income taxes.)

         Shareholders  of New York Tax-Free  Income Fund that are subject to the
New York State  corporation  franchise tax or the City general  corporation  tax
will be required to include exempt-interest  dividends paid by the fund in their
"entire net  income" for  purposes of such taxes and will be required to include
their shares of the fund in their investment capital for purposes of such taxes.

         Shareholders  of New York  Tax-Free  Income Fund will not be subject to
the  unincorporated  business  taxation  imposed by the City solely by reason of
their  ownership  of shares in the fund.  If a  shareholder  is  subject  to the
unincorporated  business tax,  income and gains  distributed by the fund will be
subject  to such tax except in general  to the  extent  such  distributions  are
directly attributable to interest earned on tax-exempt obligations issued by New
York State or any political subdivision thereof (including the City).

         Shares of New York Tax-Free Income Fund will not be subject to property
taxes imposed by New York State or the City.

         Interest on indebtedness  incurred by shareholders to purchase or carry
shares of the New York Tax-Free Income Fund (and certain other expenses relating
thereto)  generally  will not be deductible for New York State and City personal
income tax purposes.

         Interest  income of New York Tax-Free  Income Fund which is distributed
to  shareholders  will  generally not be taxable to the fund for purposes of the
New  York  State  corporation  franchise  tax  or  the  New  York  City  general
corporation tax.

         The fund is subject to the corporation  franchise (income) tax measured
by the entire net income  base,  the  minimum  taxable  income base or the fixed
dollar minimum, whichever is greater. "Entire net income" of the fund is federal
"investment company taxable income" with certain modifications. In addition, the
fund is permitted to deduct  dividends paid to its  shareholders  in determining
its federal taxable income.

         The  foregoing is a general  summary of certain  provisions of federal,
California  and New York  State  and City tax laws  currently  in effect as they
directly govern the taxation of shareholders of the funds.  These provisions are
subject to change by legislative or administrative  action,  and any such change
may be retroactive with respect to fund  transactions.  Shareholders are advised


                                       65
<PAGE>

to consult with their own tax advisers for more detailed information  concerning
tax matters.

         TAX-FREE  INCOME VS. TAXABLE  INCOME-NATIONAL  TAX-FREE INCOME FUND AND
MUNICIPAL HIGH INCOME FUND.  Table I below  illustrates  approximate  equivalent
taxable and tax-free yields at the 2000 federal individual income tax rates. For
example, a couple with taxable income of $90,000 in 2000, or a single individual
with taxable income of $55,000 in 2000, whose  investments  earned a 6% tax-free
yield,  would have had to earn  approximately  an 8.33% taxable yield to receive
the same benefit.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                   TABLE I. 2000 FEDERAL TAXABLE VS. TAX-FREE YIELDS*

       TAXABLE INCOME (000'S)                                                   A TAX-FREE YIELD OF
--------------------------------------                       ----------------------------------------------------------
                                               FEDERAL         4.00%       5.00%       6.00%        7.00%      8.00%
     SINGLE                JOINT                 TAX           -----       -----       -----        -----      -----
     RETURN               RETURN               BRACKET             IS EQUAL TO A TAXABLE YIELD OF APPROXIMATELY:
------------------    ----------------       ------------    ----------------------------------------------------------
    <S>                <C>                     <C>             <C>         <C>         <C>          <C>        <C>
      $  0 - 26.3       $ 0 - 43.9             15.00%          4.71%       5.88%       7.06%        8.24%      9.41%
      26.3 - 63.6      43.9 - 106.0             28.00          5.56        6.94         8.33        9.72       11.11
     63.6 - 132.6      106.0 - 161.5            31.00          5.80        7.25         8.70        10.14      11.59
    132.6 - 288.4      161.5 - 288.4            36.00          6.25        7.81         9.38        10.94      12.50
      Over $288.4       Over $288.4             39.60          6.62        8.28         9.93        11.59      13.25
---------------------------
* See note following Table III.

         TAX-FREE  INCOME VS. TAXABLE  INCOME-CALIFORNIA  TAX-FREE  INCOME FUND.
Table II below illustrates approximate equivalent taxable and tax-free yields at
the 2000 federal individual and 1999+ California  personal income tax rates. For
example, a California couple with taxable income of $90,000 in 1999, or a single
California  individual with taxable income of $55,000 in 1999, whose investments
earned a 6% tax-free yield, would have had to earn approximately a 9.19% taxable
yield to receive the same benefit.

                         TABLE II. 2000 FEDERAL AND 1999 CALIFORNIA TAXABLE VS. TAX-FREE YIELDS*

                                           EFFECTIVE
       TAXABLE INCOME (000'S)              CALIFORNIA                           A TAX-FREE YIELD OF
--------------------------------------        AND            ----------------------------------------------------------
                                            FEDERAL            4.00%       5.00%        6.00%       7.00%      8.00%
     SINGLE                JOINT              TAX              -----       -----        -----       -----      -----
     RETURN               RETURN            BRACKET                IS EQUAL TO A TAXABLE YIELD OF APPROXIMATELY:
------------------    ----------------    -------------      ----------------------------------------------------------
    <S>                <C>                   <C>                 <C>         <C>        <C>         <C>       <C>
     $19.7 - 26.3      $39.4 - 43.9          20.10%              5.01%       6.26%      7.51%       8.76%     10.01%
      26.3 - 27.3       43.9 - 54.7          32.32               5.91         7.39       8.87       10.34      11.82
      27.3 - 34.5       54.7 - 69.1          33.76               6.04         7.55       9.06       10.57      12.08
      34.5 - 63.6      69.1 - 106.0          34.70               6.13         7.66       9.19       10.72      12.25
     63.6 - 132.6      106.0 - 161.5         37.42               6.39         7.99       9.59       11.19      12.78
    132.6 - 288.4      161.5 - 288.4         41.95               6.89         8.61      10.34       12.06      13.78
      Over $288.4       Over $288.4          45.22               7.30         9.13      10.95       12.78      14.60
---------------------------
</TABLE>

* See note following Table III.

+  The rates shown reflect federal rates for 2000 and California  rates for 1999
   in effect as of the date thereof. Inflation adjusted income brackets for 2000
   for California are not yet available, and the California rates thus are still
   subject to change with retroactive effect for 2000.


                                       66
<PAGE>

         TAX-FREE INCOME VS. TAXABLE INCOME-NEW YORK TAX-FREE INCOME FUND. Table
III below illustrates  approximate equivalent taxable and tax-free yields at the
2000 federal individual,  and New York State and New York City personal,  income
tax rates. For example, a New York City couple with taxable income of $90,000 in
2000,  whose  investments  earned a 4%  tax-free  yield,  would have had to earn
approximately  a 6.22% taxable  yield to receive the same benefit.  A couple who
lives in New York State outside New York City with taxable  income of $90,000 in
2000 would have had to earn  approximately a 5.96% taxable yield to realize a 4%
tax-free yield.

         Single taxpayers may also take advantage of high tax-free  income.  For
example,  a single  individual with taxable income of $55,000 in 2000, who lives
in New York City and whose investments earn a 4% tax-free yield,  would have had
to earn  approximately  a 6.22%  taxable  yield to receive the same  benefit.  A
single  individual  with a taxable  income of $55,000 in 2000,  who lives in New
York  State  outside of New York City,  would have had to earn  approximately  a
5.96% taxable yield to realize a 4% tax-free yield.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                            TABLE III. 2000 FEDERAL AND NEW YORK TAXABLE VS. TAX-FREE YIELDS*

                                            EFFECTIVE
       TAXABLE INCOME (000'S)               COMBINED                          A TAX-FREE YIELD OF
--------------------------------------       FEDERAL        ---------------------------------------------------------
                                             NYS/NYC          4.00%      5.00%       6.00%       7.00%       8.00%
     SINGLE                JOINT               TAX            -----      -----       -----       -----       -----
     RETURN               RETURN             BRACKET             IS EQUAL TO A TAXABLE YIELD OF APPROXIMATELY:
------------------    ----------------    --------------    ---------------------------------------------------------
    <S>                <C>                   <C>              <C>        <C>         <C>         <C>        <C>
       $ 0 - 26.3       $ 0 - 43.9           23.99%           5.26%      6.58%       7.89%       9.20%      10.52%
      26.3 - 63.6      43.9 - 106.0           35.65           6.22        7.77        9.32       10.88       12.43
     63.6 - 132.6      106.0 - 161.5          38.33           6.49        8.11        9.73       11.35       12.97
    132.6 - 288.4      161.5 - 288.4          42.80           6.99        8.74       10.49       12.24       13.99
      Over $288.4       Over $288.4           46.02           7.41        9.26       11.12       12.97       14.82



       TAXABLE INCOME (000'S)                                                 A TAX-FREE YIELD OF
--------------------------------------      EFFECTIVE       ---------------------------------------------------------
                                            COMBINED
                                             FEDERAL          4.00%      5.00%       6.00%       7.00%       8.00%
     SINGLE                JOINT             NYS TAX          -----      -----       -----       -----       -----
     RETURN               RETURN             BRACKET             IS EQUAL TO A TAXABLE YIELD OF APPROXIMATELY:
------------------    ----------------    --------------    ---------------------------------------------------------
    <S>                <C>                   <C>              <C>        <C>         <C>         <C>        <C>
       $ 0 - 26.3        $0 - 43.9           20.82%           5.05%      6.31%       7.58%       8.84%      10.10%
      26.3 - 63.6      43.9 - 106.0           32.93           5.96        7.46        8.95       10.44       11.93
     63.6 - 132.6      106.0 - 161.5          35.73           6.22        7.78        9.34       10.89       12.45
    132.6 - 288.4      161.5 - 288.4          40.38           6.71        8.39       10.06       11.74       13.42
      Over $288.4       Over $288.4           43.74           7.11        8.89       10.66       12.44       14.22
---------------------------
</TABLE>

*   Certain simplifying  assumptions have been made in the tables. The amount of
    "Taxable  Income"  is the net amount  subject  to  federal  income tax after
    deductions and exemptions,  assuming that all income is ordinary income. Any
    particular  taxpayer's  effective tax rate may differ.  The effective  rates
    reflect the highest tax bracket within each range of income listed. However,
    a California or New York taxpayer  within the lowest income ranges shown may
    fall within a lower  effective  tax bracket.  The figures set forth above do
    not reflect the federal alternative  minimum tax,  limitations on federal or
    state  itemized  deductions,  the  phase  out  of  deductions  for  personal
    exemptions,  the  taxability  of  social  security  or  railroad  retirement
    benefits or any state or local taxes  payable on fund  distributions  (other
    than  California,  New York State and New York City personal income taxes in
    the cases of Tables II and III).

         The  yields  listed  above  are  for  illustration  only  and  are  not
necessarily  representative  of a fund's yield.  Each fund invests  primarily in
obligations  the interest on which is exempt from federal income tax and, in the
case of California  Tax-Free Income Fund,  from  California  personal income tax


                                       67
<PAGE>

and, in the case of New York Tax-Free  Income Fund,  from New York State and New
York City  personal  income taxes;  however,  some of a fund's  investments  may
generate  taxable  income.  Effective tax rates shown are those in effect on the
date of this SAI; such rates might change after that date.

                                OTHER INFORMATION

         MASSACHUSETTS  BUSINESS  TRUSTS.  Each  Trust is an  entity of the type
commonly known as a  "Massachusetts  business trust." Under  Massachusetts  law,
shareholders of a fund could,  under certain  circumstances,  be held personally
liable for the  obligations  of the fund or its  Trust.  However,  each  Trust's
Declaration of Trust disclaims  shareholder liability for acts or obligations of
the Trust or the fund and requires  that notice of such  disclaimer  be given in
each note, bond, contract, instrument, certificate or undertaking made or issued
by the board  members or by any officers or officer by or on behalf of the Trust
or the fund, the board members or any of them in connection with the Trust. Each
Declaration  of Trust  provides for  indemnification  from the  relevant  fund's
property for all losses and expenses of any shareholder  held personally  liable
for the  obligations  of the fund.  Thus,  the risk of a  shareholder  incurring
financial loss on account of shareholder  liability is limited to  circumstances
in which the fund itself would be unable to meet its obligations,  a possibility
that Mitchell Hutchins believes is remote and not material.  Upon payment of any
liability  incurred by a shareholder  solely by reason of being or having been a
shareholder,  the  shareholder  paying  such  liability  would  be  entitled  to
reimbursement  from the general  assets of the relevant  fund. The board members
intend to conduct each fund's  operations  in such a way as to avoid,  as far as
possible, ultimate liability of the shareholders for liabilities of the fund.

         CLASSES  OF  SHARES.  A share  of each  class of a fund  represents  an
identical interest in that fund's investment  portfolio and has the same rights,
privileges and preferences. However, each class may differ with respect to sales
charges,  if any,  distribution  and/or  service  fees, if any,  other  expenses
allocable  exclusively  to each  class,  voting  rights on  matters  exclusively
affecting that class,  and its exchange  privilege,  if any. The different sales
charges and other expenses  applicable to the different classes of shares of the
funds will  affect the  performance  of those  classes.  Each share of a fund is
entitled  to  participate  equally in  dividends,  other  distributions  and the
proceeds of any liquidation of that fund. However, due to the differing expenses
of the classes, dividends and liquidation proceeds on Class A, B, C and Y shares
will differ.

         VOTING RIGHTS.  Shareholders  of each fund are entitled to one vote for
each full share held and  fractional  votes for fractional  shares held.  Voting
rights are not cumulative and, as a result,  the holders of more than 50% of all
the  shares of a Trust may elect all of the board  members  of that  Trust.  The
shares of a fund will be voted together,  except that only the shareholders of a
particular class of a fund may vote on matters  affecting only that class,  such
as the terms of a Rule 12b-1 Plan as it relates to the class. The shares of each
series of a Trust will be voted separately, except when an aggregate vote of all
the series of a Trust is required by law.

         The funds do not hold  annual  meetings.  Shareholders  of record of no
less than  two-thirds  of the  outstanding  shares of a Trust may remove a board
member through a declaration in writing or by vote cast in person or by proxy at
a meeting  called  for that  purpose.  A  meeting  will be called to vote on the
removal  of a board  member at the  written  request  of  holders  of 10% of the
outstanding shares of a Trust.

         CLASS-SPECIFIC EXPENSES. Each fund may determine to allocate certain of
its  expenses  (in  addition to service and  distribution  fees) to the specific
classes of its shares to which those  expenses  are  attributable.  For example,
Class B and Class C shares bear  higher  transfer  agency  fees per  shareholder
account than those borne by Class A or Class Y shares. The higher fee is imposed
due to the higher  costs  incurred  by the  transfer  agent in  tracking  shares
subject to a contingent  deferred sales charge  because,  upon  redemption,  the
duration  of the  shareholder's  investment  must  be  determined  in  order  to
determine the applicable charge. Although the transfer agency fee will differ on
a per account basis as stated above,  the specific  extent to which the transfer
agency fees will differ between the classes as a percentage of net assets is not
certain,  because the fee as a percentage  of net assets will be affected by the
number of  shareholder  accounts in each class and the  relative  amounts of net
assets in each class.

         PRIOR  NAMES.  Prior to November  10,  1995,  the Class C shares of the
funds were called "Class D" shares.

                                       68
<PAGE>


         CUSTODIAN AND RECORDKEEPING  AGENT;  TRANSFER AND DIVIDEND AGENT. State
Street Bank and Trust  Company,  located at One Heritage  Drive,  North  Quincy,
Massachusetts  02171, serves as custodian and recordkeeping agent for each fund.
PFPC Inc., a subsidiary of PNC Bank,  N.A.,  serves as each fund's  transfer and
dividend disbursing agent. It is located at 400 Bellevue Parkway, Wilmington, DE
19809.

         COMBINED  PROSPECTUS.  Although  each  fund is  offering  only  its own
shares, it is possible that a fund might become liable for a misstatement in the
Prospectus about another fund. The board of each fund has considered this factor
in approving the use of a single, combined Prospectus.

         COUNSEL. The law firm of Kirkpatrick & Lockhart LLP, 1800 Massachusetts
Avenue,  N.W.,  Washington,  D.C.  20036-1800,  serves as  counsel to the funds.
Kirkpatrick  & Lockhart  LLP also acts as counsel to  PaineWebber  and  Mitchell
Hutchins in connection with other matters. The law firm of Orrick,  Herrington &
Sutcliffe,  400 Sansome  Street,  San  Francisco,  California  94111,  serves as
counsel to California  Tax-Free  Income Fund with respect to California law. The
law firm of Orrick,  Herrington & Sutcliffe,  666 Fifth  Avenue,  New York,  New
York, 10103,  serves as counsel to New York Tax-Free Income Fund with respect to
New York law.

         AUDITORS.  Ernst & Young LLP, 787 Seventh  Avenue,  New York,  New York
10019, serves as independent auditors for the Funds.

                              FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

         Each fund's Annual Reports to Shareholders  for their last fiscal years
ended February 29, 2000 is a separate  document  supplied with this SAI, and the
financial  statements,  accompanying  notes and report of  independent  auditors
appearing therein are incorporated herein by this reference.






                                       69
<PAGE>


                                    APPENDIX

                               RATINGS INFORMATION

DESCRIPTION OF MOODY'S MUNICIPAL BOND RATINGS

         Aaa.  Bonds  which are rated Aaa are judged to be of the best  quality.
They carry the smallest degree of investment risk and are generally  referred to
as  "gilt  edged."  Interest  payments  are  protected  by  a  large  or  by  an
exceptionally   stable  margin  and  principal  is  secure.  While  the  various
protective  elements are likely to change, such changes as can be visualized are
most unlikely to impair the  fundamentally  strong position of such issues;  Aa.
Bonds  which are rated Aa are  judged to be of high  quality  by all  standards.
Together with the Aaa group they comprise what are generally known as high grade
bonds.  They are rated lower than the best bonds  because  margins of protection
may not be as large as in Aaa securities or  fluctuation of protective  elements
may be of greater  amplitude or there may be other  elements  present which make
the long term risk appear somewhat larger than in Aaa securities; A. Bonds which
are  rated  A  possess  many  favorable  investment  attributes  and  are  to be
considered  as  upper-medium-grade  obligations.   Factors  giving  security  to
principal  and interest  are  considered  adequate,  but elements may be present
which suggest a susceptibility to impairment  sometime in the future; BAA. Bonds
which are rated Baa are considered as medium-grade  obligations,  i.e., they are
neither  highly  protected nor poorly  secured.  Interest  payment and principal
security appear adequate for the present but certain protective  elements may be
lacking or may be  characteristically  unreliable over any great length of time.
Such  bonds  lack  outstanding  investment  characteristics  and  in  fact  have
speculative  characteristics as well; Ba. Bonds which are rated Ba are judged to
have  speculative  elements;  their future cannot be considered as well-assured.
Often the protection of interest and principal payments may be very moderate and
thereby  not well  safeguarded  during  both good and bad times over the future.
Uncertainty of position  characterizes  bonds in this class;  B. Bonds which are
rated B generally lack characteristics of the desirable investment. Assurance of
interest and principal payments or of maintenance of other terms of the contract
over any long period of time may be small; Caa. Bonds which are rated Caa are of
poor standing. Such issues may be in default or there may be present elements of
danger with  respect to  principal  or  interest;  Ca.  Bonds which are rated Ca
represent  obligations  which are speculative in a high degree.  Such issues are
often in default or have other marked  shortcomings;  C. Bonds which are rated C
are the lowest  rated  class of bonds,  and issues so rated can be  regarded  as
having extremely poor prospects of ever attaining any real investment standing.

         Note: Moody's applies numerical  modifiers,  1, 2 and 3 in each generic
rating  classification  from Aa through Caa.  The modifier 1 indicates  that the
obligation ranks in the higher end of its generic rating category,  the modifier
2 indicates a mid-range  ranking,  and the modifier 3 indicates a ranking in the
lower end of that generic rating category.

DESCRIPTION OF S&P MUNICIPAL DEBT RATINGS

         AAA. An obligation  rated AAA has the highest  rating  assigned by S&P.
The  obligor's  capacity to meet its financial  commitment on the  obligation is
extremely  strong;  AA. An  obligation  rated AA differs from the highest  rated
obligations only in small degree.  The obligor's  capacity to meet its financial
commitment  on the  obligation  is  very  strong;  A. An  obligation  rated A is
somewhat more susceptible to the adverse effects of changes in circumstances and
economic  conditions than obligations in higher rated categories.  However,  the
obligor's  capacity to meet its financial  commitment on the obligation is still
strong;  BBB. An obligation rated BBB exhibits adequate  protection  parameters.
However,  adverse economic conditions or changing  circumstances are more likely
to lead to a weakened  capacity of the obligor to meet its financial  commitment
on the obligation;  BB, B, CCC, CC, C, D. Obligations rated BB, B, CCC, CC and C
are regarded as having significant speculative characteristics. BB indicates the
least degree of  speculation  and C the  highest.  While such  obligations  will
likely have some quality and protective characteristics, these may be outweighed
by  large  uncertainties  or major  exposures  to  adverse  conditions;  BB.  An
obligation  rated BB is less  vulnerable  to nonpayment  than other  speculative
issues.  However,  it faces major ongoing  uncertainties  or exposure to adverse
business,  financial,  or economic  conditions which could lead to the obligor's
inadequate  capacity to meet its financial  commitment on the obligation;  B. An
obligation rated B is more vulnerable to nonpayment than  obligations  rated BB,
but the obligor  currently has the capacity to meet its financial  commitment on
the obligation.  Adverse business, financial, or economic conditions will likely
impair the obligor's capacity or willingness to meet its financial commitment on
the  obligation;  CCC.  An  obligation  rated  CCC is  currently  vulnerable  to


                                       A-1
<PAGE>

nonpayment  and is dependent  upon  favorable  business,  financial and economic
conditions for the obligor to meet its financial  commitment on the  obligation.
In the event of adverse business, financial, or economic conditions, the obligor
is not  likely to have the  capacity  to meet its  financial  commitment  on the
obligation;  CC.  An  obligation  rated CC is  currently  highly  vulnerable  to
nonpayment;  C. The C rating may be used to cover a situation where a bankruptcy
petition has been filed or similar  action has been taken,  but payments on this
obligation are being continued;  D. An obligation rated D is in payment default.
The D rating category is used when payments on an obligation are not made on the
date due  even if the  applicable  grace  period  has not  expired,  unless  S&P
believes that such payments will be made during such grace period.  The D rating
also will be used upon the filing of a  bankruptcy  petition  or the taking of a
similar action if payments on an obligation are jeopardized.

         CI. The rating CI is reserved  for income bonds on which no interest is
being paid.

         Plus (+) or Minus (-):  The ratings  from "AA" to "CCC" may be modified
by the  addition of a plus or minus sign to show  relative  standing  within the
major rating categories.

DESCRIPTION OF MOODY'S RATINGS OF SHORT-TERM OBLIGATIONS

There are three categories for short-term  obligations that define an investment
grade situation.  These are designated  Moody's  Investment Grade as MIG 1 (best
quality)  through  MIG-3.  Short-term  obligations  of  speculative  quality are
designated SG.

In the case of variable rate demand obligations  (VRDOs), a two-component rating
is assigned.  The first  element  represents an evaluation of the degree of risk
associated  with  scheduled  principal  and  interest  payments,  and the  other
represents  an  evaluation  of the  degree of risk  associated  with the  demand
feature.  The  short-term  rating  assigned  to the demand  feature of a VRDO is
designated as VMIG. When either the long- or short-term  aspect of a VRDO is not
rated, that piece is designated NR, e.g. Aaa/NR or NR/VMIG 1.

MIG ratings  terminate at the retirement of the obligation,  while a VMIG rating
expiration  will be a function of each  issue's  specific  structural  or credit
features.

MIG-1/VMIG-1.  This  designation  denotes best quality.  There is present strong
protection by established cash flows, superior liquidity support or demonstrated
broad-based access to the market for refinancing. MIG-2/VMIG-2. This designation
denotes high quality.  Margins of protection  are ample although not so large as
in  the  preceding  group.  MIG-3/VMIG-3.  This  designation  denotes  favorable
quality.  Liquidity and cash flow protection may be narrow and market access for
refinancing is likely to be less well established.  SG. This designation denotes
speculative  quality.   Debt  Instruments  in  this  category  lack  margins  of
protection.

DESCRIPTION OF S&P'S RATINGS OF STATE AND MUNICIPAL NOTES AND OTHER SHORT-TERM
LOANS:

A S&P note rating reflects the liquidity concerns and market access risks unique
to notes. Notes due in 3 years or less will likely receive a note rating.  Notes
maturing  beyond 3 years will most likely receive a long-term  debt rating.  The
following criteria will be used in making the assessment.

--Amortization  schedule  (the  larger  the  final  maturity  relative  to other
maturities, the more likely it will be treated as a note).

--Source  of  payment  (the more  dependent  the issue is on the  market for its
refinancing, the more likely it will be treated as a note).

SP-1.  Strong  capacity to pay  principal  and  interest.  Issues  determined to
possess  very strong  characteristics  are given a plus (+)  designation.  SP-2.
Satisfactory  capacity to pay principal and interest with some  vulnerability to
adverse  financial  and  economic  changes  over  the term of the  notes.  SP-3.
Speculative capacity to pay principal and interest.

                                       A-2
<PAGE>

DESCRIPTION OF SHORT-TERM DEBT COMMERCIAL PAPER RATINGS

Moody's  short-term debt ratings are opinions of the ability of issuers to repay
punctually senior debt obligations.  These obligations have an original maturity
not exceeding one year, unless explicitly noted.

Moody's  employs the following three  designations,  all judged to be investment
grade, to indicate the relative repayment ability of rated issuers:

         PRIME-1. Issuers (or  supporting  institutions)  assigned  this highest
rating  have  a  superior  ability  for  repayment  of  senior  short-term  debt
obligations.  Prime-1 repayment ability will often be evidenced by the following
characteristics:  Leading market positions in well established industries;  high
rates of return on funds employed;  conservative  capitalization structures with
moderate reliance on debt and ample asset protection;  broad margins in earnings
coverage of fixed  financial  charges and high  internal cash  generation;  well
established  access to a range of  financial  markets  and  assured  sources  of
alternate liquidity.

         PRIME-2. Issuers (or supporting institutions) assigned this rating have
a strong ability for repayment of senior short-term debt obligations.  This will
normally be  evidenced  by many of the  characteristics  cited  above,  but to a
lesser degree.  Earnings trends and coverage ratios,  while sound,  will be more
subject to variation.  Capitalization characteristics,  while still appropriate,
may be more  affected by  external  conditions.  Ample  alternate  liquidity  is
maintained.

         PRIME-3. Issuers (or supporting institutions) assigned this rating have
an  acceptable  capacity for  repayment of senior  short-term  obligations.  The
effect  of  industry   characteristics   and  market  composition  may  be  more
pronounced.  Variability in earnings and  profitability may result in changes in
the  level of debt  protection  measurements  and may  require  relatively  high
financial leverage. Adequate alternate liquidity is maintained.

         NOT PRIME. Issuers assigned  this rating  do not fall within any of the
Prime rating categories.

Commercial paper rated by S&P have the following characteristics:

         A-1. A short-term obligation rated A-1 is rated in the highest category
by  S&P.  The  obligor's  capacity  to  meet  its  financial  commitment  on the
obligation is strong.  Within this category,  certain obligations are designated
with a plus sign (+). This  indicates  that the  obligor's  capacity to meet its
financial commitment on these obligations is extremely strong. A-2. A short-term
obligation  rated A-2 is somewhat  more  susceptible  to the adverse  effects of
changes in  circumstances  and economic  conditions  than  obligations in higher
rating  categories.  However,  the  obligor's  capacity  to meet  its  financial
commitment on the obligation is satisfactory. A-3. A short-term obligation rated
A-3  exhibits  adequate  protection   parameters.   However,   adverse  economic
conditions  or  changing  circumstances  are more  likely to lead to a  weakened
capacity of the obligor to meet its financial commitment on the obligation. B. A
short-term  obligation  rated B is  regarded as having  significant  speculative
characteristics.  The obligor  currently  has the capacity to meet its financial
commitment on the  obligation;  however,  it faces major  ongoing  uncertainties
which could lead to the  obligor's  inadequate  capacity  to meet its  financial
commitments on the obligation.  C. A short-term  obligation rated C is currently
vulnerable to nonpayment and is dependent upon favorable business, financial and
economic  conditions  for the obligor to meet its  financial  commitment  on the
obligation.  D. A short-term  obligation  rated D is in payment  default.  The D
rating  category is used when payments on an obligation are not made on the date
due even if the  applicable  grace period has not  expired,  unless S&P believes
that such payments will be made during such grace period. The D rating also will
be used upon the  filing of a  bankruptcy  petition  or the  taking of a similar
action if payments on an obligation are jeopardized.



                                       A-3
<PAGE>

















                      [This page intentionally left blank]















<PAGE>


YOU SHOULD RELY ONLY ON THE  INFORMATION
CONTAINED   OR   REFERRED   TO  IN   THE                             PaineWebber
PROSPECTUS   AND   THIS   STATEMENT   OF                National Tax-Free Income
ADDITIONAL  INFORMATION.  THE  FUNDS AND                                    Fund
THEIR  DISTRIBUTOR  HAVE NOT  AUTHORIZED
ANYONE TO PROVIDE  YOU WITH  INFORMATION                             PaineWebber
THAT IS DIFFERENT.  THE  PROSPECTUS  AND                   Municipal High Income
THIS STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION                                   Fund
ARE NOT AN OFFER TO SELL  SHARES  OF THE
FUNDS  IN  ANY  JURISDICTION  WHERE  THE                             PaineWebber
FUNDS  OR  THEIR   DISTRIBUTOR  MAY  NOT              California Tax-Free Income
LAWFULLY SELL THOSE SHARES.                                                 Fund

                                                                     PaineWebber
                                                        New York Tax-Free Income
            ---------------                                                 Fund












                                      ------------------------------------------

                                             Statement of Additional Information
                                                                   June 30, 2000
                                      ------------------------------------------






                                                                     PAINEWEBBER



(COPYRIGHT)2000 PaineWebber Incorporated.  All rights reserved.


© 2022 IncJournal is not affiliated with or endorsed by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission