FEDERATED OHIO MUNICIPAL INCOME FUND
(Class F Shares)
Annual Report For Fiscal Year Ended August 31, 1997
MANAGEMENT DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
In general, the market environment for fixed income investments and
municipal bonds over the previous fiscal year was relatively
favorable. Inflation and inflation expectations, which are the major
determinants of nominal interest rates, continued to be very well
behaved. In fact, several inflation indicators actually suggested a
deflationary environment for some markets. Municipal bond yields, as
represented by the Bond Buyer 40 Index*, peaked at 6.06% early in the
fiscal year (September 1996) and then began to trend lower, ending the
reporting period at 5.55% on August 29, 1997. The potentially biggest
threat to the municipal bond market over the fiscal year was the
Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. The impact on the municipal bond market
from the new tax legislation is much more benign than was originally
anticipated. Municipal bonds emerged essentially unscathed. This
favorable legislative treatment combined with lower interest rates,
stable demand, and a relatively limited supply of municipal bonds
provided a firm market environment.
There are several reasons for the municipal bond markets' strong
relative performance this fiscal year. They have to do mostly with the
municipal markets technical position, or the supply and demand for,
municipal bonds. The demand for municipal bonds was relatively stable,
mostly due to strong institutional demand from commercial banks,
property and casualty insurers, and arbitrageurs. Retail buyers or
individuals are the primary component of municipal bond demand. Their
participation in the market over the fiscal year was mixed, but stable
enough to provide an important foundation for municipal bond prices.
The Ohio economy is largely composed of manufacturing, which is
concentrated in the automobile sector and other durable goods. The
exposure to these industries, particularly the auto sector, leaves the
state vulnerable to an economic slowdown associated with business
cycles. The state has diversified its economy somewhat over the past
decade with services and trade composing roughly 50% of the economy.
Unemployment in Ohio over the past two years has been below the
national average, but population growth, as in many great lakes
states, has been stagnant.
As a result of prudent financial management, the state restored the
budget stabilization fund in fiscal 1993, which was depleted during
the last recession. Strong performance in fiscal 1994, 1995, and 1996
resulted in reserve levels that are well above the levels of 1990.
Solid financial results continued into 1997, with the state year-end
general fund balance at roughly $475 million. Ohio's budget
stabilization fund is now above $825 million.
The overall condition of the state is further demonstrated by its debt
ratings. Ohio, rated Aaa by Moody's Investors Service, Inc.
("Moody's") in the 1970's, was downgraded to Aa in 1979. Moody's
recently revised Ohio's rating upward to Aa1 in September 1996.
Standard & Poor's Ratings Services first rated the state in 1984 at
AA; that rating was also upgraded to AA+ in October 1996.
Federated Ohio Municipal Income Fund's performance with respect to
investment return over its fiscal year was as follows. For the
12-month reporting period ended August 31, 1997, investors in the
fund's Class F Shares received a competitive total return of 8.34%
based on net asset value**. In comparison, the Lipper General
Municipal Debt Fund Average total return based on net asset value for
the year was 8.83%***.
The fund's performance over the reporting period was driven by its
neutral duration target relative to its benchmark. The fund's core
position in premium, high coupon securities also provided positive
incremental return over the reporting period. Also, sector selection
was a very important factor which had a positive impact on
performance. Bonds from the electric utility, healthcare, and
transportation sectors provided the best relative performance over the
reporting period.
* The Bond Buyer 40 Index is a standard against which municipal
bonds are measured.
** Performance quoted represents past performance and is not
indicative of future results. Investment return and principal
value will fluctuate, so that an investor's shares, when redeemed,
may be worth more or less than their original cost.
*** Lipper figures represent the average of the total returns reported
by all of the mutual funds designated by Lipper Analytical
Services, Inc. as falling into the representative categories
indicated. These figures do not reflect sales charges.
FEDERATED OHIO MUNICIPAL INCOME FUND
(Class F Shares)
GROWTH OF $10,000 INVESTED IN FEDERATED OHIO MUNICIPAL INCOME FUND (CLASS F
SHARES)
The graph below illustrates the hypothetical investment of $10,000 in
Federated Ohio Municipal Income Fund (Class F Shares) (the "Fund")
from October 12, 1990 (start of performance) to August 31, 1997,
compared to the Lehman Brothers Revenue Bond Index (LBRBI)+.
[GRAPH APPEARS HERE]
PAST PERFORMANCE IS NOT PREDICTIVE OF FUTURE PERFORMANCE. YOUR INVESTMENT RETURN
AND PRINCIPAL VALUE WILL FLUCTUATE SO WHEN SHARES ARE REDEEMED, THEY MAY BE
WORTH MORE OR LESS THAN ORIGINAL COST. MUTUAL FUNDS ARE NOT OBLIGATIONS OF OR
GUARANTEED BY ANY BANK AND ARE NOT FEDERALLY INSURED.
This report must be preceded or accompanied by the Fund's prospectus
dated October 31, 1997, and, together with financial statements
contained therein, constitutes the Fund's annual report.
* Represents a hypothetical investment of $10,000 in the Fund after
deducting the maximum sales charge of 1.00% ($10,000 investment
minus $100 sales charge = $9,900). The Fund's performance assumes
the reinvestment of all dividends and distributions. The LBRBI has
been adjusted to reflect reinvestment of dividends on securities
in the index.
** Total return quoted reflects all applicable sales charges and
contingent deferred sales charges.
+ The LBRBI is not adjusted to reflect sales charges, expenses, or
other fees that the SEC requires to be reflected in the Fund's
performance. This index is unmanaged.
[LOGO] FEDERATED INVESTORS
Federated Securities Corp., Distributor
Federated Investors Tower
Pittsburgh, PA 15222-3779
1-800-341-7400
www.federatedinvestors.com
Cusip 625922307 [LOGO OF RECYCLED PAPER]
G00579-01 (10/97)
FEDERATED PENNSYLVANIA MUNICIPAL INCOME FUND
(Class A Shares)
(Class B Shares)
Annual Report For Fiscal Year Ended August 31, 1997
MANAGEMENT DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
In general, the market environment for fixed income investments and
municipal bonds over the previous fiscal year was relatively
favorable. Inflation and inflation expectations, which are the major
determinants of nominal interest rates, continued to be very well
behaved. In fact, several inflation indicators actually suggested a
deflationary environment for some markets. Municipal bond yields, as
represented by the Bond Buyer 40 Index*, peaked at 6.06% early in the
fiscal year (September 1996) and then began to trend lower, ending the
reporting period at 5.55% on August 29, 1997. The potentially biggest
threat to the municipal bond market over the fiscal year was the
Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. The impact on the municipal bond market
from the new tax legislation is much more benign than was originally
anticipated. Municipal bonds emerged essentially unscathed. This
favorable legislative treatment combined with lower interest rates,
stable demand, and a relatively limited supply of municipal bonds
provided a firm market environment.
There are several reasons for the municipal bond markets' strong
relative performance this year. They have to do mostly with the
municipal markets technical position, or the supply and demand for,
municipal bonds. The demand for municipal bonds was relatively stable,
mostly due to strong institutional demand from commercial banks,
property and casualty insurers, and arbitrageurs. Retail buyers or
individuals are the primary component of municipal bond demand. Their
participation in the market over the fiscal year was mixed, but stable
enough to provide an important foundation for municipal bond prices.
Pennsylvania's economy performed below the national average over the
reporting period and is expected to continue this pattern over the
next several years. While job growth has improved since the early
1990's, it still continues to lag well behind the national growth
levels. Manufacturing is still an important industry in the
Commonwealth, but has been exceeded by employment in both services and
trade. Growth in personal income lagged behind the national growth
rate, but Pennsylvania per capita income exceeds the national average
and ranks 19th among the states. Despite the economic challenges, the
Commonwealth's financial position remained stable, due to improved
spending controls and strong fiscal management. In addition,
Pennsylvania continued to maintain a moderate debt level.
Federated Pennsylvania Municipal Income Fund's performance with
respect to investment return over its fiscal year was as follows. For
the 12-month reporting period ended August 31, 1997, investors in the
fund's Class A Shares received a competitive total return of 9.12%
based on net asset value.** In comparison, the Lipper General
Municipal Debt Fund Average total return based on net asset value for
the year was 8.83%.***
The fund's performance over the reporting period was driven by its
neutral duration target relative to its benchmark. The fund's core
position in premium, high coupon securities also provided positive
incremental return over the reporting period. Also, sector selection
was a very important factor which had a positive impact on
performance. Bonds from the electric utility, healthcare, and
transportation sectors provided the best relative performance over the
reporting period.
* The Bond Buyer 40 Index is a standard against which municipal
bonds are measured.
** Performance quoted represents past performance and is not
indicative of future results. Investment return and principal
value will fluctuate, so that an investor's shares, when redeemed
may be worth more or less than their original cost.
*** Lipper figures represent the average of the total returns reported
by all of the mutual funds designated by Lipper Analytical
Services, Inc. as falling into the representative categories
indicated. These figures do not reflect sales charges.
FEDERATED PENNSYLVANIA MUNICIPAL INCOME FUND
(Class A Shares)
GROWTH OF $10,000 INVESTED IN FEDERATED PENNSYLVANIA MUNICIPAL INCOME FUND
(CLASS A SHARES)
The graph below illustrates the hypothetical investment of $10,000 in
Federated Pennsylvania Municipal Income Fund (Class A Shares) (the
"Fund") from October 11, 1990 (start of performance) to August 31,
1997, compared to the Lehman
Brothers Revenue Bond Index (LBRBI)+.
[GRAPH APPEARS HERE]
PAST PERFORMANCE IS NOT PREDICTIVE OF FUTURE PERFORMANCE. YOUR INVESTMENT RETURN
AND PRINCIPAL VALUE WILL FLUCTUATE SO WHEN SHARES ARE REDEEMED, THEY MAY BE
WORTH MORE OR LESS THAN ORIGINAL COST. MUTUAL FUNDS ARE NOT OBLIGATIONS OF OR
GUARANTEED BY ANY BANK AND ARE NOT FEDERALLY INSURED.
This report must be preceded or accompanied by the Fund's prospectus
dated October 31, 1997, and, together with financial statements
contained therein, constitutes the Fund's annual report.
* Represents a hypothetical investment of $10,000 in the Fund after
deducting the maximum sales charge of 3.00% ($10,000 investment
minus $300 sales charge = $9,700) which was effective on October
11, 1990. Effective November 1, 1996, the maximum sales charge has
been increased to 4.50%. The Fund's performance assumes the
reinvestment of all dividends and distributions. The LBRBI has been
adjusted to reflect reinvestment of dividends on securities in the
index.
** Total return quoted reflects all applicable sales charges and
contingent deferred sales charges.
+ The LBRBI is not adjusted to reflect sales charges, expenses, or
other fees that the SEC requires to be reflected in the Fund's
performance. This index is unmanaged.
FEDERATED PENNSYLVANIA MUNICIPAL INCOME FUND
(Class B Shares)
GROWTH OF $10,000 INVESTED IN FEDERATED PENNSYLVANIA MUNICIPAL INCOME FUND
(CLASS B SHARES)
The graph below illustrates the hypothetical investment of $10,000 in
Federated Pennsylvania Municipal Income Fund (Class B Shares) (the
"Fund") from March 4, 1997 (start of performance) to August 31, 1997,
compared to the Lehman Brothers Revenue Bond Index (LBRBI)+.
[GRAPH APPEARS HERE]
PAST PERFORMANCE IS NOT PREDICTIVE OF FUTURE PERFORMANCE. YOUR INVESTMENT RETURN
AND PRINCIPAL VALUE WILL FLUCTUATE SO WHEN SHARES ARE REDEEMED, THEY MAY BE
WORTH MORE OR LESS THAN ORIGINAL COST. MUTUAL FUNDS ARE NOT OBLIGATIONS OF OR
GUARANTEED BY ANY BANK AND ARE NOT FEDERALLY INSURED.
This report must be preceded or accompanied by the Fund's prospectus
dated October 31, 1997, and, together with financial statements
contained therein, constitutes the Fund's annual report.
* Represents a hypothetical investment of $10,000 in the Fund. The
ending value of the Fund reflects a contingent deferred sales
charge of 5.50% on any redemption less than 1 year from the
purchase date. The Fund's performance assumes the reinvestment of
all dividends and distributions. The LBRBI has been adjusted to
reflect reinvestment of dividends on securities in the index.
** Total return quoted reflects all applicable sales charges and
contingent deferred sales charges.
+ The LBRBI is not adjusted to reflect sales charges, expenses, or
other fees that the SEC requires to be reflected in the Fund's
performance. This index is unmanaged.
[LOGO] FEDERATED INVESTORS
Federated Securities Corp., Distributor
Federated Investors Tower
Pittsburgh, PA 15222-3779
1-800-341-7400
www.federatedinvestors.com
Cusip 458810306 [LOGO OF RECYCLED PAPER]
G00967-02 (7/97)
FEDERATED MICHIGAN INTERMEDIATE MUNICIPAL TRUST
Annual Report For Fiscal Year Ended August 31, 1997
MANAGEMENT DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
In general, the market environment for fixed income investments and
municipal bonds over the previous fiscal year was relatively
favorable. Inflation and inflation expectations, which are the major
determinants of nominal interest rates, continued to be very well
behaved. In fact, several inflation indicators actually suggested a
deflationary environment for some markets. Municipal bond yields, as
represented by the Bond Buyer 40 Index*, peaked at 6.06% early in the
fiscal year (September 1996) and then began to trend lower, ending the
reporting period at 5.55% on August 29, 1997. The potentially biggest
threat to the municipal bond market over the fiscal year was the
Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. The impact on the municipal bond market
from the new tax legislation is much more benign than was originally
anticipated. Municipal bonds emerged essentially unscathed. This
favorable legislative treatment combined with lower interest rates,
stable demand, and a relatively limited supply of municipal bonds
provided a firm market environment.
There are several reasons for the municipal bond markets' strong
relative performance this fiscal year. They have to do mostly with the
municipal markets technical position, or the supply and demand for,
municipal bonds. The demand for municipal bonds was relatively stable,
mostly due to strong institutional demand from commercial banks,
property and casualty insurers, and arbitrageurs. Retail buyers or
individuals are the primary component of municipal bond demand. Their
participation in the market over the fiscal year was mixed, but stable
enough to provide an important foundation for municipal bond prices.
Michigan continued to benefit from the prolonged national economic
expansion. Durable goods orders have remained strong and the auto
industry has restructured and reinvested to improve its competitive
position. In addition, the state continued to diversify its economic
base away from manufacturing to trade and services. All of these
factors have stabilized Michigan's traditionally cyclical economy
resulting in historically low unemployment figures and strong growth
in per capita income. Michigan's fiscal position has been prudently
managed. The state has demonstrated an ability to achieve balanced
budgets, high reserves and low debt levels. Spending controls and
higher than budgeted revenues have resulted in a budget stabilization
fund of about $1.1 billion. These "rainy day" funds are at their
highest level in the state's history. The enduring effectiveness of
state financial management will ultimately be tested by the next
economic downturn. The state's fiscal and economic health are
reflected in its current credit ratings. Michigan state is rated Aa
and AA by Moody's Investors Service, Inc. and Standard & Poor's
Ratings Services, respectively.
For the 12-month reporting period ended August 31, 1997, investors in
the fund received a competitive total return of 6.59% based on net
asset value**. In comparison, the Lipper General Municipal Debt Fund
Average total return based on net asset value for the year was
8.83%***.
The fund's performance over the reporting period was driven by its
neutral duration target relative to its benchmark. The fund's core
position in premium, high coupon securities also provided positive
incremental return over the reporting period. Also, sector selection
was a very important factor which had a positive impact on
performance. Bonds from the electric utility, healthcare, and
transportation sectors provided the best relative performance over the
reporting period.
* The Bond Buyer 40 Index is a standard against which municipal
bonds are measured.
** Performance quoted represents past performance and is not
indicative of future results. Investment return and principal
value will fluctuate, so that an investor's shares, when redeemed,
may be worth more or less than their original cost.
*** Lipper figures represent the average of the total returns reported
by all of the mutual funds designated by Lipper Analytical
Services, Inc. as falling into the representative categories
indicated. These figures do not reflect sales charges.
FEDERATED MICHIGAN INTERMEDIATE MUNICIPAL TRUST
GROWTH OF $10,000 INVESTED IN FEDERATED MICHIGAN INTERMEDIATE MUNICIPAL TRUST
The graph below illustrates the hypothetical investment of $10,000 in
Federated Michigan Intermediate Municipal Trust (the "Fund") from
September 18, 1991 (start of performance) to August 31, 1997 compared
to the Lehman Brothers Seven Year State General Obligation Bond Index
(LB7YRSGOBI).+
[GRAPH REPRESENTATION "A4." OMITTED. SEE APPENDIX.]
PAST PERFORMANCE IS NOT PREDICTIVE OF FUTURE PERFORMANCE. YOUR INVESTMENT RETURN
AND PRINCIPAL VALUE WILL FLUCTUATE SO WHEN SHARES ARE REDEEMED, THEY MAY BE
WORTH MORE OR LESS THAN ORIGINAL COST. MUTUAL FUNDS ARE NOT OBLIGATIONS OF OR
GUARANTEED BY ANY BANK AND ARE NOT FEDERALLY INSURED.
This report must be preceded or accompanied by the Fund's prospectus
dated October 31, 1997, and, together with financial statements
contained therein, constitutes the Fund's annual report.
* Represents a hypothetical investment of $10,000 in the Fund after
deducting the maximum sales charge of 3.00% ($10,000 investment
minus $300 sales charge = $ 9,700). The Fund's performance assumes
the reinvestment of all dividends and distributions. The LB7YRSGOBI
has been adjusted to reflect reinvestment of dividends on
securities in the index.
** Total return quoted reflects all applicable sales charges and
contingent deferred sales charges.
+ The LB7YRSGOBI is not adjusted to reflect sales charges, expenses, or other
fees that the SEC requires to be reflected in the Fund's performance. This
index is unmanaged.
[LOGO] FEDERATED INVESTORS
Federated Securities Corp., Distributor
Federated Investors Tower
Pittsburgh, PA 15222-3779
1-800-341-7400
www.federatedinvestors.com
Cusip 625922703 [LOGO OF RECYCLED PAPER]
G01106-03 (10/97)
FEDERATED NEW YORK MUNICIPAL INCOME FUND
(Class F Shares)
Annual Report For Fiscal Year Ended August 31, 1997
MANAGEMENT DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
In general, the market environment for fixed income investments and
municipal bonds over the previous fiscal year was relatively
favorable. Inflation and inflation expectations, which are the major
determinants of nominal interest rates, continued to be very well
behaved. In fact, several inflation indicators actually suggested a
deflationary environment for some markets. Municipal bond yields, as
represented by the Bond Buyer 40 Index*, peaked at 6.06% early in the
fiscal year (September 1996) and then began to trend lower, ending the
reporting period at 5.55% on August 29, 1997. The potentially biggest
threat to the municipal bond market over the fiscal year was the
Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. The impact on the municipal bond market
from the new tax legislation is much more benign than was originally
anticipated. Municipal bonds emerged essentially unscathed. This
favorable legislative treatment combined with lower interest rates,
stable demand, and a relatively limited supply of municipal bonds
provided a firm market environment.
There are several reasons for the municipal bond markets' strong
relative performance this fiscal year. They have to do mostly with the
municipal markets technical position, or the supply and demand for,
municipal bonds. The demand for municipal bonds was relatively stable,
mostly due to strong institutional demand from commercial banks,
property and casualty insurers, and arbitrageurs. Retail buyers or
individuals are the primary component of municipal bond demand. Their
participation in the market over the fiscal year was mixed, but has
been stable enough to provide an important foundation for municipal
bond prices.
This year, New York state's credit improved and the state was awarded
with an upgrade from Standard and Poor's Ratings Services ("S&P"). The
state is currently rated A by both Moody's Investors Service, L.P. and
S&P. The upgrade on New York state's bonds reflects improved financial
operations through this fiscal year. The state has more conservatively
estimated revenues in recent years. In addition, New York's monitoring
and management of the budget during this fiscal year improved, thereby
reducing the risk of budget imbalance. These factors, combined with
increased expenditure restraint and an improved economic climate
fueled by the financial services sector, have continued to contribute
to year-end surpluses in the past six years. Although the state has a
diverse economy that continues to expand modestly and relatively high
income, further rating upgrades could be precluded until significant
financial and budgetary reform is implemented. This could include
on-time budget adoption, ongoing structurally balanced financial
operations, elimination of the state's GAAP- based deficit, and
continued improvement in debt management policies.
For the 12-month reporting period ended August 31, 1997, investors in
the fund's Class F Shares received a competitive total return of
10.13% based on net asset value**. In comparison, the Lipper General
Municipal Debt Fund Average total return based on net asset value for
the year was 8.83%***.
The fund's performance over the reporting period was driven by its
neutral duration target relative to its benchmark. The fund's core
position in premium, high coupon securities also provided positive
incremental return over the reporting period. Also, sector selection
was a very important factor which had a positive impact on
performance. Bonds from the electric utility, healthcare, and
transportation sectors provided the best relative performance over the
reporting period.
* The Bond Buyer 40 Index is a standard against which municipal
bonds are measured.
** Performance quoted represents past performance and is not
indicative of future results. Investment return and principal
value will fluctuate, so that an investor's shares, when redeemed,
may be worth more or less than their original cost.
*** Lipper figures represent the average of the total returns reported
by all of the mutual funds designated by Lipper Analytical
Services, Inc. as falling into the representative categories
indicated. These figures do not reflect sales charges.
FEDERATED NEW YORK MUNICIPAL INCOME FUND
(Class F Shares)
GROWTH OF $10,000 INVESTED IN FEDERATED NEW YORK MUNICIPAL INCOME FUND (CLASS F
SHARES)
The graph below illustrates the hypothetical investment of $10,000 in
Federated New York Municipal Income Fund (Class F Shares) (the "Fund")
from December 2, 1992 (start of performance) to August 31, 1997
compared to the Lehman Brothers Revenue Bond Index (LBRBI)+.
[GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION "A5." OMITTED. SEE APPENDIX]
PAST PERFORMANCE IS NOT PREDICTIVE OF FUTURE PERFORMANCE. YOUR INVESTMENT RETURN
AND PRINCIPAL VALUE WILL FLUCTUATE SO WHEN SHARES ARE REDEEMED, THEY MAY BE
WORTH MORE OR LESS THAN ORIGINAL COST. MUTUAL FUNDS ARE NOT OBLIGATIONS OF OR
GUARANTEED BY ANY BANK AND ARE NOT FEDERALLY INSURED.
This report must be preceded or accompanied by the Fund's prospectus
dated October 31, 1997, and, together with financial statements
contained therein, constitutes the Fund's annual report.
* Represents a hypothetical investment of $10,000 in the Fund after
deducting the maximum sales charge of 1.00% ($10,000 investment
minus $100 sales charge = $9,900). The Fund's performance assumes
the reinvestment of all dividends and distributions. The LBRBI has
been adjusted to reflect reinvestment of dividends on securities
in the index.
** Total return quoted reflects all applicable sales charges and
contingent deferred sales charges.
+ The LBRBI is not adjusted to reflect sales charges, expenses, or
other fees that the SEC requires to be reflected in the Fund's
performance. This index is unmanaged.
[LOGO] FEDERATED INVESTORS
Federated Securities Corp., Distributor
Federated Investors Tower
Pittsburgh, PA 15222-3779
1-800-341-7400
www.federatedinvestors.com
Cusip 625922208 [LOGO OF RECYCLED PAPER]
G01057-03 (10/97)
APPENDIX
FEDERATED PENNSYLVANIA MUNICIPAL INCOME FUND APPENDIX
A1. The graphic presentation here displayed consists of a line graph.
The corresponding components of the line graph are listed underneath.
The Class A Shares of Federated Pennsylvania Municipal Income Fund,
based on a 3.00% sales charge are represented by a solid line. The
Lehman Brothers Revenue Bond Index (the "LBRBI") is represented by a
dotted line. The line graph is a visual representation of a comparison
of change in value of a $10,000 hypothetical investment in the Class A
Shares of the fund, and the LBRBI. The "x" axis reflects computation
periods from 10/11/90 to 8/31/97. The "y" axis, measured in increments
of $1,000 and ranging from $9,000 to $19,000, reflects the cost of the
investment. The right margin reflects the ending value of the
hypothetical investment in the fund's Class A Shares, based on a 3.00%
sales charge, as compared to the LBRBI. The ending values were $16,838
for the fund, and $17,974 for the LBRBI, respectively. The legend in
the bottom quadrant of the graphic presentation indicates the fund's
Class A Shares Average Annual Total Returns, reflecting all applicable
sales charges and contingent deferred sales charge, for the one-year
and five-year periods ended 8/31/97 and from the fund's start of
performance (10/11/90) to 8/31/97. The total returns were 4.25%,
6.15%, and 7.62%, respectively.
A2. The graphic presentation here displayed consists of a line graph.
The corresponding components of the line graph are listed underneath.
The Class B Shares of Federated Pennsylvania Municipal Income Fund,
based on a 5.50% sales charge are represented by a solid line. The
Lehman Brothers Revenue Bond Index (the "LBRBI") is represented by a
dotted line. The line graph is a visual representation of a comparison
of change in value of a $10,000 hypothetical investment in the Class B
Shares of the fund, and the LBRBI. The "x" axis reflects computation
periods from 3/4/97 to 8/31/97. The "y" axis, measured in increments
of $250 and ranging from $9,500 to $10,500, reflects the cost of the
investment. The right margin reflects the ending value of the
hypothetical investment in the fund's Class B Shares, based on a 5.50%
sales charge, as compared to the LBRBI. The ending values were $9,878
for the fund, and $10,430 for the LBRBI, respectively. The legend in
the bottom quadrant of the graphic presentation indicates the fund's
Class B Shares Average Annual Total Return, reflecting all applicable
sales charges and contingent deferred sales charge, from the fund's
start of performance (3/4/97) to 8/31/97. The total return was
(-1.21%) respectively.
FEDERATED OHIO MUNICIPAL INCOME FUND APPENDIX
A3. The graphic presentation here displayed consists of a line graph.
The corresponding components of the line graph are listed underneath.
The Class F Shares of Federated Ohio Municipal Income Fund, based on a
1.00% sales charge are represented by a solid line. The Lehman
Brothers Revenue Bond Index (the "LBRBI") is represented by a dotted
line. The line graph is a visual representation of a comparison of
change in value of a $10,000 hypothetical investment in the Class F
Shares of the fund, and the LBRBI. The "x" axis reflects computation
periods from 10/12/90 to 8/31/97. The "y" axis measured in increments
of $1,000 and ranging from $9,000 to $18,000, reflects the cost of the
investment. The right margin reflects the ending value of the
hypothetical investment in the fund's Class F Shares, based on a 1.00%
sales charge, as compared to the LBRBI. The ending values were $16,603
for the fund, and $17,974 for the LBRBI, respectively. The legend in
the bottom quadrant of the graphic presentation indicates the fund's
Class F Shares Average Annual Total Returns, reflecting all applicable
sales charges and contingent deferred sales charge, for the one-year
and five-year periods ended 8/31/97 and from the fund's start of
performance (10/12/90) to 8/31/97. The total returns were 6.27%,
6.35%, and 7.64%, respectively.
FEDERATED MICHIGAN INTERMEDIATE MUNICIPAL TRUST
A4. The graphic presentation here displayed consists of a line graph.
The corresponding components of the line graph are listed underneath.
The Shares of Federated Michigan Intermediate Municipal Trust, based
on a 3.00% sales charge are represented by a solid line. The Lehman
Brothers Seven Year State General Obligation Bond Index (the
"LB7YRSGOBI") is represented by a dotted line. The line graph is a
visual representation of a comparison of change in value of a $10,000
hypothetical investment in the Shares of the fund, and the LB7YRSGOBI.
The "x" axis reflects computation periods from 9/18/91 (start of
performance) to 8/31/97. The "y" axis measured in increments of $1,000
and ranging from $9,000 to $15,000, reflects the cost of the
investment. The right margin reflects the ending value of the
hypothetical investment in the fund's Shares, based on a 3.00% sales
charge, as compared to the LB7YRSGOBI. The ending values were $14,281
for the fund, and $14,872 for the LB7YRSGOBI, respectively. The legend
in the bottom quadrant of the graphic presentation indicates the
fund's Shares Average Annual Total Returns, reflecting all applicable
sales charges and contingent deferred sales charge, for the one-year
and five-year periods ended 8/31/97 and from the fund's start of
performance (9/18/91) to 8/31/97. The total returns were 3.40%, 5.44%,
and 6.17%, respectively.
FEDERATED NEW YORK MUNICIPAL INCOME FUND
A5. The graphic presentation here displayed consists of a line graph.
The corresponding components of the line graph are listed underneath.
The Class F Shares of Federated New York Municipal Income Fund, based
on a 1.00% sales charge are represented by a solid line. The Lehman
Brothers Revenue Bond Index (the "LBRBI") is represented by a dotted
line. The line graph is a visual representation of a comparison of
change in value of a $10,000 hypothetical investment in the Class F
Shares of the fund, and the LBRBI. The "x" axis reflects computation
periods from 12/2/92 (start of performance) to 8/31/97. The "y" axis
measured in increments of $1,000 and ranging from $9,000 to $15,000,
reflects the cost of the investment. The right margin reflects the
ending value of the hypothetical investment in the fund's Class F
Shares, based on a 1.00% sales charge, as compared to the LBRBI. The
ending values were $13,700 for the fund, and $14,062 for the LBRBI,
respectively. The legend in the bottom quadrant of the graphic
presentation indicates the fund's Class F Shares Average Annual Total
Returns, reflecting all applicable sales charges and contingent
deferred sales charge, for the one-year period ended 8/31/97 and from
the fund's start of performance (12/2/92) to 8/31/97. The total
returns were 8.04% and 6.86%, respectively.
