MERRILL LYNCH
MULTI-STATE
LIMITED
MATURITY
MUNICIPAL
SERIES TRUST
Quarterly Report April 30, 1994
This report is not authorized for use as an offer of sale
or a solicitation of an offer to buy shares of the Fund
unless accompanied or preceded by the Fund's current
prospectus. Past performance results shown in this
report should not be considered a representation of
future performance. Investment return and principal
value of shares will fluctuate so that shares, when
redeemed, may be worth more or less than their original
cost.
Merrill Lynch Multi-State
Limited Maturity
Municipal Series Trust
Box 9011
Princeton, NJ
08543-9011
<PAGE>
Merrill Lynch Multi-State Limited Maturity Municipal Series Trust
Officers and
Trustees
Arthur Zeikel, President and Trustee
Kenneth S. Axelson, Trustee
Herbert I. London, Trustee
Robert R. Martin, Trustee
Joseph L. May, Trustee
Andre F. Perold, Trustee
Terry K. Glenn, Executive Vice President
Vincent R. Giordano, Senior Vice President
Donald C. Burke, Vice President
Peter J. Hayes, Vice President
Kenneth A. Jacob, Vice President
Gerald M. Richard, Treasurer
Robert Harris, Secretary
Custodian
The Bank of New York
110 Washington Street
New York, New York 10286
Transfer Agent
Financial Data Services, Inc.
4800 Deer Lake Drive East
Jacksonville, Florida 32246-6484
(800) 637-3863
<PAGE>
TO OUR SHAREHOLDERS
The Municipal Market
During the three months ended April 30, 1994, yields on intermediate-
term tax-exempt bonds rose to their highest level in the past two
years, as interest rates on newly issued municipal bonds maturing in
five years rose over 90 basis points (0.90%) for the period. Yields
on seasoned municipal revenue bonds rose by over 100 basis points in
sympathy with the more dramatic increase in US Treasury bond yields.
During the April quarter, the yield on the five-year US Treasury
note rose by over 160 basis points to approximately 6.62%.
Following the initial interest rate increase by the Federal Reserve
Board in early February (the first such tightening in five years),
municipal bond prices began to erode in concert with taxable bond
prices as investors began to sell securities in anticipation of
further interest rate increases. This fear led investors to withdraw
from the tax-exempt market. From early February to the end of March,
total assets of all tax-exempt bond funds declined by $14 billion to
$247 billion. This decline in investor demand, coupled with fears
that the robust economic recovery seen during the fourth quarter of
1993 would continue well into 1994, helped push municipal bond
yields higher in February and March. The Federal Reserve Board
undertook two additional tightenings during the April quarter, for a
total increase in the Federal Funds rate of 75 basis points.
However, investor demand returned in April, causing municipal rates
to stabilize somewhat.
<PAGE>
The magnitude of the rise in tax-exempt bond yields experienced over
the past quarter has not been seen since 1987 when municipal bond
rates rose 250 basis points between March and October of that year.
It is very important to note that the municipal bond price declines
in the April quarter, while certainly damaging, were essentially
much different than the 1987 episode. Recent price declines were
largely the result of persistent selling pressures over the last two
months. In 1987, the tax-exempt bond market was much more volatile
and, at times, chaotic as investors sought to liquidate positions
without concern for fundamental value. For the most part, the recent
price deterioration has been orderly, and the municipal bond
market's liquidity and integrity have not been challenged or
jeopardized.
To a large extent, the municipal bond market has continued to be
supported by its strong technical position. New-issue volume during
the April quarter declined by more than 40% versus the comparable
period a year ago. Less than $45 billion in long-term municipal
bonds were issued during the April quarter. We expect this decline
in issuance to continue this year, as recent yield increases
significantly impact future municipal bond issuance. This expected
decline in issuance has minimized potential selling pressure in
recent months since institutional investors have been wary of
selling appreciable amounts of securities that they may be unable to
replace later this year at any price level. Just as higher mortgage
rates slow home mortgage refinancings, the recent rise in bond
yields will prevent bond refinancings from becoming the driving
force in bond issuance in 1994 as they were in 1993.
Despite recent price declines, tax-exempt securities remain an
attractive investment alternative. After the recent yield increases,
intermediate-term municipal securities yielded approximately 80% of
comparable US Treasury yields. Purchasers of these municipal bonds
also accrue substantial after-tax yield advantages. To investors in
the 39.6% marginal Federal income tax bracket, the purchase of a ten-
year municipal bond yielding 5.60% represents an after-tax equivalent
of 9.27%. With prevailing estimates of 1994 inflation at no more than
3%--4%, real after-tax rates in excess of 5.25% may look attractive
to intermediate-term investors despite the price volatility recently
experienced.
<PAGE>
Portfolio Strategy
Merrill Lynch Arizona Limited Maturity
Municipal Bond Fund
The State of Arizona's economy continues to gain strength and reap
the benefit of a rebound in construction, an increase in tourism and
growth in the high technology sector, as well as a migration of
business from neighboring California. Also during the April quarter,
Republican Governor Fyfe Symington announced his plan to cut
personal income taxes by as much as $100 million this year. Bond
issuance within the State was $650 million during the April quarter,
representing approximately 50% of the issuance as compared to the
same period in 1993.
During the April quarter, the Fund continued to maintain a defensive
posture, raising cash reserves from 25% of net assets at the onset
of the quarter to almost 50% by mid-quarter. As a consequence, we
reduced the Fund's average portfolio maturity from 3 years, 6 months
to 1 year, 9 months. This strategy enabled the Fund to limit the
drop in its net asset value somewhat, despite the dramatic rise in
interest rates.
Merrill Lynch California Limited
Maturity Municipal Bond Fund
During the quarter ended April 30, 1994, the State of California
began to show signs that the long recession may be drawing to a
close. According to the State Department of Finance, 29,000 jobs
have been added since the beginning of the year, with almost all of
the growth concentrated in construction, wholesale and retail
trade, and services.
The San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank reported that March and April
construction spending increased by 9%, although those figures could
be related to rebuilding resulting from the earthquake. Over the
long term, the State must show evidence of a continued commitment to
restoring its financial health. The Governor's proposed budget for
the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1994 is very ambiguous, with 75%
of the proposed revenues needed to close an expected $4.9 billion
cash gap coming from the Federal government and other sources
outside of the California legislature.
<PAGE>
During the April quarter, we continued to maintain a very cautious
approach to investing the Fund's assets. The Federal Reserve Board
tightened monetary policy three times during the quarter, raising
the Federal Funds rate from 3.00% to 3.75%, with additional rate
hikes expected. We maintained the Fund's average portfolio maturity
at 3.3 years through most of the April quarter, with the Fund
maintaining cash equivalent securities of approximately 45% of net
assets. We reduced this cash position to approximately 32% by
quarter-end and extended the Fund's maturity to 3.8 years to seek to
take advantage of higher-yielding California bonds. For example, at
the Fund's inception a five-year AA-rated California bond yielded
4.20%. Currently, that same parameter California bond can be
purchased with a yield of 5.00%. The Fund's net assets stood at
approximately $14.7 million on April 30, 1994, a slight decrease
from the $14.9 million in net assets on January 31, 1994.
Diversification, credit quality, and yield remain paramount in
importance to the Fund, and we will continue to closely monitor the
everchanging marketplace.
Merrill Lynch Florida Limited Maturity
Municipal Bond Fund
During the quarter ended April 30, 1994, the State of Florida
continued to rebound out of the recession faster than other states
because of the increase in population and job growth caused by the
rebuilding following Hurricane Andrew as well as the upturn in the
national economy. Governor Lawton Chiles' proposed $38.0 billion
biennial budget for fiscal 1995 was introduced to the legislature in
early April and passed in late April. The proposed budget projects
an increase in general revenue spending of $730.0 million, or 5.5%
more than the prior year, and general revenues are projected to
increase by $924.0 million, or 7.0% from fiscal year 1993. Florida
ended fiscal year 1993 with a surplus of $435.5 million.
The State is currently fighting its tourism slowdown, largely caused
by increasing reports of crime, by launching an advertising plan
along with increased police presence in troubled areas. The Chiles
Administration and the legislative branch have contributed to the
improving financial condition of the State by curtailing Medicaid
costs, reducing and controlling the State employee base and
establishing a Budget Stabilization Fund which becomes effective in
1995.
<PAGE>
We continued to maintain a very cautious approach to investing the
Fund's assets during the April quarter. The Federal Reserve Board
tightened monetary policy three times during the quarter, raising
the Federal Funds rate from 3.00% to 3.75%, with additional interest
rate hikes expected. Throughout most of the April quarter, we
maintained the Fund's average portfolio maturity at 3.1 years, with
the Fund maintaining cash equivalent securities of approximately 35%
of net assets. We reduced the Fund's cash position to approximately
25% by quarter-end and extended the Fund's average portfolio
maturity to 3.5 years to seek to take advantage of higher-yielding
Florida bonds. For example, at the Fund's inception, a five-year Aa
rated Florida bond yielded approximately 4.10%. At the end of the
quarter, that same parameter Florida bond could be purchased with a
yield of approximately 4.90%. The Fund's net assets stood at
approximately $33.4 million on April 30, 1994, a 12% decline from
the $38.3 million in assets on January 31, 1994. Diversification,
credit quality and yield remain paramount in importance to the Fund,
and we will continue to closely monitor the everchanging
marketplace.
Merrill Lynch Massachusetts Limited
Maturity Municipal Bond Fund
In addition to the traditional economic base provided by the
healthcare and education sectors, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
has experienced improvements in the banking, financial services and
housing industries, as well as the biomedical technology field. This
growth contributed to the decline in the seasonally adjusted
unemployment rate to 6.1% through April 30, 1994, revised from 7.2%
in January of 1994 and slightly below the national average of 6.4%.
However, the merger of two of Massachusetts' largest employers,
Massachusetts General Hospital and Brigham and Women's Hospital,
coupled with potential bank mergers, a declining national defense
industry and rising interest rates could curtail future gains in
employment. In addition, the Commonwealth recently experienced
sluggish tax revenue collection as a result of a very harsh winter
and its economic impact. Despite this temporary situation, however,
the tax revenue stream for fiscal year 1994 is running more than 7%
above last year, which has assisted Governor Weld in proposing a
$16.1 billion balanced budget for fiscal year 1995.
<PAGE>
During the April quarter, the Fund maintained a very defensive
posture against the rising interest rate environment. The Fund's
cash position ranged from 25% to 45% of net assets, and its average
portfolio maturity remained in the 1.5-year range throughout most of
the period. This strategy allowed the Fund to limit the drop in its
net asset value somewhat, despite the dramatic rise in interest
rates. In the July quarter we will carefully monitor the fixed-
income markets for signs that the current bear market in interest
rates is abating, with the intention of extending the Fund's average
portfolio maturity and locking in at these higher yields should the
opportunity present itself.
Merrill Lynch Michigan Limited
Maturity Municipal Bond Fund
During the quarter ended April 30, 1994, the State of Michigan
continued its strong economic performance led by strong automobile
sales. The "Big 3" domestic automakers are projecting new vehicle
sales at an annual rate of 15.8 million units, up from a projection
of 14.9 million units in fourth quarter 1993. According to the
Michigan Employment Security Commission, the State's jobless rate
averaged 7.0% for 1993 and 6.7% for first quarter 1994, significant
declines from 1992's rate of 8.8%.
On March 15, 1994, Michigan voters approved a proposal to increase
the state sales tax from 4% to 6% and to use additional tax proceeds
as a substitute for real property taxes, which earlier had been
largely eliminated as an operating revenue for public schools. The
adopted proposition replaces $6.75 billion in local school property
taxes with $1.8 billion in sales tax revenue, $1.3 billion in non-
homestead property taxes, $1.0 billion in a state-wide property tax
levy, $700 million in other local property tax levies and $1.1
billion in other tax actions including increased taxes on tobacco
products.
<PAGE>
During the April quarter, we continued to maintain a very cautious
approach to investing the Fund's assets. The Federal Reserve Board
tightened monetary policy three times during the April quarter,
raising the Federal Funds rate from 3.00% to 3.75%, with additional
interest rate hikes expected. During most of the April quarter, we
maintained a relatively defensive average portfolio maturity of
approximately 2.3 years and maintained the Fund's cash equivalent
securities at approximately 50% of net assets. We reduced this cash
position to approximately 34% by quarter-end and extended the Fund's
average portfolio maturity to three years to seek to take advantage
of higher-yielding Michigan bonds. For example, at the Fund's
inception, a five-year Aa-rated Michigan bond yielded approximately
4.15%. At the end of the quarter, that same parameter Michigan bond
could be purchased with a yield of approximately 5.00%. The Fund's
net assets stood at approximately $6.2 million on April 30, 1994, an
8% increase from the $5.7 million in net assets on January 31, 1994.
Merrill Lynch New Jersey Limited
Maturity Municipal Bond Fund
During the quarter ended April 30, 1994, bond issuance within the
State of New Jersey was $832 million. Although this was an increase
from the final quarter of 1993, it represents roughly half of the
issuance in the corresponding quarter of 1993. During the April
quarter, Governor Christine Todd Whitman released her budget for
fiscal year 1995, which totaled $15.8 billion. In her budget Whitman
addressed the redistribution of aid to schools from wealthy to
poorer districts and the potential privatization of state-run day
care centers. Whitman also proposed that the sale of two of the
State's four marinas and the incorporation of a surplus in the
public employment pension and health programs could replace the
revenues lost by the 5% personal income tax cuts she announced at
the beginning of 1994.
During the April quarter, we increased the Fund's cash reserves from
15% of net assets at the onset of the quarter to 48% by mid-quarter.
We sold discounted bonds and replaced them with high-quality pre-
refunded bonds, providing the Fund with greater current income and
greater liquidity. In implementing this policy, we decreased the
Fund's average portfolio maturity from 4 years at the onset of the
quarter to 1 year, 7 months by quarter-end. This strategy allowed
the Fund to limit the drop in its net asset value somewhat, despite
the dramatic rise in interest rates.
<PAGE>
Merrill Lynch New York Limited
Maturity Municipal Bond Fund
During the quarter ended April 30, 1994, the State of New York
continued to slowly recover from the recession that began in 1989.
More than 10,000 jobs have been created since early 1993, with the
service and trade sectors accounting for most of the gains. Health
and business services remained strong as weather-affected
construction jobs started to pick up in March. The outlook for
economic growth in 1994 for New York State is moderate, with
cutbacks in industrial, utility, local government and defense
sectors holding back stronger growth. The State's projected surplus
for 1993--1994 came in at approximately $411 million. This surplus
has created one problem, however. As a result of political
infighting over the allocation of this surplus, the New York
Legislature has failed to end its impasse over the State's $33
billion budget, which is four weeks overdue. The Legislature's
failure to approve a budget has caused problems for local
governments, including New York City, which are planning their
respective budgets without knowing how much State aid they will
receive. The impasse also has caused the State to fall behind on
several payments to the Federal government, thus causing the State
to incur late charges.
During the April quarter, we continued to maintain a very cautious
approach to investing the Fund's assets. The Federal Reserve Board
tightened monetary policy three times during the April quarter,
raising the Federal Funds rate from 3.00% to 3.75%, with additional
interest rate hikes expected. During most of the April quarter, we
maintained an average portfolio maturity of 2.75 years and maintained
the Fund's cash equivalent securities at approximately 45% of net
assets. We reduced this cash position to approximately 33% by quarter-
end and extended the Fund's average portfolio maturity to 3.4 years
to seek to take advantage of higher-yielding New York bonds. For
example, at the Fund's inception, a five-year AA-rated New York bond
yielded approximately 4.25%. At the end of the quarter, that same
parameter New York bond could be purchased with a yield of approxi-
mately 5.00%. The Fund's net assets stood at about $14.3 million on
April 30, 1994, almost a 10% increase from the $12.8 million in net
assets on January 31, 1994. Diversification, credit quality and yield
remain paramount in importance to the Fund, and we will continue to
closely monitor the everchanging marketplace.
<PAGE>
Merrill Lynch Pennsylvania Limited
Maturity Municipal Bond Fund
During the April quarter, Pennsylvania's Governor Casey proposed a
$15.7 billion balanced budget for fiscal year 1995, which would
allow spending increases of approximately 4.1% as compared to fiscal
year 1994's budget. The majority of the increase comes from
appropriations to medical assistance programs. In an effort to
control the escalation of costs for these medical assistance
programs, the Casey Administration has recommended the tightening of
eligibility criteria for State-financed welfare benefits. The
proposed fiscal 1995 budget also includes an increase in revenues of
4.7% over the current fiscal year, based on the expectation that the
national economy will continue to improve, albeit slowly. These
revenue projections do not take into account the effect of a
proposed reduction in the corporate net income tax rate of 2.25%
over three years.
During the April quarter, Pennsylvania issuance increased
significantly as compared to the January quarter, bolstered by the
competitive sale of $788.9 million Pennsylvania general obligation
bonds. Total issuance for the April quarter was $2.8 billion.
Despite the increase, this issuance was 37% lower than the
corresponding period of the previous year. The Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania indicated that it intends to issue an estimated $700
million--$800 million in general obligation bonds in the upcoming
months.
During the April quarter, we continued to maintain a defensive
posture. We increased the Fund's cash position from 20% in the first
week of the quarter to approximately 50% in mid February. Our
purchases during the quarter consisted of high-quality prerefunded
bonds and insured bonds, both of which provide liquidity to the Fund
because of their AAA-rating. In addition, prerefunded bonds provide
a higher level of current income. Throughout the April quarter, we
maintained the Fund's average portfolio maturity at just under two
years, and at quarter-end 50% of the Fund's assets was invested in
securities rated AA or better by Moody's Investors Service, Inc. or
Standard & Poor's Corporation. This strategy has allowed the Fund to
limit the drop in net asset value somewhat, despite the dramatic
rise in interest rates.
In Conclusion
We appreciate your interest in Merrill Lynch Multi-State Limited
Maturity Municipal Series Trust, and we look forward to assisting
you with your financial needs in the months and years ahead.
Sincerely,
(Arthur Zeikel)
Arthur Zeikel
President
(Vincent R. Giordano)
Vincent R. Giordano
Senior Vice President and
Portfolio Manager
May 26, 1994
<PAGE>
PERFORMANCE DATA
None of the past results shown should be considered a representation
of future performance. Investment return and principal value of
Class A and Class B Shares will fluctuate so that shares, when
redeemed, may be worth more or less than their original cost.
<TABLE>
Recent
Performance
Results*
<CAPTION>
Total Standardized
Since Return 3 Month 30-day Yield
Inception 3 Month Since Total As of
4/30/94 1/31/94 11/26/93** Change % Change Inception Return 4/30/94
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C>
Arizona Limited Maturity Class A Shares $9.95 $10.08 $10.00 -0.50% -1.29% +0.91%(1) -0.49%(2) 3.68%
Arizona Limited Maturity Class B Shares 9.95 10.08 10.00 -0.50 -1.29 +0.76(3) -0.58(4) 3.37
California Limited Maturity Class A Shares 9.85 10.11 10.00 -1.50 -2.57 -0.07(5) -1.73(6) 3.66
California Limited Maturity Class B Shares 9.85 10.11 10.00 -1.50 -2.57 -0.22(7) -1.82(8) 3.35
Florida Limited Maturity Class A Shares 9.84 10.07 10.00 -1.60 -2.28 -0.16(9) -1.43(10) 3.92
Florida Limited Maturity Class B Shares 9.84 10.07 10.00 -1.60 -2.28 -0.31(11) -1.51(12) 3.61
Massachusetts Limited Maturity Class A Shares 9.94 10.05 10.00 -0.60 -1.09 +0.92(13) -0.20(14) 3.83
Massachusetts Limited Maturity Class B Shares 9.94 10.05 10.00 -0.60 -1.09 +0.77(15) -0.29(16) 3.51
Michigan Limited Maturity Class A Shares 9.89 10.08 10.00 -1.10 -1.88 +0.34(17) -1.07(18) 3.52
Michigan Limited Maturity Class B Shares 9.89 10.08 10.00 -1.10 -1.88 +0.19(19) -1.16(20) 3.20
New Jersey Limited Maturity Class A Shares 9.91 10.06 10.00 -0.90 -1.49 +0.47(21) -0.69(22) 3.41
New Jersey Limited Maturity Class B Shares 9.91 10.07 10.00 -0.90 -1.59 +0.32(23) -0.88(24) 3.10
New York Limited Maturity Class A Shares 9.84 10.10 10.00 -1.60 -2.57 -0.09(25) -1.70(26) 3.69
New York Limited Maturity Class B Shares 9.84 10.10 10.00 -1.60 -2.57 -0.24(27) -1.79(28) 3.38
Pennsylvania Limited Maturity Class A Shares 9.93 10.07 10.00 -0.70 -1.39 +0.67(29) -0.58(30) 3.57
Pennsylvania Limited Maturity Class B Shares 9.93 10.07 10.00 -0.70 -1.39 +0.52(31) -0.67(32) 3.25
<PAGE>
<FN>
*Investment results shown for the 3-month and since inception periods are before the deduction
of any sales charges.
**Commencement of operations.
(1)Percent change includes reinvestment of $0.131 per share ordinary income dividends.
(2)Percent change includes reinvestment of $0.080 per share ordinary income dividends.
(3)Percent change includes reinvestment of $0.116 per share ordinary income dividends.
(4)Percent change includes reinvestment of $0.072 per share ordinary income dividends.
(5)Percent change includes reinvestment of $0.134 per share ordinary income dividends.
(6)Percent change includes reinvestment of $0.085 per share ordinary income dividends.
(7)Percent change includes reinvestment of $0.119 per share ordinary income dividends.
(8)Percent change includes reinvestment of $0.076 per share ordinary income dividends.
(9)Percent change includes reinvestment of $0.134 per share ordinary income dividends.
(10)Percent change includes reinvestment of $0.087 per share ordinary income dividends.
(11)Percent change includes reinvestment of $0.120 per share ordinary income dividends.
(12)Percent change includes reinvestment of $0.078 per share ordinary income dividends.
(13)Percent change includes reinvestment of $0.142 per share ordinary income dividends.
(14)Percent change includes reinvestment of $0.089 per share ordinary income dividends.
(15)Percent change includes reinvestment of $0.127 per share ordinary income dividends.
(16)Percent change includes reinvestment of $0.080 per share ordinary income dividends.
(17)Percent change includes reinvestment of $0.134 per share ordinary income dividends.
(18)Percent change includes reinvestment of $0.082 per share ordinary income dividends.
(19)Percent change includes reinvestment of $0.120 per share ordinary income dividends.
(20)Percent change includes reinvestment of $0.073 per share ordinary income dividends.
(21)Percent change includes reinvestment of $0.127 per share ordinary income dividends.
(22)Percent change includes reinvestment of $0.080 per share ordinary income dividends.
(23)Percent change includes reinvestment of $0.113 per share ordinary income dividends.
(24)Percent change includes reinvestment of $0.072 per share ordinary income dividends.
(25)Percent change includes reinvestment of $0.142 per share ordinary income dividends.
(26)Percent change includes reinvestment of $0.088 per share ordinary income dividends.
(27)Percent change includes reinvestment of $0.127 per share ordinary income dividends.
(28)Percent change includes reinvestment of $0.079 per share ordinary income dividends.
(29)Percent change includes reinvestment of $0.127 per share ordinary income dividends.
(30)Percent change includes reinvestment of $0.081 per share ordinary income dividends.
(31)Percent change includes reinvestment of $0.112 per share ordinary income dividends.
(32)Percent change includes reinvestment of $0.073 per share ordinary income dividends.
</TABLE>
Aggregate
Total Returns
Arizona Limited Maturity
% Return Without % Return With
Class A Shares* Sales Charge Sales Charge**
Inception (11/26/93)
through 3/31/94 +0.29% -0.71%
<PAGE>
California Limited Maturity
% Return Without % Return With
Class A Shares* Sales Charge Sales Charge**
Inception (11/26/93)
through 3/31/94 -0.81% -1.81%
Florida Limited Maturity
% Return Without % Return With
Class A Shares* Sales Charge Sales Charge**
Inception (11/26/93)
through 3/31/94 -0.80% -1.80%
Massachusetts Limited Maturity
% Return Without % Return With
Class A Shares* Sales Charge Sales Charge**
Inception (11/26/93)
through 3/31/94 +0.29% -0.71%
Michigan Limited Maturity
% Return Without % Return With
Class A Shares* Sales Charge Sales Charge**
Inception (11/26/93)
through 3/31/94 -0.48% -1.48%
New Jersey Limited Maturity
% Return Without % Return With
Class A Shares* Sales Charge Sales Charge**
Inception (11/26/93)
through 3/31/94 -0.04% -1.04%
<PAGE>
New York Limited Maturity
% Return Without % Return With
Class A Shares* Sales Charge Sales Charge**
Inception (11/26/93)
through 3/31/94 -0.64% -1.63%
Pennsylvania Limited Maturity
% Return Without % Return With
Class A Shares* Sales Charge Sales Charge**
Inception (11/26/93)
through 3/31/94 +0.16% -0.84%
[FN]
*Maximum sales charge is 1%.
**Assuming maximum sales charge.
Aggregate
Total Returns
Arizona Limited Maturity
% Return % Return
Class B Shares* Without CDSC With CDSC**
Inception (11/26/93)
through 3/31/94 +0.18% -0.82%
California Limited Maturity
% Return % Return
Class B Shares* Without CDSC With CDSC**
Inception (11/26/93)
through 3/31/94 -0.93% -1.93%
<PAGE>
Florida Limited Maturity
% Return % Return
Class B Shares* Without CDSC With CDSC**
Inception (11/26/93)
through 3/31/94 -0.92% -1.92%
Massachusetts Limited Maturity
% Return % Return
Class B Shares* Without CDSC With CDSC**
Inception (11/26/93)
through 3/31/94 +0.18% -0.82%
Michigan Limited Maturity
% Return % Return
Class B Shares* Without CDSC With CDSC**
Inception (11/26/93)
through 3/31/94 -0.59% -1.59%
New Jersey Limited Maturity
% Return % Return
Class B Shares* Without CDSC With CDSC**
Inception (11/26/93)
through 3/31/94 -0.05% -1.05%
New York Limited Maturity
% Return % Return
Class B Shares* Without CDSC With CDSC**
Inception (11/26/93)
through 3/31/94 -0.75% -1.75%
<PAGE>
Pennsylvania Limited Maturity
% Return % Return
Class B Shares* Without CDSC With CDSC**
Inception (11/26/93)
through 3/31/94 +0.05% -0.95%
[FN]
*Maximum contingent deferred sales charge is 1% and reduced to 0%
after one year.
**Assuming payment of applicable contingent deferred sales charge.
PORTFOLIO COMPOSITION
Arizona
Limited Maturity
Municipal
Bond Fund
For the Quarter Ended April 30, 1994
Distribution by Market Sector*
Other Revenue Bonds 55.2%
General Obligation & Tax Revenue Bonds 29.7
Utility Revenue Bonds 8.3
Prerefunded Bonds** 6.8
--------
Total 100.0%
========
Net assets as of April 30, 1994 were $6,638,019.
[FN]
*Based on total market value of the portfolio as of April 30, 1994.
**Backed by a fund holding US Treasury or other high-quality securities.
++Temporary investments in short-term municipal securities.
GRAPHIC AND IMAGE MATERIALS APPEAR HERE.
SEE APPENDIX ITEM 1.
California
Limited Maturity
Municipal
Bond Fund
For the Quarter Ended April 30, 1994
Distribution by Market Sector*
General Obligation & Tax Revenue Bonds 47.2%
Other Revenue Bonds 41.5
Utility Revenue Bonds 6.0
Prerefunded Bonds** 5.3
--------
Total 100.0%
========
Net assets as of April 30, 1994 were $14,779,698.
[FN]
*Based on total market value of the portfolio as of April 30, 1994.
**Backed by a fund holding USTreasury or other high-quality securities.
++Temporary investments in short-term municipal securities.
GRAPHIC AND IMAGE MATERIALS APPEAR HERE.
SEE APPENDIX ITEM 2.
<PAGE>
Florida
Limited Maturity
Municipal
Bond Fund
For the Quarter Ended April 30, 1994
Distribution by Market Sector*
General Obligation & Tax Revenue Bonds 39.2%
Other Revenue Bonds 29.8
Prerefunded Bonds** 20.2
Utility Revenue Bonds 10.8
--------
Total 100.0%
========
Net assets as of April 30, 1994 were $33,491,844.
[FN]
*Based on total market value of the portfolio as of April 30, 1994.
**Backed by a fund holding US Treasury or other high-quality securities.
++Temporary investments in short-term municipal securities.
GRAPHIC AND IMAGE MATERIALS APPEAR HERE.
SEE APPENDIX ITEM 3.
Massachusetts
Limited Maturity
Municipal
Bond Fund
For the Quarter Ended April 30, 1994
Distribution by Market Sector*
General Obligation & Tax Revenue Bonds 38.2%
Other Revenue Bonds 36.1
Utility Revenue Bonds 13.4
Prerefunded Bonds** 12.3
--------
Total 100.0%
========
Net assets as of April 30, 1994 were $15,535,450.
[FN]
*Based on total market value of the portfolio as of April 30, 1994.
**Backed by a fund holding US Treasury or other high-quality securities.
++Temporary investments in short-term municipal securities.
<PAGE>
GRAPHIC AND IMAGE MATERIALS APPEAR HERE.
SEE APPENDIX ITEM 4.
PORTFOLIO COMPOSITION (concluded)
Michigan
Limited Maturity
Municipal
Bond Fund
For the Quarter Ended April 30, 1994
Distribution by Market Sector*
General Obligation & Tax Revenue Bonds 48.5%
Other Revenue Bonds 48.5
Utility Revenue Bonds 3.0
--------
Total 100.0%
========
Net assets as of April 30, 1994 were $6,206,267.
[FN]
*Based on total market value of the portfolio as of April 30, 1994.
++Temporary investments in short-term municipal securities.
GRAPHIC AND IMAGE MATERIALS APPEAR HERE.
SEE APPENDIX ITEM 5.
<PAGE>
New Jersey
Limited Maturity
Municipal
Bond Fund
For the Quarter Ended April 30, 1994
Distribution by Market Sector*
General Obligation & Tax Revenue Bonds 42.7%
Other Revenue Bonds 31.4
Prerefunded Bonds** 22.3
Utility Revenue Bonds 3.6
--------
Total 100.0%
========
Net assets as of April 30, 1994 were $14,451,577.
[FN]
*Based on total market value of the portfolio as of April 30, 1994.
**Backed by a fund holding US Treasury or other high-quality securities.
++Temporary investments in short-term municipal securities.
GRAPHIC AND IMAGE MATERIALS APPEAR HERE.
SEE APPENDIX ITEM 6.
New York
Limited Maturity
Municipal
Bond Fund
For the Quarter Ended April 30, 1994
Distribution by Market Sector*
General Obligation & Tax Revenue Bonds 42.0%
Utility Revenue Bonds 35.0
Other Revenue Bonds 23.0
--------
Total 100.0%
========
Net assets as of April 30, 1994 were $14,324,803.
[FN]
*Based on total market value of the portfolio as of April 30, 1994.
++Temporary investments in short-term municipal securities.
<PAGE>
GRAPHIC AND IMAGE MATERIALS APPEAR HERE.
SEE APPENDIX ITEM 7.
Pennsylvania
Limited Maturity
Municipal
Bond Fund
For the Quarter Ended April 30, 1994
Distribution by Market Sector*
Prerefunded Bonds** 35.5%
General Obligation & Tax Revenue Bonds 34.3
Other Revenue Bonds 25.4
Utility Revenue Bonds 4.8
--------
Total 100.0%
========
Net assets as of April 30, 1994 were $10,597,326.
[FN]
*Based on total market value of the portfolio as of April 30, 1994.
**Backed by a fund holding US Treasury or other high-quality securities.
++Temporary investments in short-term municipal securities.
GRAPHIC AND IMAGE MATERIALS APPEAR HERE.
SEE APPENDIX ITEM 8.
APPENDIX: GRAPHIC AND IMAGE MATERIALS.
ITEM 1:
Arizona Limited Maturity Municipal Bond Fund
Quality Ratings*
(Based on Nationally Recognized Rating Services)
A pie chart illustrating the following percentages:
AAA/Aaa 22%
AA/Aa 22%
A/A 15%
Other++ 41%
[FN]
*Based on total market value of the portfolio as of April 30, 1994.
++Temporary investments in short-term municipal securities.
<PAGE>
California Limited Maturity Municipal Bond Fund
Quality Ratings*
(Based on Nationally Recognized Rating Services)
A pie chart illustrating the following percentages:
AAA/Aaa 26%
AA/Aa 32%
A/A 12%
Other++ 30%
[FN]
*Based on total market value of the portfolio as of April 30, 1994.
++Temporary investments in short-term municipal securities.
Florida Limited Maturity Municipal Bond Fund
Quality Ratings*
(Based on Nationally Recognized Rating Services)
A pie chart illustrating the following percentages:
AAA/Aaa 41%
AA/Aa 31%
A/A 3%
Other++ 25%
[FN]
*Based on total market value of the portfolio as of April 30, 1994.
++Temporary investments in short-term municipal securities.
<PAGE>
Massachusetts Limited Maturity Municipal Bond Fund
Quality Ratings*
(Based on Nationally Recognized Rating Services)
A pie chart illustrating the following percentages:
AAA/Aaa 19%
AA/Aa 23%
Other++ 58%
[FN]
*Based on total market value of the portfolio as of April 30, 1994.
++Temporary investments in short-term municipal securities.
Michigan Limited Maturity Municipal Bond Fund
Quality Ratings*
(Based on Nationally Recognized Rating Services)
A pie chart illustrating the following percentages:
AAA/Aaa 7%
AA/Aa 54%
A/A 4%
BBB/Baa 4%
Other++ 31%
[FN]
*Based on total market value of the portfolio as of April 30, 1994.
++Temporary investments in short-term municipal securities.
<PAGE>
New Jersey Limited Maturity Municipal Bond Fund
Quality Ratings*
(Based on Nationally Recognized Rating Services)
A pie chart illustrating the following percentages:
AAA/Aaa 37%
AA/Aa 11%
A/A 10%
BBB/Baa 12%
Other++ 30%
[FN]
*Based on total market value of the portfolio as of April 30, 1994.
++Temporary investments in short-term municipal securities.
New York Limited Maturity Municipal Bond Fund
Quality Ratings*
(Based on Nationally Recognized Rating Services)
A pie chart illustrating the following percentages:
AAA/Aaa 33%
AA/Aa 11%
A/A 14%
BBB/Baa 3%
Other++ 39%
[FN]
*Based on total market value of the portfolio as of April 30, 1994.
++Temporary investments in short-term municipal securities.
<PAGE>
Pennsylvania Limited Maturity Municipal Bond Fund
Quality Ratings*
(Based on Nationally Recognized Rating Services)
A pie chart illustrating the following percentages:
AAA/Aaa 38%
AA/Aa 10%
A/A 6%
BBB/Baa 4%
Other++ 42%
[FN]
*Based on total market value of the portfolio as of April 30, 1994.
++Temporary investments in short-term municipal securities.
