MERRILL LYNCH
MULTI-STATE
LIMITED MATURITY
MUNICIPAL
SERIES TRUST
FUND LOGO
Quarterly Report
April 30, 1995
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
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
90 Washington Street, 12th Floor
New York, New York 10005
Transfer Agent
Merrill Lynch Financial Data Services, Inc.
Transfer Agency Mutual Fund Operations
4800 Deer Lake Drive East
Jacksonville, Florida 32246-6484
(800) 637-3863
TO OUR SHAREHOLDERS
Increasing signs of slowing economic growth led to higher US stock
and bond prices during the April quarter. Although gross domestic
product (GDP) was reported to have increased at a revised 5.1% rate
during the final quarter of 1994, declines in other indicators such
as new home sales and durable goods orders registered thus far in
1995 have led investors to anticipate that the economy is losing
enough momentum to keep inflation under control and preclude further
significant monetary policy tightening by the Federal Reserve Board.
A further indication of a slowing economy was the reported decline
in the Index of Leading Economic Indicators for March.
<PAGE>
As US stock and bond markets have risen, the value of the US dollar
has reached new lows relative to the yen and the Deutschemark.
Persistent trade deficits and exports of capital from the United
States have kept the US currency in a decade-long decline relative
to the Japanese and German currencies. Over the longer term, since
the United States has the highest productivity among industrialized
nations and among the lowest labor costs, demand for US dollar-
denominated assets may improve. However, a reduction of the still-
widening US trade deficit may be necessary before the US dollar
appreciates substantially relative to the yen and the Deutschemark.
The first months of 1995 were very positive for the US stock and
bond markets. Continued signs of a moderating expansion and well-
contained inflationary pressures would provide further assurance
that the peak in interest rates is behind us, creating a stronger
foundation for higher stock and bond prices. On the other hand,
indications of reaccelerating growth and further significant
monetary policy tightening by the Federal Reserve Board would be a
decided negative for the US financial markets.
The Municipal Market
Throughout most of the three months ended April 30, 1995, the
municipal bond market continued the improvement begun in late 1994.
Signs of a weakening domestic economy and ongoing moderate
inflationary pressures have continued to foster an environment of
declining interest rates. A-rated, uninsured municipal revenue bond
yields, as measured by the Bond Buyer Revenue Bond Index, declined
an additional 50 basis points (0.50%) to close the April quarter at
6.29%. Tax-exempt bond yields have declined over 100 basis points
from their highs of last November and are presently lower than they
were a year ago. US Treasury bonds experienced a similar, but less
dramatic, improvement during the April quarter, and 30-year US
Treasury bond yields declined approximately 35 basis points to end
the April quarter at 7.33%.
<PAGE>
Tax-exempt bond yields declined more than their taxable counterparts
thus far in 1995, largely in response to the significant decline in
new bond issuance in recent quarters. During the April quarter, less
than $30 billion in new long-term municipal securities were
underwritten. This represents a decline in issuance of nearly 40%
versus the comparable period a year earlier. Similarly, over the
past six months, less than $60 billion in municipal bonds were
issued, a decline of approximately 45% versus the comparable period
a year earlier. Both institutional and individual investors have
seen significant cash inflows in recent months. These assets were
derived from regular coupon payments, bond maturities and the
proceeds from early bond calls and redemptions. It has been
estimated that investors received over $20 billion in principal
redemptions and coupon income in January 1995 alone. With monthly
issuance in the $10 billion range thus far this year, the current
supply/demand imbalance has dominated the municipal market and bond
prices have risen accordingly. The tax-exempt bond market's
technical position is likely to remain very strong throughout most
of 1995. Investors are expected to receive almost $40 billion in
principal and coupon payments on July 1, 1995. Investor proceeds
from all sources have been estimated to exceed $200 billion for all
of 1995. Estimates of total new bond issuance for 1995 have
continued to be lowered with most estimates now in the $125 billion
range. Investors should find it increasingly difficult to replace
existing holdings as they mature and to reinvest coupon income in
such an environment.
The municipal bond market's outperformance thus far this year caused
the tax-exempt market to become temporarily expensive relative to
its taxable counterpart in late April. Investor concerns regarding
the international currency situation and the future impact of
proposed revisions to US taxation policies upon the tax advantage
inherent to municipal bonds have combined to cause tax-exempt bond
yields to increase marginally in recent weeks. Municipal bond yields
have risen approximately 15 basis points from their lows in mid-
April 1995. Long-term US Treasury bond yields have remained
essentially stable.
Such an underperformance by the tax-exempt bond market is likely to
be limited in duration. The recent increase in tax-exempt bond
yields has already begun to attract institutional investors since
some municipal bonds yielding in excess of 85% of US Treasury bond
yields are again available. Also, concerns regarding the implication
for municipal bonds' tax advantage resulting from various proposed
tax law changes (for example, flat-tax, value-added tax or national
sales tax) are all likely to quickly recede as investors realize
that such, if any, changes are unlikely to be enacted before late
1996 at the earliest. Long-term investors will also recall 1986 when
similar tax proposals were made and tax-exempt bond yields initially
rose and then quickly fell. Investors are likely to view the current
situation as an opportunity to purchase very attractively priced tax-
advantaged products, causing municipal bond yields to quickly return
to their more historic relationship.
<PAGE>
Portfolio Strategy
Merrill Lynch Arizona Limited
Maturity Municipal Bond Fund
The State of Arizona continued to experience strong employment
growth in the quarter ended April 30, 1995. The State is coming off
its second-strongest year of employment growth ever. In 1994,
approximately 99,000 jobs were created over a wide variety of
industries. It is anticipated that this growth will begin to abate
in 1995 as the effects of the currency crisis in Mexico work their
way into the Arizona economy. In addition, an improving California
economy may lessen migration from that state, a source of Arizona's
population and employment growth over the past several years.
We have used a "barbell" approach to investing since January,
purchasing bonds at the longer end of our maturity spectrum while
simultaneously maintaining sufficient shorter maturity securities to
maintain a portfolio maturity within our allowed parameters. We
avoided securities with maturities of less than five years since we
believed they were most vulnerable to price declines in the event of
further Federal Reserve Board tightenings. Throughout much of the
April quarter, we maintained an average portfolio maturity of just
under five years. We maintained a cash position of approximately 30%
of net assets for most of the quarter, increasing our cash position
at the end of the quarter to meet shareholder redemptions. We
continue to purchase highly rated securities as they remain in
constant demand and are extremely liquid, particularly in an
environment of very little supply. We expect that our focus in the
upcoming July quarter will be the continued diversification of the
portfolio. We expect that as we approach June and July when coupon
payments will be especially heavy, demand for municipal bonds will
be exceedingly strong. During this time, we will try to reduce our
cash position in anticipation of this increased demand.
Merrill Lynch California Limited
Maturity Municipal Bond Fund
During the quarter ended April 30, 1995 political infighting began
on Governor Pete Wilson's proposed $55.1 billion budget. California
Controller Kathleen Connell charged that the proposed budget
overlooks outstanding State liabilities like State lawsuit
judgments, off balance sheet loans and debt repayments that could
result in a deficit in the billions of dollars. Under Governor
Wilson's 1995--1996 budget, the State projects operating surpluses of
$812 million in 1995 and $660 million in 1996. Governor Wilson
proposes to cover a $2 billion income shortfall by cutting welfare
programs even though State legislators have a long record of
resisting such cuts. California's economy is rebounding and slowly
emerging from the worst recession in 50 years. From 1990 through
1994 the State of California lost over 500,000 jobs, suffered
through the permanent downsizing of the aerospace and defense
industries and the exodus of a significant portion of the middle-
class population. California also suffered through severe weather in
the first quarter of 1995 with agricultural damage from March winds,
rain and floods totaling $651.6 million. The California Department
of Food and Agriculture said the losses represent 3.3% of
California's almost $20 billion agricultural industry.
<PAGE>
On February 1, 1995, the Federal Reserve Board tightened monetary
policy for the seventh time in the current cycle by raising the
Federal Funds rate from 5.50% to 6.00%. After this interest rate
hike, we extended Merrill Lynch California Limited Maturity
Municipal Bond Fund's average portfolio maturity to 4.1 years while
maintaining a 28% cash equivalent position. We extended the Fund's
portfolio maturity because of statistics showing economic growth in
the first quarter of 1995 that is considerably slower than the
robust fourth quarter GDP growth of 5.1%, thus raising the
possibility that the Federal Reserve Board might put additional
interest rate hikes on hold as the economy moves toward a possible
soft landing.
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, 1995, the State of Florida
continued to show good economic growth. Florida's employment growth
rose 4.0% last year, ahead of the US employment growth of 2.8%.
Florida's job market is surging on the strength of temporary help
services and construction of multi-family housing. Florida, the
nation's fourth most populous State, is enjoying employment
increases in all areas except Miami. It is likely that area will
receive a boost when the US military's Southern Command relocates
there from Panama in 1997--1998. The State's unemployment rate stood
at 4.4% in March, better than the national average of 5.4%. Many
economists predict that the State's economy will peak this summer,
though many major industries such as tourism will show strength
until the fall as long as personal income growth continues. On a
negative note, housing permits in the State have fallen 18% since
July, and the National Association of Homebuilders predicts a 5%
decline in Florida housing starts in the second half of 1995.
On February 1, 1995, the Federal Reserve Board tightened monetary
policy for the seventh time in the current cycle by raising the
Federal Funds rate from 5.50% to 6.00%. After this interest rate
hike, we extended Merrill Lynch Florida Limited Maturity Municipal
Bond Fund's average portfolio maturity to 4.1 years while
maintaining a 28% cash equivalent position. We extended the Fund's
portfolio maturity because of statistics showing economic growth in
the first quarter of 1995 that is considerably slower than the
robust fourth quarter GDP growth of 5.1%, thus raising the
possibility that the Federal Reserve Board might put additional
interest rate hikes on hold as the economy moves toward a possible
soft landing.
<PAGE>
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
Economic growth, which has lagged in the Northeast, continued to
show signs of slowing during the three-month period ended April
30, 1995. The Massachusetts economy, which has faired better than
that of most of its neighbors, is exhibiting evidence of this
slowdown. Rising interest rates have contributed to declining home
sales. In addition, there has been no appreciable job growth in the
Commonwealth since the summer of 1994. Governor Weld's conservative
balanced budget for 1996 increases local aid to Massachusetts cities
and towns by $289 million, raises education spending by $228
million, includes offsets to water and sewer rates of $10 million
and contains nine proposed tax cuts totaling $35 million.
Additionally, the Commonwealth, which has been able to generate a
positive tax revenue stream to finance daily operations, has
refrained from borrowing in the short-term municipal market.
However, concerns regarding the financing of Boston's depressed
central artery and new third harbor tunnel have surfaced. This has
left open a question of how the Commonwealth will fund its portion
of the billion dollar price tag that the Federal Government will
leave from the projected $9.6 billion cost.
In response to concerns over dramatically reduced new issuance of
Massachusetts tax-exempt municipal securities in 1995 and the
excellent relative value offered by municipal bonds, we continued to
move from a defensive investment posture that we had maintained for
most of last year to a more aggressive one in January 1995.
Additionally, the weaker-than-anticipated economic data released in
the first quarter of this year warranted a continued shift to a more
aggressively invested portfolio that began in the previous quarter
in order to take advantage of any drop in yields that might occur as
investors pushed prices of bonds higher. Consequently, by mid-
February the portfolio had an average maturity of approximately 4.7
years (out of a maximum of 5.0 years) and cash reserves of
approximately 15% of net assets, which was a substantial change from
the 30%--35% percent in previous periods. We expect to maintain this
position in the upcoming months as municipal supply is expected to
remain scarce and until statistical evidence emerges which would
indicate either the economy is gaining momentum or inflationary
pressures are increasing.
Merrill Lynch Michigan Limited
Maturity Municipal Bond Fund
<PAGE>
During the quarter ended April 30, 1995, the State of Michigan
continued to exhibit good economic growth, although the pace is
expected to slow as the nation's automakers slowly reduce production
after 1994's manufacturing boom. The Michigan-based auto industry is
feeling the effects of last year's increases in interest rates which
have caused consumers to purchase fewer cars in first quarter 1995.
The State's unemployment rate for March was 6.0%, up from February's
rate of 5.6% and the lowest for that month since 1970. Among the
State's major industries, construction and retail trade reported
higher employment growth in March while manufacturing remained
stable, although government employment in Michigan dropped during
the month. Michigan's cash flow in first quarter 1995 turned
slightly negative, reflecting the impact of school financing reform,
under which the State has assumed greater financial involvement
through its broader taxation base.
On February 1, 1995, the Federal Reserve Board tightened monetary
policy for the seventh time in the current cycle by raising the
Federal Funds rate from 5.50% to 6.00%. After this interest rate
hike, we extended Merrill Lynch Michigan Limited Maturity Municipal
Bond Fund's average portfolio maturity to 4.1 years while
maintaining a 35% cash equivalent position. We extended the Fund's
portfolio maturity because of statistics showing economic growth in
the first quarter of 1995 that was considerably slower than the
robust fourth quarter GDP growth of 5.1%, thus raising the
possibility that the Federal Reserve Board might put additional
interest rate hikes on hold as the economy moves toward a possible
soft landing.
Diversification, credit quality and yield remain paramount in
importance to the Fund, and we will continue to closely monitor the
everchanging marketplace.
Merrill Lynch New Jersey Limited
Maturity Municipal Bond Fund
We have used a "barbell" approach to investing since January,
purchasing bonds at the longer end of our maturity spectrum while
simultaneously maintaining sufficient shorter maturity securities to
maintain a portfolio maturity within our allowed parameters. We
avoided securities with maturities of less than five years since we
believed they were most vulnerable to price declines in the event of
further Federal Reserve Board tightenings. Throughout much of the
April quarter, we maintained an average portfolio maturity of just
under five years. Our cash position was approximately 30% of net
assets for most of the quarter, increasing to 35% at the end of the
period with new subscriptions into the Fund. Because of the constant
demand for New Jersey securities and their limited availability, we
expect to pursue a similar portfolio structure in the July quarter,
particularly as we approach June and July when bond calls and coupon
payments will be especially heavy and the demand for municipal bonds
will be exaggerated as investors attempt to replace bond holdings.
We plan to continue to purchase highly rated securities as they
remain in constant demand and are extremely liquid, particularly in
an environment of very little supply.
<PAGE>
The upcoming July quarter is an important one for the State as it
enters the period of intense debate over Governor Whitman's proposed
fiscal 1996 budget. We will continue to monitor this debate and its
effect on our portfolio.
Merrill Lynch New York Limited
Maturity Municipal Bond Fund
During the quarter ended April 30, 1995, New York State's budget was
delayed for the eleventh consecutive year as talks between Governor
George Pataki and State legislators stalled over spending and
revenue projections. The State Assembly is looking to increase
spending while Governor Pataki's proposed $34 billion budget for
1996 includes lowering spending on welfare and Medicaid, reducing
the size of State government and cutting taxes in order to stimulate
the State's stagnant economy. The budget delay also risks drawing
more rating agency attention to the State's efforts to close a
projected $4 billion deficit as well as New York City's continued
fiscal woes. New York State's economy weakened in mid- to late 1994
because of continued downsizing by large corporations and State
government as well as continuing layoffs in the securities and
banking industries.
New York City's budget deficit continued to grow during the April
quarter. Mayor Guiliani proposed a $31.1 billion budget for the
fiscal year starting July 1, 1995, a drop of $1.1 billion from the
current year, although the city's budget gap will grow to $3.1
billion. To help close the gap, Guiliani proposed $1 billion in
spending cuts at city agencies.
On February 1, 1995, the Federal Reserve Board tightened monetary
policy for the seventh time in the current cycle by raising the
Federal Funds rate from 5.50% to 6.00%. After this interest rate
hike, we extended Merrill Lynch New York Limited Maturity Municipal
Bond Fund's average portfolio maturity to 4.1 years while
maintaining a 23% cash equivalent position. We extended the Fund's
portfolio maturity because of statistics showing economic growth in
the first quarter of 1995 that was considerably slower than the
robust fourth quarter GDP growth of 5.1%, thus raising the
possibility that the Federal Reserve Board might put additional
interest rate hikes on hold as the economy moves toward a possible
soft landing.
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
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania continued to experience strong
economic growth. In the period ended April 30, 1995, the
Commonwealth's unemployment rate fell to 5.8.%, matching the
national average. This is a decrease from the 6.0% unemployment rate
in March and the 6.5% rate last year at this time. Although the
Commonwealth experienced strong growth in manufacturing, 80% of the
jobs created in the past year were in the service sector. In the
upcoming months, the Pennsylvania Legislature will review Governor
Tom Ridge's budget. Highlights of the budget include increased set
asides for the State's "rainy day fund," a reduction in the State's
corporate income tax rate to encourage more job growth and a small
increase in spending.
We have used a "barbell" approach to investing since January,
purchasing bonds at the longer end of our maturity spectrum while
simultaneously maintaining sufficient shorter maturity securities to
maintain a portfolio maturity within our allowed parameters.
We avoided securities of less than five years since we believed they
were most vulnerable to price declines in the event of further
Federal Reserve Board tightenings. Throughout much of the April
quarter, we maintained an average portfolio maturity of just under
five years and a cash position of approximately 31% of net assets.
We continue to purchase highly rated securities as they remain in
constant demand and are extremely liquid, particularly in an
environment of very little supply. Our focus in the upcoming July
quarter will be the continued diversification of the portfolio. We
expect that as we approach June and July, when coupon payments will
be especially heavy, demand for municipal bonds will be exceedingly
strong. We will try to reduce our cash position in anticipation of
this increased demand.
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
<PAGE>
May 24, 1995
PERFORMANCE DATA
About Fund
Performance
Since October 21, 1994, investors have been able to purchase shares
of the Fund through the Merrill Lynch Select Pricing SM System,
which offers four pricing alternatives:
*Class A Shares incur a maximum initial sales charge (front-end
load) of 1% and bear no ongoing distribution or account maintenance
fees. Class A Shares are available only to eligible investors.
*Class B Shares are subject to a maximum contingent deferred sales
charge of 1% if redeemed during the first year, decreasing 1% the
next year to 0%. In addition, Class B Shares are subject to a
distribution fee of 0.20% and an account maintenance fee of 0.15%.
These shares automatically convert to Class D Shares after
approximately 10 years.
*Class C Shares are subject to a distribution fee of 0.20% and an
account maintenance fee of 0.15%. In addition, Class C Shares are
subject to a 1% contingent deferred sales charge if redeemed within
one year of purchase.
*Class D Shares incur a maximum initial sales charge of 1% and an
account maintenance fee of 0.10% (but no distribution fee).
Performance data for the Fund's Class A and Class B Shares are
presented in the "Recent Performance Results" and "Average Annual
Total Returns" tables on pages 7, 8, 10 and 11. Data for Class C and
Class D Shares are also presented in the "Recent Performance
Results" and "Aggregate Total Returns" tables on pages 9, 10 and 11.
The "Recent Performance Results" table shows investment results
before the deduction of any sales charges for Class A and Class B
Shares for the 12-month and 3-month periods ended April 30, 1995 and
for Class C and Class D Shares for the since inception and 3-month
periods ended April 30, 1995. All data in this table assume
imposition of the actual total expenses incurred (net of
reimbursement) by each class of shares during the relevant period.
<PAGE>
None of the past results shown should 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. Dividends paid to each class
of shares will vary because of the different levels of account
maintenance, distribution and transfer agency fees applicable to
each class, which are deducted from the income available to be paid
to shareholders.
Average Annual
Total Returns
Arizona Limited Maturity
% Return Without % Return With
Class A Shares* Sales Charge Sales Charge**
Year Ended 3/31/95 +5.63% +4.57%
Inception (11/26/93) through 3/31/95 +4.39 +3.61
California Limited Maturity
% Return Without % Return With
Class A Shares* Sales Charge Sales Charge**
Year Ended 3/31/95 +4.98% +3.93%
Inception (11/26/93) through 3/31/95 +3.06 +2.29
PERFORMANCE DATA (continued)
Average Annual
Total Returns
(concluded)
<PAGE>
Florida Limited Maturity
% Return Without % Return With
Class A Shares* Sales Charge Sales Charge**
Year Ended 3/31/95 +4.99% +3.94%
Inception (11/26/93) through 3/31/95 +3.07 +2.31
Massachusetts Limited Maturity
% Return Without % Return With
Class A Shares* Sales Charge Sales Charge**
Year Ended 3/31/95 +4.62% +3.58%
Inception (11/26/93) through 3/31/95 +3.65 +2.87
Michigan Limited Maturity
% Return Without % Return With
Class A Shares* Sales Charge Sales Charge**
Year Ended 3/31/95 +4.58% +3.53%
Inception (11/26/93) through 3/31/95 +3.02 +2.25
New Jersey Limited Maturity
% Return Without % Return With
Class A Shares* Sales Charge Sales Charge**
Year Ended 3/31/95 +5.34% +4.29%
Inception (11/26/93) through 3/31/95 +3.92 +3.14
New York Limited Maturity
% Return Without % Return With
Class A Shares* Sales Charge Sales Charge**
Year Ended 3/31/95 +5.36% +4.30%
Inception (11/26/93) through 3/31/95 +3.47 +2.70
Pennsylvania Limited Maturity
% Return Without % Return With
Class A Shares* Sales Charge Sales Charge**
Year Ended 3/31/95 +4.88% +3.83%
Inception (11/26/93) through 3/31/95 +3.74 +2.97
<PAGE>
[FN]
*Maximum sales charge is 1%.
**Assuming maximum sales charge.
Arizona Limited Maturity
% Return % Return
Class B Shares* Without CDSC With CDSC**
Year Ended 3/31/95 +5.25% +4.25%
Inception (11/26/93) through 3/31/95 +4.02 +4.02
California Limited Maturity
% Return % Return
Class B Shares* Without CDSC With CDSC**
Year Ended 3/31/95 +4.61% +3.61%
Inception (11/26/93) through 3/31/95 +2.70 +2.70
Florida Limited Maturity
% Return % Return
Class B Shares* Without CDSC With CDSC**
Year Ended 3/31/95 +4.62% +3.62%
Inception (11/26/93) through 3/31/95 +2.71 +2.71
Massachusetts Limited Maturity
% Return % Return
Class B Shares* Without CDSC With CDSC**
Year Ended 3/31/95 +4.24% +3.24%
Inception (11/26/93) through 3/31/95 +3.28 +3.28
Michigan Limited Maturity
% Return % Return
Class B Shares* Without CDSC With CDSC**
Year Ended 3/31/95 +4.20% +3.20%
Inception (11/26/93) through 3/31/95 +2.65 +2.65
<PAGE>
New Jersey Limited Maturity
% Return % Return
Class B Shares* Without CDSC With CDSC**
Year Ended 3/31/95 +4.85% +3.85%
Inception (11/26/93) through 3/31/95 +3.55 +3.55
New York Limited Maturity
% Return % Return
Class B Shares* Without CDSC With CDSC**
Year Ended 3/31/95 +4.98% +3.98%
Inception (11/26/93) through 3/31/95 +3.10 +3.10
Pennsylvania Limited Maturity
% Return % Return
Class B Shares* Without CDSC With CDSC**
Year Ended 3/31/95 +4.51% +3.51%
Inception (11/26/93) through 3/31/95 +3.37 +3.37
[FN]
*Maximum contingent deferred sales charge is 1% and reduced to 0%
after 1 year.
**Assuming payment of applicable contingent deferred sales charge.
Aggregate
Total Returns
Arizona Limited Maturity
% Return % Return
Class C Shares* Without CDSC With CDSC**
Inception (10/21/94) through 3/31/95 +3.47% +2.47%
<PAGE>
California Limited Maturity
% Return % Return
Class C Shares* Without CDSC With CDSC**
Inception (10/21/94) through 3/31/95 +2.94% +1.94%
Florida Limited Maturity
% Return % Return
Class C Shares* Without CDSC With CDSC**
Inception (10/21/94) through 3/31/95 +2.89% +1.89%
Massachusetts Limited Maturity
% Return % Return
Class C Shares* Without CDSC With CDSC**
Inception (10/21/94) through 3/31/95 +3.02% +2.02%
Michigan Limited Maturity
% Return % Return
Class C Shares* Without CDSC With CDSC**
Inception (10/21/94) through 3/31/95 +2.81% +1.81%
New Jersey Limited Maturity
% Return % Return
Class C Shares* Without CDSC With CDSC**
Inception (10/21/94) through 3/31/95 -6.58% -7.50%
New York Limited Maturity
% Return % Return
Class C Shares* Without CDSC With CDSC**
Inception (10/21/94) through 3/31/95 +3.13% +2.13%
<PAGE>
Pennsylvania Limited Maturity
% Return % Return
Class C Shares* Without CDSC With CDSC**
Inception (10/21/94) through 3/31/95 +3.12% +2.12%
[FN]
*Maximum contingent deferred sales charge is 1% and reduced to 0%
after 1 year.
**Assuming payment of applicable contingent deferred sales charge.
Arizona Limited Maturity
% Return Without % Return With
Class D Shares* Sales Charge Sales Charge**
Inception (10/21/94) through 3/31/95 +3.74% +2.70%
California Limited Maturity
% Return Without % Return With
Class D Shares* Sales Charge Sales Charge**
Inception (10/21/94) through 3/31/95 +3.15% +2.12%
Florida Limited Maturity
% Return Without % Return With
Class D Shares* Sales Charge Sales Charge**
Inception (10/21/94) through 3/31/95 +3.15% +2.12%
Massachusetts Limited Maturity
% Return Without % Return With
Class D Shares* Sales Charge Sales Charge**
Inception (10/21/94) through 3/31/95 +3.09% +2.06%
Michigan Limited Maturity
% Return Without % Return With
Class D Shares* Sales Charge Sales Charge**
Inception (10/21/94) through 3/31/95 +2.96% +1.93%
<PAGE>
New Jersey Limited Maturity
% Return Without % Return With
Class D Shares* Sales Charge Sales Charge**
Inception (10/21/94) through 3/31/95 +3.51% +2.47%
New York Limited Maturity
% Return Without % Return With
Class D Shares* Sales Charge Sales Charge**
Inception (10/21/94) through 3/31/95 +3.39% +2.36%
Pennsyvania Limited Maturity
% Return Without % Return With
Class D Shares* Sales Charge Sales Charge**
Inception (10/21/94) through 3/31/95 +3.38% +2.35%
[FN]
*Maximum sales charge is 1%.
**Assuming maximum sales charge.
PERFORMANCE DATA (concluded)
<PAGE>
<TABLE>
Recent
Performance
Results*
<CAPTION>
Standardized
30-day
12 Month 3 Month Yield
12 Month 3 Month Total Total As of
4/30/95 1/31/95 4/30/94++ % Change++ % Change Return++ Return 4/30/95
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C>
Arizona Limited Maturity Class A Shares $10.05 $9.92 $9.95 +1.01% +1.31% +5.25%(1) +2.48%(2) 4.36%
Arizona Limited Maturity Class B Shares 10.05 9.92 9.95 +1.01 +1.31 +4.88(3) +2.39(4) 3.96
Arizona Limited Maturity Class C Shares 10.06 9.92 9.89 +1.72 +1.41 +3.78(5) +2.39(6) 3.62
Arizona Limited Maturity Class D Shares 10.06 9.92 9.89 +1.72 +1.41 +4.10(7) +2.56(8) 4.31
California Limited Maturity Class A Shares 9.88 9.73 9.85 +0.30 +1.54 +4.67(9) +2.70(10) 4.35
California Limited Maturity Class B Shares 9.88 9.73 9.85 +0.30 +1.54 +4.30(11) +2.61(12) 4.04
California Limited Maturity Class C Shares 9.88 9.73 9.76 +1.23 +1.54 +3.39(13) +2.62(12) 4.16
California Limited Maturity Class D Shares 9.88 9.73 9.76 +1.23 +1.54 +3.60(14) +2.68(15) 4.25
Florida Limited Maturity Class A Shares 9.88 9.72 9.84 +0.41 +1.65 +4.78(16) +2.80(10) 4.38
Florida Limited Maturity Class B Shares 9.88 9.72 9.84 +0.41 +1.65 +4.41(17) +2.71(18) 4.07
Florida Limited Maturity Class C Shares 9.87 9.72 9.76 +1.13 +1.54 +3.19(19) +2.52(20) 3.78
Florida Limited Maturity Class D Shares 9.87 9.72 9.76 +1.13 +1.54 +3.50(14) +2.67(15) 4.30
Massachusetts Limited Maturity Class A Shares 9.89 9.78 9.94 -0.38(21) +1.12 +4.05(22) +2.34(23) 4.90
Massachusetts Limited Maturity Class B Shares 9.89 9.78 9.94 -0.38(21) +1.12 +3.67(24) +2.25(15) 4.58
Massachusetts Limited Maturity Class C Shares 9.88 9.77 9.82 +0.74(21) +1.13 +3.08(25) +2.30(2) 4.79
Massachusetts Limited Maturity Class D Shares 9.88 9.77 9.82 +0.74(21) +1.13 +3.16(26) +2.32(27) 4.80
Michigan Limited Maturity Class A Shares 9.88 9.74 9.89 -0.10 +1.44 +4.30(28) +2.61(8) 4.43
Michigan Limited Maturity Class B Shares 9.88 9.74 9.89 -0.10 +1.44 +3.92(29) +2.51(30) 4.12
Michigan Limited Maturity Class C Shares 9.88 9.74 9.76 +1.23 +1.44 +3.32(31) +2.42(20) 3.77
Michigan Limited Maturity Class D Shares 9.87 9.73 9.76 +1.13 +1.44 +3.52(32) +2.58(33) 4.29
New Jersey Limited Maturity Class A Shares 10.00 9.86 9.91 +0.91 +1.42 +5.06(34) +2.56(10) 4.28
New Jersey Limited Maturity Class B Shares 10.01 9.87 9.91 +1.01 +1.42 +4.80(35) +2.47(18) 3.96
New Jersey Limited Maturity Class C Shares 9.06 9.70 9.86 -8.11 -6.60 -6.33(36) -5.71(37) 3.20
New Jersey Limited Maturity Class D Shares 10.01 9.87 9.85 +1.62 +1.42 +3.86(38) +2.53(15) 4.22
New York Limited Maturity Class A Shares 9.91 9.76 9.84 +0.71 +1.54 +5.15(39) +2.73(27) 4.40
New York Limited Maturity Class B Shares 9.91 9.76 9.84 +0.71 +1.54 +4.78(40) +2.63(41) 4.08
New York Limited Maturity Class C Shares 9.91 9.76 9.78 +1.33 +1.54 +3.44(42) +2.55(43) 3.76
New York Limited Maturity Class D Shares 9.91 9.77 9.78 +1.33 +1.43 +3.75(7) +2.60(8) 4.30
Pennsylvania Limited Maturity Class A Shares 9.97 9.83 9.93 +0.40 +1.42 +4.61(44) +2.56(10) 4.45
Pennsylvania Limited Maturity Class B Shares 9.97 9.82 9.93 +0.40 +1.53 +4.24(45) +2.58(18) 4.13
Pennsylvania Limited Maturity Class C Shares 9.97 9.83 9.84 +1.32 +1.42 +3.32(46) +2.39(47) 3.81
Pennsylvania Limited Maturity Class D Shares 9.97 9.83 9.84 +1.32 +1.42 +3.63(48) +2.54(49) 4.35
<PAGE>
<FN>
*Investment results shown do not reflect sales charges; results
shown would be lower if a sales charge was included.
++Investment results shown for Class C and Class D Shares are since
inception (10/21/94).
(1)Percent change includes reinvestment of $0.410 per share
ordinary income dividends.
(2)Percent change includes reinvestment of $0.115 per share
ordinary income dividends.
(3)Percent change includes reinvestment of $0.374 per share
ordinary income dividends.
(4)Percent change includes reinvestment of $0.106 per share
ordinary income dividends.
(5)Percent change includes reinvestment of $0.189 per share
ordinary income dividends.
(6)Percent change includes reinvestment of $0.097 per share
ordinary income dividends.
(7)Percent change includes reinvestment of $0.221 per share
ordinary income dividends.
(8)Percent change includes reinvestment of $0.113 per share
ordinary income dividends.
(9)Percent change includes reinvestment of $0.418 per share
ordinary income dividends.
(10)Percent change includes reinvestment of $0.112 per share
ordinary income dividends.
(11)Percent change includes reinvestment of $0.383 per share
ordinary income dividends.
(12)Percent change includes reinvestment of $0.104 per share
ordinary income dividends.
(13)Percent change includes reinvestment of $0.196 per share
ordinary income dividends.
(14)Percent change includes reinvestment of $0.216 per share
ordinary income dividends.
(15)Percent change includes reinvestment of $0.110 per share
ordinary income dividends.
(16)Percent change includes reinvestment of $0.419 per share
ordinary income dividends.
(17)Percent change includes reinvestment of $0.384 per share
ordinary income dividends.
(18)Percent change includes reinvestment of $0.103 per share
ordinary income dividends.
(19)Percent change includes reinvestment of $0.187 per share
ordinary income dividends.
(20)Percent change includes reinvestment of $0.095 per share
ordinary income dividends.
(21)Percent change includes reinvestment of $0.012 per share
capital gains distributions.
(22)Percent change includes reinvestment of $0.429 per share
ordinary income dividends and $0.012 per share capital
gains distributions.
<PAGE>
(23)Percent change includes reinvestment of $0.119 per share
ordinary income dividends.
(24)Percent change includes reinvestment of $0.393 per share
ordinary income dividends and $0.012 per share capital
gains distributions.
(25)Percent change includes reinvestment of $0.216 per share
ordinary income dividends and $0.012 per share capital gains
distributions.
(26)Percent change includes reinvestment of $0.223 per share
ordinary income dividends and $0.012 per share capital gains
distributions.
(27)Percent change includes reinvestment of $0.116 per share
ordinary income dividends.
(28)Percent change includes reinvestment of $0.423 per share
ordinary income dividends.
(29)Percent change includes reinvestment of $0.388 per share
ordinary income dividends.
(30)Percent change includes reinvestment of $0.105 per share
ordinary income dividends.
(31)Percent change includes reinvestment of $0.190 per share
ordinary income dividends.
(32)Percent change includes reinvestment of $0.219 per share
ordinary income dividends.
(33)Percent change includes reinvestment of $0.111 per share
ordinary income dividends.
(34)Percent change includes reinvestment of $0.400 per share
ordinary income dividends.
(35)Percent change includes reinvestment of $0.365 per share
ordinary income dividends.
(36)Percent change includes reinvestment of $0.170 per share
ordinary income dividends.
(37)Percent change includes reinvestment of $0.085 per share
ordinary income dividends.
(38)Percent change includes reinvestment of $0.206 per share
ordinary income dividends.
(39)Percent change includes reinvestment of $0.424 per share
ordinary income dividends.
(40)Percent change includes reinvestment of $0.389 per share
ordinary income dividends.
(41)Percent change includes reinvestment of $0.107 per share
ordinary income dividends.
(42)Percent change includes reinvestment of $0.192 per share
ordinary income dividends.
(43)Percent change includes reinvestment of $0.099 per share
ordinary income dividends.
(44)Percent change includes reinvestment of $0.406 per share
ordinary income dividends.
<PAGE>
(45)Percent change includes reinvestment of $0.371 per share
ordinary income dividends.
(46)Percent change includes reinvestment of $0.183 per share
ordinary income dividends.
(47)Percent change includes reinvestment of $0.094 per share
ordinary income dividends.
(48)Percent change includes reinvestment of $0.213 per share
ordinary income dividends.
(49)Percent change includes reinvestment of $0.109 per share
ordinary income dividends.
</TABLE>
PORTFOLIO COMPOSITION
Arizona
Limited Maturity
Municipal
Bond Fund
For the Quarter Ended April 30, 1995
Distribution by Market Sector*
Other Revenue Bonds 71.5%
General Obligations & Tax Revenue Bonds 16.7
Prerefunded Bonds** 5.9
Utility Revenue Bonds 5.9
------
Total 100.0%
======
Net assets as of April 30, 1995 were $5,971,875.
Quality Ratings*
(Based on Nationally Recognized Rating Services)
A pie chart illustrating the following percentages:
AAA/Aaa 35%
AA/Aa 30%
Other++ 35%
[FN]
*Based on total market value of the portfolio as of
April 30, 1995.
**Backed by a fund holding US Treasury or other high-quality
securities.
++Temporary investments in short-term municipal securities.
<PAGE>
California
Limited Maturity
Municipal
Bond Fund
For the Quarter Ended April 30, 1995
Distribution by Market Sector*
Other Revenue Bonds 44.5%
General Obligations & Tax Revenue Bonds 21.6
Utility Revenue Bonds 17.4
Prerefunded Bonds** 16.5
------
Total 100.0%
======
Net assets as of April 30, 1995 were $14,766,159.
Quality Ratings*
(Based on Nationally Recognized Rating Services)
A pie chart illustrating the following percentages:
AAA/Aaa 36%
AA/Aa 19%
A/A 11%
Other++ 34%
[FN]
*Based on total market value of the portfolio as of
April 30, 1995.
**Backed by a fund holding US Treasury or other high-quality
securities.
++Temporary investments in short-term municipal securities.
<PAGE>
Florida
Limited Maturity
Municipal
Bond Fund
For the Quarter Ended April 30, 1995
Distribution by Market Sector*
Other Revenue Bonds 53.3%
Prerefunded Bonds** 29.3
Utility Revenue Bonds 10.7
General Obligation & Tax Revenue Bonds 6.7
------
Total 100.0%
======
Net assets as of April 30, 1995 were $29,748,099.
Quality Ratings*
(Based on Nationally Recognized Rating Services)
A pie chart illustrating the following percentages:
AAA/Aaa 49%
AA/Aa 21%
A/A 5%
Other++ 25%
[FN]
*Based on total market value of the portfolio as of
April 30, 1995.
**Backed by a fund holding US Treasury or other high-quality
securities.
++Temporary investments in short-term municipal securities.
<PAGE>
Massachusetts
Limited Maturity
Municipal
Bond Fund
For the Quarter Ended April 30, 1995
Distribution by Market Sector*
Other Revenue Bonds 50.7%
Prerefunded Bonds** 23.4
General Obligation & Tax Revenue Bonds 19.2
Utility Revenue Bonds 6.7
------
Total 100.0%
======
Net assets as of April 30, 1995 were $8,970,337.
Quality Ratings*
(Based on Nationally Recognized Rating Services)
A pie chart illustrating the following percentages:
AAA/Aaa 43%
A/A 35%
Other++ 17%
NR++++ 5%
[FN]
*Based On total market value of the portfolio as of
April 30, 1995.
**Backed by a fund holding US Treasury or other high-quality
securities.
++Temporary investments in short-term municipal securities.
++++Not Rated.
PORTFOLIO COMPOSITION (concluded)
<PAGE>
Michigan Limited Maturity
Municipal
Bond Fund
For the Quarter Ended April 30, 1995
Distribution by Market Sector*
Other Revenue Bonds 84.5%
General Obligations & Tax Revenue Bonds 10.1
Utility Revenue Bonds 5.4
------
Total 100.0%
======
Net assets as of April 30, 1995 were $4,976,759.
Quality Ratings*
(Based on Nationally Recognized Rating Services)
A pie chart illustrating the following percentages:
AAA/Aaa 26%
AA/Aa 31%
A/A 6%
Other++ 37%
[FN]
*Based on total market value of the portfolio as of
April 30, 1995.
++Temporary investments in short-term municipal securities.
New Jersey
Limited Maturity
Municipal
Bond Fund
For the Quarter Ended April 30, 1995
Distribution by Market Sector*
Other Revenue Bonds 81.3%
General Obligations & Tax Revenue Bonds 18.7
------
Total 100.0%
======
Net assets as of April 30, 1995 were $9,739,074.
<PAGE>
Quality Ratings*
(Based on Nationally Recognized Rating Services)
A pie chart illustrating the following percentages:
AAA/Aaa 34%
AA/Aa 24%
A/A 4%
Other++ 38%
[FN]
*Based on total market value of the portfolio as of
April 30, 1995.
++Temporary investments in short-term municipal securities.
New York
Limited Maturity
Municipal
Bond Fund
For the Quarter Ended April 30, 1995
Distribution by Market Sector*
Other Revenue Bonds 62.5%
General Obligation & Tax Revenue Bonds 27.5
Prerefunded Bonds** 10.0
------
Total 100.0%
======
Net assets as of April 30, 1995 were $14,096,642.
Quality Ratings*
(Based on Nationally Recognized Rating Services)
A pie chart illustrating the following percentages:
AAA/Aaa 30%
AA/Aa 26%
A/A 18%
Other++ 26%
[FN]
*Based on total market value of the portfolio as of
April 30, 1995.
**Backed by a fund holding US Treasury or other high-quality
securities.
++Temporary investments in short-term municipal securities.
<PAGE>
Pennsylvania
Limited Maturity
Municipal
Bond Fund
For the Quarter Ended April 30, 1995
Distribution by Market Sector*
Other Revenue Bonds 65.9%
General Obligation & Tax Revenue Bonds 19.2
Prerefunded Bonds** 14.9
------
Total 100.0%
======
Net assets as of April 30, 1995 were $9,374,046.
Quality Ratings*
(Based on Nationally Recognized Rating Services)
A pie chart illustrating the following percentages:
AAA/Aaa 30%
AA/Aa 19%
A/A 18%
Other++ 33%
[FN]
*Based on total market value of the portfolio as of
April 30, 1995.
**Backed by a fund holding US Treasury or other high-quality
securities.
++Temporary investments in short-term municipal securities.
