Edgar Filing: MFS HIGH YIELD MUNICIPAL TRUST

MFS High Yield Municipal Trust at

New York Stock Exchange Price (r)

Net Asset Value (r)

Barclays Capital Municipal Bond Index (f)

MFS HIGH YIELD MUNICIPAL TRUST N-CSR

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM N-CSR

CERTIFIED SHAREHOLDER REPORT OF

REGISTERED MANAGEMENT INVESTMENT COMPANIES

Investment Company Act file number 811-4992

MFS HIGH YIELD MUNICIPAL TRUST

(Exact name of registrant as specified in charter)

500 Boylston Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02116

(Address of principal executive offices) (Zip code)

Susan S. Newton

Massachusetts Financial Services Company

500 Boylston Street

Boston, Massachusetts 02116

(Name and address of agents for service)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (617) 954-5000

Date of fiscal year end: November 30

Date of reporting period: November 30, 2009

ITEM 1.

REPORTS TO STOCKHOLDERS.

LOGO

Annual report

MFS® High Yield Municipal Trust

11/30/09

CMU-ANN

MFS® High Yield Municipal Trust

New York Stock Exchange Symbol: CMU


LETTER FROM THE CEO		1
PORTFOLIO COMPOSITION		2
MANAGEMENT REVIEW		4
PERFORMANCE SUMMARY		7
INVESTMENT OBJECTIVE, PRINCIPAL INVESTMENT STRATEGIES AND RISKS OF THE FUND		9
PORTFOLIO MANAGERS’ PROFILES		11
DIVIDEND REINVESTMENT AND CASH PURCHASE PLAN		12
PORTFOLIO OF INVESTMENTS		14
STATEMENT OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIES		34
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS		35
STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN NET ASSETS		36
FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS		37
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS		39
REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM		50
RESULTS OF SHAREHOLDER MEETING		51
TRUSTEES AND OFFICERS		52
BOARD REVIEW OF INVESTMENT ADVISORY AGREEMENT		58
PROXY VOTING POLICIES AND INFORMATION		63
QUARTERLY PORTFOLIO DISCLOSURE		63
FURTHER INFORMATION		63
FEDERAL TAX INFORMATION		63
MFS® PRIVACY NOTICE		64


CONTACT INFORMATION		BACK COVER

NOT FDIC INSURED Ÿ MAY LOSE VALUE Ÿ NO BANK GUARANTEE

LOGO

LETTER FROM THE CEO

Dear Shareholders:

There remains some question as to when the global economy will achieve a sustainable recovery. While some economists and market watchers are optimistic that the worst is behind us, a number also agree with U.S. Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke who said in September that “even though from a technical perspective the recession is very likely over at this point, it’s still going to feel like a very weak economy for some time.”

Have we in fact turned the corner? We have seen tremendous rallies in the markets over the past six months. The Fed has cut interest rates aggressively toward zero to support credit markets, global deleveraging has helped diminish inflationary concerns, and stimulus measures have put more money in the hands of the government and individuals to keep the economy moving. Still, unemployment remains high, consumer confidence and spending continue to waiver, and the housing market, while improving, has a long way to go to recover.

Regardless of lingering market uncertainties, MFS® is confident that the fundamental principles of long-term investing will always apply. We encourage investors to speak with their advisors to identify and research long-term investment opportunities thoroughly. Global research continues to be one of the hallmarks of MFS, along with a unique collaboration between our portfolio managers and sector analysts, who regularly discuss potential investments before making both buy and sell decisions.

As we continue to dig out from the worst financial crisis in decades, keep in mind that while the road back to sustainable recovery will be slow, gradual, and even bumpy at times, conditions are significantly better than they were six months ago.

Respectfully,

LOGO

Robert J. Manning

Chief Executive Officer and Chief Investment Officer

MFS Investment Management®

January 15, 2010

The opinions expressed in this letter are subject to change, may not be relied upon for investment advice, and no forecasts can be guaranteed.

PORTFOLIO COMPOSITION

Portfolio structure

LOGO


Top five industries reflecting equivalent exposure of derivative positions (i)
Healthcare Revenue — Hospitals		22.8%
Healthcare Revenue — Long Term Care		16.0%
Tax Assessment		6.0%
Tobacco		5.3%
Universities — Colleges		5.0%

Portfolio structure reflecting equivalent exposure of derivative positions (i)(j)

LOGO


Credit quality of bonds (r)
AAA		10.2%
AA		15.7%
A		10.8%
BBB		27.4%
BB		5.5%
B		2.1%
CCC		1.5%
Not Rated		26.8%

Portfolio facts
Average Duration (d)(i)		13.3
Average Effective Maturity (i)(m)		17.5 yrs.
Average Credit Quality of Rated Securities (long-term) (a)		A-

Portfolio Composition – continued

(a)	The average credit quality of rated securities is based upon a market weighted average of portfolio holdings that are rated by public rating agencies.

(d)	Duration is a measure of how much a bond’s price is likely to fluctuate with general changes in interest rates, e.g., if rates rise 1.00%, a bond with a 5-year duration is likely to lose about 5.00% of its value.

(i)	For purposes of this presentation, the bond component includes accrued interest amounts and may be positively or negatively impacted by the equivalent exposure from any derivative holdings, if applicable.

(j)	For the purpose of managing the fund’s duration, the fund holds short treasury futures with a bond equivalent exposure of (17.5)%, which reduce the fund’s interest exposure, but not its credit exposure.

(m)

In determining an instrument’s effective maturity for purposes of calculating the fund’s dollar-weighted average effective maturity, MFS uses the instrument’s stated maturity or, if applicable, an earlier date on which MFS believes it is probable that a maturity-shortening device (such as a put, pre-refunding or prepayment) will cause the instrument to be repaid. Such an earlier date can be substantially shorter than the instrument’s stated maturity.

(r)

Each security is assigned a rating from Moody’s Investors Service. If not rated by Moody’s, the rating will be that assigned by Standard & Poor’s. Likewise, if not assigned a rating by Standard & Poor’s, it will be based on the rating assigned by Fitch, Inc. For those portfolios that hold a security which is not rated by any of the three agencies, the security is considered Not Rated. Holdings in U.S. Treasuries and government agency mortgage-backed securities, if any, are included in the “AAA”-rating category. Percentages are based on the total market value of investments as of 11/30/09.

Percentages are based on net assets, including the value of auction preferred shares, as of 11/30/09, unless otherwise noted.

The portfolio is actively managed and current holdings may be different.

MANAGEMENT REVIEW

Summary of Results

The MFS High Yield Municipal Trust (the “fund”) is a closed-end fund investing in investment-grade and high-yield municipal debt.

For the twelve months ended November 30, 2009, shares of the MFS High Yield Municipal Trust provided a total return of 31.40%, at net asset value. This compares with a return of 14.17% for the fund’s benchmark, the Barclays Capital Municipal Bond Index.

Market Environment

After having suffered through one of the largest and most concentrated downturns since the 1930s, most asset markets staged a remarkable rebound during 2009. During the early stages of the period, a series of tumultuous financial events pushed global equity and credit markets to their lowest points during the crisis. Not only did Europe and Japan fall into very deep recessions, but an increasingly powerful engine of global growth – emerging markets – also contracted almost across the board. The subsequent recovery in global activity has been similarly synchronized, led importantly by emerging Asian economies, but broadening to include most of the global economy to varying degrees. Primary drivers of the recovery included an unwinding of the inventory destocking that took place earlier, as well as massive fiscal and monetary stimulus.

During the first half of the reporting period, the Fed implemented its final interest rate cut, while making increasing use of its new lending facilities to alleviate ever-tightening credit markets. On the fiscal front, the U.S. Treasury designed and began implementing a massive fiscal stimulus package. As inflationary concerns diminished in the face of global deleveraging and equity and credit markets deteriorated more sharply, central banks around the world also cut interest rates dramatically. By the middle of the period, several central banks had approached their lower bound on policy rates and were examining the implementation and ramifications of quantitative easing as a means to further loosen monetary policy to offset the continuing fall in global economic activity.

However, by the end of the period, there were ever-broadening signs that the global macroeconomic deterioration had passed, which caused the subsequent rise in asset valuations. As most asset prices rebounded in the second half of the period and the demand for liquidity waned, the debate concerning the existence of asset bubbles and the need for monetary exit strategies had begun, creating added uncertainty regarding the forward path of policy rates.

Management Review – continued

The municipal bond market experienced significant volatility over the twelve months ending November 30, 2009, yet ended the period substantially stronger than where it began. The fourth quarter of 2008 began with the municipal market experiencing extreme distress. Fear created by the failure of Lehman Brothers, the unwinding of leverage, and outflows experienced at mutual funds combined to drive municipal bond prices sharply lower and yields dramatically higher. By the end of 2008, yields on 30 year AAA-rated municipals were 200% of comparable maturity U.S. Treasury yields, by far an all time high. At the same time the spread between high grade municipals and high yield municipals hit the highest level in over a decade.

As the calendar turned, so did investor confidence in the municipal market. Mutual fund flows, into both high-grade and high-yield funds, turned strongly positive, spurred on by low money market yields. Additionally, the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 included provisions supportive of the municipal market, most notably the creation of Build America Bonds which had the effect of reducing new issue supply of municipals. These factors led to a powerful rally in both absolute rates as well as spreads, which continued through the end of the period.

Factors Affecting Performance

A key factor for the fund’s positive excess return over the Barclays Capital Municipal Bond Index was a considerable overweight in “BBB” rated (s) securities. Bonds in this credit quality sector outperformed bonds with less risk exposure (such as “AAA” rated bonds) amid improved economic conditions.

Our overweighted positions and bond selection in the health care and industrial sectors also boosted relative results. Additionally, the fund’s security selection in the airline sector was another positive driver of relative performance.

The fund employs leverage which has been created through the issuance of auction preferred shares. To the extent that investments are purchased through the use of leverage, the fund’s net asset value will increase or decrease at a greater rate than a comparable unleveraged fund. During the reporting period, the fund’s use of leverage enhanced its absolute positive returns.

Bond selection in the general obligations, housing, and tax assessment sectors was an area of weakness that hampered relative performance over the reporting period.

Respectfully,


Gary Lasman		Geoffrey Schechter
Portfolio Manager		Portfolio Manager

Management Review – continued

(s)

Bonds rated “BBB”, “Baa”, or higher are considered investment grade; bonds rated “BB”, “Ba”, or below are considered non-investment grade. The primary source for bond quality ratings is Moody’s Investors Service. If not available, ratings by Standard & Poor’s are used, else ratings by Fitch, Inc. For securities which are not rated by any of the three agencies, the security is considered Not Rated.

The views expressed in this report are those of the portfolio managers only through the end of the period of the report as stated on the cover and do not necessarily reflect the views of MFS or any other person in the MFS organization. These views are subject to change at any time based on market or other conditions, and MFS disclaims any responsibility to update such views. These views may not be relied upon as investment advice or an indication of trading intent on behalf of any MFS portfolio. References to specific securities are not recommendations of such securities, and may not be representative of any MFS portfolio’s current or future investments.

PERFORMANCE SUMMARY THROUGH 11/30/09

The following chart represents the fund’s historical performance in comparison to its benchmark(s). Investment return and principal value will fluctuate, and shares, when sold, may be worth more or less than their original cost; current performance may be lower or higher than quoted. The performance shown does not reflect the deduction of taxes, if any, that a shareholder would pay on fund distributions or the sale of fund shares. Performance data shown represents past performance and is no guarantee of future results.


Price Summary for MFS High Yield Municipal Trust
Year Ended 11/30/09		Date	Price
	Net Asset Value	11/30/09	$4.18
		11/30/08	$3.48
	New York Stock Exchange Price	11/30/09	$4.24
		9/08/09 (high) (t)	$4.64
		12/16/08 (low) (t)	$2.35
		11/30/08	$3.04

Total Returns vs Benchmark

Year Ended 11/30/09

(f)	Source: FactSet Research Systems, Inc.

(r)	Includes reinvestment of dividends and capital gain distributions.

(t)	For the period December 1, 2008 through November 30, 2009.

Benchmark Definition

Barclays Capital Municipal Bond Index – a market capitalization-weighted index that measures the performance of the tax-exempt bond market.

It is not possible to invest directly in an index.

Notes to Performance Summary

The fund’s shares may trade at a discount or premium to net asset value. Shareholders do not have the right to cause the fund to repurchase their shares at net asset value. When fund shares trade at a premium, buyers pay more

Performance Summary – continued

than the net asset value underlying fund shares, and shares purchased at a premium would receive less than the amount paid for them in the event of the fund’s liquidation. As a result, the total return that is calculated based on the net asset value and New York Stock Exchange price can be different.

From time to time the fund may receive proceeds from litigation settlements, without which performance would be lower.

INVESTMENT OBJECTIVE, PRINCIPAL

INVESTMENT STRATEGIES AND RISKS OF

THE FUND

Investment Objective

The fund’s investment objective is to seek high current income exempt from federal income tax, but may also consider capital appreciation. The fund’s objective may be changed without shareholder approval.

Principal Investment Strategies

The fund invests, under normal market conditions, at least 80% of its net assets, including assets attributable to preferred shares and borrowings for investment purposes, in tax-exempt bonds and tax-exempt notes. This policy may not be changed without shareholder approval. Tax-exempt bonds and tax-exempt notes are municipal instruments, the interest of which is exempt from federal income tax. Interest from the fund’s investments may be subject to the federal alternative minimum tax. MFS may also invest in taxable instruments.

MFS may invest 25% or more of the fund’s total assets in municipal instruments that finance similar projects, such as those relating to education, healthcare, housing, utilities, water, or sewers.

MFS may invest up to 100% of the fund’s assets in lower quality debt instruments.

MFS may invest a relatively high percentage of the fund’s assets in the debt instruments of a single issuer or a small number of issuers.

MFS may use derivatives for different purposes, including to earn income and enhance returns, to increase or decrease exposure to a particular market, to manage or adjust the risk profile of the fund, or as alternatives to direct investments.

MFS uses a bottom-up investment approach in buying and selling investments for the fund. Investments are selected primarily based on fundamental analysis of instruments and their issuers in light of current market, economic, political, and regulatory conditions. Factors considered may include the instrument’s credit quality, collateral characteristics, and indenture provisions, and the issuer’s management ability, capital structure, leverage, and ability to meet its current obligations. Quantitative analysis of the structure of the instrument and its features may also be considered.

The fund uses leverage through the issuance of preferred shares and/or the creation of tender option bonds, and then investing the proceeds pursuant to its investment strategies. If approved by the fund’s Board of Trustees, the fund may use leverage by other methods.

MFS may engage in active and frequent trading in pursuing the fund’s principal investment strategies.

Investment Objective, Principal Investment Strategies and Risks of the Fund – continued

In response to market, economic, political, or other conditions, MFS may depart from the fund’s principal investment strategies by temporarily investing for defensive purposes.

Principal Risks

The portfolio’s yield and share prices change daily based on the credit quality of its investments and changes in interest rates. In general, the value of debt securities will decline when interest rates rise and will increase when interest rates fall. Debt securities with longer maturity dates will generally be subject to greater price fluctuations than those with shorter maturities. Municipal instruments can be volatile and significantly affected by adverse tax or court rulings, legislative or political changes and the financial condition of the issuers and/or insurers of municipal instruments. If the Internal Revenue Service determines an issuer of a municipal security has not complied with applicable tax requirements, interest from the security could become taxable and the security could decline significantly in value. Derivatives can be highly volatile and involve risks in addition to those of the underlying indicators upon whose value the derivative is based. Gains or losses from derivatives can be substantially greater than the derivatives’ original cost. Lower quality debt securities involve substantially greater risk of default and their value can decline significantly over time. To the extent that investments are purchased with the proceeds from the issuance of preferred shares, the fund’s net asset value will increase or decrease at a greater rate than a comparable unleveraged fund. To the extent that the fund participates in the creation of tender option bonds, it will hold more concentrated positions in individual securities and so its performance may be more volatile than the performance of more diversified funds. A tender option bond issue may terminate upon the occurrence of certain enumerated events, which would result in a reduction in the fund’s leverage. In connection with the creation of tender option bonds and for other investment purposes, the fund may invest in inverse floating rate investments, whose potential income return is inversely related to changes in a floating interest rate. Inverse floating rate investments may provide investment leverage and be more volatile than other debt instruments. When you sell your shares, they may be worth more or less than the amount you paid for them. Please see the fund’s registration statement for further information regarding these and other risk considerations. A copy of the fund’s registration statement on Form N-2 is available on the EDGAR database on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Internet Web site at http://sec.gov and on the MFS Web site at mfs.com.

In accordance with Section 23(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, the fund hereby gives notice that it may from time to time repurchase common and/or preferred shares of the fund in the open market at the option of the Board of Trustees and on such terms as the Trustees shall determine.

PORTFOLIO MANAGERS’ PROFILES


Gary Lasman	—	Investment Officer of MFS; employed in the investment area of MFS since 2002. Portfolio manager of the fund since June 2007.

Geoffrey Schechter	—	Investment Officer of MFS; employed in the investment area of MFS since 1993. Portfolio manager of the fund since June 2007.

DIVIDEND REINVESTMENT AND CASH PURCHASE PLAN

The fund offers a Dividend Reinvestment and Cash Purchase Plan (the “Plan”) that allows common shareholders to reinvest either all of the distributions paid by the fund or only the long-term capital gains. Generally, purchases are made at the market price unless that price exceeds the net asset value (the shares are trading at a premium). If the shares are trading at a premium, purchases will be made at a price of either the net asset value or 95% of the market price, whichever is greater. You can also buy shares on a quarterly basis in any amount $100 and over. The Plan Agent will purchase shares under the Cash Purchase Plan on the 15th of January, April, July, and October or shortly thereafter.

If shares are registered in your own name, new shareholders will automatically participate in the Plan, unless you have indicated that you do not wish to participate. If your shares are in the name of a brokerage firm, bank, or other nominee, you can ask the firm or nominee to participate in the Plan on your behalf. If the nominee does not offer the Plan, you may wish to request that your shares be re-registered in your own name so that you can participate. There is no service charge to reinvest distributions, nor are there brokerage charges for shares issued directly by the fund. However, when shares are bought on the New York Stock Exchange or otherwise on the open market, each participant pays a pro rata share of the transaction expenses, including commissions. Dividends and capital gains distributions are taxable whether received in cash or reinvested in additional shares – the automatic reinvestment of distributions does not relieve you of any income tax that may be payable (or required to be withheld) on the distributions.

You may withdraw from the Plan at any time by going to the Plan Agent’s website at www.computershare.com, by
calling 1-800-637-2304 any business day from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern time or by writing to the Plan Agent at P.O. Box 43078, Providence, RI 02940-3078. Please have available the name of the fund and your account number. For certain types of registrations, such as corporate accounts, instructions must be submitted in writing. Please call for additional details. When you withdraw from the Plan, you can receive the value of the reinvested shares in one of three ways: your full shares will be held in your account, the Plan Agent will sell your shares and send the proceeds to you, or you may transfer your full shares to your investment professional who can hold or sell them. Additionally, the Plan Agent will sell your fractional shares and send the proceeds to you.

If you have any questions or for further information or a copy of the Plan, contact the Plan Agent Computershare Trust Company, N.A. (the Transfer Agent for the fund) at 1-800-637-2304, at the Plan Agent’s website at

Dividend Reinvestment and Cash Purchase Plan – continued

www.computershare.com, or by writing to the Plan Agent at P.O. Box 43078, Providence, RI 02940-3078.

The following changes in the Plan took effect on September 1, 2009:

When dividend reinvestment is being made through purchases in the open market, such purchases will be made on or shortly after the payment date for such distribution (except where temporary limits on purchases are legally required) and in no event more than 15 days thereafter (instead of 45 days as previously specified).

In an instance where the Plan Agent either cannot invest the full amount of the distribution through open market purchases or the fund’s shares are no longer selling at a discount to the current net asset value per share, the fund will supplementally issue additional shares at the greater of net asset value per share or 95% of the current market value price per share calculated on the date that such request is made (instead of the distribution date net asset value as previously specified). This price may be greater or lesser than the fund’s net asset value per share on the distribution payment date.

PORTFOLIO OF INVESTMENTS

11/30/09

The Portfolio of Investments is a complete list of all securities owned by your fund. It is categorized by broad-based asset classes.


Municipal Bonds - 159.5%
Issuer	Shares/Par		Value ($)

Airport & Port Revenue - 4.5%
Branson, MO, Regional Airport Transportation Development District Airport Rev., “B”, 6%, 2037	$	460,000	$	297,675
Dallas Fort Worth, TX, International Airport Rev. Improvement, “B”, FSA, 5%, 2025		3,000,000		3,021,930
New York, NY, City Industrial Development Authority Rev. (Terminal One Group Assn.), 5.5%, 2021		500,000		510,315
Port Authority NY & NJ, Cons Thirty Seventh, FSA, 5.125%, 2030		1,450,000		1,460,832

			$	5,290,752
General Obligations - General Purpose - 0.8%
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Government Development Bank, “B”, 5%, 2015	$	400,000	$	413,376
Luzerne County, PA, FSA, 6.75%, 2023		455,000		489,694

			$	903,070
General Obligations - Improvement - 0.3%
Guam Government, “A”, 6.75%, 2029	$	140,000	$	143,042
Guam Government, “A”, 7%, 2039		160,000		162,856

			$	305,898
General Obligations - Schools - 2.1%
Beverly Hills, CA, Unified School District (Election of 2008), 0%, 2029	$	2,195,000	$	749,593
Beverly Hills, CA, Unified School District (Election of 2008), 0%, 2031		275,000		80,715
Beverly Hills, CA, Unified School District (Election of 2008), 0%, 2032		280,000		76,138
Beverly Hills, CA, Unified School District (Election of 2008), 0%, 2033		560,000		141,803
Irving, TX, Independent School District, “A”, PSF, 0%, 2016		1,000,000		837,030
Los Angeles, CA, Unified School District, “D”, 5%, 2034		165,000		162,946
San Jacinto, TX, Community College District, 5.125%, 2038		430,000		443,764

			$	2,491,989
Healthcare Revenue - Hospitals - 36.8%
Allegheny County, PA, Hospital Development Authority Rev. (University of Pittsburgh Medical Center), “A”, 5.375%, 2029	$	440,000	$	434,438
Allegheny County, PA, Hospital Development Authority Rev. (West Penn Allegheny Health), “A”, 5%, 2028		435,000		318,885
Allegheny County, PA, Hospital Development Authority Rev. (West Penn Allegheny Health), “A”, 5.375%, 2040		625,000		442,281
Atchison, KS, Hospital Rev. (Atchison Hospital Assn.), “A”, 6.75%, 2030		320,000		299,030

Portfolio of Investments – continued


Issuer	Shares/Par		Value ($)

Municipal Bonds - continued
Healthcare Revenue - Hospitals - continued
Birmingham, AL, Baptist Medical Center, Special Care Facilities Rev. (Baptist Health Systems, Inc.), “A”, 5%, 2030	$	500,000	$	404,050
Brunswick, GA, Hospital Authority Rev. (Glynn-Brunswick Memorial Hospital), 5.625%, 2034		170,000		172,722
California Health Facilities Financing Authority Rev. (St. Joseph Health System), “A”, 5.75%, 2039		185,000		190,062
California Health Facilities Financing Authority Rev. (Sutter Health), “A”, 5%, 2042		500,000		461,370
California Statewide Communities Development Authority Rev. (Catholic Healthcare West), “K”, ASSD GTY, 5.5%, 2041		625,000		632,300
California Statewide Communities Development Authority Rev. (Catholic Healthcare West), “L”, ASSD GTY, 5.25%, 2041		870,000		855,462
California Statewide Communities Development Authority Rev. (Children’s Hospital), 5%, 2047		290,000		240,546
California Statewide Communities Development Authority Rev. (St. Joseph Health System), FGIC, 5.75%, 2047		635,000		647,446
Conway, AR, Hospital Rev. (Conway Regional Medical Center), “A”, 6.4%, 2029		350,000		358,117
Conway, AR, Hospital Rev. (Conway Regional Medical Center), “B”, 6.4%, 2029		850,000		869,712
Delaware County, PA, Authority Rev. (Mercy Health Corp.), ETM, 6%, 2016 (c)		965,000		1,010,423
Delaware County, PA, Authority Rev. (Mercy Health Corp.), ETM, 6%, 2026 (c)		500,000		571,570
Garden City, MI, Hospital Finance Authority Rev. (Garden City Hospital), 5%, 2038		500,000		287,030
Genesee County, NY, Industrial Development Agency Civic Facility Rev. (United Memorial Medical Center), 5%, 2027		90,000		70,961
Harris County, TX, Health Facilities Development Corp., Hospital Rev. (Memorial Hermann Healthcare Systems), “B”, 7.25%, 2035		205,000		229,262
Idaho Health Facilities Authority Rev. (IHC Hospitals, Inc.), ETM, 6.65%, 2021 (c)(f)		2,750,000		3,543,320
Illinois Finance Authority Rev. (Children’s Memorial Hospital), “A”, ASSD GTY, 5.25%, 2047		870,000		871,740
Illinois Finance Authority Rev. (Edward Hospital), “A”, AMBAC, 5.5%, 2040		1,090,000		1,040,601
Illinois Finance Authority Rev. (Kewanee Hospital), 5.1%, 2031		410,000		314,294
Illinois Finance Authority Rev. (Provena Health), “A”, 7.75%, 2034		485,000		545,528
Illinois Finance Authority Rev. (Silver Cross Hospital & Medical Centers), 6.875%, 2038		485,000		492,299
Indiana Health & Educational Facilities Finance Authority Rev. (Sisters of St. Francis Health Services, Inc.), “E”, FSA, 5.25%, 2041		660,000		653,954

Portfolio of Investments – continued


Issuer	Shares/Par		Value ($)

Municipal Bonds - continued
Healthcare Revenue - Hospitals - continued
Indiana Health & Educational Facilities Finance Authority, Hospital Rev. (Clarian Health), “A”, 5%, 2039	$	1,745,000	$	1,543,871
Indiana Health & Educational Facilities Finance Authority, Hospital Rev. (Community Foundation of Northwest Indiana), 5.5%, 2037		1,125,000		1,048,444
Indiana Health & Educational Financing Authority Rev. (Community Foundation of Northwest Indiana ), “A”, 6%, 2034		425,000		432,021
Johnson City, TN, Health & Educational Facilities Board Hospital Rev. (Mountain States Health), “A”, 5.5%, 2031		1,120,000		1,078,885
Johnson City, TN, Health & Educational Facilities Board Hospital Rev. (Mountain States Health), “A”, 5.5%, 2036		410,000		389,689
Kentucky Economic Development Finance Authority, Hospital Facilities Rev. (Baptist Healthcare System), “A”, 5.375%, 2024		300,000		329,835
Kentucky Economic Development Finance Authority, Hospital Facilities Rev. (Baptist Healthcare System), “A”, 5.625%, 2027		100,000		108,266
Knox County, TN, Health, Educational, Hospital & Housing Facilities Board Rev. (University Health Systems, Inc.), 5.25%, 2036		415,000		385,929
Lake County, OH, Hospital Facilities Rev. (Lake Hospital Systems, Inc.), 5.625%, 2029		435,000		410,027
Louisiana Public Facilities Authority Hospital Rev. (Lake Charles Memorial Hospital), 6.375%, 2034		830,000		708,779
Louisville & Jefferson County, KY, Metro Government Health Facilities Rev. (Jewish Hospital & St. Mary’s Healthcare), 6.125%, 2037		1,315,000		1,371,847
Louisville & Jefferson County, KY, Metropolitan Government Healthcare Systems Rev. (Norton Healthcare, Inc.), 5.25%, 2036		1,265,000		1,193,768
Lufkin, TX, Health Facilities Development Corp. Rev. (Memorial Health System), 5.5%, 2032		60,000		54,832
Lufkin, TX, Health Facilities Development Corp. Rev. (Memorial Health System), 5.5%, 2037		60,000		52,042
Maryland Health & Higher Educational Facilities Authority Rev. (Anne Arundel Health System), “A”, 6.75%, 2039		735,000		839,127
Maryland Health & Higher Educational Facilities Authority Rev. (Washington County Hospital), 6%, 2043		120,000		119,140
Massachusetts Health & Educational Facilities Authority Rev. (Boston Medical Center), 5.25%, 2038		1,000,000		860,480
Massachusetts Health & Educational Facilities Authority Rev. (Jordan Hospital), “E”, 6.75%, 2033		250,000		222,235
Massachusetts Health & Educational Facilities Authority Rev. (Milford-Whitinsville Hospital), “C”, 5.25%, 2018		500,000		459,190
Massachusetts Health & Educational Facilities Authority Rev. (Quincy Medical Center), “A”, 6.5%, 2038		340,000		295,742
Montgomery, AL, Medical Clinic Board Health Care Facility Rev. (Jackson Hospital & Clinic), 5.25%, 2031		125,000		112,293

Portfolio of Investments – continued


Issuer	Shares/Par		Value ($)

Municipal Bonds - continued
Healthcare Revenue - Hospitals - continued
Montgomery, AL, Medical Clinic Board Health Care Facility Rev. (Jackson Hospital & Clinic), 5.25%, 2036	$	825,000	$	727,840
New Hampshire Health & Education Facilities Authority Rev. (Catholic Medical Center), “A”, 6.125%, 2012 (c)		175,000		199,714
New Hampshire Health & Education Facilities Authority Rev. (Catholic Medical Center), “A”, 6.125%, 2032		25,000		24,097
New Hampshire Health & Educational Facilities Authority Rev. (Memorial Hospital at Conway), 5.25%, 2021		530,000		503,230
New Hanover County, N.C., Hospital Rev., FSA, 5.125%, 2031		895,000		911,898
New Jersey Health Care Facilities, Financing Authority Rev. (St. Peter’s University Hospital), 5.75%, 2037		545,000		530,285
New Mexico Hospital Equipment Loan Council, Hospital Rev. (Rehoboth McKinley Christian Hospital), “A”, 5%, 2017		285,000		249,272
New York Dormitory Authority Rev., Non-State Supported Debt (Bronx-Lebanon Hospital Center), LOC, 6.5%, 2030		190,000		208,590
New York Dormitory Authority Rev., Non-State Supported Debt (Bronx-Lebanon Hospital Center), LOC, 6.25%, 2035		115,000		123,817
Norman, OK, Regional Hospital Authority Rev., 5.375%, 2036		235,000		209,535
Olympia, WA, Healthcare Facilities Authority Rev. (Catholic Health Initiatives), “D”, 6.375%, 2036		1,095,000		1,181,045
Orange County, FL, Health Facilities Authority Hospital Rev. (Orlando Regional Healthcare), 5.75%, 2012 (c)		150,000		170,967
Palomar Pomerado Health Care District, CA, COP, 6.75%, 2039		420,000		408,929
Philadelphia, PA, Hospitals & Higher Education Facilities Authority Rev. (Temple University Health System), “A”, 6.625%, 2023		375,000		375,300
Philadelphia, PA, Hospitals & Higher Education Facilities Authority Rev. (Temple University Health System), “A”, 5.5%, 2030		480,000		403,454
Rhode Island Health & Educational Building Corp. Rev. (Lifespan Obligation Group), “A”, ASSD GTY, 7%, 2039		660,000		731,155
Royal Oak, MI, Hospital Finance Authority Rev. (William Beaumont Hospital), 8.25%, 2039		485,000		571,005
Salida, CO, Hospital District Rev., 5.25%, 2036		735,000		568,559
Skagit County, WA, Public Hospital District No. 001 Rev. (Skagit Valley Hospital), 5.75%, 2032		90,000		88,202
South Lake County, FL, Hospital District Rev. (South Lake Hospital, Inc.), 6.375%, 2034		250,000		249,818
Southwestern, IL, Development Authority Rev. (Anderson Hospital), 5.375%, 2015		500,000		499,835
Southwestern, IL, Development Authority Rev. (Anderson Hospital), 5.5%, 2020		550,000		531,828
Southwestern, IL, Development Authority Rev. (Anderson Hospital), 5.125%, 2026		500,000		450,305

Portfolio of Investments – continued


Issuer	Shares/Par		Value ($)

Municipal Bonds - continued
Healthcare Revenue - Hospitals - continued
Sullivan County, TN, Health, Educational & Housing Facilities Board Hospital Rev. (Wellmont Health Systems Project), “C”, 5.25%, 2036	$	1,085,000	$	952,391
Tyler, TX, Health Facilities Development Corp. (East Texas Medical Center), “A”, 5.25%, 2032		230,000		220,241
Tyler, TX, Health Facilities Development Corp. (East Texas Medical Center), “A”, 5.375%, 2037		190,000		180,650
Virginia Small Business Financing Authority Hospital Rev. (Wellmont Health Project), “A”, 5.25%, 2037		470,000		411,734
Washington Health Care Facilities Authority Rev. (Multicare Health Systems), “B”, ASSD GTY, 6%, 2039		440,000		462,062
West Contra Costa, CA, Healthcare District, AMBAC, 5.5%, 2029		105,000		107,335
Wisconsin Health & Educational Facilities Authority Rev. (Aurora Health Care, Inc.), 6.4%, 2033		350,000		355,453
Wisconsin Health & Educational Facilities Authority Rev. (Fort Healthcare, Inc.), 6.1%, 2034		750,000		750,810
Wisconsin Health & Educational Facilities Authority Rev. (Wheaton Franciscan Services), 5.75%, 2012 (c)		450,000		503,739
Wisconsin Health & Educational Facilities Authority Rev. (Wheaton Franciscan Services), 5.25%, 2034		935,000		794,161
Wisconsin Health & Educational Facilities Authority Rev. (Wheaton Franciscan Services), “A”, 5.25%, 2025		390,000		349,865

			$	42,980,966
Healthcare Revenue - Long Term Care - 25.7%
Abilene, TX, Health Facilities Development Corp., Retirement Facilities Rev. (Sears Methodist Retirement), “A”, 5.9%, 2025	$	750,000	$	620,588
Abilene, TX, Health Facilities Development Corp., Retirement Facilities Rev. (Sears Methodist Retirement), “A”, 7%, 2033		200,000		177,840
Boston, MA, Industrial Development Financing Authority Rev. (Springhouse, Inc.), 5.875%, 2020		235,000		221,819
Bucks County, PA, Industrial Development Authority Retirement Community Rev. (Ann’s Choice, Inc.), “A”, 6.125%, 2025		500,000		438,500
Bucks County, PA, Industrial Development Authority Retirement Community Rev. (Ann’s Choice, Inc.), “A”, 6.25%, 2035		250,000		205,713
Bucks County, PA, Industrial Development Authority Rev. (Lutheran Community Telford Center), 5.75%, 2027		90,000		72,023
Bucks County, PA, Industrial Development Authority Rev. (Lutheran Community Telford Center), 5.75%, 2037		120,000		89,856
California Statewide Communities Development Authority Rev. (Eskaton Properties, Inc.), 8.25%, 2010 (c)		695,000		750,301
Capital Projects Finance Authority, FL (Glenridge on Palmer Ranch), “A”, 8%, 2012 (c)		500,000		592,445

Portfolio of Investments – continued


Issuer	Shares/Par		Value ($)

Municipal Bonds - continued
Healthcare Revenue - Long Term Care - continued
Chartiers Valley, PA, Industrial & Commercial Development Authority (Friendship Village), “A”, 5.75%, 2020	$	1,000,000	$	948,600
Chartiers Valley, PA, Industrial & Commercial Development Authority Rev. (Asbury Health Center), 6.375%, 2024		1,000,000		915,670
Colorado Health Facilities Authority Rev. (American Housing Foundation, Inc.), 8.5%, 2011 (c)		530,000		603,644
Colorado Health Facilities Authority Rev. (Christian Living Communities Project), “A”, 5.75%, 2037		500,000		392,515
Colorado Health Facilities Authority Rev. (Covenant Retirement Communities, Inc.), 5%, 2035		1,100,000		889,592
Colorado Health Facilities Authority Rev. (Evangelical Lutheran), “A”, 6.125%, 2038		120,000		118,172
Columbus, GA, Housing Authority Rev. (Calvary Community, Inc.), 7%, 2019		400,000		344,340
Fulton County, GA, Residential Care Facilities (Canterbury Court), “A”, 6.125%, 2026		500,000		449,460
Fulton County, GA, Residential Care Facilities, Elderly Authority Rev. (Lenbrook Square Foundation, Inc.), “A”, 5%, 2029		1,500,000		1,027,065
Hawaii Department of Budget & Finance, Special Purpose Senior Living Rev. (15 Craigside Project), “A”, 9%, 2044		140,000		147,897
Houston, TX, Health Facilities Development Corp. (Buckingham Senior Living Community), “A”, 7%, 2014 (c)		500,000		614,830
Howard County, MD, Retirement Facilities Rev. (Vantage House Corp.), “A”, 5.25%, 2033		200,000		153,628
Huntington, NY, Housing Authority Rev. (Gurwin Senior Jewish Residences), “A”, 5.875%, 2019		420,000		374,737
Huntington, NY, Housing Authority Rev. (Gurwin Senior Jewish Residences), “A”, 6%, 2029		650,000		512,200
Illinois Finance Authority Rev. (Smith Village), “A”, 6.25%, 2035		1,000,000		786,390
Illinois Health Facilities Authority Rev. (Smith Crossing), “A”, 7%, 2032		525,000		465,691
Indiana Health Facilities Financing Authority Rev. (Hoosier Care, Inc.), 7.125%, 2034		1,000,000		814,110
Iowa Finance Authority, Health Care Facilities Rev. (Care Initiatives), 9.25%, 2011 (c)		895,000		1,025,867
Iowa Finance Authority, Health Care Facilities Rev. (Care Initiatives), “B”, 5.75%, 2018		505,000		455,111
Iowa Finance Authority, Health Care Facilities Rev. (Care Initiatives), “B”, 5.75%, 2028		1,475,000		1,172,256
James City County, VA, Economic Development (WindsorMeade Project), “A”, 5.5%, 2037		440,000		247,518
Kent County, DE, Assisted Living (Heritage at Dover LLC), 7.625%, 2030		1,120,000		941,830

Portfolio of Investments – continued


Issuer	Shares/Par		Value ($)

Municipal Bonds - continued
Healthcare Revenue - Long Term Care - continued
Kentucky Economic Development Finance Authority Health Facilities Rev. (AHF/Kentucky-IOWA, Inc.), 8%, 2029	$	395,000	$	376,111
La Verne, CA, COP (Brethren Hillcrest Homes), “B”, 6.625%, 2025		525,000		478,364
Lancaster, PA, Industrial Development Authority Rev. (Garden Spot Village), “A”, 7.625%, 2010 (c)		325,000		337,977
Massachusetts Development Finance Agency Rev. (Adventcare), “A”, 6.75%, 2037		695,000		579,873
Massachusetts Development Finance Agency Rev. (Alliance Health of Brockton, Inc.), “A”, 7.1%, 2032		1,065,000		889,488
Massachusetts Development Finance Agency Rev. (Linden Ponds, Inc.), “A”, 5.5%, 2027		185,000		139,460
Massachusetts Development Finance Agency Rev. (Linden Ponds, Inc.), “A”, 5.75%, 2035		45,000		32,589
Massachusetts Development Finance Agency Rev. (Loomis Communities, Inc.), “A”, 5.625%, 2015		220,000		212,175
Massachusetts Development Finance Agency Rev. (Loomis Communities, Inc.), “A”, 6.9%, 2032		125,000		121,526
Massachusetts Development Finance Agency Rev. (The Groves in Lincoln), “A”, 7.75%, 2039		80,000		78,011
Massachusetts Development Finance Agency Rev. (The Groves in Lincoln), “A”, 7.875%, 2044		115,000		113,058
Massachusetts Industrial Finance Agency Rev. (GF/Massachusetts, Inc.), 8.3%, 2023		755,000		414,903
Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County, TN, Health & Educational Facilities Board Rev. (Blakeford at Green Hills), 5.65%, 2024		575,000		476,278
Montgomery County, PA, Industrial Development Authority Rev. (Whitemarsh Continuing Care), 6.125%, 2028		150,000		109,734
Montgomery County, PA, Industrial Development Authority Rev. (Whitemarsh Continuing Care), 6.25%, 2035		600,000		415,056
New Jersey Economic Development Authority Rev. (Lions Gate), “A”, 5.75%, 2025		400,000		332,656
New Jersey Economic Development Authority Rev. (Lions Gate), “A”, 5.875%, 2037		300,000		231,699
New Jersey Economic Development Authority Rev. (Seabrook Village, Inc.), 5.25%, 2026		500,000		417,405
New Jersey Economic Development Authority Rev. (Seabrook Village, Inc.), 5.25%, 2036		500,000		382,765
New Jersey Economic Development Authority Rev. (Seabrook Village, Inc.), “A”, 8.25%, 2010 (c)		700,000		759,024
Roseville, MN, Elder Care Facilities (Care Institute, Inc.), 7.75%, 2023		1,630,000		1,280,870
Sartell, MN, Health Care & Housing Authority Rev. (The Foundation for Health Care), “A”, 6.625%, 2029		1,025,000		971,495

Portfolio of Investments – continued


Issuer	Shares/Par		Value ($)

Municipal Bonds - continued
Healthcare Revenue - Long Term Care - continued
Savannah, GA, Economic Development Authority, First Mortgage (Marshes of Skidway), “A”, 7.4%, 2034	$	350,000	$	314,045
Shelby County, TN, Health, Educational & Housing Facilities Board Rev. (Germantown Village), “A”, 7.25%, 2034		300,000		281,658
South Carolina Jobs & Economic Development Authority Rev. (Woodlands at Furman), “A”, 6%, 2027		280,000		209,272
South Carolina Jobs & Economic Development Authority Rev. (Woodlands at Furman), “A”, 6%, 2042		260,000		175,362
South Carolina Jobs & Economic Development Authority, Health Facilities Rev. (Wesley Commons), 5.3%, 2036		200,000		149,818
St. John’s County, FL, Industrial Development Authority (Glenmoor Project), “A”, 5.25%, 2026		500,000		385,415
Tarrant County, TX, Cultural Education Facilities Finance Corp. Retirement Facility (Air Force Village), 6.125%, 2029		50,000		48,625
Tarrant County, TX, Cultural Education Facilities Finance Corp. Retirement Facility (Air Force Village), 6.375%, 2044		415,000		401,197
Tarrant County, TX, Cultural Education Facilities Finance Corp. Retirement Facility (Air Force Village), 8.25%, 2044		770,000		740,255
Westmoreland County, PA, Industrial Development Authority Rev. (Redstone Retirement Community), “A”, 5.875%, 2032		600,000		480,282
Westmoreland County, PA, Industrial Development Retirement Authority Rev. (Redstone Retirement Community), “A”, 5.75%, 2026		1,250,000		1,047,538
Wisconsin Health & Educational Facilities Authority Rev. (All Saints Assisted Living Project), 6%, 2037		180,000		127,354

			$	30,081,546
Healthcare Revenue - Other - 0.7%
Massachusetts Health & Educational Facilities Authority Rev. (Civic Investments, Inc.), “A”, 9%, 2012 (c)	$	650,000	$	768,209

Industrial Revenue - Airlines - 4.0%
Alliance Airport Authority, TX (American Airlines, Inc.), 5.25%, 2029	$	1,560,000	$	777,941
Chicago, IL, O’Hare International Airport Special Facilities Rev. (American Airlines, Inc.), 5.5%, 2030		1,025,000		541,774
Cleveland, OH, Airport Special Rev. (Continental Airlines, Inc.), 5.7%, 2019		830,000		688,800
Dallas Fort Worth, TX, International Airport Facility Improvement Corp. (American Airlines, Inc.), 5.5%, 2030		750,000		401,415
New Jersey Economic Development Authority, Special Facilities Rev. (Continental Airlines, Inc.), 9%, 2033 (b)		1,250,000		1,294,263
New York, NY, City Industrial Development Agencies Rev. (American Airlines, Inc.), 7.75%, 2031		385,000		356,202

Portfolio of Investments – continued


Issuer	Shares/Par		Value ($)

Municipal Bonds - continued
Industrial Revenue - Airlines - continued
New York, NY, City Industrial Development Agencies Rev. (American Airlines, Inc.), 7.625%, 2025	$	155,000	$	142,225
New York, NY, City Industrial Development Agency Special Facility Rev. (American Airlines, Inc.), “B”, 8.5%, 2028		500,000		438,165

			$	4,640,785
Industrial Revenue - Chemicals - 0.9%
Brazos River, TX, Harbor Navigation District (Dow Chemical Co.), “B-2”, 4.95%, 2033	$	400,000	$	371,196
Michigan Strategic Fund Ltd. Obligation Rev. (Dow Chemical Co.), 6.25%, 2014		655,000		694,614

			$	1,065,810
Industrial Revenue - Environmental Services - 2.1%
California Pollution Control Financing Authority, Solid Waste Disposal Rev. (Republic Services, Inc.), “B”, 5.25%, 2023 (b)	$	135,000	$	137,915
California Pollution Control Financing Authority, Solid Waste Disposal Rev. (Waste Management, Inc.), “C”, 5.125%, 2023		655,000		622,139
Carbon County, UT, Solid Waste Disposal Rev. (Allied Waste Industries), “A”, 7.5%, 2010		250,000		250,513
Carbon County, UT, Solid Waste Disposal Rev. (Laidlaw Environmental), “A”, 7.45%, 2017		500,000		503,680
Gulf Coast Waste Disposal Authority, TX (Waste Management, Inc.), “A”, 5.2%, 2028		360,000		330,397
New Hampshire Business Finance Authority, Solid Waste Disposal Rev. (Waste Management, Inc.), 5.2%, 2027		660,000		610,784

			$	2,455,428
Industrial Revenue - Metals - 0.4%
Director of Nevada Department of Business & Industry (Wheeling/Pittsburgh Steel), “A”, 8%, 2014	$	130,000	$	128,718
Greensville County, VA, Industrial Development Authority Rev. (Wheeling/Pittsburgh Steel), “A”, 7%, 2014		375,000		362,070

			$	490,788
Industrial Revenue - Other - 3.9%
Annawan, IL, Tax Increment Rev. (Patriot Renewable Fuels LLC), 5.625%, 2018	$	350,000	$	269,868
California Statewide Communities Development Authority Facilities (Microgy Holdings Project), 9%, 2038		200,000		170,016
Gulf Coast, TX, Industrial Development Authority Rev. (CITGO Petroleum Corp.), 8%, 2028		375,000		373,151

Portfolio of Investments – continued


Issuer	Shares/Par		Value ($)

Municipal Bonds - continued
Industrial Revenue - Other - continued
Houston, TX, Industrial Development Corp. (United Parcel Service, Inc.), 6%, 2023	$	455,000	$	379,479
Indianapolis, IN, Airport Authority Rev., Special Facilities (FedEx Corp.), 5.1%, 2017		500,000		504,125
Michigan Strategic Fund Rev. (Michigan Sugar Co.), “A”, 6.25%, 2015		1,000,000		945,060
New Jersey Economic Development Authority Rev. (GMT Realty LLC), “B”, 6.875%, 2037		1,000,000		751,300
Virgin Islands Government Refinery Facilities Rev. (Hovensa Coker Project), 6.5%, 2021		250,000		253,870
Virgin Islands Public Finance Authority, Refinery Facilities Rev. (Hovensa Coker Project), 5.875%, 2022		400,000		395,260
Will-Kankakee, IL, Regional Development Authority Rev. (Flanders Corp.), 6.5%, 2017		555,000		511,260

			$	4,553,389
Industrial Revenue - Paper - 2.7%
Beauregard Parish, LA (Boise Cascade Corp.), 6.8%, 2027	$	1,000,000	$	544,590
Bedford County, VA, Industrial Development Authority Rev. (Nekooska Packaging Corp.), 5.6%, 2025		400,000		355,416
Courtland, AL, Industrial Development Board Solid Waste Disposal Rev. (Champion International Corp.), 6%, 2029		1,000,000		925,290
Escambia County, FL, Environmental Improvement Rev. (International Paper Co.), “A”, 5%, 2026		980,000		819,496
Escambia County, FL, Environmental Improvement Rev. (International Paper Co.), “A”, 4.75%, 2030		290,000		219,034
Phenix City, AL, Industrial Development Board Environmental Improvement Rev., “A” (MeadWestvaco Coated Board Project), 6.35%, 2035		400,000		343,252

			$	3,207,078
Miscellaneous Revenue - Entertainment & Tourism - 2.1%
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, CA, 5.6%, 2013 (n)	$	635,000	$	636,600
Cabazon Band Mission Indians, CA, 8.375%, 2015 (z)		130,000		88,915
Cabazon Band Mission Indians, CA, 8.75%, 2019 (z)		720,000		487,138
Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians, OR, “C”, 5.625%, 2026 (n)		650,000		468,208
Mashantucket Western Pequot Tribe, CT, “B”, 0%, 2018 (n)		1,100,000		355,630
New York Liberty Development Corp. Rev. (National Sports Museum), “A”, 6.125%, 2019 (d)		351,999		1,056
New York, NY, City Industrial Development Agency Rev. (Queens Baseball Stadium), ASSD GTY, 6.125%, 2029		30,000		33,957
New York, NY, City Industrial Development Agency Rev. (Queens Baseball Stadium), ASSD GTY, 6.375%, 2039		25,000		27,714

Portfolio of Investments – continued


Issuer	Shares/Par		Value ($)

Municipal Bonds - continued
Miscellaneous Revenue - Entertainment & Tourism - continued
New York, NY, City Industrial Development Agency Rev. (Queens Baseball Stadium), ASSD GTY, 6.5%, 2046	$	100,000	$	111,451
Seminole Tribe, FL, Special Obligation Rev., “A”, 5.25%, 2027 (n)		280,000		248,752

			$	2,459,421
Miscellaneous Revenue - Other - 2.4%
Austin, TX, Convention Center (Convention Enterprises, Inc.), “A”, SYNCORA, 5.25%, 2024	$	305,000	$	270,938
Capital Trust Agency, FL (Aero Syracuse LLC), 6.75%, 2032		350,000		291,183
Dallas, TX, Civic Center Convention Complex Rev., ASSD GTY, 5.25%, 2034		845,000		862,973
Massachusetts Development Finance Agency (Boston Biomedical Research), 5.65%, 2019		620,000		601,425
Summit County, OH, Port Authority Building Rev. (Twinsburg Township), “D”, 5.125%, 2025		630,000		510,647
V Lakes Utility District Ranking Water Systems Rev., 7%, 2037		300,000		255,678

			$	2,792,844
Multi-Family Housing Revenue - 6.5%
Broward County, FL, Housing Finance Authority Rev. (Chaves Lakes Apartments Ltd.), “A”, 7.5%, 2040	$	500,000	$	472,045
Capital Trust Agency, FL, Housing Rev. (Atlantic Housing Foundation), “B”, 7%, 2032		635,000		284,531
Charter Mac Equity Issuer Trust, FHLMC, 6%, 2019 (n)		1,000,000		1,021,810
Charter Mac Equity Issuer Trust, “B”, FHLMC, 7.6%, 2050 (b)(n)		500,000		516,165
Clay County, FL, Housing Finance Authority Rev. (Madison Commons Apartments), “A”, 7.45%, 2040		495,000		452,529
District of Columbia Housing Finance Agency (Henson Ridge), “E”, FHA, 5.1%, 2037		655,000		628,826
Durham, NC, Durham Housing Authority Rev. (Magnolia Pointe Apartments), 5.65%, 2038 (b)		930,816		720,991
El Paso County, TX, Housing Finance Corp. (American Housing Foundation), “D”, 10%, 2032		285,000		263,066
El Paso County, TX, Housing Finance Corp. (American Housing Foundation, Inc.), “C”, 8%, 2032		280,000		255,002
Minneapolis, MN, Student Housing Rev. (Riverton Community Housing Project), “A”, 5.7%, 2040		500,000		377,750
Mississippi Home Corp., Rev. (Kirkwood Apartments), 6.8%, 2037		605,000		392,161
MuniMae TE Bond Subsidiary LLC, 5.8%, 2049 (z)		1,000,000		654,960
New Mexico Mortgage Finance Authority, Multi-Family Housing Rev. (Sun Pointe Apartments), “E”, FHA, 4.8%, 2040		500,000		451,600

Portfolio of Investments – continued


Issuer	Shares/Par		Value ($)

Municipal Bonds - continued
Multi-Family Housing Revenue - continued
Resolution Trust Corp., Pass-Through Certificates, “1993”, 8.5%, 2016 (z)	$	455,481	$	426,084
Wilmington, DE, Multi-Family Housing Rev. (Electra Arms Senior Associates), 6.25%, 2028		830,000		670,549

			$	7,588,069
Sales & Excise Tax Revenue - 3.9%
Bolingbrook, IL, Sales Tax Rev., 6.25%, 2024	$	500,000	$	248,735
Massachusetts School Building Authority, Dedicated Sales Tax Rev., AMBAC, 4.75%, 2032		840,000		849,122
Metropolitan Pier & Exposition Authority, State Tax Rev., NATL, 0%, 2015		3,000,000		2,489,460
Metropolitan Pier & Exposition Authority, State Tax Rev., ETM, FGIC, 0%, 2014 (c)		1,010,000		926,190

			$	4,513,507
Single Family Housing - Local - 1.4%
Minneapolis & St. Paul Housing Authority Rev. (City Living), “A-2”, GNMA, 5%, 2038	$	643,928	$	608,203
Pittsburgh, PA, Urban Redevelopment Authority Rev., “C”, GNMA, 4.8%, 2028		1,000,000		1,003,880

			$	1,612,083
Single Family Housing - State - 3.2%
California Housing Finance Agency Rev., “G”, 5.5%, 2042	$	495,000	$	495,455
Colorado Housing & Finance Authority, “A”, 5.5%, 2029		1,315,000		1,369,625
Iowa Finance Authority, Single Family Mortgage Rev., “E”, 5.4%, 2032		895,000		919,111
Kentucky Counties Single Family Mortgage Rev., “A”, NATL, 9%, 2016		5,000		5,001
North Dakota Housing Finance Agency Rev., “A”, 4.85%, 2021		405,000		406,466
Virginia Housing Development Authority, Commonwealth Mortgage, “A-5”, 4.4%, 2015		210,000		214,595
Virginia Housing Development Authority, Commonwealth Mortgage, “A-5”, 4.4%, 2015		340,000		345,539

			$	3,755,792
State & Agency - Other - 0.5%
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (Mepsi Campus), “A”, 6.25%, 2024	$	100,000	$	94,633
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (Mepsi Campus), “A”, 6.5%, 2037		500,000		446,100

			$	540,733
State & Local Agencies - 5.4%
Chesterfield County, VA, Economic Development Authority Pollution Control Rev., “A”, 5%, 2023	$	880,000	$	959,957

Portfolio of Investments – continued


Issuer	Shares/Par		Value ($)

Municipal Bonds - continued
State & Local Agencies - continued
Dorchester County, SC, School District No. 2, Growth Remedy Opportunity Tax Hike, 5.25%, 2029	$	500,000	$	517,735
Laurens County, SC, School District No. 55, Installment Purchase Rev., 5.25%, 2030		700,000		645,575
Michigan Building Authority Rev., Facilities Program, “I”, 5%, 2024 (c)		45,000		48,573
Michigan Building Authority Rev., Facilities Program, “I”, 5%, 2024		955,000		981,148
New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority, “A”, 5.125%, 2029		800,000		819,640
Newberry, SC, Investing in Children’s Education (Newberry County School District Program), 5%, 2030		400,000		368,044
Philadelphia, PA, Municipal Authority Rev., 6.5%, 2034		135,000		141,423
Puerto Rico Public Finance Corp., “E”, ETM, 6%, 2026 (c)		80,000		99,988
Puerto Rico Public Finance Corp., Unrefunded, “E”, 6%, 2026		820,000		1,024,877
Wisconsin General Fund Annual Appropriation Rev., “A”, 5.75%, 2033		660,000		718,469

			$	6,325,429
Student Loan Revenue - 0.6%
Massachusetts Educational Financing Authority, Education Loan Rev., “H”, ASSD GTY, 6.35%, 2030	$	625,000	$	665,856

Tax - Other - 1.2%
Dallas County, TX, Flood Control District, 7.25%, 2032	$	750,000	$	782,168
New York, NY, City Transitional Finance Authority Building Aid Rev., “S-3”, 5.25%, 2039		440,000		452,822
Virgin Islands Public Finance Authority Rev. (Diageo Project), “A”, 6.75%, 2037		205,000		216,892

			$	1,451,882
Tax Assessment - 9.8%
Atlanta, GA, Tax Allocation (Eastside Project), “B”, 5.4%, 2020	$	500,000	$	459,110
Ave Maria Stewardship Community District, FL, “A”, 5.125%, 2038		150,000		105,690
Capital Region Community Development District, FL, Capital Improvement Rev., “A”, 7%, 2039		235,000		215,930
Celebration Community Development District, FL, “A”, 6.4%, 2034		700,000		697,382
Channing Park Community Development District, FL, 5.3%, 2038		400,000		217,636
Chicago, IL, Tax Increment Allocation (Pilsen Redevelopment), “B”, 6.75%, 2022		310,000		291,115
Du Page County, IL, Special Service Area No. 31 Special Tax (Monarch Landing Project), 5.625%, 2036		250,000		183,083
Durbin Crossing Community Development District, FL, Special Assessment, “B-1”, 4.875%, 2010		125,000		96,190
Grand Bay at Doral Community Development District, FL, “A”, 6%, 2039		90,000		47,885

Portfolio of Investments – continued


Issuer	Shares/Par		Value ($)

Municipal Bonds - continued
Tax Assessment - continued
Grand Bay at Doral Community Development District, FL, “B”, 6%, 2017	$	545,000	$	385,081
Heritage Harbour North Community Development District, FL, Capital Improvement Rev., 6.375%, 2038		315,000		239,066
Homestead, FL, Community Development District, Special Assessment, “A”, 6%, 2037 (d)		370,000		191,901
Homestead, FL, Community Development District, Special Assessment, “B”, 5.9%, 2013 (d)		170,000		118,929
Huntington Beach, CA, Community Facilities District, Special Tax (Grand Coast Resort), “2000-1”, 6.45%, 2031		500,000		468,115
Lincoln, CA, Special Tax (Community Facilities District), “2003-1”, 5.55%, 2013 (c)		440,000		518,641
Lincolnshire, IL, Special Service Area No. 1 (Sedgebrook Project), 6.25%, 2034		250,000		174,858
Magnolia Park Community Development District, FL, Special Assessment, “A”, 6.15%, 2039		615,000		398,391
Main Street Community Development District, FL, “A”, 6.8%, 2038		290,000		222,050
Main Street Community Development District, FL, “B”, 6.9%, 2017		225,000		199,928
Northwest Metropolitan District No. 3, CO, 6.25%, 2035		500,000		345,330
Oakmont Grove Community Development District, CA, “A”, 5.4%, 2038 (d)		300,000		126,330
Ohio County, WV, Commission Tax Increment Rev. (Fort Henry Centre), “A”, 5.85%, 2034		125,000		108,664
Orlando, FL, Special Assessment Rev. (Conroy Road Interchange Project), “A”, 5.5%, 2010		25,000		25,008
Orlando, FL, Special Assessment Rev. (Conroy Road Interchange Project), “A”, 5.8%, 2026		300,000		273,624
Plano, IL, Special Service Area No. 4 (Lakewood Springs Project Unit 5-B), 6%, 2035		1,487,000		1,210,046
Portage, IN, Economic Development Rev. (Ameriplex Project), 5%, 2027		260,000		227,604
San Diego, CA, Redevelopment Agency, Tax Allocation, FSA, 0%, 2018		1,015,000		686,039
Sarasota National Community Development District, FL, Special Assessment Rev., 5.3%, 2039		800,000		406,872
Sweetwater Creek Community Development District, FL, Capital Improvement Rev., 5.5%, 2038		195,000		112,084
Tolomato Community Development District, FL, Special Assessment, 6.65%, 2040		585,000		458,962
Tuscany Reserve Community Development District, FL, Special Assessment, “B”, 5.25%, 2016		185,000		110,961
Volo Village, IL, Special Service Area No. 3, Special Tax (Symphony Meadows Project), “1”, 6%, 2036		484,000		304,959

Portfolio of Investments – continued


Issuer	Shares/Par		Value ($)

Municipal Bonds - continued
Tax Assessment - continued
West Villages Improvement District, FL, Special Assessment Rev. (Unit of Development No. 3), 5.5%, 2037	$	490,000	$	219,971
Westchester, FL, Community Development District No. 1 (Community Infrastructure), 6.125%, 2035		275,000		194,029
Westridge, FL, Community Development District, Capital Improvement Rev., 5.8%, 2037 (d)		960,000		389,520
Wyandotte County-Kansas City, KS, Unified Government Transportation Development District (Legends Village West Project), 4.875%, 2028		580,000		404,678
Yorba Linda, CA, Redevelopment Agency, Tax Allocation Rev., “A”, NATL, 0%, 2024		1,325,000		567,034

			$	11,402,696
Tobacco - 8.4%
Buckeye, OH, Tobacco Settlement Financing Authority, “A-2”, 5.875%, 2030	$	1,610,000	$	1,351,032
Buckeye, OH, Tobacco Settlement Financing Authority, “A-2”, 5.875%, 2047		2,810,000		2,024,380
Buckeye, OH, Tobacco Settlement Financing Authority, “A-2”, 6.5%, 2047		785,000		618,188
California County, CA, Tobacco Securitization Agency, Tobacco Settlement Rev. (Los Angeles County), 0%, 2046		2,000,000		56,820
Golden State, CA, Tobacco Securitization Corp., Tobacco Settlement Rev., “A-1”, 6.25%, 2013 (c)		1,350,000		1,502,631
Inland Empire, CA, Tobacco Securitization Corp., Tobacco Settlement Rev., Asset Backed, “C-1”, 0%, 2036		1,815,000		158,685
Michigan Tobacco Settlement Finance Authority Rev., Asset Backed, “A”, 6%, 2048		1,710,000		1,301,225
Rhode Island Tobacco Settlement Authority, 6%, 2023		1,675,000		1,698,551
Tobacco Settlement Authority of Washington Rev., Asset Backed, 6.625%, 2032		500,000		486,560
Virginia Tobacco Settlement Financing Corp., “B-1”, 5%, 2047		830,000		566,043

			$	9,764,115
Toll Roads - 4.6%
E-470 Public Highway Authority, CO, “B”, 0%, 2010 (c)	$	8,750,000	$	1,326,500
E-470 Public Highway Authority, CO, “B”, NATL, 0%, 2018		1,500,000		928,590
Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, Capital Appreciation, “C”, FSA, 0%, 2033		1,440,000		1,059,883
San Joaquin Hills, CA, Transportation Corridor Agency Toll Road Rev., “A”, NATL, 0%, 2015		3,000,000		2,109,750

			$	5,424,723

Portfolio of Investments – continued


Issuer	Shares/Par		Value ($)

Municipal Bonds - continued
Universities - Colleges - 8.2%
Brevard County, FL, Industrial Development Rev. (Tuff Florida Tech LLC Project), 6.75%, 2039	$	540,000	$	531,101
California Educational Facilities Authority Rev. (University of Southern California), “A”, 5.25%, 2038		1,270,000		1,331,138
California Municipal Finance Authority Rev. (Biola University), 5.8%, 2028		100,000		101,507
Florida State University Board of Governors, System Improvement Rev., 6.25%, 2030		1,000,000		1,142,460
Grand Valley, MI, State University Rev., 5.5%, 2027		135,000		143,941
Grand Valley, MI, State University Rev., 5.625%, 2029		65,000		69,266
Harris County, TX, Cultural Education Facilities Rev. (Baylor College of Medicine), “D”, 5.625%, 2032		540,000		494,834
Illinois Finance Authority Rev. (Roosevelt University Project), 6.25%, 2029		460,000		455,878
Massachusetts Health & Educational Facilities Authority Rev. (Simmons College), “I”, 8%, 2029		255,000		284,108
Massachusetts Health & Educational Facilities Authority Rev. (Suffolk University), “A”, 6.25%, 2030		725,000		749,215
Savannah, GA, Economic Development Authority Rev. (AASU Student Union LLC), ASSD GTY, 5.125%, 2039		1,320,000		1,344,169
University of Illinois Rev. (Auxiliary Facilities Systems), “A”, 5.125%, 2029		1,880,000		1,990,619
University of Southern Indiana Rev., Student Fee, “J”, ASSD GTY, 5.75%, 2028		300,000		333,276
University of Southern Mississippi Educational Building Corp. Rev. (Campus Facilities Project), 5.25%, 2032		220,000		234,494
University of Southern Mississippi, Educational Building Corp. Rev. (Campus Facilities Project), 5.375%, 2036		80,000		85,078
Washington Higher Education Facilities Authority Rev. (Whitworth University), 5.875%, 2034		280,000		282,783

			$	9,573,867
Universities - Dormitories - 0.5%
California Statewide Communities Development Authority Rev. (Lancer Educational Student Housing Project), 5.625%, 2033	$	735,000	$	592,057

Universities - Secondary Schools - 1.4%
California Statewide Communities Development Authority Rev., COP (Crossroads Schools for the Arts & Sciences), 6%, 2028	$	980,000	$	940,643
Colorado Housing Finance Development Rev. (Evergreen Country Day School), 5.875%, 2037		175,000		118,990

Portfolio of Investments – continued


Issuer	Shares/Par		Value ($)

Municipal Bonds - continued
Universities - Secondary Schools - continued
La Vernia, TX, Higher Education Finance Corp. Rev. (Kipp, Inc.), “A”, 6.25%, 2039	$	195,000	$	188,351
Lee County, FL, Industrial Development Authority Rev. (Lee Charter Foundation), “A”, 5.375%, 2037		535,000		384,242

			$	1,632,226
Utilities - Cogeneration - 0.7%
Puerto Rico Industrial, Tourist, Educational, Medical & Environmental Central Facilities (Cogeneration Facilities - AES Puerto Rico Project), 6.625%, 2026	$	320,000	$	323,344
Suffolk County, NY, Industrial Development Agency Rev. (Nissequoque Cogeneration Partners Facilities), 5.5%, 2023		550,000		477,059

			$	800,403
Utilities - Investor Owned - 6.9%
Brazos River Authority, TX, Pollution Control Rev. (TXU Electric Co. LLC), “C”, 5.75%, 2036 (b)	$	150,000	$	133,235
Brazos River Authority, TX, Pollution Control Rev. (TXU Electric Co. LLC), “C”, 6.75%, 2038		555,000		312,676
Brazos River Authority, TX, Pollution Control Rev. (TXU Electric Co. LLC), “D”, 5.4%, 2029 (b)		45,000		34,202
Bryant, IL, Pollution Control Rev. (Central Illinois Light Co.), 5.9%, 2023		975,000		975,790
Chula Vista, CA, Industrial Development Rev. (San Diego Gas), 5.875%, 2034		245,000		265,088
Clark County, NV, Industrial Development Rev. (Nevada Power Co. Project), “A”, 5.9%, 2032		1,500,000		1,457,730
Maricopa County, AZ, Pollution Control Corp., Pollution Control Rev. (Arizona Public Service Co.), “D”, 6%, 2029 (b)		475,000		507,699
Massachusetts Development Finance Agency, Solid Waste Disposal Rev. (Dominion Energy Brayton), 5.75%, 2042 (b)		85,000		89,931
Matagorda County, TX, Pollution Control Rev. (Central Power & Light Co.), “A”, 6.3%, 2029		275,000		295,840
Mississippi Business Finance Corp., Pollution Control Rev. (Systems Energy Resources Project), 5.875%, 2022		1,500,000		1,483,920
New Hampshire Business Finance Authority, Pollution Control Rev. (Public Service of New Hampshire), “B”, NATL, 4.75%, 2021		250,000		240,398
Owen County, KY, Waterworks System Rev. (American Water Co. Project), “A”, 6.25%, 2039		205,000		215,943
Pennsylvania Economic Development Financing Authority (Allegheny Energy Supply Co. LLC), 7%, 2039		600,000		651,528
Red River Authority, TX, Pollution Control Rev. (AEP Texas Central Co.), NATL, 4.45%, 2020		410,000		391,435

Portfolio of Investments – continued


Issuer	Shares/Par		Value ($)

Municipal Bonds - continued
Utilities - Investor Owned - continued
Sabine River Authority, TX, Pollution Control Rev. (TXU Electric Co. LLC), 5.2%, 2028	$	185,000	$	95,173
Sabine River Authority, TX, Pollution Control Rev. (TXU Electric Co. LLC), 5.75%, 2030 (b)		155,000		137,676
Sweetwater County, WY, Pollution Control Rev. (Idaho Power Co.), 5.25%, 2026		540,000		548,570
West Feliciana Parish, LA, Pollution Control Rev. (Entergy Gulf States), 6.6%, 2028		270,000		270,424

			$	8,107,258
Utilities - Municipal Owned - 0.1%
Harris County, TX, Cultural Education Facilities Financial Corp., Thermal Utilities Rev. (Teco Project), “A”, 5.25%, 2035	$	140,000	$	145,720

Utilities - Other - 3.6%
California M-S-R Energy Authority Gas Rev., “A”, 7%, 2034	$	155,000	$	168,950
California M-S-R Energy Authority Gas Rev., “A”, 6.5%, 2039		335,000		342,578
Indiana Bond Bank Special Program, Gas Rev., “A”, 5.25%, 2018		230,000		238,397
Main Street Natural Gas, Inc., GA, Gas Project Rev., “A”, 5.5%, 2028		335,000		309,081
Main Street Natural Gas, Inc., GA, Gas Project Rev., “B”, 5%, 2019		325,000		311,061
Public Authority for Colorado Energy Natural Gas Purchase Rev., 6.5%, 2038		25,000		26,106
Salt Verde Financial Corp., AZ, Senior Gas Rev., 5%, 2037		705,000		578,833
Tennessee Energy Acquisition Corp., Gas Rev., “A”, 5.25%, 2021		1,710,000		1,663,129
Tennessee Energy Acquisition Corp., Gas Rev., “A”, 5.25%, 2022		270,000		256,025
Tennessee Energy Acquisition Corp., Gas Rev., “A”, 5.25%, 2026		165,000		153,009
Tennessee Energy Acquisition Corp., Gas Rev., “C”, 5%, 2025		240,000		220,416

			$	4,267,585
Water & Sewer Utility Revenue - 3.2%
Atlanta, GA, Water & Wastewater Rev., “A”, 6%, 2022	$	370,000	$	398,923
Birmingham, AL, Waterworks Board Water Rev., “A”, ASSD GTY, 5.125%, 2034		595,000		614,819
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Aqueduct & Sewer Authority Rev., “A”, 6%, 2038		655,000		670,379
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Aqueduct & Sewer Authority Rev., “A”, 6%, 2044		135,000		138,170
Detroit, MI, Sewer Disposal System Rev., “B”, FSA, 7.5%, 2033		515,000		597,529
New York, NY, Municipal Water Finance Authority, Water & Sewer Systems Rev. “DD”, 4.75%, 2035		790,000		790,482

Portfolio of Investments – continued


Issuer	Shares/Par		Value ($)

Municipal Bonds - continued
Water & Sewer Utility Revenue - continued
Surprise, AZ, Municipal Property Corp., 4.9%, 2032	$	700,000	$	543,865

			$	3,754,167
Total Municipal Bonds (Identified Cost, $197,709,451)			$	186,406,141

Other Assets, Less Liabilities - 4.7%				5,463,824
Preferred Shares (Issued by the Fund) - (64.2)%				(75,000,000	)
Net Assets applicable to common shares - 100.0%			$	116,869,965

(b)	Mandatory tender date is earlier than stated maturity date.

(c)	Refunded bond.

(d)	Non-income producing security – in default.

(f)	All or a portion of the security has been segregated as collateral for open futures contracts.

(n)

Securities exempt from registration under Rule 144A of the Securities Act of 1933. These securities may be sold in the ordinary course of business in transactions exempt from registration, normally to qualified institutional buyers. At period end, the aggregate value of these securities was $3,247,165 representing 2.8% of net assets applicable to common shares.

(z)

Restricted securities are not registered under the Securities Act of 1933 and are subject to legal restrictions on resale. These securities generally may be resold in transactions exempt from registration or to the public if the securities are subsequently registered. Disposal of these securities may involve time-consuming negotiations and prompt sale at an acceptable price may be difficult. The fund holds the following restricted securities:


Restricted Securities	Acquisition Date	Cost	Current Market Value
Cabazon Band Mission Indians, CA, 8.375%, 2015	10/04/04	$130,000	$88,915
Cabazon Band Mission Indians, CA, 8.75%, 2019	10/04/04	720,000	487,138
MuniMae TE Bond Subsidiary LLC, 5.8%, 2049	10/14/04	1,000,000	654,960
Resolution Trust Corp., Pass-Through Certificates, “1993”, 8.5%, 2016	10/17/01 - 1/14/02	455,481	426,084
Total Restricted Securities			$1,657,097
% of Net Assets Applicable to Common Shares			1.4%

The following abbreviations are used in this report and are defined:

COP

Certificate of Participation

ETM

Escrowed to Maturity

LOC

Letter of Credit

Portfolio of Investments – continued


Insurers
AMBAC		AMBAC Indemnity Corp.
ASSD GTY		Assured Guaranty Insurance Co.
FGIC		Financial Guaranty Insurance Co.
FHA		Federal Housing Administration
FHLMC		Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp.
FSA		Financial Security Assurance, Inc.
GNMA		Government National Mortgage Assn.
NATL		National Public Finance Guarantee Corp.
PSF		Permanent School Fund
SYNCORA		Syncora Guarantee Inc.

Derivative Contracts at 11/30/09

Futures Contracts Outstanding at 11/30/09


Description	Currency	Contracts	Value	Expiration Date	Unrealized Appreciation (Depreciation)
Liability Derivatives
*Interest Rate Futures*
U.S. Treasury Note 10 yr (Short)	USD	238	$28,545,125	Mar-10	$(384,965	)
U.S. Treasury Bond 30 yr (Short)	USD	41	5,031,469	Mar-10	(98,479	)

					$(483,444	)

At November 30, 2009, the fund had sufficient cash and/or other liquid securities to cover any commitments under these derivative contracts.

See Notes to Financial Statements

Financial Statements

STATEMENT OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIES

At 11/30/09

This statement represents your fund’s balance sheet, which details the assets and liabilities comprising the total value of the fund.


Assets
Investments, at value (identified cost, $197,709,451)	$186,406,141
Cash	2,576,823
Receivables for
Investments sold	150,208
Interest	3,326,002
Other assets	14,365
Total assets			$192,473,539
Liabilities
Payables for
Distributions on common shares	$4
Distributions on preferred shares	909
Daily variation margin on open futures contracts	18,719
Investments purchased	454,866
Payable to affiliates
Investment adviser	26,795
Transfer agent and dividend disbursing costs	6,477
Administrative services fee	428
Payable for independent Trustees’ compensation	12,409
Accrued expenses and other liabilities	82,967
Total liabilities			$603,574
Preferred shares
Auction preferred shares (3,000 shares issued and outstanding at $25,000 per share) at liquidation value			$75,000,000
Net assets applicable to common shares			$116,869,965
Net assets consist of
Paid-in capital – common shares	$183,888,033
Unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on investments	(11,786,754	)
Accumulated net realized gain (loss) on investments	(56,059,041	)
Undistributed net investment income	827,727
Net assets applicable to common shares			$116,869,965
Preferred shares, at liquidation value (3,000 shares issued and outstanding at $25,000 per share)			75,000,000
Net assets including preferred shares			$191,869,965
Common shares of beneficial interest outstanding			27,953,620
Net asset value per common share (net assets of $116,869,965 / 27,953,620 shares of beneficial interest outstanding)			$4.18

See Notes to Financial Statements

Financial Statements

STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS

Year ended 11/30/09

This statement describes how much your fund earned in investment income and accrued in expenses.

It also describes any gains and/or losses generated by fund operations.


Net investment income
Income
Interest income	$12,086,281
Dividends from underlying funds	106
Total investment income			$12,086,387
Expenses
Management fee	$1,160,124
Transfer agent and dividend disbursing costs	47,036
Administrative services fee	41,470
Independent Trustees’ compensation	22,731
Stock exchange fee	25,219
Preferred shares service fee	130,740
Custodian fee	23,224
Shareholder communications	67,251
Auditing fees	82,048
Legal fees	13,412
Miscellaneous	55,501
Total expenses			$1,668,756
Fees paid indirectly	(5,379	)
Reduction of expenses by investment adviser	(114,005	)
Net expenses			$1,549,372
Net investment income			$10,537,015
Realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments
Realized gain (loss) (identified cost basis)
Investment transactions	$(2,548,132	)
Futures contracts	(3,341,371	)
Net realized gain (loss) on investments			$(5,889,503	)
Change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation)
Investments	$23,335,678
Futures contracts	1,324,376
Net unrealized gain (loss) on investments			$24,660,054
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments			$18,770,551
Distributions declared to preferred shareholders			$(511,899	)
Change in net assets from operations			$28,795,667

See Notes to Financial Statements

Financial Statements

STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN NET ASSETS

These statements describe the increases and/or decreases in net assets resulting from operations, any distributions, and any shareholder transactions.


	Years ended 11/30
	2009		2008
Change in net assets
From operations
Net investment income	$10,537,015		$11,898,131
Net realized gain (loss) on investments	(5,889,503	)	(12,459,753	)
Net unrealized gain (loss) on investments	24,660,054		(39,031,181	)
Distributions declared to preferred shareholders	(511,899	)	(3,117,160	)
Change in net assets from operations	$28,795,667		$(42,709,963	)
Distributions declared to common shareholders
From net investment income	$(9,208,821	)	$(9,047,476	)
Net asset value of shares issued to common shareholders in reinvestment of distributions	$328,093		$273,134
Total change in net assets	$19,914,939		$(51,484,305	)
Net assets applicable to common shares
At beginning of period	96,955,026		148,439,331
At end of period (including undistributed net investment income of $827,727 and $130,271, respectively)	$116,869,965		$96,955,026

See Notes to Financial Statements

Financial Statements

FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS

The financial highlights table is intended to help you understand the fund’s financial performance for the past 5 years. Certain information reflects financial results for a single fund share. The total returns in the table represent the rate by which an investor would have earned (or lost) on an investment in the fund share class (assuming reinvestment of all distributions) held for the entire period.


	Years ended 11/30
	2009		2008		2007		2006		2005
Net asset value, beginning of period	$3.48		$5.34		$5.98		$5.76		$5.69
Income (loss) from investment operations
Net investment income (d)	$0.38		$0.43		$0.45	(z)	$0.45		$0.45
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments	0.67		(1.85	)	(0.66	)(z)	0.23		0.08
Distributions declared to preferred shareholders	(0.02	)	(0.11	)	(0.12	)	(0.11	)	(0.08	)
Total from investment operations	$1.03		$(1.53	)	$(0.33	)	$0.57		$0.45
Less distributions declared to common shareholders
From net investment income, common shares	$(0.33	)	$(0.33	)	$(0.31	)	$(0.35	)	$(0.38	)
Net asset value, end of period	$4.18		$3.48		$5.34		$5.98		$5.76
Common share market value, end of period	$4.24		$3.04		$4.90		$5.96		$5.36
Total return at common share market value (%) (p)	52.58		(33.26	)	(13.21	)	17.99		1.36
Total return at net asset value (%) (p)(r)(s)(t)	31.40		(29.90	)	(5.73	)	10.17		8.35
Ratios (%) (to average net assets applicable to common shares) and Supplemental data:
Expenses before expense reductions (f)(p)	1.61		1.57		1.39		1.39		1.40
Expenses after expense reductions (f)(p)	1.50		1.48		1.39		N/A		N/A
Expenses after expense reductions and excluding interest expense and fees (f)(l)(p)	N/A		1.44		N/A		N/A		N/A
Net investment income (p)	10.17		9.02		7.87	(z)	7.62		7.73
Portfolio turnover	17		34		29		33		18
Net assets at end of period (000 Omitted)	$116,870		$96,955		$148,439		$165,936		$159,792

Financial Highlights – continued


	Years ended 11/30
	2009	2008	2007	2006	2005
Supplemental Ratios (%):
Net investment income available to common shares	9.68	6.66	5.78	5.74	6.46
Senior Securities:
Total preferred shares outstanding	3,000	3,000	3,600	3,600	3,600
Asset coverage per preferred share (k)	$63,957	$57,318	$66,233	$71,093	$69,387
Involuntary liquidation preference per preferred share (o)	$25,000	$25,000	$25,000	$25,015	$25,010
Average market value per preferred share (m)(x)	$25,000	$25,000	$25,000	$25,000	$25,000

(d)	Per share data is based on average shares outstanding.

(f)	Ratios do not reflect reductions from fees paid indirectly, if applicable.

(k)	Calculated by subtracting the fund’s total liabilities (not including auction preferred shares) from the fund’s total assets and dividing this number by the number of preferred shares outstanding.

(l)	Interest expense and fees relate to payments made to the holder of the floating rate certificate from trust assets.

(m)	Amount excludes accrued unpaid distributions to Auction Preferred Shareholders.

(o)	Effective November 30, 2007, amount excludes accrued unpaid distributions to Auction Preferred Shareholders.

(p)	Excludes dividend payment on auction preferred shares.

(r)	Certain expenses have been reduced without which performance would have been lower.

(s)	From time to time the fund may receive proceeds from litigation settlements, without which performance would be lower.

(t)	Prior to November 30, 2007, total return at net asset value is unaudited.

(x)	Average market value represents the approximate fair value of the fund’s liability.

(z)

The fund applied a change in estimate for amortization of premium on certain debt securities in the year ended November 30, 2007 that resulted in an increase of $0.01 per share to net investment income, a decrease of $0.01 per share to net realized and unrealized gain (loss) on investments, and an increase of 0.15% to the net investment income ratio. The change in estimate had no impact on net assets, net asset value per share or total return.

See Notes to Financial Statements

NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(1)

Business and Organization

MFS High Yield Municipal Trust (the fund) is organized as a Massachusetts business trust and is registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended, as a closed-end management investment company.

(2)

Significant Accounting Policies

General – The preparation of financial statements in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities, and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates. In the preparation of these financial statements, management has evaluated subsequent events occurring after the date of the fund’s Statement of Assets and Liabilities through January 15, 2010 which is the date that the financial statements were issued. The value of municipal instruments can be affected by changes in their actual or perceived credit quality. The credit quality of municipal instruments can be affected by, among other things, the financial condition of the issuer or guarantor, the issuer’s future borrowing plans and sources of revenue, the economic feasibility of the revenue bond project or general borrowing purpose, political or economic developments in the region or state where the instrument is issued and the liquidity of the security. Municipal instruments generally trade in the over-the-counter market. Municipal instruments backed by current and anticipated revenues from a specific project or specific assets can be negatively affected by the discontinuance of the taxation supporting the projects or assets or the inability to collect revenues for the project or from the assets. If the Internal Revenue Service determines an issuer of a municipal instrument has not complied with the applicable tax requirements, the security could decline in value, interest from the security could become taxable and the funds may be required to issue Forms 1099-DIV. The fund may invest in high-yield securities rated below investment grade. Investments in high-yield securities involve greater degrees of credit and market risk than investments in higher-rated securities and tend to be more sensitive to economic conditions.

Investment Valuations – Debt instruments and floating rate loans (other than short-term instruments), including restricted debt instruments, are generally valued at an evaluated or composite bid as provided by a third-party pricing service. Short-term instruments with a maturity at issuance of 60 days or less generally are valued at amortized cost, which approximates market value. Futures contracts are generally valued at last posted settlement price as

Notes to Financial Statements – continued

provided by a third-party pricing service on the market on which they are primarily traded. Futures contracts for which there were no trades that day for a particular position are generally valued at the closing bid quotation as provided by a third-party pricing service on the market on which such futures contracts are primarily traded. Open-end investment companies are generally valued at net asset value per share. Securities and other assets generally valued on the basis of information from a third-party pricing service may also be valued at a broker/dealer bid quotation. Values obtained from third-party pricing services can utilize both transaction data and market information such as yield, quality, coupon rate, maturity, type of issue, trading characteristics, and other market data.

The Board of Trustees has delegated primary responsibility for determining or causing to be determined the value of the fund’s investments (including any fair valuation) to the adviser pursuant to valuation policies and procedures approved by the Board. If the adviser determines that reliable market quotations are not readily available, investments are valued at fair value as determined in good faith by the adviser in accordance with such procedures under the oversight of the Board of Trustees. Under the fund’s valuation policies and procedures, market quotations are not considered to be readily available for most types of debt instruments and floating rate loans and many types of derivatives. These investments are generally valued at fair value based on information from third-party pricing services. In addition, investments may be valued at fair value if the adviser determines that an investment’s value has been materially affected by events occurring after the close of the exchange or market on which the investment is principally traded (such as foreign exchange or market) and prior to the determination of the fund’s net asset value, or after the halting of trading of a specific security where trading does not resume prior to the close of the exchange or market on which the security is principally traded. The adviser generally relies on third-party pricing services or other information (such as the correlation with price movements of similar securities in the same or other markets; the type, cost and investment characteristics of the security; the business and financial condition of the issuer; and trading and other market data) to assist in determining whether to fair value and at what value to fair value an investment. The value of an investment for purposes of calculating the fund’s net asset value can differ depending on the source and method used to determine value. When fair valuation is used, the value of an investment used to determine the fund’s net asset value may differ from quoted or published prices for the same investment. There can be no assurance that the fund could obtain the fair value assigned to an investment if it were to sell the investment at the same time at which the fund determines its net asset value per share.

Notes to Financial Statements – continued

Various inputs are used in determining the value of the fund’s assets or liabilities carried at market value. These inputs are categorized into three broad levels. In certain cases, the inputs used to measure fair value may fall into different levels of the fair value hierarchy. In such cases, an investment’s level within the fair value hierarchy is based on the lowest level of input that is significant to the fair value measurement. The fund’s assessment of the significance of a particular input to the fair value measurement in its entirety requires judgment, and considers factors specific to the investment. Level 1 includes unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities. Level 2 includes other significant observable market-based inputs (including quoted prices for similar securities, interest rates, prepayment speed, and credit risk). Level 3 includes unobservable inputs, which may include the adviser’s own assumptions in determining the fair value of investments. Other financial instruments are derivative instruments not reflected in total investments, such as futures, forwards, swap contracts, and written options. The following is a summary of the levels used as of November 30, 2009 in valuing the fund’s assets or liabilities carried at market value:


Investments at Value	Level 1		Level 2	Level 3	Total
Municipal Bonds	$—		$186,406,141	$—	$186,406,141

Other Financial Instruments
Futures	$(483,444	)	$—	$—	$(483,444	)

For further information regarding security characteristics, see the Portfolio of Investments.

Derivatives – The fund may use derivatives for different purposes, including to earn income and enhance returns, to increase or decrease exposure to a particular market, to manage or adjust the risk profile of the fund, or as alternatives to direct investments. Derivatives may be used for hedging or non-hedging purposes. While hedging can reduce or eliminate losses, it can also reduce or eliminate gains. When the fund uses derivatives as an investment to increase market exposure, or for hedging purposes, gains and losses from derivative instruments may be substantially greater than the derivative’s original cost.

In this reporting period the fund adopted the disclosure provisions of FASB Accounting Standard Codification 815, Derivatives and Hedging (“ASC 815”). ASC 815 requires enhanced disclosures about the fund’s use of and accounting for derivative instruments and the effect of derivative instruments on the fund’s results of operations and financial position. Tabular disclosure regarding derivative fair value and gain/loss by contract type (e.g., interest rate contracts, foreign exchange contracts, credit contracts, etc.) is required and derivatives accounted for as hedging instruments under ASC 815 must be

Notes to Financial Statements – continued

disclosed separately from those that do not qualify for hedge accounting. Even though the fund may use derivatives in an attempt to achieve an economic hedge, the fund’s derivatives are not accounted for as hedging instruments under ASC 815 because investment companies account for their derivatives at fair value and record any changes in fair value in current period earnings.

Derivative instruments include written options, purchased options, futures contracts, forward foreign currency exchange contracts, and swap agreements. The fund’s period end derivatives, as presented in the Portfolio of Investments and the associated Derivative Contract Tables, generally are indicative of the volume of its derivative activity during the period.

The following table presents, by major type of derivative contract, the fair value, on a gross basis, of the asset and liability components of derivatives held by the fund at November 30, 2009:


		Liability Derivatives
		Location on Statement of Assets and Liabilities	Fair Value
Interest Rate Contracts Not Accounted For as Hedging Instruments Under ASC 815	Interest Rate Futures	Unrealized depreciation on investments	$(483,444	)(a)

(a)	Includes cumulative appreciation/depreciation of futures contracts as reported in the fund’s Portfolio of Investments. Only the current day’s variation margin for futures contracts is reported within the fund’s Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

The following table presents, by major type of derivative contract, the realized gain (loss) on derivatives held by the fund for the year ended November 30, 2009 as reported in the Statement of Operations:


	Futures Contracts
Interest Rate Contracts	$(3,341,371	)

The following table presents, by major type of derivative contract, the change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on derivatives held by the fund for the year ended November 30, 2009 as reported in the Statement of Operations:


		Futures Contracts
Interest Rate Contracts		$1,324,376

Derivative counterparty credit risk is managed through formal evaluation of the creditworthiness of all potential counterparties. On certain over-the-counter derivatives, the fund attempts to reduce its exposure to counterparty credit risk whenever possible by entering into an International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA) Master Agreement on a bilateral basis with each of the counterparties with whom it undertakes a significant volume of transactions.

Notes to Financial Statements – continued

The ISDA Master Agreement gives each party to the agreement the right to terminate all transactions traded under such agreement if there is a certain deterioration in the credit quality of the other party. The ISDA Master Agreement gives the fund the right, upon an event of default by the applicable counterparty or a termination of the agreement, to close out all transactions traded under such agreement and to net amounts owed under each transaction to one net amount payable by one party to the other. This right to close out and net payments across all transactions traded under the ISDA Master Agreement could result in a reduction of the fund’s credit risk to such counterparty equal to any amounts payable by the fund under the applicable transactions, if any. However, absent an event of default by the counterparty or a termination of the agreement, the ISDA Master Agreement does not result in an offset of reported balance sheet assets and liabilities across transactions between the fund and the applicable counterparty.

Collateral requirements differ by type of derivative. Collateral or margin requirements are set by the broker or exchange clearing house for exchange traded derivatives (i.e., futures and exchange-traded options) while collateral terms are contract specific for over-the-counter traded derivatives (i.e., forwards, swaps and over-the-counter options). For derivatives traded under an ISDA Master Agreement, the collateral requirements are netted across all transactions traded under such agreement and one amount is posted from one party to the other to collateralize such obligations. Cash collateral that has been pledged to cover obligations of the fund under derivative contracts will be reported separately on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities as restricted cash. Securities collateral pledged for the same purpose is noted in the Portfolio of Investments.

Futures Contracts – The fund may use futures contracts to gain or to hedge against broad market, interest rate or currency exposure. A futures contract represents a commitment for the future purchase or sale of an asset at a specified price on a specified date.

Upon entering into a futures contract, the fund is required to deposit with the broker, either in cash or securities, an initial margin in an amount equal to a certain percentage of the notional amount of the contract. Subsequent payments (variation margin) are made or received by the fund each day, depending on the daily fluctuations in the value of the contract, and are recorded for financial statement purposes as unrealized gain or loss by the fund until the contract is closed or expires at which point the gain or loss on futures is realized.

The fund bears the risk of interest rates, exchange rates or securities prices moving unexpectedly, in which case, the fund may not achieve the anticipated benefits of the futures contracts and may realize a loss. While futures may

Notes to Financial Statements – continued

present less counterparty risk to the fund since the contracts are exchange traded and the exchange’s clearinghouse guarantees payments to the broker, there is still counterparty credit risk due to the insolvency of the broker. The fund’s maximum risk of loss due to counterparty credit risk is equal to the margin posted by the fund to the broker plus any gains or minus any losses on the outstanding futures contracts.

Indemnifications – Under the fund’s organizational documents, its officers and Trustees may be indemnified against certain liabilities and expenses arising out of the performance of their duties to the fund. Additionally, in the normal course of business, the fund enters into agreements with service providers that may contain indemnification clauses. The fund’s maximum exposure under these agreements is unknown as this would involve future claims that may be made against the fund that have not yet occurred.

Investment Transactions and Income – Investment transactions are recorded on the trade date. Interest income is recorded on the accrual basis. All premium and discount is amortized or accreted for financial statement purposes in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.

The fund may receive proceeds from litigation settlements. Any proceeds received from litigation involving portfolio holdings are reflected in the Statement of Operations in realized gain/loss if the security has been disposed of by the fund or in unrealized gain/loss if the security is still held by the fund. Any other proceeds from litigation not related to portfolio holdings are reflected as other income in the Statement of Operations.

Legal fees and other related expenses incurred to preserve and protect the value of a security owned are added to the cost of the security; other legal fees are expensed. Capital infusions made directly to the security issuer, which are generally non-recurring, incurred to protect or enhance the value of high-yield debt securities, are reported as additions to the cost basis of the security. Costs that are incurred to negotiate the terms or conditions of capital infusions or that are expected to result in a plan of reorganization are reported as realized losses. Ongoing costs incurred to protect or enhance an investment, or costs incurred to pursue other claims or legal actions, are expensed.

Fees Paid Indirectly – The fund’s custody fee may be reduced according to an arrangement that measures the value of cash deposited with the custodian by the fund. This amount, for the year ended November 30, 2009, is shown as a reduction of total expenses on the Statement of Operations.

Tax Matters and Distributions – The fund intends to qualify as a regulated investment company, as defined under Subchapter M of the Internal Revenue Code, and to distribute all of its taxable and tax-exempt income, including realized capital gains. As a result, no provision for federal income tax is

Notes to Financial Statements – continued

required. The fund’s federal tax return for the prior three fiscal years remains subject to examination by the Internal Revenue Service.

Distributions to shareholders are recorded on the ex-dividend date. Income and capital gain distributions are determined in accordance with income tax regulations, which may differ from U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. Certain capital accounts in the financial statements are periodically adjusted for permanent differences in order to reflect their tax character. These adjustments have no impact on net assets or net asset value per share. Temporary differences which arise from recognizing certain items of income, expense, gain or loss in different periods for financial statement and tax purposes will reverse at some time in the future. Distributions in excess of net investment income or net realized gains are temporary overdistributions for financial statement purposes resulting from differences in the recognition or classification of income or distributions for financial statement and tax purposes.

Book/tax differences primarily relate to expiration of capital loss carryforwards, amortization and accretion of debt securities, defaulted bonds, and derivative transactions.

The tax character of distributions declared to shareholders for the last two fiscal years is as follows:


	11/30/09	11/30/08
Ordinary income (including any short-term capital gains)	$105,243	$3,208
Tax-exempt income	9,615,477	12,161,428
Total distributions	$9,720,720	$12,164,636

The federal tax cost and the tax basis components of distributable earnings were as follows:


As of 11/30/09
Cost of investments	$197,367,842
Gross appreciation	8,352,464
Gross depreciation	(19,314,165	)
Net unrealized appreciation (depreciation)	$(10,961,701	)
Undistributed ordinary income	8,018
Undistributed tax-exempt income	1,049,365
Capital loss carryforwards	(56,884,094	)
Other temporary differences	(229,656	)

Notes to Financial Statements – continued

As of November 30, 2009, the fund had capital loss carryforwards available to offset future realized gains. Such losses expire as follows:


11/30/10	$(7,684,792	)
11/30/11	(4,393,912	)
11/30/12	(4,060,511	)
11/30/14	(7,119,782	)
11/30/15	(11,048,097	)
11/30/16	(11,728,477	)
11/30/17	(10,848,523	)
	$(56,884,094	)

(3)

Transactions with Affiliates

Investment Adviser – The fund has an investment advisory agreement with MFS to provide overall investment management and related administrative services and facilities to the fund. The management fee is computed daily and paid monthly at an annual rate of 0.65% of the fund’s average daily net assets (including the value of the auction preferred shares).

The investment adviser has agreed in writing to pay a portion of the fund’s total annual operating expenses, exclusive of interest, taxes, extraordinary expenses, brokerage and transaction costs, and investment-related expenses other than preferred share service fees, such that total annual fund operating expenses do not exceed 0.87% annually of the fund’s average daily net assets (including the value of the auction preferred shares). This written agreement will continue until modified by the fund’s Board of Trustees, but such agreement will continue at least until November 30, 2010. For the year ended November 30, 2009, this reduction amounted to $113,351 and is reflected as a reduction of total expenses in the Statement of Operations.

Transfer Agent – The fund engages Computershare Trust Company, N.A. (“Computershare”) as the sole transfer agent for the fund’s common shares. MFS Service Center, Inc. (MFSC) monitors and supervises the activities of Computershare for an agreed upon fee approved by the Board of Trustees. For the year ended November 30, 2009, these fees paid to MFSC amounted to $16,560. MFSC also receives payment from the fund for out-of-pocket expenses paid by MFSC on behalf of the fund. For the year ended November 30, 2009, the fund did not pay any out-of-pocket expenses to MFSC.

Administrator – MFS provides certain financial, legal, shareholder communications, compliance, and other administrative services to the fund. Under an administrative services agreement, the fund partially reimburses MFS the costs incurred to provide these services. The fund is charged an annual fixed amount of $17,500 plus a fee based on average daily net assets (including the value of the auction preferred shares). The administrative services fee incurred for the year ended November 30, 2009 was equivalent to an annual effective rate of 0.0232% of the fund’s average daily net assets (including the value of the auction preferred shares).

Notes to Financial Statements – continued

Trustees’ and Officers’ Compensation – The fund pays compensation to independent Trustees in the form of a retainer, attendance fees, and additional compensation to Board and Committee chairpersons. The fund does not pay compensation directly to Trustees or to officers of the fund who are also officers of the investment adviser, all of whom receive remuneration for their services to the fund from MFS. Certain officers and Trustees of the fund are officers or directors of MFS and MFSC.

Deferred Trustee Compensation – Prior to MFS’ appointment as investment adviser to the fund, the fund’s former independent Trustees participated in a Deferred Compensation Plan (the “Former Colonial Trustees Plan” or “Plan”). The fund’s current independent Trustees are not allowed to defer compensation under the Former Colonial Trustees Plan. Amounts deferred under the Plan are invested in shares of certain non-MFS funds selected by the former independent Trustees as notional investments. Deferred amounts represent an unsecured obligation of the fund until distributed in accordance with the Plan. Included in other assets and payable for independent Trustees’ compensation on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities is $12,384 of deferred Trustees’ compensation. There is no current year expense associated with the Former Colonial Trustees Plan.

Other – This fund and certain other funds managed by MFS (the funds) have entered into services agreements (the Agreements) which provide for payment of fees by the funds to Tarantino LLC and Griffin Compliance LLC in return for the provision of services of an Independent Chief Compliance Officer (ICCO) and Assistant ICCO, respectively, for the funds. The ICCO and Assistant ICCO are officers of the funds and the sole members of Tarantino LLC and Griffin Compliance LLC, respectively. The funds can terminate the Agreements with Tarantino LLC and Griffin Compliance LLC at any time under the terms of the Agreements. For the year ended November 30, 2009, the aggregate fees paid by the fund to Tarantino LLC and Griffin Compliance LLC were $1,214 and are included in miscellaneous expense on the Statement of Operations. MFS has agreed to reimburse the fund for a portion of the payments made by the fund in the amount of $654, which is shown as a reduction of total expenses in the Statement of Operations. Additionally, MFS has agreed to bear all expenses associated with office space, other administrative support, and supplies provided to the ICCO and Assistant ICCO.

The fund may invest in a money market fund managed by MFS which seeks a high level of current income consistent with preservation of capital and liquidity. Income earned on this investment is included in dividends from underlying funds on the Statement of Operations. This money market fund does not pay a management fee to MFS.

(4)

Portfolio Securities

Purchases and sales of investments, other than U.S. Government securities, purchased option transactions and short-term obligations, aggregated $37,158,187 and $29,046,583, respectively.

Notes to Financial Statements – continued

(5)

Shares of Beneficial Interest

The fund’s Declaration of Trust permits the Trustees to issue an unlimited number of full and fractional shares of beneficial interest. The fund reserves the right to repurchase shares of beneficial interest of the fund subject to Trustee approval. During the years ended November 30, 2009 and 2008, the fund did not repurchase any shares. Transactions in fund shares were as follows:


	Year ended 11/30/09		Year ended 11/30/08
	Shares	Amount	Shares	Amount
Shares issued to shareholders in reinvestment of distributions	86,698	$328,093	56,638	$273,134

(6)

Line of Credit

The fund and certain other funds managed by MFS participate in a $1.1 billion unsecured committed line of credit, subject to a $1 billion sublimit, provided by a syndication of banks under a credit agreement. Borrowings may be made for temporary financing needs. Interest is charged to each fund, based on its borrowings, generally at a rate equal to the higher of the Federal Reserve funds rate or one month LIBOR plus an agreed upon spread. A commitment fee, based on the average daily, unused portion of the committed line of credit, is allocated among the participating funds at the end of each calendar quarter. In addition, the fund and other funds managed by MFS have established unsecured uncommitted borrowing arrangements with certain banks for temporary financing needs. Interest is charged to each fund, based on its borrowings, at a rate equal to the Federal Reserve funds rate plus an agreed upon spread. For the year ended November 30, 2009, the fund’s commitment fee and interest expense were $1,471 and $0, respectively, and are included in miscellaneous expense on the Statement of Operations.

(7)

Transactions in Underlying Funds-Affiliated Issuers

An affiliated issuer may be considered one in which the fund owns 5% or more of the outstanding voting securities, or a company which is under common control. For the purposes of this report, the fund assumes the following to be affiliated issuers:


Underlying Funds	Beginning Shares/Par Amount	Acquisitions Shares/Par Amount	Dispositions Shares/Par Amount		Ending Shares/Par Amount
MFS Institutional Money Market Portfolio	—	7,556,226	(7,556,226	)	—

Underlying Funds	Realized Gain (Loss)	Capital Gain Distributions	Dividend Income		Ending Value
MFS Institutional Money Market Portfolio	$—	$—	$106		$—

Notes to Financial Statements – continued

(8)

Auction Preferred Shares

The fund has 3,000 shares issued and outstanding of Auction Preferred Shares (APS), series F. Dividends are cumulative at a rate that is reset every seven days through an auction process. If the APS are unable to be remarketed on a remarketing date as part of the auction process, the fund would be required to pay the maximum applicable rate on APS to holders of such shares for successive dividend periods until such time when the shares are successfully remarketed. The maximum rate on APS is equal to 110% of the higher of (i) the Taxable Equivalent of the Short-Term Municipal Bond Rate or (ii) the “AA” Composite Commercial Paper Rate.

Since February 2008, regularly scheduled auctions for APS issued by closed end funds, including MFS High Yield Municipal Trust have consistently failed because of insufficient demand (bids to buy shares) to meet the supply (shares offered for sale) at each auction. In a failed auction, APS holders cannot sell their shares tendered for sale. While repeated auction failures have affected the liquidity for APS, they do not constitute a default or automatically alter the credit quality of the APS, and APS holders have continued to receive dividends at the previously defined “maximum rate”. During the year ended November 30, 2009, the APS dividend rates ranged from 0.35% to 2.11%. For the year ended November 30, 2009, the average dividend rate was 0.66%. These developments with respect to APS do not affect the management or investment policies of the fund. However, one implication of these auction failures for Common shareholders is that the fund’s cost of leverage will be higher than it otherwise would have been had the auctions continued to be successful. As a result, the fund’s future Common share earnings may be lower than they otherwise would have been. To the extent that investments are purchased with the issuance of preferred shares, the fund’s net asset value will increase or decrease at a greater rate than a comparable unleveraged fund.

The fund pays an annual service fee to broker-dealers with customers who are beneficial owners of the preferred shares. The service fee is equivalent to 0.25% of the preferred share liquidation value while the preferred share auctions are successful or, effective May 1, 2009, to 0.15% or less, varying by broker-dealer, while the auctions are failing. The APS are redeemable at the option of the fund in whole or in part at the redemption price equal to $25,000 per share, plus accumulated and unpaid dividends. The APS are also subject to mandatory redemption if certain requirements relating to its asset maintenance coverage are not satisfied. The fund is required to maintain certain asset coverage with respect to the APS as defined in the fund’s By-Laws and the Investment Company Act of 1940 and, as such is not permitted to declare common share dividends unless the fund’s APS have a minimum asset coverage ratio of 200% after declaration of the common share dividends.

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

To the Trustees and Shareholders of MFS High Yield Municipal Trust:

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities of MFS High Yield Municipal Trust (the Fund), including the portfolio of investments, as of November 30, 2009, and the related statement of operations for the year then ended, the statements of changes in net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the three years in the period then ended. These financial statements and financial highlights are the responsibility of the Fund’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and financial highlights based on our audits. The financial highlights for each of the two years in the period ended November 30, 2006 were audited by another independent registered public accounting firm whose report, dated January 25, 2007, expressed an unqualified opinion on those financial highlights.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements and financial highlights are free of material misstatement. We were not engaged to perform an audit of the Fund’s internal control over financial reporting. Our audits included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Fund’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements and financial highlights, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, and evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. Our procedures included confirmation of securities owned as of November 30, 2009, by correspondence with the Fund’s custodian and brokers or by other appropriate auditing procedures where replies from brokers were not received. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements and financial highlights referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of MFS High Yield Municipal Trust at November 30, 2009, the results of its operations for the year then ended, the changes in its net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the three years in the period then ended, in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.

LOGO

Boston, Massachusetts

January 15, 2010

RESULTS OF SHAREHOLDER MEETING

(unaudited)

At the annual meeting of shareholders of MFS High Yield Municipal Trust, which was held on October 8, 2009, the following actions were taken:

Item 1. To elect the following individuals as Trustees, elected by the holders of common and preferred shares together:


	Number of Shares
Nominee	For	Withheld Authority
Robert E. Butler	23,339,398.556	1,093,269.840
David H. Gunning	23,520,779.711	911,888.685
Robert C. Pozen	23,398,179.668	1,034,488.728
J. Dale Sherratt	23,445,483.513	987,184.883

Item 2: To elect the following individuals as Trustees, elected by the holders of preferred shares only:


	Number of Shares
Nominee	For	Withheld Authority
John P. Kavanaugh	2,196.000	18.000
Laurie J. Thomsen	2,196.000	18.000

TRUSTEES AND OFFICERS — IDENTIFICATION AND BACKGROUND

The Trustees and officers of the Trust, as of January 1, 2010, are listed below, together with their principal occupations during the past five years. (Their titles may have varied during that period.) The address of each Trustee and officer is 500 Boylston Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02116.


Name, Date of Birth	Position(s) Held with Fund	Trustee/Officer Since (h)	Principal Occupations During the Past Five Years & Other Directorships (j)
INTERESTED TRUSTEES
Robert J. Manning (k) (born 10/20/63)	Trustee	February 2004	Massachusetts Financial Services Company, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Investment Officer and Director, President (until December 2009)
Robert C. Pozen (k) (born 8/08/46)	Trustee	February 2004	Massachusetts Financial Services Company, Chairman (since February 2004); Medtronic, Inc, (medical devices), Director (since 2004); Harvard Business School (education), Senior Lecturer (since 2008); Bell Canada Enterprises (telecommunications), Director (until February 2009); The Bank of New York, Director (finance), (March 2004 to May 2005); Telesat (satellite communications), Director (until November 2007)
INDEPENDENT TRUSTEES
David H. Gunning (born 5/30/42)	Trustee and Chair of Trustees	January 2004	Retired; Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. (mining products and service provider), Vice Chairman/Director (until May 2007); Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc. (welding equipment manufacturer), Director; Development Alternatives, Inc. (consulting), Director/Non Executive Chairman; Southwest Gas Corp. (natural gas distribution), Director (until May 2004); Portman Limited (mining), Director (until 2008)

Trustees and Officers – continued


Name, Date of Birth	Position(s) Held with Fund	Trustee/Officer Since (h)	Principal Occupations During the Past Five Years & Other Directorships (j)
Robert E. Butler (n) (born 11/29/41)	Trustee	January 2006	Consultant – investment company industry regulatory and compliance matters (since July 2002); PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (professional services firm), Partner (until 2002)
Lawrence H. Cohn, M.D. (born 3/11/37)	Trustee	June 1989	Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Senior Cardiac Surgeon (since 2005); Harvard Medical School, Professor of Cardiac Surgery; Partners HealthCare, Physician Director of Medical Device Technology (since 2006); Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Chief of Cardiac Surgery (until 2005)
Maureen R. Goldfarb (born 4/6/55)	Trustee	January 2009	Private investor; John Hancock Financial Services, Inc., Executive Vice President (until 2004); John Hancock Mutual Funds, Trustee and Chief Executive Officer (until 2004)
William R. Gutow (born 9/27/41)	Trustee	December 1993	Private investor and real estate consultant; Capital Entertainment Management Company (video franchise), Vice Chairman; Atlantic Coast Tan (tanning salons), Vice Chairman (until 2007); Texas Donuts (donut franchise), Vice Chairman (until 2009)
Michael Hegarty (born 12/21/44)	Trustee	December 2004	Private investor; AXA Financial (financial services and insurance), Vice Chairman and Chief Operating Officer (until 2001); The Equitable Life Assurance Society (insurance), President and Chief Operating Officer (until 2001)
John P. Kavanaugh (born 11/4/54)	Trustee	January 2009	Private investor; The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc., Vice President and Chief Investment Officer (until 2006); Allmerica Investment Trust, Allmerica Securities Trust and Opus Investment Trust (investment companies), Chairman, President and Trustee (until 2006)

Trustees and Officers – continued


Name, Date of Birth	Position(s) Held with Fund	Trustee/Officer Since (h)	Principal Occupations During the Past Five Years & Other Directorships (j)
J. Dale Sherratt (born 9/23/38)	Trustee	June 1989	Insight Resources, Inc. (acquisition planning specialists), President; Wellfleet Investments (investor in health care companies), Managing General Partner
Laurie J. Thomsen (born 8/05/57)	Trustee	March 2005	New Profit, Inc. (venture philanthropy), Executive Partner (since 2006); Private investor; The Travelers Companies (commercial property liability insurance), Director; Prism Venture Partners (venture capital), Co-founder and General Partner (until June 2004)
Robert W. Uek (born 5/18/41)	Trustee	January 2006	Consultant to investment company industry; PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (professional services firm), Partner (until 1999); TT International Funds (mutual fund complex), Trustee (until 2005); Hillview Investment Trust II Funds (mutual fund complex), Trustee (until 2005)
OFFICERS
Maria F. Dwyer (k) (born 12/01/58)	President	March 2004	Massachusetts Financial Services Company, Executive Vice President and Chief Regulatory Officer (since March 2004) Chief Compliance Officer (since December 2006); Fidelity Management & Research Company, Vice President (prior to March 2004); Fidelity Group of Funds, President and Treasurer (until March 2004)
Christopher R. Bohane (k) (born 1/18/74)	Assistant Secretary and Assistant Clerk	July 2005	Massachusetts Financial Services Company, Vice President and Senior Counsel
John M. Corcoran (k) (born 4/13/65)	Treasurer	October 2008	Massachusetts Financial Services Company, Senior Vice President (since October 2008); State Street Bank and Trust (financial services provider), Senior Vice President, (until September 2008)

Trustees and Officers – continued


Name, Date of Birth	Position(s) Held with Fund	Trustee/Officer Since (h)	Principal Occupations During the Past Five Years & Other Directorships (j)
Ethan D. Corey (k) (born 11/21/63)	Assistant Secretary and Assistant Clerk	July 2005	Massachusetts Financial Services Company, Senior Vice President and Associate General Counsel (since 2004); Dechert LLP (law firm), Counsel (prior to December 2004)
David L. DiLorenzo (k) (born 8/10/68)	Assistant Treasurer	July 2005	Massachusetts Financial Services Company, Vice President (since June 2005); JP Morgan Investor Services, Vice President (until June 2005)
Timothy M. Fagan (k) (born 7/10/68)	Assistant Secretary and Assistant Clerk	September 2005	Massachusetts Financial Services Company, Vice President and Senior Counsel (since September 2005); John Hancock Advisers, LLC, Vice President, Senior Attorney and Chief Compliance Officer (until August 2005)
Mark D. Fischer (k) (born 10/27/70)	Assistant Treasurer	July 2005	Massachusetts Financial Services Company, Vice President (since May 2005); JP Morgan Investment Management Company, Vice President (until May 2005)
Robyn L. Griffin (born 7/04/75)	Assistant Independent Chief Compliance Officer	August, 2008	Griffin Compliance LLC (provider of compliance services), Principal (since August 2008); State Street Corporation (financial services provider), Mutual Fund Administration Assistant Vice President (October 2006 – July 2008); Liberty Mutual Group (insurance), Personal Market Assistant Controller (April 2006 – October 2006); Deloitte & Touche LLP (professional services firm), Senior Manager (prior to April 2006)
Brian E. Langenfeld (k) (born 3/07/73)	Assistant Secretary and Assistant Clerk	June 2006	Massachusetts Financial Services Company, Vice President and Senior Counsel (since May 2006); John Hancock Advisers, LLC, Assistant Vice President and Counsel (until April 2006)

Trustees and Officers – continued


Name, Date of Birth	Position(s) Held with Fund	Trustee/Officer Since (h)	Principal Occupations During the Past Five Years & Other Directorships (j)
Ellen Moynihan (k) (born 11/13/57)	Assistant Treasurer	April 1997	Massachusetts Financial Services Company, Senior Vice President
Susan S. Newton (k) (born 3/07/50)	Assistant Secretary and Assistant Clerk	May 2005	Massachusetts Financial Services Company, Senior Vice President and Associate General Counsel (since April 2005); John Hancock Advisers, LLC, Senior Vice President, Secretary and Chief Legal Officer (until April 2005)
Susan A. Pereira (k) (born 11/05/70)	Assistant Secretary and Assistant Clerk	July 2005	Massachusetts Financial Services Company, Vice President and Senior Counsel (since June 2004); Bingham McCutchen LLP (law firm), Associate (until June 2004)
Mark N. Polebaum (k) (born 5/01/52)	Secretary and Clerk	January 2006	Massachusetts Financial Services Company, Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary (since January 2006); Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP (law firm), Partner (until January 2006)
Frank L. Tarantino (born 3/07/44)	Independent Chief Compliance Officer	June 2004	Tarantino LLC (provider of compliance services), Principal (since June 2004); CRA Business Strategies Group (consulting services), Executive Vice President (until June 2004)
Richard S. Weitzel (k) (born 7/16/70)	Assistant Secretary and Assistant Clerk	October 2007	Massachusetts Financial Services Company, Vice President and Assistant General Counsel (since 2004); Massachusetts Department of Business and Technology, General Counsel (until April 2004)
James O. Yost (k) (born 6/12/60)	Assistant Treasurer	September 1990	Massachusetts Financial Services Company, Senior Vice President

(h)

Date first appointed to serve as Trustee/officer of an MFS fund. Each Trustee has served continuously since appointment unless indicated otherwise. For the period from December 15, 2004 until February 22, 2005, Messrs. Pozen and Manning served as Advisory Trustees. For the period March 2008 until October 2008, Ms. Dwyer served as Treasurer of the Funds.

(j)	Directorships or trusteeships of companies required to report to the Securities and Exchange Commission (i.e., “public companies”).

(k)

“Interested person” of the Trust within the meaning of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (referred to as the 1940 Act), which is the principal federal law governing investment companies like the fund, as a result of position with MFS. The address of MFS is 500 Boylston Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02116.

Trustees and Officers – continued

(n)

In 2004 and 2005, Mr. Butler provided consulting services to the independent compliance consultant retained by MFS pursuant to its settlement with the SEC concerning market timing and related matters. The terms of that settlement required that compensation and expenses related to the independent compliance consultant be borne exclusively by MFS and, therefore, MFS paid Mr. Butler for the services he rendered to the independent compliance consultant. In 2004 and 2005, MFS paid Mr. Butler a total of $351,119.29.

The Trust holds annual shareholder meetings for the purpose of electing Trustees, and Trustees are elected for fixed terms. The Board of Trustees is currently divided into three classes, each having a term of three years which term expires on the date of the third annual meeting following the election to office of the Trustee’s class. Each year the term of one class expires. Two Trustees, each holding a term of one year, are elected annually by holders of the Trust’s preferred shares. Each Trustee and officer will serve until next elected or his or her earlier death, resignation, retirement or removal.

Messrs. Butler, Kavanaugh, Sherratt and Uek and Ms. Thomsen are members of the Fund’s Audit Committee.

Each of the Fund’s Trustees and officers holds comparable positions with certain other funds of which MFS or a subsidiary is the investment adviser or distributor, and, in the case of the officers, with certain affiliates of MFS. As of January 1, 2010, the Trustees served as board members of 99 funds within the MFS Family of Funds.

The Statement of Additional Information for the Fund and further information about the Trustees are available without charge upon request by calling 1-800-225-2606.


Investment Adviser		Custodian
Massachusetts Financial Services Company		State Street Bank and Trust
500 Boylston Street, Boston, MA 02116-3741		1 Lincoln Street, Boston, MA 02111-2900
Portfolio Managers		Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
Gary Lasman		Ernst & Young LLP
Geoffrey Schechter		200 Clarendon Street, Boston, MA 02116

BOARD REVIEW OF INVESTMENT ADVISORY AGREEMENT

The Investment Company Act of 1940 requires that both the full Board of Trustees and a majority of the non-interested (“independent”) Trustees, voting separately, annually approve the continuation of the Fund’s investment advisory agreement with MFS. The Trustees consider matters bearing on the Fund and its advisory arrangements at their meetings throughout the year, including a review of performance data at each regular meeting. In addition, the independent Trustees met several times over the course of three months beginning in May and ending in July, 2009 (“contract review meetings”) for the specific purpose of considering whether to approve the continuation of the investment advisory agreement for the Fund and the other investment companies that the Board oversees (the “MFS Funds”). The independent Trustees were assisted in their evaluation of the Fund’s investment advisory agreement by independent legal counsel, from whom they received separate legal advice and with whom they met separately from MFS during various contract review meetings. The independent Trustees were also assisted in this process by the MFS Funds’ Independent Chief Compliance Officer, a full-time senior officer appointed by and reporting to the independent Trustees.

In June 2007, shareholders approved an investment advisory agreement between the Fund and MFS. Effective June 30, 2007, in connection with the consummation of the asset purchase agreement between MFS and Columbia Management Advisors LLC, MFS assumed investment management responsibilities for the Fund.

In connection with their deliberations regarding the continuation of the investment advisory agreement, the Trustees, including the independent Trustees, considered such information and factors as they believed, in light of the legal advice furnished to them and their own business judgment, to be relevant. The investment advisory agreement for the Fund was considered separately, although the Trustees also took into account the common interests of all MFS Funds in their review. As described below, the Trustees considered the nature, quality, and extent of the various investment advisory, administrative, and shareholder services performed by MFS under the existing investment advisory agreement and other arrangements with the Fund.

In connection with their contract review meetings, the Trustees received and relied upon materials that included, among other items: (i) information provided by Lipper Inc., an independent third party, on the investment performance (based on net asset value) of the Fund for various time periods ended December 31, 2008 and the investment performance (based on net asset value) of a group of funds with substantially similar investment classifications/objectives (the “Lipper performance universe”), (ii) information provided by

Board Review of Investment Advisory Agreement – continued

Lipper Inc. on the Fund’s advisory fees and other expenses and the advisory fees and other expenses of comparable funds identified by Lipper Inc. (the “Lipper expense group”), (iii) information provided by MFS on the advisory fees of comparable portfolios of other clients of MFS, including institutional separate accounts and other clients, (iv) information as to whether and to what extent applicable expense waivers, reimbursements or fee “breakpoints” are observed for the Fund, (v) information regarding MFS’ financial results and financial condition, including MFS’ and certain of its affiliates’ estimated profitability from services performed for the Fund and the MFS Funds as a whole, (vi) MFS’ views regarding the outlook for the mutual fund industry and the strategic business plans of MFS, (vii) descriptions of various functions performed by MFS for the Funds, such as compliance monitoring and portfolio trading practices, and (viii) information regarding the overall organization of MFS, including information about MFS’ senior management and other personnel providing investment advisory, administrative and other services to the Fund and the other MFS Funds. The comparative performance, fee and expense information prepared and provided by Lipper Inc. was not independently verified and the independent Trustees did not independently verify any information provided to them by MFS.

The Trustees’ conclusion as to the continuation of the investment advisory agreement was based on a comprehensive consideration of all information provided to the Trustees and not the result of any single factor. Some of the factors that figured particularly in the Trustees’ deliberations are described below, although individual Trustees may have evaluated the information presented differently from one another, giving different weights to various factors. It is also important to recognize that the fee arrangements for the Fund and other MFS Funds are the result of years of review and discussion between the independent Trustees and MFS, that certain aspects of such arrangements may receive greater scrutiny in some years than in others, and that the Trustees’ conclusions may be based, in part, on their consideration of these same arrangements during the course of the year and in prior years.

Based on information provided by Lipper Inc., the Trustees reviewed the Fund’s total return investment performance as well as the performance of peer groups of funds over various time periods. The Trustees placed particular emphasis on the total return performance of the Fund’s common shares in comparison to the performance of funds in its Lipper performance universe over the three-year period ended December 31, 2008, which the Trustees believed was a long enough period to reflect differing market conditions. The total return performance of the Fund’s common shares ranked 9th out of a total of 10 funds in the Lipper performance universe for this three-year period (a ranking of first place out of the total number of funds in the performance

Board Review of Investment Advisory Agreement – continued

universe indicating the best performer and a ranking of last place out of the total number of funds in the performance universe indicating the worst performer). The total return performance of the Fund’s common shares ranked 8th out of a total of 11 funds for the one-year period and 10th out of a total of 10 funds for the five-year period ended December 31, 2008. Given the size of the Lipper performance universe and information previously provided by MFS regarding differences between the Fund and other funds in its Lipper performance universe, the Trustees also reviewed the Fund’s performance in comparison to the Barclays Capital Municipal Bond Index. The Fund under-performed the Barclays Capital Municipal Bond Index each of the one, three, and five-year periods ended December 31, 2008 (one-year: –37.4% total return for the Fund versus –2.5% total return for the benchmark; three-year: –14.4% total return for the Fund versus 1.9% total return for the benchmark; five-year: –6.5% total return for the Fund versus 2.7% total return for the benchmark). Because of the passage of time, these performance results are likely to differ from the performance results for more recent periods, including those shown elsewhere in this report.

The Trustees expressed continued concern to MFS about the substandard investment performance of the Fund. In the course of their deliberations, the Trustees took into account information provided by MFS in connection with the contract review meetings, as well as during investment review meetings conducted with portfolio management personnel during the course of the year, as to MFS’ efforts to improve the Fund’s performance, including that MFS became the Fund’s investment advisor in June 2007. In addition, the Trustees requested that they continue to receive a separate update on the Fund’s performance at each of their regular meetings. After reviewing these and related factors, the Trustees concluded, within the context of their overall conclusions regarding the investment advisory agreement, that MFS’ responses and efforts and plans to improve investment performance were sufficient to support approval of the continuance of the investment advisory agreement for an additional one year period, but that they would continue to closely monitor the performance of the Fund.

In assessing the reasonableness of the Fund’s advisory fee, the Trustees considered, among other information, the Fund’s advisory fee and the total expense ratio of the Fund’s common shares as a percentage of average daily net assets and the advisory fee and total expense ratios of peer groups of funds based on information provided by Lipper Inc. The Trustees considered that MFS currently observes an expense limitation for the Fund. The Trustees also considered that, according to the Lipper data (which takes into account any fee reductions or expense limitations that were in effect during the Fund’s last fiscal year), the Fund’s effective advisory fee rate and the Fund’s total expense ratio were each higher than the Lipper expense group median.

Board Review of Investment Advisory Agreement – continued

The Trustees also considered the advisory fees charged by MFS to institutional accounts. In comparing these fees, the Trustees considered information provided by MFS as to the generally broader scope of services provided by MFS to the Fund in comparison to institutional accounts and the impact on MFS and expenses associated with the more extensive regulatory regime to which the Fund is subject in comparison to institutional accounts.

The Trustees considered that, as a closed-end fund, the Fund is unlikely to experience meaningful asset growth. As a result, the Trustees did not view the potential for realization of economies of scale as the Fund’s assets grow to be a material factor in their deliberations. The Trustees noted that they would consider economies of scale in the future in the event the Fund experiences significant asset growth, such as through a material increase in the market value of the Fund’s portfolio securities.

The Trustees also considered information prepared by MFS relating to MFS’ costs and profits with respect to the Fund, the MFS Funds considered as a group, and other investment companies and accounts advised by MFS, as well as MFS’ methodologies used to determine and allocate its costs to the MFS Funds, the Fund and other accounts and products for purposes of estimating profitability.

After reviewing these and other factors described herein, the Trustees concluded, within the context of their overall conclusions regarding the investment advisory agreement, that the advisory fees charged to the Fund represent reasonable compensation in light of the services being provided by MFS to the Fund.

In addition, the Trustees considered MFS’ resources and related efforts to continue to retain, attract and motivate capable personnel to serve the Fund. The Trustees also considered current and developing conditions in the financial services industry, including the entry into the industry of large and well-capitalized companies which are spending, and appear to be prepared to continue to spend, substantial sums to engage personnel and to provide services to competing investment companies. In this regard, the Trustees also considered the financial resources of MFS and its ultimate parent, Sun Life Financial Inc. The Trustees also considered the advantages and possible disadvantages to the Fund of having an adviser that also serves other investment companies as well as other accounts.

The Trustees also considered the nature, quality, cost, and extent of administrative services provided to the Fund by MFS under agreements other than the investment advisory agreement. The Trustees also considered the nature, extent and quality of certain other services MFS performs or arranges for on the Fund’s behalf, which may include securities lending programs,

Board Review of Investment Advisory Agreement – continued

directed expense payment programs, class action recovery programs, and MFS’ interaction with third-party service providers, principally custodians and sub-custodians. The Trustees concluded that the various non-advisory services provided by MFS and its affiliates on behalf of the Funds were satisfactory.

The Trustees also considered benefits to MFS from the use of the Fund’s portfolio brokerage commissions, if applicable, to pay for investment research and various other factors. Additionally, the Trustees considered so-called “fall-out benefits” to MFS such as reputational value derived from serving as investment manager to the Fund.

Based on their evaluation of factors that they deemed to be material, including those factors described above, the Board of Trustees, including a majority of the independent Trustees, concluded that the Fund’s investment advisory agreement with MFS should be continued for an additional one-year period, commencing August 1, 2009.

A discussion regarding the Board’s most recent review and renewal of the fund’s Investment Advisory Agreement with MFS is available by clicking on the fund’s name under “Closed End Funds” in the “Products and Performance” section of the MFS Web site (mfs.com).

PROXY VOTING POLICIES AND INFORMATION

A general description of the MFS funds’ proxy voting policies and procedures is available without charge, upon request, by calling
1-800-225-2606, by visiting the Proxy Voting section of mfs.com or by visiting the SEC’s Web site at http://www.sec.gov.

Information regarding how the fund voted proxies relating to portfolio securities during the most recent twelve-month period ended June 30 is available without charge by visiting the Proxy Voting section of mfs.com or by visiting the SEC’s Web site at http://www.sec.gov.

QUARTERLY PORTFOLIO DISCLOSURE

The fund will file a complete schedule of portfolio holdings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Commission) for the first and third quarters of each fiscal year on Form N-Q. The fund’s Form N-Q may be reviewed and copied at the:

Public Reference Room

Securities and Exchange Commission

100 F Street, NE, Room 1580

Washington, D.C. 20549

Information on the operation of the Public Reference Room may be obtained by calling the Commission at 1.800.SEC.0330. The fund’s Form N-Q is available on the EDGAR database on the Commission’s Internet Web site at http://www.sec.gov, and copies of this information may be obtained, upon payment of a duplicating fee, by electronic request at the following e-mail address: publicinfo@sec.gov or by writing the Public Reference Section at the above address.

A shareholder can also obtain the quarterly portfolio holdings report at mfs.com.

FURTHER INFORMATION

From time to time, MFS may post important information about the fund or the MFS funds on the MFS web site (mfs.com). This information is available by visiting the “News & Commentary” section of mfs.com or by clicking on the fund’s name under “Closed End Funds” in the “Products and Performance” section of mfs.com.

FEDERAL TAX INFORMATION (unaudited)

The fund will notify shareholders of amounts for use in preparing 2009 income tax forms in January 2010. The following information is provided pursuant to provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.

Of the dividends paid from net investment income during the fiscal year, 98.92% is designated as exempt interest dividends for federal income tax purposes. If the fund has earned income on private activity bonds, a portion of the dividends paid may be considered a tax preference item for purposes of computing a shareholder’s alternative minimum tax.

MFS® PRIVACY NOTICE

Privacy is a concern for every investor today. At MFS Investment Management® and the MFS funds, we take this concern very seriously. We want you to understand our policies about the investment products and services that we offer, and how we protect the nonpublic personal information of investors who have a direct relationship with us and our wholly owned subsidiaries.

Throughout our business relationship, you provide us with personal information. We maintain information and records about you, your investments, and the services you use. Examples of the nonpublic personal information we maintain include

data from investment applications and other forms

share balances and transactional history with us, our affiliates, or others

facts from a consumer reporting agency

We do not disclose any nonpublic personal information about our customers or former customers to anyone, except as permitted by law. We may share nonpublic personal information with third parties or certain of our affiliates in connection with servicing your account or processing your transactions. We may share information with companies or financial institutions that perform marketing services on our behalf or with other financial institutions with which we have joint marketing arrangements, subject to any legal requirements.

Authorization to access your nonpublic personal information is limited to appropriate personnel who provide products, services, or information to you. We maintain physical, electronic, and procedural safeguards to help protect the personal information we collect about you.

If you have any questions about the MFS privacy policy, please call 1-800-225-2606 any business day.

Note: If you own MFS products or receive MFS services in the name of a third party such as a bank or broker-dealer, their privacy policy may apply to you instead of ours.

Transfer Agent, Registrar and

Dividend Disbursing Agent

Call

1-800-637-2304

9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern time

Write

Computershare Trust Company, N.A.

P.O. Box 43078

Providence, RI 02940-3078

LOGO


500 Boylston Street, Boston, MA 02116		New York Stock Exchange Symbol: CMU

ITEM 2.

CODE OF ETHICS.

The Registrant has adopted a Code of Ethics pursuant to Section 406 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and as defined in Form N-CSR that applies to the Registrant’s principal executive officer and principal financial and accounting officer. The Registrant has not amended any provision in its Code of Ethics (the “Code”) that relates to an element of the Code’s definitions enumerated in paragraph (b) of Item 2 of this Form N-CSR.

ITEM 3.

AUDIT COMMITTEE FINANCIAL EXPERT.

Messrs. Robert E. Butler, John P. Kavanaugh and Robert W. Uek and Ms. Laurie J. Thomsen, members of the Audit Committee, have been determined by the Board of Trustees in their reasonable business judgment to meet the definition of “audit committee financial expert” as such term is defined in Form N-CSR. In addition, Messrs. Butler, Kavanaugh and Uek and Ms. Thomsen are “independent” members of the Audit Committee (as such term has been defined by the Securities and Exchange Commission in regulations implementing Section 407 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002). The Securities and Exchange Commission has stated that the designation of a person as an audit committee financial expert pursuant to this Item 3 on the Form N-CSR does not impose on such a person any duties, obligations or liability that are greater than the duties, obligations or liability imposed on such person as a member of the Audit Committee and the Board of Trustees in the absence of such designation or identification.

ITEM 4.

PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT FEES AND SERVICES.

Items 4(a) through 4(d) and 4(g):

The Board of Trustees has appointed Ernst & Young LLP (“E&Y”) to serve as independent accountants to the Registrant (hereinafter the “Registrant” or the “Fund”). The tables below set forth the audit fees billed to the Fund as well as fees for non-audit services provided to the Fund and/or to the Fund’s investment adviser, Massachusetts Financial Services Company (“MFS”), and to various entities either controlling, controlled by, or under common control with MFS that provide ongoing services to the Fund (“MFS Related Entities”).

For the fiscal years ended November 30, 2009 and 2008, audit fees billed to the Fund by E&Y were as follows:


	Audit Fees
	2009	2008
Fees billed by E&Y:
MFS High Yield Municipal Trust	48,179	47,054

For the fiscal years ended November 30, 2009 and 2008, fees billed by E&Y for audit-related, tax and other services provided to the Fund and for audit-related, tax and other services provided to MFS and MFS Related Entities were as follows:


	Audit-Related Fees¹		Tax Fees²		All Other Fees³
	2009	2008	2009	2008	2009	2008
Fees billed by E&Y:
To MFS High Yield Municipal Trust	10,000	10,000	8,849	8,849	0	0
To MFS and MFS Related Entities of MFS High Yield Municipal Trust*	0	0	0	0	0	0

	2009	2008
Aggregate fees for non-audit services:
To MFS High Yield Municipal Trust, MFS and MFS Related Entities#	554,118	230,266

*	This amount reflects the fees billed to MFS and MFS Related Entities for non-audit services relating directly to the operations and financial reporting of the Fund (portions of which services also related to the operations and financial reporting of other funds within the MFS Funds complex).

#	This amount reflects the aggregate fees billed by E&Y for non-audit services rendered to the Fund and for non-audit services rendered to MFS and the MFS Related Entities.

The fees included under “Audit-Related Fees” are fees related to assurance and related services that are reasonably related to the performance of the audit or review of financial statements, but not reported under “Audit Fees,” including accounting consultations, agreed-upon procedure reports, attestation reports, comfort letters and internal control reviews.

²	The fees included under “Tax Fees” are fees associated with tax compliance, tax advice and tax planning, including services relating to the filing or amendment of federal, state or local income tax returns, regulated investment company qualification reviews and tax distribution and analysis.

³	The fees under “All Other Fees” are fees for products and services provided by E&Y other than those reported under “Audit Fees,” “Audit-Related Fees” and “Tax Fees”.

Item 4(e)(1):

Set forth below are the policies and procedures established by the Audit Committee of the Board of Trustees relating to the pre-approval of audit and non-audit related services:

To the extent required by applicable law, pre-approval by the Audit Committee of the Board is needed for all audit and permissible non-audit services rendered to the Fund and all permissible non-audit services rendered to MFS or MFS Related Entities if the services relate directly to the operations and financial reporting of the Registrant. Pre-approval is

currently on an engagement-by-engagement basis. In the event pre-approval of such services is necessary between regular meetings of the Audit Committee and it is not practical to wait to seek pre-approval at the next regular meeting of the Audit Committee, pre-approval of such services may be referred to the Chair of the Audit Committee for approval; provided that the Chair may not pre-approve any individual engagement for such services exceeding $50,000 or multiple engagements for such services in the aggregate exceeding $100,000 between such regular meetings of the Audit Committee. Any engagement pre-approved by the Chair between regular meetings of the Audit Committee shall be presented for ratification by the entire Audit Committee at its next regularly scheduled meeting.

Item 4(e)(2):

None, or 0%, of the services relating to the Audit-Related Fees, Tax Fees and All Other Fees paid by the Fund and MFS and MFS Related Entities relating directly to the operations and financial reporting of the Registrant disclosed above were approved by the audit committee pursuant to paragraphs (c)(7)(i)(C) of Rule 2-01 of Regulation S-X (which permits audit committee approval after the start of the engagement with respect to services other than audit, review or attest services, if certain conditions are satisfied).

Item 4(f): Not applicable.

Item 4(h): The Registrant’s Audit Committee has considered whether the provision by a Registrant’s independent registered public accounting firm of non-audit services to MFS and MFS Related Entities that were not pre-approved by the Committee (because such services were provided prior to the effectiveness of SEC rules requiring pre-approval or because such services did not relate directly to the operations and financial reporting of the Registrant) was compatible with maintaining the independence of the independent registered public accounting firm as the Registrant’s principal auditors.

ITEM 5.

AUDIT COMMITTEE OF LISTED REGISTRANTS.

The Registrant has an Audit Committee established in accordance with Section 3(a)(58)(A) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The members of the Audit Committee are Messrs. Robert E. Butler, John P. Kavanaugh, J. Dale Sherratt and Robert W. Uek and Ms. Laurie J. Thomsen.

ITEM 6.

SCHEDULE OF INVESTMENTS

A schedule of investments of the Registrant is included as part of the report to shareholders of the Registrant under Item 1 of this Form N-CSR.

ITEM 7.

DISCLOSURE OF PROXY VOTING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR CLOSED-END MANAGEMENT INVESTMENT COMPANIES.

MASSACHUSETTS FINANCIAL SERVICES COMPANY

PROXY VOTING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

January 1, 2009

Massachusetts Financial Services Company, MFS Institutional Advisors, Inc., MFS International (UK) Limited, MFS Heritage Trust Company, and MFS’ other investment adviser subsidiaries (except Four Pillars Capital, Inc.) (collectively, “MFS”) have adopted proxy voting policies and procedures, as set forth below (“MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures”), with respect to securities owned by the clients for which MFS serves as investment adviser and has the power to vote proxies, including the registered investment companies sponsored by MFS (the “MFS Funds”). References to “clients” in these policies and procedures include the MFS Funds and other clients of MFS, such as funds organized offshore, sub-advised funds and separate account clients, to the extent these clients have delegated to MFS the responsibility to vote proxies on their behalf under the MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures.

The MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures include:

Voting Guidelines;

Administrative Procedures;

Monitoring System;

Records Retention; and

Reports.

A. VOTING GUIDELINES

1. General Policy; Potential Conflicts of Interest

MFS’ policy is that proxy voting decisions are made in what MFS believes to be the best long-term economic interests of MFS’ clients, and not in the interests of any other party or in MFS’ corporate interests, including interests such as the distribution of MFS Fund shares, and institutional relationships.

In developing these proxy voting guidelines, MFS periodically reviews corporate governance issues and proxy voting matters that are presented for shareholder vote by either management or shareholders of public companies. Based on the overall principle that all votes cast by MFS on behalf of its clients must be in what MFS believes to be the best long-term economic interests of such clients, MFS has adopted proxy voting guidelines, set forth below, that govern how MFS generally will vote on specific matters presented for shareholder vote. In all cases, MFS will exercise its discretion in voting on these matters in accordance with this overall principle. In other words, the underlying

guidelines are simply that – guidelines. Proxy items of significance are often considered on a case-by-case basis, in light of all relevant facts and circumstances, and in certain cases MFS may vote proxies in a manner different from what otherwise would be dictated by these guidelines.

As a general matter, MFS maintains a consistent voting position on similar proxy proposals with respect to various issuers. In addition, MFS generally votes consistently on the same matter when securities of an issuer are held by multiple client accounts. However, MFS recognizes that there are gradations in certain types of proposals that might result in different voting positions being taken with respect to different proxy statements. There also may be situations involving matters presented for shareholder vote that are not governed by the guidelines or situations where MFS has received explicit voting instructions from a client for its own account. Some items that otherwise would be acceptable will be voted against the proponent when it is seeking extremely broad flexibility without offering a valid explanation. MFS reserves the right to override the guidelines with respect to a particular shareholder vote when such an override is, in MFS’ best judgment, consistent with the overall principle of voting proxies in the best long-term economic interests of MFS’ clients.

From time to time, MFS may receive comments on the MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures from its clients. These comments are carefully considered by MFS when it reviews these guidelines each year and revises them as appropriate.

These policies and procedures are intended to address any potential material conflicts of interest on the part of MFS or its subsidiaries that are likely to arise in connection with the voting of proxies on behalf of MFS’ clients. If such potential material conflicts of interest do arise, MFS will analyze, document and report on such potential material conflicts of interest (see Sections B.2 and E below), and shall ultimately vote the relevant proxies in what MFS believes to be the best long-term economic interests of its clients. The MFS Proxy Voting Committee is responsible for monitoring and reporting with respect to such potential material conflicts of interest.

2. MFS’ Policy on Specific Issues

Election of Directors

MFS believes that good governance should be based on a board with at least a simple majority of directors who are “independent” of management, and whose key committees (e.g., compensation, nominating, and audit committees) are comprised entirely of “independent” directors. While MFS generally supports the board’s nominees in uncontested elections, we will not support a nominee to a board of a U.S. issuer if, as a result of such nominee being elected to the board, the board would be comprised of a majority of members who are not “independent” or, alternatively, the compensation, nominating (including instances in which the full board serves as the nominating committee) or audit committees would include members who are not “independent.”

MFS will also not support a nominee to a board if we can determine that he or she failed to attend at least 75% of the board and/or relevant committee meetings in the previous year without a valid reason stated in the proxy materials. In addition, MFS will not support all nominees standing for re-election to a board if we can determine: (1) since the last annual meeting of shareholders and without shareholder approval, the board or its compensation committee has re-priced underwater stock options; or (2) since the last annual meeting, the board has either implemented a poison pill without shareholder approval or has not taken responsive action to a majority shareholder approved resolution recommending that the “poison pill” be rescinded. Responsive action would include the rescission of the “poison pill”(without a broad reservation to reinstate the “poison pill” in the event of a hostile tender offer), or assurance in the proxy materials that the terms of the “poison pill” would be put to a binding shareholder vote within the next five to seven years.

MFS will also not support a nominee (other than a nominee who serves as the issuer’s Chief Executive Officer) standing for re-election if such nominee participated (as a director or committee member) in the approval of senior executive compensation that MFS deems to be “excessive” due to pay for performance issues and/or poor pay practices. In the event that MFS determines that an issuer has adopted “excessive” executive compensation, MFS may also not support the re-election of the issuer’s Chief Executive Officer as director regardless of whether the Chief Executive Officer participated in the approval of the package. MFS will determine whether senior executive compensation is excessive on a case by case basis. Examples of poor pay practices include, but are not limited to, egregious employment contract terms or pension payouts, backdated stock options, overly generous hiring bonuses for chief executive officers, or excessive perks.

MFS evaluates a contested or contentious election of directors on a case-by-case basis considering the long-term financial performance of the company relative to its industry, management’s track record, the qualifications of the nominees for both slates, if applicable, and an evaluation of what each side is offering shareholders.

Majority Voting and Director Elections

MFS votes for reasonably crafted proposals calling for directors to be elected with an affirmative majority of votes cast and/or the elimination of the plurality standard for electing directors (including binding resolutions requesting that the board amend the company’s bylaws), provided the proposal includes a carve-out for a plurality voting standard when there are more director nominees than board seats (e.g., contested elections) (“Majority Vote Proposals”). MFS considers voting against Majority Vote Proposals if the company has adopted, or has proposed to adopt in the proxy statement, formal corporate governance principles that present a meaningful alternative to the majority voting standard and provide an adequate response to both new nominees as well as incumbent nominees who fail to receive a majority of votes cast. MFS believes that a company’s election policy should address the specific circumstances at that company. In determining whether the issuer has a meaningful alternative to the majority voting standard, MFS considers whether a company’s election policy articulates the following elements to address each director nominee who fails to receive an affirmative majority of votes cast in an election:

•

Establish guidelines for the process by which the company determines the status of nominees who fail to receive an affirmative majority of votes cast and disclose the guidelines in the annual proxy statement;

•

Guidelines should include a reasonable timetable for resolution of the nominee’s status and a requirement that the resolution be disclosed together with the reasons for the resolution;

•

Vest management of the process in the company’s independent directors, other than the nominee in question; and

•

Outline the range of remedies that the independent directors may consider concerning the nominee.

Classified Boards

MFS opposes proposals to classify a board (e.g. a board in which only one-third of board members is elected each year). MFS supports proposals to declassify a board.

Non-Salary Compensation Programs

MFS votes against stock option programs for officers, employees or non-employee directors that do not require an investment by the optionee, that give “free rides” on the stock price, or that permit grants of stock options with an exercise price below fair market value on the date the options are granted.

MFS also opposes stock option programs that allow the board or the compensation committee, without shareholder approval, to reprice underwater options or to automatically replenish shares (i.e. evergreen plans). MFS will consider on a case-by-case basis proposals to exchange existing options for newly issued options (taking into account such factors as whether there is a reasonable value-for-value exchange).

MFS opposes stock option programs and restricted stock plans that provide unduly generous compensation for officers, directors or employees, or could result in excessive dilution to other shareholders. As a general guideline, MFS votes against restricted stock plans, stock option, non-employee director, omnibus stock plans and any other stock plan if all such plans for a particular company involve potential dilution, in the aggregate, of more than 15%. However, MFS will also vote against stock plans that involve potential dilution, in aggregate, of more than 10% at U.S. issuers that are listed in the Standard and Poor’s 100 index as of December 31 of the previous year.

Expensing of Stock Options

MFS supports shareholder proposals to expense stock options because we believe that the expensing of options presents a more accurate picture of the company’s financial results to investors. We also believe that companies are likely to be more disciplined when granting options if the value of stock options were treated as an expense item on the company’s income statements.

Executive Compensation

MFS believes that competitive compensation packages are necessary to attract, motivate and retain executives. Therefore, MFS opposes shareholder proposals that seek to set restrictions on executive compensation. We believe that the election of an issuer’s compensation committee members is the appropriate mechanism to express our view on a company’s compensation practices, as outlined above. MFS also opposes shareholder requests for disclosure on executive compensation beyond regulatory requirements because we believe that current regulatory requirements for disclosure of executive compensation are appropriate and that additional disclosure is often unwarranted and costly. Although we support linking executive stock option grants to a company’s performance, MFS opposes shareholder proposals that mandate a link of performance-based options to a specific industry or peer group stock index. MFS believes that compensation committees should retain the flexibility to propose the appropriate index or other criteria by which performance-based options should be measured.

MFS will generally support management proposals on its executive compensation practices during the issuer’s prior fiscal year. However, if MFS identifies excessive executive compensation practices during the issuer’s prior fiscal year, then MFS will vote against such proposals.

MFS generally votes with management on shareholder proposals to include an annual advisory shareholder vote on the company’s executive compensation practices in the issuer’s proxy statement (“Say on Pay”). However, if MFS identifies excessive executive compensation practices at the issuer during the prior fiscal year, then MFS will support such Say on Pay shareholder proposals at those issuers. MFS also supports reasonably crafted shareholder proposals that (i) require the issuer to adopt a policy to recover the portion of performance-based bonuses and awards paid to senior executives that were not earned based upon a significant negative restatement of earnings unless the company already has adopted a clearly satisfactory policy on the matter, or (ii) expressly prohibit any future backdating of stock options.

Employee Stock Purchase Plans

MFS supports the use of a broad-based employee stock purchase plans to increase company stock ownership by employees, provided that shares purchased under the plan are acquired for no less than 85% of their market value and do not result in excessive dilution.

“Golden Parachutes”

From time to time, shareholders of companies have submitted proxy proposals that would require shareholder approval of severance packages for executive officers that exceed certain predetermined thresholds. MFS votes in favor of such shareholder proposals when they would require shareholder approval of any severance package for an executive officer that exceeds a certain multiple of such officer’s annual compensation that is not determined in MFS’ judgment to be excessive.

Anti-Takeover Measures

In general, MFS votes against any measure that inhibits capital appreciation in a stock, including proposals that protect management from action by shareholders. These types of proposals take many forms, ranging from “poison pills” and “shark repellents” to super-majority requirements.

MFS generally votes for proposals to rescind existing “poison pills” and proposals that would require shareholder approval to adopt prospective “poison pills,” unless the company already has adopted a clearly satisfactory policy on the matter. MFS may consider the adoption of a prospective “poison pill” or the continuation of an existing “poison pill” if we can determine that the following two conditions are met: (1) the “poison pill” allows MFS clients to hold an aggregate position of up to 15% of a company’s total voting securities (and of any class of voting securities); and (2) either (a) the “poison pill” has a term of not longer than five years, provided that MFS will consider voting in favor of the “poison pill” if the term does not exceed seven years and the “poison pill” is linked to a business strategy or purpose that MFS believes is likely to result in greater value for shareholders; or (b) the terms of the “poison pill” allow MFS clients the opportunity to accept a fairly structured and attractively priced tender offer (e.g. a “chewable poison pill” that automatically dissolves in the event of an all cash, all shares tender offer at a premium price). MFS will also consider on a case-by-case basis proposals designed to prevent tenders which are disadvantageous to shareholders such as tenders at below market prices and tenders for substantially less than all shares of an issuer.

Reincorporation and Reorganization Proposals

When presented with a proposal to reincorporate a company under the laws of a different state, or to effect some other type of corporate reorganization, MFS considers the underlying purpose and ultimate effect of such a proposal in determining whether or not to support such a measure. MFS generally votes with management in regards to these types of proposals, however, if MFS believes the proposal is in the best long-term economic interests of its clients, then MFS may vote against management (e.g. the intent or effect would be to create additional inappropriate impediments to possible acquisitions or takeovers).

Issuance of Stock

There are many legitimate reasons for the issuance of stock. Nevertheless, as noted above under “Non-Salary Compensation Programs,” when a stock option plan (either individually or when aggregated with other plans of the same company) would substantially dilute the existing equity (e.g. by approximately 10-15% as described above), MFS generally votes against the plan. In addition, MFS votes against proposals where management is asking for authorization to issue common or preferred stock with no reason stated (a “blank check”) because the unexplained authorization could work as a potential anti-takeover device. MFS may also vote against the authorization or issuance of common or preferred stock if MFS determines that the requested authorization is excessive and not warranted.

Repurchase Programs

MFS supports proposals to institute share repurchase plans in which all shareholders have the opportunity to participate on an equal basis. Such plans may include a company acquiring its own shares on the open market, or a company making a tender offer to its own shareholders.

Confidential Voting

MFS votes in favor of proposals to ensure that shareholder voting results are kept confidential. For example, MFS supports proposals that would prevent management from having access to shareholder voting information that is compiled by an independent proxy tabulation firm.

Cumulative Voting

MFS opposes proposals that seek to introduce cumulative voting and for proposals that seek to eliminate cumulative voting. In either case, MFS will consider whether cumulative voting is likely to enhance the interests of MFS’ clients as minority shareholders. In our view, shareholders should provide names of qualified candidates to a company’s nominating committee, which, in our view, should be comprised solely of “independent” directors.

Written Consent and Special Meetings

Because the shareholder right to act by written consent (without calling a formal meeting of shareholders) can be a powerful tool for shareholders, MFS generally opposes proposals that would prevent shareholders from taking action without a formal meeting or would take away a shareholder’s right to call a special meeting of company shareholders pursuant to relevant state law.

Independent Auditors

MFS believes that the appointment of auditors for U.S. issuers is best left to the board of directors of the company and therefore supports the ratification of the board’s selection of an auditor for the company. Some shareholder groups have submitted proposals to limit the non-audit activities of a company’s audit firm or prohibit any non-audit services by a company’s auditors to that company. MFS opposes proposals recommending the prohibition or limitation of the performance of non-audit services by an auditor, and proposals recommending the removal of a company’s auditor due to the performance of non-audit work for the company by its auditor. MFS believes that the board, or its audit committee, should have the discretion to hire the company’s auditor for specific pieces of non-audit work in the limited situations permitted under current law.

Other Environmental, Social and Governance Issues

There are many groups advocating social change or changes to corporate governance or corporate responsibility standards, and many have chosen the publicly-held corporation as a vehicle for advancing their agenda. Generally, MFS votes with management on such proposals unless MFS can clearly determine that the benefit to shareholders will outweigh any costs or disruptions to the business if the proposal were adopted. Common among the shareholder proposals that MFS generally votes with management are proposals requiring the company to use corporate resources to further a particular social objective outside the business of the company, to refrain from investing or conducting business in certain countries, to adhere to some list of goals or principles (e.g., environmental standards), to permit shareholders access to the company’s proxy statement in connection with the election of directors, to disclose political contributions made by the issuer, to separate the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer positions, or to promulgate special reports on various activities or proposals for which no discernible shareholder economic advantage is evident.

The laws of various states or countries may regulate how the interests of certain clients subject to those laws (e.g. state pension plans) are voted with respect to social issues. Thus, it may be necessary to cast ballots differently for certain clients than MFS might normally do for other clients.

Foreign Issuers

Many of the items on foreign proxies involve repetitive, non-controversial matters that are mandated by local law. Accordingly, the items that are generally deemed routine and which do not require the exercise of judgment under these guidelines (and therefore voted with management) for foreign issuers include, but are not limited to, the following: (i) receiving financial statements or other reports from the board; (ii) approval of declarations of dividends; (iii) appointment of shareholders to sign board meeting minutes; (iv) discharge of management and supervisory boards; and (v) approval of share repurchase programs.

MFS generally supports the election of a director nominee standing for re-election in uncontested elections unless it can be determined that (1) he or she failed to attend at least 75% of the board and/or relevant committee meetings in the previous year without a valid reason given in the proxy materials; (2) since the last annual meeting of shareholders and without shareholder approval, the board or its compensation committee has re-priced underwater stock options; or (3) since the last annual meeting, the board has either implemented a poison pill without shareholder approval or has not taken responsive action to a majority shareholder approved resolution recommending that the “poison pill” be rescinded. MFS will also not support a director nominee standing for re-election of an issuer that has adopted an excessive compensation package for its senior executives as described above in the section entitled “Voting Guidelines-MFS’ Policy on Specific Issues-Election of Directors.”

MFS generally supports the election of auditors, but may determine to vote against the election of a statutory auditor in certain markets if MFS reasonably believes that the statutory auditor is not truly independent. MFS will evaluate all other items on proxies for foreign companies in the context of the guidelines described above, but will generally vote against an item if there is not sufficient information disclosed in order to make an informed voting decision.

In accordance with local law or business practices, many foreign companies prevent the sales of shares that have been voted for a certain period beginning prior to the shareholder meeting and ending on the day following the meeting (“share blocking”). Depending on the country in which a company is domiciled, the blocking period may begin a stated number of days prior or subsequent to the meeting (e.g. one, three or five days) or on a date established by the company. While practices vary, in many countries the block period can be continued for a longer period if the shareholder meeting is adjourned and postponed to a later date. Similarly, practices vary widely as to the ability of a shareholder to have the “block” restriction lifted early (e.g. in some countries shares generally can be “unblocked” up to two days prior to the meeting whereas in other countries the removal of the block appears to be discretionary with the issuer’s transfer agent). Due to these restrictions, MFS must balance the benefits to its clients of voting proxies against the potentially serious portfolio management consequences of a reduced flexibility to sell the underlying shares at the most advantageous time. For companies in countries with share blocking periods, the disadvantage of being unable to sell the stock regardless of changing conditions generally outweighs the advantages of voting at the shareholder meeting for routine items. Accordingly, MFS will not vote those proxies in the absence of an unusual, significant vote that outweighs the disadvantage of being unable to sell the stock.

In limited circumstances, other market specific impediments to voting shares may limit our ability to cast votes, including, but not limited to, late delivery of proxy materials, power of attorney and share re-registration requirements, or any other unusual voting requirements. In these limited instances, MFS votes securities on a best efforts basis in the context of the guidelines described above.

B. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

1. MFS Proxy Voting Committee

The administration of these MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures is overseen by the MFS Proxy Voting Committee, which includes senior personnel from the MFS Legal and Global Investment Support Departments. The Proxy Voting Committee does not include individuals whose primary duties relate to client relationship management, marketing, or sales. The MFS Proxy Voting Committee:

Reviews these MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures at least annually and recommends any amendments considered to be necessary or advisable;

Determines whether any potential material conflict of interest exist with respect to instances in which MFS (i) seeks to override these MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures; (ii) votes on ballot items not governed by these MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures; (iii) evaluates an excessive executive compensation issue in relation to the election of directors; or (iv) requests a vote recommendation from an MFS portfolio manager or investment analyst (e.g. mergers and acquisitions); and

Considers special proxy issues as they may arise from time to time.

2. Potential Conflicts of Interest

The MFS Proxy Voting Committee is responsible for monitoring potential material conflicts of interest on the part of MFS or its subsidiaries that could arise in connection with the voting of proxies on behalf of MFS’ clients. Due to the client focus of our investment management business, we believe that the potential for actual material conflict of interest issues is small. Nonetheless, we have developed precautions to assure that all proxy votes are cast in the best long-term economic interest of shareholders. Other MFS internal policies require all MFS employees to avoid actual and potential conflicts of interests between personal activities and MFS’ client activities. If an employee identifies an actual or potential conflict of interest with respect to any voting decision, then that employee must recuse himself/herself from participating in the voting process. Additionally, with respect to decisions concerning all Non Standard Votes, as defined below, MFS will review the securities holdings reported by the individuals that participate in such decision to determine whether such person has a direct economic interest in the decision, in which case such person shall not further participate in making the decision. Any significant attempt by an employee of MFS or its subsidiaries to influence MFS’ voting on a particular proxy matter should also be reported to the MFS Proxy Voting Committee.

In cases where proxies are voted in accordance with these MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures, no material conflict of interest will be deemed to exist. In cases where (i) MFS is considering overriding these MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures, (ii) matters presented for vote are not clearly governed by these MFS Proxy Voting

Policies and Procedures, (iii) MFS evaluates an excessive executive compensation issue in relation to the election of directors, or (iv) a vote recommendation is requested from an MFS portfolio manager or investment analyst (e.g. mergers and acquisitions) (collectively, “Non Standard Votes”); the MFS Proxy Voting Committee will follow these procedures:

Compare the name of the issuer of such proxy against a list of significant current (i) distributors of MFS Fund shares, and (ii) MFS institutional clients (the “MFS Significant Client List”);

If the name of the issuer does not appear on the MFS Significant Client List, then no material conflict of interest will be deemed to exist, and the proxy will be voted as otherwise determined by the MFS Proxy Voting Committee;

If the name of the issuer appears on the MFS Significant Client List, then the MFS Proxy Voting Committee will be apprised of that fact and each member of the MFS Proxy Voting Committee will carefully evaluate the proposed vote in order to ensure that the proxy ultimately is voted in what MFS believes to be the best long-term economic interests of MFS’ clients, and not in MFS’ corporate interests; and

For all potential material conflicts of interest identified under clause (c) above, the MFS Proxy Voting Committee will document: the name of the issuer, the issuer’s relationship to MFS, the analysis of the matters submitted for proxy vote, the votes as to be cast and the reasons why the MFS Proxy Voting Committee determined that the votes were cast in the best long-term economic interests of MFS’ clients, and not in MFS’ corporate interests. A copy of the foregoing documentation will be provided to MFS’ Conflicts Officer.

The members of the MFS Proxy Voting Committee are responsible for creating and maintaining the MFS Significant Client List, in consultation with MFS’ distribution and institutional business units. The MFS Significant Client List will be reviewed and updated periodically, as appropriate.

From time to time, certain MFS Funds (the “top tier fund”) may own shares of other MFS Funds (the “underlying fund”). If an underlying fund submits a matter to a shareholder vote, the top tier fund will generally vote its shares in the same proportion as the other shareholders of the underlying fund.

3. Gathering Proxies

Most U.S. proxies received by MFS and its clients originate at Automatic Data Processing Corp. (“ADP”) although a few proxies are transmitted to investors by corporate issuers through their custodians or depositories. ADP and other service providers, on behalf of issuers, send proxy related material to the record holders of the shares

beneficially owned by MFS’ clients, usually to the client’s proxy voting administrator or, less commonly, to the client itself. This material will include proxy ballots reflecting the shareholdings of Funds and of clients on the record dates for such shareholder meetings, as well as proxy statements with the issuer’s explanation of the items to be voted upon.

MFS, on behalf of itself and the Funds, has entered into an agreement with an independent proxy administration firm, RiskMetrics Group, Inc., Inc. (the “Proxy Administrator”), pursuant to which the Proxy Administrator performs various proxy vote related administrative services, such as vote processing and recordkeeping functions for MFS’ Funds and institutional client accounts. The Proxy Administrator receives proxy statements and proxy ballots directly or indirectly from various custodians, logs these materials into its database and matches upcoming meetings with MFS Fund and client portfolio holdings, which are input into the Proxy Administrator’s system by an MFS holdings datafeed. Through the use of the Proxy Administrator system, ballots and proxy material summaries for all upcoming shareholders’ meetings are available on-line to certain MFS employees and members of the MFS Proxy Voting Committee.

4. Analyzing Proxies

Proxies are voted in accordance with these MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures. The Proxy Administrator, at the prior direction of MFS, automatically votes all proxy matters that do not require the particular exercise of discretion or judgment with respect to these MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures as determined by the MFS Proxy Voting Committee. With respect to proxy matters that require the particular exercise of discretion or judgment, MFS considers and votes on those proxy matters. MFS also receives research from ISS which it may take into account in deciding how to vote. In addition, MFS expects to rely on ISS to identify circumstances in which a board may have approved excessive executive compensation. Representatives of the MFS Proxy Voting Committee review, as appropriate, votes cast to ensure conformity with these MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures.

As a general matter, portfolio managers and investment analysts have little or no involvement in specific votes taken by MFS. This is designed to promote consistency in the application of MFS’ voting guidelines, to promote consistency in voting on the same or similar issues (for the same or for multiple issuers) across all client accounts, and to minimize the potential that proxy solicitors, issuers, or third parties might attempt to exert inappropriate influence on the vote. In limited types of votes (e.g., corporate actions, such as mergers and acquisitions), a representative of MFS Proxy Voting Committee may consult with or seek recommendations from MFS portfolio managers or investment analysts.¹ However, the MFS Proxy Voting Committee would ultimately determine the manner in which all proxies are voted.

From time to time, due to travel schedules and other commitments, an appropriate portfolio manager or research analyst is not available to provide a recommendation on a merger or acquisition proposal. If such a recommendation cannot be obtained prior to the cut-off date of the shareholder meeting, certain members of the MFS Proxy Voting Committee may determine to abstain from voting.

As noted above, MFS reserves the right to override the guidelines when such an override is, in MFS’ best judgment, consistent with the overall principle of voting proxies in the best long-term economic interests of MFS’ clients. Any such override of the guidelines shall be analyzed, documented and reported in accordance with the procedures set forth in these policies.

5. Voting Proxies

In accordance with its contract with MFS, the Proxy Administrator also generates a variety of reports for the MFS Proxy Voting Committee, and makes available on-line various other types of information so that the MFS Proxy Voting Committee may review and monitor the votes cast by the Proxy Administrator on behalf of MFS’ clients.

6. Securities Lending

From time to time, the MFS Funds or other pooled investment vehicles sponsored by MFS may participate in a securities lending program. In the event MFS or its agent receives timely notice of a shareholder meeting for a U.S. security, MFS and its agent will attempt to recall any securities on loan before the meeting’s record date so that MFS will be entitled to vote these shares. However, there may be instances in which MFS is unable to timely recall securities on loan for a U.S. security, in which cases MFS will not be able to vote these shares. MFS will report to the appropriate board of the MFS Funds those instances in which MFS is not able to timely recall the loaned securities. MFS generally does not recall non-U.S. securities on loan because there is generally insufficient advance notice of record or vote cut-off dates to allow MFS to timely recall the shares. As a result, non-U.S. securities that are on loan will not generally be voted. If MFS receives timely notice of what MFS determines to be an unusual, significant vote for a non-U.S. security whereas MFS shares are on loan, and determines that voting is in the best long-term economic interest of shareholders, then MFS will attempt to timely recall the loaned shares.

C. MONITORING SYSTEM

It is the responsibility of the Proxy Administrator and MFS’ Proxy Voting Committee to monitor the proxy voting process. When proxy materials for clients are received by the Proxy Administrator, they are input into the Proxy Administrator’s system. Through an interface with the portfolio holdings database of MFS, the Proxy Administrator matches a list of all MFS Funds and clients who hold shares of a company’s stock and the number of shares held on the record date with the Proxy Administrator’s listing of any upcoming shareholder’s meeting of that company.

When the Proxy Administrator’s system “tickler” shows that the voting cut-off date of a shareholders’ meeting is approaching, a Proxy Administrator representative checks that the vote for MFS Funds and clients holding that security has been recorded in the

computer system. If a proxy ballot has not been received from the client’s custodian, the Proxy Administrator contacts the custodian requesting that the materials be forwarded immediately. If it is not possible to receive the proxy ballot from the custodian in time to be voted at the meeting, then MFS may instruct the custodian to cast the vote in the manner specified and to mail the proxy directly to the issuer.

D. RECORDS RETENTION

MFS will retain copies of these MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures in effect from time to time and will retain all proxy voting reports submitted to the Board of Trustees and Board of Managers of the MFS Funds for the period required by applicable law. Proxy solicitation materials, including electronic versions of the proxy ballots completed by representatives of the MFS Proxy Voting Committee, together with their respective notes and comments, are maintained in an electronic format by the Proxy Administrator and are accessible on-line by the MFS Proxy Voting Committee. All proxy voting materials and supporting documentation, including records generated by the Proxy Administrator’s system as to proxies processed, including the dates when proxy ballots were received and submitted, and the votes on each company’s proxy issues, are retained as required by applicable law.

E. REPORTS

MFS Funds

MFS publicly discloses the proxy voting records of the MFS Funds on an annual basis, as required by law. MFS will also report the results of its voting to the Board of Trustees and Board of Managers of the MFS Funds. These reports will include: (i) a summary of how votes were cast; (ii) a summary of votes against management’s recommendation; (iii) a review of situations where MFS did not vote in accordance with the guidelines and the rationale therefore; (iv) a review of the procedures used by MFS to identify material conflicts of interest and any matters identified as a material conflict of interest; (v) a review of these policies and the guidelines, (vi) a report and impact assessment of instances in which the recall of loaned securities of a U.S. issuer was unsuccessful, and, as necessary or appropriate, any proposed modifications thereto to reflect new developments in corporate governance and other issues. Based on these reviews, the Trustees and Managers of the MFS Funds will consider possible modifications to these policies to the extent necessary or advisable.

All MFS Advisory Clients

At any time, a report can be printed by MFS for each client who has requested that MFS furnish a record of votes cast. The report specifies the proxy issues which have been voted for the client during the year and the position taken with respect to each issue and, upon request, may identify situations where MFS did not vote in accordance with the MFS Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures.

Except as described above, MFS generally will not divulge actual voting practices to any party other than the client or its representatives (unless required by applicable law) because we consider that information to be confidential and proprietary to the client.

ITEM 8.

PORTFOLIO MANAGERS OF CLOSED-END MANAGEMENT INVESTMENT COMPANIES.

General. Information regarding the portfolio manager(s) of the MFS High Yield Municipal Trust (the “Fund”) is set forth below.


Portfolio Manager	Primary Role	Since	Title and Five Year History
Geoffrey L. Schechter	Portfolio Manager	2007	Investment Officer of MFS; employed in the investment area of MFS since 1993.

Gary A. Lasman	Portfolio Manager	2007	Investment Officer of MFS; employed in the investment area of MFS since 2002.

Compensation. Portfolio manager total cash compensation is a combination of base salary and performance bonus:

Base Salary – Base salary represents a smaller percentage of portfolio manager total cash compensation than performance bonus.

Performance Bonus – Generally, the performance bonus represents more than a majority of portfolio manager total cash compensation.

The performance bonus is based on a combination of quantitative and qualitative factors, generally with more weight given to the former and less weight given to the latter.

The quantitative portion is based on the pre-tax performance of assets managed by the portfolio manager over one-, three-, and five-year periods relative to peer group universes and/or indices (“benchmarks”). As of December 31, 2008, the following benchmarks were used:


Portfolio Manager		Benchmark(s)
Geoffrey L. Schechter		Lipper General Municipal Debt Funds
		Lipper Short-Intermediate Municipal Debt Funds
		Lipper High Yield Municipal Debt Funds
		Lipper General US Government Funds
		Barclays Capital Municipal Index
		Barclays Capital Government Mortgage Index
		Morningstar Dollar Government Bond Funds
		Lipper Variable Annuity General U.S. Government Funds

Gary A. Lasman		Lipper High Yield Municipal Debt Funds,
		Barclays Capital U.S. Municipal Index

Additional or different benchmarks, including versions of indices and custom indices may also be used. Primary weight is given to portfolio performance over a three-year time period with lesser consideration given to portfolio performance over one-year and five-year periods (adjusted as appropriate if the portfolio manager has served for less than five years).

The qualitative portion is based on the results of an annual internal peer review process (conducted by other portfolio managers, analysts, and traders) and management’s assessment of overall portfolio manager contributions to investor relations and the investment process (distinct from fund and other account performance).

Portfolio managers also typically benefit from the opportunity to participate in the MFS Equity Plan. Equity interests and/or options to acquire equity interests in MFS or its parent company are awarded by management, on a discretionary basis, taking into account tenure at MFS, contribution to the investment process, and other factors.

Finally, portfolio managers are provided with a benefits package including a defined contribution plan, health coverage and other insurance, which are available to other employees of MFS on substantially similar terms. The percentage such benefits represent of any portfolio manager’s compensation depends upon the length of the individual’s tenure at MFS and salary level, as well as other factors.

Ownership of Fund Shares. The following table shows the dollar range of equity securities of the Fund beneficially owned by the Fund’s portfolio manager(s) as of the fund’s fiscal year ended November 30, 2009. The following dollar ranges apply:

N. None

A. $1 - $10,000

B. $10,001 - $50,000

C. $50,001 - $100,000

D. $100,001 - $500,000

E. $500,001 - $1,000,000

F. Over $1,000,000


Name of Portfolio Manager		Dollar Range of Equity Securities in Fund
Geoffrey L. Schechter		N
Gary A. Lasman		N

Other Accounts. In addition to the Fund, the Fund’s portfolio manager is responsible (either individually or jointly) for the day-to-day management of certain other accounts, the number and assets of which, as of the Fund’s fiscal year ended November 30, 2009 were as follows:

Registered Investment
Companies

Other Pooled Investment
Vehicles

Other Accounts

Name

Number of
Accounts*

Total Assets*

Number of
Accounts

Total Assets

Number of
Accounts

Total
Assets

Geoffrey L. Schechter

7.3 billion

469 million

N/A

Gary A. Lasman

2.5 billion

N/A

*	Includes the Fund.

Advisory fees are not based upon performance of any of the accounts identified in the table above.

Potential Conflicts of Interest.

The Adviser seeks to identify potential conflicts of interest resulting from a portfolio manager’s management of both the Fund and other accounts, and has adopted policies and procedures designed to address such potential conflicts.

The management of multiple funds and accounts (including proprietary accounts) gives rise to potential conflicts of interest if the funds and accounts have different objectives and strategies, benchmarks, time horizons and fees as a portfolio manager must allocate his or her time and investment ideas across multiple funds and accounts. In certain instances there are securities which are suitable for the Fund’s portfolio as well as for accounts of the Adviser or its subsidiaries with similar investment objectives. A Fund’s trade allocation policies may give rise to conflicts of interest if the Fund’s orders do not get fully executed or are delayed in getting executed due to being aggregated with those of other accounts of the Adviser or its subsidiaries. A portfolio manager may execute transactions for another fund or account that may adversely impact the value of the Fund’s investments. Investments selected for funds or accounts other than the Fund may outperform investments selected for the Fund.

When two or more clients are simultaneously engaged in the purchase or sale of the same security, the securities are allocated among clients in a manner believed by the Adviser to be fair and equitable to each. It is recognized that in some cases this system could have a detrimental effect on the price or volume of the security as far as the Fund is concerned. In most cases, however, the Adviser believes that the Fund’s ability to participate in volume transactions will produce better executions for the Fund.

The Adviser and/or a portfolio manager may have a financial incentive to allocate favorable or limited opportunity investments or structure the timing of investments to favor accounts other than the Fund, for instance, those that pay a higher advisory fee and/or have a performance adjustment.

ITEM 9.

PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES BY CLOSED-END MANAGEMENT INVESTMENT COMPANY AND AFFILIATED PURCHASERS.

MFS High Yield Municipal Trust


Period	(a) Total number of Shares Purchased	(b) Average Price Paid per Share	(c) Total Number of Shares Purchased as Part of Publicly Announced Plans or Programs	(d) Maximum Number (or Approximate Dollar Value) of Shares that May Yet Be Purchased under the Plans or Programs
12/01/08-12/31/08	0	N/A	0	2,781,028
1/01/09-1/31/09	0	N/A	0	2,781,028
2/01/09-2/28/09	0	N/A	0	2,781,028
3/01/09-3/31/09	0	N/A	0	2,787,762
4/01/09-4/30/09	0	N/A	0	2,787,762
5/01/09-5/31/09	0	N/A	0	2,787,762
6/01/09-6/30/09	0	N/A	0	2,787,762
7/01/09-7/31/09	0	N/A	0	2,787,762
8/01/09-8/31/09	0	N/A	0	2,787,762
9/01/09-9/30/09	0	N/A	0	2,787,762
10/01/09-10/31/09	0	N/A	0	2,787,762
11/01/09-11/30/09	0	N/A	0	2,787,762
*Total*	0		0

Note: The Board of Trustees approves procedures to repurchase shares annually. The notification to shareholders of the program is part of the semi-annual and annual reports sent to shareholders. These annual programs begin on March 1^st of each year. The programs conform to the conditions of Rule 10b-18 of the securities Exchange Act of 1934 and limit the aggregate number of shares that may be purchased in each annual period (March 1 through the following February 28) to 10% of the Registrant’s outstanding shares as of the first day of the plan year (March 1). The aggregate number of shares available for purchase for the March 1, 2009 plan year is 2,787,762.

ITEM 10.

SUBMISSION OF MATTERS TO A VOTE OF SECURITY HOLDERS.

There were no material changes to the procedures by which shareholders may send recommendations to the Board for nominees to the Registrant’s Board since the Registrant last provided disclosure as to such procedures in response to the requirements of Item 407 (c)(2)(iv) of Regulation S-K or this Item.

ITEM 11.

CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES.

(a)

Based upon their evaluation of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rule 30a-3(c) under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”)) as conducted within 90 days of the filing date of this Form N-CSR, the registrant’s principal financial officer and principal executive officer have concluded that those disclosure controls and procedures provide reasonable assurance that the material information required to be disclosed by the registrant on this report is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the Securities and Exchange Commission’s rules and forms.

(b)

There were no changes in the registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting (as defined in Rule 30a-3(d) under the Act) that occurred during the second fiscal quarter covered by the report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

ITEM 12.

EXHIBITS.

(a) File the exhibits listed below as part of this form. Letter or number the exhibits in the sequence indicated.

(1) Any code of ethics, or amendment thereto, that is the subject of the disclosure required by Item 2, to the extent that the registrant intends to satisfy the Item 2 requirements through filing of an exhibit: Code of Ethics attached hereto.

(2) A separate certification for each principal executive officer and principal financial officer of the registrant as required by Rule 30a-2 under the Act (17 CFR 270.30a-2): Attached hereto.

(3) Any written solicitation to purchase securities under Rule 23c-1 under the Act sent or given during the period covered by the report by or on behalf of the Registrant to 10 or more persons. Not applicable.

(b) If the report is filed under Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act, provide the certifications required by Rule 30a-2(b) under the Act (17 CFR 270.30a-2(b)), Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13a-14(b) or 240.15d-14(b)) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. 1350) as an exhibit. A certification furnished pursuant to this paragraph will not be deemed “filed” for the purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78r), or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the registrant specifically incorporates it by reference: Attached hereto.

Notice

A copy of the Agreement and Declaration of Trust, as amended, of the Registrant is on file with the Secretary of State of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and notice is hereby given that this instrument is executed on behalf of the Registrant by an officer of the Registrant as an officer and not individually and the obligations of or arising out of this instrument are not binding upon any of the Trustees or shareholders individually, but are binding only upon the assets and property of the respective constituent series of the Registrant.

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Investment Company Act of 1940, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

Registrant MFS HIGH YIELD MUNICIPAL TRUST


By (Signature and Title)*		MARIA F. DWYER
		Maria F. Dwyer, President

Date: January 15, 2010

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Investment Company Act of 1940, this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated.

By (Signature and Title)*

MARIA F. DWYER

Maria F. Dwyer, President

(Principal Executive Officer)

Date: January 15, 2010

By (Signature and Title)*

JOHN M. CORCORAN

John M. Corcoran, Treasurer

(Principal Financial Officer

and Accounting Officer)

Date: January 15, 2010

*	Print name and title of each signing officer under his or her signature.