BlackRock Utilities, Infrastructure & Power Opportunities Trust (BUI) 424B3Prospectus supplement

Table of Contents

Filed Pursuant to Rule 424(b)(3)
Registration File Nos.:
333-273507 (BAS)
333-262607 (BHK)
333-262469 (HYT)
333-255980 (CREDX)
333-267429 (DSU)
333-272239 (BDJ)
333-266318 (BGT)
333-263527 (BME)
333-262743 (BKT)
333-263021 (BKN)
333-262366 (BLW)
333-262119 (BIT)
333-259605 (BFK)
333-273508 (BPIF)
333-264682 (BST)
333-262272 (BUI)

BLACKROCK ALPHA STRATEGIES FUND (BAS)

BLACKROCK CORE BOND TRUST (BHK)

BLACKROCK CORPORATE HIGH YIELD FUND, INC. (HYT)

BLACKROCK CREDIT STRATEGIES FUND (CREDX)

BLACKROCK DEBT STRATEGIES FUND, INC. (DSU)

BLACKROCK ENHANCED EQUITY DIVIDEND TRUST (BDJ)

BLACKROCK FLOATING RATE INCOME TRUST (BGT)

BLACKROCK HEALTH SCIENCES TRUST (BME)

BLACKROCK INCOME TRUST, INC. (BKT)

BLACKROCK INVESTMENT QUALITY MUNICIPAL TRUST, INC. (BKN)

BLACKROCK LIMITED DURATION INCOME TRUST (BLW)

BLACKROCK MULTI-SECTOR INCOME TRUST (BIT)

BLACKROCK MUNICIPAL INCOME TRUST (BFK)

BLACKROCK PRIVATE INVESTMENTS FUND (BPIF)

BLACKROCK SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TRUST (BST)

BLACKROCK UTILITIES, INFRASTRUCTURE & POWER OPPORTUNITIES TRUST (BUI)

(each, a “Fund” and collectively, the “Funds”)

Supplement dated December 23, 2024 to the Prospectus or Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”), as applicable, of each Fund set out in Appendix A

This supplement amends certain information in the Prospectus or SAI of each Fund, as applicable, set out in Appendix A. Unless otherwise indicated, all information included in the Prospectus or SAI that is not inconsistent with the information set forth in this supplement remains unchanged. Capitalized terms not otherwise defined in this supplement have the same meanings as in the Prospectus or SAI, as applicable.

Effective January 1, 2025, the following changes are made to each Fund’s Prospectus or SAI, as applicable:

With respect to BAS, the section of the Prospectus entitled “Conflicts of Interest” is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following and with respect to each Fund other than BAS, the section of the SAI entitled “Conflicts of Interest” is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:

Potential Conflicts of Interest

Certain activities of BlackRock, Inc., BlackRock Advisors, LLC, BlackRock Fund Advisors and the other subsidiaries of BlackRock, Inc. (collectively referred to in this section as “BlackRock”) and their respective directors, officers or employees, with respect to the Fund and/or other accounts managed by BlackRock, may give rise to actual or perceived conflicts of interest such as those described below.

BlackRock is one of the world’s largest asset management firms. BlackRock, its subsidiaries and their respective directors, officers and employees, including the business units or entities and personnel who may be involved in the investment activities and business operations of the Fund, are engaged worldwide in businesses, including managing equities, fixed income securities, cash and alternative investments, and other financial services, and have interests other than that of managing the Fund. These are considerations of which investors in the Fund should be aware, and which may cause conflicts of interest that could disadvantage the Fund and its shareholders. These businesses and interests include potential multiple advisory, transactional, financial and other relationships with, or interests in companies and interests in securities or other instruments that may be purchased or sold by the Fund.

BlackRock has proprietary interests in, and may manage or advise with respect to, accounts or funds (including separate accounts and other funds and collective investment vehicles) that have investment objectives similar to

Table of Contents

those of the Fund and/or that engage in transactions in the same types of securities, currencies and instruments as the Fund. BlackRock is also a major participant in the global currency, equities, swap and fixed income markets, in each case, for the accounts of clients and, in some cases, on a proprietary basis. As such, BlackRock is or may be actively engaged in transactions in the same securities, currencies, and instruments in which the Fund invests.

Such activities could affect the prices and availability of the securities, currencies, and instruments in which the Fund invests, which could have an adverse impact on the Fund’s performance. Such transactions, particularly in respect of most proprietary accounts or client accounts, will be executed independently of the Fund’s transactions and thus at prices or rates that may be more or less favorable than those obtained by the Fund.

In addition, the portfolio holdings of certain BlackRock-advised investment vehicles managed in an identical or substantially similar manner as certain funds are made publicly available on a more timely basis than the applicable Fund. In some cases, such portfolio holdings are made publicly available on a daily basis. While not expected, it is possible that a recipient of portfolio holdings information for such an investment vehicle could cause harm to the Fund that is managed in an identical or substantially similar manner, including by trading ahead of or against such Fund based on the information received.

When BlackRock seeks to purchase or sell the same assets for client accounts, including the Fund, the assets actually purchased or sold may be allocated among the accounts on a basis determined in its good faith discretion to be equitable. In some cases, this system may adversely affect the size or price of the assets purchased or sold for the Fund. In addition, transactions in investments by one or more other accounts managed by BlackRock may have the effect of diluting or otherwise disadvantaging the values, prices or investment strategies of the Fund, particularly, but not limited to, with respect to small capitalization, emerging market or less liquid strategies. This may occur with respect to BlackRock-advised accounts when investment decisions regarding the Fund are based on research or other information that is also used to support decisions for other accounts. When BlackRock implements a portfolio decision or strategy on behalf of another account ahead of, or contemporaneously with, similar decisions or strategies for the Fund, market impact, liquidity constraints, or other factors could result in the Fund receiving less favorable trading results and the costs of implementing such decisions or strategies could be increased or the Fund could otherwise be disadvantaged. BlackRock may, in certain cases, elect to implement internal policies and procedures designed to limit such consequences, which may cause the Fund to be unable to engage in certain activities, including purchasing or disposing of securities, when it might otherwise be desirable for it to do so. Conflicts may also arise because portfolio decisions regarding the Fund may benefit other accounts managed by BlackRock. For example, the sale of a long position or establishment of a short position by the Fund may impair the price of the same security sold short by (and therefore benefit) BlackRock or its other accounts or funds, and the purchase of a security or covering of a short position in a security by the Fund may increase the price of the same security held by (and therefore benefit) BlackRock or its other accounts or funds.

BlackRock, on behalf of other client accounts, on the one hand, and the Fund, on the other hand, may invest in or extend credit to different parts of the capital structure of a single issuer. BlackRock may pursue rights, provide advice or engage in other activities, or refrain from pursuing rights, providing advice or engaging in other activities, on behalf of other clients with respect to an issuer in which the Fund has invested, and such actions (or refraining from action) may have a material adverse effect on the Fund. In situations in which clients of BlackRock (including the Fund) hold positions in multiple parts of the capital structure of an issuer, BlackRock may not pursue certain actions or remedies that may be available to the Fund, as a result of legal and regulatory requirements or otherwise. BlackRock addresses these and other potential conflicts of interest based on the facts and circumstances of particular situations. For example, BlackRock may determine to rely on information barriers between different business units or portfolio management teams. BlackRock may also determine to rely on the actions of similarly situated holders of loans or securities rather than, or in connection with, taking such actions itself on behalf of the Fund.

In addition, to the extent permitted by applicable law, the Fund may invest its assets in other funds advised by BlackRock, including funds that are managed by one or more of the same portfolio managers, which could result

- 2 -

Table of Contents

in conflicts of interest relating to asset allocation, timing of Fund purchases and redemptions, and increased remuneration and profitability for BlackRock and/or its personnel, including portfolio managers.

Third parties, including service providers to BlackRock or the Fund, may sponsor events (including, but not limited to, marketing and promotional activities and presentations, educational training programs and conferences) for registered representatives, other professionals and individual investors. There is a potential conflict of interest as such sponsorships may defray the costs of such activities to BlackRock, and may provide an incentive to BlackRock to retain such third parties to provide services to the Fund.

In certain circumstances, BlackRock, on behalf of the Fund, may seek to buy from or sell securities to another fund or account advised by BlackRock. BlackRock may (but is not required to) effect purchases and sales between BlackRock clients (“cross trades”), including the Fund, if BlackRock believes such transactions are appropriate based on each party’s investment objectives and guidelines, subject to applicable law and regulation. There may be potential conflicts of interest or regulatory issues relating to these transactions which could limit BlackRock’s decision to engage in these transactions for the Fund. BlackRock may have a potentially conflicting division of loyalties and responsibilities to the parties in such transactions.

BlackRock and its clients may pursue or enforce rights with respect to an issuer in which the Fund has invested, and those activities may have an adverse effect on the Fund. As a result, prices, availability, liquidity and terms of the Fund’s investments may be negatively impacted by the activities of BlackRock or its clients, and transactions for the Fund may be impaired or effected at prices or terms that may be less favorable than would otherwise have been the case.

The results of the Fund’s investment activities may differ significantly from the results achieved by BlackRock for its proprietary accounts or other accounts (including investment companies or collective investment vehicles) that it manages or advises. It is possible that one or more accounts managed or advised by BlackRock and such other accounts will achieve investment results that are substantially more or less favorable than the results achieved by the Fund. Moreover, it is possible that the Fund will sustain losses during periods in which one or more proprietary or other accounts managed or advised by BlackRock achieve significant profits. The opposite result is also possible.

From time to time, the Fund may be restricted from purchasing or selling securities, or from engaging in other investment activities because of regulatory, legal or contractual requirements applicable to BlackRock or other accounts managed or advised by BlackRock, and/or the internal policies of BlackRock designed to comply with such requirements. As a result, there may be periods, for example, when BlackRock will not initiate or recommend certain types of transactions in certain securities or instruments with respect to which BlackRock is performing services or when position limits have been reached. For example, the investment activities of BlackRock for its proprietary accounts and accounts under its management may limit the investment opportunities for the Fund in certain emerging and other markets in which limitations are imposed upon the amount of investment, in the aggregate or in individual issuers, by affiliated foreign investors.

In connection with its management of the Fund, BlackRock may have access to certain fundamental analysis and proprietary technical models developed by BlackRock. BlackRock will not be under any obligation, however, to effect transactions on behalf of the Fund in accordance with such analysis and models. In addition, BlackRock will not have any obligation to make available any information regarding its proprietary activities or strategies, or the activities or strategies used for other accounts managed by them, for the benefit of the management of the Fund and it is not anticipated that BlackRock will have access to such information for the purpose of managing the Fund. The proprietary activities or portfolio strategies of BlackRock, or the activities or strategies used for accounts managed by BlackRock or other client accounts could conflict with the transactions and strategies employed by BlackRock in managing the Fund.

The Fund may be included in investment models developed by BlackRock for use by clients and financial advisors. To the extent clients invest in these investment models and increase the assets under management of the

- 3 -

Table of Contents

Fund, the investment management fee amounts paid by the Fund to BlackRock may also increase. The net asset value and liquidity of the Fund may be impacted by purchases and sales of the Fund by model-driven investment portfolios, as well as by BlackRock itself and by its advisory clients.

In addition, certain principals and certain employees of the Fund’s investment adviser are also principals or employees of other business units or entities within BlackRock. As a result, these principals and employees may have obligations to such other business units or entities or their clients and such obligations to other business units or entities or their clients may be a consideration of which investors in the Fund should be aware.

BlackRock may enter into transactions and invest in securities, instruments and currencies on behalf of the Fund in which clients of BlackRock, or, to the extent permitted by the Commission and applicable law, BlackRock, serves as the counterparty, principal or issuer. In such cases, such party’s interests in the transaction will be adverse to the interests of the Fund, and such party may have no incentive to assure that the Fund obtains the best possible prices or terms in connection with the transactions. In addition, the purchase, holding and sale of such investments by the Fund may enhance the profitability of BlackRock.

BlackRock may also create, write or issue derivatives for clients, the underlying securities, currencies or instruments of which may be those in which the Fund invests or which may be based on the performance of the Fund. Additionally, an affiliate of BlackRock will create, write or issue options, which may be based on the performance of certain BlackRock-advised funds. BlackRock has entered into an arrangement with Markit Indices Limited, the index provider for underlying fixed-income indexes used by certain iShares ETFs, related to derivative fixed-income products that are based on such iShares ETFs. Trading activity in these derivative products could also potentially lead to greater liquidity for such products, increased purchase activity with respect to these iShares ETFs and increased assets under management for BlackRock.

The Fund may, subject to applicable law, purchase investments that are the subject of an underwriting or other distribution by BlackRock and may also enter into transactions with other clients of BlackRock where such other clients have interests adverse to those of the Fund. At times, these activities may cause business units or entities within BlackRock to give advice to clients that may cause these clients to take actions adverse to the interests of the Fund. To the extent such transactions are permitted, the Fund will deal with BlackRock on an arms-length basis.

To the extent authorized by applicable law, BlackRock may act as broker, dealer, agent, lender or adviser or in other commercial capacities for the Fund. It is anticipated that the commissions, mark-ups, mark-downs, financial advisory fees, underwriting and placement fees, sales fees, financing and commitment fees, brokerage fees, other fees, compensation or profits, rates, terms and conditions charged by BlackRock will be in its view commercially reasonable, although BlackRock, including its sales personnel, will have an interest in obtaining fees and other amounts that are favorable to BlackRock and such sales personnel, which may have an adverse effect on the Fund. Index based funds may use an index provider that is affiliated with another service provider of the Fund or BlackRock that acts as a broker, dealer, agent, lender or in other commercial capacities for the Fund or BlackRock.

Subject to applicable law, BlackRock (and its personnel and other distributors) will be entitled to retain fees and other amounts that they receive in connection with their service to the Fund as broker, dealer, agent, lender, adviser or in other commercial capacities. No accounting to the Fund or their shareholders will be required, and no fees or other compensation payable by the Fund or its shareholders will be reduced by reason of receipt by BlackRock of any such fees or other amounts.

When BlackRock acts as broker, dealer, agent, adviser or in other commercial capacities in relation to the Fund, BlackRock may take commercial steps in its own interests, which may have an adverse effect on the Fund.

The Fund will be required to establish business relationships with its counterparties based on the Fund’s own credit standing. BlackRock will not have any obligation to allow its credit to be used in connection with the

- 4 -

Table of Contents

Fund’s establishment of its business relationships, nor is it expected that the Fund’s counterparties will rely on the credit of BlackRock in evaluating the Fund’s creditworthiness.

BlackRock Investment Management, LLC (“BIM”) or BlackRock Institutional Trust Company, N.A. (“BTC”), as applicable, each an affiliate of BlackRock, pursuant to SEC exemptive relief, acts as securities lending agent to, and receives a share of securities lending revenues from, the Fund. BlackRock will also receive compensation for managing the reinvestment of the cash collateral from securities lending. There are potential conflicts of interests in managing a securities lending program, including but not limited to: (i) BlackRock as securities lending agent may have an incentive to, among other things, increase or decrease the amount of securities on loan or to lend particular securities in order to generate additional risk-adjusted revenue for BlackRock and its affiliates; and (ii) BlackRock as securities lending agent may have an incentive to allocate loans to clients that would provide more revenue to BlackRock. As described further below, BlackRock seeks to mitigate this conflict by providing its securities lending clients with equal lending opportunities over time in order to approximate pro rata allocation.

As part of its securities lending program, BlackRock indemnifies the Fund and certain other clients and/or funds against a shortfall in collateral in the event of borrower default. On a regular basis, BlackRock calculates the potential dollar exposure of collateral shortfall resulting from a borrower default (“shortfall risk”) in the securities lending program. BlackRock establishes program-wide borrower limits (“credit limits”) to actively manage borrower-specific credit exposure. BlackRock oversees the risk model that calculates projected collateral shortfall values using loan-level factors such as loan and collateral type and market value as well as specific borrower credit characteristics. When necessary, BlackRock may adjust securities lending program attributes by restricting eligible collateral or reducing borrower credit limits. As a result, the management of program-wide exposure as well as BlackRock-specific indemnification exposure may affect the amount of securities lending activity BlackRock may conduct at any given point in time by reducing the volume of lending opportunities for certain loans (including by asset type, collateral type and/or revenue profile).

BlackRock may decline to make a securities loan on behalf of the Fund, discontinue lending on behalf of the Fund or terminate a securities loan on behalf of the Fund for any reason, including but not limited to regulatory requirements and/or market rules, liquidity considerations, or credit considerations, which may impact the Fund by reducing or eliminating the volume of lending opportunities for certain types of loans, loans in particular markets, loans of particular securities or types of securities, or for loans overall. In addition, some borrowers may prefer certain BlackRock lenders that provide additional protections against lender default that are favored by their prudential regulation.

BlackRock uses a predetermined systematic process in order to approximate pro rata allocation over time. In order to allocate a loan to a portfolio: (i) BlackRock as a whole must have sufficient lending capacity pursuant to the various program limits (i.e. indemnification exposure limit and borrower credit limits); (ii) the lending portfolio must hold the asset at the time a loan opportunity arrives; and (iii) the lending portfolio must also have enough inventory, either on its own or when aggregated with other portfolios into one single market delivery, to satisfy the loan request. In doing so, BlackRock seeks to provide equal lending opportunities for all portfolios, independent of whether BlackRock indemnifies the portfolio. Equal opportunities for lending portfolios does not guarantee equal outcomes. Specifically, short and long-term outcomes for individual clients may vary due to asset mix, asset/liability spreads on different securities, and the overall limits imposed by the firm.

Purchases and sales of securities and other assets for the Fund may be bunched or aggregated with orders for other BlackRock client accounts, including with accounts that pay different transaction costs solely due to the fact that they have different research payment arrangements. BlackRock, however, is not required to bunch or aggregate orders if portfolio management decisions for different accounts are made separately, or if they determine that bunching or aggregating is not practicable or required, or in cases involving client direction.

Prevailing trading activity frequently may make impossible the receipt of the same price or execution on the entire volume of securities purchased or sold. When this occurs, the various prices may be averaged, and the

- 5 -

Table of Contents

Fund will be charged or credited with the average price. Thus, the effect of the aggregation may operate on some occasions to the disadvantage of the Fund. In addition, under certain circumstances, the Fund will not be charged the same commission or commission equivalent rates in connection with a bunched or aggregated order.

As discussed in the section below entitled “Portfolio Transactions and Brokerage,” BlackRock, unless prohibited by applicable law, may cause the Fund or account to pay a broker or dealer a commission for effecting a transaction that exceeds the amount another broker or dealer would have charged for effecting the same transaction in recognition of the value of brokerage and research services provided by that broker or dealer. Under MiFID II, EU investment managers, including BlackRock International Limited, pay for research from brokers and dealers directly out of their own resources, rather than through client commissions.

Subject to applicable law, BlackRock may select brokers that furnish BlackRock, the Funds, other BlackRock client accounts or personnel, directly or through correspondent relationships, with research or other appropriate services which provide, in BlackRock’s view, appropriate assistance to BlackRock in the investment decision-making process (including with respect to futures, fixed-price offerings and OTC transactions). Such research or other services may include, to the extent permitted by law, research reports on companies, industries and securities; economic and financial data; financial publications; proxy analysis; trade industry seminars; computer data bases; research-oriented software and other services and products.

Research or other services obtained in this manner may be used in servicing any or all of the Fund and other BlackRock client accounts, including in connection with BlackRock client accounts other than those that pay commissions to the broker relating to the research or other service arrangements. Such products and services may disproportionately benefit other BlackRock client accounts relative to the Fund based on the amount of brokerage commissions paid by the Fund and such other BlackRock client accounts. For example, research or other services that are paid for through one client’s commissions may not be used in managing that client’s account. In addition, other BlackRock client accounts may receive the benefit, including disproportionate benefits, of economies of scale or price discounts in connection with products and services that may be provided to the Fund and to such other BlackRock client accounts. To the extent that BlackRock uses soft dollars, it will not have to pay for those products and services itself.

BlackRock, unless prohibited by applicable law, may endeavor to execute trades through brokers who, pursuant to such arrangements, provide research or other services in order to ensure the continued receipt of research or other services BlackRock believes are useful in its investment decision-making process. BlackRock may from time to time choose not to engage in the above described arrangements to varying degrees. BlackRock, unless prohibited by applicable law, may also enter into commission sharing arrangements under which BlackRock may execute transactions through a broker-dealer and request that the broker-dealer allocate a portion of the commissions or commission credits to another firm that provides research to BlackRock. To the extent that BlackRock engages in commission sharing arrangements, many of the same conflicts related to traditional soft dollars may exist.

BlackRock may utilize certain electronic crossing networks (“ECNs”) (including, without limitation, ECNs in which BlackRock has an investment or other interest, to the extent permitted by applicable law) in executing client securities transactions for certain types of securities. These ECNs may charge fees for their services, including access fees and transaction fees. The transaction fees, which are similar to commissions or markups/markdowns, will generally be charged to clients and, like commissions and markups/markdowns, would generally be included in the cost of the securities purchased. Access fees may be paid by BlackRock even though incurred in connection with executing transactions on behalf of clients, including the Fund. In certain circumstances, ECNs may offer volume discounts that will reduce the access fees typically paid by BlackRock. BlackRock will only utilize ECNs consistent with its obligation to seek to obtain best execution in client transactions.

- 6 -

Table of Contents

BlackRock owns a minority interest in, and is a member of, Members Exchange (“MEMX”), a newly created U.S. stock exchange. Transactions for the Fund may be executed on MEMX if third party brokers select MEMX as the appropriate venue for execution of orders placed by BlackRock traders on behalf of client portfolios.

BlackRock has adopted policies and procedures designed to prevent conflicts of interest from influencing proxy voting decisions that it makes on behalf of advisory clients, including the Fund, and to help ensure that such decisions are made in accordance with BlackRock’s fiduciary obligations to its clients. Nevertheless, notwithstanding such proxy voting policies and procedures, actual proxy voting decisions of BlackRock may have the effect of favoring the interests of other clients or businesses of other divisions or units of BlackRock, provided that BlackRock believes such voting decisions to be in accordance with its fiduciary obligations. For a more detailed discussion of these policies and procedures, see “Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures.”

It is also possible that, from time to time, BlackRock and/or its advisory clients (including other funds and separately managed accounts) may, subject to compliance with applicable law, purchase and hold shares of the Fund. Increasing the Fund’s assets may enhance investment flexibility and diversification and may contribute to economies of scale that tend to reduce the Fund’s expense ratio. BlackRock reserves the right, subject to compliance with applicable law, to redeem at any time some or all of the shares of the Fund acquired for its own accounts. A large redemption of shares of the Fund by BlackRock could significantly reduce the asset size of the Fund, which might have an adverse effect on the Fund’s investment flexibility, portfolio diversification and expense ratio. BlackRock seeks to consider the effect of redemptions on the Fund and other shareholders in deciding whether to redeem its shares but is not obligated to do so and may elect not to do so.

It is possible that the Fund may invest in securities of, or engage in transactions with, companies in which BlackRock has significant debt or equity investments or other interests. The Fund may also invest in issuances (such as structured notes) by entities for which BlackRock provides and is compensated for cash management services relating to the proceeds from the sale of such issuances. In making investment decisions for the Fund, BlackRock is not permitted to obtain or use material non-public information acquired by any unit of BlackRock, in the course of these activities. In addition, from time to time, the activities of BlackRock may limit the Fund’s flexibility in purchases and sales of securities. As indicated below, BlackRock may engage in transactions with companies in which BlackRock-advised funds or other clients of BlackRock have an investment.

BlackRock and its personnel and other financial service providers may have interests in promoting sales of the Fund. With respect to BlackRock and its personnel, the remuneration and profitability relating to services to and sales of the Fund or other products may be greater than remuneration and profitability relating to services to and sales of certain funds or other products that might be provided or offered. BlackRock and its sales personnel may directly or indirectly receive a portion of the fees and commissions charged to the Fund or their shareholders. BlackRock and its advisory or other personnel may also benefit from increased amounts of assets under management. Fees and commissions may also be higher than for other products or services, and the remuneration and profitability to BlackRock and such personnel resulting from transactions on behalf of or management of the Fund may be greater than the remuneration and profitability resulting from other funds or products.

BlackRock may provide valuation assistance to certain clients with respect to certain securities or other investments and the valuation recommendations made for such clients’ accounts may differ from the valuations for the same securities or investments assigned by the Fund’s pricing vendors, especially if such valuations are based on broker-dealer quotes or other data sources unavailable to the Fund’s pricing vendors. While BlackRock will generally communicate its valuation information or determinations to the Fund’s pricing vendors and/or fund accountants, there may be instances where the Fund’s pricing vendors or fund accountants assign a different valuation to a security or other investment than the valuation for such security or investment determined or recommended by BlackRock.

As disclosed in more detail in “Net Asset Value” in the Prospectus, when market quotations are not readily available or are believed by BlackRock to be unreliable, the Fund’s investments are valued at fair value by

- 7 -

Table of Contents

BlackRock. BlackRock has been designated as the Fund’s valuation designee pursuant to Rule 2a-5 under the Investment Company Act and acts through BlackRock’s Rule 2a-5 Committee (the “2a-5 Committee”), with assistance from other BlackRock pricing committees and in accordance with BlackRock’s policies and procedures (the “Valuation Procedures”). When determining a “fair value price,” the 2a-5 Committee seeks to determine the price that the Fund might reasonably expect to receive from the current sale of that asset or liability in an arm’s-length transaction. The price generally may not be determined based on what the Fund might reasonably expect to receive for selling an asset or liability at a later time or if it holds the asset or liability to maturity. While fair value determinations will be based upon all available factors that BlackRock deems relevant at the time of the determination, and may be based on analytical values determined by BlackRock using proprietary or third party valuation models, fair value represents only a good faith approximation of the value of an asset or liability. The fair value of one or more assets or liabilities may not, in retrospect, be the price at which those assets or liabilities could have been sold during the period in which the particular fair values were used in determining the Fund’s NAV. As a result, the Fund’s sale or redemption of its shares at NAV, at a time when a holding or holdings are valued by the 2a-5 Committee at fair value, may have the effect of diluting or increasing the economic interest of existing shareholders and may affect the amount of revenue received by BlackRock with respect to services for which it receives an asset-based fee.

To the extent permitted by applicable law, the Fund may invest all or some of its short term cash investments in any money market fund or similarly-managed private fund advised or managed by BlackRock. In connection with any such investments, the Fund, to the extent permitted by the Investment Company Act, may pay its share of expenses of a money market fund or other similarly-managed private fund in which it invests, which may result in the Fund bearing some additional expenses.

BlackRock and its directors, officers and employees, may buy and sell securities or other investments for their own accounts and may have conflicts of interest with respect to investments made on behalf of the Fund. As a result of differing trading and investment strategies or constraints, positions may be taken by directors, officers and employees of BlackRock that are the same, different from or made at different times than positions taken for the Fund. To lessen the possibility that the Fund will be adversely affected by this personal trading, the Fund, BRIL and BlackRock each have adopted a Code of Ethics in compliance with Section 17(j) of the Investment Company Act that restricts securities trading in the personal accounts of investment professionals and others who normally come into possession of information regarding the Fund’s portfolio transactions. Each Code of Ethics is also available on the EDGAR Database on the Commission’s Internet site at http://www.sec.gov, and copies may be obtained, after paying a duplicating fee, by e-mail at publicinfo@sec.gov.

BlackRock will not purchase securities or other property from, or sell securities or other property to, the Fund, except that the Fund may in accordance with rules or guidance adopted under the Investment Company Act engage in transactions with another Fund or accounts that are affiliated with the Fund as a result of common officers, directors, or investment advisers or pursuant to exemptive orders granted to the Fund and/or BlackRock by the Commission. These transactions would be effected in circumstances in which BlackRock determined that it would be appropriate for the Fund to purchase and another client of BlackRock to sell, or the Fund to sell and another client of BlackRock to purchase, the same security or instrument on the same day. From time to time, the activities of the Fund may be restricted because of regulatory requirements applicable to BlackRock and/or BlackRock’s internal policies designed to comply with, limit the applicability of, or otherwise relate to such requirements. A client not advised by BlackRock would not be subject to some of those considerations. There may be periods when BlackRock may not initiate or recommend certain types of transactions, or may otherwise restrict or limit its advice in certain securities or instruments issued by or related to companies for which BlackRock is performing advisory or other services or has proprietary positions. For example, when BlackRock is engaged to provide advisory or risk management services for a company, BlackRock may be prohibited from or limited in purchasing or selling securities of that company on behalf of the Fund, particularly where such services result in BlackRock obtaining material non-public information about the company (e.g., in connection with participation in a creditors’ committee). Similar situations could arise if personnel of BlackRock serve as directors of companies the securities of which the Fund wish to purchase or sell. However, if permitted by

- 8 -

Table of Contents

applicable law, and where consistent with BlackRock’s policies and procedures (including the necessary implementation of appropriate information barriers), the Fund may purchase securities or instruments that are issued by such companies, are the subject of an advisory or risk management assignment by BlackRock, or where personnel of BlackRock are directors or officers of the issuer.

BlackRock has adopted and implemented policies and procedures that are designed to address potential conflicts that arise in connection with the advisory services BlackRock provides to the Fund and other clients. Certain BlackRock advisory personnel may take views, and make decisions or recommendations, that are different than or opposite those of other BlackRock advisory personnel. Certain portfolio management teams within BlackRock may make decisions or take (or refrain from taking) actions with respect to clients they advise in a manner different than or adverse to the decisions made or the actions taken (or not taken) by the Fund’s portfolio management teams. The various portfolio management teams may not share information with each other, including as a result of certain information barriers and other policies, and will not have any obligation or other duty to do so.

BlackRock has established certain information barriers and other policies to address the sharing of information between different businesses within BlackRock, including, effective on or about January 21, 2025, with respect to personnel responsible with managing portfolios and voting proxies with respect to certain index equity portfolios versus those responsible for managing portfolios and voting proxies with respect to all other portfolios. As a result of information barriers, certain units of BlackRock generally will not have access, or will have limited access, to certain information and personnel, including senior personnel, in other units of BlackRock, and generally will not manage the Fund with the benefit of information possessed by such other units. Therefore, BlackRock may not be able to review potential investments for the Fund with the benefit of information held by certain areas of BlackRock.

BlackRock may determine to move certain personnel, businesses, or business units from one side of an information barrier to the other side of the information barrier. In connection therewith, BlackRock personnel, businesses, and business units that were moved will no longer have access to the information and personnel from the side of the information barrier from which they were moved. Information obtained in connection with such changes to information barriers may limit or restrict the ability of BlackRock to engage in or otherwise effect transactions on behalf of the Fund (including purchasing or selling securities that BlackRock may otherwise have purchased or sold for a client in the absence of a change to an information barrier). Information barriers may not have their intended impact due to, for example, changes in applicable law or inadvertent crossings of the barriers, and actions by personnel on one side of a barrier may impact the potential actions of personnel on the other side of a barrier.

Although the information barriers are intended to allow for independent portfolio management decision-making and proxy voting among certain BlackRock businesses, the investment activities of BlackRock for BlackRock clients, as well as BlackRock’s proprietary accounts, may nonetheless limit the investment strategies and rights of other clients (including the Fund). As BlackRock’s assets under management increases, BlackRock clients may face greater negative impacts due to ownership restrictions and limitations imposed by laws, regulations, rules, regulators, or issuers. For example, in certain circumstances where a BlackRock client invests in securities issued by companies that operate in certain industries (e.g., banking, insurance, and utilities) or in certain emerging or international markets, or are subject to regulatory or corporate ownership restrictions (e.g., with mechanisms such as poison pills in place to prevent takeovers), or where a BlackRock client invest in certain futures and derivatives, there may be limits on the aggregate amount invested by BlackRock for its clients and BlackRock’s proprietary accounts that may not be exceeded without the grant of a license or other regulatory or corporate approval, order, consent, relief, waiver or non-disapproval or, if exceeded, may cause BlackRock or its clients to be subject to enforcement actions, disgorgement of share ownership or profits, regulatory restrictions, complex compliance reporting, increased compliance costs or suffer disadvantages or business restrictions. In light of certain restrictions, BlackRock may also seek to make indirect investments (e.g., using derivatives) on behalf of its clients to receive exposure to certain securities in excess of the applicable ownership restrictions and

- 9 -

Table of Contents

limitations when legally permitted that will expose such clients to additional costs and additional risks, including any risks associated with investing in derivatives. There may be limited availability of derivatives that provide indirect exposure to an impacted security. BlackRock clients can be subject to more than one ownership limitation depending on each client’s holdings, and each ownership limitation can impact multiple securities held by the client. Certain clients or shareholders may have their own overlapping obligations to monitor their compliance with ownership limitations across their investments.

If certain aggregate ownership thresholds are reached either through the actions of BlackRock or a BlackRock client or as a result of corporate actions by the issuer, the ability of BlackRock on behalf of clients to purchase or dispose of investments, or exercise rights (including voting) or undertake business transactions, may be restricted by law, regulation, rule, or organizational documents or otherwise impaired. For example, to meet the requirements of an ownership limitation or restriction, a client may be unable to purchase or directly hold a security the client would otherwise purchase or hold. The limitation or restriction may be based on the holdings of other BlackRock clients instead of the specific client being restricted. For index funds, this means a fund may not be able to track its index as closely as it would if it was not subject to an ownership limitation or restriction because the fund cannot acquire the amount of the impacted security included in its index. BlackRock on behalf of its clients may limit purchases, sell existing investments, utilize indirect investments, utilize information barriers, or otherwise restrict, forgo, or limit the exercise of rights (including transferring, outsourcing, or limiting voting rights or forgoing the right to receive dividends) when BlackRock, in its sole discretion, deems it appropriate in light of potential regulatory or other restrictions on ownership or other consequences resulting from reaching investment thresholds. These types of restrictions could negatively impact a client’s performance or ability to meet its investment objective.

When BlackRock or a BlackRock client is subject to an ownership limitation, BlackRock may in its discretion seek permission from the applicable issuers or regulators to exceed the limitation. However, there is no guarantee that permission will be granted, or that, once granted, it will not be modified or revoked at a later date with minimal or no notice. The issuer and/or regulator may also require that BlackRock on behalf of itself and its clients take or refrain from taking certain actions in connection with the approval, order, consent, relief or non-disapproval, which BlackRock may accept if it believes the benefits outweigh the costs and may limit BlackRock from taking actions that it otherwise would take. In those circumstances where ownership thresholds or limitations must be observed, BlackRock seeks to allocate limited investment opportunities equitably among clients, taking into consideration benchmark weight and investment strategy. BlackRock may adopt certain controls designed to prevent the occurrence of a breach of any applicable ownership threshold or limits, including, for example, when ownership in certain securities nears an applicable threshold, BlackRock may limit additional purchases in such securities or, with respect to ETFs, remove such securities from the list of Deposit Securities to be delivered to the Fund in connection with purchases of Creation Units of such Fund. If client holdings of an issuer exceed an applicable threshold and BlackRock is unable to obtain relief to enable the continued holding of such investments, it may be necessary to reduce these positions to meet the applicable limitations and BlackRock or such client may be subject to regulatory actions. In these cases, the investments will be sold in a manner that BlackRock deems fair and equitable over time.

Ownership limitations are highly complex. It is possible that, despite BlackRock’s intent to either comply with or be granted permission to exceed ownership limitations, it may inadvertently breach a limit or violate the corporate or regulatory approval, order, consent, relief or non-disapproval that was obtained.

In addition to the foregoing, other ownership thresholds may trigger reporting requirements to governmental and regulatory authorities, and such reports may entail the disclosure of the identity of a client or BlackRock’s intended strategy with respect to such security or asset.

BlackRock may maintain securities indices. To the extent permitted by applicable laws, the Fund may seek to license and use such indices as part of their investment strategy. Index based funds that seek to track the performance of securities indices also may use the name of the index or index provider in the fund name. Index

- 10 -

Table of Contents

providers, including BlackRock (to the extent permitted by applicable law), may be paid licensing fees for use of their index or index name. In instances where BlackRock charges a unitary management fee, BlackRock may have a financial incentive to use a BlackRock index that is less costly to BlackRock than a third party index. BlackRock may benefit from the Fund using BlackRock indices by creating increasing acceptance in the marketplace for such indices. BlackRock is not obligated to license its indices to the Fund and the Fund is under no obligation to use BlackRock indices. Any fund that enters into a license for a BlackRock index cannot be assured that the terms of any index licensing agreement with BlackRock will be as favorable as those terms offered to other licensees.

BlackRock may enter into contractual arrangements with third-party service providers to the Fund (e.g., custodians, administrators and index providers) pursuant to which BlackRock receives fee discounts or concessions in recognition of BlackRock’s overall relationship with such service providers. BlackRock may also enter into contractual arrangements with such service providers pursuant to which BlackRock incurs additional costs if the service provider’s services are terminated with respect to the Fund. To the extent that BlackRock is responsible for paying service providers out of its fees that it receives from the Fund, the benefits of lower fees, including any fee discounts or concessions, or any additional savings, may accrue, in whole or in part, to BlackRock, which could result in conflicts of interest relating to the use or termination of service providers to the Fund. In addition, conflicts of interest may arise with respect to contractual arrangements with third-party service providers to the Fund, or the selection of such providers, particularly in circumstances where BlackRock is negotiating on behalf of both funds that have a unitary management fee and those that do not or different service providers have different fee structures.

Conflicts of interest may arise as a result of simultaneous investment management of multiple client accounts by the BlackRock’s investment professionals. For example, differences in the advisory fee structure may create the appearance of actual or potential conflicts of interest because such differences could create pecuniary incentives for BlackRock to favor one client account over another.

BlackRock owns or has an ownership interest in certain trading, portfolio management, operations and/or information systems used by Fund service providers. These systems are, or will be, used by the Fund service provider in connection with the provision of services to accounts managed by BlackRock and funds managed and sponsored by BlackRock, including the Fund, that engage the service provider (typically the custodian). The Fund’s service provider remunerates BlackRock for the use of the systems. The Fund service provider’s payments to BlackRock for the use of these systems may enhance the profitability of BlackRock.

BlackRock’s receipt of fees from a service provider in connection with the use of systems provided by BlackRock may create an incentive for BlackRock to recommend that the Fund enter into or renew an arrangement with the service provider.

In recognition of a BlackRock client’s overall relationship with BlackRock, BlackRock may offer special pricing arrangements for certain services provided by BlackRock. Any such special pricing arrangements will not affect Fund fees and expenses applicable to such client’s investment in the Fund.

Present and future activities of BlackRock and its directors, officers and employees, in addition to those described in this section, may give rise to additional conflicts of interest.

With respect to BAS, the section of the Prospectus entitled “Proxy Voting Policies” is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:

Proxy Voting Policies

The Board of the Fund has delegated the voting of proxies for the Fund’s securities to the Manager pursuant to the Closed-End Fund Proxy Voting Policy. The Manager has adopted the BlackRock Active Investment

- 11 -

Table of Contents

Stewardship - Global Engagement and Voting Guidelines (the “BAIS Guidelines”) with respect to certain funds, including the Fund.

Copies of the Closed-End Fund Proxy Voting Policy and the BAIS Guidelines are attached as Appendix A to this Prospectus.

Information on how the Fund voted proxies relating to portfolio securities during the most recent 12-month period ended June 30 is available (i) without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 882-0052, (ii) at www.blackrock.com and (iii) on the SEC’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

With respect to each Fund other than BAS, the section of the SAI entitled “Management of the Trust—Proxy Voting Policies” or “Management of the Fund—Proxy Voting Policies,” as applicable, is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:

Proxy Voting Policies

The Board of the Fund has delegated the voting of proxies for the Fund’s securities to the Advisor pursuant to the Closed-End Fund Proxy Voting Policy. The Advisor has adopted the BlackRock Active Investment Stewardship - Global Engagement and Voting Guidelines (the “BAIS Guidelines”) with respect to certain funds, including the Fund.

Copies of the Closed-End Fund Proxy Voting Policy and the BAIS Guidelines are attached as Appendix B to this SAI.

Information on how the Fund voted proxies relating to portfolio securities during the most recent 12-month period ended June 30 is available (i) without charge, upon request, by calling (800) 882-0052, (ii) at www.blackrock.com and (iii) on the SEC’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

With respect to BAS, Appendix A to the Prospectus is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following and with respect to each Fund other than BAS, Appendix B to the SAI is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:

- 12 -

Table of Contents

Closed-End Fund Proxy Voting Policy

Objective and Scope

Set forth below is the Closed-End Fund Proxy Voting Policy.

Policy / Document Requirements and Statements

The Boards of Trustees/Directors (the “Directors”) of the closed-end funds advised by BlackRock Advisors, LLC (“BlackRock”), (the “Funds”) have the responsibility for the oversight of voting proxies relating to portfolio securities of the Funds, and have determined that it is in the best interests of the Funds and their shareholders to delegate the responsibility to vote proxies to BlackRock as part of BlackRock’s authority to manage, acquire and dispose of account assets, all as contemplated by the Funds’ respective investment management agreements.

BlackRock has adopted the BlackRock Active Investment Stewardship Global Engagement and Voting Guidelines (as from time to time amended, the “Guidelines”) governing proxy voting by accounts managed by BlackRock.

BlackRock will cast votes on behalf of each of the Funds covered by this policy on specific proxy issues in respect of securities held by each such Fund (or may refrain from voting) in accordance with the Guidelines; provided, however, that in the case of underlying closed-end funds (including business development companies and other similarly-situated asset pools) held by the Funds that have, or are proposing to adopt, a classified board structure, BlackRock will typically (a) vote in favor of proposals to adopt classification and against proposals to eliminate classification, and (b) not vote against directors as a result of their adoption of a classified board structure.

Conflicts Management

BlackRock Active Investment Stewardship (“BAIS”) maintains policies and procedures that seek to prevent undue influence on BlackRock’s proxy voting activity and to mitigate material conflicts of interest in the exercise

		Public		Page 1 of 2

Table of Contents

Closed-End Fund Proxy Voting Policy

of proxy voting responsibilities. Potential material conflicts, and the resultant potential for undue influence, might be due to a relationship between the investee company (or any shareholder proponent or dissident shareholder) and BlackRock, BlackRock’s affiliates or employees, or a Fund or a Fund’s affiliates. BlackRock has taken certain steps to mitigate potential conflicts, which are outlined in detail in the Guidelines. In mitigating conflicts, BAIS will adhere to the Guidelines.

In certain instances, BAIS will engage an independent third-party voting service provider to make

proxy voting recommendations as a further safeguard to avoid potential conflicts of interest, to satisfy regulatory compliance requirements, or as may be otherwise required by applicable law.

With respect to the relationship between securities lending and proxy voting, shares on loan cannot be voted and BlackRock may determine to recall them for voting, as guided by BlackRock’s fiduciary responsibility to act in clients’ financial interests. The Guidelines set forth BlackRock’s approach to recalling securities on loan in connection with proxy voting.

Reports to the Board

BlackRock will report on an annual basis to the Directors on (1) a summary of the proxy voting process as applicable to the Funds covered by this Policy in the preceding year together with a representation that all votes were in accordance with the Guidelines (as modified pursuant to the immediately preceding paragraph), and (2) any material changes to the Guidelines, including material changes to conflicts management practices, that have not previously been reported.

		Public		Page 2 of 2

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Contents

Table of Contents

Overview

This document provides high level guidance on how BlackRock Active Investment Stewardship (BAIS) views corporate governance matters that are commonly put to a shareholder vote, or on which investors engage with issuers. BAIS works in partnership with BlackRock’s investment teams, excluding index equity, providing expertise on investment stewardship, engaging with companies on behalf of those teams when appropriate, and assisting in recommending, operationalizing and reporting on voting decisions. The guidance informs BAIS’ voting recommendations to BlackRock’s active portfolio managers. It applies to active equity holdings in BlackRock’s fundamental equity, systematic equity and multi-asset solutions strategies. It also may apply to holdings in BlackRock’s index and active fixed income strategies, to the extent those strategies hold voting securities or conduct issuer engagements. The guidelines are not prescriptive as active portfolio managers have discretion as to how they integrate these guidelines within their investment processes in light of their clients’ or funds’ investment objectives. There are separate, independently developed principles and voting policies that are applied to BlackRock’s index equity investments by a distinct and independent function, BlackRock Investment Stewardship. 

Table of Contents

Introduction to BlackRock

BlackRock’s purpose is to help more and more people experience financial well-being. We manage assets on behalf of institutional and individual clients, across a full spectrum of investment strategies, asset classes, and regions. Our client base includes pension plans, endowments, foundations, charities, official institutions, insurers, and other financial institutions, as well as individuals around the world.

About BlackRock Active Investment Stewardship

BlackRock Active Investment Stewardship (BAIS) is a specialist team within the Portfolio Management Group and manages BlackRock’s stewardship engagement and voting on behalf of clients invested in active strategies globally. BAIS is also responsible for engagement with issuers in index fixed income strategies, where appropriate. Our activities are informed by these Global Engagement and Voting Guidelines (“the Guidelines”) and insights from active investment analysts and portfolio managers, with whom we work closely in engaging companies and voting at shareholder meetings.

Engagement with public companies is the foundation of our approach to stewardship within fundamental active investing. Through direct dialogue with company leadership, we seek to understand their businesses and how they manage risks and opportunities to deliver durable, risk adjusted financial returns. Generally, portfolio managers and stewardship specialists engage jointly on substantive matters. Our discussions focus on topics relevant to a company’s success over time including governance and leadership, corporate strategy, capital structure and financial performance, operations and sustainability-related risks, as well as macro-economic, geopolitical and sector dynamics. We aim to be constructive investors and are generally supportive of management teams that have a track record of financial value creation. We aim to build and maintain strong relationships with company leadership based on open dialogue and mutual respect.

Different active equity strategies may implement these voting guidelines differently, as a result of the latitude the portfolio manager has to make independent voting decisions aligned with their portfolio objectives and investment strategy. For example, BAIS will generally vote the holdings in Systematic Active Equity portfolios in accordance with these guidelines. We provide voting recommendations to fundamental equity portfolio managers, who may determine to vote differently based on their portfolio investment objectives and strategy.

These guidelines discuss corporate governance topics on which we may engage with management teams and board directors¹ and matters that routinely come to a shareholder vote. We recognize that accepted corporate governance norms can differ across markets, and believe these guidelines represent globally applicable elements of governance that support a company’s ability to manage material risks and opportunities and deliver financial returns to investors. Generally, we believe companies should observe accepted corporate governance norms within their local markets or, particularly in markets without well-established norms, aspire to widely recognized international best practices. As one of many minority shareholders, BlackRock cannot – and does not try to – direct a company’s strategy or its implementation. We look to companies to provide disclosures that explain how their approach to corporate governance best aligns with the financial interests of their investors.

Our approach to stewardship within active equities

As shareholders of public companies, BlackRock’s clients have certain fundamental rights, including the right to vote on proposals put forth by a company’s management or its shareholders. The voting rights attached to these clients’ holdings are an important mechanism for investors to express support for, or concern about, a company’s performance. As a fiduciary, BlackRock is legally required to make proxy voting determinations, on behalf of clients who have delegated voting authority to us, in a manner that is consistent with their investment objectives.

¹ References to the board, board directors or non-executive directors should be understood to include supervisory boards and their members, where relevant.

Table of Contents

In general, we tend to support the recommendations of the board of directors and management. As indicated below, we may vote against management recommendations when we have concerns about how companies are serving the financial interests of our clients as their shareholders. We take a globally consistent approach to voting but consider the different corporate governance regulations and norms in various markets. Votes are determined on a case-by-case basis, in the context of a company’s situation and the investment mandate we have from clients. Please see page 16 for more information about how we fulfil and oversee BlackRock’s non-index equity investment stewardship responsibilities.

Our approach to stewardship within fixed income

Although fixed income investors do not have the right to vote at shareholder meetings, issuer engagement is a component of fixed income investment strategies at BlackRock, particularly those with sustainability objectives in addition to financial objectives. Most corporate governance-related fixed income engagements are undertaken in conjunction with the active investment stewardship team, and often active equity investors. In addition to the topics listed below, engagement with fixed income investment teams can help inform an issuer’s approach to structuring specialist issuances, such as green bonds, and the standard terms and information in bond documentation.

Table of Contents

Boards of Directors

Roles and responsibilities

There is widespread consensus that the foundation of good corporate governance is an effective board of directors that is able to advise and supervise management in an independent and objective manner.²

We look to the board of directors (hereafter ‘the board’) to have an oversight role in the establishment and realization of a company’s strategy, purpose and culture. These constructs are interdependent and, when aligned, can better position a company to be resilient in the face of a changing business environment, help reduce the risks of corporate or employee misconduct, and attract and retain the caliber of workers necessary to deliver financial performance over time.

In promoting the success of the company, the board ensures the necessary resources, policies and procedures are in place to help management meet its strategic objectives within an agreed risk tolerance.

One of the most important responsibilities of the board is to appoint, and remove as necessary, the chief executive officer (CEO). In addition, the board plays a meaningful role in monitoring the performance of the CEO and other key executives, determining executive compensation, ensuring a rigorous audit, overseeing strategy execution and risk management and engaging with shareholders, and other stakeholders, as necessary.

Composition and effectiveness

Appointment process

A formal and transparent process for identifying and appointing director candidates is critical to ensuring the board is composed of directors with the appropriate mix of skills and experience. The board or a sub-committee should determine the general criteria given the company’s circumstances (e.g., sector, maturity, geographic footprint) and any additional criteria for a specific role being filled (e.g., financial expertise, industry track record). To inform the process, we encourage companies to review the skills and experience of incumbent directors to identify any gaps and whether a director candidate’s characteristics would be additive. We welcome disclosures that explain how the board considered different skills, backgrounds and experience to ensure the directors collectively can be effective in fulfilling their responsibilities. We assess a company’s board composition against that of its peer group and local market requirements.

Shareholders periodically vote to elect, remove and nominate directors to serve on the board. We may vote against the election of the most senior independent director, or the chair of the relevant committee, where a company has not demonstrated it has an appointment process that results in a high functioning board with the appropriate complement of skills, backgrounds and experience amongst the directors to support strong financial performance over time. We may vote against newly nominated directors who do not seem to have the appropriate skills or experience to contribute to the board’s effectiveness.

Independence

Director independence from management, significant shareholders or other stakeholders (e.g., government or employees) is of paramount importance to the protection of the interests of minority shareholders such as BlackRock’s clients. At least half of the directors should be independent and free from conflicts of interest or undue influence.³ This ensures sufficient independent directors to have appropriately independent board committees. Companies domiciled in markets with a higher threshold for board independence should meet those requirements.

² See the Corporate Governance Codes of Germany, Japan, and the UK, as well as the corporate governance principles of the US Business Roundtable as examples.

³ Common impediments to independence may include but are not limited to: current or recent employment at the company or a subsidiary; being, or representing, a shareholder with a substantial shareholding in the company; interlocking directorships; lengthy tenure, and having any other interest, business, or other relationship which could, or could reasonably be perceived to, materially interfere with a director’s ability to act in the best interests of the company and shareholders.

Table of Contents

We may vote against the election of non-independent directors if the board does not have a sufficient balance of independence. We may also vote against the election of the chair of the committee responsible for board composition if this is a perennial issue.

Independent board leadership

Practices across markets differ, as do board structures, but we observe two main approaches to independent board leadership. One is a non-executive, independent chair of the board who is responsible for leading the board in the effective exercise of its duties. The other is a lead or senior independent director, who is responsible for coordinating with the other non-executive directors and working closely with the executive chair on the board agenda and other board procedures. In this case, the executive chair and the lead independent director work together to ensure the board is effectively fulfilling its responsibilities. In our view, the independent leader of the board, and/or the chair of a relevant committee, should be available to investors to discuss board governance matters such as CEO succession, executive pay, and board performance. We look to boards to explain their independent board leadership model and how it serves the interests of shareholders.

We may vote against the election of the chair of the committee responsible for board composition if there is not an identified independent leader of the board with clear responsibilities for board performance. We may vote against the most senior independent director if the board has a policy of not engaging with shareholders.

Tenure and succession

Boards should establish the length of time a director would normally be expected to serve, in line with market norms where those exist. In such markets, we find it helpful when companies disclose their approach to director tenure particularly around the contributions of directors who have served for longer periods than provided for in local practices. In our experience, long-serving directors could become less independent given their relationship with management and involvement in past board decisions.

Succession planning for board roles helps achieve the appropriate cadence of turnover that balances renewal through the regular introduction of directors with fresh perspectives and expertise with continuity through the retention of directors with long-term knowledge of the board and company.

In markets where there is not specific director tenure guidance, we may vote against the election of the chair of the committee responsible for board composition if there is not a clearly disclosed approach to director tenure and board renewal. We may vote against the election of directors who have served for longer duration than typical in markets with specific guidance, where the case for their continued service is not evident.

Capacity

To be effective and engaged, directors must commit appropriate time and energy to the role. A board should assess the ability of its members to maintain an appropriate focus on board matters and the company taking into consideration competing responsibilities. We recognize that board leadership roles vary across markets in responsibilities and required time commitment but note that they are generally more intensive than a standard directorship. We will take local norms and practices into consideration when making our voting determinations across markets.

We may vote against the election of directors who do not seem to have sufficient capacity to effectively fulfil their duties to the board and company.

Director elections

In support of director accountability to shareholders, directors should stand for election on a regular basis, ideally annually. A classified board structure may be justified by a company when it needs consistency and stability during a time of transition, or on the basis of its business model, e.g., a non-operating company such as closed-end funds.

Table of Contents

Shareholders should have the opportunity to evaluate nominated directors individually rather than in bundled slates. We look to companies to provide sufficient information on each director standing for election so that shareholders can assess their capabilities and suitability. We will not support the election of directors whose names and biographical details have not been disclosed sufficiently in advance of the shareholder meeting.

Each director’s appointment should be dependent on receiving a simple majority of the votes cast at the shareholder meeting. Where a company’s practices differ, we look to the board to provide a detailed explanation as to how its approach best serves investors’ interests.

We may vote for shareholder or management proposals seeking to establish annual election of directors and/or a simple majority vote standard for director elections. We may vote against all the directors standing for election as part of a single slate if we have concerns about the profile or performance of an individual director.

Committees

Many boards establish committees to focus on specific responsibilities of the board such as audit and risk, governance and human capital, and executive compensation, amongst other matters. We do not prescribe to companies what committees they should establish but we seek to understand the board’s rationale for the committee structure it determines is appropriate. We note that, in some markets, regulation requires such committees. The responsibilities of each committee should be clear, and the board should ensure that all critical matters are assigned either to the full board or to one of the committees. The board should disclose to shareholders the structure, membership, proportion of independent directors, and responsibilities of each committee. The responsibilities we typically see assigned to the three most common committees include:

We may vote against the election of the chair of the committee or other directors serving as committee members to convey our concerns and provide feedback on how a committee has undertaken its responsibilities. We may vote against the election of the most senior non-executive director if there is not a clearly disclosed approach to board committees.

Board and director evaluation

We consider it best practice for companies to conduct an annual review of the performance of the board, the committees, the chair and individual directors. Periodically, this review could be undertaken by an independent third party able to bring objective perspectives to the board on governance and performance. We encourage companies to disclose their approach to and objectives of evaluations, including any changes made to the board’s approach as a result.

Access to independent advice

To support the directors in effectively fulfilling their duties to the company and shareholders, they should have access to independent advice. When circumstances warrant, boards should be able to retain independent third

Table of Contents

parties to advise on critical matters. These might include new industry developments such as emergent and disruptive technology, operating events with material consequences for the company’s reputation and/or performance, or significant transactions. Board committees may similarly retain third parties to advise them on specialist matters such as audit, compensation and succession planning.

Executive compensation

Boards should establish compensation arrangements that enable the company to recruit, retain and reward the caliber of executive management necessary to lead and operate the company to deliver superior financial returns over time. We focus on alignment between variable pay and a company’s financial performance.

Generally, executive compensation arrangements have four components: base salary, annual bonus that rewards performance against short-term metrics, share-based incentives that reward performance against long-term metrics, and pensions and benefits. In our observation, base salary, pensions and benefits are largely set relative to market norms and benchmarks. The annual bonus and share-based incentive, or variable pay plans, tend to be tailored to the company, its sector and long-term strategy, as well as the individuals the board is seeking to recruit and motivate.

Recognizing the unique circumstances of each company, we determine whether to support a company’s approach to executive compensation on a case-by-case basis. We rely on companies providing sufficient quantitative and qualitative information in their disclosures to enable shareholders to understand the compensation arrangements and assess the alignment with investors’ interests. Features we look for in compensation arrangements include:

Table of Contents

We may vote against proposals to introduce new share-based incentives, approve existing policies or plans, or approve the compensation report where we do not see alignment between executive compensation arrangements and our clients’ financial interests. When there is not an alternative, or where there have been multi-year issues with compensation misaligned with performance, we may vote against the election of the chair of the responsible committee, or the most senior independent director.

Non-executive director compensation

Companies generally pay non-executive directors an annual retainer or fee in cash, shares or a combination of the two. Some companies also pay additional fees for service on board committees or in board leadership roles. We do not support non-executive directors participating in performance-based incentive plans as doing so may create a conflict of interest and undermine their independence from management, whom they oversee.

Capital structure

Boards are responsible for ensuring senior executive leadership has established a capital strategy that achieves appropriate capital allocation and management in support of long-term financial resilience.

Where company practices diverge from those set out below, we look for companies to disclose why they view these practices to be aligned with shareholders’ interests. We may vote against management proposals seeking capital-related authorities or the election of the most senior independent director if we have concerns about a company’s approach. We may also support a shareholder proposal seeking conversion of shares with differentiated voting rights to a one-share, one-vote standard.

Share issuance

We assess requests for share issuance for particular transactions on a case-by-case basis. We will generally support authorities to issue shares when subject to pre-emptive rights, and up to 20% absent pre-emptive rights. Companies should seek regular approval of these authorities to allow shareholders to take into consideration how prior authorities were used, as well as the current circumstances of the company and the market environment.

Share buybacks

We assess share buyback proposals in the context of the company’s disclosed capital management strategy and management’s determination of the appropriate balance between investment that supports the long-term growth of the company and returning cash to investors. We also take into consideration the effect of a buyback program on the company’s balance sheet and executive compensation arrangements and the price at which shares are repurchased relative to market price. Companies should seek regular approval of these authorities to allow shareholders to take into consideration how prior authorities were used, as well as the current circumstances of the company and the market environment.

We would normally expect companies to cancel repurchased shares. If a company plans to retain them as treasury shares, management should provide a detailed rationale in the context of the disclosed capital management strategy.

Dividends

We generally defer to management and the board on dividend policy but may engage to seek further clarification where a proposed dividend appears out of line with the company’s financial position.

Table of Contents

Differentiated voting rights

We prefer companies to adopt a one-share, one-vote structure for share classes with the same economic exposure. Certain companies, particularly those new to public markets, could make the case to adopt a differentiated voting rights structure, or dual class stock. In those situations, we encourage companies to evaluate and seek approval for their capital structure on a periodic basis.

Transactions and special situations

We monitor developments in transactions and special situations closely and undertake our own detailed analyses of proposals.

Mergers and acquisitions

We evaluate proposed mergers or acquisitions by assessing the financial outcome for our clients as minority shareholders. Management should provide an assessment of the proposed transaction’s strategic and financial rationale, along with its execution and operational risks. We review each transaction independently based on these factors and the degree to which the transaction enhances shareholder value. The board should consider establishing an ad hoc transaction committee to undertake an independent assessment of a significant merger or acquisition, in advance of making its recommendation to shareholders.

We will vote against transactions that, in our assessment, do not advance our clients’ financial interests.

Anti-takeover defenses

In principle, we do not support companies using anti-takeover defenses, also known as poison pills or shareholder rights plans, as they can entrench management and boards which have not delivered long-term shareholder value. By exception, a poison pill may be supported if its purpose is to delay a takeover that is considered sub-optimal and enable management to seek an improved offer. Similarly, management could make the case to use a poison pill to block a shareholder activism campaign that may be counter to the interests of other investors. Defense mechanisms introduced in these circumstances should be limited in term and threshold, and also be closely monitored by the independent members of the board. We look for a shareholder vote for any mechanisms expected to be in place for more than 12 months.

Shareholder activism

When companies are the focus of an activism campaign, we may engage with the activist to understand their analysis and objectives, once they have gone public. We will also engage with company management and possibly board members, especially those the activist may be seeking to replace. In our assessment, we evaluate various factors, including the concerns raised by the activist and the case for change; the quality of both the activist’s and management’s plans; and the qualifications of each party’s candidates. We evaluate each contested situation by assessing the potential financial outcome for our clients as minority shareholders.

We may support board candidates nominated by a shareholder activist if the activist has demonstrated that their case for change enhances shareholder value, or if the incumbent board members do not demonstrate the relevant skills and expertise or have a poor track record of protecting shareholders’ interests.

Significant shareholders and related party transactions

Boards of companies with affiliated shareholders or directors should be able to demonstrate that the interests of all shareholders are given equitable consideration.

Transactions with related parties, such as significant shareholders or companies connected with the public company, should be disclosed in detail and conducted on terms similar to what would objectively have been

Table of Contents

agreed with a non-related party. Such transactions should be reviewed and approved by the independent members of the board, and if voted on, only disinterested shareholders should vote.

Corporate reporting, risk management and audit

Investors depend on corporate reporting, both regulatory and voluntary, to understand a company’s strategy, its implementation and financial performance, as well as to assess the quality of management and operations and potential for the company to create shareholder value over time. The board should oversee corporate reporting and the policies and procedures underpinning the internal audit function and external audit.

A company’s financial reporting should provide decision-useful information for investors and other stakeholders on its financial performance and position. It should provide an accurate and balanced assessment of the risks and opportunities the company faces in realizing its long-term strategy. Accordingly, the assumptions made by management and reviewed by the auditor in preparing the financial statements should be reasonable and justified. Financial statements should be prepared in accordance with globally developed reporting standards and any divergence from generally accepted accounting principles should be explained in detail and justified. Accounting restatements should be explained in detail and any remedial actions, and the implications of these, disclosed.

In this context, audit committees play a vital role in a company’s financial reporting system by providing independent oversight of the accounts, material financial and, where appropriate to the jurisdiction, nonfinancial information, internal control frameworks and Enterprise Risk Management systems. In our view, effective audit committee oversight strengthens the quality and reliability of a company’s financial statements and provides an important level of reassurance to shareholders. Audit committees should have a procedure in place for assessing the independence of the auditor and the quality of the external audit process annually.

Similarly, material sustainability-related factors that are integral to how a company manages risks or generates revenue should be disclosed. In our view, the standards developed by the International Sustainability Standards Board, can be helpful to companies in preparing such reports.⁴

Companies should establish robust risk management and internal control processes appropriate to the company’s business, risk tolerance, and regulatory environment. A credible whistleblowing system for employees, and potentially other stakeholders, can be a useful mechanism for ensuring that senior management and the board are aware of potential misconduct or breaches in risk management and internal control processes.

A comprehensive audit conducted by an independent audit firm contributes to investor confidence in the quality of corporate reporting. It is helpful when the audit report gives some insight into the scope and focus of the audit, as well as any critical audit matters identified and how these were resolved. A comprehensive and effective audit is time and resource intensive, and the audit fee should be commensurate. Fees paid to the audit firm for non-audit consulting should not exceed the audit fee to a degree that may prompt concerns about the independence of the audit. The audit committee should explain its position on auditor tenure and how it confirmed that the auditor remained independent.

We may vote against the election of the responsible directors if corporate reporting is insufficient or there are material misstatements in financial reports. In markets where relevant, we may vote against a proposal to approve the financial statements or the discharge of the board when we are concerned about the quality of the reporting or the audit. We may vote against proposals to appoint the auditor, ratify the audit report, or approve the audit fee if we are concerned about the auditor’s independence, the quality of the audit, or there are material misstatements in financial reports and the board has not established reasonable remediation plans.

⁴ The objective of IFRS S1 General Requirements for Disclosure of Sustainability-related Financial Information is to require an entity to disclose information about its sustainability-related risks and opportunities that is useful to primary users of general-purpose financial reports in making decisions relating to providing resources to the entity. The objective of IFRS S2 Climate-related Disclosures is to require an entity to disclose information about its climate-related risks and opportunities that is useful to primary users of general-purpose financial reports in making decisions relating to providing resources to the entity.

Table of Contents

Shareholder rights and protections

General shareholder meetings

Companies normally have an annual general meeting of shareholders at which routine and non-routine items of business are discussed and voted on by shareholders in attendance or submitting proxy votes. Companies should disclose materials relevant to the shareholder meeting sufficiently in advance so that shareholders can take them into consideration in their voting decisions. Many companies offer shareholders the option of participating in the meeting virtually which, whilst welcome, should not limit the rights of shareholders to participate as they would during an in-person meeting.

We may vote against directors when materials related to the business of the shareholder meeting are not provided in a timely manner or do not provide sufficient information for us to take an informed voting decision. We may vote against directors if the format of the shareholder meeting does not accommodate reasonable shareholder participation.

Bylaw amendments

We review bylaw amendments proposed by management on a case-by-case basis and will generally support those that are aligned with the interests of minority shareholders. Any material changes to the bylaws should be explained in detail and put to a shareholder vote.

We may vote against bylaw amendments that reduce shareholder rights and protections. We may vote against directors if material changes are made to the bylaws without shareholder approval.

If not provided for in the relevant corporate law, company bylaws should allow shareholders, individually or as a group, with a meaningful shareholding the right to call a special meeting of shareholders. The shareholding required to exercise this right should balance its utility with the cost to the company of holding special meetings. 

If not provided for in the relevant corporate law, company bylaws should allow shareholders, individually or as a group, with a meaningful shareholding the right to nominate directors to the company’s board. The threshold for this right should be set so that shareholders can exercise it without being unduly disruptive to the board’s own nomination process.

Whilst we would not use either of these rights ourselves, we see them as important accountability mechanisms. We may vote for a shareholder proposal seeking the addition of either of these provisions to a company’s bylaws.

Change of domicile

We generally defer to management on proposals to change a company’s domicile as long as the rationale for doing so is consistent with the company’s long-term strategy and business model and the related costs are immaterial.

We may vote against directors or a proposal to change a company’s domicile where it does not seem aligned with our clients’ financial interests.

Changes to a company’s purpose or the nature of its business

Plans to materially change the nature of a company’s business or its purpose should be disclosed and explained in the context of long-term strategy and business dynamics. Such changes may significantly alter an investor’s views on the suitability of a company for their investment strategy or portfolio.

Table of Contents

Where relevant, we may vote against proposals to change a company’s purpose or the nature of its business if the board has not provided a credible argument for change.

Shareholder proposals

Shareholders in many markets, who meet certain eligibility criteria, have the right to submit proposals to the general shareholder meeting asking a company to take a particular course of action subject to the proposal being supported by a majority of votes cast at the meeting. The topics raised address a range of governance, social and environmental matters that may be relevant to a company’s business. Shareholder proposals are considered by many investors to be an escalation tool when a company is unresponsive to their engagement.

We vote on these proposals on a case-by-case basis. We assess the relevance of the topic raised to a company’s business and its current approach, whether the actions sought are consistent with shareholders’ interests, and what impact the proposal being acted upon might have on financial performance.

Our general approach where we have concerns about a company’s governance, disclosures or performance is to engage to understand the apparent difference in perspective. If we continue to believe the company is not acting in shareholders’ financial interests, we may vote against the election of directors. We may support a relevant shareholder proposal if doing so reinforces the points made in our engagement or is aligned with our clients’ financial interests. We generally do not support shareholder proposals that are legally binding on the company, seek to alter a company’s strategy or direct its operations, or are unrelated to how a company manages risk or generates financial returns.

BlackRock is subject to legal and regulatory requirements in the U.S. that place restrictions and limitations on how we can interact with the companies in which we invest on behalf of our clients, including our ability to submit shareholder proposals. We can vote on behalf of clients who authorize us to do so, on proposals put forth by others.

Corporate political activities

We seek to understand how companies ensure that their direct and indirect engagement in the policy making process is consistent with their public statements on policy matters important to the company’s long-term strategy. The board should be aware of the approach taken to corporate political activities as there can be reputational risks arising from inconsistencies. Companies should, as a minimum, meet all regulatory disclosure requirements on political activities, and ideally, provide accessible and clear disclosures to shareholders on policy positions, public policy engagement activities and political donations. To mitigate the risk of inconsistencies, companies can usefully assess the alignment between their policy priorities and the policy positions of the trade associations of which they are active members and any engagements undertaken by trade associations on behalf of members.

Generally, this is an engagement matter, although we may support a relevant shareholder proposal, or vote against directors, where a company’s disclosures are insufficient, or it becomes public that there is a material contradiction in a company’s public policy positions and its policy engagement.

Table of Contents

Sustainability, or environmental and social,

considerations

We seek to understand how companies manage the risks and opportunities inherent in their business operations. In our experience, sustainability-related factors⁵ that are relevant to a company’s business or material to its financial performance, are generally operational considerations embedded into day-to-day management systems. Certain sustainability issues may also inform long-term strategic planning, for example, investing in product innovation in anticipation of changing consumer demand or adapting supply chains in response to changing regulatory requirements.

We recognize that the specific sustainability-related factors that may be financially material or business relevant will vary by company business model, sector, key markets, and time horizon, amongst other considerations. From company disclosures and our engagement, we aim to understand how management is identifying, assessing and integrating material sustainability-related risks and opportunities into their business decision-making and practices. Doing so helps us undertake a more holistic assessment of a company’s potential financial performance and the likely risk-adjusted returns of an investment.

We may vote against directors or support a relevant shareholder proposal if we have concerns about how a company is managing or disclosing its approach to material sustainability-related risks that may impact financial returns.

Key stakeholders

In our view, companies should understand and take into consideration the interests of the various parties on whom they depend for their success over time. It is for each company to determine their key stakeholders based on what is material to their business and long-term financial performance. For many companies, key stakeholders include employees, business partners (such as suppliers and distributors), clients and consumers, regulators, and the communities in which they operate. Companies that appropriately balance the interests of investors and other stakeholders are, in our experience, more likely to be financially resilient over time.

⁵ By material sustainability-related risks and opportunities, we mean the drivers of risk and financial value creation in a company’s business model that have an environmental or social dependency or impact. Examples of environmental issues include, but are not limited to, water use, land use, waste management, and climate risk. Examples of social issues include, but are not limited to, human capital management, impacts on the communities in which a company operates, customer loyalty, and relationships with regulators. It is our view that well-managed companies will effectively evaluate and manage material sustainability-related risks and opportunities relevant to their businesses. Governance is the core means by which boards can oversee the creation of durable financial value over time. Appropriate risk oversight of business-relevant and material sustainability-related considerations is a component of a sound governance framework.

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Appendix 1: How we fulfil and oversee our active investment stewardship responsibilities

Oversight

The Global Head of BAIS has primary oversight of and responsibility for the team’s activities, including voting in accordance with the BlackRock Active Investment Stewardship Global Engagement and Voting Guidelines (“the Guidelines”), which require the application of professional judgment and consideration of each company’s unique circumstances, as well as input from active investors. BAIS is independent from BlackRock Investment Stewardship in our engagement and voting activities, reporting lines, and oversight.

The Active Investment Stewardship Oversight Committee, comprised of senior representatives of the active investment, legal and risk teams, reviews and advises on amendments to BAIS’ Global Engagement and Voting Guidelines. The Committee also considers developments in corporate governance, related public policy, and market norms and how these might influence BAIS’ policies and practices. The Committee does not determine voting decisions, which are the responsibility of BAIS and the relevant active equity investors.

In addition, there is a standing advisory group of senior active investors who counsel BAIS on complex or high-profile votes before a recommendation is finalized and escalated to the portfolio managers with holdings in the company under consideration. This group also formally reviews any revisions to the Engagement and Voting Guidelines proposed by BAIS as part of its annual review.

BAIS carries out engagement with companies in collaboration with active investment colleagues, executes proxy votes, and conducts vote operations (including maintaining records of votes cast) in a manner consistent with the Guidelines. BAIS also conducts research on corporate governance issues and participates in industry discussions to contribute to and keep abreast of important developments in the corporate governance field. BAIS may use third parties for certain of the foregoing activities and performs oversight of those third parties (see “Use and oversight of third-party vote services providers” below).

Voting guidelines and vote execution

BlackRock votes on proxy issues when our clients authorize us to do so. We carefully consider the voting items submitted to funds and other fiduciary account(s) (Fund or Funds) for which we have voting authority. BlackRock votes (or refrains from voting) for each Fund for which we have voting authority based on our evaluation of the alignment of the voting items with the long-term economic interests of our clients, in the exercise of our independent business judgment, and without regard to the relationship of the issuer (or any shareholder proponent or dissident shareholder) to the Fund, the Fund’s affiliates (if any), BlackRock or BlackRock’s affiliates, or BlackRock employees (see “Conflicts management policies and procedures,” below).

When exercising voting rights, BAIS will normally vote on specific proxy issues in accordance with the Guidelines, although portfolio managers have the right to vote differently on their holdings if they determine doing so is more aligned with the investment objective and financial interests of clients invested in the funds they manage.

The Guidelines are not intended to be exhaustive. BAIS applies the Guidelines on a case-by-case basis, in the context of the individual circumstances of each company and the specific issue under review. As such, the Guidelines do not indicate how BAIS will vote in every instance. Rather, they reflect our view about corporate governance issues generally, and provide insight into how we typically approach issues that commonly arise on corporate ballots. The Guidelines are reviewed annually and updated as necessary to reflect changes in market practices, developments in corporate governance and feedback from companies and clients. In this way, BAIS aims to maintain policies that explain our approach to governance practices most aligned with clients’ long-term financial interests.

Table of Contents

In certain markets, proxy voting involves logistical issues which can affect BAIS’ ability to vote such proxies, as well as the desirability of voting such proxies. These issues include, but are not limited to: i) untimely notice of shareholder meetings; ii) restrictions on a foreigner’s ability to exercise votes; iii) requirements to vote proxies in person; iv) “share-blocking” (requirements that investors who exercise their voting rights surrender the right to dispose of their holdings for some specified period in proximity to the shareholder meeting); v) potential difficulties in translating the proxy; vi) regulatory constraints; and vii) requirements to provide local agents with unrestricted powers of attorney to facilitate voting instructions. We are not supportive of impediments to the exercise of voting rights such as share-blocking or overly burdensome administrative requirements.

BlackRock votes proxies in these situations on a “best-efforts” basis. In addition, BAIS may determine that it is generally in the interests of BlackRock’s clients not to vote proxies (or not to vote our full allocation) if the costs (including but not limited to opportunity costs associated with share-blocking constraints) associated with exercising a vote are expected to outweigh the benefit the client would derive by voting on the proposal.

Voting Choice

BlackRock offers Voting Choice, a program that provides eligible clients with more opportunities to participate in the proxy voting process where legally and operationally viable.

Voting Choice is currently available for eligible clients invested in certain institutional pooled funds in the U.S., UK, and Canada that use systematic active equity (SAE) and multi-asset strategies. In addition, institutional clients in separately managed accounts (SMAs) are eligible for BlackRock Voting Choice regardless of their investment strategies.⁶

As a result, the shares attributed to BlackRock in company share registers may be voted differently depending on whether our clients have authorized BAIS to vote on their behalf, have authorized BlackRock to vote in accordance with a third-party policy, or have elected to vote shares in accordance with their own policy. Our clients have greater control over proxy voting because of Voting Choice. BlackRock does not disclose client information, including a client’s selection of proxy policy, without client consent.

Use and oversight of third-party vote services providers

Third-party vote services providers – or proxy research firms – provide research and recommendations on proxy votes, as well as voting infrastructure. As mentioned previously, BlackRock contracts primarily with the vote services provider ISS and leverages its online platform to supply research and support voting, record keeping, and reporting processes. We also use Glass Lewis’ research and analysis as an input into our voting process. It is important to note that, although proxy research firms provide important data and analysis, BAIS does not rely solely on their information or follow their voting recommendations. A company’s disclosures, our past engagements and voting, investment colleagues’ insights and our voting guidelines are important inputs into our voting decisions on behalf of clients.

Given the large universe of actively held companies, BAIS employs the proxy services provider to streamline the voting process by making voting recommendations based on BAIS’ voting guidelines when the items on a shareholder meeting agenda are routine. Agenda items that are not routine are referred back to BAIS to assess, escalate as necessary to the relevant portfolio managers and vote. BAIS reviews and can override the recommendations of the vote services provider at any time prior to the vote deadline. Both BAIS and the vote services provider actively monitor securities filings, research reports, company announcements, and direct communications from companies to ensure awareness of supplemental disclosures and proxy materials that may require a modification of votes.

⁶ With Voting Choice, SMAs have the ability to select from a set of voting policies from third-party proxy advisers the policy that best aligns with their views and preferences. BlackRock can then use its proxy voting infrastructure to cast votes based on the client’s selected voting policy.

Table of Contents

BAIS closely monitors the third-party vote services providers we contract with to ensure that they are meeting our service level expectations and have effective policies and procedures in place to manage potential conflicts of interest. Our oversight of service providers includes regular meetings with client service teams, systematic monitoring of vendor operations, as well as annual due diligence meetings in accordance with BlackRock’s firmwide policies.

Conflicts management policies and procedures

BAIS maintains policies and procedures that seek to prevent undue influence on BlackRock’s proxy voting activity. Such influence might stem from any relationship between the investee company (or any shareholder proponent or dissident shareholder) and BlackRock, BlackRock’s affiliates, a Fund or a Fund’s affiliates, or BlackRock employees. The following are examples of sources of perceived or potential conflicts of interest:

BlackRock has taken certain steps to mitigate perceived or potential conflicts including, but not limited to, the following:

Table of Contents

In selecting an independent third-party voting service provider, we assess several characteristics, including but not limited to: independence, an ability to analyze proxy issues and make recommendations in the economic interest of our clients in accordance with the Guidelines, reputation for reliability and integrity, and operational capacity to accurately deliver the assigned recommendations in a timely manner. We may engage more than one independent third-party voting service provider, in part to mitigate potential or perceived conflicts of interest at a single voting service provider. The Active Investment Stewardship Oversight Committee appoints and reviews the performance of the independent third-party voting service providers, generally on an annual basis.

Securities lending

When so authorized, BlackRock acts as a securities lending agent on behalf of Funds. Securities lending is a well-regulated practice that contributes to capital market efficiency. It also enables funds to generate additional returns while allowing fund providers to keep fund expenses lower.

With regard to the relationship between securities lending and proxy voting, BlackRock cannot vote shares on loan and may determine to recall them for voting, as guided by our fiduciary duty as an asset manager to our clients in helping them achieve their investment goals. While this has occurred in a limited number of cases, the decision to recall securities on loan as part of BlackRock’s securities lending program in order to vote is based on an evaluation of various factors that include, but are not limited to, assessing potential securities lending revenue alongside the potential long-term financial value to clients of voting those securities (based on the information available at the time of recall consideration). BAIS works with active portfolio managers, as well as colleagues in the Securities Lending and Risk and Quantitative Analysis teams, to evaluate the costs and benefits to clients of recalling shares on loan.

In almost all instances, BlackRock anticipates that the potential long-term financial value to clients of voting shares would not warrant recalling securities on loan. However, in certain instances, BlackRock may determine, in our independent business judgment as a fiduciary, that the value of voting outweighs the securities lending revenue loss to clients and would therefore recall shares to be voted in those instances.

Periodically, BlackRock reviews our process for determining whether to recall securities on loan in order to vote and may modify it as necessary.

Reporting and vote transparency

BAIS is committed to transparency in the stewardship work we do on behalf of clients. We inform clients about our engagement and voting policies and activities through direct communication and disclosure on our website.

Table of Contents

Want to know more?

blackrock.com/stewardship | ContactActiveStewardship@blackrock.com

The document is provided for information purposes only and is subject to change. Reliance upon this information is at the sole discretion of the reader.

Prepared by BlackRock, Inc.

^©2024 BlackRock, Inc. All rights reserved. BLACKROCK is a trademark of BlackRock, Inc., or its subsidiaries in the United States and elsewhere. All other trademarks are those of their respective owners.

Table of Contents

Investors should retain this supplement for future reference.

PRSAI-CEF-1224SUP

Table of Contents

Appendix A

BlackRock Alpha Strategies Fund

Prospectus dated July 29, 2024

BlackRock Core Bond Trust

Statement of Additional Information dated February 9, 2022, as supplemented on July 18, 2022 and May 10, 2023

BlackRock Corporate High Yield Fund, Inc.

Statement of Additional Information dated February 22, 2022, as supplemented on July 18, 2022, May 30, 2023 and January 26, 2024

BlackRock Credit Strategies Fund

Statement of Additional Information dated November 12, 2024

BlackRock Debt Strategies Fund, Inc.

Statement of Additional Information dated December 28, 2022, as supplemented on January 3, 2023, Mark 3, 2023 and May 30, 2023

BlackRock Enhanced Equity Dividend Trust

Statement of Additional Information dated May 26, 2023

BlackRock Floating Rate Income Trust

Statement of Additional Information dated December 28, 2022, as supplemented on January 3, 2023, May 10, 2023 and February 20, 2024

BlackRock Health Sciences Trust

Statement of Additional Information dated April 25, 2022, as supplemented on July 18, 2022, January 3, 2023 and June 26, 2023

BlackRock Income Trust, Inc.

Statement of Additional Information dated October 18, 2022

BlackRock Investment Quality Municipal Trust, Inc.

Statement of Additional Information dated June 6, 2022, as supplemented on July 18, 2022, January 3, 2023, March 27, 2023 and November 2, 2023

BlackRock Limited Duration Income Trust

Statement of Additional Information dated March 18, 2022, as supplemented on July 18, 2022, January 3, 2023 and May 10, 2023

BlackRock Multi-Sector Income Trust

Statement of Additional Information dated March 3, 2022, as supplemented on July 18, 2022

BlackRock Municipal Income Trust

Statement of Additional Information dated April 25, 2022, as supplemented on July 18, 2022, October 14, 2022, January 3, 2023, March 27, 2023 and November 2, 2023

BlackRock Private Investments Fund

Statement of Additional Information dated September 30, 2024

BlackRock Science and Technology Trust

Statement of Additional Information dated May 4, 2022, as supplemented on July 18, 2022, September 30, 2022 and September 14, 2023

Table of Contents

BlackRock Utilities, Infrastructure & Power Opportunities Trust

Statement of Additional Information dated March 4, 2022, as supplemented on July 18, 2022, January 3, 2023 and June 13, 2023