N-CSR

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM N-CSR

CERTIFIED SHAREHOLDER REPORT OF REGISTERED MANAGEMENT

INVESTMENT COMPANIES

Investment Company Act file number: 811-22426

Name of Fund:    BlackRock Taxable Municipal Bond Trust (BBN)

Fund Address:    100 Bellevue Parkway, Wilmington, DE 19809

Name and address of agent for service: John M. Perlowski, Chief Executive Officer, BlackRock Taxable Municipal Bond Trust, 55 East 52^nd Street, New York, NY 10055

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (800) 882-0052, Option 4

Date of fiscal year end: 07/31/2021

Date of reporting period: 07/31/2021

Item 1 – Report to Stockholders

(a) The Report to Shareholders is attached herewith.

JULY 31, 2021

2021 Annual Report

BlackRock Taxable Municipal Bond Trust (BBN)

Not FDIC Insured • May Lose Value • No Bank Guarantee

Supplemental Information  (unaudited)

Section 19(a) Notices

BlackRock Taxable Municipal Bond Trust’s (BBN) (the “Trust”) amounts and sources of distributions reported are estimates and are being provided pursuant to regulatory requirements and are not being provided for tax reporting purposes. The actual amounts and sources for tax reporting purposes will depend upon the Trust’s investment experience during the year and may be subject to changes based on tax regulations. Shareholders will receive a Form 1099-DIV each calendar year that will inform them how to report these distributions for federal income tax purposes.

July 31, 2021

	Total Cumulative Distributions for the Fiscal Period									% Breakdown of the Total Cumulative Distributions for the Fiscal Period
Trust Name		Net Income	Net Realized Capital Gains Short-Term	Net Realized Capital Gains Long-Term		Return of Capital	(a)		Total Per Common Share		Net Income		Net Realized Capital Gains Short-Term		Net Realized Capital Gains Long-Term		Return of Capital		Total Per Common Share
BBN	$	1.355173	$              —	$              —	$	0.038427		$	1.393600		97	%	—	%	—	%	3	%	100%

^(a) The Trust estimates that it has distributed more than its net income and net realized capital gains; therefore, a portion of the distribution may be a return of capital. A return of capital may occur, for example, when some or all of the shareholder’s investment in the Trust is returned to the shareholder. A return of capital does not necessarily reflect the Trust’s investment performance and should not be confused with “yield” or “income.” When distributions exceed total return performance, the difference will reduce the Trust’s net asset value per share.

Section 19(a) notices for the Trust, as applicable, are available on the BlackRock website at blackrock.com.

2 2 0 2 1   B L A C K R O C K   A N N U A L   R E P O R T   T O   S H A R E H O L D E R S

The Markets in Review

Dear Shareholder,

The 12-month reporting period as of July 31, 2021 was a remarkable period of adaptation and recovery, as the global economy dealt with the implications of the coronavirus (or “COVID-19”) pandemic. The United States, along with most of the world, began the reporting period emerging from a severe recession, prompted by pandemic-related restrictions that disrupted many aspects of daily life. However, easing restrictions and robust government intervention led to a strong rebound, and the economy grew at a significant pace for the reporting period, eventually regaining the output lost from the pandemic.

Equity prices rose with the broader economy, as strong fiscal and monetary support, as well as the development of vaccines, made investors increasingly optimistic about the economic outlook. The implementation of mass vaccination campaigns and passage of two additional fiscal stimulus packages further boosted stocks, and many equity indices neared or surpassed all-time highs late in the reporting period. In the United States, returns of small-capitalization stocks, which benefited the most from the resumption of in-person activities, outpaced large-capitalization stocks. International equities also gained, as both developed and emerging markets rebounded substantially.

The 10-year U.S. Treasury yield (which is inversely related to bond prices) had fallen sharply prior to the beginning of the reporting period, which meant bonds were priced for extreme risk avoidance and economic disruption. Despite expectations of doom and gloom, the economy expanded rapidly, stoking inflation concerns in early 2021, which led to higher yields and a negative overall return for most U.S. Treasuries. In the corporate bond market, support from the U.S. Federal Reserve (the “Fed”) assuaged credit concerns and led to solid returns for high-yield corporate bonds, although investment-grade corporates declined slightly.

The Fed remained committed to accommodative monetary policy by maintaining near zero interest rates and by reiterating that inflation could exceed its 2% target for a sustained period without triggering a rate increase. In response to rising inflation late in the period, the Fed changed its market guidance, raising the likelihood of less bond purchasing and the possibility of higher rates in 2023.

Looking ahead, we believe that the global expansion will continue to broaden as Europe and other developed market economies gain momentum, although the Delta variant remains a threat, particularly in emerging markets. While we expect inflation to remain elevated in the medium-term as the expansion continues, we believe the recent uptick owes more to temporary supply disruptions than a lasting change in fundamentals. The change in Fed policy also means that moderate inflation is less likely to be followed by interest rate hikes that could threaten the economic expansion.

Overall, we favor a moderately positive stance toward risk, with an overweight in equities. Sectors that are better poised to manage the transition to a lower-carbon world, such as technology and healthcare, are particularly attractive in the long-term. U.S. small-capitalization stocks and European equities are likely to benefit from the continuing vaccine-led restart. We are underweight long-term credit, but inflation-protected U.S. Treasuries, Asian fixed income, and Chinese government bonds offer potential opportunities. We believe that international diversification and a focus on sustainability can help provide portfolio resilience, and the disruption created by the coronavirus appears to be accelerating the shift toward sustainable investments.

In this environment, our view is that investors need to think globally, extend their scope across a broad array of asset classes, and be nimble as market conditions change. We encourage you to talk with your financial advisor and visit blackrock.com for further insight about investing in today’s markets.

Sincerely,

Rob Kapito

President, BlackRock Advisors, LLC

Rob Kapito

President, BlackRock Advisors, LLC

Total Returns as of July 31, 2021
	6-Month	12-Month
U.S. large cap equities (S&P 500® Index)	19.19%	36.45%
U.S. small cap equities (Russell 2000® Index)	7.86	51.97
International equities (MSCI Europe, Australasia, Far East Index)	10.83	30.31
Emerging market equities (MSCI Emerging Markets Index)	(2.76)	20.64
3-month Treasury bills (ICE BofA 3-Month U.S. Treasury Bill Index)	0.02	0.08
U.S. Treasury securities (ICE BofA 10-Year U.S. Treasury Index)	(0.59)	(5.12)
U.S. investment grade bonds (Bloomberg Barclays U.S. Aggregate Bond Index)	0.21	(0.70)
Tax-exempt municipal bonds (S&P Municipal Bond Index)	1.38	3.47
U.S. high yield bonds (Bloomberg Barclays U.S. Corporate High Yield 2% Issuer Capped Index)	3.66	10.62
Past performance is not an indication of future results. Index performance is shown for illustrative purposes only. You cannot invest directly in an index.

T H I S   P A G E   I S   N O T   P A R T   O F   Y O U R   F U N D   R E P O R T 3

Table of Contents

	Page
Supplemental Information	2
The Markets in Review	3
Annual Report:
The Benefits and Risks of Leveraging	5
Derivative Financial Instruments	5
Trust Summary	6
Financial Statements:
Schedule of Investments	10
Statement of Assets and Liabilities	17
Statement of Operations	18
Statements of Changes in Net Assets	19
Statement of Cash Flows	20
Financial Highlights	21
Notes to Financial Statements	22
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm	28
Important Tax Information	29
Disclosure of Investment Advisory Agreement	30
Investment Objectives, Policies and Risks	33
Expense and Share Price Information	38
Automatic Dividend Reinvestment Plan	40
Trustee and Officer Information	41
Additional Information	45
Glossary of Terms Used in this Report	48

4

The Benefits and Risks of Leveraging BlackRock Taxable Municipal Bond Trust (BBN)

The Trust may utilize leverage to seek to enhance the distribution rate on, and net asset value (“NAV”) of, its common shares (“Common Shares”). However, there is no guarantee that these objectives can be achieved in all interest rate environments.

In general, the concept of leveraging is based on the premise that the financing cost of leverage, which is based on short-term interest rates, is normally lower than the income earned by the Trust on its longer-term portfolio investments purchased with the proceeds from leverage. To the extent that the total assets of the Trust (including the assets obtained from leverage) are invested in higher-yielding portfolio investments, the Trust’s shareholders benefit from the incremental net income. The interest earned on securities purchased with the proceeds from leverage (after paying the leverage costs) is paid to shareholders in the form of dividends, and the value of these portfolio holdings (less the leverage liability) is reflected in the per share NAV.

To illustrate these concepts, assume the Trust’s capitalization is $100 million and it utilizes leverage for an additional $30 million, creating a total value of $130 million available for investment in longer-term income securities. If prevailing short-term interest rates are 3% and longer-term interest rates are 6%, the yield curve has a strongly positive slope. In this case, the Trust’s financing costs on the $30 million of proceeds obtained from leverage are based on the lower short-term interest rates. At the same time, the securities purchased by the Trust with the proceeds from leverage earn income based on longer-term interest rates. In this case, the Trust’s financing cost of leverage is significantly lower than the income earned on the Trust’s longer-term investments acquired from such leverage proceeds, and therefore the holders of Common Shares (“Common Shareholders”) are the beneficiaries of the incremental net income.

However, in order to benefit shareholders, the return on assets purchased with leverage proceeds must exceed the ongoing costs associated with the leverage. If interest and other costs of leverage exceed the Trust’s return on assets purchased with leverage proceeds, income to shareholders is lower than if the Trust had not used leverage. Furthermore, the value of the Trust’s portfolio investments generally varies inversely with the direction of long-term interest rates, although other factors can influence the value of portfolio investments. In contrast, the amount of the Trust’s obligations under its leverage arrangement generally does not fluctuate in relation to interest rates. As a result, changes in interest rates can influence the Trust’s NAV positively or negatively. Changes in the future direction of interest rates are very difficult to predict accurately, and there is no assurance that the Trust’s intended leveraging strategy will be successful.

The use of leverage also generally causes greater changes in the Trust’s NAV, market price and dividend rates than comparable portfolios without leverage. In a declining market, leverage is likely to cause a greater decline in the NAV and market price of the Trust’s shares than if the Trust were not leveraged. In addition, the Trust may be required to sell portfolio securities at inopportune times or at distressed values in order to comply with regulatory requirements applicable to the use of leverage or as required by the terms of leverage instruments, which may cause the Trust to incur losses. The use of leverage may limit the Trust’s ability to invest in certain types of securities or use certain types of hedging strategies. The Trust incurs expenses in connection with the use of leverage, all of which are borne by shareholders and may reduce income to the shareholders. Moreover, to the extent the calculation of the Trust’s investment advisory fees includes assets purchased with the proceeds of leverage, the investment advisory fees payable to the Trust’s investment adviser will be higher than if the Trust did not use leverage.

The Trust may utilize leverage through reverse repurchase agreements as described in the Notes to Financial Statements, if applicable.

Under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), the Trust is permitted to issue debt up to 33 1/3% of its total managed assets. The Trust may voluntarily elect to limit its leverage to less than the maximum amount permitted under the 1940 Act.

If the Trust segregates or designates on its books and records cash or liquid assets having a value not less than the value of the Trust’s obligations under a reverse repurchase agreement (including accrued interest) then such transaction is not considered a senior security and is not subject to the foregoing limitations and requirements imposed by the 1940 Act.

Derivative Financial Instruments

The Trust may invest in various derivative financial instruments. These instruments are used to obtain exposure to a security, commodity, index, market, and/or other assets without owning or taking physical custody of securities, commodities and/or other referenced assets or to manage market, equity, credit, interest rate, foreign currency exchange rate, commodity and/or other risks. Derivative financial instruments may give rise to a form of economic leverage and involve risks, including the imperfect correlation between the value of a derivative financial instrument and the underlying asset, possible default of the counterparty to the transaction or illiquidity of the instrument. The Trust’s successful use of a derivative financial instrument depends on the investment adviser’s ability to predict pertinent market movements accurately, which cannot be assured. The use of these instruments may result in losses greater than if they had not been used, may limit the amount of appreciation the Trust can realize on an investment and/or may result in lower distributions paid to shareholders. The Trust’s investments in these instruments, if any, are discussed in detail in the Notes to Financial Statements.

T H E   B E N E F I T S   A N D   R I S K S   O F   L E V E R A G I N G  /  D E R I V A T I V E   F I N A N C I A L   I N S T R U M E N T S 5

Trust Summary  as of July 31, 2021  BlackRock Taxable Municipal Bond Trust (BBN)

Investment Objective

BlackRock Taxable Municipal Bond Trust’s (BBN) (the “Trust”) primary investment objective is to seek high current income, with a secondary objective of capital appreciation. The Trust seeks to achieve its investment objectives by investing primarily in a portfolio of taxable municipal securities, including Build America Bonds (“BABs”), issued by state and local governments to finance capital projects such as public schools, roads, transportation infrastructure, bridges, ports and public buildings.

The Trust originally sought to achieve its investment objectives by investing primarily in a portfolio of BABs, which are taxable municipal securities issued pursuant to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Given the uncertainty around the BABs program at the time of the Trust’s launch in 2010, the Trust’s initial public offering prospectus included a Contingent Review Provision. For any 24-month period, if there were no new issuances of BABs or other analogous taxable municipal securities, the Board of Trustees (the “Board”) would undertake an evaluation of potential actions with respect to the Trust. Under the Contingent Review Provision, such potential action may include changes to the Trust’s non-fundamental investment policies to broaden its primary investment focus to include taxable municipal securities generally. The BABs program expired on December 31, 2010 and was not renewed. Accordingly, there have been no new issuances of BABs since that date.

Pursuant to the Contingent Review Provision, on June 12, 2015, the Board approved a proposal to amend the Trust’s investment policy from “Under normal market conditions, the Trust invests at least 80% of its managed assets in BABs” to “Under normal market conditions, the Trust invests at least 80% of its managed assets in taxable municipal securities, which include BABs”, and to change the name of the Trust from “BlackRock Build America Bond Trust” to “BlackRock Taxable Municipal Bond Trust.” These changes became effective on August 25, 2015.

The Trust continues to maintain its other investment policies, including its ability to invest up to 20% of its managed assets in securities other than taxable municipal securities. Such other securities may include tax-exempt securities, U.S. Treasury securities, obligations of the U.S. Government, its agencies and instrumentalities and corporate bonds issued by issuers that have, in BlackRock Advisors, LLC’s (the “Manager”) view, typically been associated with or sold in the municipal market. Bonds issued by private universities and hospitals, or bonds sold to finance military housing developments are examples of such securities. The Trust also continues to invest at least 80% of its managed assets in securities that at the time of purchase are investment grade quality.

As used herein, “managed assets” means the total assets of the Trust (including any assets attributable to money borrowed for investment purposes) minus the sum of the Trust’s accrued liabilities (other than money borrowed for investment purposes).

As of July 31, 2021, 54% of the Trust’s portfolio are BABs. Like other taxable municipal securities, interest received on BABs is subject to U.S. tax and may be subject to state income tax. Issuers of direct pay BABs, however, are eligible to receive a subsidy from the U.S. Treasury of up to 35% of the interest paid on the BABs. This allowed such issuers to issue bonds that pay interest rates that were expected to be competitive with the rates typically paid by private bond issuers in the taxable fixed income market. While the U.S. Treasury subsidizes the interest paid on BABs, it does not guarantee the principal or interest payments on BABs, and there is no guarantee that the U.S. Treasury will not reduce or eliminate the subsidy for BABs in the future. Any interruption, delay, reduction and/or offset of the reimbursement from the U.S. Treasury may reduce the demand for direct pay BABs and/or potentially trigger extraordinary call features of the BABs. As of the date of this report, the subsidy that issuers of direct pay BABs receive from the U.S. Treasury has been reduced from its original level as the result of budgetary sequestration. The extraordinary call features of some BABs permit early redemption at par value, and the reduction in the subsidy issuers of direct pay BABs receive from the U.S. Treasury has resulted, and may continue to result, in early redemptions of some BABs at par value. Such early redemptions at par value may result in a potential loss in value for investors of such BABs, who may have purchased the securities at prices above par, and may require such investors to reinvest redemption proceeds in lower-yielding securities. As of the date of this report, the Trust did not own any BABs subject to a par value extraordinary call feature. Additionally, many BABs also have more typical call provisions that permit early redemption at a stated spread to an applicable prevailing U.S. Treasury rate. Early redemptions in accordance with these call provisions may likewise result in potential losses for the Trust and give rise to reinvestment risk, which could reduce the Trust’s income and distributions.

No assurance can be given that the Trust’s investment objectives will be achieved.

Trust Information

Symbol on New York Stock Exchange	BBN
Initial Offering Date	August 27, 2010
Current Distribution Rate on Closing Market Price as of July 31, 2021 ($26.31)(a)	5.34%
Current Monthly Distribution per Common Share(b)	$0.1170
Current Annualized Distribution per Common Share(b)	$1.4040
Leverage as of July 31, 2021(c)	32%

^(a) Current distribution rate on closing market price is calculated by dividing the current annualized distribution per share by the closing market price. The current distribution rate may consist of income, net realized gains and/or a return of capital. Past performance is not an indication of future results.

^(b) The distribution rate is not constant and is subject to change. A portion of the distribution may be deemed a return of capital or net realized gain.

^(c) Represents reverse repurchase agreements as a percentage of total managed assets, which is the total assets of the Trust (including any assets attributable to any borrowings) minus the sum of its liabilities (other than borrowings representing financial leverage). Does not reflect derivatives or other instruments that may give rise to economic leverage. For a discussion of leveraging techniques utilized by the Trust, please see The Benefits and Risks of Leveraging and Derivative Financial Instruments.

6 2 0 2 1   B L A C K R O C K   A N N U A L   R E P O R T   T O   S H A R E H O L D E R S

Trust Summary  as of July 31, 2021 (continued) BlackRock Taxable Municipal Bond Trust (BBN)

Taxable Municipal Bond Overview

Taxable municipal bonds typically trade at a spread (or additional yield) relative to U.S. Treasury bonds with similar maturities. U.S. Treasury yields increased (as prices fell) during the reporting period, with longer-term issues experiencing the weakest performance. Despite this challenging environment, the Bloomberg Barclays Taxable Municipal: U.S. Aggregate Eligible Index returned 2.55% for the 12-month period ended July 31, 2021.

Yield spreads on taxable municipal bonds ended the period markedly tighter at the broad index level. (Prices increase as spreads tighten.) This trend contributed significantly to performance and resulted in the index posting only a modest gain despite the rise in interest rates. The spread movements of taxable municipal bonds are affected by a wide range of factors, including changes in supply and dynamics, shifts in the overall economic backdrop and credit trends with respect to sectors and individual issuers. During the early part of the reporting period, taxable-municipal investors were anticipating additional federal aid for municipal issuers to help alleviate budget challenges stemming from COVID-19. The aid was not provided in the expected time frame, causing yield spreads to move sideways for several months. However, the result of the November 2020 elections was a strong catalyst for the asset class and caused spreads to tighten materially in anticipation of increased municipal aid from the federal government. The passage of a federal stimulus program added further momentum to the tightening trend, as did the results of the run-off Senate elections in Georgia. Taxable municipal bonds also derived strength from signs of an economic recovery and the approval of a vaccine for the coronavirus. Finally, the asset class benefited from expectations of yet another large federal stimulus program toward the end of the first half of the reporting period.

During the second half of the reporting period, the asset class benefited from strong economic growth and robust municipal revenue collections which, in turn, led to outlook and/or ratings upgrades for a number of municipal issuers. Taxable municipal spreads continued to improve during the second half of the reporting period, but at a much more measured pace.

Higher-quality municipal bonds initially outperformed, but market participants began to reach for yield later in the period. This trend benefited lower-rated borrowers and issuers that had been most affected by COVID-19.

New-issue supply remained at very robust levels during the period. The dynamic of taxable municipal issuance being used for the purpose of advance refunding previously issued tax-exempt debt remained firmly in place as overall interest rates stayed at low absolute levels. The new issuance was readily absorbed given that demand strengthened throughout the period.

Market Price and Net Asset Value Per Share Summary

	07/31/21		07/31/20		Change			High		Low
Closing Market Price	$	26.31	$	26.60		(1.09	)%	$	27.41	$	23.86
Net Asset Value		26.02		25.48		2.12			26.15		23.74

TOTAL RETURN BASED ON A $10,000 INVESTMENT

^(a) Represents the Trust’s closing market price on the NYSE and reflects the reinvestment of dividends and/or distributions at actual reinvestment prices.

^(b) A flagship measure of the USD-denominated taxable municipal bond market over 1-year to maturity. Taxable bonds with an amount outstanding greater than or equal to $300 million are eligible for the U.S. Aggregate Index.

T R U S T   S U M M A R Y 7

Trust Summary  as of July 31, 2021 (continued) BlackRock Taxable Municipal Bond Trust (BBN)

Performance Summary for the Period Ended July 31, 2021

Returns for the period ended July 31, 2021 were as follows:

	Average Annual Total Returns
	1 Year			5 Years			10 Years
Trust at NAV(a)(b)		7.96	%		7.31	%		9.68	%
Trust at Market Price(a)(b)		4.56			8.06			10.93
Lipper General Bond Funds at NAV(c)		16.63			7.98			7.87
Lipper General Bond Funds at Market Price(c)		25.22			9.86			9.13
Bloomberg Barclays Taxable Municipal: U.S. Aggregate Eligible Index		2.55			5.84			7.41

^(a) All returns reflect reinvestment of dividends and/or distributions at actual reinvestment prices. Performance results reflect the Trust’s use of leverage.

^(b) The Trust’s premium to NAV narrowed during the period, which accounts for the difference between performance based on market price and performance based on NAV.

^(c) Average return. Returns reflect reinvestment of dividends and/or distributions at NAV on the ex-dividend date as calculated by Lipper.

Performance results may include adjustments made for financial reporting purposes in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. Past performance is not an indication of future results.

More information about the Trust’s historical performance can be found in the “Closed End Funds” section of blackrock.com.

The following discussion relates to the Trust’s absolute performance based on NAV:

The Trust’s positions in areas that were most affected by COVID-19 in early 2020—including the state tax-backed state, local tax-backed, utilities, transportation, education and tobacco sectors—contributed strongly to performance as yield spreads narrowed considerably in anticipation of a recovery. Holdings in lower-rated securities also aided performance amid investors’ ongoing search for yield. The Trust actively sought to manage interest rate risk using U.S. Treasury futures. Since U.S. Treasury yields rose, as prices fell, this strategy contributed to results and offset some of the adverse effect from the positions in longer-term bonds.

The Trust’s holdings on the long end of the yield curve detracted from results. In addition, reinvestment risk remained a headwind since the proceeds from bonds that matured or were called needed to be reinvested at lower yields compared with bonds that were issued when yields were higher.

The views expressed reflect the opinions of BlackRock as of the date of this report and are subject to change based on changes in market, economic or other conditions. These views are not intended to be a forecast of future events and are no guarantee of future results.

8 2 0 2 1   B L A C K R O C K   A N N U A L   R E P O R T   T O   S H A R E H O L D E R S

Trust Summary  as of July 31, 2021 (continued) BlackRock Taxable Municipal Bond Trust (BBN)

Overview of the Trust’s Total Investments

SECTOR ALLOCATION

Sector(a)(b)	07/31/21			07/31/20
County/City/Special District/School District		23	%		19%
Utilities		19			22
Transportation		16			21
Education		15			16
State		15			12
Tobacco		6			4
Health Care Providers & Services		3			2
Health		1			2
Corporate		1			1
Housing		—			1
Real Estate Management & Development		1			—
Diversified Financial Services		—			—(c)
Other*		—	(c)		—

CALL/MATURITY SCHEDULE

Calendar Year Ended December 31,(a)(d)	Percentage
2021		1%
2022		—(c)
2023		—(c)
2024		1
2025		2

CREDIT QUALITY ALLOCATION

Credit Rating(a)(e)	07/31/21			07/31/20
AAA/Aaa		3	%		3%
AA/Aa		39			40
A		36			39
BBB/Baa		13			8
BB/Ba		2			2
B		2			4
CCC/Caa		—	(c)		—
N/R		5	(f)		4

^(a) Excludes short-term securities.

^(b) For Trust compliance purposes, the Trust’s sector classifications refer to one or more of the sector sub-classifications used by one or more widely recognized market indexes or rating group indexes, and/or as defined by the investment adviser. These definitions may not apply for purposes of this report, which may combine such sector sub-classifications for reporting ease.

^(c) Rounds to less than 1% of total investments.

^(d) Scheduled maturity dates and/or bonds that are subject to potential calls by issuers over the next five years.

^(e) For financial reporting purposes, credit quality ratings shown above reflect the highest rating assigned by either S&P Global Ratings or Moody’s Investors Service, Inc. if ratings differ. These rating agencies are independent, nationally recognized statistical rating organizations and are widely used. Investment grade ratings are credit ratings of BBB/Baa or higher. Below investment grade ratings are credit ratings of BB/Ba or lower. Investments designated N/R are not rated by either rating agency. Unrated investments do not necessarily indicate low credit quality. Credit quality ratings are subject to change.

^(f) The investment adviser evaluates the credit quality of unrated investments based upon certain factors including, but not limited to, credit ratings for similar investments and financial analysis of sectors and individual investments. Using this approach, the investment adviser has deemed certain of these unrated securities as investment grade quality. As of July 31, 2021, the market value of unrated securities deemed by the investment adviser to be investment grade represents less than 1% of the Trust’s total investments.

* Includes one or more investment categories that individually represents less than 1% of the Trust’s total investments. Please refer to the Schedule of Investments for details.

T R U S T   S U M M A R Y 9

Schedule of Investments July 31, 2021 BlackRock Taxable Municipal Bond Trust (BBN) (Percentages shown are based on Net Assets)

Security	Par (000)		Value
Corporate Bonds
Diversified Financial Services — 0.3%
Western Group Housing LP, 6.75%, 03/15/57(a)(b)	$	2,442	$	3,595,762
Education — 3.8%
George Washington University, Series 2018, 4.13%, 09/15/48(a)		7,191		9,110,509
Massachusetts Higher Education Assistance Corp., Series 2021, 2.67%, 07/01/31		10,000		10,475,855
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 5.25%, 09/01/48		18,190		23,498,026
Wesleyan University, 4.78%, 07/01/2116(a)		11,000		15,374,258
				58,458,648
Health Care Providers & Services — 4.8%
Baptist Health Obligated Group, Series 2019, 4.10%, 12/01/49		11,300		11,999,410
CommonSpirit Health, 3.82%, 10/01/49(a)		7,750		8,852,906
Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, 2.81%, 06/01/41		11,876		12,448,794
Ochsner Clinic Foundation, 5.90%, 05/15/45(a)		5,000		7,374,606
PeaceHealth Obligated Group, Series 2018, 4.79%, 11/15/48(a)		5,065		6,954,275
West Virginia United Health System Obligated Group, Series 2018, 4.92%, 06/01/48		20,000		26,480,632
				74,110,623
Real Estate Management & Development — 0.7%
Bridge Housing Corp., 3.25%, 07/15/30		10,020		10,705,753
Total Corporate Bonds — 9.6% (Cost: $120,632,185)				146,870,786
Municipal Bonds
Arizona — 2.2%
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District, RB, BAB, 4.84%, 01/01/41(a)		24,545		33,193,431
California — 27.6%
Alameda County Joint Powers Authority, RB, BAB, Series A, 7.05%, 12/01/44(a)		11,000		18,283,100
Bay Area Toll Authority, RB, BAB
Series S-1, 6.92%, 04/01/40(a)		13,700		21,212,395
Series S-1, 7.04%, 04/01/50		1,015		1,815,053
Series S-3, 6.91%, 10/01/50(a)		14,000		25,053,140
California Infrastructure & Economic Development Bank, RB, 5.50%, 01/01/38(b)		5,000		5,218,650
California State Public Works Board, RB, BAB, Series G-2, 8.36%, 10/01/34(a)		18,145		29,322,501
City of Chula Vista California, RB, 2.91%, 06/01/45		9,185		9,351,249
City of El Cajon, RB, Series A, 3.28%, 04/01/43		2,605		2,679,399
City of Huntington Beach California, Refunding RB, 3.38%, 06/15/44		5,000		5,204,400
City of Riverside California, RB, Series A, 3.86%, 06/01/45		8,265		9,032,240
City of San Francisco California Public Utilities
Commission Water Revenue, RB, BAB, Series DE, 6.00%, 11/01/40(a)		21,255		30,003,771
County of Riverside California, RB, 3.82%, 02/15/38		11,450		13,044,527
County of Sonoma California, Refunding RB, Series A, 6.00%, 12/01/29(a)		13,145		16,209,099

Security	Par (000)		Value
California (continued)
Foothill-Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency, Refunding RB
Series A, 4.09%, 01/15/49	$	24,340	$	26,211,259
Series A, (AGM), 3.92%, 01/15/53		7,202		7,717,519
Inland Empire Tobacco Securitization Corp., Refunding RB, 3.68%, 06/01/38		8,455		9,064,775
Los Angeles Community College District, GO, BAB, 6.60%, 08/01/42(a)		10,000		16,455,600
Los Angeles Unified School District, GO, BAB, Series RY, 6.76%, 07/01/34		10,000		14,594,500
Orange County Local Transportation Authority, Refunding RB, BAB, Series A, 6.91%, 02/15/41(a)		5,000		7,588,500
San Diego County Regional Airport Authority, Refunding ARB, Series B, 5.59%, 07/01/43		4,000		4,484,520
State of California, GO, BAB
7.55%, 04/01/39(a)		9,035		15,611,938
7.63%, 03/01/40		8,950		15,307,006
7.60%, 11/01/40		15,000		26,735,850
University of California, RB, Series BJ, 3.07%, 05/15/51		12,175		12,361,278
University of California, RB, BAB
5.95%, 05/15/45(a)		24,000		34,706,880
6.30%, 05/15/50		27,010		36,069,964
University of California, Refunding RB, Series J, 4.13%, 05/15/45		8,185		9,969,739
				423,308,852
Colorado — 3.6%
Colorado Health Facilities Authority, Refunding RB, Series B, 4.48%, 12/01/40.		9,485		9,967,028
Denver City & County School District No.1, Refunding COP, Series B, 7.02%, 12/15/37		6,000		9,083,400
Regional Transportation District, COP, BAB, Series B, 7.67%, 06/01/40(a)		23,000		36,909,940
				55,960,368
Connecticut — 0.3%
Connecticut State Health & Educational Facilities Authority, Refunding RB, Series G-2, 4.25%, 07/01/27(b)		5,055		5,180,667
District of Columbia — 2.3%
Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority Dulles Toll Road Revenue, ARB, BAB, Series D, 8.00%, 10/01/47		10,750		18,645,982
Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority Dulles Toll Road Revenue, RB, BAB, 7.46%, 10/01/46		9,235		16,466,744
				35,112,726
Florida — 4.3%
Excelsior Academies, Inc., RB, Series C, 5.25%, 11/01/25		610		619,266
Florida Development Finance Corp., RB(b)
7.00%, 12/01/48(c)(d)		4,500		4,474,935
Series B, 5.75%, 06/15/25		735		745,533
Florida Development Finance Corp., Refunding RB, Series B, 4.11%, 04/01/50		15,000		15,623,550
Miami-Dade County Educational Facilities Authority, Refunding RB, Series B, 5.07%, 04/01/50		12,250		16,623,495

10 2 0 2 1   B L A C K R O C K   A N N U A L   R E P O R T   T O   S H A R E H O L D E R S

Schedule of Investments (continued) July 31, 2021 BlackRock Taxable Municipal Bond Trust (BBN) (Percentages shown are based on Net Assets)

Security	Par (000)		Value
Florida (continued)
Miami-Dade County Industrial Development Authority, RB, 5.25%, 11/01/25	$	225	$	228,386
Miami-Dade County, Refunding RB, Series 2, Subordinate, 2.54%, 10/01/33		7,500		7,759,575
Sumter Landing Community Development District, RB, 4.17%, 10/01/47		2,575		2,925,869
Village Center Community Development District, Refunding RB, 5.02%, 11/01/36		13,500		16,995,420
				65,996,029
Georgia — 6.1%
Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, Refunding RB, BAB
6.64%, 04/01/57		26,367		41,009,386
6.66%, 04/01/57		24,368		38,393,490
7.06%, 04/01/57		9,750		14,496,495
				93,899,371
Idaho — 0.0%
Idaho Housing & Finance Association, RB, Series B, 7.15%, 06/15/31		625		630,569
Illinois — 16.0%
Chicago Board of Education, GO, 6.32%, 11/01/29		9,465		11,664,287
Chicago Board of Education, GO, BAB
6.04%, 12/01/29		12,935		15,273,519
6.14%, 12/01/39		2,085		2,671,677
6.52%, 12/01/40		9,745		13,005,774
Chicago O’Hare International Airport, Refunding ARB, BAB, Series B, 6.40%, 01/01/40		1,500		2,324,400
Chicago Transit Authority Sales & Transfer Tax Receipts Revenue, RB, Series A, 6.90%, 12/01/40(a)		4,075		5,888,946
Chicago Transit Authority Sales Tax Receipts Fund, RB, Series B, 6.90%, 12/01/40		4,900		7,080,990
Chicago Transit Authority Sales Tax Receipts Fund, RB, BAB, Series B, 6.20%, 12/01/40(a)		16,015		22,543,034
Chicago Transit Authority Sales Tax Receipts Fund, Refunding RB, Series B, 3.91%, 12/01/40		3,960		4,516,024
City of Chicago Illinois Wastewater Transmission Revenue, RB, BAB, Series B, 6.90%, 01/01/40		36,000		50,452,560
City of Chicago Illinois Waterworks Revenue, RB, BAB, Series B, 6.74%, 11/01/40		15,250		21,743,908
Illinois Finance Authority, Refunding RB, Series A, 5.75%, 08/15/34		5,000		5,009,400
Illinois Municipal Electric Agency, RB, BAB, 7.29%, 02/01/35(a)		15,000		20,346,300
Northern Illinois Municipal Power Agency, RB, BAB, 7.82%, 01/01/40		5,000		7,974,150
State of Illinois, GO, BAB
6.73%, 04/01/35		6,320		8,086,440
7.35%, 07/01/35(a)		35,855		46,574,569
				245,155,978

Security	Par (000)		Value
Indiana — 1.7%
Indiana Finance Authority, RB, BAB, Series B, 6.60%, 02/01/39(a)	$	7,900	$	12,102,800
Indiana Municipal Power Agency, RB, BAB, Series A, 5.59%, 01/01/42		10,000		13,291,800
				25,394,600
Iowa — 0.0%
Capital Trust Agency, Inc., RB, 5.00%, 01/01/25(b)		690		690,980
Kentucky — 1.1%
Westvaco Corp., RB, 7.67%, 01/15/27(b)		13,800		17,126,076
Louisiana — 1.0%
City of New Orleans LA Sewerage Service Revenue, Refunding RB
(AGM), 2.84%, 06/01/41		3,840		3,901,363
(AGM), 2.94%, 06/01/45		4,000		4,056,640
City of New Orleans LA Water System Revenue, Refunding RB, (AGM), 2.89%, 12/01/41		3,180		3,274,096
Louisiana Local Government Environmental Facilities & Community Development Auth, Refunding RB, (AGM), 2.59%, 02/01/43(a)		4,800		4,602,096
				15,834,195
Maine — 0.2%
Maine Health & Higher Educational Facilities Authority, Refunding RB, Series B, (AGM NPFGC), 3.12%, 07/01/43		2,590		2,839,262
Maryland(b) — 0.8%
Maryland Economic Development Corp., RB, 4.00%, 04/01/34		10,585		11,730,191
Maryland Health & Higher Educational Facilities Authority, RB, Series B, 6.25%, 03/01/27		1,000		967,210
				12,697,401
Massachusetts — 2.7%
Commonwealth of Massachusetts Transportation Fund Revenue, RB, BAB, 5.73%, 06/01/40(a)		5,000		7,144,950
Massachusetts Educational Financing Authority, RB
Series A, 3.61%, 07/01/36		20,175		21,526,725
Series A, 2.64%, 07/01/37		11,925		12,164,216
				40,835,891
Michigan — 4.5%
Michigan Finance Authority, RB, Series D, 5.02%, 11/01/43		7,500		10,005,900
Michigan Finance Authority, Refunding RB, Series A, 3.27%, 06/01/39		10,000		10,734,400
Michigan Finance Authority, Refunding RB, CAB, Series B, 0.00%, 06/01/45(e)		50,000		15,373,000
Michigan State University, RB, BAB, Series A, 6.17%, 02/15/50		5,500		7,233,270
Michigan State University, Refunding RB, Series A, 4.50%, 08/15/48		14,575		16,673,946
Michigan Strategic Fund, RB, 3.23%, 09/01/47		8,340		8,545,664
				68,566,180

S C H E D U L E   O F   I N V E S  T M E N T S 11

Schedule of Investments (continued) July 31, 2021 BlackRock Taxable Municipal Bond Trust (BBN) (Percentages shown are based on Net Assets)

Security	Par (000)		Value
Minnesota — 1.3%
Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Agency, Refunding RB, BAB, Series A, 5.93%, 01/01/43	$	8,000	$	11,496,160
Western Minnesota Municipal Power Agency, RB, BAB, 6.77%, 01/01/46		5,000		8,124,950
				19,621,110
Mississippi — 0.5%
Mississippi Development Bank, RB, BAB, 6.41%, 01/01/40		5,000		7,543,150
Missouri — 1.7%
Curators of the University of Missouri, RB, BAB, 5.79%, 11/01/41(a)		7,000		10,340,120
Missouri Joint Municipal Electric Utility Commission, RB, BAB, 7.73%, 01/01/39		11,000		16,129,740
				26,469,860
Nevada — 0.3%
City of North Las Vegas Nevada, GO, BAB, 6.57%, 06/01/40		1,420		1,925,733
County of Clark Department of Aviation, ARB, BAB, Series C, 6.82%, 07/01/45		2,000		3,203,900
				5,129,633
New Hampshire — 1.1%
New Hampshire Business Finance Authority, RB, 3.78%, 01/01/36		10,000		11,152,600
New Hampshire Business Finance Authority, Refunding RB, 2.87%, 07/01/35		5,035		5,042,301
				16,194,901
New Jersey — 10.6%
New Jersey Economic Development Authority, RB, Series A, (NPFGC), 7.43%, 02/15/29(a)		20,974		27,343,594
New Jersey Educational Facilities Authority, Refunding RB, (AGM), 3.51%, 07/01/42		20,000		20,808,600
New Jersey Transportation Trust Fund Authority, RB, BAB, Series C, 5.75%, 12/15/28		4,500		5,480,685
New Jersey Transportation Trust Fund Authority, Refunding RB, Series B, 4.13%, 06/15/42		29,355		33,861,873
New Jersey Turnpike Authority, RB, BAB
Series A, 7.10%, 01/01/41(a)		34,000		56,018,060
Series F, 7.41%, 01/01/40		6,790		11,446,039
Rutgers The State University of New Jersey, RB, Series P, 3.92%, 05/01/2119		7,275		8,323,255
				163,282,106
New York — 8.7%
Metropolitan Transportation Authority, RB, BAB
6.67%, 11/15/39		2,220		3,252,922
7.34%, 11/15/39(a)		13,245		21,967,892
Series TR, 6.69%, 11/15/40(a)		13,000		19,053,450
Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Refunding RB, Series C-2, 5.18%, 11/15/49		4,370		5,904,875
New York City Transitional Finance Authority Future Tax Secured Revenue, RB, BAB, 5.57%, 11/01/38(a)		19,000		25,744,810
New York State Dormitory Authority, RB, BAB, Series H, 5.39%, 03/15/40(a)		15,000		20,508,000

Security	Par (000)		Value
New York (continued)
New York State Dormitory Authority, Refunding RB, Series B, 5.75%, 01/01/29	$	6,010	$	6,645,858
Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, ARB, Consolidated, 192nd Series, 4.81%, 10/15/65		14,825		21,262,608
Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, RB
Consolidated, 165th Series, 5.65%, 11/01/40		2,750		3,959,038
Consolidated, 168th Series, 4.93%, 10/01/51		3,860		5,519,491
				133,818,944
Ohio — 6.2%
American Municipal Power, Inc., RB, Series B, 7.83%, 02/15/41		10,000		16,750,000
American Municipal Power, Inc., Refunding RB, BAB, Series B, 6.45%, 02/15/44		10,000		15,100,700
Franklin County Convention Facilities Authority, RB, BAB, 6.64%, 12/01/42(a)		30,575		47,870,360
Ohio University, RB, 5.59%, 12/01/2114		10,100		15,018,902
				94,739,962
Oklahoma — 0.6%
Oklahoma Development Finance Authority, RB, Series B, 11.00%, 09/01/41(b)		3,000		3,585,300
Oklahoma Municipal Power Authority, RB, BAB, 6.44%, 01/01/45(a)		3,500		5,184,900
				8,770,200
Pennsylvania — 4.0%
Commonwealth Financing Authority, RB
Series A, 3.86%, 06/01/38		2,210		2,548,196
Series A, 4.14%, 06/01/38		6,200		7,431,134
Series A, 3.81%, 06/01/41		4,920		5,754,678
Series A, 2.99%, 06/01/42		11,285		11,845,188
Pennsylvania Economic Development Financing Authority, RB, BAB, Series B, 6.53%, 06/15/39		23,050		33,601,829
				61,181,025
Puerto Rico — 3.4%
Puerto Rico Commonwealth Aqueduct & Sewer Authority, Refunding RB
Series B, Senior Lien, 5.00%, 07/01/23		2,355		2,357,261
Series B, Senior Lien, 5.35%, 07/01/27		10,000		10,010,800
Puerto Rico Sales Tax Financing Corp. Sales Tax Revenue, RB
Series A-1, Restructured, 4.75%, 07/01/53		3,465		3,985,963
Series A-2, Restructured, 4.33%, 07/01/40		5,000		5,679,250
Series A-2, Restructured, 4.55%, 07/01/40		14,899		15,324,068
Series A-2, Restructured, 4.78%, 07/01/58		12,447		14,311,561
				51,668,903
South Carolina — 3.0%
South Carolina Public Service Authority, RB, Series F, (AGM-CR), 5.74%, 01/01/30		5,000		6,248,950
South Carolina Public Service Authority, RB, BAB, Series C, (AGM-CR), 6.45%, 01/01/50		11,290		19,128,986

12 2 0 2 1   B L A C K R O C K   A N N U A L   R E P O R T   T O   S H A R E H O L D E R S

Schedule of Investments (continued) July 31, 2021 BlackRock Taxable Municipal Bond Trust (BBN) (Percentages shown are based on Net Assets)

Security	Par (000)		Value
South Carolina (continued)
South Carolina Public Service Authority, Refunding RB, Series D, 4.77%, 12/01/45	$	10,085	$	13,509,866
South Carolina Student Loan Corp., RB, Series A, 3.59%, 12/01/39		6,285		6,403,346
				45,291,148
Tennessee — 3.8%
Memphis-Shelby County Industrial Development Board, Refunding TA, Series B, 5.45%, 07/01/45		5,875		5,739,052
Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County Convention Center Authority, RB, BAB, Series A2, 7.43%, 07/01/43(a)		35,105		53,139,843
				58,878,895
Texas — 3.9%
Arlington Higher Education Finance Corp., Refunding RB, Series B, 4.00%, 08/15/28		1,355		1,373,889
City of Austin TX Rental Car Special Facility, RB, ARB, 5.75%, 11/15/22(f)		5,000		5,351,150
City of San Antonio Texas Customer Facility Charge Revenue, ARB, 5.87%, 07/01/45(a)		7,500		7,959,375
Dallas Area Rapid Transit, RB, BAB, 5.02%, 12/01/48(a)		2,500		3,623,875
Dallas Fort Worth International Airport, Refunding RB, Series C, 3.09%, 11/01/40		10,155		10,588,720
New Hope Higher Education Finance Corp., RB, 5.00%, 06/15/27(b)		390		393,299
North Texas Tollway Authority, Refunding RB, 3.01%, 01/01/43		6,800		7,016,648
Port Beaumont Navigation District, Refunding RB, Series B, 6.00%, 01/01/25(b)		1,085		1,124,277
Texas Private Activity Bond Surface Transportation Corp., RB, Series B, 3.92%, 12/31/49		20,000		22,978,200
				60,409,433
Utah — 2.4%
Utah Transit Authority, RB, BAB, 5.71%, 06/15/40(a)		26,405		36,870,094
Virginia — 2.8%
Tobacco Settlement Financing Corp., Refunding RB, Series A-1, 6.71%, 06/01/46		31,220		33,248,363
Virginia Housing Development Authority, RB, M/F Housing, Series D, 3.64%, 06/01/45(a)		8,435		9,078,928
				42,327,291
Washington — 1.8%
Washington State Convention Center Public Facilities District, RB, BAB, 6.79%, 07/01/40		20,895		27,664,144
West Virginia — 3.6%
Tobacco Settlement Finance Authority, RB, Series B, 0.00%, 06/01/47(e)		1,600		181,152

Security	Par (000)		Value
West Virginia (continued)
Tobacco Settlement Finance Authority, Refunding RB
Series A, Class 1, 4.31%, 06/01/49	$	40,000	$	41,772,000
Series B, Class 2, 4.88%, 06/01/49		12,175		12,716,422
				54,669,574
Wisconsin — 0.5%
Public Finance Authority, RB
6.75%, 11/01/24(b)		3,580		3,647,411
4.75%, 06/15/25(b)		735		736,904
5.25%, 01/01/31(b)		1,410		1,431,404
Series B, 6.00%, 06/15/24		435		438,941
Public Finance Authority, Refunding RB, Series B, 6.13%, 10/01/49(b)		1,470		1,602,388
				7,857,048
Total Municipal Bonds — 134.6% (Cost: $1,598,834,298)				2,064,809,997
Total Long-Term Investments — 144.2% (Cost: $1,719,466,483)				2,211,680,783
	Shares
Short-Term Securities
Money Market Funds — 0.4%
BlackRock Liquidity Funds, T-Fund, Institutional Class, 0.01%(g)(h)		6,413,514		6,413,514
Total Short-Term Securities — 0.4% (Cost: $6,413,514)				6,413,514
Total Investments — 144.6% (Cost: $1,725,879,997)				2,218,094,297
Liabilities in Excess of Other Assets — (44.6)%				(684,276,010	)
Net Assets — 100.0%			$	1,533,818,287

(a) All or a portion of the security has been pledged as collateral in connection with outstanding reverse repurchase agreements.

(b) Security exempt from registration pursuant to Rule 144A under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. These securities may be resold in transactions exempt from registration to qualified institutional investors.

(c) Issuer filed for bankruptcy and/or is in default.

(d) Non-income producing security.

(e) Zero-coupon bond.

(f) U.S. Government securities held in escrow, are used to pay interest on this security as well as to retire the bond in full at the date indicated, typically at a premium to par.

(g) Affiliate of the Trust.

(h) Annualized 7-day yield as of period end.

For Trust compliance purposes, the Trust’s sector classifications refer to one or more of the sector sub-classifications used by one or more widely recognized market indexes or rating group indexes, and/or as defined by the investment adviser. These definitions may not apply for purposes of this report, which may combine such sector sub-classifications for reporting ease.

S C H E D U L E   O F   I N V E S  T M E N T S 13

Schedule of Investments(continued) July 31, 2021 BlackRock Taxable Municipal Bond Trust (BBN)

Affiliates

Investments in issuers considered to be affiliate(s) of the Trust during the year ended July 31, 2021 for purposes of Section 2(a)(3) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended, were as follows:

Affiliated Issuer	Value at 07/31/20		Purchases at Cost			Proceeds from Sales		Net Realized Gain (Loss)		Change in Unrealized Appreciation (Depreciation)		Value at 07/31/21		Shares Held at 07/31/21		Income		Capital Gain Distributions from Underlying Funds
BlackRock Liquidity Funds, T-Fund, Institutional Class	$	6,321,745	$	91,769	(a)	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	6,413,514		6,413,514	$	6,368	$	—

^(a)  Represents net amount purchased (sold).

Reverse Repurchase Agreements

Counterparty

Interest Rate

Trade Date

Maturity Date

(a)

Face Value

Face Value Including Accrued Interest

Type of Non-Cash Underlying Collateral

Remaining Contractual Maturity of the Agreements

(a)

Mitsubishi UFJ Securities (USA) Inc.

0.60

%(b)

04/06/21

Open

$

7,416,000

$

7,430,338

Municipal Bonds

Open/Demand

Mitsubishi UFJ Securities (USA) Inc.

0.60

(b)

04/06/21

Open

4,601,800

4,610,697

Municipal Bonds

Open/Demand

Mitsubishi UFJ Securities (USA) Inc.

0.60

(b)

04/06/21

Open

32,225,300

32,287,602

Municipal Bonds

Open/Demand

Mitsubishi UFJ Securities (USA) Inc.

0.60

(b)

04/06/21

Open

19,030,500

19,067,292

Municipal Bonds

Open/Demand

Mitsubishi UFJ Securities (USA) Inc.

0.60

(b)

04/06/21

Open

22,811,400

22,855,502

Municipal Bonds

Open/Demand

Mitsubishi UFJ Securities (USA) Inc.

0.60

(b)

04/06/21

Open

2,996,200

3,001,993

Municipal Bonds

Open/Demand

Mitsubishi UFJ Securities (USA) Inc.

0.60

(b)

04/06/21

Open

3,083,250

3,089,211

Corporate Bonds

Open/Demand

Mitsubishi UFJ Securities (USA) Inc.

0.60

(b)

04/06/21

Open

16,255,200

16,286,627

Municipal Bonds

Open/Demand

Mitsubishi UFJ Securities (USA) Inc.

0.60

(b)

04/06/21

Open

18,429,240

18,464,870

Municipal Bonds

Open/Demand

Barclays Bank PLC

0.35

(b)

06/09/21

Open

1,082,244

1,082,791

Municipal Bonds

Open/Demand

Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC

0.30

(b)

06/09/21

Open

6,267,938

6,270,654

Corporate Bonds

Open/Demand

Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC

0.30

(b)

06/09/21

Open

8,458,414

8,462,079

Corporate Bonds

Open/Demand

Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC

0.30

(b)

06/09/21

Open

13,612,500

13,618,399

Corporate Bonds

Open/Demand

Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC

0.30

(b)

06/09/21

Open

6,731,250

6,734,167

Corporate Bonds

Open/Demand

RBC Capital Markets LLC

0.28

(b)

06/09/21

Open

8,069,688

8,072,951

Corporate Bonds

Open/Demand

RBC Capital Markets LLC

0.45

(b)

06/09/21

Open

34,620,000

34,642,503

Municipal Bonds

Open/Demand

RBC Capital Markets LLC

0.45

(b)

06/09/21

Open

7,212,500

7,217,188

Municipal Bonds

Open/Demand

RBC Capital Markets LLC

0.45

(b)

06/09/21

Open

49,342,500

49,374,573

Municipal Bonds

Open/Demand

RBC Capital Markets LLC

0.45

(b)

06/09/21

Open

28,216,012

28,234,353

Municipal Bonds

Open/Demand

RBC Capital Markets LLC

0.45

(b)

06/09/21

Open

32,070,000

32,090,845

Municipal Bonds

Open/Demand

RBC Capital Markets LLC

0.45

(b)

06/09/21

Open

31,080,106

31,100,308

Municipal Bonds

Open/Demand

Barclays Bank PLC

0.35

(b)

06/11/21

Open

22,087,500

22,097,807

Municipal Bonds

Open/Demand

Barclays Bank PLC

0.35

(b)

06/11/21

Open

6,087,500

6,090,341

Municipal Bonds

Open/Demand

Barclays Bank PLC

0.35

(b)

06/11/21

Open

4,850,000

4,852,263

Municipal Bonds

Open/Demand

Barclays Bank PLC

0.35

(b)

06/11/21

Open

21,735,000

21,745,143

Municipal Bonds

Open/Demand

Barclays Bank PLC

0.35

(b)

06/11/21

Open

2,984,375

2,985,768

Municipal Bonds

Open/Demand

Barclays Bank PLC

0.35

(b)

06/11/21

Open

9,030,000

9,034,214

Municipal Bonds

Open/Demand

Barclays Bank PLC

0.35

(b)

06/11/21

Open

17,681,250

17,689,501

Municipal Bonds

Open/Demand

Barclays Bank PLC

0.35

(b)

06/11/21

Open

3,948,000

3,949,842

Municipal Bonds

Open/Demand

Barclays Bank PLC

0.35

(b)

06/11/21

Open

10,181,125

10,185,876

Municipal Bonds

Open/Demand

RBC Capital Markets LLC

0.40

(b)

06/11/21

Open

8,677,500

8,682,128

Municipal Bonds

Open/Demand

RBC Capital Markets LLC

0.45

(b)

06/11/21

Open

14,557,644

14,566,378

Municipal Bonds

Open/Demand

RBC Capital Markets LLC

0.45

(b)

06/11/21

Open

7,200,000

7,204,320

Municipal Bonds

Open/Demand

RBC Capital Markets LLC

0.45

(b)

06/11/21

Open

15,562,500

15,571,838

Municipal Bonds

Open/Demand

RBC Capital Markets LLC

0.45

(b)

06/11/21

Open

3,666,156

3,668,356

Municipal Bonds

Open/Demand

RBC Capital Markets LLC

0.45

(b)

06/11/21

Open

16,692,500

16,702,515

Municipal Bonds

Open/Demand

RBC Capital Markets LLC

0.45

(b)

06/11/21

Open

15,231,769

15,240,908

Municipal Bonds

Open/Demand

RBC Capital Markets LLC

0.45

(b)

06/11/21

Open

39,865,000

39,888,919

Municipal Bonds

Open/Demand

RBC Capital Markets LLC

0.45

(b)

06/11/21

Open

27,580,400

27,596,948

Municipal Bonds

Open/Demand

Barclays Bank PLC

0.30

(b)

06/23/21

Open

7,461,825

7,464,250

Municipal Bonds

Open/Demand

Barclays Bank PLC

0.40

(b)

06/28/21

Open

11,837,500

11,841,840

Municipal Bonds

Open/Demand

Barclays Bank PLC

0.40

(b)

06/29/21

Open

15,574,325

15,579,863

Municipal Bonds

Open/Demand

Barclays Bank PLC

0.40

(b)

06/29/21

Open

15,712,500

15,718,087

Municipal Bonds

Open/Demand

RBC Capital Markets LLC

0.45

(b)

06/30/21

Open

18,956,250

18,963,832

Municipal Bonds

Open/Demand

14 2 0 2 1   B L A C K R O C K   A N N U A L   R E P O R T   T O   S H A R E H O L D E R S

Schedule of Investments(continued) July 31, 2021 BlackRock Taxable Municipal Bond Trust (BBN)

Reverse Repurchase Agreements (continued)

Counterparty

Interest Rate

Trade Date

Maturity Date

(a)

Face Value

Face Value Including Accrued Interest

Type of Non-Cash Underlying Collateral

Remaining Contractual Maturity of the Agreements

(a)

RBC Capital Markets LLC

0.45

%(b)

07/27/21

Open

$

8,582,612

$

8,583,042

Municipal Bonds

Open/Demand

RBC Capital Markets LLC

0.45

(b)

07/27/21

Open

26,900,000

26,901,345

Municipal Bonds

Open/Demand

$

706,255,273

$

706,800,267

^(a)  Certain agreements have no stated maturity and can be terminated by either party at any time.

^(b)  Variable rate security. Rate as of period end and maturity is the date the principal owed can be recovered through demand.

Derivative Financial Instruments Outstanding as of Period End

Futures Contracts

Description	Number of Contracts		Expiration Date		Notional Amount (000)		Value/ Unrealized Appreciation (Depreciation)
Short Contracts
10-Year U.S. Treasury Note		1,284		09/21/21	$	172,738	$	(3,362,892	)
U.S. Long Bond		1,483		09/21/21		244,649		(12,471,635	)
5-Year U.S. Treasury Note		619		09/30/21		77,056		(711,521	)
							$	(16,546,048	)

Derivative Financial Instruments Categorized by Risk Exposure

As of period end, the fair values of derivative financial instruments located in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities were as follows:

	Commodity Contracts		Credit Contracts		Equity Contracts		Foreign Currency Exchange Contracts		Interest Rate Contracts		Other Contracts		Total
Liabilities — Derivative Financial Instruments
Futures contracts
Unrealized depreciation on futures contracts(a)	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	16,546,048	$	—	$	16,546,048

^(a)  Net cumulative unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on futures contracts and centrally cleared swaps, if any, are reported in the Schedule of Investments. In the Statement of Assets and Liabilities, only current day’s variation margin is reported in receivables or payables and the net cumulative unrealized appreciation (depreciation) is included in accumulated earnings (loss).

For the year ended July 31, 2021, the effect of derivative financial instruments in the Statement of Operations was as follows:

	Commodity Contracts		Credit Contracts		Equity Contracts		Foreign Currency Exchange Contracts		Interest Rate Contracts			Other Contracts		Total
Net Realized Gain (Loss) from
Futures contracts	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	17,984,760		$	—	$	17,984,760
Net Change in Unrealized Appreciation (Depreciation) on
Futures contracts	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	(15,679,597	)	$	—	$	(15,679,597	)

Average Quarterly Balances of Outstanding Derivative Financial Instruments

Futures contracts
Average notional value of contracts — short	$	303,040,629

For more information about the Trust’s investment risks regarding derivative financial instruments, refer to the Notes to Financial Statements.

S C H E D U L E   O F   I N V E S  T M E N T S 15

Schedule of Investments(continued) July 31, 2021 BlackRock Taxable Municipal Bond Trust (BBN)

Fair Value Hierarchy as of Period End

Various inputs are used in determining the fair value of financial instruments. For a description of the input levels and information about the Trust’s policy regarding valuation of financial instruments, refer to the Notes to Financial Statements.

The following table summarizes the Trust’s financial instruments categorized in the fair value hierarchy. The breakdown of the Trust’s financial instruments into major categories is disclosed in the Schedule of Investments above.

	Level 1			Level 2		Level 3		Total
Assets
Investments
Long-Term Investments
Corporate Bonds	$	—		$	146,870,786	$	—	$	146,870,786
Municipal Bonds		—			2,064,809,997		—		2,064,809,997
Short-Term Securities
Money Market Funds		6,413,514			—		—		6,413,514
	$	6,413,514		$	2,211,680,783	$	—	$	2,218,094,297
Derivative Financial Instruments(a)
Liabilities
Interest Rate Contracts	$	(16,546,048	)	$	—	$	—	$	(16,546,048	)

^(a)  Derivative financial instruments are futures contracts. Futures contracts are valued at the unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on the instrument.

The Trust may hold assets and/or liabilities in which the fair value approximates the carrying amount or face value, including accrued interest, for financial statement purposes. As of period end, reverse repurchase agreements of $706,800,267 are categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy.

See notes to financial statements.

16 2 0 2 1   B L A C K R O C K   A N N U A L   R E P O R T   T O   S H A R E H O L D E R S

Statement of Assets and Liabilities

July 31, 2021

	BBN
ASSETS
Investments, at value — unaffiliated(a)	$	2,211,680,783
Investments, at value — affiliated(b)		6,413,514
Cash pledged for futures contracts		7,721,000
Receivables:
Capital shares sold		1,191,948
Dividends — affiliated		82
Interest — unaffiliated		19,207,427
Deferred offering costs		275,367
Total assets		2,246,490,121
LIABILITIES
Cash received as collateral for reverse repurchase agreements		1,749,000
Reverse repurchase agreements, at value		706,800,267
Payables:
Accounting services fees		200,342
Custodian fees		39,262
Investment advisory fees		1,037,360
Offering costs		210,186
Trustees’ and Officer’s fees		637,556
Other accrued expenses		95,087
Professional fees		194,991
Variation margin on futures contracts		1,707,783
Total liabilities		712,671,834
NET ASSETS	$	1,533,818,287
NET ASSETS CONSIST OF
Paid-in capital(c)(d)(e)	$	1,133,581,003
Accumulated earnings		400,237,284
NET ASSETS	$	1,533,818,287
Net asset value	$	26.02
(a)  Investments, at cost — unaffiliated	$	1,719,466,483
(b)  Investments, at cost — affiliated	$	6,413,514
(c)  Shares outstanding		58,946,531
(d)  Shares authorized		Unlimited
(e)  Par value	$	0.001

See notes to financial statements.

F I N A N C I A L   S T A T E M E N T S 17

Statement of Operations

Year Ended July 31, 2021

	BBN
INVESTMENT INCOME
Dividends — affiliated	$	6,368
Interest — unaffiliated		93,563,922
Total investment income		93,570,290
EXPENSES
Investment advisory		11,620,974
Accounting services		209,882
Trustees and Officer		209,662
Professional		156,709
Transfer agent		111,234
Custodian		42,566
Registration		19,482
Miscellaneous		36,030
Total expenses excluding interest expense		12,406,539
Interest expense		4,891,046
Total expenses		17,297,585
Less:
Fees waived and/or reimbursed by the Manager		(15,143	)
Total expenses after fees waived and/or reimbursed		17,282,442
Net investment income		76,287,848
REALIZED AND UNREALIZED GAIN (LOSS)
Net realized gain from:
Investments — unaffiliated		12,644,083
Futures contracts		17,984,760
		30,628,843
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation) on:
Investments — unaffiliated		21,613,659
Futures contracts		(15,679,597	)
		5,934,062
Net realized and unrealized gain		36,562,905
NET INCREASE IN NET ASSETS RESULTING FROM OPERATIONS	$	112,850,753

See notes to financial statements.

18 2 0 2 1   B L A C K R O C K   A N N U A L   R E P O R T   T O   S H A R E H O L D E R S

Statements of Changes in Net Assets

	BBN
	Year Ended July 31,
	2021			2020
INCREASE (DECREASE) IN NET ASSETS
OPERATIONS
Net investment income	$	76,287,848		$	82,543,682
Net realized gain (loss)		30,628,843			(54,447,339	)
Net change in unrealized appreciation (depreciation)		5,934,062			115,295,437
Net increase in net assets resulting from operations		112,850,753			143,391,780
DISTRIBUTIONS TO SHAREHOLDERS(a)
From net investment income		(79,862,619	)		(76,644,636	)
Return of capital		(393,632	)		—
Decrease in net assets resulting from distributions to shareholders		(80,256,251	)		(76,644,636	)
CAPITAL SHARE TRANSACTIONS
Net proceeds from the issuance of shares		41,762,503			—
Reinvestment of distributions		2,657,099			1,053,928
Net increase in net assets derived from capital share transactions		44,419,602			1,053,928
NET ASSETS
Total increase in net assets		77,014,104			67,801,072
Beginning of year		1,456,804,183			1,389,003,111
End of year	$	1,533,818,287		$	1,456,804,183

^(a) Distributions for annual periods determined in accordance with U.S. federal income tax regulations.

See notes to financial statements.

F I N A N C I A L   S T A T E M E N T S 19

Statement of Cash Flows

Year Ended July 31, 2021

	BBN
CASH PROVIDED BY (USED FOR) OPERATING ACTIVITIES
Net increase in net assets resulting from operations	$	112,850,753
Adjustments to reconcile net increase in net assets resulting from operations to net cash provided by operating activities
Proceeds from sales of long-term investments		336,596,130
Purchases of long-term investments		(373,215,914	)
Net purchases of short-term securities		(91,769	)
Amortization of premium and accretion of discount on investments and other fees		37,251
Net realized gain on investments		(12,644,083	)
Net unrealized appreciation on investments		(21,613,659	)
(Increase) Decrease in Assets
Receivables
Dividends — affiliated		1,898
Interest — unaffiliated		2,213,389
Variation margin on futures contracts		10,156
Prepaid expenses		10,509
Deferred offering costs		(275,367	)
Increase (Decrease) in Liabilities
Collateral — reverse repurchase agreements		1,749,000
Payables
Accounting services fees		83,240
Custodian fees		21,076
Interest expense		(3,596,665	)
Investment advisory fees		44,539
Trustees’ and Officer’s fees		134,844
Other accrued expenses		5,015
Professional fees		54,121
Variation margin on futures contracts		1,684,060
Net cash provided by operating activities		44,058,524
CASH PROVIDED BY (USED FOR) FINANCING ACTIVITIES
Cash dividends paid to Common Shareholders		(77,599,152	)
Payments for offering costs		210,186
Proceeds from issuance of capital shares		40,570,555
Net borrowing of reverse repurchase agreements		(1,657,113	)
Net cash used for financing activities		(38,475,524	)
CASH
Net increase in restricted and unrestricted cash		5,583,000
Restricted and unrestricted cash at beginning of year		2,138,000
Restricted and unrestricted cash at end of year	$	7,721,000
SUPPLEMENTAL DISCLOSURE OF CASH FLOW INFORMATION
Cash paid during the year for interest expense	$	8,487,711
NON-CASH FINANCING ACTIVITIES
Capital shares issued in reinvestment of distributions paid to Common Shareholders	$	2,657,099
RECONCILIATION OF RESTRICTED AND UNRESTRICTED CASH AT THE END OF YEAR TO THE STATEMENT OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIES
Cash pledged
Futures contracts		7,721,000
	$	7,721,000

See notes to financial statements.

20 2 0 2 1   B L A C K R O C K   A N N U A L   R E P O R T   T O   S H A R E H O L D E R S

Financial Highlights

(For a share outstanding throughout each period)

	BBN
	Year Ended July 31,
		2021			2020			2019			2018			2017
Net asset value, beginning of year		$	25.48		$	24.32		$	23.03		$	23.45		$	25.02
Net investment income(a)			1.32			1.44			1.38			1.47			1.58
Net realized and unrealized gain (loss)			0.61			1.06			1.33			(0.32	)		(1.57	)
Net increase from investment operations			1.93			2.50			2.71			1.15			0.01
Distributions(b)
From net investment income			(1.38	)		(1.34	)		(1.41	)		(1.57	)		(1.58	)
Return of capital			(0.01	)		—			(0.01	)		—			—
Total distributions			(1.39	)		(1.34	)		(1.42	)		(1.57	)		(1.58	)
Net asset value, end of year		$	26.02		$	25.48		$	24.32		$	23.03		$	23.45
Market price, end of year		$	26.31		$	26.60		$	23.89		$	21.99		$	23.29
Total Return(c)
Based on net asset value			7.96	%		10.73	%		12.60	%		5.23	%		0.45	%(d)
Based on market price			4.56	%		17.68	%		15.84	%		1.17	%		2.18	%
Ratios to Average Net Assets
Total expenses			1.20	%		1.97	%		2.53	%		2.03	%		1.52	%
Total expenses after fees waived and/or reimbursed			1.20	%		1.97	%		2.53	%		2.03	%		1.52	%
Total expenses after fees waived and/or reimbursed and excluding interest expense			0.86	%		0.91	%		0.93	%		0.91	%		0.92	%
Net investment income			5.31	%		5.88	%		6.02	%		6.27	%		6.79	%
Supplemental Data
Net assets, end of year (000)		$	1,533,818		$	1,456,804		$	1,389,003		$	1,315,521		$	1,339,058
Borrowings outstanding, end of year (000)		$	706,800		$	712,054		$	799,955		$	742,657		$	729,035
Portfolio turnover rate			16	%		15	%		7	%		8	%		7	%

^(a) Based on average shares outstanding.

^(b) Distributions for annual periods determined in accordance with U.S. federal income tax regulations.

^(c) Total returns based on market price, which can be significantly greater or less than the net asset value, may result in substantially different returns. Where applicable, excludes the effects of any sales charges and assumes the reinvestment of distributions at actual reinvestment prices.

^(d) The Trust’s total return includes a reimbursement by an affiliate for a realized investment loss. Excluding this payment, the Trust’s total return would have been 0.32%.

See notes to financial statements.

F I N A N C I A L   H I G H L I G H T S 21

Notes to Financial Statements

1. ORGANIZATION

BlackRock Taxable Municipal Bond Trust (the “Trust”) is registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”). The Trust is registered as a diversified, closed-end management investment company. The Trust is organized as a Delaware statutory trust. The Trust determines and makes available for publication the net asset value (“NAV”) of its Common Shares on a daily basis.

The Trust, together with certain other registered investment companies advised by BlackRock Advisors, LLC (the “Manager”) or its affiliates, is included in a complex of non-index fixed-income mutual funds and all BlackRock-advised closed-end funds referred to as the BlackRock Fixed-Income Complex.

2. SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES

The financial statements are prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“U.S. GAAP”), which may require management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities in the financial statements, disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of increases and decreases in net assets from operations during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates. The Trust is considered an investment company under U.S. GAAP and follows the accounting and reporting guidance applicable to investment companies. Below is a summary of significant accounting policies:

Investment Transactions and Income Recognition: For financial reporting purposes, investment transactions are recorded on the dates the transactions are executed. Realized gains and losses on investment transactions are determined using the specific identification method. Dividend income and capital gain distributions, if any, are recorded on the ex-dividend dates. Non-cash dividends, if any, are recorded on the ex-dividend dates at fair value. Interest income, including amortization and accretion of premiums and discounts on debt securities, is recognized daily on an accrual basis.

Segregation and Collateralization: In cases where the Trust enters into certain investments (e.g., futures contracts) or certain borrowings (e.g., reverse repurchase transactions) that would be treated as “senior securities” for 1940 Act purposes, the Trust may segregate or designate on its books and records cash or liquid assets having a market value at least equal to the amount of its future obligations under such investments or borrowings. Doing so allows the investment or borrowings to be excluded from treatment as a “senior security.” Furthermore, if required by an exchange or counterparty agreement, the Trust may be required to deliver/deposit cash and/or securities to/with an exchange, or broker-dealer or custodian as collateral for certain investments or obligations.

Distributions: Distributions from net investment income are declared and paid monthly. Distributions of capital gains are recorded on the ex-dividend dates and made at least annually. The portion of distributions, if any, that exceeds a fund’s current and accumulated earnings and profits, as measured on a tax basis, constitute a non-taxable return of capital. The character and timing of distributions are determined in accordance with U.S. federal income tax regulations, which may differ from U.S. GAAP.

Deferred Compensation Plan: Under the Deferred Compensation Plan (the “Plan”) approved by the Board of Trustees of the Trust (the “Board”), the trustees who are not “interested persons” of the Trust, as defined in the 1940 Act (“Independent Trustees”), may defer a portion of their annual complex-wide compensation. Deferred amounts earn an approximate return as though equivalent dollar amounts had been invested in common shares of certain funds in the BlackRock Fixed-Income Complex selected by the Independent Trustees. This has the same economic effect for the Independent Trustees as if the Independent Trustees had invested the deferred amounts directly in certain funds in the BlackRock Fixed-Income Complex.

The Plan is not funded and obligations thereunder represent general unsecured claims against the general assets of the Trust, as applicable. Deferred compensation liabilities, if any, are included in the Trustees’ and Officer’s fees payable in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities and will remain as a liability of the Trust until such amounts are distributed in accordance with the Plan.

Indemnifications: In the normal course of business, the Trust enters into contracts that contain a variety of representations that provide general indemnification. The Trust’s maximum exposure under these arrangements is unknown because it involves future potential claims against the Trust, which cannot be predicted with any certainty.

Other: Expenses directly related to the Trust are charged to the Trust. Other operating expenses shared by several funds, including other funds managed by the Manager, are prorated among those funds on the basis of relative net assets or other appropriate methods.

3. INVESTMENT VALUATION AND FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENTS

Investment Valuation Policies: The Trust’s investments are valued at fair value (also referred to as “market value” within the financial statements) each day that the Trust is open for business and, for financial reporting purposes, as of the report date. U.S. GAAP defines fair value as the price a fund would receive to sell an asset or pay to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. The Trust determines the fair values of its financial instruments using various independent dealers or pricing services under policies approved by the Board. If a security’s market price is not readily available or does not otherwise accurately represent the fair value of the security, the security will be valued in accordance with a policy approved by the Board as reflecting fair value. The BlackRock Global Valuation Methodologies Committee (the “Global Valuation Committee”) is the committee formed by management to develop global pricing policies and procedures and to oversee the pricing function for all financial instruments.

Fair Value Inputs and Methodologies: The following methods and inputs are used to establish the fair value of the Trust’s assets and liabilities:

• Fixed-income investments for which market quotations are readily available are generally valued using the last available bid price or current market quotations provided by independent dealers or third party pricing services. Floating rate loan interests are valued at the mean of the bid prices from one or more independent brokers or dealers as obtained from a third party pricing service. Pricing services generally value fixed-income securities assuming orderly transactions of an institutional round lot

22 2 0 2 1   B L A C K R O C K   A N N U A L   R E P O R T   T O   S H A R E H O L D E R S

Notes to Financial Statements(continued)

size, but a fund may hold or transact in such securities in smaller, odd lot sizes. Odd lots may trade at lower prices than institutional round lots. The pricing services may use matrix pricing or valuation models that utilize certain inputs and assumptions to derive values, including transaction data (e.g., recent representative bids and offers), market data, credit quality information, perceived market movements, news, and other relevant information. Certain fixed-income securities, including asset-backed and mortgage related securities may be valued based on valuation models that consider the estimated cash flows of each tranche of the entity, establish a benchmark yield and develop an estimated tranche specific spread to the benchmark yield based on the unique attributes of the tranche. The amortized cost method of valuation may be used with respect to debt obligations with sixty days or less remaining to maturity unless the Manager determines such method does not represent fair value.

• Investments in open-end U.S. mutual funds (including money market funds) are valued at that day’s published NAV.

• Futures contracts are valued based on that day’s last reported settlement or trade price on the exchange where the contract is traded.

If events (e.g., market volatility, company announcement or a natural disaster) occur that are expected to materially affect the value of such investment, or in the event that application of these methods of valuation results in a price for an investment that is deemed not to be representative of the market value of such investment, or if a price is not available, the investment will be valued by the Global Valuation Committee, or its delegate, in accordance with a policy approved by the Board as reflecting fair value (“Fair Valued Investments”). The fair valuation approaches that may be used by the Global Valuation Committee include market approach, income approach and cost approach. Valuation techniques such as discounted cash flow, use of market comparables and matrix pricing are types of valuation approaches and are typically used in determining fair value. When determining the price for Fair Valued Investments, the Global Valuation Committee, or its delegate, seeks to determine the price that the Trust might reasonably expect to receive or pay from the current sale or purchase of that asset or liability in an arm’s-length transaction. Fair value determinations shall be based upon all available factors that the Global Valuation Committee, or its delegate, deems relevant and consistent with the principles of fair value measurement. The pricing of all Fair Valued Investments is subsequently reported to the Board or a committee thereof on a quarterly basis.

Fair Value Hierarchy: Various inputs are used in determining the fair value of financial instruments. These inputs to valuation techniques are categorized into a fair value hierarchy consisting of three broad levels for financial reporting purposes as follows:

• Level 1 – Unadjusted price quotations in active markets/exchanges for identical assets or liabilities that the Trust has the ability to access;

• Level 2 – Other observable inputs (including, but not limited to, quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities in markets that are active, quoted prices for identical or similar assets or liabilities in markets that are not active, inputs other than quoted prices that are observable for the assets or liabilities (such as interest rates, yield curves, volatilities, prepayment speeds, loss severities, credit risks and default rates) or other market–corroborated inputs); and

• Level 3 – Unobservable inputs based on the best information available in the circumstances, to the extent observable inputs are not available (including the Global Valuation Committee’s assumptions used in determining the fair value of financial instruments).

The hierarchy gives the highest priority to unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities (Level 1 measurements) and the lowest priority to unobservable inputs (Level 3 measurements). Accordingly, the degree of judgment exercised in determining fair value is greatest for instruments categorized in Level 3. The inputs used to measure fair value may fall into different levels of the fair value hierarchy. In such cases, for disclosure purposes, the fair value hierarchy classification is determined based on the lowest level input that is significant to the fair value measurement in its entirety. Investments classified within Level 3 have significant unobservable inputs used by the Global Valuation Committee in determining the price for Fair Valued Investments. Level 3 investments include equity or debt issued by privately held companies or funds that may not have a secondary market and/or may have a limited number of investors. The categorization of a value determined for financial instruments is based on the pricing transparency of the financial instruments and is not necessarily an indication of the risks associated with investing in those securities.

4. SECURITIES AND OTHER INVESTMENTS

Zero-Coupon Bonds: Zero-coupon bonds are normally issued at a significant discount from face value and do not provide for periodic interest payments. These bonds may experience greater volatility in market value than other debt obligations of similar maturity which provide for regular interest payments.

Reverse Repurchase Agreements: Reverse repurchase agreements are agreements with qualified third party broker dealers in which a fund sells securities to a bank or broker-dealer and agrees to repurchase the same securities at a mutually agreed upon date and price. A fund receives cash from the sale to use for other investment purposes. During the term of the reverse repurchase agreement, a fund continues to receive the principal and interest payments on the securities sold. Certain agreements have no stated maturity and can be terminated by either party at any time. Interest on the value of the reverse repurchase agreements issued and outstanding is based upon competitive market rates determined at the time of issuance. A fund may utilize reverse repurchase agreements when it is anticipated that the interest income to be earned from the investment of the proceeds of the transaction is greater than the interest expense of the transaction. Reverse repurchase agreements involve leverage risk. If a fund suffers a loss on its investment of the transaction proceeds from a reverse repurchase agreement, a fund would still be required to pay the full repurchase price. Further, a fund remains subject to the risk that the market value of the securities repurchased declines below the repurchase price. In such cases, a fund would be required to return a portion of the cash received from the transaction or provide additional securities to the counterparty.

Cash received in exchange for securities delivered plus accrued interest due to the counterparty is recorded as a liability in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities at face value including accrued interest. Due to the short-term nature of the reverse repurchase agreements, face value approximates fair value. Interest payments made by a fund to the counterparties are recorded as a component of interest expense in the Statement of Operations. In periods of increased demand for the security, a fund may receive a fee for the use of the security by the counterparty, which may result in interest income to a fund.

For the year ended July 31, 2021, the average amount of reverse repurchase agreements outstanding and the daily weighted average interest rate for the Trust were $676,691,830 and 0.72%, respectively.

N O T E S   T O   F I N A N C I A L   S T A T E M E N T S 23

Notes to Financial Statements(continued)

Reverse repurchase transactions are entered into by a fund under Master Repurchase Agreements (each, an “MRA”), which permit a fund, under certain circumstances, including an event of default (such as bankruptcy or insolvency), to offset payables and/or receivables under the MRA with collateral held and/or posted to the counterparty and create one single net payment due to or from a fund. With reverse repurchase transactions, typically a fund and counterparty under an MRA are permitted to sell, re-pledge, or use the collateral associated with the transaction. Bankruptcy or insolvency laws of a particular jurisdiction may impose restrictions on or prohibitions against such a right of offset in the event of the MRA counterparty’s bankruptcy or insolvency. Pursuant to the terms of the MRA, a fund receives or posts securities and cash as collateral with a market value in excess of the repurchase price to be paid or received by a fund upon the maturity of the transaction. Upon a bankruptcy or insolvency of the MRA counterparty, a fund is considered an unsecured creditor with respect to excess collateral and, as such, the return of excess collateral may be delayed.

As of period end, the following table is a summary of the Trust’s open reverse repurchase agreements by counterparty which are subject to offset under an MRA on a net basis:

	Reverse Repurchase		Fair Value of Non-Cash Collateral Pledged Including			Cash Collateral
Counterparty		Agreements		Accrued Interest	(a)		Pledged/Received	(a)		Net Amount
Barclays Bank PLC	$	(150,317,586)	$	150,317,586		$	—		$	—
Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC		(35,085,299)		35,085,299			—			—
Mitsubishi UFJ Securities (USA) Inc.		(127,094,132)		127,094,132			—			—
RBC Capital Markets LLC		(394,303,250)		394,303,250			—			—
	$	(706,800,267)	$	706,800,267		$	—		$	—

^(a) Net collateral, including accrued interest, with a value of $781,754,288 has been pledged/received in connection with open reverse repurchase agreements. Excess of net collateral pledged to the individual counterparty is not shown for financial reporting purposes.

In the event the counterparty of securities under an MRA files for bankruptcy or becomes insolvent, a fund’s use of the proceeds from the agreement may be restricted while the counterparty, or its trustee or receiver, determines whether or not to enforce a fund’s obligation to repurchase the securities.

5. DERIVATIVE FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS

The Trust engages in various portfolio investment strategies using derivative contracts both to increase the returns of the Trust and/or to manage its exposure to certain risks such as credit risk, equity risk, interest rate risk, foreign currency exchange rate risk, commodity price risk or other risks (e.g., inflation risk). Derivative financial instruments categorized by risk exposure are included in the Schedule of Investments. These contracts may be transacted on an exchange or over-the-counter (“OTC”).

Futures Contracts: Futures contracts are purchased or sold to gain exposure to, or manage exposure to, changes in interest rates (interest rate risk) and changes in the value of equity securities (equity risk) or foreign currencies (foreign currency exchange rate risk).

Futures contracts are exchange-traded agreements between the Trust and a counterparty to buy or sell a specific quantity of an underlying instrument at a specified price and on a specified date. Depending on the terms of a contract, it is settled either through physical delivery of the underlying instrument on the settlement date or by payment of a cash amount on the settlement date. Upon entering into a futures contract, the Trust is required to deposit initial margin with the broker in the form of cash or securities in an amount that varies depending on a contract’s size and risk profile. The initial margin deposit must then be maintained at an established level over the life of the contract. Amounts pledged, which are considered restricted, are included in cash pledged for futures contracts in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

Securities deposited as initial margin are designated in the Schedule of Investments and cash deposited, if any, are shown as cash pledged for futures contracts in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. Pursuant to the contract, the Trust agrees to receive from or pay to the broker an amount of cash equal to the daily fluctuation in market value of the contract (“variation margin”). Variation margin is recorded as unrealized appreciation (depreciation) and, if any, shown as variation margin receivable (or payable) on futures contracts in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. When the contract is closed, a realized gain or loss is recorded in the Statement of Operations equal to the difference between the notional amount of the contract at the time it was opened and the notional amount at the time it was closed. The use of futures contracts involves the risk of an imperfect correlation in the movements in the price of futures contracts and interest rates, foreign currency exchange rates or underlying assets.

6. INVESTMENT ADVISORY AGREEMENT AND OTHER TRANSACTIONS WITH AFFILIATES

Investment Advisory: The Trust entered into an Investment Advisory Agreement with the Manager, the Trust’s investment adviser and an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of BlackRock, Inc. (“BlackRock”), to provide investment advisory and administrative services. The Manager is responsible for the management of the Trust’s portfolio and provides the personnel, facilities, equipment and certain other services necessary to the operations of the Trust.

For such services, the Trust pays the Manager a monthly fee at an annual rate equal to 0.55% of the average daily value of the Trust’s managed assets.

For purposes of calculating this fee, “managed assets” are determined as total assets of the Trust (including any assets attributable to money borrowed for investment purposes) less the sum of its accrued liabilities (other than money borrowed for investment purposes).

24 2 0 2 1   B L A C K R O C K   A N N U A L   R E P O R T   T O   S H A R E H O L D E R S

Notes to Financial Statements(continued)

Distribution Fees: BBN has entered into a Distribution Agreement with BlackRock Investments, LLC (“BRIL”), an affiliate of the Manager, to provide for distribution of BBN common shares on a reasonable best efforts basis through an equity shelf offering (a “Shelf Offering”) (the “Distribution Agreement”). Pursuant to the Distribution Agreement, BRIL will receive commissions with respect to sales of common shares at a commission rate of 1.00% of the gross proceeds of the sale of BBN’s common shares and a portion of such commission is re-allowed to broker-dealers engaged by BRIL. The commissions retained by BRIL during the period ended July 31, 2021, amounted to $84,419.

Expense Waivers: The Manager contractually agreed to waive its investment advisory fees by the amount of investment advisory fees the Trust pays to the Manager indirectly through its investment in affiliated money market funds (the “affiliated money market fund waiver”) through June 30, 2023. The contractual agreement may be terminated upon 90 days’ notice by a majority of the Independent Trustees, or by a vote of a majority of the outstanding voting securities of the Trust. This amount is included in fees waived and/or reimbursed by the Manager in the Statement of Operations. For the year ended July 31, 2021, the amounts waived were $15,143.

The Manager contractually agreed to waive its investment advisory fee with respect to any portion of the Trust’s assets invested in affiliated equity and fixed-income mutual funds and affiliated exchange-traded funds that have a contractual management fee through June 30, 2023. The agreement can be renewed for annual periods thereafter, and may be terminated on 90 days’ notice, each subject to approval by a majority of the Trust’s Independent Trustees. For the year ended July 31, 2021, there were no fees waived by the Manager pursuant to this arrangement.

Trustees and Officers: Certain trustees and/or officers of the Trust are directors and/or officers of BlackRock or its affiliates. The Trust reimburses the Manager for a portion of the compensation paid to the Trust’s Chief Compliance Officer, which is included in Trustees and Officer in the Statement of Operations.

7. PURCHASES AND SALES

For the year ended July 31, 2021, purchases and sales of investments, excluding short-term investments, were $358,260,914 and $336,596,130, respectively.

8. INCOME TAX INFORMATION

It is the Trust’s policy to comply with the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, applicable to regulated investment companies, and to distribute substantially all of its taxable income to its shareholders. Therefore, no U.S. federal income tax provision is required.

The Trust files U.S. federal and various state and local tax returns. No income tax returns are currently under examination. The statute of limitations on the Trust’s U.S. federal tax returns generally remains open for a period of three fiscal years after they are filed. The statutes of limitations on the Trust’s state and local tax returns may remain open for an additional year depending upon the jurisdiction.

Management has analyzed tax laws and regulations and their application to the Trust as of July 31, 2021, inclusive of the open tax return years, and does not believe that there are any uncertain tax positions that require recognition of a tax liability in the Trust’s financial statements.

The tax character of distributions paid was as follows:

Trust Name	Year Ended 07/31/21		Year Ended 07/31/20
BBN
Ordinary income	$	79,862,619	$	76,644,636
Return of Capital		393,632		—
	$	80,256,251	$	76,644,636

As of period end, the tax components of accumulated earnings (loss) were as follows:

Trust Name	Undistributed Ordinary Income		Non-Expiring Capital Loss Carryforwards(a)			Net Unrealized Gains (Losses)(b)		Total
BBN	$	—	$	(91,085,449	)	$	491,322,733	$	400,237,284

^(a) Amounts available to offset future realized capital gains.

^(b) The difference between book-basis and tax-basis net unrealized gains was attributable primarily to the realization for tax purposes of unrealized gains/losses on certain futures contracts, the accrual of income on securities in default, amortization methods for premiums on fixed income securities and the deferral of compensation to Trustees.

During the year ended July 31, 2021, the Trust utilized $14,949,246 of its capital loss carryforward.

As of July 31, 2021, gross unrealized appreciation and depreciation based on cost of investments (including short positions and derivatives, if any) for U.S. federal income tax purposes were as follows:

Trust Name	Tax Cost		Gross Unrealized Appreciation		Gross Unrealized Depreciation			Net Unrealized Appreciation (Depreciation)
BBN	$	1,726,141,357	$	492,298,564	$	(345,624	)	$	491,952,940

N O T E S   T O   F I N A N C I A L   S T A T E M E N T S 25

Notes to Financial Statements(continued)

9. PRINCIPAL RISKS

In the normal course of business, the Trust invests in securities or other instruments and may enter into certain transactions, and such activities subject the Trust to various risks, including among others, fluctuations in the market (market risk) or failure of an issuer to meet all of its obligations. The value of securities or other instruments may also be affected by various factors, including, without limitation: (i) the general economy; (ii) the overall market as well as local, regional or global political and/or social instability; (iii) regulation, taxation or international tax treaties between various countries; or (iv) currency, interest rate and price fluctuations. Local, regional or global events such as war, acts of terrorism, the spread of infectious illness or other public health issues, recessions, or other events could have a significant impact on the Trust and its investments.

The Trust may hold a significant amount of bonds subject to calls by the issuers at defined dates and prices. When bonds are called by issuers and the Trust reinvest the proceeds received, such investments may be in securities with lower yields than the bonds originally held, and correspondingly, could adversely impact the yield and total return performance of the Trust.

The Build America Bonds (“BABs”) market is smaller, less diverse and less liquid than other types of municipal securities. Since the BABs program expired on December 31, 2010 and was not extended, BABs may be less actively traded, which may negatively affect the value of BABs held by the Trust.

The Trust may invest in BABs. Issuers of direct pay BABs held in the Trust’s portfolio receive a subsidy from the U.S. Treasury with respect to interest payment on bonds. There is no assurance that an issuer will comply with the requirements to receive such subsidy or that such subsidy will not be reduced or terminated altogether in the future. As of period end, the subsidy that issuers of direct payment BABs receive from the U.S. Treasury has been reduced as the result of budgetary sequestration, which has resulted, and which may continue to result, in early redemptions of BABs at par value. The early redemption of BABs at par value may result in a potential loss in value for investors of such BABs, including the Trust, who may have purchased the securities at prices above par, and may require the Trust to reinvest redemption proceeds in lower-yielding securities which could reduce the Trust’s income and distributions. Moreover, the elimination or reduction in subsidy from the federal government may adversely affect an issuer’s ability to repay or refinance BABs and the BABs’ credit ratings, which, in turn, may adversely affect the value of the BABs held by the Trust and the Trust’s NAV.

The Trust may invest without limitation in illiquid or less liquid investments or investments in which no secondary market is readily available or which are otherwise illiquid, including private placement securities. The Trust may not be able to readily dispose of such investments at prices that approximate those at which the Trust could sell such investments if they were more widely traded and, as a result of such illiquidity, the Trust may have to sell other investments or engage in borrowing transactions if necessary to raise funds to meet its obligations. Limited liquidity can also affect the market price of investments, thereby adversely affecting the Trust’s NAV and ability to make dividend distributions. Privately issued debt securities are often of below investment grade quality, frequently are unrated and present many of the same risks as investing in below investment grade public debt securities.

Market Risk: The Trust may be exposed to prepayment risk, which is the risk that borrowers may exercise their option to prepay principal earlier than scheduled during periods of declining interest rates, which would force the Trust to reinvest in lower yielding securities. The Trust may also be exposed to reinvestment risk, which is the risk that income from the Trust’s portfolio will decline if the Trust invests the proceeds from matured, traded or called fixed-income securities at market interest rates that are below the Trust portfolio’s current earnings rate.

Municipal securities are subject to the risk that litigation, legislation or other political events, local business or economic conditions, credit rating downgrades, or the bankruptcy of the issuer could have a significant effect on an issuer’s ability to make payments of principal and/or interest or otherwise affect the value of such securities. Municipal securities can be significantly affected by political or economic changes, including changes made in the law after issuance of the securities, as well as uncertainties in the municipal market related to, taxation, legislative changes or the rights of municipal security holders, including in connection with an issuer insolvency. Municipal securities backed by current or anticipated revenues from a specific project or specific assets can be negatively affected by the discontinuance of the tax benefits supporting the project or assets or the inability to collect revenues for the project or from the assets. Municipal securities may be less liquid than taxable bonds, and there may be less publicly available information on the financial condition of municipal security issuers than for issuers of other securities.

An outbreak of respiratory disease caused by a novel coronavirus has developed into a global pandemic and has resulted in closing borders, quarantines, disruptions to supply chains and customer activity, as well as general concern and uncertainty. The impact of this pandemic, and other global health crises that may arise in the future, could affect the economies of many nations, individual companies and the market in general in ways that cannot necessarily be foreseen at the present time. This pandemic may result in substantial market volatility and may adversely impact the prices and liquidity of a fund’s investments. The duration of this pandemic and its effects cannot be determined with certainty.

Counterparty Credit Risk: The Trust may be exposed to counterparty credit risk, or the risk that an entity may fail to or be unable to perform on its commitments related to unsettled or open transactions, including making timely interest and/or principal payments or otherwise honoring its obligations. The Trust manages counterparty credit risk by entering into transactions only with counterparties that the Manager believes have the financial resources to honor their obligations and by monitoring the financial stability of those counterparties. Financial assets, which potentially expose the Trust to market, issuer and counterparty credit risks, consist principally of financial instruments and receivables due from counterparties. The extent of the Trust’s exposure to market, issuer and counterparty credit risks with respect to these financial assets is approximately their value recorded in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities, less any collateral held by the Trust.

A derivative contract may suffer a mark-to-market loss if the value of the contract decreases due to an unfavorable change in the market rates or values of the underlying instrument. Losses can also occur if the counterparty does not perform under the contract.

With exchange-traded futures, there is less counterparty credit risk to the Trust since the exchange or clearinghouse, as counterparty to such instruments, guarantees against a possible default. The clearinghouse stands between the buyer and the seller of the contract; therefore, credit risk is limited to failure of the clearinghouse. While offset rights may exist under applicable law, the Trust does not have a contractual right of offset against a clearing broker or clearinghouse in the event of a default (including the bankruptcy or insolvency). Additionally, credit risk exists in exchange-traded futures with respect to initial and variation margin that is held in a clearing broker’s customer accounts. While clearing brokers are required to segregate customer margin from their own assets, in the event that a clearing broker becomes insolvent or goes into bankruptcy and at that

26 2 0 2 1   B L A C K R O C K   A N N U A L   R E P O R T   T O   S H A R E H O L D E R S

Notes to Financial Statements(continued)

time there is a shortfall in the aggregate amount of margin held by the clearing broker for all its clients, typically the shortfall would be allocated on a pro rata basis across all the clearing broker’s customers, potentially resulting in losses to the Trust.

Concentration Risk: A diversified portfolio, where this is appropriate and consistent with a fund’s objectives, minimizes the risk that a price change of a particular investment will have a material impact on the NAV of a fund. The investment concentrations within the Trust’s portfolio are disclosed in its Schedule of Investments.

The Trust invests a significant portion of its assets in fixed-income securities and/or uses derivatives tied to the fixed-income markets. Changes in market interest rates or economic conditions may affect the value and/or liquidity of such investments. Interest rate risk is the risk that prices of bonds and other fixed-income securities will increase as interest rates fall and decrease as interest rates rise. The Trust may be subject to a greater risk of rising interest rates due to the current period of historically low rates.

LIBOR Transition Risk: The United Kingdom’s Financial Conduct Authority announced a phase out of the London Interbank Offered Rate (“LIBOR”). Although many LIBOR rates will be phased out by the end of 2021, a selection of widely used USD LIBOR rates will continue to be published through June 2023 in order to assist with the transition. The Trust may be exposed to financial instruments tied to LIBOR to determine payment obligations, financing terms, hedging strategies or investment value. The transition process away from LIBOR might lead to increased volatility and illiquidity in markets for, and reduce the effectiveness of new hedges placed against, instruments whose terms currently include LIBOR. The ultimate effect of the LIBOR transition process on the Trust is uncertain.

10. CAPITAL SHARE TRANSACTIONS

The Trust is authorized to issue an unlimited number of shares, all of which were initially classified as Common Shares. The par value for the Trust’s Common Shares is $0.001. The Board is authorized, however, to reclassify any unissued Common Shares to Preferred Shares without the approval of Common Shareholders.

For the periods shown, shares issued and outstanding increased by the following amounts as a result of dividend reinvestment:

	Year Ended
Trust Name	07/31/21		07/31/20
BBN		105,984		42,857

The Trust participates in an open market share repurchase program (the “Repurchase Program”). From December 1, 2019 through November 30, 2020, the Trust may repurchase up to 5% of its outstanding common shares under the Repurchase Program, based on common shares outstanding as of the close of business on November 30, 2019, subject to certain conditions. From December 1, 2020 through November 30, 2021, the Trust may repurchase up to 5% of its outstanding common shares under the Repurchase Program, based on common shares outstanding as of the close of business on November 30, 2020, subject to certain conditions. There is no assurance that the Trust will purchase shares in any particular amounts. For the year ended July 31, 2021, the Trust did not repurchase any shares.

BBN has filed a prospectus with the SEC allowing it to issue an additional 20,000,000 Common Shares through an equity Shelf Offering. Under the Shelf Offering, BBN, subject to market conditions, may raise additional equity capital from time to time in varying amounts and utilizing various offering methods at a net price at or above the Trust’s NAV per Common Share (calculated within 48 hours of pricing). As of period end, 18,324,697 Common Shares remain available for issuance under the Shelf Offering. During the period ended July 31, 2021, BBN issued 1,675,303 shares under the Shelf Offering. See Additional Information - Shelf Offering Program for additional information about the Shelf Offering.

Initial costs incurred by BBN in connection with its shelf offering are recorded as “Deferred offering costs” in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities. As shares are sold, a portion of the costs attributable to the shares sold will be charged against paid-in-capital. Any remaining deferred charges at the end of the shelf offering period will be charged to expense.

11. SUBSEQUENT EVENTS

Management’s evaluation of the impact of all subsequent events on the Trust’s financial statements was completed through the date the financial statements were issued and the following items were noted:

The Trust declared and paid or will pay distributions to Common Shareholders as follows:

Trust Name	Declaration Date		Record Date		Payable/ Paid Date		Dividend Per Common Share
BBN
		08/02/21		08/16/21		08/31/21	$	0.117000
		09/01/21		09/15/21		09/30/21		0.117000

N O T E S   T O   F I N A N C I A L   S T A T E M E N T S 27

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Shareholders and Board of Trustees of BlackRock Taxable Municipal Bond Trust:

Opinion on the Financial Statements and Financial Highlights

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities of BlackRock Taxable Municipal Bond Trust (the “Fund”), including the schedule of investments, as of July 31, 2021, the related statements of operations and cash flows for the year then ended, the statements of changes in net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, the financial highlights for each of the five years in the period then ended, and the related notes. In our opinion, the financial statements and financial highlights present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Fund as of July 31, 2021, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for the year then ended, the changes in its net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the five years in the period then ended, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Basis for Opinion

These financial statements and financial highlights are the responsibility of the Fund’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Fund’s financial statements and financial highlights based on our audits. We are a public accounting firm registered with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) (PCAOB) and are required to be independent with respect to the Fund in accordance with the U.S. federal securities laws and the applicable rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the PCAOB.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the PCAOB. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements and financial highlights are free of material misstatement, whether due to error or fraud. The Fund is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. As part of our audits we are required to obtain an understanding of internal control over financial reporting but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Fund’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion.

Our audits included performing procedures to assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements and financial highlights, whether due to error or fraud, and performing procedures that respond to those risks. Such procedures included examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements and financial highlights. Our audits also included evaluating the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements and financial highlights. Our procedures included confirmation of securities owned as of July 31, 2021, by correspondence with the custodian and brokers; when replies were not received from brokers, we performed other auditing procedures. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

September 21, 2021

We have served as the auditor of one or more BlackRock investment companies since 1992.

28 2 0 2 1   B L A C K R O C K   A N N U A L   R E P O R T   T O   S H A R E H O L D E R S

Important Tax Information(unaudited)

The Trust hereby designates the following amount, or maximum amount allowable by law, as interest income eligible to be treated as a section 163(j) interest dividend for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2021:

Trust Name	Interest Dividend
BBN	$	79,862,619

The Trust hereby designates the following amount, or maximum amount allowable by law, as interest-related dividends eligible for exemption from U.S. withholding tax for nonresident aliens and foreign corporations for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2021:

Trust Name	Interest Related Dividends
BBN	$	79,862,619

I M P O R T A N T   T A X   I N F  O R M A T I O N 29

Disclosure of Investment Advisory Agreement

The Board of Trustees (the “Board,” the members of which are referred to as “Board Members”) of BlackRock Taxable Municipal Bond Trust (the “Fund”) met on May 4, 2021 (the “May Meeting”) and June 8-9, 2021 (the “June Meeting”) to consider the approval to continue the investment advisory agreement (the “Advisory Agreement” or (the “Agreement”) between the Fund and BlackRock Advisors, LLC (the “Manager” or “BlackRock”), the Fund’s investment advisor.

The Approval Process:

Consistent with the requirements of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “1940 Act”), the Board considers the approval of the continuation of the Agreement for the Fund on an annual basis. The Board members whom are not “interested persons” of the Fund, as defined in the 1940 Act, are considered independent Board members (the “Independent Board Members”). The Board’s consideration entailed a year-long deliberative process during which the Board and its committees assessed BlackRock’s various services to the Fund, including through the review of written materials and oral presentations, and the review of additional information provided in response to requests from the Independent Board Members. The Board had four quarterly meetings per year, each typically extending for two days, as well as additional ad hoc meetings and executive sessions throughout the year, as needed. The committees of the Board similarly met throughout the year. The Board also had a fifth one-day meeting to consider specific information surrounding the renewal of the Agreement. In particular, the Board assessed, among other things, the nature, extent and quality of the services provided to the Fund by BlackRock, BlackRock’s personnel and affiliates, including (as applicable): investment management services; accounting oversight; administrative and shareholder services; oversight of the Fund’s service providers; risk management and oversight; and legal, regulatory and compliance services. Throughout the year, including during the contract renewal process, the Independent Board Members were advised by independent legal counsel, and met with independent legal counsel in various executive sessions outside of the presence of BlackRock’s management.

During the year, the Board, acting directly and through its committees, considered information that was relevant to its annual consideration of the renewal of the Agreement, including the services and support provided by BlackRock to the Fund and its shareholders. BlackRock also furnished additional information to the Board in response to specific questions from the Board. Among the matters the Board considered were: (a) investment performance for one-year, three-year, five-year, and/or since inception periods, as applicable, against peer funds, relevant benchmarks, and other performance metrics, as applicable, as well as BlackRock senior management’s and portfolio managers’ analyses of the reasons for any outperformance or underperformance relative to its peers, benchmarks, and other performance metrics, as applicable; (b) leverage management, as applicable; (c) fees, including advisory, administration, if applicable, and other amounts paid to BlackRock and its affiliates by the Fund for services; (d) Fund operating expenses and how BlackRock allocates expenses to the Fund; (e) the resources devoted to risk oversight of, and compliance reports relating to, implementation of the Fund’s investment objective, policies and restrictions, and meeting regulatory requirements; (f) BlackRock’s and the Fund’s adherence to applicable compliance policies and procedures; (g) the nature, character and scope of non-investment management services provided by BlackRock and its affiliates and the estimated cost of such services, as available; (h) BlackRock’s and other service providers’ internal controls and risk and compliance oversight mechanisms; (i) BlackRock’s implementation of the proxy voting policies approved by the Board; (j) execution quality of portfolio transactions; (k) BlackRock’s implementation of the Fund’s valuation and liquidity procedures; (l) an analysis of management fees paid to BlackRock for products with similar investment mandates across the open-end fund, closed-end fund, sub-advised mutual fund, collective investment trust and institutional separate account product channels, as applicable, and the similarities and differences between these products and the services provided as compared to the Fund; (m) BlackRock’s compensation methodology for its investment professionals and the incentives and accountability it creates, along with investment professionals’ investments in the fund(s) they manage; (n) periodic updates on BlackRock’s business; and (o) the Fund’s market discount/premium compared to peer funds.

Prior to and in preparation for the May Meeting, the Board received and reviewed materials specifically relating to the renewal of the Agreement. The Independent Board Members are continuously engaged in a process with their independent legal counsel and BlackRock to review the nature and scope of the information provided to the Board to better assist its deliberations. The materials provided in connection with the May Meeting included, among other things: (a) information independently compiled and prepared by Broadridge Financial Solutions, Inc. (“Broadridge”), based on Lipper classifications, regarding the Fund’s fees and expenses as compared with a peer group of funds as determined by Broadridge (“Expense Peers”) and the investment performance of the Fund as compared with a peer group of funds (“Performance Peers”); (b) information on the composition of the Expense Peers and Performance Peers and a description of Broadridge’s methodology; (c) information on the estimated profits realized by BlackRock and its affiliates pursuant to the Agreement and a discussion of fall-out benefits to BlackRock and its affiliates; (d) a general analysis provided by BlackRock concerning investment management fees received in connection with other types of investment products, such as institutional accounts, sub-advised mutual funds, closed-end funds, and open-end funds, under similar investment mandates, as applicable; (e) a review of non-management fees; (f) the existence, impact and sharing of potential economies of scale, if any, with the Fund; (g) a summary of aggregate amounts paid by the Fund to BlackRock; and (h) various additional information requested by the Board as appropriate regarding BlackRock’s and the Fund’s operations.

At the May Meeting, the Board reviewed materials relating to its consideration of the Agreement. As a result of the discussions that occurred during the May Meeting, and as a culmination of the Board’s year-long deliberative process, the Board presented BlackRock with questions and requests for additional information. BlackRock responded to these questions and requests with additional written information in advance of the June Meeting.

At the June Meeting, the Board concluded its assessment of, among other things: (a) the nature, extent and quality of the services provided by BlackRock; (b) the investment performance of the Fund as compared to its Performance Peers and to other metrics, as applicable; (c) the advisory fee and the estimated cost of the services and estimated profits realized by BlackRock and its affiliates from their relationship with the Fund; (d) the Fund’s fees and expenses compared to its Expense Peers; (e) the existence and sharing of potential economies of scale; (f) any fall-out benefits to BlackRock and its affiliates as a result of BlackRock’s relationship with the Fund; and (g) other factors deemed relevant by the Board Members.

The Board also considered other matters it deemed important to the approval process, such as other payments made to BlackRock or its affiliates relating to securities lending and cash management, and BlackRock’s services related to the valuation and pricing of Fund portfolio holdings. The Board noted the willingness of BlackRock’s personnel to engage in open, candid discussions with the Board. The Board Members did not identify any particular information, or any single factor as determinative, and each Board Member may have attributed different weights to the various items and factors considered.

30 2 0 2 1   B L A C K R O C K   A N N U A L   R E P O R T   T O   S H A R E H O L D E R S

Disclosure of Investment Advisory Agreement(continued)

A. Nature, Extent and Quality of the Services Provided by BlackRock

The Board, including the Independent Board Members, reviewed the nature, extent and quality of services provided by BlackRock, including the investment advisory services, and the resulting performance of the Fund. Throughout the year, the Board compared Fund performance to the performance of a comparable group of closed-end funds, relevant benchmarks, and performance metrics, as applicable. The Board met with BlackRock’s senior management personnel responsible for investment activities, including the senior investment officers. The Board also reviewed the materials provided by the Fund’s portfolio management team discussing the Fund’s performance, investment strategies and outlook.

The Board considered, among other factors, with respect to BlackRock: the number, education and experience of investment personnel generally and the Fund’s portfolio management team; research capabilities; investments by portfolio managers in the funds they manage; portfolio trading capabilities; use of technology; commitment to compliance; credit analysis capabilities; risk analysis and oversight capabilities; and the approach to training and retaining portfolio managers and other research, advisory and management personnel. The Board also considered BlackRock’s overall risk management program, including the continued efforts of BlackRock and its affiliates to address cybersecurity risks and the role of BlackRock’s Risk & Quantitative Analysis Group. The Board engaged in a review of BlackRock’s compensation structure with respect to the Fund’s portfolio management team and BlackRock’s ability to attract and retain high-quality talent and create performance incentives.

In addition to investment advisory services, the Board considered the nature and quality of the administrative and other non-investment advisory services provided to the Fund. BlackRock and its affiliates provide the Fund with certain administrative, shareholder and other services (in addition to any such services provided to the Fund by third parties) and officers and other personnel as are necessary for the operations of the Fund. In particular, BlackRock and its affiliates provide the Fund with administrative services including, among others: (i) responsibility for disclosure documents, such as the prospectus and the statement of additional information in connection with the initial public offering, registration statements in connection with the Fund’s equity shelf program and periodic shareholder reports; (ii) preparing communications with analysts to support secondary market trading of the Fund; (iii) oversight of daily accounting and pricing; (iv) responsibility for periodic filings with regulators and stock exchanges; (v) overseeing and coordinating the activities of third-party service providers including, among others, the Fund’s custodian, fund accountant, transfer agent, and auditor; (vi) organizing Board meetings and preparing the materials for such Board meetings; (vii) providing legal and compliance support; (viii) furnishing analytical and other support to assist the Board in its consideration of strategic issues such as the merger, consolidation or repurposing of certain closed-end funds; and (ix) performing or managing administrative functions necessary for the operation of the Fund, such as tax reporting, expense management, fulfilling regulatory filing requirements, and shareholder call center and other services. The Board reviewed the structure and duties of BlackRock’s fund administration, shareholder services, and legal and compliance departments and considered BlackRock’s policies and procedures for assuring compliance with applicable laws and regulations. The Board considered the operation of BlackRock’s business continuity plans, including in light of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

B. The Investment Performance of the Fund and BlackRock

The Board, including the Independent Board Members, reviewed and considered the performance history of the Fund throughout the year and at the May Meeting. In preparation for the May Meeting, the Board was provided with reports independently prepared by Broadridge, which included an analysis of the Fund’s performance as of December 31, 2020, as compared to its Performance Peers. The performance information is based on net asset value (NAV), and utilizes Lipper data. Lipper’s methodology calculates a fund’s total return assuming distributions are reinvested on the ex-date at a fund’s ex-date NAV. Broadridge ranks funds in quartiles, ranging from first to fourth, where first is the most desirable quartile position and fourth is the least desirable. In connection with its review, the Board received and reviewed information regarding the investment performance of the Fund as compared to its Performance Peers and a custom peer group of funds as defined by BlackRock (“Customized Peer Group”) and a composite measuring a blend of total return and yield (“Composite”). The Board and its Performance Oversight Committee regularly review and meet with Fund management to discuss the performance of the Fund throughout the year.

In evaluating performance, the Board focused particular attention on funds with less favorable performance records. The Board also noted that while it found the data provided by Broadridge generally useful, it recognized the limitations of such data, including in particular, that notable differences may exist between a fund and its Performance Peers (for example, the investment objectives and strategies). Further, the Board recognized that the performance data reflects a snapshot of a period as of a particular date and that selecting a different performance period could produce significantly different results. The Board also acknowledged that long-term performance could be impacted by even one period of significant outperformance or underperformance, and that a single investment theme could have the ability to disproportionately affect long-term performance.

The Board noted that for the one-, three- and five-year periods reported, the Fund ranked in the second, first and first quartiles, respectively, against its Customized Peer Group Composite. The Board noted that BlackRock believes that the Customized Peer Group Composite is an appropriate performance metric for the Fund, and that BlackRock has explained its rationale for this belief to the Board.

C. Consideration of the Advisory/Management Fees and the Estimated Cost of the Services and Estimated Profits Realized by BlackRock and its Affiliates from their Relationship with the Fund

The Board, including the Independent Board Members, reviewed the Fund’s contractual management fee rate compared with those of its Expense Peers. The contractual management fee rate represents a combination of the advisory fee and any administrative fees, before taking into account any reimbursements or fee waivers. The Board also compared the Fund’s total expense ratio, as well as its actual management fee rate as a percentage of managed assets, which is the total assets of the Fund (including any assets attributable to money borrowed for investment purposes) minus the sum of the Fund’s accrued liabilities (other than money borrowed for investment purposes) to those of its Expense Peers. The total expense ratio represents a fund’s total net operating expenses, excluding any investment related expenses. The total expense ratio gives effect to any expense reimbursements or fee waivers, and the actual management fee rate gives effect to any management fee reimbursements or waivers. The Board considered the services provided and the fees charged by BlackRock and its affiliates to other types of clients with similar investment mandates, as applicable, including institutional accounts and sub-advised mutual funds (including mutual funds sponsored by third parties).

The Board received and reviewed statements relating to BlackRock’s financial condition. The Board reviewed BlackRock’s profitability methodology and was also provided with an estimated profitability analysis that detailed the revenues earned and the expenses incurred by BlackRock for services provided to the Fund. The Board reviewed

D I S C L O S U R E   O F   I N V  E S T M E N T   A D V I S O R Y   A G R E E M E N T 31

Disclosure of Investment Advisory Agreement(continued)

BlackRock’s estimated profitability with respect to the Fund and other funds the Board currently oversees for the year ended December 31, 2020 compared to available aggregate estimated profitability data provided for the prior two years. The Board reviewed BlackRock’s estimated profitability with respect to certain other U.S. fund complexes managed by the Manager and/or its affiliates. The Board reviewed BlackRock’s assumptions and methodology of allocating expenses in the estimated profitability analysis, noting the inherent limitations in allocating costs among various advisory products. The Board recognized that profitability may be affected by numerous factors including, among other things, fee waivers and expense reimbursements by the Manager, the types of funds managed, precision of expense allocations and business mix. The Board thus recognized that calculating and comparing profitability at the individual fund level is difficult.

The Board noted that, in general, individual fund or product line profitability of other advisors is not publicly available. The Board reviewed BlackRock’s overall operating margin, in general, compared to that of certain other publicly traded asset management firms. The Board considered the differences between BlackRock and these other firms, including the contribution of technology at BlackRock, BlackRock’s expense management, and the relative product mix.

The Board considered whether BlackRock has the financial resources necessary to attract and retain high quality investment management personnel to perform its obligations under the Agreement and to continue to provide the high quality of services that is expected by the Board. The Board further considered factors including but not limited to BlackRock’s commitment of time, assumption of risk, and liability profile in servicing the Fund, including in contrast to what is required of BlackRock with respect to other products with similar investment mandates across the open-end fund, closed-end fund, sub-advised mutual fund, collective investment trust, and institutional separate account product channels, as applicable.

The Board noted that the Fund’s contractual management fee rate ranked in the first quartile, and that the actual management fee rate and total expense ratio each ranked in the first quartile relative to the Expense Peers.

D. Economies of Scale

The Board, including the Independent Board Members, considered the extent to which economies of scale might be realized as the assets of the Fund increase. The Board also considered the extent to which the Fund benefits from such economies of scale in a variety of ways, and whether there should be changes in the advisory fee rate or breakpoint structure in order to enable the Fund to more fully participate in these economies of scale. The Board considered the Fund’s asset levels and whether the current fee was appropriate.

Based on the Board’s review and consideration of the issue, the Board concluded that most closed-end funds do not have fund level breakpoints because closed-end funds generally do not experience substantial growth after the initial public offering. Closed-end funds are typically priced at scale at a fund’s inception. The Board noted that although the Fund may from time-to-time make additional share offerings pursuant to its equity shelf program, the growth of the Fund’s assets will occur primarily through the appreciation of its investment portfolio.

E. Other Factors Deemed Relevant by the Board Members

The Board, including the Independent Board Members, also took into account other ancillary or “fall-out” benefits that BlackRock or its affiliates may derive from BlackRock’s respective relationships with the Fund, both tangible and intangible, such as BlackRock’s ability to leverage its investment professionals who manage other portfolios and its risk management personnel, an increase in BlackRock’s profile in the investment advisory community, and the engagement of BlackRock’s affiliates as service providers to the Fund, including for administrative, securities lending and cash management services. The Board also considered BlackRock’s overall operations and its efforts to expand the scale of, and improve the quality of, its operations. The Board also noted that, subject to applicable law, BlackRock may use and benefit from third-party research obtained by soft dollars generated by certain registered fund transactions to assist in managing all or a number of its other client accounts.

In connection with its consideration of the Agreement, the Board also received information regarding BlackRock’s brokerage and soft dollar practices. The Board received reports from BlackRock which included information on brokerage commissions and trade execution practices throughout the year.

The Board noted the competitive nature of the closed-end fund marketplace, and that shareholders are able to sell their Fund shares in the secondary market if they believe that the Fund’s fees and expenses are too high or if they are dissatisfied with the performance of the Fund.

The Board also considered the various notable initiatives and projects BlackRock performed in connection with its closed-end fund product line. These initiatives included developing equity shelf programs; efforts to eliminate product overlap with fund mergers; ongoing services to manage leverage that has become increasingly complex; periodic evaluation of share repurchases and other support initiatives for certain BlackRock funds; and continued communication efforts with shareholders, fund analysts and financial advisers. With respect to the latter, the Independent Board Members noted BlackRock’s continued commitment to supporting the secondary market for the common shares of its closed-end funds through a comprehensive secondary market communication program designed to raise investor and analyst awareness and understanding of closed-end funds. BlackRock’s support services included, among other things: sponsoring and participating in conferences; communicating with closed-end fund analysts covering the BlackRock funds throughout the year; providing marketing and product updates for the closed-end funds; and maintaining and enhancing its closed-end fund website.

Conclusion

The Board, including the Independent Board Members, unanimously approved the continuation of the Advisory Agreement between the Manager and the Fund for a one-year term ending June 30, 2022. Based upon its evaluation of all of the aforementioned factors in their totality, as well as other information, the Board, including the Independent Board Members, was satisfied that the terms of the Agreement were fair and reasonable and in the best interest of the Fund and its shareholders. In arriving at its decision to approve the Agreement, the Board did not identify any single factor or group of factors as all-important or controlling, but considered all factors together, and different Board Members may have attributed different weights to the various factors considered. The Independent Board Members were also assisted by the advice of independent legal counsel in making this determination.

32 2 0 2 1   B L A C K R O C K   A N N U A L   R E P O R T   T O   S H A R E H O L D E R S

Investment Objectives, Policies and Risks

Recent Changes

The following information is a summary of certain changes since July 31, 2020. This information may not reflect all of the changes that have occurred since you purchased the Trust.

During the Trust’s most recent fiscal year, there were no material changes in the Trust’s investment objectives or policies that have not been approved by shareholders or in the principal risk factors associated with investment in the Trust.

Investment Objectives and Policies

BlackRock Taxable Municipal Bond Trust (BBN)

The Trust’s primary investment objective is to seek high current income, with a secondary objective of capital appreciation. There can be no assurance that the Trust will achieve its investment objectives. The Trust’s investment objectives are not fundamental and may be changed by its Board of Trustees (the “Board”).

The Trust seeks to achieve its investment objectives by investing primarily in a portfolio of taxable municipal securities, including Build America Bonds (“BABs”), issued by state and local governments to finance capital projects such as public schools, roads, transportation infrastructure, bridges, ports and public buildings. The Trust believes there could be an opportunity to capitalize on the market for BABs by investing in taxable municipal issues at attractive market yields relative to the yields on equivalently rated corporate bonds. BlackRock Advisors, LLC (the “Manager”) will use its in-depth expertise in the municipal securities market to assemble the Trust’s portfolio. As market conditions permit and based upon the Manager’s assessment of the interest rate environment, the Trust may opportunistically hedge its duration in an attempt to protect against the risk of rising interest rates, although no assurance can be given that this strategy will be successful. The Manager will not manage duration to a benchmark. Duration, in comparison to maturity (which is the date on which the issuer of a debt instrument is obligated to repay the principal amount), is a measure of the price volatility of a debt instrument as a result in changes in market rates of interest, based on the weighted average timing of the instrument’s expected principal and interest payments. Duration differs from maturity in that it takes into account a security’s yield, coupon payments and its principal payments in addition to the amount of time until the security finally matures. As the value of a security changes over time, so will its duration.

The Trust may invest in taxable municipal securities and tax-exempt municipal securities, including municipal bonds and notes, certificates of participation, other securities issued to finance and refinance public projects, and other related securities and derivative instruments creating exposure to municipal bonds, notes and securities. Under normal market conditions, the Trust will invest at least 80% of its Managed Assets in taxable municipal securities, which include BABs. This investment policy may be changed by the Board upon 60 days’ prior notice to shareholders. The Trust may invest up to 20% of its Managed Assets in securities other than taxable municipal securities. Such other securities include tax-exempt securities, U.S. Treasury securities, obligations of the U.S. Government, its agencies and instrumentalities and corporate bonds issued by issuers that have, in the Manager’s view, typically been associated with or sold in the municipal market. “Managed Assets” means the total assets of the Trust (including any assets attributable to money borrowed for investment purposes) minus the sum of the Trust’s accrued liabilities (other than money borrowed for investment purposes). For the avoidance of doubt, assets attributable to money borrowed for investment purposes includes the portion of the Trust’s assets in an issuer of tender option bonds of which the Trust owns the TOB Residual (as defined below).

Under normal market conditions, the Trust will invest at least 80% of its Managed Assets in securities that at the time of investment are investment grade quality. Investment grade quality securities are securities rated within the four highest grades (“Baa” or “BBB” or better) by Moody’s Investor Service Inc. (“Moody’s”), S&P Global Ratings (“S&P”), Fitch Ratings, Inc. (“Fitch”) or securities that are unrated but judged to be of comparable quality by the Manager. The Trust may invest up to 20% of its Managed Assets in securities that at the time of investment are rated below investment grade quality by Moody’s, S&P or Fitch or that are unrated but judged to be of comparable quality by the Manager. Certain of the Trust’s investments may be illiquid.

BABs are taxable municipal securities issued by state and local governments. Municipal securities include, among other things, bonds, notes, leases and certificates of participation. Municipal securities may be structured as callable or non-callable, may have payment forms that include fixed-coupon, variable rate and zero coupon, and may include capital appreciation bonds, floating rate securities, inverse floating rate securities (including TOB Residuals), inflation-linked securities and other derivative instruments that replicate investment exposure to such securities. BABs, as municipal securities, may be structured in any of the foregoing ways and new versions of BABs may be offered in the future. The Trust may invest in any of these BABs or municipal securities, and may acquire them through investments in pooled vehicles, partnerships or other investment companies. The Trust may also purchase BABs and other municipal securities representing a wide range of sectors and purposes.

The Trust may purchase municipal securities that are additionally secured by insurance, bank credit agreements or escrow accounts. The credit quality of companies which provide these credit enhancements will affect the value of those securities. Although the insurance feature reduces certain financial risks, the premiums for insurance and the higher market price paid for insured obligations may reduce the Trust’s income. Insurance generally will be obtained from insurers with a claims-paying ability rated Baa or BBB or better by Moody’s, S&P or Fitch. The insurance feature does not guarantee the market value of the insured obligations or the net asset value of the common shares. The Trust may purchase insured securities and may purchase insurance for bonds in its portfolio.

The credit quality policies noted above apply only at the time a security is purchased, and the Trust is not required to dispose of a security in the event that a rating agency downgrades its assessment of the credit characteristics of a particular issue. In determining whether to retain or sell such a security, the Manager may consider such factors as its assessment of the credit quality of the issuer of such security, the price at which such security could be sold and the rating, if any, assigned to such security by other rating agencies.

The Trust may implement various temporary “defensive” strategies at times when the Manager determines that conditions in the markets or the termination of the Trust makes pursuing the Trust’s basic investment strategy inconsistent with the best interests of its shareholders. These strategies may include investing all or a portion of the Trust’s assets in U.S. Government obligations and high-quality, short-term debt securities that may be either tax-exempt or taxable.

I N V E S T M E N T   O B J E C T I V E S ,   P O L I C I E S   A N D   R I S K S 33

Investment Objectives, Policies and Risks  (continued)

The Trust originally sought to achieve its investment objectives by investing primarily in a portfolio of BABs, which are taxable municipal securities issued pursuant to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Given the uncertainty around the BABs program at the time of the Trust’s launch in 2010, the Trust’s initial public offering prospectus included a Contingent Review Provision. For any 24-month period, if there were no new issuances of BABs or other analogous taxable municipal securities, the Board would undertake an evaluation of potential actions with respect to the Trust (the “Contingent Review Provision”). Under the Contingent Review Provision, such potential action included changes to the Trust’s non-fundamental investment policies to broaden its primary investment focus to include taxable municipal securities generally. The BABs program expired on December 31, 2010 and was not renewed. Accordingly, there have been no new issuances of BABs since that date. Pursuant to the Contingent Review Provision, on June 12, 2015, the Board approved a proposal to amend the Trust’s 80% investment policy to include all taxable municipal securities, including BABs, and to change the name of the Trust, which changes became effective on August 25, 2015.

Leverage: The Trust may utilize leverage to seek to enhance the yield and net asset value of its common shares. However, this objective cannot be achieved in all interest rate environments. The Trust currently leverages its assets through the use of residual interest municipal tender option bonds (“TOB Residuals”), which are derivative interests in municipal bonds. The TOB Residuals in which the Trust will invest pay interest or income that, in the opinion of counsel to the issuer of such TOB Residuals, is exempt from regular U.S. federal income tax. The Trust may use combined economic leverage of up to 100% of its net assets (50% of its Managed Assets), all or a portion of which may be effected through the use of TOB Residuals.

The Trust may utilize reverse repurchase agreements when it is anticipated that the interest income to be earned from the investment of the proceeds of the transaction is greater than the interest expense of the transaction.

The Trust may borrow through a credit facility.

The Trust may also borrow money as a temporary measure for extraordinary or emergency purposes, including the payment of dividends and the settlement of securities transactions which otherwise might require untimely dispositions of Trust securities.

Risk Factors

This section contains a discussion of the general risks of investing in the Trust. The net asset value and market price of, and dividends paid on, the common shares will fluctuate with and be affected by, among other things, the risks more fully described below. As with any fund, there can be no guarantee that the Trust will meet its investment objective or that the Trust’s performance will be positive for any period of time.

Investment and Market Discount Risk: An investment in the Trust’s common shares is subject to investment risk, including the possible loss of the entire amount that you invest. As with any stock, the price of the Trust’s common shares will fluctuate with market conditions and other factors. If shares are sold, the price received may be more or less than the original investment. Common shares are designed for long-term investors and the Trust should not be treated as a trading vehicle. Shares of closed-end management investment companies frequently trade at a discount from their net asset value. This risk is separate and distinct from the risk that the Trust’s net asset value could decrease as a result of its investment activities. At any point in time an investment in the Trust’s common shares may be worth less than the original amount invested, even after taking into account distributions paid by the Trust. During periods in which the Trust may use leverage, the Trust’s investment, market discount and certain other risks will be magnified.

Debt Securities Risk: Debt securities, such as bonds, involve interest rate risk, credit risk, extension risk, and prepayment risk, among other things.

• Interest Rate Risk — The market value of bonds and other fixed-income securities changes in response to interest rate changes and other factors. Interest rate risk is the risk that prices of bonds and other fixed-income securities will increase as interest rates fall and decrease as interest rates rise.

The Trust may be subject to a greater risk of rising interest rates due to the current period of historically low rates. For example, if interest rates increase by 1%, assuming a current portfolio duration of ten years, and all other factors being equal, the value of the Trust’s investments would be expected to decrease by 10%. The magnitude of these fluctuations in the market price of bonds and other fixed-income securities is generally greater for those securities with longer maturities. Fluctuations in the market price of the Trust’s investments will not affect interest income derived from instruments already owned by the Trust, but will be reflected in the Trust’s net asset value. The Trust may lose money if short-term or long-term interest rates rise sharply in a manner not anticipated by Trust management.

To the extent the Trust invests in debt securities that may be prepaid at the option of the obligor (such as mortgage-backed securities), the sensitivity of such securities to changes in interest rates may increase (to the detriment of the Trust) when interest rates rise. Moreover, because rates on certain floating rate debt securities typically reset only periodically, changes in prevailing interest rates (and particularly sudden and significant changes) can be expected to cause some fluctuations in the net asset value of the Trust to the extent that it invests in floating rate debt securities.

These basic principles of bond prices also apply to U.S. Government securities. A security backed by the “full faith and credit” of the U.S. Government is guaranteed only as to its stated interest rate and face value at maturity, not its current market price. Just like other fixed-income securities, government-guaranteed securities will fluctuate in value when interest rates change.

A general rise in interest rates has the potential to cause investors to move out of fixed-income securities on a large scale, which may increase redemptions from funds that hold large amounts of fixed-income securities. Heavy redemptions could cause the Trust to sell assets at inopportune times or at a loss or depressed value and could hurt the Trust’s performance.

• Credit Risk — Credit risk refers to the possibility that the issuer of a debt security (i.e., the borrower) will not be able to make payments of interest and principal when due. Changes in an issuer’s credit rating or the market’s perception of an issuer’s creditworthiness may also affect the value of the Trust’s investment in that issuer. The degree of credit risk depends on both the financial condition of the issuer and the terms of the obligation.

34 2 0 2 1   B L A C K R O C K   A N N U A L   R E P O R T   T O   S H A R E H O L D E R S

Investment Objectives, Policies and Risks  (continued)

• Extension Risk — When interest rates rise, certain obligations will be paid off by the obligor more slowly than anticipated, causing the value of these obligations to fall.

• Prepayment Risk — When interest rates fall, certain obligations will be paid off by the obligor more quickly than originally anticipated, and the Trust may have to invest the proceeds in securities with lower yields.

Build America Bonds Risk: Build America Bonds involve similar risks as municipal bonds, including credit and market risk. In particular, should a Build America Bond’s issuer fail to continue to meet the applicable requirements imposed on the bonds as provided by the ARRA , it is possible that such issuer may not receive federal cash subsidy payments, impairing the issuer’s ability to make scheduled interest payments. The Build America Bond program expired on December 31, 2010 and no further issuance is permitted unless Congress renews the program. As a result, the number of available Build America Bonds is limited, which may negatively affect the value of the Build America Bonds. In addition, there can be no assurance that Build America Bonds will be actively traded. It is difficult to predict the extent to which a market for such bonds will continue, meaning that Build America Bonds may experience greater illiquidity than other municipal obligations. The Build America Bonds outstanding as of December 31, 2010 will continue to be eligible for the federal interest rate subsidy, which continues for the life of the Build America Bonds; however, no bonds issued following expiration of the Build America Bond program will be eligible for the U.S. federal tax subsidy.

Municipal Securities Risks: Municipal securities risks include the ability of the issuer to repay the obligation, the relative lack of information about certain issuers of municipal securities, and the possibility of future legislative changes which could affect the market for and value of municipal securities. These risks include:

• General Obligation Bonds Risks — Timely payments depend on the issuer’s credit quality, ability to raise tax revenues and ability to maintain an adequate tax base.

• Revenue Bonds Risks — These payments depend on the money earned by the particular facility or class of facilities, or the amount of revenues derived from another source.

• Private Activity Bonds Risks — Municipalities and other public authorities issue private activity bonds to finance development of industrial facilities for use by a private enterprise. The private enterprise pays the principal and interest on the bond, and the issuer does not pledge its full faith, credit and taxing power for repayment. The Trust’s investments may consist of private activity bonds that may subject certain shareholders to an alternative minimum tax.

• Moral Obligation Bonds Risks — Moral obligation bonds are generally issued by special purpose public authorities of a state or municipality. If the issuer is unable to meet its obligations, repayment of these bonds becomes a moral commitment, but not a legal obligation, of the state or municipality.

• Municipal Notes Risks — Municipal notes are shorter term municipal debt obligations. If there is a shortfall in the anticipated proceeds, the notes may not be fully repaid and the Trust may lose money.

• Municipal Lease Obligations Risks — In a municipal lease obligation, the issuer agrees to make payments when due on the lease obligation. Although the issuer does not pledge its unlimited taxing power for payment of the lease obligation, the lease obligation is secured by the leased property.

• Tax-Exempt Status Risk — The Trust and its investment manager will rely on the opinion of issuers’ bond counsel and, in the case of derivative securities, sponsors’ counsel, on the tax-exempt status of interest on municipal bonds and payments under derivative securities. Neither the Trust nor its investment manager will independently review the bases for those tax opinions, which may ultimately be determined to be incorrect and subject the Trust and its shareholders to substantial tax liabilities.

Reinvestment Risk: Proceeds from a current investment of the Trust, both interest payments and principal payments, may be reinvested in instruments that offer lower yields than the current investment due in part to market conditions and the interest rate environment at the time of reinvestment. Reinvestment risk is greater on short- to intermediate-term loans.

Insurance Risk: Insurance guarantees that interest payments on a municipal security will be made on time and that the principal will be repaid when the security matures. However, insurance does not protect against losses caused by declines in a municipal security’s value. The Trust cannot be certain that any insurance company will make the payments it guarantees. If a municipal security’s insurer fails to fulfill its obligations or loses its credit rating, the value of the security could drop.

Junk Bonds Risk: Although junk bonds generally pay higher rates of interest than investment grade bonds, junk bonds are high risk investments that are considered speculative and may cause income and principal losses for the Trust.

Zero Coupon Securities Risk: While interest payments are not made on such securities, holders of such securities are deemed to have received income (“phantom income”) annually, notwithstanding that cash may not be received currently. The effect of owning instruments that do not make current interest payments is that a fixed yield is earned not only on the original investment but also, in effect, on all discount accretion during the life of the obligations. This implicit reinvestment of earnings at a fixed rate eliminates the risk of being unable to invest distributions at a rate as high as the implicit yield on the zero coupon bond, but at the same time eliminates the holder’s ability to reinvest at higher rates in the future. For this reason, some of these securities may be subject to substantially greater price fluctuations during periods of changing market interest rates than are comparable securities that pay interest currently. Longer term zero coupon bonds are more exposed to interest rate risk than shorter term zero coupon bonds. These investments benefit the issuer by mitigating its need for cash to meet debt service, but also require a higher rate of return to attract investors who are willing to defer receipt of cash.

Variable and Floating Rate Instrument Risk: Variable and floating rate securities provide for periodic adjustment in the interest rate paid on the securities. These securities may be subject to greater illiquidity risk than other fixed income securities, meaning the absence of an active market for these securities could make it difficult for the Fund to dispose of them at any given time.

I N V E S T M E N T   O B J E C T I V E S ,   P O L I C I E S   A N D   R I S K S 35

Investment Objectives, Policies and Risks  (continued)

Indexed and Inverse Securities Risk: Indexed and inverse securities provide a potential return based on a particular index of value or interest rates. The Trust’s return on these securities will be subject to risk with respect to the value of the particular index. These securities are subject to leverage risk and correlation risk. Certain indexed and inverse securities have greater sensitivity to changes in interest rates or index levels than other securities, and the Trust’s investment in such instruments may decline significantly in value if interest rates or index levels move in a way Trust management does not anticipate.

U.S. Government Obligations Risk: Certain securities in which the Trust may invest, including securities issued by certain U.S. Government agencies and U.S. Government sponsored enterprises, are not guaranteed by the U.S. Government or supported by the full faith and credit of the United States.

Economic Sector and Geographic Risk: The Trust, as a fundamental policy, may not invest 25% or more of the value of its Managed Assets in any one industry. However, this limitation does not apply to securities of the U.S. Government, any state government or their respective agencies, or instrumentalities and securities backed by the credit of any federal or state governmental entity. As such, the Trust may invest 25% of more of its Managed Assets in municipal securities of issuers in the same state (or U.S. Territory) or in the same economic sector. If the Trust does so, this may make it more susceptible to adverse economic, political or regulatory occurrences affecting a particular state or economic sector.

Leverage Risk: The Trust utilizes leverage for investment purposes by entering into reverse repurchase agreements and derivative instruments with leverage embedded in then, such as TOB Residuals. The Trust’s use of leverage may increase or decrease from time to time in its discretion and the Trust may, in the future, determine not to use leverage.

The use of leverage creates an opportunity for increased common share net investment income dividends, but also creates risks for the holders of common shares. The Trust cannot assure you that the use of leverage will result in a higher yield on the common shares. Any leveraging strategy the Trust employs may not be successful.

Leverage involves risks and special considerations for common shareholders, including:

• the likelihood of greater volatility of net asset value, market price and dividend rate of the common shares than a comparable portfolio without leverage;

• the risk that fluctuations in interest rates or dividend rates on any leverage that the Trust must pay will reduce the return to the common shareholders;

• the effect of leverage in a declining market, which is likely to cause a greater decline in the net asset value of the common shares than if the Trust were not leveraged, which may result in a greater decline in the market price of the common shares;

• leverage may increase operating costs, which may reduce total return.

Any decline in the net asset value of the Trust’s investments will be borne entirely by the holders of common shares. Therefore, if the market value of the Trust’s portfolio declines, leverage will result in a greater decrease in net asset value to the holders of common shares than if the Trust were not leveraged. This greater net asset value decrease will also tend to cause a greater decline in the market price for the common shares.

Tender Option Bonds Risk: The Trust’s participation in tender option bond transactions may reduce the Trust’s returns and/or increase volatility. Investments in tender option bond transactions expose the Trust to counterparty risk and leverage risk. An investment in a tender option bond transaction typically will involve greater risk than an investment in a municipal fixed rate security, including the risk of loss of principal. Distributions on TOB Residuals will bear an inverse relationship to short-term municipal security interest rates. Distributions on TOB Residuals paid to the Trust will be reduced or, in the extreme, eliminated as short-term municipal interest rates rise and will increase when short-term municipal interest rates fall. TOB Residuals generally will underperform the market for fixed rate municipal securities in a rising interest rate environment. The Trust may invest special purpose trusts formed for the purpose of holding municipal bonds contributed by one or more funds (“TOB Trusts”) on either a non-recourse or recourse basis. If the Trust invests in a TOB Trust on a recourse basis, it could suffer losses in excess of the value of its TOB Residuals.

Reverse Repurchase Agreements Risk: Reverse repurchase agreements involve the sale of securities held by the Trust with an agreement to repurchase the securities at an agreed-upon price, date and interest payment. Reverse repurchase agreements involve the risk that the other party may fail to return the securities in a timely manner or at all. The Trust could lose money if it is unable to recover the securities and the value of the collateral held by the Trust, including the value of the investments made with cash collateral, is less than the value of the securities. These events could also trigger adverse tax consequences for the Trust. In addition, reverse repurchase agreements involve the risk that the interest income earned in the investment of the proceeds will be less than the interest expense.

Illiquid Investments Risk: The Trust may invest without limitation in illiquid or less liquid investments or investments in which no secondary market is readily available or which are otherwise illiquid, including private placement securities. The Trust may not be able to readily dispose of such investments at prices that approximate those at which the Trust could sell such investments if they were more widely traded and, as a result of such illiquidity, the Trust may have to sell other investments or engage in borrowing transactions if necessary to raise cash to meet its obligations. Limited liquidity can also affect the market price of investments, thereby adversely affecting the Trust’s net asset value and ability to make dividend distributions. The financial markets in general, and certain segments of the mortgage-related securities markets in particular, have in recent years experienced periods of extreme secondary market supply and demand imbalance, resulting in a loss of liquidity during which market prices were suddenly and substantially below traditional measures of intrinsic value. During such periods, some investments could be sold only at arbitrary prices and with substantial losses. Periods of such market dislocation may occur again at any time. Privately issued debt securities are often of below investment grade quality, frequently are unrated and present many of the same risks as investing in below investment grade public debt securities.

Investment Companies and ETFs Risk: Subject to the limitations set forth in the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), or as otherwise limited by the SEC, the Trust may acquire shares in other investment companies and in exchange-traded Trusts (“ETFs”), some of which may be affiliated investment companies. The market value of the shares of other investment companies and ETFs may differ from their net asset value. As an investor in investment companies and ETFs, the Trust would bear its ratable share of that entity’s expenses, including its investment advisory and administration fees, while continuing to pay its own advisory and administration fees and

36 2 0 2 1   B L A C K R O C K   A N N U A L   R E P O R T   T O   S H A R E H O L D E R S

Investment Objectives, Policies and Risks  (continued)

other expenses (to the extent not offset by the Manager through waivers). As a result, shareholders will be absorbing duplicate levels of fees with respect to investments in other investment companies and ETFs (to the extent not offset by the Manager through waivers).

The securities of other investment companies and ETFs in which the Trust may invest may be leveraged. As a result, the Trust may be indirectly exposed to leverage through an investment in such securities. An investment in securities of other investment companies and ETFs that use leverage may expose the Trust to higher volatility in the market value of such securities and the possibility that the Trust’s long-term returns on such securities (and, indirectly, the long-term returns of shares of the Trust) will be diminished.

As with other investments, investments in other investment companies, including ETFs, are subject to market and selection risk. To the extent the Trust is held by an affiliated Trust, the ability of the Trust itself to hold other investment companies may be limited.

Derivatives Risk: The Trust’s use of derivatives may increase its costs, reduce the Trust’s returns and/or increase volatility. Derivatives involve significant risks, including:

• Volatility Risk — Volatility is defined as the characteristic of a security, an index or a market to fluctuate significantly in price within a short time period. A risk of the Trust’s use of derivatives is that the fluctuations in their values may not correlate with the overall securities markets.

• Counterparty Risk — Derivatives are also subject to counterparty risk, which is the risk that the other party in the transaction will not fulfill its contractual obligation.

• Market and Illiquidity Risk — The possible lack of a liquid secondary market for derivatives and the resulting inability of the Trust to sell or otherwise close a derivatives position could expose the Trust to losses and could make derivatives more difficult for the Trust to value accurately.

• Valuation Risk — Valuation may be more difficult in times of market turmoil since many investors and market makers may be reluctant to purchase complex instruments or quote prices for them.

• Hedging Risk — Hedges are sometimes subject to imperfect matching between the derivative and the underlying security, and there can be no assurance that the Trust’s hedging transactions will be effective. The use of hedging may result in certain adverse tax consequences.

• Tax Risk — Certain aspects of the tax treatment of derivative instruments, including swap agreements and commodity-linked derivative instruments, are currently unclear and may be affected by changes in legislation, regulations or other legally binding authority. Such treatment may be less favorable than that given to a direct investment in an underlying asset and may adversely affect the timing, character and amount of income the Trust realizes from its investments.

• Regulatory Risk — Derivative contracts, including, without limitation, swaps, currency forwards and non-deliverable forwards, are subject to regulation under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”) in the United States and under comparable regimes in Europe, Asia and other non-U.S. jurisdictions. Under the Dodd-Frank Act, certain derivatives are subject to margin requirements and swap dealers are required to collect margin from the Trust with respect to such derivatives. Specifically, regulations are now in effect that require swap dealers to post and collect variation margin (comprised of specified liquid instruments and subject to a required haircut) in connection with trading of OTC swaps with the Trust. Shares of investment companies (other than certain money market funds) may not be posted as collateral under these regulations. Requirements for posting of initial margin in connection with OTC swaps will be phased-in through at least 2021. In addition, regulations adopted by global prudential regulators that are now in effect require certain bank-regulated counterparties and certain of their affiliates to include in certain financial contracts, including many derivatives contracts, terms that delay or restrict the rights of counterparties, such as the Trust, to terminate such contracts, foreclose upon collateral, exercise other default rights or restrict transfers of credit support in the event that the counterparty and/or its affiliates are subject to certain types of resolution or insolvency proceedings. The implementation of these requirements with respect to derivatives, as well as regulations under the Dodd-Frank Act regarding clearing, mandatory trading and margining of other derivatives, may increase the costs and risks to the Trust of trading in these instruments and, as a result, may affect returns to investors in the Trust.

On October 28, 2020, the SEC adopted new regulations governing the use of derivatives by registered investment companies (“Rule 18f-4”). The Fund will be required to implement and comply with Rule 18f-4 by August 19, 2022. Once implemented, Rule 18f-4 will impose limits on the amount of derivatives a fund can enter into, eliminate the asset segregation framework currently used by funds to comply with Section 18 of the 1940 Act, treat derivatives as senior securities and require funds whose use of derivatives is more than a limited specified exposure amount to establish and maintain a comprehensive derivatives risk management program and appoint a derivatives risk manager.

Market Risk and Selection Risk: Market risk is the risk that one or more markets in which the Trust invests will go down in value, including the possibility that the markets will go down sharply and unpredictably. The value of a security or other asset may decline due to changes in general market conditions, economic trends or events that are not specifically related to the issuer of the security or other asset, or factors that affect a particular issuer or issuers, exchange, country, group of countries, region, market, industry, group of industries, sector or asset class. Local, regional or global events such as war, acts of terrorism, the spread of infectious illness or other public health issues like pandemics or epidemics, recessions, or other events could have a significant impact on the Trust and its investments. Selection risk is the risk that the securities selected by Trust management will underperform the markets, the relevant indices or the securities selected by other funds with similar investment objectives and investment strategies. This means you may lose money.

A recent outbreak of an infectious coronavirus has developed into a global pandemic that has resulted in numerous disruptions in the market and has had significant economic impact leaving general concern and uncertainty. The impact of this coronavirus, and other epidemics and pandemics that may arise in the future, could affect the economies of many nations, individual companies and the market in general ways that cannot necessarily be foreseen at the present time.

I N V E S T M E N T   O B J E C T I V E S ,   P O L I C I E S   A N D   R I S K S 37

Expense and Share Price Information BlackRock Taxable Municipal Bond Trust (BBN)

Summary of Trust Expenses

The following table and example are intended to assist shareholders in understanding the varioius cost and expenses directly or indirectly associated with investing in the Trust’s common shares.

	BBN
Shareholder Transaction Expenses
Maximum Sales Load (as a percentage of the offering price)(a)		1.00%
Offering expenses borne by the Trust (as a percentage of offering price)(a)		0.02
		$0.02 per share for
		open market purchases
Dividend Reinvestment Plan Fees		of common shares(b)
Estimated Annual Expenses (as a percentage of net assets attributable to common shares)
Investment advisory fees		0.81%
Other expenses		0.39
Miscellaneous		0.05
Interest expense(c)		0.34
Total annual expenses		1.20
Fee waiver(d)		—
Total annual Trust operating expenses after fee waiver(d)		1.20

^(a) If the common shares are sold to or through underwriters, the Prospectus Supplement will set forth any applicable sales load and the estimated offering expenses. Trust shareholders will pay all offering expenses involved with an offering.

^(b) Computershare Trust Company, N.A. (the “Reinvestment Plan Agent”) fees for the handling of the reinvestment of dividends will be paid by the Trust. However, shareholders will pay a $0.02 per share fee incurred in connection with open-market purchases, which will be deducted from the value of the dividend. Shareholders will also be charged a $2.50 sales fee and pay a $0.15 per share fee if a shareholder directs the Reinvestment Plan Agent to sell the common shares held in a dividend reinvestment account. Per share fees include any applicable brokerage commissions the Reinvestment Plan Agent is required to pay.

^(c) The Trust uses leverage in the form of reverse repurchase agreements representing 31.5% of Managed Assets at an annual interest expense to the Trust of 0.72%, which is based on current market conditions. The actual amount of interest expense borne by the Trust will vary over time in accordance with the level of the Trust’s use of reverse repurchase agreements and variations in market interest rates. Interest expense is required to be treated as an expense of the Trust for accounting purposes.

^(d) The Trust and the Manager have entered into a fee waiver agreement (the “Fee Waiver Agreement”), pursuant to which the Manager has contractually agreed to waive the investment advisory fees with respect to any portion of the Trust’s assets attributable to investments in any equity and fixed-income mutual funds and ETFs managed by the Manager or its affiliates that have a contractual fee, through June 30, 2023. In addition, pursuant to the Fee Waiver Agreement, the Manager has contractually agreed to waive its investment advisory fees by the amount of investment advisory fees the Trust pays to the Manager indirectly through its investment in money market funds managed by the Manager or its affiliates, through June 30, 2023. The Fee Waiver Agreement may be terminated at any time, without the payment of any penalty, only by the Trust (upon the vote of a majority of the Trustees who are not “interested persons” (as defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “Investment Company Act”), of the Trust (the “Independent Trustees”)) or a majority of the outstanding voting securities of the Trust), upon 90 days’ written notice by the Trust to the Manager.

Expense Example

The following example illustrates the expenses (including the sales load of $10.00 and offering costs of $0.20) that shareholders would pay on a $1,000 investment in common shares, assuming (i) total net annual expenses of 1.20% of net assets attributable to common shares and (ii) a 5% annual return:

	1 Year		3 Years		5 Years		10 Years
Total expenses incurred	$	22	$	48	$	75	$	154

The example should not be considered a representation of future expenses. The example assumes that the estimated “Other expenses” set forth in the Estimated Annual Expenses table are accurate and that all dividends and distributions are reinvested at NAV. Actual expenses may be greater or less than those assumed. The Trust’s actual rate of return may be greater or less than the hypothetical 5% return shown in the example.

38 2 0 2 1   B L A C K R O C K   A N N U A L   R E P O R T   T O   S H A R E H O L D E R S

Expense and Share Price Information(continued) BlackRock Taxable Municipal Bond Trust (BBN)

Share Price Data

The following table summarizes the highest and lowest daily closing market prices on the NYSE per common share, the NAV per common share, and the premium to or discount from NAV, on the date of each of the high and low market prices. The trading volume indicates the number of common shares traded on the NYSE during the respective quarters.

	NYSE Market Price   Per Common Share				NAV per Common Share on Date of Market Price				Premium/ (Discount) on Date of Market Price
During Quarter Ended	High		Low		High		Low		High			Low			Trading Volume
July 31, 2021		$ 26.46		$ 24.39		$ 25.98		$ 24.30		1.85	%		0.37	%		8,366,213
April 30, 2021		26.95		23.86		25.48		23.75		5.77			0.46			11,948,443
January 31, 2021		27.41		25.04		25.33		24.26		8.21			3.22			9,986,734
October 31, 2020		26.69		25.15		25.60		24.59		4.26			2.28			9,847,155
July 31, 2020		26.60		22.78		25.49		23.19		4.35			(1.77	)		9,824,952
April 30, 2020		26.52		20.39		27.50		23.64		(3.56	)		(13.75	)		24,622,384
January 31, 2020		25.56		23.37		25.61		24.23		(0.20	)		(3.55	)		10,838,865
October 31, 2019		25.49		23.32		25.65		24.46		(0.62	)		(4.66	)		12,453,113

As of July 31, 2021, the market price, NAV per Common Share, and premium (discount) to NAV per Common Share are $26.31, $26.02, and 1.11% respectively.

Common shares of the Trust have historically traded at both a premium and discount to NAV.

Shares of closed-end funds frequently trade at a discount to their NAV. Because of this possibility and the recognition that any such discount may not be in the interest of shareholders, the Board might consider from time to time engaging in open-market repurchases, managed distribution plans, or other programs intended to reduce the discount. We cannot guarantee or assure, however, that the Board will decide to engage in any of these actions. Nor is there any guarantee or assurance that such actions, if undertaken, would result in the shares trading at a price equal or close to the NAV.

E X P E N S E   A N D   S H A R E   P R I C E   I N F O R M A T I O N 39

Automatic Dividend Reinvestment Plan

Pursuant to BBN’s Dividend Reinvestment Plan (the “Reinvestment Plan”), Common Shareholders are automatically enrolled to have all distributions of dividends and capital gains and other distributions reinvested by Computershare Trust Company, N.A. (the “Reinvestment Plan Agent”) in the Trust’s Common Shares pursuant to the Reinvestment Plan. Shareholders who do not participate in the Reinvestment Plan will receive all distributions in cash paid by check and mailed directly to the shareholders of record (or if the shares are held in street name or other nominee name, then to the nominee) by the Reinvestment Plan Agent, which serves as agent for the shareholders in administering the Reinvestment Plan.

After BBN declares a dividend or determines to make a capital gain or other distribution, the Reinvestment Plan Agent will acquire shares for the participants’ accounts, depending upon the following circumstances, either (i) through receipt of unissued but authorized shares from the Trust (“newly issued shares”) or (ii) by purchase of outstanding shares on the open market or on the Trust’s primary exchange (“open-market purchases”). If, on the dividend payment date, the net asset value (“NAV”) per share is equal to or less than the market price per share plus estimated brokerage commissions (such condition often referred to as a “market premium”), the Reinvestment Plan Agent will invest the dividend amount in newly issued shares acquired on behalf of the participants. The number of newly issued shares to be credited to each participant’s account will be determined by dividing the dollar amount of the dividend by the NAV on the date the shares are issued. However, if the NAV is less than 95% of the market price on the dividend payment date, the dollar amount of the dividend will be divided by 95% of the market price on the dividend payment date. If, on the dividend payment date, the NAV is greater than the market price per share plus estimated brokerage commissions (such condition often referred to as a “market discount”), the Reinvestment Plan Agent will invest the dividend amount in shares acquired on behalf of the participants in open-market purchases. If the Reinvestment Plan Agent is unable to invest the full dividend amount in open-market purchases, or if the market discount shifts to a market premium during the purchase period, the Reinvestment Plan Agent will invest any un-invested portion in newly issued shares. Investments in newly issued shares made in this manner would be made pursuant to the same process described above and the date of issue for such newly issued shares will substitute for the dividend payment date.

You may elect not to participate in the Reinvestment Plan and to receive all dividends in cash by contacting the Reinvestment Plan Agent, at the address set forth below.

Participation in the Reinvestment Plan is completely voluntary and may be terminated or resumed at any time without penalty by notice if received and processed by the Reinvestment Plan Agent prior to the dividend record date. Additionally, the Reinvestment Plan Agent seeks to process notices received after the record date but prior to the payable date and such notices often will become effective by the payable date. Where late notices are not processed by the applicable payable date, such termination or resumption will be effective with respect to any subsequently declared dividend or other distribution.

The Reinvestment Plan Agent’s fees for the handling of the reinvestment of distributions will be paid by the Trust. However, each participant will pay a pro rata share of brokerage commissions incurred with respect to the Reinvestment Plan Agent’s open-market purchases in connection with the reinvestment of all distributions. The automatic reinvestment of all distributions will not relieve participants of any U.S. federal, state or local income tax that may be payable on such dividends or distributions.

The Trust reserves the right to amend or terminate the Reinvestment Plan. There is no direct service charge to participants in the Reinvestment Plan; however, the Trust reserves the right to amend the Reinvestment Plan to include a service charge payable by the participants. Participants in BBN that request a sale of shares are subject to a $2.50 sales fee and a $0.15 per share sold brokerage commission fee. All correspondence concerning the Reinvestment Plan should be directed to Computershare Trust Company, N.A. through the internet at computershare.com/blackrock, or in writing to Computershare, P.O. Box 505000, Louisville, KY 40233, Telephone: (800) 699-1236. Overnight correspondence should be directed to the Reinvestment Plan Agent at Computershare, 462 South 4th Street, Suite 1600, Louisville, KY 40202.

40 2 0 2 1   B L A C K R O C K   A N N U A L   R E P O R T   T O   S H A R E H O L D E R S

Trustee and Officer Information

Independent Trustees(a)
Name Year of Birth(b)	Position(s) Held (Length of Service)(c)	Principal Occupation(s) During Past Five Years	Number of BlackRock-Advised Registered Investment Companies (“RICs”) Consisting of Investment Portfolios (“Portfolios”) Overseen	Public Company and Other Investment Company Directorships Held During Past Five Years
Richard E. Cavanagh 1946	Co-Chair of the Board and Trustee (Since 2007)	Director, The Guardian Life Insurance Company of America since 1998; Board Chair, Volunteers of America (a not-for-profit organization) from 2015 to 2018 (board member since 2009); Director, Arch Chemicals (chemical and allied products) from 1999 to 2011; Trustee, Educational Testing Service from 1997 to 2009 and Chairman thereof from 2005 to 2009; Senior Advisor, The Fremont Group since 2008 and Director thereof since 1996; Faculty Member/Adjunct Lecturer, Harvard University since 2007 and Executive Dean from 1987 to 1995; President and Chief Executive Officer, The Conference Board, Inc. (global business research organization) from 1995 to 2007.	73 RICs consisting of 100 Portfolios	None
Karen P. Robards 1950	Co-Chair of the Board and Trustee (Since 2007)	Principal of Robards & Company, LLC (consulting and private investing) since 1987; Co-founder and Director of the Cooke Center for Learning and Development (a not- for-profit organization) since 1987; Director of Enable Injections, LLC (medical devices) since 2019; Investment Banker at Morgan Stanley from 1976 to 1987.	73 RICs consisting of 100 Portfolios	Greenhill & Co., Inc.; AtriCure, Inc. (medical devices) from 2000 until 2017.
Michael J. Castellano 1946	Trustee (Since 2011)	Chief Financial Officer of Lazard Group LLC from 2001 to 2011; Chief Financial Officer of Lazard Ltd from 2004 to 2011; Director, Support Our Aging Religious (non-profit) from 2009 to June 2015 and from 2017 to September 2020; Director, National Advisory Board of Church Management at Villanova University since 2010; Trustee, Domestic Church Media Foundation since 2012; Director, CircleBlack Inc. (financial technology company) from 2015 to July 2020.	73 RICs consisting of 100 Portfolios	None
Cynthia L. Egan 1955	Trustee (Since 2016)	Advisor, U.S. Department of the Treasury from 2014 to 2015; President, Retirement Plan Services, for T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. from 2007 to 2012; executive positions within Fidelity Investments from 1989 to 2007.	73 RICs consisting of 100 Portfolios	Unum (insurance); The Hanover Insurance Group (Board Chair) (insurance); Huntsman Corporation (chemical products); Envestnet (investment platform) from 2013 until 2016.
Frank J. Fabozzi(d) 1948	Trustee (Since 2007)	Editor of The Journal of Portfolio Management since 1986; Professor of Finance, EDHEC Business School (France) since 2011; Visiting Professor, Princeton University for the 2013 to 2014 academic year and Spring 2017 semester; Professor in the Practice of Finance, Yale University School of Management from 1994 to 2011 and currently a Teaching Fellow in Yale’s Executive Programs; Board Member, BlackRock Equity-Liquidity Funds from 2014 to 2016; affiliated professor Karlsruhe Institute of Technology from 2008 to 2011; Visiting Professor, Rutgers University for the Spring 2019 semester; Visiting Professor, New York University for the 2019 academic year; Adjunct Professor of Finance, Carnegie Mellon University in fall 2020 semester.	75 RICs consisting of 102 Portfolios	None

T R U S T E E   A N D   O F F I C E R   I N F O R M A T I O N 41

Trustee and Officer Information(continued)

Independent Trustees(a) (continued)
Name Year of Birth(b)	Position(s) Held (Length of Service)(c)	Principal Occupation(s) During Past Five Years	Number of BlackRock-Advised Registered Investment Companies (“RICs”) Consisting of Investment Portfolios (“Portfolios”) Overseen	Public Company and Other Investment Company Directorships Held During Past Five Years
Lorenzo A. Flores 1964	Trustee (Since 2021)	Vice Chairman, Kioxia, Inc. since 2019; Chief Financial Officer, Xilinx, Inc. from 2016 to 2019; Corporate Controller, Xilinx, Inc. from 2008 to 2016.	73 RICs consisting of 100 Portfolios	None
Stayce D. Harris 1959	Trustee (Since 2021)	Lieutenant General, Inspector General, Office of the Secretary of the United States Air Force from 2017 to 2019; Lieutenant General, Assistant Vice Chief of Staff and Director, Air Staff, United States Air Force from 2016 to 2017; Major General, Commander, 22nd Air Force, AFRC, Dobbins Air Reserve Base, Georgia from 2014 to 2016; Pilot, United Airlines from 1990 to 2020.	73 RICs consisting of 100 Portfolios	None
J. Phillip Holloman 1955	Trustee (Since 2021)	President and Chief Operating Officer, Cintas Corporation from 2008 to 2018.	73 RICs consisting of 100 Portfolios	PulteGroup, Inc. (home construction); Rockwell Automation Inc. (industrial automation)
R. Glenn Hubbard 1958	Trustee (Since 2007)	Dean, Columbia Business School from 2004 to 2019; Faculty member, Columbia Business School since 1988.	73 RICs consisting of 100 Portfolios	ADP (data and information services) 2004-2020; Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (insurance); KKR Financial Corporation (finance) from 2004 until 2014.
W. Carl Kester(d) 1951	Trustee (Since 2007)	George Fisher Baker Jr. Professor of Business Administration, Harvard Business School since 2008; Deputy Dean for Academic Affairs from 2006 to 2010; Chairman of the Finance Unit, from 2005 to 2006; Senior Associate Dean and Chairman of the MBA Program from 1999 to 2005; Member of the faculty of Harvard Business School since 1981.	75 RICs consisting of 102 Portfolios	None
Catherine A. Lynch(d) 1961	Trustee (Since 2016)	Chief Executive Officer, Chief Investment Officer and various other positions, National Railroad Retirement Investment Trust from 2003 to 2016; Associate Vice President for Treasury Management, The George Washington University from 1999 to 2003; Assistant Treasurer, Episcopal Church of America from 1995 to 1999.	75 RICs consisting of 102 Portfolios	None

42 2 0 2 1   B L A C K R O C K   A N N U A L   R E P O R T   T O   S H A R E H O L D E R S

Trustee and Officer Information(continued)

Interested Trustees(a)(e)
Name Year of Birth(b)	Position(s) Held (Length of Service)(c)	Principal Occupation(s) During Past Five Years	Number of BlackRock-Advised Registered Investment Companies (“RICs”) Consisting of Investment Portfolios (“Portfolios”) Overseen	Public Company and Other Investment Company Directorships Held During Past Five Years
Robert Fairbairn 1965	Trustee (Since 2018)	Vice Chairman of BlackRock, Inc. since 2019; Member of BlackRock’s Global Executive and Global Operating Committees; Co-Chair of BlackRock’s Human Capital Committee; Senior Managing Director of BlackRock, Inc. from 2010 to 2019; oversaw BlackRock’s Strategic Partner Program and Strategic Product Management Group from 2012 to 2019; Member of the Board of Managers of BlackRock Investments, LLC from 2011 to 2018; Global Head of BlackRock’s Retail and iShares® businesses from 2012 to 2016.	103 RICs consisting of 252 Portfolios	None
John M. Perlowski(d) 1964	Trustee (Since 2015) President and Chief Executive Officer (Since 2010)	Managing Director of BlackRock, Inc. since 2009; Head of BlackRock Global Accounting and Product Services since 2009; Advisory Director of Family Resource Network (charitable foundation) since 2009.	105 RICs consisting of 254 Portfolios	None

^(a) The address of each Trustee is c/o BlackRock, Inc., 55 East 52nd Street, New York, New York 10055.

^(b) Each Independent Trustee holds office until his or her successor is duly elected and qualifies or until his or her earlier death, resignation, retirement or removal as provided by the Trust’s by-laws or charter or statute, or until December 31 of the year in which he or she turns 75. Trustees who are “interested persons,” as defined in the Investment Company Act serve until their successor is duly elected and qualifies or until their earlier death, resignation, retirement or removal as provided by the Trust’s by-laws or statute, or until December 31 of the year in which they turn 72. The Board may determine to extend the terms of Independent Trustees on a case-by-case basis, as appropriate.

^(c) Following the combination of Merrill Lynch Investment Managers, L.P. (“MLIM”) and BlackRock, Inc. in September 2006, the various legacy MLIM and legacy BlackRock fund boards were realigned and consolidated into three new fund boards in 2007. Certain Independent Trustees first became members of the boards of other legacy MLIM or legacy BlackRock funds as follows: Richard E. Cavanagh, 1994; Frank J. Fabozzi, 1988; R. Glenn Hubbard, 2004; W. Carl Kester, 1995; and Karen P. Robards, 1998.

^(d) Dr. Fabozzi, Dr. Kester, Ms. Lynch and Mr. Perlowski are also trustees of the BlackRock Credit Strategies Fund and BlackRock Private Investments Fund.

^(e) Mr. Fairbairn and Mr. Perlowski are both “interested persons,” as defined in the 1940 Act, of the Trust based on their positions with BlackRock, Inc. and its affiliates. Mr. Fairbairn and Mr. Perlowski are also board members of the BlackRock Multi-Asset Complex.

T R U S T E E   A N D   O F F I C E R   I N F O R M A T I O N 43

Trustee and Officer Information(continued)

Officers Who Are Not Trustees(a)
Name Year of Birth(b)	Position(s) Held (Length of Service)	Principal Occupation(s) During Past Five Years
Jonathan Diorio 1980	Vice President (Since 2015)	Managing Director of BlackRock, Inc. since 2015; Director of BlackRock, Inc. from 2011 to 2015.
Trent Walker 1974	Chief Financial Officer (Since 2021)	Managing Director of BlackRock, Inc. since September 2019; Executive Vice President of PIMCO from 2016 to 2019; Senior Vice President of PIMCO from 2008 to 2015; Treasurer from 2013 to 2019 and Assistant Treasurer from 2007 to 2017 of PIMCO Funds, PIMCO Variable Insurance Trust, PIMCO ETF Trust, PIMCO Equity Series, PIMCO Equity Series VIT, PIMCO Managed Accounts Trust, 2 PIMCO-sponsored interval funds and 21 PIMCO-sponsored closed-end funds.
Jay M. Fife 1970	Treasurer (Since 2007)	Managing Director of BlackRock, Inc. since 2007.
Charles Park 1967	Chief Compliance Officer (Since 2014)	Anti-Money Laundering Compliance Officer for certain BlackRock-advised Funds from 2014 to 2015; Chief Compliance Officer of BlackRock Advisors, LLC and the BlackRock-advised Funds in the BlackRock Multi-Asset Complex and the BlackRock Fixed-Income Complex since 2014; Principal of and Chief Compliance Officer for iShares® Delaware Trust Sponsor LLC since 2012 and BlackRock Fund Advisors (“BFA”) since 2006; Chief Compliance Officer for the BFA-advised iShares® exchange traded funds since 2006; Chief Compliance Officer for BlackRock Asset Management International Inc. since 2012.
Janey Ahn 1975	Secretary (Since 2012)	Managing Director of BlackRock, Inc. since 2018; Director of BlackRock, Inc. from 2009 to 2017.

^(a) The address of each Officer is c/o BlackRock, Inc., 55 East 52nd Street, New York, New York 10055.

^(b) Officers of the Trust serve at the pleasure of the Board.

Further information about the Trust’s Trustees and Officers is available in the Trust’s Statement of Additional Information, which can be obtained without charge by calling (800) 441-7762.

Neal J. Andrews retired as the Chief Financial Officer effective December 31, 2020, and Trent Walker was elected as the Chief Financial Officer effective January 1, 2021.

Effective June 10, 2021, Stayce D. Harris and J. Phillip Holloman were each appointed to serve as a Trustee of the Trust. Effective July 30, 2021, Lorenzo A. Flores was appointed to serve as a Trustee of the Trust.

44 2 0 2 1   B L A C K R O C K   A N N U A L   R E P O R T   T O   S H A R E H O L D E R S

Additional Information

Proxy Results

The Annual Meeting of Shareholders was held on July 29, 2021 for shareholders of record on June 1, 2021, to elect trustee nominees for the Trust. There were no broker non-votes with regard to the Trust.

Shareholders elected the Class II Trustees as follows:

	J. Phillip Holloman		Catherine A. Lynch		Karen P. Robards		Frank J. Fabozzi
Trust Name	Votes For	Votes Withheld	Votes For	Votes Withheld	Votes For	Votes Withheld	Votes For	Votes Withheld
BBN	45,406,278	790,279	45,433,803	762,754	45,409,439	787,118	45,270,786	925,771

For the Trust listed above, Trustees whose term of office continued after the Annual Meeting of Shareholders because they were not up for election are Michael J. Castellano, Richard E. Cavanagh, Cynthia L. Egan, Robert Fairbairn, Stayce Harris, R. Glenn Hubbard, John M. Perlowski and W. Carl Kester. Lorenzo A. Flores was appointed as a Trustee effective July 30, 2021.

Trust Certification

The Trust is listed for trading on the NYSE and has filed with the NYSE its annual chief executive officer certification regarding compliance with the NYSE’s listing standards. The Trust filed with the SEC the certification of its chief executive officer and chief financial officer required by Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

Regulation Regarding Derivatives

On October 28, 2020, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) adopted new regulations governing the use of derivatives by registered investment companies (“Rule 18f-4”). The Trust will be required to implement and comply with Rule 18f-4 by August 19, 2022. Once implemented, Rule 18f-4 will impose limits on the amount of derivatives a fund can enter into, eliminate the asset segregation framework currently used by funds to comply with Section 18 of the 1940 Act, treat derivatives as senior securities and require funds whose use of derivatives is more than a limited specified exposure amount to establish and maintain a comprehensive derivatives risk management program and appoint a derivatives risk manager.

Environmental, Social and Governance (“ESG”) Integration

Although a Trust does not seek to implement a specific ESG, impact or sustainability strategy unless otherwise disclosed, Trust management will consider ESG characteristics as part of the investment process for actively managed Trusts. These considerations will vary depending on a Trust’s particular investment strategies and may include consideration of third-party research as well as consideration of proprietary BlackRock research across the ESG risks and opportunities regarding an issuer. Trust management will consider those ESG characteristics it deems relevant or additive when making investment decisions for a Trust. The ESG characteristics utilized in a Trust’s investment process are anticipated to evolve over time and one or more characteristics may not be relevant with respect to all issuers that are eligible for investment. ESG characteristics are not the sole considerations when making investment decisions for a Trust. Further, investors can differ in their views of what constitutes positive or negative ESG characteristics. As a result, a Trust may invest in issuers that do not reflect the beliefs and values with respect to ESG of any particular investor. ESG considerations may affect a Trust’s exposure to certain companies or industries and a Trust may forego certain investment opportunities. While Trust management views ESG considerations as having the potential to contribute to a Trust’s long-term performance, there is no guarantee that such results will be achieved.

Dividend Policy

The Trust’s dividend policy is to distribute all or a portion of its net investment income to its shareholders on a monthly basis. In order to provide shareholders with a more stable level of distributions, the Trust may at times pay out less than the entire amount of net investment income earned in any particular month and may at times in any particular month pay out such accumulated but undistributed income in addition to net investment income earned in that month. As a result, the distributions paid by the Trust for any particular month may be more or less than the amount of net investment income earned by the Trust during such month. The Trust’s current accumulated but undistributed net investment income, if any, is disclosed as accumulated earnings (loss) in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities, which comprises part of the financial information included in this report.

General Information

BBN’s Statement of Additional Information includes additional information about its Board and is available, without charge upon request by calling (800)-882-0052.

The following information is a summary of certain changes since July 31, 2020. This information may not reflect all of the changes that have occurred since you purchased the Trust.

Except if noted otherwise herein, there were no changes to the Trust’s charter or by-laws that would delay or prevent a change of control of the Trust that were not approved by the shareholders. Except if noted otherwise herein, there have been no changes in the persons who are primarily responsible for the day-to-day management of the Trust’s portfolios.

In accordance with Section 23(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, the Trust may from time to time purchase shares of its common stock in the open market or in private transactions.

A D D I T I O N A L   I N F O R M A T I O N 45

Additional Information  (continued)

General Information (continued)

Quarterly performance, semi-annual and annual reports, current net asset value and other information regarding the Trust may be found on BlackRock’s website, which can be accessed at blackrock.com. Any reference to BlackRock’s website in this report is intended to allow investors public access to information regarding the Trust and does not, and is not intended to, incorporate BlackRock’s website in this report.

Electronic Delivery

Shareholders can sign up for e-mail notifications of quarterly statements, annual and semi-annual shareholder reports and prospectuses, by enrolling in the electronic delivery program. Electronic copies of shareholder reports and prospectuses, are available on BlackRock’s website.

To enroll in electronic delivery:

Shareholders Who Hold Accounts with Investment Advisers, Banks or Brokerages:

Please contact your financial adviser. Please note that not all investment advisers, banks or brokerages may offer this service.

Householding

The Trust will mail only one copy of shareholder documents, including prospectuses, annual and semi-annual reports, Rule 30e-3 notices and proxy statements, to shareholders with multiple accounts at the same address. This practice is commonly called “householding” and is intended to reduce expenses and eliminate duplicate mailings of shareholder documents. Mailings of your shareholder documents may be householded indefinitely unless you instruct us otherwise. If you do not want the mailing of these documents to be combined with those for other members of your household, please call the Trust at (800) 882-0052.

Availability of Quarterly Schedule of Investments

The Trust files its complete schedule of portfolio holdings with the SEC for the first and third quarters of each fiscal year as an exhibit to its reports on Form N-PORT. The Trust’s Form N-PORT is available on the SEC’s website at sec.gov. Additionally, the Trust makes its portfolio holdings for the first and third quarters of each fiscal year available at blackrock.com/fundreports.

Availability of Proxy Voting Policies, Procedures and Voting Records

A description of the policies and procedures that the Trust uses to determine how to vote proxies relating to portfolio securities and information about how the Trust voted proxies relating to securities held in the Trust’s portfolio during the most recent 12-month period ended June 30 is available without charge, upon request (1) by calling (800) 882-0052; (2) on the BlackRock website at blackrock.com; and (3) on the SEC’s website at sec.gov.

Availability of Trust Updates

BlackRock will update performance and certain other data for the Trust on a monthly basis on its website in the “Closed-end Funds” section of blackrock.com as well as certain other material information as necessary from time to time. Investors and others are advised to check the website for updated performance information and the release of other material information about the Trust. This reference to BlackRock’s website is intended to allow investors public access to information regarding the Trust and does not, and is not intended to, incorporate BlackRock’s website in this report.

Shelf Offering Program

From time-to-time, BBN may seek to raise additional equity capital through an equity shelf program (a “Shelf Offering”). In a Shelf Offering, BBN may, subject to market conditions, raise additional equity capital by issuing new Common Shares from time to time in varying amounts at a net price at or above BBN’s net asset value (“NAV”) per Common Share (calculated within 48 hours of pricing). While any such Shelf Offering may allow BBN to pursue additional investment opportunities without the need to sell existing portfolio investments, it could also entail risks – including that the issuance of additional Common Shares may limit the extent to which the Common Shares are able to trade at a premium to NAV in the secondary market.

On February 17, 2021, BBN filed a final prospectus with the SEC in connection with its Shelf Offering. This report and the prospectus of BBN are not offers to sell BBN Common Shares or solicitations of an offer to buy BBN Common Shares in any jurisdiction where such offers or sales are not permitted. The prospectus of BBN contain important information about the Trust, including its investment objective, risks, charges and expenses. Investors are urged to read the prospectus of BBN carefully and in its entirety before investing. Copies of the final prospectus for BBN can be obtained from BlackRock at blackrock.com.

BlackRock Privacy Principles

BlackRock is committed to maintaining the privacy of its current and former fund investors and individual clients (collectively, “Clients”) and to safeguarding their non-public personal information. The following information is provided to help you understand what personal information BlackRock collects, how we protect that information and why in certain cases we share such information with select parties.

If you are located in a jurisdiction where specific laws, rules or regulations require BlackRock to provide you with additional or different privacy-related rights beyond what is set forth below, then BlackRock will comply with those specific laws, rules or regulations.

46 2 0 2 1   B L A C K R O C K   A N N U A L   R E P O R T   T O   S H A R E H O L D E R S

Additional Information  (continued)

BlackRock Privacy Principles (continued)

BlackRock obtains or verifies personal non-public information from and about you from different sources, including the following: (i) information we receive from you or, if applicable, your financial intermediary, on applications, forms or other documents; (ii) information about your transactions with us, our affiliates, or others; (iii) information we receive from a consumer reporting agency; and (iv) from visits to our websites.

BlackRock does not sell or disclose to non-affiliated third parties any non-public personal information about its Clients, except as permitted by law or as is necessary to respond to regulatory requests or to service Client accounts. These non-affiliated third parties are required to protect the confidentiality and security of this information and to use it only for its intended purpose.

We may share information with our affiliates to service your account or to provide you with information about other BlackRock products or services that may be of interest to you. In addition, BlackRock restricts access to non-public personal information about its Clients to those BlackRock employees with a legitimate business need for the information. BlackRock maintains physical, electronic and procedural safeguards that are designed to protect the non-public personal information of its Clients, including procedures relating to the proper storage and disposal of such information.

Trust and Service Providers

Investment Adviser	Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
BlackRock Advisors, LLC	Deloitte & Touche LLP
Wilmington, DE 19809	Boston, MA 02116
Accounting Agent and Custodian	Legal Counsel
State Street Bank and Trust Company	Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP
Boston, MA 02111	New York, NY 10019
Transfer Agent	Address of the Trust
Computershare Trust Company, N.A.	100 Bellevue Parkway
Canton, MA 02021	Wilmington, DE 19809

A D D I T I O N A L   I N F O R M A T I O N 47

Glossary of Terms Used in this Report

Portfolio Abbreviation

AGM	Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp.
AGM-CR	AGM Insured Custodial Receipt
ARB	Airport Revenue Bonds
BAB	Build America Bond
CAB	Capital Appreciation Bonds
COP	Certificates of Participation
CR	Custodian Receipt
GO	General Obligation Bonds
LP	Limited Partnership
M/F	Multi-Family
NPFGC	National Public Finance Guarantee Corp.
RB	Revenue Bond
SAN	State Aid Notes
TA	Tax Allocation

48 2 0 2 1   B L A C K R O C K   A N N U A L   R E P O R T   T O   S H A R E H O L D E R S

Want to know more?

blackrock.com     |     800-882-0052

This report is intended for current holders. It is not a prospectus. Past performance results shown in this report should not be considered a representation of future performance. Statements and other information herein are as dated and are subject to change.

TAXMB-07/21-AR

(b) Not Applicable

Item 2 – Code of Ethics – The registrant (or the “Fund”) has adopted a code of ethics, as of the end of the period covered by this report, applicable to the registrant’s principal executive officer, principal financial officer, principal accounting officer or controller, or persons performing similar functions. During the period covered by this report, the code of ethics was amended to update certain information and to make other non-material changes. During the period covered by this report, there have been no waivers granted under the code of ethics. The registrant undertakes to provide a copy of the code of ethics to any person upon request, without charge, who calls 1-800-882-0052, option 4.

Item 3 – Audit Committee Financial Expert – The registrant’s board of directors (the “board of directors”), has determined that (i) the registrant has the following audit committee financial experts serving on its audit committee and (ii) each audit committee financial expert is independent:

Michael Castellano

Frank J. Fabozzi

Catherine A. Lynch

Karen P. Robards

The registrant’s board of directors has determined that Karen P. Robards qualifies as an audit committee financial expert pursuant to Item 3(c)(4) of Form N-CSR.

Ms. Robards has a thorough understanding of generally accepted accounting principles, financial statements and internal control over financial reporting as well as audit committee functions. Ms. Robards has been President of Robards & Company, a financial advisory firm, since 1987. Ms. Robards was formerly an investment banker for more than 10 years where she was responsible for evaluating and assessing the performance of companies based on their financial results. Ms. Robards has over 30 years of experience analyzing financial statements. She also is a member of the audit committee of one publicly held company and a non-profit organization.

Under applicable securities laws, a person determined to be an audit committee financial expert will not be deemed an “expert” for any purpose, including without limitation for the purposes of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, as a result of being designated or identified as an audit committee financial expert. The designation or identification of a person as an audit committee financial expert does not impose on such person any duties, obligations, or liabilities greater than the duties, obligations, and liabilities imposed on such person as a member of the audit committee and board of directors in the absence of such designation or identification. The designation or identification of a person as an audit committee financial expert does not affect the duties, obligations, or liability of any other member of the audit committee or board of directors.

Item 4 – Principal Accountant Fees and Services

The following table presents fees billed by Deloitte & Touche LLP (“D&T”) in each of the last two fiscal years for the services rendered to the Fund:

2

	(a) Audit Fees		(b) Audit-Related Fees1		(c) Tax Fees2		(d) All Other Fees
Entity Name	Current  Fiscal Year  End	Previous  Fiscal Year  End	Current  Fiscal Year  End	Previous  Fiscal Year  End	Current  Fiscal Year  End	Previous  Fiscal Year  End	Current  Fiscal Year  End	Previous  Fiscal Year  End
BlackRock Taxable Municipal Bond Trust	$34,643	$35,700	$3,057	$0	$14,900	$14,900	$0	$0

The following table presents fees billed by D&T that were required to be approved by the registrant’s audit committee (the “Committee”) for services that relate directly to the operations or financial reporting of the Fund and that are rendered on behalf of BlackRock Advisors, LLC (“Investment Adviser” or “BlackRock”) and entities controlling, controlled by, or under common control with BlackRock (not including any sub-adviser whose role is primarily portfolio management and is subcontracted with or overseen by another investment adviser) that provide ongoing services to the Fund (“Affiliated Service Providers”):

	Current Fiscal Year End	Previous Fiscal Year End
(b) Audit-Related Fees1	$0	$0
(c) Tax Fees2	$0	$0
(d) All Other Fees3	$2,032,000	$1,984,000

¹ The nature of the services includes assurance and related services reasonably related to the performance of the audit or review of financial statements not included in Audit Fees, including accounting consultations, agreed-upon procedure reports, attestation reports, comfort letters, out-of-pocket expenses and internal control reviews not required by regulators.

² The nature of the services includes tax compliance and/or tax preparation, including services relating to the filing or amendment of federal, state or local income tax returns, regulated investment company qualification reviews, taxable income and tax distribution calculations.

³ Non-audit fees of $2,032,000 and $1,984,000 for the current fiscal year and previous fiscal year, respectively, were paid to the Fund’s principal accountant in their entirety by BlackRock, in connection with services provided to the Affiliated Service Providers of the Fund and of certain other funds sponsored and advised by BlackRock or its affiliates for a service organization review and an accounting research tool subscription. These amounts represent aggregate fees paid by BlackRock and were not allocated on a per fund basis.

(e)(1) Audit Committee Pre-Approval Policies and Procedures:

The Committee has adopted policies and procedures with regard to the pre-approval of services. Audit, audit-related and tax compliance services provided to the registrant on an annual basis require specific pre-approval by the Committee. The Committee also must approve other non-audit services provided to the registrant and those non-audit services provided to the Investment Adviser and Affiliated Service Providers that relate directly to the operations and the financial reporting of the registrant. Certain of these non-audit services that the Committee believes are (a) consistent with the SEC’s auditor independence rules and (b) routine and recurring services that will not impair the independence of the independent accountants may be approved by the Committee without consideration on a specific case-by-case basis (“general pre-approval”). The term of any general pre-approval is 12 months from the date of the pre-approval, unless the Committee provides for a different period. Tax or other non-audit services provided to the registrant which have a direct impact on the operations or financial reporting of the registrant will only be deemed pre-approved provided that any individual project does not exceed $10,000 attributable to the registrant or $50,000 per project. For this purpose, multiple projects will be aggregated to determine if they exceed the previously mentioned cost levels.

Any proposed services exceeding the pre-approved cost levels will require specific pre-approval by the Committee, as will any other services not subject to general pre-approval (e.g., unanticipated but permissible services). The Committee is informed of each service approved

3

subject to general pre-approval at the next regularly scheduled in-person board meeting. At this meeting, an analysis of such services is presented to the Committee for ratification. The Committee may delegate to the Committee Chairman the authority to approve the provision of and fees for any specific engagement of permitted non-audit services, including services exceeding pre-approved cost levels.

(e)(2) None of the services described in each of Items 4(b) through (d) were approved by the Committee pursuant to the de minimis exception in paragraph (c)(7)(i)(C) of Rule 2-01 of Regulation S-X.

(f) Not Applicable

(g) ) The aggregate non-audit fees, defined as the sum of the fees shown under “Audit-Related Fees,” “Tax Fees” and “All Other Fees,” paid to the accountant for services rendered by the accountant to the registrant, the Investment Adviser and the Affiliated Service Providers were:

Entity Name	Current Fiscal Year End	Previous Fiscal Year End
BlackRock Taxable Municipal Bond Trust	$17,957	$14,900

Additionally, the amounts billed by D&T in connection with services provided to the Affiliated Service Providers of the Fund and of other funds sponsored or advised by BlackRock or its affiliates during the current and previous fiscal years for a service organization review and an accounting research tool subscription were:

Current Fiscal Year End	Previous Fiscal Year End
$2,032,000	$1,984,000

These amounts represent aggregate fees paid by BlackRock and were not allocated on a per fund basis.

(h) The Committee has considered and determined that the provision of non-audit services that were rendered to the Investment Adviser, and the Affiliated Service Providers that were not pre-approved pursuant to paragraph (c)(7)(ii) of Rule 2-01 of Regulation S-X is compatible with maintaining the principal accountant’s independence.

Item 5 – Audit Committee of Listed Registrant

(a) The following individuals are members of the registrant’s separately designated standing audit committee established in accordance with Section 3(a)(58)(A) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(58)(A)):

Michael Castellano

Frank J. Fabozzi

J. Phillip Holloman

4

Catherine A. Lynch

Karen P. Robards

(b) Not Applicable

Item 6 – Investments

(a) The registrant’s Schedule of Investments is included as part of the Report to Stockholders filed under Item 1(a) of this Form.

(b) Not Applicable due to no such divestments during the semi-annual period covered since the previous Form N-CSR filing.

Item 7 – Disclosure of Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures for Closed-End Management Investment Companies – The board of directors has delegated the voting of proxies for the Fund’s portfolio securities to the Investment Adviser pursuant to the Investment Adviser’s proxy voting guidelines. Under these guidelines, the Investment Adviser will vote proxies related to Fund securities in the best interests of the Fund and its stockholders. From time to time, a vote may present a conflict between the interests of the Fund’s stockholders, on the one hand, and those of the Investment Adviser, or any affiliated person of the Fund or the Investment Adviser, on the other. In such event, provided that the Investment Adviser’s Equity Investment Policy Oversight Committee, or a sub-committee thereof (the “Oversight Committee”) is aware of the real or potential conflict or material non-routine matter and if the Oversight Committee does not reasonably believe it is able to follow its general voting guidelines (or if the particular proxy matter is not addressed in the guidelines) and vote impartially, the Oversight Committee may retain an independent fiduciary to advise the Oversight Committee on how to vote or to cast votes on behalf of the Investment Adviser’s clients. If the Investment Adviser determines not to retain an independent fiduciary, or does not desire to follow the advice of such independent fiduciary, the Oversight Committee shall determine how to vote the proxy after consulting with the Investment Adviser’s Portfolio Management Group and/or the Investment Adviser’s Legal and Compliance Department and concluding that the vote cast is in its client’s best interest notwithstanding the conflict. A copy of the Fund’s Proxy Voting Policy and Procedures are attached as Exhibit 99.PROXYPOL, a copy of the Fund’s Global Corporate Governance  & Engagement Principles are attached as Exhibit 99.GLOBAL.CORP.GOV and a copy of the Fund’s Corporate Governance and Proxy Voting Guidelines for U.S. Securities are attached as Exhibit 99.US.CORP.GOV. Information on how the Fund voted proxies relating to portfolio securities during the most recent 12-month period ended June 30 is available without charge, (i) at www.blackrock.com and (ii) on the SEC’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

Item 8 – Portfolio Managers of Closed-End Management Investment Companies

(a)(1) As of the date of filing this Report:

The registrant is managed by a team of investment professionals comprised of Peter J. Hayes, Managing Director at BlackRock, Theodore R. Jaeckel, Jr., CFA, Managing Director at BlackRock, Michael A. Kalinoski, CFA, Director at BlackRock and Christian Romaglino, Director at BlackRock. Each is a member of BlackRock’s municipal tax-exempt management group. Each is jointly responsible for the day-to-day management of the registrant’s portfolio, which includes setting the registrant’s overall investment strategy, overseeing the management of the registrant and/or selection of its investments. Messrs.

5

Hayes, Jaeckel and Kalinoski have been members of the registrant’s portfolio management team since 2010, and Mr. Romaglino has been a member of the registrant’s portfolio management team since 2017.

Portfolio Manager	Biography
Peter J. Hayes	Managing Director of BlackRock since 2006; Head of Municipal Bonds within BlackRock’s Fixed Income Portfolio Management Group since 2006; Managing Director of Merrill Lynch Investment Managers, L.P. (“MLIM”) from 2000 to 2006.
Theodore R. Jaeckel, Jr., CFA	Managing Director of BlackRock since 2006; Managing Director of MLIM from 2005 to 2006; Director of MLIM from 1997 to 2005.
Michael A. Kalinoski, CFA	Director of BlackRock, Inc. since 2006; Director of MLIM from 1999 to 2006.
Christian Romaglino	Director of BlackRock since 2017, Portfolio Manager for the Municipal Mutual Fund Desk within BlackRock’s Global Fixed Income Group since 2017; Portfolio Manager of Brown Brothers Harriman from 2007 to 2017.

(a)(2) As of July 31, 2021:

	(ii) Number of Other Accounts Managed and Assets by Account Type			(iii) Number of Other Accounts and Assets for Which Advisory Fee is Performance-Based
(i) Name of Portfolio Manager	Other Registered Investment Companies	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles	Other Accounts	Other Registered Investment Companies	Other Pooled Investment Vehicles	Other Accounts
Peter J. Hayes	4	0	0	0	0	0
	$14.25 Billion	$0	$0	$0	$0	$0
Theodore R. Jaeckel, Jr., CFA	23	0	0	0	0	0
	$27.09 Billion	$0	$0	$0	$0	$0
Michael A. Kalinoski, CFA	13	0	0	0	0	0
	$35.87 Billion	$0	$0	$0	$0	$0
Christian Romaglino	10	0	0	0	0	0
	$5.19 Billion	$0	$0	$0	$0	$0

(iv) Portfolio Manager Potential Material Conflicts of Interest

BlackRock has built a professional working environment, firm-wide compliance culture and compliance procedures and systems designed to protect against potential incentives that may favor one account over another. BlackRock has adopted policies and procedures that address the allocation of investment opportunities, execution of portfolio transactions, personal trading by employees and other potential conflicts of interest that are designed to ensure that all client accounts are treated equitably over time. Nevertheless, BlackRock furnishes investment management and advisory services to numerous clients in addition to the Fund, and BlackRock may, consistent with applicable law, make investment recommendations to other clients or accounts (including accounts

6

which are hedge funds or have performance or higher fees paid to BlackRock, or in which portfolio managers have a personal interest in the receipt of such fees), which may be the same as or different from those made to the Fund. In addition, BlackRock, Inc., its affiliates and significant shareholders and any officer, director, shareholder or employee may or may not have an interest in the securities whose purchase and sale BlackRock recommends to the Fund. BlackRock, Inc., or any of its affiliates or significant shareholders, or any officer, director, shareholder, employee or any member of their families may take different actions than those recommended to the Fund by BlackRock with respect to the same securities. Moreover, BlackRock may refrain from rendering any advice or services concerning securities of companies of which any of BlackRock, Inc.’s (or its affiliates’ or significant shareholders’) officers, directors or employees are directors or officers, or companies as to which BlackRock, Inc. or any of its affiliates or significant shareholders or the officers, directors and employees of any of them has any substantial economic interest or possesses material non-public information. Certain portfolio managers also may manage accounts whose investment strategies may at times be opposed to the strategy utilized for a fund. It should also be noted that a portfolio manager may be managing hedge fund and/or long only accounts, or may be part of a team managing hedge fund and/or long only accounts, subject to incentive fees. Such portfolio managers may therefore be entitled to receive a portion of any incentive fees earned on such accounts. Currently, the portfolio managers of this Fund are not entitled to receive a portion of incentive fees of other accounts.

As a fiduciary, BlackRock owes a duty of loyalty to its clients and must treat each client fairly. When BlackRock purchases or sells securities for more than one account, the trades must be allocated in a manner consistent with its fiduciary duties. BlackRock attempts to allocate investments in a fair and equitable manner among client accounts, with no account receiving preferential treatment. To this end, BlackRock, Inc. has adopted policies that are intended to ensure reasonable efficiency in client transactions and provide BlackRock with sufficient flexibility to allocate investments in a manner that is consistent with the particular investment discipline and client base, as appropriate.

(a)(3) As of July 31, 2021:

Portfolio Manager Compensation Overview

The discussion below describes the portfolio managers’ compensation as of July 31, 2021.

BlackRock’s financial arrangements with its portfolio managers, its competitive compensation and its career path emphasis at all levels reflect the value senior management places on key resources. Compensation may include a variety of components and may vary from year to year based on a number of factors. The principal components of compensation include a base salary, a performance-based discretionary bonus, participation in various benefits programs and one or more of the incentive compensation programs established by BlackRock.

Base Compensation. Generally, portfolio managers receive base compensation based on their position with the firm.

Discretionary Incentive Compensation. Discretionary incentive compensation is a function of several components: the performance of BlackRock, Inc., the performance of the portfolio

7

manager’s group within BlackRock, the investment performance, including risk-adjusted returns, of the firm’s assets under management or supervision by that portfolio manager relative to predetermined benchmarks, and the individual’s performance and contribution to the overall performance of these portfolios and BlackRock. In most cases, these benchmarks are the same as the benchmark or benchmarks against which the performance of the Funds or other accounts managed by the portfolio managers are measured. Among other things, BlackRock’s Chief Investment Officers make a subjective determination with respect to each portfolio manager’s compensation based on the performance of the Funds and other accounts managed by each portfolio manager relative to the various benchmarks. Performance of fixed income funds is measured on a pre-tax and/or after-tax basis over various time periods including 1-, 3- and 5- year periods, as applicable. With respect to these portfolio managers, such benchmarks for the Fund and other accounts are:

Portfolio Managers	Applicable Benchmarks
Peter Hayes	A combination of market-based indices (e.g., Standard & Poor’s Municipal Bond Index), certain customized indices and certain fund industry peer groups. Due to Portfolio Manager Peter Hayes’ unique position (Portfolio Manager and Chief Investment Officer of Tax Exempt Fixed Income) his compensation does not solely reflect his role as PM of the funds managed by him. The performance of his fund(s) is included in consideration of his incentive compensation but given his unique role it is not the sole driver of compensation.
Theodore R. Jaeckel, Jr., CFA Michael Kalinoski, CFA Christian Romaglino	A combination of market-based indices (e.g., Standard & Poor’s Municipal Bond Index), certain customized indices and certain fund industry peer groups.

Distribution of Discretionary Incentive Compensation. Discretionary incentive compensation is distributed to portfolio managers in a combination of cash, deferred BlackRock, Inc. stock awards, and/or deferred cash awards that notionally track the return of certain BlackRock investment products.

Portfolio managers receive their annual discretionary incentive compensation in the form of cash. Portfolio managers whose total compensation is above a specified threshold also receive deferred BlackRock, Inc. stock awards annually as part of their discretionary incentive compensation. Paying a portion of discretionary incentive compensation in the form of deferred BlackRock, Inc. stock puts compensation earned by a portfolio manager for a given year “at risk” based on BlackRock’s ability to sustain and improve its performance over future periods. In some cases, additional deferred BlackRock, Inc. stock may be granted to certain key employees as part of a long-term incentive award to aid in retention, align interests with long-term shareholders and motivate performance. Deferred BlackRock, Inc. stock awards are generally granted in the form of BlackRock, Inc. restricted stock units that vest pursuant to the terms of the applicable plan and, once

8

vested, settle in BlackRock, Inc. common stock. The portfolio managers of this Fund have deferred BlackRock, Inc. stock awards.

For certain portfolio managers, a portion of the discretionary incentive compensation is also distributed in the form of deferred cash awards that notionally track the returns of select BlackRock investment products they manage, which provides direct alignment of portfolio manager discretionary incentive compensation with investment product results. Deferred cash awards vest ratably over a number of years and, once vested, settle in the form of cash. Only portfolio managers who manage specified products and whose total compensation is above a specified threshold are eligible to participate in the deferred cash award program.

Other Compensation Benefits. In addition to base salary and discretionary incentive compensation, portfolio managers may be eligible to receive or participate in one or more of the following:

Incentive Savings Plans — BlackRock, Inc. has created a variety of incentive savings plans in which BlackRock, Inc. employees are eligible to participate, including a 401(k) plan, the BlackRock Retirement Savings Plan (RSP), and the BlackRock Employee Stock Purchase Plan (ESPP). The employer contribution components of the RSP include a company match equal to 50% of the first 8% of eligible pay contributed to the plan capped at $5,000 per year, and a company retirement contribution equal to 3-5% of eligible compensation up to the Internal Revenue Service limit ($290,000 for 2021). The RSP offers a range of investment options, including registered investment companies and collective investment funds managed by the firm. BlackRock, Inc. contributions follow the investment direction set by participants for their own contributions or, absent participant investment direction, are invested into a target date fund that corresponds to, or is closest to, the year in which the participant attains age 65. The ESPP allows for investment in BlackRock, Inc. common stock at a 5% discount on the fair market value of the stock on the purchase date. Annual participation in the ESPP is limited to the purchase of 1,000 shares of common stock or a dollar value of $25,000 based on its fair market value on the purchase date. All of the eligible portfolio managers are eligible to participate in these plans.

(a)(4) Beneficial Ownership of Securities – As of July 31, 2021.

Portfolio Manager	Dollar Range of Equity Securities of the Fund Beneficially Owned
Peter J. Hayes	$100,001-$500,000
Theodore R. Jaeckel, Jr., CFA	$10,001 - $50,000
Michael A. Kalinoski, CFA	$10,001 -  $50,000
Christian Romaglino	$1 - $10,000

(b) Not Applicable

9

Item 9 – Purchases of Equity Securities by Closed-End Management Investment Company and Affiliated Purchasers – Not Applicable due to no such purchases during the period covered by this report.

Item 10 – Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders – There have been no material changes to these procedures.

Item 11 – Controls and Procedures

(a) The registrant’s principal executive and principal financial officers, or persons performing similar functions, have concluded that the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rule 30a-3(c) under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”)) are effective as of a date within 90 days of the filing of this report based on the evaluation of these controls and procedures required by Rule 30a-3(b) under the 1940 Act and Rule 13a-15(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

(b) There were no changes in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Rule 30a-3(d) under the 1940 Act) that occurred during the period covered by this report that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

Item 12 – Disclosure of Securities Lending Activities for Closed-End Management Investment Companies – Not Applicable

Item 13 – Exhibits attached hereto

(a)(2) Section 302 Certifications are attached

(a)(3) Not Applicable

(a)(4) Not Applicable

(b) Section 906 Certifications are attached

(c) Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

10

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

BlackRock Taxable Municipal Bond Trust

By:	/s/ John M. Perlowski
	John M. Perlowski
	Chief Executive Officer (principal executive officer) of
	BlackRock Taxable Municipal Bond Trust

Date: October 4, 2021

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

By:	/s/ John M. Perlowski
	John M. Perlowski
	Chief Executive Officer (principal executive officer) of
	BlackRock Taxable Municipal Bond Trust

Date: October 4, 2021

By:	/s/ Trent Walker
	Trent Walker
	Chief Financial Officer (principal financial officer) of
	BlackRock Taxable Municipal Bond Trust

Date: October 4, 2021

11

EX-99.CERT

EX-99. CERT

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 30a-2(a) UNDER THE 1940 ACT AND SECTION 302 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, John M. Perlowski, Chief Executive Officer (principal executive officer) of BlackRock Taxable Municipal Bond Trust, certify that:

1.            I have reviewed this report on Form N-CSR of BlackRock Taxable Municipal Bond Trust;

2.            Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.            Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations, changes in net assets, and cash flows (if the financial statements are required to include a statement of cash flows) of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.            The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rule 30a-3(c) under the Investment Company Act of 1940) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Rule 30a-3(d) under the Investment Company Act of 1940) for the registrant and have:

a)            designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b)            designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

c)            evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this report based on such evaluation; and

d)            disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by this report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.            The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)            all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize, and report financial information; and

b)            any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

Date: October 4, 2021

/s/ John M. Perlowski        

John M. Perlowski

Chief Executive Officer (principal executive officer) of

BlackRock Taxable Municipal Bond Trust

EX-99. CERT

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 30a-2(a) UNDER THE 1940 ACT AND SECTION 302 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Trent Walker, Chief Financial Officer (principal financial officer) of BlackRock Taxable Municipal Bond Trust, certify that:

1.            I have reviewed this report on Form N-CSR of BlackRock Taxable Municipal Bond Trust;

2.            Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.            Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations, changes in net assets, and cash flows (if the financial statements are required to include a statement of cash flows) of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.            The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rule 30a-3(c) under the Investment Company Act of 1940) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Rule 30a-3(d) under the Investment Company Act of 1940) for the registrant and have:

a)            designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b)            designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

c)            evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this report based on such evaluation; and

d)            disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by this report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.            The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)            all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize, and report financial information; and

b)            any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

Date: October 4, 2021

/s/ Trent Walker        

Trent Walker

Chief Financial Officer (principal financial officer) of

BlackRock Taxable Municipal Bond Trust

EX-99.906CERT

Exhibit 99.906CERT

Certification Pursuant to Rule 30a-2(b) under the 1940 Act and

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of BlackRock Taxable Municipal Bond Trust (the “Registrant”), hereby certifies, to the best of his knowledge, that the Registrant’s Report on Form N-CSR for the period ended July 31, 2021 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.

Date: October 4, 2021

/s/ John M. Perlowski        

John M. Perlowski

Chief Executive Officer (principal executive officer) of

BlackRock Taxable Municipal Bond Trust

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of BlackRock Taxable Municipal Bond Trust (the “Registrant”), hereby certifies, to the best of his knowledge, that the Registrant’s Report on Form N-CSR for the period ended July 31, 2021 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.

Date: October 4, 2021

/s/ Trent Walker        

Trent Walker

Chief Financial Officer (principal financial officer) of

BlackRock Taxable Municipal Bond Trust

This certification is being furnished pursuant to Rule 30a-2(b) under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended, and 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Form N-CSR with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

EX-99.PROXYPOL

Closed-End Fund Proxy Voting Policy

August 1, 2021

  Closed-End Fund Proxy Voting Policy

   Procedures Governing Delegation of Proxy Voting to Fund Adviser

  Effective Date: August 1, 2021

  Applies to the following types of Funds registered under the 1940 Act:

  ☐ Open-End Mutual Funds (including money market funds)

  ☐ Money Market Funds Only

  ☐ iShares and BlackRock ETFs

  ☒ Closed-End Funds

  ☐ Other

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 that responsibility 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 guidelines and procedures (together and as from time to time amended, the “BlackRock Proxy Voting Guidelines”) governing proxy voting by accounts managed by BlackRock. BlackRock will cast votes on behalf of each of the Funds on specific proxy issues in respect of securities held by each such Fund in accordance with the BlackRock Proxy Voting 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.

BlackRock will report on an annual basis to the Directors on (1) a summary of all proxy votes that BlackRock has made on behalf of the Funds in the preceding year together with a representation that all votes were in accordance with the BlackRock Proxy Voting Guidelines (as modified pursuant to the immediately preceding paragraph), and (2) any changes to the BlackRock Proxy Voting Guidelines that have not previously been reported.

Public Page 1 of 1

EX-99.GLOBAL.CORP.GO

BlackRock Investment Stewardship Global Principles Effective as of January 2021

Contents

Introduction to BlackRock	3
Philosophy on investment stewardship	3
Key themes	4
Boards and directors	5
Auditors and audit-related issues	7
Capital structure, mergers, asset sales and other special transactions	7
Compensation and benefits	8
Environmental and social issues	9
General corporate governance matters and shareholder protections	10
Shareholder proposals	10
BlackRock’s oversight of our investment stewardship activities	11
Vote execution	11
Conflicts management policies and procedures	12
Voting guidelines	13
Reporting and vote transparency	13

The purpose of this document is to provide an overarching explanation of BlackRock’s approach globally to our responsibilities as a shareholder on behalf of our clients, our expectations of companies, and our commitments to clients in terms of our own governance and transparency.    

If you would like additional information, please contact:

ContactStewardship@blackrock.com

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. As part of our fiduciary duty to our clients, we have determined that it is generally in the best long-term interest of our clients to promote sound corporate governance through voting as an informed, engaged shareholder. This is the responsibility of the Investment Stewardship Team.

Philosophy on investment stewardship

Companies are responsible for ensuring they have appropriate governance structures to serve the interests of shareholders and other key stakeholders. We believe that there are certain fundamental rights attached to shareholding. Companies and their boards should be accountable to shareholders and structured with appropriate checks and balances to ensure that they operate in shareholders’ best interests to create sustainable value. Shareholders should have the right to vote to elect, remove, and nominate directors, approve the appointment of the auditor, and amend the corporate charter or by-laws. Shareholders should be able to vote on matters that are material to the protection of their investment, including but not limited to, changes to the purpose of the business, dilution levels and pre-emptive rights, and the distribution of income and capital structure. In order to make informed decisions, we believe that shareholders have the right to sufficient and timely information. In addition, shareholder voting rights should be proportionate to their economic ownership—the principle of “one share, one vote” helps achieve this balance.

Consistent with these shareholder rights, we believe BlackRock has a responsibility to monitor and provide feedback to companies, in our role as stewards of our clients’ investments. BlackRock Investment Stewardship (“BIS”) does this through engagement with management teams and/or board members on material business issues including environmental, social, and governance (“ESG”) matters and, for those clients who have given us authority, through voting proxies in the best long-term economic interests of our clients. We also participate in the public debate to shape global norms and industry standards with the goal of a policy framework consistent with our clients’ interests as long-term shareholders.    

BlackRock looks to companies to provide timely, accurate, and comprehensive reporting on all material governance and business matters, including ESG issues. This allows shareholders to appropriately understand and assess how relevant risks and opportunities are being effectively identified and managed. Where company reporting and disclosure is inadequate or the approach taken is inconsistent with our view of what supports sustainable long-term value creation, we will engage with a company and/or use our vote to encourage a change in practice.

BlackRock views engagement as an important activity; engagement provides us with the opportunity to improve our understanding of the business and ESG risks and opportunities that are material to the companies in which our clients invest. As long-term investors on behalf of clients, we seek to have regular and continuing dialogue with executives and board directors to advance sound governance and sustainable business practices, as well as to understand the effectiveness of the company’s management and oversight of material issues. Engagement is an important mechanism for providing feedback on company practices and disclosures, particularly where we believe they could be enhanced. We primarily engage through direct dialogue but may use other tools such as written correspondence to share our perspectives. Engagement also informs our voting decisions.

We vote in support of management and boards where and to the extent they demonstrate an approach consistent with creating sustainable long-term value. If we have concerns about a company’s approach, we may choose to engage to explain our expectations. Where we consider that a company has failed to address one or more material issues within an appropriate timeframe, we may hold directors accountable or take other voting actions to signal our concerns. We apply our voting guidelines to achieve the outcome we believe is most aligned with our clients’ long-term economic interests.

3

Key themes

We recognize that accepted standards and norms of corporate governance differ between markets; however, there are sufficient common threads globally to identify this overarching set of principles (the “Principles”) which are anchored in transparency and accountability. At a minimum, we expect companies to observe the accepted corporate governance standards in their domestic market or to explain why not doing so supports sustainable long-term value creation.

Our regional and market-specific voting guidelines explain how these Principles inform our voting decisions in relation to specific ballot items for shareholder meetings.

These Principles cover seven key themes:

• Boards and directors

• Auditors and audit-related issues

• Capital structure, mergers, asset sales, and other special transactions

• Compensation and benefits

• Environmental and social issues

• General corporate governance matters and shareholder protections

• Shareholder proposals

4

Boards and directors

The performance of the board is critical to the economic success of the company and the protection of shareholders’ interests. As part of their responsibilities, board members owe fiduciary duties to shareholders in overseeing the strategic direction and operation of the company. For this reason, BlackRock focuses on directors in many of our engagements and sees the election of directors as one of our most important responsibilities in the proxy voting context.

We support boards whose approach is consistent with creating sustainable long-term value. This includes the effective management of strategic, operational, and material ESG factors and the consideration of key stakeholder interests. Our primary focus is on the performance of the board of directors. The board should establish and maintain a framework of robust and effective governance mechanisms to support its oversight of the company’s strategic aims. We look to the board to articulate the effectiveness of these mechanisms in overseeing the management of business risks and opportunities and the fulfillment of the company’s purpose. Disclosure of material issues that affect the company’s long-term strategy and value creation, including material ESG factors, is essential for shareholders to be able to appropriately understand and assess how the board is effectively identifying, managing, and mitigating risks.

Where a company has not adequately disclosed and demonstrated these responsibilities, we will consider withholding our support for the re-election of directors whom we hold accountable. We assess director performance on a case-by-case basis and in light of each company’s particular circumstances, taking into consideration our assessment of their governance, sustainable business practices, and performance. In serving the interests of shareholders, the responsibility of the board of directors includes, but is not limited to, the following:

• Establishing an appropriate corporate governance structure

• Supporting and overseeing management in setting long-term strategic goals, applicable measures of value-creation and milestones that will demonstrate progress, and steps taken if any obstacles are anticipated or incurred

• Providing oversight on the identification and management of material, business operational and sustainability-related risks

• Overseeing the financial resilience of the company, the integrity of financial statements, and the robustness of a company’s Enterprise Risk Management¹ frameworks

• Making decisions on matters that require independent evaluation which may include mergers, acquisitions and disposals, activist situations or other similar cases

• Establishing appropriate executive compensation structures

• Addressing business issues, including environmental and social issues, when they have the potential to materially impact the company’s long-term value

There should be clear definitions of the role of the board, the committees of the board and senior management. We set out below ways in which boards and directors can demonstrate a commitment to acting in the best interests of long-term shareholders. We will seek to engage with the appropriate directors where we have concerns about the performance of the company, board, or individual directors. As noted above, we believe that when a company is not effectively addressing a material issue, its directors should be held accountable.

¹ Enterprise risk management is a process, effected by the entity’s board of directors, management, and other personnel, applied in strategy setting and across the enterprise, designed to identify potential events that may affect the entity, and manage risk to be within the risk appetite, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the achievement of objectives. (Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO), Enterprise Risk Management — Integrated Framework, September 2004, New York, NY).

5

Regular accountability

BlackRock believes that directors should stand for re-election on a regular basis, ideally annually. In our experience, annual re-elections allow shareholders to reaffirm their support for board members or hold them accountable for their decisions in a timely manner. When board members are not re-elected annually, we believe it is good practice for boards to have a rotation policy to ensure that, through a board cycle, all directors have had their appointment re-confirmed, with a proportion of directors being put forward for re-election at each annual general meeting.

Effective board composition

Regular director elections also give boards the opportunity to adjust their composition in an orderly way to reflect the evolution of the company’s strategy and the market environment. BlackRock believes it is beneficial for new directors to be brought onto the board periodically to refresh the group’s thinking and in a manner that supports both continuity and appropriate succession planning. We expect companies to keep under regular review the effectiveness of its board (including its size), and assess directors nominated for election or re-election in the context of the composition of the board as a whole. This assessment should consider a number of factors, including the potential need to address gaps in skills or experience, the diversity of the board, and the balance of independent and non-independent directors. We also consider the average tenure of the overall board, where we are seeking a balance between the knowledge and experience of longer-serving members and the fresh perspectives of newer members.

When nominating new directors to the board, there should be detailed information on the individual candidates in order for shareholders to assess the suitability of an individual nominee and the overall board composition. These disclosures should give a clear sense of how the collective experience and expertise of the board aligns with the company’s long-term strategy and business model. We also expect disclosures to demonstrate how diversity is accounted for within the proposed board composition, including demographic factors such as gender, ethnicity, and age; as well as professional characteristics, such as a director’s industry experience, specialist areas of expertise, and geographic location.    

We expect there to be a sufficient number of independent directors, free from conflicts of interest or undue influence from connected parties, to ensure objectivity in the decision-making of the board and its ability to oversee management. 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

• 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

BlackRock believes that the board is able to fulfill its fiduciary duty when there is a clearly independent, senior non-executive director to chair it or, where the chairman is also the CEO (or is otherwise not independent), a lead independent director. The role of this director is to enhance the effectiveness of the independent members of the board through shaping the agenda, ensuring adequate information is provided to the board and encouraging independent participation in board deliberations. The lead independent director or another appropriate director should be available to shareholders in those situations where an independent director is best placed to explain and justify a company’s approach.

There are matters for which the board has responsibility that may involve a conflict of interest for executives or for affiliated directors. BlackRock believes that objective oversight of such matters is best achieved when the board forms committees comprised entirely of independent directors. In many markets, these committees of the board specialize in audit, director nominations and compensation matters. An ad hoc committee might also be formed to decide on a special transaction, particularly one involving a related party, or to investigate a significant adverse event.

Sufficient capacity

As the role of a director is demanding, directors must be able to commit an appropriate amount of time to board and committee matters. It is important that every director has the capacity to meet all of his/her responsibilities – including

6

when there are unforeseen events – and therefore, he/she should not take on an excessive number of roles that would impair his/her ability to fulfill his/her duties.

Auditors and audit-related issues

BlackRock recognizes the critical importance of financial statements, which should provide a true and fair picture of a company’s financial condition. Accordingly, the assumptions made by management and reviewed by the auditor in preparing the financial statements should be reasonable and justified.    

The accuracy of financial statements, inclusive of financial and non-financial information, is clearly of paramount importance to BlackRock. Investors’ views on financial materiality are developing to encompass a broader range of risks. Over time, we expect increased scrutiny of the assumptions underlying financial reports.

In this context, audit committees, or equivalent, play a vital role in a company’s financial reporting system by providing independent oversight of the accounts, material financial and non-financial information, internal control frameworks, and Enterprise Risk Management systems. BlackRock believes that effective audit and risk committee oversight strengthens the quality and reliability of a company’s financial statements and provides an important level of reassurance to shareholders.

We hold the members of the audit committee or equivalent responsible for overseeing the management of the audit function. Audit committees or equivalent should have clearly articulated charters that set out the committee’s responsibilities and have a rotation plan in place that allows for a periodic refreshment of the committee memberships.

We take particular note of critical accounting matters, cases involving significant financial restatements or ad hoc notifications of material financial weakness. In this respect, audit committees should provide timely disclosure on the remediation of Key and Critical Audit Matters identified either by the external auditor or Internal Audit function.

The integrity of financial statements depends on the auditor being free of any impediments to being an effective check on management. To that end, we believe it is important that auditors are, and are seen to be, independent. Where the audit firm provides services to the company in addition to the audit, the fees earned should be disclosed and explained. Audit committees should have in place a procedure for assessing annually the independence of the auditor and the quality of the external audit process.

Comprehensive disclosure provides investors with a sense of the company’s long-term operational risk management practices and, more broadly, the quality of the board’s oversight. The audit committee or equivalent should periodically review the company’s risk assessment and risk management policies and significant risks and exposures identified by management, the internal auditors or the independent accountants, and management’s steps to address them. In the absence of robust disclosures, we may reasonably conclude that companies are not adequately managing risk.

Capital structure, mergers, asset sales, and other special transactions

The capital structure of a company is critical to shareholders as it impacts the value of their investment and the priority of their interest in the company relative to that of other equity or debt investors. Pre-emptive rights are a key protection for shareholders against the dilution of their interests.

Effective voting rights are basic rights of share ownership and we believe strongly in one vote for one share as a guiding principle that supports effective corporate governance. Shareholders, as the residual claimants, have the strongest interest in protecting company value, and voting power should match economic exposure.

In principle, we disagree with the creation of a share class with equivalent economic exposure and preferential, differentiated voting rights as it violates the fundamental corporate governance principle of proportionality, and results in a concentration of power in the hands of a few shareholders, thus disenfranchising other shareholders and amplifying any potential conflicts of interest. However, we recognize that in certain markets, at least for a period of time, companies may have a valid argument for dual-class listings. We believe that such companies should review these share class structures on a regular basis or as company circumstances change. Additionally, they should receive shareholder approval of their capital structure on a periodic basis via a management proposal at the company’s shareholder meeting. The proposal

7

should give unaffiliated shareholders the opportunity to affirm the current structure or establish mechanisms to end or phase out controlling structures at the appropriate time, while minimizing costs to shareholders.    

In assessing mergers, asset sales, or other special transactions, BlackRock’s primary consideration is the long-term economic interests of our clients as shareholders. Boards proposing a transaction need to clearly explain the economic and strategic rationale behind it. We will review a proposed transaction to determine the degree to which it enhances long-term shareholder value. We would prefer that proposed transactions have the unanimous support of the board and have been negotiated at arm’s length. We may seek reassurance from the board that executives’ and/or board members’ financial interests in a given transaction have not adversely affected their ability to place shareholders’ interests before their own. Where the transaction involves related parties, we would expect the recommendation to support it to come from the independent directors, and ideally, the terms have been assessed through an independent appraisal process. In addition, it is good practice that it be approved by a separate vote of the non-conflicted shareholders.

BlackRock believes that shareholders have a right to dispose of company shares in the open market without unnecessary restriction. In our view, corporate mechanisms designed to limit shareholders’ ability to sell their shares are contrary to basic property rights. Such mechanisms can serve to protect and entrench interests other than those of the shareholders. We believe that shareholders are broadly capable of making decisions in their own best interests. We expect any so-called ‘shareholder rights plans’ proposed by a board to be subject to shareholder approval upon introduction and periodically thereafter for continuation.

Compensation and benefits

BlackRock expects a company’s board of directors to put in place a compensation structure that incentivizes and rewards executives appropriately and is linked with performance that aligns with shareholder interests, particularly the generation of sustainable long-term value. We would expect the compensation committee to carefully consider the specific circumstances of the company and the key individuals the board is trying to incentivize. We encourage companies to ensure that their compensation plans incorporate appropriate and rigorous performance metrics consistent with corporate strategy and market practice. We use third party research, in addition to our own analysis, to evaluate existing and proposed compensation structures. We hold members of the compensation committee or equivalent board members accountable for poor compensation practices or structures.

BlackRock believes that there should be a clear link between variable pay and company performance that drives value creation. We are not supportive of one-off or special bonuses unrelated to company or individual performance. Where discretion has been used by the compensation committee, we expect disclosure relating to how and why the discretion was used, and further, how the adjusted outcome is aligned with the interests of shareholders. We acknowledge that the use of peer group evaluation by compensation committees can help ensure competitive pay; however, we are concerned when the rationale for increases in total compensation at a company is solely based on peer benchmarking rather than a rigorous measure of outperformance.

We support incentive plans that foster the sustainable achievement of results consistent with the company’s long-term strategic initiatives. The vesting timeframes associated with incentive plans should facilitate a focus on long-term value creation. We believe consideration should be given to building claw back provisions into incentive plans such that executives would be required to forgo rewards when they are not justified by actual performance and/or when compensation was based on faulty financial reporting or deceptive business practices. We also favor recoupment from any senior executive whose behavior caused material financial harm to shareholders, material reputational risk to the company, or resulted in a criminal investigation, even if such actions did not ultimately result in a material restatement of past results. Compensation committees should guard against contractual arrangements that would entitle executives to material compensation for early termination of their contract. Finally, pension contributions and other deferred compensation arrangements should be reasonable in light of market practice.

Non-executive directors should be compensated in a manner that is commensurate with the time and effort expended in fulfilling their professional responsibilities. Additionally, these compensation arrangements should not risk compromising their independence or aligning their interests too closely with those of the management, whom they are charged with overseeing.

8

Environmental and social issues

We believe that well-managed companies will deal effectively with material ESG factors relevant to their businesses. As stated throughout this document, governance is the core structure by which boards can oversee the creation of sustainable long-term value —appropriate risk oversight of environmental and social (“E&S”) considerations stems from this construct.    

Robust disclosure is essential for investors to effectively gauge companies’ business practices and strategic planning related to E&S risks and opportunities. When a company’s reporting is inadequate, investors, including BlackRock, will increasingly conclude that companies are not adequately managing risk. Given the increased understanding of material sustainability risks and opportunities, and the need for better information to assess them, BlackRock will advocate for continued improvement in companies’ reporting and will hold management and/or directors accountable where disclosures or the business practices underlying them are inadequate.    

BlackRock views the recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) and the standards put forward by the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) as appropriate and complementary frameworks for companies to adopt for the disclosure of financially material sustainability information. While the TCFD framework was crafted with the aim of climate-related risk disclosure, the four pillars of the TCFD Governance, Strategy, Risk Management, and Metrics and Targets are a useful way for companies to disclose how they identify, assess, manage, and oversee a variety of sustainability-related risks and opportunities. SASB’s industry-specific guidance (as identified in its materiality map) is beneficial in helping companies identify key performance indicators (KPIs) across various dimensions of sustainability that are considered to be financially material and decision-useful within their industry,

Accordingly, we ask companies to:

• Disclose the identification, assessment, management, and oversight of sustainability-related risks in accordance with the four pillars of TCFD; and

• Publish SASB-aligned reporting with industry-specific, material metrics and rigorous targets².

Companies may also adopt or refer to guidance on sustainable and responsible business conduct issued by supranational organizations such as the United Nations or the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Further, industry specific initiatives on managing specific operational risks may be useful. Companies should disclose any global standards adopted, the industry initiatives in which they participate, any peer group benchmarking undertaken, and any assurance processes to help investors understand their approach to sustainable and responsible business practices.

Climate risk

BlackRock believes that climate change has become a defining factor in companies’ long-term prospects. We expect every company to help their investors understand how the company may be impacted by climate-related risk and opportunities, and how they are considered within strategy. Specifically, we expect companies to articulate how they are aligned to a scenario in which global warming is limited to well below 2°C and is consistent with a global aspiration to reach net zero GHG emissions by 2050³.

The public and private sectors have roles to play in aligning greenhouse gas reduction efforts with targets based on science, where available, to curb the worst effects of climate change and reach the global goal of carbon neutrality by the mid-century. Companies have an opportunity to utilize and contribute to the development of current and future low-carbon transition technologies, which are an important consideration for the rate at which emissions can be reduced. We expect

² See our commentary on our approach to engagement on TCFD and SASB aligned reporting for greater detail of our expectations.

³ The global aspiration is reflective of aggregated efforts; companies in developed and emerging markets are not equally equipped to transition their business and reduce emissions at the same rate—those in developed markets with the largest market capitalization are better positioned to adapt their business models at an accelerated pace. Government policy and regional targets may be reflective of these realities.

9

companies to disclose how they are considering these challenges, alongside opportunities for innovation, within their strategy and emissions reduction efforts.

Key stakeholder interests

Given our expectation that companies operate in long-term shareholders’ interests to create sustainable value and fulfill their purpose, BlackRock believes that companies should take due account of their key stakeholders’ interests. It is for each company to determine its key stakeholders based on what is material to its business, but they are likely to include employees, business partners (such as suppliers and distributors), clients and consumers, government and regulators, and the communities in which they operate, as well as investors.

Having regard to the interests of key stakeholders recognizes the collective nature of long-term value creation, and the extent to which each company’s prospects for growth are tied to its ability to foster strong sustainable relationships with those stakeholders. Companies should articulate how they address adverse impacts that could arise from their business practices and affect critical business relationships with their stakeholders. We expect companies to implement, to the extent appropriate, monitoring processes (often referred to as due diligence) to identify and mitigate potential adverse impacts, and grievance mechanisms to remediate any actual adverse impacts. The maintenance of trust within these relationships is often equated with a company’s social license to operate.

To ensure transparency and accountability, companies should report on how they have identified their key stakeholders and considered their interests in business decision-making, demonstrating the applicable governance, strategy, risk management, and metrics and targets. This approach should be overseen by the board, whose job it is to ensure that the approach taken is informed by and aligns with the company’s purpose.

General corporate governance matters and shareholder protections

BlackRock believes that shareholders have a right to material and timely information on the financial performance and viability of the companies in which they invest. In addition, companies should also publish information on the governance structures in place and the rights of shareholders to influence these structures. The reporting and disclosure provided by companies help shareholders assess whether their economic interests have been protected and the quality of the board’s oversight of management. We believe shareholders should have the right to vote on key corporate governance matters, including changes to governance mechanisms, to submit proposals to the shareholders’ meeting, and to call special meetings of shareholders.

Shareholder proposals

In most markets in which BlackRock invests on behalf of clients, shareholders have the right to submit proposals to be voted on by shareholders at a company’s annual or extraordinary meeting, as long as eligibility and procedural requirements are met. The matters that we see put forward by shareholders address a wide range of topics, including governance reforms, capital management, and improvements in the management or disclosure of environmental and social risks.

When assessing shareholder proposals, we evaluate each proposal on its merit, with a singular focus on its implications for long-term value creation. We consider the business and economic relevance of the issue raised, as well as its materiality and the urgency with which we believe it should be addressed. We take into consideration the legal effect of the proposal, as shareholder proposals may be advisory or legally binding depending on the jurisdiction. We would not support proposals that we believe would result in over-reaching into the basic business decisions of the issuer.

Where a proposal is focused on an issue that we agree needs to be addressed and the intended outcome is consistent with long-term value creation, we will look to the board and management to demonstrate that the company has met the intent of the request made in the shareholder proposal. Where our analysis and / or engagement indicate a need for improvement in the company’s approach to the issue, we will support shareholder proposals that are reasonable and not unduly constraining on management. Alternatively, or in addition, we may vote against the re-election of one of more directors if, in our assessment, the board has not responded sufficiently or with an appropriate sense of urgency.

10

BlackRock’s oversight of its investment

stewardship activities

Oversight

We hold ourselves to a very high standard in our investment stewardship activities, including proxy voting. To meet this standard, BIS is comprised of BlackRock employees who do not have other responsibilities other than their roles in BIS. BIS is considered an investment function.

BlackRock maintains three regional advisory committees (“Stewardship Advisory Committees”) for (a) the Americas; (b) Europe, the Middle East and Africa (“EMEA”); and (c) Asia-Pacific, generally consisting of senior BlackRock investment professionals and/or senior employees with practical boardroom experience. The regional Stewardship Advisory Committees review and advise on amendments to BIS proxy voting guidelines covering markets within each respective region (“Guidelines”).

In addition to the regional Stewardship Advisory Committees, the Investment Stewardship Global Oversight Committee (“Global Committee”) is a risk-focused committee, comprised of senior representatives from various BlackRock investment teams, a senior legal representative, the Global Head of Investment Stewardship (“Global Head”), and other senior executives with relevant experience and team oversight.

The Global Head has primary oversight of the activities of BIS, including voting in accordance with the Guidelines, which require the application of professional judgment and consideration of each company’s unique circumstances. The Global Committee reviews and approves amendments to these Principles. The Global Committee also reviews and approves amendments to the regional Guidelines, as proposed by the regional Stewardship Advisory Committees.

In addition, the Global Committee receives and reviews periodic reports regarding the votes cast by BIS, as well as updates on material process issues, procedural changes, and other risk oversight considerations. The Global Committee reviews these reports in an oversight capacity as informed by the BIS corporate governance engagement program and the Guidelines.

BIS carries out engagement with companies, monitors and executes proxy votes, and conducts vote operations (including maintaining records of votes cast) in a manner consistent with the relevant Guidelines. BIS 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. BIS may utilize third parties for certain of the foregoing activities and performs oversight of those third parties. BIS may raise complicated or particularly controversial matters for internal discussion with the relevant investment teams and/or refer such matters to the appropriate regional Stewardship Advisory Committees for review, discussion and guidance prior to making a voting decision.

Vote execution

We carefully consider proxies submitted to funds and other fiduciary account(s) (“Fund” or “Funds”) for which we have voting authority. BlackRock votes (or refrains from voting) proxies for each Fund for which we have voting authority based on our evaluation of the best long-term economic interests of our clients as shareholders, in the exercise of our independent business judgment, and without regard to the relationship of the issuer of the proxy (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, BlackRock will normally vote on specific proxy issues in accordance with the Guidelines for the relevant market. The Guidelines are reviewed regularly and are amended consistent with changes in the local market practice, as developments in corporate governance occur, or as otherwise deemed advisable by the applicable Stewardship Advisory Committees. BIS analysts may, in the exercise of their professional judgment, conclude that the Guidelines do not cover the specific matter upon which a proxy vote is required or that an exception to the Guidelines would be in the best long-term economic interests of BlackRock’s clients.

11

In the uncommon circumstance of there being a vote with respect to fixed income securities or the securities of privately held issuers, the decision generally will be made by a Fund’s portfolio managers and/or BIS based on their assessment of the particular transactions or other matters at issue.

In certain markets, proxy voting involves logistical issues which can affect BlackRock’s 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.

As a consequence, BlackRock votes proxies on a “best-efforts” basis. In addition, BIS may determine that it is generally in the best interests of BlackRock’s clients not to vote proxies 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.

Portfolio managers have full discretion to vote the shares in the Funds they manage based on their analysis of the economic impact of a particular ballot item. Portfolio managers may from time to time reach differing views on how best to maximize economic value with respect to a particular investment. Therefore, portfolio managers may, and sometimes do, vote shares in the Funds under their management differently from one another. However, because BlackRock’s clients are mostly long-term investors with long-term economic goals, ballots are frequently cast in a uniform manner.    

Conflicts management policies and procedures

BIS 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 clients who may be issuers of securities or proponents of shareholder resolutions

• BlackRock business partners or third parties who may be issuers of securities or proponents of shareholder resolutions

• BlackRock employees who may sit on the boards of public companies held in Funds managed by BlackRock

• Significant BlackRock, Inc. investors who may be issuers of securities held in Funds managed by BlackRock

• Securities of BlackRock, Inc. or BlackRock investment funds held in Funds managed by BlackRock

• BlackRock, Inc. board members who serve as senior executives of public companies held in Funds managed by BlackRock

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

• Adopted the Guidelines which are designed to advance our clients’ interests in the companies in which BlackRock invests on behalf of clients.

• Established a reporting structure that separates BIS from employees with sales, vendor management, or business partnership roles. In addition, BlackRock seeks to ensure that all engagements with corporate issuers, dissident shareholders or shareholder proponents are managed consistently and without regard to BlackRock’s relationship with such parties. Clients or business partners are not given special treatment or differentiated access to BIS. BIS prioritizes engagements based on factors including, but not limited to, our need for additional information to make a voting decision or our view on the likelihood that an engagement could lead to positive outcome(s) over time for the economic value of the company. Within the normal course of business, BIS may engage directly with BlackRock clients, business partners and/or third parties, and/or with employees with sales, vendor management, or business partnership roles, in

12

discussions regarding our approach to stewardship, general corporate governance matters, client reporting needs, and/or to otherwise ensure that proxy-related client service levels are met.

• Determined to engage, in certain instances, an independent fiduciary to vote proxies as a further safeguard to avoid potential conflicts of interest, to satisfy regulatory compliance requirements, or as may be otherwise required by applicable law. In such circumstances, the independent fiduciary provides BlackRock’s proxy voting agent with instructions, in accordance with the Guidelines, as to how to vote such proxies, and BlackRock’s proxy voting agent votes the proxy in accordance with the independent fiduciary’s determination. BlackRock uses an independent fiduciary to vote proxies of BlackRock, Inc. and companies affiliated with BlackRock, Inc. BlackRock may also use an independent fiduciary to vote proxies of:

i. public companies that include BlackRock employees on their boards of directors,

ii. public companies of which a BlackRock, Inc. board member serves as a senior executive,

iii. public companies that are the subject of certain transactions involving BlackRock Funds,

iv. public companies that are joint venture partners with BlackRock, and

v. public companies when legal or regulatory requirements compel BlackRock to use an independent fiduciary.

In selecting an independent fiduciary, we assess several characteristics, including but not limited to: independence, an ability to analyze proxy issues and vote in the best economic interest of our clients, reputation for reliability and integrity, and operational capacity to accurately deliver the assigned votes in a timely manner. We may engage more than one independent fiduciary, in part in order to mitigate potential or perceived conflicts of interest at an independent fiduciary. The Global Committee appoints and reviews the performance of the independent fiduciaries, generally on an annual basis.

When so authorized, BlackRock acts as a securities lending agent on behalf of Funds. With regard to the relationship between securities lending and proxy voting, BlackRock’s approach is driven by our clients’ economic interests. The decision whether to recall securities on loan to vote is based on a formal analysis of the revenue producing value to clients of loans, against the assessed economic value of casting votes. Generally, we expect that the likely economic value to clients of casting votes would be less than the securities lending income, either because, in our assessment, the resolutions being voted on will not have significant economic consequences or because the outcome would not be affected by BlackRock voting the loaned securities that were recalled in order to vote. BlackRock also may, in our discretion, determine that the value of voting outweighs the cost of recalling shares, and thus recall shares to vote in that instance.

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

Voting guidelines

The issue-specific Guidelines published for each region/country in which we vote are intended to summarize BlackRock’s general philosophy and approach to issues that may commonly arise in the proxy voting context in each market where we invest. The Guidelines are not intended to be exhaustive. BIS 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 BIS 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.

Reporting and vote transparency

Investment stewardship is how we use our voice as an investor to promote sound corporate governance and business practices to help maximize long-term shareholder value for our clients, the vast majority of whom are investing for long-term goals such as retirement. We are 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 through disclosure on our website. Each year we publish an annual report as well as quarterly stewardship reports which provide a global overview of our investment stewardship engagement and voting activities during the quarter, including market

13

developments, speaking engagements, and engagement, and voting statistics. Additionally, we make public our market-specific voting guidelines for the benefit of clients and companies with whom we engage. We also publish commentaries to share our perspective on market developments and emerging key themes.

At a more granular level, we publish quarterly our vote record for each company that held a shareholder meeting during the period, showing how we voted on each proposal and explaining any votes against management proposals or on shareholder proposals. For shareholder meetings where a vote might be high profile or of significant interest to clients, we publish a voting bulletin shortly after the meeting, disclosing and explaining our vote on key proposals. We also publish a quarterly list of all companies we engaged and the key topics addressed in the engagement meeting.    

In this way, we help inform our clients about the work we do on their behalf in promoting the governance and business practices that support long-term sustainable value creation.    

This 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.

©2020 BlackRock, Inc. All rights reserved.

14

EX-99.US.CORP.GOV

BlackRock Investment Stewardship Proxy voting guidelines for U.S. securities Effective as of January 2021

Contents
Introduction	3
Voting guidelines	3
Boards and directors	3
Auditors and audit-related issues	9
Capital structure proposals	9
Mergers, acquisitions, asset sales, and other special transactions	10
Executive compensation	11
Environmental and social issues	13
General corporate governance matters	15
Shareholder protections	16

If you would like additional information, please contact:

ContactStewardship@blackrock.com

BlackRock

These guidelines should be read in conjunction with the BlackRock Investment Stewardship Global Principles.

Introduction

We believe BlackRock has a responsibility to monitor and provide feedback to companies, in our role as stewards of our clients’ investments. BlackRock Investment Stewardship (“BIS”) does this through engagement with management teams and/or board members on material business issues, including environmental, social, and governance (“ESG”) matters and, for those clients who have given us authority, through voting proxies in the best long-term economic interests of our clients.

The following issue-specific proxy voting guidelines (the “Guidelines”) are intended to summarize BIS’ general philosophy and approach to ESG factors, as well as our expectations of directors, that most commonly arise in proxy voting for U.S. securities. These Guidelines are not intended to limit the analysis of individual issues at specific companies or provide a guide to how BlackRock will vote in every instance. They are applied with discretion, taking into consideration the range of issues and facts specific to the company, as well as individual ballot items.

Voting guidelines

These guidelines are divided into eight key themes, which group together the issues that frequently appear on the agenda of annual and extraordinary meetings of shareholders:

• Boards and directors

• Auditors and audit-related issues

• Capital structure

• Mergers, acquisitions, asset sales, and other special transactions

• Executive compensation

• Environmental and social issues

• General corporate governance matters

• Shareholder protections

Boards and directors

The effective performance of the board is critical to the economic success of the company and the protection of shareholders’ interests. As part of their responsibilities, board members owe fiduciary duties to shareholders in overseeing the strategic direction and operation of the company. For this reason, BlackRock focuses on directors in many of our engagements and sees the election of directors as one of our most critical responsibilities.

Disclosure of material issues that affect the company’s long-term strategy and value creation, including material ESG factors, is essential for shareholders to be able to appropriately understand and assess how effectively the board is identifying, managing, and mitigating risks.    

Where we conclude that a board has failed to address or disclose one or more material issues within a specified timeframe, we may hold directors accountable or take other appropriate action in the context of our voting decisions.

Director elections

Where a board has not adequately demonstrated, through company disclosures and actions, how material issues are appropriately identified, managed, and overseen, we will consider withholding our support for the re-election of directors whom we hold accountable.

BlackRock Proxy voting guidelines for U.S. securities | 3

In addition, we may withhold votes from directors or members of particular board committees in certain situations, as indicated below.

Independence

We expect a majority of the directors on the board to be independent. In addition, all members of key committees, including audit, compensation, and nominating/ governance committees, should be independent. Our view of independence may vary from listing standards.

Common impediments to independence may include:

• Employment as a senior executive by the company or a subsidiary within the past five years

• An equity ownership in the company in excess of 20%

• Having any other interest, business, or relationship (professional or personal) which could, or could reasonably be perceived to, materially interfere with the director’s ability to act in the best interests of the company

• When evaluating controlled companies, as defined by the U.S. stock exchanges, we may vote against insiders or affiliates who sit on the audit committee, but not other key committees

We may vote against directors serving on key committees who we do not consider to be independent.

Oversight

We expect the board to exercise appropriate oversight over management and business activities of the company. We will consider voting against committee members and/or individual directors in the following circumstances:

• Where the board has failed to exercise sufficient oversight with regard to material ESG risk factors, or the company has failed to provide shareholders with adequate disclosure to conclude appropriate strategic consideration is given to these factors by the board

• Where the board has failed to exercise oversight with regard to accounting practices or audit oversight, we will consider voting against the current audit committee, and any other members of the board who may be responsible. For example, we may vote against members of the audit committee during a period when the board failed to facilitate quality, independent auditing if substantial accounting irregularities suggest insufficient oversight by that committee

• Members of the compensation committee during a period in which executive compensation appears excessive relative to performance and peers, and where we believe the compensation committee has not already substantially addressed this issue

• The chair of the nominating/ governance committee, or where no chair exists, the nominating/governance committee member with the longest tenure, where the board is not comprised of a majority of independent directors. This may not apply in the case of a controlled company

• Where it appears the director has acted (at the company or at other companies) in a manner that compromises his/ her ability to represent the best long-term economic interests of shareholders

• Where a director has a multi-year pattern of poor attendance at combined board and applicable committee meetings, or a director has poor attendance in a single year with no disclosed rationale. Excluding exigent circumstances, BlackRock generally considers attendance at less than 75% of the combined board and applicable committee meetings to be poor attendance

• Where a director serves on an excessive number of boards, which may limit his/ her capacity to focus on each board’s requirements. The following identifies the maximum number of boards on which a director may serve, before he/ she is considered to be over-committed:

BlackRock Proxy voting guidelines for U.S. securities | 4

	Public Company Executive or Fund Manager1	# Outside Public Boards2	Total # of Public Boards
Director A	✓	1	2
Director B		3	4

Responsiveness to shareholders

We expect a board to be engaged and responsive to its shareholders, including acknowledging voting outcomes for shareholder proposals, director elections, compensation, and other ballot items. Where we believe a board has not substantially addressed shareholder concerns, we may vote against the responsible committees and/or individual directors. The following illustrates common circumstances:

• The independent chair or lead independent director, members of the nominating/governance committee, and/or the longest tenured director(s), where we observe a lack of board responsiveness to shareholders, evidence of board entrenchment, and/or failure to plan for adequate board member succession

• The chair of the nominating/governance committee, or where no chair exists, the nominating/governance committee member with the longest tenure, where board member(s) at the most recent election of directors have received against votes from more than 25% of shares voted, and the board has not taken appropriate action to respond to shareholder concerns. This may not apply in cases where BlackRock did not support the initial against vote

• The independent chair or lead independent director and/ or members of the nominating/governance committee, where a board fails to consider shareholder proposals that receive substantial support, and the proposals, in our view, have a material impact on the business, shareholder rights, or the potential for long-term value creation

Shareholder rights

We expect a board to act with integrity and to uphold governance best practices. Where we believe a board has not acted in the best interests of its shareholders, we may vote against the appropriate committees and/or individual directors. The following illustrates common circumstances:

• The independent chair or lead independent director and members of the nominating/governance committee, where a board implements or renews a poison pill without shareholder approval

• The independent chair or lead independent director and members of the nominating/governance committee, where a board amends the charter/articles/bylaws such that the effect may be to entrench directors or to significantly reduce shareholder rights

• Members of the compensation committee where the company has repriced options without shareholder approval

• If a board maintains a classified structure, it is possible that the director(s) with whom we have a particular concern may not be subject to election in the year that the concern arises. In such situations, if we have a concern regarding the actions of a committee and the responsible member(s) or committee chair are not up for re-election, we will generally register our concern by voting against all available members of the relevant committee

¹ In this instance, “fund manager” refers to individuals whose full-time employment involves responsibility for the investment and oversight of fund vehicles, and those who have employment as professional investors and provide oversight for those holdings.

² In addition to the company under review

BlackRock Proxy voting guidelines for U.S. securities | 5

Board composition and effectiveness

We encourage boards to periodically renew their membership to ensure relevant skills and experience within the boardroom. To this end, regular performance reviews and skills assessments should be conducted by the nominating/ governance committee or the lead independent director.

Furthermore, we expect boards to be comprised of a diverse selection of individuals who bring their personal and professional experiences to bear in order to create a constructive debate of a variety of views and opinions in the boardroom. We recognize that diversity has multiple dimensions. In identifying potential candidates, boards should take into consideration the full breadth of diversity, including personal factors, such as gender, ethnicity, race, and age, as well as professional characteristics, such as a director’s industry, area of expertise, and geographic location. In addition to other elements of diversity, we encourage companies to have at least two women directors on their board. Our publicly available commentary explains our approach to engaging on board diversity.

We encourage boards to disclose:

• The mix of competencies, experience, and other qualities required to effectively oversee and guide management in light of the stated long-term strategy of the company

• The process by which candidates are identified and selected, including whether professional firms or other sources outside of incumbent directors’ networks have been engaged to identify and/or assess candidates

• The process by which boards evaluate themselves and any significant outcomes of the evaluation process, without divulging inappropriate and/ or sensitive details

• Demographics related to board diversity, including, but not limited to, gender, ethnicity, race, age, and geographic location, in addition to measurable milestones to achieve a boardroom reflective of multi-faceted racial, ethnic, and gender representation

Our primary concern is that board members are able to contribute effectively as corporate strategy evolves and business conditions change. We acknowledge that no single person can be expected to bring all relevant skill sets to a board; at the same time, we generally do not believe it is necessary or appropriate to have any particular director on the board solely by virtue of a singular background or specific area of expertise.

Where boards find that age limits or term limits are the most efficient and objective mechanism for ensuring periodic board refreshment, we generally defer to the board’s determination in setting such limits. BlackRock will also consider the average board tenure to evaluate processes for board renewal. We may oppose boards that appear to have an insufficient mix of short-, medium-, and long-tenured directors.

To the extent that a company has not adequately accounted for diversity in its board composition within a reasonable timeframe, based on our assessment, we may vote against members of the nominating/governance committee for an apparent lack of commitment to board effectiveness.

Board size

We typically defer to the board in setting the appropriate size and believe directors are generally in the best position to assess the optimal board size to ensure effectiveness. However, we may oppose boards that appear too small to allow for the necessary range of skills and experience or too large to function efficiently.

CEO and management succession planning

There should be a robust CEO and senior management succession plan in place at the board level that is reviewed and updated on a regular basis. We expect succession planning to cover both long-term planning consistent with the strategic direction of the company and identified leadership needs over time, as well as short-term planning in the event of an unanticipated executive departure. We encourage the company to explain its executive succession planning process,

BlackRock Proxy voting guidelines for U.S. securities | 6

including where accountability lies within the boardroom for this task, without prematurely divulging sensitive information commonly associated with this exercise.

Classified board of directors/staggered terms

We believe that directors should be re-elected annually; classification of the board generally limits shareholders’ rights to regularly evaluate a board’s performance and select directors. While we will typically support proposals requesting board de-classification, we may make exceptions, should the board articulate an appropriate strategic rationale for a classified board structure, such as when a company needs consistency and stability during a time of transition, e.g. newly public companies or companies undergoing a strategic restructuring. A classified board structure may also be justified at non-operating companies, e.g. closed-end funds or business development companies (BDC),³ in certain circumstances. We would, however, expect boards with a classified structure to periodically review the rationale for such structure and consider when annual elections might be more appropriate.

Without a voting mechanism to immediately address concerns about a specific director, we may choose to vote against the available slate of directors (see “Shareholder rights” for additional detail).

Contested director elections

The details of contested elections, or proxy contests, are assessed on a case-by-case basis. We evaluate a number of factors, which may include: the qualifications of the dissident and management candidates; the validity of the concerns identified by the dissident; the viability of both the dissident’s and management’s plans; the ownership stake and holding period of the dissident; the likelihood that the dissident’s solutions will produce the desired change; and whether the dissident represents the best option for enhancing long-term shareholder value.

Cumulative voting

We believe that a majority vote standard is in the best long-term interests of shareholders. It ensures director accountability through the requirement to be elected by more than half of the votes cast. As such, we will generally oppose proposals requesting the adoption of cumulative voting, which may disproportionately aggregate votes on certain issues or director candidates.

Director compensation and equity programs

We believe that compensation for directors should be structured to attract and retain directors, while also aligning their interests with those of shareholders. We believe director compensation packages that are based on the company’s long-term value creation and include some form of long-term equity compensation are more likely to meet this goal. In addition, we expect directors to build meaningful share ownership over time.

Majority vote requirements

BlackRock believes that directors should generally be elected by a majority of the shares voted and will normally support proposals seeking to introduce bylaws requiring a majority vote standard for director elections. Majority vote standards assist in ensuring that directors who are not broadly supported by shareholders are not elected to serve as their representatives. Some companies with a plurality voting standard have adopted a resignation policy for directors who do not receive support from at least a majority of votes cast. Where we believe that the company already has a sufficiently robust majority voting process in place, we may not support a shareholder proposal seeking an alternative mechanism.

We note that majority voting may not be appropriate in all circumstances, for example, in the context of a contested election, or for majority-controlled companies.

³A BDC is a special investment vehicle under the Investment Company Act of 1940 that is designed to facilitate capital formati on for small and middle-market companies.

BlackRock Proxy voting guidelines for U.S. securities | 7

Risk oversight

Companies should have an established process for identifying, monitoring, and managing business and material ESG risks. Independent directors should have access to relevant management information and outside advice, as appropriate, to ensure they can properly oversee risk. We encourage companies to provide transparency around risk management, mitigation, and reporting to the board. We are particularly interested in understanding how risk oversight processes evolve in response to changes in corporate strategy and/or shifts in the business and related risk environment. Comprehensive disclosure provides investors with a sense of the company’s long-term operational risk management practices and, more broadly, the quality of the board’s oversight. In the absence of robust disclosures, we may reasonably conclude that companies are not adequately managing risk.

Separation of chairman and CEO

We believe that independent leadership is important in the boardroom. There are two commonly accepted structures for independent board leadership: 1) an independent chairman; or 2) a lead independent director when the roles of chairman and CEO are combined.    

In the absence of a significant governance concern, we defer to boards to designate the most appropriate leadership structure to ensure adequate balance and independence.

In the event that the board chooses a combined chair/CEO model, we generally support the designation of a lead independent director if they have the power to: 1) provide formal input into board meeting agendas; 2) call meetings of the independent directors; and 3) preside at meetings of independent directors. Furthermore, while we anticipate that most directors will be elected annually, we believe an element of continuity is important for this role to provide appropriate leadership balance to the chair/CEO.

The following table illustrates examples of responsibilities under each board leadership model:

	Combined Chair/ CEO Model		Separate Chair Model
	Chair/ CEO	Lead Independent Director	Chair
Board Meetings	Authority to call full meetings of the board of directors	Attends full meetings of the board of directors	Authority to call full meetings of the board of directors
		Authority to call meetings of independent directors
		Briefs CEO on issues arising from executive sessions
Agenda	Primary responsibility for shaping board agendas, consulting with the lead independent director	Collaborates with chair/ CEO to set board agenda and board information	Primary responsibility for shaping board agendas, in conjunction with CEO
Board   Communications	Communicates with all directors on key issues and concerns outside of full board meetings	Facilitates discussion among independent directors on key issues and concerns outside of full board meetings, including contributing to the oversight of CEO and management succession planning	Facilitates discussion among independent directors on key issues and concerns outside of full board meetings, including contributing to the oversight of CEO and management succession planning

BlackRock Proxy voting guidelines for U.S. securities | 8

Auditors and audit-related issues

BlackRock recognizes the critical importance of financial statements to provide a complete and accurate portrayal of a company’s financial condition. Consistent with our approach to voting on boards of directors, we seek to hold the audit committee of the board responsible for overseeing the management of the audit function at a company, and may vote against the audit committee members where the board has failed to facilitate quality, independent auditing. We look to the audit committee report for insight into the scope of the audit committee responsibilities, including an overview of audit committee processes, issues on the audit committee agenda, and key decisions taken by the audit committee. We take particular note of cases involving significant financial restatements or material weakness disclosures, and we expect timely disclosure and remediation of accounting irregularities.

The integrity of financial statements depends on the auditor effectively fulfilling its role. To that end, we favor an independent auditor. In addition, to the extent that an auditor fails to reasonably identify and address issues that eventually lead to a significant financial restatement, or the audit firm has violated standards of practice that protect the interests of shareholders, we may also vote against ratification.

From time to time, shareholder proposals may be presented to promote auditor independence or the rotation of audit firms. We may support these proposals when they are consistent with our views as described above.

Capital structure proposals

Equal voting rights

BlackRock believes that shareholders should be entitled to voting rights in proportion to their economic interests. We believe that companies that look to add or already have dual or multiple class share structures should review these structures on a regular basis, or as company circumstances change. Companies with multiple share classes should receive shareholder approval of their capital structure on a periodic basis via a management proposal on the company’s proxy. The proposal should give unaffiliated shareholders the opportunity to affirm the current structure or establish mechanisms to end or phase out controlling structures at the appropriate time, while minimizing costs to shareholders.    

Blank check preferred stock

We frequently oppose proposals requesting authorization of a class of preferred stock with unspecified voting, conversion, dividend distribution, and other rights (“blank check” preferred stock) because they may serve as a transfer of authority from shareholders to the board and as a possible entrenchment device. We generally view the board’s discretion to establish voting rights on a when-issued basis as a potential anti-takeover device, as it affords the board the ability to place a block of stock with an investor sympathetic to management, thereby foiling a takeover bid without a shareholder vote.    

Nonetheless, we may support the proposal where the company:

• Appears to have a legitimate financing motive for requesting blank check authority

• Has committed publicly that blank check preferred shares will not be used for anti-takeover purposes

• Has a history of using blank check preferred stock for financings

• Has blank check preferred stock previously outstanding such that an increase would not necessarily provide further anti-takeover protection but may provide greater financing flexibility

Increase in authorized common shares

BlackRock will evaluate requests to increase authorized shares on a case-by-case basis, in conjunction with industry-specific norms and potential dilution, as well as a company’s history with respect to the use of its common shares.

BlackRock Proxy voting guidelines for U.S. securities | 9

Increase or issuance of preferred stock

We generally support proposals to increase or issue preferred stock in cases where the company specifies the voting, dividend, conversion, and other rights of such stock and where the terms of the preferred stock appear reasonable.

Stock splits

We generally support stock splits that are not likely to negatively affect the ability to trade shares or the economic value of a share. We generally support reverse stock splits that are designed to avoid delisting or to facilitate trading in the stock, where the reverse split will not have a negative impact on share value (e.g. one class is reduced while others remain at pre-split levels). In the event of a proposal for a reverse split that would not proportionately reduce the company’s authorized stock, we apply the same analysis we would use for a proposal to increase authorized stock.

Mergers, acquisitions, asset sales, and other special transactions

In assessing mergers, acquisitions, asset sales, or other special transactions, BlackRock’s primary consideration is the long-term economic interests of our clients as shareholders. Boards proposing a transaction need to clearly explain the economic and strategic rationale behind it. We will review a proposed transaction to determine the degree to which it enhances long-term shareholder value. While mergers, acquisitions, asset sales, and other special transaction proposals vary widely in scope and substance, we closely examine certain salient features in our analyses, such as:

• The degree to which the proposed transaction represents a premium to the company’s trading price. We consider the share price over multiple time periods prior to the date of the merger announcement. We may consider comparable transaction analyses provided by the parties’ financial advisors and our own valuation assessments. For companies facing insolvency or bankruptcy, a premium may not apply

• There should be clear strategic, operational, and/ or financial rationale for the combination

• Unanimous board approval and arm’s-length negotiations are preferred. We will consider whether the transaction involves a dissenting board or does not appear to be the result of an arm’s-length bidding process. We may also consider whether executive and/ or board members’ financial interests appear likely to affect their ability to place shareholders’ interests before their own

• We prefer transaction proposals that include the fairness opinion of a reputable financial advisor assessing the value of the transaction to shareholders in comparison to recent similar transactions

Poison pill plans

Where a poison pill is put to a shareholder vote by management, our policy is to examine these plans individually. Although we oppose most plans, we may support plans that include a reasonable “qualifying offer clause.” Such clauses typically require shareholder ratification of the pill and stipulate a sunset provision whereby the pill expires unless it is renewed. These clauses also tend to specify that an all-cash bid for all shares that includes a fairness opinion and evidence of financing does not trigger the pill, but forces either a special meeting at which the offer is put to a shareholder vote, or requires the board to seek the written consent of shareholders, where shareholders could rescind the pill at their discretion. We may also support a pill where it is the only effective method for protecting tax or other economic benefits that may be associated with limiting the ownership changes of individual shareholders.

We generally vote in favor of shareholder proposals to rescind poison pills.

Reimbursement of expenses for successful shareholder campaigns

We generally do not support shareholder proposals seeking the reimbursement of proxy contest expenses, even in situations where we support the shareholder campaign. We believe that introducing the possibility of such reimbursement may incentivize disruptive and unnecessary shareholder campaigns.

BlackRock Proxy voting guidelines for U.S. securities | 10

Executive compensation

BlackRock expects a company’s board of directors to put in place a compensation structure that incentivizes and rewards executives appropriately and is aligned with shareholder interests, particularly the generation of sustainable long-term value.

We expect the compensation committee to carefully consider the specific circumstances of the company and the key individuals the board is focused on incentivizing. We encourage companies to ensure that their compensation plans incorporate appropriate and rigorous performance metrics consistent with corporate strategy and market practice. We use third party research, in addition to our own analysis, to evaluate existing and proposed compensation structures. We hold members of the compensation committee, or equivalent board members, accountable for poor compensation practices or structures.

BlackRock believes that there should be a clear link between variable pay and company performance that drives value creation. We are generally not supportive of one-off or special bonuses unrelated to company or individual performance. Where discretion has been used by the compensation committee, we expect disclosure relating to how and why the discretion was used and further, how the adjusted outcome is aligned with the interests of shareholders.

We acknowledge that the use of peer group evaluation by compensation committees can help calibrate competitive pay; however, we are concerned when the rationale for increases in total compensation is solely based on peer benchmarking, rather than absolute outperformance.

We support incentive plans that foster the sustainable achievement of results consistent with the company’s long-term strategic initiatives. The vesting timeframes associated with incentive plans should facilitate a focus on long-term value creation. Compensation committees should guard against contractual arrangements that would entitle executives to material compensation for early termination of their contract. Finally, pension contributions and other deferred compensation arrangements should be reasonable in light of market practice.

“Say on Pay” advisory resolutions

In cases where there is a “Say on Pay” vote, BlackRock will respond to the proposal as informed by our evaluation of compensation practices at that particular company and in a manner that appropriately addresses the specific question posed to shareholders. In a commentary on our website, entitled “BlackRock Investment Stewardship’s approach to executive compensation,” we explain our expectations related to executive compensation practices, our “Say on Pay” analysis framework, and our typical approach to engagement and voting on “Say on Pay.”

Where we conclude that a company has failed to align pay with performance, we will vote against the management compensation proposal and consider voting against the compensation committee members.

Frequency of “Say on Pay” advisory resolutions

BlackRock will generally support annual advisory votes on executive compensation, and will consider biennial and triennial timeframes, absent compensation concerns. In evaluating pay, we believe that the compensation committee is responsible for constructing a plan that appropriately incentivizes executives for long-term value creation, utilizing relevant metrics and structure to promote overall pay and performance alignment.

Clawback proposals

We generally favor recoupment from any senior executive whose compensation was based on faulty financial reporting or deceptive business practices. We also favor recoupment from any senior executive whose behavior caused material financial harm to shareholders, material reputational risk to the company, or resulted in a criminal proceeding, even if such actions did not ultimately result in a material restatement of past results. This includes, but is not limited to, settlement agreements arising from such behavior and paid for directly by the company. We typically support shareholder proposals on these matters unless the company already has a robust claw back policy that sufficiently addresses our concerns.

BlackRock Proxy voting guidelines for U.S. securities | 11

Employee stock purchase plans

We believe employee stock purchase plans (“ESPP”) are an important part of a company’s overall human capital management strategy and can provide performance incentives to help align employees’ interests with those of shareholders. The most common form of ESPP qualifies for favorable tax treatment under Section 423 of the Internal Revenue Code. We will typically support qualified ESPP proposals.

Equity compensation plans

BlackRock supports equity plans that align the economic interests of directors, managers, and other employees with those of shareholders. We believe that boards should establish policies prohibiting the use of equity awards in a manner that could disrupt the intended alignment with shareholder interests (e.g. the use of stock as collateral for a loan; the use of stock in a margin account; the use of stock in hedging or derivative transactions). We may support shareholder proposals requesting the establishment of such policies.

Our evaluation of equity compensation plans is based on a company’s executive pay and performance relative to peers and whether the plan plays a significant role in a pay-for-performance disconnect. We generally oppose plans that contain “evergreen” provisions, which allow for the unlimited increase of shares reserved without requiring further shareholder approval after a reasonable time period. We also generally oppose plans that allow for repricing without shareholder approval. We may also oppose plans that provide for the acceleration of vesting of equity awards even in situations where an actual change of control may not occur. We encourage companies to structure their change of control provisions to require the termination of the covered employee before acceleration or special payments are triggered (commonly referred to as “double trigger” change of control provisions).    

Golden parachutes

We generally view golden parachutes as encouragement to management to consider transactions that might be beneficial to shareholders. However, a large potential pay-out under a golden parachute arrangement also presents the risk of motivating a management team to support a sub-optimal sale price for a company.    

When determining whether to support or oppose an advisory vote on a golden parachute plan, BlackRock may consider several factors, including:

• Whether we believe that the triggering event is in the best interests of shareholders

• Whether management attempted to maximize shareholder value in the triggering event

• The percentage of total premium or transaction value that will be transferred to the management team, rather than shareholders, as a result of the golden parachute payment

• Whether excessively large excise tax gross-up payments are part of the pay-out

• Whether the pay package that serves as the basis for calculating the golden parachute payment was reasonable in light of performance and peers

• Whether the golden parachute payment will have the effect of rewarding a management team that has failed to effectively manage the company

It may be difficult to anticipate the results of a plan until after it has been triggered; as a result, BlackRock may vote against a golden parachute proposal even if the golden parachute plan under review was approved by shareholders when it was implemented.

We may support shareholder proposals requesting that implementation of such arrangements require shareholder approval. We generally support proposals requiring shareholder approval of plans that exceed 2.99 times an executive’s current salary and bonus, including equity compensation.

Option exchanges

BlackRock Proxy voting guidelines for U.S. securities | 12

We believe that there may be legitimate instances where underwater options create an overhang on a company’s capital structure and a repricing or option exchange may be warranted. We will evaluate these instances on a case-by-case basis. BlackRock may support a request to reprice or exchange underwater options under the following circumstances:

• The company has experienced significant stock price decline as a result of macroeconomic trends, not individual company performance

• Directors and executive officers are excluded; the exchange is value neutral or value creative to shareholders; tax, accounting, and other technical considerations have been fully contemplated

• There is clear evidence that absent repricing, the company will suffer serious employee incentive or retention and recruiting problems

BlackRock may also support a request to exchange underwater options in other circumstances, if we determine that the exchange is in the best interests of shareholders.

Supplemental executive retirement plans

BlackRock may support shareholder proposals requesting to put extraordinary benefits contained in supplemental executive retirement plans (“SERP”) to a shareholder vote unless the company’s executive pension plans do not contain excessive benefits beyond what is offered under employee-wide plans.

Environmental and social issues

We believe that well-managed companies deal effectively with material ESG factors relevant to their businesses. As stated throughout this document, governance is the core structure by which boards can oversee the creation of sustainable long-term value—appropriate risk oversight of environmental and social (“E&S”) considerations stems from this construct.

Robust disclosure is essential for investors to effectively gauge companies’ business practices and strategic planning related to E&S risks and opportunities. When a company’s reporting is inadequate, investors, including BlackRock, will increasingly conclude that the company is not adequately managing risk. Given the increased understanding of material sustainability risks and opportunities, and the need for better information to assess them, BlackRock will advocate for continued improvement in companies’ reporting and will hold management and/ or directors accountable where disclosures or the business practices underlying them are inadequate.    

BlackRock views the recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) and the standards put forth by the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) as appropriate and complementary frameworks for companies to disclose financially material sustainability information. While the TCFD framework was crafted with the aim of climate-related risk disclosure, the four pillars of the TCFD–Governance, Strategy, Risk Management, and Metrics and Targets–are a useful way for companies to disclose how they identify, assess, manage, and oversee a variety of sustainability-related risks and opportunities. SASB’s industry-specific guidance (as identified in its materiality map) is beneficial in helping companies identify key performance indicators (KPIs) across various dimensions of sustainability that are considered to be financially material and decision-useful within their industry.

Accordingly, we ask companies to:

• Disclose the identification, assessment, management, and oversight of sustainability-related risks in accordance with the four pillars of TCFD

• Publish SASB-aligned reporting with industry-specific, material metrics and rigorous targets

See our commentary on our approach to engagement on TCFD- and SASB-aligned reporting for greater detail of our expectations.

BlackRock Proxy voting guidelines for U.S. securities | 13

Climate risk

BlackRock believes that climate change has become a defining factor in companies’ long-term prospects. We expect every company to help their investors understand how the company may be impacted by climate-related risks and opportunities, and how they are considered within the company’s strategy.    

Specifically, we expect companies to articulate how they are aligned to a scenario in which global warming is limited to well below 2° C and is consistent with a global aspiration to reach net zero GHG emissions by 2050.⁴ In order to assess companies’ progress, BIS expects carbon-intensive companies to disclose explicit GHG emissions reduction targets.

The public and private sectors have roles to play in aligning greenhouse gas reduction efforts with targets based on science, where available to curb the worst effects of climate change and reach the global goal of carbon neutrality by mid-century. Companies have an opportunity to utilize and contribute to the development of current and future low-carbon transition technologies, which are an important consideration for the rate at which emissions can be reduced. We expect companies to disclose how they are considering these challenges, alongside opportunities for innovation, within their strategy and emissions reduction efforts.

We may support shareholder proposals that ask companies to disclose climate plans aligned with our expectations.

Key stakeholder interests

As a long-term investor, we believe that in order to deliver value for shareholders, companies should also consider their stakeholders. While stakeholder groups may vary across industries, they are likely to include employees; business partners (such as suppliers and distributors); clients and consumers; government and regulators; and the communities in which companies operate. Companies that build strong relationships with their stakeholders are more likely to meet their own strategic objectives, while poor relationships may create adverse impacts that expose a company to legal, regulatory, operational, and reputational risks and jeopardize their social license to operate. We expect companies to effectively oversee and mitigate these risks with appropriate due diligence processes and board oversight.

Human capital management

A company’s approach to human capital management is a critical factor in fostering an inclusive, diverse, and engaged workforce, which contributes to business continuity, innovation, and long-term value creation. As an important component of strategy, we expect boards to oversee human capital management.

We believe that clear and consistent reporting on these matters is critical for investors to understand the composition of a company’s workforce. We expect companies to disclose workforce demographics, such as gender, race, and ethnicity in line with the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s EEO-1 Survey, alongside the steps they are taking to advance diversity, equity, and inclusion. Where we believe a company’s disclosures or practices fall short relative to the market or peers, or we are unable to ascertain the board and management’s effectiveness in overseeing related risks and opportunities, we may vote against members of the appropriate committee or support relevant shareholder proposals. Our commentary on human capital management provides more information on our expectations.

Corporate political activities

Companies may engage in certain political activities, within legal and regulatory limits, in order to influence public policy consistent with the companies’ values and strategies. These activities can also create risks, including: the potential for allegations of corruption; reputational risk associated with a candidate, party, or issue; and risks that arise from the complex legal, regulatory, and compliance considerations associated with corporate political spending and lobbying

⁴ The global aspiration is reflective of aggregated efforts; companies in developed and emerging markets are not equally equipped to transition their business and reduce emissions at the same rate–those in developed markets with the largest market capitalization are better positioned to adapt their business models at an accelerated pace. Government policy and regional targets may be reflective of these realities.

BlackRock Proxy voting guidelines for U.S. securities | 14

activity. Companies that engage in political activities should develop and maintain robust processes to guide these activities and mitigate risks, including board oversight.

When presented with shareholder proposals requesting increased disclosure on corporate political activities, BlackRock will evaluate publicly available information to consider how a company’s lobbying may impact the company. We will also evaluate whether there is alignment between a company’s stated positions on policy matters material to its strategy and the positions taken by industry groups of which it is a member. We may decide to support a shareholder proposal requesting additional disclosure if we identify a material misalignment. Additional detail can be found in our commentary on political contributions and lobbying disclosures.

General corporate governance matters

Adjourn meeting to solicit additional votes

We generally support such proposals unless the agenda contains items that we judge to be detrimental to shareholders’ best long-term economic interests.

Bundled proposals

We believe that shareholders should have the opportunity to review substantial governance changes individually without having to accept bundled proposals. Where several measures are grouped into one proposal, BlackRock may reject certain positive changes when linked with proposals that generally contradict or impede the rights and economic interests of shareholders.

Exclusive forum provisions

BlackRock generally supports proposals to seek exclusive forum for certain shareholder litigation. In cases where a board unilaterally adopts exclusive forum provisions that we consider unfavorable to the interests of shareholders, we will vote against the independent chair or lead independent director and members of the nominating/governance committee.

Multi-jurisdictional companies

Where a company is listed on multiple exchanges or incorporated in a country different from its primary listing, we will seek to apply the most relevant market guideline(s) to our analysis of the company’s governance structure and specific proposals on the shareholder meeting agenda. In doing so, we typically consider the governance standards of the company’s primary listing, the market standards by which the company governs itself, and the market context of each specific proposal on the agenda. If the relevant standards are silent on the issue under consideration, we will use our professional judgment as to what voting outcome would best protect the long-term economic interests of investors. We expect companies to disclose the rationale for their selection of primary listing, country of incorporation, and choice of governance structures, particularly where there is conflict between relevant market governance practices.

Other business

We oppose giving companies our proxy to vote on matters where we are not given the opportunity to review and understand those measures and carry out an appropriate level of shareholder oversight.

Reincorporation

Proposals to reincorporate from one state or country to another are most frequently motivated by considerations of anti-takeover protections, legal advantages, and/or cost savings. We will evaluate, on a case-by-case basis, the economic and strategic rationale behind the company’s proposal to reincorporate. In all instances, we will evaluate the changes to shareholder protections under the new charter/articles/bylaws to assess whether the move increases or decreases shareholder protections. Where we find that shareholder protections are diminished, we may support reincorporation if we determine that the overall benefits outweigh the diminished rights.

BlackRock Proxy voting guidelines for U.S. securities | 15

IPO governance

We expect boards to consider and disclose how the corporate governance structures adopted upon initial public offering (“IPO”) are in shareholders’ best long-term interests. We also expect boards to conduct a regular review of corporate governance and control structures, such that boards might evolve foundational corporate governance structures as company circumstances change, without undue costs and disruption to shareholders. In our letter on unequal voting structures, we articulate our view that “one vote for one share” is the preferred structure for publicly-traded companies. We also recognize the potential benefits of dual class shares to newly public companies as they establish themselves; however, we believe that these structures should have a specific and limited duration. We will generally engage new companies on topics such as classified boards and supermajority vote provisions to amend bylaws, as we believe that such arrangements may not be in the best interest of shareholders in the long-term.

We will typically apply a one-year grace period for the application of certain director-related guidelines (including, but not limited to, responsibilities on other public company boards and board composition concerns), during which we expect boards to take steps to bring corporate governance standards in line with our expectations.

Further, if a company qualifies as an emerging growth company (an “EGC”) under the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act of 2012 (the “JOBS Act”), we will give consideration to the NYSE and NASDAQ governance exemptions granted under the JOBS Act for the duration such a company is categorized as an EGC. We expect an EGC to have a totally independent audit committee by the first anniversary of its IPO, with our standard approach to voting on auditors and audit-related issues applicable in full for an EGC on the first anniversary of its IPO.

Shareholder protections

Amendment to charter/articles/bylaws

We believe that shareholders should have the right to vote on key corporate governance matters, including changes to governance mechanisms and amendments to the charter/articles/bylaws. We may vote against certain directors where changes to governing documents are not put to a shareholder vote within a reasonable period of time, particularly if those changes have the potential to impact shareholder rights (see “Director elections”). In cases where a board’s unilateral adoption of changes to the charter/articles/bylaws promotes cost and operational efficiency benefits for the company and its shareholders, we may support such action if it does not have a negative effect on shareholder rights or the company’s corporate governance structure.

When voting on a management or shareholder proposal to make changes to the charter/articles/bylaws, we will consider in part the company’s and/or proponent’s publicly stated rationale for the changes; the company’s governance profile and history; relevant jurisdictional laws; and situational or contextual circumstances which may have motivated the proposed changes, among other factors. We will typically support amendments to the charter/articles/bylaws where the benefits to shareholders outweigh the costs of failing to make such changes.

Proxy access

We believe that long-term shareholders should have the opportunity, when necessary and under reasonable conditions, to nominate directors on the company’s proxy card.    

In our view, securing the right of shareholders to nominate directors without engaging in a control contest can enhance shareholders’ ability to meaningfully participate in the director election process, encourage board attention to shareholder interests, and provide shareholders an effective means of directing that attention where it is lacking. Proxy access mechanisms should provide shareholders with a reasonable opportunity to use this right without stipulating overly restrictive or onerous parameters for use, and also provide assurances that the mechanism will not be subject to abuse by short-term investors, investors without a substantial investment in the company, or investors seeking to take control of the board.    

In general, we support market-standardized proxy access proposals, which allow a shareholder (or group of up to 20 shareholders) holding three percent of a company’s outstanding shares for at least three years the right to nominate the

BlackRock Proxy voting guidelines for U.S. securities | 16

greater of up to two directors or 20% of the board. Where a standardized proxy access provision exists, we will generally oppose shareholder proposals requesting outlier thresholds.

Right to act by written consent

In exceptional circumstances and with sufficiently broad support, shareholders should have the opportunity to raise issues of substantial importance without having to wait for management to schedule a meeting. We therefore believe that shareholders should have the right to solicit votes by written consent provided that: 1) there are reasonable requirements to initiate the consent solicitation process (in order to avoid the waste of corporate resources in addressing narrowly supported interests); and 2) shareholders receive a minimum of 50% of outstanding shares to effectuate the action by written consent. We may oppose shareholder proposals requesting the right to act by written consent in cases where the proposal is structured for the benefit of a dominant shareholder to the exclusion of others, or if the proposal is written to discourage the board from incorporating appropriate mechanisms to avoid the waste of corporate resources when establishing a right to act by written consent. Additionally, we may oppose shareholder proposals requesting the right to act by written consent if the company already provides a shareholder right to call a special meeting that we believe offers shareholders a reasonable opportunity to raise issues of substantial importance without having to wait for management to schedule a meeting.

Right to call a special meeting

In exceptional circumstances and with sufficiently broad support, shareholders should have the opportunity to raise issues of substantial importance without having to wait for management to schedule a meeting. Accordingly, shareholders should have the right to call a special meeting in cases where a reasonably high proportion of shareholders (typically a minimum of 15% but no higher than 25%) are required to agree to such a meeting before it is called. However, we may oppose this right in cases where the proposal is structured for the benefit of a dominant shareholder, or where a lower threshold may lead to an ineffective use of corporate resources. We generally believe that a right to act via written consent is not a sufficient alternative to the right to call a special meeting.

Simple majority voting

We generally favor a simple majority voting requirement to pass proposals. Therefore, we will support the reduction or the elimination of supermajority voting requirements to the extent that we determine shareholders’ ability to protect their economic interests is improved. Nonetheless, in situations where there is a substantial or dominant shareholder, supermajority voting may be protective of minority shareholder interests and we may support supermajority voting requirements in those situations.

Virtual meetings

Shareholders should have the opportunity to participate in the annual and special meetings for the companies in which they are invested, as these meetings facilitate an opportunity for shareholders to provide feedback and hear from the board and management. While these meetings have traditionally been conducted in-person, virtual meetings are an increasingly viable way for companies to utilize technology to facilitate shareholder accessibility, inclusiveness, and cost efficiencies. We expect shareholders to have a meaningful opportunity to participate in the meeting and interact with the board and management in these virtual settings; companies should facilitate open dialogue and allow shareholders to voice concerns and provide feedback without undue censorship.

BlackRock Proxy voting guidelines for U.S. securities | 17

This 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.

©2020 BlackRock, Inc. All rights reserved.

BlackRock Proxy voting guidelines for U.S. securities | 18

EX-99.CONSENT

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-252961 on Form N-2 of our report dated September 21, 2021, relating to the financial statements and financial highlights of BlackRock Taxable Municipal Bond Trust appearing in this Annual Report on Form N-CSR for the year ended July 31, 2021.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

October 4, 2021