forms-022.htm - Generated by SEC Publisher for SEC Filing

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 - 4764

	Dreyfus Municipal Bond Opportunity Fund
	(Exact name of Registrant as specified in charter)

	c/o The Dreyfus Corporation 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166
	(Address of principal executive offices) (Zip code)

	John Pak, Esq. 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166
	(Name and address of agent for service)

Registrant's telephone number, including area code:				(212) 922-6000

Date of fiscal year end:		4/30
Date of reporting period:		10/31/13

	Contents
	THE FUND
2	A Letter from the President
3	Discussion of Fund Performance
6	Understanding Your Fund’s Expenses
6	Comparing Your Fund’s Expenses With Those of Other Funds
7	Statement of Investments
20	Statement of Assets and Liabilities
21	Statement of Operations
22	Statement of Changes in Net Assets
24	Financial Highlights
27	Notes to Financial Statements
36	Information About the Renewal of the Fund’s Management Agreement
	FOR MORE INFORMATION
	Back Cover

Dreyfus Municipal
Bond Opportunity Fund

The Fund

A LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT

Dear Shareholder:

We are pleased to present this semiannual report for Dreyfus Municipal Bond Opportunity Fund, covering the six-month period from May 1, 2013, through October 31, 2013. For information about how the fund performed during the reporting period, as well as general market perspectives, we provide a Discussion of Fund Performance on the pages that follow.

The reporting period produced a relatively challenging environment for most fixed-income securities, as a gradually strengthening U.S. economy and expectations of more moderately stimulative monetary policies drove longer term interest rates higher and bond prices lower. Municipal bonds proved particularly sensitive to these developments, as the negative effects of rising rates were exacerbated by selling pressure among investors seeking safer havens.

We currently expect U.S. economic conditions to continue to improve in 2014, with accelerating growth and credit conditions supported by the fading drags of tighter federal fiscal policies and downsizing on the state and local levels. Moreover, inflation is likely to remain muted, so monetary policy can remain stimulative. Globally, we anticipate stronger growth in developed countries due to past and continuing monetary ease, while emerging markets seem poised for moderate economic expansion despite recently negative investor sentiment. For more information on how these observations may affect your investments, we encourage you to speak with your financial advisor.

Thank you for your continued confidence and support.

Sincerely,

J. Charles Cardona
President
The Dreyfus Corporation
November 15, 2013

DISCUSSION OF FUND PERFORMANCE

For the period of May 1, 2013, through October 31, 2013, as provided by Daniel Rabasco and Mountaga Aw, Portfolio Managers

Fund and Market Performance Overview

For the six-month period ended October 31, 2013, Dreyfus Municipal Bond Opportunity Fund’s Class A shares produced a total return of –4.39%, Class C shares returned –4.75%, and Class Z shares returned –4.37%.¹In comparison, the Barclays Municipal Bond Index, the fund’s benchmark index, achieved a total return of –3.44% for the same period.²

Selling pressure stemming from concerns about actual and anticipated interest rate changes sent municipal bonds into negative territory during the reporting period. The fund lagged its benchmark, mainly due to overweighted exposure to longer dated revenue bonds and weakness among Puerto Rico and Illinois municipal bonds.

The Fund’s Investment Approach

The fund seeks to maximize current income exempt from federal income tax to the extent consistent with the preservation of capital. To pursue its goal, the fund normally invests substantially all of its assets in municipal bonds that provide income exempt from federal income tax.The fund invests at least 70% of its assets in investment-grade municipal bonds or the unrated equivalent as determined by Dreyfus. For additional yield, the fund may invest up to 30% of its assets in municipal bonds rated below investment grade or the unrated equivalent as determined by Dreyfus. The dollar-weighted average maturity of the fund’s portfolio is not restricted, but normally exceeds 10 years.

In managing the fund, we focus on identifying undervalued sectors and securities, and we minimize the use of interest-rate forecasting. We select municipal bonds using fundamental credit analysis to estimate the relative value of various sectors and securities, and to exploit pricing inefficiencies in the municipal bond market. In addition, we trade among the market’s various sectors — such as the pre-refunded, general obligation and revenue sectors — based on their apparent relative values.The fund generally will invest simultaneously in several of these sectors.

The Fund 3

DISCUSSION OF FUND PERFORMANCE (continued)

Selling Pressure Sparked Declines Among Municipal Bonds

Municipal bonds encountered heightened volatility over the reporting period. The robust investor demand that characterized much of 2012 failed to rematerialize in 2013, sending municipal bond yields higher despite a relatively meager supply of newly issued securities. Yields of U.S. Treasury securities also generally climbed in response to improved economic trends, putting additional pressure on municipal bond prices.

In late May, remarks by Federal Reserve Board (the “Fed”) Chairman Ben Bernanke were widely interpreted as a signal that the central bank would back away from its ongoing quantitative easing program sooner than expected. This development sent longer term interest rates sharply higher, further eroding returns from municipal bonds. In July, a bankruptcy filing by the city of Detroit also intensified selling pressure, and in September, municipal bonds issued by Puerto Rico contributed to market weakness after media reports detailed the U.S. territory’s fiscal and economic problems. Yet, municipal bonds generally rallied over the final weeks of September and during October when the Fed refrained from tapering its quantitative easing program.

Despite the fiscal problems facing Detroit and Puerto Rico, credit conditions continued to improve for most states and municipalities. Many states have achieved higher tax revenues and balanced budgets, and issuers of revenue bonds generally have reported solid revenue growth.

Long Average Duration Dampened Fund Performance

The fund was undermined over the reporting period by a relatively long average duration and an emphasis on longer term securities, which magnified the impact of rising long-term interest rates and steepening yield differences along the market’s maturity spectrum. Relative performance also was hurt by an overweighted position in Puerto Rico bonds, which we believe were punished more severely than warranted by underlying credit fundamentals, as well as holdings of Illinois securities, which gave back gains achieved in previous reporting periods.

While the fund’s emphasis on revenue bonds generally proved constructive, some industry groups lagged market averages, including bonds backed by revenues from power utilities, water and sewer facilities, special tax districts, and the states’ settlement of litigation with U.S. tobacco companies.

Our security selection strategy achieved better results in other areas, especially among revenue bonds backed by airports and hospitals. California general obligation bonds also fared well after voters approved a tax surcharge on higher income residents.

Finding Attractive Values in a Dislocated Market

Although market volatility may persist over the near term, we believe that improved economic conditions and restored investor demand will help lift municipal bond valuations toward historical norms over the longer term.Therefore, we have attempted to take advantage of recent market dislocations by adding higher yielding municipal bonds at attractive valuations.We have identified a number of such opportunities in revenue bonds backed by municipal water facilities, special tax districts, electric utilities, and airports.We also added to the fund’s holdings of Illinois general obligation bonds, and we have maintained the fund’s relatively long average duration.

November 15, 2013

Bond funds are subject generally to interest rate, credit, liquidity and market risks, to varying degrees, all of which are

more fully described in the fund’s prospectus. Generally, all other factors being equal, bond prices are inversely related

to interest-rate changes, and rate increases can cause price declines.

The amount of public information available about municipal bonds is generally less than that for corporate equities or

bonds. Special factors, such as legislative changes, and state and local economic and business developments, may

adversely affect the yield and/or value of the fund’s investments in municipal bonds. Other factors include the general

conditions of the municipal bond market, the size of the particular offering, the maturity of the obligation and the

rating of the issue. Changes in economic, business or political conditions relating to a particular municipal project,

municipality, or state in which the fund invests may have an impact on the fund’s share price.

1 Total return includes reinvestment of dividends and any capital gains paid, and does not take into consideration the

maximum initial sales charge in the case of Class A shares or the applicable contingent deferred sales charge imposed

on redemptions in the case of Class C shares. Had these charges been reflected, returns would have been lower. Class

Z is not subject to any initial or deferred sales charge. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Share price,

yield and investment return fluctuate such that upon redemption, fund shares may be worth more or less than their

original cost. Income may be subject to state and local taxes, and some income may be subject to the federal alternative

minimum tax (AMT) for certain investors. Capital gains, if any, are taxable.

2 SOURCE: LIPPER INC. — Reflects reinvestment of dividends and, where applicable, capital gain distributions.

The Barclays Municipal Bond Index is a widely accepted, unmanaged total return performance benchmark for the

long-term, investment-grade, tax-exempt bond market. Index returns do not reflect fees and expenses associated with

operating a mutual fund. Investors cannot invest directly in any index.

The Fund 5

STATEMENT OF INVESTMENTS (Unaudited) (continued)

a This security is prerefunded; the date shown represents the prerefunded date. Bonds which are prerefunded are

collateralized by U.S. Government securities which are held in escrow and are used to pay principal and interest on

the municipal issue and to retire the bonds in full at the earliest refunding date.

b At October 31, 2013, the fund had $106,455,999 or 25.0% of net assets invested in securities whose payment of

principal and interest is dependent upon revenues generated from transportation services.

c Non-income producing—security in default.

d Security issued with a zero coupon. Income is recognized through the accretion of discount.

e Variable rate security—interest rate subject to periodic change.

f Collateral for floating rate borrowings.

g Securities exempt from registration pursuant to Rule 144A under the Securities Act of 1933.These securities may be

resold in transactions exempt from registration, normally to qualified institutional buyers.At October 31, 2013, these

securities were valued at $19,197,601 or 4.5% of net assets.

h Variable rate demand note—rate shown is the interest rate in effect at October 31, 2013. Maturity date represents

the next demand date, or the ultimate maturity date if earlier.

† Based on net assets.

See notes to financial statements.

FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS

The following tables describe the performance for each share class for the fiscal periods indicated. All information (except portfolio turnover rate) reflects financial results for a single fund share.Total return shows how much your investment in the fund would have increased (or decreased) during each period, assuming you had reinvested all dividends and distributions.These figures have been derived from the fund’s financial statements.


a	Based on average shares outstanding at each month end.
b	Exclusive of sales charge.
c	Not annualized.
d	Annualized.
See notes to financial statements.

NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Unaudited)

NOTE 1—Significant Accounting Policies:

Dreyfus Municipal Bond Opportunity Fund (the “fund”) is registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “Act”), as a diversified open-end management investment company.The fund’s investment objective is to maximize current income exempt from federal income tax to the extent consistent with the preservation of capital. The Dreyfus Corporation (the “Manager” or “Dreyfus”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation (“BNY Mellon”), serves as the fund’s investment adviser.

MBSC Securities Corporation (the “Distributor”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Manager, is the distributor of the fund’s shares. The fund is authorized to issue an unlimited number of $.001 par value shares of Beneficial Interest in each of the following classes of shares: Class A, Class C and Class Z. Class A shares generally are subject to a sales charge imposed at the time of purchase. Class C shares are subject to a contingent deferred sales charge (“CDSC”) imposed on Class C shares redeemed within one year of purchase. Class Z shares are sold at net asset value per share generally only to shareholders of the fund who received Class Z shares in exchange for their shares of a Dreyfus-managed fund as a result of the reorganization of such Dreyfus-managed fund, and who continue to maintain accounts with the fund at the time of purchase. Class Z shares generally are not available for new accounts. Other differences between the classes include the services offered to and the expenses borne by each class, the allocation of certain transfer agency costs and certain voting rights. Income, expenses (other than expenses attributable to a specific class), and realized and unrealized gains or losses on investments are allocated to each class of shares based on its relative net assets.

The Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Accounting Standards Codification is the exclusive reference of authoritative U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”) recognized by the FASB to be applied by nongovernmental entities. Rules and interpretive releases of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) under

The Fund 27

NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Unaudited) (continued)

authority of federal laws are also sources of authoritative GAAP for SEC registrants. The fund’s financial statements are prepared in accordance with GAAP, which may require the use of management estimates and assumptions.Actual results could differ from those estimates.

The fund enters into contracts that contain a variety of indemnifications. The fund’s maximum exposure under these arrangements is unknown.The fund does not anticipate recognizing any loss related to these arrangements.

(a) Portfolio valuation: The fair value of a financial instrument is the amount that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date (i.e., the exit price). GAAP establishes a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes the inputs of valuation techniques used to measure fair value. This 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).

Additionally, GAAP provides guidance on determining whether the volume and activity in a market has decreased significantly and whether such a decrease in activity results in transactions that are not orderly. GAAP requires enhanced disclosures around valuation inputs and techniques used during annual and interim periods.

Various inputs are used in determining the value of the fund’s investments relating to fair value measurements.These inputs are summarized in the three broad levels listed below:

Level 1—unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical investments.

Level 2—other significant observable inputs (including quoted prices for similar investments, interest rates, prepayment speeds, credit risk, etc.).

Level 3—significant unobservable inputs (including the fund’s own assumptions in determining the fair value of investments).

The inputs or methodology used for valuing securities are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in those securities.

Changes in valuation techniques may result in transfers in or out of an assigned level within the disclosure hierarchy. Valuation techniques used to value the fund’s investments are as follows:

Investments in securities are valued each business day by an independent pricing service (the “Service”) approved by the fund’s Board of Trustees (the “Board”). Investments for which quoted bid prices are readily available and are representative of the bid side of the market in the judgment of the Service are valued at the mean between the quoted bid prices (as obtained by the Service from dealers in such securities) and asked prices (as calculated by the Service based upon its evaluation of the market for such securities). Other investments (which constitute a majority of the portfolio securities) are carried at fair value as determined by the Service, based on methods which include consideration of the following: yields or prices of municipal securities of comparable quality, coupon, maturity and type; indications as to values from dealers; and general market conditions.All of the preceding securities are categorized within Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy.

The Service’s procedures are reviewed by Dreyfus under the general supervision of the Board.

When market quotations or official closing prices are not readily available, or are determined not to reflect accurately fair value, such as when the value of a security has been significantly affected by events after the close of the exchange or market on which the security is principally traded, but before the fund calculates its net asset value, the fund may value these investments at fair value as determined in accordance with the procedures approved by the Board. Certain factors may be considered when fair valuing investments such as: fundamental analytical data, the nature and duration of restrictions on disposition, an evaluation of the forces that influence the market in which the securities are pur-

The Fund 29

NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Unaudited) (continued)

chased and sold, and public trading in similar securities of the issuer or comparable issuers.These securities are either categorized within Level 2 or 3 of the fair value hierarchy depending on the relevant inputs used.

For restricted securities where observable inputs are limited, assumptions about market activity and risk are used and are categorized within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy.

The following is a summary of the inputs used as of October 31, 2013 in valuing the fund’s investments:


†	See Statement of Investments for additional detailed categorizations.
^††	Certain of the fund’s liabilities are held at carrying amount, which approximates fair value for
	financial reporting purposes.

At October 31, 2013, there were no transfers between Level 1 and Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy.

The following is a reconciliation of Level 3 assets for which significant unobservable inputs were used to determine fair value:

(b) Securities transactions and investment income: Securities transactions are recorded on a trade date basis. Realized gains and losses from securities transactions are recorded on the identified cost basis. Interest income, adjusted for accretion of discount and amortization of premium on investments, is earned from settlement date and recognized on the accrual basis. Securities purchased or sold on a when issued or delayed delivery basis may be settled a month or more after the trade date.

(c) Dividends to shareholders: It is the policy of the fund to declare dividends daily from investment income-net. Such dividends are paid monthly. Dividends from net realized capital gains, if any, are normally declared and paid annually, but the fund may make distributions on a more frequent basis to comply with the distribution requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”).To the extent that net realized capital gains can be offset by capital loss carryovers, it is the policy of the fund not to distribute such gains. Income and capital gain distributions are determined in accordance with income tax regulations, which may differ from GAAP.

(d) Federal income taxes: It is the policy of the fund to continue to qualify as a regulated investment company, which can distribute tax-exempt dividends, by complying with the applicable provisions of the Code, and to make distributions of income and net realized capital gain sufficient to relieve it from substantially all federal income and excise taxes.

As of and during the period ended October 31, 2013, the fund did not have any liabilities for any uncertain tax positions.The fund recognizes interest and penalties, if any, related to uncertain tax positions as income tax expense in the Statement of Operations. During the period ended October 31, 2013, the fund did not incur any interest or penalties.

Each tax year in the three-year period ended April 30, 2013 remains subject to examination by the Internal Revenue Service and state taxing authorities.

The Fund 31

NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Unaudited) (continued)

Under the Regulated Investment Company Modernization Act of 2010 (the “2010 Act”), the fund is permitted to carry forward capital losses incurred in taxable years beginning after December 22, 2010 (“post-enactment losses”) for an unlimited period. Furthermore, post-enactment capital loss carryovers retain their character as either short-term or long-term capital losses rather than short-term as they were under previous statute.The 2010 Act requires post-enactment losses to be utilized before the utilization of losses incurred in taxable years prior to the effective date of the 2010 Act (“pre-enactment losses”).As a result of this ordering rule, pre-enactment losses may be more likely to expire unused.

The fund has an unused capital loss carryover of $29,346,026 available for federal income tax purposes to be applied against future net realized capital gains, if any, realized subsequent to April 30, 2013. If not applied, $5,368,748 of the carryover expires in fiscal year 2017, $20,082,904 expires in fiscal year 2018 and $3,894,374 expires in fiscal year 2019.

The tax character of distributions paid to shareholders during the fiscal year ended April 30, 2013 was as follows: tax-exempt income $15,129,390 and ordinary income $260,492.The tax character of current year distributions will be determined at the end of the current fiscal year.

NOTE 2—Bank Lines of Credit:

The fund participates with other Dreyfus-managed funds in a $265 million unsecured credit facility led by Citibank, N.A. and a $300 million unsecured credit facility provided by The Bank of New York Mellon, a subsidiary of BNY Mellon and an affiliate of Dreyfus (each, a “Facility”), each to be utilized primarily for temporary or emergency purposes, including the financing of redemptions. Prior to October 9, 2013, the unsecured credit facility with Citibank, N.A. was $210 million. In connection therewith, the fund has agreed to pay its pro rata portion of commitment fees for each Facility. Interest is charged to the fund based on rates determined pursuant to the terms of the respective Facility at the time of borrowing. During the period ended October 31, 2013, the fund did not borrow under the Facilities.

NOTE 3—Management Fee and Other Transactions With Affiliates:

(a) Pursuant to a management agreement with the Manager, the management fee is computed at the annual rate of .55% of the value of the fund’s average daily net assets and is payable monthly.

During the period ended October 31, 2013, the Distributor retained $1,417 from commissions earned on sales of the fund’s Class A shares and $919 from CDSCs on redemptions of the fund’s Class C shares.

(b) Under the Distribution Plan adopted pursuant to Rule 12b-1 under the Act, Class C shares pay the Distributor for distributing its shares at an annual rate of .75% of the value of its average daily net assets. During the period ended October 31, 2013, Class C shares were charged $36,709, pursuant to the Distribution Plan.

(c) Under the Shareholder Services Plan, Class A and Class C shares pay the Distributor at an annual rate of .25% of the value of the average daily net assets of Class A and Class C shares and Class Z shares pay the Distributor at an annual rate of .20% of the value of the average daily net assets of Class Z shares, for the provision of certain services. The services provided may include personal services relating to shareholder accounts, such as answering shareholder inquiries regarding the fund and providing reports and other information, and services related to the maintenance of shareholder accounts. The Distributor may make payments to Service Agents (securities dealers, financial institutions or other industry professionals) with respect to these services. The Distributor determines the amounts to be paid to Service Agents. During the period ended October 31, 2013, Class A, Class C and Class Z shares were charged $260,352, $12,236 and $232,566, respectively, pursuant to the Shareholder Services Plan.

The fund has arrangements with the transfer agent and the custodian whereby the fund may receive earnings credits when positive cash balances are maintained, which are used to offset transfer agency and

The Fund 33

NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Unaudited) (continued)

custody fees. For financial reporting purposes, the fund includes net earnings credits as an expense offset in the Statement of Operations.

The fund compensates DreyfusTransfer, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Manager, under a transfer agency agreement for providing transfer agency and cash management services for the fund. The majority of transfer agency fees are comprised of amounts paid on a per account basis, while cash management fees are related to fund subscriptions and redemptions. During the period ended October 31, 2013, the fund was charged $84,829 for transfer agency services and $3,158 for cash management services.These fees are included in Shareholder servicing costs in the Statement of Operations. Cash management fees were partially offset by earnings credits of $243.

The fund compensates The Bank of NewYork Mellon under a custody agreement for providing custodial services for the fund.These fees are determined based on net assets, geographic region and transaction activity. During the period ended October 31, 2013, the fund was charged $21,509 pursuant to the custody agreement.

The fund compensated The Bank of New York Mellon for performing certain cash management services related to fund subscriptions and redemptions, including shareholder redemption draft processing, under a cash management agreement that was in effect until September 30, 2013 and, beginning October 1, 2013, compensates The Bank of New York Mellon for processing shareholder redemption drafts under a shareholder draft processing agreement. During the period ended October 31, 2013, the fund was charged $1,209 pursuant to the agreements, which is included in Shareholder servicing costs in the Statement of Operations.

During the period ended October 31, 2013, the fund was charged $4,445 for services performed by the Chief Compliance Officer and his staff.

The components of “Due to The Dreyfus Corporation and affiliates” in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities consist of: management fees $197,880, Distribution Plan fees $5,582, Shareholder Services Plan fees $80,542, custodian fees $14,830, Chief Compliance Officer fees $7,445 and transfer agency fees $40,535.

(d) Each Board member also serves as a Board member of other funds within the Dreyfus complex. Annual retainer fees and attendance fees are allocated to each fund based on net assets.

NOTE 4—Securities Transactions:

The aggregate amount of purchases and sales of investment securities, excluding short-term securities, during the period ended October 31, 2013, amounted to $120,337,086 and $153,320,091, respectively.

Inverse Floater Securities: The fund participates in secondary inverse floater structures in which fixed-rate, tax-exempt municipal bonds are transferred to a trust.The trust subsequently issues two or more variable rate securities that are collateralized by the cash flows of the fixed-rate, tax-exempt municipal bonds. One or more of these variable rate securities pays interest based on a short-term floating rate set by a remarketing agent at predetermined intervals. A residual interest tax-exempt security is also created by the trust, which is transferred to the fund, and is paid interest based on the remaining cash flow of the trust, after payment of interest on the other securities and various expenses of the trust.

The fund accounts for the transfer of bonds to the trust as secured borrowings, with the securities transferred remaining in the fund’s investments, and the related floating rate certificate securities reflected as fund liabilities in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

The average amount of borrowings outstanding under the inverse floater structure during the period ended October 31, 2013, was approximately $7,512,000, with a related weighted average annualized interest rate of .74%.

At October 31, 2013, accumulated net unrealized appreciation on investments was $16,043,910, consisting of $22,994,772 gross unrealized appreciation and $6,950,862 gross unrealized depreciation.

At October 31, 2013, the cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was substantially the same as the cost for financial reporting purposes (see the Statement of Investments).

The Fund 35

INFORMATION ABOUT THE RENEWAL OF THE
FUND’S MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT (Unaudited)

At a meeting of the fund’s Board of Trustees held on July 23, 2013, the Board considered the renewal of the fund’s Management Agreement pursuant to which Dreyfus provides the fund with investment advisory and administrative services (the “Agreement”). The Board members, none of whom are “interested persons” (as defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended) of the fund, were assisted in their review by independent legal counsel and met with counsel in executive session separate from Dreyfus representatives. In considering the renewal of the Agreement, the Board considered all factors that it believed to be relevant, including those discussed below.The Board did not identify any one factor as dispositive, and each Board member may have attributed different weights to the factors considered.

Analysis of Nature, Extent, and Quality of Services Provided to the Fund. The Board considered information provided to them at the meeting and in previous presentations from Dreyfus representatives regarding the nature, extent, and quality of the services provided to funds in the Dreyfus fund complex. Dreyfus provided the number of open accounts in the fund, the fund’s asset size and the allocation of fund assets among distribution channels. Dreyfus also had previously provided information regarding the diverse intermediary relationships and distribution channels of funds in the Dreyfus fund complex (such as retail direct or intermediary, in which intermediaries typically are paid by the fund and/or Dreyfus) and Dreyfus’ corresponding need for broad, deep, and diverse resources to be able to provide ongoing shareholder services to each intermediary or distribution channel, as applicable to the fund.

The Board also considered research support available to, and portfolio management capabilities of, the fund’s portfolio management personnel and that Dreyfus also provides oversight of day-to-day fund operations, including fund accounting and administration and assistance in meeting legal and regulatory requirements.The Board also considered Dreyfus’ extensive administrative, accounting, and compliance infrastructures.

Comparative Analysis of the Fund’s Performance and Management Fee and Expense Ratio. The Board reviewed reports prepared by Lipper, Inc. (“Lipper”), an independent provider of investment company data, which included information comparing (1) the fund’s performance with the performance of a group of comparable funds (the “Performance Group”) and with a broader group of funds (the “Performance Universe”), all for various periods ended May 31, 2013, and (2) the fund’s actual and contractual management fees and total expenses with those of a group of comparable funds (the “Expense Group”) and with a broader group of funds (the “Expense Universe”), the information for which was derived in part from fund financial statements available to Lipper as of the date of its analysis. Dreyfus previously had furnished the Board with a description of the methodology Lipper used to select the Performance Group and Performance Universe and the Expense Group and Expense Universe.

Dreyfus representatives stated that the usefulness of performance comparisons may be affected by a number of factors, including different investment limitations that may be applicable to the fund and comparison funds. The Board discussed the results of the comparisons and noted that the fund’s total return performance was generally below the Performance Group and Performance Universe medians, although they noted the proximity to the median of the fund’s performance in several of the periods when the fund’s performance was below median. The Board also noted that the fund’s yield performance was at or above the Performance Group median for eight of the ten one-year periods ended May 31st and above the Performance Universe median for nine of the ten one-year periods ended May 31st. Dreyfus also provided a comparison of the fund’s calendar year total returns to the returns of the fund’s Lipper category average and noted that the fund’s calendar year total returns were above the Lipper category average for six of the ten calendar years.

The Fund 37

INFORMATION ABOUT THE RENEWAL OF THE FUND’S
MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT (Unaudited) (continued)

The Board also reviewed the range of actual and contractual management fees and total expenses of the Expense Group and Expense Universe funds and discussed the results of the comparisons.The Board noted that the fund’s contractual management fee was above the Expense Group median and the fund’s actual management fee and total expenses were above the Expense Group and Expense Universe medians.

Dreyfus representatives reviewed with the Board the management or investment advisory fees (1) paid by funds advised or administered by Dreyfus that are in the same Lipper category as the fund and (2) paid to Dreyfus or the Dreyfus affiliated primary employer of the fund’s primary portfolio manager(s) for advising any separate accounts and/or other types of client portfolios that are considered to have similar investment strategies and policies as the fund (the “Similar Clients”), and explained the nature of the Similar Clients. They discussed differences in fees paid and the relationship of the fees paid in light of any differences in the services provided and other relevant factors. The Board considered the relevance of the fee information provided for the Similar Clients to evaluate the appropriateness and reasonableness of the fund’s management fee.

Analysis of Profitability and Economies of Scale. Dreyfus representatives reviewed the expenses allocated and profit received by Dreyfus and the resulting profitability percentage for managing the fund and the aggregate profitability percentage to Dreyfus of managing the funds in the Dreyfus fund complex, and the method used to determine the expenses and profit. The Board concluded that the profitability results were not unreasonable, given the services rendered and service levels provided by Dreyfus. The Board also had been provided with information prepared by an independent consulting firm regarding Dreyfus’ approach to allocating costs to, and determining the profitability of, individual funds and the entire Dreyfus fund complex.The consulting firm also had analyzed where any economies of scale might emerge in connection with the management of a fund.

The Board considered on the advice of its counsel the profitability analysis (1) as part of its evaluation of whether the fees under the Agreement bear a reasonable relationship to the mix of services provided by Dreyfus, including the nature, extent and quality of such services, and (2) in light of the relevant circumstances for the fund and the extent to which economies of scale would be realized if the fund grows and whether fee levels reflect these economies of scale for the benefit of fund shareholders. Dreyfus representatives noted that a discussion of economies of scale is predicated on a fund having achieved a substantial size with increasing assets and that, if a fund’s assets had been stable or decreasing, the possibility that Dreyfus may have realized any economies of scale would be less. Dreyfus representatives also noted that, as a result of shared and allocated costs among funds in the Dreyfus fund complex, the extent of economies of scale could depend substantially on the level of assets in the complex as a whole, so that increases and decreases in complex-wide assets can affect potential economies of scale in a manner that is disproportionate to, or even in the opposite direction from, changes in the fund’s asset level. The Board also considered potential benefits to Dreyfus from acting as investment adviser and noted that there were no soft dollar arrangements in effect for trading the fund’s investments.

At the conclusion of these discussions, the Board agreed that it had been furnished with sufficient information to make an informed business decision with respect to the renewal of the Agreement. Based on the discussions and considerations as described above, the Board concluded and determined as follows.

• The Board concluded that the nature, extent and quality of the services provided by Dreyfus are adequate and appropriate.

• The Board generally was satisfied with the fund’s overall performance.

• The Board concluded that the fee paid to Dreyfus was reasonable in light of the considerations described above.

The Fund 39

INFORMATION ABOUT THE RENEWAL OF THE FUND’S
MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT (Unaudited) (continued)

• The Board determined that the economies of scale which may accrue to Dreyfus and its affiliates in connection with the management of the fund had been adequately considered by Dreyfus in connection with the fee rate charged to the fund pursuant to the Agreement and that, to the extent in the future it were determined that material economies of scale had not been shared with the fund, the Board would seek to have those economies of scale shared with the fund.

In evaluating the Agreement, the Board considered these conclusions and determinations and also relied on its previous knowledge, gained through meetings and other interactions with Dreyfus and its affiliates, of the fund and the services provided to the fund by Dreyfus.The Board also relied on information received on a routine and regular basis throughout the year relating to the operations of the fund and the investment management and other services provided under the Agreement, including information on the investment performance of the fund in comparison to similar mutual funds and benchmark performance indices; general market outlook as applicable to the fund; and compliance reports. In addition, the Board’s consideration of the contractual fee arrangements for this fund had the benefit of a number of years of reviews of prior or similar agreements during which lengthy discussions took place between the Board and Dreyfus representatives. Certain aspects of the arrangements may receive greater scrutiny in some years than in others, and the Board’s conclusions may be based, in part, on their consideration of the same or similar arrangements in prior years. The Board determined that renewal of the Agreement was in the best interests of the fund and its shareholders.

Item 2. Code of Ethics.

Not applicable.

Item 3. Audit Committee Financial Expert.

Not applicable.

Item 4. Principal Accountant Fees and Services.

Not applicable.

Item 5. Audit Committee of Listed Registrants.

Not applicable.

Item 6. Investments.

(a) Not applicable.

Item 7. Disclosure of Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures for Closed-End Management Investment Companies.

Not applicable.

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

Not applicable.

Item 9. Purchases of Equity Securities by Closed-End Management Investment Companies and Affiliated Purchasers.

Not applicable. [CLOSED END FUNDS ONLY]

Item 10. Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders.

There have been no material changes to the procedures applicable to Item 10.

Item 11. Controls and Procedures.

(a) The Registrant's principal executive and principal financial officers have concluded, based on their evaluation of the Registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days of the filing date of this report, that the Registrant's disclosure controls and procedures are reasonably designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed by the Registrant on Form N-CSR is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the required time periods and that information required to be disclosed by the Registrant in the reports that it files or submits on Form N-CSR is accumulated and communicated to the Registrant's management, including its principal executive and principal financial officers, as appropriate to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure.

(b) There were no changes to the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the second fiscal quarter of 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. Exhibits.

(a)(1) Not applicable.

(a)(2) Certifications of principal executive and principal financial officers as required by Rule 30a-2(a) under the Investment Company Act of 1940.

(a)(3) Not applicable.

(b) Certification of principal executive and principal financial officers as required by Rule 30a-2(b) under the Investment Company Act of 1940.

SIGNATURES

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

Dreyfus Municipal Bond Opportunity Fund

By: /s/ Bradley J. Skapyak
Bradley J. Skapyak President
Date:	December 18, 2013

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/ Bradley J. Skapyak
Bradley J. Skapyak President
Date:	December 18, 2013

By: /s/ James Windels
James Windels Treasurer
Date:	December 18, 2013


a	During the period ended October 31, 2013, 60,991 Class C shares representing $802,134 were exchanged for
	61,185 Class A shares.
See notes to financial statements.