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: 811-04521
| T. Rowe Price State Tax-Free Income Trust |
|
|
| (Exact name of registrant as specified in charter) |
| 100 East Pratt Street, Baltimore, MD 21202 |
|
|
| (Address of principal executive offices) |
| David Oestreicher |
| 100 East Pratt Street, Baltimore, MD 21202 |
|
|
| (Name and address of agent for service) |
Registrant’s telephone number, including area
code: (410) 345-2000
Date of fiscal year end: February
28
Date of reporting period: August 31,
2016
Item 1. Report to Shareholders
 |
|
Maryland
Tax-Free Money Fund |
August
31, 2016 |
The views and opinions in this report were current as of August 31, 2016. They are not guarantees of performance or investment results and should not be taken as investment advice. Investment decisions reflect a variety of factors, and the managers reserve the right to change their views about individual stocks, sectors, and the markets at any time. As a result, the views expressed should not be relied upon as a forecast of the fund’s future investment intent. The report is certified under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which requires mutual funds and other public companies to affirm that, to the best of their knowledge, the information in their financial reports is fairly and accurately stated in all material respects.
REPORTS ON THE WEB
Sign up for our Email Program, and you can begin to receive updated fund reports and prospectuses online rather than through the mail. Log in to your account at troweprice.com for more information.
Manager’s Letter
Fellow Shareholders
Tax-free municipal bonds performed well in the six-month period ended August 31, 2016, with the Barclays Municipal Bond Index returning 3.14%. With solid fundamentals and relatively attractive yields, munis generated strong demand as global growth expectations slowed, interest rates on many high-quality government bonds in developed markets were near or below 0%, and market volatility escalated after Britain’s late-June vote to leave the European Union. Longer-maturity municipal bonds outperformed shorter-maturity issues as longer-term rates fell to record lows. Lower-quality securities outperformed higher-quality bonds as investors continued to search for yield. The Maryland Short-Term Tax-Free Bond Fund and Maryland Tax-Free Bond Fund outperformed their peer group averages in the last six months, while the Maryland Tax-Free Money Fund’s returns were roughly flat.
ECONOMY AND INTEREST RATES
U.S. economic growth has been sluggish thus far in 2016, with gross domestic product increasing at an annual rate of only 1.1% in the second quarter, according to the most recent estimate, and 0.8% in the first quarter. We believe economic growth will improve in the second half of the year. While productivity growth is subpar, the labor market has been strong—and resilient in the face of unfavorable economic developments overseas—but the pace of employment growth has moderated in recent months. The national unemployment rate was 4.9% in August, near an eight-year low.
Broad measures of inflation have remained very low due to continued low prices of oil and other commodities—which is a plus for consumers and many businesses—but core inflation, which excludes food and energy costs, has been firming. The Fed raised short-term rates last December, but due to the slowdown in global economic activity and elevated risks, the central bank has kept rates unchanged thus far in 2016. However, we believe that another Fed rate hike is possible by the end of the year if the labor market recovery persists and measures of domestic demand strengthen.
The Treasury yield curve flattened over the last six months, as shorter-term yields were little changed and longer-term yields declined. Shorter-term municipal bond yields modestly increased, while 10- and 30-year muni yields fell to a greater degree than their Treasury counterparts with similar maturities. As a result, high-quality 30-year muni yields are now lower than the 30-year U.S. government bond yield.
Nonetheless, municipals still offer relative value for many fixed income investors on an after-tax basis. As of August 31, 2016, the 2.12% yield offered by a 30-year tax-free general obligation (GO) bond rated AAA was 95% of the 2.23% pretax yield offered by a 30-year Treasury bond. Including the 3.8% net investment income tax that took effect in 2013 as part of the Affordable Care Act, the top marginal federal tax rate currently stands at 43.4%. An investor in this tax bracket would need to invest in a taxable bond yielding about 3.75% to receive the same after-tax income as that generated by the municipal bond. (To calculate a municipal bond’s taxable-equivalent yield, divide the yield by the quantity of 1.00 minus your federal tax bracket expressed as a decimal—in this case, 1.00 – 0.434, or 0.566.)
MUNICIPAL MARKET NEWS
August was an unusually busy month for municipal bond issuance, according to The Bond Buyer, lifting total year-to-date issuance to $290 billion. Issuance had declined through April relative to the same period last year, but the pace of deals has picked up since that time, coinciding with the sizable decline in muni yields. Strong demand, as evidenced by the 48 consecutive weeks of inflows into municipal bond funds, effectively offset the added net supply in the last few months.
Generally, fundamentals for municipal issuers remain solid, and most issuers in the $3.7 trillion municipal bond market have been fiscally responsible. State and local governments in general have been cautious about adding to indebtedness since the 2008 financial crisis, and a strengthening economy has helped tax revenues rebound. Over 60% of the market, as measured by the Barclays Municipal Bond Index, is AAA or AA rated.
Although the market is overwhelmingly high quality, many states and municipalities are grappling with underfunded pensions and other post-employment benefit (OPEB) obligations. New reporting rules from the Governmental Accounting Standards Board are bringing greater transparency to state and local governments’ pension funding gaps, long-term risks that investors often overlooked in the past. We believe the market will increasingly price in higher pension risks over time, as the magnitude of unfunded liabilities becomes more conspicuous.
The financial condition of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico continued to worsen over the last six months, but on June 30, President Barack Obama signed the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act (PROMESA) into law to help the island return to fiscal solvency. The legislation authorized a federal fiscal oversight board to help the struggling U.S. territory improve its finances and restructure its debt. However, the new law didn’t pass in time to prevent further defaults as Puerto Rico’s liquidity situation deteriorated. The commonwealth defaulted on about $400 million of debt in May and later defaulted on nearly $800 million in general obligation debt service due July 1. There was little impact to the broader municipal market, as news of the default was tempered by the legislative action and some level of payment default was widely expected. T. Rowe Price’s municipal team has long maintained that Puerto Rico’s debt burden is unsustainable and would eventually need to be restructured.
In terms of sector performance, revenue bonds outperformed state and local GOs during the last six months. We continue to favor bonds backed by a dedicated revenue stream over GOs as we consider revenue bonds to be largely insulated from the pension funding concerns facing state and local governments. Across our municipal platform, we have an overweight to the higher-yielding health care and transportation revenue-backed sectors. Among revenue bonds, hospital and leasing were the best-performing segments, while resource recovery bonds lagged the broader market but still posted positive results. High yield tobacco bonds significantly outperformed the broad muni market for the period.
MARYLAND MARKET NEWS
Maryland’s economic profile remains strong compared with other states. Marylanders are relatively prosperous—per capita personal income represents 118% of the national average, ranking the state fifth in the U.S. The state’s unemployment rate declined from 5.1% to 4.3% over the past year and is below the 4.9% national unemployment rate. Maryland’s employment base has grown 2.2% during the past 12 months, which was above the national growth rate of 1.8%. Maryland’s population growth over the past five years has matched that of the nation.
Although Maryland’s finances improved with general fund revenues increasing by 1.7% during fiscal 2016, revenues underperformed budget expectations by $250 million (1.5%). The lethargic growth was attributed to weak wage increases and general economic uncertainty that put a damper on consumer spending. In keeping with Maryland’s conservative practices, expenses were controlled, yielding a small fiscal year 2016 surplus of $64 million on a preliminary basis. The state has always maintained a good cushion in its rainy day fund—on June 30, 2016, Maryland’s revenue stabilization fund held $832 million, representing a solid 5.1% of general fund revenues. The state balanced its budget for fiscal year 2017, and the budget was delivered on time, but adjustments are likely given the slower growth environment.
Maryland’s debt load is above the national average. According to Moody’s 2016 State Debt Medians, the state’s debt burden, at $11.6 billion, is in the upper fourth when measured by debt per capita and only modestly better (top third) when measured by debt to personal income. Debt service as a percentage of the budget remained manageable at 6.2% in fiscal year 2015 (the latest data available).
Unfavorably, Maryland’s pension system was only funded at 69% on an actuarial basis as of June 30, 2015 (the latest data available). Maryland’s practice of not fully funding its actuarially required contributions has led to a rise in its unfunded pension liability. As a result, Maryland faces heavy unfunded liabilities for its pension plans compared with other AAA rated states, at $17 billion as of June 30, 2015—a significant rise from $10 billion as of June 30, 2008. Various modifications to benefits under these programs as well as higher employee contributions have been imposed to reduce liabilities and improve funding, and we are closely monitoring Maryland’s progress in this regard. Liabilities for retiree health programs were also high at $9.4 billion as of June 30, 2015.
Pension issues aside, on balance we are not overly worried about Maryland’s finances. Maryland has a long history of responsible stewardship and prudent financial management. The state’s GO bonds are rated Aaa by Moody’s Investors Service and AAA by Standard & Poor’s and Fitch. All three rating agencies maintain stable outlooks.
PORTFOLIO REVIEW
Maryland Tax-Free Money
Fund
Your fund returned 0.01% in the
six-month period ended August 31, 2016, while the Lipper Other States Tax-Exempt
Money Market Funds Average had a return of 0.02%.
While other markets reacted by moving yields higher in response to the Fed rate increase in December 2015, municipal money markets were slow to react, and yields remained in the low single digits for the first few months of the year. However, since our last letter, seven-day yields increased more than 50 basis points to 0.62%. Longer-maturity yields out to one year moved higher in sync with changes in the front end of the curve with yields rising by 20 basis points to 0.57%.
Fund consolidation and asset movements due to the SEC’s money market fund reform have been the primary drivers moving yields in the front end to levels not seen since 2009. This has recently caused the front end of the money market curve to become inverted, which means investors are receiving higher yields for shorter-term securities than for longer maturities. According to iMoneyNet, tax-exempt assets under management (AUM) are currently at $152.9 billion, down over $107 billion, or 41.2%, for the year. The industry has seen outflows across all types of portfolios. For example, national retail and institutional money funds have lost an average of 43.3% of assets, while tax-free state retail and institutional funds lost an average of 36.0%. In anticipation of money fund reform and potentially large asset shifts within the industry, we took a more defensive posture and shortened the fund’s weighted average maturity and weighted average life.
Supply and demand imbalances—which had been a market constant since 2008, keeping yields depressed—have finally subsided. Over the last few months, money market industry outflows related to reform have brought supply and demand more into balance. Over the last couple of years, tax-exempt AUM exceeded the supply of variable rate demand notes (VRDN) outstanding. Tax-exempt assets ended 2015 at $260.2 billion, while VRDNs outstanding ended the year at $177.5 billion. Since then, tax-exempt assets have seen a significant drop, while the supply of VRDNs has remained stable. As shown in the Portfolio Composition table, VRDNs make up the largest portion of our fund. More industry consolidation is expected as the SEC money market reform compliance date of October 14 approaches.
As always, credit quality plays a large role in the management of the Maryland Tax-Free Money Fund. As a policy, we favor highly rated debt such as hospital, general obligation, and housing revenue bonds. Some prominent positions in the portfolio include Trinity Healthcare, Baltimore County, and Maryland CDA. (Please refer to the fund’s portfolio of investments for a complete list of holdings and the amount each represents in the portfolio.)
As the Fed raises rates, shareholders can expect to see rising returns; however, the path toward rate normalization is expected to be long and slow. As always, we remain committed to managing a highly diversified portfolio focused on liquidity and stability of principal, which we deem of utmost importance to our valued shareholders.
Maryland Short-Term Tax-Free Bond
Fund
The Maryland Short-Term Tax-Free Bond
Fund returned 0.55% for the six-month period ended August 31, 2016,
outperforming the Lipper Short Municipal Debt Funds Average of similarly managed
funds. The fund benefited from its yield curve positioning as well as favorable
security selection and sector allocations over
the past six months.
Our longer average duration and our positioning in longer-maturity bonds were beneficial as the yield curve flattened during the period. As shown in the Portfolio Characteristics table, the fund’s weighted average maturity and duration as of August 31, 2016, were longer than they were six months ago. We extended the portfolio’s weighted average maturity and weighted average duration in the spring as weaker economic reports indicated that the Fed would likely take a slower-than-expected approach to raising rates. During that time, we focused our purchases in the five- and seven-year portion of the curve as we felt these maturities offered better relative value. More recently, though, we have been shortening our maturity and duration.
We made this shift toward more conservative positioning because we anticipated that the SEC’s money market reforms, which are set to go into effect in October, would put unusual pressure on short-term obligations that could also negatively impact short-term municipal debt. As a result of the money fund reforms, seven-day yields increased substantially to 0.62% during the period—a higher yield than two- or three-year bonds have produced at some points in recent years. We expect to keep our increased cash position until two- and three-year bond yields start to move higher.
Our overweight to revenue bonds and security selection in the health care sector benefited the portfolio during the period. With regard to our sector allocation, over the last few years we have been reducing our exposure to Maryland state general obligations. We reduced our position in the state to about 6% from substantially higher allocations in prior periods. While we are not overly concerned about the state’s finances, we do believe that the GO bonds have the potential to reprice lower as a result of the state’s underfunded pension liability. Our eventual goal is to reduce our exposure below 5%. Within the revenue sector, our largest allocations were to health care and transportation bonds.
As shown in the Quality Diversification chart, investment-grade issues made up 96% of the portfolio at the end of the period. Given our limited opportunities to buy lower-rated, higher-yielding short Maryland debt, the majority of the portfolio is allocated to AAA and AA rated bonds. However, during the period, that allocation ticked down modestly from 64% to 62% as we continue to look for attractive opportunities among lower-rated bonds.
Maryland Tax-Free Bond
Fund
The Maryland Tax-Free Bond Fund
returned 3.26% in the six months ended August 31, 2016, outpacing the Lipper
Maryland Municipal Debt Funds Average. The fund’s returns benefited from our
yield curve positioning and our security
selection.
Your fund continued to compare very favorably with its competitors over the long term. Lipper ranked the Maryland Tax-Free Bond Fund first among its peer group of Maryland municipal debt funds for the 5- and 10-year periods ended August 31, 2016, and in the top decile of the peer group for the past three years. (Based on cumulative total return, Lipper ranked the Maryland Tax-Free Bond Fund 9 of 26, 2 of 25, 1 of 25, and 1 of 17 funds for the 1-, 3-, 5-, and 10-year periods ended August 31, 2016, respectively. Past performance cannot guarantee future results.)
The portfolio’s sensitivity to interest rate fluctuations was little changed from six months ago. The fund’s weighted average maturity ticked up to 15.3 years, while duration lengthened to 4.4 years from 4.2 years. Though the prospect of rising rates is a concern, we believe our current positioning is appropriate given the Fed’s very cautious approach to rate hikes. Similar to the Maryland Short-Term Tax-Free Bond Fund (see page 9), we kept our cash allocation in this fund above its usual level. While this increased cash position was a bit different than our ordinary practice, higher cash yields helped us minimize the impact on the overall portfolio yield. While this position did contribute to a lower yield, it does provide us with an increased reserve position that could be put to work if interest rate levels reset higher.
We continue to have a healthy overweight to longer-maturity Maryland bonds, a position that has served us well over multiple periods. More recently, we have been adding to the 15- and 20-year portions of the yield curve. While the yield in this part of the curve is less than we could get in the longest maturities, we like the moderately lower risk associated with these securities.
We added bonds in several sectors during the period. Our position in local GOs ticked up as a result of our participation in a new issue from Anne Arundel County, which is a steady performer and highly rated. Other purchases included a couple of holdings with strong ties to the state—the Maryland Stadium Authority issue for Baltimore City Schools and Maryland Economic Development bonds for the Purple Line, a public-private partnership (or P3) construction project. Once construction is complete, we believe the Purple Line bonds will be upgraded from their current BBB+ rating. While politics and other issues may delay the completion of the project, we feel bondholder protections are strong enough to safeguard our investment should the project be shelved unexpectedly. In a reflection of the challenges of adding income to the portfolio in the current low-yield environment, the Purple Line bonds all yielded below 3.00% when purchased in June; not too long ago, similar securities would have been issued with a significantly more generous yield. (Please refer to the fund’s portfolio of investments for a complete list of holdings and the amount each represents in the portfolio.)
We also added modestly to health care, though our overall exposure to the sector decreased slightly to a still significant 25% of the portfolio as several bonds matured or were refunded. Maryland has many well-run hospitals, and its unique reimbursement environment improves the risk/reward potential in this sector.
Regarding the portfolio’s quality, we favor A rated bonds for the yield premium they generally offer, and we also maintain an overweight in BBB securities. This positioning served the portfolio well over the reporting period as lower-quality bonds outperformed their higher-quality counterparts. As always, we will continue to focus on generating tax-free income and seek out securities with the best long-term prospects for Marylanders, led by T. Rowe Price’s strong research capabilities and our fundamentals-driven investment process.
OUTLOOK
We believe that the municipal bond market remains a high-quality market that offers good opportunities for long-term investors seeking tax-free income. Fundamentals are sound overall, and technical support should persist as global economic uncertainties further increase demand for the relatively high-quality and somewhat insulated municipal bond asset class. Amid increased volatility, we expect the Fed to approach the next rate hike with an added degree of caution and believe we could remain in a low-rate environment for some time.
If signs of economic recovery prompt the Fed to continue raising short-term interest rates, muni bond yields are likely to rise along with Treasury yields—although probably not to the same extent. While higher yields typically pressure bond prices, we expect any potential Fed rate increases to be gradual and modest. Moreover, munis should be less susceptible to rising rates than Treasuries given their attractive tax-equivalent yields and the steady demand for tax-exempt income.
While we believe that many states deserve high credit ratings and will be able to continue servicing their debts, we have longer-term concerns about significant funding shortfalls for pensions and OPEB obligations in some jurisdictions. These funding gaps stem from investment losses during the financial crisis, insufficient plan contributions over time, and unrealistic return assumptions. Although few large plans are at risk of insolvency in the near term, the magnitude of unfunded liabilities is becoming more conspicuous in a few states.
Ultimately, we believe T. Rowe Price’s independent credit research is our greatest strength and will remain an asset for our investors as we navigate the current market environment. As always, we focus on finding attractively valued bonds issued by municipalities with good long-term fundamentals—an investment strategy that we believe will continue to serve our investors well.
Thank you for investing with T. Rowe Price.
Respectfully submitted,
Joseph K. Lynagh
Chairman of the Investment Advisory Committee
Maryland
Tax-Free Money Fund
Charles B. Hill
Chairman of the Investment Advisory Committee
Maryland
Short-Term Tax-Free Bond Fund
Hugh D. McGuirk
Chairman of the Investment Advisory Committee
Maryland
Tax-Free Bond Fund
September 23, 2016
The committee chairmen have day-to-day responsibility for managing the portfolios and work with committee members in developing and executing the funds’ investment programs.
RISKS OF INVESTING IN A RETAIL MONEY MARKET FUND
You could lose money by investing in the Fund. Although the Fund seeks to preserve the value of your investment at $1.00 per share, it cannot guarantee it will do so. Beginning October 14, 2016, the Fund may impose a fee upon the sale of your shares or may temporarily suspend your ability to sell shares if the Fund’s liquidity falls below required minimums because of market conditions or other factors. An investment in the Fund is not insured or guaranteed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or any other government agency. The Fund’s sponsor has no legal obligation to provide financial support to the Fund, and you should not expect that the sponsor will provide financial support to the Fund at any time.
RISKS OF INVESTING IN FIXED INCOME SECURITIES
Bonds are subject to interest rate risk (the decline in bond prices that usually accompanies a rise in interest rates) and credit risk (the chance that any fund holding could have its credit rating downgraded or that a bond issuer will default by failing to make timely payments of interest or principal), potentially reducing the fund’s income level and share price. The fund is less diversified than one investing nationally. Some income may be subject to state and local taxes and the federal alternative minimum tax.
GLOSSARY
Barclays Municipal Bond Index: A broadly diversified index of tax-exempt bonds.
Basis point: One one-hundredth of one percentage point, or 0.01%.
Duration: A measure of a bond fund’s sensitivity to changes in interest rates. For example, a fund with a duration of five years would fall about 5% in price in response to a one-percentage-point rise in interest rates, and vice versa.
General obligation (GO) debt: A government’s strongest pledge that obligates its full faith and credit, including, if necessary, its ability to raise taxes.
Gross domestic product: The total market value of all goods and services produced in a country in a given year.
Lipper averages: The averages of available mutual fund performance returns for specified time periods in categories defined by Lipper Inc.
Lipper indexes: Fund benchmarks that consist of a small number (10 to 30) of the largest mutual funds in a particular category as tracked by Lipper Inc.
Other post-employment benefits (OPEB): Benefits paid to an employee after retirement, such as premiums for life and health insurance.
Prerefunded bond: A bond that originally may have been issued as a general obligation or revenue bond but that is now secured by an escrow fund consisting entirely of direct U.S. government obligations that are sufficient for paying the bondholders.
Revenue (or revenue-backed) bond: A bond issued to fund specific projects, such as airports, bridges, hospitals, or toll roads, where a portion of the revenue generated is used to service the interest payments on the bonds.
SEC yield (7-day): A method of calculating a money fund’s yield by annualizing the fund’s net investment income for the last seven days of each period divided by the fund’s net asset value at the end of the period. Yield will vary and is not guaranteed.
SEC yield (30-day): A method of calculating a fund’s yield that assumes all portfolio securities are held until maturity. Yield will vary and is not guaranteed.
Variable rate demand note (VRDN): Generally, a debt security that requires the issuer to redeem at the holder’s discretion on a specified date or dates prior to maturity. Upon redemption, the issuer pays par to the holder who loses future coupon payments that might otherwise be due. The VRDN might be especially attractive at times of rising rates, to protect against interest rate risk by redeeming at par value and reinvesting proceeds in a new bond.
Weighted average life: A measure of a fund’s credit quality risk. In general, the longer the average life, the greater the fund’s credit quality risk. The average life is the dollar-weighted average maturity of a portfolio’s individual securities without taking into account interest rate readjustment dates. Money funds must maintain a weighted average life of less than 120 days.
Weighted average maturity: A measure of a fund’s interest rate sensitivity. In general, the longer the average maturity, the greater the fund’s sensitivity to interest rate changes. The weighted average maturity may take into account the interest rate readjustment dates for certain securities. Money funds must maintain a weighted average maturity of less than 60 days.
Yield curve: A graph depicting the relationship between yields and maturity dates for a set of similar securities. A security with a longer maturity usually has a higher yield. If a short-term security offers a higher yield, then the curve is said to be “inverted.” If short- and long-term bonds are offering equivalent yields, then the curve is said to be “flat.”
Performance and Expenses
| Growth of $10,000 |
This chart shows the value of a hypothetical $10,000 investment in the fund over the past 10 fiscal year periods or since inception (for funds lacking 10-year records). The result is compared with benchmarks, which may include a broad-based market index and a peer group average or index. Market indexes do not include expenses, which are deducted from fund returns as well as mutual fund averages and indexes.
| Growth of $10,000 |
This chart shows the value of a hypothetical $10,000 investment in the fund over the past 10 fiscal year periods or since inception (for funds lacking 10-year records). The result is compared with benchmarks, which may include a broad-based market index and a peer group average or index. Market indexes do not include expenses, which are deducted from fund returns as well as mutual fund averages and indexes.
| Growth of $10,000 |
This chart shows the value of a hypothetical $10,000 investment in the fund over the past 10 fiscal year periods or since inception (for funds lacking 10-year records). The result is compared with benchmarks, which may include a broad-based market index and a peer group average or index. Market indexes do not include expenses, which are deducted from fund returns as well as mutual fund averages and indexes.
| Fund Expense Example |
As a mutual fund shareholder, you may incur two types of costs: (1) transaction costs, such as redemption fees or sales loads, and (2) ongoing costs, including management fees, distribution and service (12b-1) fees, and other fund expenses. The following example is intended to help you understand your ongoing costs (in dollars) of investing in the fund and to compare these costs with the ongoing costs of investing in other mutual funds. The example is based on an investment of $1,000 invested at the beginning of the most recent six-month period and held for the entire period.
Actual Expenses
The first line of the following table (Actual) provides
information about actual account values and expenses based on the fund’s actual
returns. You may use the information on this line, together with your account
balance, to estimate the expenses that you paid over the period. Simply divide
your account value by $1,000 (for example, an $8,600 account value divided by
$1,000 = 8.6), then multiply the result by the number on the first line under
the heading “Expenses Paid During Period” to estimate the expenses you paid on
your account during this period.
Hypothetical Example for Comparison
Purposes
The information on the second
line of the table (Hypothetical) is based on hypothetical account values and
expenses derived from the fund’s actual expense ratio and an assumed 5% per year
rate of return before expenses (not the fund’s actual return). You may compare
the ongoing costs of investing in the fund with other funds by contrasting this
5% hypothetical example and the 5% hypothetical examples that appear in the
shareholder reports of the other funds. The hypothetical account values and
expenses may not be used to estimate the actual ending account balance or
expenses you paid for the period.
Note: T. Rowe Price charges an annual account service fee of $20, generally for accounts with less than $10,000. The fee is waived for any investor whose T. Rowe Price mutual fund accounts total $50,000 or more; accounts electing to receive electronic delivery of account statements, transaction confirmations, prospectuses, and shareholder reports; or accounts of an investor who is a T. Rowe Price Preferred Services, Personal Services, or Enhanced Personal Services client (enrollment in these programs generally requires T. Rowe Price assets of at least $100,000). This fee is not included in the accompanying table. If you are subject to the fee, keep it in mind when you are estimating the ongoing expenses of investing in the fund and when comparing the expenses of this fund with other funds.
You should also be aware that the expenses shown in the table highlight only your ongoing costs and do not reflect any transaction costs, such as redemption fees or sales loads. Therefore, the second line of the table is useful in comparing ongoing costs only and will not help you determine the relative total costs of owning different funds. To the extent a fund charges transaction costs, however, the total cost of owning that fund is higher.
Unaudited
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
Unaudited
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
Unaudited
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
Unaudited
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
Unaudited
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
Unaudited
| Notes to Financial Statements |
T. Rowe Price State Tax-Free Income Trust (the trust), is registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the 1940 Act). The T. Rowe Price Maryland Tax-Free Money Fund (the fund) is a diversified, open-end management investment company established by the trust. The fund incepted on March 30, 2001. The fund seeks to provide preservation of capital, liquidity, and, consistent with these objectives, the highest level of income exempt from federal and Maryland state and local income taxes.
In accordance with amendments to rules governing money market funds under the 1940 Act and as approved by the fund’s Board, the fund intends to operate as a retail money market fund. Accordingly, on or about July 1, 2016 the fund implemented policies and procedures to limit investments in the fund to accounts beneficially owned by natural persons. The fund’s principal investment strategies will remain the same; the fund will continue to value its securities at amortized cost and transact at a stable $1.00 NAV. Beginning October 14, 2016, the fund will have the ability to impose liquidity fees on redemptions and/or temporarily suspend redemptions (redemption gates) in the event the fund’s weekly liquid assets fall below designated thresholds and such liquidity fees or redemption gates are determined by the Board to be in the best interest of the fund.
NOTE 1 - SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
Basis of Preparation The fund is an investment company and follows accounting and reporting guidance in the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Accounting Standards Codification Topic 946 (ASC 946). The accompanying financial statements were prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (GAAP), including, but not limited to, ASC 946. GAAP requires the use of estimates made by management. Management believes that estimates and valuations are appropriate; however, actual results may differ from those estimates, and the valuations reflected in the accompanying financial statements may differ from the value ultimately realized upon sale or maturity.
Investment Transactions, Investment Income, and Distributions Income and expenses are recorded on the accrual basis. Premiums and discounts on debt securities are amortized for financial reporting purposes. Income tax-related interest and penalties, if incurred, would be recorded as income tax expense. Investment transactions are accounted for on the trade date. Realized gains and losses are reported on the identified cost basis. Income distributions are declared daily and paid monthly. Distributions to shareholders are recorded on the ex-dividend date.
NOTE 2 - VALUATION
The fund’s financial instruments are valued and its net asset value (NAV) per share is computed at the close of the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE), normally 4 p.m. ET, each day the NYSE is open for business. The fund’s financial instruments are reported at fair value, which GAAP defines as the price 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. The T. Rowe Price Valuation Committee (the Valuation Committee) has been established by the fund’s Board of Trustees (the Board) to ensure that financial instruments are appropriately priced at fair value in accordance with GAAP and the 1940 Act. Subject to oversight by the Board, the Valuation Committee develops and oversees pricing-related policies and procedures and approves all fair value determinations.
Various valuation techniques and inputs are used to determine the fair value of financial instruments. GAAP establishes the following fair value hierarchy that categorizes the inputs used to measure fair value:
Level 1 – quoted prices (unadjusted) in active markets for identical financial instruments that the fund can access at the reporting date
Level 2 – inputs other than Level 1 quoted prices that are observable, either directly or indirectly (including, but not limited to, quoted prices for similar financial instruments in active markets, quoted prices for identical or similar financial instruments in inactive markets, interest rates and yield curves, implied volatilities, and credit spreads)
Level 3 – unobservable inputs
Observable inputs are developed using market data, such as publicly available information about actual events or transactions, and reflect the assumptions market participants would use to price the financial instrument. Unobservable inputs are those for which market data are not available and are developed using the best information available about the assumptions that market participants would use to price the financial instrument. GAAP requires valuation techniques to maximize the use of relevant observable inputs and minimize the use of unobservable inputs. Input levels are not necessarily an indication of the risk or liquidity associated with financial instruments at that level but rather the degree of judgment used in determining those values. For example, securities held by a money market fund are generally high quality and liquid; however, they are reflected as Level 2 because the inputs used to determine fair value are not quoted prices in an active market.
In accordance with Rule 2a-7 under the 1940 Act, the fund values its securities at amortized cost, which approximates fair value. Securities for which amortized cost is deemed not to reflect fair value are stated at fair value as determined in good faith by the Valuation Committee. On August 31, 2016, all of the fund’s financial instruments were classified as Level 2 in the fair value hierarchy.
NOTE 3 - OTHER INVESTMENT TRANSACTIONS
Consistent with its investment objective, the fund engages in the following practices to manage exposure to certain risks and/or to enhance performance. The investment objective, policies, program, and risk factors of the fund are described more fully in the fund’s prospectus and Statement of Additional Information.
Restricted Securities The fund may invest in securities that are subject to legal or contractual restrictions on resale. Prompt sale of such securities at an acceptable price may be difficult and may involve substantial delays and additional costs.
When-Issued Securities The fund may enter into when-issued purchase or sale commitments, pursuant to which it agrees to purchase or sell, respectively, an authorized but not yet issued security for a fixed unit price, with payment and delivery not due until issuance of the security on a scheduled future date. When-issued securities may be new securities or securities issued through a corporate action, such as a reorganization or restructuring. Until settlement, the fund maintains liquid assets sufficient to settle its commitment to purchase a when-issued security or, in the case of a sale commitment, the fund maintains an entitlement to the security to be sold. Amounts realized on when-issued transactions are included in realized gain/loss on securities in the accompanying financial statements.
NOTE 4 - FEDERAL INCOME TAXES
No provision for federal income taxes is required since the fund intends to continue to qualify as a regulated investment company under Subchapter M of the Internal Revenue Code and distribute to shareholders all of its income and gains. Distributions determined in accordance with federal income tax regulations may differ in amount or character from net investment income and realized gains for financial reporting purposes. Financial reporting records are adjusted for permanent book/tax differences to reflect tax character but are not adjusted for temporary differences. The amount and character of tax-basis distributions and composition of net assets are finalized at fiscal year-end; accordingly, tax-basis balances have not been determined as of the date of this report.
The fund intends to retain realized gains to the extent of available capital loss carryforwards. Because the fund is required to use capital loss carryforwards that do not expire before those with expiration dates, all or a portion of its capital loss carryforwards subject to expiration could ultimately go unused. As of February 29, 2016, the fund had less than $1,000 of available capital loss carryforwards, which all expire in fiscal 2019.
At August 31, 2016, the cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was $86,803,000.
NOTE 5 - RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS
The fund is managed by T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc. (Price Associates), a wholly owned subsidiary of T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. (Price Group). The investment management agreement between the fund and Price Associates provides for an annual investment management fee, which is computed daily and paid monthly. The fee consists of an individual fund fee, equal to 0.10% of the fund’s average daily net assets, and a group fee. The group fee rate is calculated based on the combined net assets of certain mutual funds sponsored by Price Associates (the group) applied to a graduated fee schedule, with rates ranging from 0.48% for the first $1 billion of assets to 0.270% for assets in excess of $500 billion. The fund’s group fee is determined by applying the group fee rate to the fund’s average daily net assets. At August 31, 2016, the effective annual group fee rate was 0.29%.
Price Associates may voluntarily waive all or a portion of its management fee and reimburse operating expenses to the extent necessary for the fund to maintain a zero or positive net yield (voluntary waiver). Any amounts waived/paid by Price Associates under this voluntary agreement are not subject to repayment by the fund. Price Associates may amend or terminate this voluntary arrangement at any time without prior notice. For the six months ended August 31, 2016, expenses waived/repaid totaled $174,000.
In addition, the fund has entered into service agreements with Price Associates and a wholly owned subsidiary of Price Associates (collectively, Price). Price Associates provides certain accounting and administrative services to the fund. T. Rowe Price Services, Inc., provides shareholder and administrative services in its capacity as the fund’s transfer and dividend-disbursing agent. For the six months ended August 31, 2016, expenses incurred pursuant to these service agreements were $23,000 for Price Associates and $27,000 for T. Rowe Price Services, Inc. The total amount payable at period-end pursuant to these service agreements is reflected as Due to Affiliates in the accompanying financial statements.
The fund may participate in securities purchase and sale transactions with other funds or accounts advised by Price Associates (cross trades), in accordance with procedures adopted by the fund’s Board and Securities and Exchange Commission rules, which require, among other things, that such purchase and sale cross trades be effected at the independent current market price of the security. Purchases and sales cross trades aggregated $0 and $7,800,000, respectively, with net realized gain of $0 for the six months ended August 31, 2016.
| Information on Proxy Voting Policies, Procedures, and Records |
A description of the policies and procedures used by T. Rowe Price funds and portfolios to determine how to vote proxies relating to portfolio securities is available in each fund’s Statement of Additional Information. You may request this document by calling 1-800-225-5132 or by accessing the SEC’s website, sec.gov.
The description of our proxy voting policies and procedures is also available on our corporate website. To access it, please visit the following Web page:
https://www3.troweprice.com/usis/corporate/en/utility/policies.html
Scroll down to the section near the bottom of the page that says, “Proxy Voting Policies.” Click on the Proxy Voting Policies link in the shaded box.
Each fund’s most recent annual proxy voting record is available on our website and through the SEC’s website. To access it through T. Rowe Price, visit the website location shown above, and scroll down to the section near the bottom of the page that says, “Proxy Voting Records.” Click on the Proxy Voting Records link in the shaded box.
| How to Obtain Quarterly Portfolio Holdings |
The fund files a complete schedule of portfolio holdings with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the first and third quarters of each fiscal year on Form N-Q. The fund’s Form N-Q is available electronically on the SEC’s website (sec.gov); hard copies may be reviewed and copied at the SEC’s Public Reference Room, 100 F St. N.E., Washington, DC 20549. For more information on the Public Reference Room, call 1-800-SEC-0330.
| Approval of Investment Management Agreement |
On March 11, 2016, the fund’s Board of Trustees (Board), including a majority of the fund’s independent trustees, approved the continuation of the investment management agreement (Advisory Contract) between the fund and its investment advisor, T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc. (Advisor). In connection with its deliberations, the Board requested, and the Advisor provided, such information as the Board (with advice from independent legal counsel) deemed reasonably necessary. The Board considered a variety of factors in connection with its review of the Advisory Contract, also taking into account information provided by the Advisor during the course of the year, as discussed below:
Services Provided by the Advisor
The Board considered the
nature, quality, and extent of the services provided to the fund by the Advisor.
These services included, but were not limited to, directing the fund’s
investments in accordance with its investment program and the overall management
of the fund’s portfolio, as well as a variety of related activities such as
financial, investment operations, and administrative services; compliance;
maintaining the fund’s records and registrations; and shareholder
communications. The Board also reviewed the background and experience of the
Advisor’s senior management team and investment personnel involved in the
management of the fund, as well as the Advisor’s compliance record. The Board
concluded that it was satisfied with the nature, quality, and extent of the
services provided by the Advisor.
Investment Performance of the Fund
The Board reviewed the fund’s
three-month, one-year, and year-by-year returns, as well as the fund’s average
annualized total returns over the 3-, 5-, and 10-year periods, and compared
these returns with a wide variety of comparable performance measures and market
data, including those supplied by Lipper and Morningstar, which are independent
providers of mutual fund data.
On the basis of this evaluation and the Board’s ongoing review of investment results, and factoring in the relative market conditions during certain of the performance periods, the Board concluded that the fund’s performance was satisfactory.
Costs, Benefits, Profits, and Economies
of
Scale
The Board reviewed detailed information regarding the revenues received
by the Advisor under the Advisory Contract and other benefits that the Advisor
(and its affiliates) may have realized from its relationship with the fund,
including any research received under “soft dollar” agreements and
commission-sharing arrangements with broker-dealers. The Board considered that
the Advisor may receive some benefit from soft-dollar arrangements pursuant to
which research is received from broker-dealers that execute the applicable
fund’s portfolio transactions. The Board received information on the estimated
costs incurred and profits realized by the Advisor from managing T. Rowe Price
mutual funds. While the Board did not review information regarding profits
realized from managing the fund in particular because the fund had either not
achieved sufficient portfolio asset size or not
recognized sufficient revenues to produce meaningful profit margin percentages,
the Board concluded that the Advisor’s profits were reasonable in light of the
services provided to the T. Rowe Price funds.
The Board also considered whether the fund benefits under the fee levels set forth in the Advisory Contract from any economies of scale realized by the Advisor. Under the Advisory Contract, the fund pays a fee to the Advisor for investment management services composed of two components—a group fee rate based on the combined average net assets of most of the T. Rowe Price mutual funds (including the fund) that declines at certain asset levels and an individual fund fee rate based on the fund’s average daily net assets—and the fund pays its own expenses of operations. The Board noted that an arrangement is in place whereby the Advisor may voluntarily waive all or a portion of the management fee it is entitled to receive from the fund or pay all or a portion of the fund’s operating expenses in order to maintain a zero or positive net yield for the fund. The Board concluded that the advisory fee structure for the fund continued to provide for a reasonable sharing of benefits from any economies of scale with the fund’s investors.
Fees
The Board was provided with information regarding industry trends in
management fees and expenses, and the Board reviewed the fund’s management fee
rate, operating expenses, and total expense ratio in comparison with fees and
expenses of other comparable funds based on information and data supplied by
Lipper. After including reductions resulting from the voluntary fee waiver
arrangement, the information provided to the Board indicated that the fund’s
management fee rate was at or below the median for comparable funds, and the
fund’s total expense ratio was above the median for certain groups of comparable
funds and at or below the median for other groups of comparable
funds.
The Board also reviewed the fee schedules for institutional accounts (including subadvised mutual funds) and private accounts with similar mandates that are advised or subadvised by the Advisor and its affiliates. Management provided the Board with information about the Advisor’s responsibilities and services provided to subadvisory and other institutional account clients, including information about how the requirements and economics of the institutional business differ from those of the Advisor’s proprietary mutual fund business. The Board considered information showing that the Advisor’s proprietary mutual fund business is generally more complex from a business and compliance perspective than its institutional account business and considered various other relevant factors, including the broader scope of operations and oversight, more extensive shareholder communication infrastructure, greater asset flows, heightened business risks, and differences in applicable laws and regulations associated with the Advisor’s proprietary mutual fund business. In assessing the reasonableness of the fund’s management fee rate, the Board considered the differences in the nature of the services required for the Advisor to manage its proprietary mutual fund business versus managing a discrete pool of assets as a subadvisor to another institution’s mutual fund or for another institutional account and the degree to which the Advisor performs significant additional services and assumes greater risk in managing the fund and other T. Rowe Price mutual funds than it does for institutional account clients.
On the basis of the information provided and the factors considered, the Board concluded that the fees paid by the fund under the Advisory Contract are reasonable.
Approval of the Advisory Contract
As noted, the Board approved the continuation of the Advisory
Contract. No single factor was considered in isolation or to be determinative to
the decision. Rather, the Board concluded, in light of a weighting and balancing
of all factors considered, that it was in the best interests of the fund and its
shareholders for the Board to approve the continuation of the Advisory Contract
(including the fees to be charged for services thereunder). The independent
trustees were advised throughout the process by independent legal counsel.
Item 2. Code of Ethics.
A code of ethics, as defined in Item 2 of Form N-CSR, applicable to its principal executive officer, principal financial officer, principal accounting officer or controller, or persons performing similar functions is filed as an exhibit to the registrant’s annual Form N-CSR. No substantive amendments were approved or waivers were granted to this code of ethics during the registrant’s most recent fiscal half-year.
Item 3. Audit Committee Financial Expert.
Disclosure required in registrant’s annual Form N-CSR.
Item 4. Principal Accountant Fees and Services.
Disclosure required in registrant’s annual Form N-CSR.
Item 5. Audit Committee of Listed Registrants.
Not applicable.
Item 6. Investments.
(a) Not applicable. The complete schedule of investments is included in Item 1 of this Form N-CSR.
(b) 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 Company and Affiliated Purchasers.
Not applicable.
Item 10. Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders.
Not applicable.
Item 11. Controls and Procedures.
(a) The registrant’s principal executive officer and principal financial officer have evaluated the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures within 90 days of this filing and have concluded that the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures were effective, as of that date, in ensuring that information required to be disclosed by the registrant in this Form N-CSR was recorded, processed, summarized, and reported timely.
(b) The registrant’s principal executive officer and principal financial officer are aware of no change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s second fiscal quarter covered by this report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
Item 12. Exhibits.
(a)(1) The registrant’s code of ethics pursuant to Item 2 of Form N-CSR is filed with the registrant’s annual Form N-CSR.
(2) Separate certifications by the registrant's principal executive officer and principal financial officer, pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and required by Rule 30a-2(a) under the Investment Company Act of 1940, are attached.
(3) Written solicitation to repurchase securities issued by closed-end companies: not applicable.
(b) A certification by the registrant's principal executive officer and principal financial officer, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and required by Rule 30a-2(b) under the Investment Company Act of 1940, is attached.
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.
T. Rowe Price State Tax-Free Income
Trust
| By | /s/ Edward C. Bernard | |
| Edward C. Bernard | ||
| Principal Executive Officer | ||
| Date October 17, 2016 | ||
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/ Edward C. Bernard | |
| Edward C. Bernard | ||
| Principal Executive Officer | ||
| Date October 17, 2016 | ||
| By | /s/ Catherine D. Mathews | |
| Catherine D. Mathews | ||
| Principal Financial Officer | ||
| Date October 17, 2016 | ||