Company: NMI
Filing Date: 2025-07-07
Form Type: N-CSRS
Source: 0001193125-25-155990
Chunk: 43

Company: NUVEEN MUNICIPAL INCOME FUND INC
Filing Date: 2025-07-07
Form: N-CSRS
Chunk 43
---
 with experiencing a period of challenged performance. In their review, the Board Members considered the methodology Broadridge employed to establish its Expense Universe. The Board further considered that differences between the applicable Fund and its Expense Universe, as well as changes to the composition of the Expense Universe from year to year, may limit some of the value of the comparative data. The Board Members also considered that it can be difficult to compare management fees among funds with peers as there are variations in the services that are included for the fees paid. The Board Members took these limitations and differences into account when reviewing comparative peer data. In addition, although the Board reviewed net total expense ratio both including and excluding investment-related expenses (e.g., leverage costs), as applicable, the Board considered that leverage expenses will vary across funds and peers because of differences in the forms and terms of leverage employed by the respective fund and therefore generally considered each closed-endfund’s net total expense ratio and fees excluding investment-related costs and taxes. The Board also considered that the use of leverage may create a conflict of interest for the respective Adviser and Sub-Advisergiven the increase of assets from leverage upon which an advisory or sub-advisoryfee is based but also considered the impact of leverage on the fund’s return. The Board Members considered, however, that the Adviser and Sub-Adviserwould seek to manage the potential conflict by recommending to the Board to leverage the applicable fund or increase such leverage when the respective Fund Adviser has determined that such action would be in the best interests of the respective fund and its common shareholders and by periodically reviewing with the Board the fund’s performance and the impact of the use of leverage on that performance. With respect to the Sub-Adviser,the Board also considered, among other things, the sub-advisoryfee schedule paid to the Sub-Adviserin light of the sub-advisoryservices provided to the respective Fund. In its review, the Board considered that the compensation paid to the Sub-Adviseris the responsibility of the Adviser, not the Funds. The Board’s considerations regarding the comparative fee data for each Fund are set forth below:

| • |     | The Municipal Value Fund’s contractual management fee rate, actual management fee rate and net total expense ratio were                                                                                 
 each below the Expense Universe median. In its review of the relative expense data, the Board, considered that the Fund’s peer set in the Expense Universe was small and comprised of all Nuveen funds. |

| • |     | The AMT-Free Municipal