Company: RFMZ
Filing Date: 2025-03-07
Form Type: N-CSRS
Source: 0001398344-25-005064
Chunk: 33

Company: RiverNorth Flexible Municipal Income Fund II, Inc.
Filing Date: 2025-03-07
Form: N-CSRS
Chunk 33
---
 the performance of the Fund
for the three-month, one-year, three-year and since inception periods ended September 30, 2024. These returns were compared to the returns
of recently organized closed-end funds (“CEFs”) and sixteen other National Municipal CEFs identified by FUSE (collectively,
the “Peer Universe”). The Board considered the Fund’s net asset value (“NAV”) and market price returns relative
to the returns for the funds in the Peer Universe, noting that on a NAV basis, the Fund had underperformed the median of the Peer Universe
for the three-month period ended September 30, 2024 and outperformed the median of the Peer Universe for the one-year, three-year and
since inception periods ended September 30, 2024. The Directors also considered that the Fund had underperformed the median of the Peer
Universe on a market price basis for the three-month, one-year, three-year and since inception periods ended September 30, 2024. The Directors
also noted that on a NAV basis, the Fund had underperformed its benchmark index for the three-month, three-year and since inception periods
ended September 30, 2024 and outperformed its benchmark index for the one-year period ended September 30, 2024.

RiverNorth Flexible Municipal Income Fund II, Inc.

As to the comparative fees and expenses, the Directors
considered the management and the other fees paid by the Fund and compared those to the management and other fees paid by recently organized
CEFs identified by FUSE (the “Peer Group”). The Board noted that the Fund’s total net expense ratio as a percentage
of average managed assets was the same as the Peer Group median. The Directors considered that the total net expense ratio as a percentage
of managed assets took into account the differences caused by varying levels of leverage for each fund in the Peer Group.

The Board also noted that the management fee for
the Fund as a percentage of net assets was above the median paid by the Peer Group. The Board highlighted the Fund’s unitary fee
structure and noted that only two other funds within the Peer Group had unitary fee structures. The Board noted the differences in the
strategy of the Fund compared to the funds included in the Peer Group and Peer Universe. The Board also discussed certain supplemental
information comparing the Fund’s performance and fees to a supplemental peer group of eleven other tactical-flexible allocation
funds identified by FUSE, at the request of the