Company: NMZ
Filing Date: 2025-07-07
Form Type: N-CSRS
Source: 0001193125-25-156000
Chunk: 69

Company: NUVEEN MUNICIPAL HIGH INCOME OPPORTUNITY FUND
Filing Date: 2025-07-07
Form: N-CSRS
Chunk 69
---
-Adviser’sfee is essentially for portfolio management services and therefore more comparable to the fees received for retail wrap accounts and other external sub-advisorymandates. The Board concluded that the varying levels of fees were reasonable given the foregoing.

| 3. | Profitability of the Fund Advisers |

In considering the costs of services to be provided and profits to be realized by the Adviser (which encompassed the Sub-Adviser)from its relationship with the Funds, the Board Members considered a variety of estimated profitability data from various perspectives including, among other things, (a) historical pre-distributionand post-distribution margins over specified periods for the Adviser’s services to the applicable funds; (b) certain profitability data on behalf of the Adviser attributable to servicing all applicable funds for 2024 and 2023; (c) certain profitability data of both the Adviser and TAL (as an adviser of certain other Nuveen funds) on a combined basis derived from types of funds in the aggregate (i.e., from closed-endfunds, exchange-traded funds, interval funds and open-endfunds) for 2024 and 2023; and (d) certain profitability data of both tbe Adviser and TAL on a combined basis by asset grouping of Nuveen funds in the aggregate (i.e., from equity, fund of funds, index, municipal bond and taxable fixed income funds). In addition, the Board considered profitability data at the per fund level for the respective adviser. In reviewing the profitability data, the Board Members considered the subjective nature of calculating profitability as the information is not audited and is necessarily dependent on cost allocation methodologies to allocate expenses throughout the complex and among the various advisory products. The Board reviewed, among other things, a description of the cost allocation methodology employed to develop the profitability data. However, the Board Members considered that given there is no single universally recognized expense allocation methodology, other reasonable and valid allocation methodologies could be employed and could lead to significantly different profit and loss results and therefore developing profitability data is difficult, particularly on a per fund level. Further, in considering the comparative margin data with peers, the Board Members considered the limitations of the comparative data given that peer data is not generally public and the calculation of profitability is subjective and affected by numerous factors (such as types of funds a peer manages, its business mix, its cost of capital, the numerous assumptions underlying the methodology used to allocate expenses and other factors) that can have a significant impact on the results.