SecProbe.io

CORRESP
1
filename1.htm

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP

One Federal Street

Boston, MA 02110

February 10, 2025

VIA EDGAR

Securities and Exchange Commission

Division of Investment Management

100 F Street, NE

Washington, D.C. 20549

Re:  Pioneer Diversified High Income Fund, Inc. (File No. 811-22014)

  Pioneer Floating Rate Fund, Inc.	(File No. 811-21654)

  Pioneer High Income Fund, Inc.	(File No. 811-21043)

  Pioneer Municipal High Income Advantage Fund, Inc. (File No. 811-21409)

  Pioneer Municipal High Income Fund, Inc. (File No. 811-21321)

  Pioneer Municipal High Income Opportunities Fund, Inc. (File No. 811-23699)

  Pioneer ILS Interval Fund (File No. 811-22987)

Ladies and Gentlemen:

This letter responds to comments we received from Ms.
Valerie Lithotomos of the Staff of the Division of Investment Management of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”),
regarding the preliminary proxy statements filed by Pioneer Municipal High Income Advantage Fund, Inc. (“MAV”), Pioneer Municipal
High Income Fund, Inc. (“MHI”) and Pioneer Municipal High Income Opportunities Fund, Inc. (“MIO”) on January 29,
2025, the preliminary proxy statement filed by Pioneer ILS Interval Fund on January 31, 2025, and the revised preliminary proxy statement
filed by Pioneer Diversified High Income Fund, Inc. (“HNW”), Pioneer Floating Rate Fund, Inc. (“PHD”) and Pioneer
High Income Fund, Inc. (“PHT”) on February 3, 2025. Following are the Staff’s comments with respect to the preliminary
proxy statements and the Registrants’ responses thereto:

1. Comment  The Staff noted that
the proxy statements filed by MAV, MHI, MIO, HNW, PHD and PHT state that Saba Capital Management, L.P. (“Saba Capital”) is
“a known opportunistic hedge fund manager,” and that Saba Capital is “simply trying to take advantage of this situation
to create disruption…” The Staff requested that the Registrants revise the disclosure to state that the Registrant and Amundi
US believe that Saba Capital is a known opportunistic hedge fund manager, and that the Registrant and Amundi US believe
that Saba Capital is “simply trying to take advantage of this situation to create disruption…

Response:  The Registrants will revise the disclosure as requested by the Staff.

2. Comment  The Staff noted that
the proxy statements filed by MAV, MHI, MIO, HNW, PHD and PHT state that the Board of Directors of each Registrant has adopted a resolution
to opt in to the provisions of the Maryland Control Share Acquisition Act (“MCSAA”). The Staff requested that the Registrant
disclose to stockholders that the exercise of the

provisions of the MCSAA may create exposure to liability for the
Registrants and that courts in Massachusetts and New York, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit have held similar provisions
to violate Section 18(i) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended.

Response:  The Registrants will revise the disclosure as requested by the Staff.

3. Comment  	The
Staff noted that the proxy statements filed by each Registrant state that Amundi S.A. is a French societe anonyme and that Amundi Asset
Management S.A.S. is a French societe par actions simplifee. The Staff requested that the Registrants include brief English explanations
of the French terms used in the disclosure.

Response:  The Registrants will revise the disclosure to explain that a French societe anonyme is a
French limited company, and that a French societe par actions simplifee is a French simplified joint stock company.

4. Comment  The Staff noted that the
                                            investment advisory fee peer group comparisons included in the disclosure in each proxy statement
                                            are organized in quintiles and requested that the Registrants add disclosure to explain what
                                            a quintile is in plain English.

Response:  The Registrants note that the disclosure includes an explanation that each quintile represents
one-fifth of the peer group and that, in all peer group comparisons referred to below, first quintile is most favorable to the Fund’s
shareowners. The Registrants respectfully submit that no additional disclosure is required.

5. Comment  The Staff noted that
the proxy statements filed by MAV, MHI, MIO, HNW, PHD and PHT state that the inspectors of election will treat abstentions and ‘broker
non-votes’ as present for purposes of determining a quorum. The Staff noted that the proposal is non-routine and requested that
the Registrants remove from the disclosure the statement that “broker non-votes” will be treated as present for purposes
of determining a quorum.

Response:  The Registrants note that the disclosure referenced by the Staff is included to address the
requirements of Item 21(b) of Schedule 14A, which requires the disclosure of the method by which votes will be counted, including the
treatment and effect under applicable state law and Registrant charter and by-law provisions of abstentions and broker non-votes. The
Registrants further note that the disclosure includes the statements (i) that “the Proposal is considered non-routine under the
rules of the New York Stock Exchange. Accordingly, because stockholders are being asked to vote only on non-routine proposals, there
will be no broker non-votes at the Special Meeting;” and (ii) that “since it is not expected that any of the proposals being
presented at the Annual Meeting will be routine, it is not expected that there will be any broker non-votes at the Annual Meeting. Accordingly,
the Funds do not anticipate that there will be any broker non-votes included in the calculation of the number of shares represented at
the Annual Meeting for purposes of determining whether a quorum has been achieved.” The Registrants respectfully submit that no
change to the disclosure is required.

6. Comment  With
respect to Pioneer ILS Interval Fund, the Staff noted that the nominees for trustee must be elected by a plurality of shareholders and
requested that the Registrant include a brief explanation of what a “plurality” means.

Response:  Pioneer ILS Interval Fund notes that the disclosure currently states that “being elected
by a plurality means receiving the greater number of votes cast at a meeting at which a quorum is present. Since the number of Nominees
equals the number of Trustees to be elected, a Nominee receiving any votes will be elected.” Pioneer ILS Interval Fund respectfully
submits that no additional disclosure is required.

7. Comment  The
Staff requested that MAV, MHI, MIO, HNW, PHD and PHT, the Registrants that are organized as Maryland corporations, confirm that there
is no requirement for a vote of stockholders to adjourn the stockholder meeting.

Response:  MAV, MHI, MIO, HNW, PHD and PHT confirm that, as stated in the disclosure, the stockholder
meeting may be adjourned by action of the Chair of the meeting and without any action by stockholders.

8. Comment  The
Staff noted that the proxy statements filed by each Registrant state that the advisory fee rate payable by each Registrant under the
new investment advisory agreement will be the same as the advisory fee rate payable under the Registrant’s current investment advisory
agreement and requested that the Registrants confirm that this is not solely as a result of contractual fee waiver arrangements.

Response:  The Registrants note that, as stated in the disclosure, the stated advisory fees to be paid
by each Registrant and the method of calculation are identical under the Registrant’s current investment advisory agreement and
the Registrant’s new investment advisory agreement, and confirm that this is not solely as a result of contractual fee waiver arrangements.

9. Comment  The Staff noted
that Item 22(c)(6) of Schedule 14A requires registrants to “describe briefly and disclose the approximate amount of, where practicable,
any material interest, direct or indirect, of any director of the fund in any material transactions since the beginning of the most recently
completed fiscal year, or in any material proposed transactions, to which the investment adviser of the fund, any Parent or Subsidiary
of the investment adviser (other than another fund), or any Subsidiary of the Parent of such entities was or is to be a party.”
The Staff noted that in one district course case, the court required the disclosure of the monetary benefits received by the adviser
and board members associated with the adviser. NextPoint Advisor, L.P. v. TICC Capital Corp., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144126 (D. Conn.
Oct. 23, 2015) at 47. The Staff requested that, if applicable, the Registrants disclose the estimated monetary benefit to be received
by the directors of a Registrant that are owners of Amundi US.

Response:  The Registrants note that, as disclosed, Lisa M. Jones and Marco Pirondini are directors, officers or employees of Amundi US, and are therefore interested directors of each Registrant.  The Registrants note that Ms. Jones and Mr. Pirondini each own an immaterial number of shares of Amundi, the ultimate parent of Amundi US.  The Registrants note that there currently is no known quantifiable monetary benefit to be received by Ms. Jones or Mr. Pirondini as owners of shares of Amundi in connection with the Transaction.  The Registrants respectfully submit that, since Ms. Jones and Mr. Pirondini have been identified as interested directors of each Registrant, additional disclosure would not be useful to investors.

Please call the undersigned at (617) 951-8458 with any
questions.

Sincerely,

/s/ Jeremy Kantrowitz

Jeremy Kantrowitz