Putnam
High Income
Securities Fund

Semiannual report
2 | 28 | 14

Consider these risks before investing: Lower-rated bonds may offer higher yields in return for more risk. Bond investments are subject to interest-rate risk, which means the prices of the fund’s bond investments are likely to fall if interest rates rise. Bond investments also are subject to credit risk, which is the risk that the issuer of the bond may default on payment of interest or principal. Interest-rate risk is generally greater for longer-term bonds, and credit risk is generally greater for below-investment-grade bonds, which may be considered speculative. Unlike bonds, funds that invest in bonds have ongoing fees and expenses. Bond prices may fall or fail to rise over time for reasons including general financial market conditions and factors related to a specific issuer or industry. You can lose money by investing in the fund. The fund’s shares trade on a stock exchange at market prices, which may be lower than the fund’s net asset value.

Message from the Trustees

Dear Fellow Shareholder:

Stock and bond markets have exhibited some volatility this year, as the global economy continues to heal slowly, and new geopolitical risks have emerged. This fluctuating investment climate drives home the importance of portfolio diversification.

In this environment, we believe Putnam’s active investment research and strategies are well suited to serve investors pursuing income and capital appreciation goals.

In addition to sound investment strategies, your portfolio also benefits from sound advice, we believe. An experienced advisor can help you assess your individual needs, time horizon, and risk tolerance — and can help guide you toward your investment goals.

As always, thank you for investing with Putnam.

About the fund

Seeking opportunities from high-yield bonds and convertibles

The average investor may think of bonds as government-sponsored securities that offer relatively low risk and less volatility than the stock market. However, high-yield corporate bonds and convertible securities, the types of investments primarily held by Putnam High Income Securities Fund, are different. Both are issued by companies rather than the government. Moreover, high-yield corporates and convertibles can offer greater returns than other bonds — but also carry a greater potential for risk, such as the risk of corporate default or periodic illiquidity.

High-yield bonds are deemed to have less than investment-grade status, which means their issuing companies are considered more likely to default on their debt than more creditworthy companies. High-yield bond prices tend to follow individual companies’ fundamentals as well as interest-rate levels. While lower-rated corporate bonds may carry higher risk, they provide potentially higher levels of yield to compensate investors for that risk.

What sets convertible securities apart is a built-in option that allows the investor to exchange — or convert — the security for a fixed number of shares of common stock of the issuer. Convertible securities pay interest, although frequently at a lower rate than traditional bonds, and the amount of interest does not change as the price of the underlying stock(s) increases or decreases.

Building a portfolio of high-yield bonds and convertible securities requires intensive research and analysis. Putnam’s global equity and credit research analysts conduct rigorous research in an effort to determine the true worth of the issuing company’s business. The fund’s portfolio managers then construct a portfolio that they believe offers the best return potential, while being mindful of risk.

How closed-end funds differ from open-end funds

Closed-end funds and open-end funds share many common characteristics but also have some key differences that you should understand as you consider your portfolio strategies.

More assets at work Open-end funds are subject to ongoing sales and redemptions that can generate transaction costs for long-term shareholders. Closed-end funds, however, are typically fixed pools of capital that do not need to hold cash in connection with sales and redemptions, allowing the funds to keep more assets actively invested.

Traded like stocks Closed-end fund shares are traded on stock exchanges and, as a result, their prices fluctuate because of the influence of several factors.

They have a market price Like an open-end fund, a closed-end fund has a per-share net asset value (NAV). However, closed-end funds also have a “market price” for their shares — which is how much you pay when you buy shares of the fund, and how much you receive when you sell them.

When looking at a closed-end fund’s performance, you will usually see that the NAV and the market price differ. The market price can be influenced by several factors that cause it to vary from the NAV, including fund distributions, changes in supply and demand for the fund’s shares, changing market conditions, and investor perceptions of the fund or its investment manager. A fund’s performance at market price typically differs from its results at NAV.

Data are historical. Past performance does not guarantee future results. More recent returns may be less or more than those shown. Investment return and net asset value will fluctuate, and you may have a gain or a loss when you sell your shares. Performance assumes reinvestment of distributions and does not account for taxes. Fund returns in the bar chart are at NAV. See pages 5 and 10–11 for additional performance information, including fund returns at market price. Index and Lipper results should be compared with fund performance at NAV.

* The fund’s blended benchmark is an unmanaged index administered by Putnam Management, 50% of which is the JPMorgan Developed High Yield Index and 50% of which is BofA Merrill Lynch All-Convertibles Speculative Quality Index. The BofA Merrill Lynch All-Convertibles Speculative Quality Index and the JPMorgan Developed High Yield Index were introduced on 12/31/92 and 12/31/94, respectively, which post-date the inception of the fund. The blended benchmark was previously shown as two individual indexes.

† Returns for the six-month period are not annualized, but cumulative.

Interview with your fund’s portfolio managers

What was the market environment like for high-yield convertibles and bonds during the past six months?

Eric: It was a generally supportive environment for both asset classes. High-yield convertible securities rode a wave of rising stock prices and solid demand to post a gain that nearly matched the performance of the broad equity market, as measured by the S&P 500 Index. This performance, which occurred despite investor concerns about the pace and eventual withdrawal of the Federal Reserve’s stimulative bond-buying program, came on the heels of a multi-year rally in stocks and a fairly continuous tightening in credit spreads [the yield advantage corporate bonds offer over U.S. Treasuries].

Rob: In the high-yield bond market, following an early-period bout of uncertainty related to the U.S. debt ceiling, the asset class rallied in October, as a short-term funding bill signed by President Obama temporarily resolved the debt crisis. The market fluctuated in a fairly narrow trading range until February, held in check by higher interest rates that resulted from the Fed’s December announcement that it would begin reducing its bond buying and by lackluster economic data. These issues, coupled with concern about

*The fund’s blended benchmark is an unmanaged index administered by Putnam Management, 50% of which is the JPMorgan Developed High Yield Index and 50% of which is the BofA Merrill Lynch All-Convertibles Speculative Quality Index.

This comparison shows your fund’s performance in the context of broad market indexes for the six months ended 2/28/14. See pages 4 and 10–11 for additional fund performance information. Index descriptions can be found on page 12.

emerging-market [EM] currencies, caused investors to assume a more risk-averse posture. Asset flows shifted toward the relative safety of U.S. Treasuries, pushing the yield on the 10-year note down to 2.67%, its lowest level since mid-November.

By February, with EM stress abating and the U.S. debt-ceiling crisis finally settled, high-yield investors were encouraged by the resiliency of U.S. stocks and lower Treasury yields, along with robust inflows into the asset class amid light new supply. The high-yield market was also buoyed by investors largely dismissing weak economic data as a function of severe weather, and by the fact that the crisis in Ukraine remained localized. For the period as a whole, high-yield bonds were among the best-performing fixed-income sectors.

The fund registered a solid absolute return, but lagged its blended benchmark. What factors hampered the fund’s relative performance?

Eric: On the high-yield convertibles side of the fund, adverse security selection in financials, consumer cyclicals, energy, and transportation, along with an underweight in the strong-performing technology sector, weighed on the fund’s performance versus the benchmark. In terms of individual holdings, the biggest detractors were an underweight in semiconductor maker Micron Technology, oil and gas exploration and development company Halcon Resources, and automaker Ford Motor. Not holding two sizeable index components — government-sponsored mortgage-finance provider FNMA and air carrier United

Credit qualities are shown as a percentage of the fund’s net assets as of 2/28/14. A bond rated Baa or higher (Prime-3 or higher, for short-term debt) is considered investment grade. The chart reflects Moody’s ratings; percentages may include bonds or derivatives not rated by Moody’s but rated by Standard & Poor’s (S&P) or, if unrated by S&P, by Fitch ratings, and then included in the closest equivalent Moody’s rating. Ratings may vary over time.

Credit quality includes bonds and represents only the fixed-income portion of the portfolio. Cash and net other assets, if any, represent the market value weights of cash, derivatives, short-term securities, and other unclassified assets in the portfolio. The fund itself has not been rated by an independent rating agency.

Continental Holdings — also worked against the fund.

Rob: Within the fund’s high-yield bond portfolio, lighter-than-benchmark stakes in metals and mining and diversified media, coupled with subpar security selection in energy and utilities, were the primary areas of weakness. With respect to individual investments, the biggest individual detractor was wireless services provider NII Holdings, which announced shortly after period-end that it plans to explore strategic options following a warning in February that it faces long-term liquidity issues. We held common stock, as well as bonds issued by NII Capital, the financing subsidiary of NII Holdings, and sold both positions during the period.

Which areas aided the fund’s performance versus the benchmark?

Eric: Among convertible securities, selections in health care and consumer staples were the primary contributors, most notably drugstore operator Rite Aid. Avoiding several underperforming index constituents also helped the fund’s relative return, specifically, software developer Nuance Communications; pharmaceuticals distributor Omnicare; and Chart Industries, which develops products for cryogenic and gas-processing applications.

Rob: On the high-yield bond side of the fund, an overweight in financials was, by far, the biggest relative contributor. An

This table shows the fund’s top 10 individual holdings and the percentage of the fund’s net assets that each represented as of 2/28/14. Short-term holdings and derivatives, if any, are excluded. Holdings may vary over time.

overweight in cable and satellite, along with solid bond picks in gaming, lodging and leisure, and broadcasting, also bolstered the fund’s performance. Looking at individual holdings, the top contributors were global payments processing company First Data, telecommunications services provider Sprint Communications, United Kingdom-based financial services company Lloyds Bank, and chemicals maker Huntsman.

The fund reduced its distribution rate during the period. What led to that decision?

Rob: In February, the fund’s monthly distribution rate was lowered to $0.033 from $0.039 due to a reduction in the amount of income earned by the portfolio, which resulted from the generally lower yields available in the marketplace.

What is your outlook for the months ahead?

Rob: In our view, the prospects for U.S. economic growth continue to look favorable, buoyed by improving trends in employment, housing, and corporate capital expenditures. Additionally, despite the fact that the Fed has begun tapering its bond buying, overall monetary policy remains accommodative. Moreover, the smooth transition from Ben Bernanke to Janet Yellen as Fed chair reflects investors’ expectations that current monetary policy will continue. We believe the weak economic readings in January, such as the Institute for Supply Management’s Purchasing Managers Index, as well as disappointing automobile sales, were largely the result of adverse weather conditions affecting some of the country’s most densely populated regions.

This chart shows how the fund’s top weightings have changed over the past six months. Allocations are shown as a percentage of the fund’s net assets. Cash and net other assets, if any, represent the market value weights of cash, derivatives, short-term securities, and other unclassified assets in the portfolio. Current period summary information may differ from the portfolio schedule included in the financial statements due to the inclusion of derivative securities, any interest accruals, and the use of different classifications of securities for presentation purposes. Holdings and allocations may vary over time.

At period-end, the high-yield default rate stood at 0.67%, its lowest level since December 2007, and considerably below the long-term average of 3.9%. Given our generally constructive view of fundamentals, we believe the default rate could remain low through 2015. While high-yield spreads compressed during the period, they were still above the euphorically tight levels that we saw in 2007 and remained closer to their historical averages. Consequently, in light of our fundamental view of the market and low default expectations, we believe spreads are fairly attractive.

Eric, what are your closing thoughts on the outlook for convertibles?

We’re bullish about the prospects for convertible bonds in 2014, because we believe returns are likely to be attractive on a relative basis compared with fixed-income alternatives and on a risk-adjusted basis relative to equities. Furthermore, given our outlook for continued improvement in the U.S. economy, we believe supply-and-demand dynamics should remain positive and the default rate should remain below the long-term average.

Thanks for bringing us up to date, gentlemen.

The views expressed in this report are exclusively those of Putnam Management and are subject to change. They are not meant as investment advice.

Please note that the holdings discussed in this report may not have been held by the fund for the entire period. Portfolio composition is subject to review in accordance with the fund’s investment strategy and may vary in the future. Current and future portfolio holdings are subject to risk.

Portfolio Manager Eric N. Harthun has an M.B.A. from The University of Chicago Booth School of Business and a B.S. from San Diego State University. Eric joined Putnam in 2000 and has been in the investment industry since 1994.

Portfolio Manager Robert L. Salvin has an M.B.A. from The University of Chicago Booth School of Business and a B.S. from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. He joined Putnam in 2000 and has been in the investment industry since 1986.

Your fund’s performance

This section shows your fund’s performance, price, and distribution information for periods ended February 28, 2014, the end of the first half of its current fiscal year. In accordance with regulatory requirements for mutual funds, we also include performance information as of the most recent calendar quarter-end. Performance should always be considered in light of a fund’s investment strategy. Data represent past performance. Past performance does not guarantee future results. More recent returns may be less or more than those shown. Investment return, net asset value, and market price will fluctuate, and you may have a gain or a loss when you sell your shares.

Fund performance Total return for periods ended 2/28/14

Performance assumes reinvestment of distributions and does not account for taxes.

Fund price and distribution information For the six-month period ended 2/28/14

The classification of distributions, if any, is an estimate. Final distribution information will appear on your year-end tax forms.

* Most recent distribution, including any return of capital and excluding capital gains, annualized and divided by NAV or market price at end of period.

Comparative index returns For periods ended 2/28/14

Index and Lipper results should be compared with fund performance at net asset value.

* Over the 6-month, 1-year, 3-year, 5-year, 10-year, and life-of-fund periods ended 2/28/14, there were 11, 11, 11, 11, 9, and 2 funds, respectively, in this Lipper category.

† The fund’s blended benchmark is an unmanaged index administered by Putnam Management, 50% of which is the JPMorgan Developed High Yield Index and 50% of which is BofA Merrill Lynch All-Convertibles Speculative Quality Index. The BofA Merrill Lynch All-Convertibles Speculative Quality Index and the JPMorgan Developed High Yield Index were introduced on 12/31/92 and 12/31/94, respectively, which post-date the inception of the fund.

Fund performance as of most recent calendar quarter
Total return for periods ended 3/31/14

See the discussion following the Fund performance table on page 10 for information about the calculation of fund performance.

Terms and definitions

Important terms

Total return shows how the value of the fund’s shares changed over time, assuming you held the shares through the entire period and reinvested all distributions in the fund.

Net asset value (NAV) is the value of all your fund’s assets, minus any liabilities, divided by the number of outstanding shares.

Market price is the current trading price of one share of the fund. Market prices are set by transactions between buyers and sellers on exchanges such as the New York Stock Exchange.

Fixed-income terms

Current rate is the annual rate of return earned from dividends or interest of an investment. Current rate is expressed as a percentage of the price of a security, fund share, or principal investment.

Yield curve is a graph that plots the yields of bonds with equal credit quality against their differing maturity dates, ranging from shortest to longest. It is used as a benchmark for other debt, such as mortgage or bank lending rates.

Comparative indexes

Barclays U.S. Aggregate Bond Index is an unmanaged index of U.S. investment-grade fixed-income securities.

The fund’s blended benchmark is an unmanaged index administered by Putnam Management, 50% of which is the JPMorgan Developed High Yield Index and 50% of which is the BofA Merrill Lynch All-Convertibles Speculative Quality Index.

BofA Merrill Lynch All-Convertibles Speculative Quality Index is an unmanaged index of U.S. convertible securities.

BofA Merrill Lynch U.S. 3-Month Treasury Bill Index is an unmanaged index that seeks to measure the performance of U.S. Treasury bills available in the marketplace.

JPMorgan Developed High Yield Index is an unmanaged index of high-yield fixed-income securities issued in developed countries.

S&P 500 Index is an unmanaged index of common stock performance.

Indexes assume reinvestment of all distributions and do not account for fees. Securities and performance of a fund and an index will differ. You cannot invest directly in an index.

Lipper is a third-party industry-ranking entity that ranks mutual funds. Its rankings do not reflect sales charges. Lipper rankings are based on total return at net asset value relative to other funds that have similar current investment styles or objectives as determined by Lipper. Lipper may change a fund’s category assignment at its discretion. Lipper category averages reflect performance trends for funds within a category.

Other information for shareholders

Important notice regarding share repurchase program

In September 2013, the Trustees of your fund approved the renewal of a share repurchase program that had been in effect since 2005. This renewal will allow your fund to repurchase, in the 12 months beginning October 8, 2013, up to 10% of the fund’s common shares outstanding as of October 7, 2013.

Proxy voting

Putnam is committed to managing our mutual funds in the best interests of our shareholders. The Putnam funds’ proxy voting guidelines and procedures, as well as information regarding how your fund voted proxies relating to portfolio securities during the 12-month period ended June 30, 2013, are available in the Individual Investors section of putnam.com, and on the SEC’s website, www.sec.gov. If you have questions about finding forms on the SEC’s website, you may call the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330. You may also obtain the Putnam funds’ proxy voting guidelines and procedures at no charge by calling Putnam’s Shareholder Services at 1-800-225-1581.

Fund portfolio holdings

The fund will file a complete schedule of its portfolio holdings with the SEC for the first and third quarters of each fiscal year on Form N-Q. Shareholders may obtain the fund’s Forms N-Q on the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov. In addition, the fund’s Forms N-Q may be reviewed and copied at the SEC’s Public Reference Room in Washington, D.C. You may call the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330 for information about the SEC’s website or the operation of the Public Reference Room.

Trustee and employee fund ownership

Putnam employees and members of the Board of Trustees place their faith, confidence, and, most importantly, investment dollars in Putnam mutual funds. As of February 28, 2014, Putnam employees had approximately $460,000,000 and the Trustees had approximately $109,000,000 invested in Putnam mutual funds. These amounts include investments by the Trustees’ and employees’ immediate family members as well as investments through retirement and deferred compensation plans.

Trustee approval of management contract

Putnam Investment Management (“Putnam Management”) serves as investment manager to your fund under a management contract. In addition, Putnam Management’s affiliate, Putnam Investments Limited (“PIL”), provides services to your fund under a sub-management contract between Putnam Management and PIL. Putnam Management is majority owned (directly and indirectly) by Power Corporation of Canada, a diversified international management and holding company with interests in companies in the financial services, communications and other business sectors. Until his death on October 8, 2013, The Honourable Paul G. Desmarais, both directly and through holding companies, controlled a majority of the voting shares of Power Corporation of Canada. Upon his death, Mr. Desmarais’ voting control of shares of Power Corporation of Canada was transferred to The Desmarais Family Residuary Trust (the “Transfer”). As a technical matter, the Transfer may have constituted an “assignment” within the meaning of the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), causing your fund’s existing management and sub-management contracts to terminate automatically. On October 18, 2013, the Trustees, including all of the Trustees who are not “interested persons” (as this term is defined in the 1940 Act) of the Putnam funds (the “Independent Trustees”), approved interim management contracts between the Putnam funds and Putnam Management and the continuance of your fund’s sub-management contract to address this possibility and to avoid disruption of investment advisory and other services provided to the Putnam funds. At a subsequent meeting on November 22, 2013, the Trustees, including all of the Independent Trustees, approved new definitive management contracts between the Putnam funds and Putnam Management and determined to recommend their approval to the shareholders of the Putnam funds at a shareholder meeting called for February 27, 2014. The Trustees also approved new sub-management contracts, to be effective at the same time as the new definitive management contracts. The fund’s shareholders approved your fund’s new management contract at a special meeting on February 27, 2014.

In considering whether to approve your fund’s interim management contract and the continuance of your fund’s sub-management contract in October, and in considering whether to approve your fund’s new definitive management contract and its new sub-management contract in November, the Trustees took into account that they had recently approved the continuation (through June 30, 2014) of the fund’s previous management and sub-management contracts at their meeting in June 2013. The Trustees considered that the terms of the interim management contract and new definitive management contract were identical to those of the previous management contract, except for the effective dates and initial terms and for certain non-substantive changes. They also considered that the terms of the sub-management contract were identical to those of the previous sub-management contract, except for the effective dates and initial terms. In light of the substantial similarity between the proposed contracts and the previous versions of these contracts approved by the Trustees at their June 2013 meeting, the Trustees relied to a considerable extent on their review of these contracts in connection with their June meeting. In addition, the Trustees considered a number other factors relating to the Transfer, including, but not limited to, the following:

• Information about the operations of The Desmarais Family Residuary Trust, including that Paul Desmarais, Jr. and André Desmarais, Mr. Desmarais’ sons, were expected to exercise,

jointly, voting control over the Power Corporation of Canada shares controlled by The Desmarais Family Residuary Trust.

• That Paul Desmarais, Jr. and André Desmarais had been playing active managerial roles at Power Corporation of Canada, with responsibility for the oversight of Power Corporation of Canada’s subsidiaries, including Putnam Investments, since Power Corporation of Canada had acquired Putnam Investments in 2007, including serving as Directors of Putnam Investments, and that the Transfer would not affect their responsibilities as officers of Power Corporation of Canada.

• The intention expressed by representatives of Power Corporation of Canada and its subsidiaries, Power Financial Corporation and Great-West Lifeco, that there would be no change to the operations or management of Putnam Investments, to Putnam Management’s management of the funds or to investment, advisory and other services provided to the funds by Putnam Management and its affiliates as a result of the Transfer.

• Putnam Management’s assurances that, following the Transfer, Putnam Management would continue to provide the same level of services to each fund and that the Transfer will not have an adverse impact on the ability of Putnam Management and its affiliates to continue to provide high quality investment advisory and other services to the funds.

• Putnam Management’s assurances that there are no current plans to make any changes to the operations of the funds, existing management fees, expense limitations, distribution arrangements, or the quality of any services provided to the funds or their shareholders, as a result of the Transfer.

• The benefits that the funds have received and may potentially receive as a result of Putnam Management being a member of the Power Corporation of Canada group of companies, which promotes the stability of the Putnam organization.

• Putnam Investments’ commitment to bear a reasonable share of the expenses incurred by the Putnam Funds in connection with the Transfer.

General conclusions in connection with the Trustees’ June 2013 approval of the fund’s management and sub-management contracts

As noted above, in connection with their deliberations in October and November 2013, in addition to the factors described above, the Trustees considered their recent approval of your fund’s management and sub-management contracts in June 2013. The Board oversees the management of each fund and, as required by law, determines annually whether to approve the continuance of your fund’s management and sub-management contracts. The Board, with the assistance of its Contract Committee, requests and evaluates all information it deems reasonably necessary under the circumstances in connection with its annual contract review. The Contract Committee consists solely of Independent Trustees.

At the outset of the review process, members of the Board’s independent staff and independent legal counsel met with representatives of Putnam Management to review the annual contract review materials furnished to the Contract Committee during the course of the previous year’s review and to discuss possible changes in these materials that might be necessary or desirable for the coming year. Following these discussions and in consultation with the Contract Committee, the Independent Trustees’ independent legal counsel requested that Putnam Management furnish specified information, together with any additional information that Putnam Management considered relevant, to the Contract Committee. Over the course of several months ending in June 2013,

the Contract Committee met on a number of occasions with representatives of Putnam Management, and separately in executive session, to consider the information that Putnam Management provided. Throughout this process, the Contract Committee was assisted by the members of the Board’s independent staff and by independent legal counsel for the Putnam funds and the Independent Trustees.

In May 2013, the Contract Committee met in executive session to discuss and consider its preliminary recommendations with respect to the continuance of the contracts. At the Trustees’ June 20, 2013 meeting, the Contract Committee met in executive session with the other Independent Trustees to review a summary of the key financial data that the Contract Committee considered in the course of its review. The Contract Committee then presented its written report, which summarized the key factors that the Committee had considered and set forth its final recommendations. The Contract Committee then recommended, and the Independent Trustees approved, the continuance of your fund’s management and sub-management contracts, effective July  1, 2013, subject to certain changes in the sub-management contract noted below. (Because PIL is an affiliate of Putnam Management and Putnam Management remains fully responsible for all services provided by PIL, the Trustees have not evaluated PIL as a separate entity, and all subsequent references to Putnam Management below should be deemed to include reference to PIL as necessary or appropriate in the context.)

The Independent Trustees’ June 2013 approval was based on the following conclusions:

• That the fee schedule in effect for your fund represented reasonable compensation in light of the nature and quality of the services being provided to the fund, the fees paid by competitive funds, and the costs incurred by Putnam Management in providing services to the fund, and

• That the fee schedule represented an appropriate sharing between fund shareholders and Putnam Management of such economies of scale as may exist in the management of the fund at current asset levels.

These conclusions were based on a comprehensive consideration of all information provided to the Trustees and were not the result of any single factor. Some of the factors that figured particularly in the Trustees’ deliberations and how the Trustees considered these factors are described below, although individual Trustees may have evaluated the information presented differently, giving different weights to various factors. It is also important to recognize that the management arrangements for your fund and the other Putnam funds are the result of many years of review and discussion between the Independent Trustees and Putnam Management, that some aspects of the arrangements may receive greater scrutiny in some years than others, and that the Trustees’ conclusions may be based, in part, on their consideration of fee arrangements in previous years.

As noted above, the Trustees considered administrative revisions to your fund’s sub-management contract. Putnam Management recommended that the sub-management contract be revised to reduce the sub-management fee that Putnam Management pays to PIL with respect to the portion of the portfolios of certain funds, but not your fund, that may be allocated to PIL from time to time. The Independent Trustees’ approval of this recommendation was based on their conclusion that these changes would have no practical effect on Putnam Management’s continued responsibility for the management of these funds or the costs borne by fund shareholders and would not result in any reduction in the nature and quality of services provided to the funds.

Management fee schedules and total expenses

The Trustees reviewed the management fee schedules in effect for all Putnam funds, including fee levels and breakpoints. The Trustees also reviewed the total expenses of each Putnam fund, recognizing that in most cases management fees represented the major, but not the sole, determinant of total costs to shareholders.

In reviewing fees and expenses, the Trustees generally focus their attention on material changes in circumstances — for example, changes in assets under management, changes in a fund’s investment style, changes in Putnam Management’s operating costs or profitability, or changes in competitive practices in the mutual fund industry — that suggest that consideration of fee changes might be warranted. The Trustees concluded that the circumstances did not warrant changes to the management fee structure of your fund.

Under its management contract, your fund has the benefit of breakpoints in its management fee schedule that provide shareholders with economies of scale in the form of reduced fee levels as the fund’s assets under management increase. In recent years, the Trustees have examined the operation of the existing breakpoint structure during periods of both growth and decline in asset levels. The Trustees concluded that the fee schedule in effect for your fund represented an appropriate sharing of economies of scale between fund shareholders and Putnam Management.

The Trustees reviewed comparative fee and expense information for a custom group of competitive funds selected by Lipper Inc. This comparative information included your fund’s percentile ranking for effective management fees and total expenses, which provides a general indication of your fund’s relative standing. In the custom peer group, your fund ranked in the first quintile in effective management fees (determined for your fund and the other funds in the custom peer group based on fund asset size and the applicable contractual management fee schedule) and in the first quintile in total expenses as of December 31, 2012 (the first quintile representing the least expensive funds and the fifth quintile the most expensive funds). The fee and expense data reported by Lipper as of December 31, 2012 reflected the most recent fiscal year-end data available in Lipper’s database at that time.

In connection with their review of the management fees and total expenses of the Putnam funds, the Trustees also reviewed the costs of the services provided and the profits realized by Putnam Management and its affiliates from their contractual relationships with the funds. This information included trends in revenues, expenses and profitability of Putnam Management and its affiliates relating to the investment management, investor servicing and distribution services provided to the funds. In this regard, the Trustees also reviewed an analysis of Putnam Management’s revenues, expenses and profitability, allocated on a fund-by-fund basis, with respect to the funds’ management, distribution, and investor servicing contracts. For each fund, the analysis presented information about revenues, expenses and profitability for each of the agreements separately and for the agreements taken together on a combined basis. The Trustees concluded that, at current asset levels, the fee schedules in place represented reasonable compensation for the services being provided and represented an appropriate sharing of such economies of scale as may exist in the management of the Putnam funds at that time.

The information examined by the Trustees as part of their annual contract review for the Putnam funds has included for many years information regarding fees charged by Putnam Management and its affiliates to institutional clients such as defined benefit pension plans, college endowments, and the like. This

information included comparisons of those fees with fees charged to the funds, as well as an assessment of the differences in the services provided to these different types of clients. The Trustees observed that the differences in fee rates between institutional clients and mutual funds are by no means uniform when examined by individual asset sectors, suggesting that differences in the pricing of investment management services to these types of clients may reflect historical competitive forces operating in separate markets. The Trustees considered the fact that in many cases fee rates across different asset classes are higher on average for mutual funds than for institutional clients, as well as the differences between the services that Putnam Management provides to the Putnam funds and those that it provides to its institutional clients. The Trustees did not rely on these comparisons to any significant extent in concluding that the management fees paid by your fund are reasonable.

Investment performance

The quality of the investment process provided by Putnam Management represented a major factor in the Trustees’ evaluation of the quality of services provided by Putnam Management under your fund’s management contract. The Trustees were assisted in their review of the Putnam funds’ investment process and performance by the work of the investment oversight committees of the Trustees, which meet on a regular basis with the funds’ portfolio teams and with the Chief Investment Officer and other senior members of Putnam Management’s Investment Division throughout the year. The Trustees concluded that Putnam Management generally provides a high-quality investment process — based on the experience and skills of the individuals assigned to the management of fund portfolios, the resources made available to them, and in general Putnam Management’s ability to attract and retain high-quality personnel — but also recognized that this does not guarantee favorable investment results for every fund in every time period.

The Trustees considered that 2012 was a year of strong competitive performance for many of the Putnam funds, with only a relatively small number of exceptions. They noted that this strong performance was exemplified by the fact that the Putnam funds were recognized by Barron’s as the best performing mutual fund complex for 2012 — the second time in four years that Putnam Management has achieved this distinction for the Putnam funds. They also noted, however, the disappointing investment performance of some funds for periods ended December 31, 2012 and considered information provided by Putnam Management regarding the factors contributing to the underperformance and actions being taken to improve the performance of these particular funds. The Trustees indicated their intention to continue to monitor performance trends to assess the effectiveness of these efforts and to evaluate whether additional actions to address areas of underperformance are warranted.

For purposes of evaluating investment performance, the Trustees generally focus on competitive industry rankings for the one-year, three-year, and five-year periods. For a number of Putnam funds with relatively unique investment mandates, the Trustees evaluated performance based on comparisons of their total returns with the returns of selected investment benchmarks or targeted returns. In the case of your fund, the Trustees considered that its common share cumulative total return performance at net asset value was in the following quartiles of its Lipper Inc. peer group (Lipper Convertible Securities Funds (closed-end)) for the one-year, three-year and five-year periods ended December 31, 2012 (the first quartile representing the best-performing funds and the fourth quartile the worst-performing funds):

Over the one-year, three-year and five-year periods ended December 31, 2012, there were 11, 11 and 11 funds, respectively, in your fund’s Lipper peer group. (When considering performance information, shareholders should be mindful that past performance is not a guarantee of future results.)

Brokerage and soft-dollar allocations; investor servicing

The Trustees considered various potential benefits that Putnam Management may receive in connection with the services it provides under the management contract with your fund. These include benefits related to brokerage allocation and the use of soft dollars, whereby a portion of the commissions paid by a fund for brokerage may be used to acquire research services that are expected to be useful to Putnam Management in managing the assets of the fund and of other clients. Subject to policies established by the Trustees, soft dollars generated by these means are used primarily to acquire brokerage and research services that enhance Putnam Management’s investment capabilities and supplement Putnam Management’s internal research efforts. However, the Trustees noted that a portion of available soft dollars continues to be used to pay fund expenses. The Trustees indicated their continued intent to monitor regulatory and industry developments in this area with the assistance of their Brokerage Committee and also indicated their continued intent to monitor the allocation of the Putnam funds’ brokerage in order to ensure that the principle of seeking best price and execution remains paramount in the portfolio trading process.

Putnam Management may also receive benefits from payments that the funds make to Putnam Management’s affiliates for investor services. In conjunction with the annual review of your fund’s management and sub-management contracts, the Trustees reviewed your fund’s investor servicing agreement with Putnam Investor Services, Inc. (“PSERV”), which is an affiliate of Putnam Management. The Trustees concluded that the fees payable by the funds to PSERV for such services are reasonable in relation to the nature and quality of such services, the fees paid by competitive funds, and the costs incurred by PSERV in providing such services.

Financial statements

A guide to financial statements

These sections of the report, as well as the accompanying Notes, constitute the fund’s financial statements.

The fund’s portfolio lists all the fund’s investments and their values as of the last day of the reporting period. Holdings are organized by asset type and industry sector, country, or state to show areas of concentration and diversification.

Statement of assets and liabilities shows how the fund’s net assets and share price are determined. All investment and non-investment assets are added together. Any unpaid expenses and other liabilities are subtracted from this total. The result is divided by the number of shares to determine the net asset value per share. (For funds with preferred shares, the amount subtracted from total assets includes the liquidation preference of preferred shares.)

Statement of operations shows the fund’s net investment gain or loss. This is done by first adding up all the fund’s earnings — from dividends and interest income — and subtracting its operating expenses to determine net investment income (or loss). Then, any net gain or loss the fund realized on the sales of its holdings — as well as any unrealized gains or losses over the period — is added to or subtracted from the net investment result to determine the fund’s net gain or loss for the fiscal period.

Statement of changes in net assets shows how the fund’s net assets were affected by the fund’s net investment gain or loss, by distributions to shareholders, and by changes in the number of the fund’s shares. It lists distributions and their sources (net investment income or realized capital gains) over the current reporting period and the most recent fiscal year-end. The distributions listed here may not match the sources listed in the Statement of operations because the distributions are determined on a tax basis and may be paid in a different period from the one in which they were earned. Dividend sources are estimated at the time of declaration. Actual results may vary. Any non-taxable return of capital cannot be determined until final tax calculations are completed after the end of the fund’s fiscal year.

Financial highlights provide an overview of the fund’s investment results, per-share distributions, expense ratios, net investment income ratios, and portfolio turnover in one summary table, reflecting the five most recent reporting periods. In a semiannual report, the highlights table also includes the current reporting period.

The fund’s portfolio 2/28/14 (Unaudited)