Item 1. Report to Stockholders:

The following is a copy of the report transmitted to stockholders pursuant to Rule 30e-1 under the Investment Company Act of 1940:

Putnam
High Income
Securities Fund

Annual report
8 | 31 | 12

Consider these risks before investing: The prices of convertible securities in the fund’s portfolio may fall or fail to rise over extended periods of time for a variety of reasons, including both general financial market conditions and factors related to specific companies or industries. These risks are generally greater for convertible securities issued by small and midsize companies (which may constitute a significant portion of the fund’s investments from time to time). The prices of convertible securities may be adversely affected by changes in the prices of underlying common stocks. Convertible securities tend to provide higher yields than common stocks. However, a higher yield may not protect investors against the risk of loss or adequately mitigate any loss associated with a decline in the price of a convertible security. 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 are also 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. 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:

Markets worldwide have exhibited resiliency in recent months, despite the challenges of a global economic slowdown and tepid growth here in the United States. Since early summer, stock and bond investors have increasingly moved into riskier assets. Still, the market rebound has been punctuated by periods of volatility.

Persistently high U.S. unemployment, Europe’s tenacious credit troubles, and a manufacturing slowdown in China all have created a climate of uncertainty — an environment that, we believe, will remain for some time. The hope is that, after election day, Washington lawmakers will act swiftly to resolve pressing challenges, such as the impending “fiscal cliff” set to occur on January 1, 2013, that will trigger automatic tax increases and government spending cuts.

A long-term view and balanced investment approach become ever more important in this type of market environment, as does reliance on a financial advisor, who can help you navigate your way toward your financial goals.

We would like to take this opportunity to announce the arrival of two new Trustees, Liaquat Ahamed and Katinka Domotorffy, CFA, to your fund’s Board of Trustees. Mr. Ahamed, who in 2010 won the Pulitzer Prize for History with his book, Lords of Finance: The Bankers Who Broke the World, also serves on the Board of Aspen Insurance and the Board of the Rohatyn Group, an emerging-market fund complex that manages money for institutional investors. Ms. Domotorffy, who until year-end 2011 was a Partner, Chief Investment Officer, and Global Head of Quantitative Investment Strategies at Goldman Sachs Asset Management, currently serves as a member of the Anne Ray Charitable Trust’s Investment Committee, Margaret A. Cargill Philanthropies, and director for Reach Out and Read of Greater New York, an organization dedicated to promoting early childhood literacy.

We would also like to extend a welcome to new shareholders of the fund and to thank all of our investors for your continued confidence in Putnam.

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 11–12 for additional performance information, including fund returns at market price. Index and Lipper results should be compared with fund performance at NAV. Lipper calculates performance differently than the closed-end funds it ranks, due to varying methods for determining a fund’s monthly reinvestment NAV.

* The fund’s benchmarks, 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.

4

Interview with your fund’s portfolio managers

What was the market environment like for high-yield convertibles and bonds during the past 12 months?

Eric: After a volatile first half of the period, U.S. equities posted solid gains for the period as a whole. Volatility spiked and stocks plummeted late last summer, as investors became unnerved by eurozone sovereign debt woes, political wrangling over the U.S. debt ceiling, and the sovereign credit-rating downgrade that followed. By October, signs of an improving U.S. economy rejuvenated stocks, paving the way for a robust rally that lasted until May. At that point, stocks declined, due to increasing concern about the broader issues underlying the eurozone debt crisis, as well as growing uncertainty about the strength of the U.S. economy, and a slowdown in China. However, encouraging comments from the European Central Bank, along with renewed investor confidence that U.S. growth would continue at a slow but steady pace, helped fuel an impressive market rebound that lasted through period-end.

In the fixed-income markets, amid the cross-currents of declining interest rates, the ebb and flow of concern about eurozone debt, mixed global economic data, and accommodative Federal Reserve monetary policy, U.S. bonds achieved positive results. High-yield bonds registered solid, double-digit gains, pushed higher by investor demand for

This comparison shows your fund’s performance in the context of broad market indexes for the 12 months ended 8/31/12. See pages 4 and 11–12 for additional fund performance information. Index descriptions can be found on page 13.

5

higher-yielding securities, and outpaced the broad bond market by a sizable margin. High-yield convertibles also outperformed the broad market, as did other credit-sensitive fixed-income sectors, while U.S. Treasuries and government-agency mortgage-backed securities lagged.

Against this backdrop, the fund beat its primary benchmark, but trailed its secondary benchmark and the average return for its Lipper peer group.

What factors helped the fund outpace its primary benchmark?

Rob: At the sector/industry level, on the high-yield convertibles side of the fund, a beneficial underweight in the poor-performing energy sector, along with favorable positioning in utilities, an overweight in financials, and positive security selection in consumer staples, drove the results of that portion of the portfolio. Among high-yield bonds, holdings in the financials, gaming/lodging/leisure, cable and satellite, and retail groups were the biggest contributors.

Which investments were the biggest contributors to relative performance?

Eric: Among convertible securities, the top overall contributor was a lighter-than-primary benchmark position in Chesapeake Energy, the second-largest producer of natural gas in the United States. Given the fact that Chesapeake is a large index component, we believed some exposure to its convertibles was warranted, but not an index-sized stake. Chesapeake was hampered by historically low natural gas prices, along with investor concern about its aggressive capital spending. As a result, our relative lack of conviction in the company’s

Credit qualities are shown as a percentage of net assets as of 8/31/12. 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, and then included in the closest equivalent Moody’s rating. Ratings will vary over time.

Credit quality includes bonds and only represents the fixed-income portion of the portfolio. Derivative instruments, including currency forwards, are only included to the extent of any unrealized gain or loss on such instruments and are shown in the not-rated category. Cash is also shown in the not-rated category. The fund itself has not been rated by an independent rating agency.

6

securities proved advantageous during the period.

The fund also benefited from two investments in energy companies that agreed to be acquired during the first half of the period. The first of these was oil and gas pipeline operator El Paso, which agreed to a buyout offer from Kinder Morgan totaling about $21 billion in cash and stock, making it one of the biggest energy deals in history. The second was oil services provider Global Industries, which was acquired by Technip, a Paris-based firm offering project management, engineering, and construction services to the energy industry. We sold the fund’s position in Global Industries.

In financials, an investment in convertible preferred stock issued by diversified bank Wells Fargo also aided performance. Wells Fargo saw improvements in loan growth, along with stronger earnings in its mortgage banking, commercial and industrial lending, and credit card units. We liked the investment because of its healthy yield, backed by a relatively high-quality issuer.

Rob: The top individual contributors among the fund’s high-yield bond holdings included Intelsat, which is the largest satellite communications provider in the world. The company continued to benefit from growing demand for broadcasting, data transmission, and secure information flow in markets around the world.

This table shows the fund’s top 10 individual holdings and the percentage of the fund’s net assets that each represented as of 8/31/12. Short-term holdings are excluded. Holdings will vary over time.

7

Wireless carrier Sprint Nextel also contributed, thanks to better-than-expected earnings on stronger wireless margins resulting from lower expenses and reduced roaming costs.

Our position in automotive finance provider Ally Financial also proved beneficial, as investors became more confident in the firm’s ability to extricate itself from mortgage liabilities at its ResCap subsidiary.

Hospitality and gaming company MTR Gaming Group rounded out the top contributors. MTR’s bonds received a boost when the Ohio Gaming Commission licensed the firm to operate video lottery terminals at its newly opened Scioto Downs racetrack in Columbus, Ohio.

Which holdings were the primary relative detractors?

Eric: The biggest detractor among our convertible securities during the period was Powerwave Technologies. A small manufacturer of telecommunications equipment, the company struggled due to significantly reduced capital spending by global telecom providers during the period’s first half.

Securities issued by China Medical Technologies, a diagnostic medical device company based in China, performed poorly because the firm failed to service its debt obligations. The company also faced class-action lawsuits alleging accounting fraud and the use of fraudulent shell companies to make acquisitions.

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

* Foreign bonds denominated in USD currency are included in the corporate bonds and notes.

8

Rob: Among our high-yield bond holdings, securities issued by NII Capital, the financing subsidiary of NII Holdings, which provides mobile communications for business customers in Latin America under the Nextel brand name, were a disappointment. NII’s bonds declined on investor concern about the firm’s transition to a 3G network and overall concern about its Latin American operations.

Additional detractors included Travelport, a provider of computerized registration systems to the travel industry, and Affinion Group, which develops customer engagement and loyalty programs for businesses.

What is your outlook for the high-yield convertibles market?

Eric: Overall, I would say we’re guardedly optimistic. Our “guarded” posture mainly has to do with the ongoing storm clouds hanging over the eurozone sovereign debt crisis. In our view, the potential for a serious financial shock still exists, given the complexity of a resolution.

On a more positive note, we are generally encouraged by the slowly improving economic backdrop in the United States. We believe corporate credit spreads [the yield advantage corporate bonds offer over Treasuries], which remained wide versus historical averages at period-end, could tighten, which would be supportive for convertible bond prices.

Additionally, after remaining weak for much of the period, the convertible new-issue market improved during its final two months, bolstered by the stock market’s strong performance. We saw new-issuance by homebuilders looking to raise capital to purchase land for new developments in the face of increased demand, as well as issuance to finance mergers-and-acquisitions in several industries. Historically, increased new issue volume has been a positive sign because new issues tend to perform well and provide a source of “alpha,” or excess return.

Do you have any closing thoughts on your outlook for the high-yield bond market?

Rob: As with high-yield convertibles, high-yield bond yield spreads compressed during the period, but remained at reasonably attractive levels on a historical basis. Despite the fact that we believe high-yield defaults are likely to remain low, which could reduce risk within the asset class, we believe the current level of yield spreads is justified, given global macroeconomic risks. All told, barring another extreme financial crisis, we believe high-yield bond valuations are still attractive.

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. A CFA charterholder, 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.

9

IN THE NEWS

In a bid to protect Spain and Italy from financial collapse, the European Central Bank (ECB) made a bold move in early September to buy unlimited amounts of short-term bonds from those eurozone countries that need the most assistance. The program is designed to effectively spread the risk for the responsibility of sharing repayment of the nations’ debt. The move is meant to provide countries like Spain and Italy with sufficient time to reduce their debt and restore their economies. Financial markets worldwide reacted positively to the news because it may reduce the likelihood that the 17-nation euro currency union will dismantle, which could have significant economic ramifications.

10

Your fund’s performance

This section shows your fund’s performance, price, and distribution information for periods ended August 31, 2012, the end of its most recent fiscal year. In accordance with regulatory requirements for mutual funds, we also include performance 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 8/31/12

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

Comparative index returns For periods ended 8/31/12

Index and Lipper results should be compared with fund performance at net asset value. Lipper calculates performance differently than the closed-end funds it ranks, due to varying methods for determining a fund’s monthly reinvestment net asset value.

* Over the 1-year, 3-year, 5-year, 10-year, and life-of-fund periods ended 8/31/12, there were 11, 11, 11, 5, and 2 funds, respectively, in this Lipper category.

† The fund’s benchmarks, 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.

11

Fund price and distribution information For the 12-month period ended 8/31/12

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

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

Fund performance as of most recent calendar quarter
Total return for periods ended 9/30/12

12

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 yield is the annual rate of return earned from dividends or interest of an investment. Current yield 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.

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

BofA (Bank of America) 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.

13

Other information for shareholders

Important notice regarding share repurchase program

In September 2012, 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, 2012, up to 10% of the fund’s common shares outstanding as of October 7, 2012.

Important notice regarding Putnam’s privacy policy

In order to conduct business with our shareholders, we must obtain certain personal information such as account holders’ names, addresses, Social Security numbers, and dates of birth. Using this information, we are able to maintain accurate records of accounts and transactions.

It is our policy to protect the confidentiality of our shareholder information, whether or not a shareholder currently owns shares of our funds. In particular, it is our policy not to sell information about you or your accounts to outside marketing firms. We have safeguards in place designed to prevent unauthorized access to our computer systems and procedures to protect personal information from unauthorized use.

Under certain circumstances, we must share account information with outside vendors who provide services to us, such as mailings and proxy solicitations. In these cases, the service providers enter into confidentiality agreements with us, and we provide only the information necessary to process transactions and perform other services related to your account. Finally, it is our policy to share account information with your financial representative, if you’ve listed one on your Putnam account.

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, 2012, are available in the Individual Investors section at putnam.com, and on the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) 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 August 31, 2012, Putnam employees had approximately $339,000,000 and the Trustees had approximately $80,000,000 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.

14

Trustee approval of management contract

General conclusions

The Board of Trustees of the Putnam funds oversees the management of each fund and, as required by law, determines annually whether to approve the continuance of your fund’s management contract with Putnam Investment Management (“Putnam Management”) and the sub-management contract with respect to your fund between Putnam Management and its affiliate, Putnam Investments Limited (“PIL”).

The Board of Trustees, 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 Trustees who are not “interested persons” (as this term is defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”)) of the Putnam funds (“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 2012, 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 2012, the Contract Committee met in executive session with the other Independent Trustees to discuss the Contract Committee’s preliminary recommendations with respect to the continuance of the contracts. At the Trustees’ June 22, 2012 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, 2012. (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’ 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, 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.

15

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.

Management fee schedules and total expenses

The Trustees reviewed the management fee schedules in effect for all Putnam funds, including fee levels and breakpoints. In reviewing management fees, 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 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.

Your fund has the benefit of breakpoints in its management fee that provide shareholders with significant 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 at that time.

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 1st 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 1st quintile in total expenses as of December 31, 2011 (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, 2011 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

16

appropriate sharing of such economies of scale as may exist in the management of the 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 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 the investment performance of each fund over multiple time periods and considered information comparing each fund’s performance with various benchmarks and, where applicable, with the performance of competitive funds or targeted annualized return. They noted that since 2009, when Putnam Management began implementing major changes to strengthen its investment personnel and processes, there has been a steady improvement in the number of Putnam funds showing above-median three-year performance results. They also noted the disappointing investment performance of some funds for periods ended December 31, 2011 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.

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, 2011 (the first quartile

17

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, 2011, there were 11, 11 and 9 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-dollar credits acquired through these means are used primarily to acquire research services that supplement Putnam Management’s internal research efforts. However, the Trustees noted that a portion of available soft-dollar credits continues to be allocated to the payment of fund expenses. The Trustees indicated their continued intent to monitor regulatory developments in this area with the assistance of their Brokerage Committee and also indicated their continued intent to monitor the potential benefits associated with fund brokerage and soft-dollar allocations and trends in industry practices 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”), 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.

18

Financial statements

These sections of the report, as well as the accompanying Notes, preceded by the Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm, 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 year.

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.

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.

19

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Trustees and Shareholders of
Putnam High Income Securities Fund:

In our opinion, the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities, including the portfolio, and the related statements of operations and of changes in net assets and the financial highlights present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Putnam High Income Securities Fund (the “fund”) at August 31, 2012, and the results of its operations, the changes in its net assets and the financial highlights for each of the periods indicated, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. These financial statements and financial highlights (hereafter referred to as “financial statements”) are the responsibility of the fund’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits. We conducted our audits of these financial statements in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, and evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits, which included confirmation of investments owned at August 31, 2012 by correspondence with the custodian, brokers, and transfer agent provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Boston, Massachusetts
October 12, 2012

20

The fund’s portfolio 8/31/12

21

22

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34