Putnam
High Income
Securities Fund

Annual report
8 | 31 | 11

Message from the Trustees

Dear Fellow Shareholder:

Markets around the world are grappling with heightened volatility. In the United States, persistently high unemployment and other weak economic data have fueled investors’ risk aversion, while in Europe the sovereign debt crisis shows little sign of abating. Certain bright spots do exist, but it is clear that volatility and uncertainty will remain with us for the near term.

We believe it is important to consult your financial advisor in times like these to consider whether your portfolio reflects an appropriate degree of diversification. In responding to this need, Putnam offers funds with strategies that seek to limit volatility and also employs an active, research-based investment approach that is designed to offer shareholders a potential advantage in this climate by looking for new growth opportunities and seeking to guard against downside risk.

We would like to thank John A. Hill, who has served as Chairman of the Trustees since 2000 and who continues on as a Trustee, for his service. We are pleased to announce that Jameson A. Baxter is the new Chair, having served as Vice Chair since 2005 and a Trustee since 1994. Ms. Baxter is President of Baxter Associates, Inc., a private investment firm, and Chair of the Mutual Fund Directors Forum. In addition, she serves as Chair Emeritus of the Board of Trustees of Mount Holyoke College, Director of the Adirondack Land Trust, and Trustee of the Nature Conservancy’s Adirondack Chapter.

Lastly, we would like to take this opportunity to welcome new shareholders to the fund and to thank all of our investors for your continued confidence in Putnam.

Data is 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 to 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

Eric N. Harthun, CFA, and Robert L. Salvin

The market grew more volatile in recent months. What drove this negative performance?

Eric: Investor belief in the economic recovery’s endurance was shaken in 2011 due to a combination of factors, including the growing European sovereign debt crisis, persistently high unemployment and sluggish GDP figures. In addition, a number of macro shocks rattled the markets. The Federal Reserve’s $600 billion stimulus program ceased at the end of June, and an unprecedented downgrade of U.S. debt by rating agency Standard & Poor’s capped off the contentious political negotiation in Washington over raising the nation’s debt ceiling.

Both high-yield bonds and convertible securities have a degree of correlation with equities, and investors moved away from these asset classes, particularly over the summer, in favor of Treasury bonds and short-term securities.

How do you view the fund’s performance in the context of this shift in market sentiment?

Rob: We are pleased to report a positive return both for the full 12-month period at net asset value and for the fund’s publicly traded market price, but more recent performance has clearly been challenging, and the fund finished the period slightly behind its benchmarks.

In both the high-yield and convertible markets, securities that experienced strong positive performance in the first part of the year subsequently sold off in the final six months as investors grew more risk-averse.

The degree of diversification in the portfolio clearly helped in this challenging period when viewed against the returns in other asset classes. The fund’s performance in the second half of the period [–5.49%], for example, represented a smaller loss than both stocks [–7.23% for the S&P 500 Index] and the fund’s benchmark for convertible securities [–10.20%].

This comparison shows your fund’s performance in the context of broad market indexes for the 12 months ended 8/31/11. See pages 4 and 10–11 for additional fund performance information. Index descriptions can be found on page 12.

5

Another positive development worth mentioning is that the convertible securities market in particular has responded to the recent downturn in an orderly fashion, with no panicked selling and a consistent degree of demand from a variety of investors.

Could you discuss some of the specific contributors to performance?

Eric: Given the downturn, one of the biggest contributors to performance was our decision to hold underweight positions in certain convertible securities relative to the benchmark. In the financials sector, which was hurt by fears of a slowing economy, these holdings included Citigroup and Bank of America. Similarly, we benefited by having no or underweight exposure to mortgage insurers MGIC and Radian Group. MGIC was sold before the end of the period. The same dynamic was at work in the basic materials sector, where relative to the benchmark index we benefited from holding an underweight position in U.S. Steel.

In terms of large positions that helped performance, I would point to two out-of-benchmark positions: Retail holding company Retail Ventures, which operates footwear company DSW, and Safeguard Scientifics, a private equity and venture capital firm specializing in expansion financing for technology companies.

On the high-yield bond side of the portfolio, some of our top contributors were overweight positions in First Data, the world’s largest electronic payment processor; Petrohawk Energy, which was acquired by BHP Billiton in

Credit qualities are shown as a percentage of net assets as of 8/31/11. 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.

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

August; and Freescale Semiconductor — as well as an out-of-benchmark position in energy company El Paso.

What were some of the notable detractors?

Rob: The two biggest detractors among our convertible securities during the period were General Motors [GM] and Ford. In GM’s case, we believed the convertible securities — issued with its new common stock in 2010 — represented an attractive opportunity. However, the company announced disappointing earnings earlier this year, and the business environment has since weakened. People tend to postpone large purchases such as cars and houses when unemployment is rising and financing is difficult to obtain. Interestingly, despite a weaker economic environment, Ford did relatively better than GM. So owning more shares of Ford and less of GM would have helped narrow the gap in performance between the fund and its benchmark.

We were similarly underweight Chesapeake Energy at a time when the energy sector outperformed more economically sensitive sectors. Finally, some of our security selection in the health-care sector didn’t work as well as we would have liked, including medical device manufacturer China Medical Technologies and Amylin Pharmaceuticals, which has two drugs on the market for the

This table shows the fund’s top 10 individual holdings and the percentage of the fund’s net assets that each represented as of 8/31/11. Short-term holdings are excluded. Holdings will vary over time.

7

treatment of diabetes. Amylin was sold during the period.

Among our high-yield bond holdings, detractors included overweight exposure to direct marketing company Harry & David Operations, which filed for bankruptcy in March; and to tabloid publisher American Media Operations, which we sold before the end of the period. Performance was also hurt by an out-of-benchmark position in Vertis, a publisher of newspaper advertising inserts that defaulted on its bond payments.

How are you positioning the portfolio going forward?

Eric: We have reduced risk in the portfolio at the margin given the increased odds of a recession in the United States. However, markets tend to factor economic events into securities prices early, and there is ample reason to believe that today’s prices on both convertibles and high-yield bonds represent attractive valuations.

Convertibles have returned to attractive valuations that we haven’t seen in over a year. We’re finding securities that have high current yields and equity sensitivity. It’s worth noting also that the landscape for convertibles today is different than it was a few years ago when hedge funds were dominant traders. We have even seen a degree of what we call “crossover buying,” in which dedicated fixed-income investors have been choosing convertible securities over bonds due to their combination of yield and equity sensitivity.

High-yield bonds are trading today at similarly attractive valuations, in our view. We note that the trauma of the financial crisis of 2008 and 2009, severe as it was, had the beneficial effect of purging the market of its least-creditworthy companies. Put differently, we believe that the bulk of today’s corporate debt issuers are stronger for having weathered the recession. Most of them have better balance sheets, with substantial amounts of cash and sturdier capital structures.

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

8

Given this perspective, we have a favorable outlook for the coming months, believing that solid corporate fundamentals and liquid capital markets will continue to play a supportive role. We have not made any changes to the portfolio as a result of the recent market decline, but we are continuing to look for ways to further diversify our exposures and to reduce risk at the margin.

Thank you, Eric and Rob, for bringing us up to date.

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.

IN THE NEWS

With economic storm clouds darkening, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) recently slashed its growth forecasts for the United States and many other countries for the remainder of 2011. In its interim forecast, released in early September, the OECD estimates that the United States economy will grow 1.1% in the third quarter and 0.4% in the fourth, down from the 2.9% and 3% growth it had predicted in May. Meanwhile, the OECD predicts that Japan will expand 4.1% in the third quarter before stagnating in the fourth, and that the German economy will grow 2.6% in the third quarter and shrink 1.4% in the fourth. For the third and fourth quarters, the United Kingdom is predicted to grow 0.4% and 0.3%, respectively. The OECD also said that central banks around the world should be ready to ease monetary policy if economies weaken further.

9

Your fund’s performance

This section shows your fund’s performance, price, and distribution information for periods ended August 31, 2011, 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 8/31/11

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

Comparative index returns For periods ended 8/31/11

Index and Lipper results should be compared to 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.

* 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.

† Over the 1-year, 3-year, 5-year, 10-year, and life-of-fund periods ended 8/31/11, there were 11, 11, 9, 4, and 2 funds, respectively, in this Lipper category.

10

Fund price and distribution information For the 12-month period ended 8/31/11

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 9/30/11

11

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.

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.

Comparative indexes

Barclays Capital 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.

12

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, which consists solely of Trustees who are not “interested persons” (as this term is defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended) of the Putnam funds (“Independent Trustees”), requests and evaluates all information it deems reasonably necessary under the circumstances in connection with its annual contract review. Over the course of several months ending in June 2011, 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 and other information developed with the assistance of the Board’s independent counsel and independent staff. The Contract Committee reviewed and discussed key aspects of this information with all of the Independent Trustees on a number of occasions. At the Trustees’ June 17, 2011 meeting, the Contract Committee recommended, and the Independent Trustees approved, the continuance of your fund’s management and sub-management contracts, effective July 1, 2011. (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.

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

13

generally focus their attention on material changes in circumstances — for example, changes in assets under management or 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 currently 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, 2010 (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, 2010 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 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

14

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 several investment oversight committees of the Trustees, which met 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 with the performance of competitive funds.

The Committee noted the substantial improvement in the performance of most Putnam funds during the 2009–2010 period and Putnam Management’s ongoing efforts to strengthen its investment personnel and processes. The Committee also noted the disappointing investment performance of some funds for periods ended December 31, 2010 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, 2010 (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, 2010, 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

15

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 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 contract, the Trustees reviewed your fund’s investor servicing agreement with Putnam Investors 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.

16

Other information for shareholders

Important notice regarding share repurchase program

In September 2011, 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, 2011, up to 10% of the fund’s common shares outstanding as of October 7, 2011.

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, 2011, are available in the Individual Investors section at 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 August 31, 2011, Putnam employees had approximately $323,000,000 and the Trustees had approximately $70,000,000 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.

17

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.

18

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, 2011, 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, 2011 by correspondence with the custodian, brokers, and transfer agent provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Boston, Massachusetts
October 17, 2011

19

The fund’s portfolio 8/31/11

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33