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 | 10

Message from the Trustees

Dear Fellow Shareholder:

More than two years have passed since the global financial crisis reached its peak in September 2008. Although conditions have improved since then, investors find themselves in uncertain territory again today. And while the economic recovery has been painfully slow, corporate America is showing signs of health. Companies have posted impressive earnings results this year and have taken advantage of low interest rates to gain more financial flexibility going forward.

We believe Putnam’s risk-focused, active-management approach is well-suited for pursuing opportunities for shareholders in today’s volatile investment environment. Compared with 2009’s bull market, times like these require a greater degree of investment analysis and security-selection skill.

In developments affecting oversight of your fund, Barbara M. Baumann has been elected to the Board of Trustees of the Putnam Funds, effective July 1, 2010. Ms. Baumann is president and owner of Cross Creek Energy Corporation of Denver, Colorado, a strategic consultant to domestic energy firms and direct investor in energy assets. We also want to thank Elizabeth T. Kennan, who has retired from the Board of Trustees, for her many years of dedicated and thoughtful leadership.

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.

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 be less than investment-grade status, which means their issuing companies are considered more likely to default on their loans than more creditworthy counterparts. 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 unique 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. Like most bonds, convertible securities pay interest, although frequently at a lower rate, and the amount of interest does not change as the price of the underlying stock(s) increases or decreases. Issuers range from large, well-known S&P 500 corporations to small, rapidly growing companies and to those in cyclically depressed areas such as the automotive industry in 2009.

Building a portfolio of high-yield bonds and convertible securities with the appropriate balance of risk and return potential 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 without undue risk.

Consider these risks before investing: Lower-rated bonds may offer higher yields in return for more risk. Mutual funds that invest in bonds are subject to certain risks, including interest-rate risk, credit risk, and inflation risk. As interest rates rise, the prices of bonds fall. Long-term bonds are more exposed to interest-rate risk than short-term bonds. Unlike bonds, bond funds 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. The use of derivatives involves special risks and may result in losses.

How do closed-end funds differ from open-end funds?

More assets at work While open-end funds need to maintain a cash position to meet redemptions, closed-end funds are not subject to redemptions and can keep more of their assets invested in the market.

Traded like stocks Closed-end fund shares are traded on stock exchanges, and their market prices fluctuate in response to supply and demand, among other factors.

Net asset value vs. market price Like an open-end fund’s net asset value (NAV) per share, the NAV of a closed-end fund share is equal to the current value of the fund’s assets, minus its liabilities, divided by the number of shares outstanding. However, when buying or selling closed-end fund shares, the price you pay or receive is the market price. Market price reflects current market supply and demand, and may be higher or lower than the NAV.

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 Harthun and Robert Salvin

How did the fund perform for the year ended August 31, 2010?

Rob: We are pleased to report that Putnam High Income Securities Fund returned 19.20% at net asset value, outperforming both its primary benchmark, the BofA Merrill Lynch All-Convertibles Speculative Quality Index, which advanced 18.29%, and the average return of its Lipper peer group, Convertible Securities Funds [closed-end], which finished at 16.90%. During the same period, the fund’s secondary benchmark, the JPMorgan Developed High Yield Index gained 21.93%.

How would you characterize the market environment for high-yield convertibles and bonds during this period?

Rob: As hybrid securities, convertibles are affected by trends in both the equity and credit markets. Similarly, high-yield bonds are influenced by credit-market conditions, but also by expectations for economic growth and corporate profitability. During the 12- month period, continued strong demand for below-investment-grade fixed-income securities more than offset relatively weak equity markets and created a favorable overall backdrop for high-yield convertibles and bonds.

In fact, fixed-income categories with greater perceived risk, such as high-yield bonds and convertibles, and emerging-markets bonds, outperformed other bond-market sectors by substantial margins. Several factors accounted for this outperformance, including improved corporate earnings, accommodative capital markets, historically low default rates on high-yield debt, and investor appetite for yield in a low-interest-rate environment.

Favorable supply-and-demand dynamics also aided high-yield bonds and convertibles. Convertibles attracted “crossover” equity and corporate bond investors seeking higher

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

5

yields, while also benefiting from strong demand on the part of traditional investors in the sector. Robust demand drove sizeable new issuance in the high-yield bond market, allowing issuers to refinance debt and repair their balance sheets, thereby reducing default risk. At the end of the period, new issuance of high-yield bonds was on pace to set a full-year record for calendar 2010. What’s more, default rates had declined from nearly 14% at the end of 2009 to low single-digit levels.

Eric: In the equity markets, stocks rallied during the first few months of the period, pulled back from mid-January to early February, and then resumed their upward climb until late April. It was at this point that investors became more concerned about the consequences of the federal government acquiring the toxic assets of banks and insurance companies. In addition, concerns about Europe’s sovereign debt weighed on riskier asset classes. U.S. equities struggled in the face of weak employment and housing data, as well as a sharp decline in investor sentiment. As the period ended, U.S. corporations were grappling with the uncertainties introduced by Washington’s policies for health-care reform and financial industry regulatory reform, and were questioning the strength of the domestic recovery.

What factors helped the most versus the fund’s benchmark and peer group?

Eric: From a sector perspective, on the high-yield convertibles side of the fund, security selection in consumer discretionary, telecommunication services, financials, and industrials added the most. In high-yield bonds, positioning in health care, telecommunication services, and energy provided the biggest boost.

In terms of specific holdings, many of the fund’s top contributors were securities whose

Credit qualities are shown as a percentage of net assets as of 8/31/10. A bond rated Baa or higher (Prime-3 or higher, for short-term debt) is considered investment grade. The chart reflects the highest security rating provided by one or more of Standard & Poor’s, Moody’s, and Fitch. Short-term cash bonds rated A-1+ are included in the Aaa-rating category. Ratings and portfolio credit quality will vary over time. Credit quality includes 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

prices fell to levels reflecting high degrees of bankruptcy risk and then rebounded strongly when investors concluded that the companies would avoid bankruptcy. These investments included convertibles issued by FelCor Lodging Trust, which is one of the largest hotel real estate investment trusts in the United States; television broadcaster Sinclair Broadcast Group; and Retail Ventures, which operates DSW and Value City retail stores.

FelCor Lodging runs hotels in the United States and Canada. Its properties are positioned in the “upscale” and “upper-upscale” segments, and include such brands as Embassy Suites, Westin, Sheraton, Holiday Inn, and Doubletree. The company substantially recapitalized its balance sheet, and despite pressure on average room rates, benefited from increases in both business and leisure travel.

A rebound in advertising revenues boosted Sinclair Broadcast Group. In addition, in July 2009, the company outlined details of a potential bankruptcy filing by one of its key local-marketing-agreement partners, which could have negatively impacted Sinclair. The situation was resolved without any effect on Sinclair, and the firm’s securities advanced.

Retail Ventures is a relatively small retailer with significant debt on its balance sheet. Its securities were punished during the credit crisis and general economic downturn before bouncing back as the equity and convertibles markets recovered.

Convertibles of Virgin Media, a provider of cable television, broadband Internet, and telephone

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

7

services in the United Kingdom, also added to returns. The company achieved market share gains, continued to grow its free cash flow, and strengthened its financial flexibility by extending the maturities of its outstanding debt.

As for individual high-yield bond holdings, leading contributors included luxury retailer Neiman Marcus, electrical systems and products provider Legrand, and Surgical Care Affiliates, which operates ambulatory surgery centers and surgical hospitals across the United States.

Which holdings weren’t as productive?

Rob: A key aspect of our investment strategy is to seek to control the fund’s risk by keeping the portfolio broadly diversified. This approach typically prevents us from taking index-sized positions in many of the primary benchmark’s largest constituents. As a result, among the fund’s biggest detractors were underweight positions in the convertible securities issued by auto-maker Ford Motor and UAL, the parent company of United Airlines. Ford’s convertibles —whose prices advanced dramatically during a significant portion of the period — are heavily represented in the index, and therefore our underweighted exposure detracted from performance. UAL’s securities also rallied, primarily on expectations for increased air travel amid a recovering domestic economy. UAL was sold during the period.

An out-of-benchmark investment in ARRIS Group also hurt. ARRIS develops equipment and software for cable system operators and other broadband service providers that allow it to deliver a full range of integrated voice, video, and data services to subscribers. ARRIS garners a substantial portion of its revenues from top cable customers Comcast and Time Warner, and its sales fell short of expectations during the second half of the period. Despite this disappointment, at period-end we continued

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. Holdings will vary over time. 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.

All data reflect new calculation methodology in effect within the past six months.

8

to hold ARRIS’s convertibles because, in our view, the company’s products are operationally critical to cable operators, and industry adoption of ARRIS’s new product suite could boost the company’s sales and profitability.

Among individual high-yield bond positions, the primary detractor was real estate finance company Residential Capital.

What is your outlook for the economy and the high-yield convertible and bond markets over the coming months?

Eric: As the effects of fiscal stimulus fade in the United States, corporations are becoming increasingly concerned about slowing economic growth. Uncertainties about potential tax policy changes and regulatory reform are keeping businesses from hiring new workers. Consequently, while we believe the economy will continue to slowly improve, U.S. equities may stay in a trading range for some time, moving up and down based on investors’ assessments of economic data.

In many respects, we believe the current generally favorable market environment for high-yield bonds and convertibles may persist in the months ahead. The supportive factors that we discussed earlier remain in place. And, at the end of the period, both high-yield convertibles and bonds continued to offer notable yield advantages over Treasuries and other segments of the investment-grade-bond marketplace.

Thanks for updating us, gentlemen.

The views expressed in this report are exclusively those of Putnam Management. 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 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 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

The Federal Reserve (the Fed) maintains that it still has arrows left in its policy quiver. Despite having completed a massive Treasury bond and mortgage-backed security (MBS) buying spree and keeping short-term interest rates near zero for a record 20-plus months, the Fed indicated at its August 10 meeting that it would consider taking additional action if the economic outlook weakened further. Meeting minutes reveal that possible moves could include buying longer-dated securities or reinstating a version of the mortgage-purchase program that ended in March. The Fed has been reinvesting proceeds from its maturing mortgage securities in U.S. Treasuries, but noted that “reinvesting in MBSs might become desirable if conditions were to change,” according to the minutes.

9

Your fund’s performance

This section shows your fund’s performance, price, and distribution information for periods ended August 31, 2010, 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 represents 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 8/31/10

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

Comparative index returns For periods ended 8/31/10

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 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.

† Over the 1-year, 3-year, 5-year, 10-year, and life-of-fund periods ended 8/31/10, 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 8/31/10

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.

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 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”).

In this regard, the Board of Trustees, with the assistance of its Contract Committee consisting 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 (the “Independent Trustees”), requests and evaluates all information it deems reasonably necessary under the circumstances. Over the course of several months ending in June 2010, the Contract Committee met several times with representatives of Putnam Management and in executive session to consider the information provided by Putnam Management 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. At the Trustees’ June 11, 2010 meeting, the Contract Committee recommended, and the Independent Trustees approved, the continuance of your fund’s management and sub-management contracts, effective July 1, 2010. (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 such 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 fee 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 certain 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 prior years.

Management fee schedules and categories; 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 or investment style, changes

13

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.

As in the past, the Trustees continued to focus on the competitiveness of the total expense ratio of each fund. The Trustees reviewed comparative fee and expense information for competitive funds, which indicated that, in a custom peer group of competitive funds selected by Lipper Inc., your fund ranked in the 50th percentile 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 percentile in total expenses as of December 31, 2009 (the first percentile representing the least expensive funds and the 100th percentile the most expensive funds).

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.

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 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 currently in place represented an appropriate sharing of economies of scale 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 such fees with fees charged to the funds, as well as a detailed assessment of the differences in the services provided to these two types of clients. The Trustees observed, in this regard, 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 market places. The Trustees considered the fact that fee rates across different asset classes are typically 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 institutional clients of the firm, and did not rely on these comparisons to any significant extent in concluding that the management fees paid by your fund are reasonable.

14

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 Coordinating Committee of the Trustees and the Investment Oversight Committees of the Trustees, which met on a regular monthly basis with the funds’ portfolio teams throughout the year. The Trustees concluded that Putnam Management generally provides a high-quality investment process — as measured by the experience and skills of the individuals assigned to the management of fund portfolios, the resources made available to such personnel, and in general the ability of Putnam Management 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 2009. The Committee also noted the disappointing investment performance of a number of the funds for periods ended December 31, 2009 and considered information provided by Putnam Management regarding the factors contributing to the underperformance and actions being taken to improve performance. The Trustees recognized that, in recent years, Putnam Management has taken steps to strengthen its investment personnel and processes to address areas of underperformance, including Putnam Management’s continuing efforts to strengthen the equity research function, recent changes in portfolio managers, increased accountability of individual managers rather than teams, recent changes in Putnam Management’s approach to incentive compensation, including emphasis on top quartile performance over a rolling three-year period, and the recent arrival of a new chief investment officer. The Trustees indicated their intention to continue to monitor performance trends to assess the effectiveness of these efforts and to evaluate whether additional changes to address areas of underperformance are warranted.

In the case of your fund, the Trustees considered that your fund’s common share cumulative total return performance at net asset value was in the following percentiles 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, 2009 (the first percentile representing the best-performing funds and the 100th percentile the worst-performing funds):

Over the one-year, three-year and five-year periods ended December 31, 2009, there were 11, 9 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 and soft-dollar allocations, whereby a portion of the commissions paid by a fund for brokerage may be used to acquire research services that are expected to be

15

useful to Putnam Management in managing the assets of the fund and of other clients. The Trustees considered a change made, at Putnam Management’s request, to the Putnam funds’ brokerage allocation policies commencing in 2010, which increased the permitted soft dollar allocation to third-party services over what had been authorized in previous years. The Trustees noted that a portion of available soft dollars 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 or distribution services. In conjunction with the annual review of your fund’s management contract, the Trustees reviewed your fund’s investor servicing agreement with Putnam Fiduciary Trust Company (“PFTC”), an affiliate of Putnam Management. The Trustees concluded that the fees payable by the funds to PFTC 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 2010, 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, 2010, up to 10% of the fund’s common shares outstanding as of October 7, 2010.

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, 2010, are available in the Individual Investors section at putnam.com, and on the SEC’s Web site, www.sec.gov. If you have questions about finding forms on the SEC’s Web site, 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 Web site 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 Web site 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, 2010, Putnam employees had approximately $298,000,000 and the Trustees had approximately $57,000,000 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, 2010, 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, 2010 by correspondence with the custodian and brokers, provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Boston, Massachusetts
October 13, 2010

19

The fund’s portfolio 8/31/10

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33