N-CSR 1 a_managedmuniincome.htm PUTNAM MANAGED MUNICIPAL INCOME TRUST

| UNITED STATES

| SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

| Washington, D.C. 20549

| FORM N-CSR

| CERTIFIED SHAREHOLDER REPORT OF REGISTERED

| MANAGEMENT INVESTMENT COMPANIES

| Investment Company Act file number: | (811–05740)

| Exact name of registrant as specified in charter: | Putnam Managed Municipal Income Trust

| Address of principal executive offices: | 100 Federal Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02110

| Name and address of agent for service: | Stephen Tate, Vice President

|  | 100 Federal Street

|  | Boston, Massachusetts 02110

| Copy to: | Bryan Chegwidden, Esq.

|  | Ropes & Gray LLP

|  | 1211 Avenue of the Americas

|  | New York, New York 10036

|  | James E. Thomas, Esq.

|  | Ropes & Gray LLP

|  | 800 Boylston Street

|  | Boston, Massachusetts 02199

| Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: | (617) 292-1000

| Date of fiscal year end: | October 31, 2024

| Date of reporting period: | Novenmber 1, 2023 – October 31, 2024

| 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
Managed Municipal
Income Trust

Annual report
10 | 31 | 24

Message from the Trustees | 1 |  |
Interview with your fund’s portfolio manager | 3 |  |
Your fund’s performance | 7 |  |
Information about the fund’s goal, investment strategies, |  |  |
principal risks, and fundamental investment policies | 9 |  |
Comparative index definitions | 15 |  |
Other information for shareholders | 16 |  |
Important notice regarding Putnam’s privacy policy | 17 |  |
Summary of dividend reinvestment plans | 18 |  |
Trustee approval of management contracts | 20 |  |
Audited financial statements | 27 |  |
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm | 28 |  |
Federal tax information | 59 |  |
Shareholder meeting results | 60 |  |
About the Trustees | 61 |  |
Officers | 64 |  |

The fund has adopted a managed distribution policy (the “Distribution Policy”) with the goal of providing shareholders with a consistent, although not guaranteed, monthly distribution. In accordance with the Distribution Policy, the fund currently expects to make monthly distributions to common shareholders at a distribution rate per share of $0.0238. Distributions may include ordinary and/or tax-exempt income, net capital gains, and/or a return of capital of your investment in the fund. You should not draw any conclusions about the fund’s investment performance from the amount of this distribution or from the terms of the Distribution Policy. The Distribution Policy provides that the Board of Trustees may amend or terminate the Distribution Policy at any time without prior notice to fund shareholders.

Message from the Trustees

December 18, 2024

Dear Fellow Shareholder:

We are pleased to provide the annual report of Putnam Managed Municipal Income Trust for the twelve-month reporting period ended October 31, 2024. Please read on for Fund performance information during the Fund’s reporting period.

We extend our sincere thanks to Kenneth R. Leibler, who retired from the Board on June 30, 2024, after serving as a Trustee since 2006 and Chair of the Board since 2018. At the same time, Barbara M. Baumann, a Trustee since 2010 and Vice Chair from 2022 to 2024, was appointed Chair of the Board. Effective May 17, 2024, Gregory G. McGreevey joined the Board as an independent Trustee, having previously served as Senior Managing Director, Investments, at Invesco Ltd. until 2023.

As always, we remain committed to providing you with excellent service and a full spectrum of investment choices. For more information on your Fund, visit www.franklintempleton.com. Here you can gain immediate access to market and investment information, including:

| • Fund prices and performance,
| • Market insights and commentaries from our portfolio managers, and
| • A host of educational resources.

We look forward to helping you meet your financial goals.

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 below and pages 7–8 for additional performance information, including fund returns at market price. Index results should be compared with fund performance at NAV. Fund results reflect the use of leverage, while index results are unleveraged.

Important data provider notices and terms available at www.franklintempletondatasources.com

This comparison shows your fund’s performance in the context of broad market indexes for the 12 months ended 10/31/24. See above and pages 7–8 for additional fund performance information. Index descriptions can be found on page 15.

All Bloomberg indices are provided by Bloomberg Index Services Limited.

2 Managed Municipal Income Trust

Paul, how did municipal bonds perform during the 12-month period ended October 31, 2024?

Municipal (muni) bonds fared well over the 12 months under review, with the Bloomberg Municipal Bond Index returning 9.70%. Several factors contributed to muni bond performance, including declining interest rates, cooling inflation, and resilient economic growth.

The muni sector recorded particularly strong performance in the last two months of 2023, which witnessed increased optimism in connection with a shift in the U.S. Federal Reserve’s (Fed’s) rhetoric and investors bringing forward their expectations of monetary policy easing. Despite these expectations, the Fed kept the fed funds rate at a target range of 5.25%–5.50% into year-end, with accompanying statements indicating that it needed to assess the full effects of the tightening that had been delivered. The Fed remained cautious throughout the first half of 2024, as it waited for further confirmation of a sustained disinflationary process. September finally brought relief, with the Fed delivering its initial — and outsized — interest-rate cut that took the fed funds rate to a target range of 4.75%–5.00%.

Managed Municipal Income Trust 3

Allocations are shown as a percentage of the fund’s net assets (common and preferred shares) as of 10/31/24. Cash and Equivalents, if any, represent the market value weights of cash, derivatives, short-term securities, and other unclassified assets in the portfolio. Holdings and allocations may vary over time.

Inflation moved lower during the year, despite some bumps in the road in early 2024 when progress seemed to stall. The headline consumer price index (CPI) fell to 2.4% year-over-year (y/y) in September, down from the prior September’s 3.7% y/y reading. Core CPI, which excludes the volatile food and energy sectors, moved from 4.1% y/y in September 2023 to 3.3% y/y 12 months later. At the same time, even though there were several recession scares, economic growth remained robust. There were signs of a normalizing labor market and a modest shift in consumer expenditures from discretionary to essential spending, but gross domestic product (GDP) continued to grow at a healthy pace. The most recent data release, an advance estimate of 2024’s third-quarter GDP, showed an annualized increase of 2.8% for the three-month period ended October 31, 2024. This followed a 3.0% expansion recorded during the second quarter of 2024.

How did the fund perform during the reporting period?

For the 12 months ended October 31, 2024, the fund, at net asset value, recorded a gain of 23.58%, significantly outperforming its benchmark, the Bloomberg Municipal Bond Index. The fund also fared better than the median return of its Lipper peer group, High Yield Municipal Debt Funds [closed-end].

What was your strategy during the reporting period?

We closely monitored our credit positioning throughout the period. We remained

4 Managed Municipal Income Trust

somewhat cautious on lower-rated cohorts and maintained a majority of our exposure in the lower tiers of the investment-grade universe and the highest-rated portions of the high-yield segment.

Given the shape of the muni bond yield curve, we favored bonds with longer-term maturities. In terms of sector allocations, the fund was invested in a wide range of sectors, including charter schools, retirement community, private higher education, housing-backed and land infrastructure bonds.

We continue to find opportunities across the muni bond market, and look for value in rating, sector, and coupon dislocations.

What were the fund’s distributions during the reporting period?

The fund’s distributions are fixed at a targeted rate. The targeted rate is not expected to vary with each distribution but may change from time to time. During the last fiscal year, the fund made monthly distributions totaling $0.2856 per share, which were characterized as $0.213629 per share of net investment income and $0.071971 per share of return of capital. Of the fund’s return of capital, the entire amount was the result of the fund’s targeted distribution policy. This policy has no impact on the fund’s investment strategy and may reduce the fund’s net asset value. The fund’s manager believes the policy helps maintain the fund’s competitiveness and may benefit the fund’s market price and premium/discount to the fund’s net asset value. [Please see the Distributions to shareholders note on page 53 for more information about fund distributions.]

How did the fund use derivatives during the period?

We used U.S. Treasury futures to manage the fund’s term structure and duration positioning.

As we approach 2025, what is your outlook?

We are constructive on tax-exempt muni bonds. Our view is informed by what we view as robust credit fundamentals, attractive valuations, and a supportive technical backdrop. Retail investor demand has been significant over the past several months and, going forward, we expect that the historically elevated yields on offerings should continue to draw flows into the sector. We believe muni bond yields remain elevated versus historical levels, indicating compelling value, and these bonds can be particularly appealing on a tax-adjusted basis as they remain higher than yields available on many other alternatives, in our view.

Fundamentals in the muni market remain stable and should be supportive of the asset class over the medium to long term, in our view. However, we believe the credit environment is normalizing as certain tailwinds that have been contributing to credit strength over recent years are waning somewhat. As the economy cools and inflation eases, tax revenue growth across state and local governments is projected to moderate or decline. While we believe healthy financial positions and large reserves mean that muni issuers will likely be able to easily deal with any potential challenges, we are still watching this space. We are not overly worried about a spike in defaults, but the possibility of more challenging macroeconomic conditions will mean that our rigorous bottom-up muni bond research and historically strong security selection will be particularly important in finding those credits that have the potential to outperform across market cycles.

In the U.S., Fed Chair Jerome Powell made it clear that, despite the central bank’s decision for an initial outsized rate cut, the economy has remained resilient, and further moves are unlikely to be as large. We agree with his assessment. Most economic data released during October pointed to an economy that

Managed Municipal Income Trust 5

is not in need of aggressive monetary easing, in our view. The most recent summary of economic projections (the so-called “dot plot”) indicates that Federal Open Market Committee members expect a longer-run neutral rate of 2.9%. However, given the continued strength exhibited by the U.S. economy, we think that this easing cycle could be shallower than what is expected by the Fed and many other market participants. In fact, our economists envision a terminal fed funds target range of 3.75%–4.00%. While this is higher than what the Fed is penciling in, we would like to note that its estimate of the neutral rate has been inching up over the past year and might rise further still. Consequently, we expect that volatility in fixed income markets is likely going forward, as there is potential for disappointment if the Fed does not take interest rates as low as anticipated. It is our view that these instances can potentially provide an attractive entry point into the tax-exempt muni bond market. We believe there are opportunities to find value within the muni bond sector across the credit spectrum.

Thank you, Paul, for your time and insights today.

The foregoing information reflects our views, which 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.

6 Managed Municipal Income Trust

Your fund’s performance

This section shows your fund’s performance, price, and distribution information for periods ended October 31, 2024, the end of its most recent fiscal year. In accordance with regulatory requirements for closed-end funds, we also include performance information as of the most recent calendar quarter-end. Performance should always be considered in light of a fund’s investment strategy. Data represent past performance. Past performance does not guarantee future results. More recent returns may be less or more than those shown. Investment return, net asset value, and market price will fluctuate, and you may have a gain or a loss when you sell your shares.

Annualized fund performance
Total return and comparative index results for periods ended 10/31/24

| Life of fund |  |  |  |
| (since 2/24/89) | 10 years | 5 years | 3 years | 1 year
Net asset value | 5.77% | 3.49% | 1.27% | –1.23% | 23.58%
Market price | 5.44 | 3.98 | 0.26 | –3.85 | 27.95
Bloomberg Municipal |  |  |  |  |
Bond Index | 5.15 | 2.30 | 1.05 | –0.30 | 9.70

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

Performance includes the deduction of management fees and administrative expenses.

Index results should be compared with fund performance at net asset value. Fund results reflect the use of leverage, while index results are unleveraged.

Important data provider notices and terms available at www.franklintempletondatasources.com

Past performance does not indicate future results.

Managed Municipal Income Trust 7

Fund price and distribution information For the 12-month period ended 10/31/24

Distributions |
Number | 12
Income1 | $0.213629
Capital gains2 | —
Return of capital* | 0.071971
Total | $0.285600
| Series A | Series C
Distributions — preferred shares | (240 shares) | (1,507 shares)
Income1 | $5,849.82 | $2,969.41
Capital gains2 | — | —
Total | $5,849.82 | $2,969.41
Share value | NAV | Market price
10/31/23 | $5.75 | $5.14
10/31/24 | 6.81 | 6.28
Current distribution rate (end of period) | NAV | Market price
Current distribution rate3 | 4.19% | 4.55%
Taxable equivalent4 | 7.08 | 7.69

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

1 For some investors, investment income may be subject to the federal alternative minimum tax. Income from federally exempt funds may be subject to state and local taxes.

2 Capital gains, if any, are taxable for federal and, in most cases, state purposes.

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

4 Assumes maximum 40.80% federal tax rate for 2024. Results for investors subject to lower tax rates would not be as advantageous.

* See page 59.

Annualized fund performance as of most recent calendar quarter
Total return for periods ended 9/30/24

| Life of fund |  |  |  |
| (since 2/24/89) | 10 years | 5 years | 3 years | 1 year
Net asset value | 5.86% | 3.88% | 1.79% | –0.62% | 21.98%
Market price | 5.55 | 4.50 | 1.35 | –3.04 | 24.71

See the discussion following the fund performance table on page 7 for information about the calculation of fund performance.

8 Managed Municipal Income Trust

Information about the fund’s goal, investment strategies, principal risks, and fundamental investment policies

Goal

The goal of the fund is to seek a high level of current income exempt from federal income tax.

The fund’s main investment strategies and related risks

This section contains detail regarding the fund’s main investment strategies and the related risks you face as a fund shareholder. It is important to keep in mind that risk and reward generally go hand in hand; the higher the potential reward, the greater the risk.

The fund intends to achieve its goal by investing in a diversified portfolio of tax-exempt municipal securities which Putnam Management believes does not involve undue risk to income or principal. Up to 60% of the fund’s assets may consist of high-yield tax-exempt municipal securities that are below investment grade and involve special risk considerations. The fund also uses leverage, primarily by issuing preferred shares in an effort to enhance the returns for the common shareholders. The fund’s shares trade on a stock exchange at market prices, which may be lower than the fund’s net asset value.

• Tax-exempt investments. These investments are issued by or for states, territories or possessions of the United States or by their political subdivisions, agencies, authorities or other government entities, and the income from these investments is exempt from federal income tax. These investments are issued to raise money for public purposes, such as loans for the construction of housing, schools or hospitals, or to provide temporary financing in anticipation of the receipt of taxes and other revenue. They also include private activity obligations of public authorities to finance privately owned or operated facilities. Changes in law or adverse determinations by the Internal Revenue Service could make the income from some of these obligations taxable.

Interest income from private activity bonds may be subject to federal AMT for individuals. Corporate shareholders will be required to include all exempt interest dividends in determining their federal AMT. For more information, including possible state, local and other taxes, contact your tax advisor.

• General obligations. These are backed by the issuer’s authority to levy taxes and are considered an obligation of the issuer. They are payable from the issuer’s general unrestricted revenues, although payment may depend upon government appropriation or aid from other governments. These investments may be vulnerable to legal limits on a government’s power to raise revenue or increase taxes, as well as economic or other developments that can reduce revenues.

• Revenue obligations. These are payable from revenue earned by a particular project or other revenue source. They include private activity bonds such as industrial development bonds, which are paid only from the revenues of the private owners or operators of the facilities. Investors can look only to the revenue generated by the project or the private company operating the project rather than the credit of the state or local government authority issuing the bonds. Revenue obligations are typically subject to greater credit risk than general obligations because of the relatively limited source of revenue.

• Tender option bonds. The fund may leverage its assets through the use of proceeds received through tender option bond transactions. In a tender option bond transaction, the fund transfers a fixed-rate municipal bond to a special purpose entity trust (TOB trust) sponsored by a broker. The TOB trust funds the purchase of the fixed rate bonds by issuing short-term floating-rate bonds to third parties and allowing the fund to retain the residual interest in the TOB trust’s assets and cash flows, which are in the form of inverse floating rate bonds. The inverse floating rate bonds held by the fund give the fund the right to (1) cause the holders of the floating rate bonds to tender their notes at par, and (2) to have the fixed-rate bond held by the TOB trust transferred to the fund, causing the TOB trust to be liquidated. The fund will look through to the underlying municipal bond held by a TOB trust for purposes of the fund’s 80% policy.

• Interest rate risk. The values of bonds and other debt instruments usually rise and fall in response to changes in interest rates. Interest rates can change in response to the supply and demand for credit, government and/or central bank monetary policy and action, inflation rates, and other factors. Declining interest rates generally result in an increase in the value of existing debt instruments, and rising interest rates generally result in a decrease in the value of existing debt instruments. Changes in a debt instrument’s value usually will not affect the amount of interest income paid to the fund, but will affect the value of the fund’s shares.

Managed Municipal Income Trust 9

Interest rate risk is generally greater for investments with longer maturities.

Some investments give the issuer the option to call or redeem an investment before its maturity date. If an issuer calls or redeems an investment during a time of declining interest rates, we might have to reinvest the proceeds in an investment offering a lower yield, and, therefore, the fund might not benefit from any increase in value as a result of declining interest rates.

• Credit risk. Investors normally expect to be compensated in proportion to the risk they are assuming. Thus, debt of issuers with poor credit prospects usually offers higher yields than debt of issuers with more secure credit. Higher-rated investments generally have lower credit risk.

We invest in a combination of higher-rated and lower-rated investments. The fund’s lower-rated investments consist of higher-yielding, higher-risk debt securities that are rated below BBB or its equivalent at the time of purchase by a nationally recognized securities rating agency rating the investment, or are unrated investments that we think are of comparable quality. We may invest up to 60% of the fund’s total assets in debt investments rated, at the time of purchase, BB and below or its equivalent by each agency rating such investments, including investments in the lowest rating category of the rating agency, and in unrated investments that we think are of comparable quality. We will not necessarily sell an investment if its rating is reduced after we buy it.

Investments rated below BBB or its equivalent are below-investment-grade (sometimes referred to as “junk bonds”) can be more sensitive to changes in markets, credit conditions, and interest rates and may be considered speculative. This rating reflects a greater possibility that the issuers may be unable to make timely payments of interest and principal and thus default. If default occurs, or is perceived as likely to occur, the value of the investment will usually be more volatile and is likely to fall. The value of a debt instrument may also be affected by changes in, or perceptions of, the financial condition of the issuer, borrower, counterparty, or other entity, or underlying collateral or assets, or changes in, or perceptions of, specific or general market, economic, industry, political, regulatory, geopolitical, environmental, public health, and other conditions. A default or expected default could also make it difficult for us to sell the investment at a price approximating the value we had previously placed on it. Tax-exempt debt, particularly lower-rated tax-exempt debt, usually has a more limited market than taxable debt, which may at times make it difficult for us to buy or sell certain debt instruments or to establish their fair value. Credit risk is generally greater for investments that are required to make interest payments only at maturity rather than at intervals during the life of the investment.

Credit ratings are based largely on the issuer’s historical financial condition and a rating agency’s investment analysis at the time of rating. The rating assigned to any particular investment does not necessarily reflect the issuer’s current financial condition, and does not reflect an assessment of the investment’s volatility or liquidity. Although we consider credit ratings in making investment decisions, we perform our own investment analysis and do not rely only on ratings assigned by the rating agencies. The amount of information about the financial condition of issuers of tax-exempt debt may not be as extensive as that which is made available by companies whose stock or debt is publicly traded. Our success in achieving the fund’s investment objective may depend more on our own credit analysis when we buy lower-quality bonds than when we buy higher quality bonds.

We may have to participate in legal proceedings or take possession of and manage assets that secure the issuer’s obligations. Our ability to enforce rights in bankruptcy proceedings may be more limited than would be the case for taxable debt. This could increase the fund’s operating expenses and decrease its net asset value. Any income that arises from ownership or operation of assets would be taxable.

Although investment-grade investments generally have lower credit risk, they may share some of the risks of lower-rated investments.

Bond investments may be more susceptible to downgrades or defaults during economic downturns or other periods of economic stress, which in turn could affect the market values and marketability of many or all bond obligations of issuers in a state, U.S. territory, or possession. For example, the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has significantly stressed the financial resources of many tax-exempt debt issuers. This may make it less likely that issuers can meet their financial obligations when due and may adversely impact the value of their bonds, which could negatively impact the performance of the fund. In light of the uncertainty surrounding the magnitude, duration, reach, costs and effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as actions that have been or could be taken by governmental authorities or other third parties, it is difficult to predict the level of financial stress and duration of such stress issuers may experience.

10 Managed Municipal Income Trust

We may buy investments that are insured as to the payment of principal and interest in the event the issuer defaults. Any reduction in the insurer’s ability to pay claims may adversely affect the value of insured investments and, consequently, the value of the fund’s shares.

• Focus of investments. We may make significant investments in a particular segment of the tax-exempt debt market, such as tobacco settlement bonds or revenue bonds for health care facilities, housing or airports. We may also make significant investments in the debt of issuers located in the same state. These investments may cause the value of the fund’s shares to fluctuate more than the values of shares of funds that invest in a greater variety of investments. Certain events may adversely affect all investments within a particular market segment. Examples include legislation or court decisions, concerns about pending legislation or court decisions, and lower demand for the services or products provided by a particular market segment. Investing in issuers located in the same state may make the fund more vulnerable to that state’s economy and to factors affecting its tax-exempt issuers, such as their ability to collect revenues to meet payment obligations.

At times, the fund and other accounts that Putnam Management and its affiliates manage may own all or most of the debt of a particular issuer. This concentration of ownership may make it more difficult to sell, or to determine the fair value of, these investments.

• Derivatives. We may engage in a variety of transactions involving derivatives, such as municipal rate locks, tender option bond transactions, futures and swap contracts, although they do not represent a primary focus of the fund. Derivatives are financial instruments whose value depends upon, or is derived from, the value of something else, such as one or more underlying investments, pools of investments or indexes. We may make use of “short” derivative positions, the values of which typically move in the opposite direction from the price of the underlying investment, pool of investments, or index. We may use derivatives both for hedging and non-hedging purposes, such as to modify the behavior of an investment so that it responds differently than it would otherwise respond to changes in a particular interest rate or to modify the fund’s duration. Derivatives may increase or decrease an investment’s exposure to long- or short-term interest rates or cause the value of an investment to move in the opposite direction from prevailing short-term or long-term interest rates. For example, we may use interest rate swaps to hedge or gain exposure to interest rate risk, or to hedge or gain exposure to inflation. We may also use derivatives to adjust the fund’s positioning on the yield curve (a line that plots interest rates of bonds having equal credit quality but differing maturity dates) or to take tactical positions along the yield curve. However, we may also choose not to use derivatives, based on our evaluation of market conditions or the availability of suitable derivatives. Investments in derivatives may be applied toward meeting a requirement to invest in a particular kind of investment if the derivatives have economic characteristics similar to that investment.

Derivatives involve special risks and may result in losses. The successful use of derivatives depends on our ability to manage these sophisticated instruments. Some derivatives are “leveraged,” which means they provide the fund with investment exposure greater than the value of the fund’s investment in the derivatives. As a result, these derivatives may magnify or otherwise increase investment losses to the fund. The risk of loss from certain short derivative positions is theoretically unlimited. The value of derivatives may move in unexpected ways due to unanticipated market movements, the use of leverage, imperfect correlation between the derivative instrument and the reference asset, or other factors, especially in unusual market conditions, and volatility in the value of derivatives could adversely impact the fund’s returns, obligations and exposures.

Other risks arise from the potential inability to terminate or sell derivative positions. Derivatives may be subject to liquidity risk due to the fund’s obligation to make payments of margin, collateral, or settlement payments to counterparties. A liquid secondary market may not always exist for the fund’s derivative positions. In fact, certain over-the-counter instruments (investments not traded on an exchange) may not be liquid. Over-the-counter instruments also involve the risk that the other party to the derivative transaction may not be willing or able to meet its obligations with respect to the derivative transaction. The risk of a party failing to meet its obligations may increase if the fund has significant exposure to that counterparty. Derivative transactions may also be subject to operational risk, including due to documentation and settlement issues, system failures, inadequate controls and human error, and legal risk due to insufficient documentation, insufficient capacity or authority of a counterparty, or issues with respect to the legality or enforceability of the derivative contract.

Managed Municipal Income Trust 11

• Preferred share leverage risk. Leverage from the issuance of preferred shares creates risks, including the likelihood of greater volatility of net asset value and market price of, and distributions from, the fund’s common shares and the risk that fluctuations in dividend rates on preferred shares may affect the return to common shareholders. If the income from the investments purchased with proceeds received from leverage is not sufficient to cover the cost of leverage, the amount of income available for distribution to common shareholders will be less than if leverage had not been used. While the fund has preferred shares outstanding, an increase in short-term interest rates could result in an increased cost of leverage, which could adversely affect the fund’s income available for distribution to common shareholders. In connection with its preferred shares, the fund is required to maintain specified asset coverage mandated by applicable federal securities laws and by the fund’s Amended and Restated Bylaws. The fund may be required to dispose of portfolio investments on unfavorable terms if market fluctuations or other factors cause the required asset coverage to be less than the prescribed amount. There can be no assurance that a leveraging strategy will be successful.

• Liquidity and illiquid investments. We may invest the fund’s assets in illiquid investments, which may be considered speculative and which may be difficult to sell. The sale of many of these investments is prohibited or limited by law or contract. Some investments may be difficult to value for purposes of determining the fund’s net asset value. Certain other investments may not have an active trading market due to adverse market, economic, industry, political, regulatory, geopolitical, environmental, public health, and other conditions, including investors trying to sell large quantities of a particular investment or type of investment, or lack of market makers or other buyers for a particular investment or type of investment. We may not be able to sell the fund’s illiquid investments when we consider it desirable to do so, or we may be able to sell them only at less than their value.

• Market risk. The value of investments in the fund’s portfolio may fall or fail to rise over extended periods of time for a variety of reasons, including general economic, political or financial market conditions, investor sentiment and market perceptions (including perceptions about monetary policy, interest rates, inflation or the risk of default); government actions (including protectionist measures, intervention in the financial markets or other regulation, and changes in fiscal, monetary or tax policies); geopolitical events or changes (including natural disasters, terrorism and war); outbreaks of infectious illnesses or other widespread public health issues (including epidemics and pandemics); and factors related to a specific issuer, geography, industry or sector. These and other factors may lead to increased volatility and reduced liquidity in the fund’s portfolio holdings. These risks may be exacerbated during economic downturns or other periods of economic stress.

The COVID-19 pandemic and efforts to contain its spread have resulted in, among other effects, significant market volatility, exchange trading suspensions and closures, declines in global financial markets, higher default rates, significant changes in fiscal and monetary policies, and economic downturns and recessions. The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic have negatively affected, and may continue to negatively affect, the global economy, the economies of the United States and other individual countries, the financial performance of individual issuers, sectors, industries, asset classes, and markets, and the value, volatility, and liquidity of particular securities and other assets. The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic also are likely to exacerbate other risks that apply to the fund, including the risks disclosed in this prospectus, which could negatively impact the fund’s performance and lead to losses on your investment in the fund. The duration of the COVID-19 pandemic and its effects cannot be determined with certainty.

• Management and operational risk. The fund is actively managed and its performance will reflect, in part, our ability to make investment decisions that seek to achieve the fund’s investment objective. There is no guarantee that the investment techniques, analyses, or judgments that we apply in making investment decisions for the fund will produce the intended outcome or that the investments we select for the fund will perform as well as other securities that were not selected for the fund. As a result, the fund may underperform its benchmark or other funds with a similar investment goal and may realize losses. In addition, we, or the fund’s other service providers, may experience disruptions or operating errors that could negatively impact the fund. Although service providers may have operational risk management policies and procedures and take appropriate precautions to avoid and mitigate risks that could lead to disruptions and operating errors, it may not be possible to identify all of the operational risks that may affect the fund or to develop processes and controls to completely eliminate or mitigate their occurrence or effects.

12 Managed Municipal Income Trust

• Other investments. In addition to the main investment strategies described above, the fund may also make other types of investments, which may produce taxable income and be subject to other risks. The fund may also invest in cash or cash equivalents, including money market instruments or short-term instruments such as commercial paper, bank obligations (e.g., certificates of deposit and bankers’ acceptances), repurchase agreements, and U.S. Treasury bills or other government obligations. The fund may also from time to time invest all or a portion of its cash balances in money market and/or short-term bond funds advised by Putnam Management or its affiliates. The percentage of the fund invested in cash and cash equivalents and such money market and short-term bond funds is expected to vary over time and will depend on various factors, including market conditions, and our assessment of the cash level that is appropriate to allow the fund to pursue investment opportunities as they arise. Large cash positions may dampen performance and may prevent the fund from achieving its goal.

• Temporary defensive strategies. In response to adverse market, economic, political or other conditions, we may take temporary defensive positions, such as investing some or all of the fund’s assets in cash and cash equivalents, that differ from the fund’s usual investment strategies. However, we may choose not to use these temporary defensive strategies for a variety of reasons, even in very volatile market conditions. If we do employ these strategies, the fund may miss out on investment opportunities and may not achieve its goal. Additionally, while temporary defensive strategies are mainly designed to limit losses, they may not work as intended.

• Changes in policies. The Trustees may change the fund’s goal, investment strategies and other policies without shareholder approval, except in circumstances in which shareholder approval is specifically required by law (such as changes to fundamental investment policies) or where a shareholder approval requirement was specifically disclosed in the fund’s prospectus, statement of additional information or shareholder report and is otherwise still in effect.

The fund’s fundamental investment policies

The fund has adopted the following investment restrictions which may not be changed without the affirmative vote of a “majority of the outstanding voting securities” of the fund (which is defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended, (the “1940 Act”) to mean the affirmative vote of the lesser of (1) more than 50% of the outstanding common shares and outstanding preferred shares of the fund, each voting as a separate class, or (2) 67% or more of the outstanding common shares and of the outstanding preferred shares, each voting as a separate class, present at a meeting if more than 50% of the outstanding shares of each class are represented at the meeting in person or by proxy).

Under normal market conditions, the fund invests at least 80% of its assets in tax-exempt municipal securities.

Additionally, the fund may not:

1. Issue senior securities, as defined in the 1940 Act, other than shares of beneficial interest with preference rights, except to the extent such issuance might be involved with respect to borrowings described under restriction [regarding borrowing] below or with respect to transactions involving futures contracts or the writing of options within the limits described in the prospectus.

2. Borrow money, except that the fund may borrow amounts not exceeding 15% of the value (taken at the lower of cost or current value) of its total assets (not including the amount borrowed) at the time the borrowing is made for temporary purposes (including repurchasing its shares while effecting an orderly liquidation of portfolio securities) or for emergency purposes.

3. Underwrite securities issued by other persons except to the extent that, in connection with the disposition of its portfolio investments, it may be deemed to be an underwriter under the federal securities laws.

4. Purchase or sell real estate, although it may purchase securities of issuers which deal in real estate, securities which are secured by interests in real estate, and securities which represent interests in real estate, and it may acquire and dispose of real estate or interests in real estate acquired through the exercise of its rights as a holder of debt obligations secured by real estate or interests therein.

5. Purchase or sell commodities or commodity contracts, except that the fund may purchase and sell financial futures contracts and options and may enter into foreign exchange contracts and other financial transactions not involving physical commodities.

6. Make loans, except by purchase of debt obligations in which the fund may invest consistent with its investment policies (including without limitation debt obligations issued by other Putnam funds), by entering into repurchase agreements or by lending its portfolio securities.

Managed Municipal Income Trust 13

7. With respect to 75% of its total assets, invest in the securities of any issuer if, immediately after such investment, more than 5% of the total assets of the fund (taken at current value) would be invested in the securities of such issuer; provided that this limitation does not apply to obligations issued or guaranteed as to interest or principal by the U.S. Government or its agencies or instrumentalities.

8. With respect to 75% of its total assets, acquire more than 10% of the outstanding voting securities of any issuer.

9. Purchase securities (other than securities of the U.S. Government, its agencies or instrumentalities or tax-exempt securities, except tax-exempt securities backed only by the assets and revenues of non-governmental issuers) if, as a result of such purchase, more than 25% of the fund’s total assets would be invested in any one industry.

14 Managed Municipal Income Trust

Comparative index definitions

Bloomberg Municipal Bond Index is an unmanaged index of long-term, fixed-rate, investment-grade tax-exempt bonds.

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

ICE BofA (Intercontinental Exchange Bank of America) 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.

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

Lipper, an LSEG company, is a third-party industry-ranking entity that ranks 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 medians reflect performance trends for funds within a category.

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.

Important data provider notices and terms available at www.franklintempletondatasources.com.

Managed Municipal Income Trust 15

Other information for shareholders

Important notice regarding share repurchase program

In September 2024, the Trustees of your fund approved the renewal of a share repurchase program that had been in effect since 2005. This renewal allows your fund to repurchase, in the 365 days beginning October 1, 2024, up to 10% of the fund’s common shares outstanding as of September 30, 2024.

Important notice regarding delivery of shareholder documents

In accordance with Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regulations, Putnam sends a single notice of internet availability, or a single printed copy, of annual and semiannual shareholder reports, prospectuses, and proxy statements to Putnam shareholders who share the same address, unless a shareholder requests otherwise. If you prefer to receive your own copy of these documents, please call Putnam at 1-800-225-1581, and Putnam will begin sending individual copies within 30 days.

Proxy voting

The Investment Manager is committed to managing our funds in the best interests of our shareholders. The Putnam Investments’ 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, 2024, are available at franklintempleton.com/regulatory-fund-documents 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 Investments’ 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-PORT within 60 days of the end of such fiscal quarter. Shareholders may obtain the fund’s Form N-PORT on the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov.

Update regarding portfolio managers

Effective September 30, 2024, Benjamin Barber, CFA, James Conn, CFA, Francisco Rivera and Daniel Workman, CFA, joined Paul M. Drury and Garrett L. Hamilton as Portfolio Managers of the fund. Additional information regarding the new Portfolio Managers is below:

Portfolio Manager | Joined fund | Employer | Employer
Benjamin Barber, CFA | 2024 | Franklin Advisers | Portfolio Manager
| 2020 – Present |
|  | Goldman Sachs Asset Management | Portfolio Manager
| 1999 – 2020 |
James Conn, CFA | 2024 | Franklin Advisers | Portfolio Manager
| 1996 – Present |
Francisco Rivera | 2024 | Franklin Advisers | Portfolio Manager
| 1994 – Present |
Daniel Workman, CFA | 2024 | Franklin Advisers | Portfolio Manager
| 2003 – Present |

16 Managed Municipal Income Trust

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.

Managed Municipal Income Trust 17

Summary of Putnam closed-end funds’ amended and restated dividend reinvestment plans

Putnam Managed Municipal Income Trust, Putnam Master Intermediate Income Trust, Putnam Municipal Opportunities Trust and Putnam Premier Income Trust (each, a “Fund” and collectively, the “Funds”) each offer a dividend reinvestment plan (each, a “Plan” and collectively, the “Plans”). If you participate in a Plan, all income dividends and capital gain distributions are automatically reinvested in Fund shares by the Fund’s agent, Putnam Investor Services, Inc. (the “Agent”). If you are not participating in a Plan, every month you will receive all dividends and other distributions in cash, paid by check and mailed directly to you or your intermediary.

Upon a purchase (or, where applicable, upon registration of transfer on the shareholder records of a Fund) of shares of a Fund by a registered shareholder, each such shareholder will be deemed to have elected to participate in that Fund’s Plan. Each such shareholder will have all distributions by a Fund automatically reinvested in additional shares, unless such shareholder elects to terminate participation in a Plan by instructing the Agent to pay future distributions in cash. Shareholders who were not participants in a Plan as of January 31, 2010, will continue to receive distributions in cash but may enroll in a Plan at any time by contacting the Agent.

If you participate in a Fund’s Plan, the Agent will automatically reinvest subsequent distributions, and the Agent will send you a confirmation in the mail telling you how many additional shares were issued to your account.

To change your enrollment status or to request additional information about the Plans, you may contact the Agent either in writing, at P.O. Box 8383, Boston, MA 02266-8383, or by telephone at 1-800-225-1581 during normal East Coast business hours.

How you acquire additional shares through a Plan If the market price per share for your Fund’s shares (plus estimated brokerage commissions) is greater than or equal to their net asset value per share on the payment date for a distribution, you will be issued shares of the Fund at a value equal to the higher of the net asset value per share on that date or 95% of the market price per share on that date.

If the market price per share for your Fund’s shares (plus estimated brokerage commissions) is less than their net asset value per share on the payment date for a distribution, the Agent will buy Fund shares for participating accounts in the open market. The Agent will aggregate open-market purchases on behalf of all participants, and the average price (including brokerage commissions) of all shares purchased by the Agent will be the price per share allocable to each participant. The Agent will generally complete these open-market purchases within five business days following the payment date. If, before the Agent has completed open-market purchases, the market price per share (plus estimated brokerage commissions) rises to exceed the net asset value per share on the payment date, then the purchase price may exceed the net asset value per share, potentially resulting in the acquisition of fewer shares than if the distribution had been paid in newly issued shares.

How to withdraw from a Plan Participants may withdraw from a Fund’s Plan at any time by notifying the Agent, either in writing or by telephone. Such withdrawal will be effective immediately if notice is received by the Agent with sufficient time prior to any distribution record date; otherwise, such withdrawal will be effective with respect to any subsequent distribution following notice of withdrawal. There is no penalty for withdrawing from or not participating in a Plan.

Plan administration The Agent will credit all shares acquired for a participant under a Plan to the account in which the participant’s common shares are held. Each participant will

18 Managed Municipal Income Trust

be sent reasonably promptly a confirmation by the Agent of each acquisition made for his or her account.

About brokerage fees Each participant pays a proportionate share of any brokerage commissions incurred if the Agent purchases additional shares on the open market, in accordance with the Plans. There are no brokerage charges applied to shares issued directly by the Funds under the Plans.

About taxes and Plan amendments Reinvesting dividend and capital gain distributions in shares of the Funds does not relieve you of tax obligations, which are the same as if you had received cash distributions. The Agent supplies tax information to you and to the IRS annually. Each Fund reserves the right to amend or terminate its Plan upon 30 days’ written notice. However, the Agent may assign its rights, and delegate its duties, to a successor agent with the prior consent of a Fund and without prior notice to Plan participants.

If your shares are held in a broker or nominee name If your shares are held in the name of a broker or nominee offering a dividend reinvestment service, consult your broker or nominee to ensure that an appropriate election is made on your behalf. If the broker or nominee holding your shares does not provide a reinvestment service, you may need to register your shares in your own name in order to participate in a Plan.

In the case of record shareholders such as banks, brokers or nominees that hold shares for others who are the beneficial owners of such shares, the Agent will administer the Plan on the basis of the number of shares certified by the record shareholder as representing the total amount registered in such shareholder’s name and held for the account of beneficial owners who are to participate in the Plan.

Managed Municipal Income Trust 19

Trustee approval of management and sub-advisory contracts

At its meeting on September 27, 2024, the Board of Trustees of your fund, including all of the 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 mutual funds, closed-end funds and exchange-traded funds (collectively, the “funds”) (the “Independent Trustees”), approved a new Sub-Advisory Agreement (the “New FTIML Sub-Advisory Agreement”) between Franklin Advisers, Inc. (“Franklin Advisers”) and its affiliate, Franklin Templeton Investment Management Limited (“FTIML”). Franklin Advisers and FTIML are each direct or indirect, wholly-owned subsidiaries of Franklin Resources, Inc. (“Franklin Templeton”). (Because FTIML is an affiliate of Franklin Advisers and Franklin Advisers remains fully responsible for all services provided by FTIML, the Trustees did not attempt to evaluate FTIML as a separate entity.)

The Board of Trustees, with the assistance of its Contract Committee (which consists solely of Independent Trustees) and its independent legal counsel (as that term is defined in Rule 0–1(a)(6) (i) under the 1940 Act), requested and evaluated all information it deemed reasonably necessary under the circumstances in connection with its review of the New FTIML Sub-Advisory Agreement. At its September 2024 meeting, the Contract Committee met with representatives of Franklin Templeton, and separately in executive session, to consider the information provided. At the September Trustees’ meetings, the Contract Committee also met in executive session with the other Independent Trustees to discuss its observations and recommendations. Throughout this process, the Contract Committee was assisted by the members of the Board of Trustees’ independent staff and by independent legal counsel for the Independent Trustees.

Considerations in connection with the Trustees’ approval of the New FTIML Sub-Advisory Agreement

The Trustees considered the proposed New FTIML Sub-Advisory Agreement in connection with the planned November 1, 2024 merger (the “Merger”) of Putnam Investments Limited (“PIL”), an affiliate of Franklin Advisers and a sub-adviser to your fund prior to the Merger, with and into FTIML. In connection with the Merger, PIL investment professionals would become employees of FTIML, and, upon consummation of the Merger, PIL would cease to exist as a separate legal entity.

The Trustees noted that Franklin Templeton viewed the Merger as a further step in the integration of the legacy Putnam and Franklin Templeton organizations, offering potential operational efficiencies and enhanced investment resources for the funds. The Trustees also considered, among other factors, that:

• The Merger and the New FTIML Sub-Advisory Agreement would not result in any reduction or material change in the nature or the level of the sub-advisory services provided to the funds;

• The PIL portfolio managers who are responsible for the day-to-day management of the applicable funds would be the same immediately prior to, and immediately after, the Merger, and these investment personnel would have access to the same research and other resources to support their respective investment advisory functions and operate under the same conditions both immediately before and after the Merger;

• Despite a change in the sub-advisory fee structure for certain funds, the New FTIML Sub-Advisory Agreement would not result in an increase in the advisory fee rates payable by each fund, as Franklin Advisers would be responsible for overseeing the investment advisory services provided to the applicable funds by FTIML under the New FTIML Sub-Advisory Agreement and would compensate FTIML for such services out of the fees it receives under each fund’s Management Contract with Franklin Advisers; and

• The terms of the New FTIML Sub-Advisory Agreement were substantially similar to those under the New PIL Sub-Management Contract (defined below)1 between Franklin Advisers and PIL.

The Trustees also considered that, prior to the Merger, counsel to Franklin Advisers and FTIML had provided a legal opinion that the Merger and the appointment of FTIML as sub-adviser to the funds would not result in an “assignment” under the 1940 Act of the New PIL Sub-Management

1 The New PIL Sub-Management Contract was operative until the effective date of the Merger, November 1, 2024, and was replaced by the New FTIML Sub-Advisory Agreement effective as of that date.

20 Managed Municipal Income Trust

Contract and that the New FTIML Sub-Advisory Agreement did not require shareholder approval.

The Trustees also took into account that they had most recently approved the fund’s New PIL Sub-Management Contract in June 2024. Because, other than the parties to the contract, the revised sub-advisory fee structure for certain funds, and certain other non-substantive changes to contractual terms, the New FTIML Sub-Advisory Agreement was substantially similar to the New PIL Sub-Management Contract, the Trustees relied to a considerable extent on their previous approval of the New PIL Sub-Management Contract, which is described below.

Board of Trustees’ Conclusions

After considering the factors described above and those described below under the heading “Considerations and conclusions in connection with the Trustees’ June 2024 approvals,” as well as other factors, the Board of Trustees, including all of the Independent Trustees, concluded that the fees payable under the New FTIML Sub-Advisory Agreement represented reasonable compensation in light of the nature and quality of the services that would be provided to the funds, and determined to approve the New FTIML Sub-Advisory Agreement for your fund. These conclusions were based on a comprehensive consideration of all information provided to the Trustees and were not the result of any single factor.

Considerations and conclusions in connection with the Trustees’ June 2024 approvals

At its meeting on June 28, 2024, the Board of Trustees of your fund, including all of the Independent Trustees, approved a New Management Contract (defined below) between your fund and Franklin Advisers, a New PIL Sub-Management Contract (defined below) for your fund between Franklin Advisers and its affiliate, PIL, and a new subadvisory agreement (the “New Putnam Management Subadvisory Agreement”) for your fund between Franklin Advisers and Putnam Investment Management, LLC (“Putnam Management”) (collectively, the “New Advisory Contracts”). Franklin Advisers, Putnam Management, and PIL are each direct or indirect, wholly-owned subsidiaries of Franklin Templeton.

The Trustees considered the proposed New Advisory Contracts in connection with an internal reorganization (the “Reorganization”) whereby the fixed income and Investment Solutions investment operations of Putnam Management, your fund’s investment adviser prior to the Reorganization, were combined with those of Franklin Advisers. As part of the Reorganization, Franklin Advisers assumed the role of investment adviser for your fund and the other Putnam fixed income and Investment Solutions mutual funds, exchange-traded funds and closed-end funds (collectively, the “FI/IS Funds”), which was accomplished through a transfer by Putnam Management of all of its rights and obligations under the previous management contracts between Putnam Management and the FI/IS Funds (the “Previous Management Contracts”) and the previous sub-management contract between Putnam Management and its affiliate, PIL, with respect to the FI/IS Funds (the “Previous Sub-Management Contract,” and, together with the Previous Management Contracts, the “Previous Contracts”) to Franklin Advisers (the “Contract Transfers”) by means of assignment and assumption agreements (the Previous Management Contracts and the Previous Sub-Management Contract, as modified by the terms of the related assignment and assumption agreements, are hereinafter referred to as the “New Management Contracts” and the “New PIL Sub-Management Contract,” respectively). (Because PIL is an affiliate of Franklin Advisers and Franklin Advisers remains fully responsible for all services provided by PIL, the Trustees did not attempt to evaluate PIL as a separate entity.)

In addition to the New Management Contracts and New PIL Sub-Management Contract, the Board of Trustees of your fund considered and approved the New Putnam Management Subadvisory Agreement pursuant to which Franklin Advisers retained Putnam Management as sub-adviser for each FI/IS Fund so that, following the Reorganization, Putnam Management’s equity team, which was not part of the Reorganization, could continue to provide certain services that it had historically provided to the FI/IS Funds, including, as applicable, the management of the equity portion of a FI/IS Fund’s portfolio, including equity trade execution services, the provision of derivatives and other investment trading facilities for a transitional period, and the provision of proxy voting services for a transitional period (the “Services”).

In connection with the review process, the Independent Trustees’ independent legal counsel (as that term is defined in Rule 0–1(a)(6) (i) under the 1940 Act) met with representatives of Putnam Management and Franklin Templeton to discuss the contract review materials that

Managed Municipal Income Trust 21

would be furnished to the Contract Committee. The Board of Trustees, with the assistance of its Contract Committee (which consists solely of Independent Trustees) and its independent legal counsel, requested and evaluated all information it deemed reasonably necessary under the circumstances in connection with its review of the New Management Contracts. Over the course of several months ending in June 2024, the Contract Committee met on a number of occasions with representatives of Putnam Management and Franklin Templeton, and separately in executive session, to consider the information provided. Throughout this process, the Contract Committee was assisted by the members of the Board of Trustees’ independent staff and by independent legal counsel for the Independent Trustees.

At the Board of Trustees’ June 2024 meeting, the Contract Committee met in executive session to discuss and consider its recommendations with respect to the approval of the New Advisory Contracts. At that meeting, the Contract Committee also met in executive session with the other Independent Trustees to discuss its observations and recommendations.

The Trustees noted that Franklin Templeton viewed the Reorganization as a further step in the integration of the legacy Putnam Management and Franklin Advisers fixed income and Investment Solutions organizations, offering potential operational efficiencies and enhanced investment resources for the FI/IS Funds. The Trustees also considered, among other factors, that:

• The Contract Transfers would not result in a change in the senior management at Franklin Templeton, so that the same management will be in place before and after the Contract Transfers, which contemplate no reduction in the nature and level of the advisory and administrative services provided to the FI/IS Funds;

• The portfolio managers who are responsible for the day-to-day management of the FI/IS Funds would be the same immediately prior to, and immediately after, the Contract Transfers, and these investment personnel would have access to the same research and other resources to support their respective investment management functions both before and immediately after the Contract Transfers; and

• The Contract Transfers would not result in an increase in the advisory fee rates payable by each FI/IS Fund and that, other than an acknowledgment by Franklin Advisers and Putnam Management that for purposes of the New Management Contracts, each applicable FI/IS Fund will continue to be “an open-end fund sponsored by Putnam Management,” for purposes of calculating the advisory fee rates, and updating the parties to the agreements, the terms of the New Management Contracts and New PIL Sub-Management Contract were substantially identical to those under the Previous Contracts (including with respect to the term of the New Management Contracts and New PIL Sub-Management Contract, which run through June 30, 2025, unless the contracts are sooner terminated or continued pursuant to their terms).

With respect to the New Putnam Management Subadvisory Agreement, the Trustees considered that, under the agreement, Putnam Management would provide any necessary Services to the applicable FI/IS Fund under generally the same terms and conditions related to the FI/IS Fund as such Services were previously provided by Putnam Management under the FI/IS Fund’s Previous Management Contract. The Trustees also considered that Franklin Advisers would be responsible for overseeing the Services provided to the FI/IS Funds by Putnam Management under the New Putnam Management Subadvisory Agreement and would compensate Putnam Management for such services out of the fees it receives under the New Management Contracts. The Trustees further noted Franklin Advisers’ and Putnam Management’s representations that Putnam Management’s appointment as sub-adviser to the FI/IS Funds would not result in any material change in the nature or level of investment advisory services provided to the FI/IS Funds.

The Trustees also considered that, prior to the Reorganization, counsel to Franklin Advisers and Putnam Management had provided a legal opinion that the Contract Transfers would not result in an “assignment” under the 1940 Act of the Previous Contracts or a material amendment of those contracts, and, therefore, the New Management Contracts and New PIL Sub-Management Contract did not require shareholder approval. In addition, the Trustees considered that counsel to Franklin Advisers and Putnam Management had provided a legal opinion that shareholder approval of the New Putnam Management Subadvisory Agreement was not required under the 1940 Act.

22 Managed Municipal Income Trust

General conclusions

In addition to the above considerations, the Independent Trustees’ approvals were 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 and the fees paid by competitive funds; and

• That the fee schedule in effect for your fund represented an appropriate sharing between fund shareholders and Franklin Advisers of any 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. The considerations and conclusions discussed herein were also informed by the fact that there would be continuity in the management of the FI/IS Funds, including your fund, immediately following the Reorganization (i.e., the same portfolio managers that managed the fund prior to the Reorganization would be in place immediately following the Reorganization). The Trustees also considered that the FI/IS Funds had no operating history with Franklin Templeton or its affiliates prior to 2024.

Management fee schedules and total expenses

Under its Previous Management Contract and under its New Management Contract, your fund has the benefit of breakpoints in its management fee schedule that provide shareholders with reduced fee rates as the fund’s assets under management increase. The Trustees considered that breakpoints in a fund’s management fee schedule were one way in which economies of scale in managing a fund can be shared with the fund’s shareholders. The Trustees noted, however, that since closed-end funds typically do not change materially in size through the sale or redemption of shares, these are not likely to have a meaningful impact. The Trustees reviewed the total expenses of each Putnam fund, recognizing that in most cases management fees represented the major, but not the sole, determinant of total costs to fund shareholders.

The Trustees reviewed comparative fee and expense information for a custom group of competitive funds selected by Broadridge Financial Solutions, Inc. (“Broadridge”). This comparative information included your fund’s percentile ranking for effective management fees and total expenses, which provides a general indication of your fund’s relative standing. In the custom peer group, your fund ranked in the first quintile in effective management fees (determined for your fund and the other funds in the custom peer group based on fund asset size and the applicable contractual management fee schedule) and in the first quintile in total expenses as of December 31, 2023. The first quintile represents the least expensive funds and the fifth quintile the most expensive funds. The fee and expense data reported by Broadridge as of December 31, 2023 reflected the most recent fiscal year-end data available in Broadridge’s database at that time.

In connection with their review of fund management fees and total expenses, 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 year-over-year data with respect to revenues, expenses and profitability of Putnam Management and its affiliates relating to the investment management and investor services provided to the funds, as applicable. In this regard, the Trustees also reviewed an analysis of the revenues, expenses and profitability of Putnam Management and its affiliates, allocated on a fund-by-fund basis, with respect to (as applicable) the funds’ management and investor servicing contracts. For each fund, the analysis presented information about revenues, expenses and profitability in 2023 for each of the applicable agreements separately and for the agreements taken together on a combined basis. The Trustees also reviewed the revenues, expenses and profitability of Franklin Templeton’s global investment management business and its U.S. registered investment company business, which includes the financial results of Franklin Advisers. Because the FI/IS Funds had no operating history with Franklin Templeton or its affiliates, the Trustees did not review fund-by-fund profitability information for Franklin Templeton. The Trustees concluded that, at current asset levels, the fee schedules in place for each of the funds, including the fee schedule for your fund, represented reasonable compensation for the services to be provided by Franklin Advisers (which are substantially identical to those

Managed Municipal Income Trust 23

historically provided by Putnam Management) and represented an appropriate sharing between fund shareholders and Franklin Advisers of any economies of scale as may exist in the management of the funds at that time.

The information examined by the Trustees in connection with their review of the New Advisory Contracts included information regarding services provided and fees charged by Putnam Management and its affiliates to other clients, including collective investment trusts offered in the defined contribution retirement plan market, sub-advised mutual funds, private funds sponsored by affiliates of Putnam Management, model-only separately managed accounts and Putnam Management’s manager-traded separately managed account programs. This information included, in cases where a product’s investment strategy corresponds with a FI/IS Fund’s strategy, comparisons of those fees with fees charged to the funds, as well as an assessment of the differences in the services provided to these clients as compared to the services provided to the funds. The Trustees also considered information regarding services provided and fees charged by Franklin Advisers and its other Franklin Templeton affiliates to other clients, including U.S. registered mutual funds, funds organized outside of the United States (i.e., offshore funds), separate accounts (including separately managed accounts), collective investment trusts and sub-advised funds, which included, where applicable, the specific fees charged to strategies that are comparable to those of the FI/IS Funds. The Trustees observed that the differences in fee rates between these clients and the 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, among other things, historical competitive forces operating in separate marketplaces. The Trustees considered the fact that in many cases fee rates across different asset classes are higher on average for 1940 Act-registered funds than for other clients, and the Trustees also considered the differences between the services that Putnam Management historically provided and that Franklin Advisers will provide to the FI/IS Funds as investment adviser and those that they provide to their other 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 Previous Management Contract and was also a significant factor in considering approval of your fund’s New Management Contract, since the portfolio managers of your fund that were employed by Putnam Management prior to the Reorganization would continue to serve as portfolio managers of your fund immediately following the Reorganization as employees of Franklin Advisers. The Trustees were assisted in their review of Putnam Management’s investment process and performance by the work of the investment oversight committees of the Trustees and the full Board of Trustees, which met on a regular basis with individual portfolio managers and with senior management of Putnam Management’s Investment Division throughout the year. The Trustees concluded that Putnam Management generally provided 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. In addition to Putnam Management’s investment process and performance, the Trustees considered aggregate performance information for Franklin Advisers’ fixed income and Investment Solutions investment strategies, and also met with senior investment leadership at Franklin Advisers, including the respective heads of the fixed income and Investment Solutions teams and the Head of Public Market Investments.

The Trustees considered that, in the aggregate, peer-relative and benchmark-relative Putnam fund performance was generally strong in 2023 against a backdrop of largely solid fixed income markets and strong but volatile equity markets, which were characterized by a concentration of performance among large-cap growth stocks. The Trustees also noted that corporate earnings and employment figures continued to generally show strength, underpinning market rallies in 2023, while inflation concerns, Federal Reserve actions to reduce inflation and geopolitical tensions continued to be a focus of investors. For the one-year period ended December 31, 2023,

24 Managed Municipal Income Trust

the Trustees considered that the Putnam funds, on an asset-weighted basis, ranked in the 32nd percentile of their peers as determined by LSEG Lipper (“Lipper”) and, on an asset-weighted-basis, outperformed their benchmarks by 2.8% gross of fees over the one-year period. The Committee also noted that the funds’ aggregate performance over longer-term periods continued to be strong, with the funds, on an asset-weighted basis, ranking in the 31st, 21st, and 22nd percentiles of their Lipper peers over the three-year, five-year and ten-year periods ended December 31, 2023, respectively. The Trustees further noted that the funds, in the aggregate, outperformed their benchmarks on a gross basis for each of the three-year, five-year and ten-year periods. The Trustees also considered the Morningstar, Inc. ratings assigned to the funds, noting that 45 funds were rated four or five stars at the end of 2023, which represented an increase of 5 funds year-over-year. The Trustees also considered that 18 funds were five-star rated at the end of 2023, which was a year-over-year increase of 11 funds, and that 90% of the funds’ aggregate assets were in four- or five-star rated funds at year end.

In addition to the performance of the individual Putnam funds, the Trustees considered, as they had in prior years, the performance of The Putnam Fund complex versus competitor fund complexes, as reported in the Barron’s/Lipper Fund Families survey (the “Survey”). The Trustees noted that the Survey ranks mutual fund companies based on their performance across a variety of asset types, and that The Putnam Fund complex had performed exceptionally well in 2023. In this regard, the Trustees considered that The Putnam Fund complex had ranked 1st out of 49 fund companies, 1st out of 47 fund companies and 5th out of 46 fund companies for the one-year, five-year and ten-year periods, respectively. The Trustees also noted that 2023 had marked the seventh year in a row that The Putnam Fund complex had ranked in the top ten fund companies. They also noted, however, the disappointing investment performance of some Putnam funds for periods ended December 31, 2023 and considered information provided by Putnam Management regarding the factors contributing to the underperformance and, where relevant, actions being taken to improve the performance of these particular funds. The Trustees indicated their intention to continue to monitor the performance of those funds.

For purposes of the Trustees’ evaluation of the Putnam funds’ investment performance, the Trustees generally focus on a competitive industry ranking of each fund’s total net return over a one-year, three-year and five-year period. 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 peer group (Lipper High Yield Municipal Debt Funds (closed-end)) for the one-year, three-year and five-year periods ended December 31, 2023 (the first quartile representing the best-performing funds and the fourth quartile the worst-performing funds):

One-year period | 1st
Three-year period | 2nd
Five-year period | 2nd

For the one-year period ended December 31, 2023, your fund’s performance was in the top decile of its Lipper peer group. Over the one-year, three-year and five-year periods ended December 31, 2023, there were 19, 14, and 13 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 and other benefits

The Trustees considered various potential benefits that Franklin Advisers and Putnam Management may receive in connection with the services provided under the New Advisory Contracts to 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 Franklin Advisers and Putnam Management in managing the assets of the fund and of other clients. Subject to policies established by the Trustees, soft dollars generated by these means are used predominantly to acquire brokerage and research services (including third-party research and market data) that would enhance Franklin Advisers’ and Putnam Management’s investment capabilities and supplement their internal research efforts. The Trustees intend to continue to monitor regulatory and industry developments in this area with the assistance of their Brokerage Committee. In addition, with the assistance of their Brokerage Committee, the Trustees intend

Managed Municipal Income Trust 25

to continue to monitor the allocation of the funds’ brokerage in order to ensure that the principle of seeking best price and execution remains paramount in the portfolio trading process. Your fund is not expected to generate a significant amount of soft-dollar credits.

The Trustees also considered other potential benefits that Franklin Advisers and Putnam Management may receive in connection with the services provided under the New Advisory Contracts to your fund. These potential benefits included, among others, Franklin Advisers’ and Putnam Management’s registered fund businesses aiding in the growth of their non-registered fund businesses and the use of an affiliated transfer agent’s services (in the case of your fund, PSERV, which is affiliated with Franklin Advisers and Putnam Management), where the fees for those services are paid by the fund.

26 Managed Municipal Income Trust

Audited 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 audited 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, which is calculated separately for each class of shares. (For funds with preferred shares, the amount subtracted from total assets includes the liquidation preference of preferred shares.)

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

Statement of changes in net assets shows how the fund’s net assets were affected by the fund’s net investment gain or loss, by distributions to shareholders, and by changes in the number of the fund’s shares. It lists distributions and their sources (net investment income or realized capital gains) over the current reporting period and the most recent fiscal year-end. The distributions listed here may not match the sources listed in the Statement of operations because the distributions are determined on a tax basis and may be paid in a different period from the one in which they were earned.

Financial highlights provide an overview of the fund’s investment results, per-share distributions, expense ratios, net investment income ratios, and portfolio turnover (not required for money market funds) in one summary table, reflecting the five most recent reporting periods. In a semiannual report, the highlights table also includes the current reporting period.

Managed Municipal Income Trust 27

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Board of Trustees and Shareholders of
Putnam Managed Municipal Income Trust:

Opinion on the Financial Statements

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities, including the fund’s portfolio, of Putnam Managed Municipal Income Trust (the “Fund”) as of October 31, 2024, the related statement of operations for the year ended October 31, 2024, the statement of changes in net assets for each of the two years in the period ended October 31, 2024, including the related notes, and the financial highlights for each of the five years in the period ended October 31, 2024 (collectively referred to as the “financial statements”). In our opinion, the financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Fund as of October 31, 2024, the results of its operations for the year then ended, the changes in its net assets for each of the two years in the period ended October 31, 2024 and the financial highlights for each of the five years in the period ended October 31, 2024 in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Basis for Opinion

These financial statements are the responsibility of the Fund’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Fund’s financial statements based on our audits. We are a public accounting firm registered with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) (“PCAOB”) and are required to be independent with respect to the Fund in accordance with the U.S. federal securities laws and the applicable rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the PCAOB.

We conducted our audits of these financial statements in accordance with the standards of the PCAOB. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement, whether due to error or fraud.

Our audits included performing procedures to assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to error or fraud, and performing procedures that respond to those risks. Such procedures included examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. Our audits also included evaluating the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements. Our procedures included confirmation of securities owned as of October 31, 2024 by correspondence with the custodian, transfer agent and brokers; when replies were not received from brokers, we performed other auditing procedures. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Boston, Massachusetts
December 18, 2024

We have served as the auditor of one or more investment companies in the Putnam Funds family of funds since at least 1957. We have not been able to determine the specific year we began serving as auditor.

28 Managed Municipal Income Trust

The fund’s portfolio 10/31/24 |  |

Key to holding’s abbreviations

AGM Assured Guaranty Municipal Corporation
AMBAC AMBAC Indemnity Corporation
BAM Build America Mutual
G.O. Bonds General Obligation Bonds
Q-SBLF Qualified School Board Loan Fund

MUNICIPAL BONDS AND NOTES (134.9%)* | Rating** |  | Principal amount | Value
Alaska (1.6%)
AK State Indl. Dev. & Export Auth. Rev. Bonds, (Dena’ Nena’ Henash), 4.00%, 10/1/44 | A+/F |  | $5,125,000 | $4,845,762
|  |  |  | 4,845,762
Arizona (5.2%)
AZ State Indl. Dev. Auth. Ed. Rev. Bonds, (KIPP New York, Inc., Jerome Fac.), Ser. B, 4.00%, 7/1/61 | BBB− |  | 2,000,000 | 1,713,308
AZ State Indl. Dev. Auth. Ed. 144A Rev. Bonds |  |  |  |
(BASIS Schools, Inc.), Ser. G, 5.00%, 7/1/37 | BB |  | 500,000 | 506,268
(Somerset Academy of Las Vegas), 4.00%, 12/15/41 | BB |  | 500,000 | 451,464
La Paz Cnty., Indl. Dev. Auth. Ed. Fac. Rev. Bonds, (Harmony Pub. Schools), Ser. A |  |  |  |
5.00%, 2/15/48 | BBB+ |  | 2,330,000 | 2,297,617
5.00%, 2/15/38 | BBB+ |  | 500,000 | 504,658
Maricopa Cnty., Indl. Dev. Auth. Ed. Rev. Bonds, (Horizon Cmnty. Learning Ctr.), 5.00%, 7/1/35 | BB+ |  | 750,000 | 757,231
Phoenix, Indl. Dev. Auth. Ed. Rev. Bonds, (Great Hearts Academies), 5.00%, 7/1/44 | BBB |  | 1,700,000 | 1,700,004
Phoenix, Indl. Dev. Auth. Ed. 144A Rev. Bonds, (BASIS Schools, Inc.) |  |  |  |
Ser. A, 5.00%, 7/1/46 | BB |  | 250,000 | 250,053
5.00%, 7/1/35 | BB |  | 900,000 | 903,875
Ser. A, 5.00%, 7/1/35 | BB |  | 600,000 | 602,662
Pima Cnty., Indl. Dev. Auth. Sr. Living 144A Rev. Bonds, (La Posada at Park Centre, Inc.), 6.875%, 11/15/52 | BBB+/P |  | 1,500,000 | 1,630,135
Salt Verde, Fin. Corp. Gas Rev. Bonds |  |  |  |
5.50%, 12/1/29 | A3 |  | 2,000,000 | 2,165,303
5.00%, 12/1/32 | A3 |  | 570,000 | 613,242
Sierra Vista, Indl. Dev. Auth. Ed. Fac. 144A Rev. Bonds, (American Leadership Academy, Inc.), 5.00%, 6/15/64 | BB/P |  | 300,000 | 292,113
Yavapai Cnty., Indl. Dev. Ed. Auth. Rev. Bonds, (Agribusiness & Equine Ctr.), 5.00%, 3/1/32 | BB+ |  | 835,000 | 835,204
Yavapai Cnty., Indl. Dev. Ed. Auth. 144A Rev. Bonds, Ser. A, 5.00%, 9/1/34 | BB+ |  | 500,000 | 500,445
|  |  |  | 15,723,582
California (10.3%)
CA Cmnty. Hsg. Agcy. Essential Hsg. 144A Rev. Bonds, (Aster Apt.), Ser. A-1, 4.00%, 2/1/56 | A−/P |  | 475,000 | 419,258
CA Pub. State Fin. Auth. Sr. Living 144A Rev. Bonds, (Enso Village Project), Ser. A, 5.00%, 11/15/56 | B−/P |  | 750,000 | 693,787
CA School Fin. Auth. Rev. Bonds, (2023 Union, LLC), Ser. A, 6.00%, 7/1/33 | BBB−/P |  | 430,000 | 430,482

Managed Municipal Income Trust 29

MUNICIPAL BONDS AND NOTES (134.9%)* cont. | Rating** |  | Principal amount | Value
California cont.
CA State Infrastructure & Econ. Dev. Bank 144A Rev. Bonds, (WFCS Holdings II, LLC), Ser. B, zero %, 1/1/61 | B−/P |  | $4,375,000 | $346,224
CA State Infrastructure & Econ. Dev. Bk. 144A Rev. Bonds, (DesertXpress Enterprises, LLC), 8.00%, 1/1/50 | C/P |  | 800,000 | 824,401
CA State Muni. Fin. Auth. Rev. Bonds, (Orchard Park Student Hsg.), BAM, 3.00%, 5/15/54 | AA |  | 2,410,000 | 1,839,138
CA State Muni. Fin. Auth. 144A Rev. Bonds |  |  |  |
(Westside Neighborhood School), 6.20%, 6/15/54 | BB |  | 800,000 | 862,449
(Catalyst Impact Fund 1, LLC), Class I, 6.00%, 1/1/39 | BB/P |  | 800,000 | 840,770
CA State Tobacco Securitization Agcy. Rev. Bonds, (Gold Country Settlement Funding Corp.), Ser. B-2, zero %, 6/1/55 | BB+/P |  | 5,410,000 | 1,173,493
CMFA Special Fin. Agcy. I 144A Rev. Bonds, (Social Bond), Ser. A-2, 4.00%, 4/1/56 | BB/P |  | 2,500,000 | 1,948,258
CSCDA Cmnty. Impt. Auth. Rev. Bonds, (Pasadena Portfolio), Ser. A-2, 3.00%, 12/1/56 | BBB+/P |  | 2,000,000 | 1,393,506
CSCDA Cmnty. Impt. Auth. 144A Rev. Bonds |  |  |  |
(Anaheim), 4.00%, 8/1/56 | BBB−/P |  | 2,690,000 | 2,355,366
(1818 Platinum Triangle Apt.), 3.25%, 4/1/57 | BBB/P |  | 1,765,000 | 1,292,074
(Jefferson-Anaheim), 3.125%, 8/1/56 | BBB+/P |  | 3,125,000 | 2,378,578
(City of Orange Portfolio), 3.00%, 3/1/57 | BBB+/P |  | 550,000 | 395,339
(Jefferson-Anaheim), 2.875%, 8/1/41 | A−/P |  | 855,000 | 794,168
Hastings Campus HFA Rev. Bonds, (U. of CA Hastings College of the Law), Ser. A, 5.00%, 7/1/61 | BB−/P |  | 1,200,000 | 1,090,892
Palm Desert, Special Tax, (Cmnty. Fac. Dist. 2021-1), 4.00%, 9/1/41 | BB/P |  | 450,000 | 414,790
San Francisco, City & Cnty. Arpt. Comm. Intl. Arpt. Rev. Bonds, Ser. A |  |  |  |
4.00%, 5/1/49 | A1 |  | 7,420,000 | 6,957,905
4.00%, 5/1/49 (Prerefunded 5/1/29) | AA−/P |  | 80,000 | 80,884
San Francisco, City & Cnty. Dev. 144A Special Tax, (Dist. No. 2020-1 Mission Rock Fac. & Svcs.), Ser. A, 4.00%, 9/1/41 | B+/P |  | 500,000 | 475,441
Santa Clara Cnty., Fin. Auth. Rev. Bonds, Ser. Q, 3.00%, 5/15/34 | AA+ |  | 4,000,000 | 3,895,703
Sunnyvale, Special Tax Bonds, (Cmnty. Fac. Dist. No. 1), 7.75%, 8/1/32 | B+/P |  | 670,000 | 672,199
|  |  |  | 31,575,105
Colorado (2.9%)
Canyons Metro. G.O. Bonds, Ser. B, 6.50%, 12/1/54 | B−/P |  | 300,000 | 309,565
CO State Edl. & Cultural Auth. Rev. Bonds, (Aspen View Academy, Inc.) |  |  |  |
4.00%, 5/1/51 | Baa3 |  | 350,000 | 304,323
4.00%, 5/1/41 | Baa3 |  | 175,000 | 162,641
4.00%, 5/1/36 | Baa3 |  | 150,000 | 145,061
CO State Hlth. Fac. Auth. Hosp. Rev. Bonds, (Christian Living Neighborhood) |  |  |  |
5.00%, 1/1/37 | BB/P |  | 1,250,000 | 1,258,222
5.00%, 1/1/31 | BB/P |  | 500,000 | 504,763

30 Managed Municipal Income Trust

MUNICIPAL BONDS AND NOTES (134.9%)* cont. | Rating** |  | Principal amount | Value
Colorado cont.
Plaza, Tax Alloc. Bonds, (Metro. Dist. No. 1), 5.00%, 12/1/40 | A−/P |  | $1,650,000 | $1,642,901
RainDance Metro. Dist. No. 1 Rev. Bonds, (Non-Potable Wtr. Enterprise), 5.25%, 12/1/50 | BB+/P |  | 875,000 | 870,414
Rampart Range Metro. Distr. Rev. Bonds, (Dist. No. 5), 4.00%, 12/1/41 | BB−/P |  | 1,000,000 | 902,978
Sky Dance Metro. G.O. Bonds, Ser. A, 6.00%, 12/1/54 | B−/P |  | 375,000 | 376,401
Southlands, Metro. Dist. No. 1 G.O. Bonds, Ser. A-1, 5.00%, 12/1/37 | Ba1 |  | 500,000 | 501,829
Sterling Ranch Cmnty. Auth. Board Rev. Bonds |  |  |  |
(Metro. Dist. No. 4 Subdist. A), Ser. A, 6.50%, 12/1/54 | B/P |  | 1,000,000 | 1,038,755
(Metro. Dist. No. 2), Ser. A, 4.25%, 12/1/50 | BBB/P |  | 450,000 | 409,216
Trails at Crowfoot Metro. Dist. No. 3 G.O. Bonds, Ser. B, 6.875%, 12/15/52 | B−/P |  | 300,000 | 293,799
|  |  |  | 8,720,868
Connecticut (1.2%)
Harbor Point Infrastructure Impt. Dist. 144A Tax Alloc. Bonds, (Harbor Point Ltd.), 5.00%, 4/1/39 | BB/P |  | 3,500,000 | 3,527,619
|  |  |  | 3,527,619
Delaware (1.3%)
Bridgeville, 144A Special Tax Bonds, (Heritage Shores Special Dev. Dist.), 5.25%, 7/1/44 | BB+/P |  | 875,000 | 909,160
DE State Econ. Dev. Auth. Rev. Bonds |  |  |  |
(ASPIRA of Delaware Charter Operations, Inc.), Ser. A, 5.00%, 6/1/51 | BB |  | 1,035,000 | 1,019,981
(ASPIRA Charter School), Ser. A, 5.00%, 6/1/36 | BB |  | 705,000 | 711,268
Millsboro Special Oblig. 144A Special Tax, (Plantation Lakes), 5.25%, 7/1/48 | BB−/P |  | 998,000 | 979,195
Millsboro Special Oblig. 144A Tax Alloc. Bonds, (Plantation Lakes Special Dev. Dist.), 5.125%, 7/1/38 | BB−/P |  | 490,000 | 484,827
|  |  |  | 4,104,431
District of Columbia (6.3%)
DC G.O. Bonds, Ser. A, 5.00%, 1/1/45 | Aaa |  | 6,675,000 | 7,216,756
DC Rev. Bonds |  |  |  |
(Plenary Infrastructure DC, LLC), 5.50%, 8/31/36 | A3 |  | 1,365,000 | 1,549,153
(Plenary Infrastructure DC, LLC), 5.50%, 8/31/35 | A3 |  | 1,140,000 | 1,289,554
(Ingleside at Rock Creek), Ser. A, 5.00%, 7/1/52 | BB−/P |  | 1,000,000 | 944,182
(DC Intl. School), 5.00%, 7/1/49 | BBB |  | 1,275,000 | 1,288,721
(Latin American Montessori Bilingual Pub. Charter School Oblig. Group), 5.00%, 6/1/40 | BB+ |  | 2,500,000 | 2,530,236
(DC Intl. School), 5.00%, 7/1/39 | BBB |  | 400,000 | 412,110
(KIPP DC), 4.00%, 7/1/44 | BBB+ |  | 750,000 | 698,065
DC 144A Rev. Bonds, (Rocketship DC Oblig. Group), Ser. 21-A, 5.00%, 6/1/61 | BB/P |  | 400,000 | 380,681
DC Tobacco Settlement Fin. Corp. Rev. Bonds, Ser. A, zero %, 6/15/46 | B/P |  | 7,500,000 | 1,888,915
Metro. Washington DC, Arpt. Auth. Dulles Toll Rd. Rev. Bonds, (Dulles Metrorail & Cap. Impt. Proj.) 4.00%, 10/1/53 T | A− |  | 1,065,000 | 1,023,966
|  |  |  | 19,222,339

Managed Municipal Income Trust 31

MUNICIPAL BONDS AND NOTES (134.9%)* cont. | Rating** |  | Principal amount | Value
Florida (11.0%)
Cap. Trust Agcy. Rev. Bonds, (Wonderful Foundation Charter School Holdings, LLC), zero %, 1/1/60 | B/P |  | $6,000,000 | $485,682
Cap. Trust Agcy. 144A Rev. Bonds |  |  |  |
(WFCS Holdings II, LLC), Ser. A-1, 5.00%, 1/1/56 | BB−/P |  | 1,900,000 | 1,855,870
(Wonderful Foundation Charter School Holdings, LLC), 4.50%, 1/1/35 | BB−/P |  | 750,000 | 751,446
Central Parc Cmnty. Dev. Dist. 2024 Special Assmt. Bonds, 6.00%, 5/1/54 | BB/P |  | 750,000 | 756,536
Charlotte Cnty., Indl. Dev. Auth. Util. Syst. 144A Rev. Bonds, (MSKP Town & Country Util., LLC), Ser. A, 4.00%, 10/1/41 | B+/P |  | 1,000,000 | 900,883
FL State Dev. Fin Corp. Sr. Living Rev. Bonds, (Glenridge on Palmer Ranch Oblig. Group), 5.00%, 6/1/51 | BB/P |  | 700,000 | 681,891
FL State Dev. Fin. Corp. 144A Rev. Bonds, (SFP — Tampa I, LLC), Ser. A-1, 5.25%, 6/1/59 | BB+/F |  | 650,000 | 660,245
FL State Dev. Fin. Corp. Ed. Fac. 144A Rev. Bonds, (Drs. Kiran & Pallavi Patel 2017 Foundation for Global Understanding Inc.), 4.00%, 7/1/51 | BB/P |  | 500,000 | 430,726
FL State Dev. Fin. Corp. Hlth. Care Fac. Rev. Bonds, (Shands Jacksonville Med. Ctr.), 5.00%, 2/1/52 | Ba1 |  | 1,500,000 | 1,456,149
FL State Higher Edl. Fac. Financial Auth. Rev. Bonds |  |  |  |
(St. Leo U.), 5.00%, 3/1/44 | BB |  | 1,370,000 | 1,020,938
4.125%, 12/1/54 | A2 |  | 1,000,000 | 946,583
FL State Muni Loan Council Cap. Impt. Special Assmt. Bonds |  |  |  |
5.40%, 5/1/54 | A−/P |  | 825,000 | 820,255
5.15%, 5/1/44 | A−/P |  | 650,000 | 648,811
Halifax Hosp. Med. Ctr. Rev. Bonds, 5.00%, 6/1/36 | A− |  | 1,300,000 | 1,313,434
Hobe-St. Lucie Conservancy Dist. Special Assmt. Bonds, (Unit of Dev. No. 1A), 5.875%, 5/1/55 | BB−/P |  | 500,000 | 514,737
Lake Cnty., Retirement Fac. Rev. Bonds, (Waterman Cmnty., Inc.), 5.75%, 8/15/55 | B/P |  | 750,000 | 752,120
Lakewood Ranch, Stewardship Dist. Special Assessment Bonds, (Village of Lakewood Ranch South), 5.125%, 5/1/46 | B+/P |  | 740,000 | 742,061
Lakewood Ranch, Stewardship Dist. Special Assmt., (Azario), 4.00%, 5/1/40 | B+/P |  | 1,000,000 | 926,988
Lakewood Ranch, Stewardship Dist. Special Assmt. Bonds |  |  |  |
(Taylor Ranch), 6.30%, 5/1/54 | BB+/P |  | 1,140,000 | 1,202,886
Ser. 24, 5.25%, 5/1/44 ## | BBB−/P |  | 585,000 | 585,000
Lakewood Ranch, Stewardship Dist. 144A Special Assmt., 4.00%, 5/1/50 | B/P |  | 250,000 | 213,746
Lee Cnty., Indl. Dev. Auth. Rev. Bonds, (Shell Point), Ser. C, 5.00%, 11/15/54 | BBB+ |  | 1,200,000 | 1,238,223
Miami-Dade Cnty., Indl. Dev. Auth. Rev. Bonds, (Pinecrest Academy, Inc.), 5.00%, 9/15/34 | BBB |  | 1,240,000 | 1,240,086
Orange Cnty., Hlth. Fac. Auth. Rev. Bonds, (Orlando Hlth.), 4.00%, 10/1/52 | A+ |  | 2,570,000 | 2,413,210
Palm Beach Cnty., Rev. Bonds, (Lynn U. Hsg.), Ser. A, 5.00%, 6/1/57 | B+/P |  | 625,000 | 589,476

32 Managed Municipal Income Trust

MUNICIPAL BONDS AND NOTES (134.9%)* cont. | Rating** |  | Principal amount | Value
Florida cont.
Palm Beach Cnty., 144A Rev. Bonds, (PBAU Hsg.), Ser. A, 5.00%, 4/1/39 | Ba1 |  | $1,600,000 | $1,575,717
Pinellas Cnty., Indl. Dev. Auth. Rev. Bonds, (2017 Foundation for Global Understanding, Inc.), 5.00%, 7/1/39 | BBB+/P |  | 1,690,000 | 1,708,728
Sarasota Cnty., Hlth. Fac. Auth. Rev. Bonds, (Village on the Isle), Ser. A, 5.00%, 1/1/37 | BB+/F |  | 1,000,000 | 1,011,386
Sarasota Cnty., Pub. Hosp. Dist. Rev. Bonds, (Sarasota Memorial Hosp.), 4.00%, 7/1/48 | A1 |  | 1,500,000 | 1,411,278
St. John’s Cnty., Indl. Dev. Auth. Rev. Bonds, (Life Care Ponte Vedra Oblig. Group), Ser. A |  |  |  |
4.00%, 12/15/41 | BB+/F |  | 500,000 | 433,527
4.00%, 12/15/36 | BB+/F |  | 355,000 | 326,957
Tolomato, Cmnty. Dev. Dist. Special Assmt. Bonds, Ser. 24, 5.125%, 5/1/54 | BB/P |  | 525,000 | 509,935
Verandah, West Cmnty. Dev. Dist. Special Assmt. Bonds, (Cap. Impt.), 5.00%, 5/1/33 | B+/P |  | 450,000 | 450,220
Village Cmnty. Dev. Dist. No. 12 144A Special Assessment Bonds, 4.00%, 5/1/33 | BB−/P |  | 670,000 | 672,586
Village, 144A Special Assmt., (Village Cmnty. Dev. Dist. No. 13), 3.25%, 5/1/40 | BB−/P |  | 2,410,000 | 2,107,414
|  |  |  | 33,355,730
Georgia (5.8%)
Cobb Cnty., Dev. Auth. Student Hsg. Rev. Bonds, (Kennesaw State U. Real Estate) |  |  |  |
5.00%, 7/15/38 | Baa2 |  | 740,000 | 732,811
5.00%, 7/15/38 (Prerefunded 7/15/25) | AAA/P |  | 25,000 | 25,305
5.00%, 7/15/30 | Baa2 |  | 685,000 | 687,302
5.00%, 7/15/30 (Prerefunded 7/15/25) | AAA/P |  | 15,000 | 15,183
Cobb Cnty., Kennestone Hosp. Auth. Rev. Bonds, (WellStar Hlth. Syst.), 3.00%, 4/1/45 | A+ |  | 1,785,000 | 1,404,553
Coweta Cnty., Dev. Auth. Rev. Bonds, (Piedmont Healthcare, Inc.), 5.00%, 7/1/44 | AA− |  | 4,000,000 | 4,153,250
DeKalb Cnty., Dev. Auth. Rev. Bonds, (GLOBE Academy, Inc. (The)), Ser. A, 5.00%, 6/1/63 | Baa2 |  | 515,000 | 498,849
Gainesville and Hall Cnty., Hosp. Auth. Rev. Bonds, (Northeast GA Hlth. Syst.), 3.00%, 2/15/51 | A |  | 2,000,000 | 1,511,008
Geo L Smith II GA Congress Ctr. 144A Rev. Bonds, (Signia Hotel Mgt., LLC.), 5.00%, 1/1/54 | BB+/P |  | 2,980,000 | 2,810,436
Main Street Natural Gas, Inc. Gas Supply Mandatory Put Bonds (3/1/32), Ser. B, 5.00%, 12/1/54 | Aa1 |  | 2,200,000 | 2,356,832
Main Street Natural Gas, Inc. Gas Supply Rev. Bonds, Ser. A, 5.00%, 5/15/34 | A1 |  | 3,345,000 | 3,439,529
|  |  |  | 17,635,058
Illinois (8.7%)
Chicago, G.O. Bonds |  |  |  |
Ser. A, 5.50%, 1/1/49 | BBB+ |  | 1,000,000 | 1,027,641
Ser. A, 5.00%, 1/1/30 | BBB+ |  | 1,800,000 | 1,917,615
Ser. B, 4.00%, 1/1/38 | BBB+ |  | 2,747,000 | 2,690,033
Chicago, Special Assmt. |  |  |  |
3.38%, 12/1/31 | BBB/P |  | 341,000 | 318,732
3.04%, 12/1/28 | BBB/P |  | 241,000 | 231,598

Managed Municipal Income Trust 33

MUNICIPAL BONDS AND NOTES (134.9%)* cont. | Rating** |  | Principal amount | Value
Illinois cont.
Chicago, Board of Ed. G.O. Bonds |  |  |  |
Ser. C, 5.25%, 12/1/39 | BB+ |  | $1,500,000 | $1,500,083
Ser. A, 5.00%, 12/1/40 | BB+ |  | 500,000 | 505,627
Ser. H, 5.00%, 12/1/36 | BB+ |  | 2,100,000 | 2,118,090
Chicago, Midway Intl. Arpt. Rev. Bonds, Ser. C, 5.00%, 1/1/41 | A |  | 1,000,000 | 1,042,790
Chicago, O’Hare Intl. Arpt. Rev. Bonds, Ser. A, 5.00%, 1/1/38 | A+ |  | 700,000 | 722,446
Du Page Cnty., Special Svc. Area No. 31 Special Tax Bonds, (Monarch Landing), 5.625%, 3/1/36 | B/P |  | 262,000 | 261,155
IL State G.O. Bonds |  |  |  |
Ser. B, 5.25%, 5/1/40 | A3 |  | 2,100,000 | 2,274,874
Ser. A, 5.00%, 5/1/38 | A3 |  | 1,000,000 | 1,030,646
IL State Fin. Auth. Rev. Bonds |  |  |  |
(Plymouth Place Oblig. Group), 5.00%, 5/15/56 | BB+/F |  | 815,000 | 731,896
(Plymouth Place Oblig. Group), 5.00%, 5/15/51 | BB+/F |  | 1,000,000 | 916,283
(Plymouth Place Oblig. Group), 5.00%, 5/15/41 | BB+/F |  | 400,000 | 389,027
(Southern IL Healthcare Enterprises, Inc.), 5.00%, 3/1/33 | A− |  | 700,000 | 715,039
IL State Fin. Auth. Student Hsg. & Academic Fac. Rev. Bonds |  |  |  |
(CHF-Chicago, LLC), 5.00%, 2/15/47 | Baa3 |  | 1,500,000 | 1,507,301
(U. of IL-CHF-Chicago, LLC), Ser. A, 5.00%, 2/15/37 | Baa3 |  | 1,200,000 | 1,218,310
Metro. Pier & Exposition Auth. Rev. Bonds |  |  |  |
4.00%, 12/15/47 | A |  | 2,100,000 | 1,951,380
(McCormick Place Expansion), Ser. B, stepped-coupon zero % (4.95%, 6/15/31), 12/15/47 †† | A |  | 1,500,000 | 1,068,001
Northern IL U. Rev. Bonds, Ser. B, BAM, 4.00%, 4/1/39 | AA |  | 500,000 | 487,707
Sales Tax Securitization Corp. Rev. Bonds, Ser. A, 4.00%, 1/1/38 | AA− |  | 1,750,000 | 1,750,531
|  |  |  | 26,376,805
Indiana (0.2%)
IN State Fin. Auth. Student Hsg. Rev. Bonds, (CHF — Tippecanoe, LLC), 5.125%, 6/1/58 | BBB− |  | 500,000 | 511,350
|  |  |  | 511,350
Iowa (0.2%)
IA State Fin. Auth. Rev. Bonds, (Lifespace Cmnty., Inc.), Ser. B, 7.50%, 5/15/53 | BBB/F |  | 600,000 | 678,582
|  |  |  | 678,582
Kansas (0.1%)
Wyandotte, Cnty./Kansas City, Unified Govt. 144A Rev. Bonds, (Legends Apt. Garage & West Lawn), 4.50%, 6/1/40 | BB+/P |  | 315,000 | 309,256
|  |  |  | 309,256
Kentucky (0.3%)
KY Econ. Dev. Fin. Auth. Rev. Bonds, (Masonic Home Indpt. Living), 5.00%, 5/15/46 | BB/P |  | 1,000,000 | 832,443
KY State Econ. Dev. Fin. Auth. Rev. Bonds, (Owensboro Hlth.), Ser. A, 5.25%, 6/1/41 | Baa2 |  | 125,000 | 127,025
|  |  |  | 959,468

34 Managed Municipal Income Trust

MUNICIPAL BONDS AND NOTES (134.9%)* cont. | Rating** |  | Principal amount | Value
Louisiana (0.7%)
LA Pub. Fac. Auth. Rev. Bonds |  |  |  |
(Calcasieu River Bridge), 5.75%, 9/1/64 | Baa3 |  | $1,500,000 | $1,624,003
(U. of Tulane), 4.00%, 12/15/50 (Prerefunded 12/15/27) | AAA/P |  | 20,000 | 20,656
St. Tammany, Public Trust Fin. Auth. Rev. Bonds, (Christwood), 5.25%, 11/15/37 | BB/P |  | 385,000 | 379,634
|  |  |  | 2,024,293
Maine (0.2%)
ME State Fin. Auth. Solid Waste Disp. 144A Mandatory Put Bonds (8/1/25), (Casella Waste Syst.), 5.125%, 8/1/35 | B1 |  | 500,000 | 504,379
|  |  |  | 504,379
Maryland (1.6%)
Brunswick, Special Tax, 5.00%, 7/1/36 | B+/P |  | 548,000 | 554,291
Frederick Cnty., Special Tax Bonds, (Oakdale-Lake Linganore), 3.75%, 7/1/39 | A/P |  | 1,410,000 | 1,254,477
Frederick Cnty., Edl. Fac. 144A Rev. Bonds, (Mount St. Mary’s U.), Ser. A, 5.00%, 9/1/37 | BB+ |  | 500,000 | 500,881
MD State Econ. Dev. Corp. Tax Alloc. Bonds, (Port Covington) |  |  |  |
4.00%, 9/1/50 | B+/P |  | 750,000 | 634,843
4.00%, 9/1/40 | B+/P |  | 755,000 | 694,616
Prince Georges Cnty., Special Oblig. 144A Tax Alloc. Bonds, (Westphalia Town Ctr.), 5.125%, 7/1/39 | B/P |  | 1,000,000 | 1,005,563
Westminster, Rev. Bonds, (Lutheran Village at Miller’s Grant, Inc. (The)), Ser. A, 6.00%, 7/1/34 | BB+/P |  | 250,000 | 250,188
|  |  |  | 4,894,859
Massachusetts (1.4%)
Lowell, Collegiate Charter School Rev. Bonds |  |  |  |
5.00%, 6/15/54 | BB−/P |  | 1,250,000 | 1,242,278
5.00%, 6/15/39 | BB−/P |  | 1,000,000 | 1,006,909
MA State Dev. Fin. Agcy. Rev. Bonds, (Lasell U.), 4.00%, 7/1/40 | BB |  | 1,000,000 | 860,820
MA State Dev. Fin. Agcy. 144A Rev. Bonds, (CHF Merrimack, Inc.), 5.00%, 7/1/60 | BB |  | 1,000,000 | 1,012,193
MA State Dev. Fin. Agcy. Hlth. Care Fac. 144A Rev. Bonds, (Adventcare), Ser. A, 6.65%, 10/15/28 (In default) † | D/P |  | 995,000 | 100
|  |  |  | 4,122,300
Michigan (5.0%)
Detroit, G.O. Bonds |  |  |  |
5.00%, 4/1/37 | Baa2 |  | 750,000 | 774,217
(Fin. Recvy.), Ser. B-1, 4.00%, 4/1/44 | BB/P |  | 3,975,000 | 3,141,793
Flint, Hosp. Bldg. Auth. Rev. Bonds, Ser. A, 5.25%, 7/1/39 | Ba1 |  | 750,000 | 749,931
MI State Fin. Auth. Ltd. Oblig. Rev. Bonds, (Lawrence Technological U.), 5.00%, 2/1/47 | BBB− |  | 2,150,000 | 1,989,600
MI State Fin. Auth. Ltd. Oblig. Higher Ed. Fac. Rev. Bonds, (Aquinas College), 5.00%, 5/1/46 | BB/P |  | 500,000 | 408,796
MI State Hsg. Dev. Auth. Rev. Bonds, Ser. A, 2.73%, 10/1/59 | AA+ |  | 1,000,000 | 634,179

Managed Municipal Income Trust 35

MUNICIPAL BONDS AND NOTES (134.9%)* cont. | Rating** |  | Principal amount | Value
Michigan cont.
Pontiac City, G.O. Bonds, (Pontiac School Dist.), Q-SBLF |  |  |  |
4.00%, 5/1/45 T | Aa1 |  | $3,576,000 | $3,533,338
4.00%, 5/1/50 T | Aa1 |  | 4,023,000 | 3,841,040
|  |  |  | 15,072,894
Minnesota (1.0%)
Baytown Twp., Lease Rev. Bonds, Ser. A, 4.00%, 8/1/41 | BB+ |  | 380,000 | 344,443
Ham Lake, Charter School Lease Rev. Bonds, (DaVinci Academy of Arts & Science), Ser. A, 5.00%, 7/1/47 | BB−/P |  | 500,000 | 451,615
MN State Higher Ed. Fac. Auth. Rev. Bonds, (Augsburg U.), Ser. A, 5.00%, 5/1/46 | Ba1 |  | 1,250,000 | 1,148,142
St. Paul, Port Auth. Lease Rev. Bonds, (Regions Hosp. Pkg. Ramp), Ser. 1, 5.00%, 8/1/36 | A−/P |  | 965,000 | 965,498
|  |  |  | 2,909,698
Missouri (4.4%)
MI State Hlth. & Edl. Fac. Rev. Bonds, (U. of Hlth. Sciences & Pharmacy in St. Louis) |  |  |  |
4.00%, 5/1/43 | BB+ |  | 2,270,000 | 1,811,436
4.00%, 5/1/38 | BB+ |  | 900,000 | 770,333
MI State Hlth. & Edl. Fac. 144A Rev. Bonds, (U. of Hlth. Sciences & Pharmacy in St. Louis), 4.00%, 5/1/45 | BB+ |  | 1,900,000 | 1,478,449
MO State Hlth. & Edl. Fac. Auth. Hlth. Fac. Rev. Bonds, (Children’s Mercy Hosp.), Ser. A, 4.00%, 5/15/48 | AA− |  | 5,600,000 | 5,175,167
Saint Louis, Indl. Dev. Auth. Fin. Rev. Bonds, (Ballpark Village Dev.), Ser. A, 4.75%, 11/15/47 | BB−/P |  | 875,000 | 741,052
St. Louis Cnty., Indl. Dev. Auth. Sr. Living Fac. Rev. Bonds, (Friendship Village), 5.25%, 9/1/53 | BB+/F |  | 3,250,000 | 3,268,789
|  |  |  | 13,245,226
Nevada (1.4%)
Clark Cnty., Impt. Dist. No. 159 Special Assessment Bonds, (Summerlin Village 16A), 5.00%, 8/1/32 | B+/P |  | 385,000 | 387,833
Las Vegas, Special Assmt. Bonds |  |  |  |
(Dist. No. 815), 5.00%, 12/1/49 | B+/P |  | 605,000 | 575,110
(Special Impt. Dist. No. 816), 3.00%, 6/1/41 | BB+/P |  | 650,000 | 507,089
Las Vegas, Impt. Dist. No. 812 Special Assessment Bonds, (Summerlin Village 24), 5.00%, 12/1/35 | BBB−/P |  | 205,000 | 206,931
Las Vegas, Special Assmt. Dist. No. 817 Special Assmt. Bonds, (Summerlin Village 29) |  |  |  |
6.00%, 6/1/53 | BB−/P |  | 500,000 | 517,161
6.00%, 6/1/48 | BB−/P |  | 350,000 | 364,534
5.75%, 6/1/43 | BB−/P |  | 500,000 | 519,093
5.50%, 6/1/38 | BB−/P |  | 375,000 | 390,902
Las Vegas, Special Impt. Dist. No. 814 Special Assmt., (Summerlin Village No. 21 and 24A) |  |  |  |
4.00%, 6/1/44 | BBB/P |  | 600,000 | 516,269
4.00%, 6/1/39 | BBB/P |  | 420,000 | 382,980
|  |  |  | 4,367,902

36 Managed Municipal Income Trust

MUNICIPAL BONDS AND NOTES (134.9%)* cont. | Rating** |  | Principal amount | Value
New Hampshire (1.4%)
National Fin. Auth. Rev. Bonds, (NH Bus. Fin. Auth.) |  |  |  |
Ser. 24-3, Class A, 4.164%, 10/20/41 | A2 |  | $998,561 | $959,894
Ser. 2, 3.625%, 8/20/39 | A3 |  | 2,244,391 | 2,099,459
NH State Hlth. & Ed. Fac. Auth. Rev. Bonds |  |  |  |
(Elliot Hosp.), 5.00%, 10/1/38 | A3 |  | 250,000 | 253,268
(Southern NH Med. Ctr.), 5.00%, 10/1/37 | A− |  | 1,000,000 | 1,013,954
|  |  |  | 4,326,575
New Jersey (0.6%)
NJ State Econ. Dev. Auth. Rev. Bonds, (Ashland School, Inc.), 6.00%, 10/1/33 | BBB |  | 900,000 | 901,480
NJ State Econ. Dev. Auth. Fac. Rev. Bonds, (Continental Airlines, Inc.), 5.625%, 11/15/30 | Ba3 |  | 500,000 | 502,418
Passaic Cnty., Impt. Auth. Rev. Bonds, (Paterson Arts & Science Charter School), 5.50%, 7/1/58 | BBB− |  | 450,000 | 467,014
|  |  |  | 1,870,912
New Mexico (0.2%)
Sante Fe, Retirement Fac. Rev. Bonds, (El Castillo Retirement Residences), Ser. A, 5.00%, 5/15/39 | BB+/F |  | 500,000 | 511,593
|  |  |  | 511,593
New York (10.0%)
Metro. Trans. Auth. Rev. Bonds |  |  |  |
Ser. A, 5.50%, 11/15/47 | A3 |  | 4,000,000 | 4,441,914
Ser. C-1, 4.00%, 11/15/35 | A3 |  | 3,000,000 | 3,012,791
NY Counties, Tobacco Trust VI Rev. Bonds |  |  |  |
(Tobacco Settlement Pass Through), Ser. A-2B, 5.00%, 6/1/51 | BB+/P |  | 700,000 | 646,327
Ser. A-2B, 5.00%, 6/1/45 | BB+ |  | 3,000,000 | 2,816,402
NY State Liberty Dev. Corp. Rev. Bonds |  |  |  |
Ser. A, BAM, 3.00%, 11/15/51 | AA |  | 3,000,000 | 2,301,075
(4 World Trade Ctr.), 3.00%, 11/15/51 | A+ |  | 4,215,000 | 3,214,979
2.875%, 11/15/46 | A+ |  | 1,860,000 | 1,376,509
(Port Auth. of NY & NJ), Ser. 1WTC, 2.75%, 2/15/44 | AA− |  | 2,000,000 | 1,536,591
NY State Liberty Dev. Corp. 144A Rev. Bonds, (World Trade Ctr.), Class 2, 5.375%, 11/15/40 | BB−/P |  | 750,000 | 750,183
NY State Trans. Special Fac. Dev. Corp. Rev. Bonds, (Delta Air Lines, Inc.) |  |  |  |
5.625%, 4/1/40 | Baa3 |  | 1,000,000 | 1,074,310
5.00%, 10/1/40 | Baa3 |  | 1,250,000 | 1,290,469
NY State Urban Dev. Corp. Rev. Bonds, (Bidding Group 4), Ser. A, 3.00%, 3/15/50 | AA+ |  | 2,000,000 | 1,572,559
Oneida Indian Nation 144A Rev. Bonds, (Oneida Indian Nation of NY), Ser. A, 8.00%, 9/1/40 | BBB−/F |  | 1,000,000 | 993,596
Port Auth. of NY & NJ Rev. Bonds Ser. 218, 5.00%, 11/1/49 T | Aa3 |  | 2,460,000 | 2,579,212
Suffolk, Regl. Off-Track Betting Corp. Rev. Bonds, 6.00%, 12/1/53 | BB−/P |  | 2,000,000 | 2,083,409
Suffolk, Tobacco Asset Securitization Corp. Rev. Bonds, Ser. A-2, 4.00%, 6/1/50 | BBB+ |  | 800,000 | 732,729
|  |  |  | 30,423,055

Managed Municipal Income Trust 37

MUNICIPAL BONDS AND NOTES (134.9%)* cont. | Rating** |  | Principal amount | Value
North Carolina (1.2%)
NC State Med. Care Comm. Hlth. Care Fac. Rev. Bonds, (Lutheran Svcs. for the Aging, Inc. Oblig. Group), Ser. C, 4.00%, 3/1/36 | BBB/F |  | $2,320,000 | $2,251,886
NC State Med. Care Comm. Retirement Fac. Rev. Bonds |  |  |  |
(Maryfield, Inc. Oblig. Group), 5.00%, 10/1/45 | BB/P |  | 500,000 | 501,756
(Southminister, Inc.), 5.00%, 10/1/37 | BB/P |  | 965,000 | 970,209
|  |  |  | 3,723,851
North Dakota (1.2%)
Grand Forks, Hlth. Care Syst. Rev. Bonds, (Altru Hlth. Syst.), Ser. A, AGM |  |  |  |
5.00%, 12/1/53 | AA |  | 2,000,000 | 2,063,265
5.00%, 12/1/48 | AA |  | 350,000 | 363,655
Horace, G.O. Bonds, Ser. C, 4.75%, 5/1/44 | Baa3 |  | 1,100,000 | 1,090,951
|  |  |  | 3,517,871
Ohio (3.1%)
Buckeye, Tobacco Settlement Fin. Auth. Rev. Bonds |  |  |  |
Ser. B-2, Class 2, 5.00%, 6/1/55 | CCC/P |  | 470,000 | 425,064
Ser. A-2, Class 1, 3.00%, 6/1/48 | BBB+ |  | 1,300,000 | 967,841
Cleveland-Cuyahoga Cnty., Port Auth. Cultural Fac. Rev. Bonds, (Playhouse Square Foundation), 5.50%, 12/1/53 | BB+ |  | 1,500,000 | 1,518,490
Northeast Ohio Med. U. Rev. Bonds, Ser. A |  |  |  |
4.00%, 12/1/45 | Baa1 |  | 450,000 | 406,677
3.00%, 12/1/40 | Baa1 |  | 1,575,000 | 1,279,246
OH State Air Quality Dev. Auth. Exempt Fac. 144A Rev. Bonds, (Pratt Paper, LLC), 4.50%, 1/15/48 | BB+/P |  | 1,200,000 | 1,161,293
OH State Higher Edl. Fac. Comm. Rev. Bonds, 5.25%, 5/1/54 | Baa1 |  | 1,500,000 | 1,586,354
Port of Greater Cincinnati Dev. Auth. 144A Rev. Bonds, 4.25%, 12/1/50 | BB/P |  | 1,395,000 | 1,250,896
Southeastern OH Port Auth. Hosp. Fac. Rev. Bonds, (Memorial Hlth. Syst. Oblig. Group), 5.00%, 12/1/43 | B+/F |  | 150,000 | 135,704
Washington Cnty, Hosp. Rev. Bonds, (Marietta Area Hlth. Care, Inc.), 6.75%, 12/1/52 | B+/P |  | 500,000 | 548,124
|  |  |  | 9,279,689
Oregon (0.1%)
Multnomah Cnty., Hosp. Fac. Auth. Rev. Bonds, (Terwilliger Plaza, Inc.), 5.00%, 12/1/29 | BB+/F |  | 260,000 | 260,013
|  |  |  | 260,013
Pennsylvania (5.8%)
Allegheny Cnty., Hosp. Dev. Auth. Rev. Bonds, (Allegheny Hlth. Network Oblig. Group), Ser. A, 5.00%, 4/1/35 | A |  | 1,200,000 | 1,239,533
Chester Cnty., Indl. Dev. Auth. Rev. Bonds, (Collegium Charter School), Ser. A, 5.125%, 10/15/37 | BB |  | 750,000 | 754,870
Chester Cnty., Indl. Dev. Auth. Student Hsg. Rev. Bonds, (West Chester U. Student Hsg., LLC), Ser. A, 5.00%, 8/1/45 | Ba2 |  | 1,000,000 | 969,776
Cumberland Cnty., Muni. Auth. Rev. Bonds, (Asbury PA Obligated Group), 5.00%, 1/1/45 | BB+/P |  | 500,000 | 467,415

38 Managed Municipal Income Trust

MUNICIPAL BONDS AND NOTES (134.9%)* cont. | Rating** |  | Principal amount | Value
Pennsylvania cont.
Dallas, Area Muni. Auth. U. Rev. Bonds, (Misericordia U.), 5.00%, 5/1/48 | Baa3 |  | $2,040,000 | $1,875,629
Lancaster, Muni. Auth. Hlth. Care Fac. Rev. Bonds, (Garden Spot Village), Ser. A, 5.00%, 5/1/49 | BBB−/F |  | 900,000 | 935,888
Lehigh Cnty., General Purpose Auth. Rev. Bonds, (Muhlenberg College), 5.25%, 2/1/49 | A3 |  | 2,200,000 | 2,297,314
Lehigh Cnty., Indl. Dev. Auth. Charter School Rev. Bonds, (Seven Generations Charter School), 4.00%, 5/1/51 | BB |  | 1,000,000 | 807,522
Maxatawny Twp., Muni. Auth. Rev. Bonds, (Diakon Lutheran Social Ministries), Ser. A |  |  |  |
5.00%, 1/1/42 | BBB/F |  | 1,450,000 | 1,482,313
5.00%, 1/1/41 | BBB/F |  | 1,400,000 | 1,435,492
PA State Econ. Dev. Fin. Auth. Mandatory Put Bonds (6/1/27), (Talen Energy Supply, LLC), Ser. B, 5.25%, 12/1/37 | BB− |  | 500,000 | 506,348
PA State Econ. Dev. Fin. Auth. Rev. Bonds, (PennDOT Major Bridges), 6.00%, 6/30/61 | Baa2 |  | 1,000,000 | 1,094,345
Philadelphia, Auth. for Indl. Dev. 144A Rev. Bonds, (U. of Arts (The)) |  |  |  |
12.834%, 3/5/25 (In default) F † | D/P |  | 528,076 | 474,588
12.834%, 3/5/25 (In default) F † | D/P |  | 55,191 | 54,087
12.834%, 3/5/25 (In default) F † | D/P |  | 200,669 | 196,656
12.834%, 3/5/25 (In default) F † | D/P |  | 158,423 | 142,990
5.00%, 3/15/45 (In default) † | D/P |  | 2,582,526 | 1,549,516
5.00%, 3/15/45 (Prerefunded 3/15/28) (In default) † | D/P |  | 40,000 | 42,812
Philadelphia, Auth. For Indl. Dev. Multi-Fam. 144A Rev. Bonds, (University Sq. Apt.), 5.25%, 12/1/47 | BBB−/P |  | 1,300,000 | 1,254,440
|  |  |  | 17,581,534
Puerto Rico (4.5%)
Cmnwlth. of PR, G.O. Bonds, Ser. A-1 |  |  |  |
4.00%, 7/1/41 | BB−/P |  | 3,388,447 | 3,200,430
4.00%, 7/1/37 | BB−/P |  | 3,000,000 | 2,913,661
4.00%, 7/1/33 | BB−/P |  | 1,920,000 | 1,893,339
Cmnwlth. of PR, Sales Tax Fin. Corp. Rev. Bonds, Ser. A-1, 4.75%, 7/1/53 | BBB−/P |  | 4,700,000 | 4,667,767
PR, Elec. Pwr. Auth. Rev. Bonds, Ser. TT, 5.00%, 7/1/37 (In default) † | D/P |  | 2,500,000 | 1,075,000
|  |  |  | 13,750,197
South Carolina (5.2%)
Berkeley Cnty., Assmt. Rev. Bonds, (Nexton Impt. Dist.), 4.375%, 11/1/49 | BB−/P |  | 1,000,000 | 881,652
SC State Jobs Econ. Dev. Auth. Edl. Fac. 144A Rev. Bonds |  |  |  |
(High Point Academy), Ser. A, 5.75%, 6/15/49 | Ba1 |  | 1,000,000 | 1,002,493
(High Point Academy), Ser. A, 5.75%, 6/15/39 | Ba1 |  | 500,000 | 505,223
(Greenville Renewable Energy Ed. Charter School), 4.00%, 6/1/56 | BB/P |  | 1,020,000 | 729,164
SC State Jobs Econ. Dev. Auth. Hlth. Care Rev. Bonds, 5.75%, 11/15/54 | BB |  | 1,000,000 | 1,061,154

Managed Municipal Income Trust 39

MUNICIPAL BONDS AND NOTES (134.9%)* cont. | Rating** |  | Principal amount | Value
South Carolina cont.
SC State Public Svc Auth. Rev. Bonds Ser. B |  |  |  |
4.00%, 12/1/51 T | A2 |  | $3,000,000 | $2,761,890
4.00%, 12/1/42 T | A2 |  | 5,250,000 | 5,109,772
4.00%, 12/1/41 T | A2 |  | 4,000,000 | 3,858,200
|  |  |  | 15,909,548
South Dakota (0.4%)
Lincoln Cnty., Econ. Dev. Rev. Bonds, (Augustana College Assn. (The)), 4.00%, 8/1/51 | BBB− |  | 1,500,000 | 1,252,197
|  |  |  | 1,252,197
Tennessee (0.8%)
Metro. Govt. Nashville & Davidson Cnty., Hlth. & Edl. Fac. Board Rev. Bonds, (Blakeford at Green Hills), Ser. A, 4.00%, 11/1/55 | BBB−/F |  | 1,750,000 | 1,403,312
Metro. Nashville, Arpt. Auth. Rev. Bonds, Ser. B, 5.50%, 7/1/39 | A1 |  | 1,000,000 | 1,112,367
|  |  |  | 2,515,679
Texas (9.8%)
Arlington, Higher Ed. Fin. Corp. Rev. Bonds, (Wayside Schools), Ser. A, 4.00%, 8/15/41 | BB |  | 610,000 | 541,203
Arlington, Higher Ed. Fin. Corp. 144A Rev. Bonds |  |  |  |
(Magellan School (The)), 6.375%, 6/1/62 | Ba3 |  | 1,100,000 | 1,149,262
(BASIS TX Charter Schools, Inc.), 5.00%, 6/15/64 | Ba2 |  | 1,200,000 | 1,189,696
Clifton, Higher Ed. Fin. Corp. Ed. Rev. Bonds |  |  |  |
(Intl. Leadership), Ser. D, 6.125%, 8/15/48 | Baa3 |  | 2,500,000 | 2,533,420
(IDEA Pub. Schools), Ser. A, 4.00%, 8/15/51 | A− |  | 1,200,000 | 1,068,798
Dallas, Area Rapid Transit Sales Tax Rev. Bonds, Ser. A, 5.00%, 12/1/45 | AA+ |  | 7,000,000 | 7,357,999
Harris Cnty., Cultural Ed. Fac. Fin. Corp. Rev. Bonds |  |  |  |
(Brazos Presbyterian Homes, Inc.), 5.00%, 1/1/37 | BB+/F |  | 250,000 | 253,983
(YMCA of the Greater Houston Area), Ser. A, 5.00%, 6/1/33 | Ba1 |  | 1,000,000 | 990,338
Houston, Arpt. Syst. Rev. Bonds |  |  |  |
Ser. B-1, 5.00%, 7/15/35 | BB− |  | 2,500,000 | 2,507,038
(United Airlines, Inc.), 4.00%, 7/1/41 | BB−/F |  | 1,250,000 | 1,208,695
Matagorda Cnty., Poll. Control Rev. Bonds, (Dist. No. 1), Ser. A, AMBAC, 4.40%, 5/1/30 | BBB+ |  | 1,250,000 | 1,305,785
New Hope, Cultural Ed. Fac. Fin. Corp. Rev. Bonds, (Woman’s U.-Collegiate Hsg. Denton, LLC), Ser. A-1, AGM, 4.125%, 7/1/53 | AA |  | 1,000,000 | 921,664
San Antonio, Elec. & Gas Syst. Rev. Bonds, Ser. C, 5.50%, 2/1/49 | Aa2 |  | 5,000,000 | 5,609,435
Tarrant Cnty., Cultural Edl. Fac. Fin. Corp. Rev. Bonds, (Cumberland Rest, Inc. (The)), 5.00%, 10/1/49 | A−/F |  | 1,000,000 | 1,057,652
TX State Muni. Gas Acquisition & Supply Corp. III Rev. Bonds, 5.00%, 12/15/30 | A1 |  | 1,000,000 | 1,060,111
TX State Trans. Comm. Rev. Bonds, (State Hwy. 249 Sys.), Ser. A, zero %, 8/1/39 | Baa2 |  | 700,000 | 357,641
Uptown Dev. Auth. Tax Alloc. Bonds, (City of Houston Reinvestment Zone No. 16), 3.00%, 9/1/37 | Baa2 |  | 900,000 | 740,969
|  |  |  | 29,853,689

40 Managed Municipal Income Trust

MUNICIPAL BONDS AND NOTES (134.9%)* cont. | Rating** |  | Principal amount | Value
Utah (1.7%)
Black Desert Pub. Infrastructure Dist. 144A Special Assmt. Bonds, 5.625%, 12/1/53 | BB+/P |  | $1,300,000 | $1,333,243
Infrastructure Agcy. Telecomm. Rev. Bonds, 6.00%, 10/15/47 | BBB−/F |  | 1,350,000 | 1,484,364
MDA Mountain Village Pub. Infrastructure Dist. Special Assmt., Ser. A, 5.00%, 8/1/50 | B/P |  | 1,045,000 | 1,009,557
Mida Mountain Village Pub. Infrastructure Dist. 144A Special Assmt. Bonds, (Mountain Village Assmt. Area No. 2), 4.00%, 8/1/50 | B/P |  | 1,250,000 | 1,075,574
Skyridge Pegasus Infrastructure Fin. Dist. 144A Special Assmt. Bonds, 5.25%, 12/1/44 | B−/P |  | 300,000 | 296,356
|  |  |  | 5,199,094
Virginia (3.0%)
Cherry Hill Cmnty., Dev. Auth. 144A Special Assmt. Bonds, (Potomac Shores), 5.40%, 3/1/45 | B/P |  | 995,000 | 996,029
Farms of New Kent, Cmnty. Dev. Auth. 144A Special Assmt. Bonds, Ser. A, 3.75%, 3/1/36 | B+/P |  | 445,000 | 423,095
James City Cnty., Econ. Dev. Auth. Rev. Bonds |  |  |  |
(Williamsburg Landing), Ser. A, 4.00%, 12/1/50 | BB/P |  | 1,235,000 | 1,020,057
(VA United Methodist Homes, Inc. Oblig. Group), Ser. A, 4.00%, 6/1/47 | BB/P |  | 1,000,000 | 823,073
Lexington, Indl. Dev. Auth. Res. Care Fac. Rev. Bonds, (Lexington Retirement Cmnty.), 4.00%, 1/1/48 | BBB−/F |  | 1,310,000 | 1,181,333
Lower Magnolia Green Cmnty., Dev. Auth. 144A Special Assmt. Bonds, 5.00%, 3/1/35 | B/P |  | 460,000 | 458,008
Suffolk, Econ. Dev. Auth. Retirement Fac. Rev. Bonds, (United Church Homes & Svcs. Oblig. Group), 5.00%, 9/1/31 | BB/P |  | 500,000 | 501,267
VA State Small Bus. Fin. Auth. Hlth. Care Fac. Rev. Bonds, (Bon Secours Mercy Hlth., Inc.), 4.00%, 12/1/49 | A+ |  | 4,000,000 | 3,759,225
|  |  |  | 9,162,087
Washington (4.8%)
Grays Harbor Cnty., Pub. Hosp. Dist. No. 1 Rev. Bonds, 6.875%, 12/1/53 | BB+ |  | 3,000,000 | 3,343,847
Kalispel Tribe of Indians Priority Dist. Rev. Bonds, Ser. A, 5.25%, 1/1/38 | BB+/P |  | 750,000 | 773,752
Skagit Cnty., Pub. Hosp. Dist. No. 1 Rev. Bonds, 5.50%, 12/1/54 | Baa3 |  | 1,000,000 | 1,059,414
WA State Hsg. Fin. Comm. Rev. Bonds |  |  |  |
(Eastside Retirement Assn.), Ser. A, 5.00%, 7/1/48 | A−/F |  | 1,200,000 | 1,247,938
(Wesley Homes Lea Hill), 5.00%, 7/1/41 | B/P |  | 500,000 | 447,736
(Wesley Homes Lea Hill), 5.00%, 7/1/36 | B/P |  | 580,000 | 544,288
Ser. 1, Class A, 4.085%, 3/20/40 | A3 |  | 749,673 | 722,776
(Social Certif.), Ser. A-1, 3.50%, 12/20/35 | BBB+ |  | 104,502 | 98,407
Ser. 1, Class A, 3.375%, 4/20/37 | BBB+ |  | 3,174,672 | 2,866,963
WA State Hsg. Fin. Comm. 144A Rev. Bonds, (Presbyterian Retirement Cmnty. Northwest), Ser. A, 5.00%, 1/1/36 | BB/F |  | 1,175,000 | 1,176,352

Managed Municipal Income Trust 41

MUNICIPAL BONDS AND NOTES (134.9%)* cont. | Rating** |  | Principal amount | Value
Washington cont.
WA State Hsg. Fin. Comm. Nonprofit 144A Rev. Bonds |  |  |  |
(Seattle Academy of Arts & Sciences), 6.375%, 7/1/63 | BBB |  | $800,000 | $875,587
(Spokane Intl. Academy), Ser. A, 5.00%, 7/1/56 | Ba2 |  | 1,130,000 | 1,089,914
(Spokane Intl. Academy), Ser. A, 5.00%, 7/1/50 | Ba2 |  | 500,000 | 488,654
|  |  |  | 14,735,628
West Virginia (1.9%)
WV State Hosp. Fin. Auth. Rev. Bonds, (Vandalia Hlth., Inc.), Ser. B, 6.00%, 9/1/48 | Baa1 |  | 5,250,000 | 5,911,302
|  |  |  | 5,911,302
Wisconsin (8.4%)
Pub. Fin. Auth. Tax Alloc. Bonds, (Southeast Overtown Pk. West. Cmnty. Redev. Agcy.), 5.00%, 6/1/41 | B+/P |  | 625,000 | 641,333
Pub. Fin. Auth. 144A Rev. Bonds |  |  |  |
(WFCS Holdings, LLC), 5.00%, 1/1/55 | BB−/P |  | 1,700,000 | 1,661,045
(Roseman U. of Hlth. Sciences), 5.00%, 4/1/40 | BB |  | 1,085,000 | 1,118,670
Pub. Fin. Auth. Conference Ctr. & Hotel Rev. Bonds, (U. of NC Charlotte Foundation), Ser. A, 4.00%, 9/1/51 | BB+/P |  | 2,000,000 | 1,468,967
Pub. Fin. Auth. Ed. 144A Rev. Bonds, (North Carolina Leadership Academy), 5.00%, 6/15/54 | BB+/P |  | 910,000 | 852,620
Pub. Fin. Auth. Edl. Fac. Rev. Bonds, (Piedmont Cmnty. Charter School), 5.00%, 6/15/53 | Baa3 |  | 1,150,000 | 1,148,188
Pub. Fin. Auth. Exempt Fac. Rev. Bonds, (Celanese U.S. Holdings, LLC), Ser. C, 4.30%, 11/1/30 | Baa3 |  | 300,000 | 300,778
Pub. Fin. Auth. Multi-Fam Affordable Hsg. 144A Rev. Bonds, (Dominium Holdings I, LLC), Ser. 1, Class B-1, 6.81%, 4/28/36 | BBB−/P |  | 1,425,000 | 1,450,041
Pub. Fin. Auth. Multi-Fam. Hsg. 144A Rev. Bonds, (Promenade Apt.), 6.25%, 2/1/39 | BB−/P |  | 800,000 | 827,170
Pub. Fin. Auth. Pooled Charter School Certif. Rev. Bonds, Ser. 23-1, Class A, 5.75%, 7/1/62 | Aa3 |  | 2,146,936 | 2,256,180
Pub. Fin. Auth. Retirement Fac. 144A Rev. Bonds, (Southminster, Inc.), 5.00%, 10/1/48 | BB/F |  | 800,000 | 788,982
Pub. Fin. Auth. Student Hsg. Fac. 144A Rev. Bonds |  |  |  |
(CHF-Manoa, LLC), Ser. A, 5.75%, 7/1/63 | BBB− |  | 1,000,000 | 1,066,006
(UHF RISE Student Hsg., LLC), Ser. A-1, 4.00%, 7/1/61 | Ba1 |  | 600,000 | 491,305
WI Pub. Fin. Auth. Edl. Fac. Rev. Bonds, 5.00%, 2/1/54 | BBB− |  | 900,000 | 910,921
WI Pub. Fin. Auth. Hotel Rev. Bonds |  |  |  |
(Grand Hyatt), 5.00%, 2/1/62 | BBB− |  | 800,000 | 807,756
(Grand Hyatt Sanitary), 5.00%, 2/1/52 | BBB− |  | 1,500,000 | 1,522,543
WI Pub. Fin. Auth. Hotel 144A Rev. Bonds, (Grand Hyatt), 6.00%, 2/1/62 | BB−/P |  | 1,000,000 | 1,057,693
WI State Hlth. & Edl. Fac. Auth. Rev. Bonds |  |  |  |
(PHW Menomonee Falls, Inc.), 6.125%, 10/1/59 | BB−/P |  | 300,000 | 308,624
(Oakwood Lutheran Sr. Ministries Oblig. Group), 4.00%, 1/1/57 | BB/P |  | 650,000 | 532,220

42 Managed Municipal Income Trust

MUNICIPAL BONDS AND NOTES (134.9%)* cont. | Rating** |  | Principal amount | Value
Wisconsin cont.
WI State Hlth. & Edl. Fac. Auth. Rev. Bonds |  |  |  |
(St. John’s Communities, Inc.), 4.00%, 9/15/45 | BBB/F |  | $1,150,000 | $1,028,099
(St. John’s Communities, Inc.), 4.00%, 9/15/41 | BBB/F |  | 270,000 | 251,121
(Froedtert Health, Inc.), Ser. A, 4.00%, 4/1/41 | AA |  | 4,000,000 | 3,878,027
WI State Pub. Fin. Auth Sr. Living 144A Rev. Bonds, (Mary’s Woods at Marylhurst), Ser. A, 5.25%, 5/15/37 | BB/F |  | 380,000 | 385,121
WI State Pub. Fin. Auth. 144A Rev. Bonds, (Church Home of Hartford, Inc.), Ser. A, 5.00%, 9/1/30 | BB/F |  | 945,000 | 945,455
|  |  |  | 25,698,865
Total municipal bonds and notes (cost $410,976,159) | $410,170,885

SHORT-TERM INVESTMENTS (1.2%)* | Principal amount/ shares | Value
Putnam Short Term Investment Fund Class P 4.95% L | Shares | 3,560,890 | $3,560,890
U.S. Treasury Bills 4.628%, 1/16/25 # |  | $200,000 | 198,120
Total short-term investments (cost $3,758,983) | $3,759,010

TOTAL INVESTMENTS
Total investments (cost $414,735,142) | $413,929,895

Notes to the fund’s portfolio
| Unless noted otherwise, the notes to the fund’s portfolio are for the close of the fund’s reporting period, which ran from November 1, 2023 through October 31, 2024 (the reporting period). Within the following notes to the portfolio, references to “Franklin Advisers” represent Franklin Advisers, Inc., the fund’s investment manager, a direct wholly-owned subsidiary of Franklin Resources, Inc., and references to “ASC 820” represent Accounting Standards Codification 820 Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures.
* | Percentages indicated are based on net assets of $304,154,946.
** | The Moody’s, Standard & Poor’s or Fitch ratings indicated are believed to be the most recent ratings available at the close of the reporting period for the securities listed. Ratings are generally ascribed to securities at the time of issuance. While the agencies may from time to time revise such ratings, they undertake no obligation to do so, and the ratings do not necessarily represent what the agencies would ascribe to these securities at the close of the reporting period. Securities rated by Fitch are indicated by “/F.” Securities rated by Putnam are indicated by “/P.” The Putnam rating categories are comparable to the Standard & Poor’s classifications. If a security is insured, it will usually be rated by the ratings organizations based on the financial strength of the insurer. Ratings are not covered by the Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm. For further details regarding security ratings, please see the Statement of Additional Information.
† | This security is non-income-producing.
†† | The interest rate and date shown parenthetically represent the new interest rate to be paid and the date the fund will begin accruing interest at this rate.
# | This security, in part or in entirety, was pledged and segregated with the broker to cover margin requirements for futures contracts at the close of the reporting period. Collateral at period end totaled $97,049 and is included in Investments in securities on the Statement of assets and liabilities (Notes 1 and 9).
## | Forward commitment, in part or in entirety (Note 1).
F | This security is valued by Franklin Advisers at fair value following procedures approved by the Trustees. Securities are classified as Level 3 for ASC 820 based on the securities’ valuation inputs (Note 1).
L | Affiliated company (Note 6). The rate quoted in the security description is the annualized 7-day yield of the fund at the close of the reporting period.
T | Underlying security in a tender option bond transaction. This security has been segregated as collateral for financing transactions.

Managed Municipal Income Trust 43

| Unless otherwise noted, the rates quoted in Short-term investments security descriptions represent the weighted average yield to maturity.
| 144A after the name of an issuer represents securities exempt from registration under Rule 144A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. These securities may be resold in transactions exempt from registration, normally to qualified institutional buyers.
| On Mandatory Put Bonds, the rates shown are the current interest rates at the close of the reporting period and the dates shown represent the next mandatory put dates. Rates are set by remarketing agents and may take into consideration market supply and demand, credit quality and the current Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA) Municipal Swap Index, US Secured Overnight Financing Rate (SOFR), Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) Term SOFR 3 Month or CME Term SOFR 6 Month rates, which were 3.24%, 4.90%, 4.56%, and 4.41%, respectively, as of the close of the reporting period.
| The dates shown parenthetically on prerefunded bonds represent the next prerefunding dates.
| The dates shown on debt obligations are the original maturity dates.
| The fund had the following sector concentrations greater than 10% at the close of the reporting period (as a percentage of net assets):
| Healthcare | 29.4%
| Education | 28.7
| Land | 12.9
| Transportation | 10.3

FUTURES CONTRACTS OUTSTANDING at 10/31/24
| Number of contracts | Notional amount | Value | Expiration date | Unrealized appreciation
U.S. Treasury Bond Ultra 30 yr (Short) | 13 | $1,633,125 | $1,633,125 | Dec-24 | $110,883
Unrealized appreciation |  |  |  | 110,883
Unrealized (depreciation) |  |  |  | —
Total | $110,883

ASC 820 establishes a three-level hierarchy for disclosure of fair value measurements. The valuation hierarchy is based upon the transparency of inputs to the valuation of the fund’s investments. The three levels are defined as follows:

Level 1: Valuations based on quoted prices for identical securities in active markets.

Level 2: Valuations based on quoted prices in markets that are not active or for which all significant inputs are observable, either directly or indirectly.

Level 3: Valuations based on inputs that are unobservable and significant to the fair value measurement.

The following is a summary of the inputs used to value the fund’s net assets as of the close of the reporting period:

|  | Valuation inputs
Investments in securities: | Level 1 | Level 2 | Level 3
Municipal bonds and notes | $— | $409,302,564 | $868,321
Short-term investments | — | 3,759,010 | —
Totals by level | $— | $413,061,574 | $868,321

|  | Valuation inputs
Other financial instruments: | Level 1 | Level 2 | Level 3
Futures contracts | $110,883 | $— | $—
Totals by level | $110,883 | $— | $—

At the start and close of the reporting period, Level 3 investments in securities represented less than 1% of the fund’s net assets and were not considered a significant portion of the fund’s portfolio.

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.

44 Managed Municipal Income Trust

Statement of assets and liabilities 10/31/24

ASSETS |
Investment in securities, at value (Notes 1 and 9): |
Unaffiliated issuers (identified cost $411,174,252) | $410,369,005
Affiliated issuers (identified cost $3,560,890) (Note 6) | 3,560,890
Interest and other receivables | 5,995,284
Receivable for investments sold | 82,041
Prepaid assets | 3,984
Total assets | 420,011,204
LIABILITIES |
Payable for investments purchased | 872,692
Payable for purchases of delayed delivery securities (Note 1) | 585,000
Payable for shares of the fund repurchased | 163,415
Payable for compensation of Manager (Note 2) | 864,990
Payable for custodian fees (Note 2) | 8,773
Payable for investor servicing fees (Note 2) | 51,818
Payable for Trustee compensation and expenses (Note 2) | 126,306
Payable for administrative services (Note 2) | 985
Payable for floating rate notes issued (Note 1) | 12,384,788
Payable for variation margin on futures contracts (Note 1) | 812
Distributions payable to shareholders | 1,159,836
Distributions payable to preferred shareholders (Note 1) | 101,593
Preferred share remarketing agent fees | 68,303
Other accrued expenses | 116,947
Total liabilities | 16,506,258
Series A remarketed preferred shares: (240 shares authorized and issued at $100,000 per |
share) (Note 4) | 24,000,000
Series C remarketed preferred shares: (1,507 shares authorized and issued at $50,000 per |
share) (Note 4) | 75,350,000
Net assets | $304,154,946
REPRESENTED BY |
Paid-in capital — common shares (Unlimited shares authorized) (Notes 1 and 5) | $330,096,272
Total distributable earnings (Note 1) | (25,941,326)
Total — Representing net assets applicable to common shares outstanding | $304,154,946
COMPUTATION OF NET ASSET VALUE |
Net asset value per common share |
($304,154,946 divided by 44,662,731 shares) | $6.81

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.

Managed Municipal Income Trust 45

Statement of operations Year ended 10/31/24

INVESTMENT INCOME |
Interest (including interest income of $256,397 from investments in affiliated issuers) (Note 6) | $19,265,125
Total investment income | 19,265,125
EXPENSES |
Compensation of Manager (Note 2) | 2,243,732
Investor servicing fees (Note 2) | 153,937
Custodian fees (Note 2) | 16,293
Trustee compensation and expenses (Note 2) | 14,441
Administrative services (Note 2) | 7,776
Interest and fees expense (Note 1) | 613,329
Preferred share remarketing agent fees | 151,511
Other | 381,971
Fees waived and reimbursed by Manager (Note 2) | (549,217)
Total expenses | 3,033,773
Expense reduction (Note 2) | (1,300)
Net expenses | 3,032,473
Net investment income | 16,232,652
REALIZED AND UNREALIZED GAIN (LOSS) |
Net realized loss on: |
Securities from unaffiliated issuers (Notes 1 and 3) | (5,236,598)
Futures contracts (Note 1) | (399,328)
Swap contracts (Note 1) | (56,000)
Total net realized loss | (5,691,926)
Change in net unrealized appreciation on: |
Securities from unaffiliated issuers | 56,285,600
Futures contracts | 110,883
Swap contracts | 214,306
Total change in net unrealized appreciation | 56,610,789
Net gain on investments | 50,918,863
Net increase in net assets resulting from operations | 67,151,515
Distributions to Series A and C remarketed preferred shareholders (Note 1): |
From ordinary income |
Taxable net investment income | (15,133)
From tax exempt net investment income | (5,863,725)
Net increase in net assets resulting from operations (applicable to common shareholders) | $61,272,657

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.

46 Managed Municipal Income Trust

Statement of changes in net assets

INCREASE (DECREASE) IN NET ASSETS | Year ended 10/31/24 | Year ended 10/31/23
Operations |  |
Net investment income | $16,232,652 | $15,571,536
Net realized loss on investments | (5,691,926) | (13,224,869)
Change in net unrealized appreciation of investments | 56,610,789 | 9,995,743
Net increase in net assets resulting from operations | 67,151,515 | 12,342,410
Distributions to Series A and C remarketed preferred |  |
shareholders (Note 1): |  |
From ordinary income |  |
Taxable net investment income | (15,133) | (8,043)
From tax exempt net investment income | (5,863,725) | (5,429,673)
Net increase in net assets resulting from operations |  |
(applicable to common shareholders) | 61,272,657 | 6,904,694
Distributions to common shareholders (Note 1): |  |
From ordinary income |  |
Taxable net investment income | (565,080) | (742,130)
From tax exempt net investment income | (9,207,468) | (8,760,917)
From return of capital | (3,296,993) | (6,271,969)
Increase from issuance of common shares in connection |  |
with reinvestment of distributions | — | 260,630
Decrease from shares repurchased (Note 5) | (14,902,031) | (9,795,449)
Total increase (decrease) in net assets | 33,301,085 | (18,405,141)
NET ASSETS |  |
Beginning of year | 270,853,861 | 289,259,002
End of year | $304,154,946 | $270,853,861
NUMBER OF FUND SHARES |  |
Common shares outstanding at beginning of year | 47,098,000 | 48,738,809
Shares issued in connection with dividend |  |
reinvestment plan | — | 39,845
Shares repurchased (Note 5) | (2,435,269) | (1,680,654)
Common shares outstanding at end of year | 44,662,731 | 47,098,000
Series A Remarketed preferred shares outstanding at |  |
beginning and end of year | 240 | 240
Series C Remarketed preferred shares outstanding at |  |
beginning and end of year | 1,507 | 1,507

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.

Managed Municipal Income Trust 47

Financial highlights
(For a common share outstanding throughout the period)

PER-SHARE OPERATING PERFORMANCE |  |  |  |  |
|  |  | Year ended |  |
| 10/31/24 | 10/31/23 | 10/31/22 | 10/31/21 | 10/31/20
Net asset value, beginning of period |  |  |  |  |
(common shares) | $5.75 | $5.94 | $8.19 | $7.91 | $8.15
Investment operations: |  |  |  |  |
Net investment income a | .35 | .32 | .30 | .31 | .33
Net realized and unrealized |  |  |  |  |
gain (loss) on investments | 1.10 | (.09) | (2.13) | .35 | (.17)
Total from investment operations | 1.45 | .23 | (1.83) | .66 | .16
Distributions to preferred shareholders: |  |  |  |  |
From net investment income | (.13) | (.11) | (.03) | —f | (.02)
From capital gains | — | — | —f | — | (.01)
Total from investment operations |  |  |  |  |
(applicable to common shareholders) | 1.32 | .12 | (1.86) | .66 | .13
Distributions to common shareholders: |  |  |  |  |
From net investment income | (.22) | (.20) | (.29) | (.32) | (.33)
From capital gains | — | — | (.03) | (.06) | (.05)
From return of capital | (.07) | (.13) | (.07) | — | —
Total distributions | (.29) | (.33) | (.39) | (.38) | (.38)
Increase from shares repurchased b | .03 | .02 | — f | — | .01
Net asset value, end of period |  |  |  |  |
(common shares) | $6.81 | $5.75 | $5.94 | $8.19 | $7.91
Market price, end of period |  |  |  |  |
(common shares) | $6.28 | $5.14 | $5.75 | $8.25 | $7.64
Total return at market price (%) |  |  |  |  |
(common shares)c | 27.95 | (5.69) | (26.35) | 13.11 | 0.77
Total return at net asset value (%) |  |  |  |  |
(common shares)c | 23.58 | 1.87 | (23.46) | 8.44 | 1.93
RATIOS AND SUPPLEMENTAL DATA |  |  |  |  |
Net assets, end of period |  |  |  |  |
(common shares) (in thousands) | $304,155 | $270,854 | $289,259 | $401,053 | $386,602
Ratio of expenses to average |  |  |  |  |
net assets (including interest |  |  |  |  |
expense) (%)d,e,g | .98h | 1.21h | 1.09h | .93 | .98h
Ratio of net investment income |  |  |  |  |
to average net assets (%)d | 3.36h | 3.27h | 3.75h | 3.73 | 3.92h
Portfolio turnover (%) | 20 | 45 | 24 | 21 | 38

(Continued on next page)

48 Managed Municipal Income Trust

Financial highlights cont.

a Per share net investment income has been determined on the basis of the weighted average number of shares outstanding during the period.

b See Note 5.

c Total return assumes dividend reinvestment.

d Ratios reflect net assets available to common shares only; net investment income ratio also reflects reduction for dividend payments to preferred shareholders.

e Includes amounts paid through expense offset arrangements, if any (Note 2).

f Amount represents less than $0.01 per share.

g Includes interest and fee expense associated with borrowings which amounted to the following amounts as a percentage of average net assets:

| Percentage of average net assets
October 31, 2024 | 0.20%
October 31, 2023 | 0.35
October 31, 2022 | 0.18
October 31, 2021 | 0.05
October 31, 2020 | 0.09

h Reflects waiver of certain fund expenses in connection with the fund’s remarketing preferred shares during the period. As a result of such waiver, the expenses of the fund reflect a reduction as a percentage of average net assets for the periods noted below (Note 2):

| Percentage of average net assets
October 31, 2024 | 0.18%
October 31, 2023 | 0.18
October 31, 2022 | 0.01
October 31, 2020 | >0.01

Managed Municipal Income Trust 49

Notes to financial statements 10/31/24

Unless otherwise noted, the “reporting period” represents the period from November 1, 2023 through October 31, 2024. The following table defines commonly used references within the Notes to financial statements:

References to | Represent
1940 Act | Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended
Franklin Advisers | Franklin Advisers, Inc., a direct wholly-owned subsidiary of Franklin Templeton, and the fund’s
| investment manager for periods on or after July 15, 2024
Franklin Distributors | Franklin Distributors, LLC, an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Franklin Templeton, and the
| fund’s distributor and principal underwriter for periods on or after August 2, 2024
Franklin Templeton | Franklin Resources, Inc.
Franklin Templeton | Franklin Templeton Services, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Franklin Templeton
Services |
OTC | Over-the-counter
PIL | Putnam Investments Limited, an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Franklin Templeton
PSERV | Putnam Investor Services, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Franklin Templeton
Putnam Management | Putnam Investment Management, LLC, an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Franklin
| Templeton, and the fund’s investment manager for periods prior to July 15, 2024
Putnam Retail | Putnam Retail Management Limited Partnership, an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of
Management | Franklin Templeton, and the fund’s distributor and principal underwriter for periods prior to
| August 2, 2024
SEC | Securities and Exchange Commission
State Street | State Street Bank and Trust Company

Putnam Managed Municipal Income Trust (the fund) is a Massachusetts business trust, which is registered under the 1940 Act as a diversified closed-end management investment company. The goal of the fund is to seek a high level of current income exempt from federal income tax. The fund intends to achieve its goal by investing in a diversified portfolio of tax-exempt municipal securities which Putnam Management believes does not involve undue risk to income or principal. Up to 60% of the fund’s assets may consist of high-yield tax-exempt municipal securities that are below investment grade and involve special risk considerations. The fund also uses leverage, primarily by issuing preferred shares in an effort to enhance the returns for the common shareholders.

The fund’s shares trade on a stock exchange at market prices, which may be lower than the fund’s net asset value.

In the normal course of business, the fund enters into contracts that may include agreements to indemnify another party under given circumstances. The fund’s maximum exposure under these arrangements is unknown as this would involve future claims that may be, but have not yet been, made against the fund. However, the fund’s management team expects the risk of material loss to be remote.

The fund has entered into contractual arrangements with an investment adviser, administrator, transfer agent and custodian, who each provide services to the fund. Unless expressly stated otherwise, shareholders are not parties to, or intended beneficiaries of these contractual arrangements, and these contractual arrangements are not intended to create any shareholder right to enforce them against the service providers or to seek any remedy under them against the service providers, either directly or on behalf of the fund.

Under the fund’s Agreement and Declaration of Trust, any claims asserted by a shareholder against or on behalf of the fund, including claims against Trustees and Officers, must be brought in courts located within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Note 1: Significant accounting policies

The fund follows the accounting and reporting guidance in Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Accounting Standards Codification Topic 946, Financial Services – Investment Companies (ASC 946) and applies the specialized accounting and reporting guidance in U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (U.S. GAAP), including, but not limited to, ASC 946. The following is a summary of significant accounting policies consistently followed by the fund in the preparation of its financial statements. The preparation of financial statements is in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America and requires

50 Managed Municipal Income Trust

management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities in the financial statements and the reported amounts of increases and decreases in net assets from operations. Actual results could differ from those estimates. Subsequent events after the Statement of assets and liabilities date through the date that the financial statements were issued have been evaluated in the preparation of the financial statements.

Security valuation Portfolio securities and other investments are valued using policies and procedures adopted by the Board of Trustees (Trustees). The Trustees have formed a Pricing Committee to oversee the implementation of these procedures. Under compliance policies and procedures approved by the Trustees, the Trustees have designated the fund’s investment manager as the valuation designee and has responsibility for oversight of valuation. The investment manager is assisted by the fund’s administrator in performing this responsibility, including leading the cross-functional Valuation Committee (VC). The VC is responsible for making fair value determinations, evaluating the effectiveness of the pricing policies of the fund and reporting to the Trustees.

Tax-exempt bonds and notes are generally valued on the basis of valuations provided by an independent pricing service approved by the Trustees. Such services use information with respect to transactions in bonds, quotations from bond dealers, market transactions in comparable securities and various relationships between securities in determining value. These securities will generally be categorized as Level 2.

Market quotations are not considered to be readily available for certain debt obligations (including short-term investments with remaining maturities of 60 days or less) and other investments; such investments are valued on the basis of valuations furnished by an independent pricing service approved by the Trustees or dealers selected by the fund’s investment manager. Such services or dealers determine valuations for normal institutional-size trading units of such securities using methods based on market transactions for comparable securities and various relationships, generally recognized by institutional traders, between securities (which consider such factors as security prices, yields, maturities and ratings). These securities will generally be categorized as Level 2. Securities quoted in foreign currencies, if any, are translated into U.S. dollars at the current exchange rate.

Investments in open-end investment companies (excluding exchange-traded funds), if any, which can be classified as Level 1 or Level 2 securities, are valued based on their net asset value. The net asset value of such investment companies equals the total value of their assets less their liabilities and divided by the number of their outstanding shares.

To the extent a pricing service or dealer is unable to value a security or provides a valuation that the fund’s investment manager does not believe accurately reflects the security’s fair value, the security will be valued at fair value by the fund’s investment manager, which has been designated as valuation designee pursuant to Rule 2a–5 under the 1940 Act, in accordance with policies and procedures approved by the Trustees. Certain investments, including certain restricted and illiquid securities and derivatives, are also valued at fair value following procedures approved by the Trustees. These valuations consider such factors as significant market or specific security events such as interest rate or credit quality changes, various relationships with other securities, discount rates, U.S. Treasury, U.S. swap and credit yields, index levels, convexity exposures, recovery rates, sales and other multiples and resale restrictions. These securities are classified as Level 2 or as Level 3 depending on the priority of the significant inputs.

To assess the continuing appropriateness of fair valuations, the Valuation Committee reviews and affirms the reasonableness of such valuations on a regular basis after considering all relevant information that is reasonably available. Such valuations and procedures are reviewed periodically by the Trustees. The fair value of securities is generally determined as the amount that the fund could reasonably expect to realize from an orderly disposition of such securities over a reasonable period of time. By its nature, a fair value price is a good faith estimate of the value of a security in a current sale and does not reflect an actual market price, which may be different by a material amount.

Security transactions and related investment income Security transactions are recorded on the trade date (the date the order to buy or sell is executed). Gains or losses on securities sold are determined on the identified cost basis.

Securities purchased or sold on a forward commitment or delayed delivery basis may be settled at a future date beyond customary settlement time; interest income is accrued based on the terms of the securities. Losses may arise due to changes in the fair value of the underlying securities or if the counterparty does not perform under the contract.

Interest income, net of any applicable withholding taxes, if any, is recorded on the accrual basis. Amortization and accretion of premiums and discounts on debt securities, if any, is recorded on the accrual basis.

Managed Municipal Income Trust 51

Futures contracts The fund uses futures contracts for hedging treasury term structure risk and for yield curve positioning.

The potential risk to the fund is that the change in value of futures contracts may not correspond to the change in value of the hedged instruments. In addition, losses may arise from changes in the value of the underlying instruments, if there is an illiquid secondary market for the contracts, if interest or exchange rates move unexpectedly or if the counterparty to the contract is unable to perform. With futures, there is minimal counterparty credit risk to the fund since futures are exchange traded and the exchange’s clearinghouse, as counterparty to all exchange traded futures, guarantees the futures against default. Risks may exceed amounts recognized on the Statement of assets and liabilities. When the contract is closed, the fund records a realized gain or loss equal to the difference between the value of the contract at the time it was opened and the value at the time it was closed.

Futures contracts are valued at the quoted daily settlement prices established by the exchange on which they trade. The fund and the broker agree to exchange an amount of cash equal to the daily fluctuation in the value of the futures contract. Such receipts or payments are known as “variation margin.”

Futures contracts outstanding at period end, if any, are listed after the fund’s portfolio.

Total return swap contracts The fund entered into OTC and/or centrally cleared total return swap contracts, which are arrangements to exchange a market-linked return for a periodic payment, both based on a notional principal amount, for hedging inflation, for gaining exposure to inflation and for hedging and gaining exposure to interest rate and term structure risk.

To the extent that the total return of the security, index or other financial measure underlying the transaction exceeds or falls short of the offsetting interest rate obligation, the fund will receive a payment from or make a payment to the counterparty. OTC and/or centrally cleared total return swap contracts are marked to market daily based upon quotations from an independent pricing service or market maker. Any change is recorded as an unrealized gain or loss on OTC total return swaps. Daily fluctuations in the value of centrally cleared total return swaps are settled through a central clearing agent and are recorded in variation margin on the Statement of assets and liabilities and recorded as unrealized gain or loss. Payments received or made are recorded as realized gains or losses. Certain OTC and/or centrally cleared total return swap contracts may include extended effective dates. Payments related to these swap contracts are accrued based on the terms of the contract. The fund could be exposed to credit or market risk due to unfavorable changes in the fluctuation of interest rates or in the price of the underlying security or index, the possibility that there is no liquid market for these agreements or that the counterparty may default on its obligation to perform. The fund’s maximum risk of loss from counterparty risk or central clearing risk is the fair value of the contract. This risk may be mitigated for OTC total return swap contracts by having a master netting arrangement between the fund and the counterparty and for centrally cleared total return swap contracts through the daily exchange of variation margin. There is minimal counterparty risk with respect to centrally cleared total return swap contracts due to the clearinghouse guarantee fund and other resources that are available in the event of a clearing member default. Risk of loss may exceed amounts recognized on the Statement of assets and liabilities.

OTC and/or centrally cleared total return swap contracts outstanding, including their respective notional amounts at period end, if any, are listed after the fund’s portfolio.

Master agreements The fund is a party to ISDA (International Swaps and Derivatives Association, Inc.) Master Agreements (Master Agreements) with certain counterparties that govern OTC derivative and foreign exchange contracts entered into from time to time. The Master Agreements may contain provisions regarding, among other things, the parties’ general obligations, representations, agreements, collateral requirements, events of default and early termination. With respect to certain counterparties, in accordance with the terms of the Master Agreements, collateral pledged to the fund is held in a segregated account by the fund’s custodian and, with respect to those amounts which can be sold or repledged, is presented in the fund’s portfolio.

Collateral pledged by the fund is segregated by the fund’s custodian and identified in the fund’s portfolio. Collateral can be in the form of cash or debt securities issued by the U.S. Government or related agencies or other securities as agreed to by the fund and the applicable counterparty. Collateral requirements are determined based on the fund’s net position with each counterparty.

Termination events applicable to the fund may occur upon a decline in the fund’s net assets below a specified threshold over a certain period of time. Termination events applicable to counterparties may occur upon a decline in the counterparty’s long-term and short-term credit ratings below a specified level. In each case, upon occurrence, the other party may elect to terminate early and cause settlement of all derivative and foreign exchange contracts outstanding, including the payment of any losses and costs resulting from such early

52 Managed Municipal Income Trust

termination, as reasonably determined by the terminating party. Any decision by one or more of the fund’s counterparties to elect early termination could impact the fund’s future derivative activity.

At the close of the reporting period, the fund did not have a net liability position on open derivative contracts subject to the Master Agreements.

Tender option bond transactions The fund may participate in transactions whereby a fixed-rate bond is transferred to a tender option bond trust (TOB trust) sponsored by a broker. The TOB trust funds the purchase of the fixed rate bonds by issuing floating-rate bonds to third parties and allowing the fund to retain the residual interest in the TOB trust’s assets and cash flows, which are in the form of inverse floating rate bonds. The inverse floating rate bonds held by the fund give the fund the right to (1) cause the holders of the floating rate bonds to tender their notes at par, and (2) to have the fixed-rate bond held by the TOB trust transferred to the fund, causing the TOB trust to collapse. The fund accounts for the transfer of the fixed-rate bond to the TOB trust as a secured borrowing by including the fixed-rate bond in the fund’s portfolio and including the floating rate bond as a liability in the Statement of assets and liabilities. At the close of the reporting period, the fund’s investments with a value of $22,707,418 were held by the TOB trust and served as collateral for $12,384,788 in floating-rate bonds outstanding. For the reporting period ended, the fund incurred interest expense of $531,437 for these investments based on an average interest rate of 3.55%.

Federal taxes It is the policy of the fund to distribute all of its income within the prescribed time period and otherwise comply with the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the Code), applicable to regulated investment companies. It is also the intention of the fund to distribute an amount sufficient to avoid imposition of any excise tax under Section 4982 of the Code.

The fund is subject to the provisions of Accounting Standards Codification 740 Income Taxes (ASC 740). ASC 740 sets forth a minimum threshold for financial statement recognition of the benefit of a tax position taken or expected to be taken in a tax return. The fund did not have a liability to record for any unrecognized tax benefits in the accompanying financial statements. No provision has been made for federal taxes on income, capital gains or unrealized appreciation on securities held nor for excise tax on income and capital gains. Each of the fund’s federal tax returns for the prior three fiscal years remains subject to examination by the Internal Revenue Service.

Under the Regulated Investment Company Modernization Act of 2010, the fund will be permitted to carry forward capital losses incurred for an unlimited period and the carry forwards will retain their character as either short-term or long-term capital losses. At October 31, 2024, the fund had the following capital loss carryovers available, to the extent allowed by the Code, to offset future net capital gain, if any:

| Loss carryover |
Short-term | Long-term | Total
$8,312,755 | $16,017,531 | $24,330,286

Distributions to shareholders Distributions to common and preferred shareholders from net investment income, if any, are recorded by the fund on the ex-dividend date. Distributions from capital gains, if any, are recorded on the ex-dividend date and paid at least annually. The fund pays targeted distribution rates to its common shareholders. Distributions are sourced first from tax-exempt and ordinary income. The balance of the distributions, if any, comes next from capital gain and then will constitute a return of capital. A return of capital is not taxable; rather it reduces a shareholder’s tax basis in their shares of the fund. The fund may make return of capital distributions to achieve the targeted distribution rates. Dividends on remarketed preferred shares become payable when, as and if declared by the Trustees. Each dividend period for the remarketed preferred Series A shares is generally a 28 day period, and generally a 7 day period for Series C. The applicable dividend rate for the remarketed preferred shares on October 31, 2024 was 5.29% on Series A, and 5.23% for Series C.

During the reporting period, the fund has experienced unsuccessful remarketings of its remarketed preferred shares. As a result, dividends to the remarketed preferred shares have been paid at the “maximum dividend rate,” pursuant to the fund’s by-laws, which, based on the current credit quality of the remarketed preferred shares, equals 110% of the 60-day “AA” composite commercial paper rate.

The amount and character of income and gains to be distributed are determined in accordance with income tax regulations, which may differ from generally accepted accounting principles. These differences include temporary and/or permanent differences from dividends payable and from amortization and accretion. Reclassifications are made to the fund’s capital accounts to reflect income and gains available for distribution (or available capital loss carryovers) under income tax regulations. At the close of the reporting period, the fund reclassified $439,719 to increase accumulated net investment loss and $439,719 to decrease accumulated net realized loss.

Managed Municipal Income Trust 53

Tax cost of investments includes adjustments to net unrealized appreciation (depreciation) which may not necessarily be final tax cost basis adjustments, but closely approximate the tax basis unrealized gains and losses that may be realized and distributed to shareholders. The tax basis components of distributable earnings and the federal tax cost as of the close of the reporting period were as follows:

Unrealized appreciation | $14,307,228
Unrealized depreciation | (14,656,839)
Net unrealized depreciation | (349,611)
Capital loss carryforward | (24,330,286)
Cost for federal income tax purposes | $414,390,389

Determination of net asset value Net asset value of the common shares is determined by dividing the value of all assets of the fund, less all liabilities and the liquidation preference (redemption value of preferred shares, plus accumulated and unpaid dividends) of any outstanding remarketed preferred shares, by the total number of common shares outstanding as of period end.

Note 2: Management fee, administrative services and other transactions

Effective July 15, 2024, Putnam Management transferred its management contract with the fund to Franklin Advisers. As a result of the transfer, Franklin Advisers replaced Putnam Management as the investment adviser of the fund. In connection with the transfer, the fund’s portfolio managers, along with supporting research analysts and certain other investment staff of Putnam Management, also became employees of Franklin Advisers.

In addition, Putnam Management transferred to Franklin Advisers the sub-management contract between Putnam Management and PIL in respect of the fund.

The fund pays Franklin Advisers for management and investment advisory services quarterly based on the average net assets of the fund, including assets attributable to preferred shares. Such fee is based on the following annual rates based on the average weekly net assets attributable to common and preferred shares.

The lesser of (i) 0.550% of average net assets attributable to common and preferred shares outstanding, or (ii) the following rates:

| of the first $500 million of average |  |  | of the next $5 billion of average weekly
0.650% | weekly net assets, |  | 0.425% | net assets,
| of the next $500 million of average |  |  | of the next $5 billion of average weekly
0.550% | weekly net assets, |  | 0.405% | net assets,
| of the next $500 million of average |  |  | of the next $5 billion of average weekly
0.500% | weekly net assets, |  | 0.390% | net assets and
| of the next $5 billion of average weekly |  | 0.380% | of any excess thereafter.
0.450% | net assets, |  |  |

For the reporting period, the management fee represented an effective rate (excluding the impact from any expense waivers in effect) of 0.550% of the fund’s average net assets attributable to common and preferred shares outstanding.

If dividends payable on remarketed preferred shares during any dividend payment period plus any expenses attributable to remarketed preferred shares for that period exceed the fund’s gross income attributable to the proceeds of the remarketed preferred shares during that period, then the fee payable to Putnam Management for that period will be reduced by the amount of the excess (but not more than the effective management fees rate under the contract multiplied by the liquidation preference of the remarketed preferred shares outstanding during the period). For the reporting period, Putnam Management reimbursed $549,217 to the fund. Any amount in excess of the fee payable to Putnam Management for a given period will be used to reduce any subsequent fee payable to Putnam Management, as may be necessary. As of October 31, 2024, this excess amounted to $2,734,830.

Effective July 15, 2024, Franklin Advisers retained Putnam Management as sub-adviser for the fund pursuant to a new sub-advisory agreement. Pursuant to the agreement, Putnam Management provides certain advisory and related services to the fund. Franklin Advisers pays a monthly fee to Putnam Management based on the costs of

54 Managed Municipal Income Trust

Putnam Management in providing these services to the fund, which may include a mark-up not to exceed 15% over such costs.

During the reporting period, PIL was authorized by the Trustees to manage a separate portion of the assets of the fund as determined by Franklin Advisers from time to time. PIL did not manage any portion of the assets of the fund during the reporting period. Effective November 1, 2024, PIL, and its investment professionals, merged into Franklin Templeton Investment Management Limited (FTIML), an affiliate of the investment manager, and FTIML became a sub-advisor to the fund. If Franklin Advisers were to engage the services of FTIML or PIL, Franklin Advisers would pay a monthly sub-management fee to FTIML or PIL for its services at an annual rate of 0.20% of the average net assets of the portion of the fund managed by FTIML or PIL.

On January 1, 2024, a subsidiary of Franklin Templeton acquired Putnam U.S. Holdings I, LLC (“Putnam Holdings”), the parent company of Putnam Management and PIL, in a stock and cash transaction (the “Transaction”). As a result of the Transaction, Putnam Management and PIL became indirect, wholly-owned subsidiaries of Franklin Templeton. The Transaction also resulted in the automatic termination of the investment management contract between the fund and Putnam Management and the sub-management contract for the fund between Putnam Management and PIL that were in place for the fund before the Transaction (together, the “Previous Advisory Contracts”). However, for the period from January 1, 2024 until March 19, 2024, Putnam Management and PIL continued to provide uninterrupted services with respect to the fund pursuant to interim investment management and sub-management contracts (together, the “Interim Advisory Contracts”) that were approved by the Board of Trustees. The terms of the Interim Advisory Contracts were identical to those of the Previous Advisory Contracts, except for the term of the contracts and those provisions required by regulation. On March 19, 2024, new investment management and sub-management contracts were approved by fund shareholders at a shareholder meeting held in connection with the Transaction (together, the “New Advisory Contracts”). The New Advisory Contracts took effect on March 19, 2024 and replaced the Interim Advisory Contracts. The terms of the New Advisory Contracts are substantially similar to those of the Previous Advisory Contracts, and the fee rates payable under the New Advisory Contracts are the same as the fee rates under the Previous Advisory Contracts.

Effective June 1, 2024, Franklin Templeton Services provides certain administrative services to the fund. The fee for those services is paid by the fund’s investment manager based on the fund’s average daily net assets and is not an additional expense of the fund.

The fund reimburses Franklin Advisers an allocated amount for the compensation and related expenses of certain officers of the fund and their staff who provide administrative services to the fund. The aggregate amount of all such reimbursements is determined annually by the Trustees.

Custodial functions for the fund’s assets are provided by State Street. Custody fees are based on the fund’s asset level, the number of its security holdings and transaction volumes.

PSERV, an affiliate of Franklin Advisers, provides investor servicing agent functions to the fund. PSERV was paid a monthly fee for investor servicing at an annual rate of 0.05% of the fund’s average daily net assets. The amounts incurred for investor servicing agent functions during the reporting period are included in Investor servicing fees in the Statement of operations.

The fund has entered into expense offset arrangements with PSERV and State Street whereby PSERV’s and State Street’s fees are reduced by credits allowed on cash balances. For the reporting period, the fund’s expenses were reduced by $1,300 under the expense offset arrangements.

Each Independent Trustee of the fund receives an annual Trustee fee, of which $213, as a quarterly retainer, has been allocated to the fund, and an additional fee for each Trustees meeting attended. Trustees also are reimbursed for expenses they incur relating to their services as Trustees.

The fund has adopted a Trustee Fee Deferral Plan (the Deferral Plan) which allows the Trustees to defer the receipt of all or a portion of Trustees fees payable from July 1, 1995 through December 31, 2023. The deferred fees remain invested in certain Putnam funds until distribution in accordance with the Deferral Plan.

The fund has adopted an unfunded noncontributory defined benefit pension plan (the Pension Plan) covering all Trustees of the fund who have served as a Trustee for at least five years and were first elected prior to 2004. Benefits under the Pension Plan are equal to 50% of the Trustee’s average annual attendance and retainer fees for the three years ended December 31, 2005. The retirement benefit is payable during a Trustee’s lifetime, beginning the year following retirement, for the number of years of service through December 31, 2006. Pension expense for the fund is included in Trustee compensation and expenses in the Statement of operations. Accrued pension liability is included in Payable for Trustee compensation and expenses in the Statement of assets and liabilities. The Trustees have terminated the Pension Plan with respect to any Trustee first elected after 2003.

Managed Municipal Income Trust 55

Note 3: Purchases and sales of securities

During the reporting period, the cost of purchases and the proceeds from sales, excluding short-term investments, were as follows:

| Cost of purchases | Proceeds from sales
Investments in securities (Long-term) | $84,008,871 | $109,123,256
U.S. government securities (Long-term) | — | —
Total | $84,008,871 | $109,123,256

The fund may purchase or sell investments from or to other Putnam funds in the ordinary course of business, which can reduce the fund’s transaction costs, at prices determined in accordance with SEC requirements and policies approved by the Trustees. During the reporting period, purchases or sales of long-term securities from or to other Putnam funds, if any, did not represent more than 5% of the fund’s total cost of purchases and/or total proceeds from sales.

Note 4: Preferred Shares

The Series A (240) and C (1,507) Remarketed Preferred shares are redeemable at the option of the fund on any dividend payment date at a redemption price of $100,000 per Series A Remarketed Preferred share and $50,000 per Series C Remarketed Preferred share, plus an amount equal to any dividends accumulated on a daily basis but unpaid through the redemption date (whether or not such dividends have been declared) and, in certain circumstances, a call premium.

It is anticipated that dividends paid to holders of remarketed preferred shares will be considered tax-exempt dividends under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. To the extent that the fund earns taxable income and capital gains by the conclusion of a fiscal year, it may be required to apportion to the holders of the remarketed preferred shares throughout that year additional dividends as necessary to result in an after-tax equivalent to the applicable dividend rate for the period. Total additional dividends for the reporting period were $84,764.

Under the 1940 Act, the fund is required to maintain asset coverage of at least 200% with respect to the remarketed preferred shares. Additionally, the fund’s bylaws impose more stringent asset coverage requirements and restrictions relating to the rating of the remarketed preferred shares by the shares’ rating agencies. Should these requirements not be met, or should dividends accrued on the remarketed preferred shares not be paid, the fund may be restricted in its ability to declare dividends to common shareholders or may be required to redeem certain of the remarketed preferred shares. At October 31, 2024, no such restrictions have been placed on the fund.

Note 5: Shares repurchased

In September 2024, the Trustees approved the renewal of the repurchase program to allow the fund to repurchase up to 10% of its outstanding common shares over the 365 day period ending September 30, 2025 (based on shares outstanding as of September 30, 2024). Prior to this renewal, the Trustees had approved a repurchase program to allow the fund to repurchase up to 10% of its outstanding common shares over the 366 day period ending September 30, 2024 (based on shares outstanding as of September 30, 2023). Repurchases are made when the fund’s shares are trading at less than net asset value (and, therefore, increase the net asset value per share of the fund’s remaining shares) and in accordance with procedures approved by the fund’s Trustees.

For the reporting period, the fund repurchased 2,435,269 common shares for an aggregate purchase price of $14,902,031, which reflects a weighted-average discount from net asset value per share of 8.93%. The weighted-average discount reflects the payment of commissions by the fund to execute repurchase trades.

For the previous fiscal year, the fund repurchased 1,680,654 common shares for an aggregate purchase price of $9,795,449, which reflected a weighted-average discount from net asset value per share of 8.84%. The weighted-average discount reflected the payment of commissions by the fund to execute repurchase trades.

At the close of the reporting period, Putnam Investment Holdings, LLC owned 2,222 common shares of the fund (0.005% of common shares outstanding), valued at $15,132 based on net asset value.

56 Managed Municipal Income Trust

Note 6: Affiliated transactions

Transactions during the reporting period with any company which is under common ownership or control were as follows:

|  |  |  |  | Shares
|  |  |  |  | outstanding
|  |  |  |  | and fair
| Fair value as | Purchase | Sale | Investment | value as
Name of affiliate | of 10/31/23 | cost | proceeds | income | of 10/31/24
Short-term investments |  |  |  |  |
Putnam Short Term |  |  |  |  |
Investment Fund |  |  |  |  |
Class P‡ | $3,978,234 | $99,006,265 | $99,423,609 | $256,397 | $3,560,890
Total Short-term |  |  |  |  |
investments | $3,978,234 | $99,006,265 | $99,423,609 | $256,397 | $3,560,890

‡ Management fees charged to Putnam Short Term Investment Fund have been waived by Putnam Management and Franklin Advisers, as applicable. There were no realized or unrealized gains or losses during the period.

Note 7: Market, credit and other risks

In the normal course of business, the fund trades financial instruments and enters into financial transactions where risk of potential loss exists due to changes in the market (market risk) or failure of the contracting party to the transaction to perform (credit risk). The fund may be exposed to additional credit risk that an institution or other entity with which the fund has unsettled or open transactions will default. The fund may invest in higher-yielding, lower-rated bonds that may have a higher rate of default.

Note 8: Summary of derivative activity

The volume of activity for the reporting period for any derivative type that was held during the period is listed below and was based on an average of the holdings at the end of each fiscal quarter:

Futures contracts (number of contracts) | 30
OTC total return swap contracts (notional) | $150,000

The following is a summary of the fair value of derivative instruments as of the close of the reporting period:

Fair value of derivative instruments as of the close of the reporting period |
| ASSET DERIVATIVES | LIABILITY DERIVATIVES
Derivatives not |  |  |  |
accounted for as | Statement of |  | Statement of |
hedging instruments | assets and |  | assets and |
under ASC 815 | liabilities location | Fair value | liabilities location | Fair value
| Receivables, Net |  |  |
| assets — Unrealized |  | Payables, Net assets — |
Interest rate contracts | appreciation | $110,883* | Unrealized depreciation | $—
Total |  | $110,883 |  | $—

* Includes cumulative appreciation/depreciation of futures contracts as reported in the fund’s portfolio. Only current day’s variation margin is reported within the Statement of assets and liabilities.

Managed Municipal Income Trust 57

The following is a summary of realized and change in unrealized gains or losses of derivative instruments in the Statement of operations for the reporting period (Note 1):

Amount of realized gain or (loss) on derivatives recognized in net gain or (loss) on investments |
Derivatives not accounted for as hedging |  |  |
instruments under ASC 815 | Futures | Swaps | Total
Interest rate contracts | $(399,328) | $(56,000) | $(455,328)
Total | $(399,328) | $(56,000) | $(455,328)

Change in unrealized appreciation or (depreciation) on derivatives recognized in net gain or (loss)
on investments |  |  |
Derivatives not accounted for as hedging |  |  |
instruments under ASC 815 | Futures | Swaps | Total
Interest rate contracts | $110,883 | $214,306 | $325,189
Total | $110,883 | $214,306 | $325,189

Note 9: Offsetting of financial and derivative assets and liabilities

The following table summarizes any derivatives, repurchase agreements and reverse repurchase agreements, at the end of the reporting period, that are subject to an enforceable master netting agreement or similar agreement. For securities lending transactions or borrowing transactions associated with securities sold short, if any, see Note 1. For financial reporting purposes, the fund does not offset financial assets and financial liabilities that are subject to the master netting agreements in the Statement of assets and liabilities.

| JPMorgan Securities LLC | Total
Assets: |  |
Futures contracts§ | $— | $—
Total Assets | $— | $—
Liabilities: |  |
Futures contracts§ | 812 | 812
Total Liabilities | $812 | $812
Total Financial and Derivative Net Assets | $(812) | $(812)
Total collateral received (pledged)†## | $— |
Net amount | $(812) |
Controlled collateral received (including |  |
TBA commitments)** | $— | $—
Uncontrolled collateral received | $— | $—
Collateral (pledged) (including TBA commitments)** | $— | $—

** Included with Investments in securities on the Statement of assets and liabilities.

† Additional collateral may be required from certain brokers based on individual agreements.

##Any over-collateralization of total financial and derivative net assets is not shown. Collateral may include amounts related to unsettled agreements.

§ Includes current day’s variation margin only as reported on the Statement of assets and liabilities, which is not collateralized. Cumulative appreciation/(depreciation) for futures contracts is represented in the tables listed after the fund’s portfolio. Collateral pledged for initial margin on futures contracts, which is not included in the table above, amounted to $97,049.

58 Managed Municipal Income Trust

Federal tax information (Unaudited)

The fund has designated $15,071,193 of dividends paid from net investment income during the reporting period as tax exempt for federal income tax purposes.

For the reporting period, a portion of the fund’s distribution represents a return of capital and is therefore not taxable to shareholders.

The Form 1099 that will be mailed to you in January 2025 will show the tax status of all distributions paid to your account in calendar 2024.

Managed Municipal Income Trust 59

Shareholder meeting results (Unaudited)

April 26, 2024 annual meeting

At the meeting, a proposal to fix the number of trustees at 12 was approved as follows:

Votes for | Votes against | Abstentions
33,150,069 | 1,465,004 | 840,487

| Votes for | Votes withheld
Liaquat Ahamed | 32,118,042 | 3,337,523
Barbara M. Baumann | 32,533,490 | 2,922,075
Catharine Bond Hill | 32,491,979 | 2,963,586
Kenneth R. Leibler | 32,207,708 | 3,247,857
Jennifer Williams Murphy | 32,451,186 | 3,004,379
Marie Pillai | 32,382,480 | 3,073,084
Robert L. Reynolds | 32,176,569 | 3,278,996
Manoj P. Singh | 32,196,954 | 3,258,611
Mona K. Sutphen | 32,067,187 | 3,388,378
Jane E. Trust | 32,543,046 | 2,912,519

A quorum was not present with respect to the matter of electing two Trustees to be voted on by the preferred shareholders voting as a separate class. As a result, in accordance with the fund’s Declaration of Trust and Bylaws, independent Trustees Katinka Domotorffy and George Putnam III remain in office and continue to serve as Trustees.

A proposal did not pass to convert Putnam Managed Municipal Income Trust to an open-end investment company and approving certain related amendments to its Declaration of Trust.

Votes for | Votes against | Broker Non votes
1,838,975 | 10,400,189 | 22,044,042

All tabulations are rounded to the nearest whole number.

March 19, 2024 special meeting

At the meeting, a new Management Contract for your fund with Putnam Investment Management, LLC was approved, as follows:

Votes for | Votes against | Abstentions/Votes withheld
21,027,410 | 1,677,560 | 2,180,535

At the meeting, a new Sub-Management Contract for your fund between Putnam Investment Management, LLC and Putnam Investments Limited was approved, as follows:

Votes for | Votes against | Abstentions/Votes withheld
20,952,659 | 1,753,639 | 2,179,209

All tabulations are rounded to the nearest whole number.

60 Managed Municipal Income Trust

Managed Municipal Income Trust 61

62 Managed Municipal Income Trust

* Ms. Murphy is the founder, controlling member, and Chief Executive Officer of Runa Digital Assets, LLC (“RDA”), the investment manager of Runa Digital Partners, LP (“RDP”), a private investment fund. Ms. Murphy also holds a controlling interest in RDP’s general partner and is a limited partner in RDP. A subsidiary of Franklin Templeton and certain individuals employed by Franklin Templeton or its affiliates have made passive investments as limited partners in RDP (one of whom serves on the advisory board for RDA, which has no governance or oversight authority over RDA), representing in the aggregate approximately 33% of RDP as of October 31, 2023. In addition, if certain conditions are met, Franklin Templeton will be entitled to receive a portion of any incentive compensation allocable to RDP’s general partner. For so long as Franklin Templeton maintains its investment in RDP, Ms. Murphy also has agreed upon request to advise and consult with Franklin Templeton and its affiliates on the market for digital assets. Ms. Murphy provides similar service to other limited partners in RDP that request her advice. Ms. Murphy also is entitled to receive deferred cash compensation in connection with her prior employment by an affiliate of Franklin Templeton, which employment ended at the end of 2021. With regard to Ms. Murphy, the relationships described above may give rise to a potential conflict of interest with respect to the Funds.

† Mr. Reynolds is an “interested person” (as defined in the 1940 Act) of the fund and Franklin Advisers. He is President of your fund and each of the other Putnam funds and holds direct beneficial interest in shares of Franklin Templeton, of which Franklin Advisers is an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary.

‡ Ms. Trust is an “interested person” (as defined in the 1940 Act) of the fund and Franklin Advisers by virtue of her positions with certain affiliates of Franklin Advisers.

The address of each Trustee is 100 Federal Street, Boston, MA 02110.

As of October 31, 2024, the Putnam family of funds included 89 mutual funds, 4 closed-end funds, and 12 exchange-traded funds. Each Trustee serves as Trustee of all funds in the Putnam family of funds. Ms. Trust also serves as Trustee of 123 other funds that are advised by one or more affiliates of Franklin Advisers.

Each Trustee serves for an indefinite term, until his or her resignation, retirement at age 75, removal, or death.

Managed Municipal Income Trust 63

Officers
In addition to Robert L. Reynolds, the other officers of the fund are shown below:

Kevin R. Blatchford (Born 1967) | Monica Krogh (Born 1981)
Vice President and Assistant Treasurer | Vice President and Assistant Treasurer
Since 2024 | Since 2024
Director, Financial Reporting, Putnam Holdings | Assistant Treasurer, Fund Administration and Oversight,
| Franklin Templeton
James F. Clark (Born 1974) |
Vice President and Chief Compliance Officer | Denere P. Poulack (Born 1968)
Since 2016 | Assistant Vice President, Assistant Clerk,
Chief Compliance Officer, Putnam Management | and Assistant Treasurer
and Putnam Holdings | Since 2004
Graham Cole (Born 1984) | Stephen J. Tate (Born 1974)
Vice President and Assistant Treasurer | Vice President and Chief Legal Officer
Since 2024 | Since 2021
Director, Global Fund Tax, Franklin Templeton | Deputy General Counsel, Franklin Templeton, and
| Secretary, Putnam Holdings, Putnam Management, and
Lindsey Hicks (Born 1979) | Putnam Retail Management
Vice President and Assistant Treasurer |
Since 2024 | Ryan Wheeler (Born 1985)
Controller, Fund Administration and Oversight, | Vice President and Assistant Treasurer
Franklin Templeton | Since 2024
| Director, Fund Administration and Reporting,
Michael J. Higgins (Born 1976) | Franklin Templeton.
Vice President, Treasurer, and Clerk |
Since 2010 | Jeffrey White (Born 1971)
| Vice President, Principal Financial Officer, Principal
Jonathan S. Horwitz (Born 1955) | Accounting Officer, and Assistant Treasurer
Executive Vice President, Principal Executive Officer, | Since 2024
and Compliance Liaison |
Since 2004 |
Kelley Hunt (Born 1984) |
AML Compliance Officer |
Since 2024 |
Manager, U.S. Financial Crime Compliance, |
Franklin Templeton |

The address of each Officer, other than as noted below, is 100 Federal Street, Boston, MA 02110. Mr. Cole’s address is 5000 Yonge St, Toronto, ON, Canada M2N0A7. Ms. Hicks’s address is 3355 Data Drive, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670. Ms. Krogh’s and Mr. Wheeler’s address is 300 S.E. 2nd Street, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301. Ms. Hunt’s address is 100 Fountain Parkway, St. Petersburg, FL 33716. Mr. White’s address is One Franklin Parkway, San Mateo, CA 94403.

64 Managed Municipal Income Trust

Fund information

Investment Manager | Trustees | Michael J. Higgins
Franklin Advisers, Inc. | Barbara M. Baumann, Chair | Vice President, Treasurer,
One Franklin Parkway | Liaquat Ahamed | and Clerk
San Mateo, CA 94403 | Katinka Domotorffy |
| Catharine Bond Hill | Jonathan S. Horwitz
Investment Sub-Advisors | Gregory G. McGreevey | Executive Vice President,
Franklin Templeton Investment | Jennifer Williams Murphy | Principal Executive Officer,
Management Limited | Marie Pillai | and Compliance Liaison
Cannon Place, 78 Cannon Street | George Putnam III |
London, England EC4N 6HL | Robert L. Reynolds | Kelley Hunt
| Manoj P. Singh | AML Compliance Officer
Putnam Investment | Mona K. Sutphen |
Management, LLC | Jane E. Trust | Monica Krogh
100 Federal Street |  | Vice President and
Boston, MA 02110 | Officers | Assistant Treasurer
| Robert L. Reynolds |
Marketing Services | President, The Putnam Funds | Denere P. Poulack
Franklin Distributors, LLC |  | Assistant Vice President,
One Franklin Parkway | Kevin R. Blatchford | Assistant Clerk, and
San Mateo, CA 94403 | Vice President and | Assistant Treasurer
| Assistant Treasurer |
Custodian |  | Stephen J. Tate
State Street Bank | James F. Clark | Vice President and
and Trust Company | Vice President and | Chief Legal Officer
| Chief Compliance Officer |
Legal Counsel |  | Ryan Wheeler
Ropes & Gray LLP | Graham Cole | Vice President and
| Vice President and | Assistant Treasurer
Independent Registered | Assistant Treasurer |
Public Accounting Firm |  | Jeffrey White
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP | Lindsey Hicks | Vice President,
| Vice President and | Principal Financial Officer,
| Assistant Treasurer | Principal Accounting Officer,
|  | and Assistant Treasurer

Call 1-800-225-1581 Monday through Friday between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time, or visit putnam.com or franklintempleton.com anytime for up-to-date information about the fund’s NAV.

Item 2. Code of Ethics:

(a) The fund’s principal executive, financial and accounting officers are employees of Putnam Investment Management, LLC, the Fund's investment manager, or Franklin Templeton. As such they are subject to a comprehensive Code of Ethics adopted and administered by Putnam Investment Management, LLC and Franklin Templeton which is designed to protect the interests of the firm and its clients. The Fund has adopted a Code of Ethics which incorporates the Code of Ethics of Franklin Templeton with respect to all of its officers and Trustees who are employees of Putnam Investment Management, LLC and Franklin Templeton. For this reason, the Fund has not adopted a separate code of ethics governing its principal executive, financial and accounting officers.

(c) In connection with the acquisition of Putnam Investments by Franklin Templeton, the Putnam Investments Code of Ethics was amended effective January 1, 2024 to reflect revised compliance processes, including: (i) Compliance with the Putnam Investments Code of Ethics will be viewed as compliance with the Franklin Templeton Code for certain Putnam employees who are dual-hatted in Franklin Templeton advisory entities (ii) Certain Franklin Templeton employees are required to hold shares of Putnam mutual funds at Putnam Investor Services, Inc. and (iii) Certain provisions of the Putnam Investments Code of Ethics are amended that are no longer needed due to organizational changes. Effective March 4, 2024, the majority of legacy Putnam employees transitioned to Franklin Templeton policies outlined in the Franklin Templeton Code.

Item 3. Audit Committee Financial Expert:

The Funds' Audit, Compliance and Risk Committee is comprised solely of Trustees who are “independent” (as such term has been defined by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) in regulations implementing Section 407 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (the “Regulations”)). The Trustees believe that each member of the Audit, Compliance and Risk Committee also possesses a combination of knowledge and experience with respect to financial accounting matters, as well as other attributes, that qualifies him or her for service on the Committee. In addition, the Trustees have determined that each of Mr. McGreevey and Mr. Singh qualifies as an “audit committee financial expert” (as such term has been defined by the Regulations) based on their review of his or her pertinent experience and education. The SEC has stated, and the funds' amended and restated agreement and Declaration of Trust provides, that the designation or identification of a person as an audit committee financial expert pursuant to this Item 3 of Form N-CSR does not impose on such person any duties, obligations or liability that are greater than the duties, obligations and liability imposed on such person as a member of the Audit, Compliance and Risk Committee and the Board of Trustees in the absence of such designation or identification.

Item 4. Principal Accountant Fees and Services:

The following table presents fees billed in each of the last two fiscal years for services rendered to the fund by the fund’s independent auditor:

Fiscal year ended | Audit Fees | Audit-Related Fees | Tax Fees | All Other Fees
October 31, 2024 | $72,749 | $— | $9,166 | $—
October 31, 2023 | $76,739 | $— | $9,166 | $—

For the fiscal years ended October 31, 2024 and October 31, 2023, the fund’s independent auditor billed aggregate non-audit fees in the amounts of $881,202 and $229,798 respectively, to the fund, Putnam Management and any entity controlling, controlled by or under common control with Putnam Management that provides ongoing services to the fund.

Audit Fees represent fees billed for the fund's last two fiscal years relating to the audit and review of the financial statements included in annual reports and registration statements, and other services that are normally provided in connection with statutory and regulatory filings or engagements.

Audit-Related Fees represent fees billed in the fund’s last two fiscal years for services traditionally performed by the fund’s auditor, including accounting consultation for proposed transactions or concerning financial accounting and reporting standards and other audit or attest services not required by statute or regulation.

Tax Fees represent fees billed in the fund’s last two fiscal years for tax compliance, tax planning and tax advice services. Tax planning and tax advice services include assistance with tax audits, employee benefit plans and requests for rulings or technical advice from taxing authorities.

Pre-Approval Policies of the Audit, Compliance and Risk Committee. The Audit, Compliance and Risk Committee of the Putnam funds has determined that, as a matter of policy, all work performed for the funds by the funds’ independent auditors will be pre-approved by the Committee itself and thus will generally not be subject to pre-approval procedures.

The Audit, Compliance and Risk Committee also has adopted a policy to pre-approve the engagement by Putnam Management and certain of its affiliates of the funds’ independent auditors, even in circumstances where pre-approval is not required by applicable law. Any such requests by Putnam Management or certain of its affiliates are typically submitted in writing to the Committee and explain, among other things, the nature of the proposed engagement, the estimated fees, and why this work should be performed by that particular audit firm as opposed to another one. In reviewing such requests, the Committee considers, among other things, whether the provision of such services by the audit firm are compatible with the independence of the audit firm.

The following table presents fees billed by the fund’s independent auditor for services required to be approved pursuant to paragraph (c)(7)(ii) of Rule 2-01 of Regulation S-X.

Fiscal year ended | Audit- Related Fees | Tax Fees | All Other Fees | Total Non-Audit Fees
October 31, 2024 | $— | $791,963 | $80,073 | $872,036
October 31, 2023 | $— | $220,632 | $— | $220,632

(i) Not applicable

(j) Not applicable

Item 5. Audit Committee of Listed Registrants

(a) The fund has a separately-designated Audit, Compliance and Risk Committee established in accordance with Section 3(a)(58)(A) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The Audit, Compliance and Risk Committee of the fund's Board of Trustees is composed of the following persons:

Gregory G. McGreevey

Marie Pillai

Manoj P. Singh

Mona Sutphen

(b) Not applicable

Item 6. Investments:

The registrant’s schedule of investments in unaffiliated issuers is included in the Report to Stockholders in Item 1 above.

Item 7. Financial Statements and Financial Highlights for Open-End Management Investment Companies.

Not applicable

Item 8. Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants for Open-End Management Investment Companies.

Not applicable

Item 9. Proxy Disclosure for Open-End Management Investment Companies.

Not applicable

Item 10. Remuneration Paid to Directors, Officers, and Others of Open-End Management Investment Companies.

Not applicable

Item 11. Statement Regarding Basis for Approval of Investment Advisory Contract.

Included in Item 1 above, as applicable

Item 12. Disclosure of Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures For Closed-End Management Investment Companies:

The Trustees of the Putnam Funds have delegated proxy voting authority for the securities held in the funds’ portfolios to Putnam Management and have approved Putnam Management’s current proxy voting guidelines and procedures

Putnam Investments

Proxy Voting Procedures

Introduction and Summary

Many of Putnam’s investment management clients have delegated to Putnam the authority to vote proxies for shares in the client accounts Putnam manages. Putnam believes that the voting of proxies can be an important tool for institutional investors to promote best practices in corporate governance and votes all proxies in the best interests of its clients as investors. In Putnam’s view, strong corporate governance policies, most notably oversight by an independent board of qualified directors, best serve investors’ interests. Putnam will vote proxies and maintain records of voting of shares for which Putnam has proxy voting authority in accordance with its fiduciary obligations and applicable law.

Putnam’s voting policies are rooted in our views that (1) strong, independent corporate governance is important to long-term company financial performance, and (2) long-term investors’ active engagement with company management, including through the proxy voting process, strengthens issuer accountability and overall market discipline, potentially reducing risk and improving returns over time. Our voting program is offered as a part of our investment management services, at no incremental fee to Putnam, and, while there can be no guarantees, it is intended to offer potential investment benefits over a long-term horizon. Our voting policies are designed with investment considerations in mind, not as a means to pursue particular political, social, or other goals. As a result, we may not support certain proposals whose costs to the issuer (including implementation costs, practicability, and other factors), in Putnam’s view, outweigh their investment merits.

This memorandum sets forth Putnam’s policies for voting proxies. It covers all accounts for which Putnam has proxy voting authority. These accounts include the Putnam Mutual Funds[1] and Putnam Exchange-Traded Funds, US and international institutional accounts and funds managed or sub-advised by The Putnam Advisory Company, LLC, Putnam Investments Limited and Putnam Fiduciary Trust Company, LLC. In addition, the policies include US mutual funds and other accounts sub-advised by Putnam Investment Management, LLC.[2]

Proxy Committee

_______________
[1] Effective January 27, 2023, the Board of Trustees of the Putnam Mutual Funds delegated proxy voting authority to Putnam Investment Management, LLC, the investment manager to the Putnam Mutual Funds.

[2] The Putnam Proxy Voting Procedures and Guidelines will apply also to certain funds and institutional and other accounts managed by Franklin Advisers, Inc. (“FAV”) but formerly managed or sub-advised by one of the Putnam adviser entities identified above, pursuant to sub-advisory agreements in effect from time to time between FAV and the relevant Putnam entity(ies).

Putnam has a Proxy Committee composed of senior professionals, including from the Putnam Equity investment team and the Putnam Equity Sustainability Strategy group. The Chief Investment Officer of Putnam Equity appoints the members of the Proxy Committee. The Proxy Committee is responsible for setting general policy as to proxies. Specifically, the Committee:

| 1. | Reviews these procedures and the Proxy Voting Guidelines annually and approves any amendments considered to be advisable.

| 2. | Considers special proxy issues as they may from time to time arise.

| 3. | Must approve all vote overrides recommended by investment professionals.

Proxy Voting Administration

The Putnam Sustainability Strategy group administers Putnam’s proxy voting through a Proxy Voting Team. The Proxy Voting Team has the following duties:

| 1. | Annually prepares the Proxy Voting Guidelines and distributes them to the Proxy Committee for review.

| 2. | Coordinates the Proxy Committee’s review of any new or unusual proxy issues and serves as Secretary thereto.

| 3. | Manages the process of referring issues to portfolio managers for voting instructions.

| 4. | Oversees the work of any third-party vendor hired to process proxy votes (as of the date of these procedures Putnam has engaged Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) to process proxy votes) and the process of setting up the voting process with ISS and custodial banks for new clients.

| 5. | Coordinates responses to investment professionals’ questions on proxy issues and proxy policies, including forwarding specialized proxy research from ISS and other vendors and forwards information to investment professionals prepared by other areas at Putnam.

| 6. | Implements the exception process with respect to referred items on securities held solely in accounts managed by the Global Asset Allocation (“GAA”) team within Franklin Templeton Investment Solutions described in more detail in the Proxy Referral section below.

| 7. | Maintains required records of proxy votes on behalf of the appropriate Putnam client accounts.

| 8. | Prepares and distributes reports required by Putnam clients.

Proxy Voting Guidelines

Putnam maintains written voting guidelines (“Guidelines”) setting forth voting positions determined by the Proxy Committee on those issues believed most likely to arise day to day. The Guidelines may call for votes to be cast normally in favor of or opposed to a matter or may deem the matter an item to be referred to investment professionals on a case-by-case basis. A copy of the Guidelines is attached to this memorandum as Exhibit A.

In light of our views on the importance of issuer governance and investor engagement, which we believe are applicable across our various strategies and clients, regardless of a specific portfolio’s investment objective, Putnam will vote all proxies in accordance with the Guidelines, subject to two exceptions as follows:

| 1. | If the portfolio managers of client accounts holding the stock of a company with a proxy vote believe that following the Guidelines in any specific case would not be in the clients’ best interests, they may request the Proxy Voting Team not to follow the guidelines in such case. The request must be in writing and include an explanation of the rationale for doing so. The Proxy Voting Team will review any such request with the Proxy Committee (or, in cases with limited time, with the Chair of the Proxy Committee acting on the Proxy Committee’s behalf) prior to implementing the request.

| 2. | Putnam may accept instructions to vote proxies under client specific guidelines subject to review and acceptance by the Investment Division and the Legal and Compliance Department.

Other

| 1. | Putnam may elect not to vote when the security is no longer held.

| 2. | Putnam will abstain on items that require case-by-case review when a vote recommendation from the appropriate investment professional(s) cannot be obtained due to restrictive voting deadlines or other prohibitive operational or administrative requirements.

| 3. | Where securities held in Putnam client accounts, including the Putnam mutual funds, have been loaned to third parties in connection with a securities lending program administered by Putnam (through securities lending agents overseen by Putnam), Putnam has instructed lending agents to recall U.S. securities on loan to vote proxies, in accordance with Putnam’s securities lending procedures. Due to differences in non-U.S. markets, Putnam does not currently seek to recall non-U.S. securities on loan. In addition, where Putnam does not administer a client’s securities lending program, this recall policy does not apply, since Putnam generally does not have information on loan details or authority to effect recalls in those cases. It is possible that, for impracticability or other reasons, a recalled security may not be returned to the relevant custodian in time to allow Putnam to vote the relevant proxy.

| 4. | Putnam will make its reasonable best efforts to vote all proxies except when impeded by circumstances that are reasonably beyond its control and responsibility, such as custodial proxy voting services, in part or whole, not available or not established by a client, or custodial error.

Proxy Voting Referrals

Under the Guidelines, certain proxy matters will be referred to Portfolio Managers. The Portfolio Manager receiving the referral request may delegate the vote decision to an appropriate Analyst from among a list of eligible analysts (such list to be approved by the Chief Investment Officer of the Putnam Equity group and the Director of Equity Research for the Putnam Equity group). The Analyst will be required to make the affirmation and disclosures identified in (3) below. Normally specific referral items will be referred to the portfolio team leader (or another member of the portfolio team he or she designates) whose accounts hold the greatest number of shares of the issuer of the proxies through the Proxy Referral Administration Database. The referral request contains (1) a field that will be used by the portfolio team leader or member for recommending a vote on each referral item, (2) a field for describing any contacts relating to the proxy referral item the portfolio team may have had with any Franklin Templeton employee outside Putnam Equity or with any person other than a proxy solicitor acting in the normal course of proxy solicitation, and (3) a field for portfolio managers to affirm that they are making vote recommendations in the best interest of client accounts and have disclosed to Compliance any potential conflicts of interest relevant to their vote recommendation.

Putnam may vote any referred items on securities held solely in accounts managed by the GAA team within Franklin Templeton Investment Solutions (and not held by any other investment product team) in accordance with the recommendation of Putnam’s third-party proxy voting service provider. The Proxy Voting Team will first give the relevant portfolio manager(s) on the GAA team the opportunity to review the referred items and vote on them. If the portfolio manager(s) on the GAA team do not decide to make any active voting decision on any of the referred items, the items will be voted in accordance with the service provider’s recommendation. If the security is also held by other investment teams at Putnam Equity, the items will be referred to the largest holder who is not a member of the GAA team.

The portfolio team leader or members who have been requested to provide a recommendation on a proxy referral item will complete the referral request. Upon receiving each completed referral request from the applicable Portfolio Manager or Analyst, the Proxy Voting Team will review the completed request for accuracy and completeness, and will follow up with investment personnel as appropriate.

Conflicts of Interest

A potential conflict of interest may arise when voting proxies of an issuer which has a significant business relationship with Putnam. For example, Putnam could manage a defined benefit or defined contribution pension plan for the issuer.

Putnam’s policy is to vote proxies based solely on the investment merits of the proposal. In order to guard against conflicts, the following procedures have been adopted:

| 1. | The Proxy Committee is composed of senior professionals, including Portfolio Managers in Putnam Equity and the Putnam Equity Sustainability Strategy group. None of these individuals or groups reports to Franklin Templeton’s marketing businesses.

| 2. | No Franklin Templeton employee outside Putnam Equity may contact any portfolio manager about any proxy vote without first contacting the Proxy Voting Team or a senior lawyer in the Legal and Compliance Department. There is no prohibition on employees seeking to communicate investment-related information to investment professionals except for Putnam’s restrictions on dissemination of material, non-public information. However, the Proxy Voting Team will coordinate the delivery of such information to investment professionals to avoid appearances of conflict.

| 3. | Investment professionals responding to referral requests must disclose any contacts with third parties other than normal contact with proxy solicitation firms and must affirm that they are making vote recommendations in the best interest of client accounts and have disclosed to the Proxy Voting Team any potential conflicts of interest relevant to their vote recommendation.

| 4. | The Proxy Voting Team will review the name of the issuer of each proxy that contains a referral item against various sources of Putnam business relationships maintained by the Legal and Compliance Department or Client Service for potential material business relationships (i.e., conflicts of interest). For referrals, the Proxy Voting Team will complete the Proxy Voting Conflict of Interest Disclosure Form (attached as Exhibit B and C) via the Proxy Referral Administration Database and will prepare a quarterly report for the Putnam Chief Compliance Officer identifying all completed Conflict of Interest Disclosure forms.

| 5. | Putnam’s Proxy Voting Guidelines may only be overridden with the written recommendation from a member of the Investment Division and concurrence of the Proxy Committee (or, in cases with limited time, with the Chair of the Proxy Committee on the Proxy Committee’s behalf).

Recordkeeping

The Putnam Equity Sustainability Strategy Group will retain copies of the following books and records:

| 1. | A copy of the Proxy Voting Procedures and Guidelines as are from time to time in effect;

| 2. | A copy of each proxy statement received with respect to securities in client accounts;

| 3. | Records of each vote cast for each client;

| 4. | Internal documents generated in connection with a proxy referral, such as emails, memoranda, etc.

| 5. | Written reports to clients on proxy voting and all client requests for information and Putnam’s response.

All records will be maintained for seven years. A proxy vendor may on Putnam’s behalf maintain the records noted in 2 and 3 above if it commits to providing copies promptly upon request.

Exhibit A to Proxy Procedures

Putnam Investments Proxy Voting Guidelines

The proxy voting guidelines below summarize Putnam’s positions on various issues of concern to investors and indicate how client portfolio securities will be voted on proposals dealing with a particular issue. The proxy voting service is instructed to vote all proxies relating to client portfolio securities in accordance with these guidelines, except as otherwise instructed by the Proxy Voting Team.

Putnam’s voting policies are rooted in our views that (1) strong, independent corporate governance is important to long-term company financial performance, and (2) long-term investors’ active engagement with company management, including through the proxy voting process, strengthens issuer accountability and overall market discipline, potentially reducing risk and improving returns over time. Our voting program is offered as a part of our investment management services, at no incremental fee to Putnam, and, while there can be no guarantees, it is intended to offer potential investment benefits over a long-term horizon. Our voting policies are designed with investment considerations in mind, not as a means to pursue particular political, social, or other goals. As a result, we may not support certain proposals whose costs to the issuer (including implementation costs, practicability, and other factors), in Putnam’s view, outweigh their investment merits.

These proxy voting policies are intended to be decision-making guidelines. The guidelines are not exhaustive and do not include all potential voting issues. In addition, as contemplated by and subject to Putnam’s Proxy Voting Procedures, because proxy issues and the circumstances of individual companies are so varied, portfolio teams may recommend votes that may vary from the general policy choices set forth in the guidelines.

The following guidelines are grouped according to the types of proposals generally presented to shareholders. Part I deals with proposals which have been approved and recommended by a company’s board of directors. Part II deals with proposals submitted by shareholders for inclusion in proxy statements. Part III addresses unique considerations pertaining to non-US issuers.

I. Board-Approved Proposals

Proxies will be voted for board-approved proposals, except as follows:

A. Matters Relating to the Board of Directors

Uncontested Election of Directors

The board of directors has the important role of overseeing management and its performance on behalf of shareholders. Proxies will be voted for the election of the company’s nominees for directors (and/or subsidiary directors) and for board-approved proposals on other matters relating to the board of directors (provided that such nominees and other matters have been approved by an independent nominating committee), except as follows:

| Ø | Putnam will withhold votes from the entire board of directors if:

| • | The board does not have a majority of independent directors,

| • | The board does not have nominating, audit and compensation committees composed solely of independent directors, or

| • | The board has more than 15 members or fewer than five members, absent special circumstances.

| Ø | Putnam may refrain from withholding votes from the board due to insufficient key committee independence due to director resignation, change in board structure, or other specific circumstances, provided that the company has stated (for example in an 8-K), or it can otherwise be determined, that the board will address committee composition to ensure compliance with the applicable corporate governance code in a timely manner after the shareholder meeting and the company has a history of appropriate board independence.

Unless otherwise indicated, for the purposes of determining whether a board has a majority of independent directors and independent nominating, audit, and compensation committees, an independent director is a director who (1) meets all requirements to serve as an independent director of a company under the final NYSE Corporate Governance Rules (e.g., no material business relationships with the company and no present or recent employment relationship with the company (including employment of an immediate family member as an executive officer)), and (2) has not accepted directly or indirectly any consulting, advisory, or other compensatory fee (excluding immaterial fees for transactional services as defined by the NYSE Corporate Governance rules) from the company other than in his or her capacity as a member of the board of directors or any board committee. Putnam believes that the receipt of such compensation for services other than service as a director raises significant independence issues.

| Ø | Putnam will withhold votes from any nominee for director who is considered an independent director by the company and who has received compensation within the last three years from the company for the provision of professional services (e.g., investment banking, consulting, legal or financial advisory fees).

| Ø | Putnam will withhold votes from any nominee for director who attends fewer than 75% of board and committee meetings. Putnam may refrain from withholding votes on a case-by-case basis if a valid reason for the absence exists, such as illness, personal emergency, potential conflict of interest, etc.

| Ø | Putnam will withhold votes from any incumbent nominee for director who served on a board that has not acted to implement a policy requested in a shareholder

proposal that received the support of a majority of the votes actually cast on the matter at its previous two annual meetings, or

| Ø | Putnam will withhold votes from any incumbent nominee for director who served on a board that adopted, renewed, or made a material adverse modification to a shareholder rights plan (commonly referred to as a “poison pill”) without shareholder approval during the current or prior calendar year. (This is applicable to any type of poison pill, for example, advance-warning type pill, EGM pill, and Trust Defense Plans in Japan.)

Putnam will refrain from opposing the board members who served at the time of the adoption of the poison pill if the duration is one year or less, if the plan contains other suitable restrictions; or if the company publicly discloses convincing rationale for its adoption and seeks shareholder approval of future renewals of the poison pill. (Suitable restrictions could include but are not limited to, a higher threshold for passive investors. Convincing rationale could include circumstances such as, but not limited to, extreme market disruption or conditions, stock volatility, substantial merger, active investor interest, or takeover attempts.)

| Ø | Numerous studies of gender diversity on boards have shown that diverse boards are associated, over the long term, with, among other things, higher financial returns and lower volatility. Putnam will withhold votes from the chair of the Nominating Committee if:

| • | there are no women on the board, or

| • | in the case of a board of seven members or more, there are fewer than two women on the board, or

| • | there is no apparent racial or ethnic diversity on the board, and the board has not provided sufficient disclosure regarding its plans to achieve racial or ethnic diversity

| Ø | Putnam will withhold votes from the Nominating Committee Chair for companies that have not provided any disclosure of both the board’s diversity (e.g., race or ethnicity) at the aggregate board or individual director level and the company’s policies, or plans to establish such policies, regarding the consideration of diversity in identifying director nominees. Putnam expects companies to provide both disclosure of diversity within their current board composition as well as its policies regarding its approach to board diversity.

(Note: Gender diversity is addressed under a separate guideline.)

Putnam is concerned about over-committed directors. In some cases, directors may serve on too many boards to make a meaningful contribution. This may be particularly true for senior executives of public companies (or other directors with substantially full-time employment) who serve on more than a few outside boards.

| Ø | Putnam will vote against any non-executive nominee for director who serves on more than four (4) public company boards, except where Putnam would otherwise be withholding votes for the entire board of directors. For the purpose of this guideline, boards of affiliated registered investment companies and other similar entities such as UCITS will count as one board. Generally, Putnam will withhold support from directors serving on more than four unaffiliated public company boards, although an exception may be made in the case of a director who represents an investing firm with the sole purpose of managing a portfolio of investments that includes the company.

| Ø | Putnam will withhold votes from any nominee for director who serves as an executive officer of any public company (“home company”) while serving on more than two (2) public company boards other than the home company board. (Putnam will withhold votes from the nominee at each company where Putnam client portfolios own shares.) In addition, if Putnam client portfolios are shareholders of the executive's home company, Putnam will withhold votes from members of the company's governance committee. For the purpose of this guideline, boards of affiliated registered investment companies and other similar entities such as UCITS will count as one board.

| Ø | Putnam will withhold votes from any nominee for director of a public company (Company A) who is employed as a senior executive of another public company (Company B) if a director of Company B serves as a senior executive of Company A (commonly referred to as an “interlocking directorate”).

Board independence depends not only on its members’ individual relationships, but also the board’s overall attitude toward management. Independent boards are committed to good corporate governance practices and, by providing objective independent judgment, enhancing shareholder value. Putnam may withhold votes on a case-by-case basis from some or all directors that, through their lack of independence, have failed to observe good corporate governance practices or, through specific corporate action, have demonstrated a disregard for the interest of shareholders.

Note: Designation of executive director is based on company disclosure.

| Ø | Putnam will vote against proposals that provide that a director may be removed only for cause. Putnam will generally vote for proposals that permit the removal of directors with or without cause.

| Ø | Putnam will vote against proposals authorizing a board to fill a director vacancy without shareholder approval.

| Ø | Putnam will vote on a case-by-case basis on subsidiary director nominees if Putnam will be voting against the nominees of the parent company’s board.

| Ø | Putnam will vote on a case-by-case basis for director nominees, including nominees for positions on Supervisory Boards or Supervisory Committees, or similar board entities (depending on board structure), for (re)election when cumulative voting applies.

| Ø | Putnam will vote for proposals to approve annual directors’ fees, except that Putnam will vote on a case-by-case basis if Putnam’s independent proxy voting service has recommended a vote against such proposal. Additionally, Putnam will vote for proposals to approve the grant of equity awards to directors, except that Putnam will consider these proposals on a case-by-case basis if Putnam’s proxy service provider is recommending a vote against the proposal.

Classified Boards

| Ø | Putnam will vote against proposals to classify a board, absent special circumstances indicating that shareholder interests would be better served by this structure.

Ratification of Auditors

| Ø | Putnam will vote on a case-by-case basis on proposals to ratify the selection of independent auditors if there is evidence that the audit firm’s independence or the integrity of an audit is compromised. (Otherwise, Putnam will vote for.)

Contested Elections of Directors

| Ø | Putnam will vote on a case-by-case basis in contested elections of directors.

B. Executive Compensation

Putnam will vote on a case-by-case basis on board-approved proposals relating to executive compensation, except as follows:

| Ø | Putnam will vote for stock option and restricted stock plans that will result in an average annual dilution of 1.67% or less (based on the disclosed term of the plan and including all equity-based plans), except where Putnam would otherwise be withholding votes for the entire board of directors in which case Putnam will evaluate the plans on a case-by-case basis.

| Ø | Putnam will vote against stock option and restricted stock plans that will result in an average annual dilution of greater than 1.67% (based on the disclosed term of the plan and including all equity plans).

| Ø | Putnam will vote against any stock option or restricted stock plan where the company's actual grants of stock options and restricted stock under all equity-based compensation plans during the prior three (3) fiscal years have resulted in an average annual dilution of greater than 1.67%.

| • | Additionally, if the annualized dilution cannot be calculated, Putnam will vote for plans where the Total Potential Dilution is 5% or less. If the annualized dilution cannot be calculated and the Total Potential Dilution exceeds 5%, then Putnam will vote against. Note: Such plans must first pass all of Putnam's other screens.

| Ø | Putnam will vote proposals to issue equity grants to executives on a case-by-case basis.

| Ø | Putnam will vote against stock option plans that permit replacing or repricing of underwater options (and against any proposal to authorize such replacement or repricing of underwater options).

| Ø | Putnam will vote against stock option plans that permit issuance of options with an exercise price below the stock’s current market price.

| Ø | Putnam will vote against stock option plans/ restricted stock plans with evergreen features providing for automatic share replenishment.

| Ø | Putnam will vote for bonus plans under which payments are treated as performance-based compensation that is deductible under Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, except as follows: Vote on a case-by-case basis on such proposals if any of the following circumstances exist:

| • | the amount per employee under the plan is unlimited, or

| • | the maximum award pool is undisclosed, or

| • | the incentive bonus plan’s performance criteria are undisclosed, or

| • | the independent proxy voting service recommends a vote against.

| Ø | Putnam will vote in favor of the annual presentation of advisory votes on executive compensation (Say-on-Pay).

| Ø | Putnam will generally vote for advisory votes on executive compensation (Say-on-Pay). However, Putnam will vote against an advisory vote if the company fails (receives an F grade) to effectively link executive compensation to company performance according to benchmarking performed by the independent proxy voting service.

| • | Putnam will vote on a case-by-case basis if the company receives an F grade by the independent proxy voting service and the recommendation by that service is favorable.

| • | Additionally, if there is no grade attributed to the company's executive pay, Putnam will generally vote for, unless the recommendation of the independent proxy voting service is against, in which case Putnam will review the proposal on a case-by-case basis.

| Ø | Putnam will vote on a case-by-case basis on severance agreements (e.g., golden and tin parachutes)

| Ø | Putnam will withhold votes from members of a Board of Directors which has approved compensation arrangements Putnam’s investment personnel have determined are grossly unreasonable at the next election at which such director is up for re-election.

| Ø | Putnam will vote for employee stock purchase plans that have the following features: (1) the shares purchased under the plan are acquired for no less than 85% of their market value, (2) the offering period under the plan is 27 months or less, and (3) dilution is 10% or less.

| Ø | Putnam will vote for Non-qualified Employee Stock Purchase Plans with all the following features:

1) Broad-based participation (i.e., all employees of the company with the exclusion of individuals with 5 percent or more of beneficial ownership of the company).

2) Limits on employee contribution, which may be a fixed dollar amount or expressed as a percent of base salary.

3) Company matching contribution up to 25 percent of employee's contribution, which is effectively a discount of 20 percent from market value.

4) No discount on the stock price on the date of purchase since there is a company matching contribution.

Putnam will vote against Non-qualified Employee Stock Purchase Plans when any of the plan

features do not meet the above criteria.

Putnam may vote against executive compensation proposals on a case-by-case basis where compensation is excessive by reasonable corporate standards, or where a company fails to provide transparent disclosure of executive compensation. In voting on proposals

relating to executive compensation, Putnam will consider whether the proposal has been approved by an independent compensation committee of the board.

C. Capitalization

Putnam will vote on a case-by-case basis on board-approved proposals involving changes to a company’s capitalization, except as follows:

| Ø | Putnam will vote for proposals relating to the authorization of additional common stock, except that Putnam will evaluate such proposals on a case-by-case basis if (i) they relate to a specific transaction or to common stock with special voting rights, (ii) the company has a non-shareholder approved poison pill in place, or (iii) the company has had sizeable stock placements to insiders within the past three years at prices substantially below market value without shareholder approval.

| Ø | Putnam will vote for proposals to effect stock splits (excluding reverse stock splits.)

| Ø | Putnam will vote for proposals authorizing share repurchase programs, except that Putnam will vote on a case-by-case basis if there are concerns that there may be abusive practices related to the share repurchase programs.

| D. | Acquisitions, Mergers, Reorganizations and
|  | Other Transactions

Putnam will vote on a case-by-case basis on business transactions such as acquisitions, mergers, reorganizations involving business combinations, liquidations and sale of all or substantially all of a company’s assets.

E. Anti-Takeover Measures

Putnam will vote against board-approved proposals to adopt anti-takeover measures such as supermajority voting provisions, issuance of blank check preferred stock, the creation of a separate class of stock with disparate voting rights, control share acquisition provisions, targeted share placements, and ability to make greenmail payments, except as follows:

| Ø | Putnam will vote on a case-by-case basis on proposals to ratify or approve shareholder rights plans;

| Ø | Putnam will vote on a case-by-case basis on proposals to adopt fair price provisions.

| Ø | Putnam will vote on a case-by-case basis on proposals to issue blank check preferred stock in the case of REITs (only).

| Ø | Putnam will generally vote for proposals that enable or expand shareholders’ ability to take action by written consent.

| Ø | Putnam will vote on a case-by-case basis on proposals to increase shares of an existing class of stock with disparate voting rights from another share class.

| Ø | Putnam will vote on a case-by-case basis on shareholder or board-approved proposals to eliminate supermajority voting provisions at controlled companies (companies in which an individual or a group voting collectively holds a majority of the voting interest).

| Ø | Putnam will vote on a case-by-case basis on board-approved proposals to adopt supermajority voting provisions at controlled companies (companies in which an individual or a group voting collectively holds a majority of the voting interest).

| Ø | Putnam will vote on a case-by-case basis on proposals to issue blank check preferred stock if appropriate “de-clawed” language is present. Specifically, appropriate de-clawed language will include cases where the Company states (i.e., through 8-K, proxy statement or other public disclosure) it will not use the preferred stock for anti-takeover purposes, or in order to implement a shareholder rights plan, or discloses a commitment to submit any future issuances of preferred stock to be used in a shareholder rights plan/anti-takeover purpose to a shareholder vote prior to its adoption.

F. Other Business Matters

Putnam will vote for board-approved proposals approving routine business matters such as changing the company’s name and procedural matters relating to the shareholder meeting, except as follows:

| Ø | Putnam will vote on a case-by-case basis on proposals to amend a company’s charter or bylaws (except for charter amendments necessary or to effect stock splits, to change a company’s name, to authorize additional shares of common stock or other matters which are considered routine (for example, director age or term limits), technical in nature, fall within Putnam’s guidelines (for example, regarding board size or virtual meetings), are required pursuant to regulatory and/or listing rules, have little or no economic impact or will not negatively impact shareholder rights).

| Ø | Additionally, Putnam believes the bundling of items, whether the items are related or unrelated, is generally not in shareholders’ best interest. We may vote against the entire bundled proposal if we would normally vote against

any of the items if presented individually. In these cases, we will review the bundled proposal on a case-by-case basis.

| Ø | Putnam generally supports quorum requirements if the level is set high enough to ensure a broad range of shareholders is represented in person or by proxy but low enough so that the Company can transact necessary business. Putnam will vote on a case-by-case basis on proposals seeking to change quorum requirements; however, Putnam will normally support proposals that seek to comply with market or exchange requirements.

| Ø | Putnam will vote on a case-by-case basis on proposals seeking to change a company’s state of incorporation. However, Putnam will vote for mergers and reorganizations involving business combinations designed solely to reincorporate a company in Delaware.

| Ø | Putnam will vote against authorization to transact other unidentified, substantive business at the meeting.

| Ø | Putnam will vote against proposals where there is a lack of information to make an informed voting decision.

| Ø | Putnam will vote as follows on proposals to adjourn shareholder meetings:

If Putnam is withholding support for the board of the company at the meeting, any proposal to adjourn should be referred for case-by-case analysis.

If Putnam is not withholding support for the board, Putnam will vote in favor of adjourning, unless the vote concerns an issue that is being referred back to Putnam for case-by-case review. Under such circumstances, the proposal to adjourn should also be referred to Putnam for case-by-case analysis.

| Ø | Putnam will vote against management proposals to adopt a specific state’s courts, or a specific U.S. district court as the exclusive forum for certain disputes, except that Putnam will vote for proposals adopting the State of Delaware, or the Delaware Chancery Court, as the exclusive forum, for corporate law matters for issuers incorporated in Delaware. Requiring shareholders to bring actions solely in one state may discourage the pursuit of derivative claims by increasing their difficulty and cost. However, Putnam’s guideline recognizes the expertise of the Delaware state court system in handling disputes involving Delaware corporations. In addition, Putnam will withhold votes from the chair of the Nominating/Governance committee if a company amends its Bylaws, or takes other actions, to adopt a specific state’s courts (other than Delaware courts, for issuers incorporated in Delaware) or a specific U.S. district court as the exclusive forum for certain disputes without shareholder approval.

| Ø | Putnam will vote on a case-by-case basis on management proposals seeking to adopt a bylaw amendment allowing the company to shift legal fees and costs to unsuccessful plaintiffs in intra-corporate litigation (fee-shifting bylaw). Additionally, Putnam will vote against the Chair of the Nominating/Governance committee if a company adopts a fee-shifting bylaw amendment without shareholder approval.

| Ø | Putnam will support management/shareholder proxy access proposals as long as the proposals align with the following principles for a shareholder (or up to 20 shareholders together as a group) to receive proxy access:

1) The required minimum aggregate ownership of the Company’s outstanding common stock is no greater than 3%;

2) The required minimum holding period for the shareholder proponent(s) is no greater than two years; and

3) The shareholder(s) are permitted to nominate at least 20% of director candidates for election to the board.

Proposals requesting shares be held for 3 years will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Putnam will vote agains t proposals requesting shares be held for more than three years. Proposals that meet Putnam’s stated criteria and include other requirements relating to issues such as, but not limited to, shares on loan or compensation agreements with nominees, will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

Additionally, shareholder proposals seeking an amendment to a company’s proxy access policy which include any one of the supported criteria under Putnam’s guidelines, for example, a 2-year holding period for shareholders, will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

| Ø | Putnam supports management / shareholder proposals giving shareholders the right to call a special meeting as long as the ownership requirement in such proposals is at least 15% of the company's outstanding common stock and not more than 25%.

In general, Putnam will vote for management or shareholder proposals to reduce the ownership requirement below a company’s existing threshold, as long as the new threshold is at least 15% and not greater than 25% of the company’s outstanding common stock.

Putnam will vote against any proposal with an ownership requirement exceeding 25% of the company’s common stock or an ownership requirement that is less than 15% of the company's outstanding common stock.

In cases where there are competing management and shareholder proposals giving shareholders the right to call a special meeting, Putnam will generally vote for the

proposal which has the lower minimum shareholder ownership threshold, as long as that threshold is within Putnam’s recommended minimum/maximum thresholds. If only one of the competing proposals has a threshold that falls within Putnam’s threshold range, Putnam will normally support that proposal as long as it represents an improvement (reduction) from the previous requisite ownership level. Putnam will normally vote against both proposals if neither proposal has a requisite ownership level between 15% and 25% of the company’s outstanding common stock.

| Ø | Putnam will generally vote fo r management or shareholder proposals to allow a company to hold virtual-only or hybrid shareholder meetings or to amend its articles/charter/by-laws to allow for virtual-only or hybrid shareholder meetings, provided the proposal does not preclude in-person meetings (at any given time), and does not otherwise limit or impair shareholder participation; and if the company has provided clear disclosure to ensure that shareholders can effectively participate in virtual-only shareholder meetings and meaningfully communicate with company management and directors. Additionally, Putnam may consider the rationale of the proposal and whether there have been concerns about the company’s previous meeting practices.

Disclosure should address the following:

| • | the ability of shareholders to ask questions during the meeting

| • | including time guidelines for shareholder questions

| • | rules around what types of questions are allowed

| • | and rules for how questions and comments will be recognized and disclosed to meeting participants

| • | the manner in which appropriate questions received during the meeting will be addressed by the board

| • | procedures, if any, for posting appropriate questions received during the meeting and the company’s answers on the investor page of their website as soon as is practical after the meeting

| • | technical and logistical issues related to accessing the virtual meeting platform; and

| • | procedures for accessing technical support to assist in the event of any difficulties accessing the virtual meeting

Putnam may vote against proposals that do not meet these criteria.

Additionally, Putnam may vote against the Chair of the Governance Committee when the board is planning to hold a virtual-only shareholder meeting and the company has not provided sufficient disclosure (as noted above) or shareholder access to the meeting.

| Ø | Putnam will vote for proposals to approve a company’s board-approved climate transition action plan (“say on climate” proposals in which the company’s board proposes that shareholders indicate their support for the company’s plan), unless

the proxy voting service has recommended a vote against the proposal, in which case Putnam will vote on a case-by-case basis on the proposal.

| Ø | Putnam will vote on a case-by-case basis on board-approved proposals that conflict with shareholder proposals.

II. Shareholder Proposals

Shareholder proposals are non-binding votes that are often opposed by management. Some proposals relate to matters that are financially immaterial to the company’s business, while others may be impracticable or costly for a company to implement. At the same time, well-crafted shareholder proposals may serve the purpose of raising issues that are material to a company’s business for management’s consideration and response. Putnam seeks to weigh the costs of different types of proposals against their expected financial benefits. More specifically:

Putnam will vote in accordance with the recommendation of the company’s board of directors on all shareholder proposals, except as follows:

| Ø | Putnam will vote for shareholder proposals that are consistent with Putnam’s proxy voting guidelines for board-approved proposals.

| Ø | Putnam will vote for shareholder proposals to declassify a board, absent special circumstances which would indicate that shareholder interests are better served by a classified board structure.

| Ø | Putnam will vote for shareholder proposals to require shareholder approval of shareholder rights plans.

| Ø | Putnam will vote for shareholder proposals asking that director nominees receive support from holders of a majority of votes cast or a majority of shares outstanding of the company in order to be (re) elected.

| Ø | Putnam will review on a case-by-case basis, shareholder proposals requesting that the board adopt a policy whereby, in the event of a significant restatement of financial results or significant extraordinary write-off, the board will recoup, to the fullest extent practicable, for the benefit of the company, all performance-based bonuses or awards that were made to senior executives based on having met or exceeded specific performance targets to the extent that the specified performance targets were not met.

| Ø | Putnam will vote for shareholder proposals urging the board to seek shareholder approval of any future supplemental executive retirement plan ("SERP"), or

individual retirement arrangement, for senior executives that provides credit for additional years of service not actually worked, preferential benefit formulas not provided under the company's tax-qualified retirement plans, accelerated vesting of retirement benefits or retirement perquisites and fringe benefits that are not generally offered to other company employees. (Implementation of this policy shall not breach any existing employment agreement or vested benefit.)

| Ø | Putnam will vote for shareholder proposals requiring companies to report on their executive retirement benefits. (Deferred compensation, split-dollar life insurance, SERPs and pension benefits)

| Ø | Putnam will vote for shareholder proposals requesting that a company establish a pay-for-superior-performance standard whereby the company discloses defined financial and/or stock price performance criteria (along with the detailed list of comparative peer group) to allow shareholders to sufficiently determine the pay and performance correlation established in the company’s performance-based equity program. In addition, no multi-year award should be paid out unless the company’s performance exceeds, during the current CEO’s tenure (three or more years), its peer median or mean performance on selected financial and stock price performance criteria.

| Ø | Putnam will vote for shareholder proposals urging the board to disclose in a separate report to shareholders, the Company’s relationships with its executive compensation consultants or firms. Specifically, the report should identify the entity that retained each consultant (the company, the board or the compensation committee) and the types of services provided by the consultant in the past five years (non-compensation-related services to the company or to senior management and a list of all public company clients where the Company’s executives serve as a director.)

| Ø | Putnam will vote for shareholder proposals requiring companies to accelerate vesting of equity awards under management severance agreements only if both of the following conditions are met:

| • | the company undergoes a change in control, and

| • | the change in control results in the termination of employment for the person receiving the severance payment.

| Ø | Putnam will vote for shareholder proposals requiring that the chair’s position be filled by an independent director (separate chair/CEO). However, Putnam will vote on a case-by-case basis on such proposals when the company’s board has a lead-independent director (or already has an independent or separate chair) and Putnam is supporting the nominees for the board of directors.

| Ø | Putnam will vote for shareholder proposals seeking the submission of golden coffins to a shareholder vote or the elimination of the practice altogether.

| Ø | Putnam will vote for shareholder proposals seeking a policy that forbids any director who receives more than 25% withhold votes cast (based on for and withhold votes) from serving on any key board committee for two years and asking the board to find replacement directors for the committees if need be.

| Ø | Putnam will vote for shareholder proposals urging the board to seek shareholder approval of severance agreements (e.g., golden and tin parachutes).

| • | However, Putnam will vote against such proposals when the company has a policy that minimally requires shareholder approval of severance agreements for executives that provides for cash severance benefits exceeding 2.99 times the sum of the executive's base salary plus target annual non-equity incentive plan bonus opportunity.

Putnam will vote on a case-by-case basis on approving such compensation arrangements.

| Ø | Putnam will vote for shareholder proposals requiring companies to make cash payments under management severance agreements only if both of the following conditions are met: the company undergoes a change in control, and the change in control results in the termination of employment for the person receiving the severance payment.

| Ø | Putnam will vote on a case-by-case basis on shareholder proposals to limit a company’s ability to make excise tax gross-up payments under management severance agreements as well as proposals to limit income or other tax gross-up payments.

| Ø | Putnam will vote in accordance with the recommendation of the company’s board of directors on shareholder proposals regarding corporate political spending, unless Putnam is voting against the directors, in which case the proposal would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

| Ø | Putnam will vote on a case-by-case basis on shareholder proposals that conflict with board-approved proposals.

Environmental and Social

| Ø | Putnam believes that sustainable environmental practices and sustainable social policies are important components of long-term value creation. Companies should evaluate the potential risks to their business operations that are directly related to environmental and social factors (among others). In evaluating shareholder proposals relating to environmental and social initiatives, Putnam takes into account (1) the relevance and materiality of the proposal to the company’s business, (2) whether the proposal is well crafted (e.g., whether it

references science-based targets, or standard global protocols), and (3) the practicality or reasonableness of implementing the proposal.

Putnam may support well-crafted and well-targeted proposals that request additional reporting or disclosure on a company’s plans to mitigate risk to the company related to the following issues and/or their strategies related to these issues: Environmental issues, including but not limited to, climate change, greenhouse gas emissions, renewable energy, and broader sustainability issues; and Social issues, including but not limited to, fair pay, employee diversity and development, safety, labor rights, supply chain management, privacy and data security.

In addition, Putnam will consider proposals related to Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) on a case-by-case basis.

Putnam will consider factors such as (i) the industry in which the company operates, (ii) the company's current level of disclosure, (iii) the company's level of oversight, (iv) the company’s management of risk arising out of these matters, (v) whether the company has suffered a material financial impact. Other factors may also be considered.

Putnam will consider the recommendation of its third-party proxy service provider and may consider other factors such as third-party evaluations of ESG performance.

Additionally, Putnam may vote on a case-by-case basis on proposals which ask a company to take action beyond reporting where our third-party proxy service provider has identified one or more reasons to warrant a vote FOR.

III. Voting Shares of Non-US Issuers

Many non-US jurisdictions impose material burdens on voting proxies. There are three primary types of limits as follows:

| (1) | Share blocking. Shares must be frozen for certain periods of time to vote via proxy.

| (2) | Share re-registration. Shares must be re-registered out of the name of the local custodian or nominee into the name of the client for the meeting and, in many cases, then re-registered back. Shares are normally blocked in this period.

| (3) | Powers of Attorney. Detailed documentation from a client must be given to the local sub-custodian. In many cases Putnam is not authorized to deliver this information or sign the relevant documents.

Putnam’s policy is to weigh the benefits to clients from voting in these jurisdictions against the detriments of not doing so. For example, in a share blocking jurisdiction, it will normally not be in a client’s interest to freeze shares simply to participate in a non- contested routine meeting. More specifically, Putnam will normally not vote shares in non-US jurisdictions imposing burdensome proxy voting requirements except in significant votes (such as contested elections and major corporate transactions) where directed by portfolio managers.

Putnam recognizes that the laws governing non-US issuers will vary significantly from US law and from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Accordingly, it may not be possible or even advisable to apply these guidelines mechanically to non-US issuers. However, Putnam believes that shareholders of all companies are protected by the existence of a sound corporate governance and disclosure framework. Accordingly, Putnam will vote proxies of non-US issuers in accordance with the foregoing guidelines where applicable, except as follows:

| Ø | Putnam will vote for shareholder proposals calling for a majority of the directors to be independent of management.

| Ø | Putnam will vote for shareholder proposals that implement corporate governance standards similar to those established under U.S. federal law and the listing requirements of U.S. stock exchanges, and that do not otherwise violate the laws of the jurisdiction under which the company is incorporated.

| Ø | Putnam will vote on a case-by-case basis on proposals relating to (1) the issuance of common stock in excess of 20% of a company’s outstanding common stock where shareholders do not have preemptive rights, or (2) the issuance of common stock in excess of 100% of a company’s outstanding common stock where shareholders have preemptive rights.

| Ø | Putnam will vote for proposals to authorize share repurchase programs that are recommended for approval by Putnam’s proxy voting service provider, otherwise Putnam will vote against such proposals; except that Putnam will vote on a case-by-case basis if there are concerns that there may be abusive practices related to the share repurchase programs.

| Ø | Putnam will vote against authorizations to repurchase shares or issue shares or convertible debt instruments with or without preemptive rights when such authorization can be used as a takeover defense without shareholder approval. Putnam will not apply this policy to a company with a shareholder who controls more than 50% of its voting rights.

| Ø | Putnam will generally vote for proposals that include debt issuances, however substantive/non-routine proposals, and proposals that fall outside of normal market practice or reasonable standards, will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

| Ø | Putnam will vote for board-approved routine, market-practice proposals. These proposals are limited to (1) those issues that will have little or no economic impact, such as technical, editorial, or mandatory regulatory compliance items, (2) those issues that will not adversely affect and/or which clearly improve shareholder rights/values, and which do not violate Putnam’s proxy voting guidelines, or (3) those issues that do not seek to deviate from existing laws or regulations. Examples include but are not limited to, related party transactions (non-strategic), profit-and-loss transfer agreements (Germany), authority to increase paid-in capital (Taiwan). Should any unusual circumstances be identified concerning a normally routine issue, such proposals will be referred back to Putnam for internal review.

| Ø | Putnam will generally vote for proposals regarding amendments seeking to expand business lines or to amend the corporate purpose, provided the proposal would not include a significant or material departure from the company’s current business, and/or will provide the company with greater flexibility in the performance of its activities.

| Ø | Putnam will normally vote for management proposals concerning allocation of income and the distribution of dividends. However, Putnam portfolio teams will override this guideline when they conclude that the proposals are outside the market norms (i.e., those seen as consistently and unusually small or large compared to market practices).

| Ø | Putnam will generally vote for proposals seeking to adjust the par value of common stock. However, non-routine, substantive proposals will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

| Ø | Putnam will vote against proposals that would authorize the company to reduce the notice period for calling special or extraordinary general meetings to less than 21-Days.

| Ø | Putnam will generally vote for proposals relating to transfer of reserves/increase of reserves (i.e., France, Japan). However, Putnam will vote on a case-by-case basis if the proposal falls outside of normal market practice.

| Ø | Putnam will generally vote for proposals to increase the maximum variable pay ratio. However, Putnam will vote on a case-by-case basis if we are voting against a company’s remuneration report or if the proposal seeks an increase in excess of 200%.

| Ø | Putnam will review stock option plans on a case-by-case basis which allow for the options exercise price to be reduced by dividend payments (if the plan would normally pass Putnam’s Guidelines).

| Ø | Putnam will generally vote for requests to provide loan guarantees however, Putnam will vote on a case-by-case basis if the total amount of guarantees is in excess of 100% of the company’s audited net assets.

| Ø | Putnam will generally support remuneration report/policy proposals (i.e., advisory/binding) where a company’s executive compensation is linked directly with the performance of the business and executive. Putnam will generally support compensation proposals which incorporate a mix of reasonable salary and performance based short- and long-term incentives. Companies should demonstrate that their remuneration policies are designed and managed to incentivize and retain executives while growing the company’s long-term shareholder value.

Generally, Putnam will vote against remuneration report/policy proposals (i.e., advisory/binding) in the following cases:

| • | Disconnect between pay and performance

| • | No performance metrics disclosed;

| • | No relative performance metrics utilized;

| • | Single performance metric was used and it was an absolute measure;

| • | Performance goals were lowered when management failed or was unlikely to meet original goals;

| • | Long Term Incentive Plan is subject to retesting (e.g., Australia);

| • | Service contracts longer than 12 months (e.g., United Kingdom);

| • | Allows vesting below median for relative performance metrics;

| • | Ex-gratia / non-contractual payments have been made (e.g., United Kingdom and Australia);

| • | Contains provisions to automatically vest upon change-of-control; or

| • | Other poor compensation practices or structures.

| • | Pension provisions for new executives is not at the same level as the majority of the wider workforce; pension provisions for incumbent executives are not set to decrease over time (United Kingdom)

| • | Proposed CEO salary increases are not justifiably appropriate in comparison to wider workforce or rationale for exception increases is not fully disclosed (United Kingdom)

| Ø | Putnam will vote on a case-by-case basis on bonus payments to executive directors or senior management; however, Putnam will vote against payments that include outsiders or independent statutory auditors.

Matters Relating to Board of Directors

Uncontested Board Elections

Asia: China, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Philippines, Taiwan and Thailand

| Ø | Putnam will vote against the entire board of directors if

| • | fewer than one-third of the directors are independent directors, or

| • | the board has not established audit, compensation and nominating committees each composed of a majority of independent directors, or

| • | the chair of the audit, compensation or nominating committee is not an independent director.

Commentary: Companies listed in China (or dual-listed in China and Hong Kong) often have a separate supervisory committee in addition to a standard board of directors containing audit, compensation, and nominating committees. The supervisory committee provides oversight of the financial affairs of the company and supervises members of the board and management, while the board of directors makes decisions related to the company's business and investment strategies. The supervisory committee normally comprises employee representatives and shareholder representatives. Shareholder representatives are elected by shareholders of the company while employee representatives are elected by the company's staff. Shareholder representatives may be independent or may be affiliated with the company or its substantial shareholders. Current laws and regulations neither provide a basis for evaluation of supervisor independence nor do they require a supervisor to be independent.

| Ø | Putnam will generally vote in favor of nominees to the Supervisory Committee

Australia

| Ø | Putnam will vote against the entire board of directors if

| • | fewer than a majority of the directors are independent, or

| • | the board has not established an audit committee composed solely of non-executive directors, a majority of whom, including the chair of the committee (who should not be the board chair), should be independent directors, or

| • | the board has not established nominating and compensation committees each composed of a majority of independent, non-executive directors, with an independent chair.

Brazil

| Ø | Putnam will vote against proposals requesting cumulative voting unless there are more candidates than number of seats available, in which case vote for.

| Ø | Putnam will vote for proposals for the proportional allocation of cumulative votes if Putnam is supporting the entire slate of nominees. Putnam will vote against such proposals if Putnam is not supporting the entire slate.

| Ø | Putnam will abstain on individual director allocation proposals if Putnam is voting for the proportional allocation of cumulative votes. Putnam will vote on a case-by-case basis on individual director allocation proposals if Putnam is voting against the proportional allocation of votes.

| Ø | Putnam will vote for proposals to cumulate votes of common and preferred shareholders if the nominees are known and Putnam is supporting the applicable nominees; Putnam will vote against such proposals if Putnam is not supporting the known nominees, or if the nominees are unknown.

| Ø | Putnam will generally vote against proposals seeking the recasting of votes for amended slate (as new candidates could be included in the amended slate without prior disclosure to shareholders).

| Ø | Putnam will vote against proposals regarding instructions if meeting is held on second call if election of directors is part of the recasting as the slate can be amended without (prior) disclosure to shareholders.

| Ø | Putnam will vote against proposals regarding the casting of minority votes to the candidate with largest number of votes.

Canada

Canadian corporate governance requirements mirror corporate governance reforms that have been adopted by the NYSE and other U.S. national securities exchanges and stock markets. As a result, Putnam will vote on matters relating to the board of directors of Canadian issuers in accordance with the guidelines applicable to U.S. issuers.

Commentary: Like the UK’s Combined Code on Corporate Governance, the policies on corporate governance issued by Canadian securities regulators embody the “comply and explain” approach to corporate governance. Because Putnam believes that the board independence standards contained in the proxy voting guidelines are integral to the protection of investors in Canadian companies, these standards will be applied in a prescriptive manner.

Continental Europe (ex-Germany)

| Ø | Putnam will vote against the entire board of directors if

| • | fewer than a majority of the directors are independent directors, or

| • | the board has not established audit, nominating and compensation committees each composed of a majority of independent directors.

Commentary: An “independent director” under the European Commission’s guidelines is one who is free of any business, family or other relationship, with the company, its controlling shareholder or the management of either, that creates a conflict of interest such as to impair his judgment. A “non-executive director” is one who is not engaged in the daily management of the company.

In France, Employee Representatives are employed by the company and represent rank and file employees. These representatives are elected by company employees. The law also provides for the appointment of employee shareholder representatives, if the employee shareholdings exceed 3% of the share capital. Employee shareholder representatives are elected by the company’s shareholders (via general meeting).

Germany

| Ø | For companies subject to “co-determination,” Putnam will vote for the election of nominees to the supervisory board, except:

| Ø | Putnam will vote against the Supervisory Board if

| • | the board has not established an audit committee comprising an Independent chair.

| • | the audit committee chair serves as board chair.

| • | the board contains more than two former management board members.

| Ø | Putnam will vote against the election of a former member of the company’s managerial board to chair of the supervisory board.

Commentary: German corporate governance is characterized by a two-tier board system - a managerial board composed of the company’s executive officers, and a supervisory board. The supervisory board appoints the members of the managerial board. Shareholders elect members of the supervisory board, except that in the case of companies with a large number of employees, company employees are allowed to elect some of the supervisory board members (one-half of supervisory board members are elected by company employees at companies with more than 2,000 employees; one-third of the supervisory board members are elected by company employees at companies with

more than 500 employees but fewer than 2,000). This practice is known as co-determination.

Israel

Non-Controlled Banks: Director elections at Non-Controlled banks are overseen by the Supervisor of the Banks and nominees for election as "other" (non-external) directors and external directors (under Companies Law and Directive 301) are put forward by an external and independent committee. As such,

| Ø | Putnam’s guidelines regarding board Nominating Committees will not apply

| Ø | Putnam will vote on a case-by-case on nominees when there are more nominees than seats available.

Italy

Election of directors and statutory auditors:

| Ø | Putnam will apply the director guidelines to the majority shareholder supported list and vote accordingly (for or against) if multiple lists of director candidates are presented. If there is no majority shareholder supported slate of nominees, Putnam will support the shareholder slate of nominees that is recommended for approval by Putnam’s service provider.

| Ø | Putnam will vote against the entire list of director nominees if the list is bundled as one proposal and if Putnam would otherwise be voting against any one director nominee.

| Ø | Putnam will generally vote for the majority shareholder supported list of statutory auditor nominees.

Note: Pursuant to Italian law, directors and statutory auditors are elected through a slate voting system whereby candidates are presented in lists submitted by shareholders representing a minimum percentage of share capital.

| Ø | Putnam will withhold votes from any director not identified in the proxy materials. (Example: Co-opted director nominees.)

Japan

| Ø | For companies that have established a U.S.-style corporate governance structure, Putnam will withhold votes from the entire board of directors if:

| • | the board does not have a majority of outside directors,

| • | the board has not established nominating and compensation committees composed of a majority of outside directors,

| • | the board has not established an audit committee composed of a majority of independent directors, or

| • | the board does not have at least two independent directors for companies with a controlling shareholder.

| Ø | For companies that have established a statutory auditor board structure:

| • | Putnam will withhold votes from the appointment of members of a company’s board of statutory auditors if a majority of the members of the board of statutory auditors is not independent.

| Ø | For companies that have established a statutory auditor board structure, Putnam will withhold votes from the entire board of directors if:

| • | the board does not have at least two outside directors, or

| • | the board does not have at least two independent directors for companies with a controlling shareholder.

| • | Putnam will vote against any statutory auditor nominee who attends fewer than 75% of board and committee meeting without valid reasons for the absences (i.e., illness, personal emergency, etc.) (Note that Corporate Law requires disclosure of outsiders' attendance but not that of insiders, who are presumed to have no more important time commitments.)

| Ø | For companies that have established an audit committee board structure (one-tier / one committee), Putnam will withhold votes from the entire board of directors if:

| • | the board does not have at least two outside directors,

| • | the board does not have at least two independent directors for companies with a controlling shareholder, or

| • | the board has not established an audit committee composed of a majority of independent directors

Election of Executive Director and Election of Supervisory Director - REIT

REITs have a unique two-tier board structure with generally one or more executive directors and two or more supervisory directors. The number of supervisory directors must be greater than, not equal to, the number of executive directors. Shareholders are asked to vote on both types of directors. Putnam will vote as follows, provided each board of executive / supervisory directors meets legal requirements.

Ø Putnam will generally vote for the election of Executive Director

Ø Putnam will generally vote for the election of Supervisory Directors

Commentary:

Definition of outside director and independent director:

The Japanese Companies Act focuses on two director classifications: Insider or Outsider. An outside director is a director who is not a director, executive, executive director, or employee of the company or its parent company, subsidiaries or affiliates. Further, a director, executive, executive director or employee, who have executive responsibilities, of the company or subsidiaries can regain eligibility ten years after his or her resignation, provided certain other requirements are met. An outside director is designated as an “independent” director based on the Tokyo Stock Exchange listing rules. An outside director is “independent” if that person can make decisions completely independent from the managers of the company, its parent, subsidiaries, or affiliates and does not have a material relationship with the company (i.e., major client, trading partner, or other business relationship; familial relationship with current director or executive; etc.).

The guidelines have incorporated these definitions in applying the board independence standards above.

Korea

Putnam will withhold votes from the entire board of directors if:

| • | For large companies (i.e., those with assets of at least KRW 2 trillion); the board does not have at least three independent directors or less than a majority of directors are independent directors,

| • | For small companies (i.e., those with assets of less than KRW 2 trillion), fewer than one-fourth of the directors are independent directors,

| • | The board has not established a nominating committee with at least half of the members being outside directors, or

| • | the board has not established an audit committee composed of at least three members and in which at least two-thirds of its members are independent directors.

Commentary: For purposes of these guidelines, an “outside director” is a director who is independent from the management or controlling shareholders of the company and holds no interests that might impair performing his or her duties impartially from the company, management or controlling shareholder. In determining whether a director is an outside director, Putnam will also apply the standards included in Article 382 of the Korean Commercial Act, i.e., no employment relationship with the company for a period of two years before serving on the committee, no director or employment relationship with the company’s largest shareholder, etc.) and may consider other business relationships that would affect the independence of an outside director.

| Ø | Putnam will generally vote for proposals to amend the Executive Officer Retirement Allowance Policy unless the recipients of the grants include non-executives; the proposal would have a negative impact on shareholders, or the proposal appear to be outside of normal market practice, in which case Putnam will vote against.

Malaysia

| Ø | Putnam will vote against the entire board of directors if:

| · | less than 50% of the directors are independent directors, or less than a majority of the directors are independent directors for large companies,

| · | the board has not established an audit committee with all members being independent directors, including the committee chair,

| · | the board has not established a nominating committee with all members being non-executive directors, a majority of whom are independent, including the committee chair; the board chair should not serve as a member of the nomination committee, or

| · | the board has not established a compensation committee with all members being non-executive directors, a majority of whom are independent; the board chair should not serve as a member of the remuneration committee.

Nordic Markets – Finland, Norway, Sweden

| Ø | Putnam will vote against the entire board of directors if:

Board Independence:

| • | The board does not have a majority of directors independent from the company and management. (Sweden, Finland, Norway)

| • | The board does not have at least two directors independent from the company and its major shareholders holding > 10% of the Company’s share capital. (Sweden, Finland, Norway)

| • | An executive director is a member of the board. (Norway)

Audit Committee:

| • | The audit committee does not consist of a majority of directors independent from the company and management. (Sweden, Finland)

| • | The audit committee does not have at least one director independent from the company and its major shareholders holding > 10% of the Company’s share capital. (Sweden, Finland)

| • | The audit committee is not majority independent. (Norway)

Remuneration Committee:

| • | The remuneration committee is not fully independent of the company, excluding the chair. (Sweden)

| • | The remuneration committee is not majority independent of the company. (Finland)

| • | The remuneration committee does not consist fully of non-executive directors. (Finland)

| • | The remuneration committee is not fully independent of management (Norway)

| • | The remuneration committee is not majority independent from the company and its major shareholders holding > 50% of the Company’s share capital. (Sweden, Finland, Norway)

Board Nomination Committee:

| • | The nomination committee does not consist of a majority of directors independent from the company. (Finland)

| • | An executive is a member of the nomination committee. (Finland)

External Nomination Committee: Vote against the establishment of the nomination committee and its guidelines when:

| • | The external committee is not majority independent of the company and management. (Sweden)

| • | The external committee does not have at least one director not affiliated to largest shareholder on the committee. (Sweden)

| • | The external committee does not meet best practice based on ISS analysis. (Finland)

| • | The external committee is not majority independent of the board and management. (Norway)

| • | The external committee has more than one member of the board of the directors sitting on the committee. (Norway)

| • | There is insufficient disclosure provided for new nominees (Norway)

| • | An executive is a member of the committee. (Norway)

Russia

| Ø | Putnam will vote on a case-by-case basis for the election of nominees to the board of directors.

Commentary: In Russia, director elections are handled through a cumulative voting process. Cumulative voting allows shareholders to cast all of their votes for a single nominee for the board of directors, or to allocate their votes among nominees in any other way. In contrast, in “regular” voting, shareholders may not give more than one vote per share to any single nominee. Cumulative voting can help to strengthen the ability of minority shareholders to elect a director.

Singapore

| Ø | Putnam will vote against from the entire board of directors if

| • | in the case of a board with an independent director serving as chair, fewer than one-third of the directors are independent directors; or, in the case of a board not chaired by an independent director, fewer than half of the directors are independent directors,

| • | the board has not established audit and compensation committees, each with an independent director serving as chair, with at least a majority of the members being independent directors, and with all of the directors being non-executive directors, or

| • | the board has not established a nominating committee, with an independent director serving as chair, and with at least a majority of the members being independent directors.

United Kingdom, Ireland

Commentary:

Application of guidelines: Although the Combined Code has adopted the “comply and explain” approach to corporate governance, Putnam believes that the guidelines discussed above with respect to board independence standards are integral to the protection of investors in UK companies. As a result, these guidelines will be applied in a prescriptive manner.

Definition of independence: For the purposes of these guidelines, a non-executive director shall be considered independent if the director meets the independence standards in section A.3.1 of the Combined Code (i.e., no material business or employment relationships with the company, no remuneration from the company for non-board services, no close family ties with senior employees or directors of the company, etc.), except that Putnam does not view service on the board for more than nine years as affecting a director’s independence.

Smaller companies: A smaller company is one that is below the FTSE 350 throughout the year immediately prior to the reporting year.

Ø Putnam will withhold votes from the entire board of directors if:

| • | the board, excluding the Non-Executive Chair, is not comprised of at least half independent non-executive directors,

| • | the board has not established a Nomination committee composed of a majority of independent non-executive directors, excluding the Non-Executive Chair, or

| • | the board has not established a Compensation committee composed of (1) at least three directors (in the case of smaller companies, as defined by the Combined Code, two directors) and (2) solely of independent non-executive directors. The company chair may be a member of, but not chair, the Committee provided he or she was considered independent on appointment as chair, or

| • | The board has not established an Audit Committee composed of, (1) at least three directors (in the case of smaller companies as defined by the Combined Code, two directors) and (2) solely of independent non-executive directors. The board chair may not serve on the audit committee of large or small companies.

All other jurisdictions

| Ø | In the absence of jurisdiction specific guidelines, Putnam will vote as follows for boards/supervisory boards:

| • | Putnam will vote against the entire board of directors if

| • | fewer than a majority of the directors are independent directors, or

| • | the board has not established audit, nominating and compensation committees each composed of a majority of independent directors.

Additional Commentary regarding all Non-US jurisdictions:

Whether a director is considered “independent” or not will be determined by reference to local corporate law or listing standards.

Some jurisdictions may legally require or allow companies to have a certain number of employee representatives, employee shareholder representatives (e.g., France) and/or shareholder representatives on their board. Putnam generally does not consider these representatives independent. The presence of employee representatives or employee shareholder representatives on the board and key committees is generally legally mandated. In most markets, shareholders do not have the ability to vote on the election of employee representatives or employee shareholder representatives. In some markets, significant shareholders have a legal right to nominate shareholder representatives. Shareholders are required to approve the election of shareholder representatives to the board. Unlike employee representatives, there are no legal requirements regarding the presence of shareholder representatives on the board or its committees.

| Ø | Putnam will not include employee or employee shareholder representatives in the independence calculation of the board or key committees, nor in the calculation of the size of the board.

| Ø | Putnam will include shareholder representatives in the independence calculation of the board and key committees, and in the calculation of the size of the board.

| Ø | Putnam will generally support shareholder or employee representatives if included in the agenda Putnam will vote on a case-by-case basis when there are more candidates than seats. Additionally, Putnam will vote against such nominees when there is insufficient information disclosed.

| Ø | Putnam Investments’ policies regarding the provision of professional services and transactional relationship with regard to directors will apply.

| Ø | Putnam will vote for independent nominees for alternate director, unless such nominees do not meet Putnam’s individual director standards.

Shareholder nominated directors/self-nominated directors

| Ø | Putnam will vote against shareholder nominees if Putnam supports the board of directors.

| Ø | Putnam will vote on a case-by case basis if Putnam will be voting against the current board.

| Ø | Putnam will vote on a case-by-case basis if the proposal regarding a self-nominated/shareholder nominated director nominee would add an additional seat to the board if the nominee is approved.

Other Business Matters

Japan

A. Article Amendments

| Ø | The Japanese Companies Act gives companies the option to adopt a U.S.-Style corporate structure (i.e., a board of directors and audit, nominating, and compensation committees). Putnam will vote for proposals to amend a company’s articles of incorporation to adopt the U.S.-Style “Board with Committees” structure. However, the independence of the outside directors is critical to effective corporate governance under this new system. Putnam will, therefore, scrutinize the backgrounds of the outside director nominees at such companies, and will vote against the amendment where Putnam believes the board lacks the necessary level of independence from the company or a substantial shareholder.

| Ø | Putnam will vote on a case-by-case basis on granting the board the authority to repurchase shares at its discretion.

| Ø | Putnam will vote against amendments to delete a requirement directing the company to reduce authorized capital by the number of treasury shares cancelled. If issued share capital decreases while authorized capital remains unchanged, then the company will have greater leeway to issue new shares (for example as a private placement or a takeover defense).

| Ø | Putnam will vote against proposals to authorize appointment of special directors. Under the new Corporate Law, companies are allowed to appoint, from among their directors, "special directors" who will be authorized to make decisions regarding the purchase or sale of important assets and major borrowing or lending, on condition that the board has at least six directors, including at least one non-executive director. At least three special directors must participate in the decision-making process and decisions shall be made by a majority vote of the special directors. However, the law does not require any of the special directors to be non-executives, so in effect companies may use this mechanism to bypass outsiders.

| Ø | Putnam will generally vote for proposals to create new class of shares or to conduct a share consolidation of outstanding shares to squeeze out minority shareholders.

| Ø | Putnam will vote against proposals seeking to enable companies to establish specific rules governing the exercise of shareholder rights. (Note: Such as, shareholders' right to submit shareholder proposals or call special meetings.)

B. Compensation Related Matters

| Ø | Putnam will vote against option plans which allow the grant of options to suppliers, customers, and other outsiders.

| Ø | Putnam will vote against stock option grants to independent internal statutory auditors. The granting of stock options to internal auditors, at the discretion of the directors, can compromise the independence of the auditors and provide incentives to ignore accounting problems, which could affect the stock price over the long term.

| Ø | Putnam will vote against the payment of retirement bonuses to directors and statutory auditors when one or more of the individuals to whom the grants are being proposed has not served in an executive capacity for the company. Putnam will also vote against payment of retirement bonuses to any directors or statutory auditors who have been designated by the company as independent. Retirement bonus proposals are all-or-nothing, meaning that split votes against individual payments cannot be made. If any one individual does not meet Putnam’s criteria, Putnam will vote against the entire bundled item.

C. Other Business Matters

| Ø | Putnam votes for mergers by absorptions of wholly-owned subsidiaries by their parent companies. These deals do not require the issuance of shares, and do not result in any dilution or new obligations for shareholders of the parent company. These transactions are routine.

| Ø | Putnam will vote for the acquisition if it is between parent and wholly-owned subsidiary.

| Ø | Putnam will vote for the formation of a holding company, if routine. Holding companies are once again legal in Japan and a number of companies, large and small, have sought approval to adopt a holding company structure. Most of the proposals are intended to help clarify operational authority for the different business areas in which the company is engaged and promote effective allocation of corporate resources. As most of the reorganization proposals do not entail any share issuances or any change in shareholders’ ultimate ownership interest in the operating units, Putnam will treat most such proposals as routine.

| Ø | Putnam will vote against proposals that authorize the board to vary the AGM record date.

| Ø | Putnam will vote for proposals to abolish the retirement bonus system

| Ø | Putnam will vote for board-approved director/officer indemnification proposals

| Ø | Putnam will vote on a case-by-case basis on private placements (Third-party share issuances). Where Putnam views the share issuance necessary to avoid bankruptcy or to put the company back on solid financial footing, Putnam will generally vote for. When a private placement allows a particular shareholder to obtain a controlling stake in the company at a discount to market prices, or where the private placement otherwise disadvantages ordinary shareholders, Putnam will vote against.

| Ø | Putnam will generally vote against shareholder rights plans (poison pills). However, if all of the following criteria are met, Putnam will evaluate such poison pills on a case-by-case basis:

1) The poison pill must have a duration of no more than three years.

2) The trigger threshold must be no less than 20 percent of issued capital.

3) The company must have no other types of takeover defenses in place.

4) The company must establish a committee to evaluate any takeover offers, and the members of that committee must all meet Putnam’s' definition of independence.

5) At least 20 percent, and no fewer than two, of the directors must meet Putnam’s definition of independence. These independent directors must also meet Putnam’s guidelines on board meeting attendance.

6) The directors must stand for reelection on an annual basis.

7) The company must release its proxy materials no less than three weeks before the meeting date.

| Ø | Putnam will vote against proposals to allow the board to decide on income allocation without shareholder vote.

| Ø | Putnam will vote against proposals to limit the liability of External Audit Firms (“Accounting Auditors”)

| Ø | Putnam will vote against proposals seeking a reduction in board size that eliminates all vacant seats.

| Ø | Putnam may generally vote against proposals seeking an increase in authorized capital that leaves the company with as little as 25 percent of the authorized capital outstanding (general request). However, such proposals will be evaluated on a company specific basis, taking into consideration such factors as current authorization outstanding, existence (or lack thereof) of preemptive rights and rationale for the increase.

| Ø | Putnam will vote for corporate split agreement and transfer of sales operations to newly created wholly-owned subsidiaries where the transaction is a purely internal one which does not affect shareholders' ownership interests in the various operations. All other proposals will be referred back to Putnam for case-by-case

review. These reorganizations usually accompany the switch to a holding company structure, but may be used in other contexts.

United Kingdom

| Ø | Putnam will not apply the U.S. standard 15% discount cap for employee share purchase schemes at U.K. companies. As such, Putnam will generally vote for ‘Save-As-You-Earn’ schemes in the U.K which allow for no more than a 20% purchase discount, and which otherwise comply with U.K. law and Putnam standards.

France

| Ø | Putnam will not apply the U.S. standard 15% discount cap for employee share purchase schemes at French companies. As such, Putnam will generally vote for employee share purchase schemes in France that allow for no greater than a 30% purchase discount, or 40% purchase discount if the vesting period is equal to or greater than ten years, and which otherwise comply with French law and Putnam standards.

| Ø | Putnam will generally vote for the Remuneration Report (established based on SRD II), however Putnam will vote on a case-by-case basis when Putnam is voting against both the ex-Post Remuneration Report (CEO) and ex-Ante Remuneration Policy (CEO, or proposal including CEO remuneration package) in the current year, and Putnam’s third party service provider(s) is recommending a vote against.

Canada

| Ø | Putnam will generally vote for Advance Notice provisions for submitting director nominations not less than 30 days prior to the date of the annual meeting. For Advance Notice provisions where the minimum number of days to submit a shareholder nominee is less than 30 days prior to the meeting date, Putnam will vote on a case-by-case basis. Putnam will also vote on a case-by-case basis if the company's policy expressly prohibits the commencement of a new notice period in the event the originally scheduled meeting is adjourned or postponed.

Hong Kong

| Ø | Putnam will vote for proposals to approve a general mandate permitting the company to engage in non-pro rata share issuances of up to 20% of total equity in a year if the company’s board meets Putnam’s independence standards; if the

company’s board does not meet Putnam’s independence standards, then Putnam will vote against these proposals.

Additionally, Putnam will vote for proposals to approve the reissuance of shares acquired by the company under a share repurchase program, provided that: (1) Putnam supported (or would have supported, in accordance with these guidelines) the share repurchase program, (2) the reissued shares represent no more than 10% of the company’s outstanding shares (measured immediately before the reissuance), and (3) the reissued shares are sold for no less than 85% of current market value.

This policy supplements policies regarding share issuances as stated above under section

III. Voting Shares of Non-US Issuers.

Taiwan

| Ø | Putnam will vote against proposals to release the board of directors from the non-compete restrictions specified in Taiwanese Company Law. However, Putnam will vote for such proposals if the directors are engaged in activities with a wholly- owned subsidiary of the company.

Australia

| Ø | Putnam will vote for proposals to carve out, from the general cap on non-pro rata share issues of 15% of total equity in a rolling 12-month period, a particular proposed issue of shares or a particular issue of shares made previously within the 12-month period, if the company’s board meets Putnam’s independence standards; if the company’s board does not meet Putnam’s independence standards, then Putnam will vote against these proposals.

| Ø | Putnam will vote for proposals renewing partial takeover provisions.

| Ø | Putnam will vote on a case-by-case basis on Board-Spill proposals.

Turkey

Putnam will vote on a case-by-case basis on proposals involving related party transactions. However, Putnam will vote against when such proposals do not provide information on the specific transaction(s) to be entered into with the board members or executives.

Item 13. Portfolio Managers of Closed-End Investment Companies

(a)(1) Portfolio Managers. The officers of the investment manager identified below are primarily responsible for the day-to-day management of the fund’s portfolio as of the filing date of this report. Effective September 30, 2024, James Conn, Francisco Rivera, Daniel Workman and Benjamin Barber were added as Portfolio Managers of the fund.

Portfolio Managers | Joined Fund | Employer | Positions Over Past Five Years
Benjamin Barber, CFA | 2024 | Franklin Advisors 2020 – Present | Portfolio Manager
James Conn, CFA | 2024 | Franklin Advisors 2006 – Present | Portfolio Manager
Paul Drury, CFA | 2002 | Franklin Advisors 2024 – Present Putnam Investments 1997-2024 | Portfolio Manager
Garrett Hamilton, CFA | 2016 | Franklin Advisors 2024 – Present Putnam Investments 1997-2024 | Portfolio Manager
Francisco Rivera | 2024 | Franklin Advisors 1994 – Present | Portfolio Manager
Daniel Workman, CFA | 2024 | Franklin Advisors 2003 – Present | Portfolio Manager

(a)(2) Other Accounts Managed by the Fund’s Portfolio Managers.

The following table shows the number and approximate assets of other investment accounts (or portions of investment accounts) that the fund’s Portfolio Managers managed as of the fund’s most recent fiscal year-end. Unless noted, none of the other accounts pays a fee based on the account’s performance.

Portfolio Leader or Member | Other SEC-registered open-end and closed-end funds | Other accounts that pool assets from more than one client | Other accounts (including separate accounts, managed account programs and single-sponsor defined contribution plan offerings)
| Number of accounts | Assets | Number of accounts | Assets | Number of accounts | Assets
Paul Drury | 17 | $22,411,500,000 | 0 | $0 | 0 | $0
Garret Hamilton | 17 | $22,411,500,000 | 0 | $0 | 0 | $0
Benjamin Barber | 12 | $20,592,900,000 | 3 | $263,900,000 | 4 | $295,900,000
James Conn | 12 | $20,592,900,000 | 3 | $263,900,000 | 5 | $669,400,000
Francisco Rivera | 12 | $20,592,900,000 | 0 | $0 | 142 | $9,772,600,000
Daniel Workman | 12 | $20,592,900,000 | 0 | $0 | 6 | $868,400,000

Potential conflicts of interest in managing multiple accounts. Like other investment professionals with multiple clients, the fund’s Portfolio Managers may face certain potential conflicts of interest in connection with managing both the fund and the other accounts listed under “Other Accounts Managed by the Fund’s Portfolio Managers” at the same time. The paragraphs below describe some of these potential conflicts, which the investment manager believes are faced by investment professionals at most major financial firms. As described below, the investment manager and the Trustees of the Putnam funds have adopted compliance policies and procedures that attempt to address certain of these potential conflicts.

The management of accounts with different advisory fee rates and/or fee structures, including accounts that pay advisory fees based on account performance (“performance fee accounts”), may raise potential conflicts of interest by creating an incentive to favor higher-fee accounts. These potential conflicts may include, among others:

• The most attractive investments could be allocated to higher-fee accounts or performance fee accounts.

• The trading of higher-fee accounts could be favored as to timing and/or execution price. For example, higher-fee accounts could be permitted to sell securities earlier than other accounts when a prompt sale is desirable or to buy securities at an earlier and more opportune time.

• The trading of other accounts could be used to benefit higher-fee accounts (front- running).

• The investment management team could focus their time and efforts primarily on higher-fee accounts due to a personal stake in compensation.

The investment manager attempts to address these potential conflicts of interest relating to higher-fee accounts through various compliance policies that are generally intended to place all accounts, regardless of fee structure, on the same footing for investment management purposes. For example, under the investment manager’s policies:

• Performance fee accounts must be included in all standard trading and allocation procedures with all other accounts.

• All accounts must be allocated to a specific category of account and trade in parallel with allocations of similar accounts based on the procedures generally applicable to all accounts in those groups (e.g., based on relative risk budgets of accounts).

• All trading must be effected through Putnam’s trading desks and normal queues and procedures must be followed (i.e., no special treatment is permitted for performance fee accounts or higher-fee accounts based on account fee structure).

• Front running is strictly prohibited.

• The fund’s Portfolio Manager(s) may not be guaranteed or specifically allocated any portion of a performance fee.

As part of these policies, the investment manager has also implemented trade oversight and review procedures in order to monitor whether particular accounts (including higher-fee accounts or performance fee accounts) are being favored over time.

Potential conflicts of interest may also arise when the Portfolio Manager(s) have personal investments in other accounts that may create an incentive to favor those accounts. As a general matter and subject to limited exceptions, the investment managers investment professionals do not have the opportunity to invest in client accounts, other than the Putnam funds. However, in the ordinary course of business, the investment manager or related persons may from time to time establish “pilot” or “incubator” funds for the purpose of testing proposed investment strategies and products prior to offering them to clients. These pilot accounts may be in the form of registered investment companies, private funds such as partnerships or separate accounts established by Putnam Management or an affiliate. The investment manager or an affiliate supplies the funding for these accounts. Putnam employees, including the fund’s Portfolio Manager(s), may also invest in certain pilot accounts. The investment manager, and to the extent applicable, the Portfolio Manager(s) will benefit from the favorable investment performance of those funds and accounts. Pilot funds and accounts may, and frequently do, invest in the same securities as the client accounts. The investment manager policy is to treat pilot accounts in the same manner as client accounts for purposes of trading allocation – neither favoring nor disfavoring them except as is legally required. For example, pilot accounts are normally included in the investment managers daily block trades to the same extent as client accounts (except that pilot accounts do not participate in initial public offerings).

A potential conflict of interest may arise when the fund and other accounts purchase or sell the same securities. On occasions when the Portfolio Manager(s) consider the purchase or sale of a security to be in the best interests of the fund as well as other accounts, the investment managers trading desk may, to the extent permitted by applicable laws and regulations, aggregate the securities to be sold or purchased in order to obtain the best execution and lower brokerage commissions, if any. Aggregation of trades may create the potential for unfairness to the fund or another account if one account is favored over another in allocating the securities purchased or sold – for example, by allocating a disproportionate amount of a security that is likely to increase in value to a favored account. The investment manager trade allocation policies generally provide that each day’s transactions in securities that are purchased or sold by multiple accounts are, insofar as possible, averaged as to price and allocated between such accounts (including the fund) in a manner which in Franklin Advisers opinion is equitable to each account and in accordance with the amount being purchased or sold by each account. Certain exceptions exist for specialty, regional or sector accounts. Trade allocations are reviewed on a periodic basis as part of the investment managers trade oversight procedures in an attempt to ensure fairness over time across accounts.

“Cross trades,” in which one Putnam account sells a particular security to another account (potentially saving transaction costs for both accounts), may also pose a potential conflict of interest. Cross trades may be seen to involve a potential conflict of interest if, for example, one account is permitted to sell a security to another account at a higher price than an independent third party would pay or if such trades result in more attractive investments being allocated to higher-fee accounts. The investment manager and the fund’s Trustees have adopted compliance procedures that provide that any transactions between the fund and another Putnam-advised account are to be made at an independent current market price, as required by law.

Another potential conflict of interest may arise based on the different investment objectives and strategies of the fund and other accounts. For example, another account may have a shorter-term investment horizon or different investment objectives, policies or restrictions than the fund. Depending on another account’s objectives or other factors, the Portfolio Manager(s) may give advice and make decisions that may differ from advice given, or the timing or nature of decisions made, with respect to the fund. In addition, investment decisions are the product of many factors in addition to basic suitability for the particular account involved. Thus, a particular security may be bought or sold for certain accounts even though it could have been bought or sold for other accounts at the same time. More rarely, a particular security may be bought for one or more accounts managed by the Portfolio Manager(s) when one or more other accounts are selling the security (including short sales). There may be circumstances when purchases or sales of portfolio securities for one or more accounts may have an adverse effect on other accounts. As noted above, the investment manager has implemented trade oversight and review procedures to monitor whether any account is systematically favored over time.

The fund’s Portfolio Manager(s) may also face other potential conflicts of interest in managing the fund, and the description above is not a complete description of every conflict that could be deemed to exist in managing both the fund and other accounts.

(a)(3) Compensation of portfolio managers. Portfolio managers are evaluated and compensated across the group of specified products they manage, in part, based on their performance relative to peers or performance ahead of the applicable benchmark, depending on the product, based on a blend of 3-year and 5-year performance. In addition, evaluations take into account individual contributions and a subjective component.

Each portfolio manager is assigned an industry-competitive incentive compensation target consistent with this goal and evaluation framework. Actual incentive compensation may be higher or lower than the target, based on group, individual, and subjective performance, and may also reflect the performance of Putnam as a firm.

Incentive compensation includes a cash bonus and may also include grants of deferred cash, stock or options. In addition to incentive compensation, portfolio managers receive fixed annual salaries typically based on level of responsibility and experience.

For Putnam Managed Municipal Income Trust and Putnam Municipal Opportunities Trust, Franklin evaluates performance based on the fund’s peer ranking in the fund’s Lipper category. This peer ranking is based on pre-tax performance.

For Putnam Master Intermediate Income Trust and Putnam Premier Income Trust, Putnam evaluates performance based on the peer ranking of related products managed by the investment manager with similar strategies in those products’ Lipper categories. This peer ranking is based on pre-tax performance.

One or more of the portfolio managers of Putnam Master Intermediate Income Trust and Putnam Premier Income Trust receive a portion of the performance fee payable by a private fund managed by Putnam (the “Private Fund”) in connection with their service as members of the Private Fund portfolio management team. See “Other Accounts Managed by the Fund’s Portfolio Managers—Potential conflicts of interest in managing multiple accounts” in (a)(2) above for information on how the investment manager addresses potential conflicts of interest resulting from an individual’s management of more than one account.

(a)(4) Fund ownership. The following table shows the dollar ranges of shares of the fund owned by the professionals listed above at the end of the fund’s last two fiscal years, including investments by their immediate family members and amounts invested through retirement and deferred compensation plans.

*: Assets in the fund

| Year/Period end | $0 | $0-$10,000 | $10,001-$50,000 | $50,001-$100,000 | $100,001-$500,000 | $500,001-$1,000,000 | $1,000,001 and over
Paul M. Drury | 2024 | * |  |  |  |  |  |
| 2023 | * |  |  |  |  |  |
Garrett L. Hamilton | 2024 | * |  |  |  |  |  |
| 2023 | * |  |  |  |  |  |
Benjamin Barber | 2024+ | * |  |  |  |  |  |
James Conn | 2024+ | * |  |  |  |  |  |
Francisco Rivera | 2024+ | * |  |  |  |  |  |
Daniel Workman | 2024+ | * |  |  |  |  |  |

+: Became a portfolio manager of the fund effective September 30, 2024.

(b) Not applicable

Item 14. Purchases of Equity Securities by Closed-End Management Investment Companies and Affiliated Purchasers:

Registrant Purchase of Equity Securities
|  |  |  | Maximum
|  |  | Total Number | Number (or
|  |  | of Shares | Approximate
|  |  | Purchased | Dollar Value )
|  |  | as Part | of Shares
|  |  | of Publicly | that May Yet Be
| Total Number | Average | Announced | Purchased
| of Shares | Price Paid | Plans or | under the Plans
Period | Purchased | per Share | Programs* | or Programs**
November 1 - November 30, 2023 | 141,252 | $5.79 | 141,252 | 4,545,570
December 1 - December 31, 2023 | 311,945 | $6.11 | 311,945 | 4,233,625
January 1 - January 31, 2024 | 189,010 | $6.15 | 189,010 | 4,044,615
February 1 - February 28, 2024 | 97,426 | $6.16 | 97,426 | 3,947,189
March 1 - March 31, 2024 | 299,763 | $6.13 | 299,763 | 3,647,426
April 1 - April 30, 2024 | 319,059 | $5.94 | 319,059 | 3,328,367
May 1 - May 31, 2024 | 259,142 | $6.02 | 259,142 | 3,069,225
June 1 - June 30, 2024 | 251,996 | $6.20 | 251,996 | 2,817,229
July 1 - July 31, 2024 | 287,454 | $6.23 | 287,454 | 2,529,775
August 1 - August 31, 2024 | 125,416 | $6.40 | 125,416 | 2,404,359
September 1 - September 30, 2024 | 33,662 | $6.49 | 33,662 | 2,370,697
October 1 - October 31, 2024 | 119,144 | $6.30 | 119,144 | 4,359,044

* In October 2005, the Board of Trustees of the Putnam Funds initiated the closed-end fund share repurchase program, which, as subsequently amended, authorized the fund to repurchase of up to 10% of its fund's outstanding common shares over the two-years ending October 5, 2007. The Trustees have subsequently renewed the program on an annual basis. The program renewed by the Board in September 2023, which was in effect between October 1, 2023 and September 30, 2024,

allowed the fund to repurchase up to 4,715,013 of its shares. The program renewed by the Board in September 2024, which is in effect between October 1, 2024 and September 30, 2025, allows the fund to repurchase up to 4,478,188 of its shares.

**Information prior to October 1, 2024, is based on the total number of shares eligible for repurchase under the program, as amended through September 2023. Information from October 1, 2024 forward is based on the total number of shares eligible for repurchase under the program, as amended through September 2024.

Item 15. Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders:

Not applicable

Item 16. Controls and Procedures:

(a) The registrant's principal executive officer and principal financial officer have concluded, based on their evaluation of the effectiveness of the design and operation of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days of the filing date of this report, that the design and operation of such procedures are generally effective to provide reasonable assurance that information required to be disclosed by the registrant in this report is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the Commission's rules and forms.

(b) Changes in internal control over financial reporting: Not applicable

Item 17. Disclosures of Securities Lending Activities for Closed-End Investment Companies:

Not Applicable

Item 18. Recovery of Erroneously Awarded Compensation.

(a) No

(b) No

Item 19. Exhibits:

(a)(1) The Code of Ethics of The Putnam Funds and Franklin Templeton, are filed herewith.

(a)(2) Any policy required by the listing standards adopted pursuant to Rule 10D-1 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.10D-1) by the registered national securities exchange or registered national securities association upon which the registrant’s securities are listed.

(a)(3) A separate certification for each principal executive and principal financial officer of the registrant as required by Rule 30a-2(a) under the Act (17 CFR 270.30a-2(a)), are filed herewith:

(a)(4) 19(a) Notices to Beneficial Owners are filed herewith.

(b) The certifications required by Rule 30a-2(b) under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended, are filed herewith.

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Investment Company Act of 1940, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

Putnam Managed Municipal Income Trust

By (Signature and Title):

/s/Jeffrey White

Jeffrey White

Principal Accounting Officer

Date: December 27, 2024

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Investment Company Act of 1940, this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated.

By (Signature and Title):

/s/Jonathan S. Horwitz

Jonathan S. Horwitz

Principal Executive Officer

Date: December 27, 2024

By (Signature and Title):

/s/Jeffrey White

Jeffrey White

Principal Financial Officer

Date: December 27, 2024