Putnam
Managed Municipal
Income Trust

Annual report
10 | 31 | 13

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

Message from the Trustees

Dear Fellow Shareholder:

In the final months of 2013, we continue to see business conditions as generally positive for well-diversified investment portfolios. Financial markets have shown surprising resilience in the face of recent headwinds, most notably the confrontation over the federal budget and debt ceiling, which took a toll on the economy during October. With Congressional negotiations now continuing into 2014, there is hope that lawmakers may reach an agreement beneficial to the economy, even as investors remain alert to the risk of additional disruption.

Fortunately, equity markets have easily overcome recent obstacles. Supported by generally solid corporate earnings and healthy balance sheets, stock market gains to this point are far above the long-term average for a single year. International stocks have also performed well, particularly in Europe and Japan. While bonds have lagged behind stocks, many fixed-income sectors have advanced, reminding investors of the need for flexible and selective approaches. The sting of rising interest rates has been felt primarily by Treasuries and other government bonds.

At Putnam, we believe markets in flux can often provide the best opportunity for realizing the benefits of financial advice and active portfolio management. An experienced advisor can help investors stay focused on their long-term goals without getting distracted by daily economic and political events. Challenging times also call for innovative and alternative investment strategies managed by experts. In seeking returns for fund shareholders, Putnam’s investment professionals engage in fundamental research, active investing, and risk management strategies.

We would like to welcome new shareholders of the fund and to thank you for investing with Putnam. We would also like to extend our thanks to Elizabeth Kennan, who has retired from the Board of Trustees, for her 20 years of dedicated service.

About the fund

Potential for income exempt from federal income tax

Municipal bonds can help investors keep more of their investment income while also financing important public projects such as schools, roads, and hospitals. The bonds are typically issued by states and local municipalities to raise funds for building and maintaining public facilities, and they offer income that is generally exempt from federal, state, and local income tax.

Putnam Managed Municipal Income Trust has the flexibility to invest in municipal bonds issued by any state in the country or U.S. territory. The bonds are often backed by the issuing entity or by revenues collected from usage fees, and have varying degrees of credit risk — the risk that the issuer would not be able to repay the bond.

The fund also combines bonds of differing credit quality. In addition to investing in high-quality bonds, the fund’s managers allocate a portion of the portfolio to lower-rated bonds, which may offer higher income in return for more risk. When deciding whether to invest in a bond, the managers consider factors such as credit risk, interest-rate risk, and the risk that the bond will be prepaid.

The managers are backed by Putnam’s fixed-income organization, where municipal bond analysts are grouped into sector teams and conduct ongoing research. Once a bond has been purchased, the managers continue to monitor developments that affect the bond market, the sector, and the issuer of the bond.

The goal of this research and active management is to stay a step ahead of the industry and pinpoint opportunities for investors.

How closed-end funds differ from open-end funds

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

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

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

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

Data are historical. Past performance does not guarantee future results. More recent returns may be less or more than those shown. Investment return and net asset value will fluctuate, and you may have a gain or a loss when you sell your shares. Performance assumes reinvestment of distributions and does not account for taxes. Fund returns in the bar chart are at NAV. See pages 5 and 12–13 for additional performance information, including fund returns at market price. Index and Lipper results should be compared with fund performance at NAV. Fund results reflect the use of leverage, while index results are unleveraged and Lipper results reflect varying use of, and methods for, leverage. Lipper calculates performance differently than the closed-end funds it ranks, due to varying methods for determining a fund’s monthly reinvestment NAV.

Interview with your fund’s portfolio manager

Interest rates rose during the reporting period. How did municipal bonds perform for the 12 months ended October 31, 2013?

It was a challenging period for municipal bonds, which encountered pressure on several fronts, although the asset class experienced some relief in the final weeks of the period. During the early months of the fund’s fiscal year, the investment environment was positive for municipal bonds. Demand remained high, supply was relatively tight, and fundamentals in the municipal market continued to improve. As calendar year 2012 came to a close, however, investor uncertainty surrounding the fiscal cliff led to a sell-off. As part of the 2011 debt-ceiling negotiations, Congress had scheduled $1.2 trillion in tax increases and spending cuts to begin taking effect on January 1, 2013. However, in the end, existing tax rates were preserved for most taxpayers, but the political gridlock leading up to the final legislation sent some investors to the sidelines to wait for greater clarification.

In the late spring of 2013, improving U.S. economic data raised concerns that the Federal Reserve would pare back its stimulative bond-buying program, known as quantitative easing [QE]. Municipal bonds sold off beginning in May and continued to struggle for most of the summer months. During this time, interest rates rose and yield curves across the fixed-income universe steepened. This occurred despite the Fed’s

This comparison shows your fund’s performance in the context of broad market indexes for the 12 months ended 10/31/13. See pages 4 and 12–13 for additional fund performance information. Index descriptions can be found on page 14.

efforts to reassure investors that it needed to see “real and sustainable” progress in job gains before drawing down QE. Interest rates remained elevated throughout the summer months due to uncertainty surrounding the timing of the Fed’s decision to begin scaling back. Because bond prices tend to move in the opposite direction of rates, the rise in rates hurt the performance of tax-exempt municipal securities.

Technical pressures — that is, supply-and-demand dynamics — also created a headwind. Faced with the prospect of higher interest rates, many retail investors sold their municipal bond investments. In addition, Detroit’s bankruptcy and Puerto Rico’s debt challenges added to investor fears. In September, however, the technical backdrop improved somewhat, contributing to the first positive month of performance for tax-free securities since April. Municipal bond prices rallied as demand from value-conscious retail and non-traditional, or so-called “crossover,” buyers picked up, and outflows from municipal bond funds slowed. In addition, a significant reduction in refunding activity took place across the municipal bond market given the higher rate environment. This combination of diminished supply and somewhat improved demand was beneficial for municipal bond prices for the remainder of the period.

Seeing a more uneven economic climate than it had expected, as well as the fiscal and political discord in Washington, the Fed at its mid-September meeting held off setting a timetable for scaling back QE, keeping bond purchases unchanged. Following this surprise

Credit qualities are shown as a percentage of the fund’s net assets (common and preferred shares) as of 10/31/13. A bond rated Baa or higher (MIG3/VMIG3 or higher, for short-term debt) is considered investment grade. The chart reflects Moody’s ratings; percentages may include bonds or derivatives not rated by Moody’s but rated by Standard & Poor’s (S&P) or, if unrated by S&P, by Fitch ratings, and then included in the closest equivalent Moody’s rating. Ratings may vary over time.

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

decision, municipal bonds generally rallied and interest rates declined somewhat. We believe the central bank wants clear signs of accelerating economic growth, sustained job gains, and proof that the inflation rate is moving toward its stated 2% target before making any reduction in its monthly bond purchases.

The markets saw more relief in late October, as lawmakers agreed to extend the U.S. borrowing authority, avoiding a possible debt default. With the political standoff around the federal debt ceiling temporarily resolved, we expect the markets to refocus on economic data in the near term. Against this backdrop, the fund lagged its benchmark, the Barclays Municipal Bond Index, and the average return of its Lipper peer group.

How are you managing the risk posed by higher interest rates?

We expect continued pressure on interest rates and yield spreads as investors adjust their expectations about Fed policy. However, we believe it is unlikely that rates are going to suddenly spike as they did in May and June of 2013. If yields rise more than economic fundamentals seem to warrant, we may view it as an opportunity to add attractively valued securities to the fund. To prepare for this possibility, we held a bit more cash in the

Top ten state allocations are shown as a percentage of the fund’s net assets (common and preferred shares) as of 10/31/13. Investments in Puerto Rico represented 0.8% of the fund’s net assets. Summary information may differ from the portfolio schedule included in the financial statements due to the differing treatment of interest accruals, the floating rate portion of tender option bonds, derivative securities (if any), and classification of securities for presentation purposes. Holdings and allocations may vary over time.

portfolio at the end of the fiscal year than we did at the start of the period. The fund also had a slightly shorter duration, or interest-rate sensitivity, than did its Lipper peer group.

Periods of high volatility, although unpleasant for investors, may offer attractive buying opportunities. Tax-exempt yields, in our opinion, are more attractive now given this past summer’s sell-off. In fact, we have not seen yields at this level since 2011. We believe our fundamental research will help to unlock these opportunities and provide return potential. The municipal bond market is exceptionally diverse, composed of small issuers, complex instruments, and an array of market participants with varying return objectives. We believe this market dynamic presents inefficiencies that could result in attractive investment opportunities.

Is the default rate in the municipal bond market still low by historic standards?

Yes. For calendar year 2012, bankruptcy filings represented approximately 0.12% of the $3.7 trillion municipal bond market, and they remained near this level during 2013 as well. Furthermore, we do not believe that the default rate will increase meaningfully in the near future.

In our opinion, the significance of defaults and downgrades is the headline risk that emerges from occasional isolated incidents of insolvency. For example, Puerto Rico, a self-governing American territory, was downgraded by Moody’s last year, and by Standard & Poor’s this past spring. Puerto Rico’s debt is widely held because of its large issuance and exemption from federal and local taxes, and the considerable negative

This chart shows how the fund’s top weightings have changed over the past six months. Allocations are shown as a percentage of the fund’s net assets (common and preferred shares). Current period summary information may differ from the information in the portfolio schedule notes included in the financial statements due to the inclusion of derivative securities, any interest accruals, and the use of different classifications of securities for presentation purposes. Holdings and allocations may vary over time.

coverage of its strained economy led to a heavy sell-off in August. Throughout 2013, its government has taken measures to mend its credit profile, most notably by introducing proposals for pension reform and raising tax revenues. Despite these reforms, we believe the credit is likely to remain pressured due to Puerto Rico’s struggling economy.

Also, the city of Detroit filed for Chapter 9 bankruptcy in July. Although Detroit’s filing, the largest Chapter 9 filing in history, was a large headline event, we continue to believe that Chapter 9 filings remain isolated and don’t expect a large impact on the broader municipal bond market. At the same time, we continue to monitor the legal proceedings because they have the potential to set new precedents that can influence the market.

Given improvements in state budget forecasts, Moody’s revised its outlook for U.S. states in August to “stable” after five years of negative ratings. Credit quality at the state level remains quite high, with 30 of the 50 states holding either an Aaa or Aa1 rating, the two highest possible ratings. On balance, our outlook is for continued stabilization of states’ economies, given the improvement in employment, economic growth, and consumer confidence data — all of which have contributed to rising tax collections.

How did you position the portfolio during the period?

We identified what we considered to be improving fundamentals and still-attractive spreads in the market and sought to benefit from them. For example, revenue credits — typically issued by state and local governments to finance a specific revenue-generating project — fared well, in our view. To this end, we maintained our overweight position in revenue bonds rated BBB. While we believed that the budget challenges faced by many municipalities were significant, we were confident that conditions would improve as long as the broader economy did not stall. Our overweight to essential service revenue bonds was offset by the fund’s underweight positioning in local G.O. [general obligation] bonds — securities issued at the city or county level. As the federal government looks to reduce transfer payments to the states, we believe that these types of bonds are at risk for downgrades or other headline-driven price volatility. In terms of sectors, relative to the fund’s peer universe, we favored airlines, higher education, utility, and health-care bonds.

Overall, the fund’s higher-credit-quality positions generally underperformed the lower-rated sector during the period. Also, the fund’s exposure to Puerto Rico bonds was a detractor during the period. The fund’s shorter-duration interest-rate positioning benefited returns as interest rates moved higher.

How does the fund use leverage, and why?

Leverage generally involves borrowing funds or raising additional capital [e.g., by issuing debt securities or preferred stock] and investing the proceeds with the expectation of producing a return that exceeds the cost of borrowing or of the additional capital. Unlike open-end funds, closed-end funds, such as your fund, are permitted to engage in leverage by raising additional capital. Preferred share leverage is your fund’s primary source of leverage. We also use tender option bonds as a supplemental source of leverage. Importantly, the purpose of leverage is to seek to enhance returns for the fund’s common shareholders. Leverage offers opportunities for increased investment yield and also amplifies common shareholders’ exposure to the effects of gains and losses in the fund’s investment portfolio.

Are there risks associated with the use of leverage?

We believe common shareholders generally have been well served by the fund’s use of

leverage in recent years. However, the use of leverage presents certain risks for common shareholders. Because, as noted previously, leverage amplifies gains and losses, the net asset value of the common shares and the returns earned by common shareholders will be more volatile in a leveraged fund than in a fund that does not use leverage. In addition, if the borrowing costs [which are typically based on short-term interest rates] associated with leverage rise, the costs of leverage will increase, most likely reducing the returns earned by common shareholders. We consider these risks and may adjust the fund’s investment exposures, taking into account leverage and other factors, as appropriate under market conditions.

What is your near-term outlook for the municipal bond market?

The second half of the reporting period proved to be a volatile time for municipal bonds, and market conditions remain less than robust. However, we continue to believe that municipal bonds should be part of a diversified portfolio for long-term investors seeking tax-free income.

In our view, technical factors in the market are the big wild card. Tax-exempt municipal fund outflows have put downward pressure on prices. Although we have seen some institutional crossover buyers come into the market to help support prices, we think it is unlikely that we will see volatility subside until outflows and rate volatility diminish. As I mentioned previously, the overall fundamental credit outlook of municipal bonds appears solid. With regard to tax policy, many issues remain unresolved, including the debt ceiling and the potential for broader tax reform — both of which could affect the value of municipal bonds.

We will continue to position the portfolio for modest upticks in the overall interest-rate environment, avoiding the more interest-rate-sensitive sectors of the municipal bond market to make the most of less-than-favorable market conditions. Our efforts remain focused on the pursuit of steady income, low net asset value volatility, and a competitive total return.

Thank you, Paul, for bringing us up to date.

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

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

Portfolio Manager Paul M. Drury has a B.A. from Suffolk University. A CFA charterholder, Paul has been in the investment industry since he joined Putnam in 1989.

In addition to Paul, your fund’s portfolio managers are Susan A. McCormack, CFA, and Thalia Meehan, CFA.

IN THE NEWS

With stocks rallying and interest rates increasingly volatile, investors are pouring money into equity-based mutual funds. For the first nine months of 2013, inflows into stock funds more than quadrupled, compared with the same time period in 2012, according to the Strategic Insight Monthly Fund Industry Review. U.S. equity funds attracted over $168 billion versus $31 billion during the first three quarters of 2012, while international stock funds garnered over $163 billion in comparison with nearly $50 billion a year ago. Investors are on track in 2013 to invest the most money in equity mutual funds since 2000, according to investment research firm TrimTabs. Meanwhile, fixed-income investors have tapped the brakes, with year-to-date inflows of about $27 billion as of September 30, down from over $290 billion a year ago.

Your fund’s performance

This section shows your fund’s performance, price, and distribution information for periods ended October 31, 2013, the end of its most recent fiscal year. In accordance with regulatory requirements for mutual funds, we also include performance information as of the most recent calendar quarter-end. Performance should always be considered in light of a fund’s investment strategy. Data represent past performance. Past performance does not guarantee future results. More recent returns may be less or more than those shown. Investment return, net asset value, and market price will fluctuate, and you may have a gain or a loss when you sell your shares.

Fund performance Total return and comparative index results for periods ended 10/31/13

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

Index and Lipper results should be compared to fund performance at net asset value. Fund results reflect the use of leverage, while index results are unleveraged and Lipper results reflect varying use of, and methods for, leverage. Lipper calculates performance differently than the closed-end funds it ranks, due to varying methods for determining a fund’s monthly reinvestment NAV.

* Over the 1-year, 3-year, 5-year, 10-year, and life-of-fund periods ended 10/31/13, there were 11, 11, 11, 10, and 6 funds respectively, in this Lipper category.

Fund price and distribution information For the 12-month period ended 10/31/13

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 end of period.

⁴ Assumes maximum 43.40% federal tax rate for 2013. Results for investors subject to lower tax rates would not be as advantageous.

Fund performance as of most recent calendar quarter
Total return for periods ended 9/30/13

See the discussion following the Fund performance table on page 12 for information about the calculation of fund performance.

Terms and definitions

Important terms

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

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

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

Fixed-income terms

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

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

Comparative indexes

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other information for shareholders

Important notice regarding share repurchase program

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

Proxy voting

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

Fund portfolio holdings

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

Trustee and employee fund ownership

Putnam employees and members of the Board of Trustees place their faith, confidence, and, most importantly, investment dollars in Putnam mutual funds. As of October 31, 2013, Putnam employees had approximately $414,000,000 and the Trustees had approximately $99,000,000 invested in Putnam mutual funds. These amounts include investments by the Trustees’ and employees’ immediate family members as well as investments through retirement and deferred compensation plans.

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.

Summary of Putnam Closed-End Funds’ Amended and Restated Dividend Reinvestment Plan

Putnam High Income Securities Fund, 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.

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 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.

Trustee approval of management contract

General conclusions

The Board of Trustees of the Putnam funds oversees the management of each fund and, as required by law, determines annually whether to approve the continuance of your fund’s management contract with Putnam Investment Management (“Putnam Management”) and the sub-management contract with respect to your fund between Putnam Management and its affiliate, Putnam Investments Limited (“PIL”). The Board of Trustees, with the assistance of its Contract Committee, requests and evaluates all information it deems reasonably necessary under the circumstances in connection with its annual contract review. The Contract Committee consists solely of Trustees who are not “interested persons” (as this term is defined in the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”)) of the Putnam funds (“Independent Trustees”).

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

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

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

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

• That the fee schedule represented an appropriate sharing between fund

shareholders and Putnam Management of such economies of scale as may exist in the management of the fund at current asset levels.

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

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

Management fee schedules and total expenses

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

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

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

The Trustees reviewed comparative fee and expense information for a custom group of competitive funds selected by Lipper Inc. This comparative information included your fund’s percentile ranking for effective management fees and total expenses, which provides a general indication of your fund’s relative standing. In the custom peer group, your fund ranked in the 1st quintile in effective management fees (determined for your fund and the other funds

in the custom peer group based on fund asset size and the applicable contractual management fee schedule) and in the 2nd quintile in total expenses as of December 31, 2012 (the first quintile representing the least expensive funds and the fifth quintile the most expensive funds). The fee and expense data reported by Lipper as of December 31, 2012 reflected the most recent fiscal year-end data available in Lipper’s database at that time.

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

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

Investment performance

The quality of the investment process provided by Putnam Management represented a major factor in the Trustees’ evaluation of the quality of services provided by Putnam Management under your fund’s management contract. The Trustees were assisted in their review of the Putnam funds’ investment process and performance by the work of the investment oversight committees of the Trustees, which meet on a regular basis with the funds’ portfolio teams and with the Chief Investment Officer and other senior members of Putnam Management’s Investment Division throughout the year. The Trustees concluded that Putnam Management generally provides a high-quality investment process — based on the experience and skills of the individuals assigned to the management of fund portfolios, the resources made available to them, and in general Putnam Management’s ability to attract and retain high-quality personnel — but also recognized that this does

not guarantee favorable investment results for every fund in every time period.

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

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

Over the one-year, three-year and five-year periods ended December 31, 2012, there were 12, 12 and 12 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.)

The Trustees expressed concern about your fund’s fourth quartile performance over the one-year period ended December 31, 2012 and considered the circumstances that may have contributed to this disappointing performance. The Trustees considered Putnam Management’s view that the fund’s underperformance over this period was due in significant part to a combination of the fund’s somewhat lower investment leverage relative to its peers during a year of strong performance in the municipal bond markets, the fund’s relative underweight exposure to non-rated municipal bonds, which outperformed during the period, the fund’s overweight exposure to Puerto Rican bonds, which underperformed during the period, and the fund’s individual security selection.

The Trustees considered that, although the fund had not performed well over the one-year period ended December 31, 2012, the fund’s performance was stronger over longer periods, and that Putnam Management remained confident in the fund’s portfolio manager and her investment process. The Trustees also considered a number of other changes that Putnam Management had made in recent years in efforts to support and improve fund performance generally. In particular, the Trustees recognized that Putnam Management has adjusted the compensation structure for portfolio managers and research analysts so that only those who achieve top-quartile returns over a rolling three-year basis are eligible for full bonuses.

As a general matter, the Trustees believe that cooperative efforts between the Trustees and Putnam Management represent the most effective way to address investment performance problems. The Trustees noted that investors in the Putnam funds have, in effect, placed their trust in the Putnam organization, under the oversight of the funds’ Trustees, to make appropriate decisions regarding the management of the funds. Based on the responsiveness of Putnam Management in the recent past to performance issues, the Trustees concluded that it is preferable to seek change within Putnam Management to address performance shortcomings. In the Trustees’ view, the alternative of engaging a new investment adviser for an underperforming fund would entail significant disruptions and would not provide any greater assurance of improved investment performance.

Brokerage and soft-dollar allocations; investor servicing

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

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

Consideration of your fund’s interim management contract and the continuance of the fund’s sub-management contract

Following the Trustees’ approval of the continuance of your fund’s management and sub-management contracts, on October  8, 2013, The Honourable Paul G. Desmarais passed away. Mr. Desmarais, both directly and though holding companies, controlled a majority of the voting shares of Power Corporation of Canada, the ultimate parent company of Putnam Management. Upon his death, Mr.  Desmarais’ voting control of shares of Power Corporation of Canada was transferred to The Desmarais Family Residuary Trust (the “Transfer”). As a technical matter, the Transfer may have constituted an “assignment” within the meaning of the Investment Company Act of 1940, causing the fund’s existing management and sub-management contracts to terminate automatically. On October 18, 2013, the Trustees approved your fund’s interim

management contract and the continuance of your fund’s sub-management contract to address this possibility and to avoid disruption of investment advisory and other services provided to your fund. At a subsequent meeting on November 22, 2013, the Trustees, including all of the Independent Trustees, approved new definitive management contracts between the Putnam funds and Putnam Management and determined to recommend their approval to the shareholders of the Putnam funds at a shareholder meeting to be held in early 2014.

In considering whether to approve your fund’s interim management contract and new definitive management contract and the continuance of your fund’s sub-management contract, the Trustees took into account that they had most recently approved the annual continuation of the fund’s previous management and sub-management contracts at their meeting in June 2013, as described above. The Trustees considered that the terms of the interim management contract and new definitive management contract were identical to the previous management contract, except for the effective dates and initial terms and for certain non-substantive changes. They also considered that the sub-management contract was identical to the previous sub-management contracts, except for the effective dates and initial terms. Because the proposed contracts were substantially identical to the previous versions of these contracts approved by the Trustees at their June 2013 meeting, the Trustees relied to a considerable extent on their prior approval of these contracts. In addition, the Trustees considered a number other factors relating to the Transfer, including, but not limited to, the following:

• Information about the operations of The Desmarais Family Residuary Trust, including that Paul Desmarais, Jr. and André Desmarais, Mr. Desmarais’ sons, were expected to exercise, jointly, voting control over the Power Corporation of Canada shares controlled by The Desmarais Family Residuary Trust.

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

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

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

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

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

Financial statements

These sections of the report, as well as the accompanying Notes, preceded by the Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm, constitute the fund’s financial statements.

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

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

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

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

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

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Trustees and Shareholders
Putnam Managed Municipal Income Trust:

We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities of Putnam Managed Municipal Income Trust, including the fund’s portfolio, as of October 31, 2013, and the related statement of operations for the year then ended, the statements of changes in net assets for each of the years in the two-year period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the years in the five-year period then ended. These financial statements and financial highlights are the responsibility of the fund’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and financial highlights based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements and financial highlights are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. Our procedures included confirmation of securities owned as of October 31, 2013, by correspondence with the custodian and brokers or by other appropriate auditing procedures. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements and financial highlights referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Putnam Managed Municipal Income Trust as of October 31, 2013, the results of its operations for the year then ended, the changes in its net assets for each of the years in the two-year period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the years in the five-year period then ended, in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.

Boston, Massachusetts
December 13, 2013

The fund’s portfolio 10/31/13