Independent Trustees

Ravi Akhoury(Born 1947)
Trustee since 2009

Mr. Akhoury serves as Advisor to New York Life Insurance Company. He is also a Director of Jacob Ballas Capital India (a non-banking finance company focused on private equity advisory services). He also serves as a Trustee of American India Foundation and of the Rubin Museum.

Previously, Mr. Akhoury was a Director of MaxIndia/New York Life Insurance Company in India. He was also Vice President of Fischer, Francis, Trees and Watts (a fixed-income portfolio management firm). He has also served on the Board of Bharti Telecom (an Indian telecommunications company), and on the Board of Thompson Press (a publishing company). From 1992 to 2007, he was Chairman and CEO of MacKay Shields, a multi-product investment management firm with over $40 billion in assets under management.

Mr. Akhoury graduated from the Indian Institute of Technology with a B.S. in Engineering and obtained an M.S. in Quantitative Methods from SUNY at Stony Brook.

Jameson A. Baxter(Born 1943)
Trustee since 1994 and Vice Chairman
since 2005

Ms. Baxter is the President of Baxter Associates, Inc., a private investment firm.

Ms. Baxter serves as a Director of ASHTA Chemicals, Inc., and the Mutual Fund Directors Forum. Until 2007, she was a Director of Banta Corporation (a printing and supply chain management company), Ryerson, Inc. (a metals service corporation), and Advocate Health Care. Until 2004, she was a Director of BoardSource (formerly the National Center for Nonprofit Boards), and until 2002, she was a Director of Intermatic Corporation (a manufacturer of energy control products). She is Chairman Emeritus of the Board of Trustees of Mount Holyoke College, having served as Chairman for five years.

Ms. Baxter has held various positions in investment banking and corporate finance, including Vice President of and Consultant to First Boston Corporation and Vice President and Principal of the Regency Group. She is a graduate of Mount Holyoke College.

Charles B. Curtis(Born 1940)
Trustee since 2001

Mr. Curtis is President and Chief Operating Officer of the Nuclear Threat Initiative (a private foundation dealing with national security issues), and serves as Senior Advisor to the United Nations Foundation.

Mr. Curtis is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the National Petroleum Council. He also serves as Director of Edison International and Southern California Edison. Until 2006,Mr. Curtis served as a member of the Trustee Advisory Council of the Applied Physics Laboratory, Johns Hopkins University.

From August 1997 to December 1999, Mr. Curtis was a Partner at Hogan & Hartson LLP, an international law firm headquartered in Washington, D.C. Prior to May 1997, Mr. Curtis was Deputy Secretary of Energy and Under Secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy. He was a founding member of the law firm Van Ness Feldman. Mr. Curtis served as Chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission from 1977 to 1981 and has held positions on the staff of the U.S. House of Representatives, the U.S. Treasury Department, and the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Robert J. Darretta(Born 1946)
Trustee since 2007

Mr. Darretta serves as Director of United-Health Group, a diversified health-care company.

Until April 2007, Mr. Darretta was Vice Chairman of the Board of Directors of Johnson & Johnson, one of the world’s largest and most broadly based health-care companies. Prior to 2007, he had responsibility for Johnson & Johnson’s finance, investor relations, information technology, and procurement function. He served as Johnson & Johnson Chief Financial Officer for a decade, prior to which he spent two years as Treasurer of the corporation and over ten years leading various Johnson & Johnson operating companies.

Mr. Darretta received a B.S. in Economics from Villanova University.

Myra R. Drucker(Born 1948)
Trustee since 2004

Ms. Drucker is Chair of the Board of Trustees of Commonfund (a not-for-profit firm managing assets for educational endowments and foundations), Vice Chair of the Board of Trustees of Sarah Lawrence College, and a member of the Investment Committee of the Kresge Foundation (a charitable trust). She is also a Director of Interactive Data Corporation (a provider of financial market data and analytics to financial institutions and investors).

Ms. Drucker is an ex-officio member of the New York Stock Exchange Pension Managers Advisory Committee, having served as Chair for seven years. She serves as an advisor to RCM Capital Management (an investment management firm) and to the Employee Benefits Investment Committee of The Boeing Company (an aerospace firm).

From November 2001 until August 2004, Ms. Drucker was Managing Director and a member of the Board of Directors of General Motors Asset Management and Chief Investment Officer of General Motors Trust Bank. From December 1992 to November 2001, Ms. Drucker served as Chief Investment Officer of Xerox Corporation (a document company). Prior to December 1992, Ms. Drucker was Staff Vice President and

5

Director of Trust Investments for International Paper (a paper and packaging company).

Ms. Drucker received a B.A. degree in Literature and Psychology from Sarah Lawrence College and pursued graduate studies in economics, statistics, and portfolio theory at Temple University.

John A. Hill(Born 1942)
Trustee since 1985 and Chairman since 2000

Mr. Hill is founder and Vice-Chairman of First Reserve Corporation, the leading private equity buyout firm specializing in the worldwide energy industry, with offices in Greenwich, Connecticut; Houston, Texas; London, England; and Shanghai, China. The firm’s investments on behalf of some of the nation’s largest pension and endowment funds are currently concentrated in 31 companies with annual revenues in excess of $15 billion, which employ over 100,000 people in 23 countries.

Mr. Hill is Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Putnam Funds, a Director of Devon Energy Corporation and various private companies owned by First Reserve, and serves as a Trustee of Sarah Lawrence College where he serves as Chairman and also chairs the Investment Committee. He is also a member of the Advisory Board of the Millstein Center for Corporate Governance and Performance at the Yale School of Management.

Prior to forming First Reserve in 1983, Mr. Hill served as President of F. Eberstadt and Company, an investment banking and investment management firm. Between 1969 and 1976, Mr. Hill held various senior positions in Washington, D.C. with the federal government, including Deputy Associate Director of the Office of Management and Budget and Deputy Administrator of the Federal Energy Administration during the Ford Administration.

Born and raised in Midland, Texas, he received his B.A. in Economics from Southern Methodist University and pursued graduate studies as a Woodrow Wilson Fellow.

Paul L. Joskow(Born 1947)
Trustee since 1997

Dr. Joskow is an economist and President of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation (a philanthropic institution focused primarily on research and education on issues related to science, technology, and economic performance). He is on leave from his position as the Elizabeth and James Killian Professor of Economics and Management at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where he has been on the faculty since 1972. Dr. Joskow was the Director of the Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research at MIT from 1999 through 2007.

Dr. Joskow serves as a Trustee of Yale University, as a Director of TransCanada Corporation (an energy company focused on natural gas transmission and power services) and of Exelon Corporation (an energy company focused on power services), and as a member of the Board of Overseers of the Boston Symphony Orchestra. Prior to August 2007, he served as aDirector of National Grid (a UK-based holding company with interests in electric and gas transmission and distribution and telecommunications infrastructure). Prior to July 2006, he served as President of the Yale University Council. Prior to February 2005, he served on the board of the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research (a non-profit research institution). Prior to February 2002, he was a Director of State Farm Indemnity Company (an automobile insurance company), and prior to March 2000, he was a Director of New England Electric System (a public utility holding company).

Dr. Joskow has published six books and numerous articles on industrial organization, government regulation of industry, and competition policy. He is active in industry restructuring, environmental, energy, competition, and privatization policies — serving as an advisor to governments and corporations worldwide. Dr. Joskow holds a Ph.D. and M.Phil. from Yale University and a B.A. from Cornell University.

Elizabeth T. Kennan(Born 1938)
Trustee since 1992

Dr. Kennan is a Partner of Cambus-Kenneth Farm (thoroughbred horse and cattle breeding). She is President Emeritus of Mount Holyoke College.

Dr. Kennan served as Chairman and is now Lead Director of Northeast Utilities. She is a Trustee of the National Trust for Historic Preservation and of Centre College. Until 2006, she was a member of The Trustees of Reservations. Prior to 2001, Dr. Kennan served on the oversight committee of the Folger Shakespeare Library. Prior to June 2005, she was a Director of Talbots, Inc., and she has served as Director on a number of other boards, including Bell Atlantic, Chastain Real Estate, Shawmut Bank, Berkshire Life Insurance, and Kentucky Home Life Insurance. Dr. Kennan has also served as President of Five Colleges Incorporated and as a Trustee of Notre Dame University, and is active in various educational and civic associations.

As a member of the faculty of Catholic University for twelve years, until 1978, Dr. Kennan directed the post-doctoral program in Patristic and Medieval Studies, taught history, and published numerous articles and two books. Dr. Kennan holds a Ph.D. from the University of Washington in Seattle, an M.A. from Oxford University, and an A.B. from Mount Holyoke College. She holds several honorary doctorates.

Kenneth R. Leibler(Born 1949)
Trustee since 2006

Mr. Leibler is a founder and former Chairman of the Boston Options Exchange, an electronic marketplace for the trading of derivative securities.

Mr. Leibler currently serves as a Trustee of Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital in Boston. He is also Lead Director of Ruder Finn Group, a global communications and advertising firm, and a Director of Northeast Utilities, which operates New England’s largest

6 

energy delivery system. Prior to December 2006, he served as a Director of the Optimum Funds group. Prior to October 2006, he served as a Director of ISO New England, the organization responsible for the operation of the electric generation system in the New England states. Prior to 2000, Mr. Leibler was a Director of the Investment Company Institute in Washington, D.C.

Prior to January 2005, Mr. Leibler served as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Boston Stock Exchange. Prior to January 2000, he served as President and Chief Executive Officer of Liberty Financial Companies, a publicly traded diversified asset management organization. Prior to June 1990, Mr. Leibler served as President and Chief Operating Officer of the American Stock Exchange (AMEX), and at the time was the youngest person in AMEX history to hold the title of President. Prior to serving as AMEX President, he held the position of Chief Financial Officer, and headed its management and marketing operations. Mr. Leibler graduated with a degree in Economics from Syracuse University.

Robert E. Patterson(Born 1945)
Trustee since 1984

Mr. Patterson is Senior Partner of Cabot Properties, LP and Chairman of Cabot Properties, Inc. (a private equity firm investing in commercial real estate).

Mr. Patterson serves as Chairman Emeritus and Trustee of the Joslin Diabetes Center. Prior to June 2003, he was a Trustee of the Sea Education Association. Prior to December 2001, Mr. Patterson was President and Trustee of Cabot Industrial Trust (a publicly traded real estate investment trust). Prior to February 1998, he was Executive Vice President and Director of Acquisitions of Cabot Partners Limited Partnership (a registered investment adviser involved in institutional real estate investments). Prior to 1990, he served as Executive Vice President of Cabot, Cabot & Forbes Realty Advisors, Inc. (the predecessor company of Cabot Partners).

Mr. Patterson practiced law and held various positions in state government, and was the founding Executive Director of the Massachusetts Industrial Finance Agency. Mr. Patterson is a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School.

George Putnam, III(Born 1951)
Trustee since 1984

Mr. Putnam is Chairman of New Generation Research, Inc. (a publisher of financial advisory and other research services), and President of New Generation Advisors, LLC (a registered investment adviser to private funds). Mr. Putnam founded the New Generation companies in 1986.

Mr. Putnam is a Director of The Boston Family Office, LLC (a registered investment adviser). He is a Trustee of St. Mark’sSchool, a Trustee of Epiphany School and a Trustee of the Marine Biological Laboratory in Woods Hole, Massachusetts. Until 2006, he was a Trustee of Shore Country Day School, and until 2002, was a Trustee of the Sea Education Association.

Mr. Putnam previously worked as an attorney with the law firm of Dechert LLP (formerly known as Dechert Price & Rhoads) in Philadelphia. He is a graduate of Harvard College, Harvard Business School, and Harvard Law School.

W. Thomas Stephens(Born 1942)
Trustee since 2009

Mr. Stephens is a Director of TransCanada Pipelines, Ltd. (an energy infrastructure company).

From 1997 to 2008, Mr. Stephens served as a Trustee on the Board of the Putnam Funds, which he rejoined as a Trustee in 2009. Until 2004, Mr. Stephens was a Director of Xcel Energy Incorporated (a public utility company), Qwest Communications and Norske Canada, Inc. (a paper manufacturer). Until 2003, Mr. Stephens was a Director of Mail-Well, Inc. (a diversified printing company). Prior to July 2001, Mr. Stephens was Chairman of Mail-Well.

Prior to 2009, Mr. Stephens was Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Boise Cascade, L.L.C. (a paper, forest product and timberland assets company). He holds B.S. and M.S. degrees from the University of Arkansas.

Richard B. Worley(Born 1945)
Trustee since 2004

Mr. Worley is Managing Partner of Permit Capital LLC, an investment management firm.

Mr. Worley serves as a Trustee of the University of Pennsylvania Medical Center, The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (a philanthropic organization devoted to health-care issues), and the National Constitution Center. He is also a Director of The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation (a historical preservation organization), and the Philadelphia Orchestra Association. Mr. Worley also serves on the investment committees of Mount Holyoke College and World Wildlife Fund (a wildlife conservation organization).

Prior to joining Permit Capital LLC in 2002, Mr. Worley served as President, Chief Executive Officer, and Chief Investment Officer of Morgan Stanley Dean Witter Investment Management and as a Managing Director of Morgan Stanley, a financial services firm. Mr. Worley also was the Chairman of Miller Anderson & Sherrerd, an investment management firm that was acquired by Morgan Stanley in 1996.

Mr. Worley holds a B.S. degree from the University of Tennessee and pursued graduate studies in economics at the University of Texas.

7

Interested Trustee

Robert L. Reynolds*(Born 1952)
Trustee since 2008 and President of the
Putnam Funds since July 2009

Mr. Reynolds is President and Chief Executive Officer of Putnam Investments, a member of Putnam Investments’ Executive Board of Directors, and President of the Putnam Funds. He has more than 30 years of investment and financial services experience.

Prior to joining Putnam Investments in 2008, Mr. Reynolds was Vice Chairman and Chief Operating Officer of Fidelity Investments from 2000 to 2007. During this time, he served on the Board of Directors for FMR Corporation, Fidelity Investments Insurance Ltd., Fidelity Investments Canada Ltd., and Fidelity Management Trust Company. He was also a Trustee of the Fidelity Family of Funds. From 1984 to 2000, Mr. Reynolds served in a number of increasingly responsible leadership roles at Fidelity.

Mr. Reynolds serves on several not-for-profit boards, including those of the West Virginia University Foundation, Concord Museum, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Lahey Clinic, and Initiative for a Competitive Inner City in Boston. He is a member of the Chief Executives Club of Boston, the National Innovation Initiative, and the Council on Competitiveness.

Mr. Reynolds received a B.S. in Business Administration/Finance from West Virginia University.

* Nominee who is an “interested person” of the fund and/or Putnam Management and/or Putnam Retail Management Limited Partnership (“Putnam Retail Management”). Mr. Reynolds is deemed an “interested person” by virtue of his position as an officer of the fund, Putnam Management and/or Putnam Retail Management. Mr. Reynolds is the President and Chief Executive Officer of Putnam Investments.

Each of the nominees has agreed to serve as a Trustee, if elected. If any of the nominees is unavailable for election at the time of the meeting, which is not anticipated, the Trustees may vote for other nominees at their discretion, or the Trustees may fix the number of Trustees at fewer than 14 for your fund.

What are the Trustees’ responsibilities?

Your fund’s Trustees are responsible for the general oversight of your fund’s affairs and for assuring that your fund is managed in the best interests of its shareholders. The Trustees regularly review your fund’s investment performance as well as the quality of other services provided to your fund and its shareholders by Putnam Management and its affiliates, including administration, custody, and shareholder servicing. At least annually, the Trustees review and evaluate the fees and operating expenses paid by your fund for these services and negotiate changes that they deem appropriate. In carrying out these responsibilities, the Trustees are assisted by an independent administrative staff and by your fund’s auditors, independent counsel and other experts as appropriate, selected by and responsible to the Trustees.

At least 75% of the trustees of your fund are required to not be interested persons of your fund or your fund’s investment manager. These Independent Trustees must vote separately to approve all financial arrangements and other agreements with your fund’s investment manager and other affiliated parties. The role of independent trustees has been characterized as that of a “watchdog” charged with oversight to protect shareholders’ interests against overreaching and abuse by those who are in a position to control or influence a fund. Your fund’s Independent Trustees meet regularly as a group in executive session. Thirteen of the 14 nominees for election as Trustee are now, and would be, if elected, Independent Trustees.

Board committees.Your fund’s Trustees have determined that the efficient conduct of your fund’s affairs makes it desirable to delegate responsibility for certain specific matters to committees of the board. Certain committees (the Executive Committee, Distributions Committee, and Audit and Compliance Committee) are authorized to act for the Trustees as specified in their charters. The other committees review and evaluate matters specified in their charters and make recommendations to the Trustees as they deem appropriate. Each committee may utilize the resources of your fund’s independent staff, counsel and auditors as well as other experts. The committees meet as often as necessary, either in conjunction with regular meetings of the Trustees or otherwise. The membership and chairperson of each committee are appointed by the Trustees upon recommendation of the Board Policy and Nominating Commit tee.

Audit and Compliance Committee.The Audit and Compliance Committee provides oversight on matters relating to the preparation of the funds’ financial statements, compliance matters, internal audit functions, and Codes of Ethics issues. This oversight is discharged by regularly meeting with management and the funds’ independent auditors and keeping current on industry developments. Duties of this Committee also include the review and evaluation of all matters and relationships pertaining to the funds’ independent auditors, including their independence. Information about the fees billed to the funds by the funds’ independent auditors, as well as information about the Committee’s pre-approval policies relating to work performed by the funds’ independent auditors, is included inAppendix Q. The members of th e Committee include only Independent Trustees. Each member of the Committee also is “independent”, as such term is interpreted for purposes of Rule 10A-3(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”) and the listing standards of the New York Stock Exchange. The Board of Trustees has adopted a written charter for the Committee, a current copy of which is available at www.putnam.com/individual. The Committee currently consists of Messrs. Patterson (Chairperson), Darretta, Hill, Leibler, Stephens and Ms. Drucker.

Board Policy and Nominating Committee.The Board Policy and Nominating Committee reviews policy matters pertaining to the operations of the Board of Trustees and its committees, the

8

compensation of the Trustees and their staff, and the conduct of legal affairs for the Putnam funds. The Committee also oversees the voting of proxies associated with portfolio investments of the Putnam funds, with the goal of ensuring that these proxies are voted in the best interest of the fund’s shareholders.

The Committee evaluates and recommends all candidates for election as Trustees and recommends the appointment of members and chairs of each board committee. The Committee also identifies prospective nominees for election as trustee by considering individuals that come to its attention through the recommendation of current Trustees, Putnam Management or shareholders. Candidates properly submitted by shareholders (as described below) will be considered and evaluated on the same basis as candidates recommended by other sources. The Committee may, but is not required to, engage a third-party professional search firm to assist it in identifying and evaluating potential nominees.

When evaluating a potential candidate for membership on the Board of Trustees, the Committee considers the skills and characteristics that it determines would most benefit the Putnam funds at the time the evaluation is made. The Committee may take into account a wide variety of attributes in considering potential trustee candidates, including, but not limited to: (i) availability and commitment of a candidate to attend meetings and perform his or her responsibilities to the Board of Trustees, (ii) other board experience, (iii) relevant industry and related experience, (iv) educational background, (v) financial expertise, (vi) an assessment of the candidate’s ability, judgment and expertise, (vii) an assessment of the perceived needs of the Board of Trustees and its committees at that point in time and (viii) overall Board of Trustees composition. In connection with this evaluation, the Committee will determine whether to interview prospective nomi nees, and, if warranted, one or more members of the Committee, and other Trustees and representatives of the funds, as appropriate, will interview prospective nominees in person or by telephone. Once this evaluation is completed, the Committee recommends such candidates as it determines appropriate to the Independent Trustees for nomination, and the Independent Trustees select the nominees after considering the recommendation of the Committee.

The Committee will consider nominees for Trustee recommended by shareholders of a fund provided shareholders submit their recommendations by the date disclosed in the paragraph entitled “Date for receipt of shareholders’ proposals for subsequent meetings of shareholders” in the section “Further Information About Voting and the Special Meeting,” and provided the shareholders’ recommendations otherwise comply with applicable securities laws, including Rule 14a-8 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

The Committee consists only of Independent Trustees. The Trustees have adopted a written charter for the Board Policy and Nominating Committee, a current copy of which is available at www.putnam.com/individual. The Board Policy andNominating Committee currently consists of Dr. Kennan (Chairperson), Ms. Baxter and Messrs. Hill, Patterson and Putnam.

Brokerage Committee.The Brokerage Committee reviews the funds’ policies regarding the execution of portfolio trades and Putnam Management’s practices and procedures relating to the implementation of those policies. The Committee reviews periodic reports on the cost and quality of execution of portfolio transactions and the extent to which brokerage commissions have been used (i) by Putnam Management to obtain brokerage and research services generally useful to it in managing the portfolios of the funds and of its other clients, and (ii) by the funds to pay for certain fund expenses. The Committee reports to the Trustees and makes recommendations to the Trustees regarding these matters. The Committee currently consists of Drs. Joskow (Chairperson) and Kennan, Ms. Baxter and Messrs. Akhoury, Curtis, Putnam and Worley.

Communications, Service and Marketing Committee.The Communications, Service and Marketing Committee reviews the quality of services provided to shareholders and oversees the marketing and sale of fund shares by Putnam Retail Management. The Committee also exercises general oversight of marketing and sales communications used by Putnam Retail Management, as well as other communications sent to fund shareholders. The Committee also reviews periodic summaries of any correspondence to the Trustees from shareholders. The Committee reports to the Trustees and makes recommendations to the Trustees regarding these matters. The Committee currently consists of Messrs. Putnam (Chairperson), Curtis, Patterson, Stephens and Drs. Joskow and Kennan.

Contract Committee.The Contract Committee reviews and evaluates at least annually all arrangements pertaining to (i) the engagement of Putnam Management and its affiliates to provide services to the funds, (ii) the expenditure of the funds’ assets for distribution purposes pursuant to Distribution Plans of the funds, and (iii) the engagement of other persons to provide material services to the funds, including in particular those instances where the cost of services is shared between the funds and Putnam Management and its affiliates or where Putnam Management or its affiliates have a material interest. The Committee also reviews the proposed organization of new fund products, proposed structural changes to existing funds and matters relating to closed-end funds. The Committee reports and makes recommendations to the Trustees regarding these matters. The Committee currently consists of Ms. Baxter (Chairp erson), Drs. Joskow and Kennan and Messrs. Akhoury, Curtis, Putnam and Worley.

Distributions Committee.The Distributions Committee oversees all dividends and distributions by the funds. The Committee makes recommendations to the Trustees of the funds regarding the amount and timing of distributions paid by the funds, and determines such matters when the Trustees are not in session. The Committee also oversees the policies and procedures pursuant to which Putnam Management prepares

9

recommendations for distributions, and meets regularly with representatives of Putnam Management to review the implementation of such policies and procedures. The Committee reports to the Trustees and makes recommendations to the Trustees regarding these matters. The Committee currently consists of Ms. Drucker (Chairperson) and Messrs. Darretta, Hill, Leibler, Patterson, and Stephens.

Executive Committee.The functions of the Executive Committee are twofold. The first is to ensure that the funds’ business may be conducted at times when it is not feasible to convene a meeting of the Trustees or for the Trustees to act by written consent. The Committee may exercise any or all of the power and authority of the Trustees when the Trustees are not in session. The second is to establish annual and ongoing goals, objectives and priorities for the Board of Trustees and to ensure coordination of all efforts between the Trustees and Putnam Management on behalf of the shareholders of the funds. The Committee currently consists of Messrs. Hill (Chairperson), Curtis, Patterson and Putnam, Dr. Joskow and Ms. Baxter.

Investment Oversight Committees.The Investment Oversight Committees regularly meet with investment personnel of Putnam Management to review the investment performance and strategies of the funds in light of their stated investment objectives and policies. The Committees seek to identify any compliance issues that are unique to the applicable categories of funds and work with the appropriate Board committees to ensure that any such issues are properly addressed. Investment Oversight Committee A currently consists of Messrs. Darretta (Chairperson) and Putnam and Ms. Baxter. Investment Oversight Committee B currently consists of Messrs. Akhoury (Chairperson) and Curtis. Investment Oversight Committee C currently consists of Messrs. Leibler (Chairperson) and Hill and Dr. Kennan. Investment Oversight Committee D currently consists of Messrs. Worley (Chairperson) and Stephens and Dr. Joskow. Investment Oversight Co mmittee E currently consists of Ms. Drucker (Chairperson) and Messrs. Patterson and Reynolds.

Investment Oversight Coordinating Committee.The Investment Oversight Coordinating Committee coordinates the work of the Investment Oversight Committees and works with representatives of Putnam Management to coordinate the Board’s general oversight of the investment performance of the funds. From time to time, as determined by the Chairman of the Board, the Committee may also review particular matters relating to fund investments and Putnam Management’s investment process. The Committee currently consists of Ms. Drucker (Chairperson) and Messrs. Akhoury, Darretta, Leibler and Worley.

Pricing Committee.The Pricing Committee oversees the valuation of assets of the Putnam funds and reviews the funds’ policies and procedures for achieving accurate and timely pricing of fund shares. The Committee also oversees implementation of these policies, including fair value determinations of individual securities made by Putnam Management or otherdesignated agents of the funds. The Committee also oversees compliance by money market funds with Rule 2a-7 and the correction of occasional pricing errors. The Committee also reviews matters related to the liquidity of portfolio holdings. The Committee reports to the Trustees and makes recommendations to the Trustees regarding these matters. The Committee currently consists of Messrs. Leibler (Chairperson), Darretta, Hill, Patterson, Stephens and Ms. Drucker.

How large a stake do the Trustees have in the Putnam family of funds?

The Trustees allocate their investments among the Putnam funds based on their own investment needs. The number of shares beneficially owned by each nominee for Trustee, as well as the value of each nominee’s holdings in each fund and across all Putnam funds, as of June 30, 2009 is included inAppendix B. As a group, the Trustees owned shares of the Putnam funds valued at approximately $31 million as of June 30, 2009.

As of June 30, 2009, to the knowledge of your fund, each Trustee, and the officers and Trustees of the fund as a group, owned less than 1% of the outstanding shares of each class of each fund, except as listed inAppendix B.

What are some of the ways in which the Trustees represent shareholder interests?

Among other ways, the Trustees seek to represent shareholder interests:

• by carefully reviewing your fund’s investment performance onan individual basis with your fund’s investment personnel;

• by discussing with senior management of Putnam Managementsteps being taken to address any performance deficiencies;

• by carefully reviewing the quality of the various other servicesprovided to your fund and its shareholders by Putnam Management and its affiliates;

• by reviewing in depth the fees paid by each fund and by negotiating with Putnam Management to ensure that such fees remain reasonable and competitive with those of comparable funds, while at the same time providing Putnam Management sufficient resources to continue to provide high quality services in the future;

• by reviewing brokerage costs and fees, allocations amongbrokers, soft dollar expenditures and similar expenses of your fund;

• by monitoring potential conflicts of interest between the fundsand Putnam Management and its affiliates to ensure that the funds continue to be managed in the best interests of their shareholders; and

• by monitoring potential conflicts among funds managed byPutnam Management to ensure that shareholders continue to realize the benefits of participation in a large and diverse family of funds.

10

How can shareholders communicate with
the Trustees?

The Board of Trustees provides a process for shareholders to send communications to the Trustees. Shareholders may direct communications to the Board of Trustees as a whole or to specified individual Trustees by submitting them in writing to the following address:

Written communications must include the shareholder’s name, be signed by the shareholder, refer to the Putnam fund(s) in which the shareholder holds shares and include the class and number of shares held by the shareholder as of a recent date.

Representatives of the funds’ transfer agent will review all communications sent to Trustees and, as deemed appropriate, will provide copies, or summaries of, such communications to the Trustees.

How often do the Trustees meet?

The Trustees hold regular meetings each month (except August), usually over a two-day period, to review the operations of the Putnam funds. A portion of these meetings is devoted to meetings of various committees of the board that focus on particular matters. Each Trustee generally attends at least two formal committee meetings during each regular meeting of the Trustees. In addition, the Trustees meet in small groups with senior investment personnel and portfolio managers to review recent performance and the current investment climate for selected funds. These meetings ensure that fund performance is reviewed in detail at least twice a year. The committees of the board, including the Executive Committee, may also meet on special occasions as the need arises. During calendar year 2008, the average Trustee participated in approximately 68 committee and board meetings.

The number of times each committee met during calendar year 2008 is shown in the table below:

What are the Trustees paid for their services?

Each Independent Trustee of the fund receives an annual retainer fee and additional fees for each Trustees’ meeting attended and for certain related services. Independent Trustees also are reimbursed for costs incurred in connection with their services, including costs of travel, seminars and educational materials. All of the current Independent Trustees of the fund are Trustees of all the Putnam funds and receive fees for their services.

The Trustees periodically review their fees to ensure that such fees continue to be appropriate in light of their responsibilities as well as in relation to fees paid to trustees of other mutual fund complexes. The Board Policy and Nominating Committee, which consists solely of Independent Trustees of the fund, estimates that committee and Trustee meeting time, together with the appropriate preparation, requires the equivalent of at least three business days per Trustee meeting. The table found inAppendix Cincludes the year each Trustee became a Trustee of the Putnam funds, the fees paid to each of those Trustees by each fund included in this proxy statement for its most recent fiscal year (ended between July 31, 2008 and June 30, 2009) and the fees paid to each of those Trustees by all of the Putnam funds during calendar year 2008.

Under a Retirement Plan for Trustees of the Putnam funds (the Plan), each Trustee elected prior to 2004 who retires with at least five years of service as a Trustee of the funds is entitled to receive an annual retirement benefit equal to one-half of the average annual attendance and retainer fees paid to such Trustee for calendar years 2003, 2004 and 2005. This 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. A death benefit, also available under the Plan, ensures that the Trustee or his or her beneficiaries will receive benefit payments for the lesser of an aggregate period of (i) ten years or (ii) such Trustee’s total years of service.

The Plan Administrator (currently the Board Policy and Nominating Committee) may terminate or amend the Plan at any time, but no termination or amendment will result in a reduction in the amount of benefits (i) currently being paid to a Trustee at the time of such termination or amendment, or (ii) to which a current Trustee would have been entitled had he or she retired immediately prior to such termination or amendment. The Trustees have terminated the Plan with respect to any Trustee first elected to the board after 2003.

What is the voting requirement for electing Trustees?

If a quorum for your trust is present at the Special Meeting, the fourteen nominees for election as Trustees who receive the greatest number of votes cast at the Special Meeting will be elected as Trustees of your fund.

11

2. APPROVING A PROPOSED NEW MANAGEMENT
CONTRACT FOR MOST FUNDS

What is this proposal?

The Trustees are recommending approval of a new management contract for 88 Putnam Funds as part of shareholder-friendly changes proposed by Putnam Management to Putnam fund management fees. (The only funds for which a new management contract is not being proposed are the RetirementReady® Funds and the Money Market Liquidity Fund; Putnam Management currently does not collect any management fees for these funds.)

The proposed new management contracts would result in several key changes in the management fees paid by the funds:

•Lower management fees: The proposal would result in lower contractual management fees for virtually all Putnam funds, including significantly lower management fees for fixed income and asset allocation funds.

•Fund Family breakpoints: Asset-level discounts for management fees would be based on the growth of all Putnam mutual fund assets, rather than an individual fund’s assets. (“Fund Family” for purposes of this proxy statement refers to all open-end mutual funds sponsored by Putnam Management, except for the Putnam RetirementReady® Funds and Putnam Money Market Liquidity Fund.) The proposal would allow shareholders to benefit from the growth of the Fund Family as a whole, even if their specific fund is not growing.

•Performance fees on U.S. growth funds, international equity funds, and Putnam Global Equity Fund: Each of these equity funds would have performance fees reflecting the strength or weakness of the fund’s investment performance. Management fees for these funds would decline from their standard fee if the funds underperform their benchmarks and would rise if the funds outperform their benchmarks.

Why did Putnam Management propose a new
management contract with Fund Family breakpoints
and, for certain funds, performance fees?

The proposed new management contracts differ from the funds’ current management contracts principally by providing for Fund Family breakpoints for 88 funds and, for U.S. growth funds, international equity funds, and Putnam Global Equity Fund, performance fees as well.

Fund Family breakpoints.The implementation of Fund Family breakpoints would result in lower contractual management fees for virtually all Putnam funds. More generally, Putnam Management believes that the determination of your fund’s management fee through breakpoints based on the aggregate net assets of the Fund Family would be in the best interests of your fund’s shareholders for four reasons.

First, Putnam Management believes that Fund Family breakpoints would be more reflective than individual fund breakpoints of the underlying costs Putnam Management incurs in providinginvestment management-related services to the Fund Family. Putnam Management believes that, because investment management-related services are typically shared across a modern mutual fund family, the costs of these services tend to vary proportionately with the growth or decline of the size of the overall mutual fund family more than with the size of an individual fund. In Putnam Management’s opinion, investment management-related services are now shared broadly across the Fund Family, rather than being specific to any particular fund. Securities trading, some securities research, quantitative analysis, technology, fund administration, accounting services, and legal and compliance oversight are examples of investment management-rela ted services that are shared across the Fund Family. All in all, Fund Family breakpoints would likely be more reflective than individual fund breakpoints of the manner in which “economies of scale” may be realized.

Currently, each Putnam fund (other than the RetirementReady® Funds and the Money Market Liquidity Fund) has an individual fund breakpoint schedule that results in a lower effective management fee as assets in that fund increase. As a result of this arrangement, shareholders benefit directly from growth of the fund they own, regardless of any changes in the size of other funds or in the overall level of assets of the Fund Family. While Putnam Management believes that this structure has served shareholders well historically, Putnam Management believes that the use of Fund Family breakpoints would represent an enhancement to each fund’s fee structure given the nature of economies of scale in the modern mutual fund family.

Second, shareholders would benefit under Fund Family breakpoints from “cost diversification,” which allows them to benefit from the growth of the Fund Family as a whole even if their specific fund is not growing. Putnam funds are likely to grow and/or shrink at different rates as market conditions change. Fund Family breakpoints assure that, in total, all shareholders benefit from the Fund Family’s overall growth, regardless of the specific funds driving such growth at any one time.

Third, because Fund Family breakpoints would allow each shareholder in the Fund Family to benefit proportionately from every dollar invested in any fund in the Fund Family, Fund Family breakpoints would give all shareholders an enhanced stake in the future growth of Putnam mutual fund assets.

Fourth, the proposed fee categories under Fund Family breakpoints presented inAppendix Fwould result in management fees that will not favor one fund over another in the same fee category solely on the basis of one fund having achieved greater size than another. Putnam Management believes that this feature of Fund Family breakpoints should enhance the value of the exchange privilege available to shareholders across the Fund Family of diversified products.

Performance fees.Putnam Management proposes to extend further its philosophy that strong investment performance

12

should be rewarded with higher management fees, while poor performance should command lower management fees, for the funds listed below:

By extending this philosophy, already employed by Putnam’s “Absolute Return” and “Spectrum” funds, to these 13 funds, Putnam Management would be providing significant numbers of additional shareholders with a management fee that adjusts based on the strength of the investment performance results that are obtained on their behalf. These 13 funds, along with the “Absolute Return” and “Spectrum” funds, together represent approximately 22% of Putnam mutual fund assets as of June 30, 2009.

By linking its pay to a fund’s performance, Putnam Management believes that the use of performance fees for these 13 funds would further align the firm’s economic interests with those of shareholders in funds for which Putnam Management believes this fee mechanism is most appropriate. Putnam Management will continue to monitor whether performance fees would be appropriate for shareholders in other funds.

What are the specific changes included in the
proposed new management contract?

The proposed new management contract reflects a comprehensive restructuring of the management fees paid by the Putnam funds, which has been proposed by Putnam Management and approved by the Trustees as being in the best interest of shareholders of your fund. The proposed management contract changes the way in which the management fees paid by your fund are calculated in two important ways. For all 88 affected funds, the proposed management contract specifies a fee rate that varies based on the aggregate net assets of all funds in the Fund Family. In addition, for 13 funds, the new fee rate also varies based on theperformance of the fund as compared with the performance of a specified investment benchmark. Finally, for a number of funds, the proposed management contract changes the timing of management fee computation and payment in order to standardize these terms for all Putnam funds. All other terms and conditions of the proposed management contract for each fund are substantially identical to those of the fund’s current management contract. A form of the proposed management contract showing all of the proposed changes is included inAppendix D.

Proposed calculation of fee rates for all funds based on aggregate net assets of the Fund Family

Calculation of current management fee.The management contract currently in effect for each affected fund provides for payment of a management fee calculated as a percentage of the average net assets of the fund, with the applicable percentage declining as average net assets exceed certain specified “breakpoints.” As a result, the effective management fee paid by each fund declines as its average net assets increase beyond the level of the first breakpoint ($500 million for most funds). Conversely, in the case of funds with net assets above the level of the first breakpoint, the effective management fee increases as average net assets of the fund decrease. The current management fee schedule for each fund is listed inAppendix E.

Calculation of proposed management fee.The proposed management contract for each affected fund provides for payment of a management fee at a rate that is no longer based on the net assets of the individual fund. Instead, the proposed management fee rate for each affected fund is calculated based on a fee schedule that takes into account the aggregate net assets of the Fund Family. (The proposed fee schedule for each fund is listed inAppendix F.) The effective fee rate so calculated for each fund would be multiplied by the average net assets of the fund to determine the management fee payable for each payment period. (As discussed below, the management fee calculated under this formula would be subject to adjustment in the case of those funds for which a performance fee adjustment is proposed or is in place under the current manage ment contract.)

Comparison of current and proposed management fee rates.The table below shows the proposed effective management fee rate for each affected fund, based on June 30, 2009 net assets of the Fund Family ($52.3 billion). This table also shows the effective management fee rate payable by each affected fund under its current management contract, based on the net assets of each individual fund as of June 30, 2009. Finally, this table shows the difference in the effective management fees, based on net assets as of June 30, 2009, between the proposed management contract and the current contract.

13

14

As shown in the foregoing table, based on June 30, 2009 net asset levels, the proposed management contract would provide for payment of a management fee rate that is lower for almost all funds, and in many cases materially lower, than the management fee rate payable under the current management contract. For a small number of funds, the management fee rate would be slightly higher under the proposed contract at these asset levels, but by only immaterial amounts. In the aggregate, the financial impact on Putnam Management of implementing this proposed change for all funds at June 30, 2009 net asset levels is a reduction in annual management fee revenue of approximately $24.0 million. (Putnam Management has already incurred a significant portion of this revenue reduction through the waiver of a portion of its current management fees for certain funds pending shareholder consideration of the proposed management contracts. Putnam is not obliged to continue such waivers beyond July 31, 2010 in the event that the proposed contracts are not approved by shareholders.)

The management fee rate payable under the proposed management contract for each affected fund is calculated on a fundamentally different basis than the fee rate under its current contract. As a result, the differences in effective fee

15

rates between the current and the proposed contracts and the financial impact on Putnam Management’s fee revenues in the future will vary depending on future changes in the net assets of each fund (in the case of the current contract) and in the aggregate net assets of the Fund Family (in the case of the proposed contract). For further discussion of the potential impact of future changes in asset levels, see “What factors did the Independent Trustees consider in evaluating the proposed management contracts?” below.

Proposed addition of new performance fees for 13 funds

Six of the Putnam funds (the “Absolute Return” and “Spectrum” funds) already have management fee rates that may vary based on the performance of the fund in relation to the performance of a specified investment benchmark. The performance adjustments included in the current management contracts for these funds would remain unchanged and continue in effect under the proposed management contracts. The proposed contracts would, however, add similar performance adjustments to the calculation of management fees for the following 13 funds:

Putnam Asia Pacific Equity Fund
Putnam Emerging Markets Equity Fund
Putnam Europe Equity Fund
Putnam Global Equity Fund
Putnam Growth Opportunities Fund
Putnam International Capital Opportunities Fund
Putnam International Equity Fund
Putnam International Growth and Income Fund
Putnam International New Opportunities Fund
Putnam New Opportunities Fund
Putnam Small Cap Growth Fund
Putnam Vista Fund
Putnam Voyager Fund

For these funds, the proposed management contract between your fund and Putnam Management would include, in addition to the new Fund Family breakpoint fee structure discussed above, a performance adjustment that would increase or decrease the management fees paid by your fund based upon the performance of the fund relative to a benchmark index.

Calculation of the proposed performance adjustment.If the proposed management contract is approved, your fund would pay a monthly Fund Family breakpoint fee to Putnam Management for the first year of the new contract. Beginning with your fund’s thirteenth complete calendar month of operations under the proposed management contract, the monthly management fee would consist of the monthly Fund Family breakpoint fee plus or minus a performance adjustment for the month. The amount of the performance adjustment would be calculated monthly based on aperformance adjustment rateequal to 3% multiplied by the difference between the fund’s annualized performancemeasured by the fund’s class A shares and the annualized performance of the fund’s benchmark index, each measured as a percen tage, over theperformance period. (The class of shares used for purposes of this calculation could be changed in the future with the approval of the Trustees to the extent permitted by applicable law.) Theperformance adjustment ratewould be subject to amaximum annualized performance adjustment ratefor each affected fund.Appendix Glists the proposed benchmark index for each affected fund and the proposedmaximum annualized performance adjustment rates.

Theperformance periodwould be the thirty-six month period then ended (or, if the proposed management contract has not then been effective for thirty-six complete calendar months, the period from the date the proposed management contract became effective to the end of the month for which the fee adjustment is being computed). Each month, theperformance adjustment ratewould be multiplied by the fund’s average net assets over theperformance periodand the result would be divided by twelve. This dollar amount would be added to, or subtracted from, the base management fee for that month.

Depending on how your fund performs relative to its benchmark, the performance adjustment may result in an increase or decrease in the management fees paid by your fund. Because the performance adjustment would be tied to the fund’s performance relative to its benchmark index (and not its absolute performance), the performance adjustment could increase Putnam Management’s fee even if the fund’s shares lose value during theperformance period, and could decrease Putnam Management’s fee even if the fund’s shares increase in value during theperformance period. Because the performance adjustment is based on the fund’s performance relative to the benchmark over theperformance period, rather th an the monthly period in which the performance adjustment affects Putnam Management’s fee, the performance adjustment could increase Putnam Management’s fee during a month when the fund underperforms its benchmark (but had outperformed its benchmark during theperformance period), and could decrease Putnam Management’s fee during a month when the fund outperforms its benchmark (but had underperformed its benchmark during theperformance period). Performance of the fund would be calculated net of expenses, whereas the fund’s benchmark index does not include any fees or expenses. Reinvestment of dividends and distributions would be included in calculating the performance of both the fund and the fund’s benchmark index.

Changes affecting timing of management fee computation and payment

The proposed management contract for all funds provides that management fees will be computed and paid monthly within 15

16

days after the end of each month. The current contracts of the funds contain quarterly computation and payment terms in some cases, as listed inAppendix H. These differences largely reflect practices in place at earlier times when many of the funds were first organized. Under the proposed contract, certain funds would make payments to Putnam Management earlier than they do under their current contract. This would reduce a fund’s opportunity to earn income on accrued but unpaid management fees by a small amount, but would not have a material effect on a fund’s operating costs.

The proposed change in the frequency with which fees are calculated may also result in small changes in the amount of fees paid under the management contract when the “average net assets” on which the fees are based are changing. By changing the period over which the average net assets is determined, it is possible that, as net assets move from one breakpoint to another, the new breakpoint will take effect earlier or later than it would have under a quarterly calculation and payment frequency, depending on the magnitude of the change and when it occurs during the period. These differences are expected to be immaterial in all instances and should average out over time. The proposed changes would reduce administrative burdens for the funds and for Putnam Management and would result in all Putnam funds having the same computation and payment terms.

What factors did the Independent Trustees consider
in evaluating the proposed management contracts?

The Trustees of each fund, including all of the Independent Trustees, voted unanimously to approve the proposed management contract for each fund on July 10, 2009. In considering the proposed contracts, the Independent Trustees focused largely on the specific proposed changes described above relating to management fees. They also took into account the factors that they considered in connection with their most recent annual approval on June 12, 2009 of the continuance of the funds’ current management contracts and the extensive materials that they had reviewed in connection with that approval process.Appendix Icontains a summary description of the factors considered by the Trustees in connection with their June 12, 2009 approval.

Considerations relating to Fund Family fee rate calculations

The Independent Trustees considered that the proposed management contracts would change the manner in which fund shareholders share in potential economies of scale associated with the management of the funds. Under the current management contracts, shareholders of a fund benefit from increased fund size through reductions in the effective management fee paid to Putnam Management once the fund’s net assets exceed the first breakpoint in the fund’s fee schedule ($500 million for most funds). These breakpoints are measured solely by the net assets of each individual fund and are not affected by possible growth (or decline) of net assets of otherfunds in the Fund Family. Under the proposed management contracts, potential economies of scale would be shared ratably among shareholders of all funds, regardless of their size. The management fees paid by a fund (and indirectly by shareholders) would no longer be aff ected by the growth (or decline) of assets of the particular fund, but rather would be affected by the growth (or decline) of the aggregate net assets of all funds in the Fund Family, regardless of whether the net assets of the particular fund are growing or declining.

The Independent Trustees carefully considered the implications of this proposed change under a variety of economic circumstances. They considered the fact that at current asset levels the management fees paid by the funds under the proposed contract would be lower for almost all funds, and would not be materially higher for any fund, as shown in the table above. They considered the possibility that under some circumstances, the current management contract could result in a lower fee for a particular fund than the proposed management contract. Such circumstances might occur, for example, (i) if the aggregate net assets of the Fund Family remain largely unchanged and the net assets of an individual fund grew substantially, or (ii) if the net assets of an individual fund remain largely unchanged and the aggregate net assets of the Fund Family declined substantially.

The Independent Trustees noted that future changes in the net assets of individual funds are inherently unpredictable and that experience has shown that funds often grow in size and decline in size over time depending on market conditions and the changing popularity of particular investment styles and asset classes. They noted that, while the aggregate net assets of the Fund Family have changed substantially over time, basing a management fee on the aggregate level of assets of the Fund Family would likely reduce fluctuations in costs paid by individual funds and lead to greater stability and predictability of fund operating costs over time.

The Independent Trustees considered that the proposed management contract would likely be advantageous for newly organized funds that have yet to attract significant assets and for funds in specialty asset classes that are unlikely to grow to a significant size. In each case, such funds would participate in the benefits of scale made possible by the aggregate size of the Fund Family to an extent that would not be possible based solely on their individual size. The Independent Trustees also considered that for funds that have achieved or are likely to achieve considerable scale on their own, the proposed management contract could result in sharing of economies which might lead to slightly higher costs under some circumstances, but they noted that any such increases are immaterial at current asset levels and that over time such funds are likely to realize offsetting benefits from their opportunity to participate, both through the exchange privilege and t hrough the Fund Family breakpoint fee structure, in the improved growth prospects of a diversified Fund Family able to offer competitively priced products.

17

The Independent Trustees noted that the implementation of the proposed management contracts would result in a reduction in aggregate fee revenues for Putnam Management at current asset levels. They also noted that applying various projections of growth equally to the aggregate net assets of the Fund Family and to the net assets of individual funds also showed revenue reductions for Putnam Management. They recognized, however, the possibility that under some scenarios Putnam Management might realize greater future revenues, with respect to certain funds, under the proposed contracts than under the current contracts, but considered such circumstances to be both less likely and inherently unpredictable.

The Independent Trustees considered the extent to which Putnam Management may realize economies of scale in connection with the management of the funds. In this regard, they considered the possibility that such economies of scale as may exist in the management of mutual funds may be associated more closely with the size of the aggregate assets of the mutual fund complex than with the size of any individual fund. In this regard the Independent Trustees considered the financial information provided to them by Putnam Management over a period of many years regarding the allocation of costs involved in calculating the profitability of its mutual fund business as a whole and the profitability of individual funds. The Independent Trustees noted that the methodologies for such cost allocations had been reviewed on a number of occasions in the past by independent financial consultants engaged by the Independent Trustees. The Independent Trustees noted that thes e methodologies support Putnam Management’s assertion that many of its operating costs and any associated economies of scale are related more to the aggregate net assets under management in various sectors of its business than to the size of individual funds. They noted that on a number of occasions in the past the Independent Trustees had separately considered the possibility of calculating management fees in whole or in part based on aggregate net assets of the Putnam funds.

The Independent Trustees considered the fact that the proposed contracts would result in a sharing among the affected funds of economies of scale that for the most part are now enjoyed by the larger funds, without materially increasing the current costs of any of the larger funds. They concluded that this sharing of economies among funds was appropriate in light of the diverse investment opportunities available to shareholders of all funds through the existence of the exchange privilege. They also considered that the proposed change in management fee structure would allow Putnam Management to introduce new investment products at more attractive pricing levels than may currently be the case.

After considering all of the foregoing, the Independent Trustees concluded that the proposed calculation of management fees based on the aggregate net assets of the Fund Family represented a fair and reasonable means of sharing possible economies of scale among the shareholders of all funds.

Considerations relating to addition of fee rate adjustments based on investment performance for certain funds

The Independent Trustees considered that Putnam’s proposal to add fee rate adjustments based on investment performance to the management contracts of certain funds reflected a desire by Putnam Management to align its fee revenues more closely with investment performance in the case of certain funds. They noted that Putnam Management already has a significant financial interest in achieving good performance results for the funds it manages. Putnam Management’s fees are based on the assets under its management (whether calculated on an individual fund or complex-wide basis). Good performance results in higher asset levels and therefore higher revenues to Putnam Management. Moreover, good performance also tends to attract additional investors to particular funds or the complex generally, also resulting in higher revenues. Nevertheless, the Independent Trustees concluded that adjusting management fees based on performance for certain selected fun ds could provide additional benefits to shareholders.

The Independent Trustees noted that Putnam Management proposed the addition of performance adjustments only for certain of the funds and considered whether similar adjustments might be appropriate for other funds. In this regard, they considered Putnam Management’s belief that the addition of performance adjustments would be most appropriate for shareholders of U.S. growth funds, international equity funds and Putnam Global Equity Fund. They also considered Putnam Management’s view that it would continue to monitor whether performance fees would be appropriate for other funds. Accordingly, the Independent Trustees concluded that it would be desirable to gain further experience with the operation of performance adjustments for certain funds and the market’s receptivity to such fee structures before giving further consideration to whether similar performance adjustments would be appropriate for other funds as well.

Considerations relating to standardization of payment terms

The Independent Trustees considered the fact that standardizing the payment terms, as described above, for all funds would involve an acceleration in the timing of payments to Putnam Management for some funds and a corresponding loss of a potential opportunity for such funds to earn income on accrued but unpaid management fees. The Independent Trustees did not view this change as having a material impact on shareholders of any fund. In this regard, the Independent Trustees noted that the proposed contracts conform to the payment terms included in management contracts for all Putnam funds organized in recent years and that standardizing payment terms across all funds would reduce administrative burdens for both the funds and Putnam Management.

Considerations relating to comparisons with management fees and total expenses of competitive funds

As part of their evaluation of the proposed management contracts, the Independent Trustees also reviewed the general approach taken by Putnam Management and the Independent

18

Trustees in recent years in imposing appropriate limits on total fund expenses. As part of the annual contract review process in recent years, Putnam Management agreed to waive fees as needed to limit total fund expenses to a maximum level equal to the average total expenses of comparable competitive funds in the mutual fund industry. In connection with its proposal to implement new management contracts, Putnam Management also proposed, and the Independent Trustees approved, certain changes in this approach that shift the focus from controlling total expenses to imposing separate limits on certain categories of expenses. As a general matter, Putnam Management and the Independent Trustees concluded that management fees for the Putnam funds are competitive with the fees charged by comparable funds in the industry. Nevertheless, the Independent Trustees considered specific management fee waivers proposed to be implemented as of August 1, 2009 by Putnam Ma nagement with respect to the current management fees of certain funds, as well as projected reductions in management fees for almost all funds that would result under the proposed contracts. Putnam Management and the Independent Trustees also agreed to impose separate expense limitations of 37.5 basis points on the general category of shareholder servicing expenses and 20 basis points on the general category of other ordinary operating expenses. These new expense limitations were implemented for all funds effective as of August 1, 2009. These changes resulted in lower total expenses for many funds, but in the case of some funds, total expenses increased after application of the new waivers and expense limitations (as compared with the results obtained using the expense limitation method previously in place). In this regard, the Independent Trustees considered the likelihood that total expenses for most of these funds would have increased in any event in the normal course under the previous expense limitation arrangement, as the reported total expense levels of many competitive funds increased in response to the major decline in asset values that began in September 2008. These new waivers and expense limitations will continue in effect until at least July 31, 2010 and will be re-evaluated by the Independent Trustees as part of the annual contract review process prior to their scheduled expiration. However, the management fee waivers referred to above would largely become permanent reductions in fees as a result of the implementation of the proposed management contracts.

General conclusion

After considering the factors described above relating to the specific changes included in the proposed management contracts, and taking into account all of the factors considered by the Independent Trustees as part of their recent approval of the continuance of the management contracts of all funds on June 12, 2009, the Independent Trustees concluded that implementation of the proposed management contract for each fund would be in the best interests of shareholders of the fund and unanimously approved the proposed management contract.

What are the Trustees recommending?

The Trustees of your fund, including all of the Independent Trustees, unanimously recommend that shareholders approve the proposed management contract with Fund Family breakpoints and, in the case of certain funds, performance fees.

As noted below under “General Plan for Implementation of Proposed Management Contracts”, for the 13 funds for which new performance fees are proposed, the Trustees also recommend that shareholders approve proposed management contracts providing for each, but not both, of Fund Family breakpoints and performance fees. The Trustees recommend that shareholders of these funds vote FOR each of the three alternatives, but intend to implement a new management contract that includes both Fund Family breakpoints and performance fees if that alternative is approved by shareholders.

What is the voting requirement for approval of the
proposed contracts?

Approval of the proposed management contract for each fund requires the affirmative vote of the lesser of (a) the holders of 67% or more of the shares of the fund present (in person or by proxy) and entitled to vote at the meeting, if the holders of more than 50% of the outstanding shares of the fund entitled to vote at the meeting are present in person or by proxy, or (b) the holders of more than 50% of the outstanding shares of the fund entitled to vote at the meeting.

General Plan for Implementation of Proposed
Management Contracts

If this proposal is approved by the shareholders of your fund, it is expected that the proposed management contract would be implemented for your fund on January 1, 2010 (or, if later, the first day of the first calendar month following shareholder approval). The Independent Trustees and Putnam Management currently intend to implement the new contracts only if they are approved by shareholders of substantially all the funds. If shareholders of a significant number of funds do not approve the new contracts containing Fund Family breakpoints, the Independent Trustees and Putnam Management currently intend to leave the current contract in place for all funds, except that they would intend to implement any new performance fees approved by shareholders, and will consider such other actions as may be appropriate in the circumstances. The Independent Trustees and Putnam Management may also determine not to implement the proposed new contract, even though appr oved by shareholders, under various other circumstances, such as where certain funds are marketed together as a group of related funds and the proposed contracts are not approved for all funds in such group, and other circumstances where it is believed that the implementation of the proposed contracts may result in administrative complexities or shareholder confusion. In the event that the proposed contract is not implemented for a fund for any reason, the current management contract of such fund will continue in effect.

19

If implemented, the proposed management contract for each fund would remain in effect (unless terminated) through June 30, 2010, and would continue in effect from year to year thereafter so long as its continuance is approved at least annually by (i) the Trustees, or the shareholders by the affirmative vote of a majority of the outstanding shares of your fund, and (ii) a majority of the Independent Trustees, by vote cast in person at a meeting called for the purpose of voting on such approval.

For funds with proposed new performance adjustments

Shareholders of those 13 funds for which performance adjustments are being proposed as part of the proposed new management contracts will be asked to vote separately on three alternative new management contracts: (i) Proposal 2.A. — a contract containing both the proposed new management fee schedule based on aggregate Fund Family assets and the proposed new performance adjustments, (ii) Proposal 2.B. — a contract containing the proposed new management fee schedule based on aggregate Fund Family assets only, and (iii) Proposal 2.C. — a contract containing the proposed new performance adjustments only. (All three alternatives would include the standardization of payment terms described above.) The Trustees recommend that shareholders of these funds vote FOR each of the three alternatives, but intend to implement Proposal 2.A. — that is, a new contract containing both new features — if that alternative is approved by shareholde rs.

Other Information

A brief description of the terms of the affected funds’ current management contracts, as well as the date of each fund’s current management contract, the date on which it was last approved by shareholders and the purpose of the submission to shareholders are set forth inAppendix J.

The tables included atAppendix Kshow examples of seven funds’ current total annual operating expenses (as a percentage of average net assets) under the current management contract and pro forma total annual operating expenses under the proposed management contract, in each case assuming fund assets and Fund Family assets as of June 30, 2009 throughout the period. Examples that translate each fund’s annual operating expenses into dollar amounts, showing the cumulative effect of these costs over time, are also presented. For these seven funds — Putnam Asset Allocation: Growth Portfolio, Putnam Convertible Income-Growth Trust, The Putnam Fund for Growth and Income, Putnam Global Health Care Fund, Putnam International Equity Fund, Putnam Investors Fund, and Putnam Voyager Fund — the operation of Fund Family breakpoints under the proposed management contract is projected, based on June 30, 2009 fund assets, to result in an immaterially higher management fee.

The tables included atAppendix Lshow for each fund the dollar amount of the management fee that would have been paid under the current management contract, the amount Putnam Management would have received under the proposedmanagement contract, and the difference between the two, assuming fund assets and Fund Family assets as of June 30, 2009 throughout the period.

3. ADOPTION OF UPDATED AND STANDARDIZED
FUNDAMENTAL INVESTMENT RESTRICTIONS

As described in the following proposals, the Trustees recommend that shareholders of certain funds approve revisions to certain fundamental investment restrictions of such funds. Generally, the purpose of these proposed changes is to increase each fund’s investment flexibility to the extent permitted by applicable law and regulations, and to reduce administrative and compliance burdens by standardizing these fundamental investment restrictions across all similarly situated Putnam funds.

Background.The 1940 Act requires registered investment companies like the funds to have “fundamental” investment restrictions governing certain of their investment practices. Investment companies may also voluntarily designate restrictions relating to other investment practices as fundamental. “Fundamental” investment restrictions can be changed only by a shareholder vote.

Proposed revisions to certain of the fundamental investment restrictions of the funds are discussed below. By revising these fundamental investment restrictions, the Trustees believe that Putnam Management will be better able to manage the funds in a changing regulatory or investment environment. In addition, the Trustees believe that the process of monitoring the funds’ compliance with investment restrictions will be simplified as these restrictions are standardized across all similarly situated Putnam funds, thereby reducing administrative and compliance burdens.

3.A.: APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO
CERTAIN FUNDS’ FUNDAMENTAL INVESTMENT
RESTRICTIONS WITH RESPECT TO INVESTMENTS
IN COMMODITIES

Affected funds:

Putnam Absolute Return 100 Fund
Putnam Absolute Return 300 Fund
Putnam Absolute Return 500 Fund
Putnam Absolute Return 700 Fund
Putnam Asia Pacific Equity Fund
Putnam Asset Allocation: Balanced Portfolio
Putnam Asset Allocation: Conservative Portfolio
Putnam Asset Allocation: Equity Portfolio
Putnam Asset Allocation: Growth Portfolio
Putnam Capital Spectrum Fund
Putnam Emerging Markets Equity Fund
Putnam Equity Spectrum Fund
Putnam Global Consumer Fund
Putnam Global Energy Fund
Putnam Global Financials Fund
Putnam Global Health Care Fund
Putnam Global Industrials Fund
Putnam Global Natural Resources Fund

20

Putnam Global Technology Fund
Putnam Global Telecommunications Fund
Putnam Global Utilities Fund
Putnam Income Strategies Fund
Putnam VT Global Asset Allocation Fund
Putnam VT Global Health Care Fund
Putnam VT Global Utilities Fund

What is this proposal?

Under the 1940 Act, a fund’s investment policy relating to the purchase and sale of commodities must be fundamental. Commodities include physical commodities, such as gold and other metals, agricultural products, metals and oil. Under the federal securities and commodities laws,oil, as well as certain financial instruments, such as futures contracts and related options, may also be considered commodities. The funds’options.Appendix Mlists the current fundamental investment restrictionrestrictions of each of the affected funds with respect to commodities states that each fund may not:commodities.

“Purchase or sell commodities or commodity contracts, except thatAlthough 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.”

Since the adoption of your fund’s current restriction for all of the financial markets have evolved and new types of financial instruments have become available as potential investment opportunities. In addition, the Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”) has recently issued guidance clarifying its position with regard to investments in commodity-linked investments. Specifically, the IRS has indicated that while a regulated investment company, as defined under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), is limited in its ability to invest in certain commodity-linked investments, it is permitted to invest in certain commodity-linked notes without jeopardizing its status as a regulated investment company under the Code. Although your fund’s current restrictionaffected funds expressly permits investments in financial instruments that could be deemed to be commodities under the federal securities and commodities laws, it could be read to prohibit a fund

4

from investingand for many of the affected funds expressly permits investments in financial instruments whose values are determined by reference to physical commodities, but which do not involveit prohibits direct investment in physical commodities.

In order to afford Putnam Management the delivery of physical commodities to or by the fund. Accordingly,maximum investment flexibility in pursuing each fund’s investment objective, the Trustees are recommendingrecommend that each fund’s fundamental investment restriction with respect to investments in commodities be revised to increase each fund’s investment flexibility by permitting each fundpermit the funds to invest in physical commodities, in addition to financial instruments, representing intereststo the extent permitted by applicable law. Putnam Management believes that at times it may be advantageous for the funds to obtain exposure to gold and other commodities by investing directly in the physical commodities. This proposal would permit your fund to obtain exposure to commodities, whether through direct investment in physical commodities or through related financial instruments, in the values of which are determined by referencemanner Putnam Management deems most efficient from time to commodities, but which do not involve the delivery of physical commoditiestime, as from time to ortime authorized by the fund.Trustees. The restriction as proposed to be amended fundamental investment restriction would state that eachyour fund may not:

“Purchase or sell physical commodities, unless acquiredexcept as a result of ownership of securities or other instruments. This restriction shall not prevent the fund from purchasing or selling financial instruments representing interests in commodities (or the values of which are determinedpermitted by reference to commodities), but which do not involve the delivery of physical commodities to or by the fund, or from entering into financial futures contracts, options, foreign exchange contracts and other financial transactions.applicable law.”

►What effect will amending the current restriction
with respect to investments in commodities restriction have on the funds?
your fund?

Under the proposed fundamental investment restriction, each fund will be able to invest directly in gold and other physical commodities, as well as engage in a variety of transactions involving the use of commodity-linked investments, including commodity ETFscommodity-based exchange-traded funds or ETNsnotes (ETFs or ETNs) and commodity-linked notes, with respect to individual indices or commodities, to the extent consistent with eachthe fund’s investment objectives and policies.policies, as well as applicable law.

Putnam Investment Management LLC (“Putnam Management”) believes that this investment flexibility could assist eachyour fund in achieving its investment objective, both because commodities and commodity-linked investments may offer the opportunity for attractive investment returns and because economic exposure to another asset classgold or other commodities through these investments may enhance the ability of the fund to diversify risks, particularly to the extent that the returns of commodities are not correlated with the returns of other asset classes in which the fund invests.

In order to maintain their special status as regulated investment companies under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), the funds must limit any “non-qualifying income” to a maximum of 10% of their annual gross income. Generally, a fund’s investments in commodity-linked derivatives or physical commodities will be limited by this requirement. However, the Internal Revenue Service has recently issued guidance clarifying its position that certain instruments that create commodity exposure (e.g., commodity-linked structured notes) can generate “qualifying income” for a regulated investment company, thus allowing a fund to invest in such instruments without jeopardizing its status under the Code. While Putnam Management currently expects that uppresently has no specific intention to 10%change any fund’s exposures to commodities or commodity-linked investments in response to the revision of a fund’s total assets may be allocatedthe funds’ investment restric tions, this intention is subject to commodity-linked investments. Under the proposed fundamentalchange based on Putnam Management’s assessment of both market conditions at any given time and those investments most likely to assist your fund in meeting its investment restriction, as under the current fundamental investment restriction, the funds will not be permitted to

5

engage in the direct purchase and sale of physical commodities. Eachobjective. More generally, your fund intends to limit its investment in commodities and commodity-linked investments to the extent necessary to qualify as a regulated investment company under the Code.

While commodities and commodity-linked investments offer significant potential benefits to the funds, investment in this asset class presents particular risks as well. The values of commodity-linked notescommodities and other commodity-linked investments will typically rise and fall in response to changes in the value of the underlying commodity or related index or investment, and may result in losses for the fund. The values of commodity-linked investments may be highly volatile, and may be subject to a wide variety of risks relevant to particular physical commodities (such as the risks of drought, floods, weather, livestock disease, embargoes, tariffs and international economic, political and regulatory developments) to which the markets for other securitiesinvestments are not typically subject. Investments in physical commodities may also involve different custody arrangements and greater custody risks than other types of investments. Commodity-linked investments may involve the risk of exposure to the effects of leverage, which could increase the fund’s market exposure and potential losses. Commodity-linkedCommodities and commodity-linked investments are subject to the risk that their prices may correlatecor relate with changes in the value of other investments in ways that Putnam Management did not anticipate. Commodity-linked i nvestmentsCommodities and commodity-linked investments are also subject to the risk that a counterparty will be unwilling or unable to meet its obligations to the funds. In addition, the fund may be unable to sell its commodities and commodity-linked investments when Putnam Management believes it is desirable to do so.

►21

What are the Trustees recommending?

The Trustees unanimously recommend that shareholders approve an amendment to youreach affected fund’s fundamental investment restriction with respect to investments in commodities.

►What is the voting requirement for approving
the proposal?

Approval of the proposed amendment to youreach affected fund’s fundamental investment restriction requires the affirmative vote of the lesser of (a) more than 50% of the outstanding shares of the affected fund, or (b) 67% or more of the shares of the affected fund present (in person or by proxy) at the meeting if more than 50% of the outstanding shares of the affected fund are present at the meeting in person or by proxy.

3.B. APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO CERTAIN
FUNDS’ FUNDAMENTAL INVESTMENT
RESTRICTIONS WITH RESPECT TO
DIVERSIFICATION OF INVESTMENTS

Affected funds:

Putnam Europe Equity Fund
Putnam Global Utilities Fund
Putnam Growth Opportunities Fund
Putnam International Capital Opportunities Fund
Putnam International Equity Fund
Putnam New Opportunities Fund

What is this proposal?

The Trustees recommend that each affected fund’s fundamental investment restriction with respect to the diversification of its investments be revised.

• For Putnam Global Utilities Fund, the proposed revisionwould change the fund’s classification from a “diversified” fund to a “non-diversified” fund under the 1940 Act, thereby conforming the fund’s restriction to the standard restriction currently used by Putnam’s other global sector funds and providing additional flexibility to the fund to more closely track its benchmark in the event that the benchmark became more concentrated.

• For each of the other affected funds, the proposed revision would afford these funds greater flexibility to invest in securities issued by other investment companies, and would conform this restriction to the standard restriction currently used by Putnam’s other diversified funds.

Appendix Nlists the current fundamental investment restrictions of each of the affected funds with respect to diversification.

Background.Under the 1940 Act, a “diversified” fund generally may not, with respect to 75% of its total assets, invest more than 5% of its total assets in the securities of any one issuer (except U.S. government securities, cash, cash items or the securities ofother investment companies). The remaining 25% of the fund’s total assets is not subject to this restriction.

A “non-diversified fund” is not subject to this 1940 Act restriction, but is subject to similar rules under the Code, which require that a fund diversify its holdings at the end of each fiscal quarter such that, with respect to 50% of the fund’s total assets, the fund does not have more than 5% of its total assets invested in any one issuer. The remaining 50% of the fund’s assets is not subject to this 5% limitation, although the fund may not invest more than 25% of its total assets in any one issuer. Neither of these Code requirements applies to U.S. government securities, cash, cash items or the securities of other regulated investment companies. (Under the Code, neither a diversified nor a non-diversified fund may invest more than 25% of its total assets in any one issuer.)

The proposed amended fundamental restriction would state that your fund may not:

“With respect to [50% (Putnam Global Utilities Fund)]/[75% (All other affected funds)] of its total assets, invest in 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 or to securities issued by other investment companies.”

What effect will amending the current restriction
with respect to diversification of investments have
on your fund?

For Putnam Global Utilities Fund, the proposed change would allow the fund to become a non-diversified fund, able to invest more of its assets in the securities of fewer issuers than a diversified fund. The fund would be exposed to non-diversification risk, as its ability to invest more of its assets in the securities of fewer issuers would increase its vulnerability to factors affecting a single investment; therefore the fund may be more exposed to the risks of loss and volatility than a fund that invests more broadly.

For each of the other affected funds, the proposed change would allow such diversified funds to exclude investments in other investment companies from the 1940 Act and Code limitations described above. While Putnam Management does not currently expect that any of these funds will invest in securities of other investment companies to a significant extent, other than investments in one or more money market funds, Putnam Management believes that this investment flexibility could, in the future, assist your fund in achieving its investment objective. In addition, the proposed changes would reduce administrative and compliance burdens by conforming this restriction to the standard restriction currently used by Putnam’s other diversified funds.

22

What are the Trustees recommending?

The Trustees unanimously recommend that shareholders approve an amendment to each affected fund’s fundamental investment restriction with respect to diversification of investments.

What is the voting requirement for approving
the proposal?

Approval of this proposal requires the affirmative vote of the lesser of (1) more than 50% of the outstanding shares of the affected fund, or (2) 67% or more of the shares of the affected fund present at the meeting if more than 50% of the outstanding shares of the affected fund are present at the meeting in person or by proxy.

3.C. APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO CERTAIN
FUNDS’ FUNDAMENTAL INVESTMENT
RESTRICTIONS LIMITING THE PERCENTAGE
OF THE VOTING SECURITIES OF ANY ISSUER
THAT MAY BE ACQUIRED

Affected funds:

Putnam Global Natural Resources Fund
Putnam Global Utilities Fund

What is this proposal?

The Trustees recommend that Putnam Global Natural Resources Fund’s and Putnam Global Utilities Fund’s fundamental investment restriction with respect to the acquisition of voting securities of any issuer be conformed to the standard restriction currently used by Putnam’s other global sector funds. The proposed change would afford your fund greater flexibility in acquiring the voting securities of a single issuer.

Your fund’s current fundamental investment restriction with respect to the acquisition of voting securities of any issuer states that your fund may not:

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

The proposed amended fundamental restriction would state that your fund may not:

“With respect to 50% of its total assets, acquire more than 10% of the outstanding voting securities of any issuer.”

What effect will amending the current restriction
with respect to the acquisition of voting securities
of any issuer have on your fund?

Putnam Management believes that the additional investment flexibility afforded by the proposed restriction could assist your fund in achieving its investment objective. In addition, the proposed change would also align your fund’s fundamental investment restriction with that of all other non-diversified Putnam funds. This would reduce administrative and compliance burdens for your fund.

What are the Trustees recommending?

The Trustees unanimously recommend that shareholders approve an amendment to each affected fund’s fundamental investment restriction with respect to the acquisition of voting securities.

What is the voting requirement for approving
the proposal?

Approval of this proposal requires the affirmative vote of the lesser of (1) more than 50% of the outstanding shares of the affected fund, or (2) 67% or more of the shares of the affected fund present at the meeting if more than 50% of the outstanding shares of the affected fund are present at the meeting in person or by proxy.

3.D. APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO CERTAIN
FUNDS’ FUNDAMENTAL INVESTMENT
RESTRICTIONS WITH RESPECT TO BORROWING

Affected funds:

Putnam Europe Equity Fund
Putnam Global Natural Resources Fund
Putnam Growth Opportunities Fund
Putnam International Capital Opportunities Fund
Putnam International Equity Fund
Putnam New Jersey Tax Exempt Income Fund
Putnam New Opportunities Fund
Putnam Vista Fund

What is this proposal?

The Trustees recommend that each affected fund’s fundamental investment restriction with respect to borrowing be revised to reflect the standard restriction for other Putnam funds. Under the 1940 Act, a fund may borrow up to 33 1/3% of its total assets, subject to any more restrictive policy adopted by the fund. Each affected fund’s current restriction is more restrictive than the 1940 Act requires.Appendix Olists the current fundamental investment restriction with respect to borrowing of each of the affected funds. The proposed fundamental investment restriction would state that your fund may not:

“Borrow money in excess of 33 1/3% of the value of its total assets (not including the amount borrowed) at the time the borrowing is made.”

What effect will amending the current restriction
with respect to borrowing have on your fund?

If the proposed change is approved, each affected fund would be permitted to borrow for the purpose of making additional investments, although Putnam Management currently has no intention of borrowing for such purpose. Borrowing to make additional investments would allow a fund to profit if the return on such investments exceeds the interest on the borrowing, but would result in increased losses if the return on such investments is less than the interest on the borrowing. This is known as leverage risk. Generally, if a fund borrows money, its net assets

23

tend to increase or decrease to a greater extent with market changes than if the fund had not borrowed money.

The proposed restriction would also allow the affected funds to borrow from lenders other than banks, to the extent permitted by the 1940 Act. In a separate proposal (see Proposal 3.E. below), shareholders of these affected funds are being asked to approve an amendment to each affected fund’s restriction on lending. The proposed revisions would, subject to the limitation discussed in Proposal 3.E., permit each affected fund to participate in an “interfund lending program” under an exemptive order granted to the Putnam funds by the SEC which would allow the fund, through a master loan agreement, to lend available cash to and borrow from other Putnam funds. Each affected fund would be able to borrow money under the interfund lending program only if the interest rate on the loan is more favorable to the fund than the interest rates otherwise available for short-term bank loans, as well as being more favorable to the lending fund than availa ble repurchase agreement rates.

Putnam Management believes that the ability to engage in interfund lending transactions may allow a fund to pay lower interest rates on its borrowings. An affected fund could, in certain circumstances, have its loan recalled by a lending fund on one day’s notice. Under these circumstances, the affected fund might have to borrow from a bank at a higher interest rate if loans were not available from other Putnam funds.

All in all, Putnam Management believes that the proposed restriction could assist your fund in achieving its investment objective. In addition, the proposed restriction would align your fund’s fundamental investment restriction with that of all other Putnam funds, which would reduce administrative and compliance burdens for your fund.

What are the Trustees recommending?

The Trustees unanimously recommend that shareholders approve an amendment to each affected fund’s fundamental investment restriction with respect to borrowing.

What is the voting requirement for approving
the proposal?

Approval of this proposal requires the affirmative vote of the lesser of (1) more than 50% of the outstanding shares of the affected fund, or (2) 67% or more of the shares of the affected fund present at the meeting if more than 50% of the outstanding shares of the affected fund are present at the meeting in person or by proxy.

3.E. APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO CERTAIN
FUNDS’ FUNDAMENTAL INVESTMENT
RESTRICTIONS WITH RESPECT TO MAKING LOANS

Affected funds:

Putnam Europe Equity Fund
Putnam Global Natural Resources Fund
Putnam Growth Opportunities Fund
Putnam International Capital Opportunities Fund
Putnam International Equity Fund
Putnam New Jersey Tax Exempt Income Fund
Putnam New Opportunities Fund
Putnam Vista Fund

What is this proposal?

The Trustees recommend that each affected fund’s fundamental investment restriction with respect to making loans be revised to reflect the standard restriction used by other Putnam funds. This change would remove any limitations on each affected fund’s ability to enter into repurchase agreements and securities loans and would clarify that each affected fund is permitted (subject to the limitation discussed in Proposal 3.D.) to participate in the proposed interfund lending program first described in Proposal 3.D. Each affected fund currently has one of the following fundamental investment restrictions which states that such affected fund may not:

“Make loans, except by purchase of debt obligations in which the fund may invest consistent with its investment policies, by entering into repurchase agreements, or by lending its portfolio securities.” (All affected funds except Putnam Growth Opportunities Fund and Putnam International Capital Opportunities Fund)

“Make loans, except by purchase of debt obligations in which the fund may invest consistent with its investment policies, by entering into repurchase agreements with respect to not more than 25% of its total assets (taken at current value) or through the lending of its portfolio securities with respect to not more than 25% of its total assets (taken at current value).” (Putnam Growth Opportunities Fund and Putnam International Capital Opportunities Fund)

The proposed fundamental investment restriction would state that your fund may not:

“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.”

What effect will amending the current restriction
with respect to making loans have on your fund?

Following the amendment, each affected fund may, consistent with its investment objective and policies and applicable law, enter into repurchase agreements and securities loans without limit. Putnam Management believes that this increased investment flexibility could assist each affected fund in achieving its investment objective.

When a fund enters into a repurchase agreement, it typically purchases a security for a relatively short period (usually not more than one week), which the seller agrees to repurchase at a fixed time and price, representing the fund’s cost plus interest. When a fund enters into a securities loan, it lends certain of its portfolio securities to broker-dealers or other parties, typically in exchange for a portion of the interest earned on the collat-

24

eral posted by the borrower. These transactions must be fully collateralized at all times, but involve some risk to the fund in the event of losses on the investment of the collateral posted by the borrower or if the borrower should default on its obligation. If the borrower in these transactions should become involved in bankruptcy or insolvency proceedings, it is possible that the fund may be treated as an unsecured creditor and be required to return the underlying collateral to the borrower’s estate.

If the proposal is approved, each affected fund also would be able to participate in an interfund lending program and make loans to other Putnam funds for short-term purposes. As discussed in Proposal 3.D., a fund would only make loans under the program if it could receive an interest rate higher than those available for repurchase agreements. There is a risk that a fund could experience a delay in obtaining prompt repayment of a loan and, unlike repurchase agreements, the fund would not necessarily have received collateral for its loan. A delay in obtaining prompt payment could cause a fund to miss an investment opportunity or to incur costs to borrow money to replace the delayed payment.

Finally, the proposed restriction would align your fund’s fundamental investment restriction with that of all other Putnam funds, which would reduce administrative and compliance burdens for your fund.

What are the Trustees recommending?

The Trustees unanimously recommend that shareholders approve an amendment to each affected fund’s fundamental investment restriction with respect to making loans.

What is the voting requirement for approving
the proposal?

Approval of this proposal requires the affirmative vote of the lesser of (1) more than 50% of the outstanding shares of the affected fund, or (2) 67% or more of the shares of the affected fund present at the meeting if more than 50% of the outstanding shares of the affected fund are present at the meeting in person or by proxy.

4. ADOPTION OF MODERNIZED AND
STANDARDIZED AGREEMENT AND DECLARATION
OF TRUST PROVISIONS

As described in the following proposals, the Trustees recommend that shareholders of certain funds, each the sole series of a trust, approve amendments to certain provisions of the funds’ agreements and declarations of trust (each a “Declaration of Trust”). Each fund’s Declaration of Trust provides that it may be amended by the Trustees when authorized by a fund’s shareholders.

The proposed amendments to the Declarations of Trust are discussed below. Generally, the purpose of these proposed changes is to modernize and standardize these provisions. The Trustees believe that the proposed amendments will facilitate the efficient administration of the funds’ operations.

4.A. APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO CERTAIN
FUNDS’ AGREEMENTS AND DECLARATIONS OF
TRUST WITH RESPECT TO THE DURATION OF
THE TRUST

Affected funds:

The Putnam Fund for Growth and Income
The George Putnam Fund of Boston
Putnam Money Market Fund
Putnam Tax Exempt Income Fund

What is this proposal?

The Declaration of Trust of each of the affected funds currently provides that the trust terminates automatically either twenty or twenty-one years after the death of the initial Trustees and their enumerated children.Appendix Psets forth the current termination provision of each affected fund’s Declaration of Trust. These provisions appear to have been included for legal reasons that no longer appear to be pertinent. The Trustees have been advised by fund counsel that such provisions are not necessary in light of increased clarity in the law regarding Massachusetts business trusts. The Trustees believe these provisions are likely contrary to the expectations of typical fund shareholders, who would not expect the trust to terminate automatically (absent approval by shareholders of an amendment to the Declaration of Trust of the type proposed) on a date that is entirel y unrelated to the business of any fund. As set forth below, the proposed amendment to each Declaration of Trust provides for the perpetual life of the trust unless terminated by the Trustees,¹which would replace the current language contained inAppendix P:

Duration and Termination of Trust(Putnam Money Market Fund and Putnam Tax Exempt Income Fund)

Unless terminated as provided herein, the Trust shall continue without limitation of time. The Trust may be terminated at any time by the Trustees by written notice to the Shareholders.

Duration and Termination of Trust(The Putnam Fund for Growth and Income and The George Putnam Fund of Boston)

Unless terminated as provided herein, the Trust shall continue without limitation of time. The Trust may be terminated at any time by the Trustees by written notice to the beneficiaries. Upon termination of this Trust the Trustees shall make provision for the payment of the expenses and liabilities of the Trust and of the Trustees and distribute the remaining assets, or sell and dispose of all or any part thereof and distribute the net proceeds thereof in cash and/or securities among the holders of such shares in proportion to their holdings, except to the extent otherwise required or permitted by the preferences and special or relative rights and privileges of any classes of shares of the Trust, provided that any distribution to the beneficiaries of a particular class of

1 Amending Article VI, Section 3 in the Declarations of Trust of The Putnam Fund for Growth and Income and The George Putnam Fund of Boston, and Article IX, Section 4 in the Declarations of Trust of Putnam Money Market Fund and Putnam Tax Exempt Income Fund.

25

shares shall be made to such beneficiaries pro rata in proportion to the number of shares of such class held by each of them.

What effect would the proposed Declaration of
Trust amendment with respect to the duration of the
trust have on your fund?

The proposed amendment would eliminate the risk that the affected funds would automatically terminate following the deaths of the initial Trustees and their enumerated children. The proposed amendment would also reduce administrative and compliance burdens for the funds by eliminating the need to monitor for the death of the initial Trustees and their enumerated children. In addition, the proposed amendment would also more closely align the affected funds’ termination provisions with those of the other Putnam funds.

What are the Trustees recommending?

The Trustees unanimously recommend that shareholders approve an amendment to each fund’s Declaration of Trust with respect to the duration of the trust.

What is the voting requirement for approving
the proposal?

For each trust, all shares will vote together as a single class, and approval of this proposal requires the affirmative vote of shareholders holding a majority of shares entitled to vote.

4.B. APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO CERTAIN
FUNDS’ AGREEMENTS AND DECLARATIONS OF
TRUST WITH RESPECT TO REDEMPTION AT THE
OPTION OF THE TRUST

Affected funds:

The Putnam Fund for Growth and Income
The George Putnam Fund of Boston

What is this proposal?

The Trustees recommend that the Declarations of Trust of The Putnam Fund for Growth and Income and The George Putnam Fund of Boston be amended to expressly provide that the trust has the right to redeem shares at its option where shareholders do not meet a minimum threshold or exceed a maximum threshold of share ownership in the trust. Currently, the funds’ Declarations of Trust are silent as to the ability of the trust to redeem shares at its option. The proposed amendments would add the following provision to each fund’s Declaration of_Trust:2

The Trust shall have the right at its option and at any time to redeem shares of any beneficiary at the net asset value thereof as determined in accordance with the Bylaws: (i) if at such time such beneficiary owns fewer shares than, or shares having an aggregate net asset value of less than, an amount determined from time to time by the Trustees; or (ii) to the extent that such beneficiary owns shares of a particular series of shares equal to or in excess of a percentage of the outstanding shares of that series determined from time to time by the Trustees; or (iii) to the extent that such beneficiary owns shares of the Trust representing a percentage equal to or in excess of such percentage of the aggregate numberof outstanding shares of the Trust or the aggregate net asset value of the Trust determined from time to time by the Trustees.

What effect would the proposed Declaration of
Trust amendment with respect to redemption at the
option of the trust have on your fund?

The addition of this provision to the funds’ Declarations of Trust would allow the funds to redeem small or large accounts (subject to applicable legal and regulatory requirements) when the Trustees determine that it would be in the best interests of the funds to do so, and would align the funds’ Declarations of Trust with those of the other Putnam funds in this regard. This would reduce administrative and compliance burdens for the funds.

What are the Trustees recommending?

The Trustees unanimously recommend that shareholders approve an amendment to each fund’s Agreement and Declaration of Trust with respect to redemption at the option of the trust.

What is the voting requirement for approving
the proposal?

For each trust, all shares will vote together as a single class, and approval of this proposal requires the affirmative vote of shareholders holding a majority of shares entitled to vote.

5. CONSIDERING A SHAREHOLDER PROPOSAL
FOR TWO FUNDS REQUESTING THAT THE BOARD
INSTITUTE PROCEDURES TO PREVENT THE FUNDS
FROM HOLDING INVESTMENTS IN COMPANIES
THAT, IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE BOARD,
SUBSTANTIALLY CONTRIBUTE TO GENOCIDE OR
CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY

Affected funds:

Putnam Asset Allocation: Growth Portfolio
Putnam Voyager Fund

What is this proposal?

Certain shareholders of Putnam Asset Allocation: Growth Portfolio and Putnam Voyager Fund have advised the funds that they intend to present the following shareholder proposal at the meeting. For the reasons set forth after the proposal, the Trustees recommend a vote “AGAINST” the proposal.

The text of the proposal submitted by the shareholders and their supporting statement are quoted in their entirety below:

WHEREAS:

Putnam portfolio managers make investment decisions based on financial and legal considerations while seeming to ignore other issues. Even in the face of the most egregious violations of human rights, such as genocide, Putnam has released no policy to prevent investments that help fund or support such human rights violations.

2 As Article VI, Section 6 in the Declaration of Trust of The Putnam Fund for Growth and Income and as Article VI, Section 5 in the Declaration of Trust of The George Putnam Fund of Boston.

26

Ordinary individuals, through their investments in Putnam, may inadvertently invest in companies funding genocide because of investment decisions made on their behalf by Putnam. With no policy to prevent these problem investments, Putnam may at any time increase its holdings or involve new funds in such problem investments.

[For Putnam Voyager Fund:]

We believe that this problem is not merely theoretical, since many mutual funds are large holders of PetroChina, which, through its closely related parent, China National Petroleum Company, is providing funding that the Government of Sudan uses to conduct genocide in Darfur.

[For Putnam Asset Allocation: Growth Portfolio:]

We believe that this problem is not merely theoretical, since Putnam was one of the largest holders of PetroChina, which, through its closely related parent, China National Petroleum Company, is providing funding that the Government of Sudan uses to conduct genocide in Darfur.

[For both funds:]

We believe that in the face of the most extreme human rights crises investors share responsibility to act, individually and collectively, in addition to the role and responsibility of governments.

We believe that investors do not want their pensions and family savings connected to genocide. In KRC Research’s 2007 study, 71% of respondents said companies should take extreme cases of human rights abuses, such as genocide, into account rather than base investment decisions solely on economic criteria. Further, over 150,000 people have objected to financial firms about such problem investments. Reasonable people may disagree about what constitutes socially responsible investing, but few people want their savings to be complicit in genocide.

We believe that negative publicity resulting from the many national press reports and widespread consumer protests can damage the company’s reputation, hurt employee morale, increase its cost to acquire customers, and reduce the shareholder base for distributing expenses, all of which can negatively impact Putnam shareholders.

We see no compelling reason to invest in companies that fund genocide. We believe there are ample competitive alternatives and flexibility of investment choices, even with index funds. As noted by Gary Brinson’s classic study, investment returns are affected much more by asset allocation than by individual security selections, so avoiding a small number of problem companies need not result in any significant effect on performance.

Investor pressure has proven effective in influencing foreign governments. The campaign against Talisman Energy contributed to the January 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement between Khartoum and South Sudan.

RESOLVED:

Shareholders request that the Board institute procedures to prevent holding investments in companies that, in the judgment of the Board, substantially contribute to genocide or crimes against humanity, the most egregious violations of human rights.

DISCUSSION:

In addition to preventing future investments in problem companies, the proposal calls for corrective action to address existing investments in problem companies. If the fund can effectively influence the problem company’s management, then this may be an appropriate action. If not, the security should be sold.

This concludes the text of the proponents’ proposal and supporting statement. No fund is responsible for the contents of the proposal or the supporting statements. A fund will provide the names, addresses, and shareholdings (to the fund’s knowledge) of the proponents of the shareholder proposal promptly upon written request sent to the Clerk of the fund, attention “Fund Shareholder Meetings,” One Post Office Square, Boston, Massachusetts 02109, or by calling 1-800-225-1581 (this is a phone line set up to handle these requests; if you have any requests regarding how to vote your shares, please call 1-866-451-3787).

The Trustees’ Response to the Shareholder Proposal
and Recommendation

Why are the Trustees recommending a vote against
the proposals?

The Trustees condemn genocide, crimes against humanity and similar egregious violations of basic human rights. However, for the reasons set forth below, the Trustees recommend a vote against the shareholder proposals.

The U.S. Government maintains a comprehensive set of laws and regulations governing business relationships with countries that are believed to be responsible for egregious violations of basic human rights. These laws and regulations reflect consideration by experienced foreign policy experts of the nature of the particular problems in each country and often involve complex judgments whether certain types of business relationships might contribute to the problems in a particular country or, alternatively, might contribute to improving the conduct of the political regimes involved and the living conditions of the local populations. Putnam Management is committed to complying fully with all such laws and regulations currently in effect or that the U.S. Government might enact in the future with respect to investments in companies doing business with or in particular countries.

The proposed shareholder resolution calls upon the Board of Trustees to establish procedures and exercise its own judgment on these matters. The Trustees believe that this proposal would involve the Board in making judgments on matters that are beyond the range of its expertise and would inappropriately involve the Board in the process of making investment judgments for your fund’s portfolio.

27

As a general matter, the Trustees also believe that imposing constraints on the range of investment opportunities legally available to your fund solely because of political or social considerations would not be in the best interests of shareholders. Under your fund’s management contract with Putnam Management, Putnam Management has a fiduciary duty to examine the entire universe of potential investments to identify attractive securities in its efforts to deliver superior long-term investment results for clients. The available investment universe for each fund is defined by its stated investment objective and policies, as limited by applicable laws as noted above. Putnam Management has advised the Trustees that the process of identifying attractive securities for a fund’s portfolio includes an assessment of all relevant factors that could impact a security’s future value, including, for example, the risks associated with doing business wi th or in countries that are accused of egregious human rights violations. The Trustees believe that shareholders have invested in a fund based on the expectation that a fund would pursue the broad range of investment opportunities described in its prospectus and that it would not be appropriate to begin imposing additional limitations at this time based solely on political and social considerations. The Trustees believe that such limitations would be contrary to the interests of shareholders who are relying on Putnam Management to exercise its best investment judgment to help them meet important personal investment goals such as financing education, retirement and other critical personal needs.

What are the Trustees recommending?

The Trustees unanimously recommend that shareholders vote “AGAINST” this shareholder proposal.

What is the voting requirement for approving the
shareholder proposal?

Approval of the proposal requires an affirmative vote of a majority of the shares voted for each affected fund.

What is the effect of a favorable vote on the
shareholder proposal?

The shareholder proposal described above represents, for each affected fund, a recommendation to the Board of Trustees and is not legally binding. In the event that such a proposal is approved by shareholders, the Board of Trustees would take any such approval into consideration in determining whether the course of action recommended by such proposal would be in the best interests of each fund vote separately on the proposal. The outcome of a vote for one fund does not affect any other fund.and its shareholders.

6

Further Information About Voting
and the Special Meeting

Quorum and Methods of Tabulation.The shareholders of each fund vote separately with respect to each proposal other than the election of Trustees (Proposal 1), in which case shareholders of each series of a trust vote together as a single class. Thirty percent of the shares entitled to vote constitutes a quorum for theforthe transaction of business with respect to any proposal at the meeting. Shares of all classes of theeach fund vote together as a single class. Votes cast by proxy or in person at the meeting will be counted by persons appointed by your fund as tellers for the meeting. The tellers will count the total number of votes cast “for”for approval of thea proposal for purposes of determining whether sufficient affirmative votes have been cast. Shares represented by proxies that reflect abstentions and “broker non-votes” (sharesbroker non-votes (i.e., shares held by brokers or nominees as to which (i) instructionsinstruc tions have not been received from the beneficial owners or the persons entitled to vote and (ii) the broker or nominee does not have the discretionary voting power on a particular matter) will be counted as shares that are present and entitled to vote o non the matter for purposes of determining the presence of a quorum.

AbstentionsThe documents that authorize Putnam Fiduciary Trust Company or Putnam Investor Services, Inc. to act as Trustee for certain individual retirement accounts (including traditional, Roth and SEP IRAs, 403(b)(7) accounts and Coverdell Education Savings Accounts) provide that if an account owner does not submit voting instructions for his or her shares, Putnam Fiduciary Trust Company or Putnam Investor Services, Inc. will vote such shares in the same proportions as other shareholders with similar accounts have submitted voting instructions for their shares. Shareholders should be aware that this practice, known as “echo-voting,” may have the effect of increasing the likelihood that a proposal will be acted upon (approved or disapproved) and that Putnam Fiduciary Trust Company or Putnam Investor Services, Inc., each of which is an affiliate of Putnam Management, may benefit indirectly from the approval of the proposed management contracts.

With respect to the election of Trustees, neither abstentions nor broker non-votes have an effect on the outcome of the proposal. With respect to other proposals, abstentions and broker non-votes have the effect of a negative vote on the proposal. Treatingvotes against such proposals. For Proposals 2-4, treating broker non-votes as negative votes may result in a proposal not being approved, even though the votes cast in favor would have been sufficient to approve the proposal if some or all of the broker non-votes had been withheld. In certain circumstances in which thea fund has received sufficient votes to approve a matter being recommended for approval by the fund’s Trustees, the fund may request that brokers and nominees, in their discretion, withhold submission of broker non-votes in order to avoid the need for solicitation of additional votes in favor of the proposal. TheA fund may also request that selected brokers and nominees, in their discretion, submit broker non-votes, if doing so is necessary to obtain a quorum.

Shareholders who object to any proposal in this Proxy Statement will not be entitled under Massachusetts law or the Agreement and Declaration of Trust of the particular Putnam fund to demand payment for, or an appraisal of, their shares.

Other business.The Trustees know of no matters other than those set forth herein to be brought before the meeting. If, however, any other matters properly come before the meeting, proxies will be voted on such matters in accordance with the judgment of the persons named in the enclosed form of proxy.

7

Simultaneous meetings.The meeting of shareholders of your fund is called to be held at the same time as the meeting meetings

28