JMF Nuveen Energy MLP Total Return Fund

Item 1. Reports to Stockholders.

Mutual Funds

Table of Contents

Chairman’s Letter to Shareholders

Dear Shareholders,

I am pleased to have this opportunity to introduce myself to you as the new independent chairman of the Nuveen Fund Board, effective July 1, 2013. I am honored to have been selected as chairman, with its primary responsibility to serve the interests of the Nuveen Fund shareholders. My predecessor, Robert Bremner, was the first independent director to serve as chairman of the Board and I, and my fellow Board members, plan to continue his legacy of strong independent oversight of your funds.

The global economy has hit major turning points over the last several months to a year. The developed world is gradually recovering from its financial crisis while the emerging markets appear to be struggling with the downshift of China’s growth potential. Japan is entering a new era of growth after decades of economic stagnation and many of the Eurozone nations appear to be exiting their recession. Despite the positive events, there are still potential risks. Middle East tensions, rising oil prices, defaults in Europe and fallout from the financial stress in emerging markets could all reverse the recent progress in the global economy.

On the domestic front, recent events such as the Federal Reserve decision to slow down its bond buying program beginning in January of 2014 and the federal budget compromise that would guide government spending into 2015 are both positives for the economy moving forward. Corporate fundamentals are strong as earnings per share and corporate cash are at the highest level in two decades. Unemployment is trending down and the housing market has experienced a rebound, each assisting the positive economic scenario. However, there are some issues to be watched. Interest rates are expected to increase but significant uncertainty about the timing remains. Partisan politics in Washington D.C. with their troublesome outcomes add to the uncertainties that could cause problems for the economy going forward.

In the near term, governments are focused on economic recovery and the growth of their economies, which could lead to an environment of attractive investment opportunities. Over the long term, the uncertainties mentioned earlier could hinder the potential growth. Because of this, Nuveen’s investment management teams work hard to balance return and risk with a range of investment strategies. I encourage you to read the following commentary on the management of your fund.

On behalf of the other members of the Nuveen Fund Board, we look forward to continuing to earn your trust in the months and years ahead.

Sincerely,

William J. Schneider

Chairman of the Board

January 21, 2014

Portfolio Managers’ Comments

Nuveen Georgia Municipal Bond Fund

Nuveen Louisiana Municipal Bond Fund

Nuveen North Carolina Municipal Bond Fund

Nuveen Tennessee Municipal Bond Fund

These Funds feature portfolio management by Nuveen Asset Management, LLC, an affiliate of Nuveen Investments, Inc. Portfolio managers Daniel J. Close, CFA, and Steven M. Hlavin review key investment strategies and the performance of the Nuveen Georgia Municipal Bond Fund, Nuveen Louisiana Municipal Bond Fund, Nuveen North Carolina Municipal Bond Fund and Nuveen Tennessee Municipal Bond Fund. Dan has managed the Georgia, North Carolina and Tennessee Funds since 2007, and Steve has managed the Louisiana Fund since 2011.

How did the Funds perform during the six-month reporting period ending November 30, 2013?

The tables in the Fund Performance, Expense and Effective Leverage Ratios section of this report provide each Fund’s total return performance information for its Class A Shares at net asset value (NAV) for the six-month, one-year, five-year and ten-year periods ending November 30, 2013. Each Fund’s returns are compared with the performance of a corresponding market index and its and Lipper classification average.

During the first part of this reporting period, widespread uncertainty about the next step for the Federal Reserve’s (Fed) quantitative easing program and the potential impact on the economy and financial markets led to increased market volatility. After surprising the market in September 2013 with its decision to wait for additional evidence of an improving economy before making any adjustments to the program, the Fed announced on December 18 (subsequent to the close of this reporting period) that it would begin tapering its monthly bond-buying program by $10 billion (to $75 billion) in January 2014. Political debate over federal spending and headline credit stories involving Detroit and Puerto Rico also contributed to the unsettled environment during this period and prompted an increase in selling by bondholders across the fixed income markets. Although the second half of the period brought some stabilization and a rally in the municipal market, municipal bond prices generally declined for the period as a whole, especially at the longer end of the maturity spectrum, while interest rates rose. During this time, we continued to take a bottom-up approach to discovering sectors that appeared undervalued as well as individual credits that had the potential to perform well over the long term and helped us keep our Funds fully invested.

During the six-month period, the Class A Shares at net asset value (NAV) of the Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina and Tennessee Funds all underperformed the S&P Municipal Bond Index. However, all four Funds outperformed the Lipper Other States Municipal Debt Funds Classification Average to varying degrees. Shareholders should note that the

Certain statements in this report are forward-looking statements. Discussions of specific investments are for illustration only and are not intended as recommendations of individual investments. The forward-looking statements and other views expressed herein are those of the portfolio managers as of the date of this report. Actual future results or occurrences may differ significantly from those anticipated in any forward-looking statements and the views expressed herein are subject to change at any time, due to numerous market and other factors. The Funds disclaim any obligation to update publicly or revise any forward-looking statements or views expressed herein.

Ratings shown are the highest rating given by one of the following national rating agencies: Standard & Poor’s (S&P), Moody’s Investors Service (Moody’s), Inc. or Fitch, Inc. (Fitch). Credit ratings are subject to change. AAA, AA, A and BBB are investment grade ratings; BB, B, CCC, CC, C and D are below investment grade ratings. Certain bonds backed by U.S. Government or agency securities are regarded as having an implied rating equal to the rating of such securities. Holdings designated N/R are not rated by these national rating agencies.

Portfolio Managers’ Comments (continued)

performance of the Lipper Other States classification represents the overall average of returns for funds from multiple states with a wide variety of municipal market conditions, making direct comparisons less meaningful.

What strategies were used to manage the Funds during the six-month reporting period ended November 30, 2013? How did these strategies influence performance?

All of the Funds continued to employ the same fundamental investment strategies and tactics long relied upon by Nuveen Asset Management. Our municipal bond portfolios are managed with a value-oriented approach and close input from Nuveen Asset Management’s research team. Below we highlight the specific factors influencing each Fund’s investment strategy, as well as how we managed each portfolio in light of recent market conditions.

Nuveen Georgia, North Carolina and Tennessee Municipal Bond Funds

The Nuveen Georgia Municipal Bond Fund modestly underperformed the S&P Municipal Bond Index, as our results were held back in relative terms by unfavorable duration positioning, which reflects the Fund’s sensitivity to interest rate changes. Specifically, we were underweighted in shorter duration bonds, which were hurt less by the detrimental effects of rising interest rates than their longer dated counterparts. We also had exposure to inverse floating rate securities (known as inverse floaters), whose interest payments go down when rates go up, and these long-term securities also lagged.

During a six-month span characterized by a high degree of risk aversion on the part of investors, bonds with higher credit ratings tended to outperform lower rated securities. This trend worked to the Fund’s benefit, given our overweighting in AA-rated issues. As of period end, the portfolio’s AA allocation was a relatively high 43%, up from 42% six months earlier. Our sector positioning also added value. We maintained an overweighting in local general obligation (GO) bonds, which outpaced the market as a whole. Tempering those favorable results, however, was an underweight in single-family housing bonds. This was a modest disadvantage, as this sector has tended to hold up well amid rising interest rates. Also of note, the Fund’s exposure to Puerto Rico was 0.7% of the portfolio at the start of the six-month reporting period and 0.5% at its end of the reporting period, consisting of one long dated zero coupon tobacco bond issue. Puerto Rico bonds were poor performers in absolute terms, reflecting their long durations and ties to the credit challenged U.S. territory. Because of our modest exposure, however, the overall impact on the Fund’s relative performance was minimal.

The Georgia Fund experienced significant investment outflows during the reporting period as was evidenced with other municipal bond state funds. Accordingly, our management focused on generating the proceeds needed to accommodate shareholder redemption activity. Simultaneously, we worked to maintain the portfolio’s existing structure as much as possible. To satisfy redemptions, we used funds generated from bond calls. We also sold bonds across a wide variety of sectors and credit quality segments. Our sales were concentrated on bonds with structural characteristics that tend to appeal to individual investors, a more consistent source of demand during the reporting period, over institutional investors. These included Atlanta airport bonds priced at a modest discount to their face value. The vast majority of our transactions were bond sales, though we also made a small number of purchases, which enabled us to put money to work in the market when it became available to us. We purchased AA-rated water/sewer bonds, short dated tax-increment financing district credits and a prepaid-gas bond issue, all with maturities ranging from 7 to 20 years.

The Nuveen North Carolina Municipal Bond Fund also underperformed the S&P Municipal Bond Index during the six-month reporting period. Again, duration positioning was a negative factor. In addition to being underweighted in short term bonds, the Fund was also overweighted in longer duration issues. This positioning was unfavorable, given

that longer duration bonds, including the Fund’s inverse floaters, suffered the most in response to rising interest rates. In contrast, the Fund’s credit quality positioning provided a positive impact on our results. Owing largely to the high quality issuance that tends to predominate in North Carolina, the Fund had substantial exposure to highly rated bonds, including a 23% stake in AAA-rated bonds and a 53% allocation to AA-rated issues at period end. With higher quality securities faring better than lower rated issues, the Fund did relatively well compared to the national municipal market. The Fund also modestly benefited from its sector positioning, especially an underweight in dedicated-tax bonds, one of the market’s poorer performing sectors during the reporting period. Our health care positioning also proved helpful, but our overweighting in the lagging public power bond category was an offsetting negative for relative performance. Meanwhile, the fairly small exposure to Puerto Rico bonds impacted the Fund negatively, given the U.S. territory’s credit difficulties. Coming into the reporting period, about 1.2% of the portfolio was held in a combination of Puerto Rico Sales Tax Financing Corporation (COFINA) sales-tax bonds and long dated zero coupon issues, the latter of which were further hampered by their relatively long durations. We sold all of our Puerto Rico holdings before end of the reporting period, though not before they detracted from the Fund’s results.

Our portfolio management emphasis was to generate sufficient funds to meet the heightened level of investment outflows. At times, this entailed using the proceeds of bond calls, as well as selling short dated pre-refunded bonds, which were logical liquidation candidates, given investor demand for short-maturity, high-quality issues. We also sold bonds from a variety of sectors, maturity ranges and credit ratings. Because we believed the Fund was already attractively positioned, our aim was to preserve the Fund’s structural characteristics as much as possible. The main exception, however, was among territorial bonds, as we looked to meet shareholder redemptions first with territorial paper. During the reporting period, we sold our two Puerto Rico bond positions and liquidated the Fund’s modest stake in U.S. Virgin Islands and Guam issues. Accordingly, by period end, the portfolio was 100% invested in North Carolina debt.

On the purchase side, our additions to the Fund included a health care bond; an intermediate duration, A-rated higher education bond issue; and a short dated, below investment grade tax-increment financing district issue. Our buying strategy was similar to our selling approach, as we structured the portfolio to avoid major changes to the Fund’s sector, credit quality and duration composition. Despite a relatively large number of transactions during the reporting period, we believe we were successful in limiting the impact of these changes on the Fund.

Similar to the other two funds, duration positioning was a notable factor for the Nuveen Tennessee Municipal Bond Fund’s underperformance of the S&P Municipal Bond Index. Specifically, the combination of underweighting short dated securities and overweighting longer dated issues was negative, given that bonds on the shorter end of the yield curve were far less vulnerable to rising rates. The Fund’s underperforming long duration bonds included its inverse floaters.

Credit quality and sector positioning slightly enhanced performance. Largely because of the high quality nature of the Tennessee municipal marketplace, the Fund was overweighted in AA-rated bonds. From a sector standpoint, our underweighting in struggling dedicated-tax bonds and positioning in the health care sector also aided results. The Fund had negligible exposure to Puerto Rico bonds. Our allocation was 0.7% of the portfolio at the beginning of the six month reporting period and was entirely eliminated by the end of the reporting period. Our caution in owning bonds issued by this credit challenged U.S. territory spared the Fund damage from this very poor performing segment of the municipal market.

Throughout the reporting period, we purchased only one new bond issue, Knoxville water-treatment bonds with a 2044 maturity. We were more active in selling bonds, reflecting the large amount of shareholder redemptions taking place

Portfolio Managers’ Comments (continued)

across the municipal industry. When liquidating securities, our priority was to sell territorial bonds while maintaining our Tennessee paper. As previously mentioned, we sold our small Puerto Rico position during the reporting period and finished the reporting period with a small portfolio stake in U.S. Virgin Islands bonds.

We also sold some of the Fund’s lower coupon bonds, which had been added to the portfolio in previous reporting periods, when we were receiving abundant investment inflows and were focused on keeping the Fund fully invested. Because these securities tend to be particularly attractive to individual investors, they were in healthy demand during the reporting period and provided a ready source of funds.

Nuveen Louisiana Municipal Bond Fund

The Nuveen Louisiana Municipal Bond Fund lagged the S&P Municipal Bond Index during the six-month reporting period, with duration positioning being the primary reason for the Fund’s underperformance.

Having a longer duration than the index meant the Fund was more sensitive to rising interest rates. The durations of both the Fund and the index naturally increased in response to higher rates. Furthermore, the Fund was overweight longer term bonds compared with the index, which further curtailed its ability to keep pace with the benchmark. As interest rates climbed, the yield curve steepened, meaning that yields on longer term bonds significantly rose disproportionately more than yields on shorter term bonds. This “bear market steepening” is rare, having occurred in only two other quarters since the 1980s. Recognizing that municipal bonds had suffered disproportionately compared with U.S. government bonds during this reporting period of rising rates, we were hesitant to reduce the Fund’s duration. Had we overreacted to this short term market dislocation, we would have locked in duration driven losses. Instead, we wanted to preserve the Fund’s ability to participate in a municipal market recovery, which it did in the final months of the reporting period as rates declined.

During the reporting period, we eliminated holdings in Puerto Rico bonds, which made up roughly 2.6% of net assets at the beginning of the reporting period. Fortunately, our sales of Puerto Rico bonds occurred before any price declines in the summer, which resulted from worries about the island’s fiscal and economic challenges. While these sales tempered the negative performance impact of our allocation to these territorial issues, our weighting in Puerto Rico nevertheless detracted from the Fund’s results in relative terms.

Another detractor was the Fund’s credit quality positioning. Specifically, the Fund was hurt by a relatively large overweighting in BBB bonds during the reporting period, although this performance impact was skewed by the Fund’s allocation to BBB-rated Puerto Rico bonds. The reduction in the Fund’s Puerto Rico stake also helps explain why the portfolio allocation to BBB-rated bonds declined substantially during the reporting period. What we lost from our quality positioning, however, was offset more than two-fold by favorable individual credit selection, with particularly strong performance from some of our A-rated and AA-rated securities, as well as certain BBB-rated positions.

Sector selection provided a generally positive contribution, with most of our under- and overweightings of the various segments that make up the municipal bond market benefiting performance relative to the index. Security selection was another positive because the Fund’s holdings generally outpaced comparable securities in the index. This was especially obvious within our health care holdings, which handily outpaced similar securities in the index. The Fund mirrored the overall municipal bond market, in that it incurred investor outflows. In order to meet shareholder redemptions, we took advantage of pockets of strong investor demand to sell some lower yielding, A-rated parish sales tax bonds. To a lesser extent, we also sold some corporate-backed municipal bonds that had performed well and, as such, provided comparatively high prices.

Although our management activity was driven toward the sale side given investor outflows, we also made some purchases during the reporting period. As interest rates rose, we tended to turn to the new issue market as a source for bonds offering comparatively high yields and opportunities to further diversify the Fund. We also added bonds from Guam. Securities from this U.S. territory are free from income taxes nationwide and Guam’s fiscal and economic outlook is more favorable than that of Puerto Rico and is exhibiting improving fundamentals. Guam bonds also provided an opportunity to diversify the portfolio beyond Louisiana. Other high coupon purchases were made as a way to bolster the Fund’s income-generating capabilities.

An Update Regarding Detroit and Puerto Rico

During this reporting period, two credit situations weighed on the municipal market. It is important to note that, while these situations received much attention from the media, they represented isolated events. On July 18, 2013, the City of Detroit filed for Chapter 9 bankruptcy. Detroit, burdened by decades of population loss, declines in the auto manufacturing industry, and significant tax base deterioration, has been under severe financial stress for an extended period. Detroit’s bankruptcy filing will likely be a lengthy one, given the complexity of its debt portfolio, number of creditors, numerous union contracts, and significant legal questions that must be addressed.

Another factor affecting the Funds’ holdings was the downgrade of debt issued by Puerto Rico. In 2012, Moody’s downgraded Puerto Rico general obligation (GO) bonds to Baa3 from Baa1, Puerto Rico Sales Tax Financing Corporation (COFINA) senior sales tax revenue bonds to Aa3 from Aa2, and COFINA subordinate sales tax revenue bonds to A3 from A1. In October 2013, Moody’s further downgraded the COFINA senior sales tax bonds to A2, while affirming the subordinate bonds at A3. On November 14, 2013, Fitch Ratings announced that it was placing the majority of Puerto Rico issuance—with the exception of the COFINA bonds—on negative credit watch, which implies that another downgrade may be likely. While Fitch currently rates Puerto Rico issuance at BBB-, it affirmed the ratings on COFINA bonds at AA- for the senior bonds and A+ for the subordinate bonds, with stable outlooks. On December 11, 2013 (subsequent to the close of this reporting period), Moody’s announced that it also had placed its Baa3 rating on Puerto Rico GOs (and other Puerto Rico issues linked to the GO rating) on review for downgrade. These downgrades were based on Puerto Rico’s ongoing economic problems and, in the case of the COFINA bonds, the impact of these problems on the projected growth of sales tax revenues. However, the COFINA bonds were able to maintain a higher credit rating than the GOs because, unlike the revenue streams supporting some Puerto Rican issues, the sales taxes supporting the COFINA bonds cannot be diverted and used to support Puerto Rico’s GO bonds. For the six-month reporting period ended November 30, 2013, Puerto Rico paper underperformed the municipal market as a whole.

Risk Considerations and Dividend Information

Risk Considerations

Mutual fund investing involves risk; principal loss is possible. Debt or fixed income securities such as those held by the Funds, are subject to market risk, credit risk, interest rate risk, call risk, state concentration risk, tax risk, and income risk. As interest rates rise, bond prices fall. Credit risk refers to an issuers ability to make interest and principal payments when due. Below investment grade or high yield debt securities are subject to liquidity risk and heightened credit risk. The Funds’ use of inverse floaters creates effective leverage. Leverage involves the risk that the Funds could lose more than their original investment and also increases the Funds’ exposure to volatility and interest rate risk.

Dividend Information

Each Fund seeks to pay dividends at a rate that reflects the past and projected performance of the Fund. To permit a Fund to maintain a more stable monthly dividend, the Fund may pay dividends at a rate that may be more or less than the amount of net investment income actually earned by the Fund during the period. If the Fund has cumulatively earned more than it has paid in dividends, it will hold the excess in reserve as undistributed net investment income (UNII) as part of the Fund’s net asset value. Conversely, if the Fund has cumulatively paid in dividends more than it has earned, the excess will constitute negative UNII that will likewise be reflected in the Fund’s net asset value. Each Fund will, over time, pay all its net investment income as dividends to shareholders. As of November 30, 2013, all four Funds had positive UNII balances for tax purposes, based upon our best estimate, and positive UNII balances for financial reporting purposes.

Fund Performance, Expense and Effective Leverage Ratios

The Fund Performance and Expense Ratios for each Fund are shown on the following four pages.

Returns quoted represent past performance, which is no guarantee of future results. Current performance may be higher or lower than the performance shown. Investment returns and principal value will fluctuate so that when shares are redeemed, they may be worth more or less than their original cost. Returns without sales charges would be lower if the sales charge were included. Returns do not reflect the deduction of taxes that a shareholder would pay on Fund distributions or the redemption of Fund shares. Income is generally exempt from regular federal income taxes. Some income may be subject to state and local income taxes and to the federal alternative minimum tax. Capital gains, if any, are subject to tax.

Returns may reflect a contractual agreement between certain Funds and the investment adviser to waive certain fees and expenses; see Notes to Financial Statements, Note 7—Management Fees and Other Transactions with Affiliates for more information. In addition, returns may reflect a voluntary expense limitation by the Funds’ investment adviser that may be modified or discontinued at any time without notice. For the most recent month-end performance visit www.nuveen.com or call (800) 257-8787.

Returns reflect differences in sales charges and expenses, which are primarily differences in distribution and service fees. Fund returns assume reinvestment of dividends and capital gains.

Comparative index and Lipper return information is provided for the Funds’ Class A Shares at net asset value (NAV) only.

The expense ratios shown reflect the Funds’ total operating expenses (before fee waivers and/or expense reimbursements, if any) as shown in the Funds’ most recent prospectus. The expense ratios include management fees and other fees and expenses.

Leverage is created whenever a Fund has investment exposure (both reward and/or risk) equivalent to more than 100% of the investment capital. The effective leverage ratio shown is the amount of investment exposure created either through borrowings or indirectly through inverse floaters, divided by the assets invested, including those assets that were purchased with the proceeds of the leverage, or referenced by the levered instrument.

Fund Performance, Expense and Effective Leverage Ratios (continued)

Nuveen Georgia Municipal Bond Fund

Refer to the first page of this Fund Performance, Expense and Effective Leverage Ratios section for further explanation of the information included within this page.

Class A Shares have a maximum 4.20% sales charge (Offering Price). Class A Share purchases of $1 million or more are sold at net asset value without an up-front sales charge but may be subject to a contingent deferred sales charge (CDSC), also known as a back-end sales charge, if redeemed within eighteen months of purchase. Class C Shares have a 1% CDSC for redemptions within less than twelve months, which is not reflected in the one-year total return. Class I Shares have no sales charge and may be purchased under limited circumstances or by specified classes of investors.

Effective Leverage Ratio as of November 30, 2013

Nuveen Louisiana Municipal Bond Fund

Refer to the first page of this Fund Performance, Expense and Effective Leverage Ratios section for further explanation of the information included within this page.

Class A Shares have a maximum 4.20% sales charge (Offering Price). Class A Share purchases of $1 million or more are sold at net asset value without an up-front sales charge but may be subject to a contingent deferred sales charge (CDSC), also known as a back-end sales charge, if redeemed within eighteen months of purchase. Class C Shares have a 1% CDSC for redemptions within less than twelve months, which is not reflected in the one-year total return. Class I Shares have no sales charge and may be purchased under limited circumstances or by specified classes of investors.

Effective Leverage Ratio as of November 30, 2013

Fund Performance, Expense and Effective Leverage Ratios (continued)

Nuveen North Carolina Municipal Bond Fund

Refer to the first page of this Fund Performance, Expense and Effective Leverage Ratios section for further explanation of the information included within this page.

Class A Shares have a maximum 4.20% sales charge (Offering Price). Class A Share purchases of $1 million or more are sold at net asset value without an up-front sales charge but may be subject to a contingent deferred sales charge (CDSC), also known as a back-end sales charge, if redeemed within eighteen months of purchase. Class C Shares have a 1% CDSC for redemptions within less than twelve months, which is not reflected in the one-year total return. Class I Shares have no sales charge and may be purchased under limited circumstances or by specified classes of investors.

Effective Leverage Ratio as of November 30, 2013

Nuveen Tennessee Municipal Bond Fund

Refer to the first page of this Fund Performance, Expense and Effective Leverage Ratios section for further explanation of the information included within this page.

Class A Shares have a maximum 4.20% sales charge (Offering Price). Class A Share purchases of $1 million or more are sold at net asset value without an up-front sales charge but may be subject to a contingent deferred sales charge (CDSC), also known as a back-end sales charge, if redeemed within eighteen months of purchase. Class B Shares have a CDSC that begins at 5% for redemptions during the first year and declines periodically until after six years when the charge becomes 0%. Class B Shares automatically convert to Class A Shares eight years after purchase. Class C Shares have a 1% CDSC for redemptions within less than twelve months, which is not reflected in the one-year total return. Class I Shares have no sales charge and may be purchased under limited circumstances or by specified classes of investors.

Expense Ratios as of Most Recent Prospectus

Effective Leverage Ratio as of November 30, 2013

Yields as of November 30, 2013

Dividend Yield is the most recent dividend per share (annualized) divided by the offering price per share.

The SEC 30-Day Yield is a standardized measure of a Fund’s yield that accounts for the future amortization of premiums or discounts of bonds held in the Fund’s portfolio. The SEC 30-Day Yield is computed under an SEC standardized formula and is based on the maximum offer price per share. Dividend Yield may differ from the SEC 30-Day Yield because the Fund may be paying out more or less than it is earning and it may not include the effect of amortization of bond premium.

The Taxable-Equivalent Yield represents the yield that must be earned on a fully taxable investment in order to equal the yield of the Fund on an after-tax basis at a specified tax rate. With respect to investments that generate qualified dividend income that is taxable at a maximum rate of 15%, the Taxable-Equivalent Yield is lower.

Holding Summaries November 30, 2013

This data relates to the securities held in each Fund’s portfolio of investments. It should not be construed as a measure of performance for the Fund itself.

Ratings shown are the highest rating given by one of the following national rating agencies: Standard & Poor’s Group, Moody’s Investors Service, Inc. or Fitch, Inc. Credit ratings are subject to change. AAA, AA, A and BBB are investment grade ratings; BB, B, CCC, CC, C and D are below investment grade ratings. Certain bonds backed by U.S. Government or agency securities are regarded as having an implied rating equal to the rating of such securities. Holdings designated N/R are not rated by these national rating agencies.

Expense Examples

As a shareholder of one or more of the Funds, you incur two types of costs: (1) transaction costs, including up-front and back-end sales charges (loads) or redemption fees, where applicable; and (2) ongoing costs, including management fees; distribution and service (12b-1) fees, where applicable; and other Fund expenses. The Examples below are intended to help you understand your ongoing costs (in dollars) of investing in the Funds and to compare these costs with the ongoing costs of investing in other mutual funds.

The Examples below are based on an investment of $1,000 invested at the beginning of the period and held through the end of the period.

The information under “Actual Performance,” together with the amount you invested, allows you to estimate actual expenses incurred over the reporting period. Simply divide your account value by $1,000 (for example, an $8,600 account value divided by $1,000 = 8.60) and multiply the result by the cost shown for your share class, in the row entitled “Expenses Incurred During Period” to estimate the expenses incurred on your account during this period.

The information under “Hypothetical Performance,” provides information about hypothetical account values and hypothetical expenses based on the respective Fund’s actual expense ratio and an assumed rate of return of 5% per year before expenses, which is not the Fund’s actual return. The hypothetical account values and expenses may not be used to estimate the actual ending account balance or expense you incurred for the period. You may use this information to compare the ongoing costs of investing in the Fund and other funds. To do so, compare this 5% hypothetical example with the 5% hypothetical examples that appear in the shareholder reports of the other funds.

Please note that the expenses shown in the tables are meant to highlight your ongoing costs only and do not reflect any transaction costs. Therefore, the hypothetical information is useful in comparing ongoing costs only, and will not help you determine the relative total costs of owning different funds or share classes. In addition, if these transaction costs were included, your costs would have been higher.

For each class of the Fund, expenses are equal to the Fund’s annualized net expense ratio of .81%, 1.36% and .61% for Classes A, C and I, respectively, multiplied by the average account value over the period, multiplied by 183/365 (to reflect the one-half year period).

For each class of the Fund, expenses are equal to the Fund’s annualized net expense ratio of .85%, 1.40% and .65% for Classes A, C and I, respectively, multiplied by the average account value over the period, multiplied by 183/365 (to reflect the one-half year period).

For each class of the Fund, expenses are equal to the Fund’s annualized net expense ratio of .80%, 1.35% and .60% for Classes A, C and I, respectively, multiplied by the average account value over the period, multiplied by 183/365 (to reflect the one-half year period).

For each class of the Fund, expenses are equal to the Fund’s annualized net expense ratio of .80%, 1.55%, 1.35% and .60% for Classes A, B, C and I, respectively, multiplied by the average account value over the period, multiplied by 183/365 (to reflect the one-half year period).