CRWE Crown Equity Holdings Inc (PK)

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 Arizona Municipal Bond Fund

Nuveen Colorado Municipal Bond Fund

Nuveen New Mexico Municipal Bond Fund

These Funds feature portfolio management by Nuveen Asset Management, LLC, an affiliate of Nuveen Investments, Inc. Portfolio managers Michael S. Hamilton and Christopher L. Drahn, CFA, review key investment strategies and the performance of the Nuveen Arizona Municipal Bond Fund, the Nuveen Colorado Municipal Bond Fund and Nuveen New Mexico Municipal Bond Fund. Michael has managed the Arizona and New Mexico Funds since 2011 and Chris has managed the Colorado Fund since that same year.

How did the Funds perform during the six-month reporting period ended 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-months ending November 30, 2013, the Class A Shares at NAV of the Arizona, Colorado and New Mexico Funds underperformed the S&P Municipal Bond Index. However, all three Funds outperformed the Lipper Other States Municipal Debt Funds Classification Average to varying degrees. Shareholders should note that the 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.

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)

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 Arizona and New Mexico Municipal Bond Funds

The Nuveen Arizona Municipal Bond Fund underperformed the S&P Municipal Bond Index, with the portfolio’s duration and credit quality exposure detracting from relative performance.

Maintaining a longer duration than the benchmark, meaning the Fund was more sensitive to the negative effects of rising interest rates, was detrimental. Additionally, the portfolio’s larger allocation to bonds on the long end of the yield curve, between 8 and 14 years, acted as a drag, as longer dated issues declined in response to rising rates more than shorter maturity bonds. As a natural consequence of rising interest rates, the durations of the Fund and the Index extend and bonds become less likely to be called.

We were reluctant to alter our approach to the portfolio’s duration, given our view that longer term bonds were both attractively valued and played an important role in enhancing the Fund’s income stream. This patience was rewarded later in the reporting period when interest rates drifted lower, as the Fund’s relatively longer duration provided a performance benefit relative to the index, which partially counterbalanced some of the prior weakness.

From a credit quality perspective, the Fund was hurt by its overweight in BBB-rated securities, especially holdings in certain Puerto Rico bonds carrying this credit rating. Securities issued in this U.S. territory suffered steep declines amid growing concern about the island’s financial challenges. We pared back our stake in Puerto Rico bonds from about 9% of net assets at the beginning of the reporting period, to just over 1% by the end of the reporting period. On the positive side, security selection among hospital/health care bonds bolstered the Fund’s performance versus the index. Specifically, investments in shorter term callable hospital bonds were helpful because they outpaced the Arizona municipal market as a whole.

Our transaction activity was heavier than normal during the past six months. Early on, we added Salt Verde Gas bonds and replaced bonds for Yavapai County Regional Medical Center that were being called. We believed these securities were attractively priced, produced an adequate level of income for their risk and had the potential to outperform similar securities over the long term. We focused on bonds with larger coupons or structures where coupons would increase in a relatively short period. The high coupon bonds provide some measure of defense against rising rates. In this category, we added bonds issued by Arizona State University and added a small piece of Maricopa County School District # 28 step coupon bond. While the Maricopa’s current coupon is 1%, by July 1, 2015 the coupon will step to 5.5%.

Most of our management activity, however, was concentrated on the sell side. As a consequence of the downturn in the municipal bond market, both it and the Fund experienced investment outflows during the reporting period. To satisfy shareholder redemptions, we deployed a number of strategies. In addition to eliminating some Puerto Rico holdings from the portfolio, we also sold bonds with lower dollar prices throughout the reporting period when individual investor demand for such securities was comparably high. When we found attractive opportunities, we purchased bonds with higher coupons because we believed they could behave more defensively than lower coupon bonds if rates spike higher. Together, our purchases and sales resulted in increased exposure to AA-rated securities and a related decrease in BBB-rated holdings, as well as minor changes in our exposure to various sectors of the market.

Meanwhile, the Nuveen New Mexico Municipal Bond Fund significantly underperformed the S&P Municipal Bond Index during the six-month reporting period, with a variety of factors hampering the Fund’s relative performance.

First, duration positioning, meaning sensitivity to interest rate changes, was less than advantageous during this reporting period. The Fund had a longer duration, meaning the portfolio had more sensitivity to interest rates and, as such, was hurt more as rates rose. Second, owning more longer term bonds (with durations between 10 and 14 years) also detracted, as these securities lagged shorter duration bonds, in which the Fund was underweight. Of note, as interest rates rose during the reporting period, the durations of the Fund and the index naturally extended.

Rather than significantly alter our duration approach, however, we preserved an overweight in longer duration holdings. These securities were attractively valued and offered comparatively high levels of income and, therefore, would be important long-term contributors to the Fund’s income. Maintaining this positioning served us well in the fall when interest rates declined and the Fund gained previously lost ground relative to the index.

Credit quality positioning also detracted from the Fund’s performance. Here, the Fund’s overweighting in BBB-rated securities, especially holdings in Puerto Rico bonds, was a negative. We pared back our stake in Puerto Rico bonds from roughly 11.5% of net assets at the beginning of the reporting period, to about 2.5% by the end of the reporting period.

With the exception of the pre-refunded/escrow to maturity (ETM) sector of the market, all sectors had negative returns for the reporting period. A larger-than-benchmark exposure to the public power and dedicated-tax groups, both largely a function of our Puerto Rico holdings, were particularly detracting to the portfolio. While still providing a negative return overall, an overweight to the housing sector was a positive to the portfolio.

Our overall transaction activity, focused more towards sales, was unusually heavy. In addition to selling most of our Puerto Rico holdings, we sold some lower coupon New Mexico bonds that were in comparatively strong demand. At times, we were able use the proceeds from those sales to purchase comparable higher yielding bonds which included the Boulders Public Improvement District Special Levy bonds which afforded the opportunity to enhance the Fund’s income stream at attractive valuations.

As a consequence of our sales and purchases, the portfolio experienced changes to sector and credit quality exposures. Most notably, the Fund’s stake in utilities declined while its exposure to education increased. Our allocation to lower rated investment grade bonds (BBB and A) fell, while the Fund’s weighting in higher quality securities rose. We should emphasize that these changes stemmed from the transactions we made in response to market conditions and not as part of an overall effort to restructure the portfolio, which we wanted to preserve.

Nuveen Colorado Municipal Bond Fund

During the six-month reporting period, the Nuveen Colorado Municipal Bond Fund underperformed the S&P Municipal Bond Index. A large portion of the Fund’s underperformance was experienced from its longer duration, meaning it was more sensitive to interest rate changes than the benchmark, hampering its ability to keep up with the index as interest rates rose. The Fund’s longer overall duration was due to its overweight in long duration bonds (generally longer than ten years), which underperformed shorter duration securities, in which we had an underweight. This yield curve positioning detracted from relative results, given that longer term bonds suffered disproportionately as rates climbed.

The durations of the Fund and the benchmark extended during the reporting period, as typically occurs when rates are on the rise. Given our commitment to maintaining the Fund’s income stream, we were reluctant to sell long duration bonds or shorten our duration, a strategy that proved beneficial for relative performance in the final months of the reporting period, when rates drifted lower.

Portfolio Managers’ Comments (continued)

Credit quality positioning, sector positioning and security selection were mostly neutral factors for the Fund’s relative performance during the reporting period. Puerto Rico bonds performed very poorly, although the Fund’s exposure to the commonwealth was fairly modest. During the reporting period, we reduced our Puerto Rico weighting from over 2% to under 1%.

As was the case with many municipal bond funds, the Fund experienced shareholder redemptions, requiring the sale of some securities. We were able to take advantage of pockets of strong demand by various types of investors to sell securities structured in a specific manner. For instance, we sold some bonds with lower or below-market coupons at what we believed were advantageous prices. We also occasionally sold very short maturity holdings or utilized proceeds from called bonds to meet cash needs.

Although our transaction activity was weighted toward the sell side, we made some notable purchases during the reporting period, adding a number of higher coupon securities and/or higher yielding securities. Our goal was to enhance the Fund’s income stream. This involved to some extent selling some existing holdings and adding new positions at the higher yield levels now available in the marketplace. We were particularly active in the health care sector with this strategy. We adding to names such as Catholic Health Initiatives and the Sisters of Charity of Leavenworth. Outside the health care sector, we also added Denver Airport bonds, an A-rated credit with what we thought were attractive spreads.

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 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 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 its 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 NAV. Conversely, if the Fund has cumulatively paid in dividends more than it has earned, the excess will constitute a negative UNII that will likewise be reflected in the Fund’s NAV. Each Fund will, over time, pay all its net investment income as dividends to shareholders. As of November 30, 2013, all three Funds had positive UNII balances, based upon our best estimate, for tax purposes. Arizona and Colorado had positive UNII balances, while New Mexico had a negative UNII balance for financial reporting purposes.

[THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]

Fund Performance, Expense and Effective Leverage Ratios

The Fund Performance, Expense and Effective Leverage Ratios for each Fund are shown on the following three 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 Arizona 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

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 Colorado Municipal Bond Fund

Fund Performance, Expense and Effective Leverage Ratios (continued)

Nuveen New Mexico 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

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 as of 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 .88%, 1.43% and .68% 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 .87%, 1.42% and .67% 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 .86%, 1.41% and .66% 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).