Neuberger Berman Income Funds N-CSRSCertified semi-annual shareholder report (management investment company)

Neuberger Berman
Income Funds

Semi-Annual Report

April 30, 2022

Contents

THE FUNDS

PORTFOLIO COMMENTARY

SCHEDULE OF INVESTMENTS

FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS (ALL CLASSES)

The "Neuberger Berman" name and logo and "Neuberger Berman Investment Advisers LLC" name are registered service marks of Neuberger Berman Group LLC. The individual Fund names in this piece are either service marks or registered service marks of Neuberger Berman Investment Advisers LLC, an affiliate of Neuberger Berman BD LLC, distributor, member FINRA. ^_©2022 Neuberger Berman BD LLC, distributor. All rights reserved.

President's Letter

Dear Shareholder,

I am pleased to present this semi-annual shareholder report for the Neuberger Berman Income Funds covering the six-month period ended April 30, 2022 (the reporting period).

The U.S. economy was resilient during the first half of the reporting period in the face of several headwinds, including the impact from COVID-19 and its variants, supply chain issues, labor shortages and 40-year high inflation. Economic growth then contracted over the first quarter of 2022, driven by the aforementioned issues, along with sharply rising interest rates and repercussions from the war in Ukraine.

Another key factor impacting the economy was the U.S. Federal Reserve Board's (Fed) monetary policy pivot in the face of persistent high inflation. As widely telegraphed by the central bank, it raised the federal funds rate 0.25% (25 basis points) to a range between 0.25% and 0.50% at its meeting in March 2022—the first rate hike since 2018. The Fed currently expects to raise rates several more times in the coming year, with Chair Jerome Powell indicating that more aggressive increases may be appropriate as it looks to curb inflation. The Fed is also expected to begin reducing its balance sheet (quantitative tightening), coinciding with hawkish monetary policy moves.

Turning to the bond market, both short- and long-term Treasury yields moved sharply higher. The increase in rates was driven by expectations for aggressive Fed tightening, elevated inflation, and continued supply chain and labor shortages. Meanwhile, credit spreads widened as the period progressed. All told, the U.S. broad taxable investment-grade bond market, as measured by the Bloomberg U.S. Aggregate Bond Index, returned -9.47% during the reporting period.

As we look ahead, the global growth outlook has been clouded by crosscurrents in the form of rising commodities and geopolitical events. However, we believe a number of factors should enable the global economy to avoid recession in 2022. First, although decelerating, the U.S. economy was in a strong position entering the current spike in inflation. We believe that this provides a substantial cushion to withstand monetary policy changes; in sharp contrast to past scenarios when growth was fairly minimal and vulnerable to shocks. Key buffers also could help protect the expansion. In the U.S., we believe the consumer remains in excellent shape, with debt levels close to record lows while savings remain ample.

All told, we believe the upward movement in interest rates and growth uncertainty creates pockets of opportunity to deploy capital, albeit with some caution given the significant change in market dynamics associated with monetary policy tightening. In our view, investors should prioritize liquidity in the coming months, as the ability to buy and sell amid positive/negative outcomes has become more limited. We believe this should help us to capitalize on opportunities and manage exposures as markets evolve post the COVID-era accommodation period.

Thank you for your support and trust. We look forward to continue serving your investment needs in the years to come.

Sincerely,

JOSEPH V. AMATO
PRESIDENT AND CEO
NEUBERGER BERMAN INCOME FUNDS

Core Bond Fund Commentary (Unaudited)

Neuberger Berman Core Bond Fund Institutional Class delivered a -9.66% total return for the six-month period ended April 30, 2022 (the reporting period) and underperformed its benchmark, the Bloomberg U.S. Aggregate Bond Index (the Index), which saw a -9.47% total return for the same period. (Performance for all share classes is provided in the table immediately following this letter.)

U.S. Treasury yields moved sharply higher during the reporting period as inflation hit a four-decade high, and, in response, the U.S. Federal Reserve Board (Fed) indicated it would aggressively raise interest rates. Ongoing supply chain frictions and global macroeconomic uncertainty were both exacerbated by the tragic war in Ukraine and the reintroduction of COVID-19 restrictions in China. On the other hand, consumer spending was generally resilient, and, at least in the U.S., the impact from the pandemic appeared to wane. Rising yields pressured fixed income market performance, as yields and bond prices move in the opposite direction. Meanwhile, U.S. credit spreads widened given periods of risk aversion as well as the Fed's monetary tightening.

In terms of relative performance, the Fund's duration and yield curve positioning were the primary contributors for the reporting period. Underweight exposure in investment grade (IG) credit versus the Index also added value. Conversely, security selection in IG credit was the largest detractor as issuer positioning in the banking, communications and consumer non-cyclical subsectors led negative relative returns. Security selection in asset-backed securities (ABS), our diversified overweight to securitized sectors—including commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS), mortgage credit, ABS and agency mortgage-backed securities—and out-of-benchmark exposure to collateralized loan obligations (CLOs) also weighed on relative performance.

The Fund's use of futures contracts contributed positively to performance during the reporting period.

There were several adjustments made to the Fund during the reporting period. We actively managed duration and yield curve positioning, tactically shifting between underweight and roughly neutral duration positioning versus the Index. On the back of wider spreads, we increased exposure to IG credit, focusing on select issuers which we believe offer relative value while remaining mindful of increased macro risks. Additionally, we increased exposure to securitized sectors, including ABS, credit risk transfers, CMBS and CLOs. We remain constructive on securitized sectors as recent spread widening has occurred in spite of a still robust market outlook for consumer and housing fundamentals.

In our view, inflation levels are likely to peak in the coming months but remain at relatively high levels warranting continued attention from central banks. We believe goods inflation, which has been the forefront of recent price increases, is likely to ease, only to be supplanted by gains in services. All told, it is our view that the environment is likely to require central banks to be aggressive in terms of interest rate hikes—something that has contributed to the negative returns across fixed income during the reporting period. We believe that the market's expectations for rapid and significant central bank tightening are appropriate today even if the Fed may ultimately be unable to deliver on this aggressive path amid increasing challenges to growth. Given our base scenarios, we anticipate the coming 12 months as a period in which interest rate volatility could normalize; we believe that the fate of spread sectors will hinge on whether the economy and markets can withstand pressure from tighter monetary policy and diminishing prospects for growth abroad.

Sincerely,

THANOS BARDAS, DAVID M. BROWN, NATHAN KUSH AND BRAD TANK
PORTFOLIO MANAGERS

Information about principal risks of investing in the Fund is set forth in the prospectus and statement of additional information.

The portfolio composition, industries and holdings of the Fund are subject to change without notice.

The opinions expressed are those of the Fund's portfolio managers. The opinions are as of the date of this report and are subject to change without notice.

Core Bond Fund (Unaudited)

Emerging Markets Debt Fund Commentary (Unaudited)

Neuberger Berman Emerging Markets Debt Fund Institutional Class generated a -12.85% total return for the six-month period ended April 30, 2022 (the reporting period), and outperformed its benchmark, a blend consisting of 50% J.P. Morgan Government Bond Index—Emerging Markets (GBI-EM) Global Diversified, 25% J.P. Morgan Emerging Markets Bond Index (EMBI®)—Global Diversified, and 25% J.P. Morgan Corporate Emerging Markets Bond Index (CEMBI)—Diversified (collectively, the Index), which delivered a -13.29% total return for the same period. (Performance for all share classes is provided in the table immediately following this letter.)

The reporting period saw headwinds for fixed income markets from the resurgence of COVID-19, high inflation, the specter of rising rates, and Russia's invasion of Ukraine. The more transmissible Omicron variant of COVID-19 led to renewed restrictions in multiple countries and weighed on risk assets. Inflation rose in the winter and U.S. Consumer Price Index soared to a 40-year high of +7.9% in February while Euro Area inflation rose to +5.9%—the highest since the formation of the single currency. In its final meetings of 2021, the U.S. Federal Reserve Board (Fed) announced that it would be tapering asset purchases and telegraphed rate hikes for 2022. In March, the Fed increased its policy rate for the first time since the pandemic. The European Central Bank signaled it would consider a rate hike this year. This drove the worst performance for Treasuries and bonds in at least two decades. All of this drove a flattening of the U.S. Treasury curve amid a sharp move higher in short end U.S. rates, thereby negatively impacting fixed income markets. Finally, Russia's invasion of Ukraine and consequent sanctions that isolated significant parts of Russia's economy and its financial markets pressured commodity markets globally. For the reporting period, the hard currency sovereign debt index delivered a -15.45% total return, the corporate debt index delivered -11.44%, and the local currency index returned -13.17%.

The Fund outperformed the Index driven by bottom-up positioning while tactical asset allocation was also additive. Bottom-up relative performance was positive across corporates and local currency, while hard currency sovereigns detracted. The primary driver of relative outperformance across the portfolio was the underweight exposure to Russia in hard currency sovereigns and corporates, as well as the ruble. Our analysis identified particularly weak scores on factors like voice & accountability, rule of law and corruption in Russia. In late January, the tail risk surrounding Russia and a potential military conflict was reflected in our top-down scoring process, and therefore added to our cautiousness in Russia and limited our appetite to add risk generally. The primary detractor during the month was the overweight to Ukraine in hard currency sovereigns and corporates.

Aside from the impact of Russia and Ukraine, the overweight exposure to high yielding sovereigns including Angola and Argentina was positive. However, this was entirely offset by the underweight to investment grade countries. In addition, the overweight exposure to Sri Lanka and El Salvador, which traded at distressed levels, detracted from performance. Instrument selection in Romania detracted as well. In the corporate space, country allocation detracted due to the underweight to lower beta¹ Asian counties. However, the overweight exposure to Latin America, including Brazil, Mexico, and Argentina was additive. Positioning in the China property sector was a drag on performance due to the announced defaults in the sector. The local currency part of the Fund outperformed mainly thanks to local rates positioning, driven by duration underweights in Poland and Thailand versus the Index, as well as by an overweight to Brazil. Positioning across emerging currencies was positive as well, driven by underweights in the Turkish lira and Chinese renminbi. The positioning in the Mexican peso and Kazakh tenge detracted from performance.

The Fund's aggregate use of futures, forward foreign currency, and swap contracts detracted from performance during the reporting period.

The contribution from tactical allocation was positive over the reporting period. There was a positive contribution from an underweight to U.S. Treasury duration in an environment of rising yields. In addition, the basket of currencies was additive to performance.

During the reporting period there were a number of changes across the Fund. We remain overweight in hard currency versus local currency, with the hard currency overweight in sovereigns. While we added to commodity-related emerging markets (EM) foreign currency (FX) in our tactical asset allocation overlay, overall, we maintain a more defensive tactical

positioning than usual, expressed mainly through an underweight duration, a long credit default swap, and an underweight renminbi position. Due to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, we are removing exposures to Russia from the Fund's portfolio when and where possible, depending on liquidity.

We downgraded our 2022 EM growth estimates compared to the beginning of the year (4.4% in January vs 3.6% in April). EM are still projected to grow faster than developed markets, as momentum had been tapering off as seen in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development indicators. The surge in energy costs presents a considerable headwind and prospective shock to growth.

Rising inflation continues to put pressure on global markets. While many EM implemented monetary policy to address inflationary headwinds in 2021, they remain persistent. Disruptions to the supply chain, including increased input costs across commodities as well as elevated transport costs, remain persistent.

Sincerely,

ROB DRIJKONINGEN, GORKY URQUIETA, BART VAN DER MADE, RAOUL LUTTIK,
JENNIFER GORGOLL, VERA KARTSEVA AND NISH POPAT
PORTFOLIO CO-MANAGERS

¹  Beta is a measure of the systematic risk of a portfolio. It is the covariance of the portfolio and a market index divided by the variance of the market index. Beta measures the historical sensitivity of a portfolio's returns to movements in the market index. The beta of the market index will always be one. A portfolio with a beta above the market index (i.e. >1) means that the portfolio has greater volatility than the market index. If the beta of the portfolio is 1.2, a market increase in return of 1% implies a 1.2% increase in the portfolio's return. If the beta of the portfolio is 0.8, a market decrease in return of 1% implies a 0.8% decrease in the portfolio's return.

Information about principal risks of investing in the Fund is set forth in the prospectus and statement of additional information.

The portfolio composition, industries and holdings of the Fund are subject to change without notice.

The opinions expressed are those of the Fund's portfolio managers. The opinions are as of the date of this report and are subject to change without notice.

Emerging Markets Debt Fund (Unaudited)

Floating Rate Income Fund Commentary (Unaudited)

Neuberger Berman Floating Rate Income Fund Institutional Class generated a -0.29% total return for the six-month period ended April 30, 2022 (the reporting period) and underperformed its benchmark, the S&P/LSTA Leveraged Loan Index (the Index), which provided a 0.59% total return for the same period. (Performance for all share classes is provided in the table immediately following this letter.)

The senior floating rate bank loan market, as measured by the Index, outperformed the overall fixed income market, as measured by the Bloomberg U.S. Universal Bond Index, with modestly positive total returns during the reporting period. U.S. Treasury yields moved sharply higher during the reporting period as inflation hit a four-decade high, the U.S. Federal Reserve Board (Fed) indicated it would aggressively raise interest rates, and the tragic war in Ukraine triggered numerous supply shortages and fueled spikes in commodity prices. Meanwhile, consumer spending was generally resilient and the impact from COVID-19 and its variants appeared to wane. While credit spreads widened given the risk aversion, floating rate loans held up significantly better than longer dated fixed income given its lower interest rate risk.

The Fund tactically adjusted its position in non-floating rate securities during the period. We have the flexibility to allocate up to 20% of the Fund's portfolio to these securities, usually fixed-rate senior bonds. Relative value between floating rate loans and fixed-rate bonds fluctuated given the heightened volatility and increased focus on duration risk. Against this backdrop, the Fund's non-floating rate allocation ended the reporting period at approximately 5.9% of net assets compared to 2.7% of net assets at beginning of the reporting period.

In terms of the Fund's portfolio credit quality, an overweight to B and an underweight to BB rated issuers versus the Index added the most to returns. Conversely, security selection within and an underweight to unrated securities, security selection within B and an overweight to and security selection within CCC and below rated issuers detracted the most from results.

The Fund's use of swap contracts detracted from performance during the reporting period.

From a sector perspective, security selection within and an underweight to retailers, an overweight to oil & gas, and an underweight to food products were the primary contributors to returns. In contrast, security selection within and an overweight to healthcare, security selection within and an underweight to electronics (technology), and security selection within chemicals were the largest detractors from performance.

Looking ahead, we believe senior floating rate loan yields are compensating investors for the benign default outlook, will continue to provide durable income and are attractive compared to other fixed income alternatives, especially given what the forward curve is implying for loan yields as the Fed continues to raise interest rates. While the Russia-Ukraine conflict and tightening of financial conditions are creating incremental volatility, U.S. real GDP growth is estimated to be around trend for 2022, and input costs for many issuers are being passed on to end markets and consumers. Our analysts continue to focus on the outlook for issuer margins given rising input costs. Mitigating this in our view, however, are strong consumer and business balance sheets, growing nominal wages, solid jobs growth and businesses working to clear supply bottlenecks. While there is close to zero direct exposure to Russia and Ukraine in the loan market, our global research team continues to monitor the investment thesis for each issuer in the Fund's portfolio given the secondary impacts related to commodity prices as a result of other disruptions made worse by the conflict. Even with the heightened uncertainty, which is resulting in short-term volatility, we believe our bottom-up, fundamental credit research focused on security selection while seeking to avoid credit deterioration and putting only our "best ideas" into portfolios, position us well to take advantage of the increased volatility.

Sincerely,

JOSEPH P. LYNCH AND STEPHEN J. CASEY
PORTFOLIO MANAGERS

Information about principal risks of investing in the Fund is set forth in the prospectus and statement of additional information.

The portfolio composition, industries and holdings of the Fund are subject to change without notice.

The opinions expressed are those of the Fund's portfolio managers. The opinions are as of the date of this report and are subject to change without notice.

The loan ratings noted above represent segments of the S&P/LSTA Leveraged Loan Index, which are determined based on the ratings issued by S&P Global.

Floating Rate Income Fund (Unaudited)

High Income Bond Fund Commentary (Unaudited)

Neuberger Berman High Income Bond Fund Investor Class generated a -7.20% total return for the six-month period ended April 30, 2022 (the reporting period), performing in line with its benchmark, the ICE BofA U.S. High Yield Constrained Index (the Index), which provided a -7.21% total return for the period. (Performance for all share classes is provided in the table immediately following this letter.)

The overall high yield market, as measured by the Index, generated weak results, but outperformed all other longer duration fixed income categories during the reporting period. U.S. Treasury yields moved sharply higher as inflation hit a four-decade high, the U.S. Federal Reserve Board (Fed) indicated it would aggressively raise interest rates, and the tragic war in Ukraine triggered numerous supply shortages and fueled spikes in commodity prices. Meanwhile, consumer spending was generally resilient and the impact from COVID-19 and its variants appeared to wane. Concurrently, U.S. credit spreads widened given the risk aversion and the tightening of financial conditions.

From a sector perspective, security selection within diversified financial services, security selection within and an overweight to gas distribution, and security selection within and an underweight to food, beverage & tobacco versus the Index were the top contributors to relative performance. In contrast, security selection within real estate & homebuilders and security selection within and overweights to both telecommunications and technology & electronics detracted the most from results.

In terms of the Fund's portfolio credit quality, security selection within and an underweight to BB, and overweights to B and unrated issuers contributed the most to relative performance. Conversely, security selection within CCC and below rated issuers were the primary detractors.

The Fund's use of swap contracts detracted from performance during the reporting period.

As it became increasingly clear that the Fed would have to become more aggressive with tightening monetary policy, we selectively increased the Fund's exposure to shorter duration BB and B rated issuers, while reducing some CCC and below rated issuers that had performed well. As credit spreads widened over the period, we subsequently looked to decrease the Fund's exposure to higher beta¹ (risk) issuers, particularly in the CCC and below credit tier. Based on individual credit decisions and looking to reduce duration, the Fund's BBB and above rated exposure also decreased over the reporting period.

Looking ahead, we believe current valuations present an attractive opportunity. While the Russia-Ukraine conflict and tightening of financial conditions are creating incremental volatility, U.S. real GDP growth is estimated to be around trend for 2022 and input costs for many issuers are being passed on to end markets. It is our view that as real growth slows back toward trend, this will help to alleviate some of the inflationary pressures. Our analysts continue to focus on the outlook for issuer margins given rising input costs. In our view, mitigating this are strong consumer and business balance sheets, growing wages, solid jobs growth and businesses working to clear supply bottlenecks. While there is near zero direct exposure to Russia and Ukraine in the high yield market, our global research team continues to monitor the investment thesis for each issuer in the Fund's portfolio given the secondary impacts related to commodity prices and trade disruptions. Even with the heightened uncertainty, which is resulting in short-term volatility, we believe our bottom-up, fundamental credit research focused on security selection while seeking to avoid credit deterioration and putting only our "best ideas" into portfolios, position us well to take advantage of the increased volatility.

Sincerely,

RUSS COVODE, DANIEL DOYLE, JOE LIND AND CHRISTOPHER KOCINSKI
PORTFOLIO CO-MANAGERS

¹  Beta is a measure of the systematic risk of a portfolio. It is the covariance of the portfolio and a market index divided by the variance of the market index. Beta measures the historical sensitivity of a portfolio's returns to movements in the market index. The beta of the market index will always be one. A portfolio with a beta above the market index (i.e. >1) means that the portfolio has greater volatility than the market index. If the beta of the portfolio is 1.2, a market increase in return of 1% implies a 1.2% increase in the portfolio's return. If the beta of the portfolio is 0.8, a market decrease in return of 1% implies a 0.8% decrease in the portfolio's return.

Information about principal risks of investing in the Fund is set forth in the prospectus and statement of additional information.

The portfolio composition, industries and holdings of the Fund are subject to change without notice.

The opinions expressed are those of the Fund's portfolio managers. The opinions are as of the date of this report and are subject to change without notice.

The performance of certain rated bonds within the benchmark, as noted above, represent issues that are rated Ba1/BB+ through Ba3/BB-, B1/B+ through B3/B- and Caa1/CCC+ or lower, based on an average of Moody's, S&P and Fitch, as calculated by ICE BofA. Issues rated Baa3/BBB- and higher are not in the Index.

High Income Bond Fund (Unaudited)

Municipal High Income Fund Commentary (Unaudited)

Neuberger Berman Municipal High Income Fund Institutional Class generated a -9.49% total return for the six-month period ended April 30, 2022 (the reporting period) and underperformed its benchmark, a blend consisting of 65% Bloomberg Municipal Bond Index and 35% Bloomberg Municipal High Yield Index (collectively, the Index), which provided a -8.08% total return for the same period. (Performance for all share classes is provided in the table immediately following this letter.)

The investment-grade municipal bond market generated weak results but outperformed the taxable investment-grade bond market during the reporting period. All told, the Bloomberg Municipal Bond Index returned -7.90% for the reporting period, whereas the overall taxable investment-grade bond market, as measured by the Bloomberg U.S. Aggregate Bond Index, returned -9.47%. U.S. Treasury yields moved sharply higher as inflation hit a four-decade high, the U.S. Federal Reserve Board (Fed) indicated it would aggressively raise interest rates, and the tragic war in Ukraine triggered numerous supply shortages. Meanwhile, consumer spending was generally resilient and the impact from COVID-19 and its variants appeared to wane. Rising yields caused the overall bond market to post poor results, as yields and bond prices move in the opposite direction.

Looking at the Fund's performance, our credit quality and maturity biases detracted from results. In particular, overweights to lower coupon, lower-quality and longer-term (9+ years) bonds were headwinds for performance, although this was partially offset by positive security selection in the longer-term space. An out-of-benchmark allocation to revenue bonds was not rewarded, as they underperformed their general obligation bond counterparts. In particular, an allocation to certain tobacco bonds and security selection in the hospital sector negatively impacted returns. On the upside, having a shorter duration than the benchmark contributed to results given the rising interest rate environment. An allocation to municipal bonds issued by Puerto Rico was also additive for relative performance, though security selection detracted.

In terms of adjustments, during the reporting period and given the volatile investment environment, we modestly increased the overall credit quality of the portfolio, as the rising rate environment allowed us to capture higher absolute yields from certain investment-grade securities.

We believe that the Fed's transition to tighter monetary policy will continue to lead to more volatility in the municipal bond market. The selloff in municipals has been driven by a sharp move higher in rates as the market repriced a more hawkish Fed. It is our view that in order for the municipal market to find an equilibrium, we will likely need to see more stability in the Treasury market. Calling market bottoms is a tough endeavor, but given the size of the rates selloff, it is our view that the worst could be behind us. Valuations have also improved when AAA municipals are measured against Treasuries. In addition, we believe that the technical environment may improve during the summer as net supply is expected to turn negative. We have always believed that the best and most consistent way to add value in the municipal market is through security selection. In our view, the opportunities to add value through security selection will continue to increase. We believe our duration positioning and historically high levels of portfolio liquidity should allow us to deploy capital when pockets of volatility arise. We think our investment style, which is centered on a spirited relative value debate as we consider investments, is well suited to environment which may lie ahead.

Sincerely,

JAMES L. ISELIN, S. BLAKE MILLER AND ERIC J. PELIO
PORTFOLIO MANAGERS

Information about principal risks of investing in the Fund is set forth in the prospectus and statement of additional information.

The portfolio composition, industries and holdings of the Fund are subject to change without notice.

The opinions expressed are those of the Fund's portfolio managers. The opinions are as of the date of this report and are subject to change without notice.

The bond ratings noted above represent segments of the Bloomberg Municipal Bond Index and Bloomberg Municipal High Yield Index, which are determined based on the average ratings issued by S&P Global, Moody's and Fitch.

Municipal High Income Fund (Unaudited)

Municipal Impact Fund Commentary (Unaudited)

Neuberger Berman Municipal Impact Fund Institutional Class generated a -7.74% total return for the six-month period ended April 30, 2022 (the reporting period) and outperformed its benchmark, the Bloomberg Municipal Bond Index (the Index), which provided a -7.90% total return for the same period. (Performance for all share classes is provided in the table immediately following this letter.)

The investment-grade municipal bond market generated weak results but outperformed the taxable investment-grade bond market during the reporting period. All told, the Index returned -7.90% for the reporting period, whereas the overall taxable investment-grade bond market, as measured by the Bloomberg U.S. Aggregate Bond Index, returned -9.47%. U.S. Treasury yields moved sharply higher as inflation hit a four-decade high, the U.S. Federal Reserve Board (Fed) indicated it would aggressively raise interest rates, and the tragic war in Ukraine triggered numerous supply shortages. Meanwhile, consumer spending was generally resilient and the impact from COVID-19 and its variants appeared to wane. Rising yields caused the overall bond market to post poor results, as yields and bond prices move in the opposite direction.

Looking at the Fund's performance, having a shorter duration than the Index contributed to returns given the rising interest rate environment. Security selection of bonds rated AAA and an overweight to bonds rated A versus the Index was also beneficial. On the downside, credit quality, overall, detracted from results. This was partially driven by an overweight to lower quality, higher yielding securities, which lagged higher-rated bonds given the uncertain macro environment and periods of investor risk aversion. An overweight to the housing sector was also a drag on returns. We like these securities, as they offer attractive yields and generally finance projects for low to moderate-income first-time buyers. However, they tend to be longer-term lower coupon securities and underperformed over the period.

In terms of adjustments, some were made to the Fund, including modestly shortening the Fund's duration during the reporting period. We added to the credit quality of the portfolio, as the rising rate environment allowed us to capture higher absolute yields from certain investment-grade securities. As always, the Fund maintained its exposure to what we believed were projects that were impactful for their communities.

We believe that the Fed's transition to tighter monetary policy will continue to lead to more volatility in the municipal bond market. The selloff in municipals has been driven by a sharp move higher in rates as the market repriced a more hawkish Fed. In order for the municipal market to find an equilibrium, it is our view that we will likely need to see more stability in the Treasury market. Calling market bottoms is a tough endeavor, but given the size of the rates selloff, it is our view that the worst may be behind us. Valuations have also improved when AAA municipals are measured against Treasuries. In addition, we believe that the technical environment may improve during the summer as net supply is expected to turn negative. We have always believed that the best and most consistent way to add value in the municipal market is through security selection. In our view, the opportunities to add value through security selection will continue to increase. We believe our duration positioning and historically high levels of portfolio liquidity should allow us to deploy capital when pockets of volatility arise. We think our investment style, which is centered on a spirited relative value debate as we consider investments, is well suited to environment which may lie ahead.

Sincerely,

JAMES L. ISELIN, S. BLAKE MILLER, JAMES LYMAN AND JEFFREY HUNN
PORTFOLIO MANAGERS

Information about principal risks of investing in the Fund is set forth in the prospectus and statement of additional information.

The portfolio composition, industries and holdings of the Fund are subject to change without notice.

The opinions expressed are those of the Fund's portfolio managers. The opinions are as of the date of this report and are subject to change without notice.

The bond ratings noted above represent segments of the Bloomberg Municipal Bond Index, which are determined based on the average ratings issued by S&P Global, Moody's and Fitch.

Municipal Impact Fund (Unaudited)

Municipal Intermediate Bond Fund Commentary (Unaudited)

Neuberger Berman Municipal Intermediate Bond Fund Investor Class generated a -7.95% total return for the six-month period ended April 30, 2022 (the reporting period) and underperformed its benchmark, the Bloomberg 7-Year General Obligation (G.O.) Index (the Index), which provided a -6.87% total return for the same period. (Performance for all share classes is provided in the table immediately following this letter.)

The investment-grade municipal bond market generated weak results but outperformed the taxable investment-grade bond market during the reporting period. All told, the Bloomberg Municipal Bond Index returned -7.90% for the reporting period, whereas the overall taxable investment-grade bond market, as measured by the Bloomberg U.S. Aggregate Bond Index, returned -9.47%. U.S. Treasury yields moved sharply higher as inflation hit a four-decade high, the U.S. Federal Reserve Board (Fed) indicated it would aggressively raise interest rates, and the tragic war in Ukraine triggered numerous supply shortages. Meanwhile, consumer spending was generally resilient and the impact from COVID-19 and its variants appeared to wane. Rising yields caused the overall bond market to post poor results, as yields and bond prices move in the opposite direction.

In terms of the Fund's performance, having a longer duration than the Index detracted from returns given the rising interest rate environment. An overweight to lower coupon/longer duration bonds versus the Index was a headwind for relative results, although this was partially offset by positive security selection in the space. An out-of-benchmark allocation to revenue bonds was rewarded. In particular, allocations to certain tobacco, hospital and housing bonds negatively impacted returns. Having an allocation to BBB and below investment-grade securities was also detrimental, as these higher yielding securities underperformed. However, security selection within BBB was additive. On the upside, asset allocation to Puerto Rico-issued bonds and security selection of New York-issued municipal bonds was additive for results.

As the reporting period progressed, we increased the credit quality of the Fund, as the rising rate environment allowed us to capture higher absolute yields from certain investment-grade securities.

We believe that the Fed's transition to tighter monetary policy will continue to lead to more volatility in the municipal bond market. The selloff in municipals has been driven by a sharp move higher in rates as the market repriced a more hawkish Fed. In order for the municipal market to find an equilibrium, it is our view that we will likely need to see more stability in the Treasury market. Calling market bottoms is a tough endeavor, but given the size of the rates selloff, it is our view that the worst may be behind us. Valuations have also improved when AAA municipals are measured against Treasuries. In addition, we believe that the technical environment may improve during the summer as net supply is expected to turn negative. We have always believed that the best and most consistent way to add value in the municipal market is through security selection. In our view, the opportunities to add value through security selection will continue to increase. We believe our duration positioning and historically high levels of portfolio liquidity should allow us to deploy capital when pockets of volatility arise. We think our investment style, which is centered on a spirited relative value debate as we consider investments, is well suited to environment which may lie ahead.

Sincerely,

JAMES L. ISELIN AND S. BLAKE MILLER
PORTFOLIO MANAGERS

Information about principal risks of investing in the Fund is set forth in the prospectus and statement of additional information.

The portfolio composition, industries and holdings of the Fund are subject to change without notice.

The opinions expressed are those of the Fund's portfolio managers. The opinions are as of the date of this report and are subject to change without notice.

The bond ratings noted above represent segments of the Bloomberg 7-Year General Obligation (G.O.) Index, which are determined based on the average ratings issued by S&P Global, Moody's and Fitch.

Municipal Intermediate Bond Fund (Unaudited)

Short Duration Bond Fund Commentary (Unaudited)

Neuberger Berman Short Duration Bond Fund Investor Class generated a -4.11% total return for the six-month period ended April 30, 2022 (the reporting period) and underperformed its benchmark, the Bloomberg 1-3 Year U.S. Government/Credit Bond Index (the Index), which provided a -3.24% total return for the same period. (Performance for all share classes is provided in the table immediately following this letter.)

U.S. Treasury yields moved sharply higher during the reporting period as inflation hit a four-decade high, the U.S. Federal Reserve Board (Fed) indicated it would aggressively raise interest rates, and the tragic war in Ukraine triggered numerous supply shortages. Meanwhile, consumer spending was generally resilient and the impact from COVID-19 and its variants appeared to wane. Rising yields caused the overall bond market to post poor results, as yields and bond prices move in the opposite direction. Meanwhile, U.S. credit spreads widened given periods of risk aversion, as well as the Fed's monetary tightening, the latter of which could be a headwind for corporate earnings.

The largest detractor from the Fund's performance during the reporting period was its exposure to corporate bonds. Their spreads widened due to their duration and interest rate sensitivity, and not, in our view, because of weakening corporate fundamentals. Elsewhere, the allocation to structured products, including commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) and mortgage credit were headwinds for results. Futures contracts were used to manage the Fund's overall duration positioning.

The Fund's use of futures and swap contracts detracted from performance during the reporting period.

We maintained the Fund's overall positioning over the reporting period, focusing on a diversified mix of non-Treasury spread sectors. We pared down our exposures to Treasury securities and our small allocation to municipal bonds. The proceeds were then redeployed into shorter duration high quality corporate bonds, as well as asset-backed securities and CMBS. We favored these securities as they offered attractive yields, in our view, as rates had reset higher.

The global growth outlook has been muddled by crosscurrents in the form of rising commodities and geopolitical events. However, we believe a number of factors should enable the global economy to avoid recession in 2022. First, although decelerating, the U.S. economy was in a strong position entering the current spike in inflation, providing substantial cushion to withstand policy changes. In the U.S., we believe the consumer remains in excellent shape, with debt levels close to record lows while savings remain ample. Looking at the past, recessions usually follow periods of over-investment and resulting market collapse, or problems within the financial system. We don't see either as present today. In our view, inflation levels are likely to peak over the coming months but remain at uncomfortably high levels for central banks. Broadly speaking, it seems likely to us that central bank tightening expectations have peaked, with increased growth uncertainty allowing policymakers to look through elevated inflation and adjust policy rate strategy over the next 12 months. In our base scenario, we believe a monetary policy shift from accommodation to normalization, with numerous rate hikes and balance sheet adjustments will drive intermediate Treasury yields moderately higher over the next 12 months. Given our base scenarios, we see the coming 12 months as a period in which interest rate volatility should normalize, supporting spread sectors.

Sincerely,

MICHAEL FOSTER, MATTHEW MCGINNIS, WOOLF NORMAN MILNER AND DAVID M. BROWN
PORTFOLIO MANAGERS

Information about principal risks of investing in the Fund is set forth in the prospectus and statement of additional information.

The portfolio composition, industries and holdings of the Fund are subject to change without notice.

The opinions expressed are those of the Fund's portfolio managers. The opinions are as of the date of this report and are subject to change without notice.

Short Duration Bond Fund (Unaudited)

Strategic Income Fund Commentary (Unaudited)

Neuberger Berman Strategic Income Fund Institutional Class delivered a -7.45% total return for the six-month period ended April 30, 2022 (the reporting period), outperforming its benchmark, the Bloomberg U.S. Aggregate Bond Index (the Index), which provided a -9.47% total return for the same period. (Performance for all share classes is provided in the table immediately following this letter.)

U.S. Treasury yields moved sharply higher during the reporting period as inflation hit a four-decade high and, in response, the U.S, Federal Reserve Board (Fed) indicated it would aggressively raise interest rates. Ongoing supply chain frictions and global macroeconomic uncertainty were both exacerbated by the tragic war in Ukraine and the reintroduction of COVID-19 restrictions in China. On the other hand, consumer spending was generally resilient, and, at least in the U.S., the impact from the pandemic appeared to wane. Rising yields pressured fixed income market performance, as yields and bond prices move in the opposite direction. Meanwhile, U.S. credit spreads widened given periods of risk aversion as well as the Fed's monetary tightening.

Against a backdrop of rising interest rates, the Fund's duration underweight versus the Index was the largest driver of relative outperformance over the reporting period, followed by underweight exposures in investment grade (IG) credit and agency mortgage-backed securities (MBS). The Fund's allocation to bank loans—one of the few fixed income markets to generate positive returns over the period—also added value. Security selection in commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) and the Fund's exposure to credit risk transfers and collateralized loan obligations contributed modestly. Exposure to U.S. and European high yield, emerging markets debt, financial hybrids and municipal bonds were the primary detractors for the reporting period.

The Fund's aggregate use of futures, swap, forward foreign currency, bond forward and option contracts contributed positively to performance during the reporting period.

We made several adjustments to the Fund during the reporting period. In late 2021, we increased the Fund's cash position with the view that market volatility was likely to be elevated in the coming quarters. We then used available capital to opportunistically add exposure as valuations became more attractive, in our view. Specifically, we increased exposure to high-quality spread sectors, such as IG credit, agency MBS and municipal bonds. We also added to securitized credit, emphasizing non-agency MBS, asset-backed securities and CMBS. We reduced exposure to bank loans, taking profits following strong performance relative to other fixed income markets. Overall, we remain overweight credit but at reduced levels versus 2021.

In our view, inflation levels are likely to peak in the coming months but remain at relatively high levels warranting continued attention from central banks. We believe goods inflation, which has been the forefront of recent price increases, is likely to ease, only to be supplanted by gains in services. All told, it is our view that the environment is likely to require central banks to be aggressive in terms of interest rate hikes—something that has contributed to the negative returns across fixed income during the reporting period. We believe that the market's expectations for rapid and significant central bank tightening are appropriate today even if the Fed may ultimately be unable to deliver on this aggressive path amid increasing challenges to growth. Given our base scenarios, we anticipate the coming 12 months as a period in which interest rate volatility could normalize; we believe that the fate of spread sectors will hinge on whether the economy and markets can withstand pressure from tighter monetary policy and diminishing prospects for growth abroad.

Sincerely,

THANOS BARDAS, ASHOK BHATIA, DAVID M. BROWN AND BRAD TANK
PORTFOLIO MANAGERS

Information about principal risks of investing in the Fund is set forth in the prospectus and statement of additional information.

The portfolio composition, industries and holdings of the Fund are subject to change without notice.

The opinions expressed are those of the Fund's portfolio managers. The opinions are as of the date of this report and are subject to change without notice.

Strategic Income Fund (Unaudited)

Endnotes

1  Please see "Glossary of Indices" on page 24 for a description of indices. Please note that individuals cannot invest directly in any index. The indices described in this report do not take into account any fees, expenses or tax consequences of investing in the individual securities that they track. Data about the performance of an index are prepared or obtained by Neuberger Berman Investment Advisers LLC ("NBIA") and reflect the reinvestment of income dividends and other distributions, if any. The Fund may invest in securities not included in a described index and generally does not invest in all securities included in a described index.

2  The performance information for periods prior to June 13, 2005, is that of the Fund's predecessor, Ariel Premier Bond Fund ("Ariel Fund"). The investment policies, guidelines and restrictions of the Fund are in all material respects equivalent to those of Ariel Fund. Returns would have been lower if Ariel Fund's manager had not waived certain of its fees during these periods.

3  The performance information for Institutional Class is that of Ariel Fund Institutional Class for the period October 1, 1995 (inception date) through June 10, 2005. The performance information for Investor Class is that of Ariel Fund Institutional Class for the period October 1, 1995 through January 31, 1997 (the period prior to the Investor Class' inception date), and that of Ariel Fund Investor Class for the period February 1, 1997 through June 10, 2005. Ariel Fund Institutional Class had lower expenses and typically higher returns than Ariel Fund Investor Class.

4  The performance information for Class A, Class C and Class R6 prior to the classes' inception date is that of the Institutional Class of Neuberger Berman Core Bond Fund (please see Endnote 3). The performance information for the Institutional Class has been adjusted to reflect the appropriate sales charges applicable to Class A and Class C shares but has not been adjusted to take into account differences in class specific operating expenses (such as 12b-1 fees). The Institutional Class has lower expenses and typically higher returns than Class A and Class C. The Institutional Class has higher expenses and typically lower returns than Class R6.

5  The performance information for Institutional Class and Class C prior to the classes' inception date is that of Class A of Neuberger Berman Floating Rate Income Fund. The performance information (at NAV) of Class A has been adjusted to reflect the appropriate sales charge applicable to Class C shares but has not been adjusted to take into account differences in class specific operating expenses (such as 12b-1 fees). Class A has higher expenses and typically lower returns (at NAV) than Institutional Class. Class A has lower expenses and typically higher returns (at NAV) than Class C.

6  The performance information for the period April 1, 1996 through September 6, 2002, is that of the Fund's predecessor, Lipper High Income Bond Fund ("Lipper Fund"), and the performance information for the period February 1, 1992 through March 31, 1996, is that of Lipper Fund's predecessor partnership. The investment policies, objectives, guidelines and restrictions of the Fund are in all material respects equivalent to those of Lipper Fund, and the investment policies, objectives, guidelines and restrictions of Lipper Fund were in all material respects equivalent to those of its predecessor partnership. As mutual funds registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended ("1940 Act"), the Fund is, and Lipper Fund was, subject to certain restrictions under the 1940 Act and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended ("Code"), to which Lipper Fund's predecessor partnership was not subject. Had Lipper Fund's predecessor partnership been registered under the 1940 Act and been subject to the provisions of the 1940 Act and the Code, its investment performance may have been adversely affected. Returns would have been lower if Lipper Fund's manager had not waived certain of its fees during these periods.

7  The performance information for Investor Class is that of Lipper Fund Premier Class for the period April 1, 1996 through September 6, 2002, and that of Lipper Fund's predecessor partnership for the period February 1, 1992 (inception date) through March 31, 1996 (please see Endnote 6).

8  The performance information for Institutional Class, Class A, Class C, Class R3, Class R6 and Class E prior to the classes' respective inception dates is that of the Investor Class of Neuberger Berman High Income Bond Fund (please see Endnote 7). The performance information of the Investor Class has been adjusted to reflect the appropriate sales charges applicable to Class A and Class C shares but has not been adjusted to take into account differences in class specific operating expenses (such as 12b-1 fees). The Investor Class has lower expenses and typically higher returns than Class A, Class C and Class R3. The Investor Class has higher expenses and typically lower returns than Institutional Class, Class R6 and Class E.

9  Tax-equivalent effective yield is the taxable effective yield that a shareholder would have had to receive in order to realize the same level of yield after federal income taxes at the highest federal tax rate, currently 37% plus the 3.8% Medicare contribution tax, assuming that all of the Fund's income is exempt from federal income taxes.

10  A portion of the Fund's income may be a tax preference item for purposes of the federal alternative minimum tax for certain shareholders.

11  The performance information for Institutional Class, Class A and Class C prior to the classes' inception date is that of the Investor Class of Neuberger Berman Municipal Intermediate Bond Fund. The performance information of the Investor Class has been adjusted to reflect the appropriate sales charges applicable to Class A and Class C shares but has not been adjusted to take into account differences in class specific operating expenses (such as 12b-1 fees). The Investor Class has lower expenses and typically higher returns than Class A and Class C. The Investor Class has higher expenses and typically lower returns than Institutional Class.

12  The performance information for Trust Class, Institutional Class, Class A and Class C prior to the classes' respective inception dates is that of the Investor Class of Neuberger Berman Short Duration Bond Fund. The performance information of the Investor Class has been adjusted to reflect the appropriate sales charges applicable to Class A and Class C shares but has not been adjusted to take into account differences in class specific operating expenses (such as 12b-1 fees). The Investor Class has lower expenses and typically higher returns than Trust Class, Class A and Class C. The Investor Class has higher expenses and typically lower returns than Institutional Class.

13  The performance information for Trust Class, Class A, Class C and Class R6 prior to the classes' respective inception dates is that of the Institutional Class of Neuberger Berman Strategic Income Fund. The performance information of the Institutional Class has been adjusted to reflect the appropriate sales charges applicable to Class A and Class C shares but has not been adjusted to take into account differences in class specific operating expenses (such as 12b-1 fees). The Institutional Class has lower expenses and typically higher returns than Trust Class, Class A and Class C. The Institutional Class has higher expenses and typically lower returns than Class R6.

14  The date used to calculate Life of Fund performance for the index is the inception date of the oldest share class.

15  The investments for the Fund are managed by the same portfolio manager(s) who manage(s) one or more other registered funds that have names, investment objectives and investment styles that are similar to those of the Fund. You should be aware that the Fund is likely to differ from the other mutual fund(s) in size, cash flow pattern and tax matters. Accordingly, the holdings and performance of the Fund can be expected to vary from those of the other mutual fund(s).

16  This date reflects when NBIA first became the investment manager to the Fund.

17  The Fund had a different goal, to maximize income without undue risk to principal, and investment strategy, which included managing assets by an asset allocation committee, prior to February 28, 2008. Its performance prior to that date might have been different if the current goal and investment strategy had been in effect.

18  The Fund had a different goal, to maximize total return through a combination of income and capital appreciation, and investment strategy, which did not include investments in derivatives and non-U.S. dollar denominated securities, prior to February 28, 2008. Its performance prior to that date might have been different if the current goal and investment strategy had been in effect.

19  The Fund's policies limited its ability to invest in bonds rated below "B" prior to July 6, 2006. Its performance prior to that date might have been different if current policies had been in effect.

20  The Fund had a different goal and different principal investment strategies, which included a policy to invest 80% of its net assets in securities of municipal issuers that provide interest income that is exempt from New York State and New York City personal income taxes and invest in only investment grade securities, prior to June 16, 2018. Its performance prior to that date might have been different if the current goal and investment strategy had been in effect.

21  The performance information for Class A and Class C prior to the classes' inception date is that of the Institutional Class of Neuberger Berman Municipal Impact Fund (formerly, Neuberger Berman New York Municipal Income Fund). The performance information for the Institutional Class has been adjusted to reflect the appropriate sales charges applicable to Class A and Class C shares but has not been adjusted to take into account differences in class specific operating expenses (such as 12b-1 fees). The Institutional Class has lower expenses and typically higher returns than Class A and Class C.

For more complete information on any of the Neuberger Berman Income Funds, call us at (800) 877-9700, or visit our website at www.nb.com.

Glossary of Indices

Information About Your Fund's Expenses (Unaudited)

As a Fund shareholder, you incur two types of costs: (1) transaction costs, including sales charges (loads) on purchase payments or redemption proceeds (if applicable); and (2) ongoing costs, including management fees, distribution and/or service (12b-1) fees (if applicable), and other Fund expenses. This example is intended to help you understand your ongoing costs (in U.S. dollars) of investing in a Fund and compare these costs with the ongoing costs of investing in other mutual funds.

This table is designed to provide information regarding costs related to your investments. The following examples are based on an investment of $1,000 made at the beginning of the six month period ended April 30, 2022 and held for the entire period. The table illustrates the Fund's costs in two ways:

Please note that the expenses in the table are meant to highlight your ongoing costs only and do not include any transaction costs, such as sales charges (loads) (if applicable). Therefore, the information under the heading "Hypothetical (5% annual return before expenses)" is useful in comparing ongoing costs only, and will not help you determine the relative total costs of owning different funds. In addition, if these transaction costs were included, your costs would have been higher.

Expense Example (Unaudited)