UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM N-CSR

CERTIFIED SHAREHOLDER REPORT OF REGISTERED
MANAGEMENT INVESTMENT COMPANIES

Investment Company Act File Number: 811-02958

T. Rowe Price International Funds, Inc.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in charter)

100 East Pratt Street, Baltimore, MD 21202

(Address of principal executive offices)

David Oestreicher

100 East Pratt Street, Baltimore, MD 21202

(Name and address of agent for service)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (410) 345-2000

Date of fiscal year end: December 31

Date of reporting period: December 31, 2016

The views and opinions in this report were current as of December 31, 2016. They are not guarantees of performance or investment results and should not be taken as investment advice. Investment decisions reflect a variety of factors, and the managers reserve the right to change their views about individual stocks, sectors, and the markets at any time. As a result, the views expressed should not be relied upon as a forecast of the fund’s future investment intent. The report is certified under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which requires mutual funds and other public companies to affirm that, to the best of their knowledge, the information in their financial reports is fairly and accurately stated in all material respects.

Sign up for our Email Program, and you can begin to receive updated fund reports and prospectuses online rather than through the mail. Log in to your account at troweprice.com for more information.

Emerging markets sovereign bonds denominated in U.S. dollars posted solid total returns in 2016 despite a post-U.S. election downturn stemming largely from a sell-off in U.S. Treasuries that pushed yields quickly upward. The asset class benefited from improving sentiment toward riskier assets early in the year as oil prices rebounded from their lows and stabilized in the $40 to $50 per barrel range for the balance of 2016. Emerging markets corporate bonds modestly lagged emerging markets sovereign debt denominated in U.S. dollars or local currencies.

As seen in the Performance Comparison table, the Emerging Markets Bond Fund returned 14.63% for the 12 months ended December 31, 2016. The fund outperformed its benchmark, the J.P. Morgan Emerging Markets Bond Index Global, and its Lipper peer group average. (Results for Advisor and I Class shares vary, reflecting their different fee structures.) The fund’s overweight allocation to strong-performing Venezuela was the largest contributor to its relative outperformance.

Emerging markets sovereign bonds denominated in U.S. dollars posted solid total returns in 2016 despite a significant pullback following Donald Trump’s surprise victory in the U.S. presidential election and a December interest rate hike from the Federal Reserve. The post-U.S. election downturn stemmed largely from a sell-off in U.S. Treasuries that pushed yields quickly upward, although debt from some emerging markets, such as Mexico, suffered disproportionately as a result of investor fears that the Trump administration will implement protectionist trade policies. Earlier in 2016, emerging markets government bonds benefited from a sharp rebound in oil prices and also from improving sentiment as investors’ perceptions of the Federal Reserve’s policy outlook turned increasingly dovish. Oil prices bounced from their early-year lows near $26 per barrel for global benchmark Brent crude to just over $50 by June. The Brent crude price hovered in the $40 to $50 range in the second half of the year before ending 2016 just below $55. This stability in oil prices supported the dollar-denominated bonds of Venezuela, a major oil exporter, which gained more than 50% for the year. Brazil’s dollar-denominated sovereign debt posted returns over 20% as the government of President Michel Temer, who replaced the impeached Dilma Rousseff, started to implement much-needed fiscal reforms.

Emerging markets government bonds denominated in local currencies as a whole generated total returns similar to their dollar-denominated cousins, but there was more divergence in the returns of locally denominated bonds of individual countries. Much of this disparity in performance resulted from the returns of emerging markets currencies against the U.S. dollar, which varied widely. Brazil’s locally denominated sovereign bonds shot up more than 55%, benefiting from a 21% surge in the Brazilian real versus the dollar. On the other hand, Mexico’s sovereign bonds denominated in pesos lost nearly 18% in U.S. dollar terms as the currency dropped 16% against the greenback for the year. The Mexican peso is one of the more liquid emerging markets currencies and tends to trade as a proxy for risk in the segment. In addition, all Mexican assets sold off following the U.S. presidential election.

Corporate bonds issued by companies in emerging markets—which are denominated in “hard currencies” such as U.S. dollars—lagged emerging markets sovereigns but still broadly gained more than 9% for the year, according to J.P. Morgan data. Noninvestment-grade corporate bonds from developing countries performed particularly well as their compelling yields attracted investors. Debt from issuers in commodity-related industries, such as metals and mining and oil and gas, tended to outperform as a result of the rally and subsequent stability in commodity prices. Emerging markets corporate bonds are also somewhat less sensitive to interest rate changes than sovereign debt, allowing them to hold up better when rates increased in the fourth quarter.

The portfolio’s overweight allocation to Venezuela was the most significant contributor to the fund’s relative performance in 2016. While the country’s government has been slow to correct meaningful macroeconomic imbalances, Venezuela was able to muddle through the worst of the low-oil-price environment. The increase in oil prices in 2016 boosted investor demand for the country’s sovereign bonds. Security selection within the country also made a positive contribution to relative returns as a result of the portfolio’s focus on short-maturity debt from Petroleos de Venezuela (PdVSA), the state-owned oil company. The company executed a successful bond swap in October that allowed it to improve its near-term liquidity by replacing debt maturing in the near future with longer-term bonds. As a result of the meaningful long-term economic problems that Venezuela faces, our exposure to the country consists primarily of short-term bonds issued by PdVSA and acquired at low dollar prices. (Please refer to the fund’s portfolio of investments for a complete list of holdings and the amount each represents in the portfolio.)

The portfolio’s overweight allocation to Brazil and its security selection in the country also contributed to relative returns. Early in 2016, we built up our position in dollar-denominated Brazilian sovereign bonds, which had been hurt by forced selling after the country’s downgrade to noninvestment-grade status in late 2015. As the country progressed through positive political and fiscal developments, we added further to the portfolio’s Brazil exposure, primarily through locally denominated government debt as well as through bonds from Petrobras, Brazil’s partially state-owned oil company. Petrobras debt benefited from rising oil prices, new sources of financing, and non-core asset sales that have improved the company’s balance sheet.

On the negative side, the portfolio’s underweight to strong-performing Ecuador weighed on relative returns. Oil exports are a major source of revenue for Ecuador, and the country’s bonds benefited as oil rallied above its lows and stayed relatively resilient through the end of the year. However, we maintained a cautious outlook for the country because its debt levels have rapidly increased in recent years as its policymakers failed to enact necessary fiscal reforms. Ecuador remains particularly vulnerable to oil price shocks, which elevates the risk of exposure to its sovereign debt.

The portfolio was also underweight China and the Philippines, primarily as a result of the relatively low yields and limited relative value available in those markets, which benefited relative returns. While we think that the Chinese government will be able to navigate the country’s economic slowdown and avoid a “hard landing,” the valuations of China’s bonds do not appropriately reflect the underlying risks of capital flow volatility and the weakening effectiveness of government stimulus for the country. In the Philippines, strong domestic demand for the country’s dollar-denominated sovereign bonds have pushed valuations to elevated levels, and the political risks associated with President Rodrigo Duterte, who was elected in May, have increased. We are also cautious about Hungary and Poland, whose economic ties to developed European countries make their bonds vulnerable to potential increases in yields on government bonds from core developed European markets.

After reducing the fund’s out-of-benchmark allocation to emerging markets corporate bonds in the first half of 2016, our exposure to corporates stayed relatively steady over the balance of the year at a fairly low level relative to the fund’s history. While we maintained a positive outlook for emerging markets corporate debt in general, we found more attractive opportunities in sovereign bonds. Emerging markets corporate bonds are also less liquid than government debt from the same developing countries. Within the emerging markets corporate segment, we tend to favor quasi-sovereign issuers, such as Brazil’s Petrobras, because they are generally more liquid and provide more relative value. In terms of credit ratings, the portfolio’s corporate debt holdings are biased toward the BB and B rated segments, which tend to offer attractive risk/reward trade-offs and market inefficiencies that can create compelling valuations.

The fund holds select locally denominated sovereign bonds where the relative value appears compelling versus debt denominated in U.S. dollars. Our allocation to locally denominated bonds ranged between about 5% of net assets in the first half of the year and approximately 9% in the fourth quarter. Benign inflation, attractive inflation-adjusted yields, and expectations for supportive central bank policies made select local markets such as Brazil and Russia somewhat more appealing over the course of the year. Depending on our outlook for a particular currency and the costs involved, we may fully or partially hedge the currency exposure to reduce risk or opt not to hedge if a currency appears to be poised to gain against the dollar. During the year, we hedged most of the portfolio’s foreign exchange exposure or utilized non-U.S. dollar funding currencies. The fund’s nondollar currency exposure was very limited and focused on a small position in the Brazilian real. The fund maintains material holdings of currency forward contracts, a form of derivative, as a hedging tool or to gain exposure to certain currencies.

Market liquidity is a key variable that we are closely monitoring as the Fed slowly raises interest rates. Reduced liquidity can limit our ability to buy and sell emerging markets bonds at efficient prices. Emerging markets debt, as one of the riskier and less traded fixed income asset classes, tends to have lower liquidity than high-quality government debt such as U.S. Treasuries. As markets adapt to the Fed’s first tightening cycle since 2006, temporary dislocations may result in limited liquidity for some bonds from developing countries. As a result, we actively consider market depth and liquidity when evaluating bonds for purchase or sale, and we have been deliberately improving the aggregate liquidity of our portfolio holdings.

The fundamentals of many emerging markets sovereign and corporate issuers have gradually improved as a result of significant political reforms in key countries, tighter government budgets, stronger balance sheets, healthier current account balances, and strengthening growth prospects. These supportive fundamental factors suggest that an increasing number of investors will gradually address their underinvestment to emerging markets bonds by building their allocations to the asset class, providing further support. Emerging markets debt also offers materially better yield than sovereign bonds from developed markets, many of which are mired in political uncertainty. This political turmoil in developed markets, which is particularly acute in the U.S. and Europe, may drive short periods of elevated volatility and weak sentiment toward riskier asset classes such as emerging markets debt, but we believe that it poses limited systemic risk.

However, risks for the asset class remain. China’s struggle to manage its transition from an export-oriented economy to one focused on domestic consumption without inducing an abrupt slowdown is a key global risk that we are monitoring. Over the longer term, we expect Chinese growth to slow toward a more sustainable long-term rate, but in the short term, Chinese economic data could be erratic as government stimulus measures become less effective. Volatile investor flows into and out of the asset class also present a meaningful risk for emerging markets bonds. As in the fourth quarter of 2016, rising U.S. Treasury yields could trigger outflows from emerging markets debt by removing part of the yield advantage the asset class currently offers.

The diverse background of country-specific developments in emerging markets drives the importance of country selection and maintaining a long-term investment view. We believe that the extended reach of T. Rowe Price’s global credit, sovereign, and equity research platforms, combined with our emphasis on collaboration across those platforms, gives us a critical edge in the analysis of individual countries and bonds in emerging fixed income markets.

Michael J. Conelius
Lead portfolio manager and chairman of the Emerging Markets Bond Fund’s Investment Advisory Committee

The committee chairman has day-to-day responsibility for managing the portfolio and works with committee members in developing and executing the fund’s investment program

Funds that invest overseas generally carry more risk than funds that invest strictly in U.S. assets, including unpredictable changes in currency values. Investments in emerging markets are subject to abrupt and severe price declines and should be regarded as speculative. The economic and political structures of developing nations, in most cases, do not compare favorably with the U.S. or other developed countries in terms of wealth and stability, and their financial markets often lack liquidity. Some countries also have legacies of hyperinflation, currency devaluations, and governmental interference in markets.

International investments are subject to currency risk, a decline in the value of a foreign currency versus the U.S. dollar, which reduces the dollar value of securities denominated in that currency. The overall impact on a fund’s holdings can be significant and long-lasting depending on the currencies represented in the portfolio, how each one appreciates or depreciates in relation to the U.S. dollar, and whether currency positions are hedged. Further, exchange rate movements are unpredictable, and it is not possible to effectively hedge the currency risks of many developing countries.

Bonds are also subject to interest rate risk, the decline in bond prices that usually accompanies a rise in interest rates, and credit risk, the chance that any fund holding could have its credit rating downgraded or that a bond issuer will default (fail to make timely payments of interest or principal), potentially reducing the fund’s income level and share price.

Duration: A measure of a bond’s or bond fund’s sensitivity to changes in interest rates. For example, a fund with a duration of six years would fall about 6% in response to a one-percentage-point rise in rates, and vice versa.

J.P. Morgan Emerging Markets Bond Index Global: Tracks U.S. dollar government bonds of 31 foreign countries.

Lipper averages: The averages of available mutual fund performance returns for specified time periods in categories defined by Lipper Inc.

Quasi-sovereign debt: Debt issued by a corporation and backed by the respective government, typically offering the higher yields of corporate debt with the added benefit of government support.

Weighted average maturity: A measure of a fund’s sensitivity to interest rates. In general, the longer the average maturity, the greater the fund’s sensitivity to interest rate changes. The weighted average maturity may take into account the interest rate readjustment dates for certain securities. Money funds must maintain a weighted average maturity of less than 60 days.

This chart shows the value of a hypothetical $10,000 investment in the fund over the past 10 fiscal year periods or since inception (for funds lacking 10-year records). The result is compared with benchmarks, which may include a broad-based market index and a peer group average or index. Market indexes do not include expenses, which are deducted from fund returns as well as mutual fund averages and indexes.

As a mutual fund shareholder, you may incur two types of costs: (1) transaction costs, such as redemption fees or sales loads, and (2) ongoing costs, including management fees, distribution and service (12b-1) fees, and other fund expenses. The following example is intended to help you understand your ongoing costs (in dollars) of investing in the fund and to compare these costs with the ongoing costs of investing in other mutual funds. The example is based on an investment of $1,000 invested at the beginning of the most recent six-month period and held for the entire period.

Please note that the fund has three share classes: The original share class (Investor Class) charges no distribution and service (12b-1) fee, Advisor Class shares are offered only through unaffiliated brokers and other financial intermediaries and charge a 0.25% 12b-1 fee, and I Class shares are available to institutionally oriented clients and impose no 12b-1 or administrative fee payment. Each share class is presented separately in the table.

Actual Expenses
The first line of the following table (Actual) provides information about actual account values and expenses based on the fund’s actual returns. You may use the information on this line, together with your account balance, to estimate the expenses that you paid over the period. Simply divide your account value by $1,000 (for example, an $8,600 account value divided by $1,000 = 8.6), then multiply the result by the number on the first line under the heading “Expenses Paid During Period” to estimate the expenses you paid on your account during this period.

Hypothetical Example for Comparison Purposes
The information on the second line of the table (Hypothetical) is based on hypothetical account values and expenses derived from the fund’s actual expense ratio and an assumed 5% per year rate of return before expenses (not the fund’s actual return). You may compare the ongoing costs of investing in the fund with other funds by contrasting this 5% hypothetical example and the 5% hypothetical examples that appear in the shareholder reports of the other funds. The hypothetical account values and expenses may not be used to estimate the actual ending account balance or expenses you paid for the period.

Note: T. Rowe Price charges an annual account service fee of $20, generally for accounts with less than $10,000. The fee is waived for any investor whose T. Rowe Price mutual fund accounts total $50,000 or more; accounts electing to receive electronic delivery of account statements, transaction confirmations, prospectuses, and shareholder reports; or accounts of an investor who is a T. Rowe Price Preferred Services, Personal Services, or Enhanced Personal Services client (enrollment in these programs generally requires T. Rowe Price assets of at least $100,000). This fee is not included in the accompanying table. If you are subject to the fee, keep it in mind when you are estimating the ongoing expenses of investing in the fund and when comparing the expenses of this fund with other funds.

You should also be aware that the expenses shown in the table highlight only your ongoing costs and do not reflect any transaction costs, such as redemption fees or sales loads. Therefore, the second line of the table is useful in comparing ongoing costs only and will not help you determine the relative total costs of owning different funds. To the extent a fund charges transaction costs, however, the total cost of owning that fund is higher.

T. Rowe Price International Funds, Inc. (the corporation), is registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the 1940 Act). The Emerging Markets Bond Fund (the fund) is a nondiversified, open-end management investment company established by the corporation. The fund seeks to provide high income and capital appreciation. The fund has three classes of shares: the Emerging Markets Bond Fund (Investor Class), the Emerging Markets Bond Fund–Advisor Class (Advisor Class), and the Emerging Markets Bond Fund–I Class (I Class). Advisor Class shares are sold only through unaffiliated brokers and other unaffiliated financial intermediaries. I Class shares generally are available only to investors meeting a $1,000,000 minimum investment or certain other criteria. The Advisor Class operates under a Board-approved Rule 12b-1 plan pursuant to which the class compensates financial intermediaries for distribution, shareholder servicing, and/or certain administrative services; the Investor and I Classes do not pay Rule 12b-1 fees. Each class has exclusive voting rights on matters related solely to that class; separate voting rights on matters that relate to all classes; and, in all other respects, the same rights and obligations as the other classes.

Basis of Preparation The fund is an investment company and follows accounting and reporting guidance in the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Accounting Standards Codification Topic 946 (ASC 946). The accompanying financial statements were prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (GAAP), including, but not limited to, ASC 946. GAAP requires the use of estimates made by management. Management believes that estimates and valuations are appropriate; however, actual results may differ from those estimates, and the valuations reflected in the accompanying financial statements may differ from the value ultimately realized upon sale or maturity.

Investment Transactions, Investment Income, and Distributions Income and expenses are recorded on the accrual basis. Premiums and discounts on debt securities are amortized for financial reporting purposes. Paydown gains and losses are recorded as an adjustment to interest income. Inflation adjustments to the principal amount of inflation-indexed bonds are reflected as interest income. Dividends received from mutual fund investments are reflected as dividend income; capital gain distributions are reflected as realized gain/loss. Dividend income and capital gain distributions are recorded on the ex-dividend date. Income tax-related interest and penalties, if incurred, would be recorded as income tax expense. Investment transactions are accounted for on the trade date. Realized gains and losses are reported on the identified cost basis. Income distributions are declared by each class daily and paid monthly. Distributions to shareholders are recorded on the ex-dividend date. Capital gain distributions are generally declared and paid by the fund annually.

Currency Translation Assets, including investments, and liabilities denominated in foreign currencies are translated into U.S. dollar values each day at the prevailing exchange rate, using the mean of the bid and asked prices of such currencies against U.S. dollars as quoted by a major bank. Purchases and sales of securities, income, and expenses are translated into U.S. dollars at the prevailing exchange rate on the date of the transaction. The effect of changes in foreign currency exchange rates on realized and unrealized security gains and losses is reflected as a component of security gains and losses.

Class Accounting Shareholder servicing, prospectus, and shareholder report expenses incurred by each class are charged directly to the class to which they relate. Expenses common to all classes and investment income are allocated to the classes based upon the relative daily net assets of each class’s settled shares; realized and unrealized gains and losses are allocated based upon the relative daily net assets of each class’s outstanding shares. The Advisor Class pays Rule 12b-1 fees, in an amount not exceeding 0.25% of the class’s average daily net assets.

Redemption Fees A 2% fee is assessed on redemptions of fund shares held for 90 days or less to deter short-term trading and to protect the interests of long-term shareholders. Redemption fees are withheld from proceeds that shareholders receive from the sale or exchange of fund shares. The fees are paid to the fund and are recorded as an increase to paid-in capital. The fees may cause the redemption price per share to differ from the net asset value per share.

New Accounting Guidance In October 2016, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a new rule, Investment Company Reporting Modernization, which, among other provisions, amends Regulation S-X to require standardized, enhanced disclosures, particularly related to derivatives, in investment company financial statements. Compliance with the guidance is effective for financial statements filed with the SEC on or after August 1, 2017; adoption will have no effect on the fund’s net assets or results of operations.

The fund’s financial instruments are valued and each class’s net asset value (NAV) per share is computed at the close of the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE), normally 4 p.m. ET, each day the NYSE is open for business. However, the NAV per share may be calculated at a time other than the normal close of the NYSE if trading on the NYSE is restricted, if the NYSE closes earlier, or as may be permitted by the SEC.

Fair Value The fund’s financial instruments are reported at fair value, which GAAP defines as the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. The T. Rowe Price Valuation Committee (the Valuation Committee) is an internal committee that has been delegated certain responsibilities by the fund’s Board of Directors (the Board) to ensure that financial instruments are appropriately priced at fair value in accordance with GAAP and the 1940 Act. Subject to oversight by the Board, the Valuation Committee develops and oversees pricing-related policies and procedures and approves all fair value determinations. Specifically, the Valuation Committee establishes procedures to value securities; determines pricing techniques, sources, and persons eligible to effect fair value pricing actions; oversees the selection, services, and performance of pricing vendors; oversees valuation-related business continuity practices; and provides guidance on internal controls and valuation-related matters. The Valuation Committee reports to the Board and has representation from legal, portfolio management and trading, operations, risk management, and the fund’s treasurer.

Various valuation techniques and inputs are used to determine the fair value of financial instruments. GAAP establishes the following fair value hierarchy that categorizes the inputs used to measure fair value:

Level 1 – quoted prices (unadjusted) in active markets for identical financial instruments that the fund can access at the reporting date

Level 2 – inputs other than Level 1 quoted prices that are observable, either directly or indirectly (including, but not limited to, quoted prices for similar financial instruments in active markets, quoted prices for identical or similar financial instruments in inactive markets, interest rates and yield curves, implied volatilities, and credit spreads)

Observable inputs are developed using market data, such as publicly available information about actual events or transactions, and reflect the assumptions that market participants would use to price the financial instrument. Unobservable inputs are those for which market data are not available and are developed using the best information available about the assumptions that market participants would use to price the financial instrument. GAAP requires valuation techniques to maximize the use of relevant observable inputs and minimize the use of unobservable inputs. When multiple inputs are used to derive fair value, the financial instrument is assigned to the level within the fair value hierarchy based on the lowest-level input that is significant to the fair value of the financial instrument. Input levels are not necessarily an indication of the risk or liquidity associated with financial instruments at that level but rather the degree of judgment used in determining those values.

Valuation Techniques Debt securities generally are traded in the over-the-counter (OTC) market. Securities with remaining maturities of one year or more at the time of acquisition are valued at prices furnished by dealers who make markets in such securities or by an independent pricing service, which considers the yield or price of bonds of comparable quality, coupon, maturity, and type, as well as prices quoted by dealers who make markets in such securities. Securities with remaining maturities of less than one year at the time of acquisition generally use amortized cost in local currency to approximate fair value. However, if amortized cost is deemed not to reflect fair value or the fund holds a significant amount of such securities with remaining maturities of more than 60 days, the securities are valued at prices furnished by dealers who make markets in such securities or by an independent pricing service. Generally, debt securities are categorized in Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy; however, to the extent the valuations include significant unobservable inputs, the securities would be categorized in Level 3.

Equity securities listed or regularly traded on a securities exchange or in the OTC market are valued at the last quoted sale price or, for certain markets, the official closing price at the time the valuations are made. OTC Bulletin Board securities are valued at the mean of the closing bid and asked prices. A security that is listed or traded on more than one exchange is valued at the quotation on the exchange determined to be the primary market for such security. Listed securities not traded on a particular day are valued at the mean of the closing bid and asked prices for domestic securities and the last quoted sale or closing price for international securities.

For valuation purposes, the last quoted prices of non-U.S. equity securities may be adjusted to reflect the fair value of such securities at the close of the NYSE. If the fund determines that developments between the close of a foreign market and the close of the NYSE will, in its judgment, materially affect the value of some or all of its portfolio securities, the fund will adjust the previous quoted prices to reflect what it believes to be the fair value of the securities as of the close of the NYSE. In deciding whether it is necessary to adjust quoted prices to reflect fair value, the fund reviews a variety of factors, including developments in foreign markets, the performance of U.S. securities markets, and the performance of instruments trading in U.S. markets that represent foreign securities and baskets of foreign securities. The fund may also fair value securities in other situations, such as when a particular foreign market is closed but the fund is open. The fund uses outside pricing services to provide it with quoted prices and information to evaluate or adjust those prices. The fund cannot predict how often it will use quoted prices and how often it will determine it necessary to adjust those prices to reflect fair value. As a means of evaluating its security valuation process, the fund routinely compares quoted prices, the next day’s opening prices in the same markets, and adjusted prices.

Actively traded equity securities listed on a domestic exchange generally are categorized in Level 1 of the fair value hierarchy. Non-U.S. equity securities generally are categorized in Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy despite the availability of quoted prices because, as described above, the fund evaluates and determines whether those quoted prices reflect fair value at the close of the NYSE or require adjustment. OTC Bulletin Board securities, certain preferred securities, and equity securities traded in inactive markets generally are categorized in Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy.

Investments in mutual funds are valued at the mutual fund’s closing NAV per share on the day of valuation and are categorized in Level 1 of the fair value hierarchy. Financial futures contracts are valued at closing settlement prices and are categorized in Level 1 of the fair value hierarchy. Forward currency exchange contracts are valued using the prevailing forward exchange rate and are categorized in Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy. Swaps are valued at prices furnished by independent swap dealers or by an independent pricing service and generally are categorized in Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy; however, if unobservable inputs are significant to the valuation, the swap would be categorized in Level 3. Assets and liabilities other than financial instruments, including short-term receivables and payables, are carried at cost, or estimated realizable value, if less, which approximates fair value.

Thinly traded financial instruments and those for which the above valuation procedures are inappropriate or are deemed not to reflect fair value are stated at fair value as determined in good faith by the Valuation Committee. The objective of any fair value pricing determination is to arrive at a price that could reasonably be expected from a current sale. Financial instruments fair valued by the Valuation Committee are primarily private placements, restricted securities, warrants, rights, and other securities that are not publicly traded.

Subject to oversight by the Board, the Valuation Committee regularly makes good faith judgments to establish and adjust the fair valuations of certain securities as events occur and circumstances warrant. For instance, in determining the fair value of troubled or thinly traded debt instruments, the Valuation Committee considers a variety of factors, which may include, but are not limited to, the issuer’s business prospects, its financial standing and performance, recent investment transactions in the issuer, strategic events affecting the company, market liquidity for the issuer, and general economic conditions and events. In consultation with the investment and pricing teams, the Valuation Committee will determine an appropriate valuation technique based on available information, which may include both observable and unobservable inputs. The Valuation Committee typically will afford greatest weight to actual prices in arm’s length transactions, to the extent they represent orderly transactions between market participants, transaction information can be reliably obtained, and prices are deemed representative of fair value. However, the Valuation Committee may also consider other valuation methods such as a discount or premium from market value of a similar, freely traded security of the same issuer; discounted cash flows; yield to maturity; or some combination. Fair value determinations are reviewed on a regular basis and updated as information becomes available, including actual purchase and sale transactions of the issue. Because any fair value determination involves a significant amount of judgment, there is a degree of subjectivity inherent in such pricing decisions, and fair value prices determined by the Valuation Committee could differ from those of other market participants. Depending on the relative significance of unobservable inputs, including the valuation technique(s) used, fair valued securities may be categorized in Level 2 or 3 of the fair value hierarchy.

Valuation Inputs The following table summarizes the fund’s financial instruments, based on the inputs used to determine their fair values on December 31, 2016:

There were no material transfers between Levels 1 and 2 during the year ended December 31, 2016.

Following is a reconciliation of the fund’s Level 3 holdings for the year ended December 31, 2016. Gain (loss) reflects both realized and change in unrealized gain/loss on Level 3 holdings during the period, if any, and is included on the accompanying Statement of Operations. The change in unrealized gain/loss on Level 3 instruments held at December 31, 2016, totaled $0 for the year ended December 31, 2016.

During the year ended December 31, 2016, the fund invested in derivative instruments. As defined by GAAP, a derivative is a financial instrument whose value is derived from an underlying security price, foreign exchange rate, interest rate, index of prices or rates, or other variable; it requires little or no initial investment and permits or requires net settlement. The fund invests in derivatives only if the expected risks and rewards are consistent with its investment objectives, policies, and overall risk profile, as described in its prospectus and Statement of Additional Information. The fund may use derivatives for a variety of purposes, such as seeking to hedge against declines in principal value, increase yield, invest in an asset with greater efficiency and at a lower cost than is possible through direct investment, or to adjust portfolio duration and credit exposure. The risks associated with the use of derivatives are different from, and potentially much greater than, the risks associated with investing directly in the instruments on which the derivatives are based. The fund at all times maintains sufficient cash reserves, liquid assets, or other SEC-permitted asset types to cover its settlement obligations under open derivative contracts.

The fund values its derivatives at fair value and recognizes changes in fair value currently in its results of operations. Accordingly, the fund does not follow hedge accounting, even for derivatives employed as economic hedges. Generally, the fund accounts for its derivatives on a gross basis. It does not offset the fair value of derivative liabilities against the fair value of derivative assets on its financial statements, nor does it offset the fair value of derivative instruments against the right to reclaim or obligation to return collateral.

The following table summarizes the fair value of the fund’s derivative instruments held as of December 31, 2016, and the related location on the accompanying Statement of Assets and Liabilities, presented by primary underlying risk exposure:

Additionally, the amount of gains and losses on derivative instruments recognized in fund earnings during the year ended December 31, 2016, and the related location on the accompanying Statement of Operations is summarized in the following table by primary underlying risk exposure:

Counterparty Risk and Collateral The fund invests in derivatives in various markets, which expose it to differing levels of counterparty risk. Counterparty risk on exchange-traded and centrally cleared derivative contracts, such as futures, exchange-traded options, and centrally cleared swaps, is minimal because the clearinghouse provides protection against counterparty defaults. For futures and centrally cleared swaps, the fund is required to deposit collateral in an amount specified by the clearinghouse and the clearing firm (margin requirement), and the margin requirement must be maintained over the life of the contract. Each clearinghouse and clearing firm, in its sole discretion, may adjust the margin requirements applicable to the fund.

Derivatives, such as bilateral swaps, forward currency exchange contracts, and OTC options, that are transacted and settle directly with a counterparty (bilateral derivatives) expose the fund to greater counterparty risk. To mitigate this risk, the fund has entered into master netting arrangements (MNAs) with certain counterparties that permit net settlement under specified conditions and, for certain counterparties, also require the exchange of collateral to cover mark-to-market exposure. MNAs may be in the form of International Swaps and Derivatives Association master agreements (ISDAs) or foreign exchange letter agreements (FX letters).

MNAs provide the ability to offset amounts the fund owes a counterparty against amounts the counterparty owes the fund (net settlement). Both ISDAs and FX letters generally allow termination of transactions and net settlement upon the occurrence of contractually specified events, such as failure to pay or bankruptcy. In addition, ISDAs specify other events, the occurrence of which would allow one of the parties to terminate. For example, a downgrade in credit rating of a counterparty would allow the fund to terminate while a decline in the fund’s net assets of more than a specified percentage would allow the counterparty to terminate. Upon termination, all transactions with that counterparty would be liquidated and a net termination amount settled. ISDAs include collateral agreements whereas FX letters do not. Collateral requirements are determined daily based on the net aggregate unrealized gain or loss on all bilateral derivatives with a counterparty, subject to minimum transfer amounts that typically range from $100,000 to $250,000. Any additional collateral required due to changes in security values is transferred the next business day.

Collateral may be in the form of cash or debt securities issued by the U.S. government or related agencies. Cash posted by the fund is reflected as cash deposits in the accompanying financial statements and generally is restricted from withdrawal by the fund; securities posted by the fund are so noted in the accompanying Portfolio of Investments; both remain in the fund’s assets. Collateral pledged by counterparties is not included in the fund’s assets because the fund does not obtain effective control over those assets. For bilateral derivatives, collateral posted or received by the fund is held in a segregated account at the fund’s custodian. As of December 31, 2016, securities valued at $13,137,000 had been posted by the fund to counterparties for bilateral derivatives. As of December 31, 2016, collateral pledged by counterparties to the fund for bilateral derivatives consisted of $1,297,000 cash and securities valued at $6,330,000. As of December 31, 2016, cash of $175,000 had been posted by the fund for exchange-traded and/or centrally cleared derivatives.

Forward Currency Exchange Contracts The fund is subject to foreign currency exchange rate risk in the normal course of pursuing its investment objectives. It uses forward currency exchange contracts (forwards) primarily to protect its non-U.S. dollar-denominated securities from adverse currency movements and to gain exposure to currencies for the purposes of risk management or enhanced return. A forward involves an obligation to purchase or sell a fixed amount of a specific currency on a future date at a price set at the time of the contract. Although certain forwards may be settled by exchanging only the net gain or loss on the contract, most forwards are settled with the exchange of the underlying currencies in accordance with the specified terms. Forwards are valued at the unrealized gain or loss on the contract, which reflects the net amount the fund either is entitled to receive or obligated to deliver, as measured by the difference between the forward exchange rates at the date of entry into the contract and the forward rates at the reporting date. Appreciated forwards are reflected as assets and depreciated forwards are reflected as liabilities on the accompanying Statement of Assets and Liabilities. Risks related to the use of forwards include the possible failure of counterparties to meet the terms of the agreements; that anticipated currency movements will not occur, thereby reducing the fund’s total return; and the potential for losses in excess of the fund’s initial investment. During the year ended December 31, 2016, the volume of the fund’s activity in forwards, based on underlying notional amounts, was generally between 7% and 10% of net assets.

Futures Contracts The fund is subject to interest rate risk in the normal course of pursuing its investment objectives and uses futures contracts to help manage such risk. The fund may enter into futures contracts to manage exposure to interest rate and yield curve movements, security prices, foreign currencies, credit quality, and mortgage prepayments; as an efficient means of adjusting exposure to all or part of a target market; to enhance income; as a cash management tool; or to adjust portfolio duration and credit exposure. A futures contract provides for the future sale by one party and purchase by another of a specified amount of a specific underlying financial instrument at an agreed-upon price, date, time, and place. The fund currently invests only in exchange-traded futures, which generally are standardized as to maturity date, underlying financial instrument, and other contract terms. Payments are made or received by the fund each day to settle daily fluctuations in the value of the contract (variation margin), which reflect changes in the value of the underlying financial instrument. Variation margin is recorded as unrealized gain or loss until the contract is closed. The value of a futures contract included in net assets is the amount of unsettled variation margin; net variation margin receivable is reflected as an asset, and net variation margin payable is reflected as a liability on the accompanying Statement of Assets and Liabilities. Risks related to the use of futures contracts include possible illiquidity of the futures markets, contract prices that can be highly volatile and imperfectly correlated to movements in hedged security values and/or interest rates, and potential losses in excess of the fund’s initial investment. During the year ended December 31, 2016, the volume of the fund’s activity in futures, based on underlying notional amounts, was generally less than 1% of net assets.

Options The fund is subject to foreign currency exchange rate risk in the normal course of pursuing its investment objectives and uses options to help manage such risk. The fund may use options to manage exposure to security prices, interest rates, foreign currencies, and credit quality; as an efficient means of adjusting exposure to all or a part of a target market; to enhance income; as a cash management tool; or to adjust credit exposure. Options are included in net assets at fair value, purchased options are included in Investments in Securities, and written options are separately reflected as a liability on the accompanying Statement of Assets and Liabilities. Premiums on unexercised, expired options are recorded as realized gains or losses; premiums on exercised options are recorded as an adjustment to the proceeds from the sale or cost of the purchase. The difference between the premium and the amount received or paid in a closing transaction is also treated as realized gain or loss. In return for a premium paid, currency options give the holder the right, but not the obligation, to buy and sell currency at a specified exchange rate. Risks related to the use of options include possible illiquidity of the options markets; trading restrictions imposed by an exchange or counterparty; movements in the underlying asset values and/or currency values; and, for written options, potential losses in excess of the fund’s initial investment. During the year ended December 31, 2016, the volume of the fund’s activity in options, based on underlying notional amounts, was generally between 0% and 2% of net assets.

Swaps The fund is subject to interest rate risk and/or credit risk in the normal course of pursuing its investment objectives and uses swap contracts to help manage such risks. The fund may use swaps in an effort to manage exposure to changes in interest rates, inflation rates, and credit quality; to adjust overall exposure to certain markets; to enhance total return or protect the value of portfolio securities; to serve as a cash management tool; or to adjust portfolio duration and credit exposure. Swap agreements can be settled either directly with the counterparty (bilateral swap) or through a central clearinghouse (centrally cleared swap). Fluctuations in the fair value of a contract are reflected in unrealized gain or loss and are reclassified to realized gain or loss upon contract termination or cash settlement. Net periodic receipts or payments required by a contract increase or decrease, respectively, the value of the contract until the contractual payment date, at which time such amounts are reclassified from unrealized to realized gain or loss. For bilateral swaps, cash payments are made or received by the fund on a periodic basis in accordance with contract terms; unrealized gain on contracts and premiums paid are reflected as assets and unrealized loss on contracts and premiums received are reflected as liabilities on the accompanying Statement of Assets and Liabilities. For bilateral swaps, premiums paid or received are amortized over the life of the swap and are recognized as realized gain or loss in the Statement of Operations. For centrally cleared swaps, payments are made or received by the fund each day to settle the daily fluctuation in the value of the contract (variation margin). Accordingly, the value of a centrally cleared swap included in net assets is the unsettled variation margin; net variation margin receivable is reflected as an asset and net variation margin payable is reflected as a liability on the accompanying Statement of Assets and Liabilities.

Interest rate swaps are agreements to exchange cash flows based on the difference between specified interest rates applied to a notional principal amount for a specified period of time. Risks related to the use of interest rate swaps include the potential for unanticipated movements in interest or currency rates, the possible failure of a counterparty to perform in accordance with the terms of the swap agreements, potential government regulation that could adversely affect the fund’s swap investments, and potential losses in excess of the fund’s initial investment.

Credit default swaps are agreements where one party (the protection buyer) agrees to make periodic payments to another party (the protection seller) in exchange for protection against specified credit events, such as certain defaults and bankruptcies related to an underlying credit instrument, or issuer or index of such instruments. Upon occurrence of a specified credit event, the protection seller is required to pay the buyer the difference between the notional amount of the swap and the value of the underlying credit, either in the form of a net cash settlement or by paying the gross notional amount and accepting delivery of the relevant underlying credit. For credit default swaps where the underlying credit is an index, a specified credit event may affect all or individual underlying securities included in the index and will be settled based upon the relative weighting of the affected underlying security(ies) within the index. Generally, the payment risk for the seller of protection is inversely related to the current market price or credit rating of the underlying credit or the market value of the contract relative to the notional amount, which are indicators of the markets’ valuation of credit quality. As of December 31, 2016, the notional amount of protection sold by the fund totaled $8,600,000 (0.1% of net assets), which reflects the maximum potential amount the fund could be required to pay under such contracts. Risks related to the use of credit default swaps include the possible inability of the fund to accurately assess the current and future creditworthiness of underlying issuers, the possible failure of a counterparty to perform in accordance with the terms of the swap agreements, potential government regulation that could adversely affect the fund’s swap investments, and potential losses in excess of the fund’s initial investment.

During the year ended December 31, 2016, the volume of the fund’s activity in swaps, based on underlying notional amounts, was generally between 0% and 2% of net assets.

Consistent with its investment objective, the fund engages in the following practices to manage exposure to certain risks and/or to enhance performance. The investment objective, policies, program, and risk factors of the fund are described more fully in the fund’s prospectus and Statement of Additional Information.

Emerging and Frontier Markets The fund may invest, either directly or through investments in T. Rowe Price institutional funds, in securities of companies located in, issued by governments of, or denominated in or linked to the currencies of emerging and frontier market countries; at period-end, approximately 66% of the fund’s net assets were invested in emerging markets and 26% in frontier markets. Emerging markets, and to a greater extent frontier markets, generally have economic structures that are less diverse and mature, and political systems that are less stable, than developed countries. These markets may be subject to greater political, economic, and social uncertainty and differing regulatory environments that may potentially impact the fund’s ability to buy or sell certain securities or repatriate proceeds to U.S. dollars. Such securities are often subject to greater price volatility, less liquidity, and higher rates of inflation than U.S. securities. Investing in frontier markets is significantly riskier than investing in other countries, including emerging markets.

In response to political and military actions undertaken by Russia, the U.S., European Union, and other jurisdictions have instituted various sanctions against Russia. These sanctions and additional sanctions, if issued, could have adverse consequences for the Russian economy, including a weakening or devaluation of the ruble, a downgrade in the country’s credit rating, and a significant decline in the value and liquidity of securities issued by Russian companies or the Russian government. Sanctions could impair a fund’s ability to invest in accordance with its investment program, to determine the overall value of its net assets, and to sell holdings as needed to meet shareholder redemptions. At December 31, 2016, approximately 7% of the fund’s net assets were invested in Russian securities; on that date, none of the fund’s investments were in securities issued by entities subject to sanctions.

Noninvestment-Grade Debt At December 31, 2016, approximately 53% of the fund’s net assets were invested, either directly or through its investment in T. Rowe Price institutional funds, in noninvestment-grade debt, including “high yield” or “junk” bonds or leveraged loans. The noninvestment-grade debt market may experience sudden and sharp price swings due to a variety of factors, including changes in economic forecasts, stock market activity, large sustained sales by major investors, a high-profile default, or a change in market sentiment. These events may decrease the ability of issuers to make principal and interest payments and adversely affect the liquidity or value, or both, of such securities. Investments in noninvestment-grade holdings may be considered speculative.

Restricted Securities The fund may invest in securities that are subject to legal or contractual restrictions on resale. Prompt sale of such securities at an acceptable price may be difficult and may involve substantial delays and additional costs.

Other Purchases and sales of portfolio securities other than short-term and U.S. government securities aggregated $4,520,784,000 and $2,999,107,000, respectively, for the year ended December 31, 2016.

No provision for federal income taxes is required since the fund intends to continue to qualify as a regulated investment company under Subchapter M of the Internal Revenue Code and distribute to shareholders all of its taxable income and gains. Distributions determined in accordance with federal income tax regulations may differ in amount or character from net investment income and realized gains for financial reporting purposes. Financial reporting records are adjusted for permanent book/tax differences to reflect tax character but are not adjusted for temporary differences.

The fund files U.S. federal, state, and local tax returns as required. The fund’s tax returns are subject to examination by the relevant tax authorities until expiration of the applicable statute of limitations, which is generally three years after the filing of the tax return but which can be extended to six years in certain circumstances. Tax returns for open years have incorporated no uncertain tax positions that require a provision for income taxes.

Reclassifications between income and gain relate primarily to the character of net currency losses. For the year ended December 31, 2016, the following reclassifications were recorded to reflect tax character (there was no impact on results of operations or net assets):

Distributions during the years ended December 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015, were characterized for tax purposes as follows:

At December 31, 2016, the tax-basis cost of investments and components of net assets were as follows:

The difference between book-basis and tax-basis net unrealized appreciation (depreciation) is attributable to the deferral of losses from wash sales and/or certain derivative contracts, the realization of gains/losses on certain open derivative contracts for tax purposes. The fund intends to retain realized gains to the extent of available capital loss carryforwards. Net realized capital losses may be carried forward indefinitely to offset future realized capital gains. Additionally, all or a portion of the fund’s capital loss carryforwards may be from losses realized between November 1 and the fund’s fiscal year-end, which are deferred for tax purposes until the subsequent year but recognized for financial reporting purposes in the year realized. During the year ended December 31, 2016, the fund utilized $29,444,000 of capital loss carryforwards.

The fund is managed by T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc. (Price Associates), a wholly owned subsidiary of T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. (Price Group). The investment management agreement between the fund and Price Associates provides for an annual investment management fee, which is computed daily and paid monthly. The fee consists of an individual fund fee, equal to 0.45% of the fund’s average daily net assets, and a group fee. The group fee rate is calculated based on the combined net assets of certain mutual funds sponsored by Price Associates (the group) applied to a graduated fee schedule, with rates ranging from 0.48% for the first $1 billion of assets to 0.270% for assets in excess of $500 billion. The fund’s group fee is determined by applying the group fee rate to the fund’s average daily net assets. At December 31, 2016, the effective annual group fee rate was 0.29%.

The Advisor Class is subject to a contractual expense limitation through April 30, 2018. During the limitation period, Price Associates is required to waive its management fee or pay any expenses (excluding interest, expenses related to borrowings, taxes, and brokerage, and other non-recurring expenses permitted by the investment management agreement) that would otherwise cause the class’s ratio of annualized total expenses to average net assets (expense ratio) to exceed its expense limitation of 1.20%. The class is required to repay Price Associates for expenses previously waived/paid to the extent the class’s net assets grow or expenses decline sufficiently to allow repayment without causing the class’s expense ratio to exceed its expense limitation in effect at the time of the waiver. However, no repayment will be made more than three years after the date of a payment or waiver.

The I Class is also subject to an operating expense limitation (I Class limit) pursuant to which Price Associates is contractually required to pay all operating expenses of the I Class, excluding management fees, interest, expenses related to borrowings, taxes, and brokerage, and other non-recurring expenses permitted by the investment management agreement, to the extent such operating expenses, on an annualized basis, exceed 0.05% of average net assets. This agreement will continue until April 30, 2018, and may be renewed, revised, or revoked only with approval of the fund’s Board. The I Class is required to repay Price Associates for expenses previously paid to the extent the class’s net assets grow or expenses decline sufficiently to allow repayment without causing the class’s operating expenses to exceed the I Class limit in effect at the time of the waiver. However, no repayment will be made more than three years after the date of a payment or waiver. For the year ended December 31, 2016, the I Class operated below its expense limitation.

Pursuant to these agreements, $1,000 of expenses were waived/paid by Price Associates during the year ended December 31, 2016. Including these amounts, expenses previously waived/paid by Price Associates in the amount of $2,000 remain subject to repayment by the fund at December 31, 2016.

In addition, the fund has entered into service agreements with Price Associates and two wholly owned subsidiaries of Price Associates (collectively, Price). Price Associates provides certain accounting and administrative services to the fund. T. Rowe Price Services, Inc., provides shareholder and administrative services in its capacity as the fund’s transfer and dividend-disbursing agent. T. Rowe Price Retirement Plan Services, Inc., provides subaccounting and recordkeeping services for certain retirement accounts invested in the Investor Class and I Class. For the year ended December 31, 2016, expenses incurred pursuant to these service agreements were $67,000 for Price Associates; $754,000 for T. Rowe Price Services, Inc.; and $41,000 for T. Rowe Price Retirement Plan Services, Inc. The total amount payable at period-end pursuant to these service agreements is reflected as Due to Affiliates in the accompanying financial statements.

Additionally, the fund is one of several mutual funds in which certain college savings plans managed by Price Associates may invest. As approved by the fund’s Board of Directors, shareholder servicing costs associated with each college savings plan are borne by the fund in proportion to the average daily value of its shares owned by the college savings plan. For the year ended December 31, 2016, the fund was charged $25,000 for shareholder servicing costs related to the college savings plans, of which $22,000 was for services provided by Price. The amount payable at period-end pursuant to this agreement is reflected as Due to Affiliates in the accompanying financial statements. At December 31, 2016, less than 1% of the outstanding shares of the Investor Class were held by college savings plans.

The fund is also one of several mutual funds sponsored by Price Associates (underlying Price funds) in which the T. Rowe Price Spectrum Funds (Spectrum Funds), T. Rowe Price Retirement Funds (Retirement Funds), and T. Rowe Price Target Funds (Target Funds) may invest. None of the Spectrum Funds, Retirement Funds, or Target Funds invest in the underlying Price funds for the purpose of exercising management or control. Pursuant to special servicing agreements, expenses associated with the operation of the Spectrum Funds and Retirement Funds are borne by each underlying Price fund to the extent of estimated savings to it and in proportion to the average daily value of its shares owned by the Spectrum Funds and Retirement Funds. Prior to February 1, 2016, the Target Funds were subject to one of the same special servicing agreements; thus expenses associated with the operation of the Target Funds prior to that date were borne by the underlying Price Funds. Effective February 1, 2016, expenses associated with the operation of the Target Funds are borne by the Target Funds. Expenses allocated under these agreements are reflected as shareholder servicing expense in the accompanying financial statements. For the year ended December 31, 2016, the fund was allocated $685,000 of Spectrum Funds’ expenses, $5,428,000 of Retirement Funds’ expenses, and $9,000 of Target Funds’ expenses. Of these amounts, $2,620,000 related to services provided by Price. At period-end, the amount payable to Price pursuant to these agreements is reflected as Due to Affiliates in the accompanying financial statements. At December 31, 2016, approximately 67% of the outstanding shares of the Investor Class were held by the Spectrum Funds, and Retirement Funds and approximately 14% of the outstanding shares of the I Class were held by the Target Funds.

In addition, other mutual funds, trusts, and other accounts managed by Price Associates or its affiliates (collectively, Price funds and accounts) may invest in the fund and are not subject to the special servicing agreements disclosed above. No Price fund or account may invest for the purpose of exercising management or control over the fund. At December 31, 2016, approximately 59% of the I Class’s outstanding shares were held by Price funds and accounts.

The fund may invest in the T. Rowe Price Government Reserve Fund, the T. Rowe Price Treasury Reserve Fund, or the T. Rowe Price Short-Term Fund (collectively, the Price Reserve Funds), open-end management investment companies managed by Price Associates and considered affiliates of the fund. The Price Reserve Funds are offered as short-term investment options to mutual funds, trusts, and other accounts managed by Price Associates or its affiliates and are not available for direct purchase by members of the public. The Price Reserve Funds pay no investment management fees.

As of December 31, 2016, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., or its wholly owned subsidiaries owned 21,459 shares of the Advisor Class, representing 18% of the Advisor Class’s net assets.

The fund may participate in securities purchase and sale transactions with other funds or accounts advised by Price Associates (cross trades), in accordance with procedures adopted by the fund’s Board and Securities and Exchange Commission rules, which require, among other things, that such purchase and sale cross trades be effected at the independent current market price of the security. During the year ended December 31, 2016, the fund had no purchases or sales cross trades with other funds or accounts advised by Price Associates.

To the Board of Directors of T. Rowe Price International Funds, Inc. and
Shareholders of T. Rowe Price Emerging Markets Bond Fund

In our opinion, the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities, including the portfolio of investments, and the related statements of operations and of changes in net assets and the financial highlights present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of T. Rowe Price Emerging Markets Bond Fund (one of the portfolios constituting T. Rowe Price International Funds, Inc., hereafter referred to as the “Fund”) as of December 31, 2016, the results of its operations, the changes in its net assets and the financial highlights for each of the periods indicated therein, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. These financial statements and financial highlights (hereafter referred to as “financial statements”) are the responsibility of the Fund’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits. We conducted our audits of these financial statements in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, and evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits, which included confirmation of securities as of December 31, 2016 by correspondence with the custodian and brokers, and confirmation of the underlying fund by correspondence with the transfer agent, provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

A description of the policies and procedures used by T. Rowe Price funds and portfolios to determine how to vote proxies relating to portfolio securities is available in each fund’s Statement of Additional Information. You may request this document by calling 1-800-225-5132 or by accessing the SEC’s website, sec.gov.

The description of our proxy voting policies and procedures is also available on our corporate website. To access it, please visit the following Web page:

Scroll down to the section near the bottom of the page that says, “Proxy Voting Policies.” Click on the Proxy Voting Policies link in the shaded box.

Each fund’s most recent annual proxy voting record is available on our website and through the SEC’s website. To access it through T. Rowe Price, visit the website location shown above, and scroll down to the section near the bottom of the page that says, “Proxy Voting Records.” Click on the Proxy Voting Records link in the shaded box.

The fund files a complete schedule of portfolio holdings with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the first and third quarters of each fiscal year on Form N-Q. The fund’s Form N-Q is available electronically on the SEC’s website (sec.gov); hard copies may be reviewed and copied at the SEC’s Public Reference Room, 100 F St. N.E., Washington, DC 20549. For more information on the Public Reference Room, call 1-800-SEC-0330.

Your fund is overseen by a Board of Directors (Board) that meets regularly to review a wide variety of matters affecting or potentially affecting the fund, including performance, investment programs, compliance matters, advisory fees and expenses, service providers, and business and regulatory affairs. The Board elects the fund’s officers, who are listed in the final table. At least 75% of the Board’s members are independent of T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc. (T. Rowe Price), and its affiliates; “inside” or “interested” directors are employees or officers of T. Rowe Price. The business address of each director and officer is 100 East Pratt Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21202. The Statement of Additional Information includes additional information about the fund directors and is available without charge by calling a T. Rowe Price representative at 1-800-638-5660.

The registrant has adopted a code of ethics, as defined in Item 2 of Form N-CSR, applicable to its principal executive officer, principal financial officer, principal accounting officer or controller, or persons performing similar functions. A copy of this code of ethics is filed as an exhibit to this Form N-CSR. No substantive amendments were approved or waivers were granted to this code of ethics during the period covered by this report.

The registrant’s Board of Directors/Trustees has determined that Mr. Bruce W. Duncan qualifies as an audit committee financial expert, as defined in Item 3 of Form N-CSR. Mr. Duncan is considered independent for purposes of Item 3 of Form N-CSR.

(a) – (d) Aggregate fees billed for the last two fiscal years for professional services rendered to, or on behalf of, the registrant by the registrant’s principal accountant were as follows:

Audit fees include amounts related to the audit of the registrant’s annual financial statements and services normally provided by the accountant in connection with statutory and regulatory filings. Audit-related fees include amounts reasonably related to the performance of the audit of the registrant’s financial statements and specifically include the issuance of a report on internal controls and, if applicable, agreed-upon procedures related to fund acquisitions. Tax fees include amounts related to services for tax compliance, tax planning, and tax advice. The nature of these services specifically includes the review of distribution calculations and the preparation of Federal, state, and excise tax returns. All other fees include the registrant’s pro-rata share of amounts for agreed-upon procedures in conjunction with service contract approvals by the registrant’s Board of Directors/Trustees.

(e)(1) The registrant’s audit committee has adopted a policy whereby audit and non-audit services performed by the registrant’s principal accountant for the registrant, its investment adviser, and any entity controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the investment adviser that provides ongoing services to the registrant require pre-approval in advance at regularly scheduled audit committee meetings. If such a service is required between regularly scheduled audit committee meetings, pre-approval may be authorized by one audit committee member with ratification at the next scheduled audit committee meeting. Waiver of pre-approval for audit or non-audit services requiring fees of a de minimis amount is not permitted.

(2) No services included in (b) – (d) above were approved pursuant to paragraph (c)(7)(i)(C) of Rule 2-01 of Regulation S-X.

(f) Less than 50 percent of the hours expended on the principal accountant’s engagement to audit the registrant’s financial statements for the most recent fiscal year were attributed to work performed by persons other than the principal accountant’s full-time, permanent employees.

(g) The aggregate fees billed for the most recent fiscal year and the preceding fiscal year by the registrant’s principal accountant for non-audit services rendered to the registrant, its investment adviser, and any entity controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the investment adviser that provides ongoing services to the registrant were $2,146,000 and $2,158,000, respectively.

(h) All non-audit services rendered in (g) above were pre-approved by the registrant’s audit committee. Accordingly, these services were considered by the registrant’s audit committee in maintaining the principal accountant’s independence.

(a) Not applicable. The complete schedule of investments is included in Item 1 of this Form N-CSR.

Item 7. Disclosure of Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures for Closed-End Management Investment Companies.

Item 9. Purchases of Equity Securities by Closed-End Management Investment Company and Affiliated Purchasers.

(a) The registrant’s principal executive officer and principal financial officer have evaluated the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures within 90 days of this filing and have concluded that the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures were effective, as of that date, in ensuring that information required to be disclosed by the registrant in this Form N-CSR was recorded, processed, summarized, and reported timely.

(b) The registrant’s principal executive officer and principal financial officer are aware of no change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s second fiscal quarter covered by this report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

(a)(1) The registrant’s code of ethics pursuant to Item 2 of Form N-CSR is attached.

(2) Separate certifications by the registrant's principal executive officer and principal financial officer, pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and required by Rule 30a-2(a) under the Investment Company Act of 1940, are attached.

(3) Written solicitation to repurchase securities issued by closed-end companies: not applicable.

(b) A certification by the registrant's principal executive officer and principal financial officer, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and required by Rule 30a-2(b) under the Investment Company Act of 1940, is attached.

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Investment Company Act of 1940, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

T. Rowe Price International Funds, Inc.

	By	/s/ Edward C. Bernard
		Edward C. Bernard
		Principal Executive Officer

Date February 16, 2017

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Investment Company Act of 1940, this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated.

	By	/s/ Edward C. Bernard
		Edward C. Bernard
		Principal Executive Officer

Date February 16, 2017


	By	/s/ Catherine D. Mathews
		Catherine D. Mathews
		Principal Financial Officer

Date February 16, 2017

Independent Directors

Name
(Year of Birth)
Year Elected*
[Number of T. Rowe Price		Principal Occupation(s) and Directorships of Public Companies and
Portfolios Overseen]		Other Investment Companies During the Past Five Years

William R. Brody, M.D., Ph.D.		President and Trustee, Salk Institute for Biological Studies (2009 to
(1944)		present); Director, BioMed Realty Trust (2013 to 2016); Chairman
2009		of the Board, Mesa Biotech, a molecular diagnostic company
[187]		(March 2016 to present); Director, Radiology Partners, an integrated
		radiology practice management company (June 2016 to present);
		Director, Novartis, Inc. (2009 to 2014); Director, IBM (2007
		to present)

Anthony W. Deering		Chairman, Exeter Capital, LLC, a private investment firm (2004 to
(1945)		present); Director, Brixmor Real Estate Investment Trust (2012 to
1991		present); Director and Advisory Board Member, Deutsche Bank
[187]		North America (2004 to present); Director, Under Armour (2008
		to present); Director, Vornado Real Estate Investment Trust (2004
		to 2012)

Bruce W. Duncan		Chief Executive Officer and Director (2009 to present), Chairman
(1951)		of the Board (January 2016 to present), and President (2009
2013		to September 2016), First Industrial Realty Trust, an owner and
[187]		operator of industrial properties; Chairman of the Board (2005 to
		May 2016) and Director (1999 to May 2016), Starwood Hotels &
		Resorts, a hotel and leisure company; Director, Boston Properties
		(May 2016 to present)

Robert J. Gerrard, Jr.		Advisory Board Member, Pipeline Crisis/Winning Strategies, a
(1952)		collaborative working to improve opportunities for young African
2012		Americans (1997 to present)
[187]

Paul F. McBride		Advisory Board Member, Vizzia Technologies (2015 to present)
(1956)
2013
[187]

Cecilia E. Rouse, Ph.D.		Dean, Woodrow Wilson School (2012 to present); Professor and
(1963)		Researcher, Princeton University (1992 to present); Director, MDRC,
2012		a nonprofit education and social policy research organization (2011
[187]		to present); Member of National Academy of Education (2010 to
		present); Research Associate of Labor Program (2011 to present)
		and Board Member (2015 to present), National Bureau of Economic
		Research (2011 to present); Chair of Committee on the Status of
		Minority Groups in the Economic Profession (2012 to present) and
		Vice President (2015 to present), American Economic Association

John G. Schreiber		Owner/President, Centaur Capital Partners, Inc., a real estate
(1946)		investment company (1991 to present); Cofounder, Partner, and
2001		Cochairman of the Investment Committee, Blackstone Real Estate
[187]		Advisors, L.P. (1992 to 2015); Director, General Growth Properties,
		Inc. (2010 to 2013); Director, Blackstone Mortgage Trust, a real
		estate finance company (2012 to 2016); Director and Chairman of
		the Board, Brixmor Property Group, Inc. (2013 to present); Director,
		Hilton Worldwide (2013 to present); Director, Hudson Pacific
		Properties (2014 to 2016)

Mark R. Tercek		President and Chief Executive Officer, The Nature Conservancy (2008
(1957)		to present)
2009
[187]

*Each independent director serves until retirement, resignation, or election of a successor.

Inside Directors

Name
(Year of Birth)
Year Elected*
[Number of T. Rowe Price		Principal Occupation(s) and Directorships of Public Companies and
Portfolios Overseen]		Other Investment Companies During the Past Five Years

Edward C. Bernard		Director and Vice President, T. Rowe Price; Vice Chairman of the
(1956)		Board, Director, and Vice President, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc.;
2006		Chairman of the Board, Director, and President, T. Rowe Price
[187]		Investment Services, Inc.; Chairman of the Board and Director,
		T. Rowe Price Retirement Plan Services, Inc., and T. Rowe Price
		Services, Inc.; Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer,
		Director, and President, T. Rowe Price International and T. Rowe
		Price Trust Company; Chairman of the Board, all funds

Brian C. Rogers, CFA, CIC		Chief Investment Officer, Director, and Vice President, T. Rowe
(1955)		Price; Chairman of the Board, Chief Investment Officer, Director, and
2006		Vice President, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc.; Vice President, T. Rowe
[131]		Price Trust Company; Director, United Technologies (January 2016
		to present)

*Each inside director serves until retirement, resignation, or election of a successor.

Officers

Name (Year of Birth)
Position Held With International Funds		Principal Occupation(s)

Jason R. Adams (1979)		Vice President T. Rowe Price and T. Rowe Price
Vice President		Group, Inc.; formerly, Research Analyst, Caxton
		Associates (to 2015)

Ulle Adamson, CFA (1979)		Vice President, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., and
Executive Vice President		T. Rowe Price International

Roy H. Adkins (1970)		Vice President, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., and
Vice President		T. Rowe Price International

Christopher D. Alderson (1962)		Company’s Representative and Vice President,
President		Price Hong Kong; Vice President, Price
		Singapore; Director and Vice President, T. Rowe
		Price International; Vice President, T. Rowe
		Price Group, Inc.

Syed H. Ali (1970)		Vice President, Price Singapore and T. Rowe
Vice President		Price Group, Inc.

Paulina Amieva (1981)		Vice President, T. Rowe Price and T. Rowe Price
Vice President		Group, Inc.

Malik S. Asif (1981)		Vice President, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., and
Vice President		T. Rowe Price International; formerly, student,
		The University of Chicago Booth School of
		Business (to 2012)

Harishankar Balkrishna (1983)		Vice President, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., and
Vice President		T. Rowe Price International

Sheena L. Barbosa (1983)		Vice President, Price Hong Kong and T. Rowe
Vice President		Price Group, Inc.

Peter J. Bates, CFA (1974)		Vice President, T. Rowe Price and T. Rowe Price
Executive Vice President		Group, Inc.

Luis M. Baylac (1982)		Vice President, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., and
Vice President		T. Rowe Price International

Oliver D.M. Bell (1969)		Vice President, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., and
Executive Vice President		T. Rowe Price International

R. Scott Berg, CFA (1972)		Vice President, T. Rowe Price and T. Rowe Price
Executive Vice President		Group, Inc.

Steven E. Boothe, CFA (1977)		Vice President, T. Rowe Price and T. Rowe Price
Vice President		Group, Inc.

Peter I. Botoucharov (1965)		Vice President, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., and
Vice President		T. Rowe Price International; formerly, Director,
		EMEA Macroeconomic Research and Strategy
		(to 2012)

Tala Boulos (1984)		Vice President, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., and
Vice President		T. Rowe Price International; formerly, Vice
		President, CEEMEA Corporate Credit Research,
		Deutsche Bank (to 2013)

Darrell N. Braman (1963)		Vice President, Price Hong Kong, Price
Vice President and Secretary		Singapore, T. Rowe Price, T. Rowe Price Group,
		Inc., T. Rowe Price International, T. Rowe Price
		Investment Services, Inc., and T. Rowe Price
		Services, Inc.

Ryan N. Burgess, CFA (1974)		Vice President, T. Rowe Price and T. Rowe Price
Vice President		Group, Inc.

Sheldon Chan (1981)		Vice President, Price Hong Kong and T. Rowe
Vice President		Price Group, Inc.

Andrew Chang (1983)		Vice President, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc.
Vice President

Tak Yiu Cheng, CFA, CPA (1974)		Vice President, Price Hong Kong and T. Rowe
Vice President		Price Group, Inc.

Carolyn Hoi Che Chu (1974)		Vice President, Price Hong Kong and T. Rowe
Vice President		Price Group, Inc.

Archibald Ciganer Albeniz, CFA (1976)		Vice President, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., and
Executive Vice President		T. Rowe Price International

Richard N. Clattenburg, CFA (1979)		Vice President, Price Singapore, T. Rowe Price,
Executive Vice President		T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., and T. Rowe Price
		International

Michael J. Conelius, CFA (1964)		Vice President, T. Rowe Price, T. Rowe Price
Executive Vice President		Group, Inc., T. Rowe Price International, and
		T. Rowe Price Trust Company

Michael F. Connelly, CFA (1977)		Vice President, T. Rowe Price and T. Rowe Price
Vice President		Group, Inc.

Andrew S. Davis (1978)		Vice President, T. Rowe Price and T. Rowe Price
Vice President		Group, Inc.

Richard de los Reyes (1975)		Vice President, T. Rowe Price, T. Rowe Price
Vice President		Group, Inc., and T. Rowe Price Trust Company

Michael Della Vedova (1969)		Vice President, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., and
Executive Vice President		T. Rowe Price International

Shawn T. Driscoll (1975)		Vice President, T. Rowe Price, T. Rowe Price
Vice President		Group, Inc., and T. Rowe Price Trust Company

Bridget A. Ebner (1970)		Vice President, T. Rowe Price and T. Rowe Price
Vice President		Group, Inc.

David J. Eiswert, CFA (1972)		Vice President, T. Rowe Price, T. Rowe Price
Executive Vice President		Group, Inc., and T. Rowe Price International

Henry M. Ellenbogen (1973)		Vice President, T. Rowe Price, T. Rowe Price
Vice President		Group, Inc., and T. Rowe Price Trust Company

Ryan W. Ferro (1985)		Vice President, T. Rowe Price; formerly, student,
Vice President		Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth (to
		2014); Director, Corporate Development,
		ModusLink Global Solutions, Inc. (to 2012)

Mark S. Finn, CFA, CPA (1963)		Vice President, T. Rowe Price, T. Rowe Price
Vice President		Group, Inc., and T. Rowe Price Trust Company

Quentin S. Fitzsimmons (1968)		Vice President, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., and
Vice President		T. Rowe Price International; formerly, Portfolio
		Manager, Royal Bank of Scotland Group (to
		2015); Executive Director, Threadneedle
		Investment, Ltd. (to 2012)

Melissa C. Gallagher (1974)		Vice President, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., and
Vice President		T. Rowe Price International

Justin T. Gerbereux, CFA (1975)		Vice President, T. Rowe Price, T. Rowe Price
Vice President		Group, Inc., and T. Rowe Price Trust Company

John R. Gilner (1961)		Chief Compliance Officer and Vice President,
Chief Compliance Officer		T. Rowe Price; Vice President, T. Rowe Price
		Group, Inc., and T. Rowe Price Investment
		Services, Inc.

Vishnu Vardhan Gopal (1979)		Vice President, Price Hong Kong and T. Rowe
Vice President		Price Group, Inc.

Joel Grant (1978)		Vice President, T. Rowe Price and T. Rowe
Vice President		Price Group, Inc.; formerly, Analyst, Fidelity
		International (to 2014)

Paul D. Greene II (1978)		Vice President, T. Rowe Price and T. Rowe Price
Vice President		Group, Inc.

Benjamin Griffiths, CFA (1977)		Vice President, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., and
Vice President		T. Rowe Price International

Amanda B. Hall, CFA (1985)		Vice President, T. Rowe Price International;
Vice President		formerly, student, Stanford Graduate School
		of Business (to 2014); Investment Analyst, Bill
		Gates Investments (to 2012)

Richard L. Hall (1979)		Vice President, T. Rowe Price and T. Rowe Price
Vice President		Group, Inc.; formerly, Financial Attaché, U.S.
		Department of Treasury, International Affairs
		Division (to 2012)

Nabil Hanano, CFA (1984)		Employee, T. Rowe Price; formerly, Senior
Vice President		Equity Research Associate, Raymond James
		(to 2012)

Steven C. Huber, CFA, FSA (1958)		Vice President, T. Rowe Price, T. Rowe Price
Vice President		Group, Inc., and T. Rowe Price International

Stefan Hubrich, Ph.D., CFA (1974)		Vice President, T. Rowe Price and T. Rowe Price
Vice President		Group, Inc.

Arif Husain, CFA (1972)		Vice President, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc.,
Executive Vice President		and T. Rowe Price International; formerly,
		Director/Head of UK and Euro Fixed Income,
		AllianceBernstein (to 2013)

Tetsuji Inoue (1971)		Vice President, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc.,
Vice President		and T. Rowe Price International; formerly,
		Equity Sales, JP Morgan Chase Securities Ltd.
		(to 2012)

Michael Jacobs (1971)		Vice President, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc.,
Vice President		and T. Rowe Price International; formerly,
		Vice President, JP Morgan Asset Management
		(to 2013)

Randal S. Jenneke (1971)		Vice President, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., and
Vice President		T. Rowe Price International

Prashant G. Jeyaganesh (1983)		Vice President, T. Rowe Price and T. Rowe Price
Vice President		Group, Inc.

Nina P. Jones, CPA (1980)		Vice President, T. Rowe Price and T. Rowe Price
Vice President		Group, Inc.

Yoichiro Kai (1973)		Vice President, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., and
Vice President		T. Rowe Price International

Jai Kapadia (1982)		Vice President, Price Hong Kong and T. Rowe
Vice President		Price Group, Inc.

Andrew J. Keirle (1974)		Vice President, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., and
Executive Vice President		T. Rowe Price International

Paul J. Krug, CPA (1964)		Vice President, T. Rowe Price, T. Rowe Price
Vice President		Group, Inc., and T. Rowe Price Trust Company

Christopher J. Kushlis, CFA (1976)		Vice President, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., and
Vice President		T. Rowe Price International

Shengrong Lau (1982)		Vice President, Price Singapore and T. Rowe
Vice President		Price Group, Inc.; formerly, student, The
		Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania
		(to 2012)

Mark J. Lawrence (1970)		Vice President, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., and
Vice President		T. Rowe Price International

Jacqueline L. Liu (1979)		Vice President, Price Hong Kong and T. Rowe
Vice President		Price Group, Inc.; formerly, Investment Analyst,
		Fidelity International Hong Kong Limited
		(to 2014)

Anh Lu (1968)		Vice President, Price Hong Kong and T. Rowe
Executive Vice President		Price Group, Inc.

Oxana Lyalina (1987)		Employee, T. Rowe Price; formerly, Senior
Vice President		Analyst, Goldman Sachs International (to 2013)

Sebastien Mallet (1974)		Vice President, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., and
Vice President		T. Rowe Price International

Ryan Martyn (1979)		Vice President, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., and
Vice President		T. Rowe Price International

Catherine D. Mathews (1963)		Vice President, T. Rowe Price, T. Rowe Price
Treasurer and Vice President		Group, Inc., and T. Rowe Price Trust Company

Jonathan H.W. Matthews, CFA (1975)		Vice President, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., and
Executive Vice President		T. Rowe Price International

Raymond A. Mills, Ph.D., CFA (1960)		Vice President, T. Rowe Price, T. Rowe Price
Executive Vice President		Group, Inc., T. Rowe Price International, and
		T. Rowe Price Trust Company

Jihong Min (1979)		Vice President, Price Singapore and T. Rowe
Vice President		Price Group, Inc.; formerly, Financial Analyst,
		Geosphere Capital Management, Singapore
		(to 2012)

Eric C. Moffett (1974)		Vice President, Price Hong Kong and T. Rowe
Executive Vice President		Price Group, Inc.

Samy B. Muaddi, CFA (1984)		Vice President, T. Rowe Price and T. Rowe Price
Executive Vice President		Group, Inc.

Tobias F. Mueller (1980)		Vice President, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., and
Vice President		T. Rowe Price International

Jared Murphy (1986)		Employee, T. Rowe Price; formerly, student,
Vice President		Stanford Graduate School of Business (to 2015);
		Associate, ShawSpring Partners (to 2013)

Joshua Nelson (1977)		Vice President, T. Rowe Price, T. Rowe Price
Executive Vice President		Group, Inc., and T. Rowe Price International

Philip A. Nestico (1976)		Vice President, T. Rowe Price and T. Rowe Price
Vice President		Group, Inc.

Michael Niedzielski (1979)		Vice President T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., and
Vice President		T. Rowe Price International; formerly, Manager
		and Analyst, Fidelity Investments, Boston and
		London offices (to 2015)

Sridhar Nishtala (1975)		Vice President, Price Singapore and T. Rowe
Vice President		Price Group, Inc.

Jason Nogueira, CFA (1974)		Vice President, T. Rowe Price and T. Rowe Price
Executive Vice President		Group, Inc.

David Oestreicher (1967)		Director, Vice President, and Secretary, T. Rowe
Vice President		Price Investment Services, Inc., T. Rowe Price
		Retirement Plan Services, Inc., T. Rowe
		Price Services, Inc., and T. Rowe Price Trust
		Company; Chief Legal Officer, Vice President,
		and Secretary, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc.; Vice
		President and Secretary, T. Rowe Price and
		T. Rowe Price International; Vice President,
		Price Hong Kong and Price Singapore

Michael D. Oh, CFA (1974)		Vice President, T. Rowe Price and T. Rowe Price
Vice President		Group, Inc.

Kenneth A. Orchard (1975)		Vice President, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., and
Executive Vice President		T. Rowe Price International

Curt J. Organt, CFA (1968)		Vice President, T. Rowe Price and T. Rowe Price
Vice President		Group, Inc.

Paul T. O’Sullivan (1973)		Vice President, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., and
Vice President		T. Rowe Price International

Oluwaseun A. Oyegunle, CFA (1984)		Vice President, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., and
Vice President		T. Rowe Price International; formerly, student,
		The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania
		(to 2013); Summer Investment Analyst, T. Rowe
		Price International (2012); Analyst, Asset &
		Resource Management Limited (to 2012)

Gonzalo Pángaro, CFA (1968)		Vice President, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., and
Executive Vice President		T. Rowe Price International

Vivek Rajeswaran (1985)		Vice President, T. Rowe Price and T. Rowe
Vice President		Price Group, Inc.; formerly, student, Columbia
		Business School (to 2012)

John W. Ratzesberger (1975)		Vice President, T. Rowe Price, T. Rowe Price
Vice President		Group, Inc., and T. Rowe Price Trust Company;
		formerly, North American Head of Listed
		Derivatives Operation, Morgan Stanley
		(to 2013)

Shannon H. Rauser (1987)		Employee, T. Rowe Price
Assistant Secretary

Melanie A. Rizzo (1982)		Employee, T. Rowe Price
Vice President

David L. Rowlett, CFA (1975)		Vice President, T. Rowe Price and T. Rowe Price
Vice President		Group, Inc.

Mariel Santiago (1981)		Vice President, T. Rowe Price; formerly, Equity
Vice President		Research Analyst, HSBC Securities, Inc.
		(to 2014)

Federico Santilli, CFA (1974)		Vice President, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., and
Executive Vice President		T. Rowe Price International

Sebastian Schrott (1977)		Vice President, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., and
Vice President		T. Rowe Price International

Deborah D. Seidel (1962)		Vice President, T. Rowe Price, T. Rowe Price
Vice President		Group, Inc., T. Rowe Price Investment Services,
		Inc., and T. Rowe Price Services, Inc.

Robert W. Sharps, CFA, CPA (1971)		Vice President, T. Rowe Price, T. Rowe Price
Vice President		Group, Inc., and T. Rowe Price Trust Company

John C.A. Sherman (1969)		Vice President, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., and
Vice President		T. Rowe Price International

Gabriel Solomon (1977)		Vice President, T. Rowe Price and T. Rowe Price
Vice President		Group, Inc.

Eunbin Song, CFA (1980)		Vice President, Price Singapore and T. Rowe
Vice President		Price Group, Inc.

Joshua K. Spencer, CFA (1973)		Vice President, T. Rowe Price and T. Rowe Price
Vice President		Group, Inc.

David Stanley (1963)		Vice President, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., and
Vice President		T. Rowe Price International

Taymour R. Tamaddon, CFA (1976)		Vice President, T. Rowe Price and T. Rowe Price
Vice President		Group, Inc.

Ju Yen Tan (1972)		Vice President, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., and
Vice President		T. Rowe Price International

Sin Dee Tan, CFA (1979)		Vice President, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., and
Vice President		T. Rowe Price International

Dean Tenerelli (1964)		Vice President, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., and
Executive Vice President		T. Rowe Price International

Siby Thomas (1979)		Vice President, T. Rowe Price and T. Rowe Price
Vice President		Group, Inc.

Justin Thomson (1968)		Vice President, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., and
Executive Vice President		T. Rowe Price International

Mitchell J.K. Todd (1974)		Vice President, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., and
Vice President		T. Rowe Price International

Mark J. Vaselkiv (1958)		Vice President, T. Rowe Price, T. Rowe Price
Executive Vice President		Group, Inc., and T. Rowe Price Trust Company

Kes Visuvalingam, CFA (1968)		Director, Responsible Officer, and Vice
Vice President		President, Price Hong Kong; Director, Chief
		Executive Officer, and Vice President, Price
		Singapore; Vice President, T. Rowe Price
		Group, Inc.

Verena E. Wachnitz, CFA (1978)		Vice President, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., and
Executive Vice President		T. Rowe Price International

David J. Wallack (1960)		Vice President, T. Rowe Price, T. Rowe Price
Vice President		Group, Inc., and T. Rowe Price Trust Company

Dai Wang (1989)		Employee, T. Rowe Price; formerly, student
Vice President		Harvard Business School (to 2014); Analyst,
		Goldman Sachs (to 2012)

Hiroshi Watanabe, CFA (1975)		Vice President, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., and
Vice President		T. Rowe Price International

Christopher S. Whitehouse (1972)		Vice President, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., and
Vice President		T. Rowe Price International

Clive M. Williams (1966)		Vice President, Price Hong Kong, Price
Vice President		Singapore, T. Rowe Price, T. Rowe Price Group,
		Inc., and T. Rowe Price International

J. Howard Woodward, CFA (1974)		Vice President, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., and
Vice President		T. Rowe Price International

Marta Yago (1977)		Vice President, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., and
Vice President		T. Rowe Price International

Benjamin T. Yeagle (1978)		Vice President, T. Rowe Price and T. Rowe Price
Vice President		Group, Inc.

Ernest C. Yeung, CFA (1979)		Director, Responsible Officer, and Vice
Executive Vice President		President, Price Hong Kong; Vice President,
		T. Rowe Price Group, Inc.

Alison Mei Ling Yip (1966)		Vice President, Price Hong Kong and T. Rowe
Vice President		Price Group, Inc.

Wenli Zheng (1979)		Vice President, Price Hong Kong and T. Rowe
Vice President		Price Group, Inc.

Unless otherwise noted, officers have been employees of T. Rowe Price or T. Rowe Price International for at least 5 years.