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: 811-05833

T. Rowe Price Institutional 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, 2015

The views and opinions in this report were current as of December 31, 2015. 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.

Emerging markets sovereign bonds denominated in U.S. dollars generated broadly positive total returns in 2015 and outperformed U.S. Treasuries and corporate bonds. Within the broad asset class, the performance of individual countries varied widely. Emerging markets currencies dropped sharply against the U.S. dollar, dragging down returns on locally denominated bonds from developing countries in dollar terms. Corporate bonds from emerging markets generated strong returns in the first half of the year before giving back some of the gains as commodity prices fell further toward the end of 2015.

As seen in the Performance Comparison table, the Institutional Emerging Markets Bond Fund returned 1.52% for the 12 months ended December 31, 2015. The fund outperformed its benchmark, the J.P. Morgan Emerging Markets Bond Index Global Diversified. The fund’s overweight allocations to Argentina, Venezuela, and Ukraine contributed to its relative performance, while exposure to Brazilian corporate debt and locally denominated Brazilian sovereign bonds detracted.

Emerging markets sovereign bonds denominated in U.S. dollars broadly generated positive total returns in 2015. The asset class outperformed U.S. Treasuries and investment-grade and high yield corporate bonds as the prices of oil and other commodities continued to fall. After dropping from well over $100 per barrel in mid-2014, Brent crude (the worldwide oil benchmark) fell by almost $20 per barrel over the year to finish at under $37. Within the broad asset class, the performance of individual countries varied widely. For example, Argentina’s dollar-denominated government bonds gained more than 25% for the year as market-friendly presidential candidate Mauricio Macri was elected in October and started to implement reforms to open the country’s capital markets and ease foreign exchange pressures. On the other hand, dollar-denominated sovereign bonds from Brazil lost more than 13% as the country struggled with a deep recession and political gridlock that is preventing the implementation of reforms that would improve its fiscal situation. Although emerging markets bonds as a whole did not experience the downward pressure that some had predicted after the Federal Reserve in December made its first interest rate hike since 2006, the move toward tightening policy negatively impacted liquidity in the asset class.

However, with the Fed poised to raise interest rates for most of the year before finally taking action in December, emerging markets currencies declined steeply against the dollar. China’s surprise devaluation of its currency, the renminbi, put even more downward pressure on the currencies of other developing countries. The Brazilian real fell almost 33% for the year, with its decline exacerbated by Brazil’s political crisis. The Mexican peso lost over 14% against the dollar as investors used the currency, which is easier to trade than the currencies of most other developing nations, as a proxy for emerging market currency risk more generally. This broad weakness in emerging markets currencies significantly reduced the returns of locally denominated emerging markets bonds in terms of U.S. dollars. According to J.P. Morgan’s local currency debt index, the locally denominated emerging markets debt sector declined nearly 15% in 2015.

On the other hand, corporate bonds issued by companies in emerging markets—which are denominated in “hard currencies” such as U.S. dollars—generated modestly positive total returns for the year, performing approximately in line with dollar-denominated government bonds from developing countries. According to J.P. Morgan data, emerging markets corporates broadly gained slightly more than 1% in the 12-month period. Noninvestment-grade corporate bonds from developing countries performed particularly well in the second quarter of 2015 as their compelling valuations attracted investors. However, they gave back most of the gains when commodity prices resumed their descent toward the end of the year.

The fund’s overweight allocation to Argentina contributed to relative performance as the country’s dollar-denominated sovereign bonds rallied sharply following Macri’s election as president in October. We expect Macri to help pave the way for a deal with the country’s hold-out creditors. Argentina defaulted on U.S. law bonds in 2014 after a dispute with creditors holding its older sovereign bonds who declined to participate in a restructuring of that debt following a default in 2002. We are positive on the country’s debt going forward as it offers attractive yields as well as the potential to benefit from ongoing improvements in the country’s governance and economic reforms—Macri has already enacted a number of measures to open Argentina’s capital account and bring in hard currency by eliminating capital controls. The latter step resulted in a devaluation of the Argentine peso by almost 30%, which we avoided by holding the country’s dollar-denominated debt.

Overweight allocations to both Venezuela and Ukraine—along with strong security selection in both countries—also boosted relative performance. Although low oil prices continue to squeeze Venezuela’s fiscal condition, which is very dependent on oil exports, the country’s sovereign debt rallied after it successfully repaid the principal due on bonds maturing in 2015. This gave investors confidence that the country could avoid defaulting on its other bonds, boosting their prices. Our defensive positions in short-maturity Venezuelan debt, which reflect our longer-term doubts but short-term confidence in the country’s ability to avoid default, experienced the strongest gains. Ukrainian bonds also generated strong returns after the country negotiated a debt restructuring with a group of creditors (including T. Rowe Price) and amid signs that the country’s economy may have bottomed out. Our outlook for Ukraine remains positive because the country’s foreign exchange reserves have increased with the support of the International Monetary Fund, and its fiscal deficit is expected to shrink to more manageable levels in 2016.

Our allocation to Brazilian corporate debt and to Brazil’s sovereign bonds denominated in local currency, neither of which are included in the benchmark, detracted from relative returns as the country experienced political, fiscal, and economic difficulties throughout the year. We hedged most of the exposure to Brazil’s currency, the real, stemming from the locally denominated debt positions, but that did not prevent price declines in the bond portion of the investment. Our holdings of bonds issued by Petrobras, Brazil’s partially state-owned oil company, also detracted from performance amid the weak Brazilian macro environment and low crude prices. In September, Standard & Poor’s downgraded Brazil’s sovereign credit rating to noninvestment-grade status, and Fitch Ratings followed suit in December. The moves resulted in Brazil’s removal from investment-grade benchmark indexes and triggered forced selling from investors who cannot hold bonds with junk ratings. Although we don’t think that an economic turnaround in Brazil will begin until the second half of 2016 at the earliest, we think that some Brazilian corporate bonds have sold off so much that their valuations are attractive. However, we reduced our exposure to locally denominated Brazilian sovereign debt. (Please refer to the fund’s portfolio of investments for a complete list of holdings and the amount each represents in the portfolio.)

The fund’s out-of-benchmark allocation to emerging markets corporate bonds increased over the course of the year. The increase in exposure to corporate debt stemmed from opportunistic purchases when the market experienced selling pressure in November and December. Our corporate bond holdings center on more liquid debt from companies in consumer-oriented industries, including real estate and technology, media, and telecommunications. We still favor BBB and BB rated bonds for their attractive risk/reward characteristics.

The fund has holdings of select locally denominated sovereign bonds where the relative value appears compelling versus debt denominated in U.S. dollars. Our allocation to locally denominated bonds dropped sharply over the course of the reporting period. Depending upon 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. Given our near-term outlook for continued strength in the U.S. dollar and volatility in the currencies of developing countries as the Fed gradually raises interest rates, our net exposure to emerging markets currencies remained extremely modest. The portfolio’s nondollar currency exposure focuses on India and Serbia, where we see opportunities for structural reforms and healthy growth.

Market liquidity is a key variable that we are closely monitoring as the Fed slowly raises interest rates because it 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 upgrading the liquidity of our portfolio holdings.

The fundamental economic and fiscal condition of many emerging markets remains sound, with stronger balance sheets and higher rates of economic growth than developed countries. In addition, middle-class incomes in many developing markets are growing, and emerging markets bonds generally have solid credit quality. Some developing countries are making noteworthy progress toward implementing economic, political, and fiscal reforms that will further boost the quality of their sovereign debt. 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. In addition, an expected slowdown in sovereign bond issuance should provide technical support by reducing the supply available in the market.

However, in the near term, the depressed level of commodity prices will pressure the fiscal condition of some developing countries that are major exporters of commodities. Some of the largest emerging markets face country-specific problems, such as China’s struggle to manage its growth slowdown and Brazil’s political turmoil, which will likely continue to present headwinds for those countries. These idiosyncratic problems, combined with the relatively low liquidity in the broad asset class, will probably keep volatility at heightened levels well into 2016.

Uncertainty about the timing and pace of additional Fed rate increases will also likely contribute to elevated volatility. However, given our expectation for a gradual pace of Fed rate hikes, any market dislocations could cause pricing anomalies that may provide attractive buying opportunities. 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 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.

Performance and Expenses
T. Rowe Price Institutional Emerging Markets Bond Fund

This chart shows the value of a hypothetical $1 million 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.

Actual Expenses
The first line of the following table (Actual) provides information about actual account values and actual expenses. 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.

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.

Portfolio of Investments^‡T. Rowe Price Institutional Emerging Markets Bond Fund
December 31, 2015

Statement of Assets and Liabilities
T. Rowe Price Institutional Emerging Markets Bond Fund
December 31, 2015
($000s, except shares and per share amounts)

Statement of Operations
T. Rowe Price Institutional Emerging Markets Bond Fund
($000s)

Statement of Changes in Net Assets
T. Rowe Price Institutional Emerging Markets Bond Fund
($000s)

Notes to Financial Statements
T. Rowe Price Institutional Emerging Markets Bond Fund
December 31, 2015

T. Rowe Price Institutional International Funds, Inc. (the corporation), is registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the 1940 Act). The Institutional Emerging Markets Bond Fund (the fund) is a nondiversified, open-end management investment company established by the corporation. The fund commenced operations on November 30, 2006. The fund seeks to provide high income and capital appreciation.

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. 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. Distributions to shareholders are recorded on the ex-dividend date. Income distributions are declared daily and paid monthly. Capital gain distributions, if any, 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.

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 May 2015, FASB issued ASU No. 2015-07, Fair Value Measurement (Topic 820), Disclosures for Investments in Certain Entities That Calculate Net Asset Value per Share (or Its Equivalent). The ASU removes the requirement to categorize within the fair value hierarchy all investments for which fair value is measured using the net asset value per share practical expedient and amends certain disclosure requirements for such investments. The ASU is effective for interim and annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2015. Adoption will have no effect on the fund’s net assets or results of operations.

The fund’s financial instruments are valued and its 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.

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) has been established 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.

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, 2015:

There were no material transfers between Levels 1 and 2 during the year ended December 31, 2015.

During the year ended December 31, 2015, 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, as described in Note 2, 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, 2015, 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, 2015, 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 equal to a certain percentage of the contract value (margin requirement), and the margin requirement must be maintained over the life of the contract. Each clearing broker, 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 provide collateral agreements. MNAs may be in the form of International Swaps and Derivatives Association master agreements (ISDAs) or foreign exchange letter agreements (FX letters).

MNAs govern 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 net settlement in the event of contract termination and permit termination by either party prior to maturity upon the occurrence of certain stated 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 certain percentage would allow the counterparty to terminate. Upon termination, all bilateral derivatives with that counterparty would be liquidated and a net amount settled. ISDAs typically include collateral agreements whereas FX letters do not. Collateral requirements are determined based on the net aggregate unrealized gain or loss on all bilateral derivatives with each 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 and currencies posted by the fund are reflected as cash deposits in the accompanying financial statements and generally are 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 by the fund’s custodian. As of December 31, 2015, securities valued at $302,000 had been posted by the fund to counterparties for bilateral derivatives. As of December 31, 2015, collateral pledged by counterparties to the fund for bilateral derivatives consisted of securities valued at $278,000. As of December 31, 2015, cash of $25,000 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, 2015, the volume of the fund’s activity in forwards, based on underlying notional amounts, was generally between 9% and 20% 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, 2015, the volume of the fund’s activity in futures, based on underlying notional amounts, was generally less than 1% of net assets.

Swaps The fund is subject to credit risk in the normal course of pursuing its investment objectives and uses swap contracts to help manage such risk. 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 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.

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, 2015, the notional amount of protection sold by the fund totaled $1,150,000 (0.4% 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, 2015, 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 58% of the fund’s net assets were invested in emerging markets and 36% 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 particular, 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 the threat of further sanctions 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. Current or future sanctions could impair the 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, 2015, approximately 5% of the fund’s net assets were invested in Russian securities; on that date, none of the fund’s investments were in securities subject to sanctions.

Noninvestment-Grade Debt Securities At December 31, 2015, approximately 59% 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.

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 $248,278,000 and $223,132,000, respectively, for the year ended December 31, 2015. Purchases and sales of U.S. government securities aggregated $303,000 and $930,000, respectively, for the year ended December 31, 2015.

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 to paid-in capital relate primarily to an over-distribution of taxable income not deemed a return of capital for tax purposes. Reclassifications between income and gain relate primarily to the character of net currency losses. For the year ended December 31, 2015, 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, 2015 and December 31, 2014, were characterized for tax purposes as follows:

At December 31, 2015, the tax-basis cost of investments and components of net assets were as follows:

Tax-basis undistributed ordinary income includes interest income on troubled debt issues that has not been recognized for financial reporting 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. In accordance with federal tax laws applicable to investment companies, specified net losses realized between November 1 and December 31 are not recognized for tax purposes until the subsequent year (late-year ordinary loss deferrals); however, such losses are recognized for financial reporting purposes in the year realized.

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 and administrative agreement between the fund and Price Associates provides for an all-inclusive annual fee equal to 0.70% of the fund’s average daily net assets. The fee is computed daily and paid monthly. The all-inclusive fee covers investment management, shareholder servicing, transfer agency, accounting, and custody services provided to the fund, as well as fund directors’ fees and expenses. Interest, taxes, brokerage commissions, and extraordinary expenses are paid directly by the fund.

Mutual funds, trusts, and other accounts managed by Price Associates or its affiliates (collectively, Price funds and accounts) may invest in the fund; however, no Price fund or account may invest for the purpose of exercising management or control over the fund. At December 31, 2015, approximately 69% of the fund’s outstanding shares were held by Price funds and accounts.

The fund may invest in the T. Rowe Price Reserve Investment Fund, the T. Rowe Price Government Reserve Investment Fund, or the T. Rowe Price Short-Term Reserve Fund (collectively, the Price Reserve Investment Funds), open-end management investment companies managed by Price Associates and considered affiliates of the fund. The Price Reserve Investment 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 Investment Funds pay no investment management fees.

To the Board of Directors of T. Rowe Price Institutional International Funds, Inc. and
Shareholders of T. Rowe Price Institutional 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 Institutional Emerging Markets Bond Fund (one of the portfolios comprising T. Rowe Price Institutional International Funds, Inc., hereafter referred to as the “Fund”) at December 31, 2015, 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 at December 31, 2015 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 website, troweprice.com. To access it, click on the words “Social Responsibility” at the top of our corporate homepage. Next, click on the words “Conducting Business Responsibly” on the left side of the page that appears. Finally, click on the words “Proxy Voting Policies” on the left side of the page that appears.

Each fund’s most recent annual proxy voting record is available on our website and through the SEC’s website. To access it through our website, follow the directions above to reach the “Conducting Business Responsibly” page. Click on the words “Proxy Voting Records” on the left side of that page, and then click on the “View Proxy Voting Records” link at the bottom of the page that appears.

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 $2,158,000 and $2,283,000, 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 Institutional International Funds, Inc.

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

Date February 17, 2016

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 17, 2016


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

Date February 17, 2016

●	Dollar-denominated emerging markets debt generated modestly positive returns in 2015, although there was considerable country-by-country disparity in performance.
●	The Institutional Emerging Markets Bond Fund returned 1.52%, outperforming the J.P. Morgan Emerging Markets Bond Index Global Diversified.
●	The fund’s overweight allocations to Argentina, Venezuela, and Ukraine contributed to relative performance, while out-of-benchmark allocations to Brazilian corporate bonds and locally denominated sovereign debt detracted.
●	The fundamental economic and fiscal condition of many emerging markets remains sound, with strong balance sheets and higher rates of economic growth than developed countries. However, continued weakness in commodities has pressured certain countries and underpinned the need for continued macro reform.

Independent Directors

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

William R. Brody, M.D., Ph.D. (1944) 2009 [181]		President and Trustee, Salk Institute for Biological Studies (2009 to present); Director, BioMed Realty Trust (2013 to present); Director, Novartis, Inc. (2009 to 2014); Director, IBM (2007 to present)

Anthony W. Deering (1945) 1991 [181]		Chairman, Exeter Capital, LLC, a private investment firm (2004 to present); Director, Brixmor Real Estate Investment Trust (2012 to present); Director and Advisory Board Member, Deutsche Bank North America (2004 to present); Director, Under Armour (2008 to present); Director, Vornado Real Estate Investment Trust (2004 to 2012)

Bruce W. Duncan (1951) 2013 [181]		President, Chief Executive Officer, and Director, First Industrial Realty Trust, an owner and operator of industrial properties (2009 to present); Chairman of the Board (2005 to present) and Director (1999 to present), Starwood Hotels & Resorts, a hotel and leisure company

Robert J. Gerrard, Jr. (1952) 2012 [181]		Chairman of Compensation Committee and Director, Syniverse Holdings, Inc., a provider of wireless voice and data services for telecommunications companies (2008 to 2011); Advisory Board Member, Pipeline Crisis/Winning Strategies, a collaborative working to improve opportunities for young African Americans (1997 to present)

Paul F. McBride (1956) 2013 [181]		Former Company Officer and Senior Vice President, Human Resources and Corporate Initiatives, Black & Decker Corporation (2004 to 2010)

Cecilia E. Rouse, Ph.D. (1963) 2012 [181]		Dean, Woodrow Wilson School (2012 to present); Professor and Researcher, Princeton University (1992 to present); Director, MDRC, a nonprofit education and social policy research organization (2011 to present); Member, National Academy of Education (2010 to present); Research Associate, National Bureau of Economic Research’s Labor Studies Program (2011 to present); Member, President’s Council of Economic Advisers (2009 to 2011); Chair of Committee on the Status of Minority Groups in the Economic Profession, American Economic Association (2012 to present)

John G. Schreiber (1946) 2001 [181]		Owner/President, Centaur Capital Partners, Inc., a real estate investment company (1991 to present); Cofounder and Partner, Blackstone Real Estate Advisors, L.P. (1992 to present); Director, General Growth Properties, Inc. (2010 to 2013); Director, Blackstone Mortgage Trust, a real estate financial company (2012 to present); 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 present)

Mark R. Tercek (1957) 2009 [181]		President and Chief Executive Officer, The Nature Conservancy (2008 to present)

*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 Portfolios Overseen]		Principal Occupation(s) and Directorships of Public Companies and Other Investment Companies During the Past Five Years

Edward C. Bernard (1956) 2006 [181]		Director and Vice President, T. Rowe Price; Vice Chairman of the Board, Director, and Vice President, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc.; Chairman of the Board, Director, and President, T. Rowe Price 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, and Director, T. Rowe Price International; Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer, Director, and President, T. Rowe Price Trust Company; Chairman of the Board, all funds

Brian C. Rogers, CFA, CIC (1955) 2006 [127]		Chief Investment Officer, Director, and Vice President, T. Rowe Price; Chairman of the Board, Chief Investment Officer, Director, and Vice President, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc.; Vice President, T. Rowe Price Trust Company

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

Officers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oliver D.M. Bell, IMC (1969) Executive Vice President		Vice President, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., and T. Rowe Price International; formerly, Head of Global Emerging Markets Research, Pictet Asset Management Ltd. (to 2011)

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

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

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

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

Darrell N. Braman (1963) Vice President		Vice President, Price Hong Kong, Price 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Laurent Delgrande (1971) Vice President		Vice President, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., and T. Rowe Price International; formerly, Portfolio Manager, Fidelity International Limited (to 2014)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dominic Janssens (1965) Vice President		Vice President, T. Rowe Price, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., and T. Rowe Price Trust Company

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

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

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

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

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

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

David M. Lee, CFA (1962) Vice President		Vice President, T. Rowe Price, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., and T. Rowe Price Trust Company

Patricia B. Lippert (1953) Secretary		Assistant Vice President, T. Rowe Price and T. Rowe Price Investment Services, Inc.

Christopher C. Loop, CFA (1966) Vice President		Vice President, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., and T. Rowe Price International

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

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

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

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

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

Sudhir Nanda, Ph.D., CFA (1959) Vice President		Vice President, T. Rowe Price and T. Rowe Price Group, Inc.

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

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

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

David Oestreicher (1967) Vice President		Director, Vice President, and Secretary, T. Rowe 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		Vice President, T. Rowe Price and T. Rowe Price Group, Inc.

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

Oluwaseun A. Oyegunle, CFA (1984) Vice President		Vice President, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., and 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); Analyst, Vetiva Capital Management Limited (to 2011)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Robert W. Smith (1961) Vice President		Vice President, T. Rowe Price, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., and T. Rowe Price Trust Company

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eric L. Veiel, CFA (1972) Vice President		Vice President, T. Rowe Price, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., and T. Rowe Price Trust Company

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

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

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

Ernest C. Yeung, CFA (1979) Vice President		Vice President, Price Hong Kong and T. Rowe Price Group, Inc.

Jeffrey T. Zoller (1970) Vice President		Vice President, T. Rowe Price, T. Rowe Price International, and T. Rowe Price Trust Company

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