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: June 30, 2017

The views and opinions in this report were current as of June 30, 2017. 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 solid returns in the first six months of 2017, building on their strong 2016 performance despite some weakness in commodity prices. Fears about the Trump administration instituting protectionist trade policies that would punish some export-dependent emerging markets abated. Locally denominated emerging markets bonds easily outperformed their dollar-denominated cousins in U.S. dollar terms, while 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 Institutional Emerging Markets Bond Fund returned 6.20% for the six months ended June 30, 2017. The fund slightly outperformed its benchmark, the J.P. Morgan Emerging Markets Bond Index Global Diversified.

Emerging markets sovereign bonds denominated in U.S. dollars generated solid returns in the first six months of 2017, building on their strong 2016 performance. The rally in the asset class continued despite some weakness in commodity prices. The price of a barrel of Brent crude oil, the worldwide benchmark, fell below $45 in June after starting 2017 at nearly $55. While emerging markets are divided about evenly between net oil exporters that benefit from higher prices and net oil importers that benefit from lower prices, the commodities markets tend to drive broad investor sentiment toward riskier asset classes such as emerging markets debt.

Economic growth in China, which is another factor that influences sentiment toward “risk assets,” appeared to hold up well. China’s gross domestic product (GDP) expanded at a 6.9% rate in the first quarter of 2017 from the year-earlier quarter after growing 6.7% for the full-year 2016, within the target range of 6.5% to 7.0%. Brazil’s economy expanded in the first quarter of 2017 as the country’s central bank cut interest rates to help lift its economy out of recession. Brazil’s dollar-denominated sovereign debt returned over 7% as President Michel Temer made meaningful progress toward implementing fiscal reforms that would improve the country’s credit profile. However, corruption allegations against Temer increased uncertainty around the outlook for key fiscal reforms. Fears about the Trump administration instituting protectionist trade policies that would punish export-dependent emerging markets such as Mexico abated, leading to returns over 8% for Mexican government debt denominated in U.S. dollars.

Many emerging markets currencies gained against the U.S. dollar even as the Federal Reserve slowly raised U.S. interest rates, helping locally denominated emerging markets bonds easily outperform their dollar-denominated cousins in U.S. dollar terms. The Mexican peso rallied to its highest level since the U.S. presidential election, gaining almost 14% against the dollar in the six-month period and boosting Mexico’s local sovereign debt to a 22% return. The peso is one of the most liquid emerging markets currencies and tends to trade as a proxy for risk in the segment. The Russian ruble climbed nearly 3% versus the greenback. The Russian currency’s strength, combined with interest rate cuts from Russia’s central bank, led to returns over 9% for ruble-denominated government bonds. The Brazilian real was one of the few major currencies to fall against the U.S. dollar in the first half of 2017, declining almost 2% as the Central Bank of Brazil eased monetary policy.

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 5% for the reporting period, according to J.P. Morgan data. Noninvestment-grade corporate bonds from developing countries performed particularly well as their compelling yields attracted investors. Healthy demand for the asset class helped offset a record pace of new issuance of emerging markets corporate debt. Bonds with high yield credit ratings made up an increasing proportion of the new supply as noninvestment-grade issuers took advantage of the strong technical conditions to bring new debt to market. Companies used the bulk of the proceeds from selling new bonds to refinance existing debt rather than adding to their total indebtedness.

Security selection in Argentina was the most significant positive factor in the fund’s relative performance as a result of the portfolio’s emphasis on Argentine corporate debt instead of the country’s sovereign bonds. Argentina has benefited from enacting economic and regulatory reforms, which have led to positive GDP growth and lower inflation. We expect the country’s economic growth to accelerate further as it boosts investment in its energy sector and continues to increase the efficiency of its agricultural industry. Our positions in Argentine corporate bonds from issuers that benefit from growing domestic demand, as well as those in the energy and financials sectors, were among the best performers.

The fund’s overweight allocation to Brazil and security selection in the country also contributed to relative returns. An allocation to bonds from Petrobras, Brazil’s partially state-owned oil company, also helped relative performance. Petrobras continued to benefit from new sources of financing, non-core asset sales, and expectations for lower levels of government intervention in Brazil’s domestic oil industry. Our Brazilian corporate bonds in the financials, industrials, and consumer-related sectors also performed well. We reduced the portfolio’s overall allocation to Brazil over the course of the reporting period by nearly two percentage points as valuations moved higher, but we remained overweight at the end of June. (Please refer to the fund’s portfolio of investments for a complete list of holdings and the amount each represents in the portfolio.)

In terms of broad country allocation, the fund was underweight sovereign bonds from longer-duration, more efficiently priced countries, including the Philippines, Poland, and Lithuania. We think that these countries offer limited relative value and, in the cases of Poland and Lithuania, are more exposed to European Union growth risks. Because investor appetite for risk and yield was strong, this positioning benefited relative performance as these countries underperformed government debt from countries that the market generally views as higher risk. We also added exposure to Egypt and Lebanon, moving from an underweight to both countries to overweights. We think that the political environment and outlook for meaningful reforms is improving in Egypt and Lebanon. Also, their bonds are often less correlated with the debt of other developing markets, providing useful diversification.

On the negative side, the fund’s underweight to strong-performing Uruguay detracted from relative returns. Uruguay’s bonds advanced after it reported higher-than-expected growth. Investors also favored the country’s debt because they expect it to benefit from improving economies in Brazil and Argentina, which are Uruguay’s largest trading partners. In addition, Uruguay debt has a relatively long duration, so it benefited more than most emerging markets from the decrease in longer-term U.S. Treasury yields in the first half of 2017. The fund’s underweight to Uruguay stemmed from our opinion that the country’s bonds are low yielding even given its investment-grade credit ratings.

The fund also has a small position in municipal bonds from Puerto Rico, which are not included in the benchmark. This exposure weighed modestly on relative returns after Puerto Rico’s federal oversight board approved the Puerto Rican governor’s long-term fiscal recovery plan, which left less money to cover debt service than market participants had expected. Puerto Rico’s bankruptcy process and restructuring negotiations with bondholders are ongoing, and we anticipate that the debt will ultimately recover, to some degree, from its distressed prices.

We modestly reduced the portfolio’s allocation to emerging markets corporate debt over the course of the reporting period, positioning the fund somewhat more defensively. While we maintained a positive outlook for emerging markets corporate debt in general, we found more attractive opportunities in sovereign bonds as corporate credit spreads continued to tighten. Emerging markets corporate bonds are also generally less liquid than government debt. 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 similar links to underlying growth trends.

The fund holds select locally denominated sovereign bonds where the relative value appears compelling versus debt denominated in U.S. dollars. We maintained the portfolio’s allocation to locally denominated bonds at around 8% in the first half of this year. Benign inflation, attractive inflation-adjusted local yields, and expectations for supportive central bank policies made select local markets, such as Brazil, attractive. 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. 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. The fund maintains material holdings of currency forward contracts, a form of derivative, as a hedging tool. The fund’s exposure to currency derivatives detracted slightly from absolute performance during the six-month period as the dollar generally underperformed the foreign 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 long-term drivers of emerging markets debt are solid. The fundamentals of many emerging markets sovereign and corporate issuers have 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. We expect the economic growth advantage of emerging countries over developed markets to widen, with Russia and Brazil pulling out of recessions in 2017. Growing reform momentum in countries such as Egypt and Argentina should further boost expansion in developing countries. In addition, emerging markets debt also offers materially better yield than sovereign bonds from developed markets, many of which are mired in political uncertainty. While political turmoil in developed markets could create periods of volatility and weak sentiment toward riskier asset classes such as emerging markets debt, 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 remains 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, there is a strong political imperative to deliver stability ahead of the National Congress of the Communist Party of China this fall. Geopolitical risks centered on the Korean Peninsula and the Middle East have become increasingly acute. Markets have generally been surprisingly unfazed by these factors, but that could quickly change if investors were to adopt a more conservative risk posture. Possibly the most meaningful risk on the horizon is the potential for central banks in developed markets to tighten monetary policy more aggressively than markets expect. Policy adjustments from the Fed, the European Central Bank, or the Bank of Japan could trigger an increase in yields on developed markets sovereign bonds, which 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 of the fund and chairman of its 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.

Credit spreads: The additional yield that investors demand to hold a bond with credit risk compared with a Treasury security with a comparable maturity date.

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.

Gross domestic product (GDP): The total market value of all goods and services produced in a country in a given year.

J.P. Morgan Emerging Markets Bond Index Global Diversified: 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.

SEC yield (30-day): A method of calculating a fund’s yield that assumes all portfolio securities are held until maturity. Yield will vary and is not guaranteed.

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.

Financial Highlights
T. Rowe Price Institutional Emerging Markets Bond Fund
(Unaudited)

Portfolio of Investments^‡T. Rowe Price Institutional Emerging Markets Bond Fund
June 30, 2017 (Unaudited)

Statement of Assets and Liabilities
T. Rowe Price Institutional Emerging Markets Bond Fund
June 30, 2017 (Unaudited)
($000s, except shares and per share amounts)

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

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

Notes to Financial Statements
T. Rowe Price Institutional Emerging Markets Bond Fund
June 30, 2017 (Unaudited)

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 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. 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 daily and paid monthly. Distributions to shareholders are recorded on the ex-dividend date. A capital gain distribution may also be 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 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 related to periods ending 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 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. 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 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. Listed options, and OTC options with a listed equivalent, are valued at the mean of the closing bid and asked prices and generally are categorized in Level 2 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 an independent pricing service or independent swap dealers 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 June 30, 2017:

There were no material transfers between Levels 1 and 2 during the six months ended June 30, 2017.

Following is a reconciliation of the fund’s Level 3 holdings for the six months ended June 30, 2017. 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 June 30, 2017, totaled $0 for the six months ended June 30, 2017.

During the six months ended June 30, 2017, 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 June 30, 2017, 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 six months ended June 30, 2017, 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 typically transferred the same 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 June 30, 2017, cash of $551,000 had been posted by the fund to counterparties for bilateral derivatives. As of June 30, 2017, no collateral was pledged by counterparties to the fund for bilateral derivatives. As of June 30, 2017, cash of $172,000 and securities valued at $109,000 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 six months ended June 30, 2017, the volume of the fund’s activity in forwards, based on underlying notional amounts, was generally between 9% and 11% 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 six months ended June 30, 2017, the volume of the fund’s activity in futures, based on underlying notional amounts, was generally between 0% and 3% of net assets.

Options The fund is subject to foreign currency exchange rate risk and credit risk in the normal course of pursuing its investment objectives and uses options to help manage such risks. 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.

In return for a premium paid, options on swaps give the holder the right, but not the obligation, to enter a specified swap contract on predefined terms. The exercise price of an option on a credit default swap is stated in terms of a specified spread that represents the cost of credit protection on the reference asset, including both the upfront premium to open the position and future periodic payments. The exercise price of an interest rate swap is stated in terms of a fixed interest rate; generally, there is no upfront payment to open the position. 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 currency values and credit ratings; and, for written options, potential losses in excess of the fund’s initial investment. During the six months ended June 30, 2017, the volume of the fund’s activity in options, based on underlying notional amounts, was generally between 0% and 7% of net assets. Transactions in written options and related premiums received during the six months ended June 30, 2017, were as follows:

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 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.

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. Risks related to the use of credit default swaps include the possible inability of the fund to accurately assess the current and future credit-worthiness 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 six months ended June 30, 2017, the volume of the fund’s activity in swaps, based on underlying notional amounts, was generally between 1% and 3% 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 56% 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.

Noninvestment-Grade Debt At June 30, 2017, approximately 66% 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 securities aggregated $139,128,000 and $104,407,000, respectively, for the six months ended June 30, 2017.

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 amount and character of tax-basis distributions and composition of net assets are finalized at fiscal year-end; accordingly, tax-basis balances have not been determined as of the date of this report.

At June 30, 2017, the cost of investments for federal income tax purposes was $341,566,000. Net unrealized gain aggregated $4,297,000 at period-end, of which $10,963,000 related to appreciated investments and $6,666,000 related to depreciated investments.

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 other non-recurring expenses permitted by the investment management agreement 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. No Price fund or account may invest for the purpose of exercising management or control over the fund. At June 30, 2017, approximately 67% of the fund’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.

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 six months ended June 30, 2017, the fund had no purchases or sales cross trades with other funds or accounts advised by Price Associates.

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.

Each year, the fund’s Board of Directors (Board) considers the continuation of the investment management agreement (Advisory Contract) between the fund and its investment advisor, T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc. (Advisor). In that regard, at an in-person meeting held on March 6–7, 2017 (Meeting), the Board, including a majority of the fund’s independent directors, approved the continuation of the fund’s Advisory Contract. At the Meeting, the Board considered the factors and reached the conclusions described below relating to the selection of the Advisor and the approval of the Advisory Contract. The independent directors were assisted in their evaluation of the Advisory Contract by independent legal counsel from whom they received separate legal advice and with whom they met separately.

In providing information to the Board, the Advisor was guided by a detailed set of requests for information submitted by independent legal counsel on behalf of the independent directors. In considering and approving the Advisory Contract, the Board considered the information it believed was relevant, including, but not limited to, the information discussed below. The Board considered not only the specific information presented in connection with the Meeting but also the knowledge gained over time through interaction with the Advisor about various topics. The Board meets regularly and, at each of its meetings, covers an extensive agenda of topics and materials and considers factors that are relevant to its annual consideration of the renewal of the T. Rowe Price funds’ advisory contracts, including performance and the services and support provided to the funds and their shareholders.

Services Provided by the Advisor
The Board considered the nature, quality, and extent of the services provided to the fund by the Advisor. These services included, but were not limited to, directing the fund’s investments in accordance with its investment program and the overall management of the fund’s portfolio, as well as a variety of related activities such as financial, investment operations, and administrative services; compliance; maintaining the fund’s records and registrations; and shareholder communications. The Board also reviewed the background and experience of the Advisor’s senior management team and investment personnel involved in the management of the fund, as well as the Advisor’s compliance record. The Board concluded that it was satisfied with the nature, quality, and extent of the services provided by the Advisor.

Investment Performance of the Fund
The Board took into account discussions with the Advisor and reports that it receives throughout the year relating to fund performance. In connection with the Meeting, the Board reviewed the fund’s net annualized total returns for the one-, two-, three-, four-, and five-year periods as of September 30, 2016, and compared these returns with the performance of a peer group of funds with similar investment programs and a wide variety of other previously agreed-upon comparable performance measures and market data, including those supplied by Broadridge, which is an independent provider of mutual fund data.

On the basis of this evaluation and the Board’s ongoing review of investment results, and factoring in the relative market conditions during certain of the performance periods, the Board concluded that the fund’s performance was satisfactory.

Costs, Benefits, Profits, and Economies of Scale
The Board reviewed detailed information regarding the revenues received by the Advisor under the Advisory Contract and other benefits that the Advisor (and its affiliates) may have realized from its relationship with the fund, including any research received under “soft dollar” agreements and commission-sharing arrangements with broker-dealers. The Board considered that the Advisor may receive some benefit from soft-dollar arrangements pursuant to which research is received from broker-dealers that execute the fund’s portfolio transactions. The Board received information on the estimated costs incurred and profits realized by the Advisor from managing the T. Rowe Price funds. The Board also reviewed estimates of the profits realized from managing the fund in particular, and the Board concluded that the Advisor’s profits were reasonable in light of the services provided to the fund.

The Board also considered whether the fund benefits under the fee levels set forth in the Advisory Contract from any economies of scale realized by the Advisor. Under the Advisory Contract, the fund pays the Advisor a single fee, or all-inclusive management fee, which is based on the fund’s average daily net assets. The all-inclusive management fee includes investment management services and provides for the Advisor to pay all of the fund’s ordinary, recurring operating expenses except for interest, taxes, portfolio transaction fees, and any nonrecurring extraordinary expenses that may arise. The Board concluded that, based on the profitability data it reviewed and consistent with this all-inclusive management fee structure, the Advisory Contract provided for a reasonable sharing of any benefits from economies of scale with the fund.

Fees and Expenses
The Board was provided with information regarding industry trends in management fees and expenses. Among other things, the Board reviewed data for peer groups that were compiled by Broadridge, which compared: (i) contractual management fees, total expenses, actual management fees, and non-management expenses of the fund with a group of competitor funds selected by Broadridge (Expense Group) and (ii) total expenses, actual management fees, and non-management expenses of the fund with a broader set of funds within the Lipper investment classification (Expense Universe). The Board considered the fund’s contractual management fee rate, actual management fee rate (which reflects the management fees actually received from the fund by the Advisor after paying the fund’s operating expenses, as well as any applicable waivers, reductions, or reimbursements), operating expenses, and total expenses (which reflect the net total expense ratio of the fund after any waivers, reductions, or reimbursements) in comparison with the information for the Broadridge peer groups. Broadridge generally constructed the peer groups by seeking the most comparable funds based on similar investment classifications and objectives, expense structure, asset size, and operating components and attributes and ranked funds into quintiles, with the first quintile representing the funds with the lowest relative expenses and the fifth quintile representing the funds with the highest relative expenses. The information provided to the Board indicated that the fund’s contractual management fee ranked in the second quintile (Expense Group), the fund’s actual management fee rate ranked in the third quintile (Expense Group) and fourth quintile (Expense Universe), and the fund’s total expenses ranked in the second quintile (Expense Group) and first quintile (Expense Universe).

The Board also reviewed the fee schedules for institutional accounts and private accounts with similar mandates that are advised or subadvised by the Advisor and its affiliates. Management provided the Board with information about the Advisor’s responsibilities and services provided to subadvisory and other institutional account clients, including information about how the requirements and economics of the institutional business are fundamentally different from those of the mutual fund business. The Board considered information showing that the Advisor’s mutual fund business is generally more complex from a business and compliance perspective than its institutional account business and considered various relevant factors, such as the broader scope of operations and oversight, more extensive shareholder communication infrastructure, greater asset flows, heightened business risks, and differences in applicable laws and regulations associated with the Advisor’s proprietary mutual fund business. In assessing the reasonableness of the fund’s management fee rate, the Board considered the differences in the nature of the services required for the Advisor to manage its mutual fund business versus managing a discrete pool of assets as a subadvisor to another institution’s mutual fund or for an institutional account and that the Advisor generally performs significant additional services and assumes greater risk in managing the fund and other T. Rowe Price funds than it does for institutional account clients.

On the basis of the information provided and the factors considered, the Board concluded that the fees paid by the fund under the Advisory Contract are reasonable.

Approval of the Advisory Contract
As noted, the Board approved the continuation of the Advisory Contract. No single factor was considered in isolation or to be determinative to the decision. Rather, the Board concluded, in light of a weighting and balancing of all factors considered, that it was in the best interests of the fund and its shareholders for the Board to approve the continuation of the Advisory Contract (including the fees to be charged for services thereunder).

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 is filed as an exhibit to the registrant’s annual Form N-CSR. No substantive amendments were approved or waivers were granted to this code of ethics during the registrant’s most recent fiscal half-year.

(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 filed with the registrant’s annual Form N-CSR.

(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.

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	August 21, 2017


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

Date	August 21, 2017

●	Emerging markets bonds generated solid returns in the first six months of 2017, building on their strong 2016 performance despite some weakness in commodity prices.

●	The Institutional Emerging Markets Bond Fund returned 6.20%, slightly outperforming the J.P. Morgan Emerging Markets Bond Index Global Diversified.

●	Security selection in Argentina and Brazil benefited relative performance, while an underweight to Uruguay and a position in Puerto Rico weighed on returns.

●	While technical pressures could be triggered by faster-than-expected central bank tightening in developed markets or increased commodity price volatility, the long-term fundamental drivers for emerging markets debt remain supportive, with significant political reforms in key markets, tighter fiscal budgets, healthier current account balances, and strengthening growth prospects.

/s/ Edward C. Bernard

Edward C. Bernard

Principal Executive Officer

August 21, 2017