T. Rowe Price Institutional Income Funds N-CSR Certified annual shareholder report (management investment company)

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: 811-21055

T. Rowe Price Institutional Income 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: May 31
 
 
Date of reporting period: May 31, 2015

Item 1. Report to Shareholders

Institutional Global Multi-Sector
Bond Fund May 31, 2015

Highlights

● We continue in uncharted territory with quantitative easing alive and well in the eurozone and Japan, the Federal Reserve and the Bank of England potentially nearing the beginning of policy tightening, and emerging markets at disparate stages of the policy cycle.

● Yields on high-quality global government bonds decreased from already low levels as the European Central Bank implemented a sovereign debt purchase program, but yields reversed course toward the end of the reporting period as deflationary fears waned. The U.S. dollar strengthened markedly against most currencies, largely reflecting the expectation that the U.S. would tighten policy ahead of other developed economies.

● The Institutional Global Multi-Sector Bond Fund delivered a positive return, though it underperformed its market benchmark over the 12-month period.

● With Fed tightening on the horizon, we have reduced investment-grade credit risk and increased our allocation to developed market government bonds and reserves to increase liquidity. We continue to hold meaningful allocations to high yield bonds, leveraged loans, and emerging market local bonds for income and appreciation potential.

The views and opinions in this report were current as of May 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.

Manager’s Letter
T. Rowe Price Institutional Global Multi-Sector Bond Fund

Dear Investor

In the past 12 months, the U.S. economy continued to recover faster than most other developed countries and regions, including the eurozone and Japan. The Federal Reserve is poised to raise interest rates even as the European Central Bank (ECB) and the Bank of Japan (BoJ) implement and maintain quantitative easing (QE) programs. Rates in many developed markets moved lower over the course of the 12-month reporting period, with the yield on the 10-year German government note reaching a record low 0.05% in April 2015 before increasing to 0.49% on May 31. Short-maturity German debt reached negative yields before having a similar reversal. The U.S. dollar strengthened markedly against most other currencies across developing and emerging markets in the second half of 2014 and the beginning of 2015 before pausing near the end of the reporting period. The Institutional Global Multi-Sector Bond Fund’s allocation to emerging market currencies accounted for much of the underperformance relative to the benchmark.

Performance Comparison

The Institutional Global Multi-Sector Bond Fund returned 1.52% for the 12 months ended May 31, 2015, underperforming the Barclays Global Aggregate ex Treasury Bond USD Hedged Index, which returned 3.85%.

The fund is a highly diversified fixed income portfolio that invests in a broad range of securities: domestic and foreign, developed and emerging markets, higher-risk and higher-quality, government-issued and corporate bonds. The fund represents a more aggressive diversified bond portfolio than many other T. Rowe Price offerings due to its substantial allocation flexibility across higher-risk sectors and foreign bonds and our willingness to deviate significantly from the benchmark when we perceive attractive opportunities. However, the portfolio is designed to typically be less volatile than bond funds concentrated in a single higher-risk sector, such as high yield.

Market Environment

The latest available estimates compiled by the World Bank indicate that global real gross domestic product (GDP) expanded at a 2.6% rate in 2014, with U.S. growth coming in at 2.4% for the year. The eurozone expanded at a slower rate, while Japanese economic growth was flat. Much of the global growth came from emerging countries, which expanded at a much faster 4.6% rate. The U.S. unemployment rate fell to 5.5% in May 2015 from 6.3% in May 2014.

Although the Fed ended its purchases of Treasuries and mortgage-backed securities (MBS) in October 2014, the central bank continued to reinvest interest and principal payments from its holdings. In March, the central bank removed the word “patient” from its policy meeting statement regarding the timing of its first interest rate increase, paving the way for it to eventually raise rates. This could happen as early as this fall, though the timing remains uncertain. It is expected that this cycle of rate hikes will be much more gradual and data dependent than historical tightening cycles, when the Fed tended to raise the target federal funds rate in consistent increments and at regular intervals. Because the central bank has held the federal funds rate near zero for so long, the impending Fed action could be characterized as a “normalization” of monetary policy rather than a traditional cycle of rate hikes.

In contrast to the Fed, the ECB and the BoJ are maintaining stimulative policies. In an effort to increase bank lending to jump-start the economy, in 2014, the ECB reduced its benchmark lending rates and began to effectively charge banks to keep reserves at the central bank by making its deposit rate negative. In January 2015, the central bank announced that it would launch a large-scale QE program involving purchases of eurozone sovereign debt. The ECB began buying €60 billion of bonds per month beginning in March and said it would extend the purchases through at least September 2016. The sovereign QE program supported a tentative recovery in the eurozone, as the region’s unemployment rate fell to 11.1% in April 2015 from 11.7% a year earlier. Plummeting oil prices have also helped the eurozone recovery by increasing consumers’ purchasing power and reducing costs for oil-intensive manufacturers, though the flip side is downward pressure on inflation when policy is striving to reduce deflationary fears.

Despite the BoJ’s ongoing aggressive QE program and targeted fiscal reforms, the Japanese economy fell into a recession in 2014 as GDP contracted in both the second and third quarters. At the end of October 2014, the BoJ surprised markets by increasing the size of its securities purchases, and it has continued its low-rate policies throughout the reporting period. However, Japan’s domestic consumption has remained stagnant.

The Bank of England has held its benchmark lending rate at 0.5% since March 2009, although the central bank’s policy cycle is expected to be more in sync with the Fed than with the ECB and BoJ, but likely with a lag. The UK’s consumer price index rose 0.1% in May after falling in April, which had led to concerns about deflation. Early in the reporting period, a surprise housing-driven economic rebound in the UK led investors to expect a rate hike sometime in 2015. However, the UK economy seemed to lose some of its momentum in early 2015, with real GDP growing at a relatively slow 2.4% rate in the first quarter of 2015 compared with the first quarter of last year, causing consensus estimates for an initial Bank of England rate increase to move back into 2016.

The U.S. Treasury yield curve flattened over the course of the 12-month period, reflecting expectations for monetary tightening, as the yield on the two-year Treasury note increased while yields on longer-term Treasuries declined. The yield on the 10-year U.S. Treasury note fell to 2.12% at the end of May 2015 from 2.48% 12 months prior. The U.S. dollar rapidly strengthened against most other currencies, and the price of oil and other commodities dropped steeply in the second half of 2014 before recovering to some degree through early 2015.

In the U.S., sectors with high credit quality, such as Treasuries and agency MBS, posted solid returns as interest rates declined. Investment-grade corporate debt also generated respectable performance, although credit spreads widened later in the reporting period due to heavy supply of bonds. Declining oil and commodity prices affected high yield bonds, where energy-related issuers account for a meaningful proportion of the market. However, the financial condition of many high yield issuers outside of commodity-related industries remains strong, and the sector rallied when oil prices stabilized slightly above their lows in the first quarter of 2015. Bank (or leveraged) loans, which tend to have noninvestment-grade credit ratings and floating interest rates, have more limited exposure to the energy sector in general.

Eurozone government and corporate debt performed strongly in local currency terms, benefiting from strong demand and supportive QE. European corporate bonds also have less exposure to oil than U.S. corporates, particularly high yield, which helped their performance relative to U.S. high yield as energy prices declined.

While the euro declined steeply against the U.S. dollar, our currency hedging strategy allowed us to avoid losses on the currency component of eurozone bonds.

The yield on the German 10-year sovereign note decreased to a record low of 0.05%, while much of the shorter-maturity German debt traded at negative yields amid fears of deflation in the eurozone and as the ECB’s buying absorbed a considerable amount of “bunds” in the market. Yields bottomed in April and began a rapid ascent higher amid signs of stronger growth, and the reporting period ended with a period of elevated interest rate volatility. Periphery eurozone debt traded in a similar pattern, though with higher yields given the lower credit quality. As the reporting period ended, Greece’s negotiations over payments due to the International Monetary Fund and the ECB were a heightened risk factor for the eurozone and markets in general.

Rates on Japanese government debt also declined given the country’s large levels of QE and structural impediments to stronger growth. However, Japanese yields traded in a tighter range than U.S. and eurozone rates. The BoJ continued its low-rate policies and QE to stimulate growth, but the country’s domestic consumption remains stagnant. The yen lost significant ground versus the U.S. dollar as investors anticipated easier monetary policy than is expected in the U.S.

Emerging market bonds denominated in U.S. dollars generated a slight overall gain, with the performance of individual countries diverging significantly. The central banks of many emerging countries, including India, Indonesia, Turkey, and Hungary, lowered their benchmark lending rates in early 2015, which boosted the prices of their bonds. Many central banks acted in part to offset the rapid decline in commodities prices, which weighed on growth in countries that are commodity exporters and triggered deflationary fears in some commodity importers.

However, emerging market currencies in general were volatile and lost ground against the U.S. dollar during the reporting period as the Fed prepared to raise rates, with higher volatility experienced primarily by countries that are major oil producers or conversely, oil importers. The Mexican peso declined against the dollar, apparently driven by generalized risk aversion around the oil decline, although Mexico is making more progress toward structural reforms than many other developing countries. The Turkish lira, in contrast, held up better than most other emerging market currencies during the steep decline in oil prices, which helped improve the fiscal situation in the oil-importing country.

Investment Review

The portfolio’s exposure to emerging market currencies, primarily the Brazilian real and the Mexican peso, detracted from relative performance versus the benchmark as the U.S. dollar rapidly strengthened in the second half of 2014 and the beginning of 2015. This was somewhat offset by positive performance from developed market currencies, specifically from short positions in the euro, New Zealand dollar, Australian dollar, and Japanese yen.

With respect to interest rates, tactical exposure to emerging market rates performed well and somewhat offset a short duration position in developed economies. Of note in emerging markets were debt holdings in Mexico and Brazil, where we were able to navigate the volatility in both nominal and inflation-linked bonds to add value. However, in developed economies, a lower-than-benchmark duration, primarily in the U.S., the eurozone, and Canada, detracted from relative performance as we did not anticipate the decline in interest rates. This was particularly the case in the U.S., where the decline in rates was significant for a four-month period from late 2014 into 2015 as growth weakened and Fed tightening expectations pushed back.

On the positive side, the fund’s relative performance benefited from an underweight to investment-grade corporate bonds and an overweight to bank loans versus the benchmark. Security selection also contributed to returns relative to the benchmark, particularly in MBS and high yield bonds.

We believe high yield bonds and loans still have some potential upside, though valuations are less compelling than over the past few years. Most high yield issuers continue to have solid fundamentals, and we also think the lower sensitivity to interest rate changes of high yield bonds and loans provides a useful hedge against rising rates in a strengthening economic environment. We did reduce our holdings of high yield bonds as the sector experienced selling pressure last summer, but we were able to add back exposure as credit spreads became more attractive, consistent with our philosophy of utilizing active tactical allocation to add value. Within high yield, we have been underweight energy-related issuers, which underperformed the broader noninvestment-grade market as a result of plummeting oil prices.

We have maintained meaningful exposure to emerging market debt denominated in local currencies over the past 12 months, which offers compelling valuations but also carries significant currency and interest rate risk. The currencies can be particularly volatile during risk-off episodes and may continue to struggle into Fed tightening, though they could be positioned for stronger long-term performance, particularly for those countries undergoing significant economic reforms. In contrast to our exposure in local currency emerging market debt, we have reduced the size of the portfolio’s allocation to emerging market debt denominated in U.S. dollars based on valuations, following a period of strong performance.

When determining portfolio allocations among the various fixed income sectors, we actively consider both current and potential future liquidity. U.S. Treasuries and the sovereign debt of other developed markets, such as Germany and the UK, are typically very liquid. However, liquidity tends to decrease in sectors with increasing amounts of credit risk. Emerging market corporate bonds are an example of a sector where it can be difficult to buy or sell efficiently in a “flight to quality” environment.

We tactically lengthened the portfolio’s overall duration near the end of the reporting period as developed market yields climbed, primarily adding to German bunds though also to U.S. Treasuries and other global rates. While we see the risk of further rises in yields in developed markets—particularly the U.S.—we expect the increase to be gradual and yields to remain lower than historical averages. Conversely, we expect rates in emerging countries to further stabilize or decline as inflation moderates, and we are maintaining duration in emerging market bonds to benefit from rate declines.

Outlook

The monetary policies of the world’s major central banks will likely continue to dominate the global interest rate environment. While the central banks of the eurozone and Japan aggressively purchase assets in an effort to stimulate economic growth, the Fed’s move toward normalization of interest rates should eventually create an upward bias for U.S. rates. This divergence in central bank policies could lead to increased volatility in global fixed income markets, as well as more relative value opportunities in developed market interest rates.

A weaker-than-expected first quarter of 2015 has made the timing of a Fed rate hike subject to greater uncertainty and speculation, though we expect a bounceback in the second quarter. While acknowledging the likelihood of rate increases, we also expect that the pace of rate hikes will be more modest relative to historical cycles of monetary policy tightening. The precise timing of a federal funds rate increase is data dependent, but liftoff could be later this year, particularly as the slack in the labor market diminishes and if wage pressures increase. Short-term yields are likely to feel the most upward pressure, particularly if tightening begins on the earlier side. At the long end of the yield curve, the presence of large institutional buyers and the attractive valuations of U.S. Treasuries relative to other developed market sovereign debt could temper a rise in longer-term yields, absent significantly higher inflation expectations.

We believe that growth in both the eurozone and Japan will remain slow, but the ECB’s QE program seems to have led to a pickup in bank lending and possibly brighter long-term prospects for the region’s economy. The market consensus outlook for the eurozone has improved, which has led to some stabilization in the euro, but we think the currency can weaken further given the fact that U.S. rates are poised to rise.

Japan’s economic weakness seems more entrenched, and the BoJ may need to increase the size of its QE program even further in order to stimulate more growth. Unlike the euro, which has shown some strength against the dollar at times in 2015, the yen’s weakness has been fairly consistent, though there is uncertainty as to whether that will continue given valuation levels.

Conversely, we think that stronger growth prospects in some emerging market economies will result in stronger currencies, particularly given attractive valuations. However, selectivity is important and volatility is likely to continue given the near-term economic and political challenges that remain.

Given the risks and uncertainty around central bank policies and global growth, we have reduced our exposure to credit risk and increased our exposure to global sovereign bonds. Global government debt, cash, and other reserves accounted for more than 30% of the fund’s net assets as of May 31, 2015, which was one of the largest sector allocations as a percentage of the portfolio since its inception at the end of 2008. This provides flexibility to the portfolio to take advantage of opportunities in credit sectors as they evolve.

In this uncertain environment, with risk premiums still low across sectors, we believe that our strengths in identifying return opportunities and risks, tactically and actively adjusting our portfolio allocations, and performing fundamental credit analysis will allow us to continue to generate solid long-term performance for our shareholders.

Thank you for investing with T. Rowe Price.

Respectfully submitted,

Steven C. Huber
Chairman of the fund’s Investment Advisory Committee

June 23, 2015

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.

Risks of Bond Investing

Bonds are 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. MBS are subject to prepayment risk, particularly if falling rates lead to heavy refinancing activity, and extension risk, which is an increase in interest rates that causes a fund’s average maturity to lengthen unexpectedly due to a drop in mortgage prepayments. This could increase the fund’s sensitivity to rising interest rates and its potential for price declines.

Glossary

Barclays Global Aggregate ex Treasury Bond USD Hedged Index: Tracks the global investment-grade fixed rate debt markets, excluding U.S. Treasury securities, and is hedged to the dollar.

Basis point: Equivalent to 0.01 percentage points.

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 fund’s sensitivity to changes in interest rates. For example, a fund with a four-year duration would fall about 4% in response to a one-percentage-point rise in interest rates, and vice versa.

Federal funds rate: The interest rate charged on overnight loans of reserves by one financial institution to another in the U.S. The Federal Reserve sets a target federal funds rate to affect the level and direction of market rates.

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

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 interest rate sensitivity. 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.

Yield curve: A graph depicting the relationship between yields and maturity dates for a set of similar securities. These curves are in constant flux. One of the key activities in managing any fixed income portfolio is to study the trends reflected by yield curves.

Performance and Expenses
T. Rowe Price Institutional Global Multi-Sector Bond Fund

Growth of $1 Million

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.

Fund Expense Example

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 Global Multi-Sector Bond Fund

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.

Portfolio of Investments^‡
T. Rowe Price Institutional Global Multi-Sector Bond Fund
May 31, 2015

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.

Statement of Assets and Liabilities
T. Rowe Price Institutional Global Multi-Sector Bond Fund
May 31, 2015
($000s, except shares and per share amounts)

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.

Statement of Operations
T. Rowe Price Institutional Global Multi-Sector Bond Fund
($000s)

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.

Statement of Changes in Net Assets
T. Rowe Price Institutional Global Multi-Sector Bond Fund
($000s)

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.

Notes to Financial Statements
T. Rowe Price Institutional Global Multi-Sector Bond Fund
May 31, 2015

T. Rowe Price Institutional Income Funds, Inc. (the corporation), is registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the 1940 Act). The Institutional Global Multi-Sector Bond Fund (the fund) is a diversified, open-end management investment company established by the corporation. The fund commenced operations on October 24, 2013. The fund seeks to provide high income and some capital appreciation.

NOTE 1 - SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES

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. 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.

New Accounting Guidance In June 2014, FASB issued Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2014-11, Transfers and Servicing (Topic 860), Repurchase-to-Maturity Transactions, Repurchase Financings, and Disclosures. The ASU changes the accounting for certain repurchase agreements and expands disclosure requirements related to repurchase agreements, securities lending, repurchase-to-maturity and similar transactions. The ASU is effective for interim and annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2014. Adoption will have no effect on the fund’s net assets or results of operations.

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.

NOTE 2 - VALUATION

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; is chaired by the fund’s treasurer; and has representation from legal, portfolio management and trading, operations, and risk management.

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)

Level 3 – unobservable inputs

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. Actively traded domestic equity securities generally are categorized in Level 1 of the fair value hierarchy. OTC Bulletin Board securities, certain preferred securities, and equity securities traded in inactive markets generally are categorized in Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy.

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

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

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

Valuation Inputs The following table summarizes the fund’s financial instruments, based on the inputs used to determine their fair values on May 31, 2015:

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

NOTE 3 - DERIVATIVE INSTRUMENTS

During the year ended May 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 andcredit 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 May 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 May 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 May 31, 2015, no collateral had been posted by the fund to counterparties for bilateral derivatives. As of May 31, 2015, collateral pledged by counterparties to the fund for bilateral derivatives consisted of $119,000 cash and securities valued at $369,000. As of May 31, 2015, securities valued at $268,000 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 relative to the U.S. dollar. 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 May 31, 2015, the volume of the fund’s activity in forwards, based on underlying notional amounts, was generally between 27% and 36% 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 May 31, 2015, the volume of the fund’s activity in futures, based on underlying notional amounts, was generally between 12% and 25% of net assets.

Options The fund is subject to interest rate risk in the normal course of pursuing its investment objectives and uses options to help manage such risk. The fund may use options to manage exposure to security prices, interest rates, foreign currencies, and credit quality; as an efficient means of adjusting exposure to all or a part of a target market; to enhance income; as a cash management tool; or to adjust credit exposure. Options are included in net assets at fair value; purchased options are included in Investments in Securities; and written options are separately reflected as a liability on the accompanying Statement of Assets and Liabilities. Premiums on unexercised, expired options are recorded as realized gains or losses; premiums on exercised options are recorded as an adjustment to the proceeds from the sale or cost of the purchase. The difference between the premium and the amount received or paid in a closing transaction is also treated as realized gain or loss. In return for a premium paid, call and put options on futures give the holder the right, but not the obligation, to purchase or sell, respectively, a position in a particular futures contract at a specified exercise price. Risks related to the use of options include possible illiquidity of the options markets; trading restrictions imposed by an exchange or counterparty; movements in the underlying asset values and/or interest rates; and, for written options, potential losses in excess of the fund’s initial investment. During the year ended May 31, 2015, the volume of the fund’s activity in options, based on underlying notional amounts, was generally less than 1% of net assets. Transactions in written options and related premiums received during the year ended May 31, 2015, were as follows:

Swaps The fund is subject to interest rate risk and/orcredit risk in the normal course of pursuing its investment objectives and uses swap contracts to help manage such risks. The fund may use swaps in an effort to manage exposure to changes in interest rates, inflation rates, and credit quality; to adjust overall exposure to certain markets; to enhance total return or protect the value of portfolio securities; to serve as a cash management tool; or to adjust portfolio duration andcredit 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.

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

Credit default swaps are agreements where one party (the protection buyer) agrees to make periodic payments to another party (the protection seller) in exchange for protection against specified credit events, such as certain defaults and bankruptcies related to an underlying credit instrument, or issuer or index of such instruments. Upon occurrence of a specified credit event, the protection seller is required to pay the buyer the difference between the notional amount of the swap and the value of the underlying credit, either in the form of a net cash settlement or by paying the gross notional amount and accepting delivery of the relevant underlying credit. For credit default swaps where the underlying credit is an index, a specified credit event may affect all or individual underlying securities included in the index and will be settled based upon the relative weighting of the affected underlying security(s) 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 May 31, 2015, the notional amount of protection sold by the fund totaled $1,375,000 (0.7% 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 May 31, 2015, the volume of the fund’s activity in swaps, based on underlying notional amounts, was generally between 0% and 3% of net assets.

NOTE 4 - OTHER INVESTMENT TRANSACTIONS

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 21% of the fund’s net assets were invested in emerging markets and 4% in frontier markets. Frontier markets generally have economic structures that are less diverse and mature, and political systems that are less stable, than developed countries and emerging markets. 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 Securities At May 31, 2015, approximately 34% of the fund’s net assets were invested, either directly or through its investment in T. Rowe Price institutional funds, in noninvestment-grade debt securities, commonly referred to as “high yield” or “junk” bonds. The noninvestment-grade bond 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.

TBA Purchase and Sale Commitments The fund may enter into to-be-announced (TBA) purchase or sale commitments, pursuant to which it agrees to purchase or sell, respectively, mortgage-backed securities for a fixed unit price, with payment and delivery at a scheduled future date beyond the customary settlement period for such securities. With TBA transactions, the particular securities to be delivered are not identified at the trade date; however, delivered securities must meet specified terms, including issuer, rate, and mortgage term, and be within industry-accepted “good delivery” standards. The fund may enter into TBA purchase transactions with the intention of taking possession of the underlying securities, may elect to extend the settlement by “rolling” the transaction, and/or may use TBAs to gain interim exposure to underlying securities. Until settlement, the fund maintains liquid assets sufficient to settle its TBA commitments.

To mitigate counterparty risk, the fund has entered into agreements with TBA counterparties that provide for collateral and the right to offset amounts due to or from those counterparties under specified conditions. Subject to minimum transfer amounts, collateral requirements are determined and transfers made based on the net aggregate unrealized gain or loss on all TBA commitments with a particular counterparty. At any time, the fund’s risk of loss from a particular counterparty related to its TBA commitments is the aggregate unrealized gain on appreciated TBAs in excess of unrealized loss on depreciated TBAs and collateral received, if any, from such counterparty. As of May 31, 2015, no collateral was pledged by the fund or counterparties for TBAs.

Mortgage-Backed Securities The fund may invest in mortgage-backed securities (MBS or pass-through certificates) that represent an interest in a pool of specific underlying mortgage loans and entitle the fund to the periodic payments of principal and interest from those mortgages. MBS may be issued by government agencies or corporations, or private issuers. Most MBS issued by government agencies are guaranteed; however, the degree of protection differs based on the issuer. MBS are sensitive to changes in economic conditions that affect the rate of prepayments and defaults on the underlying mortgages; accordingly, the value, income, and related cash flows from MBS may be more volatile than other debt instruments.

Other Purchases and sales of portfolio securities other than short-term and U.S. government securities aggregated $209,340,000 and $110,896,000, respectively, for the year ended May 31, 2015. Purchases and sales of U.S. government securities aggregated $122,538,000 and $100,952,000, respectively, for the year ended May 31, 2015.

NOTE 5 - FEDERAL INCOME TAXES

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

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

Reclassifications between income and gain relate primarily to the recharacterization of distributions. For the year ended May 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 periods ended May 31, 2015 and May 31, 2014, totaled $7,830,000 and $1,183,000, respectively, and were characterized as ordinary income for tax purposes. At May 31, 2015, the tax-basis cost of investments and components of net assets were as follows:

The difference between book-basis and tax-basis net unrealized appreciation (depreciation) is attributable to the deferral of losses from wash sales and certain derivative contracts for tax purposes.

NOTE 6 - RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS

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 0.50% 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.

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.

The fund may also invest in certain other T. Rowe Price funds as a means of gaining efficient and cost-effective exposure to certain markets. The fund does not invest for the purpose of exercising management or control; however, investments by the fund may represent a significant portion of an underlying T. Rowe Price fund’s net assets. Each underlying T. Rowe Price fund is an open-end management investment company managed by Price Associates and is considered an affiliate of the fund. To ensure that the fund does not incur duplicate management fees (paid by the underlying T. Rowe Price fund(s) and the fund), Price Associates has agreed to permanently waive a portion of its management fee charged to the fund in an amount sufficient to fully offset that portion of management fees paid by each underlying T. Rowe Price fund related to the fund’s investment therein. The accompanying Statement of Operations reflects management fees permanently waived pursuant to this agreement. Annual fee rates and management fees waived related to investments in the underlying T. Rowe Price fund(s) for the year ended May 31, 2015, are as follows:

As of May 31, 2015, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., or its wholly owned subsidiaries owned 25,000 shares of the fund, representing less than 1% of the fund’s net assets.

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Board of Directors of T. Rowe Price Institutional Income Funds, Inc. and
Shareholders of T. Rowe Price Institutional Global Multi-Sector 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 the T. Rowe Price Institutional Global Multi-Sector Bond Fund (one of the portfolios comprising T. Rowe Price Institutional Income Funds, Inc., hereafter referred to as the “Fund”) at May 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 May 31, 2015 by correspondence with the custodian and brokers, and confirmation of the underlying funds by correspondence with the transfer agent, provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Baltimore, Maryland
July 16, 2015

Tax Information (Unaudited) for the Tax Year Ended 5/31/15

We are providing this information as required by the Internal Revenue Code. The amounts shown may differ from those elsewhere in this report because of differences between tax and financial reporting requirements.

The fund’s distributions to shareholders included $2,029,000 from short-term capital gains.

For taxable non-corporate shareholders, $19,000 of the fund’s income represents qualified dividend income subject to a long-term capital gains tax rate of not greater than 20%.

For corporate shareholders, $12,000 of the fund’s income qualifies for the dividends-received deduction.

Information on Proxy Voting Policies, Procedures, and Records

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.

How to Obtain Quarterly Portfolio Holdings

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.

Approval of Investment Management Agreement and Subadvisory Agreement

On March 13, 2015, the fund’s Board of Directors (Board), including a majority of the fund’s independent directors, approved the continuation of the investment management agreement (Advisory Contract) between the fund and its investment advisor, T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc. (Advisor), as well as the continuation of the investment subadvisory agreement (Subadvisory Contract) that the Advisor has entered into with T. Rowe Price International Ltd (Subadvisor) on behalf of the fund. In connection with its deliberations, the Board requested, and the Advisor provided, such information as the Board (with advice from independent legal counsel) deemed reasonably necessary. The Board considered a variety of factors in connection with its review of the Advisory Contract and Subadvisory Contract, also taking into account information provided by the Advisor during the course of the year, as discussed below:

Services Provided by the Advisor and Subadvisor
The Board considered the nature, quality, and extent of the services provided to the fund by the Advisor and Subadvisor. 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 and Subadvisor’s senior management teams 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 and Subadvisor.

Investment Performance of the Fund
The Board reviewed the fund’s three-month and one-year returns, as well as the fund’s average annualized total return since inception, and compared these returns with a wide variety of previously agreed-upon comparable performance measures and market data, including those supplied by Lipper and Morningstar, which are independent providers of mutual fund data.

On the basis of this evaluation and the Board’s ongoing review of investment results, and factoring in the fund’s relatively limited operating history, 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, including the Subadvisor) 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 and Subadvisor may receive some benefit from soft-dollar arrangements pursuant to which research is received from broker-dealers that execute the applicable fund’s portfolio transactions. The Board received information on the estimated costs incurred and profits realized by the Advisor from managing T. Rowe Price mutual 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. The Board noted that, under the Advisory Contract, the fund pays the Advisor a single fee based on the fund’s average daily net assets that includes investment management services and provides for the Advisor to pay all expenses of the fund’s operations except for interest, taxes, portfolio transaction fees, and any nonrecurring extraordinary expenses that may arise. Under the Subadvisory Contract, the Advisor may pay the Subadvisor up to 60% of the advisory fee that the Advisor receives from the fund. The Board concluded that, based on the profitability data it reviewed and consistent with this single-fee structure, the Advisory Contract provided for a reasonable sharing of any benefits from economies of scale with the fund.

Fees
The Board was provided with information regarding industry trends in management fees and expenses, and the Board reviewed the fund’s single-fee structure in comparison with fees and expenses of other comparable funds based on information and data supplied by Lipper. For these purposes, the Board assumed that the fund’s management fee rate was equal to the single fee less the fund’s operating expenses. After also including reductions of the management fee that resulted from the fund’s investments in other T. Rowe Price funds, the information provided to the Board indicated that the fund’s management fee rate and total expense ratio were below the median for comparable funds.

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 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 mutual fund business is generally more complex from a business and compliance perspective than the institutional business and that the Advisor generally performs significant additional services and assumes greater risk in managing the fund and other T. Rowe Price mutual 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 and Subadvisory Contract
As noted, the Board approved the continuation of the Advisory Contract and Subadvisory 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 and Subadvisory Contract (including the fees to be charged for services thereunder). The independent directors were advised throughout the process by independent legal counsel.

About the Fund’s Directors and Officers

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.

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 [165]	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) 2002 [165]	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)
Donald W. Dick, Jr. (1943) 2002 [165]	Principal, EuroCapital Partners, LLC, an acquisition and management advisory firm (1995 to present)
Bruce W. Duncan (1951) 2013 [165]	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) 2013 [165]	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)
Karen N. Horn (1943) 2003 [165]	Limited Partner and Senior Managing Director, Brock Capital Group, an advisory and investment banking firm (2004 to present); Director, Eli Lilly and Company (1987 to present); Director, Simon Property Group (2004 to present); Director, Norfolk Southern (2008 to present)
Paul F. McBride (1956) 2013 [165]	Former Company Officer and Senior Vice President, Human Resources and Corporate Initiatives, Black & Decker Corporation (2004 to 2010)
Cecilia E. Rouse, Ph.D. (1963) 2013 [165]	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) 2002 [165]	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 [165]	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 [165]	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, Director, and President, T. Rowe Price International and T. Rowe Price Trust Company; Chairman of the Board, all funds
Edward A. Wiese, CFA (1959) 2015 [54]	Director and Vice President, T. Rowe Price Trust Company; Vice President, T. Rowe Price, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., and T. Rowe Price International
*Each inside director serves until retirement, resignation, or election of a successor.

Officers
Name (Year of Birth) Position Held With Institutional Income Funds	Principal Occupation(s)
Jason A. Bauer (1979) Vice President	Vice President, T. Rowe Price and T. Rowe Price Group, Inc.
Michael F. Blandino (1971) 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.
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.
Brian J. Brennan, 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
Andrew M. Brooks (1956) Vice President	Vice President, T. Rowe Price and T. Rowe Price Group, Inc.
Christopher P. Brown, Jr., CFA (1977) Vice President	Vice President, T. Rowe Price and T. Rowe Price Group, Inc.
Brian E. Burns (1960) Vice President	Vice President, T. Rowe Price, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., and T. Rowe Price Trust Company
Andrew L. Cohen, CFA (1979) Vice President	Vice President, T. Rowe Price and T. Rowe Price Group, Inc.; formerly, Associate, Power & Energy/Strategic Investments, Metlife Investments (to 2010)
Michael J. Conelius, CFA (1964) Vice President	Vice President, T. Rowe Price, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., T. Rowe Price International, and T. Rowe Price Trust Company
Michael F. Connelly, CFA (1977) Vice President	Vice President, T. Rowe Price and T. Rowe Price Group, Inc.
Michael P. Daley (1981) Vice President	Vice President, T. Rowe Price and T. Rowe Price Group, Inc.
Stephen M. Finamore, CPA (1976) Vice President	Vice President, T. Rowe Price and T. Rowe Price Group, Inc.
Justin T. Gerbereux, CFA (1975) 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.
David R. Giroux, CFA (1975) Vice President	Vice President, T. Rowe Price, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., and T. Rowe Price Trust Company
Michael J. Grogan, CFA (1971) Vice President	Vice President, T. Rowe Price and T. Rowe Price Group, Inc.
Gregory K. Hinkle, CPA (1958) Treasurer	Vice President, T. Rowe Price, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., and T. Rowe Price Trust Company
Steven C. Huber, CFA, FSA (1958) Executive Vice President	Vice President, T. Rowe Price and T. Rowe Price Group, Inc.
Arif Husain, CFA (1972) Vice President	Vice President, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., and T. Rowe Price International; formerly, Director/Head of UK and Euro Fixed Income, AllianceBernstein
Andrew P. Jamison (1981) Vice President	Vice President, T. Rowe Price and T. Rowe Price Group, Inc.
Andrew J. Keirle (1974) Vice President	Vice President, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., and T. Rowe Price International
Michael Lambe, CFA (1977) Vice President	Vice President, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., and T. Rowe Price International
Robert M. Larkins, CFA (1973) 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.
Paul M. Massaro, CFA (1975) Executive Vice President	Vice President, T. Rowe Price, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., and T. Rowe Price Trust Company
Andrew C. McCormick (1960) Vice President	Vice President, T. Rowe Price, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., and T. Rowe Price Trust Company
Michael J. McGonigle (1966) Vice President	Vice President, T. Rowe Price and T. Rowe Price Group, Inc.
Samy B. Muaddi, CFA (1984) Vice President	Vice President, T. Rowe Price and T. Rowe Price Group, Inc.
James M. Murphy, CFA (1967) Vice President	Vice President, T. Rowe Price and T. Rowe Price Group, Inc.
Alexander S. Obaza (1981) Vice President	Vice President, T. Rowe Price, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., and T. Rowe Price Trust Company
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
Miso Park, CFA (1982) Vice President	Vice President, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., and T. Rowe Price International; formerly, Credit Analyst, M&G Investments (to 2010)
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)
Rodney M. Rayburn, CFA (1970) Vice President	Vice President, T. Rowe Price and T. Rowe Price Group, Inc.; formerly, Managing Director, Värde Partners (to 2014)
Vernon A. Reid, Jr. (1954) Vice President	Vice President, T. Rowe Price and T. Rowe Price Group, Inc.
Theodore E. Robson, CFA (1965) Vice President	Vice President, T. Rowe Price, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., and T. Rowe Price Trust Company
Brian M. Ropp, CPA (1969) Vice President	Vice President, T. Rowe Price and T. Rowe Price Group, Inc.
Brian A. Rubin, CPA (1974) Vice President	Vice President, T. Rowe Price, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., and T. Rowe Price Trust Company
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.
Daniel O. Shackelford, CFA (1958) Vice President	Vice President, T. Rowe Price, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., and T. Rowe Price Trust Company
Scott D. Solomon, CFA (1981) Vice President	Vice President, T. Rowe Price
David A. Stanley (1963) Vice President	Vice President, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., and T. Rowe Price International
Kimberly A. Stokes (1969) 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
Thomas E. Tewksbury (1961) Vice President	Vice President, T. Rowe Price, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., and T. Rowe Price Trust Company
Robert T. Thomas (1971) Vice President	Vice President, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., and T. Rowe Price International; formerly, Senior Vice President, Moody’s Investors Service, London (to 2011)
Siby Thomas (1979) Vice President	Vice President, T. Rowe Price and T. Rowe Price Group, Inc.
David A. Tiberii, CFA (1965) Executive Vice President	Vice President, T. Rowe Price, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., T. Rowe Price International, and T. Rowe Price Trust Company
Mark J. Vaselkiv (1958) President	Vice President, T. Rowe Price, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., and T. Rowe Price Trust Company
Lauren T. Wagandt (1984) Vice President	Vice President, T. Rowe Price and T. Rowe Price Group, Inc.
Thea N. Williams (1961) Vice President	Vice President, T. Rowe Price, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., and T. Rowe Price Trust Company
J. Howard Woodward, CFA (1974) Vice President	Vice President, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., and T. Rowe Price International
Jeffrey T. Zoller (1970) Vice President	Vice President, T. Rowe Price 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.

Item 2. Code of Ethics.

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.

Item 3. Audit Committee Financial Expert.

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.

Item 4. Principal Accountant Fees and Services.

(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 $2,677,000 and $1,759,000, 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.

Item 5. Audit Committee of Listed Registrants.

Not applicable.

Item 6. Investments.

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

(b) Not applicable.

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

Not applicable.

Item 8. Portfolio Managers of Closed-End Management Investment Companies.

Not applicable.

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

Not applicable.

Item 10. Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders.

Not applicable.

Item 11. Controls and Procedures.

(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.

Item 12. Exhibits.

(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 Income Funds, Inc.
 

	By	/s/ Edward C. Bernard
		Edward C. Bernard
		Principal Executive Officer
Date     July 16, 2015

 

     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     July 16, 2015
	By	/s/ Gregory K. Hinkle
		Gregory K. Hinkle
		Principal Financial Officer
Date     July 16, 2015