PBMRY PT Bumi Resources TBK (PK)

Item 1. Report to Shareholders

The views and opinions in this report were current as of October 31, 2012. 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.

REPORTS ON THE WEB

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

Manager’s Letter

Fellow Shareholders

Tax-free bonds produced strong returns in the one-year period ended October 31, 2012, outperforming taxable bonds and continuing a tremendous performance streak. Longer-term municipals rose with Treasuries, but to a lesser extent as central banks around the world reduced interest rates or suppressed rates with asset-purchase programs in an attempt to stimulate weakening global economies. Munis were also supported by strong demand as state and local governments continued to balance budgets in challenging economic times. T. Rowe Price’s longer-term Summit Municipal Funds performed well relative to their benchmarks over the last year, and their longer-term relative performance remained favorable.

MARKET ENVIRONMENT

The U.S. economy has been expanding at a slow but steady pace in 2012, but growth has clearly been subpar compared with what is typically seen in the years following a deep recession. In recent months, the housing market recovery has been gaining traction, but its contribution to overall growth is smaller than in previous expansions. National unemployment remains elevated, and employment growth has been modest this year. We believe gross domestic product growth will continue in the months ahead, but uncertainty about the “fiscal cliff” of federal tax increases and spending cuts that are scheduled to take place at the end of 2012 could restrain economic activity.

To stimulate the economy, the Federal Reserve kept the fed funds target rate in the 0.00% to 0.25% range and projected that short-term rates will remain low until mid-2015. To help keep long-term interest rates low, the Federal Reserve is continuing its maturity extension program, which is set to expire in December 2012. In September, the Fed also initiated a third round of quantitative easing—informally called QE3—in the form of an open-ended policy of purchasing $40 billion of agency mortgage-backed securities every month. In addition, the central bank offered to continue purchasing assets if the labor market outlook does not improve substantially.

Over the last year, shorter-term municipal yields remained very low and were little changed, but longer-term muni yields declined with Treasury yields, albeit to a lesser extent. With municipal yields about the same as Treasury yields across the board, tax-free securities are a very attractive alternative for fixed income investors. For example, as of October 31, 2012, the 2.82% yield offered by a 30-year tax-free municipal bond rated AAA nearly matched the 2.86% pretax yield offered by a 30-year Treasury. An investor in the 28% federal tax bracket would need to invest in a taxable bond yielding about 3.92% in order to receive the same after-tax income. For more information about calculating taxable-equivalent yields, please see the sidebar on page 2.

MUNICIPAL MARKET NEWS

Municipal issuance totaled almost $314 billion in the first 10 months of 2012, according to The Bond Buyer . Much of the year-to-date issuance reflects municipalities refinancing their debts to take advantage of low long-term interest rates, rather than net new issuance. Still, full-year issuance is likely to be in the $350 billion to $375 billion range. One positive factor for munis is that austerity-minded state and local government leaders have been conservative about adding to indebtedness, despite prevailing low yields. Another favorable factor supporting the market is brisk demand, particularly for long-term issues.

Some states continue to face fiscal difficulties and have been forced to raise taxes and fees and cut spending to close budget deficits. Other higher-quality states haven’t required such austerity and will continue to deserve higher credit ratings as their ability to continue servicing their outstanding debts remains unquestioned. Longer term, sizable pension and other retirement benefits may begin to raise concerns about the states’ willingness and ability to address these obligations.

Municipal bond performance over the last year was driven by investors’ search for higher yields in a low interest rate environment. Long-term bonds outperformed shorter-term securities, low-quality issues outpaced higher-quality munis, and revenue bonds outpaced state and local general obligations. We generally favor bonds backed by a dedicated revenue stream over GOs. Among revenue bonds, industrial revenue issues fared best, driven by prepaid gas and select tobacco names. Health care bonds were also strong performers, but we are becoming more selective among hospital revenue bonds, as new issue supply and some credit concerns are weighing on the sector. Higher-quality issues, such as housing and power bonds, lagged but still produced solid gains. Prerefunded bonds, which are backed by U.S. Treasuries, trailed with mild gains due to their high-quality and short-term characteristics.

PORTFOLIO REVIEW

Summit Municipal Money Market Fund

Your fund returned 0.01% during the 12 months ended October 31, 2012, versus 0.02% for the Lipper Tax-Exempt Money Market Funds Index. With the expectation that the Fed will hold short-term rates in place until 2015, the money market yield curve remains fairly stable. Over the last six months, the money market yield curve has flattened as the rates on 1- to 90-day securities moved slightly higher while 6- to 12-month yields were nearly unchanged. Yields range from about 16 basis points (0.16%) for overnight investments to roughly 21 basis points for one-year maturities. This rate structure is expected to remain intact for some time to come unless some exogenous event disrupts the markets. Our strategy for the fund remains unchanged based on the assumption of a Fed on hold. As such, we are comfortable maintaining a weighted average maturity in the longer end of our permissible range, targeting around 55 days.

Credit quality continues to be a major factor in the management of the fund. Therefore, the fund still maintains significant exposure to highly rated hospitals and universities, state and local GOs, and housing bonds backed by Federal Home Loan Bank. Bank liquidity providers continue to figure prominently in the financing of many short-term municipal borrowings; as such, we are mindful of their impact on this segment of the market. Our highest bank liquidity exposures include Wells Fargo and JPMorgan . (Please refer to the fund’s portfolio of investments for a complete list of holdings and the amount each represents in the portfolio.)

The Securities and Exchange Commission could not reach consensus in August on further reforms for money funds. The debate has for now shifted to the Financial Stability Oversight Council. We expect to hear much more as regulators and the money fund industry continue to discuss appropriate revisions to money fund regulation. As always, we are committed to managing a diversified, high-quality portfolio with a focus on liquidity and stability of principal.

Summit Municipal Intermediate Fund

Your fund returned 7.72% during the past 12 months compared with a return of 7.51% for the Lipper Intermediate Municipal Debt Funds Average, which measures the performance of similarly managed funds. The fund’s net asset value per share increased from $11.85 at the end of April to $12.00 at the end of October, while the 30-day SEC yield declined from 1.58% to 1.22%. Dividends contributed $0.17 per share during the six-month period.

We maintained a fairly steady investment strategy throughout the fund’s fiscal year. We favored revenue bonds over GOs and prerefunded bonds, and we kept our allocations to cash, very short-term, and high-quality bonds at low levels, reflecting our belief that longer-term and lower-quality securities would outperform in an environment in which investors were hungry for income.

In addition, we modestly adjusted our maturity exposure, focusing on 15-year bonds with 8- to 10-year call dates (the dates they can be called from the market by issuers). In part, we adopted this strategy because of concerns about reinvestment needs in the municipal market during the next few years. If the Federal Open Market Committee maintains an extremely low federal funds rate into 2015 (as it said it would), all bonds maturing during this period are likely to be reinvested at low interest rates. Consequently, our strategy of extending maturities is designed to bridge this period and remain invested at relatively higher rates.

The top two sectors in the portfolio continue to be transportation and health care. Special tax bonds jumped ahead of electric revenue bonds during the past six months, and our exposure to industrial and pollution control securities also increased. We added three industrial names—bonds issued by Valero Energy , First Energy , and Marathon Oil . We also added to our prepaid gas positions backed by Merrill Lynch and Goldman Sachs . These positions increased our allocation to BBB bonds. (Please refer to the fund’s portfolio of investments for a complete list of holdings and the amount each represents in the portfolio.)

On the sales side of the ledger, we have almost eliminated our exposure to the debt of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico since we are concerned about the island’s economy and high debt levels. Security selection and sector allocation primarily drove the fund’s good relative performance. Our holdings in health care and transportation were especially beneficial, along with our overweight in various revenue sectors. The underweight in high-quality GOs and prerefunded bonds also helped boost performance.

At the end of the period, the yield spreads for most revenue bonds were as tight as they have been since 2008. While we still find some value there, the opportunity to add yield to the portfolio is declining.

Summit Municipal Income Fund

Your fund returned 12.03% during the fund’s fiscal year compared with 10.98% for the Lipper General & Insured Municipal Debt Funds Average. (Please note that Lipper changed the name of this benchmark during the period.) The fund’s net asset value rose from $11.68 to $12.02 during the past six months, while its 30-day SEC yield fell from 2.82% to 2.46%. Dividends contributed $0.22 per share.

Our focus on longer-term bonds helped fund performance during the year. We’ve increased our overweight in bonds with maturities of 22 years and longer, where yields are more compelling, and decreased our cash position and allocation to bonds maturing in five years or less. We kept the fund’s duration fairly stable at 5.7 years at the end of the period, which was longer than that of our benchmark, and extended the weighted average maturity a full year to 19 years. This overall strategy contributed strongly to fund performance.

We remained underweight in GO debt and overweight in revenue-backed bonds. Our out look for states has stabilized, but we continue to believe that many local municipalities still face fiscal challenges. The fund’s five largest sectors are all revenue-backed. Transportation is our largest sector at 24% of net assets, up from the previous period, and health care represents 21%. Both sectors offer attractive yields compared with similarly rated securities in other sectors. We were also overweight in industrial and pollution control bonds.

We made slight shifts in the fund’s quality diversification. Our exposure to AAA bonds remained light at 4% of assets. The portfolio’s AA rated holdings declined to 28%, while we raised our allocation to A rated bonds to 46%. We are underweight in AA and AAA rated bonds and overweight in A and BBB securities relative to the Barclays Municipal Bond Index, which also boosted fund results as lower-quality bonds outperformed.

Other bonds that did well included noncallable, zero coupon, and Indian gaming securities. By contrast, our positions in high-quality and short-duration bonds trimmed the fund’s return, particularly bonds with maturities inside of three years. We’ve been active buyers during the year, investing new cash inflows and coupon payments in bonds we favored. We considerably lowered our exposure to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico . Most of our purchases were in the transportation and hospital sectors. (Please refer to the fund’s portfolio of investments for a complete list of holdings and the amount each represents in the portfolio.)

OUTLOOK

While we are pleased with the tremendous performance of municipal bonds over the last two years, we believe that returns in the period ahead will moderate. The credit and economic environment for municipalities is likely to remain challenging, and yields are unlikely to fall significantly from current levels. Modest economic growth and improving income and sales tax revenues are providing some support for state governments. However, cutbacks in state support for municipalities and persisting downward pressure on property tax revenues could keep local municipal issuers vulnerable. If the economy slides back into a recession—which we are not currently predicting—municipalities will face even tougher challenges.

State and local government liabilities, such as pension benefits and health care costs, are a growing long-term concern. Maintaining balanced budgets and addressing these long-term concerns require careful and dedicated work by state and local officials. These efforts will need to continue—with or without additional federal assistance.

We continue to believe that the municipal bond market is a high-quality market with good opportunities for long-term investors. In this low-rate environment, we believe long-term bonds and A rated sectors represent good value. We are comforted somewhat by Federal Reserve assurances that interest rate hikes are not imminent, as well as by the demonstrated ability of states to balance their budgets in tough times. We are mindful, however, that municipal yields are at or near historical lows and there is the potential for losses if rates rise in response to stronger economic growth or inflation. While we expect rates to stay range-bound in the period ahead, we are careful with any investment shift that might increase our portfolios’ interest rate sensitivity.

We believe T. Rowe Price’s strong credit research capabilities have been and will remain an asset for our investors. We conduct thorough research and assign our own independent credit ratings before making investment decisions. As always, we are on the lookout for attractively valued bonds issued by municipalities with good fundamentals—an investment strategy that has served our investors well in the past.

Thank you for investing with T. Rowe Price.

Respectfully submitted,

Joseph K. Lynagh
Chairman of the Investment Advisory Committee
Summit Municipal Money Market Fund

Charles B. Hill
Chairman of the Investment Advisory Committee
Summit Municipal Intermediate Fund

Konstantine B. Mallas
Chairman of the Investment Advisory Committee
Summit Municipal Income Fund

November 15, 2012

The committee chairmen have day-to-day responsibility for managing the portfolios and work with committee members in developing and executing the funds’ investment programs.

RISKS OF INVESTING IN MUNICIPAL SECURITIES

Funds that invest in municipal securities are subject to price declines due to rising interest rates, with long-term securities generally most sensitive to rate fluctuations. Other risks include credit rating downgrades; defaults on scheduled interest and principal payments; and the possibility that municipal securities will, because of legislation or a significant restructuring of federal income tax rates, lose their advantage as a source of tax-free income. Some income may be subject to state and local taxes and the federal alternative minimum tax (AMT).

RISKS OF INVESTING IN MONEY MARKET SECURITIES 

Since money market funds are managed to maintain a constant $1.00 share price, they should have little risk of principal loss . However, there is no assurance the fund will avoid principal losses if fund holdings default or are downgraded or interest rates rise sharply in an unusually short period. In addition, the fund’s yield will vary; it is not fixed for a specific period like the yield on a bank certificate of deposit. An investment in the fund is not insured or guaranteed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) or any other government agency. Although a money market fund seeks to preserve the value of your investment at $1.00 per share, it is possible to lose money by investing in it.

GLOSSARY

Barclays Intermediate Competitive (1–17 Year Maturity) Bond Index: A subindex of the Barclays Municipal Bond Index. It is a rules-based, market value-weighted index of bonds with maturities of one year to 16 years and 11 months engineered for the tax-exempt bond market.

Barclays Municipal Bond Index: A broadly diversified index of tax-exempt bonds.

Duration: A measure of a bond fund’s sensitivity to changes in interest rates. For example, a fund with a duration of five years would fall about 5% in price in response to a one-percentage-point rise in interest rates, and vice versa.

Federal funds rate (or target rate): The interest rate charged on overnight loans of reserves by one financial institution to another in the United States. The Federal Reserve sets a target federal funds rate to affect the direction of interest rates.

Inflation: A sustained increase in prices throughout the economy.

LIBOR: The London Interbank Offered Rate, which is a benchmark for short-term taxable rates.

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

Lipper indexes: Fund benchmarks that consist of a small number (10 to 30) of the largest mutual funds in a particular category as tracked by Lipper Inc.

Prerefunded bond: A bond that originally may have been issued as a general obligation or revenue bond but that is now secured by an escrow fund consisting entirely of direct U.S. government obligations that are sufficient for paying the bondholders.

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

This chart shows the value of a hypothetical $25,000 investment in the fund over the past 10 fiscal year periods or since inception (for funds lacking 10-year records). The result is compared with benchmarks, which may include a broad-based market index and a peer group average or index. Market indexes do not include expenses, which are deducted from fund returns as well as mutual fund averages and indexes.

This chart shows the value of a hypothetical $25,000 investment in the fund over the past 10 fiscal year periods or since inception (for funds lacking 10-year records). The result is compared with benchmarks, which may include a broad-based market index and a peer group average or index. Market indexes do not include expenses, which are deducted from fund returns as well as mutual fund averages and indexes.

This chart shows the value of a hypothetical $25,000 investment in the fund over the past 10 fiscal year periods or since inception (for funds lacking 10-year records). The result is compared with benchmarks, which may include a broad-based market index and a peer group average or index. Market indexes do not include expenses, which are deducted from fund returns as well as mutual fund averages and indexes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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