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

SCHEDULE 14A INFORMATION
Proxy Statement Pursuant to Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(Amendment No.  )

Filed by the Registrant   ☒

Filed by a Party other than the Registrant   ☐

Check the appropriate box:

☐

Preliminary Proxy Statement

​

☐

Confidential, for Use of the Commission Only (as permitted by Rule 14a-6(e)(2))

​

☒

Definitive Proxy Statement

​

☐

Definitive Additional Materials

​

☐

Soliciting Material under §240.14a-12

​

Simmons First National Corporation
(Name of Registrant as Specified In Its Charter)

(Name of Person(s) Filing Proxy Statement if other than the Registrant)

Payment of Filing Fee (Check the appropriate box):

☒

No fee required.

​

☐

Fee computed on table below per Exchange Act Rules 14a-6(i)(1) and 0-11.

​

1)

Title of each class of securities to which transaction applies:

​

2)

Aggregate number of securities to which transaction applies:

​

3)

Per unit price or other underlying value of transaction computed pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 0-11 (Set forth the amount on which the filing fee is calculated and state how it was determined):

​

4)

Proposed maximum aggregate value of transaction:

​

5)

Total fee paid:

​

☐

Fee paid previously with preliminary materials.

​

☐

Check box if any part of the fee is offset as provided by Exchange Act Rule 0-11(a)(2) and identify the filing for which the offsetting fee was paid previously. Identify the previous filing by registration statement number, or the Form or Schedule and the date of its filing.

​

1)

Amount Previously Paid:

​

2)

Form, Schedule or Registration Statement No.:

​

3)

Filing Party:

​

4)

Date Filed:

​

NOTICE OF
ANNUAL MEETING OF SHAREHOLDERS

TO THE SHAREHOLDERS OF SIMMONS FIRST NATIONAL CORPORATION:

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the annual meeting of the shareholders of Simmons First National Corporation (“Company”) will be held in the Ryburn Community Room of the Company’s Pine Bluff, Arkansas, headquarters (501 Main St., Pine Bluff, Arkansas, 71601) at 11:00 A.M. Central Time, on Wednesday, April 19, 2017, for the following purposes:

1.

To fix at 13 the number of directors to be elected at the meeting;

​

2.

To elect 13 persons as directors to serve until the next annual shareholders’ meeting and until their successors have been duly elected and qualified;

​

3.

To consider adoption of a non-binding resolution approving the compensation of the named executive officers of the Company;

​

4.

To set the frequency at which the Company will seek non-binding shareholder approval of the compensation of its named executive officers at its annual meeting;

​

5.

To consider an amendment to the Simmons First National Corporation 2015 Incentive Plan to increase the number of shares reserved for issuance thereunder from 1,000,000 to 2,000,000;

​

6.

To consider the re-approval of the performance goals included in the Simmons First National Corporation 2015 Incentive Plan;

​

7.

To consider ratification of the Audit Committee’s selection of the accounting firm of BKD, LLP as independent auditors of the Company and its subsidiaries for the year ending December 31, 2017; and

​

8.

To transact such other business as may properly come before the meeting or any adjournment or adjournments thereof.

​

Only shareholders of record at the close of business on February 22, 2017, will be entitled to vote at the meeting.

BY ORDER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS:

Patrick A. Burrow, Secretary
Pine Bluff, Arkansas
March 14, 2017

ANNUAL MEETING OF SHAREHOLDERS
SIMMONS FIRST NATIONAL CORPORATION
P. O. Box 7009
Pine Bluff, Arkansas 71611

With respect to the election of directors, a shareholder may withhold authority to vote for all nominees by checking the box “withhold authority for all nominees” on the enclosed proxy card or may withhold authority to vote for any nominee or nominees by checking the box “withhold authority for certain nominees” and lining through the name of such nominee or nominees for whom the authority to vote is withheld as it appears on the enclosed proxy card. In an uncontested election, withholding authority for a nominee will have the effect of voting against such nominee. The enclosed proxy card also provides a method for shareholders to abstain from voting on each other matter presented. By abstaining with respect to Proposals 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7, shares will not be voted either for or against the subject proposals, but will be counted for quorum purposes. Abstentions, therefore, will not affect the outcome of the vote on any of the proposals being voted upon. While there may be instances in which a shareholder may wish to abstain from voting on any particular matter, the Board encourages all shareholders to vote their shares in their best judgment and to participate in the voting process to the fullest extent possible.

If your shares are held in a brokerage account or by another nominee, you are considered the “beneficial owner” of shares held in “street name,” and these proxy materials have been forwarded to you by your broker or nominee (the “record holder”) along with a voting instruction card. As the beneficial owner, you have the right to direct your record holder how to vote your shares, and the record holder is required to vote your shares in accordance with your instructions. A broker non-vote occurs when a nominee holding shares for a beneficial owner does not vote on a particular proposal because the nominee has not received voting instructions from the beneficial owner and does not have discretionary voting power with respect to that item. Under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, and regulatory rules of Financial Industry Regulatory Authority and New York Stock Exchange, brokers or other nominees may not exercise discretionary voting power on the election of directors, executive compensation or other significant matters as determined by the Securities and Exchange Commission. While brokers or other nominees might still be permitted to exercise discretionary voting power for Proposal 7 (the ratification of BKD, LLP as our independent auditor), brokers and other nominees may not exercise discretionary voting power for Proposals 1 through 6 (number of directors, election of directors, approval of executive compensation, frequency of vote on executive compensation, approval of amendment to the Simmons First National Corporation 2015 Incentive Plan, and re-approval of performance goals under the Simmons First National Corporation 2015 Incentive Plan). Due to the broad and indefinite scope of the discretionary voting prohibition, it is not expected that brokers or other nominees will attempt to exercise any discretionary voting power. As a result, if you do not provide specific voting instructions to your record holder, the record holder may not vote the shares on Proposals 1 through 6. Accordingly, it is particularly important that you provide voting instructions to your broker or other nominee so that your shares may be voted on the matters presented at the Annual Meeting.

If your shares are treated as a broker non-vote, your shares will be counted in the number of shares represented for purposes of determining whether a quorum is present. However, broker non-votes will not be included in vote totals (neither for nor against) and therefore will not affect the outcome of the vote on any of the proposals being voted upon.

In the event a shareholder executes the proxy but does not mark the ballot to vote (or abstain) on any one or more of the proposals, the proxy will be voted “For” Proposals 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 and “1 Year” with respect to Proposal 4. Further, if any matter, other than the matters shown on the proxy, is properly presented at the meeting which may be acted upon without special notice under Arkansas law, the proxy solicited hereby confers discretionary authority to the named proxies to vote in their sole discretion with respect to such matters, as well as other matters incident to the conduct of the meeting. On the date of the mailing of this Proxy Statement, the Board has no knowledge of any such other matter which will come before the meeting.

2

4

Mr. Burchfield currently serves as a Director of O’Reilly Automotive, Inc. In this role, he serves as Chairman of its Compensation Committee and as a member of its Corporate Governance and Audit Committees. Mr. Burchfield also serves as Senior Principal of SilverTree Companies, a real estate company.

The Board believes that Mr. Burchfield’s experience and expertise in the banking industry, strategic business development, executive compensation and leadership development will be beneficial in the management of the Company’s operations.

William E. Clark, II

Mr. Clark, 47, was elected to the Board in 2008. He is the Chief Executive Officer of Clark Contractors, LLC, a general contractor involved in commercial construction throughout the United States. Prior to the formation of Clark Contractors, LLC in 2009, he was employed by CDI Contractors from 1994 through 2009, where he served in various capacities culminating in his serving as Chief Executive Officer from 2007 to 2009. Mr. Clark received a B.S.B.A. degree in Business Management from the University of Arkansas in 1991.

He is chairman of the UAMS Foundation Fund Board of Directors, a past President/Chairman for the UAMS Consortium and Arkansas Children’s Hospital Committee for the Future, and a member of Fifty for the Future, Young Presidents Organization, St. Vincent Foundation, Little Rock Christian Academy Board of Trust and the Winthrop P. Rockefeller Cancer Institute.

The Board believes that Mr. Clark’s experience within the commercial construction industry provides needed skills in the assessment of the construction industry utilized by the Company in setting policies involving the allocation of credit and lending priorities.

Steven A. Cossé

Mr. Cossé, 69, was elected to the Board in 2004. On August 31, 2013, he retired as President and CEO of Murphy Oil Corporation, a Fortune 500 company listed on the New York Stock Exchange, following his election on June 20, 2012. Mr. Cossé has previously served as the Executive Vice President and General Counsel for Murphy Oil Corporation. He had served as General Counsel since 1991 and had also previously served as Senior Vice President, Vice President and Principal Financial Officer. Prior to joining Murphy Oil Corporation as General Counsel, he served for eight years as General Counsel for Ocean Drilling & Exploration Company in New Orleans, Louisiana, a NYSE listed, majority-owned subsidiary of Murphy Oil Corporation. Mr. Cossé received a B.A. degree in Government from Southeastern Louisiana University in 1969 and a Juris Doctorate degree from Loyola University in 1974.

Mr. Cossé also currently serves on the boards of Murphy Oil Corporation (a NYSE listed company), and SHARE Foundation. He is past chairman of the South Arkansas Chapter of the American Red Cross and is on the advisory board of Turning Point. Mr. Cossé is a member of the Louisiana Bar Association, Arkansas Bar Association and Union County Bar Association.

The Board believes that Mr. Cossé’s experience as an executive officer, general counsel and principal financial officer, provides needed skills in the assessment of the oil industry utilized by the Company in setting policies involving the allocation of credit and lending priorities and in the legal, financial and general business issues facing publicly traded companies.

Mark C. Doramus

Mr. Doramus, 58, was appointed to the Board in 2015. He serves as Chief Financial Officer of Stephens Inc., an independent financial services firm headquartered in Little Rock, Arkansas. He has served in several capacities at Stephens, including the corporate finance department from 1988 to 1994, Assistant to the President from 1994 to 1996 and Chief Financial Officer since 1996.

He began his career in 1980 with Arthur Andersen & Co. in Dallas, Texas, where he worked as a Certified Public Accountant. He joined the Dallas, Texas office of Trammell Crow Company in 1983, where he worked until he joined Stephens in 1988.

Mr. Doramus was a member of the CHI St. Vincent Infirmary Board of Directors from 2007 to 2016, serving as chairman from 2012 to 2014. Mr. Doramus was a member of the University of Arkansas at Little Rock Board of Visitors from 2004 to 2016. Mr. Doramus served on the Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation board from 2004 to 2009, serving as Chairman in 2009.

5

Mr. Doramus graduated from Rhodes College in Memphis, Tennessee, with a B.A. degree in Economics and Business in 1980 and received his M.A. degree in Real Estate and Regional Science from Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas in 1982.

The Board believes that Mr. Doramus’ experience in accounting and the financial services industry provides needed skills for assisting in the management of the Company’s business, including risk management, internal controls and capital management.

Edward Drilling

Mr. Drilling, 61, was elected to the Board in 2009. He joined AT&T (then Southwestern Bell Telephone Company) in 1979 and has served in various operations positions including customer service, sales and marketing, and the external affairs organization. He was named President of AT&T’s Arkansas Division in 2002. Mr. Drilling received a B.S. degree in Marketing from the Walton College at the University of Arkansas in 1978 and graduated from the Emory University Advanced Management Program in 1991.

Mr. Drilling has served on numerous boards over the last 30 years, including: past Chairman of the Arkansas State Chamber of Commerce, Arkansas Children’s Hospital Board of Trustees, University of Arkansas Board of Advisors, former President of the Little Rock, Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors, UAMS Arkansas BioVentures Advisory Board, former President of Fifty for the future, former Vice Chairman of the Arkansas Economic Development Commission.

The Board believes that Mr. Drilling’s experience as an executive within the telecommunication and information technology industry having participated in various industry transitions, mergers and technology changes provides needed skills in the assessment of the technology risks of the Company, the security measures to address these risks and valuable insights involving the executive management of a large enterprise.

Eugene Hunt

Mr. Hunt, 71, was elected to the Board in 2009. He is an attorney in private practice in Pine Bluff, Arkansas. Mr. Hunt began his practice in 1972 and has thereafter been involved in the active practice of law within Arkansas, primarily in Southeast Arkansas. He served as Judge on the Arkansas Court of Appeals from August through December, 2008 and has served as a Special Circuit Judge and Special Justice on the Arkansas Supreme Court. Additionally, he served as Director of the Child Support Enforcement Unit, Jefferson County, Arkansas from 1990-2001. Mr. Hunt received a B.A. degree in History and Government from Arkansas AM&N College in 1969 and a Juris Doctorate degree from the University of Arkansas Law School in 1971.

Mr. Hunt also serves on the boards of The Economic Development Corporation of Jefferson County, Arkansas, Jefferson Hospital and Youth Partners. He is a member of the NAACP and has served as an NAACP Affiliate Attorney since 1978.

The Board believes that Mr. Hunt’s experience as an attorney and his long-term familiarity with the business and social environment in southeastern Arkansas provides needed skills and insight in the small business and consumer needs of the Company’s banking customers in one of its major markets, southeastern Arkansas.

Jerry Hunter

Mr. Hunter, 64, was appointed to the Board in January 2017. He is a partner in the Commercial Litigation and Labor & Employment Law Client Service Groups of the international law firm Bryan Cave LLP. Mr. Hunter previously served as Labor Counsel for the Kellwood Company, Director of the Missouri Department of Labor and Industrial Relations, and General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board. Mr. Hunter received a Bachelor’s Degree in History and Government with a Minor in Mathematics from the University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff in 1974 and a Juris Doctorate degree from Washington University School of Law in 1977.

Mr. Hunter has served on the boards of the Kellwood Company, Boys Hope Girls Hope International, Associated Industries of Missouri, St. Louis Regional Convention and Sports Complex Authority, U.S. Congress Office of Compliance, American Arbitration Association, Maryville University, and the U.S. Senate Small Business Committee Advisory Council.

6

The Board believes that Mr. Hunter’s experience as an attorney in senior-level governmental and private-sector roles, as well as his deep knowledge of labor and employment matters, provides needed skills and insight into the legal and regulatory environment in which the Company operates.

Christopher R. Kirkland

Mr. Kirkland, 47, was appointed to the Board in 2015. He is a private investor and conducts his real estate investment operation as The Kirkland Group. Mr. Kirkland most recently served as a principal of Anchor Investments, LLC, a private, real estate investment company based in Nashville, Tennessee. The Company had a strategic focus to acquire, own, develop and manage income-producing commercial properties in the Southeast United States and to purchase and reposition residential land or properties. Mr. Kirkland sold his interest in Anchor Investments in 2015.

Prior to forming Anchor Investments, Mr. Kirkland was the managing member of Kirkland Properties, LLC which he co-founded in 1994. While operating Kirkland Properties, Mr. Kirkland further developed skills as a successful investor in commercial real estate, focusing on the development or redevelopment and management of underperforming real estate assets. Mr. Kirkland also had an ownership interest in SouthLand Constructors, LLC, a commercial contracting company based in Brentwood, Tennessee which he operated for 10 years prior to selling the company to a construction holding company based in Chicago, Illinois in 2014.

Mr. Kirkland received a B.A. degree in economics from the University of Tennessee – Knoxville in 1992 and an M.B.A. degree from the Owen Graduate School of Management at Vanderbilt University in 1998.

The Board believes that Mr. Kirkland’s experience in real estate development, construction and finance provides needed skills for setting policies involving the allocation of credit and lending priorities within the expanding geographic markets of the Company and valuable insights involving the real estate business.

Scott McGeorge

Mr. McGeorge, 73, was elected to the Board in 2005. He is the senior member of a group of McGeorge and McGeorge - Dickinson family owned companies that include Pine Bluff Sand & Gravel Co., McGeorge Contracting Co., Inc. and Cornerstone Farm and Gin Co., where he serves as Chairman, Chairman and Vice President, respectively. The companies perform marine construction in a multistate regional area, build highways and similar projects, mine various minerals and produce and sell stone products, asphalt pavement and sand. Cornerstone is engaged in farming operations.

Mr. McGeorge previously served on the board of directors of National Bancshares Corporation and its wholly owned subsidiary National Bank of Commerce of Pine Bluff during the mid 1980’s before it was purchased by Boatmen’s Bank. He was on the commercial and industrial loan committee, which approved the largest loans the bank made. Mr. McGeorge received a B.S. degree in Business Administration from the University of Arkansas in 1965. He graduated from U. S. Coast Guard Officer Candidate School and served as an officer in the U.S. Coast Guard for three years.

Mr. McGeorge served as past Secretary and current board member of the National Stone Sand and Gravel Association in Alexandria, Virginia, is a member of the boards of directors of Dredging Contractors of America and National Waterways Conference, both located in Washington, D.C. and is past President and a current director of Mississippi Valley Associated General Contractors in Memphis, Tennessee. He is active in many local and civic activities. He is President of Trinity Foundation, a charitable foundation that seeks to benefit residents of Pine Bluff, Little Rock and the surrounding areas through grants for scholarship, support of educational institutions and other civic activities. He is a member of the Board of the Economic Development Corporation of Jefferson County, Arkansas.

The Board believes that Mr. McGeorge’s experience in the construction, materials, mining and agricultural industries, as well as his experience and past performance as the president of a large successful business enterprise, provides needed skills and insight into the overall business and industrial climate and the executive management of a large successful business enterprise.

George A. Makris, Jr.

Mr. Makris, 60, was elected to the Board in 1997. He is currently serving as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company. Prior to his employment by the Company on January 2, 2013, Mr. Makris had been employed by M. K. Distributors, Inc. since 1980 and had served as its President since 1985.

7

Mr. Makris previously served as a member of the board of directors of National Bank of Commerce from 1985 to 1996 and served as Chairman of the Board from 1994 to 1996. Mr. Makris received a B.A. degree in Business Administration from Rhodes College in 1978 and an M.B.A. from the University of Arkansas in 1980.

Mr. Makris also serves as Chairman of the board of directors of The Economic Development Corporation of Jefferson County, Arkansas and a member of the board of trustees of the Jefferson Regional Medical Center. He has previously served as Chairman of the board of trustees of the Arts and Science Center for Southeast Arkansas, Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Economic Development Alliance for Jefferson County, Chairman of the board of directors of the Greater Pine Bluff Chamber of Commerce, Chairman of the King Cotton Classic Basketball Tournament, Chairman of the board of trustees of Trinity Episcopal School, a director of Simmons First National Bank, a director of the Wholesale Beer Distributors of Arkansas, a director of the National Beer Wholesalers Association, a director of CHI St. Vincent. and a member of the board of visitors of the University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff and the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, College of Medicine.

The Board believes that Mr. Makris’ experience as the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company and his experience as a business executive and long-term resident of central and southeastern Arkansas provides needed skills and insight into the banking and financial services business conducted by the Company as well as the executive management of a separate successful business enterprise in Arkansas.

Joseph D. Porter

Mr. Porter, 59, was appointed to the Board in 2015. He serves as president of Akin-Porter Produce, Inc., a family owned wholesale distributor of fresh produce, located in Greenfield, Tennessee. The company has operations in Plant City, Florida, Eau Claire, Michigan; Thomasville, Georgia and Cuerevaca, Mexico. Mr. Porter’s is responsible for the oversight of the distributorship and sales force. In conjunction with the distributorship, Mr. Porter also serves as President of JP Enterprises of Greenfield, Inc. and Vice President of Moore & Porter Produce. He also is actively involved in various farming operations and as a director at Innovative Livestock Services.

Mr. Porter previously served as president of the Weakley County Chamber of Commerce and formerly served on the board of Weakly County Municipal Electric System. Mr. Porter attended University of Tennessee - Martin.

The Board believes that Mr. Porter’s experience in agri-business and farming provides needed skills for setting policies involving the allocation of credit and lending priorities within the expanding geographic markets of the Company and valuable insights involving the management of an international enterprise.

Robert L. Shoptaw

Mr. Shoptaw, 70, was elected to the Board in 2006 and was designated as the audit committee financial expert on the Company’s Audit & Security Committee in December, 2012. Mr. Shoptaw retired as president of Arkansas Blue Cross Blue Shield (“ABCBS”), a mutual health insurance company, in 2008, terminating his 39 years of service to that organization. During the 1970s and 1980s, he served in various management and executive capacities with a primary focus in medical services management, professional relations and government programs administration (Medicare administrative operations). In 1987, Mr. Shoptaw became the Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of ABCBS and was named President and CEO in 1994. After retiring as President and CEO in 2008, he served as Chairman of the Board of Directors of ABCBS from 2009 to 2016. Mr. Shoptaw received a B.A. in Economics from Arkansas Tech University in 1968, an M.B.A. from Webster University in Business Administration and Health Services Management and completed the Advanced Management Program at Harvard University Business School in 1991.

Mr. Shoptaw serves as a member of the board of directors of Arkansas Center for Health Improvement, the Little Rock Metrocentre Improvement District, Arkansas Research Alliance and is the immediate past Chairman of the board of visitors of The University of Arkansas College of Medicine.

The Board believes that Mr. Shoptaw’s experience and past performance as the president of a large mutual health insurance company, provides needed skills and insight into the health care industry, health insurance industry and the financial and executive management of a large successful business enterprise.

8

Mindy West

Ms. West, 47, was appointed to the Board in January 2017. She currently serves as the Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer at Murphy USA Inc., a retailer of gasoline products and convenience store merchandise listed on the New York Stock Exchange, and has held that role since August 2013. Ms. West was previously employed by Murphy Oil Corporation, joining the company in 1996 and holding positions in accounting, employee benefits, planning and investor relations. She was Murphy Oil Corporation’s director of investor relations from July 2001 until December 2006 and its Vice President and Treasurer from January 2007 until August 2013, when she joined Murphy USA Inc. Ms. West holds a bachelor’s degree in Finance from the University of Arkansas and a bachelor’s degree in Accounting from Southern Arkansas University. She is a Certified Public Accountant and a Certified Treasury Professional.

The Board believes that Ms. West’s experience in accounting and finance, as well as her leadership roles in large, public companies, provide needed skills for assisting in the management of the Company’s business, including audit, risk management, internal controls and capital management.

The table below sets forth the name, age, principal occupation or employment during the last five years, prior service as a director of the Company, the number of shares and percentage of the outstanding Common Stock beneficially owned, with respect to each director and nominee proposed, as reported by each nominee:

*

The shares beneficially owned represent less than 1% of the outstanding common shares.

​

9

[a]

“Beneficial ownership” of a security means, directly or indirectly, through any contract, relationship, arrangement, undertaking or otherwise, having or sharing voting power, which includes the power to vote or to direct the voting of such security, or investment power, which includes the power to dispose or to direct the disposition of such security. Unless otherwise indicated, each beneficial owner named has sole voting and investment power with respect to the shares identified.

​

[b]

Mr. Clark owns of record 4,820 shares and 1,500 shares are owned jointly with his spouse.

​

[c]

Mr. Cossé owns of record 6,321 shares and 19,816 shares are owned jointly with his spouse.

​

[d]

These shares are owned jointly by Mr. Doramus and his spouse.

​

[e]

Mr. Hunt owns of record 3,900 shares; 980 shares are owned jointly with his spouse; and 416 shares are held in his IRA.

​

[f]

Mr. Kirkland owns of record 241,214 shares; 4,975 shares are held by his wife; 35,288 shares are held in custodian accounts for his children and 358,715 are held by a trust in which Mr. Kirkland is a trustee.

​

[g]

Mr. Makris owns of record 44,675 shares; 100,833 shares are held jointly with his spouse; 4,117 shares are held in his IRA; 4,750 shares are held in his wife’s IRA; 1,871 shares are held in a trust for his benefit; 508 shares are held in his account in the Company’s 401(k) Plan; 499 shares were held in his account in SFNC Employee Stock Purchase Plan and 59,188 shares are deemed held through exercisable stock options.

​

[h]

Mr. Porter owns of record 59,101 shares and 28,993 shares are held in his 401(k) account. Mr. Porter is general partner in a family limited partnership which owns 116,001 shares of which 5,801 shares held by the partnership are attributable to Mr. Porter.

​

[i]

Mr. Shoptaw owns of record 24,259 shares and 2,400 shares are held in his IRA.

​

Committees and Related Matters

During 2016, the Board maintained and utilized the following committees: Executive Committee, Audit Committee, Compensation Committee, Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee (“NCGC”) and Risk Committee.

During 2016, the Audit Committee was composed of Robert L. Shoptaw (Chairman), Jay D. Burchfield, Edward Drilling, Eugene Hunt, Scott McGeorge and, effective May 1, 2016, Chris Kirkland. Messrs. Shoptaw and Burchfield serve as financial experts on the Audit Committee. This committee provides assistance to the Board in fulfilling its responsibilities concerning accounting and reporting practices by regularly reviewing the adequacy of the internal and external auditors, the disclosure of the financial affairs of the Company and its subsidiaries, the control systems of management and internal accounting controls. During 2016, this committee met 9 times.

The Compensation Committee, composed of Jay Burchfield, (Chairman), Steven A. Cossé, Mark C. Doramus, W. Scott McGeorge, Robert L. Shoptaw and, until his retirement from the Board on April 19, 2016, Harry L. Ryburn, met 6 times during 2016.

The NCGC, composed of Steven A. Cossé (Chairman), Jay Burchfield, Mark C. Doramus, W. Scott McGeorge, Robert L. Shoptaw and, until his retirement from the Board on April 19, 2016, Harry L. Ryburn, met 3 times during 2016.

The Risk Committee, composed of Mark C. Doramus (Chairman), Steven A. Cossé, Edward Drilling, Eugene Hunt, W. Scott McGeorge, Robert L. Shoptaw and, effective May 1, 2016, Joseph D. Porter, met 4 times during 2016.

The Company encourages all Board members to attend the annual meeting. Historically, the directors of the Company and its subsidiaries are introduced and acknowledged at the annual meeting. All of the current directors who stood for election at the 2016 annual meeting attended the Company’s 2016 annual meeting, except William E. Clark, II.

The Board met nine times during 2016, including regular and special meetings. All incumbent directors attended at least 75% of the aggregate of all meetings of the Board and all meetings of the committees on which such director served, except Joseph D. Porter, who attended 72.7% of such meetings. Mr. Porter’s absences were primarily due to conflicts and scheduling related to a family medical issue.

10

Board Leadership Structure

The Company’s Corporate Governance Principles and Procedures do not mandate the separation of the offices of Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer. The Board believes that a unified leadership structure with an experienced executive management team is more beneficial to the Company than a bifurcated leadership structure mandating the separation of the Chairman and the CEO. Over the last 30 years, there have been brief periods where the offices of Chairman and CEO were held by different persons. The few brief instances of separation were during transitions in the executive management of the Company. After the management transition was completed, the Board in each instance has chosen to return to a unified leadership structure. The Board believes that it is in the best interests of the Company to provide flexibility in the Company’s leadership structure to address differences in the Company’s operating environment as well as differences in the experience, skills and capabilities of the executive management team serving the Company from time to time. While the Board still believes the unification of the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer positions is in the Company’s best interest, the Board is authorized to separate these positions should circumstances change in the future.

In an effort to strengthen independent oversight of management and to provide for more open communication, Steven A. Cossé served as Chairman of the Executive Committee and Lead Director during 2016. Mr. Cossé, as an independent Lead Director, chaired executive sessions of the Board conducted without management. These sessions are held during each regularly scheduled Board meeting. Management also periodically meets with the Lead Director to discuss Board and Executive Committee agenda items.

Codes of Ethics

Code of Ethics - General . The Company has adopted a general Code of Ethics applicable to all directors, advisory directors, officers and associates of the Company. The Code is designed to promote the conduct the business of the Company in accordance with the highest ethical standards of conduct and to promote the ethical handling of conflicts of interest, full and fair disclosure and compliance with laws, rules and regulations. Additionally, under the Code of Ethics, associates or Directors who learn of a business opportunity in the course of their service for the Company cannot appropriate that opportunity for themselves or for others, but must allow the Company to take advantage of the opportunity. The Company’s Code of Ethics is designed to provide guidance and resources to help ensure that:

•

The Company and its associates remain in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations;

​

•

The Company operates a safe and nondiscriminatory place to work and do business;

​

•

Confidential and proprietary information is protected;

​

•

Inappropriate gifts or favors are not accepted; and

​

•

Conflicts of interest are avoided.

​

Any material departure from a provision of the Code of Ethics on behalf of a member of the Ethics Committee, a Director or an executive officer may be waived by the Ethics Committee and shall be reported to the Board, and any such waiver will be promptly disclosed as required by applicable law, rule or regulation.

Code of Ethics for Finance Group . The Board has adopted a separate Code of Ethics for the Finance Group that supplements the Code of Conduct and applies to the Company’s Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, the Chief Accounting Officer and Controller and all other officers in the Company’s Finance Group.

Both of these Codes of Ethics may be found on the Company’s website at www.simmonsbank.com in the Governance Documents section of Investor Relations. The Company will disclose any amendments or waivers with respect to its Code of Ethics for Financial Group on its website.

Transactions with Related Persons

From time to time, Simmons Bank (“Bank”), the banking subsidiary of the Company, and such other banking subsidiaries of the Company as are, or may have been, in operation from time to time, have made

11

loans and other extensions of credit to directors, officers, employees and members of their immediate families, and from time to time directors, officers, employees and members of their immediate families have placed deposits with these banks. These loans, extensions of credit and deposits were made in the ordinary course of business on substantially the same terms (including interest rates and collateral) as those prevailing at the time for comparable transactions with other persons not related to the Company and did not involve more than the normal risk of collectability or present other unfavorable features. The Company generally considers banking relationships with directors and their affiliates to be immaterial and as not affecting a director’s independence so long as the terms of the credit relationship are similar to those with other comparable borrowers not related to the Company.

In assessing the impact of a credit relationship on a director’s independence, the Company deems any extension of credit which complies with Federal Reserve Regulation O to be consistent with director independence. The Company believes that normal, arm’s-length banking relationships entered into in the ordinary course of business do not negate a director’s independence.

Regulation O requires such loans to be made on substantially the same terms, including interest rates and collateral, and following credit-underwriting procedures that are no less stringent than those prevailing at the time for comparable transactions by the subsidiary banks of the Company with other persons not related to the Company. Such loans also may not involve more than the normal risk of repayment or present other unfavorable features. Additionally, no event of default may have occurred nor may any such loans be classified or disclosed as non-accrual, past due, restructured or a potential problem loan. The Company’s Board will review any credit to a director or his affiliates that is criticized by internal loan review or a bank regulatory agency in order to determine the impact that such classification may have on the director’s independence.

An immediate family member of Mr. George A. Makris, Jr., Chairman and CEO, is employed by the Company. In 2016, Mr. Makris’ son, George A. Makris III, received compensation consisting of approximately $182,504. Such compensation is consistent with the compensation provided to other employees of the same level with similar responsibilities.

Policies and Procedures for Approval of Related Party Transactions

Related party transactions may present potential or actual conflicts of interest and create the appearance that Company decisions are based on considerations other than the best interests of the Company and its shareholders.

Management carefully reviews all proposed related party transactions, other than routine banking transactions, to determine if the transaction is on terms comparable to terms that could be obtained in an arm’s-length transaction with an unrelated third party. Management reports to the Board on all proposed material related party transactions. Upon the presentation of a proposed related party transaction to the Board, the related party is excused from participation in discussion and voting on the matter.

Role of Board in Risk Oversight

The Board has responsibility for the oversight of risk management. The Board, either as a whole or through its committees, regularly discusses with management the Company’s major risk exposures, their potential impact on the Company and the steps being taken to manage them.

While the Board is ultimately responsible for risk oversight, the Board committees assist the Board in fulfilling its oversight responsibilities in certain areas of risk. In particular, the Risk Committee assists the Board in assessing and managing the various risks of the Company. To aid the Risk Committee in its responsibilities, Management has appointed an Enterprise Risk Management Committee of senior executives and has allocated responsibilities for the administration of the risk management program to our Executive Vice President of Internal Audit. Each of these committees has adopted charters that outline their respective duties.

The Audit Committee, composed of independent directors, focuses on financial risk exposures, including internal controls, and discusses with management, the internal auditors, and the independent registered public accountants the Company’s policies with respect to financial risk assessment and management,

12

including risks related to fraud and liquidity. The Compensation Committee, also composed of independent directors, focuses on the management of risks associated with compensation policies and programs. During 2016, four of the Company’s directors who served on the Audit Committee also served on the Risk Committee, thereby providing an internal communication link between the committees.

Communication with Directors

Shareholders may communicate directly with the Board by sending correspondence to the address shown below. If the shareholder desires to communicate with a specific director, the correspondence should be addressed to such director. Any such correspondence addressed to the Board will be forwarded to the Chairman of the Board for review. The receipt of the correspondence and the nature of its content will be reported at the next Board meeting and appropriate action, if any, will be taken. Correspondence addressed to a specific director will be delivered to such director promptly after receipt by the Company. Each such director shall review the correspondence received and, if appropriate, report the receipt of the correspondence and the nature of its content to the Board at its next meeting, so that the appropriate action, if any, may be taken.

Correspondence should be addressed to:

Simmons First National Corporation
Board of Directors
Attention: (Chairman or Specific Director)
P. O. Box 7009
Pine Bluff, Arkansas 71611

​

NOMINATING AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE

During 2016, the NCGC was composed of Steven A. Cossé (Chairman), Jay Burchfield, Mark C. Doramus, W. Scott McGeorge, Robert L. Shoptaw and, until his retirement from the Board on April 19, 2016, Harry L. Ryburn. All of the members of the committee satisfied the independence standards in accordance with the NASDAQ listing standards. A function of the NCGC regarding nominations is to identify and recommend individuals to be presented for election or re-election as Directors.

Director Nominations and Qualifications (Company and subsidiaries)

The Board is responsible for recommending nominees for directors to the shareholders for election at the annual meeting. The Board has delegated the identification and evaluation of proposed director nominees to the NCGC. The NCGC charter, which is available for review in the Investor Relations portion of the Company’s web site: www.simmonsbank.com, and certain corporate governance principles and procedures govern the nominations and criteria for proposing or recommending proposed nominees for election and re-election to the Board and its subsidiaries.

The identification of potential directors and the evaluation of existing and potential directors is a continuing responsibility of the committee. The NCGC has not retained any third party to assist it in performing its duties. A proposed director may be recommended to the Board at any time; however, a proposed nominee for director to be elected at the annual meeting must be presented to the Board for consideration no later than December 31 of the year immediately preceding such annual meeting.

13

The NCGC has not set any minimum qualifications for a proposed nominee to be eligible for recommendation to be elected as a director of the Company. The corporate governance principles provide that the NCGC shall consider the following criteria, without any specified priority or weighting, in evaluating proposed nominees for director:

The NCGC has no specific quotas for diversity. In evaluating potential nominees to serve as a director for the Company or the Bank, under the criteria set forth above, the NCGC seeks nominees with diverse business and professional experience, skills, gender and ethnic background, as appropriate, in light of the current composition of the boards. Additionally, the NCGC seeks geographical diversity and insights into its local and regional markets by primarily seeking potential director nominees who reside within the markets in which the Company has a significant business presence.

Nominations from Shareholders

The NCGC will consider nominees for the Board recommended by shareholders with respect to elections to be held at an annual meeting. In order for the NCGC to consider recommending a shareholder proposed nominee for election at the annual meeting, the shareholder proposing the nomination must provide notice of the intention to nominate a director in sufficient time for the consideration and action by the NCGC. While no specific deadline has been set for notice of such nominations, notice provided to the NCGC by a shareholder on or before the deadline for submission of shareholder proposals for the next annual meeting (November 14, 2017 for the 2018 meeting) should provide adequate time for consideration and action by the NCGC prior to the December 31 deadline for reporting proposed nominations to the Board. Proposed nominations submitted after such date will be considered by the NCGC, but no assurance can be made that such consideration will be completed and committee action taken by the NCGC in time for inclusion of the proposed director in the proxy solicitation for the next annual meeting.

The notice of a shareholder’s intention to nominate a director must include:

•

the name and address of the person or persons being nominated and such other information regarding each nominated person that would be required in a proxy statement filed pursuant to the SEC’s proxy rules if the person had been nominated for election by the Board;

​

•

information regarding the shareholder making the nomination, including name, address and number of shares of SFNC that are beneficially owned by the shareholder;

​

•

a representation that the shareholder is entitled to vote at the meeting at which directors will be elected, and that the shareholder intends to appear in person or by proxy at the meeting to nominate the person or persons specified in the notice;

​

•

a description of any arrangements or understandings between the shareholder and such nominee and any other persons (including their names), pursuant to which the nomination is made; and

​

•

the consent of each such nominee to serve as a director, if elected.

​

The Chairman of the Board, other directors and executive officers may also recommend director nominees to the NCGC. The committee will evaluate nominees recommended by shareholders against the same criteria, described above, used to evaluate other nominees.

Compensation Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation

During 2016, the Compensation Committee was composed of Jay Burchfield, (Chairman), Steven A. Cossé, Mark C. Doramus, W. Scott McGeorge, Robert L. Shoptaw and, until his retirement from the Board on April 19, 2016, Harry L. Ryburn, none of which were employed by the Company.

14

Compensation Committee Processes and Procedures

Decisions regarding the compensation of the executives are made by the Compensation Committee. Specifically, the Compensation Committee has strategic responsibility for a broad range of issues, including the Company’s compensation program to compensate key management employees effectively and in a manner consistent with the Company’s stated compensation strategy and the requirements of the appropriate regulatory bodies. The Board appoints each member of the Compensation Committee and has determined that each is an independent director.

The Compensation Committee oversees the administration of executive compensation plans, including the design, performance measures and award opportunities for the executive incentive programs and certain employee benefits, subject to final action by the Board in certain cases. During the first quarter of each calendar year, the committee makes a specific review focusing on performance and awards for the most recently completed fiscal year and the completion of the process of setting the performance goals for the incentive compensation programs for the current year.

To assist in meeting the objectives outlined above, Korn/Ferry International, a compensation and benefits consulting firm, has been retained to advise the Compensation Committee on a regular basis on the compensation and benefit programs. The Company engaged the consultant to provide general compensation consulting services, including executive compensation. In addition, the consultant may perform special compensation projects and consulting services upon request by the Company.

The Board, upon approval and recommendation from the committee, determines and approves all non-incentive based compensation and awards to the CEO. The committee reviews the performance and approves incentive compensation of the CEO. The CEO reviews the performance and compensation of the other executive officers, including the other named executive officers, and reports any significant issues or deficiencies to the committee. The members of the Company’s Human Resources Group assist in such reviews. The CEO and the Human Resources Group, at least annually, review the compensation classification system of the Company, which determines the compensation of all employees of the Company and its affiliates, including other named executive officers. The Company’s compensation program is based in part on market data provided by the compensation consultant. The Compensation Committee also acts upon the proposed grants of stock-based compensation prepared by the CEO for other executives.

In determining the amount of named executive officer compensation each year, the Compensation Committee reviews competitive market data from the banking industry as a whole and the peer group specifically. It makes specific compensation decisions and grants based on such data, Company performance and individual performance and circumstances. For performance-based incentives, the committee sets performance targets using management’s internal business plan, industry and market conditions and other factors.

Role of Compensation Consultants

The Company periodically engages compensation consultants to aid in the review of its compensation programs. From time to time, the Company engages compensation consultants to provide national and regional general statistical information regarding compensation within the banking industry. The data reviewed may include base salary, bonus, incentive programs, equity compensation, retirement and other benefits. This information is used to validate the Company’s classification of positions and salaries within its compensation policies.

The Compensation Committee also uses compensation consultants to evaluate its executive and director compensation programs. Presently, the consultant assists such reviews by providing data regarding market practices and making specific recommendations for changes to plan design and policies consistent with the Company’s stated philosophies and objectives.

The Compensation Committee assessed the relationships between Korn/Ferry International, the Company, the Compensation Committee and the executive officers of the Company for conflicts of interest. In this assessment, the committee reviewed the criteria set forth in the SEC’s Reg.240.10C-1(b)(4) (i)-(vi), NASDAQ Rule IM-5605-5(d)(3)(i)-(vi) and such other criteria as it deemed appropriate. The committee did not identify any conflicts of interest for Korn/Ferry International.

15

[1]

Mr. Makris was elected as CEO – Elect on August 13, 2012, effective January 1, 2013. He succeeded J. Thomas May as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer upon Mr. May’s retirement on December 31, 2013. Mr. Makris has served on the Board since 1997 and served as chairman of the Company’s Audit & Security Committee from 2007 until his resignation upon his election to CEO – Elect. Prior to his election, he served as President of M. K. Distributors, Inc.

​

[2]

Mr. Massanelli was elected Executive Vice President/Organizational Development on December 15, 2014 and subsequently was designated as Chief Administrative Officer. Prior to becoming an officer at the Company, he was a principal in the investment firm Treadstone Partners, LLC from 2011 to 2014 and served as a Senior Vice President and Treasurer of Zale Corporation from 1997 - 2010.

​

[3]

Mr. Burrow was elected as Executive Vice President and General Counsel on December 15, 2014 and as secretary on January 20, 2016. Prior to becoming an officer at the Company, he was a managing member of the law firm Quattlebaum, Grooms, Tull & Burrow PLLC. Mr. Burrow had provided legal representation to the Company in various capacities over the last 30 years.

​

[4]

Mrs. Compton was hired as Executive Vice President, Chief People Officer and Assistant General Counsel on September 15, 2015. Prior to becoming an officer at the Company, she was Senior Vice President of Human Resources at Acxiom Corporation, a public company that provides enterprise data, analytics, and other information technology services.

​

16

[5]

Mr. Kanneman was hired as Executive Vice President and Chief Information Officer on January 2, 2017. Prior to becoming an officer of the Bank, he was a Principal and the National Business Advisory Services Practice Leader at Grant Thornton LLP, an international accounting and advisory firm.

​

[6]

Mr. McCaleb was hired as Executive Vice President and Chief Audit Executive on June 20, 2016. He was previously an Audit Partner at BKD, LLP, a national accounting and advisory firm.

​

17

Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi, North Carolina, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. The Compensation Committee adopted the peer group as recommended by its compensation consultant. For 2016, the peer group consisted of 20 banking organizations, the name and ticker symbol for each member of the peer group is set forth below:

The committee believes the peer group is indicative of the market in which the Company competed for the employment and retention of executive management during 2016 and such institutions are of similar size and have similar numbers of employees, product offerings and geographic scope. In recent years, due to the consolidation in the banking industry, there has been a significant reduction in the number of organizations satisfying the peer group criteria.

The executive salary and benefit programs are targeted to the peer group median for each compensation category in order to be competitive in the market. In cases where an executive’s experiences or performance warrant, the Company may exceed the peer group median. The Company’s incentive programs are analyzed with similar programs of the peer group. The incentive programs are designed for the emphasis of performance based compensation within the Company’s specific business operations.

The committee attempts to make compensation decisions consistent with the foregoing objectives and considerations including, in particular, market levels of compensation necessary to attract, retain and motivate the executive officers. Therefore, the aggregate wealth accumulated or realizable by an executive from past compensation grants is considered but not determinative in setting compensation or making additional grants.

Comprehensive Compensation Study

During 2014, the Company combined all of its subsidiary banks into the Bank and agreed to acquire two banking organizations located in Tennessee and Missouri. With the reorganization of the internal banking operations and the significant increase in size of the Company due to the then pending acquisitions, the committee and management desired to analyze the Company’s compensation practices in comparison to a peer group based upon its new organizational structure and increased size. The Company engaged Hay Group (now known as Korn/Ferry International) during 2014 to conduct a comprehensive study of the compensation practices of the Company.

The compensation study separately addressed executive management (then 64 positions) and the remainder of the Company’s workforce (over 1200 positions at that time). This discussion will focus on the study findings related to executive management. The study compared base salary, incentive compensation, target total cash compensation, long term incentive compensation and total direct compensation of the Company to the general market (diverse group of industries) and to the financial market (banking, insurance and other financial organizations). The study results showed that for each of the compensation types set forth above that the Company was significantly below the 50 th percentile of both the general market group and the financial market group, with the total targeted cash compensation and total direct compensation for the Company falling at the 25 th percentile. In response to the study the Chief Executive Officer recommended to the committee that the Company needed to take steps to move the total direct compensation of the Company’s executive management and overall workforce toward the median total direct compensation for comparable positions in the peer group as the measurable financial and economic performance of the Company moves up toward the median for the peer group.

18

The committee determined that action was necessary to enhance the incentive compensation programs and thereby increase the total direct compensation for the Company to remain competitive in hiring and retaining executive management within the markets in which it operates. The primary enhancement would be to increase incentive compensation to executive management based upon the achievement of key strategic objectives related to the profitability of the Company. Further, the committee determined that there was an opportunity to provide some consistency in the applicable strategic objectives and reduce the operating complexities of the prior incentive plans.

The committee determined that the incentive compensation structure for the executive management should consist of an annual incentive plan providing cash payments and a long term incentive plan providing equity awards. After the approval of the incentive plan submitted to the shareholders for approval at the 2015 annual shareholders meeting, the Company implemented the revised incentive programs for executive management under the Simmons First National Corporation 2015 Incentive Plan.

Decisions Regarding Composition of Total Direct Compensation

The Company’s executive compensation program provides a mix of separate components that seek to align the executives’ incentives with increasing shareholder value. The Company’s executive incentive compensation program includes both non-equity and equity incentive compensation. The Company has established target allocations of non-equity incentive compensation for executive officers. For the CEO, the Compensation Committee has set a target allocation of potential non-equity incentive compensation at 85% of salary. For the executive officers other than the CEO, the committee has set targets for potential non-equity incentive compensation based upon the executive’s scope and performance ranging from 35% to 70% of salary. The Company has also established target allocations of equity incentive compensation for executive officers. For the CEO, the Compensation Committee has set a target allocation of potential equity incentive compensation at 125% of salary. For the executive officers other than the CEO, the committee has set targets for potential equity incentive compensation based upon the executive’s scope and performance ranging from 40% to 80% of salary. If performance goals are achieved at the threshold level, the annual grants for equity incentive compensation to such executives will be 50% of target. If performance goals are achieved at the target level, the annual grants for equity incentive compensation to such executives will be 100% of target. If performance goals are achieved at the maximum level, the annual grants for equity incentive compensation to such executives will be 150% of target. The annual grants for equity incentive compensation consist of restricted stock unit awards, performance share unit awards and/or stock options as specified by the committee. The Compensation Committee has expanded its use of different equity incentive vehicles by utilizing restricted stock awards, restricted stock units, performance share units and non-qualified stock options.

For 2016, the compensation of the named executive officers was allocated as follows:

•

Base Salaries plus Bonus: ranges from approximately 28% to 47% of total direct compensation.

​

•

Non-equity incentives: ranges from approximately 14% to 22% of total direct compensation.

​

•

Equity incentives: ranges from approximately 37% to 52% of total direct compensation.

​

“Total direct compensation” means annual base salaries plus bonus plus non-equity and equity incentive compensation. The foregoing percentages are based on the full grant date fair value of annual compensation (calculated in accordance with Accounting Standards Codification Topic 718, Compensation – Stock Compensation). Please refer to the discussion of Accounting Standards Codification Topic 718, Compensation – Stock Compensation, which precedes the 2015 Summary Compensation Table, below.

The Company emphasizes market practices in the design and administration of its executive compensation program. The Compensation Committee’s philosophy is that incentive pay should constitute a significant component of total direct compensation. The executive compensation program utilizes stock options, restricted stock awards, restricted units and performance share units. Equity incentive performance measures should promote shareholder return and earnings growth, and the plan design should be based upon a direct connection between performance measures, the participant’s ability to influence such measures and the award levels.

19

The Company’s compensation consultant has recommended that the Company include stock options, restricted stock awards, restricted stock units as well as performance based stock awards. The inherent nature of stock options, increasing in value only as the stock price increases, provides incentive compensation to executives only as the price of the Company stock increases. The Compensation Committee has adopted the recommendation of the compensation consultant and has included stock options, restricted stock units and performance awards as components of the 2016 incentive compensation program.

Executive Compensation Program Overview

The four primary components of the executive compensation program are:

•

base salary and annual bonus,

​

•

non-equity incentives,

​

•

equity incentives, and

​

•

benefits.

​

1.

Base Salary and Bonus

​

Base salary is designed to provide competitive levels of compensation to executives based upon their experience, duties and scope of responsibility. The Company pays base salaries because it provides a basic level of compensation and is necessary to recruit and retain executives. The Company may use annual base salary adjustments to reflect an individual’s performance or changed responsibilities. Base salary levels are also used as a benchmark for the amount of incentive compensation opportunity provided to an executive. For example, participation in the executive incentive plan (“EIP”) is set within a range based upon the executive’s scope of responsibility and the executive’s performance.

As discussed above, the Company’s executive compensation program emphasizes targeting the total amount of compensation to peer group practices with a mix of compensation, including a significant component of incentive compensation. At lower executive levels, base salaries represent a larger proportion of total compensation but at senior executive levels total compensation contains a larger component of incentive compensation opportunities.

Historically, the Company has paid bonuses for executive officers for special circumstances but does not regularly utilize discretionary bonuses as a significant part of the executive compensation program. The Compensation Committee has recently re-examined its position regarding discretionary compensation, including discretionary bonuses and has utilized discretionary bonuses in connection with the successful completion of certain recent acquisitions.

2.

Non-Equity Incentives

​

The Company uses the EIP as a short-term incentive to encourage achievement of its annual performance goals. The EIP focuses on the achievement of annual financial goals and awards. The EIP is designed to:

•

support strategic business objectives,

​

•

promote the attainment of specific financial goals for the Company and the executive,

​

•

reward achievement of specific performance objectives, and

​

•

encourage teamwork.

​

The EIP is designed to provide executives with market competitive compensation based upon their scope of responsibility. The size of an executive’s EIP award is influenced by these factors, market practices, Company performance and individual performance. The Compensation Committee generally sets the annual EIP award for an executive to provide an incentive at the market median for expected levels of performance. All of the named executive officers participate in the EIP. Awards earned under the EIP are contingent upon employment with the Company through the payment date in the first quarter of the following fiscal year (no later than March 15), except for payments made in the event of death, retirement or disability.

20

The ultimate amount paid to an executive under the EIP is a function of four variables:

•

the executive’s target award;

​

•

the goals set for the Company; the payout amounts established by the Compensation Committee which correspond to Threshold, Target and Maximum levels of performance; and

​

•

the Compensation Committee’s determination of the extent to which the goals were met.

​

Effective for 2016, the Compensation Committee approved company-wide core net income and efficiency ratio as the underlying performance parameters for the EIP, and developed corresponding threshold, target, and maximum performance levels for each measure. The Committee also set target annual incentive opportunities for each named executive officer, measured as a percentage of base salary. Threshold and maximum payout opportunities, at 50% and 200% of target, were established for each performance goal. No portion of the annual incentive payout is guaranteed. If threshold net income or threshold efficiency ratio performance levels are not achieved, no payouts will be made under the EIP for that plan goal. To incent EIP participants to make decisions that have positive long-term impact on the Company, even at the expense of short-term results, and to prevent unusual gains and losses from having too great an impact on plan payouts, the Compensation Committee retained discretion to exclude items impacting comparability from company-wide results and adjust actual results for specific items that occurred during the plan year. Further, the Compensation Committee reserves the right to adjust the amount payable under the EIP in accordance with any standard or on any other basis (including a discretionary basis), as the Compensation Committee may determine.

Since 2015, the EIP plan design reflects changes to prior year practices implemented after the Compensation Committee’s review of annual incentive pay practices at the Company. These plan design changes include:

•

Limiting EIP eligibility to executives leading business functions and executives that are able to directly impact overall corporate performance and the achievement of the Company’s business strategy.

​

•

Using core net income as a corporate performance measure in place of earnings per share. This change was made to avoid duplication of performance measures with the long-term incentive plan, discussed below, which uses earnings per share as a primary measure of Company performance.

​

•

Increasing the emphasis on overall Company performance to determine incentive pay for EIP participants. The EIP performance goals are tied directly to the Company’s business strategy and now represent approximately 44% to 49% of the incentive pay opportunity for our named executive officers.

​

•

Using a single performance hurdle, net income, which must be achieved prior to any payouts under the EIP. Net income was selected as the plan hurdle to ensure that a sufficient level of corporate profit is attained to support the payment of annual incentive compensation.

​

The committee sets the performance measures in the first quarter of each year based on management’s confidential business plan and budget for the coming year, which typically includes planned revenue growth, cost management and profit goals. The committee also sets threshold, target and maximum performance levels. Maximum performance levels reflect ambitious goals which can only be attained when business results are exceptional. Threshold performance levels for the components are usually set at the prior year’s performance level, unless a higher threshold is determined to be appropriate due to unsatisfactory financial performance in the prior year.

The committee also assesses actual performance relative to pre-set levels and, in doing so, determines the amount of any final award payment. In determining final awards and in evaluating personal performance, the committee considers adjustments to GAAP net income and other corporate performance measures for unplanned, unusual or non-recurring items of gain or expense.

Each participant in the EIP is allocated a targeted incentive as a percentage of his or her base salary which is payable if the Company’s performance satisfies the Target performance points for all components under the EIP and satisfies the qualifying criteria. The table below shows the targeted benefit for the named executive officers for 2015.

21

For the named executive officers except Mr. Ledbetter, the identification and weighting of the EIP components is uniform. For Mr. Ledbetter and certain other executives, the applicable EIP components may include performance components within the business line he manages. Further, the weighting of the EIP components may vary among the other participants in the EIP. The weighting of the EIP components for the named executive officers participating in the EIP in 2016 is as follows:

Generally, each component (other than individual goals) has three performance levels that determine the participant’s payout for that component, Threshold, Target and Maximum. No payout is earned for a component if the Company’s performance is below the Threshold. The Company’s performance at the Threshold level for a component entitles the participant to 50% of the participant’s targeted benefit times the weighting factor for such component. The Company’s performance at the Target level for a component entitles the participant to 100% of the participant’s targeted benefit times the weighting factor for such component. The Company’s performance at the Maximum level entitles the participant to 200% of the participant’s targeted benefit times the weighting factor for such component. Performance in excess of the Maximum does not entitle the participant to a benefit in excess of the maximum benefit times the weighting of that component. If the performance with respect to any component is in excess of the Threshold but less than the Maximum, then the participant’s entitlement is a prorated percentage computed based upon the Company’s actual performance in proportion to the closest performance level for that component.

The corporate core net income component is based upon the Company’s net income adjusted to exclude the tax adjusted merger related expense, branch right sizing expense, FDIC Loss Share termination expense and any non-recurring expenses. For the named executive officers (except Ledbetter), this component is allocated 50% (25% for Ledbetter) of the participant’s targeted EIP benefit. The Threshold for the corporate core net income component is the prior year’s core net income, as so adjusted, $89,622,000 for 2016. The Target and Maximum for 2016 were set at $108,242,000 and $113,654,000, respectively, or 121% and 127%, respectively, of the 2016 Threshold. The actual adjusted corporate core net income for 2016 was $101,409,000. The 2016 results for this component exceeded the Threshold but did not reach the Target for 2016. The prorated formula for performance in excess of the Threshold but less than Target provided a benefit from the corporate core net income component of 82% of the allocated target benefit. A more detailed discussion on EIP qualifying and limitation criteria is set forth below.

The efficiency ratio component is based upon the Company’s efficiency ratio for 2016. Efficiency Ratio means non-interest expense (excluding non-recurring items, foreclosed property expense, amortization of intangibles and goodwill impairments) divided by the sum of net interest income plus non-interest revenues (excluding gains from securities and non-recurring items). For the named executive officers (except Ledbetter), this component is allocated 50% (25% for Ledbetter) of the participant’s targeted EIP benefit. The committee establishes a Threshold, Target and Maximum for the efficiency ratio of the Company. The Threshold is the prior year’s actual performance, 59.5%. The Target and Maximum were set at 56.4% and 53.0%, respectively, or 95% and 89% of the 2016 Threshold. The actual efficiency ratio for 2016 was 56.3%. The 2016 results for this component exceeded the Target but did not reach the Maximum for 2016. The prorated formula for performance in excess of the Target but less than Maximum provided a benefit from the efficiency ratio improvement component of 103% of the allocated target benefit.

22

The adjusted total revenue component for Mr. Ledbetter is based upon the total revenue of Simmons Bank for 2016, as adjusted. Adjusted Total Revenue means the sum of the net interest income plus the non-interest income of Simmons Bank (excluding such items attributable to the operations of former locations of Citizens National Bank). For Mr. Ledbetter, this component is allocated 25% of the participant’s targeted EIP benefit. The committee establishes a Threshold, Target and Maximum for the adjusted total revenue component. The Threshold is the prior year’s actual performance, $246,900,000. The Target and Maximum were set at $274,330,000 and $301,770,000, respectively, or 111% and 122% of the 2016 Threshold. The actual adjusted total revenue for 2016 was $266,583,000. The 2016 results for this component exceeded the Threshold but did not reach the Target for 2016. The prorated formula for performance in excess of the Threshold but less than Target provided a benefit from the adjusted total revenue component of 86% of the allocated target benefit.

The adjusted pretax earnings component for Mr. Ledbetter is based upon the pretax earnings of Simmons Bank for 2016, as adjusted. Adjusted Pretax Earnings means Adjusted Total Revenue less the non-interest expense of Simmons Bank (excluding such items attributable to the operations of former locations of Citizens National Bank). For Mr. Ledbetter, this component is allocated 25% of the participant’s targeted EIP benefit. The committee establishes a Threshold, Target and Maximum for the adjusted pretax earnings component. The Threshold is the prior year’s actual performance, $158,922,000. The Target and Maximum were set at $176,572,000 and $194,231,000, respectively, or 111% and 122% of the 2016 Threshold. The actual adjusted pretax earnings for 2016 was $165,905,000. The 2016 results for this component exceeded the Threshold but did not reach the Target for 2016. The prorated formula for performance in excess of the Threshold but less than Target provided a benefit from the adjusted total pretax earnings component of 70% of the allocated target benefit.

[1]

The percentage shown is the percentage of the target benefit for this component earned for performance of the component at the designated level.

​

[2]

The percentage shown is the percentage of the target benefit earned for performance of the above two components at the designated levels based upon the 50% weighting for each component applicable to all NEOs except Mr. Ledbetter.

​

[3]

The percentage shown is the percentage of the target benefit earned for performance of the four components at the designated levels based upon the 25% weighting for each component applicable to Mr. Ledbetter.

​

In addition to the performance based components discussed above, the EIP has a qualifying criterion that must be satisfied annually in order for any participant to qualify for benefits under the EIP. The failure to satisfy the qualifying criterion will prevent the participant from earning any EIP benefit to which he or she would have been entitled based upon the EIP components discussed above. The qualifying criterion for 2016 was the Company’s net income must exceed $56,000,000. In summary, the Compensation Committee determined that for 2016 the Company did satisfy the qualifying criterion, the corporate core earnings component and the corporate efficiency ratio component and in the case of Mr. Ledbetter, the total revenue and pretax earnings components. A summary of the EIP payments to the participating named executive officers for 2016 are shown in the following table.

23

[a] The Compensation Committee applied a negative adjustment in the amount of  $12,440 to Mr. Ledbetter’s EIP payout due to credit administration policy exceptions being above internal targets.

3.

Equity Incentives

​

Historically, the Company has made stock option and restricted stock awards to executives of the Company and its subsidiary banks. These awards are generally granted once a year, although in special circumstances additional grants may be made. These awards are used to create a common economic interest among executives and shareholders and to recruit and retain qualified executives. Historically, the Company’s stock options generally have an exercise price equal to the closing price of the Company’s stock at the time of the grant, a ten year term and vest in equal installments over five years after the date of grant. The Company’s restricted stock grants generally do not require any payment from the participant and vest in equal installments over five years after the date of grant, although vesting may be over a shorter period if the participant is nearing retirement. On several occasions in the past, the committee has chosen to grant non-qualified stock options when under the specific circumstances the desired grants would not qualify as incentive stock options or the committee determined that stock appreciation rights should be granted with the options. Prior to 2009, the Company had generally utilized incentive stock options for most executives. But due to changes in the accounting rules regarding stock-based compensation and the turmoil in the banking industry during the Great Recession, the Company decided in 2009 to de-emphasize stock options and increase the use of restricted stock in making future grants.

Effective for 2015 and thereafter, the Compensation Committee revised the operation of the Company’s equity incentive program, including the adoption of a Long Term Incentive Plan (“LTIP”) under the Simmons First National Corporation 2015 Incentive Plan. The major components of the LTIP are non-qualified stock options, restricted stock awards (“RSAs”), restricted stock units (“RSUs”) and performance shares units (“PSUs”) that are settled in shares of common stock based on results over a three-year performance period.

Stock Options reward stock price appreciation directly by providing the opportunity for compensation only if the Company’s stock price increases from the date of grant. All stock options granted for 2016 have an exercise price equal to the closing market price of our common stock on the date of grant, a 10-year term, and vest ratably over three years from the date of grant, subject to the executive’s continued employment with the Company. PSUs reward the achievement over a 3-year performance period of specified financial performance criteria specified in the PSU at the time of the grant. Achievement of a threshold level of

24

performance results in a payout equal to 50% of each participant’s approved target opportunity. Target performance results in a payout equal to 100% of the targeted opportunity. The maximum number of shares that can be earned for each of these performance measures is 200% of the targeted number of PSUs. The ultimate value of performance shares, which are paid in stock, is also impacted directly by stock price appreciation or depreciation over the performance period. Dividend equivalents are paid at the conclusion of the performance period based on the number of shares actually earned during the applicable performance period. If the performance with respect to any component is in excess of the Threshold and less than the Maximum, then the participant’s entitlement is a prorated percentage computed based upon the Company’s actual performance in proportion to the closest performance points for that component.

For the three year performance period commencing in 2016 (“2018 Performance Period”), the allocation of the equity vehicles under the LTIP is anticipated to be 25% in stock options, 25% in RSUs and 50% in PSUs. Performance above the Target level does not increase the payout on the portion of the incentive allocated to stock options or RSUs, while performance above the Target may increase the payout on PSUs up to 200% of the Target payout level, hereby providing an approximate overall limitation on the LTIP benefits of 150% of Target payout.

When performance based grants of restricted stock are utilized, the Compensation Committee identifies the specific components of the Company’s financial performance to be used in determining the grants. The components are weighted to emphasize the current strategic focus of the Company. The Compensation Committee sets Threshold, Target and Maximum performance levels for each component which if satisfied will entitle the participant to 50%, 100% and 200%, respectively, of the participant’s targeted benefit attributable to that component. The Company’s performance at the Threshold level for a component entitles the participant to 50% of the Participant’s target benefit times the weighting factor for such component. The Company’s performance at the Target level for a component entitles the participant to 100% of the Participant’s target benefit times the weighting factor for such component. The Company’s performance at the Maximum level entitles the participant to 200% of the Participant’s target benefit times the weighting factor for such component. Performance in excess of the Maximum does not entitle the participant to a benefit in excess of the maximum target benefit times the weighting of that component. If the performance with respect to any component is in excess of the Threshold and less than the Maximum, then the participant’s entitlement is a prorated percentage computed based upon the Company’s actual performance in proportion to the closest performance points for that component.

In order to transition into three year performance cycles under the LTIP, for 2015, the initial year in which grants were made under the LTIP, each participant received three grants, based upon the Company’s performance under the specified performance metrics for performance periods ending December 31 of 2015, 2016 and 2017. The equity incentive grant for the 2015 performance period consisted of non-qualified stock options vesting in installments over three years and a performance based restricted stock grant based upon the Company’s performance under the specified performance criteria during the 2015 performance period. This restricted stock award vested immediately upon grant. Additionally, the LTIP utilized two shortened “stub” performance periods, one ending on December 31, 2016 and one ending on December 31, 2017 to create a rolling three year cycle of LTIP grants. The grants for the stub periods (“Transition Grants”) consist of non-qualified stock options and PSUs. These stub periods have distinct performance goals, based on the shortened performance period, and payouts will occur at the end of each “stub” performance period based on performance against the stub period core earnings per share and core return on average tangible common equity goals. For LTIP grants made in 2016 and thereafter, the awards are expected to be based upon a regular three year performance cycle.

25

2018 Performance Period Grant

The equity incentive granted for the 2018 Performance Period (three year period 2016-2018) consists of 25% stock options, 25% RSUs and 50% PSUs. The options vest over three years and have a strike price equal to the market price of SFNC stock at the time of the grant. For the 2018 Performance Period, the PSUs were granted to the equity incentive plan participants in January, 2016 and will be payable in early 2019 after certification of the results of the 2018 Performance Period by the committee. In January, 2016, the Compensation Committee established the performance criteria and the target payout for the PSUs, under the LTIP, including the named executive officers. The table below sets forth certain details for the equity incentive for the named executive officers in the 2018 Performance Period:

For grants made for the 2018 Performance Period, the Compensation Committee set the PSU financial performance criteria as a single component, subject to a modifier based upon a separate metric. The specified component is core earnings per share and the modifier is the total shareholder return ratio. The performance levels for the 2018 Performance Period were set based upon the Company’s performance for 2015. The core earnings per share target is set at $4.14, representing a 10% annual growth during the 2018 Performance Period from the core earnings per share for 2015. The threshold level is set at $3.82 (90% of the target level) and the maximum is set at $4.45 (105% of the target level). If the core earnings per share is below the threshold, there will be no core earnings per share entitlement.

If at least threshold performance is satisfied for the core earnings per share component, then the core earnings per share entitlement is subject to modification based upon the total shareholder return ratio. The total shareholder return ratio is the average total shareholder return for SFNC during the 2018 Performance Period divided by the total shareholder return of the SNL Mid Cap US Bank Index over the same period computed over the last twenty trading days during the 2018 Performance Period. If the total shareholder return ratio is 90% or less (threshold), then the TSR modifier shall be 80%, if the total shareholder return ratio equals 100% (target), the TSR modifier shall be 100% and if the total shareholder return ratio exceeds 110% (maximum), the TSR modifier shall be 120%. If the total shareholder return ratio is in excess of the threshold and less than the maximum, then the participant’s TSR modifier is a prorated percentage computed based upon the actual total shareholder return ratio in proportion to the closest performance level for that component. The PSU payout percentage shall be the product of the core earnings per share entitlement multiplied by the TSR modifier, provided that in no event may the PSU payout percentage exceed 200% of the target.

2018 Performance Period Performance Criteria

26

2014 CEO - Long Term Incentive Plan

In 2014, the Company adopted the Simmons First National Corporation Chief Executive Officer Long Term Incentive Plan, which is referred to as the CEO-LTIP. The CEO-LTIP was intended to provide a one-time incentive compensation grant to the CEO for achieving multi-year financial goals of the Company. The financial goal specified in the plan is the growth of diluted core earnings per share over a three year period, 2014-2016 (“Performance Period”). The diluted core earnings per share for 2013 were $1.69.

The award under the CEO-LTIP consists of performance-based restricted stock and cash. For the stock component, the Company allocated up to 27,106 shares of SFNC stock to the CEO as a restricted stock grant under the CEO-LTIP. For the cash component, the Company will pay to the CEO a cash bonus (“Cash Dividend Adjustment”) in an amount equal to the dividends that would have been paid during the Performance Period on the SFNC shares in the restricted stock grant which vest to the CEO.

The CEO-LTIP provided for benefits within three possible levels: Threshold, Target and Maximum. The Threshold performance point requires the Company’s diluted core earnings per share for 2016 to equal or exceed $2.90. The Target performance point requires the Company’s diluted core earnings per share for 2016 to equal or exceed $3.16. The Maximum performance point requires the Company’s diluted core earnings per share for 2016 to equal or exceed $3.43.

If the Company’s performance meets the Threshold performance point level for the Performance Period, then the CEO would receive the Threshold award (6,777 shares plus the Cash Dividend Adjustment). If Target level is attained, the CEO would receive the Target award (13,553 shares plus the Cash Dividend Adjustment). If Maximum level is attained, the CEO would receive the Maximum award (27,106 shares plus the Cash Dividend Adjustment). If the performance was in excess of the Threshold and less than the Maximum, then the CEO’s entitlement was a prorated percentage computed based upon the Company’s actual performance in proportion to the closest performance points. The diluted core earnings per share for 2016 were $3.28. Hence, Mr. Makris was vested in 19,575 SFNC shares under the plan upon certification by the Compensation Committee. In addition, he received $54,027 in cash as a dividend equivalent payment on the shares earned for dividends that were paid during the performance period.

In addition to the performance based restricted stock grants, the Compensation Committee periodically utilizes time-vested restricted stock grants in the form of RSAs or RSUs in connection with hiring or promoting executives within the Company and as equity incentives for senior officers below the executive level. During 2016, seventy-five Company officers received time vested restricted stock unit grants.

Please refer to the section below, “Other Guidelines and Procedures Affecting Executive Compensation” for additional information regarding the Company’s practices when granting stock options and restricted stock units.

4.

Benefits

​

A.

Profit Sharing and Employee Stock Ownership Plan.

​

The Company previously offered a combination profit sharing and employee stock ownership plan. This plan was open to substantially all of the employees of the Company including the named executive officers. The plan and the contributions to the plan were designed to provide for retirement benefits to employees and allow the employees of the Company to participate in the ownership of stock in the Company. During 2016, the Company terminated this plan and merged it into the Company’s 401(k) plan.

B.

401(k) Plan.

​

The Company offers a qualified 401(k) Plan in which it makes matching contributions to encourage employees to save money for their retirement. Additionally, the Company may make profit-sharing contributions to the plan which are allocated among participants based upon plan compensation without regard to participant contributions. This plan, and the contributions to it, enhance the range of benefits offered to executives and enhance the Company’s ability to attract and retain employees. Under the terms of the 401(k) Plan, employees may defer a portion of their eligible pay, up to the maximum allowed by I.R.S.

27

regulation, and the Company matches 100% of the first 4% of compensation and 50% of the next 2% of compensation for a total match of 5% of eligible pay for each participant who defers 6% or more of his or her eligible pay. Additionally, for 2016 the Compensation Committee has approved a discretionary contribution of 1.98% of aggregate associate compensation into the 401(k) plan based upon the Company satisfying certain internal financial performance criteria, which will be made as soon as administratively feasible.

C.

Perquisites and Other Benefits.

​

Historically, perquisites and other benefits have represented a small part of the overall compensation package, and are offered only after consideration of business need. The Compensation Committee annually reviewed the perquisites and other personal benefits that are provided to senior management. The primary perquisites were automobile allowances, club memberships and certain relocation and moving expenses. For 2016 and thereafter, the Company has chosen to substantially change the manner in which it provides perquisites to senior management officers. Rather than administer separate perquisite programs for numerous officers within the Company, the Company will provide a cash stipend to executive officers to cover the costs of such items that the officer needs to perform his or her duties. The stipends are taxable income to the officers and are generally uniform in amount for officer with similar duties and responsibilities.

D.

Post-Termination Compensation.

​

Deferred Compensation Arrangements. In 2016, the Company maintained four non-qualified deferred compensation arrangements designed to provide supplemental retirement pay from the Company to certain of the named executive officers. The Deferred Compensation Agreements for Messrs. Makris, Fehlman, Ledbetter and Casteel are non-qualified defined benefit type plans. The Company bears the entire cost of benefits under these plans. The Company provides retirement benefits in order to attract and retain executives. The amounts payable to the participants under these plans are determined by each plan’s benefit formula, which is described in the section below “Pension Benefits Table.”

Change in Control Agreements. The Company has entered into Change in Control Agreements (“CIC Agreements”) with members of senior management of the Company and its subsidiaries, including each of the named executive officers. The Company entered into the CIC Agreements because the banking industry has been consolidating for a number of years and it does not want its executives distracted by a rumored or actual change in control. Further, if a change in control should occur, the Company wants its executives to be focused on the business of the organization and the interests of shareholders. In addition, it is important that the executives can react neutrally to a potential change in control and not be influenced by personal financial concerns. The Company believes the CIC Agreements are consistent with market practice and assist the Company in retaining its executive talent. The level of benefits for the named executive officers ranges from two to three times certain elements of their compensation which the Compensation Committee believes is competitive with the banking industry as a whole and specifically with the designated peer group.

Upon a change in control, followed by a termination of the executive’s employment by the Company without “Cause” or by the executive after a “Trigger Event,” the CIC Agreements require the Company to pay or provide the following to the executive:

•

a lump sum payment equal to two or three times the sum of the executive’s base salary (the highest amount in effect anytime during the twelve months preceding the executive’s termination date) and the executive’s incentive compensation (calculated as the higher of the target EIP for the year of termination or the average of the executive’s last two years of actual EIP awards);

​

•

up to three years of additional coverage under the Company’s health, dental, life and long-term disability plans; and

​

•

a payment to reimburse the executive, in the case of Messrs. Fehlman and Casteel, for any excise taxes on severance benefits that are considered excess parachute payments under Sections 280G and 4999 of the Internal Revenue Code plus income and employment taxes on such tax gross up as well as interest and penalties imposed by the IRS.

​

28

In addition, upon a change in control, all outstanding stock options vest immediately and all restrictions on restricted stock and restricted stock units lapse. In the case of PSUs if the change in control occurs after the first nine months of the applicable performance period then the PSU will vest and be payable at the target benefit level, otherwise the PSU is terminated. Further, upon a change in control, the requirement under the deferred compensation plans for Messrs. Fehlman, Makris Ledbetter and Casteel that the participant remain employed until retirement age (age 60 for Messrs. Fehlman and Ledbetter, age 65 for Mr. Makris and age 67 for Mr. Casteel) is deleted and the benefit is immediately vested.

The Company believes that CIC Agreements should encourage retention of the executives during the negotiation and following a change in control transaction, compensate executives who are displaced by a change in control and not serve as an incentive to increase an executive’s personal wealth. Therefore, the CIC Agreements require that there be both a change in control and an involuntary termination without “Cause” or a voluntary termination within six months after a “Trigger Event” which is often referred to as a “double-trigger.” The double-trigger ensures that the Company will become obligated to make payments under the CIC Agreements only if the executive is actually or constructively discharged as a result of the change in control.

After a prior review of the existing CIC Agreements, the Company adopted a policy not to approve any new CIC Agreements containing a single trigger or a tax gross-up feature or any amendments to existing CIC Agreements to implement a single trigger or tax gross-up feature. The Compensation Committee reviews the general elements and salary structure of the Company’s compensation plan annually and makes adjustments to ensure that it is consistent with its compensation philosophies, Company and personal performance, current market practices, assigned duties and responsibilities and inflation.

Executive Retention Programs

The Company adopted the Simmons First National Corporation Executive Retention Program – 2012 on November 26, 2012. This program consisted of cash payments ($125,000 for Mr. David Bartlett and $25,000 for Messrs. Fehlman and Casteel) and restricted stock grants (4,929 shares for Mr. Bartlett and 986 shares for Messrs. Fehlman and Casteel) under the Company’s existing executive equity incentive plans. The 2012 program requires the participants to remain in the employ of the Company until the specified vesting dates, subject to the earlier vesting due to death, disability, change in control of the Company or involuntary termination of employment without cause. The restricted stock grants under the program were made on January 2, 2013, and will vest in two equal installments on December 31, 2016 and December 31, 2017. The cash payments will vest in two equal installments on December 31, 2016 and December 31, 2017 and will be payable in January, 2017 and January, 2018, respectively. Mr. Bartlett retired on January 15, 2016 and the Compensation Committee approved the acceleration of the vesting of his cash and restricted stock payments under this program.

Other Guidelines and Procedures Affecting Executive Compensation

Stock-Based Compensation Procedures Regarding Compensation Committee and Board Approval.    The Compensation Committee approves all grants of stock-based compensation to the executives. Any proposed non-performance based grants (RSUs) to the CEO are originated and recommended by the Compensation Committee and then submitted to the Board of Directors for approval. Performance based equity grants (options and PSUs) are approved by the Compensation Committee. Grants to the CEO may or may not occur simultaneously with grants to other executives. Prospective grants of stock-based compensation to other executives are proposed to the Compensation Committee by the CEO. The committee considers, modifies, if necessary, and acts upon the proposed grants.

Stock-Based Compensation Procedures Regarding Timing and Pricing of Awards.    The Company’s policy is to make grants of stock options only at current market prices. Historically, the exercise price of stock options was set at the closing stock price on the day prior to the date of grant. However options granted under the 2015 Incentive Plan will have the exercise price set at the closing stock price on the date of the grant. The Company does not grant “in-the-money” options or options with exercise prices below market value at the time of the grant. The Company’s general policy is to consider equity grants at scheduled meetings of the Compensation Committee, and such grants are either effective on the approval date or a specified future date. After the adoption of performance based grants, based upon the Company’s results

29

for the prior year, the Committee has recommended and the Board has approved such grants in January. The Compensation Committee anticipates that it will continue this practice for equity grants under the 2015 Incentive Plan. The Company may make grants at other times throughout the year, upon due approval of the committee and the Board, in connection with grants to the CEO or to other executives in non-routine situations, such as the hiring, promotion or retention of an executive officer or in connection with an acquisition transaction.

The Company attempts to schedule grants of equity awards at times when the market is not influenced by scheduled releases of information. The Company does not time or plan the release of material, non-public information for the purpose of affecting the value of executive compensation.

Role of Executive Officers in Determining Executive Compensation.    The Compensation Committee oversees the administration of executive compensation plans, including the design, performance measures and award opportunities for the executive incentive programs, and certain employee benefits, subject to final action by the Board of Directors in certain cases. The Board of Directors, upon approval and recommendation from the Compensation Committee, determines and approves all compensation and awards to the CEO except for performance based compensation specified under Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (“Code”) which is approved by the Compensation Committee. The Compensation Committee determines and approves all compensation and awards to the other executives. The committee reviews the performance and compensation of the CEO. The CEO, with the assistance of the associates in the Company’s Human Resources Group, reviews the performance and compensation of the other executive officers, including the other named executive officers, and reports any significant issues or deficiencies to the committee. The CEO and the Human Resources Group, at least annually, review the unified compensation classification program of the Company which sets the compensation of all employees of the Company and its affiliates and reports the results of that review to the committee. The Company’s compensation program is based in part on market data provided by the compensation consultant. Executive officers do not otherwise determine or make recommendations on the amount or form of executive compensation.

Adjustments to Incentive Compensation as a Result of Financial Inaccuracies.    The Compensation Committee’s policy is to recover improper amounts related to past awards in the event material inaccuracies are found in the Company’s financial results. Under the clawback provisions in the cash incentive plans, the committee will seek recovery of any sums improperly paid as a bonus or incentive payments made to an executive on the basis of having met or exceeded performance targets during a period in which material inaccuracies of financial results are discovered.

Share Ownership Guidelines.    The Company encourages directors and executive officers to be shareholders. The Company believes that share ownership by directors and executives is a contributing factor to enhanced long-term corporate performance. Although the directors and named executive officers already have an equity stake in the Company (as reflected in the beneficial ownership information contained in this Proxy Statement), the Company has adopted share ownership policies for directors and certain officers.

Members of the Board of Directors are required to own at least 1,500 shares of the Company’s common stock. Directors are not required to purchase shares to reach this guideline but are restricted from liquidating shares received as stock options or restricted stock until the ownership guideline is satisfied.

Executive officers, designated as executive vice president or above are subject to minimum stock ownership requirements. The minimum stock ownership requirement for the Chief Executive Officer is the number of shares which when multiplied by the market price of the stock equals five times his or her salary, while the requirement for all other covered officers is the number of shares which when multiplied by the market price of the stock equals three times his or her salary. Compliance will be tested annually based upon the officer’s salary as of April 1 of such year and the average closing price of SFNC during the first quarter of such year. Officers will be given five years to comply with the stock ownership requirement.

Tax Considerations

It has been and continues to be the Compensation Committee’s intent that all non-equity incentive payments be deductible unless maintaining such deductibility would undermine the Company’s ability to

30

meet its primary compensation objectives or would otherwise not be in the Company’s best interest. The Company also regularly analyzes the tax effects of various forms of compensation and the potential for excise taxes to be imposed on the executive officers which might have the effect of frustrating the goals of such compensation. The following provisions of the Code have been considered.

Section 162(m).    Section 162(m) of the Code, as amended, provides that compensation in excess of  $1 million paid for any year to a corporation’s chief executive officer and the four other highest paid executive officers at the end of such year will not be deductible for federal income tax purposes unless: (1) the compensation qualifies as “performance-based compensation,” and (2) the Company advised its shareholders of, and the shareholders have approved, the material terms of the performance goals under which such compensation is paid.

Sections 280G and 4999.    The Company provides the named executive officers with change in control agreements. Certain of the change in control agreements provide for tax protection in the form of a gross up payment to reimburse the executive for any excise tax under Code Section 4999 as well as any additional income and employment taxes resulting from such reimbursement. Code Section 4999 imposes a 20% non-deductible excise tax on the recipient of an “excess parachute payment” and Code Section 280G disallows the tax deduction to the payor of any amount of an excess parachute payment that is contingent on a change in control. A payment as a result of a change in control must exceed three times the executive’s base amount in order to be considered an excess parachute payment, and then the excise tax is imposed on the parachute payments that exceed the executive’s base amount. The intent of the tax gross-up is to provide a benefit without a tax penalty to the executives who are displaced in the event of a change in control. The Company believes the provision of tax protection for excess parachute payments for certain of its executive officers is consistent with the historic market practice within the banking industry, is a valuable incentive in retaining executives and is consistent with the objectives of the Company’s overall executive compensation program.

Section 409A.    Amounts deferred under the non-qualified deferred compensation programs after December 31, 2004 are subject to Code Section 409A, which governs when elections for deferrals of compensation may be made, the form and timing permitted for payment of such deferred amounts and the ability to change the form and timing of payments initially established. Section 409A imposes sanctions for failure to comply, including accelerated income inclusion, a 20% penalty and an interest penalty. The Company has made amendments to its compensation plans to avoid application of Section 409A and continues to operate the plans in good faith compliance with all applicable laws and regulations.

Summary

In summary, the Company believes this mix of salary, formula based cash incentives for short-term performance and the equity-based compensation for long term performance motivates the Company’s management team to produce strong returns for shareholders. Further, in the view of the Compensation Committee, the overall compensation program appropriately balances the interests and needs of the Company in operating its business with appropriate employee rewards based on enhancing shareholder value.

Report of the Compensation Committee on the Compensation Discussion and Analysis

The Compensation Committee reviewed and discussed the Compensation Discussion and Analysis included in this Proxy Statement with management. Based on such review and discussion, the Compensation Committee recommended to the Board of Directors that the Compensation Discussion and Analysis be included in this Proxy Statement for filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Submitted by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors.

31

RELATIONSHIP OF COMPENSATION POLICIES AND PRACTICES TO RISK MANAGEMENT

The Company intends that total compensation and each of its components, including base salary, bonus, incentive compensation (if applicable), retirement and other benefits should be market competitive and consistent with the Company’s performance goals. The Company seeks to attract, retain, develop and reward high performing associates who are committed to the Company’s success. Base salaries are set based upon the job classification and incentive compensation (if applicable) is based on Company and individual performance.

The Company has not identified any compensation practice or policy that presents risks that are reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company. The Company strives to ensure that its compensation programs do not create inappropriate risks for the Company. As a part of its general review of the Company’s compensation programs, the Compensation Committee:

Reviews with management the Company’s employee compensation plans to take all reasonable steps to identify and limit any unnecessary risks that these plans pose to the Company;

Reviews with management the compensation plans for the named executive officers and makes all reasonable efforts to ensure that these plans do not encourage the named executive officers to take unnecessary and excessive risks; and

Reviews the Company’s compensation programs to identify and revise any features in the compensation programs that would encourage the misstatement or manipulation of the Company’s financial information or reported earnings to enhance employee compensation.

The reviews include consideration of risks in all compensation programs and factors designed to mitigate risks in such programs. The Company has implemented “clawback” provisions in its incentive compensation programs, requiring any of the participants to repay any bonus or incentive compensation that was based upon statements of earnings, revenues, gains or other criteria that are later found to be materially inaccurate.

SUMMARY OF COMPENSATION AND OTHER PAYMENTS TO THE NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS

Overview.    The following sections provide a summary of cash and certain other amounts paid for the year ended December 31, 2016 to the named executive officers. Except where noted, the information in the Summary Compensation Table generally pertains to compensation to the named executive officers for the year ended December 31, 2016. The compensation disclosed below is presented in accordance with SEC regulations. According to those regulations, the Company is required in some cases to include:

•

amounts paid in previous years;

​

•

amounts that may be paid in future years, including amounts that will be paid only upon the occurrence of certain events, such as a change in control of the Company;

​

•

amounts paid to the named executive officers which might not be considered “compensation” (for example, distributions of deferred compensation earned in prior years, and at-market earnings, dividends or interest on such amounts);

​

•

an assumed value for share-based compensation equal to the fair value of the grant as presumed under accounting regulations, even though such value presumes the option will not be forfeited or exercised before the end of its 10-year life, and even though the actual realization of cash from the award depends on whether the stock price appreciates above its price on the date of grant, whether the executive will continue his employment with the Company and when the executive chooses to exercise the option; and

​

•

the increase in present value of future pension payments, even though such increase is not cash compensation paid this year and even though the actual pension benefits will depend upon a number of factors, including when the executive retires, his compensation at retirement and in some cases the number of years the executive lives following his retirement.

​

32

Therefore, you are encouraged to read the following tables closely. The narratives preceding the tables and the footnotes accompanying each table are important parts of each table. Also, you are encouraged to read this section in conjunction with the discussion above at “Compensation Discussion and Analysis.”

2016 SUMMARY COMPENSATION TABLE

The following table provides information concerning the compensation of the named executive officers for 2014, 2015 and 2016, the most recently completed fiscal year. The column “Salary” discloses the amount of base salary paid to the named executive officer during each year. The column “Bonus” discloses cash amounts paid to named executive officers as discretionary bonuses. In the columns “Stock Awards” and “Option Awards,” SEC regulations require the disclosure of the award of stock or options at the grant date fair value measured in dollars and calculated in accordance with Accounting Standards Codification Topic 718, Compensation – Stock Compensation (“Topic 718”). For restricted stock, the Topic 718 fair value per share is the closing price of the stock on the last trading day preceding the date of grant. For stock options, the Topic 718 fair value per share is based on certain assumptions which are explained in footnote 13 to the Company’s financial statements which are included in the annual report on Form 10-K. The amounts shown in the Summary Compensation Table include the fair value of the option grants, restricted stock grants and Performance Share unit grants in the year of grant, without regard to any deferred vesting. Please also refer to the second table in this Proxy Statement, “Grants of Plan-Based Awards.”

Restricted stock awards (“RSAs”) may vest on a single date or may vest on multiple dates over an extended period after the date of grant. RSAs are conditioned on the participant’s continued employment with the Company, and may also have additional restrictions, including performance conditions. Restricted stock allows the participant to vote and receive dividends prior to vesting.

Restricted stock units (“RSUs”) are a contingent right to receive shares of the Company’s stock upon satisfaction of certain vesting criteria. RSUs may vest on a single date or may vest on multiple dates over an extended period after the date of grant. RSUs are conditioned on the participant’s continued employment with the Company, and may also have additional restrictions, including performance conditions. RSUs do not allow the participant to vote or receive dividends prior to vesting. While no dividends are paid on the shares underlying the RSUs, the RSU program may provide for a cash bonus in an amount equal to the dividends which would have been earned on the shares during the period from grant until issuance.

Performance Share Units (“PSUs”) represent the right to receive a share of stock upon the Company’s satisfaction of certain specified economic performance criteria. The performance period for the PSUs is generally three years but may utilize shorter periods to phase in a new PSU program. The PSU’s typically vest at the end of the performance period following certification by the Compensation Committee at which time the shares earned under the PSU, if any, at paid to the participant. PSUs are conditioned on the participant’s continued employment with the Company, satisfaction of specified performance criteria but may have additional restrictions. PSUs do not allow the participant to vote the underlying shares. While no dividends are paid on the shares underlying the PSUs, the PSU program may provide for a cash bonus in an amount equal to the dividends which would have been earned on the shares during the performance period.

The column “Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation” discloses the dollar value of all earnings for services performed during the fiscal year pursuant to awards under non-equity incentive plans, including the EIP. Whether an award is included with respect to any particular fiscal year depends on whether the relevant performance measure was satisfied during the fiscal year. For example, the EIP awards are annual awards and the payments under those awards are made based upon the achievement of financial results measured as of December 31 of each fiscal year; accordingly, the amount reported for EIP corresponds to the fiscal year for which the award was earned even though such payment was made after the end of such fiscal year.

The column “Change in Pension Value and Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Earnings,” discloses the sum of the dollar value of  (1) the aggregate change in the actuarial present value of the named executive officers accumulated benefit under all defined benefit and actuarial pension plans (including supplemental plans) in effect during the indicated years; and (2) any above-market or preferential earnings on nonqualified deferred compensation, including on nonqualified defined contribution plans. The annual increase in the present value of the benefits for the named executive officers under their deferred compensation plans are disclosed in this column.

33

The column “All Other Compensation” discloses the sum of the dollar value of:

•

perquisites and other personal benefits, or property, unless the aggregate amount of such compensation is less than $10,000;

​

•

all “gross-ups” or other amounts reimbursed during the fiscal year for the payment of taxes;

​

•

amounts paid or which became due related to termination, severance or a change in control, if any;

​

•

the contributions to vested and unvested defined contribution plans; and

​

•

any life insurance premiums paid during the year for the benefit of a named executive officer.

​

[a]

This category includes perquisites and other benefits for 2016:

​

[b] Mr. Burrow was employed by the Company on September 15, 2014.

2016 GRANTS OF PLAN-BASED AWARDS

This table discloses information concerning each grant of an award made to a named executive officer in 2016. This includes EIP, stock option awards, restricted stock awards, restricted stock unit awards and performance share unit awards under the Company’s equity incentive plans, which are discussed in greater detail in this Proxy Statement under the caption “Compensation Discussion and Analysis.” The Threshold, Target and Maximum columns reflect the range of estimated payouts under the EIP. In the 7th and 8th

34

columns, the number of shares of common stock underlying options granted in the fiscal year and corresponding per-share exercise prices are reported. In all cases, the exercise price was equal to the closing market price of the common stock on the date of grant. Finally, in the 9th column, the aggregate value computed under the Accounting Standards Codification Topic 718, Compensation – Stock Compensation, for all awards made in 2016 is reported.

[a]

The stock awards in these columns represent the indicated percentage of the total stock awards made by the Company during 2015: Mr. Makris 9.9%, Mr. Fehlman 3.8%, Mr. Casteel 3.8%, Mr. Ledbetter 2.2%, and Mr. Burrow 2.1%.

​

[b]

This option award vests in three equal annual installments on January 19, 2017, 2018 and 2019.

​

[c]

This award is a performance share unit (“PSU”) under the SFNC 2015 Incentive Plan. The performance metric applicable to this grant is core earnings per share and total shareholder return 2018. The shares earned, if any, will be issued promptly after the Compensation Committee verifies the performance criteria.

​

[d]

This RSU award vests in three equal annual installments on January 19, 2017, 2018 and 2019.

​

[e]

This RSA award vested upon grant and was based upon 2015 performance.

​

35

OPTION EXERCISES AND STOCK VESTED IN 2016

The following table provides information concerning exercises of stock options, stock appreciation rights and similar instruments and vesting of stock, including restricted stock and similar instruments, which were granted in prior years but were exercised or vested during 2016 for each of the named executive officers on an aggregated basis. The table reports the number of securities for which options were exercised; the aggregate dollar value realized upon exercise of options; the number of shares of stock that vested; and the aggregate dollar value realized upon vesting of stock.

[a] The Value Realized on Exercise is computed using the difference between the closing market price upon the date of exercise and the option price.

[b] The Value Realized on Vesting is computed using the closing market price upon the date of vesting.

OUTSTANDING EQUITY AWARDS AT FISCAL YEAR-END 2016

The following table provides information concerning unexercised options and restricted stock that has not vested for each named executive officer outstanding as of the end of 2016. Each outstanding award is represented by a separate row which indicates the number of securities underlying the award, including awards that have been transferred other than for value (if any).

For option awards, the table discloses the exercise price and the expiration date. For stock awards, the table provides the total number of shares of stock that have not vested and the aggregate market value of shares of stock that have not vested. The market value of stock awards was computed by multiplying the closing market price of the Company’s stock at the end of 2016, $62.15, by the number of shares.

36