Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners

The following table sets forth information regarding beneficial ownership of our common stock by each shareholder who is known by the Company to beneficially own 5% or more of our common stock:

Table of Contents

Security Ownership of Management and Directors

The following table sets forth information regarding beneficial ownership of our common stock by:

The information is not necessarily indicative of beneficial ownership for any other purpose. The mailing address of each director and executive officer shown in the table below is c/o Fidelity National Information Services, Inc., 601 Riverside Avenue, Jacksonville, Florida 32204.

^* Represents less than 1% of our common stock.

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Certain Information About Our Executive Officers

The executive officers of the Company as of the date of this proxy statement are set forth in the table below. Certain biographical information with respect to those executive officers who do not also serve as directors follows the table. There are no family relationships among the executive officers, directors or nominees for director.

Marianne C. Brown

has served as Corporate Executive Vice President, Co-Chief Operating Officer since the FIS acquisition of SunGard on December 1, 2015. Ms. Brown served as Chief Operating Officer at SunGard from February 2014 until December 2015. Prior to joining SunGard, Ms. Brown served as President and Chief Executive Officer of Omgeo from 2006 to 2014, and prior to that she was the Chief Executive Officer of the Securities Industry Automation Corporation. Ms. Brown began her career in 1978 at Automatic Data Processing (“ADP”). Throughout her 26 years at ADP, she held positions of increasing responsibility in various areas in customer service, account management and sales, operations, technology and development.

Bruce F. Lowthers

has served as Corporate Executive Vice President, Co-Chief Operating Officer of the Integrated Financial Solutions segment of FIS since January 12, 2018. Mr. Lowthers served as Executive Vice President of the Global Payments Division of FIS from January 2015 until January 2018. Mr. Lowthers served as Executive Vice President of Retail Payments from January 2013 until January 2015 and head of product sales and global sales operations from September 2008 until January 2013. Mr. Lowthers was General Manager of the Global Payments Software business from August 2007 through August 2008. Prior to joining FIS, Mr. Lowthers held the position of Senior Vice President of Community Markets for eFunds, where he was responsible for all payment and risk products. Mr. Lowthers also held executive officer positions at four Start-up companies prior to joining eFunds.

Table of Contents

Marc M. Mayo

has served as Corporate Executive Vice President and Chief Legal Officer since December 2015. On February 1, 2018, he was also named Corporate Secretary. Prior to December 2015, he served as Deputy General Counsel-Corporate, and Associate General Counsel-Corporate and M&A, from his date of hire with FIS on August 1, 2012. Prior to joining FIS, he was a shareholder with the law firm of Rogers Towers, P.A., during which time, his clients included FIS. Prior to that, he was Senior Vice President and General Counsel of AccuStaff, a publicly traded staffing company that has since been purchased by Adecco.

Gregory G. Montana

has served as Corporate Executive Vice President and Chief Risk Officer since joining FIS in April 2012. Before joining FIS, he served as Senior Vice President and Senior Operational Risk Executive for Bank of America from 2010 to 2012. Prior to that, he held the positions of Senior Director, Global Risk Operations at PayPal™, Inc. from November 2009 to March 2010 and Director, Operational, Credit and Compliance Risk for Lloyds Banking Group, PLC from 2007 to 2009.

Michael P. Oates

served as Corporate Executive Vice President, Chief Administrative Officer and Corporate Secretary from December 1, 2015 until February 1, 2018. From that date until his announced retirement date of May 1, 2018, Mr. Oates has served, and will serve, as a Corporate Executive Vice President in a transitional role. Mr. Oates served as Corporate Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary from February 2013 until December 2015. He served as Corporate Executive Vice President, Chief Human Resources Officer from October 2009 to February 2013, Executive Vice President, Human Resources from February 2008 to September 2009, and Senior Vice President, Human Resources since joining FIS in September 2007.

L. Denise Williams

has served as Corporate Executive Vice President and Chief People Officer since joining FIS in April 2016. Prior to joining FIS, she spent 15 years with the IBM Corporation in several senior-level human resources roles, rising to the position of Vice President, Human Resources-North America Sales and Distribution. From 1987 to 2001, Ms. Williams held a variety of management positions in human resources with Coopers & Lybrand, First Data Corporation and Alliance Bernstein.

James W. Woodall

has served as Corporate Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer since March 2013, and prior to that, as Senior Vice President, Chief Accounting Officer and Controller of FIS since July 2008. Mr. Woodall previously served as Vice President, Finance of Eclipsys Corporation beginning in 2007. Prior to Eclipsys, Mr. Woodall was the Executive Director and Controller of AT&T Inc.’s SouthEast region and held finance roles of increasing responsibility since 2001. Prior to AT&T Inc., Mr. Woodall worked for PricewaterhouseCoopers, serving technology and communications clients.

Kathleen T. Thompson

has served as Corporate Senior Vice President, Chief Accounting Officer at FIS since November 2016. Prior to that, Ms. Thompson served as the FIS Chief Audit Executive since joining FIS in 2011. Prior to joining FIS, Ms. Thompson served as Florida Practice Leader for Experis™ Finance, and as Managing Director at Protiviti® Inc., a global consulting firm. From 1997 to 2002, Ms. Thompson served at Arthur Andersen, then a Big 5 accounting firm, and from 1988 to 1997 held various accounting and internal audit roles at Danka Business Systems and NationsBank.

Table of Contents

		EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
		Compensation Philosophy
		The primary goal of our executive compensation programs is to drive continued growth and successful execution of our business objectives, thereby creating value for our shareholders. Our compensation programs are grounded on the concept of paying for performance and intended to foster a high-performance culture, aligning the interests of our executive team with those of our shareholders.
		Accordingly, our named executive officers’ 2017 cash incentives under our annual incentive plan were tied directly to the achievement of pre-established, objective goals relating to three key measures of our success: revenue; earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (“EBITDA”); and earnings per share (“EPS”). Further, the vesting of long-term incentives, in the form of FIS equity, was tied directly to annual EBITDA achievement.
		Our compensation programs are designed to attract and retain high-performing executives and key employees, as there is significant competition in our industry for talent. We accomplish these objectives by providing our executives with total target compensation that is competitive relative to the compensation paid to similarly situated executives at similarly sized companies. We believe that this is critical to our effort to motivate, reward and retain those individuals with the leadership abilities and skills necessary for achieving our ultimate objective: the creation of long-term shareholder value.

Table of Contents

2017 Highlights

In this compensation discussion and analysis, we provide an overview of our named executive officers’ 2017 compensation, including the objectives of our compensation programs and the principles upon which our compensation program and decisions were based. In 2017, our named executive officers were:

Gary A. Norcross, President and Chief Executive Officer;

Marianne Brown, Corporate Executive Vice President and Co-Chief Operating Officer;

Anthony M. Jabbour, Corporate Executive Vice President and Co-Chief Operating Officer; ⁽¹⁾

Michael P. Oates, Corporate Executive Vice President and Chief Administrative Officer; and

James W. Woodall, Corporate Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer.

⁽¹⁾ Mr. Jabbour resigned his employment with FIS, effective on March 31, 2018.

Table of Contents

Compensation Objectives

Our Compensation Programs Support Our Corporate Strategy and Business Objectives

The primary goal of our executive compensation programs is to drive continued growth and successful execution of our business objectives and thereby create value for our shareholders. We seek to achieve this goal by:

As the past three years have demonstrated, our compensation programs are tied directly to company performance. In 2015, when the company failed to achieve the minimum EBITDA target established by our annual short-term incentive plan, the Compensation Committee directed that no annual bonus payments be made to the executive officers. Further, the Compensation Committee dramatically reduced the annual equity grants made to executive officers in November 2015, which resulted in executive officers receiving annual grants that were 40% lower than their 2014 grants. In 2016, the company moved its annual grant process to Q1. At that point, the Compensation Committee approved a modest increase in grants for the executive officers (approximately 25% over the 2015 grant), declining to restore the 2014 grant levels until performance had been re-established. At the conclusion of the year, audited financial statements proved that the company had an extraordinary year in 2016. That exceptional performance drove 27% in total shareholder return (“TSR”) for the year and earned the executive officers a payout in excess of target for their 2016 short-term incentive.

In 2017, the Compensation Committee approved equity grants for the executive officers that, for all but the CEO, remained below the 2014 grant levels. Because the CEO alone fell well below the 50th percentile in peer group total compensation, his grant was raised to a level modestly above the 2014 grant (which placed him at the 50th percentile of the peer group).

The Compensation Committee and the management team believe that this direct link between company performance and our compensation plans is critical to driving our ultimate corporate strategy of creating above-market value for our shareholders. We also believe that our track record of outpacing our peers over the three- and five-year measurement periods and the S&P 500 over the one-, three- and five-year measurement periods validates our philosophy and approach to executive compensation.

Table of Contents

Compensation Governance

Our Compensation Committee takes a proactive role in governance, continually reviewing our compensation programs and making adjustments that they believe to be in the best interests of the Company and our shareholders. As part of this process, our Compensation Committee reviews compensation trends and considers what is thought to be current best practice by independent groups, with the goal of continually improving our approach to executive compensation.

Results of 2017 Vote on Executive Compensation

At our 2017 annual meeting of shareholders, we held a non-binding advisory vote on the compensation of our named executive officers as disclosed in the 2017 proxy statement and 83% of the shares voted at our 2017 shareholders’ meeting approved our “say-on-pay” proposal. Our Compensation Committee considered the results of the 2017 say-on-pay vote and retained our compensation structure, which focuses our named executive officers on achieving our business objectives and maximizing shareholder value.

Significant Long-Term Stock Ownership Creates a Strong Tie to Our Shareholders

Our named executive officers and our Board of Directors hold significant long-term investments in the Company. Collectively, as reported in the Security Ownership of Management table on page 32, they beneficially own 2,048,123 shares of our common stock and options to acquire an additional 4,829,376 shares of common stock. The fact that our executives and directors maintain such a large investment in our stock is reflective of our Company culture and our compensation philosophy. Management’s sizable investment in our stock aligns their individual economic interests directly with the interests of our shareholders. This promotes teamwork among our management team and strengthens the team’s focus on achieving long-term results and increasing shareholder return.

We have formal stock ownership guidelines for all corporate officers, including our named executive officers and members of our Board, to encourage these individuals to hold a multiple of their base salary (or annual retainer) in our common stock. Shares of restricted stock and intrinsic value in excess of exercise price of stock options count toward meeting the guidelines. Each new executive officer and director has four years to meet the guidelines. The guidelines are as follows:

Each of our named executive officers met the stock ownership guidelines as of December 31, 2017.

Each of our non-employee directors, other than Ms. Parent, who joined the Board in 2017, met the stock ownership guidelines as of December 31, 2017.

Table of Contents

Hedging and Pledging Policy

In April 2013, our Board adopted a hedging and pledging policy that prohibits our executive officers and directors from engaging in hedging or monetization transactions with respect to our securities, engaging in short-term or speculative transactions in our securities that could create heightened legal risk and/or the appearance of improper or inappropriate conduct, holding FIS securities in margin accounts, or pledging them as collateral for loans. The Board adopted this policy in order to more closely align the interests of our directors and executive officers with those of our shareholders and to protect against inappropriate risk taking.

Clawback Policy

In December 2010, our Compensation Committee adopted a policy to recover any incentive-based compensation from our executive officers if we are required to prepare an accounting restatement due to material noncompliance with financial reporting requirements, and the incentive-based compensation paid during the preceding three-year period would have been lower had the compensation been based on the restated financial results. In addition to this policy, our annual incentive plan gives our Compensation Committee complete discretion to reduce or eliminate annual incentives that have not yet been paid. There were no clawbacks made in 2017.

Benefits

We provide retirement and other benefits to our U.S. employees under a number of benefit plans. Our named executive officers generally participate in the same benefit plans as our other employees. All employees in the United States, including our named executive officers, are eligible to participate in our health and welfare plans, as well as our 401(k) plan and Employee Stock Purchase Plan.

Table of Contents

In recent years, our Compensation Committee,

or the full Board, has taken the following

actions with regard to governance:

Improvements Made by the Compensation Committee

Other governance-related actions taken in recent years by our Board of Directors include the following:

Table of Contents

Compensation Elements

Components of 2017 Total Compensation and Pay Mix

We compensate our executives primarily through a mix of base salary, annual cash incentives, and long-term equity-based incentives. We also maintain standard employee benefit plans for our employees and executive officers. Some executive officers, including our named executive officers, may also receive limited additional benefits. The compensation earned by our named executive officers in 2017 consisted of the following:

Table of Contents

A significant portion of each named officer’s total compensation was based on performance-based cash and stock incentives that are tied to our financial performance. The following chart shows the allocation of 2017 Total Compensation reported in the Summary Compensation Table among the various components:

2017 Total Compensation

The allocation of our named executive officers’ compensation among the various compensation elements has generally been consistent from year to year. The allocation each year, however, is not formulaic. Instead, it reflects our Compensation Committee’s business judgment regarding the best allocation of compensation based on a number of objective and subjective factors, including marketplace data provided by our Compensation Committee’s consultant, Mercer; an assessment of each executive’s level of responsibility; the individual skills, experience and contribution of each executive; and the ability of each executive to impact company-wide performance and create long-term shareholder value.

In 2018, the Company adopted the use of relative TSR performance metrics for vesting the performance share units (“PSUs”) that make up a majority of each named executive officer’s 2018 annual equity grant. Each tranche of the PSUs vest in a range of 0 to 150% of the target value each year, based on the Company’s TSR performance as compared to the S&P 500.

Table of Contents

Compensation Process

Base Salary

Although the emphasis of our compensation program is on performance-based, at-risk pay, we provide our named executive officers with base salaries that are intended to ensure a level of regularly paid, cash compensation that is competitive and reasonable. Our Compensation Committee reviews salary levels annually as part of our performance review process, as well as in the event of promotions or other changes in our named executive officers’ positions or responsibilities. When establishing base salary levels, our Compensation Committee considers the peer group and market compensation data provided by the committee’s independent consultants, as well as a number of qualitative factors, including the named executive officer’s experience, knowledge, skills, level of responsibility and performance.

Annual Performance-Based Cash Incentive

In the first quarter of each fiscal year, our Compensation Committee approves the fiscal year performance objectives and a target incentive opportunity for each participant, as well as the potential incentive opportunity range for maximum and threshold performance. The target incentive for each named executive officer in 2017 was as stated above.

We award annual cash incentives based upon the achievement of pre-defined business and financial objectives that are specified in the first quarter of the year. The annual cash incentive program plays an important role in our approach to total compensation. It motivates participants to improve the Company’s performance for a fiscal year, and it requires that we achieve defined annual financial performance goals based on audited financial results before participants become eligible for an incentive payout. We believe that achieving our annual business and financial objectives is important to executing our business strategy, strengthening our products and services, improving customer satisfaction, gaining new customers and delivering long-term value to shareholders. In addition, the annual cash incentive program helps to attract and retain a highly-qualified management team and to maintain a market-competitive compensation program.

No annual incentive payments are due to a named executive officer if the pre-established, minimum performance levels are not met, and payments are capped at the maximum performance payout level. In addition, the financial performance measures under the plan are derived from our annual financial statements included in our Form 10-K, which are audited by our independent registered public accounting firm, KPMG LLP. Annual incentive plan payments are made after completion of the audit.

Table of Contents

2017 Performance Goals and Results

As was the case in previous years, the three performance measures chosen by the Compensation Committee for 2017 were revenue, EBITDA, and earnings per share. These three performance measures are among the most important measures in evaluating the financial performance of our business, and they can have a significant impact on our share price and the investment community’s future expectations. The three measures, when combined with the strong focus on long-term shareholder return created by our equity-based incentives and significant stock ownership by our named executive officers, also provide a degree of checks and balances that requires our named executive officers to consider both short-term and long-term performance when making decisions. All three measures are based on figures communicated to the investment community. Consequently, the annual incentive performance targets are synchronized with shareholder expectations, desired increase in our stock price, our annual budget, and our long-term financial plan.

We believe that the performance measures used for our annual incentives, together with the equity-based incentives and high stock ownership by our named executive officers, provide a high level of objectivity and transparency and a good balance that focuses our named executive officers on achieving short-term goals while not encouraging behavior that could be detrimental to delivering sustainable, long-term value. When establishing the performance measures and goals for the 2017 annual incentive awards, management and our Compensation Committee considered the following key factors:

In the following table, we explain how we calculate the performance measures and why we use them.

Table of Contents

As applicable, we adjust our performance metrics to eliminate certain financial impacts of new accounting pronouncements, restructuring expense, mergers, including non-recurring deal-related costs, acquisitions, and divestitures, including restructuring and integration charges, the impact of purchase accounting on deferred revenue, impairment charges, and transaction costs. We also adjust the performance to eliminate non-budgeted discontinued operations and the impact of changes in foreign currency from budgeted rates and current period acquisitions. We make these adjustments because we do not think our named executive officers’ compensation should be impacted by events that do not reflect the underlying operating performance of the business. In 2017, we made the following adjustments to the revenue and EBITDA results (reflected in millions):

As was the case in 2015, no annual incentive payments are due to a named executive officer if the pre-established, threshold performance levels are not met. In addition, if actual EBITDA results fell below the threshold EBITDA set for the 2017 plan, $2,982 million, then our Compensation Committee had discretion not to pay out the 2017 annual bonus for all officers, regardless of the results for revenue and EPS. If the target level performance goals are attained, our named executive officers earn an annual incentive equal to their annual incentive target opportunity. If the threshold performance goal is attained, 50% of the target opportunity is earned, and if maximum performance goal is attained or exceeded, 200% of the target opportunity is earned. For performance between the threshold and maximum level goals, the percentage of the target award earned is interpolated. Payments are capped at the maximum performance payout level.

The table below lists the performance goals and results for 2017.

Table of Contents

Special Compensation Programs: The SunGard Synergy Bonus Program

Strategic acquisitions are an important element of our long-term growth strategy. As a result, when a strategic acquisition occurs, we often design incentive programs tied to specific performance objectives related to that acquisition. Aligning specific incentives to these inorganic growth initiatives increases the focus on and achievement of acquisition-related synergies, which, in turn, maximize the earnings potential of the Company. Historically, these synergy bonus programs have resulted in FIS exceeding the synergy goals committed to the investment community and the rating agencies at the time the deals are closed. The fact that FIS can be relied upon to deliver on its cost take-out and operational integration targets is a fundamental reason why our largest investors have such confidence in our ability to execute strategic, transformational acquisitions.

Each executive’s execution on his or her individual synergy plan is not only a critical component of the deal’s success, it is also a difficult and time-consuming responsibility that is in addition to their already demanding day-to-day role. In this instance, we challenged each participant in the SunGard Synergy Bonus Program with extremely aggressive cost targets and timelines, while holding each executive accountable to deliver on his or her 2017 plan. Both were critical to our success in 2017, and one did not compensate for the other. As in the past, the SunGard Synergy Bonus Program proved to be a very successful way of incenting executives to accept the increased demand placed upon them and drive the creation of extraordinary long-term value for our shareholders.

In October 2015, the Compensation Committee approved the one-time SunGard Synergy Bonus Program for executive officers and key senior managers who would play critical roles in driving the reduction of costs necessary to meet the expectations of the investor community following the close of the SunGard acquisition. Identifying and executing upon these operational synergies accelerate the accretive nature of the acquisition and, due to the ongoing nature of the savings, return billions of dollars in enterprise value to the shareholders. The performance period of the bonus program ran from September 1, 2015 to December 31, 2017. Synergy savings were defined as annualized expense savings from specific actions taken in relation to the acquisition of SunGard. Synergy savings were tracked as the actions were taken and the savings were validated by the Finance Department. All synergy calculations were then reviewed and certified by an independent accounting firm, PricewaterhouseCoopers, before incentive payments were made. The program had a synergy cost savings target of $200 million in annual run rate, with a minimum of $150 million and a maximum of $325 million. At the time we announced the acquisition of SunGard, the Company informed the investment community and our shareholders that we would target a total of $200 million in annual run rate cost savings by the end of 2017. At the end of 2016, we increased our commitment to greater than $275 million and, in 2017, we raised that commitment one final time to exiting 2017 with annual run rate savings of greater than $325 million. These updates to the investment community were issued as part of our quarterly guidance. They did not change the targets or the payout opportunities under the Synergy Bonus Plan.

All of our named executive officers participated in the plan, with minimum, target and maximum total incentive opportunities over the entire 29-month performance period as follows: Mr. Norcross, $2,650,000/$6,225,000/$18,4 50,000; Mr. Woodall, Mr. Jabbour and Ms. Brown, $1,500,000/$3,600,000/$10,800,000; and Mr. Oates, $1,150,000/$2,625,000/$7,725,000. In 2017, the Compensation Committee authorized two payments under this plan. The first occurred in April 2017, when synergy savings of $279 million had been verified by PwC, and the second in October 2017, when synergy savings in excess of $325 million had been verified. At this point, the maximum synergy savings under the plan had been exceeded and the plan was terminated. In total, the named executive officers earned the following SunGard Synergy Bonuses in 2017: Mr. Norcross, $11,110,500; Mr. Woodall, Mr. Jabbour and Ms. Brown, $6,498,000; and Mr. Oates $4,787,550.

Using a multiple assumption of 13 times EBITDA, by exceeding the maximum synergy savings of $325 million contemplated by the plan, over $4.2 billion in enterprise value was created. The named executive officers earned $59.4 million in incentives for the duration of the plan — approximately 1.3% of the $4.2 billion in enterprise value created. Management believes that this synergy incentive plan is the foundation of what has been a phenomenally successful acquisition and integration of SunGard. Since the close of that acquisition, the legacy SunGard businesses have enjoyed 8% organic revenue growth, 27% adjusted EBITDA growth and 760 bps in margin expansion.

Table of Contents

The following chart compares synergy bonuses for named executive officers to cost takeouts and enterprise value created.

Long-Term Equity Incentives

In 2017, we continued to use performance-based vesting for both restricted stock and stock option grants. For years, our approach to the vesting of long-term equity incentives has included two primary elements: (1) performance-based restricted stock that vests and is earned based on a minimum EBITDA achievement in each of the three calendar years covered by the grant and continued employment through each year, and (2) performance-based stock options, that vest and are earned based on a minimum EBITDA achievement in each of the three calendar years covered by the grant and continued employment through each year. For the 2017 grants, the EBITDA vesting trigger for restricted stock and stock options was $2.75 billion in each of 2017, 2018 and 2019.

We adopted these performance vesting requirements because we believe that performance goal setting helps to maintain the rigor and strategic alignment of the incentive program with the Company’s business plan each year. As evidenced by the past two years, the annual cash incentive plan is based on aggressive EBITDA targets and can be quite volatile. Because FIS remains active with strategic acquisitions and divestitures, setting multi-year financial objectives is very challenging. Acquisitions are quickly folded in and, as evidenced this year, the timing of divestitures cannot be predicted. Each of those facts make it very difficult to isolate the stand-alone performance of the legacy company. As a result, we believe that the annual measurement of a constant EBITDA target for three years under the equity plan is appropriate and sufficiently rigorous to achieve that program’s primary goal: the long-term stability and retention of our key officers and executives.

Each form of equity is also subject to a time-based vesting requirement, whereby each grant vests ratably over three years on the anniversary date of the grant, if the EBITDA performance vesting hurdle has been satisfied.

We selected EBITDA as the performance measure for the performance-based equity awards because we believe the level of EBITDA we achieve reflects the quality of our products and services and our operating strength and efficiency, and has a significant impact on long-term stock price and the investing community’s expectations. EBITDA is also a significant factor in our ability to support long-term debt. For purposes of the performance-based equity awards, EBITDA means our operating income determined in accordance with GAAP as reported in our financial statements, excluding depreciation and amortization, merger and acquisition-related costs, asset impairment charges and other non-GAAP adjustments that we make in our business plan (such as exclusion of prospective merger and acquisition costs and divestiture, currency, and accounting adjustments, over the existing five-year plan expense), with the goal being to measure on a consistent basis our performance against the existing business plan. Our Compensation Committee will evaluate whether the EBITDA goal has been achieved following the completion of our audit for the calendar years ending December 31.

We also believe that it is appropriate to use an EBITDA performance target in both short- and long-term incentive plans. EBITDA reflects our operating strength and efficiency, as well as our ability to convert revenue into operating profits for our shareholders. EBITDA is commonly relied upon as the basis for enterprise valuation by investment analysts and it is widely followed by our shareholders. By using it as a key component in our annual cash incentive program, we incent officers and key managers to drive short-term profitability and cash flow. By using it in the long-

Table of Contents

term incentive plan, we incent grant recipients to ensure profitability and cash flow results are delivered over the long term, resulting in short-term decisions on investment and operations being balanced with a longer-term view of profitability and cash flow.

As discussed earlier, we use stock ownership guidelines to complement our long-term equity incentives, so executives maintain a strong link to the interests of shareholders and to the movements in our stock price. In 2017, we used the Amended and Restated FIS 2008 Omnibus Incentive Plan, which we refer to as the Plan, for long-term incentive awards. We do not attempt to time the granting of awards to any internal or external events.

We intend for our performance-based restricted stock awards to:

We intend for our stock option awards to:

The stock options were awarded with an exercise price equal to the fair market value of a share of our common stock on the date of grant. The options have a seven-year term. We do not engage in “backdating” or re-pricing of stock options, as our stock plan prohibits these practices. When we determine grant sizes, we attribute a target value to the options based on the fair value of the options in accordance with GAAP.

Further details concerning the equity-based awards granted in 2017 to our named executive officers are provided in the Grants of Plan-Based Awards table and the Outstanding Equity Awards at Fiscal Year-End table and the related footnotes.

Dividends are not paid on the performance-based restricted stock awards unless and until the restricted stock vests. Also, we impose a post-vesting holding requirement on the restricted shares held by our named executive officers, which requires that the named executive officer hold 50% of the restricted shares from the date of vesting until such time as the officer’s total equity holdings satisfy the equity ownership guidelines adopted by the Compensation Committee. In practice, named executive officers have generally held the restricted shares even after they have satisfied the ownership guidelines. This is consistent with our philosophy that executives should hold a significant amount of FIS stock, so that their financial position is tied directly to the interests of our shareholders.

2018 Annual Equity Grant

For the 2018 annual equity grant, the Company adopted a new framework for executive officers. Rather than the 50/50 split between restricted shares and stock options used for the last several years (as described above), the Compensation Committee has approved, for executive officers, a mix of performance share units (“PSUs”), restricted share awards (“RSAs”) and stock options. Each will vest over the same three-year period as used in the past. The stock options and the RSAs will be time-based and will make up 25% and 20% of the total grant, respectively. The PSUs, accounting for 55% of the total grant, will be both time- and performance-based. The performance vesting element will be the Company’s relative TSR performance against the S&P 500 in each of the three calendar years covered by the grant (e.g., 2018, 2019 and 2020 for 2018 awards). Based on that relative TSR

Table of Contents

performance in each year, participants can earn between 0 and 150% of the target grant amount in each year. The Company chose to make this shift in the grant framework to align with a growing trend of adopting relative performance metrics for performance-based equity and to more efficiently utilize the shares in our shareholder-approved equity plan. It chose to compare FIS performance to the S&P 500, rather than its peer group, because the S&P 500 is a larger, more stable group. Performance relative to the peer group brings into play extraordinary, one-time events, such as acquisitions, divestitures and share buybacks that can skew TSR in any given year. Many of our investors set their internal benchmarks for our performance against the S&P 500. As a result, and as is true for many of the companies that make up the S&P 500, we believe our TSR relative to the S&P 500 performance is a strong measure of company performance.

401(k) Plan

We sponsor a defined contribution savings plan that is intended to be qualified under Section 401(a) of the Internal Revenue Code. The plan contains a cash or deferred arrangement under Section 401(k) of the Internal Revenue Code. Participating employees may contribute up to 40% of their eligible compensation, but not more than statutory limits (generally $18,000 in 2017). We contribute an amount equal to 50% of each participant’s voluntary contributions under the plan, up to a maximum of 6% of eligible compensation for each participant. Participants may direct the trustee to invest funds in any investment option available under the plan. A participant may receive the value of his or her vested account balance upon termination of employment. A participant is always 100% vested in his or her voluntary contributions. Vesting in matching contributions occurs on a pro rata basis over an employee’s first three years of employment with the Company. We do not offer pensions or supplemental executive retirement plans for our named executive officers.

Deferred Compensation Plan

We provide our named executive officers, as well as other key employees, with the opportunity to defer receipt of their compensation under a non-qualified deferred compensation plan. Participants may elect to defer up to 75% of their base salary, bonuses and/or commissions on a pre-tax basis. None of our named executive officers elected to defer 2017 compensation into the plan. A description of the plan and information regarding our named executive officers’ interests under the plan can be found in the Nonqualified Deferred Compensation table and accompanying narrative.

Employee Stock Purchase Plan

We sponsor the 2006 Employee Stock Purchase Plan (“ESPP”), through which our employees can purchase shares of our common stock on an after-tax basis through payroll deductions and through matching employer contributions. Participants may elect to contribute between 3% and 15% of their salary into the ESPP through payroll deduction. At the end of each calendar quarter in 2017, we made a matching contribution to the account of each participant who has been continuously employed by us or a participating subsidiary for the last four calendar quarters. Matching contributions are equal to one-fourth of the amount contributed during the quarter that is one year earlier than the quarter in which the matching contribution is made. The matching contributions, together with the employee deferrals, are used to purchase shares of our common stock on the open market. Our Board has approved the termination of the 2006 ESPP effective as of the date of the 2018 Annual Meeting, subject to the approval of the shareholders pursuant to Proposal No. 4 of this Proxy Statement.

Health and Welfare Benefits

We sponsor various broad-based health and welfare benefit plans for our employees. Certain executives, including our named executive officers, are provided with additional health, life and disability coverage. The taxable portion of this additional coverage is reflected in the Summary Compensation Table under the column All Other Compensation and the related footnote.

Other Benefits

We provide few special benefits to our named executive officers. In general, the benefits provided are intended to help our named executive officers be more productive and efficient and to protect us and the executives from certain business risks and potential threats. For safety and efficiency purposes in 2017, certain of our named executive officers received personal use of the corporate air transportation. Further detail regarding executive

Table of Contents

perquisites in 2017 can be found in the Summary Compensation Table under the column All Other Compensation and the related footnote.

Post-Termination Compensation and Benefits

We have entered into employment agreements with each of our named executive officers. We believe these agreements are necessary to protect our legitimate business interests, as well as to protect the executives in certain termination events. Descriptions of the material terms of all of the agreements can be found in the narrative following the Grants of Plan-Based Awards table and in the Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change in Control section.

Establishing Executive Compensation Levels

We operate in a highly competitive industry and compete with our peers and competitors to attract and retain highly skilled executives within that industry. To attract and retain talented executives with the leadership abilities and skills necessary to build long-term shareholder value, motivate our executives to perform at a high level and reward outstanding achievement, our Compensation Committee sets total compensation at levels it determines to be competitive in our market.

the executive officer’s experience, knowledge, skills, level of responsibility and potential to influence our performance and future success;

our financial performance;

the executive officer’s prior salary levels, annual incentive awards, annual incentive award targets and long-term equity incentive awards;

the business environment and our business objectives and strategy;

the need to retain and motivate our executive officers;

corporate governance and regulatory factors related to executive compensation; and

marketplace compensation levels and practices.

In evaluating the compensation of the Chief Executive Officer’s direct reports, our Compensation Committee also considers the Chief Executive Officer’s recommendations to the committee. This includes his review of the performance of the other named executive officers, job responsibilities, importance to our overall business strategy, and our compensation philosophy. The Chief Executive Officer does not make a recommendation to the Compensation Committee regarding his own compensation. The compensation decisions are not formulaic, and the members of our Compensation Committee did not assign precise weights to the factors listed above. The Compensation Committee utilized their individual and collective business judgment to review, assess, and approve compensation for our named executive officers.

To support its review of our executive compensation and benefit programs for 2017, the Compensation Committee engaged Mercer, an independent compensation consultant, to conduct a marketplace review of the compensation we pay to our executive officers. The Compensation Committee has the sole authority to approve the independent compensation consultant’s fees and terms of engagement. Mercer gathered marketplace compensation data on total compensation, which consisted of annual salary, annual incentives, long-term incentives, executive benefits, executive ownership levels, overhang and dilution from the equity incentive plan, compensation levels as a percent of revenue, pay mix and other key statistics. The marketplace compensation data is an important element in the

Table of Contents

decisions of our Compensation Committee, but our Compensation Committee ultimately made decisions based on all of the factors described above.

Each year, the Compensation Committee reviews the specific marketplace compensation surveys that would be used to benchmark executive compensation. The committee strives for a consistent set of compensation surveys from year to year, so that the benchmark information is consistent and comparable. In 2017, Mercer assisted our Compensation Committee in analyzing the marketplace compensation surveys, using three sources: (1) the Q4 2016 Mercer Executive Remuneration Survey, (2) the Towers Watson 2016 CDB High Tech Executive Compensation Survey and (3) compensation information for the following group of 18 companies, which we refer to as our “peer group.” The FIS peer group was selected based on a revenue range of approximately 1/2 to 2 times the projected 2017 revenue for FIS of $9 billion, industry focus (generally the software & services industry based on Global Industry Classification Standard (GICS) Code), nature and complexity of operations, including international focus and companies that compete with us for business and/or executive talent. The 2017 peer group consisted of:

The revenue of these companies ranged from $3.65 billion to $15.1 billion, with a median revenue of $7.6 billion.

Our Compensation Committee used the other two sources of compensation data described above in making its compensation decisions in 2017 as a point of reference in evaluating whether compensation was within a “market” range; however, those two sources were given less weight when considering what the named executive officers’ 2017 target total compensation should be, as we think the peer group data is the best indicator of total compensation provided by our key competitors and peers.

The marketplace data information in this discussion is not deemed filed or part of the compensation discussion and analysis for certification purposes.

Role of Compensation Committee, Compensation Consultant and Executive Officers

Our Compensation Committee is responsible for reviewing, approving and monitoring the compensation programs for our named executive officers, as well as our other executive officers. Our Compensation Committee is also responsible for administering our stock incentive plans and approving individual grants and awards under that plan for our executive officers.

To further the objectives of our compensation program, our Compensation Committee engaged Mercer in 2017 to conduct an ongoing review over the course of the year of our compensation programs for our named executive officers, other key executives and our Board of Directors. Mercer provided our Compensation Committee with relevant market data on compensation, including annual salary, annual incentives, long-term incentives, other benefits, total compensation and pay mix, and alternatives to consider when making compensation decisions. Our Compensation Committee did not limit the consultant’s discretion in selecting the surveys and peer group companies that are contained in this marketplace data. The consultant also assisted our Compensation Committee in its review of the compensation risk assessment that is completed on an annual basis. The committee may also give specific assignments to its consultant from time to time and may ask for the consultant’s assistance when it is considering a special or one-time compensation arrangement. In addition, members of our Compensation

Table of Contents

Committee have discussions with the consultant between meetings as specific questions arise. Mercer was selected by our Compensation Committee and reports directly to the committee.

Mercer was paid $188,626 for its compensation advisory services to the Compensation Committee in 2017. Also during 2017, Mercer and its Marsh & McLennan affiliates were also retained by management to provide services unrelated to executive compensation. The aggregate fees paid for those other services for 2017 were $3,992,024. The Committee and the Board did not review or approve the other services provided to us by Mercer and its Marsh & McLennan affiliates, as those services were approved by management in the normal course of business.

We have been advised by Mercer that the reporting relationship and compensation of the Mercer consultants who perform executive compensation consulting services for our Compensation Committee is separate from, and is not determined by reference to, Mercer’s or Marsh & McLennan’s other lines of business or their other work for us. The committee considered these separate reporting relationships and compensation structures, the provision of other services to the company by Mercer and Marsh & McLennan, the absence of any business or personal relationship between our officers and directors and the specific Mercer consultants advising the company (other than the consulting relationship with the committee), Mercer’s Global Business Standards intended to address potential conflict of interests with respect to their executive compensation consulting services, and the other factors required to be considered by applicable SEC and NYSE rules, in approving the committee’s engagement of Mercer for 2017. Based on this review, the Committee did not identify that Mercer had any conflicts of interest that would prevent Mercer from independently advising the committee.

The Compensation Committee has considered and assessed all relevant factors, including but not limited to those set forth in Rule 10C-1(b)(4)(i) through (vi) under the Exchange Act, that could give rise to a potential conflict of interest with respect to the independent compensation consultants that provided services in 2017. Based on this review, there are no conflicts of interest raised by the work performed by Mercer.

Mr. Norcross provided input and made recommendations to the Compensation Committee regarding executive compensation levels for executive officers other than himself. Messrs. Norcross and Woodall provided input regarding the structure and targets of the performance goals used in our performance-based incentive programs. In addition, Mr. Oates coordinated with the committee’s chairman and the consultant in preparing the committee’s meeting agendas and materials. Although our Compensation Committee considers the recommendations of our executive officers, our Compensation Committee exercises its discretion when making compensation decisions and may modify the executives’ recommendations. Our executive officers do not make recommendations to our Compensation Committee with respect to their own compensation.

While our Compensation Committee carefully considers the information provided by, and the recommendations of, Mercer and the individuals who participate in the compensation process, the committee retains complete discretion to accept, reject or modify any recommended compensation decisions.

Tax and Accounting Considerations

Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code places a limit of $1,000,000 on the amount that can be deducted in any one year for compensation paid to certain executive officers but previously contained an exception for certain performance-based compensation. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, signed into law in December 2017, eliminates the performance-based compensation exception to the Section 162(m) deduction limit and such exception will no longer apply to awards granted under our stock plans and annual incentive plan for the 2018 tax year and later, unless it qualifies for transitional relief available to certain arrangements in place as of November 2, 2017. Our Compensation Committee takes the deduction limitation under Section 162(m) into account when structuring and approving awards under our annual incentive plan and stock plans; however, our Compensation Committee may approve compensation that is not fully deductible.

Our Compensation Committee also considers accounting impact when structuring and approving awards. We account for stock-based payments, including stock option grants, in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718, which governs the appropriate accounting treatment of stock-based payments under United States generally accepted accounting principles.

Table of Contents