Normas de Emisiones

The Compensation Committee considers the following factors in using its discretion to determine the amount and form of compensation to be awarded to each of our NEOs.

External Market Analysis

Independent Compensation Consultant Input Risk Management and Governance Shareholder Input Company Performance (and

Division Performance, if Applicable) Business and

Market Conditions Individual

Performance Talent Assessment

Internal Pay Equity

Use of Market Data

Our Compensation Committee independently evaluates the performance of the CEO and establishes the CEO’s total annual target compensation so that his base salary, target annual incentive opportunity and target long- term incentive awards are competitive against market data for our Proxy Peer Group (detailed below) in addi- tion to compensation survey data (described below) regarding compensation from financial services and general industry firms. The Compensation Committee refers its recommendations to the independent Directors of the Board for review and ratification. For more information on CEO historical and current target total direct compensation, see page 35 of this Proxy Statement.

For our NEOs other than the CEO, we review the range of market compensation between the 25th and 75th percentiles for our Proxy Peer Group as well as company data provided in the compensation surveys described below to develop an understanding of market pay levels for each position. In general, we design our executive compensation program to pay median levels of compensation for target levels of achievement, to pay below median for achievement below target, and to pay above median compensation for significantly higher levels of achievement versus target goals.

We annually review compensation market data in setting base salaries and short-term and long-term incentive opportunities for all our NEOs. However, we do not limit or increase individual incentive payments based solely on these market reference points. We also consider factors such as internal pay equity, performance, the crit- ical skills and experience of the NEO and the strategic importance of his or her role to the Company, as de- scribed in this section of our Proxy Statement.

For purposes of setting compensation targets for 2016 and 2017, the Compensation Committee was provided with competitive data for our Proxy Peer Group by Pay Governance as well as information from two compensa- tion surveys in which the Company participates: the McLagan Financial Services Survey and the Willis Towers Watson General Industry Executive Compensation Survey.

Proxy Peer Group

The Compensation Committee reviews the composition of the Proxy Peer Group each year to ensure it remains appropriate to use in competitive analysis of executive compensation from size, industry and business model perspectives.

In reviewing and identifying our 2016 Proxy Peer Group, the Compensation Committee considered a number of factors including shareholder advisor methodologies to identify peer groups, and the annual revenue, market capitalization and mix of businesses of the companies considered and selected. With the assistance of Pay Gov- ernance, the Compensation Committee identified companies (listed below) to serve as market reference points for compensation comparison purposes for 2016, with particular reference to industry, revenue and market capitalization. In terms of size, as shown in the table below, at the end of 2016, the Company’s annual revenue was between the median and the 75th percentile and the Company’s market capitalization was above the 75th percentile of the Proxy Peer Group.

Proxy Peer Group

Revenue ($ billions) Market Cap. ($ billions) 25th Percentile $3.60 $14.97 Median $4.86 $20.50 75th percentile $7.30 $27.46 S&P Global $5.66 $32.00

For the purposes of setting 2017 compensation targets, the Compensation Committee determined that the cur- rent Proxy Peer Group remained an appropriate comparison group for the Company and, therefore, no changes were necessary.

Survey Peer Groups

The companies that comprise the McLagan survey peer group are listed below. The Willis Towers Watson sur- vey does not identify the specific companies that reported compensation information.

Survey data allows the Compensation Committee to compare compensation levels for certain roles to a wider spectrum of companies and benchmark them to a broader market for talent.

Peer Group Companies

Fidelity National Financial, Inc.

Equifax Inc.

Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. Fiserv, Inc.

Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. MasterCard Incorporated The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc.

Verisk Analytics, Inc. BlackRock, Inc.

CME Group Inc. Discover Financial Services

Franklin Resources, Inc. Invesco Ltd. Legg Mason, Inc. Moody's Corporation Northern Trust Corporation Raymond James Financial, Inc.

State Street Corporation T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation

The Charles Schwab Corporation

McLagan Survey Peer Group

Proxy Peer Group

Internal Pay Equity

The Compensation Committee also takes into account internal equity when making pay decisions. While there is not an established formal policy on internal pay guidelines, the Compensation Committee reviews compensation levels to ensure that the appropriate internal equity exists. This is determined based on various considerations including man- agement of revenue or operating profit, headcount responsibility, geographic scope, and job complexity.

Performance and Talent Assessment

The Compensation Committee’s consideration is further informed by the Company’s performance evaluation process, which was overhauled in 2014 to strengthen the link to pay-for-performance through formalized measuring of management against individual qualitative and quantitative goals, behaviors and competencies aligned with the Company’s strategic plan. The goals reflect financial targets inclusive of short-term operating goals, long-term value creation, human capital initiatives, and risk and compliance expectations. The

Compensation Committee along with the entire Board (other than the CEO with respect to his review) partic- ipates in an annual review and discussion of each NEO as well as succession planning for each position. Further information on the Company’s business performance as well as each NEO’s key individual achievements for 2016 can be found beginning on page 44 of this Proxy Statement. Additionally, further information about succession planning can be found beginning on page 9 of this Proxy Statement.

Other Factors

The Compensation Committee also considers input from its independent compensation consultant and our share- holders as well as additional factors, including business and market conditions, leadership skills and experience, risk management and governance, and tax deductibility and accounting considerations. Further information on the role of the independent compensation consultant and our shareholders can be found on page 39 of this Proxy Statement.