according to the choices that you specify. If you sign and mail your proxy card to us without making any choices, your proxy will be voted:

·                  FOR the election of all persons nominated by our Board for election as directors;

·                  FOR the ratification of the selection of Deloitte & Touche LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm for the year ending December 28, 2019.

Other than the election of directors, approval of the compensation of our named executive officers and the ratification of the selection of our independent registered public accounting firm, we are not currently aware of any other matters that will be brought before the Annual Meeting. However, by giving your proxy, you appoint the persons named as proxies as your representatives at the Annual Meeting. If a matter comes up for a vote at the Annual Meeting that is not included in the proxy materials, then the proxy holders will vote your shares in accordance with their best judgment.

In Person—You may come to the Annual Meeting and cast your vote there. If your shares are held in the name of your broker, bank or other nominee and you wish to vote at the Annual Meeting, then your broker, bank or other nominee will provide you with instructions for voting your shares.

Q:May I change or revoke my vote?

A:                                   You may change your vote or revoke your proxy at any time prior to your shares being voted by:

·                  notifying our Secretary in writing that you are revoking your proxy;

·                  giving another signed proxy that is dated after the date of the proxy that you wish to revoke;

·                  using the telephone or Internet voting procedures; or

·                  attending the Annual Meeting and voting in person (attendance at the Annual Meeting alone will not revoke your proxy).

Q:Will my shares be voted if I do not provide my proxy?

A:                                   It depends on whether you hold your shares in your own name or in the name of a brokerage firm.  If you hold your shares directly in your name, then they will not be voted unless you provide a proxy or vote in person at the Annual Meeting.  Brokerage firms or other nominees generally have the authority to vote customers’ uninstructed shares on certain “routine” matters.  If your shares are held in the name of a brokerage firm, the brokerage firm may have the discretionary authority to vote your shares in connection with the ratification of our independent registered public accounting firm if you do not timely provide your proxy because this matter is considered “routine” under the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) listing standards.

However, if you have not provided directions to your broker, your broker will not be able to vote your shares with respect to the election of directors or the approval of the compensation of our named executive officers.We strongly encourage you to submit your proxy card and exercise your right to vote as a shareholder.

Q:What constitutes a quorum?

A:                                   As of the record date, March 7, 2019, 42,808,942 shares of our common stock were issued and outstanding and entitled to vote at the Annual Meeting.  To conduct the Annual Meeting, a majority of the shares entitled to vote must be

present in person or by proxy. This is referred to as a “quorum.” If you submit a properly executed proxy card or vote by telephone or the Internet, then you will be considered present at the Annual Meeting for purposes of determining the presence of a quorum.  Abstentions and broker “non-votes” will be counted as present and entitled to vote for purposes of determining the presence of a quorum.  A broker “non-vote” occurs when a broker or other nominee who holds shares for another person has not received voting instructions from the owner of the shares and, under NYSE rules, does not have discretionary authority to vote on a proposal.

Q:What vote is needed for these proposals to be adopted?

A:Proposal 1—The affirmative vote of the holders of a majority of the shares of our common stock represented in person or by proxy at the Annual Meeting is required to elect each director (assuming a quorum is present).  Abstentions and broker “non-votes” will have the effect of votes against the election of director nominees.

Proposal 2—The affirmative vote of the holders of a majority of the shares of our common stock represented in person or by proxy at the Annual Meeting is required to approve the compensation of our named executive officers (assuming a quorum is present). Because this vote is advisory, the results of the vote are not binding on our Board or our Compensation and Human Resources Committee. However, if there is a significant vote against the compensation of our named executive officers, then our Board and our Compensation and Human Resources Committee will carefully evaluate whether any actions are necessary to address those concerns. Abstentions and broker non-votes will have the effect of votes against this proposal.

Proposal 3—The affirmative vote of the holders of a majority of the shares of our common stock represented and voted at the Annual Meeting (assuming a quorum is present) is required to ratify the selection of Deloitte & Touche LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm for the year ending December 28, 2019.January 2, 2021. Abstentions will have the effect of votes against this proposal. See the Q&A, above, titled “Will my shares be voted if I do not provide my proxy?” regarding the effect broker non-votes will have on this proposal.

Proposal 1: Election of Directors

Q:Who conducts the proxy solicitation and how much will it cost?

A:                                   We are requesting your proxy for the Annual Meeting and will pay all costs of soliciting shareholder proxies.  In addition to soliciting proxies by mail and through the Internet, we may request proxies personally and by telephone, fax or other means.  We can use our directors, officers and regular employees to request proxies.  These people do not receive additional compensation for these services. We will reimburse brokerage houses and other custodians, nominees and fiduciaries for their reasonable out-of-pocket and clerical expenses for forwarding solicitation materials to beneficial owners of our common stock.

Q:Are our Company’s proxy materials available on the Internet?

A:                                   Yes.  Our Company’s proxy statement for the Annual Meeting and 2018 Annual Report to Shareholders are available at www.proxyvote.com.

PROPOSAL 1:  ELECTION OF DIRECTORS

Our Board is currently comprised of teneleven directors with the terms of each director expiring this year.at the Annual Meeting. Our Board has nominated Jan A. Bertsch, Stephen M. Burt, Anesa T. Chaibi, Christopher L. Doerr, Thomas J. Fischer, Dean A. Foate, Michael F. Hilton, Louis V. Pinkham, Rakesh Sachdev and Curtis W. Stoelting, and Jane L. Warner, each of whom is currently serving as a director, for election at the Annual Meeting to serve until the 20202021 annual meeting of shareholders and until their successors are duly elected and qualified. We include background information on all of the nominees below.

Upon election, the directors will hold office for a term expiring at the next2021 annual meeting of shareholders and until their successors have been duly elected and qualified. Our Board has established a retirement age of 72 within the Corporate Governance Guidelines and our Company Bylaws. Specifically, a director is expected to retire from our Board on the day and hour of the annual shareholders meeting next following his or her 72nd birthday. Pursuant to the Corporate Governance GuidelinesThomas J. Fischer and the Bylaws, our Board considered the status of Jane L. Warner, who hashave attained the ageages of 72.  After due consideration of her qualities, skills72 and attributes, and taking into account all the circumstances, our Board has waived the retirement age with respect to Ms. Warner based on its determination that it would be beneficial to have Ms. Warner continue to serve as a director due to her knowledge and experience with our Company, her contributions to our Board and to the Corporate Governance and Director Affairs Committee and her significant involvement in ongoing governance matters.  Accordingly, Ms. Warner is one of the directors nominated for election at the Annual Meeting.

We previously announced in October 2018 that Mark J. Gliebe would be retiring following the completion of calendar year 2018, and after his successor has been appointed.  Our Board has recently announced the election of Louis V. Pinkham to serve as Mr. Gliebe’s successor as Chief Executive Officer, with a start date of April 1, 2019.  Mr. Gliebe will retire as Chief Executive Officer on March 31, 2019.  Through the Annual Meeting, Mr. Gliebe will continue to serve in the role of Chairman, after which he will no longer serve as a director of our Company.  Our Board has determined that Mr. Sachdev will serve as Chairman following Mr. Gliebe’s departure from our Board.  Our Board expects to elect Mr. Pinkham to serve as a director following the Annual Meeting.  After serving on our Board since 1987, Henry W. Knueppel73, respectively, will be retiring from our Board at the expiration of his termtheir terms at the Annual Meeting. Our Board has actedwill act to reduce the size of the Board to nine directors.  Our Board has proposed eight nominees for election at the Annual Meeting and expects that Mr. Pinkham will be elected to serve as the ninth directordirectors effective immediately following the Annual Meeting.their retirements.

Unless shareholders otherwise specify, the shares represented by the proxies received will be voted in favor of our Board’s nominees for election as directors. Our Board has no reason to believe that any of the listed nominees will be unable or unwilling to serve as a director if elected. However, in the event that any nominee should be unable or unwilling to serve, the shares represented by proxies received will be voted for another nominee selected by our Board.

Our Corporate Governance and Director Affairs Committee periodically reviews and recommends to our Board the qualities, skills and attributes desired in our directors to reflect the unique challenges facing, and business strategies of, our Company. The Corporate Governance and Director Affairs Committee reviews the qualities, skills and attributes of proposed nominees when it makes director nominee recommendations to our Board and compares them against the desired

qualities, skills and attributes. Our Board reviews this information when considering proposed nominees.

Some of the challenges and strategies we face in our business, and the corresponding desired qualities, skills and attributes, are described in the following table.

The following sets forth certain information, as of March 7, 2019,5, 2020, about each of our Board’s nominees for election at the Annual Meeting. Except as otherwise noted, each nominee has engaged in the principal occupation or employment and has held the offices shown for more than the past five years.

Nominees for Election at the Annual Meeting:

Name		Age		Director Since		Principal Occupation; Office, if any, Held in our Company; Other Directorships	Age	Director Since	Principal Occupation; Office, if any, Held in our Company; Other Directorships
Jane L. Warner		72		2013		Ms. Warner is retired and most recently was the Executive Vice President, Decorative Surfaces and Finishing Systems of Illinois Tool Works Inc. (a manufacturer of specialized industrial equipment, consumables, and related service businesses) from 2005-2013. Prior to that role, Ms. Warner served as the President of Plexus Systems LLC from 2004-2005. (Note: Plexus Systems LLC is not affiliated with Plexus Corporation where another director, Dean A. Foate, serves as non-executive Chairman of the Board.) Ms. Warner also served in various capacities with Electronic Data Systems Corporation (an informational technology equipment and services company) from 2000-2004, including as President, Global Manufacturing Industry Group. Prior to that role, Ms. Warner served as the Executive Vice President of Textron Automotive (a first-tier supplier for automotive markets) from 1994-1999 and previously in multiple executive positions in manufacturing, engineering, and human resources with General Motors Corporation. Ms. Warner has both an M.A. and a B.A. from Michigan State University, and she has an M.B.A. from Stanford University. Ms. Warner is a member of the NACD Nominating and Governance Committee Chair Advisory Council and serves as a director of Brunswick Corporation and Tenneco Inc. She previously served as a director of MeadWestvaco Corporation. Among the qualities, skills, and attributes desired by our Board, Ms. Warner has ·                       Public company board experience; ·                       Gender, ethnic or racial diversity; ·                       Experience in manufacturing; ·                       Global experience; ·                       Corporate governance knowledge; and ·                       Sustainability expertise.
Jan A. Bertsch							63	2019	Ms. Bertsch is retired and was most recently the Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Owens-Illinois, Inc., from 2015–2019. Prior to this role, Ms. Bertsch served as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Sigma-Aldrich Corporation from 2012–2015. Prior to that role, Ms. Bertsch served as Treasurer and then Vice President, Controller and Principal Accounting Officer at BorgWarner, from 2009–2012. Ms. Bertsch also served as Corporate Treasurer and Chief Information Officer at Chrysler LLC and earlier in various roles of increasing responsibility in Finance and Treasury at Ford Motor Company. Ms. Bertsch has a B.S. in Finance from Wayne State University and an M.B.A. from Eastern Michigan University, and she serves as a director of BWX Technologies, Inc. and Meritor, Inc. Among the qualities, skills, and attributes desired by our Board, Ms. Bertsch has ·   CFO experience; ·   Expertise in matters of public accounting; ·   Extensive M&A experience; ·   Gender, ethnic or racial diversity; ·   Innovation / Entrepreneurial experience; ·   Experience in manufacturing; ·   Global experience; ·   Engineering / IT / Technical expertise; and ·   Operating (P&L) experience.
Stephen M. Burt							55	2010	Mr. Burt is the Managing Director of Duff & Phelps (a provider of independent financial advisory and investment banking services). Mr. Burt is currently the leader of the firm’s Mergers and Acquisitions Advisory practice, as well as the President of Duff & Phelps Securities, LLC (a provider of merger and acquisition advisory services), and has been with the company since 1994. Mr. Burt has a B.S. in Finance from Indiana University and an M.B.A. in Finance from DePaul University. Mr. Burt is an NACD Board Leadership Fellow and serves on the Finance Advisory Board in the Driehaus College of Business at DePaul University. Among the qualities, skills, and attributes desired by our Board, Mr. Burt has ·   Extensive M&A experience; ·   Investment banking and capital markets expertise; ·   Experience in our industry; ·   Global experience; ·   Marketing expertise; ·   Operating (P&L) experience; ·   Corporate governance knowledge; and ·   Shareholder / Investor relations experience.

Name	Age	Director Since	Principal Occupation; Office, if any, Held in our Company; Other Directorships
Christopher L. Doerr	70	2003	Mr. Doerr is the Chief Executive Officer of Passage Partners, LLC (a private investment company) and served as the Co-Chief Executive Officer from 2001–2016. In prior roles, Mr. Doerr served as the Co-Chief Executive Officer of Sterling Aviation Holdings, Inc. (an aircraft management and charter company), from 2004–2014; Executive Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Karl’s Rental, Inc. (a global manufacturer and supplier of portable event structures and related equipment), from 2009–2011; and as the President and Co-CEO of Leeson Electric Corporation, from 1986–2001. Mr. Doerr has served as a director of several privately-held and publicly-traded companies and currently serves as a director of Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc. (a transportation and supply chain solutions provider). Among the qualities, skills, and attributes desired by our Board, Mr. Doerr has ·   CEO experience; ·   Industrial technology background; ·   Extensive M&A experience; ·   Public company board experience; ·   Innovation / Entrepreneurial experience; ·   Experience in our industry; ·   Experience in manufacturing; ·   Global experience; ·   Engineering / IT / Technical expertise; ·   Operating (P&L) experience; and ·   Marketing expertise.

8

Name	Age	Director Since	Principal Occupation; Office, if any, Held in our Company; Other Directorships
Dean A. Foate	61	2005	Mr. Foate is the non-executive Chairman of the Board of Plexus Corporation (an electronics manufacturing services company), since 2016. Prior to that, Mr. Foate served as the President and Chief Executive Officer of Plexus Corporation, from 2002–2016, and as the Chief Operating Officer of Plexus Corporation from 2001–2002. Prior to that time, Mr. Foate held other various leadership roles at Plexus Corporation since joining the company in 1984. Mr. Foate has a B.S. in Electrical and Computer Engineering from the University of Wisconsin, and an M.S. in Engineering Management from the Milwaukee School of Engineering. Among the qualities, skills, and attributes desired by our Board, Mr. Foate has ·   CEO experience; ·   Industrial technology background; ·   Extensive M&A experience; ·   Public company board experience; ·   Innovation / Entrepreneurial experience; ·   Experience in manufacturing; ·   Global experience; ·   Engineering / IT / Technical expertise; ·   Marketing expertise; ·   Operating (P&L) experience; ·   Corporate governance knowledge; and ·   Shareholder / Investor relations experience.

9

Name	Age	Director Since	Principal Occupation; Office, if any, Held in our Company; Other Directorships
Michael F. Hilton	65	2019	Mr. Hilton is newly retired and most recently was a director and the President and Chief Executive Officer of Nordson Corporation (an engineering and manufacturing company), from 2010–2019. Prior to that, Mr. Hilton served at Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. (a manufacturer of industrial gases), beginning in 1976 in various roles of increasing responsibility, serving most recently as the Senior Vice President and General Manager, Electronics and Performance Materials, from 2007–2010. Mr. Hilton has both a B.S. in Chemical Engineering and an M.B.A. from Lehigh University. Mr. Hilton serves as a director of Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc., since 2015, and Ryder System, Inc., since 2012. Among the qualities, skills, and attributes desired by our Board, Mr. Hilton has ·   CEO experience; ·   Public company board experience; ·   Shareholder / Investor relations experience; ·   Corporate governance knowledge; ·   Operating (P&L) experience; ·   Experience in manufacturing; ·   Engineering / IT / Technical expertise; ·   Marketing expertise; ·   Industrial technology background; ·   Global experience; ·   Innovation/ Entrepreneurial experience; and ·   Extensive M&A experience.

10

Name	Age	Director Since	Principal Occupation; Office, if any, Held in our Company; Other Directorships
Louis V. Pinkham	48	2019	Mr. Pinkham joined Regal Beloit Corporation in April 2019 as Chief Executive Officer. Prior to joining the Company, Mr. Pinkham was Senior Vice President of Crane Co. from 2016–2019. Prior thereto he served in other leadership roles at Crane Co. from 2012–2016. Prior to joining Crane Co., Mr. Pinkham was Senior Vice President and General Manager of the Critical Power Solutions Division, Electrical Group at Eaton Corporation plc. From 2000–2012, he held successive and increasing roles of global responsibility at Eaton. Prior to joining Eaton, Mr. Pinkham held an Engineering and Quality Manager position at ITT Sherotec and a Process Design Engineer position with Molecular Biosystems, Inc. Mr. Pinkham has a B.S. in Engineering from Duke University, an M.S. in Engineering Management from Northwestern University’s McCormick School of Engineering, and an M.B.A. from Northwestern University’s Kellogg Graduate School of Management. Among the qualities, skills, and attributes desired by our Board, Mr. Pinkham has ·   CEO experience; ·   Extensive M&A experience; ·   Industrial technology background; ·   Public company board experience; ·   Experience in manufacturing; ·   Innovation / Entrepreneurial experience; ·   Global experience; ·   Engineering / IT / Technical expertise; ·   Operating (P&L) experience; and ·   Shareholder / Investor relations experience.

11

Name	Age	Director Since	Principal Occupation; Office, if any, Held in our Company; Other Directorships
Rakesh Sachdev	64	2007	Mr. Sachdev is a director of Element Solutions Inc (formerly Platform Specialty Products Corporation, a global diversified producer of high-technology specialty chemicals and a provider of technical services), since 2016, a director of Avantor, Inc., since 2019, and a director of Edgewell Personal Care Company. In 2019, he retired from his position as the Chief Executive Officer of Platform Specialty Products Corporation. Prior to that role, Mr. Sachdev served as a director and the President and Chief Executive Officer of Sigma-Aldrich Corporation (a life science and technology company), from 2010–2015 and as the Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, from 2008–2010. Mr. Sachdev also served in various executive positions at ArvinMeritor, Inc. (a supplier of automotive components), from 1999–2008. Mr. Sachdev has a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from the Indian Institute of Technology in New Delhi, India, an M.B.A. in Finance from Indiana University, and an M.S. in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Illinois. Among the qualities, skills, and attributes desired by our Board, Mr. Sachdev has ·   CEO experience; ·   Extensive M&A experience; ·   CFO experience; ·   Expertise in matters of public accounting; ·   Public company board experience; ·   Gender, ethnic or racial diversity; ·   Innovation / Entrepreneurial experience; ·   Investment banking and capital markets expertise; ·   Experience in manufacturing; ·   Global experience; ·   Engineering / IT / Technical expertise; ·   Operating (P&L) experience; ·   Corporate governance knowledge; and ·   Shareholder / Investor relations experience.

12

Name	Age	Director Since	Principal Occupation; Office, if any, Held in our Company; Other Directorships
Curtis W. Stoelting	60	2005	Mr. Stoelting is the Chief Executive Officer of Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc. (a transportation and logistics service provider), since May 2017, and was previously the President and Chief Operating Officer of Roadrunner from 2016–2017. Prior to that role, Mr. Stoelting served as the Chief Executive Officer and a director of TOMY International (formerly RC2 Corporation, a designer, producer, and marketer of products for infants and toddlers), from 2003–2013. Prior to that role, Mr. Stoelting served in several leadership roles at RC2 from 1994–2003, including as the Chief Operating Officer and a director beginning in 2000. Mr. Stoelting has a B.A. in Accounting from the University of Illinois and is a Certified Public Accountant. Mr. Stoelting serves as a director of Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc. Among the qualities, skills, and attributes desired by our Board, Mr. Stoelting has ·   CEO experience; ·   Extensive M&A experience; ·   CFO experience; ·   Expertise in matters of public accounting; ·   Public company board experience; ·   Investment banking and capital markets expertise; ·   Experience in manufacturing; ·   Innovation / Entrepreneurial experience; ·   Global experience; ·   Marketing expertise; ·   Operating (P&L) experience; ·   Corporate governance knowledge; and ·   Shareholder / Investor relations experience.

OUR BOARD RECOMMENDS THE FOREGOING NOMINEES FOR ELECTION AS DIRECTORS AND URGES EACH SHAREHOLDER TO VOTE “FOR” ALL NOMINEES.

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Board of Directors

Corporate Governance Highlights

We believe good governance is one critical element to achieving long-term shareholder value. We are committed to governance policies and practices that serve our and our shareholders’ long-term interests, as well as enable solid risk management and our performance-based focus. The following table summarizes certain highlights of our corporate governance practices and policies:

Corporate Governance and Independent Directors

Our Board has in effect Corporate Governance Guidelines that, in conjunction with our Board committee charters, establish processes and procedures to help ensure effective and responsive governance by our Board. The Corporate Governance Guidelines are available, free of charge, on our website at www.regalbeloit.com.www.regalbeloit.com. We are not including the information contained on or available through our website as a part of, or incorporating such information by reference into, this Proxy Statement.proxy statement.

The Corporate Governance Guidelines provide that a majority of the members of our Board must be independent directors under the listing standards of the NYSE. Our Board has also adopted certain categorical standards of director independence to assist it in making determinations of director independence and which are contained in the Corporate Governance Guidelines.  The categorical standards of director independence adopted by our Board are available on our website at www.regalbeloit.com.

Based on these standards, our Board has affirmatively determined by resolution that Messrs. Burt, Doerr, Fischer, Foate, Hilton, Sachdev and Stoelting and Ms. WarnerMses. Bertsch and Ms. Chaibi have no material relationship with our Company, and, therefore, each is independent in accordance with the NYSE listing standards and with the categorical standards of director independence adopted by our Board. Our Board will regularly reviewreviews the continuing independence of the directors.

Code of Business Conduct and Ethics

Our Board has adopted the Regal Beloit Corporation Code of Business Conduct and Ethics (the “Code”), which applies to our directors, officers and employees. The Code is available, free of charge, on our website at www.regalbeloit.com.www.regalbeloit.com.

Board Leadership Structure

Our Board does not maintain a policy on whether or not the roles of CEOChief Executive Officer (“CEO”) and Chairman of the Board (Chairman)(“Chairman”) should be separate. Our Board reserves the right to vest the responsibilities of the CEO and Chairman in different individuals or in the same individual if, in our Board’s judgment, a combined CEO and Chairman position is in the best interest of our Company. In the circumstance where the responsibilities of the CEO and Chairman are vested in the same individual, or where the Chairman is not considered independent, our Board will designate a Presiding Director from among the independent directors. The position of the Presiding Director, has rotatedwhen such position is applicable, rotates periodically among the non-employee directors as determined by our Board upon the recommendation of the Corporate Governance and Director Affairs Committee. The Presiding Director is an independent and empowered director who is appointed by the independent directors and who works closely with the Chairman. The Corporate Governance Guidelines outline the role and responsibilities of the Presiding Director.

Through 2018March 31, 2019, Mark J. Gliebe, our former Chairman and expected through the time of the Annual Meeting, Mr. Gliebe hasCEO, served as the combined CEO and Chairman and Mr. Sachdev has served as the Presiding Director.

We announced in October 2018 that Mr. Gliebe would be retiring following the completion of calendar year 2018, and after his successor has been appointed.  Our Board has recently announceduntil the election of Louis V. Pinkham to serve as Mr. Gliebe’s successor as Chief Executive Officer, with a start date of April 1, 2019.CEO. Mr. Gliebe will retire as Chief Executive Officerresigned from the role of CEO on March 31, 2019. Through the Annual Meeting,2019 annual meeting of shareholders, Mr. Gliebe will continuecontinued to serve in the role of Chairman, after which he will no longer serveserved as a director of our Company.  Our Board believes that Mr. Gliebe, serving as the combined CEO and Chairman, has best served the needs of our Board and our shareholders during his tenure in these roles.  Our Board made this determination because it believes that Mr. Gliebe’s extensive experience and qualifications within our industries and in-depth knowledge of our markets and customer base allowed him to provide strong leadership and act as a unified spokesperson on behalf of our Company.  Our Board also believes that having Mr. Gliebe serve as both our CEO and our Chairman allowed him to leverage the information gained from both roles to lead our Company most effectively.

Our Board has determined thatThrough the 2019 annual meeting of shareholders, Mr. Sachdev will serve as the Chairman, following Mr. Gliebe’s departure from our Board.  Mr. Sachdev currently servesserved as the Presiding Director, which is a role that has supplemented the combined Chairman and CEO position.positions. Mr. Sachdev has served as the Chairman since Mr. Gliebe’s departure from our Board. Our Board believes that the transition to Mr. Pinkham as our new CEO will beis best supported by an independent Chairman who has a deep understanding of our business and governance structure, and that the separation of these positions will allow Mr. Pinkham to more fully focus his attention on the requirements of the CEO role. Our Board has determined that onceupon the appointment of Mr. Sachdev is appointed as the Chairman, which will be effective following the Annual Meeting, there will not bewas no longer a need for a Presiding Director.Director at this time.

Oversight of Risk Management

Our full Board is responsible for the oversight of our Company’s operational and strategic risk management process. Our Board believes that oversight of risk management belongs at the full Board level rather than with any one particular committee primarily because of the importance of understanding and mitigating risk to the overall success of our Company. In furtherance of our Board’s risk management oversight goals, our Board oversees the work of a Risk and Compliance Committee comprised of senior management and key managers of certain of our Company’s business units and functions around the world. The Risk and Compliance Committee is charged with, among other things,

identifying, assessing and developing a mitigation strategy for significant risks that could impact our ability to meet our objectives and execute our strategies.

The Risk and Compliance Committee identifies and clarifies significant risks (including cybersecurity and sustainability matters) that may impact our Company and assesses those risks, resulting in the establishment of a plan response/mitigation strategy for significant risks. The Risk and Compliance Committee delivers a summary of its activities and findings directly to our CEO, the Audit Committee, and our full Board. The summary is also used by our management team as part of our disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that information regarding material risks applicable to our Company are appropriately disclosed in our public filings.

While our Board has determined to maintain responsibility for oversight of risk management, it relies on our Audit Committee to address significant financial risk exposures facing our Company and the steps management has taken to monitor, control and report such exposures, with appropriate reporting of these risks to be made to the full Board. Our Board also relies on our Compensation and Human Resources Committee to address significant risk exposures facing our Company with respect to compensation programs and incentives, also with appropriate reporting of these risks to be made to the full Board. Our Board’s role in our Company’s risk oversight has not affected our leadership structure.

Executive Sessions

Our Board will have at least four regularly scheduled meetings per year at which the non-employee directors will meet in executive session without members of our management being present, and at least one regularly scheduled meeting per year at which the independent directors will meet in executive session without members of management or other directors present. The non-employee directors may also meet without management present at such other times as they determine appropriate. Members of our Company’s senior executive management who are not members of our Board will participate in Board meetings to present information, make recommendations, and be available for direct interaction with members of our Board.

Communications with our Board

Shareholders and other interested parties may communicate with the full Board, the Chairman, non-management directors as a group or individual directors including the Presiding Director, by delivering a written communication to Regal Beloit Corporation, Attention: Board of Directors, 200 State Street, Beloit, Wisconsin 53511, or by sending an e-mail communication to board.inquiry@regalbeloit.com.board.inquiry@regalbeloit.com. The communications should be addressed to the specific director or directors whom the shareholder or interested party wishes to contact and should specify the subject matter of the communication. Our Company’s Secretary will deliver appropriate communication directly to the director or directors to whom it is addressed. The Secretary will generally not forward to the director or directors communication that he determines to be primarily commercial in nature or concerns our day-to-day business activities, or that requests general information about our Company.

Concerns about accounting or auditing matters or possible violations of the Code should be reported pursuant to the procedures outlined in the Code, which is available on our website at www.regalbeloit.com.www.regalbeloit.com.

Committees

We have three standing committees of our Board: Audit Committee, Compensation and Human Resources Committee, and Corporate Governance and Director Affairs Committee. Ad hoc committees are created for specific purposes from time to time. Each committee is appointed by and reports to our Board. Our Board has adopted, and may amend from time to time, a written charter for each of the standing committees. We make copiesCopies of each of these charters are available free of charge on our website at www.regalbeloit.com.www.regalbeloit.com.

Audit Committee. The Audit Committee consists of Messrs. Burt (Chairperson), Fischer, Hilton and Foate.Ms. Bertsch. Each of the members of the committee is independent as defined by the NYSE listing standards and the rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”). Our Board has determined that each of Messrs. Burt, Fischer, Hilton and Foate qualifiesMs. Bertsch qualify as an “audit committee financial expert” as defined in SEC rules and meets the expertise requirements for audit committee members under the NYSE listing standards. The principal functions performed by the Audit Committee, which met fiveeight times in 2018,2019, are to assist our Board in monitoring the overall quality of our Company’s financial statements and financial reporting, our independent registered public accounting firm’s qualifications and independence, our accounting controls and policies, the performance of our internal audit function and independent registered public accounting firm, and our compliance with legal and regulatory requirements. The Audit Committee has the sole authority to appoint, retain, compensate and terminate our independent registered public accounting firm and to approve the compensation paid to our independent registered public accounting firm. The Audit Committee has presented to shareholders for ratification at the Annual Meeting its selection of our independent registered public accounting firm for 2019.2020. See “Proposal 3: Ratification of Deloitte & Touche LLP as Our Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm for 2019.the Year Ending January 2, 2021.”

Compensation and Human Resources Committee. The Compensation and Human Resources Committee consists of Messrs. Stoelting (Chairperson), Doerr and Sachdev.Sachdev and Ms. Chaibi. Each of the members of the Compensation and Human Resources Committee is independent as defined by the NYSE listing standards. The principal functions of the Compensation and Human Resources Committee, which met fivesix times in 2018,2019, are to help develop our overall compensation philosophy; administer our incentive compensation plans (including our equity incentive plans); determine and approve the compensation of the Chief Executive Officer and the other principal corporate officers; review and monitor succession and leadership development planning; and review, formulate, recommend and administer short- and long-range compensation programs for the principal corporate officers and key employees. A more complete description of our Compensation and Human Resources Committee’s practices can be found in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis section of this Proxy Statement.proxy statement. The Compensation and Human Resources Committee from time to time uses independent compensation consultants to assist the Committeecommittee in the performance of its responsibilities. As part of its evaluation of potential compensation consultants, the Committeecommittee considers all factors relevant to the consultant’s independence from management and potential conflicts of interest in accordance with applicable SEC rules and NYSE listing standards. After selecting an independent compensation consultant, the Committeecommittee periodically meets with that consultant throughout the year at such times as the Committeecommittee deems appropriate, and receives reports and advice from the consultant on matters of executive compensation. In 2018,2019, the Committeecommittee selected Willis Towers Watson PLC (“Willis Towers Watson”) to serve as its independent compensation consultant.  Willis Towers Watson does not perform any other services for us or our named executive officers other than the services provided at the direction of the Committee.

Corporate Governance and Director Affairs Committee. The Corporate Governance and Director Affairs Committee consists of Ms.Mses. Warner (Chairperson), Ms. and Chaibi and Mr.Messrs. Doerr and Foate. Each of the members of the Corporate Governance and Director Affairs Committee is independent as defined by the NYSE listing standards. The principal functions of the Corporate Governance and Director Affairs Committee, which met fivefour times in 2018,2019, are to develop and recommend to our Board a set of corporate governance principles applicable to our Company, including matters of Board organization, membership, compensation, independence and function, and committee structure and membership; take a leadership role in shaping our corporate governance; identify directors qualified to serve on the committees established by our Board; and to recommend to our Board the members and the chairperson for each committee to be filled by our Board. This Committee also serves as the nominating committee of our Board and is responsible for identifying individuals qualified to become directors (consistent with the criteria approved by our Board) and to recommend candidates for all directorships to be filled by our Board or by our shareholders.

Nominations of Directors

In 2017, our Board amended and restated our Company’s Amended and Restated Bylaws to implement proxy access. Proxy access is provided to a shareholder, or a group of up to 20 shareholders, owning at least 3% of our Company’s outstanding common stock continuously for at least three years. Eligible shareholders are permitted to nominate up to 20% of the total number of directors, rounded down to the nearest whole number (but not less than two), provided that the shareholders and nominees satisfy the requirements specified in the Bylaws.bylaws. Nominating shareholders are required to satisfy certain informational and procedural requirements, including (i) that such shareholders do not have an intent or objective to influence or change control of our Company and (ii) that their nominees will not have entered into any agreements as to how they will vote or act on different matters. Under the Bylaws,bylaws, we must receive notice of a shareholder’s director nomination for the 20202021 annual meeting of shareholders pursuant to the proxy access by-lawbylaw provision no sooner than October 23, 201920, 2020 and no later than November 22, 2019.19, 2020. If the notice is received outside of that time frame, then we are not required to include the nominees in our proxy materials for the 20202021 annual meeting.meeting of shareholders.

The Corporate Governance and Director Affairs Committee will also consider persons recommended by shareholders to become nominees for election as directors in accordance with the criteria set forth in the Corporate Governance Guidelines under the heading “The Directors-Qualifications.” The Corporate Governance and Director Affairs Committee will only review recommendations for director nominees from any shareholder or group of shareholders beneficially owning in the aggregate at least 5% of the issued and outstanding shares of our common stock for at least one year as of the date that the recommendation is made. Recommendations with respect to the 20202021 annual meeting of shareholders must be submitted by November 22, 201919, 2020 for the recommendation to be considered by the Corporate Governance and Director Affairs Committee.

In identifying and evaluating nominees for director, the Corporate Governance and Director Affairs Committee believes that all directors should be financially literate and must be committed to understanding our Company and its industry, and must also possess the highest personal and professional ethics, integrity and values, and commitment to representing the long-term interest of the shareholders. Directors must also possess a diverse set of skills and experience with a background in areas that are relevant to our activities. Directors should also be inquisitive and have an objective perspective, a practical wisdom and mature judgment. Directors must be willing and able to devote

whatever time is necessary to carry out their duties and responsibilities effectively. Directors will not be nominated unless they are willing to serve for an extended period of time.

While the Corporate Governance and Director Affairs Committee does not have a formal policy relating specifically to the consideration of diversity in its process to select and evaluate director nominees, the Committee does consider diversity of viewpoint, background, industry knowledge and perspectives, as well as ethnic and gender diversity, as part of its overall evaluation of candidates for director nominees. Specifically, our criteria for director nominees, included as Appendix A to our Corporate Governance Guidelines, provide that directors should be selected so that our Board represents diverse backgrounds and perspectives.

For a timely recommendation submitted by a shareholder to be considered by the Corporate Governance and Director Affairs Committee, the candidate recommended by a shareholder must be “independent” as defined in the NYSE independence standards and SEC regulations, and meet the minimum expectations for a director set forth in our Company’s Corporate Governance Guidelines. The Corporate Governance and Director Affairs Committee will have sole discretion whether to nominate an individual recommended by a shareholder. As to any candidate identified by the Corporate Governance and Director Affairs Committee to become a nominee, the candidate must possess the requisite qualifications, although the Corporate Governance and Director Affairs Committee need not require such nominee to be independent. Nevertheless, we strive to have all directors, other than those directors who are current or former members of our management, be independent as defined by the NYSE independence standards and SEC regulations.

Sustainability

We believe that a commitment to sustainability is about commitment to doing everything better. We believe that positive environmental, social and governance-related business practices strengthen our Company, increase our connection with our stakeholders and help us better serve our customers and the communities in which we operate. We believe that sustainability goes beyond compliance and extends to worker health and safety, the environment, anti-corruption and trade compliance, responsible sourcing, human rights and labor practices. At Regal, we believe that decreasing our footprint and increasing our handprint are creating a better tomorrow. Our Sustainability Report is available on our website at sustainability.regalbeloit.com.sustainability.regalbeloit.com.

Among the ways in which we have demonstrated our commitment to sustainability are the following:

·                  We implement environmentally-friendly solutions for our customers, including innovative products to minimize water usage, energy consumption, wastewater discharge and sound levels.

·                  Our formal environmental, health, safety and sustainability program, called our Compliance Citizenship Review, helps us to systematically decrease our footprint, and we assess progress at each of our sites at least twice a year.

·                  We contribute to the communities where we live and work by supporting local charitable organizations and contributing countless volunteer hours.

·                  We foster a strong corporate culture that promotes the highest standards of ethics and compliance for our business, including the Code that sets forth principles to guide the conduct of our directors, officers and employees.

·                  We maintain an Integrity Alert Line whereby suspected violations of the Code can be reported via phone or the web on a confidential basis and are investigated.

·                  We are committed to continually improving workplace safety through our “zero harm” expectation.

·                  We invest in training employee-led “high energy teams” to actively participate in our safety programs and drive improvements in safety, speed, quality, cost and sustainability.

·                  We have global anti-corruption and third-party engagement policies and conduct regular audits and assessments of our business partners.

·                  We are an equal opportunity employer, emphasizing inclusion and committed to maintaining a workplace free of harassment and discrimination.

·                  We promote having a diverse talent pipeline by ensuring that we employ and promote qualified people without discrimination.

Policies and Procedures Regarding Related Person Transactions

Our Board has adopted written policies and procedures regarding related person transactions. For purposes of these policies and procedures:

·                  a “related person” means any of our directors, executive officers, nominees for director or a person who has a greater than 5% beneficial ownership, and any of their immediate family members, as well as any entity in which any of these persons is employed or is a partner or principal or in a similar position or in which such person has a 5% or greater beneficial ownership interest; and

·                  a “related person transaction” generally is a transaction in which we were or are to be a participant and the amount involved exceeds $120,000, and in which any related person had or will have a direct or indirect interest.

The related person, the director, executive officer, nominee or beneficial owner who is an immediate family member of a related person, or a business unit or function/department leader of our Company responsible for a proposed related person transaction must notify our General Counsel of certain information relating to proposed related person transactions. If our General Counsel determines that a proposed transaction is a related person transaction subject to the policy, then he will submit the transaction to the Corporate Governance and Director Affairs Committee for consideration at the next committee meeting or, if expedited consideration is required, to the committee chairperson. The committee or chairperson, as applicable, will consider all of the relevant facts and circumstances available regarding the proposed related person transaction and will approve only those related person transactions that are in, or are not inconsistent with, the best interests of our Company and our

shareholders. The chairperson is required to report to the committee at the next committee meeting any approval granted under the policy.

The policy also provides for ongoing review by the General Counsel of any amounts paid or payable to, or received or receivable from, any related person. Additionally, at least annually, the Corporate Governance and Director Affairs Committee is required to review any previously approved or ratified related person transactions that remain ongoing and have a remaining term of more than six months or remaining amounts payable to or receivable from us of more than $60,000. Based on all relevant facts and circumstances, the committee will determine if it is in the best interests of our Company and our shareholders to continue, modify or terminate the related person transaction.

If any of our Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer or General Counsel becomes aware of a pending or ongoing related person transaction that has not been previously approved or ratified under the policy, then the transaction must be disclosed to the Corporate Governance and Director Affairs Committee or its chairperson. The committee or the chairperson must then determine whether to ratify, amend or terminate the related person transaction, or take any other appropriate action. If the related person transaction is complete, then the committee or its chairperson will evaluate the transaction to determine if rescission of the transaction and/or any disciplinary action is appropriate.

In 2018,2019, there were no proposed, pending or ongoing related person transactions subject to review by the Corporate Governance and Director Affairs Committee under the policy.

Meetings and Attendance

Our Board held six meetings in 2018.2019. Each director attended at least 75% of the aggregate of (a) the total number of meetings of our Board and (b) the total number of meetings held by all committees of our Board on which the director served during 2018,2019, in each case during the period in which the director was serving on our Board or the applicable committee.

Directors are expected to attend our annual meeting of shareholders each year. All but one of our directors then serving on our Boardwho stood for election at the 2019 annual meeting of shareholders attended the 20182019 annual meeting of shareholders in person.

STOCK OWNERSHIPStock Ownership

Management

The following table sets forth information, as of March 7, 2019,5, 2020, regarding beneficial ownership of our common stock by each director and nominee, each of our current named executive officers as set forth in the Summary Compensation Table, and all of the directors and current executive officers as a group. As of March 7, 2019,5, 2020, no director or executive officer beneficially owned one percent or more of our common stock. On that date, the current directors and executive officers as a group beneficially owned 1.9%0.69% of our common stock. Except as otherwise indicated in the footnotes, all of the persons listed below have sole voting and investment power over the shares of our common stock identified as beneficially owned.

(1)                                 Includes shares subject to currently exercisable rights to acquire common stock and options exercisable within 60 days of March 7, 2019 as follows:  Mr. Colvin, 44,040 shares; Mr. Gliebe, 286,190 shares; Mr. Rehard, 2,496 shares; Mr. Schlemmer, 92,145 shares; Mr. Valentyn, 3,580 shares; and all directors and executive officers as a group, 454,810 shares.

(2)                                 The amount shown for Mr. Hahn is based on Mr. Hahn’s last Form 4 filed with the SEC.

(3)                                 The amount shown for Mr. Hinrichs is based on Mr. Hinrichs’ last Form 4 filed with the SEC.

(4)                                 The amount shown for Mr. Knueppel includes 80,853 shares held in a trust account. Mr. Knueppel will be retiring from our Board at the expiration of his term at the Annual Meeting.

(5)                                 The amount shown for Mr. Stoelting includes 9,202 shares held in the Curtis W. Stoelting 1994 Revocable Trust over which Mr. Stoelting retains sole voting and investment power during his lifetime and 805 shares held by Mr. Stoelting’s children, over which he retains investment power.

(6)                                 Amounts shown for Messrs. Colvin, Gliebe, and Schlemmer include 2,195 shares, 845 shares and 1,575 shares, respectively, held in trust under our Company’s 401(k) plans as of December 31, 2018.

(7)                                 This column includes shares of restricted stock or restricted stock units that are subject to forfeiture until they vest on either the first or the third anniversary of the date of grant.

Other Beneficial Owners

The following table sets forth information, as of December 31, 20182019 or otherwise, as noted, regarding beneficial ownership by the only persons known to us to own more than 5% of our outstanding common stock. The beneficial ownership information set forth below has been reported on filings made on Schedule 13G with the SEC by the beneficial owners.

(1)                                 This information is provided as of February 28, 2019 based on a Schedule 13G/A filed with the SEC by The Vanguard Group on March 11, 2019.

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSISCompensation Discussion and Analysis

Introduction

This Compensation Discussion and Analysis provides detailed information about our compensation programs for our named executive officers (“NEOs”) for fiscal 2018.2019. During fiscal 2018,2019, a significant development affecting our NEO compensation programs was our announcement that Mark J. Gliebe, our Chief Executive Officer, would be retiring after an orderly transition to a new Chief Executive Officer, following completion of calendar year 2018.  Our Board recently announced the election of Louis V. Pinkham to serve as Mr. Gliebe’s successor asour Chief Executive Officer with a start date ofeffective April 1, 2019. Mr. Pinkham succeeded Mark J. Gliebe, will retirewho resigned from the role of Chief Executive Officer on March 31, 2019.2019 as part of his previously announced retirement transition. The compensation-related actions taken or to be takenthat occurred in connection with these developmentsthis transition are described below under the headings “Severance and Change in Control Benefits” and “Potential Payments on a Termination or Change in Control —– Retirement Agreement.Agreements.” In addition, during this transition, there were adjustments in our compensation philosophy as described below.

Executive Compensation Philosophy

What is your compensation philosophy?

Our overall compensation philosophy can beis summarized as follows:

·                  In order to attract and retain talented executives, we believe we should offer overall compensation levels that are competitive in the marketplace.  As a result, we seek to set compensation levels so that our NEOs can earn total compensation at approximately the median level compared to similarly situated executives in our peer group.  We consider compensation within a 15% range above or below the fiftieth (50th) percentile of peer group data to be at approximately the “median” level.

·                  The compensation of our NEOs should be structured so that their interests are aligned with the long-term interests of our shareholders.  We have a “pay-for-performance” philosophy, meaning that we will pay higher compensation to the NEOs if the performance of the Company delivers incremental value to the shareholders.

·                  To further align our NEOs’ interests with the interests of our shareholders, and to reinforce our pay-for-performance philosophy, we believe our NEOs should have the opportunity to earn above-median total compensation if the Company performs well, and should earn below-median total compensation if it does not.

We believe this to be a conservative approach to executive compensation.

Do you consider the results of the shareholders’ “say on pay” vote in your philosophy and in determining compensation?

Our shareholders cast a non-binding vote on our NEOs’ compensation annually (the “say on pay” vote).  EachYes, each year we and the Compensation and Human Resources Committee of the Board of Directors (for purposes of this Compensation Discussion and Analysis, the “Committee”) scrutinize the results of thatour shareholders’ non-binding vote on our NEOs’ compensation (the “say on pay” vote) and consider other shareholder inputs to determine whether our shareholders believe we need to change our compensation philosophy or practices. Most recently, in May 2018,April 2019, our

shareholders supported our NEOs’ compensation with more than 93%90% of votes cast in favor. Consistent with this strong vote of shareholder approval, we have not undertaken any materialtook care, in considering changes to our executive compensation philosophy orand programs, in response to the outcomeretain all key elements of the vote.our continuing commitment to pay for performance.

What compensation policies and practices reflect your compensation philosophy?

What We Do
	Pay-for-Performance (pages 26-27)
		Pay for Performance (page 24)
		Balance Long-Term and Short-Term Incentives (pages 25-26) 27-28)
		Use Multiple Performance Metrics, Including a Relative Metric, for Incentive Compensation (pages 34-35) 37-39)
		Benchmark Compensation Against an Appropriate Peer Group (page 28) 31-32)
		Maintain a Clawback Policy (page 68) 72)
		Monitor for Risk-Taking Incentives (pages 67-69) 71-73)
		Maintain Stock Ownership Requirements (page 39) 43)
		Prohibit Hedging, Pledging and the Like (page 40) 44)
		Limit Perquisites (pages 38-39) 42)
		Engage an Independent Compensation Consultant (pages 27-28) 30-31)
		Hold Executive Sessions at Each Committee Meeting

Did the NEOs’ compensation in 20182019 align with corporate performance and the creation of shareholder value?

We believe our executive compensation in fiscal 20182019 aligned well with the objectives of our compensation philosophy and with our corporate performance. InAlthough 2019 was a challenging year, we delevered at 15.5% from fiscal 2018 (i.e. our Companyadjusted operating income was down $30.6 million on a $197 million reduction in adjusted net sales), improving on historical performance in this area. We also achieved record salestotal shareholder return of 24% and record adjusted earnings.  Sales grew 6.9% or 5.4% on an organic basis, adjusted earnings per share grew 23.2%, and we generated free cash flow to adjusted net income of 116%151%, while purchasing $127.8$165.1 million of our shares. Additionally, the Company has paid a dividend every quarter since January 1961 and increased the dividend by over 7% in fiscal 2018.2019.

TheseIn 2019, our company also achieved sales of $3.185 billion, adjusted operating profit as a percentage of sales of 10.8%, and trade working capital as a percentage of sales of 26.4%. Those operating results led our Committee to approve annual cash incentives under our Incentive Compensation Plan (“ICP”) at 100%40% of target for fiscal 20182019 for our NEOs. The Committee’s determination of the annual cash incentives is described further below under “What were the NEOs’ target cash incentive amounts for 20182019 and how much did they earn?”

Our Committee also approved the payout of shares under our performance share unit (“PSU”) awards that we granted in 20162017 with a performance period of 2016-20182017-2019 at a level of 62%45% of target based on our achievement of total shareholder return of 28%62% and return on invested capital (“ROIC”) of 8.3%28% over the three-year performance period.

We believe the compensation of our NEOs aligns well with our performance, but we also believe that this alignment is not always reflected in the Summary Compensation Table in the same way we view the alignment for our internal purposes. This is because the Summary Compensation Table values are required by Securities and Exchange Commission rules to include the full grant date fair value of equity awards in the year the awards are granted. The grant date fair value is an accounting value that projects the potential value of awards based on assumptions about, among other things, certain future events. The grant date fair value is different from the economic value of the awards to our NEOs, which may be lower or higher than the grant date fair value depending on the price of our common stock. For this reason, we are including in this proxy statement, as a supplement to the required Summary Compensation Table, a comparison of our NEOs’ realizable pay for 20182019 with their total compensation as shown in the Summary Compensation Table.

The 20182019 total realizable pay disclosure in the table above is the same as the 20182019 compensation shown in the Summary Compensation Table except that the equity-based compensation that we granted during 20182019 is valued based on the price of our common stock at fiscal year-end and, in the case of PSUs, the relevant performance trend at fiscal year-end. Specifically, restricted stock units (“RSUs”) are valued as the product of the number of shares granted to the officerNEO during the year multiplied by the year-end stock price, assuming for purposes of this disclosure that the grants were vested. Stock appreciation rights (“SARs”) are valued as the product of the number of rights granted to the officerNEO during the year multiplied by the excess, if any, of the year-end stock price over the grant price of the rights, assuming for purposes of this disclosure that the grants were vested. PSUs with a performance metric of relative total shareholder return (“TSR PSUs”) are valued using 119%0% of the target number of shares that we granted to each NEO during 20182019 (which is approximately the number of shares that would vest if our total relative total shareholder return for the entire applicable performance period is the same as it was at the end of 2018)2019), multiplied by the year-end stock price. PSUs with a performance metric of return on invested capital (“ROIC PSUs”) are valued using 128%39% of the target number of shares that we granted to each NEO during 20182019 (which is approximately the number of shares that would vest if our ROIC for the entire applicable performance period is the same as it was at the end of 2018)2019), multiplied by the year-end stock price. The 20182019 total realizable pay disclosure in the table above does not include equity-based compensation granted in prior years that was paid or became payable in 2018.2019.

This section includes non-GAAP financial measures. Descriptions of why we believe these non-GAAP financial measures are useful and reconciliations of these non-GAAP financial measures to the most directly comparable GAAP financial measures are included in our earnings release for fiscal year 2019.

Since you have a pay-for-performance compensation philosophy, what percentage of your NEOs’ target compensation iswas “at risk”? in 2019?

To focus on both our short and long-term success, our NEOs’ target compensation includes a significant portion—more than 69%71% on average—that is “at risk” because the value of such compensation is determined based on the achievement of specified results or subject to forfeiture. This “at risk” compensation includes compensation elements intended to reward the achievement of both short- and long-term financial goals. If such goals are not achieved, then performance-related compensation will decrease. If goals are exceeded, then performance-related compensation will increase.

Payments under the ICP are “at risk” because the payments are dependent on achievement of one-year performance goals. In addition, compensation paid in the form of equity awards, such as RSUs, SARs and PSUs, instead of cash is at-risk because its value varies with changes in the stock price. By creating a total compensation package where a considerable percentage is paid in equity awards that are subject to vesting over multiple years or dependent on achieving multi-year performance goals, our NEOs have a significant stake in our long-term success and gain financially along with our shareholders.

As shown in the following charts, in fiscal 2018, 79%2019, 83% of the CEO’s target compensation and, on average, 60%62% of the other NEOs’ target compensation was at-risk.at risk. For purposes of this disclosure, target compensation includes base salary, target annual incentive awards, grant date fair value of equity awards, change in pension value and all other compensation. For Mr. Pinkham, this disclosure also includes the RSU award he received in connection with his election as our Chief Executive Officer as “at risk” compensation, and the lump sum cash signing bonus in the amount of $133,000 he received pursuant to the terms of his employment agreement as compensation that is not “at risk.”

Setting Executive Compensation

Have you made changes to your compensation program for your NEOs that will apply in 2020?

The Committee adopted changes to our compensation program for our NEOs for 2020 to place greater emphasis on those performance measures that we believe most directly reflect our financial performance and strategic objectives and more closely align with competitive market practice. Specifically, for 2020, we implemented the following changes:

The Committee also amended our Supplemental Defined Contribution Retirement Plan effective January 1, 2020 to provide for full vesting after three years of service rather than after reaching age 58 with 10 years of service.

Setting Executive Compensation

What is the role of the Board in setting NEOs’ compensation?

The Board’s primary roles in setting our executive compensation are:

·                  to annually review and consider our compensation philosophy;

·                  to appoint the members of the Committee; and

·                  to review and approve certain recommendations of the Committee relating to compensation.

The Committee consists entirely of independent directors who are “non-employee directors” for purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The current members of the Committee are Messrs. Stoelting (Chairman), Doerr(Chairperson) and Sachdev.Sachdev and Ms. Chaibi.

What is the role of the Committee in setting NEOs’ compensation?

The Committee is responsible for determining the components of our executive compensation program, consistent with the compensation philosophy determined by our Board, and the executive compensation packages offered to our NEOs. The Committee determines executive salaries, administers the ICP, administers our long-term equity incentive plans and makes awards under the plans.

The Committee reviews data from market surveys and proxy statements from our established peer group and retains an independent compensation consultant to assess our competitive position with respect to total executive compensation.

The Committee takes various factors into account in setting compensation levels and does not use a formulaic approach, but generally seeks to closely align target total direct compensation (i.e., the sum of base salary, target annual cash incentive opportunity and target long-term incentives) with the peer group and survey median.

What is the role of the CEO in setting NEOs’ compensation?

In its decision-making process, the Committee receives and considers the recommendations of our CEO with respect to compensation to be paid to our NEOs other than himself. Our CEO makes no recommendation with respect to his own compensation.

Does the Committee use an independent compensation consultant to help in setting NEOs’ compensation?

Yes. The Committee periodically solicits proposals from independent compensation consultants to assist the Committee in the performance of its responsibilities. As part of its evaluation of potential compensation consultants, the Committee considers all factors relevant to the consultant’s independence from management and potential conflicts of interest in accordance with applicable SEC rules and NYSE listing standards. After selecting an independent compensation consultant, the Committee periodically meets with that consultant throughout the year at such times as the Committee

deems appropriate, and receives reports and advice from the consultant on matters of executive compensation.

Willis Towers Watson served as the Committee’s independent compensation consultant for 2018.2019. In July 2018,2019, the Committee reviewed the independence of Willis Towers Watson and the individual representatives of Willis Towers Watson who served as the Committee’ consultants, including considering factors contained in applicable SEC rules and NYSE listing standards.

During 2019, our management separately engaged Willis Towers Watson to provide insurance brokerage services. The personnel who performed the insurance brokerage services operated separately and independently of the Willis Towers Watson personnel who performed compensation consulting services for the Committee. Willis Towers Watson has advised the Committee of a number of policies it maintains to ensure that the compensation consulting advice provided to the Committee is not influenced by the insurance brokerage services, including the following:

The Committee concluded, based on the evaluation and factors described in the preceding paragraph,above, that Willis Towers Watson was independent and that no conflict of interest was raised by the services performed by Willis Towers Watson.  Willis Towers Watson did not perform any services for our Company in 2018 other than the services provided at the direction of the Committee.remains independent.

How did the compensation consultant help the Committee in setting NEOs’ compensation for 2018?2019?

In setting compensation for 2018,2019, the Committee directed Willis Towers Watson to assemble compensation data for our NEOs and compare the data against aggregated peer group proxy data and general industry survey data for persons holding similarly situated positions in our peer group.

The Committee’s policy is generally to review the composition of the peer group we use for this purpose every two yearsyear for potential changes in light of acquisitions, changes in comparable revenue size, or other factors it deems appropriate.

In updatingreviewing our peer group for 2018,potential updates in 2019, the Committee selected companies that it believed to be comparable to our Company by generally using the following criteria:

·                  Comparable revenue (target companies with annual revenues ranging from approximately 0.5 to 2.0 times our annual revenues and with an overall median revenue that approximates ours);

·                  Compete in an industry similar to ours and/or have the level of complexity and business model similar to ours; and

·                  Contains companies that we compete with for executive talent.

The Committee expects to conduct another full review of peer group companies in 2020 unless there are substantial changes to the Company that would merit an earlier review.

For 2018,2019, the 20 companies in our peer group for purposes of NEO benchmarking were:

During 2018, the Committee approved replacing three of the companies in our 2018 peer group – Rockwell Collins, Inc., Roper Technologies, Inc. and Snap-On Incorporated – with three new companies – Carlisle Companies Incorporated, Dover Corporation and ITT Inc. – in our 2019 peer group effective as of January 1, 2019. The Committee approved these replacements because Rockwell Collins, Inc. was being acquired by another company and because the Committee determined that Carlisle Companies Incorporated, Dover Corporation and ITT, Inc. were more appropriate peer companies than Roper Technologies, Inc. and Snap-On Incorporated based on a peer-of-peerspeer of peers analysis, revenue size, relative market capitalization, pay structure and product portfolio.

During 2018,2019, Willis Towers Watson benchmarked our executive compensation opportunities using (i) the above referenced peer group as the primary benchmark for our CEO,Chief Executive Officer, Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Vice President, General Counsel positions and (ii) general industry data from Willis Towers Watson’s Executive Compensation Survey as the primary benchmark for our Chief Operating Officer VP and Vice President, Chief Information Officer and Vice President, Corporate Human Resources positions.

In reviewing and analyzing these data, Willis Towers Watson considered information for each NEO position with respect to the following elements of compensation:

·                  Base salary;

·                  Target annual cash incentive under the ICP;

·                  Target total cash compensation (salary and target annual cash incentive);

·                  Target of annual long-term incentives at grant-date value; and

·                  Target total direct compensation (sum of target cash and target long-term incentives).

In keeping with the Committee-approved methodology, Willis Towers Watson analyzed each element of target total direct compensation for our NEOs compared to the market median from the two different data sources. Willis Towers Watson reported on the methodology that it used in its analysis and provided a summary of its findings and its observations on our programs relative to the data and market trends in executive compensation. In connection with this review, Willis Towers Watson also analyzed our annual share utilization rate and dilution relative to market practice.

During 2018,2019, the Committee also reviewed market data relating to perquisites provided to our executive officersNEOs using the same peer group and general industry survey data provided by Willis Towers Watson discussed above. Consistent with prior years, we continued to limit the perquisites that we provide our executive officers, including our NEOs. We did not make any changes as a result of our 20182019 review.  However, as a result of our perquisite review in fiscal 2017, effective January 1, 2018, we implemented a program under which we pay for annual medical physicals for each of our NEOs.

The Elements of Total Compensation

We achieve our executive compensation objectives through the following ongoing programs. All of our NEOs participate in these programs except as otherwise noted below.

Base Salaries

How do you determine base salaries, and what were the NEOs’ base salaries for 2018?2019?

We determine base salaries for our NEOs based upon job responsibilities, level of experience, individual performance and expectations with respect to contributions to our future performance as well as comparisons to the salaries of executives in similar positions as compared to our peer group. In April 2018,2019, the Committee set the base salaries of our NEOs in accordance with the factors identified in the preceding sentence. Effective as of April 1, 2018,2019, the base salaries of our NEOs who were employed through the end of fiscal 2019 were as follows:

Mr. Gliebe’s 2019 base salary did not change from his 2018 base salary until his resignation from the role of Chief Executive Officer on March 31, 2019. In setting base salary levels, the Committee compared the NEOs’ base salary levels to the salary levels of the executive officers in our peer group based on proxy statement data as well as general industry data from Willis Towers Watson’s Executive Compensation Database.

In connection with his promotion to Vice PresidentDatabase and Chief Financial Officer, the Committee approved an increase in Mr. Rehard’s base salary to the level shown in the table above, resulting in his base salary being approximately 35% below the median base salary of similarly situated executive officers. We expect to continue to increase Mr. Rehard’s compensation to competitive market levels over the next few years.

After reviewing the market data provided by Willis Towers Watson, the Committee determined that Mr. Valentyn’s base salary was below the median base salaries of similarly situated executive officers, and thus decided to increase his base salary by 10.7% for 2018, resulting in Mr. Valentyn’s 2018 base salary being approximately 6% below the median.made changes accordingly.

With respect to each of our other NEOs, compared to the median base salaries of similarly situated executive officers in the data reviewed by the Committee, Mr. Gliebe’s salary for 2018 placed him 2% belowafter the median, and the salaries of Messrs. Hinrichs, Schlemmer and Colvin for 2018 placed them 5% below the median,changes, all were determined to be at the median and atlevel (according to the median, respectively.established target range). The base salary levels set by the Committee did not affect decisions regarding other compensation elements.

Annual Cash Incentives

Do you provide annual cash incentive awards? If so, how are they structured?

In fiscal year 2018,2019, we provided annual cash incentive awards through our ICP, which was approved by shareholders at our annual meeting of shareholders on April 25, 2016. Under our ICP, annual cash

incentive awards are paid out based on the Company’s achievement of performance goals related to certain financial measures.

How does the ICP work?

Early in 2018,2019, the Committee set performance goals (as described below under “What were the ICP performance measures for 2018?2019? How did you determine the target for each metric?”) and a targeted level of annual cash incentive compensation for each NEO that would be earned for achievement of target performance. For each NEO, the target cash incentive amount is based on a percentage of base salary. The Committee, in consultation with Willis Towers Watson and our CEO (other than with respect to his own compensation), set annual cash incentive targets under the ICP near the median level with respect to each respective position held by our NEOs relative to our peer group, except for Mr. Rehard, whose annual cash incentive target under the ICP was below the median level relative to the peer group due to his recent promotion to the position of Vice President and Chief Financial Officer.  We expect to increase Mr. Rehard’s compensation, including his target under the ICP, to competitive market levels over the next few years.  group. Our NEOs whose annual cash incentive targets under the ICP were set near the median level were given the opportunity to earn above median annual cash incentive awards if the Company-wide financial targets under the ICP plan were exceeded, while being at risk of receiving below median awards (or no awards at all) if our financial performance did not meet the targeted results. For 2018,2019, the target cash incentive amounts for each of our NEOs were as follows:

(1) Mr. Hinrichs’sPinkham’s award was pro rated to reflect his partial year of service.

Mr. Gliebe did not receive an ICP award for 2019 due to his expected retirement.

If the Company-wideCompany-wide financial performance goals described in the section below titled“What were the ICP performance goals for 2018?2019? How did you determine the target for each metric?” are met at the target level, then each eligible NEO receives their target amount. However, actual incentive compensation can range from zero to two times the target amount, as described in more detail below, depending on our financial performance during the year.

There was also a threshold requirement for our NEOs to receive any amount under the ICP for 2018.2019. The requirement was that we have positive adjusted operating profit (as determined by the Committee) for fiscal year 2018.2019. If we had positive adjusted operating profit for the year, then up to the maximum ICP amount was authorized, subject to the Committee’s discretion to reduce the amount payable based on our financial performance as described below.

What were the ICP performance measures for 2018?2019? How did you determine the target for each measure?

Our ICP performance goals for 2018,2019, as established by the Committee, were based on sales growth, adjusted operating profit as a percentage of sales and trade working capital as a percentage of sales. We selected sales growth, adjusted operating profit as a percentage of sales and trade working capital as a percentage of sales as performance measures under the ICP because they are what we considerconsidered them to be the best three fundamental operational metrics of our business for 2019 that, when improved, would increase shareholder value.

We defined these performance measures in the ICP as follows:

·                  “Sales” means adjusted net sales reported in our earnings release for fiscal 2018.

·                  “Adjusted operating profit” means adjusted operating profit as reported in our earnings release for fiscal 2018.

·                  “Trade working capital” means (1) the aggregate of average accounts receivable on the last day of each of the 13 months beginning with December 2017 and ending with December 2018 plus (2) the aggregate of average inventory on the last day of each of the same 13 months minus (3) the aggregate of average accounts payable on the last day of each of the same 13 months.

At the beginning of fiscal 2018,2019, as part of our annual business planning process, the Committee established the following total year targets for sales, adjusted operating profit as a percentage of sales and trade working capital as a percentage of sales:

The incentive under the ICP was determined based on performance against the targets established by the Committee as follows:

·                  75% of the incentive was based on performance against the combined total year targets for:

·                  Sales growth

·                  Adjusted operating profit as a percentage of sales

·                  25% of the incentive was based on performance against the total year target for working capital as a percentage of sales

The 75% of the incentive based on sales growth and adjusted operating profit as a percentage of sales rewards performance where actual sales are greater than target and/or adjusted operating profit as a percentage of sales is greater than target and reduces the bonus where actual sales are less than target and/or adjusted operating profit as a percentage of sales is less than target.

The 25% of the incentive based on trade working capital as a percentage of sales rewards performance where trade working capital as a percentage of sales is lower than target and reduces the bonus where trade working capital as a percentage of sales is higher than target.

Performance under the ICP was adjusted to exclude the impact of acquisitionsrestructuring and divestituresrelated costs, purchase accounting and our discontinuationtransaction costs, gain on businesses divested and assets to be exited, net income from businesses divested/to be exited, executive transition costs, and gain on sale of our residential hermetic motor business during the year.assets.

The Committee also set the following threshold, target and maximum payout percentages under the ICP:

As noted in the table, if the maximums were met for sales growth, adjusted operating profit percentage and the trade working capital percentage, then the NEOs would be eligible to receive 200% of their target amount. If only the thresholds were met for the three performance measures, then the NEOs would be eligible to receive 25% of their target amount. If the actual results were to fall between threshold and target, or target and maximum, then the payout percentage would be interpolated on a non-linear basis between threshold and target, or target and maximum, respectively.respectively, such that the rate of increase is greater at levels immediately above threshold than for levels closer to target. If the actual results were to fall below threshold, then each eligible NEO would still be eligible to receive, at the discretion of the Committee, an annual cash incentive award equal to 25% of his target amount if the NEO met specified individual performance targets approved by the CEO (for the NEOs other than himself). The CEO’s personal objectives are approved by the Board. If actual results were to fall below threshold for both the trade working capital percentage and the adjusted operating profit percentage, and the NEO were not to meet his individual goals, then the NEO would not receive any annual incentive compensation.

As described above, for 2020 the ICP will be based on adjusted earnings per share (weighted 65%), free cash flow (weighted 25%) and sales growth (weighted 10%).

How much did the NEOs actually earn under the ICP in 2018?2019?

As discussed above, the annual incentive amount actually earned by each NEO for fiscal 20182019 was dependent upon actual Company performance with respect to sales growth, adjusted operating profit as a percentage of sales and trade working capital as a percentage of sales. Our actual results for 20182019 were as follows:

*Based on achievement of individual performance targets as described below.

The actual results for the 20182019 ICP Performance Measures were: (1) sales were $3,185 million, less than the amount required to exceed the growth was 1.3% above target;threshold; (2) adjusted operating profit as a percentage of sales was 10 basis points above target;10.8%, which was also below threshold; and (3) trade working capital as a percentage of sales was 1.4 percentage100 basis points below target.  Adjustedabove target, but 90 basis points better than threshold. Sales growth and adjusted operating profit wasare consistent with any adjustments made to sales and income from operations in our quarterly SEC filings.earnings release for fiscal 2019.

Although actual results for sales growth and adjusted operating profit as a percentage of sales were below the threshold levels established by the Committee, the Committee determined that the NEOs achieved their specified individual performance targets. Therefore, consistent with the terms of their ICP awards, the Committee exercised its discretion in awarding 25% of the target amount with respect to such performance measures of the ICP awards.

The NEOs’ individual performance targets related to successfully achieving individual and collective objectives around (i) operating margins, which in some cases exceeded historical highs, (ii) deleverage rates, which were significantly improved in the face of reductions in sales, (iii) departmental spending and budget targets, (iv) the CEO transition, (v) assisting and enhancing the decentralization and re-segmentation of the Company’s businesses, and (vi) leading impactful continuous and process improvement initiatives including 80/20, among others.

As a result, each NEOthe NEOs who received ICP awards for 2019 earned annual cash incentive compensation underpayouts in the ICP equal to the following:following amounts:

(1) Mr. Hinrichs’s award was pro rated due to his retirement.

Long-Term Incentives

Do you provide long-term incentives? If so, how are they structured?

We provide long-term incentives to our NEOs in the form of equity-based compensation. Consistent with our compensation philosophy, we believe long-term equity incentives help to ensure that our NEOs have a continuing stake in the long-term success of our Company and allow our NEOs to earn above-median compensation only if our shareholders experience appreciation in their equity holdings.

Other than in the case of newly hired executives, we generally make determinations concerning long-term equity-based awards in April of each year at the same time we complete our annual performance reviews. In any event, we grant all equity-based awards effective two days after the release of either our quarterly or annual financial results.

What long-term incentives were provided to NEOs in 2018?2019?

In 2018,2019, as in 2017,2018 the Committee granted SARs, RSUs and PSUs. These awards were granted under our new 2018 Equity Incentive Plan that was approved by our shareholders at our 2018 annual meeting of shareholders meeting (our “2018 Plan”). The proportion of overall long-term incentive target value represented by each form of award granted in 20182019 was 34% SARs, 33% RSUs and 33% PSUs, the same proportions as the awards that we granted in 2017.2018. The Committee granted SARs, RSUs and PSUs to each of our NEOs in 20182019 in the amounts indicated in the “Grants of Plan-Based Awards Table for Fiscal 2018”2019” and the narrative following the table. We value SARs using a Black-Scholes formula and PSUs using either a Monte Carlo methodology (in the case of PSUs using a TSR performance metric) or grant date fair market value (in the case of PSUs using an ROIC metric). Consistent with our overall compensation philosophy, the Committee, after consultation with Willis Towers Watson, granted long-term compensation awards in 20182019 at levels approximating the median level of these awards granted by

the companies in our peer group. In connection with his promotionelection to Vice President and Chief FinancialExecutive Officer, the Committee approved grants of long-term compensation awards to Mr. RehardPinkham approximately 60.4%25% below the median level of similarly situated executive officers. We expect to increase Mr. Rehard’sPinkham’s long-term compensation award grantsawards to competitive market levels over the next few years. The target long-term incentive levels set by the Committee did not affect decisions regarding other compensation elements.

As indicated in the description above, the PSUs granted in fiscal 20182019 had two performance metrics, TSR and ROIC, which were the same metrics we used for the PSUs that we granted in 2017.2018. Half of the 20182019 PSUs were subject to the TSR performance metric and half were subject to the ROIC metric. For the half that were subject to the ROIC metric the threshold, target and maximum ROIC levels were 8.8%, 9.8% and 10.8%, respectively.

In 2018,2019, the three-year performance period for the PSUs that we granted to our NEOs in 20162017 (the “2016“2017 PSUs”) was completed. The 20162017 PSUs were subject to two performance metrics: half were subject to a relative TSR metric (the “2016“2017 TSR PSUs”) and half were subject to an ROIC metric (the “2016“2017 ROIC PSUs”). For the 20162017 TSR PSUs, if our TSR was at or below the 25th25th percentile of the peer group, that would have resulted in none of the 20162017 TSR PSUs being earned. For TSR at the 50th50th percentile of the peer group, the target number of 20162017 TSR PSUs would have been earned, and for TSR at the 75th75th percentile of the peer group, the maximum number of 20162017 TSR PSUs (which was 200% of the target 20162017 TSR PSUs) would have been earned. For our 20162017 ROIC PSUs, the threshold, target and maximum ROIC levels were 7.7%8.3%, 8.4%9.4% and 9.4%10.5%, respectively. ROIC below the minimum threshold level would result in no 20162017 ROIC PSUs being earned. For ROIC at the target level, the target number of 20162017 ROIC PSUs would be earned. For ROIC at or above the maximum ROIC level, the maximum number of 20162017 ROIC PSUs (which is 200% of the target 20162017 ROIC PSUs) would be earned. For both the 20162017 TSR PSUs and 20162017 ROIC PSUs, performance between the threshold and target levels, or between the target and maximum levels, the number of 20162017 PSUs earned would be interpolated between threshold and target, or between target and maximum, respectively. Based on our performance for the period ending in 2018, 44%2017, 62% of the 20162017 TSR PSUs were earned, and 79%28% of the 20162017 ROIC PSUs were earned.

In connection with Mr. Hinrichs’sPinkham’s election as our Chief Executive Officer, the Committee approved an additional RSU award with a target grant date value of $1,750,000 to compensate him for forfeitures of certain incentive compensation awards upon leaving his prior employer. This additional RSU award will vest one-third on each of the first, second and third anniversaries of the effective date of his election provided that he remains continuously employed through the vesting date.

In connection with Mr. Gliebe’s retirement effective March 31, 2018,June 30, 2019, the Committee approved accelerated vesting of his outstanding equity-based awards in recognition of his significant contributions to our Company during his tenure as our Vice PresidentChairman and Chief FinancialExecutive Officer. The performance level used to calculate the number of PSUs that accelerated was based on actual performance through the date of his retirement. The approximate value of all of the outstanding equity-based awards that vested on an accelerated basis, measured using the closing share price on the date of Mr. Hinrichs’sGliebe’s retirement, was $1,450,000.$5,967,694.

As described above, the long-term incentives for our NEOs for 2020 are granted in the form of 50% PSUs, 25% SARs and 25% RSUs. The RSUs granted in 2020 will vest ratably over the first three anniversaries of the grant date, and the SARs granted in 2020 will vest ratably over the first three anniversaries of the grant date.

Other Benefits and Perquisites

Do you provide any other benefits or perquisites to your NEOs?

We have certain other plans that provide, or may provide, compensation and benefits to our NEOs. The Committee considers all of these plans and benefits when reviewing total compensation of our NEOs. These plans include the following: