UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

SCHEDULE 14A

Proxy Statement Pursuant to Section 14(a) of the Securities

Exchange Act of 1934 (Amendment No.    )

Filed by the Registrant  x☒                            Filed by a Party other than the Registrant  ¨☐

Check the appropriate box:

NOTICE OF ANNUAL MEETING OF STOCKHOLDERS

TO BE HELD ON MAY 12, 20168, 2019

To our stockholders:

The 20162019 annual meeting of stockholders of TTM Technologies, Inc. will be held at 8:0030 a.m., local time, on Thursday,Wednesday, May 12, 2016,8, 2019, at our corporate offices located at 1665 Scenic Avenue, Suite 250, Costa Mesa, California 92626, for the following purposes:

We are pleased to this year again take advantage of the Securities and Exchange Commission rule allowing companies to furnish proxy materials to their stockholders over the Internet. We believe that thise-proxy process expedites stockholders’ receipt of proxy materials, saves us the cost of printing and mailing these materials, and reduces the environmental impact of our annual meeting by conserving natural resources.

Stockholders of record as of the close of business on March 14, 201611, 2019 are entitled to notice of, and to vote at, the annual meeting and any postponement or adjournment thereof. Whether or not you expect to be present, please vote your shares using the Internet by following the instructions in this proxy statement. Of course, if you received a paper copy of this proxy statement you may also vote by signing, dating, and returning the enclosed proxy card in the enclosedpre-addressed envelope. No postage is required if mailed in the United States.

		By Order of the Board of Directors
Costa Mesa, California
March 31, 201622, 2019		Daniel J. Weber, Secretary

IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING THE AVAILABILITY OF PROXY MATERIALS FOR

THE STOCKHOLDER MEETING TO BE HELD ON MAY 12, 20168, 2019

The proxy statement and annual report to stockholders and the means to vote via the Internet are available atwww.ttm.com/stockholdersmeeting.Your Vote is Important — Please vote as promptly as possible by using the Internet or by signing, dating, and returning the proxy card if you received a paper copy of this proxy statement.

All stockholders are invited to attend the annual meeting in person. Stockholders who vote their proxy online or by executing a proxy card may nevertheless attend the meeting, revoke their proxy, and vote their shares in person.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TTM TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

20162019 ANNUAL MEETING OF STOCKHOLDERS

PROXY STATEMENT

This proxy statement contains information related to our annual meeting of stockholders to be held on Thursday,Wednesday, May 12, 2016,8, 2019, beginning at 8:0030 a.m., local time, at our corporate offices located at 1665 Scenic Avenue, Suite 250, Costa Mesa, California 92626, and at any adjournments or postponements of the meeting. The purpose of this proxy statement is to solicit proxies from the holders of our common stock for use at the meeting. On or about March 31, 2016,22, 2019, we began mailing a notice containing instructions on how to access this proxy statement and our annual report via the Internet, and we began mailing a full set of the proxy materials to stockholders who had previously requested delivery of the materials in paper copy. For information on how to vote your shares, see the instructions included on the proxy card and under “How do I vote?” below.

ABOUT THE MEETING

What is the purpose of the annual meeting?

At the annual meeting, stockholders will be asked to (1) elect four class I directors, consisting of Thomas T. Edman, Chantel E. Lenard, Tang Chung Yen (Tom Tang) and Dov S. Zakheim, to serve for a term expiring in 2019;2022; (2) approvecast an advisory,non-binding vote on the proposed amendment to the TTM Technologies, Inc. 2014 Incentive Compensation Plan (the “2014 Plan”) that would (i) increase the amountcompensation of the total number of shares reservedour named executive officers; and available for issuance under the 2014 Plan from 4,000,000 to 9,000,000; (ii) reduce the current limit of the “fair market value” of any grants made to non-employee directors from $1,000,000 to $500,000; (iii) provide for a minimum vesting period on all awards of no less than one year; and (iv) delete the ability for the Company to provide a loan to an award participant to purchase awards; (3) approve the proposed amendment to the Company’s Certificate of Incorporation to increase the number of authorized shares of common stock from 200,000,000 to 300,000,000; and (4) ratify the appointment of KPMG LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm for the fiscal year ending January 2, 2017.December 30, 2019.

Who is entitled to vote at the meeting?

Only stockholders of record at the close of business on March 14, 2016,11, 2019, the record date for the annual meeting, are entitled to receive notice of the meeting and to vote the shares of our common stock that they held on that date at the meeting, and any postponements or adjournments of the meeting. Each outstanding share of common stock entitles its holder to cast one vote on each matter to be voted upon at the meeting.

Who may attend the meeting?

All stockholders as of the record date, or their duly appointed proxies, may attend the meeting. Please note that if you hold shares in “street name” (that is, through a bank, broker or other holder of record), you will need to bring a copy of a brokerage statement reflecting your stock ownership as of the record date.

What constitutes a quorum?

The presence at the meeting, in person or by proxy, of the holders of a majority of all of the shares of common stock outstanding on the record date will constitute a quorum, permitting the conduct of business at the meeting. As of the record date, 100,162,825105,144,118 shares of our common stock were outstanding. Abstentions and brokernon-votes will be included in the calculation of the number of shares considered to be present at the meeting.

If less than a majority of the outstanding shares of common stock entitled to vote are represented at the meeting, a majority of the shares present at the meeting may adjourn the meeting to another date, time, or place, and notice need not be given of the new date, time, or place if the new date, time, or place is announced at the meeting before an adjournment is taken.

How do I vote?vote if I am a stockholder of record?

If you are the stockholder of record (that is, the shares are held in your name), you may vote your proxy in one of three convenient ways:

Via the Internet

Go towww.ttm.com/stockholdersmeeting and follow the instructions. You will need the11-digit control number that appears on your proxy card included with this proxy statement. This method of voting will be available untilstarting March 22, 2019 and through 11:59 p.m., Eastern Time, on May 11, 2016.7, 2019.

By mail

If you wish to vote by traditional proxy card and did not receive one along with this proxy statement, you can receive a full set of materials at no charge through the Internet atwww.ttm.com/stockholdersmeeting, by telephone at(888) 776-9962, or by sending ane-mail to info@amstock.com (the subject line of youre-mail should contain the11-digit control number that appears in the Notice Regarding the Availability of Proxy Materials you received). If you vote by traditional proxy card, mark your selections on the proxy card, date the card, and sign your name exactly as it appears on the card, then mail it in the postage-paid envelope enclosed with the materials. You should mail the proxy card in plenty of time to allow delivery to our transfer agent prior to the meeting.

In Person

If you are attending the meeting, you may deliver your completed proxy card in person.

How do I vote if I am a beneficial owner of shares held in street name?

If you are not the stockholder of record (that is, your shares are held in the name of a bank, broker, or other holder of record, which is often referred to as held in “street name”) then you will receive instructions from the holder of record that you must follow to ensure that your shares are voted as you wish. You will not be able to vote those shares at the meeting unless you have received, in advance, a proxy card from the record holder (that is, the bank, broker, or other holder of record).

If you complete and properly sign and return a proxy card to us or complete your proxy online, your shares will be voted as you direct.

Can I revoke my proxy and change my vote?

Yes. If you are a stockholder of record, you may revoke your proxy and change your vote at any time before the annual meeting by submitting to our corporate secretary at our corporate offices a notice of revocation or a duly executed proxy bearing a later date (or voting via the Internet). If you hold your shares in street name, you may change your vote any time before the annual meeting by submitting new voting instructions to your bank, broker or other holder of record by following the instructions they provided. The powers of the proxy holders will be suspended if you attend the meeting in person and so request, although attendance at the meeting will not by itself revoke a previously granted proxy. Dissenting stockholders will not have rights of appraisal with respect to any matter to be acted upon at the meeting.

What does it mean if I receive more than one notice?

This means that your shares are registered differently and are held in more than one account. To ensure that all shares are voted, please either vote each account over the Internet,internet, or sign and return by mail all proxy cards. We encourage you to register all of your shares in the same name and address by contacting the Shareholder Services Department at our transfer agent, American Stock Transfer & Trust Company, at(800) 937-5449. If you hold your shares through an account with a bank or broker, you should contact your bank or broker and request consolidation of your accounts.

What are the recommendations of our board of directors?

Each of the recommendations of our board of directors is set forth together with the description of each item in this proxy statement. In summary, our board of directors recommends a vote (1) “FOR” the election of each of its four nominees for class I directors; (2) “FOR” the approval of the proposed Amendment to the 2014 Plan;compensation of our named executive officers; and (3) “FOR” the approval of the proposed Amendment to our Certification of Incorporation; and (4) “FOR” the ratification of the appointment of KPMG LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm for the fiscal year ending January 2, 2017.December 30, 2019. If you sign and return your proxy card but do not specify how you want your shares voted, the persons named as proxy holders on the proxy card will vote in accordance with the recommendations of our board of directors.

Our board of directors does not know of any other matters that may be brought before the meeting nor does it foresee or have reason to believe that the proxy holders will have to vote for a substitute or alternate board nominee for director. In the event that any other matter should properly come before the meeting or any nominee for director is not available for election, the proxy holders will vote as recommended by the board of directors or, if no recommendation is given, in accordance with their best judgment.

What vote is required to approve each item?

Proposal One — Election of Directors. Assuming that a quorum is present, the four persons receiving the largest number of “for” votes of our common stock present in person or by proxy at the meeting and entitled to vote (a plurality) will be elected as directors. Stockholders do not have the right to cumulate their votes for directors.

Proposal Two — Approval of the Proposed Amendment to the 2014 Plan.– Advisory Vote on Named Executive Officer Compensation.The affirmative vote of a majority of the shares of our common stock present in person or represented by proxy at the meeting and entitled to vote will be required for approval of the proposed amendment toadvisory vote of the 2014 Plan.compensation of our named executive officers. Because this vote is advisory, it will not be binding upon our board of directors. However, the compensation committee and our board of directors will take into account the outcome of the vote when considering future executive compensation arrangements.

Proposal Three — Approval of the proposed Amendment to the Certificate of Incorporation to increase the authorized common stock from 200,000,000 to 300,000,000.The affirmative vote of a majority of the shares of our common stock outstanding as of the record date will be required to approve the proposed amendment to the Certificate of Incorporation.

Proposal Four — Ratification of the Appointment of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm. The affirmative vote of a majority of the shares of our common stock present in person or represented by proxy at the meeting and entitled to vote will be required to ratify the appointment of KPMG LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm for the fiscal year ending January 2, 2017.December 30, 2019.

Other Matters. For each other matter, the affirmative vote of a majority of the shares of our common stock present in person or represented by proxy at the meeting and entitled to vote will be required for approval.

What are the effects of brokernon-votes?

If you do not provide your broker or other nominee with instructions on how to vote your street name shares, your broker or nominee will not be permitted to vote them on “non-routine”“non-routine” matters (a brokernon-vote).

Proposals One Two and ThreeTwo are considerednon-routine matters under applicable rules. Please note that brokers may not vote your shares on Proposals One Two and ThreeTwo in the absence of your specific instructions as to how to vote. We encourage you to provide instructions to your broker regarding the voting of your shares.

Shares subject to a brokernon-vote will not be considered entitled to vote with respect to Proposals One and Two, and will not affect their outcome.

With respect to the approval of the proposed amendment to our Certificate of Incorporation (Proposal Three), shares subject to a broker non-vote will have the same effect as a vote “against” the proposal.

The ratification of the appointment of KPMG LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm for the fiscal year ending January 2, 2017December 30, 2019 (Proposal Four)Three) is considered a routine matter under applicable rules. A broker or other nominee may generally vote on routine matters, and therefore no brokernon-votes are expected to exist in connection with Proposal Four.Three. If a brokernon-vote did exist with respect to Proposal Three, it would have the effect of a vote against such proposal.

How are abstentions treated?

Abstentions will have no effect on Proposal One. Abstentions will be treated as being present and entitled to vote on Proposals Two Three and FourThree and therefore will have the effect of votes against such Proposals.

Who will pay for the preparation of the proxy?

We will pay the cost of soliciting proxies. In addition to the use of mail, our employees may solicit proxies personally, bye-mail, facsimile, and by telephone. Our employees will receive no compensation for soliciting proxies other than their regular salaries. We may request banks, brokers, and other custodians, nominees, and fiduciaries to forward copies of the proxy materials to the beneficial owners of our common stock and to request authority for the execution of proxies, and we may reimburse such persons for their expenses incurred in connection with these activities.

Our principal executive offices are located at 1665 Scenic Avenue, Suite 250, Costa Mesa, California 92626, and our telephone number is(714) 327-3000. A list of stockholders entitled to vote at the annual meeting will be available at our offices for a period of 10 days prior to the meeting and at the meeting itself for examination by any stockholder.

PROPOSAL ONE — ELECTION OF DIRECTORS

Directors and Nominees

Our board of directors is currently comprised of nineten directors. Our board of directors is divided into three classes with each class of directors serving for a three-year term or until successors of that class have been elected and qualified. Each director elected at the 20162019 annual meeting will serve for a term expiring at the 20192022 annual meeting or until his or her successor has been duly elected and qualified. At thethis annual meeting, our stockholders will be asked to elect four class I directors. There is currently one vacancy on our board of directors. At the time the director nominees were selected, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee had not identified a qualified candidate to fill this vacancy. Rather than eliminating the vacancy by reducing the number of directors, the board of directors determined to retain the vacancy so that it may be filled by a qualified director candidate at a future date if and when such a candidate is identified and agrees to serve.

Our board of directors has nominated James K. Bass, Thomas T. Edman, Chantel E. Lenard, Tang Chung Yen Tom,(Tom Tang) and Dov S. Zakheim each of whom currently serves as a class I director, to stand for re-election at the annual meeting. Ifdirectors. Messrs. Bass, Edman and Tang, and Dr. Zakheim currently serve as class I directors, and will stand forre-election at the annual meeting. Ms. Lenard was appointed to our board in November 2018 after the Company received approval from the United States Defense Security Service (the “DSS”) pursuant to the Special Security Agreement between the Company and DSS dated October 19, 2010, as amended, and she will stand for election at the annual meeting. During 2018, the board of directors conducted a search with the assistance of an executive search firm and selected Ms. Lenard from a review of several highly qualified candidates. If Ms. Lenard is elected and Messrs. Edman and Tang, and Dr. Zakheim arere-elected, they will each serve a three-year term expiring at the annual meeting of stockholders in 2019.2022, and our board will continue to consist of ten directors.

Kenton K. Alder, Julie S. England and Philip G. Franklin serve as class II directors, and their terms will expire at the annual meeting of stockholders in 2017. Ronald W. Iverson,2020 and Rex D. Geveden, Robert E. Klatell and John G. Mayer serve as class III directors, and their terms will expire at the annual meeting of stockholders in 2018.2021.

Pursuant to the terms of the Special Security Agreement that the Company has entered into with the United States Defense Security Service, the Company’s board of directors must maintain a Government Security Committee which is to be comprised of at least three (3) independent directors that are eligible to access secret, classified information, as designated by the United States Government. As a natural mechanism to insure continuity of its board of directors and to maintain adherence with the Special Security Agreement, TTM has adopted the practice of providing for staggered elections of three classes of board members to serve three year terms, such that the board of directors is assured to maintain at least six sitting members after each annual meeting of stockholders, of which at least three such members are cleared by the United States Government to receive secret, classified information.

Our board of directors has no reason to believe that any of its nominees will refuse or be unable to accept election. However, if any nominee is unable to accept election or if any other unforeseen contingencies should arise, our board of directors may designate a substitute nominee. If our board of directors designates a substitute nominee, the persons named as proxies will vote for the substitute nominee designated by our board of directors.

Our board of directors recommends a vote “FOR” the nominees for class I director.directors.

The following table, together with the accompanying text, sets forth certain information with respect to each of our continuing directors.directors and director nominees:

Robert E. Klatell has served as a director of our Company since September 2004 and our chairman of the board since May 2005. Mr. Klatell is presently retired. From September 2009 to the sale of The PBSJ Corporation in October 2010, Mr. Klatell served as a director of The PBSJ Corporation and a member of its compensation committee, its audit committee and its strategic finance committee. From 2003 to 2009, Mr. Klatell served as a director of Datascope Corp., a medical device company that develops, manufactures, and markets proprietary products for clinical health care markets. From December 2005 to December 2007, Mr. Klatell served as Chief Executive Officer and a director of Kofax plc (formerly DICOM Group plc), a publicly held company (London Stock Exchange) that provides information capture and communications solutions. From 2003 to 2006, Mr. Klatell served as a director of Mediagrif Interactive Technologies, an operator ofe-business

of e-business networks and provider ofe-business solutions. Mr. Klatell served as a consultant to Arrow Electronics, Inc. from January 2004 to December 2004. Mr. Klatell served in various executive capacities and as a member of the board of directors of Arrow Electronics, Inc. from February 1976 to December 2003, most recently as Executive Vice President from July 1995 to December 2003. Mr. Klatell holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in History from Williams College and a Juris Doctor from New York University School of Law.

Our board of directors has determined that Mr. Klatell is an independent director. Mr. Klatell was nominated to the board of directors because of his extensive experience with operations management and his knowledge of corporate governance and global mergers and acquisitions. Mr. Klatell’s membership with the National Association of Corporate Directors (“NACD”) provides him withup-to-date information on corporate governance best practices and the tools necessary to bring his leadership to our board of directors. As a result of Mr. Klatell’s significant involvement in director professionalism education, Mr. Klatell has been designated an NACD Governance Fellow by the National Association of Corporate Directors. Further, Mr. Klatell’s deep knowledge of the electronics industry and direct experience in the communications industry allows him to contribute a broad perspective to discussions about our future activities and our place in the current competitive landscape.

Kenton K. Alder has served as a director since March 1999. Mr. Alder is presently retired. Mr. Alder also served as our President from March 1999 to January 2013 and as our Chief Executive Officer from our founding in 1998 through December 2013. Mr. Alder served on a part-time basis as a consultant and advisor to Mr. Edman for one year commencing on January 1, 2014 through December, 2014 and provided counsel on strategy, attended certain meetings, and was involved in special projects. From January 1997 to July 1998, Mr. Alder served as Vice President of Tyco Printed Circuit Group, Inc., a printed circuit board (PCB) manufacturer. Prior to that time, Mr. Alder served as President and Chief Executive Officer of ElectroStar, Inc., previously a publicly held PCB manufacturing company, from December 1994 to December 1996. From January 1987 to November 1994, Mr. Alder served as President of Lundahl Astro Circuits Inc., a predecessor company to ElectroStar, Inc. Mr. Alder also serves as the chairman of the board of directors and as chairman of Wasatch Photonics,the compensation committee of Juniper Systems, Inc. and as the Vice Chairman of the board of directors of Inovar, Inc. In addition, Mr. Alder is a member of the board of

directors of Campbell Scientific, Inc. and is a member of its audit committee. Mr. Alder serves as the chairman of the academic approval committee, a member of the audit committee and a member of the executive committee of Utah State University. Mr. Alder serves as a member of the board of directors of Inovar,Honeyville, Inc., a manufacturer of food ingredients. Mr. Alder holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Finance and a Bachelor of Science degree in Accounting from Utah State University.

Our board of directors has determined that Mr. Alder is an independent director. Mr. Alder was nominated to the board of directors because of his past experience as our chief executive officer, which enables him to provide the board with insight based on his extensive knowledge about the Company and because of his significant operational expertise.

James K. Bass has served as a director of our Company since September 2000. Since May 2010, Mr. Bass has served as a director of Tigrent Inc. (OTCBB: TIGE) and is currently chairman of the board of directors. Since October 2010, Mr. Bass has served as a director of Mercury Computer Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ: MRCY) and is a member of its audit committee. From September 2005 to June 2009, Mr. Bass served as the Chief Executive Officer and a director of Piper Aircraft, Inc., a general aviation manufacturing company. Mr. Bass served as the Chief Executive Officer and a director of Suntron Corporation, a provider of high mix electronic manufacturing services, from its incorporation in May 2001 until May 2005, and as Chief Executive Officer of EFTC Corporation, a subsidiary of Suntron Corporation, from July 2000 until April 2001. From 1992 to July 2000, Mr. Bass was a Senior Vice President of Sony Corporation. Prior to that, Mr. Bass spent 15 years in various manufacturing management positions at the aerospace group of General Electric Corporation. Mr. Bass holds a B.S.M.E. degree from Ohio State University.

Our board of directors has determined that Mr. Bass is an independent director. Electronic manufacturing service providers represent an important part of our customer base. Mr. Bass was nominated to the board of directors because of his extensive experience in the electronic manufacturing industry and the technology marketplace, his executive and operational experience as the chief executive officer of a public company, and his broad experience with accounting and audit matters for publicly traded companies.

Thomas T. Edmanhas served as a director of our Company since September 2004, as President of our Company since January 2013, and as our Chief Executive Officer since January 2014. From early 2011 to

December 2012, Mr. Edman served as Group Vice President and General Manager of the AKT Display Business Group, which is a division of Applied Materials Inc., a publicly held provider of nanomanufacturing technology solutions. From 2006 to 2011, Mr. Edman served as Corporate Vice President of Corporate Business Development of Applied Materials, Inc. Prior to that, Mr. Edman served as President and Chief Executive Officer of Applied Films Corporation from May 1998 until Applied Materials, Inc. acquired Applied Films Corporation in July 2006. From June 1996 until May 1998, Mr. Edman served as Chief Operating Officer and Executive Vice President of Applied Films Corporation. From 1993 until joining Applied Films, Mr. Edman served as General Manager of the High Performance Materials Division of Marubeni Specialty Chemicals, Inc., a subsidiary of a major Japanese trading corporation. Since June 2015, Mr. Edman has served on the Board of Ultra Clean Technologies,Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: UCTT) and as a member of its Nominating and Corporate Governance, Compensation and Audit Committees. Since March 2016, Mr. Edman has served on the Board of the IPC, an electronic industries association. Mr. Edman holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in East Asian studies (Japan) from Yale University and a Master’s degree in Business Administration from The Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania.

Mr. Edman is an employee director. Mr. Edman was nominated to the board of directors because of his proven business acumen and experience in the technology industry, having served in numerous senior executive roles with sizeable technology companies, including as the chief executive officer of a public company. Mr. Edman also has extensive experience in Asia and with compensation-related matters, which have proven valuable to our board of directors.

Julie S. England has served as a director of our Company since October 2016. Ms. England is presently retired. Prior to her retirement in 2009, she served in various capacities with Texas Instruments Inc., most recently as Vice President and General Manager of the Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) division. She also served as Vice President of its microprocessor division from 1998 to 2004 and as Vice President of Quality for the Semiconductor Group from 1994 to 1998. Earlier, she held various engineering, manufacturing, quality and business management positions. Ms. England is an experienced independent corporate director serving on both private and public company boards in the USA and Europe. Ms. England has served as a director of Smartrac Technology Group, N.V. from 2014 until May 2018. From 2010 until its acquisition by CCL Industries in May 2016, she served as a director of Checkpoint Systems, Inc. and chaired its Governance Committee. Ms. England served as a director of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas from 1997 to 2003 and as a director of Intelleflex Corporation from 2010 to 2013. Ms. England served on the Board of Trustees of the Georgia O’Keeffe Museum until July 2017, and served on the North Texas Chapter of the National Association of Corporate Directors. She has served on trade associations in the electronics industry including the American Electronics Association and AIM Global. Ms. England holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Chemical Engineering and graduate studies in business from Texas Tech University complemented with executive education at Harvard University and Stanford University. She earned a Bachelor of Fine Art degree in studio art in 2018 from Southern Methodist University in Dallas, TX.

Ms. England is an independent director. Ms. England was nominated to the board of directors because of her extensive background in the technology industry and her experience serving on the boards of both private and public companies in the USA and Europe and to provide the Company with insight as she serves on our board.

Philip G. Franklin has served as a director of our Company since November 2010. Mr. Franklin is presently retired. From 1998-2016, Mr. Franklin served in various capacities with Littelfuse, Inc. (NASDAQ: LFUS), a designer, manufacturer, and seller of circuit protection devices for use in electronics, automotive and electrical markets, most recently as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. As of February 2016, Mr. Franklin announced his retirement from Littelfuse effective March 31, 2016. Prior to joining Littelfuse, Inc., Mr. Franklin was Vice President and Chief Financial

Officer for OmniQuip International, a construction equipment manufacturer, which he helped take public. Prior to that, Mr. Franklin served as Chief Financial Officer of Monarch Marking Systems and Hill Refrigeration. Mr. Franklin also serves as a member of the board of directors of Tribune Publishing CompanyCo. (NASDAQ:TPCO) and currently chairs its audit committee.committee and serves as a member of its Compensation Committee. Mr. Franklin holds a Bachelor’s degree in Economics from Dartmouth College and a Master’s degree in Business Administration from the Amos Tuck School at Dartmouth College.

Our board of directors has determined that Mr. Franklin is an independent director and an “audit committee financial expert” as described in applicable SEC rules. Mr. Franklin was nominated to the board of directors because of his financial and accounting expertise, including a deep understanding of accounting principles, financial reporting rules and regulations, and knowledge of audit procedures.

Ronald W. IversonRex D. Geveden has served as a director of our Company since July 2010.May 2018. Mr. Iverson is presently retired. FromGeveden currently serves as president and chief executive officer since January 1, 2017 and as chief operating officer from October 2016 until December 2016 of BWX Technologies, Inc. (NYSE:BWXT), a nuclear industrial conglomerate headquartered in Lynchburg, VA. Previously, Mr. Geveden was executive vice president at Teledyne Technologies Incorporated, a provider of electronic subsystems and instrumentation for aerospace, defense and other uses. There he led two of Teledyne’s four operating segments since 2013, and concurrently served as President of Teledyne DALSA, Inc., a Teledyne subsidiary, since 2014. Mr. Geveden also served as president and chief executive officer of Teledyne Scientific and Imaging, LLC from 2011 to 2013 and President of both Teledyne Brown Engineering, Inc. and Teledyne’s Engineered Systems Segment from 2007 to July 2012,2011. Mr. Iverson served as Chief Executive Officer of LGS Innovations, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Alcatel-Lucent (EURONEXT PARIS: ALU). From June 2006 to December 2006, Mr. Iverson served as Vice President, Bell Labs for Special Projects. From July 2003 to June 2006, Mr. Iverson served as an Executive Account Manager for Air Force and Joint Systems with Northrop Grumman. Prior to that, Mr. Iverson served in the Senior Executive Service within the United States Department of Defense as the Deputy Director for Industrial Security. Mr. Iverson spent 32 years with the U.S. Air Force, retiring as a Lieutenant General in 1997. Mr. Iverson serves as a member of the board of directors of Systems Engineering and Technology, LLC (known as “SeaTec”). Mr. Iverson holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Agricultural Economics from the University of Idaho,Geveden is a graduate of the U.S. Air Force Fighter Weapons School, a graduateformer Associate Administrator of the National War College,Aeronautics and Space Administration (“NASA”), where he was responsible for all technical operations within the agency’s $16 billion portfolio and served in various other positions with NASA in a graduate of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvardcareer spanning 17 years. Mr. Geveden holds both a bachelor’s and master’s degrees in physics from Murray State University.

Our board of directors has determined that Mr. IversonGeveden is an independent director. Mr. IversonGeveden was nominated to the board of directors because of his extensive experience in the aerospace/aerospace and defense industry as well as his prior service withproven track record as an outstanding leader.

Chantel E. Lenard was appointed as a director of our Company in November 2018. Since 2017, Ms. Lenard has been a lecturer in marketing at the University of Michigan Ross School of Business. Ms. Lenard retired from Ford Motor Company (NYSE:F) in 2017 where she served in various positions in a career spanning 25 years. Ms. Lenard most recently held the position of Ford’s executive director of U.S. DepartmentMarketing from 2013 to 2017 after living in Shanghai and serving as Ford’s Vice President of DefenseMarketing for Asia Pacific and intimate knowledgeAfrica from 2010 to 2013. Ms. Lenard holds a bachelor’s degree in industrial engineering from Purdue University and a master’s degree in business administration from Harvard University.

Based on Ms. Lenard’s extensive background in the automobile industry and her lengthy and diverse experience in international marketing, Ms. Lenard was unanimously appointed to serve as an independent board member by our board of government security matters, and his prior senior role with the U.S. military.

Hong Kong Printed Circuit Association Limited since 2005 and 2009, respectively, and is the honorary chairman of The Hong Kong Exporters’ Association since 2012. Mr. Tang is the chairman of The Hong Kong Standards and Testing Centre Limited and The Hong Kong Safety Institute Limited, a council member of Hong Kong Trade Development Council, and a vice chairman of HK Wuxi Trade Association Limited.Limited, and an executive vice-chairman of The Federation of HK Jiangsu Community Organisations. Since 2008, Mr. Tang has been a member of both the Shanghai &Committee and the Wuxi Committee of The Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference. In 2018, he left the Shanghai Committee to become a member of the Jiangsu Committee of The Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference. Mr. Tang holds a Master of Business Administration from New York University.

Mr. Tang was originally proposed as a nominee for our board of directors by the principal shareholders of Meadville in accordance with the stock purchase agreement and the shareholders agreement (as amended) entered into in connection with our acquisition of the PCB operations of Meadville. Our board has determined that because of directors accepted Mr. Tang as a nominee given hisTang’s extensive experience with PCB operations in Asia and his business acumen, as evidenced by his senior executive role with Meadville.Meadville, a company acquired by TTM, he continues to provide valuable insight to the Company’s board of directors. Mr. Tang is not an officerindependent director based on his recent employment with the Company and his beneficial ownership of our company and provides an insider’s perspective to our Asian operations.approximately 5.8% of the outstanding shares of the Company.

Dov S. Zakheim has served as a director of our Company since July 2010. Dr. Zakheim is currently a Senior Fellow at CNA: Analysis & Solutions,CNA, a federally funded think tank, and a Senior Advisor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. From May 2004 to July 2010, Dr. Zakheim served as Vice President and subsequently as Senior Vice President of Booz Allen Hamilton, a global strategy and technology consulting firm, where he was a leader in the firm’s global defense practice. From May 2001 to April 2004, Dr. Zakheim was Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) and Chief Financial Officer for the United States Department of Defense. From October 2002 to April 2004, Dr. Zakheim served as the United States Department of Defense’s coordinator of civilian programs in Afghanistan. Dr. Zakheim serves as the Chairman of the Boardboard of directors of Sprint Federal Operations LLC. Dr. Zakheim has previously served as a member of the board of directors of Standard Aero Corp. sincefrom 2008 until 2015, and aswas a member of their audit committee since 2012.from 2012 to 2015. In addition, Dr. Zakheim has served as a member of ISO Group, Inc.’s board of directors from 2010 to 2014. Dr. Zakheim has also served as a board member of Chemonics International and has been a member of their audit committee since 2013. Dr. Zakheim also serves as a board member of the American Jewish Committee, the Foreign Policy Research Institute, and the Center for the National Interest.Interest and the U.S. Naval Academy Athletic Association. Dr. Zakheim holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from Columbia College at Columbia University, was a General Course student at the London School of Economics, and holds a Doctor of Philosophy from St. Antony’s College at the University of Oxford.

Our board of directors has determined that Dr. Zakheim is an independent director and an “audit committee financial expert” as described in applicable SEC rules. Dr. Zakheim was nominated to the board of directors

because of his substantial financial and accounting experience acquired in the course of acting as Chief Financial Officer for the U.S. Department of Defense, his expertise and leadership skills in global defense, and his national security qualifications.

There are no family relationships among any of our directors, director nominees, or executive officers.

Information Relating to Corporate Governance and the Board of Directors

Our board of directors has determined, after considering all the relevant facts and circumstances, that Messrs. Bass,Alder, Franklin, Iverson,Geveden, Klatell and Mayer, Ms. England and Ms. Lenard and Dr. Zakheim are independent directors, as “independence” is defined by the listing standards of the NASDAQ Stock Market (referred to as NASDAQ) and by the Securities and Exchange Commission (referred to as the SEC). Accordingly, a majority of the members of our board of directors are independent. In 2017, our board of directors determined, after considering all the relevant facts and circumstances, that sufficient time had passed since Mr. Alder’s employment with the Company for him to be considered independent under NASDAQ rules. Mr. Edman is not considered to be an independent director as a result of his positionsposition as an executive officer of our Company. Mr. Tang is not considered to be an independent director as a result of his former position as an executive with Meadville and certain of its subsidiaries. Mr. Alder is not considered to be an independent director as a resultsubsidiaries and his indirect holding of his former position as an executive officerapproximately 5.8% of our Company.shares.

Our bylaws authorize our board of directors to appoint its members to one or more committees, each consisting of one or more directors. Our board of directors has established four standing committees: an audit committee, a compensation committee, a nominating and corporate governance committee, and a government security committee. Each of our committees, with the exception of the government security committee (of which Messrs. Alder andMr. Edman areis also members)a member), is comprised entirely of independent directors, as “independence” is defined by the listing standards of NASDAQ and by the

SEC. Our board of directors holds executive sessions following allin-person board meetings at which the independent directors meet without the presence or participation of management.

Our board of directors has adopted charters for the audit, compensation, and nominating and corporate governance committees describing the authority and responsibilities delegated to the committee by the board of directors. Our board of directors has also adopted corporate governance guidelines, a whistle blower policy, a code of business conduct for all employees and a supplemental code of ethics for our chief executive officer and senior financial officers. We post on our website, atwww.ttm.com, the charters of our audit, compensation, and nominating and corporate governance committees; our corporate governance guidelines; our whistle blower policy; our code of ethics for our chief executive officer and senior financial officers, and any amendments or waivers thereto. These documents are also available in print to any stockholder requesting a copy in writing from our corporate secretary at 1665 Scenic Avenue, Suite 250, Costa Mesa, California 92626.

Interested parties may communicate with our board of directors or specific members of our board of directors, including the members of our various board committees, by submitting a letter addressed to the board of directors of TTM Technologies, Inc., c/o any specified individual director or directors, at 1665 Scenic Avenue, Suite 250, Costa Mesa, California 92626. We will forward any such letters to the indicated directors.

Meetings of the Board of Directors

Our board of directors held eightseven meetings (regular and special) during 2015.2018. All of our directors attended more than 75% of the aggregate of (i) the total number of meetings of the board of directors held during 2015,2018, and (ii) the total number of meetings held by all committees of our board of directors on which such person served during 2015.2018. We have adopted a policy encouraging each of our directors to attend each annual meeting of stockholders and, to the extent reasonably practicable, we regularly schedule a meeting of the board of directors on the same day as the annual meeting of stockholders. All of our directors attended the 20152018 annual meeting of stockholders.

Committees of the Board of Directors

The members and nominees of the Board and the committees of the Board on which they serve as of the date of this Proxy Statement are identified below:

Audit Committee.    Our audit committee reviews and monitors our corporate financial reporting and our external audit, including, among other things, our internal audit and internal control functions, the results and scope of the annual

audit, and other services provided by our independent registered public accounting firm and our compliance with legal requirements that have a significant impact on our financial reports. Our audit committee also consults with our management and our independent registered public accounting firm regarding the preparation of financial statements and, as appropriate, initiates inquiries into aspects of our financial affairs. In addition, our audit committee has the responsibility to consider and recommend the appointment of, and topre-approve services provided by, and fee arrangements with, our independent registered public accounting firm. The current members of our audit committee are Messrs.Ms. England, Mr. Franklin (chairman), and Mayer and Dr. Zakheim, each of whom is an independent director under NASDAQ listing standards as well as under SEC rules. The board of directors has determined that each of Mr. Franklin and Dr. Zakheim qualifyis “financially sophisticated” under NASDAQ rules and qualifies as an “audit committee financial expert” in accordance with applicable rules and regulations of the SEC. Our audit committee held four meetings during 2015.2018.

Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee.  The nominating and corporate governance committee oversees the selection and composition of our board of directors and oversees the management continuity planning processes. It establishes, monitors, and recommends the purpose, structure, and operations of the various committees of our board of directors, the criteria and qualifications for membership of each board committee, and recommends whether rotations or term limits are appropriate for the chair or committee members of the various committees. In addition, the nominating and corporate governance committee recommends individuals to stand for election as directors and recommends directors to serve on each committee as a member or as chair of the committee. The nominating and corporate governance committee reviews director compensation and recommends changes in director compensation to our board of directors.directors with the support of our compensation consultants, Mercer. The nominating and corporate governance committee reviews and makes recommendations regarding our governing documents (including our certificate of incorporation and bylaws) and our corporate governance principles. The nominating and corporate governance committee is also responsible for considering policies relating to the meetings of our board of directors and considers questions of independence and possible conflicts of interest of members of our board of directors and executive officers. Finally, the nominating and corporate governance committee oversees the evaluation of our board of directors and management.

The nominating and corporate governance committee will consider persons recommended by stockholders for inclusion as nominees for election to our board of directors if the information required by our bylaws is submitted in writing in a timely manner and addressed and delivered to our Company’s secretary at 1665 Scenic Avenue, Suite 250, Costa Mesa, California 92626. A stockholder who intends to recommend a nominee to our board of directors must provide (a) all information relating to the individual subject to the nomination that is required to be disclosed in opposition proxy statements for election of directors filed by stockholders, at their own expense, in a contested election, or as otherwise required under Regulation 14A under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (referred to as the Exchange Act), and (b) the individual’s written consent to being named in a proxy statement as a nominee and to serving as a director if elected. The stockholder making the nomination must also provide the information required by our bylaws relating to such stockholder, including information pertaining to ownership of our capital stock, and must make certain representations relating to voting intent and delivery of proxies. The stockholder’s nominee must also deliver to our secretary a written questionnaire with respect to the background and qualification of such person and the background of any other person or entity on whose behalf the nomination is being made. The questionnaire is available from our secretary upon written request and upon the requesting person’s providing certain written representations required by our bylaws.

The nominating and corporate governance committee identifies and evaluates nominees for our board of directors, including nominees recommended by stockholders, based on numerous factors it considers appropriate, some of which may include strength of character, mature judgment, career specialization, relevant technical skills, diversity, and the extent to which the nominee would fill a present need on our board of directors. The

nominating and corporate governance committee evaluates nominees for director in the same manner, regardless of whether the nominee is recommended by a stockholder or other person or entity.

In making its selection of director candidates, our nominating and corporate governance committee bears in mind that the foremost responsibility of a director is to represent the interests of our stockholders as a whole. Directors are expected to exemplify the highest standards of personal and professional integrity and to constructively challenge management through their active participation and questioning. In consideration of these expectations, the nominating and corporate governance committee seeks directors with established strong professional reputations and expertise in areas

relevant to the strategy and operations of our business. The activities and associations of candidates are reviewed for any legal impediment, conflict of interest, or other consideration that might prevent service on our board of directors.

The charter of our nominating and corporate governance committee provides that the value of diversity on our board of directors should be considered, and the nominating and corporate governance committee includes diversity as one of its criteria for board composition. While we do not have a formal policy outlining the diversity standards to be considered when evaluating director candidates, our objective is to foster diversity of thought on our board of directors. To accomplish that objective, the nominating and corporate governance committee considers ethnic and gender diversity, as well as differences in perspective, professional experience, education, national security qualifications, skill and other qualities in the context of the needs of our board of directors. The nominating and corporate governance committee evaluates its effectiveness in achieving diversity on the board of directors through its annual review of board member composition, which includes an assessment of directors’ ethnicity, gender, and industry experience, prior to recommending nominees for election.

The current members of our nominating and corporate governance committee are Messrs. Mayer (chairman) and Klatell (chairman), and Mayer and Dr. Zakheim,Ms. England, each of whom is an independent director under NASDAQ listing standards as well as under SEC rules. The nominating and corporate governance committee held sixfive meetings during 2015.2018.

Compensation Committee.    Our compensation committee provides a general review of our employee compensation and benefit plans to ensure that they meet our corporate objectives. The compensation committee reviews and determines, or recommends to our board of directors, the compensation of our chief executive officer and all other individuals designated by our board of directors as executive officers of our Company. In addition, our compensation committee reviews and approves our corporate goals and objectives relevant to the compensation for our chief executive officer and other executive officers, including annual performance objectives, and evaluates the performance of our chief executive officer and other executive officers in light of these goals and objectives. The compensation committee reviews and makes recommendations to our board of directors with respect to, or approves, our incentive compensation plans and equity-based plans, and activities relating to those plans. The compensation committee also establishes and periodically reviews policies in the area of perquisites for executive officers. The compensation committee may, from time to time, delegate any or all of its responsibilities to a subcommittee.

In discharging its responsibilities, our compensation committee is empowered to investigate any matter of concern that it deems appropriate and has the sole authority, without seeking approval from the entire board of directors, to retain outside consultants for this purpose, including the authority to approve any terms of retention. Additional information regarding the role of compensation consultants and executive officers in assisting our compensation committee in determining the amount or form of executive compensation may be found in “Compensation Discussion and Analysis” below. The current members of our compensation committee are Messrs. BassKlatell (chairman), Iverson and Klatell,Geveden and Ms. Lenard, each of whom is an independent director under NASDAQ listing standards as well as under SEC rules. The compensation committee held seveneight meetings during 2015.2018.

Our compensation committee has a written charter that delineates its responsibilities, a full copy of which is posted on our website atwww.ttm.com.

Compensation Consultant and its Affiliates.  Mercer was retained by our compensation committee to provide an independent review of the Company’s board and executive compensation programs, including an analysis of the competitive market for 2018. Our compensation committee assessed the independence of Mercer pursuant to SEC and NASDAQ rules and concluded that Mercer is independent and that the work of Mercer has not raised any conflict of interest. For further discussion of the work conducted by Mercer as our compensation consultant, see “Compensation Discussion and Analysis – Role of the Compensation Committee.”

Government Security Committee.  As previously disclosed in our filings with the SEC, a portion of our business consists of manufacturing defense and defense-related items for various departments and agencies of the U.S. government, including the U.S. Department of Defense, which requires that we maintain facility security

clearances under the National Industrial Security Program (referred to as NISP). The NISP requires that a corporation maintaining a facility security clearance take steps to mitigate foreign ownership, control, or influence (referred to as FOCI). As we have also previously reported, we are party to a special security agreementSpecial Security Agreement with the U.S. government.United States Defense Security Service. That special

security agreement, among other things, requires that our board of directors appoint a government security committee comprised of outside directors and directors who are officers of our Company, each of whom must be a U.S. resident citizen with a security clearance.that are eligible to access secret information, as classified by the United States Government. The government security committee is responsible for ensuring that we maintain appropriate policies and procedures to safeguard the classified and export-controlled information in our possession and to ensure that we comply with applicable laws and agreements. The current members of our government security committee are Messrs. IversonMs. England, Dr. Zakheim (chairman), and Messrs. Alder, Bass, Edman, Franklin, Geveden, Klatell, and Mayer and Dr. Zakheim.Mayer. The government security committee held four meetings during 2015.2018.

Board Leadership Structure

We believe it is our chief executive officer’s responsibility to manage our Company’s operations and the chairman’s responsibility to lead our board of directors. Given the significant responsibilities with which our chairman is tasked and his active role in our governance, we believe it is beneficial to have an independent chairman whose sole job is leading the board of directors. To this end, our corporate governance guidelines provide that our chief executive officer may not be our chairman, and that our chairman will be selected from our independent directors. In making its decision to separate the chief executive officer and chairman roles, our board of directors considered the time that Mr. Edman is required to devote to the chief executive officer position in the current economic environment, particularly given the demands imposed on our global company.Company. By segregating the role of the chairman, we reduce any duplication of effort between the chief executive officer and the chairman. We believe this provides strong leadership for our board of directors, while also positioning our chief executive officer as the leader of the companyCompany in the eyes of our customers, employees, and other stakeholders. By having another director serve as chairman of the board, Mr. Edman is better able to focus his attention on running our Company. Our board of directors believes that Mr. Klatell is the most appropriate individual to serve as chairman because of his deep knowledge of our business and strategy, his experience with corporate governance matters, and his demonstrated skill and commitment to performing effectively as chairman of our board of directors.

Our board of directors currently has sixeight independent members and three twonon-independent members, includingspecifically Mr. Edman, our president and chief executive officer, and president, Mr. Alder and Mr. Tang. A number of our independent board members are currently serving or have served as members of senior management of other public companies or governmental agencies and have served as directors of other public companies. We believe that the number of independent, experienced directors that make up our board, along with the independent oversight of the board of directors by anon-executive chairman, benefits our Company and our stockholders.

The special security agreement to which we are a party establishes certain criteria for the qualifications of our directors and the composition of our board of directors, and also requires that a certain number of directors have strong national security qualifications, have no prior relationship with certain “affiliates” described in the special security agreement, and be U.S. citizens holding or eligible to hold personnel security clearances. Our current board of directors meets the composition criteria set forth in the special security agreement, and any future replacement directors and director nominees will be required to meet such criteria.

We believe that we have a strong corporate governance structure that ensures independent discussion among, evaluation of, and communication with and access to, senior management. With the exception of our government security committee of which Messrs. Alder andMr. Edman are members,is a member, all of our board committees are composed solely of independent directors, which provide independent oversight of management. Also, our corporate governance guidelines provide that our independent directors will meet in executive session not less frequently than quarterly.

Risk Management and Oversight Process

While our management is primarily responsible for managing risk, our board of directors and each of its committees play a role in overseeing our risk management practices. Our full board of directors is ultimately responsible for risk oversight, and it discharges this responsibility by, among other things, receiving regular reports from our management concerning our business and the material risks that our Company faces. Our board of directors annually reviews key enterprise risks identified by management, such as financial, reputational, safety and security, cyber security, social responsibility, environmental and compliance risks, and it monitors key risks through reports and discussions regarding key risk areas at meetings of our board of directors and in committee meetings. Our board of directors also focuses on specific strategic and emerging risks in periodic strategy reviews. Our board of directors annually reviews and approves our corporate strategy and goals and our capital budgets, and in connection with that review, it considers risks associated with our Company.

Our board of directors allocates responsibility for overseeing risk management for our Company among the full board and each of its committees. Specifically, the full board oversees significant risks primarily relating to operations, strategy, and finance. In addition, each of our committees considers risks within its area of responsibilities, as follows:

Through the activities of our audit, compensation, nominating and corporate governance, and government security committees, as well as the full board of directors’ interactions with management concerning our business and the material risks that may impact our Company, the board of directors and each respective committee is able to monitor our risk management process and offer critical insights to our management.

Our compensation committee considers the impact of our executive compensation program, and the incentives created by the compensation awards that it administers, on our risk profile. The compensation

committee reviews all of its employee compensation policies and practices, including the incentives that they create and factors that may reduce the likelihood of excessive risk taking, to assess whether such policies and practices are reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on our Company. Based on this review, the compensation committee has determined that we do not utilize compensation policies or practices that create risks that are reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on our Company.

Related PartyPerson Transaction Policies and Procedures

It is the responsibility of our full board of directors and our audit committee to review and approve related party transactions. It is our management’s responsibility to bring such related party transactions to the attention of our board of directors and members of our audit committee. From time to time our nominating and corporate governance committee, in accordance with its charter, will also review potential conflict of interest transactions involving members of our board of directors and our executive officers.

In accordance with our corporate governance guidelines, any monetary engagement (other than director or employee compensation or transactions which would not require disclosure under Item 404 of RegulationS-K) (a) between a director (including any entity of which the director is a director or executive officer and any member of a director’s family as defined in NASDAQ rules) and our Company or any of its affiliates or members of senior management or their families, and (b) between executive officers of our Company (as designated by our board of directors) and our Company or any of its affiliates, is subject to the approval of our audit committee or our independent directors. Each of our directors and executive officers must notify our board of directors in advance of entering into any such transaction.

Our corporate governance guidelines task our board of directors, in consultation with our nominating and corporate governance committee, with reviewing annually the relationships that each director has with us, directly or indirectly.

Further, our nominating and corporate governance committee is tasked with periodically reviewing the compensation arrangements and other business relationships between our directors and our Company, including charitable and political contributions, in order to monitor the independence of our directors. Our corporate governance guidelines also provide that if an actual or potential conflict of interest develops, a director should report the matter immediately to the full board of directors and our audit committee for evaluation and appropriate resolution. If a director has a personal interest in a matter before our board of directors, the director must disclose the interest to the full board of directors and our audit committee, must recuse himself or herself from participation in the related discussion, and must abstain from voting on the matter.

DIRECTOR COMPENSATION

Effective beginning with the second quarter of 2015,2018, ournon-employee directors receive the following compensation: an annual cash retainer of $60,000,$68,000, an annual cash retainer of $7,000$9,000 for each board committee of which such director is a member (except for the government security committee), and reimbursement of expenses relating to attendance at board and board committee meetings. In addition, the chairman of the board receives an annual cash retainer of $60,000,an additional $68,000, and the chairmen of our various board committees receive annual cash retainers as follows: $19,000$22,000 to our audit committee chairman, $16,000$17,000 to our compensation committee chairman, $12,000$13,000 to our government security committee chairman, and $11,000$12,000 to our nominating and corporate governance committee chairman. Annually, our nominating and corporate governance committee, in consultation with Mercer, reviews our board compensation against the board compensation of our peer companies to develop a reasonable board compensation package.

Upon initial election, eachnon-employee director receives an option to purchase 20,000 shares of our common stock. The options provided to thenon-employee directors expire on the tenth anniversary of the grant date and vest over a four-year period. At each annual meetingIn May 2018, the chairman of stockholders, each non-employee director receivesthe board received restricted stock units (referred to as RSUs) having a value on the award date of $90,000$140,000 and eachnon-employee director received restricted stock units having a value on the award date of $120,000 based upon the average closing price of our common stock over thesix-month period preceding the grant date. The RSUs awarded to thenon-employee directors vest in full on the first anniversary of the grant date; however, in an effort to further align theirboard members’ interests with those of our stockholders, delivery of the shares of common stock underlying the RSUs is deferred until retirement from the board of directors (or until one year after retirement in the case of certain prior grants).

Stock Ownership, Hedging and Pledging Policies.  Our board of directors recognizes that stock ownership by directors may strengthen their commitment to the long-term future of our Company and further align their interests with those of our stockholders. Accordingly, our corporate governance guidelines provide that our independent directors are ordinarily expected over time to beneficially own shares of our common stock (including shares owned outright, unvested shares, restricted stock units, and stock options) having a value of at least three times their annual retainer.retainer, and as our directors are subject to our insider trading policy, they are prohibited from pledging or hedging their shares. All of our directors, except for Ms. Lenard and Mr. Geveden, who joined our board in 2018, meet the stock ownership guidelines as of March 11, 2019. In addition, the board recently adopted stock ownership guidelines for the Chief Executive Officer and his direct reports. For a full description of such guidelines, see page 38.

Mr. Edman is not compensated for his service as a director. Mr. Edman’s compensation as our chief executive officer and president is described below under “Compensation Discussion and Analysis” and “Executive Compensation.” Mr. Tang is also not separately compensated for his service as a director.For the period between January 1 and March 31, 2018, Mr. Tang received total 2015 compensation of $499,773_$77,281 for his service as Managing Director —– Asia Pacific Region of one of the Company’s Hong Kong subsidiaries, which total compensation consisted of the following: (i) base salary of $372,782,$63,638, (ii) an additionalpro-rata component of base salary in the amount of $58,263$10,461 paid subsequent to 2015 year end,in 2018 as is consistent with competitive practices in the region in recognition of the Chinese New Year, and (iii) a discretionary bonus of $90,433 to be paid in April, 2016 in recognition of the financial performance of our Company in 2015, and (iv) $18,639$3,182 of contributions made by us on Mr. Tang’s behalf to the Mandatory Provident Fund, a savingsavings program for the retirement of residents in Hong Kong. As of March 31, 2018, Mr. Tang and the Company agreed that he would no longer be an employee of the Company’s Hong Kong subsidiary. The Company and Mr. Tang agreed as part of his separation from employment, that Mr. Tang would receive a severance payment of $150,000 USD and unused leave pay in the amount of $42,774 USD. The amounts paid to Mr. Tang were paid in Hong Kong Dollars (HKD) and converted to U.S. Dollars (USD)

using an average exchange rate of 0.129$0.1276 HKD per U.S. Dollar.USD for purposes of this disclosure. After March 31, 2018, Mr. Tang began receiving compensation as anon-employee director of the Company.

Nonqualified Deferred Compensation. Our directors are eligiblepermitted to participate indefer 5% to 100% of annual director fees into our Executive and Director Deferred Compensation Plan. For a discussion of the Executive and Director Deferred Compensation Plan, see “2015 Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Table” below. None of our directors participated in the Executive and Director Deferred Compensation Plan in 20152018 and none have elected not to participate in 2016.2019.

Director Summary Compensation Table for Fiscal Year 20152018

The following table sets forth the compensation earned by ournon-employee directors in respect of their services as such during 2015.2018.

Outstanding Equity Awards Held byNon-Employee Directors at Fiscal 20152018 Year End

Payments to Compensation Consultant and its Affiliates –

In July 2014, our compensation committee determined to engage Radford with respect to 2015 compensation matters only. In July 2015 the Compensation Committee determined to engage Mercer with respect to 2016 compensation matters. Radford and Mercer werewas retained by our compensation committee to provide an independent review of the company’sCompany’s executive compensation programs, including an analysis of both the competitive market and the design of the programs for 2015 and 2016 respectively.2018. In addition, RadfordMercer assisted the compensation committee with its evaluation of the risks associated with our compensation programs, and executive director compensation data. Additionally, RadfordMercer provided our nominating and corporate governance committee with director compensation assessment and assistance in developing the CD&A. During 2015, we paid $33,520 for such services rendered by Radford. In addition, during 2015, we incurred $16,050 from Aon Hewitt, an affiliate of Radford, for services rendered in connection with the administration of our deferred compensation plan and paid Aon Hewitt $5,370 for due diligence work relating to the acquisition of Viasystems. We also paid Radford $20,910 for services rendered in connection with the computation of total stockholder return (“TSR”) relative to the S&P 600 and our TSR Peer Group and $23,040 for compensation survey data. In addition we incurred $51,446 from Mercer for services rendered in connection with the evaluation of our selected peer companies for 2015 and to provide competitive compensation data and analysis relating to the compensation of our chief executive officer and our other senior officers. Mercer also furnished the compensation committee with reports on peer company practices for 20152018 relating to the following matters: short-term and long-term compensation program design; equity compensation; vesting practices and ownership guidelines; retention value of current equity holdings;CEO/median employee pay ratio calculation; target incentive opportunities; and compensation trends for board and committee members. For further discussion of the work conducted by Radford and Mercer as our compensation consultant, see “Compensation Discussion and Analysis — Role of the Compensation Committee.”

SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT

The following table shows the amount of each class of common stock beneficially owned as of March 14, 201611, 2019 by (a) each of our directors and named executive officers; (b) all of our directors and executive officers as a group; and (c) each person known by us to own beneficially more than five percent of our outstanding common stock.

SECTION 16(a) BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP REPORTING COMPLIANCE

Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act requires our directors, officers, and persons who own more than 10% of a registered class of our securities to file reports of ownership and changes in ownership with the SEC. Directors, officers, and greater than 10% stockholders are required by SEC regulations to furnish us with copies of all Section 16(a) forms they file.

Based solely upon our review of the copies of such forms that we received during the fiscal year ended December 28, 2015,31, 2018, and written representations that no other reports were required, we believe that each person who at any time during such year was a director, officer, or beneficial owner of more than 10% of our common stock complied with all Section 16(a) filing requirements during the fiscal year ended December 28, 2015, except for one late Form 4 reporting one transaction for Daniel J. Weber.31, 2018.

EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF THE COMPANYCOMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

The names, agesCompensation Discussion and positionsAnalysis, or CD&A, describes and analyzes our executive compensation philosophy and program in the context of the compensation paid during the last fiscal year to our chief executive officer, our chief financial officer, and each of our three other highest paid executive officers (collectively referred to as our named executive officers currently serving are provided below. or NEOs). Our named executive officers are:

Biographical information regarding these officers is set forth under the following table,below, except for Mr. Edman, whose biography is set forth above with our other directors.

Chung Tai Keung, Canice has served as our Executive Vice President of Business Development, Asia Pacific since January 2016. Prior to that he served as our Executive Vice President and President, Asia Pacific Business Unit from April 2012 to December 31, 2015, and prior to that served as Chief Executive Officer of our Asia Pacific operating segment since April 8, 2010. Prior to joining our Company, Mr. Chung served as Deputy Managing Director of Meadville Group since 2005. Prior to joining the Meadville Group, Mr. Chung was an executive director of Elec & Eltek International Holdings Limited (formerly listed on The Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Limited) from August 1993 to March 2005 and Elec & Eltek International Company Limited (a company listed on the Singapore Exchange Securities Trading Limited) from April 1994 to March 2005. Mr. Chung had been Chief Executive Officer of Elec & Eltek Group’s PCB business and held various management positions at Fairchild Semiconductors (HK) Limited, China Cement Company (Hong Kong) Limited, the Astec Group and Chen Hsong Machinery Co, Limited. Mr. Chung graduated from the Hong Kong Polytechnic University in 1979 in Accountancy. Mr. Chung is currently the chairman of the Hong Kong Printed Circuit Association Limited.

Todd B. Schull became our Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer in June 2015. Mr. Schull served as Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary since March 2013. Mr. Schull joined our Company as an Executive Vice President in February 2013. Prior to joining us, Mr. Schull served as Senior Vice President of Finance and Corporate Controller of Sanmina Corporation since 2005. Mr. Schull started his career with Deloitte LLP and then held leadership positions with Verbatim Corporation, Solectron Corporation, Tidal Software, Ultratech, Repeater Technologies, and VA Linux. Mr. Schull holds a Bachelor of Science degree in accounting from the University of Utah.

Douglas L. Soder ishas served as our Executive Vice President and President of our Commercial Sector since July 2018. Prior to that Mr. Soder served as Executive Vice President, and President of our Communications and Computing Business Unit since January 2016. Prior to that heMr. Soder served as Executive Vice President and President, North

America Business Unit from April 2012 until December 31, 2015.Prior2015. Prior to that Mr. Soder served as our Executive Vice President since November 2006. Prior toBefore joining our Company, Mr. Soder held the position of Executive Vice President for Tyco Electronics Printed Circuit Group from January 2001 until our acquisition of that company in October 2006. During an almost24-year career at Tyco Electronics, Mr. Soder served in a variety of sales, sales management, and operations management positions at its AMP Incorporated and Tyco Printed Circuit Group (PCG) subsidiaries. From November 1996 to January 2001, Mr. Soder was Vice President of Sales and Marketing for PCG. Mr. Soder holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in Political Science from Dickinson College.

Brian W. Barber has served as the Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer since January 2016 and prior to that as our Senior Vice President and President of our High Technology Business Unit since June 2015. He served as Senior Vice President Operations Printed Circuit Board & Supply Chain Management of Viasystems Group, Inc. from December 2007 until May 2015. From November 2000 to December 2007, Mr. Barber was Vice President Operations Printed Circuit Board/Electro-mechanical, Americas, and from January 2000 to October 2000, Mr. Barber was Vice President Printed Circuit Board Operations, all at Viasystems. Prior to joining Viasystems in 2000, Mr. Barber was employed by Hadco Corporation since 1982, and from 1994 to 1999 served as Vice President and Business Unit Manager of their high technology operation. Mr. Barber received his Bachelor’s Degree in Psychology from Binghamton University.

Daniel J. Weber has served as the Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary since June 2015. He leads the Office of the General Counsel which includes the contracts and administration function. Before joining TTM, Mr. Weber served as the General Counsel for Viasystems for approximately 11 years and had served asCOMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSISin-house counsel for Viasystems for over 15 years. Mr. Weber previously also served as Vice President and General Counsel of Courtesy Corporation, a plastic molding manufacturer based in the United States, and as General Counsel of International Wire Group, Inc., a multinational insulated and bare copper wire manufacturer. Prior to embarking on hisin-house legal career, Mr. Weber worked in private practice at Gallop, Johnson & Neuman, L.C. in the corporate and securities group. Mr. Weber completed his undergraduate work from University of Kansas and received his Law Degree from St. Louis University.

This CD&A is organized into four sections:

Compensation Overview – Alignment of Compensation and Performance

Our goal is to tie the Company’s compensation closely with performance. The information below provides an executive summary of the Company’s financial performance for fiscal year 2018 and how pay is aligned with performance.

KEY ACCOMPLISHMENTS IN 2018

TTM’s commitment to its strategy of diversification, differentiation and discipline led to TTM’s continued growth and financial strength in 2018. In an effort to further differentiate our product and service offerings to our customers, we purchased Anaren, Inc. in 2018 and have successfully integrated it into our organization. For 2018, our growth markets were aerospace and defense, computing, and medical, industrial and instrumentation, which offset the declines in our cellular phone, automotive and networking and communications end markets. Due to disciplined operations and cost controls, we generated Non GAAP net income of $190.4 million in 2018.

PERFORMANCE HIGHLIGHTS

The following summarizes key elements of the Company’s performance in 2018⁽¹⁾.

NET SALES GAAP NET INCOME ATTRIBUTABLE TO STOCKHOLDERS NON-GAAP NET INCOME ATTRIBUTABLE TO STOCKHOLDERS ADJUSTED EBITDA NON-GAAP EPS(1) OPERATING CASH FLOW $2.85 $173.6 $190.4 $438.8 $1.76 $273.1 BILLION MILLION MILLION MILLION MILLION

ALIGNMENT OF PAY AND PERFORMANCE

TTM’s executive compensation is strongly aligned to Company performance and measurable financial metrics. The following charts show the improvement of our Company performance over the past three years.⁽¹⁾

Net Sales in $Billions GAAP Net Income Attributable to Stockholders in $Millions Non-GAAP Net Income Attributable to Stockholders in $Millions(1) Adjusted EBITDA in $Millions(1) Non-GAAP EPS(1) in $ Operating Cash Flow in $Millions(1)

The charts below measure the base salary for the CEO and the average base salary for each of our NEOs for the past three years and show a modest increase over such period of time.

CEO Base Salary ($) NEO Average Base Salary ($)

The following charts measure the performance based compensation in each year for the past three years. The amounts shown represent the total of the cash incentive and the stock awards vested⁽²⁾ for the CEO each year and the average of the total cash and stock awards vested for each of our NEOs. These charts demonstrate consistent increases in performance-based compensation for the three year period to correspond to the Company’s consistently improved performance over such period.

CEO Performance Based Compensation ($) NEO Average Performance Based Compensation ($)

These charts demonstrate that the Company sets increasingly demanding goals for performance based pay thereby aligning stockholder interests with compensation paid to the Company’s most senior executives.

2018 SAY ON PAY VOTE

At our 2018 annual meeting, our stockholders overwhelmingly approved, on an advisory basis, the compensation of our executive officers described in our 2018 proxy statement. Approximately 99.2% of the votes cast on the matter were voted “For” such advisory“say-on-pay” approval, thereby providing the compensation committee with verification that its compensation practices align the interests of the Company’s executives with those of the Company’s stockholders.

PAY AND GOVERNANCE PRACTICES

We continually review the Company’s executive compensation program to maintain compensation practices that are in the best interests of our stockholders. Some of our key policies are summarized below:

Executive Compensation Philosophy and Objectives

Our executive compensation program,philosophy, which is established by the compensation committee of our board of directors, is intended to attract, motivate, and retain executives and key employees and reward the creation of stockholder value. We seek to provide executive compensation packages that are competitive with comparable companies and reward the achievement of short-term and long-term performance goals.

Like most companies, weWe use a combination of fixed and variable compensation programs to reward and incentivize strong performance, as well as to align the interests of our executives with those of our stockholders. Historically, our compensation philosophy targeted total compensation at the 50th percentile of comparable companies. However, in 2013, after comparing the profitability, market capitalization and certain other non-revenue metrics of our Company relative to other members of our peer group, our compensation committee determined to revise its compensation philosophy toWe generally target total compensation between the 25th and 50th percentile of comparable companies. We believe that targeting compensation at the 25th-to-50th percentilethis philosophy will continue to enable us to remain competitive in attracting and retaining qualified executive officers while avoiding paying amounts in excess of what we believe is necessary to attract and retain such executive officers. However, our compensation committee’s decisions on target compensation for specific individuals are also influenced by a variety of additional factors, including compensation practices of businesses acquired by us and companyCompany and individual performance.

Each year our compensation committee, together with our senior management, establishes performance targets for short-term and long-term incentive plans that require the achievement of significant financial results. Each year our compensation committee determines compensation by assessing prior year performance against these established financial targets, as well as other factors such as the compensation paid by comparable companies, achievement of strategic objectives, improvements in market share and the professional development and potential of individual officers. Ultimately, the amount of compensation awarded to our executives is determined based on performance and what our compensation committee believes is in the best interests of our stockholders.

We believe that our use of restricted stock units (referred to as RSUs) and performance-based restricted stock units (referred to as PRUs) instead of stock options,, together with an annual incentive bonus program that is based on various combinations of global

operating income, business unit operating income, global cash flow from operations as a percentage of revenue,

business unit cash flow from operations as a percentage of revenue and individual goals, shows that we have closely linked executive officer pay to performance. Our pay mix consists primarily of base salary, annual performance-based cash bonuses, performance-based equity incentives and time-based equity incentives, andincentives. Upon our acquisition of Anaren, we have limited all other compensation to our corporate officers.acquired anon-contributory defined benefit pension plan covering eligible employees of Anaren. The plan was closed for new participants on August 15, 2000. We have no pension plans or other executive retirement plans except our 401(k) plan and deferred compensation plan available to North America employees and,employees. In China, the Company contributes to either separate trust-administered funds or various government-sponsored pension plans on a mandatory basis. We provide very limited perquisites except for the housing allowances provided to our Executive Vice President of Asia Pacific Business Development, and the expatriate compensation packages provided to our President of our Communications and Computing Business UnitCommercial Sector and our Chief Operating Officer related to their assignments in Hong Kong.

Our named executive officers discussed in this CD&A are:

Executive Summary and Impact of 2011 Say-On-Pay Vote

At our 2014 annual meeting, our stockholders overwhelmingly approved, on an advisory basis, the compensation of our executive officers described in our 2014 proxy statement. Approximately 95.05% of the votes cast on the matter were voted “For” such advisory “say-on-pay” approval. In addition, at our 2011 annual meeting, a majority of our stockholders supported our board of directors’ recommendation to hold a vote on our executive compensation program every three years. As a result of the support received for its recommendation, the board of directors determined to hold a vote on executive compensation every three years.

As discussed more fully below, and in light of our focus on pay for performance and the high support our say-on-pay proposal received in 2014, for 2015 and 2016 our compensation committee continued to:

An important principle driving our compensation programs is a strong belief that it benefits our stockholders and management’s compensation to be tied the Company’s current and long-term performance. As a result, at-risk pay is expected to continue to comprise a significant portion of our executive compensation, particularly for our most senior officers. As indicated above, approximately 95.05% of the votes cast on the 2014 advisory vote on executive compensation were in favor of our executive compensation as described in our 2014 proxy statement. Our board and compensation committee considered these final vote results and determined that, given the significant level of support, no material changes to our executive compensation philosophy were necessary based on the vote results. Nevertheless, our compensation committee strives to continually improve our executive compensation programs.

Role of the Compensation Committee

General. Our compensation committee, which is currently comprised of three independent members of our board of directors, as discussed in greater detail under “Information Relating to Corporate Governance and the Board of Directors,” is responsible for, among other things:

Our compensation committee, in consultation with the outside executive compensation consultant retained by our compensation committee, also helps analyze the reasonableness and effectiveness of our overall executive compensation package. Our compensation committee has a written charter that delineates its responsibilities, a full copy of which is posted on our website at www.ttm.com.packages.

While our chief executive officer and other executive officers may attend meetings of the compensation committee or our board of directors from time to time, the ultimate decisions regarding executive officer compensation are made solely by the members of our compensation committee and, in the case of compensation decisions for our chief executive officer, thenon-employee members of our board of directors. These decisions are based not only on our compensation committee’s deliberations, but also on input requested from outside advisors, including our compensation committee’s outside compensation consultant, with respect to, among other things, market data analyses. The final decisions relating to our chief executive officer’s compensation have historically been based on recommendations of our compensation committee and included discussions with and approval by all of ournon-employee directors without the presence of our chief executive officer or other management. Our compensation committee typically discusses proposals for our chief executive officer’s compensation package with him but always makes final decisions regarding his compensation when he is not present. Decisions regarding other executive officers have typically been made by our compensation committee after considering recommendations from our chief executive officer.

Compensation Consultant.    Our compensation committee has historically engaged the services of an outside compensation consultant to provide independent advice in connection with making executive compensation determinations. The chairman of our compensation committee, in consultation with other committee members, defines the scope of any consultant’s engagement and related responsibilities. These responsibilities may include,

among other things, advising on issues of executive compensation and equity compensation structure and assisting in the preparation of compensation disclosure for inclusion in our SEC filings. In fulfilling its responsibilities, the outside compensation consultant may interact with management or our other outside advisors to the extent necessary or appropriate.

In July 2014, ourOur compensation committee determined to engage Radfordcontinued our engagement with respect to 2015 compensation matters and in July 2015, our Compensation Committee determined to engage Mercer with respect to 20162018 compensation matters. Each of Radford and Mercer (the “Compensation Consultants”“Compensation Consultant”) was retained by our compensation committee to provide an independent review of the company’sCompany’s executive compensation programs, including an analysis of both the competitive market and the design of the programs. More

specifically, the Compensation ConsultantsConsultant evaluated our selected peer companies and provided competitive compensation data and analysis relating to the compensation of our chief executive officer and our other senior officers. The Compensation ConsultantsConsultant also furnished the compensation committee with reports on peer company practices relating to the following matters: short-term and long-term compensation program design; equity compensation, vesting practices and ownership guidelines; retention value of current equity holdings; target incentive opportunities; and compensation trends for board and committee members. In addition, the Compensation ConsultantsConsultant assisted the compensation committee with its evaluation of the risks associated with our compensation programs and provided our nominating and corporate governance committee with a director compensation assessment.an assessment of our directors’ compensation.

The compensation committee’s outside compensation consultantCompensation Consultant provides analyses and recommendations that inform the committee’s decisions, but it does not decide or approve any compensation decisions. For both 2014 and 2015, theThe Compensation Consultants (Radford) reviewedConsultant reviews various proposals presented to the committee by management, and providedprovides updates on market trends and the regulatory environment as it relatedrelates to executive compensation. Aon-Hewitt, Radford’s parent company, also computed our TSR relative to the PRU Peer Group for our performance awards. The Compensation Consultants, whoConsultant reports directly to our compensation committee and not to management, and are independent from TTM.management. Except for TTM’s subscriptionconsulting work related to certaina broad-based compensation survey data,the Company performed, and assistance with the CEO pay ratio calculation and disclosure, the Compensation Consultants haveConsultant did not providedprovide any services to TTM other than to the compensation committee and receives compensation from TTM only for services provided to the committee. We also have engaged Aon Hewitt to administer our deferred compensation program. Our compensation committee assessed the independence of Radfordthe Compensation Consultant pursuant to SEC and NASDAQ rules and concluded that the Compensation Consultant is independent and that the work of Radfordthe Compensation Consultant has not raised any conflict of interest. See the chart below that outlines the services by year. For a discussion of amounts paid to the Compensation Consultants and Aon Hewitt for executive and director compensation consulting and other services, please see “Payments to Compensation Consultant and its Affiliates” above.

Management Role in Setting Compensation.  Members of our human resources and finance departments work with our chief executive officer to recommend changes to existing compensation plans and programs, to recommenddefine financial and other targets to be achieved under those programs, to prepare analyses of financial data and other briefing materials to assist the compensation committee in making its decisions and, ultimately, to implement the decisions of our compensation committee.

Our chief executive officer is actively engaged in setting compensation for other executives through a variety of means, including recommending for committee approval the financial goals and the annual salaries and variable pay amounts for hismembers of the executive team. He works closely with other members of executive management in analyzing relevant market data to determine base salary and annual target bonus opportunities for senior management and to develop targets for our short-term and long-term incentive plans. Our chief executive officer is generally subject to the same financial performance goals as our other executive officers, all of which are ultimately determined and approved by our compensation committee.

Compensation Structure

Although the final structure may vary from year to year and officer to officer, our compensation committee utilizes three main components for executive officer compensation:

Pay Mix. In determining the allocation each year among base salary, annual incentive bonus, and long-term equity incentive compensation, our compensation committee considers the following factors: our short-term and long-term business objectives, competitive trends within our industry, and the importance of creating a performance-based environment that ties a significant portion of each executive officer’s compensation to the achievement of performance targets and corporate objectives. When considering a proposed compensation package for an executive officer, our compensation committee considers the compensation package as a whole, including each element of total compensation. For example, before determining officer compensation for 2016, our compensation committee reviewed “tally sheets” that listed, for each executive, each element of compensation paid in 2015, including base salary, 2015 incentive bonus, the value of 2015 equity awards, 401(k) matching contributions, and potential payments under severance arrangements, as well as information regarding equity awards made in prior periods. The compensation committee and management use the tally sheets to assess the overall effect and long-term implications of compensation decisions, rather than viewing individual decisions in isolation. We have nopre-established policy for allocating between either cash andnon-cash or short-term and long-term compensation.

Our compensation committee believes that the particular elements of compensation identified above producesproduce a well-balanced mix of stock-based compensation, retention value, andat-risk compensation that collectively provide each executive officer with both short-term and long-term performance incentives. Base pay provides the executive officer with a measure of security as to the minimum level of compensation he or she will receive while the annual and long-term incentive components motivate the executive officer to focus on the business metrics that will maximize company performance over the long term. Our compensation committee believes that this approach should lead to increases in stockholder value, provide an appropriate reward for our executive officers, and reduce the risk of loss of executive officers to competitors.

While each element of our compensation program is intended to motivate and encourage employees at all levels to drive performance and achieve superior results for our stockholders, there is a different emphasis on the three primary elements based on an employee’s position and ability to impact our financial results. In general, the percentage of performance-based pay, orat-risk pay, increases with job responsibility. This is intended to offer an opportunity for gain in the event of successful performance, matched with the prospect of less compensation when performance falls short of established financial and/or stockholder return targets. The aggregate base pay for our named executive officers comprised approximately 30% of the value of the aggregate compensation opportunities (base salary, target annual incentive bonuses, and long-term equity incentives) provided to them for 2015. This allocation was consistent with our compensation committee’s overall pay-for-performance philosophy with respect to our executive officers, as defined under “Executive Compensation — Fiscal Year 2015 Summary Compensation Table.”

For 2016,2018, compensation for Messrs. Soder, Schull, Barber and BarberWeber has been structured so that approximately 7033% of compensation consists of aggregate base pay.

The charts below show the mix of base salary, actual annual incentive, and the grant date fair value of equity awards (split as approximately 55% PRUsgrants for the CEO and approximately 45% time-vested RSUs) and a variable cash incentive bonus program that is performance-based and dependent onother NEOs in 2018. Consistent with our financial results, withpay-for-performance philosophy, the remaining 30% comprising base salary. For these named executive officers, within thelargest portion of compensation representing “performance-based pay” (which includes the(approximately 75% for our CEO and on average 67% for our other NEOs) is variable or performance-based annual incentive bonus and

PRU awards), approximately one-half (the annual incentive bonus) is tied to achievement of 2016 incentive goals and approximately one-half (the PRU awards) is tied to achievement of financial goals and total stockholder return over a longer period of time, although the specific mix for each named executive officer varies as described below. Mr. Chung’s equity compensation for 2016 will be comprised of RSUs only to reflect his change in responsibilities to lead the Asia-Pacific Business Development function.

Our chief executive officer’s compensation for 2016 has been structured so that approximately 75% of compensation consists of equity awards (split as approximately 70% PRUs and approximately 30% time-vested RSUs) and a variable cash incentive bonus that is performance-based and dependent on our financial results, with the remaining 25% comprising base salary.

The chart below depicts salary versus the “at risk” pay consisting of incentive awards including non-equity and equity compensation.long term incentives.

Our compensation committee believes that this mix of short-term and long-term incentives provides sufficient rewards in the short term to motivate near-term performance, while at the same time providing significant incentives to keep our executives focused on longer-term goals that drive stockholder value. This also mitigates the risk of named executive officers focusing solely on short-term or long-term goals, and offers retention value as the compensation is received over an extended performance period. It is also consistent with compensation practices of our peer group companies.2018 CEO's Compensation 2018 NEO's Compensation

Total compensation for specific individuals varies based on a number of factors in addition to company and individual performance, including scope of duties within our global organizational structure, institutional knowledge, position readiness, horizontal parity, and/or level of difficulty in recruiting a replacement executive.

Compensation Levels and Benchmarking. Overall compensation levels for executive officers are determined based on one or more of the following factors: the individual’s duties and responsibilities within our global company;Company; the individual’s experience and expertise; the compensation levels for the individual’s peers within our Company; compensation levels for similar positions in the PCB industry or in the technology industry more generally; performance of the individual and our Company as a whole; and the levels of compensation necessary to recruit new executive officers. For 2015 and 2016,2018, our compensation committee reviewed the compensation of our officers and compared it with that of both our peer group companies and broader, composite global market survey data provided by our Compensation Consultant.

Peer Groups. The compensation consultant.

committee reviews the peer groups regularly and makes adjustments to account for events such as acquisitions, mergers and the like. For 2015, Radford2018, Mercer recommended, certainand the committee adopted, refinements to our peer groupExecutive Compensation Peer Group using the same criteria used in 2017 including (i) North America based upon our Company’s position in our industry and the differing growth rates among the companies in our peer group, as well as to make the peer group more reflective of our business and competitive market for talent. As a result, our compensation committee revised the revenue and market capitalization elements for our peer group to include (i) companies with revenues between $700 million and $3.0$1.0 billion and (ii) companies with market capitalization between $250 million and $2.5 billion. Radford also recommended taking into account the peer groups used by proxy advisory firms. Our compensation committee added Cubic Corporation, Diodes Incorporated, Fabrinet, KEMET Corporation, and

ON Semiconductors Corporation. This resulted in a peer group that included the following 21 companies which were used for benchmarking purposes in 2015 (collectively, the “2015 Peer Group”):

For 2016, Mercer recommended further refinements to our peer group, while keeping criteria for our peer group consistent with the 2015 criteria and including (i) companies with revenues between $700 million and $3.0 billion, and (ii) companies with market capitalization between $250 million and $2.5 billion. For the fiscal year ended December 28, 2015,31, 2018, our revenue was $2.095$2.85 billion and our market capitalization was approximately $670 million.$1.0 billion. For 2018, Mercer further recommended refinements to our Executive Compensation Peer Group, to better reflect our revenue profile and end market representation. As a result of this reevaluation, for 2016, our compensation committee added Sanmina, Celestica,these refinements to the Peer Group, three companies at the low end were removed, one company that was acquired was

removed and Trimble Navigation to our peer group. Our compensation committee also removed Microsemi, Skyworks Solutions, Heico, International Rectifier, RF Micro Devices, and Cypress Semiconductor from our peer group company to more accurately reflecttwo near the new size and business mix of the Company as a result of the acquisition of Viasystems.median were added. This resulted in a peer group that included the following 18 companies listed on the chart below, which along with the broader survey discussed below, were used for benchmarking purposespurposes.

Our compensation committee believes that the selected TSR (Total Stockholder Return) Peer Group (the “TSR Peer Group”) is more appropriate for determining TSR under our PRU Program as it provides a comparison of our Company’s stock price performance against our global competitors and better alignment with stockholder investment choices. For 2018, the refinements to the TSR Peer Group resulted in 2016 (collectively,one company being removed that was acquired. For a discussion regarding how the “2016TSR Peer Group”): affects executive compensation, please see the “Equity Awards” section on page 33.

The following chart lists each of the companies that have been included by our compensation committee in the Executive Compensation and TSR Peer Groups for 2017 and 2018:

This peer group is not used for the stock price performance graph included in our Annual Report on Form10-K for the year ended December 28, 2015.31, 2018. That Form10-K performance graph compares the cumulative total stockholder return on our common stock against the cumulative total return on the NASDAQ Composite Index and the Dow Jones U.S. Electrical Components & Equipment Index.

Although peer group data provided relevant benchmarking information for our chief executive officer and chief financial officer, RadfordMercer recommended the use of certainpeer group data (where available) combined with data obtained from a broader technologycompensation survey dataconducted by Radford (the “Radford Survey”) for both those officers and our other executive officers in order to provide a deeper database based on job and revenue responsibility and thereby be more reflective of the market for talent for those other executive officers and senior management. More specifically, for 2016, to benchmarkcomparing compensation for all of our executive officers other than our chief executive officer and chief financial officer, Mercer provided our compensation committee with data from Radford’s global survey.officers. Mercer recommended survey datathe use of the Radford Survey for companies in the semiconductor, computer storage and peripherals, and communications equipment industries with approximate annual revenues between $700 million$1.0 billion and $3.0 billion, in order to align more closely towith the criteria used to select our 20162018 Peer Group. Compensation for our chief executive and chief financial officer is benchmarked against both our peer group and that broader survey data.

As discussed above, our compensation committee targetshas historically targeted the compensation levels of our executive officers between the 25th and 50th percentile of comparable officers at comparable companies, as derived from both peer group data and broader composite survey data. Our compensation committee may varyhave varied from this target range for various elements of compensation depending on the executive officer’s job performance, skill set, level of responsibilities, prior compensation and business conditions. The compensation for our executive officers discussed herein for 20162018 falls generally within this targeted range.

Our compensation committee intends to continue its practice of retaining executive compensation consultants from time to time, as our compensation committeeit deems appropriate, to advise our compensation committeeit with respect to its compensation policies and to provide compensation data from comparable companies.

Risk Management Considerations.    Our compensation committee believes that our performance-based bonus and equity programs for all management employees, including our executive officers, provide incentives to create long-term stockholder value. Several elements of the programs are also designed to discourage behavior that leads to excessive risk:

Individual Executive Officer Compensation

Base Salary. Base salaries for our executive officers are set with regard to the level of the position within our Company, the individual’s performance in recent periods, and the executive’s potential for continued development within our global organization. The base salary levels, and any increases or decreases to those levels for each executive officer, are reviewed and approved each year by our compensation committee. Such adjustments may be based on factors such as the overall performance of our Company, new roles and responsibilities assumed by the executive, the performance of the executive officer’s area of responsibility, the executive officer’s impact on strategic goals, the length of service with our Company, or revisions to our compensation philosophy. However, there is no specific weighting applied to any one factor in setting the level of base salary, and the process ultimately relies on the subjective exercise of our compensation committee’s judgment. Although salaries arehistorically have been generally targeted at the 25th to 50th percentile of our peer group and relevant compensation survey data, our compensation committee may also take into account historical compensation, internal parity with other executives, potential as a key contributor, and special recruiting and retention situations. We believe that providing base salaries withinaround the market 25th to 50th percentilemedian of our peer group and the broader market survey provided by our compensation consultantsCompensation Consultants will enable us to remain competitive for qualified executive officers while avoiding paying amounts in excess of what we believe necessary to attract and retain such executive officers.

Base Salaries for 20152018. Base salary deliberations for 2015 were conducted from December 2014 to February 2015.

In February 2015, Mr. Edman, our chief executive officer, met with our compensation committee to present recommendations forBased on the Company’s performance and each of our executive officers (other than himself). In considering these recommendations, the compensation committee reviewed the composite market survey data provided by Radford and peer group data.individual’s performance, Mr. Edman recommended that the base salary of Mr. Chung not be changed as his compensation remained above the median for officers holding similar positions in comparable companies, while the base salarysalaries for Messrs. Schull, Soder, Barber and SchullWeber be increased slightly as both would remain inon July 1, 2018, bringing each between the 25th to 50th25^th and the 50^th percentile of our peer companies. After its review, in February 2015 our compensation committee approved the base salaries recommended by Mr. Edman for our other executive officers.officers for 2018.

For 2015, our compensation committee ultimately recommended, and all of our non-employee directors approved, increasing the base salary for Mr. Edman to $650,000 which still positioned him slightly below the 25^th percentile of CEOs of our 2015 Peer Group. The 2015 increases in base pay for our executive officers, including Mr. Edman, became effective on March 16, 2015. A summary of base salary increases that were made for 2015effective on July 1, 2018 is outlined below for each of our named executive officers:

Annual Incentive Bonus Plan. In addition to base salaries, ourOur compensation committee believes that annual performance-based cash bonuses play an important role in providing incentives to our executive officers to achieve near-term performance goals. To support collaboration within our senior management team, our compensation committee rewards all of our executive officers for company-wide performance by tying bonus awards to our operating income and the generation of freeoperating cash flow. The compensation committee believes operating income and operating cash flow is a good indicator in capturing our success given the market in which we compete and is a measure that management can easily track and communicate to employees throughout the performance period. Each executive officer has a target annual incentive bonus opportunity, expressed as a percentage of base salary, with the ability to earn above or below that target based on our Company’s actual performance. Payments pursuant to our management incentive plan are intended to qualify as “Performance Awards” under our 2006 Incentive Compensation Plan, referred to as the 2006 Plan, and our TTM Technologies, Inc. 2014 Incentive Compensation Plan, referred to as the 2014 Plan, and thereby constitute performance-based compensation not subject to the deductibility limitations of Section 162(m).

For 2015, inIn response to the recommendationrecommendations of management, our compensation committee determinedbased the Company’s incentive bonus plan on several metrics that the committee believed most closely aligned the executive’s incentive bonuses for Messrs. Chung and Soder should be based 24% on our global operating income, 6% of global cash flow from operations as a percentage of revenue and 48% onpay with metrics that the operating income of the business unit for which such executive is primarily responsible and 12% of cash from operations as a percentage of revenue for that business unit. Themanaging. For 2018, the incentive bonus for Messrs. Edman, Schull, Barber and SchullWeber is allocated based upon 72% of the global operating income and 18% of the global cash flow from operations as a percentage of revenue. In addition,For Mr. Soder, the incentive bonus takes into account the performance of the Business Unit that he directs. For each executive, 10% of the targetaward is based on individual goals. The below chart reflects the weight of each performance metric

The table below lists the 2018 base salaries and bonus levels for each of suchour current named executive officers was based on individual goals proposed by our chief executive officer and approved by our compensation committee. Mr. Barber’s incentive bonus for 2015 was based onat the bonus plan established by Viasystems Group, Inc. prior todifferent potential achievement outcomes. This table includes both the acquisition of Viasystems in June 2015. Annual incentive bonus compensation programs for other management personnel are based on a combination of consolidated company, business unit and/or facility results,financial metrics as well as the individual goals. The financials comprise 90% while the goals that are established with input10% of each NEO’s bonus plan.

In setting annual incentive compensation financial targets and bonus opportunities for our executive officers, our compensation committee does not consider the effect of past changes in stock price. In addition, incentive compensation decisions are made without regard to length of service. For example, executive officers with longer service or who are eligible for retirement do not receive greater or lesser awards, or larger or smaller target amounts, in any given year than executives with shorter service.

2015 Annual Incentive Bonuses. For 2015, our compensation committee determined to make the following changes from our 2014 management incentive plan: