The Board of Directors recommends that you vote FOR the election of each of the Director nominees.

The Company’s success and long-term value depend on the judgment, initiative and efforts of its Directors. As a Board, these individuals oversee MetLife’s business policies and strategies. They also oversee the Chief Executive Officer and the other most senior executives of the Company (Executive Officers or Executive Group) in their management of the Company’s business.

The Board of Directors currently has 13 members. One current member, Gen. John Keane, will retire from the Board as of the Annual Meeting.

Each of the Director nominees is currently serving as a Director of MetLife and has agreed to continue to serve if elected. The Board of Directors has no reason to believe that any nominee would be unable to serve if elected; however, if for any reason a nominee should become unable to serve at or before the Annual

Meeting, the Board could reduce the size of the Board or nominate a replacement candidate for election. If you granted a proxy to vote your Shares, the individuals who have your proxy could use their discretion to vote for a replacement candidate nominated by the Board. The proxies will not have authority to vote for a greater number of nominees than the number of nominees named on the proxy card, and will accordingly not have authority to fill the vacancy resulting from the retirement of Gen. Keane.

Each of the Director nominees is also currently serving as a director of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MLIC), a direct, wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife with a class of securities registered pursuant to Section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), in connection with the issuance of certain insurance products. The common stock of MLIC is not publicly traded.

Professional Highlights:

Other Professional and Leadership Experience:

Education:

Director since 2004

Ms. Grisé’s experience as the chief executive officer of a major enterprise subject to complex regulations has provided her with a substantive understanding of the challenges of managing a highly regulated company such as MetLife. With her executive experience and her experience as a general counsel and corporate secretary, Ms. Grisé brings a unique perspective on the Board’s responsibility for overseeing the management of a regulated enterprise and with respect to the effective functioning of the Company’s corporate governance structures.

Professional Highlights:

Other Professional and Leadership Experience:

Education:

Director since 2013

As Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Kellogg, Secretary Gutierrez gained deep insight into the complex challenges of guiding a large enterprise in a competitive global economy. As Secretary of Commerce, he worked with government and business leaders to promote America’s economic interests. Secretary Gutierrez’s unique mix of experience gives him a valuable perspective and ability to oversee management’s efforts to grow and develop MetLife’s global business and its interactions with domestic and foreign governments and regulators.

Professional Highlights:

Other Professional and Leadership Experience:

Education:

Director since 2007

As an economic policy advisor to the highest levels of government and financial regulatory bodies, Dr. Hubbard has an unparalleled understanding of current global economic conditions and emergent regulations and economic policies. This expertise is relevant to the Board’s understanding of how shifting economic conditions and developing regulations and economic policies will likely impact MetLife’s investments, businesses and operations worldwide.

Professional Highlights:

Other Professional and Leadership Experience:

Education:

Director since 2011

Mr. Kandarian’s leadership and financial acumen, as well as his experience with the Company, including as President and Chief Executive Officer and his earlier responsibilities for Investments, Global Brand and Marketing Services, and enterprise-wide corporate strategy, have provided him with a deep understanding of the Company’s businesses and global operations and the Company’s strategic direction and leadership selection.

Professional Highlights:

Other Professional and Leadership Experience:

Education:

Director since 2009

Through his roles as a senior executive of a global financial services business and as the head of information systems of the White House, Mr. Kelly brings significant experience in risk management and mitigation, marketing, information technology and data management, as well as a sophisticated understanding of the considerations of shareholder value creation. These experiences and expertise are relevant to the Board’s oversight of the Company’s design and approach to risk management.

Professional Highlights:

Other Professional and Leadership Experience:

Education:

Director since 2015

Mr. Kelly’s extensive leadership experience as an executive in the financial services industry further strengthens the Board’s strong qualifications to oversee the execution of MetLife’s strategies in complex legal and regulatory environments. Mr. Kelly’s contributions to building the client-centric model and managing the global operations of a major financial institution give him a background directly relevant to MetLife’s challenges and initiatives. Further, Mr. Kelly’s deep knowledge of investments and financial products and services makes him a valuable asset to MetLife and its shareholders.

Professional Highlights:

Other Professional and Leadership Experience:

Education:

Director since 2013

Mr. Kennard’s career has given him public policy and global investment expertise. As United States Ambassador to the European Union, Mr. Kennard worked to promote transatlantic trade and investment and reduce regulatory barriers to commerce. In his years of public service, Mr. Kennard advanced access of underserved populations to technology. Mr. Kennard’s extensive regulatory and international experience enhances the Board’s ability to oversee MetLife’s strategies.

Professional Highlights:

Other Professional and Leadership Experience:

Education:

Director since 2005

As a founding partner of a private equity firm and as a senior executive of several major consumer product companies with global sales and operations, Mr. Kilts brings an in-depth understanding of the business challenges and opportunities of diversified global enterprises and the related financial, risk management, talent management and shareholder value creation considerations. These experiences and knowledge are relevant to the Board’s oversight of the management of MetLife.

Professional Highlights:

Other Professional and Leadership Experience:

Education:

Director since 2009

Ms. Kinney’s experience as a senior executive and chief operating officer of a multinational, regulated entity, her key role in transforming the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) to a publicly held company, and her leadership in developing and establishing the NYSE corporate governance standards for its listed companies (including MetLife) demonstrate her knowledge of and experience with issues of corporate development, transformation and governance. These qualities are relevant to ensuring that the Board establishes and maintains effective governance structures appropriate for a global provider of insurance and financial products and services.

Professional Highlights:

Other Professional and Leadership Experience:

Education:

Director since 2014

Ms. Morrison has a long and distinguished track record of building strong businesses and growing iconic brands. Her experience as chief executive officer of a global company provides her with a strong understanding of the key strategic challenges and opportunities of running a large, complex business, including financial management, operations, risk management, talent management and succession planning. Ms. Morrison’s strong commitment to corporate social responsibility and civic engagement make her a valuable resource for MetLife and its shareholders.

Professional Highlights:

Other Professional and Leadership Experience:

Education:

Director since 2003

Mr. Sicchitano’s experience as a managing partner in a global advisory services firm has provided him with an understanding of the challenges and opportunities of managing a global business enterprise. His oversight of the firm’s audit practices and its Audit/Assurance, Business Advisory and Tax Services gave him broad knowledge of accounting and tax issues. This experience and knowledge are relevant to the Board’s oversight of the management of MetLife, a global insurance and financial services firm.

Professional Highlights:

Other Professional and Leadership Experience:

Education:

Director since 2008

Ms. Wang’s extensive experience in investment management and financial services, her knowledge and understanding of global capital markets, particularly in Asia, and her service on the boards and investment committees of major educational and civic organizations have given her a perspective that is particularly relevant to the Board’s oversight of the management of the Company and its investments, as well as a deep understanding of the importance of MetLife’s and MetLife Foundation’s contributions to community institutions.

The Board of Directors recognizes the importance of effective corporate governance in fulfilling its responsibilities to shareholders. This section describes some of MetLife’s key governance practices.

Corporate Governance Guidelines

The Board of Directors has adopted Corporate Governance Guidelines that set forth the Board’s policies on a number of governance-related matters, including:

The Corporate Governance Guidelines and the Company’s By-Laws provide for a majority voting standard in uncontested Director elections.

A printable version of the Corporate Governance Guidelines is available on MetLife’s website at www.metlife.com/corporategovernance under the link “Corporate Governance Guidelines.”

Board and Committee Information

Composition and Independence of the Board of Directors. The Board currently consists of 13 Directors, 12 of whom are both Non-Management Directors and Independent Directors. A Non-Management Director is a Director who is not an officer of the Company or of any entity in a consolidated group with the Company. An Independent Director is a Non-Management Director who the Board of Directors has affirmatively determined has no material relationships with the Company or any of its consolidated subsidiaries and is independent within the meaning of the NYSE Corporate Governance Standards. An Independent Director for Audit and Compensation Committee purposes meets additional requirements under the NYSE Corporate Governance Standards and Rules

10A-3 and 10C-1, as applicable, under the Exchange Act.

The Board of Directors has adopted categorical standards to assist it in making determinations regarding Director independence. The Independent Directors satisfy all applicable categorical standards. The categorical standards are included in the Corporate Governance Guidelines of the Company, which are available on MetLife’s website at www.metlife.com/corporategovernance under the link “Corporate Governance Guidelines.”

The Board has affirmatively determined that all of the Directors, other than Steven A. Kandarian, the Company’s Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer, are Independent Directors. The Board affirmatively determined in 2014 that each of Kurt M. Campbell and Hugh B. Price, who served as Directors during portions of 2014, was an Independent Director.

Board Leadership Structure. After careful consideration, in 2006, the Board of Directors determined that the preferred leadership structure for MetLife would be a Chairman of the Board who also is the Company’s Chief Executive Officer, and a separate empowered Lead Director who also is an Independent Director. The successful partnership between the executive Chairman of the Board and the independent Lead Director has provided strong, independent oversight of management and demonstrates that this leadership structure continues to be the most appropriate and effective model for the Company.

Mr. Kandarian, as the Company’s Chief Executive Officer, is responsible for the day-to-day operations of the Company and for setting its strategic business direction. In the performance of his responsibilities, both in his role as Chief Executive Officer and in his prior role as Chief Investment Officer with oversight of MetLife’s enterprise-wide corporate strategy, he has demonstrated a deep understanding of the Company’s business, opportunities and challenges, and the capabilities and talents of the senior leadership team — all of which he brings to bear in the performance of his responsibilities as Chairman of the Board.

Cheryl W. Grisé, the Company’s independent Lead Director, was appointed as Lead Director by the Company’s Independent Directors, as provided by the

Company’s Corporate Governance Guidelines. Pursuant to the Guidelines, her responsibilities as Lead Director include:

Having an independent Lead Director and an executive Chairman of the Board helps ensure that the Directors are provided with appropriate information about the Company’s businesses and operations and have direct access to senior management, which enables them to effectively oversee the management of the Company and perform their roles and responsibilities as Directors of a complex, highly regulated, global enterprise.

Executive Sessions of Independent Directors. At each regularly scheduled meeting of the Board of Directors, the Independent Directors of the Company meet in executive session without management present. The Lead Director presides at the executive sessions of the Independent Directors.

Director Nomination Process. Under the Company’s Corporate Governance Guidelines, the following specific, minimum qualifications must be met by any candidate whom the Governance and Corporate Responsibility Committee would recommend for election to the Board of Directors:

In recommending candidates for election as Directors, the Governance and Corporate Responsibility Committee will take into consideration the need for the Board to have a majority of Directors that meet the independence requirements of the New York Stock Exchange Corporate Governance Standards, the ability of candidates to enhance the perspective and experience of the Board as a whole, and such other criteria as shall be established from time to time by the Board of Directors.

Potential candidates for nomination as Directors are identified by the Governance and Corporate Responsibility Committee and the Board of Directors through a variety of means, including search firms, Board members, Executive Officers and shareholders. Potential candidates for nomination as Director provide information about their qualifications and participate in interviews conducted by individual Board members.

Candidates are evaluated based on the information supplied by the candidates and information obtained from other sources.

The Governance and Corporate Responsibility Committee will consider shareholder recommendations of candidates for nomination as Director. To be timely, a shareholder recommendation must be submitted to the Governance and Corporate Responsibility Committee, MetLife, Inc., 1095 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10036, Attention: Corporate Secretary, not later than 120 calendar days prior to the first anniversary of the previous year’s annual meeting. Recommendations for nominations of candidates for election at MetLife’s 2016 annual meeting of shareholders must be received by the Corporate Secretary of MetLife, Inc. no later than December 30, 2015 or such other date as may be announced by the Company in accordance with the Company’s By-Laws.

The Governance and Corporate Responsibility Committee makes no distinctions in evaluating nominees based on whether or not a nominee is recommended by a shareholder. Shareholders recommending a nominee must satisfy the notification, timeliness, consent and information requirements set forth in the Company’s By-Laws concerning Director nominations by shareholders.

The shareholder’s recommendation must set forth all the information regarding the recommended candidate that is required to be disclosed in solicitations of proxies for election of Directors pursuant to Section 14 of the Exchange Act and related regulations, and must include the recommended candidate’s written consent to being named in the Proxy Statement as a nominee and to serving as a Director if elected. The recommendation must also be accompanied by a completed disclosure questionnaire on a form posted on the Company’s website. In addition, the shareholder’s recommendation must include: (i) the name and address of, and class and number of shares of the Company’s securities owned beneficially and of record by, the recommending shareholder and any other person on whose behalf the shareholder is acting or with whom the shareholder is acting in concert; (ii) a description of all arrangements or understandings between any shareholder and the person being recommended and any other persons (naming them) pursuant to which the nominations are to be made by the shareholder; (iii) satisfactory evidence that each shareholder is a beneficial owner, or a representation that the shareholder is a holder of record, of the

Company’s stock entitled to vote at the meeting, and a representation that the shareholder intends to appear in person or by a qualified representative at the meeting to propose the nomination; and (iv) if the recommending shareholder intends to solicit proxies, a statement to that effect.

Oversight of Risk Management by the Board of Directors. The Board of Directors is responsible for overseeing management in the execution of its responsibilities and for overseeing the design and implementation of the Company’s approach to risk management.

In performing its risk management oversight functions, the Board oversees management’s development and execution of appropriate business strategies to mitigate the risk that such strategies will fail to generate long-term value for the Company and its shareholders or that such strategies will motivate management to take excessive risks.

The Board of Directors also oversees the development and implementation of processes and procedures to mitigate the risk of failing to ensure the orderly succession of the Chief Executive Officer and the senior executives of the Company. The Board believes that the continuing development of the Company’s managerial leadership is critically important to its success. The Board, in coordination with the Governance and Corporate Responsibility Committee, periodically reviews the skills, experience, and development plans of the Company’s senior leaders who may ultimately be candidates for senior executive positions. The Directors meet regularly with senior leaders in the context of Board business, giving them an opportunity to assess the qualifications of these individuals. In addition, the Board plans for executive succession to ensure that the Company will have managerial talent available to replace current executives when that becomes necessary.

The Board of Directors has allocated its oversight of risk management among the Board as a whole and to the Committees of the Board, which meet regularly and report back to the full Board. All Committees play significant roles in risk oversight.

The Finance and Risk Committee has broad oversight responsibilities for the Company’s risk management. Annually, the Committee reviews, and recommends for Board approval, the Company’s Enterprise Risk Appetite Statement, which establishes quantitative and qualitative risk appetite measures and risk exposure

considerations and guidelines, and the Company’s Capital Policy and Liquidity Risk Management Policy. The Committee reviews the Company’s assessment and management of material risks, including its performance against applicable policies and procedures and related benchmarks and target metrics. The Committee oversees the Company’s financial policies and strategies, capital planning and adequacy, certain capital actions, mergers and acquisitions projects, and other financial matters. The Committee coordinates its oversight with the efforts of the Chief Risk Officer (who oversees and coordinates risk assessment and mitigation enterprise-wide) and other members of management. It also coordinates its oversight of management with the Chairs of the other Board Committees.

In addition to the Finance and Risk Committee’s oversight of the Company’s material risks, the Audit Committee, the Compensation Committee, the Governance and Corporate Responsibility Committee and the Investment Committee also exercise direct oversight of aspects of the Company’s enterprise risk management. Specifically,

For further discussion of the Committees’ responsibilities, see “Board Committees,” “Audit Committee,” “Compensation Committee,” “Finance and Risk Committee,” “Governance and Corporate Responsibility Committee” and “Investment Committee” below.

Throughout the year, the Board and its Committees receive reports from the Chief Risk Officer and other senior management on enterprise risk management and specific risk topics. In particular, the Finance and Risk Committee reviews reports from the Chief Risk Officer and other senior management of the steps taken to measure, monitor and manage risk exposure in the enterprise. At each regularly scheduled meeting of the Finance and Risk Committee, the Chief Risk Officer meets in executive session of the independent Committee members without the Company’s Executive Officers to further discuss enterprise risk management.

Board Membership. For information about the current membership of the Board and the Board Committees, see the Proxy Summary on page 3. In addition to the memberships noted in the Proxy Summary, Gen. John Keane, who will retire from the Board as of the Annual Meeting, serves on the Audit Committee and the Governance and Corporate Responsibility Committee.

Board Meetings and Director Attendance. In 2014, the Board held seven meetings and the Board Committees of MetLife held a total of 34 meetings. All of the current Directors attended more than 75% of the aggregate number of meetings of the Board of Directors and the MetLife Committees on which they served during 2014.

Board Committees. MetLife’s Board of Directors has designated six standing Board Committees: Audit; Compensation; Executive; Finance and Risk; Governance and Corporate Responsibility; and Investment. The Board of Directors has delegated authority to the Committees, as described in their charters, to assist the Board in overseeing the management of the Company.

All Committees, other than the Executive Committee, are chaired by and consist entirely of Independent Directors. The Committees perform essential functions on behalf of the Board. The Committee Chairs review and approve agendas for all meetings of their respective Committees. The responsibilities of each Committee are defined in its charter and summarized below.

The charters for the Audit, the Compensation, and the Governance and Corporate Responsibility Committees incorporate the requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the NYSE to the extent applicable. Current, printable versions of these charters are available on MetLife’s website at www.metlife.com/corporategovernance.

Audit Committee. The Audit Committee oversees:

The Audit Committee periodically discusses the Company’s guidelines and policies with respect to the process by which the Company undertakes risk assessment and risk management, including risks relating to MetLife information security systems. The Audit Committee meets at least six times a year, and meets regularly in executive session separately with management and with the Company’s internal and external auditors. The Audit Committee met 13 times in 2014. The Audit Committee’s activities during 2014 with respect to the oversight of the independent auditor are described in more detail in “Proposal 3 — Ratification of Appointment of the Independent Auditor” beginning on page 27. The Audit Committee Charter provides a more detailed description of the role and responsibilities of the Audit Committee.

Independence, Financial Literacy and Audit Committee Financial Experts. All six members of the Audit Committee, including Gen. John Keane, who will retire from the Board as of the Annual Meeting, are Independent Directors who meet the additional independence requirements of the NYSE Corporate Governance Standards and Rule 10A-3 under the Exchange Act and are financially literate, as such qualification is interpreted by the Board of Directors. The Board of Directors has determined that the following three members of the Audit Committee qualify as “audit committee financial experts,” as such term is defined by the SEC: Kenton J. Sicchitano (Chair), Alfred F. Kelly, Jr., and Edward J. Kelly, III.

Compensation Committee.

The Role and Responsibilities of the Compensation Committee. The Compensation Committee:

A more detailed description of the role and responsibilities of the Compensation Committee is set forth in the Compensation Committee Charter. Under its charter, the Compensation Committee may delegate to a subcommittee or to the Chief Executive Officer or other officers of the Company any portion of its duties and responsibilities, if it believes such delegation is in the best interests of the Company and the delegation is not prohibited by law, regulation or the NYSE Corporate Governance Standards. Management’s

delegated authority does not include granting salary increases or incentive compensation to any Executive Officer, to any officer subject to the reporting requirements under Section 16 of the Exchange Act, or to the Company’s Chief Risk Officer. The Compensation Committee met eight times in 2014.

The Company’s processes for consideration and determination of executive compensation, and the central role of the Compensation Committee in those processes, are further described in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis beginning on page 32.

Executive Compensation Advisors. The Compensation Committee has sole authority to retain or obtain the advice of a compensation consultant, independent legal counsel, or other advisor to the committee. It is not required to implement or act consistently with the advice or recommendations of any advisor, but retains discretion to act according to its own judgment. The Compensation Committee may retain or obtain the advice of an advisor only after taking into consideration factors related to that person’s independence from management that it determines are relevant, including each of the factors it is required to take into consideration under the Corporate Governance Standards of the New York Stock Exchange, unless the retention of the advisor is exempt from this requirement under NYSE rules. The Compensation Committee is responsible for the appointment, compensation, and oversight of any advisor it retains. The Company is obligated to provide appropriate funding for reasonable compensation of any such advisor, as determined by the Compensation Committee.

To assist the Compensation Committee in carrying out its responsibilities, the Compensation Committee retained Meridian Compensation Partners, LLC (Meridian) as its executive compensation consultant. Meridian has provided the Compensation Committee with competitive market compensation data and overall market trends about executive compensation, has advised the Compensation Committee about the overall design and implementation of MetLife’s executive compensation programs, including decisions made under the programs, and has advised the Committee about regulatory, governance and accounting developments that may affect the Company’s executive compensation programs.

The Compensation Committee believes that its compensation consultant must be able to provide it with candid, direct, independent and objective advice.

In order to promote the objectivity, independence, and candor of Meridian’s advice:

To help ensure that the Committee continues to receive independent and objective advice, the Company’s Corporate Governance Guidelines provide that any consultant retained by the Compensation Committee on executive compensation matters should not be retained to provide any other services to the Company. Meridian did not provide any such other services in 2014.

In addition, Meridian has provided the Compensation Committee with information regarding its relationship with MetLife and Meridian’s independence from management. This included information covering factors the Compensation Committee is required under NYSE rules to take into consideration before selecting an advisor. The Compensation Committee did not find that Meridian’s work raised any conflict of interest.

For information about the key factors that the Compensation Committee considers in determining the compensation of the members of the Executive Group, as well as the role of the Chief Executive Officer and the Executive Vice President and Chief Human Resources Officer in setting such compensation, see the Compensation Discussion and Analysis beginning on page 32. Also see the Compensation Discussion and Analysis for information about compensation paid to the persons listed in the Summary Compensation Table on page 52.

Compensation Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation. No member of the Compensation Committee has ever been an officer or employee of MetLife or any of its subsidiaries. During 2014, no Executive Officer of MetLife served as a Director or member of the compensation committee (or other committee serving an equivalent function) of any other entity where one of the executive officers is or has been a Director of MetLife or a member of MetLife’s Compensation Committee.

Executive Committee. The Executive Committee may exercise the powers and authority of the Board of Directors during intervals between meetings of the Board of Directors. The Executive Committee did not meet in 2014.

Finance and Risk Committee. The Finance and Risk Committee oversees the Company’s financial policies and strategies; its capital structure, plans and policies, including capital adequacy, dividend policies and share repurchases; its proposals on certain capital actions and other financial matters; its assessment and management of material risks; and in consultation with the Compensation Committee, the appointment, retention and performance of the Chief Risk Officer. The Finance and Risk Committee has in the past engaged and is likely from time to time in the future to engage external consultants to assess the alignment of the Company’s risk models and practices to industry best practices.

Specifically, the Finance and Risk Committee:

The Finance and Risk Committee met six times in 2014. For further discussion of the Finance and Risk Committee’s responsibilities for oversight of risk management, see “Oversight of Risk Management by the Board of Directors” beginning on page 15.

Governance and Corporate Responsibility Committee. The Governance and Corporate Responsibility Committee assists the Board of Directors in identifying individuals qualified to become members of the Company’s Board, consistent with the criteria established by the Board; proposing candidates to be nominated for election as Directors at annual or special

meetings of shareholders or to be elected by the Board to fill any vacancies on the Board; developing and recommending to the Board of Directors for adoption corporate governance guidelines applicable to the Company; and reviewing proposed succession plans for the Chief Executive Officer and succession and development plans for the Company’s executive officers, and making recommendations to the Board of Directors with respect to such plans. It also oversees the Company’s compliance responsibilities and activities, including its legislative and regulatory initiatives, sales practices and ethics and compliance programs, as well as the Company’s policies concerning its corporate citizenship programs.

Each year, the Governance and Corporate Responsibility Committee oversees a robust Board evaluation. The Committee solicits comments from Directors on the Board’s and its Committees’ performance, including the adequacy of the time allocated to Board and Committee business, the quality of materials provided by management, and the quality of the presentations. Directors are also invited to recommend topics for the Board to consider at future meetings. The Committee reports these results to the full Board. The Board completes its evaluation through a discussion in executive session without any management present.

The Governance and Corporate Responsibility Committee also oversees the management and mitigation of risks related to failure to comply with required or appropriate corporate governance standards.

The Governance and Corporate Responsibility Committee also is responsible for reviewing the compensation and benefits of the Company’s non-employee Directors and recommending any changes to the Board. During 2014, Meridian provided the Board with an analysis of the competitiveness of the compensation program for Non-Management Directors, market observations, and relevant compensation trends. The Committee recommended, and the non-management members of the Board of Directors approved, the increase in the stock ownership guidelines for non-management directors from three to four times the cash component of the annual retainer. The Committee did not make any other changes to Non-Management Director compensation in 2014.

The Governance and Corporate Responsibility Committee Charter provides a more detailed

description of the role and responsibilities of the Governance and Corporate Responsibility Committee. The Governance and Corporate Responsibility Committee met seven times in 2014.

Investment Committee. The Investment Committee oversees the management of investment activities of MetLife and, on a consolidated basis, of MetLife and all of its direct and indirect subsidiaries. In performing its oversight responsibilities, the Committee reviews reports from the investment officers on (i) the investment activities and performance of the investment portfolios of MetLife and its subsidiaries and (ii) the conformity of investment activities with the

Investment Committee’s general authorizations and investment guidelines. The Investment Committee also oversees the management and mitigation of risks associated with the investment portfolios of MetLife and its subsidiaries.

The Board of Directors formed MetLife’s Investment Committee on December 9, 2014, and it met for the first time in 2015. Prior to that time, the Investment Committee of the Board of Directors of MLIC oversaw the investment portfolios of MetLife and its subsidiaries at the request of the MetLife Board of Directors. During 2014, each of the members of the Investment Committee served on the Investment Committee of the Board of Directors of MLIC. The MLIC Investment Committee met six times in 2014.

The Non-Management Directors included in the 2014 Director Compensation table, and the discussion below pertaining to the table, are limited to those who served as Directors during the year. Ms. Morrison was first elected to the Board of Directors during 2014. Mr. Campbell resigned from the Board of Directors prior to the Company’s 2014 Annual Meeting. Mr. Price retired from the Board of Directors as of the Company’s 2014 Annual Meeting.

Fees Earned or Paid in Cash and Stock Awards. The Non-Management Directors’ annual retainer fees are reported under “Fees Earned or Paid in Cash” and “Stock Awards” in the Director Compensation table.

After the Company’s 2014 Annual Meeting, each active Non-Management Director was paid an annual retainer of $260,000 in advance for services through the 2015 Annual Meeting. Approximately 50% of the retainer, or $130,010, was paid through the grant of 2,505 Shares at a grant date fair value per share of $51.90, the closing price of a Share on the NYSE on the grant date. The rest of the retainer was paid in $130,000 cash.

In addition, the Company paid an annual cash retainer fee of $25,000 in 2014 to each Non-Management Director

who served as Chair of a Board Committee (Ms. Grisé, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Kilts, and Mr. Sicchitano) and the Non-Management Director who served as Chair of the Investment Committee of MLIC (Mr. Hubbard). The Company also paid an annual cash retainer of $25,000 in 2014 to its Lead Director (Ms. Grisé).

The MetLife, Inc. 2005 Non-Management Director Stock Compensation Plan (2005 Director Stock Plan), which was approved by the Company’s shareholders in 2004, authorized the Company to issue Shares in payment of Director retainer fees. The dollar amounts reported under “Stock Awards” represent the grant date fair value of such Share awards as computed for financial statement reporting purposes in accordance with Financial Accounting Standards Board Accounting Standards Codification Topic 718 (ASC 718). The grant date fair value represents the number of Shares granted multiplied by the closing price of the Shares on the NYSE on the grant date. Share awards granted to the Non-Management Directors as part of their annual retainer vest and become payable immediately upon their grant. As a result, no Share awards were outstanding for any of the Non-Management Directors as of December 31, 2014. None of the Non-

Management Directors had any outstanding and unexercised Stock Options as of December 31, 2014.

A Non-Management Director may defer the receipt of all or part of his or her fees payable in cash or Shares (and any imputed reinvested dividends on those deferred Shares) until a later date or until after he or she ceases to serve as a Director.

All Other Compensation. The Non-Management Directors’ 2014 benefits, gift programs, and reportable perquisites and other personal benefits are included under “All Other Compensation” in the Director Compensation table.

Life Insurance Programs. MetLife paid $1,584 in premiums for each Non-Management Director who joined the Board on or after January 1, 2003, and who served the entirety of 2014, to receive $200,000 of group life insurance coverage during 2014. The Company incurred a pro rata portion of that cost to provide coverage to Mr. Campbell ($264) and Ms. Morrison ($1,452) for the portion of 2014 during which each served as a Director.

Non-Management Directors who joined the Board prior to January 1, 2003 receive $200,000 of individual life insurance coverage under policies then in existence. Until his retirement, Mr. Price was the only Non-Management Director eligible for this program. MetLife paid a program administration fee of $1,538 for Mr. Price’s coverage.

Business Travel Insurance Program. MetLife provided each Non-Management Director with business travel accident insurance coverage for travel on MetLife business. MetLife’s per Director cost for this coverage in 2014 was $35.

Charitable and Matching Gifts Programs. The MetLife Foundation provided up to $5,000 in matching contributions for each Non-Management Director’s contributions to colleges and universities in 2014 under a matching gift program for employees and Non-Management Directors. The foundation contributed $5,000 to match contributions made by each of Mr. Hubbard, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Kennard, and Mr. Kilts in 2014. It also contributed $2,500 to match contributions made by each of Ms. Kinney and Mr. Sicchitano in 2014.

In addition, the foundation provided a matching contribution of $2,500 for contributions that each of Ms. Kinney and Mr. Sicchitano made in 2013. Because these contributions related to the directors’ 2013

contributions, they are not reported on the table above. They were not reported in the Company’s 2014 Proxy Statement because the process for matching the contributions did not begin until after that Proxy Statement was filed.

In addition, Mr. Price participates in a charitable gift program for Non-Management Directors elected to the Board of MLIC prior to October 1, 1999. Under that program, Non-Management Directors may recommend one or more charitable or educational institutions to receive, in the aggregate, a $1 million contribution from MLIC in the name of the Director following the Director’s death. The proportionate share of a service fee paid by MLIC in 2014 to administer the program attributable to Mr. Price was $1,316. The premiums for the insurance policies under the program were paid in full prior to 2014.

Perquisites and Other Personal Benefits. The Company paid for personal expenses of certain Non-Management Directors or their guests in connection with Company business conferences or other events in 2014. For each Non-Management Director for whom such expenses were paid, the aggregate amount paid by the Company in 2014 was less than $10,000, and as a result is not reported.

Compensation of Mr. Kandarian. Mr. Kandarian was compensated as an employee in 2014, and received no compensation in his capacity as a member of the Board of Directors. For information about compensation for Mr. Kandarian in 2014, see the Summary Compensation Table on page 52 and the accompanying discussion.

Director Stock Ownership Guidelines; Anti-Hedging Policy; Restrictions on Pledging

During 2014, the Board of Directors increased its expectations of each director’s Share ownership. Under the stock ownership guidelines established by the Board of Directors, each Non-Management Director is now expected to own stock-based holdings equal in value to at least four times the cash component of the Non-Management Director’s annual retainer. The previous guideline was three times the cash component of the retainer.

Each Non-Management Director is expected to achieve this new level of ownership by December 31 of the year in which the fourth anniversary of his or her election to the Board occurs. As of December 31, 2014, each Non-Management Director who had served beyond the fourth anniversary of his or her election to the Board had met these guidelines.

Pursuant to the Company’s Insider Trading Policy, Directors may not engage in short sales, hedging, or trading in put and call options with respect to the Company’s securities. Directors’ pledging of Company securities are also subject to restrictions under the Insider Trading Policy, as further discussed in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis beginning on page  32. No serving Director pledged any Company equity securities during 2014.

Director Retirement Policy

The retirement policy adopted by the Board of Directors provides that no Director may stand for election as a Board member after he or she reaches the age of 72, and that a Director may continue to serve until the annual meeting coincident with or immediately following his or her 72nd birthday. In addition, each Director must offer to resign from the Board upon a change or discontinuance of his or her principal occupation or business responsibilities. The Director’s retirement policy is set forth in the Company’s Corporate Governance Guidelines.

Director Indemnity Plan

The Company’s By-Laws provide for the Company to indemnify, and advance expenses to, a person who is threatened with litigation or made a party to a legal proceeding because of the person’s service as a Director of the Company. In addition, the Company’s Director Indemnity Plan affirms that a Director’s rights to this indemnification and expense advancement are contract rights. The indemnity plan also provides for expenses to be advanced to former Directors on the same basis as they are advanced to current Directors. Any amendment or repeal of the rights provided under the indemnity plan would be prospective only and would not affect a Director’s rights with respect to events that have already occurred.

Procedures for Reviewing Related Person Transactions

The Company has established written procedures for the review, approval or ratification of related person transactions. A related person transaction includes certain financial transactions, arrangements or relationships in which the Company is or is proposed to be a participant and in which a Director, Director nominee or Executive Officer of the Company or any of their immediate family members has or will have a material interest. Related person transactions may include:

Under the procedures, Directors, Director nominees and Executive Officers of the Company are required to report related person transactions in writing to the Company. The Governance and Corporate Responsibility Committee reviews, approves or ratifies related person transactions involving Directors, Director nominees and the Chief Executive Officer or any of their immediate family members. A vote of a majority of disinterested Directors of the Governance and Corporate Responsibility Committee is required to approve or ratify a transaction. The Chief Executive Officer reviews, approves or ratifies related person transactions involving Executive Officers of the Company (other than the Chief Executive Officer) or any of their immediate family members. The Chief Executive Officer may refer any such transaction to the Governance and Corporate Responsibility Committee for review, approval or ratification if he believes that such referral would be appropriate.

The Governance and Corporate Responsibility Committee or the Chief Executive Officer will approve a related person transaction if it is fair and reasonable to the Company and consistent with the best interests of the Company, taking into account the business purpose of the transaction, whether the transaction is entered into on an arm’s-length basis on terms fair to the Company, and whether the transaction is consistent with applicable codes of conduct of the Company. If a transaction is not approved or ratified, it may be referred to legal counsel for review and consultation regarding possible further action by the Company. Such action may include terminating the transaction if not yet entered into or, if it is an existing transaction, rescinding the transaction or modifying it in a manner that would allow it to be ratified or approved in accordance with the procedures.

Related Person Transactions

Executive Officers. A Company affiliate employs a sibling of Maria R. Morris, Executive Vice President and member of the Executive Group for 2014. Ms. Morris’ sibling earned compensation of approximately $218,291 for 2014.

The employee is not an Executive Group member, does not report directly to any member of the Executive Group and does not report indirectly to the Executive Group member to whom the employee is related. The employee participates in compensation and benefit arrangements generally applicable to similarly-situated employees.

Codes of Conduct

Financial Management Code of Professional Conduct. The Company has adopted the MetLife Financial Management Code of Professional Conduct, a “code of ethics” as defined under the rules of the SEC that applies to the Company’s Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Accounting Officer and all professionals in finance and finance-related departments. A current, printable version of the Financial Management Code of Professional Conduct is available on the Company’s website at www.metlife.com/corporategovernance by selecting Corporate Conduct and then the appropriate link under the heading “Codes of Conduct.”

Directors’ Code of Business Conduct and Ethics and Code of Conduct for MetLife Employees. The Company has adopted the Directors’ Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, which is applicable to all members of the Company’s Board of Directors including the Chief Executive Officer, and the Code of Conduct, which applies to all employees of the Company and its affiliates, including the Executive Officers of the Company. Current, printable versions of the Directors’ Code and the Code of Conduct for MetLife employees are available on the Company’s website at www.metlife.com/corporategovernance by selecting Corporate Conduct and then the appropriate link under the heading “Codes of Conduct.”

The Board of Directors recommends that you vote FOR the approval of amendments to the Certificate of Incorporation to change each supermajority common shareholder vote requirement to a majority vote requirement.

MetLife’s Certificate of Incorporation, as amended to date (Certificate of Incorporation or Charter), provides that certain provisions of the Charter may be amended only by the affirmative vote of at least three-quarters of the then outstanding Shares of MetLife entitled to vote generally in the election of Directors (Outstanding Shares). The Charter also provides that shareholders may amend the Company’s Amended and Restated By-Laws (By-Laws) by the affirmative vote of at least three-quarters of the Outstanding Shares.

The Board of Directors reviews the Company’s corporate governance practices on a continuing basis. In light of evolving practices and shareholder input, the Board has determined that it is in the best interests of the Company to amend the Charter to change each of the supermajority Share vote requirements to a requirement for an affirmative vote of a majority of Outstanding Shares. The majority voting requirements will give shareholders enhanced flexibility to change the Company’s governing documents, while ensuring that fundamental changes made by shareholders will be acceptable to the holders of a majority of Shares. The Board of Directors will retain the ability to amend the By-Laws.

The proposed amendments may, if adopted, make it easier for one or more shareholders to change the Company’s corporate governance and, therefore, make it more difficult for the Board of Directors to protect shareholders’ interests, e.g., if they are presented with an acquisition proposal that undervalues the Company. Nevertheless, there are other actions that the Board of Directors can take to protect shareholders’ interests on such occasions.

The Board of Directors is proposing these amendments for the reasons described above. It does not otherwise have any current plans to amend the By-Laws or any of the Charter provisions described below that currently require a supermajority vote, or to take or propose to take any action contemplated by such provisions. The proposed amendments do not affect the voting rights of the Company’s preferred stock. The general description of provisions of our Charter and By-Laws and the proposed amendments set forth below are qualified in their entirety by reference to the text of Appendices B and C.

The Board recommends that the shareholders vote to approve each of the two proposals.

Article IX of the Charter currently requires the affirmative vote of at least three-quarters of the Outstanding Shares to amend certain Charter provisions. These are:

If the shareholders approve Proposal 2(a), then Article IX of the Charter will allow shareholders to amend the provisions of the Charter described above by an affirmative vote of a majority of the Outstanding Shares. Appendix B shows the proposed changes to Article IX of the Charter.

Article VI, Section 3(f) of the Charter currently provides that the shareholders can amend the By-Laws by affirmative vote of at least three-quarters of the Outstanding Shares. If the shareholders approve Proposal 2(b), then Article VI, Section 3(f) of the Charter will allow the shareholders to amend the By-Laws by an affirmative vote of a majority of Outstanding Shares. Appendix C shows the proposed changes to Article VI, Section 3(f) of the Charter.

In addition, if the shareholders vote to approve Proposal 2(b), the By-Laws will be automatically amended to conform to the provisions of the Charter, effective at the same time the Charter changes. Currently, Section 10.01(b) of the By-Laws provides that the

shareholders can amend the By-Laws by affirmative vote of three-quarters or more of the Outstanding Shares. The Board of Directors has amended the By-Laws, contingent and effective upon a filing of a certificate of amendment of Article VI, Section 3(f) of the Charter with the Secretary of State of Delaware in accordance with Proposal 2(b). If the amendment becomes effective, the By-Laws will allow shareholders to amend the By-Laws by affirmative vote of a majority of Outstanding Shares. Appendix D shows the proposed changes to the By-Laws.

Thus, if the amendments to the Charter are approved by shareholders, all of the supermajority voting requirements in the Charter and By-Laws that are applicable to Shares will be replaced with an affirmative vote of a majority of Outstanding Shares standard.

Shareholders will vote on Proposals 2(a) and 2(b) separately, and the approval of each proposal is not conditioned on the approval of the other proposal. Approvals of Proposals 2(a) and 2(b) will each require the affirmative vote of the holders as of the record date of at least three-quarters of the Outstanding Shares. Abstentions and failures to vote will have the

same effect as votes cast against the approval of Proposal 2(a) or Proposal 2(b). Charter amendments, if approved, will not be effective until the Company files certificates of amendment with the Secretary of State of Delaware following the Annual Meeting. If shareholders do not approve Proposal 2(a) or Proposal 2(b), the related current voting requirement will remain in place.

The Board of Directors recommends, on the basis of the foregoing, that you vote FOR the approval of each of these proposals to amend the Charter.