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:

¨	Preliminary Proxy Statement	¨	Confidential, for Use of the Commission Only (as permitted by Rule 14a-6(e)(2))
x	Definitive Proxy Statement
¨	Definitive Additional Materials
¨	Soliciting Material Pursuant to Section 240.14a-12

FRANKLIN RESOURCES, INC.

(Name of Registrant as Specified In Its Charter)

(Name of Person(s) Filing Proxy Statement, if Other Than the Registrant)

Payment of Filing Fee (Check the appropriate box):

x No fee required.

¨ Fee computed on table below per Exchange Act Rules 14a-6(i)(1) and 0-11.

1) Title of each class of securities to which transaction applies:

2) Aggregate number of securities to which transaction applies:

3) Per unit price or other underlying value of transaction computed pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 0-11 (set forth the amount on which the filing fee is calculated and state how it was determined):

4) Proposed maximum aggregate value of transaction:

5) Total fee paid:

¨ Fee paid previously with preliminary materials.

¨ Check box if any part of the fee is offset as provided by Exchange Act Rule 240.0-11(a)(2) and identify the filing for which the offsetting fee was paid previously. Identify the previous filing by registration statement number, or the Form or Schedule and the date of its filing.

1) Amount Previously Paid:

2) Form, Schedule or Registration Statement No.:

3) Filing Party:

4) Date Filed: ¨

FRANKLIN RESOURCES, INC.

NOTICE OF ANNUAL MEETING OF STOCKHOLDERS

DEAR STOCKHOLDER:

The Board of Directors of Franklin Resources, Inc. (the “Company”) invites you to attend the 2013 annual meeting of stockholders (the “Annual Meeting”) to be held on Wednesday, March 13, 2013 at 10:00 a.m., Pacific Time, in the H. L. Jamieson Auditorium, at One Franklin Parkway, Building 920, San Mateo, California for the following purposes:

1. To elect the 11 nominees for director named herein to the Board of Directors to hold office until the next annual meeting of stockholders or until that person’s successor is elected and qualified or until his or her earlier death, resignation, retirement, disqualification or removal.

2. To ratify the appointment of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013.

3. To consider and vote on a stockholder proposal, if properly presented at the Annual Meeting.

4. To transact such other business that may properly be raised at the Annual Meeting or any adjournments or postponements of the Annual Meeting.

We are primarily furnishing proxy materials to our stockholders on the Internet rather than mailing paper copies of the materials to each stockholder. As a result, some of you will receive a Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials and others will receive paper copies of the Proxy Statement and our Annual Report. The Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials contains instructions on how to access the Proxy Statement and the Annual Report over the Internet, instructions on how to vote your shares, as well as instructions on how to request a paper copy of our proxy materials, if you so desire. Electronic delivery is designed to expedite the receipt of materials, significantly lower costs and help to conserve natural resources.

Whether you received the Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials or paper copies of our proxy materials, the Proxy Statement, the proxy card, the Annual Report, and any amendments to the foregoing materials that are required to be furnished to stockholders are available for you to review online at www.proxyvote.com.

The Company’s Board of Directors has fixed the close of business on January 16, 2013 as the record date for the determination of stockholders entitled to receive notice of, and to vote on, all matters presented at the Annual Meeting or any adjournments thereof. Your vote is very important. Even if you think that you will attend the Annual Meeting, we ask you to please cast your vote. You may vote your shares via the Internet, by telephone, by mail or in person at the Annual Meeting.

Attendance at the Annual Meeting will be limited to stockholders as of the record date. Each stockholder will need to provide an admission ticket or proof of ownership of the Company’s stock and valid picture identification for admission to the meeting. Admission procedures are described further on page 3 of the Proxy Statement.

By order of the Board of Directors,

MARIA GRAY

SECRETARY

JANUARY 24, 2013

SAN MATEO, CALIFORNIA

Your vote is important.

Please vote via the Internet, by telephone, by mail or in person at the Annual Meeting.

SECTION
NOTICE OF ANNUAL MEETING OF STOCKHOLDERS	COVER PAGE
PROXY STATEMENT	1
IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING THE AVAILABILITY OF PROXY MATERIALS	1
VOTING INFORMATION	1
PROPOSAL NO. 1 ELECTION OF DIRECTORS	5
GENERAL	5
NOMINEES	7
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE	14
INFORMATION ABOUT THE BOARD AND ITS COMMITTEE	18
BOARD MEETING AND ANNUAL MEETING OF STOCKHOLDERS	18
COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP AND MEETINGS	18
THE AUDIT COMMITTEE	18
THE COMPENSATION COMMITTEE	19
THE CORPORATE GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE	20
THE SPECIAL EQUITYAWARDS COMMITTEE	22
BOARD LEADERSHIP STRUCTURE	22
RISK MANAGEMENT AND THE BOARD’S ROLE IN RISK OVERSIGHT	22
DIRECTOR FEES	24
SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF PRINCIPAL STOCKHOLDERS	27
SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF MANAGEMENT	28
EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION	30
COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS	30
COMPENSATION COMMITTEE REPORT	44
SUMMARY COMPENSATION TABLE	45
GRANTS OF PLAN-BASED AWARDS (FISCAL YEAR 2012)	46
OUTSTANDING EQUITY AWARDS AT 2012 FISCAL YEAR-END	47
OPTION EXERCISES AND STOCK VESTED (FISCAL YEAR 2012)	48
POTENTIAL PAYMENTS UPON TERMINATION OR CHANGE IN CONTROL	49
COMPENSATION COMMITTEE INTERLOCKS AND INSIDER PARTICIPATION	52
REPORT OF THE AUDIT COMMITTEE	53
FEES PAID TO INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM	54
CERTAIN RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED TRANSACTIONS	56
SECTION 16(a) BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP REPORTING COMPLIANCE	59
PROPOSAL NO. 2 RATIFICATION OF THE APPOINTMENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM	60
PROPOSAL NO. 3 STOCKHOLDER PROPOSAL	61
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
STOCKHOLDER PROPOSALS AND NOMINATIONS OF DIRECTORS AT 2014 ANNUAL MEETING	64
CONTACT THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS	64
ELECTRONIC ACCESS TO PROXY MATERIALS AND DIRECTIONS	65
HOUSEHOLDING OF PROXY MATERIALS	65
THE ANNUAL REPORT	66
ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K	66

FRANKLIN RESOURCES, INC.

One Franklin Parkway

San Mateo, California 94403-1906

PROXY STATEMENT

January 24, 2013

This Proxy Statement and the accompanying Notice of Annual Meeting of Stockholders are furnished in connection with the solicitation by the Board of Directors of Franklin Resources, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), of the accompanying proxy to be voted at the 2013 annual meeting of stockholders (the “Annual Meeting”), which will be held on Wednesday, March 13, 2013, at 10:00 a.m., Pacific Time, in the H. L. Jamieson Auditorium, One Franklin Parkway, Building 920, San Mateo, California, 94403-1906, the Company’s principal executive offices. We expect that this Proxy Statement and the enclosed proxy will be mailed and/or made available to each stockholder entitled to vote on or about January 24, 2013.

All materials filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) can be obtained at the SEC’s Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20549 or through the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov. You may obtain information on the operation of the Public Reference Room by calling 1-800-SEC-0330.

IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING THE AVAILABILITY OF PROXY MATERIALS

Under the rules adopted by the SEC, we are furnishing proxy materials to our stockholders primarily over the Internet. We believe that this process should expedite stockholders’ receipt of proxy materials, lower the costs of our Annual Meeting and help to conserve natural resources. On or about January 24, 2013, we mailed to each of our stockholders (other than those who previously requested electronic or paper delivery, participants in the Franklin Templeton 401(k) Retirement Plan (the “401(k) Plan”) and holders of shares in excess of certain thresholds), a Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials containing instructions on how to access and review the proxy materials, including this Proxy Statement and our Annual Report, on the Internet and how to access a proxy card to vote on the Internet or by telephone. The Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials also contains instructions on how to receive a paper copy of the proxy materials. If you received a Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials by mail, you will not receive a printed copy of the proxy materials unless you request one. If you received paper copies of our proxy materials, you may also view these materials at www.proxyvote.com. If you received paper copies of our proxy materials and wish to receive them by electronic delivery in the future please request electronic delivery on www.proxyvote.com.

VOTING INFORMATION

WHO CAN VOTE?

Holders of the Company’s common stock, par value $0.10 per share (the “common stock”), at the close of business on January 16, 2013 (the “Record Date”) are entitled to one vote for each share owned on that date on each matter presented at the Annual Meeting. As of December 31, 2012, the Company had 212,607,328 shares of common stock outstanding. If your shares are held in a stock brokerage account or by a bank or other holder of record, you are considered the “beneficial owner” of shares held in street name. The Notice of Internet Availability of this Proxy Statement has been forwarded to you by your broker, bank or other holder of record who is considered, with respect to those shares, the stockholder of record. As the beneficial owner, you have the right to direct your broker, bank or other holder of record on how to vote your shares by using the voting instruction form included in the mailing or by following their instructions for voting by telephone or on the Internet.

WHAT MATTERS ARE TO BE CONSIDERED AT THE MEETING?

At the Annual Meeting, stockholders will be asked to consider and vote upon the: (1) election of 11 directors to the Company’s Board of Directors (the “Board of Directors” or “Board”) to hold office until the next annual meeting of stockholders or until that person’s successor is elected and qualified or until his or her earlier death, resignation, retirement, disqualification or removal; (Proposal No. 1); (2) ratification of the appointment of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013 (“fiscal year 2013”) (Proposal No. 2); and (3) a stockholder proposal entitled, “Genocide-free Investing Proposal” (Proposal No. 3).

The Board of Directors does not know of any other matter to be brought before the Annual Meeting. If any other matters properly come before the meeting, the persons named in the form of proxy or their substitutes will vote in accordance with their best judgment on such matters.

HOW MANY VOTES ARE NEEDED TO HOLD THE MEETING?

In order to take any action at the Annual Meeting, a majority of the Company’s outstanding shares as of the Record Date must be present in person or by proxy and entitled to vote at the meeting. This is called a quorum.

WHO COUNTS THE VOTES?

The voting results will be tallied by Broadridge Financial Solutions, Inc. and the Inspector of Elections, and reported on a Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC within four business days following the meeting.

WHAT IS A PROXY?

A “proxy” allows someone else (the “proxy holder”) to vote your shares on your behalf. The Board of Directors is asking you to allow any of the persons named on the proxy card (Charles B. Johnson, Chairman of the Board; Gregory E. Johnson, President and Chief Executive Officer; and Maria Gray, Vice President and Secretary) to vote your shares at the Annual Meeting.

HOW DO I VOTE?

Whether you hold shares directly as a stockholder of record or beneficially in street name, you may vote your shares without attending the Annual Meeting. You may vote by granting a proxy or, for shares held in street name, by submitting voting instructions to your bank, broker or other holder of record. You may also vote by telephone, using the Internet or by mail as outlined in the Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials or on your proxy card. Please see the Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials, your proxy card or the information your bank, broker, or other holder of record provided to you for more information on these options. Except for certain stockholders described below, the deadline for voting by telephone or by using the Internet is 11:59 p.m., Eastern Time (“ET”), on Tuesday, March 12, 2013.

The persons named as your proxy holders on the proxy card will vote the shares represented by your proxy in accordance with the specifications you make. For stockholders of record that return their proxy card but do not provide instructions on how to vote, the persons named as your proxy holders on the proxy card will vote the shares represented by the proxy FOR all nominees to the Board of Directors (Proposal No. 1); FOR the ratification of the appointment of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm (the “independent auditors”) for fiscal year 2013 (Proposal No. 2); and AGAINST the stockholder proposal entitled, “Genocide-free Investing Proposal” (Proposal No. 3). For beneficial holders that return their voting instructions but do not provide instructions on how to vote, your bank, broker or other holder of record will only have the discretion to vote on the ratification of the appointment of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as the Company’s independent auditors for fiscal 2013 (Proposal No. 2). Additionally, unless you specify otherwise on your proxy card, if any other matters come before the Annual Meeting to be voted on, the persons named as your proxy holders on the proxy card will vote, act and consent on those matters in their discretion.

2

For participants in the Franklin Templeton 401(k) Retirement Plan, your shares will be voted as you specify on your proxy card. If you do not vote, your shares will be voted by the independent fiduciary for and against the proposals in the same proportion as shares for which directions are received by the independent fiduciary, unless the independent fiduciary decides that the law requires that the independent fiduciary vote them differently. (This also means that the way you vote will also affect how the independent fiduciary will vote the shares of participants who do not vote.) If you wish to abstain from voting on any matter, you must indicate this on your proxy card. You cannot vote your 401(k) Plan shares in person at the meeting. To allow sufficient time for your shares to be voted as you instruct, the trustee must receive your vote by no later than 2:00 p.m. ET on Friday, March 8, 2013.

For participants in the Franklin Resources, Inc. amended and restated 1998 Employee Stock Investment Plan (the “ESIP”), who have shares in accounts established at Computershare, your shares will be voted by Computershare as you specify on your proxy card. If you do not designate how your shares should be voted, Computershare will only have the discretion to vote on the ratification of the appointment of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as the Company’s independent auditors for fiscal year 2013 (Proposal No. 2). You cannot vote your ESIP shares in person at the meeting. To allow sufficient time for voting, Computershare must receive your vote by no later than 2:00 p.m. ET on Friday, March 8, 2013.

CAN I CHANGE OR REVOKE MY VOTE AFTER I RETURN MY PROXY CARD?

Yes. Whether your vote is submitted via the mail, the Internet or by telephone, you may change or revoke your proxy at any time before it is voted. A proxy, including an Internet or telephone vote, may be changed or revoked by submitting another proxy with a later date at any time prior to the beginning of the Annual Meeting. You may also revoke your proxy by attending the Annual Meeting and voting in person. Participants in the 401(k) Plan and those holding shares purchased through the ESIP, which are held in accounts with Computershare, may revoke their proxy by no later than 2:00 p.m. ET on Friday, March 8, 2013.

CAN I VOTE IN PERSON AT THE ANNUAL MEETING INSTEAD OF VOTING BY PROXY?

Yes. Please see requirements for attending the Annual Meeting below. However, we encourage you to complete and return the enclosed proxy card to ensure that your shares are represented and voted. Beneficial owners must obtain a “legal proxy” from your bank, broker or other holder of record that holds your shares in order to vote your shares at the meeting. Participants in the 401(k) Plan and those holding shares purchased through the ESIP, which are held in accounts with Computershare must vote by no later than 2:00 p.m. ET on Friday, March 8, 2013 and may not vote at the Annual Meeting.

WHO MAY ATTEND THE ANNUAL MEETING?

Attendance at the Annual Meeting is limited to stockholders as of the record date. You will need to provide proof of ownership to enter the Annual Meeting. If your shares are held beneficially in the name of a bank, broker or other holder of record you must present proof, such as a bank or brokerage account statement, of your ownership of common stock as of January 16, 2013, to be admitted to the Annual Meeting. For holders of record, please bring either the admission ticket attached to your proxy card or your Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials. At the Annual Meeting, representatives of the Company will confirm your stockholder status. Stockholders must also present a form of photo identification such as a driver’s license or passport to be admitted to the Annual Meeting. No cameras, recording equipment, electronic devices, bags, briefcases, packages or similar items will be permitted at the Annual Meeting.

HOW ARE VOTES COUNTED?

To be counted as “represented”, a proxy card must have been returned for those shares, the stockholder must have voted the shares by telephone or over the Internet, or the stockholder must be present at the meeting. Votes will be tabulated by Broadridge Financial Solutions, Inc. and the Inspector of Elections appointed for the meeting. Affirmative and negative votes, abstentions and broker non-votes will be separately tabulated.

3

WHAT IS A BROKER NON-VOTE?

A “broker non-vote” occurs when a bank, broker or other holder of record holding shares for a beneficial owner does not vote on a particular proposal because the nominee does not have authority to vote on that particular proposal without receiving voting instructions from the beneficial owner. Under New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) rules, the ratification of the selection of an independent registered public accounting firm (Proposal No. 2), is considered a “routine” matter, and brokers generally may vote on behalf of beneficial owners who have not furnished voting instructions, subject to the rules of the NYSE concerning transmission of proxy materials to beneficial owners, and subject to any proxy voting policies and procedures of those brokerage firms. Brokers may not vote on the election of directors or the stockholder proposal, which are considered “non-routine” proposals, unless they have received voting instructions from the beneficial owner, and to the extent that they have not received voting instructions, brokers report such number of shares as “non-votes”.

WHAT IS THE VOTING REQUIREMENT TO APPROVE EACH OF THE PROPOSALS?

• The election of directors (Proposal No. 1) requires that a director receive a majority of the votes cast with respect to that director at the Annual Meeting. This means that the number of shares of stock voted “FOR” a director must exceed the number of votes cast “AGAINST” that director. Abstentions and broker non-votes will not have any effect on the election of directors.

• The affirmative vote of the holders of shares of common stock, having a majority of the votes present in person or represented by proxy at the Annual Meeting and entitled to vote on the matter, are necessary to ratify the appointment of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (Proposal No. 2). Abstentions will have the same effect as a vote against this proposal.

• The affirmative vote of the holders of shares of common stock, having a majority of the votes present in person or represented by proxy at the Annual Meeting and entitled to vote on the matter, are necessary to approve the stockholder proposal entitled, “Genocide-free Investing Proposal” (Proposal No. 3). Abstentions will have the same effect as a vote against this proposal.

Shares that are voted in person or by proxy are treated as being present at the meeting for purposes of establishing a quorum, and will be included in determining the number of shares represented and voted at the Annual Meeting with respect to such matter. Broker non-votes will be counted for purposes of determining the presence or absence of a quorum for the transaction of business. If the persons present or represented by proxy at the Annual Meeting constitute the holders of less than a majority of the outstanding shares of common stock as of the record date, the Annual Meeting may be adjourned to a subsequent date for the purpose of obtaining a quorum.

WHO PAYS FOR THIS PROXY SOLICITATION?

Your proxy is being solicited by the Board on behalf of the Company. The Company pays the cost of soliciting your proxy and reimburses brokerage costs and other fees for forwarding proxy materials to you.

4

PROPOSAL NO. 1

ELECTION OF DIRECTORS

GENERAL

The Corporate Governance Committee of the Board recommended and nominated, and the Board approved, the nominees named below for election as members of the Board. With the exception of Peter K. Barker who was recommended to the Board by the Corporate Governance Committee and who is standing for election for the first time, each director nominee was elected by the Company’s stockholders at the Company’s last annual meeting of stockholders and, accordingly, is standing for re-election. Mr. Barker was recommended to the Corporation Governance Committee by several of the Company’s independent and employee directors. One current director, Joseph R. Hardiman who has been a member of the Board since 2005, will not be standing for re-election at the meeting, since under our Corporate Governance Guidelines he is not eligible to be recommended for nomination as a director due to his age. Peter K. Barker, a first-time director nominee, is expected to retire from JPMorgan Chase & Co. (“JPMorgan”) on or before January 31, 2013. If Mr. Barker’s association with JPMorgan has not been severed by the time of the Annual Meeting, his nomination for election as a director will be withdrawn.

The Corporate Governance Committee and the Board believe that the nominees have the requisite experience, qualifications, attributes and skills to provide the Company with effective oversight of a global investment management organization. The Corporate Governance Committee and the Board believe that there are general requirements and skills that are required of each director and other skills and experience that should be represented on the Board as a whole but not necessarily by each director. The Board believes that, consistent with these requirements, each nominee displays a high degree of personal and professional integrity, an ability to exercise sound business judgment on a broad range of issues, sufficient experience and background to have an appreciation of the issues facing our Company, a willingness to devote the necessary time to board duties, a commitment to representing the best interest of the Company and its stockholders and a dedication to enhancing stockholder value. The Board seeks to assemble a group of directors that, as a whole, represents a mix of experiences and skills that allows appropriate deliberation on all issues that the Board might be likely to consider. The Corporate Governance Committee’s Policy Regarding Nominations and Qualifications of Directors described below outlines the qualities that the Corporate Governance Committee and the Board seek in director nominees.

If elected, each nominee will serve until the next annual meeting of stockholders or until that person’s successor is elected and qualified or until his or her earlier death, resignation, retirement, disqualification or removal.

In accordance with the Company’s Director Independence Standards, described more fully below, and the rules of the NYSE, the Board has affirmatively determined that it is currently composed of a majority of independent directors, and that the following director nominees are independent and do not have a material relationship with the Company: Samuel H. Armacost; Peter K. Barker; Charles Crocker; Mark C. Pigott; Chutta Ratnathicam; Laura Stein; Anne M. Tatlock; and Geoffrey Y. Yang. In addition, Joseph R. Hardiman, who will continue to be a member of the Board until his expected retirement at the Annual Meeting, is an independent director. With respect to first-time nominee Peter K. Barker, whose nomination is contingent on the severance of his employment relationship with JP Morgan, in determining his independence the Board considered his status as an employee of JPMorgan and payments made by the Company and its affiliates to JPMorgan in the fiscal year ended September 30, 2012 (“fiscal year 2012”) for brokerage services, custody fees, the registration of one of our subsidiaries with the India securities authority, charges related to the Franklin Templeton funds’ global line of credit, and the issuance of debt securities of the Company. Also with respect to Mr. Barker, the Corporate Governance Committee considered payments for legal and filing fees related to visas and work permits during fiscal year 2012 to Fragomen, Del Ray, Bersen and Loewy, LLP, (“Fragomen”), a global immigration law firm, at which Mr. Barker’s brother is a partner. The Company’s use of Fragomen’s services is managed through the human resources group which handles visa and work permit matters for our employees. The Company has used the services of Fragomen since 2008 and Mr. Barker’s brother does not personally provide services to the Company. Mr. Barker does not have a direct or indirect material interest in any of these transactions.

5

MAJORITY VOTING FOR DIRECTORS

The Company’s Amended and Restated Bylaws provide for majority voting in the election of directors. This means that, in uncontested elections, directors are elected by a majority of the votes cast. Consequently, the number of shares voted “for” a director must exceed the number of shares voted “against” that director. In a contested election (a situation in which the number of nominees exceeds the number of directors to be elected), the standard for election of directors will be a plurality of the shares represented in person or by proxy at any such meeting and entitled to vote on the election of directors.

Pursuant to the Company’s Corporate Governance Guidelines, the Corporate Governance Committee has established procedures for director resignation in situations where a director fails to receive a majority of votes cast in his or her election. The Company’s Corporate Governance Guidelines provide that, in the event a director fails to be elected, the Corporate Governance Committee will then make a recommendation to the Board on whether to accept or reject the resignation, or whether other action should be taken. The Board will act on the Corporate Governance Committee’s recommendation within 90 days following certification of the election results. In determining whether or not to recommend that the Board accept any resignation offer, the Corporate Governance Committee may consider all factors believed relevant by such committee’s members. Unless applicable to all directors, the director whose resignation is under consideration is expected to recuse himself or herself from the Board vote. The Board will promptly disclose its decision regarding the director’s resignation offer (including the reason(s) for rejecting the resignation offer, if applicable) in a Form 8-K filed with the SEC. If the Board accepts a director’s resignation pursuant to this process, the Corporate Governance Committee will recommend to the Board whether to fill the vacancy created or reduce the size of the Board.

6

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD

The Board recommends a vote “FOR” the election to the Board of each of the nominees listed below. The voting requirements for this proposal are described in the “Voting Information” section above.

NOMINEES

Listed below are the names, ages as of December 31, 2012, and principal occupations and membership on public boards for the past five years of each director and nominee. In addition, we have also provided information concerning the particular experience, qualification, attributes and/or skills that the Corporate Governance Committee and the Board considered as relevant to each director and nominee that led to the conclusion that he or she should serve as a director.

Samuel H. Armacost Age 73 Director Since 2004

Chairman Emeritus and Director of the Board of SRI International (formerly Stanford Research Institute), an independent nonprofit technology research and development organization since March, 2010. A member of SRI International’s Board of Directors since 1981, Chairman of the Board from 1998 until March, 2010. Managing Director, Weiss, Peck & Greer LLC, an investment management and venture capital firm, from 1990 until 1998 and Merrill Lynch Capital Markets from 1987 until 1990. President, Director and Chief Executive Officer, BankAmerica Corporation from 1981 until 1986. Previously director of Chevron Corporation and Del Monte Foods Company. Director, Exponent, Inc. and Callaway Golf Company.

Key Attributes, Experience and Skills:

Mr. Armacost has long-term experience and wide-ranging expertise in the Company’s business. Having held various positions for over 22 years with Bank of America and BankAmerica Corporation, including Chief Financial Officer and President and Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Armacost brings strong leadership skills and a valuable perspective on financial, operational and strategic matters to the Board. As a Partner and Managing Director for eight years of Weiss, Peck & Greer LLC, Mr. Armacost was closely involved in the management, sales, and marketing of institutional asset management accounts and various mutual funds. Through his Bank of America service and his participation on the boards of a number of multinational public companies including Chevron Corporation and Del Monte Foods Company, Mr. Armacost brings a deep understanding of issues associated with our operations in multiple jurisdictions.

7

Peter K. Barker Age 64 Nominee

California Chairman of JPMorgan Chase & Co., a global financial services firm, since 2009. Mr. Barker has announced his intention to retire from JPMorgan on or before January 31, 2013. His nomination is subject to his no longer being employed by JPMorgan by the time of the Annual Meeting. From 1971 until his retirement in 2003 affiliated with Goldman Sachs & Co., serving as a general partner from 1982 to 1998. Director, Avery Dennison Corp and Fluor Corp.

Key Attributes, Experience and Skills:

Mr. Barker’s significant financial expertise would provide the Board with valuable perspectives on international financial, investment management and banking matters. During his 40 plus years of experience with Goldman, Sachs & Co., and JP Morgan Chase & Co., during which he has served in numerous leadership roles, including as head of Goldman Sach’s investment banking activities on the West Coast, he developed a deep understanding of capital structure, strategic planning, mergers and acquisitions and wide-ranging management expertise. Mr. Barker’s current and prior service on the boards of several private and public companies as well as with non-profit organizations including the W.M. Keck Foundation and Claremont McKenna College would provide our Board with the benefit of his perspectives on business, corporate governance and citizenship.

Charles Crocker Age 73 Director Since 2003

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Crocker Capital; a private venture capital firm, formerly Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and a director from October 1997 to March 2006 of BEI Technologies, Inc., a manufacturer of electronic sensors and motion control products and a subsidiary of Schneider Electric SA; President of BEI Technologies, Inc., a diversified technology company, from October 1997 to May 2000. Previously director of Conmed Healthcare Management. Director, Teledyne Technologies Incorporated and ImageWare Systems, Inc.

Key Attributes, Experience and Skills:

Mr. Crocker’s experience as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Crocker Capital provides valuable financial and management expertise as well as knowledge of the capital markets to the Board. As an entrepreneur, Mr. Crocker founded and built two companies, enabling him to provide strategic direction and growth expertise to the Company. Through his service in leadership roles in major not-for-profit institutions, he provides valuable business, leadership and client service perspectives to the Board. Mr. Crocker has a deep understanding of compensation and finance matters gained through his current and prior service on the audit and compensation committees of public and private companies, including ours.

8

Charles B. Johnson Age 79 Director Since 1969

Chairman of the Board of the Company since December 1999; formerly, Chief Executive Officer of the Company; officer and/or director of certain subsidiaries of the Company; officer and/or director or trustee of various investment companies managed or advised by subsidiaries of the Company.

Key Attributes, Experience and Skills:

Mr. C. B. Johnson is widely regarded as a distinguished leader in the asset management industry. He has been with the Company for over 50 years, having grown the Company from one with assets under management (“AUM”) of $2.5 million to one with AUM of over $781 billion at the end of December 2012. As Chairman of the Board and a former Chief Executive Officer of the Company and an officer, director or trustee of various subsidiaries and Franklin Templeton mutual funds, Mr. Johnson brings to the Board an incomparable knowledge of and experience with the Company and its business as well as valuable leadership and management experience. Under his stewardship, the Company acquired the Mutual Series and Templeton organizations, strategic decisions that have been critical components of the Company’s growth and entry into international markets. In his role as Chairman of the Board for more than a decade, he has guided the Board in performing its oversight functions and has provided a critical link between management and the Board. In addition, through his prior service as the Chairman of the National Association of Securities Dealers (the NASD, currently known as FINRA), various committees and the board of the NASD, and on the Board of Governors of the Investment Company Institute, Mr. Johnson brings significant insights on the regulatory and policy issues that companies in our industry face. Mr. Johnson is a member of the Board of Overseers of the Hoover Institution and several civic and cultural institutions. Having Mr. C. B. Johnson as Chairman of the Board provides our Company with ethical, decisive and effective leadership.

Gregory E. Johnson Age 51 Director Since 2007

President of the Company since December 1999 and Chief Executive Officer of the Company since January 2004; officer and/or director of certain subsidiaries of the Company.

Key Attributes, Experience and Skills:

Mr. G. Johnson brings leadership and extensive business and operating experience, as well as significant knowledge of our Company and the global fund management industry, to the Board. Mr. G. Johnson is a certified public accountant and prior to joining the Company, was a senior accountant with Coopers & Lybrand. Over his 26-year tenure with the Company, Mr. G. Johnson has held officer and director positions with various subsidiaries of the Company, hands-on experience that provides him with in-depth knowledge of the Company’s operations. Mr. G. Johnson’s presence on the Board provides a crucial link between the Board and management and also provides the Board with management’s current perspectives on the Company’s business and strategic vision for the Company. Mr. G. Johnson’s service on various boards of industry organizations, including the Investment Company Institute’s Board of Governors, also provides the Board with the benefit of additional perspectives on industry developments, including regulatory and policy issues. He is currently serving as the Chairman of the Investment Company Institute.

9

Rupert H. Johnson, Jr. Age 72 Director Since 1969

Vice Chairman of the Company since December 1999; officer and/or director of certain subsidiaries of the Company; officer and/or director or trustee of various investment companies managed or advised by subsidiaries of the Company.

Key Attributes, Experience and Skills:

Mr. R. Johnson’s service as Vice Chairman of the Company and as an officer, director or trustee of various subsidiaries of the Company and Franklin Templeton mutual funds since its inception provide the Board with significant knowledge of and insights into the Company and the global fund management industry in which we operate. His fundamental knowledge of the Company gained over 47 years give him an important perspective on the Company and provides significant leadership, business and operational expertise to the Board. Mr. Johnson has served on various industry boards and committees addressing investment company issues including the Board of Governors of the Investment Company Institute. In his capacity with the Company, he has served as Director of Research and is a portfolio manager for one of its funds. He provides the Board with a unique perspective on critical components of the Company’s business.

Mark C. Pigott Age 58 Director since 2011

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of PACCAR Inc, a global technology company in the capital goods and financial services industries, since January 1997. Formerly, Vice Chairman from January 1995 to December 1996, Executive Vice President from December 1993 to January 1995, Senior Vice President from January 1990 to December 1993, and Vice President from October 1988 to December 1989, of PACCAR. Director, PACCAR Inc.

Key Attributes, Experience and Skills:

Mr. Pigott’s experience as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of PACCAR Inc, a Fortune 200 company, provides the Board with valuable perspectives on financial, operational and strategic matters. Mr. Pigott has been recognized several times as one of the 10 Best CEOs by Forbes magazine. Under his leadership, PACCAR has generated superior long term shareholder returns and received 30 J.D. Power Customer Satisfaction Awards. He brings substantial expertise in the areas of client service and customer satisfaction. As the leader of a major global company, Mr. Pigott has a deep understanding of issues associated with operating in multiple jurisdictions. His service on several boards including the Business Council, the Royal Shakespeare Company America and the PACCAR Foundation, as well as his service on the board of PACCAR, provides our Board with the benefit of his views on business, corporate governance and citizenship, finance and compensation matters.

10

Chutta Ratnathicam Age 65 Director Since 2003

Retired Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of CNF Inc., a freight transportation, logistics, supply chain management and trailer manufacturing company, from 1997 to March 2005; formerly, Chief Executive Officer of the Emery Worldwide reporting segment of CNF from September 2000 to December 2001.

Key Attributes, Experience and Skills:

Mr. Ratnathicam’s experience of over 27 years in various accounting, finance and executive management roles, including as the Chief Financial Officer at CNF, Inc., provides the Board with significant expertise in the areas of finance, accounting, strategic planning and auditing. Mr. Ratnathicam has held finance and other management positions internationally, and has a keen understanding of the issues facing a multinational business such as the Company. He is on the Advisory Board of the California State University East Bay School of Business and Namaste Direct, a micro finance organization, and qualifies as an “audit committee financial expert” under the rules and regulations of the SEC.

Laura Stein Age 51 Director Since 2005

Senior Vice President—General Counsel of The Clorox Company, a leading marketer and manufacturer of consumer products, since January 2005; formerly, Senior Vice President and General Counsel of H.J. Heinz Company, a global marketer and manufacturer of branded food products, from 2000 to 2005.

Key Attributes, Experience and Skills:

As general counsel of two multinational corporations, with responsibility for legal, compliance, corporate governance, risk management and internal audit, among other matters, Ms. Stein brings expertise in these critical areas to the Board. Ms. Stein speaks six languages and has lived in non-US jurisdictions, bringing a global perspective and experience. She has a deep understanding of financial statements, corporate finance, and accounting. In addition, Ms. Stein’s leadership and service on the boards of non-profit organizations including Corporate Pro Bono, Equal Justice Works and the Leadership Council on Legal Diversity also provide the Board with the benefit of additional perspectives on diversity and corporate citizenship.

11

Anne M. Tatlock Age 73 Director Since December 21, 2004; Previously, Director from 2001 to Early December  2004

Vice Chairman of the Company from March 2001 to January 2007; Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer from 2000 to 2006 and a director of Fiduciary Trust Company International, a subsidiary of the Company; formerly, President of Fiduciary Trust Company International and director of other subsidiaries of the Company. Previously director of Beam Inc., Fortune Brands, Inc. and Merck & Co. Inc.

Key Attributes, Experience Skills:

As a former Vice Chairman of the Company and the former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Fiduciary Trust Company International, a bank subsidiary of the Company, Ms. Tatlock brings strong leadership skills and a wealth of knowledge of and experience with our Company to the Board, including valuable insights on the complex regulatory and banking issues the Company faces. She is a respected investment advisor and heads or serves on the investment committees of numerous entities, including the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, American Ballet Theatre, the Bloomberg Family Foundation, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, the Mayo Clinic and the National September 11 Memorial & Museum at the World Trade Center. She retired as of September 2012 as the Chairman of the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. Ms. Tatlock provides the Board the benefit of her substantial expertise in the areas of executive compensation and corporate governance from her long tenures on the boards and various committees of Fortune Brands, Inc. and Merck & Co., Inc. as well as several non-profit organizations.

Geoffrey Y. Yang Age 53 Director since 2011

Managing Director and Founding Partner of Redpoint Ventures, a private equity and venture capital firm, since 1999. Formerly, General Partner with Institutional Venture Partners from 1987 to 1999. Mr. Yang is a past president of the Western Association of Venture Capitalists, director of the National Venture Capital Association, chairman of the Stanford Engineering Fund, and a member of the President’s Information Technology Advisory Committee. Previously director of BigBand Networks and TiVo, Inc.

Key Attributes, Experience and Skills:

Mr. Yang’s experience as a Founding Partner and Managing Director of Redpoint Ventures provides the Board with valuable perspectives on financial and strategic matters as well as expertise in the capital markets. Since joining the venture capital business in 1985, Mr. Yang has helped start many media and infrastructure companies, including Ask Jeeves, Excite and MySpace. This experience provides strategic direction, growth and technology expertise to the Company. Mr. Yang’s current and prior service on the boards of several private and public companies as well as with non-profit organizations including the Advisory Council for the Stanford Graduate School of Business and the U.S. Golf Association, provides our Board with the benefit of his perspectives on business, corporate governance and citizenship, and finance.

12

FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS

Charles B. Johnson, the Chairman of the Board and a director of the Company, and Rupert H. Johnson, Jr., Vice Chairman and a director of the Company, are brothers. Gregory E. Johnson, the President and Chief Executive Officer and a director of the Company, is the son of Charles B. Johnson, the nephew of Rupert H. Johnson, Jr. and the brother of Jennifer M. Johnson, the Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer. Jennifer M. Johnson is the daughter of Charles B. Johnson, the niece of Rupert H. Johnson, Jr. and the sister of Gregory E. Johnson.

13

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

The Company regularly monitors regulatory developments and reviews its policies, processes and procedures in the area of corporate governance to respond to such developments. As part of those efforts, we review federal laws affecting corporate governance, as well as corporate governance-related rules adopted by the SEC and the NYSE.

Corporate Governance Guidelines. The Board has adopted Corporate Governance Guidelines, which are posted in the corporate governance section of the Company’s website at www.franklinresources.com (the “Company’s website”). The Corporate Governance Guidelines set forth the practices the Board follows with respect to, among other things, the composition of the Board, director responsibilities, Board committees, director access to officers, employees and independent advisors, director compensation, director orientation and continuing education, management succession and performance evaluation of the Board.

Code of Ethics and Business Conduct. The Board has adopted a Code of Ethics and Business Conduct, which is applicable to all employees, directors and officers of the Company and its subsidiaries and affiliates. The Code of Ethics and Business Conduct is posted in the corporate governance section of the Company’s website. The Company also has a Compliance and Ethics Hotline, where employees can report a violation of the Code of Ethics and Business Conduct or anonymously submit a complaint concerning auditing, accounting or securities law matters. We intend to satisfy the disclosure requirement regarding any amendment to or a waiver of, a provision of the Code of Ethics and Business Conduct for the Company’s principal executive officer, principal financial officer, principal accounting officer and controller, or persons performing similar functions, by posting such information on the Company’s website.

Director Independence Standards. The Board has adopted guidelines for determining whether a director is independent, which are available on the Company’s website. The Board will monitor and review as necessary, but at least once annually, commercial, charitable, family and other relationships that directors have with the Company to determine whether the Company’s directors are independent.

For a director to be considered independent, the Board must determine affirmatively that the director does not have material relationships with the Company either directly or as a partner, stockholder or officer of an organization that has a relationship with the Company. Such determination will be made and disclosed pursuant to applicable NYSE or other applicable rules. A material relationship can include, but is not limited to, commercial, industrial, banking, consulting, legal, accounting, charitable and family relationships. The Board has established the following guidelines to assist it in determining whether a director does not have material relationships and thereby qualifies as independent:

A. A director will not be independent if, at any time within the preceding three years (unless otherwise specified below):

1. (a) the director was employed by the Company; or

(b) an immediate family member¹ of the director was employed by the Company as an executive officer² of the Company;

2. the director (or an immediate family member of the director who in the capacity of an executive officer of the Company) received direct compensation from the Company (other than for prior service as a director, or as pension or deferred compensation) of more than $120,000 in any 12-month period;

¹  An immediate family member includes a spouse, parent, child, sibling, father- and mother-in-law, son- and daughter-in-law, brother- and sister-in-law and anyone (other than a domestic employee) sharing the director’s home.

²  An executive officer means a Section 16 reporting person under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

14

3. (a) the director or an immediate family member of the director is currently a partner of the Company’s internal auditor or external independent auditor;

(b) the director is currently employed by the Company’s internal auditor or external independent auditor;

(c) an immediate family member of the director is currently employed by the Company’s internal auditor or external independent auditor and personally works on the Company’s audit; or

(d) the director or an immediate family member of the director was formerly employed by or a partner of the Company’s internal auditor or external independent auditor and personally worked on the Company’s audit within that time;

4. the director or an immediate family member of the director was employed by another company and an executive officer of the Company served on the compensation committee of such other company; or

5. (a) the director is an employee of a company that made payments to or received payments from the Company for property or services, in any single fiscal year, of more than the greater of $1.0 million or 2% of the other company’s consolidated gross revenues;

(b) an immediate family member of the director is an executive officer of a company that made payments to or received payments from the Company for property or services, in any single fiscal year, of more than the greater of $1.0 million or 2% of the Company’s consolidated gross revenues; or

(c) the director or an immediate family member of the director serves as an officer, director or trustee of a tax exempt organization, and the Company’s contributions to the organization, in any single fiscal year, are more than the greater of $3.0 million or 5% of that organization’s consolidated gross revenues.

B. The following relationships are not by themselves considered to be material and would not by themselves impair a director’s independence:

1. a director (or an immediate family member of the director) serves as an executive officer, employee, partner or significant owner (more than 10%) of a company that made payments to or received payments from the Company, in any single fiscal year, of less than the greater of $1.0 million or 2% of the consolidated gross revenues of the other entity;

2. a director is an executive officer of another company, which is indebted to the Company, or to which the Company is indebted, and the total amount of either company’s indebtedness to the other, in any single fiscal year, is less than 2% of the total consolidated assets of the other company;

3. a director (or an immediate family member of a director) serves as an officer, director or trustee of a tax exempt organization, and the Company’s contributions to the organization, in any single fiscal year, are more than the greater of $1.0 million or 2% of that organization’s consolidated gross revenues, provided that such contributions do not exceed the limits set forth in Paragraph A.5(c) above and that disclosure is made in the Company’s annual proxy statement;

4. a director serves or served as a director of a subsidiary, which is a privately held, wholly-owned, direct or indirect subsidiary of the Company;

5. a director or an immediate family member of a director has entered into a transaction(s) with the Company or any affiliate of the Company in which the transaction(s) involves services as a bank depositary of funds, transfer agent, registrar, trustee under a trust indenture or similar services, provided the terms of such transaction(s) are not preferential to the terms for similar transactions by the Company or affiliate of the Company in the ordinary course;

6. a director or an immediate family member of a director maintains a banking, trading, investment management, custody or other account with an affiliate of the Company, provided the terms of such account are generally the same as or similar to accounts offered by the affiliate of the Company in the ordinary course; or

15

7. the Company or any affiliate of the Company extends or maintains credit, arranges for the extension of credit, or renews an extension of credit, in the form of a personal home improvement or manufactured home loan, consumer credit, any extension of credit under an open end credit plan or a charge card to a director or an immediate family member of a director, if such loan, consumer credit, extension of credit or charge card otherwise is permitted to such director or immediate family member of a director under the terms of Section 402 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which was codified as Section 13(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

C. For all relationships not specifically and clearly addressed by the guidelines above, the determination of whether or not a director has a material relationship, and therefore whether or not the director qualifies as independent or not, shall be made by the Board based on the totality of circumstances.

Policy Regarding Multiple Board Memberships. The Board has adopted, upon the recommendation of the Corporate Governance Committee, a policy regarding memberships on boards of directors or equivalent governance bodies of unaffiliated publicly traded companies or other entities. If a member of the Board also serves as the principal executive officer, such as the Chief Executive Officer or President, of a publicly traded company, it is the policy of the Board that such Board member shall not accept membership on a board of directors or equivalent governance body of another publicly traded company, without first informing and obtaining the consent of the Company’s Corporate Governance Committee, if such new membership would result in the member serving contemporaneously on three or more boards of directors or equivalent governance bodies of unaffiliated publicly traded companies, excluding the Company’s Board. If a member of the Board does not serve as a principal executive officer, such as a Chief Executive Officer or President, of a publicly traded company, it is the policy of the Board that such Board member shall not accept membership on a board of directors or equivalent governance body of another publicly traded company, without first informing and obtaining the consent of the Company’s Corporate Governance Committee, if such new membership would result in the member serving contemporaneously on four or more boards of directors or equivalent governance bodies of publicly traded companies, excluding the Company’s Board.

Policy Regarding Change in Principal Employment of Director. When a director’s principal employment or business association changes significantly during his or her tenure as a director, that director shall offer his or her resignation for consideration by the Board of Directors. The Corporate Governance Committee, on behalf of the Board of Directors, will evaluate the change in circumstances and will recommend to the Board the action, if any, to be taken. The Corporate Governance Committee will review each situation on an individual basis and take into consideration such matters as the Committee deems appropriate, such as the background and expertise of the director and the contribution the director is expected to make to the Board given the change in circumstances. The Board, in its sole discretion, shall determine whether or not to accept the director’s offer of resignation.

Prohibition against Hedging Transactions. Pursuant to the Company’s Code of Ethics and Business Conduct, which is applicable to all employees, temporary employees, directors and officers of the Company and its subsidiaries and affiliates, short sales of securities, including “short sales against the box” (i.e. a short sale by the holder of a long position in the same stock) of securities issued by Franklin Resources, Inc., and securities issued by any closed-end fund sponsored or advised by the Company are prohibited. This prohibition also applies to effecting economically equivalent transactions, including, but not limited to purchasing and selling call or put options and swap transactions or other derivatives that would result in a net short exposure to the Company or any closed-end fund sponsored or advised by the Company.

Stock Ownership Guidelines. As a significant ownership interest by directors in the Company tends to align the interests of members of the Board with the interests of the Company’s stockholders, all directors on the Board were expected to own by December 16, 2010 or, if the director joined the Board after that date, within five years after first joining the Board, shares of common stock of the Company with a value of at least $250,000. Similarly, as a significant ownership interest by certain senior officers in the Company tends to align the interests of members of management of the Company with the Company’s stockholders and to strengthen the link

16

between long-term Company performance and executive compensation, the following senior officers of the Company are expected to own shares of common stock of the Company with a value equal to a specific multiple of such senior officer’s base salary, as indicated in the table below, by the later of December 31, 2010 or five years from when he or she first assumed the particular senior officer position for which stock ownership is expected:

Senior Officer Level	Market Value of Shares Owned as a Multiple of Base Salary
Chairman	5X
Vice Chairman	5X
President and/or Chief Executive Officer	5X
Executive Vice President	4X
Senior Vice President	3X

Both direct and certain indirect forms of ownership are recognized in achieving these guidelines, including shares owned outright, restricted stock, restricted stock units, 401(k) funds invested in shares of the Company’s stock, and funds deemed invested in shares of common stock under the Directors deferred compensation plan. Shares of common stock held by immediate family members (which includes a director’s or senior officer’s spouse, children and parents) or entities controlled by a director or senior officer may be considered holdings of the director or senior officer for purposes of the guidelines only and not as an admission of beneficial ownership for any other purpose. As of December 31, 2012, all directors and officers were in compliance with these guidelines.

17

INFORMATION ABOUT THE BOARD AND ITS COMMITTEES

BOARD MEETINGS AND ANNUAL MEETING OF STOCKHOLDERS

During fiscal year 2012, the Board held five meetings (not including committee meetings). For fiscal year 2012, the directors attended 98.2% of the aggregate of the total number of meetings held by the Board and the total number of meetings held by all committees of the Board on which a Director served during the periods that he or she served.

During fiscal year 2012, the Board had an Audit Committee, a Compensation Committee and a Corporate Governance Committee. To promote open discussion among the independent directors, the independent directors meet in executive session at least two times per year and generally meet in executive session after regularly scheduled Board meetings. Charles Crocker, an independent director, has been appointed to preside at the executive sessions of the independent directors. The Board encourages directors to attend the annual meeting of stockholders. All of the eleven directors then standing for election attended last year’s annual meeting in person.

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP AND MEETINGS

The current standing committees of the Board are the Audit Committee, the Compensation Committee, the Corporate Governance Committee and the Special Equity Awards Committee. The table below provides current membership and meeting information.

	Audit		Compensation		Corporate Governance		Special Equity Awards
Samuel H. Armacost		—		M		M		—
Charles Crocker		M		C		—		—
Joseph R. Hardiman		—		M		C		—
Gregory E. Johnson		—		—		—		M
Mark C. Pigott		—		M		—		—
Chutta Ratnathicam		C		—		—		—
Laura Stein		M		—		—		—
Anne M. Tatlock		—		—		M		—
Geoffrey Y. Yang		M		—		—		—
Fiscal year 2012 Meetings		8		6		5		—	*

M—Member

C—Chairman

* Mr. G. Johnson is the sole member of the Special Equity Awards Committee. This Committee takes actions by written consent in lieu of meeting.

Below is a description of each standing committee of the Board. The Board has affirmatively determined that each of these standing committees (other than the Special Equity Awards Committee) consists entirely of independent directors pursuant to rules established by the NYSE, rules promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the Director Independence Standards established by the Board. See “Director Independence Standards” above. The Board has also determined that each member of the Audit Committee is independent under the criteria established by the NYSE and the SEC for audit committee members.

THE AUDIT COMMITTEE

Established in accordance with Section 3(a)(58)(A) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Audit Committee currently consists of Messrs. Ratnathicam (Chairman), Crocker and Yang and Ms. Stein.

The primary purpose of the Audit Committee is to assist the Board in fulfilling its responsibility to oversee: (1) the Company’s financial reporting, auditing and internal control activities, including the integrity of the

18

Company’s financial statements; (2) the Company’s compliance with legal and regulatory requirements; (3) the independent auditors’ qualifications and independence; and (4) the performance of the Company’s internal audit function and independent auditors. The Audit Committee also prepares the report the Audit Committee is required to include in the Company’s annual proxy statement. In addition, the Audit Committee is responsible for the appointment, compensation, retention and oversight of the work of the independent auditors, including approval of all services and fees of the independent auditors. The Audit Committee meets with the Company’s independent auditors and reviews the scope of their audit, the related reports and any recommendations they may make. The Audit Committee also reviews the annual audited financial statements for the Company. In addition, the Audit Committee assists the Board in the oversight of the Company’s risk management processes (as described more fully below under the “Risk Management and the Board’s Role in Risk Oversight”).

The Audit Committee operates under a written charter adopted by the Board. The Audit Committee reviews and reassesses the adequacy of its charter annually and recommends any proposed changes to the Board for approval. The Audit Committee met 8 times during fiscal year 2012. The Audit Committee Charter is posted in the corporate governance section of the Company’s website at www.franklinresources.com/corp/pages/generic_content/corporate_governance/audit_committee_charter.jsf. The Board has determined that all Audit Committee members are financially literate under the NYSE listing standards and that Mr.  Chutta Ratnathicam, an independent director, is an audit committee financial expert within the meaning of the rules of the SEC.

THE COMPENSATION COMMITTEE

The Compensation Committee currently consists of Messrs. Crocker (Chairman), Armacost, Hardiman and Pigott. The Compensation Committee oversees the establishment of goals and objectives related to Chief Executive Officer compensation, determines the compensation level of the Chief Executive Officer, assists the Board in fulfilling its responsibility relating to the compensation (and related benefits) of the executive officers of the Company, discharges the responsibilities of the Board relating to compensation of the Company’s executives and prepares the annual report on executive officer compensation for the Company’s proxy statement. The Committee also reviews and discusses with management proposed Compensation Discussion and Analysis disclosure and determines whether to recommend it to the Board for inclusion in the Company’s proxy statement. In addition, the Compensation Committee reviews and approves compensation arrangements and deferred compensation agreements between the Company and members of its Board of Directors. The Compensation Committee may delegate any of its responsibilities to subcommittees as it deems appropriate.

The Compensation Committee generally follows the following processes and procedures in connection with the consideration and determination of the compensation of the Company’s executive officers and directors.

Determination of Executive Compensation. The Compensation Committee meets periodically throughout the year to (i) review and approve corporate goals and objectives relevant to the compensation of the executive officers, (ii) evaluate the performance of the executive officers in light of those goals and objectives, and (iii) determine and approve the compensation of the executive officers. For a detailed description regarding the Compensation Committee’s role in setting executive compensation, including the role of executive officers in the process, see “Executive Compensation—Compensation Discussion and Analysis” below.

Determination of Director Compensation. The Compensation Committee meets at least annually to review and make recommendations to the Board on the compensation (including equity-based compensation) of the Company’s directors. In reviewing and making recommendations on director compensation, the Committee considers, among other things, the following policies and principles:

• that the compensation should fairly pay the directors for the work, time commitment and efforts required by directors of an organization of the Company’s size and scope of business activities, including service on Board committees;

• that a component of the compensation should be designed to align the directors’ interests with the long-term interests of the Company’s stockholders; and

19

• that directors’ independence may be compromised or impaired for Board or committee purposes if director compensation exceeds customary levels.

As a part of its review, the Compensation Committee periodically engages an outside consultant to report on comparable director compensation practices and levels. No executive officer of the Company is involved in determining or recommending director compensation levels. For a detailed description regarding the role and scope of assignment of the Compensation Committee’s compensation consultant see “Executive Compensation—Compensation Discussion and Analysis” below. See the section of this Proxy Statement entitled “Director Fees” below, for a more detailed discussion of compensation paid to the Company’s directors during fiscal year 2012.

Incentive Plan Matters. The Compensation Committee also administers the Company’s Amended and Restated Annual Incentive Compensation Plan (the “AIP”), the 2004 Key Executive Incentive Compensation Plan (the “KEIP”), the amended and restated 2002 Universal Stock Incentive Plan (the “USIP”) and the ESIP.

The Compensation Committee’s charter reflects these various responsibilities, and the Compensation Committee and the Board of Directors annually review the charter, and revise it as necessary or appropriate. The Compensation Committee Charter is posted in the corporate governance section of the Company’s website at www.franklinresources.com/corp/pages/generic_content/corporate_governance/compensation_committee_charter.jsf. The Compensation Committee met six times during fiscal year 2012.

THE CORPORATE GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE

The Corporate Governance Committee currently consists of Messrs. Hardiman (Chairman) and Armacost and Ms. Tatlock.

The Corporate Governance Committee has the responsibilities set forth in its charter and provides counsel to the Board of Directors with respect to the organization, function and composition of the Board and committees and oversees the evaluation of the Board and the committees. The Corporate Governance Committee is also responsible for developing and recommending to the Board corporate governance policies and procedures applicable to the Company and reviewing the anti-money laundering policies, procedures and operations of the Company on a periodic basis. The Corporate Governance Committee met five times during fiscal year 2012. The Corporate Governance Committee Charter is posted in the corporate governance section of the Company’s website at www.franklinresources.com/corp/pages/generic_content/corporate_governance/corporate_governance_charter.jsf.

The Corporate Governance Committee is responsible for identifying and recommending to the Board potential director candidates for nomination and election to the Board at the annual meeting of stockholders. It uses a variety of means as it determines are necessary or appropriate, including recommendations of stockholders, to do so. The Corporate Governance Committee has adopted a policy regarding nominations and qualifications of directors, which has been approved by the Board. Under such policy, the Corporate Governance Committee may solicit recommendations from current and former directors, management or others who may be familiar with qualified candidates, and may consider current directors for re-nomination. The Corporate Governance Committee may, in its sole discretion, retain and terminate any search firm (and approve such search firm’s fees and other retention terms) to assist in the identification of candidates. The Corporate Governance Committee has retained a search firm to assist in the identification of potential director nominees based on identified criteria and in evaluating and pursuing individual candidates at the direction of the Committee.

The Corporate Governance Committee believes there are certain minimum skills and qualifications that each director nominee must possess or satisfy, including:

• high personal and professional integrity and ethical character;

• significant achievement in business, finance, government, education, law, technology or other fields important to the operation of the Company;

• the ability to exercise sound business judgment on a broad range of issues;

20

• sufficiently broad experience and professional and educational background to have a general appreciation of the major issues facing public companies of a size and scope similar to the Company;

• the willingness and ability to devote the necessary time to Board duties, including preparing for and attending meetings of the Board and its committees; and

• being prepared to represent the best interests of the Company and its stockholders and committed to enhancing stockholder value.

The Corporate Governance Committee also believes there are other skills and qualifications that at least one or more directors must possess or satisfy, including:

• experience and knowledge of the industry sector in which the Company operates its business;

• a majority of the directors being “independent” directors in accordance with the corporate governance listing standards of the NYSE;

• at least three directors meeting the additional independence requirements for members of the Audit Committee of the Board in accordance with the applicable rules of the NYSE;

• at least three directors who are eligible to serve on the Audit Committee of the Board being “financially literate” or capable of becoming “financially literate” within a reasonable period of time;

• at least one director who is eligible to serve on the Audit Committee of the Board being an “audit committee financial expert” in accordance with applicable rules of the SEC; and

• other standards the Board may adopt from time to time.

In considering candidates for director nominee, the Corporate Governance Committee generally assembles information regarding a candidate’s background and qualifications, evaluates a candidate’s mix of skills and qualifications and determines the contribution the candidate could be expected to make to the overall functioning of the Board, giving due consideration to the overall Board balance of diversity of perspectives, backgrounds and experiences. The Corporate Governance Committee reviews annually with the Board the composition of the Board as a whole, including whether the Board reflects the appropriate balance of independence, sound judgment, business specialization, technical skills, diversity and other desired qualities.

With respect to current directors, the Corporate Governance Committee considers past attendance at meetings and assesses participation in and contributions to the activities of the Board. The Corporate Governance Committee, in its discretion, may designate one or more of its members to interview any candidate. In addition, the Corporate Governance Committee may seek input from the Company’s management or the Board, who may interview any candidate. The Corporate Governance Committee recommends director nominees to the Board based on its assessment of overall suitability to serve on the Board in accordance with the Company’s policy regarding nominations and qualifications of directors.

The Corporate Governance Committee will consider candidates recommended for nomination to the Board by stockholders of the Company. Stockholders may make such a recommendation by submitting a completed Director Nomination Form, which is posted in the corporate governance section of the Company’s website, not later than the close of business on the 120th day nor earlier than the close of business on the 150th day prior to the first anniversary of the date on which the Company first (i) mailed its notice of annual meeting, proxy statement and proxy or (ii) sent its notice of annual meeting and notice of internet availability of its proxy materials, whichever is earlier, for the immediately preceding year’s annual meeting. Completed Director Nomination Forms shall be sent to: Corporate Governance Committee, Franklin Resources, Inc., c/o Maria Gray, Secretary, One Franklin Parkway, San Mateo, CA 94403-1906. This year our Proxy Statement is dated January 24, 2013; for a recommendation to be properly made for the 2014 annual meeting, we must receive the notice of recommendation between August 27, 2013 and September 26, 2013.

21

The manner in which the Corporate Governance Committee evaluates candidates recommended by stockholders is generally the same as any other candidate. However, the Corporate Governance Committee will also seek and consider information concerning any relationship between a stockholder recommending a candidate and the candidate to determine if the candidate can represent the interests of all of the stockholders. The Corporate Governance Committee will not evaluate a candidate recommended by a stockholder unless the Director Nomination Form provides that the potential candidate has indicated a willingness to serve as a director, to comply with the expectations and requirements for Board service as publicly disclosed by the Company and to provide all of the information necessary to conduct an evaluation.

THE SPECIAL EQUITY AWARDS COMMITTEE

The sole member of the Special Equity Awards Committee is Mr. G. Johnson. It was established on October 22, 2012 and has separate but concurrent authority with the Compensation Committee to make certain limited equity awards to employees of the Corporation and its subsidiaries who are not executive officers subject to Section 16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

BOARD LEADERSHIP STRUCTURE

Mr. Charles B. Johnson serves as our Chairman of the Board. In his capacity as Chairman of the Board, he leads the Board in the fulfillment of its responsibilities and presides at all meetings of the Board and stockholders. Mr. C. B. Johnson also advises the President and the Board of Directors on issues related to the Company’s strategic plans and material transactions and acts in concert with the President as a spokesperson for the Company. Mr. Gregory E. Johnson serves as our CEO. In his role as CEO, Mr. G. Johnson has general responsibility for the management and operations of the Company. While the Board does not have a fixed policy regarding the separation of the offices of the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, the Corporate Governance Committee reviews the Board’s leadership structure annually with the Board. The Board believes the current structure is appropriate and effective because Mr. C. B. Johnson is able to focus his efforts on leadership of the Board in its oversight of the Company’s risks, business and strategy while Mr. G. Johnson focuses on the day-to-day leadership of the Company while maintaining an engaged and open relationship with the Board, of which he is a member. As Mr. C. B. Johnson and Mr. G. Johnson are not independent directors under the NYSE rules, Mr.  Charles Crocker, an independent director, has been appointed to preside at the executive sessions of the independent directors.

RISK MANAGEMENT AND THE BOARD’S ROLE IN RISK OVERSIGHT

Our Company recognizes the importance of effective risk management to the success of our business and our stockholders and has long-standing and highly developed structures in place to manage risk. The Board of Directors has principal responsibility for oversight of the Company’s risk management processes. The Board regularly receives information on risks facing the Company from, and provides oversight to, a variety of management groups, including the enterprise risk management, global compliance, internal audit, finance risk & control and compensation risk review groups. These groups provide reports either directly to the full Board, or to the Audit Committee or Compensation Committee. Each of these committees is comprised solely of independent directors and reports to the full Board at each Board meeting. Regional and separate key risk committees of our management, as well as business and operational risk functions, report to the enterprise-wide management groups which in turn report to the full Board or a committee of the Board. Our internal audit and global compliance groups conduct monitoring and testing of Company-wide policies and procedures and report quarterly to the Audit Committee and Board of Directors, respectively.

The full Board oversees the Company’s business continuity planning, reviewing and approving management’s plans with respect to, among other things, key management succession, disaster planning, crisis management, and prioritization of recovery efforts. The Board also reviews and approves the Company’s contingency funding plan, which addresses how the Company would respond to possible liquidity crises created by temporary market disruptions and/or longer-term financial distress.

22

The Audit Committee receives risk management and internal audit reports at least quarterly and oversees enterprise risk assessment and risk management policies and procedures. The full Board receives reports of, and provides direction to, the enterprise-wide risk management committee and internal auditor at least annually. The Compensation Committee evaluates the Company’s compensation policies and programs to ensure they do not encourage excessive risk-taking. A management compensation risk review committee (the “CRRC”), which reviews new and existing compensation programs and practices to ensure that they do not encourage imprudent risk taking or expose the Company to material amounts of risk, reports on its findings to the Compensation Committee. As part of the CRRC’s review of compensation arrangements across the Company, the CRRC has undertaken a comprehensive assessment of existing compensation programs and practices to ensure that imprudent risk-taking is not encouraged and that appropriate risk mitigation features are in place. The Audit Committee and the Compensation Committee report on risk, along with other committee matters, at meetings of the full Board.

At their meetings, the Board, Audit Committee and Compensation Committee review and discuss identified risks with the relevant members of senior management and members of the various groups with responsibility for risk identification and management. These regular communications provide the Board with a practical and in-depth understanding of the risks facing the Company and enable the Board to provide direction to management with respect to its approach to identifying, monitoring and addressing material risks.

Our Board’s role in risk oversight is well-supported by having an experienced Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, each of whom has extensive knowledge of and experience with the risks that the Company faces. In addition, the Audit, Compensation and Corporate Governance Committees of the Board are composed entirely of independent directors, as described above in “Committee Membership and Meetings”, which the Board believes also enhances risk oversight.

23

DIRECTOR FEES

STANDARD COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS

Standard Board Fees. For fiscal year 2012, directors who were not employees of the Company were paid a retainer fee of $21,250 per quarter and an annual equity grant valued at $100,000 (rounded up to the nearest whole share) on the date of the annual organizational meeting of the Board. No additional fees were paid for Board meeting attendance.

Standard Committee Fees. Directors who were not employees of the Company and who served on Board committees were paid $1,500 per committee meeting attended. Additionally, the Chairpersons of the Compensation Committee and the Corporate Governance Committee received $1,250 per quarter and the Chairperson of the Audit Committee received $2,500 per quarter.

Other Board Compensation. The Company reimburses directors for certain expenses incurred in connection with attending Board and committee meetings as well as other Company-related events, including travel, hotel accommodations, meals and other incidental expenses for the director and his or her spouse accompanying the director in connection with such events. The Company may also, from time to time, provide directors and their spouses token gifts of nominal value.

The following table details the total compensation earned by the Company’s directors in fiscal year 2012:

FISCAL YEAR 2012 DIRECTOR COMPENSATION

Name	Fees Earned or Paid in Cash ($)(1)		Stock Awards ($)(2)(3)		Total Compensation ($)
Samuel H. Armacost		100,000		100,000		200,000
Charles Crocker (4)		55,500		195,500		251,000
Joseph R. Hardiman		106,500		100,000		206,500
Charles B. Johnson (5)		—		—		—
Gregory E. Johnson (6)		—		—		—
Rupert H. Johnson, Jr. (5)		—		—		—
Mark C. Pigott		—		194,000		194,000
Chutta Ratnathicam		107,000		100,000		207,000
Laura Stein		97,000		100,000		197,000
Anne M. Tatlock (4)		182,938		49,563		232,501
Geoffrey Y. Yang		—		195,500		195,500

(1) Fees include quarterly retainer fees, committee meeting attendance fees and fees for service as a committee chairman. Fees are awarded in cash, the payment of which may be deferred pursuant to the 2006 Directors Deferred Compensation Plan (the “Director Deferred Plan”) described below in “Deferred Director Fees”. Pursuant to the Director Deferred Plan, directors may elect to defer payment of their directors’ fees and stock awards into hypothetical investments in common stock of the Company and/or in Company sponsored mutual funds. If a director receives fees in cash or elects to defer fees (including the annual stock grant) into hypothetical units of Company sponsored mutual funds, such amounts are included in this column. Any such director fees deferred into hypothetical shares of the Company’s common stock are included in the “Stock Awards” column. See notes 2 and 3 below.

(2) Stock Awards amounts represent the aggregate grant date fair value, recorded in accordance with the requirements of Financial Accounting Standards Board Accounting Standards Codification Topic 718, “Compensation—Stock Compensation” (“ASC 718”), associated with (i) an annual stock grant made on March 14, 2012, provided such stock grant is not deferred into hypothetical units of Company sponsored

24

mutual funds (see note 1 above), and (ii) director fees earned in fiscal year 2012 but whose payment is deferred into hypothetical shares of the Company’s common stock and eventually payable in cash. See “Deferred Director Fees” below. The ASC 718 valuation assumptions (i) for the annual stock grant are the closing price for the common stock on the NYSE on the grant date (March 14, 2012) and (ii) for the deferred hypothetical Company common stock are changes in the closing price of the common stock on the NYSE during fiscal year 2012, and the reinvestment of dividends declared by the Company. Because of the required accounting treatment under ASC 718, the Stock Award amounts for fees earned in fiscal year 2012 and deferred into hypothetical shares of common stock vary (up or down) to reflect market prices of the common stock.

(3) The following represents the grant date fair value for all Stock Awards received in fiscal year 2012, computed in accordance with ASC 718:

Name	Actual Common Stock ($)		Deferred Hypothetical Shares ($)
Samuel H. Armacost		—		100,000
Charles Crocker		—		195,500
Joseph R. Hardiman		100,000		—
Mark C. Pigott		—		194,000
Chutta Ratnathicam		—		100,000
Laura Stein		100,000		—
Anne M. Tatlock		—		49,563
Geoffrey Y. Yang		100,000		95,500

(4) Fees also include fees for service as a member of the Board of Directors of Fiduciary Trust Company International (“Fiduciary Trust”), a subsidiary of the Company. Fiduciary Trust directors receive an annual retainer fee of $35,000 (paid quarterly) and an annual retainer fee for committee services of $5,000 (paid quarterly). Mr. Crocker and Ms. Tatlock received an aggregate total of $40,000 each in fees related to their service on the Fiduciary Trust Board of Directors during fiscal year 2012. Mr. Crocker and Ms. Tatlock have selected to defer certain fees earned for service on the Fiduciary Trust Board of Directors during fiscal year 2012. Any such director fees earned in fiscal year 2012 but deferred into Company sponsored hypothetical mutual fund units are included in the “Fees Earned or Paid in Cash” column and fees deferred into hypothetical common stock of the Company are included in the “Stock Awards” column. See notes 1 and 2 above.

(5) Messrs. C. B. Johnson and R. H. Johnson, Jr. are both executives as well as directors of Franklin Resources, Inc. and do not receive compensation for their services as directors. See “Certain Relationships and Related Transactions” below for information regarding their fiscal year 2012 compensation.

(6) Mr. G. Johnson is the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company and does not receive compensation for his service as a director. See the Summary Compensation Table in “Proposal No. 1: Election of Directors—Executive Compensation” below.

DEFERRED DIRECTOR FEES

The Company and its subsidiaries allow non-employee directors to defer payment of their directors’ fees and stock awards, and to treat the deferred amounts as hypothetical investments in common stock of the Company and/or in Company sponsored mutual funds, as selected by the director. Directors are then credited with the same earnings, gains or losses that they would have incurred if the deferred amounts had been invested in the specific investments, in the specific amounts and for the specific periods as directed by each particular director. Additionally, directors who defer their directors’ fees and stock awards are credited with notional dividends and other distributions at the same time, in the same form, and in equivalent amounts as dividends and other distributions that are payable from time to time with respect to investments selected by each particular director. On the payout dates elected by a director, the hypothetical investments are valued and the Company or its subsidiary, as applicable, must pay the director or his or her beneficiary an amount equal to the value of the hypothetical investments.

25

Payouts may be made in a lump sum or in periodic installments. If a director changes his or her distribution election for amounts previously deferred, any such change does not take effect for one (1) year from the date of the new election and each distribution installment (or lump sum) will occur no earlier than five (5) years after such installment (or lump sum) would have been paid under the prior distribution election (with a series of distributions treated as one payment for this purpose). Accelerated distributions are permitted in limited circumstances in accordance with Section 409A (“Section 409A”) of the Internal Revenue Code (the “Code”), and the plan may be terminated by the Company if certain conditions are met, in each case as set forth more fully in the plan. The plan is intended to comply with the provisions of Section 409A of the Code.

26

SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF PRINCIPAL STOCKHOLDERS

The following table sets forth the common stock beneficially owned as of December 31, 2012 by each stockholder known to us to beneficially own more than five percent of the Company’s outstanding common stock as of such date. The percentage of ownership indicated in the following table is based on 212,607,328 shares of common stock outstanding on December 31, 2012.

Name and Address of Beneficial Owner(a)	Amount and Nature of Beneficial Ownership(e)		Percent of Class
Charles B. Johnson (b)		36,362,951		17.10	%
Rupert H. Johnson, Jr. (c)		35,961,615		16.91	%
T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc. (d)		13,171,517		6.20	%

(a) The addresses of Messrs. C. B. Johnson and R. H. Johnson, Jr. are: c/o Franklin Resources, Inc., One Franklin Parkway, San Mateo, CA 94403-1906.

(b) Includes approximately 6,779 shares held through the 401(k) Plan, 1,606,117 shares held in an individual retirement account (an “IRA”), 500,000 shares held by Mr. C. B. Johnson’s spouse, and 272,600 shares held by a trust of which Mr. C. B. Johnson’s spouse is the lifetime beneficiary. Also includes an aggregate of 1,517,158 shares held by two private charitable foundations for which Mr. C. B. Johnson is a trustee, of which Mr. C. B. Johnson disclaims beneficial ownership. Also includes 6,000,000 shares pledged as collateral in connection with a line of credit.

(c) Includes approximately 7,072 shares held through the 401(k) Plan and 552,245 shares held in an IRA. Also includes 3,372 shares held by Mr. R. H. Johnson, Jr.’s spouse, of which Mr. R. H. Johnson, Jr. disclaims beneficial ownership, and 418,911 shares held by a private charitable foundation for which Mr. R. H. Johnson, Jr. is a trustee, of which Mr. R. H. Johnson, Jr. disclaims beneficial ownership.

(d) Information reported pursuant to a Schedule 13G (Amendment No. 1) filed with the SEC on February 10, 2012, regarding shares owned as of December 31, 2011. These securities are owned by various individual and institutional investors for which T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc. (Price Associates) serves as investment adviser with power to direct investments and/or sole power to vote the securities. For purposes of the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Price Associates expressly disclaims that it is, in fact, the beneficial owner of such securities. Price Associates lists its principal business address as 100 E. Pratt Street, Baltimore, MD 21202 in such filing.

(e) Except as described otherwise in the footnotes to this table, each beneficial owner in the table has sole voting and investment power with regard to the shares beneficially owned by such owner.

27

SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF MANAGEMENT

The following table lists the common stock beneficially owned as of December 31, 2012 by (1) each director and director nominee, (2) each executive officer named in the Summary Compensation Table below, and (3) all directors, director nominees and executive officers as a group. The percentage of ownership indicated in the following table is based on 212,607,328 shares of the Company’s common stock outstanding on December 31, 2012.

Name of Beneficial Owner	Amount and Nature of Beneficial Ownership(a)		Percent of Class
Vijay C. Advani (b)		109,506		*
Samuel H. Armacost (c)(d)		2,000		*
Peter K. Barker		1,000		*
Charles Crocker (d)		8,660		*
Joseph R. Hardiman		7,404		*
Charles B. Johnson (e)		36,362,951		17.10	%
Gregory E. Johnson (f)		1,673,909		*
Jennifer M. Johnson (g)		1,460,159		*
Rupert H. Johnson, Jr. (h)		35,961,615		16.91	%
Kenneth A. Lewis (i)		44,738		*
Mark C. Pigott (d)		884		*
Chutta Ratnathicam (d)		4,952		*
Laura Stein (d)		3,047		*
Anne M. Tatlock (d)		168,860		*
Geoffrey Y. Yang (d)		1,669		*
William Y. Yun (j)		63,830		*
Directors, Director Nominees and Executive Officers as a Group (consisting of 18 persons) (k)		75,950,056		35.71	%

 * Represents less than 1% of class

(a) Except as described otherwise in the footnotes to this table: (i) each beneficial owner listed in the table has sole voting and investment power with regard to the shares beneficially owned by such owner; (ii) each share of unvested restricted stock confers voting but not dispositive power; and (iii) shares beneficially owned pursuant to options include only shares that the individual has the right to acquire beneficial ownership of within 60 days following December 31, 2012.

(b) Includes approximately 350 shares held through the 401(k) Plan and 40,214 shares of unvested restricted stock. Also includes 68,474 shares held in a trust for which Mr. Advani and his spouse are co-trustees with shared voting and investment power.

(c) Mr. Armacost and his spouse have shared voting and investment power with respect to shares owned.

(d) Hypothetical shares held by director nominee are not included in this table. See “Proposal No.1: Election of Directors—Director Fees—Deferred Director Fees”.

(e) See footnote (b) under “Security Ownership of Principal Stockholders” above.

(f) Includes approximately 1,557 shares held through the 401(k) Plan, 112,610 shares of unvested restricted stock, and 48,438 shares that may be purchased pursuant to options. Also includes an aggregate of 1,007,000 shares held pursuant to two limited partnerships, 2,700 shares held in a business trust for the benefit of Mr. G. Johnson and his children, 20,310 shares held in trusts for which Mr. G. Johnson is a trustee for his minor children, of which Mr. G. Johnson disclaims beneficial ownership, and 5,188 shares held by Mr. G. Johnson’s spouse, of which Mr. G. Johnson disclaims beneficial ownership.

(g) Includes approximately 536 shares held through the 401(k) Plan, 20,683 shares of unvested restricted stock, and 9,417 shares that may be purchased pursuant to options. Also includes an aggregate of 936,000 shares held pursuant to two limited partnerships, 5,000 shares held in a business trust for the benefit of Ms. Johnson and her children, and 49,353 shares held in trusts for which Ms. Johnson is a trustee for her minor children, of which Ms. Johnson disclaims beneficial ownership. Also includes 42,658 shares pledged as collateral in connection with a line of credit.

28

(h) See footnote (c) under “Security Ownership of Principal Stockholders” above.

(i) Includes approximately 588 shares held through the 401(k) Plan and 16,495 shares of unvested restricted stock. Also includes 3,100 shares held in a trust for which Mr. Lewis and his spouse are co-trustees with shared voting and investment power.

(j) Includes approximately 4,992 shares held through the 401(k) Plan and 12,402 shares of unvested restricted stock. Also includes 1,374 shares held in trusts for which Mr. Yun is a trustee for his minor children, of which Mr. Yun disclaims beneficial ownership.

(k) Includes approximately 22,324 shares held through the 401(k) Plan, 224,472 shares of unvested restricted stock, and 61,102 shares that may be purchased pursuant to options. Also includes an aggregate of 6,042,658 shares pledged as collateral in connection with lines of credit.

29

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Overview

The following discussion provides an overview and analysis of the Compensation Committee’s philosophy and objectives in designing compensation programs for the executive officers. In this discussion and analysis, we address the compensation determinations and the rationale for those determinations relating to the Company’s chief executive officer, chief financial officer, and the next three most highly compensated executive officers, whom we refer to collectively as the “named executive officers”.

This discussion should be read together with the compensation tables for the named executive officers that can be found in this Proxy Statement following this discussion. Unless otherwise indicated, any references to a particular year in the following discussion means the fiscal year ended September 30th of such year.

Executive Summary

The Compensation Committee believes that executive compensation should be linked with the Company’s performance and that executive compensation should be significantly aligned with the interests of the Company’s stockholders. In addition, executive compensation is designed to allow the Company to recruit, retain and motivate employees who play a significant role in the Company’s current and future success.

The compensation of the named executive officers should be understood within the context of the Company’s business. The Company is an investment management organization focused on long-term performance. One of the Compensation Committee’s main goals is to focus the executives on the Company’s long-term performance. The Compensation Committee believes that long-term awards are effective tools for aligning the executives’ interests with long-term stockholder interests in order to increase overall stockholder value. In addition, the named executive officers are often asked to implement long-term initiatives for the Company that, by definition, take more than one fiscal year to accomplish. Stability and continuity among the named executive officers aids in the Company’s implementation of such long-term initiatives. Average Company tenure for named executive officers as of September 30, 2012 was 22.4 years. The portion of the named executive officers’ annual compensation linked to the short-term success of the Company is designed to motivate and reward executives to achieve certain objectives and to attract and retain talented executives.

The Company’s compensation levels historically have been conservatively positioned as compared to those of its peer companies. The named executive officers are all employed at will, without employment agreements, guaranteed severance arrangements or payment arrangements that would automatically be triggered by a change in control of the Company. The Company does not provide any significant retirement plans or benefits for the executive officers other than the Franklin Templeton 401(k) Retirement Plan (the “401(k) Plan”), which is generally available to the Company’s United States-based employees.

At the Company’s 2011 Annual Meeting, the Company’s stockholders had the opportunity to cast a non-binding advisory vote on the compensation of the named executive officers. More than 98% of the shares voted at the meeting approved the named executive officers’ compensation. In addition, we asked stockholders to select the frequency with which to hold future advisory votes on the compensation of the named executive officers. More than 57% of the shares voted at the meeting selected a triennial vote. The Compensation Committee welcomed this feedback and intends to continue its practice of linking Company performance with executive compensation decisions.

30

Objectives of the Compensation Program

Each element of compensation paid to the Company’s named executive officers is designed to support one or more of the objectives described below.

Company-wide Objectives. In order to link executive compensation to the Company’s performance, the Compensation Committee considers a number of financial and non-financial objectives it believes further the growth and welfare of the Company. In particular, the Compensation Committee may reward executives for continued improvement in some or all of the following Company-wide performance measures, among others:

•   annual revenue	•   investment management revenue
•   assets under management	•   operating income
•   diluted earnings per share growth	•   operating revenues
•   earnings per share	•   operating profit margin
•   expense management	•   pre-tax operating income
•   net income	•   sales
•   investment management performance	•   total return to stockholders

In recent years, the Compensation Committee has placed an emphasis on investment management performance, diluted earnings per share growth, operating profit margin, pre-tax operating income, operating income growth and net sales as it believes these financial measures are significant indicators of the Company’s overall performance.

Business Unit Objectives. The Company-wide performance measures described above are driven by and reflect the combined performance of the Company’s numerous individual business units. However, the Compensation Committee recognizes that such Company-wide measures often may not fully reflect the individual performance and contributions made by the Company’s separate business units and their respective leaders. The Compensation Committee therefore believes that, in addition to Company-wide objectives, individual objectives should be set for the executives that are linked to the growth and development of their respective business units. Such goals are specifically tailored to each business unit and include, but are not limited to, a mix of investment performance, sales, financial, customer service, technology and human resources objectives. The Compensation Committee seeks to reward executives who achieve such objectives as they are designed to improve business unit performance and contribute to the performance of the Company as a whole.

What the Compensation Program Rewards and its Relationship to the Company-wide and Business Unit Objectives

The compensation program for executive officers, including the named executive officers, consists primarily of a base salary and incentive compensation consisting of a combination of cash and equity bonuses based upon the achievement of business unit and Company-wide objectives.

Each element of compensation is designed to reward different results as summarized below:

Compensation Element	Designed to Reward	Relationship to the Objectives
Base Salary	Experience, knowledge of the industry, duties and scope of responsibility	Provides a minimum, fixed level of cash compensation to attract and retain talented executives to the Company who can continue to improve the Company’s overall performance
Short-term Incentive Compensation	Success in achieving annual objectives	Motivates executives to achieve specific Company-wide and business unit objectives Provides competitive compensation to attract and retain talented executives

31

Compensation Element	Designed to Reward	Relationship to the Objectives
Long-term Incentive Compensation	Continued excellence and attainment of objectives over time	Motivates executives to achieve long-term business unit and Company-wide objectives
	Success in long-term growth and development	Aligns the executives’ interests with long-term stockholder interests in order to increase overall stockholder value Provides competitive compensation to attract and retain talented executives

The Elements of Executive Compensation

Base Salary. The Compensation Committee believes that base salaries for the named executive officers should be limited to a reasonable base compensation for the day-to-day performance of their job responsibilities, and that the majority of their pay should be in variable compensation tied to performance. Base salary is designed to provide competitive levels of compensation to executives based upon their experience, duties and scope of responsibility. Base salaries are evaluated by the Compensation Committee annually for all named executive officers and in general remain static unless the individual is promoted or the Compensation Committee determines that an adjustment is necessary due to compensation or economic trends in the industry.

Short-term and Long-term Incentive Compensation. The Compensation Committee believes that named executive officers should be encouraged to enhance the Company’s performance by linking the receipt of a significant portion of their compensation to the achievement of business unit and Company-wide objectives.

To facilitate the Company’s incentive program, each year the Compensation Committee establishes an award pool, under the Annual Incentive Compensation Plan (“AIP”), from which grants are made to named executive officers and other salaried employees of the Company to reward performance. The size of the award pool available for bonus payments is set by the Compensation Committee as a percentage (not to exceed 20%) of the net operating income of the Company, exclusive of passive income and calculated before non-operating interest, taxes, extraordinary items, and certain special items (such as special compensation payouts on account of a merger) and before the accrual of awards under the AIP, including awards under the Company’s 2004 Key Executive Incentive Compensation Plan, or KEIP (referred to as “pre-bonus operating income” or “PBOI”).

In determining the percentage of pre-bonus operating income that will go into the award pool, the Compensation Committee considers the recommendation of the Company’s Human Resources Group as to the appropriate size of the award pool. In preparing its recommendation, senior members of the Human Resources Group meet periodically with the Chief Executive Officer (the “CEO”) to discuss competitive compensation, retention, funding requirements and other significant compensation issues. In addition, the CEO meets with the Chief Financial Officer (the “CFO”) to review the quarterly financial performance of the Company over the most recent quarters and the last two years, and in particular focuses on the Company’s year-over-year results with regard to the Company-wide performance measures set forth under the heading “Company-wide Objectives” above. All of these factors are taken into account in preparing the recommendation for the percentage of pre-bonus operating income that will go into the award pool. The recommendation is reviewed and endorsed by the CEO prior to its presentation to the Compensation Committee.

Grants from the award pool generally consist of a combination of a cash bonus and restricted stock or restricted stock units. The awards are generally comprised of 65% cash and 35% restricted stock or restricted stock units, in each case with deferred vesting over time. Executives whose aggregate incentive awards are in excess of $1.0 million typically receive any amount in excess of $1.0 million in the form of 50% cash and 50% restricted stock or restricted stock units. Any amount in excess of $5.0 million is usually in the form of restricted stock or restricted stock units.

32

Equity awards are generally granted in the form of restricted stock or restricted stock units rather than options, in part, because the Compensation Committee believes that in the current market restricted stock is a better motivational tool than options. However, the Compensation Committee may, in its discretion, award options to executives in the future.

As noted above, up to 65% of grants from the award pool consist of a cash bonus. The use of a cash bonus is designed to reward an executive for achievement of shorter term objectives. Grants of restricted stock and restricted stock units are designed to reward an executive for continued excellence and attainment of longer-term objectives. In addition, because these awards are subject to either time- or performance-based vesting, they help to focus an executive on the Company’s long-term growth and development and aid in retention. The Compensation Committee believes that as an executive’s compensation increases, the percentage of compensation received in stock should increase, such that an executive’s interests continue to be aligned with those of the other stockholders. In addition, in order to further align the named executive officers’ interests with stockholders, each executive is required to comply with the Company’s stock ownership guidelines. As of December 31, 2012, all executive officers were in compliance with the Stock Ownership Guidelines. For additional details regarding these guidelines, see “Other Considerations—Stock Ownership Requirements” below and “Corporate Governance—Stock Ownership Guidelines” elsewhere in this Proxy Statement.

As part of the Company’s incentive program, the Company also maintains the KEIP, which is a sub-plan under the AIP for key executives. In order to maximize deductibility of compensation under Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code (“Section 162(m)”), in fiscal year 2012 the Compensation Committee selected each of the named executive officers and one other executive as eligible participants in the KEIP. Awards under the KEIP are intended to qualify for a tax deduction under Section 162(m). Annual awards under the KEIP to any one participant may not exceed $15,000,000 per year and all such awards are deducted from the Company’s award pool under the AIP for that year.

In order to further emphasize the importance of long-term performance the Compensation Committee also approved performance-based long-term incentive awards for certain named executive officers. These awards are granted under the Company’s amended and restated 2002 Universal Stock Incentive Plan (the “USIP”). Similar to awards granted under the KEIP, performance-based long-term incentive awards granted under the USIP to the three most highly compensated executive officers (other than the chief financial officer), are intended to qualify for a tax deduction under Section 162(m). These awards are equity-based and vest over a three-year period based on the achievement of predetermined Company financial performance goals. In the event a performance measure is not achieved at or above a specified threshold level, the portion of an award tied to such performance measure is forfeited.

The performance-based long-term incentive awards granted in fiscal year 2012 (the “2012 Performance Awards”) were tied to the achievement of certain thresholds with respect to two performance measures: operating margin, defined as the operating profit margin, expressed as a percentage, that is reported as operating margin in the annual financial statements included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K (“Operating Margin”); and shareholder return ranking, defined as the Company’s total shareholder return, as reported by Bloomberg or FactSet Research Systems (or their respective successors), as selected by the Company in its sole discretion, relative to the respective total shareholder returns of certain peer companies (“Shareholder Return Ranking”). For purposes of the 2012 Performance Awards, peer companies included the following public investment management firms: Janus Capital Group, Legg Mason Inc., T. Rowe Price Group, Affiliated Managers Group Inc., AllianceBernstein L.P., BlackRock Inc., Invesco Ltd. and Federated Investors Inc.

Fifty percent of the value of the 2012 Performance Awards is contingent on the achievement of certain Operating Margins and fifty percent is contingent on the Company’s Shareholder Return Ranking. The portion of the 2012 Performance Awards tied to Operating Margin vests equally in one-third increments over a three-year period, while the portion attributed to Shareholder Return Ranking vests at the end of the three-year period, subject in each case to the achievement of the performance levels.

33

At the end of each fiscal year in the performance period, up to one-third of the portion of the 2012 Performance Awards tied to Operating Margin may vest subject to the achievement of the threshold levels detailed below. The Company’s actual Operating Margin for fiscal year 2012 was 35.4%.

Operating Margin Portion Earned	Operating Margin Targets
	FY 2012	FY 2013	FY 2014
100%	30.0% or greater	30.5% or greater	31.0% or greater
50%	28.0% to less than 30.0%	28.5% to less than 30.5%	29.0% to less than 31.0%
0%/Forfeiture	less than 28.0%	less than 28.5%	less than 29.0%

With respect to the portion of the 2012 Performance Awards tied to Shareholder Return Ranking, if the Company’s Shareholder Return Ranking is in the top quartile of its peer companies at the end of fiscal year 2014, 100% of 2012 Performance Awards tied to Shareholder Return Ranking will vest. If the Company’s Shareholder Return Ranking is in the 2^nd Quartile of its peer companies, 75% of the portion of the 2012 Performance Awards tied to Shareholder Return Ranking will vest. If the Company’s Shareholder Return Ranking is below the second quartile amongst its peers, the entire portion of the 2012 Performance Awards tied to Shareholder Return Ranking will be forfeited.

Supplemental Compensation. Occasionally, the Compensation Committee may determine that recognition of significant contributions is warranted, or that specific action is required for retention purposes. In such cases, additional cash, long-term restricted stock or restricted stock unit awards may be granted to selected executives.

Compensation Consultant

Role of Independent Consultant. The Compensation Committee engages an independent compensation consultant to provide objective analyses of, and counsel on, the Company’s executive compensation program and practices. The role of the consultant is set by the Compensation Committee and, in general, the consultant is used to assess objectively all elements of compensation paid to the named executive officers, including market competitiveness of base, and short-term and long-term compensation. The consultant also provides counsel on general market trends and technical developments, and input on the size and structure of pay for the independent directors of the Board.

Determination of Independent Consultant’s Objectivity. The Compensation Committee recognizes that it is essential to receive objective advice from its independent compensation consultant. The Compensation Committee currently engages Exequity LLP (“Exequity”) as its independent consultant. Under the terms of this engagement, Exequity is required to obtain the prior written approval of the Compensation Committee before Exequity or its affiliates performs any non-executive compensation related services to the Company or its subsidiaries. Exequity is required to report to the Compensation Committee any such services and fees annually and upon the reasonable request of the Committee. The Compensation Committee determines whether Exequity’s advice is objective and free from the influence of management. The Compensation Committee also closely examines the safeguards and steps Exequity takes to ensure that its executive compensation consulting services are objective. The Compensation Committee takes into consideration the following factors:

• The Compensation Committee directly hired and has the authority to terminate Exequity’s engagement;

• The Compensation Committee solely determined the terms and conditions of Exequity’s engagement, including the fees charged;

• The Exequity consultant is engaged by and reports directly to the Compensation Committee;

• The Exequity consultant has direct access to members of the Compensation Committee;

• Aggregate fees paid by the Company and fees as a percentage of the total revenue of Exequity;

• Exequity’s policies and procedures designed to prevent conflicts of interest;

• Any business or personal relationships between Exequity, an Exequity consultant and any Compensation Committee member or executive officer of the Company;

34

• Whether the Exequity consultant holds shares of the Company’s stock;

• Exequity is an independent executive compensation consulting firm and does not provide any other services to the Company; and

• Interactions between the Exequity consultant and management generally are limited to discussions on behalf of the Compensation Committee and information presented to the Compensation Committee for approval.

During fiscal year 2012, the Company paid Exequity $12,671 in consulting fees directly related to services performed for the Compensation Committee.

Peer Group Companies

The Company’s Human Resources Group, in conjunction with the independent compensation consultant, compares the named executive officers’ compensation to the compensation of executive officers performing similar functions among a peer group of other investment management companies. This comparison takes into account the performance of the Company relative to the other companies, the executives’ comparative roles, responsibilities and performance at such companies, and the market size and composition data for such comparable companies. The Human Resources Group also reviews compensation data from a survey of management and administration positions in investment management organizations published by McLagan Partners, a financial services industry compensation consultancy. McLagan Partners was engaged by the Company to provide additional peer company compensation information because of the complexity of identifying a reasonable and appropriate competitor group, particularly given the differences in size and business mix between the Company and certain of its publicly traded peer group companies. The peer group companies reviewed this year included: Affiliated Managers Group Inc., AllianceBernstein L.P., Blackrock Inc., BNY Mellon Asset Management, Eaton Vance Corporation, Federated Investors Inc., Invesco Ltd., Janus Capital Group, JP Morgan Asset Management, Legg Mason Inc., MFS Investment Management, Oppenheimer Funds, Inc., PIMCO Advisers, L.P., and T. Rowe Price Group. The Compensation Committee reviews such public and privately held companies’ compensation for comparison purposes but this review is not the determining factor as it is only one of many factors that are considered by the Compensation Committee in setting compensation. The Company’s fiscal year ends on September 30^th, and that of all but one of the peer group companies ends on December 31^st; accordingly, any meaningful compensation comparison must rely on available data covering time periods which do not correspond exactly and during which more beneficial or more adverse economic conditions affecting compensation may have prevailed. The Compensation Committee used 2011 competitive market data received from McLagan Partners to compare named executive officer total compensation (comprised of base pay, bonuses and equity compensation) against similar positions at the peer group companies. When compared to peer group company 2011 executive officer compensation, our 2012 named executive officer compensation was above the median. The Committee’s decision on the level of compensation awarded reflected the Company’s performance for fiscal year 2012 versus its peer group companies, and included consideration of the Company’s strong operating results with assets under management (“AUM”), net income, and earnings per share each setting all-time highs. Although relative ranking information is considered by the Compensation Committee in evaluating compensation for the named executive officers, the Compensation Committee does not target a specific percentile ranking for any component of, or the aggregate total of, named executive officer compensation.

Chief Executive Officer’s Compensation

Starting Point. In setting the Chief Executive Officer’s compensation, the Compensation Committee takes into account several factors, both internal and external to the Company. As the Company’s highest ranking officer, the CEO is responsible for overseeing all of the Company’s operations and results, implementing the Company’s strategic objectives and providing direction and leadership to the Company. The Compensation Committee therefore believes that the CEO’s compensation should normally be higher than the compensation paid to other named executive officers and should be linked to Company-wide measures and objectives. In

35

particular, the Compensation Committee has determined that a large percentage of the CEO’s compensation should be at risk and linked to the achievement of objectives based upon the Company’s performance with regard to certain significant financial metrics.

While the Compensation Committee believes that the Company’s financial performance should be the main driver of CEO pay, it also believes the CEO’s individual performance with regard to relevant non-financial objectives and achievements during the year should be taken into account. Such non-financial objectives for the CEO include investment performance, customer service, technology and human resource objectives, as well as goals regarding the Company’s compliance with laws and regulations and the maintenance of excellence in its corporate governance practices, among other things. To ensure that attention is given to these factors in addition to the financial measures, the Compensation Committee retains the authority and discretion to reduce the CEO’s incentive pay under the KEIP or to provide supplementary compensation.

Compensation Structure. In setting the CEO’s compensation, every year the Compensation Committee reviews (i) the Company’s performance (both financial and non-financial), (ii) compensation reports (which we refer to as “tally sheets”) regarding the amounts paid to the CEO in prior years as salary, bonus, perquisites and other compensation (including a sensitivity analysis regarding the CEO’s vested and unvested stock), (iii) recommendations provided by the Compensation Committee’s independent compensation consultant, and (iv) relevant non-financial information, such as data regarding achievements in the areas noted above. Based upon these reviews, the Compensation Committee determines the CEO’s compensation for the current fiscal year and potential compensation for the upcoming fiscal year.

Incentive Compensation. An incentive award was granted to the CEO in fiscal year 2012 under the Company’s KEIP (as described above). In fiscal year 2012, the Compensation Committee decided to continue its philosophy of linking the majority of the CEO’s potential compensation to the achievement of specified performance measures by the Company. Accordingly, early in the fiscal year, the Compensation Committee established a maximum bonus pool under the KEIP funded in an amount equal to 1.25% of PBOI for the year, approved the participation of Mr. G. Johnson and granted him a maximum target award under the KEIP equal to 40% of the pool. Although the Committee’s decisions are not dictated by a specific formula, the profitability of the firm, as reflected in PBOI, is the determining performance-based measure in establishing award maximums for Mr. G. Johnson and the other named executive officers. The maximum award that each named executive officer is eligible to receive is not an expectation of actual bonus amounts that will be paid to them, but a cap on the range of compensation ($0 to the maximum amount) that an individual may be paid while maintaining the tax deductibility of the bonus as performance-based compensation for purposes of Section 162(m). This provides the Compensation Committee with the flexibility to compensate executives for truly exceptional performance without paying more than is necessary to incent and retain our named executive officers. The Committee believes that this bonus structure is in the best interests of stockholders because it enables the most prudent use of Company assets by maximizing the deductibility of performance-based compensation while empowering the Committee to pay only those amounts it determines are necessary to appropriately compensate executives.

Under Mr. G. Johnson’s leadership:

• Fiscal year 2012 resulted in strong operating results with AUM, net income and earnings per share each setting all-time highs.

• At September 30, 2012, AUM were a record $749.9 billion, surpassing the previous month-end high of $747.2 billion set in July 2011, and representing a 14% increase from $659.9 billion AUM as of September 30, 2011.

• Net income was up slightly to $1.93 billion for fiscal year 2012, compared to $1.92 billion in fiscal year 2011.

• Diluted earnings per share for the fiscal year increased 4% to $8.95 from $8.62 in the previous year.

36

• Total average annual shareholder return of 10.4% for the three-year period ended September 30, 2012 ranked the Company in the top quartile of the peer group of public investment management firms selected to measure Company performance for long-term performance awards.

• Fiscal year end relative long-term investment performance remained strong with 65%, 77%, 86% and 82% of the Company’s U.S.-registered long-term mutual fund ranked in the top two quartiles of their respective peer groups for total return for the one-, three-, five- and ten-year periods as reported by Lipper.

• Long-term gross sales of $170.8 billion during the fiscal year reflected the diversified mix of the Company’s AUM by investment strategy, client type, and geographic region.

• The Company retained the number one gross sales rank for non-proprietary, long-term, open-end funds in the U.S., according to the Investment Company Institute (ICI). For the international cross-border, long-term market, the Company achieved the number two gross sales rank per Lipper FMI.

• The Company continued to bring significant focus and resources to bear to successfully address ongoing changes in the regulatory structure of the global fund industry.

• The Company’s local asset management product capabilities were expanded in Australia, Brazil, Malaysia and India. Additional international developments included offering a broader range of products in China, building an onshore fund range in Taiwan, and expanding the retail fund lineup in South Africa.

• Significant progress was made on the Company’s strategic initiatives, including ongoing development of our solutions and alternatives capabilities, positioning the firm for further international growth, and further strengthening employee engagement, recognition, and retention efforts.

Based on the CEO’s performance and achievements described above, the Compensation Committee granted the CEO an award of $9.5 million under the Company’s KEIP for fiscal year 2012. Such amount was paid in fiscal year 2013 and, in keeping with the Company’s payment philosophy, the first $1 million was awarded 65% in cash and 35% in restricted stock and amounts in excess of $1 million were awarded 50% in cash and 50% in restricted stock. Amounts in excess of $5.0 million were awarded in the form of restricted stock. These awards of restricted stock are subject to vesting over a period of three years from the date of grant. In fiscal year 2012, the Committee awarded Mr. G. Johnson a performance-based long-term incentive award of $1.5 million under the Company’s USIP subject to the achievement of performance measures based 50% on Operating Margin and 50% on Shareholder Return Ranking. The portion of the award tied to Operating Margin vests equally in one-third increments over a three-year period, while the portion attributed to Shareholder Return Ranking vests at the end of the three-year period, subject in each case to the achievement of the performance levels. The fiscal year 2012 Operating Margin of 35.4% surpassed the 30.0% threshold set forth for the year for this performance target. As a result, one-third of the portion of the performance-based long-term incentive award tied to Operating Margin performance vested.

In summary, Mr. G. Johnson’s cash and incentive award compensation with respect to his performance in fiscal year 2012 totaled $11,980,132 versus $12,280,132 for the prior fiscal year, a decline of 2.4%. His base salary of $780,132 was unchanged while his incentive award under the KEIP of $9.5 million declined from $10.0 million. His performance-based long-term incentive award of $1.7 million increased from $1.5 million awarded for the prior fiscal year. The actual amount of the performance-based long-term incentive award that will be paid to Mr. G. Johnson will depend on the portion that vests over the next three years based on the performance metrics described above.

The Summary Compensation Table below in this proxy statement describes various elements of Mr. G. Johnson’s total compensation awarded in fiscal 2012 amounting to $12,320,171 compared with $9,877,522 awarded in fiscal 2011, an increase of 24.7%. The increase in total compensation compares to a total shareholder return for fiscal year 2012 of 34.9%, which exceeded the return for the S&P 500 Index of 30.2% and the median return for the Company’s peer asset managers of 30%.

37

Review. All of the compensation elements awarded to the CEO described above were reviewed by the Compensation Committee’s independent consultant, who advised the Compensation Committee that they were reasonable, consistent with market practices, significantly performance-based and aligned with Company objectives. The Compensation Committee believes that the CEO’s compensation package is reasonable and appropriate and that it is aligned with the interests of the Company’s stockholders.

Senior Executive Officer Compensation

Starting Point. Similar to its view on the CEO’s compensation, the Compensation Committee believes that the majority of compensation that may be earned by the other named executive officers (excluding the CEO, the “Senior Executives”) should be directly linked to performance. The Committee therefore also limits the Senior Executives’ base salary opportunity and has structured the majority of their potential compensation around incentive grants.

Incentive Compensation. Incentive awards were made to the Senior Executives under the Company’s KEIP, (as described above). The Compensation Committee established a maximum bonus pool under the Company’s KEIP, funded in an amount equal to 1.25% of PBOI for fiscal year 2012. Early in the fiscal year, the Compensation Committee approved the participation of each Senior Executive in the KEIP, and each was granted a target award expressed as a percentage of the available pool. These targets represented the maximum possible payout under the KEIP for each of the four Senior Executives for fiscal year 2012. The maximum award that each Senior Executive is eligible to receive is not an expectation of actual bonus amounts that will be paid to them, but a cap on the range of compensation ($0 to the maximum amount) that an individual may be paid while maintaining the tax deductibility of the bonus as performance-based compensation for purposes of Section 162(m). The Compensation Committee retained discretion to reduce or eliminate any award granted under the KEIP, based on Company performance, business unit performance, or such other factors as the Committee may determine. In adjusting the Senior Executives’ incentive compensation under the KEIP, the Compensation Committee recognizes that each Senior Executive may be most able to directly influence the business unit for which he or she is responsible. The Committee therefore believes that it is appropriate to take into account each Senior Executive’s achievement of objectives that are directly tied to the growth and development of their respective business unit. The portion of each target award actually paid to each Senior Executive was determined based on individual performance achievements during fiscal year 2012, including those described below.

Each year the Company conducts a review process in which goals are developed for each business unit by the CEO, the Senior Executive who leads the business unit and the Company’s business planning group. Each unit’s goals are specifically tailored because their different business functions are not always easily comparable. However, each unit’s goals (and thus those of the responsible Senior Executive) typically include, but are not limited to, a mix of investment performance, sales, financial, customer service, technology and human resources objectives. Upon completion of this process, the Compensation Committee establishes target incentive awards for the Senior Executives. For fiscal year 2012, the Senior Executives were allocated maximum target awards under the KEIP, as follows, expressed as a percentage of the maximum bonus pool payable under the KEIP: 19% for Vijay C. Advani, 13% for Jennifer M. Johnson, 10% for Kenneth A. Lewis, and 9% for William Y. Yun. In fiscal year 2012, each of the Senior Executives was also awarded a performance-based long-term incentive award under the Company’s USIP subject to the achievement of performance measures based on Operating Margin and Shareholder Return Ranking.

Descriptions of the material business unit objectives set for and subsequently achieved by the Senior Executives in fiscal year 2012 are set forth below:

Vijay C. Advani, Executive Vice President—Global Advisory Services.

Mr. Advani is responsible for the Company’s global retail and institutional distribution strategies and initiatives, including sales, marketing, client service and product development. Long-term gross sales in Global Advisory Services amounted to $167 billion for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2012, and AUM market share for non-proprietary long-term open-end funds in the U.S. increased from 13.1% at the end of fiscal year

38

2011 to 13.3% at the end of fiscal year 2012 according to the Investment Company Institute (ICI). Internationally, the Company remained the largest cross-border fund umbrella, with total long-term AUM over $144 billion as of September 30, 2012 and a cross-border, long-term asset market share of 8.5% as of September 2012 (source: Lipper FMI, based on third-party, retail, long-term products sold internationally only). Mr. Advani oversaw the continuation of the Company’s multi-year equity sales campaign highlighting the importance of investor diversification. In the U.S., total equity AUM market share was maintained at 8.0% during the year according to the ICI and based on U.S. open-end, retail, long-term funds sold through the non-proprietary distribution channel. As of September 30, 2012, U.S. Equity AUM market share increased from 5.7% to 6.0% in the U.S. (source: ICI), and 3.0% to 3.3% in the cross-border market compared to the prior year (source: Lipper FMI). Under Mr. Advani’s leadership, the Company’s digital presence on smart phones and tablets was enhanced to extend brand awareness and maximize client engagement. In addition, the Franklin Templeton iPad app was launched and installed on 12,000 devices at fiscal year-end. He also oversaw the redesign and rebranding of 17 country and regional websites to foster a more consistent look and feel while providing expanded functionality for local teams to customize content for their stakeholders. The U.S. internal wholesaler team was recognized as one of the industry’s best at providing service and support, according to an advisor survey by Cogent Research. Importantly, Mr. Advani also committed the resources necessary to comply with a host of new regulations, particularly in Europe.

Jennifer M. Johnson, Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer.

Ms. Johnson oversees investment management services, the global transfer agency, human resources, technology and the Company’s banking subsidiaries. During the fiscal year, the global transfer agency achieved a five-star industry ranking for telephone quality according to National Quality Review. Under Ms. Johnson’s leadership, the transfer agency continued to increase servicing efficiencies and maintain cost controls over the last five years, reducing headcount by 12% and expenses by 13% despite ongoing increases in compensation and health insurance costs and a 30% increase in the overall number of shareholder accounts. The global transfer agent made significant progress towards completing its key initiative of transitioning to a new international shareholder servicing system to effectively support its 500,000 international accounts in fiscal year 2012; the transition was successfully completed in the first quarter of fiscal year 2013. The system will be used by over 300 employees in 14 locations across Europe, Asia and North America, supporting products distributed in 150 countries. In technology, the multi-year effort to transition to a new data center continued, resulting in total savings for the year of $8.8 million, which has exceeded the project’s expense reduction target by $3.0 million. Ms. Johnson oversaw enhancements to the technology infrastructure to increase the global reach and quality of experience for the Company’s redesigned international websites and to accommodate the launch of the new iPad app. Additional significant technology initiatives were completed to better manage investment management data, including upgrades to the Company’s global trading dashboard, order management system, and portfolio compliance system. In investment management services, progress was made in developing an integrated global processing platform to more effectively support rapidly evolving product strategies, ongoing regulatory changes, and increasingly complex investment securities. This important, multi-year effort progressed while the business continued to exceed overall processing accuracy goals and maintain cost controls. The banking group continued to make progress on its five-year strategic plan to provide a more efficient platform for the wealth management business. AUM for the group increased to $14.3 billion, ahead of the five-year plan target. The banking group also completed the successful sale of its auto loan portfolios and the wind down of Franklin Capital Corporation. Human Resources focused efforts on employee recognition and engagement, while also successfully implementing a risk-based approach to monitoring and addressing employee attrition. Based on an annual survey, employee engagement scores increased slightly over the high score achieved in the prior year. The global rate of top-performing employee attrition remained low at 3.6%.

Kenneth A. Lewis, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer.

Mr. Lewis directs the Company’s finance division and oversees the financial performance of the organization. He also oversees acquisitions, corporate performance measurement, strategic planning, enterprise risk management, corporate communications, and general services (corporate real estate). Diluted earnings per

39

share (EPS) for the fiscal year improved 4% to $8.95 from $8.62 in the previous year. Net income was up slightly to $1.93 billion for FY2012, compared to $1.92 billion in FY2011. The Company’s operating margin was 35.4%, compared to 37.3% in FY2011. In response to volatile market conditions early in the fiscal year, Mr. Lewis coordinated a challenge to business leaders to closely monitor expenses for the first six months of 2012. Overall, the Company was able to quickly reduce spending by mid-year, and positive feedback was received from the analyst community on FRI management’s cost control efforts and results. Mr. Lewis, working with Mr. Yun, oversaw the due diligence process and negotiations to acquire K2 Advisors Holdings, LLC (K2 Advisors). Mr. Lewis also oversaw multiple capital management initiatives during FY2012. Specifically, the Company returned approximately $800 million, or 41% of net income, to shareholders by repurchasing 7.5 million shares. Share repurchases have significantly exceeded equity grants, adding compound annual EPS accretion of 3% over the past five years. In addition, almost $700 million, or approximately 35% of net income, was returned via regular and special dividends, resulting in a total payout ratio of 76% for the fiscal year (almost $1.5 billion returned to shareholders). At Mr. Lewis’ direction, the Company raised almost $600 million via 5- and 10-year note offerings that were significantly oversubscribed, such that both deals priced at spreads and yields below those for comparable issuances by asset managers. The net proceeds were used to finance the purchase of a majority stake in K2 Advisors and redeem $300 million of Company debt maturing in 2013, extending and diversifying the maturities of the Company’s debt capital. Mr. Lewis improved internal employee communications through the launch of a dynamic corporate intranet platform that allowed for the introduction of localized content, audience-targeting capabilities, and internal blog posts. He further aligned the corporate budgeting and strategic planning processes and improved the quality of financial analysis related to product, channel, and vehicle profitability reporting. Mr. Lewis enhanced the investor relations presentations to better communicate Company strategy, operating results and capital management, while also initiating improvements regarding investor interaction with management and Company disclosures. He implemented real estate transactions for the Company’s offices in multiple locations globally.

William Y. Yun, Executive Vice President—Alternative Strategies.

Mr. Yun oversees the Company’s specialized and alternative investment business, which includes real assets, multi-asset strategies, dedicated private equity, commodities and managed futures, and the recently acquired hedge fund-of-fund business managed by K2 Advisors. Mr. Yun, working with Mr. Lewis, oversaw the due diligence efforts of the K2 transaction including reviewing the investment processes, philosophies, track records, risk management policies, financials, and valuation. Under Mr. Yun’s direction, an SEC-registered commodity fund was launched as well as a registered managed futures fund. Expansion of the firm’s multi-asset strategies group continued with new investment professionals in Italy, Germany, London, California, New York, and Florida. The multi-asset group launched several new investment strategies, including the Multi-Asset Real Return Fund, the U.S. Global Allocation Fund, and several customized global allocation strategies for international clients. In the private equity markets, the first closings of two key funds, including a $180 million Central Europe Mezzanine fund and a $90 million Asia Opportunities fund, occurred. During the year, the emerging market private equity group under Mr. Yun made 11 different portfolio investments across a broad spectrum of sectors and geographies. Mr. Yun worked with the real assets team this past year to focus on the group’s REIT performance. For the one-year period, 100% of these assets were ranked in the top two quartiles according to Lipper. Additionally, the Real Asset group held a final close for its Private Real Estate multi-manager fund. Mr. Yun worked with the firm’s China joint venture partner, Sealand Fund Management Company, and an existing sovereign wealth client to secure a large Qualified Foreign Institutional Investment (QFII) mandate for the local Chinese A-share market. Mr. Yun is actively involved with the firm’s joint venture in Vietnam, where he appointed a new CEO to oversee the launch of the country’s first open-end mutual funds as well as continuing to manage the firm’s existing and new private equity funds.

For fiscal year 2012, the incentive award payable to each Senior Executive was determined in relation to such executive’s performance in achieving his or her objectives. Twice a year the CEO, aided by the Company’s business planning group, evaluates each Senior Executive and his or her respective business unit’s progress in achieving its goals. In addition, the CEO works with senior members of the Company’s Human Resources Group

40

to recommend the appropriate award amount for each Senior Executive based upon such performance. As part of this process, the Human Resources Group conducts and reviews with the independent Compensation Committee consultant an analysis of competitive compensation by peer companies (listed above under “Peer Group Companies”), compares previous year over year performance and compensation paid to the executive, considers internal pay equity issues and reviews third party executive compensation surveys related generally to the financial services industry and specifically to the asset management industry. In addition, the Human Resources Group prepares tally sheets which include cash, equity and other compensation paid to each Senior Executive in prior periods as well as an analysis of the total projected wealth accumulation for such executive over the next five years. Upon completion of this review process, management presents the performance evaluations to the Compensation Committee and the CEO makes a recommendation regarding the appropriate level of incentive compensation in relation to the objectives achieved.

The Compensation Committee reviews and discusses the evaluations, competitive compensation information, tally sheets and the compensation recommendations for each Senior Executive. Based upon this review, the Compensation Committee assesses the reasonableness of the compensation recommendations and sets each Senior Executive’s incentive compensation for the fiscal year.

Based upon each Senior Executive’s performance and achievements described above, the Compensation Committee granted fiscal year 2012 awards to each of the Senior Executives under the Company’s KEIP in the following amounts: Vijay C. Advani: $5.0 million; Jennifer M. Johnson: $2.85 million; Kenneth A. Lewis: $2.28 million; and William Y. Yun: $1.8 million. Such awards were granted in fiscal year 2013. In keeping with the Company’s compensation philosophy, the first $1 million awarded was paid 65% in cash and 35% in restricted stock and amounts awarded in excess of $1 million were paid 50% in cash and 50% in restricted stock. The restricted stock grants vest over a three-year period after grant. The Compensation Committee believes that requiring time-based vesting of equity incentive grants helps to align executives’ long-term interests with those of stockholders, further ties compensation to Company performance, and aids in retention. In fiscal year 2012, based on performance in fiscal year 2011, the Committee also awarded long-term performance-based awards under the USIP in the following amounts: Vijay C. Advani: $1,000,000; Jennifer M. Johnson: $500,000; Kenneth A. Lewis: $500,000; and William Y. Yun: $200,000. These awards are subject to the achievement of performance measures based 50% on Operating Margin and 50% on Shareholder Return Ranking. The portion of the award tied to Operating Margin vests equally in one-third increments over a three-year period, while the portion attributed to Shareholder Return Ranking vests at the end of the three-year period, subject in each case to the achievement of the performance levels. The fiscal year 2012 Operating Margin of 35.4% surpassed the 30.0% threshold set forth for the year for this performance target. As a result, one-third of the portion of the performance-based long-term incentive award tied to Operating Margin performance will vest for each of the Senior Executives.

Benefits and Perquisites

All executive officers are entitled to receive medical, life and disability insurance coverage and other corporate benefits available to most of the Company’s employees. Executive officers (other than those who directly, or through attribution of shares held by certain family members, hold 5% or more of the Company’s stock) are also eligible to participate in the ESIP on similar terms to the Company’s other employees. Under the ESIP a participant may elect to have 1%—10% of his or her payroll deducted to purchase up to the lesser of $25,000 in value or 2,000 shares of the Company’s common stock per year at a specified price. In addition, all of the executive officers may participate in the 401(k) Plan. Similar to the Company’s other employees and subject to 401(k) Plan requirements, 75% of an executive’s total eligible compensation contributed to the 401(k) Plan is matched by the Company. The Board of Directors reviews and approves the annual corporate contribution to the 401(k) Plan.

The Company provides certain perquisites to its executive officers which it believes aid the executives in their execution of Company business. For example, occasional personal use of Company aircraft may be provided to enable named executive officers to devote additional and efficient time to Company business when

41

traveling. In addition, the Company may sponsor memberships in social clubs and provide tickets to events to provide for the entertainment of clients and prospective clients. Perquisites and other benefits represent a small part of the Company’s overall compensation package. The Compensation Committee believes the value of perquisites and other benefits are reasonable in amount and consistent with its overall compensation plan. For additional information on perquisites and other benefits please see the Summary Compensation Table elsewhere in this Proxy Statement.

Termination/Change in Control Matters

The Company’s named executive officers are employed on an “at will” basis, without any written employment or severance agreements. Accordingly, the named executive officers are not entitled to any particular severance benefit upon termination of employment by the Company. The Company may, however, provide severance on a case-by-case basis in its discretion as approved by the Compensation Committee. Similarly, the Company has not entered into any agreement with any named executive officer that provides for additional payments solely on account of a change in control of the Company. The Company’s only change in control provisions are found in existing compensation plans and apply to all participants in those plans.

Tax Considerations

In evaluating compensation program alternatives, the Compensation Committee considers the potential impact on the Company of Section 162(m) of the Code. Section 162(m) limits to $1 million the amount that a publicly traded corporation, such as the Company, may deduct for compensation paid in any year to its chief executive officer or any other of its three most highly compensated executive officers (other than the principal financial officer). However, compensation which qualifies as “performance-based” is excluded from the $1 million per executive officer limit if, among other requirements, the compensation is payable only upon attainment of pre-established, objective performance goals under a plan approved by the Company’s stockholders.

The Compensation Committee endeavors to maximize deductibility of compensation under Section 162(m) to the extent practicable while maintaining competitive compensation. The Compensation Committee expects that its performance-based awards either in the form of cash, restricted stock or performance shares should qualify for the performance-based compensation exception to Section 162(m). The Compensation Committee, however, believes that it is important for it to retain maximum flexibility in designing compensation programs that are in the best interests of the Company and its stockholders. Therefore, the Compensation Committee, while considering tax deductibility as a factor in determining compensation, may not limit compensation to those levels or types of compensation that will be deductible if it believes that the compensation is commensurate with the performance of the covered employee.

Other Considerations

The Compensation Committee has reviewed the aforementioned incentive plans and does not believe the goals, or the underlying philosophy and administrative guidelines create risks that are reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company. By utilizing long-term equity, including the settlement of a sizeable portion of annual incentive awards in the form of restricted stock vesting over three years and our stock ownership requirements, we align named executive officer compensation with that of the long-term stockholder. Additional mitigating risk factors include the use of multiple financial and non-financial performance metrics at the Company and business unit level, oversight of a committee of independent Directors with the ability to use negative discretion in awards and a forfeiture policy (described below) in the event of certain financial restatements. See also the discussion of the Board’s role in risk oversight under the heading “Information about the Board and its Committees”.

Stock Ownership Requirements. As discussed in greater detail under the heading “Corporate Governance—Stock Ownership Guidelines” in this Proxy Statement, the Board of Directors has adopted guidelines for the directors and the senior officers, including each of the named executive officers, concerning their ownership of

42

the Company’s common stock. The ownership guidelines specify the minimum amount of shares that the directors and such officers should own. The purpose of the stock ownership guidelines is to more closely align the interests of the directors and such officers with the interests of the Company’s other stockholders through good and bad economic times. In addition, the stock ownership guidelines are designed to strengthen the link between long-term Company performance and executive compensation. As of December 31, 2012, all executive officers were in compliance with these guidelines.

Prohibition against Hedging Transactions. As discussed in greater detail under the heading “Corporate Governance—Prohibition against Hedging Transactions” in this Proxy Statement, all employees, temporary employees, directors and officers are prohibited from short sales of securities, including “short sales against the box” (i.e. a short sale by the holder of a long position in the same stock) of securities issued by Franklin Resources, Inc. and securities issued by any closed-end fund sponsored or advised by the Company.

Potential Impact on Incentive Compensation of Financial Restatements. The Compensation Committee has enhanced current Company protections under Section 304 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 by approving clawback provisions under the AIP and executive award agreements. These provisions provide for the forfeiture by our executive officers and other employees of any awards granted or earned pursuant to the USIP or AIP (including under the KEIP), or earnings thereupon, in the event that (i) the Company issues a restatement of financial results to correct a material error, (ii) the Compensation Committee determines, in good faith, that fraud or willful misconduct on the part of the individual was a significant contributing factor to the need to issue such restatement, and (iii) some or all of the award that was granted and/or earned prior to such restatement by the individual would not have been granted and/or earned, as applicable, based upon the restated financial results. The forfeiture is enforceable by the Company by all legal means available, including, without limitation, by withholding such amount from other sums owed by the Company to the individual.

Timing of Awards. The Compensation Committee’s general practice is to make award decisions for the previous fiscal year and review salaries of the Company’s executive officers in November. This time frame allows the Compensation Committee to review a full year of the executives’ performance as well as a full year of the Company’s performance, given that the Company’s fiscal year ends on September 30th and the press release containing the Company’s earnings for the fiscal year typically is released in late October.

43

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary set forth in any of the Company’s previous or future filings under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, that might incorporate filings made by us under those statutes, the following report shall not be deemed to be “soliciting material,” or to be incorporated by reference into any prior filings or future filings made by the Company under those statutes.

COMPENSATION COMMITTEE REPORT

The Compensation Committee has reviewed and discussed with management the Compensation Discussion and Analysis included in this Proxy Statement. Based on this review and discussion, the Compensation Committee has recommended to the Board that the Compensation Discussion and Analysis be included in this Proxy Statement and incorporated by reference into our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2012.

Respectfully Submitted:

Compensation Committee

Charles Crocker (Chairman)

Samuel H. Armacost

Joseph R. Hardiman

Mark C. Pigott

44

SUMMARY COMPENSATION TABLE

The following table provides compensation information for the Company’s named executive officers for the fiscal years ended September 30, 2012, 2011 and 2010.

Name and Principal Position	Year		Salary ($)		Stock Awards ($)(1)		Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation (2)		All Other Compensation ($)(3)			Total ($)
Gregory E. Johnson		2012		780,132		8,850,000		2,650,000		40,039	(4)		12,320,171
President and Chief Executive Officer		2011		780,132		6,350,000		2,650,000		97,390			9,877,522
		2010		760,629		2,600,000		2,650,000		718,129			6,728,758
Kenneth A. Lewis		2012		525,000		1,550,000		1,290,000		—			3,365,000
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer		2011		525,000		850,000		1,350,000		—			2,725,000
		2010		511,875		732,500		1,150,000		20,435			2,414,810
Vijay C. Advani		2012		525,000		3,850,000		2,650,000		—			7,025,000
Executive Vice President— Global Distribution		2011		525,000		2,600,000		2,650,000		—			5,775,000
		2010		511,875		1,375,000		1,900,000		—			3,786,875
Jennifer M. Johnson		2012		525,000		1,850,000		1,575,000		—			3,950,000
Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer		2011		525,000		1,200,000		1,650,000		11,351			3,386,351
		2010		511,875		832,500		1,200,000		273,477			2,817,852
William Y. Yun		2012		525,000		1,000,000		1,050,000		—			2,575,000
Executive Vice President— Alternative Strategies		2011		525,000		600,000		1,100,000		—			2,225,000
		2010		511,875		715,000		900,000		—			2,126,875

(1) Stock award values represent the aggregate grant date fair value for all grants made during each fiscal year in accordance with the requirements of ASC 718 in the specified year for grants made in such year and prior years. For awards with performance conditions, the value at the grant date reported is based on the probable outcome of the performance conditions. Additional information is set forth in the “Grants of Plan-Based Awards (Fiscal Year 2012)” table below. See “Note 16—Stock-Based Compensation” in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for fiscal year 2012 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 15, 2012 for further details.

(2) Represents the cash portion of awards made under the Company’s KEIP. See “Compensation Discussion and Analysis—The Elements of Executive Compensation—Short-term and Long-term Incentive Compensation” above for more details.

(3) Includes amounts under year 2012 with respect to fiscal year 2011 but which were paid in fiscal year 2012.

(4) For Mr. Johnson, includes $37,021 for personal use of the Company’s aircraft. The aggregate incremental cost of personal use of Company aircraft is calculated using the rate per nautical mile for each personal flight, published twice per year by Conklin & de Decker Associates, Inc. for each type of Company aircraft. Such amount is based on the published rate at the time of the personal flight use. These rates are used by a variety of corporate aviation operators for cost and budget estimation purposes. The rates include the estimated variable costs of operating aircraft, including fuel, labor and parts for most scheduled maintenance, engine, propeller and auxiliary power unit overhaul cost and parts repair and replacement costs, landing fees and expenses, supplies and catering and crew costs excluding salaries, benefits and fixed costs. The rates do not include the cost of periodic aircraft refurbishment, hangar costs, dues, subscriptions, weather and navigation services or the cost of insurance and administrative services. The rates also do not include depreciation or any tax benefit reductions due to personal use. The aggregate incremental costs in the table includes the cost of all nautical miles flown for positioning flights necessary to accomplish a personal flight and to return the aircraft to its next scheduled location. Amount also includes fees paid or reimbursed by the Company for spousal activities related to off-site business meetings, a gift recognizing 20 years of service with the Company (consistent with Company practice across the entire organization), and a credit card membership fee.

45

GRANTS OF PLAN-BASED AWARDS (FISCAL YEAR 2012)

The following table presents information regarding grants of plan-based awards to the named executive officers during the fiscal year ended September 30, 2012.

Name	Plan			Grant Date		Estimated Future Payouts Under Non-Equity Incentive Plan  Awards(2)		Estimated Future Payouts Under Equity Incentive Plan Awards(3)(4)		All Other Stock Awards: Number of Shares of Stock or Units (#)(5)		Grant Date Fair Value of Stock and Option Awards($)(6)
						Maximum ($)		Maximum ($)
Gregory E. Johnson		KEIP	(1)		—		2,650,000
		KEIP			11/3/11				9,325,135
		USIP			11/3/11						14,042		1,500,000
Kenneth A. Lewis		KEIP			—		1,935,658
		KEIP			11/3/11				1,346,892
		USIP			11/3/11						4,682		500,000
Vijay C. Advani		KEIP			—		2,650,000
		KEIP			11/3/11				3,038,189
		USIP			11/3/11						9,362		1,000,000
Jennifer M. Johnson		KEIP			—		2,471,356
		KEIP			11/3/11				1,795,959
		USIP			11/3/11						4,682		500,000
William Y. Yun		KEIP			—		1,757,092
		KEIP			11/3/11				1,197,203
		USIP			11/3/11						1,874		200,000

(1) Incentive awards made under the KEIP typically include restricted stock granted under the Company’s USIP. Awards were comprised of 65% cash and 35% restricted stock for amounts up to $1.0 million, 50% cash and 50% restricted stock for amounts in excess of $1.0 million, and 100% restricted stock for amounts in excess of $5.0 million.

(2) Represents the cash portion of the maximum awards that may be made under the KEIP for fiscal year 2012. Awards under the KEIP have no assigned threshold or target amount, and are determined at the discretion of the Compensation Committee, subject to a pre-determined maximum. Accordingly, no threshold or target amounts are listed. Please refer to the Compensation Discussion and Analysis (“CD&A”) above for the actual cash amount received by each named executive officer in fiscal year 2012 pursuant to such awards.

(3) Amounts do not include the equity portion of awards that may be made under the KEIP for fiscal year 2012 because such awards were granted in fiscal year 2013.

(4) Represents the equity portion of awards under the KEIP for fiscal year 2011, which were granted in fiscal year 2012. Grants of restricted stock include time vesting provisions such that the award would vest in thirds on August 31, 2012, August 30, 2013 and August 29, 2014. In accordance with the terms of the USIP, the number of shares of restricted stock issued was determined based on the closing price on the NYSE of the Company’s common stock on the grant date. Any dividends declared on the Company’s common stock are paid on the unvested shares.

(5) Represents performance-based long-term incentive awards under the USIP granted on November 3, 2011. The number of shares was determined by dividing the award value by the closing price of the Company’s common stock on November 3, 2011, the date of grant, rounded up to the nearest whole share. A portion of these performance awards vested on November 30, 2012; subject to the achievement of performance objectives the additional portions will vest on November 29, 2013 and November 28, 2014. Any dividends payable on the Company’s common stock prior to vesting are paid upon vesting.

(6) Determined pursuant to ASC 718. For equity awards that are subject to performance conditions, the value reported is based upon the probable outcome of such conditions, excluding the effect of estimated forfeitures.

Please refer to the “Compensation Discussion and Analysis” above for an explanation of salary and bonus in proportion to total compensation and further details regarding amounts disclosed in the Summary Compensation Table and Grants of Plan-Based Awards table.

46

OUTSTANDING EQUITY AWARDS AT 2012 FISCAL YEAR-END

The following table presents information concerning the number and value of option and stock awards held by the named executive officers as of September 30, 2012.

Name	Option Awards						Stock Awards
	Number  of Securities Underlying Unexercised Options (#) Exercisable(1)(2)		Option Exercise Price ($)(2)		Option Expiration Date		Number of Shares or Units of Stock That Have Not Vested (#)(3)		Market Value of Shares or Units of Stock That Have Not Vested ($)(4)		Equity Incentive Plan  Awards: Number of Unearned Shares, Units or Other Rights That Have Not Vested (#)(5)		Equity Incentive Plan  Awards: Market or Payout Value of Unearned Shares, Units or Other Rights That Have Not Vested ($)(4)
Gregory E. Johnson		55,197		34.03		12/14/12		60,339		7,546,599		30,249		3,783,242
		47,338		46.56		11/11/13
Kenneth A. Lewis		—		—		—		8,940		1,118,126		7,172		897,002
Vijay C. Advani		—		—		—		22,281		2,786,685		20,434		2,555,680
Jennifer M. Johnson		5,519		31.27		11/09/12		10,953		1,369,892		9,902		1,238,443
		9,204		46.56		11/11/13
William Y. Yun		—		—		—		6,678		835,217		4,364		545,805

(1) All options held by the named executive officers have vested and are shown in this column.

(2) The number of shares and exercise price of each outstanding option was proportionally adjusted in conjunction with a special cash dividend in December 2011, as required pursuant to the USIP.

(3) The shares consist of shares of restricted stock that vest as follows:

Name	Total Unvested Shares		Vesting Date
Gregory E. Johnson		14,472	8/30/13
		45,867	Vest in equal parts on 8/30/13 and 8/29/14
Kenneth A. Lewis		2,388	8/30/13
		6,552	Vest in equal parts on 8/30/13 and 8/29/14
Vijay C. Advani		4,496	8/30/13
		17,785	Vest in equal parts on 8/30/13 and 8/29/14
Jennifer M. Johnson		2,529	8/30/13
		8,424	Vest in equal parts on 8/30/13 and 8/29/14
William Y. Yun		1,686	8/30/13
		4,992	Vest in equal parts on 8/30/13 and 8/29/14

(4) Calculated by multiplying unvested shares by $125.07, the closing price of the Company’s common stock on the NYSE on September 28, 2012, the last trading day of the fiscal year.

47

(5) Includes performance-based shares of restricted stock that vest as follows:

Name	Total Unvested Shares		Vesting Dates Subject to Achievement of Performance Criteria
Gregory E. Johnson		11,803	11/30/12
		9,085	11/29/13
		9,361	11/28/14
Kenneth A. Lewis		3,271	11/30/12
		780	11/29/13
		3,121	11/28/14
Vijay C. Advani		7,012	11/30/12
		7,181	11/29/13
		6,241	11/28/14
Jennifer M. Johnson		4,315	11/30/12
		2,466	11/29/13
		3,121	11/28/14
William Y. Yun		2,803	11/30/12
		312	11/29/13
		1,249	11/28/14

OPTION EXERCISES AND STOCK VESTED (FISCAL YEAR 2012)

The following table presents information regarding stock option exercises and stock awards vesting for the named executive officers during the fiscal year ended September 30, 2012.

Name	Option Awards				Stock Awards
	Number of Shares Acquired on Exercise (#)		Value Realized on Exercise ($)(1)		Number of Shares Acquired on Vesting (#)		Value Realized on Vesting ($)(2)
Gregory E. Johnson		102,972		8,195,112		45,235		5,244,468
Kenneth A. Lewis		7,590		592,636		7,324		848,475
Vijay C. Advani		—		—		18,062		2,076,447
Jennifer M. Johnson		20,446		1,445,506		8,976		1,031,930
William Y. Yun		—		—		5,786		667,913

(1) The value realized on exercise of stock options is calculated by subtracting the exercise price of the stock option award from the closing price of the Company’s common stock on the date of exercise and multiplying that resulting number by the number of shares that were exercised under such option award.

(2) The value of each stock award is calculated by multiplying the closing price of the Company’s common stock on the date of vesting by the number of shares that vested.

48

POTENTIAL PAYMENTS UPON TERMINATION OR CHANGE IN CONTROL

The Company has not provided the named executive officers with agreements providing for severance payments, medical or insurance benefits or any other perquisites after their employment with us has ended or following a change in control.

As described under “Compensation Discussion and Analysis” above in this Proxy Statement, the named executive officers typically receive grants of incentive awards payable in the form of cash under the Company’s AIP and the KEIP, and restricted stock and restricted stock units under the Company’s USIP. Except as set forth below or as otherwise determined by the Compensation Committee, unearned awards made to a named executive officer under such plans are forfeited upon voluntary or involuntary termination of executive’s employment with the Company. In any event, the Compensation Committee, in its sole discretion, may pay, eliminate or reduce such awards.

Amended and Restated Annual Incentive Compensation Plan

In the event the employment of a participant under the AIP terminates due to death or permanent disability, such participant is generally entitled to receive a single pro-rata cash payment of unvested awards under the plan based upon time served during the relevant performance period. If a participant’s employment terminates due to retirement, such participant may, at the discretion of the Compensation Committee, receive a single pro-rata cash payment based upon time served during the relevant performance period. To be eligible to receive a pro-rata payment upon retirement from the Company, the participant must retire after reaching age fifty-five and have at least ten years of service with the Company.

The AIP does not expressly provide for any change-in-control payments, however, the Compensation Committee has the discretion to make awards under the plan in the event of a change in control.

Under the AIP, involuntary termination of employment includes employment that is terminated by the Company as a result of the Company’s dissatisfaction with the job-related activities of the employee or conviction of the employee of a felony. No payments would be made in either of these events. For involuntary termination for any other reason, such as job elimination, the Compensation Committee, in its sole discretion, may (i) pay the participant a pro-rated incentive award based upon performance during the plan year to the date of termination, (ii) pay the participant’s full award under the plan (or any greater amount), or (iii) not make any payment.

2004 Key Executive Incentive Compensation Plan

As described in more detail under “Compensation Discussion and Analysis—The Elements of Executive Compensation—Incentive Compensation,” the 2004 Key Executive Incentive Compensation Plan, or KEIP, is a sub-plan under the AIP. Consequently, all of the provisions described above regarding the Annual Incentive Compensation Plan apply to grants made under the KEIP. In addition, the KEIP includes separate terms regarding termination payments which are summarized below.

If the employment of a participant in the KEIP terminates due to death, permanent disability or retirement, such participant is generally entitled to receive payment of any award under the plan with respect to the fiscal year of such termination. In addition, if a participant terminates employment with the Company for any reason other than death, permanent disability or retirement, any award under the plan with respect to the fiscal year of such termination is generally required to be reduced proportionately based on the date of termination. To be eligible to receive a payment upon retirement from the Company, the participant must retire after reaching age fifty-five and have at least ten years of service with the Company. To be eligible for awards in the event of permanent disability, the executive must be eligible for payments under the Company’s long-term disability insurance policy. In any event, the Compensation Committee, in its sole discretion, may pay, eliminate or reduce any such awards under the KEIP.

49

The KEIP does not expressly provide for any change-in-control payments, however, the Compensation Committee has the discretion to make awards under the plan in the event of a change in control.

2002 Universal Stock Incentive Plan

Pursuant to the terms of the Company’s USIP and applicable award agreements, any options that are exercisable by a named executive officer will remain exercisable for a period of (i) 180 days after termination of employment due to the death or permanent disability of the executive, and (ii) 90 days after termination of such executive’s employment for any other reason; provided that in no case will the option remain exercisable later than its expiration date.

Pursuant to the terms of the USIP, a change in control of the Company means a proposed dissolution or liquidation of the Company or a merger or corporate combination (a “Transaction”) in which the successor corporation does not agree to assume the award or substitute an equivalent award. The Compensation Committee must notify participants of such treatment no later than ten days prior to such proposed Transaction. To the extent not previously exercised, option grants and awards terminate immediately prior to the consummation of such proposed Transaction.

Compensation Committee Policy & Practice

Notwithstanding the discussion above, pursuant to the terms of the KEIP and the AIP, the Compensation Committee, in its sole discretion, may eliminate or reduce any unvested awards otherwise payable to a participant following termination of employment. In addition, the Compensation Committee has the authority to pay the full award amount to a participant whose award would have otherwise been reduced or forfeited following termination of employment or a change in control. The Compensation Committee also has the discretion under the USIP to determine the terms, conditions, performance criteria, restrictions, and other provisions of awards made under the USIP.

As a general policy matter, the Compensation Committee limits the payment of unvested awards under the KEIP, the AIP and the USIP following a participant’s termination of employment. We expect the Compensation Committee would act similarly upon a change in control. Payments for unvested awards, if any, made to the named executive officers upon the termination of employment or upon a change in control are determined on a case-by-case basis by the Compensation Committee.

50

Estimated Payments Upon Termination

Because of the Compensation Committee’s general policy of limiting payments to the named executive officers following termination of employment and its authority to reduce or increase the payments otherwise available under awards, the amounts payable to the named executive officers following termination of employment are not determinable. The following table sets forth a range of the potential compensation that could become payable under the KEIP and the AIP if a named executive officer’s employment had terminated on September 30, 2012. The amounts provided are based upon the named executive officer’s compensation and service levels as of September 30, 2012 and, if applicable, based on the closing price of the Company’s common stock on the NYSE on September 28, 2012, the last trading day of fiscal year 2012. None of the named executive officers had reached age 55 as of September 30, 2012, a requirement for retirement payments under the KEIP and AIP.

Name	Death or Permanent Disability(1)(2)($)		Voluntary Termination(3)(4)($)		Involuntary Termination(3)(5)($)
Gregory E. Johnson		0 - 13,979,841		0 - 2,650,000		0 - 2,650,000
Kenneth A. Lewis		0 - 3,365,128		0 - 1,350,000		0 - 1,350,000
Vijay C. Advani		0 - 7,992,365		0 - 2,650,000		0 - 2,650,000
Jennifer M. Johnson		0 - 4,258,335		0 - 1,650,000		0 - 1,650,000
William Y. Yun		0 - 2,481,023		0 - 1,100,000		0 - 1,100,000

(1) Amounts included in this column range from $0 to a maximum payment which is based on the executive’s fiscal year 2011 cash bonus, plus the cash value of the executive’s unvested stock awards listed under the column “Stock Awards” in the “Outstanding Equity Awards at 2012 Fiscal Year-End” table above, as determined in the discretion of the Compensation Committee.

(2) Permanent Disability means that the executive is eligible for payments under the Company’s long-term permanent disability insurance policy.

(3) Amounts included in this column range from $0 to a maximum payment which is based on the executive’s fiscal year 2011 cash bonus, as determined in the discretion of the Compensation Committee.

(4) Under the AIP, voluntary termination of employment generally means that an executive voluntarily resigned from employment at the Company.

(5) Under the AIP, involuntary termination of employment includes employment that is terminated by the Company as a result of the Company’s dissatisfaction with the job-related activities of the employee or conviction of the employee of a felony. No payments would be made in either of these events. For involuntary termination for any other reason, such as job elimination, the Compensation Committee, in its sole discretion, may (i) pay the participant a pro-rated incentive award based upon performance during the plan year to the date of termination, (ii) pay the participant’s full award under the plan (or any greater amount) or (iii) not make any payment.

51

Estimated Payments Upon a Change in Control

None of the named executive officers have agreements which provide for payments upon a change in control of the Company. However, under the Company’s USIP the Compensation Committee has the discretion to make a determination as to the equitable treatment of awards upon a change in control. The Compensation Committee may, in its discretion, make cash awards under the KEIP and the AIP and awards of restricted stock under the USIP following a change in control. The following table sets forth an estimate of the potential compensation that may become payable under the USIP, the KEIP and the AIP upon a change in control of the Company. A change in control of the Company is deemed to have occurred upon the occurrence of certain transactions as defined in the USIP and specified above. The amounts provided are based upon the named executive officer’s compensation and service levels as of September 30, 2012, and if applicable, based on the closing price of the Company’s common stock on the NYSE on September 28, 2012, the last trading day of fiscal year 2012.

Name	Cash(1)($)		Unvested Value of Restricted Stock(2)($)		Total($)
Gregory E. Johnson		0 - 2,650,000		0 - 11,329,841		0 - 13,979,841
Kenneth A. Lewis		0 - 1,350,000		0 - 2,015,128		0 - 3,365,128
Vijay C. Advani		0 - 2,650,000		0 - 5,342,365		0 - 7,992,365
Jennifer M. Johnson		0 - 1,650,000		0 - 2,608,335		0 - 4,258,335
William Y. Yun		0 - 1,100,000		0 - 1,381,023		0 - 2,481,023

(1) Amounts included in this column range from $0 to a maximum payment which is based on the executive’s fiscal year 2011 cash bonus.

(2) Amounts included in this column range from $0 to a maximum payment which is based on the cash value of the executive’s unvested stock awards listed under the column “Stock Awards” in the “Outstanding Equity Awards at 2012 Fiscal Year-End” table above and determined at the discretion of the Compensation Committee.

COMPENSATION COMMITTEE INTERLOCKS AND INSIDER PARTICIPATION

During fiscal year 2012, the following directors served as members of the Compensation Committee: Messrs. Crocker, Armacost, Hardiman, and Pigott. No member of the Compensation Committee was an officer or employee of the Company or any of its subsidiaries during fiscal year 2012, and no member of the Compensation Committee was formerly an officer of the Company or any of its subsidiaries or was a party to any disclosable related party transaction involving the Company. During fiscal year 2012, none of the executive officers of the Company served on the board of directors or on the compensation committee of any other entity that has or had executive officers serving as a member of the Board of Directors or Compensation Committee of the Company.

52

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary set forth in any of the Company’s previous or future filings under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, that might incorporate filings made by us under those statutes, the following report shall not be deemed to be “soliciting material,” or to be incorporated by reference into any prior filings or future filings made by the Company under those statutes.

REPORT OF THE AUDIT COMMITTEE

MEMBERSHIP AND ROLE OF THE AUDIT COMMITTEE

The Audit Committee of the Board of Directors of Franklin Resources, Inc. currently consists of Chutta Ratnathicam (Chairman), Charles Crocker, Laura Stein and Geoffrey Yang. Each of the members of the Audit Committee is independent as defined under the New York Stock Exchange listing standards and applicable law. The Audit Committee members are not professional accountants or auditors, and their functions are not intended to duplicate or to certify the activities of management or the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm. The primary purpose of the Audit Committee is to assist the Board of Directors in fulfilling its responsibility to oversee (i) the Company’s financial reporting, auditing and internal control activities, including the integrity of the Company’s financial statements, (ii) the Company’s compliance with legal and regulatory requirements, (iii) the independent auditor’s qualifications and independence, and (iv) the performance of the Company’s internal audit function and independent auditor. The Audit Committee’s function is more fully described in the Committee’s written charter, which is posted in the corporate governance section of the Company’s website at www.franklinresources.com/corp/pages/generic_content/corporate_governance/corporate_governance_charter.jsf.

REVIEW OF THE COMPANY’S AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2012

The Audit Committee has reviewed and discussed the audited financial statements of the Company for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2012 with the Company’s management.

The Audit Committee has discussed with PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (“PwC”), the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm, the matters required to be discussed by the Statement on Auditing Standards No. 61, as amended (AICPA, Professional Standards, Vol. 1, AU section 380), as adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board in Rule 3200T.

The Audit Committee has also received the written disclosures and the letter from PwC required by the applicable Public Company Accounting Oversight Board requirements for independent accountant communications with audit committees concerning auditor independence, and has discussed the independence of PwC with that firm.

Based on the Audit Committee’s review and discussions noted above, the Audit Committee recommended to the Board of Directors that the Company’s audited financial statements be included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2012 for filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Respectfully Submitted by the Members of the Audit Committee:

Chutta Ratnathicam (Chairman)

Charles Crocker

Laura Stein

Geoffrey Y. Yang

53

FEES PAID TO INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

The Audit Committee of the Board, with the ratification of the stockholders, engaged PwC to perform an annual audit of the Company’s consolidated financial statements for fiscal year 2012.

The following table sets forth the approximate aggregate fees billed or expected to be billed to the Company by PwC for fiscal years 2012 and 2011 for the audit of the Company’s annual consolidated financial statements and for other services rendered by PwC.

	FISCAL YEAR
	2012		2011
	(in thousands)
Audit Fees (a)	$	6,259	$	5,783
Audit-Related Fees (b)		1,543		1,801
Tax Fees (c)		1,072		173
All Other Fees (d)		265		650
TOTAL FEES	$	9,139	$	8,407

(a) The 2012 Audit Fees amount includes approximately $367,076 of fees related to fiscal year 2011 that were billed in fiscal year 2012 and the 2011 Audit Fees include approximately $142,530 of fees related to fiscal year 2010 that were billed in fiscal year 2011.

(b) Audit-Related Fees consist of assurance and related services that are reasonably related to the performance of the audit or review of the Company’s financial statements. Such services related primarily to internal control examinations pursuant to the Statement on Standards for Attestation Engagements No. 16, consultation concerning financial accounting and reporting standards, attestation services, due diligence services and audits of employee benefit plans.

(c) Tax Fees consist of tax return preparation, tax compliance, tax advice and tax planning services. For fiscal year 2012, tax return preparation and tax compliance services represented approximately $38,800 of the total amount of Tax Fees. For fiscal year 2011, tax return preparation and tax compliance services represented approximately $47,500 of the total amount of Tax Fees.

(d) Other Fees includes $47,000 of fees that have been contracted with the Company but which are expected to be paid by a third party. The remainder of Other Fees consists principally of services rendered in connection with assistance in regulatory reporting in various jurisdictions and miscellaneous services provided to certain of our funds.

Note: For fiscal years 2012 and 2011, none of the fees for services described under Audit-Related Fees, Tax Fees and All Other Fees were approved by the Audit Committee pursuant to the pre-approval waiver requirements under 17 CFR 210.2-01(c)(7)(i)(C).

PRE-APPROVAL PROCESS AND POLICY

The audit and non-audit services provided to the Company and its subsidiaries by PwC, the independent auditors, during fiscal years 2012 and 2011 were pre-approved by the Audit Committee. The Audit Committee has adopted policies and procedures for pre-approving all audit and non-audit services provided by PwC. This policy describes the permitted audit, audit-related, tax and other services that the independent auditors may perform.

Any requests for audit, audit-related, tax and other services must initially be submitted to the Company’s CFO. Any requests preliminarily approved by the CFO are then submitted to the Audit Committee for final pre-approval. Normally, pre-approval is considered at regularly scheduled meetings. However, the authority to grant specific pre-approval between meetings up to a designated approval amount, which amount for fiscal year

54

2012 was $50,000 (the “Chairman Approval Amount”), has been delegated to the Chairman of the Audit Committee. The decision of the Chairman to grant specific pre-approval of a service is presented to the Audit Committee at its scheduled meetings. If the estimated fees for proposed services exceed the Chairman Approval Amount, specific pre-approval by the entire Audit Committee is required.

55

CERTAIN RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED TRANSACTIONS

During fiscal year 2012, Franklin Templeton Bank & Trust, F.S.B. and Fiduciary Trust, subsidiaries of the Company, provided banking services in the ordinary course of their business to certain directors and executive officers of the Company and members of their immediate families. The services included loans, deposits, trustee, custodian and investment management. Services were provided on substantially the same terms, including fees, interest rates and collateral that prevailed at the time for comparable services provided to other third parties in arms-length relationships and did not involve more than the normal risk of collectability or present other unfavorable features.

For fiscal year 2012, Charles B. Johnson, Chairman of the Board and a director of the Company, who, among other family relationships, is the father of Gregory E. Johnson, President and Chief Executive Officer and a director of the Company, and Jennifer M. Johnson, Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of the Company, received a base salary of $180,000. Mr. C. B. Johnson did not receive a cash bonus in fiscal year 2012.

For fiscal year 2012, Rupert H. Johnson, Jr., Vice Chairman and a director of the Company, who, among other family relationships, is the brother of Charles B. Johnson, Chairman of the Board, received a base salary of $180,000. Mr. R. H. Johnson did not receive a cash bonus in fiscal year 2012.

David A. Lewis, Sr., a senior trader for Franklin Templeton Services, LLC, is the brother of Kenneth A. Lewis, one of the Company’s named executive officers and the Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company. In fiscal year 2012, Mr. D. Lewis’s base salary was $187,516 and he received a bonus of $230,750 in cash and 1,164 shares of restricted stock.

Messrs. Charles B. Johnson, Rupert H. Johnson, Jr. and David A. Lewis, Sr. are entitled to receive medical, life and disability insurance coverage and other benefits available generally to employees of the Company and/or its subsidiaries.

Share Repurchases. Under a stock repurchase program authorized by the Board, the Company can repurchase shares of its common stock from time to time on the open market and in private transactions in accordance with applicable securities laws. Pursuant to this stock repurchase program, the Company repurchased shares of the Company’s common stock from, among others, certain directors, executive officers and greater than five percent (5%) beneficial owners of the Company’s common stock, and certain members of the immediate family of the foregoing persons, during fiscal year 2012. The price per share paid by the Company for repurchases is generally the average of the high and low price of the Company’s common stock on the NYSE on the repurchase date.

In order to pay taxes due in connection with the vesting of employee and executive officer restricted stock and restricted stock unit awards under the USIP, the Company uses a net stock issuance method, equivalent to a stock repurchase program, to pay such taxes. For shares repurchased in connection with the payment of taxes on vesting shares, the repurchase price is the closing price on the NYSE on the date of the transaction.

56

During fiscal year 2012, the Company repurchased shares of common stock from the persons listed below for the aggregate consideration shown.

Name and Title	Number of Shares Repurchased			Aggregate Consideration($)
Vijay C. Advani,		8,435			969,674
Executive Vice President—Global Advisory Services
Rupert J. Johnson,		200,000			19,080,000
Vice Chairman
Kenneth A. Lewis,		3,085	(a)		356,861
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
John M. Lusk,		2,690			311,145
Executive Vice President—Investment Management
Craig S. Tyle,		1,652			188,337
Executive Vice President and General Counsel
William Y. Yun,		2,398			275,771
Executive Vice President—Alternative Strategies

(a) Amount does not include 253 shares repurchased by the Company for $28,901 from David A. Lewis, Sr., a senior trader for Franklin Templeton Services, LLC, a subsidiary of the Company, and the brother of Kenneth A. Lewis.

Management and Use of AC Travel Aircraft. A wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company entered into an amended and restated aircraft management agreement, effective as of June 1, 2008, with AC Travel, LLC (“AC Travel”), an entity owned and controlled by Charles B. Johnson, Chairman of the Board and a director of the Company, to manage the operations of a Gulfstream III aircraft (the “G-III”) and a Gulfstream G550 aircraft (the “G550”), both of which are owned by AC Travel. We refer to the G-III and the G550 as the “Aircraft”. Under the management agreement, the subsidiary: (a) provides consulting and management services for the operations of the Aircraft; (b) provides flight crew personnel, including coordinating training of such personnel; (c) arranges for maintenance of the Aircraft; and (d) arranges for insurance and a hangar for Aircraft storage and also provides other administrative services. The initial term of the amended and restated agreement ended on May 31, 2009, with automatic one-year renewals thereafter, subject to cancellation by either party. Our subsidiary receives a monthly management fee of $10,000 for the G550 and $3,000 for the G-III for administrative services. Out-of-pocket costs incurred under the amended and restated management agreement for services provided are either reimbursed by, or passed through to and paid by, AC Travel.

Charles B. Johnson and the Company entered into an amended and restated reimbursement agreement, effective as of January 1, 2008, to provide for the terms of reimbursement when Mr. C. B. Johnson uses the G550 in connection with his travels on Company business. Pursuant to the terms of the reimbursement agreement, the Company reimburses Mr. C. B. Johnson for costs incurred in connection with his business travel on behalf of the Company on the G550, including costs for landing, parking, hangar, tie-down, handling, customs, regulatory fees and charges, in-flight catering, pilot and crew costs and communication charges. Under the agreement, the amount reimbursed by the Company is not to exceed $750,000 on an annual basis without the prior written consent of the Board’s Audit Committee. In addition, the fees reimbursed may not exceed the fair market value to charter a G550 aircraft from an independent third party. The initial term of the amended and restated agreement ended on December 31, 2008, with automatic one-year renewals thereafter, subject to cancellation by either party. The agreement automatically terminates upon Mr. C. B. Johnson’s termination of employment with the Company. In accordance with the reimbursement agreement, the Company reimbursed Mr. C. B. Johnson $136,745.38 for use of the G550 for Company business purposes during fiscal year 2012.

Office Lease. In October 2009, the Board approved a three-year fixed term extension of a lease of approximately 5,495 square feet of office space owned by the Company in San Mateo, California with Tano

57

Capital, LLC (“Tano”), a company owned by Charles E. Johnson, a son of Charles B. Johnson, brother of Gregory E. Johnson and Jennifer M. Johnson and nephew of Rupert H. Johnson, Jr. The aggregate amount of all periodic payments due under the lease during fiscal year 2012 was $159,794. The fiscal year 2012 effective return to the Company from the Tano lease was slightly higher than the fiscal year 2012 effective return realized by the Company from the other three tenants who have leased space on the Company’s San Mateo campus. In November, 2012, Tano and the Company entered into an amendment extending the lease for a fixed five-year term. The lease amendment reduces the office space leased by Tano on the San Mateo campus from 5,495 square feet to 4,125 square feet. The periodic payments due under the lease extension are $148,500 per annum.

Private Equity Fund Investment. On July 6, 2011, Franklin Templeton Capital Holdings Private Limited (“FTCH”), a subsidiary of the Company, entered into an agreement to make a $25 million dollar investment commitment to Tano India Private Equity Fund II (“Tano Fund”). Tano Mauritius Investments, which is the investment manager and a Class B and Class C shareholder of the Tano Fund, is a direct subsidiary of Tano Capital, LLC, which is owned by Charles E. Johnson. As of the end of fiscal year 2012, capital calls in an aggregate total of $5,211,278 have been made.

RELATED PERSON TRANSACTION POLICY

Related Person Transaction Policy. The Board of Directors has adopted a Related Person Transaction Policy (“Related Transaction Policy”) to address the reporting, review, approval and ratification of related person transactions. Related persons include the Company’s executive officers, directors and director nominees, holders of more than five percent (5%) of a class of the Company’s voting securities, and immediate family members of the foregoing persons. A “related person transaction” means a transaction or series of transactions in which the Company participates and a related person has a direct or indirect interest. Examples include sales, purchases and transfers of real or personal property, use of property and equipment by lease or otherwise, services received or furnished and borrowings and lendings, including guarantees. Transactions with related persons which are for Company business purposes, compensation of directors approved by the Board and compensation arrangements approved by the Compensation Committee are not considered related person transactions. All related person transactions are required to be reported to the Audit Committee. However, the Audit Committee has the authority to determine categories of related person transactions that are immaterial and not required to be disclosed and that need not be reported to, reviewed by, and/or approved or ratified by the Audit Committee. Pursuant to the Related Person Transaction Policy, the following related person transactions need not be reported to, reviewed by, and/or approved or ratified by the Audit Committee:

• The establishment or maintenance of a banking, trading, investment management, custody or other account with an affiliate of the Company, if the terms of such account are generally the same as or similar to accounts offered by the affiliate of the Company in the ordinary course to persons who are not related persons.

• Accounts invested in shares of one or more investment companies or portfolios in Franklin Templeton Investments (“FT Fund”) that are established and/or maintained by a Related Person on terms set forth in the applicable FT Fund prospectus or other disclosure documents.

• The extension or maintenance of credit, arrangements for the extension of credit, or renewals of an extension of credit, in the form of a personal home improvement or manufactured home loan, consumer credit, any extension of credit under an open end credit plan or a charge card, if such loan, consumer credit, extension of credit or charge card otherwise is permitted to such related person under the terms of Section 13(k) of the Exchange Act, whether or not such person is subject to such Section 13(k).

• Gross-ups and perquisites and other personal benefits from the use of Company owned or provided assets, including but not limited to personal use of Company-owned or provided aircraft and property, not used primarily for Company business purposes that, in the aggregate, are less than $10,000 in any fiscal year.

58

Audit Committee Review and Approval. Every quarter the Audit Committee reviews related person transactions. Such transactions involving an estimated amount of $120,000 or more require the approval or ratification of the Audit Committee. In connection with approving or ratifying a related person transaction, the Audit Committee will consider the relevant facts and circumstances of the transaction and any of the following factors that are relevant:

• The position or relationship of the related person at or with the Company;

• The materiality of the transaction to the related person, including the dollar value of the transaction;

• The business purpose for and reasonableness of the transaction;

• Whether the related person transaction is comparable to a transaction that could be available on an arms-length basis or is on the terms that the Company offers generally to persons who are not related persons;

• Whether the related person transaction is in the ordinary course of the Company’s business; and

• The effect of the transaction on the Company’s business and operations.

In addition, the Audit Committee has the authority to pre-approve certain categories of related person transactions, which transactions must still be reported to the Audit Committee at least annually. The Audit Committee has determined that Company purchases of shares of its common stock to pay taxes due in connection with the vesting of employee and executive officer restricted stock and restricted stock unit awards under the USIP are pre-approved, but should be reported to the Audit Committee annually. The Audit Committee may delegate its authority to review, approve or ratify specified related person transactions to one or more members of the Audit Committee between scheduled committee meetings. Any determination made pursuant to this delegated authority must be presented to the full Audit Committee at a subsequent meeting.

SECTION 16(a) BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP REPORTING COMPLIANCE

Section 16(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, requires officers, directors and persons who beneficially own more than 10% of the Company’s common stock to file reports of ownership on Form 3 and changes in ownership on Forms 4 or 5 with the SEC. The reporting officers, directors and 10% stockholders are also required by SEC rules to furnish the Company with copies of all Section 16(a) reports they file.

Based solely on its review of copies of such reports received or written representations from such executive officers, directors and 10% stockholders, the Company believes that all Section 16(a) filing requirements applicable to its directors, executive officers and 10% stockholders were complied with during fiscal year 2012; except that inadvertently, an untimely filing was made by William Y. Yun with respect to one sale transaction.

59

PROPOSAL NO. 2

RATIFICATION OF THE APPOINTMENT OF

INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

GENERAL

The Audit Committee of the Board has appointed PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as the independent registered public accounting firm to audit the Company’s consolidated financial statements for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013 and to audit the Company’s internal control over financial reporting as of September 30, 2013. During and for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2012, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP audited and rendered opinions on the financial statements of the Company and certain of its subsidiaries and many of the open-end and closed-end investment companies managed and advised by the Company’s subsidiaries. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP also rendered an opinion on the Company’s internal control over financial reporting as of September 30, 2012. In addition, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP provides the Company with tax consulting and compliance services, accounting and financial reporting advice on transactions and regulatory filings and certain other consulting services not prohibited by applicable auditor independence requirements. See “Fees Paid to Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” above. Representatives of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP are expected to be present at the Annual Meeting and will have the opportunity to make a statement if they desire to do so. It is also expected that they will be available to respond to appropriate questions.

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD

The Board recommends a vote “FOR” the ratification of the appointment of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013. The voting requirements for this proposal are described in the “Voting Information” section. If the appointment is not ratified, the Audit Committee may reconsider the selection of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm.

60

PROPOSAL NO. 3

STOCKHOLDER PROPOSAL

Mr. William L. Rosenfeld, 3404 Main Campus Drive, Lexington MA 02421, the holder of 100 shares of the Company’s common stock, has advised us that he intends to introduce the following proposal at the Annual Meeting:

Genocide-free Investing Proposal

WHEREAS

We believe that:

1. Investors do not want their investments to help fund genocide.

a) While reasonable people may disagree about socially responsible investing, few want their investments to help fund genocide.

b) KRC Research’s 2010 study showed 88% of respondents want their mutual funds to be genocide-free.

c) Millions of investors have voted for genocide-free investing proposals similar to this one, submitted by supporters of Investors Against Genocide, despite active management opposition.

d) In 2012, a genocide-free investing proposal passed decisively, 59.2% to 10.8% with 29.9% abstaining.

2. Franklin Resources, Inc. exercises investment discretion over its own assets and, through investment management contracts, those of Franklin and Templeton mutual funds.

3. The example of PetroChina shows that current policies do not adequately support genocide-free investing because Franklin Resources and the funds it manages:

a) Are large shareholders of PetroChina, reporting beneficial ownership of 1,479,642,253 shares (7% of the class outstanding) as of December 31, 2011. PetroChina, through its controlling shareholder, China National Petroleum Company, is Sudan’s largest business partner, thereby helping fund ongoing government-sponsored genocide and crimes against humanity.

b) Claim to consider “social and political issues in their risk assessment of individual fund holdings,” but maintained large holdings of PetroChina long after being made aware of PetroChina’s connection to genocide, an inherent risk factor.

c) Excused holding PetroChina by saying “engagement is better than departure” while providing no evidence of effective engagement.

d) Made investments in PetroChina that, while legal, are inconsistent with U.S. sanctions explicitly prohibiting transactions relating to Sudan’s petroleum industry.

4. Individuals, through ownership of shares of Franklin Resources and its funds, may inadvertently invest in companies that help support genocide. With no policy to prevent these investments, Franklin Resources may at any time add or increase holdings in problem companies.

5. No sound reasons prevent having a genocide-free investing policy because:

a) Ample alternative investments exist.

b) Avoiding problem companies need not have a significant effect on investment performance, as shown in Gary Brinson’s classic asset allocation study.

61

c) Appropriate disclosure can address any legal concerns regarding the exclusion of problem companies.

d) Management can easily obtain independent assessments to identify companies connected to genocide.

e) Other large financial firms such as T. Rowe Price and TIAA-CREF have avoided investments connected to genocide by divesting problem companies such as PetroChina.

f) Investor action can influence foreign governments, as in South Africa. Similar action on Talisman Energy helped end the conflict in South Sudan.

RESOLVED

Shareholders request that the Board institute transparent procedures to avoid holding or recommending investments in companies that, in management’s judgment, substantially contribute to genocide or crimes against humanity, the most egregious violations of human rights. Such procedures may include time-limited engagement with problem companies if management believes that their behavior can be changed. In the rare case that the company’s duties as an advisor require holding these investments, the procedures should provide for prominent disclosure to help shareholders avoid unintentionally holding such investments.

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD

The Board of Directors recommends a vote “AGAINST” this proposal for the following reasons:

Our approach to effecting change differs from that expressed in the proposal. The conditions in the Darfur region of Sudan are deplorable, and we support efforts toward positive and meaningful reform there. We also recognize and are respectful of the fact that there are many different perspectives and opinions on the best way to approach this and similar issues. We believe that fostering economic and business development through investment can often help in achieving reforms.

The Company has responsibilities to our stockholders and our investment advisor subsidiaries have responsibilities to the clients on whose behalf they hold securities. The Company must act in what it believes to be the best interests of the corporation and its stockholders, including with respect to decisions on how to invest its capital. Its subsidiaries that advise mutual funds have responsibilities to the fund shareholders to make investment decisions that are consistent with the investment guidelines contained in a fund’s prospectus. In keeping with these obligations, our investment advisors consider all material factors in assessing the merits of an investment and seek to achieve the best investment results for the funds they advise, consistent with stated investment goals and policies.

The Franklin Templeton Investments organization considers human rights as part of the investment management process. We recognize that human rights, environmental, social and governance issues have the potential to affect the performance of an investment and, therefore, believe that consideration of these issues should be incorporated into mainstream investment analysis and decision-making processes. We believe that our investment approach, which considers these issues on an investment-by-investment basis and as part of the overall investment management process, is preferable to the approach recommended by this stockholder proposal.

The Company and its subsidiaries comply with all applicable legal and regulatory restrictions on investments. United States law prohibits investments in companies owned or controlled by the government of Sudan. Our investment advisors are committed to complying fully with these investment sanctions and any additional investment sanctions that the United States government might enact with respect to companies doing business in Sudan or any other country. We recognize and respect that investors, including those investing in the

62

funds our investment advisors manage, have other investment opportunities open to them should they wish to avoid investments in certain companies or countries. However, we do not believe that adding additional procedures limiting otherwise lawful investments and our investment advisors’ ability to select the best investments for their investors would be in the best interests of our stockholders or the shareholders in the funds our subsidiaries advise.

Accordingly, the Board recommends a vote AGAINST this proposal.

63

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

STOCKHOLDER PROPOSALS AND NOMINATIONS OF DIRECTORS AT 2014 ANNUAL MEETING

If a stockholder intends to present any proposal for inclusion in the Company’s proxy statement in accordance with Rule 14a-8 promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, for consideration at the Company’s 2014 annual meeting of stockholders, the proposal must be received by the Secretary of the Company by September 26, 2013. Such proposal must also meet the other requirements of the rules of the SEC relating to stockholder proposals.

The Company’s Amended and Restated Bylaws contain an advance notice of stockholder business and nominations requirement (Section 2.3 of the Amended and Restated Bylaws), which generally prescribes the procedures that a stockholder of the Company must follow if the stockholder intends, at an annual or special meeting of stockholders, to nominate a person for election to the Company’s Board of Directors or to propose other business to be considered by stockholders. These procedures include, among other things, that the stockholder give timely notice to the Secretary of the Company of the nomination or other proposed business, that the notice contain specified information, and that the stockholder comply with certain other requirements. Generally, in the case of an annual meeting of stockholders, a stockholder’s notice in order to be timely must be delivered in writing to the Secretary of the Company, at its principal executive office, not later than the close of business on the 120th day nor earlier than the close of business on the 150th day prior to the first anniversary of the date on which the Company first (i) mailed its notice of annual meeting, proxy statement and proxy or (ii) sent its notice of annual meeting and notice of internet availability of its proxy materials, whichever is earlier, for the immediately preceding year’s annual meeting. As specified in the Amended and Restated Bylaws, different notice deadlines apply in the case of a special meeting, or when the date of an annual meeting is more than 30 days before or after the first anniversary of the prior year’s meeting. If a stockholder’s nomination or proposal is not in compliance with the procedures set forth in the Amended and Restated Bylaws, the Company may disregard such nomination or proposal.

Accordingly, if a stockholder of the Company intends, at the Company’s 2014 annual meeting of stockholders, to nominate a person for election to the Company’s Board of Directors or to propose other business, the stockholder must deliver a notice of such nomination or proposal to the Company’s Secretary not later than the close of business on September 26, 2013, and not earlier than the close of business on August 27, 2013, and comply with the requirements of the Amended and Restated Bylaws. If a stockholder submits a proposal outside of Rule 14a-8 for the Company’s 2014 annual meeting of stockholders and such proposal is not delivered within the time frame specified in the Amended and Restated Bylaws, the Company’s proxy may confer discretionary authority on persons being appointed as proxies on behalf of the Company to vote on such proposal.

Notices should be addressed in writing to: Maria Gray, Secretary, Franklin Resources, Inc., One Franklin Parkway, San Mateo, CA 94403-1906.

CONTACT THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Stockholders and others may contact the Board, the non-management directors, the independent directors or any other individual director by sending a written communication appropriately addressed to:

Board of Directors

Franklin Resources, Inc.

c/o Maria Gray, Secretary

One Franklin Parkway

San Mateo, CA 94403-1906

64

You may specify whether you would prefer to direct your communication to the full Board of Directors, only the non-management directors or any other particular individual director. Stockholders making such communications are encouraged to state that they are stockholders and provide the exact name in which their shares are held and the number of shares held.

In addition, the Company has established separate procedures for its employees to submit concerns on an anonymous and confidential basis regarding questionable accounting, internal accounting controls or auditing matters and possible violations of the Company’s Code of Ethics and Business Conduct, securities laws or other laws, which are available on the Company’s Intranet.

Non-employees may submit any complaint regarding accounting, internal accounting controls or auditing matters directly to the Audit Committee of the Board of the Directors by sending a written communication appropriately addressed to:

Audit Committee

Franklin Resources, Inc.

One Franklin Parkway

San Mateo, CA 94403-1906

ELECTRONIC ACCESS TO PROXY MATERIALS AND DIRECTIONS

Whether you received the Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials or paper copies of proxy materials, the Company’s proxy materials, including this Proxy Statement and our Annual Report, are available for you to review online. To request a paper copy of proxy materials, please call 1-800-579-1639, or you may request a paper copy by email at sendmaterial@proxyvote.com, or by logging onto www.proxyvote.com.

For directions to the Annual Meeting site, please visit our website at:

www.franklintempleton.com/retail/pages/generic_content/global_nav/contact_us/pub/offices_us.jsf

HOUSEHOLDING OF PROXY MATERIALS

The SEC has adopted rules that permit companies and intermediaries (such as banks and brokers) to satisfy the delivery requirements for proxy statements and annual reports with respect to two or more stockholders sharing the same address by delivering a single Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials (or proxy materials in the case of stockholders who receive paper copies of proxy materials), addressed to those stockholders. This process, which is commonly referred to as “householding,” potentially means extra convenience for stockholders and cost savings for companies.

A number of banks and brokers with account holders who are beneficial holders of the Company’s common stock will be householding the Company’s Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials (or proxy materials in the case of stockholders who receive paper copies of proxy materials). If you have received notice from your bank or broker that it will be householding communications to your address, householding will continue until you are notified otherwise or until you revoke your consent. If, at any time, you no longer wish to participate in householding and would prefer to receive a separate Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials (or proxy material, if applicable), please notify your bank or broker, or contact Investor Relations, Franklin Resources, Inc., One Franklin Parkway, San Mateo, CA 94403-1906, Telephone (650) 312-4091. The Company undertakes, upon oral or written request, to deliver promptly a separate copy of the Company’s Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials (or proxy materials, if applicable) to a stockholder at a shared address to which a single copy of the document was delivered. Stockholders who currently receive multiple copies of the Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials (or proxy materials, if applicable) at their address and would like to request householding of their communications should contact their bank or broker or Investor Relations at the contact address and telephone number provided above.

65

THE ANNUAL REPORT

The Company’s Annual Report for fiscal year 2012 is available for viewing on the Company’s website at www.franklinresources.com at “Annual Meeting Materials” under “Investor Relations—Stockholder Services”. Please read it carefully. However, the financial statements and the Annual Report do not legally form any part of this proxy soliciting material.

ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K

The Company filed with the SEC an annual report on Form 10-K for fiscal year ended September 30, 2012. Stockholders may obtain a copy, without charge, by visiting the Company’s website at www.franklinresources.com.

The Company will provide a copy of the fiscal year 2012 annual report on Form 10-K, including the financial statements and financial schedules, upon written request to the Company’s Secretary, Maria Gray, at the Company’s principal executive offices, Franklin Resources, Inc., One Franklin Parkway, San Mateo, CA 94403-1906. Additionally, we will provide copies of the exhibits to the annual report on Form 10-K upon payment of a reasonable fee (which will be limited to our reasonable expenses in furnishing such exhibits).

By order of the Board of Directors,

Maria Gray

Secretary

January 24, 2013

66

ONE FRANKLIN PARKWAY SAN MATEO, CA 94403-1906	VOTE BY INTERNET - www.proxyvote.com
	Use the Internet to transmit your voting instructions and for electronic delivery of information up until 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on March 12, 2013. Franklin Templeton 401(k) Retirement Plan participants and Franklin Resources, Inc. 1998 Employee Stock Investment Plan participants who hold shares at Computershare must vote by 2:00 p.m. Eastern Time on March 8, 2013. Have your proxy card in hand when you access the web site and follow the instructions to obtain your records and to create an electronic voting instruction form.
	VOTE BY PHONE - 1-800-690-6903 Use any touch-tone telephone to transmit your voting instructions up until 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on March 12, 2013. Franklin Templeton 401(k) Retirement Plan participants and Franklin Resources, Inc. 1998 Employee Stock Investment Plan participants who hold shares at Computershare must vote by 2:00 p.m. Eastern Time on March 8, 2013. Have your proxy card in hand when you call and then follow the instructions.
	VOTE BY MAIL Mark, sign and date your proxy card and return it in the postage-paid envelope we have provided or return it to Vote Processing, c/o Broadridge, 51 Mercedes Way, Edgewood, NY 11717.
	ELECTRONIC DELIVERY OF FUTURE PROXY MATERIALS If you would like to reduce the costs incurred by our company in mailing proxy materials, you can consent to receiving all future proxy statements, proxy cards and annual reports electronically via e-mail or the Internet. To sign up for electronic delivery, please follow the instructions above to vote using the Internet and, when prompted, indicate that you agree to receive or access proxy materials electronically in future years.
	DO NOT RETURN YOUR PROXY CARD IF YOU ARE VOTING VIA THE INTERNET OR BY TELEPHONE.

TO VOTE, MARK BLOCKS BELOW IN BLUE OR BLACK INK AS FOLLOWS:

M50717-P31577-Z59103 KEEP THIS PORTION FOR YOUR RECORDS

DETACH AND RETURN THIS PORTION ONLY

THIS PROXY CARD IS VALID ONLY WHEN SIGNED AND DATED.

FRANKLIN RESOURCES, INC.

The Board of Directors recommends you vote FOR the following proposals:

1.

Election of Directors

For

Against

Abstain

For

Against

Abstain

Nominees:

1a.   Samuel H. Armacost

¨

¨

¨

1h.   Chutta Ratnathicam

¨

¨

¨

1b.   Peter K. Barker

¨

¨

¨

1i.    Laura Stein

¨

¨

¨

1c.   Charles Crocker

¨

¨

¨

1j.    Anne M. Tatlock

¨

¨

¨

1d.   Charles B. Johnson

¨

¨

¨

1k.   Geoffrey Y. Yang

¨

¨

¨

1e.   Gregory E. Johnson 1f.    Rupert H. Johnson, Jr. 1g.   Mark C. Pigott

¨ ¨ ¨

¨   ¨   ¨

¨ ¨ ¨

2.

To ratify the appointment of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013.

¨

¨

¨

For address changes and/or comments, please check this box and write them on the back where indicated.

¨

The Board of Directors recommends you vote AGAINST the following proposal:

3.

Stockholder proposal on Genocide-free Investing.

¨

¨

¨

NOTE: Please sign exactly as your name(s) appear(s) hereon. When signing as attorney, executor, administrator, or other fiduciary, please give full title as such. Joint owners should each sign personally. All holders must sign. If a corporation or partnership, please sign in full corporate or partnership name by authorized officer.

Signature [PLEASE SIGN WITHIN BOX]

Date

Signature (Joint Owners)

Date

Please bring this ticket for admission to the Annual Meeting.

Admission Ticket – Not Transferable

FRANKLIN RESOURCES, INC.

2013 Annual Meeting of Stockholders

March 13, 2013, 10:00 am PT

H.L. Jamieson Auditorium

One Franklin Parkway, Building 920

San Mateo, California 94403

Important Notice Regarding the Availability of Proxy Materials for the Annual Meeting:

The Notice and Proxy Statement and Annual Report are available at www.proxyvote.com.

M50718-P31577-Z59103        

FRANKLIN RESOURCES, INC.
This proxy card/voting instruction form is solicited on behalf of the Board of Directors
	With this proxy, the stockholder signing on the reverse side appoints Charles B. Johnson, Gregory E. Johnson and Maria Gray (the “proxy holders”), or any one of them, as the stockholder’s proxies with full power of substitution. The stockholder appoints the proxy holders collectively and as individuals, to vote all the stockholder’s shares of Franklin Resources, Inc. (the “Company”) common stock at the Annual Meeting of Stockholders, and at any and all adjournments or postponements of the meeting, on the matters set forth on the reverse side of this card. This proxy card also provides voting instructions for Franklin Templeton 401(k) Retirement Plan participants and Franklin Resources, Inc. 1998 Employee Stock Investment Plan participants who hold shares at Computershare as described in the proxy statement. The Annual Meeting of Stockholders will be held on Wednesday, March 13, 2013, at 10:00 a.m., Pacific Time, in the H.L. Jamieson Auditorium, One Franklin Parkway, Building 920, San Mateo, California. The Board of Directors has solicited this proxy and it will be voted as specified on this proxy card on the proposals listed on the reverse side. If you do not mark any votes or abstentions, this proxy will be voted FOR all nominees to the Board of Directors, FOR ratification of the appointment of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013 and AGAINST the stockholder proposal on genocide-free investing. If any other matters come before the meeting to be voted on, the proxy holders named in this proxy will vote, act and consent on those matters in their discretion.
		Address Changes/Comments:
	(If you noted any Address Changes/Comments above, please mark corresponding box on the reverse side.) Continued on the reverse side. Must be signed and dated on the reverse side. Please complete, sign and date this proxy on the reverse side and return it promptly in the accompanying envelope.