NOTICE OF THE

2018 ANNUAL MEETING

OF SHAREHOLDERS

AND PROXY STATEMENT

April 24, 2018, at

9:00 a.m. CDT

UMB Financial Corporation

1010 Grand Boulevard

Kansas City, Missouri 64106

NOTICE OF THE 2018 ANNUAL MEETING OF

SHAREHOLDERS OF UMB FINANCIAL CORPORATION

The date of this notice is March 13, 2018. The attached proxy statement and the related form of proxy are first being sent, given, or made available to shareholders on or about March 13, 2018.

Important Notice Regarding the Availability of Proxy Materials

for the Shareholder Meeting To Be Held on April 24, 2018:

The Proxy Statement and the Annual Report to Shareholders are available

at www.edocumentview.com/umbf

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ii

UMB FINANCIAL CORPORATION

1010 Grand Boulevard

Kansas City, Missouri 64106

PROXY STATEMENT

GENERAL INFORMATION

This proxy statement and the related form of proxy are first being sent, given, or made available by UMB Financial Corporation (“we” or “UMB”) on or about March 13, 2018, to the shareholders of record of our common stock, par value of one dollar ($1.00) per share (“UMB stock”), at the close of business on March 1, 2018 (the “record date”), in connection with our 2018 annual meeting of shareholders and any adjournment or postponement of the meeting (the “Annual Meeting”).

The Annual Meeting will be held at 9:00 a.m. CDT on April 24, 2018, at our principal executive offices located at 1010 Grand Boulevard, Kansas City, Missouri 64106, for the purposes described in this proxy statement.

The following matters will be presented to our shareholders:

Afterward, we will present a report on our business and operations.

No shareholder has a dissenter’s right of appraisal or similar right in connection with any of these matters.

Attendance at the Annual Meeting will be limited to shareholders of record or their proxies, beneficial owners of UMB stock who present proof of ownership, and our guests. Attendees may be required to present a valid form of government-issued photo identification (such as a driver’s license) in order to gain admittance.

Proxies are being solicited to afford all shareholders of record an opportunity to vote on matters presented at the Annual Meeting.

It is important that your shares be represented at the Annual Meeting, regardless of how many you own, and we strongly encourage you to vote by proxy even if you are planning to attend in person.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT

THE ANNUAL MEETING, THESE PROXY MATERIALS, AND VOTING YOUR SHARES

Why did I receive these proxy materials?

You received our proxy statement, annual report and Annual Report on Form 10-K (collectively, “Annual Report”), or notice of internet availability of the foregoing, as applicable, because UMB’s Board of Directors (the “Board”) is soliciting your proxy to vote at the Annual Meeting. This proxy statement contains information that we are required to provide you under the rules of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) and is intended to assist you in voting your shares.

What is a proxy?

A proxy is your grant of authority to another person to vote your shares. The person granted this authority is also called a proxy. When you designate a proxy, you may direct the proxy how to vote your shares.

Who may vote at the Annual Meeting?

Shareholders of record at the close of business on the record date may vote at the Annual Meeting. As of the record date, 50,033,904 shares of UMB stock were issued and outstanding and, therefore, eligible to be voted at the Annual Meeting. Each share of UMB stock is entitled to one vote.

Who is a shareholder of record or a beneficial owner?

“Shareholders of record” or “record holders” have shares of UMB stock registered in their names, either in book entry or certificate form, with our transfer agent, Computershare Trust Company. “Beneficial owners,” in contrast, own shares of UMB stock that are held in “street name” through a broker, bank, or other nominee.

Beneficial owners generally cannot vote their shares directly and must instead instruct their brokers, banks, or other nominees how to vote the shares. If you are a beneficial owner of UMB stock, your proxy is being solicited through your broker, bank, or other nominee.

What are my voting rights?

You may vote “FOR” or “WITHHOLD” on the nominees under Proposal #1. You may vote “FOR,” “AGAINST,” or “ABSTAIN” on Proposals #2, #3 and #4.

Cumulative voting will apply in connection with Proposal #1—election of directors. See “What vote is required for each proposal?” later in this section. Cumulative voting will not apply in connection with any other proposal at the Annual Meeting.

If you are a beneficial owner of shares, and you do not provide instruction to your broker, bank, or other nominee, your broker, bank or other nominee is not permitted to vote your shares on certain proposals. See “What vote is required for each proposal?” later in this section.

2

How does the Board recommend that I vote?

The Board recommends that you vote as follows:

What vote is required for each proposal?

3

How do I vote my shares?

We strongly encourage all shareholders to submit their votes in advance of the Annual Meeting.

If I am a record holder, what happens if I submit a valid proxy prior to the Annual Meeting but do not provide voting instructions?

If you as a record holder submit a valid proxy prior to the Annual Meeting but do not provide voting instructions, your shares will be voted according to the recommendations of the Board. See “How does the Board recommend that I vote?” earlier in this section.

If I am a beneficial owner, will my broker, bank, or other nominee vote for me if I do not provide voting instructions?

If you are a beneficial owner and do not provide voting instructions, your broker, bank, or other nominee has discretionary authority to vote your shares on Proposal #3—ratification of the Corporate Audit Committee’s

4

engagement of KPMG LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm for 2018. Your broker, bank, or other nominee, however, does not have discretionary authority to vote your shares on Proposals #1, #2 or #4.

If I hold shares through the Profit-Sharing Plan or the ESOP, will the trustee vote for me if I do not provide voting instructions?

If you hold shares through the Profit-Sharing Plan and do not provide voting instructions, the trustee will vote your shares in the same proportion that the other shares in the Profit-Sharing Plan are voted. If you hold shares through the ESOP and do not provide voting instructions, the trustee can exercise discretion in voting your shares.

Can other matters be decided at the Annual Meeting?

When this proxy statement was printed, we did not know of any matter to be presented at the Annual Meeting other than those described in this proxy statement. If any other matter may be properly considered at the Annual Meeting, your proxy can exercise discretion in voting your shares on the matter. We do not anticipate that any other matter will be presented at the Annual Meeting.

Can I revoke or change my proxy?

You may revoke or change your proxy at any time before the vote is taken at the Annual Meeting.

If you are the record holder of UMB stock, you may revoke or change your proxy in the following ways:

If you are the beneficial owner but not the record holder of UMB stock, you must follow the directions provided to you by your broker, bank, or other nominee. Any beneficial owner of shares who wants to revoke a proxy at the Annual Meeting will need to present to the inspectors of election a legally enforceable proxy from the broker, bank, or other nominee indicating that the person is the beneficial owner of the shares.

If you hold shares through the Profit-Sharing Plan or the ESOP, you must follow the directions provided to you by the trustee.

Who pays the costs of preparing the proxy materials and soliciting proxies?

We will pay the costs of preparing the proxy materials and soliciting proxies, including the reasonable charges and expenses of brokers, banks, and other nominees for forwarding proxy materials to beneficial owners and updating proxy cards and directions. We also have engaged Okapi Partners LLC to assist in the solicitation of proxies for a fee of $10,000 plus disbursements.

In addition to our solicitation of proxies by mail, your proxy may be solicited by telephone, facsimile, internet, or e-mail or in person by directors, officers, or regular employees of UMB or its affiliates who will receive no additional compensation for doing so.

5

STOCK OWNERSHIP

Principal Shareholders

The following persons owned of record or beneficially owned (as defined in Rule 13d-3 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”)) more than 5% of UMB stock at the close of business on March 1, 2018:

6

7

Stock Owned by Directors, Nominees, and Executive Officers

This table sets forth the number of shares of UMB stock that were beneficially owned (as defined in Rule 13d-3 of the Exchange Act) at the close of business on March 1, 2018, by a director, a nominee, or a Named Executive Officer (as defined in “Compensation Discussion and Analysis—Overview” later in this proxy statement). It also includes the number of shares that were beneficially owned (as defined in Rule 13d-3 of the Exchange Act) at the close of business on March 1, 2018, by all directors and Executive Officers (as defined in “Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance” later in this section) as a group. The individuals designated as our Executive Officers are also our executive officers as defined in Rule 3b-7 of the Exchange Act.

8

Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance

Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act requires each officer (as defined in Section 16(a) and Rule 16a-1 of the Exchange Act, an “Executive Officer”), each director on our Board, and any person who beneficially owns more than 10% of UMB stock (collectively, the “reporting persons”) to file with the SEC reports of ownership and changes in ownership of UMB stock. SEC rules also require each reporting person to send or deliver to UMB a copy of each statement filed with the SEC by that person under Section 16(a).

Based solely on a review of the copies furnished to UMB during or with respect to 2017 and written representations from reporting persons that no Forms 5 were required to be filed, UMB believes that each person who was a reporting person during 2017 timely filed the reports required by Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act during 2017, except that Andrew Iseman, a former executive officer during 2017, filed two late Form 4/As on June 12, 2017 correcting transactions previously reported as follows: (a) the number of shares withheld for the payment of taxes when restricted stock vested on January 1, 2017 was underreported by 3 shares, and (b) the number of shares withheld for the payment of taxes when restricted stock vested on March 14, 2017 was underreported by 1 share.

9

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

Overview

UMB is committed to robust corporate-governance principles and practices. In addition to the information provided in this proxy statement, we maintain the following documents in the Corporate Governance menu at www.umb.com/investor:

You may request a copy of any of these documents by sending a written request for one to UMB Financial Corporation, Attention: Corporate Secretary, 1010 Grand Boulevard, Kansas City, Missouri 64106.

Corporate Governance Guidelines

The Board has adopted Corporate Governance Guidelines (the “Governance Guidelines”) to assist the Board in exercising its responsibilities to UMB and our shareholders. These Governance Guidelines serve as a flexible framework within which the Board may conduct business.

Code of Ethics

UMB believes that integrity is paramount. While all business is based to some degree on trust, our business has trust as a core principle. Being honest and fair to our customers, shareholders, and associates is not just a value but a moral imperative. In keeping with these principles, the Board has adopted a Code of Ethics (the “Code of Ethics”).

The Code of Ethics applies to all directors, advisory directors, and associates of UMB, including the Chief Executive Officer, the Chief Financial Officer, and the Chief Accounting Officer.

There were no waivers of any provision of the Code of Ethics granted in 2017. We will post on our website any amendment or waivers to the Code of Ethics, that are required to be disclosed under applicable rules of the SEC or The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (“NASDAQ”). A copy of the Code of Ethics will be provided without charge to any person who sends a written request for one to UMB Financial Corporation, Attention: Corporate Secretary, 1010 Grand Boulevard, Kansas City, Missouri 64106.

The Board of Directors

Overview

UMB’s bylaws (the “Bylaws”) allow for not less than 8 and not more than 18 directors, with the exact number to be set by the Board from time to time. The Board currently has 12 seats. The Board believes that this size is appropriate based on UMB’s present circumstances. All seats on the Board are up for election annually.

10

Of the 12 current directors, 10 have been determined by the Board to be independent under Item 407(a) of SEC Regulation S-K and “Independent Directors” under NASDAQ Listing Rule 5605(a)(2) (each “independent” and an “independent director”). The 12 current directors constitute all of the nominees for election at the Annual Meeting.

The primary responsibility of the directors is to exercise their business judgment to oversee and direct the business and affairs of UMB. Specific responsibilities of the Board include:

The Board’s Leadership Structure

The Board appoints one of its members to serve as Chair. The Board, in consultation with the Corporate Governance & Nominating Committee (the “Governance Committee”), evaluates from time to time whether an independent Chair would be in the best interests of UMB and its shareholders. Among the factors considered by the Board are the qualifications and performance of any non-independent Chair, the percentage of independent directors on the Board, the degree of independent oversight exercised by the Board, the soundness of UMB’s corporate governance structure and policies, and the performance of UMB.

Based on this evaluation, the Board has determined that the best interests of UMB and its shareholders are currently served by J. Mariner Kemper holding the positions of Chair and Chief Executive Officer.

Under our Bylaws and Governance Guidelines, whenever the Chair does not qualify as an independent director, the independent directors elect a lead independent director (the “Lead Director”). The Lead Director is responsible for the following:

11

Our current Lead Director is Greg M. Graves, who is also the Chair of the Governance Committee. Mr. Graves was previously the Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of Burns & McDonnell and has been a director with the Company since 2003.

The Board’s Role in Risk Oversight

Among the Board’s specific responsibilities is oversight of the risk-management policies of UMB’s global operations and the operation of UMB’s global risk-management framework.

The Board has created a Risk Committee (the “Risk Committee”) that is comprised only of independent directors and that is charged with approving and periodically reviewing the risk-management policies of our global operations (collectively, the “Enterprise Risk Management Policy”), including statements of risk appetite, and adapting the Enterprise Risk Management Policy when and as appropriate to changes in our structure, risk profile, complexity, activities, or size.

The Board also has created three committees comprised of senior officers of UMB or its subsidiaries to support the Risk Committee in developing and overseeing the operation of the Enterprise Risk Management Policy:

In addition, the Corporate Audit Committee (the “Audit Committee”) assists the Board in fulfilling its responsibilities to oversee the quality and integrity of the accounting, financial-reporting, and internal-control functions of UMB and its subsidiaries. The Compensation Committee (the “Compensation Committee”) likewise assists the Board in ensuring that UMB’s compensation programs incent balanced risk-taking within established appetites, tolerances, and limits and promote the sustained operating and financial performance of UMB.

UMB maintains as well, under the leadership of its Chief Risk Officer, a robust enterprise risk management program designed to identify, quantify, monitor, report, and control risks that we face. The Chief Risk Officer supplies the Board, directly or through the Risk Committee, with regular reports on the operation of this program, the evolving risks to our businesses, and the controls and other mitigants utilized to manage those risks. The Board, in turn, considers these reports, as well as other information from management or third parties, in reviewing and approving our strategic direction and otherwise overseeing and directing our business and affairs.

12

Independent Directors

The Board has determined that the following directors are independent directors:

These independent directors comprise over three-quarters of the Board. J. Mariner Kemper and Alexander C. Kemper have been found not to be independent due to their employment by UMB and familial relationship to UMB’s Chief Executive Officer, respectively.

In evaluating the independence of each director, the Board reviewed and deliberated on transactions, relationships, and arrangements between the director or any related person or interest and UMB or any of its subsidiaries. In particular, the Board considered the following matters: (1) independent directors or related persons or interests have varying degrees of banking relationships with UMB or its subsidiaries, such as deposit accounts, extensions of credit, trust services, or investment services; and (2) seven of the independent directors or related persons or interests are associated with commercial entities that received commitments or extensions of credit from UMB or its subsidiaries. All of these transactions, relationships, and arrangements, in the judgment of the Board, were made on terms and under circumstances at least as favorable to UMB or its subsidiaries as those that were prevailing at the time for comparable transactions, relationships, or arrangements with unrelated persons or interests or those that would have applied to unrelated persons or interests. The Board also concluded that none of these transactions, relationships, or arrangements require disclosure under Item 404(a) of SEC Regulation S-K. See “Transactions with Related Persons” later in this section. The Board determined as well that no independent director has a relationship that would interfere with the exercise of independent judgment in carrying out the responsibilities of a director.

Committees of the Board of Directors

The Board maintains four standing committees that are comprised only of independent directors (the “Committees”): the Compensation Committee, the Audit Committee, the Governance Committee, and the Risk Committee. The charter for each of these Committees can be found in the Corporate Governance menu at www.umb.com/investor.

Compensation Committee

The Compensation Committee is currently comprised of five independent directors: Robin C. Beery (Chair), Timothy R. Murphy, Dylan E. Taylor, Paul Uhlmann III, and Leroy J. Williams, Jr.

Ms. Beery, and Messrs. Murphy, Uhlmann, and Williams served on the Compensation Committee throughout all of 2017. Ms. Beery was appointed as the Chairperson in April 2017, replacing Mr. Graves who left the Compensation Committee to be lead director and chair of the Governance Committee. Mr. Taylor was appointed to the Compensation Committee in April 2017. Mr. Sosland also served on the Compensation Committee until April 2017.

The Board has determined that all of the current members are qualified to serve on the Compensation Committee under applicable rules of the SEC, NASDAQ, or the Department of the Treasury (including the independence, non-employee-director, and outside-director requirements for compensation-committee members).

Among the Compensation Committee’s primary functions are the following:

13

The Compensation Committee also (1) reviews and makes recommendations in connection with matters involving say-on-pay and say-when-on-pay votes by UMB’s shareholders and (2) reviews and approves or ratifies related person transactions involving compensation.

A narrative description of the processes for considering and determining executive and director compensation, including (a) the Compensation Committee’s authority and the extent to which that authority may be delegated and (b) the roles of UMB’s Executive Officers and compensation consultants in determining or recommending the amount or form of executive and director compensation, can be found in “Compensation Discussion and Analysis” and “Corporate Governance—2017 Director Compensation” later in this proxy statement.

Compensation Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation

No person who served as a member of the Compensation Committee during 2017: (1) is or has been an officer or employee of UMB or its subsidiaries or (2) has or had any relationship requiring disclosure by UMB under any paragraph of Item 404 of SEC Regulation S-K. No relationship described in Item 407(e)(4)(iii) of SEC Regulation S-K existed during 2017.

Audit Committee

The Audit Committee is currently comprised of four independent directors: Gordon E. Lansford (Chair), Robin C. Beery, Kevin C. Gallagher, and Kris A. Robbins. Mr. Lansford was appointed to the Audit Committee as its Chairperson in April 2017. Nancy Buese served as the Audit Committee Chair until her resignation from the Board in April 2017. Ms. Beery and Messrs. Gallagher and Robbins served on the Audit Committee throughout all of 2017.

The Board has determined that all of the current members are qualified to serve on the Audit Committee under applicable rules of the SEC or NASDAQ (including the independence requirements for audit-committee members) and that Mr. Lansford and Mr. Robbins are audit committee financial experts and/or financially sophisticated under those applicable rules.

The Audit Committee is a separately designated standing audit committee established in accordance with Section 3(a)(58)(A) of the Exchange Act. The Audit Committee assists the Board in fulfilling its responsibilities to

14

oversee the quality and integrity of the accounting, financial-reporting, and internal-control functions of UMB and its subsidiaries. In particular, the Audit Committee’s role includes assisting the Board in overseeing:

The Audit Committee has sole authority over the appointment and replacement of UMB’s independent auditors and is directly responsible for the compensation and oversight of UMB’s independent auditors. The Audit Committee also approves the risk-assessment methodology, risk assessment, and annual audit plan of the internal audit function and all decisions on the appointment, removal, and compensation of UMB’s Director of Corporate Audit Services. In addition, the Audit Committee (1) reviews and approves or ratifies related-person transactions (other than those involving compensation that are reviewed and addressed by the Compensation Committee), (2) reviews the summary of any complaint reporting a violation of the Code of Ethics, applicable law, or UMB’s policies and monitors any authorized internal investigation of such a complaint, and (3) establishes procedures for the receipt, retention, and treatment of any complaint about accounting, internal accounting controls, or auditing matters and for the confidential, anonymous submission by UMB’s associates of any concern about questionable accounting or auditing matters.

Governance Committee

The Governance Committee is currently comprised of five independent directors: Greg M. Graves (Chair), Timothy R. Murphy, L. Joshua Sosland, Paul Uhlmann III, and Gordon E. Lansford. Each of these directors served on the Governance Committee throughout all of 2017, with the exception of Mr. Lansford who was appointed to the Committee in April 2017. Mr. Graves became chair of the Governance Committee in April 2017, replacing Terrence Dunn who retired from the Board.

Among the Governance Committee’s primary functions are the following:

15

The Governance Committee has incorporated its policies on the nomination process for directors into the Governance Guidelines. See “Proposal #1—Election of Directors” later in this proxy statement.

Risk Committee

The Risk Committee is currently comprised of six independent directors: Kris A. Robbins (Chair), Robin C. Beery, Kevin C. Gallagher, L. Joshua Sosland, Dylan E. Taylor and Leroy J. Williams, Jr. All of the members served on the Risk Committee throughout all of 2017, with the exception of Messrs. Sosland and Taylor who were appointed in April 2017. In addition, Nancy Buese served on the Risk Committee until her resignation from the Board in April 2017.

Among the Risk Committee’s primary functions are the following:

16

Attendance at Board Meetings, Committee Meetings, and Annual Meetings of Shareholders

The Board met five times in 2017, and the independent directors met in executive session chaired by the Lead Director four times. In addition, during the year, the Audit Committee met five times and took action one time by unanimous written consent, the Compensation Committee met six times and took action one time by unanimous written consent, the Governance Committee met three times, and the Risk Committee met four times.

Each director attended at least 75% of the aggregate of the total number of meetings held in 2017 by the Board during the period when the director was serving in that capacity and the total number of meetings held in 2017 by all applicable Committees during the period when the director was serving on those Committees.

Under the Governance Guidelines, directors are strongly encouraged to attend the annual meeting of shareholders in order to provide an opportunity for informal communication between directors and shareholders and to enhance the Board’s understanding of shareholder priorities and perspectives. Eleven of the directors who sat on the Board at the time of the 2017 annual meeting of shareholders, and the two director nominees who were subsequently elected to the Board, were present at that meeting. Nancy Buese was not present at the 2017 annual meeting of shareholders.

Communications with the Board of Directors

Under the Governance Guidelines, if any shareholder wishes to communicate with the Board or individual directors, the communication must be in writing, addressed to the Board or the director, and delivered to the following address: UMB Financial Corporation, c/o the Corporate Secretary and the Chair of the Corporate Governance & Nominating Committee, 1010 Grand Boulevard, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. The Secretary will acknowledge the communication and will provide the Chair of the Board and the Chair of the Governance Committee with a copy or a summary. Any or no action may be taken in response to the communication as is judged to be necessary or appropriate and consistent with applicable law. Any director may review a log of all communications that have been received by the Secretary and addressed to the Board or individual directors and may obtain from the Secretary a copy of those communications. Any communication from a shareholder that expresses a concern about any accounting, financial reporting, or internal control matter will be promptly conveyed to the Chair of the Audit Committee and will be addressed consistent with the processes and procedures adopted by the Audit Committee.

Transactions with Related Persons

Statement of Policy and Process

We have adopted a written Statement of Policy and Process (the “Statement of Policy and Process”) that requires the Audit Committee to review and to approve or ratify any related person transaction, other than one involving compensation that is reviewed and addressed by the Compensation Committee.

A “related person transaction” under the Statement of Policy and Process is an existing or currently proposed transaction or series of similar transactions where (1) UMB or any of its subsidiaries was or will be a participant, (2) the amount involved exceeds $120,000, and (3) any related person had or will have a direct or indirect material interest. Related person transactions include any existing or currently proposed transaction or series of similar transactions for which disclosure under Item 404(a) of SEC Regulation S-K is mandated. The term “related person” under Item 404(a) means, at the applicable time, (a) any director or executive officer of UMB, (b) any nominee to the Board, (c) any beneficial owner of more than 5% of UMB stock, and (d) any immediate family member (as defined in Item 404) of any of those directors, executive officers, nominees, or beneficial owners. An indirect material interest can arise from a related person’s position or relationship with a firm, corporation, or other entity that engages in a transaction with UMB (excluding any interest arising only from the person’s position as a director of such an entity, the person’s direct or indirect attributed ownership of less than a 10% equity interest in such a corporate or similar entity, or the person’s position as a limited partner with less than a 10% direct or indirect attributed interest in such a partnership entity).

17

No review, approval, or ratification, however, is required under the Statement of Policy and Process for a transaction (i) where the rates or charges involved are determined by competitive bids, (ii) involving the rendering of services as a common or contract carrier or a public utility at rates or charges fixed in conformity with law or governmental authority, (iii) involving services as a bank depositary of funds, transfer agent, registrar, trustee under a trust indenture, or similar services, (iv) where the interest of the related person arises solely from the ownership of UMB stock and all holders of UMB stock receive the same benefit on a pro rata basis, or (v) involving indebtedness extended by any of UMB’s banking or broker-dealer subsidiaries if the extension of credit was made in the ordinary course of business, was made on substantially the same terms as those prevailing at the time for comparable transactions with unrelated persons, and did not involve more than the normal risk of collectability or present other unfavorable features.

Key personnel in businesses and operations of UMB or its subsidiaries that could possibly engage in related person transactions are responsible for monitoring and reporting to the General Counsel any existing or contemplated transaction that may be covered by the Statement of Policy and Process. The General Counsel will review this and other appropriate information, will inform the Audit Committee of any transaction that may require review, and will provide the Audit Committee with the information necessary to conduct the review. If any transaction is executed without the Audit Committee’s prior approval and the Audit Committee decides not to ratify it, UMB’s management will be directed by the Audit Committee to rescind or terminate the transaction as promptly and on as favorable of terms as feasible.

No member of the Audit Committee or the Compensation Committee participates in any review or consideration of any related-person transaction involving the member, the member’s immediate family, or a related entity.

Under the Statement of Policy and Process, when considering whether to approve or ratify a related-person transaction, the Audit Committee will consider (A) the terms of the transaction, (B) whether consummation of the transaction is consistent with the best interests of UMB and its shareholders, (C) the benefits likely to accrue to UMB, (D) the extent of the related person’s interest in the transaction, (E) whether the transaction presents a heightened risk of conflicts of interest, an improper valuation or the perception of such a conflict or improper valuation, (F) any impact that the transaction may have on a director’s independence, (G) the availability of comparable products or services from sources other than the related person, (H) whether the transaction is on terms no less favorable than those generally available to an unaffiliated third party under the same or similar circumstances or on terms comparable to those provided to UMB’s employees generally, and (I) whether UMB is obtaining products or services of a nature, quantity, or quality or on other terms that are not readily available from alternative sources.

Transactions Since January 1, 2017

The Audit Committee has reviewed and approved the following transactions since January 1, 2017:

18

The Audit Committee also has recognized that many of UMB’s related persons have engaged in credit or other banking transactions with one or more of UMB’s banking or broker-dealer subsidiaries in the ordinary course of the subsidiary’s business. Each transaction was executed on substantially the same terms as those prevailing at the time for comparable transactions with unrelated persons and did not involve more than the normal risk of collectability or present other unfavorable features.

In addition, since 2017, the Compensation Committee has reviewed and approved the compensation for Heather K. Miller, the sister of J. Mariner Kemper and Alexander C. Kemper. Ms. Miller is the Chief Marketing Officer for UMB. Ms. Miller’s compensation in 2017 totaled $380,654, which included (1) $203,654 in salary, (2) $77,000 under the 2016 Short-Term Program, and (3) grants under the 2017 Long-Term Program that were valued at $100,000 on the grant date. Ms. Miller’s salary effective March 26, 2018, will be $210,000, and in 2018 she has been awarded: (a) $119,823 under the 2017 Short-Term Program and (b) awards under the 2018 Long-Term Program that were valued at $102,500 on the date the award was determined.

There has been no transaction since January 1, 2017, that is required to be reported under Item 404(a) but that did not require review and approval or ratification under the Statement of Policy and Process or for which the Statement of Policy and Process was not followed.

2017 DIRECTOR COMPENSATION

For their service on the Board during 2017, non-employee directors received an annual retainer of (1) $40,000 in cash and (2) fully vested UMB stock having a value equal to $45,000 on the grant date, each prorated for the portion of the year served as director. No separate fee is paid for attendance at meetings of the Board. Directors who are also employees of UMB receive no separate compensation for serving on the Board.

In addition, for 2017, the Lead Director received an annual retainer of $30,000 in cash, prorated for the portion of the year as Lead Director. The Chairs of the Audit Committee and the Risk Committee received annual retainers of $14,000 in cash, and the Chairs of the Compensation Committee and the Governance Committee received annual retainers of $7,000 in cash. All annual retainers for Committee Chairs were prorated for the portion of the year served as the Chair of a Committee. Members of the Audit Committee received $2,000 in cash for each Committee meeting attended, and members of the Compensation Committee, the Governance Committee, and the Risk Committee each received $1,000 in cash for each Committee meeting attended.

19

The total compensation received by UMB’s non-employee directors for 2017 is reflected in the following table:

20

PROPOSAL #1—ELECTION OF DIRECTORS

Number of Directors

The Governance Committee periodically evaluates whether a larger or smaller number of seats on the Board would enhance the Board’s effectiveness and makes recommendations to the Board as appropriate. In assessing the size of the Board, the Governance Committee and the Board consider the need for particular talents or other qualities, the benefits associated with a diversity of perspectives and backgrounds, the availability of qualified candidates, the workloads and needs of Committees, and other relevant factors.

The Board currently has 12 seats. The Board believes that this size is appropriate based on UMB’s present circumstances. All seats on the Board are up for election at the Annual Meeting for terms ending at the 2019 annual meeting of shareholders or until a director’s earlier death, resignation or removal.

Nomination Process

The Governance Committee is responsible for periodically reviewing and recommending to the Board the desired characteristics of directors and the optimal composition of the Board as a whole.

The Governance Committee may consider existing directors for renomination and may use search firms or other resources to identify other potential director candidates. The Governance Committee also considers potential director candidates who are recommended by shareholders in compliance with applicable law and our Bylaws. Any recommendation by shareholders must include the potential director candidate’s name, biographical information, and qualifications and must be submitted in writing to the Corporate Governance & Nominating Committee, UMB Financial Corporation, Attention: Corporate Secretary, 1010 Grand Boulevard, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. The Governance Committee uses the same criteria to evaluate all potential director candidates regardless of how they have been identified.

In recommending and nominating director candidates, the Governance Committee and the Board consider the following to be minimum qualifications:

The Governance Committee and the Board also give weight to other factors that are expected to enhance the effectiveness of the Board and its Committees. Among these are diversity—including in terms of geographic region, professional or business experience, gender, race, national origin, and specialized education or expertise—and particular talents, relationships, or other qualities that are likely to contribute in a meaningful way to increasing the fundamental value of UMB and creating long-term value for shareholders. Although the Governance Committee and the Board do not have a specific policy in place for the consideration of diversity, they assess it regularly in connection with all of the factors that are considered above.

21

The Governance Committee and the Board take into account as well the evolving needs of UMB based on its strategic direction, business segments, growth objectives, risk appetites, geographic footprint, and tradition of providing the unparalleled customer experience.

The effectiveness of these processes and policies are assessed by the Governance Committee in connection with its periodic evaluation of the Board’s and each Committee’s performance as contemplated by the Governance Guidelines.

Nominations

The Governance Committee has recommended, and the Board has nominated, the slate of 12 director nominees identified below for election to the Board for terms ending at the 2019 annual meeting of shareholders, or until a director’s earlier death, resignation or removal. All of the nominees currently serve as Directors and have been nominated for re-election based on their qualifications and performance throughout 2017. Each of the director candidates has agreed to be nominated and, if elected, to serve as a Director. We do not anticipate that any nominee will become unavailable for election, but under our Bylaws, the shares represented by proxy and voting for any nominee who unexpectedly becomes unavailable prior to the election will be voted instead for a substitute candidate nominated by the Board. We are not aware of any arrangements or understandings between the nominees and any other person pursuant to which such persons were selected as a director or nominee.

22

Director Qualifications

Our directors are responsible for exercising their business judgment to oversee and direct the diverse array of businesses and affairs of UMB. The Board reviews, approves, and advises management on business strategies, significant corporate actions, and major transactions and also reviews assessments of and advises management on significant risks and issues facing UMB. In addition, the Board exercises oversight over the processes that are designed to ensure the integrity of UMB’s actions.

The Governance Committee is dedicated to assembling a Board that excels in fulfilling these responsibilities, exercises independent leadership and oversight of management, and operates in a cohesive and effective manner. In identifying and recommending director candidates, the Governance Committee remains mindful as well of the evolving needs of UMB based on its strategic direction, business segments, growth objectives, risk appetites, geographic footprint, and tradition of providing the unparalleled customer experience.

The Governance Committee believes that each existing director brings applicable talents, relationships, professional or business experience, specialized education or expertise, and other qualities to UMB and that all of the existing directors together form a robust Board that meaningfully contributes to increasing the fundamental value of UMB and creating long-term value for shareholders.

Skills Matrix

The Board continually identifies key qualifications, attributes, skills and experiences that are important to be represented on the Board as a whole, particularly given UMB’s current needs and priorities, and future planning. The following tables summarize certain of these key qualifications, attributes, skills and experiences, and identify directors possessing the same.

23

Robin C. Beery

Ms. Beery served as Executive Vice President, Head of US Distribution, for Janus Capital Group, a publicly traded asset-management company headquartered in Denver, Colorado, from September 2009 until her retirement in August 2014. She also was the CEO and President of the Janus Mutual Funds during that period and was a member of the Janus Executive Committee from 2003 to 2014. In her capacity leading US Distribution, Ms. Beery had direct

24

oversight of sales, client service, product, marketing, and corporate communications. Previously, from April 2003 to September 2009, she served as Executive Vice President, Chief Marketing Officer, for Janus Capital Group. She was the President of the Janus Foundation from 2000 to 2014, overseeing the firm’s philanthropic endeavors and community relations. She is currently an independent director and member of the board of trustees for the Hartford Multi-Factor Exchanged-Traded Funds Trust and Hartford Exchanged-Traded Funds Trust, and since May of 2017, the Hartford Mutual Funds Trust, with fiduciary oversight of the underlying mutual funds and exchange-traded funds. She has specialized knowledge of mutual funds and alternative products and deep expertise in portfolio management, financial-services distribution, brand strategy, and reputation management.

Kevin C. Gallagher

Mr. Gallagher is currently the Chief Executive Officer of Little Pub Holdings, LLC, Denver, Colorado, which is an owner/operator of 23 neighborhood pubs and restaurants, a position he has held since 2009. He also serves as the Chairman of West Creek Partners, LLC, a private investment firm, and, since 2015, Mr. Gallagher has held the position of Chairman of Gallagher Industries, LLC, a private holding company of lower middle-market industrial companies. He has entrepreneurial experience and marketing experience gained from serving as chief executive officer of a large complex diversified operation with companies in both the manufacturing and service industries. He also brings to the Board community-relations experience and experience in investments, mergers, and acquisitions.

Greg M. Graves

Mr. Graves previously served as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Burns & McDonnell, a consulting engineering company headquartered in Kansas City, Missouri, with offices and operations throughout the United States, until his retirement in December 2016. Prior to being named Chairman, he served as the President and Chief Executive Officer from October 2003 until December 2008; from January 2003 through October 2003, he served as the President and Chief Operating Officer. He served as General Manager of that company’s Energy Division from November 1997 through June 2001 and as President of its Energy Group from July 2001 through December 2002. Mr. Graves’s experience as chief executive officer of a large engineering company, with multiple offices and projects located throughout the United States and abroad, gives him leadership skills and growth management skills. He also has human-resources experience gained through his management of a large number of professionals and managers.

Alexander C. Kemper

Mr. Kemper, a brother of J. Mariner Kemper, is the Chairman of the Collectors Fund, a private-equity fund focused on alternative asset classes. He is also the founder, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of C2FO, a leading provider of payment-optimization technology and cash-flow solutions for corporations. Prior to founding the Collectors Fund and C2FO, Mr. Kemper founded and served as the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer from March 2000 to mid-2006 of Perfect Commerce, Inc. (formerly eScout LLC), a provider of supplier relationship-management technology. Mr. Kemper is a board member of AXA Art USA (Parent NYSE: AXA) and Sipvine. Prior to March 2000, he served as the President of UMB from 1995, as the Chief Executive Officer of UMB from July 1999, as the Chief Executive Officer of the Bank from January 1996, and as the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Bank from January 1997. Mr. Kemper also serves as a director, the chairman of the compensation committee, and a member of the audit committee and the governance committee for NIC Inc. (NASDAQ: EGOV). In 2008, Mr. Kemper became a director of the BATS Exchange and served on its executive committee, regulatory oversight committee, and compensation committee. Since 2016, Mr. Kemper also served as the chairman of the BATS compensation committee. After BATS was acquired by the Chicago Board Operations Exchange, he continued to serve in the foregoing capacities until his retirement from the board in December 2017. Because of Mr. Kemper’s prior experience as the Chief Executive Officer of UMB and as chief executive officer and founder of multiple start-up companies, he brings entrepreneurial experience in managing growth, marketing skills, operations and investment experience, and information-technology skills and experience to the Board.

25

J. Mariner Kemper

Mr. Kemper, a brother of Alexander C. Kemper, has served as the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of UMB since May 2004 and as the President of UMB since November 2015. He was the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Bank between December 2012 and January 2014, the Chairman of UMB Bank Colorado, n.a. (a prior subsidiary of UMB) between 2000 and 2012, and the President of UMB Bank Colorado, n.a. from 1997 to 2000. As the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of UMB for the past 13 years, Mr. Kemper brings to the Board skills in leadership, consensus building, and the implementation of UMB’s key strategies. He has detailed knowledge of UMB’s key business and operational strategies and branding and possesses operations experience and knowledge of every aspect of UMB’s business. He also has specialized knowledge of the investments, banking, and financial-services industries as well as extensive community-relations experience, with involvement in civic and business organizations in Kansas City and Colorado.

Gordon E. Lansford

Mr. Lansford has served as President and Chief Executive Officer of JE Dunn Construction Company, a national commercial contractor headquartered in Kansas City, Missouri, since January 2014. Prior to being named as President and CEO, he served as Chief Financial Officer from 1998 to December 2013, and before then, he served as the Director of Internal Audit. Prior to his employment with JE Dunn, Mr. Lansford was employed by KPMG, LLP as a Certified Public Accountant. Mr. Lansford was previously a member of the board of directors for the Bank until January 2016, when that board’s membership was consolidated with that of the Company’s. Mr. Lansford has relevant experience overseeing operations, finance, legal, risk management, investments, human resources and information technology.

Timothy R. Murphy

Mr. Murphy has been the Executive Chairman of Murphy-Hoffman Company (“MHC”) since January 2017, holding responsibilities associated with company oversight and strategic growth initiatives. Prior to this time, and beginning in 1989, Mr. Murphy served as the Chief Executive Officer. MHC is a large, privately-owned heavy and medium duty truck dealer in North America. In addition, Mr. Murphy has served on numerous supplier councils to the trucking industry, including two terms as Chairman of the North American Kenworth Dealer Council. Mr. Murphy brings significant organizational, business expertise, including specialized knowledge of UMB, having served as a board member for the Bank from 1999 through January 2016.

Kris A. Robbins

Mr. Robbins was previously employed by Security Benefit Corporation (“Security Benefit”) and its companies from 1997 until his retirement in February 2010, serving as its Chief Executive Officer for over 10 years, and as Chairman and CEO for 6 years. During his tenure, Security Benefit managed over $40 billion in assets and provided annuities, mutual funds, exchange-traded funds, retirement plans, and business-processing services throughout the United States. Following his retirement from Security Benefit, Mr. Robbins co-founded and is currently the Chief Executive Officer of a short duration, specialty asset investor involved in liens, finance and factoring, Clearleaf Finance, and its servicing arm, Purestone Loan Services. He also provides private-equity, angel-investment, and advisory services through KARobbins LLC. Mr. Robbins once served on the board and chaired the audit committee of Compliance Assurance Corporation (PA) until its sale in November 2012 to Stone River Risk and Compliance. Mr. Robbins also served on the board and audit committee of Key Health from April 2011 through 2015. Mr. Robbins brings to the Board financial literacy skills, developed in over 30 years of professional experience and education in accounting and financial management. In addition, he has significant experience and knowledge relating to operations, investments, risk and capital management, gained from his leadership of large, highly regulated financial-services business that had significant growth and changes in products (including public company experience). Mr. Robbins provides specialized industry knowledge in key areas of investments, risk management, and insurance as well.

26

L. Joshua Sosland

Mr. Sosland has served as the President of Sosland Publishing Co., Kansas City, Missouri, since July 2015 and Vice President of Sosland Companies, Inc., Kansas City, Missouri, since 1993. Established in 1922, the Sosland Companies are primarily engaged in trade publications for the baking, flour-milling, and food-processing industries. Mr. Sosland has also served as editor of Milling & Baking News since 2000 and editor of Food Business News since 2004. Mr. Sosland contributes significant investment experience and expertise, as well as board and governance expertise, with almost 20 years of service on our Board and several years of service on the trust policy committee of the Bank. The economic analytical skills developed from his formal education, as well as his publishing experience covering and analyzing the food-processing industry, enable him to provide valuable analyses of investment and acquisition activities. Through his many years of service on and prior leadership of the Board’s compensation committee, Mr. Sosland also has detailed knowledge of the development and implementation of UMB’s executive incentive-compensation plans.

Dylan E. Taylor

Mr. Taylor has served as the President of Colliers International, a global real estate services firm, since June 2015. Prior to being named President, Mr. Taylor served as Global Chief Operating Officer beginning in July 2014, and from July 2009 until July 2014, he served as the Chief Executive Officer of the Americas. In his current role, Mr. Taylor oversees the company’s operations in over 65 countries, constituting 16,000 employees in 504 offices. From October 2005 until July of 2009, Mr. Taylor was the President, Global Client Services for Grubb & Ellis, where he oversaw over 12 separate business units in six countries. In addition, from September 2010 until December 2017, Mr. Taylor served as a director for the Jackson Series Variable Trust, a mutual fund subject to the Investment Company Act of 1940. Mr. Taylor brings valuable expertise in the areas of real estate markets and trends, national and international management, mergers and acquisitions, and operational integration and efficiencies.

Paul Uhlmann III

Mr. Uhlmann has served as the President and Chief Executive Officer of The Uhlmann Company, a Kansas City, Missouri, a grocery-products company, since 1997. He brings to the Board operations experience and business-analytical skills, both from his formal education and through his management of a privately held food manufacturing and distribution company. He has extensive governance experience and contributes valuable community-relations skills gained from his leadership of community social and philanthropic organizations and has served on the Board since 2000.

Leroy J. Williams, Jr.

Mr. Williams is the founder and Chief Executive Officer of CyberTekIQ, LLC, a consulting firm which partners with clients to maximize business performance through smart technology investments and the deployment of information security best practices, a position he has held since October 2016. He previously served as the Global Chief Information Officer of Ball Corporation (NYSE: BLL) from May 2005 until July 2016. Mr. Williams brings to the Board over 25 years of experience in managing technology innovation that is designed to maximize business returns across multiple industries, including in the manufacturing, public-sector, telecommunications, and financial-services industries. Mr. Williams also brings to the Board valuable expertise in the areas of cybersecurity and enterprise risk management and experience in managing large, complex transformational efforts on a global scale.

The Board recommends that shareholders vote FOR the election of each of the 12 nominees to our Board.

27

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Overview

This Compensation Discussion and Analysis describes the material elements of our compensation program for our Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”), our Chief Financial Officer (“CFO”), our three other most highly-compensated Executive Officers as of December 31, 2017 (collectively, such Executive Officers included in the Compensation Discussion and analysis are referred to as the “Named Executive Officers” or “NEOs”). This Compensation Discussion and Analysis also describes our compensation program for Andrew Iseman, who served as the Chairman, CEO and President of Scout Investments, Inc. (“Scout”) and an Executive Officer of the Company until the sale of Scout in November 2017.

This Compensation Discussion and Analysis also describes relevant actions involving the compensation of the NEOs since the end of 2017 until the date of this proxy statement.

Executive Summary

The Compensation Committee oversees our compensation program for our executive officers, including our NEOs. The program is designed to emphasize performance-based compensation based on both on individual performance and Company results.

2017 Business Highlights

2017 was a year of significant progress for UMB as we recognized record setting net income, and continued our commitment to efficiency and financial discipline. Highlights for 2017 include:

28

Objectives of Our Compensation Program

The Compensation Committee considers the following goals and objectives when structuring our executive compensation program and in making individual compensation decisions:

29

Compensation Best Practices

Components of Executive Compensation

During 2017, our compensation program consisted of five fundamental components: (1) base salary, (2) short-term incentive compensation, (3) long-term incentive compensation, (4) discretionary cash bonuses, and (5) other benefits and perquisites, as follows.

30

The actual mix of these components varies for each NEO, depending on the Compensation Committee’s evaluation of the NEO’s responsibilities, the percentage of compensation is either contingent on performance or paid out over time (“at risk”). The Compensation Committee, however, believes that the majority of the NEOs compensation should be at risk. The following charts illustrate the allocation of direct target compensation for 2017 for our CEO and the average allocation of direct target compensation for 2017 for all of our other NEOs except Mr. Iseman.

The Role of the Compensation Committee

Each year our Compensation Committee reviews and approves the Executive Compensation Principles of the Company. The Compensation Committee has exclusive authority to determine the compensation of the Company’s Executive Officers and to determine the equity-based compensation of all directors and associates of UMB and its subsidiaries. The Compensation Committee may not delegate this authority to any officer or other associate of UMB or its subsidiaries but has authorized the Chair of the Compensation Committee (as well as any other member of the Compensation Committee designated by the Chair) to approve, on behalf of the entire Compensation Committee, compensation that falls within its exclusive jurisdiction and that is being offered to prospective new hires or certain associates deemed by management to be more likely to terminate employment with the Company. In determining the compensation of our NEOs, the Compensation Committee considers information provided by the compensation consultant and management, and obtained from publicly available information about the companies in our peer group.

The Role of Executive Officers in the Compensation Decisions

Mr. Kemper, as CEO of the Company, and Mr. Hagedorn, as CEO of UMB Bank, with the assistance of our Human Resources Department, review the performance of the other NEOs that report directly to them with the

31

Compensation Committee and offer recommendations on the amount and mix of their compensation. No Executive Officer participates with the Compensation Committee in its review of that officer’s performance or the Compensation Committee’s determination of that officer’s compensation.

The Role of the Compensation Consultant

Until April 2017, the Compensation Committee utilized Korn Ferry Hay Group, Inc. (“Korn Ferry”) as its independent executive compensation consultant. Korn Ferry supplied the Compensation Committee with advice on our Executive Compensation Principles, assessments of the structure and design of our executive compensation program, comparative peer group and industry data and analyses, updates on regulatory developments, and the amount and mix of compensation for Mr. Kemper in 2017. The Compensation Committee was directly responsible for the appointment, compensation, and oversight of Korn Ferry. Representatives of Korn Ferry attended, in person or by telephone, the January, February and April meetings of the Compensation Committee.

In April 2017, the Compensation Committee engaged McLagan Partners, Inc., an Aon company, (“McLagan”) as its new compensation consultant. In its capacity as the compensation consultant, McLagan advised the Compensation Committee on the structure and design of our executive compensation program, on the restructuring of the Company’s comparative peer group, on regulatory updates, and on the amount and mix of compensation for 2018. Representatives of McLagan attended, in person or by telephone, the July, October, and December meetings of the Compensation Committee.

The Compensation Committee considered the independence factors enumerated in Rule 10C-1(b) of the Exchange Act and NASDAQ Listing Rule 5605(d) before selecting or receiving further advice from Korn Ferry and McLagan. The Compensation Committee did not identify any work of Korn Ferry or McLagan that raised a conflict of interest.

Use of Competitive Data

In performing its duties in 2017, the Compensation Committee relied on various sources of compensation information provided by Korn Ferry. Korn Ferry provided the Compensation Committee with comparative analyses based on (1) proxy data from the peer group approved by the Compensation Committee and (2) industry data from the Korn Ferry Group General Industry Compensation Report. The peer group was selected on the basis of asset size, standard industry classification codes, mix of business lines, annual revenue, market capitalization, employees, and other factors judged by the Compensation Committee to be relevant. The peer group approved and used by the Compensation Committee during 2017 included 17 companies:

In October 2017, the Compensation Committee reviewed the above peer group listing with McLagan. McLagan recommended the removal of SVB Financial Group, Signature Bank, First Citizens Bancshares, Wintrust Financial Corporation, Texas Capital Bancshares and Bank of Hawaii. McLagan also recommended the addition of Associate Banc-Corp, Umpqua Holdings, IBERIABANK, Foulton Financial Corporation, Chemical Financial Corporation and First Midwest Bancorp. In making the suggested revisions to the peer group and taking into consideration the impending divestiture of Scout, McLagan attempted to place the Company in a peer group where the Company falls as close to the median in size and scope as possible, where comparators for both pay and performance were generally

32

consistent, and the size of the peer group was large enough to ensure adequate sample sizes for comparisons. The Compensation Committee adopted the changes to the peer group, as suggested by McLagan, for the 2018 compensation cycle.

Executive Compensation for 2017

General Considerations for 2017

Annual compensation decisions, including those for Executive Officers, are primarily made in February after our Board has held its first regular meeting of the year and we have announced earnings and other financial results for the prior year. The Compensation Committee weighed a number of general considerations in setting the compensation of each NEO for 2017. In doing so, the Compensation Committee favored more holistic assessments that took account of both quantitative and qualitative factors.

Base Salary

Base salary provides the NEOs with a market-competitive baseline of cash compensation, generally in the form of fixed bi-weekly payments. The Compensation Committee established the salaries of our NEOs in 2017 by (1) using peer-group or industry data to identify comparative medians and quartiles and (2) adjusting off the median and quartiles to reflect each NEO’s individual performance, strategic value, leadership, responsibilities, competency, and experience.

Annual base salary adjustments for the NEOs, if any, are generally made by the Compensation Committee at its meeting in February. For each NEO other than Mr. Kemper, the Compensation Committee considers the industry market data and the recommendation of the NEO’s manager when making adjustments to base salary. The Compensation Committee retains full discretion to establish the base salary for Mr. Kemper.

In February 2017, the Compensation Committee reviewed the base salaries of our CEO and our other NEOs. Based on this review the Compensation Committee decided to increase the CEO’s base salary by 5% to align his base closer to the median of the peer group for tenured CEOs (greater than 10 years of service). This was the first increase in Mr. Kemper’s base salary since 2014. At the same meeting, the Compensation Committee increased the base salaries of Messrs. Shankar, Hagedorn, Terry and Macke to improve their position relative to market median base salaries, to recognize superior performance, and to provide for retention. The Compensation Committee also decided not to adjust the base salary for Mr. Iseman based on the performance of the business lines that he oversaw.

Base Salary

33

Short-Term Incentive Compensation

Short-term incentive compensation generally takes the form of an annual cash bonus and is used to reward superior performance primarily over the short term either through the Short-Term Incentive Compensation Plan (as adopted by the Board, the “Short-Term Incentive Plan” or “STIP”) or an individual variable award performance program (a “VAPP). Short-term incentive compensation awards are designed to motivate the NEOs to achieve, and exceed, their individual annual performance goals and support the Company’s key strategies. The Compensation Committee believes that these short-term incentive compensation awards align the NEO’s financial interest with the interest of the shareholders, and of the Company, because the awards are tied to the NEO’s performance against established goals and are funded based on the performance of the Company and/or a business line.

Performance Objectives

As a part of the STIP and each VAPP, NEOs are required to establish annual performance objectives. The performance standards and objectives for 2017 were reviewed and approved by the Compensation Committee at its February 2017, meeting. In addition to the Company objectives, the primary performance objectives for each NEO are discussed below:

Payments under the STIP

In February 2017, the Compensation Committee approved the 2017 annual short-term incentive compensation program (the “2017 Short-Term Program”) under the STIP, establishing a target short-term award pool of $5.9 million that was weighted 80% to UMB’s core after-tax net operating income (“Core NOI”) with a target Core NOI of $167.0 million and weighted 20% to UMB’s core return on average equity (“Core ROAE”) with a target Core ROAE percentage of 7.72%. The target amounts for Core NOI and Core ROAE were established using the

34

Company’s projected budget for 2017. The Compensation Committee also instituted a discretionary plan governor to the Short-Term Program in which the Compensation Committee would make discretionary reduction in the short-term award pool if the Company’s operating leverage fell below 1%, and it would make a discretionary increase to the short-term award pool if the Company’s operating leverage exceeded 1.5% for 2017.

Each year under the STIP, the Compensation Committee approves a percentage of base salary for each NEO that participates as a target for the annual payout. The targeted percentage is based on comparative peer group or industry data and the NEO’s position, strategic value, leadership, responsibilities, competency, and experience. In February of the following year, the Compensation Committee approves the percentage of the NEO’s base pay from the targeted percentage and the related bonus payment under the STIP based on the NEO’s individual performance during the prior year and bonus-pool availability. The maximum STIP payment to any NEO in any year is 200% of the target amount.

The Compensation Committee has exclusive authority to determine the core income and returns by taking the Company’s financial results under generally accepted accounting principles and adjusting the results for gains, losses and circumstances that the Compensation Committee deemed to be fair and appropriate such as (1) a gain or loss for the sale of non-earning assets; (2) a gain or loss on the sale or discontinuance of a business, product or service; (3) a gain or loss on branch closings; (4) expenses associated with the acquisition of a business; (5) severance costs; (6) litigation reserves; (7) other large, non-recurring items unrelated to core results (such as unrealized gains and losses on specified alternative investments). Once the Core NOI and Core ROAE are determined, the actual bonus pool is proportionally adjusted, either increased or decreased, based on the following chart with interpolation of the pool amounts falling between the levels set:

In February 2018, the Compensation Committee determined that the 2017 Core NOI had been $192.6 million (115.24% of the target) and the Core ROAE had been 9.26% (119.95% of the target). Taken together and weighted, the results produced an actual bonus pool of $11.2 million (154.03% of the target bonus pool) under the 2017 Short-Term Program. The Compensation Committee, recognizing that the Company exceeded the discretionary plan governor with positive operating leverage of 4.0%, exercised its discretion under the 2017 Short-Term Program to increase the 2017 actual bonus pool by $1 million to $12.2 million or 167.76% of the target bonus pool.

In determining each NEO’s award under the 2017 Short-Term Program, the Compensation Committee considered the extent to which each NEO’s performance against the established performance objectives was met, as determined by the NEO’s manager, as well as other factors that the Compensation Committee deemed relevant related to the NEO’s overall performance. The award, as recommended by the NEO’s manager and determined by the Compensation Committee, is expressed as a percentage of the target payout established in February 2017. In February 2018, the Compensation Committee determined that each of the NEOs participating in the 2017 Short-Term Program had met and exceeded their performance objectives and, based on that determination, deserved an award in excess of 100% of their target payout based on each particular NEO’s performance, responsibilities and contributions to the Company. The Compensation Committee, acknowledging that Mr. Kemper’s performance objectives are directly tied to the performance of the Company as a whole and recognizing his leadership through the divestiture of Scout, decided to award Mr. Kemper a short-term incentive bonus at 175% of target.

35

2017 Short-Term Program Compensation Awards and 2016 Comparison

Payments under the VAPP

Mr. Iseman participated in a VAPP due to competitive considerations in the asset-servicing industry. In February 2017, as with the other NEOs, Mr. Iseman’s target award percentage was set at 125% of base salary based on comparative peer-group or industry data and Mr. Iseman’s position, strategic value, leadership, responsibilities, competency, and experience. The Stock Purchase Agreement for the sale of Scout provided that Mr. Iseman’s VAPP payment for 2017 would be prorated based on the number of days that elapsed during the year. In November 2017, Mr. Iseman received a prorated VAPP payment of $456,216.

Long-Term Incentive Compensation

Long-term incentive compensation generally takes the form of equity awards under the UMB Long-Term Incentive Compensation Plan (as adopted by the Board and approved by our shareholders, the “Long-Term Incentive Plan” or “LTIP”). Employees of Scout received equity awards and deferred cash payments under the Scout Investments Retention and Annual Performance Program (the “Scout Program”).

Equity Grants under the Long-Term Incentive Plan

The Compensation Committee issues equity awards under the Long-Term Incentive Plan in the form of performance-based restricted stock (“Performance Shares”), non-qualified options for UMB stock (the “Options”), and service-based restricted stock (“Service Shares”). The use of these equity awards, in the view of the Compensation Committee, generally aligns the interests of the NEOs and other eligible associates with those of our shareholders, incents forward-looking and sustained performance, and drives balanced risk-taking. All equity awards are valued as of the grant date, using the fair market value of the underlying stock, in the case of Performance Shares and Service Shares, or the Black-Scholes valuation, in the case of Options. Grants of equity awards are generally approved in a manner that satisfies the exemption from Section 16(b) of the Exchange Act.

In February 2017, the Compensation Committee approved the annual long-term incentive compensation program (for 2017, the “2017 Long-Term Program”) under the Long-Term Incentive Plan and granted equity awards to 443 employees of UMB including all of the NEOs other than Mr. Iseman who participated in the Scout Plan. The value of the award is generally expressed as a percentage of each participating NEO’s base salary at the time of the award. The value and the mix of awards for each NEO are based on comparative peer-group or industry data and the NEO’s position, strategic value, leadership, responsibilities, competency, and experience. The Compensation Committee did not change the percentage awards for Mr. Macke and Mr. Terry based on the determination that the percentage awards were still appropriate. Mr. Shankar’s award was established at 50% of his base salary to match the Company’s

36

other executives. Mr. Hagedorn’s target award was decreased from 128% to 121% of his base salary, but the value of his award remained the same at $575,000. Mr. Kemper’s target award was increased by the Compensation Committee from $1.8 million to $2.0 million to maintain a pay mix that is more heavily weighted toward long-term incentives. Half of the award amounts for each NEO were granted as Performance Shares, with a quarter of the total award granted as Options, and the other quarter granted as Service Shares. The awards reflect the Compensation Committee’s belief that half of the annual equity awards should be in the form of Performance Shares to encourage behavior that increases the fundamental value of UMB and creates long-term value for our shareholders.

Performance Shares granted under the 2017 Long-Term Program are scheduled to vest on January 1, 2020. Under the 2017 Long-Term Program, the performance standard for the Performance Shares is based on a three-year (2017, 2018, and 2019) cumulative core after-tax earnings per share (“3-year EPS”). The target level for the 3-year EPS was established using the budget that was approved by the Board in January 2017 as a baseline and historical compound annual growth rates in core net income for projections for 2018 and 2019. The threshold level for the 3-year EPS is 80% of the target level. Achieving or exceeding the target level of 3-year EPS would result in 100% of the Performance Shares vesting at the end of the performance period, while reaching the threshold 3-year EPS would result in 50% of the Performance Shares vesting. If the 3-year EPS falls between the target level and the threshold level, the percentage of Performance Shares earned would be interpolated. Failing to meet the threshold level would result in 0% of the Performance Shares being earned.

Options granted under the 2017 Long-Term Program have an exercise price equal to the fair market value of UMB stock on the date of grant, with 50% of the Options granted vesting after two years of continuous service, 75% of the Options granted vesting after three years of continuous service, and the remaining Options vesting after four years of continuous service. The Compensation Committee believes that Options are useful for encouraging behavior that increases the price of UMB stock over time, resulting in increased shareholder value.

The Compensation Committee has exclusive authority over the grant date for each Option. No grant date is selected for the purpose of affording an advantage to directors or associates of UMB due to an actual or anticipated public disclosure of material information relating to UMB (positive or negative) or any other information that would be likely to affect the value of the related Options.

The Compensation Committee believes that Service Shares are an effective tool in retaining talented executives. The Company issued Service Shares under the 2017 Long-Term Program with partial vesting after two years of continuous service and full vesting after four years of continuous service.

The following table summarizes the grants made in 2017 under the Long-Term Incentive Program, including special grants:

Equity Grants under the 2017 Long-Term Program

37

Grants under the Scout Program

Mr. Iseman participated in the Scout Program associated with the Long-Term Incentive Program. Under the Scout Program, if Scout’s operating margin for a year (the “performance year”) equaled or exceeded a specified threshold, an annual bonus pool was created the following February using a percentage of the net income generated by Scout during the performance year in excess of a baseline. Each award from this bonus pool (a) was approved by the Compensation Committee that following February, and (b) was granted one-half in the form of deferred cash and one-half in the form of Service Shares. The deferred cash payments and the Service Shares vested in three equal installments on the first business day of the first, second, and third calendar years following the year of the grant. Mr. Iseman’s maximum percentage share of a potential bonus pool was set by the Compensation Committee in February of the applicable performance year and cannot later be adjusted upward. The structure of the Scout Program, including the allocations of awards, is influenced in a meaningful way by competitive considerations in the investment-management industry. In February 2017, the Compensation Committee determined that Scout’s net operating margin did not equal or exceed the required threshold, and as a result, no annual bonus pool was established.

Cash Bonuses

The Compensation Committee will periodically approve cash bonuses to account for special circumstances, as part of its retention strategy, to reward associates for superior service, or to entice executives to accept a position with the Company.    In April 2017, the Compensation Committee approved a retention bonus agreement with Mr. Iseman to retain his services following the signing of the stock purchase agreement for Scout through the closing of the transaction. Under the retention agreement Mr. Iseman received a cash retention bonus of $622,500 with $373,500 paid in the first payroll cycle following the closing and the remainder paid 90 days after closing.

Other Benefits and Perquisites

Each Executive Officer is offered standard benefits, including health insurance, disability insurance, life insurance, 401(k) plan matching contributions, and profit-sharing contributions, which are provided on the same terms to all of UMB’s associates who have met minimum service requirements, except to the extent that a benefit (such as disability insurance) is calculated as a percentage of salary. We regularly assess these benefits against those of our peer group to remain competitive.

The Compensation Committee generally approves limited perquisites when appropriate to attract or retain talent, when a particular benefit inures to UMB, or when the value to the executive officers or other officer is greater than UMB’s cash outlay. For example, club dues and fees are paid on behalf of certain executive officers and other designated officers who are charged with meaningful business-generation responsibilities and who appreciate the administrative convenience associated with a corporate-paid membership. Similarly, affording a modest allowance to the executive officers and other senior officers for tax preparation and financial planning (1) enables UMB to ensure that no potential conflict of interest arises in a senior officer’s choice of such a professional, (2) can result in cost savings for such officers based on the number of officers using a common professional, and (3) is administratively convenient for the participating officers. See “Compensation Tables—2017 Summary Compensation” later in this proxy statement for detailed information about the perquisites provided to the Named Executive Officers.

Other Executive Compensation Policies and Practices

No Employment Agreements

The Compensation Committee generally disfavors executive employment agreements, and no NEO is a party to one with us. See “Potential Payments upon Termination or Change in Control” later in this proxy statement for more information.

38

Ownership of UMB Stock

The Board believes that stock ownership guidelines for directors and senior officers are an important component of good corporate governance and operate to further align their interests with those of our shareholders. As a result, stock ownership guidelines have been incorporated into our Governance Guidelines and are evaluated on no less than an annual basis. In January 2018, the Compensation Committee reviewed the holdings of our directors and executive officers as of December 31, 2017 based on the stock ownership guidelines applicable at that time. At that same meeting, the Compensation Committee recommended, and the Board later approved, revisions to the stock ownership guidelines that more closely align the interests of directors and named executive officers with the Company’s long term planning, and conform to other industry standards.

Based on the new guidelines, each director is expected, at a minimum, to own UMB stock with a market value equal to five times the annual non-employee equity retainer grant. Additionally, each of the Executive Officers is expected, at a minimum, to own shares of UMB stock with a market value equal to:

Shares of UMB stock held through the Profit-Sharing Plan or the ESOP, unvested Service Shares and one-half of the unvested Performance Shares are counted toward these minimums. Options, whether vested or unvested, do not count towards the calculations.

Each director or senior officer is expected to come into compliance with these stock-ownership guidelines within five years of being employed in or promoted to an applicable position.

No Hedging of UMB Stock

Our Governance Guidelines prohibit directors and executive officers from engaging in short-term speculative trading in UMB’s securities. Prohibited transactions include (1) a short sale (that is, a sale of borrowed securities by an investor who hopes to buy the securities later at a lower price and thus make a profit), (2) a short sale against the box (that is, a short sale of owned securities to lock in gains or prevent additional losses), (3) a put or call option (that is, a right to sell or buy securities at a specified price within a specified period of time), including a covered call, and (4) a hedge or any other type of derivative or speculative arrangement that has a similar economic effect without the full risk or benefit of ownership.

The Board believes that this prohibition further aligns the interests of directors and executive officers with those of shareholders, facilitates compliance with insider-trading and other applicable laws, and aids in preventing directors and executive officers from subjecting themselves to an actual or potential conflict of interest with UMB or creating the appearance of such a conflict.

Claw-Back of Compensation

In January 2012, the Board approved a claw-back policy (the “Claw-Back Policy”) to formalize UMB’s right to recover cash- or equity-based incentive compensation that was awarded on the basis of incorrect or incomplete measurements of performance or illegal, dishonest, fraudulent, or intentional misconduct. The Claw-Back Policy was modeled on a similar policy that had been adopted by the Compensation Committee in February 2010.

The Compensation Committee is charged with determining whether a recovery of incentive compensation is appropriate under the Claw-Back Policy and, if so, in what amount. The amount to be recovered, however, may not

39

be less than that required under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. A recipient must be notified within 36 months after the date when cash-based incentive compensation was received or equity-based incentive compensation vested in order for its recovery to be sought.

Say-on-Pay Advisory Vote

The Compensation Committee considered the results of the non-binding say-on-pay advisory vote that was held at our 2017 annual meeting of shareholders. The compensation paid to our named executive officers at that time was overwhelmingly approved, with 98.3% of the votes represented being in favor. The Compensation Committee has interpreted this vote as an endorsement of our executive compensation principles adopted by the Compensation Committee (the “Executive Compensation Principles”) and the overall design and structure of our executive compensation program and maintained these principles and our executive compensation program in 2017.

The shareholders will again consider a non-binding say-on-pay advisory vote at the Annual Meeting (see Proposal #2). Following the meeting, the Compensation Committee will consider the results of the shareholder vote when making future compensation decisions.

Internal Revenue Code Section 162(m)

The previous use of Performance Shares under the Long-Term Incentive Plan was influenced in part by Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), which previously precluded a publicly held corporation from deducting specified compensation that is paid to a covered employee in excess of one million dollars for the taxable year. Performance-based compensation, however, was fully deductible if conditions identified in Section 162(m) and Treasury Regulation § 1.162-27 were satisfied.

The exemption from Section 162(m)’s deduction limit for performance-based compensation has been repealed, effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017, such that compensation paid to our Named Executive Officers in excess of $1 million will not be deductible, unless it qualifies for transition relief applicable to certain arrangements in place as of November 2, 2017.

Despite the Compensation Committee’s previous efforts to structure the executive team annual cash incentives and Performance Shares in a manner intended to be exempt from Section 162(m) and therefore not subject to its deduction limits, because of ambiguities and uncertainties as to the application and interpretation of Section 162(m) and the regulations issued thereunder, including the uncertain scope of the transition relief under the legislation repealing Section 162(m)’s exemption from the deduction limit, no assurance can be given that compensation intended to satisfy the requirements for exemption from Section 162(m) in fact will. Further, the Compensation Committee reserves the right to modify compensation that was initially intended to be exempt from Section 162(m) if it determines that such modifications are consistent with UMB’s business needs.

Performance Shares Certified in January 2018 as Having Vested under the 2015 Long-Term Program

In February 2015, the Compensation Committee approved a long-term program with a performance standard for Performance Shares based on a 3-year EPS (2015, 2016, and 2017) (the “2015 Long-Term Program”). Its design and structure were substantially similar to those of the 2017 Long-Term Program described earlier in this Compensation Discussion and Analysis.

In January 2018, the Compensation Committee reviewed UMB’s financial results from 2015 through 2017 and certified the following: (1) the 3-year EPS under the 2015 Long-Term Program had exceeded the target level, (2) 100% of the performance standard under the 2015 Long-Term Program had been achieved, and (3) 100% of the target award of Performance Shares for each eligible participant under the 2015 Long-Term Program had been earned. Based on these conclusions, the following Performance Shares (including additional shares of UMB stock that had been purchased with dividends on the Performance Shares initially granted) were released to the Named

40

Executive Officers free of restrictions and risk of forfeiture: (a) 12,212 shares to Mr. Kemper, (b) 4,477 shares to Mr. Hagedorn, (c) 889 shares to Mr. Terry, and (d) 490 shares to Mr. Macke. Mr. Shankar and Mr.  Iseman had not been awarded Performance Shares under the 2015 Long-Term Program.

Deferred Compensation Plan

In October 2008, the Compensation Committee approved a deferred compensation plan that permits the Executive Officers and other specified participants, at their option, to defer a portion of their compensation payable for a calendar year until retirement, termination, or the occurrence of another specified event. UMB has an unsecured obligation to pay each deferred amount at the applicable time together with a rate of return equal to the yield produced by a mutual fund selected by the participant from among those available under the Profit-Sharing Plan. UMB does not match any amount that a participant may choose to defer. All of the Named Executive Officers were eligible to participate in this plan, and Messrs. Hagedorn, Shankar, Terry and Macke elected to defer income in 2017.

Additional Payments or Benefits

The NEOs, in addition to other officers, may be entitled to receive accelerated payments or other awards under the Long-Term Incentive Plan, or the Short-Term Incentive Plan (such as death, disability, retirement, or a change in control of UMB). See “Potential Payments upon Termination or Change in Control” later in this proxy statement for additional information.

Executive Compensation Actions in 2018

Earlier discussions of each NEO’s compensation for 2017 address actions that were taken by the Compensation Committee in 2018 and that could affect a fair understanding of 2017 compensation. See “Executive Compensation for 2017” earlier in this Compensation Discussion and Analysis. The following table outlines those actions for each of the remaining Named Executive Officers:

41

A detailed discussion of each named executive officer’s compensation for 2018 will be included in the proxy statement for our 2019 annual meeting of shareholders.

COMPENSATION COMMITTEE REPORT

The Compensation Committee has reviewed and discussed with management the Compensation Discussion and Analysis set forth earlier in this proxy statement. Based on that review and discussion, the Compensation Committee recommended to the Board that the Compensation Discussion and Analysis be included in UMB’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, and this proxy statement.

Robin C. Beery, Chair

Timothy R. Murphy

Dylan E. Taylor

Paul Uhlmann III

Leroy J. Williams, Jr.

As provided by SEC Regulation S-K, this Compensation Committee Report is not deemed to be soliciting material or to be filed or incorporated by reference into any other filing by UMB under the Securities Act of 1933 as amended or the Exchange Act.

COMPENSATION POLICIES AND PRACTICES RELATING TO RISK MANAGEMENT

At least annually, an incentive compensation risk assessment is prepared by our Corporate Risk Services and Human Resources Departments and is presented to the Compensation Committee. This risk assessment is designed to ascertain whether our incentive compensation arrangements generate incentives that properly balance risk and reward, are compatible with effective controls and risk management (including the Interagency Guidance on Sound Incentive Compensation Policies issued by the federal banking agencies), are overseen through a strong corporate governance structure, and ultimately ensure that UMB’s safety and soundness are adequately protected.

In February 2018, as with prior years, the Compensation Committee reviewed and deliberated on (1) the annual incentive-compensation risk assessment, (2) the Executive-Compensation Principles, (3) UMB’s compensation policies and practices, (4) whether or how UMB’s compensation policies and practices may incent an employee to engage in higher-risk activities, (5) whether or how any short-term incentives may have an impact on long-term risk,

42

(6) whether or how claw-backs or hold-backs are utilized or deemed appropriate, (7) whether or how changes in UMB’s risk profiles may require changes in its compensation policies and practices, (8) how to appropriately monitor UMB’s compensation policies and practices to ensure that its risk-management objectives are being met, and (9) the existence and effectiveness of any controls, policies, or practices that may be in place to mitigate or balance the risks associated with UMB’s compensation policies or practices. Based on this review, the Compensation Committee concluded that the compensation policies and practices relating to executive officers and other employees of UMB and its subsidiaries do not create risks that are reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on UMB. This conclusion will be reported to the Board at its next regular meeting.

COMPENSATION TABLES

2017 SUMMARY COMPENSATION

This table summarizes the compensation of the Named Executive Officers for each of our last three completed fiscal years. Their compensation for 2017 is discussed in more detail in “Compensation Discussion and Analysis” earlier in this proxy statement.

43

44

2017 GRANTS OF PLAN-BASED AWARDS

This table summarizes each grant of an award made to a NEO in 2017 under the 2017 Short-Term Program, the VAPP for Mr. Iseman, and the 2017 Long-Term Program. These plans and the grants in 2017 are discussed in more detail in “Compensation Discussion and Analysis” earlier in this proxy statement.

45

This table summarizes unexercised options, stock that has not vested, and equity incentive-plan awards for each NEO outstanding as of December 31, 2017. The market value of each stock award was computed by multiplying the closing market price of UMB stock on December 31, 2017, by the applicable number of shares of UMB stock shown in the table for the award.

2017 OUTSTANDING EQUITY AWARDS AT FISCAL YEAR-END