Strategy and Leadership Delivering Sustainable Value to All Shareholders  April 2016 

 Forward-Looking StatementsThis document contains forward-looking statements within the scope of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The words “expect,” “estimate,” “anticipate,” “predict” and similar expressions, and the negatives thereof, often identify forward-looking statements, which are not limited to historical facts. Our forward-looking statements include, among other things: guidance for 2016, statements, express or implied, concerning future operating results or margins, the ability to generate sales, income or cash flow, the benefits of the Secure acquisition and our ability to continue share repurchases, and Benchmark’s business and growth strategies and expected growth and performance. Although Benchmark believes these statements are based upon reasonable assumptions, they involve risks and uncertainties relating to our operations, markets and business environment generally. If one or more of these risks or uncertainties materialize, or underlying assumptions prove incorrect, actual outcomes may vary materially from those indicated. All forward-looking statements included in this document are based upon information available to Benchmark as of the date of this document, and the Company assumes no obligation to update them. Readers are advised to consult further disclosures on related subjects, particularly in Item 1A, “Risk Factors” of the Company’s annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015, in its other filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission and in its press releases. Non-GAAP Financial InformationThis document includes certain financial measures, such as operating margin, that have been presented to exclude certain items required to be included by generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”) and therefore are not in accordance with GAAP (“Non-GAAP”). A detailed reconciliation between GAAP results and Non-GAAP results is included in the Appendix of this document. Additional Information and Where to Find ItBenchmark filed a definitive proxy statement on March 29, 2016, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) with respect to the 2016 Annual Meeting and has mailed the definitive proxy statement and accompanying white proxy card to its shareholders. Benchmark shareholders are strongly encouraged to read the definitive proxy statement, the accompanying white proxy card and other documents filed with the SEC carefully in their entirety when they become available because they contain (or will contain) important information. Benchmark, its directors, executive officers and other employees may be deemed to be participants in the solicitation of proxies from Benchmark shareholders in connection with the matters to be considered at Benchmark’s 2016 Annual Meeting. Information about Benchmark’s directors and executive officers is available in Benchmark’s definitive proxy statement for its 2016 Annual Meeting.  Shareholders may obtain a free copy of the definitive proxy statement and any other documents filed by Benchmark with the SEC free of charge at the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov. Copies also are available free of charge at Benchmark’s website at www.bench.com under “Investor Relations – Annual Reports” or by contacting Benchmark Investor Relations at (979) 849-6550. Certain information contained in this document was sourced from third-party publications or other third-party sources. Permission to use such information was not sought or granted in connection with the preparation of this document. 

 

 Agenda  Engaged Capital’s Claims are Without Merit          Best-in-Class Corporate Governance        The Benchmark Story        Executive Summary 

 Executive Summary  Strategic plan has delivered strong financial performance, premium valuation and positioned company ahead of future trendsSecure adds capabilities to core portfolio, consistent with strategy, and strong positive financial impactBest-in-class corporate governanceDemonstrated commitment to refresh Board of DirectorsEngaged Capital’s claims lack merit, and its slate is less qualified 

 The Benchmark Story 

 

     Continuously Evolving Our Platform ahead of Future Trends – Powering the Next Industrial Revolution  Commoditization of legacy markets necessitates continuous evolution in EMSIoE, Cloud, and Analytics will drive future of industrySignificant opportunity for EMS leaders given core expertiseBenchmark forward thinking well ahead of industry evolution  Networking / Computing                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                2007  Target mix  2015                                                                                                                              Traditional markets    Higher-value markets                                                                                                                                                    IoE         

 

 Portfolio Management    >10% Annual Growth in Higher-Value Markets  Focus on Expansion in Key End MarketsIndustrials (including aerospace and defense)Medical TechnologiesTest & Instrumentation (including semi-capital equipment)  Margin Expansion    >5% Long-Term Non-GAAP Operating Margin  Advancing Engineering-led SolutionsDriving LEAN and Operational Excellence InitiativesOptimizing Cost Structure and Working Capital  Balanced Capital Deployment    ~50% Free Cash Flow Return to Shareholders  Targeted Strategic Organic InvestmentsClose-to-Core (Higher-Value) and Highly Adjacent M&AShare Repurchases  Advancing Our Long-term Strategy To Drive Shareholder Returns into the Future, Consistent with Industry Evolution 

 Shift to Higher-value Mix has Driven Superior Performance  Benchmark  Peer median  Higher-value marketsTop 10 customer concentration change1TSR2Revenue CAGR %1Gross margin change1Non-GAAP operating margin change1,3 FCF margin change1,3Cash conversion cycle1NTM P/E multiple2  2011 – 2015  Focus on higher-value markets = stronger financial performance  64%  +5.1%  +2.0%  +3.1%  +2.4%  55%  48%  (0.9%)  (0.2%)  (0.8%)  +0.2%  (6.0%)  40%  (1.6%)      -1 day  +8 days  Source: Company filings, FactSet as of 04/11/16Note: Peers are Celestica, Flextronics, Jabil, Plexus, and Sanmina1 From FY11 through FY15, Jabil only reports top 5 customer concentration2 As of 04/11/16; TSR since 12/31/113 Please refer to the appendix for a reconciliation of non-GAAP operating margin and free cash flow margin to their most directly comparable GAAP financial measures  12.0x  9.9x                   

 Balanced Capital Deployment Track Record  Cumulative capital allocation FY11– FY15  Disciplined, shareholder-friendly and balanced approach to capital allocation   Continue investing to drive growth and extend business model with Voice-of-Customer inputs aligned for organic growth  Capex  Continue to evaluate and pursue strategic, higher-value, complementary businesses that are accretive to margins and drive growth  M&A  Consistently returned capital to shareholders through share repurchases for last 34 consecutive quartersCumulative $257mm+ (73% of FCF1) spent through 5 years ended Dec 2015 on share repurchases  Share repurchases  1 Free cash flow (FCF) defined as net cash provided by operations (GAAP) less capex (see Appendix for reconciliation) 

 Organic Growth: 2015 New business wins  Significant new business wins in higher-value markets Expanding revenue streams towards longer lifecycle products and increasing engineering-led solutionsSignificant remaining opportunity for existing and new customers  M&A Growth: Market and Engineering Focused    Operating margin1 (%)  Industrial & Defense MarketsManufacturing SolutionsWest Coast and Mexico locations  Industrial & Defense MarketsEngineering SolutionsComplex and Ruggedized Mfg.  Building Our Higher-value Market Platforms Organically and Through M&A  1 Refers to non-GAAP operating margin (see Appendix for reconciliation) 

 Secure Acquisition = Significant Growth Potential  Secure expands our engineering solutions for industrial and defense customers           The Markets  The Applications  The Value  The Products        Expands Benchmark’s Higher-Value Market Leadership  Secure Focus: Industrials, including Aerospace and Defense   Complements Benchmark’s ruggedized manufacturing focus  Secure Focus: Complex, rugged encrypted connectivity and surveillance solutions  Adds engineering catalog of sub-systems and modules  Secure Focus: Proven IP building blocks for reduced time-to-market  Increases Operating Margins and Boosts Revenue  Secure Focus: Double-digit margins and >10% annual growth 

 Strong Track Record and Proven Execution    Return on Invested Capital  +350 bps  Sources: Company filings, FactSet as of 04/11/16ROIC = [(Non-GAAP income from operations1 plus stock compensation)*(1-Tax Rate)] ÷ [Average Invested Capital, less Average Cash for last 5 quarters]  Revenue ($bn)      Non-GAAP Operating Margin1  +200bps  CAGR: 3.1%  1 Please refer to the appendix for a reconciliation of non-GAAP operating margin and non-GAAP income from operations to their most directly comparable GAAP financial measures2 Represents TSR since Gayla Delly became CEO    TSR since 01/01/122  Peer median: 48% 

 Best-in-Class Corporate Governance 

 Diverse Board with robust independent oversightShareholder-friendly corporate governanceExecutive compensation aligned with shareholder interestsCulture of transparency and accountabilityContinued commitment to governance best practices  Benchmark Has Best-in-Class Corporate Governance 

 Company  Quickscore  Board Structure Score  Compensation score  Shareholder Rights Score  Audit score     1   2   3   1   2     1   4   1   1   1     4   6   1   7   2     1   3   3   1   2     1   2   1   4   2     4   2   4   6   1    Source: ISS  10 - Most governance risk  1 - Least governance risk    ISS Governance Analysis Indicates Benchmark Has the Best Governance Profile Among Its Peers   With a Quickscore of 1, Benchmark falls within the top decile of companies covered by ISS 

 Name / Title  Background  David ScheibleChairman of the BoardIndependentAge 59  Former Chairman and CEO of Graphic Packaging (NYSE: GPK), a leading global paper and packaging companyOther Board experience: Graphic Packaging, Flint Group, Cancer Treatment Centers of America  Michael DawsonDirector IndependentAge 62  Extensive executive experience, former CFO of GlobalSantaFe Corporation (NYSE: GSF), a large cap offshore oil and gas drilling contractorOther Board experience: Northern Offshore  Gayla DellyPresident and Chief Executive OfficerAge 56  CEO since December 2011, over 15 years of executive experience at Benchmark (NYSE: BHE)Other Board experience: Flowserve (NYSE: FLS), Power-One (NASDAQ: PWER)  Douglas DuncanDirectorIndependentAge 65  Former President and CEO of FedEx Freight Corporation, a subsidiary of FedEx (NYSE: FDX), from 2001 to 2010Other Board experience: J.B. Hunt Transport Services (NASDAQ: JBHT), Brambles (ASX: BXB)  Kenneth LamneckDirectorIndependentAge 61  President and CEO of Insight Enterprises (NASDAQ: NSIT) since 2010, a leading global provider of information technology solutionsOther Board experience: Insight Enterprises  Bernee StromDirectorIndependentAge 68  President and CEO of The Strom Group since 1990, extensive experience as an investor and serial entrepreneur, founder and/or CEO of Gemstar (NASDAQ: GMST) and Priceline (NASDAQ: PCLN)Other Board experience: Hughes Electronics / DirecTV (NASDAQ: DTV), Polaroid (NYSE: PRD), InfoSpace (NASDAQ: INSP), Imagex (NASDAQ: IMGX)  Paul TufanoDirectorIndependentAge 62  Former CFO and COO of Alcatel-Lucent (NYSE: ALU), a large cap telecommunications equipment company, has served on multiple public BoardsOther Board experience: EnerSys (NYSE: ENS), Teradyne (NYSE: TER), Maxtor (NYSE: MXO)  Clay WilliamsDirectorIndependentAge 53  Chairman, President, and CEO of National Oilwell Varco (NYSE: NOV) since 2014, a global oil and gas equipment and services providerOther Board experience: National Oilwell Varco  Number of Directors with key attributes  Benchmark’s Current Directors Bring a Strong and Diverse Mix of Skills and Experience to the Board  Note: Ticker symbols represent former designations if the company is no longer publicly listed 

 Base salaries and target short-term incentive award opportunities reviewed and approved annually Robust stock ownership requirementsAll Directors and executives are in compliance with stock ownership guidelinesPractice of making all Board-level compensation decisions on a single day to reinforce performance feedback to executivesExecutive compensation clawback policy for restatement of earnings due to SEC reporting requirementsOver 90% voted FOR say on pay from 2011 – 2015  VAST majority of 2015 named executive officer (NEO) pay "at risk"  Selected compensation features  Ceo target COMPENSATION  Other neo average COMPENSATION    Performance-Based    Base Salary1  Executive compensation framework designed to create a “pay for performance” culture that rewards Benchmark’s leadership for delivering results and creating sustainable, long-term shareholder value  1 Base salary includes savings plan contributions, elective matching contributions and term life insurance premium payments made by Benchmark on behalf of its executive officers  Performance Focused Compensation Policies Aligned with Shareholder Interests 

 Engaged Capital’s Claims are Without Merit 

 Reality  ROIC can be misleading because several of our peers have significant accumulated deficits, which reduce their Invested Capital and artificially inflate ROICSince ROIC is difficult to compare across our peers, it is not used to establish public market valuations — there is poor correlation between ROIC and valuation multiples for EMS peersBenchmark's valuation multiple is either at a premium or in line with peers on a P/E and a EV/EBITDA basis; P/TB, a book value metric, is similarly thrown off by accumulated deficitsBenchmark uses ROIC to measure long-term performance and to set compensation, but not as a short-term metricCash is an important part of shareholders’ capital and it is wrong to exclude it for the ROIC calculation  Engaged Capital’s Claims are Without MeritValuation and ROIC  Source: Engaged Capital's definitive proxy filed 03/29/16, FactSet, Wall Street research, company filingsNote: Claims are from Engaged Capital's definitive proxy filed 03/29/16  1  Engaged Capital's Claim  Investors are penalizing worst-in-class ROIC with worst-in-class valuation multiples 

 ROIC is a Challenging Metric to Compare EMS Companies  Source: Company filings, FactSet as of 04/11/161 Net operating profit after tax (NOPAT) is calculated as non-GAAP operating income after tax post stock-based compensation and post amortization for comparability purposes among peers2 Calculated as NOPAT divided by invested capital (including cash)3 Calculated as NOPAT divided by invested capital (excluding cash)4 Calculated as NOPAT divided by Adjusted invested capital    1     

 Source: Engaged Capital's definitive proxy filed 03/29/16, FactSet, Wall Street research, company filingsNote: Claims are from Engaged Capital's definitive proxy filed 03/29/16  Reality  Cash conversion cycle (CCC) and working capital metrics driven by end-market mixBenchmark continuously optimizes working capitalHired external consultant recommended by Engaged Capital – validated existing Benchmark initiatives$300mm cited by Engaged is a flawed analysisLooking at A/R days is only part of the picture – Benchmark outperforms when inventory days are includedBenchmark’s current A/P strategy is weighted towards obtaining trade discounts, which drives approximately 107% more value to shareholders, relative to delaying payments and “normalizing” A/P days (per Engaged)Engaged Capital’s spreadsheet-level work ignores operational realities – duration of supplier and customer contracts means that working capital improvements are a continual work-in-progress versus a one-time changeBenchmark has been effective at optimizing working capital for higher-value customers, which traditionally have longer CCCs Announced working capital improvements for current year largely from moving these customers onto Benchmark’s best practices  Engaged Capital's Claim  Working capital management is woefully inefficient compared to peersPoor receivables and payables managementBenchmark can free up $300mm of cash by achieving Plexus’ levels of A/P and A/R efficiencyImproving working capital would substantially increase cash position as well as ROIC from 9.8% to 14.2% Given the strong correlation between ROIC and valuation, we would expect the Company’s valuation multiples to improve as well  Engaged Capital’s Claims are Without MeritWorking Capital  2 

 

 Source: Company filingsNote: Metrics as of Q4’15CY for Benchmark and Q4’15CY for Plexus; A/R days calculated as Q4’15CY accounts receivable divided by Q4’15CY annualized sales times 360 days; Inventory days calculated as Q4’15CY inventory divided by Q4’15CY annualized COGS times 360 days; A/P days calculated as Q4’15CY accounts payable balance divided by Q4’15CY annualized COGS times 360 days1 Note that Benchmark’s Q4’15CY figures are pro forma for the Secure transaction  Engaged Capital’s Thesis for Working Capital is Flawed  Engaged’s claim  2  1  End-market mix and shipping terms drive discrepancies between Accounts Receivable and Inventory across peersTo exclude Inventory when reviewing Accounts Receivable in the EMS sector means only showing part of the storyCombining Accounts Receivable and Inventory Days is more reflective of an apples-to-apples comparisonLooking at it holistically, it is clear that Benchmark outperforms, and “spreadsheet-level” savings cited by Engaged misses a critical part of the picture  Reality  1  <  Savings?       

 Source: Benchmark management; Market data as of 04/11/16Note: BHE PF adjustment of ~7 days from foregoing trade discounts1 Based on common shares outstanding of 49.8mm as of 02/25/16 per Benchmark’s 2015 10-K2 P/E-base equity value determined by multiplying PF NOPAT impact of forgoing discounts ($6.7mm) by Benchmark’s CY16E multiple (12.4x)  62  Benchmark has historically taken advantage of supplier discounting on its A/PMakes its A/P days look less efficient than peersBy taking trade discounts, Benchmark drives ~107% more value for its shareholders versus alternative approach of normalizing A/P days  Observations  Taking discounts leads to greater shareholder value ($mm)  <  $0.80 per share1  $1.66 per share1      +107%  2  Benchmark Takes Advantage of Discounts, which Drives Greater Shareholder Value  2 

 Reality  EMS industry must invest continually to strategically position for the futureMarket has rewarded Benchmark with a premium valuation relative to peersSecure acquisition is consistent with Benchmark’s strategic objective of targeting higher-value markets to optimize for future trendsSecure provides greater impact to revenue growth, margins, EPS and long-term ROIC than alternate uses of capital considered, including a one-time debt-funded share repurchase that Engaged Capital advocatedBenchmark has prioritized a shareholder-friendly capital allocation strategy while investing for the Industrial Revolution of tomorrowSince 91% of Benchmark’s cash is offshore, funding a large one-time share repurchase with cash would be value destructive  Source: Engaged Capital's definitive proxy filed 03/29/16, FactSet, Wall Street research, company filingsNote: Claims are from Engaged Capital's definitive proxy filed 03/29/16  Engaged Capital's Claim  Undisciplined capital allocationEven if analysts are overstating the multiple paid, we struggle to see how the Secure acquisition can generate returns for shareholders that are greater than repurchasing Benchmark’s highly undervalued sharesTo create shareholder value, acquisitions must be: Consummated at a price that allows the company to earn a return well in excess of its cost of capital; and Exceed the risk-adjusted return offered by alternative uses of capital, including dividends and share repurchases  Engaged Capital’s Claims are Without MeritCapital Allocation  3 

 Investors reward companies for shifting product mix towards higher-value / low volume end marketsEMS companies with more exposure to industrials, medical, automotive, aerospace and defense end markets typically have higher valuationsPortfolio repositioning towards diversified business helps companies to hedge against broader industry headwindsLonger program lifecycles help offset volatility in traditional tech-facing end markets      50% higher-value implies P/E of 10.9x    CY16E P/E multiple  Source: Company filings, Wall Street research; FactSet; Market data as of 04/11/16Note: Higher-value / low volume end markets primarily represent healthcare, defense, automotive and industrial end markets  % higher-value vs. '16E P/E multiple  Observations  Investors Award Premium Multiples Based on Increasing Exposure to Higher-Value Markets  3  % higher-value 

 Share repurchases over time    CY 2007    CY 2008        CY 2009        CY 2010        CY 2011        CY 2012        CY 2013        CY 2014        CY 2015        Consecutive quarters    Q3  Q4  Q1  Q2  Q3  Q4  Q1  Q2  Q3  Q4  Q1  Q2  Q3  Q4  Q1  Q2  Q3  Q4  Q1  Q2  Q3  Q4  Q1  Q2  Q3  Q4  Q1  Q2  Q3  Q4  Q1  Q2  Q3  Q4  of share repurchases                                                                        34                                                                        24                                                                        13                                                                        13                                                                        9                                                                        2  Source: Company filings  Unwavering Track Record of Consistent Share Repurchases  3 

 Reality  From 2011 – 2015, shareholders have consistently demonstrated strong support of Benchmark's executive compensation policy with say-on-pay vote results in excess of 90%ROIC is a poor short-term compensation metric: it risks discouraging smart long-term investments, and it is difficult to meaningfully impact ROIC in the short termRecent enhancements by the Board target working capital specifically:CCC replaced inventory turns in the short-term compensation structure as a more holistic measurement of working capital efficiencyCCC targets added to the short-term incentive compensation structure for 2016Benchmark has been publicly traded and widely owned for over 25 years and Board ownership reflects the maturity of the Company and industry – ownership in line with peersPost-2009 employment contracts, including Gayla Delly’s, do not contain the change-in-control or tax gross-ups attacked by Engaged Capital; there are two legacy agreements with these featuresThe Board remains open to shareholder suggestions and guidance from its external consultants on management compensationIncorporated recent investor feedback and instituted executive compensation clawback policy for restatement of earnings  Source: Engaged Capital's definitive proxy statement filed 03/29/16, Engaged Capital’s letter to shareholders filed 03/30/16, FactSet, Wall Street research, company filingsNote: Claims are from Engaged Capital's definitive proxy statement filed 03/29/16  Engaged Capital's Claim  Claims about the company’s executive compensation practicesAbsence of ROIC in short-term compensation targetsCash should not be included in the calculation of ROICRemoval of inventory turns from short-term compensation structureInappropriate change-in-control and tax gross-ups in employment arrangementsBoard lacks sufficient stock ownership   Engaged Capital’s Claims Are Without MeritCompensation and Stock Ownership  4 

 Benchmark Has Sought to Work in Good Faith with Engaged Capital over the Past Year  As part of Benchmark's commitment to constructive dialogue with its shareholders, the Company has encouraged open and candid communication with Engaged Capital since its initial outreachBenchmark met with Engaged Capital in June 2015 to discuss its investment thesis, sought to provide management insight, and indicated it welcomed continued input from Engaged CapitalIn the past year, Engaged Capital presented to Benchmark a number of poorly developed theses that were later abandoned by Engaged Capital, including an ill-conceived Dutch auction share repurchase funded by debt and the notion that Benchmark would increase research coverage by raising more debtIn October 2015, when the Secure transaction was announced, Engaged Capital threatened to call a special meeting to replace the entire BoardIn February 2016, the Board's Nominating/Governance Committee informed Engaged Capital it was willing to carefully consider Engaged Capital nominees in identifying candidates for Board serviceMembers of the Benchmark Board, management team and its financial advisors have had at least 9 in-person meetings or phone calls with Engaged Capital over the past year (in addition to numerous written exchanges) Despite the Board’s best efforts to work constructively, Engaged Capital has publicly stated that any settlement or other compromise must include the appointment of Brendan Springstubb, an employee of Engaged Capital with no industry expertise or public company board experience 

 Engaged Capital’s Proposed Board Candidates Do Not Meet Benchmark’s Rigorous Criteria     Global TechnologyManufacturer  Global Industrial Manufacturer  CFO  Outside Board Experience  Investor Relations   M&A  Strategy   Public Markets Debt  Capital Structure   C- Score¹  Paul Tufano Former CFO and COO, Alcatel-Lucent                    Yes  Michael DawsonFormer CFO, GlobalSantaFe                    Yes  Bernee StromPresident & CEO, The Strom Group                    Yes  Clay WilliamsChairman, President, and CEO, National Oilwell Varco                    Yes                                                         Robert GiffordFormer President of Supply Chain Solutions, Ingram Micro                    No  Jeffrey McCrearyIndependent Management Consultant                    Limited  Brendan SpringstubbSenior Analyst, Engaged Capital                    No  Lisa Kelley2VP - Finance, Avnet                    No  Benchmark  Engaged Capital  Candidate comparison to required industry, functional responsibility and business experience   Source: G. Fleck / Board Services; Information relating to Engaged Capital’s candidates sourced from its definitive proxy filed 03/29/16 and its other public filings relating to these candidatesNote: Benchmark reviewed several other candidates at the direction of the Nominating/Governance committee in addition to the ones shown above prior to selecting Paul Tufano¹ C-Score (Yes / No / Maybe) answers the question: Is the candidate comparable in experience to the CEO, CFO and or Board Members? 2 Has since withdrawn as nominee      = Non-negotiable according to Engaged Capital  CONFLICTED 

 Engaged Capital’s Record of Creating Shareholder Value is Weak  Source: FactSet as of 04/11/16, SEC filings1 Includes all campaigns in which Engaged Capital secured the appointment of a dissident member of a slate or mutually agreeable director by way of a settlement agreement to the board as of 04/11/16  Share price performance since Engaged Capital secured board change  In 5 of 6 instances, after Engaged Capital secured a change in public board composition, the companies suffered sharp declines in share priceAverage (15%) share price decline from time of director appointment  Target company  New director appointment date1  Share price at appointment1  Closing priceas of 04/11/16  Returns  Returns against S&P 500  Abercrombie & Fitch & Co  19-Jun-14  $42.60   $28.10   (34.0%)  (38.2%)  HeartWare International  14-Mar-16  31.06   30.92   (0.5%)  (1.6%)  Jamba Inc  13-Jan-15  16.12   12.43   (22.9%)  (23.8%)  Medifast Inc  22-Jun-15  32.69   29.81   (8.8%)  (5.0%)  Rovi Corp  19-May-15  16.49   17.48   6.0%   10.0%   TriMas Corp  25-Feb-15  24.51   17.21   (29.8%)  (26.4%)  Average        (15.0%)  (14.2%) 

 

 In Closing  Vote the White Proxy Card to support the Benchmark leadership team’s continued strategy to deliver shareholder value  Strategic plan has delivered strong financial performance, premium valuation and positioned company ahead of future trendsSecure adds capabilities to core portfolio, consistent with strategy, and strong positive financial impactBest-in-class corporate governanceOngoing commitment to refresh Board of DirectorsEngaged Capital’s claims lack merit, and its slate is less qualified 

 

 Appendix 

 GAAP to Non-GAAP Reconciliations  1935717-001  33  ($mm)    2011  2012  2013  2014  2015                Revenue (GAAP)     $2,253.0   $2,468.2   $2,506.5   $2,797.1   $2,540.9                Income from operations (GAAP)      $41.3    $75.6    $116.5    $100.1    $93.0                 Operating margin (GAAP)1     1.8%   3.1%   4.6%   3.6%   3.7%  Restructuring charges and integration and acquisition costs     4.5    2.2    9.3    7.1    13.8   Asset impairment charge and other     -    -    2.6    (1.5)   -  Thailand flood-related items, net of insurance     3.4    9.0    (41.3)   (1.6)   -   Customer bankruptcy     -    -    -   5.0    -   Non-GAAP income from operations      $49.2    $86.8    $87.2    $109.2    $106.8                 Non-GAAP operating margin1     2.2%   3.5%   3.5%   3.9%   4.2%                Net income (GAAP)       $52.0    $56.6    $110.9    $81.2    $95.4   Restructuring charges and integration costs, net of tax     4.4    1.8    8.3    4.9    9.9   Asset impairment charge and other, net of tax     -    -    2.8    (1.5)   -  Thailand flood-related items, net of insurance and tax     3.2    9.9    (35.6)   (1.3)   -   Customer bankruptcy, net of tax     -    -    -   4.8    -   Discrete tax benefits     -    -    (17.5)   -    (21.2)   Non-GAAP net income       $59.6    $68.3    $69.0    $88.1    $84.1                 Net cash provided by operations (GAAP)     $54.8   $151.1   $98.9   $135.4   $146.8  Additions to property, plant & equipment and software     72.0   49.0   28.8   45.4   38.1  Free Cash Flow     ($17.2)   $102.1   $70.1   $90.0   $108.7                Free cash flow margin1     (0.8%)   4.1%   2.8%   3.2%   4.3%  1 Equals line item immediately above divided by revenue (GAAP)