Filed by the Registrant ☒

Filed by a Party other than the Registrant   ☐

Check the appropriate box:   

 ☐ Preliminary Proxy Statement  

 ☐ Confidential, for Use of the Commission Only (as permitted by Rule 14a-6(e)(2)) 

☒ Definitive Proxy Statement  

 ☐ Definitive Additional Materials  

 ☐ Soliciting Material Pursuant to Section 240.14a-12

Payment of Filing Fee (Check the appropriate box):

 

This summary highlights information contained elsewhere in this proxy statement. This summary does not contain all of the information you should consider. You should read the entire proxy statement carefully before voting.

(see “Information about the Annual Meeting and Voting” beginning on page 67):

Throughout this proxy statement, we refer to information and documents that are available on our website. The content posted on, or accessible through, our website is not incorporated by reference into this proxy statement or any of our filings with the SEC and may be revised by us (in whole or in part) at any time and from time to time.

Our values form the foundation of our business, shape our priorities, and set our expectations for how we conduct our business, service our customers and interact with each other.

 

We enable individuals and businesses to manage financial risk by providing insurance products and services tailored to meet their specific and ever-changing financial risk exposures. We build value for our investors through the strength of our customers’ satisfaction and by consistently producing superior operating results.

Our business operates under the Great American Insurance Group, whose history dates back to 1872, with the founding of Great American Insurance Company.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The nominees for election to the Board of Directors are as follows:

In considering each director nominee, the Board and the Corporate Governance Committee evaluated each individual’s qualifications, qualities and skills to serve as a director. The Board believes that each director nominee brings a unique and valuable mix of experience and attributes to the Board. The following matrix provides information regarding the director nominees, including certain areas of knowledge, skills and experience that the Board believes are relevant to our business and strategic goals. The type and degree of knowledge, skill and experience below varies among our directors. The matrix is a non-exclusive summary and does not include all knowledge, skills, experience or other attributes of our directors that may be relevant and valuable to their service on our Board; a director may possess other relevant and important knowledge, skills and experience not indicated in the matrix. Additional information on each director nominee, including some of their specific experience, qualifications, attributes or skills, is set forth in the biographies on pages 10 to 16 of this proxy statement.

 

The following table presents fees for professional services performed by Ernst & Young for the years ended December 31, 2025 and 2024.

Representatives of Ernst & Young are expected to be at the meeting and will be given the opportunity to make a statement if they so desire. They will also be available to respond to appropriate questions from shareholders.

The Audit Committee has adopted policies that require pre-approval for any audit and non-audit services to be provided to AFG by Ernst & Young LLP. The Audit Committee delegated authority to the Committee Chairperson to pre-approve certain non-audit services which arise between meetings of the Audit Committee. Pursuant to these procedures and delegation of authority, the Audit Committee was informed of and pre-approved any such audit and other services during 2025. No services were provided with respect to the de minimis waiver process provided by rules of the SEC.

 

The vote on this matter is not intended to address any specific element of compensation; rather, the vote relates to the compensation of our named executive officers, as described in this proxy statement in accordance with the compensation disclosure rules of the SEC. The vote is advisory, which means that the vote is not binding on the Company, our Board of Directors or the Compensation Committee. Nevertheless, the Board and the Compensation Committee carefully review the voting results when evaluating executive compensation decisions and program design.

Accordingly, we ask our shareholders to approve, on an advisory basis, the compensation of the named executive officers, as disclosed in this proxy statement pursuant to the compensation disclosure rules of the SEC, including the Compensation Discussion and Analysis, the Summary Compensation Table and the other related tables and disclosure.

The directors, nominees for director and executive officers of the Company are as follows:

Mr. Carl H. Lindner III and Mr. S. Craig Lindner are brothers, Mr. S. Craig Lindner is the father of Craig Lindner Jr., and Mr. Carl H. Lindner III is the father-in-law of David L. Thompson.

Michelle A. Gillis was appointed Chief Human Resources Officer in 2022 and became Senior Vice President and Chief Administrative Officer of the Company in March 2013. She has responsibility for human resources, including talent management and total rewards. She also oversees corporate marketing and branding, real estate and numerous shared services areas. Since joining Great American Insurance Company in 2004, Ms. Gillis held various senior human resource management positions. Previously, Ms. Gillis spent several years in senior human resources roles in the financial services sector. Ms. Gillis holds an active accreditation as Senior Professional in Human Resources (SPHR) from the Human Resources Certification Institute.

Brian S. Hertzman became Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company in August 2020. Prior to his election, he served as Vice President since 2014 and Controller since 2012. Mr. Hertzman, a licensed certified public accountant (inactive), joined AFG in 1991 and has held positions of increasing responsibility within the Company’s finance and accounting areas during his over 30 year tenure. As Vice President and Controller of AFG, Mr. Hertzman had responsibility for oversight of accounting policies and procedures in compliance with GAAP and other applicable regulations and financial reporting to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Mark A. Weiss was elected Senior Vice President and General Counsel of the Company effective December 1, 2022. He served as the Chief Compliance Officer from 2020 until April 2025. He joined AFG in 2010 and has served in various capacities, most recently as Vice President and Assistant General Counsel. Mr. Weiss was a partner at Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL prior to joining the Company.

Information regarding all nominees for director is set forth beginning on page 9 under “Proposals — Proposal No. 1 — Election of 12 Directors.”

The following table sets forth certain information regarding beneficial ownership of common shares by each of the Company’s directors and the named executive officers and by all directors and executive officers of the Company as a group. The table also includes those who are known by the Company to own beneficially more than 5% of the issued and outstanding common shares. Except as otherwise provided below, information in the table is as of March 13, 2026, and, to the Company’s knowledge, all common shares are beneficially owned and investment and voting power is held solely by the persons named as owners.

The Company has two principal executive officers, Carl H. Lindner III and S. Craig Lindner. Each has been designated as a Co-Chief Executive Officer and each also serves on the Board of Directors.

The Board recognizes that having two principal executive officers is not customary for public companies, including the Company’s peers, but the Board has determined for the reasons set forth below that the executive leadership structure is both appropriate for the Company and optimal for achieving corporate objectives. Notably, the Company does not have numerous additional senior officer designations prevalent at other public companies with senior management responsibilities concentrated among fewer executives.

Carl H. Lindner III serves as CEO of AFG’s Great American Insurance Group and is primarily responsible for AFG’s property and casualty insurance operations. S. Craig Lindner is primarily responsible for AFG’s investment portfolio and heavily involved in the Company’s capital management and strategic planning. While each Co-CEO functions within a clearly defined role with respect to the day-to-day operations of the Company, both Co-CEOs work together closely and are significantly involved in all aspects of Company management. The Co-CEOs work collaboratively in determining overall corporate strategy and planning, as well as in assessing and managing enterprise risks. Because of their close working relationship, either Co-CEO could assume the additional responsibilities of the other in the event such a need arose.

The Co-CEOs are the largest non-institutional shareholders of the Company, and each has served as Co-CEO and/or Co-President since AFG was formed through the merger of predecessor companies in 1994. As of March 13, 2026, the Co-CEOs and other members of the Lindner family own, directly or through trusts and other entities, approximately 20% of AFG’s outstanding common shares. As a result of their long history, the Co-CEOs have unique perspectives and a broad and deep understanding of the Company, its culture, operations and key drivers of success, and are aligned with their fellow shareholders in being principally focused on creating sustainable long-term value. Their respective strengths and areas of focus complement one another, and the Board believes that this results in the best leadership structure for the Company.

The Board of Directors also believes that the Company’s leadership structure aids in succession planning and provides the Company with significant executive depth and leadership experience. The Board continues to believe that the Company’s leadership structure is currently the most appropriate for the Company.

The Board does not currently have a Chairperson. Additionally, the Board does not have a formal policy as to whether the same person may serve as both the principal executive officer of the Company and Chairperson. At the present time, the Board does not believe that such a policy is necessary because the current Board membership, together with the Company’s management, possesses the requisite leadership and industry skills, expertise and experience to oversee the business and affairs of the Company effectively. The Board believes that this flexibility is in the best interest of the Company and that a one-size-fits-all approach to corporate governance, with a mandated independent Chairperson, would not result in better governance or oversight.

The Company’s Corporate Governance Guidelines provide for the selection of a Lead Director from the independent directors at times when the Company has no Chairperson or no independent Chairperson. The Lead Independent Director is appointed annually and is generally expected to serve for more than one year. The Lead Independent Director has the authority to call meetings of the non-employee directors and to preside over such meetings. When the Chairperson, or in the absence of a Chairperson, the Co-CEOs, are absent, the Lead Independent Director presides over meetings of the Board.

There are 12 members on the Board of Directors. The Board met eight times during 2025. Each incumbent director attended at least 75% of total Board and committee meetings to which he or she was appointed and served during 2025. The members of the Board are expected to be present at the annual meeting. All of the Directors attended last year’s annual meeting, which permitted their ability to respond to shareholder questions.

The committees of the Board consist of the Audit Committee, Compensation Committee and Corporate Governance Committee. Each committee is governed by a charter that defines its role and responsibilities and are available on the Company’s website at www.AFGinc.com under “Leadership and Governance – Board Committees.” A printed copy of these charters may be obtained by shareholders upon written request addressed to the Company’s Secretary, at the address set forth under “Board Communications” in the Proxy Statement Summary.

The below table identifies membership and the Chairperson of each of the current committees of the Board, as well as the number of times each committee met during 2025.

In accordance with the Audit Committee’s charter, which it reviews annually, the Audit Committee oversees the Company’s financial reporting process on behalf of the Board of Directors. The Company’s management has the primary responsibility for the financial statements, for maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting, and for assessing the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting. In fulfilling its oversight responsibilities, the Committee reviewed and discussed the audited consolidated financial statements and the related schedules in the Annual Report on Form 10-K with Company management, including a discussion of the quality, not just the acceptability, of the accounting principles; the reasonableness of significant judgments; and the clarity of disclosures in the financial statements, among other matters.

The Committee is comprised solely of independent directors as defined by the NYSE listing standards and Rule 10A-3 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”).

The members of the Committee are Gregory G. Joseph (Chairperson), Amy Y. Murray, Roger K. Newport and John I. Von Lehman. The Board has determined that two of the Audit Committee’s members, Mr. Newport and Mr. Von Lehman, are each considered to be an “audit committee financial expert” as defined under SEC rules.

The meetings of the Committee are designed to facilitate and encourage communication among the Committee, the Company’s management, the Company’s internal audit function and the Company’s independent auditor. The Audit Committee schedules its meetings with a view to ensuring that it devotes appropriate attention to all of its tasks. These meetings include, whenever appropriate, executive sessions in which the Audit Committee meets separately with the independent auditors, internal auditors and management personnel.

In addition, the Audit Committee reviews key initiatives and programs aimed at maintaining the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting. Together with senior members of the Company’s management team, the Audit Committee reviews the plans of the internal auditors, the results of internal audit examinations and evaluations by management and the Company’s independent auditors of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting and the quality of the Company’s financial reporting. As part of this process, the Audit Committee monitors the scope and adequacy of the Company’s internal auditing program, including reviewing internal audit department staffing levels and steps taken to maintain the effectiveness of internal procedures and controls.

The Audit Committee recognizes the importance of maintaining the independence of the Company’s independent auditor, both in fact and appearance. Each year, the Committee evaluates the qualifications, performance and independence of the Company’s independent auditor and determines whether to re-engage the current independent auditor. In doing so, the Audit Committee considers a number of factors, including the quality and efficiency of the services provided by the auditors, the auditors’ capabilities and the auditors’ technical expertise. In addition, the Committee has discussed with the independent auditor the firm’s independence from Company management and the Company, including the matters in the letter from the firm required by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) (“PCAOB”) Rule 3526, Communication with Audit Committees Concerning Independence, and considered the compatibility of non-audit services with the independent auditor’s independence.

The Committee reviewed and discussed together with management and the independent auditor the Company’s audited consolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2025, and the results of management’s assessment of the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting and the independent auditor’s audit of internal control over financial reporting. The Committee also reviewed with the independent auditor, which is responsible for expressing an opinion on the conformity of the audited consolidated financial statements and related schedules with US generally accepted accounting principles, its judgments as to the quality, not just the acceptability, of the Company’s accounting principles and such other matters as are required to be discussed with the Committee by the standards of the PCAOB, including PCAOB Auditing Standard No. 1301, Communications With Audit Committees, the rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and other applicable regulations.

In reliance on the reviews and discussions referred to above, the Committee recommended to the Board of Directors, and the Board has approved, that the audited consolidated financial statements and related schedules and management’s assessment of the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting be included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2025, filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

This Audit Committee Report does not constitute soliciting material and should not be deemed filed or incorporated by reference into any other Company filings under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, as amended, except to the extent the Company specifically incorporates this Report by reference therein.

Members of the Audit Committee:

Gregory G. Joseph, Chair

Amy Y. Murray

Roger K. Newport

John I. Von Lehman

All directors stand for election each year. Directors are elected by a plurality of votes received under Ohio law. However, the Company’s Regulations require that a director who receives a greater number of votes cast against than cast in favor shall continue to serve on the Board pursuant to Ohio law but must tender his or her resignation to the Company’s Board of Directors. In such event, the Corporate Governance Committee will make a recommendation to the Board of Directors on whether to accept or reject the resignation or whether other action should be taken. The Board of Directors will act on the Corporate Governance Committee’s recommendation and publicly disclose its decision and the rationale behind it within 90 days from the date of the certification of the election results. The director who tenders his or her resignation will not participate in the Corporate Governance Committee’s or Board of Directors’ decision.

Our Corporate Governance Guidelines identify criteria considered to evaluate prospective nominees for director. Our Corporate Governance Guidelines are available on the Company’s website at www.AFGinc.com.

Nominees for director are recommended by the Corporate Governance Committee in accordance with the principles in its charter and the Corporate Governance Guidelines. The Corporate Governance Committee considers suitability for membership on the Board on a case-by-case basis. Although the Committee does not prescribe minimum qualifications or standards for directors, candidates for Board membership should have the highest personal and professional integrity, demonstrated exceptional ability and judgment and availability and willingness to take the time necessary to properly discharge the duties of a director. The Board seeks candidates with a broad range of experiences, qualifications and skills that the Board believes enable each candidate to make a significant contribution to the Board. The Corporate Governance guidelines require that the Board will also consider Board candidates from both corporate positions and non-traditional environments such as government, academia and nonprofit organizations.

The Corporate Governance Committee does not have a policy relating to the consideration of director candidates recommended by shareholders because Ohio law and the Company’s Regulations afford shareholders certain rights related to such matters. The Regulations provide that to be eligible for election at a meeting of shareholders, candidates must be nominated by or at the direction of the Board of Directors or nominated by a shareholder who has complied with the procedures set forth in the Regulations. Procedures that shareholders must follow to nominate a director candidate are set forth on page 71 under, “Other Matters—Submitting Shareholder Proposals for the 2027 Annual Meeting of Shareholders.”

The Committee will make its determinations on whether to nominate an individual in the context of the Board as a whole based on the Board’s then-current needs, the merits of each such candidate and the qualifications of other available candidates. The Committee has no obligation to respond to shareholders who propose candidates that it has determined not to nominate for election to the Board, but the Committee may do so in its sole discretion. All director candidates are evaluated similarly whether nominated by the Board or by a shareholder.

The Corporate Governance Committee did not seek, nor did it receive the recommendation of, any of the director candidates named in this proxy statement from any shareholder, independent director, executive officer or third-party search firm in connection with its own approval of such candidates. The Company has not paid any fee to a third party to assist it in identifying or evaluating nominees.

The Board, upon recommendation from the Corporate Governance Committee, affirmatively determines the independence of each director and nominee for election as a director in accordance with guidelines it has adopted, which guidelines comply with the NYSE listing standards. For a director to be considered independent, the Board must determine affirmatively that a director does not have any material relationship with the Company directly or as a partner, shareholder or officer of an organization that has a relationship with the Company. A material relationship can include, but is not limited to, commercial, industrial, banking, consulting, legal, accounting, charitable and family relationships. Based on these standards, the Board has determined that each of Mmes. Martin and Murray and Messrs. Joseph, Newport, Nwankwo, Verity and Von Lehman, is independent and has no material relationship with the Company, except as a director and shareholder of the Company.

In reaching its independence determinations for 2025, the Committee considered that the Company purchased vehicles from, and had vehicles serviced by, automobile dealerships affiliated with a company of which Mr. Joseph is an executive and part owner. The small amounts involved in these transactions, which were pre-approved by the Audit Committee as transactions with a related party despite not requiring disclosure pursuant to SEC Regulation S-K Item 404, were deemed by AFG’s Board of Directors not to be material. See our policies regarding transactions with related parties as set forth below under, “Review, Approval or Ratification of Transactions with Related Persons” on page 36.

The Company believes a role of management, including the named executive officers, is to identify and manage risks confronting the Company. The Board of Directors and its committees play an integral role in the Company’s risk oversight, primarily by reviewing the processes used by management to identify and report risk and monitoring corporate actions to avoid inappropriate levels of risk. The Company’s Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) program is designed to reinforce the way the Company operates its business and reflects its culture, organizational structure, and risks.

The Co-CEOs have delegated oversight of the ERM process, including risk identification, risk impact, risk limits and mitigation strategies, to an AFG Enterprise Risk Committee (ERC) chaired by AFG’s General Counsel and also consisting of AFG’s Chief Administrative and Chief Human Resources Officer, AFG’s Chief Financial Officer, and Great American Insurance Group’s President and Chief Operating Officer, each of whom directly reports to the Co-CEOs. The ERC has designated an AFG Assistant Vice President as risk officer to oversee the day-to-day operations of the ERM program. The risk officer regularly meets with senior leaders representing significant areas from throughout the organization, including administration, operations, finance, accounting, legal, human resources, investments, information technology and information security, to assess significant risks. The risk officer works with management to identify potential events and trends that may adversely or favorably impact the Company and to manage risks to be within the Company’s risk appetite.

The ERC, the risk officer, and individual senior leader risk owners regularly monitor the top organizational risks, as well as any other significant or emerging risks that may arise during the year and consider whether to modify existing risks or elevate emerging risks. Assessments of AFG’s significant risks are completed on either a quarterly, semiannual, or annual basis. Any actual or foreseeable potential variances outside of AFG risk targets, even for reasons that are expected or accepted, are discussed with risk owners, risk monitors, and management. Significant changes in our risk profile are reviewed with the ERC and the AFG Audit Committee on a quarterly basis and with the AFG Board of Directors at least annually.

Also, due to evolving threats to corporate cybersecurity, the Board and Audit Committee receive reports from the Company’s Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) regarding cybersecurity risks and the steps management has taken to monitor and control such risks. Among the many issues discussed with the CISO in 2025 were AI-related matters, including the Company’s AI Governance Program to manage risks and promote the ethical use of AI tools and technology and AFG’s adoption of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) AI Risk Management Framework to assess and benchmark the Company’s risks. The CISO presents to the Audit Committee at least quarterly and to the Board at least annually to review and discuss the Company’s cybersecurity program.

The Company’s leadership structure and overall corporate governance framework is designed to aid the Board in its oversight of management responsibility for risk. The Audit Committee serves a key risk oversight function in carrying out its review of the Company’s financial reporting and internal reporting processes, as required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. Inherently, part of this review involves an evaluation of whether our financial reporting and internal reporting systems are adequately reporting the Company’s exposure to certain risks. In connection with this evaluation, the Audit Committee has, from time to time, considered whether any changes to these processes are necessary or desirable. While it has concluded that no such changes are warranted at this time, the Audit Committee will continue to monitor the Company’s financial reporting and internal reporting processes. In addition, pursuant to its charter, the Audit Committee is responsible for discussing with management the guidelines and policies related to enterprise risk assessment and risk management and assisting the Board of Directors in its oversight of the Company’s enterprise risk management process.

As more fully described in the “Compensation Discussion and Analysis” section of this proxy statement, the Compensation Committee takes an active role in overseeing risks relating to AFG’s executive compensation programs, plans and practices. Specifically, the Compensation Committee reviews the risk profile of the components of the executive compensation program, including the performance objectives and target levels used in connection with incentive awards, and considers the risks an executive officer might be incentivized to take with respect to such components with special attention given to establishing a mix among these components that does not encourage excessive risk taking.

The Corporate Governance Committee contributes to the Company’s risk oversight process by reviewing the Company’s Corporate Governance Guidelines and Board committee charters at least annually to ensure that they continue to comply with any applicable laws, regulations, and stock exchange or other listing standards, as each are subject to change from time to time. The Corporate Governance Committee also oversees the director nomination process, the overall Board reporting structure and the operations of the individual committees, in addition to advising the Board with respect to environmental and social risks.

The Company has adopted a Code of Ethics and Business Conduct applicable to all employees. Annually, directors and all employees certify that they have read and complied with our Code.

The Company has also adopted Corporate Governance Guidelines. The Code and Guidelines are available on the Company’s website at www.AFGinc.com, under “Leadership and Governance.” A printed copy of the Code and Guidelines may be obtained by shareholders upon written request to the Secretary at the address set forth under “Board Communications” in the Proxy Statement Summary. We intend to satisfy any disclosure requirements regarding any amendments to, or waivers from, provisions of the Code by posting such information on our website as promptly as practicable, as may be required by applicable SEC and NYSE rules.

Creating long-term value for shareholders is AFG’s highest business objective, and we are committed to doing so in a responsible manner. This commitment starts with recognizing that many of our business decisions affect people and organizations in the larger community.

Under its charter, the Corporate Governance Committee advises the Board with respect to stewardship issues to assist in the development and refinement of the Company’s strategies and policies in those areas.

We focus our corporate responsibility and sustainability strategies in four primary areas where AFG believes it can achieve the most direct and substantial results:

OUR FINANCIAL RISK FRAMEWORK

We believe that concentrating our efforts help us run our business more effectively, enhance our products, protect our customers, serve our communities and support approximately 8,500 employees worldwide.

AFG’s principal cultural goal is for all employees to feel included, respected and empowered to perform at their best. The Company recognizes the importance of developing specialized knowledge, offering leadership development opportunities and exemplifying a service-oriented culture. AFG respects human rights, fosters inclusion and values the unique perspective each employee brings to the workplace. Our Equal Employment Opportunity Policy, which governs all decisions related to employment, including requests for accommodations, requires that employment decisions are made without regard to race, color, religion, creed, national origin, citizenship status, ancestry, age, physical or mental disability, gender, sex, marital status, pregnancy (or related condition), sexual orientation, veteran status, genetic information, or any other factors that are protected by applicable federal, state or local law.

Our Chief Human Resources Officer, Ms. Gillis, regularly addresses the Board and the Compensation Committee. Recent topics addressed by Ms. Gillis have included human capital strategy, Company culture, succession planning, learning and development, total rewards and benefits, and talent evaluation, retention and acquisition. Ms. Gillis also discusses with the Board the results of the Company’s biennial employee engagement survey (“Employee Survey”) in years in which the survey is conducted. AFG views the Employee Survey as a critical resource to help inform management on employees’ views and perspectives on key matters. There was strong employee engagement in the most recent Employee Survey, conducted in 2024, with 92% of the Company’s employees participating. Management was encouraged by this high engagement and the positive overall results, which on the whole reaffirmed management’s belief that employees appreciate the Company’s culture and the opportunities available to them and understand their link to AFG’s strategy and business. Some of the highlights of the most recent Employee Survey are provided below.

 

Information regarding our corporate responsibility and sustainability efforts, including additional details from our most recent Employee Survey results, can be found on our website at www.AFGinc.com under “Corporate Social Responsibility” where you can review our Corporate Social Responsibility Report.

We maintain an ongoing, proactive outreach effort with our shareholders. Throughout the year, members of our Investor Relations team and our business leaders, including AFG’s Co-CEOs, President and CFO, as well as the President and Chief Operating Officer of Great American Insurance Group, engage with our shareholders to help increase their understanding of our business and strategy and to remain well-informed regarding their perspectives on a wide variety of topics. Management regularly engages with investors by participating in industry conferences. We also meet in person, virtually through online meetings and by telephone with shareholders at other times throughout the year to answer questions and solicit input on all matters of shareholder interest, including strategic, financial, governance and sustainability. We believe our engagement with shareholders has been productive and provides an open exchange of ideas and perspectives.

 

The Corporate Governance Committee facilitates participation by directors in continuing education programs, including accredited director education programs paid by the Company and structured internal programs presented by management at least annually.

The Corporate Governance Committee oversees the Company’s annual Board evaluation process, which is designed to elicit candid feedback and recommendations from the directors that will improve the effectiveness of the Board and each of its committees. The Corporate Governance Committee annually determines the process to be utilized for conducting Board evaluations. In recent years, evaluations have consisted of individual Board member interviews, in each case conducted by an outside third party. These interviews cover a broad range of topics, including Board and Committee functioning, succession planning, governance and strategy, and allow each director the opportunity to provide feedback on their fellow directors. The results of the evaluation are compiled by the outside third party and discussed with the committees and with the full Board.

 

NYSE rules require independent directors to meet regularly in executive sessions. Four of these sessions were held during 2025. The lead independent director presides over each session.

The Board of Directors has adopted procedures for shareholders and other interested parties to send written communications to the Board as a group. Communications must be clearly addressed either to the Board of Directors, a committee of the Board or any or all of the independent directors and sent to either of the individuals as set forth under, “Board Communications” in the Proxy Statement Summary. Any communications except for spam, junk mail, mass mailings, resumes, job inquiries, surveys, business solicitations or advertisements, or patently offensive, hostile, threatening or otherwise unsuitable or inappropriate material will be forwarded.

No member of AFG’s Compensation Committee was at any time during 2025 or at any other time an officer or employee of the Company, and none had any relationship with the Company requiring disclosure as a related-person transaction. None of our executive officers served on the compensation committee (or its equivalent) or board of directors of another entity that has, or had during any time during 2025, an executive officer who served as a member of our Board or our Compensation Committee.

Stock exchange rules require that the Company conduct an appropriate review of all related party transactions (including those required to be disclosed by the Company pursuant to SEC Regulation S-K Item 404) for potential conflict of interest situations on an ongoing basis and that all such transactions must be reviewed and evaluated by the Audit Committee or another committee comprised of independent directors. The Audit Committee reviews and evaluates all transactions with related parties. In addition, our Audit Committee Charter provides that the Audit Committee review and approve all related party transactions involving directors, executive officers and significant shareholders of the Company that require disclosure pursuant to SEC Regulation S-K Item 404. In considering any transaction, the Committee may consider all relevant factors, including as applicable: the Company’s business rationale for entering into the transaction; the alternatives to entering into a related person transaction; whether the transaction is on terms comparable to those available to third parties, or in the case of employment relationships, to employees generally; the potential for the transaction to lead to an actual or apparent conflict of interest and any safeguards imposed to prevent such actual or apparent conflicts; and the overall fairness of the transaction to the Company.

While the Company adheres to this policy for potential related person transactions, the policy is not in written form except as a part of listing agreements with the NYSE. However, approval of such related person transactions is evidenced by Audit Committee resolutions in accordance with our practice of reviewing and approving transactions in this manner.

Other than as follows, there were no such transactions in 2025 requiring disclosure under applicable rules. Craig Lindner, Jr., son of S. Craig Lindner, who serves as Divisional President of AFG Real Estate Investments, also serves as a director, and his compensation is discussed under “Director Compensation and Stock Ownership Guidelines” beginning on page 59. A son-in-law of Mr. Berding who is employed by the Company received salary and bonus of approximately $275,000 for 2025 and participates in employee benefit plans, including equity incentive plans, commensurate with his position and tenure with the Company.

FC Cincinnati Holdings LLC and its subsidiaries and affiliates (collectively, “FC Cincinnati”) is a member of Major League Soccer and operates a professional soccer franchise in Cincinnati, Ohio. Carl H. Lindner III is the principal investor and Chief Executive Officer of FC Cincinnati and controls that entity by contract. The Company and its subsidiaries have several relationships with FC Cincinnati. The Company purchases tickets and merchandise from FC Cincinnati at rates generally offered to the public as it has for many years purchased tickets and merchandise from other local professional franchises and universities. In 2025, the Company paid approximately $392,833 to FC Cincinnati for tickets and merchandise. FC Cincinnati also purchases insurance policies from a subsidiary of the Company, and through a subsidiary insurance agency, under the same terms that would prevail between unrelated third parties. These amounts totaled approximately $166,000 in 2025. Mr. Thompson and a brother of Mr. Joseph are part owners of FC Cincinnati.

In this section, we describe the material components of our executive compensation program for our named executive officers whose compensation is displayed in the 2025 Summary Compensation Table and the other compensation tables contained in this proxy statement. We also provide an overview of our executive compensation philosophy, and we explain how and why the Compensation Committee arrives at specific compensation policies and decisions.

Our 2025 named executive officers (“NEOs”) are our Co-Chief Executive Officers (“Co-CEOs”), our principal financial officer and the three other most highly compensated executive officers employed at the end of 2025 and are the same individuals as last year. They include:

The Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors is responsible for designing the Company’s executive compensation program, reviewing and approving the compensation paid to the Company’s Co-CEOs and other Company senior executive officers, and overseeing the Company’s executive compensation policies. The Compensation Committee also administers the Company’s cash and equity incentive plans. In carrying out these responsibilities, the Compensation Committee seeks to ensure that the total compensation paid to the NEOs is fair, reasonable and competitive.

AFG’s executive compensation philosophy balances attracting, motivating, retaining and rewarding executives with a compensation package competitive among its peers and maximizing shareholder value by designing and implementing programs that tie compensation earned to the short-term and long-term performance of the Company. In evaluating the pay-for-performance alignment, the Compensation Committee compares the Company’s compensation practices to those of a peer group of publicly-held insurance holding companies against which it competes for business, talent and shareholder investment (collectively and as further described below, the “Compensation Peer Group”).

Guided by principles that reinforce the Company’s pay-for-performance philosophy, NEO compensation includes five components: base salary; annual performance-based cash awards; long-term stock incentives; cash awards based on long-term performance; and other compensation, including certain perquisites. A significant portion of each NEO’s compensation is dependent upon the Company achieving business and financial goals.

As part of its compensation program philosophy, the Compensation Committee evaluates the total target and maximum compensation that can be earned by each NEO, rather than considering each individual component in isolation. As such, the Compensation Committee views perquisites as an element of total compensation and, accordingly, would consider the elimination or diminution of any perquisite as a decrease in total compensation.

From time to time, the Company engages Pay Governance LLC (“Pay Governance”) as its independent compensation consultant. The scope of these engagements varies from full assessments of the Company’s executive compensation program to specific consulting projects. The Company most recently engaged Pay Governance in 2024, when Pay Governance provided the Compensation Committee with outside independent analysis and perspectives relating to the Committee’s evaluation of proposed changes to the Senior Executive Annual Bonus Plan (“Annual Bonus Plan”) and the impact of those changes on the Company’s overall executive compensation program.

The Company has also previously engaged Pay Governance to provide the Compensation Committee with advice and recommendations regarding the Company’s compensation philosophy and strategies; advice on the Company’s peer group; evaluation of performance metrics and peer performance; and analysis and recommendations regarding the Company’s salaries and incentive compensation plans, executive benefits and Co-CEO perquisites.

The Compensation Committee has reviewed the independence of Pay Governance considering applicable SEC rules and NYSE listing standards regarding compensation consultant independence and has affirmatively concluded Pay Governance is independent from the Company and has no conflict of interest relating to its engagement.

The Company has Co-CEOs serving as principal executive officers. The Co-CEOs work together in determining overall corporate strategy and planning, as well as in assessing and managing enterprise risks and opportunities. Key factors affecting the Compensation Committee’s judgment with respect to the Co-CEOs include the nature and scope of their responsibilities and their effectiveness in leading initiatives to effectively manage capital and increase sustainable shareholder value, productivity, profitability and growth. The design of the compensation programs for the Co-CEOs reflects the Company’s leadership structure, which is discussed in more detail above under “Corporate Governance—Leadership Structure” on page 24.

As in prior years, the Compensation Committee determined that the quantifiable measurements for each Co-CEO should be identical because the Compensation Committee believes that the Co-CEOs are ultimately jointly responsible for the Company achieving its objectives. Carl H. Lindner III also serves as CEO of AFG’s Great American Insurance Group and is primarily responsible for AFG’s property and casualty insurance operations. S. Craig Lindner is primarily responsible for AFG’s investment portfolio and heavily involved in capital management and strategic planning. Despite their different primary responsibilities, the Compensation Committee views the roles of the Co-CEOs as collaborative and complementary and does not seek to distinguish the performance of one from the other. Rather, the Compensation Committee scrutinized factors such as the Co-CEOs’ collective role in AFG’s achievement of operating and financial targets, the development of management personnel, the performance of the investment portfolio and the development and implementation of strategies and initiatives to enhance shareholder value.

The Co-CEOs’ performance-based compensation—consisting of annual incentive and long-term incentive components, as further discussed below—is based entirely on the achievement of objective measures of the Company’s business and financial performance. This differs from many companies in the Company’s Compensation Peer Group, which include some manner of subjective, discretionary component in their chief executive officer’s incentive compensation. As shown below, a majority of the compensation earned by the Co-CEOs for 2025 was based on objective measures of Company performance and consisted of long-term compensation components.

 

Notably, over the past five-year period, the Co-CEOs have had no increase in:

When evaluating the Co-CEOs annual overall compensation, consistent with the approach of certain institutional investors and proxy advisory firms, the Compensation Committee considers the compensation of the highest-paid Co-CEO as “CEO compensation” and includes the other Co-CEO in its analysis as one of the three highest-paid, non-Chief Financial Officer officers. In addition, when considering the reasonableness of Co-CEO compensation, the Compensation Committee also compares the combined total compensation of the Co-CEOs to the compensation paid to the top two executives at the Company’s peers.

The Compensation Committee believes that the evaluation by certain institutional investors and proxy advisory firms of the Company’s pay-for-performance alignment is distorted by combining the compensation of the two Co-CEOs and representing that the combined compensation reflects “CEO” compensation. The Compensation Committee believes that this view skews compensation analysis and unfairly penalizes the Company for its leadership structure that the Board has determined is in the best interests of shareholders.

The Compensation Committee believes that compensation levels for the Co-CEOs should be based primarily upon the Committee’s assessment of the Co-CEOs’ leadership performance and potential to enhance long-term sustainable shareholder value. The Compensation Committee relies upon a combination of judgment and guidelines in determining the amount and mix of compensation elements for the Co-CEOs. The compensation levels for the other NEOs are similarly determined by the Co-CEOs, and reviewed and approved by the Compensation Committee, again based primarily upon the assessment of each NEO’s leadership performance and potential to enhance long-term sustainable shareholder value.

The Compensation Committee and the Co-CEOs analyze peer groups, including the members of its Compensation Peer Group (as defined below), and industry pay rates at least annually in reviewing the appropriateness and competitiveness of the Company’s compensation programs. In analyzing market pay levels among the Compensation Peer Group, the Compensation Committee considers the variance in size among the companies, both in terms of revenues and market capitalization.

The Compensation Committee utilizes the peer and industry review as a point of reference for measurement and not as a determinative factor. Although the Company seeks to offer total compensation to NEOs that is competitive with the compensation paid by companies in the Compensation Peer Group, the Company does not target or benchmark a particular percentile for its executives’ total pay packages or any individual pay components. Rather, the compensation levels and performance of the Compensation Peer Group constitute one of many factors considered by the Compensation Committee.

The Compensation Peer Group, which the Compensation Committee annually reviews and updates when appropriate, is designed to reflect the Company’s business mix and to consist of companies against which AFG competes for business, talent and shareholder investment. The Compensation Peer Group for 2025, which was unchanged from 2024, consists of the following companies:

The Compensation Committee’s decisions concerning the specific 2025 compensation elements for the Co-CEOs were made within this framework. The Compensation Committee also considered each Co-CEO’s performance and prior-year salary, incentive awards and other compensation. In all cases, specific decisions involving 2025 compensation were ultimately based upon the Compensation Committee’s judgment about the Co-CEOs’ performance, potential future contributions and about whether each payment or award would provide an appropriate incentive and reward for performance that sustains and enhances long-term shareholder value without subjecting the Company to inappropriate or unreasonable risk.

Based on its review, the Compensation Committee found the NEOs’ total compensation to be reasonable and consistent with the Company’s pay-for-performance compensation philosophy.

The Compensation Committee has reviewed the risk profile of the components of AFG’s executive compensation programs, both individually and in the aggregate, including the performance objectives and target and maximum levels used in connection with incentive awards. The Company analyzes and structures its overall compensation program to discourage excessive risk-taking through

a balanced use of compensation vehicles and metrics with an overall goal of delivering sustained long-term shareholder value while aligning executives’ interests with those of shareholders. Further, our program makes a substantial portion of each NEO’s compensation contingent on delivering performance results intended to benefit our shareholders. The Compensation Committee believes that AFG’s executive compensation programs incentivize the appropriate level of risk-taking behavior by its NEOs needed to grow the business, while encouraging prudent decision-making that focuses on both short-term and long-term results.

Neither of the Co-CEOs or any other NEO is a party to an employment or other agreement providing for severance or change in control payments.

Awards under the Company’s shareholder-approved equity incentive plan do not provide for automatic acceleration of awards for any participant, including the Co-CEOs and other NEOs. All awards include a “double trigger” provision providing that if the awards are assumed by the surviving entity in the change of control, vesting of the awards will not accelerate unless the participant also has a qualifying termination of employment (by the Company without cause or by the participant for good reason). If the surviving entity does not assume the equity awards upon the change in control, unvested awards will become vested upon the occurrence of the change in control.

The Compensation Committee reviews at least annually a comprehensive tally sheet compiled internally to review all elements of the NEOs’ compensation. The tally sheet includes all of the information that is reflected in the Summary Compensation Table as well as amounts and descriptions of perquisites not required to be specifically identified by SEC regulations, generally because the amount of such items are not deemed material under applicable SEC regulations. The review by the Compensation Committee analyzes how changes in any element of compensation would impact other elements. Such analysis has become a key facet of the Compensation Committee’s review of NEO compensation as various components, including perquisites, are deemed by the Compensation Committee to be important elements of an executive’s overall compensation. This also allows the Compensation Committee to make compensation decisions and evaluate management recommendations based upon a complete analysis of an NEO’s total compensation. In evaluating perquisites paid to the Co-CEOs, the Compensation Committee considered the annual limitations on certain perquisites applied by the Committee and described under “Perquisites and Other Personal Benefits” on page 52.

The Compensation Committee views long-term incentive compensation in the form of equity awards as a critical element of the executive compensation program. The Company utilizes restricted share awards that cliff-vest after four years. The Compensation Committee believes that this incentivizes and rewards our NEOs for long-term performance based on the value of our common shares and aligns the interests of our NEOs and our shareholders. The Compensation Committee, as well as the Co-CEOs, also believe that the four-year cliff vesting period provides the Company with retention benefits for the NEOs and other key employees.

The Compensation Committee was mindful of the substantial ownership of the Company’s common shares by executive officers, particularly the Co-CEOs, and the effect of such ownership in aligning their interests with those of the Company’s shareholders.

The Compensation Committee does not apply fixed ratios when conducting an analysis of the relative difference between the Co-CEOs’ compensation and the compensation of the Company’s other senior executives. However, the Compensation Committee believes that the Company’s internal pay equity structure is appropriate based upon the contributions to the success of the Company and as a means of motivation to other executives and employees.

The NEOs and other senior executives of the Company and its subsidiaries are subject to the Company’s share ownership requirements. Pursuant to the requirements, each Co-CEO must own five times his base salary in Company common shares while the other NEOs and certain other senior management members must own one times his or her base salary in Company common shares. The Company has also established share ownership guidelines for its non-employee directors and other senior management members of the Company, which are discussed below under “Executive Compensation—Director Compensation and Stock Ownership Guidelines” on page 59.

AFG’s Insider Trading Policy governs the purchase, sale and other dispositions of the Company’s securities by our directors, officers and employees, as well as their related persons (as defined in the Policy). The Company believes that these policies and procedures are reasonably designed to promote compliance with insider trading laws, rules and regulations and applicable listing standards. It is also the Company’s policy to comply with all applicable securities laws when transacting in its own securities. A copy of the Insider Trading Policy is filed as Exhibit 19 to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2024.

The Company’s Insider Trading Policy also governs the hedging and pledging of AFG common shares. Transactions involving hedging of Company shares by directors and executive officers are prohibited. The Policy discourages any pledging of the Company’s common shares, including holding common shares in a margin account. Directors and executive officers are required to obtain pre-approval from the Chair of the Corporate Governance Committee before pledging common shares. Such approval will be granted only if the individual can clearly demonstrate the financial capacity to repay the loan without resorting to the pledged securities and/or after a determination that the number of shares that the individual proposes to pledge is unlikely to affect the market for the common shares when viewed in relation to the market value or trading volume. For more than ten years, no NEO or director has pledged any common shares.

The Compensation Committee has the authority to retain and from time to time has retained outside consultants to assist in evaluating the Company’s executive compensation programs and practices. The Compensation Committee has engaged independent compensation consultant Pay Governance from time-to-time as discussed above.

On December 22, 2017, the Tax Cuts and Job Act of 2017 (the “TCJA”) was signed into law. The TCJA includes significant changes to the rules under Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code for deducting certain executive compensation. In general, for years prior to 2018, Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code disallowed a tax deduction to publicly held companies for compensation paid in any year to certain executive officers in excess of $1 million per officer that did not qualify as “performance-based compensation.” Under the TCJA, the exemption from Section 162(m)’s deduction limit for performance-based compensation has been repealed. The new rules generally apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017, but do not apply to remuneration paid in future years pursuant to a written binding contract in effect on November 2, 2017 that is not modified in any material respect after that date. In December 2020 the Internal Revenue Service issued final regulations with regard to the new Section 162(m) rules provided by the TCJA. Despite the Compensation Committee’s efforts in prior years to structure certain incentive programs as “performance-based compensation” intended to be exempt from Section 162(m)’s deduction limits, because of uncertainties as to the interpretation and application of the new rules, no assurance can be given that compensation intended to satisfy the requirements for exemption from Section 162(m) in fact will do so.

Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code requires that “nonqualified deferred compensation” be deferred and paid under plans or arrangements that satisfy the requirements of the law with respect to the timing of deferral elections, timing of payments and certain other matters. In general, it is AFG’s intention to design and administer its compensation and benefits plans and arrangements for all of its employees so that they are either exempt from, or satisfy the requirements of, Section 409A.

The Company’s Executive Officer Clawback Policy (the “Clawback Policy”) is designed to comply with the clawback rules adopted by the Securities and Exchange Commission and New York Stock Exchange rules. The Board has designated the Compensation Committee to administer the Clawback Policy. The Clawback Policy applies in the case of an accounting restatement due to the material noncompliance of the Company with any financial reporting requirement under the securities laws, including any required accounting restatement to correct an error in previously issued financial statements that is material to the previously issued financial statements, or that would result in a material misstatement if the error were corrected in the current period or left uncorrected in the current period. The recovery of such compensation applies regardless of whether an executive officer engaged in misconduct or otherwise caused or contributed to the requirement of an accounting restatement.

The Clawback Policy provides that the Company, on a reasonably prompt basis following such an accounting restatement, will require the reimbursement or forfeiture of erroneously-awarded compensation received by current and former executive officers during the three completed fiscal years immediately preceding the required restatement date over the amount of incentive-based compensation that otherwise would have been received had it been determined based on the restated amounts. The Company will provide any affected executive officer with a written notice of such amount and a demand for repayment or return. If an executive officer fails to repay erroneously awarded compensation to the Company when due, the Company will take all actions reasonable and appropriate to recover such amounts.

The Company’s ability to recoup incentive compensation paid under the Clawback Policy is in addition to the recoupment requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Also, each of the Senior Executive Annual Bonus Plan and Senior Executive Long Term Incentive Compensation Plan contain specific provisions regarding recovery of awards in the event of restatement of materially inaccurate financial results, which provisions apply to senior employees of the Company beyond the executive officers to which the Clawback Policy applies.

Additionally, the Company maintains a broader recoupment policy for performance awards that applies to senior management employees beyond the executive officer group to which the Clawback Policy applies.

The Compensation Committee carefully considers the mix of cash and equity compensation awarded to the NEOs and the extent to which such compensation aligns the interests of the NEOs with those of AFG’s shareholders. The Compensation Committee annually considers and discusses the structure of the Company’s executive compensation program and the relative weighting of various compensation elements. For 2025, the principal components of compensation for NEOs were unchanged from recent prior years:

Each of these components plays a different strategic role in the Company’s compensation program: