<ACCESSION-NUMBER>0001193125-14-158232
<TYPE>DEF 14A
<PUBLIC-DOCUMENT-COUNT>9
<PERIOD>20140605
<FILING-DATE>20140425
<DATE-OF-FILING-DATE-CHANGE>20140425
<EFFECTIVENESS-DATE>20140425
<FILER>
<COMPANY-DATA>
<CONFORMED-NAME>Walker & Dunlop, Inc.
<CIK>0001497770
<ASSIGNED-SIC>6199
<IRS-NUMBER>000000000
<STATE-OF-INCORPORATION>MD
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>1231
</COMPANY-DATA>
<FILING-VALUES>
<FORM-TYPE>DEF 14A
<ACT>34
<FILE-NUMBER>001-35000
<FILM-NUMBER>14783063
</FILING-VALUES>
<BUSINESS-ADDRESS>
<STREET1>7501 WISCONSIN AVENUE
<STREET2>SUITE 1200E
<CITY>BETHESDA
<STATE>MD
<ZIP>20814
<PHONE>(301) 215-5500
</BUSINESS-ADDRESS>
<MAIL-ADDRESS>
<STREET1>7501 WISCONSIN AVENUE
<STREET2>SUITE 1200E
<CITY>BETHESDA
<STATE>MD
<ZIP>20814
</MAIL-ADDRESS>
</FILER>

Table of Contents

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

SCHEDULE 14A

Proxy Statement Pursuant to Section 14(a) of

the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Amendment No.    )

Filed by the Registrant x

Filed by a Party other than the Registrant ¨

Check the appropriate box:

WALKER & DUNLOP, INC.

(Name of Registrant as Specified In Its Charter)

(Name of Person(s) Filing Proxy Statement, if other than the Registrant)

Payment of Filing Fee (Check the appropriate box):

Table of Contents

WALKER & DUNLOP, INC.

7501 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1200E

Bethesda, Maryland 20814

NOTICE OF ANNUAL MEETING OF STOCKHOLDERS

To Be Held on June 5, 2014

10:00 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time

Dear Stockholder:

You are cordially invited to attend our 2014 annual meeting of stockholders to be held on Thursday, June 5, 2014, at 10:00 a.m., Eastern Daylight Time, at

Hilton Garden Inn

7301 Waverly Street

Bethesda, Maryland 20814

for the following purposes:

Only stockholders of record at the close of business on April 7, 2014 will be entitled to notice of and to vote at the meeting.

YOUR VOTE IS IMPORTANT. WHETHER OR NOT YOU PLAN TO ATTEND THE MEETING, YOU ARE URGED TO COMPLETE, DATE AND SIGN THE ACCOMPANYING PROXY CARD AND RETURN IT PROMPTLY IN THE POSTAGE-PAID ENVELOPE PROVIDED. ALTERNATIVELY, YOU MAY SUBMIT YOUR PROXY ELECTRONICALLY BY FOLLOWING THE INSTRUCTIONS FOR INTERNET VOTING ACCOMPANYING THE ENCLOSED PROXY. IF YOU ATTEND THE MEETING, YOU MAY WITHDRAW YOUR PROXY AND VOTE IN PERSON, IF YOU DESIRE, AS DISCUSSED IN THIS PROXY STATEMENT.

Bethesda, Maryland

April 25, 2014

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

i

Table of Contents

ii

Table of Contents

WALKER & DUNLOP, INC.

7501 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1200E

Bethesda, Maryland 20814

PROXY STATEMENT

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Why am I receiving this proxy statement?

You are receiving this proxy statement and the accompanying proxy card because you own shares of common stock of Walker & Dunlop, Inc. This proxy statement contains information related to the solicitation of proxies for use at our 2014 annual meeting of stockholders, to be held at 10:00 a.m., Eastern Daylight Time, on Thursday, June 5, 2014 at Hilton Garden Inn, 7301 Waverly Street, Bethesda, Maryland for the purposes stated in the accompanying Notice of Annual Meeting of Stockholders. This solicitation is made by Walker & Dunlop, Inc. on behalf of our Board of Directors. Unless otherwise stated, as used in this proxy statement, the terms “we,” “our,” “us” and the “Company” refer to Walker & Dunlop, Inc. This proxy statement, the enclosed proxy card and our 2013 annual report to stockholders are first being mailed to stockholders beginning on or about May  2, 2014.

What information is presented in this proxy statement?

The information contained in this proxy statement relates to the proposals to be voted on at the annual meeting of stockholders, the voting process, our Board of Directors and Board committees, the compensation of our directors and our executive officers for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013, and other required information.

Who is entitled to vote at the annual meeting?

Only holders of record of our common stock at the close of business on April 7, 2014, the record date for the annual meeting of stockholders, are entitled to receive notice of the annual meeting and to vote at the annual meeting. Our common stock constitutes the only class of securities entitled to vote at the meeting.

When you vote by signing and returning the proxy card, you appoint Richard M. Lucas and William M. Walker as your representatives to vote your common stock at the annual meeting. Messrs. Lucas and Walker, or either of them, will vote your common stock as you instruct on your proxy card. Accordingly, your common stock will be voted whether or not you attend the annual meeting. Even if you plan to attend the annual meeting, we encourage you to vote by signing and returning your proxy card in advance.

Who can attend the annual meeting?

If you are a holder of our common stock at the close of business on April 7, 2014, the record date for the annual meeting, or a duly appointed proxy, you are authorized to attend the annual meeting. You will need to present proof of stock ownership and valid picture identification, such as a driver’s license or passport, before being admitted. If your common stock is held beneficially in the name of a bank, broker or other holder of record (i.e., street name), you must present proof of your ownership by presenting a bank or brokerage account statement reflecting your ownership as of the record date.

Cameras, recording equipment and other electronic devices will not be permitted at the annual meeting. For directions to the annual meeting of stockholders, contact Investor Relations at (301) 634-2143.

What are the voting rights of stockholders?

Each share of common stock outstanding on the record date entitles its holder to cast one vote on each matter to be voted on.

1

Table of Contents

How do I vote?

If you hold your shares of common stock directly (i.e., not in a bank or brokerage account), you may vote by completing and returning the accompanying proxy card or by attending the meeting and voting in person. You also may vote your shares via the internet or by telephone by following the instructions on the proxy card.

If your shares of common stock are held in street name, you should follow the voting instructions provided to you by your broker or nominee. You may complete and mail a voting instruction card to your broker or nominee or, in most cases, submit voting instructions by the internet or by telephone to your broker or nominee. If you provide specific instructions, your broker or nominee should vote your shares of common stock as directed. Additionally, if you want to vote in person and hold your shares in street name, you will need a “legal proxy” from your broker to vote at the annual meeting. Contact your broker or nominee for specific information on how to obtain a legal proxy in order to attend and vote your shares at the meeting.

How are proxy card votes counted?

If the accompanying proxy card is properly signed and returned to us, and not revoked, the persons designated as proxy holders will vote the shares of common stock represented by that proxy as directed by you. If you return your signed proxy card but fail to indicate your voting preferences, the persons designated as proxy holders will vote the shares of common stock represented by that proxy as recommended by the Board. The Board recommends a vote “FOR” the election of all nominees for our Board of Directors named in this proxy statement (Proposal 1); “FOR” the ratification of the appointment of KPMG LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm for the 2014 fiscal year (Proposal 2); and “FOR” the advisory vote on executive compensation (Proposal 3).

In the election of directors (Proposal 1), you may either vote “FOR ALL” the nominees or to “WITHHOLD” your vote with respect to all, one or more of the nominees. Regarding the ratification of our independent registered public accounting firm (Proposal 2), you may vote “FOR,” “AGAINST” or “ABSTAIN.” Regarding the advisory vote on executive compensation (Proposal 3), you may vote “FOR,” “AGAINST” or “ABSTAIN.” If you withhold your vote with respect to any director nominee or abstain from voting on the ratification of our independent registered public accounting firm or the advisory vote on executive compensation, your shares of common stock will be counted as present, including for purposes of establishing a quorum. Abstentions and broker non-votes will not count as votes cast with respect to a proposal.

Will my shares of common stock be voted if I do not provide my proxy and I do not attend the annual meeting?

If you hold your shares in street name it is critical that you cast your vote if you want it to count in the election of directors (Proposal 1). Under applicable rules, the bank or broker that holds your shares does not have the ability to vote your uninstructed shares in the election of directors on a discretionary basis. Thus, if you hold your shares in street name and you do not instruct your bank or broker how to vote in the election of directors, no votes will be cast on your behalf. Your bank or broker will, however, have discretion to vote any uninstructed shares on the ratification of the appointment of our independent registered public accounting firm (Proposal 2). They will not have discretion to vote uninstructed shares on the advisory vote on executive compensation (Proposal 3). If you are a stockholder of record and you do not cast your vote, no votes will be cast on your behalf on any of the items of business at the annual meeting.

May I change my vote after I return my proxy card?

Yes. You may change or revoke a previously granted proxy at any time before it is exercised by either (i) submitting a later-dated proxy, in person at the annual meeting or by mail, or (ii) delivering instructions to our Secretary at our principal executive offices located at 7501 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1200E, Bethesda, Maryland 20814. Please note that attendance at the meeting will not, in itself, constitute revocation of a previously granted proxy.

2

Table of Contents

If your shares of common stock are held in street name, then you may submit new voting instructions by contacting your broker or nominee. You may also vote in person at the annual meeting if you obtain a legal proxy from your broker as described above.

What will constitute a quorum at the annual meeting?

The presence at the annual meeting, in person or by proxy, of the holders of a majority of the common stock outstanding on April 7, 2014 will constitute a quorum, permitting the stockholders to conduct business at the annual meeting. We will include abstentions and broker non-votes in the calculation of the number of shares considered to be present at the annual meeting, including for purposes of determining the presence of a quorum at the meeting. A broker non-vote occurs when a nominee holding shares for a beneficial owner has not received instructions from the beneficial owner and does not have discretionary authority to vote the shares.

As of April 7, 2014, there were 32,624,875 shares of common stock outstanding and entitled to vote at the annual meeting.

How many votes are needed to approve each of the proposals?

Directors are elected by a plurality of the votes cast. Therefore, the eight nominees for election to the Board who receive the most votes will be elected (Proposal 1). Ratification of our independent registered public accounting firm (Proposal 2) and the advisory vote on executive compensation (Proposal 3) will require the affirmative vote of the holders of a majority of the shares present in person or represented by proxy at the annual meeting and entitled to vote thereon.

Will any other matters be voted on?

As of the date of this proxy statement, we do not know of any other matters that will be presented for consideration at the annual meeting other than those matters discussed in this proxy statement. If any other matters properly come before the annual meeting and call for a stockholder vote, valid proxies will be voted by the holders of the proxies in accordance with the recommendation of the Board or, if no recommendation is given, in their own discretion.

Who is soliciting my proxy?

This solicitation of proxies is made by and on behalf of our Board of Directors. We will pay the costs of soliciting proxies, which will consist primarily of the cost of printing, postage and handling. In addition to soliciting proxies by mail, our officers, directors and other employees, without additional compensation, may solicit proxies personally or by other appropriate means. It is anticipated that banks, brokers, fiduciaries, custodians and nominees will forward proxy soliciting materials to their principals, and that we will reimburse these persons’ out-of-pocket expenses.

Is there a list of stockholders entitled to vote at the annual meeting?

The names of stockholders of record entitled to vote at the annual meeting will be available at the annual meeting and for ten days prior to the annual meeting, between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., at our principal executive offices at 7501 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1200E, Bethesda, Maryland 20814, by contacting the Secretary.

You should rely only on the information provided in this proxy statement. We have not authorized anyone to provide you with different information. You should assume that the information in this proxy statement is accurate only as of the date of this proxy statement or, where information relates to another date set forth in this proxy statement, then as of that date.

3

Table of Contents

BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

Proposal 1:    Election of Directors for a One-Year Term Expiring at the 2015 Annual Meeting of Stockholders

Our Board of Directors, or the Board, is currently comprised of ten directors, each with terms expiring at the 2014 annual meeting. During 2014, Messrs. Gaynor and Taylor informed us that they will not stand for re-election at the 2014 annual meeting. Our Board thanks Messrs. Gaynor and Taylor for their service. Our Board determined to reduce the size of the Board to eight directors effective upon the conclusion of the 2014 annual meeting. Our Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee has recommended to our Board the eight nominees set forth below, all of whom are currently serving as directors of the Company, for re-election to serve as directors for one-year terms until the 2015 annual meeting and until their successors are duly elected and qualified. Following the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee’s recommendation, our Board has nominated those persons set forth below.

Based on its review of the relationships between the director nominees and the Company, and as discussed in greater detail below, the Board has affirmatively determined that if these nominees are elected, the following six directors are “independent” directors under the rules of the New York Stock Exchange, or NYSE: Alan J. Bowers, Andrew C. Florance, Cynthia A. Hallenbeck, Michael D. Malone, John Rice and Dana L. Schmaltz.

The Board knows of no reason why any nominee would be unable to serve as a director. If any nominee is unavailable for election or service, the Board may designate a substitute nominee and the persons designated as proxy holders on the proxy card will vote for the substitute nominee recommended by the Board, or the Board may, as permitted by our bylaws, further decrease the size of our Board.

Vote Required

The affirmative vote of a plurality of all the votes at the annual meeting is necessary for the election of a director. Accordingly, the eight individuals with the highest number of affirmative votes will be elected as directors. Cumulative voting in the election of directors is not permitted. For purposes of the election of directors, shares that are withheld and other shares not voted (whether by broker non-vote or otherwise) will not be counted as votes cast with respect to a proposal, and will have no effect on the result of the vote.

Our Recommendation

THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDS A VOTE “FOR” EACH OF THE NOMINEES SET FORTH BELOW.

4

Table of Contents

Nominees for Election for a One-Year Term Expiring at the 2015 Annual Meeting of Stockholders

The following table sets forth the name and age of each nominee for director, indicating all positions and offices with us currently held by the director.

Set forth below are descriptions of the backgrounds and principal occupations of each of our nominees for director, and the period during which he or she has served as a director.

William M. Walker is our Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer. Mr. Walker has been a member of our Board since July 2010 and a board member of Walker & Dunlop, LLC, our operating company, or its predecessors since February 2000. In September 2003, Mr. Walker became the executive vice president and chief operating officer of Walker & Dunlop and has served as the president of Walker & Dunlop since January 2005 and as the chief executive officer since January 2007. Prior to joining Walker & Dunlop, Mr. Walker was on the management team at TeleTech, a global business process outsourcing company, from 1998 to 2003. At TeleTech, he held several senior management positions, including president of the company’s European and Latin American divisions. Prior to TeleTech, Mr. Walker was a consultant at Newbridge Latin America where he was responsible for private equity transactions in the aviation, water, and apparel industries. Prior to Newbridge Latin America, Mr. Walker was the general manager of ALTA, a regional airline based in Argentina, from August 1995 to October 1996. Mr. Walker currently serves on the boards of The Mortgage Bankers Association of America and the Sustainable Technologies Fund, a Swedish clean-tech venture capital firm. He is a member of the Young Presidents Organization and the Urban Land Institute. Mr. Walker served as chairman of the board of directors of the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority from 2008 until 2012. He also served on the board of directors of Transcom Worldwide S.A., a publicly traded European outsourcing company, from 2004 to 2006 and served as its chairman of the board from 2006 to January 2012. Mr. Walker received his Bachelor of Arts in Government from St. Lawrence University and his Masters in Business Administration from Harvard University.

Mr. Walker brings to our Board more than 20 years of leadership experience. Mr. Walker possesses in-depth knowledge of our industry, offers valuable insight into our business and provides the leadership, general management and vision that help us compete successfully.

Howard W. Smith, III is our Executive Vice President, Chief Operating Officer and one of our directors. Mr. Smith has been a member of our Board since July 2010. Mr. Smith joined Walker & Dunlop in November 1980 and has been a member of the management team since 1988. Mr. Smith has served as the executive vice president, chief operating officer and a board member of Walker & Dunlop, LLC or its predecessors since 2004. As Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, Mr. Smith is responsible for our Multifamily, FHA Finance, Healthcare Finance, Capital Markets, Marketing and Information Technology groups. Mr. Smith is a member of the board of directors of the National Multi Housing Council and Episcopal High School in Alexandria, Virginia. He is also an advisory council member of the Fannie Mae DUS Peer Group, a group he chaired from 2007 to 2008 and again from 2009 to 2010. Mr. Smith received his Bachelor of Arts in Economics from Washington & Lee University.

Mr. Smith brings to our Board more than 30 years of experience in the commercial real estate finance industry. He has extensive knowledge of our operations, having spent his entire career at Walker & Dunlop. In

5

Table of Contents

his capacity as chief operating officer, Mr. Smith also provides our Board with management’s perspective on our business operations and conditions, which is crucial to our Board’s performance of its oversight function.

Alan J. Bowers is one of our directors and serves on the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee (Chairman) and the Audit Committee, and is our Lead Director. Mr. Bowers has been a member of our Board since December 2010. Mr. Bowers currently serves on the board and as audit committee chairman of La Quinta Inns & Suites, a publicly traded hotel chain and American Achievement Corp., a privately held manufacturer and distributer of graduation products. Mr. Bowers is also a board member of Quadel Consulting Corp., a privately held government contract manager and consulting firm. Prior to Mr. Bowers’ retirement in 2005, Mr. Bowers was the president and chief executive officer and a board member of Cape Success, LLC, a private equity-backed staffing service and information technology solutions business, from 2001 to 2004. Mr. Bowers was also the president and chief executive officer and a board member of MarketSource Corporation, a marketing and sales support service firm, from 2000 to 2001, and of MBL Life Assurance Corporation, a life insurance firm, from 1995 to 1999. Mr. Bowers previously served on the boards and as audit committee chairman of Refrigerated Holdings, Inc., a temperature controlled logistics firm (from January 2009 to April 2013); Roadlink Inc., a trucking and logistics firm (from February 2010 to April 2013); and Fastfrate Holdings, Inc., a Canadian trucking and logistics firm (from July 2008 to June 2011), each a privately held company. Mr. Bowers has been a certified public accountant since 1978 and served as staff auditor, audit partner and managing partner, serving a diverse client base during his tenure at Coopers & Lybrand, L.L.P. from 1978 to 1995 and a staff accountant with Laventhol & Horwath, CPAs from 1976 to 1978. Mr. Bowers received his Bachelor of Science in Accounting from Montclair State University and his Masters in Business Administration from St. John’s University.

Mr. Bowers brings to our Board over 30 years of experience in accounting and executive management, including experience on the audit committees of private companies and a Securities & Exchange Commission (“SEC”) registrant. Mr. Bowers’ accounting expertise and diverse corporate management experience are assets to our Board.

Andrew C. Florance is one of our directors and serves on our Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee. Mr. Florance has been a member of our Board since November 2012. Mr. Florance has been the president and chief executive officer of CoStar Group, Inc. (“CoStar”) since he founded CoStar in 1987. He also serves on the board of directors of CoStar. CoStar is a publicly traded leading provider of commercial real estate information and analytic services, which conducts expansive, ongoing research to produce and maintain the largest and most comprehensive database of commercial real estate information. Mr. Florance is the recipient of numerous awards recognizing his accomplishments as an entrepreneur and corporate leader, including: Cornell Real Estate Review’s Real Estate Industry Executive of the Year for 2009; Transwestern’s 2007 Public Company Trendsetter of the Year for revolutionizing the way the commercial real estate industry gathers, analyzes and uses information on commercial property and markets; and Ernst & Young’s Entrepreneur of the Year award in 2000 for his pioneering work in real estate information services. He serves on the board of directors of ARES, an association of real estate thought leaders, and as a trustee of the Shakespeare Theatre Company in Washington, D.C. He also serves on the governing board for Beauvoir, the National Cathedral Elementary School. Mr. Florance received a B.A. in economics from Princeton University.

Mr. Florance brings to our Board significant knowledge and understanding of the commercial real estate and information services industries and extensive executive leadership experience. Mr. Florance’s knowledge and experience are assets to our Board.

Cynthia A. Hallenbeck is one of our directors and serves on the Audit Committee (Chairman) and Compensation Committee. Ms. Hallenbeck has been a member of our Board since December 2010. Ms. Hallenbeck joined the Environmental Defense Fund (“EDF”) in January, 2014 as its chief financial officer and treasurer. EDF’s mission is to preserve the natural systems on which all life depends and, guided by science and economics, finds practical and lasting solutions to the most serious environmental problems. Previously, Ms. Hallenbeck served as the chief executive officer of Alceryn, Inc., a private consulting firm that she founded in 2010, where her most significant engagement was as the acting chief financial and administrative officer of the

6

Table of Contents

Council for Economic Education. Ms. Hallenbeck served as the vice president of finance and operations of the Arcus Foundation from January 2012 to October 2012. Prior to founding Alceryn, Inc., Ms. Hallenbeck worked at Citigroup, Inc. from 2002 to 2008, where she served in a number of divisions in various capacities, including as chief financial officer of Citigroup’s corporate treasury department from 2002 to 2005, an internal consultant for Citigroup’s office of the chief administrative officer from 2006 to 2007 and chief operating officer of global legal support from 2007 to 2008. Prior to her service with Citigroup, Ms. Hallenbeck spent over 14 years at Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. in a variety of finance, treasury and accounting roles including treasurer of its global futures business and chief financial officer of its securities financing group. Ms. Hallenbeck also worked with GTE Corporation (currently Verizon Communications, Inc.), a telecommunications company, from 1985 to 1987, where she served as a manager in its financial strategies division, and also with Manufacturers Hanover Trust, a banking institution, from 1979 to 1983, where she served as assistant vice president and a thrift industry specialist. Ms. Hallenbeck has served on the audit committee of the Clinton Health Access Initiative since September 2013. Ms. Hallenbeck is also a member of the non-profit Junior League of the City of New York, where she most recently served as chairperson of its audit committee from 2004 to 2008. Ms. Hallenbeck was a member of the board of the non-profit Global HIV Vaccine Enterprise and served as its treasurer, from January 2009 to September 2012. Ms. Hallenbeck received her Bachelor of Arts in Economics from Smith College and her Masters in Business Administration from Harvard University.

Ms. Hallenbeck brings to our Board over 30 years of experience in financial management and accounting, including extensive management experience on the executive management teams of several private and public companies and service on the audit committees of several organizations. Ms. Hallenbeck’s accounting expertise and management experience are assets to our Board.

Michael D. Malone is one of our directors and serves on our Compensation Committee. Mr. Malone has been a member of our Board since November 2012. In February 2012, Mr. Malone was appointed to the board of directors of Nationstar Mortgage Holdings Inc. (“Nationstar”), a publicly traded non-bank residential mortgage servicer and an affiliate of Fortress Investment Group LLC (“Fortress”), a global alternative investment and asset management firm. Affiliates of Fortress manage funds which collectively constitute our largest stockholder group. Mr. Malone is the chairman of Nationstar’s nominating and corporate governance committee and is a member of its audit and compensation committees. From February 2008 to February 2012, Mr. Malone served as managing director of Fortress, where he was in charge of the Charlotte, NC office and responsible for the business of the capital formation group in the southeast and southwest regions of the United States. From 2008 to 2013, Mr. Malone served as a member of the board of directors and audit committee, and was co-chairman, of the compensation committee of Morgans Hotel Group Co., a publicly traded company that operates, owns, acquires, develops and redevelops boutique hotels. Mr. Malone retired from Bank of America in November 2007, after nearly 24 years of service as a senior executive banker and managing director. Over those years, Mr. Malone worked in and ran a number of investment banking businesses for the bank and its subsidiary, Banc of America Securities, including real estate, gaming, lodging, leisure, and the financial sponsors businesses. Mr. Malone received his Bachelor of Science in General Studies from the University of Kentucky.

Mr. Malone’s extensive experience and expertise in the financial and real estate industries enable him to provide valuable insight into our commercial real estate lending business operations and our strategic direction.

Pursuant to the terms of the Purchase Agreement (the “Purchase Agreement”) dated as of June 7, 2012, among us, Walker & Dunlop, LLC, CWCapital LLC (“CWCapital”) and CW Financial Services LLC (“CWFS”), by which we acquired CWCapital, CWFS is entitled to designate up to two nominees for each election as directors to our Board through our annual meeting to be held in 2014. The Purchase Agreement specifies that at our annual meeting of stockholders to be held during the 2013 and 2014 calendar years, or at any special meeting of our stockholders held prior to our 2014 annual meeting of stockholders at which our directors are to be elected, or at any taking of action by written consent of our stockholders prior to our 2014 annual meeting of stockholders with respect to which our directors are to be elected, CWFS shall have the right (but not the obligation) to designate two nominees for election to our Board (such nominees, the “CWFS Nominees”) at such director election. At or prior to any such director election: (i) our Nominating and Corporate Governance

7

Table of Contents

Committee must recommend to our Board the nomination of the CWFS Nominees for election to our Board, and (ii) our Board must recommend to our stockholders the election of the CWFS Nominees to our Board.

At any time that CWFS and its affiliates cease to collectively own, directly or indirectly, at least 20% of our common stock outstanding as of September 4, 2012, CWFS forfeits the right to nominate and appoint one CWFS Nominee, effective as of our then next annual meeting of stockholders at which directors are elected. At any time that CWFS and its affiliates cease to collectively own, directly or indirectly, at least 10% of our common stock outstanding as of September 4, 2012, CWFS forfeits the right to nominate and appoint one CWFS Nominee, effective as of our then next annual meeting of stockholders at which directors are elected.

Additionally, concurrently with the execution and delivery of the Purchase Agreement on June 7, 2012, we, Walker & Dunlop, LLC, Column Guaranteed LLC (“Column”), our then largest stockholder, and CWFS entered into a voting agreement with Column (the “Column Voting Agreement”). Under the Column Voting Agreement, Column has agreed to vote all of its shares of our common stock it holds in favor of electing CWFS Nominees to our Board at our June 5, 2014 annual meeting. As described more fully in “CERTAIN RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS—Column Stock Repurchase,” on March 14, 2014 we entered into a Stock Purchase Agreement with Column to repurchase all 2,450,451 shares of our common stock it then owned. The repurchase was completed on March 17, 2014.

CWFS has designated Mr. Malone as its only CWFS Nominee for election at our June 5, 2014 annual meeting.

John Rice is one of our directors and serves on the Compensation Committee (Chairman) and the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, and served as our Lead Director from September 2010 to June 2012. Mr. Rice has been a member of our Board since July 2010 and served as a board member of Walker & Dunlop, LLC from January 2010 to December 2010. Mr. Rice serves as chief executive officer of Management Leadership for Tomorrow, a national non-profit organization that he founded in 2001. Management Leadership for Tomorrow equips under-represented minorities with the skills, coaching and relationships that unlock their potential as senior business and community leaders. Prior to Management Leadership for Tomorrow, Mr. Rice was an executive with the National Basketball Association from 1996 to 2000, where he served as managing director of NBA Japan and as director of marketing for Latin America. Before joining the National Basketball Association, Mr. Rice spent four years with the Walt Disney Company in new business development and marketing, and two years with AT&T. Mr. Rice is also a trustee of the Yale Corporation and serves on President Obama’s Advisory Board for Historically Black Colleges and Universities. He also serves on the boards of several non-profits including the American Management Association. Mr. Rice received his Bachelor of Arts from Yale University and his Masters in Business Administration from Harvard University.

Mr. Rice’s success with his various entrepreneurial ventures, as well as his many years of marketing and talent development experience, provide our Board with valuable business and marketing insights. Additionally, Mr. Rice’s leadership in the non-profit sector is consistent with our commitment to community service.

Dana L. Schmaltz is one of our directors and serves on the Compensation Committee and the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee. Mr. Schmaltz has been a member of our Board since December 2010. Mr. Schmaltz is currently a partner at Yellow Wood Partners, LLC, a private equity firm he founded, which is focused on the consumer products industry. Mr. Schmaltz was the co-founder, director and chief financial officer of Blacksmith Brands, Inc., a privately owned consumer products company that was created in September 2009. As the co-founder and a senior manager of Blacksmith Brands, Mr. Schmaltz was responsible for overseeing the operations of the business with the senior management team, as well as for developing future acquisition opportunities for the company. Prior to founding Blacksmith Brands, Mr. Schmaltz was a managing partner of West Hill Partners, LLC, a Boston-based private equity firm from 2007 to 2009. Prior to that, Mr. Schmaltz was the president of J.W. Childs Associates, LP, a private equity fund, where he focused on investments in the consumer/specialty retail sector. Mr. Schmaltz was a general partner at J.W. Childs from 1997 to 2007. He has also been a director of numerous corporations including Mattress Firm, Inc. from January to June 2007, Fitness Quest, Inc. from 2004 to 2007, Esselte, AB from 2002 to 2007 and NutraSweet from 2000 to 2007. Mr. Schmaltz

8

Table of Contents

began his career in the private equity industry at the NTC Group in 1991 and has held various positions at Kidder, Peabody, Inc. and Drexel Burnham Lambert. Mr. Schmaltz received his Bachelor of Arts in History from Dartmouth College and his Masters in Business Administration from Harvard University.

Mr. Schmaltz brings to our Board over 20 years of experience in private equity investments, executive management and financial advisory services. Mr. Schmaltz’s investment and management experiences are assets to our Board.

Corporate Governance Information

We are committed to maintaining the highest standards of business conduct and corporate governance, which we believe are essential to running our business efficiently, serving our stockholders well and maintaining our integrity in the marketplace. Accordingly, our Board has adopted and maintains the following corporate governance guidelines, codes and charters:

From time to time, we may revise the above-mentioned corporate governance guidelines, codes and charters in response to changing regulatory requirements, evolving best practices and the concerns of our stockholders and other constituents. Please visit our website at www.walkerdunlop.com to view or obtain a copy of the current version of any of these documents. We will provide any of the above-mentioned documents, free of charge, to any stockholder who sends a written request to:

Walker & Dunlop, Inc.

Attn: Investor Relations

7501 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1200E

Bethesda, Maryland 20814

Director Independence

Our bylaws and Corporate Governance Guidelines conform to the NYSE rules, which require us to have a majority of independent board members and a nominating/corporate governance committee, compensation committee and audit committee, each comprised solely of independent directors. Under the NYSE listing standards, no director of a company qualifies as “independent” unless the board of directors of the company affirmatively determines that the director has no material relationship with the company (either directly or as a partner, stockholder or officer of an organization that has a relationship with such company). In addition, the NYSE listing standards contain the following further restrictions upon a listed company’s director independence:

9

Table of Contents

To adequately assess and ensure that (i) at least a majority of our directors qualify as independent and (ii) each of the Board committees is comprised of solely independent directors, the Board assesses annually the independence of all directors and director nominees. In accordance with the independence criteria established by the Board from time to time, our Board considers all facts and circumstances in order to make an affirmative determination as to whether any director has a direct or indirect material relationship to the Company. In assessing the materiality of a director’s or nominee’s relationship with the Company, the Board considers the issues from the director’s or nominee’s standpoint and from the perspective of the persons or organization with which the director or nominee has an affiliation. Our Board has evaluated the status of each current director, and has affirmatively determined, after considering the relevant facts and circumstances and the independence standards set forth above, that each of Alan J. Bowers, Andrew C. Florance, Mitchell M. Gaynor, Cynthia A. Hallenbeck, Michael D. Malone, John Rice and Dana L. Schmaltz is independent, as defined in the NYSE rules, and that none of these directors has a material relationship with us.

The table below summarizes the potentially material relationships that were considered in connection with the independence determinations. Except for Mr. Taylor’s relationship with Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC (“Credit Suisse”), none of the relationships described below were considered material relationships that impacted the applicable director’s independence.

10

Table of Contents

Board Leadership Structure

Mr. Walker serves as the Company’s Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer. The Board has determined that combining the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer positions is the appropriate leadership structure for the Company, and believes that combining the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer roles fosters clear accountability, effective decision-making and alignment on corporate strategy.

Nevertheless, the Board understands that the structure of the Board must encourage the free and open dialogue of competing views and provide for strong checks and balances. Specifically, an effective governance structure must balance the powers of the Chief Executive Officer and the independent directors and ensure that the independent directors are fully informed, able to discuss and debate the issues that they deem important, and able to provide effective oversight of management.

The Board is committed to maintaining a “Lead Director,” as a matter of good corporate governance. The Lead Director is an independent director consistent with criteria established by the NYSE, and will be selected on an annual basis by a majority of the independent directors then serving on the Board. The role of the Lead Director is to serve as liaison between (i) the Board and management, including the Chief Executive Officer, (ii) independent directors and (iii) interested third parties and the Board. The Lead Director serves as the focal point of communication to the Board regarding management plans and initiatives, and ensures that the role between board oversight and management operations is respected. The Lead Director, who is currently the Chairman of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, reviews and provides input on full Board meeting agendas, and plays a central role in developing, managing and overseeing our annual Board self-assessment process. The Lead Director acts as chairman of executive sessions of our non-employee directors and independent directors and also provides the medium for informal dialogue with and between independent directors, allowing for free and open communication within that group. In addition, the Lead Director serves as the communication conduit for third parties who wish to communicate with the Board. The Company’s current Lead Director is Mr. Bowers.

The Board intends to carefully consider its Board leadership structure from time to time based on what the Board believes is best for the Company and its stockholders.

Executive Sessions of Non-Management and Independent Directors

Pursuant to our Corporate Governance Guidelines and the NYSE rules, in order to promote open discussion among independent directors, our Board devotes a portion of each regularly scheduled Board meeting to executive sessions without management, and a portion of at least one of the regularly scheduled Board meetings each year to a session of only independent directors. See “—Director Independence” for a list of our independent directors. The Lead Director acts as chairman of those executive sessions.

Communications with the Board

Stockholders and other interested parties may communicate with the Board by contacting the Lead Director (i) by sending any correspondence they may have in writing to the “Lead Director” c/o the General Counsel & Secretary of Walker & Dunlop, Inc., at 7501 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1200E, Bethesda, Maryland 20814, who will then directly forward such correspondence to the Lead Director, or (ii) by e-mailing correspondence directly to the Lead Director at leaddirector@walkerdunlop.com. The Lead Director will decide what action should be taken with respect to the communication, including whether such communication should be reported to the Board.

Board Meetings and Director Attendance

Pursuant to our Corporate Governance Guidelines, (i) we are required to have at least four regularly scheduled Board meetings in each calendar year and additional unscheduled Board meetings may be called upon appropriate notice at any time to address specific needs of the Company; and (ii) directors are expected to attend, in person or by telephone or video conference, all Board meetings and meetings of committees on which they serve. Our Board held ten Board meetings in 2013. Each of our directors attended at least 75% of the total

11

Table of Contents

regularly scheduled and special meetings of the Board and the committees on which he or she served. Additionally, pursuant to our Corporate Governance Guidelines, the directors are encouraged, but not required, to attend our annual meetings of stockholders. Six of the ten directors who were elected to the Board at the 2013 annual meeting of stockholders were in attendance at the meeting.

Criteria for Board Membership

The Board has adopted a policy to be used for considering potential director candidates to further the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee’s goal of ensuring that our Board consists of a diversified group of qualified individuals that function effectively as a group. The policy provides that qualifications and credentials for consideration as a director nominee may vary according to the particular areas of expertise being sought as a complement to the existing composition of the Board. However, at a minimum, candidates for director must possess:

In addition to the aforementioned minimum qualifications, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee also believes that there are other qualities and skills that, while not a prerequisite for nomination, should be taken into account when considering whether to recommend a particular person. These factors include:

Neither the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee nor the Board has adopted a formal policy with respect to diversity of its directors. However, in connection with its overall director candidate review, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee does consider diversity of experience in areas that are relevant to the Company’s activities. Directors must be willing and able to devote sufficient time to carrying out their duties effectively. The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee takes into account the other demands on the time of a candidate, including, for example, occupation and memberships on other boards.

The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee will seek to identify director candidates based on input provided by a number of sources, including (i) Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee members, (ii) our stockholders and (ii) others as it deems appropriate. The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee also has the authority to consult with or retain advisors or search firms to assist in identifying qualified director candidates; however, we do not currently employ a search firm, or pay a fee to any other third party, to locate qualified director candidates.

12

Table of Contents

As part of the identification process, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee considers the number of expected director vacancies and whether existing directors have indicated a willingness to continue to serve as directors if re-nominated. Once a director candidate has been identified, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee will then evaluate this candidate in light of his or her qualifications and credentials, and any additional factors that it deems necessary or appropriate. Existing directors who are being considered for re-nomination will be re-evaluated as part of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee’s process of recommending director candidates. The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee will consider all persons recommended by stockholders in the same manner as all other director candidates, provided that such recommendations are submitted in accordance with the procedures set forth in our bylaws and summarized below.

After completing the identification and evaluation process described above, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee will recommend to the Board the nomination of a number of candidates equal to the number of director vacancies that will exist at the annual meeting of stockholders. The Board will then select the Board’s director nominees for stockholders to consider and vote upon at the stockholders’ meeting.

With respect to any CWFS Nominee, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee and Board adhere to the terms of our agreement with CWFS regarding such nomination process, as described earlier.

Stockholder Recommendations of Director Nominees

For nominations for election to the Board to be properly brought before an annual meeting by a stockholder, the stockholder must comply with the advance notice provisions and other requirements of Article II, Section 12 of our bylaws. These notice provisions require that nominations for directors must be received by the Secretary at our principal executive offices (the “Stockholder Notice”) not later than 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time, on the 120th day prior to the first anniversary of the date of the proxy statement for the preceding year’s annual meeting nor earlier than the 150th day prior to the first anniversary of the date of the proxy statement for the preceding year’s annual meeting; provided, however, that in the event that the date of the annual meeting is advanced or delayed by more than 30 days from the first anniversary of the date of the preceding year’s annual meeting, such Stockholder Notice to be timely must be so delivered not earlier than the 150th day prior to such annual meeting and not later than 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time, on the later of the 120th day prior to such annual meeting or the tenth day following the day on which public announcement of the date of such meeting is first made. The Stockholder Notice must set forth:

13

Table of Contents

For purposes of the bulleted paragraphs above, references to “stockholder” include any beneficial owners on whose behalf the director nomination is made. See also “OTHER MATTERS—Stockholder Proposals and Nominations for the 2015 Annual Meeting.”

Code of Ethics for Principal Executive Officer and Senior Financial Officers; Code of Business Conduct

We have adopted the Code of Ethics for Principal Executive Officer and Senior Financial Officers, which is applicable to our Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and all other senior financial officers. This code is intended to:

We have also adopted the Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, which is applicable to all of our directors, officers and employees. This code covers areas of professional conduct, including honest and candid conduct, conflicts of interest, disclosure, compliance with all applicable laws, rules and regulations, corporate opportunities, confidentiality, fair dealing and the protection and proper use of Company assets.

We have posted both our Code of Ethics for Principal Executive Officer and Senior Financial Officers and Code of Business Conduct and Ethics to our website and intend to promptly post any waiver or amendment of our Code of Ethics for Principal Executive Officer and Senior Financial Officers to our website.

In addition to the Code of Ethics for Principal Executive Officer and Senior Financial Officers and Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, our Audit Committee has in place a whistleblower reporting procedure that enables it to receive, retain and treat complaints received regarding accounting, internal accounting controls or auditing matters. The procedures in place permit our employees to confidentially and anonymously submit their concerns regarding questionable accounting or auditing matters directly to the Audit Committee. Upon receiving a concern or complaint pursuant to these procedures, the individual designated by our Chief Executive Officer as our compliance officer (currently, our Executive Vice President, General Counsel & Secretary, Richard M. Lucas), or Audit Committee Chairman, will:

14

Table of Contents

Risk Oversight

One of the important roles of our Board is to oversee various risks that we may face from time to time. While the full Board has primary responsibility for risk oversight, it utilizes its committees, as appropriate, to monitor and address the risks that may be within the scope of a particular committee’s expertise or charter. For example, the Audit Committee oversees our financial statements, internal control over financial reporting, compliance with legal and regulatory requirements and the performance of our internal audit function. Additionally, in 2013 the Audit Committee oversaw management’s completion of an enterprise risk assessment of the Company, which involved the identification and ranking of the key risks we face, how management is mitigating the risks and the individual members of management who are responsible for monitoring and mitigating the risks. Generally, the ongoing monitoring and risk mitigation components of the enterprise risk assessment have been implemented under the oversight of the full Board, which will use the Board committees as appropriate to oversee management’s monitoring and mitigation of risks identified by the assessment that are consistent with the respective Committee’s oversight authorities. The Board believes that the composition of its committees, and the distribution of the particular expertise of each committee’s members, makes this an appropriate structure to more effectively monitor the risks that relate to the committees’ respective oversight authorities.

An important feature of the Board’s risk oversight function is to receive updates from its committees and management, as appropriate. For example, each year our senior management will work with the head of our internal audit function, who reports directly to the Audit Committee, to develop an audit plan designed to address key corporate governance controls, financial reporting and internal control risks and pre-implementation reviews of significant corporate projects. This plan will subsequently be reviewed by the Audit Committee, and our internal auditors will report the audit results to the Audit Committee on a quarterly basis, or more frequently as needed. The internal auditors also meet regularly with the Audit Committee in executive session. In addition, our General Counsel meets regularly in executive session with the Audit Committee and the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee and provides them with regular updates regarding material litigation and legal and regulatory compliance matters.

The Compensation Committee is responsible for overseeing compensation risk, including evaluating and assessing risks arising from our compensation policies and practices for all employees and ensuring executive compensation is aligned with performance. The Compensation Committee is charged with monitoring our equity-based compensation plans, including employee benefit plans. The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee oversees risk related to our overall governance, including Board and committee composition, Board size and structure, director independence and ethical and business conduct.

15

Table of Contents

The full Board is kept informed of each committee’s risk oversight and related activities through standard reports to the Board by each committee chairman, frequent non-member attendance at committee meetings and committee meeting minutes and resolutions which are made available to all directors. Strategic, operational and competitive risks are presented and discussed at the Board’s regular quarterly meetings. In addition to getting direct information from its committees, the Board receives updates directly from members of management. As needed between Board meetings, Mr. Walker, our Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, provides reports to the Board on the critical issues we face and the recent developments in our business units, including identified risks. Additionally, Mr. Smith, due to his management position, is able to frequently communicate with other members of our management and update the Board regularly on the important aspects of the Company’s day-to-day operations.

Board Committees

The Board has a standing Audit Committee, Compensation Committee and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee. All members of the committees described below are “independent” under NYSE rules as discussed under “BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE—Corporate Governance Information—Director Independence.” In addition, the members of the Audit and Compensation Committees satisfy the additional independence criteria applicable to members of such committees under SEC and NYSE rules.

The table below provides membership information for each of the Board committees as of April 15, 2014 and the number of meetings held by each committee in 2013:

Audit Committee

Our Audit Committee consists of Alan J. Bowers, Mitchell M. Gaynor and Cynthia A. Hallenbeck, three of our independent directors, with Ms. Hallenbeck serving as the Audit Committee’s Chairman. Each member of the Audit Committee qualifies as an “audit committee financial expert” as that term is defined by the applicable SEC regulations and NYSE corporate governance listing standards. Our Board has also determined that each of the Audit Committee members is “financially literate” as that term is defined by the NYSE corporate governance listing standards. We have adopted an Audit Committee charter that details the principal functions of the Audit Committee, including oversight related to:

16

Table of Contents

The Audit Committee is responsible for engaging an independent registered public accounting firm, reviewing with the independent registered public accounting firm the plans and results of the audit engagement, approving professional services provided by the independent registered public accounting firm, including all audit and non-audit services, reviewing the independence of the independent registered public accounting firm, considering the range of audit and non-audit fees and reviewing the adequacy of our internal accounting controls. The Audit Committee also prepares the Audit Committee report required by SEC regulations to be included in our annual proxy statement.

Our Audit Committee charter and the corporate governance rules of the NYSE require that in the event a director simultaneously serves on the audit committee of more than three public companies, the Board must determine that such simultaneous service would not impair the ability of that member to effectively serve on our Audit Committee and disclose that determination. None of our Audit Committee members serves on the audit committees of more than three public companies (including our Audit Committee).

The Audit Committee met 14 times in 2013.

Compensation Committee

Our Compensation Committee consists of Cynthia A. Hallenbeck, Michael D. Malone, John Rice and Dana L. Schmaltz, four of our independent directors, with Mr. Rice serving as the Compensation Committee’s Chairman. We have adopted a Compensation Committee charter that details the principal functions of the Compensation Committee, including:

17

Table of Contents

Pursuant to its charter, the Compensation Committee may, in its discretion, delegate all or a portion of its duties and responsibilities to a subcommittee consisting of one or more members.

The Board has established a special one-member committee of the Board (the “Non-Executive Equity Award Committee”), currently comprised of Mr. Walker, our Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, and delegated to that committee limited authority to grant equity awards to non-executive officers and non-director employees pursuant to the 2010 Equity Incentive Plan, as amended (the “Equity Incentive Plan”). As of April 15, 2014, those grants may not exceed a total of 251,926 shares. The special one-member Non-Executive Equity Award Committee’s authority does not in any way limit the Compensation Committee’s authority to administer the Equity Incentive Plan.

Under its charter, the Compensation Committee has authority to retain compensation consultants, outside counsel and other advisors that the Compensation Committee deems appropriate, in its sole discretion, to assist it in discharging its duties. The Compensation Committee engaged Towers Watson & Co. in 2013 to act as its compensation consultant. Towers Watson reports directly to the Compensation Committee and the Compensation Committee has the sole authority to terminate the engagement. Towers Watson’s primary roles for 2013 were to:

Towers Watson does not provide any other services to the Company. The Compensation Committee concluded that Towers Watson had no conflicts of interest during fiscal year 2013. In reaching this conclusion, the Compensation Committee considered all relevant factors, including the six independence factors relating to committee advisers that are specified in the NYSE rules. These factors are:

For further discussion of the role of the Compensation Committee in the executive compensation decision-making process, and for a description of the nature and scope of Towers Watson’s assignment, see the section titled “COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS.”

Our Compensation Committee considers the recommendations of Mr. Walker, our Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, regarding any Company and individual performance targets, assessments of executive performance and compensation levels generally for our named executive officers. Mr. Walker presents a self-assessment of his own individual performance to the Compensation Committee and makes recommendations

18

Table of Contents

regarding his own compensation, but the Compensation Committee makes the final determination in an executive session without Mr. Walker and other members of management being present, as required by our Compensation Committee charter. Senior members of the human resources, legal, finance and accounting departments may also provide input to the Compensation Committee concerning matters relevant to the compensation plans and amounts, including compensation plan structure, individual and company-specific performance achievements and the financial impacts of the compensation plans and related payments.

The Compensation Committee met 12 times in 2013.

Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee

Our Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee consists of Alan J. Bowers, Andrew C. Florance, John Rice and Dana L. Schmaltz, four of our independent directors, with Mr. Bowers serving as the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee’s Chairman. We have adopted a nominating and corporate governance committee charter that details the principal functions of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, including:

The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee met six times in 2013.

19

Table of Contents

AUDIT RELATED MATTERS

Proposal 2:    Ratification of Appointment of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

Our consolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2013 have been audited by KPMG LLP, which served as our independent registered public accounting firm for the last fiscal year. The Audit Committee has appointed KPMG LLP to serve as our independent registered public accounting firm for the year ending December 31, 2014. We have been advised by KPMG LLP that representatives of KPMG LLP will be present at our 2014 annual meeting. These representatives will have the opportunity to make a statement if they so desire and will be available to respond to appropriate questions.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 requires the Audit Committee to be directly responsible for the appointment, compensation and oversight of the audit work of the independent registered public accounting firm. Nevertheless, our Board is submitting the appointment of KPMG LLP to the stockholders for ratification as a matter of good corporate practice. If the stockholders fail to ratify the appointment of KPMG LLP, the Audit Committee may reconsider the appointment and may retain KPMG LLP or another accounting firm without resubmitting the matter to stockholders. Even if the stockholders ratify the appointment, the Audit Committee may select another firm if it determines such selection to be in our and our stockholders’ best interest.

Vote Required

The ratification of the appointment of KPMG LLP requires the approval of a majority of the votes present at the meeting. Abstentions and broker non-votes will not count as votes cast with respect to the proposal.

Our Recommendation

THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDS A VOTE “FOR” THE PROPOSAL TO RATIFY THE APPOINTMENT OF KPMG LLP AS OUR INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM FOR THE YEAR ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2014.

Disclosure of KPMG LLP Fees for the Years Ended December 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012

The following table shows the fees for professional services rendered by KPMG LLP for the audit of the Company’s annual financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2013, and December 31, 2012, and fees billed for other services rendered by KPMG LLP during those periods:

All services provided by KPMG LLP to us since we became a public company have been pre-approved by the Audit Committee, either pursuant to the Audit Committee’s Audit and Non-Audit Services Pre-Approval

20

Table of Contents

Policy or through a separate pre-approval by the Audit Committee, which concluded that the provision of such services by KPMG LLP was compatible with the maintenance of that firm’s independence from us.

Pre-Approval Policies and Procedures

The Audit Committee’s policy is to review and pre-approve either pursuant to the Audit Committee’s Audit and Non-Audit Services Pre-Approval Policy or through a separate pre-approval by the Audit Committee, any engagement of our independent registered public accounting firm to provide any audit or permissible non-audit service to the Company. Pursuant to the Audit and Non-Audit Services Pre-Approval Policy, which the Audit Committee will review and reassess annually, a list of specific services within certain categories of services, including audit and audit-related services, are specifically pre-approved for the upcoming or current fiscal year, subject to an aggregate maximum annual fee payable by us for each category of pre-approved services. Any service that is not included in the approved list of services must be separately pre-approved by the Audit Committee. Additionally, all audit and permissible non-audit services in excess of the pre-approved fee level, whether or not included on the pre-approved list of services, must be separately pre-approved by the Audit Committee. The Audit Committee has delegated authority to its Chairman to specifically pre-approve engagements for the performance of audit and permissible non-audit services, for which the estimated cost for each specified type of service shall not exceed $100,000. The Audit Committee Chairman must report all pre-approval decisions to the Audit Committee at its next scheduled meeting and provide a description of the terms of the engagement, including:

Report of the Audit Committee

The Audit Committee is currently comprised of Ms. Hallenbeck (Chairman), and Messrs. Bowers and Gaynor. The members of the Audit Committee are appointed by and serve at the discretion of the Board.

One of the Audit Committee’s principal purposes is to assist the Board in overseeing the integrity of our financial statements. Our management team has the primary responsibility for our financial statements and the reporting process, including the system of internal control over financial reporting and disclosure controls and procedures. KPMG LLP, our independent registered public accounting firm, audits the annual financial statements prepared by management and expresses an opinion on the conformity of those financial statements with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States, or GAAP. In carrying out its responsibilities, the Audit Committee has reviewed and has discussed our audited consolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2013 with our management and representatives of KPMG LLP. Management represented to the Audit Committee that our financial statements for the past year were prepared in accordance with GAAP.

The Audit Committee also is responsible for assisting the Board in overseeing the qualification, independence and performance of our independent registered public accounting firm. The Audit Committee discussed with KPMG LLP the matters required to be discussed by Statement on Auditing Standards No. 61, as amended, as adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (the “PCAOB”). The Audit Committee has received both the written disclosures and the letter from KPMG LLP required by the applicable requirements of the PCAOB regarding KPMG LLP’s communications with the audit committee concerning independence and has discussed with KPMG LLP the independence of KPMG LLP from us. The Audit Committee also has considered whether the provision of any non-audit services, and any fees charged for such non-audit services, by KPMG LLP are compatible with maintaining the independence of KPMG LLP from us.

21

Table of Contents

Based on the reviews and discussions described above, the Audit Committee recommended to the Board that our audited consolidated financial statements for 2013 be included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013.

Respectfully submitted,

The Audit Committee of the Board of Directors

Cynthia A. Hallenbeck (Chairman)

Alan J. Bowers

Mitchell M. Gaynor

The Audit Committee report above does not constitute “soliciting material” and will not be deemed “filed” or incorporated by reference into any of our filings under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 that might incorporate our SEC filings by reference, in whole or in part, notwithstanding anything to the contrary set forth in those filings.

22

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE OFFICERS

The following table sets forth information concerning our executive officers as of April 15, 2014. Executive officers are elected by and serve at the discretion of our Board.

Executive Officer Biographies

Set forth below are descriptions of the backgrounds of each of our executive officers, other than Messrs. Walker and Smith, whose backgrounds and positions are described above (See “BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE—Nominees for Election for a One-Year Term Expiring at the 2015 Annual Meeting of Stockholders”).

Richard M. Lucas serves as our Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary. Mr. Lucas was a member of our Board from July to November 2010, when he joined the Company as Executive Vice President and General Counsel, and has served as a member of the board of managers of Walker & Dunlop, LLC since January 2010. Mr. Lucas is responsible for our Legal, Human Resources and Office Services groups, provides administrative oversight of the internal audit function and, together with the other executive officers, the overall strategic financial direction of our Company. Mr. Lucas joined Hilton Worldwide, Inc., a global hospitality company, in May 2008 as executive vice president, general counsel and corporate secretary and served as a member of Hilton’s executive committee until he joined us in November 2010. Prior to joining Hilton, Mr. Lucas was a partner at the law firm of Arnold & Porter LLP in Washington, D.C., where he was in private practice for 18 years. At Arnold & Porter, his practice focused on real estate transactions and litigation, primarily in the hospitality and senior living areas. From 2005 to 2008, Mr. Lucas also served as an adjunct faculty member at The George Washington University Law School, where he taught a course on real estate transactions. Mr. Lucas is also the Vice President of Fundraising and a member of the board of directors of the non-profit JDRF Greater Chesapeake and Potomac Chapter. Mr. Lucas received his Bachelor of Science in Business Administration from Georgetown University’s McDonough School of Business and his Juris Doctor from Yale Law School.

Stephen P. Theobald serves as our Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer. Mr. Theobald is responsible for our Financial Reporting, Budgeting and Accounting, Servicing and Investor Relations groups and, together with the other executive officers, the overall strategic financial direction of our Company. Mr. Theobald also has served as a member of the board of managers of Walker & Dunlop, LLC since April 1, 2013. From December 2010 to March 2013, Mr. Theobald served as the executive vice president and chief financial officer of Hampton Roads Bankshares, Inc., a publicly-traded holding company for Bank of Hampton Roads, a Virginia state-chartered commercial bank. From April 2010 to November 2010, Mr. Theobald served as a financial consultant to Hampton Roads Bankshares, Inc. Mr. Theobald also held a number of senior financial positions at Capital One Financial Corporation from 1999 to 2010, most recently serving as chief financial officer, local banking, a position he held from 2005 to 2010. Mr. Theobald began his career at KPMG LLP in 1984, and he served as audit partner, financial services, from 1996 to 1999. From 1990 to 1992, he served as a professional accounting fellow in the Office of the Chief Accountant at the Comptroller of the Currency. Mr. Theobald received a B.S.B.A. in Accounting from the University of Notre Dame.

Richard C. Warner serves as our Executive Vice President and Chief Credit Officer. Mr. Warner has served as a senior vice president and chief underwriter of Walker & Dunlop, LLC or its predecessors since September 2002. As Executive Vice President and Chief Credit Officer, Mr. Warner is responsible for our Asset

23

Table of Contents

Management, Underwriting and Closing and Delivery groups and, together with the other executive officers, the overall strategic financial direction of our Company. Mr. Warner also has served as a member of the board of managers of Walker & Dunlop, LLC since December 2011. Prior to joining Walker & Dunlop, Mr. Warner held a number of leadership positions with Main America Capital and its successors, a company that originated commercial and multifamily loans nationwide. From 1994 to 1998, Mr. Warner was the president of Main America Capital; from 1998 to 2000, he was vice president of originations for RFC Commercial; and from 2000 to 2002, he was vice president and branch manager for GMAC Commercial Mortgage. In 1978, Mr. Warner started his career with Canada’s Confederation Life Insurance Company, where he held a number of successive positions, ending as mortgage and real estate vice president in 1994. Mr. Warner received his Bachelor of Arts in Urban Studies from McGill University.

24

Table of Contents

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

This section describes the compensation programs for our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer in 2013 as well as our other three most highly compensated executive officers during 2013 and one former executive officer, all of whom we refer to collectively as our named executive officers or NEOs. Our NEOs for 2013 are:

Executive Summary

Overview of 2013 Performance and Pay for Performance

One of the key elements of the Compensation Committee’s executive compensation philosophy is that compensation should encourage and reward strong performance. In 2013, our business experienced significant financial challenges, driven by unanticipated regulatory changes and federal budgetary constraints impacting three of our largest lending partners, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD” and collectively, the “Agencies”) that reduced their lending capacity in 2013. The reduced capacity of the Agencies, coupled with rising interest rates and increased lending competition from banks, commercial mortgage-backed securities (“CMBS”) conduits and life insurance companies, made our most profitable Agency lending products less competitive in 2013, and ultimately contributed to us originating $8.4 billion in loans in 2013, compared to the $10-12 billion we anticipated at the beginning of the year. Despite these significant external challenges we achieved year-over-year growth in several financial and operating metrics and executed well on our multi-year strategic plan outlined in 2012, which includes diversifying our business into non-Agency commercial lending and asset management. Specifically we:

25

Table of Contents

Taking into account the unanticipated external challenges and the Company’s and the NEOs’ individual accomplishments, the Compensation Committee awarded the NEOs (except Ms. Wilson, who resigned from the Company effective March 31, 2013) annual bonus compensation ranging from 60% to 75% of their respective annual cash incentive program targets.

In March 2013, the Compensation Committee approved a new performance-based long-term equity incentive award for the NEOs (except Ms. Wilson) and senior management. These new awards, denoted as performance share units, vest in the form of shares of common stock if certain pre-established performance goals (tied to aggregate total revenues and average adjusted diluted earnings per share) underlying the award are met over the course of a 2013-2015 performance period.

The Compensation Committee established the initial performance cycle of the performance share units as an “outperformance” plan, setting extremely challenging performance targets designed to incentivize our senior management team, including the NEOs, to seek to achieve outstanding Company performance that results in significant long-term value creation for our stockholders.

Highlights of Our Compensation Program Practices

26

Table of Contents

Compensation Philosophy

The compensation elements, amounts and target levels for our NEOs as of December 31, 2013 were determined by the Compensation Committee based on our belief that compensation should:

We use a combination of measures and time horizons to foster and reward performance. The following chart summarizes the relevant 2013 performance measures and time frames used to assess our variable pay elements:

27

Table of Contents

Role of Board and Management in Compensation Decisions

Role of Compensation Consultant

The Compensation Committee has retained Towers Watson to provide the Compensation Committee with independent compensation data, analysis and advice. Towers Watson reports directly to the Compensation Committee, and the Compensation Committee has the sole authority to approve the terms of, and terminate, the engagement. Towers Watson’s primary roles in 2013 were to:

Setting Executive Compensation

The Compensation Committee evaluates compensation levels for each NEO. In reviewing compensation for 2013, the Compensation Committee reviewed and considered total compensation for each NEO, including reviews of reports that provide the value of: (1) historic and current elements of each NEO’s compensation; and (2) equity awards granted to the NEO under our Equity Incentive Plan.

28

Table of Contents

Use of Peer Group and Survey Data

The Compensation Committee strives to set target opportunity compensation levels to be competitive with the market in which we compete for executive talent. We use compensation information from: (1) a “Peer Group” of publicly traded companies in specific industries in which we compete for executive talent; and (2) general industry companies with revenues comparable to ours through the pooled survey data. Towers Watson combines the data from the Peer Group with pooled survey data to create the market data reviewed by the Compensation Committee.

At the time 2013 compensation was determined, we did not have direct publicly traded peers. Therefore, the Peer Group was selected by the Compensation Committee with advice from Towers Watson, taking into consideration industry relevance, business operations, comparability of size in terms of revenue, market capitalization and number of employees, business competitors and input from management. The Peer Group was not chosen on the basis of executive compensation levels. The 2013 Peer Group comprises the 13 companies below, with additions to and deletions from the 2012 Peer Group identified by underlining and strikethrough, respectively.

In 2013, Towers Watson reassessed our Peer Group based on our financials and relevant size and recommended the exclusion of Pzena Investment Management and iStar Financial because their business operations are significantly dissimilar to ours. Towers Watson also recommended the inclusion of: (1) Nationstar Mortgage Holdings Inc. because it has significant loan servicing operations, like us; and (2) Washington Real Estate Investment Trust because it operates in commercial real estate, like us, and has revenue, net income and total assets comparable to us.

Our Compensation Committee also used commercially available survey data provided to it by Towers Watson to identify market-median and other market elements related to our 2013 compensation program. This survey data included the Towers Watson 2012/2013 Survey of Top Management Compensation, Towers Watson 2013 Financial Services Survey, Mercer 2013 Executive Compensation Database, and 2013 McLagan Commercial Real Estate Finance Survey. This survey data includes pooled compensation data from many companies and the findings are segregated by, for example, revenue level and number of employees. Consistent with prior practice, comparative market data is not used by the Compensation Committee to “benchmark” the amount of total compensation or any specific element of compensation for the NEOs. Instead, comparative market data has been and is expected to continue to be reviewed by the Compensation Committee as a general reference and guide to assist the Compensation Committee with its decisions related to executive compensation.

29

Table of Contents

2013 Elements of Compensation

Our compensation program for our NEOs consists of the following elements, each of which satisfies one or more of our alignment, performance and retention objectives:

30

Table of Contents

31

Table of Contents

Mix of Total Direct Compensation

The charts below show the relative amounts that we targeted for each element of total direct compensation for 2013, which is comprised of base salary, target annual cash incentive and target long-term equity awards, which are comprised of the annual equity award and the performance share plan award (“PSP”) (based on 2013 target levels).

Fixed vs. Variable Pay Opportunity of Total Pay For Our NEOs

32

Table of Contents

Short-Term Pay vs. Long-Term Pay Opportunity of Total Pay For Our NEOs

Cash vs. Equity Pay Opportunity of Total Pay For Our NEOs

33

Table of Contents

2013 Executive Officer Compensation

Base Salary

Base salaries are set primarily by the NEOs’ employment agreements. The Compensation Committee considers additional factors to determine whether to increase base salaries beyond the amounts required by the employment agreements. The Compensation Committee consults with the CEO with respect to the recommended base salaries for the other NEOs and takes into consideration market data provided by Towers Watson, as previously described under “—Setting Executive Compensation—Use of Peer Group and Survey Data.” In setting individual base salaries, consideration is given to: (1) the performance of the Company; (2) the individual performance of each NEO, taking into account the recommendation of the CEO with respect to the performance and contribution of individuals and the individual performance measures under the annual cash incentive program; (3) the NEO’s scope of responsibility in relation to other NEOs and key members of senior management within the Company and internal pay equity; and (4) any retention issues. In March 2013, the Compensation Committee approved base salary increases to make them competitive with the corresponding pay received by executives with the same positions in the Peer Group. Specifically, the Compensation Committee approved an increase to Mr. Walker’s annual salary to $750,000, Mr. Smith’s annual salary to $500,000 and Messrs. Lucas’ and Warner’s annual salaries to $400,000, retroactive to January 1, 2013.

Base salary for each of our NEOs in 2013 was as follows:

Base salaries affect other elements of total compensation, including annual cash incentive, long-term equity compensation, and retirement benefits. In setting base salaries for the NEOs, the Compensation Committee considers the impact on other elements of total direct compensation.

Annual Cash Incentive Award

In March 2013, the Compensation Committee established the 2013 annual cash incentive program. Under the 2013 annual cash incentive program, the Compensation Committee established as a prerequisite to the payment of any bonuses that the Company achieve a minimum of $300 million of total revenues for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013. If that performance objective is achieved or exceeded, the Compensation Committee would then evaluate the performance of the NEOs based on both Company performance and individual performance to determine the appropriate amount of bonus to be awarded, if any. NEOs were eligible to receive amounts under this program of up to 200% of base salary, with a target bonus of 100% of base salary as set forth in each NEO’s employment agreement (other than Ms. Wilson who did not participate in the 2013

34

Table of Contents

annual cash incentive program). Because the Company achieved $319 million of total revenues for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013, the Compensation Committee determined to award bonuses to the NEOs based on an evaluation of Company and individual NEO performance, as follows.

2013 Company Performance

The Compensation Committee believes that each NEO is responsible for company-wide performance. The Compensation Committee found each NEO provided excellent leadership and strategic direction for us during a challenging year in which Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, our two largest lending partners, were required by the Federal Housing Finance Agency to reduce their annual 2013 loan originations by 10% from 2012, and HUD twice ran out of lending commitment authority because of the federal budget impasse. The reduced lending capacity of the Agencies, coupled with rising interest rates and increased lending competition from banks, CMBS conduits and life insurance companies, made our most profitable Agency lending products less competitive in 2013, and ultimately contributed to us originating $8.4 billion in loans in 2013, compared to the $10-12 billion we anticipated at the beginning of the year. The Committee also believes that the NEOs collectively executed very well under our multi-year strategic plan announced in 2012, which includes diversifying our business into non-Agency commercial lending and asset management. Specifically, the Committee determined each NEO’s annual cash incentive award based on the following Company achievements in 2013:

35

Table of Contents

2013 Individual NEO Performance

In addition to the Company performance achievements in 2013, the Committee also considered the following individual NEO performance achievements:

William M. Walker.

Stephen P. Theobald.

Howard W. Smith, III.

Richard M. Lucas.

Richard C. Warner.

36

Table of Contents

The following table sets forth the total annual cash incentive bonuses awarded to each of our NEOs (except Ms. Wilson) for each of 2013 and 2012, and the percentage of their bonus award targets for such years.

Equity Awards

The equity awards granted to our NEOs in 2013 consisted of restricted stock, stock options and performance share units. Annualized target award levels for the NEOs for 2013 were (i) 100% of base salary for the annual restricted stock and stock option award, (ii) 200% of base salary for the CEO’s performance share units, and (iii) 100% of base salary for our other NEOs’ performance share units.

Annual Equity Award

The annual equity award for Messrs. Walker and Smith for 2013 was comprised of 20% restricted stock and 80% options (based on the fair value of each on the date of the grant), and 50% restricted stock and 50% options for Messrs. Lucas, Theobald and Warner (based on the fair value of each on the date of grant). The Committee placed a greater weighting on stock options than restricted stock for Messrs. Walker and Smith to maximize the corporate tax deductibility of their total compensation. The stock options and restricted stock granted to the NEOs in 2013 vest ratably on each anniversary date of grant over a three-year period, conditioned upon continuing employment at the time of vesting. The Compensation Committee determined to use a three-year vesting period because it believes such duration promotes long-term alignment with stockholders and longer-term decision making that provides an effective balance to the shorter-term incentive measures used in setting annual cash incentive awards.

Restricted Stock Awards.    The Compensation Committee granted our NEOs a total of 85,757 shares of restricted stock. In addition to serving as a retention tool, restricted stock further aligns the interests of the NEOs with our stockholders through the promotion of significant share ownership. Each NEO’s 2013 restricted stock award is detailed below.

37

Table of Contents

Stock Option Awards.    The Compensation Committee granted our NEOs a total of 256,932 stock options. The exercise price of stock options is the closing price of our common stock on the NYSE on the date of grant. Stock option grants vest ratably over three years and expire ten years after grant. In addition to serving as a retention tool, stock options further align the interests of executives with our stockholders through long-term stock value creation. Each NEO’s 2013 grant of stock options is detailed below.

2013-2015 Performance Share Plan

In March 2013, the Compensation Committee approved a new performance-based long-term equity incentive award for the Company’s NEOs and senior management. These new awards, denoted as performance share units, vest in the form of shares of common stock if certain pre-established performance goals (tied to aggregate total revenues and average adjusted diluted earnings per share) underlying the award are met over the course of a three-year performance period.

The performance share units vest based on the achievement of average adjusted diluted earnings per share (70% weighting) and aggregate total revenues (30% weighting) over the 2013-2015 performance period as set forth in the table below. In the event that one or both of the metrics falls between two of the levels in the table, the number of performance share units vested will be calculated by linear interpolation. The Compensation Committee has the discretion to adjust the number of performance share units downward.

The Compensation Committee established the initial performance cycle of the performance share units as an “outperformance” plan, setting extremely challenging performance targets designed to incentivize our senior management team, including the NEOs, to seek to achieve outstanding Company performance. As a result, the amounts that will be actually earned by the NEOs under the performance share units may be less, in some cases substantially so, than the amounts shown as compensation in the “Summary Compensation Table” below.

The Compensation Committee recognizes that without a dividend policy, one of the primary methods of returning value to our stockholders is through maximizing and growing earnings per share. Therefore, the Compensation Committee chose the average adjusted diluted earnings per share metrics and assigned them a 70% weighting to ensure that the NEOs and senior management are focused not only on driving revenue growth over the performance period, but also on maximizing the benefit of such growth in earnings per share. Additionally, in order to receive an award for achievement of the average adjusted diluted earnings per share performance goals, the Company will have to achieve such goals net of the expense associated with awards under the plan. The Compensation Committee also chose the aggregate total revenues goals set forth in the table below for the 2013 –  2015 performance cycle because if achieved they would require dramatic growth and diversification of our loan origination and servicing platform.

38

Table of Contents

For the grant of performance share units in 2013, the Compensation Committee determined that: (i) Mr. Walker’s grant would have a threshold number of performance share units equal to 100% of his base salary, a target number of performance share units equal to 200% of his base salary, and a maximum number of performance share units equal to 400% of his base salary, divided by the fair market value of a share of common stock on the grant date, and (ii) each of Messrs. Lucas, Smith, Theobald, and Warner would receive a threshold number of performance share units equal to 50% of each of their respective base salaries, a target number of performance share units equal to 100% of each of their respective base salaries, and a maximum number of performance share units equal to 200% of each of their respective base salaries, divided by the fair market value of a share of common stock on the grant date.

The average adjusted diluted earnings per share goals can reflect adjustments to net income made by the Compensation Committee under the plan, including for costs associated with extraordinary events, non-recurring or non-operating charges specifically related to successful acquisitions and restructurings and costs associated with successfully raising capital for a fund management business.

2010 Long-Term Incentive Plan

Pursuant to our 2010 Long-Term Incentive Plan, a bonus pool was established following completion of the 2010 fiscal year. Under the terms of the 2010 Long-Term Incentive Plan, Messrs. Walker, Smith and Warner were paid $430,000, $330,000 and $250,000 respectively. Because we achieved the Plan’s performance goals for 2010, 2011 and 2012, 20% of such amounts were paid to Messrs. Walker, Smith and Warner in June 2011, 30% of the amount was paid in June 2012 and 50% of the amount was paid in June 2013. The Compensation Committee considered these actual payouts in connection with evaluating the participating NEOs’ total compensation for 2013.

Messrs. Lucas and Theobald joined us as NEOs after June of 2010. Accordingly, Messrs. Lucas and Theobald did not participate in the 2010 Long-Term Incentive Plan. Additionally, Ms. Wilson was no longer an employee of the Company in June 2013, and therefore did not receive any payment in 2013 under the 2010 Long-Term Incentive Plan.

Management Stock Purchase Plan

As previously disclosed, in January 2013 the Board and the Compensation Committee approved a new compensatory plan, which supports the Company’s existing stock ownership goals for the NEOs and further aligns the interests of plan participants, including the NEOs, with our stockholders. The plan, called the Management Stock Purchase Plan (the “MSPP”), was first effective in 2013. The MSPP provides a means for deferral of annual cash incentive compensation by eligible employees into deferred stock units that are settled in shares of the Company’s common stock upon payout. In connection with the MSPP, participants who acquire deferred stock units are generally granted a matching deferred stock unit or RSU award equal to 50% of the deferred stock units acquired in the MSPP, which matching award vests fully on March 15 of the third year following the grant. See the “2013 Non-Qualified Deferred Compensation” table and related narrative below for additional information concerning the MSPP.

39

Table of Contents

Employment Agreements

The compensation packages described above reflect, in part, the employment agreements that we entered into with each of our NEOs. The employment agreements with our NEOs also include severance provisions. In addition, on December 17, 2012 we entered into a separation agreement with Ms. Wilson as previously disclosed. See “COMPENSATION OF DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS—Employment and Separation Agreements” and “COMPENSATION OF DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS—Potential Payments Upon Termination” for a description of the specific terms of these agreements.

Compensation Policies

We do not currently have any formal policies regarding long-term versus currently-paid compensation, but feel that both elements are necessary for achieving our compensation objectives. Currently, paid compensation provides financial stability for each of our NEOs and immediate reward for superior company and individual performance, while long-term compensation rewards achievement of strategic long-term objectives and contributes towards overall stockholder value.

Prohibition on Hedging

Our insider trading policy prohibits our directors and all employees, including our NEOs, from hedging their economic interest in the Company’s stock through short-sales, trading in puts or calls, or the use of other derivative instruments.

Prohibition on Pledging

Our insider trading policy also prohibits our non-employee directors and all employees, including our NEOs, from pledging Company securities to secure margin or other loans. This prohibition means our non-employee directors and employees may not hold our securities in margin accounts.

Stock Ownership Guidelines for NEOs

Our Board has adopted stock ownership guidelines for our NEOs, which are intended to further align their interests with the interests of our stockholders. Under the guidelines, each NEO must hold an ownership stake in the Company that is significant in comparison to their base salary. The amount required to be retained varies depending on the NEO’s position, as follows:

Stock ownership for the purpose of these guidelines includes stock currently held by the NEO and restricted stock. Messrs. Walker, Lucas, Smith and Warner are required to achieve the ownership requirements by April 1, 2017, and Mr. Theobald is required to achieve the ownership requirements by April 1, 2018.

Tax Treatment of NEO Compensation

Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, generally limits the tax deductibility of compensation paid by a public company to its chief executive officer and certain other highly compensated executive officers (excluding the chief financial officer) to $1 million in the year the compensation becomes taxable to the executive. There is an exception to the limit on deductibility for performance-based compensation that meets certain requirements. While we consider the impact of this and other tax rules when developing and implementing our executive compensation programs, we also believe that it is important to preserve flexibility in administering compensation programs in a manner designed to promote varying corporate goals. Accordingly, we have not adopted a policy that all compensation must qualify as deductible under Section 162(m) or any other tax rule.

40

Table of Contents

“Say on Pay” Results

At our 2011 annual meeting, we submitted to stockholders an advisory resolution to approve our executive compensation program (a “say on pay” vote). Our stockholders overwhelmingly supported our say on pay vote with approximately 99% of the votes cast in favor. At the same meeting, our stockholders approved holding such a say on pay vote every three years. Accordingly, we determined to hold, and are therefore holding, the next say on pay vote at the 2014 annual meeting. We carefully consider stockholder feedback on all matters, including our executive compensation. In 2013, the Compensation Committee considered the results of the 2011 say on pay vote, and determined no specific changes to our executive compensation program were warranted.

Compensation Policies and Practices as they Relate to Risk Management

Management reports regularly to the Compensation Committee on our executive and employee compensation and benefit programs. The Compensation Committee engaged Towers Watson to perform a compensation risk assessment for the NEOs and our loan originators for 2013, and to advise the Compensation Committee on the findings of the assessment. Our Senior Vice President, Human Resources also reported on the compensation structure and benefit programs and risks associated with such structure and programs for all of our other employees. The Compensation Committee considered the findings of these reports and determined that the NEO and other employee compensation and benefit programs do not pose any material risks to us and therefore are not reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on us. With respect to the NEO compensation programs, the Compensation Committee found that they are well-balanced between fixed and variable compensation, cash and equity and short-term and long-term incentives, take into account both qualitative and quantitative performance factors, reflect an appropriate mix of compensative instruments, are well-aligned with stockholder interests and have elements that discourage the NEOs from taking unnecessary or excessive risks. With the assistance of Towers Watson, the Compensation Committee continues to review all of the Company’s executive compensation programs.

Compensation Committee Report

The Compensation Committee has reviewed and discussed the Compensation Discussion and Analysis set forth above with our management. Based on such review and discussion, the committee recommended to the board of directors that the Compensation Discussion and Analysis be included in this proxy statement and incorporated by reference in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013, for filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Respectfully submitted,

The Compensation Committee of the Board of

Directors

John Rice (Chairman)

Cynthia A. Hallenbeck

Michael D. Malone

Dana L. Schmaltz

The Compensation Committee report above does not constitute “soliciting material” and will not be deemed “filed” or incorporated by reference into any of our filings under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 that might incorporate our SEC filings by reference, in whole or in part, notwithstanding anything to the contrary set forth in those filings.

41

Table of Contents

COMPENSATION OF DIRECTORS AND EXECUTIVE OFFICERS

Executive Compensation

The following table sets forth the compensation paid to or earned by our NEOs in their capacities as executive officers of Walker & Dunlop, Inc. during 2013, 2012 and 2011:

Summary Compensation Table

42

Table of Contents

2013 Grants of Plan-Based Awards

Narrative Disclosures to Summary Compensation and Grants of Plan-Based Awards Tables

The 2013 performance share unit “threshold,” “target,” and “maximum” opportunities in the Table are 100%, 200%, and 400%, respectively, of the 2013 base salary for Mr. Walker, and 50%, 100%, and 200%, respectively, of the base salaries for the other NEOs. See “COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS—2013 Executive Officer Compensation—Equity Awards.”

Employment and Separation Agreements

NEOs other than Ms. Wilson

On October 27, 2010, we entered into employment agreements with each of Messrs. Walker, Smith, Lucas and Warner, which were subsequently amended on December 14, 2012. Each employment agreement has an initial three-year term, which was measured from December 13, 2010, but was automatically extended for a series of additional one-year terms, beginning at the end of the expiration of the current term, unless either party gives 60 days’ prior notice that the term will not be extended. These employment agreements provide for the following:

43

Table of Contents

In addition, on March 3, 2013, we entered into an employment agreement with Mr. Theobald. His employment agreement has an initial three-year term, measured from April 1, 2013, which will be automatically extended for a series of additional one-year terms, beginning at the end of the expiration of the current term, unless either party gives 60 days’ prior notice that the term will not be extended. Mr. Theobald’s employment agreement provides for an initial base salary of $350,000, a target annual bonus of 100% of base salary, with the actual bonus payment to be determined by the Compensation Committee, and eligibility for grants of equity, which for 2013 equaled $350,000 of equity, granted on April 1, 2013, subject to vesting requirements. Mr. Theobald’s employment agreement also provided for a signing bonus of $25,000 and an award of 40,000 shares of restricted stock, subject to vesting requirements. Effective February 16, 2014, the Compensation Committee approved an increase of Mr. Theobald’s salary to $400,000. As a result of the salary increase, Mr. Theobald’s target bonus for 2014 was increased to $400,000.

Additionally, each NEO employment agreement also contains customary non-competition and non-solicitation covenants that apply during the term and for up to 12 months after the term of each executive’s employment with us. For information concerning the termination-related terms of the NEOs’ employment agreements, see “—Potential Payments Upon Termination” below.

Ms. Wilson

As previously disclosed, on December 17, 2012, in connection with Ms. Wilson’s resignation, we entered into a separation agreement with Ms. Wilson. For additional information concerning the terms of Ms. Wilson’s separation agreement, see “—Potential Payments Upon Termination” below.

44

Table of Contents

Outstanding Equity Awards at December 31, 2013

2013 Option Exercises and Stock Vested

45

Table of Contents

2013 Nonqualified Deferred Compensation

Management Stock Purchase Plan (MSPP)

Under the MSPP eligible employees may voluntarily elect to purchase shares of the Company’s common stock with up to 75% of their annual cash incentive award (up to 100% beginning in 2014) on a specified date each calendar year (the “Election Date”). On the date that the annual cash incentive award is paid (the “Award Date”), the portion of the bonus that is deferred will be used to purchase deferred stock units at the fair market value of the Company’s common stock on such date. These deferred stock units granted under the MSPP are fully vested and non-forfeitable on the date of purchase. With respect to each deferred stock unit granted under the MSPP, the Company will issue to the participant one share of the Company’s common stock on the date elected by the participant, which will be either (i) January 31 of the year immediately following the participant’s separation from the Company (the “Termination Date Election”); (ii) the first to occur of (A) March 15 of the third calendar year after the Award Date, and (B) January 31 of the year immediately following the participant’s separation from the Company (the “Vesting Date Election”); or (iii) the first to occur of (A) January 31 of the fifth or tenth, as elected by the participant, calendar year after the Award Date, and (B) January 31 of the year immediately following the participant’s separation from the Company (the “Deferred Distribution Date Election”). In connection with the MSPP, participants who acquire deferred stock units are generally granted a matching deferred stock unit or RSU award equal to 50% of the deferred stock units acquired in the MSPP, which matching award vests fully on March 15 of the third year following the grant.

In the event of a change in control of the Company, if the deferred stock units granted under the MSPP are not assumed or continued, shares of the Company’s common stock underlying the deferred stock units granted under the MSPP will be delivered immediately prior to the change in control.

Potential Payments Upon Termination

Regardless of the reason for any termination of employment, each NEO is entitled to receive the following benefits upon termination: (a) payment of any unpaid portion of such executive’s base salary through the effective date of termination, (b) reimbursement for any outstanding reasonable business expense, (c) continued insurance benefits to the extent required by law, (d) payment of any vested but unpaid rights as may be required independent of the employment agreement, and (e) except in the case of termination by the company for cause, any bonus or incentive compensation that had been accrued through the effective date of termination but not paid, provided, however, that in the event of a termination without cause, a resignation for good reason or retirement, a pro rata incentive compensation will be paid only to the extent performance goals for the year are achieved.

In addition to the benefits described above in subparagraphs (a) - (e), each NEO is entitled to receive a severance payment if we terminate his employment without cause or the executive resigns for good reason. The severance payment is equal to (i) continued payment by the company of the executive’s base salary, as in effect as of the executive’s last day of employment, for a period of 12 months, (ii) continued payment for life and health insurance coverage for 12 months, to the same extent the company paid for such coverage immediately prior to termination, (iii) two times the average annual bonus earned by the executive over the preceding two years (or if the executive has not been employed for two years, payments equal to two times the target bonus for

46

Table of Contents

the year of termination), and (iv) vesting as of the last day of employment in any unvested portion of any options and restricted stock previously issued to the executive. If the continued payment of health insurance coverage would result in violations of certain tax or other statutes or regulations, then we will instead pay the NEO a fully taxable cash payment each month equal to the insurance premiums plus an additional amount necessary to cover any additional taxes owed by the NEO (such additional amount, the “Indemnity Amount”).The foregoing benefits are conditioned upon the executive’s execution of a general release of claims and compliance with the terms of the employment agreement.

If the NEO’s employment terminates due to death or disability, in addition to the benefits described above in subparagraphs (a) - (e), the executive’s estate is entitled to receive (i) vesting as of the last day of employment in any unvested portion of any options and restricted stock previously issued to the executive and (ii) payment of the pro rata share of any performance bonus to which such executive would have been entitled for the year of death.

If the NEO’s employment terminates due to retirement, in addition to the benefits described above in subparagraphs (a) - (e), the executive is entitled to receive vesting as of the last day of employment in any unvested portion of any options and restricted stock previously issued to the executive. Additionally, none of the employment agreements includes severance provisions that are tied to changes in control; further the agreements do not provide for any excise or other tax gross-up other than the potential for payment of the Indemnity Amount discussed above.

The table below summarizes the potential cash payments and estimated equivalent cash value of benefits that will be generally owed to our NEOs (other than Ms. Wilson) under the terms of their employment agreements described above upon termination of those agreements under various scenarios as of December 31, 2013. Amounts shown do not include (a) payment of any unpaid portion of such executive’s base salary through the effective date of termination, (b) reimbursement for any outstanding reasonable business expense, (c) continued insurance benefits to the extent required by law, (d) payment of any vested but unpaid rights as may be required independent of the employment agreement, and (e) any bonus or incentive compensation that had been accrued through the effective date of termination but not paid. Amounts payable to Ms. Wilson, who departed in 2013, are discussed separately below.

NEOs other than Ms. Wilson

47

Table of Contents