QuickLinks -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

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.          )

 

---

AFFILIATED MANAGERS GROUP, INC.
777 South Flagler Drive
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401

---

NOTICE OF ANNUAL MEETING OF STOCKHOLDERS
TO BE HELD ON JUNE 14, 2016

---

        NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the 2016 Annual Meeting of Stockholders (the "Annual Meeting") of Affiliated Managers Group, Inc. (the "Company" or "AMG") will be held on Tuesday, June 14, 2016, at 2:00 p.m. British Summer Time (9:00 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time), at the Company's London office at 35 Park Lane, London W1K 1RB, United Kingdom, for the following purposes:

1.

To elect eight directors of the Company to serve until the 2017 Annual Meeting of Stockholders and until their respective successors are duly elected and qualified.



2.

To approve, by a non-binding advisory vote, the compensation of the Company's named executive officers.



3.

To ratify the selection of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as the Company's independent registered public accounting firm for the current fiscal year.



4.

To consider and act upon any other matters that may properly be brought before the Annual Meeting and at any adjournments or postponements thereof.

        This year, we have again saved significant mailing and printing costs by providing proxy materials to you over the Internet pursuant to Securities and Exchange Commission rules. On or about April 29, 2016, we will mail to our stockholders a Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials (the "Notice") containing instructions on how to access this Proxy Statement and our 2015 Annual Report on Form 10-K online. The Notice, which cannot itself be used to vote your shares, also provides instructions on how to vote by Internet and how to request a paper copy of the proxy materials, if you so desire. Whether you receive the Notice or paper copies of our proxy materials, the Proxy Statement and 2015 Annual Report on Form 10-K are available to you at www.proxyvote.com.

        The Company's Board of Directors fixed the close of business on April 15, 2016 as the record date for determining the stockholders entitled to notice of, and to vote at, the Annual Meeting and at any adjournments or postponements thereof. Your vote is very important. Please carefully review the Proxy Statement and submit your proxy by the Internet, telephone or mail whether or not you plan to attend the Annual Meeting. If you hold your shares in street name through a broker, bank or other nominee, please follow the instructions you receive from them to vote your shares.

West Palm Beach, Florida
April 29, 2016

---

AFFILIATED MANAGERS GROUP, INC.
777 South Flagler Drive
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401

---

PROXY STATEMENT

---

        FOR 2016 ANNUAL MEETING OF STOCKHOLDERS
TO BE HELD ON JUNE 14, 2016

April 29, 2016

        This Proxy Statement is furnished in connection with the solicitation of proxies by the Board of Directors of Affiliated Managers Group, Inc. ("AMG," the "Company," "we" or "us") for use at our 2016 Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be held on Tuesday, June 14, 2016, at 2:00 p.m. British Summer Time (9:00 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time), at the Company's London office at 35 Park Lane, London W1K 1RB, United Kingdom, and at any adjournments or postponements thereof (the "Annual Meeting"). At the Annual Meeting, stockholders will be asked to elect eight directors, approve, by a non-binding advisory vote, the compensation of the Company's named executive officers (as defined in the "Executive Compensation Tables" section of this Proxy Statement), ratify the selection of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP ("PricewaterhouseCoopers") as our independent registered public accounting firm for the current fiscal year and consider and act upon any other matters properly brought before them.

        Important Notice Regarding the Internet Availability of Proxy Materials.    This year, we have again saved significant mailing and printing costs by providing proxy materials to you over the Internet in accordance with Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") rules. On or about April 29, 2016, we will mail to our stockholders a Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials (the "Notice") containing instructions on how to access this Proxy Statement and our 2015 Annual Report on Form 10-K online. The Notice, which cannot itself be used to vote your shares, also provides instructions on how to vote by Internet and how to request a paper copy of the proxy materials, if you so desire. Whether you received the Notice or paper copies of our proxy materials, the Proxy Statement and 2015 Annual Report on Form 10-K are available to you at www.proxyvote.com.

        Stockholders of record of the Company's common stock at the close of business on the record date of April 15, 2016 will be entitled to notice of the Annual Meeting and to one vote per share on each matter presented at the Annual Meeting. As of the record date, there were 53,811,454 shares of common stock outstanding and entitled to vote at the Annual Meeting.

        The presence, in person or by proxy, of holders of at least a majority of the total number of shares of common stock outstanding and entitled to vote at the Annual Meeting is necessary to constitute a quorum for the transaction of business at the Annual Meeting. Abstentions and broker non-votes, if any, will be counted as present and entitled to vote for purposes of establishing a quorum but will not be considered as votes cast on any matter.

        A "broker non-vote" is a proxy from a broker or other nominee indicating that such person has not received instructions from the beneficial owner on a particular matter with respect to which the broker or other nominee does not have discretionary voting power. Brokers have the discretion to vote their clients' proxies only on matters deemed "routine" by the New York Stock Exchange.

        At this year's Annual Meeting, the election of directors (Proposal 1) and the advisory vote on executive compensation (Proposal 2) are non-routine matters, and only the ratification of our auditors (Proposal 3) is a routine matter. It is important that you instruct your broker as to how you wish to have your shares voted on these proposals, even if you wish to vote as recommended by the Board of Directors.

1

---

        Stockholders are requested to submit a proxy by Internet or telephone, or by returning a completed, signed and dated proxy card or voting instruction form. If you vote by Internet or telephone, you should not return a proxy card or voting instruction form. Shares represented by a properly submitted proxy received prior to the vote at the Annual Meeting and not revoked will be voted at the Annual Meeting as directed by the proxy. If a properly executed proxy or voting instruction form is submitted without any instructions indicated, the proxy will be voted FOR the election of each of the nominees for director, FOR the approval of the advisory vote on executive compensation, and FOR the ratification of the selection of PricewaterhouseCoopers as our independent registered public accounting firm for the current fiscal year. If other matters are presented, proxies will be voted in accordance with the discretion of the proxy holders on such other matters.

        A stockholder of record may revoke a proxy at any time before it has been voted by filing a written revocation with the Secretary of the Company at the Company's principal executive offices, 777 South Flagler Drive, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401-6152; by submitting a duly executed proxy bearing a later date; or by appearing in person and voting by ballot at the Annual Meeting. A stockholder of record who voted by Internet or telephone may also change his or her vote with a timely and valid later Internet or telephone vote. Any stockholder of record as of the record date may attend the Annual Meeting whether or not a proxy has previously been given, but the presence (without further action) of a stockholder at the Annual Meeting will not constitute revocation of a previously given proxy. If you hold your shares in street name and would like to change your voting instructions, please follow the instructions provided to you by your broker, bank or other intermediary.

        A stockholder may vote in person at the Annual Meeting upon presenting picture identification and any one of the following: an account statement, the Notice or a proxy card. If you hold your shares in street name, you will need to obtain a proxy from your bank or broker in order to vote in person, and you must bring a brokerage statement or letter from your broker, bank or other intermediary reflecting stock ownership. The address of the Company's London office is set forth above for stockholders who plan to vote in person at the Annual Meeting.

2

---

PROXY STATEMENT SUMMARY

        This summary highlights certain information from our Proxy Statement for the 2016 Annual Meeting of Stockholders. You should read the entire Proxy Statement carefully before voting.

 

3

---

4

---

5

---

Note: Stock price performance and CAGRs calculated beginning on 12/31/2010. AMG 2015 CEO Compensation includes long-term equity earned for performance during 2015; see "Supplemental Table—Compensation Earned in Fiscal 2015" below for information regarding differences from the Summary Compensation Table.

Supplemental Table—Compensation Earned in Fiscal 2015

          The following table sets forth the 2015 compensation results for our NEOs. This table includes equity awards granted to our NEOs in February 2016 in recognition of 2015 performance, and excludes equity awards granted in January of 2015 in recognition of 2014 performance, to better demonstrate how we evaluate and compensate our NEOs. These amounts differ from the compensation reported in the Summary Compensation Table because SEC rules governing the reporting of compensation in that table require equity awards to be reported in the year of grant, even where the awards are intended to compensate executives for performance in a prior year. Please refer to the "Executive Compensation Tables" and "Equity Grant Policy" sections of this Proxy Statement for additional information.

6

---

PROPOSAL 1: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS

Introduction

        Our Board of Directors currently consists of eight members. At the Annual Meeting, eight directors are expected to be elected to serve until the 2017 Annual Meeting of Stockholders and until their respective successors are duly elected and qualified. The Board of Directors, upon the recommendation of the Nominating and Governance Committee, has nominated Messrs. Samuel T. Byrne, Dwight D. Churchill, Glenn Earle, Niall Ferguson, Sean M. Healey, Patrick T. Ryan and Jide J. Zeitlin, and Ms. Tracy P. Palandjian (collectively, the "Nominees") to serve as directors. Each of the Nominees is currently serving as a director of the Company. As more fully discussed below in the "Corporate Governance Matters and Meetings of the Board of Directors and Committees" section of this Proxy Statement, the Board of Directors has determined that seven of its eight Nominees, Messrs. Byrne, Churchill, Earle, Ferguson, Ryan and Zeitlin, and Ms. Palandjian, have no material relationship with the Company and are independent for purposes of New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE") listing standards. The Board of Directors expects that each of the Nominees will, if elected, serve as a director for the new term. However, if any person nominated by the Board of Directors is unable to accept election, the proxies will be voted for the election of such other person or persons as the Board of Directors may recommend.

        The Company's amended and restated by-laws (the "By-laws") provide for majority voting in uncontested director elections. Under the majority voting standard, directors are elected by a majority of the votes cast, which means that the number of shares voted "for" a director must exceed the number of shares voted "against" that director. In a contested election (a situation in which the number of nominees exceeds the number of directors to be elected), the standard for the election of directors will be a plurality of the votes cast. Abstentions and broker non-votes will have no effect on the outcome of the vote on the election of directors.

        Under our Corporate Governance Guidelines, the Nominating and Governance Committee has established procedures for any director who is not elected to tender his or her offer to resign. Upon receiving the director's offer to resign, the Nominating and Governance Committee will recommend to the Board of Directors whether to accept or reject the offer to resign, or whether other action should be taken. The Nominating and Governance Committee and the Board of Directors, in making their decisions, may consider any factor or information that they deem relevant. The Board of Directors, taking into account the Nominating and Governance Committee's recommendation, will act on the tendered resignation within ninety days following certification of the election results. A director whose resignation is under consideration shall abstain from participating in any recommendation or decision regarding his or her resignation.

Recommendation of the Board of Directors

        The Board of Directors believes that the election of each of the Nominees is in the best interests of the Company and its stockholders and, therefore, unanimously recommends that stockholders vote FOR the election of each of the Nominees.

Information Regarding the Nominees

        The following table sets forth the name, age (as of April 1, 2016), tenure and other information of each Nominee, along with the committees of the Board of Directors on which each Nominee currently serves.

7

---

        The Nominees bring a wide array of qualifications, skills and attributes to our Board of Directors that strengthen the Board of Director's ability to carry out its oversight role on behalf of our stockholders. The most relevant of these qualifications and skills are summarized in the table below:

8

---

        The following biographical summaries provide additional information on the business experience, principal occupation and past employment and directorships of each Nominee during at least the last five years.

9

---

10

---

11

---

12

---

Corporate Governance Matters and Meetings of the Board of Directors and Committees

        The Board of Directors and management regularly review best practices in corporate governance and modify our corporate governance policies and practices as warranted. Our current best practices include:

        Board of Directors:    During 2015, the full Board of Directors met six times. Each incumbent member of the Board of Directors in 2015 attended at least 96% of the total number of meetings of (i) the Board of Directors and (ii) all standing committees of the Board of Directors on which such director served. We do not have a formal policy regarding director attendance at our Annual Meeting of Stockholders. One director attended the 2015 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.

        At least annually, the Board of Directors evaluates the independence of our directors in light of the standards established by NYSE. A majority of our Board of Directors must be independent within the meaning of NYSE listing standards. After its most recent evaluation of director independence, the Board of Directors affirmatively determined that seven of our eight current directors, Messrs. Byrne, Churchill, Earle, Ferguson, Ryan and Zeitlin, and Ms. Palandjian, are "independent" for purposes of NYSE listing standards. The Board of Directors made these determinations based upon individual evaluations of each director's employment or board of directors affiliations, compensation history, and any commercial, family

13

---

or other relationships. There were no transactions between any non-executive director and the Company for the Board of Director's consideration in determining the independence of any non-executive director. Members of the Board of Directors also serve as directors, trustees or in similar capacities (but not as executive officers or employees) for non-profit organizations to which we may make charitable contributions from time to time. Contributions to these organizations did not exceed either $120,000 or 1% of each of those organizations' annual consolidated gross revenues during their last completed fiscal years.

        The standing committees of the Board of Directors are the Audit Committee, the Compensation Committee and the Nominating and Governance Committee. Only independent directors within the meaning of NYSE listing standards serve on these committees. Each such committee acts pursuant to a written charter adopted by the respective committee. A description of each committee is set forth below.

        Audit Committee:    The Audit Committee currently consists of Messrs. Byrne, Churchill, Earle and Ryan, and Ms. Palandjian, with Mr. Churchill serving as Chair since January 2015. Each of the members meets the independence standards applicable to audit committees under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and NYSE listing standards and is an audit committee financial expert, as defined by the SEC. The Audit Committee's purpose is to assist the Board of Directors in oversight of our internal controls and financial statements and the audit process. The Audit Committee met eight times during 2015. Other members of the Board of Directors attend Audit Committee meetings from time to time at the invitation of the Audit Committee.

        Compensation Committee:    The Compensation Committee currently consists of Messrs. Byrne, Ryan and Zeitlin, with Mr. Zeitlin serving as Chair since February 2015. Each member meets the independence requirements applicable to the Compensation Committee under NYSE listing standards. The Compensation Committee is responsible for overseeing our general compensation policies and establishing and reviewing the compensation plans and benefit programs applicable to our executive officers. In that capacity, the Compensation Committee also administers our stock option and incentive plans. The Compensation Committee met six times during 2015. Other members of the Board of Directors attend Compensation Committee meetings from time to time at the invitation of the Compensation Committee.

        Nominating and Governance Committee:    The Nominating and Governance Committee currently consists of Messrs. Byrne, Ferguson and Ryan, and Ms. Palandjian, with Mr. Ryan serving as Chair since February 2015. The Nominating and Governance Committee is primarily responsible for recommending criteria to the Board of Directors for Board and committee membership, identifying and evaluating director candidates, overseeing the annual self-assessment of the Board of Directors and its committees and of the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, and maintaining our Corporate Governance Guidelines. The Nominating and Governance Committee met five times during 2015. Other members of the Board of Directors attend Nominating and Governance Committee meetings from time to time at the invitation of the Nominating and Governance Committee.

        The Nominating and Governance Committee may solicit director candidate recommendations from a number of sources, including directors, executive officers and third-party search firms. The Nominating and Governance Committee will consider for nomination any director candidates, including director candidates recommended by our stockholders, who are deemed qualified by the Nominating and Governance Committee in light of the qualifications and criteria for Board of Directors membership described below, or such other criteria as approved by the Board of Directors or a committee thereof from time to time. Stockholder recommendations must be submitted to the Nominating and Governance Committee in accordance with the requirements set forth in the By-laws, including those discussed in the "Other Matters—Stockholder Proposals" section of this Proxy Statement, and any procedures established from time to time by the Nominating and Governance Committee. The Nominating and Governance Committee does not have a specific policy regarding the consideration of stockholder recommendations for director candidates and considers this appropriate because it evaluates recommendations without

14

---

regard to their source. The Nominating and Governance Committee evaluates any potential conflicts of interest on a case-by-case basis, to the extent they may arise.

        The Board of Directors believes that a diverse mix of perspectives and expertise enhances its overall effectiveness. When considering candidates for directorship, the Nominating and Governance Committee takes into account a number of factors, including the following qualifications: the nominee shall have the highest personal and professional integrity and have demonstrated exceptional ability and judgment and the attributes necessary (in conjunction with the other members of the Board of Directors) to best serve the long-term interests of the Company and its stockholders. In addition, the Nominating and Governance Committee reviews from time to time the skills and characteristics necessary and appropriate for directors in light of the then current composition of the Board of Directors, including such factors as business experience, international background, diversity and knowledge of the financial services industry in general and the asset management industry in particular. In considering diversity, the Nominating and Governance Committee considers diversity of background and experience as well as ethnic and other forms of diversity. The Nominating and Governance Committee does not have a formal policy regarding diversity in identifying nominees for a directorship, but rather considers it among the various factors relevant to the consideration of any particular nominee. The Nominating and Governance Committee reviews our Corporate Governance Guidelines at least annually to ensure that we continue to meet best corporate governance practice standards.

        The current Board of Directors comprises individuals with a substantial variety of skills and expertise, including with respect to investment management across the capital markets; real estate; private equity; international business; academia and not-for-profit organizations. The Nominating and Governance Committee believes it is important to maintain a mix of experienced directors with a deep understanding of the Company and newer directors who bring a fresh perspective. The following highlights characterize our current Board of Directors:

        Board Size:    The Nominating and Governance Committee assesses the size and composition of the Board of Directors each year. Consistent with our Corporate Governance Guidelines, the Nominating and Governance Committee believes that our Board of Directors' current size is appropriate, given the size and complexity of the Company and the markets in which we operate. Over the last 20 years, the Board of Directors' size has ranged from five to ten directors, a range the Nominating and Governance Committee believes has served the Company and its stockholders well. Consistent with this historical approach, there are currently eight directors serving on the Board of Directors.

        Executive Sessions of Non-management Directors:    Our non-management directors regularly meet in scheduled executive sessions without management present. In accordance with the charter of the Nominating and Governance Committee and the By-laws, Mr. Ryan, the Chair of the Nominating and Governance Committee, also serves as the Lead Independent Director calling and chairing the executive sessions, including during the annual Board of Directors offsite, and communicating with Mr. Healey, the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer.

        Board and Committee Self-Assessments:    We recognize the critical role that Board of Directors and committee evaluations play in ensuring the effective functioning of our Board of Directors. To this end, the Lead Independent Director, supported by our Nominating and Governance Committee, oversees the annual self-assessment of the Board of Directors, and each of our Board of Directors' committees also annually conducts a self-assessment. Directors assess performance and consider various structural and procedural considerations, including the annual selection process for director nominees and

15

---

communications and interactions with management generally. The Nominating and Governance Committee periodically reviews the format of the Board of Directors and committee self-assessment processes to ensure that actionable feedback is solicited on the operation of the Board of Directors and director performance. The table set forth below provides a general overview of the annual self-assessment processes.

        Chief Executive Officer Evaluation:    The Lead Independent Director oversees an annual performance evaluation of our Chief Executive Officer. As part of this assessment, the Lead Independent Director solicits director feedback on a variety of performance considerations. The Lead Independent Director then synthesizes the directors' feedback and discusses the results with our Chief Executive Officer in a one-on-one meeting. The Lead Independent Director reports on the results of the evaluation at an executive session of the Board of Directors.

        Leadership Structure:    The Board of Directors currently combines the role of Chairman of the Board of Directors with the role of Chief Executive Officer, and this leadership structure is further enhanced by the active involvement of the Lead Independent Director. The Board of Directors regularly reviews this structure, and continues to believe that the combined Chairman and Chief Executive Officer roles, together with a strong Lead Independent Director, is an appropriate and effective leadership structure for the Company. A combined Chief Executive Officer and Chairman focuses leadership, responsibility and accountability in a single person, and facilitates efficient and frequent communication between the Board of Directors and management. The Lead Independent Director position provides for effective checks and balances to ensure the exercise of independent judgment by the Board of Directors and the ability of the independent directors to work effectively in the board setting.

        The Company initiated the Lead Independent Director position in 2004, and Mr. Harold J. Meyerman, a former director, served in that role from its inception through the beginning of 2015. Mr. Ryan assumed the role in February 2015, and continues to serve as the Company's Lead Independent Director. Mr. Ryan was selected as Lead Independent Director given his excellent qualifications, including his extensive executive management experience, particularly in previous chief executive officer roles at several public and private companies, as well as his current role as Chief Executive Officer of Press Ganey Holdings, Inc., a NASDAQ-listed company. As Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Healey brings unparalleled knowledge of the Company's business and operations to his role as Chairman. Mr. Healey is a widely recognized leader in the asset management industry. Mr. Healey joined the Company as a start-up venture, and for over twenty years, his strategic vision and leadership have shaped the Company and driven its long-term success. Similarly, given Mr. Ryan's service to our Board of Directors for over a decade, including service on all of the committees and as chair of several committees during his tenure, the Board of Directors believes that his extensive knowledge of (and participation in the execution of) the Company's corporate strategy over the long-term, along with his executive management experience outside of AMG, position him as an effective and strong Lead Independent Director.

16

---

        Recognizing the importance of the Lead Independent Director position to the Company, in 2010 the Board of Directors amended the By-laws to further enhance the responsibilities of the position, providing that the Lead Independent Director would perform many of the functions that an independent chairman would perform. The Lead Independent Director's principal responsibilities include: serving as a key source of communication between the independent directors and the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer; ensuring the flow of appropriate information to and among independent directors; leading, with the assistance of the Nominating and Governance Committee, the Board of Directors' annual self-assessment process and annual performance evaluation of the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer; and coordinating the agenda for and leading executive sessions and meetings of the independent directors.

        Risk Oversight:    It is a key responsibility of our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, President and Chief Operating Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, General Counsel and other members of our senior management team to identify, assess and manage the Company's exposure to risk. The Board of Directors plays an important role in overseeing management's performance of these functions. The Board of Directors has approved the charter of the Audit Committee, which provides that one of the primary responsibilities of the Audit Committee is the discussion of the Company's financial risks and steps management has taken to monitor and control such risks, including with respect to risk assessment and risk management policies. The Audit Committee regularly discusses with management and the Company's independent auditors the Company's risk assessment and risk management processes, including major risk exposures, risk mitigants and the design and effectiveness of the Company's processes and controls to prevent and detect fraudulent activity. Furthermore, the Audit Committee and the Board of Directors as a whole receive regular reports from management and our independent auditors on prevailing material risks and the actions being taken to mitigate them, including reports regarding the Company's business and operations. Management also reports to the Audit Committee and the Board of Directors regarding enhancements made to our risk management processes and controls in light of evolving market, business, regulatory and other conditions, including those related to privacy and data security.

        The Board of Directors recognizes that environmental, social and governance ("ESG") factors could potentially impact the Company's business and operations. Our Affiliates also consider ESG factors, and eight of our Affiliates are signatories to the United Nations Principles of Responsible Investing (UNPRI), a global network committed to the development of a more sustainable global financial system.

        Related Person Transaction Oversight:    Pursuant to its charter, the Audit Committee is responsible for reviewing any possible related person transaction identified by management or other directors and, in accordance with this authority, has determined that there have been no related person transactions requiring disclosure under Item 404(a) of Regulation S-K other than those discussed below under the caption "Other Matters—Related Person Transactions."

17

---

        Policies and Procedures Regarding Related Person Transactions:    Under the Company's written policy regarding related person transactions, the Audit Committee must approve all "related person transactions." A related person transaction is any transaction that is reportable by the Company under paragraph (a) of Item 404 of Regulation S-K in which the Company or one of its wholly-owned subsidiaries or majority-owned Affiliates is or will be a participant and the amount involved exceeds $120,000 and in which any director, nominee for director, executive officer, any person known to the Company to be a beneficial owner of 5% or more of its voting securities or an immediate family member of any of the foregoing has or will have a direct or indirect material interest. Pursuant to the policy, potential related person transactions are reported to the General Counsel who evaluates the potential transaction to determine whether it is a potential related person transaction. If it is, the General Counsel reports the potential transaction to the Audit Committee for review. The policy also authorizes the Chair of the Audit Committee to ratify, rescind or take any such other action required with respect to any related person transaction not previously approved or ratified under the policy that comes to the General Counsel's attention. The policy sets forth the standards of review to be considered in deciding whether to approve or ratify related person transactions.

        In addition, the Audit Committee has considered and adopted standing pre-approvals under the policy for limited transactions with related persons. Pre-approved transactions include (i) employment as an executive officer, if the related compensation is approved (or recommended to the Board of Directors for approval) by the Compensation Committee; (ii) any compensation paid to a director if the compensation is consistent with the Company's director compensation policies and is required to be reported in the Company's proxy statement under applicable compensation disclosure requirements; (iii) any transaction with another company at which a related person's only relationship is as an employee (other than an executive officer) or director or beneficial owner of less than 10% of that company's equity, if the aggregate amount involved does not exceed the greater of $1,000,000 or 2% of that company's total annual revenue; (iv) any charitable contribution, grant or endowment by the Company or the Company's charitable foundation to a charitable organization, foundation or university at which a related person's only relationship is as an employee (other than an executive officer) or director, if the aggregate amount involved does not exceed the greater of $1,000,000 or 2% of such charitable organization's total annual receipts; (v) any transaction where the related person's interest arises solely from the ownership of the Company's common stock and all holders of the Company's common stock received the same benefit on a pro rata basis, such as dividends; (vi) any transaction involving a related person where the rates or charges involved are determined by competitive bids; and (vii) any service provided by the Company to any related person, provided that such service is in the ordinary course of business and on substantially the same terms as those prevailing at the time for comparable services provided to non-related persons.

        Compensation Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation:    The members of the Compensation Committee during fiscal year 2015 include those individuals set forth above under "Compensation Committee," along with Mr. Harold J. Meyerman, who served as a member of the Board of Directors and the Compensation Committee until January 2015. No person who served as a member of the Compensation Committee during 2015 has been an officer or employee of the Company or has been involved in any related person transactions. No executive officer of the Company serves on the compensation committee or board of directors of another company that has an executive officer that serves (or served during 2015) on the Company's Compensation Committee or Board of Directors.

        Engagement with Our Stockholders:    Since our inception as a public company, we have maintained an active engagement with our stockholders, meeting with them extensively throughout the year as part of our investor outreach. In 2015 and 2016 year-to-date, we held approximately 450 meetings with our stockholders, including a majority of our top 30 stockholders, to discuss the Company's performance and prospects, as well as trends affecting the investment management industry. We also launched a specific outreach effort with our institutional investors in 2015 to discuss corporate governance issues affecting the Company. This involved discussions (mainly in-person) with the corporate governance teams at our largest

18

---

stockholders, as well as many others, representing in aggregate approximately one-third of our voting shares. Across our stockholder base, there is a wide variety of viewpoints regarding corporate governance issues affecting the Company; topics covered in these meetings included:

        Stockholder and Interested Party Communications:    Stockholders and other interested parties may communicate directly with the Board of Directors or the Lead Independent Director as follows:

        Availability of Corporate Governance Documents:    We maintain a Company website that includes, among other items, the Corporate Governance Guidelines; the Code of Business Conduct and Ethics applicable to all directors, officers and employees; the Code of Ethics applicable to our Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and other senior financial officers; the Insider Trading Policy and Procedures applicable to all directors, officers and employees; and the charters for the Audit, Compensation and Nominating and Governance Committees. This information is available on the "Investor Relations" section of our website, www.amg.com, under "Corporate Governance," or for the Committee charters under "Board of Directors," but is not incorporated by reference into this Proxy Statement. If we make any substantive amendment to the Code of Ethics or grant any waiver, including any implicit waiver, from a provision of the Code of Ethics to certain executive officers, we are obligated to disclose the nature of such amendment or waiver, the name of the person to whom any waiver was granted, and the date of waiver on our website or in a report on Form 8-K.

19

---

Information Regarding Executive Officers of the Company

        The name, age (as of April 1, 2016) and positions of each of our named executive officers, as well as a description of their business experience and past employment during at least the last five years, are set forth below:

20

---

Compensation Discussion and Analysis

Executive Summary

        This section provides discussion and analysis of our executive compensation program, including the elements of executive compensation, the 2015 compensation results, the rationale and process for reaching these results, and our compensation governance policies. The compensation results discussed will be those of our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Sean M. Healey, and our four other named executive officers.

        The Compensation Committee designs the executive compensation program to align management incentives with long-term stockholder interests. The executive compensation structure reflects this philosophy, with the substantial majority of total annual compensation comprising variable performance-based incentive awards, and with the significant majority in the form of long-term deferred equity. The Committee's compensation determinations for 2015 reflected this approach, and also relied on a formal assessment of our financial results, stock performance and strategic accomplishments for the year and over the long term, on both a relative and absolute basis (the "Performance Assessment"). In conducting this Performance Assessment, the Committee recognized the Company's exceptional performance for both the year and over the long term. Led by Mr. Healey and the other named executive officers, against a challenging market backdrop we achieved record operating results across all aspects of our business and executed on key strategic initiatives, including strong relative and long-term organic growth, as well as over $1.2 billion in capital deployed, including over $800 million in new Affiliate investment activity, meaningfully enhancing AMG's strategic position in attractive products and key markets around the world. While AMG's long-term stock performance remains exceptional relative to both the S&P 500® and our Peer Group (defined below), the Committee also considered the challenging market environment for the asset management industry in 2015, which resulted in a median stock price decline of -26% across publicly-traded traditional and alternative asset managers and contributed to the decline in AMG's stock price during the year, on both a relative and absolute basis. As a result, and consistent with our compensation program philosophy of aligning pay with performance, total 2015 compensation for our named executive officers declined relative to the prior year, including a 19% decrease in variable performance-based incentive compensation ("Performance-Based Incentive Compensation") for our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer.

        Throughout this Compensation Discussion and Analysis we discuss the 2015 compensation results for our named executive officers, which include equity awards granted in February 2016 in recognition of 2015 performance, and exclude equity awards granted in January of 2015 in recognition of 2014 performance, to better demonstrate how we evaluate and compensate our named executive officers. These amounts differ from the compensation reported in the Summary Compensation Table because SEC rules governing the reporting of compensation in that table require equity awards to be reported in the year of grant, even where the awards are intended to compensate executives for performance in a prior year. Please refer to the "Executive Compensation Tables" and "Equity Grant Policy" sections of this Proxy Statement for additional information.

Overview of Our Executive Compensation Program Philosophy

        The Compensation Committee has structured our executive compensation program over the long term to further several core objectives, which include the following:

•

Closely aligning executive compensation with Company performance in three principal categories: key financial metrics, stockholder value creation and strategic performance criteria



•

Attracting, retaining and motivating key members of senior management—especially Mr. Healey, a widely recognized leader in the asset management industry whose vision and leadership have shaped the Company and driven its long-term success

21

---

•

Compensating executives based on a combination of Company performance—on both a relative and absolute basis—and individual performance



•

Focusing executives on long-term performance with deferred equity awards



•

Avoiding incentives that might encourage excessive risk-taking

        These objectives inform the design of our compensation program, which includes the following components:

•

Awarding fixed and variable Performance-Based Incentive Compensation in an appropriate mix to align management incentives with stockholder value creation



•

Performing market comparisons to ensure that our compensation is in line with that of our Peer Group



•

Implementing strong compensation governance practices

Stockholder and Proxy Advisory Firm Feedback and Surveys

        At our 2015 Annual Meeting, 97% of stockholder votes cast were in favor of our named executive officer compensation, reflecting strong support for our executive compensation program design and its demonstrated linkage of pay-for-performance. To ensure that our Board of Directors, including the Compensation Committee, is apprised of stockholder and proxy advisory firm views, senior management regularly meets with and surveys these constituents regarding our executive compensation program, including as noted in the "Engagement with Our Stockholders" section of this Proxy Statement. In 2015, we met with senior representatives from Institutional Shareholder Services, Inc. and Glass, Lewis & Co., in addition to the corporate governance teams at our largest stockholders. The Compensation Committee considered the feedback and input of these parties as it made its final compensation determinations for the year. As such, and as with each prior year, this year's compensation determinations reflect enhancements to our compensation program. The enhancements this year were designed to increase transparency of the Committee's compensation determination process for our named executive officers and further evolve equity award structures.

        Our management team continues to communicate with our largest stockholders and proxy advisory firms and follow developments in their methodologies and analyses, to ensure that the Company and our Board of Directors remain apprised of current and potential future developments.

Named Executive Officer Compensation Determination Process

        The Compensation Committee's annual compensation process begins during Committee meetings early in the year and continues throughout the year, with periodic reviews of the Company's financial performance on both a relative and absolute basis and progress on various strategic objectives, as well as discussions regarding the principles and continuing effectiveness of the compensation program. The Committee, including, in particular, the Committee Chair, attends numerous meetings with its independent outside executive compensation consulting firm, Thomas E. Shea & Associates, LLC ("Shea & Associates"), to consider the compensation of the peer companies set forth in the "Market and Industry Comparison" section of this Proxy Statement (our "Peer Group"), and potential structures for incentive awards. The Committee considers the components of the compensation program (including the mix of compensation elements, market-level compensation and our compensation governance practices) in analyzing the extent to which the program furthers the Committee's objectives of aligning compensation with stockholder value creation while retaining and motivating our executives.

        As part of this process, Shea & Associates regularly provides our Compensation Committee with comprehensive data, including Peer Group long-term equity and total direct compensation, along with analyses of the Company's historical pay levels relative to our Peer Group. Shea & Associates also provides

22

---

projections regarding general executive compensation market trends among the universe of financial institutions that are relevant competitors for executive talent.

        Following year-end, the Compensation Committee conducts a comprehensive Performance Assessment of the Company's accomplishments during the year and over the long term, on both an absolute basis and relative to our Peer Group, and considers the individual contributions of our senior management team. As part of the continuous evolution of our compensation program, the Committee made further enhancements this year, which were designed to increase transparency of the Committee's compensation determination process for our named executive officers and to further evolve equity award structures. In January 2016, based upon the Performance Assessment, the Compensation Committee made final performance-based incentive cash and equity grant determinations for our named executive officers.

Exhibit 1

2015 Performance Highlights

        The Company's performance highlights for 2015 include record financial results and growth across key areas of our business, as well as the successful execution of key strategic initiatives to position us for future growth.

        The Company's results were particularly strong when viewed against the challenging environment for asset managers in 2015. Ongoing uncertainty regarding the U.S. Federal Reserve's intentions with respect to interest rates; dislocation in commodity prices and emerging markets, particularly China; and concerns regarding a global macroeconomic slowdown contributed to significant market volatility, particularly in the second half of the year, which in turn drove rising risk aversion among investor clients. Across the investment management industry, market declines impacted revenue from asset-based fees (as seen in the -2% decline, year-over-year, among AMG's Peer Group), and lower risk appetite resulted in net outflows of actively-managed client assets. AMG generated strong gross sales during the year, and while our net client cash flows as a percentage of AUM were -0.5%, AMG's Peer Group average organic decay was

23

---

-1.4% during 2015. Similarly, stockholder returns across the sector were also weak, with a median stock price decline of -26% across publicly-traded traditional and alternative asset managers. Against this difficult backdrop, the strong execution of AMG's business strategy, and the resultant record levels achieved across key financial metrics, were particularly noteworthy. While AMG's stock price declined during 2015 along with the asset management sector broadly, the Compensation Committee noted that AMG's shareholder return for the calendar year ending December 31, 2015 is a single data point for a specific calendar-year time period, and views AMG's returns over longer-term periods to be more meaningful metrics in evaluating the Company's performance. Notwithstanding AMG's stock price decline during 2015, AMG's stock price has increased approximately 10% in 2016 year-to-date, outperforming 100% of our Peer Group.

•

Record results across all key financial metrics:  Strong financial results on both a relative and absolute basis, with increases across all key financial metrics against a challenging market backdrop in 2015, including GAAP net income, GAAP earnings per share, Economic net income, Economic earnings per share, EBITDA and pro forma AUM, to the highest annual levels in Company history



–

GAAP net income of $516.0 million, an increase of 14% over the prior year, and compound annual growth rates of 44% and 30% over the 3- and 5-year periods



–

GAAP earnings per share of $9.28, an increase of 16% over the prior year, and compound annual growth rates of 41% and 27% over the 3- and 5-year periods



–

Economic net income of $691.2 million, an increase of 7% over the prior year, and compound annual growth rates of 19% and 18% over the 3- and 5-year periods



–

Economic earnings per share of $12.55, an increase of 10% over the prior year, and compound annual growth rates of 18% and 16% over the 3- and 5-year periods



–

EBITDA of $942.2 million, an increase of 5% over the prior year, and compound annual growth rates of 20% and 18% over the 3- and 5-year periods



–

AUM of $628 billion as of year-end (pro forma for investments which have since closed), an increase over the prior year against a challenging market backdrop, and compound annual growth rates of 13% and 14% over the 3- and 5-year periods



•

Outstanding long-term stockholder value creation:  AMG's stock performance continued to significantly outpace our Peer Group and indices on a long-term basis, notwithstanding the short-term decline in 2015 of -25%, which reflected the challenging market environment for the asset management industry



–

Stock performance of +61% and +99% over the trailing 5- and 10-year periods, respectively, significantly outpacing our Peer Group average



–

Stock performance of +920% since our IPO, leading our Peer Group and major indices



•

Successful execution of our product strategy:  Our strategic focus on active return-oriented products, especially in the areas of global equities and alternatives, along with strong long-term investment performance and alpha generation by our Affiliates in these areas, continues to be a differentiating factor positioning us for future success



–

Outstanding long-term performance track records of our Affiliates, in addition to numerous awards for industry-leading investment excellence, including 2015 Smart Beta Manager of the Year, 2015 Fund of Funds of the Year, Best Global Equity Fund, Best Mid-Cap Core Fund, Best Multi-Cap Growth Fund and Best Global Real Estate Fund, awarded by industry publications and providers of data and analytics, such as Lipper, Inc., Dow Jones Financial News and Global Investor / ISF

24

---

–

Enhanced our active return-oriented product set through the addition of more than 80 new products as a result of the product development and creation capabilities of existing Affiliates and our investments in new Affiliates



•

Exceptional long-term organic growth:  Over $120 billion in net client cash flows since 2010, reflecting the outstanding quality of our Affiliates, their excellent long-term investment performance, our unique position in highly attractive product areas, and the ongoing success of our global distribution strategy



•

Continued successful execution of our global distribution strategy:  Capitalized on growth opportunities in active return-oriented products by generating significant new business and, together with our Affiliates, continued to build relationships with the largest and most sophisticated clients globally—and also created incremental opportunities for our Affiliates to gain further market share across an increasingly broad range of regions and channels around the world



–

Funded a record number of new mandates, as well as numerous expansions of mandates, through every coverage region of our centralized platform, including Europe, the Middle East, Asia and Australia



–

Strengthened our global distribution platform, which enhances the growth of existing Affiliates and increases our attractiveness as a potential partner to new Affiliates—in turn increasing the scale, capacity and product diversification of our overall franchise



•

Outstanding capital deployment in new Affiliate investments:  New investment activity resulted in a substantial level of capital deployed and a significant volume of activity reviewing investment opportunities and building relationships with prospective Affiliates around the world



–

Completed six investments in 2015 and 2016 year-to-date, representing over $800 million in aggregate transaction value



–

These new Affiliates further enhanced AMG's strategic position in active return-oriented strategies, providing exposures to innovative new product areas and diversifying exposures to existing product areas



–

Conducted over 200 meetings and calls with prospects from more than 15 countries to further cultivate strong relationships with prospective new Affiliates on a global basis, effectively positioning the Company for substantial forward new Affiliate investment opportunities over time



•

Strong execution of capital management strategy:  Strengthened our balance sheet, while simultaneously returning capital to stockholders and funding substantial new Affiliate investments



–

Added significant capacity and flexibility to execute on our growth strategy through the issuance of $350 million in 10-year senior notes, as well as increased our credit facilities by $150 million to $1.65 billion, both at highly attractive rates



–

Deployed over $1.2 billion of capital across new investments and share repurchases in 2015 and 2016 year-to-date



–

Enhanced standing with credit rating agencies, including an initial credit rating by Moody's Investors Service of "A3" and an affirmed rating by Standard & Poor's of "BBB+"



–

Lowered our cost of capital, including the retirement of $140 million of senior notes

Named Executive Officer Compensation Determination Approach

        The Compensation Committee designs the executive compensation program to align pay with performance. Exhibit 2 provides an overview of our compensation structure, which was used to determine 2015 salary and Performance-Based Incentive Compensation ("Total Direct Compensation") for our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer and also provided the basis for determining the Total Direct

25

---

Compensation of our other named executive officers. This structure reflects the Committee's executive compensation program philosophy, with the substantial majority of total annual compensation comprising variable performance-based incentive awards, and the significant majority in the form of deferred equity, closely aligning management incentives with long-term stockholder interests. Consistent with our compensation program approach of aligning pay with performance, our most senior named executive officers typically receive the highest percentage of equity and performance-based awards in alignment with the targeted ranges.

Exhibit 2

        The following is a summary of the key features of the Compensation Committee's determination process, including recent enhancements designed to increase transparency of the Committee's compensation determination process and further evolve equity award structures, supporting our compensation program philosophy of aligning pay with performance:

•

Further enhanced the rigor of our Long-Term Growth Achievement Awards:  The 2015 Long-Term Growth Achievement Awards, granted in February 2016 in recognition of 2015 performance, include the following enhancements:



–

Rigorous performance measures:  For a given performance period, full delivery of awards to recipients if growth in our key financial measure—Economic earnings per share—exceeds 25%, as measured from a Base Level of $11.45 per share, with delivery of a portion of initial award if growth is between 15% and 25% or if growth exceeds that of the median of our Peer Group

26

---

–

Forward-looking performance periods:  Achievement of these rigorous performance conditions to be measured based on forward earnings over three-, four- and five-year performance periods, following a cliff vesting date three years from issuance; any portion of the award that does not become exercisable following the performance periods shall be forfeited



–

Underlying structure provides secondary performance condition:  The underlying structure of the awards is based on stock options, rather than restricted stock units; should performance conditions and vesting provisions be achieved, named executive officers will only realize value from the awards if the Company's stock price has also increased since the grant date, thereby providing a significant secondary performance condition



•

Utilized a performance-based incentive pool to determine all variable Performance-Based Incentive Compensation:  The performance-based incentive pool (the "Incentive Pool") serves as an overall cap on aggregate Performance-Based Incentive Compensation for our named executive officers. The Incentive Pool was established as a percentage of Economic net income, a key operating metric (calculated on a pre-tax, pre-compensation basis, "Adjusted Economic net income"). Consistent with the prior year's methodology, the Committee used the Incentive Pool to determine all Performance-Based Incentive Compensation, including cash bonuses and all equity awards, to continue to align the total amount of Performance-Based Incentive Compensation with Company performance.



•

Annual limit on Performance-Based Incentive Compensation for all Named Executive Officers, including the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer:  Consistent with the prior year, the Compensation Committee applied an annual limit on Mr. Healey's Performance-Based Incentive Compensation ("CEO Performance-Based Incentive Compensation") equal to the lesser of $25 million or 40% of the Incentive Pool, which represented a maximum payout of $21.8 million to Mr. Healey. This amount also served as a cap on individual Performance-Based Incentive Compensation applicable to each named executive officer.



•

Determined Performance-Based Incentive Compensation using the Performance Assessment:  The Compensation Committee determined the final amount of Performance-Based Incentive Compensation as a percentage of the maximum payout, based on the Performance Assessment—a weighted assessment of our financial results, stock performance and strategic accomplishments for the year and over the long term, on both a relative and absolute basis.



•

Established targeted allocations of Performance-Based Incentive Compensation:  The Compensation Committee established targeted allocations for determining the mix of Performance-Based Incentive Compensation, with the significant majority in the form of long-term deferred equity awards vesting over multiple years, to further the objectives of increasing stockholder value and retaining our senior management team:



–

CEO Performance-Based Incentive Compensation:  The targeted allocation of CEO Performance-Based Incentive Compensation was approximately 25% cash bonus and 75% long-term deferred equity awards; the proportion of long-term deferred equity to cash incentive compensation is meaningfully above virtually all of the firms in our Peer Group. One-third of the long-term deferred equity awards was targeted to be performance awards, granted in the form the 2015 Long-Term Growth Achievement Awards, with three-year cliff vesting and delivery further subject to rigorous pre-established, measurable performance targets tied to earnings growth.



–

Performance-Based Incentive Compensation for other NEOs:  The targeted allocation for our President and Chief Operating Officer was approximately 25% cash bonus and 75% long-term deferred equity awards, with vesting over multiple years. The targeted allocation for our Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer was approximately 30% cash bonus and 70% long-term deferred equity awards, with vesting over multiple years. In both cases, approximately one-third of the long-term deferred equity awards was targeted to be in the form the 2015 Long-Term Growth Achievement Awards, with three-year cliff vesting and delivery further subject to rigorous pre-established, measurable performance targets tied to earnings growth.

27

---

Performance-Based Incentive Compensation Determination Process

        Following year-end, the Compensation Committee conducted its Performance Assessment, based on the weighted categories discussed below, to establish the final amount of Performance-Based Incentive Compensation for 2015. In conducting this assessment, the Committee reviewed the Company's financial results, stock performance and strategic accomplishments for the year and over the long term, on both a relative and absolute basis.

Exhibit 3

28

---

2015 Performance Assessment Results

        The following Exhibit summarizes the key results that the Compensation Committee considered in its 2015 Performance Assessment. A more detailed description of each performance factor and the results of the Committee's overall assessment follow the Exhibit.

Exhibit 4

29

---

Performance Category: Key Financial Metrics

        The Compensation Committee's Performance Assessment included a review of our key financial metrics on both a relative and absolute basis. The Committee noted our record results, with all key financial metrics increasing to the highest year-end levels in Company history, notwithstanding a challenging market environment.

        The Committee also reviewed the compound annual growth rates of these financial metrics over the 1-, 3- and 5- year periods, which all remained strong. Together, these factors contributed to the Committee's recognition of exceptional performance in this category.

30

---

Exhibit 5

Note: 2015 year-end AUM is pro forma for investments which have since closed.

31

---

Note: The above chart includes both GAAP financial measures as well as publicly reported adjusted financial measures of AMG and its peers. Peer EBITDA metrics are calculated using available company data and industry standard calculation methodologies.

Performance Category: Stockholder Value Creation

        The Compensation Committee's Performance Assessment included a review of our annual and long-term stock performance, on both a relative and absolute basis. The Committee noted our strong record of long-term stockholder value creation, with stock performance of +23%, +61% and +99% over the trailing 3-, 5- and 10-year periods, respectively, significantly outpacing the increase of our Peer Group average over the trailing 5- and 10-year periods. Notwithstanding this exceptional long-term performance, the Committee also considered the -25% stock price decline in 2015 (versus the Peer Group average decline of -21%), reflecting the challenging market environment for the asset management industry, which contributed to the decline in AMG's stock price during the year, on both a relative and absolute basis.

        Across the investment management industry, market declines impacted revenue from asset-based fees, and lower risk appetite resulted in net outflows of actively-managed client assets. Stockholder returns across the sector were generally weak, with a median stock price decline of -26% across publicly-traded traditional and alternative asset managers.

32

---

Exhibit 6

Performance Category: Strategic Performance Criteria

        The Performance Assessment included a review of the Company's execution on certain strategic performance criteria, including product strategy, organic growth, global distribution, new Affiliate investments and capital management. The Compensation Committee noted the Company's significant achievements in 2015, including meaningfully expanded capabilities across our global distribution platform, substantial capital deployed through accretive investments in new Affiliates, and strong execution of our capital management strategy. The Committee's assessment recognized exceptional performance across the majority of areas in this category, as described further below.

        Product Strategy:    The Committee reviewed our execution and ongoing development of our active return-oriented product strategy, especially in the areas of global equities and alternatives, and recognized exceptional achievements in this performance category, including the following:

•

Successful implementation of a differentiated product strategy relative to our Peer Group, wherein approximately 75% of AMG's earnings are generated by global equities and alternative strategies, areas we believe to have outstanding secular growth prospects. The success of our strategic focus on attractive active return-oriented product areas is further evidenced by the exceptional organic growth we have generated over the trailing 3- and 5-year periods, notwithstanding modestly negative net client cash flows during 2015, reflecting a challenging market environment and muted investor risk appetite



•

Continued excellent investment performance of our Affiliates' active return-oriented products, while taking into account the disparity in equity market beta between U.S. and non-U.S. markets (S&P 500® -1% in 2015 compared to the MSCI EAFE -3% and MSCI EM -17%)



•

Strong progress made in Affiliates' product development strategies, further enhanced by AMG's strategy to make investments in new Affiliates, which brings additional investment strategies that broaden and enhance our overall existing product lineup

33

---

        Organic Growth:    The Committee reviewed our annual and long-term net client cash flows, on both an absolute basis and relative to our Peer Group, and recognized exceptional long-term performance in this category, notwithstanding a challenging market environment during 2015:

•

While net client cash flows were modestly negative on an absolute basis, we generated strong organic growth on a relative basis during 2015, which was above the Peer Group average for the year



–

Across the investment management industry, market declines impacted revenue from asset-based fees (as seen in the -2% decline, year-over-year, among AMG's peer group), and lower risk appetite resulted in net outflows of actively-managed client assets



–

AMG generated strong gross sales during the year, and while our net client cash flows as a percentage of AUM were -0.5%, AMG's Peer Group average organic decay was -1.4% during 2015



•

Exceptional long-term organic growth with over $120 billion in aggregate net client cash flows since 2010

Exhibit 7

34

---

        Global Distribution:    The Committee reviewed our progress in expanding our global institutional and U.S. retail distribution platforms, and recognized exceptional achievements in this performance category, including the following:

•

Ongoing momentum in our global distribution strategy, with investments in expanded capabilities resulting in the generation of significant new business as we, together with our Affiliates, continue to build relationships with the largest and most sophisticated clients around the world



•

Won mandates in every coverage region of our global platform during the year



•

Enhanced the breadth of our global client coverage across our institutional platform in Asia and Europe



•

Increased focus on and investments in our U.S. retail distribution platform, including the continued build-out of the AMG Funds executive team



•

Strengthened our global distribution platform, which enhances the growth of our existing Affiliates and increases our attractiveness as a potential partner to new Affiliates—in turn increasing the scale, capacity and product diversification for our overall franchise

        New Affiliate Investments:    The Committee reviewed our new Affiliate investment activity, including the value and number of transactions completed, the overall volume of opportunities reviewed and the continued progress in relationship development with our core prospect universe, and recognized exceptional achievements in this performance category, including the following:

•

Completion of six investments in 2015 and 2016 year-to-date, with over $800 million in aggregate transaction value



•

These new Affiliates provide significant strategic benefits and additional diversity to our business, including exposure to new innovative product areas, as well as enhancements in existing product areas, that further strengthen our strategic position in active return-oriented asset classes

35

---

•

Continued success in cultivating strong relationships with prospective new Affiliates, with over 200 meetings and calls with prospects from more than 15 countries conducted in 2015, effectively positioning us for substantial forward new Affiliate investment opportunities

        Capital Management:    The Committee reviewed our capital management activity and recognized exceptional achievements in this performance category, including the following:

•

Provided additional new investment capacity with a $350 million issue of 10-year senior notes, and increased our credit facilities by $150 million to $1.65 billion, both at highly attractive rates



•

Deployed over $1.2 billion in 2015 and 2016 year-to-date across new investments and share repurchases, reducing our share count and providing a meaningful return of capital to our stockholders while executing on substantial new Affiliate investment transaction volume



•

Received an initial rating by Moody's Investors Service of "A3" and an affirmed rating by Standard & Poor's of "BBB+", reflecting our balance sheet strength and the increasing global scale of our business



•

Lowered our cost of capital, including the retirement of $140 million of senior notes

2015 Named Executive Officer Compensation Results

        For 2015, the Compensation Committee set the size of the Incentive Pool at 6% of Adjusted Economic net income, resulting in an Incentive Pool of approximately $54.4 million. CEO Performance-Based Incentive Compensation was capped at a maximum payout equal to the lesser of $25 million or 40% of the Incentive Pool, which represented a cap of $21.8 million to Mr. Healey. This amount also served as a cap on individual Performance-Based Incentive Compensation applicable to each named executive officer. The Performance Assessment—a weighted assessment of our financial performance, stock performance and strategic accomplishments for the year and over the long term, on both a relative and absolute basis—yielded results which established the final amount of each named executive officer's Performance-Based Incentive Compensation. The Performance Assessment recognized the achievement of key strategic goals, including our exceptional financial performance, with record results in 2015 across all key financial metrics, as well as successful product strategy execution, strong relative and long-term organic growth and significant new Affiliate investment activity. While our long-term stock performance has been exceptional relative to both the S&P 500® and our Peer Group, the Committee also considered our stock price decline

36

---

in 2015 on both an absolute basis and relative to our Peer Group, reflecting a challenging market environment.

        The weighted Performance Assessment across the three performance categories resulted in a Performance-Based Incentive Compensation payout to Mr. Healey of $14.0 million, 64% of the maximum amount, reflecting the Committee's recognition of the exceptional performance across each of the financial performance and strategic accomplishments categories, and impacted by the Company's short-term stock performance. Mr. Healey's Performance-Based Incentive Compensation decreased by 19% from the prior year, consistent with our compensation program philosophy of aligning pay with performance. Of Mr. Healey's 2015 Total Direct Compensation, 95% was Performance-Based Incentive Compensation, comprising a cash bonus (27% of Performance-Based Incentive Compensation), with the remainder awarded in the form of long-term equity grants, thereby closely aligning executive compensation with long-term stockholder interests. Mr. Healey's base salary has remained unchanged at $750,000 for the past decade.

        Of the $14.0 million of Performance-Based Incentive Compensation awarded to Mr. Healey for 2015 performance, the Committee allocated 27% as a cash bonus and 73% in the form of long-term deferred equity awards vesting over multiple years, consistent with the targets established by the Compensation Committee. As in several prior years, the Committee targeted a proportion of long-term deferred equity awards which would be meaningfully higher than the Peer Group average, thereby aligning Mr. Healey's interests more closely with stockholders than the average Peer Group company. Of the long-term deferred equity awards, approximately one-third was in the form of 2015 Long-Term Growth Achievement Awards and the remainder was in the form of Long-Term Deferred Equity Awards, consistent with the Committee's targeted allocation.

        In the case of Mr. Dalton, President and Chief Operating Officer, and Mr. Horgen, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, the Compensation Committee determined a Performance-Based Incentive Compensation payment of $8.4 million for the former and $6.5 million for the latter. As compared to the prior year, the Performance-Based Incentive Compensation of both Mr. Dalton and Mr. Horgen declined 19% for 2015.

        Consistent with the targets established by the Compensation Committee, of Mr. Dalton's 2015 Total Direct Compensation, 94% was Performance-Based Incentive Compensation, comprising a cash bonus representing 28% of Performance-Based Incentive Compensation, and the remainder awarded in the form of long-term equity grants. Mr. Dalton's base salary remained unchanged at $500,000. Of the $8.4 million of Performance-Based Incentive Compensation awarded to Mr. Dalton, the Committee allocated 72% in the form of long-term deferred equity awards vesting over multiple years. Of the long-term deferred equity awards, approximately one-third was in the form of 2015 Long-Term Growth Achievement Awards and the remainder was in the form of Long-Term Deferred Equity Awards, consistent with the Committee's targeted allocation.

        Consistent with the targets established by the Compensation Committee, of Mr. Horgen's 2015 Total Direct Compensation, 93% was Performance-Based Incentive Compensation, comprising a cash bonus representing 30% of Performance-Based Incentive Compensation, with the remainder awarded in the form of long-term equity grants. Mr. Horgen's base salary remained unchanged at $500,000. Of the $6.5 million of Performance-Based Incentive Compensation awarded to Mr. Horgen, the Committee allocated 70% in the form of long-term deferred equity awards vesting over multiple years. Of the long-term deferred equity awards, approximately one-third was in the form of 2015 Long-Term Growth Achievement Awards and the remainder was in the form of Long-Term Deferred Equity Awards, consistent with the Committee's targeted allocation.

37

---

        The following table summarizes and compares total Performance-Based Incentive Compensation awarded for performance year 2015 for all of our named executive officers:

N.M. denotes "not meaningful" as Mr. Billings joined the Company in June 2014.

        The Performance-Based Incentive Compensation amounts provided to the named executive officers for the 2015 fiscal year set forth in the above table differ from the amounts disclosed in the Summary Compensation Table. Equity awards granted in recognition of performance in 2015 were granted in February 2016, and do not appear in the Summary Compensation Table, as SEC rules governing the reporting of equity compensation in the Summary Compensation Table require equity awards to be reported in the year of grant, even when the awards are intended to compensate executives for performance in a prior year. The equity awards granted in February 2016 are included as part of total 2015 Performance-Based Incentive Compensation in the above table to better demonstrate how we evaluate and compensate our named executive officers. Similarly, equity awards granted in recognition of performance in 2014 were granted in January 2015 and appear in the Summary Compensation Table for 2015, in accordance with these reporting rules. Mr. Billings joined the Company on June 30, 2014, and therefore his total 2014 Performance-Based Incentive Compensation represents such compensation for the six-month period since he joined mid-year.

        The decrease in Mr. Healey's total 2015 compensation relative to the prior year was consistent with our compensation program philosophy of aligning pay with performance. The following tables reflect compensation alignment with our stock price decline for the year, despite exceptional long-term stock performance and record financial results, including an increase in Economic earnings per share over the prior year to the highest level in Company history.

38

---

Exhibit 8

Note: Stock price performance and CAGRs calculated beginning on 12/31/2010. AMG 2015 CEO Compensation includes long-term equity earned for performance during 2015; see the "Executive Compensation Tables" section of this Proxy Statement for information regarding differences from the Summary Compensation Table.

39

---

        Each of the key elements of named executive officer compensation for 2015 is summarized below:

Exhibit 9

40

---

        The relative mix of Mr. Healey's 2015 Total Direct Compensation, comprising salary and Performance-Based Incentive Compensation, is summarized in the following charts, along with a comparison of the proportion of Performance-Based Incentive Compensation awarded as long-term deferred equity relative to our Peer Group:

Exhibit 10

        The Compensation Committee believes that 2015 Performance-Based Incentive Compensation appropriately rewarded our executives for exceptional financial performance and strategic accomplishments, while recognizing our negative stock performance for the year against the backdrop of a

41

---

challenging market environment for the asset management industry. The awards closely aligned management incentives with long-term stockholder interests, provided a basis to retain and motivate our senior executives, and reflected market compensation levels for executives at companies within our Peer Group. The Performance-Based Incentive Compensation awarded in 2015 reflects our commitment to align pay with performance, with the significant majority of compensation in the form of deferred equity-based awards—approximately one-third of which was in the form of a performance-based stock option award with delivery tied to earnings growth measured on a relative and absolute basis—and only a small portion of total compensation in cash.

Elements of Executive Compensation

        The compensation for our named executive officers comprises the following elements, designed to further the Compensation Committee's core objectives.

        Base Salary:    In determining base salary levels for our named executive officers, the Compensation Committee takes into account the executive's scope of responsibility, performance and salary history, as well as consistency within our salary structure. In addition, the Committee annually reviews the base salaries paid to executive officers of other public companies in our Peer Group. Because the Committee believes that Performance-Based Incentive Compensation—including both cash compensation as well as equity-based compensation—should constitute the substantial majority of compensation paid to our named executive officers, we target the level of base salary at the median for comparable positions in our Peer Group. In total, base salaries and other fixed compensation for the named executive officers typically represent less than 10% of their total compensation and less than 5% for our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. Base salary levels for our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer and for our President and Chief Operating Officer have remained unchanged for over a decade.

        Performance-Based Incentive Compensation:    The Compensation Committee typically grants both equity and cash awards as part of the overall performance-based award package for each executive officer. The Committee believes that deferred compensation in the form of equity-based awards provides long-term incentives that further the objectives of increasing stockholder value and retaining our senior management team. Given the Committee's objective of aligning compensation with increases in stockholder value, the Committee generally intends that the substantial majority of total compensation be equity-based, and grants of equity-based interests are therefore generally a larger portion of the variable Performance-Based Incentive Compensation than cash bonuses. Furthermore, since the Committee believes the tenure and continuity of management is a strategic imperative to creating stockholder value over the long term, in granting equity awards the Committee ensures that awards have a long-term focus, vest over multiple years, and, in certain cases, are also subject to additional pre-established, measurable performance targets.

        Performance-Based Incentive Compensation is awarded based on the results of the Compensation Committee's Performance Assessment (which weights key aspects of AMG's short- and longer-term historical performance, and considers the individual executive officer's contributions to that performance), as well as the expected contribution of the executive officer to our future performance. The Committee considers the relative mix of equity-based compensation awards against the performance-based cash compensation awarded to each executive officer in any particular year. The Committee further considers each executive's existing equity ownership, including the relative size and structure of historical grants and the portions of awards that are not yet vested. In addition, the Committee considers the performance, incentive and equity-based compensation levels of the Company and our individual named executive officers relative to our Peer Group, as well as the comparative levels of equity ownership of individual officers at such companies.

        The Compensation Committee uses the Incentive Pool to govern the awarding of all Performance-Based Incentive Compensation, which includes all compensation other than base salaries and any perquisites, and is established as a percentage of Adjusted Economic net income (calculated on a pre-tax, pre-compensation basis). Economic net income and Economic earnings per share are used by our

42

---

management and Board of Directors as our principal financial performance benchmarks, including as measures for aligning executive compensation with stockholder value. As compared to GAAP net income and earnings per share, Economic net income and Economic earnings per share primarily adjust for non-cash items resulting from our acquisition of interests in new or existing Affiliates. Economic net income and Economic earnings per share also allow for greater comparability to our Peer Group because the majority of the companies in our Peers Group do not acquire interests in new or existing Affiliates as frequently as we do. See pages 21 through 23 of our 2015 Annual Report on Form 10-K, under "Supplemental Performance Measures," for further detail on the usage and calculation of Economic net income and Economic earnings per share, including a reconciliation to the most directly comparable GAAP measure.

        Other Elements of Compensation:    We provide a 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan for all employees and generally contribute a percentage of compensation to such plans. We also provide other benefits such as medical, dental and life insurance and disability coverage to all eligible employees.

        Perquisites:    Our perquisite compensation is in the lowest quartile of our Peer Group, as we use only certain perquisite tools deemed appropriate by the Committee to meet the objectives of retaining key members of senior management and optimizing the use of their time and services to the Company. We do not provide tax reimbursements for any perquisite.

Market and Industry Comparison

        Our Compensation Committee believes that in order to retain key management team members that have a proven long-term track record of success, total compensation must be competitive relative to the market for the services of our named executive officers. The Compensation Committee used data derived from our Peer Group as one of a number of analytical tools and reference points to inform its decisions about overall compensation, compensation elements, optimum pay mix and the relative competitive landscape. The Committee places great value on the exceptional caliber of our named executive officers, as well as the strategic benefits accrued from a stable long-tenured senior management team that has led the Company since its IPO—which is reflected in the Company's outstanding long-term performance, on both an absolute basis as well as relative to our Peer Group, and market indices. Mr. Healey is a widely recognized leader in the asset management industry whose vision and leadership have built AMG over a 20-year period from an early-stage company into one of the largest asset management businesses in the industry, and attracted a world-class group of senior executives in the process. Retention of Mr. Healey and the other senior executive officers in a highly competitive market for executive talent is therefore a key priority.

        The Compensation Committee continuously reviews our Peer Group in order to ensure its ongoing relevance. In determining the Company's Peer Group on an annual basis, the Compensation Committee considers both industry and company-specific dynamics to identify the peers with which we compete for client assets, stockholders and talent. As a result, the Committee focuses on peers within the asset management industry, as well as financial services companies with significant asset management components to their businesses and does not, for example, include retail or investment banks, brokerage or custodian firms, or insurance companies. The Committee also evaluates the Peer Group to ensure that it reflects the Company's growth, overall changes in the asset management industry, and the business models, size, and scope of our competitors. The Company has grown significantly in recent years and is now one of the largest publicly-traded asset management companies globally, as measured by market capitalization. Since 2009, our market capitalization and assets under management have both increased by more than 200%. Given our strategic focus on active equity and alternative products, along with the strong execution of our growth strategy, the Company is now a top-10 global manager of active return-oriented strategies, as measured by assets under management. The addition of the Company to the S&P 500® Index in June 2014 was a direct result of our excellent execution and the resulting growth in the Company's size and our market capitalization.

43

---

        Similar to prior years, the Compensation Committee reviewed our Peer Group for 2015 compensation comparisons, applying the following principles as a guide.

Exhibit 11

        These guiding principles reflect the Compensation Committee's focus on maintaining a Peer Group that remains relevant throughout the various stages of our growth and expansion, and that reflects current developments in the businesses of our peers. The Committee believes that success in the asset management industry, in particular, relies heavily on human talent, given the service-oriented and fee-based business model, as well as the modest capital requirements of asset management companies. This is in contrast to other financial services companies, such as banks, insurance, specialty finance, brokerage and custodian firms, and financial information technology companies, which also rely on balance sheet capital, scale of operations and physical infrastructure to drive revenue and profitability. Thus, the size of the businesses competing with us for human talent, as measured by assets or revenues, does not always correspond to their profitability. Further, the Committee recognizes that certain firms within the industries that we compete with for executive talent, such as private equity firms and certain asset managers, use compensation models that are distinct from other businesses when comparing pay as a factor of assets or financial results. As a result, in reviewing the peer universe, the Compensation Committee does not specifically exclude direct competitors based on size alone.

        Further, the Compensation Committee recognizes that when assessing peer companies, reported total balance sheet assets and revenue are not comparable metrics across the asset management industry, due to accounting considerations for various peer business models as well as our own. In particular, in certain circumstances accounting rules can result in the consolidation of all of the assets of an entity in which the parent company has a control function, even though the parent only holds a small or even nominal economic interest, which can significantly inflate peer company balance sheet assets. Further, our equity method accounting of our minority investments reports our share of the Affiliates' earnings, and means we do not consolidate their results (including their revenue), which may de-emphasize the real economic contributions of these Affiliates. Given these accounting considerations, we believe that comparing peer companies in the asset management business on the basis of total assets and revenue is not always meaningful and the results can be difficult to interpret.

        In addition, the Compensation Committee recognizes that the companies within our Peer Group vary by business strategy (including those with substantial passive investment businesses versus actively managed investment strategies), product concentration (fixed income/money market products versus equity and/or alternative products), overall profitability, and stockholder returns. The nature of the roles of

44

---

executives also varies by firm. For example, our senior management team has developed a differentiated skill set and reputation to match our unique business model of pursuing long-term partnerships with outstanding boutique asset management firms. Therefore, while the Committee takes Peer Group comparisons into account, it also forms its own perspective on appropriate compensation levels, considering additional subjective factors.

        The following Exhibit lists the companies in our Peer Group, which the Compensation Committee reviewed in determining 2015 compensation for our named executive officers. We believe this Peer Group, which is unchanged from the group used for determining 2014 compensation, is consistent with our guiding principles, and includes companies that we compete with for client assets, executive talent and capital providers, including stockholders. This list indicates the other companies in our Peer Group that are also S&P 500® companies, which was one of the factors considered by the Compensation Committee in determining our Peer Group. AMG was added to the S&P 500® in June 2014 as a result of the increased global scale of our business as well as significant growth in our market capitalization, which since 2009 has increased more than 200%, exceeding the growth in market capitalization for all comparators in our Peer Group. Another factor considered by the Committee, which is commonly referenced in peer group analyses, is the Global Industry Classification Standard, or GICS, code. Within the GICS code applicable to asset management firms (which also includes other businesses in the financial services industry), there are approximately 30 U.S.-based asset management companies, from which our Compensation Committee has selected the nine companies that it believes are the most comparable based on the principles previously described.

Exhibit 12

Note: Market value represents diluted market capitalization per FactSet as of March 31, 2016; AB market value is derived by using market value per FactSet and adjusting for ownership structure. AUM as of December 31, 2015; AMG AUM is pro forma for investments which have since closed.

Compensation Governance Practices

        Our Board of Directors is committed to maintaining responsible compensation practices, and believes that rewards for our senior leaders should be commensurate with the results they achieve for our

45

---

stockholders. Our strong governance procedures and practices with respect to employment and compensation include the following:

•

No employment agreements with the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, President and Chief Operating Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, or General Counsel



•

No change in control agreements with our executives



•

The substantial majority of overall compensation is in the form of variable performance-based incentive awards, with base salary and other fixed compensation generally expected to form only a small portion of total compensation



•

Total Performance-Based Incentive Compensation of each named executive officer, including our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, is subject to an annual maximum payout, equal to the lesser of a fixed dollar amount or a percentage of the Incentive Pool



•

The significant majority of total annual compensation is in the form of variable performance-based incentive awards, and is determined based on an assessment of Company performance on both a relative and absolute basis



•

No tax reimbursements or gross-ups for any perquisites



•

An insider trading policy that prohibits hedging of Company securities



•

No pledging of Company securities by directors or officers



•

No option re-pricing or buy-outs of underwater stock options



•

Equity ownership guidelines for our named executive officers and directors requiring long-term ownership of equity totaling a multiple of base salary or directors' fees



•

A thorough risk assessment process, as described under "Risk Considerations in our Compensation Program" below



•

Double-trigger vesting upon change in control for all grants awarded after January 1, 2013



•

Mitigation of the potential dilutive impact of equity awards through share repurchases



•

A clawback policy that allows, under certain circumstances, for the recoupment of performance-based compensation from executive officers

Our Compensation Committee

        The Compensation Committee oversees our general compensation policies, establishes and reviews the compensation plans and benefit programs applicable to our named executive officers, and administers our stock option and equity incentive plans.

        The Compensation Committee currently consists of Messrs. Byrne, Ryan and Zeitlin, with Mr. Zeitlin serving as the Chair. The members of the Committee have significant experience in compensation matters from their service as executive officers and/or advisors to various public and private companies, and the Committee members collectively have extensive experience with the Company and its compensation matters. The Committee's agenda and meeting calendar are determined by the Committee, with input as appropriate from Mr. Healey, who attends meetings at the request of the Committee. In his capacity as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Healey participates in discussions with the Committee concerning the compensation of other members of executive management and the design of long-term and equity incentive plans, but does not participate in discussions regarding his own performance goals, contributions or compensation, which occur in executive sessions of the Committee and in meetings of the Committee with our independent compensation consultant. The Committee also invites Mr. Billings, General Counsel and Secretary, to attend certain meetings to discuss the design, implementation and administration of long-term incentive, equity incentive and compensation plans. The Committee has the

46

---

sole authority to approve the compensation of our named executive officers and the performance goals related to such plans and programs.

        The Compensation Committee regularly meets without management team members present. The Chair from time to time requests that all other independent directors meet with the Committee in executive sessions and otherwise regularly provides reports to the Board of Directors on compensation considerations. The Committee's independent compensation consultant participates in conference calls and meetings without management present at key points throughout the year, including meetings with the Chair of the Committee.

Compensation Consultant

        In 2015, the Compensation Committee again engaged an independent outside executive compensation consulting firm, Thomas E. Shea & Associates, LLC, to assist the Committee with compensation matters, including providing Peer Group benchmarking information and an independent analysis of how our executive and director compensation policies and practices compared to the companies in our Peer Group. In addition to a review of cash and equity compensation and perquisite arrangements across the industry, the analysis provided by Shea & Associates also considered financial metrics for our Peer Group, including market capitalization, assets under management, various measures of profitability, and stock price performance. In order to prepare its analysis for the Committee, Shea & Associates met from time to time throughout the year with our management team.

        Shea & Associates, which provides no other services to us, reported its findings directly to the Compensation Committee. A representative of Shea & Associates met with the Committee in formal Committee meetings, as well as outside Committee meetings in sessions with Committee members, particularly with the Committee Chair, at key points throughout the year to update the Committee on the status of compensation surveys and make recommendations regarding executive officer and director compensation program and levels.

        The independence of Shea & Associates has been evaluated in accordance with SEC rules, and it has been determined that its work does not raise any conflict of interest.

Severance and Potential Change in Control Compensation and Benefits

        We generally do not have employment or individual change in control agreements with our named executive officers or directors, and possible changes in control are addressed through the acceleration of vesting of equity in specific circumstances.

        Upon a change in control, outstanding equity awards vesting pursuant to our incentive plans would be accelerated for our named executive officers, as well as for our employees. In order for awards issued after January 1, 2013 to accelerate upon a change in control, there must also be a termination of employment without cause or for good reason (i.e., a "double-trigger").

        In the event of a change in control (assuming that, where applicable, the double-trigger has been met), as of December 31, 2015, awards held by named executive officers would have accelerated as set forth below. The market value amounts in the table have been calculated using a share price of $159.76, which was the closing price of our common stock on December 31, 2015. No amount would have been payable as

47

---

of December 31, 2015 with respect to the 2013 Long-Term Performance Equity Awards because such awards would continue to be subject to multiple performance-based vesting conditions.

        In July 2011, Mr. Dyson joined as Head of Global Distribution and entered into an employment agreement with our wholly-owned subsidiary, Affiliated Managers Group Limited (FSA Reference Number 506689). In 2015, Mr. Dyson received an annual base salary of £264,000 ($403,550 U.S., using the average daily exchange rate from January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015 of 1.5286 GBP/US$).

        Each named executive officer is prohibited from competing with the Company or working for a competing business, and from soliciting certain of our employees, for two years following such officer's separation from the Company. Furthermore, each named executive officer is prohibited, for one year following such officer's separation from the Company, from soliciting persons or entities that were clients at the time of or in the two years immediately prior to his separation, or that were prospective clients in the year immediately prior to their separation.

Risk Considerations in our Compensation Program

        The Compensation Committee has discussed the concept of risk as it relates to our compensation program with our management team and with Shea & Associates. The Compensation Committee does not believe the goals or the underlying philosophy of our compensation program encourage excessive or inappropriate risk-taking, or create risks that are reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company.

        Throughout our compensation program, compensation is aligned with increases in stockholder value and long-term stockholder interests, and therefore our compensation arrangements do not encourage inappropriate risk-taking. The named executive officers' salaries are fixed in amount and typically account for less than 10% of their total compensation and less than 5% for our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. For 2015, all other compensation (other than base salaries and perquisites) for named executive officers was determined using a performance-based incentive pool structure linked to specific financial performance metrics, and the total Performance-Based Incentive Compensation of each named executive officer, including our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, was subject to a maximum payout equal to the lesser of $25 million or 40% of the Incentive Pool. Further, a substantial portion of compensation is in the form of long-term equity awards, a meaningful portion of which is subject to specific pre-established performance targets, which further aligns executives' interests with those of our stockholders. These awards do not encourage excessive or inappropriate risk-taking given that the value of the awards is tied to our performance, and the awards are subject to long-term vesting schedules to help ensure that executives have significant value tied to long-term performance. In addition, to further ensure the alignment of compensation with long-term performance, we have adopted a clawback policy that allows for the recoupment of performance-based compensation from executive officers in the event of a material restatement of our financial results due to a material error within three years of the original reporting. In the event of such occurrence, the Board of Directors will review the facts and circumstances that led to the restatement and will take such actions as it deems necessary and appropriate (such as the possible recoupment of incentive compensation of an executive officer).

48

---

Equity Ownership Guidelines

        We believe that equity ownership guidelines further align the interests of named executive officers and directors with those of our stockholders. The enhanced guidelines provide that an executive officer or director should own equity in the amount of: ten times annual base salary (in the case of our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer); seven times annual base salary (in the case of the other named executive officers); or five times base annual fees for service (in the case of directors). These ownership guidelines are to be met within five years from the later of the applicable implementation of the guidelines or becoming an executive officer or director of the Company. All named executive officers and directors currently satisfy these equity ownership guidelines.

Equity Grant Policy

        We grant all equity awards, including stock options, under the terms of an equity grant policy. Generally, we grant equity awards to our named executive officers at regularly scheduled meetings of the Compensation Committee in January or February, and to directors at regularly scheduled meetings of the Compensation Committee in January or February and in July or August. If the date of a committee meeting at which equity awards are approved falls within a regularly scheduled quarterly blackout period under our insider trading policy, the awards will not become effective and priced until the closing of the last day of the blackout period following the public release of our earnings results for the prior quarter and/or year, as applicable. In all other cases, the effective grant date of any equity awards will be the date of the relevant committee meeting or written consent.

        We do not have any program, plan or practice to time equity awards to employees or directors in coordination with the release of material non-public information. If the Compensation Committee is in possession of material non-public information, either favorable or unfavorable, when equity awards are made, the Compensation Committee will not take this information into consideration when determining award amounts.

Tax Deductibility of Compensation

        Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended from time to time ("Section 162(m)"), generally disallows a tax deduction for compensation in excess of $1 million paid to any "covered employee" of a publicly held corporation (generally the corporation's chief executive officer and its next three most highly compensated executive officers, excluding the chief financial officer, in the year that the compensation is paid) unless such compensation qualifies as performance-based compensation. The Executive Incentive Plan and the 2013 Stock Incentive Stock Award Plan (the "2013 Stock Plan") were both designed to permit performance-based compensation to be paid to such covered employees. In implementing our compensation program for the 2015 fiscal year, we considered, among other things, the Executive Incentive Plan and the 2013 Stock Plan and the opportunities they afford to provide awards that are intended to meet the performance-based compensation exception under Section 162(m), as described above.

        The Compensation Committee considers the availability of a tax deduction as one of many factors considered in designing a compensation program that is intended to attract and retain executive talent and to reward our named executive officers for their contributions to the success of the Company, which the Committee believes is necessary for our success. As such, the Committee may grant awards that do not qualify for an exemption from the deduction limitations under Section 162(m) or that may otherwise be limited as to tax deductibility.

        Separately from determining the Incentive Pool used to determine Performance-Based Incentive Compensation discussed above, the Compensation Committee establishes the method for calculating a Section 162(m) compliant aggregate cap for annual incentive awards to each of our named executive officers pursuant to the relevant incentive plans. The aggregate cap, as well as each named executive officer's maximum allocable portion of the overall aggregate cap, is calculated each year in accordance

49

---

with the requirements of Section 162(m). Neither of these caps, however, serves as the basis for the Compensation Committee's compensation decisions for our named executive officers; instead, these caps serve to establish a ceiling on the amount of annual incentive awards, which the Committee can award to the named executive officers on a tax-deductible basis.

Compensation Committee Report

        The Compensation Committee has reviewed and discussed this Compensation Discussion and Analysis with our management team. Based on its review and discussions with management, the Compensation Committee recommended to the Board of Directors that this Compensation Discussion and Analysis be included in this Proxy Statement.

JIDE J. ZEITLIN, Chair
SAMUEL T. BYRNE
PATRICK T. RYAN

50

---

Executive Compensation Tables

        The following tables provide information regarding the compensation arrangements for the years indicated with respect to the Company's Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and three other most highly compensated executive officers during the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015 (collectively, the "named executive officers").

        Equity awards granted in February 2016 in recognition of performance during fiscal year 2015 do not appear in the following Summary Compensation Table or the Grants of Plan-Based Awards table because SEC rules governing the reporting of compensation in those tables require equity awards to be reported in the year of grant, even where the awards are intended to compensate executives for performance in a prior year. We have created a supplemental table that reports equity awards in the year in which they are earned, to better demonstrate how we evaluate and compensate our named executive officers. For information on the equity awards granted in February 2016 in recognition of 2015 performance, please refer to the Supplemental Table—Compensation Earned in Fiscal 2015 below, and the related discussion in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis.

Summary Compensation Table

Supplemental Table—Compensation Earned in Fiscal 2015

51

---

52

---

53

---

Grants of Plan-Based Awards in Fiscal Year 2015

54

---

Outstanding Equity Awards at 2015 Fiscal Year-End

55

---

56

---

Option Exercises and Stock Vested in Fiscal Year 2015

57

---

58

---

Director Compensation

        At the request of the Compensation Committee, Shea & Associates regularly provides a review of director compensation in the broad peer universe and in our Peer Group. This analysis includes data on total compensation for directors at such peer companies, as well as on the individual components of that compensation, such as annual retainers, meeting fees and equity awards. Shea & Associates also provides comparative data from time to time on compensation by board position (such as committee chairs and lead directors) and information on the nature of the service of particular directors in their various capacities (e.g., lead directors) at such companies. Shea & Associates also provides information from time to time to the Compensation Committee on trends in director compensation.

        In determining current compensation levels for the Company's directors, the Compensation Committee's objective is that cash compensation be set at or near the median in comparison to directors at public companies within our Peer Group, while equity compensation linked to stockholder value be higher on a relative basis. The annual fee for service by non-management directors is $80,000. Directors do not receive quarterly meeting fees. Committee fees are as follows: members of the Audit Committee receive an annual fee of $20,000, with the Chair receiving an annual fee of $35,000; members of the Compensation Committee receive an annual fee of $17,000, with the Chair receiving an annual fee of $20,000; and members of the Nominating and Governance Committee receive an annual fee of $13,000, with the Chair receiving an annual fee of $15,000. The Chair of each Committee receives the annual Chair fee in lieu of the Committee fee. In addition, the Lead Independent Director receives a fee of $100,000 for his active role as principal liaison with management of the Company and for his services as the principal contact on our Board of Directors for our stockholders and other interested parties. All directors of the Company are provided information technology and support by the Company and are reimbursed for travel expenses incurred in attending meetings of the Board of Directors and its committees, as well as Board-related activities.

        Equity grant determinations for directors are made consistent with the Compensation Committee's philosophy that compensation should be directly linked to increases in stockholder value. Directors are granted awards, on a semi-annual basis in January and July, under the Deferred Compensation Plan, in an aggregate amount of $80,000. The directors may determine how these awards are invested, and, to date, they have elected to invest all awards in the stock unit fund under the Deferred Compensation Plan. The number of stock units subject to each award is determined based on the fair market value of the Company's common stock on the grant date, with each stock unit representing one share of the Company's common stock. Directors also receive semi-annual stock option grants in January and July, with an aggregate annual grant date Black-Scholes value of $120,000. Each of these awards is subject to vesting, in 25% increments over four years. This vesting period is longer than the one-three year vesting schedules employed by companies in our Peer Group and across the market more generally.

Director Compensation in Fiscal Year 2015

        The following table sets forth information regarding the compensation earned by the Company's non-management directors in 2015. For compensation information with respect to Mr. Healey, and his services as the Company's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, please see the Summary Compensation Table and other accompanying compensation tables. Mr. Healey receives no additional compensation for his service as a director. Mr. Earle was appointed to our Board of Directors in April 2015.

59

---

        Mr. Meyerman served as a director until January 21, 2015, and all outstanding and unvested stock and option awards held by Mr. Meyerman as of such date accelerated pursuant to the terms of the applicable plans or award agreements. In recognition of Mr. Meyerman's nearly 16 years of service as a director, the Compensation Committee determined that Mr. Meyerman's estate would be permitted to exercise all of his outstanding options until the earlier of January 2017 or the applicable expiration date of the stock option. Mr. Nutt retired from the Board of Directors on June 15, 2015, and all outstanding and unvested stock awards held by Mr. Nutt as of such date accelerated pursuant to the terms of the applicable plan. In recognition of Mr. Nutt's 22 years of service, the Compensation Committee approved the accelerated vesting of all outstanding and unvested option awards held by Mr. Nutt as of the date of his retirement and provided that Mr. Nutt would be permitted to exercise all outstanding options then held by him until the earlier of the second anniversary of the date of his retirement and the applicable expiration date of the stock option.

60

---

Equity Compensation Plan Information

        The following table sets forth information regarding the securities authorized for issuance under our equity compensation plans as of December 31, 2015:

61

---

PROPOSAL 2: ADVISORY VOTE ON EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

        In accordance with the requirements of Section 14A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended ("Exchange Act"), we are again providing for a non-binding, advisory vote for stockholders to approve the compensation of our named executive officers, as disclosed in this Proxy Statement, pursuant to Item 402 of Regulation S-K.

        While this vote is advisory and not binding on the Company, the Board of Directors and the Compensation Committee value the opinions of our stockholders, and will continue to consider, among other factors, the outcome of the vote when making future compensation decisions for our named executive officers.

        In considering your vote on the compensation of our named executive officers, please review the Compensation Discussion and Analysis beginning on page 21 of this Proxy Statement. The Compensation Discussion and Analysis describes the Company's executive compensation program and the decisions that the Compensation Committee made with respect to the compensation of our named executive officers.

        Our executive compensation program is designed to enable the Company to attract, motivate and retain key persons while, at the same time, creating a close relationship between performance and compensation. In addition, the Company regularly reviews its compensation program and the overall compensation package paid to each of its named executive officers, including through the engagement of an independent compensation consultant, to assess risk and to ensure that the program is structured appropriately in order to achieve the Company's strategic goals.

        Approval of the advisory vote on executive compensation requires the affirmative vote of a majority of the shares of the Company's common stock outstanding and entitled to vote, in person or by proxy, at the Annual Meeting. Abstentions and broker non-votes will have no effect on this proposal. The Board of Directors has determined to hold an advisory vote on our named executive officers' compensation annually, with the next vote to occur at the 2017 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.

Recommendation of the Board of Directors

        The Board of Directors unanimously recommends that the Company's stockholders vote FOR the approval, on an advisory basis, of the compensation paid to our named executive officers, as disclosed in this Proxy Statement, pursuant to Item 402 of Regulation S-K. Although the vote we are asking you to cast is non-binding, the Compensation Committee and the Board of Directors value the views of our stockholders and will consider, among other factors, the outcome of the vote when determining future compensation arrangements for our named executive officers.

62

---

PROPOSAL 3: RATIFICATION OF THE
SELECTION OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

        The Audit Committee of the Board of Directors has selected PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as the Company's independent registered public accounting firm for the current fiscal year, subject to ratification by the Company's stockholders at the Annual Meeting. PricewaterhouseCoopers has acted as the Company's independent registered public accounting firm since the Company's inception. The Company has been advised by PricewaterhouseCoopers that it is a registered public accounting firm with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (the "PCAOB") and complies with the auditing, quality control and independence standards and rules of the PCAOB and the SEC. A representative of PricewaterhouseCoopers is expected to be present at the Annual Meeting to respond to appropriate questions and to make a statement if he or she so desires.

        Although stockholder ratification of the selection of PricewaterhouseCoopers is not required, the Board of Directors is nevertheless submitting the selection of PricewaterhouseCoopers to the stockholders for ratification. Should the selection of PricewaterhouseCoopers not be ratified by the stockholders, the Audit Committee will reconsider the matter. Even in the event the selection of PricewaterhouseCoopers is ratified, the Audit Committee, in its discretion, may direct the appointment of a different independent registered public accounting firm at any time during the year if it determines that such a change is in the best interests of the Company and its stockholders.

        Ratification of the selection of PricewaterhouseCoopers as our independent registered public accounting firm for the current fiscal year requires the affirmative vote of a majority of the shares of common stock cast at the Annual Meeting. Abstentions will have no effect on this proposal.

Recommendation of the Board of Directors

        The Board of Directors believes that the selection of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as the Company's independent registered public accounting firm is in the best interests of the Company and its stockholders and, therefore, unanimously recommends that the Company's stockholders vote FOR this proposal.

63

---

AUDIT COMMITTEE REPORT

        The Audit Committee currently consists of Messrs. Byrne, Churchill, Earle and Ryan, and Ms. Palandjian, each an independent director of the Company, with Mr. Churchill serving as the Chair of the Audit Committee.

        The Audit Committee's purpose is to assist the Board of Directors in oversight of the Company's internal controls and financial statements and the audit process. The Board of Directors has determined in its business judgment that all members of the Audit Committee are "independent," as is required by the listing standards of NYSE and under SEC rules.

        Management is responsible for the preparation, presentation and integrity of the Company's financial statements, accounting and financial reporting principles and internal controls and procedures designed to assure compliance with accounting standards and applicable laws and regulations. The independent registered public accounting firm, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, is responsible for performing an independent audit of the consolidated financial statements in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (the "PCAOB").

        In performing its oversight role, the Audit Committee has reviewed and discussed the audited financial statements with management and the independent registered public accounting firm. The Audit Committee has also discussed with the independent registered public accounting firm the matters required to be discussed by the Statement on Auditing Standards No. 61, as amended (AICPA, Professional Standards, Vol. 1, AU section 380), as adopted by the PCAOB in Rule 3200T. The Audit Committee has received the written disclosures and the letter from the independent registered public accounting firm required by applicable requirements of the PCAOB regarding the independent registered public accounting firm's communications with the Audit Committee concerning independence, and has discussed with the independent registered public accounting firm the independent registered public accounting firm's independence.

        Based on the reports and discussions described in this report, and subject to the limitations on the role and responsibilities of the Audit Committee referred to below and in its charter, the Audit Committee recommended to the Board of Directors that the audited financial statements be included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015.

        The Audit Committee's role is one of oversight, and members of the Audit Committee rely without independent verification on the information provided to them and on the representations made by management and the independent registered public accounting firm. Accordingly, the Audit Committee's oversight does not provide an independent basis to determine that management has maintained appropriate accounting and financial reporting principles or appropriate internal controls and procedures designed to assure compliance with accounting standards and applicable laws and regulations. Furthermore, the Audit Committee's considerations and discussions referred to above do not assure that the audit of the Company's financial statements has been carried out in accordance with the standards of the PCAOB, that the financial statements are presented in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles or that PricewaterhouseCoopers is in fact "independent."

        The Audit Committee operates pursuant to a charter that was most recently adopted by the Board of Directors in October 2015 and is available on the Company's website at www.amg.com.

DWIGHT D. CHURCHILL, Chair
SAMUEL T. BYRNE
GLENN EARLE
TRACY P. PALANDJIAN
PATRICK T. RYAN

64

---

Principal Accountant Fees and Services

        The following table sets forth information regarding the fees for professional services rendered by the Company's independent registered public accounting firm, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, in each of the last two fiscal years:

        In making its determination regarding the independence of PricewaterhouseCoopers, the Audit Committee considered whether the provision of the services covered in the sections entitled "Audit-Related Fees" and "Tax Fees" was compatible with maintaining such independence.

        The appointment of the independent registered public accounting firm to audit the Company's financial statements is approved each year by the Audit Committee. At the beginning of the year, the Audit Committee also evaluates other potential engagements by the Company of the accounting firm and approves or rejects each service considering (among other factors) the possible impact of each non-audit service on the accounting firm's independence from management. In accordance with its charter, the Audit Committee pre-approves all auditing services and the terms thereof and any non-audit services provided by the independent registered public accounting firm unless an exception to such pre-approval exists under the Exchange Act or the rules of the SEC. The Audit Committee carefully considers the fees that are proposed to be paid in connection with the approval of audit and non-audit services, and then closely monitors the fees incurred in connection with the provision of such services throughout the year. At each meeting, the Audit Committee receives updates from management on the services that have been provided and fees incurred; from time to time, the Audit Committee may also consider and approve the provision of additional services. In the event that a need arises for the approval of additional services between meetings, the services would be considered and provisionally approved by a designated member of the Audit Committee who would present the scope and fees of the services provisionally pre-approved at the following meeting of the Audit Committee.

65

---

SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF MANAGEMENT
AND CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS

        The following table sets forth information as of March 15, 2016 (unless otherwise noted) regarding the beneficial ownership of common stock by (i) persons or "groups" (as that term is used in Section 13(d)(3) of the Exchange Act) known by us to be the beneficial owner of more than 5% of the common stock of the Company, (ii) executive officers, (iii) directors and (iv) directors and executive officers as a group. Except as otherwise indicated, we believe, based on information furnished by such persons, that each person listed below has sole voting and investment power over the shares of common stock shown as beneficially owned, subject to community property laws, where applicable.

66

---

67

---

OTHER MATTERS

Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance

        Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act requires our executive officers and directors, and persons who own more than 10% of a registered class of the Company's equity securities, to file reports of ownership and changes in ownership of our equity securities with the SEC and NYSE. Executive officers, directors and greater than 10% stockholders are required by SEC regulations to furnish to the Company copies of all Section 16(a) forms that they file. To our knowledge, based solely on a review of copies of such reports, all Section 16(a) filing requirements applicable to our executive officers, directors and greater than 10% beneficial owners have been satisfied, except that a Form 4 filing (in connection with shares automatically surrendered to the Company on each of June 30, 2014 and 2015 for settlement of tax withholding obligations) reporting a total of 515 shares was inadvertently filed late for Mr. Billings due to an administrative error.

Related Person Transactions

        We previously granted awards of units of profits interests under the 2010 Long-Term Equity Interests Plan, the 2011 Long-Term Equity Interests Plan and the 2012 Long-Term Equity Interests Plan to certain of our named executive officers as part of our compensation program, all of which were fully vested as of December 31, 2015. A portion of the vested units under the 2010 Long-Term Equity Interests Plan was available for sale to the Company at fair value in the first quarter of 2016, payable in cash or shares of our common stock. In the first quarter of 2016, Mr. Healey, the Company's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, and Mr. Dalton, the Company's President and Chief Operating Officer, each elected to put a portion of the units awarded to them under the 2010 Long-Term Equity Interests Plan, which were purchased by the Company for cash purchase prices of $4.0 million and $2.0 million, respectively.

        Our executive officers and directors may invest from time to time in funds advised by our Affiliates on substantially the same terms as other investors.

Director Removal Provision of our Charter

        Section 5 of Article VI of our Amended and Restated Certification of Incorporation (the "Charter") provides that our directors may be removed only for cause. In light of a recent ruling of the Delaware Court of Chancery, we will not attempt to enforce this provision and our Board of Directors is considering removing it from our Charter.

Expenses of Solicitation

        The cost of solicitation of proxies will be borne by us. In an effort to have as large a representation of stockholders at the Annual Meeting as possible, special solicitation of proxies may, in certain instances, be made personally or by mail, telephone or other electronic means by one or more of our employees or by a proxy solicitor. We also may reimburse brokers, banks, nominees and other fiduciaries for postage and reasonable clerical expenses of forwarding the proxy materials to their principals who are beneficial owners of common stock.

        The Company has retained Innisfree M&A Incorporated, 501 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10022 for services in connection with the solicitation of proxies for a fee not to exceed $25,000.

Stockholder Proposals

        Any stockholder proposals submitted pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 14a-8 and intended to be presented at the Company's 2017 Annual Meeting of Stockholders must be received by us at our principal executive offices on or before December 30, 2016 to be eligible for inclusion in the Proxy Statement and form of proxy card to be distributed by the Board of Directors in connection with such meeting.

68

---

        Any stockholder proposals (including recommendations of nominees for election to the Board of Directors) intended to be presented at the Company's 2017 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, other than a stockholder proposal submitted pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 14a-8, must be received in writing at our principal executive offices no earlier than February 14, 2017, nor later than March 31, 2017, together with all supporting documentation required by the By-laws.

        As required by the By-laws, a stockholder's proposal nominating a director must be sent to the attention of the Company's Secretary and include: (1) the name, age, business address and residence address of the proposed nominee, (2) the principal occupation or employment of the proposed nominee, (3) the class and number of shares of the Company's capital stock that are beneficially owned by the proposed nominee on the date of such stockholder proposal and (4) the consent of the proposed nominee to serve as a director if elected. A stockholder's proposal shall further set forth, among other details, information about the beneficial ownership of capital stock by the stockholder making the proposal, such stockholder's name and address and a description of all arrangements or understandings between such stockholder and the proposed nominee and any other person or persons (naming such person or persons) pursuant to which the nomination is to be made by such stockholder. For more complete information on these requirements, please refer to our By-laws.

Householding of Proxy Statement

        Some banks, brokers and other nominee record holders may be participating in the practice of "householding" proxy statements and annual reports. This means that only one copy of the Notice of Internet Availability or this Proxy Statement and the 2015 Annual Report on Form 10-K may have been sent to multiple stockholders in your household. We will promptly deliver a separate copy of our Proxy Statement and 2015 Annual Report on Form 10-K to you if you write or call us at the following address or telephone number: Affiliated Managers Group, Inc., 777 South Flagler Drive, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401-6152, Attention: Investor Relations, (617) 747-3300. If you would like to receive separate copies of these materials in the future, or if you are receiving multiple copies and would like to receive only one copy for your household, you should contact your bank, broker or other nominee record holder, or you may contact us at the above address and telephone number.

Other Matters

        The Board of Directors does not know of any matters other than those described in this Proxy Statement that will be presented for action at the Annual Meeting. If other matters are presented, proxies will be voted in accordance with the discretion of the proxy holders.

        For those stockholders who receive the Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials, this Proxy Statement and the 2015 Annual Report on Form 10-K are available at www.proxyvote.com. In addition, a copy of the 2015 Annual Report on Form 10-K will be provided without charge upon the written request of any stockholder to Affiliated Managers Group, Inc., 777 South Flagler Drive, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401-6152, Attention: Investor Relations, and may be found on the Company's website at www.amg.com. The 2015 Annual Report on Form 10-K is not a part of the Company's proxy solicitation materials.

        REGARDLESS OF THE NUMBER OF SHARES YOU OWN, YOUR VOTE IS IMPORTANT TO THE COMPANY. PLEASE SUBMIT A PROXY BY INTERNET, BY TELEPHONE OR BY RETURNING A COMPLETED, SIGNED AND DATED PROXY CARD OR VOTING INSTRUCTION FORM.

69

---

QuickLinks

PROXY STATEMENT SUMMARY
Supplemental Table—Compensation Earned in Fiscal 2015
PROPOSAL 1: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS
COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
Executive Compensation Tables
Summary Compensation Table
Supplemental Table—Compensation Earned in Fiscal 2015
Grants of Plan-Based Awards in Fiscal Year 2015
PROPOSAL 2: ADVISORY VOTE ON EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
PROPOSAL 3: RATIFICATION OF THE SELECTION OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
AUDIT COMMITTEE REPORT
SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF MANAGEMENT AND CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS
OTHER MATTERS