UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

SCHEDULE 14A

Proxy Statement Pursuant to Section 14(a) of

the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Amendment No.             )

Filed by the Registrant ☒

Filed by a Party other than the Registrant ☐

Check the appropriate box:

AFFILIATED MANAGERS GROUP, INC.

(Name of Registrant as Specified In Its Charter)

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

Payment of Filing Fee (Check the appropriate box):

AFFILIATED MANAGERS GROUP, INC.

777 South Flagler Drive

West Palm Beach, Florida 33401

NOTICE OF ANNUAL MEETING OF STOCKHOLDERS

TO BE HELD ON JUNE 12, 2018

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the 2018 Annual Meeting of Stockholders (the “Annual Meeting”) of Affiliated Managers Group, Inc. (the “Company”) will be held on Tuesday, June 12, 2018, 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:

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 May 1, 2018, we will mail to our stockholders a Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials (the “Notice”) containing instructions on how to access the Proxy Statement and our 2017 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 over the 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 2017 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 16, 2018 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 over the Internet, by telephone or by 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.

By Order of the Board of Directors.

David M. Billings,

General Counsel and Secretary

West Palm Beach, Florida

April 30, 2018

AFFILIATED MANAGERS GROUP, INC.

777 South Flagler Drive

West Palm Beach, Florida 33401

PROXY STATEMENT

FOR 2018 ANNUAL MEETING OF STOCKHOLDERS

TO BE HELD ON JUNE 12, 2018

April 30, 2018

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 2018 Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be held on Tuesday, June 12, 2018, 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 nine 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 May 1, 2018, 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 2017 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 over the 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 2017 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 16, 2018 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 54,315,146 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.

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 (“NYSE”).

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 over the Internet or by telephone, or by returning a completed, signed and dated proxy card or voting instruction form. If you vote over the Internet or by 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 office at 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 over the Internet or by 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, along with picture identification. 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 2018 Annual Meeting of Stockholders. You should read the entire Proxy Statement carefully before voting.

3

Additional information on non-GAAP financial performance measures, including reconciliations to the most directly comparable GAAP measure, can be found in our Annual Report on Form 10-K under “Supplemental Financial Performance Measures.” Aggregate fees (previously referred to as Aggregate revenue) is an operating measure that consists of the total asset- and performance-based fees earned by all of our Affiliates, as further described in our Annual Report on Form 10-K.

4

5

6

Following our 2017 Annual Meeting, the Compensation Committee increased engagement with stockholders and proxy advisory firms on our executive compensation program and governance practices, and revised certain components of our compensation program to reflect evolving best practices in the asset management industry and for large capitalization public companies more generally.

The collective feedback from this outreach effort was taken into account and is reflected in the enhancements made to our compensation program this year, as well as in the Committee’s final compensation determinations.

7

8

Total 2017 CEO compensation declined -10% compared to 2016, reflecting the following:

In addition, the composition of CEO compensation changed materially in 2017, with a significant increase in the proportion of performance-based equity awards, offset by decreases in the proportion and amount of both cash compensation and time-based equity awards. As a result, performance-based equity awards were 60% of total CEO equity incentive awards and were the largest component of CEO total compensation. These awards are subject to three-year cliff vesting, with delivery tied to rigorous return on equity targets that align management incentives with the strategic goals of growing earnings and effectively managing capital.

The above tables include equity awards granted to our named executive officers in January 2018 in recognition of 2017 performance (and exclude equity awards granted in January 2017 in recognition of 2016 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 require equity awards to be reported in the fiscal 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.

9

PROPOSAL 1: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS

Introduction

Our Board of Directors currently consists of nine members. At the Annual Meeting, nine directors are expected to be elected to serve until the 2019 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 Mses. Tracy P. Palandjian and Karen L. Yerburgh (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 nine Nominees, Messrs. Byrne, Churchill, Earle, Ferguson, Ryan and Zeitlin, and Ms. Palandjian, have no material relationship with the Company and, therefore, are independent for purposes of 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 must 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.

10

Information Regarding the Nominees

The following table sets forth the name, age (as of April 1, 2018), tenure and other information of each Nominee, along with the committees of the Board of Directors on which each Nominee currently serves.

11

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

12

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.

13

14

15

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:

16

Board of Directors: During 2017, the full Board of Directors met six times. Each incumbent member of the Board of Directors in 2017 attended over 80% 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 2017 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 nine 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 its determinations based upon individual evaluations of these directors’ employment or board of directors affiliations, compensation history and any commercial, family or other relationships with the Company. There were no transactions between any director and the Company for the Board of Directors’ consideration in determining the independence of any independent director. Members of the Board of Directors 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 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 nine times during 2017. 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 incentive plans. The Compensation Committee met four times during 2017. 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, overseeing CEO and other key executive succession planning and maintaining our Corporate Governance Guidelines. The Nominating and Governance Committee met four times during 2017. 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

17

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 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, including nominees currently serving as directors of the Company, the Nominating and Governance Committee takes into account a number of factors, including the following qualifications: the nominee must 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 the following factors:

In considering diversity, the Nominating and Governance Committee considers diversity of background and experience, as well as ethnicity, gender and other forms of diversity. The Nominating and Governance Committee recognizes the importance of gender diversity, in particular, as an important factor to consider when evaluating the composition of the Board of Directors. 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 are highlights on the composition of our current Board of Directors:

18

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 twenty 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 nine directors serving on the Board of Directors.

Executive Sessions of Non-Executive Directors: Our non-executive 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, responsible for 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 and Individual Director Assessments: We recognize the critical role that Board of Directors and committee evaluations play in ensuring the effective functioning of our Board of Directors, including in assessing candidates for directorship. 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 of each committee of the Board of Directors. Directors assess performance and consider various structural and procedural considerations, including the annual selection process for director nominees and 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 Nominating and Governance Committee also oversees annual individual director assessments as part of the recommendation process for director nominees. The table set forth below provides a general overview of the annual self-assessment and director 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.

Succession Planning: The Nominating and Governance Committee has primary responsibility for CEO and other key executive succession planning. Succession and executive development are discussed by the committee both with our Chief Executive Officer present, as well as without our Chief Executive Officer present in executive sessions.

Director On-Boarding and Training: When a new non-executive director joins the Board of Directors, we provide an orientation program that includes personal briefings by senior management on the Company’s operations, strategic plans, financial statements, governance, and key policies and practices. New directors also undergo in-depth training on the work of each committee of the Board. Throughout their tenure on the Board, each director is expected to

19

maintain the necessary knowledge and information to perform his or her responsibilities as a director. To assist the directors in understanding the Company and its industry and maintaining the level of expertise required for directors, the Company may, from time to time, offer Company-sponsored continuing education programs or presentations, including sessions on select topics during the annual Board of Directors offsite. Additional training is also provided when a director assumes a leadership role, such as becoming the chair of a committee.

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 role, 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 non-executive directors to work effectively in the board setting.

The Company initiated the Lead Independent Director position in 2004, and 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. 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.

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 non-executive directors and the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer; ensuring the flow of appropriate information to and among non-executive 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 non-executive directors.

20

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 environmental, social and governance (“ESG”) factors, including privacy and data security.

21

Corporate Environmental and Social Responsibility: We believe that sound corporate citizenship and attention to governance and environmental principles are essential to our success and that of our Affiliates. We are committed to operating with integrity, contributing to the local communities surrounding our global offices, promoting diversity and inclusion, developing our employees and being thoughtful stewards of natural resources. We are also focused on the security of our data and safeguarding our clients’ privacy. Our Board of Directors provides oversight of these ESG topics, and is committed to supporting the Company’s efforts to operate as a sound corporate citizen. We have a cross-functional Sustainability Committee with oversight responsibility of our policies and operational controls of environmental, health and safety, and social risks. The Sustainability Committee includes members of our executive management team and reports to the Board of Directors at least annually. We believe that an integrated approach to business strategy, corporate governance and corporate citizenship creates long-term value. The following summary highlights certain of our policies and initiatives in these areas. To learn more, please see the “Responsibility” section of our website at www.amg.com/responsibility.html.

22

Related Person Transaction Oversight: Pursuant to its charter, the Audit Committee is responsible for reviewing any 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.”

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 2017 include those individuals set forth above under “Compensation Committee.” No person who served as a member of the Compensation Committee during 2017 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 2017) 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. We value the interest and feedback of our stockholders, and we are committed to maintaining an active dialogue to ensure that we understand the priorities and concerns of our stockholders with respect to best practices for governance matters and executive compensation. We conduct stockholder outreach throughout the year to engage with stockholders, and regularly report back to our Board of Directors on these engagements and on specific issues to be addressed.

23

In 2017 and 2018 year-to-date, we held over 300 meetings with our stockholders to discuss the Company’s performance and prospects, as well as trends affecting the investment management industry. We also conducted a specific outreach effort to discuss corporate governance issues as well as our philosophy and practices relating to our executive compensation program, and asked stockholders for input on our compensation program design and governance practices. This involved an outreach to over 200 stockholders, and correspondence and discussions with the corporate governance teams at our largest stockholders, as well as many others.

The Board of Directors and its committees considered the feedback and input from this stockholder outreach effort. The Compensation Committee in particular solicited follow-up input throughout the year and into 2018 from top institutional investors and proxy advisory firms—reflecting a dynamic feedback process. The collective feedback and input was taken into account and is reflected in the decision-making process and the enhancements made to our governance and executive compensation programs this year, including those described herein.

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:

24

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; 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—Policies, Procedures and Guidelines,” or for the Committee charters under “Corporate Governance—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.

Information Regarding Executive Officers of the Company

The name, age (as of April 1, 2018) and positions of each of our 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:

25

Compensation Discussion and Analysis

Executive Summary

This section provides discussion and analysis of our executive compensation program, including the elements of executive compensation, the 2017 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 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 in the form of variable performance-based incentive awards, the significant majority of which are in the form of equity incentive awards, and with delivery of more than half of these equity incentive awards tied to the achievement of rigorous pre-established performance targets. For performance year 2017, in response to evolving best practices in compensation program and award structure designs, along with feedback received during a comprehensive stockholder outreach, the Compensation Committee implemented meaningful enhancements to our executive compensation program, which impacted both the amounts and types of compensation awarded to our named executive officers. These enhancements, which are described in further detail below, include changes to our equity award structures, a reduction in the caps on named executive officer compensation, a new assessment process for determining cash incentive awards, and expanded disclosure describing the compensation program and award determination process.

The Committee’s compensation determinations for 2017 reflected its long-term philosophy of aligning pay with performance, and relied on formal assessments of AMG’s performance and accomplishments for the year and over the long term, on both a relative and absolute basis (the “Performance Assessments”). In conducting the Performance Assessments, the Committee recognized the Company’s strong performance for both the year and over the long term. Led by Mr. Healey and the other named executive officers, we achieved record results across our business for the year, including record results on an absolute basis across all key financial and operating performance measures, positive organic growth and a stock price increase of +41% for the year, outperforming our Peer Group average and median as well as major global equity indices. These results occurred in an environment that remained challenging for active asset managers, as robust equity markets throughout the year contributed to market dynamics that continued to favor passive products. However, despite our strong stock performance in 2017, the Committee also recognized that our stock price was modestly negative over the trailing 3-year period, reflecting the challenging market environment for active asset managers over this period. As a result of the Committee’s consideration of our 3-year stock performance and our relative financial results over the year, and of the impact of our recent compensation program enhancements, total 2017 compensation for our named executive officers declined relative to the prior year. This included a -10% decrease in the total and variable performance-based incentive compensation (“Performance-Based Incentive Compensation”) granted to our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, accompanied by similar declines for our other named executive officers—consistent with our compensation program philosophy of aligning pay with long-term performance.

Throughout this Compensation Discussion and Analysis we discuss the 2017 compensation results for our named executive officers, which include equity awards granted in January 2018 in recognition of 2017 performance, and exclude equity awards granted in January 2017 in recognition of 2016 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 fiscal 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.

26

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:

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

Stockholder and Proxy Advisory Firm Feedback and Surveys

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 and governance matters. As part of this process, we conduct regular outreach initiatives with the corporate governance teams at our largest stockholders, as well as representatives from Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. and Glass, Lewis & Co.

Over the long term, stockholders have expressed strong support for our executive compensation program design and its demonstrated linkage of pay-for-performance. However, while our 2015 and 2016 Say-on-Pay proposals each received support from more than 90% of stockholder votes cast, our 2017 Say-on-Pay proposal received support from 62% of stockholder votes cast. In light of these results, the Compensation Committee increased engagement with stockholders on our executive compensation practices, and revised certain components of our executive compensation program to reflect evolving best practices in the asset management industry and for large capitalization public companies more generally. As described in the “Engagement with Our Stockholders” section of this Proxy Statement, during 2017, we undertook a comprehensive outreach effort with stockholders to discuss a broad range of issues, including executive compensation and governance matters.

The Compensation Committee considered the feedback from this outreach effort and solicited follow-up input throughout the year and into 2018 from top institutional investors and proxy advisory firms. The collective feedback and input were taken into account and are reflected in the enhancements made to our compensation program this

27

year, as well as in the Committee’s final compensation determinations. These enhancements include the following, in response to stockholder and proxy advisory firm comments:

Exhibit 1

The Compensation Committee recognizes that in enhancing the compensation program, stockholder input is critical for ensuring the continued alignment of management and stockholder interests, and the Committee promotes an active process of stockholder engagement throughout the year. Our management team continues to communicate with our largest stockholders and proxy advisory firms, and to 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.

28

Named Executive Officer Annual Compensation Determination Process

The Compensation Committee’s annual compensation process begins during Committee meetings early in the fiscal 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, meets with its independent outside executive compensation consulting firm, Thomas E. Shea & Associates, LLC (our “Compensation Consultant”), at key points throughout the year 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 discussed above, the Committee also seeks feedback from stockholders and proxy advisory firms in an ongoing engagement cycle, and takes that feedback into account in both enhancing the compensation program design, as well as in the Committee’s final compensation determinations for the year.

As part of this process, our Compensation Consultant regularly provides the Compensation Committee with comprehensive data, including Peer Group equity incentive awards and total direct compensation, along with analyses of the Company’s historical pay levels relative to our Peer Group. Our Compensation Consultant also provides projections regarding general executive compensation market trends among other S&P 500^® companies, as well as the universe of financial institutions that are relevant competitors for executive talent.

Following year-end, the Compensation Committee conducts comprehensive Performance Assessments 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 each of the members of our senior management team. As part of the continuous evolution of our compensation program and in response to the stockholder engagement process discussed above, the Committee made further enhancements this year to further evolve our executive compensation program design and our equity award structures. In January 2018, based upon the Performance Assessments, the Compensation Committee made final performance-based incentive cash and equity award determinations for our named executive officers.

29

Exhibit 2

2017 Performance Highlights

The Company’s performance highlights for 2017 include record results across all key financial and operating metrics and growth across 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 an operating environment that remained challenging for active asset managers in 2017, as robust equity markets throughout the year contributed to market dynamics that continued to favor passive products. We achieved record assets under management of $836.3 billion at year-end, reflecting the long-term investment outperformance of our alpha-generating Affiliates, organic growth from positive net client cash flows and the ongoing execution of our growth strategy.

Named Executive Officer Annual Compensation Determination Process Review Period Preliminary Assessment Final Assessment Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Post Year-End Review compensation philosophy and long-term performance Review initial assessment of Peer Group compensation provided by our Compensation Consultant Review final Peer Group compensation arrangements and financial results provided by our Compensation Consultant Review updated analysis of the compensation landscape, Peer Group compensation and the marketplace for the services of the Company’s senior management Review Company performance and accomplishments for the year and over the long term Discuss long-term incentive plan objectives Evaluate the Company’s absolute and relative financial performance on a year-to-date basis; review financial projections Review the Company’s Say-on-Pay vote results and consider market data Solicit and review stockholder and proxy advisory firm feedback Evaluate relative financial and stock performance metrics vs. our Peer Group, and compare financial results to projections Discuss financial and strategic objectives; review financial projections Discuss potential implications for executive compensation Solicit and review stockholder and proxy advisory firm feedback Evaluate the Company’s absolute and relative financial performance on a year-to-date basis Incorporate final performance factors into Short-Term and Long-Term Performance Assessments Evaluate the Company’s absolute and relative financial performance on a year-to-date basis Evaluate the Company’s absolute and relative financial performance on a year-to-date basis Discuss potential implications for executive compensation Consider final structure and mix of awards, and conduct Performance Assessments Discuss potential implications for executive compensation Finalize award amounts, mix and structure

30

Additional information on non-GAAP financial performance measures, including reconciliations to the most directly comparable GAAP measure, can be found in our Annual Report on Form 10-K under “Supplemental Financial Performance Measures.” Aggregate fees (previously referred to as Aggregate revenue) is an operating measure that consists of the total asset- and performance-based fees earned by all of our Affiliates, as further described in our Annual Report on Form 10-K.

31

Named Executive Officer Compensation Determination Approach

The Compensation Committee designs the executive compensation program to align pay with performance. The following Exhibit provides an overview of our compensation structure, which was used to determine 2017 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 Compensation of our other named executive officers. This structure reflects the Committee’s executive compensation program philosophy of closely aligning management incentives with long-term stockholder interests, with the substantial majority of Total Direct Compensation in the form of variable performance-based incentive awards, the significant majority of which are in the form of equity incentive awards, and with delivery of more than half of these equity incentive awards tied to the achievement of rigorous pre-established performance targets. Consistent with our compensation program approach of aligning pay with performance, our most senior named executive officers typically receive the closest alignment with the targeted ranges.

32

Exhibit 3

The following is a summary of the key features of the Compensation Committee’s compensation determination process, including recent enhancements to further evolve our equity award structures, reflecting the feedback from our stockholder engagement process and further supporting our compensation program philosophy of aligning pay with performance:

Named Executive Officer Annual Compensation Structure Base Salary 5-10% of Total Direct Compensation Performance-Based Incentive Compensation 90-95% of Total Direct Compensation is targeted to be variable and based on Company performance Cash Bonus Targeted at 30% of Performance-Based Incentive Compensation Determined Using Short-Term Incentive Compensation Scorecard Long-Term Performance Achievement Awards Targeted at 60% of Equity Incentive Awards Targeted at 70% of Performance-Based Incentive Compensation Determined Using Long-Term Incentive Compensation Scorecard Long-Term Deferred Equity Awards Targeted at 40% of Equity Incentive Awards

33

34

Short-Term Performance-Based Incentive Compensation Determination Process

For 2017 compensation decisions, the Compensation Committee introduced a new process for determining cash bonus awards for named executive officers, separate from the Performance Assessment for determining equity incentive awards. Under this process, the Compensation Committee set a maximum cash bonus based on peer and market data, to promote relative pay alignment, which for the 2017 performance year was set at $4.5 million for our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. Following year-end, the Compensation Committee conducted a Short-Term Incentive Performance Assessment to produce a score based on the weighted categories discussed below, which was applied to the maximum cash bonus to establish a cash bonus award amount. In conducting this assessment, the Committee evaluated contributions and progress over the year in two equally weighted categories, assessing business initiatives and financial performance, and reviewing the factors set forth in the table below. These include quantitative financial factors, as well as qualitative factors that recognize key company and individual achievements. This Performance Assessment process links compensation to performance, as awards are determined after the fiscal year-end based on a review of actual performance for the year.

Exhibit 4

The Compensation Committee’s assessment includes a comparison of our actual results against targets that are set based on projected performance levels reviewed during the Review Period, and are designed to align management incentives with stockholder value creation. These targets include Economic earnings per share and EBITDA margin (Adjusted EBITDA as a percentage of both Aggregate fees and of GAAP Revenue), which together track the efficiency, stability and growth of our earnings.

35

The Compensation Committee recognized strong performance for the year across the primary financial performance metrics relative to targets, with Economic earnings per share of $14.60 for the year and an EBITDA margin of 20.1% on an Aggregate fee basis and 48.4% on a Revenue basis, all of which exceeded target levels. Further, the Committee took into account the Company’s record levels of GAAP net income, GAAP earnings per share, Adjusted EBITDA and Economic net income for the year, resulting in a Financial Performance score of 85%. The Committee also recognized the Company’s significant business accomplishments during the year, including growth across our key operating metrics, positive organic growth, the successful execution of our product and Global Distribution strategies, the integration of our significant new Affiliate investments from the prior year, and the initiation of a quarterly cash dividend and significant share repurchases, resulting in a Business Initiatives score of 75%. The assessment resulted in an overall weighted score of 80% and a cash bonus amount for our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of $3.6 million.

Exhibit 5

Financial targets used in the Short-Term Incentive Compensation Performance Assessment are designed to align management incentives with stockholder value creation, and take into account factors known at the time (and exclude the effect of markets). Actual results may be impacted by a number of external factors, including macroeconomic factors, market changes, and regulatory or political changes, as well as other factors such as share repurchases and new investments in Affiliates, that may not be anticipated and could significantly impact our business. In performing its assessment, the Compensation Committee recognizes that management must respond to these factors and may take that into account in its review of year-end performance against targets. These financial targets are not intended to be a prediction of the Company’s performance during the performance year or in any future period, and are not intended to provide investors or any other party with guidance about our future financial performance or operating results. See the “Forward-Looking Statements” section of our Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Long-Term Performance-Based Incentive Compensation Determination Process

Following year-end, the Compensation Committee conducted its Long-Term Incentive Compensation Performance Assessment, based on the weighted categories discussed below, to establish the amount of the Long-Term Incentive Compensation awards for 2017. Based on stockholder feedback, this assessment process was enhanced for the 2017 compensation determinations, to equally weight the three performance categories and to provide further transparency, including disclosure of the scoring for each category to show the linkage between the assessment and the awarded amounts. 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. The following Exhibit summarizes the key results that the Compensation Committee considered in its 2017 Long-Term Incentive Compensation Performance Assessment, as well as the results of the Committee’s overall assessment. A more detailed description of each performance factor follows the Exhibit.

2017 Financial Results vs. Targets Economic Earnings $13.62 2017P $14.60 2017A Per Share EBITDA Margin 19.9% 2017P 20.1% 2017A

36

Exhibit 6

Performance Category: Key Financial and Operating Performance Metrics (Weighted 33.3%)

The Compensation Committee’s Long-Term Incentive Compensation Performance Assessment included a review of our key financial and operating metrics on both a relative and absolute basis. The Committee noted our strong results, with all of our key financial and operating metrics increasing to record year-end levels, notwithstanding a challenging operating environment for active asset managers.

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

37

Exhibit 7

Additional information on non-GAAP financial performance measures, including reconciliations to the most directly comparable GAAP measure, can be found in our Annual Report on Form 10-K under “Supplemental Financial Performance Measures.” Aggregate fees (previously referred to as Aggregate revenue) is an operating measure that consists of the total asset- and performance-based fees earned by all of our Affiliates, as further described in our Annual Report on Form 10-K.

AMG: Strong Performance Across Key Financial and Operating Metrics in 2017 AUM ($ billions) 1 Year: 21% 3 Year: 10% 5 Year: 14% Aggregate Fees ($ billions) CAGRs: 1 Year: 29% 3 Year: 10% 5 Year: 15% GAAP Net Income ($ millions) CAGRs: 1 Year: 46% 3 Year: 17% 5 Year: 34% GAAP Earnings Per Share CAGRs: 1 Year: 40% 3 Year: 16% 5 Year: 32%Economic Net Income ($ millions) CAGRs: 1 Year: 17% 3 Year: 9% 5 Year: 16% Economic Earnings Per Share CAGRs: 1 Year: 14% 3 Year: 9% 5 Year: 14% Adjusted EBITDA ($ millions) CAGRs: 1 Year: 18% 3 Year: 7% 5 Year: 15%

38

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.

AMG’s Key Financial and Operating Metrics vs. Peers: 1-, 3- and 5- Year Compound Annual Growth Rates AUM CAGR Aggregate Fees CAGR GAAP Net Income CAGR GAAP EPS CAGR Economic Net Income CAGR Economic EPS CAGR Adjusted EBITDA CAGR AMG Peer Average

39

Performance Category: Stockholder Value Creation (Weighted 33.3%)

The Compensation Committee’s Long-Term Incentive Compensation 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 absolute stock performance in the 1-, 5- and 10-year periods, with stock performance of +41%, +58% and +75%, respectively, outpacing our Peer Group average of +30% for the year and outpacing our Peer Group median for the year and over the trailing 10-year period. The Committee also considered the modestly negative stock performance over the 3-year period of -3% (versus the Peer Group average of 9%), and noted the relative underperformance during the 3- and 5-year periods.

Stockholder returns in 2017 across the sector generally outpaced the S&P 500^®, with stock prices increasing an average of +30% across publicly traded traditional and alternative asset managers, relative to the +19% return generated by the S&P 500^® index.

Exhibit 8

Market Data as of December 31, 2017.

Market Data as of December 31, 2017.

AMG’s Stock Performance vs. Peers 1 Year 3 Year 5 Year 10 Year AMG Peer Average AMG’s 10-Year Stock Performance vs. Peers and S&P 500® AMG S&PR 500 Peer Average

40

Performance Category: Strategic Performance Criteria (Weighted 33.3%)

The Long-Term Incentive Compensation 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 2017, including meaningfully expanded capabilities across our Global Distribution platform, the successful integration of our 2016 investments in new Affiliates, and strong execution of our capital management strategy. The Committee’s assessment recognized strong performance across the majority of areas in this category, as further described below.

Investment Performance and Product Strategy: The Committee reviewed our execution and ongoing development of our active return-oriented product strategy, especially in the areas of global equity and alternative strategies, and recognized excellent performance in this category, including the following:

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 strong long-term performance in this category, notwithstanding a challenging market environment for active products during 2017:

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

41

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

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

2017 Named Executive Officer Compensation Results

For 2017, the Compensation Committee set the size of the Incentive Pool at 6% of Adjusted Economic net income, resulting in an Incentive Pool of approximately $62.3 million. CEO Performance-Based Incentive Compensation was capped at a maximum payout equal to the lesser of $20.0 million or 40% of the Incentive Pool, which represented a cap of $20.0 million for our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, and his cash bonus award was capped at a maximum of $4.5 million. Equity incentive awards were limited to the capped amount of Performance-Based Incentive Compensation less the maximum cash bonus, resulting in a maximum of $15.5 million of equity incentive awards for our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. The annual caps on Performance-Based Incentive Compensation for our President and Chief Operating Officer and for our Chief Financial Officer were set at the lesser of $10.0 million or 20% of the Incentive Pool, and the annual caps for our Head of Global Distribution and for our General Counsel were set at the lesser of $5.0 million or 10% of the Incentive Pool. These annual caps served as the basis for determining formulaic award payouts for each named executive officer, using the scores of the two Performance Assessments. In the case of the cash bonus, the score of the Short-Term Incentive Compensation Performance Assessment was applied to the maximum bonus amount for our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, to determine a formulaic cash bonus amount. In the case of the equity incentive awards, the score of the Long-Term Incentive Compensation Performance Assessment was applied to the annual capped amount of Performance-Based Incentive Compensation, less the applicable maximum cash bonus, to determine a formulaic equity incentive award amount for our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer.

The Short-Term Incentive Compensation Performance Assessment recognized strong performance for the year across all financial performance metrics, including Economic earnings per share of $14.60 for the year and an EBITDA margin of 20.1% on an Aggregate fee basis and 48.4% on a Revenue basis, all of which exceeded target levels, as well as the significant business accomplishments and growth across our business during the year. This assessment produced a cash bonus award for our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of $3.6 million, representing 80% of the maximum amount.

The Long-Term Incentive Compensation Performance Assessment recognized the achievement of record results across all key financial and operating performance measures for the year, as well as strong long-term financial performance on an absolute basis, strong long-term organic growth, and a stock price increase of +41% for the year,

42

outperforming our Peer Group average and median, as well as major global indices. These results occurred in an environment that remained challenging for active asset managers, as robust equity markets throughout the year contributed to market dynamics that continued to favor passive products. However, despite our strong stock performance in 2017, the Committee also recognized that our stock price was modestly negative over the trailing 3-year period, reflecting the challenging market environment for active asset managers over this period. This assessment produced a formulaic Long-Term Incentive Compensation award for our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of $10.8 million, representing 70% of the $15.5 million maximum amount. The Compensation Committee exercised negative discretion to reduce this formulaic equity incentive award amount by -25%, after taking into account the Company’s stock performance over the 3-year period, our relative financial results over the year, and the overall amounts and the mix of award types. The resulting equity incentive award amount for our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer was $8.1 million, reflecting this discretionary reduction. The Committee’s allocation for these equity incentive awards was 40% in the form of Long-Term Deferred Equity Awards and 60% in the form of Long-Term Performance Achievement Awards, consistent with the targeted allocations.

In the case of Mr. Dalton, President and Chief Operating Officer, and Mr. Horgen, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, the Short-Term Incentive Compensation Performance Assessment produced cash bonus awards of $2.1 million and $1.9 million, respectively, and the Long-Term Incentive Compensation Performance Assessment produced equity incentive awards of $4.9 million and $3.6 million, respectively. The equity incentive awards were, in each case, allocated 40% in the form of Long-Term Deferred Equity Awards and 60% in the form of Long-Term Performance Achievement Awards, consistent with the Committee’s targeted allocations.

Mr. Healey’s Performance-Based Incentive Compensation decreased by 10% from the prior year, consistent with our compensation program philosophy of aligning pay with performance. Of Mr. Healey’s 2017 Total Direct Compensation, 94% was Performance-Based Incentive Compensation, approximately 30% of which was in the form of a cash bonus, with the remainder awarded in the form of equity incentive awards, thereby closely aligning executive compensation with long-term stockholder interests. Mr. Healey’s base salary has remained unchanged at $750,000 for more than a decade. As compared to the prior year, the Performance-Based Incentive Compensation of each of Mr. Dalton and Mr. Horgen declined 10% for 2017, consistent with our compensation program philosophy of aligning pay with performance, and their base salaries remained unchanged.

The following table summarizes total compensation for performance year 2017 for our named executive officers:

The Performance-Based Incentive Compensation amounts provided to the named executive officers for the 2017 performance 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 2017 were granted in January 2018, 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 fiscal year of grant, even when the awards are intended to compensate executives for performance in a prior year. The equity awards granted in January 2018 are included as part of total 2017 compensation in the above table, to better demonstrate how we evaluate and

43

compensate our named executive officers. Similarly, equity awards granted in recognition of performance in 2016 were granted in January 2017 and appear in the Summary Compensation Table for 2017, in accordance with these reporting rules.

The decrease in Mr. Healey’s total 2017 compensation relative to the prior year was consistent with our compensation program philosophy of aligning pay with performance. The following chart reflects compensation alignment with our long-term stock performance, which was modestly negative over the trailing three-year period despite exceptional short-term stock performance, and an increase in our key financial and operating metrics to the highest levels in Company history.

Exhibit 9

Note: Stock price performance and CAGRs calculated beginning on 12/31/2012. AMG 2017 CEO compensation includes equity incentive awards earned for performance during 2017; see the “Executive Compensation Tables” section of this Proxy Statement for information regarding differences from the Summary Compensation Table.

CEO Compensation vs. Financial and Stock Performance CEO Compensation AMG Stock Performance AMG Stock Price CAGR: 10% Absolute Growth: 58% $20,008 $18,120 $14,907 $13,918 $13,035 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Annual % Economic EPS 34% 12%12% 3% 14% GAAP EPS 108% 25% 19% -7% 40% AMG Stock Price Return -67% -2% -25% -9% 41% CEO Incentive Pay 1% -10% -19% -7% -10%

44

Each of the key elements of named executive officer compensation for 2017 is summarized below:

Exhibit 10

45

The following charts summarize the relative mix of Mr. Healey’s 2017 Total Direct Compensation, and compare the allocation of the proportion of Performance-Based Incentive Compensation awarded as equity incentive awards relative to our Peer Group:

Exhibit 11

Note: Peer company data based on compensation as reported in Summary Compensation Table in most recently filed proxy statement or annual report; AMG calculation includes equity incentive awards earned for performance during 2017 that were granted in January 2018.

Mix of CEO Compensation Elements & Peer Comparison CEO Total Direct Compensation Base Pay 6% CEO Performance-Based Incentive Compensation 94% 69% of Performance-Based Incentive Compensation Deferred through Equity CEO Long-Term Incentive Compensation Performance-Based Equity 60% Time-Based 40% AMG Long-Term Incentive Compensation as % of Performance-Based Incentive Compensation vs. Peers 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% AMG Peer 1 Peer 2 Peer 3 Peer 4 Peer 5 Peer 6 Peer 7 Peer 8 Peer 9 Peer Average Note: Peer company data based on compensation as reported in Summary Compensation Table in most recently filed proxy statement or annual report; AMG calculation includes long-term equity earned for performance during 2017 that was granted in January 2018.

46

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, base salaries and other fixed compensation for the named executive officers typically represent between 5% and 10% of their total compensation. Base salary levels for our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer and for our President and Chief Operating Officer have remained unchanged for more than 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 named 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 awards 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, for at least a majority of these equity awards, are also subject to pre-established, measurable performance targets.

Performance-Based Incentive Compensation is awarded based on the results of the Compensation Committee’s two Performance Assessments, which weigh key aspects of our short- and longer-term historical performance, and consider the individual named executive officer’s contributions to that performance, as well as the expected contribution of the named 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 named executive officer in any particular year. The Committee further considers each named executive officer’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, cash 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 as the basis for determining 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. Economic net income and Economic earnings per share are used by our 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 GAAP earnings per share (diluted), Economic net income and Economic earnings per share primarily adjust for non-cash items relating to our acquisition of interests in our Affiliates. Economic net income and Economic earnings per share also allow for greater comparability of our performance to the performance of our Peer Group because the majority of the companies in our Peers Group generally are not as acquisitive as us. See our 2017 Annual Report on Form 10-K, under “Supplemental Financial 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.

47

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

The Compensation Committee believes that in order to retain and motivate key management team members, which is an important part of our compensation program philosophy, 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 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. Given the strong execution of our growth strategy, we are one of the five largest global managers of active return-oriented strategies and the fifth largest publicly traded global asset manager, as measured by total assets under management.

Similar to prior years, the Compensation Committee reviewed our Peer Group for 2017 compensation comparisons, applying the following principles as a guide.

Exhibit 12

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

48

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 Group, the Compensation Committee does not specifically exclude direct competitors based on size alone.

Further, the Compensation Committee believes that, while some constituents look to revenue as determined under generally accepted accounting principles when comparing peer companies, our GAAP Revenue—which represented 42% of Aggregate fees in 2017—has inherent limitations in providing a full picture of the revenue-generating power of our business, and that Aggregate fees is the more appropriate measure for peer comparisons. Aggregate fees consists of the total asset- and performance-based fees earned by all of our Affiliates regardless of whether they are consolidated or accounted for under the equity method and is an operating measure used by management to evaluate the operating performance and material trends across our entire business. This is in contrast to the companies within our Peer Group, which do not have significant equity method subsidiaries and, therefore, their GAAP Revenue reflects substantially all of their asset- and performance-based fees.

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 (money market products versus return-oriented equity and/or alternative products), overall profitability and stockholder returns. The nature of the roles of 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 2017 compensation for our named executive officers. We believe this Peer Group 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. The following Exhibit also lists the revenue of the companies in our Peer Group, along with our Aggregate fees for the reasons discussed above. 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 the Compensation Committee has selected the nine companies that it believes are the most comparable based on the principles previously described. As part of the continuous evaluation of our Peer Group, one of the firms included in 2016—Waddell & Reed—was excluded in 2017, and a new firm—Lazard Ltd—was added. This change to our Peer Group was made to reflect companies with global size and scale, business complexity and market capitalizations, that are more in line with our own.

49

Exhibit 13

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

50

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 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 directors, 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 our 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 Compensation Consultant. The Committee also invites Mr. Billings, General Counsel and Secretary, to attend certain meetings to discuss the design, implementation and administration of our incentive plans. The Committee has the 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 non-executive directors meet with the Committee in executive sessions and otherwise regularly provides reports to the Board of Directors on compensation considerations. Our 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 2017, 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 our Compensation Consultant 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, our Compensation Consultant consulted with our management team throughout the year.

51

Our Compensation Consultant, which provides no other services to us, reported its findings directly to the Compensation Committee. A representative of our Compensation Consultant met with Committee members 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 our Compensation Consultant 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 do not have individual change in control agreements with any of our named executive officers or our 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, provided there was also 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 the double-trigger has been met), as of 2017 year-end, awards held by our 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 $205.25, which was the closing price of our common stock as of the last business day of 2017. No amount would have been payable as of 2017 year-end with respect to the 2013 Long-Term Performance Equity Awards, the 2015 Long-Term Growth Achievement Awards or the 2016 Long-Term Growth Achievement Awards because such awards remained subject to multiple performance-based vesting conditions as of such date.

We do not have employment agreements with any of our named executive officers, with the exception of our U.K.-based Head of Global Distribution. In March 2017, Mr. Cutler joined AMG as Head of Global Distribution and entered into an employment agreement with our wholly owned subsidiary, Affiliated Managers Group Limited. In 2017, Mr. Cutler received a prorated portion of his annual base salary of $325,000 (£264,355 using the closing spot rate on the date compensation was determined).

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 his 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 our Compensation Consultant. 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.

52

Throughout our compensation program, compensation is aligned with increases in stockholder value and long-term stockholder interests and, therefore, we believe our compensation arrangements do not encourage inappropriate risk-taking. The named executive officers’ salaries are fixed in amount and typically account for between 5% and 10% of their total compensation. For 2017, 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, which for our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer was equal to the lesser of $20.0 million or 40% of the Incentive Pool. Our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer’s cash bonus was subject to an additional cap of $4.5 million, and his equity incentive awards were further capped at $15.5 million. Additionally, a substantial portion of executive compensation is in the form of equity incentive awards, a majority of which are subject to specific pre-established performance targets, which further aligns executives’ interests with those of our stockholders. We believe that 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. The Compensation Committee retains discretion in the final amount of awards of Performance-Based Incentive Compensation, to ensure that the amounts and mix are appropriate. In addition, to further ensure the alignment of compensation with long-term performance, we have 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).

Pay Ratio

The total annual compensation of our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer for 2017, as reported in the “Total” column of the Summary Compensation Table, was $13,800,091. The total annual compensation of our median employee for 2017, calculated on the same basis, was $157,384. The ratio of our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer’s total annual compensation for 2017 to our median employee’s total annual compensation for 2017 was 88 to 1.

We selected our median employee by analyzing the total compensation of each of our employees who were employed by the Company as of December 31, 2017, excluding our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, with each employee’s compensation calculated by adding together salary for 2017, any cash bonus granted in recognition of performance in 2017 and the grant date value of any equity-based awards granted in recognition of performance in 2017, in each case derived from payroll and other company records. We did not make any cost-of-living or other adjustments to these amounts, and did not exclude non-U.S. employees. We annualized total compensation for full-time employees that joined the company during 2017 or had an unpaid leave-of-absence during the year. For purposes of this analysis, we included all full- and part-time employees at the Company and at our subsidiaries where we control the compensation determinations for the subsidiary’s employees.

We believe executive pay must be internally consistent and equitable to motivate our employees to create stockholder value. We are committed to internal pay equity, and the Compensation Committee monitors the relationship between the pay our executive officers receive and the pay our other employees receive.

Equity Ownership Guidelines

We believe that equity ownership guidelines further align the interests of our named executive officers and directors with those of our stockholders. The 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). Shares underlying outstanding stock options and unearned performance awards are not counted for purposes of meeting these guidelines. 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.

53

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 are not 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

The availability of tax deductions for cash and equity compensation is one of many factors that the Compensation Committee considers 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.

Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended from time to time, 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, chief financial officer, and its next three most highly compensated executive officers, in the year that the compensation is paid). Prior to the enactment of changes in U.S. tax laws in December 2017, compensation paid to any covered employee (which at the time excluded the chief financial officer) in excess of $1 million could qualify for an exception to this limitation on deductibility if the compensation qualified as performance-based compensation. The Company’s incentive plans were designed to permit performance-based compensation to be paid to such covered employees. The enactment of changes in U.S. tax laws in December 2017 eliminated this exception for performance-based compensation, but permitted continued deductibility in future years for certain arrangements and awards in place as of November 2, 2017.

In implementing our compensation program for the 2017 fiscal year, the Compensation Committee considered, among other things, the impact of the enactment of changes in U.S. tax laws on our compensation plans and the use of performance-based compensation in our overall compensation program, the ability to grant awards that may achieve a tax deduction, and the ability to grant awards that do not qualify for an exemption from deductibility or are limited as to tax deductibility. The Compensation Committee is committed to maintaining a compensation program and establishing compensation levels that take tax consequences into account, and will continue to consider these issues, while prioritizing a focus on attracting and retaining executive talent and aligning management incentives with long-term stockholder interests.

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

54

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, 2017 (collectively, the “named executive officers”).

Equity awards granted in January 2018 in recognition of performance during fiscal year 2017 do not appear in the following Summary Compensation Table or the Grants of Plan-Based Awards table because SEC rules require equity awards to be reported in these tables in the fiscal 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 were earned, to better demonstrate how we evaluate and compensate our named executive officers. For information on the equity awards granted in January 2018 in recognition of 2017 performance, please refer to the Supplemental Table—Compensation Earned in Fiscal Year 2017 below, and the related discussion in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis.

Summary Compensation Table