Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2026
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies In the ordinary course of business, the Company from time to time enters into contracts containing indemnification obligations of the Company. These obligations may require the Company to make payments to another party upon the occurrence of certain events including the failure by the Company to meet its performance obligations under the contract. These contractual indemnification provisions are often standard contractual terms of the nature customarily found in the type of contracts entered into by the Company. In many cases, there are no stated or notional amounts included in the indemnification provisions. There are no amounts reflected on the Consolidated Balance Sheets as of March 31, 2026 and December 31, 2025 related to these indemnifications. Rubicon Wealth Management As the Company reported in prior filings with the Commission, on May 1, 2024, SEI Private Trust Company (SPTC), a wholly-owned, operating subsidiary of SEI, terminated its client relationship with Rubicon Wealth Management LLC, an SPTC investment advisor client (Rubicon). SPTC terminated the Rubicon relationship due to suspicions of fraudulent activity by Rubicon’s founder, Scott Mason. Mr. Mason and Rubicon were investigated by the U.S. Department of Justice and Securities and Exchange Commission and Mr. Mason pled guilty to several crimes and consented to a judgment being entered against him in both proceedings. On June 25, 2025, Mr. Mason was sentenced to 97 months in prison, followed by three years of supervised release. Mason was also ordered to pay nearly $25,000 in restitution to his victims and more than $2,300 in back taxes to the Internal Revenue Service. The previously disclosed lawsuits filed against SPTC in its capacity as custodian for the Rubicon accounts of the plaintiffs (collectively, the Rubicon Actions) remain pending in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, and are now in the discovery phase. While the ultimate outcomes of these litigations remain uncertain, SPTC is vigorously defending each of the Rubicon Actions. Currently, SPTC estimates that the aggregate amount of Rubicon client assets transferred at the direction of Mr. Mason from SPTC custodial accounts to accounts of an entity, Orchard Park, that unbeknownst to the investors or SPTC was established and controlled by Mr. Mason and was used by Mr. Mason for personal expenditures is approximately $15,000. In the event that SPTC is unsuccessful in its defense of the Rubicon Actions, SEI does not currently believe that the losses associated with such unsuccessful defense would exceed the approximately $15,000 of Rubicon client assets that Mr. Mason directed to be transferred to Orchard Park. LSV Asset Management On January 27, 2026, the Company, and its wholly owned subsidiary, SEI Funds, Inc., (the SEI Parties) were joined as defendants in Qu v. LSV Asset Management, an Illinois State Court action originally filed in July 2024 in Cook County, Illinois Circuit Court (the Qu Litigation). The Qu Litigation alleged that LSV Asset Management (LSV), and certain of its executives (the LSV Defendants), breached fiduciary duties and implied covenants of good faith with respect to LSV’s purchase of LSV partnership interest indirectly held by the plaintiff. The claim against the SEI Parties alleges that the Company, through its wholly owned subsidiary SEI Funds, Inc., that is the owner of a minority interest of LSV, aided and abetted the LSV Defendant’s alleged breach of fiduciary duty. While the outcome of this litigation remains uncertain, the LSV Defendants and the Company believe that the LSV Defendants have valid defenses to plaintiffs’ primary claims, and the Company believes that that the aiding and abetting claim against the Company are even more attenuated with valid defenses. The Company intends to defend the allegations in the Qu Litigation vigorously. Based upon the early nature of the litigation against the Company, the vagueness of the alleged conduct by the SEI Parties, and the lack of clarity of what portion of the alleged losses for which the Company would be liable in the unlikely event that the plaintiffs are successful in their theories of liability, the Company is not reasonably able to provide an estimate of loss, if any, with respect to the matters alleged in the Qu Litigation. SEI Capital Accumulation Plan On December 26, 2025, a class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by David Hall and Jennifer Knapp, individually and as representatives of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the SEI Capital Accumulation Plan (the Plan), naming the Company and its affiliated and/or related entities SEI Investments Management Corporation, SEI Capital Accumulation Plan Administration Committee, and John Does 1-30 as defendants (the Hall Complaint). The Hall Complaint seeks damages for defendants’ alleged breach of fiduciary duties under ERISA with respect to selecting and monitoring certain of the Plan’s investment options, which are affiliated investment products. While the outcome of this litigation remains uncertain, defendants believe that they have valid defenses to plaintiffs’ claims and intend to defend the allegations contained in the Hall Complaint vigorously. At this stage of the litigation, the Company is not reasonably able to provide an estimate of loss, if any, with respect to the matters set forth in the Hall Complaint. United Kingdom Financial Conduct Authority Supervisory Review of SEI Investments (Europe) Limited As previously reported, on July 31, 2024, SEI Investments (Europe) Limited (SIEL), an indirectly, wholly-owned operating subsidiary of SEI, received a final requirement notice from the Financial Conduct Authority of the United Kingdom (the FCA) under section 166(3)(a) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA), requiring SIEL to engage a “Skilled Person” to undertake a two-stage review of SIEL’s governance arrangements and control environment. The VREQ currently imposed on SIEL is reflected in full on the FCA Register. SIEL is fully committed to addressing the concerns raised by the FCA. The Company believes the actions SIEL is taking to remediate the issues identified in the Skilled Person Report will not only strengthen its business but also help maintain its focus on achieving positive customer outcomes, positioning SIEL for sustainable future growth. SIEL management believes that the remediation actions currently underway will appropriately address the recommendations made by the Skilled Person and concerns articulated by the FCA in respect of the issues identified by the Skilled Person. SIEL’s remediation actions will be reviewed by the Skilled Person as part of the second stage of their engagement. The VREQ will stay in effect unless and until varied or cancelled by the FCA (either on the application of SIEL or of the FCA’s own volition), until the FCA is satisfied that SIEL has demonstrated that it has addressed the concerns the FCA has communicated to it. Equilus Capital On April 1, 2026 the Washington Department of Financial Institutions (DFI) filed a lawsuit in Washington Superior Court (the Complaint) seeking a temporary restraining order, injunctive relief, and the appointment of a receiver against Equilus Group, Inc. (Equilus Group), Equilus Capital Partners, LLC (Equilus Capital, and together with Equilus Group, the Equilus Companies), Joel Frank (a managing member of the Equilus Companies), certain entities controlled by Joel Frank and/or the Equilus Companies (the Equilus Funds), and certain other named individual defendants (the Equilus Parties). Equilus Group is a Washington State registered investment adviser that is a client of the Company's Investment Advisors segment. The DFI alleges that Joel Frank, the Equilus Companies, and the Equilus Funds engaged in Ponzi scheme-like activity and/or other wrongful conduct, selling approximately $39,000 in unregistered securities and alleging theft from individual investors who purchased such securities of at least approximately $800. The Complaint names SPTC, along with several other financial institutions, as a financial institution defendant for the purposes of obtaining a temporary restraining (TRO) against the financial institution defendants in order to prohibit such financial institution defendants from allowing any activity to occur in Equilus accounts maintained by the financial institution defendants. SPTC maintains investment accounts for certain Equilus Parties and Equilus Group investors. DFI obtained the TRO ex parte on April 9, 2026. The TRO, with which SPTC is fully-complying, instructs SPTC to freeze Equilus-controlled accounts pending appointment of a receiver. On April 10, 2026, the DFI suspended Equilus Group’s Washington state investment adviser registration, with intent to revoke. No claims have been made against SPTC and the Company is not aware of any allegations of wrongdoing by the Company or SPTC. Other Matters The Company and certain of its subsidiaries are party to various other examinations, investigations, actions and claims arising in the normal course of business that the Company does not believe are material. The Company believes that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position or the manner in which the Company conducts its business. Currently, the Company does not believe the amount of losses associated with these matters can be estimated. While the Company does not believe that the amount of such losses will, when liquidated or estimable, be material to its financial position, the assumptions may be incorrect and any such loss could have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations or the manner in which the Company conducts its business in the period(s) during which the underlying matters are resolved. Unfunded Commitments to Limited Partnership Funds The Company has unfunded commitments of $8,924 at March 31, 2026 to limited partnership funds. Unused Letters of Credit As of March 31, 2026, the Company had outstanding and unused letters of credit of $4,630 under its Credit Facility (See Note 6). The letters of credit were issued for certain municipal requirements related to the expansion of the Company's corporate headquarters and are due to expire in 2026. The Company does not expect that any material amounts will be drawn under these letters of credit. Accordingly, no liability has been recorded in the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets.

In the ordinary course of business, the Company from time to time enters into contracts containing indemnification obligations of the Company. These obligations may require the Company to make payments to another party upon the occurrence of certain events including the failure by the Company to meet its performance obligations under the contract. These contractual indemnification provisions are often standard contractual terms of the nature customarily found in the type of contracts entered into by the Company. In many cases, there are no stated or notional amounts included in the indemnification provisions. There are no amounts reflected on the Consolidated Balance Sheets as of March 31, 2026 and December 31, 2025 related to these indemnifications.

As the Company reported in prior filings with the Commission, on May 1, 2024, SEI Private Trust Company (SPTC), a wholly-owned, operating subsidiary of SEI, terminated its client relationship with Rubicon Wealth Management LLC, an SPTC investment advisor client (Rubicon). SPTC terminated the Rubicon relationship due to suspicions of fraudulent activity by Rubicon’s founder, Scott Mason. Mr. Mason and Rubicon were investigated by the U.S. Department of Justice and Securities and Exchange Commission and Mr. Mason pled guilty to several crimes and consented to a judgment being entered against him in both proceedings. On June 25, 2025, Mr. Mason was sentenced to 97 months in prison, followed by three years of supervised release. Mason was also ordered to pay nearly $25,000 in restitution to his victims and more than $2,300 in back taxes to the Internal Revenue Service.

The previously disclosed lawsuits filed against SPTC in its capacity as custodian for the Rubicon accounts of the plaintiffs (collectively, the Rubicon Actions) remain pending in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, and are now in the discovery phase. While the ultimate outcomes of these litigations remain uncertain, SPTC is vigorously defending each of the Rubicon Actions. Currently, SPTC estimates that the aggregate amount of Rubicon client assets

transferred at the direction of Mr. Mason from SPTC custodial accounts to accounts of an entity, Orchard Park, that unbeknownst to the investors or SPTC was established and controlled by Mr. Mason and was used by Mr. Mason for personal expenditures is approximately $15,000. In the event that SPTC is unsuccessful in its defense of the Rubicon Actions, SEI does not currently believe that the losses associated with such unsuccessful defense would exceed the approximately $15,000 of Rubicon client assets that Mr. Mason directed to be transferred to Orchard Park.

On January 27, 2026, the Company, and its wholly owned subsidiary, SEI Funds, Inc., (the SEI Parties) were joined as defendants in Qu v. LSV Asset Management, an Illinois State Court action originally filed in July 2024 in Cook County, Illinois Circuit Court (the Qu Litigation). The Qu Litigation alleged that LSV Asset Management (LSV), and certain of its executives (the LSV Defendants), breached fiduciary duties and implied covenants of good faith with respect to LSV’s purchase of LSV partnership interest indirectly held by the plaintiff. The claim against the SEI Parties alleges that the Company, through its wholly owned subsidiary SEI Funds, Inc., that is the owner of a minority interest of LSV, aided and abetted the LSV Defendant’s alleged breach of fiduciary duty.

While the outcome of this litigation remains uncertain, the LSV Defendants and the Company believe that the LSV Defendants have valid defenses to plaintiffs’ primary claims, and the Company believes that that the aiding and abetting claim against the Company are even more attenuated with valid defenses. The Company intends to defend the allegations in the Qu Litigation vigorously. Based upon the early nature of the litigation against the Company, the vagueness of the alleged conduct by the SEI Parties, and the lack of clarity of what portion of the alleged losses for which the Company would be liable in the unlikely event that the plaintiffs are successful in their theories of liability, the Company is not reasonably able to provide an estimate of loss, if any, with respect to the matters alleged in the Qu Litigation.

On December 26, 2025, a class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by David Hall and Jennifer Knapp, individually and as representatives of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the SEI Capital Accumulation Plan (the Plan), naming the Company and its affiliated and/or related entities SEI Investments Management Corporation, SEI Capital Accumulation Plan Administration Committee, and John Does 1-30 as defendants (the Hall Complaint). The Hall Complaint seeks damages for defendants’ alleged breach of fiduciary duties under ERISA with respect to selecting and monitoring certain of the Plan’s investment options, which are affiliated investment products.

While the outcome of this litigation remains uncertain, defendants believe that they have valid defenses to plaintiffs’ claims and intend to defend the allegations contained in the Hall Complaint vigorously. At this stage of the litigation, the Company is not reasonably able to provide an estimate of loss, if any, with respect to the matters set forth in the Hall Complaint.

As previously reported, on July 31, 2024, SEI Investments (Europe) Limited (SIEL), an indirectly, wholly-owned operating subsidiary of SEI, received a final requirement notice from the Financial Conduct Authority of the United Kingdom (the FCA) under section 166(3)(a) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA), requiring SIEL to engage a “Skilled Person” to undertake a two-stage review of SIEL’s governance arrangements and control environment.

SIEL is fully committed to addressing the concerns raised by the FCA. The Company believes the actions SIEL is taking to remediate the issues identified in the Skilled Person Report will not only strengthen its business but also help maintain its focus on achieving positive customer outcomes, positioning SIEL for sustainable future growth.

SIEL management believes that the remediation actions currently underway will appropriately address the recommendations made by the Skilled Person and concerns articulated by the FCA in respect of the issues identified by the Skilled Person. SIEL’s remediation actions will be reviewed by the Skilled Person as part of the second stage of their engagement.

The VREQ will stay in effect unless and until varied or cancelled by the FCA (either on the application of SIEL or of the FCA’s own volition), until the FCA is satisfied that SIEL has demonstrated that it has addressed the concerns the FCA has communicated to it.

On April 1, 2026 the Washington Department of Financial Institutions (DFI) filed a lawsuit in Washington Superior Court (the Complaint) seeking a temporary restraining order, injunctive relief, and the appointment of a receiver against Equilus Group, Inc. (Equilus Group), Equilus Capital Partners, LLC (Equilus Capital, and together with Equilus Group, the Equilus Companies), Joel Frank (a managing member of the Equilus Companies), certain entities controlled by Joel Frank and/or the Equilus Companies (the Equilus Funds), and certain other named individual defendants (the Equilus Parties). Equilus

Group is a Washington State registered investment adviser that is a client of the Company's Investment Advisors segment. The DFI alleges that Joel Frank, the Equilus Companies, and the Equilus Funds engaged in Ponzi scheme-like activity and/or other wrongful conduct, selling approximately $39,000 in unregistered securities and alleging theft from individual investors who purchased such securities of at least approximately $800.

The Complaint names SPTC, along with several other financial institutions, as a financial institution defendant for the purposes of obtaining a temporary restraining (TRO) against the financial institution defendants in order to prohibit such financial institution defendants from allowing any activity to occur in Equilus accounts maintained by the financial institution defendants. SPTC maintains investment accounts for certain Equilus Parties and Equilus Group investors. DFI obtained the TRO ex parte on April 9, 2026. The TRO, with which SPTC is fully-complying, instructs SPTC to freeze Equilus-controlled accounts pending appointment of a receiver. On April 10, 2026, the DFI suspended Equilus Group’s Washington state investment adviser registration, with intent to revoke. No claims have been made against SPTC and the Company is not aware of any allegations of wrongdoing by the Company or SPTC.

The Company and certain of its subsidiaries are party to various other examinations, investigations, actions and claims arising in the normal course of business that the Company does not believe are material. The Company believes that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position or the manner in which the Company conducts its business. Currently, the Company does not believe the amount of losses associated with these matters can be estimated. While the Company does not believe that the amount of such losses will, when liquidated or estimable, be material to its financial position, the assumptions may be incorrect and any such loss could have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations or the manner in which the Company conducts its business in the period(s) during which the underlying matters are resolved.

As of March 31, 2026, the Company had outstanding and unused letters of credit of $4,630 under its Credit Facility (See Note 6). The letters of credit were issued for certain municipal requirements related to the expansion of the Company's corporate headquarters and are due to expire in 2026. The Company does not expect that any material amounts will be drawn under these letters of credit. Accordingly, no liability has been recorded in the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets.