Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 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 September 30, 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 $13,500. 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 $13,500 of Rubicon client assets that Mr. Mason directed to be transferred to Orchard Park. SEI Capital Accumulation Plan As the Company reported in prior filings with the Commission, 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. Defendants believe that they have valid defenses to plaintiffs’ claims and deny any wrongdoing. However, to avoid the costs and burdens of protracted litigation, after a private mediation the Company reached an agreement to resolve the Hall litigation as a class settlement. The terms of the resolution are not yet public, and the Hall plaintiffs must file a motion for preliminary approval on or before October 30, 2026. 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. Following the delivery of the Skilled Person’s Phase 1 Report, SIEL agreed with the FCA that a variation of SIEL’s FCA permissions would apply from February 26, 2025 (the VREQ), such that SIEL needed the FCA’s prior consent to onboard new institutional clients where this would require a material change to its existing propositions, systems or services, or significant senior management engagement. SIEL also needed consent to launch any new proposition, product, or service that was not already offered by it at the time the VREQ came into effect. Following a comprehensive program of change to address both the Skilled Person’s recommendations and the FCA’s underlying concerns, the FCA confirmed that the s.166 was closed on July 29, 2026. On October 22, 2026, the FCA confirmed that it had lifted the VREQ with immediate effect, with the result that SIEL’s ability to onboard new institutional clients had been fully restored. SIEL is no longer required to seek FCA permission for launching new products or solutions or new client engagements. 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 $22,520 at October 20, 2026 to limited partnership funds which are expected to be funded over time as capital calls are made in accordance with the applicable partnership agreements. Unused Letters of Credit As of September 30, 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 September 30, 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 $13,500. 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 $13,500 of Rubicon client assets that Mr. Mason directed to be transferred to Orchard Park.

As the Company reported in prior filings with the Commission, 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.

Defendants believe that they have valid defenses to plaintiffs’ claims and deny any wrongdoing. However, to avoid the costs and burdens of protracted litigation, after a private mediation the Company reached an agreement to resolve the Hall litigation as a class settlement. The terms of the resolution are not yet public, and the Hall plaintiffs must file a motion for preliminary approval on or before October 30, 2026. 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.

Following the delivery of the Skilled Person’s Phase 1 Report, SIEL agreed with the FCA that a variation of SIEL’s FCA permissions would apply from February 26, 2025 (the VREQ), such that SIEL needed the FCA’s prior consent to onboard new institutional clients where this would require a material change to its existing propositions, systems or services, or significant senior management engagement. SIEL also needed consent to launch any new proposition, product, or service that was not already offered by it at the time the VREQ came into effect.

Following a comprehensive program of change to address both the Skilled Person’s recommendations and the FCA’s underlying concerns, the FCA confirmed that the s.166 was closed on July 29, 2026.

On October 22, 2026, the FCA confirmed that it had lifted the VREQ with immediate effect, with the result that SIEL’s ability to onboard new institutional clients had been fully restored.

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.

The Company has unfunded commitments of $22,520 at October 20, 2026 to limited partnership funds which are expected to be funded over time as capital calls are made in accordance with the applicable partnership agreements.

As of September 30, 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.