Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Commitments and Contingencies	Sep. 30, 2024
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 recognized on the Consolidated Balance Sheets as of September 30, 2024 and December 31, 2023 related to these indemnifications. Rubicon Wealth Management Prior to the relationship termination described in the following sentence, SEI Private Trust Company (SPTC), a wholly-owned operating subsidiary of SEI, held custody accounts for the end-clients of Rubicon Wealth Management LLC, an SPTC investment advisor client (Rubicon). On May 1, 2024, SPTC terminated its client relationship with Rubicon in light of the events associated with the Allegation (as defined below), and notified Rubicon clients with accounts at SPTC that they were required to transfer their accounts to other custodians. Beginning on July 10, 2024, nine of Rubicon’s clients that had custodial accounts at SPTC filed state civil actions for fraud in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania against Rubicon, its founder, Scott Mason, Mr. Mason’s wife, Lynne Mason, and Orchard Park Real Estate Holdings LLC (Orchard Park), a business owned by the Masons. The fraud allegation (the Allegation) is based on the claim that Mr. Mason used Rubicon client funds to invest in Orchard Park, an entity allegedly formed and controlled by Mr. Mason, and that all such invested funds were subsequently withdrawn from Orchard Park by the Masons and were used for their own, extensive personal expenses. It has been reported that the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Bureau of Investigation are currently investigating Mr. Mason and his wife. The Company is also aware of at least two other cases filed in other jurisdictions against Rubicon and/or the Masons and Orchard Park, and there may be additional cases filed against Rubicon and/or the Masons of which the Company is unaware. As of October 17, 2024, eight separate, but related, suits have been filed against SPTC in its capacity as custodian for the Rubicon accounts of the plaintiffs. These actions were also filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania and are: Star Sitron vs. SEI Private Trust Company, Case No. 2024-17132 (Sitron); Charles Murray vs. SEI Private Trust Company, Case No. 2024-18391 (Murray); James A. Byrne & Sharon Byrne vs. SEI Private Trust Company, Case No. 2024-20612; Melody Pettinelli & Melody Pettinelli as Trustee of the Donald Pettinelli Trust dated 11/7/1996 vs. SEI Private Trust Company, Case. 2024-21377; Norman Love vs. SEI Private Trust Company, Case No. 2024-21361; Stephen Red & Carla Red vs. SEI Private Trust Company, Case No. 2024-21902; Edward A. Tettemer & Lyn K. Tettemer vs. SEI Private Trust Company, Case No. 2024-21827; and Jonathan Klein & Sara Klein vs. SEI Private Trust Company, Case No. 2024- 23294 (collectively, the Rubicon Actions). Based on the complaints that have thus far been filed in the Rubicon Actions, these actions appear to be based generally on similar theories that include alleged breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, and breach of state consumer protection laws by SPTC in connection with certain transfers of Plaintiffs’ assets from SPTC custodial accounts to Orchard Park bank accounts. SPTC has been served with complaints in two of the Rubicon Actions, Sitron and Murray. In the remaining six Rubicon Actions, the plaintiffs have commenced suit but have not filed their formal complaints. The Sitron and Murray cases are both in the early stages, with initial motion practice and discovery now occurring. On August 8, 2024, SPTC filed preliminary objections to the plaintiff’s complaint in Sitron, which remain pending. On September 12, 2024 the Sitron court issued an initial case management order requiring, among other things, fact discovery to be completed within approximately 18 months and dispositive motions to be filed within 21 months from the commencement of the action. On October 16, 2024, SPTC filed preliminary objections to the plaintiff’s claims in Murray, which also remain pending. On October 7, 2024, the Murray court issued an initial case management order requiring, among other things, fact discovery to be completed within nine months and dispositive motions to be filed within 12 months of commencement of the action. While the Rubicon Actions are in their infancy and the ultimate outcomes of these litigations remain uncertain, SEI and SPTC intend to defend 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 Orchard Park bank accounts 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. United Kingdom Financial Conduct Authority Supervisory Review of SEI Investments (Europe) Limited 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. In the first stage, the Skilled Person will provide SIEL and the FCA with a report setting out the Skilled Person’s view of the effectiveness of the control environment and governance arrangements with respect to key risks, as well as the Skilled Person’s recommendations where necessary to address any identified weaknesses (the Section 166 Report). In the second stage, the Skilled Person will provide an independent view of the quality and completeness of the remediation carried out by SIEL to address any findings from the initial stage and any self-identified weaknesses, including a view on SIEL’s compliance with relevant regulations. The appointment of a Skilled Person is one of the regulatory tools used by the FCA to supervise and monitor firms it regulates. A Skilled Person is an independent third party expert with the relevant knowledge and experience to undertake a review as described above. The FCA may use the Section 166 Report and any associated information or documents provided by the Skilled Person in connection with the exercise of any of its statutory functions including its supervisory and enforcement powers. In August 2024, SIEL, with the approval of FCA, appointed the firm of Grant Thornton to act as the Skilled Person. The first stage of the Section 166 Report is expected to be completed in early December 2024. Grant Thornton has begun its fact-finding process. SIEL looks forward to receiving the views of the Skilled Person in the Section 166 Report and is committed to working with the FCA and Grant Thornton to implement any recommendations for its control environment or governance arrangements, as appropriate. Until SIEL receives the Section 166 Report, neither SIEL nor SEI is reasonably able to provide an estimate of the costs or consequences that may be associated with the Section 166 requirement notice. 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.