DEF 14A of Virtus Investment Partners, Inc., Apr 7, 2026

DEF 14A of Virtus Investment Partners, Inc.

Filed Apr 7, 2026 · FY20250001193125-26-145685

Open on EDGAR

  1. ITEM 1—ELECTION OF DIRECTORS

    ITEM 1—ELECTION OF DIRECTORS Our Board currently has eight members, with Dr. Fleming retiring from the Board effective May 20, 2026. The directors standing for election for a one-year term at the Annual Meeting are Ms. Jones, and Messrs. Aylward, Bain, Greig, Holt, Morris, and Weisenseel. Messrs. Aylward and Holt have been directors of the Company since it became an independent public company on January 1, 2009. Ms. Jones was appointed to the Board in October 2014. Messrs. Bain, and Greig were appointed to the Board effective October 2019 and Messrs. Morris and Weisenseel were appointed to the Board effective March 2021 and December 2024, respectively. Following shareholder approval at our 2023 annual meeting of shareholders, we amended our certificate of incorporation to effectuate a phased-in declassification of the Board such that the Board is fully declassified from and after the election of directors at the Annual Meeting. As a result, beginning this year all directors will stand for election each year for one-year terms.

  2. Board Nominees

    Board Nominees In February 2026, members of our Governance Committee evaluated the contributions and performance of Ms. Jones, and Messrs. Aylward, Bain, Greig, Holt, Morris and Weisenseel as members of our Board. As part of its evaluation, each of our directors was interviewed regarding his or her views of the performance of each of the directors by a representative of the Governance Committee. Following completion of its individual evaluations, the Governance Committee recommended to the Board that each of Ms. Jones, and Messrs. Aylward, Bain, Greig, Holt, Morris, and Weisenseel be nominated to stand for re-election as a director at the Annual Meeting. Our Board, having considered the recommendations of the Governance Committee, approved Ms. Jones, and Messrs. Aylward, Bain, Greig, Holt, Morris, and Weisenseel as nominees for election to the Board by the shareholders. If elected by the shareholders, Ms. Jones, and Messrs. Aylward, Bain, Greig, Holt, Morris, and Weisenseel will hold office for a one-year term expiring at the 2027 Annual Meeting and until his or her successor has been duly elected and qualified, or upon his or her earlier resignation, retirement, death, disqualification or removal. Each of the director nominees has indicated that he or she will serve if elected. We do not anticipate that any Board nominee will be unable or unwilling to stand for election but should any such nominee be unavailable for election by reason of death or other unexpected occurrence, your proxy, to the extent permitted by applicable law, may be voted by the proxies named therein, with discretionary authority in connection with the nomination by the Board and the election of any substitute nominee. A plurality of the affirmative votes cast by shareholders present in person or represented by proxy and entitled to vote is required for the election of each such director nominee. That said, pursuant to our Bylaws, any director nominee who receives a greater number of votes “withheld” than votes “for” such director nominee’s election is required to promptly tender such director nominee’s resignation subject to acceptance by the Board. The Board’s decision, which will not involve the participation of any incumbent director who fails to receive a majority of the votes cast in an uncontested election of directors, will be promptly disclosed in a public announcement. The Board recommends that shareholders vote “FOR” the election of its director nominees,

  3. George R. Aylward, Peter L. Bain, Paul G. Greig, Timothy A. Holt, Melody L. Jones, W. Howard Morris, and

    George R. Aylward, Peter L. Bain, Paul G. Greig, Timothy A. Holt, Melody L. Jones, W. Howard Morris, and

  4. John C. Weisenseel as directors of Virtus

    John C. Weisenseel as directors of Virtus Listed below are the names of the Board’s nominees to the director seats and the incumbent directors who will be continuing in office following the Annual Meeting, together with certain biographical and business information regarding such persons and the experience and certain other factors considered in connection with the selection of such persons for membership on our Board.

  5. Board Nominees

    Board Nominees GEORGE R. AYLWARD (61), Director since 2008. Mr. Aylward has served as President of the Company since November 6, 2006 and has been our President and CEO since January 1, 2009, when the Company became an independent public company. He joined the predecessor to the Company, Phoenix Investment Partners, Inc. (“PXP”), which was the majority owned asset management subsidiary of The Phoenix Companies, Inc. (“PNX”), in 1996. At PNX, Mr. Aylward served as President, Asset Management, and Senior Executive Vice President from February 2007 to December 31, 2008; Executive Vice President, Asset Management, from November 6, 2006 to February 2007; Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, Asset Management, from 2004 through 2006, and Chief of Staff to the Chairman, President and CEO from 2002 through 2004. He also served in several senior financial positions at PXP prior to 2002. Since 2006, Mr. Aylward has served as President and Trustee of the Virtus Mutual Funds, having been Executive Vice President from 2004 to 2006; President (since 2010) and Trustee (since 2012) of the Virtus Variable Insurance Trust; Trustee and President of the Virtus Alternative Solutions Trust since 2013; Trustee and President (since 2024) of the Virtus Managed Account Completion Shares (MACS) Trust; Trustee and President (since 2024) of the Virtus Interval Funds; Director of the Virtus Global Funds, plc since 2013; Director (since 2023) of the Stone Harbor Investment Funds plc, Stone Harbor Global Funds plc and the Virtus Global Funds ICAV; and Chairman and Trustee of Virtus ETF Trust II since 2015. In addition, he serves as President, CEO and Director (or Trustee) of 12 closed-end funds managed by the Company’s affiliated registered investment advisers. Mr. Aylward brings to our Board demonstrated leadership, extensive knowledge of and experience in the asset management and financial services industries, and superior executive management and financial skills as our CEO. PETER L. BAIN (67), Director since 2019. Mr. Bain served as President, Chief Executive Officer and Director of OM Asset Management, a global multi-boutique asset management firm now known as Acadian Asset Management, Inc., from 2011 to 2017. From 2001 until 2009, he held various positions at Legg Mason, a global asset management firm, including Senior Executive Vice President from 2004 to 2009, head of affiliate management and corporate strategy from 2008 to 2009 and as chief administrative officer from 2003 to 2005. Prior to that time, he was with Berkshire Global Advisors from 1991 to 2000 where he served as Managing Director from 1995 to 2000, and earlier at Merrill Lynch & Co. in various roles from 1987 to 1990. Mr. Bain brings to our board demonstrated leadership experience in the asset management industry. Furthermore, Mr. Bain’s extensive experience with a wide array of corporate finance and operational matters positions him well to serve as a member of our Board and Compensation Committee and our Governance Committee. PAUL G. GREIG (70), Director since 2019. Mr. Greig served as Chairman of the board of Opus Bank (“Opus”), a federally insured chartered commercial bank, from 2017 to 2019. While at Opus, he held the role of interim Chief Executive Officer and President during 2018 and 2019. At Opus, he served as chair of the Risk Committee and as a member of the Governance and Nominating Committee and Audit Committee. Prior to joining Opus, Mr. Greig served as Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer of FirstMerit Corporation, a regional diversified financial services company, from 2006 to 2016. He was a member of the Advisory Board of Omni Senior Living, senior residential communities located throughout Ohio from 2016 to 2025. He previously served as President and Chief Executive Officer of Citizens Banking Corporation—Illinois from 2005 to 2006 and was a director and member of the Audit Committee of the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland from 2011 to 2014. Mr. Greig brings to our Board exceptional leadership experience along with expertise in financial and accounting matters, which positions him well to serve as a member of our Board and Chair of our Audit Committee. TIMOTHY A. HOLT (73), Director since 2009. Mr. Holt held various senior management positions with Aetna, Inc., a managed healthcare company, until his retirement in 2008. He was Senior Vice President and Chief Investment Officer from 1999 to 2008, Vice President and Chief Investment Officer from 1997 to 1999, Chief Enterprise Risk Officer from 2004 to 2007, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Aetna Retirement Services from 1996 to 1997, Vice President of Portfolio Management Group from 1992 to 1995, Vice President of Aetna Portfolio Management from 1991 to 1992, Vice President, Finance and Treasurer from 1989 to 1991, Vice President of Public Bonds from 1987 to 1989, Property/Casualty Portfolio Manager from 1983 to 1987, Investment Officer from 1981 to 1982 and Investment Officer/Analyst from 1977 to 1981. He was a member of Aetna’s Executive Committee from 2003 until his retirement in 2008. Mr. Holt served as a consultant to Aetna during 2008 and 2009. From 2012 through April 2025, Mr. Holt served as a director of MGIC Investment Corporation, a provider of private mortgage insurance in the U.S. and served as its Chairman of the Securities Investment Committee. From January 2014 to February 2017, Mr. Holt served as a director of StanCorp Financial Group, which was a publicly traded insurance products company until it was acquired in March 2016. With his broad management, financial and investment experience at Aetna, Mr. Holt brings to our Board leadership and knowledge regarding the financial and investment industries, risk management, corporate governance and financial and corporate operational matters. Mr. Holt’s extensive management and investment experience positions him well to serve as the Chairman of our Board, and as Chair of our Governance Committee, and as a member of our Compensation Committee.

  6. Board Nominees

    MELODY L. JONES (66), Director since 2014. Ms. Jones is an independent Board director, and founder of 32-80 Advisors LLC, which provides operational advice, executive assessment, and coaching to CEOs and other C-suite professionals. As of February 2025, Ms. Jones has served as the interim Chief Human Resources Officer of Heidrick and Struggles, an international executive search and management consulting company. From 2012 to 2017, Ms. Jones served as the Chief Administrative Officer (“CAO”) for CEB, a best practice insight and technology company. In her role as CAO, Ms. Jones had global responsibility for New Product Development, Information Technology, Legal and Compliance, Human Resources, Communications, Philanthropy and the Member Events department. She joined the firm in December 2005 and served as the Chief Human Resources Officer (“CHRO”) until February 2012. She managed CEB’s Professional Services practice from 2010 to 2012 and the firm’s product development function from 2013 to 2015. Prior to CEB, Ms. Jones served from 2002 to 2005 as the global head of Human Resources for T. Rowe Price, a global investment management firm. Prior to joining T. Rowe Price, Ms. Jones spent eight years at Aon Corporation, a global insurance brokerage and consulting company, serving from 1998 to 2002 as the CHRO. She joined Aon in 1994, as head of the Midwestern Regional Office of Aon Consulting. In 1996, she assumed responsibility for the HR Strategy and Technology consulting practice and managed this global practice until assuming her role as CHRO for the corporation. Ms. Jones also served as a senior consultant with Organizational Dynamics, Inc., an international management training and consulting company, and held several leadership positions across a six-year tenure with Citicorp Mortgage. Ms. Jones currently serves on the Boards of CEATI, a user-driven best practices network organization for the utilities industry; Fount Global, whose focus is technology and employee experience insights for global executives; and YPTC, which provides outsourced fractional accounting support to the non-profit sector. She also serves on the Advisory Board of Pamlico Investment Partners, a mid-market private equity firm. Ms. Jones brings to our Board management and leadership experience, which positions her well to serve as a member of our Board and Governance Committee and Chair of our Compensation Committee. W. HOWARD MORRIS (67), Director since 2021. Mr. Morris has been President and Chief Investment Officer of The Prairie & Tireman Group, an investment partnership, since 1998. Prior to founding Prairie & Tireman, Mr. Morris was president and chief investment officer at WILMOCO Capital Management in Detroit, where he managed portfolios for institutions. He served from 2002 to 2005 as chief executive officer and emergency financial manager for the Inkster Public School District, where he had authority over the district’s financial and operational matters. He was appointed to that position by the governor of Michigan after serving as the chief financial officer of the Detroit Public School District. He was an assistant professor of accounting and investments at Hillsdale College in Hillsdale, Michigan from 1991 to 1998. He is currently serving a second four-year term on the Michigan State Tax Commission. He is a Certified Public Accountant and Chartered Financial Analyst. From 2007 through April 2025, Mr. Morris served on the board of Owens Corning, an American company that develops and produces insulation, roofing, and fiberglass composites and related materials and products. Mr. Morris brings to our Board expertise in investment management and financial matters, which positions him well to serve as a member of our Board and Audit Committee. JOHN C. WEISENSEEL (66), Director since 2024. Mr. Weisenseel served as Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of AllianceBernstein LP from 2012 to 2021, where he supervised global finance activities for the publicly traded asset management company. Prior to joining AllianceBernstein, he held financial leadership roles at McGraw Hill from 2004 to 2012, initially as senior vice president and corporate treasurer and later as senior vice president and chief financial officer of the firm’s Standard & Poor’s subsidiary. Earlier he was vice president and corporate treasurer for Barnes & Noble from 2000 to 2004 and from 1990 to 2000 held a variety of derivatives trading and financial positions at Citigroup. While at Citigroup he also served on a Toronto Stock Exchange Blue Ribbon Advisory Panel concerning the transition to the new S&P Canadian Market Index. Prior to Citigroup, he worked at other banks and began his career at KPMG Peat Marwick. Since 2021 he has been an Executive-in-Residence at Lipscomb University’s College of Business in Nashville and has served on the boards of several nonprofit organizations. Mr. Weisenseel brings to our Board exceptional executive leadership experience along with expertise in investment management and financial matters, which positions him well to serve as a member of our Board and Audit Committee.

  7. Compensation Policies and Practices

    | What We Do | | ✓ Provide for a substantial portion of our executives’ pay to be at-risk via annual and long-term incentives | | ✓ Balance compensation among cash and equity and fixed and variable pay | | ✓ Impose a cap on executive officer annual and long-term incentives | | ✓ Evaluate compensation and performance compared to relevant peer companies | | ✓ Conduct an annual advisory vote of shareholders on executive compensation | | ✓ Engage with shareholders for input on a continuous basis | | ✓ Require executives to meet minimum stock ownership levels | | ✓ Maintain a compensation clawback policy compliant with the Dodd-Frank Act and NYSE Rules | | ✓ Prohibit hedging of holdings in Company stock | | ✓ Engage an independent compensation consultant to assist in evaluating annual compensation program design and pay decisions for our executive officers and to advise the Compensation Committee | | What We Don’t Do | | × No single-trigger change-in-control provisions | | × No employment agreements for our NEOs | | × No aspect of compensation policies or practices encourages excessive, adverse risk-taking by executives | | × No repricing of “underwater” stock options without shareholder approval |

  8. Peer Group Benchmarking

    Peer Group Benchmarking As the Company competes with other asset management companies for talent and must attract and retain critical executive talent with industry-specific skills and experience, the Committee believes that comparative data is useful and appropriate in establishing competitive compensation levels for executives. Management obtains and uses third-party survey data from McLagan Partners, Inc., (“McLagan”) a leading performance/reward consulting and benchmarking firm in the asset management industry. Our executive positions are compared against survey data based on positions with similar responsibilities and scope at firms with which we compete in our industry. In addition, compensation is reviewed against peer companies selected from traditional publicly traded asset managers that compete with the Company for talent and that are compared with the Company based on the following characteristics:

  9. Peer Group Benchmarking

    | • | Business model |

  10. Peer Group Benchmarking

    | • | Diversity of investment strategies and products |

  11. Peer Group Benchmarking

    | • | Distribution channels |

  12. Peer Group Benchmarking

    | • | Management roles |

  13. Peer Group Benchmarking

    | • | Ownership structure |

  14. Peer Group Benchmarking

    | • | Assets under management |

  15. Peer Group Benchmarking

    The Committee annually reviews the companies that comprise the executive compensation peer group for significant changes in the characteristics listed above. The Committee uses compensation data publicly disclosed by these peer companies as a market check and as only one of the factors for evaluating compensation levels. The peer group consists solely of asset managers because compensation programs within this industry are distinct from pay programs in the broader financial services sector, and asset managers are typically competing specifically with other asset managers for executive talent. For 2025, the Committee selected the following nine public asset management companies for inclusion in the Executive Compensation Peer Group. These same companies were included in the Executive Compensation Peer Group used for 2024. The Company’s size, as measured by assets under management, approximated the median of the Executive Compensation Peer Group. The companies in the Executive Compensation Peer Group differ from companies that are included as peers for comparative financial results, including TSR, as shown on Appendix B.

  16. Peer Group Benchmarking

    | Executive Compensation Peer Companies | | Acadian Asset Management Inc. | | Affiliated Managers Group, Inc. | | AllianceBernstein Holding L.P. | | Artisan Partners Asset Management Inc. | | Cohen & Steers, Inc. | | Federated Hermes, Inc. | | Janus Henderson Group plc | | Victory Capital Holdings, Inc. | | Wisdom Tree, Inc. |

  17. Compensation-Setting Process

    | • | Setting target annual and long-term incentive opportunities for each NEO by reviewing market positioning in relation to each executive’s role and responsibilities; |

  18. Compensation-Setting Process

    | • | Selecting annual and long-term incentive performance metrics used in funding incentive awards that are directly linked to the Company’s annual strategic and business planning process; |

  19. Compensation-Setting Process

    | • | Reviewing the market position of each NEO’s final total compensation to validate placement within the market range. |

  20. Compensation-Setting Process

    | • | Recommending performance metrics and objectives for our annual and long-term incentive compensation plans; and |

  21. The Use of Compensation Consultant

    The Use of Compensation Consultant The Committee has engaged Mercer, a leading human resource consulting firm, as its independent compensation consultant. Mercer participates in the Committee’s meetings and provides counsel and objective analysis on the Company’s executive compensation program and practices, and additional competitive data for the Committee’s consideration. In addition, Mercer assists in assessing the risk of the Company’s executive compensation program and provides ongoing reviews. Mercer believes that the Company’s executive incentive program has an appropriate balance between performance incentives and risk mitigation. Mercer also assisted the Committee with the preparation of this Compensation Discussion and Analysis. Mercer has implemented policies and procedures so that it and the Committee are confident that the advice the Committee receives from the individual executive compensation consultant is objective and not influenced by Mercer’s or its affiliates’ relationships with the Company, if any.

  22. Pay Mix

    Pay Mix We believe the majority of executive compensation should be at-risk and come from performance-based pay. The proportion of “at-risk” compensation, as well as the balance of incentive opportunity mix between annual and long-term incentive opportunity, is determined by each executive’s role and responsibilities compared to market data. The Committee set the target for the CEO’s short-term/long-term incentive variable pay mix at 50%/50% for 2025, consistent with the 2024 target ratio and in alignment with the pay mix for CEOs in the compensation peer group. The Committee also recognizes that the CEO, who owns approximately 4.0%(7) of outstanding shares, is a significant shareholder of the Company and owns shares well in excess of the stock ownership guidelines.

  23. Annual Incentive Compensation

    Annual Incentive Compensation Annual Incentive Plan Design Annual incentive awards for our executive officers are funded from an executive officer incentive pool that has a formulaic maximum funding set at 7% of operating income, as adjusted, before any variable incentive compensation. The allocation of the CEO’s award is based on the Committee’s assessment of actual results relative to pre-established absolute and relative performance goals for the Company. Measures used are linked to business strategy and organized into categories with collective weightings that include, as shown in the table below, three financial objectives (50%), three operational objectives (30%), and five categories of strategic objectives (20%). The allocation of awards to other NEOs also considers their respective department/unit and individual accomplishments. At the beginning of the fiscal year, based on its ongoing evaluations, discussions with its independent compensation consultant, and feedback from shareholders, the Committee considers the performance metrics and strategic priorities that will be used for annual incentive purposes. The Committee evaluates whether: (i) the metrics are adequately linked to the Company’s annual strategic, operational, and financial plans; (ii) the metrics will drive appropriate behaviors; and (iii) any other metrics would be appropriate to add. For 2025, the Committee approved the financial and operating metrics listed below, as well as the strategic objectives that follow the 2025 Annual Incentive Performance Metrics and Results. The financial and operating metrics for 2025 were set at a level that required improvement over the prior year (for absolute measures) or results that exceeded industry median levels (for relative measures). The strategic objectives were substantially similar to those used for 2024, as they continued to reflect current organizational priorities. The financial and operating metrics were:

  24. Annual Incentive Compensation

    | • | The earnings-based target of EPS, diluted, as adjusted, of $27.75 was a 5% increase from the actual 2024 result of $26.33. |

  25. Annual Incentive Compensation

    | • | The Company did not achieve its target margin with a 31.1% full year margin 240 bps below our target of 33.5% and 150 bps below 2024 margin of 32.6% despite achieving an incremental margin of 58%. The margin ranked 7th of 12 Financial Peers and was 100 basis points below the peer mean. |

  26. Annual Incentive Compensation

    | • | Targets for the two relative performance metrics – placement in the 45th percentile among Financial Peers for growth in operating income, as adjusted, and 55% of long-term AUM outperforming their peer groups on a three-year basis – were consistent with those used in 2024, with target payouts requiring performance above industry-median levels. |

  27. Annual Incentive Compensation

    | • | The 0.0% target for the total net flow rate was consistent with the 2024 target and higher than 2025 actual results. |

  28. Annual Incentive Compensation

    | • | The Committee has used the sales metric of the gross sales rate for all products, reflecting the Company’s diversified AUM profile. The target for this metric was set at 18.0%, which is consistent with the prior year. |

  29. Annual Incentive Compensation

    The Committee believes these financial and operational targets represent significant increases from the prior year’s results and, with the strategic objectives, represented challenging targets for the Company and senior management. At year-end, the Committee evaluates performance against these financial, operational, and strategic metrics, and the corresponding quantitative or qualitative targets for each metric that are established at the beginning of the year. Outcomes on individual metrics within each category (financial, operational, and strategic) are viewed collectively and do not have specified weightings. The Committee considers the relative weightings of each category of metrics and, based on its evaluation of each metric, determines its overall assessment of Company results. This assessment determines the final incentive pool funding, the award amount for the CEO, and other NEO awards. The Committee believes this structured approach facilitates a holistic assessment of performance and is the most effective way to measure the CEO’s leadership and the other NEOs’ performance within the context of a dynamic investment industry. Annual Incentive Performance Metrics and Results The performance results for the 2025 financial and operational metrics, the related targets and prior-year results, as well as key accomplishments on the Company’s strategic objectives, are summarized in the tables below. The Committee determined that the Company continued to execute on its long-term business plan, with solid financial results compared to the prior year that were modestly below the 2025 plan, significant progress on foundational strategic and operational activities, but with challenging sales and net flows that reflected industry trends. Results for the Financial and Operational Objectives were determined to be below target, and results for the Strategic Objectives were determined to be above expectations.

  30. Annual Incentive Compensation

    | 2025 Annual Incentive Performance Metrics and Results | | | | | | | | Results and Targets | | | Variance | | | Metric | 2025 Actual | 2025 Target | 2024 Actual | To Target | % (1) | | Financial Objectives (50%) | | | | | | | Operating margin, as adjusted (2) | 31.1% | 33.5% | 32.6% | (2.4%) | N/M | | Growth in operating income, as adjusted, versus Financial Peers | 92nd percentile | 45th percentile | 58th percentile | (47.0%) | N/M | | Diluted EPS, as adjusted (2) | $25.15 | $27.75 | $26.33 | ($2.60) | (9.0%) | | Committee’s Evaluation: The Committee determined the overall 2025 results for the Financial Objectives to be below target and primarily reflected challenging sales and net flows that were consistent with industry trends. It was a challenging environment for us given that quality-oriented equity strategies, which represent half of our assets under management, remained out of favor resulting in an increased level of net outflows, overshadowing other areas of strength in the business. | | | | | |

  31. Annual Incentive Compensation

    | | Results and Targets | | | Variance of 2025 Actual to Target (1) | | Metric | 2025 Actual | 2025 Target | 2024 Actual | | | Operational Objectives (30%) | | | | | | Gross sales rate for all products | 13.4% | 18.0% | 15.5% | (4.6%) | | Composite investment performance (3) | 59% | 100% | 83% | (41%) | | Total net flow rate (4) | (10.8%) | 0.0% | (6.1%) | (10.8%) | | Committee’s Evaluation: The Committee determined the overall 2025 results for the Operational Objectives to be below target. The Committee noted that the gross sales rate for all products in total decreased from the prior year, primarily as a result of underperformance. The sales rates for focused products, including ETFs, institutional separate accounts, structured products, and investments were all above both target and the prior year. The total net flow rate of (10.8%) deteriorated from (6.1%) in 2024 and was reflective of the industry as only four Financial Peer companies, with different product offering mixes, had positive net flows for 2025. | | | | |

  32. Annual Incentive Compensation

    | (1) Refers to number of percentage points of variance. |

  33. Annual Incentive Compensation

    | (2) The referenced non-GAAP measures are described and reconciled to GAAP reported amounts in Appendix A to this Proxy Statement. |

  34. Annual Incentive Compensation

    | (3) As measured by percentage of long-term AUM beating benchmarks and peer groups on a 1-, 3- and 5-year basis. |

  35. Annual Incentive Compensation

    | (4) Net flows divided by beginning-of-period AUM. |

  36. Annual Incentive Compensation

    | Strategic Objectives (20%) | | I. Product Quality Maintain a set of attractive investment strategies to meet current and future demand | | Focus Areas • Expand retail separately managed account (“SMA”) offerings • Introduce private market offerings • Expand exchange traded fund (“ETF”) offerings | | Summary of Key Accomplishments • Expanded and managed product offerings to ensure we have strategies that meet changing needs and market interest including: – Introduced or seeded nine new retail separate accounts strategies from five managers to increase competitiveness in specific growth segments – Launched four ETFs: AlphaSimplex Global Macro, Silvant Growth Opportunities, Virtus U.S. Dividend, Virtus International Dividend – Introduced two Undertakings for Collective Investment in Transferable Securities (“UCITS”): GF U.S. Focused Large Cap Growth Fund (Silvant), Stone Harbor Investment Partners Emerging Markets Corporate Debt Fund • Assessed and identified priorities including global opportunities fund, an interval fund to be jointly managed by Stone Harbor and Seix Investment Advisors • Supported growth in the non-U.S. market and explored opportunities in new markets • Delivered strong relative performance across asset classes and products, including: – 45% of all AUM outperformed the median of their peer groups over the five-year period ended December 31, 2025 – 82% of ETF AUM outperformed the median of their peer groups over the three-year period | | II. Distribution Growth Increase market share in existing channels and capitalize on opportunities in new channels | | Focus Areas • Evolve distribution capabilities • Expand Institutional business and U.S. Retail distribution • Optimize Distribution Model | | Summary of Key Accomplishments • Continued focus on growth in Institutional business by expanding coverage to include financial intermediaries (both U.S. and non-U.S) – Institutional represented 33% of AUM as of December 31, 2025; developed additional reports to enhance reporting and tracking; piloted new tool to refine analytical output • Expanded Registered Investment Advisor (RIA) channel penetration – Increased engagements with RIAs by 22% in 2025 • Expanded ETF sales efforts and hired an experienced ETF sales director – Increased ETF sales $2.5 billion by 69% compared to $1.5 billion in the prior year – Continued ETF growth as a result of multiple initiatives to expand ETF offerings, enhance access to intermediaries, and to expand sales resources and support for the asset class |

  37. Annual Incentive Compensation

    | III. Operating Optimization Provide shared business support services that maximize the effectiveness and leveragability of the business | | Focus Areas • Optimize technology infrastructure • Enhance operating services model • Evolve operations model • Optimize support functions | | Summary of Key Accomplishments • Implemented scheduled phases of the long-term technology plan, including the decommission and consolidation of data centers • Developed protocols, including a governance process, for employees and investment managers to start investigating uses of AI technology • Expanded utilization of common operating platform – Integrated four additional managers onto the platform; ten out of our thirteen investment managers are currently on the platform – Completed enhancements including dividend processing, investment performance reports, and performance attribution • Implemented new SMA support model to enhance consistency across investment managers • Streamlined order automation and order allocation workflow • Established centralized vendor and procurement function with Finance | | IV. Talent Engagement Attract and retain the talent necessary to effectively execute business objectives | | Focus Areas • Enhance employee engagement • Continue to execute on employee development • Enhance HR management tools | | Summary of Key Accomplishments • Expanded learning and development opportunities to support training for critical skills – Utilized LinkedIn Learning platform to launch leadership skills development program for first-time managers – Provided individualized executive coaching for managers identified with executive leadership potential – Maintained online targeted training curriculums for employees and managers, including leadership skills development • Reviewed and revised retail sales incentive plans to better align outcomes and drive results given dynamic market conditions • Continued to support organization-wide employee engagement activities, including: – Hosted additional financial literacy presentations for community partners who support teens in underrepresented communities – Employee Resource Groups (“ ERGs”) hosted a variety of programs throughout offices and virtually to all employees |

  38. Annual Incentive Compensation

    | V. Financial Management Manage resources for profitability, growth, risk mitigation, and creation of long-term shareholder value | | Focus Areas • Manage capital optimally • Optimize financing structure • Enhance risk management processes | | Summary of Key Accomplishments • Returned a meaningful level of capital to shareholders with a total payout of $133.5 million compared with $117 million in 2024. Capital returned to shareholders represented 77% and 62% of net income attributable to Virtus Investment Partners, Inc. as adjusted, in 2025 and 2024, respectively: – Increased quarterly Common Stock dividend by 7% to $2.40 per share, the eighth consecutive annual dividend increase – Repurchased $60.0 million of Common Stock, or approximately 347,364 shares, at an average price of $172.73 per share, which represented 5% of the prior year’s outstanding shares • Continued deployment of shared operating platform with the build-out of additional performance and risk analytics and enhanced client reporting capabilities – Continued to add investment managers with NFJ Investment Group and Duff & Phelps Investment Management joining the platform which now includes ten managers • Created a centralized vendor and procurement team which led to relatively flat other operating expenses with continued investments in the business • Ended the year at $399.0 million of gross debt compared to $236.1 million as of December 31, 2024, with respective gross leverage ratios of 1.3x and 0.0x EBITDA(8). Net debt of $13 million compared to net cash at year-end of $30 million at December 31, 2024 • Achieved cost effective outcomes for office facilities with expiring leases in 2025 | | Committee’s Evaluation: The Committee evaluated management’s performance and leadership across each of its five primary Strategic Objectives and the overall qualitative results for strategic priorities and focus areas and determined that they were above expectations, with particular emphasis on management’s continued focus on the long-term growth of the business including during the year: expanding investment capabilities through inorganic transactions, successful ETF growth initiatives, operating optimization activities, successfully managing continued enhancements to a common operating platform and support for the investment managers; and the Company’s meaningful return of capital, including the eighth consecutive annual increase of the common stock dividend. |

  39. Annual Incentive Compensation

    In determining the funding level of the executive officer incentive awards, the Committee carefully assessed the Company’s performance against the above financial, operational, and strategic objectives, particularly noting that while the operating margin, diluted EPS, and relative investment performance metrics improved sequentially, the results were still below target, and sales and net flow rates remained challenged, consistent with industry trends. Based on these evaluations, the Committee determined that the Company’s overall performance was below target and that the annual incentive awards for the executive officers should be funded, in aggregate, at 25.6% of the maximum potential pool funding of 7% of operating income, as adjusted, before any variable incentive compensation.

  40. Annual Incentive Compensation

    | Category | Weight | Committee Assessment | | Financial | 50% | Below Target | | Operational | 30% | Below Target | | Strategic | 20% | Above Expectations | | Overall | 100% | Below Target |

  41. Annual Incentive Compensation

    | (8) Defined and calculated in accordance with the company’s credit agreement. |

  42. Annual Incentive Compensation

    CEO Award Determination

  43. President, Chief Executive Officer and Director

    President, Chief Executive Officer and Director For our CEO, the Committee established the annual incentive opportunity to position his target total compensation, which comprises base salary, annual incentive, and long-term incentive, competitively relative to amounts paid to peer group CEOs. For the 2025 performance year, the annual incentive target remained at $3.2 million, with a range of zero to a maximum of 200% of target. The performance objectives of our CEO are directly aligned with the factors that are considered in determining the annual incentive pool funding, as reviewed in the 2025 Annual Incentive Performance Metrics and Results table, above. Additional information about the results included: Financial Objectives (50%)

  44. President, Chief Executive Officer and Director

    | • | Relative investment performance decline due to quality-oriented equity strategies for the primary metric period of three years with 45% of AUM in the top 50% of category peer group compared with 52% in the prior year. On a long-term 10-year basis, which more closely represents a full market cycle, equity strategies continue to have strong performance with 62% beating benchmarks. Fixed income and alternative strategies investment performance is very strong over all periods. |

  45. President, Chief Executive Officer and Director

    The Committee determined that for the overall performance assessment of the CEO for 2025, the quantitative results for the financial and operational objectives were below target, while overall results for strategic priorities were above expectations. Based on the results against these 2025 financial, operational, and strategic goals, the Committee assessed the CEO’s overall performance to be below target. Given the above assessment, the Committee determined that the CEO’s performance would indicate an annual incentive payout of $2.442 million, or 24% below the target of $3.2 million and 18.6% below the prior year’s actual annual incentive payout. The following table sets forth the CEO’s annual incentive award opportunities ranging from below threshold to maximum levels and his actual annual incentive payouts for 2025 and 2024.

  46. President, Chief Executive Officer and Director

    | CEO Annual Incentive Award Opportunity and Actual Award | | | | | | | Below Threshold | Target (100% payout) | Maximum | Actual | | 2025 | $0 | $3,200,000 | $6,400,000 | $2,442,000 | | 2024 | $0 | $3,200,000 | $6,400,000 | $3,000,000 |

  47. President, Chief Executive Officer and Director

    | • | Company financial, operational, and strategic objective results used to determine the executive officer incentive award pool funding and CEO annual incentive award, as noted above (50%); |

  48. Executive Vice President, Chief Operating Officer

    | • | 45% and 59% of all AUM outperformed the median of their peer groups over the 5-year period and 10-year periods respectively; |

  49. Executive Vice President, Chief Operating Officer

    | • | 82% of ETF AUM outperformed the median of their peer groups over the three-year period; and |

  50. Executive Vice President, Chief Operating Officer

    | • | 18% of retail separate account assets and 36% of institutional assets were outperforming their benchmarks on a five-year basis.(9) |

  51. Executive Vice President, Chief Operating Officer

    | • | Information Technology, which reports to Mr. Smirl, continued to implement the scheduled phases of long-term technology and data strategy, and the shared operating platform onboarded four more managers and made substantial enhancements to client and business reporting capabilities. |

  52. Executive Vice President, Chief Legal Officer, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary

    Based on the recommendations of the CEO, the annual incentive awards for the NEOs listed in the table below were approved by the Committee. The table also provides the annual incentive awards for each NEO, other than the CEO, for the prior year.

  53. Executive Vice President, Chief Legal Officer, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary

    | Named Executive Officer | Annual Incentive Award for | | | | 2025 | 2024 | | Michael A. Angerthal | $1,575,000 | $1,850,000 | | Barry M. Mandinach | $1,200,000 | $1,350,000 | | Richard W. Smirl | $1,500,000 | $1,750,000 | | Andra C. Purkalitis | $950,000 | $1,032,000 |

  54. Long-Term Incentive Compensation

    Long-Term Incentive Compensation To promote and reward the achievement of the Company’s long-term performance objectives, and to attract, motivate, and retain high-caliber leadership, the Company uses two forms of long-term incentives to align the interests of executives with those of our shareholders:

  55. Long-Term Incentive Compensation

    | • | Restricted Stock Units (“RSUs”) – Value increases or decreases with share performance, aligning the interests of NEOs with shareholders. The three-year vesting period for RSUs strongly supports NEO retention in addition to alignment with shareholders. |

  56. Long-Term Incentive Compensation

    | • | Performance Share Units (“PSUs”) – Provides value based on the achievement of results against the Company’s key performance metrics, relative to peers, over a three-year performance period, rewarding achievement of longer-term financial goals while putting the award at risk if threshold results are not achieved. Value is also directly related to share performance, further aligning NEOs’ and shareholders’ interests. |

  57. Long-Term Incentive Compensation

    The Company’s practice is to issue equity awards in the form of RSUs and PSUs only, and not in the form of stock options or Stock Appreciation Rights (SARs) or similar option-like instruments. Additionally, it is the Company’s practice to grant annual equity awards on a default date in March of each year following the Committee’s compensation decisions. This allows the Company to make equity awards at the beginning of the relevant performance cycle with the benefit of reviewing results from the immediately preceding performance cycle. The Company may also grant equity awards to new hires or for other reasons, including, for example, a job promotion or for retention purposes on the next available open-window default date. The Company does not backdate or retroactively grant RSUs or PSUs. Board and Committee meetings are generally scheduled at least one year in advance and, as noted above, generally make annual equity awards to our NEOs at approximately the same time each year. The Company does not time its equity awards to take advantage of the release of earnings or other major announcements by us or market conditions. Each NEO’s long-term incentive award target, as shown in the 2025 Long-Term Incentive Awards table below, is determined based on the individual’s responsibilities, market-level competitive positioning for similar roles, and consideration of internal alignment. Awards to executive officers are split 50% each to PSUs and RSUs. The performance metrics related to the long-term incentive awards and vesting periods encourage a focus on sustained, long-term results. 2025 Long-Term Incentive Plan In the first quarter of 2025, the Committee approved the 2025 long-term incentive plan (“LTIP”), which provided for 50% of the awards to be granted in PSUs and 50% in time-vested RSUs. The Committee believes the equal allocation between PSUs and RSUs provides an appropriate balance between performance recognition and retention for the NEOs as well as alignment with shareholders. Both of the metrics for the PSU awards are measured over a three-year period. The two equally weighted relative performance metrics are:

  58. Long-Term Incentive Compensation

    | • | Relative TSR, which is the cumulative three-year total return of the Company’s Common Stock, including dividends, relative to the Financial Peers and directly relates to our shareholders’ experience as long-term investors in the stock; and |

  59. Long-Term Incentive Compensation

    | • | Average Operating Margin, which is the cumulative operating income, as adjusted over the three-year measurement period divided by Total Revenues, as adjusted over the same period relative to target. The Committee believes this metric best captures the Company’s success relative to many of our direct competitors. |

  60. Long-Term Incentive Compensation

    Each of these performance measures is designed to ensure that our NEOs are aligned with the interests of shareholders and rewarded for the achievement of the Company’s longer-term business objectives, strategic priorities, and long-term shareholder value creation. Potential payouts for the PSU awards are as follows:

  61. Long-Term Incentive Compensation

    | Performance Measure | Weight | Below Threshold | Threshold | Goals Target (a) | Maximum | Payout Opportunity (b) | | Relative Shareholder Return | 50% | <75th percentile | 75th percentile | 45th percentile | 25th percentile+ | 0 – 200% | | Average Operating Margin | 50% | 18.5% | 18.5% | 33.5% | 48.5% | 0 – 200% | | Payout Opportunity | | 0% | 50% | 100% | 200% | |

  62. Long-Term Incentive Compensation

    | (a) Relative TSR above-median performance, achieved at the 45th percentile, is required for target-level payout. |

  63. Long-Term Incentive Compensation

    | (b) Actual payout is interpolated on a linear basis between threshold and target, and between target and maximum performance levels. |

  64. Long-Term Incentive Compensation

    Payout levels are interpolated on a linear basis for performance outcomes between the target and maximum levels and between the threshold and target levels. If the Company’s absolute TSR is negative, the maximum payout for that performance measure is capped at target. The Committee also believes that determination of incentive awards based on two performance metrics diversifies the risk associated with any single indicator of performance. Long-Term Incentive Awards and Performance

  65. 2025 Long-Term Incentive Awards (a)

    2025 Long-Term Incentive Awards (a)

  66. 2025 Long-Term Incentive Awards (a)

    | NEO | PSU – Three-Year Average Operating Income (25%) | PSU – Relative Three-Year TSR Ranking (25%) | RSU Time-Vested (50%) | Long-Term Award Total | | George R. Aylward | $800,000 | $800,000 | $1,600,000 | $3,200,000 | | Michael A. Angerthal | $231,250 | $231,250 | $462,500 | $925,000 | | Barry M. Mandinach | $150,000 | $150,000 | $300,000 | $600,000 | | Richard W. Smirl | $250,000 | $250,000 | $500,000 | $1,000,000 | | Andra C. Purkalitis | $125,000 | $125,000 | $250,000 | $500,000 |

  67. 2025 Long-Term Incentive Awards (a)

    | (a) Reflects grant date fair value of award. |

  68. 2025 Long-Term Incentive Awards (a)

    The results of the three-year metrics and the final value of these PSU awards will not be determined until the first quarter of 2028. 2023 Long-Term Incentive Plan In February 2026, the Committee certified the results for both the three-year TSR and the three-year relative net flow rate of long-term AUM measures in the 2023 – 2025 performance period as being below threshold. Accordingly, there was no payout for either component of these performance-adjusted awards.

  69. 2025 Long-Term Incentive Awards (a)

    | 2023 LTIP Performance Results | | | | | Performance Metric | Performance Period | Performance Result (a) | Payout% | | Shareholder Return (b) | 2023 – 2025 | Below Threshold | 0% | | Relative Net Flow Rate (c) | 2023 – 2025 | Below Threshold | 0% | | Total | | | 0% |

  70. 2025 Long-Term Incentive Awards (a)

    | (a) Performance results are in the form of percentiles; relative goals are 75%, 45% and 25% for threshold, target and maximum, respectively. |

  71. 2025 Long-Term Incentive Awards (a)

    | (b) Represents the cumulative three-year total return of Common Stock, including dividends, if any, relative to Financial Peers. |

  72. 2025 Long-Term Incentive Awards (a)

    | (c) Defined as the cumulative long-term asset net flows divided by the beginning long-term assets under management, relative to Financial Peers. |

  73. Risk Mitigating Features

    | • | Balance among short- and long-term incentives, cash and equity, and fixed and variable pay |

  74. Risk Mitigating Features

    | • | Multiple performance measures |

  75. Risk Mitigating Features

    | • | Limited change-in-control benefits |

  76. Clawback Policy

    Clawback Policy Under the Company’s Clawback policy, the Company must recoup any incentive-based compensation received by current or former “officers” (as defined under Rule 16a-1 of the Exchange Act) on or after October 2, 2023 that was erroneously granted, earned or vested based wholly or in part upon the attainment of a material financial reporting measure that has been restated. This includes awards made under the annual and long-term incentive plans, PSUs, and performance-vesting stock options, and restricted stock, but excludes purely time-vested equity awards. The recoupment is to be calculated without regard to any taxes paid and allows for recovery of amounts deferred to non-qualified plans along with interest/earnings therein. Generally, there is no Board or Committee discretion allowed; the clawback is mandatory upon an accounting restatement due to the material noncompliance with any financial reporting requirement under the securities laws, unless the Committee determines that the recovery is impracticable as a result of limited, enumerated factors. The look-back period is the last three completed fiscal years prior to the date the Company is required to prepare a restatement as defined in the policy. With respect to awards granted prior to the adoption of the SEC-required modifications, the Company’s prior clawback provisions would apply.

  77. Severance and

    Severance and

  78. Change-in-Control

    Change-in-Control

  79. Agreements

    Agreements Severance The Company provides executives, including the NEOs, with an executive severance arrangement that provides for separation pay and benefits on the condition that the departed executive does not solicit clients or employees, or take other actions that may harm the Company for specified periods following termination. Benefits are tiered based on years of service and calculated using the executive’s base salary and the average of the last two years of annual incentive payments. We believe that having pre-set terms governing an executive’s separation from service tends to reduce the time and effort needed to negotiate individual termination agreements and promotes more uniform and fair treatment of executives. See “Termination Payments and Arrangements – Executive Severance Allowance Plan.” Agreement A legacy agreement in place for Mr. Aylward, our CEO, as described under “ Termination Payments and Change-in-Control Arrangements – Change-in-Control Agreement with Mr. Aylward ,” is the only change-in-control agreement we have in place with any NEO. The agreement was put into effect December 31, 2008 at the time the Company was preparing to become an independent publicly traded company. During any period in which a change in control occurs, the agreement provides that Mr. Aylward is entitled to receive benefits that are designed to ensure management continuity, encourage retention, preserve shareholder value, and enable the CEO to focus on his responsibilities without undue distraction due to concerns related to new owners. These benefits are also designed to assure that in these circumstances, the CEO will not be unduly influenced in his actions by events that could occur following a change in control. Mr. Aylward’s change-in-control agreement includes a “double trigger” provision which means that, in order for Mr. Aylward to receive benefits under the agreement, there must be both a change in control and a termination by the Company without cause or by him for good reason within two years following the change in control. Under the terms of the agreement, Mr. Aylward is entitled to a tax gross-up in the event that the aggregate value of all “excess parachute payments,” as defined under Section 280G of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), upon a change in control exceeds, by 10% or more, the maximum amount that could be paid to him without his incurring an excise tax of 20% under Code Section 4999. If the “excess parachute payments” are less than 10%, then the amounts payable to Mr. Aylward under the change-in-control agreement will be reduced to the maximum amount allowed without triggering Code Section 280G. The gross-up is intended to preserve the level of benefits to be provided under the agreement but includes the 10% threshold to avoid situations where the cost to the Company far exceeds the benefit to Mr. Aylward.

  80. Tax Considerations

    Tax Considerations Code Section 280G disallows a company’s tax deduction for what are defined as “excess parachute payments” and Code Section 4999 imposes a 20% excise tax on any person who receives excess parachute payments. In the event that a portion of a potential payment to our CEO under his change-in-control agreement would be classified as an excess parachute payment, we may be denied a federal income tax deduction, and our CEO may become entitled to a tax gross-up payment to compensate him or make him whole in respect of the excise tax. No other NEO or other executive officer has any potential tax gross-up protection in connection with a severance event.

  81. Summary Compensation Table

    Summary Compensation Table The following table provides compensation information for our NEOs.

  82. Summary Compensation Table

    | Name and Principal Position | Year | Salary ($)(1) | Bonus ($)(2) | Stock Awards ($)(3) | Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation ($)(4) | All Other Compensation ($)(5) | Total ($) | | George R. Aylward | 2025 | 650,000 | | 3,200,000 | 2,442,000 | 17,500 | 6,309,500 | | President and Chief | 2024 | 641,667 | | 3,200,000 | 2,800,000 | 16,500 | 6,616,500 | | Executive Officer | 2023 | 600,000 | | 3,200,000 | 2,700,000 | 15,250 | 6,515,250 | | Michael A. Angerthal | 2025 | 430,000 | | 925,000 | 1,575,000 | 17,500 | 2,947,500 | | Executive Vice President | 2024 | 425,000 | | 925,000 | 1,850,000 | 17,250 | 3,217,250 | | Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer | 2023 | 400,000 | | 925,000 | 1,800,000 | 16,500 | 3,141,500 | | Barry M. Mandinach | 2025 | 445,000 | | 600,000 | 1,200,000 | 42,500 | 2,287,500 | | Executive Vice President | 2024 | 440,000 | | 600,000 | 1,350,000 | 42,250 | 2,432,250 | | Head of Distribution | 2023 | 415,000 | | 600,000 | 1,350,000 | 41,500 | 2,406,500 | | Richard W. Smirl | 2025 | 450,000 | | 1,000,000 | 1,500,000 | 17,500 | 2,967,500 | | Executive Vice President | 2024 | 445,833 | | 1,000,000 | 1,750,000 | 17,250 | 3,213,083 | | Chief Operating Officer | 2023 | 425,000 | | 1,000,000 | 1,800,000 | 16,500 | 3,241,500 | | Andra C. Purkalitis | 2025 | 375,000 | | 500,000 | 950,000 | 17,500 | 1,842,500 | | Executive Vice President | 2024 | 375,000 | 250,000 | 650,000 | 1,032,000 | 339,026 | 2,646,026 | | Chief Legal Officer, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary | | | | | | | |

  83. Summary Compensation Table

    | (1) The amounts reported in this column represent base salaries earned by each of the NEOs for the listed fiscal year. |

  84. Summary Compensation Table

    | (2) The amounts reported in this column reflect the 2024 sign-on award for Ms. Purkalitis, as previously disclosed. |

  85. Summary Compensation Table

    | (3) The amounts reported in this column reflect the aggregate grant date fair value of stock awards computed in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718. Additional information, including fair valuation assumptions, concerning the Company’s accounting for its equity awards is included in Note 14 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in our 2025 Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025. The amounts in the column reflect rounding. The 2025-2027 LTIP awards were granted on March 15, 2025 and the PSU components are reported at target level attainment. If fully earned, the 2025 LTIP maximum award for each of our NEOs would be as follows: $4,800,000 for Mr. Aylward; $1,387,500 for Mr. Angerthal; $900,000 for Mr. Mandinach; $1,500,000 for Mr. Smirl; and $750,000 for Ms. Purkalitis. The award comprises 50% RSUs and 50% PSUs, with the PSUs having a performance measurement period ending December 31, 2027, all with a three-year vesting period. The PSUs, measured at December 31, 2027, will convert to RSUs with a value from 0% – 200% of the award granted based on Company performance. See “Long-Term Incentive Compensation” of the Compensation Discussion and Analysis for additional information regarding the 2025 LTIP, including the performance measures applicable to the 2025 LTIP PSU awards. The 2024 stock award for Ms. Purkalitis includes a sign-on RSU award with a grant-date fair value of $150,000, as previously disclosed. |

  86. Summary Compensation Table

    | (4) The amounts reported in this column reflect the actual cash award earned under the annual incentive plan for the respective year. See “Annual Incentive Compensation” of the Compensation Discussion and Analysis for additional information regarding the 2025 annual incentive awards, including the performance metrics. |

  87. Summary Compensation Table

    | (5) The amounts reported in this column for 2025 reflect Company contributions to the Company’s 401(k) Plan for each NEO; an annual stipend for reimbursement of housing expenses of $25,000 for Mr. Mandinach; and relocation and housing expense reimbursements in 2024 of $321,276 for Ms. Purkalitis, as previously disclosed. |

  88. Grants of Plan-Based Awards

    Grants of Plan-Based Awards The table below provides information on PSUs, RSUs and non-equity-based performance awards granted to each of the Company’s NEOs during the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025. All awards were made under our Omnibus Incentive and Equity Plan (the “Omnibus Plan”).

  89. Grants of Plan-Based Awards

    | | Grant Date | Date of Compensation Committee Approval | Estimated Future Payouts Under Non-Equity Incentive Plan Awards (1) | | | Estimated Future Payouts Under Equity Incentive Plan Awards (2) | | | All Other Stock Awards: Number of Shares of Stock or Units (c)(#)(3) | Grant Date Fair Value of Stock And Option Awards ($)(4) | | Name | | | Threshold ($) | Target (a)($) | Maximum ($) | Threshold (#) | Target (b)(#) | Maximum (#) | | | | George R. Aylward | 3/14/2025 | 2/25/2025 | 0 | 3,200,000 | 6,400,000 | 0 | 9,230 | 18,460 | 9,232 | 3,199,834 | | Michael A. Angerthal | 3/14/2025 | 2/25/2025 | 0 | 1,575,000 | | 0 | 2,668 | 5,336 | 2,668 | 924,836 | | Barry M. Mandinach | 3/14/2025 | 2/25/2025 | 0 | 1,200,000 | | 0 | 1,730 | 3,460 | 1,731 | 599,861 | | Richard W. Smirl | 3/14/2025 | 2/25/2025 | 0 | 1,500,000 | | 0 | 2,884 | 5,768 | 2,885 | 999,883 | | Andra C. Purkalitis | 3/14/2025 | 2/25/2025 | 0 | 950,000 | | 0 | 1,442 | 2,884 | 1,442 | 499,855 |

  90. Grants of Plan-Based Awards

    | (1) The amounts as reflected in column (a) relate to the annual cash incentive opportunities for each NEO. For Mr. Aylward, the amounts reflect the target and maximum payout opportunities. For the other NEOs, because the actual payout is based on the level of performance achieved, the target amount is not determinable and therefore, in accordance with SEC rules, the amount reflected is a representative amount based on 2025 performance. The performance metrics and actual payments are discussed in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis and the Summary Compensation Table in the “Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation” column. |

  91. Grants of Plan-Based Awards

    | (2) The 2025 LTIP PSU awards granted on March 14, 2025 reported in these columns represent the award opportunities for each NEO. The two metrics against which performance is measured in this plan are discussed earlier in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis under the heading “2025 Long-Term Incentive Plan.” |

  92. Grants of Plan-Based Awards

    | (3) The amounts reported in this column represent the 2025 LTIP RSU awards that vest ratably over three years. |

  93. Grants of Plan-Based Awards

    | (4) The grant date fair value is equal to the number of units granted as reflected in columns (b) and (c), in each case, multiplied by the March 14, 2025 closing price of the Company’s Common Stock on the date of grant, which was $173.32. The PSU components are reported at target level attainment. |

  94. Outstanding Equity Awards at Fiscal Year-End

    Outstanding Equity Awards at Fiscal Year-End The table below provides information on the RSUs and PSUs held by each of the Company’s NEOs as of December 31, 2025.

  95. Outstanding Equity Awards at Fiscal Year-End

    | | Stock Awards (1) | | | | | | Number of Shares or Units of Stock That Have Not Vested (#) | Market Value of Shares or Units of Stock That Have Not Vested ($) | Equity Incentive Plan Awards: Number of Unearned Shares, Units or Other Rights That Have Not Vested (#) | Equity Incentive Plan Awards: Market or Payout Value of Unearned Shares, Units or Other Rights That Have Not Vested ($) | | George R. Aylward | 3,118(2) | 508,702 | | | | | 4,612(3) | 752,448 | | | | | 9,232(6) | 1,506,201 | | | | | | | 1,729(4) | 282,086 | | | | | 1,729(5) | 282,086 | | | | | 4,615(7) | 752,937 | | | | | 2,308(8) | 376,469 | | Michael A. Angerthal | 902(2) | 147,161 | | | | | 1,334(3) | 217,642 | | | | | 2,668(6) | 435,284 | | | | | | | 500(4) | 81,493 | | | | | 500(5) | 81,493 | | | | | 1,334(7) | 217,642 | | | | | 667(8) | 108,821 | | Barry M. Mandinach | 585(2) | 95,443 | | | | | 865(3) | 141,125 | | | | | 1,731(6) | 282,413 | | | | | | | 324(4) | 52,861 | | | | | 324(5) | 52,861 | | | | | 865(7) | 141,125 | | | | | 433(8) | 70,562 | | Richard W. Smirl | 975(2) | 159,071 | | | | | 1,442(3) | 235,262 | | | | | 2,885(6) | 470,688 | | | | | | | 540(4) | 88,101 | | | | | 540(5) | 88,101 | | | | | 1,442(7) | 235,262 | | | | | 721(8) | 117,631 | | Andra C. Purkalitis | 721(4) | 117,631 | | | | | 1,442(6) | 235,632 | | | | | 648(9) | 105,721 | | | | | | | 270(4) | 44,051 | | | | | 270(5) | 44,051 | | | | | 721(7) | 117,631 | | | | | 361(8) | 58,816 |

  96. Outstanding Equity Awards at Fiscal Year-End

    | (1) All RSU and PSU values are based on $163.15, the closing price of the Company’s Common Stock on December 31, 2025, the last trading day of our most recently completed fiscal year. |

  97. Outstanding Equity Awards at Fiscal Year-End

    | (2) This amount represents 17% of the 2023 LTIP award made up of RSUs that vested on March 13, 2026. |

  98. Outstanding Equity Awards at Fiscal Year-End

    | (3) This amount represents 33% of the 2024 LTIP award made up of RSUs that vest ratably on March 13, 2026 and March 15, 2027. |

  99. Outstanding Equity Awards at Fiscal Year-End

    | (4) This amount represents 25% of the 2024 LTIP award made up of PSUs that will convert to RSUs with a value from 0% – 200% of the award granted based on Company performance, following the three-year performance period and, to the extent earned, will vest on March 15, 2027. The number and market value of units reported reflect threshold level achievement based on the Company’s threshold level performance. The actual number of units that will be distributed is not yet determinable. |

  100. Outstanding Equity Awards at Fiscal Year-End

    | (5) This amount represents 25% of the 2024 LTIP award made up of PSUs that will convert to RSUs with a value from 0% – 200% of the award granted based on Company performance, following the three-year performance period and, to the extent earned, will vest on March 15, 2027. The number and market value of units reported reflect threshold level achievement based on the Company’s threshold level performance. The actual number of units that will be distributed is not yet determinable. |

  101. Outstanding Equity Awards at Fiscal Year-End

    | (6) This amount represents 50% of the 2025 LTIP award made up of RSUs that vest ratably on March 15, 2026, 2027 and 2028. |

  102. Outstanding Equity Awards at Fiscal Year-End

    | (7) This amount represents 25% of the 2025 LTIP award made up of PSUs that will convert to RSUs with a value from 0% – 200% of the award granted based on Company performance, following the three-year performance period and, to the extent earned, will vest on March 14, 2028. The number and market value of units reported reflect target level achievement based on the Company’s target level performance. The actual number of units that will be distributed is not yet determinable. |

  103. Outstanding Equity Awards at Fiscal Year-End

    | (8) This amount represents 25% of the 2025 LTIP award made up of PSUs that will convert to RSUs with a value from 0% – 200% of the award granted based on Company performance, following the three-year performance period and, to the extent earned, will vest on March 14, 2028. The number and market value of units reported reflect threshold level achievement based on the Company’s threshold level performance. The actual number of units that will be distributed is not yet determinable. |

  104. Outstanding Equity Awards at Fiscal Year-End

    | (9) This amount represents the number of RSUs awarded to Ms. Purkalitis in 2024 as part of her employment offer. The award will cliff vest on March 15, 2027. |

  105. Stock Vested

    Stock Vested The table below sets forth the number of shares acquired and the value realized upon the vesting of stock awards during 2025 by each of our NEOs.

  106. Stock Vested

    | | Stock Awards | | | Name | Number of Shares Acquired on Vesting (#) | Value Realized on Vesting ($)(1) | | George R. Aylward | 7,867 | 1,363,508 | | Michael A. Angerthal | 2,274 | 394,130 | | Barry M. Mandinach | 1,476 | 255,820 | | Richard W. Smirl | 3,395 | 575,219 | | Andra C. Purkalitis | 360 | 62,395 |

  107. Stock Vested

    | (1) The value realized on vesting was computed by multiplying the number of RSUs that vested by the closing price of the Company’s Common Stock on the respective vesting date. |

  108. Non-Qualified Deferred Compensation

    Non-Qualified Deferred Compensation The following table reflects each NEO’s 2025 compensation deferrals, Company contributions, earnings, withdrawal activity, and aggregate balance as of December 31, 2025 under the Excess Plan.

  109. Non-Qualified Deferred Compensation

    | Name | Executive Contributions in Last FY ($)(1) | Registrant Contributions in Last FY ($)(2) | Aggregate Earnings in Last FY ($)(3) | Aggregate Withdrawals/ Distributions ($) | Aggregate Balance at Last FYE ($) | | George R. Aylward | — | — | 43,127 | — | 281,499 | | Michael A. Angerthal | — | — | — | — | — | | Barry M. Mandinach | — | — | — | — | — | | Richard W. Smirl | — | — | — | — | — | | Andra C. Purkalitis | — | — | — | — | — |

  110. Non-Qualified Deferred Compensation

    | (1) There were no voluntary deferrals of salary in 2025. |

  111. Non-Qualified Deferred Compensation

    | (2) There were no Company contributions to the Excess Plan in 2025. |

  112. Non-Qualified Deferred Compensation

    | (3) Amounts in this column are not reported as compensation for fiscal year 2025 in the “Summary Compensation Table” since they do not reflect above-market or preferential earnings. |

  113. 2025 CEO Pay Ratio

    2025 CEO Pay Ratio As required by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and Regulation S-K of the Exchange Act, we are providing the following information about the relationship of the annual total compensation of our CEO and the median of the annual total compensation of our other employees for 2025 (our “CEO pay ratio”). Our CEO pay ratio information is a reasonable good faith estimate calculated in a manner consistent with Item 402(u) of Regulation S-K. The ratio of the annual total compensation of our CEO, calculated as described in our Summary Compensation Table, to the median of the annual total compensation of all employees for 2025 was 24.0 to 1. This ratio was based on the following:

  114. 2025 CEO Pay Ratio

    | • | The annual total compensation of our CEO, in accordance with SEC rules, included earlier in this Proxy Statement in the “Total” column for 2025 in the Summary Compensation Table, was $6,309,500. |

  115. 2025 CEO Pay Ratio

    | • | The median of the annual total compensation of all employees (other than our CEO), determined in accordance with SEC rules, was $263,420. |

  116. 2025 CEO Pay Ratio

    Methodology for Determining Our Median Employee. In accordance with Instruction 2 to Item 402(u) of Regulation S-K, a new median employee was identified to calculate the 2025 CEO pay ratio following three continuous years with no change to the median employee. For 2025, the median employee selected was based on our entire workforce, without regard to their location, compensation arrangements, or employment status (full-time versus part-time), and was the employee whose compensation was at the middle of the compensation of our employee population (excluding our CEO). Median Employee Compensation. For purposes of determining the median employee compensation, we used the annual total compensation value in accordance with the requirements of Item 402(c)(2)(x) of Regulation S-K as of December 31, 2025 as the compensation measure (including base salary, short- and long-term incentives, retirement plan contributions, and perquisites), the same methodology applied for the 2025 CEO’s annual total compensation.

  117. Pay Versus Performance

    Pay Versus Performance In accordance with Item 402(v) of Regulation S-K, we are providing the following information regarding the relationship between compensation of our CEO or Principal Executive Officer (PEO) and our other named executive officers (NEOs) and certain financial performance measures of the Company for the fiscal years ended on December 31, 2025, December 31, 2024, December 31, 2023, December 31, 2022, and December 31, 2021. For further information on the Company’s pay-for-performance philosophy and how executive compensation aligns with our performance, refer to the Compensation Discussion and Analysis section of this proxy statement.

  118. Pay Versus Performance

    | Pay Versus Performance Table | | | | | | | | | | (a) | (b) | (c) | (d) | (e) | (f) | (g) | (h) | (i) | | Year | Summary Compensation Table Total for PEO (1) | Compensation Actually Paid to PEO (2) | Average Summary Compensation Table Total for non-PEO NEOs (1) | Average Compensation Actually Paid to non-PEO NEOs (2) | Value of initial fixed $100 Investment based on: | | Net Income ($ in millions) | Earnings Per Share (EPS) - Diluted, as adjusted | | | | | | | TSR (3) | Peer Group TSR (3)(4) | | | | 2025 | $6,309,500 | $5,008,940 | $2,511,250 | $2,175,775 | $88.96 | $136.24 | $136.0 | $25.15 | | 2024 | $6,858,917 | $2,567,157 | $2,877,152 | $2,011,986 | $114.18 | $117.24 | $152.5 | $26.33 | | 2023 | $6,616,500 | $8,956,197 | $2,492,750 | $2,376,310 | $120.84 | $105.71 | $141.5 | $21.93 | | 2022 | $6,515,250 | $(4,240,418) | $2,835,458 | $1,094,131 | $92.33 | $96.64 | $106.6 | $25.74 | | 2021 | $8,614,966 | $17,309,308 | $3,002,445 | $4,163,311 | $138.92 | $136.68 | $262.8 | $35.85 |

  119. Pay Versus Performance

    | (1) NEOs included in these columns reflect the following: |

  120. Pay Versus Performance

    | Year | PEO | Non-PEO NEOs | | 2025 | Mr. Aylward | Mr. Angerthal, Mr. Mandinach, Ms. Purkalitis, and Mr. Smirl | | 2024 | Mr. Aylward | Mr. Angerthal, Mr. Mandinach, Ms. Purkalitis, and Mr. Smirl | | 2023 | Mr. Aylward | Mr. Angerthal, Mr. Mandinach, Mr. Smirl, and Ms. Peña (retired) | | 2022 | Mr. Aylward | Mr. Angerthal, Mr. Mandinach, Mr. Smirl, and Ms. Hills (retired) | | 2021 | Mr. Aylward | Mr. Angerthal, Ms. Hills, Mr. Mandinach, and Mr. Smirl |

  121. Pay Versus Performance

    | (2) In accordance with Item 402(v) requirements, the fair values of unvested and outstanding equity awards were remeasured as of the end of each fiscal year, and as of each vesting date, during the years displayed in the tables below. For PSUs with a relative TSR metric, the fair values as of each measurement date (prior to the end of the performance period) were determined using a Monte Carlo simulation pricing model, with assumptions and methodologies that are generally consistent with those used to estimate fair value at grant under U.S. GAAP. For PSUs with a non-TSR metric, fair values reflect the probable outcome of the performance vesting conditions as of each measurement date. For each fiscal year reflected, the “compensation actually paid” (“CAP”) to the PEO and the average CAP to the non-PEO NEOs reflect the following adjustments made to the total compensation amounts reported in the Summary Compensation Table for each applicable fiscal year, computed in accordance with Item 402(v) of Regulation S-K. |

  122. Pay Versus Performance

    | | 2025 | | Summary Compensation Table Total for PEO | $6,309,500 | | Less: Grant Date Fair Value of Equity Awards | $(3,200,000) | | Add: Year-end Fair Value of Equity Awards Granted in the Applicable Fiscal Year that are Outstanding and Unvested | $2,569,582 | | Add: Year-over-Year Change in Fair Value of Equity Awards Granted in Prior Fiscal Years that Vested in the Year | $161,108 | | Add: Year-over-Year Change in Fair Value of Outstanding and Unvested Equity Awards | $(951,440) | | Add: Fair Value at Last Day of Prior Year of Equity Awards Forfeited During Year | $— | | Add: Value of Dividends on Stock Awards not Otherwise Reflected in Fair Value or Total Compensation | $120,190 | | Compensation Actually Paid to PEO | $5,008,940 |

  123. Pay Versus Performance

    | | 2025 | | Average Summary Compensation Table Total for NEOs (other than PEO) | $2,511,250 | | Less: Grant Date Fair Value of Equity Awards | $(756,250) | | Add: Year-end Fair Value of Equity Awards Granted in the Applicable Year that are Outstanding and Unvested | $605,233 | | Add: Year-over-Year Change in Fair Value of Equity Awards Granted in Prior Fiscal Years that Vested in the Year | $7,972 | | Add: Year-over-Year Change in Fair Value of Outstanding and Unvested Equity Awards | $(222,150) | | Add: Fair Value at Last Day of Prior Year of Equity Awards Forfeited During Year | $— | | Add: Value of Dividends on Stock Awards not Otherwise Reflected in Fair Value or Total Compensation | $29,720 | | Average Compensation Actually Paid to NEOs (other than PEO) | $2,175,775 |

  124. Pay Versus Performance

    | (3) TSR is calculated based on a fixed investment of $100 measured from the market close on December 31, 2020 (the last trading day of fiscal 2020) through and including the end of the year for each year reported in the table. |

  125. Pay Versus Performance

    | (4) Peer companies utilized for comparative financial results, as referenced in our Compensation Discussion and Analysis and as shown in Appendix B, are: Acadian Asset Management Inc., Affiliated Managers Group, Inc., AllianceBernstein Holding L.P., Artisan Partners Asset Management Inc., Cohen & Steers, Inc., Federated Hermes, Inc., Franklin Resources, Inc., Invesco Ltd., Janus Henderson Group plc, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., and Victory Capital Holdings, Inc. |

  126. DIRECTOR COMPENSATION

    DIRECTOR COMPENSATION

  127. Non-Employee Director Compensation Paid in 2025

    Non-Employee Director Compensation Paid in 2025 We pay non-executive directors an annual retainer for their service on the Board, along with additional retainers reflecting committee service. The compensation package:

  128. Non-Employee Director Compensation Paid in 2025

    | • | Reflects the expertise and counsel that each director contributes and their commitment to the Board; |

  129. Non-Employee Director Compensation Paid in 2025

    | • | Aligns the interests of directors with those of our shareholders; and |

  130. Non-Employee Director Compensation Paid in 2025

    | • | Is competitive with the market. |

  131. Director Compensation

    Director Compensation The table below shows the value of all compensation paid to non-employee directors in 2025.

  132. Director Compensation

    | Name | Fees Earned or Paid in Cash ($) | Stock Awards ($)(1) | Total ($) | | Peter L. Bain | 107,500 | 107,324 | 214,824 | | Susan S. Fleming | 115,000 | 114,902 | 229,902 | | Paul G. Greig | 115,000 | 114,902 | 229,902 | | Timothy A. Holt | 186,250 | 186,099 | 372,349 | | Melody L. Jones | 116,250 | 116,136 | 232,386 | | W. Howard Morris | 107,500 | 107,324 | 214,824 | | John C. Weisenseel | 107,500 | 107,324 | 214,824 |

  133. Director Compensation

    | (1) Each then-serving director receiving compensation was awarded shares of Common Stock on May 16, 2025. The full grant date fair value of each such award computed in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718 is reflected in the table above. Additional information concerning the Company’s accounting for its equity awards is included in Note 14 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in our 2025 Form 10-K. |