Asset Management Sector Outlook — September 2026

Read the report

SlidesScroll

1 of 21

←→Full screen

FINANCIALS › FINANCIAL SERVICES › ASSET MANAGEMENT

Asset Management: Two Models, Two Price Levels

How the listed names in this sector price against each other on forward earnings, and what the transaction record shows about what buyers agreed to pay.

September 2026 · Prepared by NeuraCap AI · Confidential

Market data as of 2026-09-28 · primary valuation basis P / E (CY2027E)

Asset Management Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice

Sources & methodology

1

← Previous

1 / 21 · Asset Management: Two Models, Two Price Levels

Next →

What each page shows

The analyst’s walkthrough of the deck, page by page.

1. 01
   FINANCIALS › FINANCIAL SERVICES › ASSET MANAGEMENT

   Asset Management: Two Models, Two Price Levels

   Cover slide framing the sector's two pricing tiers as of September 2026.

   We open with the core finding: nine listed asset managers split into two pricing tiers on forward earnings. This sets up everything that follows in the report.

   Everything on this page

   FINANCIALS › FINANCIAL SERVICES › ASSET MANAGEMENT Asset Management: Two Models, Two Price Levels How the listed names in this sector price against each other on forward earnings, and what the transaction record shows about what buyers agreed to pay. September 2026 · Prepared by NeuraCap AI · Confidential Market data as of 2026-09-28 · primary valuation basis P / E (CY2027E) Asset Management Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 1

2. 02
   CONTENTS

   What This Report Covers

   Contents page laying out the report's five sections plus the appendix.

   The report runs five sections plus an appendix, starting with the bottom line so a reader who stops early still has the whole story. We then walk through the landscape, valuation and situations, precedent transactions, and strategic implications in that order.

   Everything on this page

   CONTENTS What This Report Covers 01 The Bottom Line Two Business Models, Two Price Levels, One Sector Label 02 The Landscape Seven Adjacent Platforms Sit Beside Two Long-Only Managers 03 Valuation & Situations The Top of the Range Is Held by Adjacent Platforms Carrying Growth 04 Precedent Transactions What Buyers Agreed to Pay Spans Fee Managers, Listed Vehicles and Adjacent Platforms 05 Strategic Implications What You Own, and What You Can Move 06 Appendix Comparables Detail, Methodology, Sources and Assumptions Asset Management Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 2

3. 03
   01 · THE BOTTOM LINE

   Asset Management Trades as Two Businesses: Long-Only Fee Managers and Adjacent Royalty and Digital-Asset Platforms

   The bottom-line page shows the two-business split with the group's headline valuation figures.

   We start with the headline: six of nine names carry a CY2027E earnings estimate, and the sector median across them sits at 16.4x, with a quarter above 23.6x and a quarter below 11.3x. Splitting the set by business model, the seven adjacent platforms — 78% of the universe — anchor the top of the range, with the four of them that carry estimates averaging 22.5x, while the two long-only fee managers sit at 9.6x. That gap is wide enough on a forward-earnings basis to signal the market is pricing durability, not just this year's growth. So what: the label 'asset manager' covers two different pricing stories, and where a business sits on that split matters more than the sector average.

   Everything on this page

   01 · THE BOTTOM LINE Asset Management Trades as Two Businesses: Long-Only Fee Managers and Adjacent Royalty and Digital-Asset Platforms The full story on one page · figures on P / E (CY2027E), market data as of 2026-09-28 Source: NeuraCap analytics platform; market data and consensus estimates as of 2026-09-28; company disclosures via SEC EDGAR where linked. Primary valuation basis: P / E on CY2027E consensus (6 of 9 companies eligible; multiples failing the platform's plausibility gates are excluded, never plotted). Practitioners price this industry on P / E rather than EV / Revenue; validated coverage supports the industry standard (6 of 9 companies), so this report follows it. Qualitative characterisations are NeuraCap views. Asset Management Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 3 1 Two Thirds of the Set Carry a Forward Estimate, and the Spread Between Them Is Wide 6 of the 9 names carry a CY2027E earnings estimate, and the middle of those sits at 16.4x. A quarter of them price above 23.6x and a quarter below 11.3x, on a lens that already credits forecast growth — so a premium that survives it points to expected durability rather than one good year. 2 The Adjacent Portfolio Businesses Sit Above the Long-Only Fee Managers 7 of the 9 names, 78% of the set, are adjacent models — precious-metals royalty and streaming portfolios, upstream mineral interests, digital-asset management, research and private credit — and the 4 of them with estimates sit at 22.5x. The 2 traditional long-only fund managers with estimates sit at 9.6x. 3 Faster Growth Is Where the Higher Prices Sit Today Split the 6 names with a CY2027E estimate at 11% earnings growth: the 3 faster names sit at 24.8x and the 3 slower at 10.9x. Three names a side is a thin base, so this is an association to test against your own flows and fee mix, not a rule to plan around. 4 Buyers Price the Fee Stream, Then Negotiate the Terms That Hold It Across the 9 recorded transactions, the completed purchase of Janus Henderson Group plc by Trian Fund Management, L.P. was recorded at 2.9x revenue, while balance-sheet owners and lenders referenced revenue and EBITDA on their own conventions. Assignment consents, retention packages and rollover equity are negotiated alongside price and often matter as much to the outcome. 16.4x Sector median P/E CY2027E consensus · 6 rated of 9 companies 35.3x Premium end P/E vs 9.6x at the discount end top quartile (n=2) against bottom quartile (n=2) on P/E — the spread the report explains 25 Transactions with disclosed terms 46 recorded in this tier · 3 told as case studies, the full list in the appendix

4. 04
   SECTION 02

   02

   Section divider introducing the market-map and landscape pages.

   This section maps where each of the nine names sits by business model before we get to the pricing detail. It resets the room: one sector label, two very different kinds of business inside it.

   Everything on this page

   SECTION 02 02 THE LANDSCAPE Seven Adjacent Platforms Sit Beside Two Long-Only Managers One sector label covers portfolio businesses and fee machines that price differently. 02 of 06 Asset Management Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 4

5. 05
   02 · MARKET MAP

   Where the Nine Names Sit: Fee Machines on One Side, Adjacent Portfolios on the Other

   Market-map page grouping the nine approved companies by business segment with group median P/E.

   We group all nine names by business segment and show the median P/E (CY2027E) for each group where estimates exist. The adjacent-platform names cluster at a median of 22.5x, well above the 9.6x median for the long-only fee managers. This is the same split as the bottom line, now broken out visually by segment so the pattern is easy to trace back to individual names. So what: segment, not sector, is the first cut a reader should make when comparing any of these names to the group.

   Everything on this page

   02 · MARKET MAP Where the Nine Names Sit: Fee Machines on One Side, Adjacent Portfolios on the Other 9 approved companies grouped by business segment · median P / E (CY2027E) per group · as of 2026-09-28 Source: NeuraCap analytics platform; market data and consensus estimates as of 2026-09-28; company disclosures via SEC EDGAR where linked. Segment grouping follows the platform's classification; group medians on rated names only. "Why it matters" lines are NeuraCap views. Asset Management Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 5 TRADITIONAL LONG-ONLY FUND MANAGERS 2 cos median 9.6x T. Rowe Price (TROW) Blue Owl Capital (OBDC) The classic fee machine, where fee-paying AUM, blended fee yield and net organic flows run through to the earnings line; this is the part of the set priced at the bottom of the range. ADJACENT MODELS 7 cos median 22.5x Resolute (RHLD) Triple Flag (TFPM) Black Stone (BSM) Elemental (ELE) Value Line (VALU) SUI Group (SUIG) DeFi Technologies (DEFT) Royalty, streaming, mineral, digital-asset, research and private credit portfolios that share the sector label but sell to different buyer groups, and are judged on portfolio quality and underlying exposure.

6. 06
   02 · LANDSCAPE

   Seven of the Nine Names Are Adjacent Platforms, and That Is Where the Higher Prices Sit

   Landscape page showing seven of nine names are adjacent platforms and where the higher prices sit.

   Seven of the nine names in this universe are adjacent platforms rather than traditional long-only managers, and that is where the higher prices sit: 22.5x median against 9.6x for the long-only group. The scale of that split — 78% of the set — means the adjacent model is the norm here, not the exception. So what: any read of 'the asset management sector' that doesn't separate these two models is averaging across two different businesses.

   Everything on this page

   02 · LANDSCAPE Seven of the Nine Names Are Adjacent Platforms, and That Is Where the Higher Prices Sit Segment view of the approved universe · P / E (CY2027E) medians on rated names · as of 2026-09-28 Source: NeuraCap analytics platform; market data and consensus estimates as of 2026-09-28; company disclosures via SEC EDGAR where linked. "What they do / why it matters" is a NeuraCap view. Full company-level detail in the appendix and companion tables. Asset Management Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 6 Segment n Share of universe Median P/E Names to know What they do — and why it matters Traditional long-only fund managers 2 22% 9.6x T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. (TROW) · Blue Owl Capital Corporation (OBDC) Fee streams under repricing pressure. T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. (TROW) and Blue Owl Capital Corporation (OBDC) are 22% of the set. Fee compression from passive and mandate repricing, redemption profile and consultant standing are what the market is weighing here, and both names sit at the bottom of the range on CY2027E earnings. Adjacent models 7 78% 22.5x Resolute Holdings Management, Inc. (RHLD) · Triple Flag Precious Metals Corp. (TFPM) · +5 more Portfolios priced on underlying exposure. Seven names, 78% of the set: precious-metals royalty and streaming portfolios, upstream mineral interests, digital-asset management, research and index provision, private credit and outsourced investment operations. They share the sector label and sell to different buyer groups, which is why their pricing does not move together.

7. 07
   SECTION 03

   03

   Section divider introducing the valuation, drivers and situation pages.

   Here we rank the rated names on P/E (CY2027E), the sector's lead convention, and show where growth and margin line up with price. The top of the range is held by adjacent platforms carrying growth.

   Everything on this page

   SECTION 03 03 VALUATION & SITUATIONS The Top of the Range Is Held by Adjacent Platforms Carrying Growth Ranked on P / E for CY2027E, the lead convention for this sector. 03 of 06 Asset Management Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 7

8. 08
   03 · PUBLIC MARKET VALUATION

   Royalty and Digital-Asset Platforms Hold the Top of the Range; The Long-Only Managers Sit at the Bottom

   Ranks all six rated companies on P/E (CY2027E) against the 16.4x sector median.

   We sort all six rated companies on P/E (CY2027E) in descending order against a sector median of 16.4x. Royalty and digital-asset platforms hold the top of the range, with the two long-only managers at the bottom. Tier zones are cut at the rated set's own quartiles — 23.6x and 11.3x — so a reader can see exactly how wide the spread is on the same basis. So what: this is the ranking every one of these nine names is measured against, and where a name sits here is the starting point for any conversation about its multiple.

   Everything on this page

   03 · PUBLIC MARKET VALUATION Royalty and Digital-Asset Platforms Hold the Top of the Range; The Long-Only Managers Sit at the Bottom P / E (CY2027E) · all 6 rated companies, sorted descending · sector median 16.4x · as of 2026-09-28 Source: NeuraCap analytics platform; market data and consensus estimates as of 2026-09-28; company disclosures via SEC EDGAR where linked. Primary valuation basis: P / E on CY2027E consensus (6 of 9 companies eligible; multiples failing the platform's plausibility gates are excluded, never plotted). Practitioners price this industry on P / E rather than EV / Revenue; validated coverage supports the industry standard (6 of 9 companies), so this report follows it. Tier zones are NeuraCap groupings cut at the rated set's quartiles; every multiple quoted on this page is a median on the same P / E (CY2027E) basis. Panel commentary is a NeuraCap view. Asset Management Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 8 PREMIUM · median 35.3x CORE · median 16.4x DISCOUNT · median 9.6x Sector median 16.4x WHAT SEPARATES THE TWO ENDS The top pairs growth with portfolio economics. Elemental Royalty Corporation Common Stock (ELE) and DeFi Technologies Inc. (DEFT) form the top tier, with a middle of 35.3x on CY2027E earnings. Both carry growth above the rest of the 6 names with a CY2027E estimate — ELE at 21% — and both sell exposure to an underlying portfolio alongside a management economics stream. The bottom holds steady fee streams. T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. (TROW) and Blue Owl Capital Corporation (OBDC) form the bottom tier, with a middle of 9.6x. Fee compression, redemption profile and earnings tied to a loan book and its non-accruals are what the market is weighing at this end of the range. A forward multiple already credits growth. The lens is P / E on CY2027E, so the estimate in the denominator already reflects forecast earnings growth. A premium that survives that lens is associated with expected durability of the fee and portfolio economics, not with a single strong year.

9. 09
   03 · VALUATION DRIVERS

   Above 11% Growth Is Where the Higher Multiples Sit in This Set

   Splits rated names by growth cohort to show where the higher multiples sit today.

   Splitting the six rated names at their own median, the three faster-growing names average 24.8x against 10.9x for the three slower ones, with the split point at 11% earnings growth. Three names a side is a thin base, so we read this as an association worth testing against your own numbers, not a rule to plan around. So what: growth above 11% is where the higher multiples sit in this set today, but the sample is small enough to treat as a signal, not a formula.

   Everything on this page

   03 · VALUATION DRIVERS Above 11% Growth Is Where the Higher Multiples Sit in This Set Median P / E (CY2027E) by revenue-growth cohort and by EBITDA-margin cohort (each split at its covered median) · rated names with estimates · as of 2026-09-28 Source: NeuraCap analytics platform; market data and consensus estimates as of 2026-09-28; company disclosures via SEC EDGAR where linked. Cohort medians on rated names with the required estimates (faster n=3; slower n=3; higher-margin n=0; lower-margin n=0). Driver readings are NeuraCap views on the supplied data — association, not causation. Asset Management Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 9 P/E, median per cohort · growth split at 11% · EBITDA-margin split at n/a Growth Above 11% and the Higher Prices Sit Together Splitting the 6 names with a CY2027E estimate at 11% earnings growth puts the 3 faster names at 24.8x and the 3 slower at 10.9x. Three names a side is a thin base: treat it as a signal about how this market reads growth, and test it against your own net organic flows before you plan around it. Permanence of Capital Is What the Fee Side Is Asked to Prove Nothing in this run measures capital duration, so the read is qualitative: permanent and long-duration capital, fee-related earnings visibility that does not depend on realizations, and positive net organic flows across cycles are what buyers of fee streams underwrite. Earnings that lean on realization-linked income are valued more conservatively. The Two Models in This Sector Price at Different Levels The 4 adjacent-model names with a CY2027E estimate sit at 22.5x, against the traditional long-only pair at the bottom of the range. Royalty, mineral and digital-asset platforms draw a different buyer set, oriented to portfolio quality and underlying commodity or token exposure, which makes for a different diligence conversation. In Transactions, the Terms Carry What the Headline Price Does Not The recorded deals here span fee managers, listed vehicles and operating assets, and the references used differ with the buyer. Consideration is commonly staged — upfront value, deferred payments tied to retained AUM or fee-related earnings, and rollover equity that keeps the investment team attached — with fund-level consents gating timing.

10. 10
    03 · SITUATION MAP

    The One Name Above the Middle on Both Price and Margin Is a Royalty Portfolio

    Plots rated names on price versus the sector median and margin versus the covered median.

    We cut the rated names on P/E versus the 16.4x sector median and on EBITDA margin versus the 76% covered median, mapping only the names with both measures. One name sits above the middle on both counts, and it is a royalty portfolio. So what: that combination — above-median price and above-median margin — is the profile the market is rewarding most clearly in this set.

    Everything on this page

    03 · SITUATION MAP The One Name Above the Middle on Both Price and Margin Is a Royalty Portfolio Cut on P / E vs the sector median (16.4x) (rows) and EBITDA margin vs the covered median (76%) (columns) · 4 rated names without the second measure are not mapped · observations, not recommendations Source: NeuraCap analytics platform; market data and consensus estimates as of 2026-09-28; company disclosures via SEC EDGAR where linked. Situation boundaries are the cohort's own medians (Directional, NeuraCap view). This page characterises situations; it does not recommend buying or selling any security. Asset Management Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 10 Top Half on Price, Top Half on Margin Above-median multiple · above-median EBITDA margin 1 names Elemental Royalty Corporation Common Stock (ELE) Elemental Royalty Corporation Common Stock (ELE) is the one name in this run sitting above the middle on both measures, at an 80% EBITDA margin against the 76% covered middle. On a base of 2 names carrying both measures, read it as a marker of what this market is paying up for, not as a population finding. Top Half on Price, Thinner Margin Above-median multiple · below-median EBITDA margin 0 names No rated names sit in this cell as of the analysis date. Below the Middle on Price, Top Half on Margin 0 names No rated names sit in this cell as of the analysis date. Below the Middle on Price, Thinner Margin 1 names Black Stone Minerals, L.P. (BSM) Black Stone Minerals, L.P. (BSM) sits below the middle on both, with a 72% EBITDA margin. Mineral interests are read on the underlying commodity, payout and reserve base, so the positioning conversation here is about the asset base as much as the management economics.

11. 11
    03 · THE AGENDA

    Decide Which Parts of the Fee Base and Mix You Are Building For

    Frames the questions an owner or acquirer should resolve on fee base and mix.

    This page turns the valuation pattern into a set of questions: which parts of your fee base and mix look like the higher-priced profile, and which look like the lower-priced one. These are framed as observations for a reader to work through, not recommendations. So what: the market data in the prior pages only pays off if it's mapped against your own fee base and mix.

    Everything on this page

    03 · THE AGENDA Decide Which Parts of the Fee Base and Mix You Are Building For NeuraCap view · framed as the questions an owner or acquirer should resolve · observations, not recommendations Source: NeuraCap analytics platform; market data and consensus estimates as of 2026-09-28; company disclosures via SEC EDGAR where linked. All content on this page is Directional — NeuraCap advisory judgment grounded in the cohort data shown earlier. It does not constitute investment advice. Asset Management Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 11 Decide Where Your Capacity Is Worth Defending The higher prices in this set sit with businesses selling exposure to a portfolio or a capacity-constrained strategy. Work out which of your strategies still has room, which is at its limit, and what the mix looks like if the capacity-constrained side grows fastest. What changes the answer: A flagship strategy approaching its capacity limit, or a new strategy clearing its first institutional mandates. Test How Much of Your Fee Base Is Long-Duration Permanent and contractually locked capital is what makes fee-related earnings visible independent of realizations. Measure the share of the base that cannot redeem within a cycle, and treat the rest as the part that has to be re-won through net organic flows. What changes the answer: A move in the permanent or long-duration share of fee-paying AUM, or a change in gross redemptions by vehicle. Decide Whether the Next Capability Is Built or Bought This record shows consolidating managers and balance-sheet owners buying distribution reach, origination and capability they chose not to build. Price your own build case against what a comparable capability changed hands for, including the retention terms that come with it. What changes the answer: A mandate loss or a consultant rating change in a strategy you were planning to build from scratch. Benchmark Your Own Economics Against What Buyers Agreed to Pay The references in this record range across revenue and EBITDA conventions depending on who the buyer was and what the target owned. Map your fee-related earnings, your realization-linked income and your balance-sheet positions separately, because buyers value them on different terms. What changes the answer: A new recorded transaction in your model, or a status change on one of the pending or announced deals here.

12. 12
    SECTION 04

    04

    Section divider introducing the precedent-transaction record.

    We turn now to what buyers actually agreed to pay: nine recorded transactions spanning fee managers, listed vehicles and adjacent platforms, with statuses from announced to completed and terminated. The deal record is a second, independent check on how this sector gets priced.

    Everything on this page

    SECTION 04 04 PRECEDENT TRANSACTIONS What Buyers Agreed to Pay Spans Fee Managers, Listed Vehicles and Adjacent Platforms Nine recorded transactions, with statuses running from announced to completed and terminated. 04 of 06 Asset Management Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 12

13. 13
    04 · DEAL CASE STUDIES

    Nine Recorded Transactions, Three Buyer Types, and No Single Price Convention

    Walks through case studies among the recorded transactions with disclosed terms.

    Of the transactions in this record, we walk through the cases with disclosed terms as case studies, including the completed purchase of Janus Henderson Group plc by Trian Fund Management, L.P., recorded at 2.9x revenue. Other transactions in the record reference revenue and EBITDA on the buyer's own convention rather than a single sector standard. Deal multiples here are LTM at announcement, so they aren't directly comparable to the CY2027E public-market basis used elsewhere in this report. So what: buyers price the fee stream first, then negotiate the terms — consents, retention, rollover — that determine whether that price holds.

    Everything on this page

    04 · DEAL CASE STUDIES Nine Recorded Transactions, Three Buyer Types, and No Single Price Convention 3 of 25 transactions with disclosed terms, told as case studies · multiples on LTM financials at announcement where disclosed · the complete list is in the appendix · as of 2026-09-28 Source: NeuraCap analytics platform; market data and consensus estimates as of 2026-09-28; company disclosures via SEC EDGAR where linked. 50 precedent record(s) carry data-quality flags (deal value unit unresolved; divestiture roles reassigned; duplicate precedent id); figures are shown as recorded in the filing. 21 recorded transactions with neither a disclosed value nor a multiple are omitted from the precedent list and the case studies (kept in the companion workbook). Deal multiples are LTM at announcement (Definitive, from filings); they are not directly comparable to the CY2027E public basis and no spread is claimed. "Why the deal happened" is a NeuraCap read of the recorded evidence. Asset Management Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 13 Jun-2024 $29.8B Nippon Life Insurance Company acquires Corebridge Financial, Inc. EV / LTM revenue 12.3x EV / LTM EBITDA n/a WHY THE DEAL HAPPENED Value shown as recorded in the filing; deal value unit unresolved. HOW THE TARGET WAS VALUED The filing records $29.8B of enterprise value, struck at 12.3x LTM revenue. Dec-2025 $7.5B Trian Fund Management, L.P. acquires Janus Henderson Group plc EV / LTM revenue 2.9x EV / LTM EBITDA n/a WHY THE DEAL HAPPENED The buyer is a fund management firm and the target a listed manager with scale in distribution and a broad strategy set. The size of the transaction points to a buyer paying for an established fee base and the chance to reshape its mix and cost structure, rather than for one capability or team. HOW THE TARGET WAS VALUED The deal was recorded at $7.5B and 2.9x revenue, shown as recorded in the filing. That revenue reference sits above the other traditional fee-manager references in this record, where balance-sheet buyers worked off lower revenue and EBITDA marks. Feb-2025 $3.6B Equitable Holdings, Inc. Equitable Holdings, Inc. moved to consolidate AllianceBernstein Holding L.P. in an announced $3.6B… EV / LTM revenue 0.8x EV / LTM EBITDA n/a WHY THE DEAL HAPPENED The buyer is an insurer and balance-sheet owner; the target is a listed manager whose fee stream and origination capability sit alongside the buyer's liabilities. The pairing suggests a buyer securing duration-matched asset creation and a larger share of economics it already knows well. HOW THE TARGET WAS VALUED Recorded at $3.6B and 0.8x revenue, shown as recorded in the filing, with announced status. It benchmarks closely against the other traditional fee-manager references on this page rather than against the earnings-based prices the adjacent platforms carry.

14. 14
    SECTION 05

    05

    Section divider introducing strategic implications for owners, management teams and boards.

    We now read the market evidence back into what an owner, a management team or a board actually controls: fee base, mix and capital allocation. The market sets the starting multiple; what you own and how it's growing is what moves you within it.

    Everything on this page

    SECTION 05 05 STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS What You Own, and What You Can Move Reading this market evidence back into your own fee base, mix and capital allocation. 05 of 06 Asset Management Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 14

15. 15
    05 · STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS

    The Market Sets the Starting Point; Mix and Flows Are What You Own

    Sets out the questions this data puts on the table for owners, management teams and boards.

    For owners, the question is which part of your revenue is closest to the higher-priced adjacent profile. For management teams, net organic flows are the line this market reads first, ahead of AUM growth from market appreciation alone. For boards, every use of capital — seed capital, GP commitments, distribution build — should be weighed by what it does to fee-related earnings rather than reported AUM. So what: this page turns the sector pattern into three specific decisions, one per audience.

    Everything on this page

    05 · STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS The Market Sets the Starting Point; Mix and Flows Are What You Own NeuraCap view · the questions this data puts on the table for the next twelve months Source: NeuraCap analytics platform; market data and consensus estimates as of 2026-09-28; company disclosures via SEC EDGAR where linked. This page is Directional — NeuraCap views drawn from the analysis in this report. Observations, not recommendations. Asset Management Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 15 FOR OWNERS Your Business Model Label Travels with Your Price Level In this set the adjacent portfolio businesses sit above the traditional long-only managers, and the faster-growing names sit above the slower ones. The practical question is which part of your revenue is closest to the higher-priced profile, and what share of the next three years of effort goes there. FOR MANAGEMENT TEAMS Net Organic Flows Are the Line This Market Reads First Market appreciation flatters AUM without changing what the market pays for. Flow momentum, blended fee yield and the compensation ratio are the levers inside your control, and mandate wins in a rated strategy are worth more to the earnings line than a strong quarter of beta. FOR BOARDS Capital Allocation Decides Which Earnings Stream You Are Growing Seed capital, GP commitments and balance-sheet positions all compete with distribution build and team retention. The evidence here associates the higher prices with businesses whose economics are visible and durable, so weigh each use of capital by what it does to fee-related earnings rather than to reported AUM.

16. 16
    SECTION 06

    06

    Section divider introducing the comparables appendix, methodology and sources.

    The appendix carries the full comparables set, the valuation basis and where every underlying disclosure lives. Use it to trace any figure in this report back to its source.

    Everything on this page

    SECTION 06 06 APPENDIX The Full Universe, Methodology and Sources Comparables detail behind every figure in the body, the valuation basis, and where each underlying disclosure lives. 06 of 06 Asset Management Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 16

17. 17
    06 · PUBLIC COMPARABLES (1 OF 1)

    Public Comparables on P / E (CY2027E), Grouped by Valuation Tier

    Lists all nine companies with P/E (CY2027E) where rated, shaded against the 16.4x sector median.

    This table carries all nine companies in the universe: six are rated on P/E (CY2027E) and shaded against the 16.4x sector median, and three carry no eligible multiple. Tickers link back to the underlying source so any figure here can be traced. So what: this is the full underlying set behind every median and ranking shown earlier in the report.

    Everything on this page

    06 · PUBLIC COMPARABLES (1 OF 1) Public Comparables on P / E (CY2027E), Grouped by Valuation Tier Teal shading marks a P/E above the sector median (16.4x); amber marks below · 6 rated companies; 3 not rated (no eligible P/E) · tickers link to the underlying source · as of 2026-09-28 Source: NeuraCap analytics platform; market data and consensus estimates as of 2026-09-28; company disclosures via SEC EDGAR where linked. All 6 rated rows are in this appendix and in the companion workbook, which carries the complete field set. Names without an eligible multiple are listed in the companion workbook. Asset Management Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 17 Company Ticker Segment EV P/E (CY2027E) Rev growth EBITDA margin Rule of 40 PREMIUM — ≥23.6x · median 35.3x · 2 companies Elemental Royalty Corporation Common Stock ELE Adjacent: precious-metals royalty portfolios $1.2B 45.8x 21% 80% n/a DeFi Technologies Inc. DEFT Alternative asset managers $51M 24.8x 51% n/a n/a CORE — 11.3x–23.6x · median 16.4x · 2 companies Triple Flag Precious Metals Corp. TFPM Adjacent: metals streaming portfolios $6.2B 20.1x 16% n/a n/a Black Stone Minerals, L.P. BSM Adjacent: upstream energy mineral interests $3.3B 12.7x 5% 72% 74 DISCOUNT — <11.3x · median 9.6x · 2 companies T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. TROW Traditional long-only fund managers $20.0B 10.9x 2% n/a n/a Blue Owl Capital Corporation OBDC Traditional long-only fund managers $13.3B 8.3x 1% n/a n/a

18. 18
    06 · PRECEDENT TRANSACTIONS (1 OF 2)

    All Precedent Transactions with Disclosed Terms, Newest First

    Lists precedent transactions with disclosed terms, newest first, first of two pages.

    This page lists the transactions with disclosed terms, newest first, with deal values linked to the underlying filing where available. Multiples shown are LTM at announcement, on the terms disclosed in each filing. So what: this is the raw deal evidence behind the case studies and the 2.9x reference shown earlier.

    Everything on this page

    06 · PRECEDENT TRANSACTIONS (1 OF 2) All Precedent Transactions with Disclosed Terms, Newest First 25 transactions with disclosed terms in this tier (46 recorded) · multiples on LTM financials at announcement where disclosed · deal values link to the underlying filing · as of 2026-09-28 Source: NeuraCap analytics platform; market data and consensus estimates as of 2026-09-28; company disclosures via SEC EDGAR where linked. 50 precedent record(s) carry data-quality flags (deal value unit unresolved; divestiture roles reassigned; duplicate precedent id); figures are shown as recorded in the filing. 21 recorded transactions with neither a disclosed value nor a multiple are omitted from the precedent list and the case studies (kept in the companion workbook). Deal multiples are LTM at announcement (Definitive, from filings); they are not directly comparable to the CY2027E public basis and no spread is claimed. 18 of 25 transactions shown; the rest are in the companion workbook. Asset Management Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 18 Date Transaction EV EV/LTM Rev EV/LTM EBITDA Why it matters Jun-2026 GigCapital8 Corp. → Quantisimo Corp. $575M n/a n/a GigCapital8 Corp. announced the acquisition of Quantisimo Corp. in Jun-2026 at $575M. The status is announced rather than completed, so read the figure as an agreed reference point rather than a settled outcome. May-2026 NewHold Investment Corp III → NewCleo Ltd. $2.4B n/a n/a NewHold Investment Corp III announced NewCleo Ltd. in May-2026 at $2.4B, shown as recorded in the filing. It is among the larger announced values on this page and sits outside the fee-manager conventions used elsewhere in the record. Feb-2026 Kennedy-Wilson Holdings, Inc. → Franklin Resources n/a 0.7x 8.8x Kennedy-Wilson Holdings, Inc.'s approach to Franklin Resources was recorded in Feb-2026 at 0.7x revenue and 8.8x EBITDA, and is marked terminated. Terminated or not, it shows the reference points a balance-sheet buyer used for a traditional fee manager. Dec-2025 Trian Fund Management, L.P. → Janus Henderson Group plc $7.5B 2.9x n/a Trian Fund Management, L.P. completed its purchase of Janus Henderson Group plc in Dec-2025, recorded at $7.5B. It is the largest completed value in this record and the clearest evidence of a consolidating buyer taking a whole listed manager. Oct-2025 Trian Fund Management and General Catalyst → Janus Henderson Group n/a 0.7x 8.8x Trian Fund Management and General Catalyst is recorded against Janus Henderson Group in Oct-2025 at 0.7x revenue and 8.8x EBITDA, with a pending status. Two records against the same manager suggest a buyer working a position over months rather than a single approach. Oct-2025 Runway Growth Finance Corp. → SWK Holdings Corp. $244M 5.5x n/a Runway Growth Finance Corp. announced SWK Holdings Corp. in Oct-2025 at $244M and 5.5x revenue. The revenue reference sits well above the traditional fee-manager references elsewhere in this record, reflecting a different asset base. Mar-2025 Mallinckrodt public limited company → Endo, Inc. n/a n/a 6.2x Mallinckrodt public limited company announced Endo, Inc. in Mar-2025 at 6.2x EBITDA. It is an operating-asset reference rather than a fee-stream one, and belongs in the record as context for how EBITDA multiples are set outside management companies. Feb-2025 Equitable Holdings, Inc. → AllianceBernstein Holding L.P. $3.6B 0.8x n/a Equitable Holdings, Inc. announced AllianceBernstein Holding L.P. in Feb-2025 at $3.6B and 0.8x revenue. Balance-sheet owners buying origination and duration-matched asset creation is a recurring pattern across this record. Jan-2025 Mount Logan Capital Inc. → 180 Degree Capital Corp $139M n/a n/a Mount Logan Capital Inc. completed 180 Degree Capital Corp in Jan-2025 at $139M. Listed vehicles change hands through manager-level and shareholder processes, where the negotiated instrument is the management agreement rather than a conventional asset sale.

19. 19
    06 · PRECEDENT TRANSACTIONS (2 OF 2)

    All Precedent Transactions with Disclosed Terms, Newest First

    Continues the disclosed-terms transaction list, newest first, second of two pages.

    This page continues the same list of disclosed-terms transactions, newest first, on the same LTM-at-announcement basis. Together with the prior page, it carries the full set of transactions with disclosed terms referenced in this report. So what: a reader can check any deal referenced earlier against its full record here.

    Everything on this page

    06 · PRECEDENT TRANSACTIONS (2 OF 2) All Precedent Transactions with Disclosed Terms, Newest First 25 transactions with disclosed terms in this tier (46 recorded) · multiples on LTM financials at announcement where disclosed · deal values link to the underlying filing · as of 2026-09-28 Source: NeuraCap analytics platform; market data and consensus estimates as of 2026-09-28; company disclosures via SEC EDGAR where linked. 50 precedent record(s) carry data-quality flags (deal value unit unresolved; divestiture roles reassigned; duplicate precedent id); figures are shown as recorded in the filing. 21 recorded transactions with neither a disclosed value nor a multiple are omitted from the precedent list and the case studies (kept in the companion workbook). Deal multiples are LTM at announcement (Definitive, from filings); they are not directly comparable to the CY2027E public basis and no spread is claimed. 18 of 25 transactions shown; the rest are in the companion workbook. Asset Management Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 19 Date Transaction EV EV/LTM Rev EV/LTM EBITDA Why it matters Nov-2024 Comdata S.p.A. → Runway Growth Capital LLC n/a n/a 6.7x Value shown as recorded in the filing; deal value unit unresolved. Jun-2024 Nippon Life Insurance Company → Corebridge Financial, Inc. $29.8B 12.3x n/a Value shown as recorded in the filing; deal value unit unresolved. Sep-2023 Bridgepoint Group plc → ECP Asset Management Pty Ltd n/a n/a 14.4x Jul-2023 Tesoro Corp. → Varagon n/a n/a 5.6x Apr-2022 Callodine Group, LLC → Manning & Napier, Inc. n/a n/a 6.4x Dec-2020 Morgan Stanley → Eaton Vance Corp. n/a n/a 12.1x Feb-2020 Franklin Resources, Inc. → Legg Mason, Inc. n/a n/a 10.5x Nov-2018 Victory Capital Holdings, Inc. → USAA Asset Management Company n/a n/a 6.9x Oct-2018 Invesco Ltd. → OppenheimerFunds, Inc. n/a n/a 8.4x

20. 20
    06 · METHODOLOGY

    Sources, Assumptions and Data Quality

    Explains the report's sources, valuation basis and data-quality treatment.

    This page sets out how the report was built: the valuation basis, what was excluded and why, and where every underlying disclosure lives. Every figure in this report links back to the record it was taken from, or the appendix names its source directly. So what: a reader can verify any number in this deck without taking our word for it.

    Everything on this page

    06 · METHODOLOGY Sources, Assumptions and Data Quality How this report was built, what was excluded, and where every underlying disclosure lives · as of 2026-09-28 Every figure in this report links to the record it was taken from. Where a figure has no link, the appendix names its source and the basis on which it was read. Asset Management Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice 20 VALUATION BASIS Primary valuation basis: P / E on CY2027E consensus (6 of 9 companies eligible; multiples failing the platform's plausibility gates are excluded, never plotted). Practitioners price this industry on P / E rather than EV / Revenue; validated coverage supports the industry standard (6 of 9 companies), so this report follows it. P / E on CY2027E is the lead convention: it is the sector-appropriate prior for Asset Management and it clears the coverage gate with 6 of 9 companies (67%). No secondary cross-check clears its own gate. DATA QUALITY & EXCLUSIONS 12 records were excluded or quarantined by the platform's validation gates (unit errors, implausible ratios, ineligible securities and classification failures); the full ledger ships in the companion tables and never feeds a statistic in this report. DEFINITIVE VS DIRECTIONAL Definitive content is disclosed or consensus data passed through stated arithmetic. Directional content — tier boundaries, situation cuts, "why it matters" commentary, the agenda pages — is NeuraCap analyst judgment and is labeled as such where it appears. WHAT THIS REPORT IS NOT This report characterises a sector. It does not recommend buying, selling or holding any security, and no statement in it should be read as investment advice or a price target. WHERE THE DATA LIVES 512 registered source documents stand behind the figures in this report. Metric hyperlinks throughout the deck open the specific filing or data record; by publisher: sec.gov (511) · home.treasury.gov (1). The companion workbook beside this deck carries the complete source index.

21. 21

    Across These 9 Names, the Top of the Range Sits with the Adjacent Platforms.

    Closing page restating that the top of the range sits with the adjacent platforms.

    Across these nine names, the top of the range sits with the adjacent platforms, not the long-only fee managers. The companion tables carry the full universe, the exclusion ledger and the complete source index for any figure worth tracing further.

    Everything on this page

    Across These 9 Names, the Top of the Range Sits with the Adjacent Platforms. NeuraCap AI — Asset Management Coverage September 2026 · Prepared by NeuraCap AI · Confidential Asset Management Coverage | September 2026 | Confidential | Not investment advice Sources & methodology 21

More coverage in Financials

• Bi-Weekly Update · Sep 28, 2026Asset Management Bi-Weekly Industry Events & M&A Update — September 14–28, 2026
• Bi-Weekly Update · Sep 28, 2026Mortgage REITs Bi-Weekly Industry Events & M&A Update — September 14–28, 2026
• Sector Report · Sep 28, 2026Mortgage REITs Sector Outlook — September 2026
• Sector Report · Sep 28, 2026Private Equity and Alternative Investments Sector Outlook — September 2026