Item 1A. Risk Factors.

Risks Related to our Business

Our revenues are dependent on the market value and composition of our AUM, all of which are subject to fluctuation due to factors outside of our control.

We derive the majority of our revenue from investment management fees, typically calculated as a percentage of the market value of our AUM. As a result, our revenues are dependent on the value and composition of our AUM, all of which are subject to fluctuation due to many factors, including:

If any of these factors cause a decline in our AUM, it would result in lower investment management revenues . If our revenues decline without a commensurate reduction in our expenses, our net income will be reduced and our business will be adversely affected.

The loss of key investment professionals or members of our senior management team could have an adverse effect on our business.

We depend on the skills and expertise of qualified investment professionals and our success depends on our ability to retain key employees, including members of our senior management team. Our investment professionals possess substantial experience in investing and have been primarily responsible for the historically strong investment performance we have achieved . We particularly depend on our executive officers as well as our Senior Research Group, which is a team of twelve senior analysts who manage our portfolios. The loss of any of these key individuals could limit our ability to successfully execute our business strategy and could have an adverse effect on our business .

Any of our investment or management professionals may resign at any time, subject to various covenants not to compete with us. In addition, employee-owners are subject to additional covenants not to compete. We do not carry any key man insurance on any employees at this time.

Competition for qualified investment, management, marketing and client service professionals is intense and we may fail to successfully attract and retain qualified personnel in the future . Our ability to attract and retain these personnel will depend heavily on the amount and structure of compensation and opportunities for equity ownership we offer . In connection with our transition to a public company, we intend to implement a compensation structure that uses a combination of cash and equity-based incentives as appropriate. We intend for overall compensation levels to remain commensurate with amounts paid to our named executive officers and

11

Table of Contents

other key employees in the past. However, our compensation may not be effective to recruit and retain the personnel we need, especially if our equity-based compensation does not return significant value to employees. Any cost-reduction initiative or adjustments or reductions to compensation could negatively impact our ability to retain key personnel . In addition, changes to our management structure, corporate culture and corporate governance arrangements, including the changes associated with, and resulting from, our reorganization and our initial public offering, could negatively impact our ability to retain key personnel.

We derive substantially all of our revenues from contracts and relationships that may be terminated upon short or no notice.

We derive substantially all of our revenues from investment advisory and sub-advisor agreements, all of which are terminable by clients upon short notice or no notice and without any significant penalty. Our investment management agreements with mutual funds, as required by law, are generally terminable by the funds’ board of directors or a vote of the majority of the funds’ outstanding voting securities on not more than 60 days’ written notice. After an initial term, each fund’s investment management agreement must be approved and renewed annually by such fund’s board, including by its independent members. In addition, all of our separate account clients and some of the pooled investment vehicles, including mutual funds, that we sub-advise have the ability to re-allocate all or any portion of the assets that we manage away from us at any time with little or no notice. These investment management agreements and mutual fund and collective investment trust client relationships may be terminated or not renewed for any number of reasons. The decrease in revenues that could result from the termination of a material client relationship or group of client relationships could have an adverse effect on our business.

We may be required to reduce the fees we charge, or our fees may decline due to changes in our AUM composition, which could have an adverse effect on our profit margins and results of operations.

Our current fee structure may be subject to downward pressure due to a variety of factors, including a trend in recent years toward lower fees in the investment management industry. We may be required to reduce fees with respect to both the separate accounts we manage and the mutual funds we advise. In addition, we may charge lower fees to attract future new business as compared to our existing business, which may result in us having to reduce our fees with respect to our existing business accordingly. The investment management agreements pursuant to which we advise mutual funds are terminable on short notice and, after an initial term, are subject to an annual process of review and renewal by the funds’ boards. As part of that annual review process, the fund board considers, among other things, the level of compensation that the fund has been paying us for our services, and that process may result in the renegotiation of our fee structure or increase our obligations, thus increasing the cost of our performance. Further, in recent periods our average fee rate has been declining due to higher average separately managed account sizes triggered by market appreciation and new separately managed account clients. Any fee reductions on existing or future new business could have an adverse effect on our profit margins and results of operations.

Several of our portfolios involve investing principally in the securities of non-U.S. companies, which involve foreign currency exchange risk, and tax, political, social and economic uncertainties and risks.

As of December 31, 2011, approximately 37% of our AUM across all of our portfolios was invested in securities of non-U.S. companies . Fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates could negatively affect the returns of our clients who are invested in these strategies . In addition, an increase in the value of the U.S. dollar relative to non-U.S. currencies is likely to result in a decrease in the U.S. dollar value of our AUM, which, in turn, could result in lower revenue since we report our financial results in U.S. dollars.

Investments in non-U.S. issuers may also be affected by tax positions taken in countries or regions in which we are invested as well as political, social and economic uncertainty, particularly as a result of the recent decline in global economic conditions. Declining tax revenues may cause governments to assert their ability to tax the local gains and/or income of foreign investors (including our clients), which could adversely affect clients’ interests in investing outside their home markets. Many financial markets are not as developed, or as efficient, as

12

Table of Contents

the U.S. financial markets and, as a result, those markets may have limited liquidity and higher price volatility and may lack established regulations . Liquidity may also be adversely affected by political or economic events, government policies, social or civil unrest within a particular country, and our ability to dispose of an investment may also be adversely affected if we increase the size of our investments in smaller non-U.S. issuers. Non-U.S. legal and regulatory environments, including financial accounting standards and practices, may also be different, and there may be less publicly available information about such companies. These risks could adversely affect the performance of our strategies that are invested in securities of non-U.S. issuers and may be particularly acute in the emerging or less developed markets in which we invest.

We derive a substantial portion of our revenues from our Core Non-U.S. Equity portfolios.

As of December 31, 2011, approximately 30% of our AUM were invested in our Core Non-U.S. Equity portfolios. The World Opportunities Series alone represented approximately 15% of our total AUM as of December 31, 2011. As a result, a substantial portion of our operating results depends upon the performance of our Core Non-U.S. Equity portfolios, and our ability to retain client assets in such portfolios. If a significant portion of the investors in our Core Non-U.S. Equity portfolios decide to withdraw their investments or terminate their investment management agreements for any reason, including poor investment performance or adverse market conditions, our revenues from these portfolios would decline, which could have an adverse effect on our earnings and financial condition.

The investment performance and/or the growth of our AUM may be constrained if appropriate investment opportunities are not available or if we close certain of our portfolios.

Our ability to deliver strong investment performance depends in large part on our ability to identify appropriate investment opportunities in which to invest client assets. If we are unable to identify sufficient appropriate investment opportunities for existing and new client assets on a timely basis, our investment performance could be adversely affected. The risk that sufficient appropriate investment opportunities may be unavailable is influenced by a number of factors, including general market conditions, and is likely to increase as and if our AUM increases, particularly if these increases occur very rapidly.

If we determine that sufficient investment opportunities are not available for some or all of our portfolios, or we believe that in order to remain competitive or continue to produce attractive returns from some or all of our portfolios we should limit the growth of those strategies, as we have done in the past, we may choose to limit the growth of the portfolio by limiting the rate at which we accept additional client assets for management under the portfolio, closing the portfolio to all or substantially all new investors or otherwise taking action to limit the flow of assets into the portfolio. If we misjudge the point at which it would be optimal to limit access to or close a portfolio, the investment performance of the portfolio could be negatively impacted. In addition, if we close access to a portfolio, we may offer a new portfolio to our clients, but we cannot guarantee that such new portfolio will attract clients or perform in a manner consistent with the closed portfolio. Limiting access to or closing a portfolio, while designed to enable us to remain competitive or continue to produce attractive returns, may be seen by some investors in our Class A common stock solely as a loss of revenue growth opportunities in the short-term, which could lead to a decrease in the value of our Class A common stock and a loss on your investment.

The significant growth we have experienced historically has been and may continue to be difficult to sustain, and we may have difficulty managing our growth effectively.

The rapid growth in our AUM represents a significant rate of growth that has been and may continue to be difficult to sustain. In particular, as the absolute amount of our AUM increases, it will be more difficult to maintain levels of growth similar to those we have experienced in the past. The future growth of our business will depend on, among other things:

13

Table of Contents

Unless our growth results in an increase in our revenues that is proportionate to the increase in our costs associated with this growth, our future profitability will be adversely affected. In addition, failure to successfully diversify into new asset classes may adversely affect our growth strategy and our future profitability.

Our portfolios may not obtain attractive returns under certain market conditions or at all.

The goal of our investment process is to provide competitive absolute returns over full market cycles. Accordingly, our portfolios may not perform well as compared to benchmarks or other investment managers’ strategies during certain periods of time or under certain market conditions, including periods of market uncertainty and volatility similar to what we have experienced in recent months. Short-term underperformance may negatively affect our ability to retain clients and attract new clients. We are likely to be most out of favor when the markets are running on positive or negative price momentum and market prices become disconnected from underlying investment fundamentals, as was the case during the late 1990s as the technology market and mega cap stocks fueled the broad market upward. During and shortly following such periods of relative under performance, we are likely to see our highest levels of client turnover, even if our absolute returns are positive. Loss of client assets and the failure to attract new clients could adversely affect our revenues and growth.

The historical returns of our existing portfolios may not be indicative of their future results or of the portfolios we may develop in the future .

The historical returns of our portfolios and the ratings and rankings we or the mutual funds that we advise have received in the past should not be considered indicative of the future results of these portfolios or of any other portfolios that we may develop in the future. The investment performance we achieve for our clients varies over time and the variance can be wide. The ratings and rankings we or the mutual funds we advise have received are typically revised monthly. The historical performance and ratings and rankings included in this report are as of December 31, 2011 and for periods then ended except where otherwise stated. The performance we have achieved and the ratings and rankings received at subsequent dates and for subsequent periods may be higher or lower and the difference could be material. Our portfolios’ returns have benefited during some periods from investment opportunities and positive economic and market conditions. In other periods, such as in 2008 and the third quarter of 2011, general economic and market conditions have negatively affected our portfolios’ returns. These negative conditions may occur again, and in the future we may not be able to identify and invest in profitable investment opportunities within our current or future portfolios.

We depend on third-party distribution sources to market our portfolios and access our client base.

Our ability to attract additional assets to manage is dependent on our access to third-party intermediaries. We gain access to mutual fund investors and some retail and institutional clients through third parties, including mutual fund platforms and financial intermediaries. As of December 31, 2011, the largest relationship we have with a third party represents 5.1% of our total AUM and the mutual fund platform representing the largest portion of our fund assets represents an additional 4.4% of our total AUM. We

14

Table of Contents

compensate most of the intermediaries through which we gain access to investors in our mutual funds by paying fees, most of which are based on a percentage of assets invested in our mutual funds through that intermediary and with respect to which that intermediary provides services. These distribution sources and client bases may not continue to be accessible to us on terms we consider commercially reasonable, or at all. Limiting or the total absence of such access could have an adverse effect on our results of operations. Many of these consultants review and evaluate our products and our firm from time to time. Poor reviews or evaluations of a particular product, portfolio or us as an investment management firm may result in client withdrawals or may impair our ability to attract new assets through these intermediaries. In addition, the recent economic downturn and consolidation in the broker-dealer industry may lead to reduced distribution access and increases in fees we are required to pay to intermediaries. If such increased fees should be required, refusal to pay them could restrict our access to those client bases while paying them could adversely affect our profitability.

Our efforts to establish new portfolios or new products or services may be unsuccessful and could negatively impact our results of operations and our reputation.

As part of our growth strategy, we may seek to take advantage of opportunities to develop new portfolios consistent with our philosophy of managing portfolios to meet our clients’ objectives and using a team investment approach. The costs associated with establishing a new portfolio initially likely will exceed the revenues that the portfolio generates. If any such new portfolio performs poorly or fails to attract sufficient assets to manage, our results of operations could be negatively impacted. Further, a new portfolio’s poor performance may negatively impact our reputation and the reputation of our other portfolios within the investment community. In addition, we have developed and may seek from time to time to develop new products and services to take advantage of opportunities involving technology, insurance, participant and plan sponsor education and other products beyond investment management. The development of these products and services could involve investment of financial and management resources and may not be successful in developing client relationships, which could have an adverse effect on our business. The cost to develop these products initially will likely exceed the revenue they generate. If establishing new portfolios or offering new products or services requires hiring new personnel, to the extent we are unable to recruit and retain sufficient personnel, we may not be successful in further diversifying our portfolios, client assets and business, which could have an adverse effect on our business and future prospects.

Our failure to comply with investment guidelines set by our clients, including the boards of mutual funds, and limitations imposed by applicable law, could result in damage awards against us and a loss of our AUM, either of which could adversely affect our reputation, results of operations or financial condition.

When clients retain us to manage assets on their behalf, they generally specify certain guidelines regarding investment allocation that we are required to follow in managing their portfolios. In addition, the boards of mutual funds we manage generally establish similar guidelines regarding the investment of assets in those funds. We are also required to invest the mutual funds’ assets in accordance with limitations under the 1940 Act, and applicable provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. Other clients, such as plans subject to ERISA, or non-U.S. funds, require us to invest their assets in accordance with applicable law. Our failure to comply with any of these guidelines and other limitations could result in losses to clients or investors in our products which, depending on the circumstances, could result in our obligation to make clients whole for such losses. If we believed that the circumstances did not justify a reimbursement, or clients believed the reimbursement we offered was insufficient, clients could seek to recover damages from us, withdraw assets from our products or terminate their investment management agreement with us. Any of these events could harm our reputation and adversely affect our business.

A change of control of our company could result in termination of our investment advisory agreements.

Under the 1940 Act, each of the investment advisory agreements for SEC registered mutual funds that our affiliate, MNA, advises automatically terminates in the event of its assignment, as defined under the 1940 Act. If such an assignment were to occur, MNA could continue to act as adviser to any such fund only if that fund’s

15

Table of Contents

board of directors and stockholders approved a new investment advisory agreement, except in the case of certain of the funds that we sub-advise for which only board approval would be necessary. In addition, under the Advisers Act each of the investment advisory agreements for the separate accounts we manage may not be assigned without the consent of the client. An assignment may occur under the 1940 Act and the Advisers Act if, among other things, MNA undergoes a change of control. In certain other cases, the investment advisory agreements for the separate accounts we manage require the consent of the client for any assignment. If such an assignment occurs, we cannot be certain that MNA will be able to obtain the necessary approvals from the boards and stockholders of the mutual funds that it advises or the necessary consents from separate account clients.

Operational risks may disrupt our business, result in losses or limit our growth.

We are heavily dependent on the capacity and reliability of the communications, information and technology systems supporting our operations, whether developed, owned and operated by us or by third parties. Operational risks such as trading or operational errors or interruption of our financial, accounting, trading, compliance and other data processing systems, whether caused by fire, natural disaster or pandemic, power or telecommunications failure, act of terrorism or war or otherwise, could result in a disruption of our business, liability to clients, regulatory intervention or reputational damage, and thus adversely affect our business. Some types of operational risks, including, for example, trading errors, may be increased in periods of increased volatility, which can magnify the cost of an error. Although we have back-up systems in place, our back-up procedures and capabilities in the event of a failure or interruption may not be adequate, and the fact that we operate our business out of multiple physical locations may make such failures and interruptions difficult to address on a timely and adequate basis. As and if our client base, number of portfolios and/or physical locations increase, developing and maintaining our operational systems and infrastructure may become increasingly challenging, which could constrain our ability to expand our business. Any upgrades or expansions to our operations or technology to accommodate increased volumes of transactions or otherwise may require significant expenditures and may increase the probability that we will suffer system degradations and failures. In addition, if we are unsuccessful in executing any such upgrades or expansions, we may instead have to hire additional employees, which could increase operational risk due to human error. We also depend on our headquarters in Fairport, New York, where a majority of our employees, administration and technology resources are located, for the continued operation of our business. Any significant disruption to our headquarters could have an adverse effect on our business.

We depend on third-party service providers for services that are important to our business, and an interruption or cessation of such services by any such service providers could have an adverse effect on our business.

We depend on a number of service providers, including custodial and clearing firms, and vendors of communications and networking products and services. We cannot assure you that any of these providers will be able to continue to provide these services in an efficient manner or that they will be able to adequately expand their services to meet our needs. An interruption or malfunction in or the cessation of an important service by any third-party and our inability to make alternative arrangements in a timely manner, or at all, could have an adverse impact on our business, financial condition and operating results.

Employee misconduct could expose us to significant legal liability and reputational harm.

We operate in an industry in which integrity and the confidence of our clients are of critical importance. Accordingly, if any of our employees engage in illegal or suspicious activities or other misconduct, we could be subject to regulatory sanctions and suffer serious harm to our reputation, financial condition, client relationships and ability to attract new clients. For example, our business often requires that we deal with confidential information. If our employees were to improperly use or disclose this information, even if inadvertently, we could suffer serious harm to our reputation, financial condition and current and future business relationships. It is not always possible to deter employee misconduct, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity may not always be effective. In addition, the SEC recently has increased its scrutiny of the use of non-public

16

Table of Contents

information obtained from corporate insiders by professional investors. Misconduct by our employees, or even unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct, could result in an adverse effect on our reputation and our business.

Improper disclosure of personal data could result in liability and harm our reputation.

We and our service providers store and process personal client information. It is possible that the security controls, training and other processes over personal data may not prevent the improper disclosure of client information. Such disclosure could harm our reputation as well and subject us to liability, resulting in increased costs or loss of revenue.

Failure to properly address conflicts of interest could harm our reputation, business and results of operations.

As we expand the scope of our business and our client base, we must continue to monitor and address any conflicts between our interests and those of our clients. The SEC and other regulators have increased their scrutiny of potential conflicts of interest, and we have implemented procedures and controls that we believe are reasonably designed to address these issues. However, appropriately dealing with conflicts of interest is complex and if we fail, or appear to fail, to deal appropriately with conflicts of interest, we could face reputational damage, litigation or regulatory proceedings or penalties, any of which could adversely affect our reputation, business and results of operations.

If our techniques for managing risk are ineffective, we may be exposed to material unanticipated losses.

In order to manage the significant risks inherent in our business, we must maintain effective policies, procedures and systems that enable us to identify, monitor and control our exposure to operational, legal and reputational risks. Our risk management methods may prove to be ineffective due to their design or implementation, or as a result of the lack of adequate, accurate or timely information or otherwise. If our risk management efforts are ineffective, we could suffer losses that could have an adverse effect on our financial condition or operating results. Additionally, we could be subject to litigation, particularly from our clients, and sanctions or fines from regulators. Our techniques for managing risks in client portfolios may not fully mitigate the risk exposure in all economic or market environments, or against all types of risk, including risks that we might fail to identify or anticipate.

The cost of insuring our business is substantial and may increase.

Our insurance costs are substantial and can fluctuate significantly from year to year. In addition, certain insurance coverage may not be available or may only be available at prohibitive costs. As we renew our insurance policies, we may be subject to additional costs resulting from rising premiums, the assumption of higher deductibles or co-insurance liability and, to the extent certain of our mutual funds purchase separate director and officer or errors and omissions liability coverage, an increased risk of insurance companies disputing responsibility for joint claims. Higher insurance costs and incurred deductibles, as with any expense, would reduce our net income.

We may elect to pursue growth in the United States and abroad through acquisitions or joint ventures, which would expose us to risks inherent in assimilating new operations, expanding into new jurisdictions, and making non-controlling minority investments in other entities .

In order to maintain and enhance our competitive position, we may review and pursue acquisition and joint venture opportunities. We cannot assure we will identify and consummate any such transactions on acceptable terms or have sufficient resources to accomplish such a strategy. In addition, any strategic transaction can involve a number of risks, including:

17

Table of Contents

Risks Related to our Industry

We are subject to extensive regulation.

We are subject to extensive regulation for our investment management business and operations, including regulation by the SEC under the 1940 Act and the Advisers Act, by the U.S. Department of Labor under ERISA, and by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., or FINRA. The U.S. mutual funds we advise are registered with and regulated by the SEC as investment companies under the 1940 Act. The Advisers Act imposes numerous obligations on investment advisers including record keeping, advertising and operating requirements, disclosure obligations and prohibitions on fraudulent activities. The 1940 Act imposes similar obligations, as well as additional detailed operational requirements, on registered investment companies, which must be adhered to by their investment advisers. The U.S. mutual funds that we advise and our broker-dealer subsidiary are each subject to the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, which requires them to know certain information about their clients and to monitor their transactions for suspicious financial activities, including money laundering. The U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control, or OFAC, has issued regulations requiring that we refrain from doing business, or allow our clients to do business through us, in certain countries or with certain organizations or individuals on a list maintained by the U.S. government. In addition, Manning & Napier Benefits, LLC is a registered insurance broker with the New York State Insurance Department and, as such, is subject to various insurance and health-related rules and regulations.

Our failure to comply with applicable laws or regulations could result in fines, censure, suspensions of personnel or other sanctions, including revocation of our registration as an investment adviser. Even if a sanction imposed against us or our personnel is small in monetary amount, the adverse publicity arising from the imposition of sanctions against us by regulators could harm our reputation, result in withdrawal by our clients from our products and impede our ability to retain clients and develop new client relationships, which may reduce our revenues.

We face the risk of significant intervention by regulatory authorities, including extended investigation and surveillance activity, adoption of costly or restrictive new regulations and judicial or administrative proceedings that may result in substantial penalties. Among other things, we could be fined or be prohibited from engaging in some of our business activities. The requirements imposed by our regulators are designed to ensure the integrity of the financial markets and to protect customers and other third parties who deal with us, and are not designed to protect our stockholders. Accordingly, these regulations often serve to limit our activities, including through net capital, customer protection and market conduct requirements.

The regulatory environment in which we operate is subject to continual change, and regulatory developments designed to increase oversight could adversely affect our business.

The legislative and regulatory environment in which we operate has undergone significant changes in the recent past. We believe that significant regulatory changes in our industry are likely to continue on a scale that exceeds the historical pace of regulatory change, which is likely to subject industry participants to additional, more costly and generally more punitive regulation. For example, on July 21, 2010, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, or Dodd-Frank, was enacted. Dodd-Frank introduces considerable changes to financial industry regulation, which could impact our business in significant ways. These new laws and regulations can be expected to place greater compliance and administrative burdens on us, which likely will increase our expenses without increasing our revenues. However, many of Dodd-Frank’s provisions require the adoption of regulations by various federal agencies and departments and it is difficult to predict all of the effects Dodd-Frank may have on us until final rules have been adopted.

18

Table of Contents

New laws or regulations, or changes in the enforcement of existing laws or regulations, applicable to us and our clients could adversely affect our business. Our ability to function in this environment will depend on our ability to constantly monitor and promptly react to legislative and regulatory changes. There have been a number of highly publicized regulatory inquiries that have focused on the investment management industry. These inquiries already have resulted in increased scrutiny of the industry and new rules and regulations for mutual funds and investment managers. This regulatory scrutiny may limit our ability to engage in certain activities that might be beneficial to our shareholders. Further, adverse results of regulatory investigations of mutual fund, investment advisory and financial services firms could tarnish the reputation of the financial services industry generally and mutual funds and investment advisers more specifically, causing investors to avoid further fund investments or redeem their account balances. Redemptions would decrease our AUM, which would reduce our advisory revenues and net income.

In addition, recently there has been intense public and regulatory interest in 401(k) plan fees and expenses. Lawsuits have been brought against plan sponsors and service providers charging that they breached their fiduciary duties related to such fees and expenses, and the U.S. Department of Labor has imposed substantial additional fee disclosure requirements. These developments may adversely affect our business.

Further, as a result of the recent economic downturn, acts of serious fraud in the investment management industry and perceived lapses in regulatory oversight, U.S. and non-U.S. governmental and regulatory authorities may increase regulatory oversight of our business. We may be adversely affected as a result of new or revised legislation or regulations imposed by the SEC, other U.S. governmental regulatory authorities or self-regulatory organizations that supervise the financial markets. We also may be adversely affected by changes in the interpretation or enforcement of existing laws and rules by these governmental authorities and self-regulatory organizations, as well as by U.S. courts. It is impossible to determine the extent of the impact of any new laws, regulations or initiatives that may be proposed, or whether any of the proposals will become law. Compliance with any new laws or regulations could make compliance more difficult and expensive and affect the manner in which we conduct business.

The investment management industry is intensely competitive.

The investment management industry is intensely competitive, with competition based on a variety of factors, including investment performance, investment management fee rates, continuity of investment professionals and client relationships, the quality of services provided to clients, corporate positioning and business reputation, continuity of selling arrangements with intermediaries and differentiated products. A number of factors, including the following, serve to increase our competitive risks:

19

Table of Contents

If we are unable to compete effectively, our revenues could be reduced and our business could be adversely affected.

The investment management industry faces substantial litigation risks, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition or results of operations or cause significant reputational harm to us.

We depend to a large extent on our network of relationships and on our reputation to attract and retain client assets. If a client is not satisfied with our services, its dissatisfaction may be more damaging to our business than client dissatisfaction would be to other types of businesses. We make investment decisions on behalf of our clients that could result in substantial losses to them. If our clients suffer significant losses, or are otherwise dissatisfied with our services, we could be subject to the risk of legal liabilities or actions alleging negligent misconduct, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, unjust enrichment and/or fraud. These risks are often difficult to assess or quantify and their existence and magnitude often remain unknown for substantial periods of time, even after an action has been commenced. We may incur significant legal expenses in defending against litigation whether or not we engaged in conduct as a result of which we might be subject to legal liability. Substantial legal liability or significant regulatory action against us could adversely affect our business, financial condition or results of operations or cause significant reputational harm to us.

Catastrophic and unpredictable events could have an adverse effect on our business.

A terrorist attack, war, power failure, cyber-attack, natural disaster or other catastrophic or unpredictable event could adversely affect our future revenues, expenses and earnings by:

We have a disaster recovery plan to address certain contingencies, but we cannot be assured that this plan will be sufficient in responding or ameliorating the effects of all disaster scenarios. If our employees or vendors we rely upon for support in a catastrophic event are unable to respond adequately or in a timely manner, we may lose clients resulting in a decrease in AUM which may have an adverse effect on revenues and net income.

Risks Related to Our Structure

Control of a majority of the combined voting power of our capital stock by William Manning, and ownership of approximately 86.2% of Manning & Napier Group’s ownership interests by our employee owners, including William Manning, may give rise to conflicts of interest; failure to properly address these or other conflicts of interests could harm our reputation, business and results of operations.

William Manning holds a majority of the combined voting power of our capital stock through his ownership of 100% of our outstanding Class B common stock. Accordingly, William Manning, acting alone, has the ability to approve or disapprove substantially all transactions and other matters submitted to a vote of shareholders,

20

Table of Contents

including those relating to the tax receivable agreement, the exchange agreement and other material corporate transactions, such as a merger, consolidation, dissolution or sale of all or substantially all of our assets, the issuance or redemption of certain additional equity interests, and the election of directors. These voting and class approval rights could enable William Manning to consummate transactions that may not be in the best interests of holders of our Class A common stock or, conversely, prevent the consummation of transactions that may be in the best interests of holders of our Class A common stock. In addition, although he has voting control of Manning & Napier, all of William Manning’s economic interests in us is in the form of his indirect interests in Manning & Napier Group, the payments he may receive from Manning & Napier under the tax receivable agreement we entered into with him at the time of the reorganization transactions and the proceeds he may receive as a result of M&N Group Holdings and MNCC exchanging the interests attributable to him in Manning & Napier Group for cash or, at our election, shares of our Class A common stock and, in the case of exchanges for shares of our Class A common stock, from selling such Class A common stock. As a result, William Manning’s economic interests may conflict with the interests of Manning & Napier and its public stockholders.

Our employee owners, including William Manning, directly and through their ownership of M&N Group Holdings and MNCC, indirectly hold approximately 86.2% of the ownership interests in Manning & Napier Group which, as discussed elsewhere, is our sole source of revenue. M&N Group Holdings and MNCC are entities controlled by William Manning, who, through his ownership of M&N Group Holdings and MNCC indirectly owns a total of 67.6% of the ownership interests in Manning & Napier Group. All of the other owners of interests in M&N Group Holdings and MNCC are current employees of ours, including our executive officers. Further, such employees have the right to cause M&N Group Holdings and MNCC to exchange their indirect interests in Manning & Napier Group for cash or shares of our Class A common stock. If they exercise this right in sufficient amounts, receive shares of our Class A common stock and do not resell such shares, it is possible that after the cancellation of our Class B common stock, these employees may control us. The interests of these employee owners may conflict with our interests and the interests of the holders of our Class A common stock. Decisions of our employee owners with respect to Manning & Napier Group, including those relating to the tax receivable agreement, the exchange agreement and the structuring of future transactions, may take into consideration these employee owners’ tax or other considerations even where no similar benefit would accrue to us or the holders of our Class A common stock.

In addition, as we expand the scope of our business and our client base, we may have conflicts between our interests, those of the holders of our Class A common stock and those of our clients and fund investors. The SEC and other regulators have increased their scrutiny of potential conflicts of interest, and we have implemented procedures and controls that we believe are reasonably designed to address these issues. However, appropriately dealing with conflicts of interest is complex and if we fail, or appear to fail, to deal appropriately with conflicts of interest, we could face reputational damage, litigation or regulatory proceedings or penalties, any of which may adversely affect our results of operations.

We will recognize substantial non-cash compensation expense through 2014

Certain Manning & Napier Companies adopted new vesting terms related to the current ownership interests of our employees, including our named executive officers, other than William Manning. As a result, we will be required to recognize substantial non-cash compensation expense in each year through 2014. In addition each of Patrick Cunningham and James Mikolaichik were granted Class B units of Manning & Napier Group. As a result, we will recognize non-cash compensation charges through 2012 and 2014, respectively. Further, additional ownership interests in M&N Group Holdings were granted to William Manning in connection with the reorganization transactions pursuant to the amended and restated limited liability company agreement of M&N Group Holdings, as part of the overall agreement among William Manning and the other owners of the Manning & Napier Companies to consummate the reorganization and are fully vested. These expenses have significantly reduced our reported GAAP net income for 2011 and will significantly reduce our reported GAAP net income over the remaining vesting periods.

21

Table of Contents

Because we are a “controlled company” within the meaning of the New York Stock Exchange listing rules, our board of directors is not required to consist of a majority of independent directors, and our stockholders may not have the same protections afforded to stockholders of companies that are subject to all of the corporate governance requirements of the New York Stock Exchange. William Manning has a controlling influence over our board, and the interests of William Manning may conflict with the interests of our other stockholders.

Because William Manning holds a majority of the combined voting power of our capital stock through his ownership of 100% of our outstanding Class B common stock, we are considered a “controlled company” for the purposes of the New York Stock Exchange listing requirements. As such, we are permitted to, and may, opt out of the corporate governance requirements that our board of directors, our compensation committee and our nominating and corporate governance committee meet the standard of independence established by the NYSE. As a result, our board of directors and compensation committee may have more directors who do not meet the independence standards than they would if those standards were to apply. In particular, so long as we are a “controlled company,” we are exempt from the NYSE rule that requires that a board be comprised of a majority of “independent directors.” Further, William Manning has a controlling influence over our board, as William Manning has sufficient voting power to elect the entire board, and our certificate of incorporation permits stockholders to remove directors at any time with or without cause. In addition, although we have established a nominating and corporate governance committee, we may opt out of the NYSE’s requirement that such committee contain independent directors. Our stockholders may not have the same protections afforded to stockholders of companies that are subject to all of the corporate governance requirements of the NYSE, and circumstances may occur in which the interests of William Manning could conflict with the interests of our other stockholders.

Our ability to pay regular dividends to our stockholders is subject to the discretion of our board of directors and may be limited by our structure and applicable provisions of Delaware law.

We intend to declare cash dividends on our Class A common stock, however, our board of directors may, in its sole discretion, change the amount or frequency of dividends or discontinue the payment of dividends entirely. In addition, because of our structure, we will be dependent upon the ability of our subsidiaries to generate earnings and cash flows and distribute them to us so that we may pay dividends to our stockholders. We expect to cause Manning & Napier Group to make distributions to its members, including us, in an amount sufficient for us to pay dividends. However, its ability to make such distributions will be subject to its and its subsidiaries’ operating results, cash requirements and financial condition, the applicable laws of the State of Delaware, which may limit the amount of funds available for distribution, and its compliance with covenants and financial ratios related to any indebtedness it has or may incur in the future. As a consequence of these various limitations and restrictions, we may not be able to make, or may have to reduce or eliminate, the payment of dividends on our Class A common stock. Any change in the level of our dividends or the suspension of the payment thereof could adversely affect the market price of our Class A common stock.

We depend on distributions from Manning & Napier Group to pay taxes and expenses, including payments under the tax receivable agreement, but Manning & Napier Group’s ability to make such distributions will be subject to various limitations and restrictions.

We have no material assets other than our ownership of Class A units of Manning & Napier Group and have no independent means of generating revenue. Manning & Napier Group is treated as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes and, as such, is not subject to U.S. federal income tax. Instead, taxable income is allocated to holders of its units, including us. Accordingly, we incur income taxes on our allocable share of any net taxable income of Manning & Napier Group. Under the terms of its amended and restated limited liability company operating agreement, Manning & Napier Group is obligated to make tax distributions to holders of its units, including us. In addition to tax expenses, we also incur expenses related to our operations, including expenses under the tax receivable agreement, which we expect to be significant. We intend, as its managing member, to cause Manning & Napier Group to make distributions in an amount sufficient to allow us to pay our

22

Table of Contents

taxes and operating expenses, including any payments due under the tax receivable agreement. However, Manning & Napier Group’s ability to make such distributions is subject to various limitations and restrictions including, but not limited to, restrictions on distributions that would violate any contract or agreement to which Manning & Napier Group is then a party or any applicable law or that would have the effect of rendering Manning & Napier Group insolvent. If we do not have sufficient funds to pay tax or other liabilities to fund our operations, we may have to borrow funds, which could adversely affect our liquidity and financial condition and subject us to various restrictions imposed by any such lenders. To the extent that we are unable to make payments under the tax receivable agreement for any reason, such payments will be deferred and will accrue interest until paid.

We are required to pay holders of units of Manning & Napier Group for certain tax benefits we may claim as a result of the tax basis step up we realize in connection with the future purchases or exchanges of those units for shares of our Class A common stock, and the amounts we may pay could be significant.

Our employee owners indirectly hold a substantial majority of the ownership interests in Manning & Napier Group. Any future purchases or exchanges of their units of Manning & Napier Group for cash or, at our election, shares of our Class A common stock are expected to produce favorable tax attributes for us. When we acquire such units from employee owners, both the existing basis and the anticipated basis adjustments are likely to increase, for tax purposes, depreciation and amortization deductions allocable to us from Manning & Napier Group and therefore reduce the amount of income tax we would otherwise be required to pay in the future. This increase in tax basis may also decrease gain, or increase loss, on future dispositions of certain capital assets to the extent the increased tax basis is allocated to those capital assets.

We entered into a tax receivable agreement with M&N Group Holdings, MNCC and the other holders of Class A units of Manning & Napier Group, pursuant to which we are required to pay to such holder of such Class A units 85% of the applicable cash savings, if any, in U.S. federal, state, local and foreign income tax that we actually realize, or are deemed to realize in certain circumstances, as a result of any step-up in tax basis in Manning & Napier Group’s assets resulting from (i) our purchase of such Class A units from M&N Group Holdings with a portion of the net proceeds of our initial public offering, (ii) our purchases or exchanges of such Class A units from M&N Group Holdings and MNCC, respectively, for cash or, at our election, shares of our Class A common stock and (iii) payments under the tax receivable agreement, including any tax benefits related to imputed interest deemed to be paid by us as a result of such agreement.

We expect that the payments we will be required to make under the tax receivable agreement will be substantial. Assuming no material changes in the relevant tax law, that the purchase or exchange of Class A units would result in depreciable or amortizable basis and that we earn sufficient taxable income to realize all tax benefits that are subject to the tax receivable agreement, we expect that the reduction in tax payments for us associated with the purchase or exchange of all of the Class A units held by M&N Group Holdings and MNCC would aggregate approximately $54.4 million over a 15-year period. Under such scenario, we would be required to pay the holders of such Class A units 85% of such amount, or approximately $46.2 million over the same 15-year period. The actual amounts may materially differ from these estimated amounts, as potential future reductions in tax payments for us and tax receivable agreement payments by us will be calculated using the market value of our Class A common stock and the prevailing tax rates at the time of purchase or exchange and will be dependent on us generating sufficient future taxable income to realize the benefit. In general, increases in the market value of our shares or in prevailing tax rates will increase the amounts we pay under the tax receivable agreement.

The actual increase in tax basis, as well as the amount and timing of any payments under the tax receivable agreement, will vary depending upon a number of factors, including:

23

Table of Contents

There is a possibility that not all of the 85% of the applicable cash savings will be paid to the selling or exchanging holder of Class A units at the time described above. If we determine that all or a portion of such applicable tax savings is in doubt, we will pay to the holders of such Class A units the amount attributable to the portion of the applicable tax savings that we determine is not in doubt and pay the remainder at such time as we determine the actual tax savings or that the amount is no longer in doubt.

Payments under the tax receivable agreement, if any, will be made pro rata among all tax receivable agreement holders entitled to payments on an annual basis to the extent we have sufficient taxable income to utilize the increased depreciation and amortization charges. The availability of sufficient taxable income to utilize the increased depreciation and amortization expense will not be determined until such time as the financial results for the year in question are known and tax estimates prepared.

In certain cases, payments under the tax receivable agreement to holders of Manning & Napier Group units may be accelerated and/or significantly exceed the actual benefits we realize in respect of the tax attributes subject to the tax receivable agreement.

The tax receivable agreement provides that upon certain mergers, asset sales, other forms of business combinations or other changes of control, or if, at any time, we elect an early termination of the tax receivable agreement, our, or our successor’s, obligations under the tax receivable agreement with respect to all Class A units of Manning & Napier Group, whether or not such units have been purchased or exchanged before or after such transaction, would be based on certain assumptions, including that we would have sufficient taxable income to fully utilize the deductions arising from the increased tax deductions and tax basis and other benefits related to entering into the tax receivable agreement. As a result, (i) we could be required to make payments under the tax receivable agreement that are greater than or less than the specified percentage of the actual benefits we realize in respect of the tax attributes subject to the tax receivable agreement and (ii) if we elect to terminate the tax receivable agreement early, we would be required to make an immediate payment equal to the present value of the anticipated future tax benefits, which payment may be made significantly in advance of the actual realization of such future benefits. In these situations, our obligations under the tax receivable agreement could have a substantial negative impact on our liquidity and could have the effect of delaying, deferring or preventing certain mergers, asset sales, other forms of business combinations or other changes of control. There can be no assurance that we will be able to finance our obligations under the tax receivable agreement. If we were to elect to terminate the tax receivable agreement immediately as of December 31, 2011, we estimate that we would be required to pay $42.8 million in the aggregate under the tax receivable agreement.

If we were deemed an investment company under the 1940 Act as a result of our ownership of Manning & Napier Group, applicable restrictions could make it impractical for us to continue our business as contemplated and could have an adverse effect on our business.

We do not believe that we are an “investment company” under the 1940 Act. Because we, as the sole managing member of Manning & Napier Group, control the management of and operate Manning & Napier Group, we believe that our interest in Manning & Napier Group is not an “investment security” as such term is used in the 1940 Act. If we were to cease participation in the management of Manning & Napier Group or not be deemed to control Manning & Napier Group, our interest in Manning & Napier Group could be deemed an “investment security” for purposes of the 1940 Act. A person may be an “investment company” if it owns investment securities having a value exceeding 40% of the value of its total assets (exclusive of U.S. government securities and cash items). Our sole asset is our equity investment in Manning & Napier Group. A determination that such investment is an investment security could cause us to be deemed an investment company under the

24

Table of Contents

1940 Act and to become subject to the registration and other requirements of the 1940 Act. In addition, we do not believe that we are an investment company under Section 3(b)(1) of the 1940 Act because we are not primarily engaged in a business that causes us to fall within the definition of “investment company.” The 1940 Act and the rules thereunder contain detailed prescriptions for the organization and operations of investment companies. Among other things, the 1940 Act and the rules thereunder limit or prohibit transactions with affiliates, impose limitations on the issuance of debt and equity securities, prohibit the issuance of stock options, and impose certain governance requirements. We and Manning & Napier Group intend to conduct our operations so that we will not be deemed an investment company. However, if we nevertheless were to be deemed an investment company, restrictions imposed by the 1940 Act, including limitations on our capital structure and our ability to transact with affiliates, could make it impractical for us to continue our business as contemplated and could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Risks Related to Our Class A Common Stock

The market price and trading volume of our Class A common stock may be volatile, and your investment in our Class A common stock could suffer a decline in value.

The stock markets have experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations that have affected and continue to affect the market prices of equity securities of many companies. These fluctuations have often been unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of those companies. These broad market and industry fluctuations, as well as general economic, political and market conditions such as recessions, interest rate changes or international currency fluctuations, may negatively affect the market price of our Class A common stock. The market price of our Class A common stock may fluctuate or decline significantly in the future. As such, you may not realize any return on your investment in us and may lose some or all of your investment.

Some of the factors that could negatively affect the price of our Class A common stock, or result in fluctuations in the price or trading volume of our Class A common stock, include:

25

Table of Contents

William Manning and our other employee-owners directly and indirectly own interests in M&N Group Holdings and directly own interests in MNCC, and they will have the right to exchange and cause M&N Group Holdings and MNCC to exchange, as applicable, such interests for cash or an aggregate of 76,400,000 shares of our Class A common stock pursuant to the terms of an exchange agreement; future sales of such shares in the public market, or the perception that such sales may occur, could lower our stock price.

The market price of our Class A common stock could decline as a result of sales of a large number of shares of our Class A common stock available for sale, or the perception that such sales could occur. These sales, or the possibility that these sales may occur, also may make it more difficult for us to raise additional capital by selling equity securities in the future, at a time and price that we deem appropriate.

We have 13,583,873 shares of Class A common stock outstanding. We have entered into an exchange agreement with M&N Group Holdings, MNCC, and the other direct holders of the units of Manning & Napier Group that are not owned by us, and subject to certain restrictions set forth therein and as described elsewhere in this report, certain of our employee-owners and M&N Group Holdings and MNCC, on behalf of William Manning and our other employee-members that are direct or indirect members of M&N Group Holdings and MNCC, are entitled to exchange such units for an aggregate of up to 76,400,000 shares of our Class A common stock, subject to customary adjustments. In addition, the holders of any units of Manning & Napier Group will also become parties to the exchange agreement and, pursuant to the terms of the exchange agreement, we may also purchase or exchange such units for shares of our Class A common stock. We are party to a registration rights agreement pursuant to which the shares of Class A common stock issued upon such exchanges are eligible for resale, subject to certain limitations set forth therein.

We cannot predict the size of future issuances of our Class A common stock or the effect, if any, that future issuances and sales of shares of our Class A common stock may have on the market price of our Class A common stock. Sales or distributions of substantial amounts of our Class A common stock, including shares issued in connection with an acquisition, or the perception that such sales or distributions could occur, may cause the market price of our Class A common stock to decline.

The disparity in the voting rights among the classes of our capital stock may have a potential adverse effect on the price of our Class A common stock.

Each share of our Class A common stock entitles its holder to one vote on all matters to be voted on by stockholders generally, while the holder of our Class B common stock controls a majority of the vote on all matters submitted to a vote of all stockholders. The difference in voting rights could adversely affect the value of our Class A common stock if, for example, investors view, or any potential future purchaser of our company views, the superior voting rights of the Class B common stock to have value or to delay or deter a change of control.

You may experience dilution in the future as a result of the issuance of Class A units of Manning & Napier Group in connection with future acquisitions.

We may issue shares of our Class A common stock or units of Manning & Napier Group in connection with future acquisitions or grants under the 2011 Plan. If we grant exchange rights with respect to the issuance of the units of Manning & Napier Group that allow its holder to exchange such units for shares of our Class A common stock, stockholders will incur dilution in the percentage of the issued and outstanding shares of Class A common stock that are owned at such time.

Fulfilling our public company financial reporting and other regulatory obligations will be expensive and time consuming, may strain our resources and if we fail to comply with such obligations, our business, operating results and stock price could be adversely affected.

As a public company, we are subject to the reporting requirements of the Exchange Act, and will be required to implement specific corporate governance practices and adhere to a variety of reporting requirements under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, or Sarbanes-Oxley, and the related rules and regulations of the SEC, as well as the rules of the New York Stock Exchange.

26

Table of Contents

In accordance with Section 404 of Sarbanes-Oxley, our management will be required to conduct an annual assessment of the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting and include a report on these internal controls in the annual reports on Form 10-K we will file with the SEC. In addition, we will be required to have our independent registered public accounting firm provide an opinion regarding the effectiveness of our internal controls. We expect that in the future we will become an accelerated or large accelerated filer, and accordingly our annual reports, beginning with our annual report for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2012, must also contain a statement that our independent registered public accounting firm has issued an attestation report on the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting.

In order to achieve timely compliance with Section 404 of Sarbanes-Oxley, we have begun a process to evaluate our internal control over financial reporting. Our efforts to comply with Section 404 have resulted in, and are likely to continue to result in, significant costs, the commitment of time and operational resources and the diversion of management’s attention. If our management identifies one or more material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting, we will be unable to assert that our internal control over financial reporting is effective. If we are unable to assert that our internal control over financial reporting is effective, or if our independent registered public accounting firm is unable to express an opinion on the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting, market perception of our financial condition and the trading price of our stock may be adversely affected and customer perception of our business may suffer.

Further, the Exchange Act requires us to file annual, quarterly and current reports with respect to our business and financial condition. Compliance with these requirements places significant additional demands on our legal, accounting and finance staff and on our accounting, financial and information systems and increases our legal and accounting compliance costs as well as our compensation expense as we will be required to hire additional accounting, tax, finance and legal staff with the requisite technical knowledge.

As a public company we have enhanced our investor relations, legal and corporate communications functions. These additional efforts may strain our resources and divert management’s attention from other business concerns, which could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our corporate documents and Delaware law contain provisions that could discourage, delay or prevent a change in control of the Company.

Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws contain provisions that may make the acquisition of our company more difficult. These provisions:

These anti-takeover provisions and other provisions under Delaware law could discourage, delay or prevent a transaction involving a change in control of our company, even if doing so would benefit the holders of our Class A common stock.

27

Table of Contents

Any issuance of preferred stock could make it difficult for another company to acquire us or could otherwise adversely affect holders of our Class A common stock, which could depress the price of our Class A common stock.

Our board of directors has the authority to issue preferred stock and to determine the preferences, limitations and relative rights of shares of preferred stock and to fix the number of shares constituting any series and the designation of such series, without any further vote or action by our stockholders. Our preferred stock could be issued with voting, liquidation, dividend and other rights superior to the rights of our Class A common stock. The potential issuance of preferred stock may delay or prevent a change in control of us, discouraging bids for our Class A common stock at a premium over the market price, and adversely affect the market price and the voting and other rights of the holders of our Class A common stock.

If securities or industry analysts do not publish research or publish inaccurate or unfavorable research about our business, our stock price and trading volume could decline.

The trading market for our Class A common stock depends in part on the research and reports that securities or industry analysts publish about us or our business. If one or more of the analysts who covers us downgrades our stock or publishes inaccurate or unfavorable research about our business, our stock price would likely decline. If one or more of these analysts ceases coverage of us or fails to publish reports on us regularly, demand for our stock could decrease, which could cause our stock price and trading volume to decline.