Honestly, y'all, read a chapter in a book called 7 Powers that describes this.
T. Rowe is in a tough position where it's not "worth it" to invest into entering passive, but it's not optimal to just stay in active or doing what the firm is doing either. Fidelity and others (see Legg Mason) faced essentially an identical problem to the one T. Rowe is facing now. Legg owned a bunch of boutiques but wasn't able to compete independently. T. Rowe could sell but can't (yet) convince someone to buy the company outright.
Ultimately, they have to find some way to diversify, and have entered an array of areas with no clear direction since they don't know precisely what will stick. It's a tough spot with a lack of clear strategy to follow since they are not sure that entering an area they know will succeed will be "worth it" (i.e., passive and random ETFs) and since they don't know if other areas will lead to problems that other managers faced (i.e., Legg with alternatives).
They could diversify, but not get the return that justifies investing.
They could buy smaller companies, but be weighed down by their own purchases.
They could sell the firm, but nobody wants to pay the premium they would have gotten in yesteryear.
It's a secularly challenged company actively looking for a good path forward. It hasn't found that yet.