Commitments to extend credit are agreements to lend to a customer so long as there is no violation of any condition established in the contract. Commitments generally have fixed expiration dates or other termination clauses and may require payment of a fee. Since many of the commitments may expire without being drawn upon, the total commitment amounts do not necessarily represent future cash requirements. The amount of collateral obtained, if it is deemed necessary by the Company, is based on management’s credit evaluation of the customer. For single family loans classified as held for sale, the Company matches unfunded commitments to originate loans with commitments to sell loans. The Company also has standby letters of credit commitments.

In the normal course of business, Axos Clearing’s customer activities involve the execution, settlement, and financing of various customer securities transactions. These activities may expose Axos Clearing to off-balance-sheet risk in the event the customer or other broker is unable to fulfill its contracted obligations and Axos Clearing has to purchase or sell the financial instrument underlying the contract at a loss. Axos Clearing’s clearing agreements with broker-dealers for which it provides clearing services requires them to indemnify Axos Clearing if customers fail to satisfy their contractual obligation. As of June 30, 2026, non-customer and customer margin securities were available to the Company to utilize as collateral on various borrowings or for other purposes. The Company pledged $194.7 million of these available securities as collateral for securities loaned, pledged $161.6 million for bank loans, and pledged $55.0 million to meet OCC margin requirements of $40.0 million.

Litigation. A consolidated derivative action, In re BofI Holding, Inc., Case No. 15cv2722GPC (KSC), was originally filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California (the “Derivative Action”) on December 3, 2015. The complaint in the Derivative Action set forth allegations made in a related and since concluded employment action, Erhart v. BofI Holding Inc., No. 15cv2287 BAS (NLS) (S.D. Cal.) (the “Employment Action”) brought by a former employee of the Company and was stayed pending resolution of the Employment Action. On January 2, 2024, the Derivative Action plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint. The Derivative Action defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Third Amended Complaint on April 4, 2025. A hearing on the motion was held on June 26, 2025. On September 18, 2025, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss with prejudice citing Plaintiffs’ failure to plead demand futility. On October 17, 2025, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which appeal is pending. The Derivative Action defendants dispute, and intend to continue vigorously defending against, the allegations raised in the Third Amended Complaint. The Derivative Action plaintiff seeks damages on behalf of the Company with respect to the Employment Action and also seeks damages on behalf of the Company in connection with a now settled securities class action that was also based upon allegations made in the Employment Action and settled within available insurance coverage, without requiring changes in operations or attribution of wrongdoing to the Company, its management, or its directors

The following three putative class action lawsuits are pending in the United States District Court, Southern District of California, under the following case names and numbers: (1)In re Axos Bank Litigation, 3:23-cv-02266-BJC-DTF; (the “2023 Action”); (2) Pliszka et al. v. Axos Bank d/b/a UFB Direct, Case No. 3:24-cv-00445-BJC-DTF; and (3) Ash et al. v. Axos Bank d/b/a UFB Direct, Case No. 3:24-cv-01157-BJC-DTF (collectively, the “UFB Actions”). The plaintiffs in the UFB Actions allege that certain rate representations made by Axos Bank with respect to its UFB products were false or misleading. Axos Bank filed a motion to compel arbitration or dismiss the complaint in each of the UFB Actions. On September 13, 2024, the court entered an order compelling arbitration in each lawsuit for the purpose of determining arbitrability in the first instance pursuant to Defendant’s original Online Access Agreement. The court in the 2023 Action issued another order on September 29, 2025 compelling arbitration. Accordingly, a separate AAA arbitration was initiated with respect to each of six individual plaintiffs in the UFB Actions. On March 26, 2025, the arbitrator in the Pliszka arbitration proceedings issued an order finding that none of the claims raised are subject to arbitration, dismissing the arbitration and remanding the case back to the United States District Court. A similar conclusion was reached by the arbitrators in the Ash and Sutaniman arbitrations via orders issued on June 3, 2025 and June 4, 2026, respectively. The arbitrator in the Stempel arbitration reached a contrary conclusion and entered an order finding the claims to be arbitrable on June 5, 2025, which resulted in Stempel dismissing his claims. Likewise, in Blosser, the arbitrator determined on July 10, 2026 that Blosser’s claims are arbitrable. The arbitrator’s decision in Kuperstein is still pending. On October 11, 2024, defendant filed an interlocutory appeal seeking to enforce defendant’s updated/modified Account Agreement and Online Access Agreement in the UFB Actions. Defendant’s opening brief in such appeal was filed July 11, 2025. On September 9, 2025, the court in the Consolidated Action granted defendant’s renewed motion to compel arbitration. On December 29, 2025, the appellate court hearing the interlocutory appeal ruled that it lacked interlocutory jurisdiction over the matter and dismissed the appeal on jurisdictional grounds. On March 20, 2026, defendants filed a renewed motion to compel arbitration pursuant to defendant’s updated/modified Account Agreement and also filed a motion to dismiss. This motion is still pending. defendant disputes, and intends to vigorously defend against, the allegations raised in the UFB Actions. The Company does not expect the ultimate outcome of the UFB Actions to have a material adverse effect on its consolidated results of operations, financial position or cash flows. It is not presently possible to state whether the

Other Matters. On June 5, 2026, a FINRA arbitration panel rendered an award of approximately $49 million against Axos Clearing, a downstream subsidiary of Axos Financial in the FINRA arbitration forum styled Acquarulo et al. v. Axos Clearing LLC. The matter arose out of clearing services that Axos Clearing provided to a third-party introducing broker-dealer, which is alleged to have committed certain sales practice violations. Axos Clearing asserts it had no duty or responsibility to supervise the introducing broker-dealer’s or its representatives’ sales practice activities. Axos Clearing has filed a petition to vacate the award and, based on its assessment of the likelihood of potential outcomes, the Company has accrued a liability of $21 million in “General and administrative expense” in the Consolidated Statement of Income for the year ended June 30, 2026.