Finwise Bancorp (FINW) Risk Factors

Verbatim Item 1A Risk Factors from Finwise Bancorp's latest 10-K. Filing date: 2026-03-23. Accession: 0001856365-26-000006.

This page reproduces the company's own Item 1A Risk Factors text from the linked SEC filing. It is filer text, not grepcent analysis, scoring, or investment advice.

Informational only - not investment advice. See Disclaimer.

Extracted from Item 1A Risk Factors to the first Item 1B/1C/2 boundary after HTML sanitization. Confidence: high. Source form: 10-K. Character span: 149737-280770.

Back to FINW company profile

Item 1A. RISK FACTORS

The following risks, some of which have occurred and any of which may occur in the future, can have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial performance, which in turn can affect the price of our publicly traded securities. These are not the only risks we face. There may be other risks we are not currently aware of or that we currently deem not to be material but that may become material in the future. To the extent that any of the information contained in this document constitutes forward-looking statements, the risk factors below should be reviewed as cautionary statements identifying important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed in any forward-looking statements made by us or on our behalf. See Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements.

Risks Related to Our Banking Business

Our business and operations in the financial services industry may be adversely affected in numerous and complex ways by weak economic conditions.

Our business and operations, which primarily consist of lending money to clients in the form of loans, borrowing money from clients in the form of deposits and investing in interest earning deposits in other banks and securities, are sensitive to general business and economic conditions in the United States. We solicit deposits and originate loans throughout the United States. If the U.S. economy weakens, our growth and profitability from our lending, deposit and investment operations could be constrained. Uncertainty about the federal fiscal policymaking process, the medium- and long-term fiscal outlook of the federal government and future tax rates is a concern for businesses, consumers and investors in the United States. Adverse economic conditions could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Conditions related to inflation, global supply chains, labor market, volatile interest rates, international conflicts, changes in trade policies and other factors, such as real estate values, state and local municipal budget deficits, government spending and the U.S. national debt may, directly and indirectly, adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations. Inflationary and other economic pressure resulting in the inability of borrowers to repay loans could result in increased loan defaults, foreclosures and charge-offs and negatively affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows and future prospects.

Our Strategic Programs may also be susceptible to worsening economic conditions that place financial stress on our existing service providers and potential new Strategic Program services providers. These service providers may experience liquidity and other financial issues or strategically slow down growth, any of which could lead them to decrease or terminate their business with us.

Moreover, an inflationary environment combined with a competitive labor market and decreases in the market value of our equity awards could make it more costly for us to attract or retain employees. In order to meet the compensation

expectations of our prospective and current employees due to inflationary and other factors, we may be required to increase our operating costs or risk losing skilled workers to competitors.

Concerns about the performance of international economies, especially in Europe and emerging markets, and economic conditions in Asia, particularly the economies of China, South Korea and Japan, can impact the economy and financial markets here in the United States. If the national, regional and local economies experience worsening economic conditions, including high levels of unemployment, our growth and profitability could be constrained. Our business is significantly affected by monetary and other regulatory policies of the U.S. federal government, its agencies and government-sponsored entities. Changes in any of these policies are influenced by macroeconomic conditions and other factors that are beyond our control, are difficult to predict and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position, results of operations and growth prospects. In addition, decreases in real estate values within our service areas caused by economic conditions, recent changes in tax laws or other events could adversely affect the value of the property used as collateral for our loans, which could cause us to realize a loss in the event of a foreclosure. Further, deterioration in economic conditions could drive the level of loan losses beyond the level we have provided for in our ACL, which in turn could necessitate an increase in our provision for credit losses and a resulting reduction to our earnings and capital. These factors can individually or in the aggregate be detrimental to our business, and the interplay between these factors can be complex and unpredictable. Adverse economic conditions could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our commercial and consumer banking clients who participate in our real estate lending program and SBA 7(a) lending program are concentrated in certain geographic areas and we are sensitive to adverse changes in those regional economies.

The success of our real estate lending programs depends substantially upon the general economic conditions in Utah, which we cannot predict. Adverse conditions in the local Utah economy such as unemployment, recession, a catastrophic event or other factors beyond our control could impact the ability of borrowers participating in our real estate lending program to repay their loans, which could impact our net interest income. In addition, our borrowers who participate in our SBA 7(a) lending program span across multiple states, with a focus in New York and New Jersey. As in the case with Utah, we similarly cannot foresee or control the economic conditions in such states. A downturn in these regional economies generally could make it more difficult for our borrowers to repay their loans and may lead to loan losses. Any national, regional or local economic downturn that affects our service regions, or existing or prospective borrowers in such regions, could have a material adverse effect on our real estate and SBA 7(a) lending and the business, financial condition and results of operations.

We face strong competition from financial services companies and other companies that offer banking services.

We operate in the highly competitive financial services industry and face significant competition for customers from financial institutions located both within and beyond our principal markets and product lines. We compete with commercial banks, savings banks, credit unions, nonbank financial services companies, including the private credit lending market, and other financial institutions operating both within our market areas and nationally, and in respect of our financial technology initiative we also compete with other entities in the financial technology industry, including a limited number of other banks that have developed strategic programs similar to our Strategic Programs.

Many of our non-bank competitors are not subject to the same extensive regulations that govern our activities and may have greater flexibility in competing for business. Our inability to compete successfully in the markets in which we operate could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

In addition, Fintech companies have been actively acquiring or pursuing bank charters to gain direct access to deposits, reduce reliance on partner banks, and lower capital costs, driven by a more permissive regulatory environment. This shift allows Fintech companies to scale and operate with the same authority as traditional banks. The number of federal bank charter applications in 2025 reached its highest level since 2020, with numerous, crypto-adjacent, and non-bank firms seeking licensing and the OCC and the FDIC are signaling increased openness to fintech charter applications, encouraging new entrants. As a result of this current trend, we may lose some of our banking clients and customers who are able to seek loans from some of these Fintech companies with newly acquired bank charters, which may have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial performance.

Furthermore, several online banking operations as well as the online banking programs of conventional banks have instituted Fintech Banking and Payment Solutions strategies similar to ours. As a consequence, we have encountered competition in this area and anticipate that we will continue to do so in the future. This competition may increase our costs, reduce our revenues or revenue growth or, because we are a relatively small banking operation without the name

recognition of other, more established banking operations, make it difficult for us to compete effectively in obtaining these relationships.

We may not be able to measure and limit our credit risk adequately, which could lead to unexpected losses.

Our business substantially depends on our ability to successfully measure and manage credit risk. As a lender, we are exposed to the risk that the principal of, or interest on, a loan will not be paid timely or at all or that the value of any collateral supporting a loan will be insufficient to cover our outstanding exposure. In addition, we are exposed to risks with respect to the period of time over which the loan may be repaid, risks relating to proper loan underwriting, closing, servicing and liquidation, risks resulting from changes in economic and industry conditions, and risks inherent in dealing with individual loans and borrowers. If the overall economic climate in the United States generally, or in any of our markets specifically, experiences material disruption, our borrowers may experience difficulties in repaying their loans, the collateral we hold may decrease in value or become illiquid, and the level of delinquencies, nonperforming loans, and charge-offs could rise and require significant additional provisions for loan losses.

Our risk management practices, such as monitoring the concentration of our loans within specific markets and our credit approval, review and administrative practices, may not adequately reduce credit risk. A failure to effectively measure and limit the credit risk associated with our loan portfolio may result in loan defaults, foreclosures and additional charge-offs, and may necessitate that we significantly increase our ACL, each of which could adversely affect our net income. As a result, our inability to successfully manage credit risk could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our ACL may prove to be insufficient to absorb potential losses in our loan portfolio.

The Financial Accounting Standards Board (the “FASB”) has issued an accounting standard for establishing an allowance for credit losses under United States generally accepted accounting principles (“U.S. GAAP”), which generally estimates the expected credit losses over the lives of financial assets, starting when such assets are first originated or acquired. As an emerging growth company relying on the extended transition period for new accounting standards, this standard, referred to as Current Expected Credit Loss (“CECL”), became effective for us on January 1, 2023. The CECL standard requires us to record, at the time of origination, credit losses expected throughout the life of the asset portfolio on loans and held-to-maturity (“HTM”) securities. The CECL standard may create more volatility in the level of allowance for credit losses. If we are required to materially increase the level of our allowance for credit losses for any reason, such increase could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations. For further information, see Note 1 - Summary of Significant Accounting Policies to the consolidated financial statements included in Part II, Item 8.

We maintain an ACL that represents management’s judgment of probable losses and risks inherent in our loan portfolio. The level of the allowance reflects management’s continuing evaluation of general economic conditions, diversification and seasoning of the loan portfolio, historic loss experience, identified credit problems, delinquency levels and adequacy of collateral. The determination of the appropriate level of our ACL is inherently highly subjective and requires management to make significant estimates of and assumptions regarding current credit risks, all of which may undergo material changes. Inaccurate management assumptions, deterioration of economic conditions affecting borrowers, new information regarding existing loans, identification or deterioration of additional problem loans, acquisition of problem loans and other factors (including third-party review and analysis), both within and outside of our control, may require us to increase our ACL. If we are required to materially increase the level of our ACL for any reason, such increase could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our SBA lending program is dependent upon the U.S. federal government, and we face specific risks associated with originating SBA loans.

Our SBA lending program is dependent upon the U.S. federal government. In 2025, we voluntarily relinquished our Preferred Lending Program (“PLP”) delegated authority. We are now an SBA-approved General Processing(“GP”) lender. As an SBA GP Lender, we submit all SBA loan applications to the Loan Guaranty Processing Center for final approval. There is a risk that we may lose loan applicants and existing customers to lenders who are SBA Preferred Lenders, and as a result we could experience a material adverse effect on our financial results. Any changes to the SBA program, including but not limited to changes to the level of guarantee provided by the federal government on SBA loans, changes to program specific rules impacting volume eligibility under the guaranty program, as well as changes to the program amounts authorized by Congress or exhaustion of the available funding for SBA programs, may have a material adverse effect on our business. In addition, any default by the U.S. government on its obligations or any prolonged government shutdown could, among other things, impede our ability to originate SBA loans or sell such loans in the secondary market, which could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. When we originate SBA

loans, we incur credit risk on the non-guaranteed portion of the loans, and if a customer defaults on a loan, we share any loss and recovery related to the loan pro-rata with the SBA. If the SBA establishes that a loss on an SBA guaranteed loan is attributable to significant technical deficiencies in the manner in which the loan was originated, funded or serviced by us, the SBA may seek recovery of the principal loss related to the deficiency from us.

As the funding and sale of the guaranteed portion of SBA 7(a) loans has been a major portion of our business and a significant portion of our non-interest income, any significant changes to the SBA 7(a) program, such as its funding or eligibility requirements, may have an adverse effect on our prospects, financial condition and results of operations. Even if we are able to continue to originate and sell SBA 7(a) loans in the secondary market, we might not continue to realize premiums upon the sale of the guaranteed portion of these loans or the premiums may decline due to economic and competitive factors. Furthermore, when we sell the guaranteed portion of SBA loans in the ordinary course of business, we are required to make certain representations and warranties to the purchaser about the SBA loan and the manner in which they were originated. Under these agreements, we may be required to repurchase the guaranteed portion of the SBA loan if we have breached any of these representations or warranties, in which case we may record a loss. In addition, if repurchase and indemnity demands increase on loans that we sell from our portfolios, our liquidity, results of operations and financial condition could be adversely affected.

Generally, we do not maintain reserves or loss allowances for such potential claims and any such claims could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition and earnings. The laws, regulations and standard operating procedures that are applicable to SBA loan products may change in the future. We cannot predict the effects of these changes on our business and profitability. Because government regulation greatly affects the business and financial results of all commercial banks and bank holding companies and especially our organization, changes in the laws, regulations and procedures applicable to SBA loans could adversely affect our ability to operate profitably.

We are subject to interest rate risk as fluctuations in interest rates may adversely affect our earnings.

Most of our banking assets and liabilities are monetary in nature and subject to risk from changes in interest rates. Like most financial institutions, our earnings are significantly dependent on our net interest income, the principal component of our earnings, which is the difference between interest earned by us from our interest earning assets, such as loans and investment securities, and interest paid by us on our interest-bearing liabilities, such as deposits and borrowings. We expect that we will periodically experience “gaps” in the interest rate sensitivities of our assets and liabilities, meaning that either our interest-bearing liabilities will be more sensitive to changes in market interest rates than our interest earning assets, or vice versa. In either case, if market interest rates should move contrary to our position, this gap will negatively impact our earnings. The impact on earnings is more adverse when the slope of the yield curve flattens; that is, when short-term interest rates increase more than long-term interest rates or when long-term interest rates decrease more than short-term interest rates.

Changes to prevailing interest rates could influence not only the interest we receive on loans and investments and the amount of interest we pay on deposits and borrowings, but such changes could also affect (i) our ability to originate loans at competitive rates and obtain deposits; (ii) the fair value of our financial assets and liabilities; (iii) the average duration of our loan portfolios and other interest-earning assets; and (iv) the mix of lending products we originate. A prolonged period of extremely volatile and unstable market conditions could increase our funding costs and negatively affect market risk mitigation strategies. Increased interest rates may decrease borrower demand for certain of our lending products, even as inflation places pressure on consumer spending, borrowing and saving habits as consumers evaluate their prospects for future income growth and employment opportunities in the current economic environment, and as borrowers face uncertainty about the impact of rising prices on their ability to repay a loan. A change in demand for our lending products and any steps we may take to mitigate such change could impact our credit quality and overall growth.

We rely on BFG for loan referrals associated with our SBA 7(a) lending program, any disruption of that relationship may adversely impact our SBA lending business.

BFG is a nationally significant referral source of small business loans. BFG has been the primary source of SBA loan referrals for the Bank since the Bank began its SBA lending program in 2014. BFG referred 100% of the Bank’s SBA 7(a) loan originations for the year ended December 31, 2025. This relationship has permitted the Bank to focus on the development of underwriting, processing and servicing expertise for SBA 7(a) loans. Any disruption of our relationship with BFG or reduction in SBA 7(a) loan referrals could materially adversely impact our business, financial condition, results of operation and growth plans.

Negative changes in the economy affecting real estate values and liquidity could impair the value of collateral securing our real estate loans and result in loan and other losses.

As of December 31, 2025, approximately $121.2 million, or 20.7%, of our total gross loans held-for-investment were local lending or owner occupied commercial lending program loans with real estate as a primary or secondary component of collateral. We also have approximately $199.0 million, or 34.0%, of our total gross loans held-for-investment in SBA loans that are secured, at least in part, with real estate collateral as of December 31, 2025. The market value of real estate can fluctuate significantly in a short period of time. As a result, adverse developments affecting real estate values and the liquidity of real estate in our primary markets could increase the credit risk associated with our loan portfolio, and could result in losses that adversely affect our credit quality, financial condition and results of operations. Negative changes in the economy affecting real estate values and liquidity in our market areas could significantly impair the value of property pledged as collateral on loans and affect our ability to sell the collateral upon foreclosure without a loss or additional losses. Collateral may have to be sold for less than the outstanding balance of the loan, which could result in losses on such loans. Such declines and losses would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Appraisals and other valuation techniques we use in evaluating and monitoring loans secured by real property, other real estate owned and repossessed business and personal property may not accurately describe the net value of the asset.

In considering whether to make a loan secured by real property, we generally require an appraisal of the property which may not accurately describe the net value of the real property collateral after the loan is made. As a result, we may not be able to realize the full amount of any remaining indebtedness if we foreclose on and sell the relevant property. In addition, we rely on appraisals and other valuation techniques to establish the value of our other real estate owned, or OREO, and business and personal property that we acquire through foreclosure proceedings and to determine certain loan impairments. If any of these valuations are inaccurate, our consolidated financial statements may not reflect the correct value of our OREO, and our ACL may not reflect accurate loan impairments. This could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

In the case of defaults on loans secured by real estate, we may be forced to foreclose on the collateral, subjecting us to the costs and potential risks associated with the ownership of the real property, or consumer protection initiatives or changes in state or federal law that may substantially raise the cost of foreclosure or prevent us from foreclosing at all.

Since we originate loans secured by real estate, we may have to foreclose on the collateral property to protect our investment and may thereafter own and operate such property for some period, in which case we would be exposed to the risks inherent in the ownership of real estate. Our inability to manage the amount of costs or size of the risks associated with the ownership of real estate, or write-downs in the value of other real estate owned, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Additionally, consumer protection initiatives or changes in state or federal law may substantially increase the time and expense associated with the foreclosure process or prevent us from foreclosing at all. Some states in recent years have either considered or adopted foreclosure reform laws that make it substantially more difficult and expensive for lenders to foreclose on properties in default. If new state or federal laws or regulations are ultimately enacted that significantly raise the cost of foreclosure or raise outright barriers, such laws could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operation.

Our origination of construction loans exposes us to increased lending risks.

We originate commercial construction loans primarily to professional builders for the construction of one-to-four family residences, apartment buildings, and commercial real estate properties. As of December 31, 2025, we had approximately $49.1 million of construction loans, which represents approximately 8.4% of our total gross loan portfolio held-for-investment. Our construction loans present a greater level of risk than loans secured by improved, occupied real estate due to: (1) the increased difficulty at the time the loan is made of estimating the building costs and the selling price of the property to be built; (2) the increased difficulty and costs of monitoring the loan; (3) the higher degree of sensitivity to increases in market rates of interest; and (4) the increased difficulty of working out loan problems. In addition, construction costs may exceed original estimates as a result of increased materials, labor or other costs. Construction loans also often involve the disbursement of funds with repayment dependent, in part, on the success of the project and the ability of the borrower to sell or lease the property or refinance the indebtedness.

The small- to medium-sized businesses that we lend to may have fewer resources to weather adverse business developments, which may impair our borrowers’ ability to repay loans.

Small- to medium-sized businesses frequently have smaller market shares than their competition, may be more vulnerable to economic downturns, often need substantial additional capital to expand or compete and may experience substantial

volatility in operating results, any of which may impair a borrower’s ability to repay a loan. In addition, the success of a small- and medium-sized business often depends on the management skills, talents and efforts of a small group of people, and the death, disability or resignation of one or more of these people could have a material adverse effect on the business and its ability to repay its loan. If our borrowers are unable to repay their loans, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be adversely affected.

Our concentration of large loans to a limited number of borrowers may increase our credit risk.

As of December 31, 2025 our 10 largest borrowing relationships accounted for approximately 8.3% of our total gross loans held-for-investment. This high concentration of borrowers presents a risk to our lending operations. If any one of these borrowers becomes unable to repay its loan obligations because of economic or market conditions, or personal circumstances, such as divorce or death, our nonaccrual loans and our ACL could increase significantly, which could have a material adverse effect on our assets, business, financial condition and results of operations.

A lack of liquidity could impair our ability to fund operations and adversely impact our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Liquidity is essential to our business. We rely on our ability to generate deposits and effectively manage the repayment and maturity schedules of our loans and investment securities, respectively, to ensure that we have adequate liquidity to fund our operations.

Our most important source of funds is deposits. As of December 31, 2025, approximately $168.4 million, or 22.3%, of our total deposits were noninterest-bearing demand accounts. These deposits are subject to potentially dramatic fluctuations due to certain factors that may be outside of our control, such as a loss of confidence by customers in us or the banking sector generally, customer perceptions of our financial health and general reputation, any of which could result in significant outflows of deposits within short periods of time increasing our funding costs and reducing our net interest income and net income. If the balance of the Company’s deposits decreases relative to the Company’s overall banking operations, the Company may have to rely more heavily on wholesale or other sources of external funding, or may have to increase deposit rates to maintain deposit levels in the future. Any such increased reliance on wholesale funding, or increases in funding rates in general, could have a negative impact on the Company’s net interest income and, consequently, on its results of operations and financial condition.

Our Strategic Programs generally require each Strategic Program platform to establish a reserve deposit account with the Bank, intended to protect us in the event a purchaser of loan receivables originated through our Strategic Programs cannot meet its contractual obligation to purchase. The reserve deposit account balances are required to be maintained at an amount between 50% and 100% of the total outstanding balance of loans held-for-sale by the Bank related to the Strategic Program. In the event that a loan purchaser defaults on its obligation under the Strategic Program agreements and the reserve deposit account balance is lower than the loans held-for-sale, the Bank may not be able to withdraw sufficient amount from the reserve deposit account to fulfill loan purchaser obligations and our liquidity may be adversely impacted.

We also may borrow funds from third-party lenders, such as other financial institutions. We currently utilize three secured lines of credit provided by the FHLB and the Federal Reserve and three unsecured lines of credit provided by Bankers Bank of the West, Pacific Coast Bankers’ Bank, and Zions Bank, that in the aggregate provided nearly immediate liquidity available of $230.4 million. Our access to funding sources in amounts adequate to finance or capitalize our activities, or on terms that are acceptable to us, could be impaired by factors that affect us directly or the financial services industry or economy in general, such as disruptions in the financial markets or negative views and expectations about the prospects for the financial services industry. Our access to funding sources could also be affected by one or more adverse regulatory actions against us.

Further, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the regulator of FHLB and other federal home loan banks, launched a comprehensive review of the Federal Home Loan Bank System including the mission, membership eligibility requirements, and operational efficiencies of the federal home loan banks in 2022. Any change to or termination of our ability to borrow from the FHLB or correspondent banks could have an adverse effect on our financial condition and liquidity.

Any decline in available funding could adversely impact our ability to originate loans, invest in securities, meet our expenses or fulfill obligations such as repaying our borrowings or meeting deposit withdrawal demands, any of which could, in turn, have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We have a concentration of deposit accounts with our Strategic Program service providers that is a material source of our funding, and the loss of these deposits or default on letters of credit by these Strategic Program service providers could force us to fund our business through more expensive and less stable sources.

As of December 31, 2025, approximately $130.8 million, or approximately 17.3%, of our total deposits consisted of deposit accounts of our Strategic Program service providers. Generally, the terms of our Strategic Programs require each Strategic Program service provider or purchasing entity to establish a reserve deposit account with the Bank in an amount at least equal to between 50% and 100% the total outstanding balance of loans held-for-sale by the Bank related to the Strategic Program. This requirement is intended to protect the Bank in the event a purchaser of loan receivables originated through our Strategic Programs cannot meet its contractual obligation to purchase. Depending on the strength of the relationship between the Bank and our Strategic Program service providers, we may reduce the required amount of reserve deposits held and/or allow a portion of the requirement to be fulfilled by a letter of credit. In addition to the reserve deposit account, certain Strategic Program service providers have opened operating deposit accounts at the Bank. If a Strategic Program service provider defaults on its letter of credit or we experience additional unanticipated fluctuations in our Strategic Program deposit levels, we may be forced to rely more heavily on other, potentially more expensive and less stable funding sources, which could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We may be subject to certain risks in connection with growing through mergers and acquisitions.

We could acquire other banking institutions, financial services companies, banking and servicing platforms, or branches of banks in the future. Acquisitions typically involve the payment of a premium over book and trading values and, therefore, may result in the dilution of our tangible book value per share and/or our earnings per share. Our ability to engage in future mergers and acquisitions depends on various factors, including: (1) our ability to identify suitable merger partners and acquisition opportunities; (2) our ability to finance and complete transactions on acceptable terms and at acceptable prices; and (3) our ability to receive the necessary regulatory and, when required, shareholder approvals. Furthermore, executing on successful mergers and acquisitions involves a number of risks and challenges, including, but not limited to, our ability to achieve planned synergies and to integrate the branches and operations we acquire, and the internal controls and regulatory functions into our current operations, as well as the diversion of management’s attention from existing operations, which may adversely affect our ability to successfully conduct our business and operations and negatively impact our financial results.

If we are unable to attract additional merchants and retain and grow our existing merchant relationships, our business, results of operations, financial condition, and future prospects could be materially and adversely affected.

Our continued success is dependent, in part, on our ability to expand our merchant base and to grow our commercial leasing and POS lending revenue. In addition, having a diversified mix of merchant relationships is important to mitigate risk associated with changing consumer spending behavior, economic conditions and other factors that may affect a particular type of merchant or industry. If we fail to retain any of our merchant relationships, if we do not acquire new merchant relationships, if we do not continually expand revenue and volume from the merchant relationships, or if we do not attract and retain a diverse mix of merchant relationships, our business, results of operations, financial condition, and future prospects could be materially and adversely affected.

New lines of business or new products and services may subject us to additional risks.

From time to time, we may implement or may acquire new lines of business or pilot programs or offer new products and services within existing lines of business. There are substantial risks and uncertainties associated with these efforts, particularly in instances where the markets are not fully developed. To the extent we enter into new lines of business, we will face numerous risks and uncertainties, including risks associated with the possibility that we have insufficient expertise to engage in such activities profitably or without incurring inappropriate amounts of risk, the required investment of capital and other resources and the loss of investors due to the perception that we are no longer focusing on our core business. In developing and marketing new lines of business and new products and services, we may invest significant time and resources. We may not achieve target timetables for the introduction and development of new lines of business and new products or services and price and profitability targets may not prove feasible. External factors, such as regulatory compliance obligations, competitive alternatives and shifting market preferences, may also impact the successful implementation of a new line of business or a new product or service. Furthermore, any new line of business or new product or service could have a significant impact on the effectiveness of our system of internal controls. Failure to successfully manage these risks in the development and implementation of new lines of business or new products or services could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

The failure to maintain effective internal control over financial reporting could impair the reliability of our financial statements, which in turn could harm our business, impair investor confidence in the accuracy and completeness of our financial reports and our access to the capital markets and cause the price of our common stock to decline and subject us to regulatory penalties.

Our management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting and for evaluating and reporting on that system of internal control. Our internal control over financial reporting consists of a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with U.S. GAAP. Weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting have been discovered in the past and may be discovered in the future. If we fail to maintain effective internal control over financial reporting, we may not be able to report our financial results accurately and in a timely manner, in which case our business may be harmed, investors may lose confidence in the accuracy and completeness of our financial reports, we could be subject to regulatory penalties and the price of our common stock may decline.

The accuracy of our financial statements and related disclosures could be affected if the judgments, assumptions or estimates used in our critical accounting policies are inaccurate.

The preparation of financial statements and related disclosures in conformity with U.S. GAAP requires us to make judgments, assumptions and estimates that affect the amounts reported in our consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes. Our critical accounting policies, which are included in Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, describe those significant accounting policies and methods used in the preparation of our consolidated financial statements that we consider critical because they require judgments, assumptions and estimates that materially affect our consolidated financial statements and related disclosures. As a result, if future events or regulatory views concerning such analysis differ significantly from the judgments, assumptions and estimates in our critical accounting policies, those events or assumptions could have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements and related disclosures, in each case resulting in our need to revise or restate prior period financial statements, cause damage to our reputation and the price of our common stock and adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We implemented segment reporting into our financial results during the three months ended September 30, 2025 and this change to our financial reporting could be confusing to investors and may not have the desired effects.

Beginning with the quarter ended September 30, 2025, we implemented segment reporting following the completion of a technology initiative to capture segment-specific financial data and develop reports used by our CODM to review our financial performance and determine how to allocate resources. Our operations are now comprised of three reportable segments: traditional banking, banking as a service and treasury and administration.

We have provided disclosures about our new segment reporting structure elsewhere in this Report, but there is no guarantee that investors or the market will understand this change to our financial reporting. There is also no guarantee that this change to our financial reporting will have the desired effect. In addition, for periods prior to July 1, 2025, our operations were managed and reported as a single segment, and historical financial data by segment was not maintained. Accordingly, it is not practicable to present segment information for prior periods. Failure of investors or analysts to understand our revised segment reporting structure may negatively affect their ability to understand our financial performance and operating results which could adversely affect our stock price.

We could recognize losses on investment securities held in our securities portfolio, particularly if interest rates increase or economic and market conditions deteriorate.

We invest a portion of our total assets (3.9% as of December 31, 2025) in investment securities with the primary objectives of providing a source of liquidity, providing an appropriate return on funds invested, managing interest rate risk and meeting pledging requirements. Factors beyond our control can significantly and adversely influence the fair value of securities in our portfolio. Because of changing economic and market conditions affecting interest rates, the financial condition of issuers of the securities and the performance of the underlying collateral, we may recognize realized and/or unrealized losses in future periods, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We are subject to certain operational risks, including, but not limited to, customer, employee or third-party fraud.

Employee errors and employee or customer misconduct could subject us to financial losses or regulatory sanctions and seriously harm our reputation. Misconduct by our employees could include hiding unauthorized activities from us,

improper or unauthorized activities on behalf of our customers or improper use of confidential information. It is not always possible to prevent employee errors and misconduct, and the precautions we take to prevent and detect this activity may not be effective in all cases. Employee errors could also subject us to financial claims for negligence. In addition, we rely heavily upon information supplied by third parties, including the information contained in credit applications, property appraisals, title information and employment and income documentation, in deciding which loans we will originate, as well as the terms of those loans. If any of the information upon which we rely is misrepresented, either fraudulently or inadvertently, and the misrepresentation is not detected prior to loan funding, the value of the loan may be significantly lower than expected, or we may fund a loan that we would not have funded or on terms that do not comply with our general underwriting standards. The sources of the misrepresentations are often difficult to locate, and it is often difficult to recover any of the resulting monetary losses we may suffer, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We rely heavily on our executive management team and other key employees, and we could be adversely affected by the unexpected loss of their services.

We are led by an experienced core management team with substantial experience in the markets that we serve, and our operating strategy focuses on providing products and services through long-term relationship managers and ensuring that our largest clients have relationships with our senior management team. Accordingly, our success depends in large part on the performance of these key personnel, as well as on our ability to attract, motivate and retain highly qualified senior and middle management. If any of our executive officers, other key personnel or directors leaves us or our Bank, our financial condition and results of operations may suffer because of his or her skills, knowledge of our market, years of industry experience and the difficulty of promptly finding qualified personnel to replace him or her.

Negative public opinion regarding the Company or failure to maintain our reputation within the industries we serve and across our product lines could adversely affect our business and prevent us from growing our business.

If our reputation is negatively affected by the actions of our employees or otherwise, including because of a successful cyberattack against us or other unauthorized release or loss of customer information, we may be less successful in attracting new talent and customers or may lose existing customers, and our business, financial condition and results of operations could be adversely affected. Further, negative public opinion can expose us to litigation and regulatory action and delay and impede our efforts to implement our expansion strategy, which could further adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

In addition, negative publicity about us or our industry, including the transparency, fairness, user experience, quality, and reliability of our lending products or channels, including auto loans, construction loans, SBA loans, point-of-sale financing, or our Strategic Programs in general, effectiveness of our risk model, our ability to effectively manage and resolve complaints, our privacy and security practices, litigation, regulatory activity, funding sources, originating bank partners, service providers, or others in our industry, the experience of consumers and investors with our lending products, channels or services or point-of-sale lending platforms in general, or use of loan proceeds by consumers that have obtained loans facilitated through us or other point-of-sale lending platforms for illegal purposes, even if inaccurate, could adversely affect our reputation and the confidence in, and the use of, our services, which could harm our reputation and cause disruptions to our business. Any such reputational harm could further affect the behavior of consumers, including their willingness to obtain loans facilitated through us or to make payments on their loans. As a result, our business, results of operations, financial condition, and prospects would be materially and adversely affected.

We may be susceptible to deposit run-off risks, which could adversely affect our business and financial condition.

The Bank relies significantly upon deposits for liquidity and funding business operations. Generally, deposits are a relatively stable and cost-effective source of funding for banks due to many factors, including FDIC deposit insurance. Changes in deposit levels can be influenced substantially by many factors, including customer satisfaction and the interest rates offered to deposit customers. Those rates, in turn, generally reflect prevailing market conditions. During the first quarter of 2023, the media highlighted the risks of an extreme form of deposit run-off, sometimes referred to as a “run on the bank.” The failures of Silicon Valley Bank, Signature Bank, and First Republic Bank in 2023 resulted in significant disruption in the financial services industry and negative media attention, which has also adversely impacted the volatility and market prices of the securities of financial institutions and resulted in outflows of deposits for many other financial institutions. More moderate levels of run-off can adversely affect banks but are less dramatic and have been significantly less reported. The rapid rise in interest rates during 2022 and 2023 and the resulting industry-wide reduction in the fair value of securities portfolios, among other events, increased volatility and uncertainty with respect to the health of the U.S. banking system for a period of time. We believe these recent experiences has resulted in a continued heightened awareness

around liquidity, uninsured deposits, deposit composition, unrecognized investment losses, and capital, , having increased the risk of some level of deposit run-off for depository institutions. That increased run-off risk applies both generally and in relation to deposits that exceed FDIC insurance coverage. While the Bank maintains cash reserves and access to other liquidity sources to accommodate normal and, to a degree, unusual withdrawal activity, and the Bank plans to respond promptly and accurately to any customer concerns that might arise, we cannot assure you that we will be able to manage a deposit run-off if it were to occur and could adversely affect our business and financial condition.

We may not be able to raise the additional capital needed, in absolute terms or on terms acceptable to us, to fund our growth strategy in the future if we continue to grow at our current pace.

We believe that we have sufficient capital to meet our capital needs for our immediate growth plans. However, we will continue to need capital to support our longer-term growth plans. If capital is not available on favorable terms when we need it, we will have to either issue common stock or other securities on less than desirable terms or reduce our rate of growth until market conditions become more favorable. Any such events could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The failure to meet applicable regulatory capital requirements could result in one or more of our regulators placing limitations or conditions on our activities, including our growth initiatives, or restricting the commencement of new activities, and could adversely affect customer and investor confidence, our costs of funds and FDIC insurance costs, our ability to make acquisitions, and our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Acts of war, global conflict, terrorism, geopolitical and other external events could impact our ability to conduct business.

Financial institutions have been, and continue to be, targets of terrorist threats aimed at compromising operating and communication systems and remain central targets for potential acts of terrorism. Such events could cause significant damage, impact the stability of our facilities and result in additional expenses, impair the ability of our borrowers to repay their loans, reduce the value of collateral securing repayment of our loans, and result in the loss of revenue. While we have established and regularly test disaster recovery procedures, the occurrence of any such event could have a material adverse effect on our business, operations and financial condition.

Additionally, global conflicts, including the continuing conflicts involving Ukraine and the Russian Federation and those in the Middle East involving Israel and Iran, and now including the United States among other nations) or other similar events, as well as government actions of other restrictions in connection with such events, and trade negotiations between the U.S. and other nations could adversely impact economic and market conditions for the Company and its clients and counterparties. In addition, global supply chain disruptions resulting from these conflicts may cause prolonged inflation, adversely impact consumer and business confidence, and adversely affect the economy as well as our financial condition and results.

Political differences within the federal government, both at the regulatory and Congressional level, create significant potential for major and abrupt shifts in federal policy regarding bank regulation, taxes, and the economy, any of which could have significant and adverse impacts on our business and financial performance.

Certain of our operations and customers are dependent on the regular operation of the federal or state government or programs they administer For example, our SBA lending program depends on interaction with the SBA, an independent agency of the federal government. During a lapse in funding, such as has occurred during previous federal government “shutdowns”, the SBA may not be able to engage in such interaction. In addition, customers who depend directly or indirectly on providing goods and services to federal or state governments or their agencies may reduce their business with us or delay repayment of loans due to lost or delayed revenue from those relationships. If funding for these lending programs or federal spending generally is reduced as part of the appropriations process or by administrative decision, demand for our services may be reduced. Any of these developments could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity.

We expect to derive a percentage of our deposits, total assets and income from deposit accounts generated through our Fintech Banking and Payment Solutions relationships.

We expect to acquire deposit accounts through our Fintech Banking and Payment Solutions relationships and provide oversight over these relationships, which must meet our internal and regulatory requirements. We may exit relationships where such requirements are not met or be required by our regulators to exit such relationships. Also, our Fintech Banking and Payment Solutions customers could terminate their relationships with us for many reasons, including being able to

obtain better terms from another provider or dissatisfaction with the level or quality of our services. If a relationship were to be terminated, it could materially reduce our deposits, assets and income. We cannot assure you that we would be able to acquire the deposits initially, or successfully replace such relationships. If we cannot acquire or replace such relationships, we may be required to seek higher rate funding sources and interest expense might increase. We may also be required to sell securities or other assets to meet funding needs which would reduce revenues or potentially generate losses.

Our agreements with Fintech Banking and Payment Solutions customers may expose us to credit risk.

We may enter into agreements with our Fintech Banking and Payment Solutions customers pursuant to which our Fintech Banking and Payment Solutions customers may market bank consumer checking and consumer or commercial line of credit (“LOC”) accounts using their brands and digital platforms, make underwriting determinations for the LOC accounts, cover any losses on the LOC accounts, provide cash collateral to the Bank to secure payment of such losses or be partial guarantors of losses on the LOC accounts. In the event the cash collateral amount is not adequately maintained or is insufficient to cover the losses on the LOC accounts and the Fintech Banking and Payment Solutions customer does not or cannot otherwise meet its obligations under its agreement with the Bank, the Bank may incur financial losses. Losses associated with the LOC accounts (or the portfolios of other third parties with whom we enter into comparable Fintech Banking and Payment Solutions relationships) in such circumstances could have a material adverse effect on our net income, results of operations and financial condition.

Our agreements with Fintech Banking and Payment Solutions customers may produce limited revenue and may expose us to liability for compliance violations by Fintech Banking and Payment Solutions customer.

We expect to enter into agreements with Fintech Banking and Payment Solutions customers pursuant to which we will provide certain banking services for such Fintech Banking and Payment Solutions customers, including serving as the issuing bank for credit or debit cards issued to their customers and establishing one or more settlement accounts for the purpose of settling customer transactions. The agreements have varying terms and may be terminated by the parties under certain circumstances. If our Fintech Banking and Payment Solutions customers are not successful in achieving customer acceptance of their programs or terminate the agreement before the end of its term, our revenue under the agreement may be limited or may cease altogether. In addition, our bank regulators may hold us responsible for the activities of our Fintech Banking and Payment Solutions customers with respect to the marketing or administration of their programs, which may result in increased compliance costs for us or potentially compliance violations as a result of Fintech Banking and Payment Solutions customer activities. In recent years, a significant number of banks that provide Fintech Banking and Payment Solutions have become subject to enforcement actions relating to their customers’ activities, indicating that banking regulators have made banks’ oversight over their Fintech Banking and Payment Solutions customers a supervisory priority and that there is an increased risk that we could similarly become subject to additional regulatory scrutiny or enforcement. Additionally, financial weaknesses at our Fintech Banking and Payment Solutions customers could cause us to record greater expenses or losses or suffer reputational harm.

Risks Relating to Our Strategic Programs

The Bank and our Strategic Program service providers are subject to borrower protection laws and federal and state consumer protection laws and may be subject to public criticism by consumer advocacy groups.

The Bank and our Strategic Program service providers must comply with a variety of laws and regulations, including those applicable to consumer credit transactions, various aspects of which are untested as applied to a marketplace. Certain state laws generally regulate interest rates and other charges and require certain disclosures. In addition, other federal and state laws may apply to the origination and servicing of loans facilitated through our Strategic Programs. In particular, our Strategic Program service providers may be subject to laws, including but not limited to Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Truth-in-Lending Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Telephone Consumer Protection Act and other federal, state and municipal consumer protection laws and regulations that impose requirements related to, among other things, fair lending, loan disclosures and terms, credit discrimination, credit reporting, debt servicing and collection, communications and unfair or deceptive business practices. Such laws related to credit reporting, debt servicing and collection, communications and unfair or deceptive business practices may be of particular relevance while the Bank is the holder of a consumer credit transaction; the time period of such status as the holder may vary.

Our Strategic Program service providers may not always have been, may not always be, and may be subject to legal proceedings alleging that they are not in full compliance with these laws. Compliance with these laws is costly, time-consuming and limits operational flexibility. In addition, both we and our Strategic Program service providers may be criticized by third party consumer advocacy groups regarding compliance with fair lending or consumer lending laws and

regulations, which may result in negative publicity of our Strategic Program service providers and the Bank. Non-compliance or alleged non-compliance could subject a Strategic Program service provider, and/or the Bank, to damages, revocation of required licenses, arbitration, lawsuits (including class action lawsuits), enforcement actions, increased regulatory scrutiny of the Bank’s internal controls and oversight of our third-party vendor risk management, penalties, termination of our relationship with a Strategic Program service provider, injunctions which require the cessation or curtailment of a Strategic Program or operation by the Bank, rescission rights held by investors in securities offerings and civil and criminal liability.

Any of these actions may harm the Bank and/or our Strategic Program service providers, and may result in, among other penalties, borrowers rescinding their loans, imposition of financial penalties against the Bank and/or our Strategic Program service providers, and/or injunctive relief against the Bank and/or our Strategic Program service providers requiring the Bank and/or our Strategic Program service providers to cease or curtail certain operations. If any of the Strategic Program service providers with which we do business suffers any of these consequences, we may be forced to create new relationships with Strategic Program service providers, which if not formed, could have an adverse effect on our growth strategy, business, results of operation and financial condition. Additionally, the Bank may suffer economic penalties and consequences as a result of a financial penalty or damages or injunctive relief. If the Bank and/or any of the Strategic Program service providers with which we do business suffers any of these consequences, the Bank may not be able to recover economic damages and/or costs the Bank incurs from the Strategic Program service provider, whether under an indemnification right or other action against the service provider. The foregoing could adversely affect our growth, business prospects, financial condition and results of operations. The Bank and our Strategic Program service providers may be subject to consumer arbitration or litigation regardless of whether the claims have merit. Given the wide variety of state and federal consumer financial protection laws, consumer claims are a regular and ordinary component of any consumer lending and servicing business.

The Bank and our Strategic Program service providers may face consumer claims (including class action claims) under state or federal laws governing fair debt collection, fair credit reporting, electronic funds transfers, truth in lending, unfair or deceptive acts or practices, telecommunications, or other consumer protection laws. The Bank or our Strategic Program service providers may be required to defend against such consumer claims in court or through arbitration. The litigation risks attendant in defending against these claims, which we intend to do vigorously, may include increased legal fees, related costs and expenses, and reputational harm. Because litigation risk is generally unpredictable, we cannot estimate the amount of damages (if any) that might be awarded in any case, foresee other forms of relief a competent tribunal may impose, or otherwise predict the impact of consumer claims on the Bank’s or any Strategic Program service provider’s operations or revenue.

If we are unable to maintain our relationships with our Strategic Program service providers, our business will suffer.

A significant portion of our loan origination is conducted through our Strategic Programs. Approximately $76.1 million, or 50.4% of our total revenues for the year ended December 31, 2025, were generated through our Strategic Programs. Our agreements with service providers to the Strategic Programs are non-exclusive and do not prohibit the service providers from working with our competitors upon payment of a fee or from offering competing services. In addition, the Strategic Program service providers may not perform as expected under our agreements including potentially being unable to accommodate our projected growth in loan volume and revenue. Although we have taken steps to secure relationships with our Strategic Program service providers and key third-party relationships, we could in the future have disagreements or disputes with our Strategic Program service providers, which could negatively impact or threaten our relationship. Furthermore, our agreements with third parties could come under scrutiny by our regulators, and our regulators could raise an issue with, or object to, any term or provision in such an agreement or any action taken by such third party vis-à-vis the Bank’s operations or customers, resulting in a material adverse effect to us including, but not limited to, the imposition of fines and/or penalties and the material restructuring or termination of such agreement.

Inadequate oversight of our relationships with our Strategic Program service providers and POS merchants could result in regulatory actions against the Bank, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition and result of operations.

The FDIC has issued guidance outlining the expectations for third-party service provider oversight and monitoring by financial institutions. The federal banking agencies, including the FDIC, have also issued enforcement actions against financial institutions for failure in oversight of third-party providers and violations of federal banking law by such providers when performing services for financial institutions. Our failure to adequately oversee the actions of our third-party service providers could result in regulatory actions against the Bank. Furthermore, our regulators could require us to terminate certain relationships with our Strategic Program service providers or POS merchants or restrict our ability to

form new relationships with other Strategic Program service providers or POS merchants, either of which could result in a decrease in our loan originations, which in turn could adversely affect our growth, business prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

The regulatory framework for Strategic Programs is evolving and uncertain as federal and state agencies consider new laws to regulate online marketplaces such as ours, as well as the withdrawal of certain proposed rules. New laws and regulations, including taxes on services provided through Strategic Programs, as well as continued uncertainty regarding potential new laws or regulations, or the withdrawal or rescission of proposed or final rules, may negatively affect our business.

The regulatory framework for our Strategic Programs is evolving and uncertain. It is possible that new laws and regulations will be adopted in the United States and internationally, or existing laws and regulations may be amended, removed or interpreted in new ways, that would affect the operation of our Strategic Program service providers and the way in which they interact with borrowers and investors. Recognizing the growth in online marketplaces, in July 2015 the Treasury issued a request for information to study the marketplace lending industry, which led to the release of a Treasury white paper on May 10, 2016, on the online marketplace lending industry. The white paper included several recommendations to the federal government and private sector participants in order to encourage safe growth and access to credit. In April 2022, the CFPB announced that it intends to examine nonbank financial companies, which may include some of our Strategic Program service providers, that pose risks to consumers and in June 2022, the Deputy Director of the CFPB indicated that relationships between banks and nonbank lenders will be an area of increased regulatory focus for the agency in the near future. Subsequently, in November 2022, the Treasury Department issued a report encouraging the CFPB to increase its supervisory activity with respect to larger nonbank lenders. State regulators have also increased the level of regulatory scrutiny on financial technology companies. However, following the inauguration of the new President in January 2025, new acting federal financial regulators have signaled that they will take a different approach to regulation of the financial marketplace and financial technology companies compared to the prior administration. We cannot predict whether any legislation or proposed rulemaking will actually be introduced or how any legislation or rulemaking will impact our business and results of operations of marketplace lenders going forward.

If the loans originated through a marketplace were found to violate a state’s usury laws and/or the Strategic Program’s service providers were determined to be the “true lender” of loans originated on their marketplaces we and our Strategic Program service providers may have to alter our business models and, consequently, our reputation, financial condition and results of operation could be harmed.

The interest rates that are charged to borrowers and that form the basis of payments to investors through marketplaces are enabled by legal principles including (i) the application of federal law to enable an issuing bank that originates the loan to export the interest rates of the jurisdiction where it is located, (ii) the application of common law “choice of law” principles based upon factors such as the loan document’s terms and where the loan transaction is completed to provide uniform rates to borrowers, or (iii) the application of principles that allow the transferee of a loan to continue to collect interest as provided in the loan document. Certain states have no statutory interest rate limitations on personal loans, while other jurisdictions have a maximum rate. In some jurisdictions, the maximum rate is less than the current maximum rate offered by the Bank through certain Strategic Programs. If the laws of such jurisdictions were found to apply to the loans originated by the Bank through a marketplace, those loans could be in violation of such laws or it could impact the ability to sell such loans to investors.

There has been (and will likely continue to be) litigation challenging lending arrangements where a bank or other third-party has made a loan and then sells and assigns it to an entity that is engaged in assisting with the origination and servicing of a loan. If a borrower or regulator were to successfully bring claims against a Strategic Program service provider for violations of state consumer lending laws, including usury and licensing requirements, the Strategic Program service provider could be subject to fines and penalties, including the voiding of loans and repayment of principal and interest to borrowers and investors. Our Strategic Program service providers might decide to, among other actions, limit the maximum interest rate and terms on certain loans facilitated through the Strategic Program service provider’s platform, might decide to not offer certain products, might decide to not offer products in certain geographic locations, and might decide to originate loans under the provider’s own state-specific licenses, to obtain a bank charter, or originate loan products in partnership with another financial institution. These actions may substantially reduce a Strategic Program service provider’s operating efficiency and/or attractiveness to investors, possibly resulting in a decline in operating results for the service provider, which could in turn adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. Furthermore, if the Bank were not deemed to be the “true lender,” then the Bank and our Strategic Program service provider could be subject to claims by borrowers, as well as enforcement actions by regulators.

Furthermore, if a borrower or regulator were to successfully bring claims against a Strategic Program service provider and/or the Bank for violations of state consumer lending laws the Strategic Program service provider and/or the Bank could be subjected to damages, revocation of required licenses, individual and class action lawsuits, enforcement actions, penalties, injunctions which require the cessation or curtailment of a Strategic Program or operation by the Bank, rescission rights held by investors in securities offerings and civil and criminal liability. These actions could possibly result in a decline in operating results for the Strategic Partner and/or the Bank, which could in turn adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

On May 25, 2020, the OCC issued a final rule reaffirming the enforceability of the interest rate terms of national banks’ loans following their sale, assignment, or transfer. The FDIC followed suit with a final rule on June 25, 2020, that similarly reaffirmed the enforceability of the interest rate terms of loans made by state-chartered banks and insured branches of foreign banks (collectively, state banks) following the sale, assignment, or transfer of a loan. The rules also provide that whether interest on a loan is permissible is determined at the time the loan is made, and is not affected by a change in state law, a change in the relevant commercial paper rate, or the sale, assignment, or other transfer of the loan. These rules have been challenged by state attorneys general. On May 11, 2021, the U.S. Senate voted 52-47 to repeal the “true lender” rule adopted by the OCC. On June 24, 2021, the U.S. Senate resolution was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives by a vote of 218 to 208. On June 30, 2021, President Biden signed a joint resolution to revoke the OCC’s true lender rule. Repeal of the OCC rule is expected to create uncertainty regarding whether state or federal laws apply to the Bank’s loans originated in the marketplace with the assistance of our Strategic Program service providers.

Several states have also adopted legislation that impacts our Strategic Programs. In 2021, Illinois and Maine enacted laws that regulate any person who holds, acquires, or maintains, directly or indirectly, the predominant economic interest in a loan originated by an otherwise-exempt entity like a bank. Effective January 1, 2022, Hawaii instituted a new licensing requirement for “installment lenders”, which is defined to capture loans offered under a bank partnership model (i.e., it applies to a person “who arranges a consumer loan for a third party, or who acts as an agent for a third party, regardless of whether the third party is exempt from licensure.” H.B. 1192 (2021)). These laws also apply to any person or entity who markets, brokers, arranges, or facilitates a loan and holds the right, requirement, or first right of refusal to purchase loans, receivables, or interests in the loans. These licensing schemes, which may apply to our Strategic Programs, also impose interest-rate caps that are lower than the interest rates permitted under Utah law. These and other matters could potentially impact a Strategic Program’s business, including the maximum interest rates and fees that can be charged and application of certain consumer protection statutes. In addition, these matters could subject us to increased litigation risk, which could have a material and adverse impact on our reputation and business. We continue to assess the impact of these final rules on our business and our Strategic Programs.

Fraudulent activity associated with a Strategic Program service provider could negatively impact operating results, brand and reputation and cause the use of a Strategic Program’s loan products and services to decrease and its fraud losses to increase.

Our Strategic Program service providers are subject to the risk of fraudulent activity associated with the handling of borrower and investor information by its marketplace, issuing banks, borrowers, investors and third parties. A company’s resources, technologies and fraud prevention tools may be insufficient to accurately detect and prevent fraud. High profile fraudulent activity or significant increases in fraudulent activity could lead to regulatory intervention, negatively impact a company’s operating results, brand and reputation and lead it to take steps to reduce fraud risk, which could increase its costs and consequently, adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We depend on the accuracy and completeness of information provided by our Fintech Banking and Payment Solutions service providers for our lending, payments and BIN programs.

We rely on the effective and timely functioning of the operational and financial reporting of our Fintech Banking and Payment Solutions service providers for financial, accounting, transaction execution, data processing and other operational information to process, record, monitor and report a large number of transactions on a continuous basis, and to do so accurately, quickly and securely. Any errors or failures in such reporting could result in the erroneous execution of transactions, financial losses, regulatory scrutiny, increased costs or harm to our reputation.

Differences between the accounting policies of our Fintech Banking and Payment Solutions service providers and the Company’s accounting policies could result in us not recognizing amounts in our financial statements in accordance with U.S. GAAP or other errors in our financial statements. Although we have implemented controls to enhance our risk assessment, control and evaluation procedures over third-party reports to ensure compliance with the Company’s

accounting policies, any control, design or implementation deficiencies with respect to third-party reports could adversely impact our results of operations or financial condition, or result in our failure to meet our periodic reporting obligations.

In deciding whether to extend credit or enter into other transactions with borrowers and counterparties in our Strategic Programs, we may rely on information furnished to us by our Strategic Program service providers, including credit profile, financial statements and other financial information, as well as with respect to the accuracy and completeness of that information. Any review and analyses of such information in connection with our lending decisions may not detect or highlight all relevant facts or risks that are necessary in evaluating such credit or other transactions. In some cases, we may have little or no control over the data collection or due diligence processes of our Strategic Program services providers, and any shortcomings in such processes could be reflected in the lending decisions that we make.

The quality of our loan portfolios, our financial condition, results of operations, financial reporting and reputation could be materially adversely affected if we receive and rely on materially misleading, false, inaccurate, incomplete, outdated or fraudulent information. If we receive any such information and our fraud detection processes do not flag the related loan applications, repayments on the corresponding loans may be lower, in some cases significantly lower, than expected, leading to losses for us or the Strategic Program service provider. Moreover, our reliance on any such information could result in suboptimally and inefficiently priced loans or incorrect approvals or denials of loans, which in turn could adversely affect our reputation and ability to attract new borrowers, counterparties or Strategic Program service providers.

Our credit enhancement arrangements with certain of our Strategic Program service providers exposes us to counterparty risk which may result in increased credit or fraud risk or losses to us.

We have entered into agreements with certain of our Strategic Program service providers pursuant to which the service providers provide credit enhancement on loans which protects the Bank by indemnifying or reimbursing the Bank for incurred credit and fraud losses. Reimbursement or indemnification for incurred losses is provided for through a deposit reserve account that is replenished periodically by the respective service provider. In the event that cash flow from the loans covered by the agreement is insufficient to fund the deposit reserve account in an amount required to support the service provider’s indemnification or reimbursement obligations due to deterioration of the performance of such loans or otherwise, and the service provider is unable or unwilling to fund any shortfalls or otherwise breaches its obligations under the agreement, we will generally retain all income related to such loans (which may be reduced) and assume responsibility for primarily servicing the loans. Consequently, we would retain all the contractual interest but would be exposed to increased credit or fraud risk or losses on such loans as a result of this counterparty risk.

Risks Related to Technology

System failure or cybersecurity breaches of our network security could subject us to increased operating costs as well as litigation and other potential losses.

Our computer systems and network infrastructure could be vulnerable to hardware and cybersecurity issues. Our operations are dependent upon our ability to protect our computer equipment against damage from fire, power loss, telecommunications failure or a similar catastrophic event. We could also experience a breach by intentional or negligent conduct on the part of employees or other internal sources. Any damage or failure that causes an interruption in our operations could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. The importance of our online banking systems to the Company’s operations means that any problems in its functionality would have a material adverse effect on the Company’s operations, business model and growth strategy.

Our operations are also dependent upon our ability to protect our computer systems and network infrastructure against damage from physical break-ins, cybersecurity breaches and other disruptive problems caused by the internet or other users. Such computer break-ins and other disruptions would jeopardize the security of information stored in and transmitted through our computer systems and network infrastructure, which may result in significant liability, damage our reputation and inhibit the use of our internet banking services by current and potential customers. We could also become the target of various cyberattacks. We regularly add additional security measures to our computer systems and network infrastructure to mitigate the possibility of cybersecurity breaches, including firewalls and penetration testing. However, it is difficult or impossible to defend against every risk being posed by changing technologies as well as acts of cyber-crime. Increasing sophistication of cyber criminals and terrorists make keeping up with new threats difficult and could result in a system breach. Controls employed by our information technology department and cloud vendors could prove inadequate. A breach of our security that results in unauthorized access to our data could expose us to a disruption or challenges relating to our daily operations, as well as to data loss, litigation, damages, fines and penalties, significant increases in compliance costs and reputational damage, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We have implemented remote working and workplace protocols for our employees in accordance with government requirements. Working outside of our network protection may increase our risk exposure to cybersecurity breaches. An increase in the number of employees working offsite may correspond to an increase in the size of our risk exposure to cyber disruptions.

Despite the implementation of security measures, our internal computer systems and those of our Strategic Program platforms, and other contractors and consultants as well as third party vendors of IT and data security systems and services, are vulnerable to damage and interruptions from security breaches, computer viruses, fraud and similar incidents involving the loss or unauthorized access of confidential information.

We cannot be sure that our continued data protection efforts and investment in information technology will prevent future significant breakdowns, data leakages, breaches in our systems or the systems of our third party contractors and collaborators, or other cyber incidents that could have a material adverse effect upon our reputation, business, operations or financial condition. If such an event were to occur and cause interruptions in our operations, it could result in a material disruption of our programs and the development of our product candidates could be delayed.

Our proprietary technologies and analytic models have not yet been exposed to longer term down-cycle economic conditions. If these do not, or are perceived not to, accurately gather and interpret performance data for loans and identify attractive risk-adjusted market sectors, our performance may be worse than anticipated.

The technologies created by and relied upon by us may not function properly, or at all, which may have a material impact on our operations and financial conditions. The performance of loans originated by us is dependent on the effectiveness of our credit underwriting systems used to evaluate borrowers’ credit profiles and likelihood of default. While our proprietary technologies and analytic models are continually adjusted to account for changes in various macroeconomic conditions, the bulk of the data gathered and the development of our enterprise data warehouse have largely occurred during a period of sustained economic growth or during the COVID-19 pandemic when extraordinary government stimulus impacted the economy. Our proprietary technologies have not been exposed to other adverse economic cycles. There is no assurance that our proprietary technologies can accurately predict loan performance during periods of adverse economic conditions. If our proprietary technologies are unable to accurately reflect the credit risk of loans under such economic conditions, we may experience greater than expected losses on such loans.

We may not be able to protect our intellectual property rights, including our proprietary technologies and analytic models, and may become involved in lawsuits to protect or enforce our proprietary rights and information, which could be expensive, time consuming and unsuccessful.

We rely on a combination of copyright, trademark, trade secret laws and confidentiality provisions to establish and protect our intellectual property rights, including our proprietary technologies and our analytic models. If we fail to successfully maintain, protect and enforce our intellectual property rights, our competitive position could suffer. Similarly, if we were to infringe on the intellectual property rights of others, our competitive position could suffer. Third parties may challenge, invalidate, circumvent, infringe or misappropriate our intellectual property, or such intellectual property may not be sufficient to permit us to take advantage of current market trends or otherwise to provide competitive advantages, which could result in costly redesign efforts, discontinuance of certain product or service offerings or other competitive harm. We may also be required to spend significant resources to monitor and police our intellectual property rights. Others, including our competitors, may independently develop similar analytic model technology, duplicate our products or services or design around our intellectual property, and in such cases we may not be able to assert our intellectual property rights against such parties. Further, our contractual arrangements may not effectively prevent disclosure of our confidential information or provide an adequate remedy in the event of unauthorized disclosure of our confidential or proprietary information. We may have to litigate to enforce or determine the scope and enforceability of our intellectual property rights, trade secrets and know-how, which could be time-consuming and expensive, could cause a diversion of resources and may not prove successful. The loss of intellectual property protection or the inability to obtain rights with respect to third party intellectual property could harm our business and ability to compete. In addition, because of the rapid pace of technological change in our industry, including the use of AI, aspects of our business and our products and services rely on technologies developed or licensed by third parties, and we may not be able to obtain or continue to obtain licenses and technologies from these third parties on reasonable terms or at all.

We may not have the resources to keep pace with rapid technological changes in the industry or implement new technology effectively.

The financial services industry is undergoing rapid technological changes with frequent introductions of new technology-driven products and services. Our future success will depend, at least in part, upon our ability to address the needs of our

customers by using technology to provide products and services that will satisfy customer demands for convenience as well as to create additional efficiencies in our operations as we continue to grow and expand our products and service offerings. We may experience operational challenges as we implement these new technology enhancements or products, which could impair our ability to realize the anticipated benefits from such new technology or require us to incur significant costs to remedy any such challenges in a timely manner.

Many of our larger competitors have substantially greater resources to invest in technological improvements. Third parties upon which we rely for our technology needs may not be able to develop, on a cost-effective basis, systems that will enable us to keep pace with such developments. As a result, our larger competitors may be able to offer additional or superior products compared to those that we will be able to provide, which would put us at a competitive disadvantage. We may lose customers seeking new technology-driven products and services to the extent we are unable to provide such products and services. The ability to keep pace with technological change is important and the failure to do so could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. The use of AI in the banking industry is developing and growing. Customer demand may cause us and others to offer products or services incorporating AI. As with many developing technologies, artificial intelligence presents risks and challenges that could affect its further development, adoption, and use, and therefore our business. Our future success will depend, in part, upon our ability to invest in and use appropriate technology, which may include AI. To effectively make such investments, we may need to expend significant financial, human, and other resources. However, we may not be able to implement AI in an effective or timely way, thus adversely impacting our operations. This may also adversely impact our ability to compete with financial institutions which have greater resources to invest in such technological improvements. Ultimately, any AI we develop or use may be flawed. If our use of AI, or its use by third parties with which we do business or otherwise interact, is deficient, biased, or inaccurate, or compromises customer privacy or implicates other ethics issues, we could be subject to competitive harm, potential legal liability, and brand or reputational harm.

The development and use of artificial intelligence present risks and challenges that may adversely impact our business.

We selectively employ AI through productivity tools, third-party solutions, and internal systems. We use generative AI for certain tasks like document drafting and data analysis, with an implementation of strict controls to protect customer data. Third-party AI assists us in cybersecurity, fraud detection, and code review, while our own agents handle compliance, policy analysis, and workflow optimization. A disciplined AI adoption approach remains the most effective strategy for us. However, the advances in generative AI are opening new opportunities for efficiency and automation. We are actively exploring opportunities to broaden the deployment of these capabilities across our Company to drive efficiency and long term value, with a disciplined focus on safeguarding sensitive data through secure and controlled implementation. However, the continued development and use of AI presents a number of risks and challenges to our business.

The legal and regulatory environment relating to AI is uncertain and rapidly evolving and includes regulation targeted specifically at AI as well as provisions in intellectual property, privacy, consumer protection, employment and other laws applicable to the use of AI. These evolving laws and regulations could require changes in our implementation of AI technology and increase our compliance costs and the risk of non-compliance, including in relation to data privacy and security laws, which mandate the protection of consumer financial information.

AI models, particularly generative AI models, may produce output or take action that is incorrect, that results in the release of private, confidential or proprietary information, that reflects biases included in the data on which they are trained, that produces output that is, or is perceived to be, discriminatory or unfair, that infringes on the intellectual property rights of others, or that is otherwise harmful.

While we have policies prohibiting our employees from using non-approved generative AI applications or websites on the Company or the Bank’s network, there can be no assurances that our employees will adhere to these policies or that such policies will be effective in mitigating the risks associated with using AI technology. Furthermore, although we have not authorized the use of any AI tools with personally identifiable or nonpublic information, employees may intentionally or inadvertently violate our policy by using personally identifiable or nonpublic information, including sensitive client information, with AI technologies.

Since personally identifiable or nonpublic information may be used with such technologies, these technologies are capable of generating output that improperly discloses such personally identifiable or nonpublic information. The use of personally identifiable or nonpublic information could result in a violation of certain laws, including data privacy laws and the data privacy and security laws, exposing us to legal liability or regulatory penalties. Furthermore, we may rely on AI models developed by third parties, and, to that extent, would be dependent in part on the manner in which those third parties develop and train their models, including risks arising from the inclusion of any unauthorized material in the training data

for their models, and the effectiveness of the steps these third parties have taken to limit the risks associated with the output of their models, matters over which we may have limited visibility. Any of these risks could expose us to liability or adverse legal or regulatory consequences and harm our reputation and the public perception of our business or the effectiveness of our security measures, which could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

Our operations could be interrupted if our third-party service providers or Strategic Program service providers experience operational or other systems difficulties or terminate their services.

We outsource some of our operational activities to third parties and counterparties for certain services, including, but not limited to, loan marketing and origination, core systems support, informational website hosting, internet services, online account opening and other processing services. Our business depends on the successful and uninterrupted functioning of our information technology and telecommunications systems and third-party service providers. We also leverage the financial technology capabilities of our Strategic Program service providers to meet our enterprise risk framework and enable us to realize operating efficiencies.

As a result, if these third-party service providers or our Strategic Program service providers experience difficulties, are subject to cybersecurity breaches, or terminate their services, and we are unable to replace them with other service providers or alternative counterparties, particularly on a timely basis, our operations could be interrupted. If an interruption were to continue for a significant period, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be adversely affected. Even if we can replace third-party service providers or Strategic Program service providers, it may be at a higher cost to us, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Risks Related to Regulatory, Legal and Compliance

We are subject to substantial regulation, which increases the cost and expense of regulatory compliance and therefore reduces our net income and may negatively impact our opportunity to grow our business.

As a bank holding company under federal law, we are subject to regulation under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended, or the BHC Act, and the examination and reporting requirements of the Federal Reserve. In addition to supervising and examining us, the Federal Reserve, through its adoption of regulations implementing the BHC Act, places certain restrictions on the activities that are deemed permissible for bank holding companies to engage in. Changes in the number or scope of permissible activities could have an adverse effect on our ability to realize our strategic goals.

As a Utah state-chartered bank that is not a member of the Federal Reserve System, the Bank is separately subject to regulation by both the FDIC and the UDFI. The FDIC and UDFI regulate numerous aspects of the Bank’s operations, including adequate capital and financial condition, permissible types and amounts of extensions of credit and investments, permissible non-banking activities and restrictions on dividend payments. The Bank undergoes periodic examinations by the FDIC and UDFI. Following such examinations, the Bank may be required, among other things, to change its asset valuations or the amounts of required loan loss allowances or to restrict its operations, as well as increase its capital levels, which would likely adversely affect our results of operations. Supervision, regulation, and examination of the Company and the Bank by the bank regulatory agencies are intended primarily for the protection of consumers, commercial customers, bank depositors and the Deposit Insurance Fund of the FDIC, rather than holders of our common stock. Particularly as a result of any changes in the regulations and regulatory agencies under the Dodd-Frank Act, we may be required to invest significant management attention and resources to evaluate and make any changes necessary to comply with applicable laws and regulations. The allocation of our resources to address regulatory compliance, as well as any failure to comply with applicable requirements, may negatively impact our results of operations and financial condition.

Legislative and regulatory actions taken now or in the future, including deregulation, may increase our competition and costs and impact our business, governance structure, financial condition or results of operations.

Federal and state regulatory agencies frequently adopt changes to their regulations or change the way existing regulations are applied, which are more fully discussed above in Item I. Business - “Supervision and Regulation.” Regulatory or legislative changes to laws applicable to the financial industry, if enacted or adopted, may impact the profitability of our business activities, require more oversight or change certain of our business practices, including the ability to offer new products, obtain financing, attract deposits, make loans and achieve satisfactory interest spreads and could expose us to additional costs, including increased compliance costs. In addition, recent changes in the U.S. political landscape have increased the risk of deregulation of certain aspects of the financial services and banking sector, including a more relaxed enforcement policy with respect to digital assets and FinTech companies. Our profitability depends, in part, upon our

ability to successfully compete with these other financial service providers and to maintain and increase market share and less regulation lowers the barrier for entry in the financial services and banking sectors, increasing our competition.

These legislative and regulatory changes, both the adoption and repeal of laws, may require us to invest significant management attention and resources to make any necessary changes to operate appropriately and efficiently and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Due to Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code (the “Code”), we may not be able to deduct all of the compensation of some executives, including executives of companies we may acquire in the future.

Section 162(m) of the Code generally limits to $1.0 million annual deductions for compensation paid to “covered employees” of any “publicly held corporation.” A “publicly held corporation” includes any company that issues securities required to be registered under Section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or companies required to file reports under Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act, determined as of the last day of the company’s taxable year. As a consequence, Section 162(m) of the Code limited the deductibility of compensation to our covered employees to $1.0 million beginning with the year ended December 31, 2021. The definition of “covered employees” generally includes anyone who served as the chief executive officer during the taxable year; the two highest compensated executive officers (other than the chief executive officer), determined under SEC rules; and any individual who was a covered employee, including of a “predecessor company,” at any point during a taxable year beginning on or after January 1, 2017, even after the employee terminates employment.

Notably, under the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, or the ARPA, which was signed into law on March 11, 2021, for tax years beginning after December 31, 2026, the definition of “covered employees” will be expanded to include FinWise Bancorp’s next five highest paid employees (in addition, pursuant to proposed Treasury Regulations, to the chief executive officer, the chief financial officer and the three other highest compensated executive officers).

As a result of the foregoing, we may not be able to deduct all of the compensation paid in 2025 and future years if compensation paid to “covered employees” exceeds the thresholds established by Section 162(m) of the Code. Losing deductions under Section 162(m) of the Code could increase our income taxes and reduce our net income. A reduction in net income could negatively affect our results of operations and the price of our stock.

Because of the Dodd-Frank Act and related rulemaking, the Company is subject to more stringent capital requirements.

The Bank’s failure to maintain the minimum leverage ratio under the Community Bank Leverage Ratio framework under the Regulatory Relief Act could result in one or more of our regulators placing limitations or conditions on our activities, including our growth initiatives, or restricting the commencement of new activities, and could affect customer and investor confidence, our costs of funds and FDIC insurance costs, our ability to pay dividends on our common stock, our ability to make acquisitions, and our business, results of operations and financial condition. See “Supervision and Regulation—Capital Adequacy Guidelines.”

Federal and state banking agencies periodically conduct examinations of our business, including our compliance with laws and regulations, and our failure to comply with any regulatory actions, if any, could adversely impact us.

As part of the bank regulatory process, the Federal Reserve, the FDIC and the UDFI, periodically conduct examinations of our business, including compliance with laws and regulations. If, based on an examination, the UDFI or a federal banking agency were to determine that the financial condition, capital resources, asset quality, earnings prospects, management, liquidity, asset sensitivity, risk management or other aspects of any of our operations have become unsatisfactory, or that the Company or its management were in violation of any law or regulation, it may take such remedial actions as it deems appropriate. If we become subject to such regulatory actions, our business, financial condition, results of operations and reputation would likely be adversely affected.

Financial institutions, such as the Bank, face risks of noncompliance and enforcement actions related to the Bank Secrecy Act and other anti-money laundering statutes and regulations.

The Bank Secrecy Act, the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001, or the USA PATRIOT Act, and other laws and regulations require financial institutions, among other duties, to institute and maintain an effective anti-money laundering program and file suspicious activity and currency transaction reports as appropriate. To administer the Bank Secrecy Act, FinCEN is authorized to impose significant civil money penalties for violations of those requirements and has recently engaged in coordinated enforcement efforts with the individual federal banking regulators, as well as the U.S. Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement

Administration and the IRS. There is also increased scrutiny of compliance with the sanctions programs and rules administered and enforced by the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control.

Our compliance with the anti-money laundering laws is in part dependent on our ability to adequately screen and monitor our customers for their compliance with these laws. We have developed policies and procedures to screen and monitor these customers. To comply with regulations, guidelines and examination procedures in this area, we have dedicated significant resources to our anti-money laundering program. If our policies, procedures and systems are deemed deficient, we could be subject to liability, including fines and regulatory actions such as restrictions on our ability to pay dividends and the inability to obtain regulatory approvals to proceed with certain aspects of our business plans, including acquisitions and de novo branching.

Regulations relating to privacy, information security and data protection could increase our costs, affect or limit how we collect and use personal information and adversely affect our business opportunities.

We are subject to various privacy, information security and data protection laws, including requirements concerning security breach notification, and we could be negatively impacted by these laws. Various state and federal banking regulators and states have also enacted data security breach notification requirements with varying levels of individual, consumer, regulatory or law enforcement notification in certain circumstances in the event of a security breach. Moreover, legislators and regulators in the U.S. are increasingly adopting or revising privacy, information security and data protection laws that potentially could have a significant impact on our current and planned privacy, data protection and information security-related practices, our collection, use, sharing, retention and safeguarding of consumer or employee information, and some of our current or planned business activities. This could also increase our costs of compliance and business operations and could reduce income from certain business initiatives. This includes increased privacy-related enforcement activity at the federal level by the Federal Trade Commission, as well as at the state level. For example, in March 2022, Utah enacted the Utah Consumer Privacy Act, which provides for an additional state level regulation. Also, the Federal Trade Commission has issued a staff report on digital “dark patterns,” sophisticated design practices that can trick or manipulate consumers into buying products or services or giving up their private information, that, among other things, highlighted marketing and disclosure practices by some financial technology companies that the Federal Trade Commission claimed were deceptive because of their use of dark patterns, and this has led to numerous enforcement actions, staff reports, and statements by Federal Trade Commission officials scrutinizing marketing and disclosure practices of financial technology companies. Compliance with current or future privacy, data protection and information security laws (including those regarding security breach notification) affecting customer or employee data to which we are subject could result in higher compliance and technology costs and could restrict our ability to provide certain products and services, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial conditions or results of operations. Our failure to comply with privacy, data protection and information security laws could result in potentially significant regulatory or governmental investigations or actions, litigation, fines, sanctions and damage to our reputation, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

We are subject to numerous laws and regulations, designed to protect consumers, including the Community Reinvestment Act and fair lending laws, and failure to comply with these laws or regulations could lead to a wide variety of sanctions.

The Community Reinvestment Act, or CRA, directs all insured depository institutions to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are located, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods. Each institution is examined periodically by its primary federal regulator, which assesses the institution’s performance. The Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Fair Housing Act and other fair lending laws and regulations impose nondiscriminatory lending requirements on financial institutions. The CFPB, the U.S. Department of Justice and other federal agencies are responsible for enforcing these laws and regulations. The CFPB was created under the Dodd-Frank Act to centralize responsibility for consumer financial protection with broad rulemaking authority to administer and carry out the purposes and objectives of federal consumer financial laws with respect to all financial institutions that offer financial products and services to consumers. The CFPB is also authorized to prescribe rules applicable to any covered person or service provider, identifying and prohibiting acts or practices that are “unfair, deceptive, or abusive” in any transaction with a consumer for a consumer financial product or service, or the offering of a consumer financial product, or service. The ongoing broad rulemaking powers of the CFPB have potential to have a significant impact on the operations of financial institutions offering consumer financial products or services.

A successful regulatory challenge to an institution’s performance under the CRA, fair lending or consumer lending laws and regulations could result in a wide variety of sanctions, including damages and civil money penalties, injunctive relief, restrictions on mergers and acquisitions activity, restrictions on expansion, and restrictions on entering new business lines.

Private parties may also challenge an institution’s performance under fair lending laws in private class action litigation. Such actions could have a material adverse effect on our reputation, business, financial condition and results of operations.

We may be subject to liability for potential violations of predatory lending laws, which could adversely impact our results of operations, financial condition and business.

Various U.S. federal, state and local laws have been enacted that are designed to discourage “predatory” lending practices. The U.S. Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act of 1994, or HOEPA, prohibits inclusion of certain provisions in mortgages that have interest rates or origination costs in excess of prescribed levels and requires that borrowers be given certain disclosures prior to origination. The Military Lending Act limits the interest rate that can be charged to active-duty service members and their dependents. Some states have enacted, or may enact, similar laws or regulations, which in some cases impose restrictions and requirements greater than those in HOEPA. In addition, under the anti-predatory lending laws of some states, the origination of certain mortgages, including loans that are not classified as “high-cost” loans under applicable law, must satisfy a net tangible benefit test with respect to the related borrower. Such tests may be highly subjective and open to interpretation. As a result, a court may determine that a home mortgage, for example, does not meet the test even if the related originator reasonably believed that the test was satisfied. If any of our mortgages or other loans are found to have been originated in violation of predatory or abusive lending laws, we could incur losses, which could adversely impact our results of operations, financial condition and business.

Regulatory agencies and consumer advocacy groups have asserted claims that the practices of lenders and loan servicers result in a disparate impact on protected classes.

Anti-discrimination statutes, such as FHA and ECOA, prohibit creditors from discriminating against loan applicants and borrowers based on certain characteristics, such as race, religion and national origin. Various federal regulatory agencies and departments, including the DOJ and the CFPB, have taken the position that these laws apply not only to intentional discrimination, but also to facially neutral practices that have a disparate impact on a group that shares a characteristic that a creditor may not consider in making credit decisions protected classes (i.e., creditor or servicing practices that have a disproportionate negative affect on a protected class of individuals). Further, the CFPB has issued an update to its examination manual that contains a novel interpretation of its authority to prohibit unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices that would authorize the agency to treat any instance of discrimination against a protected class as an unfair act or practice under the Dodd-Frank Act.

These regulatory agencies, as well as consumer advocacy groups and plaintiffs’ attorneys, have focused greater attention on “disparate impact” claims. The U.S. Supreme Court has confirmed that the “disparate impact” theory applies to cases brought under FHA, while emphasizing that a causal relationship must be shown between a specific policy of the defendant and a discriminatory result that is not justified by a legitimate objective of the defendant. Although it is still unclear whether the theory applies under ECOA, regulatory agencies and private plaintiffs may continue to apply it to both FHA and ECOA in the context of mortgage lending and servicing. To the extent that the “disparate impact” theory continues to apply, we are faced with significant administrative burdens in attempting to comply and potential liability for failures to comply.

In addition to reputational harm, violations of FHA and ECOA can result in actual damages, punitive damages, injunctive or equitable relief, attorneys’ fees and civil money penalties.

Increases in FDIC insurance premiums could adversely affect our earnings and results of operations.

The deposits of our Bank are insured by the FDIC up to legal limits and, accordingly, subject it to the payment of FDIC deposit insurance assessments as determined according to the calculation described in “Supervision and Regulation—Deposit Insurance.” In October 2022, the FDIC issued a final rule to increase the initial base deposit insurance assessment rate by two basis points for all insured depository institutions beginning in 2023. Any future special assessments, increases in assessment rates or required prepayments in FDIC insurance premiums could reduce our profitability or limit our ability to pursue certain business opportunities, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Climate change and related legislative and regulatory initiatives may materially affect our business and results of operations.

The effects of climate change continue to raise significant concerns about the state of the environment. Federal and state policy approaches to climate change continue to evolve, and changes in legislative or regulatory priorities could alter the requirements and expectations placed on businesses, including banks, to address climate-related risks. The lack of

empirical data regarding the financial and credit risks posed by climate change still makes it difficult to predict its specific impact on our financial condition and results of operations. However, the physical effects of climate change, such as more frequent and severe weather disasters, could directly affect us. For instance, such events may damage real property securing loans in our portfolios or reduce the value of that collateral. If our borrowers’ insurance is insufficient to cover these losses or if insurance becomes unavailable, the value of the collateral securing our loans could be negatively affected, potentially impacting our financial condition and results of operations. Moreover, climate change may adversely affect regional and local economic activity, harming our clients and the communities in which we operate.

In addition, our offices may be vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change. We have a substantial physical presence in the Salt Lake City, Utah, region that is prone to events such as seismic activity, drought, water scarcity and severe weather. This region has experienced and may continue to experience, climate-related events at an increasing rate. Although we maintain a disaster response plan and insurance, such events could disrupt our business, the business of our customers or third-party suppliers, and may cause us to experience losses and additional costs to maintain and resume operations. Regardless of changes in federal policy, the effects of climate change and its unknown long-term impacts could still have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

Evolving ESG expectations could increase our costs and risks.

Regulatory, investor, and stakeholder expectations around environmental, social, and governance (“ESG”) practices continue to evolve, potentially increasing compliance costs and operational burdens. Recent shifts in U.S. policies have altered the landscape of ESG practices. The Trump Administration has rolled back several climate initiatives and withdrawn from international agreements, such as the Paris Climate Accord. These changes may reduce certain compliance requirements but also introduce uncertainty regarding future regulations. Stakeholders, including investors and customers, continue to scrutinize corporate ESG practices, and failure to meet their evolving expectations could impact our reputation and financial performance. Additionally, state-level regulations and international standards may impose differing ESG requirements, leading to potential operational complexities.

Risks Related to Ownership of Our Common Stock

The market price of our common stock may be subject to substantial fluctuations, which may make it difficult for you to sell your shares at the volume, prices and times desired.

The market price of our common stock may be highly volatile, which may make it difficult for you to resell your shares at the volume, prices and times desired. There are many factors that may affect the market price and trading volume of our common stock, most of which are outside of our control.

The stock market and the market for financial institution stocks has experienced substantial fluctuations in recent years, which in many cases have been unrelated to the operating performance and prospects of particular companies. In addition, significant fluctuations in the trading volume in our common stock may cause significant price variations to occur. Increased market volatility may materially and adversely affect the market price of our common stock, which could make it difficult to sell your shares at the volume, prices and times desired.

Our executive management and board of directors have significant control over our business.

As of December 31, 2025, our directors and executive officers beneficially owned an aggregate of 3,183,677 shares, or approximately 23.3% of our issued and outstanding common stock. Consequently, our executive management and board of directors may be able to significantly affect the outcome of the election of directors and the potential outcome of other matters submitted to a vote of our shareholders, such as mergers, the sale of substantially all our assets and other extraordinary corporate matters. The interests of these insiders could conflict with the interests of our other shareholders, including you.

We are an emerging growth company and smaller reporting company, and the reduced regulatory and reporting requirements applicable to emerging growth companies and smaller reporting companies may make our common stock less attractive to investors.

We are an emerging growth company, as defined in the JOBS Act. For as long as we continue to be an emerging growth company we may take advantage of reduced regulatory and reporting requirements that are otherwise generally applicable to public companies. These include, without limitation, not being required to comply with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, reduced financial reporting requirements, reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation and exemptions from the requirements of holding non-binding shareholder

advisory votes on executive compensation or golden parachute payments. The JOBS Act also permits an emerging growth company such as us to take advantage of an extended transition period to comply with new or revised accounting standards applicable to public companies. We have elected to, and expect to continue to, take advantage of certain of these and other exemptions until we are no longer an emerging growth company. Further, the JOBS Act allows us to present only two years of audited financial statements and only two years of related management’s discussion and analysis of financial condition and results of operations.

We may take advantage of some or all of these provisions for up to five years or such earlier time as we cease to qualify as an emerging growth company, which will occur if we have more than $1.235 billion in total annual gross revenue, if we issue more than $1.0 billion of non-convertible debt in a three-year period, or if we become a “large accelerated filer,” in which case we would no longer be an emerging growth company as of the following December 31.

Even after we no longer qualify as an emerging growth company, we may still qualify as a “smaller reporting company,” as defined in Rule 12b-2 in the Exchange Act, which would allow us to take advantage of many of the same exemptions from disclosure requirements, including not being required to provide an auditor attestation of our internal control over financial reporting and reduced disclosure regarding our executive compensation arrangements in our periodic reports and proxy statements. Investors may find our common stock less attractive because we intend to rely on certain of these exemptions, which may result in a less active trading market and increased volatility in our stock price.

Provisions in our governing documents and Utah law may have an anti-takeover effect, and there are substantial regulatory limitations on changes of control of bank holding companies.

Our corporate organizational documents and provisions of federal and state law to which we are subject contain certain provisions that could have an anti-takeover effect and may delay, make more difficult or prevent an attempted acquisition that you may favor or an attempted replacement of our board of directors or management.

Our Articles and our Amended and Restated Bylaws (the “Bylaws”) may have an anti-takeover effect and may delay, discourage or prevent an attempted acquisition or change of control or a replacement of our board of directors or management. Our governing documents and Utah law include provisions that provide for, among other things, a staggered board, and limitations on the ability of shareholders to call a special meeting of shareholders, which can make minority shareholder representation on our board of directors more difficult to establish. In addition, Utah corporate statutes contain provisions designed to protect Utah corporations and employees from the adverse effects of hostile corporate takeovers. These statutory provisions reduce the possibility that a third party could effect a change in control without the support of our incumbent directors and may also strengthen the position of current management by restricting the ability of shareholders to change the composition of the board of directors, to affect its policies generally and to benefit from actions that are opposed by the current board.

Furthermore, banking laws impose notice, approval, and ongoing regulatory requirements on any shareholder or other party that seeks to acquire direct or indirect “control” of an FDIC-insured depository institution or its holding company. These laws include the BHC Act and the Change in Bank Control Act. These laws could delay or prevent an acquisition. Because the Bank is an “insured depository institution” within the meaning of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act and the Change in Bank Control Act and we are a “financial institution holding company” within the meaning of the Utah Financial Institutions Act, federal and Utah law and regulations generally prohibit any person or company from acquiring control of the Company or, indirectly, the Bank, without prior written approval of the FDIC or the commissioner of the UDFI, as applicable. Under the Change in Bank Control Act, control is conclusively presumed if, among other things, a person or company acquires 25% or more of any class of our voting stock. A rebuttable presumption of control arises if a person or company acquires 10% or more of any class of our voting stock and is subject to a number of specified “control factors” as set forth in the applicable regulations. Although the Bank is an “insured depository institution” within the meaning of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act and the Change in Bank Control Act, an investment in the Company is not insured or guaranteed by the FDIC, or any other agency, and is subject to loss. Under the Utah Financial Institutions Act, control is defined as the power to vote 20% or more of any class of our voting securities by an individual or to vote more than 10% of any class of our voting securities by a person other than an individual. Investors are responsible for ensuring that they do not, directly or indirectly, acquire shares of our common stock in excess of the amount which can be acquired without regulatory approval.

Our Articles and Bylaws contain an exclusive forum provision that limits the judicial forums where our shareholders may initiate derivative actions and certain other legal proceedings against us and our directors and officers.

Our Articles and Bylaws provide that the United States District Court for the District of Utah and any Utah state court sitting in Salt Lake County, Utah will, to the fullest extent permitted by law, be the sole and exclusive forum for (a) any

derivative action or proceeding brought on our behalf, (b) any action asserting a claim of breach of a fiduciary duty owed by any of our directors, officers or other employees to the Company or the Company’s shareholders, (c) any action asserting a claim against us or any of our directors or officers arising pursuant to the Utah Revised Business Corporation Act, our Articles, or our Bylaws, or (d) any other action asserting a claim against us or any of our directors or officers that is governed by the internal affairs doctrine. The choice of forum provision in our Articles and Bylaws may limit our shareholders’ ability to obtain a favorable judicial forum for disputes with us. Alternatively, if a court were to find the choice of forum provision contained in our Articles and Bylaws to be inapplicable or unenforceable in an action, we may incur additional costs associated with resolving such action in other jurisdictions, which could harm our business, operating results, and financial condition.

Our common stock is not an insured deposit and is subject to risk of loss.

Our common stock is not a savings account, deposit account or other obligation of any of the Bank or any of our other subsidiaries and will not be insured or guaranteed by the FDIC or any other government agency. Investment in our common stock is subject to investment risk, including possible loss.

Finwise Bancorp (FINW) Risk Factors

Item 1A. RISK FACTORS

Risks Related to Our Banking Business

Our business and operations in the financial services industry may be adversely affected in numerous and complex ways by weak economic conditions.

Table of Contents

expectations of our prospective and current employees due to inflationary and other factors, we may be required to increase our operating costs or risk losing skilled workers to competitors.

Table of Contents

We may not be able to measure and limit our credit risk adequately, which could lead to unexpected losses.

Our ACL may prove to be insufficient to absorb potential losses in our loan portfolio.

Our SBA lending program is dependent upon the U.S. federal government, and we face specific risks associated with originating SBA loans.

Table of Contents

We are subject to interest rate risk as fluctuations in interest rates may adversely affect our earnings.

We rely on BFG for loan referrals associated with our SBA 7(a) lending program, any disruption of that relationship may adversely impact our SBA lending business.

Negative changes in the economy affecting real estate values and liquidity could impair the value of collateral securing our real estate loans and result in loan and other losses.

Table of Contents

Appraisals and other valuation techniques we use in evaluating and monitoring loans secured by real property, other real estate owned and repossessed business and personal property may not accurately describe the net value of the asset.

Our origination of construction loans exposes us to increased lending risks.

The small- to medium-sized businesses that we lend to may have fewer resources to weather adverse business developments, which may impair our borrowers’ ability to repay loans.

Table of Contents

Our concentration of large loans to a limited number of borrowers may increase our credit risk.

A lack of liquidity could impair our ability to fund operations and adversely impact our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Table of Contents

We may be subject to certain risks in connection with growing through mergers and acquisitions.

If we are unable to attract additional merchants and retain and grow our existing merchant relationships, our business, results of operations, financial condition, and future prospects could be materially and adversely affected.

New lines of business or new products and services may subject us to additional risks.

Table of Contents

The accuracy of our financial statements and related disclosures could be affected if the judgments, assumptions or estimates used in our critical accounting policies are inaccurate.

We implemented segment reporting into our financial results during the three months ended September 30, 2025 and this change to our financial reporting could be confusing to investors and may not have the desired effects.

We could recognize losses on investment securities held in our securities portfolio, particularly if interest rates increase or economic and market conditions deteriorate.

We are subject to certain operational risks, including, but not limited to, customer, employee or third-party fraud.

Table of Contents

We rely heavily on our executive management team and other key employees, and we could be adversely affected by the unexpected loss of their services.

Negative public opinion regarding the Company or failure to maintain our reputation within the industries we serve and across our product lines could adversely affect our business and prevent us from growing our business.

We may be susceptible to deposit run-off risks, which could adversely affect our business and financial condition.

Table of Contents

We may not be able to raise the additional capital needed, in absolute terms or on terms acceptable to us, to fund our growth strategy in the future if we continue to grow at our current pace.

Acts of war, global conflict, terrorism, geopolitical and other external events could impact our ability to conduct business.

Table of Contents

Our agreements with Fintech Banking and Payment Solutions customers may expose us to credit risk.

Our agreements with Fintech Banking and Payment Solutions customers may produce limited revenue and may expose us to liability for compliance violations by Fintech Banking and Payment Solutions customer.

Risks Relating to Our Strategic Programs

The Bank and our Strategic Program service providers are subject to borrower protection laws and federal and state consumer protection laws and may be subject to public criticism by consumer advocacy groups.

Table of Contents

Inadequate oversight of our relationships with our Strategic Program service providers and POS merchants could result in regulatory actions against the Bank, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition and result of operations.

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Fraudulent activity associated with a Strategic Program service provider could negatively impact operating results, brand and reputation and cause the use of a Strategic Program’s loan products and services to decrease and its fraud losses to increase.

We depend on the accuracy and completeness of information provided by our Fintech Banking and Payment Solutions service providers for our lending, payments and BIN programs.

Table of Contents

accounting policies, any control, design or implementation deficiencies with respect to third-party reports could adversely impact our results of operations or financial condition, or result in our failure to meet our periodic reporting obligations.

Our credit enhancement arrangements with certain of our Strategic Program service providers exposes us to counterparty risk which may result in increased credit or fraud risk or losses to us.

Risks Related to Technology

System failure or cybersecurity breaches of our network security could subject us to increased operating costs as well as litigation and other potential losses.

Table of Contents

We may not have the resources to keep pace with rapid technological changes in the industry or implement new technology effectively.

Table of Contents

The development and use of artificial intelligence present risks and challenges that may adversely impact our business.

Table of Contents

Our operations could be interrupted if our third-party service providers or Strategic Program service providers experience operational or other systems difficulties or terminate their services.

Risks Related to Regulatory, Legal and Compliance

We are subject to substantial regulation, which increases the cost and expense of regulatory compliance and therefore reduces our net income and may negatively impact our opportunity to grow our business.

Legislative and regulatory actions taken now or in the future, including deregulation, may increase our competition and costs and impact our business, governance structure, financial condition or results of operations.

Table of Contents

Due to Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code (the “Code”), we may not be able to deduct all of the compensation of some executives, including executives of companies we may acquire in the future.

Because of the Dodd-Frank Act and related rulemaking, the Company is subject to more stringent capital requirements.

Federal and state banking agencies periodically conduct examinations of our business, including our compliance with laws and regulations, and our failure to comply with any regulatory actions, if any, could adversely impact us.

Financial institutions, such as the Bank, face risks of noncompliance and enforcement actions related to the Bank Secrecy Act and other anti-money laundering statutes and regulations.

Table of Contents

Regulations relating to privacy, information security and data protection could increase our costs, affect or limit how we collect and use personal information and adversely affect our business opportunities.

We are subject to numerous laws and regulations, designed to protect consumers, including the Community Reinvestment Act and fair lending laws, and failure to comply with these laws or regulations could lead to a wide variety of sanctions.

Table of Contents

Private parties may also challenge an institution’s performance under fair lending laws in private class action litigation. Such actions could have a material adverse effect on our reputation, business, financial condition and results of operations.

We may be subject to liability for potential violations of predatory lending laws, which could adversely impact our results of operations, financial condition and business.

Increases in FDIC insurance premiums could adversely affect our earnings and results of operations.

Climate change and related legislative and regulatory initiatives may materially affect our business and results of operations.

Table of Contents

Evolving ESG expectations could increase our costs and risks.

Risks Related to Ownership of Our Common Stock

The market price of our common stock may be subject to substantial fluctuations, which may make it difficult for you to sell your shares at the volume, prices and times desired.

We are an emerging growth company and smaller reporting company, and the reduced regulatory and reporting requirements applicable to emerging growth companies and smaller reporting companies may make our common stock less attractive to investors.