JPMORGAN CHASE & CO

JPMorganChase’s accounting policies and use of estimates are integral to understanding its reported results. The Firm’s most complex accounting estimates require management’s judgment to ascertain the appropriate carrying value of assets and liabilities. The Firm has established policies and control procedures intended to ensure that estimation methods, including any judgments made as part of such methods, are well-controlled, independently reviewed and applied consistently from period to period. The methods used and judgments made reflect, among other factors, the nature of the assets or liabilities and the related business and risk management strategies, which may vary across the Firm’s businesses and portfolios. In addition, the policies and procedures are intended to ensure that the process for changing methodologies occurs in an appropriate manner. The Firm believes its estimates for determining the carrying value of its assets and liabilities are appropriate. The following is a brief description of the Firm’s critical accounting estimates involving significant judgments.

Allowance for credit losses

The Firm’s allowance for credit losses represents management’s estimate of expected credit losses over the remaining expected life of the Firm’s financial assets measured at amortized cost and certain off-balance sheet lending-related commitments. The allowance for credit losses generally comprises:

•The allowance for loan losses, which covers the Firm’s retained loan portfolios (scored and risk-rated),

•The allowance for lending-related commitments, and

•The allowance for credit losses on investment securities.

The allowance for credit losses involves significant judgment on a number of matters including development and weighting of macroeconomic forecasts, incorporation of historical loss experience, assessment of risk characteristics, assignment of risk ratings, valuation of collateral, and the determination of remaining expected life. Refer to Notes 10 and 13 for further information on these judgments as well as the Firm’s policies and methodologies used to determine the Firm’s allowance for credit losses.

One of the most significant judgments involved in estimating the Firm’s allowance for credit losses relates to the macroeconomic forecasts used to estimate credit losses over the eight-quarter forecast period within the Firm’s methodology. The eight-quarter forecast incorporates hundreds of macroeconomic variables (“MEVs”) that are relevant for exposures across the Firm, with modeled credit

losses being driven primarily by a subset of less than twenty variables. The specific variables that have the greatest effect on the modeled losses vary by portfolio and geography.

•Key MEVs for the consumer portfolio include regional U.S. unemployment rates and U.S. HPI.

•Key MEVs for the wholesale portfolio include U.S. unemployment, U.S. real GDP growth rate, U.S. equity prices, U.S. interest rates, U.S. corporate credit spreads, oil prices, U.S. commercial real estate prices and U.S. HPI.

Changes in the Firm’s assumptions and forecasts of economic conditions could significantly affect its estimate of expected credit losses in the portfolio at the balance sheet date or lead to significant changes in the estimate from one reporting period to the next.

It is difficult to estimate how potential changes in any one factor or input might affect the overall allowance for credit losses because management considers a wide variety of factors and inputs in estimating the allowance for credit losses. Changes in the factors and inputs considered may not occur at the same rate and may not be consistent across all geographies or product types, and changes in factors and inputs may be directionally inconsistent, such that improvement in one factor or input may offset deterioration in others.

To consider the impact of a hypothetical alternate macroeconomic forecast, the Firm compared the modeled credit losses determined using its central and relative adverse macroeconomic scenarios, which are two of the five scenarios considered in estimating the allowances for loan losses and lending-related commitments. The central and relative adverse scenarios each included a full suite of MEVs, but differed in the levels, paths and peaks/troughs of those variables over the eight-quarter forecast period.

For example, compared to the Firm’s central scenario shown on page 129 and in Note 13, the Firm’s relative adverse scenario assumes an elevated U.S. unemployment rate, averaging approximately 2.0% higher over the eight-quarter forecast, with a peak difference of approximately 2.8% in the fourth quarter of 2026.

This analysis is not intended to estimate expected future changes in the allowance for credit losses, for a number of reasons, including:

•The allowance as of December 31, 2025, reflects credit losses beyond those estimated under the central scenario due to the weight placed on the adverse scenarios.

•The impacts of changes in many MEVs are both interrelated and nonlinear, so the results of this analysis cannot be simply extrapolated for more severe changes in macroeconomic variables.

•Expectations of future changes in portfolio composition and borrower behavior can significantly affect the allowance for credit losses.

To demonstrate the sensitivity of credit loss estimates to macroeconomic forecasts as of December 31, 2025, the Firm compared the modeled estimates under its relative adverse scenario to its central scenario. Without considering offsetting or correlated effects in other qualitative components of the Firm’s allowance for credit losses, the comparison between these two scenarios for the exposures below reflect the following differences:

•An increase of approximately $1.2 billion for residential real estate loans and lending-related commitments

•An increase of approximately $4.4 billion for credit card loans

•An increase of approximately $5.1 billion for wholesale loans and lending-related commitments

This analysis relates only to the modeled credit loss estimates and is not intended to estimate changes in the overall allowance for credit losses as it does not reflect any potential changes in other adjustments to the quantitative calculation, which would also be influenced by the judgment management applies to the modeled lifetime loss estimates to reflect the uncertainty and imprecision of these modeled lifetime loss estimates based on then-current circumstances and conditions.

In the fourth quarter of 2025, the Firm recorded an allowance related to the Apple Card transaction, estimated based on certain forward-looking assumptions of the portfolio’s risk characteristics and expected credit losses at the time of closing. The forecasted Apple credit card portfolio is excluded from the modeled estimates sensitivity analysis above while the Firm integrates the Apple Card transaction into its allowance model.

Recognizing that forecasts of macroeconomic conditions are inherently uncertain, the Firm believes that its process to consider the available information and associated risks and uncertainties is appropriately governed and that its estimates of expected credit losses were reasonable and appropriate for the year ended December 31, 2025.

Fair value

JPMorganChase carries a portion of its assets and liabilities at fair value. The majority of such assets and liabilities are measured at fair value on a recurring basis, including trading assets and liabilities, AFS securities, structured note products and certain securities financing agreements. Certain assets and liabilities are measured at fair value on a nonrecurring basis, including certain mortgage, home equity and other loans, where the carrying value is based on the fair value of the underlying collateral.

Assets measured at fair value

The following table includes the Firm’s assets measured at fair value and the portion of such assets that are classified within level 3 of the fair value hierarchy. Refer to Note 2 for further information.

(a)For purposes of the table above, the derivative receivables total reflects the impact of netting adjustments; however, the $8.9 billion of derivative receivables classified as level 3 does not reflect the netting adjustment as such netting is not relevant to a presentation based on the transparency of inputs to the valuation of an asset. The level 3 balances would be reduced if netting were applied, including the netting benefit associated with cash collateral.

Valuation

Details of the Firm’s processes for determining fair value are set out in Note 2. Estimating fair value requires the application of judgment. The type and level of judgment required is largely dependent on the amount of observable market information available to the Firm. For instruments valued using internally developed valuation models and other valuation techniques that use significant unobservable inputs and are therefore classified within level 3 of the fair value hierarchy, judgments used to estimate fair value are more significant than those required when estimating the fair value of instruments classified within levels 1 and 2.

In arriving at an estimate of fair value for an instrument within level 3, management must first determine the appropriate valuation model or other valuation technique to use. Second, the lack of observability of certain significant inputs requires management to assess relevant empirical data in deriving valuation inputs including, for example, transaction details, yield curves, interest rates, prepayment speeds, default rates, volatilities, correlations, prices (such as commodity, equity or debt prices), valuations of comparable instruments, foreign exchange rates and credit curves. Refer to Note 2 for a further discussion of the valuation of level 3 instruments, including unobservable inputs used.

For instruments classified in levels 2 and 3, management judgment must be applied to assess the appropriate level of valuation adjustments to reflect counterparty credit quality, the Firm’s creditworthiness, market funding rates, liquidity considerations, unobservable parameters, and for portfolios that meet specified criteria, the size of the net open risk position. The judgments made are typically affected by the type of product and its specific contractual terms, and the level of liquidity for the product or within the market as a whole. In periods of heightened market volatility and uncertainty judgments are further affected by the wider variation of reasonable valuation estimates, particularly for positions that are less liquid. Refer to Note 2 for a further discussion of valuation adjustments applied by the Firm.

Imprecision in estimating unobservable market inputs or other factors can affect the amount of gain or loss recorded for a particular position. Furthermore, while the Firm believes its valuation methods are appropriate and consistent with those of other market participants, the methods and assumptions used reflect management judgment and may vary across the Firm’s businesses and portfolios.

The Firm uses various methodologies and assumptions in the determination of fair value. The use of methodologies or assumptions different than those used by the Firm could result in a different estimate of fair value at the reporting date. Refer to Note 2 for a detailed discussion of the Firm’s valuation process and

hierarchy, and its determination of fair value for individual financial instruments.

Goodwill impairment

Under U.S. GAAP, goodwill must be allocated to reporting units and tested for impairment at least annually. The Firm’s process and methodology used to conduct goodwill impairment testing is described in Note 15.

Management applies significant judgment when testing goodwill for impairment. The goodwill associated with each business combination is allocated to the related reporting units for goodwill impairment testing.

For the year ended December 31, 2025, the Firm reviewed current economic conditions, estimated market cost of equity, as well as actual business results and projections of business performance. Based on such reviews, the Firm has concluded that goodwill was not impaired as of December 31, 2025. For each of the reporting units, fair value exceeded carrying value by at least 20% and there was no indication of a significant risk of goodwill impairment based on current projections and valuations.

The projections for the Firm’s reporting units are consistent with management’s current business outlook assumptions in the short term, and the Firm’s best estimates of long-term growth and return on equity in the longer term. Where possible, the Firm uses third-party and peer data to benchmark its assumptions and estimates.

Refer to Note 15 for additional information on goodwill, including the goodwill impairment assessment as of December 31, 2025.

Credit card rewards liability

JPMorganChase offers credit cards with various rewards programs which allow cardholders to earn rewards points based on their account activity and the terms and conditions of the rewards program. Generally, there are no limits on the points that an eligible cardholder can earn, nor do the points expire, and the points can be redeemed for a variety of rewards, including cash (predominantly in the form of account credits), gift cards and travel. The Firm maintains a rewards liability which represents the estimated cost of rewards points earned and expected to be redeemed by cardholders. The liability is accrued as the cardholder earns the benefit and is reduced when the cardholder redeems points. This liability was $16.0 billion and $14.4 billion at December 31, 2025 and 2024, respectively, and is recorded in accounts payable and other liabilities on the Consolidated balance sheets. The increase in the liability was driven by continued growth in rewards points earned on higher spend and promotional offers that has outpaced redemptions throughout 2025.

The rewards liability is sensitive to redemption rate (“RR”) and cost per point (“CPP”) assumptions. The RR assumption is used to estimate the number of points earned by customers that will be redeemed over the life of the account. The CPP assumption is used to estimate the cost of future point redemptions. These assumptions are evaluated periodically considering historical actuals, cardholder redemption behavior and management judgment. Updates to these assumptions will impact the rewards liability. As of December 31, 2025, a combined increase of 25 basis points in RR and 1 basis point in CPP would increase the rewards liability by approximately $512 million.

Income taxes

JPMorganChase is subject to the income tax laws of the various jurisdictions in which it operates, including U.S. federal, state and local, and non-U.S. jurisdictions. These laws are often complex and may be subject to different interpretations. To determine the financial statement impact of accounting for income taxes, including the provision for income tax expense and unrecognized tax benefits, JPMorganChase must make assumptions and judgments about how to interpret and apply these complex tax laws to numerous transactions and business events, as well as make judgments regarding the timing of when certain items may affect taxable income in the U.S. and non-U.S. tax jurisdictions.

JPMorganChase’s interpretations of tax laws around the world are subject to review and examination by the various taxing authorities in the jurisdictions where the Firm operates, and disputes may occur regarding its view on a tax position. These disputes over interpretations with the various taxing authorities may be settled by audit, administrative appeals or adjudication in the court systems of the tax jurisdictions in which the Firm operates. JPMorganChase regularly reviews whether it may be assessed additional income taxes as a result of the resolution of these matters, and the Firm records additional unrecognized tax benefits, as appropriate. In addition, the Firm may revise its estimate of income taxes due to changes in income tax laws, legal interpretations, and business strategies. It is possible that revisions in the Firm’s estimate of income taxes may materially affect the Firm’s results of operations in any reporting period.

Deferred taxes arise from differences between assets and liabilities measured for financial reporting versus income tax return purposes. Deferred tax assets are recognized if, in management’s judgment, their realizability is determined to be more likely than not. Deferred taxes are measured using enacted tax rates expected to apply to taxable income in the years in which those temporary differences are expected to be recovered or settled. The effect on deferred taxes of a change in tax rates is recognized within the provision for income taxes in the period enacted.

The Firm has also recognized deferred tax assets in connection with certain tax attributes, including net operating loss (“NOL”) carryforwards, foreign tax credit (“FTC”) carryforwards, and general business tax credit

(“GBC”) carryforwards. The Firm performs regular reviews to ascertain whether its deferred tax assets are realizable. These reviews include management’s estimates and assumptions regarding future taxable income, including foreign source income, and may incorporate various tax planning strategies, including strategies that may be available to utilize NOLs and FTCs before they expire. In connection with these reviews, if it is determined that a deferred tax asset is not realizable, a valuation allowance is established. The valuation allowance may be reversed in a subsequent reporting period if the Firm determines that, based on revised estimates of future taxable income or changes in tax planning strategies, it is more likely than not that all or part of the deferred tax asset will become realizable. As of December 31, 2025, management has determined it is more likely than not that the Firm will realize its deferred tax assets, net of the existing valuation allowance.

The Firm adjusts its unrecognized tax benefits as necessary when new information becomes available, including changes in tax law and regulations, and interactions with taxing authorities. Uncertain tax positions that meet the more-likely-than-not recognition threshold are measured to determine the amount of benefit to recognize. An uncertain tax position is measured at the largest amount of benefit that management believes is more likely than not to be realized upon settlement. It is possible that the reassessment of JPMorganChase’s unrecognized tax benefits may have a material impact on its effective income tax rate in the period in which the reassessment occurs. Although the Firm believes that its estimates are reasonable, the final tax amount could be different from the amounts reflected in the Firm’s income tax provisions and accruals. To the extent that the final outcome of these amounts is different than the amounts recorded, such differences will generally impact the Firm’s provision for income taxes in the period in which such a determination is made.

The Firm’s provision for income taxes is composed of current and deferred taxes. The current and deferred tax provisions are calculated based on estimates and assumptions that could differ from the actual results reflected in income tax returns filed during the subsequent year. Adjustments based on filed returns are generally recorded in the period when the tax returns are filed and the global tax implications are known, which could impact the Firm’s effective tax rate.

Refer to Note 25 for additional information on income taxes.

Litigation reserves

Refer to Note 30 for a description of the significant estimates and judgments associated with establishing litigation reserves.