Beacon Financial Corp

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Stockholders and Board of Directors

Beacon Financial Corporation:

Opinion on the Consolidated Financial Statements

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Beacon Financial Corporation and subsidiaries (the Company) as of December 31, 2025 and 2024, the related consolidated statements of income, comprehensive income, changes in stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2025, and the related notes (collectively, the consolidated financial statements). In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Company as of December 31, 2025 and 2024, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2025, in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.

We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) (PCAOB), the Company’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2025, based on criteria established in Internal Control – Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission, and our report dated March 2, 2026 expressed an unqualified opinion on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting.

Basis for Opinion

These consolidated financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these consolidated financial statements based on our audits. We are a public accounting firm registered with the PCAOB and are required to be independent with respect to the Company in accordance with the U.S. federal securities laws and the applicable rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the PCAOB.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the PCAOB. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the consolidated financial statements are free of material misstatement, whether due to error or fraud. Our audits included performing procedures to assess the risks of material misstatement of the consolidated financial statements, whether due to error or fraud, and performing procedures that respond to those risks. Such procedures included examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the amounts and disclosures in the consolidated financial statements. Our audits also included evaluating the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the consolidated financial statements. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

Critical Audit Matters

The critical audit matters communicated below are matters arising from the current period audit of the consolidated financial statements that were communicated or required to be communicated to the audit committee and that: (1) relate to accounts or disclosures that are material to the consolidated financial statements and (2) involved our especially challenging, subjective, or complex judgments. The communication of critical audit matters does not alter in any way our opinion on the consolidated financial statements, taken as a whole, and we are not, by communicating the critical audit matters below, providing separate opinions on the critical audit matters or on the accounts or disclosures to which they relate.

Fair value measurement of loans and the core deposit intangible asset acquired in the business combination

As discussed in Note 2 to the consolidated financial statements, on September 1, 2025, the Company completed the merger of equals between Brookline Bancorp, Inc. and Berkshire Hills Bancorp. The transaction was treated as a business combination and was accounted for as a reverse merger. Accordingly, the purchase price was allocated to the assets acquired and liabilities assumed based on their estimated fair values as of the merger date. As part of the merger, the Company acquired loans with a fair value of $9.1 billion and a core deposit intangible (CDI) asset with a fair value of $174.4 million. The fair value of the loan portfolio was estimated using a discounted cash flow methodology, with assumptions applied based on pools of loans with similar characteristics. The valuation was based on the remaining maturity and repricing characteristics of the loans and considered assumptions related to prepayment rates, expected credit losses, and the discount rate. Expected credit losses were estimated using probability of default (PD) and loss given default (LGD) assumptions. Projected cash flows were discounted to present value using market based risk adjusted rates reflective of interest rate, servicing, credit, liquidity risk, and required equity return for similar loans. The fair value of the CDI asset was estimated using a discounted cash flow methodology, with assumptions applied based on groupings of core deposits with similar characteristics. The valuation considered expected customer attrition, net maintenance costs, interest costs on deposits, and the alternative cost of funds to estimate net cost savings over the economic life of the deposit relationship discounted to present value, and aggregated to determine the fair value of the CDI asset.

We identified the evaluation of the fair value measurements of the acquired loans and CDI asset as a critical audit matter. A high degree of audit effort, including specialized skills and knowledge, and subjective and complex auditor judgment was involved in the assessment of the fair value measurements due to significant measurement uncertainty. Specifically, the assessment of the fair value measurements involved an evaluation of the (1) fair value measurement methodologies, and (2) acquired loan fair value measurement key assumptions, including discount rate, PD and LGD; and (3) CDI asset fair value measurement key assumptions, including the discount rate and expected customer attrition.

The following are the primary procedures we performed to address this critical audit matter. We evaluated the design and tested the operating effectiveness of certain internal controls related to the Company’s fair value measurements of acquired loans and the CDI asset including controls over the (1) development of the overall fair value methodologies, and (2) determination of the key assumptions including the discount rate, PD and LGD for the acquired loans, and (3) determination of the key assumptions including the discount rate and expected customer attrition for the CDI asset. We evaluated the Company’s process to develop the fair values of the acquired loans and the CDI asset by testing certain sources of data and assumptions that the Company used and considered the relevance and reliability of such data and assumptions.

We involved valuation professionals with specialized skills and knowledge, who assisted in:

•evaluating the appropriateness of the valuation methodologies used by management to estimate the fair value of certain acquired loans and the CDI asset for compliance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.

•evaluating the discount rate used to discount projected loan cash flows by comparing the inputs and risk adjustments used to derive risk adjusted market rates to relevant external market information and assessing whether the assumption was applied consistently within the valuation model.

•evaluating the PD and LGD used to adjust projected loan cash flows by comparing management’s assumptions to relevant external market information and assessing whether the assumptions were consistent with market participant expectations and applied consistently across loan pools.

•evaluating the CDI asset discount rate by independently assessing key market based inputs used in developing the cost of equity and comparing management’s selected discount rate to an independently developed expectation range for the cost of equity.

•evaluating the expected customer attrition used in the CDI asset valuation by comparing management’s attrition assumptions to relevant industry and market information and assessing whether the assumption was applied consistently in the valuation model.

Assessment of the collective allowance for credit losses

As discussed in Notes 1 and 7 to the consolidated financial statements, the Company’s total allowance for credit losses as of December 31, 2025 was $252.8 million, of which a portion related to the allowance for credit losses for the Company’s core commercial real estate (CRE) and commercial (C&I) loans and leases and for the Legacy Berkshire loans and leases evaluated on a collective basis (the collective ACL). The collective ACL is determined using multiple quantitative models developed by third party vendors. For the Company’s core loan portfolios, expected credit losses are estimated using lifetime loss rate models (core CRE and C&I models), which calculate the expected losses over the life of the loan based on the exposure at default, loan attributes, prepayment assumptions, and reasonable and supportable economic forecasts. The core CRE and C&I models segment the portfolios by loan level attributes, such as loan type, loan size, date of origination, delinquency status, and risk ratings to create loan pools with similar risk characteristics in estimating expected losses. In addition, for loan portfolios acquired in connection with the merger, the Company estimates expected credit losses using a historical loss rate model based on the historical performance of various loan segments, which are segmented primarily by FDIC code, estimates of each segment’s weighted average life, and a statistical model to capture the impact of future economic conditions on the base loss rates (Legacy Berkshire model). The core CRE and C&I models and Legacy Berkshire model incorporate reasonable and supportable forecasts of various macro-economic variables using multiple probability weighted economic forecast scenarios. For the core CRE and C&I models, reasonable and supportable economic forecasts and reversion to long-term economic conditions are embedded within the vendor provided economic forecast scenarios applied over the remaining life of the loans. Reversion towards long-term expectations generally begins two to three years from the forecast start date and largely completes within the first five years. For the Legacy Berkshire model, the Company applies an explicit reasonable and supportable forecast period of seven quarters, after which economic assumptions revert, using a straight-line reversion method over four quarters, to long term historical averages. The Company further calibrates expected losses for each of the core CRE and C&I models using a scalar, which is determined by examining the loss rates of peer banks that have similar operations and asset bases to the Company and comparing these peer group loss rates to the model results. In addition, adjustments are made to the quantitative model outputs for relevant qualitative factors designed to address model limitations.

We identified the assessment of the collective ACL as a critical audit matter. A high degree of audit effort, including specialized skills and knowledge, and subjective and complex auditor judgment was involved in the assessment due to measurement uncertainty. Specifically, the assessment encompassed the evaluation of the collective ACL methodology , including the methods and models used to estimate (1) the loss rates and their significant assumptions, including the weighting of the economic forecast scenarios, (2) the scalar applied to the core CRE and C&I models, and (3) certain qualitative factors, including the significant assumptions used in the measurement of the qualitative factors. The assessment also included an evaluation of the conceptual soundness and performance of the core CRE and C&I models and conceptual soundness of the Legacy Berkshire model. In addition, auditor judgment was required to evaluate the sufficiency of audit evidence obtained.

The following are the primary procedures we performed to address this critical audit matter. We evaluated the design and tested the operating effectiveness of certain internal controls related to the Company’s measurement of the collective ACL estimate, including over the:

•evaluation of the collective ACL methodology

•continued use and conceptual soundness of the core CRE and C&I models and Legacy Berkshire model

•identification and determination of the significant assumptions used in the core CRE and C&I models and Legacy Berkshire model

•performance monitoring of the core CRE and C&I models

•evaluation of the qualitative factors, including the significant assumptions used in the measurement of the qualitative factors for the core CRE and C&I models and Legacy Berkshire model

•analysis of the collective ACL results and trends.

We evaluated the Company’s process to develop the collective ACL estimate by testing certain sources of data and assumptions that the Company used and considered the relevance and reliability of such data and assumptions. In addition, we involved credit risk professionals with specialized skills and knowledge, who assisted in:

•evaluating the Company’s collective ACL methodology for compliance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles

•evaluating judgments made by the Company relative to the performance testing of the core CRE and C&I models by comparing them to relevant Company-specific metrics and trends and the applicable industry and regulatory practices

•assessing the conceptual soundness of the core CRE and C&I models and Legacy Berkshire model by inspecting the model documentation to determine whether the models are suitable for their intended use

•evaluating the methodology utilized to incorporate reasonable and supportable economic forecast scenarios and related weightings used for each macro-economic variable by comparing it to the Company’s business environment and relevant industry practices

•assessing the scalar used to calibrate the core CRE and C&I models by evaluating the appropriateness of the peer group based on similar operations and asset bases to the Company and comparing to specific portfolio risk characteristics

•evaluating the methodology used to develop certain qualitative factors and their significant assumptions and the effect of those factors on the collective ACL compared with relevant credit risk factors and consistency with credit trends and identified limitations of the core CRE and C&I models and Legacy Berkshire model.

We also assessed the sufficiency of the audit evidence obtained related to the collective ACL estimate by evaluating the cumulative results of the audit procedures, qualitative aspects of the Company’s accounting practices, and potential bias in the accounting estimate.

/s/ KPMG LLP

We have served as the Company’s auditor since 2003.

Boston, Massachusetts

March 2, 2026