NewtekOne, Inc.

To the Shareholders and the Board of Directors of NewtekOne, Inc.

Opinion on the Financial Statements

We have audited the accompanying consolidated statements of financial condition of NewtekOne, Inc. and subsidiaries (the Company) as of December 31, 2025 and 2024, the related consolidated statements of income, comprehensive income, changes in shareholders' equity and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2025, and the related notes to the consolidated financial statements (collectively, the financial statements). In our opinion, the 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 three years in the period ended December 31, 2025, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

We have also 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 issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission in 2013, and our report dated March 10, 2026, expressed an unqualified opinion on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting.

Basis for Opinion

These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Company’s 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

Valuation of level 3 loans held for sale and loans held for investment, measured at fair value

As described in Notes 2, 5, and 10 to the consolidated financial statements, the Company has loans held for sale and loans held for investment, which are measured at fair value. With the exception of the guaranteed portion of SBA 7(a) loans held for sale at fair value, which are classified as level 2 within the fair value hierarchy, loans held for sale and loans held for investment, are measured at fair value as of December 31, 2025 and are classified as level 3 within the fair value hierarchy as they are valued using unobservable inputs and assumptions as described in Note 10. Determining the fair value of the Level 3 loans held for sale and loans held for investment, which are measured at fair value requires management to make significant judgments about the valuation methodologies and inputs and assumptions used in the fair value calculation, including, but not limited to, historical credit losses, discounts for lack of marketability, underlying cash flows, and the impact of economic conditions. As of December 31, 2025, total Level 3 loans held for sale and loans held for investment, which are measured at fair value had a fair value of $647.4 and $281.2 million, respectively.

We identified the valuation of level 3 loans held for sale and loans held for investment, which are measured at fair value as a critical audit matter because of the judgments necessary for management to select and apply valuation techniques and assumptions, the high degree of auditor judgment involved, and the extensive audit effort involved in testing the valuations. Our audit procedures related to the valuation of the Company’s level 3 loans held for sale and loans held for investment, which are measured at fair value included the following, among others:

•We obtained an understanding of and evaluated the methods and assumptions management uses to value the loans held for sale and loans held for investment, which are measured at fair value and tested the design and operating effectiveness of relevant controls.

•We tested the completeness and accuracy of information used in the valuations by agreeing the total amount of schedules to the trial balance.

•With the assistance of our valuation specialists, we evaluated the reasonableness of the methods and assumptions used by management in the valuation of accrual loans (discount rate, default rate, prepayment rate, cost of servicing, etc.) and performed a recalculation for a sample of loans to ensure validity of the valuation model.

•With the assistance of our valuation specialists, we evaluated the reasonableness of the methods and assumptions used by management in the valuation of non-accrual loans (prepayment rate, probability of default, time to liquidate and discount rate).

•We tested management’s estimates to evaluate the reasonableness of the fair market value of collateral used by management in the valuation of non-accrual loans for a sample of loans, by validating the source of information used by management with the relevant internal or external information from which it was derived. Additionally, we recalculated the present value of expected cashflows and compared it with the value of loans determined by management.

Valuation of servicing assets, at fair value

As described in Notes 2, 7 and 10 to the consolidated financial statements, servicing assets for loans originated by the Company’s nonbank subsidiaries are measured at fair value at each reporting date and the Company reports changes in the fair value of servicing assets in earnings in the period in which the changes occur. The Company’s servicing assets, at fair value are measured at fair value using unobservable inputs and assumptions. As such the Company’s servicing assets for the nonbank subsidiaries as of December 31, 2025 is classified as Level 3 within the fair value hierarchy as described in Note 10. Determining the fair value of the Level 3 servicing assets, at fair value requires management to make significant judgments about the valuation methodologies and inputs and assumptions used in the fair value calculation, including, but not limited to, discount rate, servicing costs, default rate, prepayment rate, and the impact of economic conditions. As of December 31, 2025, total Level 3 servicing assets recorded at fair value had a balance of $15.4 million.

We identified the valuation of servicing assets, at fair value as a critical audit matter because of the judgments necessary for management to select and apply valuation techniques and assumptions, the high degree of auditor judgment involved, and the extensive audit effort involved in testing the valuations. Our audit procedures related to the valuation of the servicing assets included the following, among others:

•We obtained an understanding of and evaluated the methods and assumptions management usesto value the servicing assets, at fair value and tested the design and operating effectiveness of relevant controls.

•We tested the completeness and accuracy of information used in the valuations by agreeing the total principal balance, interest rate, interest type, and maturity date of the loans sold in the schedules to the loan subledger.

•With the assistance of valuation specialists, developed an independent estimate of fair value for servicing assets or tested management’s fair value estimates as of December 31, 2025.

•We reviewed the significant assumptions (e.g. discount rate, prepayment rate, default rate and servicing cost) used by externally engaged and internal valuation specialist for reasonableness.

Allowance for credit losses on loans

As described in Notes 2 and 5 to the consolidated financial statements, the allowance for credit losses on loans is established through a provision for credit losses and represents an amount which, in management’s judgment, will be adequate to absorb losses on existing loans. The Company’s consolidated allowance for credit losses on loan balances was $45.2 million at December 31, 2025. The allowance for credit losses on loans is comprised of reserves measured on a collective (pool) basis based on a lifetime loss-rate model when similar risk characteristics exist. Loans that do not share risk characteristics are evaluated on an individual basis.

The Company uses the discounted cash flow method to estimate expected credit losses for all loan portfolio segments measured on a pool basis wherein payment expectations are adjusted for estimated prepayment speeds, probability of default (PD), and loss given default (LGD). The Company uses regression analysis of historical internal and peer data to determine suitable loss drivers to utilize when modeling lifetime PD. This analysis also determines how expected PD and LGD will react to forecasted levels of the loss drivers. Management utilizes various economic indicators such as changes in unemployment rates, gross domestic product (GDP), and other relevant factors as loss drivers and has determined that, due to historical volatility in economic data, four quarters currently represents a reasonable and supportable forecast period, followed by a four-period reversion to historical mean levels for each of the various economic indicators. The allowance evaluation also considers various qualitative factors, such as: (i) changes to lending policies, underwriting standards and/or management personnel performing such functions, (ii) delinquency and other credit quality trends, (iii) credit risk concentrations, if any, (iv) changes to the nature of the Company’s business impacting the loan portfolio, (v) and other external factors, that may include, but are not limited to, results of internal loan reviews, stress testing, examinations by bank regulatory agencies, or other events such as a natural disaster. The development of the loan loss allocation for pools of loans with similar risk characteristics requires a significant amount of judgment by management and the assumptions utilized are subject to changing economic conditions.

We identified the Company’s allowance for credit losses on loans as a critical audit matter, specifically the economic forecasts and qualitative factors, because they involved complex auditor judgment in the evaluation of the Company’s assumptions. Additionally, complex auditor judgment was required to examine the methodology that underpins the allowance for credit losses on pools of loans with similar risk characteristics. This includes modeling of PD, LGD, economic forecasts, and qualitative factors.

Our audit procedures related to this critical audit matter included the following, among others:

•We obtained an understanding of the relevant controls related to the model and evaluation of the establishment of the economic forecasts and qualitative factor assumptions of the allowance and tested such controls for design and operating effectiveness.

•We tested the completeness and accuracy of data used by management in determining inputs to the PD and LGD by agreeing those inputs to internal or external information sources.

•We evaluated management’s judgments used in the identification of peer banks for PD and LGD calculations by comparing peer banks to external information sources.

•We evaluated management’s forecasts of future economic indicators for reasonableness, which included unemployment, housing price index, and national GDP growth, among others, by comparing these forecasts to external and internal information sources.

•We evaluated management’s judgments and assumptions used in the development of the qualitative factors for reasonableness and tested the reliability of the underlying data on which these factors are based, by comparing information to source documents and external information sources.

/s/ RSM US LLP

We have served as the Company’s auditor since 2013.

Hartford, Connecticut

March 10, 2026