The Group`s interim accounts have been prepared in accordance with adopted International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), approved by the EU as at 31 December 2025. The interim report has been prepared in compliance with IAS 34 Interim Reporting and in accordance with accounting principles and methods applied in the 2024 Financial statements.

The accounts are presented in Norwegian kroner (NOK), which is also the parent bank`s and subsidiaries` functional currency. All amounts are stated in NOK million unless stated otherwise.

In case of any discrepancies between the English and Norwegian versions of this report, the Norwegian version shall prevail.

Sparebanken Møre calculates and reports capital adequacy in compliance with the EU’s capital requirements regulation and directive (CRD/CRR). Sparebanken Møre has authorisation from the Financial Supervisory Authority of Norway (FSA) to use internal rating methods, the foundation IRB (Internal Rating Based Approach) approach for credit risk. Calculations regarding market risk are performed using the standardised approach (SA) and for operational risk the basic indicator approach is used. The use of IRB involves comprehensive requirements for the bank’s organisation, expertise, risk models and risk management systems.

CRR3 entered into force in Norway on 1 April 2025. The bank has implemented CRR3 in its calculation of capital adequacy as of the second quarter of 2025. A new LGD for corporates, elimination of the scaling factor in the risk-weighted formula and a lower conversion factor for undrawn commitments for corporates have a positive effect on the bank’s capital adequacy.

The Ministry of Finance has decided to increase the risk-weighted floor for mortgages from 20 to 25 per cent with effect from 1 July 2025.  The bank has implemented the new mortgage floor as of the third quarter of 2025. The floor has a negative impact on the bank’s capital adequacy of approximately 1.5 per cent points.

On 21 December 2021, Sparebanken Møre applied to the FSA to make changes to the bank’s IRB models and calibration framework. The bank received a response to the application 22 June 2023, in which the FSA approved the proposed models for the corporate market. On 18 January 2024, the bank received a response to the proposed models for the retail market. The FSA believes that the applied for models for the retail market do not satisfy the requirements for an adequate level of calibration, ref. the Capital Requirements Regulation Articles 179-182. The FSA therefore found no basis for permitting the applied for amendments. Based on the feedback from the FSA, the bank has adjusted new models and sent an application to the FSA 9 May 2025 concerning model- and calibration changes for retail customers.

A new application was submitted in January 2025 for the acquisition of own equity certificates (ECs). Sparebanken Møre received an answer to this application on 25 February 2025. New permission to acquire own ECs was granted for a total amount of up to NOK 42 million. The authorisation was granted on the condition that the buybacks did not reduce the Common Equity Tier 1 capital by more than NOK 42 million. Sparebanken Møre has made deductions in the Common Equity Tier 1 capital of NOK 42 million from the date the authorisation was granted and for the duration of the authorisation until 30 June 2025. A new application for acquisition of own equity certificates was submitted on 7 July 2025, and approval was granted on 24 October 2025. The approval was subject to the condition that the transactions would not result in a reduction of Common Equity Tier 1 capital exceeding NOK 59.8 million. Accordingly, Sparebanken Møre recognised a deduction from Common Equity Tier 1 capital of NOK 59.8 million from the date the approval was granted until the authorisation expired on 31 December 2025.

Sparebanken Møre has an internal minimum CET1 capital ratio requirement of 16.15 per cent. The requirement consists of a minimum requirement of 4.5 per cent, a capital conservation buffer of 2.5 per cent, a systemic risk buffer of 4.5 per cent and a countercyclical buffer of 2.5 per cent. The Financial Supervisory Authority conducted a SREP in 2025. The individual Pillar 2 requirement for Sparebanken Møre has been set at 1.6 per cent, and the expected capital adequacy margin (P2G) has been set at 1.25 per cent. At least 56.25 per cent of the new Pillar 2 requirement that resulted from the aforementioned SREP must be met with Common Equity Tier 1 capital (0.9 per cent), and minimum 75 per cent must be met with Tier 1 capital.

Sparebanken Møre has an internal target for the CET1 ratio to minimum equal the sum of Pillar 1, Pillar 2 and the Pillar 2 Guidance.

MREL
One key element of the BRRD II (Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive) is that capital instruments and debt can be written down and/or converted to equity (bail-in). The Financial Institutions Act, therefore, requires the bank to meet a minimum requirement regarding the sum of its own funds and convertible debt at all times (MREL – minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities) such that the bank has sufficient primary capital and convertible debt to cope with a crisis without the use of public funds.

The MREL requirement, applicable from 1 January 2025, must be covered by own funds or debt instruments with a lower priority than ordinary, unsecured, non-prioritised debt (senior debt).

In its letter dated 17^th December 2024, the FSA set Sparebanken Møre’s effective MREL-requirement as of 01.01.2025 at 35.7 per cent and the minimum subordination requirement at 28.7 per cent. On 19 December 2025, Sparebanken Møre received a letter regarding the MREL requirement as of 1 January 2026 of 35.7 per cent, and a minimum subordination requirement of 26.2 per cent.

Methodology for measuring expected credit losses (ECL) according to IFRS 9
For a detailed description of the bank’s loss model, please see note 9 in the annual report for 2024.

Sparebanken Møre has developed an ECL model based on the Group’s IRB parameters and applies a three-stage approach when assessing ECL on loans to customers and financial guarantees in accordance with IFRS 9.

Stage 1: At initial recognition and if there’s no significant increase in credit risk, the commitment is classified in stage 1 with 12-months ECL.

Stage 2: If a significant increase in credit risk since initial recognition is identified, but without evidence of loss, the commitment is transferred to stage 2 with lifetime ECL measurement.

Stage 3: If the credit risk increases further, including evidence of loss, the commitment is transferred to stage 3 with lifetime ECL measurement. The commitment is considered to be credit-impaired. As opposed to stage 1 and 2, the effective interest rate in stage 3 is calculated on net impaired commitment (total commitment less expected credit loss) instead of gross commitment.

Staging is performed at account level and implies that two or more accounts held by the same customer can be placed in different stages. If a customer has one account in stage 3 (risk classes K, M or N), all of the customer’s accounts will migrate to stage 3.

Customers in risk class N have been subject to individual loss assessment with impairment. In connection with individual loss assessment, 3 scenarios based on calculation of the weighted present value of future cash flow after realisation of collateral are prepared. If the weighted present value of cash flow after realisation of collateral is positive, model-based loss provisions according to the ECL model is used.

An increase in credit risk reflects both customer-specific circumstances and development in relevant macro factors for the particular customer segment. The assessment of what is considered to be a significant increase in credit risk is based on a combination of quantitative and qualitative indicators.

Significant increase in credit risk
The assessment of whether a significant increase in credit risk has occured is based on a combination of quantitative and qualitative indicators. A significant increase in credit risk has occured when one or more of the critearia below are present:

Quantitative criteria
A significant increase in credit risk is determined by comparing the PD at the reporting date with PD at initial recognition. If the actual PD is higher than initial PD, an assessment is made of whether the increase is significant.

Significant increase in credit risk since initial recognition is considered to have occurred when either

• PD has increased by 100 per cent or more and the increase in PD is more than 0.5 percentage points, or
• PD has increased by more than 2,0 percentage points
• The customer’s agreed payments are overdue by more than 30 days

The weighted, macro adjusted PD in year 1 is used for comparison with PD on initial recognition to determine whether the credit risk has increased significantly.

Qualitative criteria
In addition to the quantitative assessment of changes in the PD, a qualitative assessment is made to determine whether there has been a significant increase in credit risk, for example, if the commitment is subject to special monitoring.

Credit risk is always considered to have increased significantly if the customer has been granted forbearance measures, though it is not severe enough to be individually assessed in stage 3.

Positive migration in credit risk
A customer migrates from stage 2 to stage 1 if:

• The criteria for migration from stage 1 to stage 2 is no longer present, and
• this is satisfied for at least one subsequent month (total 2 months)

A customer migrates from stage 3 to stage 1 or stage 2 if the customer no longer meets the conditions for migration to stage 3.

Accounts that are not subject to the migration rules above are not expected to have significant change in credit risk and retain the stage from the previous month.

Scenarios
Three scenarios are developed: Best, Basis and Worst. For each of the scenarios, expected values of different parameters are given, for each of the next five years. The possibility for each of the scenarios to occur is also estimated. After five years, the scenarios are expected to converge to a long-term stable level.

Changes to PD as a result of scenarios, may also affect the staging.

Definition of default, credit-impaired and forbearance
The definition of default is similar to that used in the capital adequacy regulation.

A commitment is defined to be subject to forbearance (payment relief due to payment difficulties) if the bank agrees to changes in the terms and conditions as a result of the debtor having problems meeting payment obligations. Performing forbearance (not in default) is placed in stage 2 whereas non-performing (defaulted) forbearance is placed in stage 3.

Management override
Quarterly review meetings evaluate the basis for the accounting of ECL losses. If there are significant events that will affect an estimated loss which the model has not taken into account, relevant factors in the ECL model will be overridden. An assessment is made of the level of long-term PD and LGD in stage 2 and stage 3 under different scenarios, as well as an assessment of macro factors and weighting of scenarios.

Consequences of increased macroeconomic uncertainty and measurement of expected credit loss (ECL) for loans and guarantees
The bank’s loss provisions reflect expected credit loss (ECL) pursuant to IFRS 9. When assessing ECL, the relevant conditions at the time of reporting and expected economic developments are taken into account.

The scenarios are weighted on the basis of our best estimate of the probability of the various outcomes represented. In light of the war between Ukraine and Russia and the uncertainty this entails, the weighting of the best-case scenario was reduced from 20 per cent to 10 per cent, and the worst-case scenario increased from 10 per cent to 20 per cent, effective from the first quarter of 2022.

Since then, these weights have been maintained. The background includes, among other things, the persistence of geopolitical tensions, both in Europe and elsewhere. The effects of the U.S. administration’s trade and security policies have also contributed to uncertainty and created an asymmetric downside risk for the global economy.

During the year, the United States and the Trump administration have moderated their policies in several areas. This also applies to the trade policy, where the overall tariff rates appear to be significantly lower than  feared before the summer. Largely as a result of this, growth forecasts for the international economy have gradually been revised upward and are now roughly back to the level expected at the start of the year. Global economic growth is therefore expected to remain slightly below trend. At the same time, uncertainty remains high.

The Norwegian economy is experiencing a cautious upturn, largely driven by increased purchasing power among households. Growth in the mainland economy appears to be just under two per cent this year, which is slightly above the trend growth rate for the Norwegian economy. Growth is expected to remain around this level over the next few years. At the same time, the latest key indicators paint a picture of a slightly weaker upturn compared with the previous quarter.

To sum up, there is still considerable uncertainty about future economic developments, both internationally and in Norway, and the weighting from Q3-2025 will be maintained.

Climate-related risk and calculating ECL
The bank is in the process of enhancing the ECL model to simulate ECL resulting from climate-related risk in various scenarios.

The ECL model has been used to simulate the financial consequences of climate-related risk for commercial property. Stress testing has been carried out on commitments in excess of a certain size related to the rental of commercial property. In the stress tests, PD (capacity to service debt) and LGD (collateral) were stressed in different scenarios.

The bank has continued to identify and map climate-related risk in the loan portfolio and various industries. In 2025, transition plans will be established to ensure that the bank’s loan portfolios become emission-free by 2050. Climate-related risk has been integrated into the Sustainability Report/CSRD reporting.

The ECL model must be expectation-oriented, and the bank is of the opinion that qualitative climate-related risk analyses currently involve a high degree of uncertainty, and these are thus not taken account of when assessing ECL, although the model is used for stress testing climate-related risk. The bank will strive to find good methods for implementing climate-related risk in the ECL model for the corporate portfolio.

The following table lists commission income and expenses covered by IFRS 15 broken down by the largest main items and allocated per segment.

Financial assets and financial liabilities are recognised in the balance sheet at the date when the Group becomes a party to the contractual provisions of the instrument. A financial asset is derecognised when the contractual rights to the cash flows from the financial asset expire, or the company transfers the financial asset in such a way that risk and profit potential of the financial asset is substantially transferred. Financial liabilities are derecognised from the date when the rights to the contractual provisions have been extinguished, cancelled or expired.

CLASSIFICATION AND MEASUREMENT
The Group’s portfolio of financial instruments is at initial recognition classified in accordance with IFRS 9. Financial assets are classified in one of the following categories:

• Amortised cost
• Fair value with value changes through the income statement

The classification of the financial assets depends on two factors:

• The purpose of the acquisition of the financial instrument
• The contractual cash flows from the financial assets

Financial assets measured at amortised cost
The classification of the financial assets assumes that the following requirements are met:

• The asset is acquired to receive contractual cash flows
• The contractual cash flows consist solely of principal and interest

All lending and receivables, except fixed interest rate loans, are recorded in the group accounts at amortised cost, based on expected cash flows. The difference between the issue cost and the settlement amount at maturity, is amortised over the lifetime of the loan.

Financial liabilities measured at amortised cost
Debt securities, including debt securities included in fair value hedging, loans and deposits from credit institutions and deposits from customers, are valued at amortised cost based on expected cash flows. The portfolio of own bonds is shown in the accounts as a reduction of the debt.

Financial instruments measured at fair value, any changes in value recognised through the income statement
The Group's portfolio of bonds in the liquidity portfolio is classified at fair value through the income statement. The portfolio is held solely for liquidity management and is traded to optimize returns within current quality requirements for the liquidity portfolio.

The Group’s portfolio of fixed interest rate loans is measured at fair value to avoid accounting mismatch in relation to the underlying interest rate swaps.

Fixed interest rate deposits from customers with maturities in excess of one year are classified at fair value and secured by interest rate swaps.

Financial derivatives are contracts signed to mitigate an existing interest rate or currency risk incurred by the Group. Financial derivatives are recognised at fair value through the income statement and recognised gross per contract as an asset or a liability.

The Group’s portfolio of shares is measured at fair value with any value changes through the income statement.

Losses and gains as a result of value changes on assets and liabilities measured at fair value, with any value changes being recognised in the income statement, are included in the accounts during the period in which they occur.

LEVELS IN THE VALUATION HIERARCHY
Financial instruments are classified into different levels based on the quality of market data for each type of instrument.

Level 1 – Valuation based on prices in an active market
Level 1 comprises financial instruments valued by using quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities. This category includes listed shares, as well as bonds and certificates in LCR-level 1, traded in active markets.

Level 2 – Valuation based on observable market data
Level 2 comprises financial instruments valued by using information which is not quoted prices, but where prices are directly or indirectly observable for assets or liabilities, including quoted prices in inactive markets for identical assets or liabilities. This category includes derivatives, as well as bonds which are not included in level 1.

Level 3 – Valuation based on other than observable market data
Level 3 comprises financial instruments which cannot be valued based on directly or indirectly observable prices. This category includes loans to customers, as well as shares.

A change in the discount rate of 10 basis points will have an impact of approximately NOK 7 million on loans with fixed interest rate.

The debt securities of the Group consist of covered bonds quoted in Norwegian kroner (NOK) and Euro (EUR) issued by Møre Boligkreditt AS, in addition to certificates and bonds quoted in NOK issued by Sparebanken Møre. The table below provides an overview of the Group’s issued covered bonds.

As at 31.12.2025, Sparebanken Møre held NOK 0 million in covered bonds issued by Møre Boligkreditt AS (NOK 281 million). Møre Boligkreditt AS held no own covered bonds as at 31.12.2025 (NOK 0 million).

The proportion of equity certificates held by foreign nationals was 4.0 per cent at the end of the 4rd quarter of 2025.

During the 4rd quarter of 2025, Sparebanken Møre has acquired 59,400 of its own ECs.

No events have occurred after the reporting period that will materially affect the figures presented as at 31 December 2025.