FIG / CIS

Business development bank

Rating Transparency Presentation
December 2025

Petr Paklin, AVP-Analyst David Ciporins, Ratings Associate

Agenda 1 Key Industry Messages

2 Key Issuer Messages

3 Baseline Credit Assessment

4 Support and Structural Analysis

5 Moody’s Ratings ESG integration into credit

6 Appendix

Business development bank - Rating Transparency Presentation, December 2025 2

Key Industry Messages

Business development bank - Rating Transparency Presentation, December 2025 3

Four major credit themes will be top of mind for credit
market participants
Finding macro normal Digitalization & disruption
As the effects of previous shocks New technologies, a rapidly evolving
fade, we should start to see what private credit ecosystem and
“trend” economic growth looks like intervention from governments,
in different countries and learn regulators and workers will disrupt
more about where central bank established sectors and create new
policy rates will settle. ones.

Geopolitical tensions Global transitions

Competition between economic Physical climate risks, the carbon
blocs and outright military conflict transition and changing demographics
will affect market dynamics and are driving policy action that will shape
how companies operate and supply financial strategies for businesses and
goods. households.

Source: Moody’s Ratings, Credit Conditions – Global 2026 Outlook - Politics, innovation and extreme weather will drive credit conditions, November 2025

Business development bank - Rating Transparency Presentation, December 2025 4

Our outlook for Global banks is stable

Source: Moody‘s Ratings, Banks – Global: 2026 Outlook – Stable as economic growth, lower rates support asset quality, 3 December 2025
The Industry Outlook (positive, stable or negative) indicates our forward-looking assessment of fundamental credit conditions that will affect the creditworthiness of the [Region] banking industry over the next 12-18 months. As such, the outlook provides our view of how the operating environment for the industry, including
macroeconomic, competitive, and regulatory trends, will affect, among other things, asset quality, capital, funding, liquidity, and profitability. Since outlooks represent our forward-looking view on credit conditions that factor into our ratings, a negative (positive) outlook suggests that negative (positive) rating actions are more
likely on average. However, the outlook does not represent a sum of upgrades, downgrades, or ratings under review, or an average of the rating outlooks of issuers in the industry, but rather our assessment of the direction of credit fundamentals overall within the industry broadly.

Business development bank - Rating Transparency Presentation, December 2025 5

Risks to our global outlook

Source: Moody‘s Ratings, Global Macro Outlook 2025-26 (February 2025 Update) – US trade policy and government downsizing elevate risks to the global economy, February 2025

Business development bank - Rating Transparency Presentation, July 2025 6

Banks Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS): Key
Regional Trends
Outlook: positive

→ The operating environment will be favorable, partially offset by geopolitical risks

→ Asset quality will be stable
→ Capital adequacy will improve
→ Profitability will be broadly stable
→ Liquidity will remain strong
→ Levels of government support will depend on fiscal capacity

Source: Moody‘s Ratings, Banks – Global: 2025 outlook – Improves to stable, underpinned by stabilizing economic growth, December 2024

Business development bank - Rating Transparency Presentation, December 2025 7

Overview of key drivers of the stable outlook on the
Uzbekistan’s banking system

Source: Moody‘s Ratings, Banking System Outlook – Uzbekistan – Robust economy and solid capital buffers support the stable outlook, 26 February 2025

Business development bank - Rating Transparency Presentation, December 2025 8

Key Issuer Messages

Business development bank - Rating Transparency Presentation, December 2025 9

Moody’s Bank Methodology
A sequential analysis generates expected loss-based ratings for each instrument class

Baseline Credit Assessment Support & Structural Analysis

Methodology steps

Macro Financial Qualitative Baseline Credit Affiliate Adjusted BCA Loss Given Government Final
Profile Profile Adjustments Assessment (BCA) Support Failure (LGF) Support Credit Ratings
analysis

Baseline Credit Assessment Support and Structural Analysis

The BCA analyzes a bank’s financials and operating environment to capture its standalone Moody’s individual credit ratings speak to each credit instrument’s expected loss
probability of failure Support and Structural Analysis:
BCA Components: → Affiliate Support: Adjusts the BCA to capture the likelihood of affiliate support from
→ Macro Profile: Captures the bank’s operating and economic environment parent and/or cooperative group support, resulting in the Adjusted BCA
→ Financial Profile: Captures the bank’s financial health gauging key solvency and liquidity → The Loss Given Failure (LGF) analysis: Captures the risks different creditors are
ratios together with supplemental financial metrics and judgments, creating a forward- exposed to in the event of the bank’s failure, absent government support
looking assessment
→ Government Support: Captures the extent to which risk to each creditor class is
→ Qualitative Adjustments: Adjust Financial Profile to reflect nonfinancial qualitative mitigated by public support and adds uplift at the instrument class level
judgments

Source: Moody‘s Ratings

Business development bank - Rating Transparency Presentation, December 2025 10

Ratings summary
Risk is sensitive to a creditor’s position in the liability structure, and our ratings are
positioned accordingly
Ratings / Assessments Rating Outlook / Review

Counterparty Risk Rating (LT / ST) B1/NP

Counterparty Risk Assessment (LT / ST) B1(cr)/NP(cr)

Deposit rating (LT / ST) B1/NP

Stable*

Baseline Credit Assessment caa1

Adjusted Baseline Credit Assessment caa1

*Long-term outlook

Source: Moody‘s Ratings as of December 2025

Business development bank - Rating Transparency Presentation, December 2025 11

Credit strengths and challenges
Credit Strengths Credit Challenges
→ Very high likelihood of the bank receiving government support → Asset quality challenged by external shocks and weak
because of its state ownership and socially important niche underwriting standards
franchise in small business lending
→ Stable funding, mainly stemming from government-related → Profitability strained by heavy provisioning charges
sources
→ Weak capital adequacy

Scorecard Ratios
Business development bank BCA: caa Median caa rated banks
0
0
0
50
Solvency Factors

iquidity Factors
0

00 0
5 5
20
2
0
0
Asset Risk: Capital: Profitability: Funding Structure: iquid Resources:
Problem oans Tangible Common et ncome ess stable Funds Core Banking iquidity
Gross oans quity Risk eighted Tangible Assets Tangible Banking Tangible Banking
Assets Assets Assets
Solvency Factors S iquidity Factors R S

Source: Moody‘s Ratings as of December 2025

Business development bank - Rating Transparency Presentation, December 2025 12

Rating outlook and factors that could lead to a rating
change
→ The stable outlook on BDB's B1 long-term bank deposit ratings reflects persistent risks related to the
performance of its loan portfolio and its profitability, which are however balanced by regular equity injections
by the government, which mitigate these risks.

Factors that Could Lead to an Upgrade Factors that Could Lead to a Downgrade
→ An improvement in BDB's asset quality and capital adequacy, → BDB's long-term deposit ratings and BCA could be
coupled with sustainable robust profitability could lead to a BCA downgraded if there is material erosion of the bank's financial
upgrade or change in the outlook on the bank's long-term deposit fundamentals, namely asset quality, capitalisation or liquidity.
ratings to positive in the next 12-18 months.
→ BDB's long-term deposit ratings could also be downgraded if
the Government of Uzbekistan appears less likely to continue
to support the bank, which is not currently expected.

Source: Moody‘s Ratings, Credit Opinion, 25 June 2025

Business development bank - Rating Transparency Presentation, December 2025 13

Baseline Credit Assessment

Business development bank - Rating Transparency Presentation, December 2025 14

 Baseline Credit Assessment (BCA) structure
The BCA describes the probability of a bank defaulting on any of its rated
instruments - in the absence of external support - incorporating a weighted Macro
Profile based on its exposures
→ The BCA analyses a bank’s financials in the context of its operating environment

1 2 3
Methodology steps

Macro Profile Financial Profile Qualitative Adjustments

→ The Financial Profile is adjusted to Baseline Credit
→ The Macro Profile captures the bank’s → The Financial Profile captures the bank’s
financial health reflect nonfinancial qualitative Assessment
operating and economic environment
adjustments (BCA)
→ The bank’s solvency and liquidity are
assessed by five key financial ratios Constrained by Sovereign
→ Considerations of quantitative, qualitative Rating or
and forward-looking assessments inform Affiliate BCA
the sub-factor adjustments
Bank Specific

Macro Profile Financial Profile Qualitative Factors BCA Range BCA

Weak - caa1 0 b3 – caa2 caa1

Business development bank - Rating Transparency Presentation, December 2025 15

 Macro Profile (I)
Uzbekistan’s Macro Profile
Economic Institutions and Susceptibility to Event Key:
Strength Governance Strength* Risk** Sovereign Component
baa2 b3 ba Banking Component

Banking Country Risk (Range)*** Credit Funding Industry

Conditions Conditions Structure
Weak + to Weak - Adjustment Adjustment Adjustment
0 -1 0

Banking System Macro Profile

Weak-

Very Weak - Very Strong +

*Excluding adjustment related to sovereign default history and track record of arrears **Excluding risks related to the banking sector ***The initial score is expressed as a three-notch range. We then
assign a single score that is within this range.

Macro Profile builds on three components from our sovereign scorecard, and three banking components. Credit Conditions factor weighted
more as metrics deteriorate.

Business development bank - Rating Transparency Presentation, December 2025 16

Macro Profile (II)
Breakdown of geographic exposures determines the weighted Macro Profile
→ Where a bank operates in a range of countries, the applicable Macro Profile will usually be a weighted average of the Macro
Profiles of the principal countries in which the bank operates.
→ We typically weight the individual profiles by balance-sheet presence in each system, as measured by Total Assets.
→ n this way, each bank’s Macro Profile reflects the mix of its activity and each score incorporates this assessment For example,
two banks with the same capital ratio could receive different initial capital scores depending on their Macro Profile.

Current Macro Profile Sensitivity Analysis for Weighted Macro Profile

Weighted Macro Profile if
Macro Profile +1 Improvement of -1 Deterioration of
Country / Region Macro Profile* Weight
calculation Country Macro Profile Country Macro Profile

Uzbekistan Weak - 100% Weak Very Weak +

Weighted The Weighted Macro Profile is sensitive to a deterioration and to an improvement of the
Weak -
Macro Profile Uzbekistan’s Macro Profile

Note: * Macro Profiles for each geography are available on [Link]

Source: Moody‘s Ratings and company information

Business development bank - Rating Transparency Presentation, December 2025 17

Financial Profile
Assigned scores incorporate forward-looking expectations, qualitative and/or
quantitative metrics to inform sub-factor adjustments
→ Initial scores reflect financial ratios calibrated with the weighted Macro profile and thresholds
→ Assigned scores incorporate forward-looking expectations, qualitative aspects and stress scenarios

Financial Factors Assigned Scores and Drivers

Expected
Historical Ratio Initial Score Assigned Score Key Driver #1 Key Driver #2
Trend
Asset Risk (25%) Collateral and
17.5% caa2 caa2 Expected trend
Problem Loans / Gross Loans provisioning coverage
Capital (25%)
10.0% caa1 caa1 Expected trend Access to capital
Tangible Common Equity / RWA
Profitability (15%)
-1.5% caa3 caa1 Expected trend
Net Income / Tangible Assets
Combined Solvency Score (65%) caa2 caa1
Funding Structure (20%) Market funding
69.3% caa1 b3
Less-stable Funds / Tangible Banking Assets quality
Liquid Resources (15%)
7.8% b3 b2 Expected trend
Core Banking Liquidity / Tangible Banking Assets
Combined Liquidity Score (35%) caa1 b3
Financial Profile caa2 * caa1
Note: * The Macro Adjusted Financial Profile caa2 is sensitive to a deterioration, but no sensitive to improvement of the Weighted Macro Profile

Source: Moody‘s Ratings, Business development bank as of December 2025

Business development bank - Rating Transparency Presentation, December 2025 18

Peer analysis – Asset Quality
Asset quality strained by supply-chain disruptions and weak underwriting standards
2021 2022 2023 2024 H1 2025

→ We expect BDB's asset quality to improve steadily over the next 12-18 70%
62.8%

months because of the cleanup of the bank's loan book since Q3 2023 and 60%

Problem Loans / Gross Loans

continued economic growth in Uzbekistan, which supports borrowers' debt 50%

servicing capacity. Most problem loans (PLs; defined as Stage 3 loans 40%

disclosed under IFRS 9) were identified and had crystallised by mid-2024. 30%
23.3%

→ BDB's asset quality continued to deteriorate in 2024 following supply-chain 20%

9.9%
15.2% 15.5%16.3%

disruptions due to the Russia-Ukraine military conflict and black-outs in 10% 5.1%5.8%

Uzbekistan which happened in winter 2022-2023 and in summer 2023 with 0%

Business development bank JSCB Microcreditbank Development Bank of Banque du Caire SAE Co-operative Bank of Kenya
PLs increasing to 24% of gross loans as of mid-2025 from 20% as of year-end (caa2) (caa2) Mongolia LLC
(caa3)
(caa2) Limited
(caa3)

2023. Although lending and leasing to corporate clients accounted for 54% of Source: Moody‘s Ratings

the loan book, it comprised 73% of PLs as of mid-2025. The deterioration is Business JSCB Development Bank Banque du Caire Co-operative Bank
attributable to weakened payment discipline of corporate borrowers because development bank Microcreditbank of Mongolia LLC SAE of Kenya Limited

of external shocks and weak underwriting standards at BDB in general. Macro Profile Weak - Weak - Weak - Very Weak Very Weak +

→ We expect that most of the problems have already been identified. The PL PL % Gross Loans 24.0% 16.6% 62.8% 6.1% 15.2%

ratio is expected to decrease in the next 12-18 months amid the ongoing Initial Score caa2 caa2 caa3 caa2 caa2

cleanup of the corporate loan book. We assign an Asset Risk score of caa2 to Notching 0 0 0 0 -1
reflect the expected trends
Assigned Score caa2 caa2 caa3 caa2 caa3

Key Driver #1 - Expected trend - Quality of assets Quality of assets

Collateral and Collateral and

Key Driver #2 - - Expected trend
provisioning coverage provisioning coverage

Macro Adjusted Score = Worse of last reported or average (3 year + YTD)

Source: Moody‘s Ratings as of December 2025

Business development bank - Rating Transparency Presentation, December 2025 19

Peer analysis – Capital
Capital adequacy is strained by net losses because of significant provisioning charges
→ The bank's tangible common equity (TCE)/risk-weighted assets (RWA) improved to 6.9% as 2021 2022 2023 2024 H1 2025
25%
of June 2024, up from 4.0% as of year-end 2023. Capital remains weak compared to local 21.8%
21.1%
peers. The deterioration after 2020 was mainly caused by the rapid expansion of the loan
20%
portfolio in 2021-23 and net losses reported since 2022 largely because of significant
provisioning charges. Following the change in the bank's mandate in 2023, BDB received 15.2%
14.4%
15% 13.9%

TCE / RWA
capital support from the government, FRDU and MinEcoFin by June 2024, injected equity in 12.3%
form of common shares to over UZS3 bln (61% increase compared to the year-end 2023 or 10.0%
10% 8.7%
4.2% compared to RWAs of 2023). Additional UZS2.2 trillion in equity support was injected in
the second half of 2024 according to the local standards by MinEcoFin, equivalent to another
5%
8.1% of 2023 RWAs.
→ We expect modest loan book growth in 2025-26 because of the ongoing cleanup of the bank's 0%
Business development bank JSCB Microcreditbank Development Bank of Banque du Caire SAE Co-operative Bank of Kenya
loan portfolio and a relaunch of its lending activity, as well as loss making net financial results Source: Moody‘s Ratings
(caa1) (ba3) Mongolia LLC (caa1) Limited
(b1) (b2)
for 2024 and modest net profit in 2025. Together with equity support from shareholders, this
could result in an increase in the TCE ratio to 9%-10% in the next 12-18 months, which is Business JSCB Development Bank Banque du Caire Co-operative Bank of
development bank Microcreditbank of Mongolia LLC SAE Kenya Limited
reflected in the assigned Capital score of caa1. Meanwhile, the Texas ratio, which reflects the
coverage of PLs by reserves and TCE, will improve significantly to 50% in the next 12-18 Macro Profile Weak - Weak - Weak - Very Weak Very Weak +
months from 115% as of year-end 2023.
TCE % RWA 6.9% 17.6% 12.3% 11.0% 14.0%
→ BDB reported a statutory Common Equity Tier 1 (CET1) capital ratio and a Total capital ratio
Initial Score caa1 ba2 b2 caa2 b2
of 14.6% and 19.5%, respectively, as of 31 of December 2024, well above the regulatory
thresholds of 8% and 10%. The bank's capital adequacy benefits from the low-risk weight Notching 0 -1 1 1 0
applied to loans secured by residential properties, as allowed by both Basel I and the local
regulation. Assigned Score caa1 ba3 b1 caa1 b2

→ Despite large capital injections in 2024 and expected ongoing support from the state to BDB, Key Driver #1 - Expected trend Expected trend Access to capital
Risk-weighted
capitalisation
we expect that resumed growth in 2025-2026, still high provisioning charges as well as legacy
Key Driver #2 - - - Expected trend -
asset problems will continue to weigh down its capital profile. Because of these risks as well
as metrics volatility we assign caa1 score for capital. Macro Adjusted Score = Worse of last reported or average (3 year + YTD)
Source: Moody‘s Ratings as of December 2025

Business development bank - Rating Transparency Presentation, December 2025 20

Peer analysis – Profitability
Profitability affected by heavy provisioning charges, although recovery is likely amid
moderation of credit costs 4%
2021 2022 2023 2024 H1 2025
3.5% 3.5%
2.9%
2.6%
→ We expect BDB's profitability to recover over the next 12-18 months as cost of risk 3%

Net Income / Tangible Assets

2%
normalises and business activity accelerates, supported by the ongoing cleanup of 1.1%
1%
the loan book, and favourable operating conditions. Our assigned caa1 Profitability
0%
score reflects our expectation that the bank's return on tangible assets will improve -1% -0.3%
significantly in the next 12-18 months, mainly because of lower provisioning charges. -2%

→ For the first half of 2024, the bank reported a net loss of UZS219 billion, mainly -3%

-4%
because of significant provisioning charges of 6.0% of the average gross loan book. -4.0%
-5% -4.3%
In the next 12-18 months, BDB's profitability will remain supported by the bank's Business development bank JSCB Microcreditbank Development Bank of Mongolia Banque du Caire SAE Co-operative Bank of Kenya
(caa1) (caa3) LLC (b3) Limited
strong net interest margin (NIM), which was 6.8% in the first half of 2024, reflecting Source: Moody‘s Ratings
(caa2) (ba1)

its access to low-cost government-related funding and high interest rates. The bank
managed to improve its operating efficiency, with the cost-to-income ratio declining to Business JSCB Development Bank of Banque du Caire Co-operative Bank of
development bank Microcreditbank Mongolia LLC SAE Kenya Limited
44% in the first half of 2024 from 62% a year earlier. However, the bank's bottom-line
Macro Profile Weak - Weak - Weak - Very Weak Very Weak +
performance has been and will continue to be constrained by significantly higher
provisioning charges, leading to a net loss for the second consecutive year Net Income % TA -1.5% -2.6% -0.3% 1.7% 3.4%

→ Return on tangible assets was a negative 1.5% for the first 6 months of 2024, Initial Score caa3 caa3 caa2 b3 ba1
compared with negative 1.8% for the full year 2023. We expect credit costs to
Notching 2 0 0 0 0
moderate gradually in 2025 and 2026 as most PLs were identified and crystallised.
This will lead to an improvement in the net financial result over the next 12-18 Assigned Score caa1 caa3 caa2 b3 ba1
months, but the results will still be weighed down by legacy loan provisioning. We
Key Driver #1 - Expected trend - Expected trend Return on assets
assign a Profitability score of caa1, which reflects expected trends and a two-notch
downward adjustment for highly volatile profitability in recent two-three years. Key Driver #2 - - - - Expected trend

Macro Adjusted Score = Worse of last reported or average (3 year + YTD)

Source: Moody‘s Ratings as of December 2025

Business development bank - Rating Transparency Presentation, December 2025 21

Peer analysis – Funding Structure
High reliance on the long-term government-related and IFI funding
2024 H1 2025
80%

Less-stable Funds / Tangible Banking Assets

69.3% 67.4%
→ We expect BDB's liquidity and funding to remain broadly stable
70%

60%
over the next 12-18 months, reflecting its high reliance on long- 50%

term financing provided by the government and international 40%

28.7%
financial institutions (IFIs), which accounted for 61% of tangible 30%
21.7%
18.6%
assets as of mid-2024. We adjust the Funding Structure score 20%
8.2%
14.2%

10%
upwards by one notches to b3 to reflect the long-term nature of this
0%
funding and its limited refinancing risks. We estimate that the share Business development bank JSCB Microcreditbank Development Bank of
Mongolia LLC
Banque du Caire SAE Co-operative Bank of Kenya
Limited

of the government in the bank's liabilities, including state-owned Source: Moody‘s Ratings

enterprises and state-owned banks, was around half of the total as

of mid-2024
→ Because the government's subsidised mortgage programme is
subject to a gradual phaseout, BDB increasingly attracts customer
deposits, leveraging its status as a state-owned bank. In the first
half of 2024, customer funds decreased by 7% compared to 20%
growth for the full year 2023 and 20%.

Macro Adjusted Score = Worse of last reported or average (3 year + YTD)

Source: Moody‘s Ratings as of December 2025

Business development bank - Rating Transparency Presentation, December 2025 22

Peer analysis – Liquid Resources
High reliance on the long-term government-related and IFI funding
2024 H1 2025
30%

Core Banking Liquidity / Tangible Banking

24.1%
→ At the same time, BDB's liquidity improved in the first half of 2024, 25%

19.5%
although from a low base. The liquid asset buffer increased to 23% 20%
16.5%

of total assets as of mid-2024 based, from 15% as of year-end

Assets
15% 13.5%

2023. We expect this buffer to remain in the short-medium term, as 10% 7.8%

the bank processes newly acquired government funds and 5%

5.8%
5.0%

resumes its lending growth. We expect liquidity buffer to remain 0%

above 20% of assets in the next 12-18 months, which is reflected Business development
bank
JSCB Microcreditbank Development Bank of
Mongolia LLC
Banque du Caire SAE Co-operative Bank of
Kenya Limited

in the assigned b2 Liquid Resources score. Source: Moody‘s Ratings

Macro Adjusted Score = Worse of last reported or average (3 year + YTD)

Source: Moody‘s Ratings as of December 2025

Business development bank - Rating Transparency Presentation, December 2025 23

Qualitative Adjustments
We may adjust our initial BCA by one or more notches if we judge any of these
factors has a material bearing on the bank’s overall risk profile
1 2 3
BUSINESS & GEOGRAPHICAL COMPLEXITY & OPACITY STRATEGY, RISK APPETITE &
DIVERSIFICATION GOVERNANCE
Gauges a bank’s sensitivity to deterioration in a single An institution’s riskiness increases with its complexity, other An overly aggressive or unsustainable business strategy and
Methodology adjustments

business line or within its core geographic operating area. things being equal. Some balance sheets are particularly a risk appetite that exceeds that of peer institutions are often
+ Positive adjustments opaque, creating additional challenges in accurately principal causes of bank failure.
assessing financial risk. + Positive adjustments
→ Diverse range of business activities & funding sources
+ Positive adjustments → E.g. sustained exemplary stewardship over time with
→ Broad diversification across markets, with
demonstrated low levels of interconnectedness → None tangible impact on the risk profile

→ Stability provided by exceptional record of earnings

stability and consistently low asset risk - Negative adjustments - Negative adjustments
→ Complex organizational structure, complex legal → Business model risk
- Negative adjustments structure, complex or long-dated exposures to other → Aggressive growth plan (growth in tangible banking
financial institutions assets materially > nominal GDP growth)
→ Monoline activities (>3/4 earnings from single activity)
→ Significant exposure to derivatives, unreliable → Shrinking balance sheet
→ Single line of business is very volatile (e.g. Shipping, accounting or low level of financial disclosure
construction, commercial real estate, technology) → Key man risk, insider and related party risks,
→ Operate within a small geographic area, or have very management risks
concentrated and correlated customer base → Dividend policy, compensation policy, accounting
policies
Bank specific

0 0 0
& peers13

Total Qualitative Adjustments: 0

0 0 0

Source: Moody‘s Ratings as of December 2025

Business development bank - Rating Transparency Presentation, December 2025 24

Baseline Credit Assessment summary
1

Weak -
→ The Weighted Macro Profile is sensitive to a deterioration and to
an improvement of the Uzbekistan’s Macro Profile
Macro Profile

2
→ The Macro Adjusted Financial Profile caa2 is sensitive to a
caa1 deterioration, but no sensitive to improvement of the Weighted
Financial Profile Macro Profile

0
→ Business development bank is not subject to
qualitative adjustments.
Qualitative Adjustments

→ BCA is positioned at the middle of the proposed scorecard

Range: caa2 – b3 range.
Baseline Credit Assigned: caa1
Assessment (BCA)

Source: Moody‘s Ratings as of December 2025

Business development bank - Rating Transparency Presentation, December 2025 25

Peer analysis – BCA Scorecard
BCA Scorecard of peers
Qualitative
Asset Quality Capital Profitability Funding Structure Liquid Resources
Adjustments

Assigned
Macro Financial BCA Watch

Diversification
Bank

Geographical

Complexity &

Strategy, risk

Governance
Business &
Profile Less- Core Profile /Recomme Status

appetite &
PL % Net

Opacity
Initial Not- TCE % Initial Not- Initial Not- stable Initial Not- Banking Initial Not- ndation
Gross Assigned Assigned Income Assigned Assigned Assigned
Score ching RWA Score ching Score ching Funds % Score ching Liquidity Score ching
Loans % TA
TBA % TBA

Business development STA Not

Weak - 24.0% caa2 0 caa2 6.9% caa1 0 caa1 -1.5% caa3 2 caa1 caa1 0 0 0 caa1
bank on Watch
Not on
JSCB Microcreditbank Weak - 16.6% caa2 0 caa2 17.6% ba2 -1 ba3 -2.6% caa3 0 caa3 b3 0 0 0 b3
Watch
Development Bank of STA Not
Weak - 62.8% caa3 0 caa3 12.3% b2 1 b1 -0.3% caa2 0 caa2 caa1 0 0 0 caa1
Mongolia LLC on Watch
Very Not on
Banque du Caire SAE 6.1% caa2 0 caa2 11.0% caa2 1 caa1 1.7% b3 0 b3 caa1 0 0 0 caa1
Weak Watch
Co-operative Bank of Very Not on
15.2% caa2 -1 caa3 14.0% b2 0 b2 3.4% ba1 0 ba1 b3 0 0 0 caa1
Kenya Limited Weak + Watch
Common Adjustments Quality of assets Risk-weighted capitalisation Return on assets
Expected trend Expected trend Expected trend
Collateral and provisioning
Access to capital -
coverage
- - -

Source: Moody‘s Ratings as of December 2025

Business development bank - Rating Transparency Presentation, December 2025 26

Support and Structural Analysis

Business development bank - Rating Transparency Presentation, December 2025 27

Support and structural analysis
The Loss Given Failure component responds to resolution regimes and captures the
expected loss of each instrument class in the event of failure

1 2 3
Methodology steps

Affiliate Support Loss Given Failure Government Support

Baseline Credit Adjusted BCA Final Credit
Assessment (BCA) Ratings
→ The Affiliate Support adjusts → The LGF Analysis captures → The Government Support
the BCA to capture the the risk that different creditors captures the extent to
likelihood of affiliate support are exposed to in the event of which risks to creditors are
from parent and cooperative the failure of a bank, absent mitigated by public support
group support government support
→ The Government Support
→ The Affiliate Support uplift is → We distinguish between uplift is added to each
added up to the BCA to Operational Resolution instrument class after
determine the Adjusted BCA Regimes (ORR) where we potential LGF uplift
apply the Advanced LGF and
non-ORR where we apply the
basic LGF notching

Loss Given
Bank specific

BCA Affiliate Support Adjusted BCA Government Support Final Outcome

Failure Analysis
Counterparty Risk Assessment: +1 2 B1(cr)

caa1 0 caa1 Counterparty Risk Rating: +1 2 B1

Deposit Rating: 0 3 B1

Source: Moody‘s Ratings as of December 2025

Business development bank - Rating Transparency Presentation, December 2025 28

Government Support
Government Support captures the extent to which risks to each creditor class are
mitigated by public support
→ There is a very high likelihood of government support for BDB's deposits. This assumption results in a three-notches uplift of the bank's long-term deposit ratings of B1 from
its BCA of caa1. Our assessment is based on BDB's state ownership because the bank is controlled by MinEcoFin (53.1%) and the FRDU (45.8%); the recent track record
of material equity and funding support from the government, and BDB's new role as the state's agent for developing small and medium sized businesses, a socially
important niche franchise in Uzbekistan.

Assumptions
Supporting authority Uzbekistan
Support
provider Creditworthiness of support provider Ba3
Dependence Very High

Preliminary Notching Assigned

Level of
Instrument class Rating guidance Government Rating
support
Government Assessment (Min - Mid - Max) Support uplift
Support Counterparty Risk Assessment Very High 2-2-3 2 B1 (cr)
uplift b3 (cr)
Counterparty Risk Rating b3 Very High 2-2-3 2 B1
Deposits caa1 Very High 2-3-4 3 B1

Source: Moody‘s Ratings as of December 2025

Business development bank - Rating Transparency Presentation, December 2025 29

Government Support
Nothces of government support relative to bank’s market share

Source: Moody‘s Ratings

Business development bank - Rating Transparency Presentation, December 2025 30

Support and structural analysis summary
Baseline Credit
Assessment (BCA)
caa1 → BCA is positioned at the middle of the proposed scorecard range.

4
Affiliate Support 0 → Business development bank does not benefit from affiliate
support.

Adjusted BCA caa1 → In the absence of affiliate support Adjusted BCA is same as assigned BCA.

5 CR Assessment: +1
Loss Given Failure CR Rating: +1
Deposits: 0

6 CR Assessment: +2
Government Support CR Rating: +2 → There is a very high likelihood of government support for BDB's deposits. This assumption results in
Deposits: +3 a three-notches uplift of the bank's long-term deposit ratings of B1 from its BCA of caa1.

CR Assessment: B1(cr)
Final Credit CR Ratings: B1 → The stable outlook on BDB's B1 long-term bank deposit ratings reflects persistent risks related to the
Ratings Deposits: B1, Stable performance of its loan portfolio and its profitability, which are however balanced by regular equity
injections by the government, which mitigate these risks.

Source: Moody‘s Ratings as of December 2025

Business development bank - Rating Transparency Presentation, December 2025 31

Peer analysis – Notching
Notching of peers

Preliminary Rating Assessment Final Instrument Outcome

Assigned Affiliate Adjusted

Bank
BCA Support BCA LGF LGF LGF LGF Senior Senior
Deposits Gov. Gov. Gov. Deposits Gov.
Instrum. CRR Instrum. CRA Instrum. Instrum. Unsec. CRR CRA Unsecure
(LC) Support Support Support (LC) Support
Notching Notching Notching Notching (LC) d (FC)

Business
caa1 0 caa1 1 b3 1 b3 (cr) 0 caa1 - - 2 B1 2 B1(cr) 3 B1 - -
development bank
JSCB
b3 0 b3 1 b2 1 b2 (cr) 0 b3 - - 2 Ba3 2 Ba3(cr) 3 Ba3 - -
Microcreditbank
Development Bank
caa1 0 caa1 1 b3 1 b3 (cr) - - 0 caa1 2 B1 2 B1(cr) - - 3 B1
of Mongolia LLC
Banque du Caire
caa1 0 caa1 1 b3 1 b3 (cr) 0 caa1 - - 0 B3 0 B3(cr) 0 Caa1 - -
SAE
Co-operative Bank
caa1 0 caa1 1 b3 1 b3 (cr) 0 caa1 - - 0 B3 0 B3(cr) 0 Caa1 - -
of Kenya Limited

All ratings shown in the table are foreign currency ratings, unless specified differently

Source: Moody‘s Ratings as of July 2025

Business development bank - Rating Transparency Presentation, December 2025 32

Moody’s Ratings ESG integration into
credit

Business development bank - Rating Transparency Presentation, December 2025 33

Four Components to Moody’s Ratings Integration of ESG
New ESG scores will assist in transparently and systematically demonstrating the impact of
ESG on credit ratings
Credit Ratings & Research ESG Classification
How is ESG integrated into credit What is ESG?
ratings? Our classification reports describe
ESG factors taken into how we define and categorize E, S
consideration for all credit ratings. and G considerations that are
Greater transparency in PRs, as well material to credit quality. New
as Credit opinions. Credit Impact environmental classification
Score (CIS) is an output of the sharpens focus on physical
rating process that indicates the climate risks.
ESG
extent, if any, to which ESG factors Analytical
impact the rating of an issuer or Tools
transaction.
ESG Scores Heat Maps
How is a specific issuer exposed to Is ESG material to credit quality?
ESG risks/benefits? Heat maps provide relative ranking
Issuer Profile Scores (IPS) are of various sectors along the E and
issuer-specific scores that assess S classification of risks.
an entity’s exposure to the
categories of risks in the ESG
classification from a credit
perspective. IPSs, where available,
are inputs to credit ratings.

Business development bank - Rating Transparency Presentation, December 2025 34

ESG Classification System Incorporates Credit Relevant
Considerations
Our assessment of ESG risks is framed by the classification

Environmental Social Governance

Private sector Public sector Private sector Public sector
Access to Financial strategy & risk
Physical climate risks Customer relations Institutional structure
basic services management

Demographic and societal Management credibility & Policy credibility and

Carbon transition Demographics
trends track record effectiveness

Budget
Water management Human capital Education Organizational structure
management

Board structure, policies & Transparency and

Waste and pollution Health and safety Health and safety
procedures disclosure

Responsible Housing Compliance & reporting

Natural capital
production

Labor and income

Source: Moody’s Ratings

Business development bank - Rating Transparency Presentation, December 2025 35

ESG integration into Credit Ratings: Overview
E, S Sector Heatmaps ESG Issuer Profile Scores (IPS) Credit Rating Process ESG Credit Impact Score (CIS)

Expressed on 4-point scale Expressed on 5-point scale Expressed on 5-point scale

Risk categories E, S, G scores Sector-specific

E
Methodologies
→ Carbon transition → Carbon transition → Methodology Scorecard /
CIS-1
→ Physical climate risks → Physical climate risks Model
→ Water management → Water management Environmental IPS
ENVIRONMENTAL →
→
Waste and pollution
Natural capital
→
→
Waste and pollution
Natural capital
→ Other Considerations
CIS-2

S
→ Customer relations → Customer relations
→
→
Human capital
Demographic and societal
→
→
Human capital
Demographic and societal
Social IPS
CIS-3
trends trends
→ Health and safety → Health and safety
SOCIAL → Responsible production → Responsible production
CIS-4
→ Financial strategy and risk

G
management ESG Cross Sector
→ Management credibility and
Methodology
→
track record
Organizational structure
Governance IPS
CIS-5
→ Compliance and reporting
GOVERNANCE → Board structure and policies

STEP 1 STEP 2A STEP 2B STEP 3 STEP 4

INPUT OUTPUT
IPSs are issuer-specific scores that assess exposure to the Output of the credit rating process that
ESG risk categories from a credit perspective communicates the impact of ESG
considerations on the rating of an issuer or
transaction.

Business development bank - Rating Transparency Presentation, December 2025 36

Moody’s Ratings ESG scores explained
Our scores are NOT an opinion about a company’s sustainability performance or
ESG disclosures

Credit Impact Score (CIS) Issuer Profile Scores (IPS)

Reflects the impact of ESG on the credit rating PS is our assessment of the issuer’s exposure to nvironmental
NOT a combination of E, S and G-IPS (E), Social (S) or Governance (G) risks / benefits material to credit
risk including relevant mitigants
Example of Score: Example of Scores:

ENVIRONMENTAL SOCIAL GOVERNANCE

CIS-4
E-4 S-2 G-1

→ Indicates the extent to which the credit rating would have been → Scores are global and comparable across sectors
different in the absence of ESG issues → ncorporate management’s action mitigants
→ Places ESG in the context of other rating considerations → E-1, S-1 or G-1 assigned only when considerations have material
→ CIS-1 assigned only if the credit rating is better because of ESG credit benefits
factors

Scoring scale: 5 4 3 2 1

Business development bank - Rating Transparency Presentation, December 2025 37

E, S and G issuer profile scoring scale
Assessed on a five-point scale
Score Definition
E-1 Issuers or transactions with an issuer profile score of 1 typically have exposures to E or S issues that carry material credit benefits.
S-1 For G, issuers or transactions typically have exposure to G considerations that, in the context of their sector, positions them strongly, with material credit
benefits.
G-1
Issuers or transactions with an issuer profile score of 2 typically have exposures to E or S issues that are not material in differentiating credit quality. In
E-2 other words, they could be overall slightly credit-positive, credit neutral, or slightly credit-negative. An issuer or transaction may have a IPS score of 2
S-2 because the exposure is not material or because there are mitigants specifically related to any E or S risks that are sufficient to offset those risks.

G-2 Issuers or transactions with an issuer profile score of 2 typically have exposure to G considerations that, in the context of their sector, positions them as
average, and the exposure is overall neither credit-positive nor negative.

E-3 Issuers or transactions with an issuer profile score of 3 typically have moderate credit exposures to E or S risks. These issuers may demonstrate some
mitigants specifically related to the identified E or S risks, but they are not sufficiently material to fully offset the risks.
S-3
Issuers or transactions with an issuer profile score of 3 typically have moderate credit exposure to G risks that, in the context of the sector, positions
G-3 them below average.

E-4 Issuers or transactions with an issuer profile score of 4 typically have high credit exposures to E or S risks. These issuers may demonstrate some
mitigants specifically tied to the E or S risks identified, but they generally have limited effect on the risks.
S-4
Issuers or transactions with an issuer profile score of 4 typically have high credit exposure to G risks that, in the context of their sector, positions them
G-4 more weakly than issuers with an issuer profile score of 3.

E-5 Issuers or transactions with an issuer profile score of 5 typically have very high credit exposures to E or S risks. While these issuers or transactions may
demonstrate some mitigants specifically related to the identified E or S risks, they are not meaningful relative to the magnitude of the risks.
S-5
Issuers or transactions with an issuer profile score of 5 typically have very high credit exposure to G risks that in the context of their sector, positions
G-5 them more weakly than issuers with an issuer profile score of 4.
Source: Moody’s Ratings

Business development bank - Rating Transparency Presentation, December 2025 38

ESG credit impact score (CIS) scale
Score Definition

CIS-1 ESG Considerations have a positive impact on the current rating which is higher than it would have been in
the absence of ESG considerations.

ESG considerations do not have a material impact on the current rating.

CIS-2

ESG considerations have a limited impact on the current rating, with potential for greater negative impact
CIS-3 over time.

ESG considerations have a discernible impact on the current rating, which is lower than it would have been
CIS-4 if ESG risks did not exist. The negative impact of ESG considerations on the rating is higher than for an
issuer scored CIS-3.

ESG considerations have a pronounced impact on the current rating, which is lower than it would have
CIS-5 been if ESG risks did not exist. The negative impact of ESG considerations on the rating is higher than for
an issuer scored CIS-4.

Business development bank - Rating Transparency Presentation, December 2025 39

ESG Category scores and Aggregation into IPS
→ Sector Category Scores Provide a General Reference Point
Sector category scores are the outcome of qualitative analytical judgment and place each sector in the context of all other rated sectors
and can be useful in fostering E and S IPSs that are consistent across sectors
→ Qualitative judgment used to derive category scores and overall E, S and G issuer profile score
Although our assessment may be informed by metrics, E, S and G category scores, and issuer profile scores are substantially driven by
our qualitative assessment of the risks, benefits and ESG-specific mitigants in each category for that issuer against the scoring scale
definitions.
→ Aggregation for E and S issuer profile scores typically emphasizes the worst category score
We typically put greater weight on the worst categories scores, reflecting our view that the highest risks often outweigh other
considerations. Because E and S risks can be additive, our overall view may be worse than the worst category score. In some cases,
interplay and correlation among categories may lead to a better score than the worst category.
→ Sector-specific issuer profile considerations
For some asset classes (e.g., sovereign), greater data availability allows quantitative weighting and rank ordering approaches.
→ Scoring and aggregation methods for G issuer profile to vary by issuer or transaction
G IPS analysis starts at the issuer- or transaction-level. In some sectors, we may directly use scorecard factor or sub-factor scores, where
relevant, and map those to our category scores. The governance IPS may more often be better than the worst category score because
strengths in some governance categories may provide resilience to other governance categories.

Business development bank - Rating Transparency Presentation, December 2025 40

Sector Risk Heat Map for Banks
Heat maps show how E & S risk materiality varies across sectors, as a starting point
for our analysis

Source: Moody’s Ratings, SG views

Business development bank - Rating Transparency Presentation, December 2025 41

ESG CIS and IPS distribution among banks
Limited credit impact for most, governance acts as mitigant

→ C S: SG factors commonly have a limited impact on most banks’ credit strength

→ E-IPS: As providers of finance to the wider economy, banks are inherently exposed to climate related risks
→ S-IPS: Large retail customer base expose banks to customer relations, a key social risk
→ G-IPS: Governance factors mostly act as mitigants to E and S risks

Source: Moody’s Ratings, SG Views as of December 2025

Business development bank - Rating Transparency Presentation, December 2025 42

CIS score of Business development bank

Commentary:
Business development bank BDB ’s C S-3 indicates that ESG considerations have a limited impact on the current credit
rating with potential for greater negative impact over time reflecting high governance risks related to its ownership by the
government. The credit impact of environmental and social risk factors on the bank's ratings is limited.

Source: Moody’s Ratings, SG Views as of December 2025

Business development bank - Rating Transparency Presentation, December 2025 43

IPS scores of Business development bank
Commentary:
E score: BDB faces moderate environmental risks primarily because of
its portfolio exposure to carbon transition risk. In line with its peers, the
bank is facing mounting business risks to meet broader carbon transition
goals. The bank has low exposure to physical climate risks because of
its limited lending to the agricultural sector.
S score: BDB faces moderate social risks related to customer relations,
tightening regulatory and compliance standards, and the impact of
potential technological disruptions associated with an increasingly
digitally active customer base. However, the bank is generally focused
on intermediation with simpler product ranges with few identified conduct
issues and has been subject to looser regulatory scrutiny on consumer
protection.
G score: BDB’s governance risks are high, weighed down by the
corporate governance risks mainly stemming from (1) the shortcomings
in its credit risk management, and (2) its government ownership. The
latter may give rise to direct lending, entering non-arms-length deals
under the government’s directives and taking politically and socially
motivated decisions that could impair the bank’s financial profile The
bank's compliance, reporting and organisational structure are in line with
industry practices and adequate for business complexity.

Source: Moody’s Ratings, SG Views as of December 2025

Business development bank - Rating Transparency Presentation, December 2025 44

ESG Scores – Peer Comparison

Source: Moody’s Ratings, SG Views as of December 2025

Business development bank - Rating Transparency Presentation, December 2025 45

Appendix

Business development bank - Rating Transparency Presentation, December 2025 46

Financial factors
We combine the Macro Profile and the financial factors to arrive at the Initial
Subfactor Scores
→ e use the Macro Profile to condition the bank’s financial ratios by the relative strength or weakness of the banks’ operating environment
→ Each financial ratio is scored on a global scale before integration of the Macro Profile
→ For a given financial ratio, the weaker the Macro Profile, the lower the score is likely to be assigned to this financial ratio

Asset Risk Macro Profile: Weak - Financial Ratio STEP 1 STEP 2 Initial Subfactor Score

Ratio Asset Risk Factor: Problem Loans / Gross Loans 17.5% VW+ W- caa2

1
VS+ VS VS- S+ S S- M+ M M- W+ W W- VW+ VW VW-
STEP 1 Asset Risk Factor 0.5%- 0.75%- 1%- 1.5%- 2%- 3%- 4%- 5%- 6%- 8%- 10%- 15%- 20%-
≤05 > 25%
Factor Problem Loans / Gross Loans 0.75% 1% 1.5% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 8% 10% 15% 20% 25%

1
VS+ VS VS- S+ S S- M+ M M- W+ W W- VW+ VW VW-
Very Strong + (VS+) aaa aaa aa1 aa1 aa2 aa3 a1 a3 baa1 baa2 ba1 ba3 b2 caa1 caa3
Very Strong (VS) aaa aa1 aa1 aa2 aa3 a1 a2 a3 baa1 baa3 ba1 ba3 b2 caa1 caa3
Very Strong - (VS-) aa1 aa1 aa2 aa2 aa3 a1 a2 baa1 baa2 baa3 ba2 b1 b2 caa1 caa3
STEP 2 Strong + (S+) aa1 aa2 aa2 aa3 a1 a2 a3 baa1 baa2 ba1 ba2 b1 b3 caa1 caa3
Strong (S) aa2 aa2 aa3 a1 a2 a3 baa1 baa2 baa3 ba1 ba3 b1 b3 caa1 caa3
MACRO PROFILE

Deriving Initial Strong - (S-) aa3 aa3 a1 a2 a3 a3 baa2 baa3 ba1 ba2 ba3 b2 b3 caa2 caa3
Subfactor Moderate + (M+) a1 a1 a2 a3 a3 baa1 baa2 baa3 ba2 ba3 b1 b2 b3 caa2 caa3
Moderate (M) a2 a2 a3 baa1 baa1 baa2 baa3 ba1 ba2 ba3 b1 b3 caa1 caa2 caa3
Score Moderate - (M-) a3 a3 baa1 baa2 baa3 baa3 ba1 ba2 ba3 b1 b2 b3 caa1 caa2 caa3
Weak + (W+) baa1 baa2 baa2 baa3 ba1 ba2 ba2 ba3 b1 b2 b3 b3 caa1 caa2 caa3
2Weak (W) baa2 baa3 ba1 ba1 ba2 ba3 ba3 b1 b2 b3 b3 caa1 caa2 caa2 caa3
Weak - (W-) baa3 ba1 ba2 ba3 ba3 b1 b2 b2 b3 b3 caa1 caa1 caa2 caa2 caa3
Very Weak + (VW+) ba1 ba3 ba3 b1 b2 b2 b3 b3 caa1 caa1 caa2 caa2 caa2 caa3 caa3
Very Weak (VW) ba3 b1 b2 b3 b3 caa1 caa1 caa1 caa2 caa2 caa2 caa2 caa3 caa3 caa3
Very Weak - (VW-) b1 b3 caa1 caa1 caa2 caa2 caa2 caa3 caa3 caa3 caa3 caa3 caa3 caa3 caa3
Source: Moody’s Ratings

Business development bank - Rating Transparency Presentation, December 2025 47

Financial factors –Translation table
We combine the Macro Profile and the financial factors to arrive at the Initial Subfactor
Scores
FINANCIAL FACTOR RATIOS CATEGORIES
VS+ VS VS- S+ S S- M+ M M- W+ W W- VW+ VW VW-
ASSET RISK (25%) 0.5%- 0.75%- 1%- 1.5%- 2%- 3%- 4%- 5%- 6%- 8%- 10%- 15%- 20%-
≤05 > 25%
Problem Loans / Gross Loans 0.75% 1% 1.5% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 8% 10% 15% 20% 25%
CAPITAL (25%) 22.5%- 20%- 18.0%- 16%- 14.5%- 13%- 12%- 11%- 10%- 9%- 8%- 7.5%- 7%-
≥ 25 < 7%
TCE / RWA 25% 22.5% 20% 18% 16% 14.5% 13% 12% 11% 10% 9% 8% 7.5%
PROFITABILITY (15%) 2.25%- 2%- 1.75%- 1.5%- 1.25%- 1%- 0.75%- 0.5%- 0.375%- 0.25%- 0.125%- 0%- -1%-
≥ 2.5% < -1%
Net Income / Tangible Assets 2.5% 2.25% 2% 1.75% 1.5% 1.25% 1% 0.75% 0.5% 0.375% 0.25% 0.125% 0%
FUNDING STRUCTURE (20%) 3%- 4%- 7%- 10%- 16%- 22%- 29%- 37%- 45%- 54%- 64%- 75%- 87%-
≤ > 100%
Less-stable funds / TBA 4% 7% 10% 16% 22% 29% 37% 45% 54% 64% 75% 87% 100%
LIQUID RESOURCES (15%) 57.5%- 47.5%- 37.5%- 30%- 22.5%- 17%- 12%- 9%- 7%- 5%- 3%- 2%- 1%-
≥ 70% < 1%
Core banking liquidity / TBA 70% 57.5% 47.5% 37.5% 30% 22.5% 17% 12% 9% 7% 5% 3% 2%

FINANCIAL FACTOR SCORES

Very Strong + (VS+) aaa aaa aa1 aa1 aa2 aa3 a1 a3 baa1 baa2 ba1 ba3 b2 caa1 caa3
Very Strong (VS) aaa aa1 aa1 aa2 aa3 a1 a2 a3 baa1 baa3 ba1 ba3 b2 caa1 caa3
Very Strong - (VS-) aa1 aa1 aa2 aa2 aa3 a1 a2 baa1 baa2 baa3 ba2 b1 b2 caa1 caa3
Strong + (S+) aa1 aa2 aa2 aa3 a1 a2 a3 baa1 baa2 ba1 ba2 b1 b3 caa1 caa3
Strong (S) aa2 aa2 aa3 a1 a2 a3 baa1 baa2 baa3 ba1 ba3 b1 b3 caa1 caa3
Strong - (S-) aa3 aa3 a1 a2 a3 a3 baa2 baa3 ba1 ba2 ba3 b2 b3 caa2 caa3
Macro Profile

Moderate + (M+) a1 a1 a2 a3 a3 baa1 baa2 baa3 ba2 ba3 b1 b2 b3 caa2 caa3

Moderate (M) a2 a2 a3 baa1 baa1 baa2 baa3 ba1 ba2 ba3 b1 b3 caa1 caa2 caa3
Moderate - (M-) a3 a3 baa1 baa2 baa3 baa3 ba1 ba2 ba3 b1 b2 b3 caa1 caa2 caa3
Weak + (W+) baa1 baa2 baa2 baa3 ba1 ba2 ba2 ba3 b1 b2 b3 b3 caa1 caa2 caa3
Weak (W) baa2 baa3 ba1 ba1 ba2 ba3 ba3 b1 b2 b3 b3 caa1 caa2 caa2 caa3
Weak - (W-) baa3 ba1 ba2 ba3 ba3 b1 b2 b2 b3 b3 caa1 caa1 caa2 caa2 caa3
Very Weak + (VW+) ba1 ba3 ba3 b1 b2 b2 b3 b3 caa1 caa1 caa2 caa2 caa2 caa3 caa3
Very Weak (VW) ba3 b1 b2 b3 b3 caa1 caa1 caa1 caa2 caa2 caa2 caa2 caa3 caa3 caa3
Very Weak - (VW-) b1 b3 caa1 caa1 caa2 caa2 caa2 caa3 caa3 caa3 caa3 caa3 caa3 caa3 caa3
Source: Moody’s Ratings

Business development bank - Rating Transparency Presentation, December 2025 48

Key financial indicators

Source: Moody‘s Ratings, Credit Opinion, 25 th June 2025

Business development bank - Rating Transparency Presentation, December 2025 49

Moody’s universe of banks’ public ratings

Note: As of the end of October 2024

Source: Moody’s Ratings

Business development bank - Rating Transparency Presentation, December 2025 50

Deriving the Macro Profile
The Macro Profile captures the bank’s operating and economic environment

Business development bank - Rating Transparency Presentation, December 2025 51

What our financial ratios mean
ASSET RISK (25% weight) is measured by the Problem Loans / Gross Loans ratio, which signals potential problems, credit losses and pressure on

WORST
solvency that disadvantage bondholders. Most bank failures stem from credit risk, since even a small deterioration in the value of an institution’s assets

OF
can have a significant effect on its solvency given the bank’s typically high balance sheet leverage
SOLVENCY (65% weight)
The combination of a bank’s

AVAILABLE
risk, and its capacity to absorb

LATEST
CAPITAL (25% weight) is measured by Tangible Common Equity / Risk-weighted Assets. Good capital levels are important since the greater the risk of
any resultant losses from capital
and earnings
unexpected losses, the more capital a bank needs to hold to protect bondholders and maintain the creditor confidence necessary to fund itself.

WORST
PROFITABILITY (15% weight) as measured by et ncome Total Assets, helps determine an institution’s ability to generate capital, and is a

OF
complementary indicator of its ability to absorb losses and recover from shocks.

YEAR-END
LIQUIDITY (35% weight) FUNDING STRUCTURE (20% weight) as measured by Less-Stable Funds Tangible Banking Assets, has a strong bearing on the bank’s probability

LATEST
The combination of the or requiring assistance. If a bank makes significant use of confidence-sensitive, short-term funding sources with higher flight risk, it is more likely to
mismatch between the maturity suffer loss of funding sources during periods of stress.
of a bank’s assets and its
liabilities, the reliability of

YEAR-END
funding, and its capacity to LIQUID RESOURCES (15% weight) as measured by Core Banking iquidity Tangible Banking Assets, is an indicator of a bank’s ability to respond to

LATEST
meet cash outflows from liquid the changing behavior of its funding counterparts, which is stronger if a bank has a stock of high-quality liquid assets that it can readily sell, pledge, or
reserves place with central banks under standard terms to obtain cash.

The ratios necessarily fluctuate over time, and their significance varies. For the problem loan ratio and profitability ratio, we review the latest three year-end ratios as well as the most recent
Ratio rationale

intra-year ratio where applicable, and base our starting point ratio on the weaker of the average of this period and the latest reported figure. This reduces the inherent cyclicality of these ratios
while ensuring that we capture sudden deterioration. Improvements thereby have a slower impact, which reflects our view that they should be proven over time. For the capital ratio, we use
the latest provided figure. For the funding structure and liquid resources ratio, we use the latest year-end values for the denominator and multi-period averages as per local regulatory
requirements for the calculation of the Liquidity Coverage Ratios. Due to national differences in the implementation and the phase-in period of the Basel III Accord, we use the Tangible
Common Equity, TCE, as the numerator for our capital ratio since it is close to the narrowest and now most prevalent regulatory measure of capital, Common Equity Tier 1. We focus on pure
common equity and exclude “hybrid” instruments TC also caps the contribution of deferred tax assets at 0 of the total and excludes minority interest.

Source: Moody‘s Ratings

Business development bank - Rating Transparency Presentation, December 2025 52

What our ratings and assessments mean
Moody’s Ratings and Assessments
Probability of COUNTERPARTY RISK ASSESSMENT (CR ASSESSMENT) Counterparty risk assessments are opinions on the likelihood of a default by an issuer on certain senior
Counterparty Risk Assessment default operating obligations and other contractual commitments, including payment obligations associated with covered bonds (and certain other secured transactions),
measure derivatives, letters of credit, third party guarantees, servicing and trustee obligations and other similar operational obligations that arise from a bank in performing its
essential client-facing operating functions. CR assessments are assigned to legal entities in banking groups and, in some instances, other regulated institutions with
similar bank-like senior obligations. CR assessments do not take into consideration the expected severity of loss in the event of default.

Counterparty Risk Rating COUNTERPARTY RISK RATING: CRRs are opinions of the ability of entities to honor the uncollateralized portion of non-debt counterparty financial liabilities (CRR
liabilities) and also reflect the expected financial losses in the event such liabilities are not honored.

DEPOSIT RATINGS Our Long-Term Bank Deposit Rating is an expected loss measure, which considers both the likelihood of default and severity of loss, and our
opinion of a bank’s ability to repay its foreign and or domestic currency deposit obligations with an original maturity of one year of more. It takes intrinsic strength (the
Deposits
BCA) as a starting point and further incorporates our view of the expected financial loss in the case of a default (our Loss Given Failure or LGF analysis) as well as any
government support that may be provided. Applies to the most junior class of uninsured deposits, such as large corporate or institutional deposits, including term
deposits with maturities of over one year. Short-term ratings are used for deposits of less than 13 months original maturity and are mapped from the LT deposit rating in
four rating categories (Prime-1, Prime-2, Prime-3, Not Prime).
Expected loss
measure
Senior unsecured LONG-TERM SENIOR UNSECURED DEBT RATING / ISSUER RATING It is an expected loss measure that expresses our opinion of the ability of debt-issuing banks to
honour their current and future senior unsecured debt and debt-like obligations with an original maturity of one-year or more. As with Deposit Ratings it takes intrinsic
strength as a starting point and further incorporates our view of the expected financial loss in the case of a default as well as any government support that may be
provided. If the rated entity has no senior debt outstanding, we may assign an Issuer Rating as a placeholder.
SHORT-TERM DEBT Short-term debt ratings are used for debt of less than 13 months original maturity, including commercial paper, and are an expected loss measure.
These are mapped from the long-term debt rating in four categories.
Subordinated

JUNIOR SECURITIES Like deposits and senior debt, these securities are rated as part of our LGF post-failure analysis. We may remove additional notches from the
instrument rating to reflect the risk that the instruments could suffer losses before an institution reaches the point of failure (e.g. coupon suspension or principal is
AT1 rating / Hybrid rating converted to equity or written down, in the case of non-viability or high trigger contingent capital securities).

BASELINE CREDIT ASSESSMENT (BCA) The BCA expresses the likelihood of an issuer defaulting on one or more of its debt obligations, or requiring financial or other
Probability of support to avoid such a default, and does not provide an opinion on the severity of any loss. It is our opinion of a debt issuer’s standalone intrinsic strength, without any
Baseline Credit Assessment (BCA) default external support. To determine our Adjusted BCA we incorporate into the BCA our assessment of the likelihood of support for the issuer from affiliates ( a parent, group,
measure or cooperative structure).

Source: Moody‘s Ratings

Business development bank - Rating Transparency Presentation, December 2025 53

Thank you
Petr Paklin David Ciporins
AVP-Analyst / FIG Ratings Associate / FIG
→ [Link]@[Link] → [Link]@[Link]
Moody’s
Ratings
is proud of the awards and
recognition we have
received from organizations
around the world for our
ratings, research and risk
analysis, which highlights
our important role in the
global capital markets.

We have won
over 100 awards
categories in the last 5 For a full listing visit
years across the globe
[Link]/awards/ratings

[Link]/awards/ratings

Business development bank - Rating Transparency Presentation, December 2025 55

© 2025 Moody’s Corporation, Moody’s Investors Service, Inc., Moody’s Analytics, Inc. and/or their licensors and affiliates (collectively, To the extent permitted by law, MOODY’S and its directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives, licensors and suppliers
“MOODY’S”). All rights reserved. disclaim liability for any direct or compensatory losses or damages caused to any person or entity, including but not limited to by any
negligence (but excluding fraud, willful misconduct or any other type of liability that, for the avoidance of doubt, by law cannot be
CREDIT RATINGS ISSUED BY MOODY'S CREDIT RATINGS AFFILIATES ARE THEIR CURRENT OPINIONS OF THE RELATIVE excluded) on the part of, or any contingency within or beyond the control of, MOODY’S or any of its directors, officers, employees,
FUTURE CREDIT RISK OF ENTITIES, CREDIT COMMITMENTS, OR DEBT OR DEBT-LIKE SECURITIES, AND MATERIALS, agents, representatives, licensors or suppliers, arising from or in connection with the information contained herein or the use of or
PRODUCTS, SERVICES AND INFORMATION PUBLISHED OR OTHERWISE MADE AVAILABLE BY MOODY’S (COLLECTIVELY, inability to use any such information.
“MATERIALS”) MAY INCLUDE SUCH CURRENT OPINIONS. MOODY’S DEFINES CREDIT RISK AS THE RISK THAT AN ENTITY MAY
NOT MEET ITS CONTRACTUAL FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS AS THEY COME DUE AND ANY ESTIMATED FINANCIAL LOSS IN THE NO WARRANTY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, AS TO THE ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS
EVENT OF DEFAULT OR IMPAIRMENT. SEE APPLICABLE MOODY’S RATING SYMBOLS AND DEFINITIONS PUBLICATION FOR FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE OF ANY CREDIT RATING, ASSESSMENT, OTHER OPINION OR INFORMATION IS GIVEN OR
INFORMATION ON THE TYPES OF CONTRACTUAL FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS ADDRESSED BY MOODY’S CREDIT RATINGS. MADE BY MOODY’S IN ANY FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER.
CREDIT RATINGS DO NOT ADDRESS ANY OTHER RISK, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO: LIQUIDITY RISK, MARKET VALUE
RISK, OR PRICE VOLATILITY. CREDIT RATINGS, NON-CREDIT ASSESSMENTS (“ASSESSMENTS”), AND OTHER OPINIONS Moody’s Investors Service, Inc., a wholly-owned credit rating agency subsidiary of Moody’s Corporation (“MCO”), hereby discloses
INCLUDED IN MOODY’S MATERIALS ARE NOT STATEMENTS OF CURRENT OR HISTORICAL FACT. MOODY’S MATERIALS MAY that most issuers of debt securities (including corporate and municipal bonds, debentures, notes and commercial paper) and
ALSO INCLUDE QUANTITATIVE MODEL-BASED ESTIMATES OF CREDIT RISK AND RELATED OPINIONS OR COMMENTARY preferred stock rated by Moody’s Investors Service, Inc. have, prior to assignment of any credit rating, agreed to pay Moody’s
PUBLISHED BY MOODY’S ANALYTICS, INC. AND/OR ITS AFFILIATES. MOODY’S CREDIT RATINGS, ASSESSMENTS, OTHER Investors Service, Inc. for credit ratings opinions and services rendered by it. MCO and all MCO entities that issue ratings under the
OPINIONS AND MATERIALS DO NOT CONSTITUTE OR PROVIDE INVESTMENT OR FINANCIAL ADVICE, AND MOODY’S CREDIT “Moody’s Ratings” brand name (“Moody’s Ratings”), also maintain policies and procedures to address the independence of Moody’s
RATINGS, ASSESSMENTS, OTHER OPINIONS AND MATERIALS ARE NOT AND DO NOT PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS TO Ratings’ credit ratings and credit rating processes. Information regarding certain affiliations that may exist between directors of MCO
PURCHASE, SELL, OR HOLD PARTICULAR SECURITIES. MOODY’S CREDIT RATINGS, ASSESSMENTS, OTHER OPINIONS AND and rated entities, and between entities who hold credit ratings from Moody’s Investors Service, Inc. and have also publicly reported
to the SEC an ownership interest in MCO of more than 5%, is posted annually at [Link] under the heading “Investor Relations
[Link]

MATERIALS DO NOT COMMENT ON THE SUITABILITY OF AN INVESTMENT FOR ANY PARTICULAR INVESTOR. MOODY’S ISSUES
ITS CREDIT RATINGS, ASSESSMENTS AND OTHER OPINIONS AND PUBLISHES OR OTHERWISE MAKES AVAILABLE ITS — Corporate Governance — Charter and Governance Documents - Director and Shareholder Affiliation Policy.”
MATERIALS WITH THE EXPECTATION AND UNDERSTANDING THAT EACH INVESTOR WILL, WITH DUE CARE, MAKE ITS OWN
Moody's SF Japan K.K., Moody's Local AR Agente de Calificación de Riesgo S.A., Moody’s Local BR Agência de Classificação de Risco
STUDY AND EVALUATION OF EACH SECURITY THAT IS UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR PURCHASE, HOLDING, OR SALE.
LTDA, Moody’s Local MX S.A. de C.V, I.C.V., Moody's Local PE Clasificadora de Riesgo S.A., and Moody's Local PA Calificadora de
MOODY’S CREDIT RATINGS, ASSESSMENTS, OTHER OPINIONS, AND MATERIALS ARE NOT INTENDED FOR USE BY RETAIL Riesgo S.A. (collectively, the “Moody’s Non-NRSRO CRAs”) are all indirectly wholly-owned credit rating agency subsidiaries of MCO.
INVESTORS AND IT WOULD BE RECKLESS AND INAPPROPRIATE FOR RETAIL INVESTORS TO USE MOODY’S CREDIT RATINGS, None of the Moody’s Non-NRSRO CRAs is a Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organization.
ASSESSMENTS, OTHER OPINIONS OR MATERIALS WHEN MAKING AN INVESTMENT DECISION. IF IN DOUBT YOU SHOULD
Additional terms for Australia only: Any publication into Australia of this document is pursuant to the Australian Financial Services
CONTACT YOUR FINANCIAL OR OTHER PROFESSIONAL ADVISER.
License of MOODY’S affiliate, Moody’s Investors Service Pty Limited ABN 61 003 399 657AFSL 336969 and/or Moody’s Analytics
ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS PROTECTED BY LAW, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, COPYRIGHT LAW, AND NONE OF Australia Pty Ltd ABN 94 105 136 972 AFSL 383569 (as applicable). This document is intended to be provided only to “wholesale
SUCH INFORMATION MAY BE COPIED OR OTHERWISE REPRODUCED, REPACKAGED, FURTHER TRANSMITTED, TRANSFERRED, clients” within the meaning of section 761G of the Corporations Act 2001. By continuing to access this document from within
DISSEMINATED, REDISTRIBUTED OR RESOLD, OR STORED FOR SUBSEQUENT USE FOR ANY SUCH PURPOSE, IN WHOLE OR IN Australia, you represent to MOODY’S that you are, or are accessing the document as a representative of, a “wholesale client” and that
PART, IN ANY FORM OR MANNER OR BY ANY MEANS WHATSOEVER, BY ANY PERSON WITHOUT MOODY’S PRIOR WRITTEN neither you nor the entity you represent will directly or indirectly disseminate this document or its contents to “retail clients” within
CONSENT. FOR CLARITY, NO INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN MAY BE USED TO DEVELOP, IMPROVE, TRAIN OR RETRAIN ANY the meaning of section 761G of the Corporations Act 2001. MOODY’S credit rating is an opinion as to the creditworthiness of a debt
SOFTWARE PROGRAM OR DATABASE, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, FOR ANY ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, MACHINE LEARNING obligation of the issuer, not on the equity securities of the issuer or any form of security that is available to retail investors.
OR NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING SOFTWARE, ALGORITHM, METHODOLOGY AND/OR MODEL.
Additional terms for India only: Moody’s credit ratings, Assessments, other opinions and Materials are not intended to be and shall
MOODY’S CREDIT RATINGS, ASSESSMENTS, OTHER OPINIONS AND MATERIALS ARE NOT INTENDED FOR USE BY ANY PERSON AS not be relied upon or used by any users located in India in relation to securities listed or proposed to be listed on Indian stock
A BENCHMARK AS THAT TERM IS DEFINED FOR REGULATORY PURPOSES AND MUST NOT BE USED IN ANY WAY THAT COULD exchanges.
RESULT IN THEM BEING CONSIDERED A BENCHMARK.
Additional terms with respect to Second Party Opinions and Net Zero Assessments (as defined in Moody’s Ratings Rating Symbols
All information contained herein is obtained by MOODY’S from sources believed by it to be accurate and reliable. Because of the and Definitions): Please note that neither a Second Party Opinion (“SPO”) nor a Net Zero Assessment (“NZA”) is a “credit rating”. The
possibility of human or mechanical error as well as other factors, however, all information contained herein is provided “AS IS” without issuance of SPOs and NZAs is not a regulated activity in many jurisdictions, including Singapore. JAPAN: In Japan, development and
warranty of any kind. MOODY'S adopts all necessary measures so that the information it uses in assigning a credit rating is of sufficient provision of SPOs and NZAs fall under the category of “Ancillary Businesses”, not “Credit Rating Business”, and are not subject to the
quality and from sources MOODY'S considers to be reliable including, when appropriate, independent third-party sources. However, regulations applicable to “Credit Rating Business” under the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act of Japan and its relevant
MOODY’S is not an auditor and cannot in every instance independently verify or validate information received in the credit rating process regulation. PRC: Any SPO: (1) does not constitute a PRC Green Bond Assessment as defined under any relevant PRC laws or
or in preparing its Materials. regulations; (2) cannot be included in any registration statement, offering circular, prospectus or any other documents submitted to
the PRC regulatory authorities or otherwise used to satisfy any PRC regulatory disclosure requirement; and (3) cannot be used within
To the extent permitted by law, MOODY’S and its directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives, licensors and suppliers disclaim the PRC for any regulatory purpose or for any other purpose which is not permitted under relevant PRC laws or regulations. For the
liability to any person or entity for any indirect, special, consequential, or incidental losses or damages whatsoever arising from or in purposes of this disclaimer, “PRC” refers to the mainland of the People’s Republic of China, excluding Hong Kong, Macau and
connection with the information contained herein or the use of or inability to use any such information, even if MOODY’S or any of its Taiwan.
directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives, licensors or suppliers is advised in advance of the possibility of such losses or
damages, including but not limited to: (a) any loss of present or prospective profits or (b) any loss or damage arising where the relevant
financial instrument is not the subject of a particular credit rating assigned by MOODY’S.

Business development bank - Rating Transparency Presentation, December 2025 56