Loan Portfolio: CSB provides a co-branded loan origination program for CSB clients (the Program) with Rocket Mortgage, LLC (Rocket Mortgage®). Pursuant to the Program, Rocket Mortgage originates and services First Mortgages and HELOCs for CSB clients. Under the Program, CSB purchases certain First Mortgages and HELOCs that are originated by Rocket Mortgage. CSB purchased First Mortgages of $854 million and $2.0 billion during the second quarters of 2023 and 2022, respectively, and $1.6 billion and $4.7 billion during the first six months of 2023 and 2022, respectively. CSB purchased HELOCs with commitments of $52 million and $70 million during the second quarters of 2023 and 2022, respectively, and $95 million and $160 million during the first six months of 2023 and 2022, respectively.

Guarantees and indemnifications: Schwab has clients that sell (i.e., write) listed option contracts that are cleared by the Options Clearing Corporation – a clearing house that establishes margin requirements on these transactions. We satisfy the margin requirements of these transactions through the pledging of certain client securities. For additional information on these pledged securities refer to Note 12. In connection with its securities lending activities, Schwab is required to provide collateral to certain brokerage clients. The Company satisfies the collateral requirements by providing cash as collateral.

The Company also provides guarantees to securities clearing houses and exchanges under standard membership agreements, which require members to guarantee the performance of other members. Under the agreements, if another member becomes unable to satisfy its obligations to the clearing houses and exchanges, other members would be required to meet shortfalls. The Company’s liability under these arrangements is not quantifiable and may exceed the amounts it has posted as collateral. The Company also engages third-party firms to clear clients’ futures and options on futures transactions and to facilitate clients’ foreign exchange trading, and has agreed to indemnify these firms for any losses that they may incur from the client transactions introduced to them by the Company. The potential requirement for the Company to make payments under these arrangements is remote. Accordingly, no liability has been recognized for these guarantees.

IDA agreement: The 2019 IDA agreement with the TD Depository Institutions became effective on October 6, 2020 and created responsibilities of the Company and certain contingent obligations. On May 4, 2023, the 2019 IDA agreement was replaced and superseded by the 2023 IDA agreement, which specifies responsibilities, including certain contingent obligations, of the Company going forward. Pursuant to the 2023 IDA agreement, uninvested cash within eligible brokerage client accounts is swept off-balance sheet to deposit accounts at the TD Depository Institutions. Schwab provides recordkeeping and support services to the TD Depository Institutions with respect to the deposit accounts for which Schwab receives an aggregate monthly fee. The Company’s ability to migrate these balances to its balance sheet is dependent on multiple factors including having sufficient capital levels to sustain these incremental deposits and certain binding limitations specified in the 2023 IDA agreement, and, prior to May 4, 2023, the 2019 IDA agreement.

The 2019 IDA agreement provided that, as of July 1, 2021, Schwab had the option to migrate up to $10 billion of IDA balances every 12 months to Schwab’s balance sheet, subject to certain limitations and adjustments. The Company migrated balances to the balance sheet in 2021 and 2022, subject to the terms of the 2019 IDA agreement. During the first six months of 2023, Schwab did not move IDA balances to its balance sheet.

•Through September 10, 2025, Schwab must maintain minimum balances above the total of then-outstanding unmatured fixed-rate obligation amounts, with a maximum of $30 billion above this total amount. During this period, withdrawals of IDA balances by Schwab are generally permitted only to the extent of withdrawals initiated by Schwab customers, with limited exceptions, except to the extent necessary for Schwab to maintain balances below the applicable maximum.

The 2023 IDA agreement eliminates the requirement of the 2019 IDA agreement that at least 80% of the IDA balances be designated as fixed-rate obligation amounts. Designation of deposit balances for investment in fixed- or floating-rate instruments under the 2023 IDA agreement is now at Schwab’s sole discretion with certain limitations on the amount of fixed-rate obligation amounts.

Pursuant to the 2023 IDA agreement, Schwab has the option to buy down up to $5 billion of fixed-rate obligation amounts by paying a market-based fee during the agreement term, subject to certain limits. If IDA balances decline below the required IDA balance minimum as described above, Schwab would be required to make a nonperformance payment to the TD Depository Institutions pursuant to the terms of the 2023 IDA agreement.

In May 2023, Schwab opted to buy down $2.4 billion of fixed-rate obligation amounts, incurring a market-based fee of $112 million, which was capitalized as a contract asset and included in other assets on the condensed consolidated balance sheet. For additional information on the contract asset, see Note 3.

As of June 30, 2023, the total ending IDA balance was $102.7 billion, of which $96.4 billion was fixed-rate obligation amounts and $6.3 billion was floating-rate obligation amounts. As of December 31, 2022, the total ending IDA balance was $122.6 billion, of which $108.5 billion was fixed-rate obligation amounts and $14.1 billion was floating-rate obligation amounts.

Legal contingencies: Schwab is subject to claims and lawsuits in the ordinary course of business, including arbitrations, class actions and other litigation, some of which include claims for substantial or unspecified damages. The Company is also the subject of inquiries, investigations, and proceedings by regulatory and other governmental agencies.

Predicting the outcome of a litigation or regulatory matter is inherently difficult, requiring significant judgment and evaluation of various factors, including the procedural status of the matter and any recent developments; prior experience and the experience of others in similar cases; available defenses, including potential opportunities to dispose of a case on the merits or procedural grounds before trial (e.g., motions to dismiss or for summary judgment); the progress of fact discovery; the opinions of counsel and experts regarding potential damages; and potential opportunities for settlement and the status of any settlement discussions. It may not be reasonably possible to estimate a range of potential liability until the matter is closer to resolution – pending, for example, further proceedings, the outcome of key motions or appeals, or discussions among the parties. Numerous issues may have to be developed, such as discovery of important factual matters and determination of threshold legal issues, which may include novel or unsettled questions of law. Reserves are established or adjusted or further disclosure and estimates of potential loss are provided as the matter progresses and more information becomes available.

Schwab believes it has strong defenses in all significant matters currently pending and is contesting liability and any damages claimed. Nevertheless, some of these matters may result in adverse judgments or awards, including penalties, injunctions or other relief, and the Company may also determine to settle a matter because of the uncertainty and risks of litigation. Described below are matters in which there is a reasonable possibility that a material loss could be incurred or where the matter may otherwise be of significant interest to stockholders. Unless otherwise noted, the Company is unable to provide a reasonable estimate of any potential liability given the stage of proceedings in the matter. With respect to all other pending matters, based on current information and consultation with counsel, it does not appear reasonably possible that the outcome of any such matter would be material to the financial condition, operating results, or cash flows of the Company.

Corrente Antitrust Litigation: On June 6, 2022, CSC was sued in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on behalf of a putative class of customers who purchased or sold securities through CS&Co or TD Ameritrade, Inc. from October 26, 2020 to the present. The lawsuit alleges that CSC’s acquisition of TD Ameritrade violated Section 7 of the Clayton Act because it has resulted in an anticompetitive market for the execution of retail customer orders. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, as well as injunctive and other relief. A motion by the Company to dismiss the lawsuit was denied by the court on February 24, 2023, and discovery is proceeding. The Company considers the claims to be without merit and is vigorously contesting the lawsuit.

Crago Order Routing Litigation: On July 13, 2016, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of a putative class of customers executing equity orders through CS&Co. The lawsuit names CS&Co and CSC as defendants and alleges that an agreement under which CS&Co routed orders to UBS Securities LLC between July 13, 2011 and December 31, 2014 violated CS&Co’s duty to seek best execution. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, interest, injunctive and equitable relief, and attorneys’ fees and costs. Defendants consider the allegations to be entirely without merit and have been vigorously contesting the lawsuit. After a first amended complaint was dismissed with

leave to amend, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on August 14, 2017. Defendants again moved to dismiss, and in a decision issued December 5, 2017, the court denied the motion. Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on April 30, 2021, and in a decision on October 27, 2021, the court denied the motion and held that certification of a class action is inappropriate. Plaintiffs sought review of the order denying class certification by the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, which was denied. On September 23, 2022, plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for class certification and defendants moved to compel plaintiffs’ case to arbitration. On February 2, 2023, the court granted defendants’ motion, stayed the case pending the outcome of arbitration, and denied plaintiffs’ renewed motion for class certification as moot.

Ford Order Routing Litigation: On September 15, 2014, TDA Holding, TD Ameritrade, Inc. and its former CEO, Frederick J. Tomczyk, were sued in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska on behalf of a putative class of TD Ameritrade, Inc. clients alleging that defendants failed to seek best execution and made misrepresentations and omissions regarding its order routing practices. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and injunctive and other relief. Defendants consider the allegations to be entirely without merit and have been vigorously contesting the lawsuit. On September 14, 2018, the District Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, and defendants petitioned for an immediate appeal of the District Court’s class certification decision. On April 23, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, issued a decision reversing the District Court’s certification of a class and remanding the case back to the District Court for further proceedings. Plaintiff renewed his motion for class certification, which the District Court granted on September 20, 2022. Defendants are appealing the District Court’s ruling before the U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit.