Judo Capital Holdings — SME banking, lending, funding and capital record

Judo Capital Holdings Limited (JCHL; ASX: JDO; ABN 71 612 862 727) is the listed APRA-regulated non-operating holding company (NOHC). Its subsidiary, Judo Bank Pty Ltd, is the APRA-regulated authorised deposit-taking institution (ADI). The annual reports generally use “Judo” or “Judo Bank” for JCHL and its controlled entities unless a measure is expressly labelled Bank/ADI. This report therefore does not treat those names as a standalone Judo Bank Pty Ltd accounting series.

Each report covers the 12 months ended 30 June and uses Australian dollars. The consolidated annual financial statements are Group accounts. The reports describe historical financial information as a single function from FY23; FY24 identifies SME lending in Australia as the sole reportable segment. That presentation does not make audited accounting balances, gross loans and advances (GLA), management performance measures, prudential capital and liquidity measures interchangeable.

The key five-year qualification is FY22: its statutory loss and management pro-forma presentation are not one identical series. FY23 itself cautions that relevant FY22 operating comparisons are pro-forma. Later report changes in disclosure location or rounding are retained as presentation changes; they are not silently treated as economic changes.

Section sources — official issuer documents

• FY2022 full-year result — Judo Capital Holdings Limited 2022 Annual Report, printed pp. 2, 12–14, 76 onwards.
• FY2023 full-year result — Judo Capital Holdings Limited 2023 Annual Report, printed pp. 2, 25–26, 60–77.
• FY2024 full-year result — Annual Report 2024, printed pp. 2, 20, 59 onwards, 102.
• FY2025 full-year result — Appendix 4E & Annual Report 2025, printed pp. 2, 18, 59 onwards.
• FY2026 full-year result — Annual Report 2026, printed pp. 2, 16, 108–114, 157–159.

Judo describes itself as a specialist Australian SME bank. The report record keeps lending customers, deposit customers, national locations, bankers, employees, product channels and technology programmes as separate operating measures. GLA product figures are closing balances, not originations or statutory net loans.

FY24 said 40% of lending-customer growth came from existing customers and 60% from new customers. FY25 reported an average loan size of $2.7m and said about 75% of borrowers had more than five years’ relevant business-management experience. These are annual-report operating descriptions, not an assessment of lending quality.

Section sources — official issuer documents

FY22 printed pp. 4, 6–8, 16–18, 29–32, 36–38, 60–61; FY23 pp. 4–12, 26–43, 63–66; FY24 pp. 6–10, 15, 20–31, 44–49, 56, 58; FY25 pp. 9, 18, 20–21, 27–28, 41, 43, 47–49; FY26 pp. 4–5, 16–20, 34–37. See the matching official Judo full-year-result links in Section 1.

Judo consistently described relationship-led credit assessment through the “4Cs”: Character, Capacity, Capital and Collateral/security. It also reported customer engagement, portfolio monitoring and concentration limits. These are control/process disclosures, not independently assessed control-effectiveness findings.

The statutory loans-and-advances balance was $10.619bn in FY24, $12.334bn in FY25 and $14.505bn in FY26. For FY26, Judo reconciled $14,505.2m net loans to $14,672.1m GLA less $216.2m credit impairment plus $49.3m capitalised transaction costs. Earlier statutory series values are not inferred from GLA.

Portfolio classification must remain year-specific. FY25 GLA was reported as NSW 41%, Victoria 30%, Queensland 15%, Western Australia 9% and other 5%; rental/hiring/real-estate services was 25%, accommodation/food 12%, residential mortgages 9%, agriculture and construction 7% each. FY26 showed NSW 42%, Victoria 30%, Queensland 15%, WA 8% and other 5%; rental/hiring/real estate 23%, accommodation/food 13%, agriculture 8%, construction 7% and financial/insurance 7%. Property investment is within the relevant real-estate subtotal and is not added again.

ECL disclosures distinguish Stage 1 12-month ECL, Stage 2 lifetime ECL after significant increase in credit risk, collective Stage 3 and individually assessed impaired Stage 3 ECL. Probability-weighted scenarios, PD/LGD/EAD, overlays and sensitivities are accounting-model inputs at the report date, not realised loss outcomes. FY26 disclosed probability-weighted collective provision of $136.3m and a $12.8m management overlay; its upside/base/downside/severe-downside coverage figures were 0.54%/0.74%/1.11%/1.31%.

Section sources — official issuer documents

FY22 printed pp. 16–18, 36–38, 49, 57–59, 62–64; FY23 pp. 26–43, 101–105, 113–133; FY24 pp. 15, 22, 45, 49, 91, 109–113, 118–119, 138; FY25 pp. 22, 36, 41, 43, 47, 50, 90–95; FY26 pp. 18–19, 31, 35, 39, 126–131. See the matching official Judo full-year-result links in Section 1.

Deposit/funding-stack balances, accounting cash and borrowings, minimum liquidity holdings (MLH), and APRA capital/RWA are distinct measures. A transaction issue amount, accounting carrying value, warehouse limit, amount drawn and regulatory capital effect describe different dimensions and are not combined unless Judo provides a bridge.

Judo’s deposit targets are not historical actuals: around 70% of total asset funding in FY22, 70%–75% of total assets in FY23, 75% of total assets at scale in FY25, and 75% of total funding at scale in FY26. The disclosed actual shares in the FY24–FY26 funding-and-capital presentation were 64.4%, 68.1% and 71.3%, using the issuer’s total-funding-and-capital denominator.

The FY24 $500m SME-backed term securitisation was described as capital-relief while retained loans remained on balance sheet. FY25 reported that its balance had fallen 37%. FY26 statutory borrowings included $2.232bn secured securitisation. Those statements do not establish a single homogeneous five-year securitisation balance.

Section sources — official issuer documents

FY22 printed pp. 20–21, 60–65, 76–141; FY23 pp. 63–76, 108–124, 136–145; FY24 pp. 23, 45, 54–55, 109–127; FY25 pp. 21, 40, 43, 48–53, 90–91; FY26 pp. 31, 36–42, 124–125, 134, 147–148. See the matching official Judo full-year-result links in Section 1.

FY22 contains both statutory and pro-forma/non-IFRS management measures. FY23’s operating-review comparison itself uses pro-forma FY22 information. From FY23 onward the core income-statement amounts are consolidated statutory results, while NIM, CTI and any “underlying” result remain issuer-defined management measures.

FY22: statutory loss after tax was $7.7m; pro-forma PBT was $15.6m and pro-forma profit before impairment $41.0m. Judo attributed the statutory/operating difference to IPO-related one-off costs. The $25.4m impairment charge is an annual flow, not the $55.2m closing provision.

FY23: Judo reported statutory PBT $107.5m and NPAT $73.4m. It attributed higher impairment expense versus FY22 to loan growth, more conservative macro assumptions, a small number of impaired assets requiring higher specific provisions and minimal write-offs.

FY24: statutory NPAT was $69.9m. Underlying PBT of $110.1m excluded $5.8m of CEO-transition and organisational-restructure costs. Judo’s reported 2H NIM bridge identified TFF refinancing, deposit cost, other funding, lending margins and treasury/other components; these remain issuer-attributed components.

FY25: PBT was $125.6m and NPAT $86.4m. Judo reported no equivalent FY25 non-recurring costs in its underlying PBT presentation. The $75.5m impairment expense was distinct from $185.8m closing loans-and-advances ECL provision.

FY26: Judo reported net banking income $522.4m, profit before impairment $285.8m, PBT $168.1m and NPAT $111.1m. The impairment charge was $117.7m, of which $99.7m was individually assessed and $18.0m collective. NIM 3.13%, CTI 45.3% and net banking income per average FTE $0.91m are issuer-reported management metrics.

Section sources — official issuer documents

FY22 Financial Performance pp. 48–69 and Annual Financial Report pp. 76–141; FY23 OFR pp. 26–43, Financial Performance pp. 60–76, statements pp. 79–80; FY24 OFR pp. 20–30, Financial Performance pp. 42–58, income statement p. 90; FY25 OFR pp. 18–29, Financial Performance pp. 40–58, income statement p. 90; FY26 OFR pp. 16–25, Financial Performance pp. 29–41, statements pp. 108–159. See official Judo links in Section 1.

This section records Judo’s descriptions of risk-management design, not an independent conclusion about governance or control effectiveness. Risk terminology becomes more formal through the period: FY22 recorded a refreshed Risk Appetite Statement and three-lines model; FY25 named six material risks under its Risk Management Framework (RMF); and FY26 described an RMF incorporating the Risk Management Strategy and risk-appetite settings.

Probability-weighted ECL scenarios, Stage 1/2/3 assessment and overlays are accounting-model disclosures. They remain separate from portfolio impairment, arrears, write-offs and cost-of-risk figures. FY23 disclosed higher downside scenario weighting; FY25 described PD/LGD/EAD with governed overlays; FY26 retained scenario sensitivities and overlays.

FY2023–FY2024 disclosure limitation

FY2023: the retained annual-report evidence specifically identifies liquidity/balance-sheet risk and non-traded interest-rate risk, together with lending risk-appetite and concentration disclosures. It does not capture a complete issuer-labelled FY2023 material-risk taxonomy, so the later FY25 six-risk list is not retrospectively applied.

FY2024: the retained annual-report evidence includes separate portfolio/credit, operational-RWA, digital/cybersecurity, conduct/ethics and climate lanes. These are the individual FY24 disclosure lanes used in this record. The evidence does not capture a full issuer-labelled FY2024 material-risk taxonomy; that limitation is explicit, and a missing category in this FY24 register is neither a zero-risk finding nor proof that Judo made no other disclosure.

Year-specific risk taxonomy and disclosure boundary

Section sources — official issuer documents

FY22 printed pp. 30, 32–39, 40–47, 71–73; FY23 pp. 39–43, 63–66, 101–105, 113–124; FY24 pp. 32–34, 39–41, 45, 54–55; FY25 pp. 22–23, 32, 37, 94–95; FY26 pp. 18–20, 130–131. See official Judo links in Section 1.

Judo’s reports show a change in reporting location and maturity rather than one directly comparable five-year ESG-performance series. FY22 disclosures were embedded in operating, risk and governance material; FY23 introduced a standalone Sustainability section; FY26 contains a statutory Sustainability Report with a specifically disclosed review/limited-assurance scope.

At 30 June 2024, Judo reported no direct lending to extractive mining, fossil-fuel electricity generation/transmission/distribution/retail, or stated weapons categories. Its “other electricity generation” exposure was 0.02% of outstanding loans and oil/gas supply/distribution exposure was 0.01%; the former was described as renewable/transition activities. At 30 June 2025, the corresponding “other electricity generation” disclosure was 0.03% and oil/gas supply/distribution was 0.01% of outstanding loans, again alongside the stated no-direct-lending categories. These are issuer-defined category disclosures at stated dates, not a complete financed-emissions measure or a conclusion about all climate-sensitive exposures.

FY24 said Judo was likely to be a Group 1 entity and, if so, would be required to report under the proposed mandatory climate regime from 1 July 2025; this was a regulatory expectation, not FY24 compliance. FY25 said mandatory climate-related reporting would apply for the year ending 30 June 2026 and that financed-emissions reporting aligned to Australian Sustainability Reporting Standards was intended from FY27. Those are reporting-preparation and intended future-reporting milestones, not completed reporting in FY24 or FY25.

Section sources — official issuer documents

FY22 printed pp. 40–47; FY23 Sustainability pp. 44–55 and ECL pp. 101–105; FY24 Sustainability pp. 32–39; FY25 Sustainability pp. 30–36 and ECL pp. 94–95; FY26 Sustainability Report pp. 79–107, climate financial-effect assessment pp. 90–91, declaration/review pp. 102–106. See official Judo links in Section 1.

This record distinguishes Board and executive disclosures, risk/control arrangements, remuneration presentation and statutory-account accountability. It does not assess effectiveness. From FY22 to FY25, Corporate Governance was a discrete report section and directors’/remuneration material sat within the annual financial-report lane. FY26 separately presents Corporate Governance, Directors’ Report, Remuneration Report, Sustainability Report and Financial Statements; this is a presentation change, not proof that earlier reports lacked those subjects.

Remuneration design inputs are not customer, credit-loss or CEO-performance outcomes. The FY26 Directors’ declaration and audit opinion concern the financial report; the sustainability review has its own specified scope and is not an audit of all ESG information.

Five-year governance, remuneration and accountability fields

Section sources — official issuer documents

FY22 printed pp. 34–39, 70–76; FY23 pp. 39–43, 56–59, 77, 146–158; FY24 pp. 40–41, 59–147; FY25 pp. 22–23, 37–39, 59–149; FY26 pp. 12, 26–28, 50–78, 108–164, 158–159. See official Judo links in Section 1.

This is the evidence/reconciliation lane for JCHL and controlled entities. It is not a duplicate of management Financial Performance. The statutory accounts are consolidated general-purpose accounts; a Bank/ADI prudential measure, parent-only disclosure, securitisation trust mention or management GLA graphic is not automatically an accounting balance.

The audited-note map provides the source for reporting entity, accounting basis, ECL methodology and staging, financial-instrument risk, funding/borrowings, capital instruments/equity, tax, employee and share-based payment, related parties, controlled entities, subsequent events, directors’ declaration and audit opinion. Note layout and numbering may change across reports; this report does not assume the same note number has the same meaning each year.

FY26 accounting-basis record: Judo’s FY26 financial-statement basis states that the consolidated financial statements are prepared principally on a historical-cost basis, except for the stated items measured at fair value. The same FY26 basis disclosure records preparation on a going-concern basis. These are the issuer’s accounting-basis disclosures, not an independent assessment of valuation or liquidity. Source: Judo Capital Holdings Limited Annual Report 2026, printed pp. 112 and 114.

Five-year statutory topic-to-year reconciliation

The following map is deliberately topic-by-year rather than a single note-number series. It identifies the contemporaneous annual-report page lane used for each topic and retains a “not separately verified in this assembly record” field where the supplied evidence does not establish an exact printed-page sub-note.

FY26 page-location clarification: the Annual Report separately labels Financial Statements at pp. 108–164, Other Information at pp. 165–166 and Appendices from p. 167. The FY26 single reportable segment and revenue-concentration disclosure is on p. 119; its cash/investment, loans/ECL, borrowings, capital and entity/audit lanes are respectively pp. 124–125, 126–131, 134, 147–148 and 156–159. Other Information and Appendices are retained as separate presentation lanes and are not treated as audited financial statements merely because they follow them in the annual report.

Section sources — official issuer documents

FY22 Annual Financial Report pp. 76–175; FY23 pp. 77–168; FY24 pp. 59–147; FY25 pp. 59–149; FY26 Financial Statements pp. 108–164, Other Information pp. 165–166 and Appendices p. 167 onwards. See official Judo links in Section 1.

Primary annual-report sources

• Judo Capital Holdings Limited 2022 Annual Report — year ended 30 June 2022; issued 25 August 2022.
• Judo Capital Holdings Limited 2023 Annual Report — year ended 30 June 2023; issued 24 August 2023.
• Judo Capital Holdings Limited Annual Report 2024 — year ended 30 June 2024; issued 20 August 2024.
• Judo Capital Holdings Limited Annual Report 2025 — year ended 30 June 2025; issued 19 August 2025.
• Judo Capital Holdings Limited Annual Report 2026 — year ended 30 June 2026; issued 18 August 2026.

This report is for general factual and educational information only. It is not financial, legal, tax or other professional advice; it does not contain a recommendation, valuation, target price, rating, offer, solicitation or invitation to buy, sell or hold any security.

Information is drawn from public primary sources considered reliable as of the stated document dates. MII does not warrant that information is accurate, complete, current or suitable for any purpose. Readers should verify every material point directly in the cited issuer documents and obtain independent professional advice before making any decision.

AI systems were used substantially in preparation and may introduce errors, omissions, mistranslations, classification issues or inconsistencies despite review. To the maximum extent permitted by law, MII disclaims liability arising from reliance on this report. Nothing excludes liability that cannot lawfully be excluded. Report a factual correction to mii.analysis.contact@gmail.com.

The report is independently composed from public factual information. It does not reproduce issuer charts, photographs or extended text. Tables and the explanatory thumbnail are MII-created; the thumbnail is AI-generated and labelled above.