ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2023, or
☐
TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the transition period from to
Commission file number: 1-3754
ALLY FINANCIAL INC.
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
Delaware
38-0572512
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)
(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)
Ally Detroit Center
500 Woodward Ave.
Floor 10, Detroit, Michigan
48226
(Address of principal executive offices)
(Zip Code)
(866) 710-4623
(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
Title of each class
Trading Symbol(s)
Name of each exchange on which registered
Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share
ALLY
NYSE
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes☑ No ☐
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act. Yes ☐No☑
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes☑ No ☐
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically every Interactive Data File required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§ 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit such files). Yes☑No ☐
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, a smaller reporting company, or an emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company,” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.
Large accelerated filer
☑
Accelerated filer
☐
Non-accelerated filer
☐
Smaller reporting company
☐
Emerging growth company
☐
If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. ☐
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has filed a report on and attestation to its management’s assessment of the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting under Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (15 U.S.C. 7262(b)) by the registered public accounting firm that prepared or issued its audit report. ☑
If securities are registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act, indicate by check mark whether the financial statements of the registrant included in the filing reflect the correction of an error to previously issued financial statements. ☐
Indicate by check mark whether any of those error corrections are restatements that required a recovery analysis of incentive-based compensation received by any of the registrant’s executive officers during the relevant recovery period pursuant to §240.10D-1(b). ☐
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act). Yes ☐ No ☑
The aggregate market value of the Registrant’s common stock (Common Stock) held on June 30, 2023 by non-affiliated entities was approximately $8.1 billion (based on the June 30, 2023 closing price of Common Stock of $27.01 per share as reported on the New York Stock Exchange). At February 15, 2024, the number of shares outstanding of the Registrant’s common stock was 303,959,432 shares.
Documents incorporated by reference: portions of the Registrant’s Proxy Statement for the annual meeting of stockholders to be held on May 7, 2024, are incorporated by reference in this Form 10-K in response to Items 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 of Part III.
Technology Committee of the Ally Board of Directors
TCFD
Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures
TDR
Troubled debt restructuring
TLAC
Total loss-absorbing capacity
TPRM
Third party risk management
UDAAP
Unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices
UDFI
Utah Department of Financial Institutions
UPB
Unpaid principal balance
U.S. Basel III
The rules implementing the 2010 Basel III capital framework in the United States as well as related provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act, as amended from time to time
U.S. GAAP
Accounting Principles Generally Accepted in the United States of America
Ally Financial Inc. (together with its consolidated subsidiaries unless the context otherwise requires, Ally, the Company, we, us, or our) is a financial-services company with $196.4 billion in assets as of December 31, 2023. The Company comprises the nation’s largest all-digital bank and an industry-leading automotive financing and insurance business, driven by a mission to “Do It Right” and be a relentless ally for customers and communities. The Company serves customers through a full range of online banking services (including deposits, mortgage lending, point-of-sale personal lending and credit-card products) and securities brokerage and investment advisory services. The Company also includes a corporate finance business that offers capital for equity sponsors and middle-market companies. On December 31, 2023, we committed to sell our point-of-sale financing business, Ally Lending. Refer to Note 2 to the Consolidated Financial Statements for further information.
Ally is a Delaware corporation and is registered as a BHC under the BHC Act and an FHC under the GLB Act. Our primary business lines are Dealer Financial Services, which is composed of our Automotive Finance and Insurance operations, Mortgage Finance, and Corporate Finance. Corporate and Other primarily consists of centralized corporate treasury activities, the management of our legacy mortgage portfolio, the activity related to Ally Invest, Ally Lending, and Ally Credit Card, and reclassifications and eliminations between the reportable operating segments. Ally Bank’s assets and operating results are included within our Automotive Finance, Mortgage Finance, and Corporate Finance segments, as well as Corporate and Other, based on its underlying business activities. As of December 31, 2023, Ally Bank had total assets of $186.1 billion and total nonaffiliate deposits of $154.7 billion.
Our long-term strategic objectives are centered around (1) differentiating our company as a relentless ally for the financial well-being of consumer and commercial customers, (2) leveraging our “Do it Right” culture to drive enhanced value for our customers, communities, employees, and stockholders, (3) growing and diversifying our leading automotive, insurance, and digital-bank platforms through increased scale and expanded product solutions to meet customer needs, (4) driving ongoing customer growth and deepening relationships, (5) operating under efficient, disciplined risk management and capital allocation approaches, (6) out-executing our competition and creating differentiated advantages through continuous investment and evolution among our leading experiences, products and brand, and (7) delivering long-term value through sustainable financial results and stockholder returns. Within our Automotive Finance and Insurance operations, we are focused on strengthening our network of dealer relationships and pursuing digital distribution channels for our products and services, including through our operation of a direct-lending platform and our work with dealers innovating in digital transactions—all while maintaining an appropriate level of risk appetite. Within our other banking operations, including Mortgage Finance and Corporate Finance, we seek to expand our consumer and commercial banking products and services while providing a high level of customer service. We continue to focus on delivering significant growth and retention in deposit customers and balances while optimizing our cost of funds. At Ally Invest, we seek to augment our securities-brokerage and investment-advisory services to more comprehensively assist our customers in managing their savings and growing their wealth. Ally Credit Card is our scalable, digital-first credit card platform that features leading-edge technology, and a proprietary, analytics-based underwriting model. We believe Ally Credit Card enhances our ability to grow and deepen both new and existing customer relationships.
Unless the context otherwise requires, the following definitions apply. The term “loans” means the following consumer and commercial products associated with our direct and indirect financing activities: loans, retail installment sales contracts, lines of credit, and other financing products excluding operating leases. The term “operating leases” means consumer- and commercial-vehicle lease agreements where Ally is the lessor and the lessee is generally not obligated to acquire ownership of the vehicle at lease-end or compensate Ally for the vehicle’s residual value. The terms “lend,” “finance,” and “originate” mean our direct extension or origination of loans, our purchase or acquisition of loans, or our purchase of operating leases, as applicable. The term “consumer” means all consumer products associated with our loan and operating-lease activities and all commercial retail installment sales contracts. The term “commercial” means all commercial products associated with our loan activities, other than commercial retail installment sales contracts. The term “partnerships” means business arrangements rather than partnerships as defined by law.
For further details and information related to our business segments and the products and services they provide, refer to the MD&A in Part II, Item 7 of this report, and Note 26 to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
The markets for automotive financing, insurance, banking (including corporate finance, mortgage finance, point-of-sale personal lending, consumer credit cards, and deposits), securities brokerage, and investment-advisory services are highly competitive. We directly compete in the automotive financing market with banks, credit unions, captive automotive finance companies, and independent finance companies. Our insurance business also faces significant competition from automotive manufacturers, captive automotive finance companies, insurance carriers, third-party administrators, brokers, and other insurance-related companies. Some of these competitors in automotive financing and insurance, such as captive automotive finance companies, have certain exclusivity privileges with automotive manufacturers whose customers and dealers make up a significant portion of our customer base. In addition, our banking, securities-brokerage, and investment-advisory businesses face intense competition from banks, savings associations, finance companies, credit unions, mutual funds, investment advisers, asset managers, brokerage firms, hedge funds, insurance companies, mortgage-banking companies, and credit-card companies. Fintech companies also compete with us directly as well as indirectly through partnership with banks and financial-services providers in lending, deposits, securities-brokerage, investment-advisory, and other markets.
Many of our competitors have substantial positions nationally or in the markets in which they operate. Some also have significantly greater scale, financial and operational resources, investment capacity, and brand recognition. Our competitors may be subject to different and, in some cases, less stringent legislative, regulatory, and supervisory regimes than Ally. A range of competitors differ from us in their strategic and tactical priorities and, for example, may be willing to suffer meaningful financial losses in the pursuit of disruptive innovation and customer growth or to accept more aggressive business, compliance, and other risks in the pursuit of higher returns and market valuations. Competition affects every aspect of our business, including product and service offerings and features, rates, pricing and fees, credit limits, and customer service. Successfully competing in our markets also depends on our ability to innovate, to invest in technology and infrastructure, to execute transactions reliably and efficiently, to maintain and enhance our reputation, and to attract, retain, and motivate talented employees, all while effectively managing risks and expenses. We expect that competition will only intensify in the future.
Regulation and Supervision
We are subject to significant regulatory frameworks in the United States—at federal, state, and local levels—that affect the products and services that we may offer and the manner in which we may offer them, the risks that we may take, the ways in which we may operate, and the corporate and financial actions that we may take. We also have limited businesses and operations in Canada and other countries that must comply with expansive legal frameworks there as well.
We are also subject to direct supervision and periodic examinations by various governmental agencies and industry SROs that are charged with overseeing the kinds of business activities in which we engage, including the FRB, the UDFI, the FDIC, the CFPB, the SEC, FINRA, and a number of state regulatory and licensing authorities such as the NYDFS. These agencies and organizations generally have broad authority and discretion in restricting and otherwise affecting our businesses and operations and may take formal or informal supervisory, enforcement, and other actions against us when, in the applicable agency’s or organization’s judgment, our businesses or operations fail to comply with applicable law, comport with safe and sound practices, or meet its supervisory expectations. We strive to maintain constructive relationships with supervisory authorities.
This system of regulation, supervision, and examination is intended primarily for the protection and benefit of our depositors and other customers, the FDIC’s DIF, the banking and financial systems as a whole, and the broader economy—and not for the protection or benefit of our stockholders (except in the case of securities laws) or non-deposit creditors. The scope, intensity, and focus of this system can vary from time to time for reasons that range from the state of the economic and political environments to the performance of our businesses and operations, but for the foreseeable future, we expect to remain subject to extensive regulation, supervision, and examinations.
This section summarizes some relevant provisions of the principal statutes, regulations, and other laws that apply to us. The descriptions, however, are not complete and are qualified in their entirety by the full text and judicial or administrative interpretations of those laws and other laws that affect us.
Bank Holding Company, Financial Holding Company, and Depository Institution Status
Ally and IB Finance, a Delaware limited liability company, are BHCs under the BHC Act, and Ally has elected to be an FHC under the GLB Act. IB Finance is a direct subsidiary of Ally and the direct parent of Ally Bank, which is a commercial bank that is organized under the laws of the State of Utah and whose deposits are insured by the FDIC under the FDI Act. As BHCs, Ally and IB Finance are subject to regulation, supervision, and examination by the FRB. Ally Bank is a member of the Federal Reserve System and is subject to regulation, supervision, and examination by the FRB, the UDFI, the FDIC, and the CFPB.
•Permitted Activities — Under the BHC Act, BHCs and their subsidiaries are generally limited to the business of banking and to closely related activities that are incident to banking. BHCs that qualify and elect to be treated as FHCs are generally permitted to engage, directly or indirectly through their nonbank subsidiaries, in a broader range of financial and related activities than those that are permissible for BHCs—for example, (1) underwriting, dealing in, and making a market in securities; (2) providing financial, investment, and economic advisory services; (3) underwriting insurance; and (4) merchant banking activities. The FRB regulates, supervises, and examines FHCs, as it does all BHCs, but insurance and securities activities conducted by an FHC or any of its nonbank subsidiaries are also regulated, supervised, and examined by functional regulators such as state insurance commissioners, the SEC, and FINRA. The expanded powers permitted to FHCs include the ability to provide insurance products and services, to deliver our SmartAuction finder services and a number of related vehicle-remarketing services for third parties, and to offer certain
kinds of brokerage and advisory services. To remain eligible to conduct and expand these broader financial and related activities, Ally must continue to be treated as an FHC. Refer to Note 20 to the Consolidated Financial Statements and the section below titled Basel Capital Framework for additional information. In addition, our ability to expand these financial and related activities or to make acquisitions generally requires that we achieve a rating of satisfactory or better under the CRA.
Further, under the BHC Act, we may be subject to approvals, conditions, and other restrictions when seeking to acquire control over another entity or its assets. For this purpose, “control” includes (a) directly or indirectly owning, controlling, or holding the power to vote 25% or more of any class of the entity’s voting securities, (b) controlling in any manner the election of a majority of the entity’s directors, trustees, or individuals performing similar functions, or (c) directly or indirectly exercising a controlling influence over the management or policies of the entity. Under rules of the FRB, whether Ally is presumed to have a “controlling influence” over an entity is determined by applying a framework of tiered presumptions of control that are based on the percentage of a class of voting securities held by Ally and nine other relationships with the entity. For example, Ally would be presumed to have such a controlling influence with less than 5% of a class of voting securities and any of the following: a management agreement with the entity, one-half or more of the directors on the entity’s board, or one-third or more of the total equity in the entity.
•Enhanced Prudential Standards — Ally is subject to enhanced prudential standards that have been established by the FRB under the Dodd-Frank Act, as amended by the EGRRCP Act and as applied to Category IV firms under rules of the U.S. banking agencies that tailor how the enhanced prudential standards apply across large banking organizations (the Tailoring Rules). As a Category IV firm, Ally is (1) subject to supervisory stress testing on a two-year cycle, (2) required to submit an annual capital plan to the FRB, (3) exempted from company-run capital stress testing requirements, (4) required to maintain a buffer of unencumbered highly liquid assets to meet projected net stressed cash outflows over a 30-day planning horizon, (5) exempted from the requirements of the LCR and the net stable funding ratio (provided that our average wSTWF continues to remain under $50 billion), (6) exempted from the requirements of the supplementary leverage ratio, the countercyclical capital buffer, and single-counterparty credit limits, and (7) eligible to exclude most elements of accumulated other comprehensive income from regulatory capital. Even so, we are subject to rules enabling the FRB to conduct supervisory stress testing on a more or less frequent basis based on our financial condition, size, complexity, risk profile, scope of operations, or activities or based on risks to the U.S. economy. Further, we are subject to rules requiring the resubmission of our capital plan if we determine that there has been or will be a material change in our risk profile, financial condition, or corporate structure since we last submitted the capital plan or if the FRB determines that (a) our capital plan is incomplete or our capital plan or internal capital adequacy process contains material weaknesses, (b) there has been, or will likely be, a material change in our risk profile (including a material change in our business strategy or any risk exposure), financial condition, or corporate structure, or (c) the BHC stress scenario(s) are not appropriate for our business model and portfolios, or changes in the financial markets or the macroeconomic outlook that could have a material impact on our risk profile and financial condition require the use of updated scenarios. While a resubmission is pending, without prior approval of the FRB, we would generally be prohibited from paying dividends, repurchasing our common stock, or making other capital distributions. In addition, to satisfy the FRB in its review of our capital plan, we may be required to further cease or limit these capital distributions or to issue capital instruments that could be dilutive to stockholders. The FRB also may prevent us from maintaining or expanding lending or other business activities.
•Capital Adequacy Requirements — Ally and Ally Bank are subject to various capital adequacy requirements. Refer to Note 20 to the Consolidated Financial Statements and the section below titled Basel Capital Framework for additional information.
•Capital Planning and Stress Tests — Under the Tailoring Rules, Ally is generally subject to supervisory stress testing on a two-year cycle and exempted from mandated company-run capital stress testing requirements. Ally is also required to submit an annual capital plan to the FRB.
Ally’s annual capital plan must include an assessment of its expected uses and sources of capital and a description of all planned capital actions over a nine-quarter planning horizon, including any issuance of a debt or equity capital instrument, any dividend or other capital distribution, and any similar action that the FRB determines could have an impact on our capital. The plan must also include a detailed description of Ally’s process for assessing capital adequacy, including a discussion of how Ally, under expected and stressful conditions, will maintain capital commensurate with its risks and above the minimum regulatory capital ratios, will serve as a source of strength to Ally Bank, and will maintain sufficient capital to continue its operations by maintaining ready access to funding, meeting its obligations to creditors and other counterparties, and continuing to serve as a credit intermediary.
The Tailoring Rules align capital planning, supervisory stress testing, and stress capital buffer requirements for large banking organizations, like Ally. As a Category IV firm, Ally is expected to have the ability to elect to participate in the supervisory stress test—and receive a correspondingly updated stress capital buffer requirement—in a year in which Ally would not generally be subject to the supervisory stress test. Refer to the section below titled Basel Capital Framework for further discussion about our stress capital buffer requirements. During a year in which Ally does not undergo a supervisory stress test, we would receive an updated stress capital buffer requirement only to reflect our updated planned common-stock dividends. Ally was subject to the 2022 supervisory stress test and did not elect to participate in the 2023 supervisory stress test.
•Resolution Planning and Resolution-Related Requirements — Under rules of the FDIC, Ally Bank is required to periodically submit to the FDIC a resolution plan (commonly known as a living will) that would enable the FDIC, as receiver, to resolve Ally Bank in the event of its insolvency under the FDI Act in a manner that ensures that depositors receive access to their insured deposits within one business day of Ally Bank’s failure (two business days if the failure occurs on a day other than Friday), maximizes the net present value return from the sale or disposition of its assets, and minimizes the amount of any loss realized by creditors in the resolution. If the FDIC determines that the resolution plan is not credible and the deficiencies are not adequately remediated in a timely manner, the FDIC may take formal or informal supervisory, enforcement, and other actions against us. In June 2021, the FDIC issued a Statement on Resolution Plans for Insured Depository Institutions, which in part establishes a three-year filing cycle for banks with $100 billion or more in total assets, like Ally Bank. In August 2023, the FDIC issued a proposed rule that would require each insured depository institution with $100 billion or more in total assets, like Ally Bank, to submit a full resolution plan with an identified strategy for ensuring timely access to insured deposits, maximizing value from the disposition of assets, minimizing any losses realized by creditors, and addressing potential financial-stability risks. Each resolution plan also would be subject to more stringent standards on its assumptions, content, and reviews. Covered insured depository institutions would need to submit a full resolution plan every two years with interim supplements in non-submission years. Ally Bank submitted its most recent resolution plan on December 1, 2022.
Under the Tailoring Rules, Ally is no longer required to submit to the FRB and the FDIC a plan for the rapid and orderly resolution of Ally and its significant legal entities under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code and other applicable insolvency laws in the event of future material financial distress or failure.
•Limitations on Bank and BHC Dividends and Other Capital Distributions — Federal and Utah law place a number of conditions, limits, and other restrictions on dividends and other capital distributions that may be paid by Ally Bank to IB Finance and thus indirectly to Ally. In addition, even if the FRB does not require us to resubmit our capital plan as described earlier in Capital Planning and Stress Tests, Ally and IB Finance may be precluded from or limited in paying dividends or other capital distributions without the FRB’s approval under certain circumstances—for example, if Ally or IB Finance were to not meet minimum regulatory capital ratios after giving effect to the distributions. FRB supervisory guidance also directs BHCs like us to consult with the FRB prior to increasing dividends, implementing common stock-repurchase programs, or redeeming or repurchasing capital instruments. Further, the U.S. banking agencies are authorized to prohibit an insured depository institution, like Ally Bank, or a BHC, like Ally, from engaging in unsafe or unsound banking practices and, depending upon the circumstances, could find that paying a dividend or other capital distribution would constitute an unsafe or unsound banking practice. For information about our capital actions, including repurchases of and cash dividends on our common stock, refer to Note 20 to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
Our ability to make capital distributions, including our ability to pay dividends or repurchase shares of our common stock, will continue to be subject to the FRB’s review and our internal governance requirements, including approval by our Board. The amount and size of any future dividends and share repurchases also will be subject to various factors, including Ally’s capital and liquidity positions, accounting and regulatory considerations (including any restrictions that may be imposed by the FRB), taxation of share repurchases, financial and operational performance, alternative uses of capital, common-stock price, and general market conditions, and may be extended, modified, or discontinued at any time.
•Transactions with Affiliates — Sections 23A and 23B of the Federal Reserve Act and the FRB’s Regulation W prevent Ally and its nonbank subsidiaries from taking undue advantage of the benefits afforded to Ally Bank as a depository institution, including its access to federal deposit insurance and the FRB’s discount window. Pursuant to these laws, covered transactions—including Ally Bank’s extensions of credit to and asset purchases from its affiliates, credit exposures to affiliates arising from derivative transactions, securities lending and borrowing transactions, and acceptance of affiliate-issued debt obligations (other than securities) as collateral—are generally subject to meaningful restrictions. For example, unless otherwise exempted, (1) covered transactions are limited to 10% of Ally Bank’s capital stock and surplus in the case of any individual affiliate and 20% of Ally Bank’s capital stock and surplus in the case of all affiliates; (2) Ally Bank’s credit transactions with an affiliate are generally subject to stringent collateralization requirements; (3) with few exceptions, Ally Bank may not purchase any low quality asset from an affiliate; and (4) covered transactions must be conducted on terms and conditions that are consistent with safe and sound banking practices. In addition, transactions between Ally Bank and an affiliate must be on terms and conditions that are either substantially the same as or more beneficial to Ally Bank than those prevailing at the time for comparable transactions with or involving nonaffiliates.
These laws include an attribution rule that treats a transaction between Ally Bank and a nonaffiliate as a transaction between Ally Bank and an affiliate to the extent that the proceeds of the transaction are used for the benefit of or transferred to the affiliate.
•Source of Strength — Ally is required to serve as a source of financial strength for Ally Bank and to commit resources to support Ally Bank in circumstances when Ally might not otherwise elect to do so. The functional regulator of any nonbank subsidiary of Ally, however, may prevent that subsidiary from directly or indirectly contributing its financial support, and if that were to preclude Ally from serving as an adequate source of financial strength, the FRB may instead require the divestiture of Ally Bank and impose operating restrictions pending such a divestiture.
•Orderly Liquidation Authority — Under the Dodd-Frank Act, if a BHC’s failure would have serious adverse effects on the financial stability of the United States and other specified conditions were met, the BHC may be subjected to an FDIC-administered resolution regime called the orderly liquidation authority as an alternative to bankruptcy. If Ally were to be placed into receivership
under the orderly liquidation authority, the FDIC as receiver would have considerable rights and powers in liquidating and winding up Ally, including the ability to assign assets and liabilities without the need for creditor consent or prior court review and the ability to differentiate and determine priority among creditors. In doing so, moreover, the FDIC’s primary goal would be a liquidation that mitigates risk to the financial stability of the United States and that minimizes moral hazard.
•Acceptance of Brokered Deposits —Under FDICIA and the PCA framework described later in Basel Capital Framework, insured depository institutions such as Ally Bank must be well capitalized or, with a waiver from the FDIC, adequately capitalized in order to accept brokered deposits, and even adequately capitalized institutions are subject to some restrictions on the rates they may offer for brokered deposits. At December 31, 2023, Ally Bank met the capital ratios necessary to be classified as well capitalized under the PCA framework. Our brokered deposits totaled $11.0 billion at December 31, 2023, which represented 7.1% of total deposit liabilities.
•Enforcement Authority — The FRB possesses extensive authorities and powers to regulate and supervise the conduct of Ally’s businesses and operations. If the FRB were to take the position that Ally or any of its subsidiaries have violated any law or commitment or engaged in any unsafe or unsound practice, formal or informal enforcement and other supervisory actions could be taken by the FRB against Ally, its subsidiaries, and institution-affiliated parties (such as directors, officers, and agents). The UDFI and the FDIC have similarly expansive authorities and powers over Ally Bank and its subsidiaries. For example, the FRB, the UDFI, or the FDIC could order us to cease and desist from engaging in specified activities or practices or could affirmatively compel us to correct specified violations or practices. Some or all of these governmental authorities also would have the power, as applicable, to issue administrative orders against us that can be judicially enforced, to direct us to increase capital and liquidity, to limit our dividends and other capital distributions, to restrict or redirect the growth of our assets, businesses, and operations, to compel us to change our practices and remediate harm alleged to have been suffered by consumers or others, to assess civil money penalties against us, to remove our officers and directors, to require the divestiture or the retention of assets or entities, to terminate deposit insurance, or to force us into bankruptcy, conservatorship, or receivership. These actions could directly affect not only Ally, its subsidiaries, and institution-affiliated parties but also Ally’s counterparties, stockholders, and creditors and its commitments, arrangements, and other dealings with them.
In addition, the CFPB has broad authorities and powers to enforce federal consumer-protection laws involving financial products and services. The CFPB has exercised these authorities and powers through public enforcement actions, lawsuits, and consent orders and through nonpublic enforcement actions.
The SEC, FINRA, the Department of Justice, state attorneys general, and other domestic or foreign governmental authorities also have an array of means at their disposal to regulate and enforce matters within their jurisdiction that could impact Ally’s businesses and operations.
Basel Capital Framework
The FRB and other U.S. banking agencies have adopted risk-based and leverage capital rules that establish minimum capital-to-asset ratios for BHCs, like Ally, and depository institutions, like Ally Bank.
The risk-based capital ratios are based on a banking organization’s RWAs, which are generally determined under the standardized approach applicable to Ally and Ally Bank by (1) assigning on-balance-sheet exposures to broad risk-weight categories according to the counterparty or, if relevant, the guarantor or collateral (with higher risk weights assigned to categories of exposures perceived as representing greater risk), and (2) multiplying off-balance-sheet exposures by specified credit conversion factors to calculate credit equivalent amounts and assigning those credit equivalent amounts to the relevant risk-weight categories. The leverage ratio, in contrast, is based on an institution’s average unweighted on-balance-sheet exposures.
Under U.S. Basel III, Ally and Ally Bank must maintain a minimum Common Equity Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 4.5%, a minimum Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 6%, and a minimum total risk-based capital ratio of 8%. On top of the minimum risk-based capital ratios, Ally and Ally Bank are subject to a capital conservation buffer requirement, which must be satisfied entirely with capital that qualifies as Common Equity Tier 1 capital. Failure to maintain more than the full amount of the capital conservation buffer requirement would result in automatic restrictions on the ability of Ally and Ally Bank to make capital distributions, including dividend payments and stock repurchases and redemptions, and to pay discretionary bonuses to executive officers. U.S. Basel III also subjects Ally and Ally Bank to a minimum Tier 1 leverage ratio of 4%. While the capital conservation buffer requirement for Ally Bank is fixed at 2.5% of RWAs, the capital conservation buffer requirement for a Category IV firm, like Ally, is equal to its stress capital buffer requirement. The stress capital buffer requirement for Ally, in turn, is the greater of 2.5% and the result of the following calculation: (1) the difference between Ally’s starting and minimum projected Common Equity Tier 1 capital ratios under the severely adverse scenario in the supervisory stress test, plus (2) the sum of the dollar amount of Ally’s planned common stock dividends for each of the fourth through seventh quarters of its nine-quarter capital planning horizon, as a percentage of RWAs. As of December 31, 2023, the stress capital buffer requirement for Ally was 2.5%.
Ally and Ally Bank are currently subject to the U.S. Basel III standardized approach for counterparty credit risk but not to the U.S. Basel III advanced approaches for credit risk or operational risk. Ally is also not currently subject to the U.S. market-risk capital rule, which applies only to banking organizations with significant trading assets and liabilities. Since Ally and Ally Bank are currently not subject to the advanced approaches risk-based capital rules, we elected to apply a one-time option to exclude most components of accumulated other comprehensive income and loss from regulatory capital. As of December 31, 2023, and December 31, 2022, Ally had $3.8 billion and
$4.1 billion, respectively, of accumulated other comprehensive loss, net of applicable income taxes, that was excluded from Common Equity Tier 1 capital. Refer to the discussion below about rules proposed by the U.S. banking agencies in 2023 that would require us to recognize all components of accumulated other comprehensive income and loss in regulatory capital, except gains and losses on cash-flow hedges where the hedged items are not recognized on our balance sheet at fair value. Refer also to Note 18 to the Consolidated Financial Statements for additional details about our accumulated other comprehensive loss.
The risk-based capital ratios and the Tier 1 leverage ratio play a central role in PCA, which is an enforcement framework used by the U.S. banking agencies to constrain the activities of depository institutions based on their levels of regulatory capital. Five categories have been established using thresholds for the Common Equity Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio, the Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio, the total risk-based capital ratio, and the Tier 1 leverage ratio: well capitalized, adequately capitalized, undercapitalized, significantly undercapitalized, and critically undercapitalized. FDICIA generally prohibits a depository institution from making any capital distribution, including any payment of a cash dividend or a management fee to its BHC, if the depository institution would become undercapitalized after the distribution. An undercapitalized institution is also subject to growth limitations and must submit and fulfill a capital restoration plan. Although BHCs are not subject to the PCA framework, the FRB is empowered to compel a BHC to take measures—such as the execution of financial or performance guarantees—when PCA is required in connection with one of its depository-institution subsidiaries. At December 31, 2023, Ally Bank met the capital ratios required to be well capitalized under the PCA framework.
At December 31, 2023, Ally and Ally Bank were in compliance with their regulatory capital requirements. For an additional discussion of capital adequacy requirements, refer to Note 20 to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
On January 1, 2020, we adopted CECL. Refer to Note 1 to the Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information about our allowance for loan losses accounting policy. Under a rule finalized by the FRB and other U.S. banking agencies in 2020, we delayed recognizing the estimated impact of CECL on regulatory capital until after a two-year deferral period, which for us extended through December 31, 2021. Beginning on January 1, 2022, we were required to phase in 25% of the previously deferred estimated capital impact of CECL, with an additional 25% to be phased in at the beginning of each subsequent year until fully phased in by the first quarter of 2025. The estimated impact of CECL on regulatory capital that we deferred and began phasing in on January 1, 2022, is generally calculated as the entire day-one impact at adoption plus 25% of the subsequent change in allowance during the two-year deferral period. As of December 31, 2023, the total deferred impact on Common Equity Tier 1 capital related to our adoption of CECL was $591 million.
In April 2023, in a statement accompanying the review of the FRB’s supervision and regulation of SVB, FRB Vice Chair for Supervision Barr highlighted a plan to revisit the Tailoring Rules and develop stronger capital, liquidity, stress-testing, and other standards for Category IV firms like Ally. In July 2023, the U.S. banking agencies issued a proposed rule to customize and implement revisions to the global Basel III capital framework that were approved by the Basel Committee in December 2017 (commonly known as the Basel III endgame or as Basel IV). For regulatory capital, the proposed rule would eliminate the effect of the Tailoring Rules by requiring the recognition of most elements of accumulated other comprehensive income and loss and the application of deductions, limitations, and criteria for specified capital investments, minority interests, and TLAC holdings. For each of the risk-based capital ratios, a large banking organization, like Ally, would calculate and be bound by the lower of two alternatives: one version of the ratio based on an expanded risk-based approach prescribed in the proposed rule and one version of the ratio based on the standardized approach as modified by the proposed rule. All capital buffer requirements, including the stress capital buffer requirement, would apply regardless of whether the expanded risk-based approach or the standardized approach produces the lower ratio. Under the expanded risk-based approach, total RWAs would equal the sum of the RWAs for credit risk, equity risk, operational risk, market risk, and CVA risk as set forth in the proposed rule minus any amount of the banking organization’s adjusted allowance for credit losses that is not included in Tier 2 capital and any amount of allocated transfer risk reserves. Under the standardized approach, total RWAs would be calculated using the existing rules with a revised methodology for determining RWAs for market risk, and a required application of the standardized approach for counterparty credit risk for derivative exposures. Category IV firms would be further required under the proposed rule to project their risk-based capital ratios under baseline conditions in their capital plans and related reports using the RWA-calculation approach that results in their binding risk-based capital ratios as of the start of the projection horizon. The proposed rule also would roll back additional elements of the Tailoring Rules by applying to Category IV firms the supplementary leverage ratio, the countercyclical capital buffer, and enhanced public disclosure and reporting requirements. Under the proposed rule, a three-year transition period from July 1, 2025, to June 30, 2028, would apply to the recognition of accumulated other comprehensive income and loss in regulatory capital and the use of the expanded risk-based approach. The phase-in of accumulated other comprehensive income and loss is expected to significantly affect our levels of regulatory capital. While we believe that this would be manageable, we also anticipate that our levels of regulatory capital would need to be gradually increased in advance of and during the proposed transition period. As for the proposed changes to RWAs, while we continue to evaluate the effects of individual provisions and the interplay among them as well as potential management actions in response, the impact is not currently expected to be significant in the aggregate if the proposed rule were adopted in its existing form. Since the proposed rule was issued, we have been engaged with research and advocacy groups to inform the rulemaking process and better understand the impacts of the proposed rule on banking organizations of various sizes and complexities—as well as the competitive environment more broadly—and likewise encourage the U.S. banking agencies to closely study these impacts and their wider implications.
In August 2023, the U.S. banking agencies issued two proposed rules to improve the resolvability of Category IV firms, like Ally. The first proposed rule would require Category II, III, and IV firms, their consolidated IDI subsidiaries, and other institutions to issue and maintain minimum amounts of eligible long-term debt in an amount that is the greater of (i) 6% of total RWAs, (ii) 3.5% of average total consolidated assets, and (iii) 2.5% of total leverage exposure. Covered IDIs, like Ally Bank, that are consolidated subsidiaries of covered entities, like Ally, would be required to issue eligible long-term debt internally to a company that consolidates the covered IDI, which would
in turn be required to purchase that long-term debt. Only long-term debt instruments that are most readily able to absorb losses in a resolution proceeding would qualify, and the operations of covered entities would be subject to clean-holding-company requirements such as prohibitions and limitations on their liabilities to unaffiliated entities. Under the proposed rule, a transition period would apply with 25%, 50%, and 100% of the long-term-debt requirements coming into effect by the end of the first, second, and third years, respectively, after finalization of the rule. The second proposed rule, which was issued solely by the FDIC, would require each insured depository institution with $100 billion or more in total assets, like Ally Bank, to submit a full resolution plan with an identified strategy for ensuring timely access to insured deposits, maximizing value from the disposition of assets, minimizing any losses realized by creditors, and addressing potential financial stability risks. Each resolution plan also would be subject to more stringent standards on its assumptions, content, and reviews. Covered IDIs would need to submit a full resolution plan every two years with interim supplements in non-submission years. We are still assessing the impact of these two proposed rules, but due to the current structure and amount of debt instruments issued by Ally and Ally Bank, expect the long-term-debt rule in particular to significantly affect us.
Whether and when final rules related to these proposals may be adopted and take effect, as well as what changes to the proposed rules may be reflected in any final rules after the comment periods, remain unclear. Also, beyond these proposed rules, more stringent and less tailored liquidity, stress-testing, and other standards for Category IV firms, like Ally, may be forthcoming, including those that may reinstate the LCR, require more rigorous liquidity stress testing, and return Ally to supervisory stress testing on an annual cycle.
Insured Depository Institution Status
Ally Bank is an IDI and, as such, is required to file periodic reports with the FDIC about its financial condition. Total assets of Ally Bank were $186.1 billion at December 31, 2023, $181.9 billion at December 31, 2022, and $172.8 billion at December 31, 2021.
Ally Bank’s deposits are insured by the FDIC in the standard insurance amounts per depositor for each account ownership category as prescribed by the FDI Act. Insured depository institutions with two million or more deposit accounts, including Ally Bank, are required by the FDIC to establish and maintain systems and processes designed to facilitate prompt payment of FDIC-insured deposits in the event of a failure. Deposit insurance is funded through assessments on Ally Bank and other insured depository institutions. The FDIC assesses premiums from each institution based on its average consolidated total assets minus its average tangible equity, while utilizing a scorecard method to determine each institution’s risk to the DIF. The FDIC may take action to increase insurance premiums if the DIF is not funded to its regulatory-mandated DRR. Currently, the FDIC is required to maintain a DRR of 1.35% under the FDI Act. In October 2022, the FDIC finalized a rule that increased the initial base deposit insurance assessment rate schedules for all insured depository institutions by two basis points, beginning with the first quarterly assessment period of 2023. The increased assessment rate is intended to improve the likelihood that the DRR will reach the required minimum of 1.35% by the statutory deadline of September 30, 2028. On November 16, 2023, the FDIC finalized a rule that imposes a special assessment to recover the costs to the DIF resulting from the FDIC’s use, in March 2023, of the systemic risk exception to the least-cost resolution test under the FDI Act in connection with the receiverships of SVB and Signature. The FDIC estimated in approving the rule that those assessed losses total approximately $16.3 billion. The rule provides that this loss estimate will be periodically adjusted, which will affect the amount of the special assessment. Under the rule, the assessment base is the estimated uninsured deposits that an IDI reported in its Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income (“Call Report”) at December 31, 2022, excluding the first $5 billion in estimated uninsured deposits. The special assessments will be collected at an annual rate of approximately 13.4 basis points per year (3.36 basis points per quarter) over eight quarters in 2024 and 2025, with the first assessment period beginning January 1, 2024. Because the estimated loss pursuant to the systemic risk determination will be periodically adjusted, the FDIC retains the ability to cease collection early, extend the special assessment collection period, and impose a final shortfall special assessment on a one-time basis. Ally expects the special assessments to be tax deductible. The total of the assessments for Ally, based on Ally Bank’s uninsured deposits as of December 31, 2022, is estimated at $38 million, and such amount was recorded as an expense in the quarter of adoption (the quarter ending December 31, 2023).
If an insured depository institution, like Ally Bank, were to become insolvent or if other specified events were to occur relating to its financial condition or the propriety of its actions, the FDIC may be appointed as conservator or receiver for the institution. In that capacity, the FDIC would have the power to (1) transfer assets and liabilities of the institution to another person or entity without the approval of the institution’s creditors; (2) require that its claims process be followed and to enforce statutory or other limits on damages claimed by the institution’s creditors; (3) enforce the institution’s contracts or leases according to their terms; (4) repudiate or disaffirm the institution’s contracts or leases; (5) seek to reclaim, recover, or recharacterize transfers of the institution’s assets or to exercise control over assets in which the institution may claim an interest; (6) enforce statutory or other injunctions; and (7) exercise a wide range of other rights, powers, and authorities, including those that could impair the rights and interests of all or some of the institution’s creditors. In addition, the administrative expenses of the conservator or receiver could be afforded priority over all or some of the claims of the institution’s creditors, and under the FDI Act, the claims of depositors (including the FDIC as subrogee of depositors) would enjoy priority over the claims of the institution’s unsecured creditors.
Investments in Ally
Because Ally Bank is an insured depository institution and Ally and IB Finance are BHCs, direct or indirect control of us—whether through the ownership of voting securities, influence over management or policies, or other means—is subject to approvals, conditions, and other restrictions under federal and state laws. Refer to the section above titled Bank Holding Company, Financial Holding Company, and Depository Institution Status for additional information. These laws may differ in their purposes, definitions and presumptions of control, and restrictions, which for example is the case as between the BHC Act and the Change in Bank Control Act. Investors are responsible for ensuring that they do not, directly or indirectly, acquire control of us in contravention of these laws.
Some of our insurance operations—including in the United States, Canada, and Bermuda—are subject to certain minimum aggregate capital requirements, net asset and dividend restrictions, and rules and regulations promulgated by various U.S. and foreign regulatory agencies. Under state and foreign insurance laws, dividend distributions may be made only from statutory unassigned surplus with approvals required from applicable regulatory authorities for dividends in excess of statutory limitations. Our insurance operations are also subject to applicable state and foreign laws generally governing insurance companies, as well as laws addressing products that are not regulated as insurance, such as VSCs and GAP waivers.
Consumer Finance
Our retail-automotive, consumer-mortgage, personal-lending, and credit-card businesses are subject to extensive federal, state, and local laws. These laws, for example, may impose licensing obligations and financial requirements; limit the interest rates, finance charges, and other fees that can be charged; regulate the use of credit reports and the reporting of credit information; impose underwriting and disclosure requirements; regulate marketing techniques and practices; require the safeguarding of nonpublic information about customers; and regulate servicing practices, including in connection with assessments, collection and foreclosure activities, claims handling, and investment and interest payments on escrow accounts. T
Download