XML 37 R26.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.24.1.u1

Regulatory Capital and Other Regulatory Matters | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Mar. 31, 2024
Broker-Dealer, Net Capital Requirement, SEC Regulation [Abstract] |
Regulatory Capital and Other Regulatory Matters | Regulatory Capital and Other Regulatory Matters 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 the Tailoring Rules. Refer to the discussion below, however, about rules proposed by the U.S. banking agencies in 2023 that would significantly alter the Tailoring Rules. Currently, 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), and (6) exempted from the requirements of the supplementary leverage ratio, the countercyclical capital buffer, and single-counterparty credit limits. 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. 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 March 31, 2024, 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 March 31, 2024, and December 31, 2023, Ally had $4.0 billion and $3.8 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 16 for additional details about our accumulated other comprehensive loss. Failure to satisfy regulatory-capital requirements could result in significant sanctions—such as bars or other limits on capital distributions and discretionary bonuses to executive officers, limitations on acquisitions and new activities, restrictions on our acceptance of brokered deposits, a loss of our status as an FHC, or informal or formal enforcement and other supervisory actions—and could have a significant adverse effect on the Consolidated Financial Statements or the business, results of operations, financial condition, or prospects of Ally and Ally Bank. 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 both March 31, 2024, and December 31, 2023, Ally Bank met the capital ratios required to be well capitalized under the PCA framework. Under FDICIA and the PCA 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. Our brokered deposits totaled $8.5 billion at March 31, 2024, which represented 5.5% of total deposit liabilities. The following table summarizes our capital ratios under U.S. Basel III.
|  | March 31, 2024 |  | December 31, 2023 |  | Required minimum (a) |  | Well-capitalized minimum
($ in millions) |  | Amount |  | Ratio |  | Amount |  | Ratio |
Capital ratios |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Common Equity Tier 1 (to risk-weighted assets) |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Ally Financial Inc. |  | $ | 14,905 |  |  | 9.41 | % |  | $ | 15,129 |  |  | 9.36 | % |  | 4.50 | % |  | (b)
Ally Bank |  | 17,290 |  |  | 11.53 |  |  | 17,217 |  |  | 11.24 |  |  | 4.50 |  |  | 6.50 | %
Tier 1 (to risk-weighted assets) |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Ally Financial Inc. |  | $ | 17,171 |  |  | 10.84 | % |  | $ | 17,392 |  |  | 10.76 | % |  | 6.00 | % |  | 6.00 | %
Ally Bank |  | 17,290 |  |  | 11.53 |  |  | 17,217 |  |  | 11.24 |  |  | 6.00 |  |  | 8.00 |
Total (to risk-weighted assets) |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Ally Financial Inc. |  | $ | 19,802 |  |  | 12.51 | % |  | $ | 20,055 |  |  | 12.41 | % |  | 8.00 | % |  | 10.00 | %
Ally Bank |  | 19,180 |  |  | 12.80 |  |  | 19,144 |  |  | 12.50 |  |  | 8.00 |  |  | 10.00 |
Tier 1 leverage (to adjusted quarterly average assets) (c) |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Ally Financial Inc. |  | $ | 17,171 |  |  | 8.63 | % |  | $ | 17,392 |  |  | 8.67 | % |  | 4.00 | % |  | (b)
Ally Bank |  | 17,290 |  |  | 9.19 |  |  | 17,217 |  |  | 9.07 |  |  | 4.00 |  |  | 5.00 | %
(a)In addition to the minimum risk-based capital requirements for the Common Equity Tier 1 capital, Tier 1 capital, and total capital ratios, Ally and Ally Bank were required to maintain a minimum capital conservation buffer of 2.5% at both March 31, 2024, and December 31, 2023. (b)Currently, there is no ratio component for determining whether a BHC is “well-capitalized.” (c)Federal regulatory reporting guidelines require the calculation of adjusted quarterly average assets using a daily average methodology. On January 1, 2020, we adopted CECL. Refer to Note 1 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in our 2023 Annual Report on Form 10-K 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 March 31, 2024, the total deferred impact on Common Equity Tier 1 capital related to our adoption of CECL was $296 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 large consolidated banks, and other institutions to issue and maintain minimum amounts of eligible long-term debt in an amount that is the greater of (i) 6 percent of total RWAs, (ii) 3.5 percent of average total consolidated assets, and (iii) 2.5 percent of total leverage exposure. Covered insured depository institutions, 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 insured depository institution, 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 percent 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 insured depository institutions 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. Capital Planning and Stress Tests Under the Tailoring Rules, we are generally subject to supervisory stress testing on a two-year cycle and exempted from mandated company-run capital stress testing requirements. We are also required to submit an annual capital plan to the FRB. Our annual capital plan must include an assessment of our 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 our process for assessing capital adequacy, including a discussion of how we, under expected and stressful conditions, will maintain capital commensurate with our 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 our operations by maintaining ready access to funding, meeting our 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 titled Basel Capital Framework above 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. We received an updated preliminary stress capital buffer requirement based on our 2022 capital plan submission from the FRB in June 2022, which was determined to be 2.5% and reflected a decline of 100 basis points relative to our prior requirement. The updated 2.5% stress capital buffer requirement was finalized in August 2022 and became effective on October 1, 2022. In February 2023, we accessed the unsecured debt capital markets and issued $500 million of additional subordinated notes, which qualify as Tier 2 capital for Ally under U.S. Basel III. We submitted our 2023 capital plan to the FRB on April 5, 2023, and received an updated preliminary stress capital buffer requirement in June 2023 that remained unchanged at 2.5%. The 2.5% stress capital buffer requirement was finalized in July 2023 and became effective on October 1, 2023. We submitted our 2024 capital plan to the FRB on April 5, 2024. Our ability to make capital distributions, including our ability to pay dividends or repurchase shares of our common stock, will continue to be subject to the FRB’s review and our internal governance requirements, including approval by our Board. The amount and size of any future dividends and share repurchases also will be subject to various factors, including Ally’s capital and liquidity positions, accounting and regulatory considerations (including any restrictions that may be imposed by the FRB and any changes to capital, liquidity, and other regulatory requirements that may be proposed or adopted by the U.S. banking agencies), the taxation of share repurchases, financial and operational performance, alternative uses of capital, common-stock price, and general market conditions, and may be extended, modified, or discontinued at any time. The following table presents information related to our common stock and distributions to our common stockholders.
|  | Common stock repurchased during period (a) (b) |  | Number of common shares outstanding |  | Cash dividends declared per common share (c)
($ in millions, except per share data; shares in thousands) |  | Approximate dollar value |  | Number of shares |  | Beginning of period |  | End of period |
2023 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
First quarter |  | $ | 27 |  |  | 836 |  |  | 299,324 |  |  | 300,821 |  |  | $ | 0.30 |
Second quarter |  | 2 |  |  | 58 |  |  | 300,821 |  |  | 301,619 |  |  | 0.30 |
Third quarter |  | — |  |  | 5 |  |  | 301,619 |  |  | 301,630 |  |  | 0.30 |
Fourth quarter |  | 4 |  |  | 145 |  |  | 301,630 |  |  | 302,459 |  |  | 0.30 |
2024 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
First quarter |  | $ | 29 |  |  | 781 |  |  | 302,459 |  |  | 303,978 |  |  | $ | 0.30 |
(a)Includes shares of common stock withheld to cover income taxes owed by participants in our share-based incentive plans. (b)Since the commencement of our initial stock-repurchase program in the third quarter of 2016, we have reduced the number of outstanding shares of our common stock by 37%, from 484 million as of June 30, 2016, to 304 million as of March 31, 2024. Except for repurchases made of shares withheld to cover income taxes owed by participants in our share-based incentive plans, we did not make any common-stock repurchases in 2023 or the first quarter of 2024, and at this time, the Board has not authorized a stock-repurchase program for 2024. (c)On April 15, 2024, our Board declared a quarterly cash dividend of $0.30 per share on all common stock, payable on May 15, 2024, to stockholders of record at the close of business on May 1, 2024.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | srt_RegulatoryCapitalRequirementsAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | srt_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for regulatory capital requirement for depository and lending institutions. Institutions include, but not are not limited to, finance company, insured depository institution, bank holding company, savings and loan association holding company, bank and savings institution not federally insured, mortgage company, foreign financial institution and credit union. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 942 -SubTopic 505 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a)(1) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//1943274/2147480696/942-505-50-1 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 942 -SubTopic 505 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a)(2) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//1943274/2147480696/942-505-50-1 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 942 -SubTopic 505 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (b) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//1943274/2147480696/942-505-50-1 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 942 -SubTopic 505 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (c)(2) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//1943274/2147480696/942-505-50-1 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 942 -SubTopic 505 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (e) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//1943274/2147480696/942-505-50-1 Reference 6: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 942 -SubTopic 505 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 1D -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//1943274/2147480696/942-505-50-1D Reference 7: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 942 -SubTopic 505 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 1A -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//1943274/2147480696/942-505-50-1A Reference 8: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 942 -SubTopic 505 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 1F -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//1943274/2147480696/942-505-50-1F + Details
Name: | us-gaap_RegulatoryCapitalRequirementsUnderBankingRegulationsTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration