Ally Financial Inc

Previous wording

If our ability to receive distributions from subsidiaries is restricted, we may not be able to satisfy our obligations to counterparties or creditors, make dividend payments to stockholders, or repurchase our common stock.

Current wording

•If our ability to receive distributions from subsidiaries is restricted, we may not be able to satisfy our obligations to counterparties or creditors, make dividend payments to shareholders, or repurchase our common stock.

Previous wording

The markets for automotive financing, insurance, banking (including corporate finance, mortgage finance, and credit-card products), brokerage, and investment-advisory services are extremely competitive, and competitive pressures could adversely affect our business and financial results.

Current wording

•The markets for automotive financing, insurance, banking, brokerage, and investment-advisory services are extremely competitive, and competitive pressures could adversely affect our business and financial results.

Previous wording

Geopolitical conditions, government shutdowns, military conflicts, acts or threats of terrorism, natural disasters, pandemics, and other conditions or events beyond our control could adversely affect us.

Current wording

•Geopolitical conditions, government shutdowns, military conflicts, acts or threats of terrorism, natural disasters, pandemics, disruptions in the economy caused by geopolitical events and related sanctions, and other conditions or events beyond our control could adversely affect us.

Previous wording

Our failure to maintain appropriate ESG practices, oversight, and disclosures could result in reputational harm, a loss of customer and investor confidence, and adverse business and financial results.

Current wording

•Our failure to meet stakeholder expectations on sustainability-related issues could result in reputational harm, a loss of customer and investor confidence, and adverse business and financial results.

Previous wording

We are subject to extensive regulatory frameworks and 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. This regulatory and supervisory oversight is designed to protect public and private interests—such as macroeconomic policy objectives, financial-market stability and liquidity, and the confidence and security of depositors generally—that may not always be aligned with those of our stockholders or non-deposit creditors. At any given time, we are involved in a number of legal and regulatory proceedings and governmental and regulatory examinations, investigations, and other inquiries. Refer to the risk factor below titled We are or may be subject to potential liability in connection with pending or threatened legal proceedings and other matters, which could adversely affect our business or financial results.

Current wording

We are subject to extensive regulatory frameworks and 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. This regulatory and supervisory oversight is designed to protect public and private interests—such as macroeconomic policy objectives, financial-market stability and liquidity, and the confidence and security of depositors generally—that may not always be aligned with those of our shareholders or non-deposit creditors. At any given time, we are involved in a number of legal and regulatory proceedings and governmental and regulatory examinations, investigations, and other inquiries. Refer to the risk factor below titled We are or may be subject to potential liability in connection with pending or threatened legal proceedings and other matters, which could adversely affect our business or financial results.

Previous wording

While the scope, intensity, and focus of governmental oversight can vary from time to time, we expect a highly demanding environment for the foreseeable future. In recent years, regulatory and other governmental agencies have taken a host of actions that create more challenging and volatile financial and operating conditions for financial-services companies, including through formal rulemakings that change the law or interpretations of the law, supervisory expectations and public statements that are designed to informally compel changes in industry practices, and more aggressive approaches to enforcement that are accompanied by increasingly severe penalties. These actions are comprehensive in their coverage, such as rulemakings on climate-related disclosures, cybersecurity risk governance (including incident disclosure), CRA reform, credit-card fees (such as the CFPB’s proposed rule to cap late fees), and personal-financial-data rights as well as guidance and statements on mergers and acquisitions, regulatory capital, resolution planning, automotive financing and insurance, fees for financial services, and UDAAP. Further, following the failures of three large banks in 2023, banking regulators have proposed changes, or indicated the potential for changes, regarding the regulation and supervision of banking organizations, in particular those, such as Ally, with $100 billion or more in assets. The introduction of new or more stringent regulatory requirements, as well as heightened supervisory expectations, could require Ally to maintain additional capital or liquidity or incur significant expenses. Governmental oversight of this kind may increase our operating costs or reduce our revenues, limit the types of financial services and products we may offer, alter the investments we may make, affect the manner in which we conduct our business and operations, increase our litigation and regulatory costs, and enhance the ability of others to offer more competitive financial services and products. We continue to devote substantial time and resources to risk management, compliance, regulatory-change management, and cybersecurity and other technology initiatives, each of which—whether successful or not—also may adversely affect our ability to operate profitably or to pursue advantageous business opportunities.

Current wording

While the scope, intensity, and focus of governmental oversight can vary from time to time, we expect a highly demanding environment for the foreseeable future. In recent years, regulatory and other governmental agencies have taken a host of actions that create more challenging and volatile financial and operating conditions for financial-services companies, including through formal rulemakings that change the law or interpretations of the law, supervisory expectations and public statements that are designed to informally compel changes in industry practices, and more aggressive approaches to enforcement that are accompanied by increasingly severe penalties. These actions are comprehensive in their coverage, such as rulemakings on cybersecurity risk governance (including incident disclosure), climate-, diversity- and other sustainability related matters (including disclosures), CRA reform, and personal-financial-data rights as well as guidance and statements on mergers and acquisitions, regulatory capital, resolution planning, automotive financing and insurance, fees for financial services, and UDAAP. Further, the level of regulatory scrutiny may fluctuate over time based on numerous factors, including changes in the U.S. presidential administrations or one or both houses of Congress and public sentiment regarding financial institutions (which can be influenced by scandals and other incidents that involve participants in the industry). We are unable to predict the form or nature of any future changes to the laws, rules, regulations, or supervisory guidance and policies, including the interpretation, implementation, or enforcement thereof. Following the failures of three large banks in 2023, banking regulators have proposed changes, or indicated the potential for changes, regarding the regulation and supervision of banking organizations, in particular those, such as Ally, with $100 billion or more in assets. The introduction of new or more stringent regulatory requirements, as well as heightened supervisory expectations, could require Ally to maintain additional capital or liquidity or incur significant expenses. Governmental oversight of this kind may increase our operating costs or reduce our revenues, limit the types of financial services and products we may offer, alter the investments we may make, affect the manner in which we conduct our business and operations, increase our litigation and regulatory costs, and enhance the ability of others to offer more competitive financial services and products. We continue to devote substantial time and resources to risk management, compliance, regulatory-change management, and cybersecurity and other technology initiatives, each of which—whether successful or not—also may adversely affect our ability to operate profitably or to pursue advantageous business opportunities.

Previous wording

Ally has elected to be treated as an FHC, which permits us to engage in a number of financial and related activities—including securities, advisory, insurance, and merchant-banking activities—beyond the business of banking. Ally and Ally Bank are subject to ongoing requirements for Ally to qualify as an FHC. If a BHC or any of its insured depository institutions is found not to be well capitalized or well managed, as defined under applicable law, the BHC can be restricted from engaging in the broader range of financial and related activities permitted for FHCs, including the ability to acquire companies engaged in those activities, and can be required to discontinue these activities or even divest any of its insured depository institutions. In addition, if an insured-depository-institution subsidiary of a BHC fails to achieve a satisfactory or better rating under the CRA, the ability of the BHC to expand its financial and related activities or make acquisitions could be restricted.

Current wording

Ally has elected to be treated as an FHC, which permits us to engage in a number of financial and related activities—including securities, advisory, insurance, and merchant-banking activities—beyond the business of banking. Ally and Ally Bank are subject to ongoing requirements for Ally to qualify as an FHC, including that Ally and all of its depository institution subsidiaries must be “well capitalized” and “well managed,” as defined under applicable law. If a BHC or any of its insured depository institutions is found not to be well capitalized or well managed, the BHC can be restricted from engaging in the broader range of financial and related activities permitted for FHCs, including the ability to acquire companies engaged in those activities, and can be required to discontinue these activities or even divest any of its insured depository institutions. In addition, if an insured-depository-institution subsidiary of a BHC fails to achieve a “satisfactory” or better rating in its most recent CRA performance evaluation, the ability of the BHC to expand its financial and related activities or make acquisitions could be restricted.

Previous wording

In connection with their continuous supervision and examinations of us, the FRB, the UDFI, the CFPB, the SEC, FINRA, the NYDFS, or other regulatory agencies may explicitly or implicitly require changes in our business or operations. Such a requirement may be judicially enforceable or impractical for us to contest, and if we are unable to comply with the requirement in a timely and effective manner, we could become subject to formal or informal enforcement and other supervisory actions, including memoranda of understanding, written agreements, cease-and-desist orders, and prompt-corrective-action or safety-and-soundness directives. The financial-services industry continues to face scrutiny from supervisory authorities in the examination process, including through an increasing use of horizontal reviews from a broader industry perspective as well as strict enforcement of laws at federal, state, and local levels—particularly in connection with business and other practices that may harm or appear to harm consumers and compliance with anti-money-laundering, sanctions, and related laws. Because of the regulatory and supervisory framework, financial institutions often are less inclined to litigate with governmental authorities. In general, the amounts paid by financial institutions in settling proceedings or investigations and the severity of other terms of regulatory settlements are likely to remain elevated. In some cases, governmental authorities have required criminal pleas or other extraordinary terms, including admissions of wrongdoing and the imposition of monitors, as part of settlements. Supervisory actions could entail significant restrictions on our existing business, our ability to develop new business or make acquisitions, our flexibility in conducting operations, and our ability to pay dividends or utilize capital. Enforcement and other supervisory actions also can result in the imposition of civil monetary penalties or injunctions, related litigation by private plaintiffs, damage to our reputation, and a loss of customer or investor confidence, and a prior enforcement action may also increase the risk that regulators and governmental authorities pursue formal enforcement actions in connection with the resolution of an inquiry or investigation, even if unrelated to the prior enforcement action. We could be required as well to dispose of specified assets and liabilities within a prescribed period of time. As a result, any enforcement or other supervisory action could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and prospects.

Current wording

In connection with their continuous supervision and examinations of us, the FRB, the UDFI, the CFPB, the SEC, FINRA, the NYDFS, or other regulatory agencies have in the past and in the future may continue to explicitly or implicitly require changes in our business or operations. Such a requirement may be judicially enforceable or impractical for us to contest, and if we are unable to comply with the requirement in a timely and effective manner, we have in the past and in the future may become subject to formal or informal enforcement and other supervisory actions, including memoranda of understanding, written agreements, cease-and-desist orders, and prompt-corrective-action or safety-and-soundness directives. In addition, compliance failures or other violations raised in connection with supervisory evaluations have in the past and in the future may continue to result in additional requirements for us to take certain remedial actions, including changes to our controls, operations or other processes. Compliance with such remedial actions may be costly and time consuming, and failure to comply in a timely manner that is sufficient from the perspective of the applicable regulatory agency could subject us to further remedial steps or enforcement actions. The financial-services industry continues to face increased scrutiny from supervisory authorities in the examination process, including through an increasing use of horizontal reviews from a broader industry perspective as well as strict enforcement of laws at federal, state, and local levels—particularly in connection with business and other practices that may harm or appear to harm consumers and compliance with anti-money-laundering, sanctions, and related laws. In addition, violations by other financial institutions relating to a particular business activity or practice may result in increased scrutiny, or increased penalties in connection with a related enforcement action, for similar activities. Because of the regulatory and supervisory framework, financial institutions often are less inclined to litigate with governmental authorities. In general, the amounts paid by financial institutions in settling proceedings or investigations and the severity of other terms of regulatory settlements are likely to remain elevated. In some cases, governmental authorities have required criminal pleas or other extraordinary terms, including admissions of wrongdoing and the imposition of monitors, as part of settlements. Supervisory actions could entail significant restrictions on our existing business, our ability to develop new business or make acquisitions, our flexibility in conducting operations, and our ability to pay dividends or utilize capital. Enforcement and other supervisory actions also can result in the imposition of civil monetary penalties or injunctions, related litigation by private plaintiffs, damage to our reputation, and a loss of customer or investor confidence, and a prior enforcement actio…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Previous wording

Our regulatory and supervisory environments—whether at federal, state, or local levels—are not static. No assurance can be given that applicable statutes, regulations, and other laws will not be amended or construed differently, that new laws will not be adopted, that any of these laws will not be enforced more aggressively, or that applicable laws, or the interpretation or enforcement thereof, may overlap, diverge or conflict across jurisdictions. Changes in the regulatory and supervisory environments could adversely affect us in substantial and unpredictable ways, including by limiting the types of financial services and products we may offer, enhancing the ability of others to offer more competitive financial services and products, and restricting our ability to make acquisitions or pursue other profitable opportunities. Further, our noncompliance with applicable laws—whether as a result of changes in interpretation or enforcement, system or human errors, or otherwise and, in some cases, regardless of whether noncompliance was inadvertent—could result in the suspension or revocation of licenses or registrations that we need to operate and in the initiation of enforcement and other supervisory actions or private litigation.

Current wording

Our regulatory and supervisory environments—whether at international, federal, state, or local levels—are not static. No assurance can be given that applicable statutes, regulations, and other laws will not be amended or construed differently, that new laws will not be adopted, that any of these laws will not be enforced more aggressively, or that applicable laws, or the interpretation or enforcement thereof, may overlap, diverge or conflict across jurisdictions. Litigation challenging actions or regulations by federal or state authorities could, depending on the outcome, significantly affect the regulatory and supervisory framework affecting our operations. Changes in the regulatory and supervisory environments, including as a result of changes from recent elections in the United States and the corresponding change in administrative regimes, could adversely affect us in substantial and unpredictable ways, including by limiting the types of financial services and products we may offer, enhancing the ability of others to offer more competitive financial services and products, and restricting our ability to make acquisitions or pursue other profitable opportunities. Uncertainty about the timing and scope of future changes in laws, regulations and policies, or the interpretations thereof, may impact our decision making with respect to business activities or initiatives, and reacting to such changes could increase our operating and compliance costs. Further, our noncompliance with applicable laws—whether as a result of changes in interpretation or enforcement, system or human errors, or otherwise and, in some cases, regardless of whether noncompliance was inadvertent—could result in the suspension or revocation of licenses or registrations that we need to operate and in the initiation of enforcement and other supervisory actions or private litigation.

Previous wording

The FRB may require us to revise and resubmit our capital plan in specified circumstances, including if the FRB determines that our capital plan is incomplete, our capital plan or internal capital adequacy process contains material weaknesses, or 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. 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.

Current wording

The FRB may require us to revise and resubmit our capital plan in specified circumstances, including in connection with certain acquisitions or dispositions or if the FRB determines that our capital plan is incomplete, our capital plan or internal capital adequacy process contains material weaknesses, or 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. 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.

Previous wording

Depending on the circumstances, to satisfy the FRB in its review of our capital plan, we may be required to further cease or limit 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. Any of these developments, including the mere fact of being required by the FRB to revise or resubmit our capital plan and especially if unique to us or a group of firms like us, may damage our reputation and result in a loss of customer or investor confidence.

Current wording

Depending on the circumstances, to satisfy the FRB in its review of our capital plan, we may be required to further cease or limit capital distributions or to issue capital instruments that could be dilutive to shareholders. The FRB also may prevent us from maintaining or expanding lending or other business activities. Any of these developments, including the mere fact of being required by the FRB to revise or resubmit our capital plan and especially if unique to us or a group of firms like us, may damage our reputation and result in a loss of customer or investor confidence.

Previous wording

Further, we may be required to raise capital if we are at risk of failing to satisfy our minimum regulatory capital ratios or related supervisory requirements, whether due to inadequate operating results that erode capital, future growth that outpaces the accumulation of capital through earnings, changes in regulatory capital standards, changes in accounting standards that affect capital (such as CECL), or otherwise. In addition, we may elect to raise capital for strategic reasons even when we are not required to do so. Our ability to raise capital on favorable terms or at all will depend on general economic and market conditions, which are outside of our control, and on our operating and financial performance. Accordingly, we cannot be assured of being able to raise capital when needed or on favorable terms. An inability to raise capital when needed and on favorable terms could damage the performance and value of our business, prompt supervisory actions and private litigation, harm our reputation, and cause a loss of customer or investor confidence, and if the condition were to persist for any appreciable period of time, our viability as a going concern could be threatened. Even if we are able to raise capital but do so by issuing common stock or convertible securities, the ownership interest of our existing stockholders could be diluted, and the market price of our common stock could decline.

Current wording

Further, we may be required to raise capital if we are at risk of failing to satisfy our minimum regulatory capital ratios or related supervisory requirements, whether due to inadequate operating results that erode capital, future growth that outpaces the accumulation of capital through earnings, changes in regulatory capital standards, changes in accounting standards that affect capital (such as CECL), or otherwise. In addition, we may elect to raise capital for strategic reasons even when we are not required to do so. Our ability to raise capital on favorable terms or at all will depend on general economic and market conditions, which are outside of our control, and on our operating and financial performance. Accordingly, we cannot be assured of being able to raise capital when needed or on favorable terms. An inability to raise capital when needed and on favorable terms could damage the performance and value of our business, prompt supervisory actions and private litigation, harm our reputation, and cause a loss of customer or investor confidence, and if the condition were to persist for any appreciable period of time, our viability as a going concern could be threatened. Even if we are able to raise capital but do so by issuing common stock or convertible securities, the ownership interest of our existing shareholders could be diluted, and the market price of our common stock could decline.

Previous wording

Ally Bank is a key part of our funding strategy, and we place great reliance on deposits at Ally Bank as a source of funding. Competition for deposits and deposit customers, however, is intense. Further, recent increases in short-term interest rates have resulted in, and are expected to continue to result in, more intense competition in deposit pricing and with respect to non-deposit financial products. Ally Bank does not have a branch network but, instead, obtains its deposits through online and other digital channels, from other business lines including customers of Ally Invest, and through deposit brokers. Brokered deposits may be more price sensitive than other types of deposits and may become less available if alternative investments offer higher returns. Our brokered deposits totaled $11.0 billion at December 31, 2023, which represented 7.1% of total deposit liabilities. In addition, our ability to maintain, grow, or favorably price deposits may be constrained by our focus on online and mobile banking, gaps in our product and service offerings, changes in consumer trends, our smaller scale relative to other financial institutions, competition from fintech companies and emerging financial-services providers, any failures or deterioration in our customer service, or any loss of confidence in our brand or our business. Our level and cost of deposits also could be adversely affected by regulatory or supervisory restrictions, including any applicable prior approval requirements or limits on our offered rates or brokered deposit growth, and by changes in monetary or fiscal policies that influence deposit or other interest rates. Perceptions of our existing and future financial strength or the financial strength of the financial-services industry generally, rates or returns offered by other financial institutions or third parties, and other competitive factors beyond our control, including returns on alternative investments, will also impact the size and cost of our deposit base. For example, Ally Bank could be subject to sudden withdrawals of deposits, including as a result of negative media coverage, which may be spread through social media, regarding us or the financial services industry generally. Online and mobile banking have made it easier for customers to withdraw their deposits or transfer funds to other accounts with short notice. This may make retaining deposits during periods of stress more difficult. In addition, depositors of certain types of deposits, such as uninsured or uncollateralized deposits, may be more likely to withdraw their deposits or do so more quickly. Any such withdrawals could result in higher funding costs for us as we lose a lower cost source of funding, and significant unanticipated withdrawals could materially and adversely affect our liquidity, financial condition, and results of operations. Approximately 93% of total deposits at Ally Bank, excluding affiliate and intercompany deposits, were FDIC-insured as of D…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Current wording

Ally Bank is a key part of our funding strategy, and we place great reliance on deposits at Ally Bank as a source of funding. Our reliance on deposits as a source of funding has increased in recent years. As of December 31, 2024, deposits represented approximately 89% of our liability-based funding sources. Competition for deposits and deposit customers, however, is intense and has increased in recent years, making it more challenging for us to rely on customer acquisition as a primary source of new deposit funding. Further, the elevated level of short-term interest rates in recent years have resulted in, and are expected to continue to result in, more intense competition in deposit pricing and with respect to non-deposit financial products. Ally Bank does not have a branch network but, instead, obtains its deposits through online and other digital channels, from other business lines including customers of Ally Invest, and through deposit brokers. Brokered deposits may be more price sensitive than other types of deposits and may become less available if alternative investments offer higher returns. Our brokered deposits totaled $6.7 billion at December 31, 2024, which represented 4.4% of total deposit liabilities. In addition, our ability to maintain, grow, or favorably price deposits may be constrained by our focus on online and mobile banking, gaps in our product and service offerings, changes in consumer trends, our smaller scale relative to other financial institutions, competition from fintech companies and emerging financial-services providers, any failures or deterioration in our customer service, or any loss of confidence in our brand or our business. In the past, we have relied on deposit growth to fund our lending activities and other business initiatives. If we are unable to maintain or grow our deposit base to meet our business objectives and liquidity requirements, we may be required to raise alternative sources of capital, which may not be available to us when needed or on favorable terms. Increased costs of funding could adversely impact our profitability and financial position, or otherwise adversely affect our ability to conduct our current business activities or meet our growth objectives. Our level and cost of deposits also could be adversely affected by regulatory or supervisory restrictions, including any applicable prior approval requirements or limits on our offered rates or brokered deposit growth, and by changes in monetary or fiscal policies that influence deposit or other interest rates. Perceptions of our existing and future financial strength or the financial strength of the financial-services industry generally, rates or returns offered by other financial institutions or third-parties, and other competitive factors beyond our control, including returns on alternative investments, will also impact the size and cost of our deposit base. For example, Ally Bank could be subject to sudden withdrawals of deposits, includin…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Previous wording

In December 2017, the Basel Committee approved revisions to the global Basel III capital framework (commonly known as the Basel III endgame or as Basel IV), and on July 27, 2023, the FRB and FDIC issued a proposed rule to implement the Basel Committee’s 2017 standards and make other changes to regulatory capital rules for banking organizations with total consolidated assets of $100 billion or more. Further, on August 29, 2023, the FRB and the FDIC issued a proposed rule that would require Category II through Category IV BHCs and IDIs with $100 billion or more in consolidated assets (as well as their IDI affiliates) to maintain minimum amounts of eligible long-term debt (generally, debt that is unsecured, has a maturity greater than one year from issuance and satisfies additional criteria). The long-term debt proposal, if adopted, would require Ally to maintain more long-term debt than it does currently, which would adversely affect interest expense, net interest income, and net interest margin.

Current wording

In December 2017, the Basel Committee approved revisions to the global Basel III capital framework and on July 27, 2023, the FRB and FDIC issued a proposed rule to implement the Basel Committee’s 2017 standards and make other changes to regulatory capital rules for banking organizations with total consolidated assets of $100 billion or more. However, the FRB has indicated that it expects to work with the other federal banking regulators in 2025 on a revised proposal. Further, on August 29, 2023, the FRB and the FDIC issued a proposed rule that would require Category II through Category IV BHCs and IDIs with $100 billion or more in consolidated assets (as well as their IDI affiliates) to maintain minimum amounts of eligible long-term debt (generally, debt that is unsecured, has a maturity greater than one year from issuance and satisfies additional criteria). The long-term debt proposal, if adopted, would require Ally to maintain more long-term debt than it does currently, which would adversely affect interest expense, net interest income, and net interest margin.

Previous wording

A fractious or volatile political environment in the United States, including any related social unrest, could negatively impact business and market conditions, economic growth, financial stability, and business, consumer, investor, and regulatory sentiments, any one or more of which in turn could cause our business and financial results to suffer. In addition, disruptions in the foreign relations of the United States could adversely affect the automotive and other industries on which our business depends and our tax positions and other dealings in foreign countries. We also could be negatively impacted by political scrutiny of the financial-services industry in general or our business or operations in particular, whether or not warranted, and by an environment where criticizing financial-services providers or their activities is politically advantageous.

Current wording

A fractious or volatile political environment in the United States, including any related social unrest, could negatively impact business and market conditions, economic growth, financial stability, and business, consumer, investor, and regulatory sentiments, any one or more of which in turn could cause our business and financial results to suffer. Uncertainty regarding government shutdowns, funding, debt ceilings or deficits could adversely affect economic and market conditions, as well as the credit rating of the United States. A default by the United States could result in unprecedented market volatility. A downgrade of the U.S. federal government’s credit rating, whether due to a default, concerns about a default or otherwise, could adversely affect financial markets and the value and liquidity of U.S. government securities. In addition, disruptions in the foreign relations of the United States could adversely affect the automotive and other industries on which our business depends and our tax positions and other dealings in foreign countries. We also could be negatively impacted by political scrutiny of the financial-services industry in general or our business or operations in particular, whether or not warranted, and by an environment where criticizing financial-services providers or their activities is politically advantageous.

Previous wording

Additionally, changes to tax policies could have a significant impact on our results of operations and financial condition. For example, in August 2022, the Inflation Reduction Act was signed into law in the United States and, in part, imposes a 15% corporate alternative minimum tax on certain large corporations, such as Ally, and a surcharge on stock repurchases. Tax and other fiscal policies, moreover, impact not only general economic and market conditions but also give rise to incentives or disincentives that affect how we and our customers prioritize objectives, deploy resources, and run households or operate businesses. Both the timing and the nature of any changes in monetary or fiscal policies, as well as their consequences for the economy and the markets in which we operate, are beyond our control and difficult to predict but could adversely affect us.

Current wording

Additionally, changes to tax policies, or changes to the interpretations of existing policies, could have a significant impact on our results of operations and financial condition. For example, in August 2022, the Inflation Reduction Act was signed into law in the United States and, in part, imposes a 15% corporate alternative minimum tax on certain large corporations, such as Ally, and a surcharge on stock repurchases. Tax and other fiscal policies, moreover, impact not only general economic and market conditions but also give rise to incentives or disincentives that affect how we and our customers prioritize objectives, deploy resources, and run households or operate businesses. Both the timing and the nature of any changes in monetary or fiscal policies, as well as their consequences for the economy and the markets in which we operate, are beyond our control and difficult to predict but could adversely affect us.

Previous wording

Ally is a legal entity separate and distinct from its bank and nonbank subsidiaries and, in significant part, depends on dividend payments and other distributions from those subsidiaries to fund its obligations to counterparties and creditors, its dividend payments to stockholders, and its repurchases of common stock. Regulatory or other legal restrictions, deterioration in a subsidiary’s performance, or investments in a subsidiary’s own growth may limit the ability of the subsidiary to transfer funds freely to Ally. In particular, many of Ally’s subsidiaries are subject to laws that authorize their supervisory agencies to block or reduce the flow of funds to Ally in certain situations. In addition, if any subsidiary were unable to remain viable as a going concern, Ally’s right to participate in a distribution of assets would be subject to the prior claims of the subsidiary’s creditors (including, in the case of Ally Bank, its depositors and the FDIC).

Current wording

Ally is a legal entity separate and distinct from its bank and nonbank subsidiaries and, in significant part, depends on dividend payments and other distributions from those subsidiaries to fund its obligations to counterparties and creditors, its dividend payments to shareholders, and its repurchases of common stock. Regulatory or other legal restrictions, deterioration in a subsidiary’s performance, or investments in a subsidiary’s own growth may limit the ability of the subsidiary to transfer funds freely to Ally. In particular, many of Ally’s subsidiaries are subject to laws that authorize their supervisory agencies to block or reduce the flow of funds to Ally in certain situations. In addition, if any subsidiary were unable to remain viable as a going concern, Ally’s right to participate in a distribution of assets would be subject to the prior claims of the subsidiary’s creditors (including, in the case of Ally Bank, its depositors and the FDIC).

Previous wording

Cybersecurity and data-privacy risks have received heightened legislative and regulatory attention. For example, in 2021 the U.S. banking agencies adopted a final rule requiring us to notify the FRB within 36 hours of any significant computer security incident and have proposed enhanced cyber risk management standards applicable to us and our service providers that would address cyber risk governance and management, management of internal and external dependencies, and incident response, cyber resilience, and situational awareness. In addition, rulemakings by the SEC and the CFPB have commenced to further regulate cybersecurity risk governance (including incident disclosure) and personal-financial-data rights, respectively. Several states and their governmental agencies, such as the NYDFS, also have adopted or proposed cybersecurity and data-privacy laws. Privacy laws in the State of California, for example, require regulated entities to establish measures to identify, manage, secure, track, produce, and delete personal information.

Current wording

Cybersecurity and data-privacy risks have received heightened legislative and regulatory attention and have been a specific focus area in supervisory reviews. For example, in 2021 the U.S. banking agencies adopted a final rule requiring us to notify the FRB within 36 hours of any significant computer security incident and have proposed enhanced cyber risk management standards applicable to us and our service providers that would address cyber risk governance and management, management of internal and external dependencies, and incident response, cyber resilience, and situational awareness. In addition, rulemakings by the SEC and the CFPB have commenced to further regulate cybersecurity risk governance (including incident disclosure) and personal-financial-data rights, respectively. Several states and their governmental agencies, such as the NYDFS, also have adopted or proposed cybersecurity and data-privacy laws. Privacy laws in the State of California, for example, require regulated entities to establish measures to identify, manage, secure, track, produce, and delete personal information. Failure to comply with privacy laws or supervisory expectations could result in enforcement actions, civil litigation or reputational damages.

Previous wording

Legislation and regulations on cybersecurity and data privacy may compel us to enhance or modify our systems and infrastructure, invest in new systems and infrastructure, change our service providers, augment our scenario and vulnerability testing, or alter our business practices or our policies on security, data governance, and privacy. If any of these outcomes were to occur, the complexity and costs of our operations could increase significantly. In addition, if governmental authorities were to conclude that we or our service providers had not adequately implemented laws on cybersecurity and data privacy or had not otherwise met related supervisory expectations, we could be subject to enforcement and other supervisory actions, related litigation by private plaintiffs, reputational damage, or a loss of customer or investor confidence.

Current wording

Legislation and regulations on cybersecurity and data privacy, including as a result of remedial requirements in connection with supervisory actions, have in the past and in the future may continue to require that we enhance or modify our systems and infrastructure, invest in new systems and infrastructure, change our service providers, augment our scenario and vulnerability testing, or alter our business practices or our policies on security, data governance, and privacy. Compliance with these requirements increases the complexity and costs of our operations. In addition, in recent years there has been increasing supervisory expectations for financial institutions to introduce enhanced third-party risk management practices to mitigate cybersecurity and data privacy risks. If governmental or supervisory authorities were to conclude that we or our service providers had not adequately implemented appropriate operational infrastructure, policies, or practices with respect to cybersecurity and data privacy or had not otherwise met related supervisory expectations, we could be subject to enforcement and other supervisory actions, related litigation by private plaintiffs, reputational damage, or a loss of customer or investor confidence.

Previous wording

Governments and policymakers at the federal, state and international levels are increasingly focused on climate change and related environmental, social and governance issues, and the potential for climate-related risks to impact the safety and soundness of large financial institutions. For example, in 2021, President Biden issued an Executive Order on Climate-Related Financial Risks, which in part directed the U.S. Treasury Secretary to work with other members of the Financial Stability Oversight Council to consider a number of actions. More recently, in 2023, the FRB conducted a pilot climate scenario analysis exercise involving six of the nation’s largest banks designed to enhance the ability of supervisors and firms to measure and manage climate-related financial risks. The results of this exercise may result in future changes to the FRB’s supervisory activities and expectations with respect to Ally. Further, several states in which Ally operates, such as California, have enacted or proposed statutes or regulations addressing climate change and other ESG issues. As a result of these and similar future developments at the federal, state and international levels, we may become subject to different and potentially conflicting requirements and expectations in the various jurisdictions in which we operate. Further, it is possible that government responses to actual or perceived changes in climate and related environmental risks, including expectations regarding the purpose of climate scenario analysis, may occur more rapidly than we (or third parties on whom we rely for certain climate- or other sustainability-related information or services) are able to adapt. Our ability to comply with these requirements and expectations, including responses to any inquiry or investigation from a regulatory agency, could have a material adverse effect on our operations, reputation and our financial results.

Current wording

Governments and policymakers at the federal, state, local and international levels are increasingly focused on climate- and other sustainability-related issues, including the potential for climate-related risks to impact the safety and soundness of large financial institutions. Furthermore, in recent years, there has been increasing divergence in how government and policy makers are approaching these issues. See the risk factor above, titled Our business and financial results could be adversely affected by the political environment and governmental fiscal and monetary policies.

Previous wording

How governments act to address climate and related environmental risks, as well as associated changes in the behavior and preferences of businesses and consumers, could have an adverse effect on our business and financial results. For example, physical and transition risks associated with climate change could affect households, communities, businesses, and governments, which could impede business activity, affect household incomes, and alter the value of assets and liabilities. These risks may be propagated through the economy and financial system, and as a result, the financial sector may experience credit and market risks associated with loss of income, defaults and changes in the values of assets, liquidity risks associated with changing demand for liquidity, operational risks associated with disruptions to infrastructure or other channels, or legal risks. For example, we may change or cease some of our business or operational practices or incur additional capital, compliance, and other costs because of climate- or environmental-driven changes in applicable law or supervisory expectations or due to related political, social, market, or similar pressure.

Current wording

How governments act to address climate and related sustainability risks, as well as associated changes in the behavior and preferences of businesses and consumers, could have an adverse effect on our business and financial results. For example, physical and transition risks associated with climate change could affect households, communities, businesses, and governments, which could impede business activity, affect household incomes, and alter the value of assets and liabilities. These risks are often difficult to quantify or predict, and may be propagated through the economy and financial system, the financial sector may experience credit and market risks associated with loss of income, defaults and changes in the values of assets, liquidity risks associated with changing demand for liquidity, operational risks associated with disruptions to infrastructure or other channels, or legal risks. As a result, we may change or cease some of our business or operational practices or incur additional capital, compliance, and other costs. The risks associated with climate change are rapidly changing and evolving in an escalating fashion, making them difficult to assess due to limited data.

Previous wording

Our business and financial results depend significantly on household, business, economic, and market conditions. When those conditions are weak or deteriorating, we could simultaneously experience reduced demand for credit and increased delinquencies or defaults, including in the loans that we have securitized and in which we retain a residual interest. These kinds of conditions also could dampen the demand for products and services in our insurance, banking, brokerage, advisory, and other businesses. Increased delinquencies or defaults could also result from our failing to appropriately underwrite loans and operating leases that we originate or purchase or from our adopting—for strategic, competitive, or other reasons—more liberal underwriting standards. If delinquencies or defaults on our loans and operating leases increase, their value and the income derived from them could be adversely affected, and we could incur increased administrative and other costs in seeking a recovery on claims and any collateral. If unfavorable conditions are negatively affecting used vehicle or other collateral values at the same time, the amount and timing of recoveries could suffer as well. Weak or deteriorating economic conditions also may negatively impact the market value and liquidity of our investment securities, and we may be required to record additional impairment charges that adversely affect earnings if debt securities suffer a decline in value that is considered other-than-temporary. There can be no assurance that our forecasts of economic conditions, our assessments and monitoring of credit risk, and our efforts to mitigate credit risk through risk-based pricing, appropriate underwriting and investment policies, loss-mitigation strategies, and diversification are, or will be, sufficient to prevent an adverse impact to our business and financial results. For example, early loss performance in our consumer automotive lending portfolio is trending higher compared to expectations at the time of origination for loans originated in 2022, and more specifically the second half of 2022. In addition, because of CECL, our financial results may be negatively affected as soon as weak or deteriorating economic conditions are forecasted and alter our expectations for credit losses. A financial or systemic shock and a failure of a significant counterparty or a significant group of counterparties could negatively impact us as well, possibly to a severe degree, due to our role as a financial intermediary and the interconnectedness of the financial system.

Current wording

Our business and financial results depend significantly on household, business, economic, and market conditions. When those conditions are weak or deteriorating, we could simultaneously experience reduced demand for credit and increased delinquencies or defaults, including in the loans that we have securitized and in which we retain a residual interest. These kinds of conditions also could dampen the demand for products and services in our insurance, banking, brokerage, advisory, and other businesses. Increased delinquencies or defaults could also result from our failing to appropriately underwrite loans and operating leases that we originate or purchase or from our adopting—for strategic, competitive, or other reasons—more liberal underwriting standards. If delinquencies or defaults on our loans and operating leases increase, their value and the income derived from them could be adversely affected, and we could incur increased administrative and other costs in seeking a recovery on claims and any collateral. If unfavorable conditions are negatively affecting used vehicle or other collateral values at the same time, the amount and timing of recoveries could suffer as well. For example, net charge offs and delinquencies in our consumer automotive lending portfolio remained elevated in 2024 as our customers faced challenging economic conditions, such as prolonged periods of inflation and high interest rates. If the economic conditions impacting the credit quality of our customers were to worsen, we could be subject to significant losses in our credit portfolio. Weak or deteriorating economic conditions also may negatively impact the market value and liquidity of our investment securities, and we may be required to record additional impairment charges that adversely affect earnings if debt securities suffer a decline in value that is considered other-than-temporary. There can be no assurance that our forecasts of economic conditions, our assessments and monitoring of credit risk, and our efforts to mitigate credit risk through risk-based pricing, appropriate underwriting and investment policies, loss-mitigation strategies, and diversification are, or will be, sufficient to prevent an adverse impact to our business and financial results. In addition, because of CECL, our financial results may be negatively affected as soon as weak or deteriorating economic conditions are forecasted and alter our expectations for credit losses. A financial or systemic shock and a failure of a significant counterparty or a significant group of counterparties could negatively impact us as well, possibly to a severe degree, due to our role as a financial intermediary and the interconnectedness of the financial system.

Previous wording

We continue to have exposure to nonprime consumer automotive financing and used vehicle financing. We define nonprime consumer automotive loans primarily as those loans with a FICO® Score (or an equivalent score) at origination of less than 620. Customers that finance used vehicles tend to have lower FICO® Scores as compared to new vehicle customers, and defaults resulting from vehicle breakdowns are more likely to occur with used vehicles as compared to new vehicles that are financed. The carrying value of our nonprime consumer automotive loans before allowance for loan losses was $8.7 billion, or approximately 10.3% of our total consumer automotive loans at December 31, 2023, as compared to $8.8 billion, or approximately 10.6% of our total consumer automotive loans at December 31, 2022. At December 31, 2023, and 2022, $258 million and $302 million, respectively, of nonprime consumer automotive loans were considered nonperforming as they had been placed on nonaccrual status in accordance with our accounting policies. Refer to the Nonaccrual Loans section of Note 1 to the Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information. Additionally, the carrying value of our consumer automotive used vehicle loans before allowance for loan losses was $57.6 billion, or approximately 68.3% of our total consumer automotive loans at December 31, 2023, as compared to $55.7 billion, or approximately 67.0% of our total consumer automotive loans at December 31, 2022. If our exposure to nonprime consumer automotive loans or used vehicle financing continue to increase over time, our credit risk will increase to a possibly significant degree.

Current wording

We continue to have exposure to nonprime consumer automotive financing and used vehicle financing. We define nonprime consumer automotive loans primarily as those loans with a FICO® Score (or an equivalent score) at origination of less than 620. Customers that finance used vehicles tend to have lower FICO® Scores as compared to new vehicle customers, and defaults resulting from vehicle breakdowns are more likely to occur with used vehicles as compared to new vehicles that are financed. The carrying value of our nonprime consumer automotive loans before allowance for loan losses was $8.2 billion, or approximately 9.7% of our total consumer automotive loans at December 31, 2024, as compared to $8.7 billion, or approximately 10.3% of our total consumer automotive loans at December 31, 2023. At December 31, 2024, and 2023, $286 million and $258 million, respectively, of nonprime consumer automotive loans were considered nonperforming as they had been placed on nonaccrual status in accordance with our accounting policies. Refer to the Nonaccrual Loans section of Note 1 to the Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information. Additionally, the carrying value of our consumer automotive used vehicle loans before allowance for loan losses was $57.4 billion, or approximately 68.5% of our total consumer automotive loans at December 31, 2024, as compared to $57.6 billion, or approximately 68.3% of our total consumer automotive loans at December 31, 2023. If our exposure to nonprime consumer automotive loans or used vehicle financing continue to increase over time, our credit risk will increase to a possibly significant degree.

Previous wording

On January 1, 2020, we adopted CECL to measure credit losses for financial assets measured at amortized cost, which includes the vast majority of our finance receivables and loan portfolio. Under CECL, the allowance is established to reserve for management’s best estimate of expected lifetime losses inherent in our finance receivables and loan portfolio. CECL substantially increased our allowance for loan losses with a resulting negative day-one adjustment to equity on January 1, 2020.

Current wording

On January 1, 2020, we adopted CECL to measure credit losses for financial assets measured at amortized cost, which includes the vast majority of our finance receivables and loan portfolio. Under CECL, the allowance is established to reserve for management’s best estimate of expected lifetime losses inherent in our finance receivables and loan portfolio.

Previous wording

The determination of the appropriate level of the allowance for loan losses inherently involves a high degree of subjectivity and requires us to make significant estimates of current and future credit risks using existing quantitative and qualitative information, all of which may change substantially over time. Changes in economic conditions affecting borrowers, revisions to accounting rules and related guidance, new qualitative or quantitative information about existing loans, identification of additional problem loans, changes in the size or composition of our finance receivables and loan portfolio, changes to our models or loss estimation techniques including consideration of forecasted economic assumptions, and other factors, both within and outside of our control, may require an increase in the allowance for loan losses. For example, increases in factors such as unemployment, or inflation, or decreases in GDP, real personal income, used vehicle values, or home values, beyond what is reflected in our models, could result in an increased inability for consumers to pay their loans, and may result in an increase in the allowance for loan losses. Additionally, our shift to a full credit spectrum consumer automotive finance portfolio over the past several years has resulted in additional increases in our allowance for loan losses, and could result in additional increases in the future. Any increase in the allowance in future periods may adversely affect our financial condition or results of operations. Refer to the risk factor below, titled Our business and operations make extensive use of models, and we could be adversely affected if our design, implementation, or use of models is flawed, for more information on how risks associated with our use of models could affect our allowance for loan losses.

Current wording

The determination of the appropriate level of the allowance for loan losses inherently involves a high degree of subjectivity and requires us to make significant estimates of current and future credit risks using existing quantitative and qualitative information, all of which may change substantially over time. Changes in economic conditions affecting borrowers, revisions to accounting rules and related guidance, new qualitative or quantitative information about existing loans, identification of additional problem loans, changes in the size or composition of our finance receivables and loan portfolio, changes to or errors in our models or loss estimation techniques including consideration of forecasted economic assumptions, the impact of natural disasters and other catastrophic events that may be difficult to predict and other factors, both within and outside of our control, may require an increase in the allowance for loan losses. For example, due to the nature of our business, our financial position and results of operations are specifically susceptible to risks associated with increases in factors such as interest rates, unemployment, or inflation, or decreases in GDP, real personal income, used vehicle values, or home values, beyond what is reflected in our models, all of which could result in an increased inability for consumers to pay their loans, and may result in an increase in the allowance for loan losses. Additionally, our shift to a full credit spectrum consumer automotive finance portfolio over the past several years has resulted in additional increases in our allowance for loan losses, and could result in additional increases in the future. Any increase in the allowance in future periods may adversely affect our financial condition or results of operations. Refer to the risk factor below, titled Our business and operations make extensive use of models, and we could be adversely affected if our design, implementation, or use of models is flawed, for more information on how risks associated with our use of models could affect our allowance for loan losses.

Previous wording

While we continue to diversify our automotive finance and insurance businesses and to expand into other financial services, GM and Stellantis dealers and their retail customers still constitute a significant portion of our customer base. In 2023, 28% of our new vehicle dealer inventory financing and 23% of our consumer automotive financing volume were transacted for GM dealers and customers, and 53% of our new vehicle dealer inventory financing and 20% of our consumer automotive financing volume were transacted for Stellantis dealers and customers. In 2022, 31% of our new vehicle dealer inventory financing and 22% of our consumer automotive financing volume were transacted for GM-franchised dealers and customers, and 55% of our new vehicle dealer inventory financing and 22% of our consumer automotive financing volume were transacted for Stellantis dealers and customers. A significant adverse change in GM’s or Stellantis’ business—including, for example, in the production or sale of GM or Stellantis vehicles, the quality or resale value of GM or Stellantis vehicles, GM’s or Stellantis’ relationships with its key suppliers, or the rate or volume of recalls of GM or Stellantis vehicles—could negatively impact our GM and Stellantis dealer and retail customer bases and the value of collateral securing our extensions of credit to them. Any future reductions in GM and Stellantis business that we are not able to offset could adversely affect our business and financial results. Refer to Note 29 to the Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information.

Current wording

While we continue to diversify our automotive finance and insurance businesses and to expand into other financial services, GM and Stellantis dealers and their retail customers still constitute a significant portion of our customer base. In 2024, 30% of our new vehicle dealer inventory financing and 22% of our consumer automotive financing volume were transacted for GM dealers and customers, and 46% of our new vehicle dealer inventory financing and 16% of our consumer automotive financing volume were transacted for Stellantis dealers and customers. In 2023, 28% of our new vehicle dealer inventory financing and 23% of our consumer automotive financing volume were transacted for GM dealers and customers, and 53% of our new vehicle dealer inventory financing and 20% of our consumer automotive financing volume were transacted for Stellantis dealers and customers. A significant adverse change in GM’s or Stellantis’ business—including, for example, in the production or sale of GM or Stellantis vehicles, the quality or resale value of GM or Stellantis vehicles, GM’s or Stellantis’ relationships with its key suppliers, or the rate or volume of recalls of GM or Stellantis vehicles—could negatively impact our GM and Stellantis dealer and retail customer bases and the value of collateral securing our extensions of credit to them. Any future reductions in GM and Stellantis business that we are not able to offset could adversely affect our business and financial results. Refer to Note 29 to the Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information.

Previous wording

Our automotive finance and insurance businesses can be impacted by the sales volume for new and used vehicles. Vehicle sales are impacted, in turn, by several economic and market conditions, including employment levels, household income and savings, interest rates, credit availability, inventory levels, customer preferences, and fuel costs. For example, new vehicle sales decreased dramatically during the economic crisis that began in 2007–2008 and did not rebound significantly until 2012 and 2013. A meaningful rise in inflation during 2021 and through 2022 prompted the FRB to sharply increase the federal funds rate during 2022 and 2023. The current level and trajectory of borrowing costs has adversely affect demand for new and used vehicles and could continue to do so in the future. Any future declines in new or used vehicle sales could have an adverse effect on our business and financial results.

Current wording

Our automotive finance and insurance businesses can be impacted by the sales volume for new and used vehicles. Vehicle sales are impacted, in turn, by several economic and market conditions, including employment levels, household income and savings, interest rates, credit availability, inventory levels, customer preferences, and fuel costs. For example, new vehicle sales decreased dramatically during the economic crisis that began in 2007–2008 and did not rebound significantly until 2012 and 2013. A meaningful rise in inflation during 2021 and through 2023 prompted the FRB to sharply increase the federal funds rate during 2022 and 2023, before it decreased the rate at the end of 2024. The FRB may further raise or lower interest rates in response to economic conditions, particularly inflationary pressures and unemployment statistics. The current level of borrowing costs has adversely affected demand for new and used vehicles and could continue to do so in the future. Any future declines in new or used vehicle sales, including as a result of market conditions and other external factors over which we do not control, could have an adverse effect on our business and financial results.

Previous wording

During the year ended December 31, 2023, approximately 58% of our average earning assets were composed of vehicle loans or operating leases and related residual securitization interests. If we experience higher losses on the sale of repossessed vehicles or lower or more volatile residual values for off-lease vehicles, our business or financial results could be adversely affected.

Current wording

During the year ended December 31, 2024, approximately 59% of our average earning assets were composed of vehicle loans or operating leases and related residual securitization interests. If we experience higher losses on the sale of repossessed vehicles or lower or more volatile residual values for off-lease vehicles, our business or financial results could be adversely affected.

Previous wording

We are highly dependent on net interest income, which is the difference between interest income on earning assets (such as loans and investments) and interest expense on deposits and borrowings. Net interest income is significantly affected by market rates of interest, which in turn are influenced by monetary and fiscal policies, general economic and market conditions (including high or increasing levels of inflation), the political and regulatory environments, business and consumer sentiment, competitive pressures, and expectations about the future (including future changes in interest rates). We may be adversely affected by policies, laws, and events that have the effect of flattening or inverting the yield curve (that is, the difference between long-term and short-term interest rates), depressing the interest rates associated with our earning assets to levels near the rates associated with our interest expense, increasing the volatility of market rates of interest (including the rate of change), or changing the spreads among different interest rate indices. As of December 31, 2023, we view the balance sheet as being modestly asset-sensitive in the near-term to changes in interest rates, as we expect the assumed repricing of our floating-rate assets and pay-fixed swaps to modestly outpace the assumed repricing of our liabilities, primarily retail deposits. Within a 12-month horizon, we expect the balance sheet to revert to liability sensitive.

Current wording

We are highly dependent on net interest income, which is the difference between interest income on earning assets (such as loans and investments) and interest expense on deposits and borrowings. Net interest income is significantly affected by market rates of interest, which in turn are influenced by monetary and fiscal policies, general economic and market conditions (including high or increasing levels of inflation), the political and regulatory environments, business and consumer sentiment, competitive pressures, and expectations about the future (including future changes in interest rates). We may be adversely affected by policies, laws, and events that have the effect of flattening or inverting the yield curve (that is, the difference between long-term and short-term interest rates), depressing the interest rates associated with our earning assets to levels near the rates associated with our interest expense, increasing the volatility of market rates of interest (including the rate of change), or changing the spreads among different interest rate indices. As of December 31, 2024, our balance sheet is modestly asset sensitive in the near term due to our floating-rate assets and pay-fixed hedge position. However, our balance sheet remains liability sensitive over the medium term, driven by the assumed repricing of our deposits and market-based funding outpacing the assumed repricing of our floating-rate assets and pay-fixed swaps, which will also begin to roll down.

Previous wording

The levels of or changes in interest rates could adversely affect us beyond our net interest income, including by increasing the cost or decreasing the availability of deposits or other variable-rate funding instruments, reducing the return on or demand for loans or increasing the prepayment speed of loans, increasing customer or counterparty delinquencies or defaults, negatively impacting our ability to remarket off-lease and repossessed vehicles, and reducing the value of our loans, retained interests in securitizations, and fixed-income securities in our investment portfolio and the efficacy of our hedging strategies. For example, recent increases in interest rates have resulted in, and could in the future further result in, unrealized losses in our investment securities portfolio, which are recognized in accumulated other comprehensive loss within the Consolidated Balance Sheet. We recognize the accumulated change in estimated fair value of these fixed-income securities in net income when we realize a gain or loss upon the sale of the security.

Current wording

The levels of or changes in interest rates could adversely affect us beyond our net interest income, including by increasing the cost or decreasing the availability of deposits or other variable-rate funding instruments, reducing the return on or demand for loans or increasing the prepayment speed of loans, increasing customer or counterparty delinquencies or defaults, negatively impacting our ability to remarket off-lease and repossessed vehicles, and reducing the value of our loans, retained interests in securitizations, and fixed-income securities in our investment portfolio and the efficacy of our hedging strategies. In addition, high interest rates have resulted in, and could in the future further result in, unrealized losses in our investment securities portfolio, which are recognized in accumulated other comprehensive loss within the Consolidated Balance Sheet. We recognize the accumulated change in estimated fair value of these fixed-income securities in net income when we realize a gain or loss upon the sale of the security.

Previous wording

The level of and changes in market rates of interest—and, as a result, these risks and uncertainties—are beyond our control. The dynamics among these risks and uncertainties are also challenging to assess and manage. For example, while an accommodative monetary policy may benefit us to some degree by spurring economic activity among our customers, such a policy may ultimately cause us more harm by inhibiting our ability to grow or sustain net interest income. A rising interest rate environment can pose different challenges, such as potentially slowing the demand for credit, increasing delinquencies and defaults, and reducing the values of our loans and fixed-income securities. Market volatility in interest rates, including the rate of change, can create particularly difficult conditions. Following a prolonged period in which the federal funds rate was stable or decreasing, the FRB increased this benchmark rate on a number of occasions during 2017 and 2018 and began to end its quantitative-easing program and reduce the size of its balance sheet. During 2019, however, the FRB reversed course and reduced the federal funds rate several times and, in March 2020, reduced the target range for the federal funds rate to zero to 0.25 percent. A meaningful rise in inflation during 2021 and through 2022 prompted the FRB to sharply increase the federal funds rate more than expected. The federal funds target range reached 5.25–5.50% in 2023. However, FRB officials have signaled that decreases are likely for

Current wording

The level of and changes in market rates of interest—and, as a result, these risks and uncertainties—are beyond our control. The dynamics among these risks and uncertainties are also challenging to assess and manage. For example, while an accommodative monetary policy may benefit us to some degree by spurring economic activity among our customers, such a policy may ultimately cause us more harm by inhibiting our ability to grow or sustain net interest income. A rising interest rate environment can pose different challenges, such as potentially slowing the demand for credit, increasing delinquencies and defaults, and reducing the values of our loans and fixed-income securities. Market volatility in interest rates, including the rate of change, can create particularly difficult conditions. During 2021 and through 2023, following a meaningful rise in inflation, the FRB sharply increased the federal funds rate. The federal funds target range reached 5.25–5.50% in 2023. However, the Federal Reserve lowered the federal funds target range in 2024 to 4.25–4.50% in response to easing inflation trends and moderate labor market pressures. The timing, pace and direction of additional interest rate changes remains uncertain, and will largely depend on trends in inflation, employment and other macroeconomic factors that are outside of our control, and could have a significant impact on our net interest income, allowances for loan losses, the value of securities portfolio and our results of operation and financial position. Refer to the section titled Market Risk in the MD&A that follows and Note 21 to the Consolidated Financial Statements.

Previous wording

We seek to distinguish ourselves as a customer-centric company that delivers passionate customer service and innovative financial solutions and that is relentlessly focused on “Doing it Right.” Third-party service providers, however, are key to much of our business and operations, including online and mobile banking, mortgage finance, credit cards, brokerage, customer service, and operating systems and infrastructure. While we have implemented a supplier-risk-management program and can exert varying degrees of influence over our service providers, we do not control them, their actions, or their businesses. Our contracts with service providers, moreover, may not require or sufficiently incent them to perform at levels and in ways that we would choose to act on our own. Despite our supplier-risk-management program, service providers have not always met our requirements and expectations, and no assurance can be provided that in the future they will perform to our standards, adequately represent our brand, comply with applicable law, appropriately manage their own risks (including cybersecurity), remain financially or operationally viable, abide by their contractual obligations, or continue to provide us with the services that we require. In such a circumstance, our ability to deliver products and services to customers, to satisfy customer expectations, and to otherwise successfully conduct our business and operations have been and, in the future, could be adversely affected. In addition, we may need to incur substantial expenses to address issues of concern with a service provider, and if the issues cannot be acceptably resolved, we may not be able to timely or effectively replace the service provider due to contractual restrictions, the unavailability of acceptable alternative providers, or other reasons. Further, regardless of how much we can influence our service providers, issues of concern with them could result in supervisory actions and private litigation against us and could harm our reputation, business, and financial results.

Current wording

We seek to distinguish ourselves as a customer-centric company that delivers passionate customer service and innovative financial solutions and that is relentlessly focused on “Doing it Right.” Third-party service providers, however, are key to much of our business and operations, including online and mobile banking, brokerage, customer service, and operating systems and infrastructure. We rely on our third-party service providers to provide critical products and services to facilitate our business activities, including by providing data and information, technology, security and other infrastructure services. While we have implemented a supplier-risk-management program and can exert varying degrees of influence over our service providers, we do not control them, their actions, or their businesses. Our contracts with service providers, moreover, may not require or sufficiently incent them to perform at levels and in ways that we would choose to act on our own. Despite our supplier-risk-management program, there can be no assurance that our third-party service providers will notify us of any potential risks or incidents in a timely manner or that our risk-management procedures will be effective in mitigating the impact of actions by third-party service providers on our business. Service providers have not always met our requirements and expectations, and no assurance can be provided that in the future they will perform to our standards, adequately represent our brand, comply with applicable law, appropriately manage their own risks (including cybersecurity), remain financially or operationally viable, abide by their contractual obligations, or continue to provide us with the services that we require. In such a circumstance, our ability to deliver products and services to customers, to satisfy customer expectations, and to otherwise successfully conduct our business and operations have been and, in the future, could be adversely affected. These risks are amplified to the extent that we or our third-party service providers make use of cloud computing, artificial intelligence or other emerging technologies that may make our systems and those of our third-party service providers more susceptible to cyberattacks, which in turn could have an adverse effect on our business and operations to the extent that they are not able to mitigate their cybersecurity risks. In addition, we may need to incur substantial expenses to address issues of concern with a service provider, and if the issues cannot be acceptably resolved, we may not be able to timely or effectively replace the service provider due to contractual restrictions, the unavailability of acceptable alternative providers, or other reasons. Further, regardless of how much we can influence our service providers, issues of concern with them could result in supervisory actions and private litigation against us and could harm our reputation, business, and financial results.

Previous wording

Skilled employees are our most important resource, and competition for talented people is intense. Even though compensation and benefits expense is among our highest costs, we may not be able to locate and hire the best people, keep them with us, or properly motivate them to perform at a high level. This risk may be exacerbated due to some of our competitors having significantly greater scale, financial and operational resources, and brand recognition. While we strive to mitigate human-capital risks, our senior executives and other key leaders have deep and broad industry experience and would be difficult to replace without some degree of disruption. For example, in October 2023 our former CEO provided notice of his intent to retire, and the search for a permanent replacement remains ongoing. In addition, our former General Counsel provided his notice of resignation and left the company in December 2023 and our current President of Consumer and Commercial Banking has provided notice of her intent to retire effective July 1, 2024. As a result of these departures, we may face disruption in our business as we seek to identify and transition permanent successors into these roles. In addition, we may experience competition in retaining employees based on remote or other flexible work arrangements, and our ability to attract or retain qualified employees may be adversely affected if our work arrangements are perceived as less favorable than those of our competitors. Continued scrutiny of compensation practices, especially in the financial services industry, has made this competition for talent only more difficult. In addition, many parts of our business are particularly dependent on key personnel, and retaining talented people in certain areas, has been challenging. Further, growth in our businesses, through acquisitions or otherwise, will further increase our need for skilled employees. If we were to lose and find ourselves unable to replace these personnel or other skilled employees or if the competition for talent were to drive our compensation costs to unsustainable levels, our management of operational and other risks could suffer, and our business and financial results could be negatively impacted.

Current wording

Skilled employees are our most important resource, and competition for talented people is intense. Even though compensation and benefits expense are among our highest costs, we may not be able to locate and hire the best people, keep them with us, or properly motivate them to perform at a high level. This risk may be exacerbated due to some of our competitors having significantly greater scale, financial and operational resources, and brand recognition. While we strive to mitigate human-capital risks, our senior executives and other key leaders have deep and broad industry experience and would be difficult to replace without some degree of disruption. For example, in October 2023 our former CEO provided notice of his intent to retire, and on April 29, 2024, Michael G. Rhodes was appointed as the CEO. We may also experience competition in retaining employees based on remote or other flexible work arrangements, and our ability to attract or retain qualified employees may be adversely affected if our work arrangements are perceived as less favorable than those of our competitors. Continued scrutiny of compensation practices, especially in the financial services industry, has made this competition for talent only more difficult. In addition, many parts of our business are particularly dependent on key personnel, and retaining talented people in certain areas, has been challenging. Further, growth in our businesses, through acquisitions or otherwise, will further increase our need for skilled employees. If we were to lose and find ourselves unable to replace these personnel or other skilled employees or if the competition for talent were to drive our compensation costs to unsustainable levels, our management of operational and other risks could suffer, and our business and financial results could be negatively impacted.

Previous wording

We may from time to time seek to acquire other financial-services companies or businesses or divest an existing business. These acquisitions or divestitures may be subject to regulatory approval, and no assurance can be provided that we will be able to obtain that approval in a timely manner or at all or that approval may not be subject to burdensome conditions. This risk has become more pronounced in recent years as several governmental officials have expressed skepticism about the value of further consolidation in the financial-services industry. Even when we are able to obtain regulatory approval, the failure of other closing conditions to be satisfied or waived could delay the completion of an acquisition or divestiture for a significant period of time or prevent it from occurring altogether. Any failure or delay in closing an acquisition or divestiture could adversely affect our reputation, business, and performance. In addition, divestitures can negatively impact our financial results and we may not be able to complete a divestiture on terms favorable to us.

Current wording

We may from time to time seek to acquire other financial-services companies or businesses or divest an existing business. These acquisitions or divestitures may be subject to regulatory approval, and no assurance can be provided that we will be able to obtain that approval in a timely manner or at all or that approval may not be subject to burdensome conditions. The extent of this risk is subject to change over time based on a number of factors, many of which are out of our control and may not be known at the time of entering into a definitive agreement in connection with any transaction, including adverse developments in the regulatory standing of us or our counterparty in any transaction, changes in macroeconomic conditions or other factors considered by regulators when granting such approval, governmental, political or community group inquiries, investigations or oppositions, or changes in the legislative, regulatory or political environment more generally. Even when we are able to obtain regulatory approval, the failure of other closing conditions to be satisfied or waived could delay the completion of an acquisition or divestiture for a significant period of time or prevent it from occurring altogether. Any failure or delay in closing an acquisition or divestiture could adversely affect our reputation, business, and performance. In addition, divestitures can negatively impact our financial results and we may not be able to complete a divestiture on terms favorable to us.

Previous wording

Acquisitions involve numerous risks and uncertainties, including inaccurate financial and operational assumptions, incomplete or failed due diligence, lower-than-expected performance, higher-than-expected costs, difficulties related to integration, diversion of management’s attention from other business activities, adverse market or other reactions, changes in relationships with customers or counterparties, the potential loss of key personnel, and the possibility of litigation and other disputes. An acquisition also could be dilutive to our existing stockholders if we were to issue common stock to fully or partially pay or fund the purchase price. We, moreover, may not be successful in identifying appropriate acquisition candidates, integrating acquired companies or businesses, or realizing expected value from acquisitions. There is significant competition for valuable acquisition targets, and we may not be able to acquire other companies or businesses on attractive terms. No assurance can be given that we will pursue future acquisitions, and our ability to grow and successfully compete may be impaired if we choose not to pursue or are unable to successfully make acquisitions.

Current wording

Acquisitions involve numerous risks and uncertainties, including inaccurate financial and operational assumptions, incomplete or failed due diligence, lower-than-expected performance, higher-than-expected costs, difficulties related to integration, diversion of management’s attention from other business activities, adverse market or other reactions, changes in relationships with customers or counterparties, the potential loss of key personnel, and the possibility of litigation and other disputes. An acquisition also could be dilutive to our existing shareholders if we were to issue common stock to fully or partially pay or fund the purchase price. We, moreover, may not be successful in identifying appropriate acquisition candidates, integrating acquired companies or businesses, or realizing expected value from acquisitions. There is significant competition for valuable acquisition targets, and we may not be able to acquire other companies or businesses on attractive terms. No assurance can be given that we will pursue future acquisitions, and our ability to grow and successfully compete may be impaired if we choose not to pursue or are unable to successfully make acquisitions.

Previous wording

Liquidity is the ability to fund increases in assets and meet obligations as they come due, all without incurring unacceptable losses. Banks are especially vulnerable to liquidity risk because of their role in the maturity transformation of demand or short-term deposits into longer-term loans or other extensions of credit. We, like other financial services companies, rely to a significant extent on external sources of funding (such as deposits and borrowings) for the liquidity needed to conduct our business and operations. A number of factors beyond our control, however, could have a detrimental impact on the availability or cost of that funding and thus on our liquidity. These include market disruptions, changes in our credit ratings or the sentiment of our investors, the state of the regulatory environment and monetary and fiscal policies, competitive dynamics, reputational damage, the confidence of depositors in us or the financial-services industry generally, financial or systemic shocks, and significant counterparty failures. For example, in August 2023, the U.S. banking agencies issued a proposed rule that would require Category II, III, and IV firms, their large consolidated banks, and other institutions to issue and maintain minimum amounts of long-term debt that is most readily able to absorb losses in a resolution proceeding. Due to the current structure and amount of debt instruments issued by Ally and Ally Bank, this proposal would significantly affect us. Refer to Note 20 to the Consolidated Financial Statements for further discussion. Weak business or operational performance, unexpected declines or limits on dividends or other distributions from our subsidiaries, and other failures to execute our strategic plan also could adversely affect Ally’s liquidity position.

Current wording

Liquidity is the ability to fund increases in assets and meet obligations as they come due, all without incurring unacceptable losses. Banks are especially vulnerable to liquidity risk because of their role in the maturity transformation of demand or short-term deposits into longer-term loans or other extensions of credit. We, like other financial services companies, rely to a significant extent on external sources of funding (such as deposits and borrowings) for the liquidity needed to conduct our business and operations. A number of factors beyond our control, however, could have a detrimental impact on the availability or cost of that funding and thus on our liquidity. These include market disruptions, changes in our credit ratings or the sentiment of our investors, the state of the regulatory environment and monetary and fiscal policies, competitive dynamics, reputational damage, the confidence of depositors in us or the financial-services industry generally, financial or systemic shocks, and significant counterparty failures. For example, in August 2023, the U.S. banking agencies issued a proposed rule that would require Category II, III, and IV firms, their large consolidated IDIs, and other institutions to issue and maintain minimum amounts of long-term debt that is most readily able to absorb losses in a resolution proceeding. Due to the current structure and amount of debt instruments issued by Ally and Ally Bank, this proposal would significantly affect us. Refer to Note 20 to the Consolidated Financial Statements for further discussion. Weak business or operational performance, unexpected declines or limits on dividends or other distributions from our subsidiaries, and other failures to execute our strategic plan also could adversely affect Ally’s liquidity position.

Previous wording

We have significant maturities of unsecured debt each year. While we have reduced our reliance on unsecured funding as our deposits have grown to 88% of our total funding profile as of December 31, 2023, it remains an important component of our capital structure and financing plans. At December 31, 2023, approximately $1.5 billion in principal amount of total outstanding consolidated unsecured debt is scheduled to mature in 2024, and approximately $2.5 billion and $149 million is scheduled to mature in 2025 and 2026, respectively. We also utilize secured funding. At December 31, 2023, approximately $2.9 billion in principal amount of total outstanding consolidated secured long-term debt is scheduled to mature in 2024, approximately $1.9 billion is scheduled to mature in 2025, and approximately $1.7 billion is scheduled to mature in 2026. Furthermore, at December 31, 2023, approximately $43.5 billion in certificates of deposit at Ally Bank are scheduled to mature in 2024, which is not included in the amounts provided above. Additional funding, whether through deposits or borrowings, will be required to fund a substantial portion of the debt maturities over these periods, and we may not be able to obtain such additional funding at interest rates or on other terms as favorable as the interest rates and other terms on the maturing debt.

Current wording

We have significant maturities of unsecured debt each year. While we have reduced our reliance on unsecured funding as our deposits have grown to 89% of our total liability-based funding as of December 31, 2024, it remains an important component of our capital structure and financing plans. At December 31, 2024, approximately $2.5 billion in principal amount of total outstanding consolidated unsecured debt is scheduled to mature in 2025, and approximately $149 million and $1.6 billion is scheduled to mature in 2026 and 2027, respectively. We also utilize secured funding. At December 31, 2024, approximately $2.4 billion in principal amount of total outstanding consolidated secured long-term debt is scheduled to mature in 2025, approximately $2.2 billion is scheduled to mature in 2026, and approximately $1.4 billion is scheduled to mature in 2027. Furthermore, at December 31, 2024, approximately $37.2 billion in certificates of deposit at Ally Bank are scheduled to mature in 2025, which is not included in the amounts provided above. Additional funding, whether through deposits or borrowings, will be required to fund a substantial portion of the debt maturities over these periods, and we may not be able to obtain such additional funding at interest rates or on other terms as favorable as the interest rates and other terms on the maturing debt.

Previous wording

At times we may rely on our ability to borrow from other financial institutions, and bank facilities are generally up for renewal on a yearly basis. Any weakness in market conditions, tightening of credit availability, or other events referenced earlier in this risk factor could have a negative effect on our ability to refinance any existing facilities and could increase the costs of bank funding. Ally and Ally Bank also continue to access the securitization markets. While those markets have stabilized following the liquidity crisis that commenced in 2007–2008, there can be no assurances that these sources of liquidity will remain available to us.

Current wording

Ally and Ally Bank continue to access the securitization markets. While those markets have stabilized following the liquidity crisis that commenced in 2007–2008, there can be no assurances that these sources of liquidity will remain available to us.

Previous wording

We have a significant amount of indebtedness apart from deposit liabilities. At December 31, 2023, we had approximately $18.3 billion in principal amount of indebtedness outstanding (including $7.1 billion in secured indebtedness). Interest expense on our indebtedness was equal to approximately 8% of our total financing revenue and other interest income for the year ended December 31, 2023. We also have the ability to create additional indebtedness.

Current wording

We have a significant amount of indebtedness apart from deposit liabilities. At December 31, 2024, we had approximately $18.2 billion in principal amount of indebtedness outstanding (including $6.4 billion in secured indebtedness). Interest expense on our indebtedness was equal to approximately 8% of our total financing revenue and other interest income for the year ended December 31, 2024. We also have the ability to create additional indebtedness.

Previous wording

The cost and availability of our funding are meaningfully affected by our short- and long-term credit ratings. Each of Standard & Poor’s Rating Services, Moody’s Investors Service, Inc., Fitch, Inc., and Dominion Bond Rating Service rates some or all of our debt, and these ratings reflect the rating agency’s opinion of our financial strength, operating performance, strategic position, and ability to meet our obligations. Agency ratings are not a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any security and may be revised or withdrawn at any time. Each agency’s rating should be evaluated independently of any other agency’s rating.

Current wording

The cost and availability of our funding are meaningfully affected by our short- and long-term credit ratings. Each of S&P’s Rating Services, Moody’s Investors Service, Inc., Fitch, Inc., and Dominion Bond Rating Service rates some or all of our debt, and these ratings reflect the rating agency’s opinion of our financial strength, operating performance, strategic position, and ability to meet our obligations. Agency ratings are not a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any security and may be revised or withdrawn at any time. Each agency’s rating should be evaluated independently of any other agency’s rating.