---

---

---

•

Permitted Activities — Under the BHC Act, BHCs and their subsidiaries are generally limited to the business of banking and to closely related activities that are incident to banking. The GLB Act amended the BHC Act and created a regulatory framework for FHCs, which are BHCs that meet certain qualifications and elect FHC status. FHCs, directly or indirectly through their nonbank subsidiaries, are generally permitted to engage in a broader range of financial and related activities than those that are permissible for BHCs—for example, (1) underwriting, dealing in, and making a market in securities; (2) providing financial, investment, and economic advisory services; (3) underwriting insurance; and (4) merchant banking activities. The FRB regulates, supervises, and examines FHCs, as it does all BHCs, but insurance and securities activities conducted by an FHC or any of its nonbank subsidiaries are also regulated, supervised, and examined by functional regulators such as state insurance commissioners, the SEC, or FINRA. Ally’s status as an FHC allows us to provide insurance products and services, to deliver our SmartAuction finder services and a number of related vehicle-remarketing services for third parties, and to offer a range of brokerage and advisory services. To remain eligible to conduct these broader financial and related activities, Ally and Ally Bank must remain “well-capitalized” and “well-managed” as defined under applicable law. Refer to Note 20 to the Consolidated Financial Statements and the section below titled Basel Capital Frameworks for additional information. In addition, our ability to expand these financial and related activities or to make acquisitions generally requires that we achieve a satisfactory or better rating under the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA).

---

•

Enhanced Prudential Standards — Ally is currently subject to enhanced prudential standards that have been established by the FRB as required or authorized under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (Dodd-Frank Act). In May 2018, targeted amendments to the Dodd-Frank Act and other financial-services laws were enacted through the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (EGRRCP Act), including amendments that affect whether and, if so, how the FRB applies enhanced prudential standards to BHCs like us with $100 billion or more but less than $250 billion in total consolidated assets. During the fourth quarter of 2018, the FRB and other U.S. banking agencies issued proposals that would implement these amendments in the EGRRCP Act and establish risk-based categories for determining the prudential standards and the capital and liquidity requirements that apply to large U.S. banking organizations. Under the proposals, Ally would be treated as a Category IV firm and, as such, would be (1) made subject to the FRB’s Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review (CCAR) on a two-year cycle rather than the current one-year cycle, (2) made subject to supervisory stress testing on a two-year cycle rather than the current one-year cycle, (3) required to continue submitting an annual capital plan to the FRB for non-objection, (4) allowed to continue excluding accumulated other comprehensive income (AOCI) from regulatory capital, (5) required to continue maintaining a buffer of unencumbered highly liquid assets to meet projected net cash outflows for 30 days, (6) required to conduct liquidity stress tests on a quarterly basis rather than the current monthly basis, (7) allowed to engage in more tailored liquidity risk management, including monthly rather than weekly calculations of collateral positions, the elimination of limits for activities that are not relevant to the firm, and fewer required elements of monitoring of intraday liquidity exposures, (8) exempted from company-run stress testing, the modified liquidity coverage ratio (LCR), and the proposed modified net stable funding ratio (NSFR), and (9) allowed to remain exempted from the supplementary leverage ratio, the countercyclical capital buffer, and single-counterparty credit limits. In the proposals, the FRB also expressed an intent to propose at a later date similar amendments to its capital-plan rule and a separate rulemaking on the applicability of resolution-planning requirements to banking organizations with $100 billion or more but less than $250 billion in total consolidated assets. The FRB and other U.S. banking agencies control when and how the existing proposals and any future proposals may be considered and adopted, and their actions cannot be predicted with any certainty. In the meantime, Ally remains subject to the enhanced prudential standards and the capital and liquidity requirements as currently applied and, in the case of the latter, further described later in this section.

•

Liquidity Coverage Ratio Requirements — The FRB and other U.S. banking agencies have adopted the LCR consistent with international standards developed by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (Basel Committee). The LCR complements the enhanced prudential standards for managing liquidity risk and establishes a minimum quantitative ratio of high-quality liquid assets to total net cash outflows over a prospective 30 calendar-day period. Pending the adoption of proposals described earlier in Enhanced Prudential Standards, Ally is subject to a modified and less stringent version of the LCR that applies to BHCs with $100 billion or more but less than $250 billion in total consolidated assets and less than $10 billion in foreign exposures. Ally is required to calculate its LCR on a monthly basis and is subject to a minimum LCR of 100%. Additionally, effective October 1, 2018, Ally is required to publicly disclose quantitative information about its LCR calculation and a qualitative discussion of the factors that have a significant effect on its LCR.

•	Capital Adequacy Requirements — Ally and Ally Bank are subject to various capital adequacy requirements. Refer to Note 20 to the Consolidated Financial Statements and the section below titled Basel Capital Frameworks for additional information.

•

Capital Planning and Stress Tests — Pending the adoption of proposals described earlier in Enhanced Prudential Standards, Ally must comply with the FRB’s current capital planning and stress testing requirements for large and noncomplex BHCs with $100 billion or more but less than $250 billion in total consolidated assets and less than $75 billion in total nonbank assets. Specifically, Ally is subject to annual supervisory and semiannual company-run stress tests and must submit a proposed capital plan to the FRB annually in connection with CCAR. The proposed capital plan must include an assessment of our expected uses and sources of capital and a description of all planned capital actions over a nine-quarter planning horizon, including any issuance of a debt or equity capital instrument, any dividend or other capital distribution, and any similar action that the FRB determines could have an impact on Ally’s capital. The proposed capital plan must also include a discussion of how Ally, under expected and stressful conditions, will maintain capital commensurate with its risks and above the minimum regulatory capital ratios and will serve as a source of strength to Ally Bank. The FRB will either object to Ally’s proposed capital plan, in whole or in part, or provide a notice of non-objection. If the FRB objects to the proposed capital plan, or if certain material events occur after approval of the plan, Ally must submit a revised capital plan within 30 days. Ally received a non-objection to its 2018 capital plan in June 2018.

---

•

Resolution Planning — Under the Dodd-Frank Act, Ally is required to periodically submit to the FRB and the FDIC plans (commonly known as a living will) for the rapid and orderly resolution of Ally and its significant legal entities under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code and other applicable insolvency laws in the event of future material financial distress or failure. If the FRB and the FDIC jointly determine that the resolution plan is not credible and the deficiencies are not adequately remedied in a timely manner, they may jointly impose on us more stringent capital, leverage, or liquidity requirements or restrictions on our growth, activities, or operations. Further, if we were to fail to address any deficiencies in our resolution plan when required, we could eventually be compelled to divest specified assets or operations. Ally submitted its most recent resolution plan to the FRB and the FDIC on December 31, 2017. In addition, under rules issued by the FDIC, Ally Bank is required to periodically submit to the FDIC a separate resolution plan, which is similarly assessed for its credibility. The most recent Ally Bank plan was filed on July 1, 2018. The public versions of the resolution plans previously submitted by Ally and Ally Bank are available on the FRB’s and the FDIC’s websites. With the enactment of the EGRRCP Act, the FRB and the FDIC have expressed their intent to revise the resolution-planning requirements for banking organizations like Ally and Ally Bank with $100 billion or more but less than $250 billion in total consolidated assets. As with related proposals, the FRB and the FDIC control when and how the revisions may be considered and adopted, and their actions cannot be predicted with any certainty.

•

Limitations on Bank and BHC Dividends and Other Capital Distributions — Federal and Utah law place a number of conditions, limits, and other restrictions on dividends and other capital distributions that may be paid by Ally Bank to IB Finance and thus indirectly to Ally. In addition, even if the FRB does not object to our capital plan, Ally and IB Finance may be precluded from or limited in paying dividends or other capital distributions without the FRB’s approval under certain circumstances—for example, when Ally or IB Finance would not meet minimum regulatory capital ratios after giving effect to the distributions. FRB supervisory guidance also directs BHCs like us to consult with the FRB prior to increasing dividends, implementing common-stock-repurchase programs, or redeeming or repurchasing capital instruments. Further, the U.S. banking agencies are authorized to prohibit an insured depository institution, like Ally Bank, or a BHC, like Ally, from engaging in unsafe or unsound banking practices and, depending upon the circumstances, could find that paying a dividend or other capital distribution would constitute an unsafe or unsound banking practice.

•

Transactions with Affiliates — Sections 23A and 23B of the Federal Reserve Act and the FRB’s Regulation W prevent Ally and its nonbank subsidiaries from taking undue advantage of the benefits afforded to Ally Bank as a depository institution, including its access to federal deposit insurance and the FRB’s discount window. Pursuant to these laws, “covered transactions”—including Ally Bank’s extensions of credit to and asset purchases from its affiliates—are generally subject to meaningful restrictions. For example, unless otherwise exempted, (1) covered transactions are limited to 10% of Ally Bank’s capital stock and surplus in the case of any individual affiliate and 20% of Ally Bank’s capital stock and surplus in the case of all affiliates; (2) Ally Bank’s credit transactions with an affiliate are generally subject to stringent collateralization requirements; (3) with few exceptions, Ally Bank may not purchase any “low quality asset” from an affiliate; and (4) covered transactions must be conducted on terms and conditions that are consistent with safe and sound banking practices (collectively, Affiliate Transaction Restrictions). In addition, transactions between Ally Bank and an affiliate must be on terms and conditions that are either substantially the same as or more beneficial to Ally Bank than those prevailing at the time for comparable transactions with or involving nonaffiliates.

---

•

Source of Strength — The Dodd-Frank Act codified the FRB’s policy requiring a BHC, like Ally, to serve as a source of financial strength for a depository institution subsidiary, like Ally Bank, and to commit resources to support the subsidiary in circumstances when Ally might not otherwise elect to do so. This commitment is also reflected in Ally Bank’s application for membership in the Federal Reserve System, as described in Note 20 to the Consolidated Financial Statements. The functional regulator of any nonbank subsidiary of Ally, however, may prevent that subsidiary from directly or indirectly contributing its financial support, and if that were to preclude Ally from serving as an adequate source of financial strength, the FRB may instead require the divestiture of Ally Bank and impose operating restrictions pending such a divestiture.

•

Single Point of Entry Resolution Authority — Under the Dodd-Frank Act, a BHC whose failure would have serious adverse effects on the financial stability of the United States may be subjected to an FDIC-administered resolution regime called the orderly liquidation authority as an alternative to bankruptcy. If Ally were to be placed into receivership under the orderly liquidation authority, the FDIC as receiver would have considerable rights and powers in liquidating and winding up Ally, including the ability to assign assets and liabilities without the need for creditor consent or prior court review and the ability to differentiate and determine priority among creditors. In doing so, moreover, the FDIC’s primary goal would be a liquidation that mitigates risk to the financial stability of the United States and that minimizes moral hazard. Under the FDIC’s proposed Single Point of Entry strategy for the resolution of a systemically important financial institution under the orderly liquidation authority, the FDIC would place the top-tier U.S. holding company in receivership, keep its operating subsidiaries open and out of insolvency proceedings by transferring them to a new bridge holding company, impose losses on the stockholders and creditors of the holding company in receivership according to their statutory order of priority, and address the problems that led to the institution’s failure.

•

Enforcement Authority — The FRB possesses extensive authorities and powers to regulate and supervise the conduct of Ally’s businesses and operations. If the FRB were to take the position that Ally or any of its subsidiaries have violated any law or commitment or engaged in any unsafe or unsound practice, formal or informal enforcement and other supervisory actions could be taken by the FRB against Ally, its subsidiaries, and institution-affiliated parties (such as directors, officers, and agents). The UDFI and the FDIC have similarly expansive authorities and powers over Ally Bank and its subsidiaries. For example, these governmental authorities could order us to cease and desist from engaging in specified activities or practices or could affirmatively compel us to correct specified violations or practices. Some or all of these government authorities also would have the power, as applicable, to issue administrative orders against us that can be judicially enforced, to direct us to increase capital and liquidity, to limit our dividends and other capital distributions, to restrict or redirect the growth of our assets, businesses, and operations, to assess civil money penalties against us, to remove our officers and directors, to require the divestiture or the retention of assets or entities, to terminate deposit insurance, or to force us into bankruptcy, conservatorship, or receivership. These actions could directly affect not only Ally, its subsidiaries, and institution-affiliated parties but also Ally’s counterparties, stockholders, and creditors and its commitments, arrangements, and other dealings with them.

---

---

•

Mortgage Operations — Our mortgage business is subject to extensive federal, state, and local laws, including related judicial and administrative decisions. The federal, state, and local laws to which our mortgage business is subject, among other things, impose licensing obligations and financial requirements; limit the interest rates, finance charges, and other fees that can be charged; regulate the use of credit reports and the reporting of credit information; impose underwriting requirements; regulate marketing techniques and practices; require the safeguarding of nonpublic information about customers; and regulate servicing practices, including in connection with assessments, collection and foreclosure activities, claims handling, and investment and interest payments on escrow accounts.

---

•

Automotive Lending Business — In March 2013, the CFPB issued guidance about compliance with the fair-lending requirements of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and Regulation B. The guidance was specific to the practice of indirect automotive finance companies purchasing financing contracts executed between dealers and consumers and paying dealers for the contracts at a discount below the rates dealers charge consumers. In December 2017, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) determined that the CFPB’s guidance constituted a rule under the Congressional Review Act. In May 2018, the guidance was disapproved and nullified under the Congressional Review Act by a joint resolution adopted by Congress and signed by the President.

---

•

Privacy and Data Security — The GLB Act and related regulations impose obligations on financial institutions to safeguard specified consumer information maintained by them, to provide notice of their privacy practices to consumers in specified circumstances, and to allow consumers to “opt-out” of specified kinds of information sharing with unaffiliated parties. Related regulatory guidance also directs financial institutions to notify consumers in specified cases of unauthorized access to sensitive consumer information. In addition, most states have enacted laws requiring notice of specified cases of unauthorized access to information. In February 2017, the NYDFS adopted expansive cybersecurity regulations that require regulated entities to establish cybersecurity programs and policies, to designate chief information security officers, to comply with notice and reporting obligations, and to take other actions in connection with the security of their information. As these and future laws impose increasingly stringent privacy and data-security obligations on us, our compliance costs and other liabilities could increase substantially.

•

Volcker Rule — Under the Dodd-Frank Act and implementing regulations of the CFTC, FDIC, FRB, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the SEC (the Volcker Rule), insured depository institutions and their affiliates are prohibited from (1) engaging in “proprietary trading,” and (2) investing in or sponsoring certain types of funds (covered funds) subject to certain limited exceptions. The final rules contain exemptions for market-making, hedging, underwriting, trading in U.S. government and agency obligations and also permit certain ownership interests in certain types of funds to be retained. They also permit the offering and sponsoring of funds under certain conditions. In early 2017, the FRB granted us a five-year extension to conform with requirements related to certain covered funds activities. The Volcker Rule imposes significant compliance and reporting obligations on banking entities. The impact of the Volcker Rule is not expected to be material to Ally’s business operations.

•

Fair Lending Laws — The Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Fair Housing Act, and similar fair-lending laws (collectively, Fair Lending Laws) generally prohibit a creditor from discriminating against an applicant or borrower in any aspect of a credit transaction on the basis of specified characteristics known as “prohibited bases,” such as race, gender, and religion. Creditors are also required under the Fair Lending Laws to follow a number of highly prescriptive rules, including rules requiring credit decisions to be made promptly, notices of adverse actions to be given, and, in the case of mortgage lenders of a certain size, anonymized data and information about mortgage applicants and credit decisions to be gathered and made publicly available. Ally, under the oversight of its Fair and Responsible Banking team, has established a comprehensive fair-lending program that is designed to identify and mitigate fair-lending risk. Because the Fair Lending Laws and interpretations of them continue to evolve, however, Ally remains at risk of being accused of violations.

•

Fair Credit Reporting Act — The Fair Credit Reporting Act regulates the dissemination of credit reports by credit reporting agencies, requires users of credit reports to provide specified notices to the subjects of those reports, imposes standards on the furnishing of information to credit reporting agencies, obligates furnishers to maintain reasonable procedures to deal with the risk of identity theft, addresses the sharing of specified kinds of information with affiliates and third parties, and regulates the use of credit reports to make preapproved offers of credit and insurance to consumers. All of these provisions impose additional regulatory and compliance costs on us and affect our marketing programs.

•

Truth in Lending Act — The Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and Regulation Z, which implements TILA, require lenders to provide borrowers with uniform, understandable information about the terms and conditions in certain credit transactions. These rules apply to Ally and its subsidiaries when they extend credit to consumers and require, in the case of certain mortgage and automotive consumer loans, conspicuous disclosure of the finance charge and annual percentage rate, as applicable. In addition, if an advertisement for credit states specific credit terms, Regulation Z requires that the advertisement state only those terms that actually are or will be arranged or offered by the creditor together with specified notices. The CFPB has issued substantial amendments to the mortgage requirements under Regulation Z, and additional changes are likely in the future. Amendments to Regulation Z and Regulation X, which implements the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, require integrated mortgage loan disclosures to be provided for applications received on or after October 3, 2015. Failure to comply with TILA can result in liability for damages as well as criminal and civil penalties.

•

Sarbanes-Oxley Act — The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 implemented a broad range of corporate governance and accounting measures designed to promote honesty and transparency in corporate America. The principal provisions of the act include, among other things, (1) the creation of an independent accounting oversight board; (2) auditor independence provisions that restrict non-audit services that accountants may provide to their audit clients; (3) additional corporate governance and responsibility measures including the requirement that the principal executive and financial officers certify financial statements; (4) the potential forfeiture of bonuses or other incentive-based compensation and profits from the sale of an issuer’s securities by directors and senior officers in the twelve-month period following initial publication of any financial statements that later require restatement; (5) an increase in the oversight and enhancement of certain requirements relating to audit committees and how they interact with the independent auditors; (6) requirements that audit committee members must be independent and are barred from accepting consulting, advisory, or other compensatory fees from the issuer; (7) requirements that companies disclose whether at least one member of the audit committee is a “financial expert” (as defined by the SEC) and, if not, why the audit committee does not have a financial expert; (8) a prohibition on personal loans to directors and officers, except certain loans made by insured financial institutions, on nonpreferential terms and in compliance with other bank regulatory requirements; (9) disclosure of a code of ethics; (10) requirements that management assess the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and that the independent registered public accounting firm attest to the assessment; and (11) a range of enhanced penalties for fraud and other violations.

---

•

USA PATRIOT Act/Anti-Money-Laundering Requirements — In 2001, the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act (USA PATRIOT Act) was signed into law. Title III of the USA PATRIOT Act amends the Bank Secrecy Act and contains provisions designed to detect and prevent the use of the U.S. financial system for money laundering and terrorist financing activities. The Bank Secrecy Act, as amended by the USA PATRIOT Act, requires banks, certain other financial institutions, and, in certain cases, BHCs to undertake activities including maintaining an anti-money-laundering program, verifying the identity of clients, monitoring for and reporting on suspicious transactions, reporting on cash transactions exceeding specified thresholds, and responding to certain requests for information by regulatory authorities and law enforcement agencies. We have implemented internal practices, procedures, and controls designed to comply with these anti-money-laundering requirements.

•

Community Reinvestment Act — Under the CRA, a bank has a continuing and affirmative obligation, consistent with the safe and sound operation of the institution, to help meet the credit needs of its entire community, including low- and moderate-income persons and neighborhoods. The CRA does not establish specific lending requirements or programs for financial institutions. However, institutions are rated on their performance in meeting the needs of their communities. Ally Bank filed its three-year CRA Strategic Plan with the FRB in October 2016, and received approval in November 2016. In addition, in 2017, Ally Bank received an “Outstanding” rating in its most recent CRA performance evaluation. Failure by Ally Bank to maintain a “Satisfactory” or better rating under the CRA may adversely affect our ability to expand our financial and related activities as an FHC or make acquisitions.

---

---

---

---

---

---

•	increase the cost or decrease the availability of deposits or other variable-rate funding instruments;

•	reduce the return on or demand for loans or increase the prepayment speed of loans;

•	increase customer or counterparty delinquencies or defaults;

•	negatively impact our ability to remarket off-lease and repossessed vehicles; and

•	reduce the value of our loans, retained interests in securitizations, and fixed-income securities in our investment portfolio and the efficacy of our hedging strategies.

---

---

---

---

---

---

•	limiting the liability of our directors and providing indemnification to our directors and officers; and

---

•	limiting the ability of our stockholders to call and bring business before special meetings of stockholders by requiring any requesting stockholders to hold at least 25% of our common stock in the aggregate.

---

(a)	Includes restricted stock units outstanding under the Incentive Compensation Plan and deferred stock units outstanding under the Non-Employee Directors Equity Compensation Plan.

(b)	Includes 24,883,283 securities available for issuance under the plans identified in (a) above and 2,405,374 securities available for issuance under Ally’s Employee Stock Purchase Plan.

---

(a)	Includes shares of common stock withheld to cover income taxes owed by participants in our share-based incentive plans.

(b)	Excludes brokerage commissions.

(c)	On June 28, 2018, we announced a common-stock-repurchase program of up to $1.0 billion. The program commenced in the third quarter of 2018 and will expire on June 30, 2019. Refer to Note 20 to the Consolidated Financial Statements for a discussion of our 2018 capital plan.

---

(a)	As a result of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (the Tax Act) an additional $119 million of tax expense was incurred during 2017.

(b)

Includes shares related to share-based compensation that vested but were not yet issued. Earnings per common share is reflected net of preferred stock dividends, which included $2.4 billion for the year ended December 31, 2015, recognized in connection with the partial redemption of the Series G Preferred Stock and the repurchase of the Series A Preferred Stock. These dividends represent an additional return to preferred stockholders calculated as the excess consideration paid over the carrying amount derecognized.

(c)

In April 2014, we completed an initial public offering (IPO) of 95 million shares of common stock at $25 per share. In connection with the IPO, we effected a 310-for-one stock split on shares of our common stock, $0.01 par value per share. Accordingly, these references to share and per share amounts relating to common stock have been adjusted, on a retroactive basis, to recognize the 310-for-one stock split.

(d)	Due to antidilutive effect of the net loss from continuing operations attributable to common stockholders for the year ended December 31, 2015, basic weighted-average common shares outstanding was used to calculate basic and diluted earnings per share.

---

(a)	The ratios were based on average assets and average equity using a combination of monthly and daily average methodologies.

(b)	Common dividend payout ratio was calculated using basic earnings per common share.

(c)	Net interest spread represents the difference between the rate on total interest-earning assets and the rate on total interest-bearing liabilities, excluding discontinued operations for the periods shown.

(d)	Amounts for the years ended December 31, 2015, and 2014, were adjusted to include previously excluded equity investments and related income on equity investments.

(e)	Net yield on interest-earning assets represents net financing revenue and other interest income as a percentage of total interest-earning assets.

---

(a)	U.S. Basel III became effective for us on January 1, 2015, subject to transitional provisions primarily related to deductions and adjustments impacting Common Equity Tier 1 capital and Tier 1 capital.

(b)

Our fully phased-in capital ratios are non-GAAP financial measures that management believes are important to the reader of the Consolidated Financial Statements but should be supplemental to, and not a substitute for, primary GAAP measures. The fully phased-in capital ratios are compared to the transitional capital ratios above. We believe these capital ratios are important because we believe investors, analysts, and banking regulators may assess our capital utilization and adequacy using these ratios. Additionally, presentation of these ratios allows readers to compare certain aspects of our capital utilization and adequacy on the same basis to other companies in the industry.

(c)	Capital ratios as of December 31, 2014, are presented under the U.S. Basel I capital framework.

(d)	Tier 1 leverage ratio equals Tier 1 capital divided by adjusted quarterly average total assets (which reflects adjustments for disallowed goodwill, certain intangible assets, and disallowed deferred tax assets).

(e)	Contains deferred tax assets required to be deducted from capital under U.S. Basel III.

(f)	Risk-weighted assets are defined by regulation and are generally determined by allocating assets and specified off-balance sheet exposures into various risk categories.

---

•	evolving local, regional, national, or international business, economic, or political conditions;

•	changes in laws or the regulatory or supervisory environment, including as a result of recent financial services legislation, regulation, or policies or changes in government officials or other personnel;

•	changes in monetary, fiscal, or trade laws or policies, including as a result of actions by government agencies, central banks, or supranational authorities;

•	changes in accounting standards or policies, including ASU 2016-13, Financial Instruments — Credit Losses;

•	changes in the automotive industry or the markets for new or used vehicles, including the rise of vehicle sharing and ride hailing, the development of autonomous and alternative-energy vehicles, and the impact of demographic shifts on attitudes and behaviors toward vehicle ownership and use;

•	disruptions or shifts in investor sentiment or behavior in the securities, capital, or other financial markets, including financial or systemic shocks and volatility or changes in market liquidity, interest or currency rates, or valuations;

•	changes in business or consumer sentiment, preferences, or behavior, including spending, borrowing, or saving by businesses or households;

•	changes in our corporate or business strategies, the composition of our assets, or the way in which we fund those assets;

•	our ability to execute our business strategy for Ally Bank, including its digital focus;

•	our ability to optimize our automotive finance and insurance businesses and to continue diversifying into and growing other consumer and commercial business lines, including mortgage finance, corporate finance, brokerage, and wealth management;

•	our ability to develop capital plans that will be approved by the FRB and our ability to implement them, including any payment of dividends or share repurchases;

•	our ability to effectively manage capital or liquidity consistent with evolving business or operational needs, risk-management standards, and regulatory or supervisory requirements;

•	our ability to cost-effectively fund our business and operations, including through deposits and the capital markets;

•	changes in any credit rating assigned to Ally, including Ally Bank;

•	adverse publicity or other reputational harm to us or our senior officers;

•	our ability to develop, maintain, or market our products or services or to absorb unanticipated costs or liabilities associated with those products or services;

•	our ability to innovate, to anticipate the needs of current or future customers, to successfully compete, to increase or hold market share in changing competitive environments, or to deal with pricing or other competitive pressures;

•	the continuing profitability and viability of our dealer-centric automotive finance and insurance businesses, especially in the face of competition from captive finance companies and their automotive manufacturing sponsors and challenges to the dealer’s role as intermediary between manufacturers and purchasers;

---

•	our ability to appropriately underwrite loans that we originate or purchase and to otherwise manage credit risk;

•	changes in the credit, liquidity, or other financial condition of our customers, counterparties, service providers, or competitors;

•	our ability to effectively deal with economic, business, or market slowdowns or disruptions;

•	judicial, regulatory, or administrative investigations, proceedings, disputes, or rulings that create uncertainty for, or are adverse to, us or the financial services industry;

•	our ability to address stricter or heightened regulatory or supervisory requirements and expectations;

•	the performance and availability of third-party service providers on whom we rely in delivering products and services to our customers and otherwise conducting our business and operations;

•	our ability to maintain secure and functional financial, accounting, technology, data processing, or other operating systems or infrastructure, including our capacity to withstand cyberattacks;

•	the adequacy of our corporate governance, risk-management framework, compliance programs, or internal controls over financial reporting, including our ability to control lapses or deficiencies in financial reporting or to effectively mitigate or manage operational risk;

•	the efficacy of our methods or models in assessing business strategies or opportunities or in valuing, measuring, estimating, monitoring, or managing positions or risk;

•	our ability to keep pace with changes in technology that affect us or our customers, counterparties, service providers, or competitors;

•	our ability to successfully make and integrate acquisitions;

•	the adequacy of our succession planning for key executives or other personnel and our ability to attract or retain qualified employees;

•	natural or man-made disasters, calamities, or conflicts, including terrorist events and pandemics; or

•	other assumptions, risks, or uncertainties described in the Risk Factors (Item 1A), Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations (Item 7), or the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements (Item 8) in this Annual Report on Form 10-K or described in any of the Company’s annual, quarterly or current reports.

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

(a)	Average balances are calculated using a daily average methodology.

(b)	Nonperforming finance receivables and loans are included in the average balances. For information on our accounting policies regarding nonperforming status, refer to Note 1 to the Consolidated Financial Statements.

(c)	Includes the effects of derivative financial instruments designated as hedges.

(d)	Consists primarily of automotive dealer term loans, including those to finance dealership land and buildings, and dealer fleet financing.

(e)	Yield includes gains on the sale of off-lease vehicles of $90 million, $124 million, and $213 million for years ended December 31, 2018, 2017, and 2016, respectively. Excluding these gains on sale, the yield would be 4.35%, 5.10%, and 5.29% for the years ended December 31, 2018, 2017, and 2016, respectively.

---

---