Description Of Business, Basis Of Presentation, And Changes In Significant Accounting Policies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2013
Organization, Consolidation and Presentation of Financial Statements [Abstract]
Organization, Consolidation, Basis of Presentation, Business Description and Accounting Policies [Text Block]	Description of Business, Basis of Presentation, and Changes in Significant Accounting Policies Ally Financial Inc. (formerly GMAC Inc. and referred to herein as Ally, we, our, or us) is a leading, independent, diversified, financial services firm. Founded in 1919, we are a leading automotive financial services company with over 90 years experience providing a broad array of financial products and services to automotive dealers and their customers. We became a bank holding company on December 24, 2008, under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended. Our banking subsidiary, Ally Bank, is an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Ally Financial Inc. and a leading franchise in the growing direct (internet, telephone, mobile, and mail) banking market. Our accounting and reporting policies conform to accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (GAAP). Additionally, where applicable, the policies conform to the accounting and reporting guidelines prescribed by bank regulatory authorities. The preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and that affect income and expenses during the reporting period. In developing the estimates and assumptions, management uses all available evidence; however, actual results could differ because of uncertainties associated with estimating the amounts, timing, and likelihood of possible outcomes. The Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements at March 31, 2013, and for the three months ended March 31, 2013, and 2012, are unaudited but reflect all adjustments that are, in management’s opinion, necessary for the fair presentation of the results for the interim periods presented. All such adjustments are of a normal recurring nature. These unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements should be read in conjunction with the audited Consolidated Financial Statements (and the related notes) included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012, as filed on March 1, 2013, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Residential Capital, LLC On May 14, 2012 (the Petition Date), Residential Capital, LLC (ResCap) and certain of its wholly owned direct and indirect subsidiaries (collectively, the Debtors) filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the Bankruptcy Court). In connection with the filings, Ally Financial Inc. and its direct and indirect subsidiaries and affiliates (excluding the Debtors) (collectively, AFI) had reached an agreement with the Debtors and certain creditor constituencies on a prearranged Chapter 11 plan (the Plan). The Plan included a proposed settlement (the Settlement) between AFI and the Debtors, which included, among other things, an obligation of AFI to make a $750 million cash contribution to the Debtor's estate, and a release of all existing or potential causes of action between AFI and the Debtors, as well as a release of all existing or potential ResCap-related causes of action against AFI held by third parties. The Settlement contemplated certain milestone requirements that the Debtors failed to satisfy, including the Bankruptcy Court's confirmation of the Plan on or before October 31, 2012. While the failure to meet this October 31 milestone would have resulted in the Settlement's automatic termination, AFI and the Debtors agreed to monthly temporary waivers of this automatic termination through February 28, 2013. This waiver was not extended beyond this date, and therefore the Settlement has terminated. On November 21, 2012, the Bankruptcy Court entered orders approving the sale of the Debtors' (i) mortgage servicing platform (the Platform Sale) to Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC and Walter Investment Management Corp. and (ii) “whole-loan” portfolio (the Whole-Loan Sale) to Berkshire Hathaway Inc. under section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code, and not as part of the Plan as originally contemplated. The Whole-Loan Sale closed on February 5, 2013, and the Platform Sale closed on February 15, 2013. As of the Petition Date, two separate groups of institutional investors in residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS Investors) issued by ResCap's affiliates and holding more than 25 percent of at least one class in each of 290 securitizations agreed to settle alleged representation and warranty claims against the Debtors' estates in exchange for a total $8.7 billion allowed claim in the Debtors' bankruptcy cases, subject to the applicable securitization trustees' acceptance of the terms of the settlements (the RMBS Settlements). The RMBS Investors also signed separate plan support agreements (PSAs) with the Debtors and AFI in support of the Plan at the time of entering into the RMBS Settlements. To date, RMBS Investors holding more than 25 percent of at least one class in each of 336 securitizations have agreed to the RMBS Settlements. These 336 securitizations have an aggregate original principal balance of approximately $189 billion (out of a total of 392 outstanding securitizations with an original principal balance of $221 billion). The RMBS Settlements are subject to Bankruptcy Court approval, and the Bankruptcy Court has scheduled a hearing to consider such approval beginning on May 28, 2013. The PSAs are not part of this scheduled Bankruptcy Court hearing. A number of creditors have raised objections to the RMBS Settlements, but the trustees representing the 336 securitization trusts and AFI have filed statements in support of the Debtors' motion to approve the RMBS Settlements. Separately, the Debtors have failed to meet several Plan milestones in their bankruptcy cases, each of which has given the RMBS Investors the right to terminate the PSAs upon three business days advance written notice to the Debtors and AFI. On April 18, 2013, one of the two groups of RMBS Investors represented by Talcott Franklin P.C. sent the Debtors and AFI a notice of termination of its PSA. The other group of RMBS Investors represented by Gibbs and Bruns LLP has not given the Debtors and AFI such a notice to date, but have the right to do so at any time. If the RMBS Settlements were not approved or the RMBS Investors were to decide not to support any proposed plan, it could adversely impact the likelihood that any plan is approved by the Bankruptcy Court. AFI continues to support the RMBS Settlements at this time. On June 4, 2012, Berkshire Hathaway Inc. filed a motion in the Bankruptcy Court for the appointment of an independent examiner to investigate, among other things, certain of the Debtors' transactions with AFI occurring prior to the Petition Date, any claims the Debtors may hold against AFI's officers and directors, and any claims the Debtors proposed to release under the Plan. On June 20, 2012, the Bankruptcy Court approved the appointment of an examiner and, subsequently, the United States Trustee for the Southern District of New York appointed former bankruptcy judge Arthur J. Gonzalez, Esq. as the examiner (the Examiner). On July 27, 2012, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order approving the scope of the Examiner's investigation. The investigation includes, among other things: (a) all material pre-petition transactions between or among the Debtors and AFI, Cerberus Capital Management, L.P. and its subsidiaries and affiliates, and/or Ally Bank; (b) certain post-petition negotiations and transactions with the Debtors, including with respect to plan sponsor, plan support, and settlement agreements, the debtor-in-possession financing with AFI, the stalking horse asset purchase agreement with AFI, and the servicing agreement with Ally Bank; (c) all state and federal law claims or causes of action the Debtors proposed to release as part of the Plan; and (d) the release of all existing or potential ResCap-related causes of action against AFI held by third parties. In the Examiner's original work plan, the Examiner estimated that his investigation and related report would be completed six months from approximately August 6, 2012. However, on February 7, 2013 the Examiner informed the Bankruptcy Court in the third supplement to the work plan that the investigation and related report will not be completed until early May 2013. On December 26, 2012, the Bankruptcy Court, in an effort to facilitate plan negotiations, entered an order appointing bankruptcy judge James M. Peck, Esq. as mediator (the Mediator) through and until February 28, 2013, to assist the parties in resolving certain issues relating to the formulation and confirmation of the Plan. On March 5, 2013, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order extending the Mediator's term to and including May 31, 2013, unless the Mediator declares in a written order on an earlier date that the mediation is at an impasse and should be terminated. AFI, the Debtors, the official committee of unsecured creditors appointed in the Debtors' bankruptcy cases (the Creditors' Committee) and certain other creditor constituencies are engaging in ongoing mediation sessions under a Bankruptcy Court order of confidentiality. Given the inherent uncertainty of the bankruptcy process, it is reasonably possible that a settlement could be reached that results in a payment substantially higher than the current $750 million estimate, or that no settlement is reached at all. The ultimate outcome of these settlement discussions will be affected by various factors, including, among others, the highly complex nature of the bankruptcy process, competing interests of various parties, disparate creditor priorities, the uncertainty of obtaining certain non-financial terms being sought, competing jurisdictional claims, uncertain residual estate property value, and the timing and unknown conclusions of the independent examiner's investigation. On February 26, 2013, the Debtors and the Creditors' Committee entered into an agreement, the terms of which provided that, among other things, the Creditors' Committee would support extending the Debtors' exclusive period to file a Chapter 11 plan through and until April 30, 2013, the Debtors would consent to any motion filed by the Creditors' Committee after April 30, 2013 seeking standing to bring estate causes of action against AFI and the Debtors would allow the Settlement to automatically expire on February 28, 2013. Thereafter, on March 5, 2013, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order extending the Debtors' exclusive period to file a Chapter 11 plan through and until April 30, 2013. On April 15, 2013, the Bankruptcy court entered an order further extending the Debtors' exclusive period to file a Chapter 11 plan through and until May 7, 2013. On April 11, 2013, the Creditors' Committee filed a motion seeking standing to assert claims against AFI on behalf of the Debtors' estates. In its motion, the Creditors' Committee alleged, among other things, that AFI stripped the Debtors of valuable assets and exercised domination, control and abuse of the Debtors. The Creditors' Committee's claims against AFI include veil-piercing, fraudulent conveyance, indemnification, preferential transfer, and equitable subordination. The Creditors' Committee asserted that AFI may be liable for billions of dollars on account of these claims. AFI believes that these claims have no merit and is fully prepared to litigate these claims to final resolution. The Bankruptcy Court has scheduled a hearing for May 7, 2013 to consider the Creditors' Committee's motion for standing. On February 27, 2013, the Debtors filed a motion with the Bankruptcy Court seeking, for purposes of any proposed Chapter 11 plan, that GMAC Mortgage's obligation to conduct and pay for independent file review regarding certain residential foreclosure actions and foreclosure sales prosecuted by GMAC Mortgage and its subsidiaries, as required under the Consent Order, be classified as a general unsecured claim in an amount to be determined, and that the automatic stay under the Bankruptcy Code be applied to prevent the FRB, the FDIC, and other governmental entities from taking any action to enforce the obligation against the Debtors (the Foreclosure Review Motion). The Bankruptcy Court is expected to issue a written opinion on the relief sought in the Foreclosure Review Motion in the near future. If the Bankruptcy Court approves the Foreclosure Review Motion, such governmental entities are likely to seek to enforce the obligation against AFI, and any such obligations ultimately borne by AFI could be material. We are currently named as defendants in various lawsuits relating to ResCap mortgage-backed securities and certain other mortgage-related matters (the Mortgage Cases), which are described in more detail in Note 26. We had previously disclosed that several of the Mortgage Cases were subject to orders entered by the Bankruptcy Court staying the matters through April 30, 2013 in connection with the Debtors bankruptcy. On May 1, 2013, all stay orders applicable to the Ally non-Debtor defendants with respect to the Mortgage Cases expired. As a result, all of the Mortgage Cases are proceeding against us. As a result of the termination of the Settlement, AFI is no longer obligated to make the $750 million cash contribution and neither party is bound by the Settlement. Further, AFI is not entitled to receive any releases from either the Debtors or any third party claimants, as was contemplated under the Plan and Settlement. However, AFI has not withdrawn its offer to provide a $750 million cash contribution to the Debtors' estate if an acceptable settlement can be reached. As a result of the termination of the Settlement, substantial claims could be brought against us, which could have a material adverse impact on our results of operations, financial position or cash flows. We would have strong legal and factual defenses with respect to any such claims, and would vigorously defend them. As a result of the bankruptcy filing, effective May 14, 2012, we deconsolidated ResCap from our financial statements. During the first quarter of 2013, we discontinued performing certain mortgage activities, which were required as part of the bankruptcy process until the sale of certain assets occurred. As a result of us discontinuing these certain mortgage activities, the operations of ResCap were classified as discontinued. Based on our assessment of the effect of the deconsolidation of ResCap, obligations under the Plan, and other impacts related to the Chapter 11 filing, we recorded a charge of $1.2 billion during 2012, within our (loss) income from discontinued operations, net of tax. This charge primarily consists of the impairment of Ally's $442 million equity investment in ResCap and the $750 million cash contribution to be made by us to the Debtors' estate described above. As of March 31, 2013, we have $1.1 billion of financing due from ResCap, which is classified as Finance Receivables and Loans, net on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet. We maintain no allowance or impairment against these receivables because management considers them to be fully collectible. At March 31, 2013, our hedging arrangements with ResCap were fully collateralized. Because of the uncertain nature of the bankruptcy proceedings, we cannot predict the ultimate financial impact to Ally. Refer to Note 26 for additional information regarding these bankruptcy proceedings. Significant Accounting Policies Income Taxes In calculating the provision for interim income taxes, in accordance with Accounting Standards Codification 740, Income Taxes, we apply an estimated annual effective tax rate to year-to-date ordinary income. At the end of each interim period, we estimate the effective tax rate expected to be applicable for the full fiscal year. We exclude and record discretely the tax effect of unusual or infrequently occurring items, including, for example, changes in judgment about valuation allowances and effects of changes in tax law or rates. The provision for income taxes in tax jurisdictions with a projected full year or year-to-date loss for which a tax benefit cannot be realized is estimated using tax rates specific to that jurisdiction. Refer to Note 1 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in our 2012 Annual Report on Form 10-K regarding additional significant accounting policies. Recently Adopted Accounting Standards Balance Sheet - Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities (ASU 2011-11 and ASU 2013-01) As of January 1, 2013, we adopted Accounting Standards Update (ASU) 2011-11, which amends ASC 210, Balance Sheet. This ASU contains new disclosure requirements regarding the nature of an entity's rights of offset and related arrangements associated with its financial instruments and derivative instruments. In addition, we adopted ASU 2013-01, which simply clarified the scope of ASU 2011-11. The new disclosures will give financial statement users information about both gross and net exposures. ASU 2011-11 and ASU 2013-01 were required to be applied retrospectively. Since the guidance relates only to disclosure of information, the adoption did not have an impact to our consolidated financial condition or results of operations. Comprehensive Income - Reporting of Amounts Reclassified Out of Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (ASU 2013-02) As of January 1, 2013, we adopted ASU 2013-02, which amends ASC 220, Comprehensive Income. The ASU contains new requirements related to the presentation and disclosure of items that are reclassified out of accumulated other comprehensive income. The new requirements provide financial statement users a more comprehensive view of items that are reclassified out of accumulated other comprehensive income. ASU 2013-02 was required to be applied prospectively. Since the guidance relates only to presentation and disclosure of information, the adoption did not have an impact to our consolidated financial condition or results of operations. Recently Issued Accounting Standards Liabilities - Obligations Resulting from Joint and Several Liability Arrangements for Which the Total Amount of the Obligation Is Fixed at the Reporting Date (ASU 2013-04) In February 2013, the Financial Accounting Standards Board issued ASU 2013-04. This ASU requires an entity to measure obligations resulting from joint and several liability arrangements for which the total amount of the obligation within the scope of this guidance is fixed at the reporting date, as the sum of the following: (a) The amount the reporting entity agreed to pay on the basis of its arrangement among its co-obligors and (b) any additional amount the reporting entity expects to pay on behalf of its co-obligors. It further requires an entity to disclose the nature and amount of the obligation as well as other information about those obligations. ASU 2013-04 will be effective for us on January 1, 2014, with retrospective application required. The adoption of this guidance is not expected to have a material effect on our consolidated financial condition or results of operations. Foreign Currency Matters - Parent's Accounting for the Cumulative Translation Adjustment upon Derecognition of Certain Subsidiaries or Groups of Assets within a Foreign Entity or of an Investment in a Foreign Entity (ASU 2013-05) In March 2013, the Financial Accounting Standards Board issued ASU 2013-05. This ASU requires a reporting entity that ceases to have a controlling financial interest, in a subsidiary or group of assets or a business, within a foreign entity to release any related Cumulative Translation Adjustment (CTA) into net income. The CTA should be released into net income only if the sale or transfer results in the complete or substantially complete liquidation of the foreign entity. For an equity method investment that is a foreign entity, a pro rata portion of the CTA should be released into net income upon a partial sale of such an investment. This ASU clarifies that the sale of an investment in a foreign entity includes both events that result in the loss of a controlling financial interest in a foreign entity, irrespective of any retained investment, and events that result in step acquisition under which an acquirer obtains control of an acquiree in which it held an equity interest immediately before the acquisition date. Under these circumstances, the CTA should be released into net income upon their occurrence. ASU 2013-04 will be effective for us prospectively on January 1, 2014. Management is currently assessing the potential impact of the application of this guidance. However, since the guidance is prospective and we are in the process of exiting most of our international operations, it is not expected to have a material effect on our consolidated financial condition or results of operations.

Description of Business, Basis of Presentation, and Changes in Significant Accounting Policies

Ally Financial Inc. (formerly GMAC Inc. and referred to herein as Ally, we, our, or us) is a leading, independent, diversified, financial services firm. Founded in 1919, we are a leading automotive financial services company with over 90 years experience providing a broad array of financial products and services to automotive dealers and their customers. We became a bank holding company on December 24, 2008, under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended. Our banking subsidiary, Ally Bank, is an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Ally Financial Inc. and a leading franchise in the growing direct (internet, telephone, mobile, and mail) banking market.

Our accounting and reporting policies conform to accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (GAAP). Additionally, where applicable, the policies conform to the accounting and reporting guidelines prescribed by bank regulatory authorities. The preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and that affect income and expenses during the reporting period. In developing the estimates and assumptions, management uses all available evidence; however, actual results could differ because of uncertainties associated with estimating the amounts, timing, and likelihood of possible outcomes.

The Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements at March 31, 2013, and for the three months ended March 31, 2013, and 2012, are unaudited but reflect all adjustments that are, in management’s opinion, necessary for the fair presentation of the results for the interim periods presented. All such adjustments are of a normal recurring nature. These unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements should be read in conjunction with the audited Consolidated Financial Statements (and the related notes) included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012, as filed on March 1, 2013, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

Residential Capital, LLC

On May 14, 2012 (the Petition Date), Residential Capital, LLC (ResCap) and certain of its wholly owned direct and indirect subsidiaries (collectively, the Debtors) filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the Bankruptcy Court). In connection with the filings, Ally Financial Inc. and its direct and indirect subsidiaries and affiliates (excluding the Debtors) (collectively, AFI) had reached an agreement with the Debtors and certain creditor constituencies on a prearranged Chapter 11 plan (the Plan). The Plan included a proposed settlement (the Settlement) between AFI and the Debtors, which included, among other things, an obligation of AFI to make a $750 million cash contribution to the Debtor's estate, and a release of all existing or potential causes of action between AFI and the Debtors, as well as a release of all existing or potential ResCap-related causes of action against AFI held by third parties.

The Settlement contemplated certain milestone requirements that the Debtors failed to satisfy, including the Bankruptcy Court's confirmation of the Plan on or before October 31, 2012. While the failure to meet this October 31 milestone would have resulted in the Settlement's automatic termination, AFI and the Debtors agreed to monthly temporary waivers of this automatic termination through February 28, 2013. This waiver was not extended beyond this date, and therefore the Settlement has terminated.

On November 21, 2012, the Bankruptcy Court entered orders approving the sale of the Debtors' (i) mortgage servicing platform (the Platform Sale) to Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC and Walter Investment Management Corp. and (ii) “whole-loan” portfolio (the Whole-Loan Sale) to Berkshire Hathaway Inc. under section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code, and not as part of the Plan as originally contemplated. The Whole-Loan Sale closed on February 5, 2013, and the Platform Sale closed on February 15, 2013.

As of the Petition Date, two separate groups of institutional investors in residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS Investors) issued by ResCap's affiliates and holding more than 25 percent of at least one class in each of 290 securitizations agreed to settle alleged representation and warranty claims against the Debtors' estates in exchange for a total $8.7 billion allowed claim in the Debtors' bankruptcy cases, subject to the applicable securitization trustees' acceptance of the terms of the settlements (the RMBS Settlements). The RMBS Investors also signed separate plan support agreements (PSAs) with the Debtors and AFI in support of the Plan at the time of entering into the RMBS Settlements. To date, RMBS Investors holding more than 25 percent of at least one class in each of 336 securitizations have agreed to the RMBS Settlements. These 336 securitizations have an aggregate original principal balance of approximately $189 billion (out of a total of 392 outstanding securitizations with an original principal balance of $221 billion). The RMBS Settlements are subject to Bankruptcy Court approval, and the Bankruptcy Court has scheduled a hearing to consider such approval beginning on May 28, 2013. The PSAs are not part of this scheduled Bankruptcy Court hearing. A number of creditors have raised objections to the RMBS Settlements, but the trustees representing the 336 securitization trusts and AFI have filed statements in support of the Debtors' motion to approve the RMBS Settlements. Separately, the Debtors have failed to meet several Plan milestones in their bankruptcy cases, each of which has given the RMBS Investors the right to terminate the PSAs upon three business days advance written notice to the Debtors and AFI. On April 18, 2013, one of the two groups of RMBS Investors represented by Talcott Franklin P.C. sent the Debtors and AFI a notice of termination of its PSA. The other group of RMBS Investors represented by Gibbs and Bruns LLP has not given the Debtors and AFI such a notice to date, but have the right to do so at any time. If the RMBS Settlements were not approved or the RMBS Investors were to decide not to support any proposed plan, it could adversely impact the likelihood that any plan is approved by the Bankruptcy Court. AFI continues to support the RMBS Settlements at this time.

On June 4, 2012, Berkshire Hathaway Inc. filed a motion in the Bankruptcy Court for the appointment of an independent examiner to investigate, among other things, certain of the Debtors' transactions with AFI occurring prior to the Petition Date, any claims the Debtors may hold against AFI's officers and directors, and any claims the Debtors proposed to release under the Plan. On June 20, 2012, the Bankruptcy Court approved the appointment of an examiner and, subsequently, the United States Trustee for the Southern District of New York appointed former bankruptcy judge Arthur J. Gonzalez, Esq. as the examiner (the Examiner). On July 27, 2012, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order approving the scope of the Examiner's investigation. The investigation includes, among other things: (a) all material pre-petition transactions between or among the Debtors and AFI, Cerberus Capital Management, L.P. and its subsidiaries and affiliates, and/or Ally Bank; (b) certain post-petition negotiations and transactions with the Debtors, including with respect to plan sponsor, plan support, and settlement agreements, the debtor-in-possession financing with AFI, the stalking horse asset purchase agreement with AFI, and the servicing agreement with Ally Bank; (c) all state and federal law claims or causes of action the Debtors proposed to release as part of the Plan; and (d) the release of all existing or potential ResCap-related causes of action against AFI held by third parties. In the Examiner's original work plan, the Examiner estimated that his investigation and related report would be completed six months from approximately August 6, 2012. However, on February 7, 2013 the Examiner informed the Bankruptcy Court in the third supplement to the work plan that the investigation and related report will not be completed until early May 2013.

On December 26, 2012, the Bankruptcy Court, in an effort to facilitate plan negotiations, entered an order appointing bankruptcy judge James M. Peck, Esq. as mediator (the Mediator) through and until February 28, 2013, to assist the parties in resolving certain issues relating to the formulation and confirmation of the Plan. On March 5, 2013, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order extending the Mediator's term to and including May 31, 2013, unless the Mediator declares in a written order on an earlier date that the mediation is at an impasse and should be terminated. AFI, the Debtors, the official committee of unsecured creditors appointed in the Debtors' bankruptcy cases (the Creditors' Committee) and certain other creditor constituencies are engaging in ongoing mediation sessions under a Bankruptcy Court order of confidentiality. Given the inherent uncertainty of the bankruptcy process, it is reasonably possible that a settlement could be reached that results in a payment substantially higher than the current $750 million estimate, or that no settlement is reached at all. The ultimate outcome of these settlement discussions will be affected by various factors, including, among others, the highly complex nature of the bankruptcy process, competing interests of various parties, disparate creditor priorities, the uncertainty of obtaining certain non-financial terms being sought, competing jurisdictional claims, uncertain residual estate property value, and the timing and unknown conclusions of the independent examiner's investigation.

On February 26, 2013, the Debtors and the Creditors' Committee entered into an agreement, the terms of which provided that, among other things, the Creditors' Committee would support extending the Debtors' exclusive period to file a Chapter 11 plan through and until April 30, 2013, the Debtors would consent to any motion filed by the Creditors' Committee after April 30, 2013 seeking standing to bring estate causes of action against AFI and the Debtors would allow the Settlement to automatically expire on February 28, 2013.

Thereafter, on March 5, 2013, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order extending the Debtors' exclusive period to file a Chapter 11 plan through and until April 30, 2013. On April 15, 2013, the Bankruptcy court entered an order further extending the Debtors' exclusive period to file a Chapter 11 plan through and until May 7, 2013.

On April 11, 2013, the Creditors' Committee filed a motion seeking standing to assert claims against AFI on behalf of the Debtors' estates. In its motion, the Creditors' Committee alleged, among other things, that AFI stripped the Debtors of valuable assets and exercised domination, control and abuse of the Debtors. The Creditors' Committee's claims against AFI include veil-piercing, fraudulent conveyance, indemnification, preferential transfer, and equitable subordination. The Creditors' Committee asserted that AFI may be liable for billions of dollars on account of these claims. AFI believes that these claims have no merit and is fully prepared to litigate these claims to final resolution. The Bankruptcy Court has scheduled a hearing for May 7, 2013 to consider the Creditors' Committee's motion for standing.

On February 27, 2013, the Debtors filed a motion with the Bankruptcy Court seeking, for purposes of any proposed Chapter 11 plan, that GMAC Mortgage's obligation to conduct and pay for independent file review regarding certain residential foreclosure actions and foreclosure sales prosecuted by GMAC Mortgage and its subsidiaries, as required under the Consent Order, be classified as a general unsecured claim in an amount to be determined, and that the automatic stay under the Bankruptcy Code be applied to prevent the FRB, the FDIC, and other governmental entities from taking any action to enforce the obligation against the Debtors (the Foreclosure Review Motion). The Bankruptcy Court is expected to issue a written opinion on the relief sought in the Foreclosure Review Motion in the near future. If the Bankruptcy Court approves the Foreclosure Review Motion, such governmental entities are likely to seek to enforce the obligation against AFI, and any such obligations ultimately borne by AFI could be material.

We are currently named as defendants in various lawsuits relating to ResCap mortgage-backed securities and certain other mortgage-related matters (the Mortgage Cases), which are described in more detail in Note 26. We had previously disclosed that several of the Mortgage Cases were subject to orders entered by the Bankruptcy Court staying the matters through April 30, 2013 in connection with the Debtors bankruptcy. On May 1, 2013, all stay orders applicable to the Ally non-Debtor defendants with respect to the Mortgage Cases expired. As a result, all of the Mortgage Cases are proceeding against us.

As a result of the termination of the Settlement, AFI is no longer obligated to make the $750 million cash contribution and neither party is bound by the Settlement. Further, AFI is not entitled to receive any releases from either the Debtors or any third party claimants, as was contemplated under the Plan and Settlement. However, AFI has not withdrawn its offer to provide a $750 million cash contribution to the Debtors' estate if an acceptable settlement can be reached. As a result of the termination of the Settlement, substantial claims could be brought against us, which could have a material adverse impact on our results of operations, financial position or cash flows. We would have strong legal and factual defenses with respect to any such claims, and would vigorously defend them.

As a result of the bankruptcy filing, effective May 14, 2012, we deconsolidated ResCap from our financial statements. During the first quarter of 2013, we discontinued performing certain mortgage activities, which were required as part of the bankruptcy process until the sale of certain assets occurred. As a result of us discontinuing these certain mortgage activities, the operations of ResCap were classified as discontinued.

Based on our assessment of the effect of the deconsolidation of ResCap, obligations under the Plan, and other impacts related to the Chapter 11 filing, we recorded a charge of $1.2 billion during 2012, within our (loss) income from discontinued operations, net of tax. This charge primarily consists of the impairment of Ally's $442 million equity investment in ResCap and the $750 million cash contribution to be made by us to the Debtors' estate described above. As of March 31, 2013, we have $1.1 billion of financing due from ResCap, which is classified as Finance Receivables and Loans, net on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet. We maintain no allowance or impairment against these receivables because management considers them to be fully collectible. At March 31, 2013, our hedging arrangements with ResCap were fully collateralized. Because of the uncertain nature of the bankruptcy proceedings, we cannot predict the ultimate financial impact to Ally. Refer to Note 26 for additional information regarding these bankruptcy proceedings.

Significant Accounting Policies

Income Taxes

In calculating the provision for interim income taxes, in accordance with Accounting Standards Codification 740, Income Taxes, we apply an estimated annual effective tax rate to year-to-date ordinary income. At the end of each interim period, we estimate the effective tax rate expected to be applicable for the full fiscal year. We exclude and record discretely the tax effect of unusual or infrequently occurring items, including, for example, changes in judgment about valuation allowances and effects of changes in tax law or rates. The provision for income taxes in tax jurisdictions with a projected full year or year-to-date loss for which a tax benefit cannot be realized is estimated using tax rates specific to that jurisdiction.

Refer to Note 1 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in our 2012 Annual Report on Form 10-K regarding additional significant accounting policies.

Recently Adopted Accounting Standards

Balance Sheet - Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities (ASU 2011-11 and ASU 2013-01)

As of January 1, 2013, we adopted Accounting Standards Update (ASU) 2011-11, which amends ASC 210, Balance Sheet. This ASU contains new disclosure requirements regarding the nature of an entity's rights of offset and related arrangements associated with its financial instruments and derivative instruments. In addition, we adopted ASU 2013-01, which simply clarified the scope of ASU 2011-11. The new disclosures will give financial statement users information about both gross and net exposures. ASU 2011-11 and ASU 2013-01 were required to be applied retrospectively. Since the guidance relates only to disclosure of information, the adoption did not have an impact to our consolidated financial condition or results of operations.

Comprehensive Income - Reporting of Amounts Reclassified Out of Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (ASU 2013-02)

As of January 1, 2013, we adopted ASU 2013-02, which amends ASC 220, Comprehensive Income. The ASU contains new requirements related to the presentation and disclosure of items that are reclassified out of accumulated other comprehensive income. The new requirements provide financial statement users a more comprehensive view of items that are reclassified out of accumulated other comprehensive income. ASU 2013-02 was required to be applied prospectively. Since the guidance relates only to presentation and disclosure of information, the adoption did not have an impact to our consolidated financial condition or results of operations.

Recently Issued Accounting Standards

Liabilities - Obligations Resulting from Joint and Several Liability Arrangements for Which the Total Amount of the Obligation Is Fixed at the Reporting Date (ASU 2013-04)

In February 2013, the Financial Accounting Standards Board issued ASU 2013-04. This ASU requires an entity to measure obligations resulting from joint and several liability arrangements for which the total amount of the obligation within the scope of this guidance is fixed at the reporting date, as the sum of the following: (a) The amount the reporting entity agreed to pay on the basis of its arrangement among its co-obligors and (b) any additional amount the reporting entity expects to pay on behalf of its co-obligors. It further requires an entity to disclose the nature and amount of the obligation as well as other information about those obligations. ASU 2013-04 will be effective for us on January 1, 2014, with retrospective application required. The adoption of this guidance is not expected to have a material effect on our consolidated financial condition or results of operations.

Foreign Currency Matters - Parent's Accounting for the Cumulative Translation Adjustment upon Derecognition of Certain Subsidiaries or Groups of Assets within a Foreign Entity or of an Investment in a Foreign Entity (ASU 2013-05)

In March 2013, the Financial Accounting Standards Board issued ASU 2013-05. This ASU requires a reporting entity that ceases to have a controlling financial interest, in a subsidiary or group of assets or a business, within a foreign entity to release any related Cumulative Translation Adjustment (CTA) into net income. The CTA should be released into net income only if the sale or transfer results in the complete or substantially complete liquidation of the foreign entity. For an equity method investment that is a foreign entity, a pro rata portion of the CTA should be released into net income upon a partial sale of such an investment. This ASU clarifies that the sale of an investment in a foreign entity includes both events that result in the loss of a controlling financial interest in a foreign entity, irrespective of any retained investment, and events that result in step acquisition under which an acquirer obtains control of an acquiree in which it held an equity interest immediately before the acquisition date. Under these circumstances, the CTA should be released into net income upon their occurrence. ASU 2013-04 will be effective for us prospectively on January 1, 2014. Management is currently assessing the potential impact of the application of this guidance. However, since the guidance is prospective and we are in the process of exiting most of our international operations, it is not expected to have a material effect on our consolidated financial condition or results of operations.