Commitments, Contingencies and Other Regulatory Matters	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS, CONTINGENCIES AND OTHER REGULATORY MATTERS	COMMITMENTS, CONTINGENCIES AND OTHER REGULATORY MATTERS The Company reviews its lawsuits, regulatory inquiries and other legal proceedings on an ongoing basis and provides disclosure and records loss contingencies in accordance with the loss contingencies accounting guidance. The Company establishes an accrual for losses at management's best estimate when it assesses that it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. The Company monitors these matters for developments that would affect the likelihood of a loss and the accrued amount, if any, and adjusts the amount as appropriate. Litigation Matters On October 27, 2000, Ajaxo, Inc. (Ajaxo) filed a complaint in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Santa Clara. Ajaxo sought damages and certain non-monetary relief for the Company’s alleged breach of a non-disclosure agreement with Ajaxo pertaining to certain wireless technology that Ajaxo offered the Company as well as damages and other relief against the Company for their alleged misappropriation of Ajaxo’s trade secrets. Following a jury trial, a judgment was entered in 2003 in favor of Ajaxo against the Company for $1 million for breach of the Ajaxo non-disclosure agreement. Although the jury found in favor of Ajaxo on its claim against the Company for misappropriation of trade secrets, the trial court subsequently denied Ajaxo’s requests for additional damages and relief. On December 21, 2005, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the above-described award against the Company for breach of the nondisclosure agreement but remanded the case to the trial court for the limited purpose of determining what, if any, additional damages Ajaxo may be entitled to as a result of the jury’s previous finding in favor of Ajaxo on its claim against the Company for misappropriation of trade secrets. Although the Company paid Ajaxo the full amount due on the above-described judgment, the case was remanded back to the trial court, and on May 30, 2008, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the Company denying all claims raised and demands for damages against the Company. Following the trial court’s entry of judgment in favor of the Company on September 5, 2008, Ajaxo filed post-trial motions for vacating this entry of judgment and requesting a new trial. The trial court denied these motions. On December 2, 2008, Ajaxo filed a notice of appeal with the Court of Appeal of the State of California for the Sixth District. On August 30, 2010, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s verdict in part and reversed the verdict in part, remanding the case. The Company petitioned the Supreme Court of California for review of the Court of Appeal decision. On December 16, 2010, the California Supreme Court denied the Company’s petition for review and remanded for further proceedings to the trial court. The testimonial phase of the third trial in this matter concluded on June 12, 2012. By order dated May 28, 2014, the Court determined to conduct a second phase of this bench trial to allow Ajaxo to attempt to prove entitlement to additional royalties. Hearings in phase two of the trial concluded January 8, 2015. In a Judgment and Statement of Decision filed September 16, 2015, the Court denied all claims for royalties by Ajaxo. Ajaxo’s post-trial motions were denied. Ajaxo has appealed to the Court of Appeal, Sixth District. Briefing of this appeal is expected to continue into August 2017. The Company will continue to defend itself vigorously. On May 16, 2011, Droplets Inc., the holder of two patents pertaining to user interface servers, filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas against ETRADE Financial Corporation, ETRADE Securities, ETRADE Bank and multiple other unaffiliated financial services firms. Plaintiff contends that the defendants engaged in patent infringement under federal law. Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and an injunction against future infringements, plus royalties, costs, interest and attorneys’ fees. On March 28, 2012, a change of venue was granted and the case was transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Company's motion for summary judgment on the grounds of non-infringement was granted by the U.S. District Court in a Decision and Order dated March 9, 2015. All remaining claims are stayed pending resolution of issues on Droplet's remaining patents under review by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). On July 6, 2015, the PTAB instituted an inter partes review of plaintiff's '115 patent. A hearing on the inter partes review was conducted on March 14, 2016. On June 23, 2016, the PTAB deemed Droplets’ putative '115 patent to be “unpatentable.” In a separate proceeding, the PTAB has also separately deemed Droplets’ putative '838 patent to be “unpatentable.” Droplets has appealed to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The opening brief was filed on December 23, 2016 and briefing was completed on July 24, 2017. Oral argument has not yet been scheduled. The Company will continue to defend itself vigorously in this matter. On April 30, 2013, a putative class action was filed by John Scranton, on behalf of himself and a class of persons similarly situated, against ETRADE Financial Corporation and ETRADE Securities in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, pursuant to the California procedures for a private Attorney General action. The complaint alleged that the Company misrepresented through its website that it would always automatically exercise options that were in-the-money by $0.01 or more on expiration date. The plaintiffs allege violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, the California Consumer Remedies Act, fraud, misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty and plaintiffs seek unspecified damages. The case has been deemed complex within the meaning of the California Rules of Court, and a case management conference was held on September 13, 2013. The Company’s demurrer and motion to strike the complaint were granted by order dated December 20, 2013. The Court granted leave to amend the complaint. A second amended complaint was filed on January 31, 2014. On March 11, 2014, the Company moved to strike and for a demurrer to the second amended complaint. On October 20, 2014, the Court sustained the Company's demurrer, dismissing four counts of the second amended complaint with prejudice and two counts without prejudice. The plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint on November 10, 2014. The Company filed a third demurrer and motion to strike on December 12, 2014. By order dated March 18, 2015, the Superior Court entered a final order sustaining the Company's demurrer on all remaining claims with prejudice. Final judgment was entered in the Company's favor on April 8, 2015. The plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal on April 27, 2015. The briefing is complete but oral argument has not yet been scheduled. The Company will continue to defend itself vigorously in this matter. On March 26, 2015, a putative class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by Ty Rayner, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, naming ETRADE Financial Corporation and ETRADE Securities as defendants. The complaint alleges that ETRADE breached a fiduciary duty and unjustly enriched itself in connection with the routing of its customers’ orders to various market-makers and exchanges. Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, declaratory relief, restitution, disgorgement of payments received by the Company, and attorneys’ fees. On July 23, 2016, a putative class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by Craig L. Schwab, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, naming ETRADE Financial Corporation, ETRADE Securities LLC, and former Company executives as defendants. The complaint alleges that ETRADE violated federal securities laws in connection with the routing of its customers’ orders to various market-makers and exchanges. Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, declaratory relief, restitution, disgorgement of payments received by the Company, and attorneys’ fees. By stipulation, the Rayner case has been consolidated with the Schwab case and both matters are now venued in the Southern District of New York. ETRADE has moved to dismiss the complaint in Rayner. On April 2, 2017, the District Court dismissed the complaint in Rayner. On May 5, 2017, plaintiffs in Rayner appealed. ETRADE moved to dismiss the Schwab case on January 11, 2017; and in response, the Schwab plaintiffs submitted an amended Complaint on February 10, 2017. The amended Schwab complaint asserts only two claims: violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act by ETRADE Securities LLC and ETRADE Financial Corporation; and violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by ETRADE's two most recent chief executive officers. On July 10, the Court dismissed the Schwab claims without prejudice. The Company will continue to defend itself vigorously in these matters. In addition to the matters described above, the Company is subject to various legal proceedings and claims that arise in the normal course of business. In each pending matter, the Company contests liability or the amount of claimed damages. In view of the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of such matters, particularly in cases where claimants seek substantial or indeterminate damages, or where investigation or discovery have yet to be completed, the Company is unable to estimate a range of reasonably possible losses on its remaining outstanding legal proceedings; however, the Company believes any losses, both individually or in the aggregate, would not be reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial condition or results of operations of the Company. An unfavorable outcome in any matter could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. In addition, even if the ultimate outcomes are resolved in the Company’s favor, the defense of such litigation could entail considerable cost or the diversion of the efforts of management, either of which could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Regulatory Matters The securities, futures, foreign currency and banking industries are subject to extensive regulation under federal, state and applicable international laws. From time to time, the Company has been threatened with or named as a defendant in lawsuits, arbitrations and administrative claims involving securities, banking and other matters. The Company is also subject to periodic regulatory examinations and inspections. Compliance and trading problems that are reported to regulators, such as the SEC, FINRA, NASDAQ, CFTC, NFA, FDIC, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, OCC, or the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) by dissatisfied customers or others are investigated by such regulators, and may, if pursued, result in formal claims being filed against the Company by customers or disciplinary action being taken against the Company or its employees by regulators. Any such claims or disciplinary actions that are decided against the Company could have a material impact on the financial results of the Company or any of its subsidiaries. Insurance The Company maintains insurance coverage that management believes is reasonable and prudent. The principal insurance coverage it maintains covers commercial general liability; property damage; hardware/software damage; cyber liability; directors and officers; employment practices liability; certain criminal acts against the Company; and errors and omissions. The Company believes that such insurance coverage is adequate for the purpose of its business. The Company’s ability to maintain this level of insurance coverage in the future, however, is subject to the availability of affordable insurance in the marketplace. Commitments In the normal course of business, the Company makes various commitments to extend credit and incur contingent liabilities that are not reflected in the consolidated balance sheet. Significant changes in the economy or interest rates may influence the impact that these commitments and contingencies have on the Company in the future. The Company’s equity method, cost method and other investments are generally limited liability investments in partnerships, companies and other similar entities, including tax credit partnerships and community development entities, which are not required to be consolidated. The Company had $84 million in unfunded commitments with respect to these investments at June 30, 2017. At June 30, 2017, the Company had approximately $22 million of certificates of deposit scheduled to mature in less than one year and approximately $5 million of unfunded commitments to extend credit. Guarantees In prior periods when the Company sold loans, the Company provided guarantees to investors purchasing mortgage loans, which are considered standard representations and warranties within the mortgage industry. The primary guarantees are that: the mortgage and the mortgage note have been duly executed and each is the legal, valid and binding obligation of the Company, enforceable in accordance with its terms; the mortgage has been duly acknowledged and recorded and is valid; and the mortgage and the mortgage note are not subject to any right of rescission, set-off, counterclaim or defense, including, without limitation, the defense of usury, and no such right of rescission, set-off, counterclaim or defense has been asserted with respect thereto. The Company is responsible for the guarantees on loans sold. If these claims prove to be untrue, the investor can require the Company to repurchase the loan and return all loan purchase and servicing release premiums. Management does not believe the potential liability exposure will have a material impact on the Company’s results of operations, cash flows or financial condition due to the nature of the standard representations and warranties, which have resulted in a minimal amount of loan repurchases. Prior to 2008, ETBH raised capital through the formation of trusts, which sold TRUPs in the capital markets. The capital securities must be redeemed in whole at the due date, which is generally 30 years after issuance. Each trust issued TRUPs at par, with a liquidation amount of $1,000 per capital security. The trusts used the proceeds from the sale of issuances to purchase subordinated debentures issued by ETBH. During the 30-year period prior to the redemption of the TRUPs, ETBH guarantees the accrued and unpaid distributions on these securities, as well as the redemption price of the securities and certain costs that may be incurred in liquidating, terminating or dissolving the trusts (all of which would otherwise be payable by the trusts). At June 30, 2017, management estimated that the maximum potential liability under this arrangement, including the current carrying value of the trusts, was equal to approximately $416 million or the total face value of these securities plus accrued interest payable, which may be unpaid at the termination of the trust arrangement.

COMMITMENTS, CONTINGENCIES AND OTHER REGULATORY MATTERS

The Company reviews its lawsuits, regulatory inquiries and other legal proceedings on an ongoing basis and provides disclosure and records loss contingencies in accordance with the loss contingencies accounting guidance. The Company establishes an accrual for losses at management's best estimate when it assesses that it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. The Company monitors these matters for developments that would affect the likelihood of a loss and the accrued amount, if any, and adjusts the amount as appropriate.

Litigation Matters

On October 27, 2000, Ajaxo, Inc. (Ajaxo) filed a complaint in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Santa Clara. Ajaxo sought damages and certain non-monetary relief for the Company’s alleged breach of a non-disclosure agreement with Ajaxo pertaining to certain wireless technology that Ajaxo offered the Company as well as damages and other relief against the Company for their alleged misappropriation of Ajaxo’s trade secrets. Following a jury trial, a judgment was entered in 2003 in favor of Ajaxo against the Company for $1 million for breach of the Ajaxo non-disclosure agreement. Although the jury found in favor of Ajaxo on its claim against the Company for misappropriation of trade secrets, the trial court subsequently denied Ajaxo’s requests for additional damages and relief. On December 21, 2005, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the above-described award against the Company for breach of the nondisclosure agreement but remanded the case to the trial court for the limited purpose of determining what, if any, additional damages Ajaxo may be entitled to as a result of the jury’s previous finding in favor of Ajaxo on its claim against the Company for misappropriation of trade secrets. Although the Company paid Ajaxo the full amount due on the above-described judgment, the case was remanded back to the trial court, and on May 30, 2008, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the Company denying all claims raised and demands for damages against the Company. Following the trial court’s entry of judgment in favor of the Company on September 5, 2008, Ajaxo filed post-trial motions for vacating this entry of judgment and requesting a new trial. The trial court denied these motions. On December 2, 2008, Ajaxo filed a notice of appeal with the Court of Appeal of the State of California for the Sixth District. On August 30, 2010, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s verdict in part and reversed the verdict in part, remanding the case. The Company petitioned the Supreme Court of California for review of the Court of Appeal decision. On December 16, 2010, the California Supreme Court denied the Company’s petition for review and remanded for further proceedings to the trial court. The testimonial phase of the third trial in this matter concluded on June 12, 2012. By order dated May 28, 2014, the Court determined to conduct a second phase of this bench trial to allow Ajaxo to attempt to prove entitlement to additional royalties. Hearings in phase two of the trial concluded January 8, 2015. In a Judgment and Statement of Decision filed September 16, 2015, the Court denied all claims for royalties by Ajaxo. Ajaxo’s post-trial motions were denied. Ajaxo has appealed to the Court of Appeal, Sixth District. Briefing of this appeal is expected to continue into August 2017. The Company will continue to defend itself vigorously.

On May 16, 2011, Droplets Inc., the holder of two patents pertaining to user interface servers, filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas against E*TRADE Financial Corporation, E*TRADE Securities, E*TRADE Bank and multiple other unaffiliated financial services firms. Plaintiff contends that the defendants engaged in patent infringement under federal law. Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and an injunction against future infringements, plus royalties, costs, interest and attorneys’ fees. On March 28, 2012, a change of venue was granted and the case was transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Company's motion for summary judgment on the grounds of non-infringement was granted by the U.S. District Court in a Decision and Order dated March 9, 2015. All remaining claims are stayed pending resolution of issues on Droplet's remaining patents under review by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). On July 6, 2015, the PTAB instituted an inter partes review of plaintiff's '115 patent. A hearing on the inter partes review was conducted on March 14, 2016. On June 23, 2016, the PTAB deemed Droplets’ putative '115 patent to be “unpatentable.” In a separate proceeding, the PTAB has also separately deemed Droplets’ putative '838 patent to be “unpatentable.” Droplets has appealed to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The opening brief was filed on December 23, 2016 and briefing was completed on July 24, 2017. Oral argument has not yet been scheduled. The Company will continue to defend itself vigorously in this matter.

On April 30, 2013, a putative class action was filed by John Scranton, on behalf of himself and a class of persons similarly situated, against E*TRADE Financial Corporation and E*TRADE Securities in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, pursuant to the California procedures for a private Attorney General action. The complaint alleged that the Company misrepresented through its website that it would always automatically exercise options that were in-the-money by $0.01 or more on expiration date. The plaintiffs allege violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, the California Consumer Remedies Act, fraud, misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty and plaintiffs seek unspecified damages. The case has been deemed complex within the meaning of the California Rules of Court, and a case management conference was held on September 13, 2013. The Company’s demurrer and motion to strike the complaint were granted by order dated December 20, 2013. The Court granted leave to amend the complaint. A second amended complaint was filed on January 31, 2014. On March 11, 2014, the Company moved to strike and for a demurrer to the second amended complaint. On October 20, 2014, the Court sustained the Company's demurrer, dismissing four counts of the second amended complaint with prejudice and two counts without prejudice. The plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint on November 10, 2014. The Company filed a third demurrer and motion to strike on December 12, 2014. By order dated March 18, 2015, the Superior Court entered a final order sustaining the Company's demurrer on all remaining claims with prejudice. Final judgment was entered in the Company's favor on April 8, 2015. The plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal on April 27, 2015. The briefing is complete but oral argument has not yet been scheduled. The Company will continue to defend itself vigorously in this matter.

On March 26, 2015, a putative class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by Ty Rayner, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, naming E*TRADE Financial Corporation and E*TRADE Securities as defendants. The complaint alleges that E*TRADE breached a fiduciary duty and unjustly enriched itself in connection with the routing of its customers’ orders to various market-makers and exchanges. Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, declaratory relief, restitution, disgorgement of payments received by the Company, and attorneys’ fees. On July 23, 2016, a putative class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by Craig L. Schwab, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, naming E*TRADE Financial Corporation, E*TRADE Securities LLC, and former Company executives as defendants. The complaint alleges that E*TRADE violated federal securities laws in connection with the routing of its customers’ orders to various market-makers and exchanges. Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, declaratory relief, restitution, disgorgement of payments received by the Company, and attorneys’ fees. By stipulation, the Rayner case has been consolidated with the Schwab case and both matters are now venued in the Southern District of New York. E*TRADE has moved to dismiss the complaint in Rayner. On April 2, 2017, the District Court dismissed the complaint in Rayner. On May 5, 2017, plaintiffs in Rayner appealed. E*TRADE moved to dismiss the Schwab case on January 11, 2017; and in response, the Schwab plaintiffs submitted an amended Complaint on February 10, 2017. The amended Schwab complaint asserts only two claims: violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act by E*TRADE Securities LLC and E*TRADE Financial Corporation; and violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by E*TRADE's two most recent chief executive officers. On July 10, the Court dismissed the Schwab claims without prejudice. The Company will continue to defend itself vigorously in these matters.

In addition to the matters described above, the Company is subject to various legal proceedings and claims that arise in the normal course of business. In each pending matter, the Company contests liability or the amount of claimed damages. In view of the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of such matters, particularly in cases where claimants seek substantial or indeterminate damages, or where investigation or discovery have yet to be completed, the Company is unable to estimate a range of reasonably possible losses on its remaining outstanding legal proceedings; however, the Company believes any losses, both individually or in the aggregate, would not be reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial condition or results of operations of the Company.

An unfavorable outcome in any matter could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. In addition, even if the ultimate outcomes are resolved in the Company’s favor, the defense of such litigation could entail considerable cost or the diversion of the efforts of management, either of which could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Regulatory Matters

The securities, futures, foreign currency and banking industries are subject to extensive regulation under federal, state and applicable international laws. From time to time, the Company has been threatened with or named as a defendant in lawsuits, arbitrations and administrative claims involving securities, banking and other matters. The Company is also subject to periodic regulatory examinations and inspections. Compliance and trading problems that are reported to regulators, such as the SEC, FINRA, NASDAQ, CFTC, NFA, FDIC, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, OCC, or the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) by dissatisfied customers or others are investigated by such regulators, and may, if pursued, result in formal claims being filed against the Company by customers or disciplinary action being taken against the Company or its employees by regulators. Any such claims or disciplinary actions that are decided against the Company could have a material impact on the financial results of the Company or any of its subsidiaries.

Insurance

The Company maintains insurance coverage that management believes is reasonable and prudent. The principal insurance coverage it maintains covers commercial general liability; property damage; hardware/software damage; cyber liability; directors and officers; employment practices liability; certain criminal acts against the Company; and errors and omissions. The Company believes that such insurance coverage is adequate for the purpose of its business. The Company’s ability to maintain this level of insurance coverage in the future, however, is subject to the availability of affordable insurance in the marketplace.

Commitments

In the normal course of business, the Company makes various commitments to extend credit and incur contingent liabilities that are not reflected in the consolidated balance sheet. Significant changes in the economy or interest rates may influence the impact that these commitments and contingencies have on the Company in the future.

The Company’s equity method, cost method and other investments are generally limited liability investments in partnerships, companies and other similar entities, including tax credit partnerships and community development entities, which are not required to be consolidated. The Company had $84 million in unfunded commitments with respect to these investments at June 30, 2017.

At June 30, 2017, the Company had approximately $22 million of certificates of deposit scheduled to mature in less than one year and approximately $5 million of unfunded commitments to extend credit.

Guarantees

In prior periods when the Company sold loans, the Company provided guarantees to investors purchasing mortgage loans, which are considered standard representations and warranties within the mortgage industry. The primary guarantees are that: the mortgage and the mortgage note have been duly executed and each is the legal, valid and binding obligation of the Company, enforceable in accordance with its terms; the mortgage has been duly acknowledged and recorded and is valid; and the mortgage and the mortgage note are not subject to any right of rescission, set-off, counterclaim or defense, including, without limitation, the defense of usury, and no such right of rescission, set-off, counterclaim or defense has been asserted with respect thereto. The Company is responsible for the guarantees on loans sold. If these claims prove to be untrue, the investor can require the Company to repurchase the loan and return all loan purchase and servicing release premiums. Management does not believe the potential liability exposure will have a material impact on the Company’s results of operations, cash flows or financial condition due to the nature of the standard representations and warranties, which have resulted in a minimal amount of loan repurchases.

Prior to 2008, ETBH raised capital through the formation of trusts, which sold TRUPs in the capital markets. The capital securities must be redeemed in whole at the due date, which is generally 30 years after issuance. Each trust issued TRUPs at par, with a liquidation amount of $1,000 per capital security. The trusts used the proceeds from the sale of issuances to purchase subordinated debentures issued by ETBH.

During the 30-year period prior to the redemption of the TRUPs, ETBH guarantees the accrued and unpaid distributions on these securities, as well as the redemption price of the securities and certain costs that may be incurred in liquidating, terminating or dissolving the trusts (all of which would otherwise be payable by the trusts). At June 30, 2017, management estimated that the maximum potential liability under this arrangement, including the current carrying value of the trusts, was equal to approximately $416 million or the total face value of these securities plus accrued interest payable, which may be unpaid at the termination of the trust arrangement.