LITIGATION	9 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
LITIGATION	See Part 1, Item 2, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations-Regulatory Matters-CFPB Investigation,” for information regarding the Company’s previously disclosed receipt of a Civil Investigative Demand (“CID”) from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) on March 12, 2014 and receipt of a Notice and Opportunity to Respond and Advise ("NORA") letter from the CFPB on August 7, 2015 and the Company’s responses thereto. As previously disclosed, on April 22, 2014, a shareholder filed a putative class action complaint, Edna Selan Epstein v. World Acceptance Corporation et al., in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina (case number 6:14-cv-01606), against the Company and certain of its current and former officers on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s common stock between April 25, 2013 and March 12, 2014. The complaint alleges that the Company made false and misleading statements in various SEC reports and other public statements in violation of federal securities laws preceding the Company’s disclosure in a Form 8-K filed March 13, 2014 that it had received the above-referenced CID from the CFPB. The original complaint seeks class certification, unspecified monetary damages, costs and attorneys’ fees. The lead plaintiff’s amended complaint contains similar allegations to the original complaint, but expands the class period and includes additional allegations that the Company’s loan growth and volume figures were inflated because of a weakness in the Company’s internal controls relating to its accounting treatment of certain small-dollar loan re-financings. The Company and the individual defendants subsequently moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On May 18, 2015, the Court issued an order denying the Company’s motion to dismiss. On May 28, 2015, the Company filed a motion asking the Court to certify its May 18, 2015 order for immediate appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b), and to stay proceedings pending the resolution of that appeal, on grounds that the Court’s decision involves a controlling question of law over which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and an immediate appeal may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. On July 1, 2015, the Company filed an answer to the amended complaint, denying all liability. On December 18, 2015, the lead plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, which supersedes the amended complaint. The second amended complaint contains similar allegations to the amended complaint, but expands the class period further from January 30, 2013 through April 28, 2014 to January 30, 2013 through August 10, 2015, and contains additional allegations regarding, among other things, the Company’s receipt of the below-referenced NORA letter from the CFPB. On January 12, 2016, the Court dismissed defendants’ motion for certification of the Court’s May 18, 2015 order for immediate appeal without prejudice with leave to refile in light of the filing of the second amended complaint, because, as the Court noted, “the case, for all practical purposes, has started over.” On January 29, 2016, defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. The Company expects briefing to be complete on that motion by April 2016. As previously disclosed, on July 15, 2015, a shareholder filed a putative derivative complaint, Irwin J. Lipton, et al. v. McLean, et al., in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina (case number 6:15-cv-02796-MGL) (the “Lipton Derivative Action”), on behalf of the Company against certain of our current and former officers and directors. On September 21, 2015, another shareholder filed a putative derivative complaint, Paul Parshall, et al. v. McLean, et al., in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina (case number 6:15-cv-03779-MGL) (the “Parshall Derivative Action”), asserting substantially similar claims on behalf of the Company against certain of our current and former officers and directors. On October 14, 2015, the Court entered an order consolidating the Lipton Derivative Action and the Parshall Derivative Action as In re World Acceptance Corp. Derivative Litigation (Lead Case No. 6:15-cv-02796-MGL) and providing, among other things, that the defendants need not respond to the initial complaints filed in the Lipton Derivative Action and the Parshall Derivative Action, but instead would respond to a consolidated complaint to be filed by the plaintiffs. On October 23, the plaintiffs filed their consolidated complaint. The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, (i) that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by disseminating false and misleading information to the Company’s shareholders regarding the Company’s loan growth, loan renewals, allowances for loan losses, revenue sources, revenue growth, compliance with GAAP, and the sufficiency of the Company’s internal controls and accounting procedures; (ii) that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to ensure that the Company maintained adequate internal controls; (iii) that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to exercise prudent oversight and supervision of the Company’s officers and other employees to ensure conformity with all applicable laws and regulations; (iv) that the defendants were unjustly enriched as a result of the compensation they received while allegedly breaching their fiduciary duties owed to the Company; (v) that the defendants wasted corporate assets by paying excessive compensation to certain of the Company’s executive officers, awarding self-interested stock options to certain of the Company’s officers and directors, incurring legal liability and legal costs to defend the defendants’ unlawful actions, and authorizing the repurchase of Company stock at artificially inflated prices; (vi) that certain of the defendants breached their fiduciary duty to the Company by selling shares of the Company’s stock at artificially inflated prices while in the possession of material, nonpublic information regarding the Company’s financial condition; (vii) that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s practices regarding loan renewals, loan modifications, and accounting for loans; and (viii) that the defendants violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by failing to disclose alleged material facts in the Company’s 2014 and 2015 proxy statements. The consolidated complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified monetary damages and an order directing the Company to take steps to reform and improve its corporate governance and internal procedures to comply with applicable laws and to protect the Company and its shareholders from future wrongdoing such as that described in the consolidated complaint. Defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint on December 18, 2015, which remain pending. In addition, from time to time the Company is involved in routine litigation matters relating to claims arising out of its operations in the normal course of business, including matters in which damages in various amounts are claimed. Estimating an amount or range of possible losses resulting from litigation, government actions and other legal proceedings is inherently difficult and requires an extensive degree of judgment, particularly where the matters involve indeterminate claims for monetary damages, may involve fines, penalties or damages that are discretionary in amount, involve a large number of claimants or significant discretion by regulatory authorities, represent a change in regulatory policy or interpretation, present novel legal theories, are in the early stages of the proceedings, are subject to appeal or could result in a change in business practices. In addition, because most legal proceedings are resolved over extended periods of time, potential losses are subject to change due to, among other things, new developments, changes in legal strategy, the outcome of intermediate procedural and substantive rulings and other parties’ settlement posture and their evaluation of the strength or weakness of their case against us. For these reasons, we are currently unable to predict the ultimate timing or outcome of, or reasonably estimate the possible losses or a range of possible losses resulting from, the matters described above. Based on information currently available, the Company does not believe that any reasonably possible losses arising from currently pending legal matters will be material to the Company’s results of operations or financial condition. However, in light of the inherent uncertainties involved in such matters, an adverse outcome in one or more of these matters could materially and adversely affect the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows in any particular reporting period.

See Part 1, Item 2, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations-Regulatory Matters-CFPB Investigation,” for information regarding the Company’s previously disclosed receipt of a Civil Investigative Demand (“CID”) from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) on March 12, 2014 and receipt of a Notice and Opportunity to Respond and Advise ("NORA") letter from the CFPB on August 7, 2015 and the Company’s responses thereto.

As previously disclosed, on April 22, 2014, a shareholder filed a putative class action complaint, Edna Selan Epstein v. World Acceptance Corporation et al., in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina (case number 6:14-cv-01606), against the Company and certain of its current and former officers on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s common stock between April 25, 2013 and March 12, 2014. The complaint alleges that the Company made false and misleading statements in various SEC reports and other public statements in violation of federal securities laws preceding the Company’s disclosure in a Form 8-K filed March 13, 2014 that it had received the above-referenced CID from the CFPB. The original complaint seeks class certification, unspecified monetary damages, costs and attorneys’ fees. The lead plaintiff’s amended complaint contains similar allegations to the original complaint, but expands the class period and includes additional allegations that the Company’s loan growth and volume figures were inflated because of a weakness in the Company’s internal controls relating to its accounting treatment of certain small-dollar loan re-financings. The Company and the individual defendants subsequently moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On May 18, 2015, the Court issued an order denying the Company’s motion to dismiss. On May 28, 2015, the Company filed a motion asking the Court to certify its May 18, 2015 order for immediate appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b), and to stay proceedings pending the resolution of that appeal, on grounds that the Court’s decision involves a controlling question of law over which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and an immediate appeal may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. On July 1, 2015, the Company filed an answer to the amended complaint, denying all liability. On December 18, 2015, the lead plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, which supersedes the amended complaint. The second amended complaint contains similar allegations to the amended complaint, but expands the class period further from January 30, 2013 through April 28, 2014 to January 30, 2013 through August 10, 2015, and contains additional allegations regarding, among other things, the Company’s receipt of the below-referenced NORA letter from the CFPB. On January 12, 2016, the Court dismissed defendants’ motion for certification of the Court’s May 18, 2015 order for immediate appeal without prejudice with leave to refile in light of the filing of the second amended complaint, because, as the Court noted, “the case, for all practical purposes, has started over.” On January 29, 2016, defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. The Company expects briefing to be complete on that motion by April 2016.

As previously disclosed, on July 15, 2015, a shareholder filed a putative derivative complaint, Irwin J. Lipton, et al. v. McLean, et al., in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina (case number 6:15-cv-02796-MGL) (the “Lipton Derivative Action”), on behalf of the Company against certain of our current and former officers and directors. On September 21, 2015, another shareholder filed a putative derivative complaint, Paul Parshall, et al. v. McLean, et al., in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina (case number 6:15-cv-03779-MGL) (the “Parshall Derivative Action”), asserting substantially similar claims on behalf of the Company against certain of our current and former officers and directors. On October 14, 2015, the Court entered an order consolidating the Lipton Derivative Action and the Parshall Derivative Action as In re World Acceptance Corp. Derivative Litigation (Lead Case No. 6:15-cv-02796-MGL) and providing, among other things, that the defendants need not respond to the initial complaints filed in the Lipton Derivative Action and the Parshall Derivative Action, but instead would respond to a consolidated complaint to be filed by the plaintiffs. On October 23, the plaintiffs filed their consolidated complaint. The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, (i) that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by disseminating false and misleading information to the Company’s shareholders regarding the Company’s loan growth, loan renewals, allowances for loan losses, revenue sources, revenue growth, compliance with GAAP, and the sufficiency of the Company’s internal controls and accounting procedures; (ii) that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to ensure that the Company maintained adequate internal controls; (iii) that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to exercise prudent oversight and supervision of the Company’s officers and other employees to ensure conformity with all applicable laws and regulations; (iv) that the defendants were unjustly enriched as a result of the compensation they received while allegedly breaching their fiduciary duties owed to the Company; (v) that the defendants wasted corporate assets by paying excessive compensation to certain of the Company’s executive officers, awarding self-interested stock options to certain of the Company’s officers and directors, incurring legal liability and legal costs to defend the defendants’ unlawful actions, and authorizing the repurchase of Company stock at artificially inflated prices; (vi) that certain of the defendants breached their fiduciary duty to the Company by selling shares of the Company’s stock at artificially inflated prices while in the possession of material, nonpublic information regarding the Company’s financial condition; (vii) that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s practices regarding loan renewals, loan modifications, and accounting for loans; and (viii) that the defendants violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by failing to disclose alleged material facts in the Company’s 2014 and 2015 proxy statements. The consolidated complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified monetary damages and an order directing the Company to take steps to reform and improve its corporate governance and internal procedures to comply with applicable laws and to protect the Company and its shareholders from future wrongdoing such as that described in the consolidated complaint. Defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint on December 18, 2015, which remain pending.

In addition, from time to time the Company is involved in routine litigation matters relating to claims arising out of its operations in the normal course of business, including matters in which damages in various amounts are claimed.

Estimating an amount or range of possible losses resulting from litigation, government actions and other legal proceedings is inherently difficult and requires an extensive degree of judgment, particularly where the matters involve indeterminate claims for monetary damages, may involve fines, penalties or damages that are discretionary in amount, involve a large number of claimants or significant discretion by regulatory authorities, represent a change in regulatory policy or interpretation, present novel legal theories, are in the early stages of the proceedings, are subject to appeal or could result in a change in business practices. In addition, because most legal proceedings are resolved over extended periods of time, potential losses are subject to change due to, among other things, new developments, changes in legal strategy, the outcome of intermediate procedural and substantive rulings and other parties’ settlement posture and their evaluation of the strength or weakness of their case against us. For these reasons, we are currently unable to predict the ultimate timing or outcome of, or reasonably estimate the possible losses or a range of possible losses resulting from, the matters described above. Based on information currently available, the Company does not believe that any reasonably possible losses arising from currently pending legal matters will be material to the Company’s results of operations or financial condition. However, in light of the inherent uncertainties involved in such matters, an adverse outcome in one or more of these matters could materially and adversely affect the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows in any particular reporting period.