LITIGATION	9 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2017
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 the Company’s responses thereto, and the CFPB's notification on January 18, 2018 that it had concluded its investigation and would not be proceeding with an enforcement action against the Company. Mexico Investigation As previously disclosed, the Company is conducting an investigation of its operations in Mexico, focusing on the legality under the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, as amended (“FCPA”), and certain local laws of certain payments related to loans, the maintenance of the Company’s books and records associated with such payments, and the treatment of compensation matters for certain employees. The investigation continues to address whether and to what extent improper payments, which may violate the FCPA and other local laws, were made approximately between 2010 and 2017 by or on behalf of WAC de Mexico to government officials in Mexico relating to loans made to unionized employees. The Company has voluntarily contacted the SEC and the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) to advise both agencies that an internal investigation is underway and that the Company intends to cooperate with both agencies. The SEC has issued a formal order of investigation. A conclusion cannot be drawn at this time as to what potential remedies these agencies may seek. In addition, although management will seek to minimize disruption to its operations in Mexico, the Company cannot determine at this time the ultimate effect that the investigation or any remedial measures will have on such operations. If violations of the FCPA or other local laws occurred, the Company could be subject to fines, civil and criminal penalties, equitable remedies, including profit disgorgement and related interest, and injunctive relief. In addition, any disposition of these matters could adversely impact our ability to collect on outstanding loans and result in modifications to our business practices and compliance programs, including significant restructuring or curtailment of our operations in Mexico. Any disposition could also potentially require that a monitor be appointed to review future business practices with the goal of ensuring compliance with the FCPA and other applicable laws. The Company could also face fines, sanctions, and other penalties from authorities in Mexico, as well as third-party claims by shareholders and/or other stakeholders of the Company. In addition, disclosure of the investigation could adversely affect the Company’s reputation and its ability to obtain new business or retain existing business from its current customers and potential customers, to attract and retain employees, and to access the capital markets. If it is determined that a violation of the FCPA has occurred, such violation may give rise to an event of default under the Company’s credit agreement if such violation were to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, operations, properties, assets, or condition (financial or otherwise) or if the amount of any settlement resulted in the Company failing to satisfy any financial covenants. Additional potential FCPA violations or violations of other laws or regulations may be uncovered through the investigation. In addition to the ultimate liability for disgorgement and related interest, the Company believes that it could be further liable for fines and penalties. The Company is continuing its discussions with the DOJ and SEC regarding the matters under investigation, but the Company cannot reasonably estimate the amount of any fine or penalty that it may have to pay as a part of any possible settlement or assess the potential liability that might be incurred if a settlement is not reached and the government were to litigate the matter. As such, based on the information available at this time, any additional liability related to this matter is not reasonably estimable. The Company will continue to evaluate the amount of its liability pending final resolution of the investigation and any related settlement discussions with the government. Shareholder Complaints 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) (the "Edna Epstein Putative Class Action"), 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. Two amended complaints have been filed by the plaintiffs, and several other motions have been filed in the proceedings. The complaint, as currently amended, alleges that (i) 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 (ii) 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 and (iii) additional allegations regarding, among other things, the Company's receipt of a Notice and Opportunity to Respond and Advise letter from the CFPB on August 7, 2015. The complaint seeks class certification for a class consisting of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between January 30, 2013 and August 10, 2015, unspecified monetary damages, costs and attorneys' fees. The Company denied that the claims had any merit and opposed certification of the proposed class. On June 7, 2017, during a court-ordered mediation, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the Edna Epstein Putative Class Action. The parties’ stipulation setting forth the terms of the settlement was filed with the court on August 25, 2017. The settlement stipulation provides for a settlement payment to the class of $16 million, all of which will be funded by the Company's directors and officers (D&O) liability insurance carriers. The court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement on August 31, 2017. On December 18, 2017, the court entered a final order and judgment approving the settlement. The court's order approving the settlement resolves the claims asserted against all defendants in the action. Neither the Company nor any of its present or former officers have admitted any wrongdoing or liability in connection with the settlement. 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 its 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 its 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). The plaintiffs subsequently filed an amended consolidated complaint, and the amended 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; (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; and (ix) allegations similar to those made in connection with the Edna Epstein Putative Class Action described above. The amended 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. On February 28, 2017, the Court entered an order dismissing the derivative litigation. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on March 27, 2017. On June 14, 2017, following mediation, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the derivative litigation. The parties’ stipulation setting forth the terms of the settlement was filed with the court on August 4, 2017. The settlement stipulation provides that the Company will adopt certain corporate governance practices and pay plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees and expenses in an amount approved by the court not to exceed $475,000, which fees and expenses will be funded by the Company’s directors and officers (D&O) liability insurance carriers. The court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement on August 24, 2017. On November 7, 2017, the court entered a final order and judgment approving the settlement and awarding plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees and expenses in the amount of $475,000. The court’s order approving the settlement resolves the claims asserted against all defendants in the action. Neither the Company nor any of its present or former directors and officers have admitted any wrongdoing or liability in connection with the settlement. General 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 the Company’s responses thereto, and the CFPB's notification on January 18, 2018 that it had concluded its investigation and would not be proceeding with an enforcement action against the Company.

Mexico Investigation

As previously disclosed, the Company is conducting an investigation of its operations in Mexico, focusing on the legality under the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, as amended (“FCPA”), and certain local laws of certain payments related to loans, the maintenance of the Company’s books and records associated with such payments, and the treatment of compensation matters for certain employees.

The investigation continues to address whether and to what extent improper payments, which may violate the FCPA and other local laws, were made approximately between 2010 and 2017 by or on behalf of WAC de Mexico to government officials in Mexico relating to loans made to unionized employees. The Company has voluntarily contacted the SEC and the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) to advise both agencies that an internal investigation is underway and that the Company intends to cooperate with both agencies. The SEC has issued a formal order of investigation. A conclusion cannot be drawn at this time as to what potential remedies these agencies may seek. In addition, although management will seek to minimize disruption to its operations in Mexico, the Company cannot determine at this time the ultimate effect that the investigation or any remedial measures will have on such operations.

If violations of the FCPA or other local laws occurred, the Company could be subject to fines, civil and criminal penalties, equitable remedies, including profit disgorgement and related interest, and injunctive relief. In addition, any disposition of these matters could adversely impact our ability to collect on outstanding loans and result in modifications to our business practices and compliance programs, including significant restructuring or curtailment of our operations in Mexico. Any disposition could also potentially require that a monitor be appointed to review future business practices with the goal of ensuring compliance with the FCPA and other applicable laws. The Company could also face fines, sanctions, and other penalties from authorities in Mexico, as well as third-party claims by shareholders and/or other stakeholders of the Company. In addition, disclosure of the investigation could adversely affect the Company’s reputation and its ability to obtain new business or retain existing business from its current customers and potential customers, to attract and retain employees, and to access the capital markets. If it is determined that a violation of the FCPA has occurred, such violation may give rise to an event of default under the Company’s credit agreement if such violation were to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, operations, properties, assets, or condition (financial or otherwise) or if the amount of any settlement resulted in the Company failing to satisfy any financial covenants. Additional potential FCPA violations or violations of other laws or regulations may be uncovered through the investigation.

In addition to the ultimate liability for disgorgement and related interest, the Company believes that it could be further liable for fines and penalties. The Company is continuing its discussions with the DOJ and SEC regarding the matters under investigation, but the Company cannot reasonably estimate the amount of any fine or penalty that it may have to pay as a part of any possible settlement or assess the potential liability that might be incurred if a settlement is not reached and the government were to litigate the matter. As such, based on the information available at this time, any additional liability related to this matter is not reasonably estimable. The Company will continue to evaluate the amount of its liability pending final resolution of the investigation and any related settlement discussions with the government.

Shareholder Complaints

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) (the "Edna Epstein Putative Class Action"), 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. Two amended complaints have been filed by the plaintiffs, and several other motions have been filed in the proceedings. The complaint, as currently amended, alleges that (i) 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 (ii) 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 and (iii) additional allegations regarding, among other things, the Company's receipt of a Notice and Opportunity to Respond and Advise letter from the CFPB on August 7, 2015. The complaint seeks class certification for a class consisting of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between January 30, 2013 and August 10, 2015, unspecified monetary damages, costs and attorneys' fees. The Company denied that the claims had any merit and opposed certification of the proposed class.

On June 7, 2017, during a court-ordered mediation, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the Edna Epstein Putative Class Action. The parties’ stipulation setting forth the terms of the settlement was filed with the court on August 25, 2017. The settlement stipulation provides for a settlement payment to the class of $16 million, all of which will be funded by the Company's directors and officers (D&O) liability insurance carriers. The court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement on August 31, 2017. On December 18, 2017, the court entered a final order and judgment approving the settlement. The court's order approving the settlement resolves the claims asserted against all defendants in the action. Neither the Company nor any of its present or former officers have admitted any wrongdoing or liability in connection with the settlement.

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 its 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 its 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). The plaintiffs subsequently filed an amended consolidated complaint, and the amended 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; (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; and (ix) allegations similar to those made in connection with the Edna Epstein Putative Class Action described above. The amended 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. On February 28, 2017, the Court entered an order dismissing the derivative litigation. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on March 27, 2017.

On June 14, 2017, following mediation, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the derivative litigation. The parties’ stipulation setting forth the terms of the settlement was filed with the court on August 4, 2017. The settlement stipulation provides that the Company will adopt certain corporate governance practices and pay plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees and expenses in an amount approved by the court not to exceed $475,000, which fees and expenses will be funded by the Company’s directors and officers (D&O) liability insurance carriers. The court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement on August 24, 2017. On November 7, 2017, the court entered a final order and judgment approving the settlement and awarding plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees and expenses in the amount of $475,000. The court’s order approving the settlement resolves the claims asserted against all defendants in the action. Neither the Company nor any of its present or former directors and officers have admitted any wrongdoing or liability in connection with the settlement.

General

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.