Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2011
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Guarantees The Company is obligated to cover shortfalls for the automobile loan securitization trusts in amounts due to the holders of the asset-backed securities up to certain levels (see Note 6 – Variable Interest Entities). At June 30, 2011, the banking/finance segment had issued financial standby letters of credit totaling $8.3 million on which beneficiaries would be able to draw in the event of non-performance by its customers, primarily in relation to lease and lien obligations of these banking customers. These standby letters of credit were fully collateralized by marketable securities as of June 30, 2011. Legal Proceedings As previously reported, between 2003 and 2006, following industry-wide market timing and late trading investigations by regulators, Franklin and certain related parties were named in civil lawsuits. Certain of those lawsuits have been resolved, including those that were reported as resolved in the Company's Form 10-K for fiscal year 2010 and Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2010. The remaining related lawsuits are described below. The lawsuits were filed against Franklin and certain of its adviser and distributor affiliates, individual Franklin officers and directors, a former Franklin employee, and trustees of certain Franklin Templeton Investments mutual funds (the “Funds”). In 2004, the lawsuits were consolidated for coordinated proceedings with similar lawsuits against numerous other mutual fund complexes in a multi-district litigation titled “In re Mutual Funds Investment Litigation,” pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Case No. 04-md-15862 (the “MDL”). Plaintiffs filed consolidated amended complaints in the MDL on September 29, 2004. The three consolidated lawsuits involving the Company include a class action (Sharkey IRO/IRA v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case No. 04-cv-01310), a derivative action on behalf of the Funds (McAlvey v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case No. 04-cv-01274), and a derivative action on behalf of Franklin (Hertz v. Burns, et al., Case No. 04-cv-01624) and seek, among other forms of relief, one or more of the following: unspecified monetary damages; punitive damages; removal of Fund trustees, directors, advisers, administrators, and distributors; rescission of management contracts and distribution plans under Rule 12b-1 promulgated under the Investment Company Act of 1940; and attorneys’ fees and costs. On February 25, 2005, the Company-related defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated amended class action and Fund derivative action complaints. On June 26, 2008, the court issued its order granting in part and denying in part the Company’s motion to dismiss the consolidated amended class action complaint. In its order, the court dismissed certain claims, while allowing others under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and under Sections 36(b) and 48(a) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 to remain, and dismissed all class action claims against the named Funds. In addition, all named individual defendants have since been dismissed without prejudice from the consolidated class action pursuant to stipulation. The Company-related defendants filed a motion for partial summary judgment in the consolidated class action as to non-arranged market timing on March 24, 2010, and lead plaintiff filed its opposition and cross-motion for partial summary judgment on June 4, 2010. On December 9, 2010, the court granted the Company-related defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment, finding that the record could not support a finding of liability against the Company-related defendants and denied lead plaintiff’s cross-motion for partial summary judgment. The Company and lead plaintiff in the consolidated class action reached agreement-in-principle on December 21, 2010 to resolve that action, pursuant to which the Company agreed to pay $2.75 million towards distribution of settlement amounts reached in lead plaintiff’s settlements with other, non-Company defendants, and towards class counsel’s fees, and any unspent amounts will be distributed to relevant Funds. The parties documented the terms of the agreement in a stipulation (the “Stipulation and Releases”), which is subject to certain conditions including court approval. The court issued its preliminary approval of the Stipulation and Releases on June 9, 2011 and set the final approval hearing for October 25, 2011. The Company-related defendants’ motion to dismiss the consolidated fund derivative action remains under submission with the court. Pursuant to stipulation, the consolidated fund derivative action has been stayed since December 2010. On June 9, 2011, consistent with the terms of that stipulation, the Company-related defendants gave notice of their withdrawal from the stipulation. On July 15, 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion to continue the stay pending a decision of appeal in another case. The parties are in the process of briefing that motion. In addition, pursuant to stipulation, the derivative action brought on behalf of Franklin has been stayed since 2004. Neither of those derivative actions has progressed to expert discovery concerning alleged damages and the Company is therefore unable to estimate an amount or range of any possible additional losses relating to the market timing lawsuits. Separately, Franklin/Templeton Distributors, Inc. (one of Franklin’s subsidiaries and the principal underwriter to the Funds), as well as the individual trustees to the Franklin Custodian Funds (the “Trust”), were named in a lawsuit brought derivatively on behalf of the Trust, concerning payment of asset-based compensation between July 22, 2005 and the present to broker-dealers that hold Fund shares in brokerage accounts and that are not registered as investment advisers. The lawsuit, captioned Smith v. Franklin/Templeton Distributors, Inc., et al., Case No. CV 09-4775, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on October 6, 2009. Specifically, plaintiff attempted to allege claims under Section 47(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, and for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and waste of Trust assets, and sought unspecified monetary damages, declaratory and injunctive relief enjoining further asset-based compensation to such broker-dealers, and attorneys’ fees and costs. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on July 7, 2010, and defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on August 20, 2010. On October 22, 2010, the court granted defendants’ motion, dismissing the lone federal claim with prejudice for failure to state a claim, and declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on November 19, 2010 (Case No. 10-17648) and the parties completed all appellate briefing in May 2011. On June 14, 2011, plaintiff-appellant filed a motion to dismiss his appeal voluntarily (without any payment or other consideration from defendants), to which defendants consented. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted plaintiff-appellant's motion and dismissed the appeal on June 15, 2011. Judgment dismissing the lawsuit is now final. Management strongly believes that the claims made in each of the unresolved lawsuits identified above are without merit and the Company intends to defend against them vigorously. The Company cannot predict with certainty, however, the eventual outcome of those lawsuits, nor whether they will have a material negative impact on the Company. The nature and progression of litigation can make it difficult to predict the impact a particular lawsuit may have on the Company. Variables include, for example, whether the lawsuit asserts viable claims or novel legal theories to be presented to a court for determination as a threshold matter before the lawsuit can proceed; whether there are other parties or nonparties who may share in any ultimate liability; and whether the lawsuit has progressed sufficiently through key fact discovery and damages discovery to enable the Company to estimate the probability of loss and/or to quantify a possible loss or range of possible loss. The Company is from time to time involved in litigation relating to other claims arising in the normal course of business. Management is of the opinion that the ultimate resolution of such claims will not materially affect the Company’s business, financial position, results of operations or liquidity. In management’s opinion, an adequate accrual has been made as of June 30, 2011, to provide for any probable losses that may arise from these matters for which the Company could reasonably estimate an amount. Other Commitments and Contingencies At June 30, 2011, the banking/finance segment had commitments to extend credit in an aggregate amount of $134.6 million, primarily under credit card lines and secured credit lines. The Company, in its role as agent or trustee, facilitates the settlement of investor share purchase, redemption and other transactions with affiliated mutual funds. The Company is appointed by the affiliated mutual funds as agent or trustee to manage, on behalf of the affiliated mutual funds, bank deposit accounts that contain only (i) cash remitted by investors to the affiliated mutual funds for the direct purchase of fund shares, or (ii) cash remitted by the affiliated mutual funds for direct delivery to the investors for either the proceeds of fund shares liquidated at the investors’ direction, or dividends and capital gains earned on fund shares. As of June 30, 2011 and September 30, 2010, the Company held cash of $135.0 million and $351.5 million off-balance sheet in agency or trust for investors and the affiliated mutual funds. In conjunction with an insurance recovery for prior years’ losses, the Company has agreed to indemnify its insurance provider and hold it harmless against future payments that it may be required to make to any insured who does not release his, her or its rights under the relevant policy or relating to claims under that policy up to available policy limits. The Company has also agreed to indemnify those insured funds that agree to release any rights under the relevant policy or relating to claims under that policy, to the same extent of the released rights. While management believes that the chance of the Company having to make any payments as a result of these indemnities is remote, policy limits for certain insureds could be up to $88.0 million in the aggregate. At June 30, 2011, there were no changes in other commitments and contingencies that would have a material effect on commitments and contingencies reported in the Company’s Form 10-K for fiscal year 2010.

Commitments and Contingencies

Guarantees

The Company is obligated to cover shortfalls for the automobile loan securitization trusts in amounts due to the holders of the asset-backed securities up to certain levels (see Note 6 – Variable Interest Entities).

At June 30, 2011, the banking/finance segment had issued financial standby letters of credit totaling $8.3 million on which beneficiaries would be able to draw in the event of non-performance by its customers, primarily in relation to lease and lien obligations of these banking customers. These standby letters of credit were fully collateralized by marketable securities as of June 30, 2011.

Legal Proceedings

As previously reported, between 2003 and 2006, following industry-wide market timing and late trading investigations by regulators, Franklin and certain related parties were named in civil lawsuits. Certain of those lawsuits have been resolved, including those that were reported as resolved in the Company's Form 10-K for fiscal year 2010 and Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2010. The remaining related lawsuits are described below.

The lawsuits were filed against Franklin and certain of its adviser and distributor affiliates, individual Franklin officers and directors, a former Franklin employee, and trustees of certain Franklin Templeton Investments mutual funds (the “Funds”). In 2004, the lawsuits were consolidated for coordinated proceedings with similar lawsuits against numerous other mutual fund complexes in a multi-district litigation titled “In re Mutual Funds Investment Litigation,” pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Case No. 04-md-15862 (the “MDL”). Plaintiffs filed consolidated amended complaints in the MDL on September 29, 2004. The three consolidated lawsuits involving the Company include a class action (Sharkey IRO/IRA v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case No. 04-cv-01310), a derivative action on behalf of the Funds (McAlvey v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case No. 04-cv-01274), and a derivative action on behalf of Franklin (Hertz v. Burns, et al., Case No. 04-cv-01624) and seek, among other forms of relief, one or more of the following: unspecified monetary damages; punitive damages; removal of Fund trustees, directors, advisers, administrators, and distributors; rescission of management contracts and distribution plans under Rule 12b-1 promulgated under the Investment Company Act of 1940; and attorneys’ fees and costs. On February 25, 2005, the Company-related defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated amended class action and Fund derivative action complaints. On June 26, 2008, the court issued its order granting in part and denying in part the Company’s motion to dismiss the consolidated amended class action complaint. In its order, the court dismissed certain claims, while allowing others under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and under Sections 36(b) and 48(a) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 to remain, and dismissed all class action claims against the named Funds. In addition, all named individual defendants have since been dismissed without prejudice from the consolidated class action pursuant to stipulation. The Company-related defendants filed a motion for partial summary judgment in the consolidated class action as to non-arranged market timing on March 24, 2010, and lead plaintiff filed its opposition and cross-motion for partial summary judgment on June 4, 2010. On December 9, 2010, the court granted the Company-related defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment, finding that the record could not support a finding of liability against the Company-related defendants and denied lead plaintiff’s cross-motion for partial summary judgment. The Company and lead plaintiff in the consolidated class action reached agreement-in-principle on December 21, 2010 to resolve that action, pursuant to which the Company agreed to pay $2.75 million towards distribution of settlement amounts reached in lead plaintiff’s settlements with other, non-Company defendants, and towards class counsel’s fees, and any unspent amounts will be distributed to relevant Funds. The parties documented the terms of the agreement in a stipulation (the “Stipulation and Releases”), which is subject to certain conditions including court approval. The court issued its preliminary approval of the Stipulation and Releases on June 9, 2011 and set the final approval hearing for October 25, 2011.

The Company-related defendants’ motion to dismiss the consolidated fund derivative action remains under submission with the court. Pursuant to stipulation, the consolidated fund derivative action has been stayed since December 2010. On June 9, 2011, consistent with the terms of that stipulation, the Company-related defendants gave notice of their withdrawal from the stipulation. On July 15, 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion to continue the stay pending a decision of appeal in another case. The parties are in the process of briefing that motion. In addition, pursuant to stipulation, the derivative action brought on behalf of Franklin has been stayed since 2004. Neither of those derivative actions has progressed to expert discovery concerning alleged damages and the Company is therefore unable to estimate an amount or range of any possible additional losses relating to the market timing lawsuits.

Separately, Franklin/Templeton Distributors, Inc. (one of Franklin’s subsidiaries and the principal underwriter to the Funds), as well as the individual trustees to the Franklin Custodian Funds (the “Trust”), were named in a lawsuit brought derivatively on behalf of the Trust, concerning payment of asset-based compensation between July 22, 2005 and the present to broker-dealers that hold Fund shares in brokerage accounts and that are not registered as investment advisers. The lawsuit, captioned Smith v. Franklin/Templeton Distributors, Inc., et al., Case No. CV 09-4775, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on October 6, 2009. Specifically, plaintiff attempted to allege claims under Section 47(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, and for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and waste of Trust assets, and sought unspecified monetary damages, declaratory and injunctive relief enjoining further asset-based compensation to such broker-dealers, and attorneys’ fees and costs. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on July 7, 2010, and defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on August 20, 2010. On October 22, 2010, the court granted defendants’ motion, dismissing the lone federal claim with prejudice for failure to state a claim, and declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on November 19, 2010 (Case No. 10-17648) and the parties completed all appellate briefing in May 2011. On June 14, 2011, plaintiff-appellant filed a motion to dismiss his appeal voluntarily (without any payment or other consideration from defendants), to which defendants consented. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted plaintiff-appellant's motion and dismissed the appeal on June 15, 2011. Judgment dismissing the lawsuit is now final.

Management strongly believes that the claims made in each of the unresolved lawsuits identified above are without merit and the Company intends to defend against them vigorously. The Company cannot predict with certainty, however, the eventual outcome of those lawsuits, nor whether they will have a material negative impact on the Company. The nature and progression of litigation can make it difficult to predict the impact a particular lawsuit may have on the Company. Variables include, for example, whether the lawsuit asserts viable claims or novel legal theories to be presented to a court for determination as a threshold matter before the lawsuit can proceed; whether there are other parties or nonparties who may share in any ultimate liability; and whether the lawsuit has progressed sufficiently through key fact discovery and damages discovery to enable the Company to estimate the probability of loss and/or to quantify a possible loss or range of possible loss.

The Company is from time to time involved in litigation relating to other claims arising in the normal course of business. Management is of the opinion that the ultimate resolution of such claims will not materially affect the Company’s business, financial position, results of operations or liquidity. In management’s opinion, an adequate accrual has been made as of June 30, 2011, to provide for any probable losses that may arise from these matters for which the Company could reasonably estimate an amount.

Other Commitments and Contingencies

At June 30, 2011, the banking/finance segment had commitments to extend credit in an aggregate amount of $134.6 million, primarily under credit card lines and secured credit lines.

The Company, in its role as agent or trustee, facilitates the settlement of investor share purchase, redemption and other transactions with affiliated mutual funds. The Company is appointed by the affiliated mutual funds as agent or trustee to manage, on behalf of the affiliated mutual funds, bank deposit accounts that contain only (i) cash remitted by investors to the affiliated mutual funds for the direct purchase of fund shares, or (ii) cash remitted by the affiliated mutual funds for direct delivery to the investors for either the proceeds of fund shares liquidated at the investors’ direction, or dividends and capital gains earned on fund shares. As of June 30, 2011 and September 30, 2010, the Company held cash of $135.0 million and $351.5 million off-balance sheet in agency or trust for investors and the affiliated mutual funds.

In conjunction with an insurance recovery for prior years’ losses, the Company has agreed to indemnify its insurance provider and hold it harmless against future payments that it may be required to make to any insured who does not release his, her or its rights under the relevant policy or relating to claims under that policy up to available policy limits. The Company has also agreed to indemnify those insured funds that agree to release any rights under the relevant policy or relating to claims under that policy, to the same extent of the released rights. While management believes that the chance of the Company having to make any payments as a result of these indemnities is remote, policy limits for certain insureds could be up to $88.0 million in the aggregate.

At June 30, 2011, there were no changes in other commitments and contingencies that would have a material effect on commitments and contingencies reported in the Company’s Form 10-K for fiscal year 2010.