COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES LEAF lease valuation commitment. In conjunction with the third-party equity investment in LEAF, the Company and RSO have undertaken a contingent obligation with respect to the equity value of LEAF Receivables Funding 3, LLC (“LRF 3”), the entity that holds the portfolio of equipment, equipment leases and notes that RSO contributed to LEAF. To the extent that the value of the equity on the balance sheet of LRF 3 is less than $18.7 million (the value of the equity of LRF 3 on the date it was contributed to LEAF), as of the final testing date within 90 days after December 31, 2013, the Company and RSO have agreed to be jointly and severally obligated to contribute cash to LEAF to the extent of any shortfall. The LRF 3 equity as of September 30, 2013 was in excess of this commitment and, therefore, the Company has no current liability with respect to this obligation. Limited loan guarantee. The Company and two of its commercial finance investment partnerships, Lease Equity Appreciation Fund I, L.P. (“LEAF I”) and Lease Equity Appreciation Fund II, L.P. (“LEAF II”), have provided a limited guarantee to a lender to the LEAF partnerships in exchange for a waiver of any existing defaulted loan covenants and certain future financial covenants. The loans mature at the earlier of (a) the maturity date (March 20, 2014 for LEAF I and December 21, 2013 for LEAF II), or (b) the date on which an event of default under the loan agreement occurs. The maximum guarantee provided by the Company is up to $2.0 million ($1.5 million for LEAF I and $522,000 for LEAF II) as of September 30, 2013. If the Company were required to make any such payments under the guarantee in the future, it would have the option to either step in as the lender or otherwise make a capital contribution to the LEAF partnerships for the amount of the required guarantee payment. Under certain circumstances, the lender will also discount its loans by approximately $250,000 for LEAF I and $347,500 for LEAF II. Management has determined that, based on projected cash flows from the underlying lease and loan portfolios collateralizing the loans, there should be sufficient funds to repay the LEAF partnerships' outstanding loan balances and, accordingly, the Company was not required to record a liability with respect to the guarantee. Broker-Dealer Capital Requirement. Resource Securities serves as a dealer-manager for the sale of securities of direct participation investment programs, both public and private, sponsored by subsidiaries of the Company who also serve as general partners and/or managers of these programs. Additionally, Resource Securities serves as an introducing agent for transactions involving sales of securities of financial services companies, REITs and insurance companies for the Company and for RSO. As a broker-dealer, Resource Securities is required to maintain minimum net capital, as defined in regulations under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, which was $351,000 and $113,000 as of September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, respectively. As of September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, Resource Securities net capital was $1.8 million and $258,000, respectively, which exceeded the minimum requirements by $1.4 million and $145,000, respectively. Clawback liability. On November 1, 2009 and January 28, 2010, the general partners of two of the Trapeza entities, which are owned equally by the Company and its co-managing partner, repurchased substantially all of the remaining limited partnership interests in the two Trapeza entities with potential clawback liabilities for $4.4 million. The Company contributed $2.2 million (its 50% share). The clawback liability was $1.2 million at December 31, 2012. In the three months ended September 30, 2013, the general partner began the process of dissolving the two partnerships, and settled the clawback commitments. The Company’s proportionate share of these payments was $1.1 million. Legal proceedings. In September 2011, First Community Bank (“First Community”) filed a complaint against First Tennessee Bank and approximately thirty other defendants consisting of investment banks, rating agencies, collateral managers, including Trapeza Capital Management, LLC (“TCM”), and issuers of CDOs, including Trapeza CDO XIII, Ltd. and Trapeza CDO XIII, Inc. TCM and the Trapeza CDO issuers are collectively referred to as Trapeza. The complaint includes causes of action against TCM for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, violation of the Tennessee Securities Act of 1980 and unjust enrichment. First Community alleges, among other things, that it invested in certain CDOs, that the defendant rating agencies assigned inflated investment grade ratings to the CDOs, and that the defendant investment banks, collateral managers and issuers (including Trapeza) fraudulently and/or negligently made “materially false and misleading representations and omissions” that First Community relied on in investing in the CDOs, including both written representations in offering materials and unspecified oral representations. Specifically, with respect to Trapeza, First Community alleges that it purchased $20.0 million of notes in the D tranche of the Trapeza CDO XIII transaction from J.P. Morgan. The Court dismissed this matter in June 2012. First Community appealed and the appellate court affirmed the dismissal as against Trapeza in August 2013. The Company is also a party to various routine legal proceedings arising out of the ordinary course of business. Management believes that none of these actions, individually or, in the aggregate, will have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial condition or operations. General corporate commitments. The Company is also party to employment agreements with certain executives that provide for compensation and other benefits, including severance payments under specified circumstances. As of September 30, 2013, except for executive compensation, the Company did not believe it was probable that any payments would be required under any of its commitments and contingencies and, accordingly, no liabilities for these obligations were recorded in the consolidated financial statements.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

LEAF lease valuation commitment. In conjunction with the third-party equity investment in LEAF, the Company and RSO have undertaken a contingent obligation with respect to the equity value of LEAF Receivables Funding 3, LLC (“LRF 3”), the entity that holds the portfolio of equipment, equipment leases and notes that RSO contributed to LEAF. To the extent that the value of the equity on the balance sheet of LRF 3 is less than $18.7 million (the value of the equity of LRF 3 on the date it was contributed to LEAF), as of the final testing date within 90 days after December 31, 2013, the Company and RSO have agreed to be jointly and severally obligated to contribute cash to LEAF to the extent of any shortfall. The LRF 3 equity as of September 30, 2013 was in excess of this commitment and, therefore, the Company has no current liability with respect to this obligation.

Limited loan guarantee. The Company and two of its commercial finance investment partnerships, Lease Equity Appreciation Fund I, L.P. (“LEAF I”) and Lease Equity Appreciation Fund II, L.P. (“LEAF II”), have provided a limited guarantee to a lender to the LEAF partnerships in exchange for a waiver of any existing defaulted loan covenants and certain future financial covenants. The loans mature at the earlier of (a) the maturity date (March 20, 2014 for LEAF I and December 21, 2013 for LEAF II), or (b) the date on which an event of default under the loan agreement occurs. The maximum guarantee provided by the Company is up to $2.0 million ($1.5 million for LEAF I and $522,000 for LEAF II) as of September 30, 2013. If the Company were required to make any such payments under the guarantee in the future, it would have the option to either step in as the lender or otherwise make a capital contribution to the LEAF partnerships for the amount of the required guarantee payment. Under certain circumstances, the lender will also discount its loans by approximately $250,000 for LEAF I and $347,500 for LEAF II. Management has determined that, based on projected cash flows from the underlying lease and loan portfolios collateralizing the loans, there should be sufficient funds to repay the LEAF partnerships' outstanding loan balances and, accordingly, the Company was not required to record a liability with respect to the guarantee.

Broker-Dealer Capital Requirement. Resource Securities serves as a dealer-manager for the sale of securities of direct participation investment programs, both public and private, sponsored by subsidiaries of the Company who also serve as general partners and/or managers of these programs. Additionally, Resource Securities serves as an introducing agent for transactions involving sales of securities of financial services companies, REITs and insurance companies for the Company and for RSO. As a broker-dealer, Resource Securities is required to maintain minimum net capital, as defined in regulations under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, which was $351,000 and $113,000 as of September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, respectively. As of September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012, Resource Securities net capital was $1.8 million and $258,000, respectively, which exceeded the minimum requirements by $1.4 million and $145,000, respectively.

Clawback liability. On November 1, 2009 and January 28, 2010, the general partners of two of the Trapeza entities, which are owned equally by the Company and its co-managing partner, repurchased substantially all of the remaining limited partnership interests in the two Trapeza entities with potential clawback liabilities for $4.4 million. The Company contributed $2.2 million (its 50% share). The clawback liability was $1.2 million at December 31, 2012. In the three months ended September 30, 2013, the general partner began the process of dissolving the two partnerships, and settled the clawback commitments. The Company’s proportionate share of these payments was $1.1 million.

Legal proceedings. In September 2011, First Community Bank (“First Community”) filed a complaint against First Tennessee Bank and approximately thirty other defendants consisting of investment banks, rating agencies, collateral managers, including Trapeza Capital Management, LLC (“TCM”), and issuers of CDOs, including Trapeza CDO XIII, Ltd. and Trapeza CDO XIII, Inc. TCM and the Trapeza CDO issuers are collectively referred to as Trapeza. The complaint includes causes of action against TCM for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, violation of the Tennessee Securities Act of 1980 and unjust enrichment. First Community alleges, among other things, that it invested in certain CDOs, that the defendant rating agencies assigned inflated investment grade ratings to the CDOs, and that the defendant investment banks, collateral managers and issuers (including Trapeza) fraudulently and/or negligently made “materially false and misleading representations and omissions” that First Community relied on in investing in the CDOs, including both written representations in offering materials and unspecified oral representations. Specifically, with respect to Trapeza, First Community alleges that it purchased $20.0 million of notes in the D tranche of the Trapeza CDO XIII transaction from J.P. Morgan. The Court dismissed this matter in June 2012. First Community appealed and the appellate court affirmed the dismissal as against Trapeza in August 2013.

The Company is also a party to various routine legal proceedings arising out of the ordinary course of business. Management believes that none of these actions, individually or, in the aggregate, will have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial condition or operations.

General corporate commitments. The Company is also party to employment agreements with certain executives that provide for compensation and other benefits, including severance payments under specified circumstances.

As of September 30, 2013, except for executive compensation, the Company did not believe it was probable that any payments would be required under any of its commitments and contingencies and, accordingly, no liabilities for these obligations were recorded in the consolidated financial statements.