Commitments, Contingencies and Other Regulatory Matters	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS, CONTINGENCIES AND OTHER REGULATORY MATTERS	COMMITMENTS, CONTINGENCIES AND OTHER REGULATORY MATTERS Legal 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 estimated liability is revised based on currently available information. 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. There is no briefing schedule on this appeal. 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. The parties await a decision. The Company will continue to defend itself vigorously in this matter, both in the District Court and at the U.S. Patent Office. Several cases have been filed nationwide involving the April 2007 leveraged buyout ("LBO") of the Tribune Company ("Tribune") by Sam Zell, and the subsequent bankruptcy of Tribune. In William Niese et al. v. A.G. Edwards et al., in Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County, former Tribune employees and retirees claimed that Tribune was actually insolvent at the time of the LBO and that the LBO constituted a fraudulent transaction that depleted the plaintiffs’ retirement plans, rendering them worthless. ETRADE Clearing, along with numerous other financial institutions, is a named defendant in this case. One of the defendants removed the action to federal district court in Delaware on July 1, 2011. In Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas et al. v. Adaly Opportunity Fund et al., filed in the Supreme Court of New York, New York County on June 3, 2011, the Trustees of certain notes issued by Tribune allege wrongdoing in connection with the LBO. In particular the Trustees claim that the LBO constituted a constructive fraudulent transfer under various state laws. G1 Execution Services, LLC (formerly known as ETRADE Capital Markets, LLC), along with numerous other financial institutions, is a named defendant in this case. In Deutsche Bank et al. v. Ohlson et al., filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, noteholders of Tribune asserted claims of constructive fraud and G1 Execution Services, LLC is a named defendant in this case. Under the agreement governing the sale of G1 Execution Services, LLC to Susquehanna International Group, LLP, the Company remains responsible for any resulting actions taken against G1 Execution Services, LLC as a result of such investigation. In EGI-TRB LLC et al. v. ABN-AMRO et al., filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois, creditors of Tribune assert fraudulent conveyance claims against multiple shareholder defendants and ETRADE Clearing is a named defendant in this case. These cases have been consolidated into a multi-district litigation. The Company’s time to answer or otherwise respond to the complaints has been stayed pending further orders of the Court. On September 18, 2013, the Court entered the Fifth Amended Complaint. On September 23, 2013, the Court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the individual creditors’ complaint. The individual creditors filed a notice of appeal. The steering committees for plaintiffs and defendants have submitted a joint plan for the next phase of litigation. The next phase of the action will involve individual motions to dismiss. On April 22, 2014, the Court issued its protocols for dismissal motions for those defendants who were "mere conduits" who facilitated the transactions at issue. The motion to dismiss Count I of the Fifth Amended Complaint for failure to state a cause of action was fully briefed on July 2, 2014, and the parties await decision on that motion. The Company will continue to defend itself vigorously in these matters. 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. Plaintiffs allege violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, the California Consumer Remedies Act, fraud, misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty. 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. Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal April 27, 2015. Briefing is scheduled to continue through 2016. 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. By stipulation, the parties have agreed to extend indefinitely the due date for a response to the claim. The Company will continue to defend itself vigorously in this matter. 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, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, FINRA, CFTC, NFA or OCC 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. During 2012, the Company completed a review of order handling practices and pricing for order flow between ETRADE Securities and G1 Execution Services, LLC. The Company implemented changes to its practices and procedures that were recommended during the review. Banking regulators and federal securities regulators were regularly updated during the course of the review. Subsequently, on July 11, 2013, FINRA notified ETRADE Securities and G1 Execution Services, LLC that it was conducting an examination of both firms’ order handling practices. On March 19, 2015, the Company received a Wells notice from FINRA's Market Regulation Department relating to the adequacy of ETRADE Securities' order-routing disclosures and supervisory process for reviewing execution quality during the period covered by the Company's 2012 internal review (July 2011 - June 2012). The Company continues to cooperate fully with FINRA in this examination. Under the agreement governing the sale of G1 Execution Services, LLC to Susquehanna International Group, LLP, the Company remains responsible for any actions taken against G1 Execution Services, LLC arising from the investigation. In the case of the review of both E*TRADE Securities and G1 Execution Services, LLC such actions could include monetary penalties and cease-and-desist orders, and could prompt claims by customers. Any of these actions could materially and adversely affect the Company’s broker-dealer businesses. 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 $52 million in unfunded commitments with respect to these investments at March 31, 2016. At March 31, 2016, the Company had approximately $26 million of certificates of deposit scheduled to mature in less than one year and approximately $55 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 March 31, 2016, management estimated that the maximum potential liability under this arrangement, including the current carrying value of the trusts, was equal to approximately $418 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

Legal 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 estimated liability is revised based on currently available information.

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. There is no briefing schedule on this appeal. 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. The parties await a decision. The Company will continue to defend itself vigorously in this matter, both in the District Court and at the U.S. Patent Office.

Several cases have been filed nationwide involving the April 2007 leveraged buyout ("LBO") of the Tribune Company ("Tribune") by Sam Zell, and the subsequent bankruptcy of Tribune. In William Niese et al. v. A.G. Edwards et al., in Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County, former Tribune employees and retirees claimed that Tribune was actually insolvent at the time of the LBO and that the LBO constituted a fraudulent transaction that depleted the plaintiffs’ retirement plans, rendering them worthless. E*TRADE Clearing, along with numerous other financial institutions, is a named defendant in this case. One of the defendants removed the action to federal district court in Delaware on July 1, 2011. In Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas et al. v. Adaly Opportunity Fund et al., filed in the Supreme Court of New York, New York County on June 3, 2011, the Trustees of certain notes issued by Tribune allege wrongdoing in connection with the LBO. In particular the Trustees claim that the LBO constituted a constructive fraudulent transfer under various state laws. G1 Execution Services, LLC (formerly known as E*TRADE Capital Markets, LLC), along with numerous other financial institutions, is a named defendant in this case. In Deutsche Bank et al. v. Ohlson et al., filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, noteholders of Tribune asserted claims of constructive fraud and G1 Execution Services, LLC is a named defendant in this case. Under the agreement governing the sale of G1 Execution Services, LLC to Susquehanna International Group, LLP, the Company remains responsible for any resulting actions taken against G1 Execution Services, LLC as a result of such investigation. In EGI-TRB LLC et al. v. ABN-AMRO et al., filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois, creditors of Tribune assert fraudulent conveyance claims against multiple shareholder defendants and E*TRADE Clearing is a named defendant in this case. These cases have been consolidated into a multi-district litigation. The Company’s time to answer or otherwise respond to the complaints has been stayed pending further orders of the Court. On September 18, 2013, the Court entered the Fifth Amended Complaint. On September 23, 2013, the Court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the individual creditors’ complaint. The individual creditors filed a notice of appeal. The steering committees for plaintiffs and defendants have submitted a joint plan for the next phase of litigation. The next phase of the action will involve individual motions to dismiss. On April 22, 2014, the Court issued its protocols for dismissal motions for those defendants who were "mere conduits" who facilitated the transactions at issue. The motion to dismiss Count I of the Fifth Amended Complaint for failure to state a cause of action was fully briefed on July 2, 2014, and the parties await decision on that motion. The Company will continue to defend itself vigorously in these matters.

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. Plaintiffs allege violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, the California Consumer Remedies Act, fraud, misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty. 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. Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal April 27, 2015. Briefing is scheduled to continue through 2016. 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. By stipulation, the parties have agreed to extend indefinitely the due date for a response to the claim. The Company will continue to defend itself vigorously in this matter.

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, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, FINRA, CFTC, NFA or OCC 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.

During 2012, the Company completed a review of order handling practices and pricing for order flow between E*TRADE Securities and G1 Execution Services, LLC. The Company implemented changes to its practices and procedures that were recommended during the review. Banking regulators and federal securities regulators were regularly updated during the course of the review. Subsequently, on July 11, 2013, FINRA notified E*TRADE Securities and G1 Execution Services, LLC that it was conducting an examination of both firms’ order handling practices. On March 19, 2015, the Company received a Wells notice from FINRA's Market Regulation Department relating to the adequacy of E*TRADE Securities' order-routing disclosures and supervisory process for reviewing execution quality during the period covered by the Company's 2012 internal review (July 2011 - June 2012). The Company continues to cooperate fully with FINRA in this examination. Under the agreement governing the sale of G1 Execution Services, LLC to Susquehanna International Group, LLP, the Company remains responsible for any actions taken against G1 Execution Services, LLC arising from the investigation. In the case of the review of both E*TRADE Securities and G1 Execution Services, LLC such actions could include monetary penalties and cease-and-desist orders, and could prompt claims by customers. Any of these actions could materially and adversely affect the Company’s broker-dealer businesses.

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 $52 million in unfunded commitments with respect to these investments at March 31, 2016.

At March 31, 2016, the Company had approximately $26 million of certificates of deposit scheduled to mature in less than one year and approximately $55 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 March 31, 2016, management estimated that the maximum potential liability under this arrangement, including the current carrying value of the trusts, was equal to approximately $418 million or the total face value of these securities plus accrued interest payable, which may be unpaid at the termination of the trust arrangement.