Goodwill	9 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2013
Goodwill and Intangible Assets Disclosure [Abstract]
Goodwill	GOODWILL The Company performed its fiscal year 2013 goodwill impairment test during the quarter ended June 30, 2013 with the assistance of a third-party firm specializing in goodwill impairment valuations for financial institutions. The third-party analysis was conducted as of May 31, 2013 and concluded that the fair value of goodwill was $45.0 million, which exceeded the recorded value of $5.7 million by 689%. The goodwill impairment test involved a two-step process. Step one of the goodwill impairment test estimated the fair value of the reporting unit utilizing the allocation of corporate value approach, the income approach and the market approach in order to derive an enterprise value for the Company. The allocation of corporate value approach applies the aggregate market value of the Company and divides it among the reporting units. The Company has a single reporting unit. The aggregate market value was based on the Company's common stock market price on May 31, 2013, adjusted for a control premium and the value of preferred stock (at its liquidation value). A key assumption in this approach is the control premium applied to the aggregate market value. A control premium is utilized as the value of a company from the perspective of a controlling interest and is generally higher than the widely quoted market price per share. The Company used an expected control premium of 30%, which was based on comparable transaction history. The income approach uses a reporting unit's projection of estimated operating results and cash flows that are discounted using a rate that reflects current market conditions. The projection uses management's estimates of economic and market conditions over the projected period including growth rates in loans and deposits, estimates of future expected changes in net interest margins and cash expenditures. Key assumptions used by the Company in its discounted cash flow model (income approach) included an annual revenue growth rate that approximated 3.0% and a return on assets that ranged from 0.54% to 1.01% (average of 0.73%). In addition to the above projections of estimated operating results, key assumptions used to determine the fair value estimate under the income approach were the discount rate of 15.0% utilized for the Company's cash flow estimate and a terminal value of 1.25 times the ending book value of the reporting unit. The Company used a build-up approach in developing the discount rate that included an assessment of the risk free interest rate, the rate of return expected from publicly traded stocks based on an analysis of historical data, the industry the Company operates in and the size of the Company. The market approach estimates the fair value by applying cash flow multiples to the reporting unit's operating performance. The multiples were derived from comparable publicly traded companies with operating and investment characteristics similar to those of the reporting unit. In applying the market approach method, the Company selected eight publicly traded institutions based on a variety of financial metrics (tangible equity, return on assets, return on equity, net interest margin, nonperforming assets, net charge-offs, and reserves for loan losses) and other relevant qualitative factors (geographical location, lines of business, risk profile, availability of financial information, etc.). The Company calculated a fair value of its reporting unit of $89 million using the corporate value approach, $82 million using the income approach and $96 million using the market approach. The concluded fair value based on the three methods under the step one test was $87 million, with the most weighting given to the income approach. The results of the Company's step one test indicated that the reporting unit's fair value was less than its recorded value and therefore the Company performed a step two analysis. The Company then calculated the implied fair value of its reporting unit under step two of the goodwill impairment test. Under this approach, the Company calculated the fair value for the assets and liabilities of the reporting unit. The calculated implied fair value of the Company's goodwill exceeded the recorded value by $39.3 million. Under the step two process significant adjustments were made to determine the estimated fair value of the Company's loans receivable compared to its recorded value. The Company utilized a discounted cash flow approach and a comparable transaction approach to determine the fair value of its loans receivable. The discounted cash flow approach was utilized to value performing loans with credit quality grades of pass. A key assumption in the discounted cash flow approach was determining an appropriate discount rate. In determining the discount rate for pass loans, the Company started with its contractual cash flows and its current lending rate for comparable loans and adjusted these for credit factors, estimated prepayments and liquidity premiums. Based on an analysis of these factors, performing loans with credit quality grades of pass were discounted by 5%. The comparable transaction approach using comparable loan sales was utilized for performing loans with credit quality grades of watch, special mention or substandard and for non-performing loans. In the comparable transaction approach a weighted average discount rate was used that approximated the discount for similar loan sales by the FDIC. A key assumption used by the Company in the comparable transaction approach was determining the appropriate discount rate to apply to each loan category. Performing loans with credit quality grades of watch, special mention or substandard were discounted by 25% and nonperforming loans were discounted by 50%. These weighted average discount rates approximated the discount for similar loan sales by the FDIC. Increases in the pricing for future reported loan sale transactions could have a significant impact on the implied fair value of goodwill under the step two process. A significant amount of judgment is involved in determining if an indicator of goodwill impairment has occurred. Such indicators may include, among others; a significant decline in the expected future cash flows; a sustained, significant decline in the Company's stock price and market capitalization; a significant adverse change in legal factors or in the business climate; adverse assessment or action by a regulator; and unanticipated competition. Key assumptions used in the annual goodwill impairment test are highly judgmental and include: selection of comparable companies, amount of control premium, projected cash flows, discount rate applied to projected cash flows and method of estimating fair value of loans. Any change in these indicators or key assumptions could have a significant negative impact on the Company's financial condition, impact the goodwill impairment analysis or cause the Company to perform a goodwill impairment analysis more frequently than once per year. As of June 30, 2013, management believes that there have been no events or changes in the circumstances that would indicate a potential impairment. No assurances can be given, however, that the Company will not record an impairment loss on goodwill in the future.

GOODWILL

The Company performed its fiscal year 2013 goodwill impairment test during the quarter ended June 30, 2013 with the assistance of a third-party firm specializing in goodwill impairment valuations for financial institutions. The third-party analysis was conducted as of May 31, 2013 and concluded that the fair value of goodwill was $45.0 million, which exceeded the recorded value of $5.7 million by 689%.

The goodwill impairment test involved a two-step process. Step one of the goodwill impairment test estimated the fair value of the reporting unit utilizing the allocation of corporate value approach, the income approach and the market approach in order to derive an enterprise value for the Company.

The allocation of corporate value approach applies the aggregate market value of the Company and divides it among the reporting units. The Company has a single reporting unit. The aggregate market value was based on the Company's common stock market price on May 31, 2013, adjusted for a control premium and the value of preferred stock (at its liquidation value). A key assumption in this approach is the control premium applied to the aggregate market value. A control premium is utilized as the value of a company from the perspective of a controlling interest and is generally higher than the widely quoted market price per share. The Company used an expected control premium of 30%, which was based on comparable transaction history.

The income approach uses a reporting unit's projection of estimated operating results and cash flows that are discounted using a rate that reflects current market conditions. The projection uses management's estimates of economic and market conditions over the projected period including growth rates in loans and deposits, estimates of future expected changes in net interest margins and cash expenditures. Key assumptions used by the Company in its discounted cash flow model (income approach) included an annual revenue growth rate that approximated 3.0% and a return on assets that ranged from 0.54% to 1.01% (average of 0.73%). In addition to the above projections of estimated operating results, key assumptions used to determine the fair value estimate under the income approach were the discount rate of 15.0% utilized for the Company's cash flow estimate and a terminal value of 1.25 times the ending book value of the reporting unit. The Company used a build-up approach in developing the discount rate that included an assessment of the risk free interest rate, the rate of return expected from publicly traded stocks based on an analysis of historical data, the industry the Company operates in and the size of the Company.

The market approach estimates the fair value by applying cash flow multiples to the reporting unit's operating performance. The multiples were derived from comparable publicly traded companies with operating and investment characteristics similar to those of the reporting unit. In applying the market approach method, the Company selected eight publicly traded institutions based on a variety of financial metrics (tangible equity, return on assets, return on equity, net interest margin, nonperforming assets, net charge-offs, and reserves for loan losses) and other relevant qualitative factors (geographical location, lines of business, risk profile, availability of financial information, etc.).

The Company calculated a fair value of its reporting unit of $89 million using the corporate value approach, $82 million using the income approach and $96 million using the market approach. The concluded fair value based on the three methods under the step one test was $87 million, with the most weighting given to the income approach. The results of the Company's step one test indicated that the reporting unit's fair value was less than its recorded value and therefore the Company performed a step two analysis.

The Company then calculated the implied fair value of its reporting unit under step two of the goodwill impairment test. Under this approach, the Company calculated the fair value for the assets and liabilities of the reporting unit. The calculated implied fair value of the Company's goodwill exceeded the recorded value by $39.3 million.

Under the step two process significant adjustments were made to determine the estimated fair value of the Company's loans receivable compared to its recorded value. The Company utilized a discounted cash flow approach and a comparable transaction approach to determine the fair value of its loans receivable.

The discounted cash flow approach was utilized to value performing loans with credit quality grades of pass. A key assumption in the discounted cash flow approach was determining an appropriate discount rate. In determining the discount rate for pass loans, the Company started with its contractual cash flows and its current lending rate for comparable loans and adjusted these for credit factors, estimated prepayments and liquidity premiums. Based on an analysis of these factors, performing loans with credit quality grades of pass were discounted by 5%.

The comparable transaction approach using comparable loan sales was utilized for performing loans with credit quality grades of watch, special mention or substandard and for non-performing loans. In the comparable transaction approach a weighted average discount rate was used that approximated the discount for similar loan sales by the FDIC. A key assumption used by the Company in the comparable transaction approach was determining the appropriate discount rate to apply to each loan category. Performing loans with credit quality grades of watch, special mention or substandard were discounted by 25% and nonperforming loans were discounted by 50%. These weighted average discount rates approximated the discount for similar loan sales by the FDIC. Increases in the pricing for future reported loan sale transactions could have a significant impact on the implied fair value of goodwill under the step two process.

A significant amount of judgment is involved in determining if an indicator of goodwill impairment has occurred. Such indicators may include, among others; a significant decline in the expected future cash flows; a sustained, significant decline in the Company's stock price and market capitalization; a significant adverse change in legal factors or in the business climate; adverse assessment or action by a regulator; and unanticipated competition. Key assumptions used in the annual goodwill impairment test are highly judgmental and include: selection of comparable companies, amount of control premium, projected cash flows, discount rate applied to projected cash flows and method of estimating fair value of loans. Any change in these indicators or key assumptions could have a significant negative impact on the Company's financial condition, impact the goodwill impairment analysis or cause the Company to perform a goodwill impairment analysis more frequently than once per year.

As of June 30, 2013, management believes that there have been no events or changes in the circumstances that would indicate a potential impairment. No assurances can be given, however, that the Company will not record an impairment loss on goodwill in the future.