COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	6 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2019
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES In the normal course of business, the Bank makes various commitments to extend credit that are not reflected in the accompanying Consolidated Financial Statements. At March 31, 2019 and September 30, 2018, unfunded loan commitments approximated $860.4 million and $748.8 million, respectively, excluding undisbursed portions of loans in process. Commitments, which are disbursed subject to certain limitations, extend over various periods of time. Generally, unused commitments are canceled upon expiration of the commitment term as outlined in each individual contract. The Company had no commitments to purchase securities at March 31, 2019 and $1.4 million in commitments to purchase securities at September 30, 2018. The Company had no commitments to sell securities at March 31, 2019 or September 30, 2018. The exposure to credit loss in the event of non-performance by other parties to financial instruments for commitments to extend credit is represented by the contractual amount of those instruments. The same credit policies and collateral requirements are used in making commitments and conditional obligations as are used for on-balance-sheet instruments. At March 31, 2019 and at September 30, 2018, the Company had an allowance for credit losses on off-balance sheet credit exposures of $0.1 million. This amount is maintained as a separate liability account within other liabilities. Since certain commitments to make loans and to fund lines of credit and loans in process expire without being used, the amount does not necessarily represent future cash commitments. In addition, commitments used to extend credit are agreements to lend to a customer as long as there is no violation of any condition established in the contract. As disclosed in Note 3. Acquisitions, the Company continues to monitor the bankruptcy proceedings and federal investigations of DC Solar. As of the date of the filing of this quarterly report, the Company has not accrued for any additional loss contingencies related to DC Solar as of March 31, 2019. Legal Proceedings The Bank was served on April 15, 2013, with a lawsuit captioned Inter National Bank v. NetSpend Corporation, MetaBank, BDO USA, LLP d/b/a BDO Seidman, Cause No. C-2084-12-I filed in the District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas. The Plaintiff’s Second Amended Original Petition and Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Temporary Injunction adds both MetaBank and BDO Seidman to the original causes of action against NetSpend. NetSpend acts as a prepaid card program manager and processor for both Inter National Bank ("INB") and MetaBank. According to the Petition, NetSpend has informed INB that the depository accounts at INB for the NetSpend program supposedly contained $10.5 million less than they should. INB alleges that NetSpend has breached its fiduciary duty by making affirmative misrepresentations to INB about the safety and stability of the program, and by failing to timely disclose the nature and extent of any alleged shortfall in settlement of funds related to cardholder activity and the nature and extent of NetSpend’s systemic deficiencies in its accounting and settlement processing procedures. To the extent that an accounting reveals that there is an actual shortfall, INB alleges that MetaBank may be liable for portions or all of said sum due to the fact that funds have been transferred from INB to MetaBank, and thus MetaBank would have been unjustly enriched. The Bank is vigorously contesting this matter. In January 2014, NetSpend was granted summary judgment in this matter which is under appeal. Because the theory of liability against both NetSpend and the Bank is the same, the Bank views the NetSpend summary judgment as a positive in support of its position. An estimate of a range of reasonably possible loss cannot be made at this stage of the litigation because discovery is still being conducted. The Bank was served, on October 14, 2016, with a lawsuit captioned Card Limited, LLC v. MetaBank dba Meta Payment Systems, Civil No. 2:16-cv-00980 in the United States District Court for the District of Utah. This action was initiated by a former prepaid program manager of the Bank, which was terminated by the Bank in fiscal year 2016. Card Limited alleges that after all of the programs were wound down, there were two accounts with a positive balance to which they are entitled. The Bank’s position is that Card Limited is not entitled to the funds contained in said accounts. The total amount to which Card Limited claims it is entitled is $4.0 million. The Bank intends to vigorously defend this claim. An estimate of a range of reasonably possible loss cannot be made at this stage of the litigation because discovery is still being conducted. On February 9, 2018, the Bank’s AFS/IBEX division filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York captioned AFS/IBEX, a division of MetaBank v. Aegis Managing Agency Limited ("AMA"), Aegis Syndicate 1225 (together with AMA, the "Aegis defendants"), CRC Insurance Services, Inc. ("CRC"), and Transportation Underwriters, Inc. The suit was filed against commercial insurance underwriters and brokers that facilitated the issuance of commercial insurance policies to Red Hook Construction Group-II, LLC (“Red Hook”). The Bank’s position is that both CRC and Transportation Underwriters represented to the Bank that, upon cancellation of the insurance policies prior to their stated terms, any unearned premiums would be refunded. The Bank then provided insurance premium financing to Red Hook, and Red Hook executed a written premium finance agreement pursuant to which Red Hook assigned its rights to any unearned premiums to the Bank. After the policies were cancelled, the Aegis defendants failed to return the unearned insurance premiums totaling just over $1.6 million owed to the Bank under the insurance policies and the premium finance agreement. The Bank is seeking recovery of all amounts to which it is entitled at law or equity and intends to vigorously pursue its claims against the defendants. The Bank was served on December 24, 2018, with a lawsuit captioned The Ohio Valley Bank Company v. MetaBank dba Refund Advantage, Case No. 18 CV 134 in the Court of Common Pleas, Gallia County, Ohio. This action alleges that MetaBank breached a contract with The Ohio Valley Bank Company by terminating the contract before the term expired, resulting in over $3.0 million in damages. The Bank intends to vigorously defend this claim. The Company has established an accrual for this related claim. From time to time, the Company or its subsidiaries are subject to certain legal proceedings and claims in the ordinary course of business. Accruals have been recorded when the outcome is probable and can be reasonably estimated. While management currently believes that the ultimate outcome of these proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position or its results of operations, legal proceedings are inherently uncertain and unfavorable resolution of some or all of these matters could, individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on the Company’s and its subsidiaries’ respective businesses, financial condition or results of operations.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

In the normal course of business, the Bank makes various commitments to extend credit that are not reflected in the accompanying Consolidated Financial Statements.

At March 31, 2019 and September 30, 2018, unfunded loan commitments approximated $860.4 million and $748.8 million, respectively, excluding undisbursed portions of loans in process. Commitments, which are disbursed subject to certain limitations, extend over various periods of time. Generally, unused commitments are canceled upon expiration of the commitment term as outlined in each individual contract.

The Company had no commitments to purchase securities at March 31, 2019 and $1.4 million in commitments to purchase securities at September 30, 2018. The Company had no commitments to sell securities at March 31, 2019 or September 30, 2018.

The exposure to credit loss in the event of non-performance by other parties to financial instruments for commitments to extend credit is represented by the contractual amount of those instruments. The same credit policies and collateral requirements are used in making commitments and conditional obligations as are used for on-balance-sheet instruments. At March 31, 2019 and at September 30, 2018, the Company had an allowance for credit losses on off-balance sheet credit exposures of $0.1 million. This amount is maintained as a separate liability account within other liabilities.

Since certain commitments to make loans and to fund lines of credit and loans in process expire without being used, the amount does not necessarily represent future cash commitments. In addition, commitments used to extend credit are agreements to lend to a customer as long as there is no violation of any condition established in the contract.

As disclosed in Note 3. Acquisitions, the Company continues to monitor the bankruptcy proceedings and federal investigations of DC Solar. As of the date of the filing of this quarterly report, the Company has not accrued for any additional loss contingencies related to DC Solar as of March 31, 2019.

Legal Proceedings

The Bank was served on April 15, 2013, with a lawsuit captioned Inter National Bank v. NetSpend Corporation, MetaBank, BDO USA, LLP d/b/a BDO Seidman, Cause No. C-2084-12-I filed in the District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas. The Plaintiff’s Second Amended Original Petition and Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Temporary Injunction adds both MetaBank and BDO Seidman to the original causes of action against NetSpend. NetSpend acts as a prepaid card program manager and processor for both Inter National Bank ("INB") and MetaBank. According to the Petition, NetSpend has informed INB that the depository accounts at INB for the NetSpend program supposedly contained $10.5 million less than they should. INB alleges that NetSpend has breached its fiduciary duty by making affirmative misrepresentations to INB about the safety and stability of the program, and by failing to timely disclose the nature and extent of any alleged shortfall in settlement of funds related to cardholder activity and the nature and extent of NetSpend’s systemic deficiencies in its accounting and settlement processing procedures. To the extent that an accounting reveals that there is an actual shortfall, INB alleges that MetaBank may be liable for portions or all of said sum due to the fact that funds have been transferred from INB to MetaBank, and thus MetaBank would have been unjustly enriched. The Bank is vigorously contesting this matter. In January 2014, NetSpend was granted summary judgment in this matter which is under appeal. Because the theory of liability against both NetSpend and the Bank is the same, the Bank views the NetSpend summary judgment as a positive in support of its position. An estimate of a range of reasonably possible loss cannot be made at this stage of the litigation because discovery is still being conducted.

The Bank was served, on October 14, 2016, with a lawsuit captioned Card Limited, LLC v. MetaBank dba Meta Payment Systems, Civil No. 2:16-cv-00980 in the United States District Court for the District of Utah. This action was initiated by a former prepaid program manager of the Bank, which was terminated by the Bank in fiscal year 2016. Card Limited alleges that after all of the programs were wound down, there were two accounts with a positive balance to which they are entitled. The Bank’s position is that Card Limited is not entitled to the funds contained in said accounts. The total amount to which Card Limited claims it is entitled is $4.0 million. The Bank intends to vigorously defend this claim. An estimate of a range of reasonably possible loss cannot be made at this stage of the litigation because discovery is still being conducted.

On February 9, 2018, the Bank’s AFS/IBEX division filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York captioned AFS/IBEX, a division of MetaBank v. Aegis Managing Agency Limited ("AMA"), Aegis Syndicate 1225 (together with AMA, the "Aegis defendants"), CRC Insurance Services, Inc. ("CRC"), and Transportation Underwriters, Inc. The suit was filed against commercial insurance underwriters and brokers that facilitated the issuance of commercial insurance policies to Red Hook Construction Group-II, LLC (“Red Hook”). The Bank’s position is that both CRC and Transportation Underwriters represented to the Bank that, upon cancellation of the insurance policies prior to their stated terms, any unearned premiums would be refunded. The Bank then provided insurance premium financing to Red Hook, and Red Hook executed a written premium finance agreement pursuant to which Red Hook assigned its rights to any unearned premiums to the Bank. After the policies were cancelled, the Aegis defendants failed to return the unearned insurance premiums totaling just over $1.6 million owed to the Bank under the insurance policies and the premium finance agreement. The Bank is seeking recovery of all amounts to which it is entitled at law or equity and intends to vigorously pursue its claims against the defendants.

The Bank was served on December 24, 2018, with a lawsuit captioned The Ohio Valley Bank Company v. MetaBank dba Refund Advantage, Case No. 18 CV 134 in the Court of Common Pleas, Gallia County, Ohio. This action alleges that MetaBank breached a contract with The Ohio Valley Bank Company by terminating the contract before the term expired, resulting in over $3.0 million in damages. The Bank intends to vigorously defend this claim. The Company has established an accrual for this related claim.

From time to time, the Company or its subsidiaries are subject to certain legal proceedings and claims in the ordinary course of business. Accruals have been recorded when the outcome is probable and can be reasonably estimated. While management currently believes that the ultimate outcome of these proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position or its results of operations, legal proceedings are inherently uncertain and unfavorable resolution of some or all of these matters could, individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on the Company’s and its subsidiaries’ respective businesses, financial condition or results of operations.