Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies General Under finance products available in the point-of-sale and direct-to-consumer channels, consumers have the ability to borrow up to the maximum credit limit assigned to each individual’s account. Unfunded commitments under these products aggregated $375.1 million at December 31, 2017. We have never experienced a situation in which all borrowers have exercised their entire available lines of credit at any given point in time, nor do we anticipate this will ever occur in the future. Moreover, there would be a concurrent increase in assets should there be any exercise of these lines of credit. We also have the effective right to reduce or cancel these available lines of credit at any time. Additionally our CAR operations provide floor-plan financing for a pre-qualified network of independent automotive dealers and automotive finance companies in the buy-here, pay-here used car business. The financings allow dealers and finance companies to borrow up to the maximum pre-approved credit limit allowed in order to finance ongoing inventory needs. These loans are secured by the underlying auto inventory and, in certain cases where we have other lending products outstanding with the dealer, are secured by the collateral under those lending arrangements as well, including any outstanding dealer reserves. As of December 31, 2017, CAR had unfunded outstanding floor-plan financing commitments totaling $8.4 million. Each draw against unused commitments is reviewed for conformity to pre-established guidelines. Under agreements with third-party originating and other financial institutions, we have pledged security (collateral) related to their issuance of consumer credit and purchases thereunder, of which $10.8 million remains pledged as of December 31, 2017 to support various ongoing contractual obligations. Under agreements with third-party originating and other financial institutions, we have agreed to indemnify the financial institutions for certain liabilities associated with the services we provide on behalf of the financial institutions—such indemnification obligations generally being limited to instances in which we either (a) have been afforded the opportunity to defend against any potentially indemnifiable claims or (b) have reached agreement with the financial institutions regarding settlement of potentially indemnifiable claims. As of December 31, 2017, we have assessed the likelihood of any potential payments related to the aforementioned contingencies as remote. We will accrue liabilities related to these contingencies in any future period if and in which we assess the likelihood of an estimable payment as probable. We also are subject to certain minimum payments under cancelable and non-cancelable lease arrangements. For further information regarding these commitments, see Note 8, “Leases” . Litigation On April 4, 2007, we purchased a portfolio of credit card accounts from Barclays Bank PLC (“Barclays”) pursuant to a Sale and Purchase Agreement (the “SPA”). A portion of the accounts had an optional feature known as a “payment break plan” (“PBP”) that, in broad terms, enabled a customer to freeze his/her account for a period of time in certain circumstances, during which period, in general, the customer was not required to make minimum payments. Consistent with U.K. practice and Barclays’ own procedures and instructions to us, we established a claims process and provided remediation. Since 2011, we have claimed substantial sums from Barclays on the basis that (i) such sums have been paid, or otherwise credited, by us to customers in respect of PBP mis-selling complaints, and (ii) Barclays is liable to reimburse us pursuant to a contractual indemnity provision contained in the SPA. Until recently, Barclays paid invoices issued by us for reimbursement of amounts paid, or otherwise credited, to customers for alleged PBP mis-selling. In late 2016 we also concluded that Barclays, in connection with the SPA, fraudulently misrepresented the portfolio, resulting in our overpayment for the portfolio and incurrence of substantial losses that we otherwise would not have incurred. On May 4, 2017, we sued Barclays in the High Court of Justice Business and Property Courts of England and Wales, Claim No. FL-2017-000003. The claims relate to Barclays’ obligation to reimburse us for remediation of the PBP claims discussed above and other damages incurred as a result of the SPA and Barclays’ actions and inactions. We are seeking monetary damages for these claims. In conjunction with the lawsuit, Barclays asserted a counterclaim alleging that past reimbursement claims paid to us were not in accordance with its policies. We have been processing claims from consumers since 2010 and historically payments on these claims and associated processing costs were reimbursed by Barclays based upon our invoices to Barclays. We believe the counterclaim is part of Barclays’ litigation strategy and is without merit. We have made no accruals for potential liability in this matter. We intend to pursue our suit against Barclays and to recover the amounts due to us. We are involved in various other legal proceedings that are incidental to the conduct of our business, none of which are expected to be material to us.

Commitments and Contingencies

General

Under finance products available in the point-of-sale and direct-to-consumer channels, consumers have the ability to borrow up to the maximum credit limit assigned to each individual’s account. Unfunded commitments under these products aggregated $375.1 million at December 31, 2017. We have never experienced a situation in which all borrowers have exercised their entire available lines of credit at any given point in time, nor do we anticipate this will ever occur in the future. Moreover, there would be a concurrent increase in assets should there be any exercise of these lines of credit. We also have the effective right to reduce or cancel these available lines of credit at any time.

Additionally our CAR operations provide floor-plan financing for a pre-qualified network of independent automotive dealers and automotive finance companies in the buy-here, pay-here used car business. The financings allow dealers and finance companies to borrow up to the maximum pre-approved credit limit allowed in order to finance ongoing inventory needs. These loans are secured by the underlying auto inventory and, in certain cases where we have other lending products outstanding with the dealer, are secured by the collateral under those lending arrangements as well, including any outstanding dealer reserves. As of December 31, 2017, CAR had unfunded outstanding floor-plan financing commitments totaling $8.4 million. Each draw against unused commitments is reviewed for conformity to pre-established guidelines.

Under agreements with third-party originating and other financial institutions, we have pledged security (collateral) related to their issuance of consumer credit and purchases thereunder, of which $10.8 million remains pledged as of December 31, 2017 to support various ongoing contractual obligations.

Under agreements with third-party originating and other financial institutions, we have agreed to indemnify the financial institutions for certain liabilities associated with the services we provide on behalf of the financial institutions—such indemnification obligations generally being limited to instances in which we either (a) have been afforded the opportunity to defend against any potentially indemnifiable claims or (b) have reached agreement with the financial institutions regarding settlement of potentially indemnifiable claims. As of December 31, 2017, we have assessed the likelihood of any potential payments related to the aforementioned contingencies as remote. We will accrue liabilities related to these contingencies in any future period if and in which we assess the likelihood of an estimable payment as probable.

We also are subject to certain minimum payments under cancelable and non-cancelable lease arrangements. For further information regarding these commitments, see Note 8, “Leases” .

Litigation

On April 4, 2007, we purchased a portfolio of credit card accounts from Barclays Bank PLC (“Barclays”) pursuant to a Sale and Purchase Agreement (the “SPA”). A portion of the accounts had an optional feature known as a “payment break plan” (“PBP”) that, in broad terms, enabled a customer to freeze his/her account for a period of time in certain circumstances, during which period, in general, the customer was not required to make minimum payments. Consistent with U.K. practice and Barclays’ own procedures and instructions to us, we established a claims process and provided remediation. Since 2011, we have claimed substantial sums from Barclays on the basis that (i) such sums have been paid, or otherwise credited, by us to customers in respect of PBP mis-selling complaints, and (ii) Barclays is liable to reimburse us pursuant to a contractual indemnity provision contained in the SPA. Until recently, Barclays paid invoices issued by us for reimbursement of amounts paid, or otherwise credited, to customers for alleged PBP mis-selling.

In late 2016 we also concluded that Barclays, in connection with the SPA, fraudulently misrepresented the portfolio, resulting in our overpayment for the portfolio and incurrence of substantial losses that we otherwise would not have incurred.

On May 4, 2017, we sued Barclays in the High Court of Justice Business and Property Courts of England and Wales, Claim No. FL-2017-000003. The claims relate to Barclays’ obligation to reimburse us for remediation of the PBP claims discussed above and other damages incurred as a result of the SPA and Barclays’ actions and inactions. We are seeking monetary damages for these claims.

In conjunction with the lawsuit, Barclays asserted a counterclaim alleging that past reimbursement claims paid to us were not in accordance with its policies. We have been processing claims from consumers since 2010 and historically payments on these claims and associated processing costs were reimbursed by Barclays based upon our invoices to Barclays. We believe the counterclaim is part of Barclays’ litigation strategy and is without merit. We have made no accruals for potential liability in this matter.

We intend to pursue our suit against Barclays and to recover the amounts due to us.

We are involved in various other legal proceedings that are incidental to the conduct of our business, none of which are expected to be material to us.